Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Karen Read, The Trial, The Autopsy And The Letters (9/25/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Karen Read, The Trial, The Autopsy And The Letters (9/25/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. The
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Karen Reid case is filled with all sorts of allegations,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: all sorts of finger-pointing, and all sorts of he said,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: she said. Well, the FBI certainly took an interest in
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: what was going on with the Karen Reid case, and
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: their interest came after they were prompted by the defense
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: that things might not be on the up and up.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: So in this episode, we're going to take a look
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: at some of the back and forth between the District
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office in Norfolk and their complaint to the OPR's
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: office about this investigation. So let's just get right to it.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: May 18th, 2023. Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: Dear Sir or Madam, I write to formally request that
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: an ongoing investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney's
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: Office for the District of Massachusetts be examined by the
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: Office of Professional Responsibility, and should the investigation continue, that
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: it be transferred to another office without history of conflict, bias,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: and abuse of prosecutorial discretion as outlined below. The Norfolk
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: District Attorney's Office has undertaken an extensive investigation into the
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: facts and circumstances of the death of John O'Keefe in Canton,
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: Massachusetts on January 29, 2022. The facts and evidence gathered,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: including more than 40 individual testifying before the Norfolk County
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Grand Jury, led to the second-degree murder indictment of Karen Reed.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Reed was the operator of the vehicle that the evidence
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: demonstrates struck her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. O'Keefe
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: was then left to die in the snow on the
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: side of Fairview Road, Canton, during the evening of January 29, 2022.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: The case has been systematically investigated making its way through
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: Norfolk Superior Court with ongoing discoveries still active and open,
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: including motions under advisement and motions not yet heard. The defendant,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: through counsel, has been raising issues of a third-party culprit
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: and complaints of witness and police misconduct as they attempt
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: to confuse by offering not different interpretations of Commonwealth statements, evidence,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: and positions, but inventing them out of whole cloth. No actual,
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: substantiated evidence supporting police misconduct or any federal violations have
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: been identified by the defendant, the District Attorney's Office, or
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the Mass Superior Court during the ongoing discovery process. See
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: Exhibit A, Defendant's Filings, and Commonwealth's Response. Approximately three weeks ago,
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: multiple state witnesses who have been brought before the state
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: grand jury notified the Norfolk District Attorney's Office that they
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: were contacted by the FBI and subsequently received subpoenas to
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: appear before a federal grand jury. Shortly after those notifications
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: to the Norfolk District Attorney's Office, Joshua Levy, First Assistant
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: in the Boston Office of the United States Attorney's Office,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: contacted Norfolk First Assistant District Attorney Lynn Beeland to suggest
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: that they were conducting an investigation that may involve a
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: number of witnesses in the Commonwealth versus Reed murder case.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: At that time, Attorney Beeland. expressed some concerns about both
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: the jurisdiction and the timing of any actions being taken
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: by the United States Attorney's Office as they could imprudently
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: impact the ongoing murder prosecution of Karen Reed. Based on
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: the collective experience of several of my colleagues, Massachusetts District Attorneys,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: and former federal prosecutor, it appears to be unprecedented for
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: the federal government to step into the middle of an
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: ongoing state murder prosecution prompted only by inflammatory and ethically
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: dubious defense strategy. In the conversation with the first assistant
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Norfolk District Attorney Lynn Beeland, Assistant United States Attorney Joshua
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Levy declined to identify what jurisdiction the federal government had
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: in this murder case. In what appears to be a
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: highly unusual and possibly abusive exercise of power, Attorney Levy
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: indicated that the U.S. Attorney's Office was still proceeding ahead
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: with an investigation that would involve individuals who were active
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: participants in events and or witnesses in the state case.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Attorney Beeland reminded AUSA Joshua Levy that any statements and
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: or testimony taken in such an investigation that pertain to
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: any of the witnesses in the ongoing state murder trial
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: may create an ongoing obligation for state prosecutors to provide
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: defense with access to all information and statements gathered or
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: recorded as a result of the federal investigation. The United
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: States Attorney's Office offered the opinion that you can't turn
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: over information that you don't have. This position leaves state
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: authorities potentially unable to meet the constitutional mandate expressed in
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Brady v. Maryland and corresponding mass state rules. Since that
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: call concluded, we have confirmed that That witnesses have testified
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: before the grand jury, Rule 6 of the Federal Rules
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: of Criminal Procedure, allows that under certain compelling circumstances, information
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: may be provided to all counsel, including those not before
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: the federal grand jury. Recent court filings and statements by
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: defense counsel in the Reed matter suggest that defense attorneys
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: were the source of the initial complaint and allegations prompting
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: this action by the U.S. Attorney's Office. reads defense counsel's
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: recent court filings raise, out of thin air and apparently
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: purposeful misstatement of fact, unsupported claims of a cover-up by
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: lead investigators and witnesses, including municipal, state, and federal law enforcement.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: As shown in attached documents, many or all of these
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: unsupported allegations can be vetted and reviewed by the judges
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: of the Massachusetts Superior Court during the discovery and motion
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: sessions or available appellate review. I am unaware and strongly
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: doubt any prosecutor or state police misconduct in Commonwealth v.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: Karen Reid. The only allegations to that effect have been
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: unsupported news claims or defense filings that had not even
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: been answered at the time a USA levy confirmed the
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: existence of a federal grand jury. It raises questions why
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: the apparatus of the DOJ would intervene, even as such
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: issues are still being assessed by a justice of the
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Massachusetts Superior Court. without some additional impetus on the part
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: of the United States Attorney's Office. Without dismissing the important
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: role of the DOJ in investigating allegations of police misconduct
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: and federal violations, we bring to your attention what appears
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: to be additional concerns concerning motive, conflict, or appearance of conflict,
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: and potential bias by the Office of the United States
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Attorney for Massachusetts, which might explain these unprecedented proceedings. I
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: predicate the following information with the fact that it's been
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: the policy of the Norfolk District Attorney's Office during my
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: 12-year tenure as District Attorney to maintain a close working
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: relationship with the United States Attorney for Massachusetts. Notable in
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: that relationship was the cooperation of the Norfolk District Attorney's
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: Office in the prosecution of a 35-year-old murder case that
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: was committed in Sharon, Massachusetts, which involved the Whitey Bulger
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: gang in United States v. Fleming. The Norfolk District Attorney's
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Office had statutory jurisdiction to pursue the case, but in
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: the interest of cooperation, acceded to the request of the
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: United States Attorney at the time to allow federal prosecutors
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: to proceed with the case. As a result of that agreement,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: the Norfolk District Attorney's Office and Mass State Police, assigned
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: to the Norfolk District Attorney's Office, worked closely with the
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office on the case. During this period, AUSA Dustin Chow,
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: without nexus to that prosecution, asked a mass state police
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: detective involved in the matter if he had any kind
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: of damaging information on the district attorney, first assistant, or
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: Norfolk district attorney's office. This sui sponte question was not
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: without context. Laura G. Chow, Dustin's wife, had been an
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: employee of the Norfolk district attorney's office prior to the
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: case mentioned above. Not long into her tenure, it became
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: apparent to her supervisors that she required more seasoning and
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: legal experience if she was to succeed in a superior
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: court role. She was offered the chance to gain more
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: trial experience in the district court without any loss of compensation. Instead,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: she resigned and filed an ethics violation complaint with the
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: Mass Board of Bar Overseers against the first assistant in
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the Norfolk District Attorney's Office. The complaint before the board
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: was summarily dismissed in short order. Laura G. Chow was
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: instead cited for a violation of her ethical obligation to
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: provide accurate address information for her practice long after separation,
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: she was misrepresenting her address as the Norfolk's DA's office.
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: I began composing this letter well before the May 17,
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: 2023 publication of the DOJ Office of the Inspector General report,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: which has apparently prompted the resignation of the current United
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. My attention is
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: drawn to several portions of Section 2, particularly as they
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: pertain to the weaponization of the U.S. Attorney's Office for personal, political,
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: and retributive purposes. Page 46. Hayden will regret the day
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: he did this to you. Watch. Page 66. We asked
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: Rollins whether her disclosure was retribution for the wrong she
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: believed Hayden had committed. Page 69. Additionally, we determined the
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: days after Hayden prevailed In the September 6 primary election,
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: Rollins sought to damage Hayden's reputation. Page 70. The evidence
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: demonstrated she used her position as U.S. attorney in an
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: ultimately unsuccessful effort to create the impression publicly that DOJ
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: was or would be investigating Hayden for public corruption. These
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: DOJ findings and questions reinforce my belief that the United
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts must be
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: removed from whatever investigation is being conducted into the Reed matter.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: I believe that a reasonable person could conclude that the
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: same type of tactics are being employed against the Norfolk
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: District Attorney's Office in the Reid investigation. The outgoing United
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: States Attorney has made no secret of her personal animosity
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: toward me, including repeated crude, outlandish, personal, and professional attacks
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: against me in the media during her time as Suffolk
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: District Attorney. The head of Public Corruptions Unit has raised
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: the specter of personal retaliation for his wife's departure from
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: From the Norfolk District Attorney's Office, the public has the
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: right to a U.S. Attorney's Office that is fair and
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: unbiased as it executes its responsibilities. Weaponizing the United States
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office to conduct an unprecedented intervention into an open
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: state murder case appears to raise the same concerns outlined
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: in the DOJ's report. I submit that the pattern of
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: using the USAO for personal purposes is established in Report 23-071,
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: coupled with the obvious conflict of AUSA Chau, make it
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: impossible to conclude that a fair evaluation of the unprecedented
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: Reid intervention can be conducted by any party within the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: mass office. It is impossible to determine how far the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: tentacles of bias have spread out from the chief of
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: the relevant unit and the titular head of the office.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: I formally request that an impartial federal official unaffiliated with
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's Office for Massachusetts review and investigate the
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: steps and actions that are being taken by current members
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: of the Mass. Office exploring this apparent bias and whether
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: it predisposed them to abuse their prosecutorial discretion in this matter.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: In the unlikely case that an impartial review finds that
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: a DOJ investigation into the Karen Reed matter is appropriate,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: Even before the issues at hand have been vetted by
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: the Norfolk Superior Court judge hearing the case, I request
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: that the investigation be reassigned from parties with clearly stated
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: and documented bias against members of the Norfolk District Attorney's
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: Office to attorneys entirely outside the office of the United
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: States Attorney for Massachusetts. Sincerely, Michael Morrissey, District Attorney for
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: the Norfolk District. Now here is the response from the OPR.
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: Dear Mr. Morrissey, the Office of Professional Responsibility received your
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: May 18, 2023 letter requesting that OPR investigate the decision
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: Mass to subpoena individuals who were witnesses in your pending
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: state prosecution, Commonwealth v. Reed, to testify before the grand
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: jury in an ongoing federal investigation. You stated that the
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: USAO's investigation is possibly an abusive exercise of power and
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: likely based only on Karen Reed's claims of witness and
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: police misconduct. In addition to an investigation of the USAO's
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: investigative decision, you requested that OPR transfer the USAO's pending
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: investigation to another office without a history of conflict, bias,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: and abuse of prosecutorial discretion. OPR has jurisdiction to investigate
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice attorneys, that relate
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: law enforcement personnel that are related to allegations of attorney
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR. However, it is the
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: policy of this office to refrain from investigating such issues
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: or allegations if an active investigation is ongoing or litigation
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: is pending. With regard to your request that another office
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: be assigned to the pending grand jury investigation, a matter
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: outside of OPR's jurisdiction, OPR forwarded your complaint to the
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: Executive Office of the United States Attorneys for whatever action
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: it deems appropriate. Further inquiry regarding this issue may be
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: directed to EOUSA General Counsel Jay Macklin. Thank you for
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: advising OPR of your concerns, and this was signed by
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Ragsdale. All right, so very interesting. And it's very
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: interesting to get a look for ourselves at what these
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: letters contain and the back and forth between the office
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: of Norfolk and the United States government. And it also
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: provides us a little bit more context about that investigation
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: that's looking into the Norfolk office and what went down
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: with their investigation into Karen Reed. So it's going to
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: be very interesting to continue following along with the trial
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: and to see where it all ends up. Because as
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: of now, I think things are up in the air.
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: And I think that her team, Karen Reid's team, is
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: doing a good job of sowing seeds of reasonable doubt.
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: And just keep in mind that that's all that they
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: have to do. This isn't about Karen Reid proving that
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: she's innocent. This is about Karen Reid getting one or
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: two of those jurors to believe her narrative. And that
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: is the end goal for her team. And so far,
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: I think they're doing a pretty good job. So we'll
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: see where it all ends up. And we're going to
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: continue following along each day as the state of Massachusetts
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: continues to try and make its case against Karen Reed.
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. The Karen Reed trial is
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: set to kick off today in earnest with opening statements.
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: And for my money, this can't happen soon enough. I've
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: never seen more people afflicted with main character syndrome than
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: I have in this case. Now, we've been covering this
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: sort of thing for, oh, I don't know, five years now.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: And we've covered some wild stuff here on the podcast.
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: But it's never a good idea to try and insert
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: yourself into the middle of something and make yourself the
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: main character. I think a lot of people have lost
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: the plot here. We have a dead man, Mr. O'Keefe,
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: and there's no answers as of yet as to who
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: killed him. Now, I'm not going to say that Karen
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: Reid's guilty. I don't know. I think that there's a
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: lot here that has to be covered in this trial,
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: and there's a lot that the prosecution is going to
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: have to prove. But in the vast majority of these cases,
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: whenever somebody has a third-party kind of defense where they
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: say somebody else did it, it wasn't them, it's very
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: difficult for the jury and the court to accept that.
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: You're going to have to bring a little more to
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: the table, right? You can't just say that. You're going
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: to now have to prove that in court. You're going
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: to have to back up everything you're saying in front
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: of the jury. And the last thing you want is
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: the jury to think you're some kind of BS artist, right?
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: Probably not the best look for the jury. So I'm
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: very interested to see how Karen Reid's team attempts to
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: prove that there was a third party that was responsible
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: for this murder. It's going to be very, very interesting
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: to see how this all plays out. So today, we
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: have an article from the Boston Globe to get us
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: prepared for these opening statements to kick off. And the headline.
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: A key piece of the Karen Reid case remains a
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: mystery due to mass law. The autopsy report. This article
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: was authored by Sean Cotter. They are the photographs that
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: launched a thousand theories. The body of John O'Keefe, the
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: former Boston police officer found dead in a snowstorm in
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: January 2022, lying on an autopsy table. scrapes and scratches
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: covering his arms, swelling around his eyes. And according to
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: the medical examiner in those court documents we've been going through,
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: that was because he fell and hit his head. And
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: that's what caused all of the swelling around his eyes,
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: the blood to start to pool, and all of the
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: rest of the issues that we saw as far as
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: the injuries sustained to Mr. O'Keefe. These photos, according to
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: the supporters of Karen Reed, the woman accused of murdering O'Keefe,
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: Are evidence that the prosecution's claims she backed her car
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: into him and left him for dead are wrong? The
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: autopsy photos, made public only because Reed's defense lawyers included
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: them in a court filing, suggest that Reed is the
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: victim of a massive police cover-up. Her supporters say that
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: John O'Keefe actually was beaten by others and possibly attacked
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: by the dog who lived on the property where the
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: body was found. And all of that, as far as
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: if a dog bit him, if there was any kind
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: of DNA from an animal or whatever, that should all
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: be included in these reports. And I think we're going
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: to get a whole lot more about what's in those reports, obviously,
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: because the trial is about to kick off. So we're
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: going to learn everything that the prosecution has. Remember, when
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: we're talking about something like this, the prosecution isn't going
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: to show their whole hand. So they have things that
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: they keep in reserve. And even when they're going to get, say,
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: an affidavit, a probable cause affidavit or an arrest warrant,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: they only give enough to get the judge to sign
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: off on it. They're not going to give out all
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: of their information to the defense. They're not going to
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: just put it all in court documentation for the defense
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: and their litigation specialist to dig through. So there's always
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: a lot more going on behind the scenes. Does that
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: mean they have a slam dunk here and Karen Reed's guilty? No,
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: it does not. But it's always a good idea to
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: keep in mind that they always have stuff in reserve,
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: and we haven't seen all of the evidence yet one
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: way or the other. It was these photos that led
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: Lisa Peerks to protest on Reed's behalf outside Norfolk Superior
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: Court during a recent hearing. Next to her, another woman
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: held a sign that read, Where's Chloe? The dog in question.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: One social media profile invoked the OJ Simpson case. In
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: summing up the importance of what Reed supports, believe the
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: autopsy photos reveal if the arm was bit you must
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: acquit well yeah look if there's a dog bite on
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: this dude that's going to cause all kinds of problems
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: for the prosecution there is no doubt about it because
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: remember they're saying that he was hit by a car
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: there's no talk about a dog biting him So if
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: there's evidence of that, and I'm guessing there would be, right,
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: then it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution.
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: The question is, has that evidence been found? Is there
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: some sort of documentation, some sort of forensic test that
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: tells us that a dog bit Mr. O'Keefe? So far,
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: I haven't seen anything to that effect. Now, does that
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: mean it doesn't exist? Absolutely not. Just as far as
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: what I have seen in those court documents, there's nothing
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: saying that a dog bit him. While the photos were
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: made public by the defense, the full autopsy report providing context,
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: including the medical examiner's official conclusions and analysis of O'Keefe's injuries,
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: remained shielded from release by state law. Some experts say
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: Reed's case is a perfect example of why these documents
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: should be public, as they are in several other states.
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: In their absence, speculation fills the void, and it creates
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: fertile ground for people to come up with all kinds
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: of B.S., Every single time there's something of note that
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: takes place as far as a high-profile murder, there's always
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: people that fill the space with a bunch of BS.
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: And unfortunately, there's a bunch of people that always believe it.
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: You know, it's one thing to have an opinion. It's
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: another thing to try and push that opinion as fact
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: when you don't have anything to back it up. And
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that do that. They just
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: jump to conclusions. You take a look at what happened
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: up in Moscow, forget it. In the aftermath of that,
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: We were hearing about cartels, we're hearing about all kinds
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: of crazy ass theories, and none of them obviously were
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: even close to being true. But that didn't prevent all
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: of the grifters and all of the scumbags from trying
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: to profit, right? Showing up, telling people that they're a psychic,
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: they know that a professor from Idaho killed these kids,
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: you know, the whole thing. And the crazy part is
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: people buy into it. They continue to follow these people,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: even though they're wrong every single time. But when the
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: authorities don't engage in transparency, this is exactly what it
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: leads to. And there's no doubt there's some of that
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: going on here in the Karen Reid case. It's one
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: thing to be passionate about something. It's another thing to
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: try and insert yourself where you don't belong. Massachusetts has
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: a reputation for being one of the most secretive states
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: in the country for open records law. said Jeffrey Pyle,
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: a Boston attorney who focuses on First Amendment issues. Courts
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: are making decisions based on documents that the public can't see.
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: And this is a big issue that I have as well.
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: I think that there should be transparency in the court.
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: I think that the court and the judge and the
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: system itself should do everything they possibly can to make
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: sure that things are transparent. Because if not, it really
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: causes a lot of problems. It's not like the old days, right,
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: where you had the inquirer running around Or, you know,
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: something like that. Everybody and their mother is a quote-unquote
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: journalist now. And they show up to these events and
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: they have people that support them. They're giving them money.
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: And it just perpetuates their bullshit, right? But to act
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: like a lot of that isn't fertilized by the authorities
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: not being transparent is ignoring one of the biggest factors
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: in these conspiracy theories. And that's why it's super important,
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: in my opinion, that we have transparency in the courtroom
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: and within the system. Because when people are armed with facts,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: they don't have to go out and look for BS.
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: He said transparency is key to ensuring oversight of judges
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: and the court process in general, including during the many
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: decisions around evidence and other motions that lead up to
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: a trial. If the public cannot see the documents that
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: judges rely on in the course of making decisions, the
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: public cannot make decisions on whether the judge's decisions are correct.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Pyle said, and remember, our system is set up. for
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: us to have that transparency. And it seems like a
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: lot of these courts, they'll do anything in their power
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: to avoid transparency. Like gag orders in every single case
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: these days. Is that really necessary? Every single case needs
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: a gag order? Seems like everything we talk about has one.
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: And then you'll get people who cry about conspiracy theory. Well,
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: I get it. It's annoying as hell. And certainly a
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: lot of BS to wade through. But you can't just
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: blame the people. You got to blame the authorities who
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: aren't giving out the proper information. And then, of course,
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that don't understand that there's
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: a lot to be learned from the court documents themselves.
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: So people don't make that leap. In fact, people don't
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: even know where to find these court documents half the time.
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: Never mind know what's in them. Amid the flurry of
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: filings in court and rampant speculation outside of it, all
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: this has been available to the public about O'Keefe's death,
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: are sparsely filled out death certificate and snippets and prosecution
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: summaries of the full autopsy report. And we've been going
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: through the court documents that are available, and it's basically
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: all the prosecution's narrative. So that's all we've had to
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: go on. And now that the trial is getting ready
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: to start, we'll be able to hear from Karen Reed's side,
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: and we'll be able to ascertain a little bit more
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: about what their strategy is going to be. In court filings,
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: the prosecution has summarized what it says is grand jury
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: testimony from Dr. Irini Scordibello of the Office of the
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: Chief Medical Examiner. Scordibello said O'Keefe suffered significant blunt force
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: trauma before becoming hypothermic. Head injuries likely to the back
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: of his skull probably incapacitated him, Scordibello said, and caused
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: swelling around his eyes, the district attorney's office wrote. The
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: doctor saw no signs of him being involved in a fight.
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: The DA's office wrote, The defense has used different parts
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: of the report to further their theories that Reed is
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: being framed and that O'Keefe was beaten on the property
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: of fellow Boston police officer Brian Albert, outside of which
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: his body was found and left to die. Defense attorney
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson at one point held up enlarged autopsy photos
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: in court as he suggested that the wounds on O'Keefe's
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: arms are dog bites and that the swelling on O'Keefe's
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: face is from a beating. The defense submitted a report
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: from its own expert, forensic pathologist Dr. Frank Sheridan of California,
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: but that document is under seal, and Sheridan, who is
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: listed as a possible witness in Reed's trial, could not
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: be reached for comment, and attorney for Reed declined to comment.
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: So look, we haven't seen any of the counter by
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: Karen Reed, so let's just keep that in mind, right?
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying that it's going to change the world,
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: or it's going to shake people off of their perch,
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: but it's a good idea to see all the evidence,
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: when we're talking about a murder case. Because let's not
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: act like the prosecution hasn't made mistakes before. They most
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: certainly have. So I don't just discount things out of hand, right?
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: I don't just say, well, Karen Reid's lying. She's guilty.
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: For me, it's more of a let's see the evidence.
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: And I haven't seen, you know, the affidavit or anything
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: like that. So all we have heard are the narratives
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: and the reports that have been filed by the prosecution.
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: And granted, it doesn't look good for Karen Reid, right?
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: Not at all. But let's see what she has to say.
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: And thankfully, we're not going to have to wait much longer.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: The Globe's request to obtain O'Keefe's autopsy report under the
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: Massachusetts Open Records Law were denied. A spokesperson for the
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: Executive Office of Public Safety and Security cited state law
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: that autopsy reports are not public record. The Norfolk DA's
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: office is forbidden from releasing the report, spokesperson David Traub
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: said in a response to the Globe's request for the documents.
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: He said the office provided the report to the defense
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: through the discovery process and that more information will come
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: out during Reed's trial, in which opening arguments will begin
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: on Monday after five days of jury selection. The trial,
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: the judge told prospective jurors, could last as long as
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: eight weeks. The examination and cross-examination of the medical examiner
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: will be where you get your answers, Traub said. In Massachusetts...
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: The state office of the chief medical examiner conducts autopsies
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: on people who die in violent, suspicious, or unexplained circumstances.
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: Death certificates are public record in Massachusetts, but contain much
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: less information than the full report. O'Keefe, filed with the
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: clerk's office in Canton, says he died from blunt impact
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: injuries to the head and hypothermia, but includes no elaboration
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: by Scordi Bello, who certified it. The manner of death
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: is listed as could not be determined. Other states offer
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: more transparency. Autopsy reports are typically considered public records in
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: several states, including Alabama, Colorado, California, and Florida, according to
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which charts
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: the documents availability. The organization says other states, including the
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: rest of New England, typically do not allow autopsy reports
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: to be released to the public. Dr. Samantha Halsey, an
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: atomic pathologist who practices in Alabama, said she was surprised
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: to hear reports were not public in all states the
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: way they are in hers. She said that such a
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: document wouldn't be very useful to a layman. The dense,
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: jargon-heavy report isn't something a non-medical professional could read over
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: lunch and draw firm conclusions about, she said. If someone
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: has the actual report, they have what came out of
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: the horse's mouth, not secondary, not tertiary, not hearsay, said Halsey.
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: who conducts private autopsies. But on the other hand, who's
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: examining it? Testimony also might bring much clarity, she said,
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: because you can have one doctor paid to say this
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: and one doctor paid to say that. And that's the
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: battle of the experts, right? We see that in every
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: single trial. It doesn't matter what trial it is, There's
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: always a battle of the experts, and this trial is
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: not going to be any different. Justin Silverman, executive director
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: of the New England First Amendment Coalition, noted the high
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: public interest in this case amid the allegations of police wrongdoing.
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: If there is a merit to such claims, it's important
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: to the public to find out. And it's just as
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: important if nothing went wrong, he said, that trust is restored.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: Anytime you have questions about those in government and how
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: they're acting and whether they might be involved in an
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: individual's death, The public interest is getting more information about
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: their death increases significantly, Silverman said. These autopsy reports might
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: provide answers to these types of questions. Well, be that
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: as it may, we're going to get all the answers
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: that we can take very soon. And that's because the
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: trial is kicking off today. And that means all the
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: BS goes out the window and it's time to provide
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: some evidence. So let's see where this evidence leads us
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: and let's see how this all ends up. And what
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: we'll do is we'll recap each day like we have
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: done for the other trials that we've covered and we'll
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: see what's presented and we'll see how it all goes.
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: Because unlike a lot of the other cases that we
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: talk about, there's just not enough information out there yet
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: for me to really come to a conclusion one way
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: or the other. So it's going to be interesting to
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: see how this all breaks. And it's going to be
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: real interesting to see what sort of evidence Karen Reid
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: and her experts present to the court. But until then,
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: in the description box.