Karen Read Trial Recap 6.21.24

Katherine Loftus joins us in studio to help break down and answer questions about the Karen Read trial.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Brand new cold Play right there,brand new Coldplay feels like I'm falling in
love and Lisa couldn't be happy orshe's in love with Chris Martin. Well,
I just highly respect him and Igot to interview him several years ago.
So that was fun. Yeah,very therapeutic for both of them.
As Martin said, so he actuallysaid that, Yeah, it's been so

(00:21):
relaxing. We talked for an hour, did you really? Yeah, that
never happens. They usually get youin and get you He's pretty up there.
Yeah. That voice is the voiceof Catherine Loftus, our legal expert
from the law firm of A.Loftus and Loftus. And whenever there's testimony
the day after, we've got Catherinein and I've heard something rumblings in the

(00:44):
studio this morning, Catherine, betweenWinnie and Lisa that we may have gotten
a smoking gun yesterday or not.Are not very unimpressed. No, we
were waiting. Well, and reallywe've talked about it here for a couple
of weeks. We've been talking aboutthese voicemails, these texts, what's gonna
come, What's gonna come? Thefact that they saved them to the very

(01:04):
end I think we all thought somethingsignificant was going to come from it,
and I do think there are somethings that can be gleaned about what was
happening that night. Clearly there wasclearly they were arguing. Clearly something happened
between when they were at the barncame out, but there's nothing that points,
oh my goodness, this is whatwe were waiting for. This is

(01:25):
why she was chad with a seconddegree. Where none of that came from
the now there was not a clearpath for the prosecution to say, Okay,
this is what happened. Well,we should recab for the audience that
for weeks we've been talking this isan eight week trial so far, and
everyone's like, well, just waitto think because we're like, well,
this is a really big case.The you know, the witnesses talk,
the evidence is awful, and everyone'slike, well wait too. You see

(01:46):
the text and the voicemail. Wait, and I'm I'm waiting. They came
yesterday. She's just a crazy bitch. That was now that he didn't come
home, like that was all itwas, come home, I'm home with
the niece and nephew, Like thatwas the front of it, was it?
Not? Yeah, I think andI do think, you know,
there's some interesting stuff that came outof it. The phone calls to her
mom and dad, I think areinteresting to call in the middle of the

(02:07):
night if you're just in a regularfight with your boyfriend. So there are
some things, but they don't goto the intent that's needed to be proven
by the cam Wealth for charging herwith second degree run. I mean,
I don't know how they I don'tknow how a grand Jurion died or on
second degree right, I keep sayingthat how did this even? How are
we even here? But also couplethat with the fact that Garno his timeline

(02:30):
started not fitting what we heard fromJen McCabe earlier in the trial. Can
you explain that well? And Ido think one of these things that we've
talked about quite a bit is thatthe elephant in the room that both the
defense and the com Wealth kind ofaddress but don't is that everybody is so
intoxicated. So really we probably shouldtake Guarino's recitation of the timeline over Jem

(02:53):
mccabees because she was drinking all thatnight. We got the blood alcohol from
the medical examiner that said John's wasthat point to one and was probably higher
when he was killed. So whois triber Grino? Who is the We
call them the They do the cellphone dump. So basically when you get
a phone, a physical phone,and they have software that goes through all

(03:14):
the possible passwords to try to getinto it, and that's where the information
was extracted from John o'kee'sphone. So, you know, I think it's I
think it's interesting that we have somany different kind of theories, we have
different recitations of the facts, andultimately it's up to the jury to weed

(03:35):
through that and figure out what reallyhappened in that night. But with the
Komwath leading with a second degree murdercharge, I just don't I don't see
how they got that. But forthe jury listening to those voicemails, do
they have to decide side among themselvesnow whether they think she was angry enough
to run them over. I mean, that's ultimately, and I don't even
know that it's about angry enough.If you for a second degree, you

(03:59):
have to prove that it was anintentional act, either she intended to kill
him or to cause serious bodily harm. I don't see the intent in those
voicemails. Do I see. Iunderstand what the Commonwealth is trying to show
is that it wasn't just this prettypicture night that you know, Oh he
went in and I wasn't feeling wellso I went home. That's clearly not

(04:20):
what it was. So it doeslay a foundation for something else. But
really, I know, I've justsaid it three times, but I don't
know how. I don't know howthey tried to there's not a clear path
to conviction here. I don't wantto speak for every woman in the world,
but I feel like most of ushave been in a relationship similar to
this one, and like I was, we've all been probably in Karen's.

(04:44):
I wasn't blackout drunk, but whenyou're with a guy it's ending, you
feel like it's falling apart, andyou're like literally fighting for a relationship with
someone that doesn't care that from herpoint of view, I know he was
obviously on the side of the roador wherever he was at the time,
but I'm saying, in her pointof view, they've been going back and
forth. He's been distant, andthen I drop you off at this house
and then now I'm home, baby, sitting your niece and nephew, and
I'm like, where is this guy? To me? That doesn't mean she

(05:06):
thought that he was dead somewhere.That means she thought he was out partying
and she was watching the niece andnephew, right, And I think that's
what Annie Jerror might interprete. Andthat's the thing, because you're you're somebody
who would be in Norfolk County willbe on the jury, and people are
going to interpret things different ways,and you know it might be you know,
on the other hand, you're gonnahave juror's who don't ever have any

(05:29):
experience with having this kind of relationship, and so when they hear things like
this, you go like, thisis crazy the way they are talking to
each other. So it all comesback to the jury's perspective, and ultimately,
you know, you need twelve peopleto come to a unanimous decision.
I think it's going to be very, very difficult. I think it's probably
likely that pretty people are pretty dugin as to what the position is.

(05:49):
Again, if you're listening and youdon't know what we're talking about. This
Karen Reid trial is a local story. It happened in Canon. The trial
is in debtum and it's gone by. Everybody is obsessed with this case.
And she's charged with running her boyfriendover who was a Boston police officer.
Uh, the prosecution is trying toprove that, and the defense is trying

(06:11):
to prove that it's some sort ofa cover up. So can we talk
to about the medical examiners, youknow, testimony yesterday, Yeah, a
little bit, and that it's stillinconclusive, but could have been you know,
blunt forced trauma to the head fromsomething could have been a fight,
but not really. I mean again, it was just sort of muddled and
I think it goes too And shetestified a little bit about this yesterday that

(06:36):
we rely on. You know,we're looking at the medical examiner like she's
supposed to know what happened that night. All she gets is the body of
you know whatever, and not justin this case, in any case,
and unless it's obvious, you knowthat we know that somebody she said,
a homicide would clearly be if somebodyputs a gun and it you know,

(06:56):
the bullet goes through the brain,that's okay, this is a homicide.
Right, you have blonde force trauma. She can't open as to what caused,
and she said that she doesn't know, right, and so it's really
we're looking for her to make alegal determination. We want, you know,
everybody wants, whether you're on thedefense side or the cormwell side,
we want to be able to say, oh, the medical examin is fine
and point to this, but reallywhat her job is just to look at

(07:19):
what the body is, tell uswhat the injuries are, and then it's
the lawyer's jobs to say this ismost consistent with this type of injury and
the fact that it's a blonde force. I mean, the blonde force object
can be anything, right, andso at one hundred percent, could be
he's getting hit by a cat andmaybe its head goes back and he hits
it on the ground and that's theblonde force. Or he could get hit
in the back of a head withan object. But the zero ability to

(07:42):
tell which one it is, it'salmost like nothing's been proven for either side.
Well, you know, and that'swhy I just started into it.
Are and I think that's what itis. And obviously I want to reiterate,
and I've said this many times,the defense has no obligation to prove
a case. They only have toshow and create reasonable doubt. However,
they have presented this theory, theyarguing in opening statements that she was framed.

(08:07):
I don't see anything coming to fruition, any real evidence of this third
party theory. And I don't seeany evidence that there was an intentional homicide
by Karen Reid. I mean,as the longer we go, it seems
like both sides lose me and maybe, you know, maybe there's some place
in the middle. Yeah. Traditionallyon the show, now it's topic time,
when it's the day after testimony andthe Karen Reid trial. Well,

(08:30):
the topic is the Karen Reid trial, and we've got our counselor, our
in house expert, our legal expert, Catherine Loftus in studio ready to take
your questions. So let's go tothe phones and we'll start with Tony.
Tony, what's up? What's yourquestion? All am? I, yes,
you're on, Tony, go allright. So my question is with

(08:52):
regards to the blood that was foundon John O'Keefe's clothes. They report ordered
that that he had you know,three people's blood on his clothes, one
being his own. And I guessmy question is playing into the narrative of
that, you know, he mighthave been in a fight. Why aren't
they making up more of a ofa big deal that he had multiple people's

(09:15):
blood on his clothes A good one, Catherine, So from from the defense's
perspective, I think so. Originallywe had pre trial litigation two of the
troops Buchanican practice blood was tested againstit. There was never any requests for
anybody else to and I don't likelythe that would have not been allowed anyway
if they had asked pre trial toyou know, test Brian Alberts blood of

(09:39):
Brian Higgins. And sometimes you don'twant to ask questions if you don't you
know, know the answer for certain. So if that wasn't their blood on
it, it arguably could have ruledout that theory. So you usually what
the defense does is they would preferto make the inferential argument then the actual

(10:00):
will argument, because if you haveif you look for the evidence and it's
not helpful. You know, it'slike when you ask a client they say,
good it's gone camera. Is itreally going to be good on camera?
You're sure we want this because sometimeswe don't want things that are actually
going to hurt the case, soit makes sense, asked An answered,
Let's go to Kenneth. Kenneth theerupt next. Do you have a question?

(10:20):
Kenneth? Oh, Hi, I'mjust good morning, Kenneth. Kenneth.
Hey, Kenneth, Yes, howyou doing. I just wanted to
make a comment. I drive forthe last eight months. I've been driving
over six months and driving the samecar as Karen read and I just want
to say that the car is likereally big, a lot of blind spots,

(10:43):
and I mean I've already hit severalthings, not knowing that you've even
hit it parking this thing. It'sthe big car that's really high up.
So I just thought that was kindof curious. I mean, it's interesting.
I think maybe that goes to wewere talking a little bit off air
about this the charges that can read. It's facing the second degree versus the
manslaughter, and you know, whetherthis could have been an accident and who

(11:05):
knows. I mean, I've neverbeen in that type of vehicle, but
yeah, Tripper Paul kind of talkedabout the car more and some of the
blind spots right when he was onthe stand, right, But it's interesting.
So that came from the comwalls expert, and that I think would lead
you more towards if you think shedid it. It was an accident versus

(11:26):
an intentional right, right, Yeah, So of all the evidence so far,
the craziest part is where Trooper Paulsaid that he flew through the air
for thirty feet, but then yethe hit his head on the curb.
I know, I just don't understandhow that mashes he flew thirty feet.

(11:50):
Well, that was the the opinionof Troppaul, And I think it goes
to this is that oftentimes these areopinions based on the data that the expert
is looking at, right, andthey can't really conclude one way to the
other. I don't think it wasgood that he He should have just said
we aren't clear about We're not sureabout what happened. This is what we

(12:13):
think we found him this far basedon the backing up of the vehicle.
We think it stopped here. Butdo I know exactly how he was hit
or how he was how he landed. No, because there's no way you
can actually tell that, no expertthat testifies unless you were there, unless
we have it on video, unlessyou start it with your two eyes.
It's really just a theory, andthat theory seemed a little incredible. Yeah,

(12:35):
when he said he was sideswiped andhe turned this way, I just
was like, this is he's partand your opinion, I don't know,
it just it was, well,it didn't make sense because based on all
of us are looking at the data, all of us are looking at what's
the evidence that has been presented,and that would it doesn't make sense that

(12:56):
you could actually form that opinion.You might be to say could he have
done this? Maybe could he havedone something else, but to pick one
specific theory and say this is whatit is. I think everybody found pretty
unreliable. Me crazy. This isthe first trial I've ever seen where there
are no conclusions. You know,Billy, that's what you do. You

(13:20):
prove things, Billy. It's maddeningbecause we've all been watching it for two
months, hours and hours and hours, and we still don't know right.
And I think that goes to thatthe longer we go into it, the
more questions we have, which isnot the way It's not the way it
should be. And obviously the komwalthdoesn't seem to be really be proven.
This second degree the defense is pokingall the holes but not really proven the

(13:41):
third party, which they don't haveto. Then well, you were a
prosecutor at one point, yes,And if you were Adam Walley at some
point in the last eight weeks,would you have switched up your tactics because
what he's doing is clearly not orwhat he's been doing did not work.
I think that the I understand thestrategy of the Komwalth because we had so
much much intense pressure pre trial andleading up to this about the third party

(14:05):
theory, so he spent so muchtime on the front end, and I
honestly felt like, Okay, Ican understand that because maybe the real strength
in some crazy voicemails or other thingsthat are going to come that are going
to show us not only is thethird party theory it doesn't make sense,
but we have evidence of what wewant you to believe. I think the

(14:26):
fact that they don't have that youknow, wow moment that makes us all
say, oh, this is whatwe've been waiting for. They probably,
if I'm being really honest, Ithink the outside pressure kind of got to
the Commonwealth and instead of focusing onjust proving their case, they sort of
kowtow to the outside justin talkbacks arestill coming in. Yeah, it's amazing

(14:50):
around the country, around the world, how many people are following this case.
And you know there are people thatlisten to this show Catherine, from
around the world and around the country. So let's go to Vegas. Hey,
good morning girl, this is VegasRay and I just wrote a call
in ask is it absolutely proven thatthis gentleman never made it inside the house?

(15:11):
That would be something I would beinterested in, and I've been following
it as far as I can frombeing so far away. But is it
absolutely proven that he never made itinside? No, nothing's proven, so
it's not proven. And again sotrueber Gooryo testified. Yeah, he tried
right. So if you ask theCommonwealth, their position is yes, he

(15:31):
never made it in the house thatat twelve thirty one his phone stopped.
It shows that he was in athree feet radius. He didn't go in.
Now, we're going to have likelyan expert on the defensive side that's
going to say exactly the opposite.And that's ultimately what it comes down to
is that we have an expert foreverything, and we have an expert that
supports the carmwallths theory. We havean expert that supports the defense theory,

(15:52):
and it's the jury's you know,it's the jury's job to figure out which
one they believe. All I knowis if I ever get called for jury
again, I'm not going. I'mjust let's go to Steve. Steve,
you have a question for Catherine,Yes, by Catherine, good morning.

(16:12):
Will the jury be Will the jurybe given any option other than murder if
they do think she did it butit wasn't intentional. Yes, so they
she actually is charged with three threethree charges. She has second degree murder,
then she has manslaughter while driving underthe influence, and then she has
leaving the scene of uh personal injuryor death. So they could theoretically find

(16:33):
her not guilty of the second degreefind her guilty of the manslaughter. I
don't think there's a world where theyjust find her guilty of leaving the scene
of personal injury because you have toyou have to prove knowledge. She has
to have known that he was there. So I think mala leaving the scene
it kind of tied up in one. But theoretically they could, Yeah,
well, those voicemass true, shedidn't know I think it shows you know,

(16:53):
I don't know that it shows thatshe didn't know. I think it
shows that there was a lot goingon that night. There's high levels of
intoxication. I don't think it's highwatched one way or the other. Yeah,
she was definitely drunk and she seemedvery panicked, right, And I
think it does go to, youknow, the the idea of what was

(17:15):
happening in the moment, and that'swhat the Carwath is trying to show with
this. They're trying to show that, Okay, this wasn't some we're just
dropping somebody my boyfriend off and thenyou know, ten minutes later, I'm
home because ten minutes later we're gettingscreaming phone calls with all kinds of crazy
stuff. So clearly there's something thathappens in the interim, and the Carmwalth
believes that goes to, oh,she was, you know, enraged and

(17:38):
she hit him. I don't thinkit gets there, but I think it
obviously shows that something happened in between. So full day of testimony today,
you know that day, Yeah,full day of testimony, and we'll have
you back to recap what happens today. On Monday, Monday. Okay,
I'll be here. That's Catherine Loftus, the law firm of a law off

(18:00):
to sit off to note my objection. You got to go there,