October 28, 2025 • 68 mins
Alan Jackson released a letter to Mayor Wu demanding that police Commissioner Cox be put on a Brady list. Let’s talk about it.
Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by becoming a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereport
Throw a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglass
Support Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass
Become a channnel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/join
Thank you Patrons!
Carol Mumumeci, Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Debra Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.
Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by becoming a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereport
Throw a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglass
Support Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass
Become a channnel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/join
Thank you Patrons!
Carol Mumumeci, Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Debra Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, just be sure you didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
We know who did it, Steve, we know, and we
know who spearheaded this cover up.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house, who did it?
Speaker 4 (00:13):
We don't know.
Speaker 5 (00:13):
We don't know. We don't know, and it's not for
us to know.
Speaker 6 (00:18):
Somebody other than Karen.
Speaker 7 (00:19):
Somebody other than Karen is responsible for that, for the
killing of John.
Speaker 5 (00:33):
You are listening to the ROBERTA. Glass True Crime report
putting the true back in true crime from New York City.
Speaker 8 (00:47):
ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
Glass is now on the record. Okay, how is everybody well,
(01:14):
Alan Jackson, Karen Reid, y'all, Hey, Susan Hicks, we're talking
about them today. He's put out. He's desperately trying to
find some corruption since an independent investigation that looked into
(01:35):
this case found no corruption. The federal government who looked
in this case not no corruption. He's gonna be a
one man band and find it all by himself. That's
how I see this story. He's calling out the police
commissioner for something the police commissioner said to a journalist
(01:58):
and equating it to the same standards we have for
lying under oath or some kind of Brady violation. I
mean like that that there is some you know, it
is so confused. It sounds all official and important until
(02:19):
you actually take it apart. So we're going to look
at that today tomorrow. I have Tom or Toddy, a
civil super lawyer. What an incredible lawyer. He is coming
on to talk about Karen Reid's chances of adding all
these parties and being both a plaintiff and a defendant
(02:42):
in her civil trial. What are the chances of that?
Demon Seligson, Karen Reid's South African lawyer, says that they're
going to file that ridiculous motion with a list of
people as long as your arm to bring in. I mean,
(03:04):
you know what it's really like. It's really like me
saying defending myself like I'm a doctor, say I'm a doctor.
I'm defending myself in a civil trial for malpractice and saying,
you know what, you know what, I have problems. I
(03:25):
have issues. I'd like to include the people that design
the building. It has nothing to do with my malpractice case,
but I don't like coming in. This building is so ugly.
I don't like coming in. Let me bring in I
you know, my mental health was affected by how ugly
the building I'm working in. Let's bring in the architects
(03:49):
of the hospital into this, and I'm going to sue
them while I'm defending myself. I mean, apparently she succeeds
on this. I mean, already the chances are so slim
that she's that the o'keefs are going to win this
(04:10):
civil trial. The way it's going, everything's going now, I mean,
I understand that the burden is lower, all these things
that would be normal in regular life, true, all the
that all the evidence points to her guilt, that the
burden is much lower. All these things you would would
(04:33):
be a slam dunk had there not been an innocence
rod campaign. And then once you get in these innocence
fraud campaigns, now everything's been turned on its head. So
now we're in the opposite world. And if they get
jurors that are touched by this innocence fraud campaign and
have fallen for it, it's going to be very hard
(04:54):
for the o'keefes to get justice. And there are things
that they can do that if her lawyers want to
reach out to me just to chat, feel free with
Bert Glass twenty three at Gmail. Fighting an innocent fraud
campaign is a very specific thing and has to be
(05:14):
done a very specific way. But they look like they
want to add on it's not going to be one
by adding on bbfel this California gla Amazon attorney. I
will tell you that I think that was I think
this is That's probably one of the worst decisions that
they've made so far. I understand she has a lot
(05:37):
of experience in this area, but Karen Rei does not
win in court because her lawyers are so good, or
because there or that she has so many of them.
She wins in court because they are willing to go
beyon and beyond the bounds of the law. And I
(05:57):
can say that without fear of getting sued because Karen
Reid's lawyers were sanctioned in open court last trial for
their lack of candor on the court. Now that's a euphemism.
Now what does that euphemism mean. Means they lied to
the court, They were involved in a fraud upon the court.
(06:20):
They all knowingly, willingly lied. That's what Judge Denoni. Essentially,
she can soften it because she's an innocent frauds to herself.
But that's what that means. And she demanded that they
not lie to the court anymore. And then and within
ten minutes of that sanction or that, I mean, I
(06:45):
don't know if it was officially a what do you
call it, A there's more an admonition, she's they're lying
to her again. So you know, she was a joke
as a judge. She was walked all over. She was
basically I considered her another wing of the defense. She
(07:12):
was so weak in this case. This civil judge is
a lot stronger. Will he find out tomorrow? I'm curious.
I don't know the answer to it. I've sent Tom
Rtaddi a whole bunch of stuff about the civil trial.
I'm curious to hear what he has to say. Tune
(07:34):
in tomorrow at six. We're going to be doing it live.
What he has to say about everything. You mean, you
won't get a smarter civil lawyer than Tom. So very
curious to hear what he has to say. I fear
that he's going to be like, this is reasonable, reasonable
to bring in all these other people, to bring in
(07:56):
Jen McCabe and Michael Proctor Buchanic, like, oh, we do
this all the time. That's maybe when we will find
out that this is done all the time in civil court.
Certainly didn't seem like it. In the hearing. The judge
was like, this is a novel approach or something like that,
something to that effect. I think he said, yeah, So
(08:19):
I'm not all that I'm not all that optimistic right
now as to the chances for the Okey family. And
but but anybody you know again, I'm going to make
another public call out for Elizabeth, Karen Reid's sister. She
(08:44):
wants to talk behind the scenes, confidentially vertical last twenty three,
Victoria Crisp, the Sullivan's sisters, Marietta Laura Sullivan reach out
to me. There's questions that I think that they can
answer that need to be answered and need to be
(09:05):
put out into the public domain. So let's look at
starting with starting off with Channel Boston News their coverage
of this this shocker, this shocker from Alan Jackson, this letter.
(09:33):
Let's take a look at the news reporting on it.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Breaking developments in the aftermath of the Karen Reid case.
Investigative reporter Ted Daniel joining us now Ted, as we
first reported just thirty minutes ago, this has to do
with Boston Police.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Rachel twenty five Investigates has a copy of a letter
Karen Reid's attorney, Alan Jackson, sent to Boston Mayor Michelle
wou and the head of the Post Commission. The letter
is scathing. In it reads, defense team calls out the
head of the Boston Police Department.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I have nothing to do with cannon read matter fact,
I didn't even know this person was associated.
Speaker 9 (10:13):
With a can read.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
The letter talks about comments Commissioner Michael Cox made to
reporters about Read and then Boston Police officer Kelly Dever,
who testified and reads retrial. Dever spoke about a meeting
she had with Cox prior to her testimony.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
But you know, it's interesting in Alan Jackson's letter, he
never says where the statement was made. So it's like
you could infer from his letter in my computers acting up.
So please forgive me once again. Maybe my sir, if
he's around, met will help me try to fix it
(10:52):
once more. It's so frustrating. But in his let there
in Alan Jackson's letter, when you look at it, you
could think that he means let me. He means that
he could have been making a statement under oath in
(11:12):
a court of law. You know what I mean? There's
no there's no punishment is there for a public official
lying to a lying to a news reporter?
Speaker 10 (11:29):
Is there?
Speaker 5 (11:30):
I mean, I mean lying under oath? Okay, it's distasteful
for his job, but I don't know, I mean so
like so let me read you Alan Jackson's actual letter.
(11:50):
Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox has been caught in a lie.
Do you think that they were influenced at all by
my David Yanetti's on lying lawyers that lie? Do you
think that that at all influenced them in this?
Speaker 11 (12:08):
Uh?
Speaker 5 (12:09):
And not a small one? On, not a small one.
On July tenth, twenty twenty five, Commissioner Cox publicly denied
any connection to the Karen Reid case or to Officer
Kelly Deaver. Well, Alan Jackson, you told Billy Bush that
you won this case twice, that you won Karen Reid's
(12:33):
case twice. How is that possible? How is a hungury
a win? Isn't that a rather big lie for a lawyer?
Or you'd know better? Do you want us to go
through all your lives? He was asked about the allegation
that he met with Dever before she was oh, Diver, sorry,
Kelly Deaver. He was asked about the allegation that he
(12:54):
met with Diver before she was called to testify in
the first Karen Reid trial in twenty twenty four, and
then he told her to do the right thing. In
his unequivocal denial, Cox stated, I have nothing to do
with Karen Reid. Matter of fact, I don't even know
this person was associated with the Karen Reid case. I
(13:16):
didn't know she Deever was even associated with that case.
I was struck, like, what do I have to do
with the Karen Reid case? I never said these words together.
So the fact is it's much to do about nothing, Okay.
So he publicly didn't, amazingly didn't want to be harassed
(13:38):
by an onslaught of Karen Reid's murderer groupies and in
her innocence fraud pied piper known as Aidan Carney. These
statements were false, patently false. Commissioner Cox, the head of
the Boston Police Apartment, actually asked. He actually asked. He
(14:02):
actually asked, guys, what do I have to do with
the Karen Reid case? The answer is obvious. One of
his officers was dead murdered by Karen Reid Alan Jackson,
and you know that. And the victim's body was discovered
in the front yard of another Boston police officer. Yeah,
(14:23):
Karen Reid clipped John O'Keeffe with her car as he
got out in front of another police officer's home, and
that's where his body landed. I love how they make
it so like he was found in the front yard, Yeah,
(14:44):
where they were going to socialize after the bars closed,
and Karen Reid decided to reverse into John O'Keeffe over
a sixty sixty plus yards space with her foot seventy
(15:13):
five percent down on the gas pedal. And why I
bring that up always is it's such an indication that
she wasn't doing it by accident. When have you ever
reversed in that fashion with your foot that far down
like that's flooring it in speeds of twenty four mile
(15:34):
an hour going forward don't seem very fast, but backwards
it's pretty fast. And why she didn't want to reverse
into him and hit him head on is because if
you hit someone in the rear view going backwards, you
can always say, oh, I didn't mean to do it,
it was an accident, And Karen Reid benefited from people
(15:58):
on this side saying she was either so drunk or
she didn't know. Be hard for her not to know.
She told her father she felt she hit something, she
knew she hit. She clipped him, and she left him there.
(16:19):
For the Commissioner to suggest that he had nothing to
do with that case defies both logic and leadership. Common
sense tells us that he had everything to do with it.
Nearly obtained evidence for Grooves that Cox knowingly misrepresented his involvement.
On April twenty second, twenty twenty four, the FBI's Boston
(16:40):
Field office sent Commissioner Cox an email explicitly referring to
Deaver and the Red investigation. The email, from Assistant Special
Agent in Charge Stephen Kelcher to Cox stated, just a reminder.
The documents were released to the DA's office late last night.
(17:01):
The officer we spoke about is Kelly Diver. The next day,
February twenty third, twenty twenty four, at eleven am, Cox's
official calendar lists a meeting with Officer Kelly Dever, exactly
as Diver would later testify and Cox would deny. The
(17:21):
timeline is indisputable. I don't think he denied that he
met with her. I think he just denied that. It
added that that meeting had to do with the Karen
Reid case. I didn't hear a denial here. Let's listen
(17:44):
to it again. Let's hear it one more time.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Okay, trial never spoke about a meeting she had with
Cox prior to her testimony. Cox was asked about all
of this in July.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
I didn't know she was even associated with that case.
So yeah, I don't know. I was struck block. What
do I have to do with the Karen Reader? And
I never said those words together. And so the fact is,
you know, it's much to do about nothing.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Jackson's letter states that Cox has been caught in a lie,
and not a small one, adding for the commissioner to
suggest that he had nothing to do with the Red case.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Endeavor defies, Oh was it dev not?
Speaker 6 (18:24):
Dever?
Speaker 5 (18:25):
All right? All right, Kelly Dever, all right back, But
he didn't deny meeting with her. Just a reminder of
the documents were released to the DA's Obviously. Last night,
Okay Cox television televised claimed that he had nothing to
(18:46):
do with Karen Reid and didn't even know this person.
Kelly Dever, who was associated with the Karen Reid case,
was a bald fased lie when now disproven by documentary
evidence originating from the FBI I investigation itself. Really, why
don't you release the whole investigation? Or did you or
(19:08):
did you communicate with the FBI Alan Jackson via the
signal app? Why did the FBI or the why did
Why did the federal investigation in this case? How did
(19:31):
they come to use Daniel Wolf who openly speaking of
a lie? He openly lied on the stand in the
first trial said he wasn't being paid, said he had
hardly he I mean never had never met you before
(19:51):
then or talked to you when he when you guys
were in touch. Clearly he said he wasn't being paid.
He was. He lied to the jury, lied under oath,
and then in the second trial he got rid of
all of his communications so that they couldn't be any
(20:13):
discovery in the case, all his text messages and emails.
No one had any discovery for the prosecution from this
trusted what Karen Reid supporters say, it is just the
most trustworthy source. I mean, how did the veederal investigation?
(20:39):
How hire these people? Me We're ever going to really
learn the real connections between the FEDS and Karen Reid's
defense team, because speaking of another wing of the defense, So,
how did Karen Reid get off with a lot of
fraud and a lot of help.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
Both logic and leadership. Jackson points to an email Cox
received in twenty twenty four from a Boston FBI agent
about the read investigation. That letter directly references then officer
Kelly Dever. Jackson also references Cock's official calendar, which lists
a meeting with Dever. Dev confirmed that meeting on the stand.
(21:15):
Dever also testified that she was mistaken when she told
FBI agents that she saw two people near Karen Reid's
lexus in the Canton police garage for a quote wildly
long time.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
It was a distorted memory.
Speaker 12 (21:29):
Therefore I can't state it because at this point it
would be a lie.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
So Jackson wants post the agency that oversees police officers
in Massachusetts to launch an.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
Enco Oh yy, this guy, this guy, hold on, I
just want to show you the So anything that Ted
Daniels has to say about it, I'm not all that
interested in hearing. But that's essentially the story in a nutshell,
(22:00):
but a channel WCVB at the end of their report.
Let's just like look at their report. They essentially have
the same thing. They bring in a judge, I think,
I don't think he's any on the bench any longer.
But everybody's disappointed in his take. But he's he sounds skeptical,
(22:26):
strangely skeptical of Karen Reid's lying lawyers. Claims he's skeptical
of the tiny man himself. Is this okay? There we
can testify?
Speaker 4 (22:40):
During the Reed trial, Reid says that officer changed her
story on the stand.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
And she was called into the Commissioner's office, story completely
changed and was recanted.
Speaker 13 (22:50):
Made no mistake, lead defense counsel in the Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 5 (22:55):
So she thought she might have seen she got a
never got I think bamboozled by the possibly bamboozled by
the innocent fraud campaign. Possibly just was mistaken on her own.
Came up with this idea on her own that Brian
Higgins was in the sally Port that night, so or
(23:17):
Proctor was in the Sallyport. I can't remember who was
Was it Proctor or Higgins? Helped me out. I thought
it was Higgins for some reason Higgins in the sally
Port that night, and they showed that he couldn't have
been messing with the car. And it's not a distorted memory.
(23:39):
She thought that might have been the day when she
saw maybe it was a different day. The memories not distorted.
She just got her times wrong. Do you see how
language is so important in these cases? Anyway, here's James Barretto,
he's a retired judge and he's skeptical of Alan Jackson
(24:01):
and this whole publicity making a.
Speaker 13 (24:04):
Very serious josh against the Boston Police commissioner.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Retired Massachusetts judge James Barretto says, Reid's lawyer is asking
for two different things, adding Commissioner Cox to the Brady List,
a list of police officers whose credibility and conduct has
been reasonably questioned in the past, and launching an investigator.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
The Brady List, so Brady claims, So Brady claims, means
that you didn't hand over something that could have been
helpful for the defense, which is so ironic in this case,
because the trick of the defense attorneys in the Karen
Reed trial, both Trial one and Trial two, was to
(24:45):
totally ambush the prosecution by never handing over discovery and
so we would have as punishment to the team, we
would have wad deer after war of the witnesses because
discovery obligations hadn't been met. And they said that they
(25:05):
that they were putting on witnesses because Daniel Wolff et
cetera was in Wrenchler, the two accident reconstructionists were that
were originally hired by the federal investigation. Why they were hired,
(25:28):
we don't know. And they only wanted and they were
they only wanted information about the crime from the defense. Strangely,
they never asked for any information from the prosecution. That
should raise an eyebrow. Why they were so biased from
the from the start, and it seemed like they had
(25:51):
a direct a directive in the way that they went
about their quote unquote, you know, totally unbiased investigation. But
they would say that we have no discovery for Marie Russell,
the dog bite expert. They had to dear her, no
(26:15):
discovery for the ARCA witnesses, Daniel Wolf and Renschler, And
that continued on and then in the second trial we
had to do those waders again because not only did
that they weren't they it wasn't that the discovery didn't
(26:36):
exist like they said in the first trial. The second
trial was all destroyed. No one had any copies of
text messages or emails because they were all communicating on
signal on auto delete. That's not sus at all for
a lawyer to do that. I mean, it was so criminal.
(26:56):
So Grady violations are a favorite of the wrongful conviction
movement to overturn convictions. But it has to be so
not only do they have to violate discovery, but it
has to be deemed useful to the defense in some way.
So say you hand over a report of a hat
(27:25):
the gentleman was wearing a hat, and you can't say, well,
you didn't say it was a purple hat or something
that doesn't matter. Relevant information is not a Brady violation.
But they use these Brady violations all the time as
ways to say that somehow the investigation was corrupt or
(27:45):
not trustworthy. I mean, it's essentially a technicality. If they
can overturn a conviction on a technicality, they will claim
the police officers are corrupt. And this Brady list, my view,
seems like another another tool of fraudulent lawyers who want
(28:16):
to get killers off. I mean, why would we need
a list? Why do people need to be, you know,
warned about other officers if they're if they're working. Shouldn't
a Brady violation be so egregious that they should at
(28:36):
least lose their job? Why do we even need a
Brady List? So it's just a nonsense thing. I don't
I don't even know who makes the Brady List, If
it's a real thing, who keeps it? I always thought,
I mean, if you look up at Brady, it looks
(28:56):
like it's haphazardly put together by a Karen Reid fan.
And so I mean they just list a huge name.
Is there somewhere an official Brady List? Somewhere? Is there
such a thing in Massachusetts? An official Brady List? I
have no idea.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Gash by a statewide police standards commission into Cox's behavior.
Speaker 13 (29:19):
Well, the allegations are serious, no question, But like any allegation,
they have to be supported by evidence, and they have
to They're titled to do process, which means a hearing,
an evidentry hearing, and again they must be measured against
a certain standard approval.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Now, we have reached out to Boston Police and the
Mayor's office for comment, but haven't heard back. I've also
reached out to Karen Reid's attorney to see if he
submitted his own complaint about Commissioner Cox, but haven't heard
back from him either.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
Right, So it's like, let's look at this. We haven't
seen prove essentially what the judge is cleverly doing as
he's saying, well, why shouldn't Commissioner Cops have his due process?
Why are you all saying he's guilty of this before
there's any kind of examination of the evidence of the process.
(30:16):
You say you have this. We've seen the interview, but
we also don't know what that meeting was about, really,
what the the details of that meeting were, and what
and what was the ramifications of him lying to the media.
Who cares he wasn't on the stand. It had nothing
(30:40):
to do with Karen Reid being convicted or not convicted,
So what is it? What does it matter? Thank you,
Susan Hicks. The Brady rule is established in nineteen sixty three. Yeah,
it's it's a good rule. I'm just saying it's it's
you use to they stretch it to its utmost. Does
(31:05):
everybody get that? So they will overturn convictions on things
that really don't really we're totally inconsequential to the defense
not being turned over. And they also use it as
a way once they can get a Brady violation like
(31:32):
affirmed by the judge or determined to be a violation
of Brady by the judge, then they can go on
to accuse the officers of some kind of morally reprehensible
character or behavior. So this is just more nonsense from
(31:59):
Alan jack accent. But just curious that this is coming
from this team. I mean, you know this team wants
to Does this team really want to start talking about
lies and when they were called out by the called
(32:30):
out by the judge, I mean, let me see, let
me take a quick break when we get back from
the breaks looking back at some of the defenses. Actually,
(32:54):
you know what this would be like a really good
time if I still have it be fun to take
a break with this song. Here's my tribute to Alan Jackson.
Speaker 9 (33:31):
Tied in.
Speaker 7 (33:33):
Bark as bad as my bite, You've got hundreds of
ways to fool you hold macular client tight, she too well,
only increases my popular leverty start and shower around the
(33:56):
court room like the Medlock parrot.
Speaker 8 (34:03):
I'm a lie, a criminal liar, think like a criminal.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
Spout legally.
Speaker 14 (34:16):
Lying by profession when in doubt, blame the polices. When
my kan gets exposed, my act deaf and dunk.
Speaker 8 (34:33):
Blame sudden nonset amnesia. Done the press under myth, drinks
with my killer client at Smith and Lolan scheme chet
paid for my fans, my elbow on the.
Speaker 14 (34:53):
Killers knee, I'm alone.
Speaker 7 (35:01):
A criminal liar, seemed like a criminal.
Speaker 5 (35:06):
Spout legally.
Speaker 8 (35:10):
A lion by profession.
Speaker 10 (35:13):
When that blame the police. When my con gets exposed,
I act deaf and dumb, blame suddenly nonset amnesia. Got
the press under my phone, drinks with might killer client
(35:40):
anthing lolonski check paid for my fans, my elbown.
Speaker 9 (35:47):
The killers me.
Speaker 5 (35:58):
Okay hereek. Oh so this is from Karen Reid. Does
anybody remember and Karen Reid's legal team. It's Cotton a
lie before the second trial, and a massive lie like
this could have a lie with serious consequences. First, she
(36:26):
could have got acquitted on the ARCA witnesses lies, they
could have or or she could have gotten convicted and
that was the thing. Oh well, these non biased witnesses
wouldn't lie, that aren't getting paid, that have no connection
(36:49):
to the defense team, that could have been used by
the Commonwealth, all lies put out by the defense. Anybody
remember this when Judge Canoni called them out an open
court after a hearing, after their due process, after they
said over and over that they didn't lie to the court,
(37:09):
that there's been a lack of candor. What does lack
of candor mean? It's a polite way of saying they
all lied. It wasn't very forthcoming with information. So they
do that on purpose. So they're hiding their own discovery
on purpose, I believe, to sandbag the Commonwealth. And still
(37:31):
to this day, Hank Brennan is still complaining about not
receiving discovery from the defense. So that all that's really important.
So Hank Brennan drops that not only were arcipaide twenty
three thousand, nine hundred and twenty five dollars, they were retained, hired,
colluded the defense lawyers, Karen Reid's defense lawyers crafted their testimony.
(37:59):
They could not have lied to the judge and the
public more. But here where it's really important, it's lying
to the court. And they lied over and over again
and to the jury. I'm just interrupting myself and a
very meta moment, But they also lied to the jury.
(38:25):
No punishment, this ethical violation of the high disorder. No
punishment for these lying criminal lawyers, even after Hank Brennan
dropped the bomb. They lie in emotion and Judge Canoni
(38:45):
brings that up. So let's take a look. So here's
the hearing where Judge Canoni is going to decide on sanctions.
So they could be My understanding is that could be disbarred,
they could be thrown off the case. I mean, this
is a major no no for lawyers to get caught
(39:07):
lying to the court. Let's take a look at it.
Employees of ARCHA.
Speaker 6 (39:15):
So I think I told counsel before that I had reviewed.
So first we had full hearing from counsel. I heard
from the lawyers. I heard from mister Leslie on behalf
of the lawyers. I've read the transcripts. I've listened to
the Sidebark conference and read that transcript and I've certainly
(39:38):
read the pleadings.
Speaker 5 (39:39):
So based on all the evidence, I conclude that there
has not.
Speaker 6 (39:44):
Been the candor required of all lawyers. Has not been
demonstrated here. I find that there have been repeated misrepresentations
made to the court by defense counsel, and I conclude
that they were.
Speaker 5 (40:03):
Deliberate, deliberate misrepresentations. What's that. What's a deliberate misrepresentation? That's
called a lie. This is the thing I really hate
the most about our legal system. So we get this
kind of language that really obscures the truth. They lied
(40:29):
to the court. It was a fraud. They it was
a fraud upon the court. That's what she's talking about,
a fraud upon the court repeated, not just one lie.
Wasn't done by I, over and over and over again.
So they want to talk about what officer, the police
(40:55):
commissioner says to a film to TV crew that has
no consequence whatsoever to anything that matters, not at all.
If it was so important what the police commissioner said,
why didn't you take him as your witness the way
(41:17):
you took Kelly Dever as your witness. Why didn't you
bring him in as your witness to talk about that
meeting because it was so inconsequential. You didn't have very
many Karen Reid's defense lawyers, You didn't have very many
witnesses it's not like you didn't have the time. It's
totally inconsequential to anything and unimportant to anything, whether or
(41:45):
not he met with Kelly Dever, who cares. I mean,
maybe you're just regretting not bringing in a commissioner and
putting him on the stand and making him look like
a liar and making them look like there's some kind
(42:07):
of police corruption because he wants to avoid the wrath
of Karen Reid's murderer groupies. Concerning the relationship with the
ACA witnesses, they were made.
Speaker 6 (42:24):
At sidebar an open court and impleadings, and I think
the record.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
So these are she calls them lack of candor misrepresentations,
but let's call them what they are. Lies. They lied
to the court over and over and over and over
again to win. That's why they were lying, so they
(42:52):
could win their case. Because so everybody says that, you know,
Alan Jackson, David Ninetti or such great lawyers, if they
are such great lawyers, why can't they win their case
by lawyering? Why do they have to cheat to win?
(43:15):
I mean, it's really like saying Armstrong was the greatest
cyclist of all time, certainly well paid, certainly famous, but
actual skill without without cheating. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (43:36):
Record is pretty clear, and I find that on July
twenty fifth, twenty twenty four, payment was made to the
ACCA witnesses. Yet on February twenty six, twenty twenty five,
in a pleading written by MS Little signed by all
(43:58):
three defense counts, well says the Commonwealth's motion to exclude
these exculpatory expert witnesses ACCO witnesses who are not hired
or paid for by the defense is not made in
good faith and is a desperate and transparent attempt.
Speaker 5 (44:15):
So when you accuse another lawyer of not acting in
good faith, you're accusing them of being shady. This is
the defense's own words. Now she's reading the defense motion
from the I believe it's the twenty fifth or twenty
sixth of February.
Speaker 9 (44:35):
This is.
Speaker 5 (44:38):
After it's dropped all these communications between ARCA, the payment
of ARCA, they're still accusing the Commonwealth of doing the
things that they're doing. They're saying, you're only trying to
exclude these witnesses because you're trying to get neutral, unbiased
(45:01):
witnesses from the jury's ears. You know, let me reflect,
Thank you so much, for the supersticker. I appreciate your support.
Speaker 6 (45:14):
And to keep exculpatory testimony of neutral expert witnesses from
reaching the jury in this case.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
The next page, right, did everybody get that this is
not done in good faith? The reason you want to
exclude these are good witnesses is not because they're not
neutral witnesses. It's not because we've lied to the court
about their neutrality and how we hire them, and our
(45:45):
communications with them, and hit our communications and our payment
from the court, especially the Commonwealth and the judge, I
mean the Commonwealth and the judge and the public and
the jury. Let's not forget the first jury. Had Karen
Reid been acquitted and this came out after she was acquitted,
there would be no remedy for it. En you couldn't
(46:10):
try her again, even though she was tried fraudulently. She
was acquitted fraudulently. There's no remedy for that, and they
know that.
Speaker 6 (46:28):
Ironically, the Commonwealth accuses the defendant of failing to comply
with her discovery obligations while conceding that the information is
not in her.
Speaker 5 (46:36):
Care, custody or control. Moreover here, and there's a very
curious point that Hank Brennan makes about the release of
the ARCA discovery. Hank Brennan says, this is the only
discovery he's gotten in this case, is the ARCA discovery,
(46:57):
And they just released the defense a huge witness today.
They did the same thing last time, and they called
very few people, So I don't know what what if
this is a similar game plan that they said that
(47:17):
they would have weeks and weeks of testimony for the defense,
and they had days. That's how it went last time.
But I am curious with the ARCA witnesses. A curious
part in Hank Brennan's filing about ARCA is he got
(47:41):
this discovery just as there was a change in guard
at the US Attorney's office, so they the office that
started this federal investigation had a change in staff, and
that's when he got the discovery. And initially in court
he said he got this discovery from the FEDS, so
(48:03):
he connected it to the FEDS when the defense says, oh, no,
we handed it over. So you have to ask yourself,
A rational person has to ask, was there an agreement
between the FEDS and the defense to not release the
discovery until they had resigned from their positions, and it
(48:32):
is still unknown. And this is the way Hank Brennan
wrote about it, or the Commonwealth wrote about it and
their filing. It's still unknown. The relationship between Karen Reid
and the federal investigation, that's the big mystery. And in
(48:54):
the old days, I would think there would be some
gum shoe detective pacing, you know, hidden the pavement and
trying to get an answer as to what the relationship
between Karen Reid and the federal investigation was. Why was
it started? You know, it's not so when you know
(49:18):
it's you know, Karen Reid and her lawyers have a
lot of golf, So it doesn't surprise me that they
went to the Feds. What surprises me is that the
Feds took them up on this investigation. What did they
tell them? And why was it started? Was it started
(49:44):
because of personal relationships where their promises offered? How dirty
does get again? Some of the hidden conspiracies in this
case that no one's really talking about and no one
can get to the bottom.
Speaker 6 (49:59):
Of the Defense has gone above and beyond its reciprocal
discovery obligations and has already satisfied all of its mandatory
discovery obligations under Rule fourteen, and turned over all additional
information and the controlling custody of the defense relating to
(50:20):
the acca witnesses as ordered by the court. So I
find or conclude that that was a material misrepresentation and
that it was deliberate. So I find that there is
a flagrant violation of the Rule fourteen obligations. And before
(50:43):
I decide which sanctions are appropriate, I need to see defense.
Speaker 5 (50:50):
Yeah, I need to talk to you. I need you
to talk to you so you can lie to me
some more. I mean, this was what was appropriate. Just
chewing out and don't do it again. But it's not
just the violation of Rule fourteen. It's a fraud upon
(51:10):
the court. It's just, you know, they're Judge Canoni's really
minimizing it because it's really, in some ways inconsequential what
they're misrepresenting. They're lying to the court, and they lied
(51:34):
to the jury. I mean, this thing had been going
on for like a year. It wasn't like, oh, you know,
you're not handing over discovery, just discovery. You're misrepresenting your
relationships with your witnesses to get your client off. You're
(51:56):
pretending you're you know to the jury that you're witnesses
are not paid and that you have no relationship with them.
And to really cover up how biased the ARCA witnesses were,
you shredded essentially all of your text messages and emails
(52:19):
with them. This is such an outrageous case of fraud
upon the court from these lawyers that they want to
talk about this now, this freaking police commissions inconsequential statement,
give me a break. The fact that so many lawyers
(52:41):
are willing to you know, a lot of them are
YouTube lawyers, which are some of the worst variety, but
so many of these lawyers are willing to collaborate. Big up,
High five Alan Jackson, David and Netti for all their
(53:03):
great work in the Karenry case. Makes me think that
there should be investigation into them. Don't tell me Alan
Jackson and David and Nettie are the only ones doing
these regular frauds upon the court. It's like a crisis
in our country. We have we have lawyers running around
(53:28):
acting like criminals, and what can you do? You can,
we can report them to the bar and then we're
going to have other lying lawyers look at these frauds
upon the court. And make a determination of it. When
lawyers get disbarred is often when they do a serious crime,
(53:51):
like you know, serious crime of which when they're going
to prison, or they're already in prison and they have
a hearing and they get this barred, or it's something
that it's like it has to do with payment of clients.
That's a very easy way. But this kind of stuff,
we never see anyone disbarred on this kind of stuff,
(54:14):
which is the real consequential stuff as to how our
justice system operates. So that's what I have to say
about that. You know, today it's just more trying to
make Karen read look like a victim of some kind
of corruption that really didn't happen. If anything, she was
(54:38):
the benefit of police who didn't really do who underestimated her,
thought this was an open and shutcase of a run,
and didn't interview a lot of the key. You know,
I don't know if they were key, but it was witnesses,
(55:03):
or they weren't thinking outside the box and they weren't
really working to nail down every lead, like for example,
Richie the plumber. I don't think they ever got Karen
Reid's laptop. But why weren't they when that's the last
thing they're fighting about that night? Why didn't anyone look
(55:24):
at Karen Reid's phone and say, are there any text
messages to Richie the plumber? This is the last thing
they're fighting about. Once Michael Camerano tells the police, John
O'Keefe was upset because Karen Reid had a plumber over
(55:45):
at eight o'clock at night, I mean really starting earlier
than that, starting more like seven twenty five, according to
Karen Reid, and didn't ask John to fix her plumbing issue.
He was angry about that. Why didn't they go try
(56:06):
to see what the truth surrounding that plumber was? Why
didn't they talk to the plumber since he was in
Karen Reid's home? Might have had If Richie the Plumber exists,
he might have some insight into Karen Reid's state of
mind that night. Was she drinking before she left? Might
(56:30):
be good to know. But what was never done? So
you know, spare me the she was a victim of
pin it on the girl nonsense. No one wanted to
pin it on the adjunct finance professor. Believe me, no
(56:52):
one was looking to pin anything on Karen Reid. It's unfortunate,
you know, just unfortunately her smash to smothering's tail light.
It was all over the scene. She was making admissions,
(57:13):
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. She
somehow knew that something had happened to John O'Keeffe when
everyone else would think, well, he just slept it off
at a friend's house, or maybe he stayed over at
the Alberts since he didn't have a ride home. It's
(57:38):
very interesting that the first people she calls are Michael
Camerano and Catherine Camerano that morning and in her last
text messages. So when I say last, I mean that day.
So in the text messages on the twenty eighth, Karen
Reid is telling John O'Keeffe that Michael Camerano has gone
(58:02):
off on her, like doesn't like her. Yet all we
heard about a trial, at least the first trial, was
we all liked Karen? Did everyone like Karen really? Or
were people fooled by her? And was Michael Camerono starting
(58:24):
to was he starting to see some of the Karen
reads coercively controlling and abusive behavior torch down O'Keefe, But
it seemed like she wanted to her mark was Michael
Camerono and Catherine Camerono was that because she wanted to
(58:48):
bring Michael Camerano to the scene and then point the
finger at him like she did Jen McCabe. Did she
know that he had the kind of personality that would
say the least about anything incriminating she would say, in
(59:12):
order to just put his head down. Did she know
he was devious like that where he would just say
the bare minimum and get off the stand and cause
the least amount of waves because he was looking after
(59:34):
number one himself and John O'Keefe was dead. He was
a nice friend while he was alive, but his real
duty was not to the truth, not to his murdered friend,
but to himself and his family. And Catherine Camerano, I
(59:55):
think is even worse than Michael Camerono.
Speaker 9 (01:00:00):
With her.
Speaker 5 (01:00:02):
Everyone else that morning who got phone calls from Karen
Reid heard incriminating statements. I mean picked up. Michael Camerono
didn't pick up, but everyone who picked up the phone
and got Karen Reid on the other end of the
line that morning heard some form of incriminating statements. But strangely,
Catherine Camerono all she hears is a whole lot of
(01:00:24):
yelling and she was saved by working. But I mean
with friends like those, I mean, who needs enemies, Eva
(01:00:47):
says ROBERTA. Thanks for being as outraged as I and
many still are about this case. Big as fraud on
the legal system. Yeah it is. I thank you for
being outraged. Eva. You know, free careen readers don't even
know this happened in court. I don't know what they were.
Some of them are so brainwashed that they watch that
(01:01:13):
hearing and it like goes in one ear and out
the other, like, well, you know, the free carent read
YouTubers are gonna really hone down and explore what lack
of candor in the court means and what all that
meant and all their lives. I've had to say that.
You go, no, huh. They didn't get called out for
(01:01:36):
lying to the court. Oh yes they did, Oh yes
they did. A lot of free carent readers aren't even
aware that that happened. They watched their innocence fraud propaganda.
And you know they're going to be the last ones
(01:01:56):
to learn they're duped. That's what I always say about them,
And that's from someone who has been fooled by innocent
fraud campaigns me, you know, not like they're good. Some
of them are good, some of them are convincing. Some
of these killers are very convincing, and they use an
(01:02:22):
appeal to authority and people. The amount of people that
will come to these psychopaths aides is incredible. So that's
what I have for today. Guys, Tomorrow, don't miss tomorrow.
I think it's going to be really interesting tom Or
Toddy's coming on. Always a pleasure to talk to him.
(01:02:44):
He is a lawyer, civil lawyer who represented I hope
I get this right, the town of Potsdam Nick Hillaries,
who was the accused killer of Garrett Phillips. My opinion
(01:03:05):
is he was the killer of Garrett Phillips. He represented
the town of Potsdam against Nick Hillary and that they
eventually won. But he did the most incredible depositions of
Nick Hillery. So he's very bright and has a lot
(01:03:30):
of experience in civil as a civil attorney on both sides,
was the plaintive and the defendant side, winning big multi
million dollar judgments. So that he's coming on tomorrow. We're
going to talk about Karen Reien and her prospects of
bamboozling our civil court, which is a court which is
(01:03:53):
much more, much more easily manipulated. Our civil courts we
don't have. It's doesn't have the same are But we'll see.
We'll see if she's going to add in all these
all these other if she's going to be both essentially
(01:04:13):
a plaintive and a defendant in her in her in
the O'Keeffe's case of wrongful death and emotional suffering. So
so far the rulings have not you know, She's rulings
have not gone her way. She had one puny little
(01:04:34):
charge thrown out in the stronger charge kept in that case,
so things are not really going her way in the
civil case despite her seven seven attorneys representing her. Have
a great night, everyone, See you tomorrow, So tune in
(01:04:57):
tomorrow at six. Tom Hertatti showed up to talk about
Karen reads ol case. Have a great night everyone. Please
hit the thumbs up on your way out. Support the
channel links are in the description of this episode. Can
buy me a coffee, thenmo Patreon all great ways to
(01:05:20):
support the channel. See you tomorrow at six.
Speaker 15 (01:05:31):
I hit my boyfriend with my car. It wasn't an accident,
but with lion lawyers. I'll go far, Lion lawyers and
witness harassment.
Speaker 12 (01:05:48):
All avoid prison.
Speaker 9 (01:05:51):
It was so.
Speaker 11 (01:05:54):
I pushed the pattle.
Speaker 9 (01:05:57):
Now in now the legal system.
Speaker 5 (01:06:02):
My class.
Speaker 16 (01:06:11):
Innsinse fro a campaign to save my skin.
Speaker 9 (01:06:18):
Making money. Truth is my second victim.
Speaker 12 (01:06:23):
Carry carry ginger like John you were Mama? My innocence
for a campaign is my biggest.
Speaker 9 (01:06:36):
That I hid my boyfriend with my coat. It wasn't
(01:07:09):
an a sect.
Speaker 11 (01:07:15):
Both flying lawyers, I'll go far, lion lawyers and witness
harassment I'll void prison.
Speaker 9 (01:07:27):
It was snowing. I pushed the pedal down, hid him hard.
Speaker 16 (01:07:33):
Now the legal system of my clown, it is a
sense for a campaign to save my skin.
Speaker 9 (01:07:46):
Making money.
Speaker 12 (01:07:48):
Truth, it's my second victim, carry carrying ginger like John
you were my mon.
Speaker 9 (01:07:59):
But it's that sproad campaign as my big is it
Okay, just be sure you didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
We know who did it, Steve, we know, and we
know who spearheaded this cover up.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house, who did it?
Speaker 4 (00:13):
We don't know.
Speaker 5 (00:13):
We don't know. We don't know, and it's not for
us to know.
Speaker 6 (00:18):
Somebody other than Karen.
Speaker 7 (00:19):
Somebody other than Karen is responsible for that, for the
killing of John.
Speaker 5 (00:33):
You are listening to the ROBERTA. Glass True Crime report
putting the true back in true crime from New York City.
Speaker 8 (00:47):
ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
Glass is now on the record. Okay, how is everybody well,
(01:14):
Alan Jackson, Karen Reid, y'all, Hey, Susan Hicks, we're talking
about them today. He's put out. He's desperately trying to
find some corruption since an independent investigation that looked into
(01:35):
this case found no corruption. The federal government who looked
in this case not no corruption. He's gonna be a
one man band and find it all by himself. That's
how I see this story. He's calling out the police
commissioner for something the police commissioner said to a journalist
(01:58):
and equating it to the same standards we have for
lying under oath or some kind of Brady violation. I
mean like that that there is some you know, it
is so confused. It sounds all official and important until
(02:19):
you actually take it apart. So we're going to look
at that today tomorrow. I have Tom or Toddy, a
civil super lawyer. What an incredible lawyer. He is coming
on to talk about Karen Reid's chances of adding all
these parties and being both a plaintiff and a defendant
(02:42):
in her civil trial. What are the chances of that?
Demon Seligson, Karen Reid's South African lawyer, says that they're
going to file that ridiculous motion with a list of
people as long as your arm to bring in. I mean,
(03:04):
you know what it's really like. It's really like me
saying defending myself like I'm a doctor, say I'm a doctor.
I'm defending myself in a civil trial for malpractice and saying,
you know what, you know what, I have problems. I
(03:25):
have issues. I'd like to include the people that design
the building. It has nothing to do with my malpractice case,
but I don't like coming in. This building is so ugly.
I don't like coming in. Let me bring in I
you know, my mental health was affected by how ugly
the building I'm working in. Let's bring in the architects
(03:49):
of the hospital into this, and I'm going to sue
them while I'm defending myself. I mean, apparently she succeeds
on this. I mean, already the chances are so slim
that she's that the o'keefs are going to win this
(04:10):
civil trial. The way it's going, everything's going now, I mean,
I understand that the burden is lower, all these things
that would be normal in regular life, true, all the
that all the evidence points to her guilt, that the
burden is much lower. All these things you would would
(04:33):
be a slam dunk had there not been an innocence
rod campaign. And then once you get in these innocence
fraud campaigns, now everything's been turned on its head. So
now we're in the opposite world. And if they get
jurors that are touched by this innocence fraud campaign and
have fallen for it, it's going to be very hard
(04:54):
for the o'keefes to get justice. And there are things
that they can do that if her lawyers want to
reach out to me just to chat, feel free with
Bert Glass twenty three at Gmail. Fighting an innocent fraud
campaign is a very specific thing and has to be
(05:14):
done a very specific way. But they look like they
want to add on it's not going to be one
by adding on bbfel this California gla Amazon attorney. I
will tell you that I think that was I think
this is That's probably one of the worst decisions that
they've made so far. I understand she has a lot
(05:37):
of experience in this area, but Karen Rei does not
win in court because her lawyers are so good, or
because there or that she has so many of them.
She wins in court because they are willing to go
beyon and beyond the bounds of the law. And I
(05:57):
can say that without fear of getting sued because Karen
Reid's lawyers were sanctioned in open court last trial for
their lack of candor on the court. Now that's a euphemism.
Now what does that euphemism mean. Means they lied to
the court, They were involved in a fraud upon the court.
(06:20):
They all knowingly, willingly lied. That's what Judge Denoni. Essentially,
she can soften it because she's an innocent frauds to herself.
But that's what that means. And she demanded that they
not lie to the court anymore. And then and within
ten minutes of that sanction or that, I mean, I
(06:45):
don't know if it was officially a what do you
call it, A there's more an admonition, she's they're lying
to her again. So you know, she was a joke
as a judge. She was walked all over. She was
basically I considered her another wing of the defense. She
(07:12):
was so weak in this case. This civil judge is
a lot stronger. Will he find out tomorrow? I'm curious.
I don't know the answer to it. I've sent Tom
Rtaddi a whole bunch of stuff about the civil trial.
I'm curious to hear what he has to say. Tune
(07:34):
in tomorrow at six. We're going to be doing it live.
What he has to say about everything. You mean, you
won't get a smarter civil lawyer than Tom. So very
curious to hear what he has to say. I fear
that he's going to be like, this is reasonable, reasonable
to bring in all these other people, to bring in
(07:56):
Jen McCabe and Michael Proctor Buchanic, like, oh, we do
this all the time. That's maybe when we will find
out that this is done all the time in civil court.
Certainly didn't seem like it. In the hearing. The judge
was like, this is a novel approach or something like that,
something to that effect. I think he said, yeah, So
(08:19):
I'm not all that I'm not all that optimistic right
now as to the chances for the Okey family. And
but but anybody you know again, I'm going to make
another public call out for Elizabeth, Karen Reid's sister. She
(08:44):
wants to talk behind the scenes, confidentially vertical last twenty three,
Victoria Crisp, the Sullivan's sisters, Marietta Laura Sullivan reach out
to me. There's questions that I think that they can
answer that need to be answered and need to be
(09:05):
put out into the public domain. So let's look at
starting with starting off with Channel Boston News their coverage
of this this shocker, this shocker from Alan Jackson, this letter.
(09:33):
Let's take a look at the news reporting on it.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Breaking developments in the aftermath of the Karen Reid case.
Investigative reporter Ted Daniel joining us now Ted, as we
first reported just thirty minutes ago, this has to do
with Boston Police.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Rachel twenty five Investigates has a copy of a letter
Karen Reid's attorney, Alan Jackson, sent to Boston Mayor Michelle
wou and the head of the Post Commission. The letter
is scathing. In it reads, defense team calls out the
head of the Boston Police Department.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I have nothing to do with cannon read matter fact,
I didn't even know this person was associated.
Speaker 9 (10:13):
With a can read.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
The letter talks about comments Commissioner Michael Cox made to
reporters about Read and then Boston Police officer Kelly Dever,
who testified and reads retrial. Dever spoke about a meeting
she had with Cox prior to her testimony.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
But you know, it's interesting in Alan Jackson's letter, he
never says where the statement was made. So it's like
you could infer from his letter in my computers acting up.
So please forgive me once again. Maybe my sir, if
he's around, met will help me try to fix it
(10:52):
once more. It's so frustrating. But in his let there
in Alan Jackson's letter, when you look at it, you
could think that he means let me. He means that
he could have been making a statement under oath in
(11:12):
a court of law. You know what I mean? There's
no there's no punishment is there for a public official
lying to a lying to a news reporter?
Speaker 10 (11:29):
Is there?
Speaker 5 (11:30):
I mean, I mean lying under oath? Okay, it's distasteful
for his job, but I don't know, I mean so
like so let me read you Alan Jackson's actual letter.
(11:50):
Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox has been caught in a lie.
Do you think that they were influenced at all by
my David Yanetti's on lying lawyers that lie? Do you
think that that at all influenced them in this?
Speaker 11 (12:08):
Uh?
Speaker 5 (12:09):
And not a small one? On, not a small one.
On July tenth, twenty twenty five, Commissioner Cox publicly denied
any connection to the Karen Reid case or to Officer
Kelly Deaver. Well, Alan Jackson, you told Billy Bush that
you won this case twice, that you won Karen Reid's
(12:33):
case twice. How is that possible? How is a hungury
a win? Isn't that a rather big lie for a lawyer?
Or you'd know better? Do you want us to go
through all your lives? He was asked about the allegation
that he met with Dever before she was oh, Diver, sorry,
Kelly Deaver. He was asked about the allegation that he
(12:54):
met with Diver before she was called to testify in
the first Karen Reid trial in twenty twenty four, and
then he told her to do the right thing. In
his unequivocal denial, Cox stated, I have nothing to do
with Karen Reid. Matter of fact, I don't even know
this person was associated with the Karen Reid case. I
(13:16):
didn't know she Deever was even associated with that case.
I was struck, like, what do I have to do
with the Karen Reid case? I never said these words together.
So the fact is it's much to do about nothing, Okay.
So he publicly didn't, amazingly didn't want to be harassed
(13:38):
by an onslaught of Karen Reid's murderer groupies and in
her innocence fraud pied piper known as Aidan Carney. These
statements were false, patently false. Commissioner Cox, the head of
the Boston Police Apartment, actually asked. He actually asked. He
(14:02):
actually asked, guys, what do I have to do with
the Karen Reid case? The answer is obvious. One of
his officers was dead murdered by Karen Reid Alan Jackson,
and you know that. And the victim's body was discovered
in the front yard of another Boston police officer. Yeah,
(14:23):
Karen Reid clipped John O'Keeffe with her car as he
got out in front of another police officer's home, and
that's where his body landed. I love how they make
it so like he was found in the front yard, Yeah,
(14:44):
where they were going to socialize after the bars closed,
and Karen Reid decided to reverse into John O'Keeffe over
a sixty sixty plus yards space with her foot seventy
(15:13):
five percent down on the gas pedal. And why I
bring that up always is it's such an indication that
she wasn't doing it by accident. When have you ever
reversed in that fashion with your foot that far down
like that's flooring it in speeds of twenty four mile
(15:34):
an hour going forward don't seem very fast, but backwards
it's pretty fast. And why she didn't want to reverse
into him and hit him head on is because if
you hit someone in the rear view going backwards, you
can always say, oh, I didn't mean to do it,
it was an accident, And Karen Reid benefited from people
(15:58):
on this side saying she was either so drunk or
she didn't know. Be hard for her not to know.
She told her father she felt she hit something, she
knew she hit. She clipped him, and she left him there.
(16:19):
For the Commissioner to suggest that he had nothing to
do with that case defies both logic and leadership. Common
sense tells us that he had everything to do with it.
Nearly obtained evidence for Grooves that Cox knowingly misrepresented his involvement.
On April twenty second, twenty twenty four, the FBI's Boston
(16:40):
Field office sent Commissioner Cox an email explicitly referring to
Deaver and the Red investigation. The email, from Assistant Special
Agent in Charge Stephen Kelcher to Cox stated, just a reminder.
The documents were released to the DA's office late last night.
(17:01):
The officer we spoke about is Kelly Diver. The next day,
February twenty third, twenty twenty four, at eleven am, Cox's
official calendar lists a meeting with Officer Kelly Dever, exactly
as Diver would later testify and Cox would deny. The
(17:21):
timeline is indisputable. I don't think he denied that he
met with her. I think he just denied that. It
added that that meeting had to do with the Karen
Reid case. I didn't hear a denial here. Let's listen
(17:44):
to it again. Let's hear it one more time.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Okay, trial never spoke about a meeting she had with
Cox prior to her testimony. Cox was asked about all
of this in July.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
I didn't know she was even associated with that case.
So yeah, I don't know. I was struck block. What
do I have to do with the Karen Reader? And
I never said those words together. And so the fact is,
you know, it's much to do about nothing.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Jackson's letter states that Cox has been caught in a lie,
and not a small one, adding for the commissioner to
suggest that he had nothing to do with the Red case.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Endeavor defies, Oh was it dev not?
Speaker 6 (18:24):
Dever?
Speaker 5 (18:25):
All right? All right, Kelly Dever, all right back, But
he didn't deny meeting with her. Just a reminder of
the documents were released to the DA's Obviously. Last night,
Okay Cox television televised claimed that he had nothing to
(18:46):
do with Karen Reid and didn't even know this person.
Kelly Dever, who was associated with the Karen Reid case,
was a bald fased lie when now disproven by documentary
evidence originating from the FBI I investigation itself. Really, why
don't you release the whole investigation? Or did you or
(19:08):
did you communicate with the FBI Alan Jackson via the
signal app? Why did the FBI or the why did
Why did the federal investigation in this case? How did
(19:31):
they come to use Daniel Wolf who openly speaking of
a lie? He openly lied on the stand in the
first trial said he wasn't being paid, said he had
hardly he I mean never had never met you before
(19:51):
then or talked to you when he when you guys
were in touch. Clearly he said he wasn't being paid.
He was. He lied to the jury, lied under oath,
and then in the second trial he got rid of
all of his communications so that they couldn't be any
(20:13):
discovery in the case, all his text messages and emails.
No one had any discovery for the prosecution from this
trusted what Karen Reid supporters say, it is just the
most trustworthy source. I mean, how did the veederal investigation?
(20:39):
How hire these people? Me We're ever going to really
learn the real connections between the FEDS and Karen Reid's
defense team, because speaking of another wing of the defense, So,
how did Karen Reid get off with a lot of
fraud and a lot of help.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
Both logic and leadership. Jackson points to an email Cox
received in twenty twenty four from a Boston FBI agent
about the read investigation. That letter directly references then officer
Kelly Dever. Jackson also references Cock's official calendar, which lists
a meeting with Dever. Dev confirmed that meeting on the stand.
(21:15):
Dever also testified that she was mistaken when she told
FBI agents that she saw two people near Karen Reid's
lexus in the Canton police garage for a quote wildly
long time.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
It was a distorted memory.
Speaker 12 (21:29):
Therefore I can't state it because at this point it
would be a lie.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
So Jackson wants post the agency that oversees police officers
in Massachusetts to launch an.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
Enco Oh yy, this guy, this guy, hold on, I
just want to show you the So anything that Ted
Daniels has to say about it, I'm not all that
interested in hearing. But that's essentially the story in a nutshell,
(22:00):
but a channel WCVB at the end of their report.
Let's just like look at their report. They essentially have
the same thing. They bring in a judge, I think,
I don't think he's any on the bench any longer.
But everybody's disappointed in his take. But he's he sounds skeptical,
(22:26):
strangely skeptical of Karen Reid's lying lawyers. Claims he's skeptical
of the tiny man himself. Is this okay? There we
can testify?
Speaker 4 (22:40):
During the Reed trial, Reid says that officer changed her
story on the stand.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
And she was called into the Commissioner's office, story completely
changed and was recanted.
Speaker 13 (22:50):
Made no mistake, lead defense counsel in the Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 5 (22:55):
So she thought she might have seen she got a
never got I think bamboozled by the possibly bamboozled by
the innocent fraud campaign. Possibly just was mistaken on her own.
Came up with this idea on her own that Brian
Higgins was in the sally Port that night, so or
(23:17):
Proctor was in the Sallyport. I can't remember who was
Was it Proctor or Higgins? Helped me out. I thought
it was Higgins for some reason Higgins in the sally
Port that night, and they showed that he couldn't have
been messing with the car. And it's not a distorted memory.
(23:39):
She thought that might have been the day when she
saw maybe it was a different day. The memories not distorted.
She just got her times wrong. Do you see how
language is so important in these cases? Anyway, here's James Barretto,
he's a retired judge and he's skeptical of Alan Jackson
(24:01):
and this whole publicity making a.
Speaker 13 (24:04):
Very serious josh against the Boston Police commissioner.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Retired Massachusetts judge James Barretto says, Reid's lawyer is asking
for two different things, adding Commissioner Cox to the Brady List,
a list of police officers whose credibility and conduct has
been reasonably questioned in the past, and launching an investigator.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
The Brady List, so Brady claims, So Brady claims, means
that you didn't hand over something that could have been
helpful for the defense, which is so ironic in this case,
because the trick of the defense attorneys in the Karen
Reed trial, both Trial one and Trial two, was to
(24:45):
totally ambush the prosecution by never handing over discovery and
so we would have as punishment to the team, we
would have wad deer after war of the witnesses because
discovery obligations hadn't been met. And they said that they
(25:05):
that they were putting on witnesses because Daniel Wolff et
cetera was in Wrenchler, the two accident reconstructionists were that
were originally hired by the federal investigation. Why they were hired,
(25:28):
we don't know. And they only wanted and they were
they only wanted information about the crime from the defense. Strangely,
they never asked for any information from the prosecution. That
should raise an eyebrow. Why they were so biased from
the from the start, and it seemed like they had
(25:51):
a direct a directive in the way that they went
about their quote unquote, you know, totally unbiased investigation. But
they would say that we have no discovery for Marie Russell,
the dog bite expert. They had to dear her, no
(26:15):
discovery for the ARCA witnesses, Daniel Wolf and Renschler, And
that continued on and then in the second trial we
had to do those waders again because not only did
that they weren't they it wasn't that the discovery didn't
(26:36):
exist like they said in the first trial. The second
trial was all destroyed. No one had any copies of
text messages or emails because they were all communicating on
signal on auto delete. That's not sus at all for
a lawyer to do that. I mean, it was so criminal.
(26:56):
So Grady violations are a favorite of the wrongful conviction
movement to overturn convictions. But it has to be so
not only do they have to violate discovery, but it
has to be deemed useful to the defense in some way.
So say you hand over a report of a hat
(27:25):
the gentleman was wearing a hat, and you can't say, well,
you didn't say it was a purple hat or something
that doesn't matter. Relevant information is not a Brady violation.
But they use these Brady violations all the time as
ways to say that somehow the investigation was corrupt or
(27:45):
not trustworthy. I mean, it's essentially a technicality. If they
can overturn a conviction on a technicality, they will claim
the police officers are corrupt. And this Brady list, my view,
seems like another another tool of fraudulent lawyers who want
(28:16):
to get killers off. I mean, why would we need
a list? Why do people need to be, you know,
warned about other officers if they're if they're working. Shouldn't
a Brady violation be so egregious that they should at
(28:36):
least lose their job? Why do we even need a
Brady List? So it's just a nonsense thing. I don't
I don't even know who makes the Brady List, If
it's a real thing, who keeps it? I always thought,
I mean, if you look up at Brady, it looks
(28:56):
like it's haphazardly put together by a Karen Reid fan.
And so I mean they just list a huge name.
Is there somewhere an official Brady List? Somewhere? Is there
such a thing in Massachusetts? An official Brady List? I
have no idea.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Gash by a statewide police standards commission into Cox's behavior.
Speaker 13 (29:19):
Well, the allegations are serious, no question, But like any allegation,
they have to be supported by evidence, and they have
to They're titled to do process, which means a hearing,
an evidentry hearing, and again they must be measured against
a certain standard approval.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Now, we have reached out to Boston Police and the
Mayor's office for comment, but haven't heard back. I've also
reached out to Karen Reid's attorney to see if he
submitted his own complaint about Commissioner Cox, but haven't heard
back from him either.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
Right, So it's like, let's look at this. We haven't
seen prove essentially what the judge is cleverly doing as
he's saying, well, why shouldn't Commissioner Cops have his due process?
Why are you all saying he's guilty of this before
there's any kind of examination of the evidence of the process.
(30:16):
You say you have this. We've seen the interview, but
we also don't know what that meeting was about, really,
what the the details of that meeting were, and what
and what was the ramifications of him lying to the media.
Who cares he wasn't on the stand. It had nothing
(30:40):
to do with Karen Reid being convicted or not convicted,
So what is it? What does it matter? Thank you,
Susan Hicks. The Brady rule is established in nineteen sixty three. Yeah,
it's it's a good rule. I'm just saying it's it's
you use to they stretch it to its utmost. Does
(31:05):
everybody get that? So they will overturn convictions on things
that really don't really we're totally inconsequential to the defense
not being turned over. And they also use it as
a way once they can get a Brady violation like
(31:32):
affirmed by the judge or determined to be a violation
of Brady by the judge, then they can go on
to accuse the officers of some kind of morally reprehensible
character or behavior. So this is just more nonsense from
(31:59):
Alan jack accent. But just curious that this is coming
from this team. I mean, you know this team wants
to Does this team really want to start talking about
lies and when they were called out by the called
(32:30):
out by the judge, I mean, let me see, let
me take a quick break when we get back from
the breaks looking back at some of the defenses. Actually,
(32:54):
you know what this would be like a really good
time if I still have it be fun to take
a break with this song. Here's my tribute to Alan Jackson.
Speaker 9 (33:31):
Tied in.
Speaker 7 (33:33):
Bark as bad as my bite, You've got hundreds of
ways to fool you hold macular client tight, she too well,
only increases my popular leverty start and shower around the
(33:56):
court room like the Medlock parrot.
Speaker 8 (34:03):
I'm a lie, a criminal liar, think like a criminal.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
Spout legally.
Speaker 14 (34:16):
Lying by profession when in doubt, blame the polices. When
my kan gets exposed, my act deaf and dunk.
Speaker 8 (34:33):
Blame sudden nonset amnesia. Done the press under myth, drinks
with my killer client at Smith and Lolan scheme chet
paid for my fans, my elbow on the.
Speaker 14 (34:53):
Killers knee, I'm alone.
Speaker 7 (35:01):
A criminal liar, seemed like a criminal.
Speaker 5 (35:06):
Spout legally.
Speaker 8 (35:10):
A lion by profession.
Speaker 10 (35:13):
When that blame the police. When my con gets exposed,
I act deaf and dumb, blame suddenly nonset amnesia. Got
the press under my phone, drinks with might killer client
(35:40):
anthing lolonski check paid for my fans, my elbown.
Speaker 9 (35:47):
The killers me.
Speaker 5 (35:58):
Okay hereek. Oh so this is from Karen Reid. Does
anybody remember and Karen Reid's legal team. It's Cotton a
lie before the second trial, and a massive lie like
this could have a lie with serious consequences. First, she
(36:26):
could have got acquitted on the ARCA witnesses lies, they
could have or or she could have gotten convicted and
that was the thing. Oh well, these non biased witnesses
wouldn't lie, that aren't getting paid, that have no connection
(36:49):
to the defense team, that could have been used by
the Commonwealth, all lies put out by the defense. Anybody
remember this when Judge Canoni called them out an open
court after a hearing, after their due process, after they
said over and over that they didn't lie to the court,
(37:09):
that there's been a lack of candor. What does lack
of candor mean? It's a polite way of saying they
all lied. It wasn't very forthcoming with information. So they
do that on purpose. So they're hiding their own discovery
on purpose, I believe, to sandbag the Commonwealth. And still
(37:31):
to this day, Hank Brennan is still complaining about not
receiving discovery from the defense. So that all that's really important.
So Hank Brennan drops that not only were arcipaide twenty
three thousand, nine hundred and twenty five dollars, they were retained, hired,
colluded the defense lawyers, Karen Reid's defense lawyers crafted their testimony.
(37:59):
They could not have lied to the judge and the
public more. But here where it's really important, it's lying
to the court. And they lied over and over again
and to the jury. I'm just interrupting myself and a
very meta moment, But they also lied to the jury.
(38:25):
No punishment, this ethical violation of the high disorder. No
punishment for these lying criminal lawyers, even after Hank Brennan
dropped the bomb. They lie in emotion and Judge Canoni
(38:45):
brings that up. So let's take a look. So here's
the hearing where Judge Canoni is going to decide on sanctions.
So they could be My understanding is that could be disbarred,
they could be thrown off the case. I mean, this
is a major no no for lawyers to get caught
(39:07):
lying to the court. Let's take a look at it.
Employees of ARCHA.
Speaker 6 (39:15):
So I think I told counsel before that I had reviewed.
So first we had full hearing from counsel. I heard
from the lawyers. I heard from mister Leslie on behalf
of the lawyers. I've read the transcripts. I've listened to
the Sidebark conference and read that transcript and I've certainly
(39:38):
read the pleadings.
Speaker 5 (39:39):
So based on all the evidence, I conclude that there
has not.
Speaker 6 (39:44):
Been the candor required of all lawyers. Has not been
demonstrated here. I find that there have been repeated misrepresentations
made to the court by defense counsel, and I conclude
that they were.
Speaker 5 (40:03):
Deliberate, deliberate misrepresentations. What's that. What's a deliberate misrepresentation? That's
called a lie. This is the thing I really hate
the most about our legal system. So we get this
kind of language that really obscures the truth. They lied
(40:29):
to the court. It was a fraud. They it was
a fraud upon the court. That's what she's talking about,
a fraud upon the court repeated, not just one lie.
Wasn't done by I, over and over and over again.
So they want to talk about what officer, the police
(40:55):
commissioner says to a film to TV crew that has
no consequence whatsoever to anything that matters, not at all.
If it was so important what the police commissioner said,
why didn't you take him as your witness the way
(41:17):
you took Kelly Dever as your witness. Why didn't you
bring him in as your witness to talk about that
meeting because it was so inconsequential. You didn't have very
many Karen Reid's defense lawyers, You didn't have very many
witnesses it's not like you didn't have the time. It's
totally inconsequential to anything and unimportant to anything, whether or
(41:45):
not he met with Kelly Dever, who cares. I mean,
maybe you're just regretting not bringing in a commissioner and
putting him on the stand and making him look like
a liar and making them look like there's some kind
(42:07):
of police corruption because he wants to avoid the wrath
of Karen Reid's murderer groupies. Concerning the relationship with the
ACA witnesses, they were made.
Speaker 6 (42:24):
At sidebar an open court and impleadings, and I think
the record.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
So these are she calls them lack of candor misrepresentations,
but let's call them what they are. Lies. They lied
to the court over and over and over and over
again to win. That's why they were lying, so they
(42:52):
could win their case. Because so everybody says that, you know,
Alan Jackson, David Ninetti or such great lawyers, if they
are such great lawyers, why can't they win their case
by lawyering? Why do they have to cheat to win?
(43:15):
I mean, it's really like saying Armstrong was the greatest
cyclist of all time, certainly well paid, certainly famous, but
actual skill without without cheating. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (43:36):
Record is pretty clear, and I find that on July
twenty fifth, twenty twenty four, payment was made to the
ACCA witnesses. Yet on February twenty six, twenty twenty five,
in a pleading written by MS Little signed by all
(43:58):
three defense counts, well says the Commonwealth's motion to exclude
these exculpatory expert witnesses ACCO witnesses who are not hired
or paid for by the defense is not made in
good faith and is a desperate and transparent attempt.
Speaker 5 (44:15):
So when you accuse another lawyer of not acting in
good faith, you're accusing them of being shady. This is
the defense's own words. Now she's reading the defense motion
from the I believe it's the twenty fifth or twenty
sixth of February.
Speaker 9 (44:35):
This is.
Speaker 5 (44:38):
After it's dropped all these communications between ARCA, the payment
of ARCA, they're still accusing the Commonwealth of doing the
things that they're doing. They're saying, you're only trying to
exclude these witnesses because you're trying to get neutral, unbiased
(45:01):
witnesses from the jury's ears. You know, let me reflect,
Thank you so much, for the supersticker. I appreciate your support.
Speaker 6 (45:14):
And to keep exculpatory testimony of neutral expert witnesses from
reaching the jury in this case.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
The next page, right, did everybody get that this is
not done in good faith? The reason you want to
exclude these are good witnesses is not because they're not
neutral witnesses. It's not because we've lied to the court
about their neutrality and how we hire them, and our
(45:45):
communications with them, and hit our communications and our payment
from the court, especially the Commonwealth and the judge, I
mean the Commonwealth and the judge and the public and
the jury. Let's not forget the first jury. Had Karen
Reid been acquitted and this came out after she was acquitted,
there would be no remedy for it. En you couldn't
(46:10):
try her again, even though she was tried fraudulently. She
was acquitted fraudulently. There's no remedy for that, and they
know that.
Speaker 6 (46:28):
Ironically, the Commonwealth accuses the defendant of failing to comply
with her discovery obligations while conceding that the information is
not in her.
Speaker 5 (46:36):
Care, custody or control. Moreover here, and there's a very
curious point that Hank Brennan makes about the release of
the ARCA discovery. Hank Brennan says, this is the only
discovery he's gotten in this case, is the ARCA discovery,
(46:57):
And they just released the defense a huge witness today.
They did the same thing last time, and they called
very few people, So I don't know what what if
this is a similar game plan that they said that
(47:17):
they would have weeks and weeks of testimony for the defense,
and they had days. That's how it went last time.
But I am curious with the ARCA witnesses. A curious
part in Hank Brennan's filing about ARCA is he got
(47:41):
this discovery just as there was a change in guard
at the US Attorney's office, so they the office that
started this federal investigation had a change in staff, and
that's when he got the discovery. And initially in court
he said he got this discovery from the FEDS, so
(48:03):
he connected it to the FEDS when the defense says, oh, no,
we handed it over. So you have to ask yourself,
A rational person has to ask, was there an agreement
between the FEDS and the defense to not release the
discovery until they had resigned from their positions, and it
(48:32):
is still unknown. And this is the way Hank Brennan
wrote about it, or the Commonwealth wrote about it and
their filing. It's still unknown. The relationship between Karen Reid
and the federal investigation, that's the big mystery. And in
(48:54):
the old days, I would think there would be some
gum shoe detective pacing, you know, hidden the pavement and
trying to get an answer as to what the relationship
between Karen Reid and the federal investigation was. Why was
it started? You know, it's not so when you know
(49:18):
it's you know, Karen Reid and her lawyers have a
lot of golf, So it doesn't surprise me that they
went to the Feds. What surprises me is that the
Feds took them up on this investigation. What did they
tell them? And why was it started? Was it started
(49:44):
because of personal relationships where their promises offered? How dirty
does get again? Some of the hidden conspiracies in this
case that no one's really talking about and no one
can get to the bottom.
Speaker 6 (49:59):
Of the Defense has gone above and beyond its reciprocal
discovery obligations and has already satisfied all of its mandatory
discovery obligations under Rule fourteen, and turned over all additional
information and the controlling custody of the defense relating to
(50:20):
the acca witnesses as ordered by the court. So I
find or conclude that that was a material misrepresentation and
that it was deliberate. So I find that there is
a flagrant violation of the Rule fourteen obligations. And before
(50:43):
I decide which sanctions are appropriate, I need to see defense.
Speaker 5 (50:50):
Yeah, I need to talk to you. I need you
to talk to you so you can lie to me
some more. I mean, this was what was appropriate. Just
chewing out and don't do it again. But it's not
just the violation of Rule fourteen. It's a fraud upon
(51:10):
the court. It's just, you know, they're Judge Canoni's really
minimizing it because it's really, in some ways inconsequential what
they're misrepresenting. They're lying to the court, and they lied
(51:34):
to the jury. I mean, this thing had been going
on for like a year. It wasn't like, oh, you know,
you're not handing over discovery, just discovery. You're misrepresenting your
relationships with your witnesses to get your client off. You're
(51:56):
pretending you're you know to the jury that you're witnesses
are not paid and that you have no relationship with them.
And to really cover up how biased the ARCA witnesses were,
you shredded essentially all of your text messages and emails
(52:19):
with them. This is such an outrageous case of fraud
upon the court from these lawyers that they want to
talk about this now, this freaking police commissions inconsequential statement,
give me a break. The fact that so many lawyers
(52:41):
are willing to you know, a lot of them are
YouTube lawyers, which are some of the worst variety, but
so many of these lawyers are willing to collaborate. Big up,
High five Alan Jackson, David and Netti for all their
(53:03):
great work in the Karenry case. Makes me think that
there should be investigation into them. Don't tell me Alan
Jackson and David and Nettie are the only ones doing
these regular frauds upon the court. It's like a crisis
in our country. We have we have lawyers running around
(53:28):
acting like criminals, and what can you do? You can,
we can report them to the bar and then we're
going to have other lying lawyers look at these frauds
upon the court. And make a determination of it. When
lawyers get disbarred is often when they do a serious crime,
(53:51):
like you know, serious crime of which when they're going
to prison, or they're already in prison and they have
a hearing and they get this barred, or it's something
that it's like it has to do with payment of clients.
That's a very easy way. But this kind of stuff,
we never see anyone disbarred on this kind of stuff,
(54:14):
which is the real consequential stuff as to how our
justice system operates. So that's what I have to say
about that. You know, today it's just more trying to
make Karen read look like a victim of some kind
of corruption that really didn't happen. If anything, she was
(54:38):
the benefit of police who didn't really do who underestimated her,
thought this was an open and shutcase of a run,
and didn't interview a lot of the key. You know,
I don't know if they were key, but it was witnesses,
(55:03):
or they weren't thinking outside the box and they weren't
really working to nail down every lead, like for example,
Richie the plumber. I don't think they ever got Karen
Reid's laptop. But why weren't they when that's the last
thing they're fighting about that night? Why didn't anyone look
(55:24):
at Karen Reid's phone and say, are there any text
messages to Richie the plumber? This is the last thing
they're fighting about. Once Michael Camerano tells the police, John
O'Keefe was upset because Karen Reid had a plumber over
(55:45):
at eight o'clock at night, I mean really starting earlier
than that, starting more like seven twenty five, according to
Karen Reid, and didn't ask John to fix her plumbing issue.
He was angry about that. Why didn't they go try
(56:06):
to see what the truth surrounding that plumber was? Why
didn't they talk to the plumber since he was in
Karen Reid's home? Might have had If Richie the Plumber exists,
he might have some insight into Karen Reid's state of
mind that night. Was she drinking before she left? Might
(56:30):
be good to know. But what was never done? So
you know, spare me the she was a victim of
pin it on the girl nonsense. No one wanted to
pin it on the adjunct finance professor. Believe me, no
(56:52):
one was looking to pin anything on Karen Reid. It's unfortunate,
you know, just unfortunately her smash to smothering's tail light.
It was all over the scene. She was making admissions,
(57:13):
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. She
somehow knew that something had happened to John O'Keeffe when
everyone else would think, well, he just slept it off
at a friend's house, or maybe he stayed over at
the Alberts since he didn't have a ride home. It's
(57:38):
very interesting that the first people she calls are Michael
Camerano and Catherine Camerano that morning and in her last
text messages. So when I say last, I mean that day.
So in the text messages on the twenty eighth, Karen
Reid is telling John O'Keeffe that Michael Camerano has gone
(58:02):
off on her, like doesn't like her. Yet all we
heard about a trial, at least the first trial, was
we all liked Karen? Did everyone like Karen really? Or
were people fooled by her? And was Michael Camerono starting
(58:24):
to was he starting to see some of the Karen
reads coercively controlling and abusive behavior torch down O'Keefe, But
it seemed like she wanted to her mark was Michael
Camerono and Catherine Camerono was that because she wanted to
(58:48):
bring Michael Camerano to the scene and then point the
finger at him like she did Jen McCabe. Did she
know that he had the kind of personality that would
say the least about anything incriminating she would say, in
(59:12):
order to just put his head down. Did she know
he was devious like that where he would just say
the bare minimum and get off the stand and cause
the least amount of waves because he was looking after
(59:34):
number one himself and John O'Keefe was dead. He was
a nice friend while he was alive, but his real
duty was not to the truth, not to his murdered friend,
but to himself and his family. And Catherine Camerano, I
(59:55):
think is even worse than Michael Camerono.
Speaker 9 (01:00:00):
With her.
Speaker 5 (01:00:02):
Everyone else that morning who got phone calls from Karen
Reid heard incriminating statements. I mean picked up. Michael Camerono
didn't pick up, but everyone who picked up the phone
and got Karen Reid on the other end of the
line that morning heard some form of incriminating statements. But strangely,
Catherine Camerono all she hears is a whole lot of
(01:00:24):
yelling and she was saved by working. But I mean
with friends like those, I mean, who needs enemies, Eva
(01:00:47):
says ROBERTA. Thanks for being as outraged as I and
many still are about this case. Big as fraud on
the legal system. Yeah it is. I thank you for
being outraged. Eva. You know, free careen readers don't even
know this happened in court. I don't know what they were.
Some of them are so brainwashed that they watch that
(01:01:13):
hearing and it like goes in one ear and out
the other, like, well, you know, the free carent read
YouTubers are gonna really hone down and explore what lack
of candor in the court means and what all that
meant and all their lives. I've had to say that.
You go, no, huh. They didn't get called out for
(01:01:36):
lying to the court. Oh yes they did, Oh yes
they did. A lot of free carent readers aren't even
aware that that happened. They watched their innocence fraud propaganda.
And you know they're going to be the last ones
(01:01:56):
to learn they're duped. That's what I always say about them,
And that's from someone who has been fooled by innocent
fraud campaigns me, you know, not like they're good. Some
of them are good, some of them are convincing. Some
of these killers are very convincing, and they use an
(01:02:22):
appeal to authority and people. The amount of people that
will come to these psychopaths aides is incredible. So that's
what I have for today. Guys, Tomorrow, don't miss tomorrow.
I think it's going to be really interesting tom Or
Toddy's coming on. Always a pleasure to talk to him.
(01:02:44):
He is a lawyer, civil lawyer who represented I hope
I get this right, the town of Potsdam Nick Hillaries,
who was the accused killer of Garrett Phillips. My opinion
(01:03:05):
is he was the killer of Garrett Phillips. He represented
the town of Potsdam against Nick Hillary and that they
eventually won. But he did the most incredible depositions of
Nick Hillery. So he's very bright and has a lot
(01:03:30):
of experience in civil as a civil attorney on both sides,
was the plaintive and the defendant side, winning big multi
million dollar judgments. So that he's coming on tomorrow. We're
going to talk about Karen Reien and her prospects of
bamboozling our civil court, which is a court which is
(01:03:53):
much more, much more easily manipulated. Our civil courts we
don't have. It's doesn't have the same are But we'll see.
We'll see if she's going to add in all these
all these other if she's going to be both essentially
(01:04:13):
a plaintive and a defendant in her in her in
the O'Keeffe's case of wrongful death and emotional suffering. So
so far the rulings have not you know, She's rulings
have not gone her way. She had one puny little
(01:04:34):
charge thrown out in the stronger charge kept in that case,
so things are not really going her way in the
civil case despite her seven seven attorneys representing her. Have
a great night, everyone, See you tomorrow, So tune in
(01:04:57):
tomorrow at six. Tom Hertatti showed up to talk about
Karen reads ol case. Have a great night everyone. Please
hit the thumbs up on your way out. Support the
channel links are in the description of this episode. Can
buy me a coffee, thenmo Patreon all great ways to
(01:05:20):
support the channel. See you tomorrow at six.
Speaker 15 (01:05:31):
I hit my boyfriend with my car. It wasn't an accident,
but with lion lawyers. I'll go far, Lion lawyers and
witness harassment.
Speaker 12 (01:05:48):
All avoid prison.
Speaker 9 (01:05:51):
It was so.
Speaker 11 (01:05:54):
I pushed the pattle.
Speaker 9 (01:05:57):
Now in now the legal system.
Speaker 5 (01:06:02):
My class.
Speaker 16 (01:06:11):
Innsinse fro a campaign to save my skin.
Speaker 9 (01:06:18):
Making money. Truth is my second victim.
Speaker 12 (01:06:23):
Carry carry ginger like John you were Mama? My innocence
for a campaign is my biggest.
Speaker 9 (01:06:36):
That I hid my boyfriend with my coat. It wasn't
(01:07:09):
an a sect.
Speaker 11 (01:07:15):
Both flying lawyers, I'll go far, lion lawyers and witness
harassment I'll void prison.
Speaker 9 (01:07:27):
It was snowing. I pushed the pedal down, hid him hard.
Speaker 16 (01:07:33):
Now the legal system of my clown, it is a
sense for a campaign to save my skin.
Speaker 9 (01:07:46):
Making money.
Speaker 12 (01:07:48):
Truth, it's my second victim, carry carrying ginger like John
you were my mon.
Speaker 9 (01:07:59):
But it's that sproad campaign as my big is it
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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