June 16, 2025 • 36 mins
In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, brings together a powerhouse panel including Susan Hendricks, Joshua Schiffer, Dani after Dark, and Kirk Nurmi to break down the second trial of Karen Read, and it’s more than just a courtroom drama. They unpack how the defense pivoted from conspiracy to collision, why the prosecution’s own reenactment may have backfired, and how key testimony created more questions than answers. The group doesn’t shy away from the messy truth, pointing to public mistrust, missing evidence, and a system that feels off balance. From social media outrage to jury psychology, they explore why this case has gripped the nation and how it might end.
Guest Bio and Links:
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. Connect with Susan on Instagram @susan_hendricks, on X @susanhendricks, and on Headline Crime.
Joshua Schiffer is a nationally recognized criminal defense attorney and regular Court TV contributor, known for his sharp legal analysis and strategic insight into high-profile cases. Connect with Joshua on Instagram @lawyerschiff and on X @lawyerschiff.
Dani is a legal content creator and host of Dani After Dark, known for her insightful, accessible analysis of high-profile criminal trials and her growing presence in the true crime community. Connect with Dani on Instagram @dani_after_dark or follow her on YouTube at @DaniAfterDark.
Kirk Nurmi is a former criminal defense attorney, author, and speaker who now shares his expertise on justice, ethics, and personal transformation. Learn more about Kirk on Instagram @nurmiunchained_ and at kirknurmi.com.
Show Notes:
- (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with crime scene investigator, Sheryl McCollum
- (0:30) Sheryl introduces the panel: Susan Hendricks, Joshua Schiffer, Dani after Dark, and Kirk Nurmi
- (1:00) First impressions on closing arguments
- (4:30) How attorney demeanor influences the jury’s mindset
- (6:30) The hoodie, X-rays, and the Commonwealth’s missteps
- (9:30) “I can’t unsee what I saw”
- (11:30) What it’s like at ground zero: the buffer zone and beyond
- (13:00) The power of a clean, simple defense when the state fumbles the case
- (18:00) From guilty at first glance to not so sure
- (20:00) Can you convict without blood, tissue, or a chain of custody?
- (24:00) When justice feels unfinished and no one gets the truth
- (30:00) Finding grace in a divided conversation
- (33:00) Verdict watch: the panel’s predictions
- (34:30) How many times can you try the same person and still call it justice?
---
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
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Y'all, welcome to Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
We our own jury watch the Commonwealth versus Karen Reid. Tonight,
we have two brilliant defense attorneys, two media stars that
have both been at ground zero. Honey, Please welcome Susan Hendrix, author, podcaster,
(00:33):
former news anchor.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Y'all lover her. She's adorable.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Joshua Schiffer, fame defense attorney, regular on Court TV, brilliant
Danny from Danny after Dark.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
She's a new friend YouTuber.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
She has also been at ground zero, honey, y'all just
got to hang on.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
And the one and only.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Kurt Nubie, legendary attorney, cancer survivor and awful y'all, thank
you for being with me tonight. I cannot wigh just
right out of the gate. I will start with you, Josh,
But right out of the gate, what did you think
(01:17):
of the closing arguments?
Speaker 3 (01:19):
The difference in quality compared to Trial one is marked
on both sides. It's a far more sophisticated case. And
I think what we saw today were two very well done,
strongly thought out. You know, these are top professionals. It's
hard to pick on them without an easy counter attack
(01:40):
to whatever you're picking on. They did great, but I
don't think they changed any minds. I don't think that
it came down to the summary of the trial from
the lead litigants in the jury making their decision.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
I thought the closing arguments were both very impactful. Alan
Jackson spoke a lot about the science, where I felt
Hank Brennan focus more so on the emotion, which all
it takes is one juror to have that touched.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
Yeah, you know, I agree with Josh. Both remarkably better.
Both were good. I would have liked to see mister
Jackson step away from the podium and his notes a
little more. I think you're going to want to make
eye contact with the jurists constantly. I mean, I've been
in that position. I've delivered a closing argument with the
(02:34):
world watching. But you know, clinging to your notes is
not that you want to make contact. You want to
make points. And I would have liked to see a
little more cohesion to his opening statement. There should be
a connection, right, There should be a complete thing, and
it should have been no collision, no collision, no collision.
We certainly heard that you certainly relied on the science,
(02:55):
but I think it could have been a little more cohesive,
because you want that catch or that sentence that the
jury can take back with him. And I hope they
got it, but I don't know what they did.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
I'm glad. There's so many perspectives and it's interesting just
how we see a certain case or what we hear
through a different lens. And I agree that certainly no
minds were changed. But I thought it was the best
closing argument I've ever heard from Alan Jackson. And to me,
his theme was truth. And he says, and I wrote
part of it down. I watched it three times. He says,
(03:28):
where after the truth in this courtroom, you are entitled
to it, demand it, and going through specifics of what
the truth is and what it isn't and saying there
is there was no collision, and he said, I'm not
saying it. This science is and here's why. And I've
always felt that in the way an attorney tries a case,
(03:51):
I believe that the truth is matter of fact. And
I've seen it. I've seen it in Delphi with Rosy
and Baldwin. I believe that when someone is not delivering
a case, is not speaking the truth, it's defiant. It's sarcastic.
It's defensive, and I saw that throughout this trial, and
(04:12):
I believe we also saw it in the closing arguments.
Alan Jackson, to me, did a phenomenal job, and I
believe he is telling the truth. And I hope that
Karen Reid is found not guilty.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Sarcastic, argumentative, honey, that was our wedding veils.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
It's a good point to focus on, though, because that
presentation to the journey, the demeanor of the two lawyers
they heard from, it's so important setting the tone when
they go back to that room, if the tone can
still be set. Remember, they're not supposed to have discussed
any of the facts. Do we believe that happens. No,
(04:52):
of course not. These people have been stuck together for weeks.
They've got some sort of cohesive tribe. We just don't
know what it looks like. And we don't don't know
whether an aggressive, grandiose, you know, typical defense attorney close
lands really well, just like we don't know if Hank
Brennan's very matter of fact lecturing. He fits a lot
(05:14):
of great State molds. He was masterful with his knowledge
of the facts and no notes. I think Susan, did
you mention that, or Danny you mentioned the notes that
Alan Jackson had, Man, you know this case, dude, you
don't need those notes. I really think that that demeanor
and confidence, it can land anyway with a jury, especially
(05:40):
one that's been sitting ruminating on this for weeks.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Josh real quick, who was the best from the commonwealth.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
The best witness or the best lawyer or you know,
Hank Brennan did a very very strong job as a
prosecuting attorney. I see his defense seeping through. I see
his gamesmanship in his strategy, some of which I think
worked really well on this trial because it kept the
(06:09):
defense on its toes, some of which kind of landed flat.
His case that he got when he showed up in
the office sucked though, and we've all talked about that
going to war with you know, every other bullet man.
That's a tough when you get into a standoff.
Speaker 6 (06:25):
Is that Why do you think that he brought in
that he brought in the hoodie of John O'Keefe, that
tactic that even the judge called out and said it
was implied by Hank Brennan that the expert on the
stand wolf was somehow missing the marks and the hoodie,
when in fact that was done on purpose. In my opinion, anyway,
(06:47):
the tactics I feel like weren't truthful with Hank Brennan.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I'd love to hear Kirk talk about that even more,
because the malfeasance of the state lands really differently than
the mouthfeasance of the defense. The defense kind of gets
away with a little bit of Hey, we're throwing a
lot of stuff at you, because we're the defense and
Zell's defense is what we're supposed to do. State they're
(07:11):
held to a high standard, which is exactly why the
hoodie and then later on those X rays destroys the
confidence of what a jury needs in order to return
a conviction.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
Amen, Suitsan watching me on h l End and saying,
Alan Jackson delivered a better closing argument.
Speaker 7 (07:28):
I'm gonna pretend I wasn't hurt.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
By that, all right, A little bit. I'm gonna pretend
I wasn't hurt by that, all right. No, But but
I agree with a lot of ones, Josh said to
Susan's point, because I thought the best part of Alan
(07:50):
Jackson's closing, which is something I didn't wasn't sure how
he was gonna dress it.
Speaker 7 (07:54):
If he's gonna dress it was the hoodie, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
Because you know that the commonwealth in this case has
a real, real solid credibility problem, right, They couldn't culture
per proctor.
Speaker 7 (08:08):
We still heard the text messages from his friend.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
We heard, you know, Officer Dever or Diver and heard
you know, false memory that she's claiming and some of
these other issues and as well as as the misrepresented resume.
Speaker 7 (08:25):
If shannonmergency have all.
Speaker 5 (08:26):
Those things right, and the credibility comes to it, and
then he's holding up a sweatshirt. And Alan Jackson did
a good job of saying, nobody on the commonwealth did it.
There were these attorneys there, no one stopped, No one
stopped to say anything. And you fold that into the
fact the judge let and I was very surprised she
(08:48):
did this. Let the defense attorney and I can't remember
if mister Alessie hold that sweatshirt up to me. That
was like, hey, the defense has the credibility. They're showing
you this and I'm reading you this. And this was
a BS tactic, a part of the commonwealth, And you
go back to this idea, no matter what you think
(09:10):
of the evidence, amentter the emotion of the loss of
John o'keeth. The Commonwealth has a real credibility problem and
they only dug deeper when they did that sort of action.
And mister Jackson, the high point of his closing argument
was the way he pulled that out.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
And Susan, you've been there, so when you started seeing
people all around the courthouse, did they have like a
fan favorite of an expert?
Speaker 6 (09:39):
And I wanted to ask Danny after dark who I
followed by the way. I was there week two and
I wanted to ask Danny what it was like since
then because to me watching every single day. So I
was there week two, but Robert Alessi hadn't really played
a major part in it from what I saw, and
then he became almost like the superhero of the defense.
I mean, he's just, in my opinion, beyond belief. So
(10:02):
when I was out there, there was this kind of
buffer zone. So it was explained to me because I
didn't Not only did I I wasn't there during the
first trial. I didn't even watch it, so I'm relatively
new to this case only the second trial. But those
who were there Karen Reed supporters were explaining to me
at this trial there's a buffer zone, so Danny probably
speaks to it more on how Danny gets built up
(10:23):
or the difference, if you will, And.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Y'all, I gotta just I got a buddy in for
a second, Danny. Susan was so cute.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
She called me and she said, Hey, I'm going to
be covering this case. Do you think there's really anything
I need to catch up own or look at before
go the there.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Well, when I.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Stopped laughing, I was like, girl, there is so much
to catch up on.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
But Susan, you did a phenomenal job.
Speaker 6 (10:48):
I called I Cheron and I went, oh my, you
just can't believe. You can't. I cannot see what I saw.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Once you see it's it's unlike I've been pretty deeply
involved in true crime for five years and you know,
a fan of it since I was a kid and
I became a Crown defence lawyer. I watched Night Court.
That's the greatest show of all time. At this trial
outstrips even like the depth heard stuff when it comes
to the attachment of people, and I mean, people just
(11:20):
are incensed, they are angry, they are pleased, they are
saying the worst things to each other. It's unlike any
other cultural moment that I've seen since. Literally, like we're
talking Oje, that's how big this is.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
And Danny, you have been there. Talk to me, honey
about the buffer.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Zone, the fuffer zone. Yes, so that was not there
during the first trial, as Susan had mentioned, it is
here now and it's followed somewhat for the most part.
But what's really unique this time around is the kind
of camaraderie of the community who was there. There's a
(12:03):
lot of support, there's a lot of just kindness overall.
I think some of the times what I see on
the media of what's being portrayed versus what is actually
happening there is just a little bit different. And to
go back to Susan's question, we got to see a
little bit of Robert Alessi during the pre trial motions
to get a sense of who he was as an attorney.
(12:25):
But everything changed when he cross examined Shannon Burgess from
aperture on the stand and then he just to be
perfectly honest, you know, the people of Boston and New
England just fell in love with him. He's so smart
and was the missing piece to this puzzle for a
(12:45):
trial too that we really needed.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Well, I'm going to tell y'all I am spoiled when
it comes to prosecutors. My first one, as most people know,
when I was assigned to the Major Case Division, was
Nancy Grace. My second one was Sheila Ross. If y'all
know anything about Sheila, Sheila's.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Oh, I l meant Sheila has seen some wars.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Wars and she has been victorious. Another one was Sean Lagrua,
who went on to be part of our Supreme Court
in Georgia Francy Hayes, which went on. She went on
to the Eleventh Circuit in the Federal Court. So I
will admit I have had stellar prosecutors. When I see
(13:39):
a lead detective that is beyond compromised, when I see
there's any question about a police officer misremembering, when I
see evidence being shown and it's misrepresented, I can't get
past some of this, y'all.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
I mean, it's it.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
It baffles me that we are talking about a murder
case where there's no elements of murder.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
And that gets back to all right, so say it
drops in your lap. As a practitioner, do you handle
the case in the way that either Brennan or primarily Jackson,
I imagine he steers the ship, chose to do it
because one of the critiques, and I've talked with Kirk
about this and so many of the other pundits and
(14:29):
on Vinnie, is if you were going to just walk
into this case as a brand new defense team looking
at the second trial that you were not the first trial.
You've got this nice clean break, how do you form
the defense? And I think there's a real justification for
a smaller, cleaner, discreete defense about simply sufficiency and the
(14:52):
problems and requirements that the state is encountered, because I
think that could be really powerful for twenty to forty
percent of your jurors.
Speaker 6 (15:02):
Didn't they do that or no?
Speaker 3 (15:03):
No, I thought they They had to kind of wade
into all the circus stuff and that created a problem.
They made on the defense side, a bunch of promises
in the opening that they never fulfilled, and jurors can
stick on that when they're reading their notebooks.
Speaker 6 (15:22):
Well, trial one, I thought they went after the someone
else did it. This is a big conspiracy and everyone's
trying to set Karen up. And I think that didn't work. Clearly.
I thought they learned from that, and they were saying
there was no collision. No one, not an expert for
the Commonwealth or the defense, would say that the injuries
on John O'Keefe aligned with being struck by a vehicle.
(15:43):
So I think they did a genius job by pivoting
from that and saying there was no collision. I thought
it was an excellent job pivoting from the first But
I'm not an attorney. I just saw a pivot there,
and I thought it was less for the jury to
wrap their head around. No one likes a big conspiracy theory.
No one believes that so many people can stick to
(16:04):
one lie or what have you. So I think it
shows he wasn't struck by a vehicle, and even the
Commonwealth experts aren't able to say that he was.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
I completely agree with Susan, and I.
Speaker 5 (16:16):
Want to disagree with Susan to a little bit. The
pimot might have been brilliant, but what would have been
more brilliant is not needing to pivot in the first place.
Because when this trial, when the first trial started, I
thought they are never this purported conspiracy is never going
to resonate e. Why not focus on the one thing
(16:39):
that relates to the element of the two major charges,
and that is was he hit by the car period
and fixate on that and show that there was no
evidence to supported They had every bit of evidence available
to them in the second trial as it relates to
the car accident they did the first. Had they brought
(17:02):
that kind of approach, and they may still earn an
acquittal with that kind of approach. Had they bought that
kind of approach to the first trial instead of the
conspiracy that he went in the house, he was beat up,
things of that nature. Had they focused on the lack
of a murder as Cheryl talked about, and the lack
of contact, the lack of fractures, what have you, I
(17:26):
think they easily would have earned an acquittal and the
first trial because of the level of prosecution fumbles we
saw the first trial that we didn't see in the second.
So I think keeping it simple and direct, I always
think the best path to a not guilty verdict is
to put a train on a track and drive it
(17:47):
fast right up to prosecution, right at them.
Speaker 7 (17:51):
And that's the way you do it.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
You go aggress it, you go hard and believe that's
what they did this trial that they should have done
in the first.
Speaker 6 (17:58):
And the documentary clearly worked against her because that, to me,
is what the Commonwealth keeps playing, just her own voice
and her own words during that documentary. But I will say, Kirk,
you have a point there, and maybe that's why they
swayed to what they're doing now. And we'll see if
it worked. But I believe that that it was key
(18:19):
to do that, and I believe that they learned from that.
And I think that Karen Reid is not likable. I
thought she was guilty when I first watched episode one
and two of the documentary and again knowing nothing, not
watching not a minute of the testimony from trial on.
Then I watched Higgins's testimony and went, what's he hiding?
Why is he going to some military base? Yes, there
(18:42):
was alcohol, a lot of it consumed by everybody there.
Why were there's so many lies and Albert not coming
out of his home that I don't know what happened,
and I don't think we'll ever know, but I believe
he was in that house and something happened and they
tried to cover it up. What I don't think we'll
ever know. But the lies and the constant deceit on
the stand and looking at the judge and saying, Higgins saying,
(19:05):
if I were to do that, I have every right
to destroy my phone. All of that aligns to a
not guilty to me.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
A part of me says, the reason the defense opened
and made such a big deal about the third party
culpability angle was they really wanted to go there, but
that pivot occurred because it was kind of forced. Judge
kicked out whatever about a third that maybe fifty percent
of that defense by limiting the introduction of it pre trial,
(19:35):
so that tweaked it. And then I almost think that
the defense came up with some of the sufficiency arguments
that really worked for us during the trial itself. You
know how you have this amazing plan, but then once
you hit the ground, conditions are just a little bit different.
And that pivot, which makes for the finest of lawyers
(19:56):
and the ability to put together a cojin argument, they
they did it because they did maximize some of those
inexcusable self owns by the commonwealth.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Well, you know, I have said several times that if
it were me, and I'm not a lawyer, never been
to law school, but I've sat through many a trial,
testified in hundreds, and I would have me a big
old poster board, and I would have the state's case,
and I would have eyewitness that I would pull the
(20:27):
tape off. They ain't got it. Ear witness, ain't got it.
Lead detective, ain't got one, a medical examiner that agrees
with them, don't have it. Expert that didn't lie on
their CV. Ain't got that train of custody, ain't got it,
missing evidence new and Cheryl, Now you and.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
I know some of the same people. Our judges hear
that the state's case doesn't have their lead detective. Because
of this, that, and there, the judge is going to
have some conversations with people. That's arguably not getting anywhere
close to.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Trop No way is it going close to trial.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
And part of the issue for me is if you
start taking these things away. They don't have a death investigator,
they don't have a forensic pathologist, they don't have anybody,
and you start moving these you know tabs, the state's.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Case is blank.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
They got nothing that they should have before they bring
a second murder charge against anybody.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
And part of me says, if you were really aggressive.
You just start the defense case with you ain't gonna
hear from the lead detective because he's not a detective anymore.
You're going to hear a bunch of lies from these
witnesses because they've been investigated by people. We can't really
talk about it, but that's going to be really plain.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
It's that kind of scorched earth tactic that I think
judges are afraid of, and they would have leaned all
over the state to ditch.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
This case all over.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
And Danny, did you hear anybody in the community talking
about was evidence planted?
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Because I've got people that Kate won't tell me.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
But there was tail light in his clothing. Yeah, there
was also pig DNA, no.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Blood, no skin, no tissue on the tail light. By
the way, I.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Would no skin, no tissue.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Who's going to play it fragments of glass versus plant
and pig DNA?
Speaker 1 (22:22):
What is more plausible.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
One of the things, and I know Mac that we
have messaged quite a bit about this case, is that
from being a resident here, you know, growing up native
in Boston, to see this trial unfold has been very
unsettling for the community. At the very core of it,
and I think this might get lost a little bit
(22:45):
in between the free Karen Reid movement versus the Justice
from John O'Keefe movement, which can both can be true.
At the end of the day, a Boston police officer
is dead and a truthful and honest and correct investigation
was not done, so there really will never be answers
(23:08):
to what happened, like Joshua said to John O'Keeffe. But
at the same time, this has really outraged the community
here because it has just shown that the whether you
think it's incompetence or just corruption or planting evidence like
it's been alluded, that's happened, this could be any one
(23:30):
of us, like any of us could be Karen Reid,
because law enforcement didn't do a proper job in investigating
this case, and now you know there's a woman on trial,
you know, a retrial case for this murder. In one
of the things that when Karen Reid's parents every day
outside the courthouse come outside to say hello and take
(23:52):
the time to thank all of us for being there
to support our daughter, they're just amazing people. In one
of the things I said to mister Read this week
was this could be any of us. Karen could be
any of us.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
I think all of us have said John o'keef deserved better,
so did Karen's family, because no matter what happened, the
truth should be there for people to be able to
accept it and move from it.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Well, that's not happening here.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
And I'm gonna tell you, even if she's convicted, they're
gonna appeal. This ain't gonna end. I mean, it's gonna
keep going because we don't know. And here's something I
want to ask all of y'all. As I'm watching the closing,
the Commonwealth literally ends showing this video of a reenactment
with this mannequin. The mannequin's arm broke the tail light.
(24:49):
The mannequin spun three sixty and basically fell, but fell
nowhere near the flag pole. And I'm like, am I
the only one that seems the Commonwealth just blew their
own case up. In the closing, they proved it didn't happen.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
I'll take that head on if you. The state has
an obligation to carry their case and prove their facts
beyond a reasonable doubt. They also have an obligation to
dismiss or otherwise dispose of cases that don't meet that standard.
And unfortunately, there's going to be many people saying that
the state violated their good faith oaths by bringing this case, because,
(25:32):
as you just said, even their best experts, and Susan
mentioned this a couple of times, even their best experts,
the State's perfect people who are supposed to be out
there beyond a reasonable doubt, even they couldn't say that's
absolutely what happened. And it becomes then asking a jury
a guess, you know it's good enough. Come on, you
(25:54):
guys can get me all the way up to manslaught.
Come on, that's not the way Krim justice is supposed
to work, which then brings me to what Danny was
talking about. I we don't tell anybody in Georgia was
secretly born in Framingham, Massachusetts, and moved as a young child.
I then returned to the North for undergrad at Clark
University of Western mass and spent tons of time in
(26:15):
little towns south of Boston, drinking my butt off in
all these bars. There is a universe of townies that
is big and going to a bar seven days a
week with the same fifty schlubs man. That's the community.
Every crazy story you can imagine happens in these communities.
(26:36):
So when you see all of the yeah phones disappearing
at Military, when you see that and you live in
that community, man, you don't know what happened, but you
sure know the truth didn't come out because other people
were covering stuff up, even if it wasn't related to
the dead cop on the front yard of another cops house.
And it's just the mentality of man, you live in
(27:01):
Massachusetts and the idea that then they didn't do an investigation.
Then in the South a cop does they lock everything
down for a mile.
Speaker 6 (27:09):
Radius New Jersey too.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
It's nuts, as it should be.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
And that's something I've said, these Boston police officers, where
are they?
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Where are they? I don't see that.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Outpouring that support that's standing with John o'keef that we
should and Kirk, I want to ask you something. The
just ugliness, the vitul the hateful comments on both sides.
I mean, I've heard some horrible language about why she's guilty.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
I've heard horrible language why she's not guilty.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
And one thing I had one person in particular come
at me and I said, listen, if you can tell
me why I'm wrong without using I feel, I think,
or I believe. I'll accept it. I will hear you
because I don't have to use those words. I know
(28:05):
someone lied on their CV. I know the lead detective
has been disgraced.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
I know this.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
That's a fact. It's not coming from me. That's a
fact in this case. So what I want to know
from you because experts can't agree either. The general public
can't agree. Well to me, when you have that you
have reasonable doubt.
Speaker 7 (28:28):
I agree.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
And it goes back to you know, something we were
talking about earlier, when we talk about passion and what
have you, Right, people begin to attach to a certain side,
and I think one of the things we can see,
like on social media. I certainly experienced that in areas
everybody was very passionate about it. Right, And if you
have jurism or reflective of the passions of the general public,
(28:53):
we're going to see a great divide, possibly another mistrial, right,
because the facts that don't fit in are discarded as garbage,
and they have a narrative, they have a story they're
telling themselves, and you're right. So you know, Lallie said
this in the in the last Jar, which I thought
was kind of funny. Facts are stubborn things and they
don't change and they may not equip to your story.
(29:15):
But if something doesn't fit a story, if people don't
like it and they'd married to a certain story, they're
not They're just going to ignore that fact, Cheryl, And
you can see that an interaction. So you wonder, you know, oh,
to be a fly on the wall in the deliberation room,
because I mean, I remember being in cases where you
(29:36):
could hear the jury yelling at each other asking if
they could pick old men off the jury because they
didn't like his his take on it right, And so
facts be damned sometimes, and I think this is one
of those cases where we could see that kind of
(29:56):
patch and arise whether it's you know, wanting you know,
people say justice for Jonnald Keith? What is justice for
Johnald Keith? Convicting an innocent woman? Is that what that means?
And there's so many people in the jury that might
think that that's what it means, or might not always
flect on that idea, might want to look at the
presumption of innocence because of what a great guy he
(30:17):
was purported to be.
Speaker 7 (30:18):
So yeah, passion plays a big part in.
Speaker 6 (30:21):
This, and I want to touch on what Danny said
about like kindness outside of the court. And I noticed
that I was out there by myself and people came
up to me, introduced themselves. I got to know people
I interviewed. They're just so kind. And we all know Derek, right,
And I was talking to him the other day and
he said, why aren't you from the Truth or Derek Podcast?
(30:43):
Why haven't you been on Twitter lately? And I thought,
he's right, I'm going to post something. And the vitriol
that came out of a post. I interviewed Turtle Boy
about when he first heard about the case or what
have you, and I know that he sparked some of that.
But even besides Turtle Boy, if I just posted some thing,
and I respect other people's opinions, but to bring up
(31:03):
Delphi and say that I've changed and I'm sucked into
the Karen Reid movement and that I'm blinded and they're
so disappointed in me. What does this have to do
with Delphi. That's a completely different case. So to hold
me to believing everything everyone else believes, it's my opinion,
and I do feel like we are watching two different trials,
(31:25):
but I respect them and I think they should show
respect equally. I'm done venting.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Well yeah really, and this has been and I know
some of it is. I also having spent time in Massachusetts,
it's reflective. I think of a certain way that a
community anthropologically communicates. My friends from South Boston much like
(31:55):
my New York friends, much like my LA friends. They
have a certain demeanor and they're they're brusque.
Speaker 6 (32:02):
So am I and I respect you if you're from
Boston and you have something to say, but don't say
it behind a keyboard in your basement on Twitter, Yeah,
and pretend to be respectful. I'm following me during Delphi.
I don't need the compliments, but I certainly don't need
the insults, So go to hell.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Yeah, the insults. It's just like you people are horrific.
If you're an ad hominem, you lost you you.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Just did.
Speaker 7 (32:30):
You know.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Listen, you four live it, you breathe it, you understand it,
and you were all respectful of it.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
And that's something you know.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
We have not always agreed on every single thing, but
the respect that I have for y'all, the love that
I have for y'all, the friendship that I have never waivers.
And I mean, y'all can hear me argue with Nancy.
I don't always agree with her, but here's what I
always do. If she sees something so differently than I'm
(33:00):
going to go back and look at it and see
what I missed.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
And if I didn't miss anything, in my opinion, I
still lover.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Let's just go have Margarita to talk about something else.
But here's what I want to know from y'all before
we conclude. When is the verdict coming back and what
is it going to be?
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Josh soon and I believe not guilty. They might wann
that ridiculous verdict form, choose a compromise verdict, but I
really think it's.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
Going to be not guilty, not guilty on Monday about
ten am.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Wow, that was real specific, Danny.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
I'm going to go price with right style and say
Monday ten am.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
That verdict.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
I do think it will be Monday and it will
be not guilty.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Kurt, I don't have as much confidence as as my
colleagues here. I'm not sure in this asked if they
jury can really determine what happened, Another hung jury wouldn't
surprise me. I could see Wednesday, I could see this
going because the judge would keep him at it. But
(34:11):
I could see it happening again because the case is
so polarizing. And again, all it takes is one person
to hang through it.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
Not to mention something. Two off Tucket Weinstein's trial. Look
what happened to that They convicted on one of the
three charges, acquitted on one of the three charges, then
told him to come back on the third charge. Then
the foreman of the jury asked to be released because
he was under he didn't feel safe returning. And then
(34:43):
they hung on the third, which they've said they're already
going to retry.
Speaker 6 (34:47):
But I think the more we try Karen read, the
more that the Alberts are looked at, and do they
want to be further investigated? Then keep trying the innocent
woman and Josh.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
You remember Midnight in the Garden Good Need. How many
times did they retry him.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
At Georgia is known to keep going until they get
their pound of flesh. And it's not just Georgia they
can if they can't win in trial. Some people would
say an ultimate betrayal of state power is just ruining
your life forever because they can't just bringing you back
and back keeping you under investigation. There have been cases
(35:27):
in Georgia that they just keep open for eight or
ten years, and that's how we have so many speedy
trial the cases litigated. It's tough.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Well listen, I mean, we are about out of time,
and I just got to say, Kurt, I appreciate you.
I appreciate you on a professional and personal level. You
always check on by sister Sheila, who is still battling cancer. Susan,
you know, I appreciate you and your friendship with Charlene
Lord help you and any I just love that you've
(36:01):
joined us and you've held your own baby.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
It wasn't no worry.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
And Joshua I will see you soon and we still
have a lunch date with me.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
You and Huck will soon. Thank you all. Thank you all.
So I'm going to end Zone.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Seven the way that I always do with a quote.
Atticus told me to delete the adjectives and I'd have
the facts. Harper Lee to Kill a Mockingbird. I'm Cheryl
McCollum and this is on seven
Y'all, welcome to Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
We our own jury watch the Commonwealth versus Karen Reid. Tonight,
we have two brilliant defense attorneys, two media stars that
have both been at ground zero. Honey, Please welcome Susan Hendrix, author, podcaster,
(00:33):
former news anchor.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Y'all lover her. She's adorable.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Joshua Schiffer, fame defense attorney, regular on Court TV, brilliant
Danny from Danny after Dark.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
She's a new friend YouTuber.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
She has also been at ground zero, honey, y'all just
got to hang on.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
And the one and only.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Kurt Nubie, legendary attorney, cancer survivor and awful y'all, thank
you for being with me tonight. I cannot wigh just
right out of the gate. I will start with you, Josh,
But right out of the gate, what did you think
(01:17):
of the closing arguments?
Speaker 3 (01:19):
The difference in quality compared to Trial one is marked
on both sides. It's a far more sophisticated case. And
I think what we saw today were two very well done,
strongly thought out. You know, these are top professionals. It's
hard to pick on them without an easy counter attack
(01:40):
to whatever you're picking on. They did great, but I
don't think they changed any minds. I don't think that
it came down to the summary of the trial from
the lead litigants in the jury making their decision.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
I thought the closing arguments were both very impactful. Alan
Jackson spoke a lot about the science, where I felt
Hank Brennan focus more so on the emotion, which all
it takes is one juror to have that touched.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
Yeah, you know, I agree with Josh. Both remarkably better.
Both were good. I would have liked to see mister
Jackson step away from the podium and his notes a
little more. I think you're going to want to make
eye contact with the jurists constantly. I mean, I've been
in that position. I've delivered a closing argument with the
(02:34):
world watching. But you know, clinging to your notes is
not that you want to make contact. You want to
make points. And I would have liked to see a
little more cohesion to his opening statement. There should be
a connection, right, There should be a complete thing, and
it should have been no collision, no collision, no collision.
We certainly heard that you certainly relied on the science,
(02:55):
but I think it could have been a little more cohesive,
because you want that catch or that sentence that the
jury can take back with him. And I hope they
got it, but I don't know what they did.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
I'm glad. There's so many perspectives and it's interesting just
how we see a certain case or what we hear
through a different lens. And I agree that certainly no
minds were changed. But I thought it was the best
closing argument I've ever heard from Alan Jackson. And to me,
his theme was truth. And he says, and I wrote
part of it down. I watched it three times. He says,
(03:28):
where after the truth in this courtroom, you are entitled
to it, demand it, and going through specifics of what
the truth is and what it isn't and saying there
is there was no collision, and he said, I'm not
saying it. This science is and here's why. And I've
always felt that in the way an attorney tries a case,
(03:51):
I believe that the truth is matter of fact. And
I've seen it. I've seen it in Delphi with Rosy
and Baldwin. I believe that when someone is not delivering
a case, is not speaking the truth, it's defiant. It's sarcastic.
It's defensive, and I saw that throughout this trial, and
(04:12):
I believe we also saw it in the closing arguments.
Alan Jackson, to me, did a phenomenal job, and I
believe he is telling the truth. And I hope that
Karen Reid is found not guilty.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Sarcastic, argumentative, honey, that was our wedding veils.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
It's a good point to focus on, though, because that
presentation to the journey, the demeanor of the two lawyers
they heard from, it's so important setting the tone when
they go back to that room, if the tone can
still be set. Remember, they're not supposed to have discussed
any of the facts. Do we believe that happens. No,
(04:52):
of course not. These people have been stuck together for weeks.
They've got some sort of cohesive tribe. We just don't
know what it looks like. And we don't don't know
whether an aggressive, grandiose, you know, typical defense attorney close
lands really well, just like we don't know if Hank
Brennan's very matter of fact lecturing. He fits a lot
(05:14):
of great State molds. He was masterful with his knowledge
of the facts and no notes. I think Susan, did
you mention that, or Danny you mentioned the notes that
Alan Jackson had, Man, you know this case, dude, you
don't need those notes. I really think that that demeanor
and confidence, it can land anyway with a jury, especially
(05:40):
one that's been sitting ruminating on this for weeks.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Josh real quick, who was the best from the commonwealth.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
The best witness or the best lawyer or you know,
Hank Brennan did a very very strong job as a
prosecuting attorney. I see his defense seeping through. I see
his gamesmanship in his strategy, some of which I think
worked really well on this trial because it kept the
(06:09):
defense on its toes, some of which kind of landed flat.
His case that he got when he showed up in
the office sucked though, and we've all talked about that
going to war with you know, every other bullet man.
That's a tough when you get into a standoff.
Speaker 6 (06:25):
Is that Why do you think that he brought in
that he brought in the hoodie of John O'Keefe, that
tactic that even the judge called out and said it
was implied by Hank Brennan that the expert on the
stand wolf was somehow missing the marks and the hoodie,
when in fact that was done on purpose. In my opinion, anyway,
(06:47):
the tactics I feel like weren't truthful with Hank Brennan.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I'd love to hear Kirk talk about that even more,
because the malfeasance of the state lands really differently than
the mouthfeasance of the defense. The defense kind of gets
away with a little bit of Hey, we're throwing a
lot of stuff at you, because we're the defense and
Zell's defense is what we're supposed to do. State they're
(07:11):
held to a high standard, which is exactly why the
hoodie and then later on those X rays destroys the
confidence of what a jury needs in order to return
a conviction.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
Amen, Suitsan watching me on h l End and saying,
Alan Jackson delivered a better closing argument.
Speaker 7 (07:28):
I'm gonna pretend I wasn't hurt.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
By that, all right, A little bit. I'm gonna pretend
I wasn't hurt by that, all right. No, But but
I agree with a lot of ones, Josh said to
Susan's point, because I thought the best part of Alan
(07:50):
Jackson's closing, which is something I didn't wasn't sure how
he was gonna dress it.
Speaker 7 (07:54):
If he's gonna dress it was the hoodie, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
Because you know that the commonwealth in this case has
a real, real solid credibility problem, right, They couldn't culture
per proctor.
Speaker 7 (08:08):
We still heard the text messages from his friend.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
We heard, you know, Officer Dever or Diver and heard
you know, false memory that she's claiming and some of
these other issues and as well as as the misrepresented resume.
Speaker 7 (08:25):
If shannonmergency have all.
Speaker 5 (08:26):
Those things right, and the credibility comes to it, and
then he's holding up a sweatshirt. And Alan Jackson did
a good job of saying, nobody on the commonwealth did it.
There were these attorneys there, no one stopped, No one
stopped to say anything. And you fold that into the
fact the judge let and I was very surprised she
(08:48):
did this. Let the defense attorney and I can't remember
if mister Alessie hold that sweatshirt up to me. That
was like, hey, the defense has the credibility. They're showing
you this and I'm reading you this. And this was
a BS tactic, a part of the commonwealth, And you
go back to this idea, no matter what you think
(09:10):
of the evidence, amentter the emotion of the loss of
John o'keeth. The Commonwealth has a real credibility problem and
they only dug deeper when they did that sort of action.
And mister Jackson, the high point of his closing argument
was the way he pulled that out.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
And Susan, you've been there, so when you started seeing
people all around the courthouse, did they have like a
fan favorite of an expert?
Speaker 6 (09:39):
And I wanted to ask Danny after dark who I
followed by the way. I was there week two and
I wanted to ask Danny what it was like since
then because to me watching every single day. So I
was there week two, but Robert Alessi hadn't really played
a major part in it from what I saw, and
then he became almost like the superhero of the defense.
I mean, he's just, in my opinion, beyond belief. So
(10:02):
when I was out there, there was this kind of
buffer zone. So it was explained to me because I
didn't Not only did I I wasn't there during the
first trial. I didn't even watch it, so I'm relatively
new to this case only the second trial. But those
who were there Karen Reed supporters were explaining to me
at this trial there's a buffer zone, so Danny probably
speaks to it more on how Danny gets built up
(10:23):
or the difference, if you will, And.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Y'all, I gotta just I got a buddy in for
a second, Danny. Susan was so cute.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
She called me and she said, Hey, I'm going to
be covering this case. Do you think there's really anything
I need to catch up own or look at before
go the there.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Well, when I.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Stopped laughing, I was like, girl, there is so much
to catch up on.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
But Susan, you did a phenomenal job.
Speaker 6 (10:48):
I called I Cheron and I went, oh my, you
just can't believe. You can't. I cannot see what I saw.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Once you see it's it's unlike I've been pretty deeply
involved in true crime for five years and you know,
a fan of it since I was a kid and
I became a Crown defence lawyer. I watched Night Court.
That's the greatest show of all time. At this trial
outstrips even like the depth heard stuff when it comes
to the attachment of people, and I mean, people just
(11:20):
are incensed, they are angry, they are pleased, they are
saying the worst things to each other. It's unlike any
other cultural moment that I've seen since. Literally, like we're
talking Oje, that's how big this is.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
And Danny, you have been there. Talk to me, honey
about the buffer.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Zone, the fuffer zone. Yes, so that was not there
during the first trial, as Susan had mentioned, it is
here now and it's followed somewhat for the most part.
But what's really unique this time around is the kind
of camaraderie of the community who was there. There's a
(12:03):
lot of support, there's a lot of just kindness overall.
I think some of the times what I see on
the media of what's being portrayed versus what is actually
happening there is just a little bit different. And to
go back to Susan's question, we got to see a
little bit of Robert Alessi during the pre trial motions
to get a sense of who he was as an attorney.
(12:25):
But everything changed when he cross examined Shannon Burgess from
aperture on the stand and then he just to be
perfectly honest, you know, the people of Boston and New
England just fell in love with him. He's so smart
and was the missing piece to this puzzle for a
(12:45):
trial too that we really needed.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Well, I'm going to tell y'all I am spoiled when
it comes to prosecutors. My first one, as most people know,
when I was assigned to the Major Case Division, was
Nancy Grace. My second one was Sheila Ross. If y'all
know anything about Sheila, Sheila's.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Oh, I l meant Sheila has seen some wars.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Wars and she has been victorious. Another one was Sean Lagrua,
who went on to be part of our Supreme Court
in Georgia Francy Hayes, which went on. She went on
to the Eleventh Circuit in the Federal Court. So I
will admit I have had stellar prosecutors. When I see
(13:39):
a lead detective that is beyond compromised, when I see
there's any question about a police officer misremembering, when I
see evidence being shown and it's misrepresented, I can't get
past some of this, y'all.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
I mean, it's it.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
It baffles me that we are talking about a murder
case where there's no elements of murder.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
And that gets back to all right, so say it
drops in your lap. As a practitioner, do you handle
the case in the way that either Brennan or primarily Jackson,
I imagine he steers the ship, chose to do it
because one of the critiques, and I've talked with Kirk
about this and so many of the other pundits and
(14:29):
on Vinnie, is if you were going to just walk
into this case as a brand new defense team looking
at the second trial that you were not the first trial.
You've got this nice clean break, how do you form
the defense? And I think there's a real justification for
a smaller, cleaner, discreete defense about simply sufficiency and the
(14:52):
problems and requirements that the state is encountered, because I
think that could be really powerful for twenty to forty
percent of your jurors.
Speaker 6 (15:02):
Didn't they do that or no?
Speaker 3 (15:03):
No, I thought they They had to kind of wade
into all the circus stuff and that created a problem.
They made on the defense side, a bunch of promises
in the opening that they never fulfilled, and jurors can
stick on that when they're reading their notebooks.
Speaker 6 (15:22):
Well, trial one, I thought they went after the someone
else did it. This is a big conspiracy and everyone's
trying to set Karen up. And I think that didn't work. Clearly.
I thought they learned from that, and they were saying
there was no collision. No one, not an expert for
the Commonwealth or the defense, would say that the injuries
on John O'Keefe aligned with being struck by a vehicle.
(15:43):
So I think they did a genius job by pivoting
from that and saying there was no collision. I thought
it was an excellent job pivoting from the first But
I'm not an attorney. I just saw a pivot there,
and I thought it was less for the jury to
wrap their head around. No one likes a big conspiracy theory.
No one believes that so many people can stick to
(16:04):
one lie or what have you. So I think it
shows he wasn't struck by a vehicle, and even the
Commonwealth experts aren't able to say that he was.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
I completely agree with Susan, and I.
Speaker 5 (16:16):
Want to disagree with Susan to a little bit. The
pimot might have been brilliant, but what would have been
more brilliant is not needing to pivot in the first place.
Because when this trial, when the first trial started, I
thought they are never this purported conspiracy is never going
to resonate e. Why not focus on the one thing
(16:39):
that relates to the element of the two major charges,
and that is was he hit by the car period
and fixate on that and show that there was no
evidence to supported They had every bit of evidence available
to them in the second trial as it relates to
the car accident they did the first. Had they brought
(17:02):
that kind of approach, and they may still earn an
acquittal with that kind of approach. Had they bought that
kind of approach to the first trial instead of the
conspiracy that he went in the house, he was beat up,
things of that nature. Had they focused on the lack
of a murder as Cheryl talked about, and the lack
of contact, the lack of fractures, what have you, I
(17:26):
think they easily would have earned an acquittal and the
first trial because of the level of prosecution fumbles we
saw the first trial that we didn't see in the second.
So I think keeping it simple and direct, I always
think the best path to a not guilty verdict is
to put a train on a track and drive it
(17:47):
fast right up to prosecution, right at them.
Speaker 7 (17:51):
And that's the way you do it.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
You go aggress it, you go hard and believe that's
what they did this trial that they should have done
in the first.
Speaker 6 (17:58):
And the documentary clearly worked against her because that, to me,
is what the Commonwealth keeps playing, just her own voice
and her own words during that documentary. But I will say, Kirk,
you have a point there, and maybe that's why they
swayed to what they're doing now. And we'll see if
it worked. But I believe that that it was key
(18:19):
to do that, and I believe that they learned from that.
And I think that Karen Reid is not likable. I
thought she was guilty when I first watched episode one
and two of the documentary and again knowing nothing, not
watching not a minute of the testimony from trial on.
Then I watched Higgins's testimony and went, what's he hiding?
Why is he going to some military base? Yes, there
(18:42):
was alcohol, a lot of it consumed by everybody there.
Why were there's so many lies and Albert not coming
out of his home that I don't know what happened,
and I don't think we'll ever know, but I believe
he was in that house and something happened and they
tried to cover it up. What I don't think we'll
ever know. But the lies and the constant deceit on
the stand and looking at the judge and saying, Higgins saying,
(19:05):
if I were to do that, I have every right
to destroy my phone. All of that aligns to a
not guilty to me.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
A part of me says, the reason the defense opened
and made such a big deal about the third party
culpability angle was they really wanted to go there, but
that pivot occurred because it was kind of forced. Judge
kicked out whatever about a third that maybe fifty percent
of that defense by limiting the introduction of it pre trial,
(19:35):
so that tweaked it. And then I almost think that
the defense came up with some of the sufficiency arguments
that really worked for us during the trial itself. You
know how you have this amazing plan, but then once
you hit the ground, conditions are just a little bit different.
And that pivot, which makes for the finest of lawyers
(19:56):
and the ability to put together a cojin argument, they
they did it because they did maximize some of those
inexcusable self owns by the commonwealth.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Well, you know, I have said several times that if
it were me, and I'm not a lawyer, never been
to law school, but I've sat through many a trial,
testified in hundreds, and I would have me a big
old poster board, and I would have the state's case,
and I would have eyewitness that I would pull the
(20:27):
tape off. They ain't got it. Ear witness, ain't got it.
Lead detective, ain't got one, a medical examiner that agrees
with them, don't have it. Expert that didn't lie on
their CV. Ain't got that train of custody, ain't got it,
missing evidence new and Cheryl, Now you and.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
I know some of the same people. Our judges hear
that the state's case doesn't have their lead detective. Because
of this, that, and there, the judge is going to
have some conversations with people. That's arguably not getting anywhere
close to.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Trop No way is it going close to trial.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
And part of the issue for me is if you
start taking these things away. They don't have a death investigator,
they don't have a forensic pathologist, they don't have anybody,
and you start moving these you know tabs, the state's.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Case is blank.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
They got nothing that they should have before they bring
a second murder charge against anybody.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
And part of me says, if you were really aggressive.
You just start the defense case with you ain't gonna
hear from the lead detective because he's not a detective anymore.
You're going to hear a bunch of lies from these
witnesses because they've been investigated by people. We can't really
talk about it, but that's going to be really plain.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
It's that kind of scorched earth tactic that I think
judges are afraid of, and they would have leaned all
over the state to ditch.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
This case all over.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
And Danny, did you hear anybody in the community talking
about was evidence planted?
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Because I've got people that Kate won't tell me.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
But there was tail light in his clothing. Yeah, there
was also pig DNA, no.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Blood, no skin, no tissue on the tail light. By
the way, I.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Would no skin, no tissue.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
Who's going to play it fragments of glass versus plant
and pig DNA?
Speaker 1 (22:22):
What is more plausible.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
One of the things, and I know Mac that we
have messaged quite a bit about this case, is that
from being a resident here, you know, growing up native
in Boston, to see this trial unfold has been very
unsettling for the community. At the very core of it,
and I think this might get lost a little bit
(22:45):
in between the free Karen Reid movement versus the Justice
from John O'Keefe movement, which can both can be true.
At the end of the day, a Boston police officer
is dead and a truthful and honest and correct investigation
was not done, so there really will never be answers
(23:08):
to what happened, like Joshua said to John O'Keeffe. But
at the same time, this has really outraged the community
here because it has just shown that the whether you
think it's incompetence or just corruption or planting evidence like
it's been alluded, that's happened, this could be any one
(23:30):
of us, like any of us could be Karen Reid,
because law enforcement didn't do a proper job in investigating
this case, and now you know there's a woman on trial,
you know, a retrial case for this murder. In one
of the things that when Karen Reid's parents every day
outside the courthouse come outside to say hello and take
(23:52):
the time to thank all of us for being there
to support our daughter, they're just amazing people. In one
of the things I said to mister Read this week
was this could be any of us. Karen could be
any of us.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
I think all of us have said John o'keef deserved better,
so did Karen's family, because no matter what happened, the
truth should be there for people to be able to
accept it and move from it.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Well, that's not happening here.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
And I'm gonna tell you, even if she's convicted, they're
gonna appeal. This ain't gonna end. I mean, it's gonna
keep going because we don't know. And here's something I
want to ask all of y'all. As I'm watching the closing,
the Commonwealth literally ends showing this video of a reenactment
with this mannequin. The mannequin's arm broke the tail light.
(24:49):
The mannequin spun three sixty and basically fell, but fell
nowhere near the flag pole. And I'm like, am I
the only one that seems the Commonwealth just blew their
own case up. In the closing, they proved it didn't happen.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
I'll take that head on if you. The state has
an obligation to carry their case and prove their facts
beyond a reasonable doubt. They also have an obligation to
dismiss or otherwise dispose of cases that don't meet that standard.
And unfortunately, there's going to be many people saying that
the state violated their good faith oaths by bringing this case, because,
(25:32):
as you just said, even their best experts, and Susan
mentioned this a couple of times, even their best experts,
the State's perfect people who are supposed to be out
there beyond a reasonable doubt, even they couldn't say that's
absolutely what happened. And it becomes then asking a jury
a guess, you know it's good enough. Come on, you
(25:54):
guys can get me all the way up to manslaught.
Come on, that's not the way Krim justice is supposed
to work, which then brings me to what Danny was
talking about. I we don't tell anybody in Georgia was
secretly born in Framingham, Massachusetts, and moved as a young child.
I then returned to the North for undergrad at Clark
University of Western mass and spent tons of time in
(26:15):
little towns south of Boston, drinking my butt off in
all these bars. There is a universe of townies that
is big and going to a bar seven days a
week with the same fifty schlubs man. That's the community.
Every crazy story you can imagine happens in these communities.
(26:36):
So when you see all of the yeah phones disappearing
at Military, when you see that and you live in
that community, man, you don't know what happened, but you
sure know the truth didn't come out because other people
were covering stuff up, even if it wasn't related to
the dead cop on the front yard of another cops house.
And it's just the mentality of man, you live in
(27:01):
Massachusetts and the idea that then they didn't do an investigation.
Then in the South a cop does they lock everything
down for a mile.
Speaker 6 (27:09):
Radius New Jersey too.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
It's nuts, as it should be.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
And that's something I've said, these Boston police officers, where
are they?
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Where are they? I don't see that.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Outpouring that support that's standing with John o'keef that we
should and Kirk, I want to ask you something. The
just ugliness, the vitul the hateful comments on both sides.
I mean, I've heard some horrible language about why she's guilty.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
I've heard horrible language why she's not guilty.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
And one thing I had one person in particular come
at me and I said, listen, if you can tell
me why I'm wrong without using I feel, I think,
or I believe. I'll accept it. I will hear you
because I don't have to use those words. I know
(28:05):
someone lied on their CV. I know the lead detective
has been disgraced.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
I know this.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
That's a fact. It's not coming from me. That's a
fact in this case. So what I want to know
from you because experts can't agree either. The general public
can't agree. Well to me, when you have that you
have reasonable doubt.
Speaker 7 (28:28):
I agree.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
And it goes back to you know, something we were
talking about earlier, when we talk about passion and what
have you, Right, people begin to attach to a certain side,
and I think one of the things we can see,
like on social media. I certainly experienced that in areas
everybody was very passionate about it. Right, And if you
have jurism or reflective of the passions of the general public,
(28:53):
we're going to see a great divide, possibly another mistrial, right,
because the facts that don't fit in are discarded as garbage,
and they have a narrative, they have a story they're
telling themselves, and you're right. So you know, Lallie said
this in the in the last Jar, which I thought
was kind of funny. Facts are stubborn things and they
don't change and they may not equip to your story.
(29:15):
But if something doesn't fit a story, if people don't
like it and they'd married to a certain story, they're
not They're just going to ignore that fact, Cheryl, And
you can see that an interaction. So you wonder, you know, oh,
to be a fly on the wall in the deliberation room,
because I mean, I remember being in cases where you
(29:36):
could hear the jury yelling at each other asking if
they could pick old men off the jury because they
didn't like his his take on it right, And so
facts be damned sometimes, and I think this is one
of those cases where we could see that kind of
(29:56):
patch and arise whether it's you know, wanting you know,
people say justice for Jonnald Keith? What is justice for
Johnald Keith? Convicting an innocent woman? Is that what that means?
And there's so many people in the jury that might
think that that's what it means, or might not always
flect on that idea, might want to look at the
presumption of innocence because of what a great guy he
(30:17):
was purported to be.
Speaker 7 (30:18):
So yeah, passion plays a big part in.
Speaker 6 (30:21):
This, and I want to touch on what Danny said
about like kindness outside of the court. And I noticed
that I was out there by myself and people came
up to me, introduced themselves. I got to know people
I interviewed. They're just so kind. And we all know Derek, right,
And I was talking to him the other day and
he said, why aren't you from the Truth or Derek Podcast?
(30:43):
Why haven't you been on Twitter lately? And I thought,
he's right, I'm going to post something. And the vitriol
that came out of a post. I interviewed Turtle Boy
about when he first heard about the case or what
have you, and I know that he sparked some of that.
But even besides Turtle Boy, if I just posted some thing,
and I respect other people's opinions, but to bring up
(31:03):
Delphi and say that I've changed and I'm sucked into
the Karen Reid movement and that I'm blinded and they're
so disappointed in me. What does this have to do
with Delphi. That's a completely different case. So to hold
me to believing everything everyone else believes, it's my opinion,
and I do feel like we are watching two different trials,
(31:25):
but I respect them and I think they should show
respect equally. I'm done venting.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Well yeah really, and this has been and I know
some of it is. I also having spent time in Massachusetts,
it's reflective. I think of a certain way that a
community anthropologically communicates. My friends from South Boston much like
(31:55):
my New York friends, much like my LA friends. They
have a certain demeanor and they're they're brusque.
Speaker 6 (32:02):
So am I and I respect you if you're from
Boston and you have something to say, but don't say
it behind a keyboard in your basement on Twitter, Yeah,
and pretend to be respectful. I'm following me during Delphi.
I don't need the compliments, but I certainly don't need
the insults, So go to hell.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Yeah, the insults. It's just like you people are horrific.
If you're an ad hominem, you lost you you.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Just did.
Speaker 7 (32:30):
You know.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Listen, you four live it, you breathe it, you understand it,
and you were all respectful of it.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
And that's something you know.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
We have not always agreed on every single thing, but
the respect that I have for y'all, the love that
I have for y'all, the friendship that I have never waivers.
And I mean, y'all can hear me argue with Nancy.
I don't always agree with her, but here's what I
always do. If she sees something so differently than I'm
(33:00):
going to go back and look at it and see
what I missed.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
And if I didn't miss anything, in my opinion, I
still lover.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Let's just go have Margarita to talk about something else.
But here's what I want to know from y'all before
we conclude. When is the verdict coming back and what
is it going to be?
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Josh soon and I believe not guilty. They might wann
that ridiculous verdict form, choose a compromise verdict, but I
really think it's.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
Going to be not guilty, not guilty on Monday about
ten am.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Wow, that was real specific, Danny.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
I'm going to go price with right style and say
Monday ten am.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
That verdict.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
I do think it will be Monday and it will
be not guilty.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Kurt, I don't have as much confidence as as my
colleagues here. I'm not sure in this asked if they
jury can really determine what happened, Another hung jury wouldn't
surprise me. I could see Wednesday, I could see this
going because the judge would keep him at it. But
(34:11):
I could see it happening again because the case is
so polarizing. And again, all it takes is one person
to hang through it.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
Not to mention something. Two off Tucket Weinstein's trial. Look
what happened to that They convicted on one of the
three charges, acquitted on one of the three charges, then
told him to come back on the third charge. Then
the foreman of the jury asked to be released because
he was under he didn't feel safe returning. And then
(34:43):
they hung on the third, which they've said they're already
going to retry.
Speaker 6 (34:47):
But I think the more we try Karen read, the
more that the Alberts are looked at, and do they
want to be further investigated? Then keep trying the innocent
woman and Josh.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
You remember Midnight in the Garden Good Need. How many
times did they retry him.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
At Georgia is known to keep going until they get
their pound of flesh. And it's not just Georgia they
can if they can't win in trial. Some people would
say an ultimate betrayal of state power is just ruining
your life forever because they can't just bringing you back
and back keeping you under investigation. There have been cases
(35:27):
in Georgia that they just keep open for eight or
ten years, and that's how we have so many speedy
trial the cases litigated. It's tough.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Well listen, I mean, we are about out of time,
and I just got to say, Kurt, I appreciate you.
I appreciate you on a professional and personal level. You
always check on by sister Sheila, who is still battling cancer. Susan,
you know, I appreciate you and your friendship with Charlene
Lord help you and any I just love that you've
(36:01):
joined us and you've held your own baby.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
It wasn't no worry.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
And Joshua I will see you soon and we still
have a lunch date with me.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
You and Huck will soon. Thank you all. Thank you all.
So I'm going to end Zone.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Seven the way that I always do with a quote.
Atticus told me to delete the adjectives and I'd have
the facts. Harper Lee to Kill a Mockingbird. I'm Cheryl
McCollum and this is on seven
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.