Latest / Legally Brunette / Legally Brunette: Updates on Blake Lively, Gabby Petito, Scott Peterson & Karen Read

Transcript

Legally Brunette: Updates on Blake Lively, Gabby Petito, Scott Peterson & Karen Read · Legally Brunette

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: will be your host Emily Simpson with my legal sidekick Shane,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Just Shane. I was super excited about this episode today
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: because we actually, I mean, we always have a lot
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: of things to talk about, but today I want to
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: pack in as much as we possibly can. So we
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: have a few updates, just some little things to add
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: on the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni case. Also there's a
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: little bit more on Gabby Patito, which we've done an
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: episode on, and then we will get into a little
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: bit more about Karen Reid, some of the things that
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: we didn't get into in our first trial, and then
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: also get into her retrial. So first of all, let's
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: start off with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. If you
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: don't know a lot about this case, we did some
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: earlier episodes on this and I think they were pretty good.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: I read all of the legal documents that were filed,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: and we did a pretty intense deep dive into it.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: And so if you don't know a lot about it,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: I would suggest going back and listening to those episodes.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: But do you recall when we were going through Justin
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Baldoni and the Blake Lively case. One of the first
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: things I said was when she filed that original complaint,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: her civil rights complaint with the Civil Rights Department, she
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: had attached all of these screenshots of text messages that
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: she was not a part of. They were text messages
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: between Justin Baldoni, his PR person Jen Abel, and then
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: his crisis PR person Melissa Nathan And I do you
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: remember me saying, I was like, I don't know how
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: they got those text messages, but it looks shady to me. Yeah,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: So the mystery on how they got all those private
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: text messages has been solved. It was actually, well.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Wait a minute, because it's important to know because they
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: could have gotten it by asking someone could have this
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: able lady could have just given it, right, But you're saying,
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: how did they legally obtain it to be able to
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: use it in court or for a dB published with
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: The New York Time or something like that. So you
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: have to explain that it's not just a matter of
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: someone gave it to me because they were private messages, right, Yeah,
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: so it had to be lawfully obtained.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Right, And the way that they circumvented that in a
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: lawful and I say lawful and quotes is. First of all,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: in order to issue a subpoena and to have subpoena power,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: you have to have an active case with a case number.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: So what they did was she filed a lawsuit and
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: this actually comes from this was an article with the
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: Daily Mail. It was actually a Daily Mail reporter. I
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: believe that was the one that actually kind of solved
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: this mystery as to where the subpoena came from, because
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: I do recall and I even talked about this in
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: the original complaint that she filed her civil rights complaint.
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: I believe there was an asterisk down at the bottom
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: that said something to the effect of the text messages
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: were obtained by subpoena, but the subpoena was never attached,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: so I couldn't figure out what subpoena house.
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: It was kind of like a dead end. It was like,
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: the subpoena for what case? For what reason? Right? And
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: why would it be referenced? Why wouldn't it be required
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: to be referenced.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: I don't know, but I just remember thinking that looks
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: shady to me. So apparently what she did in order
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: to obtain these private text messages, and let's just go
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: back a little bit.
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: She obtained them. We assumed she obtained them on our own, Yeah,
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: and then she had to go backwards right and try
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: to make it make a lawful manner in which she
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: had rights to them.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: Because if you remember, or you recall, or you listen
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: to one of our earlier podcasts on this case, or
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: maybe you read it, this all comes down to a
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: lot of PR people that are involved in this. And
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: jen Abel was Wayfairer's PR person, and she worked for
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: Justin Baldoni and did his publicist type of things. She
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: also worked for Stephanie Jones for Jones works. Those two
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: parted ways, and when they parted ways, Stephanie Jones confiscated
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: jen Abel's cell phone and she did it in a
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: way according to what Justin Baldoni filed. She did it
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: in a way where it was like, come meet us
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: at the office, and then she met and then there
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: was a security guard and they wanted her to sign
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: a bunch of documents and apparently her cell phone was
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: confiscated under duress my assumption, which I'm probably right, because
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Stephanie
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Jones confiscates the cell phone, reads all the text messages.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: She and jen Abel are parting ways because jen Abel
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: is going to go start her own publicity firm. There's
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: some bad blood between the two of them. And then
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: Stephanie Jones hands over all these private text messages to
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: Blake Lively, Blake Lively's team. So I would guess, and
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: I'm probably right, because it just makes sense that they
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: had the text messages prior to their ever being any
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: subpoena or any lawsuit filed. They just got them, read them,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: and she got pissed about it, right, And she also
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: at this time.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: So it's like she was snooping around other people's phones, right,
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: being talked about her or whatever, and then she doesn't
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: like them, and now she wants to do something about it.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Right, So I would assume, and this is a legend
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: because I don't know this as fact, but I would
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: assume she takes all these text messages that have to
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: do with Blake and then it ends with us and
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: all all of that scenario, and she sends them all
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: to Blake's team, who is Leslie Sloane, and Blake sees
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: them and her team reads them. And also you have
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: to remember during this time period, Blake Lively's reputation was
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: just going down. That was right down, because this was
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: when the movie was premiering and she was she was
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: out promoting the movie, but she was doing it in
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: a very flippant way. Remember in the Publisher.
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: She she has this campaign for this or pushing this movie,
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: doing a bad job for a number of reasons, her
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: probably likeabilities going down or approval rating. Right, he's going down.
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: And then now she's trying to figure out what to do,
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: and so she's snooping around and she looks into text
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: messages about her then involved Baldoni, and then now she's
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: trying to smear him to save her face.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Well that's the way it looks to me. And all
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: this is alleged because I don't know this as facts,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: but based upon from an outside view, it looks as
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: if she got ahold of these text messages and it
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: was a way to spin the story so that it
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: took the focus off of her having a bad reputation,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: because if you remember, the movie was about domestic violence,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: but she was never addressing the domestic of violence about
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: the movie. She was out promoting her hair care line
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: and her booze line, and she was saying, where are
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: your florals? And she was making it very you know,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: she wasn't taking it seriously. Her reputation started to plummet.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: People were talking negatively about.
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: Her seriously though, because wasn't this she wanted to tried
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: to do a hostile takeover the movie, and now she's
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: not taking it seriously.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know why the marketing plan
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: was the way it was. I don't know if that
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: was at her direction, I don't know if it was
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: at the movies Sony who was the you know, movie studio,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: I don't know. But anyway, her reputation, we know, her
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: reputation was plumiting, and there were a lot of articles
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: out there that we're talking about how you know, and
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: then there were a lot of videos that were resurfacing
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: that were showing her being really rude to reporters and
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: talking about how she takes over. I mean, she just
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: didn't look good. So I think she got ahold of
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: these text messages. She found a way to spend the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: narrative to make it look like the reason she looked
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: bad was because justin Baldoni and his PR team were
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: out there planting these fake stories and you know, creating this,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: you know, conspiracy against her. But they have the text messages.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Now what do they do? They want to use them,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: They want to file against him. She wants to file
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: a civil complaint, and she colludes with The New York Times,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: and she has these text messages. But in order to
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: lawfully have these text messages, she has to go back retroactively.
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: And she needs them lawfully. Well, New York Times wanted
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: them lawfully. They want invase in a privacy or something. Right,
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: So for probably for The New York Times to publish it,
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: they're saying, well, how did you obtain these right? And
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: then she say, in this legal manner.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: The asterisk it says right. So so this Daily Mail
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: reporter did some digging and found out that Blake Lively
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: has an LLC or something called van Zan. So, I
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: don't know, it's just just some ELLC. It's it was.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: I think she used it to buy some furniture in
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Europe or something. I mean, she'd never really done anything
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: with it. Apparently, the lawsuit was filed under the name
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: of a company called van Zan and was intentionally vague
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: and didn't name any defendants, so they filed. So van
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: Zan is the plaintiff they file against ten Jane does,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: which means which means named unknown defendants. I looked at
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: the cause of actions. It was some things like breach
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: of contract and things like that, but it was all
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: very vague. So this maneuver enabled Lively's legal team to
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: issue subpoena for the private communications.
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: And then this poena was issued to who.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: This I believe the subpoena. Well, see they Daily Mail
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: says they have the subpoena, but they won't show it.
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: Well, what would make sense, Like who do you think
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: it was?
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: Well, I believe it was issued to Stephanie Jones because
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: she confiscated the work phone from gen Able came from,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: because that's where it came from. All these messages came from.
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: Jenable basically say like, what's an example paraphrasing, Well, we.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Talked about this before, and it's also in the New
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: York Times.
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: I didn't pay attention last nime.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Clearly you didn't. It has to do with them having
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: communications about what they're going to do as far as
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: pr and making Blake Lively look a certain way. And
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: getting stories out there and meeting with Daily Mail, and
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: remember in the New York Times, they kind of remember
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the attorney Brian Friedman, who represents Baldoni, talks about how
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: they cherry picked certain text messages to make it look
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: like it was a smear campaign, but they didn't really
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: show the full context of the messages. So anyway, they
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: filed this sham law suit under a company called van Zaan.
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: They named these unknown defendants. They say it's for breach
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: of contract, so they get a case number. They use
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: the case number to issue a subpoena. I assume the
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: subpoena went to Stephanie Jones because she then why.
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: Would Sephanie like, if you got a subpoena that just
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: said van Zam versus John James, give me all your
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: text messages.
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: Because Stephanie Jones already gave them the text messages.
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: Oh that's right, Okay, now she's a question.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so now she just and that's alleged again. I
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: don't know that.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: I don't know. We're trying to put pieces together.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: What makes what makes logical sense is that Stephanie Jones
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: confiscated the phone, read the text messages, gave them to
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: Blake Lively's team.
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: Okay, my question is if they issued a subpoena or
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: they they could issue a subpoena, they drafted one, and
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: then they supposed assuming your version of the facts or
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: what took place, right, because I know we're just guessing.
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: But then she issues it to Stephanie Yeah, Stephanie Yeah.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: But then we could ask Stephanie did you get the subpoena?
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: Was it ever served on you? And then she says
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: no or yes? And if it's no, then it's like, well,
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: then how did they get the text message? And if
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: the answer is yes, I did get a subpoena, then
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: it's like, oh, did you follow through and give the
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: text messages? And she says no again, then it's like, well,
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: then how did they get to text messages? We needed
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: these answers?
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say, all I know is I think
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that they
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: already had the text messages. They wanted to use them
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: and their initial filing, and they wanted to be able
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: to give them to The New York Times right because
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: they wanted to collude together to demolish his character, and
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: they knew they could do that with the text messages.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: So they come up with a sham scam lawsuit. They
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: get a case number, they issue it to Stephanie Jones
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: and she's like, Okay, here's the subpoena. I have it,
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: So I gave So I gave away these private text
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: messages legally.
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: Oh that's right, because I keep forgetting off. Stephanie's on
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: her side.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: Yes. Otherwise, if they send them to jen Abel who represents,
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: that's what I'll donate.
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: That's what that's the party I had mixed up, right.
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: This is why it's a scam lawsuit, because if they
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: had issued the subpoena to jen Able or to Justin
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: Baldoni to get his private text messages, his attorney would
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: have jumped in immediately and squashed it and said, these
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: are private communications. It's too broad, you're asking for too much.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: He would have had objection.
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: That the receiving end of the subpoena was also in collusion.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: With Yes, that's what the Lively reynolds exactly right. So
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: there we are. I hope you could follow that. I
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: know it was a little complicated, but basically what it
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: was was just a scam way to get a subpoena
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: issued retroactively.
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: Should have been called Van Scam.
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: Van Scam should have been the LLC. Also, let me
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: just give a little timing because this is suspect too.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: The lawsuit, the Van Zaan lawsuit was filed in September.
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: If you remember, there were also a lot of online
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: sluice during this time when this whole lawsuit came out
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: that said that The New York Times that they had
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: some data embedded that said it looked like they started
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: working on the story in October, which would make sense
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: with the timeline. And then she filed in December. When
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: she filed her original suit against Baldoni, the subpoena. Four
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: days after the suit was filed, a subpoena was sent
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: to Stephanie Jones. So four days after the van zan
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: suit was filed, they sent a subpoena to Stephanie Jones.
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: Stephanie Jones right. Also, the suit, the scam suit was
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: dismissed the day after or it was withdrawn, not dismissed.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: Dismissed would be by the court. It was withdrawn by
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: her attorneys like.
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: Okay, we're done with the suit. Well, we wanted.
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: Right Her attorneys withdraw it after she files the complaint
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: against Baldoni. So she files the complaint, then they withdraw
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: this scam.
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: Suit, and then New York Times posted what they posed
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: it right.
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: So there we are with that. I hope you could
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: all follow that.
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: Dan a lot of time on their hands, I guess,
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: so team to do all this about.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: Donty's attorney, who we all know is Brian Friedman, labeled
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: the tactic an abusive process and says that they are
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: preparing to respond accordingly. Here's my question though. When I
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: first read the complaint and saw the asterisk that said
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: there was a subpoena, I wondered why Brian Friedman didn't
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: initially go after the subpoena. And I thought about it
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: for a while, and my thought process led me to
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: what he did was so much better. Instead of attacking
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: the validity of the subpoena and how they got the
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: text messages, which would possibly make Justin look guilty that
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: he's like, hey, hey, don't show those, right, he just
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: went and filed a four hundred million dollars lawsuit against
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: The New York Times and included all of the texts.
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: Instead of being defensive the content or the access to
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: the text messages. In fact, that would have been more
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: might have been confusing to the public, right because they
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: would have been like, Oh, he's denying or he's saying
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: that she shouldn't have the text messages. So he did
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: talk crap about her. I want her to see it,
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: and that's confusing or that takes away from the trying
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: to smash her.
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: I've always said Brian Friedman is an amazing attorney, and
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: if I ever get in trouble legally, he will be
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: the first person I call. But I thought that that
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: was I don't I'm not going to call Shane, I'm
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: going to call Brian Friedman or Alan Jackson Brian Friedman first.
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: But I thought it was just a really good legal
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: tactic on his end that he didn't attack the subpoena
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: right from the beginning, and he didn't go after them
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: because he knew. If I know, if I read it,
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: and I'm like, how'd they get the subpoena? This is
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: this is a joke. Clearly, Brian Friedman knew that from
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: the beginning too. The man's a genius.
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: If there's a legal reference to another lawsuit in that
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: petition or whatever, complaint, he's going to look in Well.
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: There's no reference to another lawsuit. There's just a referen
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: to a subpoena.
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: Yeawsuit.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: Right, So I'm just saying, well, I'm just saying he
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: clearly knew, but he didn't attack the validity of it,
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: and he didn't go after her in that manner. He
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: just sued The New York Times and her for four
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: hundred million and included all of the text messages, which
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: really worked in his favor because once the public got
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: a hold of those legal documents and read everything that
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: was included, that's when everything shifted. Anyway, let's move on.
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: Oh wait, one more thing on Blake Lively. I don't
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: know if you've noticed, but she is in the press
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: a lot lately.
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: Well, she was like the top one hundred influences, yes, something.
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: Which was ridiculous because she also then gave some speech
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: in honor of her mother, and I think she had
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: something to do with her mom being like a domestic
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: violence abuse survivor or something, and I was like, lady,
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: a little too late. You had no issue, like you
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: didn't want to talk about any of these stories when
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: you were promoting, when you were promoting a movie about
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: domestic violence. You just wanted to talk about florals and
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: your your booze brand and your hair care products. But
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: now that your reputation has been like completely plummeted, now.
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: All of a sudden, it's like, oh, yeah, did I
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: mention my mom was abused?
• 17:10
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: I mean, give me a break. Also, I think her
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: pr turn team is just working overtime right now, because
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: all of a sudden, there are all these articles. I
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: saw an article about her own people, an article on
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: Okay magazine. Now she's in the Time one hundred list.
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: I mean they are out there like doing everything.
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: Possible, work hard to defend her character, right until she
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: stops paying them. Then they don't care.
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: Then they don't care. All right, let's move on to
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: a little bit about Gabby Patito. I thought this was interesting.
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: We also did a.
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: What's the next step in the Lively Baldoni case? We
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: have to look forward?
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: Well, they have well, they're going to start issuing, They're
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: going to do discovery and you you bet your butt
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: you think Brian Freeman is gonna he's definitely gonna subpoena.
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you want to see a subpoena subpoena.
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: I'm going to send it to Taylor Swift. You know
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: he's going to you know, Taylor Swift. So anyway, I
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: also read this morning that Travis Kelcey apparently unfollowed Ryan
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: Reynolds on Instagram. So definitely there is some bad blood.
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: Now we got bad blood. That's a Taylor Swift song.
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: You didn't know that anyway, Okay, on the game, Okay,
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: onto Gabby Patito. We also did an episode on Gabby Patito.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: If you want to go back and listen to that.
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: I thought that was my case one.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: Gabby Patito is the young girl that went on the
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: road trip with the boyfriend and then remember they got
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: they got pulled over in Utah by the Moab City
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: police and then she ended up being found dead. Remember
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: he returned to Florida. His parents were uncooperative. They wouldn't
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: work with the police or answer any questions. Her body
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: was found in a national park or something, and then
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: he ended up being found dead in Florida. So in
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: an in a recent interview on The Squeeze podcast, which
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: is hosted by Taylor Lautner, I don't know if you
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: know who Taylor Lautner is, but I do because I
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: was a huge Twilight fan. He is the werewolf, he
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: is Jacob. So he has a podcast with his wife.
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: So Nicole Schmidt is the mother.
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: Taylor swift Woods.
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: I don't remember, I think so it was like Taylor
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: And that's interesting. Well, his wife's name was Taylor.
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: Does how many songs written about him? About him?
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe probably anyway, So Gabby Petito, her
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: mom's name is Nicole Schmidt, and she went on the podcast.
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: She revealed some unsettling details about the events following her
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: daughter's disappearance in twenty twenty one. This is a was
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: all new information to me because I did watch the
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: documentary and we did an episode on it. But this
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: was not something that was ever revealed previously. This was
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: in a People article. The mom of Gabby Petito stated
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: that Brian Laundry's room was completely gutted and renovated shortly
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: after he vanished. She claims that very same week Gabby
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: went missing, the cops were going to their house to
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: try to get a scent from their dogs to look
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: for Brian. All his things were gone. His room was
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: completely empty. It was just gone. That wasn't something that
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: I knew before, and I was wondering, what do you
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: think about that? That's when he left, apparently to go
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: hiking somewhere in Florida. And remember the cops were looking
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: in this reservoir area or something forever. They were looking
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: for a long time, weeks they couldn't find him. Then
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: his parents pull up in their car and they literally
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: just walked to where he and they find him within
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: like five minutes or something, which always seemed very suspicious
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: to me, But now a court after the mom did
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: this interview, she learned that apparently Brian's room was completely
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: gutted and renovated before they found him. So my question is,
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: do you think the parents knew that he was dead?
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: Do you think they knew that he was going to
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: kill himself? Do you think they or do you think
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: they thought he was going to go on the run
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: and then they were just going to pretend like he
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: disappeared and they renovated his room or do you think
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: they were trying to get rid of DNA evidence so
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: they just got rid of everything in his room.
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: I think I know as a father, if I always
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: thought if one of my kids was missing and suspect
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: in a murder case. I would cut the room, oh
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: you would, yeah, and turn it into a game room.
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: A game room. Okay, so this makes sense, I get it. Yeah, okay,
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: what kind of games would you have?
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: No, they're in on it. They're murderers. They probably killed him.
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: Well I don't know. I don't think it. Might have
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: might have killed him. And then said here he is,
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: we found him. Look at the suicide note with her
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: suicide note.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah there was, yeah, there was, and apparently he But
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: then there was also something he wrote in the journal
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: about somehow or he.
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: Was going to kill himself and they knew and they'd
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: let him do it.
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: I don't know, though. His mom was so in love
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: with him. Did you remember that letter that she wrote
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: to him about wherever the body is buried all helped
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: dig the hole. And I mean she wrote him like
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: this long love letter about how much she loved him
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: and everything she would do for him, and she would
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: bring a knife into jail and a cake.
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: So sounds like a complex.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So anyway, there was all that. Additionally, Gabby anything, no,
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: and you know what I have.
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: Had the obstruction of justice.
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: Nothing I mean at this point, no.
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: Bad parents, just bad parents.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: Just not being morally sound people. But apparently that's not
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: a legal action. But you know, I've had so many
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: people DM me after our Gabby Patito case, and that
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: was the main question was why were his parents not
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: charged with anything? And I guess, I mean, when we
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: look at it, it looks like obstruction of justice or
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: aiding in a bedding or something like that. But I
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: don't know, maybe there just weren't enough solid facts there
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: to be able to charge them with anything. At the
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: end of the day, you can charge them with just
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: being shitty people, But as far as from a legal standpoint,
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: I guess they just didn't have enough to be able
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: to charge them with anything.
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: Additionally, Gabby Patito's mom mentioned that the van the couple
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: used for their cross country trip completely cleaned out, with
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: Gabby's belongings packed away and the mattress never recovered. She
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: expressed some confusion and concern over what she described as
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: strange behavior during that time. So again, that's what we
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: were just talking about. Were the parents involved in that?
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: Were they the ones that cleaned out the van? Did
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: they get rid of the mattress?
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: I mean, if they did, it's really suspicious. It's like
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: oh what son? Your girlfriend is missing? Okay, let's scrub
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: everything and get rid of everything, right, I mean that
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: doesn't make sense.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: Well it does if you're trying to hide his involvement. Yeah,
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: so I don't know. I think the suspicious thing to me.
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: Wait, conspiracy, But I guess there's no evidence for anything.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: I guess not unless they're working on it and they're
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: going to get charged with something later down the line.
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: But I don't know. So far, there's no charges as
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: far as aiding in a bedding or obstruction of justice.
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: All right, let us just move on from Gabby Patito.
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: And first of all, I have to do a disclaimer.
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: Whenever I talk about Scott Peterson, can you not attack me?
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: I know everyone hates Scott Peterson. Everyone is one hundred
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: percent certain that the man is guilty. Anytime I've brought
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: up talking about him or doing a podcast because the
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: La Innocence Project has taken on his case, everyone goes
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: nuts in my comments and in my DMS, telling me
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: he's one hundred percent guilty. So let's just get through
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: this with an open mind.
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: We're going to imagine. What we're going to discuss is
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: them taking on his case. And what they're trying to demonstrate.
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: We're not trying to take a side.
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: Right and also we're not going to well everyone thinks
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: he did. I don't know. I haven't read the filing yet,
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: but I'm just going to tell you. We're just going
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: to do a little synopsis right now and then I've
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: the filing is coming to me. It's a four hundred
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: page filing that the Ennocence Project filed basically saying that
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: he's innocent and they have all this evidence and things.
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: So I haven't read it yet. I'm going to read
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: it and then we're going to do a deeper dive
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: podcast on it. But for right now, after more than
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: a year of independent investigation, the Los Angeles Innocence Project
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: has submitted an extensive petition to the California Court of
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: Appeals arguing that Scott Peterson is innocent of the two
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: thousand and two murders of his wife, Lacey and their
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: unborn son. It is nearly a four hundred page filing,
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: which again I planned to read. It was submitted on Friday,
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: April eighteenth, and claims that Peterson's original trial was flawed,
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: asserting that key evidence was never presented to the jury
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: and that the investigation was mishandled by authorities. The La
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: Innocence Project director, her name is Paula Mitchell, believes police
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: press releases included information indicating to the public that police
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: did not believe mister Peterson's alibi almost from day one,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: and this created a domino effect that ultimately created a
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: tidal wave of media attention focused on mister Peterson as
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: the prime suspect in the case. I will tell you
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: there are two documentaries out there that I've watched recently,
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: and I will say, if you're interested in the Scott
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: Peterson case and you want to have an open mind,
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: and you're just not one hundred percent convinced that the
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: man is guilt, Listen, He's guilty if you're convinced. Even
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: if you are convinced, but let's be clear, he is
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent guilty of being a shitty human. There
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: is no doubt about that. He had an affair. His
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: wife was pregnant. He was messing around with what's her name, Amber, He.
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: Went fishing on Christmas Eve.
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: He went fishing on Christmas Eve. He in his interviews,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: he's not likable. He's not likable at all, he doesn't
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: show any emotion. He never looked like he was likable
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: to Amber or whatever. Well, I mean he was likable
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: in other ways, but I'm saying in interviews and things
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: like that, he's not the least bit.
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: There's well, no one's going to be likable when their
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: their wife is dead, their pregnant wife is dead. And
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: he looks suspicious and he's just sitting there going, I
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it.
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: I mean he would, he didn't. I don't remember him
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: crying right bad. I think he sold her car to
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: or something like that. It was just like, what are
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: you doing?
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean, I mean beyond the likability. It's even
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: when you watch video clips of when they were out
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: searching and he's there, he just kind of like, oh, well.
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: Wasn't there a what do you call those things where
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: everyone holds candles like a vigil? Yeah, and he was
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: like not there or something. And then he was calling
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: or he maybe he was, but he was also calling
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: his girlfriend and saying he was in Paris on celebrating.
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: What is this?
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: I'm not okay. The guy is a doucher. There's no
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: doubt about that, but let's that's not.
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: Maybe there's you know, there's an assumption of risk. If
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: you go to a trampoline park, you assume the risk
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: of getting injured. May it is an assumption of risk
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: when you cheat on your pregnant wife and you go
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: fishing on Christmas Eve. You're just going to get cinder
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: blocks that you're building in your backyard or whatever it
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: was he was doing.
• 28:02
  Speaker 3: It was actually in a boat house, so you know,
• 28:05
  Speaker 3: and he's like, well, you know what, you didn't do it,
• 28:07
  Speaker 3: but you assume the resk that you would look like
• 28:09
  Speaker 3: a murderer in the event that she found She was
• 28:12
  Speaker 3: found dead.
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: So the La Nison's Project argues that there's new scientific
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: analysis suggests that the unborn child was actually died later
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: than prosecutors claimed a trial, and an expert on water
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: currents contends that Lacy Peterson's body could not have been
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: dumped in the location the prosecutors originally alleged. Let me
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: tell you there is a documentary on Peacock and it's
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: called Face to Face with Scott Peterson. If you watch it,
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: I believe that you'll be a little more open minded
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: about it. So I would suggest doing that there's also
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: a good A and E one called.
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: The Minded towards the Evidence. Yeah, like, oh, that's kind
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: of unclear, right.
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: The petition and the Scott Peterson case also introduces new
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: witnesses and evidence tied to two separate incidents that occurred
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: near the time of Lacey's dissip appearance, including a home
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: burglary and a suspiciously burned van in a nearby area. Okay,
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: those are I did watch this the documentary, and I'll
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: tell you it was very suspicious to me. First of all,
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: there were witnesses that saw Lacy Peterson out with her
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: dog walking, and the times that they saw her were
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: the times that supposedly she had already been kidnapped, So
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: there is a very there's a clear inconsistency there. Also,
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: there's this van that's found nearby with a mattress in
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: it that has blood on it and it was never tested,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: Like why was there not DNA tested? Also, there's a
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: by hired hired.
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: Who the people in the van?
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: You're saying Scott Peterson hired people in a van to
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: burn the van and have a you mean to kidnapp her?
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah?
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: You think now? You think he hired somebody to kid
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: you are stuck on it.
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: That's a possibility. Maybe you know people hire people to
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: kill others. It's a service.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: Have you looked into it?
• 29:58
  Speaker 3: No?
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: Are you sure?
• 30:01
  Speaker 2: Okay, all right, you can look at my Google search.
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: I'm going to I'm going to do a forensic accounting
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: on your phone and see what your Google searches are.
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: It'll be how to block revolve dot com from my wife.
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: Okay, well that would make sense.
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: Yes, I hope it's not.
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: How to hire people to murder in a van?
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: How long can the bodies arrive in the snow? Exactly?
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: So. There was a mattress found in that van that
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: had blood stains, but a judge previously denied permission to
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: test it for Lacy's DNA. Prosecutors said mail DNA was
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: already detected and no further testing was needed. However, the
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: Innocence Project continues to push for more advanced DNA testing
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: and hopes of finding a potential link to the case.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: There is also in this four hundred page up filing,
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: there's also one hundred and twenty six page declaration from
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: Scott Peterson, who did not testify during his trial, in
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: which he maintains his innocence and says he was wrongfully
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: convicted of murder. Again. I can't wait to read it.
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: That's how big of a wal nerd I am that. Like,
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: I'm excited about reading this four hundred page filing and
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: the Scott Peterson case and discussing it with you guys
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: on a later podcast.
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: You know what, I'm not excited about having to print
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: four hundred for you.
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: Well, you know you're gonna have to because I like it.
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: I'm old school. I like it printed out. I have
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: to like read it and take notes and use a
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: highlighter and the whole thing. So also, just a reminder,
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: do you remember that Mark Garrigos was Scott Peterson's attorney.
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: I just thought i'd throw that out. Yeah, And also
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: Gargos represents the Menindo's brothers.
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: A small world. It is a community, it is.
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: It is a very small world. In that community. A
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: lot of these attorneys overlap. So anyway, I'm just a
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: reminder about that. All right, let's go into Karen Reid.
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: And the last episode we did was on Karen Reid.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: We did a really in depth episode.
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: Karen Reid is on trial for the homicide of her boyfriend,
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: John O'Keeffe, who was a Boston police officer. Yeah, correct,
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: found dead, is found dead in the snow with forty
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: two pieces of tail light around him.
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but the forty two pieces of tailight, it might
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: have been forty seven. Those didn't show up until a
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: subsequent subsequent search, until they were planted, not the initial search.
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: If it was showed up later. Anyway, if you want to,
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: if you want to listen to our Karen Read episode,
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: it's really good. We go into in depth on all
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: the evidence. But I just wanted to add a little
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: more because that was a long episode. There's so much
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: to talk about in this case. There's just a couple
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: other things before we go into the retrial that I
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: just wanted to discuss. There was here I just want
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: to tell you about this. This was in the first trial.
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: So several witnesses who were at Albert's house on January
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, told investigators that O'Keeffe never
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: made it inside the house, which we know that is
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: the biggest issue in this case. Did the man enter
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: the house or not?
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: That would solve well, no, it would answer a lot
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: of it would answer a lot.
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: Of questions anything, it would answer a lot of questions. So, however,
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: Reed's lawyers say okeefe's phone data suggests otherwise, and in
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: April twenty twenty three court filing, so this was in
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: the first hearing, the defense asserted that John O'Keeffe's Apple
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: health data indicated he took eighty steps and climbed the
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: equivalent of three flights of stairs at the Fairview Road property.
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: So the Fairview Roade property is Albert is Brian Albert's
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: house where he was found in the yard.
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: So according to the Apple data, it's as if he
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: walked and went up a fly the stairs.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: Yes, Now at the house, Brian Albert has a basement
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: in the house, which we know about because after John
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: O'Keefe's body was found, the basement carpet was replaced, the
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: house was sold, and the dog was re homed, so
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: we know that.
• 33:53
  Speaker 2: And all the phones were thrown.
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: At all the phones were thrown, there's no ring footage anywhere. Yes,
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: anyway to call this data unreliable is an understatement. This
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: is what the prosecutors responded, asserting that those steps were
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: recorded before O'Keefe's cell phone location data showed him arriving
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: at the home. Prosecutors further noted that the same Apple
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: health data indicated O'Keefe took several steps hours after he'd
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: been pronounced dead. However, the defense attorney claims that that
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: discrepancy could be chalked up to sloppy policing, and we
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: know there was a lot of sloppy policing in this case,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: and suggested that the steps are just reflected by a
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: police officer walking around with O'Keefe's phone after the fact,
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: after he was found dead.
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: So anyways, as possible, they killed him and then they
• 34:40
  Speaker 2: took his phone when they walk around, what do we
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: do now?
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: Well after is right? So exactly? Oh so there's that.
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: I just wanted to talk a little bit more. This
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: is according to the first trial about the DNA on
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: the tail light and the hair on the bumper. I
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: think we talked about this a little bit in the
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: last episode, but let's just go through it again because
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: I find it really interesting. The prosecution alleges that O'Keefe's
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: DNA was found on broken pieces of tail light from
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: Reed's car, and that forensic investigation revealed microscopic pieces of
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: tail light on O'Keeffe's clothing. Here's the thing though, in
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: the retrial, Alan Jackson claims in his opening statement that
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: there was no blood, skin, and no DNA found on
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: the actual shards of tail light that supposedly cut John's arm.
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: So that's really interesting. So the prosecution claims that there
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: was DNA from John O'Keefe found on the tail light,
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: So I guess it's on the actual tail light that's
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: still on the.
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: Car or on the ground, who knows, no, on the
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: carcase on the car.
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: The defense claims, and this is in his opening statement
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: that he just did in the retrial, that there was
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: no DNA, no skin, no blood found on any of
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: the shards of tail light that were found later. So
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: that's the question.
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: This is why this case is so normal. Is there
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: normally DNA on both the broken pieces on the ground
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: and the remain remaining part of the tail light on
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: the car.
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: Well, that's a good question, except that if you remember
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: in the autopsyne you've seen photos of it. I'm sure
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: his arm, remember his right arm. I think I'll showed
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: your photos. There's puncture wounds and scratches on his right arm.
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: So if the prosecution wants to allege that those scratches
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: and puncture came from shards of tail light as she
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: was backing into him. Then that would only suggest the
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: only reasonable conclusion. Conclusion would be right, that there was
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: a transfer of scanned DNA blood or something onto those shards.
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: If there is no DNA blood or anything on them,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: I find that suspicious, especially with the way his arm looks.
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: How else do you explain the scratches and the puncture ones.
• 36:49
  Speaker 2: It was a pig, wasn't it.
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: It wasn't a pig. It was allegedly, or possibly according
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: to the defense, it could have been the dog.
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but it was pig DNA.
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: But it was pig dna. There was no dog DNA found.
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: There was pig DNA.
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: Found in those in the area.
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: I don't know, but maybe the dog ate some pig
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: and then bit him.
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: But there were scratches.
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: There's scratches and puncture wounds.
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: All this results too.
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: Reasonable, doubt exactly.
• 37:16
  Speaker 2: It'd be a lot easier if they just give us
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: the ring footage and they didn't hide all their cell phones,
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: and they told the truth, then we'd be done.
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the proper people, all right, let's get into the retrial.
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: The retrial just started. We've been following it. I don't
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: know if you guys have been, but let's start with
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson's opening state. First of all, the prosecution hired
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: I don't know if you knew this, but they brought
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: in a special prosecutor, so they did not use the
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: same prosecutor. His name is Hank Brennan, and he was
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: not involved in the original trial. However, I read that
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: he represented this mobster name like Whitey Bulger or something.
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: We've ever heard that name before.
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I have not, so I would remember by cross
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: paths with Whitey Bulger Bulger Bulger.
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: I believe he was a mobster. And Hank Brennan, who's
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: the prosecutor, is now representing the Commonwealth, but he also
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: represents so anyway, well, my point is they went they
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: found instead of using the same prosecutor they used last time.
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: They were like, you're out and we need this guy.
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah they should because they didn't win the last trial.
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: It was a hung jury.
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: So anyway, I'm just.
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: Saying they went and got some guy that hasn't that's notorious,
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: that has notoriety. He represented some.
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the murder community is a very small.
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we talked about this before and the last time
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: we recorded, Karen Reid that the most reasonable and logical
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: thing that happened that night is that they were drunk.
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: She drops him off at the house, and that she
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: does back.
• 38:50
  Speaker 2: Into him, either purposely or accidental.
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: I would say accidentally. But that's the most logical thing.
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: I don't know. Well, I'm just saying because tails were
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: not found till like.
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: I'm not talking about any of the evidence. I'm just saying, no,
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: I forget the evidence.
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: This is what happened.
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: No, forget all the evidence. I'm saying, if you just
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: look at it.
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: Yes, that's a good opening statement. Yes, please disregard all
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: the evidence and the logical conclusion.
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: No, I'm saying, if you just look at the story
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: from a very from just an outsider, and you're like, Okay,
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: they went to a bar, they got drunk, they're driving drunk.
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: She drops them off outside this house, and then his
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: body's found in the snow and he's dead and he's
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: got abrasions all over him. The logical conclusion is that
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: she hit him or someone hit him.
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: Well, yeah, a logical conclusion that someone hit him. That's correct,
• 39:43
  Speaker 2: very good.
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that's the logical reasonable conclusion that she
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: hit him, as opposed to he went inside the house,
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: he got beat up in the house, the dog attacked him,
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: and there's a whole conspiracy.
• 39:54
  Speaker 2: So you're saying he died right there on the lawn
• 39:55
  Speaker 2: or where I'm.
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: Just saying that is a reasonable conclusion. Is that she
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: hit him, or that a snowplow hit him, or that
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: another car hit him. However, that does not that reasonable
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: conclusion does not stay reasonable when you start to dive
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: into the way these busy bees were working that night. Yeah, well,
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: you're talking about the cops butt dialing each other at
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: two twenty two in the morning, and you're talking about
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: how Brian Albert never came out of his house when
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: there's a dead there's a dead police officer on his
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: lawn with paramedics cops everywhere, and he never comes outside
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: to investigate that. Brian Higgins, the ATF agent that was
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: there that night at two, at like two point thirty
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: in the morning, goes back to his office at the
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: Canton Police Department and then calls Brian Albert, and then
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: Brian Albert calls him, and then it's just there's a
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: lot of like shady things going on.
• 40:48
  Speaker 2: That's great.
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: So I'm saying there is so much reasonable doubt in
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: this case that I honestly can't believe they tried her again.
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: THO surprices a dead person on his lawn. But they're
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: all shady people.
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: There's a lot of shady stuff going on. Anyway. The
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: prosecutor hammers down on the fact that one of the
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: paramedics who just testified recently and this retrial, claims that
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: he heard Reid say I hit him, I hit him,
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: I hit him three times. Also, Brennan, the prosecutor, argued
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: that there is a black box data from the vehicle
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: revealing details that were not brought up in the initial trial,
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: and he claims that Reid had shifted her lexus into neutral,
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: then reversed, and then pressed the gas pedal to seventy
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: five percent acceleration. So the prosecution elosion.
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: Why would she say I hit him, I hit him,
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: I hit him, Like under what context was that?
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't I don't believe that. We'll get into
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: that just a little bit. I hate him, yeah, because
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: she did call him a perfect.
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: Now I'm involved in this murder.
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: I so Alan Jackson is the defense attorney. He also
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: represented her in the first trial. He actually has a
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: would hire yes, Alan Jackson, Brian Friedman. Man there at
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: the top of my list. Am I if I'm in
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: legal trouble, you guys better watch out, because I'm gonna
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: call Alan Jacks. I'm gonna call Brian Friedman. I'm gonna
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: take everybody down.
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: Don't call me.
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: I'm not calling you Alan Jackson. Actually, and I thought
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: this was smart. He has a beard in this trial,
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: so the footage from this trial doesn't get mixed up
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: with the footage or something.
• 42:20
  Speaker 2: I think he has a two pay, He's got something,
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: and his hair is looking a little.
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: He has nice hair. Why because it's good, because he
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: has good hair.
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: It's just you know, it's it's not he's dying it.
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: He's doing something to it. And that's what I noticed.
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: And as if I was on the juror, it would
• 42:36
  Speaker 2: be really hard to look away because.
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: You just noticed that he possibly has a two pay.
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: Well, he has something going on with his hair.
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: I thought he was a nice looking man. That's all
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: I saw.
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: It was a nice man.
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: I'm sure a nice looking man, all right. He began
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: his argument by assuring the jury that the evidence would
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: clearly demonstrate that there was no collision with John O'Keeffe.
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: He states, John O'Keeffe did not die as a result
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: of being struck by a vehicle. The facts, evidence, data,
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: and scientific analysis will confirm this, as will the expert testimony.
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: Jackson went on to accuse the investigation into O'Keeffe's death
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: of being tainted by bias, incompetence, and dishonesty. He specifically
• 43:16
  Speaker 1: criticized the former Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor, who
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: was the lead investigator, calling him a cancer in the
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: case for failing to properly investigate. Michael Proctor was fired
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: after the first trial, obviously because of the way he
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: handled the case. It was clear that he was incompetent
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: and he was biased. We could we could talk, We
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: could do a whole episode just on Michael Proctor. Probably
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: mall security. No, he's going to be the security at
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: our gate. That's how they go. Yeah, at Ocean Ranch.
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: Good. Then if there's an issue, he can cover it
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: up for us. Yes, yes, they don't investigate that crap.
• 43:57
  Speaker 2: That's not our looking at.
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: It exactly, cover all right, so also in his opening statement,
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson goes on to say, you'll see during this
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: trial that he deliberately fabricated evidence. He lied in reports
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: on warrants, and even under oath, he lied about the
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: time he secured Karen Read's vehicle. Why because he didn't
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: want it known that he had access to that vehicle
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: and the tail light before fragments were discovered at thirty
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: four Fairview. When John's body was initially found. There are
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: forty seven pieces of red tail light that were not found.
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: That's a lot of tail light. No, That's why I
• 44:31
  Speaker 2: said it was odd to me, sounds like a hammer
• 44:34
  Speaker 2: smashed a tail light.
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: I know.
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: See I can't get past not his hand or his
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: head or whatever. Right, someone put it on the tail
• 44:41
  Speaker 2: was went smash.
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: Because clearly I'm not a collision re constructionist. However, when
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: I think about an SUV backing into a male body,
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: I don't feel I can't picture the taillight exploding into
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: that many pieces with it. It's a Lexus suv. Yeah,
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: I know, I just don't see that. And the fact
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: that these pieces showed up later, not during the initial
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: search when they first find John O'Keeffe's body. They don't
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: find any of these tail light pieces, even though they're
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: red and it's snowing out.
• 45:18
  Speaker 2: They find them the scene, they're looking for stuff. They
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: don't see all the red tail lights.
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: Right. So, Also, here's one of the key things that
• 45:29
  Speaker 1: I think is going to come out that he alludes
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: to in his opening statement. I think they're really going
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: to focus on the hypothermia. The medical examiner and the
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: first case in the first trial basically says that he
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: died from blot force trauma to the head, but also hypothermia.
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: I think the defense because they're going to have an expert,
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: expert pathologist or someone is an expert on hypothermia come
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: in and testify, because when John o'keep's body was found,
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: there was no frostbite, there was no cold limbs, there
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: was no cold induced injuries to his.
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: Organ should there have been by that time.
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: Well, based upon the prosecution's timeline, if she hit him
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: when she dropped him off at the house at twelve
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: thirty and his body wasn't found until six thirty am,
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: that's six hours that his body would have been in
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four degree blizzard snow weather. So hypothermia would
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: have set in. I read that hypothermia sets in when
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: the body starts to be ninety five degrees or less. So,
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: if the body laid there for six hours, like the
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: prosecution claims.
• 46:40
  Speaker 2: I would, ninety five degrees is hypothermia.
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sure, yeah, look it up. That's when hypothermia starts
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: to set in.
• 46:49
  Speaker 2: Ok.
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: When the body drops down to ninety five degrees, then
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: that's when it starts. That's what I read. If I'm wrong,
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: please send me a dam and tell me I'm wrong.
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: But I did google it.
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: I'll send you a dam.
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So I think that is going to
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: be a big point of contention or something that the
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: defense really pushes. They're going to have experts to come
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: in and talk about how the body did not have
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: the type of hypothermia that it should if it had
• 47:14
  Speaker 1: laid in the snow for six hours, if she hit
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: him at twelve thirty in the morning.
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: At twenty four miles an hour, if.
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: He was brought out and drug out into the lawn
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: before he was found at six am, then the temperature
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: of his body would make more sense because there was
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: no frost bite, there was no frozen limbs, so I
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: think that is something that the defense is really going
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: to going to push right. Also, Alan Jackson brings up
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: in his opening statement that there was unknown male DNA
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: from five different sources found on John O'Keefe's shoe, shoe
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: on his shoe because his shoe was found his shoe,
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: one of his shoes was missing, and then his shoe
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: was found at the scene.
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: So he had one shoe on and one shoe on,
• 47:58
  Speaker 2: shoe on and one shoe was the off shoe located.
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: I don't remember exactly, but I think it was in
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: the vicinity of his body somewhere.
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: I don't know if I guess if he got hit
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: by a car and his shoe flew off.
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: Well, that's what the prosecution claims like when they talk
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: about the reconstruction of how she hit him and his
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: injuries and everything. They talk about how a shoe coming
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: off is common when you get hit by a car
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: whose DNA was Well, it's five unidentified males.
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: But why don't they take the DNA of all the
• 48:28
  Speaker 2: people at the party and see see.
• 48:30
  Speaker 1: That is my question is why did they not do
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: that or are they going.
• 48:34
  Speaker 2: To do that? How many male DNA specimens do you
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: have on your shoe?
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: I mean, what's normal? What's a normal amount of male
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: on your shoe?
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: Well, why it's unknown on the other shoe, I don't know.
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: I only know about the one shoe.
• 48:51
  Speaker 2: All I know is to look at the other shoe
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: because if the other shoe has five, yeah, then that
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: doesn't answer any questions. Why does it matter to be normal?
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: But if it's only on one, then it's like, well,
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: who was playing with the shoe?
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: Okay, here here was my question. And I asked my friend.
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: That's who is a Who is a DNA expert?
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: I said, expert?
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: I do? I do. He's a police officer for a
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: long time, then he works wide and then he works DNA.
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: Now he teaches forensics.
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: Is he in the Boston Police Department.
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: No, he's not. He's in Ohio. But anyway, so.
• 49:20
  Speaker 2: He's not crooked.
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: No, I asked him. I asked, I was confused as
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: to why it's unknown, And he said, what they do
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: is when they find the male DNA, they put it
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: into CODIS. Do you know what CODIS stands for?
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: No, but it's it's the national database of people that
• 49:36
  Speaker 2: are on the grid. Like if you get take your DNA.
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: If you get arrested, they take your DNA, right if
• 49:42
  Speaker 2: you're connected of a crime or things like that, and
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: then they just hold on to it and then it
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: can be a match.
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: Okay, So let me tell you all what CODIS stands for.
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: So at the next party you go to, you can
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: sound very d us. No, it's co d I S.
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: Let's stand Oh no, hold.
• 49:58
  Speaker 2: On, CEO d I. What's what's the C stand for
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: Combined combined DNA. Wait, where's the O.
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: That's the CEO is for combined?
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: Oh they needed a vowel. Yeah, right, combine DNA United States.
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: No, it's not in you, it's an I.
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: Oh oh combined DNA in the States, it's combined.
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: Okay. See, now you're messing up my party trick that
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to give to other people. So like party
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: trick was better, it stands. Okay, is everyone listening now
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: when you talk about this case, you or you talk
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: about any case, you can be like, I know what
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: code IS stands for. It stands for Combined DNA Index System.
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: So they run the DNA through CODIS, they don't get
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: any hits. That's why it's called unidentified or unknown. So
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: then my question is, why does the defense not take
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: it further, Why do they not test that DNA against
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: the members the male people that were in the house
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: that night, Because if Brian Albert's DNA ends up on
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: John O'Keeffe's shoe, or Brian Higgins or Colin Albert or
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: all these men that were in the house that night,
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: mean that means that he went into the house.
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: Maybe did they hang out all the time? No, was
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: on the other shoe.
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: No, I don't know why you're stuck on the other
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: shoe because one shoe, I don't know, But it's on
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: one shoe because I don't know.
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: Was it his right foot or is left hand? I
• 51:27
  Speaker 2: don't know, is he right footed?
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 51:30
  Speaker 2: Okay, those those things kind of help paint it a
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: little bit of a picture. No, it's not smoking gun stuff.
• 51:35
  Speaker 1: It's not a smoking gun. But it would lead to
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: the argument that if those unknown male DNA was anyone
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: that was inside that house, that you could argue that
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: John O'Keeffe was inside the house.
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: I don't know, you could argue that that's possible. But
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: at the same time, the absence of DNA doesn't mean
• 51:53
  Speaker 2: he wasn't inside the house.
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'm just saying, let's get further testing and try
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: to figure out who the male DNA is. Anyway, I
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: don't know if the defense is going to do that.
• 52:03
  Speaker 1: He brings it up in his opening statement. I think
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: it's probably just another thing to add to the reasonable
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: doubt side. Also, I was thinking that before they drove
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: to the Albert's home that night, he was at a bar,
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: so that could be where the unknown male DNA came up.
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: If he goes into the mail, into the men's restroom
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: and walks around, don't you think you get don't you
• 52:26
  Speaker 1: think you get DNA stuck to the bottom of your
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: feet when you're walking around in a bathroom? Does P
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: have DNA in it?
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's your friend.
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: I'll ask him. One more thing that Alan Jackson did
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: at the end of his opening statement that I thought
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: was pretty brilliant. The prosecution keeps arguing that Karen Reid
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: said I did it. I did it. I did it,
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: So at the end of his opening statement, he says
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: there was no collision. Oh, I hit right. You're right,
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: I hit him. I hit him.
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: Whether I think it matters if it's on the left
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: foot or the right foot. You're changing the stories.
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: You're right. So the prosecution alleges that the night when
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: the body was found that she yelled, I hit him,
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: I hit him. I hit him. So at the end
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: of Alan Jackson's opening statement, he says, there was no collision.
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: There was no collision. There was no collision. Let's talk
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: about two of the witnesses in this retrial. And first
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: of all, there was Carrie Roberts, who was with Karen
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: Reid the morning when she found him. So apparently, let's
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: go through this. Carrie Roberts was a friend of both
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: Karen Reid and the victim, John O'Keefe, and she acknowledged
• 53:38
  Speaker 1: under intense cross examination that she had previously given false
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: testimony to a grand jury about a crucial piece of evidence.
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: This was a big thing that came out of this retrial.
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: I saw it everywhere. It was basically like she committed perjury.
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: So let's talk about that. Carrie Roberts had originally told
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: the grand jury back in April of twenty twenty two
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: that she did hear Karen Reid ask Jennifer McCabe to
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: search online for information about hypothermia, specifically referencing the now
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: notorious search how long to Die in Cold? But it's
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: not how long. Remember she's felt it wrong. It was
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: hos haslong to Diane cold. That is testimony that played
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: a role and reads indictment on manslaughter and murder charges
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: back when she was in front of the grand jury.
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: It's very This is actually very important because the discrepancy
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: between what the prosecution and the defense alleges as to
• 54:31
  Speaker 1: when this Google search was made. Remember, the defense claims
• 54:35
  Speaker 1: that Jen McCabe was googling how long to Die in
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: Cold at twenty seven in the morning. Now, if she
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: was googling that at two twenty seven in the morning,
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: that means that she knew that he had been.
• 54:51
  Speaker 2: Well, no, it leads you to think, right, maybe she knew.
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: Maybe it was just a party trick.
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: It's a party trick.
• 54:56
  Speaker 2: She was like doing a little.
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: Trivia, right, like like I like to do yeah with
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: your acronyms. So anyway, the prosecution claims that she didn't
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: google it at to twenty seven, that she googled it
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: at six something in the morning at the direction of
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: Karen Reid saying Google the data that the defense presented
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: said that it was googled at to twenty seven and
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: then it was deleted.
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: And they're saying, no, it wasn't.
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: They're claiming that it's like that her browser was left
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: open or something. I don't know. I don't understand.
• 55:28
  Speaker 2: Oh, they're claiming. Okay, so they're claiming there's another reason
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: why it shows a different time.
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: They're saying she actually googled it later after the body
• 55:36
  Speaker 1: was found.
• 55:37
  Speaker 2: And them saying it was later it was just based
• 55:40
  Speaker 2: on testimony.
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: Well, them saying it later is Jen McCabe saying I
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: didn't google it testimony, it's yeah, I didn't google it
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: at to twenty seven. I googled it at six thirty
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: in the morning when Karen Reid said google hypothermia or
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: how long to die on this se.
• 55:55
  Speaker 2: And why would that's another question. Why would Karen Reid
• 55:58
  Speaker 2: during all this that's going on and say, let's start
• 56:01
  Speaker 2: to investigate his death.
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like you're saying, she just found him dead in
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: the lawn and she's like writing.
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: Around screaming and you're dead and there's blood everywhere, and
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: I'm starting to google, like how many stabs would it
• 56:11
  Speaker 2: take to kill? Yeah? Female, I mean that's like, you know,
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: I'd be calling for help, and I would be, you.
• 56:16
  Speaker 1: Know, right worried. I like how you said that, you
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: sounded very concerned.
• 56:21
  Speaker 2: The emotional Yes, sure, I would be, of course.
• 56:24
  Speaker 1: So basically, Carrie Roberts admits on the stand that she
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: perjured herself in her first in the grand jury testimony,
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: she said that she testified that she heard Karen Reid
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: tell Jen McCabe to google something about hypothermia how long
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: to die in the snow at six point thirty in
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: the morning. And then in this when she's grilled in
• 56:45
  Speaker 1: this retrial by Alan Jackson, she admits that she lied
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: that she did not hear Karen Reid.
• 56:49
  Speaker 2: Say that, and did she say does she explain her.
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: Well, her explanation was that she misunderstood the question the
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: first time around.
• 56:57
  Speaker 2: But that's not a lie. Well, if she no, I'm
• 57:00
  Speaker 2: saying her version, I'm not citing with anyone. But her
• 57:03
  Speaker 2: version is I misunderstood right during this intense investigation when
• 57:09
  Speaker 2: you asked me pointed questions, I misunderstood. Yes, that's shady, right.
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: However, when defense attorney Alan Jackson confronted her with her
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: past statement during trial this past week, Roberts admitted she
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: did not actually hear read make that request. Alan Jackson says,
• 57:24
  Speaker 1: to her quote, you gave a very specific account to
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: the grand jury, didn't you, Jackson asked, referencing her earlier testimony. Yes,
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: Roberts replied, before conceding, I did not hear her ask that.
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: Roberts claimed she did not intend to mislead the grand jury,
• 57:39
  Speaker 1: but instead had misunderstood the question at the time. So
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: that's where that's at.
• 57:43
  Speaker 2: But you know, cal is anyone reliable in this case?
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: Oh? I'm telling you this way. This case I would
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: call this case. This is like another for me, This
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: Karen Reid case is like the case of the century.
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: Like you remember O. J. Simpson was the case of the.
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: Century, well, and that was popular because of it being
• 57:58
  Speaker 2: OJ televine, right, and then it.
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: Was like the lapd and then they were it was
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: like a conspiracy, remember, and they said that they were
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: racist and that they had planted evidence, and then the glow.
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: So this one, are you going to say that this
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: one seems to be famous? Yeah, it's so confusing, And
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: I think it's because.
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: It's the same type of sensationalism where you have very
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: divided sides. There's really no one in the middle. It's
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: like people are either like she is completely innocent and
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: this is a conspiracy, or she hit him and she's
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: a piece of there's not a middle with this case.
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: And there's no smoking gun. There's just nothing that says
• 58:40
  Speaker 1: she did it or she didn't do it. There is
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: tons and tons of evidence and testimony and witnesses and
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: everything just leads you to more confusion.
• 58:49
  Speaker 2: It's almost like it's the perfect crime. The perfect crime
• 58:53
  Speaker 2: is to make it confusing, not to try to get
• 58:55
  Speaker 2: away with it. You know what I mean? A perfect
• 58:58
  Speaker 2: crime is like making evidence it's random, like the next day,
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: maybe she threw her tail light out there. You know
• 59:03
  Speaker 2: what I mean.
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: You would have to be a criminal mastermind to think about.
• 59:08
  Speaker 2: All those things. I'm saying is that if no one
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: should get convicted in this case based on the evidence
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: that we've discussed so far, because there's so much doubt
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: as to anyone having done it, you can't be certain
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: that any one person did it, So in a way,
• 59:20
  Speaker 2: that's kind of a perfect.
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: Well it is. But the thing that is so bother
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: somewhere maybe why people are so invested in this case
• 59:28
  Speaker 1: is that I don't know if we will actually ever
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: know what happened.
• 59:31
  Speaker 2: We won't unless someone comes forward.
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: And there's no ring footage. That's another thing. Like there
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: was a cop that lived across the street. You don't
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: think he had ring footage on his house. He doesn't
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: have any footage. Ryan Albert has no ring footage of
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: that night, even though he's a cop and he dealt
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: with like he dealt with drug dealers and things, and
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: he doesn't have he doesn't have security cameras.
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: On his house. I don't know.
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: I don't know if it's, of course it's standard.
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: The standard for police officers to have cameras in their homes.
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: Yes, I would think so. If you're a police officer
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: and you're dealing with gangs and drugs, you don't have
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: security cameras on your house.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: They might, but you're acting like it's standard. Like him
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: not having it suspicious.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: It is suspicious. I think that he I don't know
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: of this exactly. I don't know if he just didn't
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: have if he claims he didn't have any security cameras,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: or if he had security cameras and it was deleted
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: that I don't know.
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 2: Everything in this case is suspicious.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 1: I know everything suspicious. I mean he threw his phone
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: away the day before he was supposed to be confiscated.
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 1: Dog Brian Higgins threw his phone out too, before it
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: was supposed to be confiscated. Now you tell me that
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: if there are just some innocent guys inside a house
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: having a party and they don't know what's going on
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: in the front lawn, he just got hit by Cara.
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 1: Why are they all throwing their cell phones away? Why
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: are they redoing their basement floors and selling the house
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: and rehoming the dog?
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: The dog, I don't know, all right.
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: There was one other witness. This is his name is
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: Timothy Nuddle. The prosecutor Brennan opened his case by calling
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: Timothy Nuddle, a firefighter from Canton, as the trial's first witness. Nuddle,
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: who was a firefighter, recounted that it was a chaotic
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: and emotional scene at thirty four Fair of You, with
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: Karen Reid visibly distraught, yelling and crying while paramedics worked
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: to revive John O'Keefe. During cross examination, Alan Jackson pressed
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: him on the number of times he claimed to have
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: heard Reid say I hit him. While not all testified
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: in this trial that she repeated it three times. Jackson
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: pointed out that during the first trial he said that
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: it was only twice.
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: Why why is there any no have a question? Why
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 2: is there any bodycam footage of all the first responders?
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: There is, I've watched it, but you can't pick up
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: you can't pick up audio. There's well, I don't I've
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: seen I've seen footage from the car, the car that
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 1: pulled up.
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 2: So the bodycam footage that does exist from the police
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: officers isn't really helpful. I don't know.
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: I haven't seen bodycam footage, and I don't know if
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: there is any, And that could be another question.
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: I I don't know.
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: I recamp that I don't know about that. All I'm
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 1: saying is I have seen footage from when the cops
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: pull up, and there's a it's from the car.
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 2: I've seen footage from the car, the police car.
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and it shows it shows light dash camp thank you,
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 1: it shows lights, and it shows Karen Reid running all
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: around and she's yelling'ract she's crazy.
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: Okay, So the not very helpful, right.
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: So the defense continues to question the credibility and accuracy
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: of those statements. Allegedlate made by Karen Reid that morning,
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: especially since neither initial police reports nor hospital records include
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: any mention of her saying that at the scene. That's
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: also very suspicious. If she said I hit him, I
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: hit him, I hit him, and he heard it, I
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: would assume other people heard it as well. And wouldn't
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 1: it have been in a report. Wouldn't have people questioned
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: her more, wouldn't have someone have written that down.
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 2: It's very suspicious that someone would even say that, even
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 2: if they did it. Yeah, it's weird. So even if
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: she hit him, why would she say that. That's not
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 2: a normal thing. Well, she's questioning herself, like, well, she does.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: Do that, and I think she admits to doing that,
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 1: and I think that's actual actually a normal reaction. Because
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 1: the prosecution and I was going to ask you what
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: you thought about this, The prosecution plays clips from her interview.
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: Remember the series I Just Watched a Body in the Snow.
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: It's like five episodes. It's the it's Karen Reid's first trial.
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: They follow the trial, but they also have interviews with
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: her and Alan Jackson, her attorney. It shows them in
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 1: the war room, it shows them preparing so the prosecution
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 1: took clips of her in those interviews in that show,
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: and they're playing them in this retrial, and they're using
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: excerpts of things that she said against her, and she
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: did say things like did I hit him? I was
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 1: questioning what happened. I drank a lot that night. I
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: didn't know what happened. I didn't know why he was there,
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: And they're showing it as if she's admitting to it. Well,
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: my question is, do you think it's a good idea
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: that she does all these interviews. This isn't normal when
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: someone's on trial for murder. They don't go out and
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: go and just do interviews all the time. And because
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: that's scary, it's Scott Peterson did well. He did like one,
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: He did like a sixty minute one, and then he
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: never did more. But I mean, she does a lot,
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: and they did a whole docuseries on her, and she
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: interviewed multiple times.
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 2: Maybe she uh, maybe she thought that would be helpful.
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: Here I'll tell you what she said. I also was wondering,
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: did I say that I hit him? Or was it
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: told to me that I said I hit him? And
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: I knew I never could have said that. So the
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: closest I must have said, was did I hit him?
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 1: I know I said I hit him, but I did,
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: But did I really say it as many times as
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: law enforcement's claiming I said it. That's verbatim what she said.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: And her maybe it was more like a question like
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: I hit him, I hit him, you know, like people
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 2: are saying like he's got bloom forced trauma, blah blah blah. Right,
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 2: was he run over? I hit him? I hit him? Yeah,
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: I hit him. Why would he say three times?
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: I don't know. But anyway, I to me when she
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 1: was doing when she was talking about that and her interview,
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: when I watched a body in the snow, I thought, oh,
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 1: probably not a good idea to allow your stream of
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: conscience to start talking like did I hit him? I
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: don't know did I hit him? Or do I just
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 1: think I hit him because I was totally hit him,
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: But did I hit him? I was like, you need
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: to stop talking.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 2: All right. Well, if I'm found dead, you have my
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: permission to keep quiet, Okay.
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: Thank you. Also, in this retrial, the jurors all visited
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 1: thirty four fair View. They took a field trip. Oh yeah,
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 1: so on Friday that was last Friday, jurors were transported
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 1: from the courtroom to the Canton property where John O'Keefe
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: was discovered. The field visit was arranged to give jurors
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: a clear perspective on key physical elements being discussed throughout
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 1: the trial, including the layout of the scene and Karen
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: Reid's reaction that morning. According to Judge Beverly Conone, the
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: goal was to help durors better visualize the evidence as
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: they evaluate the case.
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 2: Didn't someone else ow in the home now though?
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah? Because they sold it?
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 2: How would that be? Like judge knocks on your door, Likene,
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 2: we're investigating a homicide that took place here.
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: Well, I think they probably know what was coming.
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 2: We're not sure if it took place here or in
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: your basement?
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah? Can we search your basement? Can we do some
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: DNA testing down here? Can we rip up the carpet?
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: Do you mind? During the visit, attorneys from both sides
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: pointed out specific features they wanted the jury to take
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: note of, such as Reed's Lexus suv. So they brought
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: the suv and parked it there.
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 2: That's the prosecution trying to put plant images in their head.
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: So you're saying, come look at this yard, and he
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: died right here, and here's the suv with a missing
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: tail light parked right in front of the house.
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 2: Right and then people like, yeah, that could be.
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: During the visit, attorneys from both sides pointed out specific
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: features they wanted the jury to take note of, such
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: as Reed's Lexus suv, as well as a flagpole and
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: a fire hydrant that could factor into theories about what happened.
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: Defense attorney David Yanetti, who is one of Here and
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: Reads other attorneys, encourages jurors to closely examine the suv
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: to understand its size and relation to the scene when
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: they go back to court. Jurors also heard from doctor
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: Gary Faller, a pathologist, who discuss Reads blood test results
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: from the morning of January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two.
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: The test showed her blood alcohol level at point zero
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: nine to three percent, slightly above the legal limit of
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: pointh eight. The defense suggests that that Reads anemia could
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 1: have impacted the tests accuracy. I don't know, maybe I'm
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: just not smart, but I don't know. I mean, she
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: clearly admits that they had a lot to drink. She
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 1: does it in the documentary well she talks about this
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 1: and a double this, and then she does a shot
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: of this, and then this was a double And I
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 1: mean they drank a lot. He had a roadie with
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 1: him when they drove to Brian Albert's hat. Here's a
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: cocktail glass that was found next to his body.
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 2: I'm still umbrella.
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 1: Maybe I'm so they're clearly drunk and they're drinking a lot.
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 1: I think it's evident that she's impaired. I think she
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: admits to being impaired. So I just don't understand why
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 1: that is a key piece of evidence.
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: Why that is a key piece of Yeah, why wouldn't it.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: Be, Because whether she's drunk or not, the question is
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: whether she backed end to him.
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 2: Well, because people are impaired when they're drunken, and then
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 2: they're likely to commit murder. Where maybe she wasn't paying
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 2: attention and hit him and then drove off. I don't know. Also,
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 2: they're probably trying to make her look like a drunk
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: just like citizen who killed her boyfriend, right, you know
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 2: they Yeah, I don't know. This is a It's like
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 2: the more scientific evidence or or resources that we have
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 2: to investigate actually in this case, just created more confusion.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: I agree with that because the more.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 2: Scientific evidence, I just be like, he's dead. It's on
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 2: your lawn. You did it right right now. It's just
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 2: like and points direct.
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: I know. It's like there's Apple data from his Apple
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: Watch and now they're going there's also I think the
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: prosecution there's something now that has to do with his
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 1: battery and like how how long it lasted, And it's
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: you know, the the forensics and the DNA and the
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 1: hypothermia and the body temperature, and there's so much information
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 1: in this case. It's so hard to decipher. And at
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: the end of the day, we still don't know exactly
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: what happened, and we probably never.
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 2: Know, not at all, like not at all, not at all,
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 2: just that he's dead.
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 1: On the law, right, but there's so much reasonable doubt
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 1: that I just I can't convict the woman if I
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: was on the jury. People ask me all the time,
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: what do you think, do you think she's innocent or guilty?
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: I don't think innocent are guilty. I think in terms
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: of what if I was on the jury, would I
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: convict her? The answer to that is.
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 2: No, I wouldn't, based on the legal standard.
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: Based on the legal standard doubt.
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 2: Yes, So you're not saying innocent, You're saying not guilty.
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 2: How guilty does not mean innocent. It means not guilty
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 2: by a matter.
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: Of law exactly, And that's what I'm saying. So I'm
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: not picking aside as to whether I think she did
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 1: it or did not do it. I'm saying, based upon
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: everything I've read, the evidence presented, if I was on
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: the jury, I could not convict her.
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: Okay, now, if you're not on the jury, who did it?
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 1: So I still don't know. I have no idea, right
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: all right? Anyway, thanks again for listening. We appreciate it,
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: and if you have questions or comments, please feel free
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: to DM me. I try to read as much as
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: possible and we appreciate you.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: Thank you.