May 22, 2025 • 35 mins
In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator Sheryl McCollum welcomes back Susan Hendricks and Joe Giacalone to break down the second trial of Karen Read— and y’all, it’s a mess.
They explain how John O’Keefe deserved better, pointing to sloppy police work, mishandled evidence, and a justice system in disrepair. They examine courtroom testimony that doesn’t hold up, highlight signs of investigative bias, and consider how divided public opinion has become. With the second trial underway, they raise the hard questions: Can this case be fairly tried? And what does it reveal about the deeper issues within the criminal justice system?
Joseph L. Giacalone is a retired NYPD sergeant, criminal justice educator, and nationally recognized expert in policing and investigations. With more than 20 years of frontline experience, he now teaches criminal investigations and regularly appears in the media to discuss high-profile cases and law enforcement issues. He also authored two widely used textbooks in the field.
Connect with Joseph at his website, and on his podcast True Crime with the Sarge
Susan Hendricks is an investigative journalist and host of Headline Crime. Known for her thoughtful and fearless reporting, she brings national attention to overlooked cases and failures in the justice system.
Listeners can learn more about Susan on IG @susan_hendricks, on X @susanhendricks, and on Headline Crime
Follow Susan on Instagram @susan_hendricks, on X @susanhendricks, and on Headline Crime.
Show Notes:
- (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum
- (0:10) Sheryl brings Joe Giacalone and Susan Hendricks back on Zone 7
- (0:30) Today’s discussion - Karen Read retrial
- (1:30) Prosecution's weaknesses and overreach
- (5:00) The missing documentation and police failures
- (9:00) Town tensions, brotherhood, and silence
- (13:30) Dysfunction and conspiracy - the system itself on trial
- (19:00) Jen McCabe's testimony and trial dynamics
- (21:30) Medical examiner's findings and reasonable doubt
- (25:00) Confirmation bias and jury considerations
- (31:00) Predictions and final thoughts
- (34:00) ”I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”
- Thanks for listening to another episode! If you’re loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review!
---
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides,
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
I am not pro Karen Reed. I am pro justice,
and y'all this ain't it. But you ain't got to
believe me. Here tonight, we have retired New York Police
Department sergeant Joe jack Alone. Y'all know Sarge from True
Crime with the Sarge. And we have a journalist from
(00:31):
Headline Crime. Y'all know Susan Hendrix. Y'all love them both,
you respect them both. And I'm going to tell you
John o'keeith deserved better. Sorge, jump on in here. I mean,
what in the world happened today?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Boy? I guess I tell people, if I had hair,
i'd pull it out.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
This is it's really it's gotten to a point where
it's just absurd.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
And the fact that you have people that are on.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
The stand who should have fixed their cvs and resumes
and everything else that goes on last time they were here,
it still hasn't fixed it, and then have to testify
that they've been taking their you know, undergraduate degree for
seventeen years and they still haven't achieved it, which I
think even after a certain period of time, I don't
even think the credits carry over. I don't even know
(01:22):
about you know, how long you can keep doing that,
but still it is an it's abysmal.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
I mean, it's time the prosecution throws in the towel.
As far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, I think this case is over. And I tell
you I was very vocal that the first time they
had zero evidence of a murder, and I just thought,
how ethically do you ever try her again?
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Well, and the issue that really comes down to is
I always thought me too, from the very beginning, that
murder was an overcharge or overreach. And if if somebody
was driving drunk on the mass Turnpike andilled and killed
some body, would they have charged them with murder if
it happened today, of course they wouldn't. Would be vehicular
mansel or whatever charger would be in the Manhattan as
you mean, in the Massachusetts pedal coat.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
But you know it was from the beginning this case
was an absolute disaster.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
And yes, the O'Keefe family and John o'keith specifically deserved.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
A lot more than this effort. I could tell you
that right now.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And Susan, you have been street level, You've been there.
What in the world is the town feeling?
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Unlike anything I've ever experienced? And the sarges a right,
call them the sargeant. What he said that this is
just unbelievable. Every day that I watched, so I was
there for about a week, and to see that house
where they say Karen Reid hit John O'Keefe, you realize
it's smaller than originally thought, at least from my perspective.
(02:55):
But talking about today, to be a fly on the wall,
and I would imagine what a lessie thought when he
was uncovering this, because, as you both know, it's usually
during a trial it can be the battle of the experts.
We even saw that in Delphi. It was about the
markings on the bullet and one expert said, absolutely, it's
(03:16):
like a fingerprint. The other experts said, no, it's not.
They usually cancel each other out, we find and the
jury kind of can disregard them both. But this, the
ethics here, or lack thereof, is what is so shocking.
And trust me, I went into this. I called Cheryl.
I said, I'm going to Karen Reid, tell me what
you think. I just watched the documentary. I didn't follow
(03:38):
the first trial, and I thought because of the bits
and pieces that maybe I heard that she was guilty.
I didn't look into it at all, mind you, I
didn't really even know the facts. I heard whispers of
it with someone who drank too much and felt bad
and hit her boyfriend. That's all I had heard. But
the more I watched and the more I understood to
(03:58):
me exactly bactly what was just stated to retry this
again but also second degree murder. Every day when I
watch it, I'm thinking, what is this real? And my father,
who's an attorney in New Jersey, he was recently here
with my mom, and I was filling him in and
telling him all about it, and I had him listen
(04:20):
on the way to a restaurant, I'll talk to anyone
who will listen about this by the way to the
opening statement, and he said, wow, that attorney is excellent.
It was Alan Jackson's opening. So as you can tell now,
I'm all in on this case. And really it's jaw dropping.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Every day it is jaw dropping. And you know Sargs
you teach at John Jay, there is no way in
your classes that you are not just hammering. Write a report.
Write a report. You've got to document. We not only
have one person but three that never wrote down that
(04:57):
she allegedly said I hear him, I hit him. I
hit him. And I know in my police academy, we
were tall. If it ain't wrote down, it didn't happen exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
I mean, that's that's the thing that even when I
was working in the police department, in the nic the squad,
I mean.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
The the mantra was document, document, document. I would say that.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
He was like buying a house, right location, location, location,
you have to document because it just it wasn't done.
And you can't get me on the stand saying well,
I did it, but I just didn't write it down.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
That's that's not gonna fly. But you know, here's here's.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
My other big issue that I have with this. And like
I said, I'm not pro car and read, I'm not
anti car read. I look at what the police do
in the criminal justice system and that's where I lay
my focus on. And the police failed to do that
job he had, both in Canton and specifically the Massachusetts
State Police. It was a it was mishandled. The crime
scene was mishandled from the beginning. And you know, you know,
(05:50):
as soon as you say crime scene, people say, oh,
so you do think it was a crime. No, every
death is treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Period, end of point, ended discussion.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
So, yeah, any death, you treat it like a crime
because you don't know exactly what you have. And they
did not do that from the very beginning. They didn't
separate witnesses, they didn't take down any notes, they didn't
control the crime scene, they didn't wait to daylight to douce,
you know, certain searches in the beginning.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
I mean, the list just goes.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
On and on and through this entire I call it
now an ordeal because that's basically what it is.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
I can't imagine being the Okey family having to go
through this.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
But there is a lack of supervision that happened in
this case that is just beyond comprehension in so many
different words. Because that there therein lies the big failure
in so many levels.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I'll tell you.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
After the first trial, there should have been a complete
revamping of the training in Massachusetts. The governor should have
ordered it, because if this is the way you're training
your yeah, if this is your way you're training your
cops on how to handle crime scenes and then having
a sergeant and telling us that it's like, no big
deal to you know, change a custom is not a
big deal, and it's you know, I documented, so I
(07:03):
don't have to document it somewhere else.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
It's redundant. I mean calling the chain of custody redundant
is absolutely crazy.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Yeah, there's no chain of custody. I mean, it's baffling.
You don't have a lead detective that went to the scene.
You've got a sergeant that didn't write a report even
though he allegedly found evidence. You don't have facts accurate
like date and time. You don't submit evidence for six weeks,
and then when you come to trial you have two
(07:29):
left shoes. You have somebody on the stand that looks
in the bag and says, hey, there's other stuff in here.
I mean, I mean, Susan, I can't imagine going around
that town and seeing people go into bars and restaurants
and trying to do some shopping where they're not just
(07:50):
I don't even know how you would be walking around
with any confidence in your police department.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Well, I will say where the courthouse is. It's a
beautiful town, very close to Campton, very similar to Canton.
Everyone's talking about it. I spoke to this very nice
officer right outside of the courthouse, and he said, I
don't talk to anyone about it. He said, even my wife.
I just very nice guide. He just said, I can't
believe it. Everyone wants to talk to me about it.
(08:15):
I'm just here trying to, you know, keep the peace
outside of court. And I will tell you that at
restaurants there was a sign. I went there kind of
by myself. It was like a sports bar, and it
said like next Tuesday, the cops will be here on
stage for you know, and you could bid on the cops.
It's very much a we love cops, which is a
(08:36):
great thing. There's one aspect to that that's wonderful. But
it also made me feel like, of course there's a
brotherhood and that's understood, but is there also a brotherhood
in deceit? And what stood out to me the most
was that Brian Albert and being in front of that
house because it was the day that all media could
be there and they had Karen Reid's lexus there and
(08:58):
everyone out of the same kind of ten minutes to
do to be around that house, and of course the
jury had come and gone kind of touring that house,
and that he never came out of the house. I mean,
that's what he does for a living. I was thinking
about my husband. He has no history or background law enforcement.
He would come out, anyone would come outside, and nobody did.
(09:19):
And that was so telling to me.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
I absolutely agree, And SARS, that's one thing I want
to throw to you. Other than NYPD, the Boston Police Department,
to me, is the most old school, havea your back,
blue line kind of department that there is. And you're
telling me that a police officer from Boston can die.
(09:46):
However he died and be on the front lawn. Other
police don't come out. The investigating Department does not put
the very best there is. The DA the Commonwealth has
not put the very best that they have on this thing.
They have not vetted their own experts. They did not
(10:07):
make sure that this investigation was pristine. This investigation, I'm
going to say, it is the worst I have ever
seen that made it to trial.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Yeah, I can't I can't disagree with that. This is
this is beyond bed And you know, when you take
a look at exactly what transpired here, you just you
could just start examining each step of the way. It's
just from the very beginning. How many failures there were
and now continue to have failures. I mean the prosecution
in the first trial and even in the second trial.
(10:42):
I don't think that witnesses were prepared. I mean I
have an I have an entire problem with the criminal
justice system, you know, I mean the criminal justice system here.
We're talking about the police departments involved and the prosecutor's
office here.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
It's just it's just, uh, it's just fraighting. Let's put
it that way. Keep everything Pg. Thirteen here, But yeah,
it's frustrating.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
And in the you know, in the other issue that
you're dealing with here is like, you know what what
if Cheryl these were the best that they had and
put out boy oh boy.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Defense attorney's aligning.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Up and you have another Hey, you have another big
murder case that's coming out with the with the Anna
Walsh case. Who that guy Michael Proctor who has now
been severed from the Massachusettate Police with the lead investigator
in that case.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
And then you have the Sondra Birchmore case that's on
the on the back burner.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
So there are so many different things that are going
to happen up there that this isn't the end And
as a matter of fact, I think it's only the beginning.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Susan or people talking about the dog bite at all anymore?
Or is that just gone away?
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Yes, I think that I remember watching one. I think
it was on ABC News. One of the jurors from
the first trial we speak in he said, that's what
did it for him, that in his experience, those type
of injuries didn't align with what the evidence was saying.
And so absolutely once I looked at that and thought,
(12:11):
oh my gosh. And what followed, the rehoming of the dog,
the selling of the house, the retirement of Brian Alberts
in the house he retired, I mean all the things
that followed. Brian Higgins a military base, getting rid of
his phone and taking out a chip from the phone
and throwing it out and getting rid of that. But
(12:32):
also something that I've never really seen or experienced before
with this case is the vitriol and the hate out
there that's around this and I can't and of course
John O'Keeffe that's number one, and thinking about him and
his family. It doesn't mean that I do not respect
(12:54):
the victim here just because I saw what I saw
and I'm not one. Everyone has enough problem, right, they
don't go on Twitter to start a fight. But I
will tell you in the little that I did post,
and it wasn't hateful at all. It was me outside
of the house and doing a stand up, if you will.
I had friends of mine that are journalists that I
respect and like say, oh no, did you fall into
(13:15):
the Karen Reid cult? But I don't think they're watching
really a minute of the trial because they're smart and
there is no way you can watch. I'd an open mind.
I have no skin in the game of who did
this and who didn't. It's sad that he lost his life.
Everyone wants justice, but the hate and the victriol it is.
It's pretty shocking.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Yes, I agree with you, and Sarge, I'm going to
tell us this to you because I've said, in this
particular case, the facts don't matter. And here's why they
don't matter. You're not going to be able to convince
everybody that some of that evidence wasn't planted because you've
lost evidence, you've mislabeled evidence, you didn't turn things in,
(13:57):
you don't have chain of custody. It's easy to me
that you've got people that are testifying based on memory only,
and they've changed that testimony a little bit. Did she
say I hit him? Or did she say could I
have hit him? I mean, it's just crazy and we've
seen more than one person that does not seem to
(14:19):
be telling the truth. And for our world, Sarge, the
rule is if you lie about one thing, you lied
about everything, So again, the facts don't matter.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Yeah, it's disturbing on so many levels because every time
I hear something new or see something that's coming from
the police side, you think, okay, maybe you know they
got their act together on this whatever, and then they
disappoint you again. Right, every time I hear something and
I look at it, everything's but are raised eyebrow and
I even question now every time they open their mouths
(14:53):
to speak because of the.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Fact that it is so bad.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
And what I mean by so bad, I mean, forget
about just lack of documentation, but it's just they they
didn't keep track of the evidence. They don't even know
who had the evidence when they had it even you know,
and I know people are saying, well, you know it's
a conspiracy. Okay, if this is a conspiracy, this is
the worst conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
I have ever seen valid, valid point, you know, and
the like.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
The old Ben Franklin thing says, right, you know, two
people can keep a secret, Three people can keep a
secret along as two of them are dead. Right. Only
the fact that that you have all this dysfunction, to me,
should be the story. You know. If you want to
believe in the conspiracy things, that's fine. You know, maybe
in the end they prove a conspiracy. I don't know,
but after the first trial, I had kind of promised
(15:42):
myself I wouldn't get involved because, like what Susan had
said is the plain vitriol, and then you end up
getting It's like that, you know, the famous Godfather scene.
You know, every time you think you're out and they
pull you back in, and you know, and here you
are again.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Well, you know, I would love to ignore it. But
I think this is going to be a case that
every single law school and every single police academy is
going to train off of for a while, just like Ojay.
There is so much here. Like I even told a
buddy of mine when some of the officers were on
the stand, they were sarcastic, they were standoffish, they were rude. Okay,
(16:22):
I don't know where they got their training about courtroom testimony,
but they just violated everything I was taught. And then
to sit there and use a word and then act
like you don't know what it means. They gave it
to them on a silver platter. Discredit me, is what
they basically said.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
In my opinion, Yes, they they're not likable characters.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
And that's the number one thing that they teach you
when you have to testify in court, you know.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
And actually I learned a new word today, mendacity right
word before.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Yeah, I had to look it up.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
It's got to be Google trending right now.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Well, tell everybody what it is because I had the
same reaction you did. I got to look that up.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Untruthfulness and lying it's just another way of saying that
you're lying.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
So who said that?
Speaker 1 (17:04):
ALESSI?
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Yeah, I need a asaurus with his vocabulary.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Yes, right, Like I said, I always pride myself in
knowing a lot of words.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
But I was like, wow, I don't.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Even know what that word is, and I had to
look it up, and I'm like, and you know what, though,
unfortunately it probably went over every jurors head too, or
most of the juror's heads to and I don't think
it kind of then holds the same meaning when you're
trying to make a point.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
But but you know, I guess he didn't want to
come right out and say why are you lying? Right, because.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
You know li likeability is one thing I think about
the Jody Arius trial, Casey Anthony, their attorneys, jose Bias,
Kirk Nurmi, who I'm close with now, Jody Aires's defense attorney,
the prosecutor. People have things to say about everyone. You're
kind of on a stage, if you will, But this
isn't it to me. It's more of and I understand
(17:58):
people who don't watch, or aren't watching, or don't know
the facts of it. I didn't watch the first trial,
as I said, but to listen to what we have
heard and to see the connection because I thought of
that they all grew up in this town. I've I'm
now friends with a lot of people on TikTok, and
again could go back to confirmation bias, but I'm watching
(18:18):
like everyone else and thinking, again, no skin in the game.
I want to see the facts and it's just one
shocking day after the next. But I wonder if we'll
ever know what really happened to John O'Keefe, and I
interviewed two girls and their twenties sisters and their mom
watched the first trial and told them to watch, and
then they were interested. They were there outside of the courthouse,
dressed in paint Karen Reid's favorite color. And I expected
(18:39):
to go there to see a lot of extremism, if
you will, kind of you go there outside of the courtroom.
They were highly intelligent, very kind, and they said they
were looking for justice for John O'Keeffe. They were there
with their mom. And I do wonder though, with the connection.
There are connections. If you look at the family tree
(18:59):
here the godmother of this person and the family's connected,
because it is kind of unbelievable. If you saw this
in a movie, you would think, no, that wouldn't happen.
But these people have known each other, a lot of
them for life. Because you think about who would you
lie for on the stand. And I do remember hearing
whispers during the first trial of House Long to die
(19:19):
in the cold. Then that stood out to me, caught
my attention for a minute. I was focusing on Delphi
and I turned away, but to see Jen mckab on
the stand and no one can just matter of factly state.
There was one young girl at the party that night,
and she you could tell when someone's telling the truth,
it's not shifty. It's yes, no, oh, yeah, that was
(19:40):
years ago. But I do remember seeing this person or
that person, not I don't recall. What do you mean,
I've never heard that word before. It's just it's evasive,
and it's I see why people are drawn to this trial,
myself included, because you're seeing something you've never seen before.
I haven't. And I wonder if they're regretting bringing this
(20:00):
back or retrying this case, because to me, it puts
the spotlight on the Alberts, It puts the spotlight on
Boston Police, Canton Police, Higgins, not Karen Read in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
And the state police.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
You have to, yeah, absolutely throw.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Them under the bus because you know, Lieutenant Gallagher was
not a likable character again on this and he did
not do any do any favors by you know, grabbing
that leaf blower and finding not writing anywhere to cops,
the solo cups and the brown papers, you know, the
stop and shop bags.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Yeah, and I want to tell you something else. Trooper
Proctor stayed employed way too long.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Well, actually I had called that he was going to
get he was going to lose his job last year.
And the reason why is because they had an intram
Massachusetts State Police colonel I think it was. And the governor,
of course, you know, make sure that that person serves
at their at their behest and and if you want
to be the head and no longer the interview, better
(21:00):
do the right thing. But here what he hasn't done
And I said, the governor hasn't done any that they
haven't called for an entire revamping of the trade to
the state police.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Listen, I knew he was going to get fired. But
I'm saying once he admitted on the stand, yes, I
called her that, Yes I said this, Yes I did that.
No I didn't do this. No I didn't do that.
He should have been fired immediately, And they drugged that out.
As far as I was concerned, that wasn't a good
look either. Now I want to ask both of y'all. Vinz,
(21:33):
how important do you think it is that the medical
examiner said no homicide, that the medical examiner said doesn't
look like a vehicle impact.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Well, that's that's usually a big problem when you're trying
to charge murder once again, right, I mean it goes
down and as undetermined whatever they want to call it,
but that means it's required more investigation and more detailing
to exactly what transpired.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
And I don't think that happened in this case.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
As as a matter of fact, I'm questioning the entire investigation.
You know, when you have the Sally board video that's
like inverted, right, I mean, I mean the list just
goes on and on. I mean to say that you
have one mistake in a crime scene, okay, I mean
we could live with that, We can live with evidence dynamics,
we could live with the chaos of the scene and
all the different things going on.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
But there's just too many to even count at this point.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
There were mistakes in Delphi, and you know that Cheryl
and the detective Holman, who you know, well, just a
wonderful person, and he even said he's going through it
even to this day, like figuring out the mistakes that
were made. I mean, no one is perfect, and we
understand that. And I'm wondering, was there just so much
drinking that night, did something happen accidentally and then everybody
panicked Okay, so let's say that that happened. I'm clearly speculating.
(22:50):
I don't think we'll ever know. But the blatant disregard
for her rights, you want to just throw away the key.
What if she couldn't afford these attorneys, which she can't.
I believe they're raising funds. What if they weren't as
sharp as they are? I mean, my gosh, the lawyering
on her side is phenomenal, and I feel sorry for
her dad and brother. And just that to me is
(23:12):
you will let this woman be the fall person for
what happened inside that house. Some people are going to
disagree with me. That's what I think happened. But even
if you don't, there's reasonable doubt. Even if you think
she hit them, she doesn't remember, or she was drinking,
or she said it. You don't like her for some reason,
and you think she's one hundred percent guilty, that's your
(23:33):
right to believe that, but there is reasonable doubt. This
is our justice system. I believe it works. It works,
but I don't. Can they try her again? I have
that question.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
I'm sure they could if they wanted to, but I
highly recommend it not doing it.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
The second time Iraq. But Cheryl, let me ask you
a quick question.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Have you ever done a death investigation where you did
in Canvas the entire neighborhood, knocking on everybody's doors.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
Zero. Let me say this, in order to canvas, you
have to be there. And that's another thing I've never
heard in my life that the lead detective wasn't unseen.
But Susan, I want to say one thing, and I
want Sarge to jump in. When you're working a case,
any case, what you believe, what you think, or what
(24:16):
you feel does not matter. That ain't evidence doesn't matter.
I can think somebody's guilty, I can feel like he's
a bad person. I can. However you want to frame it,
you have to have evidence that this happened. You have
a medical examiner saying I thought he'd been in a fight,
not a homicide, not a vehicular impact. Now I had
(24:39):
a chief that I worked for years and years ago.
If that had happened, our investigation was over. He let
the medical examiner kind of lead the way. In other words,
what are you investigating if there's no crime?
Speaker 3 (24:55):
But if you remember in the first trial, the you
know was I think was Procter In another troop or
whatever was trying to get the medical examiner to change
her determination on what the the manner of death was.
So that tells you that all that's all you want
to need. And I can tell you that right now.
If I would have brought a case like this to
the Bronx, they would have escorted me out the door.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Well, I remember Paul Hole telling this to me, and
I've mentioned this before. It was at Crime Con on
stage in Las Vegas, and he said he mentioned confirmation bias,
and he said that it absolutely happened to him when
investigating the Golden State killer. Did everything he believed he
brought into his investigation and everything that didn't the ligne
he kind of tossed out, and he said, I have
(25:39):
to be very careful of this because it can creep
up on you your belief system. We all come from
a different backgrounds and different belief systems. And UNLESSI brought
that up when cross examining today, talking about anchor bias,
when your first impression is what you ride with along
the way and you keep it there, and confirmation bias,
of course we know what that is. I even thought
(25:59):
when I first started, when I went there and then
I started really watching every day.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
I thought, do I have confirmation by it? What is like?
Speaker 4 (26:06):
I thought, wait a minute, are we watching two different trials?
Am I in the twilight zone here? Because I believe
one thing and it's clear to me that it's so
divided that I couldn't believe. I thought, do I have it?
And then I thought, exactly what you said, Cheryl. The
jurors don't have to weigh in on that, meaning it's
not about their beliefs. You're right, it's about the evidence,
(26:27):
what is stated on the stand and reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Now, like I said, I have the first trial, I
called it I think in a week.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
At the end of week one, I said this case
was ending in a hung jury.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Your second trial is not going to get stronger, it's
going to get weaker. And in this case, they lost
the lead detective. They lost the credibility of the officer
that did the re enactment. I mean he was taken
to school by the defense expert. I mean, why retire
you know the system more than me. That's what we're saying.
(27:05):
It seems unethical to me.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
And you're talking about the trooper pol the vehicle collision. Yeah,
I mean I think we're going to see him again.
I think the defense will definitely call him in because
I mean it's a win for the defense bringing him in.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
That you've got to bring him in because you know,
the Glace just got that exactly.
Speaker 4 (27:22):
And he's not the soul in my opinion, it's not. Yes,
his text messages were disgusting, and he was the lead investigator, right,
he sets the tone. And there's a guy with solo cups,
I mean, my gosh. But with Higgins and Albert, I mean,
it just it's one after the other. What is the
goal here that they want to win or someone has
(27:44):
to take the fall for the I guess a police
officer dying, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
And y'all it's person after person after person. You know
what about the woman whos said, well, I didn't want
to go knock on the door because I thought my
sister was sleeping. Okay, if there's a dead person on
my lawn, I'm waking my sister up. Sorry, especially if
I know her husband is a police officer. Give me
a break. I mean, it's not believable. None of it's believable.
(28:13):
And you know, you do have somebody that lost their
life but if you listen to the medical examiner, how
long was he out there? Because he didn't have frostbite?
And then you have somebody saying, well, I'm going to
research how long does it take to freeze?
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Really, do you think the judge sees and here's what
we hear and how could she not? Or I guess
it doesn't matter. She's just there to kind of referee.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Oh yeah, I mean there's issues with that too.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
And y'all here's the thing. We're about to have an outcome.
I mean I think they should throw in the towel
tomorrow and say, you know what, we've lost. The rails
have come off this thing.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Can they do that? The state, the Commonwealth say, or
maybe the defense presents nothing. They don't call anyone to
the stand.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
I don't think they need to call anybody. Just keep
putting up their witnesses.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
And you're right, this is going to be talked about
for a long time.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Just it's going to be trained on.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
I'm telling you, yeah, just like just like Ojay case,
where you learned you know from, and I remember that
as a supervisor in the detective squad, know where your
people are at all times, so you don't cross contaminate
crime scenes.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
Yes, and that's textbook compared to this trial, It's like
they did nothing wrong in my eyes, meaning figuratively speaking,
compared to this with the snowblower and the solo craps.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
But y'all think about it. You know, when the Simpson
trials going on, they made a big deal about the
vile of blood being put in the jacket pocket. Then
he put the jacket on the back of the chair
and walked away. So it wasn't you know, cared about
and you know, treated like it should have been. Anybody
(29:57):
could have got a hold of it. And then plant
of the blood is what they were try to say. Okay,
look at this case. How do you get two left
shoes in the same bag?
Speaker 4 (30:06):
I mean, I don't mean to laugh.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Wasn't there pieces?
Speaker 3 (30:09):
It wasn't the number of pieces in one of the
bags not matching up to what the vouche.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Was to Yes, And she even said on the stand,
there's other things in here? Do you want me to
just put this bag? Well to me, all right, let's
talk about DNA. How did the DNA get there? Well,
if you've got to touch and other stuff, that's one way.
I mean it's just baffling. You said it earlier, Sarge.
It is abysmal. I have never ever, in forty four
(30:36):
years seen an investigation this pitiful that actually went to
trial once, much less twice.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
The expert on the stand who was analyzing what was
on Jen McCabe's phone, she was cross examined by Alessi,
and he was kind of backed into a corner and
agreed that he was right. It was even the facts
of that we're above my head in terms of the
data that she was analyzing. She turns to the Commonwealth
(31:05):
and says sorry, sorry, like sorry that I couldn't align
with And we all know that experts are paid. We
know this system and that's how it works, and that's
okay that her analysis can be different than but looking
over and saying sorry, it's one shocking moment after another.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Here, Sarge, what's the outcome going to be?
Speaker 2 (31:25):
It's gonna I don't think it ended in not guilty.
I think it ended another hung.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Jury, susan not guilty. I don't see how it couldn't.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
But Sergey might be right.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
I'm assarge, they don't have anything. Here's what I would do.
I'm not a lawyer. But I have worked with some
of the best there is. I would have me a
big old poster board, and I would have on their
you know, chain of custody, scene secure, separated witnesses, document reports,
(31:55):
evidence submitted in a timely manner, medical examiner, manner of death.
I would have everything, and they don't have it. They
don't have it. I would take every written sentence off there,
and at the end of it, I would have a
blank board. They don't have it.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
That's their case, and they have an easy appeal because
a question I had the jurors, the first jury that
the trial antine and the mistrials you know, came back
and they voted unanimously no to second degree murder and
the second charge, and they were hung on the third charge.
I believe it was the hicular Manslar. So why are
(32:32):
she being charged for second degree murder again and again?
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Ethically? I don't know how you do it. They do
not have one element of murder, not one.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Do you trust juris in general?
Speaker 1 (32:46):
I do.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
I think that they're intelligent. I feel like they have
to see what we see.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
That's why I'm holding it to tell you after til
five there should be no doubt in your mind. That
jury was sophisticated. They own it.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
They were taking notes, but they were sequestered. I'm shocked
that these sures are not sequestered. I truly am considering
the attention.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Well after the first one, everybody's heard it. They know
that that's true. True. Good point, Sarge, any last comments.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
I just hope something good comes out of this in
regards to better training for the officers and you know,
better supervision and those kind of things, because I don't
think those in charge in Massachusettstate Police and Canton can
survive another round with their jobs.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Intact, these chiefs.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
I mean, there needs to be some This needs to
be some sweeping changes as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Amen, Susan.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
I'll quote the sisters. They were twins that I interviewed
outside of the courthouse, and they said, this is justice
for John O'Keefe. Anyone can be Karen Reid, and no
one should be Karen Reid. She has rights, and she
deserves her rights, and she deserves to have her truth
be told and believed because the evidence again belief.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
Take that out.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
The evidence does not show second degree murder intention to
kill John O'Keeffe, and it is heart wrenching and heartbreaking
for that family and those kids that he adopted from
his sister. It's just horrible. But what we've seen thus far,
and I've watched the first trial since I texted Cheryl,
I fell asleep to Higgins on the stand. I mean,
(34:22):
that's how much I'm watching this. But the jury has
to come together and I have hope in their intelligence
and decide is their reasonable doubt and what does the
evidence point to? And I believe it's not guilty, y'all.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Check out True Crime with the Sarge Joe jack Alone.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, y'all. Check out headline
Crime with Susan Hendrix. Susan, thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
I wrote down True Crime with the Sarge. I'm checking
it out. Thanks Cheryl as.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Always, Thanks Cheryl, Thanks Suir, y'all.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
I always do with a quote, I hit him, I
hit him, I hit him unknown. I'm Cheryl McCollum and
this is Zone seven. How's that for sarcasm?
Speaker 2 (35:17):
M
I am not pro Karen Reed. I am pro justice,
and y'all this ain't it. But you ain't got to
believe me. Here tonight, we have retired New York Police
Department sergeant Joe jack Alone. Y'all know Sarge from True
Crime with the Sarge. And we have a journalist from
(00:31):
Headline Crime. Y'all know Susan Hendrix. Y'all love them both,
you respect them both. And I'm going to tell you
John o'keeith deserved better. Sorge, jump on in here. I mean,
what in the world happened today?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Boy? I guess I tell people, if I had hair,
i'd pull it out.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
This is it's really it's gotten to a point where
it's just absurd.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
And the fact that you have people that are on.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
The stand who should have fixed their cvs and resumes
and everything else that goes on last time they were here,
it still hasn't fixed it, and then have to testify
that they've been taking their you know, undergraduate degree for
seventeen years and they still haven't achieved it, which I
think even after a certain period of time, I don't
even think the credits carry over. I don't even know
(01:22):
about you know, how long you can keep doing that,
but still it is an it's abysmal.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
I mean, it's time the prosecution throws in the towel.
As far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, I think this case is over. And I tell
you I was very vocal that the first time they
had zero evidence of a murder, and I just thought,
how ethically do you ever try her again?
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Well, and the issue that really comes down to is
I always thought me too, from the very beginning, that
murder was an overcharge or overreach. And if if somebody
was driving drunk on the mass Turnpike andilled and killed
some body, would they have charged them with murder if
it happened today, of course they wouldn't. Would be vehicular
mansel or whatever charger would be in the Manhattan as
you mean, in the Massachusetts pedal coat.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
But you know it was from the beginning this case
was an absolute disaster.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
And yes, the O'Keefe family and John o'keith specifically deserved.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
A lot more than this effort. I could tell you
that right now.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And Susan, you have been street level, You've been there.
What in the world is the town feeling?
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Unlike anything I've ever experienced? And the sarges a right,
call them the sargeant. What he said that this is
just unbelievable. Every day that I watched, so I was
there for about a week, and to see that house
where they say Karen Reid hit John O'Keefe, you realize
it's smaller than originally thought, at least from my perspective.
(02:55):
But talking about today, to be a fly on the wall,
and I would imagine what a lessie thought when he
was uncovering this, because, as you both know, it's usually
during a trial it can be the battle of the experts.
We even saw that in Delphi. It was about the
markings on the bullet and one expert said, absolutely, it's
(03:16):
like a fingerprint. The other experts said, no, it's not.
They usually cancel each other out, we find and the
jury kind of can disregard them both. But this, the
ethics here, or lack thereof, is what is so shocking.
And trust me, I went into this. I called Cheryl.
I said, I'm going to Karen Reid, tell me what
you think. I just watched the documentary. I didn't follow
(03:38):
the first trial, and I thought because of the bits
and pieces that maybe I heard that she was guilty.
I didn't look into it at all, mind you, I
didn't really even know the facts. I heard whispers of
it with someone who drank too much and felt bad
and hit her boyfriend. That's all I had heard. But
the more I watched and the more I understood to
(03:58):
me exactly bactly what was just stated to retry this
again but also second degree murder. Every day when I
watch it, I'm thinking, what is this real? And my father,
who's an attorney in New Jersey, he was recently here
with my mom, and I was filling him in and
telling him all about it, and I had him listen
(04:20):
on the way to a restaurant, I'll talk to anyone
who will listen about this by the way to the
opening statement, and he said, wow, that attorney is excellent.
It was Alan Jackson's opening. So as you can tell now,
I'm all in on this case. And really it's jaw dropping.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Every day it is jaw dropping. And you know Sargs
you teach at John Jay, there is no way in
your classes that you are not just hammering. Write a report.
Write a report. You've got to document. We not only
have one person but three that never wrote down that
(04:57):
she allegedly said I hear him, I hit him. I
hit him. And I know in my police academy, we
were tall. If it ain't wrote down, it didn't happen exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
I mean, that's that's the thing that even when I
was working in the police department, in the nic the squad,
I mean.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
The the mantra was document, document, document. I would say that.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
He was like buying a house, right location, location, location,
you have to document because it just it wasn't done.
And you can't get me on the stand saying well,
I did it, but I just didn't write it down.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
That's that's not gonna fly. But you know, here's here's.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
My other big issue that I have with this. And like
I said, I'm not pro car and read, I'm not
anti car read. I look at what the police do
in the criminal justice system and that's where I lay
my focus on. And the police failed to do that
job he had, both in Canton and specifically the Massachusetts
State Police. It was a it was mishandled. The crime
scene was mishandled from the beginning. And you know, you know,
(05:50):
as soon as you say crime scene, people say, oh,
so you do think it was a crime. No, every
death is treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Period, end of point, ended discussion.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
So, yeah, any death, you treat it like a crime
because you don't know exactly what you have. And they
did not do that from the very beginning. They didn't
separate witnesses, they didn't take down any notes, they didn't
control the crime scene, they didn't wait to daylight to douce,
you know, certain searches in the beginning.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
I mean, the list just goes.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
On and on and through this entire I call it
now an ordeal because that's basically what it is.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
I can't imagine being the Okey family having to go
through this.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
But there is a lack of supervision that happened in
this case that is just beyond comprehension in so many
different words. Because that there therein lies the big failure
in so many levels.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I'll tell you.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
After the first trial, there should have been a complete
revamping of the training in Massachusetts. The governor should have
ordered it, because if this is the way you're training
your yeah, if this is your way you're training your
cops on how to handle crime scenes and then having
a sergeant and telling us that it's like, no big
deal to you know, change a custom is not a
big deal, and it's you know, I documented, so I
(07:03):
don't have to document it somewhere else.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
It's redundant. I mean calling the chain of custody redundant
is absolutely crazy.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Yeah, there's no chain of custody. I mean, it's baffling.
You don't have a lead detective that went to the scene.
You've got a sergeant that didn't write a report even
though he allegedly found evidence. You don't have facts accurate
like date and time. You don't submit evidence for six weeks,
and then when you come to trial you have two
(07:29):
left shoes. You have somebody on the stand that looks
in the bag and says, hey, there's other stuff in here.
I mean, I mean, Susan, I can't imagine going around
that town and seeing people go into bars and restaurants
and trying to do some shopping where they're not just
(07:50):
I don't even know how you would be walking around
with any confidence in your police department.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Well, I will say where the courthouse is. It's a
beautiful town, very close to Campton, very similar to Canton.
Everyone's talking about it. I spoke to this very nice
officer right outside of the courthouse, and he said, I
don't talk to anyone about it. He said, even my wife.
I just very nice guide. He just said, I can't
believe it. Everyone wants to talk to me about it.
(08:15):
I'm just here trying to, you know, keep the peace
outside of court. And I will tell you that at
restaurants there was a sign. I went there kind of
by myself. It was like a sports bar, and it
said like next Tuesday, the cops will be here on
stage for you know, and you could bid on the cops.
It's very much a we love cops, which is a
(08:36):
great thing. There's one aspect to that that's wonderful. But
it also made me feel like, of course there's a
brotherhood and that's understood, but is there also a brotherhood
in deceit? And what stood out to me the most
was that Brian Albert and being in front of that
house because it was the day that all media could
be there and they had Karen Reid's lexus there and
(08:58):
everyone out of the same kind of ten minutes to
do to be around that house, and of course the
jury had come and gone kind of touring that house,
and that he never came out of the house. I mean,
that's what he does for a living. I was thinking
about my husband. He has no history or background law enforcement.
He would come out, anyone would come outside, and nobody did.
(09:19):
And that was so telling to me.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
I absolutely agree, And SARS, that's one thing I want
to throw to you. Other than NYPD, the Boston Police Department,
to me, is the most old school, havea your back,
blue line kind of department that there is. And you're
telling me that a police officer from Boston can die.
(09:46):
However he died and be on the front lawn. Other
police don't come out. The investigating Department does not put
the very best there is. The DA the Commonwealth has
not put the very best that they have on this thing.
They have not vetted their own experts. They did not
(10:07):
make sure that this investigation was pristine. This investigation, I'm
going to say, it is the worst I have ever
seen that made it to trial.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Yeah, I can't I can't disagree with that. This is
this is beyond bed And you know, when you take
a look at exactly what transpired here, you just you
could just start examining each step of the way. It's
just from the very beginning. How many failures there were
and now continue to have failures. I mean the prosecution
in the first trial and even in the second trial.
(10:42):
I don't think that witnesses were prepared. I mean I
have an I have an entire problem with the criminal
justice system, you know, I mean the criminal justice system here.
We're talking about the police departments involved and the prosecutor's
office here.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
It's just it's just, uh, it's just fraighting. Let's put
it that way. Keep everything Pg. Thirteen here, But yeah,
it's frustrating.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
And in the you know, in the other issue that
you're dealing with here is like, you know what what
if Cheryl these were the best that they had and
put out boy oh boy.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Defense attorney's aligning.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Up and you have another Hey, you have another big
murder case that's coming out with the with the Anna
Walsh case. Who that guy Michael Proctor who has now
been severed from the Massachusettate Police with the lead investigator
in that case.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
And then you have the Sondra Birchmore case that's on
the on the back burner.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
So there are so many different things that are going
to happen up there that this isn't the end And
as a matter of fact, I think it's only the beginning.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Susan or people talking about the dog bite at all anymore?
Or is that just gone away?
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Yes, I think that I remember watching one. I think
it was on ABC News. One of the jurors from
the first trial we speak in he said, that's what
did it for him, that in his experience, those type
of injuries didn't align with what the evidence was saying.
And so absolutely once I looked at that and thought,
(12:11):
oh my gosh. And what followed, the rehoming of the dog,
the selling of the house, the retirement of Brian Alberts
in the house he retired, I mean all the things
that followed. Brian Higgins a military base, getting rid of
his phone and taking out a chip from the phone
and throwing it out and getting rid of that. But
(12:32):
also something that I've never really seen or experienced before
with this case is the vitriol and the hate out
there that's around this and I can't and of course
John O'Keeffe that's number one, and thinking about him and
his family. It doesn't mean that I do not respect
(12:54):
the victim here just because I saw what I saw
and I'm not one. Everyone has enough problem, right, they
don't go on Twitter to start a fight. But I
will tell you in the little that I did post,
and it wasn't hateful at all. It was me outside
of the house and doing a stand up, if you will.
I had friends of mine that are journalists that I
respect and like say, oh no, did you fall into
(13:15):
the Karen Reid cult? But I don't think they're watching
really a minute of the trial because they're smart and
there is no way you can watch. I'd an open mind.
I have no skin in the game of who did
this and who didn't. It's sad that he lost his life.
Everyone wants justice, but the hate and the victriol it is.
It's pretty shocking.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Yes, I agree with you, and Sarge, I'm going to
tell us this to you because I've said, in this
particular case, the facts don't matter. And here's why they
don't matter. You're not going to be able to convince
everybody that some of that evidence wasn't planted because you've
lost evidence, you've mislabeled evidence, you didn't turn things in,
(13:57):
you don't have chain of custody. It's easy to me
that you've got people that are testifying based on memory only,
and they've changed that testimony a little bit. Did she
say I hit him? Or did she say could I
have hit him? I mean, it's just crazy and we've
seen more than one person that does not seem to
(14:19):
be telling the truth. And for our world, Sarge, the
rule is if you lie about one thing, you lied
about everything, So again, the facts don't matter.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Yeah, it's disturbing on so many levels because every time
I hear something new or see something that's coming from
the police side, you think, okay, maybe you know they
got their act together on this whatever, and then they
disappoint you again. Right, every time I hear something and
I look at it, everything's but are raised eyebrow and
I even question now every time they open their mouths
(14:53):
to speak because of the.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Fact that it is so bad.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
And what I mean by so bad, I mean, forget
about just lack of documentation, but it's just they they
didn't keep track of the evidence. They don't even know
who had the evidence when they had it even you know,
and I know people are saying, well, you know it's
a conspiracy. Okay, if this is a conspiracy, this is
the worst conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
I have ever seen valid, valid point, you know, and
the like.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
The old Ben Franklin thing says, right, you know, two
people can keep a secret, Three people can keep a
secret along as two of them are dead. Right. Only
the fact that that you have all this dysfunction, to me,
should be the story. You know. If you want to
believe in the conspiracy things, that's fine. You know, maybe
in the end they prove a conspiracy. I don't know,
but after the first trial, I had kind of promised
(15:42):
myself I wouldn't get involved because, like what Susan had
said is the plain vitriol, and then you end up
getting It's like that, you know, the famous Godfather scene.
You know, every time you think you're out and they
pull you back in, and you know, and here you
are again.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Well, you know, I would love to ignore it. But
I think this is going to be a case that
every single law school and every single police academy is
going to train off of for a while, just like Ojay.
There is so much here. Like I even told a
buddy of mine when some of the officers were on
the stand, they were sarcastic, they were standoffish, they were rude. Okay,
(16:22):
I don't know where they got their training about courtroom testimony,
but they just violated everything I was taught. And then
to sit there and use a word and then act
like you don't know what it means. They gave it
to them on a silver platter. Discredit me, is what
they basically said.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
In my opinion, Yes, they they're not likable characters.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
And that's the number one thing that they teach you
when you have to testify in court, you know.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
And actually I learned a new word today, mendacity right
word before.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Yeah, I had to look it up.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
It's got to be Google trending right now.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Well, tell everybody what it is because I had the
same reaction you did. I got to look that up.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Untruthfulness and lying it's just another way of saying that
you're lying.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
So who said that?
Speaker 1 (17:04):
ALESSI?
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Yeah, I need a asaurus with his vocabulary.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Yes, right, Like I said, I always pride myself in
knowing a lot of words.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
But I was like, wow, I don't.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Even know what that word is, and I had to
look it up, and I'm like, and you know what, though,
unfortunately it probably went over every jurors head too, or
most of the juror's heads to and I don't think
it kind of then holds the same meaning when you're
trying to make a point.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
But but you know, I guess he didn't want to
come right out and say why are you lying? Right, because.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
You know li likeability is one thing I think about
the Jody Arius trial, Casey Anthony, their attorneys, jose Bias,
Kirk Nurmi, who I'm close with now, Jody Aires's defense attorney,
the prosecutor. People have things to say about everyone. You're
kind of on a stage, if you will, But this
isn't it to me. It's more of and I understand
(17:58):
people who don't watch, or aren't watching, or don't know
the facts of it. I didn't watch the first trial,
as I said, but to listen to what we have
heard and to see the connection because I thought of
that they all grew up in this town. I've I'm
now friends with a lot of people on TikTok, and
again could go back to confirmation bias, but I'm watching
(18:18):
like everyone else and thinking, again, no skin in the game.
I want to see the facts and it's just one
shocking day after the next. But I wonder if we'll
ever know what really happened to John O'Keefe, and I
interviewed two girls and their twenties sisters and their mom
watched the first trial and told them to watch, and
then they were interested. They were there outside of the courthouse,
dressed in paint Karen Reid's favorite color. And I expected
(18:39):
to go there to see a lot of extremism, if
you will, kind of you go there outside of the courtroom.
They were highly intelligent, very kind, and they said they
were looking for justice for John O'Keeffe. They were there
with their mom. And I do wonder though, with the connection.
There are connections. If you look at the family tree
(18:59):
here the godmother of this person and the family's connected,
because it is kind of unbelievable. If you saw this
in a movie, you would think, no, that wouldn't happen.
But these people have known each other, a lot of
them for life. Because you think about who would you
lie for on the stand. And I do remember hearing
whispers during the first trial of House Long to die
(19:19):
in the cold. Then that stood out to me, caught
my attention for a minute. I was focusing on Delphi
and I turned away, but to see Jen mckab on
the stand and no one can just matter of factly state.
There was one young girl at the party that night,
and she you could tell when someone's telling the truth,
it's not shifty. It's yes, no, oh, yeah, that was
(19:40):
years ago. But I do remember seeing this person or
that person, not I don't recall. What do you mean,
I've never heard that word before. It's just it's evasive,
and it's I see why people are drawn to this trial,
myself included, because you're seeing something you've never seen before.
I haven't. And I wonder if they're regretting bringing this
(20:00):
back or retrying this case, because to me, it puts
the spotlight on the Alberts, It puts the spotlight on
Boston Police, Canton Police, Higgins, not Karen Read in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
And the state police.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
You have to, yeah, absolutely throw.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Them under the bus because you know, Lieutenant Gallagher was
not a likable character again on this and he did
not do any do any favors by you know, grabbing
that leaf blower and finding not writing anywhere to cops,
the solo cups and the brown papers, you know, the
stop and shop bags.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Yeah, and I want to tell you something else. Trooper
Proctor stayed employed way too long.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Well, actually I had called that he was going to
get he was going to lose his job last year.
And the reason why is because they had an intram
Massachusetts State Police colonel I think it was. And the governor,
of course, you know, make sure that that person serves
at their at their behest and and if you want
to be the head and no longer the interview, better
(21:00):
do the right thing. But here what he hasn't done
And I said, the governor hasn't done any that they
haven't called for an entire revamping of the trade to
the state police.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Listen, I knew he was going to get fired. But
I'm saying once he admitted on the stand, yes, I
called her that, Yes I said this, Yes I did that.
No I didn't do this. No I didn't do that.
He should have been fired immediately, And they drugged that out.
As far as I was concerned, that wasn't a good
look either. Now I want to ask both of y'all. Vinz,
(21:33):
how important do you think it is that the medical
examiner said no homicide, that the medical examiner said doesn't
look like a vehicle impact.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Well, that's that's usually a big problem when you're trying
to charge murder once again, right, I mean it goes
down and as undetermined whatever they want to call it,
but that means it's required more investigation and more detailing
to exactly what transpired.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
And I don't think that happened in this case.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
As as a matter of fact, I'm questioning the entire investigation.
You know, when you have the Sally board video that's
like inverted, right, I mean, I mean the list just
goes on and on. I mean to say that you
have one mistake in a crime scene, okay, I mean
we could live with that, We can live with evidence dynamics,
we could live with the chaos of the scene and
all the different things going on.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
But there's just too many to even count at this point.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
There were mistakes in Delphi, and you know that Cheryl
and the detective Holman, who you know, well, just a
wonderful person, and he even said he's going through it
even to this day, like figuring out the mistakes that
were made. I mean, no one is perfect, and we
understand that. And I'm wondering, was there just so much
drinking that night, did something happen accidentally and then everybody
panicked Okay, so let's say that that happened. I'm clearly speculating.
(22:50):
I don't think we'll ever know. But the blatant disregard
for her rights, you want to just throw away the key.
What if she couldn't afford these attorneys, which she can't.
I believe they're raising funds. What if they weren't as
sharp as they are? I mean, my gosh, the lawyering
on her side is phenomenal, and I feel sorry for
her dad and brother. And just that to me is
(23:12):
you will let this woman be the fall person for
what happened inside that house. Some people are going to
disagree with me. That's what I think happened. But even
if you don't, there's reasonable doubt. Even if you think
she hit them, she doesn't remember, or she was drinking,
or she said it. You don't like her for some reason,
and you think she's one hundred percent guilty, that's your
(23:33):
right to believe that, but there is reasonable doubt. This
is our justice system. I believe it works. It works,
but I don't. Can they try her again? I have
that question.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
I'm sure they could if they wanted to, but I
highly recommend it not doing it.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
The second time Iraq. But Cheryl, let me ask you
a quick question.
Speaker 3 (23:50):
Have you ever done a death investigation where you did
in Canvas the entire neighborhood, knocking on everybody's doors.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
Zero. Let me say this, in order to canvas, you
have to be there. And that's another thing I've never
heard in my life that the lead detective wasn't unseen.
But Susan, I want to say one thing, and I
want Sarge to jump in. When you're working a case,
any case, what you believe, what you think, or what
(24:16):
you feel does not matter. That ain't evidence doesn't matter.
I can think somebody's guilty, I can feel like he's
a bad person. I can. However you want to frame it,
you have to have evidence that this happened. You have
a medical examiner saying I thought he'd been in a fight,
not a homicide, not a vehicular impact. Now I had
(24:39):
a chief that I worked for years and years ago.
If that had happened, our investigation was over. He let
the medical examiner kind of lead the way. In other words,
what are you investigating if there's no crime?
Speaker 3 (24:55):
But if you remember in the first trial, the you
know was I think was Procter In another troop or
whatever was trying to get the medical examiner to change
her determination on what the the manner of death was.
So that tells you that all that's all you want
to need. And I can tell you that right now.
If I would have brought a case like this to
the Bronx, they would have escorted me out the door.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Well, I remember Paul Hole telling this to me, and
I've mentioned this before. It was at Crime Con on
stage in Las Vegas, and he said he mentioned confirmation bias,
and he said that it absolutely happened to him when
investigating the Golden State killer. Did everything he believed he
brought into his investigation and everything that didn't the ligne
he kind of tossed out, and he said, I have
(25:39):
to be very careful of this because it can creep
up on you your belief system. We all come from
a different backgrounds and different belief systems. And UNLESSI brought
that up when cross examining today, talking about anchor bias,
when your first impression is what you ride with along
the way and you keep it there, and confirmation bias,
of course we know what that is. I even thought
(25:59):
when I first started, when I went there and then
I started really watching every day.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
I thought, do I have confirmation by it? What is like?
Speaker 4 (26:06):
I thought, wait a minute, are we watching two different trials?
Am I in the twilight zone here? Because I believe
one thing and it's clear to me that it's so
divided that I couldn't believe. I thought, do I have it?
And then I thought, exactly what you said, Cheryl. The
jurors don't have to weigh in on that, meaning it's
not about their beliefs. You're right, it's about the evidence,
(26:27):
what is stated on the stand and reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Now, like I said, I have the first trial, I
called it I think in a week.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
At the end of week one, I said this case
was ending in a hung jury.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Your second trial is not going to get stronger, it's
going to get weaker. And in this case, they lost
the lead detective. They lost the credibility of the officer
that did the re enactment. I mean he was taken
to school by the defense expert. I mean, why retire
you know the system more than me. That's what we're saying.
(27:05):
It seems unethical to me.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
And you're talking about the trooper pol the vehicle collision. Yeah,
I mean I think we're going to see him again.
I think the defense will definitely call him in because
I mean it's a win for the defense bringing him in.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
That you've got to bring him in because you know,
the Glace just got that exactly.
Speaker 4 (27:22):
And he's not the soul in my opinion, it's not. Yes,
his text messages were disgusting, and he was the lead investigator, right,
he sets the tone. And there's a guy with solo cups,
I mean, my gosh. But with Higgins and Albert, I mean,
it just it's one after the other. What is the
goal here that they want to win or someone has
(27:44):
to take the fall for the I guess a police
officer dying, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
And y'all it's person after person after person. You know
what about the woman whos said, well, I didn't want
to go knock on the door because I thought my
sister was sleeping. Okay, if there's a dead person on
my lawn, I'm waking my sister up. Sorry, especially if
I know her husband is a police officer. Give me
a break. I mean, it's not believable. None of it's believable.
(28:13):
And you know, you do have somebody that lost their
life but if you listen to the medical examiner, how
long was he out there? Because he didn't have frostbite?
And then you have somebody saying, well, I'm going to
research how long does it take to freeze?
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Really, do you think the judge sees and here's what
we hear and how could she not? Or I guess
it doesn't matter. She's just there to kind of referee.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Oh yeah, I mean there's issues with that too.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
And y'all here's the thing. We're about to have an outcome.
I mean I think they should throw in the towel
tomorrow and say, you know what, we've lost. The rails
have come off this thing.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Can they do that? The state, the Commonwealth say, or
maybe the defense presents nothing. They don't call anyone to
the stand.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
I don't think they need to call anybody. Just keep
putting up their witnesses.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
And you're right, this is going to be talked about
for a long time.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Just it's going to be trained on.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
I'm telling you, yeah, just like just like Ojay case,
where you learned you know from, and I remember that
as a supervisor in the detective squad, know where your
people are at all times, so you don't cross contaminate
crime scenes.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
Yes, and that's textbook compared to this trial, It's like
they did nothing wrong in my eyes, meaning figuratively speaking,
compared to this with the snowblower and the solo craps.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
But y'all think about it. You know, when the Simpson
trials going on, they made a big deal about the
vile of blood being put in the jacket pocket. Then
he put the jacket on the back of the chair
and walked away. So it wasn't you know, cared about
and you know, treated like it should have been. Anybody
(29:57):
could have got a hold of it. And then plant
of the blood is what they were try to say. Okay,
look at this case. How do you get two left
shoes in the same bag?
Speaker 4 (30:06):
I mean, I don't mean to laugh.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Wasn't there pieces?
Speaker 3 (30:09):
It wasn't the number of pieces in one of the
bags not matching up to what the vouche.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Was to Yes, And she even said on the stand,
there's other things in here? Do you want me to
just put this bag? Well to me, all right, let's
talk about DNA. How did the DNA get there? Well,
if you've got to touch and other stuff, that's one way.
I mean it's just baffling. You said it earlier, Sarge.
It is abysmal. I have never ever, in forty four
(30:36):
years seen an investigation this pitiful that actually went to
trial once, much less twice.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
The expert on the stand who was analyzing what was
on Jen McCabe's phone, she was cross examined by Alessi,
and he was kind of backed into a corner and
agreed that he was right. It was even the facts
of that we're above my head in terms of the
data that she was analyzing. She turns to the Commonwealth
(31:05):
and says sorry, sorry, like sorry that I couldn't align
with And we all know that experts are paid. We
know this system and that's how it works, and that's
okay that her analysis can be different than but looking
over and saying sorry, it's one shocking moment after another.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Here, Sarge, what's the outcome going to be?
Speaker 2 (31:25):
It's gonna I don't think it ended in not guilty.
I think it ended another hung.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Jury, susan not guilty. I don't see how it couldn't.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
But Sergey might be right.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
I'm assarge, they don't have anything. Here's what I would do.
I'm not a lawyer. But I have worked with some
of the best there is. I would have me a
big old poster board, and I would have on their
you know, chain of custody, scene secure, separated witnesses, document reports,
(31:55):
evidence submitted in a timely manner, medical examiner, manner of death.
I would have everything, and they don't have it. They
don't have it. I would take every written sentence off there,
and at the end of it, I would have a
blank board. They don't have it.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
That's their case, and they have an easy appeal because
a question I had the jurors, the first jury that
the trial antine and the mistrials you know, came back
and they voted unanimously no to second degree murder and
the second charge, and they were hung on the third charge.
I believe it was the hicular Manslar. So why are
(32:32):
she being charged for second degree murder again and again?
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Ethically? I don't know how you do it. They do
not have one element of murder, not one.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Do you trust juris in general?
Speaker 1 (32:46):
I do.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
I think that they're intelligent. I feel like they have
to see what we see.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
That's why I'm holding it to tell you after til
five there should be no doubt in your mind. That
jury was sophisticated. They own it.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
They were taking notes, but they were sequestered. I'm shocked
that these sures are not sequestered. I truly am considering
the attention.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Well after the first one, everybody's heard it. They know
that that's true. True. Good point, Sarge, any last comments.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
I just hope something good comes out of this in
regards to better training for the officers and you know,
better supervision and those kind of things, because I don't
think those in charge in Massachusettstate Police and Canton can
survive another round with their jobs.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Intact, these chiefs.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
I mean, there needs to be some This needs to
be some sweeping changes as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Amen, Susan.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
I'll quote the sisters. They were twins that I interviewed
outside of the courthouse, and they said, this is justice
for John O'Keefe. Anyone can be Karen Reid, and no
one should be Karen Reid. She has rights, and she
deserves her rights, and she deserves to have her truth
be told and believed because the evidence again belief.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
Take that out.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
The evidence does not show second degree murder intention to
kill John O'Keeffe, and it is heart wrenching and heartbreaking
for that family and those kids that he adopted from
his sister. It's just horrible. But what we've seen thus far,
and I've watched the first trial since I texted Cheryl,
I fell asleep to Higgins on the stand. I mean,
(34:22):
that's how much I'm watching this. But the jury has
to come together and I have hope in their intelligence
and decide is their reasonable doubt and what does the
evidence point to? And I believe it's not guilty, y'all.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Check out True Crime with the Sarge Joe jack Alone.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, y'all. Check out headline
Crime with Susan Hendrix. Susan, thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
I wrote down True Crime with the Sarge. I'm checking
it out. Thanks Cheryl as.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Always, Thanks Cheryl, Thanks Suir, y'all.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
I always do with a quote, I hit him, I
hit him, I hit him unknown. I'm Cheryl McCollum and
this is Zone seven. How's that for sarcasm?
Speaker 2 (35:17):
M
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.