Speaker 1: Y'all better buckle up. I have not seen a case
Speaker 1: like this since Casey Anthony.
Speaker 2: And let me explain.
Speaker 1: I have four sisters, well educated women, diverse in their
Speaker 1: likes and dislikes. They've probably got about twelve degrees between them.
Speaker 1: A couple of them got a six year degree, one's
Speaker 1: got a PhD. They've got master's degrees, they've got rn degrees.
Speaker 1: And I say that because these are logical people. But
Speaker 1: during the Casey Anthony trial, I had one sister that
Speaker 1: thought the mama straight up.
Speaker 2: Killed that baby.
Speaker 1: I had one that believed the baby drowned accidentally and
Speaker 1: they covered it up with grandpa's help. I had another
Speaker 1: one that believed the child got into some drugs and
Speaker 1: accidentally odeed. And I had another one that thought the
Speaker 1: baby died I somehow, maybe hitting her head or something,
Speaker 1: and her mama panicked and covered it up. And I thought,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is your jury.
Speaker 3: These are all for mamas.
Speaker 1: These are all for you know, middle of the road,
Speaker 1: middle America kind of people. And so I said on
Speaker 1: National TV what I thought was logical, and I did
Speaker 1: so confidently that Casey Anthony was going to walk out
Speaker 1: of that courtroom and The reason I said it was
Speaker 1: because if you could not tell me how.
Speaker 3: That baby died, you don't have murder. People lost their minds.
Speaker 1: I had more hate mail. Good ness. People were coming
Speaker 1: after me. How could I defend Casey Anthony? How could
Speaker 1: I believe? Listen now, I tried to be very clear
Speaker 1: and logical, but I'm gonna tell you right now before
Speaker 1: we get into tonight, it don't matter what you think,
Speaker 1: or what you feel, or what you believe.
Speaker 3: The only thing that matters is what you can prove.
Speaker 1: Judge Ashley Wilcom, Joshua Schiffer, we got about forty years
Speaker 1: of the best there is. So Karen Reid, let's say
Speaker 1: answer one question for him. Between the three of us,
Speaker 1: we have walked into a courthouse thousands of times. What
Speaker 1: is a buffer zone?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 5: I think it's brilliant. I think this is brilliant maneuvering.
Speaker 5: It's all brilliant maneuvering. Keep all those protesters that are
Speaker 5: for Karen Reid away from the courthouse, Judge, because that's
Speaker 5: going to bias this case and bias this jury. And
Speaker 5: they shouldn't be anywhere around here because that interest of
Speaker 5: a fair trial, says the state outweighs the freedom of
Speaker 5: speech standing on.
Speaker 2: The courthouse steps. Josh, you weigh in, But I thought
Speaker 2: it was a.
Speaker 4: Brilliant maneuver, I gotta say, And I'm a died in
Speaker 4: the wool civil libertarian. But the court has a necessary
Speaker 4: and important interest in securing and then protecting the integrity
Speaker 4: of the process. While freedom of speech needs to have
Speaker 4: an outlet, needs to have a spot, it has been
Speaker 4: demonstrated that this courthouse, for this case, cannot provide that
Speaker 4: to the litigans without some sort of governmental regulation. And
Speaker 4: now then you see cops all over the place. Every
Speaker 4: time these Litigans walk in or out of the courthouse,
Speaker 4: there is a mob of people questioning them with some
Speaker 4: reasonable stuff, but then some really wild stuff, like there's
Speaker 4: been stuff in the media in this case that it's
Speaker 4: been unlike any other case we've ever seen.
Speaker 1: I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen protesters
Speaker 1: like this. I've never seen such rabid folks on both sides.
Speaker 3: Where they're just unyielding.
Speaker 1: It's almost like logic doesn't matter, the law doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: the facts don't matter. It's just my opinion, my thought,
Speaker 1: my belief is going forward. But there's one woman she
Speaker 1: has a shirt on that says free Karen Reid, but
Speaker 1: she's holding a poster that says justice for John O'Keefe.
Speaker 2: I feel for her.
Speaker 3: I get it like it almost can't be both, Like
Speaker 3: you can't be that woman. You've got to pick a side.
Speaker 3: I bet you can't.
Speaker 1: Go into a bar nowhere in that town that it's
Speaker 1: not separated.
Speaker 4: If this defense theory is true, are they going to
Speaker 4: demand a prosecution of these witnesses?
Speaker 2: Well, if the defense theory is true, I think at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, if they get an acquittal acquittal,
Speaker 2: they're going to run away. I would write that's a
Speaker 2: huge wind. If I were them, I would disappear and
Speaker 2: not demand a dang thing because guess what, I was successful.
Speaker 2: But I also have to suggest that when we're talking
Speaker 2: about Karen Reid's defense and what she's saying happened, we
Speaker 2: know from her prior interviews defendant's own words that she
Speaker 2: says she saw John o'kee walking up to the house.
Speaker 2: She's the only witness so far. It's going to say that.
Speaker 2: The rest have said, oh no, nobody ever got out
Speaker 2: on car. So if that's her defense, does she have
Speaker 2: to testify because I think if she has to testify,
Speaker 2: the prosecution really might stand a chance because it may
Speaker 2: conclude there's no other reasonable explanation than she did it.
Speaker 4: And her testifying this is going to Because I'm on
Speaker 4: the same page as you, I'm saying that she doesn't
Speaker 4: need to testify in this case given how strong the
Speaker 4: defense has been so far. Now we've still got several
Speaker 4: more witnesses, and I think Procter is the be all
Speaker 4: end all.
Speaker 6: For the state's case, because if the state can't produced
Speaker 6: with Proctor, this case may look at a directed verdict.
Speaker 4: Assuming Proctor presents enough strong evidence and there's been Look,
Speaker 4: there's been Prema faci eforts, not a lot, certainly not
Speaker 4: enough that we would say that's a good, well proven case,
Speaker 4: but there's been testimony. But I think that's what they're
Speaker 4: going to have to decide after the state's case is closed,
Speaker 4: because she getting on the stand, big exposure, huge exposure.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask the two of you this, what
Speaker 1: about John working with the Feds? What about the federal investigation? Again,
Speaker 1: to me, that's a layer on this thing. If you
Speaker 1: want to look at why would somebody have motive if
Speaker 1: you're fixing to blow up my whole career and my
Speaker 1: whole department and my ring of buddies. That's good all day.
Speaker 1: And if he just arrived at our house intoxicated and
Speaker 1: she pulled away, whatever happened to happen. And now we're
Speaker 1: just going to say she did it. She's going to
Speaker 1: say we did it. And again I'll go back to
Speaker 1: casey Anthony, how did he die?
Speaker 3: We don't know, we don't know.
Speaker 2: We're not going to know.
Speaker 4: Based on the evidence you have both.
Speaker 2: This is the wildest case to me because you've got
Speaker 2: evidence supporting each theory. So whichever theory you want to believe,
Speaker 2: you can find some supporting evidence of. And that's really unusual.
Speaker 2: And I think the FEDS being involved is reflective of
Speaker 2: this poor investigation and something shady in the house and
Speaker 2: prosecutor that didn't start off well doing the right thing
Speaker 2: in the case, and all of that makes it all
Speaker 2: very messy.
Speaker 4: And the FED stuff, I know, it's hard because we
Speaker 4: all know the case. And oh, if I was a FED,
Speaker 4: this is the part that I'd be interested. Remove that
Speaker 4: from your brain. You have no idea what the FEDS
Speaker 4: are thinking if there is someone that comes out of
Speaker 4: left field, because they have information you can't even conceive of.
Speaker 4: It's the FEDS. Sure, we've got some stuff that would
Speaker 4: make a lot of sense for them to investigate complaints.
Speaker 4: And let's be honest, this is Massachusetts. The FEDS have
Speaker 4: been investigating Massachusetts law enforcement. It was literally like the
Speaker 4: first job was, Hey, go investigate the local police in Massachusetts.
Speaker 4: There are some corrupt ones. So it's not like this
Speaker 4: is shocking or unprecedented. This is a known thing and
Speaker 4: that means that people have been investigated before, and that
Speaker 4: means that there's a whole community about Hey, FED, start
Speaker 4: knock and this is what you do, and there's us
Speaker 4: versus them mentality. Law enforcements not necessarily all friendly with
Speaker 4: each other. And we don't know whether this FED poking
Speaker 4: around is minor or if it's like you're talking about
Speaker 4: career ending and they can end your career in law
Speaker 4: enforcement by snapping their fingers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because people are saying that Brian Albert, Colin, Albert,
Speaker 1: Brian Higgins, who's an ATF agent, y'all all had motive,
Speaker 1: they're all corrupt.
Speaker 3: Well, again, you cannot have the FEDS involved in any
Speaker 3: investigation to me without it cloud and what they're trying
Speaker 3: to do in that courthouse right now.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, And you know, the other part
Speaker 2: of this for me is there's so many parts. I've
Speaker 2: said that eight times. But the other thing that I
Speaker 2: took note of is my sense listening to all of
Speaker 2: the evidence presented by the state so far, I walk
Speaker 2: away with this feeling of I feel like John o'keeith
Speaker 2: was looking in from the outside, even though he was
Speaker 2: one of them. I don't get the impression that they
Speaker 2: liked him. They weren't grab assing with him at the bar.
Speaker 2: They weren't you know, it wasn't a video where we're
Speaker 2: all saying, oh, what were they doing at the bar together?
Speaker 5: Well, they were kind of ignoring him if you just
Speaker 5: watch that video, and I don't you know, they didn't
Speaker 5: run out, according to their own testimony, when he's out
Speaker 5: there in the lawn and dying or dead. And so
Speaker 5: I feel like, for whatever reason, they don't like him,
Speaker 5: and Mac, I'll turn it back to you, because again,
Speaker 5: if a cop is not liked, there's something else there.
Speaker 1: I cannot agree, and to me that cannot be overstated.
Speaker 1: So again to me, that goes to motive. Did they
Speaker 1: know that he was working with the Feds. It would
Speaker 1: almost appear that they knew he was working with the Feds.
Speaker 1: That's why they didn't fool with him. That's why he
Speaker 1: didn't go in the house. That's why they didn't go outside.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you something else that I would like
Speaker 1: to see come out. Who planned, assisted, ran participated in
Speaker 1: the funeral? What did they do post? Y'all all know
Speaker 1: pre and post behavior. And you got a cops funeral
Speaker 1: that died on your front yard. You ought to be
Speaker 1: folding that flag, handing that to somebody.
Speaker 4: And there's already just enormous scuttle butt about who was
Speaker 4: talking to who, when, where, When did friendships end? And
Speaker 4: again I'm I'm with Ashley. I feel that John O'Keefe
Speaker 4: was a little bit of an outsider looking in rumors
Speaker 4: that I trust make me believe that they obviously knew
Speaker 4: each other to a degree, and there might have been
Speaker 4: this minor bad blood, a misunderstanding something between a couple
Speaker 4: of different agencies. But I can't tell you whether that's
Speaker 4: a little thing or a huge thing. And for all
Speaker 4: we know, this was a meeting later on in the
Speaker 4: night to you know, squash that beef from back in
Speaker 4: the day or something that's gone through my mind. John
Speaker 4: o'keefs just wandered through life, and this crew, somebody associated
Speaker 4: with them, the cousin, the brother whatever, has a beef
Speaker 4: with John o'keeth. Hey, he's coming over. Hey, we're just
Speaker 4: gonna prank and we're gonna ras him. We're gonna we're
Speaker 4: gonna town him because Towny's they got a little bit
Speaker 4: of a cruel sense of humor. Every once in a
Speaker 4: while they may, you know, give a guy something to
Speaker 4: remember him by because he stepped in the wrong spot.
Speaker 4: And I don't know what's happened, because no one knows.
Speaker 4: And that gets back to the state's problem at the beginning.
Speaker 4: There's evidence for a lot of different things that means
Speaker 4: reasonable doubts everywhere, and.
Speaker 2: The state keeps putting it out there. Josh, I feel like, again,
Speaker 2: the state is so busy. It's not as strategic here's
Speaker 2: the theory of our case, here's our evidence to support it,
Speaker 2: but rather throwing up in an out of order sequence
Speaker 2: of witnesses, which happens because witnesses are available at different times.
Speaker 2: But to me, it's like they're so busy defending the
Speaker 2: theories of the defense and trying to prove the elements
Speaker 2: of murder that they're getting into a mess to figure
Speaker 2: out what the heck happened.
Speaker 4: The state wants to put forward a discrete, compact, straightforward case.
Speaker 4: This is what happened. That's how you prove a murder.
Speaker 4: What the states have done. And I don't know if
Speaker 4: it was up just a badly handled response or anticipation
Speaker 4: or what the state has ended up saying, Hey, here's
Speaker 4: our tight, concise story. The defense is going to bring
Speaker 4: up all these other things. Let's go talk about them
Speaker 4: a lot. And it's like, no, dude, you got to
Speaker 4: take what the defense is going to throw at you
Speaker 4: and say, everybody, it's on the horizon, but it's garbage.
Speaker 4: To get rid of it and don't talk about it anymore.
Speaker 4: They're laboring these points, and that's calling attention to come on.
Speaker 4: Maybe that wasn't a big detail earlier, but now I'm
Speaker 4: going to pay attention to it because now I've seen
Speaker 4: conflicting evidence and impeachment.
Speaker 1: I want y'all's opinion about this. I hadn't heard anybody
Speaker 1: say this, and but here's how I feel Troop or
Speaker 1: Proctor is gonna mark firm in this thing to the
Speaker 1: point I don't think they can recover.
Speaker 3: Because here's the deal.
Speaker 1: If he went in that phone and he takes those
Speaker 1: people what he is alleged to have said, I'm looking
Speaker 1: for nudes. I hope she kills herself. It is not
Speaker 1: gonna matter what evidence he puts up. They won't forgive him.
Speaker 2: I agree, I agree, And not only that, but then
Speaker 2: I get to the heart of this. When we talk
Speaker 2: about motive and maybe working for the FBI, I just
Speaker 2: feel like somewhere in motive there's some affairs going on,
Speaker 2: there's some activity that they're trying to protect. But come on,
Speaker 2: it's the oldest motive in the book, and it is involved.
Speaker 4: And how many times have we seen a little cover
Speaker 4: up suddenly explode and turn into something huge? Because hey, listen, Ashley,
Speaker 4: I just need you to tell this one little teeny life.
Speaker 4: It's all good to be. Oh hold on, Mac, you're
Speaker 4: in the room too, Okay, So Mac, you come over here.
Speaker 4: Now you're in on this story. Oh Mac, what do
Speaker 4: you mean? You've got your cousin is coming, And it's
Speaker 4: just it keeps getting a little bit larger and a
Speaker 4: little bit larger, and you can't keep the life straight.
Speaker 4: And then you got to make up a couple of
Speaker 4: new lives because man, they were not there, so we
Speaker 4: got to figure out where they were, and now we
Speaker 4: got to fit And then you can't control those lives.
Speaker 4: You can't control the story. And a good defense is
Speaker 4: going to show those discrepancies and inconsistencies as the reason
Speaker 4: that the state cannot prevent absolutely.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you for any young officers listening, if
Speaker 1: you have this situation, you arrest the weak link, meaning
Speaker 1: if it gets outside that circle, to that cousin, to
Speaker 1: that best friend from high school that you really hadn't
Speaker 1: talked with in six months.
Speaker 3: You arrest the idiot.
Speaker 1: You arrest the one that's going to be afraid, the
Speaker 1: one that's not used to you know.
Speaker 4: The one who stumbled in either yes, I who was
Speaker 4: just catching a ride, the guy who's stuff was in
Speaker 4: the back, but he doesn't know that guy. You get
Speaker 4: that person because when you put them in the squeeze,
Speaker 4: they're the ones that have the most to lose and
Speaker 4: the least to care about.
Speaker 2: But in this case, which is that person because a
Speaker 2: lot of these people that have testified that we're inside
Speaker 2: that house, I would say every one of them fits
Speaker 2: that descriptions. They sounded on the stand, some of them
Speaker 2: like just a little bit of a bozo that didn't
Speaker 2: you know? On cross within said I don't know, I
Speaker 2: don't remember. You didn't hear anything. No, I was asleep.
Speaker 2: You didn't wake up till the next morning. No, I
Speaker 2: was asleep. No I didn't go outside. I think you
Speaker 2: could put all of them in that basket.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask y'all this. Both of y'all have
Speaker 1: seen both sides of many cases. And if you were
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, what are you pushing the hardest? And if
Speaker 1: you're the defense attorney, what are you push in the hardest.
Speaker 2: If it's me and I'm that prosecutor, I'm going to
Speaker 2: push at the end of the day, I think this
Speaker 2: is a case where, yet again the closing argument is
Speaker 2: going to make or break it for the state, and
Speaker 2: I think they have got to bring it together with
Speaker 2: their theory of the case. This is the evidence that
Speaker 2: shows the only reasonable explanation she ran over him, period.
Speaker 2: All the rest of this stuff you can't believe. And
Speaker 2: here's why you can't believe it, because at the end
Speaker 2: of the day, the defense has no proof, no proof
Speaker 2: that anything happened to John O'Keefe inside that house.
Speaker 4: I'm not often in the position where I really would
Speaker 4: encourage the state to double or even triple down on
Speaker 4: telling the tight story and almost be rude to the defense.
Speaker 4: But this defense has been so active and so aggressive
Speaker 4: and so engaging. The state needs to really start putting
Speaker 4: up megaffects. So it is getting down and dirty and
Speaker 4: telling the jury ignore the noise, ignore the distraction, ignore
Speaker 4: everything that the defense is building, trying to pick apart
Speaker 4: the personalities of these people, because we have a simple
Speaker 4: case here. We have a boyfriend and girlfriend having fighting,
Speaker 4: having drinking. She drops him off and he's dead where
Speaker 4: she drops him off. The police officers and first responders
Speaker 4: in the house never hear him. Come in, Ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 4: that's because she ran him over. They can talk about
Speaker 4: all this other stuff. And you've all seen the enormous
Speaker 4: amount of creativity that's gone into showing that this was
Speaker 4: a conspiracy and there's a cover up, and this involves
Speaker 4: hundreds a bit or you can believe the straightforward story
Speaker 4: that they were really angry and Karen Reid ran him
Speaker 4: over in a drunken rage because the more the state
Speaker 4: engages with the defense and the defense, they're giving life
Speaker 4: to a corpse that is conspiracy theory, that is cover up.
Speaker 4: They're bringing the zombie of cover up to life. Every
Speaker 4: time they talk about and if I'm the defense, I
Speaker 4: ain't got much to improve on. You're doing real life,
Speaker 4: pretty good loibles here and there. I hate it when
Speaker 4: he ends the question every time with isn't that correct?
Speaker 4: Isn't that.
Speaker 2: Bombers your terrible trial skills?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah, learn a couple of other words.
Speaker 4: Other than that, I've got to give thumbs up. They
Speaker 4: have built a cover up that is now threatening to
Speaker 4: take over the defensive theory.
Speaker 2: And then you come down to it, if there's an acquittal.
Speaker 2: I don't know what this jury is going to do.
Speaker 2: None of us do. But if there's an acquittal, will
Speaker 2: they try her again? And I think they would. I
Speaker 2: don't know, Josh. I think the state would.
Speaker 4: But you know, I know that the cops are really
Speaker 4: angry about it. I don't know how the DA's office is. Like.
Speaker 4: Lally is a little bit of a mystery, kind of
Speaker 4: an enigma to me because he doesn't seem to be
Speaker 4: into this case. But maybe that's just the way he is.
Speaker 4: I've not met a single lawyer who said that they
Speaker 4: were impressed by or engaged with his opening, but he
Speaker 4: has been effective at getting the evidence out. I just
Speaker 4: don't know how much he likes this case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it didn't to me. There's no energy, so I
Speaker 2: feel like it's one they didn't want to have to try.
Speaker 2: But that's just I don't know, you know, maybe his personality.
Speaker 4: He could be also getting other information or no other
Speaker 4: stuff that we don't know, like if he knows that
Speaker 4: Procter is halfway through a giant investigation for the FEDS,
Speaker 4: or there's a whole other case, or who knows, and
Speaker 4: that would obviously impact his willingness to push boundaries, you know,
Speaker 4: go to the edge of the envelope and really push
Speaker 4: hard to win the case. Man, if you know that
Speaker 4: there's a bunch of bad stuff going on with some
Speaker 4: of these people in the background, at may not be
Speaker 4: the spot to stick your neck out. And he's certainly
Speaker 4: not sticking his neck out as a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Well, this is going to be the case, I think
Speaker 1: for him, no matter what diner or bar or restaurant
Speaker 1: or family re union, he wants into This is going
Speaker 1: to be what he's forced to talk about. And it's
Speaker 1: never going to be hey, great job. It's always going
Speaker 1: to be hey, don't you think you could have done this?
Speaker 1: Or don't you think this happened? Or why did you
Speaker 1: do this? I think it's going to be a constant
Speaker 1: just thorn in his side.
Speaker 2: Especially because it's divisive. This is a divisive case no
Speaker 2: matter what the outcome is. You've got an entire half
Speaker 2: of followers saying that's the wrong outcome. So there's no
Speaker 2: good answer, so to speak from that perspective.
Speaker 4: And what Judge Ashley is also saying is this is
Speaker 4: the kind of case that gets people unelected or elected. Yeah,
Speaker 4: because yes, this is what everybody cares about. This is
Speaker 4: what man. People are showing up in drugs. Someone's going
Speaker 4: to want a job change because of this.
Speaker 3: Listen.
Speaker 1: People are invested in this thing that don't live anywhere
Speaker 1: near Massachusetts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a big one. We get a lot of
Speaker 2: viewers watching the some Court TV a lot. Oh, I'm sure.
Speaker 1: And this is going to be something that I think
Speaker 1: law schools are going to study. I can tell you
Speaker 1: some crime scene people need to.
Speaker 3: Take a look. When you start talking about red solo
Speaker 3: cups and.
Speaker 4: Flowers and contact wlame we get Mac brand leaf blowers.
Speaker 4: Come on, you are lay out on the monetization Listen.
Speaker 1: I've already been in talks with home depots.
Speaker 2: That's it. But you could really do a whole course
Speaker 2: on evidence collection in this case, legal skills, trial skills.
Speaker 2: You can do courses on this.
Speaker 1: Case, Yes, and I think that that should happen. Just
Speaker 1: like Ojay, we learned a lot. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a learning case if I've ever seen one. And again,
Speaker 1: when you have, like Josh was saying, when you have
Speaker 1: a police officer dead, you would think everything is done
Speaker 1: as perfectly as you can, and that is not what
Speaker 1: we're seeing.
Speaker 4: I think this is an impact case because of the
Speaker 4: way that law enforcement's integrity is the central issue. Because really,
Speaker 4: if you want to recast it, this is cops line
Speaker 4: against cops about cops. You know, you got cops saying
Speaker 4: that this happened, versus cops saying that this happened. He
Speaker 4: got a dead cop in the middle, and then you've
Speaker 4: got a media firestorm like it's just man, We've seen
Speaker 4: giant trials. Heck, Trump's going on, and this is like
Speaker 4: anything we've ever seen, and I won't be.
Speaker 6: Surprised to see legislative action because this has upset people
Speaker 6: all up and down the spectrum on everything from jury harassment,
Speaker 6: which is a big issue right now, all the way
Speaker 6: through pre.
Speaker 4: Trial coverage, and how local media interacts with law enforcement,
Speaker 4: because you've now got local media and national media basically
Speaker 4: calling Boston law enforcement a bunch of liars and certainly
Speaker 4: insulting their professional abilities.
Speaker 1: Well, cops line about cops about cops would be a
Speaker 1: great title of the Movie's sad and it's asinine, and
Speaker 1: it's crazy, and it's all of those things.
Speaker 3: And it's also the reason we can't quit watching it.
Speaker 2: You know why else because the Alberts. The Alberts are
Speaker 2: the Murdochs. Like the Murdochs are in South Carolina, you
Speaker 2: now have law enforcement Alberts. I think in that community
Speaker 2: that is the family.
Speaker 4: And not only that, I've seen engagement with my law
Speaker 4: enforcement people on this case. This case hits law enforcement,
Speaker 4: court system prosecutors very hard to consider compared to so
Speaker 4: many of the other cases we follow, because this really
Speaker 4: does have the fundamental lifestyle of what it is to
Speaker 4: be a cop in their personal life and that's not
Speaker 4: a really deeply explored issue, and it's a sensitive one.
Speaker 1: Anything else that y'all want to be sure we mention
Speaker 1: or highlight or say, y'all were flawless act.
Speaker 4: And this is what we do. And it actually knows
Speaker 4: how much I love her, like we could.
Speaker 2: We could do this forever. And next time you'll see
Speaker 2: me sitting next to them as we eat dinner and
Speaker 2: talk to you because we do that a lot.
Speaker 4: And this is awesome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, And every time I see it, I
Speaker 1: feel like y'all are both cheeked on me.
Speaker 3: But that's okay.
Speaker 4: I had the whole church. We got lots of time.
Speaker 4: It's about to be. It's going to be fantastic.
Speaker 1: No, we have to make that happen. I'm absolutely there,
Speaker 1: no question about it. Got to make that happen. I'm
Speaker 1: going to end Zone seven the way that I always
Speaker 1: do with a quote. The jury needed someone to tell
Speaker 1: them exactly how Kaylee died.
Speaker 3: Piecing it together.
Speaker 1: From circumstantial evidence was not good enough for them. They
Speaker 1: wanted the answers on a silver platter. We didn't have
Speaker 1: the evidence to serve it that way. It's not just
Speaker 1: the verdict that tells me this, but all also the
Speaker 1: manner in which they reached it, the fact they didn't
Speaker 1: request any materials to review, the fact they didn't have
Speaker 1: any questions for the judge if the statements that the
Speaker 1: foremen and the jury made.
Speaker 3: To the media are true.
Speaker 1: Ten of the twelve jurors felt that ninety minutes of
Speaker 1: deliberation was sufficient to fully weigh and consider and reject
Speaker 1: four weeks worth of testimony that we on the prosecution
Speaker 1: used to establish that this was first degree murdered. The
Speaker 1: rest of the thirteenth hours of deliberation had been spent
Speaker 1: trying to convince the two holdout jurors of the decision.
Speaker 1: Jeff Ashton, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this is on seven