Live from the Courtroom with Diddy, Weinstein Trial Declared a Mistrial, and Lori Vallow Found Guilty — for the Third Time

Closing arguments are expected to begin tomorrow in the retrial of Karen Read. Sade Robinson’s mother, Sheena Scarbrough, has launched the Sade’s Voice Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of those in need. Lawyer and author Matthew Russell Lee has been covering Sean “Diddy” Combs’ trial since the very beginning and joins us to discuss up-to-date news on the case. Matthew has reported on in-person cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for Inner City Press. Tune in for all the details. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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,
its affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio, where we talk
true crime all the time. It's Thursday, June twelfth. It's
actually our last show of the week. We'll be back
here on Sunday, Don't forget, and we have a stacked
night of headlines. Closing arguments are set to begin for
the retrial of Karen Reid that could kick in as
soon as tomorrow. Also, we have a very special guest,

(00:40):
Matthew Russell Lee is here. He's been reporting from the
Diddy trial in the courtroom, so he's going to give
us all of the details. Plus, a verdict was reached
in the Doomsday Mom trial. What is happening there? The
jury decided in record time. And also another mistrial for
Harvey Weinstein. What is next for him? I'm Stephanie and

(01:00):
I head u KT Studios where we make true crime
podcasts and documentaries and I get to do that every
day with Courtney Armstrong, producer and host and body move
In crime analyst and host and look, the world has
gone nuts, but we are grateful to be here today
and I hope you all are safe and happy, and
we want you to come in and join the conversation.

(01:21):
So please call us at eight eight eight three one Crime,
or you could always call us on our socials at
True Crime Tonight's show on TikTok and Instagram, or at
True Crime Tonight on Facebook. So, Karen Reid, there's a mistrial.
What do you think is going to happen in the
coming days? I mean, we really are at a place
now where the jury is not in the building today,

(01:42):
so they got a break, and the judge has made
the decision that we are moving on and closing arguments
will begin each side. We'll have about seventy five minutes
and after that, Karen Reid's fate is in everybody's hands.
If you haven't been following this case, as a reminder,
Karen Reid has been on trial, her retrial, so her
second trial in the death of her boyfriend John O'Keefe.

(02:05):
He was hit allegedly by her car. That's what she's
been charged with. And there seemed to be really mixed
feelings around all of it, and it's a really divisive case.
So Courtney, you know, what, do you think what's going
to happen next?

Speaker 3 (02:18):
Man, it's gonna be interesting. Judge Cononi originally said at
the beginning of the trial that if the attorneys presented
enough evidence on the defense side during trial, that they
could name Brian Higgins and Brian Albert as alternate suspects
in their closing arguments.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Which is pretty major.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Yes, yes, so that was up to the defense to
again present enough but she ruled today that indeed the
defense did not present enough evidence to do that, so
jurors will not hear the alternative suspect theory in closing statements.
I feel like that's a big blow to defense pulpability.
The level of like the bar is so much higher

(03:02):
to like openly accuse somebody else in open court, Like
you can't. You can't just do that, right, Like, that's
what I hate to do this, but that's what they're
trying to do with Brian Coberger in this alternate suspect.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
Right, the level of the bar is high, to the
bar is high because it changes everything, Right, It's like
it's not me, it's him, you know. It seems like
it's right out of a movie, you know. I guess
my larger question would be, if there are alternate suspects,
is that something that could be a next step. Should
she get a hung jury or I mean.

Speaker 4 (03:32):
If she gets acquitted, the commonwealth is really going to
be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either
they're going to have to admit that they made a
mistake and even trying Karen read to begin with, because
it was really this person right, which is unlikely for
them to do right right, It's very unlikely for them
to admit that, or they retry her again. Well, if
she gets acquitted, they're not going to be able to
do that. But if there's a hung jury and a

(03:54):
mistrial is the result, then they're going to be really
stuck with a hard decision.

Speaker 2 (03:58):
Or she is found guilt, you know, or the the
lawyers today had a conference about sentencing, right, So that's
a big piece of this. Can you imagine how stressed
she might be at this exact moment. You know, she
looked like a pretty cool cucumber leaving the courthouse yesterday.
She seemed pretty confident, said she was a little you know,
nervous and a little anxious, but that you know, she

(04:19):
felt as though she was defended well and maybe even
more so than the first trial. Can we just discuss
who was there so the alternate suspects. I feel like
this gets thrown around quite a bit, and it would
be helpful, kind of to talk through the backstory because
it's really it's also two other Canton police you know, authorities,
if you will, And I think that's the hardest part
of this. If there has been a cover up within

(04:41):
law enforcement, you know what a bummer because you know, listen,
if she gets off, whether she did it or not,
right regardless, if she gets off, it will be because
the work was so messy by law enforcement. And sometimes
the cover up is worse than the crime. Maybe they
had nothing to do with it, but they really wanted
to hammer it home for her and that ended up maybe,

(05:04):
you know, changing her fate altogether. You're looking very surprised
by this. Are you still feeling like guilty or not guilty?
I listen, I think she's guilty. I think she's guilty.
I think she actually hit him with her car, is
she I think so?

Speaker 4 (05:17):
I technically think she's guilty, right, but I do I
do agree that the investigation was shoddy and that there
could be an acquittal coming.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
I don't. I don't. I would not be surprised.

Speaker 4 (05:28):
I don't. I don't really see a guilty verdict. If
there is one, I'll be like great, because I think
she's guilty. However, it's also scary that they were able
to convict her based on the presentation.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
Well, I yeah, I feel like there has been enough
reasonable doubt. Yeah, I do too, and that that is
the standard. And I think this is interesting. So even
though you know, the defense can't say that there's an
alternate suspect, the judge did rule that the defense is
allowed to argue in their closing arguments tomorrow that police

(06:00):
were aware that Brian Higgins could have been a suspect
in O'Keefe's death, but did not act on the information.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
So on the information, they didn't even search the house.
You know, I feel as though this was one of
those situations that there was a lot of law enforcement
there that should have handled this with care, and frankly,
they didn't. You know, even though it was their buddy,
this is the guy that they were hanging out with
all night that they love. That's not up for question
whether they're pinning it on her or not. Can you

(06:29):
imagine if you're not an affluent person who had the
resources to put a good legal team together to unfold
some of this, what does the regular joe do if
they're being well?

Speaker 4 (06:39):
Was that Karen wasn't Karen Reid's defense money raised? Wasn't
it crowdsourced? It didn't come from like family, generational wealth
or anything?

Speaker 5 (06:46):
Did it?

Speaker 6 (06:47):
Or did it?

Speaker 1 (06:47):
Well?

Speaker 2 (06:47):
No? I mean she's a working class you know, she's
a scholar of sorts too. You know she was working
as a professor. But you know, remember she's been on
trial for well over a year now. If you're looking
the time, how does she go to work? She can't.
There's nobody's earning a living. We forget that if family
members want to go and support their loved one in court,
they can't go to work that day, true, right, they

(07:08):
don't get paid. It's a real drag financially on your resources.
And the legal fees must be ginormous.

Speaker 6 (07:16):
Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (07:17):
I mean even in the Brian Coburger case, that's the
one where he's accused of murdering for University of Idaho students,
you know their families are raising money through go fundme
so they can just be at the trial.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
The victims family's right.

Speaker 4 (07:30):
The victims Brian Coburger is of course being defended by
Anne Taylor, public defender, so it's not costing the Coburger
family any money. But you know, if they want to
come to the trial, they're going to have to. And
I listen, I can't imagine that they're going to be
able to raise money. Eh maybe, you.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
Know, you never know. Honestly, it's a way for people
to support what they believe in, right, and I think
that's everybody's right. But yeah, to your point, you know,
she has raised money, no question, But you know, I
have to imagine she's waiting on a book deal. Do
you think if she had shown more emotion in court?
You know, listen, this was her boyfriend. You know, they

(08:04):
met in high school. They go way back. You know,
they seemed very affectionate with one another. Lots of reports
say they had a very toxic relationship. Others say the opposite.
You know, we've seen surveillance footage in the night of
and you know, John o'keef seemed rather loving with her.
You know, it didn't seem like they were in some
real big fight. Or something like that. Of course, you

(08:24):
never know what goes on behind closed doors, But do
you think if she was a little bit more, if
she weep, wept more often, or she was crying on
the stand because she missed her boyfriend. I feel like
the lack of that has really turned people off. And listen,
you got to be genuine and authentic in the moment,
but that thick skin or rough exterior has also been

(08:44):
so divisive.

Speaker 3 (08:46):
I think it was exacerbated by people who already found
her to be repugnant and who found her to be,
you know, guilty before the trial or during the trial.
So I think it's kind of one of those things
that's supports whatever your belief is, whereas if you're at
free Karen read as many people are with their signs,
then it's seen as stoic. So but actually we should

(09:09):
talk a little bit about Karen Reid because as a person,
I don't feel like that gets talked about much. She's
born and raised in Massachusetts, and her dad was an
accounting professor at Bentley University and pretty normal.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
There as well. Yeah, yeah, and she.

Speaker 3 (09:26):
Has a master's from Bentley as well, and was a
financial analyst at fidelity investments. As you had mentioned, Stephanie
also just on a personal level in terms of things
she has been through that some people really relate to
and sympathize with. She has crone disease and in a
year and a half had to undergo ten surgeries to

(09:46):
treat it.

Speaker 6 (09:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah, I mean you have to have some serious staminas
to hold up even during a trial of this level
for as long as she has, you know, right or wrong, guilty,
not guilty anybody who hasn't been that system for so long.

Speaker 4 (10:02):
She's also out, like she's not in jail, like a
lot of people are, right that don't have the opportunity
that she does.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
That's fair, That's such a good point. I guess that's
why this case kind of gets under all of our
skins so much, right, because we're watching this play out
and then you think, my god, what happened to me?
I'd be a dead man, wouldn't be able to afford
to get out, of course, and that would be the
case for most people. So all the while agreed, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (10:30):
Wow for a billion crowdsourced right, So I mean she really,
I mean, let's face it, Turtle Boy is one of
the main reasons she's even able to defend herself at all.
I think he started ringing the alarm bells for her
and started crowdfunding for her, you know, and Boy, for.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
Those who don't know who that is is, you know,
it has an online presence and really started following this
case very early on in the process before it has
caught all this attention, and really his belief has really
cracked open this whole case. And again, even that's kind
of divisive because other people say, like, Turtle Boy, get
in your lane. You're not a cop, you're not an investigator,

(11:11):
you're not a detective, and you're actually riling everybody up
and getting in the way of justice.

Speaker 4 (11:16):
And not only that, but he was actually indicted for
wasn't he indicted for witness intimidation of some of the
witnesses involved in this case? Correct, so's he's become part
of the case, right, instead of just kind of reporting
on it, he's now part of it, which is interesting.
But my point in bringing him up wasn't to disparate
him or anything like that. It was more of like
Karen reach tould be very grateful to Turtle Boy for,

(11:38):
you know, ringing the alarm bells about this case and
having all this money now at her disposal, and you know,
again she's not sitting in jail like Brian Coberger is right,
that's true.

Speaker 2 (11:48):
She's out well buying Voxa at Costco Fair. But she
is also not accused of mass murdering. No, she's with
a knife in the middle of the night and is
like not it whether he is or isn't guilty, it
is a different crime but equally horrible, and our hearts
are with you know, John O'Keefe's family.

Speaker 4 (12:08):
Yeah, we're going to continue to follow this because listen,
we're getting a little heated here. Join the conversation, let
us know what's going on. Call us an eight eight
eight thirty one crime or use the talkbacks on the
iHeartRadio app. Coming up, we're going to be joined by
Matthew Russell Lee. He's a journalist who's been reporting from
inside the courtroom at the deity trial. We cannot wait
to talk to him. We are so excited. And later,

(12:30):
a verdict was reached today in Lolori Valo dab Bell trial.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
What was it? We're going to talk about it. Keep
it here true time tonight, Courtney, Let's discuss did he
did he all the things?

Speaker 6 (12:52):
All the things? All right?

Speaker 7 (12:55):
Did he did?

Speaker 2 (12:56):
Did he? Yes?

Speaker 6 (12:57):
He did? Yes, he did.

Speaker 3 (13:01):
So Finally, after six days, victim who's going by Jane,
she finally wrapped her testimony today and it's been really emotional.
She has been on the stand and she has been
very critical excuse me, yeah, very critical in helping prove
the federal sex trafficking and the racketeering charges against the

(13:21):
former music mogul. So even though it was long and emotional,
hopefully it did some really good movement for the prosecution.
For anyone unfamiliar, Puff Daddy has been alleged to for
twenty years, from twenty four to twenty twenty four, to
be involved in a criminal enterprise involving kidnapping, arson, bribery,
and sex trafficking. He's facing life in prison, but has

(13:44):
pled guilty. Who has pled not guilty? Guilty, not guilty
to all the charges. And right now we are joined
by a very special guest. We're so excited to speak
with Matthew Russell lee Back. Since twenty eighteen, Matthew has
report in person on cases in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York and that's on

(14:06):
innercitypress dot com. His work can also be found in threads, vlogs, books,
and podcasts. He has had a front row seat to
all things Diddy and Matthew. Thank you so much for
joining us, Hi.

Speaker 5 (14:18):
Matthew, Sure sure, thanks a lot.

Speaker 7 (14:21):
I'm glad to be here. I was just listening to
her for its introductions. True, it's true, but of course
there's more to it. But well, I'll wait to tell you.
It was a long six days with James.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
We cannot wait to hear you know, it's funny. Can
I just jump in first? First of all, we're so
happy you're here because, you know, talking about it, reporting
about it, unpacking it is one thing, but being in
the beehive in the courtroom is a whole other set
of circumstances. And I can only imagine tension filled the
Jane Doe testimony that's been going on for the last days.

(14:50):
It's pretty harrowing stuff. Am I losing my mind that
I'm almost feeling a little desensitized to some of it?
You know, when we first heard about a freak off
and what that meant, then it was my brain exploded.
And now I feel like, are we all getting a
little desensitized to it because it's gone on for so long.
Or is that an advantage point and we're really emotionally

(15:13):
attaching ourselves to the witnesses.

Speaker 7 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean I think that that. I think personally,
I think that that Cassie was much was a stronger
witness or less a clearer witness for the for the
jury having just I mean, I don't know if it
comes off a side I think I mean, and it's different.
It's absolutely terrible. What happened to Jane is also a pseudonym, right,
so it's not a real mine.

Speaker 5 (15:35):
So it began.

Speaker 7 (15:36):
The first thing to be said is that there's been
this strange split between what can be reported and what
other people, let's say, outside of the courtroom, particularly like
the hip hop press, like people know who she is.
I'm pretty sure I know who she is. I totally
respect the idea of, like, you know, victims using a pseudonym.
It does become difficult when and I covered the like

(15:56):
not the Glenne Maxwell trial as well, and there there
were manyvictims, most of them are not very well known people,
and so it made it was much simpler to just
say victim one, victim two, victim three.

Speaker 5 (16:06):
Here they introduced Jane.

Speaker 7 (16:09):
I mean, but the direct examination said, you know, what
did you say to Diddy when you first met him
in Miami? And she said, I've dated a close friend
of yours and the father of my child is a
major rival of yours. Well, obviously this set the hip
hop world, and even today there was testimony about another
quote wrap icon that was having his own freak off,

(16:30):
a separate freak off, a totally different in a parallel world,
but very similar in fact, with the same male entertainer
as they're calling them in Las Vegas that she went to.
And this mad made Ditty or Sean Combs very jealous
and in fact led to the violent incident with which
both the direct and the cross ended. But the thing
is that I guess it's because I sort of straddled

(16:52):
to I cover. Also, you know music trials here, crypto trials.

Speaker 5 (16:55):
And so people.

Speaker 7 (16:56):
You know, I think many people in the world of
hip hop know who both of these individuals are, but
we who are here are not supposed to report it.
And again I respect that, but it does when the
tension in the courtroom is not just between the witnesses
and Shawn Combe there's a tension of I report live
like I'm tweeting it out, I'm putting it on as
you said, threads a blue sky X. And so when

(17:19):
something is reported in court, I feel like it's been
admitted into evidence right now can be reported. But there
was one instance here where the defense made a mistake
where Mia was another of the of the anonymous witness
victims that had worked just as an employee and had
been actually just not so much a freak off, just
straight up raped and assaulted by Shron Combs. According to

(17:40):
her testimony, there was a big fight about whether they
could show a video she'd.

Speaker 5 (17:43):
Recorded wishing Comb's a happy birthday.

Speaker 7 (17:46):
It was a very gushing video, and I think the
defense thought it would show that she wasn't as traumatized
as she said she was on the stand. But after
all this back and forth, we didn't really get to
see the arguments. They showed the video with her face
on it.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
Wow.

Speaker 7 (17:59):
So it seemed to me in the courtroom that you
now that that the cat is out of the bag,
you're no longer trying to blur her face. But as
it turned out, that was a mistake, you see.

Speaker 6 (18:08):
What I mean.

Speaker 5 (18:08):
So you're having to sort of check yourself.

Speaker 7 (18:11):
I'm sorry to go on. I just wanted to know,
like the tension is, the tension is is. I'm not
I'm not crying. It's very fun to report on. But
it's a unique case, and I think it's I've even
covered other cases with anonymous victims, but this is the
only one I've covered where it's kind of it's an
open secret who the person is, and so you have
a kind of I would say it creates almost a

(18:31):
credibility bit gap throughout the media that's here because we
want to respect the order, and also the judges made
it clear he could throw you out of the courtroom
if you violate his order.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
Well, you don't want to. You don't want to get
thrown out, right, Yeah?

Speaker 7 (18:42):
Absolutely, I mean and not just self servingly. I mean you, yeah,
I'm reporting it. I don't want to actually personally. I
sort of pushed back against that because I think I
don't I think that that does chill reporting the defense
in this case, which you know, obviously they have a
very hard hand to play, you know, and they're getting
well paid. He has about ten lawyers and he's brought
in he has you know, some very well known SDNY

(19:03):
Southern District lawyers, and he brought in two lawyers from
Atlanta fresh from a seeming victory and a hip hop
case there called the Young Young Thug Thug trial there.
So they're sort of like up and coming defense lawyers.
And he has this enormous team, but you know, it's
still that he's fighting the government. They're putting on witnesses,
they can offer immunity to people to testify, and they have,

(19:24):
they said, which they have absolut absolutely one hundred percent.
I think that the several of them were subpoenaed and
had to be you know, take the Fifth Amendment outside
the presence of the jury. Jane herself testified to the
grand jury, so she was given immunity, you know, some
time ago. Wow, I'm going to I don't want to
get too much into the procedural. That's that part I
find interesting. I cover enough trials that this trial is

(19:45):
unique not only in the sort of gruesomeness of the
freak off testimony, but also in this sort of strange
anonymity of something that's that can't really be anonymous that
I guess it can.

Speaker 5 (19:57):
And I'm not sure what.

Speaker 2 (19:58):
The people I know it, And if you don't know
who we're talking about, you just got to google it,
and you know, and I don't want to perpetuate it.

Speaker 4 (20:05):
We are so lucky to be talking to Matthew Russell
Lee who's been reporting on and attending the Diddy trial,
and we want to hear from you. Give us a
call at eight eight eight thirty one crime or hit
us up on the talkbacks on the iHeartRadio app. And
speaking of we have a caller right now, caller right, CJ.

Speaker 6 (20:21):
Are you there?

Speaker 8 (20:23):
Yeah, I'm rid here, Hi, CJ.

Speaker 2 (20:25):
Good, how are you well?

Speaker 8 (20:27):
First of all, I just wanted to let Matthew know
that I have almost respect for his reporting. I follow
him on X and everything and everything that he's doing
from inside the courtroom, and I know that there's already,
you know, tension going on that he spoke about. But
I was wondering if there was any update on the
judge putting things into the docket and whether or not, Matthew,
are you considering possibly putting in another motion to make

(20:50):
sure that this is what's happening, because it seems from
your latest tweets it seems like there's still stuff that
the judge is not putting into the docket. Can you
give us more information on it?

Speaker 2 (20:58):
Great question?

Speaker 5 (20:59):
Oh, thanks to your right, that's right down my alley.

Speaker 7 (21:01):
Or I mean I did early in the first week
of the case because nothing you know. Normally in covering
a trial here, you know, lawyers will often put in
letters overnight and so you'll know what's going to be
addressed the next day in open court here, I think
and I think it's because of the two anonymous witness victims.
Both sides have felt comfortable just emailing the judge and

(21:22):
not the public can't really see what the arguments are today.
They had a big argument inside the roping room, so
we don't One of the one of the arguments has
to do with the juror that the government is trying
to exclude. And I have to say, as even being
here every single day, we don't know the grounds on
which they're trying to exclude them. And I'm not sure
with that why that would make a lot of sense.
I understand the principle that victims should be anonymous if

(21:43):
they want. I think I think this is more it's
unless it's an issue that the that that the juror
after being impaneled on the jury it turns out was
a victim of sexual abuse, and is you know, worthy
of protection for that reason. If on the other hand,
as some here suspect, it's that the person didn't disclose
that on social media. They support Diddy, for example, and
there are Diddy supporters both in the front of the courthouse.

(22:05):
Some of them may or may not be paid. But
I get enough feedback over the transom from from doing
these things on social media that there are a lot
of people want to call them ditty bots. But you know,
it's like, what's It's a bit like what happened in
the Johnny Johnny Depp amber. People see the case. I'm sorry,
people see the case through the prism of their own,
you know, experience, And I think that's what's weird here

(22:26):
is because we're dealing with really what was presented in court.
I think, like in the abstract, I know that, like
I think, I think, you know, what, what did he
I don't know if anyone that wouldn't say the things
that Diddy has been shown to have done are terrible
and disgusting. The question becomes legally, are do they constitute racketeerings?

Speaker 6 (22:43):
Right?

Speaker 7 (22:43):
Right? You can be a terrible person without being a
mafia member. And in this case, they've used this law
that was meant to get at the mafia to try
to say that his whole record company and Sean John
Clothing and Sarak Vodka that this was all kind of
a scheme to traffic women for having sex with mail
entertainers to pleasure combs for whatever reason. And I'm pretty

(23:05):
sure that that's not why the companies were created. I'm
pretty sure that they weren't used in some ways to
do that.

Speaker 5 (23:11):
But I'm also.

Speaker 7 (23:11):
Pretty sure that like most small business, it wasn't a
small business, but it was a totally like one man
business owned by one man. There's a lot of blurring
between the personal. It's just to hear the personal is
totally nasty excuse, you know what I mean. But I
can imagine at least one jur of being a legal
stickler just to get I'm sorry to did not have
answered the question. I am definitely considered filing another letter
because it's getting to be too much.

Speaker 4 (23:32):
Well that thought, Matthew. We're going to be right back
with Matthew Russell Lee, who's been attending the did He
trial and updates on Travis Decker, a man, please say,
killed his three young daughters. Stick around right here at
True Crime Tonight. We're still here with Matthew Russell Lee.

(23:56):
He wrote the book did he do It?

Speaker 2 (23:58):
Us? Versus shan On Combs, And he's been reporting every
day from within the courthouse. And I've been following very
closely your work, and I agree with CJ our caller,
you've done a great job keeping us all informed and
kind of personalizing it because again we're seeing it from
a distance, it feels clinical, and I believe your reporting
really has humanized it. So, first and foremost, thank you

(24:21):
and thanks for hanging with us. More back to Puffy
in the Ditty trial, So I know CJ had a
very clear question about the dockets, et cetera. And you
know I had a quick question too for you, just
about being inside the courtroom. You know, Sean Dittycombs, his
family has been there right, his sons at one point,
his twin daughters, his mother is really standing by him.

(24:43):
How is that scenario because I would have to assume
as a family member, it's really brutal to have to
watch these sex tapes and to hear some of.

Speaker 5 (24:52):
These deals actually yeah, thankfully. I think they haven't. They haven't.

Speaker 7 (24:57):
They've neither had to or been able to watch the
sex tape because the judge ordered that these tapes will
only only be shown to the jury, and even for
the lawyers to see them. There's a kind of a
screen over their screen, so that's sitting in the gallery.
You can't see them. I think that makes sense. Like
some people, I do a lot of filings to unseal things,
but I decline to do a filing to unseal these

(25:18):
these sex tapes because they're pretty there's enough testimony about them,
you know, you can sort of figure what they are.
I think what people may not. This is a truly
kind of twisted case in the sense that both with
Cassie and now with Jane, and probably with other women
that have declined to come forward and testify, what Combs
did is to is to kind of love bomb them,

(25:39):
as they say, bring them in so that they're and
then once they're kind of on the cook in the
case of Jane, also on the hook financially, I'd say
more so than Cassie, have them have sex with other
with with hired men that comes with himself pay for
Combs to watch. It's a very strange I think, you know,
kind of a fetish, but it's one that that's very
much as mo O. And he's been doing it for

(25:59):
a long time I have. I've yet to see if
there's going to be a defense case, you know, sort
of not making him the victim as as to these
two women that he clearly abused.

Speaker 5 (26:08):
But what is it? Why?

Speaker 7 (26:10):
Why is this something that he wanted to do, you know,
beyond the illegality of doing it personally, not to not
that's it and this is in that that did he
do it?

Speaker 5 (26:18):
That you saw?

Speaker 7 (26:20):
I've lived in New York a long time, so I
kind of remember some of did he you know, coming up,
and he was a he was an authentic, you know, producer,
bad boy records. I believe that his father. I don't
think it's contested. His father was a drug dealer and
was killed and they had some hard times. I think
there's people that speculate that maybe he witnessed something as
a kid and trying to like, you know.

Speaker 5 (26:39):
Recreate it.

Speaker 7 (26:40):
It's difficult, the thing and I heard you ooh when
I first said it. Today it came out that this
may not be that unique a lifestyle among a certain
kind of elite rapper, because there's at least, according to James,
there's at least one other iconic rapper with a wife
or girlfriend who wanted to watch such a performance as
they called it in Las Vegas. And I'm not saying

(27:01):
this to be Purian so much is to say. I
think at the beginning.

Speaker 5 (27:03):
Of this trial, people thought this was going to be
like Epstein.

Speaker 7 (27:06):
They were going to be like all these names of
big people and politicians that went to the Hampton's and
they're terrible things they did. That probably happened, but it
didn't come out in this trial. But it did come
out today that at least one other like brand name.

Speaker 5 (27:19):
Rapper is in this weird world.

Speaker 7 (27:21):
And the reason that we very casually James said that
she referred one of the male escorts to perform or
perform on or for it's unclear, this other couple. So
they used the same and they use the term in
the lifestyle. They said they're also in the lifestyle. I
guess it's a swinging lifestyle, but it's a it's different

(27:41):
even than what I could see a swinging lifestyle.

Speaker 5 (27:44):
Yeah, it's weird.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
They're video taping it, right, So if you're taping it
and you're using that, you know, footage against this person,
whether they love you or not, that's the crime, right,
Or if there's drugs involved that are being forced on people.
You know, you had said that so perfectly because there
was this idea that all of these celebrities, the biggest
names in the business. I won't even say them out loud,

(28:05):
but in your mind, think of the busiest names in
the business, and they're probably in this list that had
been gossiped about for a really long time. That doesn't
seem to have happened quite quite yet. And that's what
I get worried that we're getting a little desensitized. I mean,
look at cistory as old as times. Sometimes men fake
love for sex, right, right, and sometimes women may fake

(28:25):
sex for love. That is like this perfect storm at
the beginning, and next thing you know, you're a Jane
Do or Mia or any of these victims, and maybe
you're in way over your head or at the bare minimum,
you were into it and now you're not, and you
on out and you can't because, like you said, you're
financially dependent, and there's tape of it.

Speaker 7 (28:45):
I mean, I think You're absolutely right. I feel you're
it is. You can you can sense how it's like
a very slippery slope, particularly with Cassie, and but also
with Jane's very slippery slope from like she kept saying
that she had this way of saying, you know, I
wanted to make my partner happy, and suddenly it turns
out your partner is like totally insane and you're doing
things that you would never have thought of doing. And

(29:07):
then I just the only thing I will say, and
it's not at all to try to try to try
Some of this filming wasn't in the first instance, I
think in order to extort and control the person because
they Jane testified that they would together watch these performances later,
and that she even said that she wanted she sometimes
liked that they had been filmed, and in fact gave

(29:27):
Sean Combs a mobile TV he could watch these tapes
on because she thought it would keep him from forcing
her to do it again. But if you could just
see it being done, been done in the past, this
came out. I mean, I'm not that's that's a true
line of testimony. And I think that the of course,
the defense picked up on that and tried to say, like,
it's not as abusive as you think. Why if you were,

(29:47):
if you were being abused, if you knew you were
being abused, why did you buy him at TV to
watch it on? And she did come up I'm not
saying come up with She had an answer, which was
to say he could just watch it. Maybe she wouldn't
make him do it so much, you know. And in fact,
she even said in the present tense, she said, I
loved him, and she's as even after she saw that

(30:07):
this now famous video of of Sean Combe's kicking Cassie
on the ground in a hotel in Los Angeles in
twenty sixteen, she was still trying.

Speaker 5 (30:16):
To help him.

Speaker 7 (30:17):
She was trying to help She was strategizing with him
how to explain that. Like before he did his apology
over Instagram, she viewed it and said, I think this
looks good. And then he changed it and it wasn't
as apologetic. But they still she continued to do after
seeing that, she continued to do these freak off events
or performances, or they call them hotel nights.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
Hotel knights, the freak offs, right, and it reminds you too,
it is to your point, a very slippery slope that
you know, sometimes people don't realize too. I think in
these types of trauma bonds, right, whatever that is, you know,
you get so psychologically pulled in that you don't really
you don't really want to leave your captive. She seemed
like she truly loved him, and then she was crazy
jealous when she realized that she was doing what she

(31:01):
considered things that maybe were degrading at a certain point
when other women didn't have to do that and we're
able to go on vacation with him time.

Speaker 7 (31:10):
Yeah, that's exactly what they they they fastened, both sides
fastened on them because I think the defense one wants
to portray her as jealous. And of course, and and
so they they she would say.

Speaker 5 (31:21):
Why do your other girlfriends?

Speaker 7 (31:22):
Because he was he was he was not even pretending
to be monogamous, which is totally fine. Again, there's a
big thing that I think is going to come in
the defense, the defense case and on appeal if he's convicted,
they're going to say, you know, as a sort of
first Amendment or sort of privacy issue, this is all
about a man's personal sex life. These were kinky, most
people may not like this. Most people think it's terrible.

(31:44):
But what is the government doing in the bedroom. But
of course if you're actually, you know, criminally assaulting.

Speaker 5 (31:49):
People, they will be in your bedroom, right, So that's.

Speaker 7 (31:52):
Exactly the the The defense is very good.

Speaker 5 (31:56):
They have set up.

Speaker 7 (31:57):
They've set that that if he's convicted, and I think
most people think given the batting average of the prosecutors
that that will happen. But if he's convicted, he'll definitely
be a doing that. But he'll be in jail while
he appeals because he's in jail now, unlike many of
the high profile defendants who are like chef Senator Bob Menendez,
it wasn't a violent crime, but he was not in
jail and various other you know defendants around here. But

(32:18):
Combs will probably not get out of jail pending appeals.
So the appeal is a little less attractive or at
least least less important than it would be if he
stayed out of jail while doing right.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
Exhausting. It must be an exhausting effort too. I've heard
that he's ill or sick or suffering from a flu
like that he felt really off this week. Has that
been your experience as well.

Speaker 7 (32:38):
Yeah, yeah, I think it's true. I mean I think
initially they there's a lot of complaints about the jail
where he's staying.

Speaker 5 (32:44):
The MDC.

Speaker 7 (32:45):
He's in a relatively better wing of it, But who
am I to say? Yeah, it definitely is grueling, and
to get to be there in court, to be produced
in court as he is at eight thirty in the morning, you're.

Speaker 5 (32:55):
Taking a van.

Speaker 7 (32:56):
You're being put on a van in Brooklyn at five am,
which means you're pretty much getting up at like four am.
And and the lawyers are saying that they need to
meet with him every night. They even stayed late in
the courthouse one night because you know, they want to
go over with him like the next witness. You know,
what do you know about them, because he obviously he's
the one who knows whatever they could use on cross
So it has.

Speaker 5 (33:14):
Been a bit, it has.

Speaker 7 (33:15):
I mean I thought you were going to I was
much less so. But even for the journalists covering it,
it's pretty grueling because you know every day they'd be
eight thirty to begin with the legal arguments, but you
never know when Today he let the jury go early,
and then he stayed for the judge, I mean for
you know, an extra hour and a half with with
legal arguments, and he told us we couldn't leave the courtroom.
I have to I'm not claiming this is a human
rights violation, but it was the jury. Yeah, I'm joking there,

(33:39):
but with the jury not not. I understand that you
shouldn't be able to leave the courtroom in front of
the jury and create a disruption. But the jury had left,
and maybe somebody was being too loud, but he was like,
if you didn't leave when the jury left, you have
to stay for this. And no one had any idea
how long the legal argument was going to go. There
was there there were audible groans when someone said just
one more issue, your honor, which normally you wouldn't have

(34:01):
because you could just leave. But this is for some reason,
I guess, because there's such a crush to get into
the courtroom. He figures there should be a crush to
get out of the courtroom, even if it really wouldn't, like,
you know, no juror would see people leaving and say,
you know, why are they leaving? Was this particularly newsworthy testimony?

Speaker 5 (34:17):
Or you know what I mean?

Speaker 3 (34:18):
We're obsessed with you with a capital O, and everyone
please please follow Matthew on x at Inner City Press
to get all the latest in the trial and his
book Did He Do It Us Versus Sean Combs.

Speaker 6 (34:31):
It's available on Amazon.

Speaker 2 (34:33):
And his work has been extraordinary. He's reporting there daily
from within the courtroom. I follow his work and it's
really insightful and you could also catch his many other
cases that he works on on the Innercitypress dot com.
That's the name of his website, Innercitypress dot com. And Matthew,
thank you for joining us and we are excited to

(34:53):
have you back very soon. So moving forward, Courtney, where
do you want to begin.

Speaker 3 (34:58):
Well, it's a it's a bitter sweet story, mainly bitter,
I have to say, but Maxwell Anderson was found guilty
of dismembering Shade Robinson. But Shade's mother has started a
beautiful foundation. So to fill you in if you haven't
been following, a Milwaukee jury finally convicted the thirty four
year old bartender Anderson. He killed and he mutilated this

(35:22):
beautiful nineteen year old girl after they met on a
first date.

Speaker 6 (35:27):
Shawd.

Speaker 3 (35:27):
That was hideous, you know, just senseless and her really grisome.
Her body parts were found throughout Milwaukee shortly after the
first date. Investigators really dug in. They identified Anderson as
the perpetrator through quite a lot of evidence.

Speaker 6 (35:44):
There was surveillance footage, there was.

Speaker 3 (35:46):
Digital data, DNA analysis, and witness testimony. So thankfully, Maxwell
was convicted on all counts, including first degree intentional murder.
His attorneys say he plans to appeal his conviction, and
I hope that he sits where he is for.

Speaker 6 (36:04):
A long time and we don't see that.

Speaker 3 (36:06):
The silver lining is Shadai's mother has started the Shadai's
Voice Foundation. It's a nonprofit organization. It is dedicated to
improving the lives of those in need and they strive
to create positive.

Speaker 6 (36:18):
Change in the community.

Speaker 3 (36:19):
It's through various initiatives and programs, So anyone who wants
to get involved please visit Shadai's Voice Foundation dot com.
It's really worthy. And the fact that Sadi's mother has
the wherewithal.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
Two, yeah, it's very instant. This woman and her so strong.

Speaker 4 (36:39):
The worst day of her life, right, the worst thing
that can happen to a woman, right, losing their child,
and what does she do. She turns around and says,
I want to help others. I mean, I have the
chills thinking about that kind of courage, you know, and
I just have to really respect that kind of that
kind of word too.

Speaker 2 (36:57):
And I just I think it's all so why we
like even just being able to talk about some of
this stuff, because you speak with victims of family members
or family members of victims, I should say, and they
push on and I find that incredibly inspiring.

Speaker 4 (37:13):
And I feel like I would just be a bag
on the floor, you know, rolled up, and I see
these especially women, I mean, let's be real, and you know,
some men like Joe Patito amazing, incredible. You know, they
just do they just they take a tragedy and they
rough it up into a diamond. And for me, it's
very inspiring and very hopeful, like, no matter what happens

(37:33):
to you, no matter what happens, you can recover.

Speaker 2 (37:37):
Right. Yeah, it's just very inspiring and you don't really
do it alone. So this is a safe space, So
join us, share your opinion, share your stories. We are
in no judgment zone eight eight eight to three one crime.
We're going to be right back a little bit more
on Karen Reid True Crime tonight, where we're talking true
crime all the time. Body, where should we start.

Speaker 4 (38:05):
Let's start with Harvey Weinstein jury pandemonium. Yes, right, yes,
I've never heard I've never heard of this before. I'm
sure it's happened, but I have never heard of this before.
When we were talking earlier in our meeting about this,
I was like, I'm gonna have to look this up.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
And I did and I couldn't find another instance of this. Okay,
this is what happened.

Speaker 4 (38:23):
A New York judge has declared a mistrial on the
third degree rape count in the Harvey Weinstein retrial. So,
just like Karen Reid, there's been there's a new trial
basically for Harvey Weinstein. Well, the reason that they declared
a mistrial is that the jury foreman refused to go
back to deliberate about this count because.

Speaker 2 (38:46):
They said it was so dangerous.

Speaker 4 (38:47):
They said it was dangerous, like I'm I if you
have you if you don't know what's going on. He's
a former former movie model. He's accused of sexually assaulting
three women over a decade ago in New York City,
and in twenty two his conviction was basically overturned because
of a procedural area which is like always like a
horrifying thought, right that like pay for work filing or something,

(39:09):
you get something overturned. But that's what happened, and the
jury the this is the thing. The foreman cannot be
replaced and that's why it's Astopher replaced.

Speaker 2 (39:18):
So therefore it's a mistrial.

Speaker 4 (39:19):
That is well, it can they can be replaced as
long as they are an I'm sorry, as long as
there is an alternative to back them up, right, But
they dismissed the alternatives.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
What why would they do that? I don't know.

Speaker 4 (39:32):
It's so interesting, it's crazy. So that that's what's going on.
So we're gonna see what's gonna happen. They the prosecution
has said that they are already ready to retry him
again for this count on the rape count. After you know,
there'll be a period of time for them to regroup
and they're gonna have to retry this. Wow, that's gonna
that's gonna be happening, So stay tuned for that.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
I gotta be honest. This sounds a lot less like
Twelve Angry Men and more like why.

Speaker 4 (39:57):
I love that movie though it's a great It is
a great movie. If you want a great movie on
critical thinking. Uh right, No, seriously, like that is such
a great movie to watch for critical thinking skills.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
It's fantastic.

Speaker 4 (40:09):
But you know what's kind of wild too, Another jury
member said, and I'm quoting, they all thought they were
involved in normal discourse and they don't understand why the
why the four person bowed out.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
It is a little bit of a controversial room. You're
supposed to be a little here.

Speaker 4 (40:26):
You're supposed to be a little kated, and you're supposed
to argue your point, right, And apparently this jury foreman
felt threatened and he didn't. He refused to go back
to deliberate this specific count, the rape count. So anyway,
we're gonna we're gonna be reporting on this, you know,
moving forward, So stick around for that. And I also
have information about Travis Decker. Yes, so police have said

(40:52):
they believe they are closing in on Travis Decker. You know,
we've been hearing this for a couple of days now,
right that they they think they spotted him on a tray.
There was a report from hikers that said they thought
they saw a well they did see a loan hiker
and that he looked ill equipped to be there. And
then they sent the helicopter out and you know, he

(41:14):
apparently ran from the helicopter off into the wilderness. The
Sheriff's office has turned over the search efforts to the
US Marshals, which is fabulous because you know, the US
Marshals are just such a great organization and they do
a really good job at bringing people in. Well, the
Sheriff's office is going to be handling the investigation.

Speaker 6 (41:32):
Now.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
If you're not familiar with Travis.

Speaker 4 (41:34):
Decker, Travis Decker is accused of killing his three young children.
He picked them up from their mom's house on a
Friday night and he was supposed to return them home
that night. They never came home, and of course they
started looking for them. The girls were found at like
kind of like a remote camp site, and you know,
they had been murdered by somebody, and they're assuming it's Travisdecker.

Speaker 2 (41:56):
His truck was there, his dog was there.

Speaker 4 (41:58):
The dog is fine, the dog is at the Humane Society,
very friendly husky. But they found blood and they say
there's two sets of blood. Okay, the girls were not
killed in a way in which there would be blood
left behind. So when they tested these two samples of blood,
one was male human male, and one was non human.

(42:19):
So I don't know what does that even mean.

Speaker 3 (42:22):
That means, well, not for nothing, but if you're out
in the brush and the wilderness and the brambles, you know,
it could be obviously, like you said, it's not identified.
But if I don't know, if it's Travis's on his
own car, you known too.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
He's been at large for a while now, and again
such a heinous crime, you know. The thought was that
he was googling how to escape to Canada paraphrasing, So
the fact that he was close to the border, that
all sort of tracks either he's already in Canada and
therefore will be harder to find, or he's a bit
of a survivalist too, He's trained to survive in the wilderness,

(42:59):
so him being out there displaced or otherwise, it's kind
of surprising that he hasn't been captured yet. It is
kind of shocking, actually.

Speaker 4 (43:08):
And I read some chatter, and I read some chadder
that they they think he's wearing flip flops, like why
would I be wearings? Like I said, the hiker said
he was ill equipped, so maybe that was like a
sign that he was ill equipped to be out there
and this rugged. If you look at this area of Washington,
it's it's, oh my gosh, it's so beautiful, but it's

(43:28):
very rural and very like forest, right like it's idyllic.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
Especially this time of year, it's like right rush and
it's beautiful.

Speaker 4 (43:36):
So beautiful, and you know, to be out there and surviving,
you would think you're going to need to be you know,
kind of you know, got some kind of equipment on
that protects you from those brambles and things like that
that are out there.

Speaker 2 (43:47):
But they said he was ill equipped, so I'm assuming.

Speaker 4 (43:50):
I'm definitely just assuming here allegedly allegedly allegedly he's wearing
flip flops.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
The dogs, Yeah, I'm sorry.

Speaker 4 (43:56):
So after the helic after the helicopters were deployed and
they saw the who they think is Travis Decker, they
say he kind of ran off, and they deployed dogs
the federal government and the Sheriff's office who were still
who were at that time assisting in the search, and
the dogs tracked him to a highway. So they're pretty

(44:17):
convinced he is still around and not you know, laying
in a ditch somewhere and I really hope they find
him because these little girls need some justice, and hopefully
he doesn't take the coward's way out, you.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
Know, right right, yeah, So we should all hope for
his You know that all the people who are doing
the searching are able to find him. And if you
want to weigh in with your thoughts, give us a
call eight to eighty three to one crime or send
us a talkback message. When you're listening on the iHeartRadio app,
you just click on the microphone icon in the top
right corner. And speaking of we have a talkback right

(44:51):
now about Karen Reid.

Speaker 9 (44:53):
Hi, my name is Kelly from TikTok, Kelly Reid. I
just want to know from body, what do you think
needs to have happened in closing arguments tomorrow to convince you?
Because I know that you think Karen Reid is guilty.
I want to know what can convince you home girl
didn't do it.

Speaker 2 (45:12):
Great question, I'm delivering good. I'm going to throw it
to you body, what Kelly would actually need to see
in this courtroom in seventy five minutes or less. I
don't listen.

Speaker 4 (45:24):
There's nothing that the closing arguments can do to convince me,
because you can't present new evidence of closing arguments. That's
my answer and I'm sticking to it. And Kelly, You're
in a lot of trouble. Kelly, No, I mean, for real,
you can't present new evidence and closing arguments. So the
only thing the defense I think would be able to
do is to convince me is, you know, basically re

(45:45):
establish the credentials of the defense witnesses that basically countered
the prosecution expert who I believe, And I don't know
that they could do that. You know very well, listen,
I look at you, look at the world, very simple,
you know, like usually the simplest explanation is normally the answer.

Speaker 6 (46:06):
Sez h.

Speaker 4 (46:08):
Yeah, And the simplest answer is that she backed up
going twenty four miles an hour and his phone stopped
at the same time. And I don't think the people
inside the house knew that. You don't think that people
in the house knew that? And all of the Shenani games,
how did the people in the house snow? How did
the people in the house snow that Karen Reid backed
up going twenty four miles an hour at that time,

(46:31):
that his phone stopped moving.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
Well, okay, throw the phone out. Didn't even go out
of the house. Some people didn't even exit the house.
Their buddy is dead at the bottom of the road,
and nobody came out of the house. And is it
possible that tomorrow in the courtroom suddenly there's a Brian,
any of the Brians. That's like it was me. I
didn't I confess that would change things? Maybe, But yeah,

(46:52):
I hear you. I think it's a great question.

Speaker 4 (46:54):
And what would change Let me let me flip it.
What would change your mind? Steph, I can answer that
inside that I my mind is made up. And by
the way, that maybe really clear about me too. I
genuinely just don't know.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
And I just think it's such a mess that that
alone is an answer, unfortunately, and I hate it and
it makes me mad, and I feel like there's favor
in this, and I just don't like when people get
ganged up on. So whether it's a club or a group,
whether it's cops or you know, martians, you know, it
doesn't matter. I feel like they got it was like

(47:25):
a pack and that makes me scared because I don't
think the justice system should really work that way. I agree,
but I don't know. Just you know, another side to
that would be, if they were trying to cover up
a crime, how did they know how much time they
had between when Karen left the scene and when she
came back. That's a pretty big leap of faith, given
that they didn't really leave the house. I mean, there

(47:47):
seems to have been a lot of activity in those hours.
But if they're trying to plant evidence in all of
the above, how would they know she wasn't going to
roll right back within twenty minutes? Right Like? How did
they know she was not just down the street sleeping
for a hot seame seconds. That's a little confusing to me.
But then you just see the mile in miles in
miles of silliness that went down in that investigation and

(48:09):
arguing that.

Speaker 4 (48:10):
That did not happen. I mean, listen, I am perfectly
willing to admit that I don't know either. I think
she's guilty, right Like, I don't know, but I think
she is right. If the state comes back or I'm sorry,
if the jury comes back and they found her guilty,
I'll be like, okay, but I probably won't be happy
about it because this investigation should have failed because it

(48:32):
was just so terrible and honestly, the Commonwealth didn't really
have a lot to work with in the how the
investigation went with. I think they did a good job
with what they had, I agree, And what they had
was a pile of you know, don jump.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
Terribly gathered evidence. Also, officers who were not only with
John o'keef that night and then suspiciously had to go
down to the police station at one third in the morning.

Speaker 2 (49:01):
That's odd, Okay, God, it's very If there was a
blizzard that night, I could drink crazy in the morning,
you know, like they were boozy. Why is everybody wandering
around in the blizzard? Why alcohol in your system? Why
are they old cops? Yes, Like, what is going isn't
that in and of itself illegal? Shouldn't they all be

(49:21):
arrested just for dui charges, like anybody else who's driving
drunk in the middle of the night, putting lives in jeopardy.
This not this could have been avoided. Again, no judgment,
I'm just just an observation. Oh I'm judging.

Speaker 3 (49:36):
Listen if you want, if you want to judge, give
us a call eight A eight three one crime and
we'd love to hear your thoughts on anything Harvey Weinstein,
Karen Reid, Travis Decker, any of Tonight's stories.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
So we are talking about Lori Daybell. You'll remember Lori
day Bell Valo, that's her married name, the doomsday Mom,
affectionately known as she has been accused of murdering her
two children, and she claims that she is innocent. She's
also accused of killing her ex husband. She also claims
she's innocent, and now she's been up for another trial

(50:09):
where allegedly she conspired to murder her niece's ex husband.
So that would give her a pretty decent body count. Oh,
not to mention her current husband now ex wife. You
know she also died in her sleep by suspicious circumstances.
A perfectly healthy woman who just went to bed healthy
and woke up dead again. Lori Valo da Bell claims

(50:32):
that that had nothing to do with her what and
we all know that she had very big apocalyptic thoughts.
So body fill us in on the trial today.

Speaker 4 (50:42):
Well, for the third time in less than three years,
Laurie Valodabell has been found guilty. That's a shocking and shocked.
Oh but I'm shocked after listen, and here's the thing.
The jury only deliberated for half an hour.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
Yeah, it's almost like they walked out. She didn't even
have any She didn't even have any witnesses, right, she did,
so the state rested it was her time to present
her case. No witnesses. It's crazy.

Speaker 4 (51:10):
I mean, and I and listen, they didn't show her
face when they were reading the verdict. I was watching
live and I was kind of hoping I could see
her face, but they just show like the back of
her head and no reaction. As far as I could tell,
she absolutely knew it was coming, but she seemed kind
of listen.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (51:26):
It seemed like she wants to get out of Arizona
because she kept asking the judge, well, what you know,
Idaho wants to pick me up?

Speaker 2 (51:32):
When can I get my sentencing?

Speaker 4 (51:34):
And he's like, in like thirty days, we could do
it the ed of July, and she's like, can it
not be sooner? She wants out of Arizona, And I
suspect it's because she doesn't want to be in jail, right,
she probably wants her cell and in the prison's probably nicer.

Speaker 2 (51:47):
I don't I'm only guessing it is not taken nicely
in prisons of any kind, regardless of gender. If you
have been accused of murdering your kids, oh and found
guilty of your beautiful children that were you know, found
in a shallow grave and really mistreated. And she still
sticks to her junkie story of whoops. She literally blames

(52:11):
her sixteen year old daughter Tily, for murdering her younger
brother JJ. He also was autistic. She blames her daughter
for murdering her son out of like a fight or something.
She was angry, and then she took her own life
because she felt so guilty. And this whole time, thank goodness,
this doomsday mom. She has been protecting her daughter. What

(52:33):
a saint. When you look at her, she to me
looks like one of the most evil people. I say this,
never agree. This is a rare thing for me to
say that. She to me is one of the scariest
of all of them, because she also has no shame
in the game. She seems pretty smug. Whenever you see her.

Speaker 4 (52:52):
She's absolutely smug, And she's like talking about like what
a moral character she is in part yeah, oh my god,
she's the good mom.

Speaker 3 (53:00):
Yes, yes, and Angelata's and also how much. You know,
Jesus loves everybody, but he loves me the most. That's
something she says a lot, a lot.

Speaker 6 (53:12):
You know.

Speaker 3 (53:13):
It's not like I hang out and have coffee with her,
but I have seen her in different clips and interviews
and she has said it or well particularly did you
guys see when she was on twenty twenty with Keith
Morrison by any chance?

Speaker 2 (53:26):
Oh yeah, almost offensive? Yeah, I found it. I was
like yelling at the television. I thought he was so
kind and gracious with her, and she, to me, was
the epitome of psychopath central.

Speaker 3 (53:39):
Oh, she just kept coming after him. Yeah, what do
you think, Keith, You think that's your truth?

Speaker 6 (53:44):
Keith? Like she yeah, she's really a piece of work.

Speaker 4 (53:48):
Well and like you said, she's really smug, right, Like
she represented herself pro se like in my opinion, unless
you're a lawyer, and like, who represents themselves like idiots do.

Speaker 6 (53:58):
Someone who wants to idiot we're smart?

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Yeah, people who think they're smarter than all of it.
And by the way, let's just go there for a second.
If you're not familiar with the case. Lori Lori da
bell Valo. Valo is her now married name. Well, Bell's day.
Bell is the day Belle is her husband, who's also
behind bars and will be so forever. Her children were
found on his property and those two fell in love.

(54:24):
And while they were gallivanting getting married, buying a wedding dress,
getting her nails done, her kids were missing. The entire
country was looking for them, literally, the entire country. Yeah,
we were all sickened at the notion that these two
beautiful kids could still be missing and we have to
find them. And then meanwhile, Mom is in Hawaii on

(54:44):
like a vacation, basically sitting by the pool without a
care in the world. She wasn't crying, she wasn't upset,
and she was just, you know, in love with this guy,
Dave Bell, who claims to like have some big afterlife planned.
There was this big doomsday that was to happen, which
never did. I wonder if at this point, if tonight
now she got this sentence, is she sitting in jail nervous?

(55:08):
Is she sitting in jail sick? Is she sitting in
jail realizing the doomsday never came? The man was a scam.
You killed your kids because of some guy, and now
all of it was a hoax. And you're the center
stage joke. Welcome, Laurie Davell Valo, whatever the heck your
name is. I love it, think so, I think so

(55:30):
I get so riled up.

Speaker 4 (55:31):
I'm like, I would love to think that that she
is having those revelations, and that's not a pun I
you know, I would. I would love to think that
she's having those revelations. But at the same time, I
don't think she is. I think she's still convinced. Yes,
I think she's still very loyal to Chad, who, by
the way, that's her current husband, who is an Idaho
prison be for being convicted of crimes, but for example

(55:54):
killing his wife.

Speaker 2 (55:54):
Right.

Speaker 4 (55:55):
I just I just don't think that she is at
all thinking that she was so at all.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
I think they absolutely believe it.

Speaker 6 (56:02):
Yeah, Boddy, I think I don't think.

Speaker 3 (56:05):
I absolutely agree with you that she is sitting there
righteous in her rightness. So no, Unfortunately, I don't think
she could actually reach out for the feelings that you're
talking about.

Speaker 6 (56:16):
Stephanie. I don't think that.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
She has don't access to be Yeah, Stephanie is sweating
over Laurie day Bell as she should.

Speaker 6 (56:24):
Crazy.

Speaker 2 (56:24):
She literally makes me crazy, And I say that I
don't get that riled up. So I don't know what
she gets under my skin. In a way I can't
quite describe.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
She really does seem to lack. I don't even know
what kind of chip it is, but there's some kind
of almost human.

Speaker 2 (56:41):
Yeah. And we've interviewed many of the people in her life,
her former sister in law that was the sister of
her now deceased ex husband. We've interviewed people that you know,
worked with her, that were her neighbors. Oh yeah, she
was like the loveliest Yeah, yeah she was. So she was.

Speaker 4 (56:58):
There today in fact, act really quick, you don't mind.

Speaker 2 (57:02):
So what this trial was about.

Speaker 4 (57:04):
What she's been convicted of is conspiracy to commit murder
against her basically her ex nephew in law. Okay, so
her niece was with this guy and somebody they were in.
He went to the gym, he came home, pulled in
and somebody shot at him from a jeep. Well, they
thankfully were unsuccessful. Find they find out that it's you know,

(57:28):
Laurie Dabell's brother in the car in the jeep, right,
and that she had purchased like the phones to communicate
with and had all the receipts for like the equipment
and whatnot. So she is involved in this conspiracy to
commit murder and she's been found guilty. Well after court,
the victim who his life was attempted. His name is
Brandon Bordeaux, and he said two thousand and seventy eight days,

(57:53):
referencing the number of days since the shooting. Hatred, selfishness,
and greed almost led to the end of my life.
Twelve strangers verified that Laurie must be held accountable. I
did not enjoy sitting and giving someone who tried to
kill me the chance to question me. But I owed
it to Charles, to Tylee, to JJ and to Tammy

(58:14):
to speak because I could.

Speaker 2 (58:16):
Yeah, and that's exactly right. They were out killing everybody.
Those they were they really were.

Speaker 4 (58:21):
I mean, that's all the people that are responsible for
killing And by the way, Laurie Dabell's son Ryan was
with him on the court steps, along with the woman
you just spoke about, Kay Woodcock and k Woodcock again.
She's the sister of Charles Valow, Laurie's now deceased husband,
who she's also been you know who killed him too,

(58:42):
who said we got the B the B word we
got the bee again, and you know, hopefully this is
the end, right, this is the end of the Laurie
da Bell saga, hopefully nowfully and maybe there's something.

Speaker 2 (58:57):
Maybe it's uncomfortable in general population. Oh sorry, you know,
And again like these are things that I say that
it's I it surprises me that somebody can be that
beloved and such a great mom, which by all accounts
she was considered really tremendous, and to have that be
completely turned on her hands, to go from that to murder.

Speaker 4 (59:17):
Because she like, it's almost like she's she switched on
an instant, right, And like Charles Valow and like the
bodycam footage that we've seen him him was really concerned
about her, like, my wife is going crazy.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
Yeah, so went to authorities. Yeah, he went to the authorities.
He was really concerned. Like this happened very quickly.

Speaker 3 (59:36):
That was so tragic to see her ex husband, her
you know, murdered ex husband and just he was so desperate.
She said, oh my god, she took everything. She took
all my stuff and my cars, she took my dog,
and then.

Speaker 6 (59:48):
She took his life.

Speaker 2 (59:49):
And then she took his life. And by the way,
she had another son from a previous marriage that we interviewed.
We were doing a project with Nancy Grace called Injustice
with Nancy Grace, And you know, he's the nicest, the
nicest now man, but you know, this young man, for
a long time, Laurie was his single mom, and then
she went on to have other children. So you know,

(01:00:10):
he's very protective of her, and certainly at the time,
this is many years ago, he you know, is very
devoted to her. And it's just heartbreaking when you think
of having to reconcile who your mother really is versus
who you experienced her to be. And it's just the
pain in that moment must be unbearable. And you know,

(01:00:30):
again we wish them well and we hope that Laurie
gets to her forever home.

Speaker 4 (01:00:36):
And I hope this is the start of some healing
for the people who remain right exactly her son, Ryan
and Kay of course, you know, and of course the victim, Brandon.
You know, hopefully he can like finally get some closure
with this horrible thing that happened. It's just terrible the
way good by instruction they've done.

Speaker 3 (01:00:54):
Moving on up next, we are diving back into the
Karen Reid case. We have a couple of details you
may not know about, and later we are turning the
mic over to you. Don't forget to call us eight
eight eight thirty one crime. We're talking cheue crime all the.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
Time, Karen Reid, Listen, we cannot get enough of this
case for some reason, and we just want to do
a little bit of the players and kind of fill

(01:01:32):
you in on some of the backstories to the people
who were there that night and sort of what that implies,
because we've been throwing around a lot of names in
my opinion, So Karen Reid, if you don't know and
haven't been following this, she's having her retrial right now.
We're expecting closing arguments to begin tomorrow. She's now standing
trial for the second time of allegedly killing her boyfriend

(01:01:54):
John O'Keefe. It's being alleged that she backed into him
with her lexus, leaving him for dead in the middle
of a snowstorm after a heavy night of drinking with
their buddies. Those buddies also happen to be cops atf agents.
You know, they're all sort of in this department or
law enforcement and really well trained and really well respected

(01:02:15):
the owner of the home that this happened in front
of was having a bit of an after party, and
this after party included all over their friends again that
were cops. So you would have to assume that if
a body is found at the bottom of the driveway,
that this would be a really well handled crime scene,
simply because they are so well trained. And it seems
like that really went out the window. So now that

(01:02:37):
we're waiting for these closing arguments, the defense and the
prosecution have about seventy five minutes each to really sum
it up. And her life is in limbo. She could
go to prison for the rest of her life, or
she gets to go home and start her life over.
And for the others, you know, the people that were
there that night, there's been a lot of suspicious chatter

(01:02:58):
about their involvement or of a potent cover up again allegedly,
allegedly allegedly, And I think that's just kind of worth
unpacking because it gets a lot of play and I
want to make sure we're not glossing over it.

Speaker 6 (01:03:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:03:09):
Absolutely, And then also just let's not forget at the
center of this is John O'Keefe, the victim.

Speaker 2 (01:03:16):
Who everybody loved.

Speaker 3 (01:03:17):
Yeah, absolutely, and so just so you can call him
to mind, so we don't gloss over him.

Speaker 6 (01:03:23):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:03:24):
Born and raised in Massachusetts. He got his undergrad from
Northeastern such a great school, and his masters and criminal
justice from New mass Lowell. He joined the Boston Police
Department he was twenty nine. And then here's a little
bit about a family which impacted his life and his
life with Karen as well. He has a younger brother, Paul,

(01:03:46):
who's been very vocal. Yeah, very supportive, very supportive. And
then he also had a younger sister, Kristen, who passed
away sadly from a brain tumor. This is back in
twenty thirteen. Now, Kristen's husband, John sadly passed away from
a heart attack in twenty fourteen, and at that time,

(01:04:09):
John O'Keefe adopted his sister and brother in law's two
young children. They were six and nine at the time.

Speaker 2 (01:04:16):
He's a stand up guy.

Speaker 6 (01:04:18):
Stand up guy, goes.

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
To all the school events, goes to all the sporting events.
A wonderful adoptive parent, a wonderful parent. You know, if
anyone out there is supporting your kids at school, you
know how hard that is. To go to all the
sports games.

Speaker 6 (01:04:32):
So there he is.

Speaker 3 (01:04:34):
And he had enough support in the community that actually
a go fundme was launched after John's death for his
niece and nephew and there is over two hundred and
ninety thousand dollars to support them. So these poor two
kids in the wake of all this, they now live
with their grandparents. They lost both their parents and then

(01:04:55):
they lost their adopted dad and now here they are.

Speaker 2 (01:04:59):
So they two hundred thousand and Karen Reid got a million.

Speaker 6 (01:05:02):
Oh do that math out?

Speaker 2 (01:05:07):
That hurts my heart just hearing that. That really does.
And you know, again, although that's.

Speaker 4 (01:05:12):
No shade to the community that helped raise that money,
that is not that a substantial amount of money. It's
just that's how that's how divided and crazy this case is.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
And I really feel for John O'Keefe's mother. You know,
she took the stand. It was very powerful. It was
one of the key differences really between this trial and
the previous trial is you know, John's mom on the
stand was very eloquent and emotional. She's been there holding
her head high every step of the way. It's got
to be brutal, you know, she doesn't clearly like Karen
Reid and wants her to see her in prison till

(01:05:44):
the end of days. I can't quite tell if they
had a contentious relationship prior or if this is just
you know, become unbearable for mom. I can only imagine. So, yeah,
he gets lost in the sauce a little bit. And again,
some of these names, there's so many of them. It's
Brian he and Brian Rare. There's a lot of Brian's
in this story. And there's a lot of Irish names.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
I know, I feel so at home.

Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
Yeah, you're here half Irish too.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
So yeah, some of these players. So we'll just start
Michael Proctor. So he was the former lead investigator on
this case, and he is the one who sent incredibly
controversial text messages about Karen Reid to fellow officers and
just other friends. He called her terrible, bad names. But

(01:06:33):
he lost his job over his handling of the Reid case. Yeah,
and the defense says that Michael Proctor's closeness to the
Albert family created a bias in the entire trial.

Speaker 5 (01:06:48):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
Yeah, so that's Michael Proctor.

Speaker 2 (01:06:51):
And then we have the good old you know, Brian Albert,
one of the original Brian's Brian Albert is the homeowner. Again,
they were all at the same bar prior and it
was like a rowdy night. You know, we're all claiming
our irishness. You know, listen, we get it. I'm from
New York. You know, it could be a boozy late night.
Everybody's like knows each other a little too well. It's

(01:07:12):
a snow day. They've been drinking all day excessively. You know,
the smallest thing could tip this over. So the allegation
from the defense is that this crew got a little rowdy.
I mean, listen, honestly, like you could fight over in
a drunken state over the day of the week or
which or God forbid sports comes up, right, those are

(01:07:32):
all fighting words. So whether this was an angry fight
or these were guys, you know, just messing around and
tragedy hit. The allegation is that something happened in the
Albert home and that when that happened, John o'keith died
he was somehow attacked by their dog, and then to
cover it up because they also didn't really like Karen,

(01:07:54):
evident by these texts, they brought John O'Keefe's body outside
placed him in the snow and then planted some key
evidence to make sure that it was a real sealed
problem to never see again, you know. So that's the allegation,
and there is a lot to support that, whether Karen
did or didn't do it, those guys super messed it up.

(01:08:15):
So right, that's Brian Albert. It's always been a little
odd to me, and this has been much reported on
that Brian Albert didn't come outside. When you find out
that there's somebody at the bottom of the stream, like
if you're in law enforcement, you feel like you would
just like jump in and join and get on board
very quickly. And then also there's you know, Brian Higgins,

(01:08:35):
and he's probably the most controversial you know air quotes
character in this mix.

Speaker 6 (01:08:40):
Yeah, Brian Higgins.

Speaker 3 (01:08:42):
So he's the ATF agent and he was also at
the after party and he told investigators he left around
one am to complete quote, some administrative paperwork at the
Canton Police Department.

Speaker 6 (01:08:54):
Body, what's that face?

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
That's ridiculous.

Speaker 4 (01:08:57):
He's even drinking, He's going to office to do paperwork.

Speaker 2 (01:09:02):
And he's also sexy texting with Aaron Reid at the bar.
And basically those guys are basically saying, yeah, this relationship
is probably over, meaning the relationship between John O'Keeffe and
Karen Reid. Again, I'm paraphrasing right now, but it seemed
as though things were cooling a little bit because she
was sexy texting with him, and then suddenly he's at

(01:09:22):
work doing something odd, and it seems like it's possible
that maybe these sexy texts weren't really appreciated, and maybe
John O'Keeffe and he were kind of bouncing around each
other or tussling or something.

Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
And it's you know, what I think you're referring to
is a surveillance footage that was taken that night at
the Waterfall Bar before the party. That's right, and it's
hard to say it. It does appear tense, but you
also can't hear the right like.

Speaker 2 (01:09:54):
It could also you know that are just drinking too
much and you know, kind of getting hopped. They're getting heated,
you know, but it's it's nothing more just horsing around, right.

Speaker 3 (01:10:04):
Exactly, just saying because it looks you can kind of
interpret it a few ways.

Speaker 6 (01:10:08):
It does.

Speaker 3 (01:10:09):
It does look tense though, for sure, but also he
in addition to the texts, allegedly two weeks before John
O'Keeffe's death, Higgins said read actually this isn't allegedly. Higgins
has said that Karen unexpectedly kissed him while Higgins was.

Speaker 6 (01:10:26):
At O'Keefe's house.

Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
Not so great.

Speaker 3 (01:10:30):
Yeah, so that's kind of the backstory to the night,
which again very bizarrely ended when he went to the
police department at one thirty in the morning. And also,
Higgins is the man who was seen on surveillance going
into the department. And also that in the officer Kelly
never told authorities that she saw him along with the

(01:10:54):
Canton police chief in the garage for a really long
time after o'keith's death death with the suv.

Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
And that's in the sally Port that they inverted the
video that they inverted and then they inverted the footage.
So Chris, there's an explanation for that. That's crazy to me.

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
This is the lexus, right. So the car that's in question,
I might add, So the car that is in question,
and it's their tail light is like the big ticket
item here. I'm sorry, it's a tail light broken from
hitting a person. Others say it was maybe a tail
light broken by a glass that he was carrying, or
others say it was just straight up planted, because people
have reported that the little size of that crack in

(01:11:34):
the tail light was one way per their memory. And
then suddenly it's a really big situation with the tail light,
as if you know that was an add on or
that something was happening behind the scenes from law enforcement.
Apparently this Higgins again, this is all alleged.

Speaker 6 (01:11:50):
We don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
This is what's been talked about. But when they did
show this footage in court, it was very clear that
the footage that the prosecution is using was actually inverted,
which had a very different outcome. When seeing it inverted,
it does look different, even though it's not why it
looks different. I don't know, Yeah, I don't know that.

Speaker 6 (01:12:13):
Yeah, give us a call.

Speaker 3 (01:12:14):
Do you know the rationale three crime?

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
Because yeah, yeah, to cover up is the rationale? There
is none really right, And and look, I really do
respect the idea of you know, we look out for
each other and we stick up for each other. And
you know, I was raised by all boys. Snitches do
get stitches, and there's a code of honor, and law
enforcement really puts their lives on the line. But to
what end right, because this seems as though it got

(01:12:38):
real weird, and the personal connections between the lead investigator
any of these guys at the scene of the crime,
it's super muddy.

Speaker 6 (01:12:45):
It's muddy.

Speaker 3 (01:12:46):
I'm going to go with the clear mind and really
just absorb the closing arguments.

Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
So we actually have a couple of little emails that
just came through, So a listener question of sort court,
what do you have?

Speaker 3 (01:12:59):
Yeah, this is from Carl. He writes, I'm glad Brandon
Burdeaux got his day in court. However, I can't help
but feel that, as valid Laurie is already serving several
consecutive life sentences, that the outcome of this trial didn't
really matter for her, as it would have no real
impact on the rest of her life. Do you guys
think it makes sense to keep piling on life sentences?

Speaker 6 (01:13:22):
You know?

Speaker 3 (01:13:23):
I think, yeah, I think it's a I think it's
a really valid question, and I think the answer is
also an emphatic yes, Brandon.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
Because I kind of think it's a waste of time.
What am I don't ignorant?

Speaker 3 (01:13:35):
So please, Brandon Burdeaux had his day in court, and
she was found guilty of conspiracy to try and murder
him and he and his family does Yeah, I feel
that really strong stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:13:51):
And let's say this is not going to happen. But
if it did, what if something in Idaho happened in
her stuff got overturned?

Speaker 2 (01:13:57):
Right? Meaning these multiple sentences is you could do an
appeal maybe on one of them, and then thankfully you
have this other one to back it up. You know.
Interesting aside about the nephew in law that was in
Core today who's now she's found guilty for. There was
apparently another attempt on her current husband, Chad Dave Bell,
also behind bars his wife Tammy Day Bell, who was

(01:14:19):
also killed by these two nuts. She also had an
attempt on her life as well. She remembers there being
something fishy that happened, and she may have dodged death
once and she had a sick feeling about it. And
then this other incident happened with this niece in the
niece's now ex husband that was right around that same time.
So again, imagine this little world that Lori Valo da

(01:14:43):
Bell was living in. She had frankly maybe lost her
mind and was in fully in love and believed that
the end was near and in her head, her family,
the kids, they were all turning into zombies. That's something
that she was saying very outwardly that, oh my goodness,
and Charles, her now deceased ex husband, he was also
turning into a zombie her words, not anybody else's. So

(01:15:05):
she was seeing the world through a very specific lens.
And by the way, at the time, I didn't believe it.
I thought she was way too lovely to ever commit
a crime nearly as Grizzy. That's why I'm so riled up. Yeah,
I feel duped, I really feel oh wow.

Speaker 6 (01:15:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:20):
And when you look at her now, she actually looks like,
in my humble opinion, she looks scary, like.

Speaker 4 (01:15:25):
When I said, the news reports and them walking through
like a parking lot in Hawaii, just completely ignoring the
questions from the reporters.

Speaker 2 (01:15:31):
I need in the world.

Speaker 6 (01:15:32):
I knew it.

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
She's a man could do that. Nobody could just have
your kids missing and the whole country is looking for it,
and you go get your nails done for your wedding
that you're planning in these upcoming days. Wild anyway, not
to belabor it, but again, forensics, we have a big
day on that too, because Joseph Scott Morgan is also
a big, you know, stryballo day person. Anyway, thank you,

(01:15:55):
it's been such a great night. We'll see you Sunday
True Crime Tonight where we're talking true crime all the time.
Have a great evening.