May 22, 2024 • 26 mins
Karen Read, 43, of Mansfield, is accused of second-degree murder and other charges. The prosecution says she hit her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, with her vehicle outside of a home in Canton during a snowstorm on Jan. 29, 2022, following a night of drinking.
Guest Bio and Links:
Judge Ashley Wilcott is a nationally recognized Child Welfare Law Specialist and Juvenile Court Judge with over 20 years of experience as a trial attorney and child welfare specialist. Her life’s work revolves around passionately advocating for and striving to improve the lives of children at risk and youth in the foster care system.
Joshua Schiffer is an attorney providing legal services covering Criminal Defense, Personal Injury. Listeners can learn more about Joshua Schiffer at his website
Resources:
Listen to previous episodes on The Karen Read Murder Trial:
The Karen Read Murder Trial: Killer or Cover Up Murder with Joshua Schiffer
In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, Judge Ashley Wilcott, and Joshua Schiffer continue to weigh in on the latest Karen Read trial details. Sheryl draws parallels to the infamous Casey Anthony trial. Together, they explore various theories surrounding the case, the intense public and media scrutiny, and the strategic legal maneuvers at play.
Show Notes:
- (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum
- (0:30) Sheryl compares the Karen Read trial to the Casey Anthony trial
- (1:57) “It don't matter what you think or what you feel or what you believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove.”
- (2:25) What is a buffer zone?
- (2:30) Both Judge Ashley Wilcott and Joshua Schiffer weigh in
- (4:00) “There's one woman, she has a shirt on that says ‘free Karen Reed’, but she's holding a poster that says ‘justice for John O'Keefe’. I feel for her. I get it. It almost can't be both. -Sheryl Mac
- (8:00) The role of federal investigations
- (9:00) Analysis of John O'Keefe's relationships with his peers
- (10:00) Pre and post-police funeral behavior
- (13:00) Impact of Proctor's testimony
- (14:30) Speculation on the defense's potential witnesses
- (22:00) “If you want to recast it, this is cops lying against cops about cops” -Joshua Schiffer
- 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, missing persons, and kidnapping cases.
Social Links:
- Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com
- Twitter: .css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}Mark as PlayedTranscript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Y'all better buckle up. I have not seen a case
like this since Casey Anthony.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
And let me explain.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
I have four sisters, well educated women, diverse in their
likes and dislikes. They've probably got about twelve degrees between them.
A couple of them got a six year degree, one's
got a PhD. They've got master's degrees, they've got rn degrees.
And I say that because these are logical people. But
(00:39):
during the Casey Anthony trial, I had one sister that
thought the mama straight up.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Killed that baby.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I had one that believed the baby drowned accidentally and
they covered it up with grandpa's help. I had another
one that believed the child got into some drugs and
accidentally odeed. And I had another one that thought the
baby died I somehow, maybe hitting her head or something,
and her mama panicked and covered it up. And I thought,
(01:06):
you know what, this is your jury.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
These are all for mamas.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
These are all for you know, middle of the road,
middle America kind of people. And so I said on
National TV what I thought was logical, and I did
so confidently that Casey Anthony was going to walk out
of that courtroom and The reason I said it was
because if you could not tell me how.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
That baby died, you don't have murder. People lost their minds.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
I had more hate mail. Good ness. People were coming
after me. How could I defend Casey Anthony? How could
I believe? Listen now, I tried to be very clear
and logical, but I'm gonna tell you right now before
we get into tonight, it don't matter what you think,
(02:00):
or what you feel, or what you believe.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
The only thing that matters is what you can prove.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Judge Ashley Wilcom, Joshua Schiffer, we got about forty years
of the best there is. So Karen Reid, let's say
answer one question for him. Between the three of us,
we have walked into a courthouse thousands of times. What
is a buffer zone?
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (02:28):
I think it's brilliant. I think this is brilliant maneuvering.
It's all brilliant maneuvering. Keep all those protesters that are
for Karen Reid away from the courthouse, Judge, because that's
going to bias this case and bias this jury. And
they shouldn't be anywhere around here because that interest of
(02:49):
a fair trial, says the state outweighs the freedom of
speech standing on.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
The courthouse steps. Josh, you weigh in, But I thought
it was a.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Brilliant maneuver, I gotta say, And I'm a died in
the wool civil libertarian. But the court has a necessary
and important interest in securing and then protecting the integrity
of the process. While freedom of speech needs to have
an outlet, needs to have a spot, it has been
demonstrated that this courthouse, for this case, cannot provide that
(03:22):
to the litigans without some sort of governmental regulation. And
now then you see cops all over the place. Every
time these Litigans walk in or out of the courthouse,
there is a mob of people questioning them with some
reasonable stuff, but then some really wild stuff, like there's
been stuff in the media in this case that it's
been unlike any other case we've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen protesters
like this. I've never seen such rabid folks on both sides.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Where they're just unyielding.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
It's almost like logic doesn't matter, the law doesn't matter,
the facts don't matter. It's just my opinion, my thought,
my belief is going forward. But there's one woman she
has a shirt on that says free Karen Reid, but
she's holding a poster that says justice for John O'Keefe.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
I feel for her.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
I get it like it almost can't be both, Like
you can't be that woman. You've got to pick a side.
I bet you can't.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Go into a bar nowhere in that town that it's
not separated.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
If this defense theory is true, are they going to
demand a prosecution of these witnesses?
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, if the defense theory is true, I think at
the end of the day, if they get an acquittal acquittal,
they're going to run away. I would write that's a
huge wind. If I were them, I would disappear and
not demand a dang thing because guess what, I was successful.
But I also have to suggest that when we're talking
about Karen Reid's defense and what she's saying happened, we
(04:53):
know from her prior interviews defendant's own words that she
says she saw John o'kee walking up to the house.
She's the only witness so far. It's going to say that.
The rest have said, oh no, nobody ever got out
on car. So if that's her defense, does she have
to testify because I think if she has to testify,
(05:14):
the prosecution really might stand a chance because it may
conclude there's no other reasonable explanation than she did it.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
And her testifying this is going to Because I'm on
the same page as you, I'm saying that she doesn't
need to testify in this case given how strong the
defense has been so far. Now we've still got several
more witnesses, and I think Procter is the be all
end all.
Speaker 6 (05:39):
For the state's case, because if the state can't produced
with Proctor, this case may look at a directed verdict.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Assuming Proctor presents enough strong evidence and there's been Look,
there's been Prema faci eforts, not a lot, certainly not
enough that we would say that's a good, well proven case,
but there's been testimony. But I think that's what they're
going to have to decide after the state's case is closed,
because she getting on the stand, big exposure, huge exposure.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Well, let me ask the two of you this, what
about John working with the Feds? What about the federal investigation? Again,
to me, that's a layer on this thing. If you
want to look at why would somebody have motive if
you're fixing to blow up my whole career and my
whole department and my ring of buddies. That's good all day.
(06:31):
And if he just arrived at our house intoxicated and
she pulled away, whatever happened to happen. And now we're
just going to say she did it. She's going to
say we did it. And again I'll go back to
casey Anthony, how did he die?
Speaker 3 (06:47):
We don't know, we don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
We're not going to know.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Based on the evidence you have both.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
This is the wildest case to me because you've got
evidence supporting each theory. So whichever theory you want to believe,
you can find some supporting evidence of. And that's really unusual.
And I think the FEDS being involved is reflective of
this poor investigation and something shady in the house and
(07:13):
prosecutor that didn't start off well doing the right thing
in the case, and all of that makes it all
very messy.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
And the FED stuff, I know, it's hard because we
all know the case. And oh, if I was a FED,
this is the part that I'd be interested. Remove that
from your brain. You have no idea what the FEDS
are thinking if there is someone that comes out of
left field, because they have information you can't even conceive of.
It's the FEDS. Sure, we've got some stuff that would
make a lot of sense for them to investigate complaints.
(07:44):
And let's be honest, this is Massachusetts. The FEDS have
been investigating Massachusetts law enforcement. It was literally like the
first job was, Hey, go investigate the local police in Massachusetts.
There are some corrupt ones. So it's not like this
is shocking or unprecedented. This is a known thing and
that means that people have been investigated before, and that
(08:06):
means that there's a whole community about Hey, FED, start
knock and this is what you do, and there's us
versus them mentality. Law enforcements not necessarily all friendly with
each other. And we don't know whether this FED poking
around is minor or if it's like you're talking about
career ending and they can end your career in law
enforcement by snapping their fingers.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, because people are saying that Brian Albert, Colin, Albert,
Brian Higgins, who's an ATF agent, y'all all had motive,
they're all corrupt.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Well, again, you cannot have the FEDS involved in any
investigation to me without it cloud and what they're trying
to do in that courthouse right now.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
I agree with you, And you know, the other part
of this for me is there's so many parts. I've
said that eight times. But the other thing that I
took note of is my sense listening to all of
the evidence presented by the state so far, I walk
away with this feeling of I feel like John o'keeith
was looking in from the outside, even though he was
(09:11):
one of them. I don't get the impression that they
liked him. They weren't grab assing with him at the bar.
They weren't you know, it wasn't a video where we're
all saying, oh, what were they doing at the bar together?
Speaker 5 (09:22):
Well, they were kind of ignoring him if you just
watch that video, and I don't you know, they didn't
run out, according to their own testimony, when he's out
there in the lawn and dying or dead. And so
I feel like, for whatever reason, they don't like him,
and Mac, I'll turn it back to you, because again,
if a cop is not liked, there's something else there.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
I cannot agree, and to me that cannot be overstated.
So again to me, that goes to motive. Did they
know that he was working with the Feds. It would
almost appear that they knew he was working with the Feds.
That's why they didn't fool with him. That's why he
didn't go in the house. That's why they didn't go outside.
(10:05):
And I'll tell you something else that I would like
to see come out. Who planned, assisted, ran participated in
the funeral? What did they do post? Y'all all know
pre and post behavior. And you got a cops funeral
that died on your front yard. You ought to be
folding that flag, handing that to somebody.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
And there's already just enormous scuttle butt about who was
talking to who, when, where, When did friendships end? And
again I'm I'm with Ashley. I feel that John O'Keefe
was a little bit of an outsider looking in rumors
that I trust make me believe that they obviously knew
(10:46):
each other to a degree, and there might have been
this minor bad blood, a misunderstanding something between a couple
of different agencies. But I can't tell you whether that's
a little thing or a huge thing. And for all
we know, this was a meeting later on in the
night to you know, squash that beef from back in
the day or something that's gone through my mind. John
(11:07):
o'keefs just wandered through life, and this crew, somebody associated
with them, the cousin, the brother whatever, has a beef
with John o'keeth. Hey, he's coming over. Hey, we're just
gonna prank and we're gonna ras him. We're gonna we're
gonna town him because Towny's they got a little bit
of a cruel sense of humor. Every once in a
while they may, you know, give a guy something to
(11:28):
remember him by because he stepped in the wrong spot.
And I don't know what's happened, because no one knows.
And that gets back to the state's problem at the beginning.
There's evidence for a lot of different things that means
reasonable doubts everywhere, and.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
The state keeps putting it out there. Josh, I feel like, again,
the state is so busy. It's not as strategic here's
the theory of our case, here's our evidence to support it,
but rather throwing up in an out of order sequence
of witnesses, which happens because witnesses are available at different times.
But to me, it's like they're so busy defending the
(12:01):
theories of the defense and trying to prove the elements
of murder that they're getting into a mess to figure
out what the heck happened.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
The state wants to put forward a discrete, compact, straightforward case.
This is what happened. That's how you prove a murder.
What the states have done. And I don't know if
it was up just a badly handled response or anticipation
or what the state has ended up saying, Hey, here's
our tight, concise story. The defense is going to bring
(12:30):
up all these other things. Let's go talk about them
a lot. And it's like, no, dude, you got to
take what the defense is going to throw at you
and say, everybody, it's on the horizon, but it's garbage.
To get rid of it and don't talk about it anymore.
They're laboring these points, and that's calling attention to come on.
Maybe that wasn't a big detail earlier, but now I'm
going to pay attention to it because now I've seen
(12:51):
conflicting evidence and impeachment.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
I want y'all's opinion about this. I hadn't heard anybody
say this, and but here's how I feel Troop or
Proctor is gonna mark firm in this thing to the
point I don't think they can recover.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Because here's the deal.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
If he went in that phone and he takes those
people what he is alleged to have said, I'm looking
for nudes. I hope she kills herself. It is not
gonna matter what evidence he puts up. They won't forgive him.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I agree, I agree, And not only that, but then
I get to the heart of this. When we talk
about motive and maybe working for the FBI, I just
feel like somewhere in motive there's some affairs going on,
there's some activity that they're trying to protect. But come on,
it's the oldest motive in the book, and it is involved.
Speaker 4 (13:48):
And how many times have we seen a little cover
up suddenly explode and turn into something huge? Because hey, listen, Ashley,
I just need you to tell this one little teeny life.
It's all good to be. Oh hold on, Mac, you're
in the room too, Okay, So Mac, you come over here.
Now you're in on this story. Oh Mac, what do
you mean? You've got your cousin is coming, And it's
(14:08):
just it keeps getting a little bit larger and a
little bit larger, and you can't keep the life straight.
And then you got to make up a couple of
new lives because man, they were not there, so we
got to figure out where they were, and now we
got to fit And then you can't control those lives.
You can't control the story. And a good defense is
going to show those discrepancies and inconsistencies as the reason
(14:31):
that the state cannot prevent absolutely.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
And I'll tell you for any young officers listening, if
you have this situation, you arrest the weak link, meaning
if it gets outside that circle, to that cousin, to
that best friend from high school that you really hadn't
talked with in six months.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
You arrest the idiot.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
You arrest the one that's going to be afraid, the
one that's not used to you know.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
The one who stumbled in either yes, I who was
just catching a ride, the guy who's stuff was in
the back, but he doesn't know that guy. You get
that person because when you put them in the squeeze,
they're the ones that have the most to lose and
the least to care about.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
But in this case, which is that person because a
lot of these people that have testified that we're inside
that house, I would say every one of them fits
that descriptions. They sounded on the stand, some of them
like just a little bit of a bozo that didn't
you know? On cross within said I don't know, I
don't remember. You didn't hear anything. No, I was asleep.
(15:40):
You didn't wake up till the next morning. No, I
was asleep. No I didn't go outside. I think you
could put all of them in that basket.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Well, let me ask y'all this. Both of y'all have
seen both sides of many cases. And if you were
the prosecutor, what are you pushing the hardest? And if
you're the defense attorney, what are you push in the hardest.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
If it's me and I'm that prosecutor, I'm going to
push at the end of the day, I think this
is a case where, yet again the closing argument is
going to make or break it for the state, and
I think they have got to bring it together with
their theory of the case. This is the evidence that
shows the only reasonable explanation she ran over him, period.
(16:26):
All the rest of this stuff you can't believe. And
here's why you can't believe it, because at the end
of the day, the defense has no proof, no proof
that anything happened to John O'Keefe inside that house.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
I'm not often in the position where I really would
encourage the state to double or even triple down on
telling the tight story and almost be rude to the defense.
But this defense has been so active and so aggressive
and so engaging. The state needs to really start putting
up megaffects. So it is getting down and dirty and
(17:02):
telling the jury ignore the noise, ignore the distraction, ignore
everything that the defense is building, trying to pick apart
the personalities of these people, because we have a simple
case here. We have a boyfriend and girlfriend having fighting,
having drinking. She drops him off and he's dead where
she drops him off. The police officers and first responders
(17:25):
in the house never hear him. Come in, Ladies and gentlemen,
that's because she ran him over. They can talk about
all this other stuff. And you've all seen the enormous
amount of creativity that's gone into showing that this was
a conspiracy and there's a cover up, and this involves
hundreds a bit or you can believe the straightforward story
(17:48):
that they were really angry and Karen Reid ran him
over in a drunken rage because the more the state
engages with the defense and the defense, they're giving life
to a corpse that is conspiracy theory, that is cover up.
They're bringing the zombie of cover up to life. Every
time they talk about and if I'm the defense, I
(18:10):
ain't got much to improve on. You're doing real life,
pretty good loibles here and there. I hate it when
he ends the question every time with isn't that correct?
Isn't that.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Bombers your terrible trial skills?
Speaker 4 (18:26):
Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah, learn a couple of other words.
Other than that, I've got to give thumbs up. They
have built a cover up that is now threatening to
take over the defensive theory.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
And then you come down to it, if there's an acquittal.
I don't know what this jury is going to do.
None of us do. But if there's an acquittal, will
they try her again? And I think they would. I
don't know, Josh. I think the state would.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
But you know, I know that the cops are really
angry about it. I don't know how the DA's office is. Like.
Lally is a little bit of a mystery, kind of
an enigma to me because he doesn't seem to be
into this case. But maybe that's just the way he is.
I've not met a single lawyer who said that they
were impressed by or engaged with his opening, but he
(19:10):
has been effective at getting the evidence out. I just
don't know how much he likes this case.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Yeah, it didn't to me. There's no energy, so I
feel like it's one they didn't want to have to try.
But that's just I don't know, you know, maybe his personality.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
He could be also getting other information or no other
stuff that we don't know, like if he knows that
Procter is halfway through a giant investigation for the FEDS,
or there's a whole other case, or who knows, and
that would obviously impact his willingness to push boundaries, you know,
go to the edge of the envelope and really push
hard to win the case. Man, if you know that
(19:50):
there's a bunch of bad stuff going on with some
of these people in the background, at may not be
the spot to stick your neck out. And he's certainly
not sticking his neck out as a prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Well, this is going to be the case, I think
for him, no matter what diner or bar or restaurant
or family re union, he wants into This is going
to be what he's forced to talk about. And it's
never going to be hey, great job. It's always going
to be hey, don't you think you could have done this?
Or don't you think this happened? Or why did you
do this? I think it's going to be a constant
(20:23):
just thorn in his side.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Especially because it's divisive. This is a divisive case no
matter what the outcome is. You've got an entire half
of followers saying that's the wrong outcome. So there's no
good answer, so to speak from that perspective.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
And what Judge Ashley is also saying is this is
the kind of case that gets people unelected or elected. Yeah,
because yes, this is what everybody cares about. This is
what man. People are showing up in drugs. Someone's going
to want a job change because of this.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Listen.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
People are invested in this thing that don't live anywhere
near Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Yeah, it's a big one. We get a lot of
viewers watching the some Court TV a lot. Oh, I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
And this is going to be something that I think
law schools are going to study. I can tell you
some crime scene people need to.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Take a look. When you start talking about red solo
cups and.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Flowers and contact wlame we get Mac brand leaf blowers.
Come on, you are lay out on the monetization Listen.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
I've already been in talks with home depots.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
That's it. But you could really do a whole course
on evidence collection in this case, legal skills, trial skills.
You can do courses on this.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Case, Yes, and I think that that should happen. Just
like Ojay, we learned a lot. I mean, this is
a learning case if I've ever seen one. And again,
when you have, like Josh was saying, when you have
a police officer dead, you would think everything is done
as perfectly as you can, and that is not what
(21:58):
we're seeing.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
I think this is an impact case because of the
way that law enforcement's integrity is the central issue. Because really,
if you want to recast it, this is cops line
against cops about cops. You know, you got cops saying
that this happened, versus cops saying that this happened. He
got a dead cop in the middle, and then you've
got a media firestorm like it's just man, We've seen
(22:26):
giant trials. Heck, Trump's going on, and this is like
anything we've ever seen, and I won't be.
Speaker 6 (22:31):
Surprised to see legislative action because this has upset people
all up and down the spectrum on everything from jury harassment,
which is a big issue right now, all the way
through pre.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Trial coverage, and how local media interacts with law enforcement,
because you've now got local media and national media basically
calling Boston law enforcement a bunch of liars and certainly
insulting their professional abilities.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Well, cops line about cops about cops would be a
great title of the Movie's sad and it's asinine, and
it's crazy, and it's all of those things.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
And it's also the reason we can't quit watching it.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
You know why else because the Alberts. The Alberts are
the Murdochs. Like the Murdochs are in South Carolina, you
now have law enforcement Alberts. I think in that community
that is the family.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
And not only that, I've seen engagement with my law
enforcement people on this case. This case hits law enforcement,
court system prosecutors very hard to consider compared to so
many of the other cases we follow, because this really
does have the fundamental lifestyle of what it is to
be a cop in their personal life and that's not
(23:51):
a really deeply explored issue, and it's a sensitive one.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Anything else that y'all want to be sure we mention
or highlight or say, y'all were flawless act.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
And this is what we do. And it actually knows
how much I love her, like we could.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
We could do this forever. And next time you'll see
me sitting next to them as we eat dinner and
talk to you because we do that a lot.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
And this is awesome.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah, I know, And every time I see it, I
feel like y'all are both cheeked on me.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
But that's okay.
Speaker 4 (24:23):
I had the whole church. We got lots of time.
It's about to be. It's going to be fantastic.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
No, we have to make that happen. I'm absolutely there,
no question about it. Got to make that happen. I'm
going to end Zone seven the way that I always
do with a quote. The jury needed someone to tell
them exactly how Kaylee died.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
Piecing it together.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
From circumstantial evidence was not good enough for them. They
wanted the answers on a silver platter. We didn't have
the evidence to serve it that way. It's not just
the verdict that tells me this, but all also the
manner in which they reached it, the fact they didn't
request any materials to review, the fact they didn't have
(25:07):
any questions for the judge if the statements that the
foremen and the jury made.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
To the media are true.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Ten of the twelve jurors felt that ninety minutes of
deliberation was sufficient to fully weigh and consider and reject
four weeks worth of testimony that we on the prosecution
used to establish that this was first degree murdered. The
rest of the thirteenth hours of deliberation had been spent
(25:38):
trying to convince the two holdout jurors of the decision.
Jeff Ashton, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this is on seven
Y'all better buckle up. I have not seen a case
like this since Casey Anthony.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
And let me explain.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
I have four sisters, well educated women, diverse in their
likes and dislikes. They've probably got about twelve degrees between them.
A couple of them got a six year degree, one's
got a PhD. They've got master's degrees, they've got rn degrees.
And I say that because these are logical people. But
(00:39):
during the Casey Anthony trial, I had one sister that
thought the mama straight up.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Killed that baby.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I had one that believed the baby drowned accidentally and
they covered it up with grandpa's help. I had another
one that believed the child got into some drugs and
accidentally odeed. And I had another one that thought the
baby died I somehow, maybe hitting her head or something,
and her mama panicked and covered it up. And I thought,
(01:06):
you know what, this is your jury.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
These are all for mamas.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
These are all for you know, middle of the road,
middle America kind of people. And so I said on
National TV what I thought was logical, and I did
so confidently that Casey Anthony was going to walk out
of that courtroom and The reason I said it was
because if you could not tell me how.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
That baby died, you don't have murder. People lost their minds.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
I had more hate mail. Good ness. People were coming
after me. How could I defend Casey Anthony? How could
I believe? Listen now, I tried to be very clear
and logical, but I'm gonna tell you right now before
we get into tonight, it don't matter what you think,
(02:00):
or what you feel, or what you believe.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
The only thing that matters is what you can prove.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Judge Ashley Wilcom, Joshua Schiffer, we got about forty years
of the best there is. So Karen Reid, let's say
answer one question for him. Between the three of us,
we have walked into a courthouse thousands of times. What
is a buffer zone?
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (02:28):
I think it's brilliant. I think this is brilliant maneuvering.
It's all brilliant maneuvering. Keep all those protesters that are
for Karen Reid away from the courthouse, Judge, because that's
going to bias this case and bias this jury. And
they shouldn't be anywhere around here because that interest of
(02:49):
a fair trial, says the state outweighs the freedom of
speech standing on.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
The courthouse steps. Josh, you weigh in, But I thought
it was a.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Brilliant maneuver, I gotta say, And I'm a died in
the wool civil libertarian. But the court has a necessary
and important interest in securing and then protecting the integrity
of the process. While freedom of speech needs to have
an outlet, needs to have a spot, it has been
demonstrated that this courthouse, for this case, cannot provide that
(03:22):
to the litigans without some sort of governmental regulation. And
now then you see cops all over the place. Every
time these Litigans walk in or out of the courthouse,
there is a mob of people questioning them with some
reasonable stuff, but then some really wild stuff, like there's
been stuff in the media in this case that it's
been unlike any other case we've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen protesters
like this. I've never seen such rabid folks on both sides.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Where they're just unyielding.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
It's almost like logic doesn't matter, the law doesn't matter,
the facts don't matter. It's just my opinion, my thought,
my belief is going forward. But there's one woman she
has a shirt on that says free Karen Reid, but
she's holding a poster that says justice for John O'Keefe.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
I feel for her.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
I get it like it almost can't be both, Like
you can't be that woman. You've got to pick a side.
I bet you can't.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Go into a bar nowhere in that town that it's
not separated.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
If this defense theory is true, are they going to
demand a prosecution of these witnesses?
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, if the defense theory is true, I think at
the end of the day, if they get an acquittal acquittal,
they're going to run away. I would write that's a
huge wind. If I were them, I would disappear and
not demand a dang thing because guess what, I was successful.
But I also have to suggest that when we're talking
about Karen Reid's defense and what she's saying happened, we
(04:53):
know from her prior interviews defendant's own words that she
says she saw John o'kee walking up to the house.
She's the only witness so far. It's going to say that.
The rest have said, oh no, nobody ever got out
on car. So if that's her defense, does she have
to testify because I think if she has to testify,
(05:14):
the prosecution really might stand a chance because it may
conclude there's no other reasonable explanation than she did it.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
And her testifying this is going to Because I'm on
the same page as you, I'm saying that she doesn't
need to testify in this case given how strong the
defense has been so far. Now we've still got several
more witnesses, and I think Procter is the be all
end all.
Speaker 6 (05:39):
For the state's case, because if the state can't produced
with Proctor, this case may look at a directed verdict.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Assuming Proctor presents enough strong evidence and there's been Look,
there's been Prema faci eforts, not a lot, certainly not
enough that we would say that's a good, well proven case,
but there's been testimony. But I think that's what they're
going to have to decide after the state's case is closed,
because she getting on the stand, big exposure, huge exposure.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Well, let me ask the two of you this, what
about John working with the Feds? What about the federal investigation? Again,
to me, that's a layer on this thing. If you
want to look at why would somebody have motive if
you're fixing to blow up my whole career and my
whole department and my ring of buddies. That's good all day.
(06:31):
And if he just arrived at our house intoxicated and
she pulled away, whatever happened to happen. And now we're
just going to say she did it. She's going to
say we did it. And again I'll go back to
casey Anthony, how did he die?
Speaker 3 (06:47):
We don't know, we don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
We're not going to know.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Based on the evidence you have both.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
This is the wildest case to me because you've got
evidence supporting each theory. So whichever theory you want to believe,
you can find some supporting evidence of. And that's really unusual.
And I think the FEDS being involved is reflective of
this poor investigation and something shady in the house and
(07:13):
prosecutor that didn't start off well doing the right thing
in the case, and all of that makes it all
very messy.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
And the FED stuff, I know, it's hard because we
all know the case. And oh, if I was a FED,
this is the part that I'd be interested. Remove that
from your brain. You have no idea what the FEDS
are thinking if there is someone that comes out of
left field, because they have information you can't even conceive of.
It's the FEDS. Sure, we've got some stuff that would
make a lot of sense for them to investigate complaints.
(07:44):
And let's be honest, this is Massachusetts. The FEDS have
been investigating Massachusetts law enforcement. It was literally like the
first job was, Hey, go investigate the local police in Massachusetts.
There are some corrupt ones. So it's not like this
is shocking or unprecedented. This is a known thing and
that means that people have been investigated before, and that
(08:06):
means that there's a whole community about Hey, FED, start
knock and this is what you do, and there's us
versus them mentality. Law enforcements not necessarily all friendly with
each other. And we don't know whether this FED poking
around is minor or if it's like you're talking about
career ending and they can end your career in law
enforcement by snapping their fingers.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, because people are saying that Brian Albert, Colin, Albert,
Brian Higgins, who's an ATF agent, y'all all had motive,
they're all corrupt.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Well, again, you cannot have the FEDS involved in any
investigation to me without it cloud and what they're trying
to do in that courthouse right now.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
I agree with you, And you know, the other part
of this for me is there's so many parts. I've
said that eight times. But the other thing that I
took note of is my sense listening to all of
the evidence presented by the state so far, I walk
away with this feeling of I feel like John o'keeith
was looking in from the outside, even though he was
(09:11):
one of them. I don't get the impression that they
liked him. They weren't grab assing with him at the bar.
They weren't you know, it wasn't a video where we're
all saying, oh, what were they doing at the bar together?
Speaker 5 (09:22):
Well, they were kind of ignoring him if you just
watch that video, and I don't you know, they didn't
run out, according to their own testimony, when he's out
there in the lawn and dying or dead. And so
I feel like, for whatever reason, they don't like him,
and Mac, I'll turn it back to you, because again,
if a cop is not liked, there's something else there.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
I cannot agree, and to me that cannot be overstated.
So again to me, that goes to motive. Did they
know that he was working with the Feds. It would
almost appear that they knew he was working with the Feds.
That's why they didn't fool with him. That's why he
didn't go in the house. That's why they didn't go outside.
(10:05):
And I'll tell you something else that I would like
to see come out. Who planned, assisted, ran participated in
the funeral? What did they do post? Y'all all know
pre and post behavior. And you got a cops funeral
that died on your front yard. You ought to be
folding that flag, handing that to somebody.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
And there's already just enormous scuttle butt about who was
talking to who, when, where, When did friendships end? And
again I'm I'm with Ashley. I feel that John O'Keefe
was a little bit of an outsider looking in rumors
that I trust make me believe that they obviously knew
(10:46):
each other to a degree, and there might have been
this minor bad blood, a misunderstanding something between a couple
of different agencies. But I can't tell you whether that's
a little thing or a huge thing. And for all
we know, this was a meeting later on in the
night to you know, squash that beef from back in
the day or something that's gone through my mind. John
(11:07):
o'keefs just wandered through life, and this crew, somebody associated
with them, the cousin, the brother whatever, has a beef
with John o'keeth. Hey, he's coming over. Hey, we're just
gonna prank and we're gonna ras him. We're gonna we're
gonna town him because Towny's they got a little bit
of a cruel sense of humor. Every once in a
while they may, you know, give a guy something to
(11:28):
remember him by because he stepped in the wrong spot.
And I don't know what's happened, because no one knows.
And that gets back to the state's problem at the beginning.
There's evidence for a lot of different things that means
reasonable doubts everywhere, and.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
The state keeps putting it out there. Josh, I feel like, again,
the state is so busy. It's not as strategic here's
the theory of our case, here's our evidence to support it,
but rather throwing up in an out of order sequence
of witnesses, which happens because witnesses are available at different times.
But to me, it's like they're so busy defending the
(12:01):
theories of the defense and trying to prove the elements
of murder that they're getting into a mess to figure
out what the heck happened.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
The state wants to put forward a discrete, compact, straightforward case.
This is what happened. That's how you prove a murder.
What the states have done. And I don't know if
it was up just a badly handled response or anticipation
or what the state has ended up saying, Hey, here's
our tight, concise story. The defense is going to bring
(12:30):
up all these other things. Let's go talk about them
a lot. And it's like, no, dude, you got to
take what the defense is going to throw at you
and say, everybody, it's on the horizon, but it's garbage.
To get rid of it and don't talk about it anymore.
They're laboring these points, and that's calling attention to come on.
Maybe that wasn't a big detail earlier, but now I'm
going to pay attention to it because now I've seen
(12:51):
conflicting evidence and impeachment.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
I want y'all's opinion about this. I hadn't heard anybody
say this, and but here's how I feel Troop or
Proctor is gonna mark firm in this thing to the
point I don't think they can recover.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Because here's the deal.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
If he went in that phone and he takes those
people what he is alleged to have said, I'm looking
for nudes. I hope she kills herself. It is not
gonna matter what evidence he puts up. They won't forgive him.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I agree, I agree, And not only that, but then
I get to the heart of this. When we talk
about motive and maybe working for the FBI, I just
feel like somewhere in motive there's some affairs going on,
there's some activity that they're trying to protect. But come on,
it's the oldest motive in the book, and it is involved.
Speaker 4 (13:48):
And how many times have we seen a little cover
up suddenly explode and turn into something huge? Because hey, listen, Ashley,
I just need you to tell this one little teeny life.
It's all good to be. Oh hold on, Mac, you're
in the room too, Okay, So Mac, you come over here.
Now you're in on this story. Oh Mac, what do
you mean? You've got your cousin is coming, And it's
(14:08):
just it keeps getting a little bit larger and a
little bit larger, and you can't keep the life straight.
And then you got to make up a couple of
new lives because man, they were not there, so we
got to figure out where they were, and now we
got to fit And then you can't control those lives.
You can't control the story. And a good defense is
going to show those discrepancies and inconsistencies as the reason
(14:31):
that the state cannot prevent absolutely.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
And I'll tell you for any young officers listening, if
you have this situation, you arrest the weak link, meaning
if it gets outside that circle, to that cousin, to
that best friend from high school that you really hadn't
talked with in six months.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
You arrest the idiot.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
You arrest the one that's going to be afraid, the
one that's not used to you know.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
The one who stumbled in either yes, I who was
just catching a ride, the guy who's stuff was in
the back, but he doesn't know that guy. You get
that person because when you put them in the squeeze,
they're the ones that have the most to lose and
the least to care about.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
But in this case, which is that person because a
lot of these people that have testified that we're inside
that house, I would say every one of them fits
that descriptions. They sounded on the stand, some of them
like just a little bit of a bozo that didn't
you know? On cross within said I don't know, I
don't remember. You didn't hear anything. No, I was asleep.
(15:40):
You didn't wake up till the next morning. No, I
was asleep. No I didn't go outside. I think you
could put all of them in that basket.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Well, let me ask y'all this. Both of y'all have
seen both sides of many cases. And if you were
the prosecutor, what are you pushing the hardest? And if
you're the defense attorney, what are you push in the hardest.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
If it's me and I'm that prosecutor, I'm going to
push at the end of the day, I think this
is a case where, yet again the closing argument is
going to make or break it for the state, and
I think they have got to bring it together with
their theory of the case. This is the evidence that
shows the only reasonable explanation she ran over him, period.
(16:26):
All the rest of this stuff you can't believe. And
here's why you can't believe it, because at the end
of the day, the defense has no proof, no proof
that anything happened to John O'Keefe inside that house.
Speaker 4 (16:39):
I'm not often in the position where I really would
encourage the state to double or even triple down on
telling the tight story and almost be rude to the defense.
But this defense has been so active and so aggressive
and so engaging. The state needs to really start putting
up megaffects. So it is getting down and dirty and
(17:02):
telling the jury ignore the noise, ignore the distraction, ignore
everything that the defense is building, trying to pick apart
the personalities of these people, because we have a simple
case here. We have a boyfriend and girlfriend having fighting,
having drinking. She drops him off and he's dead where
she drops him off. The police officers and first responders
(17:25):
in the house never hear him. Come in, Ladies and gentlemen,
that's because she ran him over. They can talk about
all this other stuff. And you've all seen the enormous
amount of creativity that's gone into showing that this was
a conspiracy and there's a cover up, and this involves
hundreds a bit or you can believe the straightforward story
(17:48):
that they were really angry and Karen Reid ran him
over in a drunken rage because the more the state
engages with the defense and the defense, they're giving life
to a corpse that is conspiracy theory, that is cover up.
They're bringing the zombie of cover up to life. Every
time they talk about and if I'm the defense, I
(18:10):
ain't got much to improve on. You're doing real life,
pretty good loibles here and there. I hate it when
he ends the question every time with isn't that correct?
Isn't that.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Bombers your terrible trial skills?
Speaker 4 (18:26):
Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah, learn a couple of other words.
Other than that, I've got to give thumbs up. They
have built a cover up that is now threatening to
take over the defensive theory.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
And then you come down to it, if there's an acquittal.
I don't know what this jury is going to do.
None of us do. But if there's an acquittal, will
they try her again? And I think they would. I
don't know, Josh. I think the state would.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
But you know, I know that the cops are really
angry about it. I don't know how the DA's office is. Like.
Lally is a little bit of a mystery, kind of
an enigma to me because he doesn't seem to be
into this case. But maybe that's just the way he is.
I've not met a single lawyer who said that they
were impressed by or engaged with his opening, but he
(19:10):
has been effective at getting the evidence out. I just
don't know how much he likes this case.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Yeah, it didn't to me. There's no energy, so I
feel like it's one they didn't want to have to try.
But that's just I don't know, you know, maybe his personality.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
He could be also getting other information or no other
stuff that we don't know, like if he knows that
Procter is halfway through a giant investigation for the FEDS,
or there's a whole other case, or who knows, and
that would obviously impact his willingness to push boundaries, you know,
go to the edge of the envelope and really push
hard to win the case. Man, if you know that
(19:50):
there's a bunch of bad stuff going on with some
of these people in the background, at may not be
the spot to stick your neck out. And he's certainly
not sticking his neck out as a prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Well, this is going to be the case, I think
for him, no matter what diner or bar or restaurant
or family re union, he wants into This is going
to be what he's forced to talk about. And it's
never going to be hey, great job. It's always going
to be hey, don't you think you could have done this?
Or don't you think this happened? Or why did you
do this? I think it's going to be a constant
(20:23):
just thorn in his side.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Especially because it's divisive. This is a divisive case no
matter what the outcome is. You've got an entire half
of followers saying that's the wrong outcome. So there's no
good answer, so to speak from that perspective.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
And what Judge Ashley is also saying is this is
the kind of case that gets people unelected or elected. Yeah,
because yes, this is what everybody cares about. This is
what man. People are showing up in drugs. Someone's going
to want a job change because of this.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Listen.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
People are invested in this thing that don't live anywhere
near Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Yeah, it's a big one. We get a lot of
viewers watching the some Court TV a lot. Oh, I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
And this is going to be something that I think
law schools are going to study. I can tell you
some crime scene people need to.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Take a look. When you start talking about red solo
cups and.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Flowers and contact wlame we get Mac brand leaf blowers.
Come on, you are lay out on the monetization Listen.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
I've already been in talks with home depots.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
That's it. But you could really do a whole course
on evidence collection in this case, legal skills, trial skills.
You can do courses on this.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Case, Yes, and I think that that should happen. Just
like Ojay, we learned a lot. I mean, this is
a learning case if I've ever seen one. And again,
when you have, like Josh was saying, when you have
a police officer dead, you would think everything is done
as perfectly as you can, and that is not what
(21:58):
we're seeing.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
I think this is an impact case because of the
way that law enforcement's integrity is the central issue. Because really,
if you want to recast it, this is cops line
against cops about cops. You know, you got cops saying
that this happened, versus cops saying that this happened. He
got a dead cop in the middle, and then you've
got a media firestorm like it's just man, We've seen
(22:26):
giant trials. Heck, Trump's going on, and this is like
anything we've ever seen, and I won't be.
Speaker 6 (22:31):
Surprised to see legislative action because this has upset people
all up and down the spectrum on everything from jury harassment,
which is a big issue right now, all the way
through pre.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
Trial coverage, and how local media interacts with law enforcement,
because you've now got local media and national media basically
calling Boston law enforcement a bunch of liars and certainly
insulting their professional abilities.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Well, cops line about cops about cops would be a
great title of the Movie's sad and it's asinine, and
it's crazy, and it's all of those things.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
And it's also the reason we can't quit watching it.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
You know why else because the Alberts. The Alberts are
the Murdochs. Like the Murdochs are in South Carolina, you
now have law enforcement Alberts. I think in that community
that is the family.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
And not only that, I've seen engagement with my law
enforcement people on this case. This case hits law enforcement,
court system prosecutors very hard to consider compared to so
many of the other cases we follow, because this really
does have the fundamental lifestyle of what it is to
be a cop in their personal life and that's not
(23:51):
a really deeply explored issue, and it's a sensitive one.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Anything else that y'all want to be sure we mention
or highlight or say, y'all were flawless act.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
And this is what we do. And it actually knows
how much I love her, like we could.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
We could do this forever. And next time you'll see
me sitting next to them as we eat dinner and
talk to you because we do that a lot.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
And this is awesome.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah, I know, And every time I see it, I
feel like y'all are both cheeked on me.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
But that's okay.
Speaker 4 (24:23):
I had the whole church. We got lots of time.
It's about to be. It's going to be fantastic.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
No, we have to make that happen. I'm absolutely there,
no question about it. Got to make that happen. I'm
going to end Zone seven the way that I always
do with a quote. The jury needed someone to tell
them exactly how Kaylee died.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
Piecing it together.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
From circumstantial evidence was not good enough for them. They
wanted the answers on a silver platter. We didn't have
the evidence to serve it that way. It's not just
the verdict that tells me this, but all also the
manner in which they reached it, the fact they didn't
request any materials to review, the fact they didn't have
(25:07):
any questions for the judge if the statements that the
foremen and the jury made.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
To the media are true.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Ten of the twelve jurors felt that ninety minutes of
deliberation was sufficient to fully weigh and consider and reject
four weeks worth of testimony that we on the prosecution
used to establish that this was first degree murdered. The
rest of the thirteenth hours of deliberation had been spent
(25:38):
trying to convince the two holdout jurors of the decision.
Jeff Ashton, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this is on seven
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!