Legally Brunette: Karen Read - Case Closed

The verdict is out… Karen Read was found not guilty of the three main charges against her. 
Emily and Shane recap some of the biggest moments throughout her retrial and what they think of the jury’s final decision. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
be your host Emily and Shane. Just Shane. This is
actually a very exciting day today. We were super happy
that this worked out because the Karen Reid verdict came
in today, so we were definitely going to get into that.
We're just going to go through the case a little bit,
do a little overview, go into the closing arguments, and

(00:22):
then talk about the verdict. But before we go into
Karen Reid, we always like to do a little bit
of an update in the beginning on some of the
other cases that we talked about. So I don't know
if you guys had the opportunity to listen to this episode,
but we did go into the Idaho murders a couple
episodes back, if you want to go back and look
for it. But one of the things that we talked
about was the door dash driver Do you remember this?

(00:44):
And we were like, there was such a close timeframe
as to when the delivery was made and then there
was actually evidence of a photo of the food delivered,
but this was the same time that Coberger was in it.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
The door dash issue caused more questions to be had
than answer like it Wasn't it more confusing?

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Most likely? But I remember saying that once this trial starts,
we're going to see the DoorDash driver, and that was
that was a new update that came out. I read
that today that a DoorDash driver is expecting to testify
at the upcoming Idaho murders trial, which will start in August.
I don't remember the exact date, but it's August, and
that she actually saw Brian Coberger during a delivery on
the night of the fatal stabbings. It's a forty four

(01:24):
year old woman identified only as MM and court documents
and she told police during a traffic stop so she
got pulled over and Pullman Washington last year, that she
delivered food to Xana Kernodle on the early hours of
November thirteenth of twenty twenty two.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
The victims are just someone visiting the house.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
Xana was one of the college students that was murdered
that evening. So the DoorDash driver uttered the words I
saw Brian there, two officers, adding that she had parked
right next to him when she had pulled into the house.
The purported delivery is alleged to have taken place just
minutes before Kernodle, her boyfriend Ethan, and the two roommates,

(02:00):
Kaylee and Madison were all stabbed to death by a
masked assailant. The woman also told an officer that she
may be called to the stand to testify at Coburger's trial,
according to bodycam video of the conversation, which was posted
to YouTube. Quote, I have to testify in a big
murder case here because I'm the door dash driver. So yeah,
the woman says in the clip as she's being questioned

(02:22):
over a suspected DUI back in September of twenty twenty four.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
So that's that's something a doordasher never thought they would
be a part of that way, right, Yeah, you when
you signed up to be a doordasher, do you think
that you would be a witness to like one of
the largest murder cases in the country, right in terms
of popularity.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
And the fact that she literally delivered the door dash
like as he was No, I mean that's a possibility.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
What was your tip that night?

Speaker 1 (02:50):
The trial against Brian Coberger is just a few months away,
but family and friends of the victims will have their
voices heard in a new documentary which will be on
Amazon Prime. It's called One Night in Idea, the College Murders.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh, when's that coming out.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
I don't know if there's a date, but I believe
it's soon. It will spotlight the morning after the four
University of Idaho students Xana, Ethan, Madison, and Kayley were
killed in their home off campus in twenty twenty two.
It's told in captivating tents and emotionally wrenching detail by
only those involved in and affected by the crime. The
series intimately explores the American tragedy and it's continued impact

(03:25):
and fallout. This is described in the Amazon Prime press release.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
Oh, so they've announced it formally.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
It's actually airing July eleventh, twenty twenty five, which, by
the way, is the day after that Real Housewives of
Orange County Season nineteen airs on July tenth, So this
air is the next day.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
Only eleven affect your ratings.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
Thank you for that. So you guys will have lots
of good stuff to watch in July. So you know,
I don't know, it'll be interesting to see what they
do say, because clearly they can't say things or give
interviews that are going.

Speaker 2 (03:59):
To impact impact right, but we're definitely gonna have to
discuss that one.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Absolutely.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
It's like one episode, do we know?

Speaker 1 (04:08):
It says a docu series, so there's more than one. Yeah,
all right, let's move on, and before we get to
the verdict which came out today in the Karen Read retrial,
let's just go through and do like a little bit
of a reminder about everything that's happened so far. So
what were the prosecution and the defense arguing?

Speaker 2 (04:28):
I know this?

Speaker 1 (04:29):
So many people are invested in this case, so a
lot of you know this. But I do feel like
it's important just to have like a basic overview so
we can get into closing argument.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
My memory refreshed, Yes.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
And Shane has I've been married to him for sixteen years,
so his memory is about as long as a butterfly.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
Because every day you're like, one, I've never heard that,
I don't raise before.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
I figure a butterfly doesn't have a long term memory
because they don't last very long. But every day you're like,
what are you doing today?

Speaker 2 (04:55):
Wait? Did you know?

Speaker 1 (04:56):
Tell me again?

Speaker 2 (04:57):
What do you know? Now? We're getting something else? That's
what you don't tell me what you're doing until five
minutes before you're like, oh, yeah, I forgot I'm going
to Las Vegas this week.

Speaker 1 (05:05):
It's true, all right. Anyway, back to Karen Reid. So,
the prosecutors alleged that Reid hit her boyfriend John O'Keeffe
with her car she had Alexis SUV outside of the
home of a fellow police officer, Brian Albert, in January
twenty twenty two, and left him to die there during
a blizzard.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
This is three and a half years.

Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, this is after a night of drinking. The defense
has argued that Reed's vehicle could not have hit O'Keefe,
and instead said that O'Keefe was attacked by a dog
and beaten by other people who were in the house
before he was then thrown out in the snow and
left to die.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
That's a gang up. When the dog also joined.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
Uh yeah, man, the dog's like, let's get him. Okay, Look,
I have a I was thinking about this state because
I was thinking about how the defense, the defense's complete
defense in this case is basically that he was beat
up inside the house by other people, police officers, and
the dog was a part of it. We have a
German shepherd. German shepherd husky. If there is a fight,

(06:02):
if there is an altercation in this house, that dog
would get into it.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yeah, I don't know, I know, Okay, So what's what's
your point?

Speaker 1 (06:10):
My point is is that pretending or trying to act
like a German shepherd and a home of a police
officer if there was a fight, that a German shepherd
wouldn't have like gotten involved in an altercation with men.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
When there's you know, well who's arguing that the dog
wasn't involved.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
The prosecution, Well, they're arguing that she hit him. I'm
just saying that's not a far fetched idea. That's my point.
My point is, it's not like the defense came up
with some random theory that's also sense to me.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
It wouldn't sway me one way or another. I mean,
it's like, you have all these police officers that are
alleged to have killed them, and we're worried about whether
the dog did or did not scratch him.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
Well, it comes down to the evidence on his arm. Yeah,
I mean it looks like scratches and.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
When the dog was relocated, the dog wastection the dog.

Speaker 1 (06:56):
Is currently yes. Because here's the other thing that didn't
make sense. To me, it was Chloe is the dog.
Chloe was re home shortly after this incident, And how
can you not find Chloe? Like wouldn't you go to the.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
Police, And well, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (07:09):
I mean, I feel like if my dog was involved
in an altercation and then I.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
Just gave him away, shouldn't that be subpoena, Like we're
gonna subpoena, Like who the dog?

Speaker 1 (07:19):
Yes, he's compelled to come into court.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
I'm just rehome the witnesses and no one's gonna ask
about him.

Speaker 1 (07:27):
A brief overview of what happened after the first trial.
So we know that there was a hung jury in
the first trial, So the Commonwealth decided to retry her,
which again I thought was a huge kind of state.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
That's exhausting. At least I think a hung jury in general,
like as a layperson, a hung jury means there's doubt,
and so why would you try again, Like, let's find
some more people that might find him guilty. These people
didn't find guilty. Find some more these.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
People didn't work out, Let's try different ones. At least.
Forgerers who served on Karen Reid's last her first trial
last year have confirmed that she was found not guilty
of second degree murder and leaving the scene of personal
injury and death, according to Reed's attorneys. I do remember
that Reed's attorneys did try to make a motion before
the court that she'd be acquitted because there were juries

(08:13):
that spoke afterwards that had had relaid the information that
they did find her guilty, even though they didn't formally
say that, they just just came up with they said,
we couldn't make a decision, and.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Talked to the jurors then afterwards, because can they be like,
what was convincing? Why did you think they were?

Speaker 1 (08:34):
What worked and what didn't. However, the jury could not
come to an agreement on a third charge of manslaughter
while operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Her lawyers
filed multiple appeals all the way to the Supreme Court,
claiming Read should not have been retried on the counts
the jury apparently agreed on, saying it would amount to
double jeopardy. Each appeal was denied. She's pleaded not guilty
to all three charges and maintains her innocence. She was

(08:57):
facing this and this is the retrial. Three main charges
with the death of John O'Keeffe's second degree murder, manslaughter
while operating a motorcal vehicle under the influence, and leaving
the scene of a collision resulting in death.

Speaker 2 (09:10):
So you might have said this, but can I ask
question did? Is she using the same attorneys? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (09:15):
She Well, she added to her team. She has a
bigger team this time, but she's still her main attorneys
are Alan Jackson.

Speaker 2 (09:22):
And then my prosecutor prosecutor.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
No, remember we talked about this before.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
That's why I said, Yes, I'm reminding you memory.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
Yes, it's probably worse. They brought in a special prosecutor,
Hank Brennan, who also represented or Yeah, the Whitey Bulger.
Why Whitey Bulger. Yes, he was a mobster.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah you think it, white.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
Tighty Whitey Bulger. Let's talk about some of the key
witnesses and some of the things that were brought up
during this retrial.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Yes, some basic questions. When was the first verdict again
or the first lack of verdict?

Speaker 1 (10:12):
You mean the mistrial? It was last year, so she.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Had to go a year of waiting to be prosecuted again,
and then she had to go to a nearly you know,
a lengthy trial over a month man, Now, what's she
going to do?

Speaker 1 (10:25):
Well, she has a civil suit against her. Still, I mean.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
That's that's nothing. That's nothing. Better to go in a prison.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
Oh yeah, I mean and the cil.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
Okay, we'll talk about it.

Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, let's get to the civil ser laders. But let's
just go through some of some of the testimony and
some of the evidence in the retrial. Jennifer McCabe's testimony,
who was a friend of O'Keefe and Reed, who was
also in the home that night. She is a friend
of both of them, but she is also the sister
in law of Brian Albert, who owns the house. So
defense attorneys say that Jen McCabe's text messages show she

(10:57):
organized to cover up around how John O'Keefe wound up
unconscious in the snow outside of thirty four Fairview quote.
Carrie talked to the cops and kept it simple, McCabe
said in a text at about eight pm on January
twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, the day O'Keefe's body was
found outside her sister, Nicole Albert's home. Then Jen McCabe's

(11:18):
sister responded, we'll get more info tomorrow. Don't want a
text about it. In addition, Alan Jackson asked Jen McCabe
why she didn't ask her brother in law, Brian Albert,
a police officer, for help, given that he would have
had first responder training and lived in the home. McCabe
said she didn't think to go inside to get Brian

(11:39):
Albert find warm blankets, or to check whether the Alberts
were also in peril, that she was entirely focused on
helping O'Keefe. I thought this was really great when Alan
Jackson was cross examining her on the stand. He's cross
examining Jen McCabe. Her brother in law and sister live
inside the home where a dead man is found on

(12:01):
their lawn. She knows that her brother in law is
a cop and a first responder. She never goes to
the house. She never knocks on the door. She never
asked him to come outside to help to give CPR.
She never goes into the house to investigate and see
whether her brother in law and sister are okay or
if something happened inside the house that she needs to

(12:22):
check on. Why did she not do that?

Speaker 2 (12:24):
Because the Boston Police Department taught her otherwise, Because that's
why it might not be the first body in this
lawn by the way, Well it's.

Speaker 1 (12:33):
The first body on it. You mean, the first body
that anyone knows about on his lawn.

Speaker 2 (12:37):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (12:38):
Brian Laughlin's testimony, he's the snowplow driver. I found his
testimony very calling, very credible, very compelling.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
He was that guy like knew everything, Like he was
like a snowplow guy for thirty five years in that
neighborhood or something ridiculous like that. Well he well he
was in the neighborhood for thirty five years.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
Remember, Yeah, I don't know how long he'd been a
snowplow driver. However, his testimony was on point.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
It was concising, right, he knew the properties, he was,
he knew who lived there, he knew how long, Like
he was familiar with the neighborhood. It wasn't like he
was just going up and down roads and following a
map like he knew.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
So, Brian Lawlan was a snowplow driver. He's called to
the stand to testify for the defense. Brian Lafren testified
he did not see a body in the yard at
thirty four Fairview early in the morning on January twenty ninth,
twenty twenty two. Despite passing by the house multiple times,
Lawfren first drove the snowplow passed the home between two
forty and two forty five am. Though it was dark

(13:35):
and snowing hard, law Fren testified he could clearly see
the front door of the home. When asked what he
saw on the lawn by the flagpole, law Fren responded,
I saw nothing. Did you see a six foot one,
two hundred and sixteen pound man lying on that lawn.
Defense attorney David Eanetti asked, no, he said. I found
his testimony to be very credible because he talked about specifically.

(13:57):
He knew the route specifically, he knew the name of
the streets, he knew the times specifically, he knew exactly
what time he got there and checked out.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
It was so natural, it was so like normal for
him to respond. He didn't have to think like this
was his routine.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
And also, when you're talking about someone on a snowplow,
it's not in a regular car, like he's sitting up high.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
Well, no, I don't know, it could be it was
it a pickup truck snowplow or was it?

Speaker 1 (14:20):
No, they called it like the Frankenstein or something, because
it was like kind of an older model and it
was kind of put together.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
I probably was just like an F two fifty or something.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
I don't know, but I know he was sitting up high,
and I know that it was what which is high
as high and it was very well lit. Yeah, And
that he's consistently on guard and looking left to right
and scanning because he doesn't want to hit He's on
a big snowplowsy. He doesn't want to plow any bodies over,
So he has to be very very careful, and he
has to be very alert, and he has to be

(14:49):
very aware of his surroundings. So the fact that this
man did not see a body on the lawn between
two forty and two forty five am, when the prosecution
has made it clear that she hit him at twelve
thirty one, the body would have been there all right.
Sergeant Yuri Bucanik's testimony. He is a Massachusetts State Police officer.
He testified about the investigation and reads emergence as the

(15:13):
suspect in O'Keefe's death. However, the misconduct of previous state
trooper Michael Proctor, who was absent from the retrial loomed
heavily over his testimony. Now we all know Michael Proctor
was the investigator, the lead investigator in the first trial.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
He was also trial.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
Because the prosecution did not want to call him because
he was He was fired. He was let go from
the police department for how he bungled the first case,
how he didn't investigate it thoroughly. He had all those
text messages, you know, with his friends talking about Karen
Reid calling her, I don't know, what do you say?
He said she was hot, and then he was like
talking about looking for naked photos on her phone of

(15:50):
her and he said.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
Yeah, scholars work here and goodness.

Speaker 1 (15:54):
So he was he was not brought back to testify.
I'm sure the prosecution was hoping that everyone just forgot
that he even exists.

Speaker 2 (16:03):
Right. There was no former trial.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
This is the first one. Michael Proctor had never heard
of him, though Buchanik. Through Buchanik, prosecutors tried to minimize
Proctor's influence and the investigation, while the defense held Proctor
up as the lead investigator. Buchanik said each homicide case
is a team effort. During cross examination, defense attorney Alan

(16:26):
Jackson tried to restore the sense of Proctor's control over
the case, showing Buchanik's investigative documents that carried Proctor's name
or signature. Still, Buchanik refused to call Proctor the lead investigator,
referring to him as the case officer. Clearly the reason
he was on the stand, as they're trying to take
away the power from Michael Proctor and his name all.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Over this case.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
Trooper Nicholas Guarino's testimony. He is also a Massachusetts State
Police officer. Guarino testified for the Commonwealth that read called
O'Keefe more than fifty times and left eight voicemails between
the times. She said she dropped him off at thirty
four fair of View, and when she started searching for
him the next morning, all the calls went unanswered. Quote

(17:09):
You're an e fing pervert, she said in one voicemail
left at one ten am, per Guarino's testimony. Seven minutes later,
she left another, you're efing using me right now, you're
effing another girl. You're an e fing loser. F yourself.
At five twenty three am, she left her seventh voicemail, John,
where are you. You know when I listen to these voicemails,
because I've heard all of them, this is a woman

(17:31):
who had no idea that a man was laying dead
in a yard right or else. She's the best actress
I've ever seen because her voicemails are a woman who
is who has no idea where this man is, and
she thinks he's not coming home because he's having an
affair with somebody in that house, and she is legitimately

(17:54):
pissed off and wants to murder him.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
I have a feeling you've made notes. I felt that
this is how I should leave my voicemails. I see
very convincing.

Speaker 1 (18:06):
So for me when the prosecution is trying to use
these voicemails to show that they had a strained relationship
and that she you know, that she was so mad
that night that she repped her engine and like ran
over him. To me, I don't look at it that way.
To me, I see those voicemails and the calls as
someone who legitimately thinks that man is in the house

(18:28):
having an affair with another woman, and she thinks that he's
doing things and he's not coming home and she's mad.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
This whole thing is ridiculous because if you were going
to commit a murder and you're going to run someone
over or do something like that, it would never ever
in a million years cross my mind to think leave
the dead body on the police officer's lawn. Yeah, because
they a real police officer, a team of police officers
would immediately start to preserve it, start to notify, start

(18:56):
to do something to forward the investigation, and not just
like stay in the house, will say that I know,
I know, I know you in your wildest dreams, we
ever thought like I'll leave this dead body on some
on this police officer's lawn and then like no one
will ever be able to figure out who killed him.

Speaker 1 (19:14):
So you're saying, if she legitimately hit him, if she
was mad and she and he fell backwards and landed
in the snow and she drove.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
Off, Well, I'm just saying, and it's very I don't
know if it's irony, but to leave a dead body
on a police officer's lawn and there's a bunch of
police officers there and they still can't figure out who
did it, that's that's pretty weird.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
Well, that's why this case is so compelling.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
The cops are shady.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
Sorry, the cops are shady.

Speaker 2 (19:41):
I retract my judgment of Karen Reid in our first.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
Pod if you listen to our's Not Guilty, if you
listen to our very very first podcast we did on
Karen Reid. This is before Shane had ever knew known
anything about the case, never even heard Karen Reid's name,
and I just did a basic cur three overview of
the incidents that night. He kept saying.

Speaker 2 (20:04):
Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
She's guilty, guilty, over and over and over.

Speaker 2 (20:09):
Not guilty, but not guilty. Now the police department's guilty.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
Now he is ware.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
Are they going to prosecute the police officers?

Speaker 1 (20:18):
I doubt it.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
Why they have just as much evidence on them as
they did her, which is nothing. That's what's so them
through the crowd.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
That's what's so compelling yet completely sad about this case
is I don't think there'll ever be any justice for
John O'Keeffe or his mom, or the children. You know,
he was raising his niece and nephew because their parents
had died, and these children lost their mother and father
and have now lost their uncle who was raising them.

(20:47):
And you know, his mom sat in court every day,
his family's there and at the end of the day,
the jury got it right. She should have been acquitted.
But it's sad.

Speaker 2 (20:57):
It is there's a lot of people. It's not just
he dies, which is sad enough as it is, but
all the people around him that are affected, and then
all the unanswered questions and just not knowing what happened
in his last moments of his life.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
Nicholas Barrows, who is part of he's a sergeant for
the Dighton Police, was called by the defense to refute
the Commonwealth's narrative about Reid's tail light being broken when
it allegedly collided with O'Keefe. The defense has tried to
raise the specter of the tail light being tampered with
after police seized the vehicle and suggested its pieces were
planted at the scene. Well, if you remember, if you

(21:32):
go back, remember we talked about before when they initially
did a search and they found John's body, there were
no pieces of the tail light found in that initial search.

Speaker 2 (21:39):
Well that's what was declared.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Right. Then they went back I think that evening and
did another search and during that search, all of a
sudden they found like forty two pieces.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Of a tail light, which is an insane amount of
tail light right.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
Borrows responded on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, to
Reid's parents home in Dighton, Massachusetts, at Proctor's require to
help seize the vehicle. Reid went there after it was
confirmed that O'Keefe had died. In a report, Barrows noted
that there was damage to a tail light, but he
suggested on the stand it was relatively minor. There was
a piece missing, but it was not completely damaged. He

(22:16):
was shown a photograph of the tail light after it
was seized. Barrows said it did not reflect what he
saw that day. That tail light is completely smashed out.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
He said, yeah, I remember thinking that that many pieces
sounds like it looks like someone smashed it with a hammer.

Speaker 1 (22:28):
I know I thought the same thing because I even
thought if she had backed into him with her tail light.
I feel like when a tail light hit a body,
it wouldn't have smashed into so many tiny scens.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
There's enough forensic files to know like it's usually just
a handful of pieces.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
All right. So there was so many more things that
went on in this trial. It was completely interesting compelling.
I know people were glued to their screens every day
watching court TV. We clearly can't go through all of it,
but we're going to get to the closing statements. I
actually watched Alan Jackson's closing statement twice. It was about
an hour and a half long. Because when you talk
about closing statements, this is really where you have the

(23:05):
opportunity to This is the finale. This is where you
take everything and you want to persuade the jury. You
want them to see it. From your perspective, it's really
your last act. It's your last chance to convince them,
it's your last chance to build rapport with them. And
so I thought he did an excellent job.

Speaker 2 (23:25):
How long was it?

Speaker 1 (23:26):
It was an hour and a half.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
You watch TV for three hours though, Well.

Speaker 1 (23:30):
I didn't watch it back to back. I watched an
hour and a half and then the following night I
watched it again.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
But let's be clear. You don't bring in new evidence.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
You don't bring in new evidence.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
You can only reiterate the evidence that was presented, and
you can't an attorney can't bring in their own opinions
to anything right, and they can't do things to make
what was it like make the something about making the
jurors feel a certain way, Like you can't ask about
their feelings or try to make them feel it's just evidence.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
Yeah, well, let me ask you a question. Can the
prosecution object during closing statements.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
When the defense at I don't know if the if
the objection is the same formality, but if the defense
is bringing in new evidence, I mean definitely got to
stop that. Yeah, that's probably grounds for a mistrial.

Speaker 1 (24:19):
Well, it's you can't object during closing arguments, but it
has to be to the level of like it's so
egregious it would sway the jury or it would be
harmful to the case. So there were no objections. During
his closing statement. Jackson went first, telling the jury three
times right away, there was no collision in the death
of John O'Keefe. This case was corrupted from the start.

(24:42):
It was corrupted by a legal investigator who's misconduct infected
every single part of this case from top to bottom.
Alluding to Michael Proctor.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
Was did he have the position that she is she
did not commit the crime? Or did he have the
position was he emphasizing that there was not enough evidence?

Speaker 1 (24:59):
No, so he his position was it was not her
that it was a cover up that he was beat
up in the house by these officers. The dog was
somehow involved and attacked him and then they drug his body.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
Could have been in another way. Obviously, I would defer
to Alan Jackson to probably know what's best.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
But the other way I would defer to Alan Jackson
on anything.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
Okay, thank you for that.

Speaker 1 (25:26):
I'd be like, stop talking.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
I need to ask Alan Jackson stop talking. Butterfly, all right, whatever,
you know. I was trying to get at that. His
position was she didn't do it, not there's not enough evidence.

Speaker 1 (25:37):
No, His position was that she did not do it,
and it was the corruptness that went on that evening.
It was a conspiracy.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
It's a Communican to think about the police department. I'd
be nervous if I was in that area.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
I don't know. I'm based just based upon the dms
I get on my Instagram account. People rallied around her
and think that this police department is completely corrupt. And
there's some other case with another woman I can't remember
the name that several people of dm ME that said
that basically kind of mirrors the same thing and has
to do with the Boston Police Department. I'll have to

(26:09):
look into that.

Speaker 2 (26:10):
Wonderful.

Speaker 1 (26:11):
If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can
you trust him with this investigation, with your verdict, and
with Karen Reid's life. Jackson said, the lead investigator in
a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that.
That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want
to hear from Michael Proctor?

Speaker 2 (26:30):
See, that was right, That's what I was thinking.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in
this case? Yes, yeah, that's what I said. The prosecution
did not call from them. Yes, they were hoping that
we just all forgot that.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
Might be were dumped on some lawn somewhere.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias and
personal loyalties. Jackson said, not a single medical expert called
by the defense or called by the commonwealth has testified
that John was hit by a car. Not one thing
about the irony, not one It's not just significant, it's
literally the most important point in the entire trial. He

(27:09):
made that point. He made it well. The medical examiners
that testified would never take the position that there was
an impact site from a vehicle. He had a contusion
on the back of his head, he had black eyes,
he had a cut over his eye, and his right
arm was scraped up and had puncture wounds. But no
one would testify that he was hit by a vehicle

(27:30):
because they said they.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
There wasn't vehicle.

Speaker 1 (27:34):
Remember mister Brennan's opening statement, he made some promises to you.
He said, this case is about the data. He's stressed
it over and over again. They've had three and a
half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had
this case for three and a half years to get
it right. Jackson went on to talk about there being
no evidence John was hit by a car. This is
a central fact in the case. The only fact that

(27:55):
matters is literally uncontested by every medical expert, uncontested, undispat
There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None.
How much more reasonable doubt could there be.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
There's doubt all around. There's even doubt with the police officers. Really,
there's not enough legal evidence for me to feel comfortable
saying they should be convicted.

Speaker 1 (28:15):
You know, at the opening of his let me okay,
go ahead, what.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
They did it? The police officers.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
Do you think the police officers, Yeah, guilty. Let's just
go into just to have a little legal knowledge, little
legal background, what exactly beyond a reasonable doubt? And when
he does his opening statement, he tells them what beyond
a reasonable doubt means. And it's not just beyond a

(28:44):
reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty are the phrases
used in legal context, particularly in criminal trials, to describe
the high standard of proof required for a conviction. I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:55):
I don't get it. So what's the difference.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
They're the same. It's beyond a reasonable doubt and to
a moral certainty.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
Does and to a moral certainty actually add any other.

Speaker 1 (29:06):
No, they it's the same standard. But I think it's
just another way to say it. But I think when
you add moral certainty in there, I feel like it
makes it more clear because reasonable doubt the word doubt.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
It's like it's like you can shrug your shoulders like.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
But when you talk about a moral certainty, I.

Speaker 2 (29:23):
Feel good about this, exactly, feel good about sending him
or her to.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
Jail exactly, Like when you lay your head down at
night to sleep knowing that that woman is going to
go to jail, are you okay with that? Are you
okay to a moral certainty that the decision you're making.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
Well, I think the most complete apartment needs to hire
people with a moral certainty. You know, I have a
little beef with you. What you asked me the other
day what moral certainty meant? I said, I bet you.
It's just language that that jurisdiction uses. And now you're
and you said no, no, no, And now you're telling me
what it's really just language that they use to Well.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
Because I looked it up, I don't because you're not
Alan Jackson.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
No, So I had to go with Butterfly.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
I was correct, you were correct at the time. All right,
it's still correct, okay. Alan Jackson goes on to say
in his in his closing statement, you have a man
lying dead in the yard, and here are the undisputed
facts that those officers were confronted with. Black eyes. Obviously,
black eyes are consistent with a fight. Bloody nose also
consistent with a fight, Bleeding from the face consistent with

(30:26):
a physical altercation, a cut over the right eye consistent
with a punch. No coat in the freezing cold, not
dressed for outside, dressed for inside, and one shoe on.
I wonder where the other shoe could be. I don't know,
maybe in the house thirty feet away. This was one
of my favorite parts of his closing statement was actually
when he said all of that. I thought that was

(30:47):
just he just really hit it home. That was a
home run to me when he said, look at this
body laying in this front yard. All of the physical
issues with his body are all consistent with a fight.
And also he has no coat on, and he's got
a missing shoe.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Where could they be?

Speaker 1 (31:08):
Where could those things be? I don't know, maybe in
the house. And the fact that the house was never
considered a crime scene. It was never taped off, it
was never searched, it was never investigated. There was never
from the house.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
That is that is negligence on the police. They fell
below that is standard duty of being.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
I mean, you're telling me a man died in a
lawn on it in front of a house, and his
shoes missing, and he doesn't have a coat on, and
he's beat up in the yard and no one investigated
inside the house. Is is there any blood inside the house?
There is there anything broken in the house, his shoes
in the house. I mean, it's unreal to me. I

(31:54):
wonder where the other shoe could be. He says, I
don't know, maybe in the house thirty feet away. And
then you find a broken and shattered drinking glass next
to him, the type of glass that you might find
I don't know. Let me think about this in a
kitchen in a house feet away.

Speaker 2 (32:11):
Wait, didn't she say she dropped him off with the cocktail?
You know?

Speaker 1 (32:15):
She did say that they had like a roadie or something,
And so that was the other thing, Like, where did
the shard of glass come from? Was it from the
cocktail glass that he was carrying, or did he go
in the house and have a drink. This is why
this investigation is awful. Why do you sus I.

Speaker 2 (32:27):
Could have gone inside the house and looked at the kitchen,
say you have the same signature drinking glasses that was
shout outside with the dead body, right, and look in
the shoe closet.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
Look while I found the shoe closet right. As for
testimony that Reid said I hit him when she found
O'Keeffe the next morning, Jackson said. Sergeant Buchanik also testified
that the only statement Karen Reid made at the scene,
according to his conversations, with the first responders was could
I have hit him? Did I hit him? It wasn't

(32:57):
a confession, it was confusion. Agree with that.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
And you know what that tracks with her OBD two
censor that said she went twenty four miles an hour
back way?

Speaker 1 (33:06):
What was it? Say it again the two sensor, Yes,
Shane is our vehicular mechanic specialists.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
No, but didn't it didn't They have evidence that she
went backwards twenty four miles an hour. So maybe she
was like, oh my gosh, I hit him, Like maybe
her first thought was he's on the lawn where I
left him with a drink and I sped off. Did
I hit him? I mean, those are probably some thoughts
that ran through ahead. I mean, her boyfriend's dead. No
one says anything that's reasonable when you find a dead body, right.

Speaker 1 (33:38):
And she already didn't sleep the entire night because she
called him fifty times and left him seven voicemails yelling
at him and calling him an effing pervert. She thinks
he's having an affair with someone else. So this woman
clearly is outside of her mind. She has no idea
what's going on. She finds him lying in the grass,
dead on the lawn, and it makes sense to me

(34:00):
that she could have rambled something like did I hit who?

Speaker 2 (34:03):
Who? What happened? All I know is you find it
dead by you don't say anything.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
Well, first of all, if she hit, if she did
hit him, the last thing she's going to say is
I hit him.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
I hit him, I hit him. No, that's right.

Speaker 1 (34:16):
I mean, give me a break.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
A reasonable murderer wouldn't admit that. The person she'd be like, I.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
Don't know how he got there. We are after the
truth in this courtroom. You're entitled to it, demand it,
Jackson said. Let your voice be heard, not in whispers,
but in truth. Let the community feel through your verdict
that justice cannot be bent and that it will not
be buried. Find Karen Reid not guilty, not guilty, not guilty,

(34:43):
and el.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
Because three charges. Did she have three charges?

Speaker 1 (34:46):
Well, she had three charges. And I feel like he
was playing on the I hit him, I hit him,
I hit him, is what they claimed. Tis so very cute.

Speaker 2 (34:55):
It worked all right.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
Hank Brennan, who was the special prosecutor, he does closing
prosecutor Hank Brennan addressed the jury saying about read quote
she was drunk, she hit him, then she left him
to die. Now the government doesn't have to prove that
she was drunk. It's either she's over the legal limit
point oh eight or she had enough alcohol to affect
her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. You will

(35:19):
know she was far beyond the legal limit after the
retrograde analysis, almost two to three times the legal limit,
he says. In Alan Jackson's closing, he talks about the
tail light fragments and he claims, so the prosecution claims
that according to the data on the car whatever you

(35:39):
called it, that the impact happened at twelve thirty one.
Then when she left the scene, her WiFi connected at
John's house, because she left and went to John's house
and it connected at twelve thirty six. So if he
was a hit at twelve thirty one, And they claim
that the tail light was shattered all over the lawn,
and they also claimed that the bulb part was shattered

(36:02):
light bulb, the actual light bulb was shattered, then that
tail light would not have lit up later after the fact.
And Alan Jackson and you have.

Speaker 2 (36:12):
To sorry, but you have to hit. That means he
had to have penetrated the tail light cover and then
as far into it as the tail light housing to
crack the bulb. Right, I mean, I'm just saying that's
a big impact. Maybe that happens a lot, but that's
that's a lot of impact, right, And sorry I interrupted.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
No, It's okay, but no, and I agree with what
you're saying. And the whole point is then Alan Jackson
showed up on the screen to the jury images of
that tail light being lit up at five am in
the morning. And then I think and there was a
second time when it was well they captured like ring
footage of her of the car like being driven. Impact point.

Speaker 2 (36:58):
I'm sure they addressed it, but then I would have
questions of like, well, are there three bulbs or there
are two and one was cracked, and I'm sure they
already addressed that, But that is interesting that her light
was still functioning.

Speaker 1 (37:09):
Right, I thought that was very interesting. And then there
was another thing I know we talked about the medical examiners.
Sorry I keep going backwards because there was so much
in his closing and this whole trial. But the other
thing that I found really compelling as well was that
when the medical examiners for the defense and the prosecution.
When you're talking about the injuries to his arm, if

(37:29):
his arm, which was supposed to be the impact site,
because that's where it was his right arm, and that's
where the scratches and the puncture wounds were. So you know,
the prosecution is claiming he was hit by a car,
her suv going backwards.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
The car scratched him.

Speaker 1 (37:43):
And punctured him looked like teethmarks. But the compelling part
to me is that these medical recreate, you know, people
recreate scenes, and hitting a car going backwards and hitting
an arm at twenty four miles per hour, the arm
would have been damaged, it would have been bruised, ligaments
would have been torn.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
But I mean if it broken, scratches on my forearm
and then someone says, how'd you get that, and go,
I was hit by a car suv Yeah in the snow,
people would be like what, No, you didn't, right, I mean.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
So the injuries on his arm were inconsistent with being
hit by an suv going backwards at twenty four miles
per hour. I mean twenty four miles per hour. Is
that's fast, Yeah, that's fast, that's Fastwards, that's fast. Backwards. Yeah,
and you hit an arm, your arm's gonna be bruis,
it's gonna be torn up. You're gonna have broken bones,
You're gonna have torn ligaments. And none of that was

(38:37):
consistent with the injuries on his arm. All right Back
to Hank Brennan. He proceeded to play a clip from
one of Reed's TV interviews for the jury, and when
she said I shouldn't have been driving. She did say that,
And I did watch this, and I remember thinking, I
don't know if that was so smart for her to
do that documentary. You know, the documentary I watched. It
was like five parts. It was called A Body in

(38:57):
the Snow, and it was basically following her first trial,
and she did a lot of interviews, and there were
several times when I thought, I don't know if she
should have said that, And they used.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
Why why shouldn't she have said that?

Speaker 1 (39:10):
Because she did say I drank too much, I was overserved,
I drank too much alcohol, I was drunk. I shouldn't
have been drunk.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
I mean, she she says this memory.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
She says things to me that I thought were self incriminating,
that she probably shouldn't have been saying.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
Well, but maybe her thing is I'm being honest. I'm
telling you everything that happened. Yeah, I did drink, but
I didn't run them over.

Speaker 1 (39:33):
Brennan so Hank. Brennan also emphasized that o'keefan Read's relationship
was not healthy and nearing. It's in. The relationship is
almost over. The tensions are simmering beneath the surface. They
are not getting along. So fast forward that night, after
the discord, after the arguing, they go out. What do
they do. They drink, and they drink a lot, Brennan explained.
He then focused on the moments when O'Keefe got out
of Reed's suv that night. It's the first time he

(39:56):
has moved since they got to the flagpole, and it
will be the last time he moves in his life,
Brennan said. Brennan then explained to the jury why reid
Is charge was second degree murder. Quote, it sounds ominous.
It is. It's a serious charge, second degree murder. When
most people think murder, they think shooting or stabbing somebody.
It's natural to think that. However, second degree murder is different.

(40:17):
I told you at the beginning of this case, I
told you that we were not going to suggest to
try to prove that Miss Reid intended to kill John O'Keefe.
That was never part of this case. We're not claiming
that I told you that we were not ever going
to prove that she even intended to hit him. We
never suggested we would try to prove that, and we
are not trying to prove that she intended to hit him.

(40:37):
Brennan said, there was an eyewitness, there was a guide,
and that eyewitness tells us that she knew, and that
eyewitness is Karen Reid herself. She tells you that she knew,
Brennan said, before playing another video clip from the Read
TV interview. Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?
Reid said in the video. I didn't think I hit him,
but could I have clipped him? Again? We talked about

(41:00):
this earlier, but I feel like you're right, she's being vulnerable,
she's being honest, and she's saying that's that was what
was going through my mind when I found him dead
on the lawn.

Speaker 2 (41:07):
Was that documentary done after her first trial?

Speaker 1 (41:10):
It was done during during trial, during the preparation for
her first trial.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
Oh okay, so then I think I think it was.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
I think it was prior to the trial, because I
remember there were lots of scenes of them and what
they called the war room, and that was when she
was meeting with Alan Jackson and Michael Yannetti and they
were going over It showed her getting arrested, it showed
her going to jail, and then it showed her being
on house arrest, being at home preparing for the first trial.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
There were a lot of good idea Why would she
do a documentary like that? I wonder for attorneys that
thought that would get some public support or.

Speaker 1 (41:41):
Well, that was something I was thinking about on my
way home before we recorded this podcast, and I thought,
I wonder why, Because Alan Jackson is brilliant, I wonder
why he thought it was a good idea. But then
I thought, what you just said, Maybe it was the
balance if you balance. Okay, So she maybe says some
things that don't look great, but she's just being herself.

(42:02):
Maybe the the public support that she garnered from that
was worth more than you know, if she misspoke or
I don't know. I mean, I don't really feel like,
I mean, is it self incrimination when she said that,
or is it her just being honest and authentic about
that night and saying I don't know did I hit him?

(42:22):
He's I found him dead on the lawn, so I
don't know. I mean, you could look at it from
a jury perspective that she's the more honest of the
two sides.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
I don't know. That's what a what a mess she
had more like document interviews and oh yeah she's gonna yeahs.

Speaker 1 (42:41):
Do I follow her on Instagram?

Speaker 2 (42:43):
Following I don't you know.

Speaker 1 (42:45):
I I don't even follow Alan Jackson. I don't know
how that happened.

Speaker 2 (42:49):
But you like him?

Speaker 1 (42:51):
I just I feel like he's I. I my heroes
like other people might think, like rock stars or like
actors are their heroes minds like Alan Jackson, Brian friedran, Yeah,
like those are the people that I like are like, huh,
I would fan girl over Alan Jackson, but not like
Brad Pitt, but Alan Jackson.

Speaker 2 (43:11):
Yes, Brett, bet you a cameo from Brian and Jackson?

Speaker 1 (43:16):
Do you think do you think they're on cameo? They
might be after this for people like you maybe. Brennan
also addressed one of Jackson's major points on Friday, why
Trooper Proctor didn't take the stand in his trial. After
he testified in the first one, he was terminated. He

(43:38):
said a penalty. He was held responsible for what he did.
He should have been We don't We don't need Trooper
Proctor in this case. We don't need Trooper Proctor to
prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. Brennan concluded his
argument by showing the jury a photo of John O'Keeffe.
He is not an it. John O'Keeffe is not a body.
John O'Keefe was not a buffalo on a prairie. John

(43:59):
O'Keeffe was a per and he was murdered by Karen Reid. Clearly,
all the prosecution has is to play to the jury's heart.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
And say this crossing the that they don't look at
the evidence and fire guilty because she don't.

Speaker 1 (44:12):
Forget that this is a man, this is a human,
So do the right thing and find her guilty.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Well, well, she's also a woman and a human. I mean,
you can't throw them to jail. What about you mentioned earlier,
like twelve thirty one is when they blew, the impact
took place in twelve thirty six is when she hit
the WiFi.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
Is when she connected to John's five.

Speaker 2 (44:32):
Minutes, how far a part of the homes Okay, ye,
so that tracks that makes sense?

Speaker 1 (44:37):
Then, yeah it does. But what what happened though, is
when they clocked her, or they they claim that she
hit him at twelve thirty one. The prosecution really buried
themselves for what does it paint yourself into a corner
when you do something like that. His phone was still
warm at twelve thirty one, as opposed to like it
wasn't laying in the snow. I believe they said it

(44:57):
only takes fifteen minutes for your phone to go from
warm to like if it's in freezing temperatures to where
it shuts off. It's like a very small window of time.
So if his body had been laying in the snow
starting at twelve thirty one, and she phone would have
shut off.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
I don't know. There's so many holes in this thing.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
I know.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
It's unbelievable that they even tried her. It's embarrassing. It's
a waste of everyone's time and money, it is.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
And it's a first of all, to think of what
she had to go through, the money she has to
spend to defend herself. The fact, well I know she
had a I've read well or something she did, and
I think a lot of people supported her because they
were so you know, she had the public behind her
so much. But she also had to I read like

(45:42):
she cashed out her four oh one. She doesn't work,
you know.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
She also I think she mortgaged.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
I think she either sold her house or she had
to get a second mortgage on her house. I mean,
she's completely financially depleted herself to have to defend herself
in this.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
The moral of the story. Shouldn't drink, Okay, that's that's
what I shouldn't overdrink.

Speaker 1 (46:01):
Yeah, but if she here's the thing though, her If
if he was murdered inside the house and then drug
out onto the lawn, it makes no difference whether she
drank or not.

Speaker 2 (46:11):
Well, she might have a better memory, she might be
more credible, She might not have ran them over. Not
just kid, I don't know. There's a lot of things
gonna happen if she was, you know not.

Speaker 1 (46:22):
I mean, so you're saying if she was, if she
did not drink at all, and she was completely clear
of mind, she might have seen him actually go into
the house and had to.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Clear I mean, I'm just making a general statement that is,
I mean she drink and drove and I just don't
I don't fin any forgiveness in that. So now she's
in a mess.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
Yeah. But again the alternative argument is did the drinking
make any difference?

Speaker 2 (46:45):
No, the cops did it. It should be called what
was that documentary?

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Body in the snow?

Speaker 2 (46:50):
Should be a body drug out and dumped in the
snow by police officers on their lawn. Yes, all right.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
So then after they give their closing statements the jury
to deliberations, there was an amended verdict slip. Judge Beverly Canone.
Everybody calls her aunt bev on TikTok. She does not
have a large fan base at all, gave jurors a
revised verdict slipt on Tuesday afternoon, following confusion from the
panel about the first slip they were given, which prompted

(47:17):
a question to be sent to the judge. The slip
concerns the second of three charges Reid faces in the
death of John O'Keefe, manslaughter while operating under the influence.
That charge, at the request of Reid's defense, carries a
number of lesser included counts for which the jury could
either convict or acquit Read. The new slip, distributed to

(47:39):
the media Wednesday morning, contains clarifying language for the jury,
telling the four person to quote, stop and sign the
verdict slip end quote after each lesser included charge. If
they find Read guilty, jurors can convict her of any
of the lesser included charges or acquit her of each charge,
including manslaughter. Though I believe what the jurors were asking

(48:01):
so they needed an amended jury slip was to break
it down better. They didn't understand if like she was
acquitted of some of the higher charges and maybe not
the lesser charges, if that was still considered a hung jury,
so they needed more clarifying.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
I see basic jury instructions on the charges and.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
Yeah, yeah, and I know that they did come back
and ask if she's acquitted of the two higher charges
but not the third charge, would that still be considered
a hut or a mistrial? And then she said she
couldn't answer that because it was a theoretical question.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
Because then because I'm guessing, but then the judge thing,
and I can't answer that question because if I give
you an answer that might sway you exactly, like oh,
you know, well, it'll be a hung trial or hung jury,
and we don't want that again, so we'll find her guilty, yeah,
or the other way around.

Speaker 1 (48:49):
So she couldn't answer that anyway, all right, So we
get a verdict. Finally, that happened just like two hours ago.
After more than thirty days of testimony and four days
of deliberation, jury found read not guilty of second degree
murder manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence
and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
But she was found guilty of a very lesser offensive,

(49:11):
operating a vehicle under the influence with a blood alcohol
level of zero point eight percent or greater. She is
sentenced to a year of probation. Basically, it was a
huge win for her.

Speaker 2 (49:21):
Was that was that based on just her testimony that
she was drunk?

Speaker 1 (49:24):
No, they had they had ad they.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
Test her the next morning or something.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
I don't I believe so, but they they did a whole.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
Of blood change hear to what she was up against.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
Oh, absolutely, She's like, I'll take I'll take a I'll
take a DUI or this was called a OUI operating
under influence. I mean she'll do a year of probation
and then she gets to go on with her life. However,
there still is a pending civil suit with the o
Key family against her for run. Actually they did, and

(49:54):
they actually stayed the suit while she was doing the
criminal trial.

Speaker 2 (49:58):
They see the freaking cops too.

Speaker 1 (50:00):
Well, here's my question, and let's talk about it.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
It was dead on your lawn, You didn't do anything,
and you destroyed all the evidence in your house. Give
me a shoeback.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
So giving my shoeback. So, they filed a civil suit
against her before the second retrial for wrongful death. Then
that suit was stayed while she was doing her criminal
trial because she couldn't do the civil trial and the
criminal trial. Plus you can't do a civil trial and
then they take your testimony from the civil trial used
against you in your criminal trial anyway, so that was stayed.

(50:30):
Now that her criminal trial is over, the civil trial
will proceed. But here's my question. If you are John
O'Keefe's family, and you're the ones that filed the civil
suit before this latest retrial, and you sat in court
every single day and you listened to all the evidence
and the testimony, and then the jury comes back with

(50:52):
their decision that she's not guilty, and the entire world
that's watching this is saying she's not guilty. Free Karen Rea.
How do you continue on with the civil suit for
wrongful death at this point? Are you not completely pissed
with the system? How do you go forward with the
civil suit against Karen Reid? I feel like they need

(51:13):
to withdraw the suit.

Speaker 2 (51:14):
You mean they should? They should have They should understand
that she didn't do it. Is that what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
I'm saying. They sat in court every single.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
Ya, But are you suggesting that they should be based
on everything they saw on witness and participated in and
all that took place, they should be of the position of, Okay,
I guess she didn't do it, so we don't want
to sue her. Is that what you mean?

Speaker 1 (51:34):
Yes, I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (51:36):
And she doesn't have any money anyway, She's spent it all.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
On Yeah, I'm saying, how do you go forward with
this wrongful death suit against Karen Reid when you sat
in court every day and you heard all of that.

Speaker 2 (51:46):
Let's be clear for listeners, the standard in a civil
suit to find a verdict is different than the standard
and a criminal it is lesser.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
Yes, yes, it is a preponderance of the evidence.

Speaker 2 (51:58):
Which means just tipping the scale.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
It's a fifty one percent.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
So it had had Karen been found guilty, the civil
suit would be much easier because you're like, she's already guilty,
it would be. But now she's not guilty, so now
they have to prove beyond a preponminence of the Evans
or whatever tip the scale, have to.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
Tip the scale. Yeah, but here's my point. I feel
like it's just a moral issue at this point, Like
you sat in court and you heard all this testimony
about how corrupt this police department was, how no one
investigated the house, how the Brian Albert and Brian Higgins
both got rid of their cell phones.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
And their dogs and the dog and didn't they like
like redo the flooring.

Speaker 1 (52:38):
And they did it, Yes, And the house was sold
and the ring footage across the street was deleted or
wasn't available, and nobody she's.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
Looking she's she is looking the wrong way. They're looking
the wrong way by going after Karen. I know that,
but sometimes it's just a money grab and sometimes it's
just a stubbornness of you know, they want someone to
be held accountable.

Speaker 1 (52:58):
And I can get that, well, I understand that, but
I'm just saying they filed it before the retrial. So
I'm saying, after sitting in court for thirty days and
watching all this testimony, I feel like they need to
withdraw the civil suit and go after the real perpetrators here,
the corruption the police department, Like file a civil suit
against them. There's something shady and the fauryus that happened

(53:19):
in the house.

Speaker 2 (53:19):
That who's actually suing.

Speaker 1 (53:21):
It's John o'cue's family. It's his mom and oh, his
immediate family, his family.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
Yeah, yeah, I mean it's an unfortunate thing. It doesn't
mean that you know, they're not suffering by his loss,
But I don't know. What's done is done. Man. Sometimes
you just gotta he just gotta move on. It sucks,
But the kids are the one that they're gonna suffer
the most, those kids that he was taking care of.

Speaker 1 (53:43):
Yeah, at the end of the day, I think, to me,
I feel as if this was one of the most interesting, compelling, infuriating,
but fascinating legal.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
Cases and confusing and unclear.

Speaker 1 (54:01):
But look, we follow Ditty too, and Diddy is huge,
and it's in the media and everybody talks about it
ezy one, but I don't find it.

Speaker 2 (54:08):
No, it's like going to talk about another freak off
and another.

Speaker 1 (54:12):
Freak off, Okay, another witness. It's kind of the same
pattern of behavior. Everybody looked the other way for years
and years.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
But he's you know, he abuses his power, he buys people.
I get it. He beats people and he pays him.
He's a jerk. But it's it's repeating. I mean, this
is this requires you to think and try to figure
out what the heck is going on. Yeah, and that's
why it's so puzzle pity diddy what's his name?

Speaker 1 (54:41):
Pity, it's pity.

Speaker 2 (54:43):
I pity that whatever it probably will be next who
knows he's going to be no as soon he's going
to be known by a cell number.

Speaker 1 (54:53):
Yeah. But again back to Karen Reid, I feel like
this case should be studied in law school. It is
why because it is the epitome of reasonable doubt. Like,
this case is so fascinating.

Speaker 2 (55:07):
It should be studied by the police department and then
they know and then they should be telling their police officer.

Speaker 1 (55:14):
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (55:15):
Yeah, there should be some protocol for finding a dead
body on your lawn. Yep, that's that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (55:21):
I'm just saying this is a fascinating case because.

Speaker 2 (55:24):
Every snowplower should have cameras on their cars.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
They should have dash cam dash cams. Yeah, I mean
that would have solved it right there, if he had
a dash cam on that snowplow.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
Case close right one way or another?

Speaker 1 (55:38):
Right, Yeah, I mean either there was a body there
or there wasn't. And if there wasn't a body there,
the bodies in the house.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
No, dash cams are a big deal. You need a
dash cam. I need a dash can You need a
dash cam?

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Who got pulled over today? Because it wasn't me.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
Lots of people got pulled over.

Speaker 1 (55:53):
You got pulled over today?

Speaker 2 (55:55):
All right? Anything wrong?

Speaker 1 (55:56):
All right? Thank you for listening.

Speaker 2 (55:59):
To our breakdown? Or are we done with Karen re Yeah?
I follow the civil suit.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
Yeah, well I don't have anything else to say about.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
The civil suit. I know. But are we going to
follow the civil suit?

Speaker 1 (56:07):
Well, yeah, we'll follow the civil suit. But I mean
I'm hoping the civil suit gets dropped.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
It'll it'll get dropped. You think or it'll it'll be
a short I don't know, there's none. Well, I don't
know that this Actually, this will be very interesting assuming
they don't drop it. If they drop it, okay, if
they don't drop it and they proceed with a trial,
it'd be very interesting because you have two different standards
on a very questionable case. And so it'll be interesting
to know if it's like not guilty in a criminal standard,

(56:33):
but guilty or liable in a civil standard. So that'd
be really interesting.

Speaker 1 (56:37):
Yeah, and also just to draw a parallel, O. J.
Simpson was acquitted and yeah, that's right, that's right, but
he was found guilty in a civil suit right after
the fact.

Speaker 2 (56:48):
Well, and but the difference with him was the public
knew he was guilty. Come on, dude, the guy.

Speaker 1 (56:54):
Was all right. Thank you guys for listening to legally Brunette.
We appreciate it. And as always I appreciate when you, guys,
DM you tell us how much you like it, you
give me feedback, feedback, suggestions on cases that you find interesting. Actually,
I'm reading the book on the Memphis three because someone
had suggested that to me, and I feel like that's

(57:14):
another case we should talk about. At some point. So
thank you for all of the feedback. We truly appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
Thank you