June 19, 2025 • 44 mins
In this conversation, Ryan interviews Aidan Kearney, known as Turtleboy, about the controversial case of Karen Read and John O'Keefe. Turtleboy discusses how he became involved in the case, the dynamics of the trial, and the implications of police corruption. He shares insights into the innocence of Karen Read, the challenges faced during the trial, and the aftermath of the case, including his own legal troubles and future plans. It's a Numbers Game is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Read the Latest from Turtleboy HERE
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome back to a Numbers Game podcast with Brian Gerdowski.
Thank you for coming on this Thursday episode. I am
on my way to Kansas. I will be the keynote
speaker this weekend at the Bob Dole Dinner for the
Kansas Republican Party, which is very exciting.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I'm very nervous.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I wanted to do a good job and pay tribute
to the legacy of Bob Doll to talk about the future,
but this is It's very nerve wracking, and I am
I'm honored to be invited, but at the same time,
I'm not exactly sure why I was invited, but I'm excited.
Funny story, Bob Dole running for president nineteen ninety six
was the first time I realized that there was an
(00:40):
election for president. I was nine years old in school
and we had to learn about it. And I remember
going learning at all the candidates running and going home
to my parents and saying, I learned about this election,
and I want you to vote for Ross Pro.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
They didn't. They voted it for Dole.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
But I think I might open my speech with saying
that I was a Pro fan at the age of nine. Anyway,
hopefully goes well, and I'll tell you how it goes
next week and they don't boom me as part of
Bob Dole's revenge for being a you thrust for pro supporter.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Today's gonna be a unique episode.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I have some numbers I want to throw you guys out,
but I'm going to have a non political story and
interview that I think you guys would find very fascinating.
So first on the political stuff across the pond over
the UK, the Labor government finally did at about face
this week and did a proper investigation into grooming gangs. Now,
for those who don't know, I appeared on the BBC
(01:35):
almost teny years ago saying that there was a it
was a conversation on Trump and you know, always bringing
up the Muslim band and they were telling how racist
it was and all the rest of this and that
there's no you know, Muslim terrorism, and I said, yes
there is, like you have Muslim grooming gangs from Pakistani
men raping white girls in northern England. The host of
(01:56):
the show at the BBC show, they kicked me off
the air, said it wasn't happening, that what I said
wasn't true, and that apologized to the audience that I
had offended listeners for what I had said. That was
almost ten years ago. Well, Baroness Luis Casey has released
a two hundred page report and found that the mere
(02:18):
Pori Pakistanis from the Kashmir Providence were extremely well overrepresented
in all data responsible for grooming gangs in the UK.
You might think this is one little area of Pakistan
and how many people could it be. There are about
one million Poori Pakistanis living in the UK. It is
the biggest predominant group that come to the UK from Pakistan. Now,
(02:41):
in many of the cases, the ethnicity of the perpetrators
never taken because officials feared that they will be labeled
as racists. But in areas that it was taken. In
three hundred and twenty three cases known as Operations stove Wood,
sixty two percent of all groomers were Pakistani, despite the
fact that they make up only three percent of the population.
(03:03):
Eve At Cooper, the Home Secretary basically our version of DHS,
put out a list of recommendations. It includes ensuring adults
who engage impenetrative sex with children under sixteen based the
most serious charge of rape instead of lesser charges. They're
going to launch a new national Criminal Operation to oversee
the National Crime Agency and tackle grooming gangs. They're going
(03:24):
to review the criminal convictions of child sexual exploitation and
quashing any convictions where the government finds that the victims
were criminalized rather than be protected. They're going to make
a collection of ethnicity and national data for all suspects
of child's abuse. They're going to commission research into driven
into drivers for group based child sexual exploitation, including the
(03:46):
role of social media and cultural factors. And they're going
to bring a more rigorous standard for the licensing and
regulation of taxi drivers because many of these Pakistani men
were taxi drivers luring young girls into their taxis saying
you want to come have alcohol or you know, drugs,
which in many poor areas of Northern England was very
enticing to fourteen year old girls to have alcohol. Remember,
(04:08):
the drinking ages are a lot lower and the culture
aroun drinking is a lot more open. They would say yes,
they would drug them, get them drunk, then drug them
and then rape them in a group activity. Okay, some
of these ideas are very good and I'm going to
give credit to the Labor government on at least going
this far, considering they've been completely opposed to it for decades,
(04:29):
certainly since my comments came out in twenty ten. They've
been notoriously against method because it's made just because they
have been against it for years. But what the UK
government needs to do is repeal most or parts of
the Equality Act of twenty ten. This was a law
passed by the previous Labor Labor government from years ago,
(04:51):
and it prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race,
in employment and service delivery. Police officers, as public servants
are subject to this law and discriminatory behavior can be
deemed as gross misconduct. So police officers were purposely not
investigating cases of child rape child sexual exploitation when the
(05:16):
victim was going with biological evidence in some cases saying
you can look at me, I have been raped multiple times.
They refuse to do it because if the grooming gang
said this police officer is clearly racist, there would be
overwhelming push to have that police officer dismissed from their
(05:36):
jobs and that they are the problem, not that the
criminals were the problem. And this law is the lynchpin
behind which all of these police officers were unable to
really do their job in a profound way.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
JK.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Rowling was tweeting like, we need to change the culture
of protecting girls. Yes, but you need to undo the law,
you crazy liberal like that.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
That is what it is.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
I know, like the idea of the Quality Act sounds wonderful,
but the law is creating all these circumstances. And one
last thing, maybe don't bring in a million people from
a culture that views women as lesser than Maybe don't
bring in a million people from a culture that thinks
child's sexual activities perfectly normal, that women can be beat
(06:22):
that you know, you could have that women are like,
you know, furniture or animals. That is the problem. You
are importing a culture that for many people, especially when
it is ghetto wise, because you're bringing in so many people,
they they push, they bring that culture with them, They
bring that culture to the UK and they view a
(06:43):
lot of things like this is a prize is to
sit there and rape a young British woman. So good
for the UK government for doing something, but it is
outrageous it took this long and hopefully if there's someone
in the entire UK government level with a brain from
either the Reform or Tory party. They will talk about
repealing the Equalities Act if they haven't already.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
I don't. Maybe they did, but I don't think they did.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Okay, that's your number is for this podcast on the
political side.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Now, I want to.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Get to a passion interest of mine, which is true crime.
I know there's a million podcasts on true crime and
books and whatever, and we'll get back to politics on Monday.
This is not going to become a true crime podcast,
but this episode is special.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
I am a true crime junkie.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I've listened to podcasts, I've read books like A Stranger
Beside Me, which is one of my favorite books, documentaries,
you name it, like if I'm ap at two o'clock
in the morning, I'm researching who killed John bin a Ramsay.
This is who I am. It is a sickness. It
is a mental illness. I understand it. But I love
true crime. So the most talked about trial of the
year just ended, and it is the Karen Reid trial,
(07:49):
and it's about the death of John O'Keefe. So most
of you have probably maybe heard about this trial or
hear parts of it. I wanted to give you the
brief facts before going into the interview because it is interesting.
On the night of January twenty eighth, twenty twenty two,
Karen Reid and John o'keef, who were dating John A. Keeps,
a forty six year old Boston police officer, where they
(08:09):
were out drinking with friends in Canton, Massachusetts, about twenty
miles south of Boston. After visiting bars, they were invited
to an after party at the home of Brian Albert,
another Boston police officer. There was a terrible snowstorm outside
but they but John insisted on going to this after party,
so they drove to the house. Allegedly, there they saw
no lights on in the house. John o'keef got out
(08:31):
of the car went to the house around twelve thirty
am to see if there were people inside. According to prosecutors,
this is when allegedly Karen Reid, who was intoxicated and
angry at him, backed up into him, hitting him and
leaving him to die in the snow. John o'keef's body
was discovered at six am. I think he might have
been a lie, but he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards.
(08:52):
Karen Reid was arrested on February first, twenty twenty two,
and charged with second degree murder man saw her while
operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene
of a collision causing injury or death. She pleaded not
guilty to all charges. Her defense team insisted that this
was actually a cover up, insinuating that the police were
actually a fall for his death. Witnesses said that Karen
(09:15):
she did come back to the scene of crime a
few hours later, I guess when she had sobered up,
And they said that she said that she had hit him,
and she had left the scene and left him to die.
And when she had left the scene of twelve thirty,
she did leave him a lot of angry voicemails because
he did not come back to see to say like, oh,
you can come in, or I'm good or whatever. So
Reid's defense team Karen Read's defense team, led by attorney
(09:38):
David Yanetti and Alan Jackson. They argue that O'Keefe was
killed inside the Albertone, possibly beaten an attacked by a dog,
and dumped outside, with Reed being framed as the cover
up for the crime. Their theory was that O'Keefe got
out of the car went inside the house, a fight
ensued with someone inside the house, either Brian Albert or
(09:59):
his other Colin Albert, or Brian Higgins, a federal agent
who was also the party someone fought with him is
the point they pointed to o'keef's arm injuries, though the
defense did saying that saying because of a witness, an
expert witness, doctor Marie Russell, they suggested that his injuries
were not with a car, but they were with dog bites,
(10:22):
and the family inside the house had a dog at
the time, they had a German shepherd. They said these
dog bites at the home were showing that there must
have been a fight and the dog got involved, which
a German shepherd would if their owner was fighting. Incidentally,
between the time of the attack and the trial, the
(10:43):
very first trial of Karen Reid, the dog was re
homed in that time, so they could never do a
investigation where they looked into the dog. A lot of
things that were inside that house allegedly went missing or destroyed.
There were outside videotapes from across the street that never
showed up. There was phones that were destroyed. Afterwards. At
(11:07):
two twenty seven am, Jennifer McCabe, who was married to
mister McCabe. She looked in her Google searches on her
phone has a long to die in cold, suggesting that
there was some fore knowledge of mister O'Keefe's condition, of
John o keep's condition before the body was found. McCabe
claimed that it was searched at six am, six twenty
(11:28):
am when Karen was there at the house looking for him,
but it was it was to twenty seven am. They
also said that there was key evidence, the key evidence
of the whole trial was this broken tail light that
Karen Read's car allegedly had. This broken tail light found
at the scene, but it was found days later underneath
all the snow. They they claimed the defense claimed it
(11:49):
was actually planted there, and it was not. It wasn't
like that she hit him, broke the tail light and
then fled. That actually was planted there a few days
later by people within that Canton PD Boston PD universe
trying to protect the mccabes well. On Wednesday, June eighteenth,
(12:09):
after four days of deliberation in the second trial, the
first trial was on jury. In this second trial, the
jury acquitted Karen Read of all major charges, finding her
only guilty of driving under the influence, which basically I
mean Karen did say she was drinking right beforehand, so
it's not shocking. But all the major things of the
murder in the second degree, fleeing the scene of a crime,
(12:31):
all that she was declared that she was not guilty.
This case has deeply divided communities across the country who
feel that Ree was either innocent and wrongfully framed by
a power hungry and corrupt police department, or that they
felt she murdered her boyfriend and that she was a
cold hearted, crazy woman. And then there are other people
feel like she was overcharged. Maybe she hit him, but
(12:53):
it should have been a manslaughter charge and not a
homicide in the second degree. Remember the prosecution, and they
didn't just say, oh, they probably hit her. They went
for the full juggular. They went for the full She
intentionally hit him. It wasn't an accident. She meant to
hit him. She did hit him, and then she fled
in her drunken state. That's what they accused her of.
(13:14):
It's a very very severe charge. In the middle of
his whole trial, Karen Reid became this lightning rod of
controversy and one man was behind the entire ground swell,
grassroots effort to free her. And his name is Aiden Carney,
otherwise known as turtle Boy. Aiden also has become a
(13:35):
lightning plot of controversy. He was charged with witness tampering
or sorry, witness intimidation. Rather, he said he said that
was an effort to smear him. He's fighting those charges,
but hate him are love him. He created a widespread
effort to free Camra Read and he was successful in
doing that. He created a movement from people all over
that region and all over the country. They responded to
(13:57):
what he was doing. He is coming on this podcast
next the first time after the Karen retrial. He's going
to give a full interview. I'm so excited. Please stay
tuned and we'll be back with Turtle Boy. With me
on today's podcast is Aimed Cardney. He is otherwise known
as turtle Boy. Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Aiden.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
My first question to you is how did you first
hear about Karen's story and what made you throw yourself
fully into it, like it's been a big part of
your life last few years.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Yeah, so, I know it was in the news when
John first died I typically write about stories like that when,
especially when the police are killed, it's you know, content,
people are interested in death of a police officer. When
I saw that it appeared to be an accident though,
which just wasn't a very interesting story. Quite frankly, it
was a tragic story. But then a year and a
(14:51):
half later, when court filing started coming out and you
started reading more and more about this, and it turned
out that I was sitting on the story of the century,
I realized that this deserved a much deeper dive when
I realized that, wait a minute, a Boston police officer.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
At his house.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
Apparently killed another Boston police officer with an ATF agent
and other people, and they covered it up after the fact,
and the state police assisted them in that. Like I'm
sitting on the story of the century here, and you know,
I just started writing about it, and here we are,
so you.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Know, at the center of this case is a real tragedy.
I mean, John'll keep his dead and his family and
his friends miss him terribly. Karen is a lightning rod, right.
Either she is a victim of the biggest cover up
by the state and local police, or she's a crazy,
jilted woman who did this, either intentionally or by an accent.
(15:48):
What made people's intensity that drew her towards her so
heavy like this?
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Why did?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I mean, there's a lot of cases of people who
are accused of crimes, but something about Karen made her
people appealed to her.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Do you have an opinion about that?
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, because she's so transparently innocent. I mean, that's all
of this. It's just so obvious.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
I don't defend people who are charged with murdering police.
I'm usually on the other side of that issue. Usually
I'm very pro police, and I still am. And I've
done a lot of articles exposing the opposite of this,
the weakness of our court system that allows cop killers
to be free in the first place. The profile of
a cop killer is always the same. It's somebody with
(16:32):
like one hundred and twenty five priors almost always, and
so this.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Didn't fit that description.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
So like, for me to go out and defend somebody
who's accused of murdering a cop, you better believe there's
going to be overwhelming evidence to back that up. I
never would have jumped into this otherwise. It's just so
obvious the amount of evidence that she had in her
legal team. Ad showing that not only was she factually innocent,
but that other people were involved in murdering him.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Made me realize, Oh, this is I have to get
involved here. I have to do something. I have to
write about this.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
And you know, the story had been going on for
about a year and a half, but it wasn't getting
any media coverage.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
And that's what I'm good at.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
You know, if I've been doing what I do now
for over a decade and I just started writing about it,
and I had a pretty large platform, and it just
grew and grew and grew from there.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
When you think back to the trial, obviously, I mean
she was up against like a goliath, right, I mean
at the very beginning there was it did not I
mean I watched the documentaries of she was really up
against it and her legal defense was like it was
literally David and Goliath. How they turned the corner? Looking back,
When did you think to yourself, they're going to find
(17:43):
her innocent, Like they've done enough at this point where
the defense has actually done their job, Like, was there
a point or did you always think like she was
going to be found in this sent there's no question, Well, I.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
Always felt she was going to be found innocent, no question,
until I did after the first trial, after the first
ended in a mistrial, I was convinced they were going
to deliver it for about five seconds, and because it
was just so obvious that she was innocent and these
people are all so shady and they're all lying, it
was just like, Okay, obviously they're going to quit her.
And then when they didn't and they came back hung,
(18:14):
I did what's called a journalism.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I went and found jurors.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
The journalist was impounded, so you couldn't just find these
people on their own, but I asked around. I got names,
I got emails, and I started reaching out to them,
and I got this guy Ronnie to come on.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
And Ronnie, as painful as it is to listen to
him and.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
His explanation of what was happening in that jury room,
even though it's insanity the things that they were talking about,
it was still really important to hear because he was
Basically what he said was, we didn't pay any attention
to the conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
We thought that was a distractor.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
We were focused on the data, the textream data from
the car, the fact that she was the one that
dropped them off there that she was drunk blah blah
blah blah, and that enabled Karen Reid's defense team to
read My interview with Ronnie enabled the Karen Reid team
to readjust their strategy and focus less on the conspiracy.
You didn't get that much in the second trial, and
(19:09):
more on John wasn't hit by a car, there was
no collision.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
If there was no collision, then.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Karen Reid didn't do it, and it's not their job
to figure out who did.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Quite frankly right, and they blew that did so?
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Do you so?
Speaker 1 (19:23):
Like they didn't think about the dog bites or already
think that dog bite They thought that was a distraction.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Yeah, that's one of the things that Ronnie told me that,
like the dog thing was a distraction. That these are
all big distractions to take away from the fact that
she ran him over with the car. I mean, it
was it was painful to interview him, but as as
painful as that was, like, that's journalism, that's finding out
from these people who were in the room, what happened.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
What did you guys discuss and no one else had
that scoop?
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Wow, that's crazy. I didn't. Okay, I missed that story
that they thought that all.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Of this was was so they thought that even what
about the text from the cop talking about how she is,
how she looked, and were there any nudes or they
thought that was they thought that was abstraction.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Their basic takeaway with that was, Yeah, he's a scumbag,
he's not a good person, but it doesn't change the
fact that she had him with the car like that
was their takeaway, and that he got carried away because
he was so upset with this woman for killing John
O'Keefe that it was almost like understandable that he would
vent like this on his private cell phone.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
What about what about the Okay, so I'm not from
Boston and from New York, but I do have relatives
from Lynn, Massachusetts. Lynn Lynn said, what is the feeling about?
But you hear people from that area talk about that
the police are corrupt? Why is that feeling palpable in
(20:46):
that area?
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Uh? You know, I mean, just look at how easy
this was.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
I Mean, the issue wasn't just we all know Michael
Proctor was a corrupt scumbag who's been fired, right, But
the issue is that Michael Proctor was protected that Michael.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
Procter knew the mcalvert, McCabe's and the Alberts prior to this.
He lied about it.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
He was so obviously lying on reports or whatever. And
you know, I used to be a high school teacher.
If another teacher was inappropriate with a student, we wouldn't
back them up. The union would sell you down the river,
like no one would have your back if you behave
inappropriately like that. But with police, it's different. It's like,
no matter what, they're gonna have your back. They just
(21:29):
and I understand it. I understand that, Like in twenty
twenty with the Black Lives Matter riots or whatever, it
was like us against the world mentality, they're attacking us.
We got to stick together and that mentality. Because of that,
they do stick together to a fault, you know, to
a fault like I support the police, but not corrupt
police and not the police in this situation. And you know,
(21:50):
I do talk to a lot of cops about this
who are like, you know, they completely agree with me
that Karen ree was framed, that she didn't do it,
but they remained silent.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
What is okay?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
So that you became a lightning rod as well, which
is very rare for somebody who started. I mean, you
did start a movement. I don't know if Karen would
have had what she had without you, like her conviction.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Without you.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
You really did change the course of this woman's life
and this case. But you became a lightning rod. Is
there anything that happened during the course's trial you personally
regret on your part or that? Because that got very heated.
I read some of the things that people were saying
about each other. Is there anything you feel like maybe
I went over the line, or maybe I didn't go
(22:32):
over line enough or anything.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Well, you know, I went to jail.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
I was arrested and charged and charged with god knows
how many counts of felony witness intimidation. But the things
that I did to get charged with that are not criminal.
They're only criminal in Massachusetts if it's if they interpret
the law a certain way. Like for instance, I went
up to Jennifer McCabe at her kid's lacrosse game, right
(22:55):
because it's the only place I could find her. I
knew her kid was playing across that day, so I
went to her game, and Bill and I took my
camera out and went up to her and I said, Jennifer,
why did you google how wanted Diane Cold?
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Why did you do that at two twenty seven? Why
did you do that?
Speaker 4 (23:08):
And it turned it to a scene and Matt McKay
pushed me, and you know, I got I left the
stadium on my own accord, and I got charged with
two counts of felony witnessed intimidation for that. That's what
used to be called journalism, like going up to people,
asking them the tough questions, getting in their face, not
taking no for an answer. But in Massachusetts, our statue
(23:30):
witness intimidation statue says that you cannot cause emotional, physical,
or financial harm to witnesses. Every other state it's physical.
I understand the need to say that. You can't threaten
to break someone's legs if they don't, you know, do
say what you want to say.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Understand. I get that. But the emotional aspect of this.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
Every single person I've been charged with intimidating claims that
I caused them emotional harm, that I made them sad.
This is literally what they told the grand jury. He
made me I can't eat. Everybody thinks I'm a killer now,
blah blah blah. He made me uncomfortable. I was embarrassed,
and this and that, not a single I haven't caused
a single cut, a scrape, a bruise, nothing to anybody.
(24:12):
I don't threaten people. I'm a reporter, I'm an activist.
I'm not a tough guy. So and if you see
Brian Albert, Bran Albert could eat me for lunch. You know,
I could eight one hundred and seventy pounds. Brian Albert's
like two fifty, you know, six foot two, two fifty.
He's a big boy, he's a marine. He could he
could destroy me if he wanted to. So this idea
that I'm intimidating these people is ridiculous. So to answer
(24:34):
your question, I wouldn't change anything. I mean, I wish
I wasn't arrested. I wish that didn't happen, but it did.
And I contend that I did nothing wrong.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
I wish I was one seventy. It's good for you.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
I all right, this is the question on everyone's mind.
I have to ask you this. What do you think
happened to John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I think he went inside that house after camer Reid
dropped him off. He was supposed to text her back
and say everything's cool here, you can go home, and
I'm all set. But I think he went that house
and a confrontation happened. We don't know with who. There's
many possible suspects. There's Brian Higgins, who had the motive
to do it because he was half an hour earlier flirting,
(25:15):
sending flirtatious text messages to his girlfriend. There is Colin Albert,
who was a punk who gets a lot of fights,
who had issues with John.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
They were neighbors.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
They threw beer cans on his lawn, disrespected him, and
they were all drunk. And so what I think is
he went in there, words were exchanged, punches were thrown,
and I think an accident happened. I think John felt
backwards during this fight after the dog bit him, because
you know, if Brian Alberts involved in the fight, the
dog's going to back him up.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Mean, that's ban the German shepherd, It's like their instinct.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
And I think it dragged him down and I think
he hit his head on a stair and I think
it caused a three inch laceration in the back of
his head, and I think it knocked him out and
it made him unconscious and he was immediately incapacitated. According
to every who testified at that trial, that's what killed John,
the blunt impact to the back of the head. And
so I think that they realized that he was probably
(26:08):
convulsing be a puke on his box of shorts, and
I think they realized, we have a dying Boston cop
in our house.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
This is really bad. What are we going to do?
Speaker 4 (26:18):
And the plan was simple. I mean, people act like
this is so complicated. Just tell him the guy and
never came in a house. He never came in an house.
Just we're going to put him right outside where where
we last saw her car and then say, I don't
know how Jesus Christ did she hit him?
Speaker 3 (26:32):
What happened? Oh my god. I mean, it's just it's
such a simple story. You never came in the house.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
And the big question I think everyone once knows what
else was in that house when they were there, because
what mean, yeah, usually you don't throw after parties at
twelve thirty in the morning just to have a few
more beers and watch finding Nemo.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
You do if you're a functioning alcoholic, like a lot
of these people are. I mean, these are these are
grown ass adults having after parties.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
You're You're absolutely right. It's a weird thing that I mean,
that's why he didn't want to go in.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
She's a grown ass woman who was a financial analyst
of fidelity, you know, making a quarter million dollars a year.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
She doesn't go to after parties at twelve thirty, you know.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
On a weekday, right on a weekday.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
It was a Friday night.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
It was a Friday night. Okay, yeah, it's like a
holiday or something like that, was right, It was right
around the corner right after all it was.
Speaker 4 (27:16):
It was a blizzard was happening, so a lot of
people were, you know, not going to work or whatever.
So like, yeah, so John, you know that was a
problem in the relationship is John liked to drink.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
John liked to go out, and she was always stuck
with the kids.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
And that that's why she left all those nasty voicemails
for him. Afterwards, She's like, I'm fucking suck at you.
You know, you're a fucking douchebag. I'm home with your
fucking kids again.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
What the fuck?
Speaker 4 (27:40):
Those are the exact type of voicemails you leave to
someone if you intend to see them again and chew
them out like that's not from me.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
You till a dead person?
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah, there was, There was.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
There was this one comedian who was very much on
the side of Karen, but who said, in all the
true crime documentaries, usually you leave a message like can't
wait to see you, hope you're home soon.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
And then you know st.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Peterson did that with Lacy. That's the exact voicemail.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Yeah, and then meanwhile you're cleaning out their bank accounts
and you're moving their money around, but like you're leaving
the messages like I'm this innocent person and she was
at the scene again within I think three hours of
her or four hours when dropping him off or whatever
the case is, looking for him. Usually it's not the
pattern of somebody that as you say, you know, people
(28:26):
who kill cops usually have a long history and a
pattern to it. What are you going to do now
that the trial is over?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Well, I got going to soak it all in and.
Speaker 4 (28:37):
I'm starting in a documentary that they're doing about me
with compelling pictures. We just announced that a major motion
picture has been greenlit for this. I'm going to be
speaking a crime con in September I'm going to be
writing a book, and then I'm going to be dealing
with my own legal issues, like I still have my
charges to deal with, a whole bunch of them. I'm
facing like one hundred and twenty years in prison when
(28:57):
you know it's never gonna happen, but theoretically could one.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Hundred and twenty years in prison for a while.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
Each kind of fell any witness intimidation carries a ten
year maximum sentence. If they wanted to, they could throw
the book at me, you know. And these people are sick.
We've seen what they've done to Karen Reid. My lawyers
are not going to let that happen. I'm not going
to let that happen.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Obviously. I have two kids, they're seven and ten.
Speaker 4 (29:20):
They need me, and I'm not going to allow the
state to take them away from me.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Period.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
I know that she has a civil trial.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Still, do they just start from scratch now looking for
John o'keefs killer?
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:33):
What do you think it'd be like a cold case.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
They've already issued a statement saying that like this is
a shame, John deserved justice. Mcalverts have already issued a
statement too, and I'm sure that's all that they're going
to treat her like OJ or like Casey Anthony and
just say she got away with it, and that's the
excuse not to go after the people who actually did this.
But they know, like Karen Reid is going to Karen
Reid can go out anywhere in this state, in this
(29:57):
country really and be welcomed, And any restaurant in Boston
she goes out to tonight, her meal is free. You know,
she's basically a quasi celebrity unintentionally, right. The mcalberts can't
do that. Mclberts go places and they get booed and
every they look at they have to look around and say,
who knows what we did? Like who here doesn't like us?
So that's the karma that they will have to live
(30:19):
with for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Okay, last question, where can people go to read more
about what you're doing? Where can they follow your cases
and your book and your movie and your speeches. You've
got a busier schedule than me, so where can people
go to continue follow? Yeah, I mean turtle boy is
so weird to say, turtle boy, you're you're a man,
but like what like what uh?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Doctor turtle Boys Doctor.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Turtle Boy where people go to keep following.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Jill Biden's a doctored and so am I That's what
That's why I started myself. That's my super handle is
at doctor Turtle Boy d O C t O or
turtle Boy. My website is TV as in Turtleboy DailyNews
dot com.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Uh and you can see me on YouTube Turtle Boy
Live Channel.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
All right, Well, keep up with turta boy because I
guess there's a lot more coming out about the story
and about you. And I appreciate you being here and
giving me the interview.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
My pleasure. Ryan, have a good night.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Hey, we'll be right back after this. Now for the
ask Me Anything segment of this podcast. I love getting
these emails. Please keep sending them. Ask me any kind
of question. I could possibly answer the emails. Ryan at
Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Ryan at Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Okay,
first question readers, Hi, Ryan, what are your thoughts about
(31:29):
the quality of polling coming out showing a dramatic swing
in the favorite immigration enforcement and deportation among the wider
American population and especially the Hispanic community. I see a
lot of Twitter x post polls with comments like this
poll was almost accurate in twenty twenty four. However, I
think that the kind of polling for a straightforward binary
election is very different than polling on an issue in
(31:51):
which respondents our positions are very nuanced. The data can
be impacted by how the question is worded. That is
one hundred percent tru of. By the way, do these
high quality polls for twenty four necessarily translate to how
the polling issues are set? And we're asking now? Also,
you mentioned that you have following European politics. Do you
follow TLDR news in the EU? Best regards, love the podcast,
(32:14):
Robert diaz Arista.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
I hope I'm pronouncing your last time.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Correctly, but Robert, thank you so much for sending me
the email. I don't follow TLDR, but I will check
them out at your suggestion.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
On the polling, so yes, it is a lot based
on how the question is asked. But I think when
you're asking in such generalities, when they're not asking specifically
do you want to do this policy or do with
that policy? And there's a full nuanced connection. First of all,
in polling, there's something called a leading question. Right, if
I sit there and say, Tom, Dick and Harry are
(32:47):
all child molestors. Would you want them to live at
your house next to your house with your four year
old child. That's a leading question, right, You're you're giving
the information ahead of time to affect the answer that
you want. So pay attention to that when the questions
are being asked to have an informed pole. The question
of immigration in the broad terms, right, is more specific
(33:10):
to the time that we live in, in the moment
that we live in then in the than in like
the actual policy of how people are carrying it out right,
Because the polling around immigration enforcement and immigration reduction specifically
was mounting before even the midterms of twenty twenty two,
Like that number was changing well before that even started changing,
(33:34):
like really during COVID, where people felt that they felt
threatened by a lot of changes. Some of it was legitimate,
some of it was not legitimate. But that has started
that change. I want to take you back in time
for a second. If you look at the Gallop polling,
which goes back to nineteen sixty five, that's the that
LBJ fundamentally altered the way we have legal immigration. A
(33:58):
plurality of Americans wanted the system to stay as is,
And what that tells me is that they never really
thought about immigration because it wasn't that big of a deal.
There weren't that many immigrants coming to our country between
nineteen twenty eight and nineteen sixty five. We had a
basic immigration moratorium for forty years. Then illegal immigration after
nineteen sixty five starts ticking up, and there is a
(34:22):
demographic change of who's coming to our country. Before in
nineteen sixty five, the immigrants had to reflect the current population.
So because the immigration was mostly Western Europe, all immigrants
were mostly Western Europe, we weren't bringing in Africans and
Chinese and all the rest of them. Right, So the
number starts ticking up of people who want lower levels
(34:44):
of immigration as both demographics change, because mass change in
demographics is oftentimes correlated with a declining social trust, and
as illegal immigration changes, then it all comes together. In
nineteen eighty six, Reagan does his amnesty and sixty five
five percent of Americans at that point want legal immigration reduced,
(35:05):
any legal immigration stop. It's a mood in the country
that stayed with the majority for over a decade throughout
Clinton's entire presidency. Now when Clinton was present, over a
million illegal aliens were coming to our country every year.
They were pouring through. In the mid nineties, Clinton works
with Congress from Barbara Jordan and the Republicans in Congress
(35:25):
to create a bunch of immigration enforcement. The numbers start
ticking down as far as illegal immigration comes in, and
then by like the late nineties, the number of people
saying they want immigration reduce falls from a majority for
the first time since the eighties, right for over a decade,
and then what happens nine to eleven. Obviously that would
cause people to say, we need to bring things in home.
(35:48):
We need to stop you know what we're doing as
far as immigration, We need to focus on us. The
percentage of people who want immigration reduced spikes to fifty
eight percent after nine to eleven. That dwindles over time.
There's no more terrorist attacks, and terrorism becomes in people's
minds what they're thinking about when they're thinking about people
coming to our country right after nine to eleven, justifiably,
(36:09):
so that's what you would think of when you're thinking
of safety and threats from the outside of the country.
So that stay is of plurality until twenty nineteen. That's
the third year of the Trump presidency and is the
very first time and only time on record, that a
plurality of Americans actually favor more legal immigration than less
legal immigration. Because during that time, the beginning of the
(36:32):
Great Awokening, when liberals probably became woke and hating Trump
was their ideology and their religion. To want more immigrants
was to show that you hate Trump. So the number
of liberals, who traditionally had a lot of them wanting
to say will want less immigration plummets. They all want
mass more immigration, and it hits thirty two percent in
(36:53):
twenty nineteen one more legal immigration. Then Joe Biden becomes president,
the floodgates open, and the number of people who want
less immigration is hits its highest points since nine to
eleven and fifty five percent, and that was in June
twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
So, yes, the quality of this polls matter.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
But what I look for when I look at these
kinds of issues like abortion, gay marriage. You know, let's
take gay marriage for example. A number of poles from
Pere Research to you know, I don't know, I think
it was morning Console whatever.
Speaker 3 (37:27):
Morning.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
Const's a pretty low level.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
Poll, but they all showed that there is a downtick
in the number of Americans who support gay marriage. If
it was just one pole, I would say it's it's
they must asked the question weird or whatever. But is
a genuine change, especially among younger conservative people who I think,
I honestly believe it's a transgender issue which is turning
them away from gay marriage. But that is a real
(37:52):
thing that's really happening. As far as how we feel
as a country, the immigration story has ticked up significantly,
especially because of how Joe Biden governed this country. So yeah,
I wouldn't be so obsessed with this one. Was this
pole the most accurate or this one was the least
accurate or whatever, look.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
At the over arching story.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Cato Institute did his poll and I think twenty twenty two,
and Kato, I mean, they would turn our country into
Uganda if they could. They did a poll showing sixty
five or sixty eight percent of Americans wanted immigration reduced.
That was legal immigration reduced, because we taken one point
two million per year. And it's a mass demographic change.
(38:35):
Even when I was a kid. You know, I'm I'm
middle aged now at thirty eight, but I'm not seventy eight.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
It was not like I'm like, you know, sitting there
saying back in my day, although I do say that
all the time to my Zoomer employees. Anyway, That's what
I That's what I have to say about it. The
overarching narrative from all these poles are saying the same
thing or around most of these polls, and that is
the bigger thing than whether or not one or two
polls are sitting there in saying don't worry about the
(39:02):
accuracy of that versus like the horse race. That matters
with the horse race issue. When it comes to the
overall question, if they're all saying the same thing or
most are saying this one trajectory over time, and it's building,
it's building, it's building, it's probably accurate and politicians should
look at that. As I've said in this whole entire rant,
a majority of Americans for most of my lifetime, since
(39:24):
nineteen eighty seven, even predating that in nineteen eighty six,
have won of the lower levels of legal immigration. And
all our politicians have done is increased legal immigration. Have
they actually in the eighties or nineties reduced legal immigration
and the fear of mass immigration demographically changing our country
wasn't present. And have they not done the Iraq War,
(39:46):
in the World Trade Organization with China and opening China
those you know, those little three things. Donald Trump would
probably never have been president because the issues he ran
on would have never been issues.
Speaker 2 (39:55):
But they were.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Sold on neoliberalism, full boogie, and that's why they got
the man that they hate the most. Anyway, I hope
that makes sense. Okay, but thank you for your email.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
I love them. Is on them.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
Our next and last question for the day comes from
Wade to Bosh. How do you feel about quote unquote
abundance and point based immigration? Please interview Tristan Hopper. I
don't know who Tristan Hopper is. I will look him
up and maybe interview him. If he's not crazy, Okay,
maybe he's related a dentist opera. It'd be great if
we coun talk about his movies for a whole segment.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
The abundance I think he's talking about this book by
Ezra Klin and Derek Thompson. Abundance is like the stupidest
slogan for politics that, of course only people who don't
actually work in politics they just write about it would
think of. It talks about how the need to reregulate
everything from like housing to energy to have a prosperous society.
And it's mostly Elbert letter to liberals about how like
(40:49):
you can win people back by saying, you know, we're
going to make things affordable by just building everywhere. That
was my read a bit anyway, Maybe I'm reading it wrong,
but I don't think I am the it was. You
could clearly tell one it's written by people who don't
work in politics, because I think abundance is a very
stupid phrase. It's not it's not I don't think it's interesting.
I don't think it's a tagline people going to rally around.
(41:11):
And secondly, it's a you could tell it's written by
people who have never truly loved a place.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
I love the neighborhood I grew up and I really
really love it. I know every street, I could read
them like the back of my hand. I spent most
of my life there as of now, and I don't
want I don't want mass housing there. It's mostly one
in two family homes and makes a community. I know
that I know the people I know. I don't need
(41:40):
a train station in there. I'm good like we can
make things a little better, we can improve on the margins.
But I love it, and I don't want to see
it becomes something completely different for the sake of wealthy
yuppies moving there or foreigners moving there. I and when
you love someplace, preserving it becomes as important as making
(42:05):
it affordable, right, making it affordable while preserving certain characteristics
that keep a community together. My other problem with it
is they approach the issue of affordability from a demand
issue and not from a sorry, from a supply issue,
not a demand issue. Yes, Laguna Beach, California, beautiful beach
community has a demand problem, right, I'm sorry, a supply problem.
(42:27):
They only have so many homes to keep it this way,
So why not just shove apartment buildings everywhere and everyone
could live there. The question is not so much just
the supply as the demand, the demand for energy, the
demand for housing, the demand for space would not be
so large if we did not bring in one point
two million people in this country every year. Legally, that's
(42:50):
just the fact there's only so much room. There's only
so much space, and the more credible people's space is
the less inclined they are to have their own children,
or to afford their own home, or to grow up.
All these things feed into each other. So it's a
very neoliberal idea. It's like saying, like, why don't we
just open up China to the world's economy, and then
(43:10):
they'll want to be the democracies.
Speaker 2 (43:12):
Just like we are. It's it's it shows no foresight
into the future of problems that that would create.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Do you want to live in a box just because
you can get a nice view, maybe you will. I
don't think that that's true for a lot of people.
I think they want to own something that they could
live in, and I think they want to be part
of a community if they can. They're all looking for
this authenticity that they feel like they belong somewhere, and
it's hard when you live in a crowded, little cramp space.
I don't think that they want to live like in
(43:44):
parts of China that people like literally live in a cubicle.
I just I just don't see it. And I don't
think that that abundance argument works. I don't think it's compelling,
and I think it's a bad political tagline anyway, Okay,
and the points based system on immigration. I generally favor it,
but I want overall immigration numbers reduced. I would like
a moretatorium for a period of time, and then overall
(44:04):
numbers reduced to one to two hundred thousand a year,
which are historical numbers based on a point system. Immigrants
should be better than us. They shouldn't be worse or
as good. We should want the best in the brightest
of the world, the cream of the world, not your
average Joe. And I know that can bring up a
lot of hurt feelings, but that is what I want.
(44:25):
We should always pursue immigrants who are better than the norm,
not at or below the norm. So that's why I'm
supportive of a point based system, but I want overall
immigration numbers reduced. You cannot have a twenty first century
economy with the twentieth century immigration policy. Okay, that's my
rant for today. We will be back on Monday. I
appreciate you. I hope you like this little true crime episode.
(44:47):
It's definitely different. Please like and subscribe to this podcast
wherever you're listening. You can listen the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
I'll be back next week. I hope you will too,
Thanks
Welcome back to a Numbers Game podcast with Brian Gerdowski.
Thank you for coming on this Thursday episode. I am
on my way to Kansas. I will be the keynote
speaker this weekend at the Bob Dole Dinner for the
Kansas Republican Party, which is very exciting.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I'm very nervous.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I wanted to do a good job and pay tribute
to the legacy of Bob Doll to talk about the future,
but this is It's very nerve wracking, and I am
I'm honored to be invited, but at the same time,
I'm not exactly sure why I was invited, but I'm excited.
Funny story, Bob Dole running for president nineteen ninety six
was the first time I realized that there was an
(00:40):
election for president. I was nine years old in school
and we had to learn about it. And I remember
going learning at all the candidates running and going home
to my parents and saying, I learned about this election,
and I want you to vote for Ross Pro.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
They didn't. They voted it for Dole.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
But I think I might open my speech with saying
that I was a Pro fan at the age of nine. Anyway,
hopefully goes well, and I'll tell you how it goes
next week and they don't boom me as part of
Bob Dole's revenge for being a you thrust for pro supporter.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Today's gonna be a unique episode.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I have some numbers I want to throw you guys out,
but I'm going to have a non political story and
interview that I think you guys would find very fascinating.
So first on the political stuff across the pond over
the UK, the Labor government finally did at about face
this week and did a proper investigation into grooming gangs. Now,
for those who don't know, I appeared on the BBC
(01:35):
almost teny years ago saying that there was a it
was a conversation on Trump and you know, always bringing
up the Muslim band and they were telling how racist
it was and all the rest of this and that
there's no you know, Muslim terrorism, and I said, yes
there is, like you have Muslim grooming gangs from Pakistani
men raping white girls in northern England. The host of
(01:56):
the show at the BBC show, they kicked me off
the air, said it wasn't happening, that what I said
wasn't true, and that apologized to the audience that I
had offended listeners for what I had said. That was
almost ten years ago. Well, Baroness Luis Casey has released
a two hundred page report and found that the mere
(02:18):
Pori Pakistanis from the Kashmir Providence were extremely well overrepresented
in all data responsible for grooming gangs in the UK.
You might think this is one little area of Pakistan
and how many people could it be. There are about
one million Poori Pakistanis living in the UK. It is
the biggest predominant group that come to the UK from Pakistan. Now,
(02:41):
in many of the cases, the ethnicity of the perpetrators
never taken because officials feared that they will be labeled
as racists. But in areas that it was taken. In
three hundred and twenty three cases known as Operations stove Wood,
sixty two percent of all groomers were Pakistani, despite the
fact that they make up only three percent of the population.
(03:03):
Eve At Cooper, the Home Secretary basically our version of DHS,
put out a list of recommendations. It includes ensuring adults
who engage impenetrative sex with children under sixteen based the
most serious charge of rape instead of lesser charges. They're
going to launch a new national Criminal Operation to oversee
the National Crime Agency and tackle grooming gangs. They're going
(03:24):
to review the criminal convictions of child sexual exploitation and
quashing any convictions where the government finds that the victims
were criminalized rather than be protected. They're going to make
a collection of ethnicity and national data for all suspects
of child's abuse. They're going to commission research into driven
into drivers for group based child sexual exploitation, including the
(03:46):
role of social media and cultural factors. And they're going
to bring a more rigorous standard for the licensing and
regulation of taxi drivers because many of these Pakistani men
were taxi drivers luring young girls into their taxis saying
you want to come have alcohol or you know, drugs,
which in many poor areas of Northern England was very
enticing to fourteen year old girls to have alcohol. Remember,
(04:08):
the drinking ages are a lot lower and the culture
aroun drinking is a lot more open. They would say yes,
they would drug them, get them drunk, then drug them
and then rape them in a group activity. Okay, some
of these ideas are very good and I'm going to
give credit to the Labor government on at least going
this far, considering they've been completely opposed to it for decades,
(04:29):
certainly since my comments came out in twenty ten. They've
been notoriously against method because it's made just because they
have been against it for years. But what the UK
government needs to do is repeal most or parts of
the Equality Act of twenty ten. This was a law
passed by the previous Labor Labor government from years ago,
(04:51):
and it prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race,
in employment and service delivery. Police officers, as public servants
are subject to this law and discriminatory behavior can be
deemed as gross misconduct. So police officers were purposely not
investigating cases of child rape child sexual exploitation when the
(05:16):
victim was going with biological evidence in some cases saying
you can look at me, I have been raped multiple times.
They refuse to do it because if the grooming gang
said this police officer is clearly racist, there would be
overwhelming push to have that police officer dismissed from their
(05:36):
jobs and that they are the problem, not that the
criminals were the problem. And this law is the lynchpin
behind which all of these police officers were unable to
really do their job in a profound way.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
JK.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Rowling was tweeting like, we need to change the culture
of protecting girls. Yes, but you need to undo the law,
you crazy liberal like that.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
That is what it is.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
I know, like the idea of the Quality Act sounds wonderful,
but the law is creating all these circumstances. And one
last thing, maybe don't bring in a million people from
a culture that views women as lesser than Maybe don't
bring in a million people from a culture that thinks
child's sexual activities perfectly normal, that women can be beat
(06:22):
that you know, you could have that women are like,
you know, furniture or animals. That is the problem. You
are importing a culture that for many people, especially when
it is ghetto wise, because you're bringing in so many people,
they they push, they bring that culture with them, They
bring that culture to the UK and they view a
(06:43):
lot of things like this is a prize is to
sit there and rape a young British woman. So good
for the UK government for doing something, but it is
outrageous it took this long and hopefully if there's someone
in the entire UK government level with a brain from
either the Reform or Tory party. They will talk about
repealing the Equalities Act if they haven't already.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
I don't. Maybe they did, but I don't think they did.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Okay, that's your number is for this podcast on the
political side.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Now, I want to.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Get to a passion interest of mine, which is true crime.
I know there's a million podcasts on true crime and
books and whatever, and we'll get back to politics on Monday.
This is not going to become a true crime podcast,
but this episode is special.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
I am a true crime junkie.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I've listened to podcasts, I've read books like A Stranger
Beside Me, which is one of my favorite books, documentaries,
you name it, like if I'm ap at two o'clock
in the morning, I'm researching who killed John bin a Ramsay.
This is who I am. It is a sickness. It
is a mental illness. I understand it. But I love
true crime. So the most talked about trial of the
year just ended, and it is the Karen Reid trial,
(07:49):
and it's about the death of John O'Keefe. So most
of you have probably maybe heard about this trial or
hear parts of it. I wanted to give you the
brief facts before going into the interview because it is interesting.
On the night of January twenty eighth, twenty twenty two,
Karen Reid and John o'keef, who were dating John A. Keeps,
a forty six year old Boston police officer, where they
(08:09):
were out drinking with friends in Canton, Massachusetts, about twenty
miles south of Boston. After visiting bars, they were invited
to an after party at the home of Brian Albert,
another Boston police officer. There was a terrible snowstorm outside
but they but John insisted on going to this after party,
so they drove to the house. Allegedly, there they saw
no lights on in the house. John o'keef got out
(08:31):
of the car went to the house around twelve thirty
am to see if there were people inside. According to prosecutors,
this is when allegedly Karen Reid, who was intoxicated and
angry at him, backed up into him, hitting him and
leaving him to die in the snow. John o'keef's body
was discovered at six am. I think he might have
been a lie, but he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards.
(08:52):
Karen Reid was arrested on February first, twenty twenty two,
and charged with second degree murder man saw her while
operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene
of a collision causing injury or death. She pleaded not
guilty to all charges. Her defense team insisted that this
was actually a cover up, insinuating that the police were
actually a fall for his death. Witnesses said that Karen
(09:15):
she did come back to the scene of crime a
few hours later, I guess when she had sobered up,
And they said that she said that she had hit him,
and she had left the scene and left him to die.
And when she had left the scene of twelve thirty,
she did leave him a lot of angry voicemails because
he did not come back to see to say like, oh,
you can come in, or I'm good or whatever. So
Reid's defense team Karen Read's defense team, led by attorney
(09:38):
David Yanetti and Alan Jackson. They argue that O'Keefe was
killed inside the Albertone, possibly beaten an attacked by a dog,
and dumped outside, with Reed being framed as the cover
up for the crime. Their theory was that O'Keefe got
out of the car went inside the house, a fight
ensued with someone inside the house, either Brian Albert or
(09:59):
his other Colin Albert, or Brian Higgins, a federal agent
who was also the party someone fought with him is
the point they pointed to o'keef's arm injuries, though the
defense did saying that saying because of a witness, an
expert witness, doctor Marie Russell, they suggested that his injuries
were not with a car, but they were with dog bites,
(10:22):
and the family inside the house had a dog at
the time, they had a German shepherd. They said these
dog bites at the home were showing that there must
have been a fight and the dog got involved, which
a German shepherd would if their owner was fighting. Incidentally,
between the time of the attack and the trial, the
(10:43):
very first trial of Karen Reid, the dog was re
homed in that time, so they could never do a
investigation where they looked into the dog. A lot of
things that were inside that house allegedly went missing or destroyed.
There were outside videotapes from across the street that never
showed up. There was phones that were destroyed. Afterwards. At
(11:07):
two twenty seven am, Jennifer McCabe, who was married to
mister McCabe. She looked in her Google searches on her
phone has a long to die in cold, suggesting that
there was some fore knowledge of mister O'Keefe's condition, of
John o keep's condition before the body was found. McCabe
claimed that it was searched at six am, six twenty
(11:28):
am when Karen was there at the house looking for him,
but it was it was to twenty seven am. They
also said that there was key evidence, the key evidence
of the whole trial was this broken tail light that
Karen Read's car allegedly had. This broken tail light found
at the scene, but it was found days later underneath
all the snow. They they claimed the defense claimed it
(11:49):
was actually planted there, and it was not. It wasn't
like that she hit him, broke the tail light and
then fled. That actually was planted there a few days
later by people within that Canton PD Boston PD universe
trying to protect the mccabes well. On Wednesday, June eighteenth,
(12:09):
after four days of deliberation in the second trial, the
first trial was on jury. In this second trial, the
jury acquitted Karen Read of all major charges, finding her
only guilty of driving under the influence, which basically I
mean Karen did say she was drinking right beforehand, so
it's not shocking. But all the major things of the
murder in the second degree, fleeing the scene of a crime,
(12:31):
all that she was declared that she was not guilty.
This case has deeply divided communities across the country who
feel that Ree was either innocent and wrongfully framed by
a power hungry and corrupt police department, or that they
felt she murdered her boyfriend and that she was a
cold hearted, crazy woman. And then there are other people
feel like she was overcharged. Maybe she hit him, but
(12:53):
it should have been a manslaughter charge and not a
homicide in the second degree. Remember the prosecution, and they
didn't just say, oh, they probably hit her. They went
for the full juggular. They went for the full She
intentionally hit him. It wasn't an accident. She meant to
hit him. She did hit him, and then she fled
in her drunken state. That's what they accused her of.
(13:14):
It's a very very severe charge. In the middle of
his whole trial, Karen Reid became this lightning rod of
controversy and one man was behind the entire ground swell,
grassroots effort to free her. And his name is Aiden Carney,
otherwise known as turtle Boy. Aiden also has become a
(13:35):
lightning plot of controversy. He was charged with witness tampering
or sorry, witness intimidation. Rather, he said he said that
was an effort to smear him. He's fighting those charges,
but hate him are love him. He created a widespread
effort to free Camra Read and he was successful in
doing that. He created a movement from people all over
that region and all over the country. They responded to
(13:57):
what he was doing. He is coming on this podcast
next the first time after the Karen retrial. He's going
to give a full interview. I'm so excited. Please stay
tuned and we'll be back with Turtle Boy. With me
on today's podcast is Aimed Cardney. He is otherwise known
as turtle Boy. Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Aiden.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
My first question to you is how did you first
hear about Karen's story and what made you throw yourself
fully into it, like it's been a big part of
your life last few years.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Yeah, so, I know it was in the news when
John first died I typically write about stories like that when,
especially when the police are killed, it's you know, content,
people are interested in death of a police officer. When
I saw that it appeared to be an accident though,
which just wasn't a very interesting story. Quite frankly, it
was a tragic story. But then a year and a
(14:51):
half later, when court filing started coming out and you
started reading more and more about this, and it turned
out that I was sitting on the story of the century,
I realized that this deserved a much deeper dive when
I realized that, wait a minute, a Boston police officer.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
At his house.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
Apparently killed another Boston police officer with an ATF agent
and other people, and they covered it up after the fact,
and the state police assisted them in that. Like I'm
sitting on the story of the century here, and you know,
I just started writing about it, and here we are,
so you.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Know, at the center of this case is a real tragedy.
I mean, John'll keep his dead and his family and
his friends miss him terribly. Karen is a lightning rod, right.
Either she is a victim of the biggest cover up
by the state and local police, or she's a crazy,
jilted woman who did this, either intentionally or by an accent.
(15:48):
What made people's intensity that drew her towards her so
heavy like this?
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Why did?
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I mean, there's a lot of cases of people who
are accused of crimes, but something about Karen made her
people appealed to her.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Do you have an opinion about that?
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, because she's so transparently innocent. I mean, that's all
of this. It's just so obvious.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
I don't defend people who are charged with murdering police.
I'm usually on the other side of that issue. Usually
I'm very pro police, and I still am. And I've
done a lot of articles exposing the opposite of this,
the weakness of our court system that allows cop killers
to be free in the first place. The profile of
a cop killer is always the same. It's somebody with
(16:32):
like one hundred and twenty five priors almost always, and
so this.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Didn't fit that description.
Speaker 4 (16:37):
So like, for me to go out and defend somebody
who's accused of murdering a cop, you better believe there's
going to be overwhelming evidence to back that up. I
never would have jumped into this otherwise. It's just so
obvious the amount of evidence that she had in her
legal team. Ad showing that not only was she factually innocent,
but that other people were involved in murdering him.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Made me realize, Oh, this is I have to get
involved here. I have to do something. I have to
write about this.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
And you know, the story had been going on for
about a year and a half, but it wasn't getting
any media coverage.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
And that's what I'm good at.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
You know, if I've been doing what I do now
for over a decade and I just started writing about it,
and I had a pretty large platform, and it just
grew and grew and grew from there.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
When you think back to the trial, obviously, I mean
she was up against like a goliath, right, I mean
at the very beginning there was it did not I
mean I watched the documentaries of she was really up
against it and her legal defense was like it was
literally David and Goliath. How they turned the corner? Looking back,
When did you think to yourself, they're going to find
(17:43):
her innocent, Like they've done enough at this point where
the defense has actually done their job, Like, was there
a point or did you always think like she was
going to be found in this sent there's no question, Well, I.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
Always felt she was going to be found innocent, no question,
until I did after the first trial, after the first
ended in a mistrial, I was convinced they were going
to deliver it for about five seconds, and because it
was just so obvious that she was innocent and these
people are all so shady and they're all lying, it
was just like, Okay, obviously they're going to quit her.
And then when they didn't and they came back hung,
(18:14):
I did what's called a journalism.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I went and found jurors.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
The journalist was impounded, so you couldn't just find these
people on their own, but I asked around. I got names,
I got emails, and I started reaching out to them,
and I got this guy Ronnie to come on.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
And Ronnie, as painful as it is to listen to
him and.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
His explanation of what was happening in that jury room,
even though it's insanity the things that they were talking about,
it was still really important to hear because he was
Basically what he said was, we didn't pay any attention
to the conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
We thought that was a distractor.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
We were focused on the data, the textream data from
the car, the fact that she was the one that
dropped them off there that she was drunk blah blah
blah blah, and that enabled Karen Reid's defense team to
read My interview with Ronnie enabled the Karen Reid team
to readjust their strategy and focus less on the conspiracy.
You didn't get that much in the second trial, and
(19:09):
more on John wasn't hit by a car, there was
no collision.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
If there was no collision, then.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Karen Reid didn't do it, and it's not their job
to figure out who did.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Quite frankly right, and they blew that did so?
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Do you so?
Speaker 1 (19:23):
Like they didn't think about the dog bites or already
think that dog bite They thought that was a distraction.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Yeah, that's one of the things that Ronnie told me that,
like the dog thing was a distraction. That these are
all big distractions to take away from the fact that
she ran him over with the car. I mean, it
was it was painful to interview him, but as as
painful as that was, like, that's journalism, that's finding out
from these people who were in the room, what happened.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
What did you guys discuss and no one else had
that scoop?
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Wow, that's crazy. I didn't. Okay, I missed that story
that they thought that all.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Of this was was so they thought that even what
about the text from the cop talking about how she is,
how she looked, and were there any nudes or they
thought that was they thought that was abstraction.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Their basic takeaway with that was, Yeah, he's a scumbag,
he's not a good person, but it doesn't change the
fact that she had him with the car like that
was their takeaway, and that he got carried away because
he was so upset with this woman for killing John
O'Keefe that it was almost like understandable that he would
vent like this on his private cell phone.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
What about what about the Okay, so I'm not from
Boston and from New York, but I do have relatives
from Lynn, Massachusetts. Lynn Lynn said, what is the feeling about?
But you hear people from that area talk about that
the police are corrupt? Why is that feeling palpable in
(20:46):
that area?
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Uh? You know, I mean, just look at how easy
this was.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
I Mean, the issue wasn't just we all know Michael
Proctor was a corrupt scumbag who's been fired, right, But
the issue is that Michael Proctor was protected that Michael.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
Procter knew the mcalvert, McCabe's and the Alberts prior to this.
He lied about it.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
He was so obviously lying on reports or whatever. And
you know, I used to be a high school teacher.
If another teacher was inappropriate with a student, we wouldn't
back them up. The union would sell you down the river,
like no one would have your back if you behave
inappropriately like that. But with police, it's different. It's like,
no matter what, they're gonna have your back. They just
(21:29):
and I understand it. I understand that, Like in twenty
twenty with the Black Lives Matter riots or whatever, it
was like us against the world mentality, they're attacking us.
We got to stick together and that mentality. Because of that,
they do stick together to a fault, you know, to
a fault like I support the police, but not corrupt
police and not the police in this situation. And you know,
(21:50):
I do talk to a lot of cops about this
who are like, you know, they completely agree with me
that Karen ree was framed, that she didn't do it,
but they remained silent.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
What is okay?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
So that you became a lightning rod as well, which
is very rare for somebody who started. I mean, you
did start a movement. I don't know if Karen would
have had what she had without you, like her conviction.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Without you.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
You really did change the course of this woman's life
and this case. But you became a lightning rod. Is
there anything that happened during the course's trial you personally
regret on your part or that? Because that got very heated.
I read some of the things that people were saying
about each other. Is there anything you feel like maybe
I went over the line, or maybe I didn't go
(22:32):
over line enough or anything.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Well, you know, I went to jail.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
I was arrested and charged and charged with god knows
how many counts of felony witness intimidation. But the things
that I did to get charged with that are not criminal.
They're only criminal in Massachusetts if it's if they interpret
the law a certain way. Like for instance, I went
up to Jennifer McCabe at her kid's lacrosse game, right
(22:55):
because it's the only place I could find her. I
knew her kid was playing across that day, so I
went to her game, and Bill and I took my
camera out and went up to her and I said, Jennifer,
why did you google how wanted Diane Cold?
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Why did you do that at two twenty seven? Why
did you do that?
Speaker 4 (23:08):
And it turned it to a scene and Matt McKay
pushed me, and you know, I got I left the
stadium on my own accord, and I got charged with
two counts of felony witnessed intimidation for that. That's what
used to be called journalism, like going up to people,
asking them the tough questions, getting in their face, not
taking no for an answer. But in Massachusetts, our statue
(23:30):
witness intimidation statue says that you cannot cause emotional, physical,
or financial harm to witnesses. Every other state it's physical.
I understand the need to say that. You can't threaten
to break someone's legs if they don't, you know, do
say what you want to say.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Understand. I get that. But the emotional aspect of this.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
Every single person I've been charged with intimidating claims that
I caused them emotional harm, that I made them sad.
This is literally what they told the grand jury. He
made me I can't eat. Everybody thinks I'm a killer now,
blah blah blah. He made me uncomfortable. I was embarrassed,
and this and that, not a single I haven't caused
a single cut, a scrape, a bruise, nothing to anybody.
(24:12):
I don't threaten people. I'm a reporter, I'm an activist.
I'm not a tough guy. So and if you see
Brian Albert, Bran Albert could eat me for lunch. You know,
I could eight one hundred and seventy pounds. Brian Albert's
like two fifty, you know, six foot two, two fifty.
He's a big boy, he's a marine. He could he
could destroy me if he wanted to. So this idea
that I'm intimidating these people is ridiculous. So to answer
(24:34):
your question, I wouldn't change anything. I mean, I wish
I wasn't arrested. I wish that didn't happen, but it did.
And I contend that I did nothing wrong.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
I wish I was one seventy. It's good for you.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
I all right, this is the question on everyone's mind.
I have to ask you this. What do you think
happened to John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I think he went inside that house after camer Reid
dropped him off. He was supposed to text her back
and say everything's cool here, you can go home, and
I'm all set. But I think he went that house
and a confrontation happened. We don't know with who. There's
many possible suspects. There's Brian Higgins, who had the motive
to do it because he was half an hour earlier flirting,
(25:15):
sending flirtatious text messages to his girlfriend. There is Colin Albert,
who was a punk who gets a lot of fights,
who had issues with John.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
They were neighbors.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
They threw beer cans on his lawn, disrespected him, and
they were all drunk. And so what I think is
he went in there, words were exchanged, punches were thrown,
and I think an accident happened. I think John felt
backwards during this fight after the dog bit him, because
you know, if Brian Alberts involved in the fight, the
dog's going to back him up.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Mean, that's ban the German shepherd, It's like their instinct.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
And I think it dragged him down and I think
he hit his head on a stair and I think
it caused a three inch laceration in the back of
his head, and I think it knocked him out and
it made him unconscious and he was immediately incapacitated. According
to every who testified at that trial, that's what killed John,
the blunt impact to the back of the head. And
so I think that they realized that he was probably
(26:08):
convulsing be a puke on his box of shorts, and
I think they realized, we have a dying Boston cop
in our house.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
This is really bad. What are we going to do?
Speaker 4 (26:18):
And the plan was simple. I mean, people act like
this is so complicated. Just tell him the guy and
never came in a house. He never came in an house.
Just we're going to put him right outside where where
we last saw her car and then say, I don't
know how Jesus Christ did she hit him?
Speaker 3 (26:32):
What happened? Oh my god. I mean, it's just it's
such a simple story. You never came in the house.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
And the big question I think everyone once knows what
else was in that house when they were there, because
what mean, yeah, usually you don't throw after parties at
twelve thirty in the morning just to have a few
more beers and watch finding Nemo.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
You do if you're a functioning alcoholic, like a lot
of these people are. I mean, these are these are
grown ass adults having after parties.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
You're You're absolutely right. It's a weird thing that I mean,
that's why he didn't want to go in.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
She's a grown ass woman who was a financial analyst
of fidelity, you know, making a quarter million dollars a year.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
She doesn't go to after parties at twelve thirty, you know.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
On a weekday, right on a weekday.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
It was a Friday night.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
It was a Friday night. Okay, yeah, it's like a
holiday or something like that, was right, It was right
around the corner right after all it was.
Speaker 4 (27:16):
It was a blizzard was happening, so a lot of
people were, you know, not going to work or whatever.
So like, yeah, so John, you know that was a
problem in the relationship is John liked to drink.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
John liked to go out, and she was always stuck
with the kids.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
And that that's why she left all those nasty voicemails
for him. Afterwards, She's like, I'm fucking suck at you.
You know, you're a fucking douchebag. I'm home with your
fucking kids again.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
What the fuck?
Speaker 4 (27:40):
Those are the exact type of voicemails you leave to
someone if you intend to see them again and chew
them out like that's not from me.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
You till a dead person?
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah, there was, There was.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
There was this one comedian who was very much on
the side of Karen, but who said, in all the
true crime documentaries, usually you leave a message like can't
wait to see you, hope you're home soon.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
And then you know st.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Peterson did that with Lacy. That's the exact voicemail.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Yeah, and then meanwhile you're cleaning out their bank accounts
and you're moving their money around, but like you're leaving
the messages like I'm this innocent person and she was
at the scene again within I think three hours of
her or four hours when dropping him off or whatever
the case is, looking for him. Usually it's not the
pattern of somebody that as you say, you know, people
(28:26):
who kill cops usually have a long history and a
pattern to it. What are you going to do now
that the trial is over?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Well, I got going to soak it all in and.
Speaker 4 (28:37):
I'm starting in a documentary that they're doing about me
with compelling pictures. We just announced that a major motion
picture has been greenlit for this. I'm going to be
speaking a crime con in September I'm going to be
writing a book, and then I'm going to be dealing
with my own legal issues, like I still have my
charges to deal with, a whole bunch of them. I'm
facing like one hundred and twenty years in prison when
(28:57):
you know it's never gonna happen, but theoretically could one.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Hundred and twenty years in prison for a while.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
Each kind of fell any witness intimidation carries a ten
year maximum sentence. If they wanted to, they could throw
the book at me, you know. And these people are sick.
We've seen what they've done to Karen Reid. My lawyers
are not going to let that happen. I'm not going
to let that happen.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Obviously. I have two kids, they're seven and ten.
Speaker 4 (29:20):
They need me, and I'm not going to allow the
state to take them away from me.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Period.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
I know that she has a civil trial.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Still, do they just start from scratch now looking for
John o'keefs killer?
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:33):
What do you think it'd be like a cold case.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
They've already issued a statement saying that like this is
a shame, John deserved justice. Mcalverts have already issued a
statement too, and I'm sure that's all that they're going
to treat her like OJ or like Casey Anthony and
just say she got away with it, and that's the
excuse not to go after the people who actually did this.
But they know, like Karen Reid is going to Karen
Reid can go out anywhere in this state, in this
(29:57):
country really and be welcomed, And any restaurant in Boston
she goes out to tonight, her meal is free. You know,
she's basically a quasi celebrity unintentionally, right. The mcalberts can't
do that. Mclberts go places and they get booed and
every they look at they have to look around and say,
who knows what we did? Like who here doesn't like us?
So that's the karma that they will have to live
(30:19):
with for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Okay, last question, where can people go to read more
about what you're doing? Where can they follow your cases
and your book and your movie and your speeches. You've
got a busier schedule than me, so where can people
go to continue follow? Yeah, I mean turtle boy is
so weird to say, turtle boy, you're you're a man,
but like what like what uh?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Doctor turtle Boys Doctor.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Turtle Boy where people go to keep following.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Jill Biden's a doctored and so am I That's what
That's why I started myself. That's my super handle is
at doctor Turtle Boy d O C t O or
turtle Boy. My website is TV as in Turtleboy DailyNews
dot com.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Uh and you can see me on YouTube Turtle Boy
Live Channel.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
All right, Well, keep up with turta boy because I
guess there's a lot more coming out about the story
and about you. And I appreciate you being here and
giving me the interview.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
My pleasure. Ryan, have a good night.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Hey, we'll be right back after this. Now for the
ask Me Anything segment of this podcast. I love getting
these emails. Please keep sending them. Ask me any kind
of question. I could possibly answer the emails. Ryan at
Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Ryan at Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Okay,
first question readers, Hi, Ryan, what are your thoughts about
(31:29):
the quality of polling coming out showing a dramatic swing
in the favorite immigration enforcement and deportation among the wider
American population and especially the Hispanic community. I see a
lot of Twitter x post polls with comments like this
poll was almost accurate in twenty twenty four. However, I
think that the kind of polling for a straightforward binary
election is very different than polling on an issue in
(31:51):
which respondents our positions are very nuanced. The data can
be impacted by how the question is worded. That is
one hundred percent tru of. By the way, do these
high quality polls for twenty four necessarily translate to how
the polling issues are set? And we're asking now? Also,
you mentioned that you have following European politics. Do you
follow TLDR news in the EU? Best regards, love the podcast,
(32:14):
Robert diaz Arista.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
I hope I'm pronouncing your last time.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Correctly, but Robert, thank you so much for sending me
the email. I don't follow TLDR, but I will check
them out at your suggestion.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
On the polling, so yes, it is a lot based
on how the question is asked. But I think when
you're asking in such generalities, when they're not asking specifically
do you want to do this policy or do with
that policy? And there's a full nuanced connection. First of all,
in polling, there's something called a leading question. Right, if
I sit there and say, Tom, Dick and Harry are
(32:47):
all child molestors. Would you want them to live at
your house next to your house with your four year
old child. That's a leading question, right, You're you're giving
the information ahead of time to affect the answer that
you want. So pay attention to that when the questions
are being asked to have an informed pole. The question
of immigration in the broad terms, right, is more specific
(33:10):
to the time that we live in, in the moment
that we live in then in the than in like
the actual policy of how people are carrying it out right,
Because the polling around immigration enforcement and immigration reduction specifically
was mounting before even the midterms of twenty twenty two,
Like that number was changing well before that even started changing,
(33:34):
like really during COVID, where people felt that they felt
threatened by a lot of changes. Some of it was legitimate,
some of it was not legitimate. But that has started
that change. I want to take you back in time
for a second. If you look at the Gallop polling,
which goes back to nineteen sixty five, that's the that
LBJ fundamentally altered the way we have legal immigration. A
(33:58):
plurality of Americans wanted the system to stay as is,
And what that tells me is that they never really
thought about immigration because it wasn't that big of a deal.
There weren't that many immigrants coming to our country between
nineteen twenty eight and nineteen sixty five. We had a
basic immigration moratorium for forty years. Then illegal immigration after
nineteen sixty five starts ticking up, and there is a
(34:22):
demographic change of who's coming to our country. Before in
nineteen sixty five, the immigrants had to reflect the current population.
So because the immigration was mostly Western Europe, all immigrants
were mostly Western Europe, we weren't bringing in Africans and
Chinese and all the rest of them. Right, So the
number starts ticking up of people who want lower levels
(34:44):
of immigration as both demographics change, because mass change in
demographics is oftentimes correlated with a declining social trust, and
as illegal immigration changes, then it all comes together. In
nineteen eighty six, Reagan does his amnesty and sixty five
five percent of Americans at that point want legal immigration reduced,
(35:05):
any legal immigration stop. It's a mood in the country
that stayed with the majority for over a decade throughout
Clinton's entire presidency. Now when Clinton was present, over a
million illegal aliens were coming to our country every year.
They were pouring through. In the mid nineties, Clinton works
with Congress from Barbara Jordan and the Republicans in Congress
(35:25):
to create a bunch of immigration enforcement. The numbers start
ticking down as far as illegal immigration comes in, and
then by like the late nineties, the number of people
saying they want immigration reduce falls from a majority for
the first time since the eighties, right for over a decade,
and then what happens nine to eleven. Obviously that would
cause people to say, we need to bring things in home.
(35:48):
We need to stop you know what we're doing as
far as immigration, We need to focus on us. The
percentage of people who want immigration reduced spikes to fifty
eight percent after nine to eleven. That dwindles over time.
There's no more terrorist attacks, and terrorism becomes in people's
minds what they're thinking about when they're thinking about people
coming to our country right after nine to eleven, justifiably,
(36:09):
so that's what you would think of when you're thinking
of safety and threats from the outside of the country.
So that stay is of plurality until twenty nineteen. That's
the third year of the Trump presidency and is the
very first time and only time on record, that a
plurality of Americans actually favor more legal immigration than less
legal immigration. Because during that time, the beginning of the
(36:32):
Great Awokening, when liberals probably became woke and hating Trump
was their ideology and their religion. To want more immigrants
was to show that you hate Trump. So the number
of liberals, who traditionally had a lot of them wanting
to say will want less immigration plummets. They all want
mass more immigration, and it hits thirty two percent in
(36:53):
twenty nineteen one more legal immigration. Then Joe Biden becomes president,
the floodgates open, and the number of people who want
less immigration is hits its highest points since nine to
eleven and fifty five percent, and that was in June
twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
So, yes, the quality of this polls matter.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
But what I look for when I look at these
kinds of issues like abortion, gay marriage. You know, let's
take gay marriage for example. A number of poles from
Pere Research to you know, I don't know, I think
it was morning Console whatever.
Speaker 3 (37:27):
Morning.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
Const's a pretty low level.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
Poll, but they all showed that there is a downtick
in the number of Americans who support gay marriage. If
it was just one pole, I would say it's it's
they must asked the question weird or whatever. But is
a genuine change, especially among younger conservative people who I think,
I honestly believe it's a transgender issue which is turning
them away from gay marriage. But that is a real
(37:52):
thing that's really happening. As far as how we feel
as a country, the immigration story has ticked up significantly,
especially because of how Joe Biden governed this country. So yeah,
I wouldn't be so obsessed with this one. Was this
pole the most accurate or this one was the least
accurate or whatever, look.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
At the over arching story.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Cato Institute did his poll and I think twenty twenty two,
and Kato, I mean, they would turn our country into
Uganda if they could. They did a poll showing sixty
five or sixty eight percent of Americans wanted immigration reduced.
That was legal immigration reduced, because we taken one point
two million per year. And it's a mass demographic change.
(38:35):
Even when I was a kid. You know, I'm I'm
middle aged now at thirty eight, but I'm not seventy eight.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
It was not like I'm like, you know, sitting there
saying back in my day, although I do say that
all the time to my Zoomer employees. Anyway, That's what
I That's what I have to say about it. The
overarching narrative from all these poles are saying the same
thing or around most of these polls, and that is
the bigger thing than whether or not one or two
polls are sitting there in saying don't worry about the
(39:02):
accuracy of that versus like the horse race. That matters
with the horse race issue. When it comes to the
overall question, if they're all saying the same thing or
most are saying this one trajectory over time, and it's building,
it's building, it's building, it's probably accurate and politicians should
look at that. As I've said in this whole entire rant,
a majority of Americans for most of my lifetime, since
(39:24):
nineteen eighty seven, even predating that in nineteen eighty six,
have won of the lower levels of legal immigration. And
all our politicians have done is increased legal immigration. Have
they actually in the eighties or nineties reduced legal immigration
and the fear of mass immigration demographically changing our country
wasn't present. And have they not done the Iraq War,
(39:46):
in the World Trade Organization with China and opening China
those you know, those little three things. Donald Trump would
probably never have been president because the issues he ran
on would have never been issues.
Speaker 2 (39:55):
But they were.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Sold on neoliberalism, full boogie, and that's why they got
the man that they hate the most. Anyway, I hope
that makes sense. Okay, but thank you for your email.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
I love them. Is on them.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
Our next and last question for the day comes from
Wade to Bosh. How do you feel about quote unquote
abundance and point based immigration? Please interview Tristan Hopper. I
don't know who Tristan Hopper is. I will look him
up and maybe interview him. If he's not crazy, Okay,
maybe he's related a dentist opera. It'd be great if
we coun talk about his movies for a whole segment.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
The abundance I think he's talking about this book by
Ezra Klin and Derek Thompson. Abundance is like the stupidest
slogan for politics that, of course only people who don't
actually work in politics they just write about it would
think of. It talks about how the need to reregulate
everything from like housing to energy to have a prosperous society.
And it's mostly Elbert letter to liberals about how like
(40:49):
you can win people back by saying, you know, we're
going to make things affordable by just building everywhere. That
was my read a bit anyway, Maybe I'm reading it wrong,
but I don't think I am the it was. You
could clearly tell one it's written by people who don't
work in politics, because I think abundance is a very
stupid phrase. It's not it's not I don't think it's interesting.
I don't think it's a tagline people going to rally around.
(41:11):
And secondly, it's a you could tell it's written by
people who have never truly loved a place.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
I love the neighborhood I grew up and I really
really love it. I know every street, I could read
them like the back of my hand. I spent most
of my life there as of now, and I don't
want I don't want mass housing there. It's mostly one
in two family homes and makes a community. I know
that I know the people I know. I don't need
(41:40):
a train station in there. I'm good like we can
make things a little better, we can improve on the margins.
But I love it, and I don't want to see
it becomes something completely different for the sake of wealthy
yuppies moving there or foreigners moving there. I and when
you love someplace, preserving it becomes as important as making
(42:05):
it affordable, right, making it affordable while preserving certain characteristics
that keep a community together. My other problem with it
is they approach the issue of affordability from a demand
issue and not from a sorry, from a supply issue,
not a demand issue. Yes, Laguna Beach, California, beautiful beach
community has a demand problem, right, I'm sorry, a supply problem.
(42:27):
They only have so many homes to keep it this way,
So why not just shove apartment buildings everywhere and everyone
could live there. The question is not so much just
the supply as the demand, the demand for energy, the
demand for housing, the demand for space would not be
so large if we did not bring in one point
two million people in this country every year. Legally, that's
(42:50):
just the fact there's only so much room. There's only
so much space, and the more credible people's space is
the less inclined they are to have their own children,
or to afford their own home, or to grow up.
All these things feed into each other. So it's a
very neoliberal idea. It's like saying, like, why don't we
just open up China to the world's economy, and then
(43:10):
they'll want to be the democracies.
Speaker 2 (43:12):
Just like we are. It's it's it shows no foresight
into the future of problems that that would create.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Do you want to live in a box just because
you can get a nice view, maybe you will. I
don't think that that's true for a lot of people.
I think they want to own something that they could
live in, and I think they want to be part
of a community if they can. They're all looking for
this authenticity that they feel like they belong somewhere, and
it's hard when you live in a crowded, little cramp space.
I don't think that they want to live like in
(43:44):
parts of China that people like literally live in a cubicle.
I just I just don't see it. And I don't
think that that abundance argument works. I don't think it's compelling,
and I think it's a bad political tagline anyway, Okay,
and the points based system on immigration. I generally favor it,
but I want overall immigration numbers reduced. I would like
a moretatorium for a period of time, and then overall
(44:04):
numbers reduced to one to two hundred thousand a year,
which are historical numbers based on a point system. Immigrants
should be better than us. They shouldn't be worse or
as good. We should want the best in the brightest
of the world, the cream of the world, not your
average Joe. And I know that can bring up a
lot of hurt feelings, but that is what I want.
(44:25):
We should always pursue immigrants who are better than the norm,
not at or below the norm. So that's why I'm
supportive of a point based system, but I want overall
immigration numbers reduced. You cannot have a twenty first century
economy with the twentieth century immigration policy. Okay, that's my
rant for today. We will be back on Monday. I
appreciate you. I hope you like this little true crime episode.
(44:47):
It's definitely different. Please like and subscribe to this podcast
wherever you're listening. You can listen the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
I'll be back next week. I hope you will too,
Thanks
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.