Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Vernette. I'll
Speaker 1: be your host today Emily Sempson with my co host Shane,
Speaker 1: Just Shane. We're going to first start off with a
Speaker 1: little update of Menindez because there's been a lot going
Speaker 1: on in the press with that. We also have a
Speaker 1: little update on Ruby Frankie, just because we like to
Speaker 1: all the cases that we've talked about. We definitely like
Speaker 1: to go back if there's been any changes in anything
Speaker 1: and discuss that. And then all of you, not all
Speaker 1: of you, but a lot of you have been asking
Speaker 1: can you please do a breakdown of Karen Reid. So
Speaker 1: we will get into that and I assume that's going
Speaker 1: to be a lengthy conversation. So anyway, let's start with Menendez.
Speaker 1: First of all, there was a hearing on Friday, and
Speaker 1: this was not the actual resentencing hearing. This was the
Speaker 1: DA Aachman actually trying to withdrawal the DA's original bid
Speaker 1: for them to be recent. So does that make sense
Speaker 1: to you? Do you understand what I'm trying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's trying to take back the motion for plus
Speaker 2: for recensing.
Speaker 1: Right, So the original motion was filed with the former
Speaker 1: DA who was more progressive and he felt like they
Speaker 1: should be resentenced and that they had served enough time.
Speaker 1: So now Hawkman is saying, wait a minute, we don't
Speaker 1: support it anymore. We have a new da, we have
Speaker 1: a new view on the whole thing. We don't want
Speaker 1: them to be allowed to go before the judge and
Speaker 1: have a possible resentencing. So this hearing on Friday was
Speaker 1: basically the judge determining whether the resentencing hearing will go forward,
Speaker 1: and Judge Jessic after hearing both sides decided that the
Speaker 1: resentencing will go forward. So now it is scheduled for
Speaker 1: April seventeenth and eighteenth.
Speaker 2: So on that day, yeah, should we learn should we
Speaker 2: learn anything? Or is it going to just be another
Speaker 2: continued date?
Speaker 1: Okay, that is a great past.
Speaker 3: What's going to take place on that day?
Speaker 1: Right? So basically both sides are going to argue, and
Speaker 1: Hawkman is going to argue that their liars, that they
Speaker 1: lied about the abuse that they're in they should stay
Speaker 1: in prison. And then obviously the defense is going to
Speaker 1: argue that they've been at prison long enough, it's been
Speaker 1: thirty five years, they're supported by their family, and that
Speaker 1: they've been rehabilitated and that's the big thing with the resentencing.
Speaker 1: It's about rehabilitation.
Speaker 2: So it's not about it's not about whether the punishment
Speaker 2: fit the crime. It's where are they now, right and
Speaker 2: have they kind of been rehabilitated, as you just said,
Speaker 2: to be able to go back out into society. So
Speaker 2: it's not a matter of was it too harsh of
Speaker 2: a punishment? View? Right?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so as far as a decision, I asked
Speaker 1: Alex who is one of the Mendez's defense attorneys. She's
Speaker 1: been on the podcast before, and I said, is it
Speaker 1: possible that Judge Jessic makes a decision that day during
Speaker 1: the hearings or would he go back and take it
Speaker 1: under advisement and think about it and then issue a
Speaker 1: decision later. And she said that he's one of those
Speaker 1: judges that does make decisions from the bench, so it
Speaker 1: is possible that he could decide the resentencing fate on
Speaker 1: those days.
Speaker 3: Oh wow, So wait when's it? What's the date.
Speaker 1: April seventeenth and eighteenth?
Speaker 3: Where you going to go?
Speaker 1: If I could get an invite, I would go. Maybe
Speaker 1: I can make that happen. During the hearing, the prosecution
Speaker 1: presented graphic crime scene images, which sparked outrage from defense
Speaker 1: attorney Mark Gerragos. He accused the District Attorney's office of
Speaker 1: re traumatizing the Menindaz family for political purposes. So apparently,
Speaker 1: this presentation lasted nearly three hours, and prosecutors argued that
Speaker 1: the brothers still hunker down in their bunker of lies
Speaker 1: and deception, showing no this.
Speaker 2: Is where well okay, but then why are they showing
Speaker 2: graphic images and stuff. They're just going for shock value
Speaker 2: to try to turn away people that think they should
Speaker 2: be released.
Speaker 1: I think that the prosecution is focusing on the brendousness
Speaker 1: and the violence of the crime so that they can
Speaker 1: take away from whether they've been rehabilitated or not, Like
Speaker 1: we need to focus on how long they've been in prison,
Speaker 1: what they've done in prison, their prison record, and if
Speaker 1: they've been rehabilitated. But among the family that was at
Speaker 1: this hearing was Terry Burrell, who is the sister of
Speaker 1: Jose Menendez. She was speaking out for the first time
Speaker 1: in decades. She usually doesn't speak. She's battling cancer. She
Speaker 1: says that that the Meninda's brothers, they are like the
Speaker 1: boys that I didn't have. She's battling colon cancer currently
Speaker 1: and said she's worried that she won't live long enough
Speaker 1: to see her nephew's freed. She tries to go and
Speaker 1: see them as much as she can, but it's hard
Speaker 1: because she lives in New Jersey and she's also eighty five.
Speaker 2: But those are reasons to let them out either, right,
Speaker 2: well as an unfortunate scenario. But that's not a reason
Speaker 2: to let someone out because a relative of some sort
Speaker 2: may not live long enough to see them.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think that's I don't think her age
Speaker 1: is something that should be taken into consideration. I think
Speaker 1: what they take into consideration is that all the remaining
Speaker 1: family members, I think there's like fourteen or something, all
Speaker 1: think that they should be released.
Speaker 2: Right all she were just talking about how they were
Speaker 2: sharing the story of for finding cancer in her age
Speaker 2: and not being able to see them.
Speaker 1: Well, basically I was talking about her because there was
Speaker 1: a TMC article that just came out recently that she
Speaker 1: had to be hospitalized after this hearing because of the
Speaker 1: shock of them showing graphic photos of the crime scene.
Speaker 1: And under Marcy's law, apparently you're supposed to be warned
Speaker 1: if there's going to be graphic crime scene images shown.
Speaker 1: There was no warning.
Speaker 2: Okay, So again, her having colon cancer and her age
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with what the judge should take
Speaker 2: into consideration for resentencing.
Speaker 1: No it's not. But I'm just telling you about her
Speaker 1: because she claims that the reason or the family claims
Speaker 1: that the reason that she ended up hospitalized was because
Speaker 1: the prosecution did not form than that they were going
Speaker 1: to show shocking crime scene, very graphic images of jose
Speaker 1: and Kitty. According to the Justice for Eric and Lyle coalition,
Speaker 1: this aunt, Terry Burult, was found unresponsive in her hotel
Speaker 1: room after attending the recent court hearing where graphic crime
Speaker 1: scene images were shown without prior warning. So that's where
Speaker 1: we're at with men Indez. So obviously we will keep
Speaker 1: you updated on Menindez. They are going to have the
Speaker 1: actual resentencing hearings, so we will have to actually we
Speaker 1: will follow that and.
Speaker 2: See you should go to the hearing. I could do
Speaker 2: a live podcast from the factual workhouse house.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't know if.
Speaker 3: They would let me get on that, all right, we
Speaker 3: know how it goes.
Speaker 1: That's like because they don't have anything else to do,
Speaker 1: all right, let's do a little update on the Ruby
Speaker 1: Frankie case. Jody Hildebrandt challenges the high profile child abuse conviction.
Speaker 1: This was an ABC article in twenty twenty three. Jody
Speaker 1: Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse
Speaker 1: alongside Ruby Frankie. Frankie both accepted plea deals and were
Speaker 1: sentenced to up to thirty years in prison. At that time,
Speaker 1: Jody Hillebrant said one of the reasons she didn't want
Speaker 1: to go to trial was to protect the children from
Speaker 1: having to emotionally relive the trauma. I like how this
Speaker 1: woman was involved in amusing these children within her own home, right,
Speaker 1: So she clearly was a part of what was going on,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, she's sensitive, She's sensitive
Speaker 1: to their needs and she doesn't want to abuse them
Speaker 1: any further.
Speaker 2: She didn't want it to be public and she didn't
Speaker 2: want to be outed anymore than she was. Literally, you know,
Speaker 2: they're going to make a documentary on her. It was
Speaker 2: going to all this raw footage was going to be shown, right,
Speaker 2: so jokes on her and.
Speaker 1: The petition which was filed on March twenty fourth, Hildebrett
Speaker 1: claims her guilty plea was unlawfully induced and that she
Speaker 1: did not fully understand what she was agreeing to. She writes, quote,
Speaker 1: I did not know my rights, and my attorney did
Speaker 1: not inform me of them. So on one side, she's saying, look,
Speaker 1: I just agreed to the because I didn't want to
Speaker 1: have the children testify. We didn't want to go to trial.
Speaker 1: But now I don't understand my rights and I didn't
Speaker 1: know that I was taking a plead deal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh I forgot my defense is I'm an idiot.
Speaker 2: I wasn't paying attention now because the judge asks the
Speaker 2: defendant directly those questions about the white the rights that they're.
Speaker 3: Waiving, and if they know what.
Speaker 2: They're entering, and they ask them, and that's the time
Speaker 2: that the defense or the defendant answers directly, not the attorney.
Speaker 2: The defendant answers directly to the judge, which is, you know,
Speaker 2: it's not often that the defendant is speaking directly to
Speaker 2: the judge, and in this case they are because.
Speaker 3: They want to know. There's no one in between.
Speaker 2: Us, between the judge and the defendant in making this decision, right,
Speaker 2: So don't they ask them? Like several things like do
Speaker 2: you know your rights? Do you know the penalty involved?
Speaker 2: Do you know that it can't be retracted?
Speaker 3: Or whatever? I mean?
Speaker 2: They ask them a handful of questions. Make sure like
Speaker 2: you know if you agree to this, you are doomed.
Speaker 2: Your fate lies in my hands, and I decide what you.
Speaker 1: Will right now.
Speaker 2: Her kids didn't know what they were in for? Did
Speaker 2: she ever think about that? They didn't know their rights?
Speaker 1: What wasn't her kids? She Jody's the duck kids.
Speaker 3: She's the She's the other piece of trash.
Speaker 1: Yes, She's not the mom piece of trash. She's the
Speaker 1: the other piece of trash.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: She argues that her plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily,
Speaker 1: and it includes claims that her legal counsel was ineffective,
Speaker 1: and that prosecutors failed to properly notify her of the charges,
Speaker 1: and that she did not comprehend the consequences when so.
Speaker 1: Eric Clark, an attorney for Ruby Frankie, responded in a
Speaker 1: statement to ABC News saying that they were not shocked,
Speaker 1: but weren't exactly expecting it either. He added, I'm super
Speaker 1: confident that the entry of her plea will hold up
Speaker 1: and that she won't be able to show that she
Speaker 1: knowingly and involuntarily did not enter it. I mean they
Speaker 1: have that mean sure they have. I mean they record
Speaker 1: the trials and they have the trial transcript. I'm sure
Speaker 1: the judge went through, like you said, and asked her
Speaker 1: all the questions. So we will see what happens with that.
Speaker 1: The court will now the court will have to determine
Speaker 1: whether Hildebrand's rights were actually violated in the process, and
Speaker 1: if this could justify a do over of her case.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go with no. They're going to deny
Speaker 1: her emotion and she's going to spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time in prison. All right, let's move on to Karen Reid.
Speaker 1: I have done a lot of research on Karen Reid lately,
Speaker 1: and thank you so many of you. I get so
Speaker 1: many dms on Karen Reid. It is a very controversial case,
Speaker 1: and as we discussed earlier, we did a very brief
Speaker 1: episode on Karen Reid. If you want to go back
Speaker 1: and listen to it, I would say it's more comedic
Speaker 1: because Shane knew nothing about the case, so all he
Speaker 1: does is tell me that she's guilty. I enough that
Speaker 1: she's guilty through the entire time, we did a very
Speaker 1: brief overview of just allegedly what happened that night. But
Speaker 1: now I'm excited that we're going to take.
Speaker 3: A deep dive into Karen Reid, into her.
Speaker 1: First trial, and into a lot of the controversial evidence.
Speaker 1: And I will tell you, I think this is such
Speaker 1: a hot button case because there really isn't a smoking gun.
Speaker 1: There isn't anything. There's not an Aha moment where you say, yes,
Speaker 1: it was definitely a cover up or yes, she definitely
Speaker 1: did it. I think you can look at all the
Speaker 1: evidence and you can weigh it and you can see
Speaker 1: both sides. And that's where this is where this case
Speaker 1: has become so heated, because you have a very very
Speaker 1: tight line drawn in the sand or in the snow
Speaker 1: with this case. You've got people that are hardcore supporters
Speaker 1: that is a cover up and Karen Reid is innocent,
Speaker 1: and you have hardcore supporters that say she backed her
Speaker 1: suv into him and killed him that night. And so
Speaker 1: we're going.
Speaker 3: To get into it.
Speaker 1: Let's just go into a little summary of what happened.
Speaker 1: So if you want to watch, it's on Max. It's
Speaker 1: also on the Animal Planet. But it's called a body
Speaker 1: in the Snow the Trial of Karen Reid, and it
Speaker 1: explores the case through interviews with Karen Reid as well
Speaker 1: as her legal team. It also shows a lot of
Speaker 1: scenes of the war room. This is where they rented
Speaker 1: some conference room or a hotel room or something. And
Speaker 1: it's really interesting because it shows the attorneys and Karen
Speaker 1: Reid actually discussing the case and witnesses and what they're
Speaker 1: going to ask. And you know, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of times when I was wondering to myself, is this
Speaker 1: docuseries helpful to Karen or is it detrimental? It shows
Speaker 1: a lot of her thoughts, It shows her conversations with
Speaker 1: her attorneys. It just makes me wonder is this helpful
Speaker 1: to her or is this detrimental to her?
Speaker 3: Well? Is it Jeneraly's NACo's never helpful for the dependent
Speaker 3: to speak, right? I mean I.
Speaker 1: Don't think so. I mean, here's my opin.
Speaker 2: If you do a good job here and like, oh
Speaker 2: there are good liar. If you do a bad job,
Speaker 2: it's like, yeah, we knew she was lying.
Speaker 3: I was tough. Yeah, I was just.
Speaker 1: Interested thinking that her legal team and her really allowed
Speaker 1: them to put themselves out there and be judged by
Speaker 1: the public after this first trial, I will tell you
Speaker 1: my thoughts. I don't find Karen Reid very likable. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that she's guilty. It just means that
Speaker 1: I don't find her very likable. So The Trial of
Speaker 1: Karen Reid explores a case through interviews with Karen Reid
Speaker 1: as well as her legal team, including her attorneys David
Speaker 1: Yanetti and Alan Jackson and Elizabeth little So. Those are
Speaker 1: the three key attorneys for Karen Reid. The docu series
Speaker 1: progresses chronologically, starting with her arrest and district court arragnement,
Speaker 1: following by her indictment on second degree murder charges, and
Speaker 1: this was in June of twenty twenty two. It also
Speaker 1: covers her trial, which began in April of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: The series features previously unseen footage, including video of Reed's
Speaker 1: arrests related to the murder charge. I will say during
Speaker 1: her arrest, I did think it was interesting that she
Speaker 1: was very she was very emphatic that she'd be allowed
Speaker 1: to change her clothes because she kept talking about how
Speaker 1: this is going to be on TV. And I was like,
Speaker 1: I can understand that you want to change your clothes.
Speaker 2: You would do that you killed me, you would be
Speaker 2: still be getting glam and everything.
Speaker 1: I'd be like, wait, you can't arrest me. I have
Speaker 1: so apparently when she was arrested.
Speaker 2: Act if you were getting arrested in any situation, that'd
Speaker 2: probably be the team you'd call for.
Speaker 3: CD's your one phone call.
Speaker 2: Now re read to come over into your air so
Speaker 2: you look good for your mug shot.
Speaker 1: Well if it's well, I know if I had a bunch.
Speaker 2: Shot and you have not denied it once, you have
Speaker 2: agreed with everything I've said so far.
Speaker 1: It is what it is, all right, let's talk about
Speaker 1: the prosecution and the defense. So, according to prosecutors, Karen
Speaker 1: Reid struck John O'Keeffe with her SUV while dropping him
Speaker 1: off at a fellow officers home in the early hours
Speaker 1: of January twenty ninth, of twenty twenty two. Now the
Speaker 1: officer is a sergeant and his name is Brian Albert.
Speaker 1: He is a key player in this case, so you
Speaker 1: need to remember his name. According to prosecutors, Karen Reid
Speaker 1: struck John O'Keeffe with her SUV while dropping him off
Speaker 1: at a fellow officer's home. This is thirty four Fairview
Speaker 1: Reed's defense team has presented an alternative version of events. Basically,
Speaker 1: what the prosecution is saying is that O'Keeffe and Karen
Speaker 1: Reid and some friends went out drinking. They had a
Speaker 1: lot of drinks. I think she talks about in the
Speaker 1: docu series how many drinks she has.
Speaker 3: So she volunteered that information.
Speaker 1: Yes, Then after they go to two bars, they get
Speaker 1: invited to a house party at Brian Albert's home. And again,
Speaker 1: he's a sergeant in a police department. According to Karen
Speaker 1: in this docuseries, she doesn't really know him, and she
Speaker 1: doesn't know a lot of people there, so she doesn't
Speaker 1: know if they're welcome. So when they drive to the home,
Speaker 1: she stops outside the home and she tells John go
Speaker 1: into the house and see if we're welcome there. And
Speaker 1: she waits in the car and she's like call me
Speaker 1: or text me, like let me know if I should
Speaker 1: come in.
Speaker 3: That's weird.
Speaker 1: This is where everything goes blurry and dark. And I
Speaker 1: don't understand why no one knows what happens within this
Speaker 1: like five weeks.
Speaker 3: No people do know what happened. Well, why isn't.
Speaker 1: Why exactly why is it not known that when allegedly
Speaker 1: she pulls up to the house and he gets out
Speaker 1: of the car to go inside the house. No one
Speaker 1: knows if he actually went into the house or if
Speaker 1: he got hit by her. And then we just know
Speaker 1: later that his body's found in the front yard, laying
Speaker 1: in the snow and he's dead. Why does there's no
Speaker 1: a house full of cops. There was Brian Higgins was there,
Speaker 1: who was an ATF agent, and there was Brian Albert,
Speaker 1: who's a cop who owned the house. And I think
Speaker 1: those were the only two cops, and then there were
Speaker 1: some other There were some other women there, like Jen McCabe,
Speaker 1: who is another player in this, and then there were
Speaker 1: some other people, and I think there were some teenagers.
Speaker 1: But there was a party.
Speaker 3: Whether did they look at fingerprints in the house or
Speaker 3: DNA in the house, We will.
Speaker 1: Get to that, But I am just my mind is
Speaker 1: reeling that no one really knows what happened within that
Speaker 1: time frame. Karen Reid claims that she saw John entered
Speaker 1: the breezeway door. I think it's suspicious whether she actually
Speaker 1: saw him enter the house or not, because I don't
Speaker 1: believe that that was initially something that she said. I
Speaker 1: think that was something that she said later that she
Speaker 1: did see him enter the house.
Speaker 2: Oh, like, I mean there were Initially she just said
Speaker 2: I dropped him off. I believe she dropped off and
Speaker 2: drove away. And now she's saying no, I saw him
Speaker 2: going right.
Speaker 1: And now everyone within the house claims that he never
Speaker 1: entered the house. So here we are with these conflicting stories.
Speaker 1: So Reech's defense team has presented an alternative version of events.
Speaker 1: They suggest that O'Keefe entered the residents at thirty four
Speaker 1: Fairview Road where a gathering was taking place, and that
Speaker 1: he may have been assaulted inside the home, possibly even
Speaker 1: attacked by a dog, before ultimately being found unresponsive outside
Speaker 1: in the snow. So the defense is claiming that this
Speaker 1: is a cover up, that John did enter the home,
Speaker 1: and that there was some type of altercation maybe between
Speaker 1: Brian Higgins, who was an ATF agent, and John O'Keefe,
Speaker 1: because previously there was some flirty sexy text going on
Speaker 1: between Brian Higgins, this ATF agent, and Karen Reid while
Speaker 1: she was dating John O'Keefe. Oh my gosh. First of all,
Speaker 1: I had to watch the scene like the testimony of
Speaker 1: him reading all the texts between the two of them,
Speaker 1: and I was so uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: Why was he reading them?
Speaker 1: Because when he was on the stand, the defense attorney,
Speaker 1: when he was cross examining him, had him pull.
Speaker 3: Up, had this check on this screen come from him.
Speaker 1: They wanted him to be uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: And it was so uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Do you like me? I like you? I think you're hot.
Speaker 1: I thought you were hot from Jump. I mean, first
Speaker 1: of all, it sounded so juvenile that these are like
Speaker 1: forty year olds.
Speaker 3: Like Animel's text, Yah heard probably the same content.
Speaker 1: It's like you're hot? Do you think I'm hot?
Speaker 3: I think you're Wasn't there anything juicy in it?
Speaker 2: No, that was it.
Speaker 3: I was just like you look good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it was really uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: It just sounded I don't thought there'd be something more.
Speaker 1: Oh you wanted, like like what did juicy juicy?
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess they weren't that juicy. They were
Speaker 2: just embarrassed. I like you, I like you, I like you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I liked you from Jump. I don't even know
Speaker 1: what that What does that mean?
Speaker 2: And she goes from jump Whim's jump and I don't
Speaker 2: know our totally sigma is that I.
Speaker 1: Don't know it's jump.
Speaker 2: I don't know anyway, all right, when I was a kid,
Speaker 2: it was just cool, awesome and like rat like were
Speaker 2: the slang words.
Speaker 1: You didn't say that you liked a girl from jump? No, okay,
Speaker 1: so anyway I want to jumper. Yeah, I can't imagine
Speaker 1: that you said that. So here we have two competing
Speaker 1: theories of what actually happened that evening. So we have
Speaker 1: the prosecution claiming that Karen Reid was drunk, that she
Speaker 1: and John were fighting because they did have some texts
Speaker 1: earlier in the day where they were like not getting along,
Speaker 1: they were arguing with each other.
Speaker 3: That she pulls up where they're texting just.
Speaker 1: She's she's always like accusing him of like having affairs
Speaker 1: with other women, and I think they just had a
Speaker 1: tumultuous relationship.
Speaker 2: Was there anything like relevant, like like and ready over
Speaker 2: and there was no smoking gun in front of someone's else, There.
Speaker 1: Was nothing like that. So basically the prosecution is claiming
Speaker 1: that Karen Reid pulls up to thirty four fair View,
Speaker 1: this is around twelve thirty, that John gets out of
Speaker 1: the car, and that there was some argument or something
Speaker 1: going on between the two of them, and that Karen
Speaker 1: does a three point turn and within her doing that,
Speaker 1: she backs over him and that he ends up laying
Speaker 1: on the lawn dead.
Speaker 3: She claims, Wait, she's drunk too, right.
Speaker 1: She's drunk. He's drunk, She's drunk. He actually is carrying
Speaker 1: a cocktail glass with a drink in his hand as
Speaker 1: he's leaving the car like he brought it had a
Speaker 1: ROADI yeah, with him, and that glass is found at
Speaker 1: the scene around him, around the body. There's a cocktail
Speaker 1: glass broken at the scene.
Speaker 3: Can I just say this is why drinking stupid? Sorry
Speaker 3: it is, no.
Speaker 2: I mean, they have all these professionals that have no
Speaker 2: idea what's going on or covering it up or whatever,
Speaker 2: and someone's dead.
Speaker 3: Stupid. Okay, but let's talk about it.
Speaker 1: Let's just talk about the cocktail glass for a second,
Speaker 1: because I never actually put this together until I just
Speaker 1: said it. But if if, what the defense claims is
Speaker 1: that he was killed inside the house and then he
Speaker 1: was like drug out onto.
Speaker 2: The lawn to make it look like hes for a
Speaker 2: next home.
Speaker 1: They also take your cocktail glass too, he threw it out? Right, then,
Speaker 1: how is the cocktail glass that he was carrying now
Speaker 1: broken and around his body? Unless he carried the cocktail
Speaker 1: glass into the house, got in an altercation. Apparently the
Speaker 1: dog attacked him. Then they take him out onto the
Speaker 1: lawn and they're like, be sure to get the pieces
Speaker 1: of that cocktail glass and put those around the body
Speaker 1: so that when we lie and say that Karen reads.
Speaker 3: Very sophisticated killers.
Speaker 1: I mean, if there's just a lot.
Speaker 2: Maybe he went in with the cocktail. They said you
Speaker 2: can't bring your own drinks or you're too drunk, and
Speaker 2: he said, not unmuch? Is you going to cry it
Speaker 2: for my.
Speaker 3: Cold dead hands?
Speaker 2: And there was a fight then ensued, and it resulted
Speaker 2: in him being dead outside.
Speaker 3: With the cocktail.
Speaker 1: I like, I'm sure we're barely touching the surface of
Speaker 1: this case, and you have already come up with alternative theories,
Speaker 1: so I'm trying to solve it, all right, So anyway,
Speaker 1: here we go. Let's get back to his injuries. And
Speaker 1: his injuries are very suspect as well. Now he has
Speaker 1: blunt force trauma to his head.
Speaker 3: He also has cold and that could not have been
Speaker 3: from the car. Is that determined?
Speaker 1: Well? I know that there was testimony from a medical
Speaker 1: examiner saying yes, it could be consistent. And then there's
Speaker 1: other people that were like, oh, it's not really consistent.
Speaker 3: So it's not one way.
Speaker 1: No, no, But here's my question. If he has blunt
Speaker 1: forced trauma to his head and he's a tall guy
Speaker 1: two hundred pounds six to two or something like that,
Speaker 1: to me, yes, exact say build his shame. Yes, So
Speaker 1: how does he get blunt forced trauma to his head
Speaker 1: from an.
Speaker 2: Suv if she backed Because I don't know this, but
Speaker 2: he could have if if she ran into him, he
Speaker 2: could have hit his head on the trunk.
Speaker 3: He could have hit his head on the ground or on.
Speaker 1: This or on the curve or something I guess. So
Speaker 1: you're saying she could have backed end to him and
Speaker 1: the force could have been so forceful that he flies
Speaker 1: backwards and he hits his head and then he gets played.
Speaker 3: And it's like, well, does he have any other damage
Speaker 3: type of parts of his body?
Speaker 1: Yes, So his arm, this is this is where the
Speaker 1: defense really comes in. His arm has a lot of
Speaker 1: like it looks like scratches and lacerations and puncture wounds.
Speaker 1: And now there was another person, an expert witness, that
Speaker 1: testified that those injuries were consistent with a dog.
Speaker 3: With one arm or one arm on his.
Speaker 1: Arm, just one arm. I believe it was his right arm.
Speaker 3: Which is kind of if he's right handed, you'd be
Speaker 3: using as defense.
Speaker 1: And you know, I looked at here's a picture of
Speaker 1: it if you want to look, and I'll tell you.
Speaker 1: I have three dogs and I've seen a dog bite
Speaker 1: and they do the teeth do puncture like.
Speaker 3: It looks like he scratches from a dog.
Speaker 1: He said, Well, they said it was. It was consistent.
Speaker 1: The expert witness that apparently was an expert in dog
Speaker 1: bites said that it looked like scratches and puncture wounds
Speaker 1: from like K ninety.
Speaker 3: So so what was your point?
Speaker 1: Well, my point is is that Brian Album, who lives
Speaker 1: at thirty four Fair of View, where apparently Karen Reid
Speaker 1: saw John O'Keeffe go into the house, owned a German
Speaker 1: shepherd named Chloe who apparently had a propensity to bite
Speaker 1: and was aggressive. And now we have John O'Keeffe in
Speaker 1: his front yard with a cocktail glass with wounds that
Speaker 1: looks similar to a dog attack on one arm. The
Speaker 1: dog was also rehomed after this happened. So I don't know,
Speaker 1: but Chloe does.
Speaker 3: Not live with his protection.
Speaker 1: Yes, Chloe is in the witness No, the dog witness
Speaker 1: protection programs.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 1: So there's that, So keep that in the back of
Speaker 1: your mind as we go through the evidence. Apparently, let's
Speaker 1: just do a little more detailed into his actual injuries.
Speaker 1: He had traumatic brain injury. O'Keefe had a skull fracture
Speaker 1: and brain bleed. He had facial injuries, cuts, bruises and
Speaker 1: abrations on his face, and he had rib fractures, multiple
Speaker 1: ribs to fractures.
Speaker 3: Sounds like.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 3: Sounds like you got hit by a car. It's not
Speaker 3: like a dog attack.
Speaker 1: Well, I think with the dog theory, it's that.
Speaker 3: I mean, it is questionable why there's scratches like that.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing with the dog theory, and I
Speaker 1: understand that they're saying that if he did the defense
Speaker 1: is claiming he entered the house and he got into
Speaker 1: altercation with the men, right, and that there was a
Speaker 1: fight the dog and the dog got involved because you know, Togo,
Speaker 1: we have a German shepherd. If I got in a
Speaker 1: fistfight with someone, my dog's gonna jump in. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt about that.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I know, And so the dog is
Speaker 2: scared of trash cans.
Speaker 3: What else is he scared of? Something else? Like all
Speaker 3: burglar has to do and come in our house is
Speaker 3: bring a trash can.
Speaker 1: Well, it would have to be a run. He doesn't
Speaker 1: like the big trash cans, the street trash cans, he's
Speaker 1: not scared of, like wastebaskets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's tough. He can handle the waist basket, he is.
Speaker 1: Anyway, O'Keefe had bite marks and scratches on his arm,
Speaker 1: and there were lacerations on his head and body.
Speaker 3: Well, this all sounds like reasonable doubt. Really, are you
Speaker 3: doubting that? I said there's doubt?
Speaker 1: No, I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I mean at the end, by the time we yes,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. I'm
Speaker 2: saying it's all circumstantial. It seems to walk a very
Speaker 2: fine line. It's like on the fence, you could.
Speaker 3: Go either way.
Speaker 2: That's why this case. And so that's reasonable doubt. And
Speaker 2: if it's reasonable doubt, it's a legal standard. It's not
Speaker 2: a moral standard or a hunch or whether she did
Speaker 2: or didn't do it.
Speaker 3: It's whether legally there's enough and there isn't enough so far, okay, So.
Speaker 1: Crash reconstruction specialists previously testified in her first trial that
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's had injuries did not align with trauma typically seen
Speaker 1: in pedestrian vehicle collisions, and that the condition of Read's
Speaker 1: vehicle did not match the damage. More expect this.
Speaker 2: Is not a typically seen Okay, well maybe this is
Speaker 2: a different situation.
Speaker 1: Additionally, a retired er doctor and forensic pathologists who this
Speaker 1: is a person that was an expert in dog bites,
Speaker 1: testified for the defense, suggesting that some of them Keey's injuries,
Speaker 1: particularly those to his arm, were more consistent with a
Speaker 1: possible dog attack. Now, I will tell you, and in
Speaker 1: the trial they tested, they did DNA testing for dog
Speaker 1: dna and there was no dog DNA found, but they
Speaker 1: found pig dna. Now, when they said that and I
Speaker 1: was watching and they said pig dna, the first thing
Speaker 1: I thought of was, well, dog treats are a lot
Speaker 1: of times pig ears and made of pig. So maybe
Speaker 1: the pig DNA came from the dog's mouth. But the dog,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I had a dog treat or something.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's just there's no dog DNA found.
Speaker 1: There's pig dna.
Speaker 2: That's unusual. There's there's no pigs in the vicinity, not
Speaker 2: that I have no, Well, I don't know. It was
Speaker 2: a pig farm near fair View Lane or whatever.
Speaker 1: Thirty four fair of View.
Speaker 2: You keep doing these people, you keep you want somebody
Speaker 2: to go out there.
Speaker 1: And no, I just love the address because they say
Speaker 1: it over and over. It's all like what went down
Speaker 1: at thirty four fair View. Well, Brian Albert has told
Speaker 1: the house since then, and apparently yeah, and he rehomed
Speaker 1: his dog. He rehomed the dog, sold the house, and
Speaker 1: apparently he redid the basement floors right right after this
Speaker 1: incident as well. But apparently he had already redout the
Speaker 1: basement floors in twenty eighteen and then he redid the bastion.
Speaker 2: Were there any suspicious deaths in twenty eighteen on this
Speaker 2: fair View lay, No suspicions.
Speaker 3: You know that there might be redid the basement?
Speaker 1: Well no, I think he originally redid the basement because
Speaker 1: the basement needed to be redone.
Speaker 3: And then he read you're saying he already he just
Speaker 3: did it. Why is he doing it again? I was thinking,
Speaker 3: probably does it every time he killed someone in his house. No, Okay,
Speaker 3: I think he also rehome a dog in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Maybe, but he did redo the basement flooring in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: and then someone like a contractor came forward and said
Speaker 1: that he redid the basement flooring again in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two after this incident occurred. And also one more thing,
Speaker 1: there was never any investigation done inside of this house.
Speaker 1: They did not do any fingerprinting. They did not look
Speaker 1: for any blood. They did not look for DNA that
Speaker 1: would have.
Speaker 2: Answered a lot of questions one way or another, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, really the main they found no DNA of
Speaker 2: his in the house that would have said something, right,
Speaker 2: found some DNA depending on where it was, or fingerprints
Speaker 2: that would say something exactly.
Speaker 1: But I'm telling you didn't.
Speaker 3: Have ring footage. No, there's no ring footage out.
Speaker 1: They have cameras on the four fair View that I
Speaker 1: don't know about, but there is no footage that I
Speaker 1: have seen anywhere. There is a lot of footage of
Speaker 1: Karen Reid pulling into John O'Keeffe's house. There's ring footage
Speaker 1: of her SUV at his home.
Speaker 3: Whose footage is that his?
Speaker 1: At she goes after she drops him off, She goes
Speaker 1: to his house. The biggest question in this case, if
Speaker 1: you had to boil this case down to one question,
Speaker 1: it would be whether or not John O'Keeffe actually entered
Speaker 1: the house that night.
Speaker 2: You're saying one question that, Yeah, you're right, that's a
Speaker 2: question that would then answer a lot of other questions, right,
Speaker 2: because their claim that he never came to the house, right,
Speaker 2: it would support her claim that he.
Speaker 3: Did enter the house.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And then now it's kind of like the burden lightly
Speaker 2: speaking to burdens on them to explain what happened he
Speaker 2: went in the house.
Speaker 1: Now telephone right, And as far as I know, I
Speaker 1: don't believe he had ever visited that home before. That
Speaker 1: was his first time being there. So I'm saying, why
Speaker 1: was that inside of this home not investigated? Why were fingerprints?
Speaker 1: Why did they not look for blood? Why did they
Speaker 1: not exactly? And that's the that's exactly, and that's the
Speaker 1: argument as to why this is a cover up and
Speaker 1: not just a basic hit and run. Let's get to
Speaker 1: the broken tail light. The broken tail light is another.
Speaker 3: Thing that just like okay, the brooktail it's on her car.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot with this bourbon tail light. I
Speaker 1: gotta break this down. Reed's defense team has offered an
Speaker 1: explanation for the damage to her sub's tail light, suggesting
Speaker 1: it may have occurred she accidentally backed into O'Keefe's vehicle
Speaker 1: while leaving to search for him on January twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: So after she leaves the scene, she goes to John
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's house and goes to sleep at his house. She
Speaker 1: also calls him like fifty times or something and leaves
Speaker 1: voicemails screaming at him, calling him a pervert.
Speaker 2: Which is a little well, I doesn't say why she
Speaker 2: leave voicemails that textes people on new voicemails so much more.
Speaker 2: But I guess she was so angry she'd wanted to
Speaker 2: scream at him.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing. If she hit him and ran
Speaker 1: over him and then she goes to his house, was
Speaker 1: she and she's drunk? Did she? Was? She really like
Speaker 1: a criminal mastermind that she's like, now I'm going to
Speaker 1: call him fifty times and scream at him and call
Speaker 1: him a pervert.
Speaker 3: She have any other phone?
Speaker 2: Calls her text during this time like like do you
Speaker 2: still like me?
Speaker 1: No, Tim Brian Higgins, not that I know of, But
Speaker 1: it's basically her leaving.
Speaker 3: Lots of voicemails, single mouth, do you still like me?
Speaker 3: Like you she should say anything like that.
Speaker 1: No, she didn't claim to be single yet. No, all
Speaker 1: right there, okay, So there's ring camera footage that shows
Speaker 1: Red hitting his vehicle and the same spot her headlight.
Speaker 1: Her tail light is broken. So there's ring footage that
Speaker 1: shows her backing her suv out and she backs her
Speaker 1: suv into John O'Keefe's suv. His sub's parked like this.
Speaker 1: She backs out and hits it like this, and you
Speaker 1: can see his car rocking.
Speaker 3: I don't see contact.
Speaker 1: It looks like there's contact made. You can see the
Speaker 1: car till a little bit his car, so.
Speaker 3: It looks like it's his car rocking.
Speaker 1: His car's rocking. So apparently she backs out of his garage.
Speaker 1: This is to go look for him because he does has.
Speaker 2: To come home because he's and Yeah, so she calls
Speaker 2: him fifty times and yells and screens at him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and she's worried that he's not home.
Speaker 1: Well, she calls and screams at him because she thinks
Speaker 1: she This is where her phone calls and her voicemails
Speaker 1: to him. I think are good evidence for the defense,
Speaker 1: even though the prosecutors like to use it to show
Speaker 1: that they have a volatile relationship. But if you look
Speaker 1: at the timing, she's calling him and leaving these crazy
Speaker 1: voicemails after he's already dead and he's in the yard.
Speaker 1: Apparently this is after she's driven away from from Brian
Speaker 1: Albert's home. So if she's calling him and screaming at
Speaker 1: him and accusing him of having an affair with some
Speaker 1: woman inside the house and that's why he never came
Speaker 1: back out to me, that shows her men's reea that
Speaker 1: she thinks that he's inside the house having an affair
Speaker 1: with with a woman, and that's why he's not answering.
Speaker 1: I you know, I understand, I understand that. But her voicemails,
Speaker 1: I mean, if she's if.
Speaker 3: She's usually those calls are more like he maybe, where.
Speaker 1: Are you right? I saw you walk into Brian O'Keefe's
Speaker 1: house right now and you're not coming.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you went to the side porche.
Speaker 1: What's that call? Where are you right? But she's not.
Speaker 1: She's saying I and hate you, John, I hate you.
Speaker 1: You're a pervert? John? Are you effing that girl? John?
Speaker 1: So to me. It's just it's her mental state that
Speaker 1: she thinks he's inside the house having an affair with
Speaker 1: some woman, and that's why he's not responding to her.
Speaker 2: Why would she drop him off at a house where
Speaker 2: she thinks he's gonna have an affair because he was
Speaker 2: supposed to.
Speaker 1: Come back out and tell her if she was welcome
Speaker 1: to come in or not, and he never could wait
Speaker 1: she wait, I think she'll like wait in like five minutes.
Speaker 3: It wasn't very long.
Speaker 1: The timeline is very short from when she pulled up.
Speaker 3: Well, the timeline that she no, I'll tell.
Speaker 1: You there's a timeline because they have a cell phone
Speaker 1: data of his phone being at thirty four Fairview when
Speaker 1: they pull up, and.
Speaker 3: Then that time's not really disputed.
Speaker 1: Then right, No, I'll tell you. I actually, okay, here's
Speaker 1: the timeline. It's this is very short. Twelve twenty four.
Speaker 1: She arrives at thirty four Fairview twelve thirty six. Karen
Speaker 1: reads her phone connects to John O'Keefe's WiFi. John O'Keefe is,
Speaker 1: that's his house. So she drops him off at twelve
Speaker 1: twenty four and she's back at his house by twelve
Speaker 1: thirty six. I can't do math. But that's not a
Speaker 1: very long time. What is that called minutes? So there's
Speaker 1: only a twelve minute time period between the times she
Speaker 1: drops him off and that she arrives back at his house.
Speaker 1: She arrives at his house at twelve thirty six. At
Speaker 1: twelve thirty seven, she sent to her first crazy voicemail saying, John,
Speaker 1: I effing hate you. So this timeframe of her dropping
Speaker 1: him off, thinking he goes in the house, and then
Speaker 1: allegedly running over him, and then driving back to his
Speaker 1: house is twelve minutes. So it's a really short time period. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Let's get back to the tail light. So the defense
Speaker 1: claims that she backed into his car. That's where her
Speaker 1: tail light was damaged. The thing is there were forty
Speaker 1: something pieces of tail light found around his body, but
Speaker 1: the tail light pieces were found during a second search,
Speaker 1: not the initial search.
Speaker 2: Yeah, after the first search when they sprinkled some tight Okay, so.
Speaker 3: Let's go free size. They're like, come back in search.
Speaker 1: So they find his body on the lawn at six
Speaker 1: o'clock in the morning and the police come and they
Speaker 1: use a snow blower to clear away the snow because
Speaker 1: there was a blizzard.
Speaker 3: That night.
Speaker 1: This is another problem is the weather that night. So
Speaker 1: as they're blowing away the snow and they're recovering the body,
Speaker 1: there's no tail light pieces found none. Then a search
Speaker 1: team goes back hours later after her car has been
Speaker 1: confiscated by police and taken into police custody. Then when
Speaker 1: a second search team goes back to search the yard
Speaker 1: and the crime area, they find forty something pieces of
Speaker 1: tail light. So basically you have to think, Okay, when
Speaker 1: they found his body originally in the snow at six o'clock.
Speaker 3: In the morning, provided I didn't find it the first time.
Speaker 1: The beau of the snow, but they had a snowblower
Speaker 1: and they were blowing.
Speaker 3: There's forty pieces and they didn't find one, not one,
Speaker 3: not one.
Speaker 1: But when they go back and search later they find
Speaker 1: forty something pieces.
Speaker 3: I'd say air on the side of caution and put
Speaker 3: them on jail.
Speaker 1: Everybody, just everyone involved.
Speaker 3: You're all crooked one way or another.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But let me ask you because.
Speaker 3: You're I mean, I'm saying that lightly. Of course, I
Speaker 3: don't mean that.
Speaker 1: Sort of You've been in a lot of car crashes.
Speaker 3: Namely with you as the driver.
Speaker 1: Yes, here's my question. If she backed into him and
Speaker 1: hit him with the tail light, wouldn't break into forty
Speaker 1: something pieces.
Speaker 2: I feel like that that you've backed into my car.
Speaker 3: There were no tail eye pieces, just a lot of
Speaker 3: damage to my car.
Speaker 2: Right, But I followed by Emily running the house screaming
Speaker 2: at me that it was my fault.
Speaker 3: I parked a car. It was, yeah, excuse me for
Speaker 3: parking in the driveway, Emily anyway, she says. Then you
Speaker 3: say I.
Speaker 2: Didn't see your car really because you have you have
Speaker 2: beepers and cameras and mirrors and.
Speaker 3: The sun shining on my car and you didn't see it.
Speaker 1: Okay, back to Karen Reid.
Speaker 3: You're like, I didn't die that day. If I died
Speaker 3: that day would be very questionable. Did she back into him?
Speaker 3: What was the motive?
Speaker 1: Okay again, I'm just asking do you think if you
Speaker 1: backed into someone and you hit them, would your tail
Speaker 1: light have forty pieces different broken pieces? To me, that
Speaker 1: seems like over like. I just I don't feel like
Speaker 1: a tail light breaks into that many pieces, just like you.
Speaker 3: No, I when you said forty that didn't sound realistic.
Speaker 1: It doesn't sound realistic at all.
Speaker 3: If she did it was this freaking tail.
Speaker 1: Well, and how that's like a tail light explode. Now
Speaker 1: you know when it sounds that many.
Speaker 2: Pieces And I certainly don't know this, but just as
Speaker 2: the lad person, this is what it sounds like.
Speaker 3: They took a tail light, smashed it with a hammer.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's what, and then carried it over and sprinkled
Speaker 2: it around. They did snap the tail light or or
Speaker 2: bust it. They smashed it with a hammer and then
Speaker 2: used all the pieces and threw it there.
Speaker 1: That's what it feels like.
Speaker 2: Many days apart was the first, not finding the tail
Speaker 2: light to the time they fell it was. It was
Speaker 2: the same day.
Speaker 1: So basically they found his body at six am. So
Speaker 1: the police come, they mark off a crime scene. They
Speaker 1: used the snowblower. They found blood at the scene. They
Speaker 1: put the blood in solo cups. You know those red
Speaker 1: solo cups. That's what they put the blood evidence in.
Speaker 1: They and they put that inside a grocery bag.
Speaker 2: It's funny that the house of Drunks had a bunch
Speaker 2: of solo sandy.
Speaker 1: No, it was the cops. I don't know what they
Speaker 1: got the solo cups. I mean, maybe they got it
Speaker 1: from the neighbors.
Speaker 2: As police issued solo cups tump aware right solo cups.
Speaker 1: So during that initial finding him and taking him in
Speaker 1: the ambulance and using the snowblower on the scene, there
Speaker 1: are no tail light pieces found the.
Speaker 2: Cocktail body cams on these cops that arrived the seed.
Speaker 3: I'm guessing not but no, Oh, but there is.
Speaker 1: There's car camp. There's a car cam where you can
Speaker 1: see Karen Reid running around screaming John John John Police
Speaker 1: stash camp. Yeah, the police stash camp. There's because she's
Speaker 1: the one who actually finds the body. So apparently she
Speaker 1: wakes up at like four thirty or five or something
Speaker 1: in the morning and he still hasn't come home. So
Speaker 1: she's freaking out. She calls Jen McCabe.
Speaker 3: Why is she freaking out though she knew she thought
Speaker 3: he was sleeping with someone.
Speaker 1: Because he's so I don't know if you will come home.
Speaker 1: I'm going to freak out.
Speaker 2: But if you're accusing me of sleeping with someone and
Speaker 2: you're sending me fifty messages that I'm sleeping with someone,
Speaker 2: then I'll come home and it's like, yeah, because I'm
Speaker 2: seeking with someone like that would be your mindset, wouldn't
Speaker 2: be like you still have to come home.
Speaker 1: Well, but he has kids at home. I mean, he
Speaker 1: didn't come home.
Speaker 3: The whole thing's weird.
Speaker 1: I don't know he did. So he doesn't come home,
Speaker 1: and she wakes up and she's at his house and
Speaker 1: she realizes that he hasn't come home. She calls Jen McCabe,
Speaker 1: who is in the house that night, and then she
Speaker 1: calls another woman I don't remember her name, and the
Speaker 1: three of them get to a car early in the
Speaker 1: morning and drive around looking for John, and then Karen
Speaker 1: spots his body and the yard and that's what they
Speaker 1: call an ambulance.
Speaker 2: They called where was the body relative to the house
Speaker 2: and where she's supposedly dropped him off?
Speaker 1: If you face the house, it's a big front yard
Speaker 1: and there's a driveway to the right. His body was
Speaker 1: found all the way to the very left of the yard,
Speaker 1: in front of a flagpole, so like as far left
Speaker 1: on the boundary as you could go.
Speaker 3: All right, terrible investigations, Well, yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean that's part of the that's part of the
Speaker 1: defense is that not only was the investigation terrible, but
Speaker 1: it does look like a cover up.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of really yeah, but it sure does
Speaker 2: look like one right.
Speaker 1: Initial searches by the Camp Police Department did not yield
Speaker 1: any tail like pieces around the Albert's front lawn. This
Speaker 1: is when they first found the body. However, a subsequent
Speaker 1: investigation led by the Massachusetts State Police uncovered approximately six
Speaker 1: to seven fragments of red and clear plastic in the
Speaker 1: snow near the scene. Later reports and defense arguments have
Speaker 1: to just said that up to forty seven pieces were
Speaker 1: eventually recovered in the snow. So again, I just the
Speaker 1: tail light just bothers me, It bothers me.
Speaker 3: Did they say whether the tail light matched the vehicle?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: They did say, okay, so he correct tail light? Okay,
Speaker 2: and then her tail light? Did it if they puzzled,
Speaker 2: pieced it back together, did it match up? Did they
Speaker 2: do anything like that?
Speaker 3: Yeah they did.
Speaker 1: They also claim, wait, so I did match her tail ight. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's her tail light. The question is is her tail
Speaker 1: light found in the yard because she hit John O'Keefe
Speaker 1: at such a high velocity that her tail light exploded
Speaker 1: into forty seven different pieces, or is her tail light
Speaker 1: found in the snow because the police confiscated her vehicle
Speaker 1: saw that there was a little bit of damage to
Speaker 1: her tail light.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then use that as.
Speaker 1: A cover up, busted the tail light and then when
Speaker 1: they went back to search, dropped it into the scene
Speaker 1: and then said, oh, look what I found over here.
Speaker 1: I found pieces of tail light. The problem though, is
Speaker 1: that pieces of the tail light were also found in
Speaker 1: his clothing, like.
Speaker 3: Small fragments in his pockets, not in his.
Speaker 1: Pockets, like and it's like his shirt.
Speaker 3: He got it, like he got hit.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if they were smart.
Speaker 2: So here's the thing, so you know, there's more evidence,
Speaker 2: it's just more confusing, yes, exactly.
Speaker 1: So it's like, okay, let's say they did break up
Speaker 1: his tail light, because there is there is police footage
Speaker 1: of her car within the sally port at the police department,
Speaker 1: and you could see people walking around in her car.
Speaker 1: So there's opportunity, right, there's opportunity for someone to mess
Speaker 1: with her tail light. They have it on video. It
Speaker 1: shows the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, behind the car. They
Speaker 1: also when they when they handed over the videos of
Speaker 1: her car in the car port at the police station,
Speaker 1: they inverted the video.
Speaker 3: She's guilty of something.
Speaker 2: I mean, she was a druns driving and then dropped
Speaker 2: him off drunk and then called and screamed him.
Speaker 1: You're angry because she screams at him.
Speaker 2: If you can starr to be killed, Well, yeah, it's.
Speaker 3: A trigger for me. I don't know where it comes from.
Speaker 1: During the trial testimony, so they had a crash data
Speaker 1: expert from the Massachusetts State Police. He described information or
Speaker 1: treat from Karen Reid's SUV. According to his analysis, the
Speaker 1: vehicle had been shifted into reverse and reached the speed
Speaker 1: of just over twenty four miles per hour before slowing
Speaker 1: down abruptly with noticeable movement of the steering wheel. This
Speaker 1: expert suggested that this information that they were treated from
Speaker 1: her car could be consistent with a pedestrian being struck
Speaker 1: and placed the event around twelve forty five am. However,
Speaker 1: if you remember the timeline that I gave you, it
Speaker 1: would not have happened around twelve forty five because she
Speaker 1: was already back to John O'Keefe's house by that time
Speaker 1: and had already left out for.
Speaker 3: Leads to more questions, Right, nothing gets answered.
Speaker 1: No. Reid's defense seemed challenged his conclusions, questioning his qualifications
Speaker 1: and highlighting that he does not hold an advance certificate
Speaker 1: and crash reconstruction. He also was terrible on the sand.
Speaker 1: It's hard to take someone seriously when they're so nervous
Speaker 1: that they can't answer the questions very well. So the
Speaker 1: defense argues that if O'Keefe had been hit by a
Speaker 1: vehicle moving in reverse at approximately twenty four miles per hour,
Speaker 1: which that's fast, right, twenty four miles per hour backwards, yes, his.
Speaker 2: Box, like in a residential area, you punched the gas
Speaker 2: pedal and that starts to get to twenty four miles
Speaker 2: an hour. That in that short period of time, there's
Speaker 2: not like a lot of roadway.
Speaker 1: But again, I don't feel like if she pulled up
Speaker 1: to the house and she's sitting on the side of
Speaker 1: the house and he goes into the house and then
Speaker 1: she drives on.
Speaker 2: You know, you know what, it does None of this matters,
Speaker 2: you know why, because this all leads to doubt.
Speaker 3: We're not you're never going to figure it out with
Speaker 3: this much crap and this all we're sitting here. Every
Speaker 3: piece of evidence that you brought up, yeah, just leads
Speaker 3: to more questions, no conclusions, not even viable conclusions, right,
Speaker 3: So it's really just every piece of evidence has a
Speaker 3: reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Yes, That's why I think this this trial because she's
Speaker 1: she's almost done there, almost does This is her second trial.
Speaker 1: This is her second trial. It should start any day
Speaker 1: now because I think they have sixteen juror seated right now.
Speaker 1: What happened on the first trial, it was a mistrial.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but do we know do we know how many
Speaker 3: people voted or anything like that.
Speaker 1: So when the jury came back, they basically said, we
Speaker 1: cannot reach a decision, and where it's deadlocked, there's there's
Speaker 1: no way we're both sides. I guess it was eight
Speaker 1: thought that she should be charged with vehicular manslaughter and
Speaker 1: four didn't think so. But I guess they said that
Speaker 1: they were so deadlocked in their positions that there was
Speaker 1: no way that anybody was going to, you know, move
Speaker 1: one way or the other. So that's why it was
Speaker 1: a hung jury. The three charges against her were, now
Speaker 1: I don't even remember, vehicular are you listening to.
Speaker 2: Second degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and driving without
Speaker 2: it with a broken tailing.
Speaker 1: No, that was not the third one. The third one
Speaker 1: is leaving the scene.
Speaker 3: Leaving the scene, yea with a broken tailor with.
Speaker 1: A broken tailing? Yes, Okay, let's get into a little
Speaker 1: more evidence. It's going to NYU as well. So Jen
Speaker 1: McCabe was one of the women that was inside the
Speaker 1: house that evening. So apparently they they confiscated Jen McCabe's phone.
Speaker 1: They did the whole data extraction, and the defense claims
Speaker 1: that at two I think it was two twenty seven
Speaker 1: am that Jen McCabe did a search, a Google search
Speaker 1: how long to die in cold?
Speaker 3: This is a twenty seven I'd like to find out
Speaker 3: what your Google searches are.
Speaker 2: I need to get some data extracted from your phone.
Speaker 2: Life expectancy of fifty year old half Persian, none, the dreams,
Speaker 2: bigels every day.
Speaker 3: That's what your search is going to say.
Speaker 1: Never google that before ever. So Jen McCabe told the assistant, well, that's.
Speaker 3: The experts tell me what you search.
Speaker 1: Okay. So Jen McCabe told the assistant District Attorney Adam Lawley,
Speaker 1: that she left an Internet tab open after finishing her
Speaker 1: basketball related Google searches earlier on the twenty ninth. I
Speaker 1: used to always leave my tab open and my kids
Speaker 1: would yell at me, she added. She further testified that
Speaker 1: she used the same tab later that morning would read
Speaker 1: frantically asked her to look up hypothermia.
Speaker 3: So here's the was what time was this search?
Speaker 2: This is where again you're gonna say, there's more questions.
Speaker 1: Yes, because she did. She doesn't dispute that she did
Speaker 1: google how long to die in the cold, But the
Speaker 1: problem is the defense.
Speaker 2: She can't and it was Claire's day, so of course
Speaker 2: she didn't dispute it, right.
Speaker 1: But there's a dispute as to when she did it.
Speaker 1: The defense claims that according to what they extracted from
Speaker 1: her phone, that she made this Google search at two
Speaker 1: twenty seven in the morning, which would be apparently like
Speaker 1: after he.
Speaker 2: Was not not as a normal time that someone would
Speaker 2: normally search for when how long it takes for someone
Speaker 2: to die in the snow? Right?
Speaker 3: Usually that's done after brucast she right.
Speaker 1: She claims that she made the search at six something
Speaker 1: in the morning.
Speaker 2: After his body found Like as a result of the scene,
Speaker 2: she's like, oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: Right, how long does it take to die in the hole?
Speaker 3: Because that's what I would do if I find someone dead,
Speaker 3: I'd be like, oh, let me let me determine.
Speaker 1: Right, That's the stupidest thing.
Speaker 2: That still doesn't make sense, So someone's dead, Well it man,
Speaker 2: it's probably nerve wrecking and worrisome, and there's cops everywhere,
Speaker 2: and then she's gonna all a sudden start to investigate.
Speaker 3: Whatever it is.
Speaker 1: She claims that she was looking at up because I
Speaker 1: guess Karen Reid was because it was chaotic and she
Speaker 1: was saying that he died of hypothermia, and so she
Speaker 1: was googling how long did the office.
Speaker 2: That's not normal behavior to search something that sophisticated or
Speaker 2: that detailed when there's a crime scene going on.
Speaker 1: Right, and I don't understand the dies she searched it
Speaker 1: she did that search as part of the cover up.
Speaker 2: That would be my guess, Like, yeah, but let's say
Speaker 2: he died in the coal Okay, let me hold on.
Speaker 3: Let me google and see how long it takes to
Speaker 3: die in the cold.
Speaker 1: So you think she did it at two twenty seven
Speaker 1: am in the morning after something nefarious happened in the
Speaker 1: house and he'd got in a fight and someone hit
Speaker 1: him over the head and then he died and the.
Speaker 3: Dog attacked him, and that's a possibility.
Speaker 1: And you're saying she was like they all had some
Speaker 1: cover up where they were like, let's drag his body
Speaker 1: out into the yard and make it look like he
Speaker 1: died of hypothermia, and she googled how how long to
Speaker 1: die in the cold? Yeah, that's a possibility, because the
Speaker 1: defense claims that, according to the data that was extracted
Speaker 1: from her phone, she googled this atuo twenty seven in
Speaker 1: the morning. I don't understand how there's a discrepancy in
Speaker 1: the time. Why is it just not clear what time
Speaker 1: she googled it?
Speaker 2: If we have such yeah, I've been so digital, right, right,
Speaker 2: If there's.
Speaker 1: Such a digital footprint on everything we do.
Speaker 3: They probably even know where she her phone was at
Speaker 3: the time that she made.
Speaker 1: Right, So why is that Why is that up for
Speaker 1: debate whether she googled it at two twenty seven or
Speaker 1: whether she googled it at six point thirty in the
Speaker 1: morning after the fact, because clearly, if she googled it,
Speaker 1: googled it after he was dead.
Speaker 2: Even though it's weird, one expert says at one time
Speaker 2: and another expert says another time, Yeah, it's stay in
Speaker 2: the same time zone. Maybe that's what it is. Maybe
Speaker 2: one man say Pacific Standard time. No one says, no,
Speaker 2: it's Eastern.
Speaker 1: Well, I feel like you should reach out to Alan
Speaker 1: Jackson and ask if you can be on the defense team.
Speaker 1: I could, Yeah, I think you should. All right, so
Speaker 1: there we go. That's another piece of evidence that it's
Speaker 1: like again, it's like the same with the tail light.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like the tail light, but the tail.
Speaker 2: Light the same results more questions, the more we have
Speaker 2: the Google search, and it's like, oh, well, if it
Speaker 2: was at twenty seven, that's pretty shady.
Speaker 1: But if it's at six am after the body's sound,
Speaker 1: then okay, that kind of makes sense, kind of all right.
Speaker 1: There's also testimony that people heard Karen Reid say I
Speaker 1: hit him, I hit him, I hit him.
Speaker 3: Because that's normal behavior for someone that runs over their boyfriend.
Speaker 1: Jennifer McCabe testified that Karen Reid allegedly repeated the phrase
Speaker 1: I hit him after a paramedic asked what happened to
Speaker 1: John O'Keeffe. This is after the body is found in
Speaker 1: and the paramedics are on scene. There's several first responders
Speaker 1: who also testified and echoed the same claim that they
Speaker 1: heard her say I hit him. Defense attorney Alan Jackson
Speaker 1: noted that the statement wasn't recorded in official reports or
Speaker 1: on any scene footage. So again here we go. Again.
Speaker 1: We have people claiming that she screamed I hit him,
Speaker 1: I hit him. However, there's no actual footage of her
Speaker 1: saying it, and there's nothing written in any report. So
Speaker 1: you're going to tell me if cops are on scene
Speaker 1: and first responders are on scene and she's saying I
Speaker 1: hit him, that nobody writes that down. Yeah, but they're
Speaker 1: going to testify after the.
Speaker 2: Fact that on the first responders heard like only the
Speaker 2: like the cops didn't.
Speaker 3: Hear it or anything, but the cop.
Speaker 1: I mean, if it's a conspiracy, though, the cops should
Speaker 1: have heard it. But maybe the conspiracy wasn't fully put
Speaker 1: together yet because this is early the next morning. Maybe
Speaker 1: so far it's only the cops in the house and
Speaker 1: the people in the house that.
Speaker 3: And there's too much doubt.
Speaker 1: Then there's the snowplowd driver. A local snowplow driver, Brian Lafran,
Speaker 1: told the court he did not notice anything unusual on
Speaker 1: the lawn outside thirty four Fairview Road when he cleared
Speaker 1: the area in the early hours of January twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. This is a point that the prosecution
Speaker 1: and later challenge like.
Speaker 2: I mean, like he could have seen a body. He
Speaker 2: could have seen like the cocktail glass someone.
Speaker 1: Well, he's saying that I think he went into work
Speaker 1: to plow that night because there was a blizzard or
Speaker 1: like two fifteen am. I think that's when he clocked
Speaker 1: in or whatever.
Speaker 3: Nothing.
Speaker 1: And he's saying after he got his vehicle at two
Speaker 1: fifteen and he drives down Fairview, it's very well lit
Speaker 1: at that he said, he constantly looks around because he
Speaker 1: has to observe other cars, people, animals, dogs, Right, it
Speaker 1: makes snowplow. Yeah, he doesn't want to hit anyone, right.
Speaker 2: It's not like a garbage truck where they're just focusing
Speaker 2: on the bins.
Speaker 3: Like, he has to make sure he's not plowing over people,
Speaker 3: dead people, right, and so crime scenes. Right.
Speaker 1: So he's testifying that he was very aware that when
Speaker 1: he plowed the streets and when he went past thirty
Speaker 1: four fair View, that there was no body at that time,
Speaker 1: which means Karen Reid couldn't have hit him because if
Speaker 1: she hit him, he would have been there already because
Speaker 1: she hit sometimes.
Speaker 2: Because the argument is she hit him basically when she
Speaker 2: dropped him off.
Speaker 1: At twelve twenty five, or whatever. So if she hit him,
Speaker 1: his body would have been in the front.
Speaker 2: Yard, was in the yard and the yard. So here's
Speaker 2: but he doesn't plowing the guard.
Speaker 1: Nobody drove by the house and the body was in
Speaker 1: the yard by the street. So he's saying, I drove
Speaker 1: by this house.
Speaker 3: Not buried in snow or anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe maybe it was covered in snow, but
Speaker 1: I still feel like you would have noticed a large
Speaker 1: man in a yard. So he claims he did not
Speaker 1: see anything like that. Let's hear some other things that
Speaker 1: I really took away that I thought was really interesting.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of butt dialing going on that
Speaker 1: night between the people and the house, and a ledge
Speaker 1: butt dialing. So Brian Albert owns the home, and again
Speaker 1: he's a sergeant in the Boston Police Department. Before I
Speaker 1: get into the butt dialing, there's one other thing I
Speaker 1: thought was really strange. There was a crime scene in
Speaker 1: front of Brian albert house at six o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 1: He is a cop, and he never left his house.
Speaker 1: He never went out to see what was going on.
Speaker 2: I mean during the investigation. Yeah, like as if you
Speaker 2: had no interest in it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I'm just saying at six o'clock in
Speaker 1: the morning, it's his house, there's a dead body found
Speaker 1: on his lawn. There's a bevy of police and ambulances,
Speaker 1: and Karen Reid's running around screaming, and there's two other
Speaker 1: women there, and he's he's a cop, he's a police officer,
Speaker 1: and he's just inside chilling in his house. He never
Speaker 1: goes outside and asks what's going on? You're gonna tell
Speaker 1: me that's not odd behavior, that's a very odd behavior.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not a cop, but if there's a
Speaker 1: dead body of my front lawn, I'm gonna go outside
Speaker 1: and see what's going on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, what are his Google surgeons? That's what I
Speaker 3: want to know. And what is he texting during this time?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about text said, but Doda, sorry,
Speaker 1: I wanted to establish them again that the homeowner is
Speaker 1: a police officer, and that there was a crime scene
Speaker 1: in his lawn, and that he never went outside and
Speaker 1: asked what was going on or what was happening. I
Speaker 1: think that's odd behavior.
Speaker 3: That is very odd behavior.
Speaker 1: Also, there's some butt dialing going on between him, Brian
Speaker 1: Albert and Brian Higgins, who is the ATF agent who's
Speaker 1: the one that had the text exchanged with Karen read
Speaker 1: about you're hot, I'm hot, We're hot from John, all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: So it is the story that there's phone calls between
Speaker 2: the parties and they're saying, no, is this accidental dialing?
Speaker 1: Right, So there's there's a one second call from Brian
Speaker 1: Albert to Brian Higgins at two twenty two am. Also
Speaker 1: remember that apparently Jen McCabe is googling how long to
Speaker 1: Die in the Snow at two twenty.
Speaker 2: Seven, possibly at two twenty seven, So there's a lot
Speaker 2: of phone activity at two twenty seven, so they're all awake, right.
Speaker 1: There's then there is a twenty two second call from
Speaker 1: Agent Higgins back to Brian Albert.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing there's no text between these parties. It's all
Speaker 2: butt dialing.
Speaker 1: Butt dialing, yeh. Then Jed McCabe, the one who did
Speaker 1: the Google search, placed seven calls to O'Keefe's phone between
Speaker 1: twelve twenty nine and twelve fifty and seven of those
Speaker 1: calls are unaccounted for. She claims maybe like she put
Speaker 1: her phone in her back pocket and her phone just
Speaker 1: kept dialing John O'Keeffe over and over and over.
Speaker 3: Then and then it also did a Google search, yes.
Speaker 1: By itself, but the defense claims obviously. Here's my thought
Speaker 1: is if she's calling his phone over and over, is
Speaker 1: she looking for his phone because something happened in the house.
Speaker 1: They need to get the body into the yard, and
Speaker 1: maybe they need to locate his phone and put his
Speaker 1: phone with the body. They can't leave his phone in
Speaker 1: the house. I don't know. That's just me thinking, what's
Speaker 1: going on with all this butt dialing? Why is everybody
Speaker 1: calling each other? Why is she calling John O'Keefe's phone.
Speaker 1: All right, So anyway, that is a lot of the
Speaker 1: crazy evidence in this case.
Speaker 3: So it's your verdict.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you I don't have a verdict.
Speaker 3: And then that's then not guilty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say if I were sitting on the
Speaker 1: jury and I was presented with all this evidence from
Speaker 1: the first trial, I would say not guilty because to me,
Speaker 1: there is enough reasonable doubt that I could not convict
Speaker 1: this woman and send her to the present.
Speaker 2: So by a legal standard, we agree not guilty by
Speaker 2: all the evidence.
Speaker 3: That we've gone over. Now, what do you really think happened?
Speaker 1: What do I really think happened? Yeah? I here's what
Speaker 1: I'm going to say. The most plausible thing that could
Speaker 1: have happened that night is that she's drunk. He's drunk.
Speaker 1: He gets out of the car, he's got a drink
Speaker 1: in his hand. They're fighting. Maybe she puts it in
Speaker 1: reverse and she backs over him and she doesn't mean
Speaker 1: to at twenty four miles an hour, at twenty four
Speaker 1: miles an hour, and then she drives away and doesn't
Speaker 1: know that she done, and he dies in the snow.
Speaker 1: But anyway, that was a pretty deep dive into Karen Reaid.
Speaker 1: I know there's a lot of other issues that we
Speaker 1: could discuss. If you guys have comments or questions or
Speaker 1: other things that you would like us to talk about,
Speaker 1: please feel free to damn me. And again, thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.