Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Sadly and the jam In Morning Show with DJ fourn
It saw Tip Morning Cousin's.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Number one for hip hop Damn in ninety four or five. Hi, everybody,
good morning, Happy Friday. Cheers at the freaking weekend, Memorial
Day weekend, we had quite a week in court, but
a short week in court. Nick, I know you were
in there, and obviously I got to start with the
jury jirama.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
So court starts, what was that? What day was that?
It was Wednesday? It was Wednesday?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And Bev Canoni comes out and she's like, listen, I
have to talk to each juror one, one by one.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I have an issue.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Come to find out, there has been giggling in the
courtroom between two jurors. So I guess the way she
decided to handle it was to move them apart from
each other where they were sitting. In your time in
the courtroom, because you go weekly when you heard this,
do you know which jurors she's referring to.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
I don't know off the top of my head. I Uh, potentially, yes,
I could guess, but I'll definitely know next week when
I go on Tuesday, because I know where everyone was sitting.
But if if you remember last week she basically publicly
shamed them and made a comment of like you you
(01:24):
guys need to control your emotion and your facial expressions.
And she did that while the cameras were still rolling,
and so everybody you know at home heard her reprimand them.
And then today, uh, yesterday she had said, it's you know,
we have to talk to you guys, and she obviously
(01:46):
was not happy about that. And I'm sure Hank Brennan
had an issue with the Jerry getting along with each other.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Yeah, I mean, that is an interesting dynamic because we
know for a fact they're not supposed to be discussing
the case at any point, not until we get you know,
like final statements and all of those things. So when
they take their breaks and their lunch, they obviously are
talking about other things.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Maybe they're becoming friendly.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Sati is starting to start a rumor, of course, that
they're they're hooking up.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
They're definitely like they're under so much stress and they're
away from their families, they can't talk or anything. This
is definitely a blooming relationship.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
Well, it's not like they're a question and they're staying
in a hotel so as to court. You know, they
do go home to their families. But yeah, I don't
see anything wrong with these Jerry members forming a friendship,
and it actually it would make deliberations a lot easier
if everybody got along, because then everybody would hear each
other's opinions on the case Versus if you have people
who don't like each other, they're going to be hostile
(02:43):
in that deliberation room, and you might have people be
stubborn and not budge one way or the other or
listen to anyone's opinion. So I think having them friendly
with each other actually benefits everybody.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
All right, Well, I think.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
This kind of makes sense then to start witness wise
with Shannon Burgess, because there was a rumor that whilst
he was up on the stand, one of the jurors
actually rulled their eyes at him. I think there was
a big difference between what the prosecution thought he was
supposed to prove versus what actually happened to that poor
man while he was on the stand. So, for somebody
(03:16):
that has no idea who Shannon Burgess is, why did
the prosecution call him and what in fact happened to
that man with the very very very red face, on
the stand.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
So the data points that he was trying to put
out was basically based off two trigger events. One was
the three point turn when she missed Fairview Road, and
then one was the backing up event. And what they
are claiming is when they did when Karen did the
three point turn, her Lexus clock was different than John's clock,
and they did not notice any of this until around
(03:54):
May eighth, when he submitted his new report stating that, hey,
we actually have to adjust the clocks because the timeline
doesn't add up. If you have a trigger event at
twelve thirty one thirty eight and John's using his phone
at twelve thirty two and nine seconds, this doesn't make sense.
So he went back and he apparently looked and he's
trying to adjust the clocks and says, there's the variance
(04:15):
of twenty one to twenty nine seconds, and if you
add those twenty nine seconds, then you know their timeline
adds up and meets perfectly. But no other expert from Aperture,
which is Welcher, who we haven't heard from yet, put
this in his report. He's stating the trigger event and
he's claiming that the time of this accident or basically,
(04:35):
Karen striking John with the vehicle was at twelve thirty
one thirty eight seconds. So Shannon Berg just gets on
the stand and he's trying to relay this information to
the jury and it's just not coming out the way
that they wanted it to.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
It's not great, not at all.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
And specifically, there was a point in time when Bob
o Lessie was questioning him about the times being inaccurate
and stuff, and Burgess answer he kept saying this, you know,
based off the Lexus clock, which isn't adjusted. And every
time he would say that, the jury kind of like
(05:10):
that was when they were rolling their eyes because it's
like Bob was trying to get him to say, all
it was was the Lexus clock. You don't need to
add that extra before it was adjusted, and he kept
doing it, and the jury that's when they were kind
of like rolling their eyes, like is this guy serious.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Or because essentially his theory was and with his background,
which we found out wasn't actually the right background, but
he was trying to say through his studies, what you
can do is take a video like the clock on
John O'Keefe's cell phone plus the clock of the lexus
and kind of join them to make them synonymous. Right,
(05:46):
That's kind of what in Layman's terms, he was trying
to say that he did.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Yeah, but he didn't do any of this during his
initial report. He didn't even look at some of these
trigger events. He basically was just looking at the and
the GPS points. And initially he said, you know, the
trigger event, which everybody agreed upon was at twelve thirty
one thirty six, And it wasn't until in with and
testified and the defense expert handed over there report that
(06:16):
all of a sudden, now he's like, oh, we have
a problem here. We need to figure out how we
can make this timeline match up. And that's ultimately what
he's trying to do now.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
And then and then Bobo basically was also like, Hey,
I'm looking at a few of your resumes and wait,
did you have a Bachelor's of Science?
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Did you have a bachelor and they.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Created I thought he did a fantastic job. No matter
what side you're on of creating a little reasonable doubt.
If you're lying here on your.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
LinkedIn, what the hell else are you lying about?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
So he's claiming he got he was pursuing a bachelor's
degree at a university called Alabama in Birmingham. But the
degree that he's saying he's pursuing isn't even offered at
the school that he says he goes to or when
or is pursuing. So you know, seventeen years of pursuing
(07:05):
a degree that is that's a very long time. You
can basically go through grade school and high school in
that amount of time. So on one CV it says pursuing,
on another CV it says he was getting his degree
in twenty twenty two, and then another one that was
actually submitted in federal court said that he that he
was getting his bachelor's degree in twenty twenty four. So yeah, basically,
(07:28):
the defense team points out, listen, if you're lying about
your degree, how can we believe anything else. And one
of the biggest things that Barb Alessi pointed out was
Shannon Burgess's timeline. He has his timeline that this event
triggering event, and that Karen struck John with the vehicle
on January thirtieth, twenty twenty two, one full day twenty
(07:52):
four hours before or after this event actually took place.
So the guy doesn't even know what day this incident
took place on and he doubled down set in court. Yeah,
if I said the twenty ninth, I'm mistaken, it was
the thirtieth.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yeah, it's you know, listen, I'm not going to act
like I would.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Know what it would feel like to be on the stand.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
But I think if you watched him and his testimony
before your eyes, you could see somebody crumbling.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
I mean, it just is what it is. The nerves.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
I mean, he started out ghostly, pale like myself, and
then started to turn multiple different shades of red to
the point where in the end he almost looks purple.
I'm surprised you to have a heart.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Which makes you feel like he's embarrassed about something if
not lying right, Well.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah, there's nerves. There's a lot of nerves there. I mean, listen,
the bottom line is you can It's all up to
the jury. Do they believe Yeah, he may have fudged
this on his resume, but do they believe that he
has a point with his two different clock theories type
of thing. All right, let's move on to the brain surgeon.
Because I don't know about you, Nick, but I felt
like he was a strong witness for the prosecution because
(08:58):
very matter of fact, not a lot.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Of dancing from him. This is what it is.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
We learned from him that he one hundred percent thinks
that that gash on the back of John O'Keefe's head
was from a fall backwards, which you know, could could
help either side, depending on.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
What theory you want to go with.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
He said he did not die immediately from the gash
on the back of his head. The hypothermia definitely played
a part in that, you know, And I think a
lot of people expected to hear that the way John
had those I hate saying the word raccoon eyes, but
that's how a lot of people describe them as black
eyes were from maybe a punch inside the house. We
(09:36):
learned from the brain surgeon know that in fact, those
can come from having a traumatic brain injury.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
And I just I don't know.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I thought he was just very matter of fact in
his testimony. I don't know how you felt about him
up there, but to me, I thought he was one
of the stronger witnesses for the prosecution this week.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
I wouldn't I would say he was more of a wash.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
You know.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
He basically claims that John O'Keefe fell back hit his head,
which you know, could be falling outside, It could be
falling on the basement floor, it could be falling anywhere.
So that doesn't necessarily point one way or the other
towards Karen's guilt or innocence. But as far as the
raccoon eyes, I myself don't think those were from, you know,
(10:23):
being punched in the face. But one thing that Bob
Lessi points out was the cuts that he had on
it above his eye, and he asked him, you know,
did that cut come from him falling backwards? And he said,
he said no, anything on the face on the further
face could not be from falling backwards and hitting your head.
And then he basically pointed out, could this be from
you know, getting hit in the face and then falling back?
(10:46):
And so those two injuries are two separate injuries.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
I argue the point because I know that everybody wants
to have that a lot of people have this theory
that Colin Albert and his blood bloody knuckles and he
punched John and John fell backwards. Let's just say that
John's eyes were the way they were because of his
traumatic injury. Just the small cut above his eye was
enough to knock him back and kill him in the home.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
I mean, you could argue that as well.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
But here's the thing is, so we see the raccoon eyes. Right,
Let's just say he got punched in the face. Right,
you don't always get cut open when you get punched
in the face. Let's say someone punches you in the
eye and you and you get a black eye, but
no cut. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference
between racon eyes and a previous black eye from being
punched in the face because his eyes are so swollen
(11:33):
from the raccoon eyes that you wouldn't be able to
really tell if it was being punched in the eye
it was bruising from it.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Were not doctor, So I definitely wouldn't be able to differentiate.
I just like the brain surgeon said that that's what
they were from. So I'm gonna roll with him just
because he is the professional.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Not that I believe too. Yeah, yeah, all right, what
else from the week stood out to you? Anything else?
You want to.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
Get? The biggest one of the biggest points but I
was talking about last trial was the fact that the
glass on Karen Reid's bumper does not match to any
of the cocktail glass found at the scene. And then
there was one piece of glass on the bumper that
matches up to one piece of glass that Michael Proctor
(12:18):
found on the street. But neither one of those pieces
of glass match up to the cocktail glass. Sounds a
little glass room.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Yeah, I mean that one's hard to fight.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
I love playing Devil's Advocate with you, but that one's
that one's hard to fight. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
She she basically said she cannot. She cannot.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
This is the forensic scientist that was up there. She
said that there's just not a match. There was no
match to that cocktail glass from the water. Because a
lot of people believe he was upset he threw the
glass at the car.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
She reverses, she hits him, She.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Leaves, which if that was the case. Though, if she
if if he had thrown the glass of the car,
then how did the glass end up next to him
on the lawn, so that that that easily gets debunked.
But yeah, I mean, there's no explanation of how this
glass got on her bumper, and not only got on
the bumper, how it stayed and traveled over sixty miles
(13:10):
worth of traveling in a blizzard. How it stayed on
the bumper because it was not embedded into the bumper,
It was just sitting on top of it.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
It was cold, it was frozen.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Oh oh, and then one other quick thing is is
the hair. The mitochondrial DNA is how they tested that hair,
so they cannot even say with one certainty that it
was John's hair. The hair when you test mitylchondrial DNA,
anybody that comes from Peggy Peggyo Keeps side of the
(13:39):
family is going to have the same mitochondrial DNA. So
it could have been John's hair. It could have been
the knee, so the nephew, it could have been the brother,
It could have been Peggy's hair. It could have been
anyone's hair. So this concrete evidence of John's hair being
on the bumper now is not so con creepy. It
could be pretty much anyone in that family.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
I agree, I get what you're saying. I do think
it was John's hair, But for it could be John's
hair because like that he was around that car. Whatever
I think was John's hair, But the defense did an
amazing job at poking holes in that testimony. But what
I was going to ask you is a lot of
times we don't see reaction from the o'kee family. Did
you see Peggy during that testimony? That was kind of crazy.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
I personally don't look at them because anytime you do
look over there, the court offices come over and the
yell at you for looking.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Around, So like keep your eyeballs on the stand. Well,
she rolled her eyes on. She rolled her eyes during
that because because they were trying to insinuate could have
been Peggy's heir. I mean, and by the way, they're not.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
They're doing the right thing that that's their job, right
the poke holes I'm not saying, but she didn't like that.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
You really can't say. I mean, for example, the nephew,
he has short hair, like he's he's in Karen's car,
Like you can't physically say it's not his hair. You cannot.
Nobody can say with certainty that it's one hundred percent
John's hair. You just can't do it. So that's reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Interesting, all right, So a lot of off time, do
we know what Daddy al is going to be doing
over the weekend?
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Like can I catch him in the seaport?
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Like what are the plans Karen was asked what are
you gonna do with all this off time, Nick, and
she goes, I'm gonna take my heels off, I'm not
gonna set my alarm, and I'm going to sleep for
a little bit. This is a lot of time, and
I think, you know, everybody on both sides deserves a.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Breather, including us. Okay, Nick too, Nick, you deserve a breather.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Yeah. I think Alan's going to head home. You know,
he's got he's got a wife and daughter at home,
so he's gonna go spend some time with them. I'm
not sure what mister a Lessi's gonna do, whether he's
going to go head back to New York for a
little bit. I'll spend some time with his family here
in Massachusetts. But I think five days off will be good.
Then we'll get the one or two last experts from
(15:45):
the prosecution, they'll rest their case, and then it's time
for the defense to lay their case out. So we
could be looking at maybe a week and a half
two more weeks of trial testimony and then off to deliberation,
which it.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Is so crazy to even hear you say that, so crazy.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
Yeah, it definitely went faster so I will give Hank
Brendan props for that he didn't drag it out like
Adam Lalley did. Fact, but I still don't think that
Hank has proved his case that Karen struck him with
the vehicle. So again it's up to the jury. But
we all know the public opinion in this case. I
would say it's, you know, ninety ten percent Karen Reid
didn't do this, So we'll have to wait and see,
all right.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Nick, As always, I appreciate you joining us. Have a
nice long Memorial Day weekend. Back in court on Tuesday,
and we will talk to you next Friday.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
You got to have a good day.
Sadly and the jam In Morning Show with DJ fourn
It saw Tip Morning Cousin's.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Number one for hip hop Damn in ninety four or five. Hi, everybody,
good morning, Happy Friday. Cheers at the freaking weekend, Memorial
Day weekend, we had quite a week in court, but
a short week in court. Nick, I know you were
in there, and obviously I got to start with the
jury jirama.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
So court starts, what was that? What day was that?
It was Wednesday? It was Wednesday?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And Bev Canoni comes out and she's like, listen, I
have to talk to each juror one, one by one.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I have an issue.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Come to find out, there has been giggling in the
courtroom between two jurors. So I guess the way she
decided to handle it was to move them apart from
each other where they were sitting. In your time in
the courtroom, because you go weekly when you heard this,
do you know which jurors she's referring to.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
I don't know off the top of my head. I Uh, potentially, yes,
I could guess, but I'll definitely know next week when
I go on Tuesday, because I know where everyone was sitting.
But if if you remember last week she basically publicly
shamed them and made a comment of like you you
(01:24):
guys need to control your emotion and your facial expressions.
And she did that while the cameras were still rolling,
and so everybody you know at home heard her reprimand them.
And then today, uh, yesterday she had said, it's you know,
we have to talk to you guys, and she obviously
(01:46):
was not happy about that. And I'm sure Hank Brennan
had an issue with the Jerry getting along with each other.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Yeah, I mean, that is an interesting dynamic because we
know for a fact they're not supposed to be discussing
the case at any point, not until we get you know,
like final statements and all of those things. So when
they take their breaks and their lunch, they obviously are
talking about other things.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Maybe they're becoming friendly.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Sati is starting to start a rumor, of course, that
they're they're hooking up.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
They're definitely like they're under so much stress and they're
away from their families, they can't talk or anything. This
is definitely a blooming relationship.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
Well, it's not like they're a question and they're staying
in a hotel so as to court. You know, they
do go home to their families. But yeah, I don't
see anything wrong with these Jerry members forming a friendship,
and it actually it would make deliberations a lot easier
if everybody got along, because then everybody would hear each
other's opinions on the case Versus if you have people
who don't like each other, they're going to be hostile
(02:43):
in that deliberation room, and you might have people be
stubborn and not budge one way or the other or
listen to anyone's opinion. So I think having them friendly
with each other actually benefits everybody.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
All right, Well, I think.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
This kind of makes sense then to start witness wise
with Shannon Burgess, because there was a rumor that whilst
he was up on the stand, one of the jurors
actually rulled their eyes at him. I think there was
a big difference between what the prosecution thought he was
supposed to prove versus what actually happened to that poor
man while he was on the stand. So, for somebody
(03:16):
that has no idea who Shannon Burgess is, why did
the prosecution call him and what in fact happened to
that man with the very very very red face, on
the stand.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
So the data points that he was trying to put
out was basically based off two trigger events. One was
the three point turn when she missed Fairview Road, and
then one was the backing up event. And what they
are claiming is when they did when Karen did the
three point turn, her Lexus clock was different than John's clock,
and they did not notice any of this until around
(03:54):
May eighth, when he submitted his new report stating that, hey,
we actually have to adjust the clocks because the timeline
doesn't add up. If you have a trigger event at
twelve thirty one thirty eight and John's using his phone
at twelve thirty two and nine seconds, this doesn't make sense.
So he went back and he apparently looked and he's
trying to adjust the clocks and says, there's the variance
(04:15):
of twenty one to twenty nine seconds, and if you
add those twenty nine seconds, then you know their timeline
adds up and meets perfectly. But no other expert from Aperture,
which is Welcher, who we haven't heard from yet, put
this in his report. He's stating the trigger event and
he's claiming that the time of this accident or basically,
(04:35):
Karen striking John with the vehicle was at twelve thirty
one thirty eight seconds. So Shannon Berg just gets on
the stand and he's trying to relay this information to
the jury and it's just not coming out the way
that they wanted it to.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
It's not great, not at all.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
And specifically, there was a point in time when Bob
o Lessie was questioning him about the times being inaccurate
and stuff, and Burgess answer he kept saying this, you know,
based off the Lexus clock, which isn't adjusted. And every
time he would say that, the jury kind of like
(05:10):
that was when they were rolling their eyes because it's
like Bob was trying to get him to say, all
it was was the Lexus clock. You don't need to
add that extra before it was adjusted, and he kept
doing it, and the jury that's when they were kind
of like rolling their eyes, like is this guy serious.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Or because essentially his theory was and with his background,
which we found out wasn't actually the right background, but
he was trying to say through his studies, what you
can do is take a video like the clock on
John O'Keefe's cell phone plus the clock of the lexus
and kind of join them to make them synonymous. Right,
(05:46):
That's kind of what in Layman's terms, he was trying
to say that he did.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Yeah, but he didn't do any of this during his
initial report. He didn't even look at some of these
trigger events. He basically was just looking at the and
the GPS points. And initially he said, you know, the
trigger event, which everybody agreed upon was at twelve thirty
one thirty six, And it wasn't until in with and
testified and the defense expert handed over there report that
(06:16):
all of a sudden, now he's like, oh, we have
a problem here. We need to figure out how we
can make this timeline match up. And that's ultimately what
he's trying to do now.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
And then and then Bobo basically was also like, Hey,
I'm looking at a few of your resumes and wait,
did you have a Bachelor's of Science?
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Did you have a bachelor and they.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Created I thought he did a fantastic job. No matter
what side you're on of creating a little reasonable doubt.
If you're lying here on your.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
LinkedIn, what the hell else are you lying about?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
So he's claiming he got he was pursuing a bachelor's
degree at a university called Alabama in Birmingham. But the
degree that he's saying he's pursuing isn't even offered at
the school that he says he goes to or when
or is pursuing. So you know, seventeen years of pursuing
(07:05):
a degree that is that's a very long time. You
can basically go through grade school and high school in
that amount of time. So on one CV it says pursuing,
on another CV it says he was getting his degree
in twenty twenty two, and then another one that was
actually submitted in federal court said that he that he
was getting his bachelor's degree in twenty twenty four. So yeah, basically,
(07:28):
the defense team points out, listen, if you're lying about
your degree, how can we believe anything else. And one
of the biggest things that Barb Alessi pointed out was
Shannon Burgess's timeline. He has his timeline that this event
triggering event, and that Karen struck John with the vehicle
on January thirtieth, twenty twenty two, one full day twenty
(07:52):
four hours before or after this event actually took place.
So the guy doesn't even know what day this incident
took place on and he doubled down set in court. Yeah,
if I said the twenty ninth, I'm mistaken, it was
the thirtieth.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yeah, it's you know, listen, I'm not going to act
like I would.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Know what it would feel like to be on the stand.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
But I think if you watched him and his testimony
before your eyes, you could see somebody crumbling.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
I mean, it just is what it is. The nerves.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
I mean, he started out ghostly, pale like myself, and
then started to turn multiple different shades of red to
the point where in the end he almost looks purple.
I'm surprised you to have a heart.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Which makes you feel like he's embarrassed about something if
not lying right, Well.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah, there's nerves. There's a lot of nerves there. I mean, listen,
the bottom line is you can It's all up to
the jury. Do they believe Yeah, he may have fudged
this on his resume, but do they believe that he
has a point with his two different clock theories type
of thing. All right, let's move on to the brain surgeon.
Because I don't know about you, Nick, but I felt
like he was a strong witness for the prosecution because
(08:58):
very matter of fact, not a lot.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Of dancing from him. This is what it is.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
We learned from him that he one hundred percent thinks
that that gash on the back of John O'Keefe's head
was from a fall backwards, which you know, could could
help either side, depending on.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
What theory you want to go with.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
He said he did not die immediately from the gash
on the back of his head. The hypothermia definitely played
a part in that, you know, And I think a
lot of people expected to hear that the way John
had those I hate saying the word raccoon eyes, but
that's how a lot of people describe them as black
eyes were from maybe a punch inside the house. We
(09:36):
learned from the brain surgeon know that in fact, those
can come from having a traumatic brain injury.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
And I just I don't know.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I thought he was just very matter of fact in
his testimony. I don't know how you felt about him
up there, but to me, I thought he was one
of the stronger witnesses for the prosecution this week.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
I wouldn't I would say he was more of a wash.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
You know.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
He basically claims that John O'Keefe fell back hit his head,
which you know, could be falling outside, It could be
falling on the basement floor, it could be falling anywhere.
So that doesn't necessarily point one way or the other
towards Karen's guilt or innocence. But as far as the
raccoon eyes, I myself don't think those were from, you know,
(10:23):
being punched in the face. But one thing that Bob
Lessi points out was the cuts that he had on
it above his eye, and he asked him, you know,
did that cut come from him falling backwards? And he said,
he said no, anything on the face on the further
face could not be from falling backwards and hitting your head.
And then he basically pointed out, could this be from
you know, getting hit in the face and then falling back?
(10:46):
And so those two injuries are two separate injuries.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
I argue the point because I know that everybody wants
to have that a lot of people have this theory
that Colin Albert and his blood bloody knuckles and he
punched John and John fell backwards. Let's just say that
John's eyes were the way they were because of his
traumatic injury. Just the small cut above his eye was
enough to knock him back and kill him in the home.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
I mean, you could argue that as well.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
But here's the thing is, so we see the raccoon eyes. Right,
Let's just say he got punched in the face. Right,
you don't always get cut open when you get punched
in the face. Let's say someone punches you in the
eye and you and you get a black eye, but
no cut. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference
between racon eyes and a previous black eye from being
punched in the face because his eyes are so swollen
(11:33):
from the raccoon eyes that you wouldn't be able to
really tell if it was being punched in the eye
it was bruising from it.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Were not doctor, So I definitely wouldn't be able to differentiate.
I just like the brain surgeon said that that's what
they were from. So I'm gonna roll with him just
because he is the professional.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Not that I believe too. Yeah, yeah, all right, what
else from the week stood out to you? Anything else?
You want to.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
Get? The biggest one of the biggest points but I
was talking about last trial was the fact that the
glass on Karen Reid's bumper does not match to any
of the cocktail glass found at the scene. And then
there was one piece of glass on the bumper that
matches up to one piece of glass that Michael Proctor
(12:18):
found on the street. But neither one of those pieces
of glass match up to the cocktail glass. Sounds a
little glass room.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Yeah, I mean that one's hard to fight.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
I love playing Devil's Advocate with you, but that one's
that one's hard to fight. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
She she basically said she cannot. She cannot.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
This is the forensic scientist that was up there. She
said that there's just not a match. There was no
match to that cocktail glass from the water. Because a
lot of people believe he was upset he threw the
glass at the car.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
She reverses, she hits him, She.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Leaves, which if that was the case. Though, if she
if if he had thrown the glass of the car,
then how did the glass end up next to him
on the lawn, so that that that easily gets debunked.
But yeah, I mean, there's no explanation of how this
glass got on her bumper, and not only got on
the bumper, how it stayed and traveled over sixty miles
(13:10):
worth of traveling in a blizzard. How it stayed on
the bumper because it was not embedded into the bumper,
It was just sitting on top of it.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
It was cold, it was frozen.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Oh oh, and then one other quick thing is is
the hair. The mitochondrial DNA is how they tested that hair,
so they cannot even say with one certainty that it
was John's hair. The hair when you test mitylchondrial DNA,
anybody that comes from Peggy Peggyo Keeps side of the
(13:39):
family is going to have the same mitochondrial DNA. So
it could have been John's hair. It could have been
the knee, so the nephew, it could have been the brother,
It could have been Peggy's hair. It could have been
anyone's hair. So this concrete evidence of John's hair being
on the bumper now is not so con creepy. It
could be pretty much anyone in that family.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
I agree, I get what you're saying. I do think
it was John's hair, But for it could be John's
hair because like that he was around that car. Whatever
I think was John's hair, But the defense did an
amazing job at poking holes in that testimony. But what
I was going to ask you is a lot of
times we don't see reaction from the o'kee family. Did
you see Peggy during that testimony? That was kind of crazy.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
I personally don't look at them because anytime you do
look over there, the court offices come over and the
yell at you for looking.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Around, So like keep your eyeballs on the stand. Well,
she rolled her eyes on. She rolled her eyes during
that because because they were trying to insinuate could have
been Peggy's heir. I mean, and by the way, they're not.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
They're doing the right thing that that's their job, right
the poke holes I'm not saying, but she didn't like that.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
You really can't say. I mean, for example, the nephew,
he has short hair, like he's he's in Karen's car,
Like you can't physically say it's not his hair. You cannot.
Nobody can say with certainty that it's one hundred percent
John's hair. You just can't do it. So that's reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Interesting, all right, So a lot of off time, do
we know what Daddy al is going to be doing
over the weekend?
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Like can I catch him in the seaport?
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Like what are the plans Karen was asked what are
you gonna do with all this off time, Nick, and
she goes, I'm gonna take my heels off, I'm not
gonna set my alarm, and I'm going to sleep for
a little bit. This is a lot of time, and
I think, you know, everybody on both sides deserves a.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Breather, including us. Okay, Nick too, Nick, you deserve a breather.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Yeah. I think Alan's going to head home. You know,
he's got he's got a wife and daughter at home,
so he's gonna go spend some time with them. I'm
not sure what mister a Lessi's gonna do, whether he's
going to go head back to New York for a
little bit. I'll spend some time with his family here
in Massachusetts. But I think five days off will be good.
Then we'll get the one or two last experts from
(15:45):
the prosecution, they'll rest their case, and then it's time
for the defense to lay their case out. So we
could be looking at maybe a week and a half
two more weeks of trial testimony and then off to deliberation,
which it.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Is so crazy to even hear you say that, so crazy.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
Yeah, it definitely went faster so I will give Hank
Brendan props for that he didn't drag it out like
Adam Lalley did. Fact, but I still don't think that
Hank has proved his case that Karen struck him with
the vehicle. So again it's up to the jury. But
we all know the public opinion in this case. I
would say it's, you know, ninety ten percent Karen Reid
didn't do this, So we'll have to wait and see,
all right.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Nick, As always, I appreciate you joining us. Have a
nice long Memorial Day weekend. Back in court on Tuesday,
and we will talk to you next Friday.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
You got to have a good day.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
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.