Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
Speaker 1: will be your host Emily Simpson with my legal sidekick Shane,
Speaker 1: Just Shane. I was super excited about this episode today
Speaker 1: because we actually, I mean, we always have a lot
Speaker 1: of things to talk about, but today I want to
Speaker 1: pack in as much as we possibly can. So we
Speaker 1: have a few updates, just some little things to add
Speaker 1: on the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni case. Also there's a
Speaker 1: little bit more on Gabby Patito, which we've done an
Speaker 1: episode on, and then we will get into a little
Speaker 1: bit more about Karen Reid, some of the things that
Speaker 1: we didn't get into in our first trial, and then
Speaker 1: also get into her retrial. So first of all, let's
Speaker 1: start off with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. If you
Speaker 1: don't know a lot about this case, we did some
Speaker 1: earlier episodes on this and I think they were pretty good.
Speaker 1: I read all of the legal documents that were filed,
Speaker 1: and we did a pretty intense deep dive into it.
Speaker 1: And so if you don't know a lot about it,
Speaker 1: I would suggest going back and listening to those episodes.
Speaker 1: But do you recall when we were going through Justin
Speaker 1: Baldoni and the Blake Lively case. One of the first
Speaker 1: things I said was when she filed that original complaint,
Speaker 1: her civil rights complaint with the Civil Rights Department, she
Speaker 1: had attached all of these screenshots of text messages that
Speaker 1: she was not a part of. They were text messages
Speaker 1: between Justin Baldoni, his PR person Jen Abel, and then
Speaker 1: his crisis PR person Melissa Nathan And I do you
Speaker 1: remember me saying, I was like, I don't know how
Speaker 1: they got those text messages, but it looks shady to me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the mystery on how they got all those private
Speaker 1: text messages has been solved. It was actually, well.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, because it's important to know because they
Speaker 2: could have gotten it by asking someone could have this
Speaker 2: able lady could have just given it, right, But you're saying,
Speaker 2: how did they legally obtain it to be able to
Speaker 2: use it in court or for a dB published with
Speaker 2: The New York Time or something like that. So you
Speaker 2: have to explain that it's not just a matter of
Speaker 2: someone gave it to me because they were private messages, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: so it had to be lawfully obtained.
Speaker 1: Right, And the way that they circumvented that in a
Speaker 1: lawful and I say lawful and quotes is. First of all,
Speaker 1: in order to issue a subpoena and to have subpoena power,
Speaker 1: you have to have an active case with a case number.
Speaker 1: So what they did was she filed a lawsuit and
Speaker 1: this actually comes from this was an article with the
Speaker 1: Daily Mail. It was actually a Daily Mail reporter. I
Speaker 1: believe that was the one that actually kind of solved
Speaker 1: this mystery as to where the subpoena came from, because
Speaker 1: I do recall and I even talked about this in
Speaker 1: the original complaint that she filed her civil rights complaint.
Speaker 1: I believe there was an asterisk down at the bottom
Speaker 1: that said something to the effect of the text messages
Speaker 1: were obtained by subpoena, but the subpoena was never attached,
Speaker 1: so I couldn't figure out what subpoena house.
Speaker 2: It was kind of like a dead end. It was like,
Speaker 2: the subpoena for what case? For what reason? Right? And
Speaker 2: why would it be referenced? Why wouldn't it be required
Speaker 2: to be referenced.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I just remember thinking that looks
Speaker 1: shady to me. So apparently what she did in order
Speaker 1: to obtain these private text messages, and let's just go
Speaker 1: back a little bit.
Speaker 2: She obtained them. We assumed she obtained them on our own, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and then she had to go backwards right and try
Speaker 2: to make it make a lawful manner in which she
Speaker 2: had rights to them.
Speaker 1: Because if you remember, or you recall, or you listen
Speaker 1: to one of our earlier podcasts on this case, or
Speaker 1: maybe you read it, this all comes down to a
Speaker 1: lot of PR people that are involved in this. And
Speaker 1: jen Abel was Wayfairer's PR person, and she worked for
Speaker 1: Justin Baldoni and did his publicist type of things. She
Speaker 1: also worked for Stephanie Jones for Jones works. Those two
Speaker 1: parted ways, and when they parted ways, Stephanie Jones confiscated
Speaker 1: jen Abel's cell phone and she did it in a
Speaker 1: way according to what Justin Baldoni filed. She did it
Speaker 1: in a way where it was like, come meet us
Speaker 1: at the office, and then she met and then there
Speaker 1: was a security guard and they wanted her to sign
Speaker 1: a bunch of documents and apparently her cell phone was
Speaker 1: confiscated under duress my assumption, which I'm probably right, because
Speaker 1: it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Stephanie
Speaker 1: Jones confiscates the cell phone, reads all the text messages.
Speaker 1: She and jen Abel are parting ways because jen Abel
Speaker 1: is going to go start her own publicity firm. There's
Speaker 1: some bad blood between the two of them. And then
Speaker 1: Stephanie Jones hands over all these private text messages to
Speaker 1: Blake Lively, Blake Lively's team. So I would guess, and
Speaker 1: I'm probably right, because it just makes sense that they
Speaker 1: had the text messages prior to their ever being any
Speaker 1: subpoena or any lawsuit filed. They just got them, read them,
Speaker 1: and she got pissed about it, right, And she also
Speaker 1: at this time.
Speaker 2: So it's like she was snooping around other people's phones, right,
Speaker 2: being talked about her or whatever, and then she doesn't
Speaker 2: like them, and now she wants to do something about it.
Speaker 1: Right, So I would assume, and this is a legend
Speaker 1: because I don't know this as fact, but I would
Speaker 1: assume she takes all these text messages that have to
Speaker 1: do with Blake and then it ends with us and
Speaker 1: all all of that scenario, and she sends them all
Speaker 1: to Blake's team, who is Leslie Sloane, and Blake sees
Speaker 1: them and her team reads them. And also you have
Speaker 1: to remember during this time period, Blake Lively's reputation was
Speaker 1: just going down. That was right down, because this was
Speaker 1: when the movie was premiering and she was she was
Speaker 1: out promoting the movie, but she was doing it in
Speaker 1: a very flippant way. Remember in the Publisher.
Speaker 2: She she has this campaign for this or pushing this movie,
Speaker 2: doing a bad job for a number of reasons, her
Speaker 2: probably likeabilities going down or approval rating. Right, he's going down.
Speaker 2: And then now she's trying to figure out what to do,
Speaker 2: and so she's snooping around and she looks into text
Speaker 2: messages about her then involved Baldoni, and then now she's
Speaker 2: trying to smear him to save her face.
Speaker 1: Well that's the way it looks to me. And all
Speaker 1: this is alleged because I don't know this as facts,
Speaker 1: but based upon from an outside view, it looks as
Speaker 1: if she got ahold of these text messages and it
Speaker 1: was a way to spin the story so that it
Speaker 1: took the focus off of her having a bad reputation,
Speaker 1: because if you remember, the movie was about domestic violence,
Speaker 1: but she was never addressing the domestic of violence about
Speaker 1: the movie. She was out promoting her hair care line
Speaker 1: and her booze line, and she was saying, where are
Speaker 1: your florals? And she was making it very you know,
Speaker 1: she wasn't taking it seriously. Her reputation started to plummet.
Speaker 1: People were talking negatively about.
Speaker 2: Her seriously though, because wasn't this she wanted to tried
Speaker 2: to do a hostile takeover the movie, and now she's
Speaker 2: not taking it seriously.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know why the marketing plan
Speaker 1: was the way it was. I don't know if that
Speaker 1: was at her direction, I don't know if it was
Speaker 1: at the movies Sony who was the you know, movie studio,
Speaker 1: I don't know. But anyway, her reputation, we know, her
Speaker 1: reputation was plumiting, and there were a lot of articles
Speaker 1: out there that we're talking about how you know, and
Speaker 1: then there were a lot of videos that were resurfacing
Speaker 1: that were showing her being really rude to reporters and
Speaker 1: talking about how she takes over. I mean, she just
Speaker 1: didn't look good. So I think she got ahold of
Speaker 1: these text messages. She found a way to spend the
Speaker 1: narrative to make it look like the reason she looked
Speaker 1: bad was because justin Baldoni and his PR team were
Speaker 1: out there planting these fake stories and you know, creating this,
Speaker 1: you know, conspiracy against her. But they have the text messages.
Speaker 1: Now what do they do? They want to use them,
Speaker 1: They want to file against him. She wants to file
Speaker 1: a civil complaint, and she colludes with The New York Times,
Speaker 1: and she has these text messages. But in order to
Speaker 1: lawfully have these text messages, she has to go back retroactively.
Speaker 2: And she needs them lawfully. Well, New York Times wanted
Speaker 2: them lawfully. They want invase in a privacy or something. Right,
Speaker 2: So for probably for The New York Times to publish it,
Speaker 2: they're saying, well, how did you obtain these right? And
Speaker 2: then she say, in this legal manner.
Speaker 1: The asterisk it says right. So so this Daily Mail
Speaker 1: reporter did some digging and found out that Blake Lively
Speaker 1: has an LLC or something called van Zan. So, I
Speaker 1: don't know, it's just just some ELLC. It's it was.
Speaker 1: I think she used it to buy some furniture in
Speaker 1: Europe or something. I mean, she'd never really done anything
Speaker 1: with it. Apparently, the lawsuit was filed under the name
Speaker 1: of a company called van Zan and was intentionally vague
Speaker 1: and didn't name any defendants, so they filed. So van
Speaker 1: Zan is the plaintiff they file against ten Jane does,
Speaker 1: which means which means named unknown defendants. I looked at
Speaker 1: the cause of actions. It was some things like breach
Speaker 1: of contract and things like that, but it was all
Speaker 1: very vague. So this maneuver enabled Lively's legal team to
Speaker 1: issue subpoena for the private communications.
Speaker 2: And then this poena was issued to who.
Speaker 1: This I believe the subpoena. Well, see they Daily Mail
Speaker 1: says they have the subpoena, but they won't show it.
Speaker 2: Well, what would make sense, Like who do you think
Speaker 2: it was?
Speaker 1: Well, I believe it was issued to Stephanie Jones because
Speaker 1: she confiscated the work phone from gen Able came from,
Speaker 1: because that's where it came from. All these messages came from.
Speaker 2: Jenable basically say like, what's an example paraphrasing, Well, we.
Speaker 1: Talked about this before, and it's also in the New
Speaker 1: York Times.
Speaker 2: I didn't pay attention last nime.
Speaker 1: Clearly you didn't. It has to do with them having
Speaker 1: communications about what they're going to do as far as
Speaker 1: pr and making Blake Lively look a certain way. And
Speaker 1: getting stories out there and meeting with Daily Mail, and
Speaker 1: remember in the New York Times, they kind of remember
Speaker 1: the attorney Brian Friedman, who represents Baldoni, talks about how
Speaker 1: they cherry picked certain text messages to make it look
Speaker 1: like it was a smear campaign, but they didn't really
Speaker 1: show the full context of the messages. So anyway, they
Speaker 1: filed this sham law suit under a company called van Zaan.
Speaker 1: They named these unknown defendants. They say it's for breach
Speaker 1: of contract, so they get a case number. They use
Speaker 1: the case number to issue a subpoena. I assume the
Speaker 1: subpoena went to Stephanie Jones because she then why.
Speaker 2: Would Sephanie like, if you got a subpoena that just
Speaker 2: said van Zam versus John James, give me all your
Speaker 2: text messages.
Speaker 1: Because Stephanie Jones already gave them the text messages.
Speaker 2: Oh that's right, Okay, now she's a question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so now she just and that's alleged again. I
Speaker 1: don't know that.
Speaker 2: I don't know. We're trying to put pieces together.
Speaker 1: What makes what makes logical sense is that Stephanie Jones
Speaker 1: confiscated the phone, read the text messages, gave them to
Speaker 1: Blake Lively's team.
Speaker 2: Okay, my question is if they issued a subpoena or
Speaker 2: they they could issue a subpoena, they drafted one, and
Speaker 2: then they supposed assuming your version of the facts or
Speaker 2: what took place, right, because I know we're just guessing.
Speaker 2: But then she issues it to Stephanie Yeah, Stephanie Yeah.
Speaker 2: But then we could ask Stephanie did you get the subpoena?
Speaker 2: Was it ever served on you? And then she says
Speaker 2: no or yes? And if it's no, then it's like, well,
Speaker 2: then how did they get the text message? And if
Speaker 2: the answer is yes, I did get a subpoena, then
Speaker 2: it's like, oh, did you follow through and give the
Speaker 2: text messages? And she says no again, then it's like, well,
Speaker 2: then how did they get to text messages? We needed
Speaker 2: these answers?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say, all I know is I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that they
Speaker 1: already had the text messages. They wanted to use them
Speaker 1: and their initial filing, and they wanted to be able
Speaker 1: to give them to The New York Times right because
Speaker 1: they wanted to collude together to demolish his character, and
Speaker 1: they knew they could do that with the text messages.
Speaker 1: So they come up with a sham scam lawsuit. They
Speaker 1: get a case number, they issue it to Stephanie Jones
Speaker 1: and she's like, Okay, here's the subpoena. I have it,
Speaker 1: So I gave So I gave away these private text
Speaker 1: messages legally.
Speaker 2: Oh that's right, because I keep forgetting off. Stephanie's on
Speaker 2: her side.
Speaker 1: Yes. Otherwise, if they send them to jen Abel who represents,
Speaker 1: that's what I'll donate.
Speaker 2: That's what that's the party I had mixed up, right.
Speaker 1: This is why it's a scam lawsuit, because if they
Speaker 1: had issued the subpoena to jen Able or to Justin
Speaker 1: Baldoni to get his private text messages, his attorney would
Speaker 1: have jumped in immediately and squashed it and said, these
Speaker 1: are private communications. It's too broad, you're asking for too much.
Speaker 1: He would have had objection.
Speaker 2: That the receiving end of the subpoena was also in collusion.
Speaker 1: With Yes, that's what the Lively reynolds exactly right. So
Speaker 1: there we are. I hope you could follow that. I
Speaker 1: know it was a little complicated, but basically what it
Speaker 1: was was just a scam way to get a subpoena
Speaker 1: issued retroactively.
Speaker 2: Should have been called Van Scam.
Speaker 1: Van Scam should have been the LLC. Also, let me
Speaker 1: just give a little timing because this is suspect too.
Speaker 1: The lawsuit, the Van Zaan lawsuit was filed in September.
Speaker 1: If you remember, there were also a lot of online
Speaker 1: sluice during this time when this whole lawsuit came out
Speaker 1: that said that The New York Times that they had
Speaker 1: some data embedded that said it looked like they started
Speaker 1: working on the story in October, which would make sense
Speaker 1: with the timeline. And then she filed in December. When
Speaker 1: she filed her original suit against Baldoni, the subpoena. Four
Speaker 1: days after the suit was filed, a subpoena was sent
Speaker 1: to Stephanie Jones. So four days after the van zan
Speaker 1: suit was filed, they sent a subpoena to Stephanie Jones.
Speaker 1: Stephanie Jones right. Also, the suit, the scam suit was
Speaker 1: dismissed the day after or it was withdrawn, not dismissed.
Speaker 1: Dismissed would be by the court. It was withdrawn by
Speaker 1: her attorneys like.
Speaker 2: Okay, we're done with the suit. Well, we wanted.
Speaker 1: Right Her attorneys withdraw it after she files the complaint
Speaker 1: against Baldoni. So she files the complaint, then they withdraw
Speaker 1: this scam.
Speaker 2: Suit, and then New York Times posted what they posed
Speaker 2: it right.
Speaker 1: So there we are with that. I hope you could
Speaker 1: all follow that.
Speaker 2: Dan a lot of time on their hands, I guess,
Speaker 2: so team to do all this about.
Speaker 1: Donty's attorney, who we all know is Brian Friedman, labeled
Speaker 1: the tactic an abusive process and says that they are
Speaker 1: preparing to respond accordingly. Here's my question though. When I
Speaker 1: first read the complaint and saw the asterisk that said
Speaker 1: there was a subpoena, I wondered why Brian Friedman didn't
Speaker 1: initially go after the subpoena. And I thought about it
Speaker 1: for a while, and my thought process led me to
Speaker 1: what he did was so much better. Instead of attacking
Speaker 1: the validity of the subpoena and how they got the
Speaker 1: text messages, which would possibly make Justin look guilty that
Speaker 1: he's like, hey, hey, don't show those, right, he just
Speaker 1: went and filed a four hundred million dollars lawsuit against
Speaker 1: The New York Times and included all of the texts.
Speaker 2: Instead of being defensive the content or the access to
Speaker 2: the text messages. In fact, that would have been more
Speaker 2: might have been confusing to the public, right because they
Speaker 2: would have been like, Oh, he's denying or he's saying
Speaker 2: that she shouldn't have the text messages. So he did
Speaker 2: talk crap about her. I want her to see it,
Speaker 2: and that's confusing or that takes away from the trying
Speaker 2: to smash her.
Speaker 1: I've always said Brian Friedman is an amazing attorney, and
Speaker 1: if I ever get in trouble legally, he will be
Speaker 1: the first person I call. But I thought that that
Speaker 1: was I don't I'm not going to call Shane, I'm
Speaker 1: going to call Brian Friedman or Alan Jackson Brian Friedman first.
Speaker 1: But I thought it was just a really good legal
Speaker 1: tactic on his end that he didn't attack the subpoena
Speaker 1: right from the beginning, and he didn't go after them
Speaker 1: because he knew. If I know, if I read it,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, how'd they get the subpoena? This is
Speaker 1: this is a joke. Clearly, Brian Friedman knew that from
Speaker 1: the beginning too. The man's a genius.
Speaker 2: If there's a legal reference to another lawsuit in that
Speaker 2: petition or whatever, complaint, he's going to look in Well.
Speaker 1: There's no reference to another lawsuit. There's just a referen
Speaker 1: to a subpoena.
Speaker 2: Yeawsuit.
Speaker 1: Right, So I'm just saying, well, I'm just saying he
Speaker 1: clearly knew, but he didn't attack the validity of it,
Speaker 1: and he didn't go after her in that manner. He
Speaker 1: just sued The New York Times and her for four
Speaker 1: hundred million and included all of the text messages, which
Speaker 1: really worked in his favor because once the public got
Speaker 1: a hold of those legal documents and read everything that
Speaker 1: was included, that's when everything shifted. Anyway, let's move on.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, one more thing on Blake Lively. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you've noticed, but she is in the press
Speaker 1: a lot lately.
Speaker 2: Well, she was like the top one hundred influences, yes, something.
Speaker 1: Which was ridiculous because she also then gave some speech
Speaker 1: in honor of her mother, and I think she had
Speaker 1: something to do with her mom being like a domestic
Speaker 1: violence abuse survivor or something, and I was like, lady,
Speaker 1: a little too late. You had no issue, like you
Speaker 1: didn't want to talk about any of these stories when
Speaker 1: you were promoting, when you were promoting a movie about
Speaker 1: domestic violence. You just wanted to talk about florals and
Speaker 1: your your booze brand and your hair care products. But
Speaker 1: now that your reputation has been like completely plummeted, now.
Speaker 2: All of a sudden, it's like, oh, yeah, did I
Speaker 2: mention my mom was abused?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, give me a break. Also, I think her
Speaker 1: pr turn team is just working overtime right now, because
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, there are all these articles. I
Speaker 1: saw an article about her own people, an article on
Speaker 1: Okay magazine. Now she's in the Time one hundred list.
Speaker 1: I mean they are out there like doing everything.
Speaker 2: Possible, work hard to defend her character, right until she
Speaker 2: stops paying them. Then they don't care.
Speaker 1: Then they don't care. All right, let's move on to
Speaker 1: a little bit about Gabby Patito. I thought this was interesting.
Speaker 1: We also did a.
Speaker 2: What's the next step in the Lively Baldoni case? We
Speaker 2: have to look forward?
Speaker 1: Well, they have well, they're going to start issuing, They're
Speaker 1: going to do discovery and you you bet your butt
Speaker 1: you think Brian Freeman is gonna he's definitely gonna subpoena.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you want to see a subpoena subpoena.
Speaker 1: I'm going to send it to Taylor Swift. You know
Speaker 1: he's going to you know, Taylor Swift. So anyway, I
Speaker 1: also read this morning that Travis Kelcey apparently unfollowed Ryan
Speaker 1: Reynolds on Instagram. So definitely there is some bad blood.
Speaker 1: Now we got bad blood. That's a Taylor Swift song.
Speaker 1: You didn't know that anyway, Okay, on the game, Okay,
Speaker 1: onto Gabby Patito. We also did an episode on Gabby Patito.
Speaker 1: If you want to go back and listen to that.
Speaker 2: I thought that was my case one.
Speaker 1: Gabby Patito is the young girl that went on the
Speaker 1: road trip with the boyfriend and then remember they got
Speaker 1: they got pulled over in Utah by the Moab City
Speaker 1: police and then she ended up being found dead. Remember
Speaker 1: he returned to Florida. His parents were uncooperative. They wouldn't
Speaker 1: work with the police or answer any questions. Her body
Speaker 1: was found in a national park or something, and then
Speaker 1: he ended up being found dead in Florida. So in
Speaker 1: an in a recent interview on The Squeeze podcast, which
Speaker 1: is hosted by Taylor Lautner, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: know who Taylor Lautner is, but I do because I
Speaker 1: was a huge Twilight fan. He is the werewolf, he
Speaker 1: is Jacob. So he has a podcast with his wife.
Speaker 1: So Nicole Schmidt is the mother.
Speaker 2: Taylor swift Woods.
Speaker 1: I don't remember, I think so it was like Taylor
Speaker 1: And that's interesting. Well, his wife's name was Taylor.
Speaker 2: Does how many songs written about him? About him?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe probably anyway, So Gabby Petito, her
Speaker 1: mom's name is Nicole Schmidt, and she went on the podcast.
Speaker 1: She revealed some unsettling details about the events following her
Speaker 1: daughter's disappearance in twenty twenty one. This is a was
Speaker 1: all new information to me because I did watch the
Speaker 1: documentary and we did an episode on it. But this
Speaker 1: was not something that was ever revealed previously. This was
Speaker 1: in a People article. The mom of Gabby Petito stated
Speaker 1: that Brian Laundry's room was completely gutted and renovated shortly
Speaker 1: after he vanished. She claims that very same week Gabby
Speaker 1: went missing, the cops were going to their house to
Speaker 1: try to get a scent from their dogs to look
Speaker 1: for Brian. All his things were gone. His room was
Speaker 1: completely empty. It was just gone. That wasn't something that
Speaker 1: I knew before, and I was wondering, what do you
Speaker 1: think about that? That's when he left, apparently to go
Speaker 1: hiking somewhere in Florida. And remember the cops were looking
Speaker 1: in this reservoir area or something forever. They were looking
Speaker 1: for a long time, weeks they couldn't find him. Then
Speaker 1: his parents pull up in their car and they literally
Speaker 1: just walked to where he and they find him within
Speaker 1: like five minutes or something, which always seemed very suspicious
Speaker 1: to me, But now a court after the mom did
Speaker 1: this interview, she learned that apparently Brian's room was completely
Speaker 1: gutted and renovated before they found him. So my question is,
Speaker 1: do you think the parents knew that he was dead?
Speaker 1: Do you think they knew that he was going to
Speaker 1: kill himself? Do you think they or do you think
Speaker 1: they thought he was going to go on the run
Speaker 1: and then they were just going to pretend like he
Speaker 1: disappeared and they renovated his room or do you think
Speaker 1: they were trying to get rid of DNA evidence so
Speaker 1: they just got rid of everything in his room.
Speaker 2: I think I know as a father, if I always
Speaker 2: thought if one of my kids was missing and suspect
Speaker 2: in a murder case. I would cut the room, oh
Speaker 2: you would, yeah, and turn it into a game room.
Speaker 1: A game room. Okay, so this makes sense, I get it. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: what kind of games would you have?
Speaker 2: No, they're in on it. They're murderers. They probably killed him.
Speaker 2: Well I don't know. I don't think it. Might have
Speaker 2: might have killed him. And then said here he is,
Speaker 2: we found him. Look at the suicide note with her
Speaker 2: suicide note.
Speaker 1: Yeah there was, yeah, there was, and apparently he But
Speaker 1: then there was also something he wrote in the journal
Speaker 1: about somehow or he.
Speaker 2: Was going to kill himself and they knew and they'd
Speaker 2: let him do it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, though. His mom was so in love
Speaker 1: with him. Did you remember that letter that she wrote
Speaker 1: to him about wherever the body is buried all helped
Speaker 1: dig the hole. And I mean she wrote him like
Speaker 1: this long love letter about how much she loved him
Speaker 1: and everything she would do for him, and she would
Speaker 1: bring a knife into jail and a cake.
Speaker 2: So sounds like a complex.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So anyway, there was all that. Additionally, Gabby anything, no,
Speaker 1: and you know what I have.
Speaker 2: Had the obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: Nothing I mean at this point, no.
Speaker 2: Bad parents, just bad parents.
Speaker 1: Just not being morally sound people. But apparently that's not
Speaker 1: a legal action. But you know, I've had so many
Speaker 1: people DM me after our Gabby Patito case, and that
Speaker 1: was the main question was why were his parents not
Speaker 1: charged with anything? And I guess, I mean, when we
Speaker 1: look at it, it looks like obstruction of justice or
Speaker 1: aiding in a bedding or something like that. But I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe there just weren't enough solid facts there
Speaker 1: to be able to charge them with anything. At the
Speaker 1: end of the day, you can charge them with just
Speaker 1: being shitty people, But as far as from a legal standpoint,
Speaker 1: I guess they just didn't have enough to be able
Speaker 1: to charge them with anything.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Additionally, Gabby Patito's mom mentioned that the van the couple
Speaker 1: used for their cross country trip completely cleaned out, with
Speaker 1: Gabby's belongings packed away and the mattress never recovered. She
Speaker 1: expressed some confusion and concern over what she described as
Speaker 1: strange behavior during that time. So again, that's what we
Speaker 1: were just talking about. Were the parents involved in that?
Speaker 1: Were they the ones that cleaned out the van? Did
Speaker 1: they get rid of the mattress?
Speaker 2: I mean, if they did, it's really suspicious. It's like
Speaker 2: oh what son? Your girlfriend is missing? Okay, let's scrub
Speaker 2: everything and get rid of everything, right, I mean that
Speaker 2: doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: Well it does if you're trying to hide his involvement. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I don't know. I think the suspicious thing to me.
Speaker 2: Wait, conspiracy, But I guess there's no evidence for anything.
Speaker 1: I guess not unless they're working on it and they're
Speaker 1: going to get charged with something later down the line.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. So far, there's no charges as
Speaker 1: far as aiding in a bedding or obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: All right, let us just move on from Gabby Patito.
Speaker 1: And first of all, I have to do a disclaimer.
Speaker 1: Whenever I talk about Scott Peterson, can you not attack me?
Speaker 1: I know everyone hates Scott Peterson. Everyone is one hundred
Speaker 1: percent certain that the man is guilty. Anytime I've brought
Speaker 1: up talking about him or doing a podcast because the
Speaker 1: La Innocence Project has taken on his case, everyone goes
Speaker 1: nuts in my comments and in my DMS, telling me
Speaker 1: he's one hundred percent guilty. So let's just get through
Speaker 1: this with an open mind.
Speaker 2: We're going to imagine. What we're going to discuss is
Speaker 2: them taking on his case. And what they're trying to demonstrate.
Speaker 2: We're not trying to take a side.
Speaker 1: Right and also we're not going to well everyone thinks
Speaker 1: he did. I don't know. I haven't read the filing yet,
Speaker 1: but I'm just going to tell you. We're just going
Speaker 1: to do a little synopsis right now and then I've
Speaker 1: the filing is coming to me. It's a four hundred
Speaker 1: page filing that the Ennocence Project filed basically saying that
Speaker 1: he's innocent and they have all this evidence and things.
Speaker 1: So I haven't read it yet. I'm going to read
Speaker 1: it and then we're going to do a deeper dive
Speaker 1: podcast on it. But for right now, after more than
Speaker 1: a year of independent investigation, the Los Angeles Innocence Project
Speaker 1: has submitted an extensive petition to the California Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals arguing that Scott Peterson is innocent of the two
Speaker 1: thousand and two murders of his wife, Lacey and their
Speaker 1: unborn son. It is nearly a four hundred page filing,
Speaker 1: which again I planned to read. It was submitted on Friday,
Speaker 1: April eighteenth, and claims that Peterson's original trial was flawed,
Speaker 1: asserting that key evidence was never presented to the jury
Speaker 1: and that the investigation was mishandled by authorities. The La
Speaker 1: Innocence Project director, her name is Paula Mitchell, believes police
Speaker 1: press releases included information indicating to the public that police
Speaker 1: did not believe mister Peterson's alibi almost from day one,
Speaker 1: and this created a domino effect that ultimately created a
Speaker 1: tidal wave of media attention focused on mister Peterson as
Speaker 1: the prime suspect in the case. I will tell you
Speaker 1: there are two documentaries out there that I've watched recently,
Speaker 1: and I will say, if you're interested in the Scott
Speaker 1: Peterson case and you want to have an open mind,
Speaker 1: and you're just not one hundred percent convinced that the
Speaker 1: man is guilt, Listen, He's guilty if you're convinced. Even
Speaker 1: if you are convinced, but let's be clear, he is
Speaker 1: one hundred percent guilty of being a shitty human. There
Speaker 1: is no doubt about that. He had an affair. His
Speaker 1: wife was pregnant. He was messing around with what's her name, Amber, He.
Speaker 2: Went fishing on Christmas Eve.
Speaker 1: He went fishing on Christmas Eve. He in his interviews,
Speaker 1: he's not likable. He's not likable at all, he doesn't
Speaker 1: show any emotion. He never looked like he was likable
Speaker 1: to Amber or whatever. Well, I mean he was likable
Speaker 1: in other ways, but I'm saying in interviews and things
Speaker 1: like that, he's not the least bit.
Speaker 2: There's well, no one's going to be likable when their
Speaker 2: their wife is dead, their pregnant wife is dead. And
Speaker 2: he looks suspicious and he's just sitting there going, I
Speaker 2: didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it.
Speaker 2: I mean he would, he didn't. I don't remember him
Speaker 2: crying right bad. I think he sold her car to
Speaker 2: or something like that. It was just like, what are
Speaker 2: you doing?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean, I mean beyond the likability. It's even
Speaker 1: when you watch video clips of when they were out
Speaker 1: searching and he's there, he just kind of like, oh, well.
Speaker 2: Wasn't there a what do you call those things where
Speaker 2: everyone holds candles like a vigil? Yeah, and he was
Speaker 2: like not there or something. And then he was calling
Speaker 2: or he maybe he was, but he was also calling
Speaker 2: his girlfriend and saying he was in Paris on celebrating.
Speaker 2: What is this?
Speaker 1: I'm not okay. The guy is a doucher. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt about that, but let's that's not.
Speaker 2: Maybe there's you know, there's an assumption of risk. If
Speaker 2: you go to a trampoline park, you assume the risk
Speaker 2: of getting injured. May it is an assumption of risk
Speaker 2: when you cheat on your pregnant wife and you go
Speaker 2: fishing on Christmas Eve. You're just going to get cinder
Speaker 2: blocks that you're building in your backyard or whatever it
Speaker 2: was he was doing.
Speaker 3: It was actually in a boat house, so you know,
Speaker 3: and he's like, well, you know what, you didn't do it,
Speaker 3: but you assume the resk that you would look like
Speaker 3: a murderer in the event that she found She was
Speaker 3: found dead.
Speaker 1: So the La Nison's Project argues that there's new scientific
Speaker 1: analysis suggests that the unborn child was actually died later
Speaker 1: than prosecutors claimed a trial, and an expert on water
Speaker 1: currents contends that Lacy Peterson's body could not have been
Speaker 1: dumped in the location the prosecutors originally alleged. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you there is a documentary on Peacock and it's
Speaker 1: called Face to Face with Scott Peterson. If you watch it,
Speaker 1: I believe that you'll be a little more open minded
Speaker 1: about it. So I would suggest doing that there's also
Speaker 1: a good A and E one called.
Speaker 2: The Minded towards the Evidence. Yeah, like, oh, that's kind
Speaker 2: of unclear, right.
Speaker 1: The petition and the Scott Peterson case also introduces new
Speaker 1: witnesses and evidence tied to two separate incidents that occurred
Speaker 1: near the time of Lacey's dissip appearance, including a home
Speaker 1: burglary and a suspiciously burned van in a nearby area. Okay,
Speaker 1: those are I did watch this the documentary, and I'll
Speaker 1: tell you it was very suspicious to me. First of all,
Speaker 1: there were witnesses that saw Lacy Peterson out with her
Speaker 1: dog walking, and the times that they saw her were
Speaker 1: the times that supposedly she had already been kidnapped, So
Speaker 1: there is a very there's a clear inconsistency there. Also,
Speaker 1: there's this van that's found nearby with a mattress in
Speaker 1: it that has blood on it and it was never tested,
Speaker 1: Like why was there not DNA tested? Also, there's a
Speaker 1: by hired hired.
Speaker 2: Who the people in the van?
Speaker 1: You're saying Scott Peterson hired people in a van to
Speaker 1: burn the van and have a you mean to kidnapp her?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: You think now? You think he hired somebody to kid
Speaker 1: you are stuck on it.
Speaker 2: That's a possibility. Maybe you know people hire people to
Speaker 2: kill others. It's a service.
Speaker 1: Have you looked into it?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Are you sure?
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, you can look at my Google search.
Speaker 1: I'm going to I'm going to do a forensic accounting
Speaker 1: on your phone and see what your Google searches are.
Speaker 2: It'll be how to block revolve dot com from my wife.
Speaker 1: Okay, well that would make sense.
Speaker 2: Yes, I hope it's not.
Speaker 1: How to hire people to murder in a van?
Speaker 2: How long can the bodies arrive in the snow? Exactly?
Speaker 1: So. There was a mattress found in that van that
Speaker 1: had blood stains, but a judge previously denied permission to
Speaker 1: test it for Lacy's DNA. Prosecutors said mail DNA was
Speaker 1: already detected and no further testing was needed. However, the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project continues to push for more advanced DNA testing
Speaker 1: and hopes of finding a potential link to the case.
Speaker 1: There is also in this four hundred page up filing,
Speaker 1: there's also one hundred and twenty six page declaration from
Speaker 1: Scott Peterson, who did not testify during his trial, in
Speaker 1: which he maintains his innocence and says he was wrongfully
Speaker 1: convicted of murder. Again. I can't wait to read it.
Speaker 1: That's how big of a wal nerd I am that. Like,
Speaker 1: I'm excited about reading this four hundred page filing and
Speaker 1: the Scott Peterson case and discussing it with you guys
Speaker 1: on a later podcast.
Speaker 2: You know what, I'm not excited about having to print
Speaker 2: four hundred for you.
Speaker 1: Well, you know you're gonna have to because I like it.
Speaker 1: I'm old school. I like it printed out. I have
Speaker 1: to like read it and take notes and use a
Speaker 1: highlighter and the whole thing. So also, just a reminder,
Speaker 1: do you remember that Mark Garrigos was Scott Peterson's attorney.
Speaker 1: I just thought i'd throw that out. Yeah, And also
Speaker 1: Gargos represents the Menindo's brothers.
Speaker 2: A small world. It is a community, it is.
Speaker 1: It is a very small world. In that community. A
Speaker 1: lot of these attorneys overlap. So anyway, I'm just a
Speaker 1: reminder about that. All right, let's go into Karen Reid.
Speaker 1: And the last episode we did was on Karen Reid.
Speaker 1: We did a really in depth episode.
Speaker 2: Karen Reid is on trial for the homicide of her boyfriend,
Speaker 2: John O'Keeffe, who was a Boston police officer. Yeah, correct,
Speaker 2: found dead, is found dead in the snow with forty
Speaker 2: two pieces of tail light around him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but the forty two pieces of tailight, it might
Speaker 1: have been forty seven. Those didn't show up until a
Speaker 1: subsequent subsequent search, until they were planted, not the initial search.
Speaker 1: If it was showed up later. Anyway, if you want to,
Speaker 1: if you want to listen to our Karen Read episode,
Speaker 1: it's really good. We go into in depth on all
Speaker 1: the evidence. But I just wanted to add a little
Speaker 1: more because that was a long episode. There's so much
Speaker 1: to talk about in this case. There's just a couple
Speaker 1: other things before we go into the retrial that I
Speaker 1: just wanted to discuss. There was here I just want
Speaker 1: to tell you about this. This was in the first trial.
Speaker 1: So several witnesses who were at Albert's house on January
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, told investigators that O'Keeffe never
Speaker 1: made it inside the house, which we know that is
Speaker 1: the biggest issue in this case. Did the man enter
Speaker 1: the house or not?
Speaker 2: That would solve well, no, it would answer a lot
Speaker 2: of it would answer a lot.
Speaker 1: Of questions anything, it would answer a lot of questions. So, however,
Speaker 1: Reed's lawyers say okeefe's phone data suggests otherwise, and in
Speaker 1: April twenty twenty three court filing, so this was in
Speaker 1: the first hearing, the defense asserted that John O'Keeffe's Apple
Speaker 1: health data indicated he took eighty steps and climbed the
Speaker 1: equivalent of three flights of stairs at the Fairview Road property.
Speaker 1: So the Fairview Roade property is Albert is Brian Albert's
Speaker 1: house where he was found in the yard.
Speaker 2: So according to the Apple data, it's as if he
Speaker 2: walked and went up a fly the stairs.
Speaker 1: Yes, Now at the house, Brian Albert has a basement
Speaker 1: in the house, which we know about because after John
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's body was found, the basement carpet was replaced, the
Speaker 1: house was sold, and the dog was re homed, so
Speaker 1: we know that.
Speaker 2: And all the phones were thrown.
Speaker 1: At all the phones were thrown, there's no ring footage anywhere. Yes,
Speaker 1: anyway to call this data unreliable is an understatement. This
Speaker 1: is what the prosecutors responded, asserting that those steps were
Speaker 1: recorded before O'Keefe's cell phone location data showed him arriving
Speaker 1: at the home. Prosecutors further noted that the same Apple
Speaker 1: health data indicated O'Keefe took several steps hours after he'd
Speaker 1: been pronounced dead. However, the defense attorney claims that that
Speaker 1: discrepancy could be chalked up to sloppy policing, and we
Speaker 1: know there was a lot of sloppy policing in this case,
Speaker 1: and suggested that the steps are just reflected by a
Speaker 1: police officer walking around with O'Keefe's phone after the fact,
Speaker 1: after he was found dead.
Speaker 2: So anyways, as possible, they killed him and then they
Speaker 2: took his phone when they walk around, what do we
Speaker 2: do now?
Speaker 1: Well after is right? So exactly? Oh so there's that.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to talk a little bit more. This
Speaker 1: is according to the first trial about the DNA on
Speaker 1: the tail light and the hair on the bumper. I
Speaker 1: think we talked about this a little bit in the
Speaker 1: last episode, but let's just go through it again because
Speaker 1: I find it really interesting. The prosecution alleges that O'Keefe's
Speaker 1: DNA was found on broken pieces of tail light from
Speaker 1: Reed's car, and that forensic investigation revealed microscopic pieces of
Speaker 1: tail light on O'Keeffe's clothing. Here's the thing though, in
Speaker 1: the retrial, Alan Jackson claims in his opening statement that
Speaker 1: there was no blood, skin, and no DNA found on
Speaker 1: the actual shards of tail light that supposedly cut John's arm.
Speaker 1: So that's really interesting. So the prosecution claims that there
Speaker 1: was DNA from John O'Keefe found on the tail light,
Speaker 1: So I guess it's on the actual tail light that's
Speaker 1: still on the.
Speaker 2: Car or on the ground, who knows, no, on the
Speaker 2: carcase on the car.
Speaker 1: The defense claims, and this is in his opening statement
Speaker 1: that he just did in the retrial, that there was
Speaker 1: no DNA, no skin, no blood found on any of
Speaker 1: the shards of tail light that were found later. So
Speaker 1: that's the question.
Speaker 2: This is why this case is so normal. Is there
Speaker 2: normally DNA on both the broken pieces on the ground
Speaker 2: and the remain remaining part of the tail light on
Speaker 2: the car.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good question, except that if you remember
Speaker 1: in the autopsyne you've seen photos of it. I'm sure
Speaker 1: his arm, remember his right arm. I think I'll showed
Speaker 1: your photos. There's puncture wounds and scratches on his right arm.
Speaker 1: So if the prosecution wants to allege that those scratches
Speaker 1: and puncture came from shards of tail light as she
Speaker 1: was backing into him. Then that would only suggest the
Speaker 1: only reasonable conclusion. Conclusion would be right, that there was
Speaker 1: a transfer of scanned DNA blood or something onto those shards.
Speaker 1: If there is no DNA blood or anything on them,
Speaker 1: I find that suspicious, especially with the way his arm looks.
Speaker 1: How else do you explain the scratches and the puncture ones.
Speaker 2: It was a pig, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a pig. It was allegedly, or possibly according
Speaker 1: to the defense, it could have been the dog.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it was pig DNA.
Speaker 1: But it was pig dna. There was no dog DNA found.
Speaker 1: There was pig DNA.
Speaker 2: Found in those in the area.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but maybe the dog ate some pig
Speaker 1: and then bit him.
Speaker 2: But there were scratches.
Speaker 1: There's scratches and puncture wounds.
Speaker 2: All this results too.
Speaker 1: Reasonable, doubt exactly.
Speaker 2: It'd be a lot easier if they just give us
Speaker 2: the ring footage and they didn't hide all their cell phones,
Speaker 2: and they told the truth, then we'd be done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the proper people, all right, let's get into the retrial.
Speaker 1: The retrial just started. We've been following it. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you guys have been, but let's start with
Speaker 1: Alan Jackson's opening state. First of all, the prosecution hired
Speaker 1: I don't know if you knew this, but they brought
Speaker 1: in a special prosecutor, so they did not use the
Speaker 1: same prosecutor. His name is Hank Brennan, and he was
Speaker 1: not involved in the original trial. However, I read that
Speaker 1: he represented this mobster name like Whitey Bulger or something.
Speaker 1: We've ever heard that name before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have not, so I would remember by cross
Speaker 2: paths with Whitey Bulger Bulger Bulger.
Speaker 1: I believe he was a mobster. And Hank Brennan, who's
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, is now representing the Commonwealth, but he also
Speaker 1: represents so anyway, well, my point is they went they
Speaker 1: found instead of using the same prosecutor they used last time.
Speaker 1: They were like, you're out and we need this guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah they should because they didn't win the last trial.
Speaker 1: It was a hung jury.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I'm just.
Speaker 1: Saying they went and got some guy that hasn't that's notorious,
Speaker 1: that has notoriety. He represented some.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the murder community is a very small.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we talked about this before and the last time
Speaker 1: we recorded, Karen Reid that the most reasonable and logical
Speaker 1: thing that happened that night is that they were drunk.
Speaker 1: She drops him off at the house, and that she
Speaker 1: does back.
Speaker 2: Into him, either purposely or accidental.
Speaker 1: I would say accidentally. But that's the most logical thing.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Well, I'm just saying because tails were
Speaker 2: not found till like.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about any of the evidence. I'm just saying, no,
Speaker 1: I forget the evidence.
Speaker 2: This is what happened.
Speaker 1: No, forget all the evidence. I'm saying, if you just
Speaker 1: look at it.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's a good opening statement. Yes, please disregard all
Speaker 2: the evidence and the logical conclusion.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying, if you just look at the story
Speaker 1: from a very from just an outsider, and you're like, Okay,
Speaker 1: they went to a bar, they got drunk, they're driving drunk.
Speaker 1: She drops them off outside this house, and then his
Speaker 1: body's found in the snow and he's dead and he's
Speaker 1: got abrasions all over him. The logical conclusion is that
Speaker 1: she hit him or someone hit him.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, a logical conclusion that someone hit him. That's correct,
Speaker 2: very good.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that's the logical reasonable conclusion that she
Speaker 1: hit him, as opposed to he went inside the house,
Speaker 1: he got beat up in the house, the dog attacked him,
Speaker 1: and there's a whole conspiracy.
Speaker 2: So you're saying he died right there on the lawn
Speaker 2: or where I'm.
Speaker 1: Just saying that is a reasonable conclusion. Is that she
Speaker 1: hit him, or that a snowplow hit him, or that
Speaker 1: another car hit him. However, that does not that reasonable
Speaker 1: conclusion does not stay reasonable when you start to dive
Speaker 1: into the way these busy bees were working that night. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: you're talking about the cops butt dialing each other at
Speaker 1: two twenty two in the morning, and you're talking about
Speaker 1: how Brian Albert never came out of his house when
Speaker 1: there's a dead there's a dead police officer on his
Speaker 1: lawn with paramedics cops everywhere, and he never comes outside
Speaker 1: to investigate that. Brian Higgins, the ATF agent that was
Speaker 1: there that night at two, at like two point thirty
Speaker 1: in the morning, goes back to his office at the
Speaker 1: Canton Police Department and then calls Brian Albert, and then
Speaker 1: Brian Albert calls him, and then it's just there's a
Speaker 1: lot of like shady things going on.
Speaker 2: That's great.
Speaker 1: So I'm saying there is so much reasonable doubt in
Speaker 1: this case that I honestly can't believe they tried her again.
Speaker 2: THO surprices a dead person on his lawn. But they're
Speaker 2: all shady people.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of shady stuff going on. Anyway. The
Speaker 1: prosecutor hammers down on the fact that one of the
Speaker 1: paramedics who just testified recently and this retrial, claims that
Speaker 1: he heard Reid say I hit him, I hit him,
Speaker 1: I hit him three times. Also, Brennan, the prosecutor, argued
Speaker 1: that there is a black box data from the vehicle
Speaker 1: revealing details that were not brought up in the initial trial,
Speaker 1: and he claims that Reid had shifted her lexus into neutral,
Speaker 1: then reversed, and then pressed the gas pedal to seventy
Speaker 1: five percent acceleration. So the prosecution elosion.
Speaker 2: Why would she say I hit him, I hit him,
Speaker 2: I hit him, Like under what context was that?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't I don't believe that. We'll get into
Speaker 1: that just a little bit. I hate him, yeah, because
Speaker 1: she did call him a perfect.
Speaker 2: Now I'm involved in this murder.
Speaker 1: I so Alan Jackson is the defense attorney. He also
Speaker 1: represented her in the first trial. He actually has a
Speaker 1: would hire yes, Alan Jackson, Brian Friedman. Man there at
Speaker 1: the top of my list. Am I if I'm in
Speaker 1: legal trouble, you guys better watch out, because I'm gonna
Speaker 1: call Alan Jacks. I'm gonna call Brian Friedman. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take everybody down.
Speaker 2: Don't call me.
Speaker 1: I'm not calling you Alan Jackson. Actually, and I thought
Speaker 1: this was smart. He has a beard in this trial,
Speaker 1: so the footage from this trial doesn't get mixed up
Speaker 1: with the footage or something.
Speaker 2: I think he has a two pay, He's got something,
Speaker 2: and his hair is looking a little.
Speaker 1: He has nice hair. Why because it's good, because he
Speaker 1: has good hair.
Speaker 2: It's just you know, it's it's not he's dying it.
Speaker 2: He's doing something to it. And that's what I noticed.
Speaker 2: And as if I was on the juror, it would
Speaker 2: be really hard to look away because.
Speaker 1: You just noticed that he possibly has a two pay.
Speaker 2: Well, he has something going on with his hair.
Speaker 1: I thought he was a nice looking man. That's all
Speaker 1: I saw.
Speaker 2: It was a nice man.
Speaker 1: I'm sure a nice looking man, all right. He began
Speaker 1: his argument by assuring the jury that the evidence would
Speaker 1: clearly demonstrate that there was no collision with John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 1: He states, John O'Keeffe did not die as a result
Speaker 1: of being struck by a vehicle. The facts, evidence, data,
Speaker 1: and scientific analysis will confirm this, as will the expert testimony.
Speaker 1: Jackson went on to accuse the investigation into O'Keeffe's death
Speaker 1: of being tainted by bias, incompetence, and dishonesty. He specifically
Speaker 1: criticized the former Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor, who
Speaker 1: was the lead investigator, calling him a cancer in the
Speaker 1: case for failing to properly investigate. Michael Proctor was fired
Speaker 1: after the first trial, obviously because of the way he
Speaker 1: handled the case. It was clear that he was incompetent
Speaker 1: and he was biased. We could we could talk, We
Speaker 1: could do a whole episode just on Michael Proctor. Probably
Speaker 1: mall security. No, he's going to be the security at
Speaker 1: our gate. That's how they go. Yeah, at Ocean Ranch.
Speaker 2: Good. Then if there's an issue, he can cover it
Speaker 2: up for us. Yes, yes, they don't investigate that crap.
Speaker 2: That's not our looking at.
Speaker 1: It exactly, cover all right, so also in his opening statement,
Speaker 1: Alan Jackson goes on to say, you'll see during this
Speaker 1: trial that he deliberately fabricated evidence. He lied in reports
Speaker 1: on warrants, and even under oath, he lied about the
Speaker 1: time he secured Karen Read's vehicle. Why because he didn't
Speaker 1: want it known that he had access to that vehicle
Speaker 1: and the tail light before fragments were discovered at thirty
Speaker 1: four Fairview. When John's body was initially found. There are
Speaker 1: forty seven pieces of red tail light that were not found.
Speaker 2: That's a lot of tail light. No, That's why I
Speaker 2: said it was odd to me, sounds like a hammer
Speaker 2: smashed a tail light.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: See I can't get past not his hand or his
Speaker 2: head or whatever. Right, someone put it on the tail
Speaker 2: was went smash.
Speaker 1: Because clearly I'm not a collision re constructionist. However, when
Speaker 1: I think about an SUV backing into a male body,
Speaker 1: I don't feel I can't picture the taillight exploding into
Speaker 1: that many pieces with it. It's a Lexus suv. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, I just don't see that. And the fact
Speaker 1: that these pieces showed up later, not during the initial
Speaker 1: search when they first find John O'Keeffe's body. They don't
Speaker 1: find any of these tail light pieces, even though they're
Speaker 1: red and it's snowing out.
Speaker 2: They find them the scene, they're looking for stuff. They
Speaker 2: don't see all the red tail lights.
Speaker 1: Right. So, Also, here's one of the key things that
Speaker 1: I think is going to come out that he alludes
Speaker 1: to in his opening statement. I think they're really going
Speaker 1: to focus on the hypothermia. The medical examiner and the
Speaker 1: first case in the first trial basically says that he
Speaker 1: died from blot force trauma to the head, but also hypothermia.
Speaker 1: I think the defense because they're going to have an expert,
Speaker 1: expert pathologist or someone is an expert on hypothermia come
Speaker 1: in and testify, because when John o'keep's body was found,
Speaker 1: there was no frostbite, there was no cold limbs, there
Speaker 1: was no cold induced injuries to his.
Speaker 2: Organ should there have been by that time.
Speaker 1: Well, based upon the prosecution's timeline, if she hit him
Speaker 1: when she dropped him off at the house at twelve
Speaker 1: thirty and his body wasn't found until six thirty am,
Speaker 1: that's six hours that his body would have been in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four degree blizzard snow weather. So hypothermia would
Speaker 1: have set in. I read that hypothermia sets in when
Speaker 1: the body starts to be ninety five degrees or less. So,
Speaker 1: if the body laid there for six hours, like the
Speaker 1: prosecution claims.
Speaker 2: I would, ninety five degrees is hypothermia.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sure, yeah, look it up. That's when hypothermia starts
Speaker 1: to set in.
Speaker 2: Ok.
Speaker 1: When the body drops down to ninety five degrees, then
Speaker 1: that's when it starts. That's what I read. If I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: please send me a dam and tell me I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: But I did google it.
Speaker 2: I'll send you a dam.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So I think that is going to
Speaker 1: be a big point of contention or something that the
Speaker 1: defense really pushes. They're going to have experts to come
Speaker 1: in and talk about how the body did not have
Speaker 1: the type of hypothermia that it should if it had
Speaker 1: laid in the snow for six hours, if she hit
Speaker 1: him at twelve thirty in the morning.
Speaker 2: At twenty four miles an hour, if.
Speaker 1: He was brought out and drug out into the lawn
Speaker 1: before he was found at six am, then the temperature
Speaker 1: of his body would make more sense because there was
Speaker 1: no frost bite, there was no frozen limbs, so I
Speaker 1: think that is something that the defense is really going
Speaker 1: to going to push right. Also, Alan Jackson brings up
Speaker 1: in his opening statement that there was unknown male DNA
Speaker 1: from five different sources found on John O'Keefe's shoe, shoe
Speaker 1: on his shoe because his shoe was found his shoe,
Speaker 1: one of his shoes was missing, and then his shoe
Speaker 1: was found at the scene.
Speaker 2: So he had one shoe on and one shoe on,
Speaker 2: shoe on and one shoe was the off shoe located.
Speaker 1: I don't remember exactly, but I think it was in
Speaker 1: the vicinity of his body somewhere.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I guess if he got hit
Speaker 2: by a car and his shoe flew off.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what the prosecution claims like when they talk
Speaker 1: about the reconstruction of how she hit him and his
Speaker 1: injuries and everything. They talk about how a shoe coming
Speaker 1: off is common when you get hit by a car
Speaker 1: whose DNA was Well, it's five unidentified males.
Speaker 2: But why don't they take the DNA of all the
Speaker 2: people at the party and see see.
Speaker 1: That is my question is why did they not do
Speaker 1: that or are they going.
Speaker 2: To do that? How many male DNA specimens do you
Speaker 2: have on your shoe?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, what's normal? What's a normal amount of male
Speaker 2: on your shoe?
Speaker 1: Well, why it's unknown on the other shoe, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I only know about the one shoe.
Speaker 2: All I know is to look at the other shoe
Speaker 2: because if the other shoe has five, yeah, then that
Speaker 2: doesn't answer any questions. Why does it matter to be normal?
Speaker 2: But if it's only on one, then it's like, well,
Speaker 2: who was playing with the shoe?
Speaker 1: Okay, here here was my question. And I asked my friend.
Speaker 1: That's who is a Who is a DNA expert?
Speaker 2: I said, expert?
Speaker 1: I do? I do. He's a police officer for a
Speaker 1: long time, then he works wide and then he works DNA.
Speaker 1: Now he teaches forensics.
Speaker 2: Is he in the Boston Police Department.
Speaker 1: No, he's not. He's in Ohio. But anyway, so.
Speaker 2: He's not crooked.
Speaker 1: No, I asked him. I asked, I was confused as
Speaker 1: to why it's unknown, And he said, what they do
Speaker 1: is when they find the male DNA, they put it
Speaker 1: into CODIS. Do you know what CODIS stands for?
Speaker 2: No, but it's it's the national database of people that
Speaker 2: are on the grid. Like if you get take your DNA.
Speaker 2: If you get arrested, they take your DNA, right if
Speaker 2: you're connected of a crime or things like that, and
Speaker 2: then they just hold on to it and then it
Speaker 2: can be a match.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let me tell you all what CODIS stands for.
Speaker 1: So at the next party you go to, you can
Speaker 1: sound very d us. No, it's co d I S.
Speaker 1: Let's stand Oh no, hold.
Speaker 2: On, CEO d I. What's what's the C stand for
Speaker 2: Combined combined DNA. Wait, where's the O.
Speaker 1: That's the CEO is for combined?
Speaker 2: Oh they needed a vowel. Yeah, right, combine DNA United States.
Speaker 1: No, it's not in you, it's an I.
Speaker 2: Oh oh combined DNA in the States, it's combined.
Speaker 1: Okay. See, now you're messing up my party trick that
Speaker 1: I'm trying to give to other people. So like party
Speaker 1: trick was better, it stands. Okay, is everyone listening now
Speaker 1: when you talk about this case, you or you talk
Speaker 1: about any case, you can be like, I know what
Speaker 1: code IS stands for. It stands for Combined DNA Index System.
Speaker 1: So they run the DNA through CODIS, they don't get
Speaker 1: any hits. That's why it's called unidentified or unknown. So
Speaker 1: then my question is, why does the defense not take
Speaker 1: it further, Why do they not test that DNA against
Speaker 1: the members the male people that were in the house
Speaker 1: that night, Because if Brian Albert's DNA ends up on
Speaker 1: John O'Keeffe's shoe, or Brian Higgins or Colin Albert or
Speaker 1: all these men that were in the house that night,
Speaker 1: mean that means that he went into the house.
Speaker 2: Maybe did they hang out all the time? No, was
Speaker 2: on the other shoe.
Speaker 1: No, I don't know why you're stuck on the other
Speaker 1: shoe because one shoe, I don't know, But it's on
Speaker 1: one shoe because I don't know.
Speaker 2: Was it his right foot or is left hand? I
Speaker 2: don't know, is he right footed?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Okay, those those things kind of help paint it a
Speaker 2: little bit of a picture. No, it's not smoking gun stuff.
Speaker 1: It's not a smoking gun. But it would lead to
Speaker 1: the argument that if those unknown male DNA was anyone
Speaker 1: that was inside that house, that you could argue that
Speaker 1: John O'Keeffe was inside the house.
Speaker 2: I don't know, you could argue that that's possible. But
Speaker 2: at the same time, the absence of DNA doesn't mean
Speaker 2: he wasn't inside the house.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm just saying, let's get further testing and try
Speaker 1: to figure out who the male DNA is. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: don't know if the defense is going to do that.
Speaker 1: He brings it up in his opening statement. I think
Speaker 1: it's probably just another thing to add to the reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt side. Also, I was thinking that before they drove
Speaker 1: to the Albert's home that night, he was at a bar,
Speaker 1: so that could be where the unknown male DNA came up.
Speaker 1: If he goes into the mail, into the men's restroom
Speaker 1: and walks around, don't you think you get don't you
Speaker 1: think you get DNA stuck to the bottom of your
Speaker 1: feet when you're walking around in a bathroom? Does P
Speaker 1: have DNA in it?
Speaker 2: I don't think it's your friend.
Speaker 1: I'll ask him. One more thing that Alan Jackson did
Speaker 1: at the end of his opening statement that I thought
Speaker 1: was pretty brilliant. The prosecution keeps arguing that Karen Reid
Speaker 1: said I did it. I did it. I did it,
Speaker 1: So at the end of his opening statement, he says
Speaker 1: there was no collision. Oh, I hit right. You're right,
Speaker 1: I hit him. I hit him.
Speaker 2: Whether I think it matters if it's on the left
Speaker 2: foot or the right foot. You're changing the stories.
Speaker 1: You're right. So the prosecution alleges that the night when
Speaker 1: the body was found that she yelled, I hit him,
Speaker 1: I hit him. I hit him. So at the end
Speaker 1: of Alan Jackson's opening statement, he says, there was no collision.
Speaker 1: There was no collision. There was no collision. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about two of the witnesses in this retrial. And first
Speaker 1: of all, there was Carrie Roberts, who was with Karen
Speaker 1: Reid the morning when she found him. So apparently, let's
Speaker 1: go through this. Carrie Roberts was a friend of both
Speaker 1: Karen Reid and the victim, John O'Keefe, and she acknowledged
Speaker 1: under intense cross examination that she had previously given false
Speaker 1: testimony to a grand jury about a crucial piece of evidence.
Speaker 1: This was a big thing that came out of this retrial.
Speaker 1: I saw it everywhere. It was basically like she committed perjury.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about that. Carrie Roberts had originally told
Speaker 1: the grand jury back in April of twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: that she did hear Karen Reid ask Jennifer McCabe to
Speaker 1: search online for information about hypothermia, specifically referencing the now
Speaker 1: notorious search how long to Die in Cold? But it's
Speaker 1: not how long. Remember she's felt it wrong. It was
Speaker 1: hos haslong to Diane cold. That is testimony that played
Speaker 1: a role and reads indictment on manslaughter and murder charges
Speaker 1: back when she was in front of the grand jury.
Speaker 1: It's very This is actually very important because the discrepancy
Speaker 1: between what the prosecution and the defense alleges as to
Speaker 1: when this Google search was made. Remember, the defense claims
Speaker 1: that Jen McCabe was googling how long to Die in
Speaker 1: Cold at twenty seven in the morning. Now, if she
Speaker 1: was googling that at two twenty seven in the morning,
Speaker 1: that means that she knew that he had been.
Speaker 2: Well, no, it leads you to think, right, maybe she knew.
Speaker 2: Maybe it was just a party trick.
Speaker 1: It's a party trick.
Speaker 2: She was like doing a little.
Speaker 1: Trivia, right, like like I like to do yeah with
Speaker 1: your acronyms. So anyway, the prosecution claims that she didn't
Speaker 1: google it at to twenty seven, that she googled it
Speaker 1: at six something in the morning at the direction of
Speaker 1: Karen Reid saying Google the data that the defense presented
Speaker 1: said that it was googled at to twenty seven and
Speaker 1: then it was deleted.
Speaker 2: And they're saying, no, it wasn't.
Speaker 1: They're claiming that it's like that her browser was left
Speaker 1: open or something. I don't know. I don't understand.
Speaker 2: Oh, they're claiming. Okay, so they're claiming there's another reason
Speaker 2: why it shows a different time.
Speaker 1: They're saying she actually googled it later after the body
Speaker 1: was found.
Speaker 2: And them saying it was later it was just based
Speaker 2: on testimony.
Speaker 1: Well, them saying it later is Jen McCabe saying I
Speaker 1: didn't google it testimony, it's yeah, I didn't google it
Speaker 1: at to twenty seven. I googled it at six thirty
Speaker 1: in the morning when Karen Reid said google hypothermia or
Speaker 1: how long to die on this se.
Speaker 2: And why would that's another question. Why would Karen Reid
Speaker 2: during all this that's going on and say, let's start
Speaker 2: to investigate his death.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like you're saying, she just found him dead in
Speaker 1: the lawn and she's like writing.
Speaker 2: Around screaming and you're dead and there's blood everywhere, and
Speaker 2: I'm starting to google, like how many stabs would it
Speaker 2: take to kill? Yeah? Female, I mean that's like, you know,
Speaker 2: I'd be calling for help, and I would be, you.
Speaker 1: Know, right worried. I like how you said that, you
Speaker 1: sounded very concerned.
Speaker 2: The emotional Yes, sure, I would be, of course.
Speaker 1: So basically, Carrie Roberts admits on the stand that she
Speaker 1: perjured herself in her first in the grand jury testimony,
Speaker 1: she said that she testified that she heard Karen Reid
Speaker 1: tell Jen McCabe to google something about hypothermia how long
Speaker 1: to die in the snow at six point thirty in
Speaker 1: the morning. And then in this when she's grilled in
Speaker 1: this retrial by Alan Jackson, she admits that she lied
Speaker 1: that she did not hear Karen Reid.
Speaker 2: Say that, and did she say does she explain her.
Speaker 1: Well, her explanation was that she misunderstood the question the
Speaker 1: first time around.
Speaker 2: But that's not a lie. Well, if she no, I'm
Speaker 2: saying her version, I'm not citing with anyone. But her
Speaker 2: version is I misunderstood right during this intense investigation when
Speaker 2: you asked me pointed questions, I misunderstood. Yes, that's shady, right.
Speaker 1: However, when defense attorney Alan Jackson confronted her with her
Speaker 1: past statement during trial this past week, Roberts admitted she
Speaker 1: did not actually hear read make that request. Alan Jackson says,
Speaker 1: to her quote, you gave a very specific account to
Speaker 1: the grand jury, didn't you, Jackson asked, referencing her earlier testimony. Yes,
Speaker 1: Roberts replied, before conceding, I did not hear her ask that.
Speaker 1: Roberts claimed she did not intend to mislead the grand jury,
Speaker 1: but instead had misunderstood the question at the time. So
Speaker 1: that's where that's at.
Speaker 2: But you know, cal is anyone reliable in this case?
Speaker 1: Oh? I'm telling you this way. This case I would
Speaker 1: call this case. This is like another for me, This
Speaker 1: Karen Reid case is like the case of the century.
Speaker 1: Like you remember O. J. Simpson was the case of the.
Speaker 2: Century, well, and that was popular because of it being
Speaker 2: OJ televine, right, and then it.
Speaker 1: Was like the lapd and then they were it was
Speaker 1: like a conspiracy, remember, and they said that they were
Speaker 1: racist and that they had planted evidence, and then the glow.
Speaker 2: So this one, are you going to say that this
Speaker 2: one seems to be famous? Yeah, it's so confusing, And
Speaker 2: I think it's because.
Speaker 1: It's the same type of sensationalism where you have very
Speaker 1: divided sides. There's really no one in the middle. It's
Speaker 1: like people are either like she is completely innocent and
Speaker 1: this is a conspiracy, or she hit him and she's
Speaker 1: a piece of there's not a middle with this case.
Speaker 1: And there's no smoking gun. There's just nothing that says
Speaker 1: she did it or she didn't do it. There is
Speaker 1: tons and tons of evidence and testimony and witnesses and
Speaker 1: everything just leads you to more confusion.
Speaker 2: It's almost like it's the perfect crime. The perfect crime
Speaker 2: is to make it confusing, not to try to get
Speaker 2: away with it. You know what I mean? A perfect
Speaker 2: crime is like making evidence it's random, like the next day,
Speaker 2: maybe she threw her tail light out there. You know
Speaker 2: what I mean.
Speaker 1: You would have to be a criminal mastermind to think about.
Speaker 2: All those things. I'm saying is that if no one
Speaker 2: should get convicted in this case based on the evidence
Speaker 2: that we've discussed so far, because there's so much doubt
Speaker 2: as to anyone having done it, you can't be certain
Speaker 2: that any one person did it, So in a way,
Speaker 2: that's kind of a perfect.
Speaker 1: Well it is. But the thing that is so bother
Speaker 1: somewhere maybe why people are so invested in this case
Speaker 1: is that I don't know if we will actually ever
Speaker 1: know what happened.
Speaker 2: We won't unless someone comes forward.
Speaker 1: And there's no ring footage. That's another thing. Like there
Speaker 1: was a cop that lived across the street. You don't
Speaker 1: think he had ring footage on his house. He doesn't
Speaker 1: have any footage. Ryan Albert has no ring footage of
Speaker 1: that night, even though he's a cop and he dealt
Speaker 1: with like he dealt with drug dealers and things, and
Speaker 1: he doesn't have he doesn't have security cameras.
Speaker 2: On his house. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's, of course it's standard.
Speaker 2: The standard for police officers to have cameras in their homes.
Speaker 1: Yes, I would think so. If you're a police officer
Speaker 1: and you're dealing with gangs and drugs, you don't have
Speaker 1: security cameras on your house.
Speaker 2: They might, but you're acting like it's standard. Like him
Speaker 2: not having it suspicious.
Speaker 1: It is suspicious. I think that he I don't know
Speaker 1: of this exactly. I don't know if he just didn't
Speaker 1: have if he claims he didn't have any security cameras,
Speaker 1: or if he had security cameras and it was deleted
Speaker 1: that I don't know.
Speaker 2: Everything in this case is suspicious.
Speaker 1: I know everything suspicious. I mean he threw his phone
Speaker 1: away the day before he was supposed to be confiscated.
Speaker 1: Dog Brian Higgins threw his phone out too, before it
Speaker 1: was supposed to be confiscated. Now you tell me that
Speaker 1: if there are just some innocent guys inside a house
Speaker 1: having a party and they don't know what's going on
Speaker 1: in the front lawn, he just got hit by Cara.
Speaker 1: Why are they all throwing their cell phones away? Why
Speaker 1: are they redoing their basement floors and selling the house
Speaker 1: and rehoming the dog?
Speaker 2: The dog, I don't know, all right.
Speaker 1: There was one other witness. This is his name is
Speaker 1: Timothy Nuddle. The prosecutor Brennan opened his case by calling
Speaker 1: Timothy Nuddle, a firefighter from Canton, as the trial's first witness. Nuddle,
Speaker 1: who was a firefighter, recounted that it was a chaotic
Speaker 1: and emotional scene at thirty four Fair of You, with
Speaker 1: Karen Reid visibly distraught, yelling and crying while paramedics worked
Speaker 1: to revive John O'Keefe. During cross examination, Alan Jackson pressed
Speaker 1: him on the number of times he claimed to have
Speaker 1: heard Reid say I hit him. While not all testified
Speaker 1: in this trial that she repeated it three times. Jackson
Speaker 1: pointed out that during the first trial he said that
Speaker 1: it was only twice.
Speaker 2: Why why is there any no have a question? Why
Speaker 2: is there any bodycam footage of all the first responders?
Speaker 1: There is, I've watched it, but you can't pick up
Speaker 1: you can't pick up audio. There's well, I don't I've
Speaker 1: seen I've seen footage from the car, the car that
Speaker 1: pulled up.
Speaker 2: So the bodycam footage that does exist from the police
Speaker 2: officers isn't really helpful. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen bodycam footage, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: there is any, And that could be another question.
Speaker 2: I I don't know.
Speaker 1: I recamp that I don't know about that. All I'm
Speaker 1: saying is I have seen footage from when the cops
Speaker 1: pull up, and there's a it's from the car.
Speaker 2: I've seen footage from the car, the police car.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it shows it shows light dash camp thank you,
Speaker 1: it shows lights, and it shows Karen Reid running all
Speaker 1: around and she's yelling'ract she's crazy.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the not very helpful, right.
Speaker 1: So the defense continues to question the credibility and accuracy
Speaker 1: of those statements. Allegedlate made by Karen Reid that morning,
Speaker 1: especially since neither initial police reports nor hospital records include
Speaker 1: any mention of her saying that at the scene. That's
Speaker 1: also very suspicious. If she said I hit him, I
Speaker 1: hit him, I hit him, and he heard it, I
Speaker 1: would assume other people heard it as well. And wouldn't
Speaker 1: it have been in a report. Wouldn't have people questioned
Speaker 1: her more, wouldn't have someone have written that down.
Speaker 2: It's very suspicious that someone would even say that, even
Speaker 2: if they did it. Yeah, it's weird. So even if
Speaker 2: she hit him, why would she say that. That's not
Speaker 2: a normal thing. Well, she's questioning herself, like, well, she does.
Speaker 1: Do that, and I think she admits to doing that,
Speaker 1: and I think that's actual actually a normal reaction. Because
Speaker 1: the prosecution and I was going to ask you what
Speaker 1: you thought about this, The prosecution plays clips from her interview.
Speaker 1: Remember the series I Just Watched a Body in the Snow.
Speaker 1: It's like five episodes. It's the it's Karen Reid's first trial.
Speaker 1: They follow the trial, but they also have interviews with
Speaker 1: her and Alan Jackson, her attorney. It shows them in
Speaker 1: the war room, it shows them preparing so the prosecution
Speaker 1: took clips of her in those interviews in that show,
Speaker 1: and they're playing them in this retrial, and they're using
Speaker 1: excerpts of things that she said against her, and she
Speaker 1: did say things like did I hit him? I was
Speaker 1: questioning what happened. I drank a lot that night. I
Speaker 1: didn't know what happened. I didn't know why he was there,
Speaker 1: And they're showing it as if she's admitting to it. Well,
Speaker 1: my question is, do you think it's a good idea
Speaker 1: that she does all these interviews. This isn't normal when
Speaker 1: someone's on trial for murder. They don't go out and
Speaker 1: go and just do interviews all the time. And because
Speaker 1: that's scary, it's Scott Peterson did well. He did like one,
Speaker 1: He did like a sixty minute one, and then he
Speaker 1: never did more. But I mean, she does a lot,
Speaker 1: and they did a whole docuseries on her, and she
Speaker 1: interviewed multiple times.
Speaker 2: Maybe she uh, maybe she thought that would be helpful.
Speaker 1: Here I'll tell you what she said. I also was wondering,
Speaker 1: did I say that I hit him? Or was it
Speaker 1: told to me that I said I hit him? And
Speaker 1: I knew I never could have said that. So the
Speaker 1: closest I must have said, was did I hit him?
Speaker 1: I know I said I hit him, but I did,
Speaker 1: But did I really say it as many times as
Speaker 1: law enforcement's claiming I said it. That's verbatim what she said.
Speaker 2: And her maybe it was more like a question like
Speaker 2: I hit him, I hit him, you know, like people
Speaker 2: are saying like he's got bloom forced trauma, blah blah blah. Right,
Speaker 2: was he run over? I hit him? I hit him? Yeah,
Speaker 2: I hit him. Why would he say three times?
Speaker 1: I don't know. But anyway, I to me when she
Speaker 1: was doing when she was talking about that and her interview,
Speaker 1: when I watched a body in the snow, I thought, oh,
Speaker 1: probably not a good idea to allow your stream of
Speaker 1: conscience to start talking like did I hit him? I
Speaker 1: don't know did I hit him? Or do I just
Speaker 1: think I hit him because I was totally hit him,
Speaker 1: But did I hit him? I was like, you need
Speaker 1: to stop talking.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, if I'm found dead, you have my
Speaker 2: permission to keep quiet, Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Also, in this retrial, the jurors all visited
Speaker 1: thirty four fair View. They took a field trip. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: so on Friday that was last Friday, jurors were transported
Speaker 1: from the courtroom to the Canton property where John O'Keefe
Speaker 1: was discovered. The field visit was arranged to give jurors
Speaker 1: a clear perspective on key physical elements being discussed throughout
Speaker 1: the trial, including the layout of the scene and Karen
Speaker 1: Reid's reaction that morning. According to Judge Beverly Conone, the
Speaker 1: goal was to help durors better visualize the evidence as
Speaker 1: they evaluate the case.
Speaker 2: Didn't someone else ow in the home now though?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Because they sold it?
Speaker 2: How would that be? Like judge knocks on your door, Likene,
Speaker 2: we're investigating a homicide that took place here.
Speaker 1: Well, I think they probably know what was coming.
Speaker 2: We're not sure if it took place here or in
Speaker 2: your basement?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Can we search your basement? Can we do some
Speaker 1: DNA testing down here? Can we rip up the carpet?
Speaker 1: Do you mind? During the visit, attorneys from both sides
Speaker 1: pointed out specific features they wanted the jury to take
Speaker 1: note of, such as Reed's Lexus suv. So they brought
Speaker 1: the suv and parked it there.
Speaker 2: That's the prosecution trying to put plant images in their head.
Speaker 1: So you're saying, come look at this yard, and he
Speaker 1: died right here, and here's the suv with a missing
Speaker 1: tail light parked right in front of the house.
Speaker 2: Right and then people like, yeah, that could be.
Speaker 1: During the visit, attorneys from both sides pointed out specific
Speaker 1: features they wanted the jury to take note of, such
Speaker 1: as Reed's Lexus suv, as well as a flagpole and
Speaker 1: a fire hydrant that could factor into theories about what happened.
Speaker 1: Defense attorney David Yanetti, who is one of Here and
Speaker 1: Reads other attorneys, encourages jurors to closely examine the suv
Speaker 1: to understand its size and relation to the scene when
Speaker 1: they go back to court. Jurors also heard from doctor
Speaker 1: Gary Faller, a pathologist, who discuss Reads blood test results
Speaker 1: from the morning of January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: The test showed her blood alcohol level at point zero
Speaker 1: nine to three percent, slightly above the legal limit of
Speaker 1: pointh eight. The defense suggests that that Reads anemia could
Speaker 1: have impacted the tests accuracy. I don't know, maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just not smart, but I don't know. I mean, she
Speaker 1: clearly admits that they had a lot to drink. She
Speaker 1: does it in the documentary well she talks about this
Speaker 1: and a double this, and then she does a shot
Speaker 1: of this, and then this was a double And I
Speaker 1: mean they drank a lot. He had a roadie with
Speaker 1: him when they drove to Brian Albert's hat. Here's a
Speaker 1: cocktail glass that was found next to his body.
Speaker 2: I'm still umbrella.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm so they're clearly drunk and they're drinking a lot.
Speaker 1: I think it's evident that she's impaired. I think she
Speaker 1: admits to being impaired. So I just don't understand why
Speaker 1: that is a key piece of evidence.
Speaker 2: Why that is a key piece of Yeah, why wouldn't it.
Speaker 1: Be, Because whether she's drunk or not, the question is
Speaker 1: whether she backed end to him.
Speaker 2: Well, because people are impaired when they're drunken, and then
Speaker 2: they're likely to commit murder. Where maybe she wasn't paying
Speaker 2: attention and hit him and then drove off. I don't know. Also,
Speaker 2: they're probably trying to make her look like a drunk
Speaker 2: just like citizen who killed her boyfriend, right, you know
Speaker 2: they Yeah, I don't know. This is a It's like
Speaker 2: the more scientific evidence or or resources that we have
Speaker 2: to investigate actually in this case, just created more confusion.
Speaker 1: I agree with that because the more.
Speaker 2: Scientific evidence, I just be like, he's dead. It's on
Speaker 2: your lawn. You did it right right now. It's just
Speaker 2: like and points direct.
Speaker 1: I know. It's like there's Apple data from his Apple
Speaker 1: Watch and now they're going there's also I think the
Speaker 1: prosecution there's something now that has to do with his
Speaker 1: battery and like how how long it lasted, And it's
Speaker 1: you know, the the forensics and the DNA and the
Speaker 1: hypothermia and the body temperature, and there's so much information
Speaker 1: in this case. It's so hard to decipher. And at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, we still don't know exactly
Speaker 1: what happened, and we probably never.
Speaker 2: Know, not at all, like not at all, not at all,
Speaker 2: just that he's dead.
Speaker 1: On the law, right, but there's so much reasonable doubt
Speaker 1: that I just I can't convict the woman if I
Speaker 1: was on the jury. People ask me all the time,
Speaker 1: what do you think, do you think she's innocent or guilty?
Speaker 1: I don't think innocent are guilty. I think in terms
Speaker 1: of what if I was on the jury, would I
Speaker 1: convict her? The answer to that is.
Speaker 2: No, I wouldn't, based on the legal standard.
Speaker 1: Based on the legal standard doubt.
Speaker 2: Yes, So you're not saying innocent, You're saying not guilty.
Speaker 2: How guilty does not mean innocent. It means not guilty
Speaker 2: by a matter.
Speaker 1: Of law exactly, And that's what I'm saying. So I'm
Speaker 1: not picking aside as to whether I think she did
Speaker 1: it or did not do it. I'm saying, based upon
Speaker 1: everything I've read, the evidence presented, if I was on
Speaker 1: the jury, I could not convict her.
Speaker 2: Okay, now, if you're not on the jury, who did it?
Speaker 1: So I still don't know. I have no idea, right
Speaker 1: all right? Anyway, thanks again for listening. We appreciate it,
Speaker 1: and if you have questions or comments, please feel free
Speaker 1: to DM me. I try to read as much as
Speaker 1: possible and we appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.