Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
Speaker 1: be your host Emily and Shane. Just Shane. This is
Speaker 1: actually a very exciting day today. We were super happy
Speaker 1: that this worked out because the Karen Reid verdict came
Speaker 1: in today, so we were definitely going to get into that.
Speaker 1: We're just going to go through the case a little bit,
Speaker 1: do a little overview, go into the closing arguments, and
Speaker 1: then talk about the verdict. But before we go into
Speaker 1: Karen Reid, we always like to do a little bit
Speaker 1: of an update in the beginning on some of the
Speaker 1: other cases that we talked about. So I don't know
Speaker 1: if you guys had the opportunity to listen to this episode,
Speaker 1: but we did go into the Idaho murders a couple
Speaker 1: episodes back, if you want to go back and look
Speaker 1: for it. But one of the things that we talked
Speaker 1: about was the door dash driver Do you remember this?
Speaker 1: And we were like, there was such a close timeframe
Speaker 1: as to when the delivery was made and then there
Speaker 1: was actually evidence of a photo of the food delivered,
Speaker 1: but this was the same time that Coberger was in it.
Speaker 2: The door dash issue caused more questions to be had
Speaker 2: than answer like it Wasn't it more confusing?
Speaker 1: Most likely? But I remember saying that once this trial starts,
Speaker 1: we're going to see the DoorDash driver, and that was
Speaker 1: that was a new update that came out. I read
Speaker 1: that today that a DoorDash driver is expecting to testify
Speaker 1: at the upcoming Idaho murders trial, which will start in August.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the exact date, but it's August, and
Speaker 1: that she actually saw Brian Coberger during a delivery on
Speaker 1: the night of the fatal stabbings. It's a forty four
Speaker 1: year old woman identified only as MM and court documents
Speaker 1: and she told police during a traffic stop so she
Speaker 1: got pulled over and Pullman Washington last year, that she
Speaker 1: delivered food to Xana Kernodle on the early hours of
Speaker 1: November thirteenth of twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: The victims are just someone visiting the house.
Speaker 1: Xana was one of the college students that was murdered
Speaker 1: that evening. So the DoorDash driver uttered the words I
Speaker 1: saw Brian there, two officers, adding that she had parked
Speaker 1: right next to him when she had pulled into the house.
Speaker 1: The purported delivery is alleged to have taken place just
Speaker 1: minutes before Kernodle, her boyfriend Ethan, and the two roommates,
Speaker 1: Kaylee and Madison were all stabbed to death by a
Speaker 1: masked assailant. The woman also told an officer that she
Speaker 1: may be called to the stand to testify at Coburger's trial,
Speaker 1: according to bodycam video of the conversation, which was posted
Speaker 1: to YouTube. Quote, I have to testify in a big
Speaker 1: murder case here because I'm the door dash driver. So yeah,
Speaker 1: the woman says in the clip as she's being questioned
Speaker 1: over a suspected DUI back in September of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: So that's that's something a doordasher never thought they would
Speaker 2: be a part of that way, right, Yeah, you when
Speaker 2: you signed up to be a doordasher, do you think
Speaker 2: that you would be a witness to like one of
Speaker 2: the largest murder cases in the country, right in terms
Speaker 2: of popularity.
Speaker 1: And the fact that she literally delivered the door dash
Speaker 1: like as he was No, I mean that's a possibility.
Speaker 2: What was your tip that night?
Speaker 1: The trial against Brian Coberger is just a few months away,
Speaker 1: but family and friends of the victims will have their
Speaker 1: voices heard in a new documentary which will be on
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime. It's called One Night in Idea, the College Murders.
Speaker 2: Oh, when's that coming out.
Speaker 1: I don't know if there's a date, but I believe
Speaker 1: it's soon. It will spotlight the morning after the four
Speaker 1: University of Idaho students Xana, Ethan, Madison, and Kayley were
Speaker 1: killed in their home off campus in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: It's told in captivating tents and emotionally wrenching detail by
Speaker 1: only those involved in and affected by the crime. The
Speaker 1: series intimately explores the American tragedy and it's continued impact
Speaker 1: and fallout. This is described in the Amazon Prime press release.
Speaker 2: Oh, so they've announced it formally.
Speaker 1: It's actually airing July eleventh, twenty twenty five, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, is the day after that Real Housewives of
Speaker 1: Orange County Season nineteen airs on July tenth, So this
Speaker 1: air is the next day.
Speaker 2: Only eleven affect your ratings.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. So you guys will have lots
Speaker 1: of good stuff to watch in July. So you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it'll be interesting to see what they
Speaker 1: do say, because clearly they can't say things or give
Speaker 1: interviews that are going.
Speaker 2: To impact impact right, but we're definitely gonna have to
Speaker 2: discuss that one.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: It's like one episode, do we know?
Speaker 1: It says a docu series, so there's more than one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, let's move on, and before we get to
Speaker 1: the verdict which came out today in the Karen Read retrial,
Speaker 1: let's just go through and do like a little bit
Speaker 1: of a reminder about everything that's happened so far. So
Speaker 1: what were the prosecution and the defense arguing?
Speaker 2: I know this?
Speaker 1: So many people are invested in this case, so a
Speaker 1: lot of you know this. But I do feel like
Speaker 1: it's important just to have like a basic overview so
Speaker 1: we can get into closing argument.
Speaker 2: My memory refreshed, Yes.
Speaker 1: And Shane has I've been married to him for sixteen years,
Speaker 1: so his memory is about as long as a butterfly.
Speaker 2: Because every day you're like, one, I've never heard that,
Speaker 2: I don't raise before.
Speaker 1: I figure a butterfly doesn't have a long term memory
Speaker 1: because they don't last very long. But every day you're like,
Speaker 1: what are you doing today?
Speaker 2: Wait? Did you know?
Speaker 1: Tell me again?
Speaker 2: What do you know? Now? We're getting something else? That's
Speaker 2: what you don't tell me what you're doing until five
Speaker 2: minutes before you're like, oh, yeah, I forgot I'm going
Speaker 2: to Las Vegas this week.
Speaker 1: It's true, all right. Anyway, back to Karen Reid. So,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors alleged that Reid hit her boyfriend John O'Keeffe
Speaker 1: with her car she had Alexis SUV outside of the
Speaker 1: home of a fellow police officer, Brian Albert, in January
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, and left him to die there during
Speaker 1: a blizzard.
Speaker 2: This is three and a half years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is after a night of drinking. The defense
Speaker 1: has argued that Reed's vehicle could not have hit O'Keefe,
Speaker 1: and instead said that O'Keefe was attacked by a dog
Speaker 1: and beaten by other people who were in the house
Speaker 1: before he was then thrown out in the snow and
Speaker 1: left to die.
Speaker 2: That's a gang up. When the dog also joined.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, man, the dog's like, let's get him. Okay, Look,
Speaker 1: I have a I was thinking about this state because
Speaker 1: I was thinking about how the defense, the defense's complete
Speaker 1: defense in this case is basically that he was beat
Speaker 1: up inside the house by other people, police officers, and
Speaker 1: the dog was a part of it. We have a
Speaker 1: German shepherd. German shepherd husky. If there is a fight,
Speaker 1: if there is an altercation in this house, that dog
Speaker 1: would get into it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know, I know, Okay, So what's what's
Speaker 2: your point?
Speaker 1: My point is is that pretending or trying to act
Speaker 1: like a German shepherd and a home of a police
Speaker 1: officer if there was a fight, that a German shepherd
Speaker 1: wouldn't have like gotten involved in an altercation with men.
Speaker 2: When there's you know, well who's arguing that the dog
Speaker 2: wasn't involved.
Speaker 1: The prosecution, Well, they're arguing that she hit him. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying that's not a far fetched idea. That's my point.
Speaker 1: My point is, it's not like the defense came up
Speaker 1: with some random theory that's also sense to me.
Speaker 2: It wouldn't sway me one way or another. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's like, you have all these police officers that are
Speaker 2: alleged to have killed them, and we're worried about whether
Speaker 2: the dog did or did not scratch him.
Speaker 1: Well, it comes down to the evidence on his arm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it looks like scratches and.
Speaker 2: When the dog was relocated, the dog wastection the dog.
Speaker 1: Is currently yes. Because here's the other thing that didn't
Speaker 1: make sense. To me, it was Chloe is the dog.
Speaker 1: Chloe was re home shortly after this incident, And how
Speaker 1: can you not find Chloe? Like wouldn't you go to the.
Speaker 2: Police, And well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I feel like if my dog was involved
Speaker 1: in an altercation and then I.
Speaker 2: Just gave him away, shouldn't that be subpoena, Like we're
Speaker 2: gonna subpoena, Like who the dog?
Speaker 1: Yes, he's compelled to come into court.
Speaker 2: I'm just rehome the witnesses and no one's gonna ask
Speaker 2: about him.
Speaker 1: A brief overview of what happened after the first trial.
Speaker 1: So we know that there was a hung jury in
Speaker 1: the first trial, So the Commonwealth decided to retry her,
Speaker 1: which again I thought was a huge kind of state.
Speaker 2: That's exhausting. At least I think a hung jury in general,
Speaker 2: like as a layperson, a hung jury means there's doubt,
Speaker 2: and so why would you try again, Like, let's find
Speaker 2: some more people that might find him guilty. These people
Speaker 2: didn't find guilty. Find some more these.
Speaker 1: People didn't work out, Let's try different ones. At least.
Speaker 1: Forgerers who served on Karen Reid's last her first trial
Speaker 1: last year have confirmed that she was found not guilty
Speaker 1: of second degree murder and leaving the scene of personal
Speaker 1: injury and death, according to Reed's attorneys. I do remember
Speaker 1: that Reed's attorneys did try to make a motion before
Speaker 1: the court that she'd be acquitted because there were juries
Speaker 1: that spoke afterwards that had had relaid the information that
Speaker 1: they did find her guilty, even though they didn't formally
Speaker 1: say that, they just just came up with they said,
Speaker 1: we couldn't make a decision, and.
Speaker 2: Talked to the jurors then afterwards, because can they be like,
Speaker 2: what was convincing? Why did you think they were?
Speaker 1: What worked and what didn't. However, the jury could not
Speaker 1: come to an agreement on a third charge of manslaughter
Speaker 1: while operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Her lawyers
Speaker 1: filed multiple appeals all the way to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: claiming Read should not have been retried on the counts
Speaker 1: the jury apparently agreed on, saying it would amount to
Speaker 1: double jeopardy. Each appeal was denied. She's pleaded not guilty
Speaker 1: to all three charges and maintains her innocence. She was
Speaker 1: facing this and this is the retrial. Three main charges
Speaker 1: with the death of John O'Keeffe's second degree murder, manslaughter
Speaker 1: while operating a motorcal vehicle under the influence, and leaving
Speaker 1: the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Speaker 2: So you might have said this, but can I ask
Speaker 2: question did? Is she using the same attorneys? Yeah?
Speaker 1: She Well, she added to her team. She has a
Speaker 1: bigger team this time, but she's still her main attorneys
Speaker 1: are Alan Jackson.
Speaker 2: And then my prosecutor prosecutor.
Speaker 1: No, remember we talked about this before.
Speaker 2: That's why I said, Yes, I'm reminding you memory.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's probably worse. They brought in a special prosecutor,
Speaker 1: Hank Brennan, who also represented or Yeah, the Whitey Bulger.
Speaker 1: Why Whitey Bulger. Yes, he was a mobster.
Speaker 2: Yeah you think it, white.
Speaker 1: Tighty Whitey Bulger. Let's talk about some of the key
Speaker 1: witnesses and some of the things that were brought up
Speaker 1: during this retrial.
Speaker 2: Yes, some basic questions. When was the first verdict again
Speaker 2: or the first lack of verdict?
Speaker 1: You mean the mistrial? It was last year, so she.
Speaker 2: Had to go a year of waiting to be prosecuted again,
Speaker 2: and then she had to go to a nearly you know,
Speaker 2: a lengthy trial over a month man, Now, what's she
Speaker 2: going to do?
Speaker 1: Well, she has a civil suit against her. Still, I mean.
Speaker 2: That's that's nothing. That's nothing. Better to go in a prison.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean and the cil.
Speaker 2: Okay, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's get to the civil ser laders. But let's
Speaker 1: just go through some of some of the testimony and
Speaker 1: some of the evidence in the retrial. Jennifer McCabe's testimony,
Speaker 1: who was a friend of O'Keefe and Reed, who was
Speaker 1: also in the home that night. She is a friend
Speaker 1: of both of them, but she is also the sister
Speaker 1: in law of Brian Albert, who owns the house. So
Speaker 1: defense attorneys say that Jen McCabe's text messages show she
Speaker 1: organized to cover up around how John O'Keefe wound up
Speaker 1: unconscious in the snow outside of thirty four Fairview quote.
Speaker 1: Carrie talked to the cops and kept it simple, McCabe
Speaker 1: said in a text at about eight pm on January
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, the day O'Keefe's body was
Speaker 1: found outside her sister, Nicole Albert's home. Then Jen McCabe's
Speaker 1: sister responded, we'll get more info tomorrow. Don't want a
Speaker 1: text about it. In addition, Alan Jackson asked Jen McCabe
Speaker 1: why she didn't ask her brother in law, Brian Albert,
Speaker 1: a police officer, for help, given that he would have
Speaker 1: had first responder training and lived in the home. McCabe
Speaker 1: said she didn't think to go inside to get Brian
Speaker 1: Albert find warm blankets, or to check whether the Alberts
Speaker 1: were also in peril, that she was entirely focused on
Speaker 1: helping O'Keefe. I thought this was really great when Alan
Speaker 1: Jackson was cross examining her on the stand. He's cross
Speaker 1: examining Jen McCabe. Her brother in law and sister live
Speaker 1: inside the home where a dead man is found on
Speaker 1: their lawn. She knows that her brother in law is
Speaker 1: a cop and a first responder. She never goes to
Speaker 1: the house. She never knocks on the door. She never
Speaker 1: asked him to come outside to help to give CPR.
Speaker 1: She never goes into the house to investigate and see
Speaker 1: whether her brother in law and sister are okay or
Speaker 1: if something happened inside the house that she needs to
Speaker 1: check on. Why did she not do that?
Speaker 2: Because the Boston Police Department taught her otherwise, Because that's
Speaker 2: why it might not be the first body in this
Speaker 2: lawn by the way, Well it's.
Speaker 1: The first body on it. You mean, the first body
Speaker 1: that anyone knows about on his lawn.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Brian Laughlin's testimony, he's the snowplow driver. I found his
Speaker 1: testimony very calling, very credible, very compelling.
Speaker 2: He was that guy like knew everything, Like he was
Speaker 2: like a snowplow guy for thirty five years in that
Speaker 2: neighborhood or something ridiculous like that. Well he well he
Speaker 2: was in the neighborhood for thirty five years.
Speaker 1: Remember, Yeah, I don't know how long he'd been a
Speaker 1: snowplow driver. However, his testimony was on point.
Speaker 2: It was concising, right, he knew the properties, he was,
Speaker 2: he knew who lived there, he knew how long, Like
Speaker 2: he was familiar with the neighborhood. It wasn't like he
Speaker 2: was just going up and down roads and following a
Speaker 2: map like he knew.
Speaker 1: So, Brian Lawlan was a snowplow driver. He's called to
Speaker 1: the stand to testify for the defense. Brian Lafren testified
Speaker 1: he did not see a body in the yard at
Speaker 1: thirty four Fairview early in the morning on January twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. Despite passing by the house multiple times,
Speaker 1: Lawfren first drove the snowplow passed the home between two
Speaker 1: forty and two forty five am. Though it was dark
Speaker 1: and snowing hard, law Fren testified he could clearly see
Speaker 1: the front door of the home. When asked what he
Speaker 1: saw on the lawn by the flagpole, law Fren responded,
Speaker 1: I saw nothing. Did you see a six foot one,
Speaker 1: two hundred and sixteen pound man lying on that lawn.
Speaker 1: Defense attorney David Eanetti asked, no, he said. I found
Speaker 1: his testimony to be very credible because he talked about specifically.
Speaker 1: He knew the route specifically, he knew the name of
Speaker 1: the streets, he knew the times specifically, he knew exactly
Speaker 1: what time he got there and checked out.
Speaker 2: It was so natural, it was so like normal for
Speaker 2: him to respond. He didn't have to think like this
Speaker 2: was his routine.
Speaker 1: And also, when you're talking about someone on a snowplow,
Speaker 1: it's not in a regular car, like he's sitting up high.
Speaker 2: Well, no, I don't know, it could be it was
Speaker 2: it a pickup truck snowplow or was it?
Speaker 1: No, they called it like the Frankenstein or something, because
Speaker 1: it was like kind of an older model and it
Speaker 1: was kind of put together.
Speaker 2: I probably was just like an F two fifty or something.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I know he was sitting up high,
Speaker 1: and I know that it was what which is high
Speaker 1: as high and it was very well lit. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: that he's consistently on guard and looking left to right
Speaker 1: and scanning because he doesn't want to hit He's on
Speaker 1: a big snowplowsy. He doesn't want to plow any bodies over,
Speaker 1: So he has to be very very careful, and he
Speaker 1: has to be very alert, and he has to be
Speaker 1: very aware of his surroundings. So the fact that this
Speaker 1: man did not see a body on the lawn between
Speaker 1: two forty and two forty five am, when the prosecution
Speaker 1: has made it clear that she hit him at twelve
Speaker 1: thirty one, the body would have been there all right.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Yuri Bucanik's testimony. He is a Massachusetts State Police officer.
Speaker 1: He testified about the investigation and reads emergence as the
Speaker 1: suspect in O'Keefe's death. However, the misconduct of previous state
Speaker 1: trooper Michael Proctor, who was absent from the retrial loomed
Speaker 1: heavily over his testimony. Now we all know Michael Proctor
Speaker 1: was the investigator, the lead investigator in the first trial.
Speaker 2: He was also trial.
Speaker 1: Because the prosecution did not want to call him because
Speaker 1: he was He was fired. He was let go from
Speaker 1: the police department for how he bungled the first case,
Speaker 1: how he didn't investigate it thoroughly. He had all those
Speaker 1: text messages, you know, with his friends talking about Karen
Speaker 1: Reid calling her, I don't know, what do you say?
Speaker 1: He said she was hot, and then he was like
Speaker 1: talking about looking for naked photos on her phone of
Speaker 1: her and he said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, scholars work here and goodness.
Speaker 1: So he was he was not brought back to testify.
Speaker 1: I'm sure the prosecution was hoping that everyone just forgot
Speaker 1: that he even exists.
Speaker 2: Right. There was no former trial.
Speaker 1: This is the first one. Michael Proctor had never heard
Speaker 1: of him, though Buchanik. Through Buchanik, prosecutors tried to minimize
Speaker 1: Proctor's influence and the investigation, while the defense held Proctor
Speaker 1: up as the lead investigator. Buchanik said each homicide case
Speaker 1: is a team effort. During cross examination, defense attorney Alan
Speaker 1: Jackson tried to restore the sense of Proctor's control over
Speaker 1: the case, showing Buchanik's investigative documents that carried Proctor's name
Speaker 1: or signature. Still, Buchanik refused to call Proctor the lead investigator,
Speaker 1: referring to him as the case officer. Clearly the reason
Speaker 1: he was on the stand, as they're trying to take
Speaker 1: away the power from Michael Proctor and his name all.
Speaker 2: Over this case.
Speaker 1: Trooper Nicholas Guarino's testimony. He is also a Massachusetts State
Speaker 1: Police officer. Guarino testified for the Commonwealth that read called
Speaker 1: O'Keefe more than fifty times and left eight voicemails between
Speaker 1: the times. She said she dropped him off at thirty
Speaker 1: four fair of View, and when she started searching for
Speaker 1: him the next morning, all the calls went unanswered. Quote
Speaker 1: You're an e fing pervert, she said in one voicemail
Speaker 1: left at one ten am, per Guarino's testimony. Seven minutes later,
Speaker 1: she left another, you're efing using me right now, you're
Speaker 1: effing another girl. You're an e fing loser. F yourself.
Speaker 1: At five twenty three am, she left her seventh voicemail, John,
Speaker 1: where are you. You know when I listen to these voicemails,
Speaker 1: because I've heard all of them, this is a woman
Speaker 1: who had no idea that a man was laying dead
Speaker 1: in a yard right or else. She's the best actress
Speaker 1: I've ever seen because her voicemails are a woman who
Speaker 1: is who has no idea where this man is, and
Speaker 1: she thinks he's not coming home because he's having an
Speaker 1: affair with somebody in that house, and she is legitimately
Speaker 1: pissed off and wants to murder him.
Speaker 2: I have a feeling you've made notes. I felt that
Speaker 2: this is how I should leave my voicemails. I see
Speaker 2: very convincing.
Speaker 1: So for me when the prosecution is trying to use
Speaker 1: these voicemails to show that they had a strained relationship
Speaker 1: and that she you know, that she was so mad
Speaker 1: that night that she repped her engine and like ran
Speaker 1: over him. To me, I don't look at it that way.
Speaker 1: To me, I see those voicemails and the calls as
Speaker 1: someone who legitimately thinks that man is in the house
Speaker 1: having an affair with another woman, and she thinks that he's
Speaker 1: doing things and he's not coming home and she's mad.
Speaker 2: This whole thing is ridiculous because if you were going
Speaker 2: to commit a murder and you're going to run someone
Speaker 2: over or do something like that, it would never ever
Speaker 2: in a million years cross my mind to think leave
Speaker 2: the dead body on the police officer's lawn. Yeah, because
Speaker 2: they a real police officer, a team of police officers
Speaker 2: would immediately start to preserve it, start to notify, start
Speaker 2: to do something to forward the investigation, and not just
Speaker 2: like stay in the house, will say that I know,
Speaker 2: I know, I know you in your wildest dreams, we
Speaker 2: ever thought like I'll leave this dead body on some
Speaker 2: on this police officer's lawn and then like no one
Speaker 2: will ever be able to figure out who killed him.
Speaker 1: So you're saying, if she legitimately hit him, if she
Speaker 1: was mad and she and he fell backwards and landed
Speaker 1: in the snow and she drove.
Speaker 2: Off, Well, I'm just saying, and it's very I don't
Speaker 2: know if it's irony, but to leave a dead body
Speaker 2: on a police officer's lawn and there's a bunch of
Speaker 2: police officers there and they still can't figure out who
Speaker 2: did it, that's that's pretty weird.
Speaker 1: Well, that's why this case is so compelling.
Speaker 2: The cops are shady.
Speaker 1: Sorry, the cops are shady.
Speaker 2: I retract my judgment of Karen Reid in our first.
Speaker 1: Pod if you listen to our's Not Guilty, if you
Speaker 1: listen to our very very first podcast we did on
Speaker 1: Karen Reid. This is before Shane had ever knew known
Speaker 1: anything about the case, never even heard Karen Reid's name,
Speaker 1: and I just did a basic cur three overview of
Speaker 1: the incidents that night. He kept saying.
Speaker 2: Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Speaker 1: She's guilty, guilty, over and over and over.
Speaker 2: Not guilty, but not guilty. Now the police department's guilty.
Speaker 1: Now he is ware.
Speaker 2: Are they going to prosecute the police officers?
Speaker 1: I doubt it.
Speaker 2: Why they have just as much evidence on them as
Speaker 2: they did her, which is nothing. That's what's so them
Speaker 2: through the crowd.
Speaker 1: That's what's so compelling yet completely sad about this case
Speaker 1: is I don't think there'll ever be any justice for
Speaker 1: John O'Keeffe or his mom, or the children. You know,
Speaker 1: he was raising his niece and nephew because their parents
Speaker 1: had died, and these children lost their mother and father
Speaker 1: and have now lost their uncle who was raising them.
Speaker 1: And you know, his mom sat in court every day,
Speaker 1: his family's there and at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the jury got it right. She should have been acquitted.
Speaker 1: But it's sad.
Speaker 2: It is there's a lot of people. It's not just
Speaker 2: he dies, which is sad enough as it is, but
Speaker 2: all the people around him that are affected, and then
Speaker 2: all the unanswered questions and just not knowing what happened
Speaker 2: in his last moments of his life.
Speaker 1: Nicholas Barrows, who is part of he's a sergeant for
Speaker 1: the Dighton Police, was called by the defense to refute
Speaker 1: the Commonwealth's narrative about Reid's tail light being broken when
Speaker 1: it allegedly collided with O'Keefe. The defense has tried to
Speaker 1: raise the specter of the tail light being tampered with
Speaker 1: after police seized the vehicle and suggested its pieces were
Speaker 1: planted at the scene. Well, if you remember, if you
Speaker 1: go back, remember we talked about before when they initially
Speaker 1: did a search and they found John's body, there were
Speaker 1: no pieces of the tail light found in that initial search.
Speaker 2: Well that's what was declared.
Speaker 1: Right. Then they went back I think that evening and
Speaker 1: did another search and during that search, all of a
Speaker 1: sudden they found like forty two pieces.
Speaker 2: Of a tail light, which is an insane amount of
Speaker 2: tail light right.
Speaker 1: Borrows responded on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, to
Speaker 1: Reid's parents home in Dighton, Massachusetts, at Proctor's require to
Speaker 1: help seize the vehicle. Reid went there after it was
Speaker 1: confirmed that O'Keefe had died. In a report, Barrows noted
Speaker 1: that there was damage to a tail light, but he
Speaker 1: suggested on the stand it was relatively minor. There was
Speaker 1: a piece missing, but it was not completely damaged. He
Speaker 1: was shown a photograph of the tail light after it
Speaker 1: was seized. Barrows said it did not reflect what he
Speaker 1: saw that day. That tail light is completely smashed out.
Speaker 2: He said, yeah, I remember thinking that that many pieces
Speaker 2: sounds like it looks like someone smashed it with a hammer.
Speaker 1: I know I thought the same thing because I even
Speaker 1: thought if she had backed into him with her tail light.
Speaker 1: I feel like when a tail light hit a body,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't have smashed into so many tiny scens.
Speaker 2: There's enough forensic files to know like it's usually just
Speaker 2: a handful of pieces.
Speaker 1: All right. So there was so many more things that
Speaker 1: went on in this trial. It was completely interesting compelling.
Speaker 1: I know people were glued to their screens every day
Speaker 1: watching court TV. We clearly can't go through all of it,
Speaker 1: but we're going to get to the closing statements. I
Speaker 1: actually watched Alan Jackson's closing statement twice. It was about
Speaker 1: an hour and a half long. Because when you talk
Speaker 1: about closing statements, this is really where you have the
Speaker 1: opportunity to This is the finale. This is where you
Speaker 1: take everything and you want to persuade the jury. You
Speaker 1: want them to see it. From your perspective, it's really
Speaker 1: your last act. It's your last chance to convince them,
Speaker 1: it's your last chance to build rapport with them. And
Speaker 1: so I thought he did an excellent job.
Speaker 2: How long was it?
Speaker 1: It was an hour and a half.
Speaker 2: You watch TV for three hours though, Well.
Speaker 1: I didn't watch it back to back. I watched an
Speaker 1: hour and a half and then the following night I
Speaker 1: watched it again.
Speaker 2: But let's be clear. You don't bring in new evidence.
Speaker 1: You don't bring in new evidence.
Speaker 2: You can only reiterate the evidence that was presented, and
Speaker 2: you can't an attorney can't bring in their own opinions
Speaker 2: to anything right, and they can't do things to make
Speaker 2: what was it like make the something about making the
Speaker 2: jurors feel a certain way, Like you can't ask about
Speaker 2: their feelings or try to make them feel it's just evidence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let me ask you a question. Can the
Speaker 1: prosecution object during closing statements.
Speaker 2: When the defense at I don't know if the if
Speaker 2: the objection is the same formality, but if the defense
Speaker 2: is bringing in new evidence, I mean definitely got to
Speaker 2: stop that. Yeah, that's probably grounds for a mistrial.
Speaker 1: Well, it's you can't object during closing arguments, but it
Speaker 1: has to be to the level of like it's so
Speaker 1: egregious it would sway the jury or it would be
Speaker 1: harmful to the case. So there were no objections. During
Speaker 1: his closing statement. Jackson went first, telling the jury three
Speaker 1: times right away, there was no collision in the death
Speaker 1: of John O'Keefe. This case was corrupted from the start.
Speaker 1: It was corrupted by a legal investigator who's misconduct infected
Speaker 1: every single part of this case from top to bottom.
Speaker 1: Alluding to Michael Proctor.
Speaker 2: Was did he have the position that she is she
Speaker 2: did not commit the crime? Or did he have the
Speaker 2: position was he emphasizing that there was not enough evidence?
Speaker 1: No, so he his position was it was not her
Speaker 1: that it was a cover up that he was beat
Speaker 1: up in the house by these officers. The dog was
Speaker 1: somehow involved and attacked him and then they drug his body.
Speaker 2: Could have been in another way. Obviously, I would defer
Speaker 2: to Alan Jackson to probably know what's best.
Speaker 1: But the other way I would defer to Alan Jackson
Speaker 1: on anything.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you for that.
Speaker 1: I'd be like, stop talking.
Speaker 2: I need to ask Alan Jackson stop talking. Butterfly, all right, whatever,
Speaker 2: you know. I was trying to get at that. His
Speaker 2: position was she didn't do it, not there's not enough evidence.
Speaker 1: No, His position was that she did not do it,
Speaker 1: and it was the corruptness that went on that evening.
Speaker 1: It was a conspiracy.
Speaker 2: It's a Communican to think about the police department. I'd
Speaker 2: be nervous if I was in that area.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm based just based upon the dms
Speaker 1: I get on my Instagram account. People rallied around her
Speaker 1: and think that this police department is completely corrupt. And
Speaker 1: there's some other case with another woman I can't remember
Speaker 1: the name that several people of dm ME that said
Speaker 1: that basically kind of mirrors the same thing and has
Speaker 1: to do with the Boston Police Department. I'll have to
Speaker 1: look into that.
Speaker 2: Wonderful.
Speaker 1: If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can
Speaker 1: you trust him with this investigation, with your verdict, and
Speaker 1: with Karen Reid's life. Jackson said, the lead investigator in
Speaker 1: a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that.
Speaker 1: That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want
Speaker 1: to hear from Michael Proctor?
Speaker 2: See, that was right, That's what I was thinking.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in
Speaker 1: this case? Yes, yeah, that's what I said. The prosecution
Speaker 1: did not call from them. Yes, they were hoping that
Speaker 1: we just all forgot that.
Speaker 2: Might be were dumped on some lawn somewhere.
Speaker 1: Their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias and
Speaker 1: personal loyalties. Jackson said, not a single medical expert called
Speaker 1: by the defense or called by the commonwealth has testified
Speaker 1: that John was hit by a car. Not one thing
Speaker 1: about the irony, not one It's not just significant, it's
Speaker 1: literally the most important point in the entire trial. He
Speaker 1: made that point. He made it well. The medical examiners
Speaker 1: that testified would never take the position that there was
Speaker 1: an impact site from a vehicle. He had a contusion
Speaker 1: on the back of his head, he had black eyes,
Speaker 1: he had a cut over his eye, and his right
Speaker 1: arm was scraped up and had puncture wounds. But no
Speaker 1: one would testify that he was hit by a vehicle
Speaker 1: because they said they.
Speaker 2: There wasn't vehicle.
Speaker 1: Remember mister Brennan's opening statement, he made some promises to you.
Speaker 1: He said, this case is about the data. He's stressed
Speaker 1: it over and over again. They've had three and a
Speaker 1: half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had
Speaker 1: this case for three and a half years to get
Speaker 1: it right. Jackson went on to talk about there being
Speaker 1: no evidence John was hit by a car. This is
Speaker 1: a central fact in the case. The only fact that
Speaker 1: matters is literally uncontested by every medical expert, uncontested, undispat
Speaker 1: There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None.
Speaker 1: How much more reasonable doubt could there be.
Speaker 2: There's doubt all around. There's even doubt with the police officers. Really,
Speaker 2: there's not enough legal evidence for me to feel comfortable
Speaker 2: saying they should be convicted.
Speaker 1: You know, at the opening of his let me okay,
Speaker 1: go ahead, what.
Speaker 2: They did it? The police officers.
Speaker 1: Do you think the police officers, Yeah, guilty. Let's just
Speaker 1: go into just to have a little legal knowledge, little
Speaker 1: legal background, what exactly beyond a reasonable doubt? And when
Speaker 1: he does his opening statement, he tells them what beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt means. And it's not just beyond a
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty are the phrases
Speaker 1: used in legal context, particularly in criminal trials, to describe
Speaker 1: the high standard of proof required for a conviction. I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't get it. So what's the difference.
Speaker 1: They're the same. It's beyond a reasonable doubt and to
Speaker 1: a moral certainty.
Speaker 2: Does and to a moral certainty actually add any other.
Speaker 1: No, they it's the same standard. But I think it's
Speaker 1: just another way to say it. But I think when
Speaker 1: you add moral certainty in there, I feel like it
Speaker 1: makes it more clear because reasonable doubt the word doubt.
Speaker 2: It's like it's like you can shrug your shoulders like.
Speaker 1: But when you talk about a moral certainty, I.
Speaker 2: Feel good about this, exactly, feel good about sending him
Speaker 2: or her to.
Speaker 1: Jail exactly, Like when you lay your head down at
Speaker 1: night to sleep knowing that that woman is going to
Speaker 1: go to jail, are you okay with that? Are you
Speaker 1: okay to a moral certainty that the decision you're making.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the most complete apartment needs to hire
Speaker 2: people with a moral certainty. You know, I have a
Speaker 2: little beef with you. What you asked me the other
Speaker 2: day what moral certainty meant? I said, I bet you.
Speaker 2: It's just language that that jurisdiction uses. And now you're
Speaker 2: and you said no, no, no, And now you're telling me
Speaker 2: what it's really just language that they use to Well.
Speaker 1: Because I looked it up, I don't because you're not
Speaker 1: Alan Jackson.
Speaker 2: No, So I had to go with Butterfly.
Speaker 1: I was correct, you were correct at the time. All right,
Speaker 1: it's still correct, okay. Alan Jackson goes on to say
Speaker 1: in his in his closing statement, you have a man
Speaker 1: lying dead in the yard, and here are the undisputed
Speaker 1: facts that those officers were confronted with. Black eyes. Obviously,
Speaker 1: black eyes are consistent with a fight. Bloody nose also
Speaker 1: consistent with a fight, Bleeding from the face consistent with
Speaker 1: a physical altercation, a cut over the right eye consistent
Speaker 1: with a punch. No coat in the freezing cold, not
Speaker 1: dressed for outside, dressed for inside, and one shoe on.
Speaker 1: I wonder where the other shoe could be. I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe in the house thirty feet away. This was one
Speaker 1: of my favorite parts of his closing statement was actually
Speaker 1: when he said all of that. I thought that was
Speaker 1: just he just really hit it home. That was a
Speaker 1: home run to me when he said, look at this
Speaker 1: body laying in this front yard. All of the physical
Speaker 1: issues with his body are all consistent with a fight.
Speaker 1: And also he has no coat on, and he's got
Speaker 1: a missing shoe.
Speaker 2: Where could they be?
Speaker 1: Where could those things be? I don't know, maybe in
Speaker 1: the house. And the fact that the house was never
Speaker 1: considered a crime scene. It was never taped off, it
Speaker 1: was never searched, it was never investigated. There was never
Speaker 1: from the house.
Speaker 2: That is that is negligence on the police. They fell
Speaker 2: below that is standard duty of being.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're telling me a man died in a
Speaker 1: lawn on it in front of a house, and his
Speaker 1: shoes missing, and he doesn't have a coat on, and
Speaker 1: he's beat up in the yard and no one investigated
Speaker 1: inside the house. Is is there any blood inside the house?
Speaker 1: There is there anything broken in the house, his shoes
Speaker 1: in the house. I mean, it's unreal to me. I
Speaker 1: wonder where the other shoe could be. He says, I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe in the house thirty feet away. And
Speaker 1: then you find a broken and shattered drinking glass next
Speaker 1: to him, the type of glass that you might find
Speaker 1: I don't know. Let me think about this in a
Speaker 1: kitchen in a house feet away.
Speaker 2: Wait, didn't she say she dropped him off with the cocktail?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: She did say that they had like a roadie or something,
Speaker 1: And so that was the other thing, Like, where did
Speaker 1: the shard of glass come from? Was it from the
Speaker 1: cocktail glass that he was carrying, or did he go
Speaker 1: in the house and have a drink. This is why
Speaker 1: this investigation is awful. Why do you sus I.
Speaker 2: Could have gone inside the house and looked at the kitchen,
Speaker 2: say you have the same signature drinking glasses that was
Speaker 2: shout outside with the dead body, right, and look in
Speaker 2: the shoe closet.
Speaker 1: Look while I found the shoe closet right. As for
Speaker 1: testimony that Reid said I hit him when she found
Speaker 1: O'Keeffe the next morning, Jackson said. Sergeant Buchanik also testified
Speaker 1: that the only statement Karen Reid made at the scene,
Speaker 1: according to his conversations, with the first responders was could
Speaker 1: I have hit him? Did I hit him? It wasn't
Speaker 1: a confession, it was confusion. Agree with that.
Speaker 2: And you know what that tracks with her OBD two
Speaker 2: censor that said she went twenty four miles an hour
Speaker 2: back way?
Speaker 1: What was it? Say it again the two sensor, Yes,
Speaker 1: Shane is our vehicular mechanic specialists.
Speaker 2: No, but didn't it didn't They have evidence that she
Speaker 2: went backwards twenty four miles an hour. So maybe she
Speaker 2: was like, oh my gosh, I hit him, Like maybe
Speaker 2: her first thought was he's on the lawn where I
Speaker 2: left him with a drink and I sped off. Did
Speaker 2: I hit him? I mean, those are probably some thoughts
Speaker 2: that ran through ahead. I mean, her boyfriend's dead. No
Speaker 2: one says anything that's reasonable when you find a dead body, right.
Speaker 1: And she already didn't sleep the entire night because she
Speaker 1: called him fifty times and left him seven voicemails yelling
Speaker 1: at him and calling him an effing pervert. She thinks
Speaker 1: he's having an affair with someone else. So this woman
Speaker 1: clearly is outside of her mind. She has no idea
Speaker 1: what's going on. She finds him lying in the grass,
Speaker 1: dead on the lawn, and it makes sense to me
Speaker 1: that she could have rambled something like did I hit who?
Speaker 2: Who? What happened? All I know is you find it
Speaker 2: dead by you don't say anything.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, if she hit, if she did
Speaker 1: hit him, the last thing she's going to say is
Speaker 1: I hit him.
Speaker 2: I hit him, I hit him. No, that's right.
Speaker 1: I mean, give me a break.
Speaker 2: A reasonable murderer wouldn't admit that. The person she'd be like, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know how he got there. We are after the
Speaker 1: truth in this courtroom. You're entitled to it, demand it,
Speaker 1: Jackson said. Let your voice be heard, not in whispers,
Speaker 1: but in truth. Let the community feel through your verdict
Speaker 1: that justice cannot be bent and that it will not
Speaker 1: be buried. Find Karen Reid not guilty, not guilty, not guilty,
Speaker 1: and el.
Speaker 2: Because three charges. Did she have three charges?
Speaker 1: Well, she had three charges. And I feel like he
Speaker 1: was playing on the I hit him, I hit him,
Speaker 1: I hit him, is what they claimed. Tis so very cute.
Speaker 2: It worked all right.
Speaker 1: Hank Brennan, who was the special prosecutor, he does closing
Speaker 1: prosecutor Hank Brennan addressed the jury saying about read quote
Speaker 1: she was drunk, she hit him, then she left him
Speaker 1: to die. Now the government doesn't have to prove that
Speaker 1: she was drunk. It's either she's over the legal limit
Speaker 1: point oh eight or she had enough alcohol to affect
Speaker 1: her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. You will
Speaker 1: know she was far beyond the legal limit after the
Speaker 1: retrograde analysis, almost two to three times the legal limit,
Speaker 1: he says. In Alan Jackson's closing, he talks about the
Speaker 1: tail light fragments and he claims, so the prosecution claims
Speaker 1: that according to the data on the car whatever you
Speaker 1: called it, that the impact happened at twelve thirty one.
Speaker 1: Then when she left the scene, her WiFi connected at
Speaker 1: John's house, because she left and went to John's house
Speaker 1: and it connected at twelve thirty six. So if he
Speaker 1: was a hit at twelve thirty one, And they claim
Speaker 1: that the tail light was shattered all over the lawn,
Speaker 1: and they also claimed that the bulb part was shattered
Speaker 1: light bulb, the actual light bulb was shattered, then that
Speaker 1: tail light would not have lit up later after the fact.
Speaker 1: And Alan Jackson and you have.
Speaker 2: To sorry, but you have to hit. That means he
Speaker 2: had to have penetrated the tail light cover and then
Speaker 2: as far into it as the tail light housing to
Speaker 2: crack the bulb. Right, I mean, I'm just saying that's
Speaker 2: a big impact. Maybe that happens a lot, but that's
Speaker 2: that's a lot of impact, right, And sorry I interrupted.
Speaker 1: No, It's okay, but no, and I agree with what
Speaker 1: you're saying. And the whole point is then Alan Jackson
Speaker 1: showed up on the screen to the jury images of
Speaker 1: that tail light being lit up at five am in
Speaker 1: the morning. And then I think and there was a
Speaker 1: second time when it was well they captured like ring
Speaker 1: footage of her of the car like being driven. Impact point.
Speaker 2: I'm sure they addressed it, but then I would have
Speaker 2: questions of like, well, are there three bulbs or there
Speaker 2: are two and one was cracked, and I'm sure they
Speaker 2: already addressed that, But that is interesting that her light
Speaker 2: was still functioning.
Speaker 1: Right, I thought that was very interesting. And then there
Speaker 1: was another thing I know we talked about the medical examiners.
Speaker 1: Sorry I keep going backwards because there was so much
Speaker 1: in his closing and this whole trial. But the other
Speaker 1: thing that I found really compelling as well was that
Speaker 1: when the medical examiners for the defense and the prosecution.
Speaker 1: When you're talking about the injuries to his arm, if
Speaker 1: his arm, which was supposed to be the impact site,
Speaker 1: because that's where it was his right arm, and that's
Speaker 1: where the scratches and the puncture wounds were. So you know,
Speaker 1: the prosecution is claiming he was hit by a car,
Speaker 1: her suv going backwards.
Speaker 2: The car scratched him.
Speaker 1: And punctured him looked like teethmarks. But the compelling part
Speaker 1: to me is that these medical recreate, you know, people
Speaker 1: recreate scenes, and hitting a car going backwards and hitting
Speaker 1: an arm at twenty four miles per hour, the arm
Speaker 1: would have been damaged, it would have been bruised, ligaments
Speaker 1: would have been torn.
Speaker 2: But I mean if it broken, scratches on my forearm
Speaker 2: and then someone says, how'd you get that, and go,
Speaker 2: I was hit by a car suv Yeah in the snow,
Speaker 2: people would be like what, No, you didn't, right, I mean.
Speaker 1: So the injuries on his arm were inconsistent with being
Speaker 1: hit by an suv going backwards at twenty four miles
Speaker 1: per hour. I mean twenty four miles per hour. Is
Speaker 1: that's fast, Yeah, that's fast, that's Fastwards, that's fast. Backwards. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you hit an arm, your arm's gonna be bruis,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be torn up. You're gonna have broken bones,
Speaker 1: You're gonna have torn ligaments. And none of that was
Speaker 1: consistent with the injuries on his arm. All right Back
Speaker 1: to Hank Brennan. He proceeded to play a clip from
Speaker 1: one of Reed's TV interviews for the jury, and when
Speaker 1: she said I shouldn't have been driving. She did say that,
Speaker 1: And I did watch this, and I remember thinking, I
Speaker 1: don't know if that was so smart for her to
Speaker 1: do that documentary. You know, the documentary I watched. It
Speaker 1: was like five parts. It was called A Body in
Speaker 1: the Snow, and it was basically following her first trial,
Speaker 1: and she did a lot of interviews, and there were
Speaker 1: several times when I thought, I don't know if she
Speaker 1: should have said that, And they used.
Speaker 2: Why why shouldn't she have said that?
Speaker 1: Because she did say I drank too much, I was overserved,
Speaker 1: I drank too much alcohol, I was drunk. I shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been drunk.
Speaker 2: I mean, she she says this memory.
Speaker 1: She says things to me that I thought were self incriminating,
Speaker 1: that she probably shouldn't have been saying.
Speaker 2: Well, but maybe her thing is I'm being honest. I'm
Speaker 2: telling you everything that happened. Yeah, I did drink, but
Speaker 2: I didn't run them over.
Speaker 1: Brennan so Hank. Brennan also emphasized that o'keefan Read's relationship
Speaker 1: was not healthy and nearing. It's in. The relationship is
Speaker 1: almost over. The tensions are simmering beneath the surface. They
Speaker 1: are not getting along. So fast forward that night, after
Speaker 1: the discord, after the arguing, they go out. What do
Speaker 1: they do. They drink, and they drink a lot, Brennan explained.
Speaker 1: He then focused on the moments when O'Keefe got out
Speaker 1: of Reed's suv that night. It's the first time he
Speaker 1: has moved since they got to the flagpole, and it
Speaker 1: will be the last time he moves in his life,
Speaker 1: Brennan said. Brennan then explained to the jury why reid
Speaker 1: Is charge was second degree murder. Quote, it sounds ominous.
Speaker 1: It is. It's a serious charge, second degree murder. When
Speaker 1: most people think murder, they think shooting or stabbing somebody.
Speaker 1: It's natural to think that. However, second degree murder is different.
Speaker 1: I told you at the beginning of this case, I
Speaker 1: told you that we were not going to suggest to
Speaker 1: try to prove that Miss Reid intended to kill John O'Keefe.
Speaker 1: That was never part of this case. We're not claiming
Speaker 1: that I told you that we were not ever going
Speaker 1: to prove that she even intended to hit him. We
Speaker 1: never suggested we would try to prove that, and we
Speaker 1: are not trying to prove that she intended to hit him.
Speaker 1: Brennan said, there was an eyewitness, there was a guide,
Speaker 1: and that eyewitness tells us that she knew, and that
Speaker 1: eyewitness is Karen Reid herself. She tells you that she knew,
Speaker 1: Brennan said, before playing another video clip from the Read
Speaker 1: TV interview. Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?
Speaker 1: Reid said in the video. I didn't think I hit him,
Speaker 1: but could I have clipped him? Again? We talked about
Speaker 1: this earlier, but I feel like you're right, she's being vulnerable,
Speaker 1: she's being honest, and she's saying that's that was what
Speaker 1: was going through my mind when I found him dead
Speaker 1: on the lawn.
Speaker 2: Was that documentary done after her first trial?
Speaker 1: It was done during during trial, during the preparation for
Speaker 1: her first trial.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, so then I think I think it was.
Speaker 1: I think it was prior to the trial, because I
Speaker 1: remember there were lots of scenes of them and what
Speaker 1: they called the war room, and that was when she
Speaker 1: was meeting with Alan Jackson and Michael Yannetti and they
Speaker 1: were going over It showed her getting arrested, it showed
Speaker 1: her going to jail, and then it showed her being
Speaker 1: on house arrest, being at home preparing for the first trial.
Speaker 2: There were a lot of good idea Why would she
Speaker 2: do a documentary like that? I wonder for attorneys that
Speaker 2: thought that would get some public support or.
Speaker 1: Well, that was something I was thinking about on my
Speaker 1: way home before we recorded this podcast, and I thought,
Speaker 1: I wonder why, Because Alan Jackson is brilliant, I wonder
Speaker 1: why he thought it was a good idea. But then
Speaker 1: I thought, what you just said, Maybe it was the
Speaker 1: balance if you balance. Okay, So she maybe says some
Speaker 1: things that don't look great, but she's just being herself.
Speaker 1: Maybe the the public support that she garnered from that
Speaker 1: was worth more than you know, if she misspoke or
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I don't really feel like,
Speaker 1: I mean, is it self incrimination when she said that,
Speaker 1: or is it her just being honest and authentic about
Speaker 1: that night and saying I don't know did I hit him?
Speaker 1: He's I found him dead on the lawn, so I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, you could look at it from
Speaker 1: a jury perspective that she's the more honest of the
Speaker 1: two sides.
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's what a what a mess she
Speaker 2: had more like document interviews and oh yeah she's gonna yeahs.
Speaker 1: Do I follow her on Instagram?
Speaker 2: Following I don't you know.
Speaker 1: I I don't even follow Alan Jackson. I don't know
Speaker 1: how that happened.
Speaker 2: But you like him?
Speaker 1: I just I feel like he's I. I my heroes
Speaker 1: like other people might think, like rock stars or like
Speaker 1: actors are their heroes minds like Alan Jackson, Brian friedran, Yeah,
Speaker 1: like those are the people that I like are like, huh,
Speaker 1: I would fan girl over Alan Jackson, but not like
Speaker 1: Brad Pitt, but Alan Jackson.
Speaker 2: Yes, Brett, bet you a cameo from Brian and Jackson?
Speaker 1: Do you think do you think they're on cameo? They
Speaker 1: might be after this for people like you maybe. Brennan
Speaker 1: also addressed one of Jackson's major points on Friday, why
Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor didn't take the stand in his trial. After
Speaker 1: he testified in the first one, he was terminated. He
Speaker 1: said a penalty. He was held responsible for what he did.
Speaker 1: He should have been We don't We don't need Trooper
Speaker 1: Proctor in this case. We don't need Trooper Proctor to
Speaker 1: prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. Brennan concluded his
Speaker 1: argument by showing the jury a photo of John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 1: He is not an it. John O'Keeffe is not a body.
Speaker 1: John O'Keefe was not a buffalo on a prairie. John
Speaker 1: O'Keeffe was a per and he was murdered by Karen Reid. Clearly,
Speaker 1: all the prosecution has is to play to the jury's heart.
Speaker 2: And say this crossing the that they don't look at
Speaker 2: the evidence and fire guilty because she don't.
Speaker 1: Forget that this is a man, this is a human,
Speaker 1: So do the right thing and find her guilty.
Speaker 2: Well, well, she's also a woman and a human. I mean,
Speaker 2: you can't throw them to jail. What about you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 2: like twelve thirty one is when they blew, the impact
Speaker 2: took place in twelve thirty six is when she hit
Speaker 2: the WiFi.
Speaker 1: Is when she connected to John's five.
Speaker 2: Minutes, how far a part of the homes Okay, ye,
Speaker 2: so that tracks that makes sense?
Speaker 1: Then, yeah it does. But what what happened though, is
Speaker 1: when they clocked her, or they they claim that she
Speaker 1: hit him at twelve thirty one. The prosecution really buried
Speaker 1: themselves for what does it paint yourself into a corner
Speaker 1: when you do something like that. His phone was still
Speaker 1: warm at twelve thirty one, as opposed to like it
Speaker 1: wasn't laying in the snow. I believe they said it
Speaker 1: only takes fifteen minutes for your phone to go from
Speaker 1: warm to like if it's in freezing temperatures to where
Speaker 1: it shuts off. It's like a very small window of time.
Speaker 1: So if his body had been laying in the snow
Speaker 1: starting at twelve thirty one, and she phone would have
Speaker 1: shut off.
Speaker 2: I don't know. There's so many holes in this thing.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: It's unbelievable that they even tried her. It's embarrassing. It's
Speaker 2: a waste of everyone's time and money, it is.
Speaker 1: And it's a first of all, to think of what
Speaker 1: she had to go through, the money she has to
Speaker 1: spend to defend herself. The fact, well I know she
Speaker 1: had a I've read well or something she did, and
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people supported her because they
Speaker 1: were so you know, she had the public behind her
Speaker 1: so much. But she also had to I read like
Speaker 1: she cashed out her four oh one. She doesn't work,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: She also I think she mortgaged.
Speaker 1: I think she either sold her house or she had
Speaker 1: to get a second mortgage on her house. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's completely financially depleted herself to have to defend herself
Speaker 1: in this.
Speaker 2: The moral of the story. Shouldn't drink, Okay, that's that's
Speaker 2: what I shouldn't overdrink.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but if she here's the thing though, her If
Speaker 1: if he was murdered inside the house and then drug
Speaker 1: out onto the lawn, it makes no difference whether she
Speaker 1: drank or not.
Speaker 2: Well, she might have a better memory, she might be
Speaker 2: more credible, She might not have ran them over. Not
Speaker 2: just kid, I don't know. There's a lot of things
Speaker 2: gonna happen if she was, you know not.
Speaker 1: I mean, so you're saying if she was, if she
Speaker 1: did not drink at all, and she was completely clear
Speaker 1: of mind, she might have seen him actually go into
Speaker 1: the house and had to.
Speaker 2: Clear I mean, I'm just making a general statement that is,
Speaker 2: I mean she drink and drove and I just don't
Speaker 2: I don't fin any forgiveness in that. So now she's
Speaker 2: in a mess.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But again the alternative argument is did the drinking
Speaker 1: make any difference?
Speaker 2: No, the cops did it. It should be called what
Speaker 2: was that documentary?
Speaker 1: Body in the snow?
Speaker 2: Should be a body drug out and dumped in the
Speaker 2: snow by police officers on their lawn. Yes, all right.
Speaker 1: So then after they give their closing statements the jury
Speaker 1: to deliberations, there was an amended verdict slip. Judge Beverly Canone.
Speaker 1: Everybody calls her aunt bev on TikTok. She does not
Speaker 1: have a large fan base at all, gave jurors a
Speaker 1: revised verdict slipt on Tuesday afternoon, following confusion from the
Speaker 1: panel about the first slip they were given, which prompted
Speaker 1: a question to be sent to the judge. The slip
Speaker 1: concerns the second of three charges Reid faces in the
Speaker 1: death of John O'Keefe, manslaughter while operating under the influence.
Speaker 1: That charge, at the request of Reid's defense, carries a
Speaker 1: number of lesser included counts for which the jury could
Speaker 1: either convict or acquit Read. The new slip, distributed to
Speaker 1: the media Wednesday morning, contains clarifying language for the jury,
Speaker 1: telling the four person to quote, stop and sign the
Speaker 1: verdict slip end quote after each lesser included charge. If
Speaker 1: they find Read guilty, jurors can convict her of any
Speaker 1: of the lesser included charges or acquit her of each charge,
Speaker 1: including manslaughter. Though I believe what the jurors were asking
Speaker 1: so they needed an amended jury slip was to break
Speaker 1: it down better. They didn't understand if like she was
Speaker 1: acquitted of some of the higher charges and maybe not
Speaker 1: the lesser charges, if that was still considered a hung jury,
Speaker 1: so they needed more clarifying.
Speaker 2: I see basic jury instructions on the charges and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and I know that they did come back
Speaker 1: and ask if she's acquitted of the two higher charges
Speaker 1: but not the third charge, would that still be considered
Speaker 1: a hut or a mistrial? And then she said she
Speaker 1: couldn't answer that because it was a theoretical question.
Speaker 2: Because then because I'm guessing, but then the judge thing,
Speaker 2: and I can't answer that question because if I give
Speaker 2: you an answer that might sway you exactly, like oh,
Speaker 2: you know, well, it'll be a hung trial or hung jury,
Speaker 2: and we don't want that again, so we'll find her guilty, yeah,
Speaker 2: or the other way around.
Speaker 1: So she couldn't answer that anyway, all right, So we
Speaker 1: get a verdict. Finally, that happened just like two hours ago.
Speaker 1: After more than thirty days of testimony and four days
Speaker 1: of deliberation, jury found read not guilty of second degree
Speaker 1: murder manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence
Speaker 1: and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Speaker 1: But she was found guilty of a very lesser offensive,
Speaker 1: operating a vehicle under the influence with a blood alcohol
Speaker 1: level of zero point eight percent or greater. She is
Speaker 1: sentenced to a year of probation. Basically, it was a
Speaker 1: huge win for her.
Speaker 2: Was that was that based on just her testimony that
Speaker 2: she was drunk?
Speaker 1: No, they had they had ad they.
Speaker 2: Test her the next morning or something.
Speaker 1: I don't I believe so, but they they did a whole.
Speaker 2: Of blood change hear to what she was up against.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, She's like, I'll take I'll take a I'll
Speaker 1: take a DUI or this was called a OUI operating
Speaker 1: under influence. I mean she'll do a year of probation
Speaker 1: and then she gets to go on with her life. However,
Speaker 1: there still is a pending civil suit with the o
Speaker 1: Key family against her for run. Actually they did, and
Speaker 1: they actually stayed the suit while she was doing the
Speaker 1: criminal trial.
Speaker 2: They see the freaking cops too.
Speaker 1: Well, here's my question, and let's talk about it.
Speaker 2: It was dead on your lawn, You didn't do anything,
Speaker 2: and you destroyed all the evidence in your house. Give
Speaker 2: me a shoeback.
Speaker 1: So giving my shoeback. So, they filed a civil suit
Speaker 1: against her before the second retrial for wrongful death. Then
Speaker 1: that suit was stayed while she was doing her criminal
Speaker 1: trial because she couldn't do the civil trial and the
Speaker 1: criminal trial. Plus you can't do a civil trial and
Speaker 1: then they take your testimony from the civil trial used
Speaker 1: against you in your criminal trial anyway, so that was stayed.
Speaker 1: Now that her criminal trial is over, the civil trial
Speaker 1: will proceed. But here's my question. If you are John
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's family, and you're the ones that filed the civil
Speaker 1: suit before this latest retrial, and you sat in court
Speaker 1: every single day and you listened to all the evidence
Speaker 1: and the testimony, and then the jury comes back with
Speaker 1: their decision that she's not guilty, and the entire world
Speaker 1: that's watching this is saying she's not guilty. Free Karen Rea.
Speaker 1: How do you continue on with the civil suit for
Speaker 1: wrongful death at this point? Are you not completely pissed
Speaker 1: with the system? How do you go forward with the
Speaker 1: civil suit against Karen Reid? I feel like they need
Speaker 1: to withdraw the suit.
Speaker 2: You mean they should? They should have They should understand
Speaker 2: that she didn't do it. Is that what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I'm saying. They sat in court every single.
Speaker 2: Ya, But are you suggesting that they should be based
Speaker 2: on everything they saw on witness and participated in and
Speaker 2: all that took place, they should be of the position of, Okay,
Speaker 2: I guess she didn't do it, so we don't want
Speaker 2: to sue her. Is that what you mean?
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm saying.
Speaker 2: And she doesn't have any money anyway, She's spent it all.
Speaker 1: On Yeah, I'm saying, how do you go forward with
Speaker 1: this wrongful death suit against Karen Reid when you sat
Speaker 1: in court every day and you heard all of that.
Speaker 2: Let's be clear for listeners, the standard in a civil
Speaker 2: suit to find a verdict is different than the standard
Speaker 2: and a criminal it is lesser.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, it is a preponderance of the evidence.
Speaker 2: Which means just tipping the scale.
Speaker 1: It's a fifty one percent.
Speaker 2: So it had had Karen been found guilty, the civil
Speaker 2: suit would be much easier because you're like, she's already guilty,
Speaker 2: it would be. But now she's not guilty, so now
Speaker 2: they have to prove beyond a preponminence of the Evans
Speaker 2: or whatever tip the scale, have to.
Speaker 1: Tip the scale. Yeah, but here's my point. I feel
Speaker 1: like it's just a moral issue at this point, Like
Speaker 1: you sat in court and you heard all this testimony
Speaker 1: about how corrupt this police department was, how no one
Speaker 1: investigated the house, how the Brian Albert and Brian Higgins
Speaker 1: both got rid of their cell phones.
Speaker 2: And their dogs and the dog and didn't they like
Speaker 2: like redo the flooring.
Speaker 1: And they did it, Yes, And the house was sold
Speaker 1: and the ring footage across the street was deleted or
Speaker 1: wasn't available, and nobody she's.
Speaker 2: Looking she's she is looking the wrong way. They're looking
Speaker 2: the wrong way by going after Karen. I know that,
Speaker 2: but sometimes it's just a money grab and sometimes it's
Speaker 2: just a stubbornness of you know, they want someone to
Speaker 2: be held accountable.
Speaker 1: And I can get that, well, I understand that, but
Speaker 1: I'm just saying they filed it before the retrial. So
Speaker 1: I'm saying, after sitting in court for thirty days and
Speaker 1: watching all this testimony, I feel like they need to
Speaker 1: withdraw the civil suit and go after the real perpetrators here,
Speaker 1: the corruption the police department, Like file a civil suit
Speaker 1: against them. There's something shady and the fauryus that happened
Speaker 1: in the house.
Speaker 2: That who's actually suing.
Speaker 1: It's John o'cue's family. It's his mom and oh, his
Speaker 1: immediate family, his family.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's an unfortunate thing. It doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that you know, they're not suffering by his loss,
Speaker 2: But I don't know. What's done is done. Man. Sometimes
Speaker 2: you just gotta he just gotta move on. It sucks,
Speaker 2: But the kids are the one that they're gonna suffer
Speaker 2: the most, those kids that he was taking care of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, at the end of the day, I think, to me,
Speaker 1: I feel as if this was one of the most interesting, compelling, infuriating,
Speaker 1: but fascinating legal.
Speaker 2: Cases and confusing and unclear.
Speaker 1: But look, we follow Ditty too, and Diddy is huge,
Speaker 1: and it's in the media and everybody talks about it
Speaker 1: ezy one, but I don't find it.
Speaker 2: No, it's like going to talk about another freak off
Speaker 2: and another.
Speaker 1: Freak off, Okay, another witness. It's kind of the same
Speaker 1: pattern of behavior. Everybody looked the other way for years
Speaker 1: and years.
Speaker 2: But he's you know, he abuses his power, he buys people.
Speaker 2: I get it. He beats people and he pays him.
Speaker 2: He's a jerk. But it's it's repeating. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is this requires you to think and try to figure
Speaker 2: out what the heck is going on. Yeah, and that's
Speaker 2: why it's so puzzle pity diddy what's his name?
Speaker 1: Pity, it's pity.
Speaker 2: I pity that whatever it probably will be next who
Speaker 2: knows he's going to be no as soon he's going
Speaker 2: to be known by a cell number.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But again back to Karen Reid, I feel like
Speaker 1: this case should be studied in law school. It is
Speaker 1: why because it is the epitome of reasonable doubt. Like,
Speaker 1: this case is so fascinating.
Speaker 2: It should be studied by the police department and then
Speaker 2: they know and then they should be telling their police officer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there should be some protocol for finding a dead
Speaker 2: body on your lawn. Yep, that's that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying this is a fascinating case because.
Speaker 2: Every snowplower should have cameras on their cars.
Speaker 1: They should have dash cam dash cams. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: that would have solved it right there, if he had
Speaker 1: a dash cam on that snowplow.
Speaker 2: Case close right one way or another?
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, I mean either there was a body there
Speaker 1: or there wasn't. And if there wasn't a body there,
Speaker 1: the bodies in the house.
Speaker 2: No, dash cams are a big deal. You need a
Speaker 2: dash cam. I need a dash can You need a
Speaker 2: dash cam?
Speaker 1: Who got pulled over today? Because it wasn't me.
Speaker 2: Lots of people got pulled over.
Speaker 1: You got pulled over today?
Speaker 2: All right? Anything wrong?
Speaker 1: All right? Thank you for listening.
Speaker 2: To our breakdown? Or are we done with Karen re Yeah?
Speaker 2: I follow the civil suit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I don't have anything else to say about.
Speaker 2: The civil suit. I know. But are we going to
Speaker 2: follow the civil suit?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, we'll follow the civil suit. But I mean
Speaker 1: I'm hoping the civil suit gets dropped.
Speaker 2: It'll it'll get dropped. You think or it'll it'll be
Speaker 2: a short I don't know, there's none. Well, I don't
Speaker 2: know that this Actually, this will be very interesting assuming
Speaker 2: they don't drop it. If they drop it, okay, if
Speaker 2: they don't drop it and they proceed with a trial,
Speaker 2: it'd be very interesting because you have two different standards
Speaker 2: on a very questionable case. And so it'll be interesting
Speaker 2: to know if it's like not guilty in a criminal standard,
Speaker 2: but guilty or liable in a civil standard. So that'd
Speaker 2: be really interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and also just to draw a parallel, O. J.
Speaker 1: Simpson was acquitted and yeah, that's right, that's right, but
Speaker 1: he was found guilty in a civil suit right after
Speaker 1: the fact.
Speaker 2: Well, and but the difference with him was the public
Speaker 2: knew he was guilty. Come on, dude, the guy.
Speaker 1: Was all right. Thank you guys for listening to legally Brunette.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. And as always I appreciate when you, guys,
Speaker 1: DM you tell us how much you like it, you
Speaker 1: give me feedback, feedback, suggestions on cases that you find interesting. Actually,
Speaker 1: I'm reading the book on the Memphis three because someone
Speaker 1: had suggested that to me, and I feel like that's
Speaker 1: another case we should talk about. At some point. So
Speaker 1: thank you for all of the feedback. We truly appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thank you