WEBVTT - Legally Brunette: Karen Read - Case Closed

0:00:01.520 --> 0:00:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:09.360
<v Speaker 1>be your host Emily and Shane. Just Shane. This is

0:00:09.360 --> 0:00:12.719
<v Speaker 1>actually a very exciting day today. We were super happy

0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:16.479
<v Speaker 1>that this worked out because the Karen Reid verdict came

0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:18.400
<v Speaker 1>in today, so we were definitely going to get into that.

0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:19.760
<v Speaker 1>We're just going to go through the case a little bit,

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.599
<v Speaker 1>do a little overview, go into the closing arguments, and

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:25.120
<v Speaker 1>then talk about the verdict. But before we go into

0:00:25.160 --> 0:00:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Karen Reid, we always like to do a little bit

0:00:26.720 --> 0:00:28.560
<v Speaker 1>of an update in the beginning on some of the

0:00:28.600 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 1>other cases that we talked about. So I don't know

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:34.519
<v Speaker 1>if you guys had the opportunity to listen to this episode,

0:00:34.560 --> 0:00:37.480
<v Speaker 1>but we did go into the Idaho murders a couple

0:00:37.560 --> 0:00:40.200
<v Speaker 1>episodes back, if you want to go back and look

0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 1>for it. But one of the things that we talked

0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:44.040
<v Speaker 1>about was the door dash driver Do you remember this?

0:00:44.159 --> 0:00:47.120
<v Speaker 1>And we were like, there was such a close timeframe

0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:49.240
<v Speaker 1>as to when the delivery was made and then there

0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:51.879
<v Speaker 1>was actually evidence of a photo of the food delivered,

0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:54.560
<v Speaker 1>but this was the same time that Coberger was in it.

0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:59.240
<v Speaker 2>The door dash issue caused more questions to be had

0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 2>than answer like it Wasn't it more confusing?

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:04.639
<v Speaker 1>Most likely? But I remember saying that once this trial starts,

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:07.040
<v Speaker 1>we're going to see the DoorDash driver, and that was

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:09.480
<v Speaker 1>that was a new update that came out. I read

0:01:09.480 --> 0:01:11.920
<v Speaker 1>that today that a DoorDash driver is expecting to testify

0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:15.319
<v Speaker 1>at the upcoming Idaho murders trial, which will start in August.

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember the exact date, but it's August, and

0:01:17.920 --> 0:01:21.640
<v Speaker 1>that she actually saw Brian Coberger during a delivery on

0:01:21.680 --> 0:01:24.200
<v Speaker 1>the night of the fatal stabbings. It's a forty four

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:28.000
<v Speaker 1>year old woman identified only as MM and court documents

0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:30.280
<v Speaker 1>and she told police during a traffic stop so she

0:01:30.319 --> 0:01:33.240
<v Speaker 1>got pulled over and Pullman Washington last year, that she

0:01:33.319 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 1>delivered food to Xana Kernodle on the early hours of

0:01:36.440 --> 0:01:38.240
<v Speaker 1>November thirteenth of twenty twenty two.

0:01:38.440 --> 0:01:40.360
<v Speaker 2>The victims are just someone visiting the house.

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:43.240
<v Speaker 1>Xana was one of the college students that was murdered

0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:47.640
<v Speaker 1>that evening. So the DoorDash driver uttered the words I

0:01:47.760 --> 0:01:51.200
<v Speaker 1>saw Brian there, two officers, adding that she had parked

0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:53.280
<v Speaker 1>right next to him when she had pulled into the house.

0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:56.400
<v Speaker 1>The purported delivery is alleged to have taken place just

0:01:56.680 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 1>minutes before Kernodle, her boyfriend Ethan, and the two roommates,

0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>Kaylee and Madison were all stabbed to death by a

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:06.760
<v Speaker 1>masked assailant. The woman also told an officer that she

0:02:06.880 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 1>may be called to the stand to testify at Coburger's trial,

0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.800
<v Speaker 1>according to bodycam video of the conversation, which was posted

0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:16.840
<v Speaker 1>to YouTube. Quote, I have to testify in a big

0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:20.080
<v Speaker 1>murder case here because I'm the door dash driver. So yeah,

0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:22.520
<v Speaker 1>the woman says in the clip as she's being questioned

0:02:22.880 --> 0:02:26.119
<v Speaker 1>over a suspected DUI back in September of twenty twenty four.

0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:30.440
<v Speaker 2>So that's that's something a doordasher never thought they would

0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:32.880
<v Speaker 2>be a part of that way, right, Yeah, you when

0:02:32.919 --> 0:02:34.600
<v Speaker 2>you signed up to be a doordasher, do you think

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:36.240
<v Speaker 2>that you would be a witness to like one of

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:39.360
<v Speaker 2>the largest murder cases in the country, right in terms

0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:40.639
<v Speaker 2>of popularity.

0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:43.320
<v Speaker 1>And the fact that she literally delivered the door dash

0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 1>like as he was No, I mean that's a possibility.

0:02:48.960 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 2>What was your tip that night?

0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:52.960
<v Speaker 1>The trial against Brian Coberger is just a few months away,

0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:54.800
<v Speaker 1>but family and friends of the victims will have their

0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 1>voices heard in a new documentary which will be on

0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 1>Amazon Prime. It's called One Night in Idea, the College Murders.

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:02.359
<v Speaker 2>Oh, when's that coming out.

0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:04.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if there's a date, but I believe

0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:08.440
<v Speaker 1>it's soon. It will spotlight the morning after the four

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:12.200
<v Speaker 1>University of Idaho students Xana, Ethan, Madison, and Kayley were

0:03:12.280 --> 0:03:14.440
<v Speaker 1>killed in their home off campus in twenty twenty two.

0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:18.519
<v Speaker 1>It's told in captivating tents and emotionally wrenching detail by

0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:21.560
<v Speaker 1>only those involved in and affected by the crime. The

0:03:21.600 --> 0:03:25.679
<v Speaker 1>series intimately explores the American tragedy and it's continued impact

0:03:25.760 --> 0:03:29.240
<v Speaker 1>and fallout. This is described in the Amazon Prime press release.

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 2>Oh, so they've announced it formally.

0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>It's actually airing July eleventh, twenty twenty five, which, by

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:37.280
<v Speaker 1>the way, is the day after that Real Housewives of

0:03:37.320 --> 0:03:40.440
<v Speaker 1>Orange County Season nineteen airs on July tenth, So this

0:03:40.520 --> 0:03:41.520
<v Speaker 1>air is the next day.

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 2>Only eleven affect your ratings.

0:03:46.360 --> 0:03:48.839
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for that. So you guys will have lots

0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:51.760
<v Speaker 1>of good stuff to watch in July. So you know,

0:03:51.840 --> 0:03:53.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, it'll be interesting to see what they

0:03:53.920 --> 0:03:58.360
<v Speaker 1>do say, because clearly they can't say things or give

0:03:58.440 --> 0:03:59.600
<v Speaker 1>interviews that are going.

0:03:59.400 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 2>To impact impact right, but we're definitely gonna have to

0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:06.160
<v Speaker 2>discuss that one.

0:04:06.240 --> 0:04:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely.

0:04:06.800 --> 0:04:08.080
<v Speaker 2>It's like one episode, do we know?

0:04:08.920 --> 0:04:13.080
<v Speaker 1>It says a docu series, so there's more than one. Yeah,

0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:16.039
<v Speaker 1>all right, let's move on, and before we get to

0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:19.480
<v Speaker 1>the verdict which came out today in the Karen Read retrial,

0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 1>let's just go through and do like a little bit

0:04:22.839 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 1>of a reminder about everything that's happened so far. So

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:28.560
<v Speaker 1>what were the prosecution and the defense arguing?

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:28.960
<v Speaker 2>I know this?

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:31.159
<v Speaker 1>So many people are invested in this case, so a

0:04:31.200 --> 0:04:33.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of you know this. But I do feel like

0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:36.120
<v Speaker 1>it's important just to have like a basic overview so

0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:37.679
<v Speaker 1>we can get into closing argument.

0:04:37.760 --> 0:04:38.960
<v Speaker 2>My memory refreshed, Yes.

0:04:39.000 --> 0:04:41.760
<v Speaker 1>And Shane has I've been married to him for sixteen years,

0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:44.719
<v Speaker 1>so his memory is about as long as a butterfly.

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:48.680
<v Speaker 2>Because every day you're like, one, I've never heard that,

0:04:48.920 --> 0:04:49.880
<v Speaker 2>I don't raise before.

0:04:50.120 --> 0:04:52.359
<v Speaker 1>I figure a butterfly doesn't have a long term memory

0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:54.640
<v Speaker 1>because they don't last very long. But every day you're like,

0:04:54.680 --> 0:04:55.520
<v Speaker 1>what are you doing today?

0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 2>Wait? Did you know?

0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:57.120
<v Speaker 1>Tell me again?

0:04:57.120 --> 0:04:58.880
<v Speaker 2>What do you know? Now? We're getting something else? That's

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 2>what you don't tell me what you're doing until five

0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:03.800
<v Speaker 2>minutes before you're like, oh, yeah, I forgot I'm going

0:05:03.839 --> 0:05:05.000
<v Speaker 2>to Las Vegas this week.

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:09.080
<v Speaker 1>It's true, all right. Anyway, back to Karen Reid. So,

0:05:09.160 --> 0:05:12.640
<v Speaker 1>the prosecutors alleged that Reid hit her boyfriend John O'Keeffe

0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:16.040
<v Speaker 1>with her car she had Alexis SUV outside of the

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:19.440
<v Speaker 1>home of a fellow police officer, Brian Albert, in January

0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:22.440
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty two, and left him to die there during

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:23.040
<v Speaker 1>a blizzard.

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:24.840
<v Speaker 2>This is three and a half years.

0:05:25.040 --> 0:05:28.719
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this is after a night of drinking. The defense

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:31.600
<v Speaker 1>has argued that Reed's vehicle could not have hit O'Keefe,

0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>and instead said that O'Keefe was attacked by a dog

0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:36.680
<v Speaker 1>and beaten by other people who were in the house

0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:38.960
<v Speaker 1>before he was then thrown out in the snow and

0:05:39.040 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>left to die.

0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:41.920
<v Speaker 2>That's a gang up. When the dog also joined.

0:05:42.000 --> 0:05:45.440
<v Speaker 1>Uh yeah, man, the dog's like, let's get him. Okay, Look,

0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:47.360
<v Speaker 1>I have a I was thinking about this state because

0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:50.280
<v Speaker 1>I was thinking about how the defense, the defense's complete

0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:52.279
<v Speaker 1>defense in this case is basically that he was beat

0:05:52.320 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 1>up inside the house by other people, police officers, and

0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:58.880
<v Speaker 1>the dog was a part of it. We have a

0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:02.000
<v Speaker 1>German shepherd. German shepherd husky. If there is a fight,

0:06:02.080 --> 0:06:04.479
<v Speaker 1>if there is an altercation in this house, that dog

0:06:04.520 --> 0:06:05.360
<v Speaker 1>would get into it.

0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:09.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I don't know, I know, Okay, So what's what's

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 2>your point?

0:06:10.839 --> 0:06:14.480
<v Speaker 1>My point is is that pretending or trying to act

0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:17.000
<v Speaker 1>like a German shepherd and a home of a police

0:06:17.000 --> 0:06:19.240
<v Speaker 1>officer if there was a fight, that a German shepherd

0:06:19.240 --> 0:06:23.479
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't have like gotten involved in an altercation with men.

0:06:23.520 --> 0:06:25.880
<v Speaker 2>When there's you know, well who's arguing that the dog

0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:26.599
<v Speaker 2>wasn't involved.

0:06:26.640 --> 0:06:29.400
<v Speaker 1>The prosecution, Well, they're arguing that she hit him. I'm

0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:32.120
<v Speaker 1>just saying that's not a far fetched idea. That's my point.

0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:34.880
<v Speaker 1>My point is, it's not like the defense came up

0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:38.560
<v Speaker 1>with some random theory that's also sense to me.

0:06:38.600 --> 0:06:40.680
<v Speaker 2>It wouldn't sway me one way or another. I mean,

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:42.680
<v Speaker 2>it's like, you have all these police officers that are

0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:44.800
<v Speaker 2>alleged to have killed them, and we're worried about whether

0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:47.000
<v Speaker 2>the dog did or did not scratch him.

0:06:47.279 --> 0:06:49.600
<v Speaker 1>Well, it comes down to the evidence on his arm. Yeah,

0:06:49.800 --> 0:06:51.719
<v Speaker 1>I mean it looks like scratches and.

0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:56.760
<v Speaker 2>When the dog was relocated, the dog wastection the dog.

0:06:56.560 --> 0:06:58.480
<v Speaker 1>Is currently yes. Because here's the other thing that didn't

0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:00.720
<v Speaker 1>make sense. To me, it was Chloe is the dog.

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:04.440
<v Speaker 1>Chloe was re home shortly after this incident, And how

0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:06.839
<v Speaker 1>can you not find Chloe? Like wouldn't you go to the.

0:07:06.880 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 2>Police, And well, I don't know.

0:07:09.680 --> 0:07:12.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I feel like if my dog was involved

0:07:12.560 --> 0:07:13.920
<v Speaker 1>in an altercation and then I.

0:07:13.920 --> 0:07:16.280
<v Speaker 2>Just gave him away, shouldn't that be subpoena, Like we're

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:18.040
<v Speaker 2>gonna subpoena, Like who the dog?

0:07:19.480 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 1>Yes, he's compelled to come into court.

0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:26.400
<v Speaker 2>I'm just rehome the witnesses and no one's gonna ask

0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:26.920
<v Speaker 2>about him.

0:07:27.160 --> 0:07:29.720
<v Speaker 1>A brief overview of what happened after the first trial.

0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>So we know that there was a hung jury in

0:07:31.040 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 1>the first trial, So the Commonwealth decided to retry her,

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:36.560
<v Speaker 1>which again I thought was a huge kind of state.

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:40.560
<v Speaker 2>That's exhausting. At least I think a hung jury in general,

0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:44.760
<v Speaker 2>like as a layperson, a hung jury means there's doubt,

0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:47.360
<v Speaker 2>and so why would you try again, Like, let's find

0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:49.760
<v Speaker 2>some more people that might find him guilty. These people

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:52.120
<v Speaker 2>didn't find guilty. Find some more these.

0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:54.600
<v Speaker 1>People didn't work out, Let's try different ones. At least.

0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:59.280
<v Speaker 1>Forgerers who served on Karen Reid's last her first trial

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:02.520
<v Speaker 1>last year have confirmed that she was found not guilty

0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:04.679
<v Speaker 1>of second degree murder and leaving the scene of personal

0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:08.080
<v Speaker 1>injury and death, according to Reed's attorneys. I do remember

0:08:08.120 --> 0:08:10.480
<v Speaker 1>that Reed's attorneys did try to make a motion before

0:08:10.480 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 1>the court that she'd be acquitted because there were juries

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:16.600
<v Speaker 1>that spoke afterwards that had had relaid the information that

0:08:16.640 --> 0:08:19.440
<v Speaker 1>they did find her guilty, even though they didn't formally

0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:21.920
<v Speaker 1>say that, they just just came up with they said,

0:08:21.920 --> 0:08:25.200
<v Speaker 1>we couldn't make a decision, and.

0:08:24.960 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 2>Talked to the jurors then afterwards, because can they be like,

0:08:28.040 --> 0:08:31.160
<v Speaker 2>what was convincing? Why did you think they were?

0:08:34.400 --> 0:08:37.360
<v Speaker 1>What worked and what didn't. However, the jury could not

0:08:37.400 --> 0:08:39.480
<v Speaker 1>come to an agreement on a third charge of manslaughter

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:42.560
<v Speaker 1>while operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Her lawyers

0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:44.840
<v Speaker 1>filed multiple appeals all the way to the Supreme Court,

0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:47.000
<v Speaker 1>claiming Read should not have been retried on the counts

0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:49.319
<v Speaker 1>the jury apparently agreed on, saying it would amount to

0:08:49.360 --> 0:08:53.240
<v Speaker 1>double jeopardy. Each appeal was denied. She's pleaded not guilty

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:57.360
<v Speaker 1>to all three charges and maintains her innocence. She was

0:08:57.400 --> 0:09:00.480
<v Speaker 1>facing this and this is the retrial. Three main charges

0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:04.640
<v Speaker 1>with the death of John O'Keeffe's second degree murder, manslaughter

0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:07.720
<v Speaker 1>while operating a motorcal vehicle under the influence, and leaving

0:09:07.720 --> 0:09:10.040
<v Speaker 1>the scene of a collision resulting in death.

0:09:10.480 --> 0:09:13.199
<v Speaker 2>So you might have said this, but can I ask

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:15.920
<v Speaker 2>question did? Is she using the same attorneys? Yeah?

0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:17.719
<v Speaker 1>She Well, she added to her team. She has a

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.120
<v Speaker 1>bigger team this time, but she's still her main attorneys

0:09:21.120 --> 0:09:22.440
<v Speaker 1>are Alan Jackson.

0:09:22.120 --> 0:09:24.240
<v Speaker 2>And then my prosecutor prosecutor.

0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:25.720
<v Speaker 1>No, remember we talked about this before.

0:09:25.720 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 2>That's why I said, Yes, I'm reminding you memory.

0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Yes, it's probably worse. They brought in a special prosecutor,

0:09:35.760 --> 0:09:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Hank Brennan, who also represented or Yeah, the Whitey Bulger.

0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:47.040
<v Speaker 1>Why Whitey Bulger. Yes, he was a mobster.

0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:51.679
<v Speaker 2>Yeah you think it, white.

0:09:52.120 --> 0:10:03.800
<v Speaker 1>Tighty Whitey Bulger. Let's talk about some of the key

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:06.240
<v Speaker 1>witnesses and some of the things that were brought up

0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:07.000
<v Speaker 1>during this retrial.

0:10:07.120 --> 0:10:09.640
<v Speaker 2>Yes, some basic questions. When was the first verdict again

0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:11.800
<v Speaker 2>or the first lack of verdict?

0:10:12.040 --> 0:10:14.640
<v Speaker 1>You mean the mistrial? It was last year, so she.

0:10:14.600 --> 0:10:18.120
<v Speaker 2>Had to go a year of waiting to be prosecuted again,

0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:20.400
<v Speaker 2>and then she had to go to a nearly you know,

0:10:20.600 --> 0:10:25.200
<v Speaker 2>a lengthy trial over a month man, Now, what's she

0:10:25.240 --> 0:10:25.600
<v Speaker 2>going to do?

0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:28.520
<v Speaker 1>Well, she has a civil suit against her. Still, I mean.

0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:31.720
<v Speaker 2>That's that's nothing. That's nothing. Better to go in a prison.

0:10:32.480 --> 0:10:34.720
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, I mean and the cil.

0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:35.720
<v Speaker 2>Okay, we'll talk about it.

0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:37.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, let's get to the civil ser laders. But let's

0:10:37.640 --> 0:10:39.840
<v Speaker 1>just go through some of some of the testimony and

0:10:39.880 --> 0:10:43.360
<v Speaker 1>some of the evidence in the retrial. Jennifer McCabe's testimony,

0:10:43.400 --> 0:10:45.240
<v Speaker 1>who was a friend of O'Keefe and Reed, who was

0:10:45.280 --> 0:10:49.320
<v Speaker 1>also in the home that night. She is a friend

0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:51.080
<v Speaker 1>of both of them, but she is also the sister

0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:54.240
<v Speaker 1>in law of Brian Albert, who owns the house. So

0:10:54.320 --> 0:10:57.160
<v Speaker 1>defense attorneys say that Jen McCabe's text messages show she

0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:00.440
<v Speaker 1>organized to cover up around how John O'Keefe wound up

0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:04.480
<v Speaker 1>unconscious in the snow outside of thirty four Fairview quote.

0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:07.559
<v Speaker 1>Carrie talked to the cops and kept it simple, McCabe

0:11:07.640 --> 0:11:10.320
<v Speaker 1>said in a text at about eight pm on January

0:11:10.360 --> 0:11:13.480
<v Speaker 1>twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, the day O'Keefe's body was

0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 1>found outside her sister, Nicole Albert's home. Then Jen McCabe's

0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:22.400
<v Speaker 1>sister responded, we'll get more info tomorrow. Don't want a

0:11:22.440 --> 0:11:28.120
<v Speaker 1>text about it. In addition, Alan Jackson asked Jen McCabe

0:11:28.160 --> 0:11:30.280
<v Speaker 1>why she didn't ask her brother in law, Brian Albert,

0:11:30.360 --> 0:11:33.080
<v Speaker 1>a police officer, for help, given that he would have

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 1>had first responder training and lived in the home. McCabe

0:11:36.960 --> 0:11:39.240
<v Speaker 1>said she didn't think to go inside to get Brian

0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 1>Albert find warm blankets, or to check whether the Alberts

0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:46.080
<v Speaker 1>were also in peril, that she was entirely focused on

0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:50.520
<v Speaker 1>helping O'Keefe. I thought this was really great when Alan

0:11:50.640 --> 0:11:54.360
<v Speaker 1>Jackson was cross examining her on the stand. He's cross

0:11:54.400 --> 0:11:58.439
<v Speaker 1>examining Jen McCabe. Her brother in law and sister live

0:11:58.480 --> 0:12:01.360
<v Speaker 1>inside the home where a dead man is found on

0:12:01.960 --> 0:12:04.960
<v Speaker 1>their lawn. She knows that her brother in law is

0:12:05.000 --> 0:12:08.599
<v Speaker 1>a cop and a first responder. She never goes to

0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:12.160
<v Speaker 1>the house. She never knocks on the door. She never

0:12:12.240 --> 0:12:15.240
<v Speaker 1>asked him to come outside to help to give CPR.

0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:18.080
<v Speaker 1>She never goes into the house to investigate and see

0:12:18.080 --> 0:12:20.319
<v Speaker 1>whether her brother in law and sister are okay or

0:12:20.360 --> 0:12:22.520
<v Speaker 1>if something happened inside the house that she needs to

0:12:22.600 --> 0:12:24.400
<v Speaker 1>check on. Why did she not do that?

0:12:24.520 --> 0:12:28.839
<v Speaker 2>Because the Boston Police Department taught her otherwise, Because that's

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:30.959
<v Speaker 2>why it might not be the first body in this

0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:33.240
<v Speaker 2>lawn by the way, Well it's.

0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:35.160
<v Speaker 1>The first body on it. You mean, the first body

0:12:35.160 --> 0:12:37.280
<v Speaker 1>that anyone knows about on his lawn.

0:12:37.360 --> 0:12:38.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, exactly.

0:12:38.679 --> 0:12:41.839
<v Speaker 1>Brian Laughlin's testimony, he's the snowplow driver. I found his

0:12:41.920 --> 0:12:45.000
<v Speaker 1>testimony very calling, very credible, very compelling.

0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:47.679
<v Speaker 2>He was that guy like knew everything, Like he was

0:12:47.679 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 2>like a snowplow guy for thirty five years in that

0:12:50.240 --> 0:12:53.400
<v Speaker 2>neighborhood or something ridiculous like that. Well he well he

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:54.800
<v Speaker 2>was in the neighborhood for thirty five years.

0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:56.320
<v Speaker 1>Remember, Yeah, I don't know how long he'd been a

0:12:56.320 --> 0:13:00.920
<v Speaker 1>snowplow driver. However, his testimony was on point.

0:13:00.960 --> 0:13:03.720
<v Speaker 2>It was concising, right, he knew the properties, he was,

0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:06.040
<v Speaker 2>he knew who lived there, he knew how long, Like

0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:08.720
<v Speaker 2>he was familiar with the neighborhood. It wasn't like he

0:13:08.800 --> 0:13:11.800
<v Speaker 2>was just going up and down roads and following a

0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:13.040
<v Speaker 2>map like he knew.

0:13:13.760 --> 0:13:16.160
<v Speaker 1>So, Brian Lawlan was a snowplow driver. He's called to

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:20.280
<v Speaker 1>the stand to testify for the defense. Brian Lafren testified

0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:22.240
<v Speaker 1>he did not see a body in the yard at

0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:25.440
<v Speaker 1>thirty four Fairview early in the morning on January twenty ninth,

0:13:25.480 --> 0:13:29.199
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty two. Despite passing by the house multiple times,

0:13:29.600 --> 0:13:32.559
<v Speaker 1>Lawfren first drove the snowplow passed the home between two

0:13:32.600 --> 0:13:35.480
<v Speaker 1>forty and two forty five am. Though it was dark

0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:38.880
<v Speaker 1>and snowing hard, law Fren testified he could clearly see

0:13:38.920 --> 0:13:41.120
<v Speaker 1>the front door of the home. When asked what he

0:13:41.160 --> 0:13:43.840
<v Speaker 1>saw on the lawn by the flagpole, law Fren responded,

0:13:43.960 --> 0:13:46.840
<v Speaker 1>I saw nothing. Did you see a six foot one,

0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:49.439
<v Speaker 1>two hundred and sixteen pound man lying on that lawn.

0:13:49.520 --> 0:13:53.520
<v Speaker 1>Defense attorney David Eanetti asked, no, he said. I found

0:13:53.520 --> 0:13:57.040
<v Speaker 1>his testimony to be very credible because he talked about specifically.

0:13:57.080 --> 0:13:59.360
<v Speaker 1>He knew the route specifically, he knew the name of

0:13:59.400 --> 0:14:02.040
<v Speaker 1>the streets, he knew the times specifically, he knew exactly

0:14:02.120 --> 0:14:03.720
<v Speaker 1>what time he got there and checked out.

0:14:03.760 --> 0:14:06.960
<v Speaker 2>It was so natural, it was so like normal for

0:14:07.040 --> 0:14:10.520
<v Speaker 2>him to respond. He didn't have to think like this

0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:11.480
<v Speaker 2>was his routine.

0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:13.679
<v Speaker 1>And also, when you're talking about someone on a snowplow,

0:14:14.160 --> 0:14:16.640
<v Speaker 1>it's not in a regular car, like he's sitting up high.

0:14:17.120 --> 0:14:18.679
<v Speaker 2>Well, no, I don't know, it could be it was

0:14:18.720 --> 0:14:20.440
<v Speaker 2>it a pickup truck snowplow or was it?

0:14:20.680 --> 0:14:23.200
<v Speaker 1>No, they called it like the Frankenstein or something, because

0:14:23.200 --> 0:14:25.000
<v Speaker 1>it was like kind of an older model and it

0:14:25.040 --> 0:14:26.120
<v Speaker 1>was kind of put together.

0:14:26.240 --> 0:14:28.120
<v Speaker 2>I probably was just like an F two fifty or something.

0:14:28.160 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, but I know he was sitting up high,

0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:31.680
<v Speaker 1>and I know that it was what which is high

0:14:31.640 --> 0:14:34.840
<v Speaker 1>as high and it was very well lit. Yeah, And

0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:39.880
<v Speaker 1>that he's consistently on guard and looking left to right

0:14:39.960 --> 0:14:43.520
<v Speaker 1>and scanning because he doesn't want to hit He's on

0:14:43.560 --> 0:14:46.280
<v Speaker 1>a big snowplowsy. He doesn't want to plow any bodies over,

0:14:46.360 --> 0:14:48.080
<v Speaker 1>So he has to be very very careful, and he

0:14:48.120 --> 0:14:49.600
<v Speaker 1>has to be very alert, and he has to be

0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.160
<v Speaker 1>very aware of his surroundings. So the fact that this

0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:54.160
<v Speaker 1>man did not see a body on the lawn between

0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:56.800
<v Speaker 1>two forty and two forty five am, when the prosecution

0:14:56.920 --> 0:14:59.880
<v Speaker 1>has made it clear that she hit him at twelve

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:04.160
<v Speaker 1>thirty one, the body would have been there all right.

0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:08.600
<v Speaker 1>Sergeant Yuri Bucanik's testimony. He is a Massachusetts State Police officer.

0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:13.240
<v Speaker 1>He testified about the investigation and reads emergence as the

0:15:13.320 --> 0:15:17.400
<v Speaker 1>suspect in O'Keefe's death. However, the misconduct of previous state

0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:20.440
<v Speaker 1>trooper Michael Proctor, who was absent from the retrial loomed

0:15:20.520 --> 0:15:23.760
<v Speaker 1>heavily over his testimony. Now we all know Michael Proctor

0:15:23.800 --> 0:15:26.680
<v Speaker 1>was the investigator, the lead investigator in the first trial.

0:15:26.920 --> 0:15:29.360
<v Speaker 2>He was also trial.

0:15:29.240 --> 0:15:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Because the prosecution did not want to call him because

0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 1>he was He was fired. He was let go from

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:38.480
<v Speaker 1>the police department for how he bungled the first case,

0:15:38.480 --> 0:15:40.720
<v Speaker 1>how he didn't investigate it thoroughly. He had all those

0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:43.880
<v Speaker 1>text messages, you know, with his friends talking about Karen

0:15:43.960 --> 0:15:46.520
<v Speaker 1>Reid calling her, I don't know, what do you say?

0:15:46.520 --> 0:15:47.880
<v Speaker 1>He said she was hot, and then he was like

0:15:47.880 --> 0:15:50.320
<v Speaker 1>talking about looking for naked photos on her phone of

0:15:50.360 --> 0:15:51.120
<v Speaker 1>her and he said.

0:15:51.000 --> 0:15:54.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, scholars work here and goodness.

0:15:54.000 --> 0:15:57.720
<v Speaker 1>So he was he was not brought back to testify.

0:15:58.160 --> 0:16:01.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure the prosecution was hoping that everyone just forgot

0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:03.440
<v Speaker 1>that he even exists.

0:16:03.600 --> 0:16:06.120
<v Speaker 2>Right. There was no former trial.

0:16:06.560 --> 0:16:08.880
<v Speaker 1>This is the first one. Michael Proctor had never heard

0:16:08.880 --> 0:16:14.000
<v Speaker 1>of him, though Buchanik. Through Buchanik, prosecutors tried to minimize

0:16:14.040 --> 0:16:18.120
<v Speaker 1>Proctor's influence and the investigation, while the defense held Proctor

0:16:18.240 --> 0:16:22.280
<v Speaker 1>up as the lead investigator. Buchanik said each homicide case

0:16:22.400 --> 0:16:26.840
<v Speaker 1>is a team effort. During cross examination, defense attorney Alan

0:16:26.960 --> 0:16:29.720
<v Speaker 1>Jackson tried to restore the sense of Proctor's control over

0:16:29.760 --> 0:16:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the case, showing Buchanik's investigative documents that carried Proctor's name

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:37.880
<v Speaker 1>or signature. Still, Buchanik refused to call Proctor the lead investigator,

0:16:37.960 --> 0:16:41.320
<v Speaker 1>referring to him as the case officer. Clearly the reason

0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:42.880
<v Speaker 1>he was on the stand, as they're trying to take

0:16:42.880 --> 0:16:46.720
<v Speaker 1>away the power from Michael Proctor and his name all.

0:16:46.560 --> 0:16:47.400
<v Speaker 2>Over this case.

0:16:48.640 --> 0:16:52.000
<v Speaker 1>Trooper Nicholas Guarino's testimony. He is also a Massachusetts State

0:16:52.080 --> 0:16:56.000
<v Speaker 1>Police officer. Guarino testified for the Commonwealth that read called

0:16:56.040 --> 0:16:59.240
<v Speaker 1>O'Keefe more than fifty times and left eight voicemails between

0:16:59.240 --> 0:17:01.560
<v Speaker 1>the times. She said she dropped him off at thirty

0:17:01.600 --> 0:17:03.640
<v Speaker 1>four fair of View, and when she started searching for

0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:09.159
<v Speaker 1>him the next morning, all the calls went unanswered. Quote

0:17:09.240 --> 0:17:12.080
<v Speaker 1>You're an e fing pervert, she said in one voicemail

0:17:12.160 --> 0:17:15.880
<v Speaker 1>left at one ten am, per Guarino's testimony. Seven minutes later,

0:17:15.960 --> 0:17:18.680
<v Speaker 1>she left another, you're efing using me right now, you're

0:17:18.760 --> 0:17:21.920
<v Speaker 1>effing another girl. You're an e fing loser. F yourself.

0:17:22.240 --> 0:17:25.359
<v Speaker 1>At five twenty three am, she left her seventh voicemail, John,

0:17:25.480 --> 0:17:28.280
<v Speaker 1>where are you. You know when I listen to these voicemails,

0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:31.080
<v Speaker 1>because I've heard all of them, this is a woman

0:17:31.680 --> 0:17:34.960
<v Speaker 1>who had no idea that a man was laying dead

0:17:36.119 --> 0:17:40.359
<v Speaker 1>in a yard right or else. She's the best actress

0:17:40.560 --> 0:17:45.560
<v Speaker 1>I've ever seen because her voicemails are a woman who

0:17:45.680 --> 0:17:48.479
<v Speaker 1>is who has no idea where this man is, and

0:17:48.520 --> 0:17:50.480
<v Speaker 1>she thinks he's not coming home because he's having an

0:17:50.520 --> 0:17:54.399
<v Speaker 1>affair with somebody in that house, and she is legitimately

0:17:54.920 --> 0:17:56.920
<v Speaker 1>pissed off and wants to murder him.

0:17:57.119 --> 0:18:00.480
<v Speaker 2>I have a feeling you've made notes. I felt that

0:18:01.520 --> 0:18:05.159
<v Speaker 2>this is how I should leave my voicemails. I see

0:18:05.359 --> 0:18:06.320
<v Speaker 2>very convincing.

0:18:06.760 --> 0:18:08.840
<v Speaker 1>So for me when the prosecution is trying to use

0:18:08.920 --> 0:18:12.320
<v Speaker 1>these voicemails to show that they had a strained relationship

0:18:12.359 --> 0:18:17.080
<v Speaker 1>and that she you know, that she was so mad

0:18:17.119 --> 0:18:19.560
<v Speaker 1>that night that she repped her engine and like ran

0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:22.080
<v Speaker 1>over him. To me, I don't look at it that way.

0:18:22.240 --> 0:18:24.760
<v Speaker 1>To me, I see those voicemails and the calls as

0:18:24.800 --> 0:18:28.040
<v Speaker 1>someone who legitimately thinks that man is in the house

0:18:28.080 --> 0:18:30.480
<v Speaker 1>having an affair with another woman, and she thinks that he's

0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:33.080
<v Speaker 1>doing things and he's not coming home and she's mad.

0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:36.000
<v Speaker 2>This whole thing is ridiculous because if you were going

0:18:36.040 --> 0:18:38.720
<v Speaker 2>to commit a murder and you're going to run someone

0:18:38.720 --> 0:18:41.920
<v Speaker 2>over or do something like that, it would never ever

0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:44.960
<v Speaker 2>in a million years cross my mind to think leave

0:18:45.040 --> 0:18:48.280
<v Speaker 2>the dead body on the police officer's lawn. Yeah, because

0:18:48.520 --> 0:18:52.440
<v Speaker 2>they a real police officer, a team of police officers

0:18:52.640 --> 0:18:56.560
<v Speaker 2>would immediately start to preserve it, start to notify, start

0:18:56.600 --> 0:18:59.280
<v Speaker 2>to do something to forward the investigation, and not just

0:18:59.320 --> 0:19:03.560
<v Speaker 2>like stay in the house, will say that I know,

0:19:04.080 --> 0:19:06.720
<v Speaker 2>I know, I know you in your wildest dreams, we

0:19:06.760 --> 0:19:09.119
<v Speaker 2>ever thought like I'll leave this dead body on some

0:19:09.280 --> 0:19:12.640
<v Speaker 2>on this police officer's lawn and then like no one

0:19:12.640 --> 0:19:14.640
<v Speaker 2>will ever be able to figure out who killed him.

0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:17.639
<v Speaker 1>So you're saying, if she legitimately hit him, if she

0:19:17.840 --> 0:19:20.760
<v Speaker 1>was mad and she and he fell backwards and landed

0:19:20.800 --> 0:19:22.480
<v Speaker 1>in the snow and she drove.

0:19:22.280 --> 0:19:26.000
<v Speaker 2>Off, Well, I'm just saying, and it's very I don't

0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:28.280
<v Speaker 2>know if it's irony, but to leave a dead body

0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:31.280
<v Speaker 2>on a police officer's lawn and there's a bunch of

0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:33.880
<v Speaker 2>police officers there and they still can't figure out who

0:19:33.880 --> 0:19:36.240
<v Speaker 2>did it, that's that's pretty weird.

0:19:36.280 --> 0:19:37.880
<v Speaker 1>Well, that's why this case is so compelling.

0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:39.320
<v Speaker 2>The cops are shady.

0:19:39.600 --> 0:19:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Sorry, the cops are shady.

0:19:41.320 --> 0:19:46.840
<v Speaker 2>I retract my judgment of Karen Reid in our first.

0:19:46.720 --> 0:19:49.720
<v Speaker 1>Pod if you listen to our's Not Guilty, if you

0:19:49.760 --> 0:19:52.080
<v Speaker 1>listen to our very very first podcast we did on

0:19:52.160 --> 0:19:54.840
<v Speaker 1>Karen Reid. This is before Shane had ever knew known

0:19:54.960 --> 0:19:57.280
<v Speaker 1>anything about the case, never even heard Karen Reid's name,

0:19:57.520 --> 0:20:01.119
<v Speaker 1>and I just did a basic cur three overview of

0:20:02.160 --> 0:20:04.600
<v Speaker 1>the incidents that night. He kept saying.

0:20:04.400 --> 0:20:06.040
<v Speaker 2>Guilty, guilty, guilty.

0:20:06.080 --> 0:20:09.119
<v Speaker 1>She's guilty, guilty, over and over and over.

0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:13.720
<v Speaker 2>Not guilty, but not guilty. Now the police department's guilty.

0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:15.280
<v Speaker 1>Now he is ware.

0:20:15.720 --> 0:20:17.560
<v Speaker 2>Are they going to prosecute the police officers?

0:20:18.040 --> 0:20:18.680
<v Speaker 1>I doubt it.

0:20:18.840 --> 0:20:22.120
<v Speaker 2>Why they have just as much evidence on them as

0:20:22.160 --> 0:20:25.040
<v Speaker 2>they did her, which is nothing. That's what's so them

0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:25.600
<v Speaker 2>through the crowd.

0:20:26.480 --> 0:20:30.480
<v Speaker 1>That's what's so compelling yet completely sad about this case

0:20:30.760 --> 0:20:32.960
<v Speaker 1>is I don't think there'll ever be any justice for

0:20:33.080 --> 0:20:36.639
<v Speaker 1>John O'Keeffe or his mom, or the children. You know,

0:20:36.680 --> 0:20:40.520
<v Speaker 1>he was raising his niece and nephew because their parents

0:20:40.520 --> 0:20:44.160
<v Speaker 1>had died, and these children lost their mother and father

0:20:44.280 --> 0:20:47.320
<v Speaker 1>and have now lost their uncle who was raising them.

0:20:47.920 --> 0:20:50.320
<v Speaker 1>And you know, his mom sat in court every day,

0:20:50.359 --> 0:20:52.160
<v Speaker 1>his family's there and at the end of the day,

0:20:53.000 --> 0:20:55.480
<v Speaker 1>the jury got it right. She should have been acquitted.

0:20:56.000 --> 0:20:57.000
<v Speaker 1>But it's sad.

0:20:57.240 --> 0:20:59.879
<v Speaker 2>It is there's a lot of people. It's not just

0:21:00.400 --> 0:21:03.119
<v Speaker 2>he dies, which is sad enough as it is, but

0:21:03.560 --> 0:21:05.520
<v Speaker 2>all the people around him that are affected, and then

0:21:05.640 --> 0:21:10.040
<v Speaker 2>all the unanswered questions and just not knowing what happened

0:21:10.040 --> 0:21:11.639
<v Speaker 2>in his last moments of his life.

0:21:11.880 --> 0:21:15.600
<v Speaker 1>Nicholas Barrows, who is part of he's a sergeant for

0:21:15.640 --> 0:21:18.200
<v Speaker 1>the Dighton Police, was called by the defense to refute

0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:20.840
<v Speaker 1>the Commonwealth's narrative about Reid's tail light being broken when

0:21:20.880 --> 0:21:23.919
<v Speaker 1>it allegedly collided with O'Keefe. The defense has tried to

0:21:24.040 --> 0:21:26.520
<v Speaker 1>raise the specter of the tail light being tampered with

0:21:26.680 --> 0:21:29.560
<v Speaker 1>after police seized the vehicle and suggested its pieces were

0:21:29.600 --> 0:21:32.280
<v Speaker 1>planted at the scene. Well, if you remember, if you

0:21:32.320 --> 0:21:34.520
<v Speaker 1>go back, remember we talked about before when they initially

0:21:34.520 --> 0:21:36.480
<v Speaker 1>did a search and they found John's body, there were

0:21:36.480 --> 0:21:39.000
<v Speaker 1>no pieces of the tail light found in that initial search.

0:21:39.080 --> 0:21:40.639
<v Speaker 2>Well that's what was declared.

0:21:41.040 --> 0:21:44.879
<v Speaker 1>Right. Then they went back I think that evening and

0:21:44.960 --> 0:21:47.680
<v Speaker 1>did another search and during that search, all of a

0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:50.239
<v Speaker 1>sudden they found like forty two pieces.

0:21:49.760 --> 0:21:51.919
<v Speaker 2>Of a tail light, which is an insane amount of

0:21:51.920 --> 0:21:52.640
<v Speaker 2>tail light right.

0:21:53.280 --> 0:21:56.280
<v Speaker 1>Borrows responded on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, to

0:21:56.359 --> 0:22:00.320
<v Speaker 1>Reid's parents home in Dighton, Massachusetts, at Proctor's require to

0:22:00.359 --> 0:22:03.000
<v Speaker 1>help seize the vehicle. Reid went there after it was

0:22:03.040 --> 0:22:06.560
<v Speaker 1>confirmed that O'Keefe had died. In a report, Barrows noted

0:22:06.800 --> 0:22:08.960
<v Speaker 1>that there was damage to a tail light, but he

0:22:09.040 --> 0:22:12.879
<v Speaker 1>suggested on the stand it was relatively minor. There was

0:22:12.920 --> 0:22:15.960
<v Speaker 1>a piece missing, but it was not completely damaged. He

0:22:16.040 --> 0:22:17.960
<v Speaker 1>was shown a photograph of the tail light after it

0:22:18.040 --> 0:22:20.639
<v Speaker 1>was seized. Barrows said it did not reflect what he

0:22:20.680 --> 0:22:23.360
<v Speaker 1>saw that day. That tail light is completely smashed out.

0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:26.360
<v Speaker 2>He said, yeah, I remember thinking that that many pieces

0:22:26.359 --> 0:22:28.840
<v Speaker 2>sounds like it looks like someone smashed it with a hammer.

0:22:28.960 --> 0:22:30.400
<v Speaker 1>I know I thought the same thing because I even

0:22:30.400 --> 0:22:34.880
<v Speaker 1>thought if she had backed into him with her tail light.

0:22:35.920 --> 0:22:38.080
<v Speaker 1>I feel like when a tail light hit a body,

0:22:38.200 --> 0:22:40.720
<v Speaker 1>it wouldn't have smashed into so many tiny scens.

0:22:40.800 --> 0:22:43.600
<v Speaker 2>There's enough forensic files to know like it's usually just

0:22:43.640 --> 0:22:45.200
<v Speaker 2>a handful of pieces.

0:22:45.240 --> 0:22:46.760
<v Speaker 1>All right. So there was so many more things that

0:22:46.840 --> 0:22:49.560
<v Speaker 1>went on in this trial. It was completely interesting compelling.

0:22:49.600 --> 0:22:51.480
<v Speaker 1>I know people were glued to their screens every day

0:22:51.520 --> 0:22:54.680
<v Speaker 1>watching court TV. We clearly can't go through all of it,

0:22:54.760 --> 0:22:57.439
<v Speaker 1>but we're going to get to the closing statements. I

0:22:57.480 --> 0:23:00.359
<v Speaker 1>actually watched Alan Jackson's closing statement twice. It was about

0:23:00.359 --> 0:23:02.639
<v Speaker 1>an hour and a half long. Because when you talk

0:23:02.680 --> 0:23:05.840
<v Speaker 1>about closing statements, this is really where you have the

0:23:05.840 --> 0:23:09.560
<v Speaker 1>opportunity to This is the finale. This is where you

0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:12.480
<v Speaker 1>take everything and you want to persuade the jury. You

0:23:12.480 --> 0:23:15.119
<v Speaker 1>want them to see it. From your perspective, it's really

0:23:15.160 --> 0:23:18.960
<v Speaker 1>your last act. It's your last chance to convince them,

0:23:18.960 --> 0:23:22.360
<v Speaker 1>it's your last chance to build rapport with them. And

0:23:22.440 --> 0:23:25.720
<v Speaker 1>so I thought he did an excellent job.

0:23:25.760 --> 0:23:26.440
<v Speaker 2>How long was it?

0:23:26.440 --> 0:23:27.439
<v Speaker 1>It was an hour and a half.

0:23:27.920 --> 0:23:30.240
<v Speaker 2>You watch TV for three hours though, Well.

0:23:30.119 --> 0:23:32.600
<v Speaker 1>I didn't watch it back to back. I watched an

0:23:32.600 --> 0:23:34.800
<v Speaker 1>hour and a half and then the following night I

0:23:34.840 --> 0:23:35.480
<v Speaker 1>watched it again.

0:23:35.760 --> 0:23:38.840
<v Speaker 2>But let's be clear. You don't bring in new evidence.

0:23:39.040 --> 0:23:40.160
<v Speaker 1>You don't bring in new evidence.

0:23:40.160 --> 0:23:44.639
<v Speaker 2>You can only reiterate the evidence that was presented, and

0:23:44.720 --> 0:23:47.000
<v Speaker 2>you can't an attorney can't bring in their own opinions

0:23:47.000 --> 0:23:51.000
<v Speaker 2>to anything right, and they can't do things to make

0:23:51.359 --> 0:23:53.960
<v Speaker 2>what was it like make the something about making the

0:23:54.040 --> 0:23:58.320
<v Speaker 2>jurors feel a certain way, Like you can't ask about

0:23:58.359 --> 0:24:02.040
<v Speaker 2>their feelings or try to make them feel it's just evidence.

0:24:02.240 --> 0:24:05.119
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well, let me ask you a question. Can the

0:24:05.160 --> 0:24:09.680
<v Speaker 1>prosecution object during closing statements.

0:24:09.320 --> 0:24:11.560
<v Speaker 2>When the defense at I don't know if the if

0:24:11.600 --> 0:24:14.720
<v Speaker 2>the objection is the same formality, but if the defense

0:24:14.800 --> 0:24:16.639
<v Speaker 2>is bringing in new evidence, I mean definitely got to

0:24:16.640 --> 0:24:19.080
<v Speaker 2>stop that. Yeah, that's probably grounds for a mistrial.

0:24:19.280 --> 0:24:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Well, it's you can't object during closing arguments, but it

0:24:22.680 --> 0:24:24.600
<v Speaker 1>has to be to the level of like it's so

0:24:24.760 --> 0:24:28.000
<v Speaker 1>egregious it would sway the jury or it would be

0:24:28.000 --> 0:24:31.840
<v Speaker 1>harmful to the case. So there were no objections. During

0:24:32.040 --> 0:24:35.600
<v Speaker 1>his closing statement. Jackson went first, telling the jury three

0:24:35.640 --> 0:24:38.800
<v Speaker 1>times right away, there was no collision in the death

0:24:38.840 --> 0:24:41.800
<v Speaker 1>of John O'Keefe. This case was corrupted from the start.

0:24:42.400 --> 0:24:46.320
<v Speaker 1>It was corrupted by a legal investigator who's misconduct infected

0:24:46.400 --> 0:24:49.040
<v Speaker 1>every single part of this case from top to bottom.

0:24:49.280 --> 0:24:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Alluding to Michael Proctor.

0:24:50.960 --> 0:24:54.119
<v Speaker 2>Was did he have the position that she is she

0:24:54.200 --> 0:24:55.920
<v Speaker 2>did not commit the crime? Or did he have the

0:24:55.960 --> 0:24:58.800
<v Speaker 2>position was he emphasizing that there was not enough evidence?

0:24:59.640 --> 0:25:02.240
<v Speaker 1>No, so he his position was it was not her

0:25:02.560 --> 0:25:04.760
<v Speaker 1>that it was a cover up that he was beat

0:25:04.840 --> 0:25:07.639
<v Speaker 1>up in the house by these officers. The dog was

0:25:07.680 --> 0:25:12.440
<v Speaker 1>somehow involved and attacked him and then they drug his body.

0:25:12.560 --> 0:25:14.680
<v Speaker 2>Could have been in another way. Obviously, I would defer

0:25:14.720 --> 0:25:16.680
<v Speaker 2>to Alan Jackson to probably know what's best.

0:25:16.720 --> 0:25:19.880
<v Speaker 1>But the other way I would defer to Alan Jackson

0:25:19.960 --> 0:25:20.640
<v Speaker 1>on anything.

0:25:24.000 --> 0:25:25.399
<v Speaker 2>Okay, thank you for that.

0:25:26.160 --> 0:25:27.439
<v Speaker 1>I'd be like, stop talking.

0:25:27.600 --> 0:25:32.000
<v Speaker 2>I need to ask Alan Jackson stop talking. Butterfly, all right, whatever,

0:25:32.040 --> 0:25:34.760
<v Speaker 2>you know. I was trying to get at that. His

0:25:34.880 --> 0:25:37.520
<v Speaker 2>position was she didn't do it, not there's not enough evidence.

0:25:37.560 --> 0:25:39.520
<v Speaker 1>No, His position was that she did not do it,

0:25:39.560 --> 0:25:42.800
<v Speaker 1>and it was the corruptness that went on that evening.

0:25:42.800 --> 0:25:43.800
<v Speaker 1>It was a conspiracy.

0:25:43.840 --> 0:25:46.200
<v Speaker 2>It's a Communican to think about the police department. I'd

0:25:46.200 --> 0:25:47.879
<v Speaker 2>be nervous if I was in that area.

0:25:48.400 --> 0:25:52.159
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I'm based just based upon the dms

0:25:52.160 --> 0:25:55.800
<v Speaker 1>I get on my Instagram account. People rallied around her

0:25:55.840 --> 0:25:59.040
<v Speaker 1>and think that this police department is completely corrupt. And

0:25:59.040 --> 0:26:01.359
<v Speaker 1>there's some other case with another woman I can't remember

0:26:01.400 --> 0:26:04.200
<v Speaker 1>the name that several people of dm ME that said

0:26:04.200 --> 0:26:07.000
<v Speaker 1>that basically kind of mirrors the same thing and has

0:26:07.040 --> 0:26:09.440
<v Speaker 1>to do with the Boston Police Department. I'll have to

0:26:09.480 --> 0:26:10.040
<v Speaker 1>look into that.

0:26:10.240 --> 0:26:10.720
<v Speaker 2>Wonderful.

0:26:11.119 --> 0:26:14.880
<v Speaker 1>If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can

0:26:14.920 --> 0:26:18.119
<v Speaker 1>you trust him with this investigation, with your verdict, and

0:26:18.160 --> 0:26:22.159
<v Speaker 1>with Karen Reid's life. Jackson said, the lead investigator in

0:26:22.240 --> 0:26:26.240
<v Speaker 1>a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that.

0:26:26.240 --> 0:26:29.160
<v Speaker 1>That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want

0:26:29.200 --> 0:26:30.399
<v Speaker 1>to hear from Michael Proctor?

0:26:30.680 --> 0:26:32.320
<v Speaker 2>See, that was right, That's what I was thinking.

0:26:32.560 --> 0:26:35.520
<v Speaker 1>Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in

0:26:35.560 --> 0:26:39.280
<v Speaker 1>this case? Yes, yeah, that's what I said. The prosecution

0:26:39.520 --> 0:26:41.919
<v Speaker 1>did not call from them. Yes, they were hoping that

0:26:41.960 --> 0:26:42.920
<v Speaker 1>we just all forgot that.

0:26:42.920 --> 0:26:44.960
<v Speaker 2>Might be were dumped on some lawn somewhere.

0:26:45.400 --> 0:26:48.480
<v Speaker 1>Their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias and

0:26:48.520 --> 0:26:52.080
<v Speaker 1>personal loyalties. Jackson said, not a single medical expert called

0:26:52.080 --> 0:26:55.080
<v Speaker 1>by the defense or called by the commonwealth has testified

0:26:55.119 --> 0:26:59.920
<v Speaker 1>that John was hit by a car. Not one thing

0:27:00.200 --> 0:27:04.920
<v Speaker 1>about the irony, not one It's not just significant, it's

0:27:05.040 --> 0:27:09.159
<v Speaker 1>literally the most important point in the entire trial. He

0:27:09.240 --> 0:27:11.879
<v Speaker 1>made that point. He made it well. The medical examiners

0:27:11.880 --> 0:27:15.720
<v Speaker 1>that testified would never take the position that there was

0:27:15.760 --> 0:27:19.879
<v Speaker 1>an impact site from a vehicle. He had a contusion

0:27:19.920 --> 0:27:22.919
<v Speaker 1>on the back of his head, he had black eyes,

0:27:22.960 --> 0:27:25.320
<v Speaker 1>he had a cut over his eye, and his right

0:27:25.440 --> 0:27:28.080
<v Speaker 1>arm was scraped up and had puncture wounds. But no

0:27:28.119 --> 0:27:30.479
<v Speaker 1>one would testify that he was hit by a vehicle

0:27:30.520 --> 0:27:31.200
<v Speaker 1>because they said they.

0:27:31.320 --> 0:27:32.640
<v Speaker 2>There wasn't vehicle.

0:27:34.240 --> 0:27:38.080
<v Speaker 1>Remember mister Brennan's opening statement, he made some promises to you.

0:27:38.240 --> 0:27:41.000
<v Speaker 1>He said, this case is about the data. He's stressed

0:27:41.000 --> 0:27:43.200
<v Speaker 1>it over and over again. They've had three and a

0:27:43.240 --> 0:27:45.520
<v Speaker 1>half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had

0:27:45.520 --> 0:27:47.440
<v Speaker 1>this case for three and a half years to get

0:27:47.480 --> 0:27:50.040
<v Speaker 1>it right. Jackson went on to talk about there being

0:27:50.200 --> 0:27:52.600
<v Speaker 1>no evidence John was hit by a car. This is

0:27:52.640 --> 0:27:55.080
<v Speaker 1>a central fact in the case. The only fact that

0:27:55.119 --> 0:28:00.000
<v Speaker 1>matters is literally uncontested by every medical expert, uncontested, undispat

0:28:00.480 --> 0:28:03.480
<v Speaker 1>There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None.

0:28:03.760 --> 0:28:06.160
<v Speaker 1>How much more reasonable doubt could there be.

0:28:06.600 --> 0:28:09.479
<v Speaker 2>There's doubt all around. There's even doubt with the police officers. Really,

0:28:09.560 --> 0:28:13.320
<v Speaker 2>there's not enough legal evidence for me to feel comfortable

0:28:13.359 --> 0:28:15.200
<v Speaker 2>saying they should be convicted.

0:28:15.440 --> 0:28:18.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, at the opening of his let me okay,

0:28:18.640 --> 0:28:19.199
<v Speaker 1>go ahead, what.

0:28:20.920 --> 0:28:23.480
<v Speaker 2>They did it? The police officers.

0:28:23.480 --> 0:28:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Do you think the police officers, Yeah, guilty. Let's just

0:28:34.400 --> 0:28:36.880
<v Speaker 1>go into just to have a little legal knowledge, little

0:28:36.960 --> 0:28:39.560
<v Speaker 1>legal background, what exactly beyond a reasonable doubt? And when

0:28:39.600 --> 0:28:41.960
<v Speaker 1>he does his opening statement, he tells them what beyond

0:28:41.960 --> 0:28:44.360
<v Speaker 1>a reasonable doubt means. And it's not just beyond a

0:28:44.400 --> 0:28:48.280
<v Speaker 1>reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty are the phrases

0:28:48.360 --> 0:28:51.920
<v Speaker 1>used in legal context, particularly in criminal trials, to describe

0:28:52.240 --> 0:28:55.320
<v Speaker 1>the high standard of proof required for a conviction. I

0:28:55.320 --> 0:28:55.600
<v Speaker 1>don't know.

0:28:55.640 --> 0:28:57.160
<v Speaker 2>I don't get it. So what's the difference.

0:28:57.360 --> 0:29:00.480
<v Speaker 1>They're the same. It's beyond a reasonable doubt and to

0:29:00.680 --> 0:29:02.120
<v Speaker 1>a moral certainty.

0:29:02.160 --> 0:29:05.880
<v Speaker 2>Does and to a moral certainty actually add any other.

0:29:06.440 --> 0:29:08.440
<v Speaker 1>No, they it's the same standard. But I think it's

0:29:08.480 --> 0:29:10.120
<v Speaker 1>just another way to say it. But I think when

0:29:10.120 --> 0:29:12.520
<v Speaker 1>you add moral certainty in there, I feel like it

0:29:12.560 --> 0:29:18.200
<v Speaker 1>makes it more clear because reasonable doubt the word doubt.

0:29:17.360 --> 0:29:19.560
<v Speaker 2>It's like it's like you can shrug your shoulders like.

0:29:20.560 --> 0:29:23.600
<v Speaker 1>But when you talk about a moral certainty, I.

0:29:23.440 --> 0:29:26.320
<v Speaker 2>Feel good about this, exactly, feel good about sending him

0:29:26.360 --> 0:29:26.680
<v Speaker 2>or her to.

0:29:26.720 --> 0:29:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Jail exactly, Like when you lay your head down at

0:29:29.400 --> 0:29:32.440
<v Speaker 1>night to sleep knowing that that woman is going to

0:29:32.480 --> 0:29:35.480
<v Speaker 1>go to jail, are you okay with that? Are you

0:29:35.560 --> 0:29:39.280
<v Speaker 1>okay to a moral certainty that the decision you're making.

0:29:39.240 --> 0:29:41.120
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think the most complete apartment needs to hire

0:29:41.120 --> 0:29:44.440
<v Speaker 2>people with a moral certainty. You know, I have a

0:29:44.440 --> 0:29:47.280
<v Speaker 2>little beef with you. What you asked me the other

0:29:47.360 --> 0:29:49.120
<v Speaker 2>day what moral certainty meant? I said, I bet you.

0:29:49.240 --> 0:29:52.720
<v Speaker 2>It's just language that that jurisdiction uses. And now you're

0:29:52.760 --> 0:29:55.280
<v Speaker 2>and you said no, no, no, And now you're telling me

0:29:55.360 --> 0:29:58.440
<v Speaker 2>what it's really just language that they use to Well.

0:29:58.400 --> 0:30:00.720
<v Speaker 1>Because I looked it up, I don't because you're not

0:30:00.840 --> 0:30:01.600
<v Speaker 1>Alan Jackson.

0:30:01.800 --> 0:30:03.840
<v Speaker 2>No, So I had to go with Butterfly.

0:30:04.360 --> 0:30:07.240
<v Speaker 1>I was correct, you were correct at the time. All right,

0:30:07.280 --> 0:30:10.560
<v Speaker 1>it's still correct, okay. Alan Jackson goes on to say

0:30:10.680 --> 0:30:12.840
<v Speaker 1>in his in his closing statement, you have a man

0:30:12.960 --> 0:30:15.480
<v Speaker 1>lying dead in the yard, and here are the undisputed

0:30:15.480 --> 0:30:19.960
<v Speaker 1>facts that those officers were confronted with. Black eyes. Obviously,

0:30:20.000 --> 0:30:23.120
<v Speaker 1>black eyes are consistent with a fight. Bloody nose also

0:30:23.200 --> 0:30:26.640
<v Speaker 1>consistent with a fight, Bleeding from the face consistent with

0:30:26.640 --> 0:30:29.800
<v Speaker 1>a physical altercation, a cut over the right eye consistent

0:30:29.880 --> 0:30:33.160
<v Speaker 1>with a punch. No coat in the freezing cold, not

0:30:33.280 --> 0:30:37.240
<v Speaker 1>dressed for outside, dressed for inside, and one shoe on.

0:30:37.640 --> 0:30:40.760
<v Speaker 1>I wonder where the other shoe could be. I don't know,

0:30:41.200 --> 0:30:43.520
<v Speaker 1>maybe in the house thirty feet away. This was one

0:30:43.560 --> 0:30:45.480
<v Speaker 1>of my favorite parts of his closing statement was actually

0:30:45.520 --> 0:30:47.440
<v Speaker 1>when he said all of that. I thought that was

0:30:47.600 --> 0:30:50.800
<v Speaker 1>just he just really hit it home. That was a

0:30:50.840 --> 0:30:53.360
<v Speaker 1>home run to me when he said, look at this

0:30:53.440 --> 0:30:58.520
<v Speaker 1>body laying in this front yard. All of the physical

0:30:59.000 --> 0:31:01.880
<v Speaker 1>issues with his body are all consistent with a fight.

0:31:03.240 --> 0:31:05.480
<v Speaker 1>And also he has no coat on, and he's got

0:31:05.480 --> 0:31:06.280
<v Speaker 1>a missing shoe.

0:31:07.000 --> 0:31:08.120
<v Speaker 2>Where could they be?

0:31:08.320 --> 0:31:11.320
<v Speaker 1>Where could those things be? I don't know, maybe in

0:31:11.360 --> 0:31:15.200
<v Speaker 1>the house. And the fact that the house was never

0:31:15.280 --> 0:31:18.680
<v Speaker 1>considered a crime scene. It was never taped off, it

0:31:18.800 --> 0:31:21.920
<v Speaker 1>was never searched, it was never investigated. There was never

0:31:23.320 --> 0:31:23.840
<v Speaker 1>from the house.

0:31:24.680 --> 0:31:28.120
<v Speaker 2>That is that is negligence on the police. They fell

0:31:28.120 --> 0:31:31.080
<v Speaker 2>below that is standard duty of being.

0:31:31.120 --> 0:31:34.800
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you're telling me a man died in a

0:31:35.000 --> 0:31:37.960
<v Speaker 1>lawn on it in front of a house, and his

0:31:38.040 --> 0:31:40.200
<v Speaker 1>shoes missing, and he doesn't have a coat on, and

0:31:40.200 --> 0:31:43.240
<v Speaker 1>he's beat up in the yard and no one investigated

0:31:43.280 --> 0:31:45.680
<v Speaker 1>inside the house. Is is there any blood inside the house?

0:31:46.400 --> 0:31:50.560
<v Speaker 1>There is there anything broken in the house, his shoes

0:31:50.720 --> 0:31:54.800
<v Speaker 1>in the house. I mean, it's unreal to me. I

0:31:54.840 --> 0:31:56.959
<v Speaker 1>wonder where the other shoe could be. He says, I

0:31:57.000 --> 0:31:59.000
<v Speaker 1>don't know, maybe in the house thirty feet away. And

0:31:59.040 --> 0:32:02.600
<v Speaker 1>then you find a broken and shattered drinking glass next

0:32:02.640 --> 0:32:04.920
<v Speaker 1>to him, the type of glass that you might find

0:32:05.440 --> 0:32:08.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. Let me think about this in a

0:32:08.240 --> 0:32:10.960
<v Speaker 1>kitchen in a house feet away.

0:32:11.160 --> 0:32:13.840
<v Speaker 2>Wait, didn't she say she dropped him off with the cocktail?

0:32:14.360 --> 0:32:14.520
<v Speaker 2>You know?

0:32:15.000 --> 0:32:17.280
<v Speaker 1>She did say that they had like a roadie or something,

0:32:17.320 --> 0:32:19.520
<v Speaker 1>And so that was the other thing, Like, where did

0:32:19.520 --> 0:32:21.400
<v Speaker 1>the shard of glass come from? Was it from the

0:32:21.400 --> 0:32:23.920
<v Speaker 1>cocktail glass that he was carrying, or did he go

0:32:23.960 --> 0:32:25.720
<v Speaker 1>in the house and have a drink. This is why

0:32:25.760 --> 0:32:27.560
<v Speaker 1>this investigation is awful. Why do you sus I.

0:32:27.520 --> 0:32:29.040
<v Speaker 2>Could have gone inside the house and looked at the kitchen,

0:32:29.120 --> 0:32:33.200
<v Speaker 2>say you have the same signature drinking glasses that was

0:32:33.240 --> 0:32:35.480
<v Speaker 2>shout outside with the dead body, right, and look in

0:32:35.520 --> 0:32:36.280
<v Speaker 2>the shoe closet.

0:32:36.360 --> 0:32:39.520
<v Speaker 1>Look while I found the shoe closet right. As for

0:32:39.640 --> 0:32:42.280
<v Speaker 1>testimony that Reid said I hit him when she found

0:32:42.320 --> 0:32:46.880
<v Speaker 1>O'Keeffe the next morning, Jackson said. Sergeant Buchanik also testified

0:32:47.040 --> 0:32:49.320
<v Speaker 1>that the only statement Karen Reid made at the scene,

0:32:49.360 --> 0:32:53.720
<v Speaker 1>according to his conversations, with the first responders was could

0:32:53.800 --> 0:32:57.160
<v Speaker 1>I have hit him? Did I hit him? It wasn't

0:32:57.160 --> 0:33:00.480
<v Speaker 1>a confession, it was confusion. Agree with that.

0:33:00.680 --> 0:33:04.080
<v Speaker 2>And you know what that tracks with her OBD two

0:33:04.120 --> 0:33:06.280
<v Speaker 2>censor that said she went twenty four miles an hour

0:33:06.320 --> 0:33:06.720
<v Speaker 2>back way?

0:33:06.720 --> 0:33:09.120
<v Speaker 1>What was it? Say it again the two sensor, Yes,

0:33:09.880 --> 0:33:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Shane is our vehicular mechanic specialists.

0:33:16.000 --> 0:33:18.120
<v Speaker 2>No, but didn't it didn't They have evidence that she

0:33:18.160 --> 0:33:20.640
<v Speaker 2>went backwards twenty four miles an hour. So maybe she

0:33:20.760 --> 0:33:23.200
<v Speaker 2>was like, oh my gosh, I hit him, Like maybe

0:33:23.280 --> 0:33:26.000
<v Speaker 2>her first thought was he's on the lawn where I

0:33:26.080 --> 0:33:28.800
<v Speaker 2>left him with a drink and I sped off. Did

0:33:28.800 --> 0:33:31.160
<v Speaker 2>I hit him? I mean, those are probably some thoughts

0:33:31.160 --> 0:33:33.880
<v Speaker 2>that ran through ahead. I mean, her boyfriend's dead. No

0:33:33.920 --> 0:33:38.240
<v Speaker 2>one says anything that's reasonable when you find a dead body, right.

0:33:38.480 --> 0:33:41.440
<v Speaker 1>And she already didn't sleep the entire night because she

0:33:41.480 --> 0:33:44.240
<v Speaker 1>called him fifty times and left him seven voicemails yelling

0:33:44.280 --> 0:33:46.560
<v Speaker 1>at him and calling him an effing pervert. She thinks

0:33:46.600 --> 0:33:48.800
<v Speaker 1>he's having an affair with someone else. So this woman

0:33:49.800 --> 0:33:53.920
<v Speaker 1>clearly is outside of her mind. She has no idea

0:33:53.920 --> 0:33:56.120
<v Speaker 1>what's going on. She finds him lying in the grass,

0:33:56.720 --> 0:34:00.080
<v Speaker 1>dead on the lawn, and it makes sense to me

0:34:00.400 --> 0:34:03.600
<v Speaker 1>that she could have rambled something like did I hit who?

0:34:03.440 --> 0:34:06.240
<v Speaker 2>Who? What happened? All I know is you find it

0:34:06.280 --> 0:34:07.360
<v Speaker 2>dead by you don't say anything.

0:34:07.880 --> 0:34:10.160
<v Speaker 1>Well, first of all, if she hit, if she did

0:34:10.239 --> 0:34:12.040
<v Speaker 1>hit him, the last thing she's going to say is

0:34:12.080 --> 0:34:12.880
<v Speaker 1>I hit him.

0:34:12.880 --> 0:34:15.520
<v Speaker 2>I hit him, I hit him. No, that's right.

0:34:16.000 --> 0:34:17.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, give me a break.

0:34:17.960 --> 0:34:22.839
<v Speaker 2>A reasonable murderer wouldn't admit that. The person she'd be like, I.

0:34:22.800 --> 0:34:25.840
<v Speaker 1>Don't know how he got there. We are after the

0:34:25.920 --> 0:34:28.840
<v Speaker 1>truth in this courtroom. You're entitled to it, demand it,

0:34:28.960 --> 0:34:31.680
<v Speaker 1>Jackson said. Let your voice be heard, not in whispers,

0:34:31.680 --> 0:34:34.520
<v Speaker 1>but in truth. Let the community feel through your verdict

0:34:34.800 --> 0:34:37.120
<v Speaker 1>that justice cannot be bent and that it will not

0:34:37.200 --> 0:34:42.160
<v Speaker 1>be buried. Find Karen Reid not guilty, not guilty, not guilty,

0:34:43.360 --> 0:34:44.080
<v Speaker 1>and el.

0:34:43.920 --> 0:34:46.040
<v Speaker 2>Because three charges. Did she have three charges?

0:34:46.080 --> 0:34:47.880
<v Speaker 1>Well, she had three charges. And I feel like he

0:34:47.960 --> 0:34:49.680
<v Speaker 1>was playing on the I hit him, I hit him,

0:34:49.680 --> 0:34:53.640
<v Speaker 1>I hit him, is what they claimed. Tis so very cute.

0:34:55.560 --> 0:34:57.200
<v Speaker 2>It worked all right.

0:34:57.239 --> 0:35:00.719
<v Speaker 1>Hank Brennan, who was the special prosecutor, he does closing

0:35:01.239 --> 0:35:05.160
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor Hank Brennan addressed the jury saying about read quote

0:35:05.200 --> 0:35:08.000
<v Speaker 1>she was drunk, she hit him, then she left him

0:35:08.040 --> 0:35:10.719
<v Speaker 1>to die. Now the government doesn't have to prove that

0:35:10.800 --> 0:35:13.000
<v Speaker 1>she was drunk. It's either she's over the legal limit

0:35:13.040 --> 0:35:15.280
<v Speaker 1>point oh eight or she had enough alcohol to affect

0:35:15.280 --> 0:35:19.160
<v Speaker 1>her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. You will

0:35:19.200 --> 0:35:21.560
<v Speaker 1>know she was far beyond the legal limit after the

0:35:21.640 --> 0:35:24.680
<v Speaker 1>retrograde analysis, almost two to three times the legal limit,

0:35:24.760 --> 0:35:31.440
<v Speaker 1>he says. In Alan Jackson's closing, he talks about the

0:35:31.520 --> 0:35:36.160
<v Speaker 1>tail light fragments and he claims, so the prosecution claims

0:35:36.160 --> 0:35:39.319
<v Speaker 1>that according to the data on the car whatever you

0:35:39.400 --> 0:35:41.759
<v Speaker 1>called it, that the impact happened at twelve thirty one.

0:35:43.000 --> 0:35:45.759
<v Speaker 1>Then when she left the scene, her WiFi connected at

0:35:45.840 --> 0:35:47.920
<v Speaker 1>John's house, because she left and went to John's house

0:35:48.000 --> 0:35:51.440
<v Speaker 1>and it connected at twelve thirty six. So if he

0:35:51.560 --> 0:35:55.120
<v Speaker 1>was a hit at twelve thirty one, And they claim

0:35:55.400 --> 0:35:58.680
<v Speaker 1>that the tail light was shattered all over the lawn,

0:35:58.800 --> 0:36:02.240
<v Speaker 1>and they also claimed that the bulb part was shattered

0:36:02.680 --> 0:36:06.399
<v Speaker 1>light bulb, the actual light bulb was shattered, then that

0:36:06.440 --> 0:36:09.759
<v Speaker 1>tail light would not have lit up later after the fact.

0:36:10.360 --> 0:36:12.760
<v Speaker 1>And Alan Jackson and you have.

0:36:12.680 --> 0:36:16.200
<v Speaker 2>To sorry, but you have to hit. That means he

0:36:16.320 --> 0:36:20.319
<v Speaker 2>had to have penetrated the tail light cover and then

0:36:20.840 --> 0:36:24.560
<v Speaker 2>as far into it as the tail light housing to

0:36:24.800 --> 0:36:27.480
<v Speaker 2>crack the bulb. Right, I mean, I'm just saying that's

0:36:27.480 --> 0:36:29.319
<v Speaker 2>a big impact. Maybe that happens a lot, but that's

0:36:29.560 --> 0:36:33.280
<v Speaker 2>that's a lot of impact, right, And sorry I interrupted.

0:36:33.360 --> 0:36:35.319
<v Speaker 1>No, It's okay, but no, and I agree with what

0:36:35.360 --> 0:36:39.080
<v Speaker 1>you're saying. And the whole point is then Alan Jackson

0:36:39.120 --> 0:36:41.799
<v Speaker 1>showed up on the screen to the jury images of

0:36:41.840 --> 0:36:44.920
<v Speaker 1>that tail light being lit up at five am in

0:36:44.920 --> 0:36:46.759
<v Speaker 1>the morning. And then I think and there was a

0:36:46.760 --> 0:36:51.120
<v Speaker 1>second time when it was well they captured like ring

0:36:51.160 --> 0:36:58.399
<v Speaker 1>footage of her of the car like being driven. Impact point.

0:36:58.480 --> 0:36:59.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm sure they addressed it, but then I would have

0:37:00.080 --> 0:37:02.160
<v Speaker 2>questions of like, well, are there three bulbs or there

0:37:02.160 --> 0:37:04.880
<v Speaker 2>are two and one was cracked, and I'm sure they

0:37:04.880 --> 0:37:08.439
<v Speaker 2>already addressed that, But that is interesting that her light

0:37:08.680 --> 0:37:09.960
<v Speaker 2>was still functioning.

0:37:09.600 --> 0:37:12.080
<v Speaker 1>Right, I thought that was very interesting. And then there

0:37:12.120 --> 0:37:14.560
<v Speaker 1>was another thing I know we talked about the medical examiners.

0:37:14.560 --> 0:37:16.239
<v Speaker 1>Sorry I keep going backwards because there was so much

0:37:16.280 --> 0:37:19.399
<v Speaker 1>in his closing and this whole trial. But the other

0:37:19.440 --> 0:37:22.720
<v Speaker 1>thing that I found really compelling as well was that

0:37:23.280 --> 0:37:26.960
<v Speaker 1>when the medical examiners for the defense and the prosecution.

0:37:27.360 --> 0:37:29.839
<v Speaker 1>When you're talking about the injuries to his arm, if

0:37:29.880 --> 0:37:33.080
<v Speaker 1>his arm, which was supposed to be the impact site,

0:37:33.080 --> 0:37:35.440
<v Speaker 1>because that's where it was his right arm, and that's

0:37:35.480 --> 0:37:38.360
<v Speaker 1>where the scratches and the puncture wounds were. So you know,

0:37:38.400 --> 0:37:40.520
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution is claiming he was hit by a car,

0:37:40.680 --> 0:37:42.040
<v Speaker 1>her suv going backwards.

0:37:42.120 --> 0:37:43.360
<v Speaker 2>The car scratched him.

0:37:43.360 --> 0:37:48.640
<v Speaker 1>And punctured him looked like teethmarks. But the compelling part

0:37:48.680 --> 0:37:52.120
<v Speaker 1>to me is that these medical recreate, you know, people

0:37:52.200 --> 0:37:55.439
<v Speaker 1>recreate scenes, and hitting a car going backwards and hitting

0:37:55.440 --> 0:37:58.560
<v Speaker 1>an arm at twenty four miles per hour, the arm

0:37:58.600 --> 0:38:01.640
<v Speaker 1>would have been damaged, it would have been bruised, ligaments

0:38:01.640 --> 0:38:02.400
<v Speaker 1>would have been torn.

0:38:02.719 --> 0:38:05.600
<v Speaker 2>But I mean if it broken, scratches on my forearm

0:38:06.000 --> 0:38:07.400
<v Speaker 2>and then someone says, how'd you get that, and go,

0:38:07.640 --> 0:38:10.840
<v Speaker 2>I was hit by a car suv Yeah in the snow,

0:38:11.160 --> 0:38:14.480
<v Speaker 2>people would be like what, No, you didn't, right, I mean.

0:38:14.520 --> 0:38:18.560
<v Speaker 1>So the injuries on his arm were inconsistent with being

0:38:18.640 --> 0:38:21.520
<v Speaker 1>hit by an suv going backwards at twenty four miles

0:38:21.520 --> 0:38:24.440
<v Speaker 1>per hour. I mean twenty four miles per hour. Is

0:38:24.520 --> 0:38:29.040
<v Speaker 1>that's fast, Yeah, that's fast, that's Fastwards, that's fast. Backwards. Yeah,

0:38:29.080 --> 0:38:32.240
<v Speaker 1>and you hit an arm, your arm's gonna be bruis,

0:38:32.280 --> 0:38:34.200
<v Speaker 1>it's gonna be torn up. You're gonna have broken bones,

0:38:34.200 --> 0:38:37.480
<v Speaker 1>You're gonna have torn ligaments. And none of that was

0:38:37.520 --> 0:38:41.000
<v Speaker 1>consistent with the injuries on his arm. All right Back

0:38:41.040 --> 0:38:43.640
<v Speaker 1>to Hank Brennan. He proceeded to play a clip from

0:38:43.680 --> 0:38:45.920
<v Speaker 1>one of Reed's TV interviews for the jury, and when

0:38:46.000 --> 0:38:49.120
<v Speaker 1>she said I shouldn't have been driving. She did say that,

0:38:49.160 --> 0:38:52.239
<v Speaker 1>And I did watch this, and I remember thinking, I

0:38:52.280 --> 0:38:53.759
<v Speaker 1>don't know if that was so smart for her to

0:38:53.800 --> 0:38:56.000
<v Speaker 1>do that documentary. You know, the documentary I watched. It

0:38:56.040 --> 0:38:57.560
<v Speaker 1>was like five parts. It was called A Body in

0:38:57.600 --> 0:39:00.840
<v Speaker 1>the Snow, and it was basically following her first trial,

0:39:01.239 --> 0:39:03.960
<v Speaker 1>and she did a lot of interviews, and there were

0:39:03.960 --> 0:39:07.640
<v Speaker 1>several times when I thought, I don't know if she

0:39:07.760 --> 0:39:09.560
<v Speaker 1>should have said that, And they used.

0:39:09.320 --> 0:39:10.680
<v Speaker 2>Why why shouldn't she have said that?

0:39:10.760 --> 0:39:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Because she did say I drank too much, I was overserved,

0:39:14.719 --> 0:39:16.840
<v Speaker 1>I drank too much alcohol, I was drunk. I shouldn't

0:39:16.840 --> 0:39:17.319
<v Speaker 1>have been drunk.

0:39:17.320 --> 0:39:20.759
<v Speaker 2>I mean, she she says this memory.

0:39:20.719 --> 0:39:24.320
<v Speaker 1>She says things to me that I thought were self incriminating,

0:39:24.320 --> 0:39:27.040
<v Speaker 1>that she probably shouldn't have been saying.

0:39:27.440 --> 0:39:29.480
<v Speaker 2>Well, but maybe her thing is I'm being honest. I'm

0:39:29.520 --> 0:39:31.960
<v Speaker 2>telling you everything that happened. Yeah, I did drink, but

0:39:32.000 --> 0:39:33.040
<v Speaker 2>I didn't run them over.

0:39:33.680 --> 0:39:37.520
<v Speaker 1>Brennan so Hank. Brennan also emphasized that o'keefan Read's relationship

0:39:37.560 --> 0:39:40.160
<v Speaker 1>was not healthy and nearing. It's in. The relationship is

0:39:40.200 --> 0:39:43.200
<v Speaker 1>almost over. The tensions are simmering beneath the surface. They

0:39:43.200 --> 0:39:45.879
<v Speaker 1>are not getting along. So fast forward that night, after

0:39:45.920 --> 0:39:48.000
<v Speaker 1>the discord, after the arguing, they go out. What do

0:39:48.040 --> 0:39:50.920
<v Speaker 1>they do. They drink, and they drink a lot, Brennan explained.

0:39:51.239 --> 0:39:53.319
<v Speaker 1>He then focused on the moments when O'Keefe got out

0:39:53.360 --> 0:39:56.759
<v Speaker 1>of Reed's suv that night. It's the first time he

0:39:56.800 --> 0:39:59.080
<v Speaker 1>has moved since they got to the flagpole, and it

0:39:59.120 --> 0:40:01.320
<v Speaker 1>will be the last time he moves in his life,

0:40:01.360 --> 0:40:04.520
<v Speaker 1>Brennan said. Brennan then explained to the jury why reid

0:40:04.600 --> 0:40:08.440
<v Speaker 1>Is charge was second degree murder. Quote, it sounds ominous.

0:40:08.600 --> 0:40:11.520
<v Speaker 1>It is. It's a serious charge, second degree murder. When

0:40:11.520 --> 0:40:14.200
<v Speaker 1>most people think murder, they think shooting or stabbing somebody.

0:40:14.200 --> 0:40:17.520
<v Speaker 1>It's natural to think that. However, second degree murder is different.

0:40:17.600 --> 0:40:19.440
<v Speaker 1>I told you at the beginning of this case, I

0:40:19.480 --> 0:40:21.480
<v Speaker 1>told you that we were not going to suggest to

0:40:21.520 --> 0:40:25.239
<v Speaker 1>try to prove that Miss Reid intended to kill John O'Keefe.

0:40:25.320 --> 0:40:27.960
<v Speaker 1>That was never part of this case. We're not claiming

0:40:27.960 --> 0:40:30.239
<v Speaker 1>that I told you that we were not ever going

0:40:30.280 --> 0:40:33.080
<v Speaker 1>to prove that she even intended to hit him. We

0:40:33.200 --> 0:40:35.120
<v Speaker 1>never suggested we would try to prove that, and we

0:40:35.160 --> 0:40:37.759
<v Speaker 1>are not trying to prove that she intended to hit him.

0:40:37.800 --> 0:40:40.960
<v Speaker 1>Brennan said, there was an eyewitness, there was a guide,

0:40:41.320 --> 0:40:44.200
<v Speaker 1>and that eyewitness tells us that she knew, and that

0:40:44.280 --> 0:40:48.480
<v Speaker 1>eyewitness is Karen Reid herself. She tells you that she knew,

0:40:48.640 --> 0:40:51.200
<v Speaker 1>Brennan said, before playing another video clip from the Read

0:40:51.239 --> 0:40:54.040
<v Speaker 1>TV interview. Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?

0:40:54.400 --> 0:40:56.919
<v Speaker 1>Reid said in the video. I didn't think I hit him,

0:40:57.040 --> 0:41:00.239
<v Speaker 1>but could I have clipped him? Again? We talked about

0:41:00.239 --> 0:41:02.560
<v Speaker 1>this earlier, but I feel like you're right, she's being vulnerable,

0:41:02.600 --> 0:41:04.920
<v Speaker 1>she's being honest, and she's saying that's that was what

0:41:05.000 --> 0:41:07.000
<v Speaker 1>was going through my mind when I found him dead

0:41:07.000 --> 0:41:07.479
<v Speaker 1>on the lawn.

0:41:07.680 --> 0:41:09.880
<v Speaker 2>Was that documentary done after her first trial?

0:41:10.000 --> 0:41:15.040
<v Speaker 1>It was done during during trial, during the preparation for

0:41:15.080 --> 0:41:15.840
<v Speaker 1>her first trial.

0:41:15.960 --> 0:41:18.440
<v Speaker 2>Oh okay, so then I think I think it was.

0:41:18.680 --> 0:41:20.040
<v Speaker 1>I think it was prior to the trial, because I

0:41:20.080 --> 0:41:21.480
<v Speaker 1>remember there were lots of scenes of them and what

0:41:21.520 --> 0:41:23.360
<v Speaker 1>they called the war room, and that was when she

0:41:23.440 --> 0:41:26.200
<v Speaker 1>was meeting with Alan Jackson and Michael Yannetti and they

0:41:26.200 --> 0:41:29.320
<v Speaker 1>were going over It showed her getting arrested, it showed

0:41:29.360 --> 0:41:32.200
<v Speaker 1>her going to jail, and then it showed her being

0:41:32.200 --> 0:41:34.880
<v Speaker 1>on house arrest, being at home preparing for the first trial.

0:41:35.239 --> 0:41:37.160
<v Speaker 2>There were a lot of good idea Why would she

0:41:37.160 --> 0:41:39.000
<v Speaker 2>do a documentary like that? I wonder for attorneys that

0:41:39.080 --> 0:41:41.680
<v Speaker 2>thought that would get some public support or.

0:41:41.920 --> 0:41:43.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, that was something I was thinking about on my

0:41:43.480 --> 0:41:45.680
<v Speaker 1>way home before we recorded this podcast, and I thought,

0:41:45.880 --> 0:41:49.400
<v Speaker 1>I wonder why, Because Alan Jackson is brilliant, I wonder

0:41:49.440 --> 0:41:51.480
<v Speaker 1>why he thought it was a good idea. But then

0:41:51.560 --> 0:41:54.600
<v Speaker 1>I thought, what you just said, Maybe it was the

0:41:54.719 --> 0:41:57.920
<v Speaker 1>balance if you balance. Okay, So she maybe says some

0:41:57.960 --> 0:42:01.160
<v Speaker 1>things that don't look great, but she's just being herself.

0:42:02.000 --> 0:42:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Maybe the the public support that she garnered from that

0:42:06.680 --> 0:42:10.799
<v Speaker 1>was worth more than you know, if she misspoke or

0:42:11.360 --> 0:42:13.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I mean, I don't really feel like,

0:42:14.520 --> 0:42:17.799
<v Speaker 1>I mean, is it self incrimination when she said that,

0:42:17.920 --> 0:42:20.360
<v Speaker 1>or is it her just being honest and authentic about

0:42:20.360 --> 0:42:22.680
<v Speaker 1>that night and saying I don't know did I hit him?

0:42:22.800 --> 0:42:24.719
<v Speaker 1>He's I found him dead on the lawn, so I

0:42:24.760 --> 0:42:26.279
<v Speaker 1>don't know. I mean, you could look at it from

0:42:26.320 --> 0:42:30.840
<v Speaker 1>a jury perspective that she's the more honest of the

0:42:30.840 --> 0:42:31.640
<v Speaker 1>two sides.

0:42:31.800 --> 0:42:35.360
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. That's what a what a mess she

0:42:35.640 --> 0:42:41.160
<v Speaker 2>had more like document interviews and oh yeah she's gonna yeahs.

0:42:41.680 --> 0:42:42.840
<v Speaker 1>Do I follow her on Instagram?

0:42:43.920 --> 0:42:45.279
<v Speaker 2>Following I don't you know.

0:42:45.320 --> 0:42:48.239
<v Speaker 1>I I don't even follow Alan Jackson. I don't know

0:42:48.280 --> 0:42:49.040
<v Speaker 1>how that happened.

0:42:49.040 --> 0:42:50.640
<v Speaker 2>But you like him?

0:42:51.560 --> 0:42:55.040
<v Speaker 1>I just I feel like he's I. I my heroes

0:42:55.080 --> 0:42:57.839
<v Speaker 1>like other people might think, like rock stars or like

0:42:58.040 --> 0:43:03.000
<v Speaker 1>actors are their heroes minds like Alan Jackson, Brian friedran, Yeah,

0:43:03.080 --> 0:43:06.719
<v Speaker 1>like those are the people that I like are like, huh,

0:43:06.760 --> 0:43:09.799
<v Speaker 1>I would fan girl over Alan Jackson, but not like

0:43:09.880 --> 0:43:11.400
<v Speaker 1>Brad Pitt, but Alan Jackson.

0:43:11.480 --> 0:43:16.240
<v Speaker 2>Yes, Brett, bet you a cameo from Brian and Jackson?

0:43:16.239 --> 0:43:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Do you think do you think they're on cameo? They

0:43:19.040 --> 0:43:29.440
<v Speaker 1>might be after this for people like you maybe. Brennan

0:43:29.520 --> 0:43:32.480
<v Speaker 1>also addressed one of Jackson's major points on Friday, why

0:43:32.480 --> 0:43:35.040
<v Speaker 1>Trooper Proctor didn't take the stand in his trial. After

0:43:35.080 --> 0:43:38.480
<v Speaker 1>he testified in the first one, he was terminated. He

0:43:38.560 --> 0:43:41.239
<v Speaker 1>said a penalty. He was held responsible for what he did.

0:43:41.280 --> 0:43:43.480
<v Speaker 1>He should have been We don't We don't need Trooper

0:43:43.480 --> 0:43:45.600
<v Speaker 1>Proctor in this case. We don't need Trooper Proctor to

0:43:45.680 --> 0:43:49.000
<v Speaker 1>prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. Brennan concluded his

0:43:49.120 --> 0:43:51.880
<v Speaker 1>argument by showing the jury a photo of John O'Keeffe.

0:43:52.200 --> 0:43:55.600
<v Speaker 1>He is not an it. John O'Keeffe is not a body.

0:43:55.680 --> 0:43:59.000
<v Speaker 1>John O'Keefe was not a buffalo on a prairie. John

0:43:59.040 --> 0:44:03.200
<v Speaker 1>O'Keeffe was a per and he was murdered by Karen Reid. Clearly,

0:44:03.239 --> 0:44:06.759
<v Speaker 1>all the prosecution has is to play to the jury's heart.

0:44:06.640 --> 0:44:10.279
<v Speaker 2>And say this crossing the that they don't look at

0:44:10.320 --> 0:44:12.680
<v Speaker 2>the evidence and fire guilty because she don't.

0:44:12.520 --> 0:44:16.480
<v Speaker 1>Forget that this is a man, this is a human,

0:44:16.719 --> 0:44:18.560
<v Speaker 1>So do the right thing and find her guilty.

0:44:18.600 --> 0:44:21.560
<v Speaker 2>Well, well, she's also a woman and a human. I mean,

0:44:21.600 --> 0:44:25.000
<v Speaker 2>you can't throw them to jail. What about you mentioned earlier,

0:44:25.239 --> 0:44:27.480
<v Speaker 2>like twelve thirty one is when they blew, the impact

0:44:27.520 --> 0:44:29.920
<v Speaker 2>took place in twelve thirty six is when she hit

0:44:30.000 --> 0:44:30.759
<v Speaker 2>the WiFi.

0:44:30.880 --> 0:44:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Is when she connected to John's five.

0:44:32.760 --> 0:44:35.440
<v Speaker 2>Minutes, how far a part of the homes Okay, ye,

0:44:35.560 --> 0:44:37.040
<v Speaker 2>so that tracks that makes sense?

0:44:37.040 --> 0:44:40.360
<v Speaker 1>Then, yeah it does. But what what happened though, is

0:44:40.400 --> 0:44:43.239
<v Speaker 1>when they clocked her, or they they claim that she

0:44:43.400 --> 0:44:47.560
<v Speaker 1>hit him at twelve thirty one. The prosecution really buried

0:44:47.600 --> 0:44:49.880
<v Speaker 1>themselves for what does it paint yourself into a corner

0:44:49.920 --> 0:44:52.440
<v Speaker 1>when you do something like that. His phone was still

0:44:52.480 --> 0:44:55.200
<v Speaker 1>warm at twelve thirty one, as opposed to like it

0:44:55.239 --> 0:44:57.920
<v Speaker 1>wasn't laying in the snow. I believe they said it

0:44:57.960 --> 0:45:00.480
<v Speaker 1>only takes fifteen minutes for your phone to go from

0:45:00.560 --> 0:45:03.640
<v Speaker 1>warm to like if it's in freezing temperatures to where

0:45:03.680 --> 0:45:07.160
<v Speaker 1>it shuts off. It's like a very small window of time.

0:45:07.520 --> 0:45:10.400
<v Speaker 1>So if his body had been laying in the snow

0:45:10.680 --> 0:45:12.480
<v Speaker 1>starting at twelve thirty one, and she phone would have

0:45:12.520 --> 0:45:13.000
<v Speaker 1>shut off.

0:45:13.920 --> 0:45:15.960
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. There's so many holes in this thing.

0:45:16.160 --> 0:45:16.440
<v Speaker 1>I know.

0:45:16.560 --> 0:45:19.520
<v Speaker 2>It's unbelievable that they even tried her. It's embarrassing. It's

0:45:19.520 --> 0:45:21.759
<v Speaker 2>a waste of everyone's time and money, it is.

0:45:21.800 --> 0:45:23.799
<v Speaker 1>And it's a first of all, to think of what

0:45:23.840 --> 0:45:25.680
<v Speaker 1>she had to go through, the money she has to

0:45:25.719 --> 0:45:31.080
<v Speaker 1>spend to defend herself. The fact, well I know she

0:45:31.120 --> 0:45:34.960
<v Speaker 1>had a I've read well or something she did, and

0:45:35.000 --> 0:45:36.719
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of people supported her because they

0:45:36.719 --> 0:45:39.520
<v Speaker 1>were so you know, she had the public behind her

0:45:39.520 --> 0:45:42.080
<v Speaker 1>so much. But she also had to I read like

0:45:42.120 --> 0:45:44.160
<v Speaker 1>she cashed out her four oh one. She doesn't work,

0:45:44.280 --> 0:45:44.480
<v Speaker 1>you know.

0:45:44.680 --> 0:45:46.360
<v Speaker 2>She also I think she mortgaged.

0:45:46.440 --> 0:45:48.040
<v Speaker 1>I think she either sold her house or she had

0:45:48.040 --> 0:45:49.879
<v Speaker 1>to get a second mortgage on her house. I mean,

0:45:49.960 --> 0:45:56.160
<v Speaker 1>she's completely financially depleted herself to have to defend herself

0:45:56.480 --> 0:45:56.719
<v Speaker 1>in this.

0:45:56.880 --> 0:45:59.839
<v Speaker 2>The moral of the story. Shouldn't drink, Okay, that's that's

0:45:59.880 --> 0:46:01.280
<v Speaker 2>what I shouldn't overdrink.

0:46:01.640 --> 0:46:04.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, but if she here's the thing though, her If

0:46:05.000 --> 0:46:07.600
<v Speaker 1>if he was murdered inside the house and then drug

0:46:07.600 --> 0:46:09.440
<v Speaker 1>out onto the lawn, it makes no difference whether she

0:46:09.520 --> 0:46:10.040
<v Speaker 1>drank or not.

0:46:11.480 --> 0:46:13.719
<v Speaker 2>Well, she might have a better memory, she might be

0:46:13.760 --> 0:46:16.759
<v Speaker 2>more credible, She might not have ran them over. Not

0:46:16.920 --> 0:46:19.240
<v Speaker 2>just kid, I don't know. There's a lot of things

0:46:19.280 --> 0:46:21.759
<v Speaker 2>gonna happen if she was, you know not.

0:46:22.120 --> 0:46:24.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, so you're saying if she was, if she

0:46:24.719 --> 0:46:26.960
<v Speaker 1>did not drink at all, and she was completely clear

0:46:27.000 --> 0:46:29.800
<v Speaker 1>of mind, she might have seen him actually go into

0:46:29.840 --> 0:46:30.719
<v Speaker 1>the house and had to.

0:46:30.640 --> 0:46:33.960
<v Speaker 2>Clear I mean, I'm just making a general statement that is,

0:46:34.080 --> 0:46:35.759
<v Speaker 2>I mean she drink and drove and I just don't

0:46:35.880 --> 0:46:38.440
<v Speaker 2>I don't fin any forgiveness in that. So now she's

0:46:38.480 --> 0:46:38.960
<v Speaker 2>in a mess.

0:46:40.480 --> 0:46:43.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. But again the alternative argument is did the drinking

0:46:44.000 --> 0:46:44.840
<v Speaker 1>make any difference?

0:46:45.120 --> 0:46:48.600
<v Speaker 2>No, the cops did it. It should be called what

0:46:48.719 --> 0:46:49.640
<v Speaker 2>was that documentary?

0:46:50.040 --> 0:46:50.719
<v Speaker 1>Body in the snow?

0:46:50.920 --> 0:46:52.960
<v Speaker 2>Should be a body drug out and dumped in the

0:46:52.960 --> 0:46:57.239
<v Speaker 2>snow by police officers on their lawn. Yes, all right.

0:46:57.360 --> 0:46:59.840
<v Speaker 1>So then after they give their closing statements the jury

0:47:00.280 --> 0:47:04.560
<v Speaker 1>to deliberations, there was an amended verdict slip. Judge Beverly Canone.

0:47:04.600 --> 0:47:07.680
<v Speaker 1>Everybody calls her aunt bev on TikTok. She does not

0:47:07.880 --> 0:47:11.719
<v Speaker 1>have a large fan base at all, gave jurors a

0:47:11.800 --> 0:47:15.279
<v Speaker 1>revised verdict slipt on Tuesday afternoon, following confusion from the

0:47:15.320 --> 0:47:17.840
<v Speaker 1>panel about the first slip they were given, which prompted

0:47:17.840 --> 0:47:20.600
<v Speaker 1>a question to be sent to the judge. The slip

0:47:20.680 --> 0:47:23.640
<v Speaker 1>concerns the second of three charges Reid faces in the

0:47:23.680 --> 0:47:27.719
<v Speaker 1>death of John O'Keefe, manslaughter while operating under the influence.

0:47:28.320 --> 0:47:31.440
<v Speaker 1>That charge, at the request of Reid's defense, carries a

0:47:31.520 --> 0:47:34.640
<v Speaker 1>number of lesser included counts for which the jury could

0:47:34.640 --> 0:47:38.960
<v Speaker 1>either convict or acquit Read. The new slip, distributed to

0:47:39.040 --> 0:47:42.800
<v Speaker 1>the media Wednesday morning, contains clarifying language for the jury,

0:47:43.200 --> 0:47:46.960
<v Speaker 1>telling the four person to quote, stop and sign the

0:47:47.040 --> 0:47:50.520
<v Speaker 1>verdict slip end quote after each lesser included charge. If

0:47:50.560 --> 0:47:53.959
<v Speaker 1>they find Read guilty, jurors can convict her of any

0:47:53.960 --> 0:47:57.480
<v Speaker 1>of the lesser included charges or acquit her of each charge,

0:47:57.600 --> 0:48:01.640
<v Speaker 1>including manslaughter. Though I believe what the jurors were asking

0:48:01.719 --> 0:48:04.000
<v Speaker 1>so they needed an amended jury slip was to break

0:48:04.040 --> 0:48:06.719
<v Speaker 1>it down better. They didn't understand if like she was

0:48:06.719 --> 0:48:11.000
<v Speaker 1>acquitted of some of the higher charges and maybe not

0:48:11.000 --> 0:48:13.759
<v Speaker 1>the lesser charges, if that was still considered a hung jury,

0:48:13.800 --> 0:48:15.719
<v Speaker 1>so they needed more clarifying.

0:48:15.200 --> 0:48:17.480
<v Speaker 2>I see basic jury instructions on the charges and.

0:48:17.520 --> 0:48:20.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, and I know that they did come back

0:48:20.040 --> 0:48:23.760
<v Speaker 1>and ask if she's acquitted of the two higher charges

0:48:24.320 --> 0:48:28.080
<v Speaker 1>but not the third charge, would that still be considered

0:48:28.800 --> 0:48:32.520
<v Speaker 1>a hut or a mistrial? And then she said she

0:48:32.560 --> 0:48:35.320
<v Speaker 1>couldn't answer that because it was a theoretical question.

0:48:35.600 --> 0:48:38.879
<v Speaker 2>Because then because I'm guessing, but then the judge thing,

0:48:38.880 --> 0:48:40.560
<v Speaker 2>and I can't answer that question because if I give

0:48:40.600 --> 0:48:43.560
<v Speaker 2>you an answer that might sway you exactly, like oh,

0:48:43.640 --> 0:48:45.959
<v Speaker 2>you know, well, it'll be a hung trial or hung jury,

0:48:45.960 --> 0:48:48.879
<v Speaker 2>and we don't want that again, so we'll find her guilty, yeah,

0:48:48.960 --> 0:48:49.680
<v Speaker 2>or the other way around.

0:48:49.719 --> 0:48:52.520
<v Speaker 1>So she couldn't answer that anyway, all right, So we

0:48:52.560 --> 0:48:56.040
<v Speaker 1>get a verdict. Finally, that happened just like two hours ago.

0:48:56.200 --> 0:48:58.919
<v Speaker 1>After more than thirty days of testimony and four days

0:48:58.920 --> 0:49:02.320
<v Speaker 1>of deliberation, jury found read not guilty of second degree

0:49:02.360 --> 0:49:06.280
<v Speaker 1>murder manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence

0:49:06.320 --> 0:49:08.600
<v Speaker 1>and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.

0:49:08.680 --> 0:49:11.200
<v Speaker 1>But she was found guilty of a very lesser offensive,

0:49:11.239 --> 0:49:14.080
<v Speaker 1>operating a vehicle under the influence with a blood alcohol

0:49:14.200 --> 0:49:16.799
<v Speaker 1>level of zero point eight percent or greater. She is

0:49:16.840 --> 0:49:19.920
<v Speaker 1>sentenced to a year of probation. Basically, it was a

0:49:20.000 --> 0:49:20.680
<v Speaker 1>huge win for her.

0:49:21.000 --> 0:49:23.960
<v Speaker 2>Was that was that based on just her testimony that

0:49:24.000 --> 0:49:24.600
<v Speaker 2>she was drunk?

0:49:24.800 --> 0:49:26.560
<v Speaker 1>No, they had they had ad they.

0:49:26.480 --> 0:49:27.800
<v Speaker 2>Test her the next morning or something.

0:49:28.360 --> 0:49:30.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't I believe so, but they they did a whole.

0:49:30.760 --> 0:49:33.960
<v Speaker 2>Of blood change hear to what she was up against.

0:49:34.080 --> 0:49:36.879
<v Speaker 1>Oh, absolutely, She's like, I'll take I'll take a I'll

0:49:36.920 --> 0:49:40.520
<v Speaker 1>take a DUI or this was called a OUI operating

0:49:40.680 --> 0:49:44.200
<v Speaker 1>under influence. I mean she'll do a year of probation

0:49:44.320 --> 0:49:46.560
<v Speaker 1>and then she gets to go on with her life. However,

0:49:47.600 --> 0:49:51.000
<v Speaker 1>there still is a pending civil suit with the o

0:49:51.160 --> 0:49:54.879
<v Speaker 1>Key family against her for run. Actually they did, and

0:49:54.960 --> 0:49:57.719
<v Speaker 1>they actually stayed the suit while she was doing the

0:49:57.719 --> 0:49:58.319
<v Speaker 1>criminal trial.

0:49:58.520 --> 0:49:59.919
<v Speaker 2>They see the freaking cops too.

0:50:00.200 --> 0:50:02.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, here's my question, and let's talk about it.

0:50:02.360 --> 0:50:04.400
<v Speaker 2>It was dead on your lawn, You didn't do anything,

0:50:04.440 --> 0:50:06.359
<v Speaker 2>and you destroyed all the evidence in your house. Give

0:50:06.360 --> 0:50:07.080
<v Speaker 2>me a shoeback.

0:50:07.120 --> 0:50:11.359
<v Speaker 1>So giving my shoeback. So, they filed a civil suit

0:50:11.400 --> 0:50:15.919
<v Speaker 1>against her before the second retrial for wrongful death. Then

0:50:16.040 --> 0:50:19.360
<v Speaker 1>that suit was stayed while she was doing her criminal

0:50:19.480 --> 0:50:22.560
<v Speaker 1>trial because she couldn't do the civil trial and the

0:50:22.600 --> 0:50:24.800
<v Speaker 1>criminal trial. Plus you can't do a civil trial and

0:50:24.800 --> 0:50:26.640
<v Speaker 1>then they take your testimony from the civil trial used

0:50:26.640 --> 0:50:29.560
<v Speaker 1>against you in your criminal trial anyway, so that was stayed.

0:50:30.160 --> 0:50:34.320
<v Speaker 1>Now that her criminal trial is over, the civil trial

0:50:34.400 --> 0:50:37.600
<v Speaker 1>will proceed. But here's my question. If you are John

0:50:37.640 --> 0:50:40.080
<v Speaker 1>O'Keefe's family, and you're the ones that filed the civil

0:50:40.120 --> 0:50:45.000
<v Speaker 1>suit before this latest retrial, and you sat in court

0:50:45.280 --> 0:50:49.120
<v Speaker 1>every single day and you listened to all the evidence

0:50:49.200 --> 0:50:52.200
<v Speaker 1>and the testimony, and then the jury comes back with

0:50:52.320 --> 0:50:55.840
<v Speaker 1>their decision that she's not guilty, and the entire world

0:50:55.920 --> 0:50:59.879
<v Speaker 1>that's watching this is saying she's not guilty. Free Karen Rea.

0:51:00.719 --> 0:51:03.040
<v Speaker 1>How do you continue on with the civil suit for

0:51:03.120 --> 0:51:07.480
<v Speaker 1>wrongful death at this point? Are you not completely pissed

0:51:08.160 --> 0:51:11.160
<v Speaker 1>with the system? How do you go forward with the

0:51:11.239 --> 0:51:13.600
<v Speaker 1>civil suit against Karen Reid? I feel like they need

0:51:13.640 --> 0:51:14.640
<v Speaker 1>to withdraw the suit.

0:51:14.920 --> 0:51:18.520
<v Speaker 2>You mean they should? They should have They should understand

0:51:18.560 --> 0:51:19.879
<v Speaker 2>that she didn't do it. Is that what you're saying.

0:51:19.920 --> 0:51:22.200
<v Speaker 1>I'm saying. They sat in court every single.

0:51:22.000 --> 0:51:26.640
<v Speaker 2>Ya, But are you suggesting that they should be based

0:51:26.680 --> 0:51:29.360
<v Speaker 2>on everything they saw on witness and participated in and

0:51:29.400 --> 0:51:31.680
<v Speaker 2>all that took place, they should be of the position of, Okay,

0:51:31.680 --> 0:51:33.200
<v Speaker 2>I guess she didn't do it, so we don't want

0:51:33.200 --> 0:51:34.120
<v Speaker 2>to sue her. Is that what you mean?

0:51:34.280 --> 0:51:35.160
<v Speaker 1>Yes, I'm saying.

0:51:36.000 --> 0:51:38.160
<v Speaker 2>And she doesn't have any money anyway, She's spent it all.

0:51:38.040 --> 0:51:41.680
<v Speaker 1>On Yeah, I'm saying, how do you go forward with

0:51:41.719 --> 0:51:44.399
<v Speaker 1>this wrongful death suit against Karen Reid when you sat

0:51:44.440 --> 0:51:46.000
<v Speaker 1>in court every day and you heard all of that.

0:51:46.960 --> 0:51:50.640
<v Speaker 2>Let's be clear for listeners, the standard in a civil

0:51:50.680 --> 0:51:54.280
<v Speaker 2>suit to find a verdict is different than the standard

0:51:54.280 --> 0:51:55.480
<v Speaker 2>and a criminal it is lesser.

0:51:55.560 --> 0:51:59.040
<v Speaker 1>Yes, yes, it is a preponderance of the evidence.

0:51:58.600 --> 0:52:00.000
<v Speaker 2>Which means just tipping the scale.

0:52:00.239 --> 0:52:01.520
<v Speaker 1>It's a fifty one percent.

0:52:01.880 --> 0:52:05.879
<v Speaker 2>So it had had Karen been found guilty, the civil

0:52:05.920 --> 0:52:08.720
<v Speaker 2>suit would be much easier because you're like, she's already guilty,

0:52:08.800 --> 0:52:10.640
<v Speaker 2>it would be. But now she's not guilty, so now

0:52:10.680 --> 0:52:13.880
<v Speaker 2>they have to prove beyond a preponminence of the Evans

0:52:13.960 --> 0:52:15.719
<v Speaker 2>or whatever tip the scale, have to.

0:52:15.640 --> 0:52:17.719
<v Speaker 1>Tip the scale. Yeah, but here's my point. I feel

0:52:17.719 --> 0:52:19.680
<v Speaker 1>like it's just a moral issue at this point, Like

0:52:19.719 --> 0:52:22.839
<v Speaker 1>you sat in court and you heard all this testimony

0:52:23.480 --> 0:52:27.600
<v Speaker 1>about how corrupt this police department was, how no one

0:52:27.640 --> 0:52:32.480
<v Speaker 1>investigated the house, how the Brian Albert and Brian Higgins

0:52:32.520 --> 0:52:34.560
<v Speaker 1>both got rid of their cell phones.

0:52:34.960 --> 0:52:37.320
<v Speaker 2>And their dogs and the dog and didn't they like

0:52:37.320 --> 0:52:38.640
<v Speaker 2>like redo the flooring.

0:52:38.360 --> 0:52:40.320
<v Speaker 1>And they did it, Yes, And the house was sold

0:52:40.880 --> 0:52:43.560
<v Speaker 1>and the ring footage across the street was deleted or

0:52:43.760 --> 0:52:45.520
<v Speaker 1>wasn't available, and nobody she's.

0:52:45.360 --> 0:52:48.200
<v Speaker 2>Looking she's she is looking the wrong way. They're looking

0:52:48.239 --> 0:52:50.120
<v Speaker 2>the wrong way by going after Karen. I know that,

0:52:50.360 --> 0:52:52.839
<v Speaker 2>but sometimes it's just a money grab and sometimes it's

0:52:52.880 --> 0:52:56.799
<v Speaker 2>just a stubbornness of you know, they want someone to

0:52:56.920 --> 0:52:57.960
<v Speaker 2>be held accountable.

0:52:58.080 --> 0:53:00.120
<v Speaker 1>And I can get that, well, I understand that, but

0:53:00.160 --> 0:53:02.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm just saying they filed it before the retrial. So

0:53:03.000 --> 0:53:05.279
<v Speaker 1>I'm saying, after sitting in court for thirty days and

0:53:05.400 --> 0:53:07.799
<v Speaker 1>watching all this testimony, I feel like they need to

0:53:07.840 --> 0:53:12.680
<v Speaker 1>withdraw the civil suit and go after the real perpetrators here,

0:53:13.120 --> 0:53:15.919
<v Speaker 1>the corruption the police department, Like file a civil suit

0:53:15.960 --> 0:53:19.200
<v Speaker 1>against them. There's something shady and the fauryus that happened

0:53:19.200 --> 0:53:19.560
<v Speaker 1>in the house.

0:53:19.600 --> 0:53:20.840
<v Speaker 2>That who's actually suing.

0:53:21.239 --> 0:53:23.880
<v Speaker 1>It's John o'cue's family. It's his mom and oh, his

0:53:23.920 --> 0:53:25.200
<v Speaker 1>immediate family, his family.

0:53:25.280 --> 0:53:28.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yeah, I mean it's an unfortunate thing. It doesn't

0:53:28.719 --> 0:53:31.400
<v Speaker 2>mean that you know, they're not suffering by his loss,

0:53:31.440 --> 0:53:35.200
<v Speaker 2>But I don't know. What's done is done. Man. Sometimes

0:53:35.280 --> 0:53:38.560
<v Speaker 2>you just gotta he just gotta move on. It sucks,

0:53:38.600 --> 0:53:41.000
<v Speaker 2>But the kids are the one that they're gonna suffer

0:53:41.040 --> 0:53:42.719
<v Speaker 2>the most, those kids that he was taking care of.

0:53:43.320 --> 0:53:46.799
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, at the end of the day, I think, to me,

0:53:47.640 --> 0:53:54.960
<v Speaker 1>I feel as if this was one of the most interesting, compelling, infuriating,

0:53:55.640 --> 0:53:58.200
<v Speaker 1>but fascinating legal.

0:53:57.960 --> 0:54:00.800
<v Speaker 2>Cases and confusing and unclear.

0:54:01.200 --> 0:54:05.320
<v Speaker 1>But look, we follow Ditty too, and Diddy is huge,

0:54:05.320 --> 0:54:07.040
<v Speaker 1>and it's in the media and everybody talks about it

0:54:07.080 --> 0:54:08.560
<v Speaker 1>ezy one, but I don't find it.

0:54:08.719 --> 0:54:11.520
<v Speaker 2>No, it's like going to talk about another freak off

0:54:11.680 --> 0:54:12.400
<v Speaker 2>and another.

0:54:12.200 --> 0:54:15.959
<v Speaker 1>Freak off, Okay, another witness. It's kind of the same

0:54:16.080 --> 0:54:20.000
<v Speaker 1>pattern of behavior. Everybody looked the other way for years

0:54:20.000 --> 0:54:20.560
<v Speaker 1>and years.

0:54:21.000 --> 0:54:26.160
<v Speaker 2>But he's you know, he abuses his power, he buys people.

0:54:26.880 --> 0:54:29.600
<v Speaker 2>I get it. He beats people and he pays him.

0:54:29.719 --> 0:54:33.880
<v Speaker 2>He's a jerk. But it's it's repeating. I mean, this

0:54:33.960 --> 0:54:35.960
<v Speaker 2>is this requires you to think and try to figure

0:54:35.960 --> 0:54:37.960
<v Speaker 2>out what the heck is going on. Yeah, and that's

0:54:37.960 --> 0:54:41.120
<v Speaker 2>why it's so puzzle pity diddy what's his name?

0:54:41.160 --> 0:54:43.520
<v Speaker 1>Pity, it's pity.

0:54:43.320 --> 0:54:48.279
<v Speaker 2>I pity that whatever it probably will be next who

0:54:48.320 --> 0:54:52.080
<v Speaker 2>knows he's going to be no as soon he's going

0:54:52.160 --> 0:54:53.440
<v Speaker 2>to be known by a cell number.

0:54:53.840 --> 0:54:57.799
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. But again back to Karen Reid, I feel like

0:54:57.880 --> 0:55:00.759
<v Speaker 1>this case should be studied in law school. It is

0:55:01.320 --> 0:55:04.920
<v Speaker 1>why because it is the epitome of reasonable doubt. Like,

0:55:05.000 --> 0:55:08.000
<v Speaker 1>this case is so fascinating.

0:55:07.920 --> 0:55:11.120
<v Speaker 2>It should be studied by the police department and then

0:55:11.160 --> 0:55:14.080
<v Speaker 2>they know and then they should be telling their police officer.

0:55:14.200 --> 0:55:15.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

0:55:15.239 --> 0:55:18.759
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there should be some protocol for finding a dead

0:55:18.760 --> 0:55:21.880
<v Speaker 2>body on your lawn. Yep, that's that's what I'm saying.

0:55:21.920 --> 0:55:24.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm just saying this is a fascinating case because.

0:55:24.480 --> 0:55:26.760
<v Speaker 2>Every snowplower should have cameras on their cars.

0:55:27.320 --> 0:55:31.759
<v Speaker 1>They should have dash cam dash cams. Yeah, I mean

0:55:31.760 --> 0:55:33.359
<v Speaker 1>that would have solved it right there, if he had

0:55:33.360 --> 0:55:35.279
<v Speaker 1>a dash cam on that snowplow.

0:55:35.320 --> 0:55:38.280
<v Speaker 2>Case close right one way or another?

0:55:38.520 --> 0:55:40.640
<v Speaker 1>Right, Yeah, I mean either there was a body there

0:55:40.680 --> 0:55:42.879
<v Speaker 1>or there wasn't. And if there wasn't a body there,

0:55:43.000 --> 0:55:43.879
<v Speaker 1>the bodies in the house.

0:55:44.280 --> 0:55:46.120
<v Speaker 2>No, dash cams are a big deal. You need a

0:55:46.160 --> 0:55:48.480
<v Speaker 2>dash cam. I need a dash can You need a

0:55:48.520 --> 0:55:48.920
<v Speaker 2>dash cam?

0:55:49.120 --> 0:55:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Who got pulled over today? Because it wasn't me.

0:55:51.920 --> 0:55:52.839
<v Speaker 2>Lots of people got pulled over.

0:55:53.360 --> 0:55:54.960
<v Speaker 1>You got pulled over today?

0:55:55.560 --> 0:55:56.439
<v Speaker 2>All right? Anything wrong?

0:55:56.480 --> 0:55:59.000
<v Speaker 1>All right? Thank you for listening.

0:55:59.080 --> 0:56:01.160
<v Speaker 2>To our breakdown? Or are we done with Karen re Yeah?

0:56:01.160 --> 0:56:02.400
<v Speaker 2>I follow the civil suit.

0:56:02.920 --> 0:56:04.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well I don't have anything else to say about.

0:56:04.440 --> 0:56:05.600
<v Speaker 2>The civil suit. I know. But are we going to

0:56:05.640 --> 0:56:06.439
<v Speaker 2>follow the civil suit?

0:56:07.080 --> 0:56:09.080
<v Speaker 1>Well, yeah, we'll follow the civil suit. But I mean

0:56:09.160 --> 0:56:10.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm hoping the civil suit gets dropped.

0:56:10.920 --> 0:56:14.080
<v Speaker 2>It'll it'll get dropped. You think or it'll it'll be

0:56:14.120 --> 0:56:16.319
<v Speaker 2>a short I don't know, there's none. Well, I don't

0:56:16.360 --> 0:56:20.280
<v Speaker 2>know that this Actually, this will be very interesting assuming

0:56:20.320 --> 0:56:22.120
<v Speaker 2>they don't drop it. If they drop it, okay, if

0:56:22.120 --> 0:56:24.040
<v Speaker 2>they don't drop it and they proceed with a trial,

0:56:24.080 --> 0:56:26.960
<v Speaker 2>it'd be very interesting because you have two different standards

0:56:26.960 --> 0:56:29.920
<v Speaker 2>on a very questionable case. And so it'll be interesting

0:56:29.960 --> 0:56:33.320
<v Speaker 2>to know if it's like not guilty in a criminal standard,

0:56:33.840 --> 0:56:37.080
<v Speaker 2>but guilty or liable in a civil standard. So that'd

0:56:37.080 --> 0:56:37.720
<v Speaker 2>be really interesting.

0:56:37.800 --> 0:56:39.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and also just to draw a parallel, O. J.

0:56:40.120 --> 0:56:44.400
<v Speaker 1>Simpson was acquitted and yeah, that's right, that's right, but

0:56:44.480 --> 0:56:48.320
<v Speaker 1>he was found guilty in a civil suit right after

0:56:48.360 --> 0:56:48.760
<v Speaker 1>the fact.

0:56:48.880 --> 0:56:51.160
<v Speaker 2>Well, and but the difference with him was the public

0:56:51.239 --> 0:56:54.160
<v Speaker 2>knew he was guilty. Come on, dude, the guy.

0:56:54.120 --> 0:56:59.520
<v Speaker 1>Was all right. Thank you guys for listening to legally Brunette.

0:56:59.520 --> 0:57:03.320
<v Speaker 1>We appreciate it. And as always I appreciate when you, guys,

0:57:03.400 --> 0:57:05.200
<v Speaker 1>DM you tell us how much you like it, you

0:57:05.239 --> 0:57:10.160
<v Speaker 1>give me feedback, feedback, suggestions on cases that you find interesting. Actually,

0:57:10.160 --> 0:57:12.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm reading the book on the Memphis three because someone

0:57:13.040 --> 0:57:14.680
<v Speaker 1>had suggested that to me, and I feel like that's

0:57:14.680 --> 0:57:16.960
<v Speaker 1>another case we should talk about. At some point. So

0:57:17.040 --> 0:57:19.880
<v Speaker 1>thank you for all of the feedback. We truly appreciate it.

0:57:19.920 --> 0:57:20.280
<v Speaker 2>Thank you