Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Daly and The jam In Morning Show with DJ fourn
It's Sautig.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Morning Bustin's number one for hip hop Jammin ninety four
or five. Hi, everybody, Good mornings, Ashley and the jam
In Morning Show. We are enjoyed by our guy, Nick Rocco.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Nick, we are.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Just an easter bunny away from a retrial. We're very
very close Tuesday opening statements. I know, over the last
couple of days, Judge Bev Canoni has issued, you know,
kind of series of decisions that will affect the retrial.
Just so everybody's up to speed jury's election completes, we
got ourselves the eighteen jurors. Next Tuesday, Like I just said,
(00:42):
the twenty second will be opening statements. Nick, let's walk
through some of the decisions that Judge Bev Canoni made
and if you feel like any of them will have
a major impact on Karen one way or the other.
I know she set deadlines for Karen's defense attorneys to
turn over info about two different experts.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
What's going on with that?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
So obviously Hank Brennan still wants the THECA experts to
hand over information to them that he thinks the defense
team is holding back from them, which is like emails
and you know, text message, any can basically any communications
that they may have had. Hank Brennan suspects that there's more,
(01:24):
which he doesn't have any proof of. He just suspects it,
so he wants it. And the ARCA guys, they're not
from obviously Massachusetts, so he wants to do another ward
deeer on them, even though he has their testimony, he
has a prior ward deer and all the notes that
they've given. So that's one issue that he still is
(01:44):
not happy with.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Okay and Nick, just a go back for a second.
I'm new to this. I just watched the doc. I
listen to jam and I hear you what is an
ARCA expert?
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Say that one time?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
What is an ARCA expert?
Speaker 1 (01:58):
So basically ARCA is a is a reconstruction they do.
They actually do a lot of things bioengineer reconstruction. The
ARCA is the name of the company that has experts
throughout their whole business. Basically that does One of the
main things they do is they make sports arenas safer,
they make uh military vehicle safer how to basically you know,
(02:22):
prevent shockwaves. So if a bomb was to go off
underneath a vehicle. How can they make that vehicle safer?
They do. They do lots of things. I mean because
they have a whole They have a whole team of
people in their accent Reconstruction is also one of their
big things, and that is what the FBI had hired
Arka for was to basically come to a conclusion. Was
John O'Keeffe shruck by a vehicle? And their their answer
(02:45):
was no. So Hank Brennan doesn't like their opinion and
he wants to basically have Judge Beverly Cononi keep their
testimony to a minimum and only about specific things. Even
though now the defense team goes be okay to hire them.
As of late March, they could hire them independently and
they may potentially be doing more basically more tests and
(03:10):
studies on this case, and Hank Brennan doesn't want that
allowed in court.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
I was also reading that BEV said she will allow
a dog expert, but not specifically to talk about Chloe.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
So that's doctor Crosby for the Commonwealth. You know, they
claim they went out and got dog bite dog molds
of Chloe and measured the you know, the claw marks
of Chloe and things of that nature, but you cannot
say that a specific dog bite is from a specific
dog named Chloe. So basically what Hank Brennan wanted was
(03:47):
for doctor Crosby to get on the stand and say
that these dog bites are not from Chloe, because you know,
the lines on the arm are only an inch apart
in Chloe's teether and inch and a quarter apart. So
that's what he wants, and she basically was like, no,
he can't do that. That's physically impossible. You can't tell
if you can't tell what dog beat you. He could
(04:10):
testify to whether they are dog bites or not, but
not to what dog actually did it.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Okay, I'll see.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I'm glad we talked about that because the way you
explained it is a lot more clear than when you
see it on TV or you read an article about it.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
All of this can get very confusing. I do also know.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
That Hank Brennan turned over forty one videos and audio
files that he plans to potentially show the jury. You know,
they're going to try to use Karen's words against her,
and they have a lot of media interviews that she did.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
From trial one to now the retrial.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Hank also said he plans to show a fifteen second
clip in his opening statement, which has been previewed by
Bev Canoni. And I believe Karen has seen it as well.
I saw an interview with Karen and she's like, I
saw it. I can't say what it is. I'm not
worried about it. Are we assuming here that it's a
clip from the documentary, that it's a clip of her
(05:05):
coming out of the courtroom?
Speaker 3 (05:07):
What's your gut saying on that?
Speaker 1 (05:10):
So I haven't seen it, but if I had to
take a guess, it's probably the dateline one where she said,
you know, you know, could I have backed up? Could
I have maybe clipped them? That's the thing that Hank
seems to always bring up is that she had mentioned
could I have clipped him? So if I had a
guess on what clip that's going to be, it would
probably be that sound bite.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
But here's the interesting thing about that. So the police
offices took no recorded interviews from not one person in
this case, to the point where that they have to
now use her interviews that she did on you know,
national television. So the jury might look at this and
be like, Okay, so you have these clips from dateline
and twenty twenty, where are all the recorded interviews from
(05:53):
Jennifer McCabe, Matt McCabe, Brian Albert, Colin Albert And where
where are those interviews? How come we don't see any
of those interview And then that's going to just kind
of play into how bad this investigation actually was for
a for a fallen police officer.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, But one of the
first responders, I believe, a firefighter, did say that he
heard her say. He never wrote it down, I believe
in his rapport, but he did say on the stand
that he heard her say, did I hit him?
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Did I did I hit him?
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Well, yeah, I mean Katie mcgloughlin said she heard that too,
but but she also they I mean, there was I
forget I forget which cop it was, but there was
a there was a cop right there in front of
them who would have heard that as well. And he
says he never heard it. He would have put that
in his police report. He would have taken her right
down to the station for questioning if she was admitting
(06:40):
that he hit him. So it ultimately it was a
question did I hit him? Could I have hit him?
But they're you know, they're leaving out a few words
to obviously make it seem worse. And one thing I
did here was Katie McLoughlin has not returned back to
the fight department since she had last testified. So, you know,
I don't know what that's says, but that's pretty interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
I have heard that as well. I didn't know if
that was factual or if that was a rumor.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
All right, I want to do this very quickly before
we get to these questions people had submitted for you.
You know, again, most people that listen to this show,
they're pretty up to date with what's going on because
they hear it from us.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
They listen.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
We've told everybody watched the doc at yourself a nice
little refresher before the miss the retrial begins. But if
somebody is tuning in that has never listened to the show,
doesn't know who Nick Rocko is, doesn't know who Karen
Reid is, hasn't heard of John O'Keefe, can you surmise
what happened that night at thirty four Fairview?
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Well, the Commonwealth says that Karen Reid, after everyone was
out a night drinking drop John O'Keefe off at thirty
four faar of you road, and he stood basically on
the side of the side of the road, and he
gave her enough time to drive sixty two feet full
and then throw the Karen reverse at twenty four miles
(08:02):
per hour sixty two feet back while standing there and
just letting a vehicle strike him and ultimately killing him
on the lawn. That's the Commonwealth's theory. The defense they
say that Karen dropped him off of the mailbox. John
went inside the house. Karen waited a little bit until
she heard from John, never heard from John, she got mad,
(08:23):
drove away, left, went back to John's house, and then
he never came home. So when she went out looking
for him with Kerry Robinson Jen McCabe, they ultimately found
him dead on the lawn of Brian Albert, who was
a former Boston cop. And then from that point on,
I don't think the Commonwealth or the defense are gonna
I think they're both in agreement that the investigation was
(08:45):
very bad in this situation. But those are the two
different theories.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yes, now, listen, I know you get it all the time,
so I feel comfortable saying it to you and asking
it to you because I know people listen to the show.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
I see the dms that they send me.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
There are people listening right now that are like, who
the hell isnt Crocco? Why is Nick Roco so obsessed
with this? Does Nick Roco not have a life? Does
he not have a wife? Does he not have kids?
Doesn't he have a job? How does he have the
time to go to court with Karen Reid? How does
he have Who is this guy? What is he?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
What is his life?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
If it is not all about Karen Reid? You see
it online, I get the messages. How do you respond
to people like that?
Speaker 1 (09:22):
I own a business owned I own two businesses. So
passive income is key to life. You need to have
sources of income that can you know, because God forbid
anything ever happened to me. You need to have other
revenues of income if you can't work. So, when I
feel an injustice is happening, I don't mind taking a
few days off from my job and going out supporting
(09:44):
and doing what I can to help somebody that I
believe was framed for a murder they didn't commit. Now,
you know, people do say oh, you're obsessed with kind.
This could be anybody, And if it was this blatant
and obvious that I'd be willing to put myself out
there like the way I do in this situation. I
would do it anybody. But it has to be as
obvious as this, because I don't. I don't believe I'm wrong.
(10:06):
You know, I have no reasonable doubt that that Karen
Reid committed this murder. So if I if there was
a situation where I think maybe maybe this person could
have done it, I don't think I'd be as vocal
or out there as I am with this. But I
have no doubt in my mind that Karen Reid didn't
do this.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
All right, let's run through these questions.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Nick, we got a call, there was there was a bunch,
but we're only do four just for time.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Here's a first first talk back.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
We got Ashley question for Nick Roco, why do we
have sixteen jurors? Seems like a heck of a lot
of people for a jury.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Nick, So I think we don't have sixteen. We have eighteen,
and I believe the reason why is because Judge Beverly Canoni.
As we as we started in the last trial. There
were a lot of jurors disgusted with what happened. A
lot of them will make in faces, and ultimately, you know,
some of them had got kicked off before it came
(11:02):
down to jury selection. So just in case anybody backed
out of this case, or Judge Beverly can only find
the conflict with some of these people, maybe they lied
on their board, d on their questioning and during jury selection.
So I will say it's better safe than sorry to
have a few more just in case something does arise
and you find out that, hey, this person lied to
(11:24):
get on the jury because they already have an opinion.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So or even hey this person had one too many
mud sluts and they got a little chatty at the
bar and let somebody.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Know they're on the You know, things like that.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
You don't know, it's such it's just such a popular
thing around here.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
People got loose lips.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
All right.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Here's the next question.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Nick, If you could only use one line of defense
for Karen Reid.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
What would you use. Not one police officer have found
any evidence of tail light, and six in the morning
until five point forty five at night after they were
Karen Read's vehicle.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
One more time, they.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Did not receive any. So the tail light is basically
the murder weapon. That's the evidence. The not one police
officer from six in the morning when there was two
inches of snow till five point forty five, when there
was two feet of snow did they find any tail
light until after they seized the vehicle.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
But there was fragments on him, correct.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
So that's where people get this twisted. If you go
back and listen to the testimony. Right, the fragments that
they found, the microscopic pieces of tail light that they
found were not embedded in the shirt. The shirt in
the tail light were in the same bag. So the
person who examined the shirt did not identify whether it
(12:49):
was came from came from the shirt, or if it
was just in the bag already. So the shirt and
the tail light were in the same bag for over
a month. And then so that she there's actually there's
actually a quote. She actually couldn't determine whether it came
from the shirt or if it was already in the bag.
So when people say it was embedded in his clothing,
(13:11):
that that's a that's a false statement.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Interesting, Okay, next question after the.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Testing on John Oahue's body, they found pieces of the
tail light.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
How exactly do you explain that kind of the same.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Yeah, but here's the thing is, they didn't They didn't
find it on his body. They they they're claiming it
came from his shirt. And my rebuttal question to that
was if they if they really believed that, you know,
a tail light struck John O'Keefe, right, they would have
they would have swabbed his arm the skin, right, not
(13:45):
not Michael Proctor swabbing his shirt to potentially find, you know,
another cause to this, because when a medical examiner is
looking over an autosy, you're trying to find out the
cause of death. And this cause of death was undetermined.
So if you kind of come to an undetermined conclusion
of how he died, you almost have to open up
a little bit more and take maybe a little bit
(14:05):
more test that you wouldn't normally do during if let's
just say it was a vehicle homicide. You know, if
you can't determine that, then you have to kind of
come up with a different explanation for this death, which
would be to swab his arm to see if there's
anything going on there. But nobody ever did that, So
that's why it's still undetermined. If this was a clear
cut case she backed into him, she hit a medical
(14:27):
examiners have seen multiple multiple vehicle homicides. They know what
it looks like. And even there Amy said, this is
not typical what you see in a vehicle homicide.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
So just because we're here and I could be this
question could be off base.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
But if they never swabbed his arm, had they swabbed
one of those scratches that we saw or one of
those what they what you guys potentially say, or a
dog bite, wouldn't they have if they swabbed it, they
would have found animal saliva in it.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
But they never swabbed his arm.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Correct, They never swabbed his arm. I mean, it could
be I believe it's teeth moocks, but it could be
scratch marks from a dog as well. It could be
from Chloe's nails, but I believe they're from the mouth.
But they swabbed the shirt, right, Michael Proctor swabbed the
shirt and then what he did was he sent those
swabs to the lab. The lab never even received the
(15:19):
shirt to look at it and test it themselves. These
swabs were done the swap. These two Q tips were
sent to a lab from Michael Procta and and then
they tested the Q tips and they found pig DNA. So,
I mean, I don't know what to say about that.
I mean, why is pig DNA on this guy's shirt.
Why wasn't the shirt sent to the lab for the
lab to actually test the shirt look at the shirt
(15:41):
and see what's going on.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Well, to cut you off, but I had seen a
few things, like he could have worn that shirt one
day when he was making literal bacon like that. I'm
not kidding it that that was one of the theories
on that.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Could could have been. I mean, he also could have
been bit by a dog that you know, potentially had
a pig here that day. But if you look at
the puncture wounds on John's shirt, right, if tail light
went in, if tail light shot out and it went
into him, right, the the threads would be going in.
But if you look at the threads on the shirt
they got they have gone in but also came out.
(16:15):
So whatever entered him also came out of him. So
how does tail light It's not it's not a living thing, right,
So if it gets shot at you, it doesn't. It
doesn't repel out of you. So that that's one thing
that I think they're gonna they're gonna look at a
lot more too. Is the is the the fragments on
the shirt and the stitching of the shirt, how it
(16:36):
shows an exit wound as well like on the shirt.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Yeah, okay, we have time for one more talk back
real quick.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
I just wanted to see if he could ask Nick,
why haven't they requested to have a new judge.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
I feel like she's.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
Very biased and she does have some like tangles in
with the Albert family, I believe so, Like I feel
like it's like the concept of interest. I feel like
they could fight that and be like, we need a
new judge.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So in the first pre trial hearings for the trial
number one, they did ask Judge Beverly Canoni to recuse herself.
She obviously said no. She is the ring leader. She
makes the final decision whether she gets herself off the
case or stays on the case. She's the one that
decides if they can switch venues as well. So and
(17:30):
she's right, I mean, she does have connections to the
Albert family. Her brother, Judge Beverly Cononi's brother represented Chris
Albert in a hit and run case back in nineteen
ninety four when Chris Albert actually killed a guy named
Peter Berger in a hit and run and the lawyer
(17:50):
for Chris Albert was Judge Beverly Canoni's brother. So you
have conflicts of interest all up and down this case.
But at the end of the day, she's the one
that makes the final decision and some reason she doesn't
believe she's biased.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Interesting Alberts. Nick is always we love having you on.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
We could keep doing this, but we do have to, uh,
you know, get to commercials, play more music and play
the mix, or else.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
I'm going to get in trouble.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
So game plan is going to be every Friday we
will be joined by Nick same time. If something crazy
pops off or we're like, whoa, we need to get
Nick in here asap.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
I know you'll be able to do that for us.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Nick, but I like seven thirty on Fridays being your
home and that way people know that that's the way
they can always access you. If you missed anything, this
whole thing will be podcasted and as always when Nick
is on, Nick, I know you'll say it to you.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Guys can feel free to call. You can leave us talkbacks.
Nick is not try for sure.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
All right, Nick, thank you, We appreciate you, and we
will talk to you next week for a week one
of the retrial.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Oh we just we lost him a little bit.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
It's so it's so crazy, I mean, the man, the
man should be a lawyer, dude.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
The amount of details you can recall in numbers incredibleredible, No,
it's crazy.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Sixty two feet fowards, sixty two feet back. Then, it's
forty nine miles, twenty four miles per hour.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
It's impressed.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah, it's giving rain man, it really is. All right,
if you missed any of that, it will be up.
It will be podcasted down the free iHeartRadio app search
a s h L double Good morning,
Daly and The jam In Morning Show with DJ fourn
It's Sautig.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Morning Bustin's number one for hip hop Jammin ninety four
or five. Hi, everybody, Good mornings, Ashley and the jam
In Morning Show. We are enjoyed by our guy, Nick Rocco.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Nick, we are.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Just an easter bunny away from a retrial. We're very
very close Tuesday opening statements. I know, over the last
couple of days, Judge Bev Canoni has issued, you know,
kind of series of decisions that will affect the retrial.
Just so everybody's up to speed jury's election completes, we
got ourselves the eighteen jurors. Next Tuesday, Like I just said,
(00:42):
the twenty second will be opening statements. Nick, let's walk
through some of the decisions that Judge Bev Canoni made
and if you feel like any of them will have
a major impact on Karen one way or the other.
I know she set deadlines for Karen's defense attorneys to
turn over info about two different experts.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
What's going on with that?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
So obviously Hank Brennan still wants the THECA experts to
hand over information to them that he thinks the defense
team is holding back from them, which is like emails
and you know, text message, any can basically any communications
that they may have had. Hank Brennan suspects that there's more,
(01:24):
which he doesn't have any proof of. He just suspects it,
so he wants it. And the ARCA guys, they're not
from obviously Massachusetts, so he wants to do another ward
deeer on them, even though he has their testimony, he
has a prior ward deer and all the notes that
they've given. So that's one issue that he still is
(01:44):
not happy with.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Okay and Nick, just a go back for a second.
I'm new to this. I just watched the doc. I
listen to jam and I hear you what is an
ARCA expert?
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Say that one time?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
What is an ARCA expert?
Speaker 1 (01:58):
So basically ARCA is a is a reconstruction they do.
They actually do a lot of things bioengineer reconstruction. The
ARCA is the name of the company that has experts
throughout their whole business. Basically that does One of the
main things they do is they make sports arenas safer,
they make uh military vehicle safer how to basically you know,
(02:22):
prevent shockwaves. So if a bomb was to go off
underneath a vehicle. How can they make that vehicle safer?
They do. They do lots of things. I mean because
they have a whole They have a whole team of
people in their accent Reconstruction is also one of their
big things, and that is what the FBI had hired
Arka for was to basically come to a conclusion. Was
John O'Keeffe shruck by a vehicle? And their their answer
(02:45):
was no. So Hank Brennan doesn't like their opinion and
he wants to basically have Judge Beverly Cononi keep their
testimony to a minimum and only about specific things. Even
though now the defense team goes be okay to hire them.
As of late March, they could hire them independently and
they may potentially be doing more basically more tests and
(03:10):
studies on this case, and Hank Brennan doesn't want that
allowed in court.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
I was also reading that BEV said she will allow
a dog expert, but not specifically to talk about Chloe.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
So that's doctor Crosby for the Commonwealth. You know, they
claim they went out and got dog bite dog molds
of Chloe and measured the you know, the claw marks
of Chloe and things of that nature, but you cannot
say that a specific dog bite is from a specific
dog named Chloe. So basically what Hank Brennan wanted was
(03:47):
for doctor Crosby to get on the stand and say
that these dog bites are not from Chloe, because you know,
the lines on the arm are only an inch apart
in Chloe's teether and inch and a quarter apart. So
that's what he wants, and she basically was like, no,
he can't do that. That's physically impossible. You can't tell
if you can't tell what dog beat you. He could
(04:10):
testify to whether they are dog bites or not, but
not to what dog actually did it.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Okay, I'll see.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I'm glad we talked about that because the way you
explained it is a lot more clear than when you
see it on TV or you read an article about it.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
All of this can get very confusing. I do also know.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
That Hank Brennan turned over forty one videos and audio
files that he plans to potentially show the jury. You know,
they're going to try to use Karen's words against her,
and they have a lot of media interviews that she did.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
From trial one to now the retrial.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Hank also said he plans to show a fifteen second
clip in his opening statement, which has been previewed by
Bev Canoni. And I believe Karen has seen it as well.
I saw an interview with Karen and she's like, I
saw it. I can't say what it is. I'm not
worried about it. Are we assuming here that it's a
clip from the documentary, that it's a clip of her
(05:05):
coming out of the courtroom?
Speaker 3 (05:07):
What's your gut saying on that?
Speaker 1 (05:10):
So I haven't seen it, but if I had to
take a guess, it's probably the dateline one where she said,
you know, you know, could I have backed up? Could
I have maybe clipped them? That's the thing that Hank
seems to always bring up is that she had mentioned
could I have clipped him? So if I had a
guess on what clip that's going to be, it would
probably be that sound bite.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
But here's the interesting thing about that. So the police
offices took no recorded interviews from not one person in
this case, to the point where that they have to
now use her interviews that she did on you know,
national television. So the jury might look at this and
be like, Okay, so you have these clips from dateline
and twenty twenty, where are all the recorded interviews from
(05:53):
Jennifer McCabe, Matt McCabe, Brian Albert, Colin Albert And where
where are those interviews? How come we don't see any
of those interview And then that's going to just kind
of play into how bad this investigation actually was for
a for a fallen police officer.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, But one of the
first responders, I believe, a firefighter, did say that he
heard her say. He never wrote it down, I believe
in his rapport, but he did say on the stand
that he heard her say, did I hit him?
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Did I did I hit him?
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Well, yeah, I mean Katie mcgloughlin said she heard that too,
but but she also they I mean, there was I
forget I forget which cop it was, but there was
a there was a cop right there in front of
them who would have heard that as well. And he
says he never heard it. He would have put that
in his police report. He would have taken her right
down to the station for questioning if she was admitting
(06:40):
that he hit him. So it ultimately it was a
question did I hit him? Could I have hit him?
But they're you know, they're leaving out a few words
to obviously make it seem worse. And one thing I
did here was Katie McLoughlin has not returned back to
the fight department since she had last testified. So, you know,
I don't know what that's says, but that's pretty interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
I have heard that as well. I didn't know if
that was factual or if that was a rumor.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
All right, I want to do this very quickly before
we get to these questions people had submitted for you.
You know, again, most people that listen to this show,
they're pretty up to date with what's going on because
they hear it from us.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
They listen.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
We've told everybody watched the doc at yourself a nice
little refresher before the miss the retrial begins. But if
somebody is tuning in that has never listened to the show,
doesn't know who Nick Rocko is, doesn't know who Karen
Reid is, hasn't heard of John O'Keefe, can you surmise
what happened that night at thirty four Fairview?
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Well, the Commonwealth says that Karen Reid, after everyone was
out a night drinking drop John O'Keefe off at thirty
four faar of you road, and he stood basically on
the side of the side of the road, and he
gave her enough time to drive sixty two feet full
and then throw the Karen reverse at twenty four miles
(08:02):
per hour sixty two feet back while standing there and
just letting a vehicle strike him and ultimately killing him
on the lawn. That's the Commonwealth's theory. The defense they
say that Karen dropped him off of the mailbox. John
went inside the house. Karen waited a little bit until
she heard from John, never heard from John, she got mad,
(08:23):
drove away, left, went back to John's house, and then
he never came home. So when she went out looking
for him with Kerry Robinson Jen McCabe, they ultimately found
him dead on the lawn of Brian Albert, who was
a former Boston cop. And then from that point on,
I don't think the Commonwealth or the defense are gonna
I think they're both in agreement that the investigation was
(08:45):
very bad in this situation. But those are the two
different theories.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yes, now, listen, I know you get it all the time,
so I feel comfortable saying it to you and asking
it to you because I know people listen to the show.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
I see the dms that they send me.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
There are people listening right now that are like, who
the hell isnt Crocco? Why is Nick Roco so obsessed
with this? Does Nick Roco not have a life? Does
he not have a wife? Does he not have kids?
Doesn't he have a job? How does he have the
time to go to court with Karen Reid? How does
he have Who is this guy? What is he?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
What is his life?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
If it is not all about Karen Reid? You see
it online, I get the messages. How do you respond
to people like that?
Speaker 1 (09:22):
I own a business owned I own two businesses. So
passive income is key to life. You need to have
sources of income that can you know, because God forbid
anything ever happened to me. You need to have other
revenues of income if you can't work. So, when I
feel an injustice is happening, I don't mind taking a
few days off from my job and going out supporting
(09:44):
and doing what I can to help somebody that I
believe was framed for a murder they didn't commit. Now,
you know, people do say oh, you're obsessed with kind.
This could be anybody, And if it was this blatant
and obvious that I'd be willing to put myself out
there like the way I do in this situation. I
would do it anybody. But it has to be as
obvious as this, because I don't. I don't believe I'm wrong.
(10:06):
You know, I have no reasonable doubt that that Karen
Reid committed this murder. So if I if there was
a situation where I think maybe maybe this person could
have done it, I don't think I'd be as vocal
or out there as I am with this. But I
have no doubt in my mind that Karen Reid didn't
do this.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
All right, let's run through these questions.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Nick, we got a call, there was there was a bunch,
but we're only do four just for time.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Here's a first first talk back.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
We got Ashley question for Nick Roco, why do we
have sixteen jurors? Seems like a heck of a lot
of people for a jury.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Nick, So I think we don't have sixteen. We have eighteen,
and I believe the reason why is because Judge Beverly Canoni.
As we as we started in the last trial. There
were a lot of jurors disgusted with what happened. A
lot of them will make in faces, and ultimately, you know,
some of them had got kicked off before it came
(11:02):
down to jury selection. So just in case anybody backed
out of this case, or Judge Beverly can only find
the conflict with some of these people, maybe they lied
on their board, d on their questioning and during jury selection.
So I will say it's better safe than sorry to
have a few more just in case something does arise
and you find out that, hey, this person lied to
(11:24):
get on the jury because they already have an opinion.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So or even hey this person had one too many
mud sluts and they got a little chatty at the
bar and let somebody.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Know they're on the You know, things like that.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
You don't know, it's such it's just such a popular
thing around here.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
People got loose lips.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
All right.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Here's the next question.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Nick, If you could only use one line of defense
for Karen Reid.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
What would you use. Not one police officer have found
any evidence of tail light, and six in the morning
until five point forty five at night after they were
Karen Read's vehicle.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
One more time, they.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Did not receive any. So the tail light is basically
the murder weapon. That's the evidence. The not one police
officer from six in the morning when there was two
inches of snow till five point forty five, when there
was two feet of snow did they find any tail
light until after they seized the vehicle.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
But there was fragments on him, correct.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
So that's where people get this twisted. If you go
back and listen to the testimony. Right, the fragments that
they found, the microscopic pieces of tail light that they
found were not embedded in the shirt. The shirt in
the tail light were in the same bag. So the
person who examined the shirt did not identify whether it
(12:49):
was came from came from the shirt, or if it
was just in the bag already. So the shirt and
the tail light were in the same bag for over
a month. And then so that she there's actually there's
actually a quote. She actually couldn't determine whether it came
from the shirt or if it was already in the bag.
So when people say it was embedded in his clothing,
(13:11):
that that's a that's a false statement.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Interesting, Okay, next question after the.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Testing on John Oahue's body, they found pieces of the
tail light.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
How exactly do you explain that kind of the same.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Yeah, but here's the thing is, they didn't They didn't
find it on his body. They they they're claiming it
came from his shirt. And my rebuttal question to that
was if they if they really believed that, you know,
a tail light struck John O'Keefe, right, they would have
they would have swabbed his arm the skin, right, not
(13:45):
not Michael Proctor swabbing his shirt to potentially find, you know,
another cause to this, because when a medical examiner is
looking over an autosy, you're trying to find out the
cause of death. And this cause of death was undetermined.
So if you kind of come to an undetermined conclusion
of how he died, you almost have to open up
a little bit more and take maybe a little bit
(14:05):
more test that you wouldn't normally do during if let's
just say it was a vehicle homicide. You know, if
you can't determine that, then you have to kind of
come up with a different explanation for this death, which
would be to swab his arm to see if there's
anything going on there. But nobody ever did that, So
that's why it's still undetermined. If this was a clear
cut case she backed into him, she hit a medical
(14:27):
examiners have seen multiple multiple vehicle homicides. They know what
it looks like. And even there Amy said, this is
not typical what you see in a vehicle homicide.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
So just because we're here and I could be this
question could be off base.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
But if they never swabbed his arm, had they swabbed
one of those scratches that we saw or one of
those what they what you guys potentially say, or a
dog bite, wouldn't they have if they swabbed it, they
would have found animal saliva in it.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
But they never swabbed his arm.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Correct, They never swabbed his arm. I mean, it could
be I believe it's teeth moocks, but it could be
scratch marks from a dog as well. It could be
from Chloe's nails, but I believe they're from the mouth.
But they swabbed the shirt, right, Michael Proctor swabbed the
shirt and then what he did was he sent those
swabs to the lab. The lab never even received the
(15:19):
shirt to look at it and test it themselves. These
swabs were done the swap. These two Q tips were
sent to a lab from Michael Procta and and then
they tested the Q tips and they found pig DNA. So,
I mean, I don't know what to say about that.
I mean, why is pig DNA on this guy's shirt.
Why wasn't the shirt sent to the lab for the
lab to actually test the shirt look at the shirt
(15:41):
and see what's going on.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Well, to cut you off, but I had seen a
few things, like he could have worn that shirt one
day when he was making literal bacon like that. I'm
not kidding it that that was one of the theories
on that.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Could could have been. I mean, he also could have
been bit by a dog that you know, potentially had
a pig here that day. But if you look at
the puncture wounds on John's shirt, right, if tail light
went in, if tail light shot out and it went
into him, right, the the threads would be going in.
But if you look at the threads on the shirt
they got they have gone in but also came out.
(16:15):
So whatever entered him also came out of him. So
how does tail light It's not it's not a living thing, right,
So if it gets shot at you, it doesn't. It
doesn't repel out of you. So that that's one thing
that I think they're gonna they're gonna look at a
lot more too. Is the is the the fragments on
the shirt and the stitching of the shirt, how it
(16:36):
shows an exit wound as well like on the shirt.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Yeah, okay, we have time for one more talk back
real quick.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
I just wanted to see if he could ask Nick,
why haven't they requested to have a new judge.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
I feel like she's.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
Very biased and she does have some like tangles in
with the Albert family, I believe so, Like I feel
like it's like the concept of interest. I feel like
they could fight that and be like, we need a
new judge.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So in the first pre trial hearings for the trial
number one, they did ask Judge Beverly Canoni to recuse herself.
She obviously said no. She is the ring leader. She
makes the final decision whether she gets herself off the
case or stays on the case. She's the one that
decides if they can switch venues as well. So and
(17:30):
she's right, I mean, she does have connections to the
Albert family. Her brother, Judge Beverly Cononi's brother represented Chris
Albert in a hit and run case back in nineteen
ninety four when Chris Albert actually killed a guy named
Peter Berger in a hit and run and the lawyer
(17:50):
for Chris Albert was Judge Beverly Canoni's brother. So you
have conflicts of interest all up and down this case.
But at the end of the day, she's the one
that makes the final decision and some reason she doesn't
believe she's biased.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Interesting Alberts. Nick is always we love having you on.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
We could keep doing this, but we do have to, uh,
you know, get to commercials, play more music and play
the mix, or else.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
I'm going to get in trouble.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
So game plan is going to be every Friday we
will be joined by Nick same time. If something crazy
pops off or we're like, whoa, we need to get
Nick in here asap.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
I know you'll be able to do that for us.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Nick, but I like seven thirty on Fridays being your
home and that way people know that that's the way
they can always access you. If you missed anything, this
whole thing will be podcasted and as always when Nick
is on, Nick, I know you'll say it to you.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Guys can feel free to call. You can leave us talkbacks.
Nick is not try for sure.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
All right, Nick, thank you, We appreciate you, and we
will talk to you next week for a week one
of the retrial.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Oh we just we lost him a little bit.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
It's so it's so crazy, I mean, the man, the
man should be a lawyer, dude.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
The amount of details you can recall in numbers incredibleredible, No,
it's crazy.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Sixty two feet fowards, sixty two feet back. Then, it's
forty nine miles, twenty four miles per hour.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
It's impressed.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah, it's giving rain man, it really is. All right,
if you missed any of that, it will be up.
It will be podcasted down the free iHeartRadio app search
a s h L double Good morning,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!