Legally Brunette: Updates on Blake Lively, Gabby Petito, Scott Peterson & Karen Read

This week, we’re giving you updates on some of our favorite cases. From the subpoena that Blake Lively sent to the new evidence we’re seeing at Karen Read’s retrial, we’re breaking it all down on a legal level. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host Emily Simpson with my legal sidekick Shane,
Just Shane. I was super excited about this episode today
because we actually, I mean, we always have a lot
of things to talk about, but today I want to
pack in as much as we possibly can. So we
have a few updates, just some little things to add
on the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni case. Also there's a

(00:25):
little bit more on Gabby Patito, which we've done an
episode on, and then we will get into a little
bit more about Karen Reid, some of the things that
we didn't get into in our first trial, and then
also get into her retrial. So first of all, let's
start off with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. If you
don't know a lot about this case, we did some

(00:47):
earlier episodes on this and I think they were pretty good.
I read all of the legal documents that were filed,
and we did a pretty intense deep dive into it.
And so if you don't know a lot about it,
I would suggest going back and listening to those episodes.
But do you recall when we were going through Justin
Baldoni and the Blake Lively case. One of the first
things I said was when she filed that original complaint,

(01:10):
her civil rights complaint with the Civil Rights Department, she
had attached all of these screenshots of text messages that
she was not a part of. They were text messages
between Justin Baldoni, his PR person Jen Abel, and then
his crisis PR person Melissa Nathan And I do you
remember me saying, I was like, I don't know how

(01:31):
they got those text messages, but it looks shady to me. Yeah,
So the mystery on how they got all those private
text messages has been solved. It was actually, well.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Wait a minute, because it's important to know because they
could have gotten it by asking someone could have this
able lady could have just given it, right, But you're saying,
how did they legally obtain it to be able to
use it in court or for a dB published with
The New York Time or something like that. So you
have to explain that it's not just a matter of
someone gave it to me because they were private messages, right, Yeah,

(02:06):
so it had to be lawfully obtained.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
Right, And the way that they circumvented that in a
lawful and I say lawful and quotes is. First of all,
in order to issue a subpoena and to have subpoena power,
you have to have an active case with a case number.
So what they did was she filed a lawsuit and
this actually comes from this was an article with the

(02:30):
Daily Mail. It was actually a Daily Mail reporter. I
believe that was the one that actually kind of solved
this mystery as to where the subpoena came from, because
I do recall and I even talked about this in
the original complaint that she filed her civil rights complaint.
I believe there was an asterisk down at the bottom
that said something to the effect of the text messages
were obtained by subpoena, but the subpoena was never attached,

(02:54):
so I couldn't figure out what subpoena house.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
It was kind of like a dead end. It was like,
the subpoena for what case? For what reason? Right? And
why would it be referenced? Why wouldn't it be required
to be referenced.

Speaker 1 (03:07):
I don't know, but I just remember thinking that looks
shady to me. So apparently what she did in order
to obtain these private text messages, and let's just go
back a little bit.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
She obtained them. We assumed she obtained them on our own, Yeah,
and then she had to go backwards right and try
to make it make a lawful manner in which she
had rights to them.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Because if you remember, or you recall, or you listen
to one of our earlier podcasts on this case, or
maybe you read it, this all comes down to a
lot of PR people that are involved in this. And
jen Abel was Wayfairer's PR person, and she worked for
Justin Baldoni and did his publicist type of things. She
also worked for Stephanie Jones for Jones works. Those two

(03:52):
parted ways, and when they parted ways, Stephanie Jones confiscated
jen Abel's cell phone and she did it in a
way according to what Justin Baldoni filed. She did it
in a way where it was like, come meet us
at the office, and then she met and then there
was a security guard and they wanted her to sign
a bunch of documents and apparently her cell phone was

(04:13):
confiscated under duress my assumption, which I'm probably right, because
it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Stephanie
Jones confiscates the cell phone, reads all the text messages.
She and jen Abel are parting ways because jen Abel
is going to go start her own publicity firm. There's
some bad blood between the two of them. And then

(04:34):
Stephanie Jones hands over all these private text messages to
Blake Lively, Blake Lively's team. So I would guess, and
I'm probably right, because it just makes sense that they
had the text messages prior to their ever being any
subpoena or any lawsuit filed. They just got them, read them,
and she got pissed about it, right, And she also

(04:56):
at this time.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
So it's like she was snooping around other people's phones, right,
being talked about her or whatever, and then she doesn't
like them, and now she wants to do something about it.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Right, So I would assume, and this is a legend
because I don't know this as fact, but I would
assume she takes all these text messages that have to
do with Blake and then it ends with us and
all all of that scenario, and she sends them all
to Blake's team, who is Leslie Sloane, and Blake sees
them and her team reads them. And also you have
to remember during this time period, Blake Lively's reputation was

(05:31):
just going down. That was right down, because this was
when the movie was premiering and she was she was
out promoting the movie, but she was doing it in
a very flippant way. Remember in the Publisher.

Speaker 2 (05:45):
She she has this campaign for this or pushing this movie,
doing a bad job for a number of reasons, her
probably likeabilities going down or approval rating. Right, he's going down.
And then now she's trying to figure out what to do,
and so she's snooping around and she looks into text
messages about her then involved Baldoni, and then now she's

(06:08):
trying to smear him to save her face.

Speaker 1 (06:12):
Well that's the way it looks to me. And all
this is alleged because I don't know this as facts,
but based upon from an outside view, it looks as
if she got ahold of these text messages and it
was a way to spin the story so that it
took the focus off of her having a bad reputation,
because if you remember, the movie was about domestic violence,
but she was never addressing the domestic of violence about

(06:34):
the movie. She was out promoting her hair care line
and her booze line, and she was saying, where are
your florals? And she was making it very you know,
she wasn't taking it seriously. Her reputation started to plummet.
People were talking negatively about.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
Her seriously though, because wasn't this she wanted to tried
to do a hostile takeover the movie, and now she's
not taking it seriously.

Speaker 1 (06:56):
I don't know. I don't know why the marketing plan
was the way it was. I don't know if that
was at her direction, I don't know if it was
at the movies Sony who was the you know, movie studio,
I don't know. But anyway, her reputation, we know, her
reputation was plumiting, and there were a lot of articles
out there that we're talking about how you know, and
then there were a lot of videos that were resurfacing

(07:16):
that were showing her being really rude to reporters and
talking about how she takes over. I mean, she just
didn't look good. So I think she got ahold of
these text messages. She found a way to spend the
narrative to make it look like the reason she looked
bad was because justin Baldoni and his PR team were
out there planting these fake stories and you know, creating this,

(07:37):
you know, conspiracy against her. But they have the text messages.
Now what do they do? They want to use them,
They want to file against him. She wants to file
a civil complaint, and she colludes with The New York Times,
and she has these text messages. But in order to
lawfully have these text messages, she has to go back retroactively.

Speaker 2 (07:55):
And she needs them lawfully. Well, New York Times wanted
them lawfully. They want invase in a privacy or something. Right,
So for probably for The New York Times to publish it,
they're saying, well, how did you obtain these right? And
then she say, in this legal manner.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
The asterisk it says right. So so this Daily Mail
reporter did some digging and found out that Blake Lively
has an LLC or something called van Zan. So, I
don't know, it's just just some ELLC. It's it was.
I think she used it to buy some furniture in
Europe or something. I mean, she'd never really done anything

(08:33):
with it. Apparently, the lawsuit was filed under the name
of a company called van Zan and was intentionally vague
and didn't name any defendants, so they filed. So van
Zan is the plaintiff they file against ten Jane does,
which means which means named unknown defendants. I looked at
the cause of actions. It was some things like breach

(08:53):
of contract and things like that, but it was all
very vague. So this maneuver enabled Lively's legal team to
issue subpoena for the private communications.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
And then this poena was issued to who.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
This I believe the subpoena. Well, see they Daily Mail
says they have the subpoena, but they won't show it.

Speaker 2 (09:09):
Well, what would make sense, Like who do you think
it was?

Speaker 1 (09:11):
Well, I believe it was issued to Stephanie Jones because
she confiscated the work phone from gen Able came from,
because that's where it came from. All these messages came from.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
Jenable basically say like, what's an example paraphrasing, Well, we.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
Talked about this before, and it's also in the New
York Times.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
I didn't pay attention last nime.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
Clearly you didn't. It has to do with them having
communications about what they're going to do as far as
pr and making Blake Lively look a certain way. And
getting stories out there and meeting with Daily Mail, and
remember in the New York Times, they kind of remember
the attorney Brian Friedman, who represents Baldoni, talks about how
they cherry picked certain text messages to make it look

(09:52):
like it was a smear campaign, but they didn't really
show the full context of the messages. So anyway, they
filed this sham law suit under a company called van Zaan.
They named these unknown defendants. They say it's for breach
of contract, so they get a case number. They use
the case number to issue a subpoena. I assume the
subpoena went to Stephanie Jones because she then why.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
Would Sephanie like, if you got a subpoena that just
said van Zam versus John James, give me all your
text messages.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
Because Stephanie Jones already gave them the text messages.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
Oh that's right, Okay, now she's a question.

Speaker 1 (10:24):
Yeah, so now she just and that's alleged again. I
don't know that.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
I don't know. We're trying to put pieces together.

Speaker 1 (10:30):
What makes what makes logical sense is that Stephanie Jones
confiscated the phone, read the text messages, gave them to
Blake Lively's team.

Speaker 2 (10:39):
Okay, my question is if they issued a subpoena or
they they could issue a subpoena, they drafted one, and
then they supposed assuming your version of the facts or
what took place, right, because I know we're just guessing.
But then she issues it to Stephanie Yeah, Stephanie Yeah.
But then we could ask Stephanie did you get the subpoena?
Was it ever served on you? And then she says

(11:01):
no or yes? And if it's no, then it's like, well,
then how did they get the text message? And if
the answer is yes, I did get a subpoena, then
it's like, oh, did you follow through and give the
text messages? And she says no again, then it's like, well,
then how did they get to text messages? We needed
these answers?

Speaker 1 (11:19):
Yeah, I would say, all I know is I think
it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that they
already had the text messages. They wanted to use them
and their initial filing, and they wanted to be able
to give them to The New York Times right because
they wanted to collude together to demolish his character, and
they knew they could do that with the text messages.
So they come up with a sham scam lawsuit. They

(11:40):
get a case number, they issue it to Stephanie Jones
and she's like, Okay, here's the subpoena. I have it,
So I gave So I gave away these private text
messages legally.

Speaker 2 (11:49):
Oh that's right, because I keep forgetting off. Stephanie's on
her side.

Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yes. Otherwise, if they send them to jen Abel who represents,
that's what I'll donate.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
That's what that's the party I had mixed up, right.

Speaker 1 (11:59):
This is why it's a scam lawsuit, because if they
had issued the subpoena to jen Able or to Justin
Baldoni to get his private text messages, his attorney would
have jumped in immediately and squashed it and said, these
are private communications. It's too broad, you're asking for too much.
He would have had objection.

Speaker 2 (12:20):
That the receiving end of the subpoena was also in collusion.

Speaker 1 (12:25):
With Yes, that's what the Lively reynolds exactly right. So
there we are. I hope you could follow that. I
know it was a little complicated, but basically what it
was was just a scam way to get a subpoena
issued retroactively.

Speaker 2 (12:39):
Should have been called Van Scam.

Speaker 1 (12:41):
Van Scam should have been the LLC. Also, let me
just give a little timing because this is suspect too.
The lawsuit, the Van Zaan lawsuit was filed in September.
If you remember, there were also a lot of online

(13:02):
sluice during this time when this whole lawsuit came out
that said that The New York Times that they had
some data embedded that said it looked like they started
working on the story in October, which would make sense
with the timeline. And then she filed in December. When
she filed her original suit against Baldoni, the subpoena. Four

(13:23):
days after the suit was filed, a subpoena was sent
to Stephanie Jones. So four days after the van zan
suit was filed, they sent a subpoena to Stephanie Jones.
Stephanie Jones right. Also, the suit, the scam suit was
dismissed the day after or it was withdrawn, not dismissed.

(13:44):
Dismissed would be by the court. It was withdrawn by
her attorneys like.

Speaker 2 (13:47):
Okay, we're done with the suit. Well, we wanted.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
Right Her attorneys withdraw it after she files the complaint
against Baldoni. So she files the complaint, then they withdraw
this scam.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Suit, and then New York Times posted what they posed
it right.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
So there we are with that. I hope you could
all follow that.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Dan a lot of time on their hands, I guess,
so team to do all this about.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
Donty's attorney, who we all know is Brian Friedman, labeled
the tactic an abusive process and says that they are
preparing to respond accordingly. Here's my question though. When I
first read the complaint and saw the asterisk that said
there was a subpoena, I wondered why Brian Friedman didn't
initially go after the subpoena. And I thought about it

(14:29):
for a while, and my thought process led me to
what he did was so much better. Instead of attacking
the validity of the subpoena and how they got the
text messages, which would possibly make Justin look guilty that
he's like, hey, hey, don't show those, right, he just
went and filed a four hundred million dollars lawsuit against

(14:50):
The New York Times and included all of the texts.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Instead of being defensive the content or the access to
the text messages. In fact, that would have been more
might have been confusing to the public, right because they
would have been like, Oh, he's denying or he's saying
that she shouldn't have the text messages. So he did
talk crap about her. I want her to see it,
and that's confusing or that takes away from the trying

(15:15):
to smash her.

Speaker 1 (15:17):
I've always said Brian Friedman is an amazing attorney, and
if I ever get in trouble legally, he will be
the first person I call. But I thought that that
was I don't I'm not going to call Shane, I'm
going to call Brian Friedman or Alan Jackson Brian Friedman first.
But I thought it was just a really good legal
tactic on his end that he didn't attack the subpoena

(15:38):
right from the beginning, and he didn't go after them
because he knew. If I know, if I read it,
and I'm like, how'd they get the subpoena? This is
this is a joke. Clearly, Brian Friedman knew that from
the beginning too. The man's a genius.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
If there's a legal reference to another lawsuit in that
petition or whatever, complaint, he's going to look in Well.

Speaker 1 (15:57):
There's no reference to another lawsuit. There's just a referen
to a subpoena.

Speaker 2 (16:01):
Yeawsuit.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
Right, So I'm just saying, well, I'm just saying he
clearly knew, but he didn't attack the validity of it,
and he didn't go after her in that manner. He
just sued The New York Times and her for four
hundred million and included all of the text messages, which
really worked in his favor because once the public got
a hold of those legal documents and read everything that

(16:23):
was included, that's when everything shifted. Anyway, let's move on.
Oh wait, one more thing on Blake Lively. I don't
know if you've noticed, but she is in the press
a lot lately.

Speaker 2 (16:34):
Well, she was like the top one hundred influences, yes, something.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
Which was ridiculous because she also then gave some speech
in honor of her mother, and I think she had
something to do with her mom being like a domestic
violence abuse survivor or something, and I was like, lady,
a little too late. You had no issue, like you
didn't want to talk about any of these stories when
you were promoting, when you were promoting a movie about
domestic violence. You just wanted to talk about florals and

(16:59):
your your booze brand and your hair care products. But
now that your reputation has been like completely plummeted, now.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
All of a sudden, it's like, oh, yeah, did I
mention my mom was abused?

Speaker 3 (17:10):
Right?

Speaker 1 (17:10):
I mean, give me a break. Also, I think her
pr turn team is just working overtime right now, because
all of a sudden, there are all these articles. I
saw an article about her own people, an article on
Okay magazine. Now she's in the Time one hundred list.
I mean they are out there like doing everything.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Possible, work hard to defend her character, right until she
stops paying them. Then they don't care.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
Then they don't care. All right, let's move on to
a little bit about Gabby Patito. I thought this was interesting.
We also did a.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
What's the next step in the Lively Baldoni case? We
have to look forward?

Speaker 1 (17:42):
Well, they have well, they're going to start issuing, They're
going to do discovery and you you bet your butt
you think Brian Freeman is gonna he's definitely gonna subpoena.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
Yeah, you want to see a subpoena subpoena.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
I'm going to send it to Taylor Swift. You know
he's going to you know, Taylor Swift. So anyway, I
also read this morning that Travis Kelcey apparently unfollowed Ryan
Reynolds on Instagram. So definitely there is some bad blood.
Now we got bad blood. That's a Taylor Swift song.
You didn't know that anyway, Okay, on the game, Okay,

(18:19):
onto Gabby Patito. We also did an episode on Gabby Patito.
If you want to go back and listen to that.

Speaker 2 (18:25):
I thought that was my case one.

Speaker 1 (18:27):
Gabby Patito is the young girl that went on the
road trip with the boyfriend and then remember they got
they got pulled over in Utah by the Moab City
police and then she ended up being found dead. Remember
he returned to Florida. His parents were uncooperative. They wouldn't
work with the police or answer any questions. Her body
was found in a national park or something, and then

(18:47):
he ended up being found dead in Florida. So in
an in a recent interview on The Squeeze podcast, which
is hosted by Taylor Lautner, I don't know if you
know who Taylor Lautner is, but I do because I
was a huge Twilight fan. He is the werewolf, he
is Jacob. So he has a podcast with his wife.
So Nicole Schmidt is the mother.

Speaker 2 (19:10):
Taylor swift Woods.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
I don't remember, I think so it was like Taylor
And that's interesting. Well, his wife's name was Taylor.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Does how many songs written about him? About him?

Speaker 1 (19:21):
I don't know. Maybe probably anyway, So Gabby Petito, her
mom's name is Nicole Schmidt, and she went on the podcast.
She revealed some unsettling details about the events following her
daughter's disappearance in twenty twenty one. This is a was
all new information to me because I did watch the
documentary and we did an episode on it. But this
was not something that was ever revealed previously. This was

(19:43):
in a People article. The mom of Gabby Petito stated
that Brian Laundry's room was completely gutted and renovated shortly
after he vanished. She claims that very same week Gabby
went missing, the cops were going to their house to
try to get a scent from their dogs to look
for Brian. All his things were gone. His room was
completely empty. It was just gone. That wasn't something that

(20:04):
I knew before, and I was wondering, what do you
think about that? That's when he left, apparently to go
hiking somewhere in Florida. And remember the cops were looking
in this reservoir area or something forever. They were looking
for a long time, weeks they couldn't find him. Then
his parents pull up in their car and they literally
just walked to where he and they find him within

(20:24):
like five minutes or something, which always seemed very suspicious
to me, But now a court after the mom did
this interview, she learned that apparently Brian's room was completely
gutted and renovated before they found him. So my question is,
do you think the parents knew that he was dead?
Do you think they knew that he was going to

(20:46):
kill himself? Do you think they or do you think
they thought he was going to go on the run
and then they were just going to pretend like he
disappeared and they renovated his room or do you think
they were trying to get rid of DNA evidence so
they just got rid of everything in his room.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
I think I know as a father, if I always
thought if one of my kids was missing and suspect
in a murder case. I would cut the room, oh
you would, yeah, and turn it into a game room.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
A game room. Okay, so this makes sense, I get it. Yeah, okay,
what kind of games would you have?

Speaker 2 (21:21):
No, they're in on it. They're murderers. They probably killed him.
Well I don't know. I don't think it. Might have
might have killed him. And then said here he is,
we found him. Look at the suicide note with her
suicide note.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
Yeah there was, yeah, there was, and apparently he But
then there was also something he wrote in the journal
about somehow or he.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
Was going to kill himself and they knew and they'd
let him do it.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
I don't know, though. His mom was so in love
with him. Did you remember that letter that she wrote
to him about wherever the body is buried all helped
dig the hole. And I mean she wrote him like
this long love letter about how much she loved him
and everything she would do for him, and she would
bring a knife into jail and a cake.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
So sounds like a complex.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
Yeah, So anyway, there was all that. Additionally, Gabby anything, no,
and you know what I have.

Speaker 2 (22:08):
Had the obstruction of justice.

Speaker 1 (22:09):
Nothing I mean at this point, no.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Bad parents, just bad parents.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
Just not being morally sound people. But apparently that's not
a legal action. But you know, I've had so many
people DM me after our Gabby Patito case, and that
was the main question was why were his parents not
charged with anything? And I guess, I mean, when we
look at it, it looks like obstruction of justice or

(22:37):
aiding in a bedding or something like that. But I
don't know, maybe there just weren't enough solid facts there
to be able to charge them with anything. At the
end of the day, you can charge them with just
being shitty people, But as far as from a legal standpoint,
I guess they just didn't have enough to be able
to charge them with anything.

Speaker 2 (22:54):
Right.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Additionally, Gabby Patito's mom mentioned that the van the couple
used for their cross country trip completely cleaned out, with
Gabby's belongings packed away and the mattress never recovered. She
expressed some confusion and concern over what she described as
strange behavior during that time. So again, that's what we
were just talking about. Were the parents involved in that?
Were they the ones that cleaned out the van? Did

(23:15):
they get rid of the mattress?

Speaker 2 (23:16):
I mean, if they did, it's really suspicious. It's like
oh what son? Your girlfriend is missing? Okay, let's scrub
everything and get rid of everything, right, I mean that
doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
Well it does if you're trying to hide his involvement. Yeah,
so I don't know. I think the suspicious thing to me.

Speaker 2 (23:37):
Wait, conspiracy, But I guess there's no evidence for anything.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
I guess not unless they're working on it and they're
going to get charged with something later down the line.
But I don't know. So far, there's no charges as
far as aiding in a bedding or obstruction of justice.
All right, let us just move on from Gabby Patito.
And first of all, I have to do a disclaimer.
Whenever I talk about Scott Peterson, can you not attack me?

(24:03):
I know everyone hates Scott Peterson. Everyone is one hundred
percent certain that the man is guilty. Anytime I've brought
up talking about him or doing a podcast because the
La Innocence Project has taken on his case, everyone goes
nuts in my comments and in my DMS, telling me
he's one hundred percent guilty. So let's just get through

(24:25):
this with an open mind.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
We're going to imagine. What we're going to discuss is
them taking on his case. And what they're trying to demonstrate.
We're not trying to take a side.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
Right and also we're not going to well everyone thinks
he did. I don't know. I haven't read the filing yet,
but I'm just going to tell you. We're just going
to do a little synopsis right now and then I've
the filing is coming to me. It's a four hundred
page filing that the Ennocence Project filed basically saying that

(25:00):
he's innocent and they have all this evidence and things.
So I haven't read it yet. I'm going to read
it and then we're going to do a deeper dive
podcast on it. But for right now, after more than
a year of independent investigation, the Los Angeles Innocence Project
has submitted an extensive petition to the California Court of
Appeals arguing that Scott Peterson is innocent of the two

(25:21):
thousand and two murders of his wife, Lacey and their
unborn son. It is nearly a four hundred page filing,
which again I planned to read. It was submitted on Friday,
April eighteenth, and claims that Peterson's original trial was flawed,
asserting that key evidence was never presented to the jury
and that the investigation was mishandled by authorities. The La

(25:42):
Innocence Project director, her name is Paula Mitchell, believes police
press releases included information indicating to the public that police
did not believe mister Peterson's alibi almost from day one,
and this created a domino effect that ultimately created a
tidal wave of media attention focused on mister Peterson as
the prime suspect in the case. I will tell you

(26:05):
there are two documentaries out there that I've watched recently,
and I will say, if you're interested in the Scott
Peterson case and you want to have an open mind,
and you're just not one hundred percent convinced that the
man is guilt, Listen, He's guilty if you're convinced. Even
if you are convinced, but let's be clear, he is
one hundred percent guilty of being a shitty human. There
is no doubt about that. He had an affair. His

(26:26):
wife was pregnant. He was messing around with what's her name, Amber, He.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Went fishing on Christmas Eve.

Speaker 1 (26:31):
He went fishing on Christmas Eve. He in his interviews,
he's not likable. He's not likable at all, he doesn't
show any emotion. He never looked like he was likable
to Amber or whatever. Well, I mean he was likable
in other ways, but I'm saying in interviews and things
like that, he's not the least bit.

Speaker 2 (26:49):
There's well, no one's going to be likable when their
their wife is dead, their pregnant wife is dead. And
he looks suspicious and he's just sitting there going, I
didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it.
I mean he would, he didn't. I don't remember him
crying right bad. I think he sold her car to
or something like that. It was just like, what are
you doing?

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Yeah? I mean, I mean beyond the likability. It's even
when you watch video clips of when they were out
searching and he's there, he just kind of like, oh, well.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
Wasn't there a what do you call those things where
everyone holds candles like a vigil? Yeah, and he was
like not there or something. And then he was calling
or he maybe he was, but he was also calling
his girlfriend and saying he was in Paris on celebrating.
What is this?

Speaker 1 (27:39):
I'm not okay. The guy is a doucher. There's no
doubt about that, but let's that's not.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
Maybe there's you know, there's an assumption of risk. If
you go to a trampoline park, you assume the risk
of getting injured. May it is an assumption of risk
when you cheat on your pregnant wife and you go
fishing on Christmas Eve. You're just going to get cinder
blocks that you're building in your backyard or whatever it
was he was doing.

Speaker 3 (28:02):
It was actually in a boat house, so you know,
and he's like, well, you know what, you didn't do it,
but you assume the resk that you would look like
a murderer in the event that she found She was
found dead.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
So the La Nison's Project argues that there's new scientific
analysis suggests that the unborn child was actually died later
than prosecutors claimed a trial, and an expert on water
currents contends that Lacy Peterson's body could not have been
dumped in the location the prosecutors originally alleged. Let me
tell you there is a documentary on Peacock and it's

(28:35):
called Face to Face with Scott Peterson. If you watch it,
I believe that you'll be a little more open minded
about it. So I would suggest doing that there's also
a good A and E one called.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
The Minded towards the Evidence. Yeah, like, oh, that's kind
of unclear, right.

Speaker 1 (28:51):
The petition and the Scott Peterson case also introduces new
witnesses and evidence tied to two separate incidents that occurred
near the time of Lacey's dissip appearance, including a home
burglary and a suspiciously burned van in a nearby area. Okay,
those are I did watch this the documentary, and I'll
tell you it was very suspicious to me. First of all,
there were witnesses that saw Lacy Peterson out with her

(29:15):
dog walking, and the times that they saw her were
the times that supposedly she had already been kidnapped, So
there is a very there's a clear inconsistency there. Also,
there's this van that's found nearby with a mattress in
it that has blood on it and it was never tested,
Like why was there not DNA tested? Also, there's a

(29:35):
by hired hired.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
Who the people in the van?

Speaker 1 (29:41):
You're saying Scott Peterson hired people in a van to
burn the van and have a you mean to kidnapp her?

Speaker 2 (29:47):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (29:48):
You think now? You think he hired somebody to kid
you are stuck on it.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
That's a possibility. Maybe you know people hire people to
kill others. It's a service.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
Have you looked into it?

Speaker 3 (29:58):
No?

Speaker 1 (29:59):
Are you sure?

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Okay, all right, you can look at my Google search.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
I'm going to I'm going to do a forensic accounting
on your phone and see what your Google searches are.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
It'll be how to block revolve dot com from my wife.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
Okay, well that would make sense.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
Yes, I hope it's not.

Speaker 1 (30:20):
How to hire people to murder in a van?

Speaker 2 (30:24):
How long can the bodies arrive in the snow? Exactly?

Speaker 1 (30:27):
So. There was a mattress found in that van that
had blood stains, but a judge previously denied permission to
test it for Lacy's DNA. Prosecutors said mail DNA was
already detected and no further testing was needed. However, the
Innocence Project continues to push for more advanced DNA testing
and hopes of finding a potential link to the case.
There is also in this four hundred page up filing,

(30:49):
there's also one hundred and twenty six page declaration from
Scott Peterson, who did not testify during his trial, in
which he maintains his innocence and says he was wrongfully
convicted of murder. Again. I can't wait to read it.
That's how big of a wal nerd I am that. Like,
I'm excited about reading this four hundred page filing and
the Scott Peterson case and discussing it with you guys
on a later podcast.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
You know what, I'm not excited about having to print
four hundred for you.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, you know you're gonna have to because I like it.
I'm old school. I like it printed out. I have
to like read it and take notes and use a
highlighter and the whole thing. So also, just a reminder,
do you remember that Mark Garrigos was Scott Peterson's attorney.
I just thought i'd throw that out. Yeah, And also
Gargos represents the Menindo's brothers.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
A small world. It is a community, it is.

Speaker 1 (31:36):
It is a very small world. In that community. A
lot of these attorneys overlap. So anyway, I'm just a
reminder about that. All right, let's go into Karen Reid.
And the last episode we did was on Karen Reid.

(31:58):
We did a really in depth episode.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Karen Reid is on trial for the homicide of her boyfriend,
John O'Keeffe, who was a Boston police officer. Yeah, correct,
found dead, is found dead in the snow with forty
two pieces of tail light around him.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
Yeah, but the forty two pieces of tailight, it might
have been forty seven. Those didn't show up until a
subsequent subsequent search, until they were planted, not the initial search.
If it was showed up later. Anyway, if you want to,
if you want to listen to our Karen Read episode,
it's really good. We go into in depth on all
the evidence. But I just wanted to add a little
more because that was a long episode. There's so much

(32:38):
to talk about in this case. There's just a couple
other things before we go into the retrial that I
just wanted to discuss. There was here I just want
to tell you about this. This was in the first trial.
So several witnesses who were at Albert's house on January
twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, told investigators that O'Keeffe never
made it inside the house, which we know that is
the biggest issue in this case. Did the man enter

(32:59):
the house or not?

Speaker 2 (33:00):
That would solve well, no, it would answer a lot
of it would answer a lot.

Speaker 1 (33:05):
Of questions anything, it would answer a lot of questions. So, however,
Reed's lawyers say okeefe's phone data suggests otherwise, and in
April twenty twenty three court filing, so this was in
the first hearing, the defense asserted that John O'Keeffe's Apple
health data indicated he took eighty steps and climbed the
equivalent of three flights of stairs at the Fairview Road property.

(33:27):
So the Fairview Roade property is Albert is Brian Albert's
house where he was found in the yard.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
So according to the Apple data, it's as if he
walked and went up a fly the stairs.

Speaker 1 (33:36):
Yes, Now at the house, Brian Albert has a basement
in the house, which we know about because after John
O'Keefe's body was found, the basement carpet was replaced, the
house was sold, and the dog was re homed, so
we know that.

Speaker 2 (33:53):
And all the phones were thrown.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
At all the phones were thrown, there's no ring footage anywhere. Yes,
anyway to call this data unreliable is an understatement. This
is what the prosecutors responded, asserting that those steps were
recorded before O'Keefe's cell phone location data showed him arriving
at the home. Prosecutors further noted that the same Apple

(34:15):
health data indicated O'Keefe took several steps hours after he'd
been pronounced dead. However, the defense attorney claims that that
discrepancy could be chalked up to sloppy policing, and we
know there was a lot of sloppy policing in this case,
and suggested that the steps are just reflected by a
police officer walking around with O'Keefe's phone after the fact,

(34:36):
after he was found dead.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
So anyways, as possible, they killed him and then they
took his phone when they walk around, what do we
do now?

Speaker 1 (34:42):
Well after is right? So exactly? Oh so there's that.
I just wanted to talk a little bit more. This
is according to the first trial about the DNA on
the tail light and the hair on the bumper. I
think we talked about this a little bit in the
last episode, but let's just go through it again because
I find it really interesting. The prosecution alleges that O'Keefe's
DNA was found on broken pieces of tail light from

(35:04):
Reed's car, and that forensic investigation revealed microscopic pieces of
tail light on O'Keeffe's clothing. Here's the thing though, in
the retrial, Alan Jackson claims in his opening statement that
there was no blood, skin, and no DNA found on
the actual shards of tail light that supposedly cut John's arm.
So that's really interesting. So the prosecution claims that there

(35:26):
was DNA from John O'Keefe found on the tail light,
So I guess it's on the actual tail light that's
still on the.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
Car or on the ground, who knows, no, on the
carcase on the car.

Speaker 1 (35:38):
The defense claims, and this is in his opening statement
that he just did in the retrial, that there was
no DNA, no skin, no blood found on any of
the shards of tail light that were found later. So
that's the question.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
This is why this case is so normal. Is there
normally DNA on both the broken pieces on the ground
and the remain remaining part of the tail light on
the car.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
Well, that's a good question, except that if you remember
in the autopsyne you've seen photos of it. I'm sure
his arm, remember his right arm. I think I'll showed
your photos. There's puncture wounds and scratches on his right arm.
So if the prosecution wants to allege that those scratches
and puncture came from shards of tail light as she

(36:27):
was backing into him. Then that would only suggest the
only reasonable conclusion. Conclusion would be right, that there was
a transfer of scanned DNA blood or something onto those shards.
If there is no DNA blood or anything on them,
I find that suspicious, especially with the way his arm looks.
How else do you explain the scratches and the puncture ones.

Speaker 2 (36:49):
It was a pig, wasn't it.

Speaker 1 (36:50):
It wasn't a pig. It was allegedly, or possibly according
to the defense, it could have been the dog.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
Yeah, but it was pig DNA.

Speaker 1 (36:56):
But it was pig dna. There was no dog DNA found.
There was pig DNA.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
Found in those in the area.

Speaker 1 (37:02):
I don't know, but maybe the dog ate some pig
and then bit him.

Speaker 2 (37:06):
But there were scratches.

Speaker 1 (37:08):
There's scratches and puncture wounds.

Speaker 2 (37:11):
All this results too.

Speaker 1 (37:13):
Reasonable, doubt exactly.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
It'd be a lot easier if they just give us
the ring footage and they didn't hide all their cell phones,
and they told the truth, then we'd be done.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Yeah, the proper people, all right, let's get into the retrial.
The retrial just started. We've been following it. I don't
know if you guys have been, but let's start with
Alan Jackson's opening state. First of all, the prosecution hired
I don't know if you knew this, but they brought
in a special prosecutor, so they did not use the

(37:44):
same prosecutor. His name is Hank Brennan, and he was
not involved in the original trial. However, I read that
he represented this mobster name like Whitey Bulger or something.
We've ever heard that name before.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
Yeah, I have not, so I would remember by cross
paths with Whitey Bulger Bulger Bulger.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
I believe he was a mobster. And Hank Brennan, who's
the prosecutor, is now representing the Commonwealth, but he also
represents so anyway, well, my point is they went they
found instead of using the same prosecutor they used last time.
They were like, you're out and we need this guy.
Yeah they should because they didn't win the last trial.

(38:26):
It was a hung jury.

Speaker 2 (38:27):
So anyway, I'm just.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
Saying they went and got some guy that hasn't that's notorious,
that has notoriety. He represented some.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
Yeah, you know, the murder community is a very small.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
Yeah, we talked about this before and the last time
we recorded, Karen Reid that the most reasonable and logical
thing that happened that night is that they were drunk.
She drops him off at the house, and that she
does back.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
Into him, either purposely or accidental.

Speaker 1 (38:53):
I would say accidentally. But that's the most logical thing.

Speaker 2 (38:58):
I don't know. Well, I'm just saying because tails were
not found till like.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
I'm not talking about any of the evidence. I'm just saying, no,
I forget the evidence.

Speaker 2 (39:07):
This is what happened.

Speaker 1 (39:07):
No, forget all the evidence. I'm saying, if you just
look at it.

Speaker 2 (39:11):
Yes, that's a good opening statement. Yes, please disregard all
the evidence and the logical conclusion.

Speaker 1 (39:17):
No, I'm saying, if you just look at the story
from a very from just an outsider, and you're like, Okay,
they went to a bar, they got drunk, they're driving drunk.
She drops them off outside this house, and then his
body's found in the snow and he's dead and he's
got abrasions all over him. The logical conclusion is that

(39:37):
she hit him or someone hit him.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
Well, yeah, a logical conclusion that someone hit him. That's correct,
very good.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
No, I'm saying that's the logical reasonable conclusion that she
hit him, as opposed to he went inside the house,
he got beat up in the house, the dog attacked him,
and there's a whole conspiracy.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
So you're saying he died right there on the lawn
or where I'm.

Speaker 1 (39:56):
Just saying that is a reasonable conclusion. Is that she
hit him, or that a snowplow hit him, or that
another car hit him. However, that does not that reasonable
conclusion does not stay reasonable when you start to dive
into the way these busy bees were working that night. Yeah, well,

(40:16):
you're talking about the cops butt dialing each other at
two twenty two in the morning, and you're talking about
how Brian Albert never came out of his house when
there's a dead there's a dead police officer on his
lawn with paramedics cops everywhere, and he never comes outside
to investigate that. Brian Higgins, the ATF agent that was
there that night at two, at like two point thirty
in the morning, goes back to his office at the

(40:38):
Canton Police Department and then calls Brian Albert, and then
Brian Albert calls him, and then it's just there's a
lot of like shady things going on.

Speaker 2 (40:48):
That's great.

Speaker 1 (40:49):
So I'm saying there is so much reasonable doubt in
this case that I honestly can't believe they tried her again.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
THO surprices a dead person on his lawn. But they're
all shady people.

Speaker 1 (40:58):
There's a lot of shady stuff going on. Anyway. The
prosecutor hammers down on the fact that one of the
paramedics who just testified recently and this retrial, claims that
he heard Reid say I hit him, I hit him,
I hit him three times. Also, Brennan, the prosecutor, argued
that there is a black box data from the vehicle

(41:22):
revealing details that were not brought up in the initial trial,
and he claims that Reid had shifted her lexus into neutral,
then reversed, and then pressed the gas pedal to seventy
five percent acceleration. So the prosecution elosion.

Speaker 2 (41:36):
Why would she say I hit him, I hit him,
I hit him, Like under what context was that?

Speaker 1 (41:41):
Well, I don't I don't believe that. We'll get into
that just a little bit. I hate him, yeah, because
she did call him a perfect.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
Now I'm involved in this murder.

Speaker 1 (41:49):
I so Alan Jackson is the defense attorney. He also
represented her in the first trial. He actually has a
would hire yes, Alan Jackson, Brian Friedman. Man there at
the top of my list. Am I if I'm in
legal trouble, you guys better watch out, because I'm gonna
call Alan Jacks. I'm gonna call Brian Friedman. I'm gonna
take everybody down.

Speaker 2 (42:10):
Don't call me.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
I'm not calling you Alan Jackson. Actually, and I thought
this was smart. He has a beard in this trial,
so the footage from this trial doesn't get mixed up
with the footage or something.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
I think he has a two pay, He's got something,
and his hair is looking a little.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
He has nice hair. Why because it's good, because he
has good hair.

Speaker 2 (42:26):
It's just you know, it's it's not he's dying it.
He's doing something to it. And that's what I noticed.
And as if I was on the juror, it would
be really hard to look away because.

Speaker 1 (42:38):
You just noticed that he possibly has a two pay.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
Well, he has something going on with his hair.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
I thought he was a nice looking man. That's all
I saw.

Speaker 2 (42:47):
It was a nice man.

Speaker 1 (42:47):
I'm sure a nice looking man, all right. He began
his argument by assuring the jury that the evidence would
clearly demonstrate that there was no collision with John O'Keeffe.
He states, John O'Keeffe did not die as a result
of being struck by a vehicle. The facts, evidence, data,
and scientific analysis will confirm this, as will the expert testimony.

(43:08):
Jackson went on to accuse the investigation into O'Keeffe's death
of being tainted by bias, incompetence, and dishonesty. He specifically
criticized the former Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor, who
was the lead investigator, calling him a cancer in the
case for failing to properly investigate. Michael Proctor was fired
after the first trial, obviously because of the way he

(43:31):
handled the case. It was clear that he was incompetent
and he was biased. We could we could talk, We
could do a whole episode just on Michael Proctor. Probably
mall security. No, he's going to be the security at
our gate. That's how they go. Yeah, at Ocean Ranch.

Speaker 2 (43:52):
Good. Then if there's an issue, he can cover it
up for us. Yes, yes, they don't investigate that crap.
That's not our looking at.

Speaker 1 (43:59):
It exactly, cover all right, so also in his opening statement,
Alan Jackson goes on to say, you'll see during this
trial that he deliberately fabricated evidence. He lied in reports
on warrants, and even under oath, he lied about the
time he secured Karen Read's vehicle. Why because he didn't
want it known that he had access to that vehicle
and the tail light before fragments were discovered at thirty

(44:20):
four Fairview. When John's body was initially found. There are
forty seven pieces of red tail light that were not found.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
That's a lot of tail light. No, That's why I
said it was odd to me, sounds like a hammer
smashed a tail light.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
I know.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
See I can't get past not his hand or his
head or whatever. Right, someone put it on the tail
was went smash.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
Because clearly I'm not a collision re constructionist. However, when
I think about an SUV backing into a male body,
I don't feel I can't picture the taillight exploding into
that many pieces with it. It's a Lexus suv. Yeah,

(45:04):
I know, I just don't see that. And the fact
that these pieces showed up later, not during the initial
search when they first find John O'Keeffe's body. They don't
find any of these tail light pieces, even though they're
red and it's snowing out.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
They find them the scene, they're looking for stuff. They
don't see all the red tail lights.

Speaker 1 (45:24):
Right. So, Also, here's one of the key things that
I think is going to come out that he alludes
to in his opening statement. I think they're really going
to focus on the hypothermia. The medical examiner and the
first case in the first trial basically says that he
died from blot force trauma to the head, but also hypothermia.

(45:50):
I think the defense because they're going to have an expert,
expert pathologist or someone is an expert on hypothermia come
in and testify, because when John o'keep's body was found,
there was no frostbite, there was no cold limbs, there
was no cold induced injuries to his.

Speaker 2 (46:07):
Organ should there have been by that time.

Speaker 1 (46:09):
Well, based upon the prosecution's timeline, if she hit him
when she dropped him off at the house at twelve
thirty and his body wasn't found until six thirty am,
that's six hours that his body would have been in
twenty twenty four degree blizzard snow weather. So hypothermia would

(46:29):
have set in. I read that hypothermia sets in when
the body starts to be ninety five degrees or less. So,
if the body laid there for six hours, like the
prosecution claims.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
I would, ninety five degrees is hypothermia.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
Yeah, sure, yeah, look it up. That's when hypothermia starts
to set in.

Speaker 2 (46:49):
Ok.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
When the body drops down to ninety five degrees, then
that's when it starts. That's what I read. If I'm wrong,
please send me a dam and tell me I'm wrong.
But I did google it.

Speaker 2 (46:58):
I'll send you a dam.

Speaker 1 (46:59):
Okay, thank you. So I think that is going to
be a big point of contention or something that the
defense really pushes. They're going to have experts to come
in and talk about how the body did not have
the type of hypothermia that it should if it had
laid in the snow for six hours, if she hit
him at twelve thirty in the morning.

Speaker 2 (47:17):
At twenty four miles an hour, if.

Speaker 1 (47:19):
He was brought out and drug out into the lawn
before he was found at six am, then the temperature
of his body would make more sense because there was
no frost bite, there was no frozen limbs, so I
think that is something that the defense is really going
to going to push right. Also, Alan Jackson brings up

(47:41):
in his opening statement that there was unknown male DNA
from five different sources found on John O'Keefe's shoe, shoe
on his shoe because his shoe was found his shoe,
one of his shoes was missing, and then his shoe
was found at the scene.

Speaker 2 (47:57):
So he had one shoe on and one shoe on,
shoe on and one shoe was the off shoe located.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
I don't remember exactly, but I think it was in
the vicinity of his body somewhere.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
I don't know if I guess if he got hit
by a car and his shoe flew off.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
Well, that's what the prosecution claims like when they talk
about the reconstruction of how she hit him and his
injuries and everything. They talk about how a shoe coming
off is common when you get hit by a car
whose DNA was Well, it's five unidentified males.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
But why don't they take the DNA of all the
people at the party and see see.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
That is my question is why did they not do
that or are they going.

Speaker 2 (48:34):
To do that? How many male DNA specimens do you
have on your shoe?

Speaker 1 (48:40):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (48:41):
I mean, what's normal? What's a normal amount of male
on your shoe?

Speaker 1 (48:47):
Well, why it's unknown on the other shoe, I don't know.
I only know about the one shoe.

Speaker 2 (48:51):
All I know is to look at the other shoe
because if the other shoe has five, yeah, then that
doesn't answer any questions. Why does it matter to be normal?
But if it's only on one, then it's like, well,
who was playing with the shoe?

Speaker 1 (49:03):
Okay, here here was my question. And I asked my friend.
That's who is a Who is a DNA expert?

Speaker 2 (49:10):
I said, expert?

Speaker 1 (49:12):
I do? I do. He's a police officer for a
long time, then he works wide and then he works DNA.
Now he teaches forensics.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
Is he in the Boston Police Department.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
No, he's not. He's in Ohio. But anyway, so.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
He's not crooked.

Speaker 1 (49:21):
No, I asked him. I asked, I was confused as
to why it's unknown, And he said, what they do
is when they find the male DNA, they put it
into CODIS. Do you know what CODIS stands for?

Speaker 2 (49:32):
No, but it's it's the national database of people that
are on the grid. Like if you get take your DNA.
If you get arrested, they take your DNA, right if
you're connected of a crime or things like that, and
then they just hold on to it and then it
can be a match.

Speaker 1 (49:48):
Okay, So let me tell you all what CODIS stands for.
So at the next party you go to, you can
sound very d us. No, it's co d I S.
Let's stand Oh no, hold.

Speaker 2 (49:58):
On, CEO d I. What's what's the C stand for
Combined combined DNA. Wait, where's the O.

Speaker 1 (50:09):
That's the CEO is for combined?

Speaker 2 (50:10):
Oh they needed a vowel. Yeah, right, combine DNA United States.

Speaker 1 (50:17):
No, it's not in you, it's an I.

Speaker 2 (50:19):
Oh oh combined DNA in the States, it's combined.

Speaker 1 (50:26):
Okay. See, now you're messing up my party trick that
I'm trying to give to other people. So like party
trick was better, it stands. Okay, is everyone listening now
when you talk about this case, you or you talk
about any case, you can be like, I know what
code IS stands for. It stands for Combined DNA Index System.
So they run the DNA through CODIS, they don't get

(50:46):
any hits. That's why it's called unidentified or unknown. So
then my question is, why does the defense not take
it further, Why do they not test that DNA against
the members the male people that were in the house
that night, Because if Brian Albert's DNA ends up on
John O'Keeffe's shoe, or Brian Higgins or Colin Albert or

(51:10):
all these men that were in the house that night,
mean that means that he went into the house.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
Maybe did they hang out all the time? No, was
on the other shoe.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
No, I don't know why you're stuck on the other
shoe because one shoe, I don't know, But it's on
one shoe because I don't know.

Speaker 2 (51:26):
Was it his right foot or is left hand? I
don't know, is he right footed?

Speaker 1 (51:29):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (51:30):
Okay, those those things kind of help paint it a
little bit of a picture. No, it's not smoking gun stuff.

Speaker 1 (51:35):
It's not a smoking gun. But it would lead to
the argument that if those unknown male DNA was anyone
that was inside that house, that you could argue that
John O'Keeffe was inside the house.

Speaker 2 (51:46):
I don't know, you could argue that that's possible. But
at the same time, the absence of DNA doesn't mean
he wasn't inside the house.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
Okay, I'm just saying, let's get further testing and try
to figure out who the male DNA is. Anyway, I
don't know if the defense is going to do that.
He brings it up in his opening statement. I think
it's probably just another thing to add to the reasonable
doubt side. Also, I was thinking that before they drove

(52:15):
to the Albert's home that night, he was at a bar,
so that could be where the unknown male DNA came up.
If he goes into the mail, into the men's restroom
and walks around, don't you think you get don't you
think you get DNA stuck to the bottom of your
feet when you're walking around in a bathroom? Does P
have DNA in it?

Speaker 2 (52:33):
I don't think it's your friend.

Speaker 1 (52:34):
I'll ask him. One more thing that Alan Jackson did
at the end of his opening statement that I thought
was pretty brilliant. The prosecution keeps arguing that Karen Reid
said I did it. I did it. I did it,
So at the end of his opening statement, he says

(52:56):
there was no collision. Oh, I hit right. You're right,
I hit him. I hit him.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
Whether I think it matters if it's on the left
foot or the right foot. You're changing the stories.

Speaker 1 (53:07):
You're right. So the prosecution alleges that the night when
the body was found that she yelled, I hit him,
I hit him. I hit him. So at the end
of Alan Jackson's opening statement, he says, there was no collision.
There was no collision. There was no collision. Let's talk
about two of the witnesses in this retrial. And first
of all, there was Carrie Roberts, who was with Karen

(53:28):
Reid the morning when she found him. So apparently, let's
go through this. Carrie Roberts was a friend of both
Karen Reid and the victim, John O'Keefe, and she acknowledged
under intense cross examination that she had previously given false
testimony to a grand jury about a crucial piece of evidence.
This was a big thing that came out of this retrial.
I saw it everywhere. It was basically like she committed perjury.

(53:51):
So let's talk about that. Carrie Roberts had originally told
the grand jury back in April of twenty twenty two
that she did hear Karen Reid ask Jennifer McCabe to
search online for information about hypothermia, specifically referencing the now
notorious search how long to Die in Cold? But it's
not how long. Remember she's felt it wrong. It was

(54:11):
hos haslong to Diane cold. That is testimony that played
a role and reads indictment on manslaughter and murder charges
back when she was in front of the grand jury.
It's very This is actually very important because the discrepancy
between what the prosecution and the defense alleges as to
when this Google search was made. Remember, the defense claims

(54:35):
that Jen McCabe was googling how long to Die in
Cold at twenty seven in the morning. Now, if she
was googling that at two twenty seven in the morning,
that means that she knew that he had been.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
Well, no, it leads you to think, right, maybe she knew.
Maybe it was just a party trick.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
It's a party trick.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
She was like doing a little.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
Trivia, right, like like I like to do yeah with
your acronyms. So anyway, the prosecution claims that she didn't
google it at to twenty seven, that she googled it
at six something in the morning at the direction of
Karen Reid saying Google the data that the defense presented

(55:17):
said that it was googled at to twenty seven and
then it was deleted.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
And they're saying, no, it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
They're claiming that it's like that her browser was left
open or something. I don't know. I don't understand.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Oh, they're claiming. Okay, so they're claiming there's another reason
why it shows a different time.

Speaker 1 (55:33):
They're saying she actually googled it later after the body
was found.

Speaker 2 (55:37):
And them saying it was later it was just based
on testimony.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
Well, them saying it later is Jen McCabe saying I
didn't google it testimony, it's yeah, I didn't google it
at to twenty seven. I googled it at six thirty
in the morning when Karen Reid said google hypothermia or
how long to die on this se.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
And why would that's another question. Why would Karen Reid
during all this that's going on and say, let's start
to investigate his death.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
Yeah, like you're saying, she just found him dead in
the lawn and she's like writing.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
Around screaming and you're dead and there's blood everywhere, and
I'm starting to google, like how many stabs would it
take to kill? Yeah? Female, I mean that's like, you know,
I'd be calling for help, and I would be, you.

Speaker 1 (56:16):
Know, right worried. I like how you said that, you
sounded very concerned.

Speaker 2 (56:21):
The emotional Yes, sure, I would be, of course.

Speaker 1 (56:24):
So basically, Carrie Roberts admits on the stand that she
perjured herself in her first in the grand jury testimony,
she said that she testified that she heard Karen Reid
tell Jen McCabe to google something about hypothermia how long
to die in the snow at six point thirty in
the morning. And then in this when she's grilled in

(56:45):
this retrial by Alan Jackson, she admits that she lied
that she did not hear Karen Reid.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
Say that, and did she say does she explain her.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
Well, her explanation was that she misunderstood the question the
first time around.

Speaker 2 (56:57):
But that's not a lie. Well, if she no, I'm
saying her version, I'm not citing with anyone. But her
version is I misunderstood right during this intense investigation when
you asked me pointed questions, I misunderstood. Yes, that's shady, right.

Speaker 1 (57:13):
However, when defense attorney Alan Jackson confronted her with her
past statement during trial this past week, Roberts admitted she
did not actually hear read make that request. Alan Jackson says,
to her quote, you gave a very specific account to
the grand jury, didn't you, Jackson asked, referencing her earlier testimony. Yes,
Roberts replied, before conceding, I did not hear her ask that.

(57:36):
Roberts claimed she did not intend to mislead the grand jury,
but instead had misunderstood the question at the time. So
that's where that's at.

Speaker 2 (57:43):
But you know, cal is anyone reliable in this case?

Speaker 1 (57:46):
Oh? I'm telling you this way. This case I would
call this case. This is like another for me, This
Karen Reid case is like the case of the century.
Like you remember O. J. Simpson was the case of the.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
Century, well, and that was popular because of it being
OJ televine, right, and then it.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
Was like the lapd and then they were it was
like a conspiracy, remember, and they said that they were
racist and that they had planted evidence, and then the glow.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
So this one, are you going to say that this
one seems to be famous? Yeah, it's so confusing, And
I think it's because.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
It's the same type of sensationalism where you have very
divided sides. There's really no one in the middle. It's
like people are either like she is completely innocent and
this is a conspiracy, or she hit him and she's
a piece of there's not a middle with this case.
And there's no smoking gun. There's just nothing that says

(58:40):
she did it or she didn't do it. There is
tons and tons of evidence and testimony and witnesses and
everything just leads you to more confusion.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
It's almost like it's the perfect crime. The perfect crime
is to make it confusing, not to try to get
away with it. You know what I mean? A perfect
crime is like making evidence it's random, like the next day,
maybe she threw her tail light out there. You know
what I mean.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
You would have to be a criminal mastermind to think about.

Speaker 2 (59:08):
All those things. I'm saying is that if no one
should get convicted in this case based on the evidence
that we've discussed so far, because there's so much doubt
as to anyone having done it, you can't be certain
that any one person did it, So in a way,
that's kind of a perfect.

Speaker 1 (59:23):
Well it is. But the thing that is so bother
somewhere maybe why people are so invested in this case
is that I don't know if we will actually ever
know what happened.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
We won't unless someone comes forward.

Speaker 1 (59:33):
And there's no ring footage. That's another thing. Like there
was a cop that lived across the street. You don't
think he had ring footage on his house. He doesn't
have any footage. Ryan Albert has no ring footage of
that night, even though he's a cop and he dealt
with like he dealt with drug dealers and things, and
he doesn't have he doesn't have security cameras.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
On his house. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (59:51):
I don't know if it's, of course it's standard.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
The standard for police officers to have cameras in their homes.

Speaker 1 (59:57):
Yes, I would think so. If you're a police officer
and you're dealing with gangs and drugs, you don't have
security cameras on your house.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
They might, but you're acting like it's standard. Like him
not having it suspicious.

Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
It is suspicious. I think that he I don't know
of this exactly. I don't know if he just didn't
have if he claims he didn't have any security cameras,
or if he had security cameras and it was deleted
that I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Everything in this case is suspicious.

Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
I know everything suspicious. I mean he threw his phone
away the day before he was supposed to be confiscated.
Dog Brian Higgins threw his phone out too, before it
was supposed to be confiscated. Now you tell me that
if there are just some innocent guys inside a house
having a party and they don't know what's going on
in the front lawn, he just got hit by Cara.
Why are they all throwing their cell phones away? Why
are they redoing their basement floors and selling the house

(01:00:45):
and rehoming the dog?

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
The dog, I don't know, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
There was one other witness. This is his name is
Timothy Nuddle. The prosecutor Brennan opened his case by calling
Timothy Nuddle, a firefighter from Canton, as the trial's first witness. Nuddle,
who was a firefighter, recounted that it was a chaotic
and emotional scene at thirty four Fair of You, with
Karen Reid visibly distraught, yelling and crying while paramedics worked

(01:01:11):
to revive John O'Keefe. During cross examination, Alan Jackson pressed
him on the number of times he claimed to have
heard Reid say I hit him. While not all testified
in this trial that she repeated it three times. Jackson
pointed out that during the first trial he said that
it was only twice.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
Why why is there any no have a question? Why
is there any bodycam footage of all the first responders?

Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
There is, I've watched it, but you can't pick up
you can't pick up audio. There's well, I don't I've
seen I've seen footage from the car, the car that
pulled up.

Speaker 2 (01:01:43):
So the bodycam footage that does exist from the police
officers isn't really helpful. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
I haven't seen bodycam footage, and I don't know if
there is any, And that could be another question.

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
I I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
I recamp that I don't know about that. All I'm
saying is I have seen footage from when the cops
pull up, and there's a it's from the car.

Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
I've seen footage from the car, the police car.

Speaker 1 (01:02:06):
Yeah, and it shows it shows light dash camp thank you,
it shows lights, and it shows Karen Reid running all
around and she's yelling'ract she's crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
Okay, So the not very helpful, right.

Speaker 1 (01:02:17):
So the defense continues to question the credibility and accuracy
of those statements. Allegedlate made by Karen Reid that morning,
especially since neither initial police reports nor hospital records include
any mention of her saying that at the scene. That's
also very suspicious. If she said I hit him, I
hit him, I hit him, and he heard it, I

(01:02:39):
would assume other people heard it as well. And wouldn't
it have been in a report. Wouldn't have people questioned
her more, wouldn't have someone have written that down.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
It's very suspicious that someone would even say that, even
if they did it. Yeah, it's weird. So even if
she hit him, why would she say that. That's not
a normal thing. Well, she's questioning herself, like, well, she does.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
Do that, and I think she admits to doing that,
and I think that's actual actually a normal reaction. Because
the prosecution and I was going to ask you what
you thought about this, The prosecution plays clips from her interview.
Remember the series I Just Watched a Body in the Snow.
It's like five episodes. It's the it's Karen Reid's first trial.

(01:03:25):
They follow the trial, but they also have interviews with
her and Alan Jackson, her attorney. It shows them in
the war room, it shows them preparing so the prosecution
took clips of her in those interviews in that show,
and they're playing them in this retrial, and they're using
excerpts of things that she said against her, and she
did say things like did I hit him? I was

(01:03:47):
questioning what happened. I drank a lot that night. I
didn't know what happened. I didn't know why he was there,
And they're showing it as if she's admitting to it. Well,
my question is, do you think it's a good idea
that she does all these interviews. This isn't normal when
someone's on trial for murder. They don't go out and
go and just do interviews all the time. And because

(01:04:09):
that's scary, it's Scott Peterson did well. He did like one,
He did like a sixty minute one, and then he
never did more. But I mean, she does a lot,
and they did a whole docuseries on her, and she
interviewed multiple times.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
Maybe she uh, maybe she thought that would be helpful.

Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
Here I'll tell you what she said. I also was wondering,
did I say that I hit him? Or was it
told to me that I said I hit him? And
I knew I never could have said that. So the
closest I must have said, was did I hit him?
I know I said I hit him, but I did,
But did I really say it as many times as
law enforcement's claiming I said it. That's verbatim what she said.

Speaker 2 (01:04:45):
And her maybe it was more like a question like
I hit him, I hit him, you know, like people
are saying like he's got bloom forced trauma, blah blah blah. Right,
was he run over? I hit him? I hit him? Yeah,
I hit him. Why would he say three times?

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
I don't know. But anyway, I to me when she
was doing when she was talking about that and her interview,
when I watched a body in the snow, I thought, oh,
probably not a good idea to allow your stream of
conscience to start talking like did I hit him? I
don't know did I hit him? Or do I just
think I hit him because I was totally hit him,

(01:05:21):
But did I hit him? I was like, you need
to stop talking.

Speaker 2 (01:05:24):
All right. Well, if I'm found dead, you have my
permission to keep quiet, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:05:29):
Thank you. Also, in this retrial, the jurors all visited
thirty four fair View. They took a field trip. Oh yeah,
so on Friday that was last Friday, jurors were transported
from the courtroom to the Canton property where John O'Keefe
was discovered. The field visit was arranged to give jurors
a clear perspective on key physical elements being discussed throughout

(01:05:49):
the trial, including the layout of the scene and Karen
Reid's reaction that morning. According to Judge Beverly Conone, the
goal was to help durors better visualize the evidence as
they evaluate the case.

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Didn't someone else ow in the home now though?

Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
Yeah? Because they sold it?

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
How would that be? Like judge knocks on your door, Likene,
we're investigating a homicide that took place here.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
Well, I think they probably know what was coming.

Speaker 2 (01:06:14):
We're not sure if it took place here or in
your basement?

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Yeah? Can we search your basement? Can we do some
DNA testing down here? Can we rip up the carpet?
Do you mind? During the visit, attorneys from both sides
pointed out specific features they wanted the jury to take
note of, such as Reed's Lexus suv. So they brought
the suv and parked it there.

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
That's the prosecution trying to put plant images in their head.

Speaker 1 (01:06:36):
So you're saying, come look at this yard, and he
died right here, and here's the suv with a missing
tail light parked right in front of the house.

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
Right and then people like, yeah, that could be.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
During the visit, attorneys from both sides pointed out specific
features they wanted the jury to take note of, such
as Reed's Lexus suv, as well as a flagpole and
a fire hydrant that could factor into theories about what happened.
Defense attorney David Yanetti, who is one of Here and
Reads other attorneys, encourages jurors to closely examine the suv
to understand its size and relation to the scene when

(01:07:07):
they go back to court. Jurors also heard from doctor
Gary Faller, a pathologist, who discuss Reads blood test results
from the morning of January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two.
The test showed her blood alcohol level at point zero
nine to three percent, slightly above the legal limit of
pointh eight. The defense suggests that that Reads anemia could
have impacted the tests accuracy. I don't know, maybe I'm

(01:07:32):
just not smart, but I don't know. I mean, she
clearly admits that they had a lot to drink. She
does it in the documentary well she talks about this
and a double this, and then she does a shot
of this, and then this was a double And I
mean they drank a lot. He had a roadie with
him when they drove to Brian Albert's hat. Here's a
cocktail glass that was found next to his body.

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
I'm still umbrella.

Speaker 1 (01:07:54):
Maybe I'm so they're clearly drunk and they're drinking a lot.
I think it's evident that she's impaired. I think she
admits to being impaired. So I just don't understand why
that is a key piece of evidence.

Speaker 2 (01:08:11):
Why that is a key piece of Yeah, why wouldn't it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:14):
Be, Because whether she's drunk or not, the question is
whether she backed end to him.

Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
Well, because people are impaired when they're drunken, and then
they're likely to commit murder. Where maybe she wasn't paying
attention and hit him and then drove off. I don't know. Also,
they're probably trying to make her look like a drunk
just like citizen who killed her boyfriend, right, you know
they Yeah, I don't know. This is a It's like

(01:08:40):
the more scientific evidence or or resources that we have
to investigate actually in this case, just created more confusion.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
I agree with that because the more.

Speaker 2 (01:08:52):
Scientific evidence, I just be like, he's dead. It's on
your lawn. You did it right right now. It's just
like and points direct.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
I know. It's like there's Apple data from his Apple
Watch and now they're going there's also I think the
prosecution there's something now that has to do with his
battery and like how how long it lasted, And it's
you know, the the forensics and the DNA and the
hypothermia and the body temperature, and there's so much information

(01:09:22):
in this case. It's so hard to decipher. And at
the end of the day, we still don't know exactly
what happened, and we probably never.

Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
Know, not at all, like not at all, not at all,
just that he's dead.

Speaker 1 (01:09:33):
On the law, right, but there's so much reasonable doubt
that I just I can't convict the woman if I
was on the jury. People ask me all the time,
what do you think, do you think she's innocent or guilty?
I don't think innocent are guilty. I think in terms
of what if I was on the jury, would I
convict her? The answer to that is.

Speaker 2 (01:09:52):
No, I wouldn't, based on the legal standard.

Speaker 1 (01:09:54):
Based on the legal standard doubt.

Speaker 2 (01:09:56):
Yes, So you're not saying innocent, You're saying not guilty.
How guilty does not mean innocent. It means not guilty
by a matter.

Speaker 1 (01:10:03):
Of law exactly, And that's what I'm saying. So I'm
not picking aside as to whether I think she did
it or did not do it. I'm saying, based upon
everything I've read, the evidence presented, if I was on
the jury, I could not convict her.

Speaker 2 (01:10:17):
Okay, now, if you're not on the jury, who did it?

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
So I still don't know. I have no idea, right
all right? Anyway, thanks again for listening. We appreciate it,
and if you have questions or comments, please feel free
to DM me. I try to read as much as
possible and we appreciate you.

Speaker 2 (01:10:33):
Thank you.