Legally Brunette: Karen Read

Karen Read has been accused of running over her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, and leaving him out to die. Her first trial resulted in a hung jury, and with her retrial coming up, we discuss the ins and outs of this compelling case. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi guys, welcome to Legally Brunette. I will be your
host today Emily Simpson and my co.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Host Shane Simpson.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
All right, so first of.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
All, we're going to go to just a little bit
of a brief update on the Menindez case. So, there
were two prosecutors, Brock Lunsford and Nancy Theeburg, who filed
notices of claim on Monday that they intend to sue
DA Hawkman and the Deputy District Attorney John Lewin for retaliation, defamation,

(00:30):
and discrimination. So these two prosecutors said that they made
a presentation last October arguing that Eric and Lyle Menindez
should be re sentenced in their nineteen eighty nine murders
of their parents, Jose and Kitty because their imprisonment no
longer served the interest of justice. Some high ranking La

(00:50):
County prosecutors disagreed with the move, including their supervisor. So
this is according to their notice of claim. Hawkman announced
his intention to review the decision after handily defeating Gascon
last November. So as we know they have, they have
a hearing coming up on March twentieth and the twenty first.

(01:12):
So these two das have been big supporters of them
being re sentenced, and they're saying that now Hawkman has
come in and that they've been demoted.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
So one of them.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Says that he's now been moved to a calendar clerk
or something like that, and then the other one claims
that she received high regards in her position, but now
she's been moved to something else. So they're saying that
they've been retaliated against because they've been supporting the resentencing
of the Menendez brothers. Also, what's interesting is they're hearing

(01:43):
on March twentieth and twenty. First, if you guys have
not heard, they will be. They're supposed to be attending
this hearing in person, which will be the first time
in thirty years that they've been seen in public, so
that that will be a media storm.

Speaker 4 (01:59):
Absolutely, And also are you gonna be there?

Speaker 3 (02:02):
I would love to be there if I can get
a ticket.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
And also I heard that they cannot wear regular clothing.
Like if you remember when Luigi made his first Luigi Mangioni,
he made his appearance, he was like decked in designer.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
I mean, he's gonna wear his prison uniform.

Speaker 3 (02:18):
They're gonna they're gonna wear a prison.

Speaker 4 (02:19):
Well, the reason is because he's already sentenced. He's they're
already in jail. So when they have someone on trial
innocent before proven guilty, right, so they don't Sometimes they
don't want the jury to prejudge by seeing them in like,
you know, an orange jumpsuit, right, so they have home
dress and then come into the court and then change

(02:41):
back into their jumpsuit or whatever the uniform is, go
back to prison weather and custody. So I'm guessing this
time it just doesn't matter because the judge already knows
they're in jail, and it's just a resentencing hearing. It's
not a guilty not guilty.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
Right, and just a reminder that it's not the da
Hawkman who makes the decision for them to be resents.
All he does is make a recommendation to the judge
and then the judge ultimately decides right.

Speaker 4 (03:03):
But important nevertheless, because he's still presenting evidence to the
judge right and making the case right.

Speaker 3 (03:09):
Exactly the case.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Based upon everything that we've heard about Hawkman so far,
my gut feeling is that he's not going to be
very pro recently.

Speaker 4 (03:20):
Now. I saw him on TV like a couple months ago,
I don't know why because I wasn't following the case
as close as you. But he he made a good point.
He goes, I'm not just gonna just throw it in
front of the judge because it's popular and because it's
all over media. He goes, I'm now in, you know,
in my position where I have to review it. Like

(03:41):
he's kind of like, okay, now it's it's on my desk.
I got to review it. I gotta like, I can't
just go off of everyone's word because it's on Netflix.
And that was true, but you know, only to come
to this point where it sounds like it's a little
power trip for him.

Speaker 3 (03:57):
Maybe yeah, all right, So we're gonna move on.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
And we've already done two podcasts on the Blake Lively
Justin Baldoni mess.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
That's what I call it. It is a it is
a p R.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
It is a juicy mess. If you haven't listened to
our first two podcasts, go back and listen. We go
through up until today where we're going to start. First
of all, the last thing we have not spoken about.
They did have a hearing. It was a pre trial conference,
and basically what happened was there was a gag order
that was requested. They really wanted Brian Friedman to shut

(04:29):
up and stop talking. Brian Friedman, he's out there a lot,
he's out there on TMZ, he's he's doing podcasts, He's
talking a lot. And I find it really ironic that
they're telling him that he needs to stop talking, considering
that when they filed that initial complaint with the California

(04:49):
Civil Rights Department that they I mean, it looks to me.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
Allegedly, it looks like they just colluded with the New
York Times and the New York City.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Reynolds wants it to continue to be one sided.

Speaker 1 (05:01):
It was very It was very one sided. The article
was very one sided. It was not a balanced article.
And again, if you recall we've talked about this in
our first podcast, they gave Justin Baldoni's side, very very
little time to respond. I think they got an email
the night before basically saying, hey, do you want to.

Speaker 3 (05:16):
Respond to this?

Speaker 1 (05:17):
So anyway, what happened was and the hearing, the judge
basically said, let's just follow the you know, the professional
rules of responsibility, which is Rule three point six, which
says which basically bars lawyers from making statements publicly that
could sway the outcome.

Speaker 3 (05:30):
Of the trial.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
First of all, to me, that is a very generalized
broad statement. I mean clearly, any attorney talking on behalf
of their client is going to advocate.

Speaker 4 (05:38):
Well, I think, I know, I know, but I think
the ideas because you see them making press conferences all
the time right from big profile, high profile cases, So
I think the ideas they can. They're supposed to only
go on there and say things like my client's innocent.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
We're going to argue.

Speaker 4 (05:54):
Zellously blah blah blah, not giving specific facts like they
can deny things, but you don't want them to come
in there and you know, give the you know, taints
the jury with evidence that may not be admissible in court,
but they're throwing it out there right public.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
But what also is interesting is that Brian Friedman and
Justin Baldoni's team released the website two days before that
pre trial conference where they were going to discuss a
gag order. So I call him the FAFO attorney because
he knew that that was going to be discussed. They
want a head and through that website out there. Anyway,
if you have the chance to look at it, what
he did was he put the amended complaint on there

(06:32):
and also the whole text message email chain between him.
There's text with him and Ryan Reynolds, there's all the
text with him and Blake Lively. I think that was
just the point they were making, was that they're they're
the side that's being transparent.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
They're just putting it.

Speaker 4 (06:48):
All out there, and they're probably arguing two cases, one
in court and one with the public.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Well, that's absolutely and I would say at this point
he's winning in the public.

Speaker 3 (06:57):
It's if this is.

Speaker 1 (06:58):
A if this is the court of pr and publicity,
Baldoni is on.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
Top of this team. Baldoni.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
So also in this hearing, Justin Baldoni's attorney, Brian Freeman,
claims that his client is devastated financially and emotionally, and
he also wants to depose Blake Lively quickly and get.

Speaker 3 (07:17):
Right into discovery.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
Then I also saw he did Brian Freeman did a
podcast the other day. There's a new podcast called Two
Angry Men, which is Mark Garregos and Harvey Levin, who
is the TMZ guy, And on that podcast, Brian Freeman
was making reference to Justin Baldoni. Basically losing four projects
because of these accusations against him. So when people are like, wow,

(07:41):
four hundred million dollars, well, that's because they're going to argue.
They're going to argue that those are the damages and
that's what's been lost. So Lively's attorney claimed during this
hearing that they're going to file an amended complaint. The
amended complaint was supposed to be filed by February fourteenth,
So I really thought when we recorded this podcast today

(08:01):
that we would be able to discuss her amended complaint and.

Speaker 4 (08:04):
Who is Okay Lively is amending her complaints? Do we
have any idea what she's trying to amend.

Speaker 3 (08:10):
Well, here's my thoughts.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
First of all, if she's amending the content, like I
have more allegations against him, I find that to be
suspect because if you were originally going to file a
complaint about someone, you had months and months to prepare it,
you're working with The New York Times on it, you
would have thrown everything out there in the beginning.

Speaker 3 (08:29):
You wouldn't have held stuff.

Speaker 4 (08:30):
So it's not an amendment to add evidence, it's just
an like cause of action. Well, because evidence is for trial, right,
So I mean it's probably yeah, you're right, it's probably
more causes of action.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
I don't know what those are. I assume they would
have been originally. I do think that she's probably going
to add Jed Wallace. He is the guy that is
in Texas that he was named in the original complaint
that Blake Lively filed. Or he has some kind of
PR type of business where I don't know he does,
like astroturfing or bots or something like that. So Blake

(09:05):
Lively wanted to depose him in Texas. Then he filed
a seven million dollar lawsuit against her for I think,
for some type of defamation because she named him in
the complaint. She didn't name him as a defendant. She
just named him in the complaint and talked about how
he was, you know, colluded us.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
On the automation.

Speaker 4 (09:24):
When it's in court, you have the immunity quasi immunity,
which you know, you're allowed to say things in court
make those accusations.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (09:32):
Anyway, maybe publicly she also threw it out there or something.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
Well, I mean, he's named in this complaint and everybody's
talking about all these PR people that are all involved
in these smear campaigns, and so he got pulled into
this smear campaign against.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
Sure, I want the deposition of Taylor Swift.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
Yes, well, that's interesting you bring that up, because when
Brian Friedman did this podcast recently, Harry Harvey said to him,
you're you're clearly going to depose Taylor Swift, right, And
he said, you know, I don't know. We'll figure that
out at game time. And Harvey's like, are you kidding me?
Of course you're going to depose Taylor Swift. She was.
She was at their home on that January fourth meeting

(10:11):
when supposedly Ryan Reynolds be rated justin Belton the balcony
scene or yeah, and apparently you know, she was there
when they were having the conversation about this balcony scene
and they were all, you know, gung ho about Blake's
you know, and everything.

Speaker 2 (10:25):
You think Taylor's sing. What the heck? Why did I
become friends with her?

Speaker 1 (10:28):
Well, I mean, I have read some things and this
is just alleged. I don't know exactly what Taylor Swift
is thinking, but clearly there's people you know, close to
Taylor that are saying she's distancing herself from Blake Lively
and that she doesn't want to be involved in this
lawsuit and she doesn't want to have anything to.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Tell with it.

Speaker 4 (10:43):
Taylor Swift should give Blake Lively some advice, and you
know what that would be, shake it off.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
Shake it off.

Speaker 3 (10:50):
That was a good one, Shane. I didn't even know
you knew Taylor Swift song.

Speaker 2 (10:53):
I just know that one.

Speaker 3 (10:54):
So there we go.

Speaker 1 (10:57):
Hopefully when they am in a complaint gets file, we
will do another podcast.

Speaker 4 (11:01):
We will talk about it.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
We will figure out did she add in new causes
of action? Did she add in new defendants? What's going
on there?

Speaker 4 (11:08):
When she amends the complaints, then there can be allowed
a response to those to the new amended causes of action. Okay,
just to be clear for the listeners.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
All right, So here's some things that have been going
on in the media with this Blake Lively and Justin
Baldoni situation. First of all, I don't know if you
saw this, but Colleen Hoover is back on Instagram. She
deactivated her Instagram, I'm sure because she was just getting
hit with she went on polse.

Speaker 4 (11:47):
Yes she did.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
She is now back.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
But yeah, right, So she's back on Instagram.

Speaker 3 (12:09):
We'll see what happens there.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
I did read in an article that she had removed
anything that really had to do with Justin or Blake
or it ends with us. I mean, I'm sure she
doesn't want to give people an avenue where they can comment. Now,
if they want to comment, they have to find, you know,
a picture of Yeah, that would be that would be

(12:32):
a that would be a series. So Blake Lively right
litigates with us.

Speaker 3 (12:39):
That's a good one.

Speaker 1 (12:41):
So Blake Lively is now seeking Justin Baldoni's phone records
to show that there was a smear effort against her.
This was in a Variety article that came out last night.
Blake Lively's lawyers sent a subpoena on Wednesday, February thirteenth
for Justin Baldoni's phone records. Lively's attorneys sent subpoenas to
three phone carriers, AT and T, Risen and T Mobile

(13:01):
seeking phone records. What's his meant, No, that that one
has a protective order? Probably kidding, Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (13:15):
He's like he gets he's like denied. Yeah, I don't
know who our cell carrier is. That's interesting.

Speaker 1 (13:30):
They're seeking records pertaining to Baldoni, the producer Jamie Heath,
who is one of the Wayfarer founders, and billionaire Wayfair
Studios co founder Steve Sorrowitz. The subpoenas also seek the
phone records of Abel, she is Wayfarers and Baldoni's publicist.
She is the one who her phone was confiscated by

(13:52):
Stephanie Jones, who is.

Speaker 3 (13:55):
Another PR person. There's so much PR people at.

Speaker 4 (13:58):
The suppose it and release it.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
I don't know about that subpoena, but anyway, Jennifer Able
her phone was confiscated by Stephanie, and then that's how
they propagated all those text messages that Blake Lively used
and her complaint and that The New York Times also used,
and allegedly that's.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
Kind of a little sneaky. There was something going on there, right.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
Oh yeah, of course, I mean if you in in
Justin's complaint, he lays out that she went to the
to work one day and then she got put into
a room and there was a security guard there and
they confiscated her phone and they made her sign all
these documents and it was her personal cell phone, her
personal cell phone number. Then Blake Lively gets a hold

(14:41):
of all these text messages that she uses in her complaints.

Speaker 4 (14:44):
I wouldn't don't ever give up your cell phone.

Speaker 3 (14:46):
No, race is like that. No, you just throw it.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
If anything, they'd start to go for you throw it
out in the past, so you don't have.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
To give them the cast code.

Speaker 3 (14:54):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 1 (14:57):
The subpoenas seek the phone records Amable and publicist Melissa Nathan.
Melissa Nathan is the publicist who is the crisis PR
publicist that Justin Baldoni hired. You know when the movie
came out. He's hearing that he's been referred to as
a sexual predator. He hires the same PR crisis management
team that represented Johnny Depp. So not so he has

(15:17):
a regular publicist and then he hired this crisis management team.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
So there are so many PR people.

Speaker 4 (15:24):
I know that's the way it's deviating. But do you
know how much money is being made off of everyone
outside of this, all the like social media stuff, articles written,
you know, TV shows or whatever, news casting. Then you
have all these PR crisis people that are hired. Who
knows how many therapists are hired. The lawyers are hired, right,

(15:47):
tons of investigators.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
It creates so much like money.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, but but these.

Speaker 1 (15:53):
PR people are all being sued and they're all suing
each other, so they also have to.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
They're also PR people are hiring PR people, They're hiring.

Speaker 1 (16:00):
Attorneys to defend them. I mean, they're all suing each other.
It's just it's a mess.

Speaker 2 (16:05):
Send them all to an island.

Speaker 3 (16:09):
So where are we at?

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Lively's lawyers also sent subpoenas to two internet providers, cloud
Fare and Aol, as well as to Jed Wallace, who
we talked about earlier. He's the crisis consultant who is
accused of launching a digital army against Lively on Baldoni's behalf.
I anticipate that when she files her when Blakely, Blakely,
Blake Lively, see, I have to say her name so

(16:31):
many times. I just made it Blakely. When Blake Lively
files her amendic complaint, she's probably going to add Jed
Wallace in as a as a new defendant. Brian Friedman,
Baldoni's attorney, said that Lively is seeking calls, texts, and
location data stretching back more than two years, and he
calls it a massive fishing expedition, and it demonstrates that
they are desperately seeking any factual basis for their provably

(16:55):
false claims and that they will find none. And I
know he is working on a platform. We're talking about
Brian Friedman, we're talking about Justin's attorney. He is working
on a platform of transparency.

Speaker 3 (17:07):
So that's been their thing the whole.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
That's my means, I got nothing to hide. Let's get
it all out there on the table.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
Right, And that was the whole point of their website
was to say, look, our hands are clean. Here's everything.
We're not hiding anything. Here's all the messages to.

Speaker 4 (17:22):
The other end, here's all the crap that Blake is doing,
so have at it.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
So Justin Baldoni, there was a recent podcast he was
actually the podcast was actually taped before the Blake Lively
court filing. It was taped back in November. I don't
know why they held onto it so long, but it
just got released a couple days ago, so I'm not sure.
I don't know if they recorded it and they always
had the intent of holding onto it this long, or

(17:48):
it just worked out that way. But anyway, he appeared
on an episode of the Gents Talk podcast. It was
released on Monday, February tenth. The installment was filmed back
in November of twenty twenty four, which is a month
before or Lively filed a lawsuit against her ends with
US co star and director. He says, quote, this morning,
I sent a text message to my best friend Jamie.

(18:08):
Jamie's involved in way Ferirr. He was a producer on
the movie, and the president of my company, Tara, and
I told them that I wasn't in the best place,
Baldoni said on the podcast. I told him that I
was exhausted and that I haven't given myself time to
recover or time to heal. Clearly, on this podcast, he
doesn't go into any details about what's going on in
his life, and at that time, I'm sure the interviewer.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
Doesn't know to ask more.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
Questions because they don't know exactly what he's making reference too.
But now we know, I'm sure he's making reference to
the year and a half of hell that he had
to deal with.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
Okay, let's talk about the regular stuff. Have they been
in court yet together? They haven't any. No, they haven't
made an appearance.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
Together when they both have to go.

Speaker 4 (18:50):
Well, here's my thought on stuff like that. And you
know what the Amber heard Johnny Depp stuff.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
I don't think it's going to get that far.

Speaker 4 (18:57):
It may not, but you think it's it'll settle. I
think someone will drop it.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
I think it has to settle. Because do you think
that Blake Lively wants to be deposed by Brian Friedman?

Speaker 4 (19:09):
I know she doesn't want to take two parties, so
she can offer all she wants. He'd have to accept.
And I'm I'm speculating.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (19:16):
I would think that he might be like, hell with this, No,
we're going to court like Johnny Depp did. Johnny Depp
wasn't trying to get two million bucks or whatever. He
was trying to say, I'm clean, she's nasty, she pooped
on my pillow and I was making a movie, right
or whatever?

Speaker 2 (19:32):
He does right right.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Well, you know that's interesting because they also in that
podcast that Brian Friedman just did, they said, you know,
would you be would you be willing to settle?

Speaker 4 (19:40):
Wow?

Speaker 3 (19:41):
And he doesn't say yes or no. He's very smart
in his wording.

Speaker 1 (19:44):
Of course, but he says, look, this is about a
man's reputation. He's been referred to as a sexual predator.
And does the settlement mean hey, let's just figure this
all out and let's back out. But does it also
mean are you going to publicly say right?

Speaker 4 (19:59):
Because if they settle and the terms are kept private,
then everyone's gonna think, oh, everyone's dirty or whatever. No
one wants anything exposed, like Johnny Depp. But if he
says no, let's go to court and let's expose it all, let's.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
Clear my name.

Speaker 4 (20:15):
Plus, if his reputation and his business is suffering, then
he may need the money to offset his losses. And
if he's suing for four hundred or whatever, you think
they're going to cough up anywhere near that.

Speaker 1 (20:31):
I mean, he's suing the New York Times too for defamation,
So I.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
Mean he's he's.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
Asking for a lot of money out there. He's suing
up Blake or a set.

Speaker 4 (20:40):
I always included a written statement too, yeah, which I
don't know if that's enough.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
Does a written statement? Is that enough to cure the
fact that.

Speaker 4 (20:47):
Someone provided facts, like you know, clarification of them? But no,
So I hope he takes it all the way because
I want some good court TV.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
Yeah, well you want to see well, it's in federal court,
so I don't know do they film. I know state courts.
I don't know if they if it's going to end
up on television. Like Johnny Depteck was a state court.
That's a different.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
Are they all federal courts all all these cases?

Speaker 3 (21:08):
Yeah, they're all in they've all been. They're all in
New York now.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
So he dismissed his action against The New York Times
in California. That's why he amended the complaint. And now
in the New York filing, he added New York Times
into that amended complaint.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
So it's all in the same court. Now.

Speaker 4 (21:23):
On another thing, I want to bring up, which I'm
probably throwing you off, that video that came out where
she says she just does whatever to get the job
and she acts like an actor. That's then I get
in and I infiltrate. Yes, that's oh my gosh. She
is terrible, she is nasty. She's an idiot for saying
that she is an idiot. What year was that?

Speaker 3 (21:41):
That was in twenty twenty two, so that was idio.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
Prior to her, she thought she was so smart, like,
she's clever like and then I get in and I
just do.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
Whatever I want. Well, let me get into that and anything.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
I could finish that video, all right, and here that's
next on my In a resurface interview from the twenty
twenty two Forbes Power Our Women's Summit, Lively said just
following direction as an actress was not fulfilling for her,
and that.

Speaker 4 (22:06):
She's received to be nasty on top of it that
filling for me, and that.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
She has received backlash for stepping in and trying to
be a part of costume design, writing and other aspects
of a project.

Speaker 2 (22:18):
How would you want to do that?

Speaker 4 (22:19):
I get paid twenty million dollars to act. I'm not
going to go above and beyond.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
I'm just going to act because at that point, it's
an ego. It's not about actually doing your job and
staying within the scope of your employee.

Speaker 4 (22:30):
I want to be bigger in Hollywood, right, you want
to be like, I'm a big executive producer on this
that now I'm going to do another movie?

Speaker 2 (22:37):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
She said she has had writers, producers, and directors welcome
that and invite that, but she's also had others who
resented her for stepping on toes. She also said she
hasn't always been upfront with her plans to step into
other parts of a project where she has where she
was just hired as the actress, and that she wouldn't
reveal that I actually need to have authorship in order

(22:59):
to feel for filled. Sometimes that might have felt like
a rug being pulled out from under, you know. And
she admits that, she says, I'll I'll just pretend like
I'm gonna look cute, and I'll just stand here on
this mark because I'm the actress and I'm just doing that.
But really her intent is she wants to be involved
in the writing and she wants to be involved in
the costume And all I could think about when I
watched that video was that is exactly what she did

(23:22):
with this movie. Her first step was she took over costumes,
which was not a great step. That is where they
should have immediately been like, you don't know what you're
doing with this movie. You need to get your hands
out of the cookie jar. This wardrobe is a disaster.
No one reading this book pictured this woman dressing like
this or looking like this, and that's really where she

(23:43):
should have been roped back in. But you know what,
people from this whole scenario from beginning to end, and
all the text messages and all the complaints and everything
I've read, it tells a story. And the story is
this is a woman and along with Ryan Reynolds, and
I've said this before or they are surrounded by yes people,
and that is the problem with them.

Speaker 3 (24:04):
There is no one like You're a no person, right,
you are?

Speaker 1 (24:08):
Like I would say when people are like, oh, you've
been on TV for a long time, but you really
haven't changed.

Speaker 3 (24:12):
I have. I can't because my husband tells.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
Me every day that I am not a star, that
I am not famous, that I am not special, that
I am a mom.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
I need to go make some chicken nuggets in the kitchen.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
You're a civilian. I am a civil person. I am
a regular person. He tells me that daily, and I
have remained humble.

Speaker 2 (24:32):
I'm the star.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
Yes, I know, you are the star. I got it.
But the problem with Blake Lively.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
And Ryan Reynolds is that everyone walks on eggshells around them,
and everyone is a yes person around them.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
Her attorneys are yes people.

Speaker 3 (24:44):
Yes.

Speaker 4 (24:44):
Her attorneys are like oh yeah, yeah, yeah, well we
got this, we got this, Okay, you know, give us
a blank check. Right, and then when those attorneys go
in public and they do the little uh you know,
press conference, and they say, we will fight this to
the end. No, we will fight this so long as
she keeps us and the until they those checks stop coming,
then we will not.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
Fight it anymore. And that's all that. That means.

Speaker 3 (25:05):
They don't really whether she's guilty or not. I mean
they should if she hires them, they should defend her obviously,
but there it's all about the money.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, yeah, they're getting paid regardless of whether she has
a great case or whether she has a crappy case.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
I mean, it makes no different exactly. You know how
much her bills are because you know they call all
like Lively and Reynolds are like constantly like here's another email,
here's this now I wanted to mend it.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
When can we do this?

Speaker 4 (25:33):
And you know they're just taking it's going to be
seven figures like big time.

Speaker 3 (25:38):
Oh yeah absolutely. But here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (25:42):
I don't think she wants to go to trials. So
how do they get out of this?

Speaker 4 (25:46):
Well, if if you say she has this ego, she
may not settle, but.

Speaker 1 (25:50):
She's already I have read and I'm sure it's true,
but allegedly she does not want Brian Friedman to depose her.
She wants if she has to be deposed, she wants
someone else. It doesn't work like that. Brian Friedman is
going to depose.

Speaker 3 (26:01):
Her, and let's talk about depositions really quickly.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
But her ego is going to be the death of
her if it's as you say, and as Kenny Rogers says,
he had no one to fold them, and he got
no one to hold them. Yeah, and she's got a fold.
But when your ego is there, you hold out maybe
just maybe maybe maybe I'll win, Maybe I'll win, and
then you don't.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
I just want to talk about just quickly, like depositions.
She does not want to be deposed.

Speaker 3 (26:27):
Well, explain what a deposition is, the basic structure of it.

Speaker 1 (26:29):
Well, okay, so basic structure would be Brian Friedman. He
can't wait to do Discovery. This man is like chomping
at the bank. He wants to do Discovery right now,
and he wants to He wants to depose everyone and
anyone that's on set that has anything to say. The actors,
Taylor Swift, Ryan Reynolds.

Speaker 3 (26:46):
I mean, this guy's chalking the.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Deposition, they sit down and they get to do Q
and A.

Speaker 4 (26:50):
They get asked all kinds of questions, right, and the
questions can be they don't have to just be about
direct evidence, because it could be a question that my
lead to evidence. So they can ask all kinds of
questions about her relationship with Taylor Swift. And then if
she says the wrong thing, then like she starts to
open up the door to certain text messages, then they

(27:12):
might be able to subpoena Taylor Swift's cell phone carriers
and blah blah blah. So it can get really bad.
And then in work comp when we do depositions, sometimes
like they'll claim like erectile dysfunction, right, And then you're
like that's good because now in the deposition I get
asked them about all their sex life. And then usually

(27:33):
people are like, I don't want to talk about this
really because you made a complaint, you filed and said
you had ed so I got to figure out, you know,
what gets you off and what doesn't and why it's
not happening. And I'm telling you I've seen people they
ask them really deep because then the person's like, forget it.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
Forget it, forget it, and they'll either drop it or
be quick to settle. Right.

Speaker 1 (27:50):
And also in a deposition there isn't a judge there
where your side can object. The only thing really that
you can object to is anything has to do with privilege.

Speaker 4 (27:58):
Well, you can object, you can you can object to
hear say and all the regular ones, but they still
have to answer the question. So you object in a
deposition to preserve it for when it goes to court
to be inadmissible. But so a lot of times when
we've done depositions, like their attorney will be like objection
and then the person's like thinking, oh, I don't have
to answer the question. Their attorney looks a him and goes, no,

(28:20):
you still got to answer the question. They're like what
They're like, no, that's just preserving my objection for court. Right,
So you can get really deep.

Speaker 1 (28:28):
I would want to be a fly on the wall
if Brian Friedman has the opportunity.

Speaker 4 (28:32):
And they might try to video it.

Speaker 3 (28:34):
That is true.

Speaker 1 (28:35):
It would be on camera, yes, absolutely, And I don't
know about media rules with depositions and recording it, but
knowing Brian Friedman and his concept of transparency, ye, it'll
be like live stream.

Speaker 3 (28:48):
On the website.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
But we're going to move on and we're going to
talk about a new case because this is a very
interesting case. A lot of people have been invested in this.
It is the Karen Reid case. Now Karen Reid is
going to go on trial again on April first, so

(29:10):
I wanted to do a quick just synopsis background. Her
first trial was a hung jury, so she is now
being retried and she goes a trial on April first.
So I know that there's going to be a media
storm around this trial and everybody's going to be invested
in it. So I wanted to take this time that
we can do kind of a background into the case,

(29:32):
the facts, where we're at, so we can all be
on the same page, so that when it start, the
trial starts April first, and we can follow it all.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
Right, So what are the charges? It's criminal, right, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
So John O'Keefe had been an officer with the Boston
Police Department for sixteen years when he died January twenty ninth.
On twenty twenty two, he had been dating Reid. This
is Karen Reid, and she was an equity analysis at
Fidelity Investments for two years. According to the Norfolk County
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lawley, troubles in the couple's relationship

(30:02):
appeared to intensify in the months before O'Keeffe's death, which
included during a New Year's trip to Aruba. Apparently, there's
text messages and voicemails that start to show that they
that their relationship was deteriorating.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Who are these people? Are they regular people?

Speaker 1 (30:18):
They're just regular people. But he's a he's a police officer.
And this is his girlfriend, Karen Reid. And I'll tell
you this case is. People are very invested in this case.
And I'll tell you why this. Let me go through
it in the way.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
What's the crime.

Speaker 3 (30:32):
I'm getting there.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
Just start with the crime.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
I'm just giving you a background of who the people are.

Speaker 1 (30:37):
He's an officer, this is the girlfriend. On January twenty
eighth and twenty twenty two, Reed's defense lawyer, David Yanetti
claims that the couple seem fine while they were out
at a bar in a Boston suburb. They're at out
at a bar with other current and former law enforcement officers.
After leaving the bar, Read later told first responders that
she had argued with O'Keeffe before dropping him off at

(30:59):
an after party at the home of Brian Albert, who
is a now retired Boston sergeant who had also been
at the bar. The next morning, Reed's lawyers have said
that she went out looking for her boyfriend.

Speaker 3 (31:12):
She couldn't find him. She wakes up at like four
in the morning, and she realizes he's not home.

Speaker 2 (31:16):
So he spent the night I know.

Speaker 3 (31:18):
No, he did not spend the night. He got dropped
off at a party. This is what she claims.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
Okay, Okay, she.

Speaker 1 (31:23):
Claims that she dropped him off at a party. They
went to a bar. They're inebriated, they're drinking, she drops
him off, she's driving. Clearly, she's drove him to a house.

Speaker 4 (31:35):
I'm already not believing this story. They went to a
party or a bar or whatever. Yes, I had a
bunch of drinks, her girlfriend and boyfriend, and then she
drops him off somewhere. They don't go home together, They
don't spend more time together.

Speaker 1 (31:46):
No, Apparently she drops him off at a home that
was having an after party and the home is owned
by a former police officer.

Speaker 2 (31:53):
Okay, and she doesn't go to the party no.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
She leaves and goes home, sure and passes out or whatever.
Then she wakes up at like four in the morning.

Speaker 4 (32:01):
He's already not believable.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
Okay, why can I tell what hydern I even got
through the facts the case?

Speaker 2 (32:06):
Yelty, Okay, go ahead, sorry.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Anyway, she wakes up, she realizes that she can't find him.
He never came home that morning. She she has some
friend that goes with her. They drive around, they go
back to the house, and she spots his body outside
of the home on the morning of January twenty ninth,
and then one of the women dialed nine to one
to one.

Speaker 3 (32:26):
Oh, Keith, this is.

Speaker 4 (32:27):
Okay, I know I got to ask these questions though,
So she gets her friends says, let's go look for
my boyfriend.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
Yes, okay.

Speaker 4 (32:34):
Why is she suspicious the boyfriend's missing because she text
him and he doesn't respond because he never came home,
so he didn't fall through whatever his routine was, and
he's missing.

Speaker 3 (32:42):
He's missing, so he's not there. So she gets up.
It's early in the morning.

Speaker 4 (32:45):
They drive I need to go get an alibi. So
she's like, hey, come with me to find my boyfriend.
He's on this lawn over there. Sorry, this is pretty obvious. Okay,
keep going. I don't know why I was ungury Okay,
go ahead, sorry you.

Speaker 2 (32:58):
Are okay, go ahead, Karen read.

Speaker 3 (33:00):
All right, So you got me all confused.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
She went and found him on the lawn or something.

Speaker 1 (33:06):
Yes, at like six am, they called nine to one
one the police calm, he's pronounced dead. They take him
to the hospital. He's pronounced dead at seven fifty am.
At the hospital, the medical examiner attributed his cause of
death to blunt force trauma to the head. Blunt force
trauma to.

Speaker 2 (33:22):
The head, trauma to the rest.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
Yeah, the head, Yes, it could be to like your
your chest, your Yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:31):
If she wants to kill him, she's gonna hit him
in the head.

Speaker 1 (33:33):
Okay, in hypothermia. So, Reid was charged with manslaughter, motor
vehicle homicide, and leaving the scene of a deadly crash.
The prosecution alleges that Reid backed her Lexus SUV into
O'Keefe outside of the home, causing a skull fracture and
brain bleed, and that she left him there to die.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
Yeah, as a prosecution, right, that's a different story.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
Basically, they got into a fight and she's aee breed
and he's a nee breed, and she's in the car
and she's pissed off and she backs over him and
then leaves him there. Okay, story, that's the prosecution story.
Even though Reid said she dropped O'Keefe off at Albert home,
the assistant DA said that no one at the after
party recalled seeing O'Keeffe inside.

Speaker 3 (34:14):
See.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
That was interesting to me because she claims that she
dropped him off at this house.

Speaker 3 (34:18):
There's all these people at a party.

Speaker 4 (34:19):
That was one of my first questions, except he kept
telling me not to ask questions. Was she drops off?
She claims to drop him off at a party where
there's all these witnesses. Ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
She was an idiot.

Speaker 4 (34:30):
She should have said I dropped him off, like on
the corner where he wanted to walk or something.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
Okay, But there's no witnesses.

Speaker 3 (34:37):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (34:37):
So this is where it gets moundy for me, because
I don't understand why if he went inside the house,
there's witnesses that can't confirm that he's ever inside this house.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
But of course he didn't go inside the house.

Speaker 3 (34:49):
You don't think he ever went sie?

Speaker 4 (34:50):
Sorry, newsflash, No, No, she dumped him on the lawn
at what time, I don't know, after she ran him over.
Whatever she did, she puts him on the lawn at
the party. The party's probably over by now, or she
put them on the lawn hoping someone from the party
would see him. They clearly didn't. And then she grabbed
her friend as a witness so the friend could testify like, oh,

(35:10):
I don't know, we were driving around, we found them,
she didn't touch them.

Speaker 3 (35:14):
Okay, let's get back to the facts.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
I like, how you figure this, figured this whole case
out before you could.

Speaker 2 (35:20):
Get through it, and I need to be on the jury.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
Yeah they was, Yeah, okay, they claim. So people in
this home claim that they saw the suv pull up
to the house then leave, and they assumed no one
from the vehicle was joining them. But vehicle data from
Reed's suv showed that at twelve forty five am, while
outside of Albert this is the other police officer at home,

(35:43):
the Lexus Trevel traveled backward for sixty feet at twenty
four miles per hour.

Speaker 3 (35:47):
This is what the prosecution played.

Speaker 4 (35:49):
Don't realize your car documents a lot. It's called an
OBD two sensor. It's not surprised her that you know,
regulated and all cars have them.

Speaker 3 (36:01):
Does my car know how many times I've been through
McDonald's drive through? That's what I want to know.

Speaker 4 (36:04):
Yes, it senses the egg mcmuffins and it reports it
to me. I have an app, no really, that has
an OBD two sensor and it documents. So if you
hard breaks air bags and a miles per hour, it
can I don't think GPS so much. That might be some,
but that's not required.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
Okay, let me go on with the prosecution side, and
then we'll get into the defense. The SUV's tail light
was broken, and pieces of the light from the tail
light were later found outside of Albert's home.

Speaker 4 (36:36):
And tail lights can be very distinctive, like sometimes they
have veins on them and stuff, so they can really
know which tail light, like which car goes to.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Okay, again, this is just the prosecution, so we're going
to get to the defense. The forensic testing showed that
O'Keefe's hair was found on the vehicle's bumper and his
DNA was found on the tail light. Investigators also found
the remnants of a cocktail that appears to have been
build on the bumper.

Speaker 3 (37:01):
The prosecutor said.

Speaker 2 (37:02):
She's built her cocktail. Oh or it probably is, huh.

Speaker 1 (37:05):
O'Keefe was captured on video leaving the bar with a
cocktail in his hand, and bits of what the prosecutor
described as a drinking glass were found in the SUV's bumper.

Speaker 3 (37:14):
All right, let's get to the defense. The defense. Yes,
there's always a defense. There was a hung jury. There's
clearly a defense.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Reed's lawyers developed a theory that Karen Reid did drop
off O'Keefe at the party, after which O'Keefe got into
a fight with someone at the party and was attacked
by the family dog. Because apparently there were scratches all
over his arms that aren't consistent with someone running over him.
Reed's defense brought in experts to say that O'Keefe's wounds
were consistent with a dog bite from a dog the

(37:46):
size of the one that lived at that home, who
had a history of biting people. And even if the
police didn't engage in a cover up, that's what they claimed.
They claimed because these people at this home were all
a lot of them were officers. It was at an
officer's home that this was a police cover up, that
maybe he got inside the house, he was there. Everybody's drunk.
He's drunk, he gets in a fight. He has blunt

(38:06):
forced trauma to the head because he got in a
fight with somebody.

Speaker 2 (38:08):
Theory as someone else beat him up and killed them.
Their theory.

Speaker 4 (38:12):
Yeah, and they all wanted to cover up because they're men.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
They're all conspiring because they're protecting each other. And that's
her theory.

Speaker 4 (38:21):
Yeah, that on this phone doesn't have a ring camera
or something. Man, that would solve a lot of problems.

Speaker 3 (38:27):
Right at the house. Yeah, aren't there neighbors that have
a ring camera?

Speaker 1 (38:30):
Like someone's got we've got cameras on this house, Like
someone's got to have cameras somewhere these days. So this
is interesting. So the lead investigator in this case texted
inappropriate comments about Karen Reid to others, to like his

(38:51):
high school friends, his sister. Three different prosecution witnesses testified
that at crucial times, including the night of the killing,
their calls back and forth to each other were inadvertent
butt dials. So basically, there's these calls between these officers
the night that this happens. But they're saying, oh, these
were just accidental calls, like They weren't conspiring. They weren't saying,

(39:13):
you know, hey, we've got to come up with this
story to say that you know, she ran over him.

Speaker 3 (39:18):
They don't have the content of the call. They just
have phone logs.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
They just have phone logs, and like one calls a
couple seconds, the other one's like twenty two seconds. So
you know, that's the defense saying that they're the.

Speaker 4 (39:29):
Calls are probably did you hear that car crash? It's
sound like she ran over someone. What's that tail light
over there?

Speaker 3 (39:34):
All right?

Speaker 1 (39:35):
So the lead investigator in this case, he's state Trooper
Michael Proctor. He's a Massachusetts State police trooper that led
the investigation in this car case. No, his name's Proctor,
Michael Proctor. He's the lead investigator. Oh okay, he's a trooper,
a police State police trooper. Karen Reid's lawyers said that
Proctor's investigation was biased, and they accused him of failing

(39:57):
to pursue other potential suspects and not disclosing his relationship
with the family, the Albert family, which is where this occurred.
So he has a relationship with the guy that owns right,
he's the lead investigator.

Speaker 2 (40:10):
That's a fair that's a fair concern. Right.

Speaker 1 (40:12):
So the defense is saying, look, not only is he's
sending inappropriate you know text that have to do with
this case. He called her a like a whack job,
and he said he texted.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
Like sure, he called her all kinds of things.

Speaker 3 (40:23):
Yeah, And he also said like when he was.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
Going through a killer called her that.

Speaker 3 (40:28):
Well, he called her a whack job.

Speaker 1 (40:30):
He also made reference to like going through her phone
and saying, oh, I couldn't find any news.

Speaker 4 (40:34):
Yeah, you know, I agree with the arguments biased and
it's a conflict of interests that doesn't negate my findings.
She's guilty.

Speaker 3 (40:44):
You're so convinced she's.

Speaker 4 (40:45):
Gold, right, they definitely you definitely need someone more neutral, right,
And that's a shame, Okay.

Speaker 1 (40:51):
So in her first trial, So during this is Michael
Proctor again.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
Wait when was the first trial?

Speaker 3 (40:56):
So this trial, her.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
First trial took place in twenty twenty four, So Michael
Proctor again, he is the lead investigator. And during his
testimony during the trial, Proctor read through a text conversation
that he had with a group of friends he'd known
since childhood on the evening of January twenty ninth, which
is the day O'Keefe died. After some discussion, a friend
wrote back, in this text, this group text, I'm sure

(41:19):
the owner of the house will receive some shit. Proctor responded, Nope,
the homeowner is a Boston cop too, So he's saying
in this text message, this guy doesn't anything to worry
about because he's a Boston cop, basically implying that he's
going to be protected.

Speaker 3 (41:36):
So this came out during the trial.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
He also told his friend that read waffled O'Keefe waffled.
I guess that means just is that like literal? Like
it looked like a waffle.

Speaker 3 (41:49):
I don't know what mean.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
That's what he said.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
Verb it is now waffle is a verb? He waffled,
or she waffled.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
O'Keefe's body, who was banged up and he saw it
at the hospital. When a friend asked, is she hot?
At least, Proctor replied, from all accounts, he didn't do
anything wrong. She's a whack job.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
Then spelled out a vulgar word for a woman, which
we can all guess what that vulgar word is. It
starts with the sea, ends in a cat. Yes, cat,
I love that your micros.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
Read's attorney objected and said, these are your words, and
then the judge said, these are your words, Trooper Proctor,
and he had him say the C word out loud,
which it's not cat, it's the cun t word. Proctor continued,
She's a babe weird fall River accent, though then added
a disparaging comment about her rear. So clearly this is

(42:47):
the lead investigator. He's making He's there's these text messages
where he's completely inappropriate. He's talking about how because the
guy who owned the house where this where this death occurred,
that he won't be in any trouble because he's a
Boston police officer. So basically that's enough for it. Now
this guy has to go to these disciplinary hearings. Yeah,

(43:08):
and he's removed from the case. He's been to two
disciplinary hearings. He has another hearing on March thirteenth, so
we'll see what happened.

Speaker 4 (43:14):
A quick question, so, as a hung jury, do we
know how many voted or how they casted theirs?

Speaker 1 (43:21):
I don't know, But what came out later was that
the jury was unanimous on two of the counts, but
that was not made public, and I don't think the
judge do that. So what what her defense is trying
to do now currently is to get those two charges
dismissed because during that original trial, he's saying, throw those
two charges out because the jury was unanimous that she

(43:44):
wasn't guilty on those two charges.

Speaker 4 (43:45):
When they have a second trial, because there's a little
bit of tainting on this investigation, I do agree that
it's unfortunately biased. Whether it affected the investigation or not,
it's still not a good look. Do they have a
new investigator, do they do anything different or do they
present the same evidence?

Speaker 1 (44:05):
I don't know, but that is a very good question,
and that is something that we'll have to talk about
again when this trial starts April first.

Speaker 3 (44:10):
How they're going to proceed for.

Speaker 4 (44:12):
I always think I don't I don't have the experience,
but I certainly a second trial after Hungary is always
a little weird because they do it's a different delivery. Yeah, well,
when you almost should just get a new jury and
just have them watch the trial the original trials. They've
the can come up with a different response. I don't know,
because sometimes it happens. I've read in cases they can't

(44:32):
recall the top of my head. But the second case, well,
the second trial will not have this evidence. Oh it
was the Menendez one.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (44:40):
It was like, I G that was you that I
was talking about that I was trying to say.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
I was like, yes, the second trial and Mendez was
completely different.

Speaker 3 (44:49):
It's terrible, it's completely different.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
Yeah, they didn't allow like ninety percent of the evidence
or the testimony to add to do with the alleged
abuse and all that.

Speaker 2 (44:58):
Well that's one reason why.

Speaker 4 (45:00):
Well, yeah, that's the risk you take with the jury.
But with a judge, you'll never have a.

Speaker 3 (45:05):
Hung jury, hung judge, no, you won't. Not to be
taken out of context, right exactly, Okay, all right.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
So on June twenty eighth, twenty twenty four, this is
during her first trial, juror sent a note to Judge
Canoni telling her that they are deadlocked. The judge responded
that she did not believe that they had deliberated long
enough and asked them to continue trying to reach a verdict. Then,
on July first, twenty twenty four, the jury sent another
note to the judge for a second time, telling her
that they are unable to reach an unanimous verdict. The

(45:34):
jury said they are deeply divided, and the judge asked
them to return for one final round of deliberations. Later
in the day, a mistrial was declared due to the
hung jury. Hours after the mistrial was declared, Massachusetts State
Police announced that Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in
the case, has been relieved of duty.

Speaker 3 (45:54):
So he's removed.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
Yeah, now we're going to.

Speaker 3 (45:57):
Get to the retrials.

Speaker 1 (45:57):
So the state's top court ruled that Karen Reid can
be retried on all the same charges and the death
of her Boston Police officer boyfriend. Prosecutors have sought to
retry Read this year on charges of second degree murder, manslaughter,
and leaving the scene of a crime. So Karen Reid's attorney,
Martin Weinberg, argued that five jurors later said that they

(46:18):
were deadlocked only on the manslaughter count and that they
had unanimously agreed in the jury room that she was
not guilty of the charges of second degree murder and
leaving the scene, but they had they had never divulged
that to the judge.

Speaker 4 (46:31):
I don't have the experience, but the whole hung jury
and a second trial, second jury, it just never sat right.
With me, it's like and then when the judges and
I get that they they're not doing the wrong thing.
But when they're like, no, go back in there and
figure it out, because it's kind of like, oh, you're honor.
Six of us, you know, think he's guilty and the
other six don't. Oh well, go back in there until

(46:52):
you change your minds. I mean, it's it's just and
then you get a second jury. And then in this case,
I get the argument which is like, look, you know,
a jury of his peers, her peers has found out
that she's not guilty on these two things, so they
shouldn't be retried. I totally get that, But then you're
can have a different jury talking about different It's just
so flippant, and I.

Speaker 2 (47:12):
Don't like that. But I know that, you know, I
don't know what the answer would be.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
So so Weinberg argued and the appeal that trying her
again would amount to double jeopardy and urge the court
to allow on evidentiary hearing where jurors could be asked
whether they had reached final not guilty verdicts on any.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
Of the charges.

Speaker 4 (47:30):
That's right, double jeopardy because if they're found if a
jury found them not guilty, found her not guilty on
two things, and they say, okay, yeah, but we're gonna
go have a net. We're going to charge you again, right,
We're going to prosecute you again, right on the same
because double jeopardy is on the same set of facts
and the same crime, not just the same crime, the

(47:51):
same set of facts. And in this case there are
no new real facts as to the alleged crime.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
So she's going to go back to trial again on ape. Well, first,
I don't think they've determined whether she's going to be
retried on all three charges or just on the one.
I think that that is still the one being aslaughter,
the one being manslaughter.

Speaker 4 (48:09):
I find out in due time. Yes, how old is
Karen read by the way, how old are these people?

Speaker 3 (48:13):
Well? Do you want to know if she's hot and what?

Speaker 4 (48:17):
But I also I just want to know what they're like, like,
do they have kids? How loo they've been together?

Speaker 2 (48:21):
Is this a crime of passion?

Speaker 1 (48:23):
It is? Right, Well, it's a crime of alcohol too. Well,
that's what happens when everybody.

Speaker 4 (48:29):
I don't know if it's crime passion, but it was
between two lovers, two lovers.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
Yes, Okay, so she's going to go back to trial
April first. But the judges ruled that she's going to
go back and they're going to deliberate all three charges,
even though there was evidence that jurors came forward and
said that there was a unanimous.

Speaker 4 (48:46):
Argument that double jeopardy was overridden by the judge. Yeah, so,
which is interesting. That's interesting. So what we learn, we
think we learn is it's all or nothing. If we're
going to retry the case, We're going to try it all.
But it would go the other way around too. They
found her guilty on certain charges and not guilty and
hung on other charges. Again, they would throw it all

(49:06):
out and have to start all over.

Speaker 1 (49:08):
The problem is is that I don't think the jury
that might get appealed.

Speaker 3 (49:11):
The jury did not.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
I guess the jury wasn't forthcoming and what they were
unanimous on. They just basically were like, we just can't
come to a decision on all three. And then later
it was determined that they did actually come to a
decision on two. But I guess at this point in time,
it doesn't retroactively apply, and she has to be retried
on all three counts again starting April first, which we

(49:36):
will follow, So make sure that you continue to listen
to the podcast because we're going to follow the Karen
Reid trial, which I think will be really interesting.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
Question.

Speaker 4 (49:43):
Yes, during all this time, is she in custody or
is she out on bail?

Speaker 2 (49:47):
That's what I want to know.

Speaker 3 (49:48):
Okay, So she's out.

Speaker 4 (49:49):
On bail, okay.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
And they were dating for two years and she is
forty four, So those are your and you can google
an image of her so that you can see what
she looks like. All right, So there you go. That's
a little brief. I know that if a lot of
you followed the care and read trial, I know that
there was a lot more involved. There were like seventy
witnesses or something.

Speaker 4 (50:10):
I just looked her up guilty, Okay.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
So I understand that there's a lot more details. However,
we wanted to do a brief overview just so that
we could all kind of be on the same page,
that we all have a basic understanding of what happened
and where we're at, so that we can follow this
starting on April first. So again, thank you guys so
much for all the amazing feedback. So many of you
have reached out and said that you enjoy listening. Also,

(50:34):
you find Shane funny. I appreciate that Shane appreciates that
I do all the work and Shane is the sidekick
that asked the questions. But a lot of you say
that you enjoy it because he asked the questions that
you are thinking. So we appreciate the positive feedback. And
just to let you know, we're going to release episodes
every two weeks, so that is the plan going forward.

(50:55):
So again, thank you so much for listening and we
will see you next time.

Speaker 4 (50:58):
Thank you bye people.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
A