Jurors completed their second full day of deliberations in the retrial of Karen Read, raising questions that appear favorable to the defense, according to legal analysts. Listener call-ins are sparking debates over every detail of the case. The DOJ revealed that Dr. Salvador Plasencia, one of two doctors charged in connection with Matthew Perry's ketamine-related death, has agreed to plead guilty to four counts of ketamine distribution. Tune in for all the details.
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 (00:00):
This program features the individual opinions of the hosts, guests,
and callers, and not necessarily those of the producer, the station,
it's affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true
crime all the time. It's Tuesday, June seventeenth, and we
have a stack night of headlines. We do not have
a verdict yet in the Karen Reid retrial. I don't
know about you all, but I am antsy and anxious
about it from head to toe. We're also going to
bring you up to speed on all things Diddy. This
(00:40):
day was insane in the courtroom. I can'tnot wait to
discuss and then also later the Long Island serial killer
big development today he had a hearing, so I can't
wait to dig in. I'm Stephanie Leidecker and I head
of KAT Studios, where we make true crime podcasts and
open investigation documentaries and we get to do it with
Courtney arms Strong and body move in and look, this
(01:03):
trial is never ending. Body catch us up to speed
on all things Karen Reid.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Wait, you want me to catch up? Okay? I was
going to ask you, great, I can feel you in now,
I can feel you. I'm it's just been hours so
far up deliberation. What is happening behind closed doors right now? Well,
I'm gonna give you a brief rundown of what happened today.
There's been some questions from the jury, which you know,
(01:31):
whenever there's a jury question, it gives you a little
bit of insight into what they're thinking, right, Like, sure,
depending on what questions they asked. Well, they asked four questions.
Four questions, so that was pretty exciting. So yeah, but
the verdic clock is still clocking right, sixteen hours and
they're going to continue their deliberations tomorrow. They had four questions,
(01:52):
Like I said, the first question was what is the
time frame for the OUI which is operating under the influence,
which is like in other states DUI right, what is
the timeframe for the OUI? Twelve forty five or five am?
That's the first question. And the judge answered it and
she said, you folks have all the evidence. Oh my goodness,
(02:18):
it's all you who decide the facts of this case. Okay,
all right, By the way, can I just jump in
right there?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Yes, the duy versus the OUI even that is confusing
to me as a layman already.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
That's just what they call it, Massachusetts of her.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Still but like if I had a little clarity question
about that, would Judge Bev not give me that information?
Speaker 3 (02:41):
That's a good question. I don't know. I'm lucky, I'm
not a duror. It doesn't seem like she wants to
be very helpful, right you know. The second question is
are video clips of Karen's interview's evidence and how should
they be considered the doctor? Now? That one, to me,
to me was the big, the big question to me,
(03:02):
and listen, it sounds kind of silly and maybe I'm
a weird thinker, but to me, it tells me that
at least wonder in the jury room is deliberating, is
arguing that it's not evidence, like we can't use what
she said in that documentary against her. Now the other
(03:23):
or maybe Wonderer is saying, yes we can. That's her
own words. It is in her own words. It's maybe
it's in regards to how many drinks she had. Maybe,
And I get they didn't give us any idea of
what clips specifically they were talking about, right, so we
don't know but everybody is assuming that it's about all
the drinks she had, But it could also be I
(03:45):
hit him, I hit him, I hit him right, or
you know, I maybe I did you know that that
whole conversation she was having with herself, But everybody is
assuming it's in regards to all the drinks that she
had that night. It was a lot of drinks. Sure, yeah,
and admittedly she was drinking, but to hear from her.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
She's like, they were the weakest drinks I ever mean, yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
And I think I want to get the number right.
I think it was eleven. I'd something like that.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You know, listen, it was a long day. There was
a lizard, you know, no judgment, just you know, an
observation that any of these stipulations about drinking or being
under the influence is fair.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
So the judge's answer for that question the question again
our video clips of Karen's interviews evidence, and the judge answered,
and she said, way, the defendant statements in the videos,
as you would any other evidence, give them whatever weight
you deem appropriate. So she's basically saying, yeah, it's evidence,
and whatever kind of weight you give that evidence is
(04:46):
what you do as the jury which.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Is I think that I think that's fair. I think
that's fair answer. Go defend for yourself. On the other
one didn't seem as a fair answer, But.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
She has to remain impartial judgement. And also, if you
don't know what we're talking about out right now, Carrie Reid,
she is. We are literally waiting for the verdict in
her retrial, and it's the retrial of her being accused
of basically backing up and killing her boyfriend John O'Keeffe victim,
and that's being highly disputed because others, including her, are
(05:19):
saying that maybe there was a fight inside the house
that the body was found in front of, and that
she's she's being framed by the police. So there's a
lot of conversation for some reason though this one is
so divisive, guys, it is it feels like I've gotten
into conversations just you know, out in the world, even
at work today, just it was such a divided conversation.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
It's like under everybody's skin. Yeah, you know, I'm I
have a lot of true crime friends basically who you
know I talk to every day, you know, in our
little software that we used to talk to each other
with and I'm the only one in my group of
and these are like people I consider friends. I'm the
only one who doesn't necessarily think Karen Read is innocent
(06:02):
of anything. I'm the only one.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, it wasn't it one hundred in the opposite direction?
One week ago CNN poll The CNN poll had it
at one hundred percent of the people pulled.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Literally, the people who are like voting in those polls
on CNN aren't that educated in the case, right, They're
getting the news bites from you know, CNN, let's say,
I mean, they're not deep diving all the idio sequencies
like with the investigation and you know, all the players.
They're getting just basic, you know, surface level stuff. And
(06:35):
it's not really until you really deep dive this case
that you you understand the problem that people have with it, right,
so you know it. But it's it's just funny, Like
even in my very close group of friends, whom I all,
I love them all, but I noticed they're treating me differently. O,
my god, you're getting kicked out of the coffee. I'm
(06:55):
getting kicked club the crime club is kicking is this
case is so divisive?
Speaker 2 (07:02):
It is so divisive. Yeah, I mean, it is so divisive,
it's crazy.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
But body, there's also further sort of confusion about the
deliberation from the jurors, right.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Right, So then other question, there's a couple more questions.
The third question, there was two sets of question. It
came in a group of three, and while the jury
was waiting for an answer on those three questions, another
one came in. So the last question the first group
of three is and this is interesting.
Speaker 6 (07:31):
You have to listen very careful, very careful leaning in
does convicting with guilty on a sub charge, for example,
a fence to number five convict on the overall charge.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Now count two is the manslaughter charge. Okay, so that's
important to know. And a fence five is Now it
slips in my mind, it's the duy without I need
to get the product slip. But the judge answered, and
she said, by the way, she amended the verdict slip
(08:05):
because of this confusion. It was very confusing. Yeah, I'm confused,
and I'm confused. I want to have a whole conversation
about this vertic slip because I'm confused about the confusion. Yeah,
me too. It is confused, truly, and I can't believe
we're here again in I mean here we are the
retrial right of a cop that's been they what they say, murdered, right,
(08:30):
and there's still confusion about this vertic slip, like what
is happening?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Not to mention, we also heard that in the first trial,
of course, this is the retrial of Karen Reid. In
the first one, allegedly the jury several of the jurors
spoke after deliberations and they had come to a hung
jury that they had all come to agreement on two
of the three charges, but that had no messaged. So
somehow she's had to live through this now twice.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Again and it's and guilty. You know what.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
I'm very confused, is all I have to say. And
that's a tough spot to be in. I'm confused why
it's been so confusing, though we should have had a nice,
very much quicker. I agree to the fact that we don't.
Is also a can of worms that we don't need
to get into.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
But I thought this was open and shut. Well I
didn't think it was so open and shut, but I
didn't expect the confusion on the literal same charge that
during the trial the Nigel so I have the vertice sleighte.
I got it real quick. So it's, of course the
manslaughter charge count two and question five is guilty of
(09:37):
a lesser included offence operating under the influence of liquor
check one or both of the following, and it's operating
the mortar vehicle under the influence of liquor and or
operating a mortar vehicle with blood alcohol level of zero
point h eight percent or greater. So, but here's the thing,
and everybody's thinking, Okay, they don't want a convictor of manslaughter.
(09:58):
They only want the I only want to basically convict
her of this duy, which because of the example they
gave him the question. But maybe it's just an example
they gave. Like everyone's taking it very literally that what.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
You want to be kind of literal if you're asking
a question that's life a death.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
The question was for example fair count two. You know,
it does seem like they were all very boozy.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
It would be weird to not make her guilty on
that one, right, Like, I don't know that there's any
version of this story where they were sober. Unfortunately, you know,
maybe had they all stayed in that night, obviously this
would not have happened. You know what my theory is,
Can I just give it to you real quick? Yeah,
and we were just dating this in the studio very recently.
I think that she maybe thought that she hit him,
(10:46):
and then she realized, holy smokes, I'm being framed. Turtle
Boy is he makes a good point.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Wait what that happened? Now?
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Of course she knew of some of these inter dynamics
between her and some of the investigators that she had
been sexy texting with. She knew this, but I maybe
she was like, Wow, I was drunk, I must have
hit him. The guy's dead, he didn't come home. You know,
A plus B equal C. And then she starts digging
in even herself and realizes, oh my god, these guys
(11:17):
are setting me up, and she, along with the rest
of us, feels as though, yeah, I've been framed. But
maybe she wouldn't have known it, and like what happens
at the average Joe again that just like had a
bad night, can be framed.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
I don't know this Joe. By the way, I don't
want to be this Joe. I don't know this Joe.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
But you know, if if Turtle Boy or people hadn't
really relented on the fact that this was something very suspicious.
I mean, this is a very revered you know, it's
the cops in the town.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Right and they were all friends and these are Boston cops.
This is Irish Land, right, You don't this is like
sacred ground. Snitches do get stitches? Yes, right? And maybe,
I mean, listen, I would I would kind of agree
with what you said if when she was driving around
with Jim McCabe she wasn't like maybe the snowplow hit him,
like she wasn't going there.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
Yeah, So we're going to continue this when we come
back and later. It is day twenty five in the
trial against Sean Diddy Combs. The prosecution maybe we'll wrap
their case this week. Also, alleged Long Island serial killer
Rex Humorman is in court today. Keep it here on
True Crime tonight.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Back to Karen Reid. So to Karen, battling it out
a little bit. I know we have to get back
to the remainder pieces of the slip. So before I
jump ahead, let's do that.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Okay. So there was one more question that came in
after the group of three. This is the last question.
If we find not guilty on two charges but can't
agree on one charge. Is it a hung jury on
all three or just one? And the judge there's there's
two things. The judge said, okay, one was just to
(13:02):
the attorneys and not in the presence of the jury,
And she said, this is a theoretical question, not a
question I can answer. And what she told the jury
was the jurors are not allowed to consider the consequences
of their verdict. So basically, how I took that was
that the judge is telling the jury, don't worry about
(13:22):
it being a hung jury, Like the consequences of it
being a hung jury are not on you. You need
to like rule how you rule, and that's it.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
I kind of get that theoretically, but theoretically really not
take that into consideration.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Why can't I just tell them? Yeah, can't we just
say not guilty? And she goes home. It's shocking all
of these like predicts. I mean, even I'm confused by
the new slip, even even the new improved slip confuses me.
Have you seen it?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
No, there's been lots of conversation about it today the judge.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
The judge asked the jury is this is this clearer
for you, and seem to agree that the new slip
was clearer for them. I'm hoping. I'm hoping it is.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Which ps that could have been done yesterday. YEAHS asked
for it to be done, And I think what's problematic
with the fact that it was done one day later
is once your mind starts to be set, it becomes
more set. I mean, we're just humans and we look for,
as you ways say, body confirmation bias. So I think
that was a mistake on one.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
Und how much time was wasted on this stupid slip,
that's right, And like this slip was like such a
controversial thing in the first trial, like they would have
worked out. He thinks, I just can't. I just can't
wrap my head around the issue. And what is it?
Do you think?
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Why is everybody so hot and bothered about this? Like,
you know, we get hot and bothered about cases all day.
I mean, this is what we do all day, right,
So that's not super surprising. But I am really noticing
it on the line at the pharmacy. You know, it's
just it's a heated thing. Like we had a you know,
some of the guys in the studio today we were all,
everybody feels pretty informed.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
What is it specifically about this case? While I were
also sucked in by I think a lot of people
are putting themselves in Karen Reid's position because everybody is
assuming that she's innocent and that she's being railroaded, and
it could happen to anybody, right, So if it could
happen to Karen Reid, could it happen to me? Right?
Could I get in a fight with, you know, my
(15:24):
girlfriend and be accused of her murder because she slipped
and fell, you know, or something like that. Like, I
think people are going there. I just think people are
putting themselves in those shoes for the first time in
a long time.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
But then on the other side, if you believe in
her guilt, then this is a fallen police officer, right,
and you want justice for him. So it just feels
like the stakes are high, and I think your right body,
people are internalizing.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Well, you know, and I think too, justice for John
O'Keefe is prosecuting and convicting the correct person exactly. That's
just Peggy o'keef some justice. Yeah, And I you know, listen,
I feel like every day I changed my mind on
this case, I literally changed your mind today. Wait, have
you changed your mind?
Speaker 7 (16:12):
No?
Speaker 3 (16:13):
Two hours, I still think that she backed up and
he like kind of jumped out of the way. Why
do you think this because there's no other explanation. He
has no broken bones. How could a car five? I
don't think. I don't think he was hit with a car. Oh,
I don't think she hit him with the car. I
think he like jumped out of the way or you know,
(16:34):
scooted and fell, you know, and hit his head and something.
I don't know. I really don't know, but I don't
think shooted and fell. Listen, I know that sounds crazy
because none of this sounds crazy. I just think it
sounds different.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
And I think you might confuse me more because that
maybe he slipped on the snow.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Yes it's an icy you know, and like, yes, a
car is coming at him. He's like yes, you know,
and he jumps out of the way. And but that's
also not what the prosecution has proved. They have presented
in fine detail, right, And that's the issue is that
they and I said this yesterday, I think the prosecution's
(17:10):
theory is completely you know, out of whack and totally inappropriate.
Both both medical people said that he was not hit
with a car on the defensive side and the prosecution side.
So even the state's own medical anxiety, wasn't it with
a car? Like what are they thinking?
Speaker 2 (17:27):
What are And here's a question though, for both of
you and at home, like eight eight eight three one crime?
Please join us into this conversation, what should any of
them have done? If you know, we get the benefit
of you know, talking in hindsight here everybody's hindsight. We
get to look at everybody else's you know, tragedy in
this case and say, okay.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
What would we have done differently?
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I guess the first is don't get behind the wheel
with a bunch of booze, but call the cops.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Like what how would Karen read prevent this? Again? I
don't know. And this is what's frustrating is that all
states probably have like little rules and like these little
you know do hikis that we don't know about. And
it is scary, like could I get pulled over tomorrow
and be blamed for a murder that happened in my
(18:14):
neighborhood that I had nothing to do with? Correct, It's
just it's just scary.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
And what if there's enough evidence that just shows that
it wasn't properly secured, the crime scene, wasn't properly attended to.
It certainly wasn't handled with sacred care the way a
crime scene we know is handled. And you know there's
these are trained professionals typically that went out the window.
It was inclement weather. Inclement I don't know why I
(18:39):
say it that way. I just made it a little
extra snowy in France, but the weather was bad. It
was a blizzard, you know, the alcohol. But they were
amongst friends and that let's assume there was nobody on
the road. Are they all culpable though? For this DUI
piece of at any of them? And when they all
be charged? You know, I think every version of this
(18:59):
story has also led to a lot of behind the
wheel boos in.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Oh my word, Well, I want to hear what Michelle thinks.
We have her on the line. I'm Michelle.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
Hello, how were you?
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Hi? Michelle? What's your question?
Speaker 5 (19:15):
So I haven't no, I have the theory. This is
the most believable theory that I have heard yet a
lot of tiktoks, a lot of stuff. So I heard
this the other day and I was like, you know what,
that's actually a really good theory. So this one person
online said that John O'Keefe walked in the house and
(19:35):
the dog didn't recognize him as someone familiar because he
had never been there before, so attacked him, grabbed his arm,
and he had a glass in his hand, and when
he went to try to pull his arm away, hit
his head with his own glass, fell back and hit
his head on like a fireplace or something, and killed himself. Basically,
(19:55):
you know, I had heard of accident accidentally, and they
all panicked because they knew that obviously, you know, he's
not doing well. What do we do? And the other
part of the theory is that he's now got these
you know, foster children at home that they're going to
go after, you know, everyone in the house and take
them for everything that they own, because now you know,
(20:17):
he's got all these kids that he was responsible for.
So the family's gonna you know, take them for everything.
And so they decided to frame Karen read, which I
think in itself is horrible.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
I mean, I can't say the money part of it,
but that makes sense. I mean, I I don't think
they can do it. I don't think it makes sense.
And the reason I don't think it makes sense is
this is a houseful cops. Right, They're not going to
They're not going to panic because somebody fell and hurt themselves. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Right, of course they're not going to panic because they're
going to cover it up by tossing it at the
bottom of the driveway and blaming Karen Read for it
because they can.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
But no, I just don't. That doesn't make any sense
to me. And and the other reason it doesn't make
any sense to me is that the phone data shows
that he never went in that house. So, first of all, Michelle,
thank you for that question. Sparked a lot in all
of us. I think I'm with Michelle on this one.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
But body, I counter what you say about the phone
because in the defense's closing arguments, it depends on who
you're listening to.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
They laid out that really clear case.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
That's a good thing that indeed, the phone's temperature did
not match him lying there the whole time, because it
stayed warm. But it was found behind him, tucked under
his shoulder, and it was only and I forget the time,
but it was much later than twelve thirty when Karen
Reid was there, and then there was a big drop
in the phone's the phone.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
The phone temperature didn't drop from my memory of the
trial until basically he was rolled over and the phone
was exposed to the elements, and then what's her name
picked it up, didn't McCabe grabbed the phone. One of
them grab the phone. I'm looking into this over the break. Yeah,
I'm coming back. Yeah, no, that'd be great. But the
(22:09):
defense laid it out such that I was convinced regardless,
and I was convinced and I'm convinced it different pieces,
Like some pieces, I'm like, yeah, the defense really convinced
me of that. And then it, you know, a prosecution
expert will testify. I'm like, yeah, you know, I believe
that guy, and I don't know why, but I have
different pieces. And maybe this is why I'm so confused
(22:29):
about how I feel about this is that I don't
find hardly any of them credible, by the way, but
the but the people that I did find credible, I believed,
and they're from both sides of the fence. I don't
know it's from. I just think it's confusing that a
bunch of cops would be like, let's throw him a
fellow police officer in our front yard, and we don't
(22:51):
even know if Karen Reid is going to be coming
back and seeing us. That's a fair point, you know,
I just I just don't know how I feel about it. Well,
stick around, we're going to be continuing this converse and
give us a call at one eight eight thirty one.
Crime or used to talk about something. iHeartRadio apps. Stick
right here back to Karen Reid. Maybe we should go
(23:17):
over the charges, because let's go over the there's more
charges to go over. Well, we never really did. We
were just talking about the jury questions. I thought it
was more questions. Sorry, well I'm a question asked a lot.
The questions were such a big deal. It took a
lot of time and we have a lot to say questions. Great,
so let's go over the charges. Okay, So count one
(23:39):
so that there's basically there's three slips. Okay, verdict slips
and they're arranged by count. Right, So count one is
second degree murder, all right, So second degree murder, it's
it's for allegedly intentionally striking John O'Keeffe with their suv
and causing his death. Okay, that's count one. Nobody thinks
(23:59):
that happened. Do we all agree? I agree? Everybody raise
your hands unanimous, disagree eight eight eight three to one.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Crime call pronto. We want to hear from you. But yeah,
it seems like it wasn't intentional.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
I definitely agree on that. Count two seems to be
the most complicated one. Okay, so count two on the
verdict slip is manslaughter while operating under the influence vehicular
manslaughter DUI. For count two, the jury must weigh not
only the duy manslaughter charge but also the lesser included
(24:32):
offenses like involuntary manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, and operating under
the influence of liquor. And it's confusing to the jurors
because they see just one like little not guilty box
and they don't know if they check that, does that
mean she's not guilty for all or where? Yeah, they
don't know. It's all those confused. I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
I am too.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
You explained it so well though, Can you imagine, like
this is a person's entire.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
But listen, this is the second jury he's had a
problem with this, so it's clearly an issue, right. Yeah,
I feel like the Commonwealth's gaslighting us all they are.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
And by the way, how a bad if you're John
O'Keeffe victim's family and this is enraging for them. You know,
they just want some justice. If it's not Karen Reid,
who is it? But also this confusion, you know it must.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Feel very unsatisfying. I can't imagine. Well, I can't imagine
for the family. I can't imagine. So count three it's
on the last page of this verdict slip, and it
is leaving the scene of a personal injury or death.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
So maybe she unknowingly did if she hit him and
didn't realize it.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
Yeah, like, I mean, that might go like hand in
hand with count two. Now it's important to remember the
last question that Durry asked. If we find not guilty
on two of the charges but can't agree on one,
is it a hung jury? So what but two counts? Basically,
(26:01):
are they thinking in their heads that she's not guilty
on is it count one? I think it is. I
think you just are guilty of count one. Yeah, she's
not guilty. I agree. I find me a man who
says she's guilty of right, I don't. I mean, I
don't think anybody thinks that, well, maybe I'm wrong. I
don't know or like which which ones are they? Are
(26:21):
they saying that they're thinking that she's not guilty on
And that's really the million dollar question right now.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
And like, isn't one influence in the other. So if
you're clearly she was under some sort of influence, you know,
whether it was at five am or twelve thirty, I
don't think that's you know, disputable that she's been drinking
all day? Does that mean drinking all day? You get
charged with some sort of you know, do U I
or od I or whatever the language is, and just
inadvertently as a result of your drunkenness or being under
(26:48):
the influence you peel out. Those do sort of seem
hand in hand?
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Yeah? They do. I think they kind of go together. Yeah.
Likely no real jail time though for either of those,
I guess is the other burning question we've been trying
to get clarity on. Obviously it's all very unknowable, given
that lots of things can still happen before the verdict
is announced, But for the play along, you know, is
(27:13):
it possible there's another hung jury? What does that mean?
Does Karen Reid get tried yet again. I don't think
the Commonwealth would ever is ever going to do like you. Eventually,
you just have to stop trying.
Speaker 7 (27:24):
I can't.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
I mean, what are they going to do the rest
or just.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
Not pursue again? Boy that I mean if that happens
and we actually have Sue on the line with a question, Sue,
what's your question?
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Hello?
Speaker 7 (27:39):
Hi, I want to talk about the jury. Yes, I'm
a local too, I'm a local Bostonian. I live in
a surrounding town of Canton. And just how confusing the
I understood the jury sloop myself, but I can understand
why people didn't understand it because it's just so confusing.
(28:06):
You've got the from it's number two. I think that
it was to number five. I think the jury is
looking at the fifth one, which is the o UI
with the point oh eight, and they's another one too,
But I just think that that's what the jury has
(28:28):
hung up on, is that one. And I feel like
one in three, the first and the third count is
not guilty. So I totally.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Agree with that. I think you're one hundred percent right.
So I think you're so right.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
I can only imagine, though, what has it been like
just as a local. This this you know, this case
has made everybody crazy, let alone in the area. It's
probably been a little disruptive.
Speaker 7 (28:52):
Yeah, it definitely has been, you know, you know the
people's Norfolk County kind of up in arms is an expression, yes,
to how much money has been spent two trials.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Oh, I didn't even think.
Speaker 7 (29:11):
Yeah, on two cases that should have never It should
have never been. Like according to the FBI, they told
them not to try this case.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Let alone twice.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
And it's not like Karen reads a menace to society
where she's going to, you know, go be reckless right now.
But again, is that also just us whitewashing it a bit?
I don't know, Sue, I feel sick over it, Sue.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
Speaking of the money, By the way, one expert alone
and the defense attorney hit this really well, I thought,
or just to prove the point, almost a half a
million dollars was for their crash reconstruction expert. What so
that's one expert in one of these two trials that
the common mosment.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
Wait say that once more. That's yeah, the mind belonged.
So the prosecutions the guy who did the reconstruction with
the blue paint.
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Yeah, and the guy said, who dressed up like John
O'Keefe and painted himself? That is paraphrasing what the defense said,
of course, but yeah, that one expert was four hundred
thousand dollars.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
WHOA.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
I was not going to be happy about that too.
I'm sure that was not what you were looking to hear. No, no,
because she's paying for it, right.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:26):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
So there was one other thing I wanted to bring up,
and that was the jury deliberation time. Right. So I
put together like a little sheet and I went and
looked up all kinds of cases all right, Like I
got like OJ Jody, Arius, Kasey, Anthony, you know, like
the heavy hitters, right, and I looked at how long
(30:50):
the the jury deliverery for and what the outcome was. No,
you didn't just look.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
So just to give everybody a little insight to what.
First of all, Courtney has a knot on her forehead
right now, and it has like an ice patch on it.
So this is just what I'm just staring at, just
to set the stage. And then by He's like, yeah,
I just was curious about the numbers. She is a
full on Excel sheet that looks at some of the
top cases and how long the deliberation was by hour,
(31:17):
and then what that equals per day, and then what
the verdict was and drum roll, because it's pretty impressive.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Listen to get an analyst, Yeah, to get your talk
about day. Well, unfortunately it was for nothing. We literally
learned nothing. So what we learned is that jury deliberation
time doesn't tell us anything. Right, it does seem random.
It does seem random. For instance, the Menanda's brothers. The
(31:45):
first trial, if you remember, there were two separate juries,
there were two separate trials, right. The first trial, they
deliberated for sixteen days for lyle In eighteen days for
Kyle eighteen days. Both ended in mistrial. Both whow after
that many days? Can you imagine? Wait? I just can't.
(32:06):
The second trial they deliberated for thirty five hours, which
is roughly six days give or take, and that was guilty.
Now that trial they merged the jury into one and
there was one one trial for both boys. I say boys,
but they were men. Karen Reid's first trial twenty seven hours,
(32:27):
miss trial. What's another one? Jody Arius sixteen hours? How
do you guilty? And Jody Ai is guilty again. Another one,
Jody Aari is accused of kills. Oh, here's a big one,
Casey Anthony ten hours and that's right where we are
right now, Right, that's about where we are with because
it was about ten hours and forty five minutes. That's
(32:47):
where we are right now with Karen Reid, right. I
think it's a few more. Anthony famously not guilty. Right,
So it really is all over the place. LORI vallowed
just recently half an hour. Well, I think that would
be that we just covered Maxwell Anderson, that we just
covered fifty minutes, oj four hours, Uh, Chad Davell five
(33:12):
five hours guilty, you know, but that's just what you
want if your life is on the line.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Wouldn't it feel better if you just knew everybody felt
very clean and clear about what they saw and what
they heard, and it was you know, nothing is black
and white, obviously, but that it felt, you know, like
the debate it was not there's no going back.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
Right.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
If it feels this nebulous and so divided and they're
you know, picking out straws and mincing hairs, is that
troubling and even more scary? I know that's the process
and I still respect it. It's just, you know, a
rrowing thing to be a part of. I feel like
the only thing we know the longer it goes, is
that not everybody's in agreement. There's healthy debate. We have
(33:57):
to be positive there's healthy debate happening in the deliberation room,
and we have to respect the process. This is how
you know, this is the system in which we operate
in That's a fact.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
All right.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Well, we're keeping a close We're keeping a close watch.
As Courtney's head begins to swell.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
It's been that.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Big brain you with Courtney. You were going to fill
us in on the new development in the Matthew Perry case.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Yeah, what a tragedy that guy.
Speaker 4 (34:21):
I mean, everyone loved him from friends and you know,
he just seemed like a good human. I actually had
the luck to meet him at a couple of events
and anyway, nice guy.
Speaker 3 (34:32):
Yeah, I bet he was so nice.
Speaker 4 (34:34):
Absolutely. But yesterday the Department of Justice revealed that one
of the doctors, doctor Placentia, who was charging connection with
the ketamine death case, he's agreed to a plead deal
to plead guilty.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Excuse me, he has agreed to plead guilty to four
counts of distribution of ketamine, and this plea will be
happening in the coming weeks. The charge carries a statutory
max sentence of forty years in federal prison. Good.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
So, honestly, it's a really serious thing. I mean, obviously
Matthew Perry became the face of this, and we all
love him. I mean, he's America's sweetheart. But this ketamine drug,
if you guys aren't familiar with it, it is like a tranquilizer,
and it has a clear look and it's very potent,
and I you know, it's being used, you know, kind
of widely, certainly in Los Angeles at least as something
(35:27):
for post traumatic stress or if people are coming off
of drug addiction, and it's being you know, used in
a medical sense.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
By actual doctors. And that's very specific, right. So I
have a number of friends that do treatment and they
call it they're going to the Kennemen hole, and like
they they get a lot of relief. Ye, relief.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
Well, I think what you're both saying is when it's
you know, medically and ethically ghost but placentia. Listen, it's
only one of five people who are charged in the
wake of Matthew Perry's death. I mean, he was getting
so much ketamine such an incredibly high level that it
was it was completely unethical to continue to give it.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
And they knew that he was, you know, paying top
dollar for it. Isn't there a text exchange between this
man who's taken his plea deal or has taken pled
guilty basically was like texting with someone basically making fun
of Matthew Perry, like, I can't believe this guy's going
to pay this price for this much. I'm paraphrasing, but
I mean, what a flippant statement to be coming from
(36:35):
this Air quotes medical profession who knows full well this
is a person who's been really dealing with recovery and
should be applauded for that and helped in that cause,
not hooked.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
On something else predatory. It's disgusting. Yeah, it's really disgusting.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
And the doctors, the texture referring to Stephanie, they really
were so disgusting and dismissive of Matthew Perry said, oh,
we're really getting one over on him. But listen, this doctor,
doctor Placentia, He operated an urgent care clinic in Malibu,
so you know, of course, but no longer is the
guess on that.
Speaker 3 (37:13):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Good, well, you know you think about that too, you
know those urgent clinics. That's also been something that's been
brought into, you know, conversations.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
You know. The Queen of Ketamine, for example, is a name.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Now that I've said it, you'll see this case kind
of heeding up a little bit as well, because they're
figuring out the types of charges. If you're the main dog,
if it's ketamine or cocaine, it's an enterprise of sorts.
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Anyway, don't get me started.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
We'll be right back true crime tonight, talking true crime
all the time. Diddy and the Long Island serial killer
stay with us.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
We are heated up on all things. Did he now?
Speaker 2 (37:56):
And also Long Island We've got to get into that
one too. But first we have a talk back, so
let's go straight to that.
Speaker 8 (38:03):
Hi, It's Cynthia from Canada in regards to the Idaho
massacre and the door Dash delivery person. Is there no
way to find the driver through the individual's door Dash
app and through the company itself. Should be able to
track the individual down that way, but I'm not sure
(38:23):
if that's the case. Again in the US versus Canada,
but just thought i'd throw that out there.
Speaker 3 (38:28):
Thanks. Great, good question. Yeah, good question, Cynthia. Well, you
should know that in the PCA, which is the probable
cause effidavit for arrest of Brian Coberger, it says in
there that the door dash driver went to police. So
the police and everyone already knows who the DoorDash driver is,
so they don't really need to track her down or
(38:49):
him or her down. We now kind of think it's her,
but her identity has been kept secret from the public. Yes,
And I want to say that initially she was protected
because of what we've learned. And what we've learned is
that it's possible that Brian Koberger, the suspect in this case,
(39:12):
possibly saw her and looked right at her. So if
that's true, right, and he is committing a crime and
he goes home and he's like, oh my god, did
that lady see me, she's at risk, right. So they
keep those kinds of things secret from the public, specifically witnesses,
because they could be you know, in danger now because
(39:33):
there's an unknown killer on the loose, right who might
have seen this person. So they keep those kinds of
things secret. Right? So yeah, about the door dash thing, right,
we talked about the path of it yesterday.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
We were too afraid to talk about it yesterday, and
that was just like a game day decision that we
made as a team because we weren't sure if it
had been verified. Is this appropriate information for us to
have given them? You know, dateline leaks like we don't
want to go were always and we should we every
day should be gut checking like how do we how
(40:08):
do we share the news that we're following real time
and also make sure that we're ethically not getting off track.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
So the DoorDash stuff I thought was, ugh, I don't
love it. I don't love it, go ahead, body of it?
Other but so it. Let me just give you a
brief overview of this door dash situation. So there's a
recent footage of the alleged DoorDash driver excuse me, linking
Coberger to the murders has been circulating on YouTube about
(40:38):
eight months ago. A YouTube account. Basically this account follows
or does fo your requests for like drunk driving incidences,
and their whole YouTube channel is just body cam footage,
so it's you know, that's their content and they're allowed
to do that. Nothing wrong with that. And eight months
ago a video was uploaded and a woman is getting
(41:01):
pulled over for a DUI or an OUI I guess
state dependent, and they take her to the station and
she is talking to the intake officer about her life. Right,
She's just talking about her life, and she says, you know,
and this is my interpretation of what she says, because
(41:22):
it is kind of hard to hear, so I could
have some things wrong, but this has also been heard
by many other people, so it's not just me, and
what she says is And then now I have to
testify in this big murder case here because I'm the
door dash driver. So yeah, the murder case of those
college girls. I'm the door dash driver. I saw Brian there.
(41:44):
I parked right next to him. So that was made
eight months ago, but nobody noticed it because like maybe
like nobody's watching this that it's also following the cases closely.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
Right, also, just to jump into that, nobody's following the
case that closely that time. And if you haven't been
following this place, we're talking about the Idaho college murders
where the accused Brian Coburger allegedly murdered for college students,
all in the same location one night. Major overkill in
the trial's upcoming. And now this footage has been released.
(42:18):
Who knew this body care channel exists? It sounds like
so up our ally, but you know, she was under
the influence, allegedly, and you know, is having a tough night.
She has this, you know, she kind of mumbles this
information about this Brian person that she sees, but then
she also goes on to say that she also witnessed
(42:39):
her husband being murdered, right, which we did very seemed
a little crazy, like when you put that as a totality,
she just seemed like she was having a really wicked night.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
But now it turns out her husband was murdered, right,
she said. I mean, listen, my heart goes out to her.
I mean, she's clearly experienced her fair share of trauma,
and now this, you know, and you know, when we
were talking about talking about this, when we were talking
about talking about this, I was like, I need to
go and verify this information, you know, I need to
(43:09):
somehow to feel good about even talking about this. It
needs to be verified. But there's no way to verify
that she's actually the DoorDash driver. So what I did
was I went and verified surrounding things about her that
she told in the body cam footage and everything that
she has said. Matt lines up. But here's this is
(43:30):
right up my alley. I would just kind of it
is like, you have a twinkle in her eye right now,
I do. Well. The reason the reason I have a
twinkle in my eye, I think it was an incredible
act of slew thing that was done that found this information. Right,
So what initially I thought was that somebody foya requested
(43:51):
police reports for everybody that basically starts with mm, because
that's the only thing we knew about the door dash driver. Yeah,
mm right, didn't We didn't know anything, by the way,
A wait, for good reason. I wouldn't want to have
my information out there's not so and then doing that,
they were able to get this bodycam footage and we're like,
oh my god, yeah that's her. So that's kind of
(44:12):
what I think happened because it got flagged by a
totally different account, not the account with the body cam footage,
totally different account re uploaded it and said hey you guys,
and you know tagged everything Idaho for all the victims' names,
you know, everything, so that it would appear in the
algorithm for I to hope people. And yeah, it's very interesting.
Speaker 4 (44:32):
I have to say, my heart goes out to this woman. Yeah,
because too, you know. And just assuming she's obviously she
has been arrested in this footage, that's anyone's a terrible night,
that's no one shining night, you know, and assuming that
she goes and testifies, I feel like just her reputation,
(44:55):
oh well, she's she's a drunk versus we don't know
what else surrounds this one incident. And I don't know,
I just put that out there that.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
She's just experienced tremendous loss. Her husband was murdered in
front of her. You know, these are traumatic things. Again,
we're not you know, putting ourselves too deep in the world,
but you know, it is sort of like the summation
of one night. And now she's being held, you know,
and called to appear, and it's a very big piece
of this trial.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
And it could be a key witness, right, it could
be a lynch pin sort of thing of this case.
So one other thing I did to kind of verify
this info and people might find this interesting because it
has more detail about the Stordash driver and what she saw.
Do tell. So there's a YouTube channel called the Drunk
Turkey Show and it's a he's former law enforcement. His
(45:46):
name's Daniel, really nice guy. He's been following IDAHO since
the beginning. Again, he's former only he has a relationship
with Steve Golensalvez. You know, Steve is on his channel
now and then giving up dates and whatnot. It's it's
a great channel on one of the victims, Kaylee Gonzalveez's father,
Thank you Gonzalez. Yeah. Well, in a show dated after
all this came out this weekend, in a show dated
(46:10):
on the fourteenth, Daniel basically said, yeah, I've been getting
calls from the DoorDash driver and then I didn't really
respond because like, I get calls all the time and
everybody's crazy and I get it because people email me
crazy things all the time. Yeah, and so I'm like, yeah,
you totally get that. But then he said he also
got a call from somebody saying that they were the
(46:30):
DoorDash driver's friend. And the name they used is the
same name of the lady in the body cam footage.
So that was important information to verify this. Additionally, he
said he got more information from this friend the DoorDash driver.
He said, she's a single, middle aged woman who specifically
(46:52):
remembers seeing a white vehicle passed by the house a
number of times in a short period when she was
at the home. So she's walking to the house to
deliver the door dash and then walking back to her car.
Right as she was walking, the driver of the vehicle
was passing. She looked up at him and he was staring,
I'm sorry, I lost my place. As she was walking
(47:13):
on the as she was walking, the driver of the
white vehicle was passing. She looked at the car, and
the driver of the car was looking at the house
and at her, which was scary, right is she Also
she also said he was staring so intently at the house,
she wasn't even sure if he saw her because he
(47:35):
was like so laser focused and this is chilling. At
the same time, she looked up onto the second floor
and saw a female standing in the window. It was
probably looking door dash order.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
And if you don't know this case, well, one of
the victims, beautiful Xana Carnodle. She and her boyfriend, you
know were just getting back from a night out and
you know.
Speaker 3 (47:59):
They were door dash and you.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Know how that is after God students the best. You know,
you're with your boyfriend, you're so hungry, you want to
have like, you know, greasy food and you get to
sleep in in the morning. And that's what should have happened,
and instead some psycho changed their course. And wow, thank
god she survived. I mean, this poor DoorDash woman, as
(48:23):
much trauma as she's seen with her husband dying in
front of her, at least you know.
Speaker 3 (48:28):
She had this. She may have walked right by a
mass murderer. Yeah, scary boddie. I have a question. Yeah,
I'm not sure if I understood.
Speaker 4 (48:40):
So you're saying that this Doordask driver, the woman we're
speaking about, that both she and her friend called the
YouTuber drunk turkey.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
Is that correct? Yeah? That's my understanding, is that the
DoorDash driver herself called And I could be wrong about this.
A made and I might have misunderstood the way Daniel
was explaining it because he was reading his notes. By
the way he was reading his notes and he was like, uh,
my writing sucks, and I'm trying to decipher what I'm
what I wrote down, So he was relaying what he
what he remembered, and what he remembered was that I
(49:13):
believe he said the DoorDash driver called, but he just
he was like, yeah, whatever, you're crazy, you know. But
then a friend of hers called and used the same
name as the lady in the body cam footage, which
is like very I mean, that's a that's a big deal.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Is it like appropriate for us to know this because
now the defense has time? That's a little mic drop,
you know, in trial?
Speaker 3 (49:38):
It is, it's a huge micd up drop in trial,
it's huge. But does this take the wind out of
the sales of the prosecution? Does it bolster the defense
or does it make it worse? Is it more prejudicial
to Brian? And is this going to cause another delay?
Speaker 4 (49:51):
But if her initials were in the PSA, correct, her
initials are in the PCIATION.
Speaker 3 (49:55):
No they're not. They're in documents though.
Speaker 4 (49:58):
Oh they're in documents. We're gonna see how this unfolds.
Speaker 2 (50:02):
So listen, we've covered Karen Reid probably longer than we should.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
I still feel like we even haven't scratched the surface.
So we'll be on verdict watch and then Diddy. We
have not been following this very closely these last few days,
so we have much to catch up on. I don't
know where I'm in with this really, I mean a
couple of major things, you know, since we last spoke
was listen one of the jurors being dismissed, dur number six.
What's up with all the jury drama? The jury drama
(50:29):
is a bit much. First of all, it's the summer
of ja.
Speaker 2 (50:33):
I mean, it's really kind of true, right, because first
of all, why is this jury not sequestered? If you
know that the charges that Diddy is, you know, up
for these racketeering charges, which implies you're controlling a narrative.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
And maybe we've seen the CNN.
Speaker 2 (50:48):
The aster, Yeah, that he obviously hate one hundred thousand
dollars to have that Cassie video you know, disappear even
from the hotel.
Speaker 3 (50:57):
Yeah, the hotel security got paid off.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Everybody gets paid off and Diddy land if you know
that's the case, wouldn't it feel appropriate in this case
to sequester the jury. I actually think that Karen read
jury should have been se questioned. I do too, I mean,
don't get me started. Luckily, it's not I know it's
a very big commitment for a citizen, but nonetheless, if
I'm a juror on the Diddy trial, I first of all,
(51:21):
I would want to be in a secret I want
an arm and yeah, I want an arm guard and
a bag over my head.
Speaker 3 (51:26):
They've been looking over their shoulder the rest of their lives.
You imagine that you're putting your life on the line,
and if you hear things like a possible pardon.
Speaker 2 (51:34):
Not that this hasn't been said in a while, this
is old, but again, you know here you are. You're
either a witness or a jur and you've put your
life on the line and showed your face to people.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
That's very scary stuff.
Speaker 2 (51:47):
Well, there's a seconder that also might get removed because
the second ur has apparently received a text that basically
asked the question via text. It was from someone this
juror apparently didn't know who asked them, are you juror
number six?
Speaker 3 (52:06):
What? Probably when the news was occurring about this juror
number six getting you know, dumped, I didn't hear that. No,
So the person this second jur has not been officially dismissed,
but this has now been brought up as that could
be painful. It slightly implied that, or at least.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
This is how I interpreted it, it was implying that
they were either communicating about this case with the outside
world or that somebody had you know, gotten their information.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
And you know, let the slow roll threats begin.
Speaker 2 (52:37):
If you're trying to buy a jur I'm not saying
that that is happening, but it's just you know how
it happens in the movies, right, So this is big
stuff having a suspicious juror at this stage in a trial.
Speaker 3 (52:51):
So hold on, I'm sorry, Can you stop for a second.
I sure, kim babe, bring it, bring it? Are you
telling me the sitting juror got a text from somebodyyous
and it says are you during number six? Correct? And
that juror went to the judge I'm guessing correct, and
was like, bro, what what you know? What's going on here?
(53:13):
That's my understanding. So I wonder, I mean, this is
this is scandalous, like scandalous. I know where somebody okay, listen,
where my mind goes is somebody snuck in like a
member of the public watch watching you know that you
can see the jury when you're you know, when you're
in the room, right, true, and had like the little
(53:34):
Google glasses or something, took a picture of the jury
and face. I d checked all the faces. Can you
do that? Yes, Softy? What absolutely? I could? Yeah, no
way that. I feel scared. Let's do it. It's a subscription,
it's a subscription service. No, we can. We can do
a demonstration and we can maybe upgrade it to TikTok
(53:56):
or something. But we're taking volunteers. I'm just trying to
figure out. And then they docked that person and got
their phone number. Yes, that could be. That's so terriful.
That's terrifying.
Speaker 2 (54:10):
And again, isn't it Also why isn't the juror in
these high profile cases like behind like a secret goal
ass or something.
Speaker 3 (54:18):
Maybe they might need to start being I mean, listen,
I just made all that up in my head just now.
But how that happened? But it's just a theory, like
how how would that get out? Unless there's like a
bad clerk, you know, fifty grand slip to the person,
you know what I mean, like something like that. That's worse.
(54:38):
It continues, go ahead, coordinator, I'm sorry, the judge.
Speaker 4 (54:42):
So the judge has grilled both parties about potentially leaked information.
It was published in a news article before the testimony
kicked off today. Both teams of lawyers denied leaking the
sealed details, and the contents of the leak is unknown.
Speaker 3 (54:58):
But the judge is and I'm looking at a quote
here she said or they said.
Speaker 4 (55:04):
Someone is lying and threatened to hold the attorneys in
contempt of court if anything like it happens again.
Speaker 3 (55:11):
Here's another quote. One or more people who are here
Friday in this courtroom lagrantly violated this court's orders.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
I mean, but again, they're going home for the weekend.
You can't avoid it. I mean again, I'm just playing
Devil's advocate here. I know they're supposed to put earmuffs
on and go home and stay in a vacuum room
that's sealed away with no conversation, in no media.
Speaker 3 (55:33):
I get it, But like, is that the real world?
Speaker 4 (55:35):
But hold on, Stephanie, I wasn't clear the judge was
reprimanding the lawyers on both sides. This was closed door
with the attorneys.
Speaker 3 (55:45):
So the allegation is.
Speaker 2 (55:48):
Now, can I just ask another strategy question to use
smarty pants girls. Here's a question. It just a strategy.
I'm on the defense team. Now, I'm on team Diddy,
and I want there to be like some shenanigans, So
I send a text. You know, I'm a member of
the Comb's family, many of them. I'm not saying that
(56:08):
this is happening. Janis Combs, don't come for me on
this one. But again, like to know body's point, you're
seeing the jurors. If you send one of those texts,
you know it's going to cause a rumble, and that
that juror is going to feel compelled to tell the
judge and it's going to cause question and then they're
going to get tossed and it's going to cause abyss.
And that is that just like the wheels turning at
(56:31):
a certain point right now in this case.
Speaker 4 (56:33):
I mean, that's a crazy interesting hypothetical, Stephanie.
Speaker 3 (56:38):
But I mean I've said this before, but I'm like
super nerdy when it comes to like the justice system.
I'm super naive and like our justice system is amazing,
you know, I really those things are true, and I
really put them on high pedestal. And that is so
unethical and it goes like you could they would not
(56:58):
only could they go to jail, they would be sparred. Yes,
for the Again, this.
Speaker 2 (57:02):
Is also we're hearing story after story after story, and
I fear that we're having some fatigue of hearing about
this world that operates in. It's really unbelievable what he
does on the daily basis. And we heard alleged again allegedly,
allegedly allegedly, I at least take Jane, the most recent victim,
(57:22):
at face value. I have no reason not to. She
apparently still has feelings for him. But it's very clear
that Shawn Di Di Combs does not know how to
treat another human respectfully. And they had that another person
who on the stand today who was like summarizing what
do they call that?
Speaker 3 (57:38):
A summary summary witness?
Speaker 2 (57:40):
Yeah, another summary witness, But this one was a juicy
one because the summary witness was basically summarizing all of
the texts between some of the office mates and you know,
team Shawn Combs aka Christina Korum who is KK is
how she's known, and she is Ditty's chief of staff
(58:05):
within Comb's Enterprises. She used to be a former executive
at bad Boy Records. I know I sound like a
broken record, but I've been waiting for this moment. I've
been tracking her so closely because it doesn't add up
to me. I don't know you and Indy, right, Indy
and I I mean.
Speaker 3 (58:18):
Indy, where are you at eight and eight three one?
Crime calls immediately.
Speaker 2 (58:22):
But like it, it has seemed as though there has
been this right hand woman who has been cited in
a lot of these civil allegations against Ditty as.
Speaker 3 (58:31):
One of the corroborators. We talked about this last night.
Speaker 2 (58:35):
If Ditty is Epstein, then this KK would be Glene Maxwell,
kind of the groomer. But it's a really important piece
of the puzzle because according to this summary witness or
summary witness, Yes, after like all of these texts, it's
pretty clear that Christina knew what was you know, she
was running a tight ship and the ship was about
(58:57):
trafficking women and bringing in male escort from here, there
and everywhere. That she was coordinating it, that she was
giving instructions to get four thousand dollars in cash that
she was getting you know, fifteen.
Speaker 3 (59:08):
Pills of molly. That's called drug trafficking.
Speaker 2 (59:10):
I guess very much aware that you know, revenge video
was being used against witness Jane I guess allegedly that Jane,
who was one of the many women that did he
was apparently having freak offs. Like this guy had a
full time job freaking off. That's all he did, was
freak off.
Speaker 3 (59:30):
But side note Jane, apparently he was threatening her that
he would send these tapes of her performing in a
freak off to her ex husband and the father of
her child. That's pretty bad. So if this kk knew
about that.
Speaker 2 (59:44):
That again, these are people on staff within his enterprise
that are being paid as workers, but really are fulfilling
the needs of baby oil and freakofs and drugs. The
amount of drugs that they were all doing too, and
these were like mean drugs. Like they all kind of
turned on each other and they were having sex for.
Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
Days and days and how does that even happen? Days
and days and days.
Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
And then Jane would be like and then after that,
I got to take care of Diddy. She would like
get to like take a bath and you know, rub
his head while he slept, and they would eat and
watch Dateline.
Speaker 3 (01:00:18):
I'm like, this is all the things that she accrently did.
He loves Dateline.
Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
He loves that date Line. That's the way I did
the math on this too, because she gets a lot
of slack. He was paying her rent, you know, allegedly
did he was paying victim Jane's rent ten thousand dollar bills.
Oh you know, it's expensive, ten thousand dollars a lot. However,
these escorts were getting paid two thousand per night, So
it's you do the math. Jane was not actually getting
(01:00:42):
such a great deal. She actually was getting some discount
pricing because she had to perform all the time. It
was legitimately like a full time.
Speaker 3 (01:00:49):
Job for her. Oh yeah, this was her job and
she was she had to meet his needs twenty four
to day.
Speaker 7 (01:00:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:00:56):
So do we have to hear more about Diddy? Like?
Can we gets get to the like? You know, I
feel like what else wean? Well, the defense hasn't even
started that I.
Speaker 4 (01:01:04):
Am so I'm anticipating that so strongly. I just I
literally cannot wait to hear. And I believe he has
ten lawyers on his team, all brilliant minds. I am
so curious what that is going to be like. And listen,
we are going to be following that of course, but
stick around because next we're also filling you in on
(01:01:25):
the latest with the accused Long Island serial killer. He
was in court today. As always, give us a call
eight A eight three one crime. You are what makes
the show interesting and keeps the conversation going. So keep
it here on true Crime tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
Rex Humorman, the accused Long Island serial killer, back in
court for a hearing. You know who wants to take
it first?
Speaker 3 (01:01:58):
I will? That's cool it. So yeah, today he had
court today and this was a hearing to determine if
the DNA evidence is admissible. Apparently the DNA testing method
that they did to match these hairs to you know,
Rex and his family is kind of like a new
(01:02:21):
thing in New York. So they had a fry hearing,
And a fry hearing is basically a pre trial proceeding
that determines admissibility of scientific evidence that really hasn't It's
kind of groundbreaking, right, So that's called a fry hearing.
And they had this fry hearing today and the judge
heard the prosecutors want to admit this cutting edge genetic
(01:02:44):
evidence linking heuremanto seven. I mean, this is seven of
these victims. This is a lot of victims. And if
this DNA evidence isn't admitted, do they have rex right,
I mean, that's the.
Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
Odds even if this is trash, what are the odds
that there's seven pieces of evidence? You know, according to
Joseph Scott Morgan when he was with us, he felt
like this is a silly argument.
Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
Right. So Huerman's attorney, Michael Brown, maintains that he does
not believe the nuclear DNA evidence put forth by the
prosecution is science. He said it has not been accepted
in criminal cases across the nation except for once in Idaho,
of all places, what mm hmm, where he said there
are lesser standards than New York state. Of course, that
(01:03:32):
made the hair on my next stand up, right, because
we've just got done talking about I know, right. He
added that a company in California that produced the DNA
does not have a permit to enter evidence into proceedings
in the state of New York. So this could like
really be a thing. This could really be a thing.
And if the judge to sought out lest the judge
has not given us as ruling, I didn't expect a
(01:03:54):
bench ruling, like, I mean, the judge has to like
go and research and read the document, and you know,
he's got to figure out what he's going to do.
He can't just do that from the bench, right, Like,
he's not going to hear everything and be like, Okay,
you know, let's do it or let's not. He's going
to go think about it. So that's what he's doing
right now and hopefully we'll hear from him soon. But
I mean, if this gets dismissed, what does this mean
(01:04:15):
for the case? Sam get dismissed?
Speaker 4 (01:04:18):
It can, but it's complicated because so much it does
have to go through the procedural process of being accepted
into court. That's something with every kind of piece of
forensics and different cases we've done with bite marks for example,
or shoe analysis.
Speaker 3 (01:04:38):
Actually shoe analysis, right, do you guys remember the smell
analysis at the death farm or whatever, the body farm
in Knoxville.
Speaker 4 (01:04:48):
But it's a complicated process because everything at one point
was breaking ground in somewhere and to meet the court standard.
It's just a higher standard, which on the one hand,
it should. You can't go in and say, you know,
the sky is red if it's not. But Joseph Scott Morgan,
if you guys remember on Sunday when you know we
(01:05:08):
had touched on this just a little bit, knowing the
hearing was coming up. What he said was that in
medical professionals, they've been using this for a really long time.
Speaker 3 (01:05:18):
Right, so, and I'm hoping that's the saving grace. I'm
hoping that that's a saving grace. I just listen if
something bad is going to happen, like I automatically go
to that, you know, like it's just my default, Like
oh great, you know this is going to get thrown out,
and like what does this mean for the case, And
you know, all these women, like it's scary, it's scary
(01:05:39):
to think that. I mean, what are the chances all
seven victims matched to Rex? Right? And then they say, well,
you can't use the DNA. So if they don't have
the DNA, what else do they have? Oh well, there's
actually many things. There's many things do you have? I
mean the belt for one of you know, okay, that's
(01:06:00):
writing this bell.
Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
It has his father's initials, grandfather's initials R.
Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
Yeah, allegedly allegedly. But the time phone, the cell phones,
the cell phone tracking he was yeah, that's he had
the burner phone and his phone, right, that's one thing that.
Speaker 4 (01:06:15):
He was connected. Those burner phones were how he used
to communicate to the victims. And they have absolute tracking
because he kept his regular phone on his person. So
wherever the burner phone contacting these victims went, so did
direct tuermen.
Speaker 3 (01:06:32):
And right, so that's one thing. That another thing they have.
Another thing they have is you know, these killings happened
when his wife was you know, conveniently in Iceland visiting family. Right,
so he had all this time and opportunity. They have
the document. You guys know about this document. Yes, go ahead,
we have got to talk about this document, and body,
(01:06:53):
I want to hear from you. Yeah, those documents by
so fast, I need like ten more hours. I could
talk about this. I could talk about the document for
twenty six hours. Literally, I feel like I'm I feel
like I'm so like Ragye right now. I just so
we're gonna go out and get in a bar fire.
Speaker 7 (01:07:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
So Forensically they analyzed all of Rex's you know, equipment,
to his devices, his computers and whatnot, and they found
that he had created this like word document, this Microsoft
word document, and he deleted it. And not only did
he delete it, he bought software to basically shred it,
like you know, fancy software that would forensically delete things
(01:07:36):
that he didn't want to keep on his computer. Yeah,
well they got it.
Speaker 2 (01:07:40):
I mean that doesn't ever happen though, isn't that like
the whole giggle, Like that doesn't get stake. You can
never really get rid of than anything, right, right, So
they put basically they put this document back together piece
by piece right digitally, and what emerged from this document
is frightening.
Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
It's literally a serial killer like checklist, No, what's on
this checklist? I don't like the checklist for Cereal, guys.
There's so many things on it that I can't even
remember everything. But it's things like it seems like rope,
shovel shovel thumb tacks. Make sure you know you use
(01:08:19):
thumb tacks to put the canvas up so that you
don't mark the wall or you know, the ceiling with
nail you know, like, no, where are you putting the
nails like to not block it up with blood? Or
what are we blocked? So you know?
Speaker 1 (01:08:35):
You know?
Speaker 2 (01:08:35):
Did you guys ever watch It's like dexter, wait are
we listening? Are we in the silence of the lambs?
Speaker 3 (01:08:40):
Right? You guys have not seen this document? I've got
to send it to you show shut the windows. I
feel scared. It's go ahead, It's there's much more in
this document. There's there's so many things, like I'm all
excited about a documents.
Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
So wait, rex Humor in the accused has a Google
document that he ray but it really wasn't a race,
because never really gets a race in this life and on.
Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
It is a Google doc. This guy's an architect, by
the way.
Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
So it's not like he was a criminology student or
you know, an author of true crime.
Speaker 3 (01:09:11):
It's also not like he was a dummy though.
Speaker 4 (01:09:14):
If you are, you are very systematic and you know
line up things, so it would makes sense that you'd
lay things.
Speaker 3 (01:09:22):
Out on the document architect. You have to be an
attack on any other architects. We don't accuse you. No, no, no,
you're not dumb together a kill list like that. The
Suffolk County District Attorney said he's never seen a document
like this, Like he's never seen you have to I
need one more highlight the rope you've got made. No,
(01:09:42):
there's he talks about the hard point, the hard point
waout attacks. What do we do with the tacks? Okay,
so he's Basically, if you're going to kill somebody and
there's going to be blood spatter, you want to protect, oh,
the environment, so you hang up like plastic sheeting. And
he would use plasts, you know, the little thumb tacks. Yes,
(01:10:03):
he would do to put into the ceiling, because his
ceiling was like one of those drop ceilings that has
like the holes already in it. Oh and so sustain
nailing things in. It would go, well, I can't sustain
nailing things in, but it also is disguised by these
little holes and it's just the thumb tack doesn't really
leave any distinguishing marks that make it look different. Whoa,
but you know, oh, oh, another thing I watched. We
(01:10:26):
watched uh the documentary this weekend. Oh yes, gig. It
was so big and and and they go into this
document specifically, so you gotta go watch it. It's so good.
The first episode goes into like the investigation, and I
couldn't stop. I mean I I was really tired, and
I really wanted a nap, but I couldn't sleep. It
(01:10:46):
was so good. And like every I don't have like
the fancy peacock, and so every commercial I was like,
you know, like raging like, come on, let's go, let's go.
It was so it was so well done, but they
go into this document episode three in detail.
Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
You guys, all right, I just gave myself homework because
I had watched and I told you guys after I
had I was I was twelve minutes till the end
of the first episode. So I watched almost the entire
ye of the first and then life got a little busy.
But I think life's going to take a quick pause
(01:11:23):
this evening, and.
Speaker 3 (01:11:25):
Just where you had to watch it a little, I
need listen. I need to talk to you guys about
this document. So I need you to watch this. I'll
watch it tonight. You promised, done? Yes, okay, I think
I think everyone wants to hear about this document. Let
us know. Give us a call at eight eight, eight thirty one. Crime.
Do you want to talk about this? It's crazy. I mean,
doesn't the wife see this though? Do you think? Yes?
(01:11:46):
And she's like, she's like, prove it. She's so adamant
that it's he's innocent. And then she says, I'm not
going to believe anything until I see it with my
own eyes, and you can prove it to me.
Speaker 2 (01:11:57):
But is it pot because she believes he's being framed
and that this is just she almost like blames herself
that she actually went out of town because had she
not been in Iceland, none of this would be up
for conversation. It's like her poor devoted husband's getting you know,
hammered in the press because she went to Iceland. It
is a very hard thing to wrap your brain around.
Every single time you go out of town, a girl
(01:12:19):
goes find turns up dead. That's horrifying, right, So number one,
number two, do you think when she watches the doc,
does she now seek maybe what some of us see,
because it's listen, if you've ever been in a beehive
in a tough situation, it's really easy for us to
look at a life and say, how did you miss that?
Speaker 3 (01:12:39):
Until it hits you in the face.
Speaker 7 (01:12:40):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:12:41):
It's just that's the benefit of us being able to
talk about this stuff.
Speaker 4 (01:12:43):
We get to don't you know she's gonna watch it? Oh,
but I could also understand some things are so bad
out right now your brain quite literally can't handle it.
I know there there's terminology that I will try and
look up, but.
Speaker 3 (01:13:00):
Something your mind just can ask Jessica Caplin. Okay, get
her on, but no, but please, let's let's watch us
and let's just set this doc It's not a manifesto.
It's a checklist of everything not only that he needs
to bring, but that he needs to do, like make
sure you cut off the head, the fans, the feet,
(01:13:23):
like dude, it's it's so bad and the night is
already coming to a close so quickly. So, Karen Reid,
we have we have some info from from you all.
What do you think, Boddy? The question is question of
the moment. One of the questions the jury asked the
(01:13:43):
judge was they mentioned this. It was about I think
it was about the one where she was in the
documentary and she was talking the video clips and they said,
and they said, does the Karen what she said? Is
it evidence or whatever? But they used the word Karen.
They didn't formally call her like missus Reid or Karen Reid.
(01:14:06):
They said, Karen, that's a tell. That is a tell.
Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
Don't you think I think that seems much more intimate,
friendlier or if you're going to put somebody away for life,
you're going to call them miss read exactly because you
want totach yourself away a little bit from the familiarity
of this person by saying their first name.
Speaker 3 (01:14:26):
Yeah, I think it's a tell. I thought it was interesting.
That's a really astude point.
Speaker 4 (01:14:31):
Yeah, you know, I didn't say this earlier, But what
I actually found as just a very curious question was
why the jury they had asked, you know, is evidence
that was presented of Karen by the prosecution when she
air when they aired her documentary?
Speaker 3 (01:14:48):
Could should that be evidence?
Speaker 4 (01:14:50):
And I don't even know why that would be a
question if it's up there and submitted.
Speaker 3 (01:14:54):
Because somebody, somebody in the jury room is saying, we
can't use that. That's not evidence. It's all somebody is
pushing back. Somebody's pushing back. I don't know which direction.
I don't know if it's somebody that's like thinking she's
guilty or somebody that thinking she's completely innocent and not guilty.
I have no idea, but somebody's pushing back.
Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
It's such a good point. I thought the documentary. If
you don't know what we're talking about, we're talking about
the documentary.
Speaker 3 (01:15:22):
I think it was the ID stuff too.
Speaker 2 (01:15:24):
Yes, it was id and basically it was Karen Reid,
you know, allowed cameras to be with her in her
previous trial. So again it's her testimony air quotes from
her previous trial. So is that relevant, I guess is
the question.
Speaker 3 (01:15:39):
And it's in her own words then complicated stuff, you know.
And I, by the way, I thought it made her
quite I quite liked her, and I didn't like her.
I understand why she's so divisive.
Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
She just doesn't bother me. She's familiar to me. I
feel like I get Ryan read she doesn't. I love
the Boston vibe, so it doesn't take me off the
way it does so many people.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
I thought it made her likable on that topic.
Speaker 4 (01:16:06):
There's a DM actually that had just escaped me, but
it's from Marion in Chicago, So thank you for that.
And the question asked between the protest signs, tiktoks and
people treating the courthouse like a concert venue, does this
help or hurt the pursuit of justice? And my top
of head reaction is I feel like it would it
(01:16:27):
would hurt because if I were a juror, I would
feel so much more pressure with all of it.
Speaker 3 (01:16:33):
So that's my knee jerk. What do you guys think,
Maybe that's why they asked the question about the hung jury,
and the judge responded in the way that she did.
You know, she responded, and she said, you don't need
to worry about what the consequences are, right, Like, was
the jury wondering, like are all these people gonna hate me?
You know what I mean? Because of all the circus
that they see. They're not sequestered. It's not like they're
(01:16:54):
getting our I don't know. Are they getting on a
bus and being escorted off proper? I have no idea,
but you know they have to be aware of what's
going on outside, right, Yeah, because they're not requestioned.
Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
Again, back to the bags over the heads, you know,
like we need to have like jurors in we need
tolast jurors in Guantanamo. Yeah, like they need to be
phoning it in satellite style via question mar question. Listen.
Much more on this to come. Tomorrow's a huge day,
huge day. We might have a verdict. So we're talking
Karen Reid, more on Long Island, more in the Brian
(01:17:27):
Coburger case. We're talking true crime all the time. Stay
with us, stay safe, and we will see you tomorrow.
This program features the individual opinions of the hosts, guests,
and callers, and not necessarily those of the producer, the station,
it's affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true
crime all the time. It's Tuesday, June seventeenth, and we
have a stack night of headlines. We do not have
a verdict yet in the Karen Reid retrial. I don't
know about you all, but I am antsy and anxious
about it from head to toe. We're also going to
bring you up to speed on all things Diddy. This
(00:40):
day was insane in the courtroom. I can'tnot wait to
discuss and then also later the Long Island serial killer
big development today he had a hearing, so I can't
wait to dig in. I'm Stephanie Leidecker and I head
of KAT Studios, where we make true crime podcasts and
open investigation documentaries and we get to do it with
Courtney arms Strong and body move in and look, this
(01:03):
trial is never ending. Body catch us up to speed
on all things Karen Reid.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Wait, you want me to catch up? Okay? I was
going to ask you, great, I can feel you in now,
I can feel you. I'm it's just been hours so
far up deliberation. What is happening behind closed doors right now? Well,
I'm gonna give you a brief rundown of what happened today.
There's been some questions from the jury, which you know,
(01:31):
whenever there's a jury question, it gives you a little
bit of insight into what they're thinking, right, Like, sure,
depending on what questions they asked. Well, they asked four questions.
Four questions, so that was pretty exciting. So yeah, but
the verdic clock is still clocking right, sixteen hours and
they're going to continue their deliberations tomorrow. They had four questions,
(01:52):
Like I said, the first question was what is the
time frame for the OUI which is operating under the influence,
which is like in other states DUI right, what is
the timeframe for the OUI? Twelve forty five or five am?
That's the first question. And the judge answered it and
she said, you folks have all the evidence. Oh my goodness,
(02:18):
it's all you who decide the facts of this case. Okay,
all right, By the way, can I just jump in
right there?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Yes, the duy versus the OUI even that is confusing
to me as a layman already.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
That's just what they call it, Massachusetts of her.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Still but like if I had a little clarity question
about that, would Judge Bev not give me that information?
Speaker 3 (02:41):
That's a good question. I don't know. I'm lucky, I'm
not a duror. It doesn't seem like she wants to
be very helpful, right you know. The second question is
are video clips of Karen's interview's evidence and how should
they be considered the doctor? Now? That one, to me,
to me was the big, the big question to me,
(03:02):
and listen, it sounds kind of silly and maybe I'm
a weird thinker, but to me, it tells me that
at least wonder in the jury room is deliberating, is
arguing that it's not evidence, like we can't use what
she said in that documentary against her. Now the other
(03:23):
or maybe Wonderer is saying, yes we can. That's her
own words. It is in her own words. It's maybe
it's in regards to how many drinks she had. Maybe,
And I get they didn't give us any idea of
what clips specifically they were talking about, right, so we
don't know but everybody is assuming that it's about all
the drinks she had, But it could also be I
(03:45):
hit him, I hit him, I hit him right, or
you know, I maybe I did you know that that
whole conversation she was having with herself, But everybody is
assuming it's in regards to all the drinks that she
had that night. It was a lot of drinks. Sure, yeah,
and admittedly she was drinking, but to hear from her.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
She's like, they were the weakest drinks I ever mean, yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
And I think I want to get the number right.
I think it was eleven. I'd something like that.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You know, listen, it was a long day. There was
a lizard, you know, no judgment, just you know, an
observation that any of these stipulations about drinking or being
under the influence is fair.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
So the judge's answer for that question the question again
our video clips of Karen's interviews evidence, and the judge answered,
and she said, way, the defendant statements in the videos,
as you would any other evidence, give them whatever weight
you deem appropriate. So she's basically saying, yeah, it's evidence,
and whatever kind of weight you give that evidence is
(04:46):
what you do as the jury which.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Is I think that I think that's fair. I think
that's fair answer. Go defend for yourself. On the other
one didn't seem as a fair answer, But.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
She has to remain impartial judgement. And also, if you
don't know what we're talking about out right now, Carrie Reid,
she is. We are literally waiting for the verdict in
her retrial, and it's the retrial of her being accused
of basically backing up and killing her boyfriend John O'Keeffe victim,
and that's being highly disputed because others, including her, are
(05:19):
saying that maybe there was a fight inside the house
that the body was found in front of, and that
she's she's being framed by the police. So there's a
lot of conversation for some reason though this one is
so divisive, guys, it is it feels like I've gotten
into conversations just you know, out in the world, even
at work today, just it was such a divided conversation.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
It's like under everybody's skin. Yeah, you know, I'm I
have a lot of true crime friends basically who you
know I talk to every day, you know, in our
little software that we used to talk to each other
with and I'm the only one in my group of
and these are like people I consider friends. I'm the
only one who doesn't necessarily think Karen Read is innocent
(06:02):
of anything. I'm the only one.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, it wasn't it one hundred in the opposite direction?
One week ago CNN poll The CNN poll had it
at one hundred percent of the people pulled.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Literally, the people who are like voting in those polls
on CNN aren't that educated in the case, right, They're
getting the news bites from you know, CNN, let's say,
I mean, they're not deep diving all the idio sequencies
like with the investigation and you know, all the players.
They're getting just basic, you know, surface level stuff. And
(06:35):
it's not really until you really deep dive this case
that you you understand the problem that people have with it, right,
so you know it. But it's it's just funny, Like
even in my very close group of friends, whom I all,
I love them all, but I noticed they're treating me differently. O,
my god, you're getting kicked out of the coffee. I'm
(06:55):
getting kicked club the crime club is kicking is this
case is so divisive?
Speaker 2 (07:02):
It is so divisive. Yeah, I mean, it is so divisive,
it's crazy.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
But body, there's also further sort of confusion about the
deliberation from the jurors, right.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Right, So then other question, there's a couple more questions.
The third question, there was two sets of question. It
came in a group of three, and while the jury
was waiting for an answer on those three questions, another
one came in. So the last question the first group
of three is and this is interesting.
Speaker 6 (07:31):
You have to listen very careful, very careful leaning in
does convicting with guilty on a sub charge, for example,
a fence to number five convict on the overall charge.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Now count two is the manslaughter charge. Okay, so that's
important to know. And a fence five is Now it
slips in my mind, it's the duy without I need
to get the product slip. But the judge answered, and
she said, by the way, she amended the verdict slip
(08:05):
because of this confusion. It was very confusing. Yeah, I'm confused,
and I'm confused. I want to have a whole conversation
about this vertic slip because I'm confused about the confusion. Yeah,
me too. It is confused, truly, and I can't believe
we're here again in I mean here we are the
retrial right of a cop that's been they what they say, murdered, right,
(08:30):
and there's still confusion about this vertic slip, like what
is happening?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Not to mention, we also heard that in the first trial,
of course, this is the retrial of Karen Reid. In
the first one, allegedly the jury several of the jurors
spoke after deliberations and they had come to a hung
jury that they had all come to agreement on two
of the three charges, but that had no messaged. So
somehow she's had to live through this now twice.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Again and it's and guilty. You know what.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
I'm very confused, is all I have to say. And
that's a tough spot to be in. I'm confused why
it's been so confusing, though we should have had a nice,
very much quicker. I agree to the fact that we don't.
Is also a can of worms that we don't need
to get into.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
But I thought this was open and shut. Well I
didn't think it was so open and shut, but I
didn't expect the confusion on the literal same charge that
during the trial the Nigel so I have the vertice sleighte.
I got it real quick. So it's, of course the
manslaughter charge count two and question five is guilty of
(09:37):
a lesser included offence operating under the influence of liquor
check one or both of the following, and it's operating
the mortar vehicle under the influence of liquor and or
operating a mortar vehicle with blood alcohol level of zero
point h eight percent or greater. So, but here's the thing,
and everybody's thinking, Okay, they don't want a convictor of manslaughter.
(09:58):
They only want the I only want to basically convict
her of this duy, which because of the example they
gave him the question. But maybe it's just an example
they gave. Like everyone's taking it very literally that what.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
You want to be kind of literal if you're asking
a question that's life a death.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
The question was for example fair count two. You know,
it does seem like they were all very boozy.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
It would be weird to not make her guilty on
that one, right, Like, I don't know that there's any
version of this story where they were sober. Unfortunately, you know,
maybe had they all stayed in that night, obviously this
would not have happened. You know what my theory is,
Can I just give it to you real quick? Yeah,
and we were just dating this in the studio very recently.
I think that she maybe thought that she hit him,
(10:46):
and then she realized, holy smokes, I'm being framed. Turtle
Boy is he makes a good point.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Wait what that happened? Now?
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Of course she knew of some of these inter dynamics
between her and some of the investigators that she had
been sexy texting with. She knew this, but I maybe
she was like, Wow, I was drunk, I must have
hit him. The guy's dead, he didn't come home. You know,
A plus B equal C. And then she starts digging
in even herself and realizes, oh my god, these guys
(11:17):
are setting me up, and she, along with the rest
of us, feels as though, yeah, I've been framed. But
maybe she wouldn't have known it, and like what happens
at the average Joe again that just like had a
bad night, can be framed.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
I don't know this Joe. By the way, I don't
want to be this Joe. I don't know this Joe.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
But you know, if if Turtle Boy or people hadn't
really relented on the fact that this was something very suspicious.
I mean, this is a very revered you know, it's
the cops in the town.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Right and they were all friends and these are Boston cops.
This is Irish Land, right, You don't this is like
sacred ground. Snitches do get stitches? Yes, right? And maybe,
I mean, listen, I would I would kind of agree
with what you said if when she was driving around
with Jim McCabe she wasn't like maybe the snowplow hit him,
like she wasn't going there.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
Yeah, So we're going to continue this when we come
back and later. It is day twenty five in the
trial against Sean Diddy Combs. The prosecution maybe we'll wrap
their case this week. Also, alleged Long Island serial killer
Rex Humorman is in court today. Keep it here on
True Crime tonight.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Back to Karen Reid. So to Karen, battling it out
a little bit. I know we have to get back
to the remainder pieces of the slip. So before I
jump ahead, let's do that.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Okay. So there was one more question that came in
after the group of three. This is the last question.
If we find not guilty on two charges but can't
agree on one charge. Is it a hung jury on
all three or just one? And the judge there's there's
two things. The judge said, okay, one was just to
(13:02):
the attorneys and not in the presence of the jury,
And she said, this is a theoretical question, not a
question I can answer. And what she told the jury
was the jurors are not allowed to consider the consequences
of their verdict. So basically, how I took that was
that the judge is telling the jury, don't worry about
(13:22):
it being a hung jury, Like the consequences of it
being a hung jury are not on you. You need
to like rule how you rule, and that's it.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
I kind of get that theoretically, but theoretically really not
take that into consideration.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Why can't I just tell them? Yeah, can't we just
say not guilty? And she goes home. It's shocking all
of these like predicts. I mean, even I'm confused by
the new slip, even even the new improved slip confuses me.
Have you seen it?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
No, there's been lots of conversation about it today the judge.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
The judge asked the jury is this is this clearer
for you, and seem to agree that the new slip
was clearer for them. I'm hoping. I'm hoping it is.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
Which ps that could have been done yesterday. YEAHS asked
for it to be done, And I think what's problematic
with the fact that it was done one day later
is once your mind starts to be set, it becomes
more set. I mean, we're just humans and we look for,
as you ways say, body confirmation bias. So I think
that was a mistake on one.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
Und how much time was wasted on this stupid slip,
that's right, And like this slip was like such a
controversial thing in the first trial, like they would have
worked out. He thinks, I just can't. I just can't
wrap my head around the issue. And what is it?
Do you think?
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Why is everybody so hot and bothered about this? Like,
you know, we get hot and bothered about cases all day.
I mean, this is what we do all day, right,
So that's not super surprising. But I am really noticing
it on the line at the pharmacy. You know, it's
just it's a heated thing. Like we had a you know,
some of the guys in the studio today we were all,
everybody feels pretty informed.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
What is it specifically about this case? While I were
also sucked in by I think a lot of people
are putting themselves in Karen Reid's position because everybody is
assuming that she's innocent and that she's being railroaded, and
it could happen to anybody, right, So if it could
happen to Karen Reid, could it happen to me? Right?
Could I get in a fight with, you know, my
(15:24):
girlfriend and be accused of her murder because she slipped
and fell, you know, or something like that. Like, I
think people are going there. I just think people are
putting themselves in those shoes for the first time in
a long time.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
But then on the other side, if you believe in
her guilt, then this is a fallen police officer, right,
and you want justice for him. So it just feels
like the stakes are high, and I think your right body,
people are internalizing.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
Well, you know, and I think too, justice for John
O'Keefe is prosecuting and convicting the correct person exactly. That's
just Peggy o'keef some justice. Yeah, And I you know, listen,
I feel like every day I changed my mind on
this case, I literally changed your mind today. Wait, have
you changed your mind?
Speaker 7 (16:12):
No?
Speaker 3 (16:13):
Two hours, I still think that she backed up and
he like kind of jumped out of the way. Why
do you think this because there's no other explanation. He
has no broken bones. How could a car five? I
don't think. I don't think he was hit with a car. Oh,
I don't think she hit him with the car. I
think he like jumped out of the way or you know,
(16:34):
scooted and fell, you know, and hit his head and something.
I don't know. I really don't know, but I don't
think shooted and fell. Listen, I know that sounds crazy
because none of this sounds crazy. I just think it
sounds different.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
And I think you might confuse me more because that
maybe he slipped on the snow.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Yes it's an icy you know, and like, yes, a
car is coming at him. He's like yes, you know,
and he jumps out of the way. And but that's
also not what the prosecution has proved. They have presented
in fine detail, right, And that's the issue is that
they and I said this yesterday, I think the prosecution's
(17:10):
theory is completely you know, out of whack and totally inappropriate.
Both both medical people said that he was not hit
with a car on the defensive side and the prosecution side.
So even the state's own medical anxiety, wasn't it with
a car? Like what are they thinking?
Speaker 2 (17:27):
What are And here's a question though, for both of
you and at home, like eight eight eight three one crime?
Please join us into this conversation, what should any of
them have done? If you know, we get the benefit
of you know, talking in hindsight here everybody's hindsight. We
get to look at everybody else's you know, tragedy in
this case and say, okay.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
What would we have done differently?
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I guess the first is don't get behind the wheel
with a bunch of booze, but call the cops.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Like what how would Karen read prevent this? Again? I
don't know. And this is what's frustrating is that all
states probably have like little rules and like these little
you know do hikis that we don't know about. And
it is scary, like could I get pulled over tomorrow
and be blamed for a murder that happened in my
(18:14):
neighborhood that I had nothing to do with? Correct, It's
just it's just scary.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
And what if there's enough evidence that just shows that
it wasn't properly secured, the crime scene, wasn't properly attended to.
It certainly wasn't handled with sacred care the way a
crime scene we know is handled. And you know there's
these are trained professionals typically that went out the window.
It was inclement weather. Inclement I don't know why I
(18:39):
say it that way. I just made it a little
extra snowy in France, but the weather was bad. It
was a blizzard, you know, the alcohol. But they were
amongst friends and that let's assume there was nobody on
the road. Are they all culpable though? For this DUI
piece of at any of them? And when they all
be charged? You know, I think every version of this
(18:59):
story has also led to a lot of behind the
wheel boos in.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Oh my word, Well, I want to hear what Michelle thinks.
We have her on the line. I'm Michelle.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
Hello, how were you?
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Hi? Michelle? What's your question?
Speaker 5 (19:15):
So I haven't no, I have the theory. This is
the most believable theory that I have heard yet a
lot of tiktoks, a lot of stuff. So I heard
this the other day and I was like, you know what,
that's actually a really good theory. So this one person
online said that John O'Keefe walked in the house and
(19:35):
the dog didn't recognize him as someone familiar because he
had never been there before, so attacked him, grabbed his arm,
and he had a glass in his hand, and when
he went to try to pull his arm away, hit
his head with his own glass, fell back and hit
his head on like a fireplace or something, and killed himself. Basically,
(19:55):
you know, I had heard of accident accidentally, and they
all panicked because they knew that obviously, you know, he's
not doing well. What do we do? And the other
part of the theory is that he's now got these
you know, foster children at home that they're going to
go after, you know, everyone in the house and take
them for everything that they own, because now you know,
(20:17):
he's got all these kids that he was responsible for.
So the family's gonna you know, take them for everything.
And so they decided to frame Karen read, which I
think in itself is horrible.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
I mean, I can't say the money part of it,
but that makes sense. I mean, I I don't think
they can do it. I don't think it makes sense.
And the reason I don't think it makes sense is
this is a houseful cops. Right, They're not going to
They're not going to panic because somebody fell and hurt themselves. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Right, of course they're not going to panic because they're
going to cover it up by tossing it at the
bottom of the driveway and blaming Karen Read for it
because they can.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
But no, I just don't. That doesn't make any sense
to me. And and the other reason it doesn't make
any sense to me is that the phone data shows
that he never went in that house. So, first of all, Michelle,
thank you for that question. Sparked a lot in all
of us. I think I'm with Michelle on this one.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
But body, I counter what you say about the phone
because in the defense's closing arguments, it depends on who
you're listening to.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
They laid out that really clear case.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
That's a good thing that indeed, the phone's temperature did
not match him lying there the whole time, because it
stayed warm. But it was found behind him, tucked under
his shoulder, and it was only and I forget the time,
but it was much later than twelve thirty when Karen
Reid was there, and then there was a big drop
in the phone's the phone.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
The phone temperature didn't drop from my memory of the
trial until basically he was rolled over and the phone
was exposed to the elements, and then what's her name
picked it up, didn't McCabe grabbed the phone. One of
them grab the phone. I'm looking into this over the break. Yeah,
I'm coming back. Yeah, no, that'd be great. But the
(22:09):
defense laid it out such that I was convinced regardless,
and I was convinced and I'm convinced it different pieces,
Like some pieces, I'm like, yeah, the defense really convinced
me of that. And then it, you know, a prosecution
expert will testify. I'm like, yeah, you know, I believe
that guy, and I don't know why, but I have
different pieces. And maybe this is why I'm so confused
(22:29):
about how I feel about this is that I don't
find hardly any of them credible, by the way, but
the but the people that I did find credible, I believed,
and they're from both sides of the fence. I don't
know it's from. I just think it's confusing that a
bunch of cops would be like, let's throw him a
fellow police officer in our front yard, and we don't
(22:51):
even know if Karen Reid is going to be coming
back and seeing us. That's a fair point, you know,
I just I just don't know how I feel about it. Well,
stick around, we're going to be continuing this converse and
give us a call at one eight eight thirty one.
Crime or used to talk about something. iHeartRadio apps. Stick
right here back to Karen Reid. Maybe we should go
(23:17):
over the charges, because let's go over the there's more
charges to go over. Well, we never really did. We
were just talking about the jury questions. I thought it
was more questions. Sorry, well I'm a question asked a lot.
The questions were such a big deal. It took a
lot of time and we have a lot to say questions. Great,
so let's go over the charges. Okay, So count one
(23:39):
so that there's basically there's three slips. Okay, verdict slips
and they're arranged by count. Right, So count one is
second degree murder, all right, So second degree murder, it's
it's for allegedly intentionally striking John O'Keeffe with their suv
and causing his death. Okay, that's count one. Nobody thinks
(23:59):
that happened. Do we all agree? I agree? Everybody raise
your hands unanimous, disagree eight eight eight three to one.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Crime call pronto. We want to hear from you. But yeah,
it seems like it wasn't intentional.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
I definitely agree on that. Count two seems to be
the most complicated one. Okay, so count two on the
verdict slip is manslaughter while operating under the influence vehicular
manslaughter DUI. For count two, the jury must weigh not
only the duy manslaughter charge but also the lesser included
(24:32):
offenses like involuntary manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, and operating under
the influence of liquor. And it's confusing to the jurors
because they see just one like little not guilty box
and they don't know if they check that, does that
mean she's not guilty for all or where? Yeah, they
don't know. It's all those confused. I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
I am too.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
You explained it so well though, Can you imagine, like
this is a person's entire.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
But listen, this is the second jury he's had a
problem with this, so it's clearly an issue, right. Yeah,
I feel like the Commonwealth's gaslighting us all they are.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
And by the way, how a bad if you're John
O'Keeffe victim's family and this is enraging for them. You know,
they just want some justice. If it's not Karen Reid,
who is it? But also this confusion, you know it must.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Feel very unsatisfying. I can't imagine. Well, I can't imagine
for the family. I can't imagine. So count three it's
on the last page of this verdict slip, and it
is leaving the scene of a personal injury or death.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
So maybe she unknowingly did if she hit him and
didn't realize it.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
Yeah, like, I mean, that might go like hand in
hand with count two. Now it's important to remember the
last question that Durry asked. If we find not guilty
on two of the charges but can't agree on one,
is it a hung jury? So what but two counts? Basically,
(26:01):
are they thinking in their heads that she's not guilty
on is it count one? I think it is. I
think you just are guilty of count one. Yeah, she's
not guilty. I agree. I find me a man who
says she's guilty of right, I don't. I mean, I
don't think anybody thinks that, well, maybe I'm wrong. I
don't know or like which which ones are they? Are
(26:21):
they saying that they're thinking that she's not guilty on
And that's really the million dollar question right now.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
And like, isn't one influence in the other. So if
you're clearly she was under some sort of influence, you know,
whether it was at five am or twelve thirty, I
don't think that's you know, disputable that she's been drinking
all day? Does that mean drinking all day? You get
charged with some sort of you know, do U I
or od I or whatever the language is, and just
inadvertently as a result of your drunkenness or being under
(26:48):
the influence you peel out. Those do sort of seem
hand in hand?
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Yeah? They do. I think they kind of go together. Yeah.
Likely no real jail time though for either of those,
I guess is the other burning question we've been trying
to get clarity on. Obviously it's all very unknowable, given
that lots of things can still happen before the verdict
is announced, But for the play along, you know, is
(27:13):
it possible there's another hung jury? What does that mean?
Does Karen Reid get tried yet again. I don't think
the Commonwealth would ever is ever going to do like you. Eventually,
you just have to stop trying.
Speaker 7 (27:24):
I can't.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
I mean, what are they going to do the rest
or just.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
Not pursue again? Boy that I mean if that happens
and we actually have Sue on the line with a question, Sue,
what's your question?
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Hello?
Speaker 7 (27:39):
Hi, I want to talk about the jury. Yes, I'm
a local too, I'm a local Bostonian. I live in
a surrounding town of Canton. And just how confusing the
I understood the jury sloop myself, but I can understand
why people didn't understand it because it's just so confusing.
(28:06):
You've got the from it's number two. I think that
it was to number five. I think the jury is
looking at the fifth one, which is the o UI
with the point oh eight, and they's another one too,
But I just think that that's what the jury has
(28:28):
hung up on, is that one. And I feel like
one in three, the first and the third count is
not guilty. So I totally.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Agree with that. I think you're one hundred percent right.
So I think you're so right.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
I can only imagine, though, what has it been like
just as a local. This this you know, this case
has made everybody crazy, let alone in the area. It's
probably been a little disruptive.
Speaker 7 (28:52):
Yeah, it definitely has been, you know, you know the
people's Norfolk County kind of up in arms is an expression, yes,
to how much money has been spent two trials.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Oh, I didn't even think.
Speaker 7 (29:11):
Yeah, on two cases that should have never It should
have never been. Like according to the FBI, they told
them not to try this case.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Let alone twice.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
And it's not like Karen reads a menace to society
where she's going to, you know, go be reckless right now.
But again, is that also just us whitewashing it a bit?
I don't know, Sue, I feel sick over it, Sue.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
Speaking of the money, By the way, one expert alone
and the defense attorney hit this really well, I thought,
or just to prove the point, almost a half a
million dollars was for their crash reconstruction expert. What so
that's one expert in one of these two trials that
the common mosment.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
Wait say that once more. That's yeah, the mind belonged.
So the prosecutions the guy who did the reconstruction with
the blue paint.
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Yeah, and the guy said, who dressed up like John
O'Keefe and painted himself? That is paraphrasing what the defense said,
of course, but yeah, that one expert was four hundred
thousand dollars.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
WHOA.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
I was not going to be happy about that too.
I'm sure that was not what you were looking to hear. No, no,
because she's paying for it, right.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:26):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
So there was one other thing I wanted to bring up,
and that was the jury deliberation time. Right. So I
put together like a little sheet and I went and
looked up all kinds of cases all right, Like I
got like OJ Jody, Arius, Kasey, Anthony, you know, like
the heavy hitters, right, and I looked at how long
(30:50):
the the jury deliverery for and what the outcome was. No,
you didn't just look.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
So just to give everybody a little insight to what.
First of all, Courtney has a knot on her forehead
right now, and it has like an ice patch on it.
So this is just what I'm just staring at, just
to set the stage. And then by He's like, yeah,
I just was curious about the numbers. She is a
full on Excel sheet that looks at some of the
top cases and how long the deliberation was by hour,
(31:17):
and then what that equals per day, and then what
the verdict was and drum roll, because it's pretty impressive.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Listen to get an analyst, Yeah, to get your talk
about day. Well, unfortunately it was for nothing. We literally
learned nothing. So what we learned is that jury deliberation
time doesn't tell us anything. Right, it does seem random.
It does seem random. For instance, the Menanda's brothers. The
(31:45):
first trial, if you remember, there were two separate juries,
there were two separate trials, right. The first trial, they
deliberated for sixteen days for lyle In eighteen days for
Kyle eighteen days. Both ended in mistrial. Both whow after
that many days? Can you imagine? Wait? I just can't.
(32:06):
The second trial they deliberated for thirty five hours, which
is roughly six days give or take, and that was guilty.
Now that trial they merged the jury into one and
there was one one trial for both boys. I say boys,
but they were men. Karen Reid's first trial twenty seven hours,
(32:27):
miss trial. What's another one? Jody Arius sixteen hours? How
do you guilty? And Jody Ai is guilty again. Another one,
Jody Aari is accused of kills. Oh, here's a big one,
Casey Anthony ten hours and that's right where we are
right now, Right, that's about where we are with because
it was about ten hours and forty five minutes. That's
(32:47):
where we are right now with Karen Reid, right. I
think it's a few more. Anthony famously not guilty. Right,
So it really is all over the place. LORI vallowed
just recently half an hour. Well, I think that would
be that we just covered Maxwell Anderson, that we just
covered fifty minutes, oj four hours, Uh, Chad Davell five
(33:12):
five hours guilty, you know, but that's just what you
want if your life is on the line.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Wouldn't it feel better if you just knew everybody felt
very clean and clear about what they saw and what
they heard, and it was you know, nothing is black
and white, obviously, but that it felt, you know, like
the debate it was not there's no going back.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
Right.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
If it feels this nebulous and so divided and they're
you know, picking out straws and mincing hairs, is that
troubling and even more scary? I know that's the process
and I still respect it. It's just, you know, a
rrowing thing to be a part of. I feel like
the only thing we know the longer it goes, is
that not everybody's in agreement. There's healthy debate. We have
(33:57):
to be positive there's healthy debate happening in the deliberation room,
and we have to respect the process. This is how
you know, this is the system in which we operate
in That's a fact.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
All right.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Well, we're keeping a close We're keeping a close watch.
As Courtney's head begins to swell.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
It's been that.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Big brain you with Courtney. You were going to fill
us in on the new development in the Matthew Perry case.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
Yeah, what a tragedy that guy.
Speaker 4 (34:21):
I mean, everyone loved him from friends and you know,
he just seemed like a good human. I actually had
the luck to meet him at a couple of events
and anyway, nice guy.
Speaker 3 (34:32):
Yeah, I bet he was so nice.
Speaker 4 (34:34):
Absolutely. But yesterday the Department of Justice revealed that one
of the doctors, doctor Placentia, who was charging connection with
the ketamine death case, he's agreed to a plead deal
to plead guilty.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Excuse me, he has agreed to plead guilty to four
counts of distribution of ketamine, and this plea will be
happening in the coming weeks. The charge carries a statutory
max sentence of forty years in federal prison. Good.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
So, honestly, it's a really serious thing. I mean, obviously
Matthew Perry became the face of this, and we all
love him. I mean, he's America's sweetheart. But this ketamine drug,
if you guys aren't familiar with it, it is like a tranquilizer,
and it has a clear look and it's very potent,
and I you know, it's being used, you know, kind
of widely, certainly in Los Angeles at least as something
(35:27):
for post traumatic stress or if people are coming off
of drug addiction, and it's being you know, used in
a medical sense.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
By actual doctors. And that's very specific, right. So I
have a number of friends that do treatment and they
call it they're going to the Kennemen hole, and like
they they get a lot of relief. Ye, relief.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
Well, I think what you're both saying is when it's
you know, medically and ethically ghost but placentia. Listen, it's
only one of five people who are charged in the
wake of Matthew Perry's death. I mean, he was getting
so much ketamine such an incredibly high level that it
was it was completely unethical to continue to give it.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
And they knew that he was, you know, paying top
dollar for it. Isn't there a text exchange between this
man who's taken his plea deal or has taken pled
guilty basically was like texting with someone basically making fun
of Matthew Perry, like, I can't believe this guy's going
to pay this price for this much. I'm paraphrasing, but
I mean, what a flippant statement to be coming from
(36:35):
this Air quotes medical profession who knows full well this
is a person who's been really dealing with recovery and
should be applauded for that and helped in that cause,
not hooked.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
On something else predatory. It's disgusting. Yeah, it's really disgusting.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
And the doctors, the texture referring to Stephanie, they really
were so disgusting and dismissive of Matthew Perry said, oh,
we're really getting one over on him. But listen, this doctor,
doctor Placentia, He operated an urgent care clinic in Malibu,
so you know, of course, but no longer is the
guess on that.
Speaker 3 (37:13):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Good, well, you know you think about that too, you
know those urgent clinics. That's also been something that's been
brought into, you know, conversations.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
You know. The Queen of Ketamine, for example, is a name.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Now that I've said it, you'll see this case kind
of heeding up a little bit as well, because they're
figuring out the types of charges. If you're the main dog,
if it's ketamine or cocaine, it's an enterprise of sorts.
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Anyway, don't get me started.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
We'll be right back true crime tonight, talking true crime
all the time. Diddy and the Long Island serial killer
stay with us.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
We are heated up on all things. Did he now?
Speaker 2 (37:56):
And also Long Island We've got to get into that
one too. But first we have a talk back, so
let's go straight to that.
Speaker 8 (38:03):
Hi, It's Cynthia from Canada in regards to the Idaho
massacre and the door Dash delivery person. Is there no
way to find the driver through the individual's door Dash
app and through the company itself. Should be able to
track the individual down that way, but I'm not sure
(38:23):
if that's the case. Again in the US versus Canada,
but just thought i'd throw that out there.
Speaker 3 (38:28):
Thanks. Great, good question. Yeah, good question, Cynthia. Well, you
should know that in the PCA, which is the probable
cause effidavit for arrest of Brian Coberger, it says in
there that the door dash driver went to police. So
the police and everyone already knows who the DoorDash driver is,
so they don't really need to track her down or
(38:49):
him or her down. We now kind of think it's her,
but her identity has been kept secret from the public. Yes,
And I want to say that initially she was protected
because of what we've learned. And what we've learned is
that it's possible that Brian Koberger, the suspect in this case,
(39:12):
possibly saw her and looked right at her. So if
that's true, right, and he is committing a crime and
he goes home and he's like, oh my god, did
that lady see me, she's at risk, right. So they
keep those kinds of things secret from the public, specifically witnesses,
because they could be you know, in danger now because
(39:33):
there's an unknown killer on the loose, right who might
have seen this person. So they keep those kinds of
things secret. Right? So yeah, about the door dash thing, right,
we talked about the path of it yesterday.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
We were too afraid to talk about it yesterday, and
that was just like a game day decision that we
made as a team because we weren't sure if it
had been verified. Is this appropriate information for us to
have given them? You know, dateline leaks like we don't
want to go were always and we should we every
day should be gut checking like how do we how
(40:08):
do we share the news that we're following real time
and also make sure that we're ethically not getting off track.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
So the DoorDash stuff I thought was, ugh, I don't
love it. I don't love it, go ahead, body of it?
Other but so it. Let me just give you a
brief overview of this door dash situation. So there's a
recent footage of the alleged DoorDash driver excuse me, linking
Coberger to the murders has been circulating on YouTube about
(40:38):
eight months ago. A YouTube account. Basically this account follows
or does fo your requests for like drunk driving incidences,
and their whole YouTube channel is just body cam footage,
so it's you know, that's their content and they're allowed
to do that. Nothing wrong with that. And eight months
ago a video was uploaded and a woman is getting
(41:01):
pulled over for a DUI or an OUI I guess
state dependent, and they take her to the station and
she is talking to the intake officer about her life. Right,
She's just talking about her life, and she says, you know,
and this is my interpretation of what she says, because
(41:22):
it is kind of hard to hear, so I could
have some things wrong, but this has also been heard
by many other people, so it's not just me, and
what she says is And then now I have to
testify in this big murder case here because I'm the
door dash driver. So yeah, the murder case of those
college girls. I'm the door dash driver. I saw Brian there.
(41:44):
I parked right next to him. So that was made
eight months ago, but nobody noticed it because like maybe
like nobody's watching this that it's also following the cases closely.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
Right, also, just to jump into that, nobody's following the
case that closely that time. And if you haven't been
following this place, we're talking about the Idaho college murders
where the accused Brian Coburger allegedly murdered for college students,
all in the same location one night. Major overkill in
the trial's upcoming. And now this footage has been released.
(42:18):
Who knew this body care channel exists? It sounds like
so up our ally, but you know, she was under
the influence, allegedly, and you know, is having a tough night.
She has this, you know, she kind of mumbles this
information about this Brian person that she sees, but then
she also goes on to say that she also witnessed
(42:39):
her husband being murdered, right, which we did very seemed
a little crazy, like when you put that as a totality,
she just seemed like she was having a really wicked night.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
But now it turns out her husband was murdered, right,
she said. I mean, listen, my heart goes out to her.
I mean, she's clearly experienced her fair share of trauma,
and now this, you know, and you know, when we
were talking about talking about this, when we were talking
about talking about this, I was like, I need to
go and verify this information, you know, I need to
(43:09):
somehow to feel good about even talking about this. It
needs to be verified. But there's no way to verify
that she's actually the DoorDash driver. So what I did
was I went and verified surrounding things about her that
she told in the body cam footage and everything that
she has said. Matt lines up. But here's this is
(43:30):
right up my alley. I would just kind of it
is like, you have a twinkle in her eye right now,
I do. Well. The reason the reason I have a
twinkle in my eye, I think it was an incredible
act of slew thing that was done that found this information. Right,
So what initially I thought was that somebody foya requested
(43:51):
police reports for everybody that basically starts with mm, because
that's the only thing we knew about the door dash driver. Yeah,
mm right, didn't We didn't know anything, by the way,
A wait, for good reason. I wouldn't want to have
my information out there's not so and then doing that,
they were able to get this bodycam footage and we're like,
oh my god, yeah that's her. So that's kind of
(44:12):
what I think happened because it got flagged by a
totally different account, not the account with the body cam footage,
totally different account re uploaded it and said hey you guys,
and you know tagged everything Idaho for all the victims' names,
you know, everything, so that it would appear in the
algorithm for I to hope people. And yeah, it's very interesting.
Speaker 4 (44:32):
I have to say, my heart goes out to this woman. Yeah,
because too, you know. And just assuming she's obviously she
has been arrested in this footage, that's anyone's a terrible night,
that's no one shining night, you know, and assuming that
she goes and testifies, I feel like just her reputation,
(44:55):
oh well, she's she's a drunk versus we don't know
what else surrounds this one incident. And I don't know,
I just put that out there that.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
She's just experienced tremendous loss. Her husband was murdered in
front of her. You know, these are traumatic things. Again,
we're not you know, putting ourselves too deep in the world,
but you know, it is sort of like the summation
of one night. And now she's being held, you know,
and called to appear, and it's a very big piece
of this trial.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
And it could be a key witness, right, it could
be a lynch pin sort of thing of this case.
So one other thing I did to kind of verify
this info and people might find this interesting because it
has more detail about the Stordash driver and what she saw.
Do tell. So there's a YouTube channel called the Drunk
Turkey Show and it's a he's former law enforcement. His
(45:46):
name's Daniel, really nice guy. He's been following IDAHO since
the beginning. Again, he's former only he has a relationship
with Steve Golensalvez. You know, Steve is on his channel
now and then giving up dates and whatnot. It's it's
a great channel on one of the victims, Kaylee Gonzalveez's father,
Thank you Gonzalez. Yeah. Well, in a show dated after
all this came out this weekend, in a show dated
(46:10):
on the fourteenth, Daniel basically said, yeah, I've been getting
calls from the DoorDash driver and then I didn't really
respond because like, I get calls all the time and
everybody's crazy and I get it because people email me
crazy things all the time. Yeah, and so I'm like, yeah,
you totally get that. But then he said he also
got a call from somebody saying that they were the
(46:30):
DoorDash driver's friend. And the name they used is the
same name of the lady in the body cam footage.
So that was important information to verify this. Additionally, he
said he got more information from this friend the DoorDash driver.
He said, she's a single, middle aged woman who specifically
(46:52):
remembers seeing a white vehicle passed by the house a
number of times in a short period when she was
at the home. So she's walking to the house to
deliver the door dash and then walking back to her car.
Right as she was walking, the driver of the vehicle
was passing. She looked up at him and he was staring,
I'm sorry, I lost my place. As she was walking
(47:13):
on the as she was walking, the driver of the
white vehicle was passing. She looked at the car, and
the driver of the car was looking at the house
and at her, which was scary, right is she Also
she also said he was staring so intently at the house,
she wasn't even sure if he saw her because he
(47:35):
was like so laser focused and this is chilling. At
the same time, she looked up onto the second floor
and saw a female standing in the window. It was
probably looking door dash order.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
And if you don't know this case, well, one of
the victims, beautiful Xana Carnodle. She and her boyfriend, you
know were just getting back from a night out and
you know.
Speaker 3 (47:59):
They were door dash and you.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Know how that is after God students the best. You know,
you're with your boyfriend, you're so hungry, you want to
have like, you know, greasy food and you get to
sleep in in the morning. And that's what should have happened,
and instead some psycho changed their course. And wow, thank
god she survived. I mean, this poor DoorDash woman, as
(48:23):
much trauma as she's seen with her husband dying in
front of her, at least you know.
Speaker 3 (48:28):
She had this. She may have walked right by a
mass murderer. Yeah, scary boddie. I have a question. Yeah,
I'm not sure if I understood.
Speaker 4 (48:40):
So you're saying that this Doordask driver, the woman we're
speaking about, that both she and her friend called the
YouTuber drunk turkey.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
Is that correct? Yeah? That's my understanding, is that the
DoorDash driver herself called And I could be wrong about this.
A made and I might have misunderstood the way Daniel
was explaining it because he was reading his notes. By
the way he was reading his notes and he was like, uh,
my writing sucks, and I'm trying to decipher what I'm
what I wrote down, So he was relaying what he
what he remembered, and what he remembered was that I
(49:13):
believe he said the DoorDash driver called, but he just
he was like, yeah, whatever, you're crazy, you know. But
then a friend of hers called and used the same
name as the lady in the body cam footage, which
is like very I mean, that's a that's a big deal.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Is it like appropriate for us to know this because
now the defense has time? That's a little mic drop,
you know, in trial?
Speaker 3 (49:38):
It is, it's a huge micd up drop in trial,
it's huge. But does this take the wind out of
the sales of the prosecution? Does it bolster the defense
or does it make it worse? Is it more prejudicial
to Brian? And is this going to cause another delay?
Speaker 4 (49:51):
But if her initials were in the PSA, correct, her
initials are in the PCIATION.
Speaker 3 (49:55):
No they're not. They're in documents though.
Speaker 4 (49:58):
Oh they're in documents. We're gonna see how this unfolds.
Speaker 2 (50:02):
So listen, we've covered Karen Reid probably longer than we should.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
I still feel like we even haven't scratched the surface.
So we'll be on verdict watch and then Diddy. We
have not been following this very closely these last few days,
so we have much to catch up on. I don't
know where I'm in with this really, I mean a
couple of major things, you know, since we last spoke
was listen one of the jurors being dismissed, dur number six.
What's up with all the jury drama? The jury drama
(50:29):
is a bit much. First of all, it's the summer
of ja.
Speaker 2 (50:33):
I mean, it's really kind of true, right, because first
of all, why is this jury not sequestered? If you
know that the charges that Diddy is, you know, up
for these racketeering charges, which implies you're controlling a narrative.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
And maybe we've seen the CNN.
Speaker 2 (50:48):
The aster, Yeah, that he obviously hate one hundred thousand
dollars to have that Cassie video you know, disappear even
from the hotel.
Speaker 3 (50:57):
Yeah, the hotel security got paid off.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Everybody gets paid off and Diddy land if you know
that's the case, wouldn't it feel appropriate in this case
to sequester the jury. I actually think that Karen read
jury should have been se questioned. I do too, I mean,
don't get me started. Luckily, it's not I know it's
a very big commitment for a citizen, but nonetheless, if
I'm a juror on the Diddy trial, I first of all,
(51:21):
I would want to be in a secret I want
an arm and yeah, I want an arm guard and
a bag over my head.
Speaker 3 (51:26):
They've been looking over their shoulder the rest of their lives.
You imagine that you're putting your life on the line,
and if you hear things like a possible pardon.
Speaker 2 (51:34):
Not that this hasn't been said in a while, this
is old, but again, you know here you are. You're
either a witness or a jur and you've put your
life on the line and showed your face to people.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
That's very scary stuff.
Speaker 2 (51:47):
Well, there's a seconder that also might get removed because
the second ur has apparently received a text that basically
asked the question via text. It was from someone this
juror apparently didn't know who asked them, are you juror
number six?
Speaker 3 (52:06):
What? Probably when the news was occurring about this juror
number six getting you know, dumped, I didn't hear that. No,
So the person this second jur has not been officially dismissed,
but this has now been brought up as that could
be painful. It slightly implied that, or at least.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
This is how I interpreted it, it was implying that
they were either communicating about this case with the outside
world or that somebody had you know, gotten their information.
Speaker 3 (52:34):
And you know, let the slow roll threats begin.
Speaker 2 (52:37):
If you're trying to buy a jur I'm not saying
that that is happening, but it's just you know how
it happens in the movies, right, So this is big
stuff having a suspicious juror at this stage in a trial.
Speaker 3 (52:51):
So hold on, I'm sorry, Can you stop for a second.
I sure, kim babe, bring it, bring it? Are you
telling me the sitting juror got a text from somebodyyous
and it says are you during number six? Correct? And
that juror went to the judge I'm guessing correct, and
was like, bro, what what you know? What's going on here?
(53:13):
That's my understanding. So I wonder, I mean, this is
this is scandalous, like scandalous. I know where somebody okay, listen,
where my mind goes is somebody snuck in like a
member of the public watch watching you know that you
can see the jury when you're you know, when you're
in the room, right, true, and had like the little
(53:34):
Google glasses or something, took a picture of the jury
and face. I d checked all the faces. Can you
do that? Yes, Softy? What absolutely? I could? Yeah, no
way that. I feel scared. Let's do it. It's a subscription,
it's a subscription service. No, we can. We can do
a demonstration and we can maybe upgrade it to TikTok
(53:56):
or something. But we're taking volunteers. I'm just trying to
figure out. And then they docked that person and got
their phone number. Yes, that could be. That's so terriful.
That's terrifying.
Speaker 2 (54:10):
And again, isn't it Also why isn't the juror in
these high profile cases like behind like a secret goal
ass or something.
Speaker 3 (54:18):
Maybe they might need to start being I mean, listen,
I just made all that up in my head just now.
But how that happened? But it's just a theory, like
how how would that get out? Unless there's like a
bad clerk, you know, fifty grand slip to the person,
you know what I mean, like something like that. That's worse.
(54:38):
It continues, go ahead, coordinator, I'm sorry, the judge.
Speaker 4 (54:42):
So the judge has grilled both parties about potentially leaked information.
It was published in a news article before the testimony
kicked off today. Both teams of lawyers denied leaking the
sealed details, and the contents of the leak is unknown.
Speaker 3 (54:58):
But the judge is and I'm looking at a quote
here she said or they said.
Speaker 4 (55:04):
Someone is lying and threatened to hold the attorneys in
contempt of court if anything like it happens again.
Speaker 3 (55:11):
Here's another quote. One or more people who are here
Friday in this courtroom lagrantly violated this court's orders.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
I mean, but again, they're going home for the weekend.
You can't avoid it. I mean again, I'm just playing
Devil's advocate here. I know they're supposed to put earmuffs
on and go home and stay in a vacuum room
that's sealed away with no conversation, in no media.
Speaker 3 (55:33):
I get it, But like, is that the real world?
Speaker 4 (55:35):
But hold on, Stephanie, I wasn't clear the judge was
reprimanding the lawyers on both sides. This was closed door
with the attorneys.
Speaker 3 (55:45):
So the allegation is.
Speaker 2 (55:48):
Now, can I just ask another strategy question to use
smarty pants girls. Here's a question. It just a strategy.
I'm on the defense team. Now, I'm on team Diddy,
and I want there to be like some shenanigans, So
I send a text. You know, I'm a member of
the Comb's family, many of them. I'm not saying that
(56:08):
this is happening. Janis Combs, don't come for me on
this one. But again, like to know body's point, you're
seeing the jurors. If you send one of those texts,
you know it's going to cause a rumble, and that
that juror is going to feel compelled to tell the
judge and it's going to cause question and then they're
going to get tossed and it's going to cause abyss.
And that is that just like the wheels turning at
(56:31):
a certain point right now in this case.
Speaker 4 (56:33):
I mean, that's a crazy interesting hypothetical, Stephanie.
Speaker 3 (56:38):
But I mean I've said this before, but I'm like
super nerdy when it comes to like the justice system.
I'm super naive and like our justice system is amazing,
you know, I really those things are true, and I
really put them on high pedestal. And that is so
unethical and it goes like you could they would not
(56:58):
only could they go to jail, they would be sparred. Yes,
for the Again, this.
Speaker 2 (57:02):
Is also we're hearing story after story after story, and
I fear that we're having some fatigue of hearing about
this world that operates in. It's really unbelievable what he
does on the daily basis. And we heard alleged again allegedly,
allegedly allegedly, I at least take Jane, the most recent victim,
(57:22):
at face value. I have no reason not to. She
apparently still has feelings for him. But it's very clear
that Shawn Di Di Combs does not know how to
treat another human respectfully. And they had that another person
who on the stand today who was like summarizing what
do they call that?
Speaker 3 (57:38):
A summary summary witness?
Speaker 2 (57:40):
Yeah, another summary witness, But this one was a juicy
one because the summary witness was basically summarizing all of
the texts between some of the office mates and you know,
team Shawn Combs aka Christina Korum who is KK is
how she's known, and she is Ditty's chief of staff
(58:05):
within Comb's Enterprises. She used to be a former executive
at bad Boy Records. I know I sound like a
broken record, but I've been waiting for this moment. I've
been tracking her so closely because it doesn't add up
to me. I don't know you and Indy, right, Indy
and I I mean.
Speaker 3 (58:18):
Indy, where are you at eight and eight three one?
Crime calls immediately.
Speaker 2 (58:22):
But like it, it has seemed as though there has
been this right hand woman who has been cited in
a lot of these civil allegations against Ditty as.
Speaker 3 (58:31):
One of the corroborators. We talked about this last night.
Speaker 2 (58:35):
If Ditty is Epstein, then this KK would be Glene Maxwell,
kind of the groomer. But it's a really important piece
of the puzzle because according to this summary witness or
summary witness, Yes, after like all of these texts, it's
pretty clear that Christina knew what was you know, she
was running a tight ship and the ship was about
(58:57):
trafficking women and bringing in male escort from here, there
and everywhere. That she was coordinating it, that she was
giving instructions to get four thousand dollars in cash that
she was getting you know, fifteen.
Speaker 3 (59:08):
Pills of molly. That's called drug trafficking.
Speaker 2 (59:10):
I guess very much aware that you know, revenge video
was being used against witness Jane I guess allegedly that Jane,
who was one of the many women that did he
was apparently having freak offs. Like this guy had a
full time job freaking off. That's all he did, was
freak off.
Speaker 3 (59:30):
But side note Jane, apparently he was threatening her that
he would send these tapes of her performing in a
freak off to her ex husband and the father of
her child. That's pretty bad. So if this kk knew
about that.
Speaker 2 (59:44):
That again, these are people on staff within his enterprise
that are being paid as workers, but really are fulfilling
the needs of baby oil and freakofs and drugs. The
amount of drugs that they were all doing too, and
these were like mean drugs. Like they all kind of
turned on each other and they were having sex for.
Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
Days and days and how does that even happen? Days
and days and days.
Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
And then Jane would be like and then after that,
I got to take care of Diddy. She would like
get to like take a bath and you know, rub
his head while he slept, and they would eat and
watch Dateline.
Speaker 3 (01:00:18):
I'm like, this is all the things that she accrently did.
He loves Dateline.
Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
He loves that date Line. That's the way I did
the math on this too, because she gets a lot
of slack. He was paying her rent, you know, allegedly
did he was paying victim Jane's rent ten thousand dollar bills.
Oh you know, it's expensive, ten thousand dollars a lot. However,
these escorts were getting paid two thousand per night, So
it's you do the math. Jane was not actually getting
(01:00:42):
such a great deal. She actually was getting some discount
pricing because she had to perform all the time. It
was legitimately like a full time.
Speaker 3 (01:00:49):
Job for her. Oh yeah, this was her job and
she was she had to meet his needs twenty four
to day.
Speaker 7 (01:00:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:00:56):
So do we have to hear more about Diddy? Like?
Can we gets get to the like? You know, I
feel like what else wean? Well, the defense hasn't even
started that I.
Speaker 4 (01:01:04):
Am so I'm anticipating that so strongly. I just I
literally cannot wait to hear. And I believe he has
ten lawyers on his team, all brilliant minds. I am
so curious what that is going to be like. And listen,
we are going to be following that of course, but
stick around because next we're also filling you in on
(01:01:25):
the latest with the accused Long Island serial killer. He
was in court today. As always, give us a call
eight A eight three one crime. You are what makes
the show interesting and keeps the conversation going. So keep
it here on true Crime tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
Rex Humorman, the accused Long Island serial killer, back in
court for a hearing. You know who wants to take
it first?
Speaker 3 (01:01:58):
I will? That's cool it. So yeah, today he had
court today and this was a hearing to determine if
the DNA evidence is admissible. Apparently the DNA testing method
that they did to match these hairs to you know,
Rex and his family is kind of like a new
(01:02:21):
thing in New York. So they had a fry hearing,
And a fry hearing is basically a pre trial proceeding
that determines admissibility of scientific evidence that really hasn't It's
kind of groundbreaking, right, So that's called a fry hearing.
And they had this fry hearing today and the judge
heard the prosecutors want to admit this cutting edge genetic
(01:02:44):
evidence linking heuremanto seven. I mean, this is seven of
these victims. This is a lot of victims. And if
this DNA evidence isn't admitted, do they have rex right,
I mean, that's the.
Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
Odds even if this is trash, what are the odds
that there's seven pieces of evidence? You know, according to
Joseph Scott Morgan when he was with us, he felt
like this is a silly argument.
Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
Right. So Huerman's attorney, Michael Brown, maintains that he does
not believe the nuclear DNA evidence put forth by the
prosecution is science. He said it has not been accepted
in criminal cases across the nation except for once in Idaho,
of all places, what mm hmm, where he said there
are lesser standards than New York state. Of course, that
(01:03:32):
made the hair on my next stand up, right, because
we've just got done talking about I know, right. He
added that a company in California that produced the DNA
does not have a permit to enter evidence into proceedings
in the state of New York. So this could like
really be a thing. This could really be a thing.
And if the judge to sought out lest the judge
has not given us as ruling, I didn't expect a
(01:03:54):
bench ruling, like, I mean, the judge has to like
go and research and read the document, and you know,
he's got to figure out what he's going to do.
He can't just do that from the bench, right, Like,
he's not going to hear everything and be like, Okay,
you know, let's do it or let's not. He's going
to go think about it. So that's what he's doing
right now and hopefully we'll hear from him soon. But
I mean, if this gets dismissed, what does this mean
(01:04:15):
for the case? Sam get dismissed?
Speaker 4 (01:04:18):
It can, but it's complicated because so much it does
have to go through the procedural process of being accepted
into court. That's something with every kind of piece of
forensics and different cases we've done with bite marks for example,
or shoe analysis.
Speaker 3 (01:04:38):
Actually shoe analysis, right, do you guys remember the smell
analysis at the death farm or whatever, the body farm
in Knoxville.
Speaker 4 (01:04:48):
But it's a complicated process because everything at one point
was breaking ground in somewhere and to meet the court standard.
It's just a higher standard, which on the one hand,
it should. You can't go in and say, you know,
the sky is red if it's not. But Joseph Scott Morgan,
if you guys remember on Sunday when you know we
(01:05:08):
had touched on this just a little bit, knowing the
hearing was coming up. What he said was that in
medical professionals, they've been using this for a really long time.
Speaker 3 (01:05:18):
Right, so, and I'm hoping that's the saving grace. I'm
hoping that that's a saving grace. I just listen if
something bad is going to happen, like I automatically go
to that, you know, like it's just my default, Like
oh great, you know this is going to get thrown out,
and like what does this mean for the case, And
you know, all these women, like it's scary, it's scary
(01:05:39):
to think that. I mean, what are the chances all
seven victims matched to Rex? Right? And then they say, well,
you can't use the DNA. So if they don't have
the DNA, what else do they have? Oh well, there's
actually many things. There's many things do you have? I
mean the belt for one of you know, okay, that's
(01:06:00):
writing this bell.
Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
It has his father's initials, grandfather's initials R.
Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
Yeah, allegedly allegedly. But the time phone, the cell phones,
the cell phone tracking he was yeah, that's he had
the burner phone and his phone, right, that's one thing that.
Speaker 4 (01:06:15):
He was connected. Those burner phones were how he used
to communicate to the victims. And they have absolute tracking
because he kept his regular phone on his person. So
wherever the burner phone contacting these victims went, so did
direct tuermen.
Speaker 3 (01:06:32):
And right, so that's one thing. That another thing they have.
Another thing they have is you know, these killings happened
when his wife was you know, conveniently in Iceland visiting family. Right,
so he had all this time and opportunity. They have
the document. You guys know about this document. Yes, go ahead,
we have got to talk about this document, and body,
(01:06:53):
I want to hear from you. Yeah, those documents by
so fast, I need like ten more hours. I could
talk about this. I could talk about the document for
twenty six hours. Literally, I feel like I'm I feel
like I'm so like Ragye right now. I just so
we're gonna go out and get in a bar fire.
Speaker 7 (01:07:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
So Forensically they analyzed all of Rex's you know, equipment,
to his devices, his computers and whatnot, and they found
that he had created this like word document, this Microsoft
word document, and he deleted it. And not only did
he delete it, he bought software to basically shred it,
like you know, fancy software that would forensically delete things
(01:07:36):
that he didn't want to keep on his computer. Yeah,
well they got it.
Speaker 2 (01:07:40):
I mean that doesn't ever happen though, isn't that like
the whole giggle, Like that doesn't get stake. You can
never really get rid of than anything, right, right, So
they put basically they put this document back together piece
by piece right digitally, and what emerged from this document
is frightening.
Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
It's literally a serial killer like checklist, No, what's on
this checklist? I don't like the checklist for Cereal, guys.
There's so many things on it that I can't even
remember everything. But it's things like it seems like rope,
shovel shovel thumb tacks. Make sure you know you use
(01:08:19):
thumb tacks to put the canvas up so that you
don't mark the wall or you know, the ceiling with
nail you know, like, no, where are you putting the
nails like to not block it up with blood? Or
what are we blocked? So you know?
Speaker 1 (01:08:35):
You know?
Speaker 2 (01:08:35):
Did you guys ever watch It's like dexter, wait are
we listening? Are we in the silence of the lambs?
Speaker 3 (01:08:40):
Right? You guys have not seen this document? I've got
to send it to you show shut the windows. I
feel scared. It's go ahead, It's there's much more in
this document. There's there's so many things, like I'm all
excited about a documents.
Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
So wait, rex Humor in the accused has a Google
document that he ray but it really wasn't a race,
because never really gets a race in this life and on.
Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
It is a Google doc. This guy's an architect, by
the way.
Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
So it's not like he was a criminology student or
you know, an author of true crime.
Speaker 3 (01:09:11):
It's also not like he was a dummy though.
Speaker 4 (01:09:14):
If you are, you are very systematic and you know
line up things, so it would makes sense that you'd
lay things.
Speaker 3 (01:09:22):
Out on the document architect. You have to be an
attack on any other architects. We don't accuse you. No, no, no,
you're not dumb together a kill list like that. The
Suffolk County District Attorney said he's never seen a document
like this, Like he's never seen you have to I
need one more highlight the rope you've got made. No,
(01:09:42):
there's he talks about the hard point, the hard point
waout attacks. What do we do with the tacks? Okay,
so he's Basically, if you're going to kill somebody and
there's going to be blood spatter, you want to protect, oh,
the environment, so you hang up like plastic sheeting. And
he would use plasts, you know, the little thumb tacks. Yes,
(01:10:03):
he would do to put into the ceiling, because his
ceiling was like one of those drop ceilings that has
like the holes already in it. Oh and so sustain
nailing things in. It would go, well, I can't sustain
nailing things in, but it also is disguised by these
little holes and it's just the thumb tack doesn't really
leave any distinguishing marks that make it look different. Whoa,
but you know, oh, oh, another thing I watched. We
(01:10:26):
watched uh the documentary this weekend. Oh yes, gig. It
was so big and and and they go into this
document specifically, so you gotta go watch it. It's so good.
The first episode goes into like the investigation, and I
couldn't stop. I mean I I was really tired, and
I really wanted a nap, but I couldn't sleep. It
(01:10:46):
was so good. And like every I don't have like
the fancy peacock, and so every commercial I was like,
you know, like raging like, come on, let's go, let's go.
It was so it was so well done, but they
go into this document episode three in detail.
Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
You guys, all right, I just gave myself homework because
I had watched and I told you guys after I
had I was I was twelve minutes till the end
of the first episode. So I watched almost the entire
ye of the first and then life got a little busy.
But I think life's going to take a quick pause
(01:11:23):
this evening, and.
Speaker 3 (01:11:25):
Just where you had to watch it a little, I
need listen. I need to talk to you guys about
this document. So I need you to watch this. I'll
watch it tonight. You promised, done? Yes, okay, I think
I think everyone wants to hear about this document. Let
us know. Give us a call at eight eight, eight thirty one. Crime.
Do you want to talk about this? It's crazy. I mean,
doesn't the wife see this though? Do you think? Yes?
(01:11:46):
And she's like, she's like, prove it. She's so adamant
that it's he's innocent. And then she says, I'm not
going to believe anything until I see it with my
own eyes, and you can prove it to me.
Speaker 2 (01:11:57):
But is it pot because she believes he's being framed
and that this is just she almost like blames herself
that she actually went out of town because had she
not been in Iceland, none of this would be up
for conversation. It's like her poor devoted husband's getting you know,
hammered in the press because she went to Iceland. It
is a very hard thing to wrap your brain around.
Every single time you go out of town, a girl
(01:12:19):
goes find turns up dead. That's horrifying, right, So number one,
number two, do you think when she watches the doc,
does she now seek maybe what some of us see,
because it's listen, if you've ever been in a beehive
in a tough situation, it's really easy for us to
look at a life and say, how did you miss that?
Speaker 3 (01:12:39):
Until it hits you in the face.
Speaker 7 (01:12:40):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:12:41):
It's just that's the benefit of us being able to
talk about this stuff.
Speaker 4 (01:12:43):
We get to don't you know she's gonna watch it? Oh,
but I could also understand some things are so bad
out right now your brain quite literally can't handle it.
I know there there's terminology that I will try and
look up, but.
Speaker 3 (01:13:00):
Something your mind just can ask Jessica Caplin. Okay, get
her on, but no, but please, let's let's watch us
and let's just set this doc It's not a manifesto.
It's a checklist of everything not only that he needs
to bring, but that he needs to do, like make
sure you cut off the head, the fans, the feet,
(01:13:23):
like dude, it's it's so bad and the night is
already coming to a close so quickly. So, Karen Reid,
we have we have some info from from you all.
What do you think, Boddy? The question is question of
the moment. One of the questions the jury asked the
(01:13:43):
judge was they mentioned this. It was about I think
it was about the one where she was in the
documentary and she was talking the video clips and they said,
and they said, does the Karen what she said? Is
it evidence or whatever? But they used the word Karen.
They didn't formally call her like missus Reid or Karen Reid.
(01:14:06):
They said, Karen, that's a tell. That is a tell.
Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
Don't you think I think that seems much more intimate,
friendlier or if you're going to put somebody away for life,
you're going to call them miss read exactly because you
want totach yourself away a little bit from the familiarity
of this person by saying their first name.
Speaker 3 (01:14:26):
Yeah, I think it's a tell. I thought it was interesting.
That's a really astude point.
Speaker 4 (01:14:31):
Yeah, you know, I didn't say this earlier, But what
I actually found as just a very curious question was
why the jury they had asked, you know, is evidence
that was presented of Karen by the prosecution when she
air when they aired her documentary?
Speaker 3 (01:14:48):
Could should that be evidence?
Speaker 4 (01:14:50):
And I don't even know why that would be a
question if it's up there and submitted.
Speaker 3 (01:14:54):
Because somebody, somebody in the jury room is saying, we
can't use that. That's not evidence. It's all somebody is
pushing back. Somebody's pushing back. I don't know which direction.
I don't know if it's somebody that's like thinking she's
guilty or somebody that thinking she's completely innocent and not guilty.
I have no idea, but somebody's pushing back.
Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
It's such a good point. I thought the documentary. If
you don't know what we're talking about, we're talking about
the documentary.
Speaker 3 (01:15:22):
I think it was the ID stuff too.
Speaker 2 (01:15:24):
Yes, it was id and basically it was Karen Reid,
you know, allowed cameras to be with her in her
previous trial. So again it's her testimony air quotes from
her previous trial. So is that relevant, I guess is
the question.
Speaker 3 (01:15:39):
And it's in her own words then complicated stuff, you know.
And I, by the way, I thought it made her
quite I quite liked her, and I didn't like her.
I understand why she's so divisive.
Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
She just doesn't bother me. She's familiar to me. I
feel like I get Ryan read she doesn't. I love
the Boston vibe, so it doesn't take me off the
way it does so many people.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
I thought it made her likable on that topic.
Speaker 4 (01:16:06):
There's a DM actually that had just escaped me, but
it's from Marion in Chicago, So thank you for that.
And the question asked between the protest signs, tiktoks and
people treating the courthouse like a concert venue, does this
help or hurt the pursuit of justice? And my top
of head reaction is I feel like it would it
(01:16:27):
would hurt because if I were a juror, I would
feel so much more pressure with all of it.
Speaker 3 (01:16:33):
So that's my knee jerk. What do you guys think,
Maybe that's why they asked the question about the hung jury,
and the judge responded in the way that she did.
You know, she responded, and she said, you don't need
to worry about what the consequences are, right, Like, was
the jury wondering, like are all these people gonna hate me?
You know what I mean? Because of all the circus
that they see. They're not sequestered. It's not like they're
(01:16:54):
getting our I don't know. Are they getting on a
bus and being escorted off proper? I have no idea,
but you know they have to be aware of what's
going on outside, right, Yeah, because they're not requestioned.
Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
Again, back to the bags over the heads, you know,
like we need to have like jurors in we need
tolast jurors in Guantanamo. Yeah, like they need to be
phoning it in satellite style via question mar question. Listen.
Much more on this to come. Tomorrow's a huge day,
huge day. We might have a verdict. So we're talking
Karen Reid, more on Long Island, more in the Brian
(01:17:27):
Coburger case. We're talking true crime all the time. Stay
with us, stay safe, and we will see you tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.