September 22, 2025 • 72 mins
Karen Read is being sued by the family of John O’Keefe for wrongful death as well as pain & suffering. As Roberta Glass predicted- Karen Read took this opportunity to announce that she is suing the police as well as innocent witnesses in the case. Read had seven lawyers representing her for today’s hearing. Roberta Glass exposes the real motivation behind Read’s lawsuits.
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!
Rockstar 60, MeetThePabs, 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!
Rockstar 60, MeetThePabs, 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 to be clear, 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.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Who did it? We don't know.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
We don't know, and it's not for us to know.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Somebody other than Karen. Somebody other than Karen is responsible
for that, for the killing of John.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:35):
Glass True Crime report putting the true back in true crime.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
From New York City. ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
Glass is now on the record.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Okay, how is everyone? Hello Dean Walker, glad you made it.
Hello Texas Brad, Hello Eva, Hello Doris. There was a hearing,
Higbee Rabbit. There was a hearing today in Karen Reid's
(01:33):
civil case. So this is a after Karen Reid was
acquitted of the most serious charges in her case. We've
been through the reasons why that happened probably a zillion times.
As I feared her innocence fraud campaign was allowed to
(01:53):
come into the courtroom, and I mean it was almost
literally you could hear this dreams of the of the
football sized crowd outside as the jury read the verdict
and as they were deliberating, it was just you. There
(02:15):
was just no difference from the court of public opinion
and the court, I mean, had just totally merged in
that case. Now we have this civil case where Karen
Karen Reid is being sued by her the man she's
(02:36):
accused of running over and killing with her car and
leaving to die in the cold, John O'Keefe. Her family
is suing for wrongful death and pain and suffering for Caylie,
who was the older niece. So there's a niece and
a nephew. Patrick is the younger, is the younger son
(03:00):
of John O'Keefe's sister who tragically died of cancer and
her husband died of a heart attack after so she's
been orphaned three times in her life, all before the
age of eighteen. She's being sued, she's suing Karen Reid
for pain and suffering. But the big news today, and
(03:23):
this is something that I had been predicting because it
is the innocence fraud playbook, and Karen Reid has really
followed that innocence fraud playbook, which is you sue civilly
for wrongful imprisonment, wrongful arrest and you get these big
(03:51):
multimillion dollar payouts. Basically, you sue whoever you can that
you think, well you can get money out of. And
so she's suing the police department for not training correctly.
And often the police departments will are covered by insurance
(04:11):
for these kinds of lawsuits and will pay out and
think it's well, it'll cost us more to fight it
than it will. It costs us more to fight it
than just pay it out. So they think they're saving
time and money by paying it out. But this is
a movement. They're like pigeons. They just always come back
(04:31):
for more. So what that does is that opens up
the door to everyone who's been arrested and charged, rested
by the police and charged and been acquitted in this
area of Massachusetts to sue for not correctly training their officers.
(04:55):
Because I guess Michael Proctor had some mean texts about
Karen Reid while he was investigating. Let emotions get the
best of him. Because he's investigating the case and all
roads lead to Karen Reid if you follow the evidence
they do. I mean, for those who think it was
(05:18):
a fifty plus conspiracy, the car Karen Reid's car with
her smash to Smitherin's tail light was already on the
way to the sally Port when the sart team arrived,
so there was no time to plan evidence. They were
finding pieces of her tail light. It doesn't make any sense,
(05:43):
but it continues to go on. And Karen Reid had
supporters there in the courtroom. We're gonna look at it.
She brought seven lawyers. Let me see, let me look
at my notes for a second. And so they are
from the firm of Melick and Porter. She and Finney
(06:14):
is the other main and then there's Alan Jackson's law firm.
So Alan Jackson was there. So seven lawyers from three
different firms. It was quite something. They couldn't all fit
at the table. Karen Reid had to sit in the
gallery with her lawyers. This reminded me of going to
(06:38):
Keith RINERI the NEXTI in Guru's hearing, and I said,
they have to get a bigger boat like Jaws. They
have to get a bigger courtroom or a bigger defense table.
So she's the defendant and in this case she's facing
the plaintiffs. This is civil case, so what's on the
line is money. It's how our civil court's work. Who's
(06:58):
going to pay? And they're suing for money, but more
than that, they're really suing for accountability, to hold her accountable.
And I'll get into why I think Karen Reid is
suing in a minute. It's not just for the money,
although that is part of it. There's a much bigger
(07:24):
idea at behind this. So there's a shot of Alan Jackson.
So let's get into it.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Yeah, that's why I have to wish the US Council
would like that.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Sorry, I'm mad, I'm moved. I thought I just that
I just got into this. I thought that was just
the beginning. There we go, It was just the Beginning's
I asked.
Speaker 6 (08:04):
The question that you asked ansel He would like to
do status first, then the rule twelves.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
But he also said to me if you could check
your calendars for trial date? All right, I describing that.
Good to go.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
So why is this is the the Why do we
have the the guy who did the exhibitions at the trial.
Why is he here? He's back from the criminal trial.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
He was on the ready.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
H h.
Speaker 7 (09:03):
H kah.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
So the reds were in the gallery. John O'Keeffe's mother
was there, Peggy O'Keefe and of course Paul O'Keefe John
(09:36):
O'Keefe's brother, h.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Good afternoon, A good afternoon, all before the quarter of
twenty fourty three c.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Six ninety two. This is the case of Paul o'keith
and Alia versus C and C Hospitality L C dB,
A c F.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
Mccarthia cases called for status and virule twelve motions.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Council.
Speaker 6 (10:17):
Please introduce yourself correctly beginning of the plaintiff's council and
if you can stay.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
In the part of your represent as well. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Good afternoon, your honor Attorney Mark dilan On behalf of
the plaintiffs.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Good afternoon, Your honor Dan buck On, behalf of the plaintiffs. Good,
good afternoon.
Speaker 6 (10:33):
Your own Damon sets On, behalf of the defending Karen Reid.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Goofine and your honor Charles Waters for defending Karen.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Read good afternoon, Your owner Alan Jackson on behalf of
this read good afternoon. Your owner Aaron Rosenberg also on,
behalf of this read good, good afternoon. You're on a
William kept.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
In Christopher Georgian out of the defendant Aaron Reid.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
You're Universipality. Good okay, I tell you right.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
And they're also assuing the waterfall bar and grill for
over serving Karen Reid.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Say the waterfall good okay, that's all the counselors good
afternon folks who welcome everyone to the uh the event
of this afternoon.
Speaker 8 (11:43):
When I was assigned this case last spring, the first
thing I wanted to do was try to get a
sense of where we're all going to fill in our
tracking order and and get a sense of what direction
this case is going.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
And in the meantime, it looks like there was a
motion to dismiss file by the defendants.
Speaker 8 (11:59):
So what I would like to do is go through
some of the procedural issues.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
So what Karen Reid is saying is they're saying because Cally,
who was woken up by Karen Reid very early in
the morning, because she was woken up and shook by
(12:25):
Karen Reid and told that John O'Keefe was missing and
she didn't know where she was he was, she pretended
to not know where he was, that because she didn't
watch him get run over by Karen Reid, that she's
(12:47):
not entitled that their pain and suffering, so that she
wasn't really traumatized that Karen Reid, who already knew.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
This, And.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Hold on one second, Mark Dillar makes a very good
argument later on in this hearing as to why those
charges should move forward and let at least have a
jury decide whether she deserves any money for pain and
suffering and for retraumatizing her. But I mean, Karen Reid
(13:25):
knew that she had been her mother died of cancer
and that she had lost her father just months later
of a heart attack. So they're saying because she didn't
witness it with her own eyes, but they've also so
get ready. This is when Karen Reid's legal team just
(13:46):
drops this idea that Karen Read's going to sue everybody
without ever finding it, because this is what they did
in the criminal case. They liked to sandbag the prosecution.
So now they're sagging the Playton steam in this case.
So what they would do is they would not hand
(14:06):
over any discovery and just sandbag them and say, well,
we're going to put on a witness, but you don't
know what they're really going to talk about. I mean,
if the prosecution had done that, it would be Brady violation.
Acquittal and then lawsuits over it. I mean, just wild wild.
(14:27):
It could have stopped her own case if the prosecution
did it. Because the defense did it, they got sanctioned
by the court with a just with a talking to
by the judge. But it could have been much worse.
I mean that was just one one thing. The other
discovery things they talked on encrypted apps with their expert
(14:50):
witnesses so that the prosecution couldn't wouldn't have any of
that material, wouldn't know what they had done, or what
tests it done, or if they were handing over everything fully.
I mean, this was just such a manipulation of the courts.
It's really wild. So here's where they're going to drop it.
(15:17):
So this is not only so, this is one of
the reasons that they decided to drop it like this.
This is going to rile up all the free Karen
readers out there and get them to start donating to
her defense fund and riled up and excited and that
they want to marry so they so Karen Reid. It's
also a distraction technique. Karen Reid is going to be
(15:37):
saying that she's really the victim and that she's suing
all these people, and it will take the heat off
of her and distract the jury. As Hank Brennan said,
look over their technique that she's always used. So that's
another reason why it's not only rile up her once
again rile up her base with this, just this just
(15:59):
dropping on the court with no official filing, so they
wrote nothing. They just came in and announced it in court.
It's really quite outrageous. As lawyers, they know they can't
do that, but I mean, the judge can't rule in
something he doesn't see the argument for. They just orally
(16:20):
argue that it's going to streamline things to bring in
Karen Reid's lawsuits against all these people. But what it's
going to do is it's going to make a third
party culprit kind of defense for her. It's going to
make a distraction defense for her and again make heurt
a focal point all the people like, oh, you think
I ran over my boyfriend, but look at what the
(16:43):
police did to me. Look at what these people. Look
at their weaknesses, their human frailties. Maybe they did it.
This has always been her technique, the look away, because
she can't really defend herself against any of the serious evidence.
It's always like look away, look away. Maybe Proctor did it,
(17:05):
Maybe Jim McKay did it, maybe someone else did it.
Anyone but Karen Rea did it?
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Did you see in the case. For now, we can
talk about tracking order.
Speaker 8 (17:17):
I do think that it's important to get a trial
they established at this point, like we would do with
any kind of a wrongful death short action. So to
that end, we'll start with the plaintiff. What do you
see is procedural issues. I'd like to get an update
on discovery on how that's all going.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Counsel.
Speaker 9 (17:35):
Like, and then we'll get into the motions to dismiss
as a substance of issue. I know there's a lot
of people here that want to see what the case
is all about, but I think it's more important at
least you get an idea procedurally where you stand.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
I just said your honor PLANINKDIFF has served all of
the defendants with discovery.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
All of the defendants are currently late with regard to.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Producing discovery, and we have not received any as yet
or minimal. We have started to get some of the
documents from the DA's office, though we are.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
It's significant, so they're waiting to get these filing saw
the evidence from the DA's office. I would have thought
these lawyers would have been at the courthouse the minute
the criminal trial ended to receive the documents, get them
in person. What are they doing waiting for the DA
(18:33):
to send them the documents. This doesn't make me feel
good about this playoff team here for the o'keefes, they
really should have been proactive and been working for months
on getting these things because as soon as they get
these documents, that can start deposing people, including Karen Reid
in this case.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Deficient.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
At this point, we're still waiting for the record to
come in. So we had it took with the stay
that we weren't able to get any information and the
DA's office wasn't turning anything over while the criminal matter
was pending.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
So we're still trying to get all the documentation in. Okay,
But just if I can follow up.
Speaker 8 (19:16):
On that to stay that was issued. Judge White had
issued one back in maybe the fall. I had issued
one when the criminal trial was ongoing. That was sort
of a self defining sixty day or whichever comes first,
So that should be pretty much in the review mirror
for now.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Right. I recognize that you're eyr So Wednesday was lifted?
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Okay? Wonkey? Does this sound okay? Dean Walker, thanks so
much for the super Sicker. Really appreciate you, especially supporting
these smaller shows. It is not easy, Telly, you know,
(19:59):
having this opinion and this isss certainly not the money
side of of YouTube. I appreciate it. Dean Walker. Weird static? Okay,
you're getting weird static. Hold on one second, let me
fix it. Please hold. Should I take a break. I'm
gonna take a break and fix my mic?
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Okay, my check.
Speaker 10 (20:43):
Roberta strides through the static case true crime, got them
where the shadows play their play, frauds to fold when
a spotlight, themes stack focus, queen busting, propaganda schemes, glass
shadow lies that goes through the streets, standing for victims,
giving voice.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
That beats, and why see polls?
Speaker 10 (21:00):
Truth sharp as night, Roberta exposing she's the anti fril
light partast warrior, dissecting Satan's defense, twisted innocense, claims, breaking pretense,
(21:22):
Gotam's truth seekert cuts clean with the blade facts in
the forefront, No justice gets swayed, Cold facts drip heavy,
real salt, gun furls cracking cases open like oysters with pearls, innocense,
gimmicks crumbled, the dust in the wind for victims, her
creed justice till the end, headphones blazing, She drops heavy artillery.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Now it has twisted.
Speaker 10 (21:54):
Meat, blunt objects, civility. Roberta got receipts that unraveled. Employ
exposing the lies. These frauds just deploy glass is lies.
Speaker 11 (22:03):
That goes through the streets, standing for victims, given voice,
stamp beats and why the post true shopping night Roberta exposes,
she's the anti fraud light.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Okay, is that better? I hope that's better. Hold on
one second. Sometimes it's a live show and sometimes these
things happen. Let us see sound good, okay, lovely, let
(23:07):
us continue. So what he's saying, is he this is
again you're just tuning in. We're watching this civil hearing
Karen Reid civil case, the o'keefes against Karen Reid. She's
about to drop a bomb on the planeiffs saying that
she's going to sue for everything. But Mark Dillar, this
(23:30):
is representing the o'keefes, is saying here that they haven't
gotten hardly any discovery yet from the from the DA's office.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
All discovery was served on parties or they are out. Yeah,
when you.
Speaker 8 (23:44):
Say discovery, we're talking about positions, documents, but notices, if
depositions are not only one.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
Deposition has been noticed and it's been tabled because we
don't have any documents a decision.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Right, they can't do the document, they can't do the
depositions because they don't have the documents. Why they didn't
start asking for this stuff having it at the ready
the minute the criminal trial was over. I don't understand.
This lawsuit came about as Karen Reid's criminal trial was ongoing,
(24:23):
and this judge decided that they could not depose Karen Reid.
She would have been great if they'd be given the
okay until after her criminal case was over. I mean
that that means that whatever she had deposed in the
civil case, they could have used in the criminal So essentially,
(24:46):
Karen Reid would have testified unwillingly. She could have just
taken the fish.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
So it's really the paper discovery that you're looking for.
Speaker 8 (24:55):
And when you say the DA's office, that obviously is
not the defendant that's going to do directions, But you're
pursuing that sort of on your own right.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
But we've also I anticipate that the defendants have all
the same data that was exchanged during the criminal matter,
to which we haven't ever received. So we have requested
that both from the defendant and we've requested it from
the DA's office.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Okay, it is coming in from.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
The DA's office in parts, and I anticipate we should
have it all within the next twenty one days, is
my guess.
Speaker 8 (25:33):
Okay, all right, procedural issues from the defendants, we can start.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
With you, joy Susan, thank you.
Speaker 6 (25:39):
Ing.
Speaker 12 (25:42):
As we're anticipating the status of this case, it's.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
Important to inform the court that, from missus Reed's perspective,
we have affirmative claims that we intend to bring on
her behalf. Those claims stem from the same facts that
our issue in this case. Those claims your are against
parties that are not in the litigation at this point,
(26:06):
including the Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Brian Tully in his
personal capacity, the Sergeant Urie Buchanic in his personal capacity,
Michael Proctor. Those claims would be in the nature of
violations of Karenry's civil rights in conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
So Karen Reid's rights were violated, she says in her arrest.
So she doesn't have to prove any of these cases right,
She just has to make it fifty one percent more
likely that her rights were violated than not. And why
I predicted that she was going to southe civilly all
(26:54):
these things. This is the way innocence fraud cases go
all over America. If you can get a convicted killer
out hook or crook and get their conviction reversed, then
they sue civilly and get these big, multimillion dollar payouts.
And it also cements the idea what Karen Reid wants
(27:17):
to do is cement this as American myth that this
was some kind of fifty plus police conspiracy instead of
Karen Reid really being the end of a domestic violence
relationship running over John O'Keeffe. John o'keeff had asked her
(27:40):
in the days before to move out, and she refused
the days and weeks before she murdered him to move out,
and she wouldn't. So many people, including myself, think they
had this final argument where he said he was telling her,
according to Kylie the niece, that the relationship would run
(28:03):
its courts. So this was the final middle finger to
John O'Keefe, and even Karen Reid says that to think
this isn't planned, wasn't a planned thing, is a mistake
and whether she had been thinking about it, the plan
(28:25):
was to teach John O'Keefe a lesson, just to really
hurt him physically the way you know he heard her
by hurt her ego by leaving her. It's about power
and control, like every single other one of these cases.
So here's where they're dropping.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
They're going to.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Charge violation of rights. Forgotten that one kind of hilarious
Karen Reads. All of Karen Read's civil rights were violated. Why,
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
Claims against the Massachusetts police would be negligent training, supervision and.
Speaker 13 (28:57):
Retention of Massachusetts State Police troopers.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Right, they didn't train their police well enough. And I
would think many of these lawyers are working pro bono
just for the advertisement to be in a high profile case.
(29:22):
And of course the money is nice too if they
win any of these. I mean, there's nothing, there's no
punishment for bringing frivolous civil cases. You know, only things
on the line is money.
Speaker 6 (29:38):
We also intend your enough to bring claims affirmative claims
against Brian Albert Nicole, Albert Matthew McKay, Jennifer McCay, and
Brian Higgins, who are the occupants of thirty four to
five year old in.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Kenton on the nineteen question. Those claims will be in
the nature of.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
Civil conspiracy, violation of Karen reid civil rights, and then
a claim against the Town of Canton through its police department,
for negligent failure to secure the garage and the selling port.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
We asking the court's.
Speaker 6 (30:14):
Permission to bring those claims in this case because they
do arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts.
In order for us to fairly defend Miss Reid in
this case, those claims those parties.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Need to be asserted in this case. What we'd like
to ask the court?
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Right? So the judge later caused this a novel approach.
I'm hoping he won't let this happen. I mean, if
he lets it this happen, this is going to be
a madhouse, another kangaroo court that Karen Reid can totally manipulate.
He says, they can't. She can't defend herself without pointing
(30:55):
the finger at everyone else. Strange, Huh, what other innocent
person can't win their case without pointing the finger at
everyone else.
Speaker 13 (31:06):
What's indulgence for is we have a proposal of how
to bring those claims in given the voluminous nature of
this case, that would be ten additional parties coming in
to do that.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
We would be this is to streamline stream. If this
judge falls for this, we have another Canoni on our hands.
And CANNONI has moved from the criminal courts down to
the civil courts. A little bit of a demotion there.
I mean, you could say it's a different it's certainly not.
(31:44):
I don't know. I consider it a demotion.
Speaker 6 (31:47):
The individuals in the house diverted attention away from themselves
towards mus read that law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Then great, they're saying they diverted attention away from themselves
to Miss Reid. This is exactly this is they're telling.
They're telling on themselves. This is exactly what Karen Reid's doing.
She's diverting attention away from herself and her actions and
onto all these other people. I mean, she couldn't even
develop a third party culprit, but now in the civil
(32:20):
case she wants to throw in all these other people.
It's gonna it will be a nightmare. I mean they've
lost the case. They might as well. I mean if
they if this gets brought in. The plaintiffs in this case,
(32:42):
Mark Dillar and Dan Buck, they've lost the case. If
this gets brought in, sounds like it's going to be
hard to bring in. But could happen.
Speaker 6 (32:54):
Acting on that devoted attention away from her because the
people in the house were either at least He's adjacent,
who are socially and personally connected, then they collectively conspired
to ensure that what happened in the house was not
explored and investigated, and instead Miss Reid was wrongfully targeted,
(33:18):
maliciously prosecuted, made to face two criminal trials for the
death of John O'Keefe, and is now facing allegations of
wrong for death, all stemming from the same claims.
Speaker 12 (33:30):
How do we synthesize the process to bring these claims
and parties in What we're asking the court to consider
is for us, at the time we file her answer
to the complaint, we've got some claims that we ask
him to be dismissed.
Speaker 6 (33:44):
Regardless of how the court decides those, we still have
to find an answer on her behalf. Our suggestion would
be to file those claims right.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
So he wants to streamline it. I'm not going to
play any more of that. You get the point, then,
I thought the other then, so then they ask for
they make an argument here to dismiss the charges, including
the waterfalls. Lawyer comes in on this too against Caley,
(34:16):
and this is when we get a long speech from Diller,
and I thought this was this is where I hope
I'm at the right place where I thought it got
pretty interesting.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
The lowest standard, the bron cause plaintiff's obstacle is a
minimal hurdle, a relatively light burden. So long as the
court looks at the allegation holistically, its relief to the
plaintiff is possible by the cumulative effect of all the
factual allegations planned. We survived the motion to dismiss standard,
(34:51):
and we move forward to discovery like we should in
all cases, and in this one, there are three arguments
that my brothers have put forward in this case, we
oppose all.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Three of them as follows.
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Number one, the defendants incorrectly state the law by suggesting
that NIED claims are subsumed or preempted by the wrongfulbest statute.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
Number two, Your honor.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
The defendants improperly seek to limit the scope of NIED
claims by creating an arbitrary right line test for such cases.
Number three, Your honor, the defendants fail to holistically consider
the facts allege and the known vulnerabilities of the plaintiffs
(35:41):
when evaluating the defendants extreme and outrageous conduct in violation
of the infliction of emotional distress standard.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
I recognize that this Court is not new to this case, and.
Speaker 4 (35:55):
I recognize that most people already understand the facts. But
I think it is important and significant that I at
least highlight the ones that will be an issue here today.
Throughout we intend, like we did in the complaint, to
refer to John o'keef as JJ. That is what he
was affectionately referred to by his niece and nephew. JJ
(36:17):
no longer has a voice. His life was wrongfully taken
on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. He lived a
life of service, he was a Boston Police officer, and
his personal life when JJ's older sister and brother in
law tragically passed two months apart from each other, leaving
(36:38):
two young children orphaned, JJ stepped up.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
He agreed to parent those children, to raise them as
his own, and to support them.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
Fast forward to twenty twenty two year Honor JJ is
involved in a relationship with Miss Reid's.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Been going on for a period of time at that time.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, Karen drives drunk.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
She reverses an suv. She knocks JJ down.
Speaker 14 (37:09):
She leads him to die in the cold, and Reid
knows that she strikes the plaintiff. Rather than seeking to
help or calling nine to one one, she returns to
JJ's home.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
They are JJ's fourteen year old niece, Kaylee, a plaintiff
in this case, is home alone asleep.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
That's when Karen starts plotting.
Speaker 4 (37:34):
Now it is significant for the facts we understand the
context here. Karen Reid knows Kaylee well. She's been in
her life for almost up to two years. She has
served as a part time maternal figure in her life.
She knows that Kaylee is a vulnerable child, having lost
(37:55):
two parents tragically, and one to two hours before JJ's
body is ever found, before anybody knows his whereabouts, Karen
Reid decides to wake up Kaylee in a panic, she.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Tells Kaylee something happened to JJ. He's dead. He's been
hit by a plow. Did I hit him?
Speaker 4 (38:21):
All to a fourteen year old child woken up from
sleepers already lost to parents.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
After provoking this chaos in the middle of the night.
Speaker 4 (38:31):
Ms Reid leaves Kaylee alone, vulnerable, shocked and afraid. It's
now one to two hours later, it's at her around
six am in the morning.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
JJ's injured body is now.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Found right where Karen left him, buried in the snow.
Nine to one one is called now is when JJ's family.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
So at four point thirty in the morning, you know,
a little after four thirty, so when Caylee said she's
awoken by Karen Reid coming into her bedroom, and first
she just shook her, and then and then around four
(39:24):
thirty five, Karen Reid retrieved John O'Keefe's niece's cell phone
from John O'Keefe's bedroom because that's she had so much trust.
They had such a good relationship that when she knew
John O'Keefe wasn't going to be there to make sure
she did it, she had he had a rule that
(39:46):
she put her phone when she was going to bed
in his room to charge so she didn't have her
phone at night, and Karen Reid brings Kelly you know,
the phone to her and starts calling.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
It.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Starts insistent you call other people. She's making your own
phone calls many to Michael.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
Camerons of JJ's injury.
Speaker 4 (40:31):
JJ's injuries at this point enter into the O'Keefe's consciousness
at her around six am.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
They rush to the hospital. It's seven point fifty am.
Speaker 4 (40:44):
That's when the hospital pronounces JJ dead. And within minutes
of being pronounced that that's when the O'Keeffe family sees
their son in the injured state that he was in
as a result of the wrongful conduct. From January twenty
ninth forward, your honor, Karen Reid plots, she fabricates a conspiracy.
(41:09):
She launches a public campaign of disinformation, and she involves
her blogger named turtle Boy.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
She leaks not for public information through him. She pits.
Speaker 2 (41:23):
This is more of the kind of argument I wish
we had in criminal court. I wish her public disinformation
campaign came in and the way that she immediately went
to she didn't go to her home. She snuck into
John O'Keefe's home uninvited and started plotting out how she
(41:46):
was going to get away with her murder.
Speaker 4 (41:50):
Her followers against the O'Keefe family, and all the while,
Karen knows that the O'Keefe family is also vulnerable greeting
another tragedy in their family.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
The o'keefes and.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
Kaylee suffer severe emotional distress. It's more than anguish and
more than grief, and it is not overlapping with the
wrongful death statue. So the first argument that the defendants
made they claim that JJ's parents are precluded from bringing
nied claims because such damages are duplicative of the wrongful
(42:28):
death statue.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
We reject that argument.
Speaker 4 (42:33):
JJ's parents are the next of kin and their emotional
distress claims are not preempted by the wrongful death statue.
Speaker 1 (42:42):
They took their.
Speaker 4 (42:42):
First shot across the bow by making that their primary argument. Presumptively,
they did so because it believed it's their best argument.
But the problem with that argument, as your Honor has
already pointed out, it tackling mistakes Massachusetts law. You have
pointed out well the Semino case, where let me just
(43:03):
point out first to wrongful that statute, it has two
components for damages. It has two buckets of damages. It
has the estates damages. Those all are JJ's damages, his
conscious pain, suffering, your medical bills, things that relate to
his damages. And then we have the second bucket, the
next of kinbucket. Those are lost value damages, the lost
(43:27):
value of JJ being in his next of kin's life.
And in that case, Your Honor, it is just the parents.
Now they suggest that those are overlapping with the nied,
but your Honor was right to point out the Semino case.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
Where a drunk driver kills a nine year old boy.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
The father of that nine year old boy brings a
case against the drunk and the bar for overserving them.
The father brings two separate causes of action, one for
wrongful death, one for ned neglige and infliction of emotional distress.
Speaker 7 (44:02):
The court held in that and I quote argument that
plaintiff's claim for emotional distress is preempted by wrongful death
action misconstrues the.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Common law cause of action for emotional distress.
Speaker 4 (44:17):
Emotional distress, as the concept has evolved in the Commonwealth,
is a severe psychological shock directly resulting from experiencing or
witnessing the effects of the defendant's conduct. A claim for
damages based on emotional distress, the court says, does not
(44:38):
include an administrator's claim for loss of consortium, which will
be present.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
In every wrongful death action such as this.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Since emotional distress is a wrong to plaintiff distinct from
what was done to his son and the statutory beneficiaries
of the descendent, it is not.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
I thought that was ridiculous too. Who Texas Brad is
asking when is Natalie bern Schneider Riwiki, who was the
middle woman between Turtle Boy and Karen Reid going to
be brought in? She was on the witness list for
the prosecution, never brought in. It's like, I don't under
(45:19):
I don't really understand the strategy. I always thought that
the that you can't separate Karen Reid's innocence fraud campaign
from from her from her from her murder of John O'Keefe.
It's like, so to me, it's just consciousness of guilt.
(45:42):
I mean, and he says like she's he lists all
the places in this that she's talked to and she
never I mean, this will go on for twenty plus years.
This is now her new identity, being a victim of
the Massachusetts State police and justice system. And she's gonna,
like Amanda n Ox, gonna promote herself as a victim forever.
(46:08):
It's never going to end.
Speaker 1 (46:10):
A duplicative remedy.
Speaker 4 (46:12):
It is not preempted by the wrongful death statue. And
that's page three thirty four of the Semino case. Your Honor,
Somino still remains good law. You are right to point
that out. That directly contradicts everything that my brothers just
argued here in this court. And I see no reason
why this court should should overturn the good standing law
(46:37):
that exists under the Semino. We asked that your honor
deny emotion to dismiss for that first argument.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
The second argument that they make, Your Honor, is that
the plaintiffs and ied claims are not sufficiently contemporaneous with
the alleged accident, because the family sees JJ seven hours
after the actscident, that the law doesn't right.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
They're not. They're saying because Karen Reid didn't run him
over in front of her family, that they can't for
for emotional distress.
Speaker 1 (47:15):
I mean, it's so ridiculous not endorse such a narrow,
arbitrary interpretation of the law.
Speaker 4 (47:23):
It is misplaced for the defendants to focus arbitrarily on
the time of the accident, because let's.
Speaker 1 (47:30):
Look at the law itself.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
The liability for nied depends on a number of factors, where, when,
and how the injury enters into the consciousness of the plaintiffs.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
Right, I don't know. I mean, I think all these
lawyers know about innocence fraud, but they don't know how
to fight it correctly. So Karen read everything positive about
her innocence fraud campaign was a lot to be brought
into the courtroom. Crowds were essentially just like invited in,
you know, I mean into the jury deliberation room, and
(48:10):
none of her scheming was ever exposed. I mean, how
that jury was picked is another thing I don't understand.
I think Hank Brennan had lots of experience in picking
a defense jury and not a lot of recent experience
(48:32):
picking a jury for the prosecution. I think he picked
a I think he subliminally picked a defense jury. I
mean it couldn't I mean, it could have been more
of the wrong kind of characters. Right, Roberta. So much
was left on the table, right, I'll never understand. I mean,
(48:53):
we never hear all of the truth in a criminal case,
it's just an edited version. But when you're dealing with
innocent fraud campaign that's come into the courtroom, every little
detail matters, Every little detail matters, and it tells the
full story. And what innocent fraud campaigns do so well
(49:18):
is they make them just really broad and vague. I mean,
if anybody tuned into my episode talking about Amanda Knox,
there's a moment in her interview with Gwyneth Paltrow just
went over it, and I really recommend True Crime Podcasts
four part takedown of that interview. There's so much good
(49:39):
information in it. The link is in my posts on YouTube,
you know, my message board kind of thing on YouTube.
The link to that. But what Abandon Knox has asked
about the evidence, like, well, why were you picked? If
this was so unfair? Why did I think you did it? Basically,
(50:02):
what's the evidence against you? Why were you convicted of this?
Essentially twice? And then the court that lets you let
her go said that she was there at the scene
and washed the victim's blood off her hands. Never mind that.
But even without knowing that, And that's when Amanda Knox
(50:22):
gets really vague, like, I don't know, I don't know
why they said I smelled of sex once. That's why, Really, well,
that's kind of hard to put in front of a
bunch of judges. Excuse me, your honor, she smells of sex,
therefore she must be guilty of murder. Now it doesn't work.
(50:45):
So it's gotta, you know, you gotta really bring in
the whole story. And the whole story includes Karen Reid's
cover up. I thought it was going to go well
in the criminal case when Hank Brennan started talking about
to cover up, but he never He would start a
lot of things and not finish them.
Speaker 4 (51:05):
And it also requires the degree of relationship between those plaintiffs.
But I repeat where, when, and how the injury enters
into their consciousness.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
It is misplaced for the defense to suggests that it
matters that.
Speaker 4 (51:22):
Plaintiffs were not at the scene of the accident, because,
as you pointed out, the farader case stands in the
exact opposite, where the plaint different rushes onto the scene
and finds his loved ones injured, has no greater entitlement
to emotional distress for that shock than a plaint differ
rushes to the hospital. So long as the shock follows
(51:48):
closely on the heels of it is misplaced.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
For the defendant, Alan Jackson looked so jet lagged and
just out of it in court, like he's not even listening.
He's like, I've done my job. My job was to
bring all these civil charges against all these Just be
here when they announced all these civil charges that they're
(52:14):
going to file against all these other people, and see
if the judge buys that. I don't have to make
any arguments, and he.
Speaker 4 (52:24):
Doesn't make all to suggest that there is a bright
line test for the number of hours that passes between
the time of an accident and when the injury enters
into the consciousness of the plaintiffs, Your Honor has persuasive
authority from the Zachary case that shows that an NIED
(52:46):
case can survive even when the close family doesn't see
the deceased body or the injured body until a day
later after the wrongdoing.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
There is no bright line test.
Speaker 4 (53:01):
NIED is a fact intensive analysis, and when we apply
the law to the facts of this case, let's look
at where when and how the injury enters into the
consciousness of the people that we're bringing those cases for.
It's twelve thirty AM, and nobody except Karen Reid knows.
Speaker 1 (53:25):
About JJ's injuries.
Speaker 4 (53:27):
Defendants wrongdoing continues into those early hours.
Speaker 1 (53:32):
She knows she struck them, she seeks no medical help.
Speaker 4 (53:36):
Instead, she chooses to cover it up and hides the
injuries from anyone. It's not until six AM that JJ's
injuries are even capable of getting into anyone's consciousness. The
Okay family immediately learns of JJ's injury and they closely
(53:56):
on the hails. They rush to the hospital, at which
time they see the deceased body within minutes of him
being declared dead. It is incredulous to think that a
wrongdoer who hides the wrongdoing and the injury from anybody
can be relieved of liability simply because the injury becomes
(54:22):
knowable only after they disclose it. The defendant cited cases
are inapposite. They have no relationship to what is being
asked of this court. They all involve a motion for
summary judgment standard, which is a very different standard than
the one that we are talking about here today.
Speaker 1 (54:39):
The motion of smiths the lowest hurdle to overcome.
Speaker 4 (54:43):
They try to equate it to a mother who learns
of the rape of her daughter seven months later, but
that rape was known to other people within days.
Speaker 1 (54:54):
They try to relate it to the Migliori case, which
has no relevance because it deals with somebody who no
close the close relationship.
Speaker 4 (55:02):
They didn't even know the decedent, and therefore it doesn't
meet that standard. And then they rely on the Coen case,
which I heard both sides try to suggest has relevance.
But in that case, Your Honor, the mother learns of
her son's that seven.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
Hours after.
Speaker 4 (55:22):
After the death, that seven hours after the injury occurred,
and by the way, it was already knowable seven hours
earlier by other people when that plane crash was projected,
and the son of the woman who brought the claim
knew about her own his brother's death. The mother is
(55:43):
a thousand miles away, so spatial proximity is not there,
and she only learns of it via phone, does not
experience the injury and never sees the body. Contrasts that
with everything that we talked about, Your Honor, where as
soon as it was knowable, they learned about it, they
(56:04):
rushed to the hospital, they saw the body, and they
saw the body within minutes and being declared dead.
Speaker 2 (56:11):
The purpose, right, I mean, they're essentially saying Karen Reid's
defense is essentially saying because Karen Reid hid this all
night and sat on it from when she ranch on
o'keef over a little twelve thirty little after twelve thirty
(56:32):
am that because she said nothing and plotted how to
get away with it, that the O'Keefe family couldn't because
they didn't see her do it, that they couldn't be traumatized.
I mean, this is absurd of the law. I mean
they had to wait to cave for Karen Reid to
notify them, because Karen reidn't notify them at the time.
Speaker 4 (56:56):
Is to distinguish between emotional distress from perceiving an injury
versus the expected anguish that any person would feel from
the death of a loved one.
Speaker 1 (57:08):
I want to talk.
Speaker 4 (57:09):
Briefly about Kaylee and her nieed claim to suggest because
she wasn't at the scene, or because she was not
at the hospital that day and I tried to spare
her of that does not suggest she doesn't have a right.
Speaker 1 (57:24):
In fact, she experiences.
Speaker 4 (57:26):
The trauma, the panic, the chaos of the injury contemporaneous
with Karen Reid waking her up in the middle of the.
Speaker 3 (57:34):
Night and exclaiming that her parental figure, the third that
she has now lost, was dead, hit by a plow
or her suv. Notably, this enters into her consciousness before
anyone other than the wrongdoer knows of the injury, to
(57:55):
the extent that defendant seeks relief because Kaylee did not
see with her own two eyes.
Speaker 4 (58:03):
I refer you also to the cod case, which these
cite for different reasons, but in it, the language talks
about sensory perceptions to suggest that you can't use other
senses in order to perceive and experience the injury or
the injurious event is wrong.
Speaker 1 (58:23):
Otherwise no blind person would have a legal right.
Speaker 4 (58:26):
Under Nied, we have many senses, we use them all
the time, and when it enters into our consciousness it's
hard to.
Speaker 1 (58:34):
Undo of it.
Speaker 4 (58:35):
It is very different, very different from learning that your
close family member has died. That is upsetting, It will
be upset into anybody, But to have experience the event
or the injury and enters into your consciousness. That is
the very reason in the foundation why NIED exists as
(58:57):
a claim.
Speaker 2 (58:59):
So on, let's say, right, because Karen Reid brought all
these people into it to start mixing it up. She didn't,
there was no need. She never called nine one one,
she never called her actual help. It was all getting
other characters involved to absolve, you know, to be able
to point the finger elsewhere later, to create chaos, to
(59:22):
create confusion, to point the finger away from herself. So
she brings Caylee in to help solve this mystery of
John O'Keefe something. The only person that knew that something
terrible had happened to him was Karen Reid. And why
our supporters can't understand that, and why the jury didn't
get that, I mean, I think they just basically nullified it,
(59:46):
felt the public pressure and hated the police and was
just decided to give the big middle finger to the
police and the man by letting Karen Reid walk. But
everybody else who's lived on planet Earth knows that when
(01:00:06):
you're not calling for help and you're not doing logical
things right, it looks very suspect. Do you think something's
happened to your boyfriend? Right, and you're worried he didn't. First,
she never looked for him. When she said she pretended
(01:00:27):
that he was lost, she never really looked for him.
She pretended to look for him, and then she led.
She called up her first person. She wanted to get
with the Cameranos because she knew that they would by
the way they look at the way they testified for her,
they were essentially testifying for the prosecution. Michael Camerono Weekly
(01:00:50):
said that John O'Keefe was angry because Karen Reid was
late coming out because she said she was waiting for
a plumber. She ever got that plumbing and that rusty
pipe fixed, or if she ever did call the plumber,
or if this was just another lie told by Karen
Reid to piss John O'Keefe off and it worked. John
(01:01:13):
o'keef told Michael Cameron Oi, who was pissed off, that
Karen Reid hadn't asked her. So dad's a plumber, him
and his dad to fix her plumbing. But it seems
if you look at the text messages between Karen Reid,
seems pretty apparent that it's Karen one of another one
(01:01:36):
of Karen Reid's tactics to get power and control over John,
get him involved with her, rile him up.
Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
I can we also suggest that you should deny it
because they experiences the injuries closely on the heels of
them being knowable.
Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
I mean, this was never really prosecuted. It really should
have been prosecuted as a DV case if Karen Reid
were a man, and that's exactly how it would be prosecuted.
And these same facts were an evidence that they fought
all day via text message, that they had been fighting,
that she tried to kick this man out of her
(01:02:27):
home and a man ran over his girlfriend and left
her to die in the snow. We'd all be talking
about it like it was a DV case because that's
exactly what the facts the evidence shows. But because it's
a woman can't possibly be abusing a man psychologically. It's unfortunate.
(01:02:56):
I hope this changes and perceivable to anybody third your honor.
Speaker 4 (01:03:03):
The defendants argue that the infliction the intentional slash reckless
infliction of emotional distress claims should fail because there's no
extreme or outrageous conduct directed towards the plaintiffs. But when
if you're holistically the facts demonstrate that miss Read should
have known her extreme and outrageous conduct would be detrimental
(01:03:28):
to these vulnerable plaintiffs.
Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
I mean even, I mean, the thing that's helpful is
that she's been convicted of drunk driving. She was driving drunk.
She should have known by backing up at that speeds
great rate of speeds, that she could have caused his death. Kitties,
thanks so much. I really appreciate your support. They are
(01:03:54):
threatening to recreate the trial circus. Yeah, do we know
the judge's record. We don't. Right, it's in Plymouth County
about an my understanding, about forty five minutes an hour
away from Canton. Tomorrow, I'm going to be speaking with
(01:04:18):
Brendan Caine, who's John o'cue's friend, about this hearing. He
attended this hearing, so I'm not sure. Do you guys
have questions for him? Do you want that to be
a live show? I'm trying to figure out if I
(01:04:39):
should do it live or would you prefer a more
tightened tape show. Let me know, I don't know. Maybe
it's not going to be at the same time. If
it's going to be live, it's to be early in
(01:05:00):
the morning, and I use.
Speaker 4 (01:05:02):
The word vulnerable plaintiffs because it's relevant to our case law,
your honor, it's misplaced to suggest that the conduct needs
to be directed immediately towards those plaintiffs. As long as
she should have known that the emotional distress was a
likely result of her conduct, that's sufficient under the reckless
(01:05:22):
infliction of emotional distress standard. So how do we evaluate
what is extreme and outrageous? It's fact intensive, but the
law does recognize that some critically important factors that need
to be considered when evaluating what is extremely outrageous plaintiff susceptibility,
(01:05:44):
defendants knowledge of that susceptibility, and the relationship between defendant
and plaintiff. Case law all suggests that that gives rise
to extreme and outrageous conduct in evaluating whether defendants conduct.
Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
All right, Okay, I mean some of this is case
law mixed in with some really good singers at Karen
Reid is the judge. Later he calls us a novel
approach at one point, and then he gives a long
speech here about how they should settle and how this
(01:06:23):
could go on for years, that he has one case
that's eighteen years old, and Karen Reid will never settle.
She will let this go on as long as she
can continue to revictimize the Oki family and continue to
gain power through the courts. I mean, she's gone from
(01:06:45):
strength to strength to strength. She sold her rights, her
book rights or movie rights. Most of these lawyers, I
believe are working pro bono. She's not losing any money
on this. Anything that she spends on lawyers, her fans,
her murderer groupies will pick up the tab for so
she doesn't have much to lose. But the idea that
(01:07:08):
they'd settle, I think the Keeps would be happy to settle.
They just want her to take some responsibility. She never
will take any responsibility. She will be playing victim until
the end. This is her new identity, and she will
be trying to cement this idea that she's a victim
into the public consciousness as long as she lives. And
(01:07:31):
this is part of innocence fraud. It's also, as you know,
she told Natalie Bernscheider were Wiki that she'd gotten rid
of all of John O'Keefe's pictures because she could stand
to look at his face. She wants to seemingly erase
John O'Keefe from off of the face of the earth
(01:07:54):
and replace herself as the victim in this case. So
this is a very unusual pre pre trial innocence fraud campaign.
(01:08:18):
Usually I'm talking about campaigns that where person gets convicted
and how somehow they successfully overturned the case fourteen years
and later with either podcasts or you know, faux documentaries
(01:08:39):
or books or just a public campaign or all of
the above. But this is a rare pre trial innocence
fraud campaign, and I think we're going to see a
lot more of them now that this was so successful
and so lucrative. So that is what I have for today.
(01:09:05):
But I just thought the judge is gonna come back
with a ruling on this whether Karen Reid can continue
to sue in this court, and it will be interesting
to see. I will be watching if the judge says no,
and that will be a minor miracle, I think, because
(01:09:28):
what we've seen so far is just judges allowing all
of this really unprecedented nonsense in her case to bring in.
I mean, they weren't allowed to argue third party, but
they basically argued third party anyway. You were allowed to
develop it, but they really argued it anyway. So if
(01:09:54):
the judge allows it, I think it's over for the o'keefes.
I think they should drop their case. That that's they
bring in all these other people, it's over for them.
They cannot win with this. With Karen Reid playing fast
and loose with the rules, and there's fifty million different
people she's suing at the same time that she's also
(01:10:14):
defending herself, it's just going to create too much chaos
and confusion. But it's very much like the way Karen
Reid has done things since the beginning of this case,
since the very I mean, if you don't think that
Karen Reid plotted out how to get away with this
by starting to call people, I mean, Catherine Camerano strangely
(01:10:34):
had a very vague memory on the stand as to
what Karen Reid told her on the phone. She knew
the characters and their weaknesses and what you know. The
Cameranos seem like people that don't want to want to
put their neck out and stand up for their murdered friend.
(01:10:59):
They rather just go with the flow and say as
little as possible and hop off the stand and expose
Karen Reid as the psychopath that she is. I mean,
she knew this. She's a psychopath. She could read these people,
she knew the kind of character she wanted to bring
in to be able to point the finger at. And
(01:11:25):
that's what she did all these I mean, we all
have human frailties and they all can be exaggerated and
exploited as a distraction tool. And that's how this campaign worked.
I mean, there was no need to call Jen McCabe,
there was no need to involve Carrie Roberts or the
Cameranos or Cayley. All she had to do was call
(01:11:50):
nine one one. But what happens if she calls nine
to one one. She's just there alone, no one else
to point the finger at. It's her. It's just Karen Reid.
All right. I have a great night, everybody, Thanks so
much for listening, and I'll see you back here. I
guess tomorrow at ten am, a special live show, different
(01:12:13):
time tomorrow. I don't rarely do it, but I had
to accommodate Brendan Gaines's schedule. So we're going to be
on live talking about this very hearing with Brendan Kane
and what it's like to be on the you know,
to be with the victims facing this kind of massive
innocence fraud campaign. Okay, I hope. I'll see you all
(01:12:36):
there tomorrow at ten am Eastern
Okay, just to be clear, 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.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Who did it? We don't know.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
We don't know, and it's not for us to know.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Somebody other than Karen. Somebody other than Karen is responsible
for that, for the killing of John.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:35):
Glass True Crime report putting the true back in true crime.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
From New York City. ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
Glass is now on the record.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Okay, how is everyone? Hello Dean Walker, glad you made it.
Hello Texas Brad, Hello Eva, Hello Doris. There was a hearing,
Higbee Rabbit. There was a hearing today in Karen Reid's
(01:33):
civil case. So this is a after Karen Reid was
acquitted of the most serious charges in her case. We've
been through the reasons why that happened probably a zillion times.
As I feared her innocence fraud campaign was allowed to
(01:53):
come into the courtroom, and I mean it was almost
literally you could hear this dreams of the of the
football sized crowd outside as the jury read the verdict
and as they were deliberating, it was just you. There
(02:15):
was just no difference from the court of public opinion
and the court, I mean, had just totally merged in
that case. Now we have this civil case where Karen
Karen Reid is being sued by her the man she's
(02:36):
accused of running over and killing with her car and
leaving to die in the cold, John O'Keefe. Her family
is suing for wrongful death and pain and suffering for Caylie,
who was the older niece. So there's a niece and
a nephew. Patrick is the younger, is the younger son
(03:00):
of John O'Keefe's sister who tragically died of cancer and
her husband died of a heart attack after so she's
been orphaned three times in her life, all before the
age of eighteen. She's being sued, she's suing Karen Reid
for pain and suffering. But the big news today, and
(03:23):
this is something that I had been predicting because it
is the innocence fraud playbook, and Karen Reid has really
followed that innocence fraud playbook, which is you sue civilly
for wrongful imprisonment, wrongful arrest and you get these big
(03:51):
multimillion dollar payouts. Basically, you sue whoever you can that
you think, well you can get money out of. And
so she's suing the police department for not training correctly.
And often the police departments will are covered by insurance
(04:11):
for these kinds of lawsuits and will pay out and
think it's well, it'll cost us more to fight it
than it will. It costs us more to fight it
than just pay it out. So they think they're saving
time and money by paying it out. But this is
a movement. They're like pigeons. They just always come back
(04:31):
for more. So what that does is that opens up
the door to everyone who's been arrested and charged, rested
by the police and charged and been acquitted in this
area of Massachusetts to sue for not correctly training their officers.
(04:55):
Because I guess Michael Proctor had some mean texts about
Karen Reid while he was investigating. Let emotions get the
best of him. Because he's investigating the case and all
roads lead to Karen Reid if you follow the evidence
they do. I mean, for those who think it was
(05:18):
a fifty plus conspiracy, the car Karen Reid's car with
her smash to Smitherin's tail light was already on the
way to the sally Port when the sart team arrived,
so there was no time to plan evidence. They were
finding pieces of her tail light. It doesn't make any sense,
(05:43):
but it continues to go on. And Karen Reid had
supporters there in the courtroom. We're gonna look at it.
She brought seven lawyers. Let me see, let me look
at my notes for a second. And so they are
from the firm of Melick and Porter. She and Finney
(06:14):
is the other main and then there's Alan Jackson's law firm.
So Alan Jackson was there. So seven lawyers from three
different firms. It was quite something. They couldn't all fit
at the table. Karen Reid had to sit in the
gallery with her lawyers. This reminded me of going to
(06:38):
Keith RINERI the NEXTI in Guru's hearing, and I said,
they have to get a bigger boat like Jaws. They
have to get a bigger courtroom or a bigger defense table.
So she's the defendant and in this case she's facing
the plaintiffs. This is civil case, so what's on the
line is money. It's how our civil court's work. Who's
(06:58):
going to pay? And they're suing for money, but more
than that, they're really suing for accountability, to hold her accountable.
And I'll get into why I think Karen Reid is
suing in a minute. It's not just for the money,
although that is part of it. There's a much bigger
(07:24):
idea at behind this. So there's a shot of Alan Jackson.
So let's get into it.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Yeah, that's why I have to wish the US Council
would like that.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Sorry, I'm mad, I'm moved. I thought I just that
I just got into this. I thought that was just
the beginning. There we go, It was just the Beginning's
I asked.
Speaker 6 (08:04):
The question that you asked ansel He would like to
do status first, then the rule twelves.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
But he also said to me if you could check
your calendars for trial date? All right, I describing that.
Good to go.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
So why is this is the the Why do we
have the the guy who did the exhibitions at the trial.
Why is he here? He's back from the criminal trial.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
He was on the ready.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
H h.
Speaker 7 (09:03):
H kah.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
So the reds were in the gallery. John O'Keeffe's mother
was there, Peggy O'Keefe and of course Paul O'Keefe John
(09:36):
O'Keefe's brother, h.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Good afternoon, A good afternoon, all before the quarter of
twenty fourty three c.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Six ninety two. This is the case of Paul o'keith
and Alia versus C and C Hospitality L C dB,
A c F.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
Mccarthia cases called for status and virule twelve motions.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Council.
Speaker 6 (10:17):
Please introduce yourself correctly beginning of the plaintiff's council and
if you can stay.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
In the part of your represent as well. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Good afternoon, your honor Attorney Mark dilan On behalf of
the plaintiffs.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Good afternoon, Your honor Dan buck On, behalf of the plaintiffs. Good,
good afternoon.
Speaker 6 (10:33):
Your own Damon sets On, behalf of the defending Karen Reid.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Goofine and your honor Charles Waters for defending Karen.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Read good afternoon, Your owner Alan Jackson on behalf of
this read good afternoon. Your owner Aaron Rosenberg also on,
behalf of this read good, good afternoon. You're on a
William kept.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
In Christopher Georgian out of the defendant Aaron Reid.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
You're Universipality. Good okay, I tell you right.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
And they're also assuing the waterfall bar and grill for
over serving Karen Reid.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Say the waterfall good okay, that's all the counselors good
afternon folks who welcome everyone to the uh the event
of this afternoon.
Speaker 8 (11:43):
When I was assigned this case last spring, the first
thing I wanted to do was try to get a
sense of where we're all going to fill in our
tracking order and and get a sense of what direction
this case is going.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
And in the meantime, it looks like there was a
motion to dismiss file by the defendants.
Speaker 8 (11:59):
So what I would like to do is go through
some of the procedural issues.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
So what Karen Reid is saying is they're saying because Cally,
who was woken up by Karen Reid very early in
the morning, because she was woken up and shook by
(12:25):
Karen Reid and told that John O'Keefe was missing and
she didn't know where she was he was, she pretended
to not know where he was, that because she didn't
watch him get run over by Karen Reid, that she's
(12:47):
not entitled that their pain and suffering, so that she
wasn't really traumatized that Karen Reid, who already knew.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
This, And.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Hold on one second, Mark Dillar makes a very good
argument later on in this hearing as to why those
charges should move forward and let at least have a
jury decide whether she deserves any money for pain and
suffering and for retraumatizing her. But I mean, Karen Reid
(13:25):
knew that she had been her mother died of cancer
and that she had lost her father just months later
of a heart attack. So they're saying because she didn't
witness it with her own eyes, but they've also so
get ready. This is when Karen Reid's legal team just
(13:46):
drops this idea that Karen Read's going to sue everybody
without ever finding it, because this is what they did
in the criminal case. They liked to sandbag the prosecution.
So now they're sagging the Playton steam in this case.
So what they would do is they would not hand
(14:06):
over any discovery and just sandbag them and say, well,
we're going to put on a witness, but you don't
know what they're really going to talk about. I mean,
if the prosecution had done that, it would be Brady violation.
Acquittal and then lawsuits over it. I mean, just wild wild.
(14:27):
It could have stopped her own case if the prosecution
did it. Because the defense did it, they got sanctioned
by the court with a just with a talking to
by the judge. But it could have been much worse.
I mean that was just one one thing. The other
discovery things they talked on encrypted apps with their expert
(14:50):
witnesses so that the prosecution couldn't wouldn't have any of
that material, wouldn't know what they had done, or what
tests it done, or if they were handing over everything fully.
I mean, this was just such a manipulation of the courts.
It's really wild. So here's where they're going to drop it.
(15:17):
So this is not only so, this is one of
the reasons that they decided to drop it like this.
This is going to rile up all the free Karen
readers out there and get them to start donating to
her defense fund and riled up and excited and that
they want to marry so they so Karen Reid. It's
also a distraction technique. Karen Reid is going to be
(15:37):
saying that she's really the victim and that she's suing
all these people, and it will take the heat off
of her and distract the jury. As Hank Brennan said,
look over their technique that she's always used. So that's
another reason why it's not only rile up her once
again rile up her base with this, just this just
(15:59):
dropping on the court with no official filing, so they
wrote nothing. They just came in and announced it in court.
It's really quite outrageous. As lawyers, they know they can't
do that, but I mean, the judge can't rule in
something he doesn't see the argument for. They just orally
(16:20):
argue that it's going to streamline things to bring in
Karen Reid's lawsuits against all these people. But what it's
going to do is it's going to make a third
party culprit kind of defense for her. It's going to
make a distraction defense for her and again make heurt
a focal point all the people like, oh, you think
I ran over my boyfriend, but look at what the
(16:43):
police did to me. Look at what these people. Look
at their weaknesses, their human frailties. Maybe they did it.
This has always been her technique, the look away, because
she can't really defend herself against any of the serious evidence.
It's always like look away, look away. Maybe Proctor did it,
(17:05):
Maybe Jim McKay did it, maybe someone else did it.
Anyone but Karen Rea did it?
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Did you see in the case. For now, we can
talk about tracking order.
Speaker 8 (17:17):
I do think that it's important to get a trial
they established at this point, like we would do with
any kind of a wrongful death short action. So to
that end, we'll start with the plaintiff. What do you
see is procedural issues. I'd like to get an update
on discovery on how that's all going.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Counsel.
Speaker 9 (17:35):
Like, and then we'll get into the motions to dismiss
as a substance of issue. I know there's a lot
of people here that want to see what the case
is all about, but I think it's more important at
least you get an idea procedurally where you stand.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
I just said your honor PLANINKDIFF has served all of
the defendants with discovery.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
All of the defendants are currently late with regard to.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Producing discovery, and we have not received any as yet
or minimal. We have started to get some of the
documents from the DA's office, though we are.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
It's significant, so they're waiting to get these filing saw
the evidence from the DA's office. I would have thought
these lawyers would have been at the courthouse the minute
the criminal trial ended to receive the documents, get them
in person. What are they doing waiting for the DA
(18:33):
to send them the documents. This doesn't make me feel
good about this playoff team here for the o'keefes, they
really should have been proactive and been working for months
on getting these things because as soon as they get
these documents, that can start deposing people, including Karen Reid
in this case.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Deficient.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
At this point, we're still waiting for the record to
come in. So we had it took with the stay
that we weren't able to get any information and the
DA's office wasn't turning anything over while the criminal matter
was pending.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
So we're still trying to get all the documentation in. Okay,
But just if I can follow up.
Speaker 8 (19:16):
On that to stay that was issued. Judge White had
issued one back in maybe the fall. I had issued
one when the criminal trial was ongoing. That was sort
of a self defining sixty day or whichever comes first,
So that should be pretty much in the review mirror
for now.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Right. I recognize that you're eyr So Wednesday was lifted?
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Okay? Wonkey? Does this sound okay? Dean Walker, thanks so
much for the super Sicker. Really appreciate you, especially supporting
these smaller shows. It is not easy, Telly, you know,
(19:59):
having this opinion and this isss certainly not the money
side of of YouTube. I appreciate it. Dean Walker. Weird static? Okay,
you're getting weird static. Hold on one second, let me
fix it. Please hold. Should I take a break. I'm
gonna take a break and fix my mic?
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Okay, my check.
Speaker 10 (20:43):
Roberta strides through the static case true crime, got them
where the shadows play their play, frauds to fold when
a spotlight, themes stack focus, queen busting, propaganda schemes, glass
shadow lies that goes through the streets, standing for victims,
giving voice.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
That beats, and why see polls?
Speaker 10 (21:00):
Truth sharp as night, Roberta exposing she's the anti fril
light partast warrior, dissecting Satan's defense, twisted innocense, claims, breaking pretense,
(21:22):
Gotam's truth seekert cuts clean with the blade facts in
the forefront, No justice gets swayed, Cold facts drip heavy,
real salt, gun furls cracking cases open like oysters with pearls, innocense,
gimmicks crumbled, the dust in the wind for victims, her
creed justice till the end, headphones blazing, She drops heavy artillery.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Now it has twisted.
Speaker 10 (21:54):
Meat, blunt objects, civility. Roberta got receipts that unraveled. Employ
exposing the lies. These frauds just deploy glass is lies.
Speaker 11 (22:03):
That goes through the streets, standing for victims, given voice,
stamp beats and why the post true shopping night Roberta exposes,
she's the anti fraud light.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Okay, is that better? I hope that's better. Hold on
one second. Sometimes it's a live show and sometimes these
things happen. Let us see sound good, okay, lovely, let
(23:07):
us continue. So what he's saying, is he this is
again you're just tuning in. We're watching this civil hearing
Karen Reid civil case, the o'keefes against Karen Reid. She's
about to drop a bomb on the planeiffs saying that
she's going to sue for everything. But Mark Dillar, this
(23:30):
is representing the o'keefes, is saying here that they haven't
gotten hardly any discovery yet from the from the DA's office.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
All discovery was served on parties or they are out. Yeah,
when you.
Speaker 8 (23:44):
Say discovery, we're talking about positions, documents, but notices, if
depositions are not only one.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
Deposition has been noticed and it's been tabled because we
don't have any documents a decision.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Right, they can't do the document, they can't do the
depositions because they don't have the documents. Why they didn't
start asking for this stuff having it at the ready
the minute the criminal trial was over. I don't understand.
This lawsuit came about as Karen Reid's criminal trial was ongoing,
(24:23):
and this judge decided that they could not depose Karen Reid.
She would have been great if they'd be given the
okay until after her criminal case was over. I mean
that that means that whatever she had deposed in the
civil case, they could have used in the criminal So essentially,
(24:46):
Karen Reid would have testified unwillingly. She could have just
taken the fish.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
So it's really the paper discovery that you're looking for.
Speaker 8 (24:55):
And when you say the DA's office, that obviously is
not the defendant that's going to do directions, But you're
pursuing that sort of on your own right.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
But we've also I anticipate that the defendants have all
the same data that was exchanged during the criminal matter,
to which we haven't ever received. So we have requested
that both from the defendant and we've requested it from
the DA's office.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Okay, it is coming in from.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
The DA's office in parts, and I anticipate we should
have it all within the next twenty one days, is
my guess.
Speaker 8 (25:33):
Okay, all right, procedural issues from the defendants, we can start.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
With you, joy Susan, thank you.
Speaker 6 (25:39):
Ing.
Speaker 12 (25:42):
As we're anticipating the status of this case, it's.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
Important to inform the court that, from missus Reed's perspective,
we have affirmative claims that we intend to bring on
her behalf. Those claims stem from the same facts that
our issue in this case. Those claims your are against
parties that are not in the litigation at this point,
(26:06):
including the Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Brian Tully in his
personal capacity, the Sergeant Urie Buchanic in his personal capacity,
Michael Proctor. Those claims would be in the nature of
violations of Karenry's civil rights in conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
So Karen Reid's rights were violated, she says in her arrest.
So she doesn't have to prove any of these cases right,
She just has to make it fifty one percent more
likely that her rights were violated than not. And why
I predicted that she was going to southe civilly all
(26:54):
these things. This is the way innocence fraud cases go
all over America. If you can get a convicted killer
out hook or crook and get their conviction reversed, then
they sue civilly and get these big, multimillion dollar payouts.
And it also cements the idea what Karen Reid wants
(27:17):
to do is cement this as American myth that this
was some kind of fifty plus police conspiracy instead of
Karen Reid really being the end of a domestic violence
relationship running over John O'Keeffe. John o'keeff had asked her
(27:40):
in the days before to move out, and she refused
the days and weeks before she murdered him to move out,
and she wouldn't. So many people, including myself, think they
had this final argument where he said he was telling her,
according to Kylie the niece, that the relationship would run
(28:03):
its courts. So this was the final middle finger to
John O'Keefe, and even Karen Reid says that to think
this isn't planned, wasn't a planned thing, is a mistake
and whether she had been thinking about it, the plan
(28:25):
was to teach John O'Keefe a lesson, just to really
hurt him physically the way you know he heard her
by hurt her ego by leaving her. It's about power
and control, like every single other one of these cases.
So here's where they're dropping.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
They're going to.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Charge violation of rights. Forgotten that one kind of hilarious
Karen Reads. All of Karen Read's civil rights were violated. Why,
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
Claims against the Massachusetts police would be negligent training, supervision and.
Speaker 13 (28:57):
Retention of Massachusetts State Police troopers.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Right, they didn't train their police well enough. And I
would think many of these lawyers are working pro bono
just for the advertisement to be in a high profile case.
(29:22):
And of course the money is nice too if they
win any of these. I mean, there's nothing, there's no
punishment for bringing frivolous civil cases. You know, only things
on the line is money.
Speaker 6 (29:38):
We also intend your enough to bring claims affirmative claims
against Brian Albert Nicole, Albert Matthew McKay, Jennifer McCay, and
Brian Higgins, who are the occupants of thirty four to
five year old in.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Kenton on the nineteen question. Those claims will be in
the nature of.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
Civil conspiracy, violation of Karen reid civil rights, and then
a claim against the Town of Canton through its police department,
for negligent failure to secure the garage and the selling port.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
We asking the court's.
Speaker 6 (30:14):
Permission to bring those claims in this case because they
do arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts.
In order for us to fairly defend Miss Reid in
this case, those claims those parties.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Need to be asserted in this case. What we'd like
to ask the court?
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Right? So the judge later caused this a novel approach.
I'm hoping he won't let this happen. I mean, if
he lets it this happen, this is going to be
a madhouse, another kangaroo court that Karen Reid can totally manipulate.
He says, they can't. She can't defend herself without pointing
(30:55):
the finger at everyone else. Strange, Huh, what other innocent
person can't win their case without pointing the finger at
everyone else.
Speaker 13 (31:06):
What's indulgence for is we have a proposal of how
to bring those claims in given the voluminous nature of
this case, that would be ten additional parties coming in
to do that.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
We would be this is to streamline stream. If this
judge falls for this, we have another Canoni on our hands.
And CANNONI has moved from the criminal courts down to
the civil courts. A little bit of a demotion there.
I mean, you could say it's a different it's certainly not.
(31:44):
I don't know. I consider it a demotion.
Speaker 6 (31:47):
The individuals in the house diverted attention away from themselves
towards mus read that law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Then great, they're saying they diverted attention away from themselves
to Miss Reid. This is exactly this is they're telling.
They're telling on themselves. This is exactly what Karen Reid's doing.
She's diverting attention away from herself and her actions and
onto all these other people. I mean, she couldn't even
develop a third party culprit, but now in the civil
(32:20):
case she wants to throw in all these other people.
It's gonna it will be a nightmare. I mean they've
lost the case. They might as well. I mean if
they if this gets brought in. The plaintiffs in this case,
(32:42):
Mark Dillar and Dan Buck, they've lost the case. If
this gets brought in, sounds like it's going to be
hard to bring in. But could happen.
Speaker 6 (32:54):
Acting on that devoted attention away from her because the
people in the house were either at least He's adjacent,
who are socially and personally connected, then they collectively conspired
to ensure that what happened in the house was not
explored and investigated, and instead Miss Reid was wrongfully targeted,
(33:18):
maliciously prosecuted, made to face two criminal trials for the
death of John O'Keefe, and is now facing allegations of
wrong for death, all stemming from the same claims.
Speaker 12 (33:30):
How do we synthesize the process to bring these claims
and parties in What we're asking the court to consider
is for us, at the time we file her answer
to the complaint, we've got some claims that we ask
him to be dismissed.
Speaker 6 (33:44):
Regardless of how the court decides those, we still have
to find an answer on her behalf. Our suggestion would
be to file those claims right.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
So he wants to streamline it. I'm not going to
play any more of that. You get the point, then,
I thought the other then, so then they ask for
they make an argument here to dismiss the charges, including
the waterfalls. Lawyer comes in on this too against Caley,
(34:16):
and this is when we get a long speech from Diller,
and I thought this was this is where I hope
I'm at the right place where I thought it got
pretty interesting.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
The lowest standard, the bron cause plaintiff's obstacle is a
minimal hurdle, a relatively light burden. So long as the
court looks at the allegation holistically, its relief to the
plaintiff is possible by the cumulative effect of all the
factual allegations planned. We survived the motion to dismiss standard,
(34:51):
and we move forward to discovery like we should in
all cases, and in this one, there are three arguments
that my brothers have put forward in this case, we
oppose all.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Three of them as follows.
Speaker 4 (35:05):
Number one, the defendants incorrectly state the law by suggesting
that NIED claims are subsumed or preempted by the wrongfulbest statute.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
Number two, Your honor.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
The defendants improperly seek to limit the scope of NIED
claims by creating an arbitrary right line test for such cases.
Number three, Your honor, the defendants fail to holistically consider
the facts allege and the known vulnerabilities of the plaintiffs
(35:41):
when evaluating the defendants extreme and outrageous conduct in violation
of the infliction of emotional distress standard.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
I recognize that this Court is not new to this case, and.
Speaker 4 (35:55):
I recognize that most people already understand the facts. But
I think it is important and significant that I at
least highlight the ones that will be an issue here today.
Throughout we intend, like we did in the complaint, to
refer to John o'keef as JJ. That is what he
was affectionately referred to by his niece and nephew. JJ
(36:17):
no longer has a voice. His life was wrongfully taken
on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. He lived a
life of service, he was a Boston Police officer, and
his personal life when JJ's older sister and brother in
law tragically passed two months apart from each other, leaving
(36:38):
two young children orphaned, JJ stepped up.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
He agreed to parent those children, to raise them as
his own, and to support them.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
Fast forward to twenty twenty two year Honor JJ is
involved in a relationship with Miss Reid's.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Been going on for a period of time at that time.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, Karen drives drunk.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
She reverses an suv. She knocks JJ down.
Speaker 14 (37:09):
She leads him to die in the cold, and Reid
knows that she strikes the plaintiff. Rather than seeking to
help or calling nine to one one, she returns to
JJ's home.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
They are JJ's fourteen year old niece, Kaylee, a plaintiff
in this case, is home alone asleep.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
That's when Karen starts plotting.
Speaker 4 (37:34):
Now it is significant for the facts we understand the
context here. Karen Reid knows Kaylee well. She's been in
her life for almost up to two years. She has
served as a part time maternal figure in her life.
She knows that Kaylee is a vulnerable child, having lost
(37:55):
two parents tragically, and one to two hours before JJ's
body is ever found, before anybody knows his whereabouts, Karen
Reid decides to wake up Kaylee in a panic, she.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Tells Kaylee something happened to JJ. He's dead. He's been
hit by a plow. Did I hit him?
Speaker 4 (38:21):
All to a fourteen year old child woken up from
sleepers already lost to parents.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
After provoking this chaos in the middle of the night.
Speaker 4 (38:31):
Ms Reid leaves Kaylee alone, vulnerable, shocked and afraid. It's
now one to two hours later, it's at her around
six am in the morning.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
JJ's injured body is now.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Found right where Karen left him, buried in the snow.
Nine to one one is called now is when JJ's family.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
So at four point thirty in the morning, you know,
a little after four thirty, so when Caylee said she's
awoken by Karen Reid coming into her bedroom, and first
she just shook her, and then and then around four
(39:24):
thirty five, Karen Reid retrieved John O'Keefe's niece's cell phone
from John O'Keefe's bedroom because that's she had so much trust.
They had such a good relationship that when she knew
John O'Keefe wasn't going to be there to make sure
she did it, she had he had a rule that
(39:46):
she put her phone when she was going to bed
in his room to charge so she didn't have her
phone at night, and Karen Reid brings Kelly you know,
the phone to her and starts calling.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
It.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Starts insistent you call other people. She's making your own
phone calls many to Michael.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
Camerons of JJ's injury.
Speaker 4 (40:31):
JJ's injuries at this point enter into the O'Keefe's consciousness
at her around six am.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
They rush to the hospital. It's seven point fifty am.
Speaker 4 (40:44):
That's when the hospital pronounces JJ dead. And within minutes
of being pronounced that that's when the O'Keeffe family sees
their son in the injured state that he was in
as a result of the wrongful conduct. From January twenty
ninth forward, your honor, Karen Reid plots, she fabricates a conspiracy.
(41:09):
She launches a public campaign of disinformation, and she involves
her blogger named turtle Boy.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
She leaks not for public information through him. She pits.
Speaker 2 (41:23):
This is more of the kind of argument I wish
we had in criminal court. I wish her public disinformation
campaign came in and the way that she immediately went
to she didn't go to her home. She snuck into
John O'Keefe's home uninvited and started plotting out how she
(41:46):
was going to get away with her murder.
Speaker 4 (41:50):
Her followers against the O'Keefe family, and all the while,
Karen knows that the O'Keefe family is also vulnerable greeting
another tragedy in their family.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
The o'keefes and.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
Kaylee suffer severe emotional distress. It's more than anguish and
more than grief, and it is not overlapping with the
wrongful death statue. So the first argument that the defendants
made they claim that JJ's parents are precluded from bringing
nied claims because such damages are duplicative of the wrongful
(42:28):
death statue.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
We reject that argument.
Speaker 4 (42:33):
JJ's parents are the next of kin and their emotional
distress claims are not preempted by the wrongful death statue.
Speaker 1 (42:42):
They took their.
Speaker 4 (42:42):
First shot across the bow by making that their primary argument. Presumptively,
they did so because it believed it's their best argument.
But the problem with that argument, as your Honor has
already pointed out, it tackling mistakes Massachusetts law. You have
pointed out well the Semino case, where let me just
(43:03):
point out first to wrongful that statute, it has two
components for damages. It has two buckets of damages. It
has the estates damages. Those all are JJ's damages, his
conscious pain, suffering, your medical bills, things that relate to
his damages. And then we have the second bucket, the
next of kinbucket. Those are lost value damages, the lost
(43:27):
value of JJ being in his next of kin's life.
And in that case, Your Honor, it is just the parents.
Now they suggest that those are overlapping with the nied,
but your Honor was right to point out the Semino case.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
Where a drunk driver kills a nine year old boy.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
The father of that nine year old boy brings a
case against the drunk and the bar for overserving them.
The father brings two separate causes of action, one for
wrongful death, one for ned neglige and infliction of emotional distress.
Speaker 7 (44:02):
The court held in that and I quote argument that
plaintiff's claim for emotional distress is preempted by wrongful death
action misconstrues the.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Common law cause of action for emotional distress.
Speaker 4 (44:17):
Emotional distress, as the concept has evolved in the Commonwealth,
is a severe psychological shock directly resulting from experiencing or
witnessing the effects of the defendant's conduct. A claim for
damages based on emotional distress, the court says, does not
(44:38):
include an administrator's claim for loss of consortium, which will
be present.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
In every wrongful death action such as this.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Since emotional distress is a wrong to plaintiff distinct from
what was done to his son and the statutory beneficiaries
of the descendent, it is not.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
I thought that was ridiculous too. Who Texas Brad is
asking when is Natalie bern Schneider Riwiki, who was the
middle woman between Turtle Boy and Karen Reid going to
be brought in? She was on the witness list for
the prosecution, never brought in. It's like, I don't under
(45:19):
I don't really understand the strategy. I always thought that
the that you can't separate Karen Reid's innocence fraud campaign
from from her from her from her murder of John O'Keefe.
It's like, so to me, it's just consciousness of guilt.
(45:42):
I mean, and he says like she's he lists all
the places in this that she's talked to and she
never I mean, this will go on for twenty plus years.
This is now her new identity, being a victim of
the Massachusetts State police and justice system. And she's gonna,
like Amanda n Ox, gonna promote herself as a victim forever.
(46:08):
It's never going to end.
Speaker 1 (46:10):
A duplicative remedy.
Speaker 4 (46:12):
It is not preempted by the wrongful death statue. And
that's page three thirty four of the Semino case. Your Honor,
Somino still remains good law. You are right to point
that out. That directly contradicts everything that my brothers just
argued here in this court. And I see no reason
why this court should should overturn the good standing law
(46:37):
that exists under the Semino. We asked that your honor
deny emotion to dismiss for that first argument.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
The second argument that they make, Your Honor, is that
the plaintiffs and ied claims are not sufficiently contemporaneous with
the alleged accident, because the family sees JJ seven hours
after the actscident, that the law doesn't right.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
They're not. They're saying because Karen Reid didn't run him
over in front of her family, that they can't for
for emotional distress.
Speaker 1 (47:15):
I mean, it's so ridiculous not endorse such a narrow,
arbitrary interpretation of the law.
Speaker 4 (47:23):
It is misplaced for the defendants to focus arbitrarily on
the time of the accident, because let's.
Speaker 1 (47:30):
Look at the law itself.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
The liability for nied depends on a number of factors, where, when,
and how the injury enters into the consciousness of the plaintiffs.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
Right, I don't know. I mean, I think all these
lawyers know about innocence fraud, but they don't know how
to fight it correctly. So Karen read everything positive about
her innocence fraud campaign was a lot to be brought
into the courtroom. Crowds were essentially just like invited in,
you know, I mean into the jury deliberation room, and
(48:10):
none of her scheming was ever exposed. I mean, how
that jury was picked is another thing I don't understand.
I think Hank Brennan had lots of experience in picking
a defense jury and not a lot of recent experience
(48:32):
picking a jury for the prosecution. I think he picked
a I think he subliminally picked a defense jury. I
mean it couldn't I mean, it could have been more
of the wrong kind of characters. Right, Roberta. So much
was left on the table, right, I'll never understand. I mean,
(48:53):
we never hear all of the truth in a criminal case,
it's just an edited version. But when you're dealing with
innocent fraud campaign that's come into the courtroom, every little
detail matters, Every little detail matters, and it tells the
full story. And what innocent fraud campaigns do so well
(49:18):
is they make them just really broad and vague. I mean,
if anybody tuned into my episode talking about Amanda Knox,
there's a moment in her interview with Gwyneth Paltrow just
went over it, and I really recommend True Crime Podcasts
four part takedown of that interview. There's so much good
(49:39):
information in it. The link is in my posts on YouTube,
you know, my message board kind of thing on YouTube.
The link to that. But what Abandon Knox has asked
about the evidence, like, well, why were you picked? If
this was so unfair? Why did I think you did it? Basically,
(50:02):
what's the evidence against you? Why were you convicted of this?
Essentially twice? And then the court that lets you let
her go said that she was there at the scene
and washed the victim's blood off her hands. Never mind that.
But even without knowing that, And that's when Amanda Knox
(50:22):
gets really vague, like, I don't know, I don't know
why they said I smelled of sex once. That's why, Really, well,
that's kind of hard to put in front of a
bunch of judges. Excuse me, your honor, she smells of sex,
therefore she must be guilty of murder. Now it doesn't work.
(50:45):
So it's gotta, you know, you gotta really bring in
the whole story. And the whole story includes Karen Reid's
cover up. I thought it was going to go well
in the criminal case when Hank Brennan started talking about
to cover up, but he never He would start a
lot of things and not finish them.
Speaker 4 (51:05):
And it also requires the degree of relationship between those plaintiffs.
But I repeat where, when, and how the injury enters
into their consciousness.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
It is misplaced for the defense to suggests that it
matters that.
Speaker 4 (51:22):
Plaintiffs were not at the scene of the accident, because,
as you pointed out, the farader case stands in the
exact opposite, where the plaint different rushes onto the scene
and finds his loved ones injured, has no greater entitlement
to emotional distress for that shock than a plaint differ
rushes to the hospital. So long as the shock follows
(51:48):
closely on the heels of it is misplaced.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
For the defendant, Alan Jackson looked so jet lagged and
just out of it in court, like he's not even listening.
He's like, I've done my job. My job was to
bring all these civil charges against all these Just be
here when they announced all these civil charges that they're
(52:14):
going to file against all these other people, and see
if the judge buys that. I don't have to make
any arguments, and he.
Speaker 4 (52:24):
Doesn't make all to suggest that there is a bright
line test for the number of hours that passes between
the time of an accident and when the injury enters
into the consciousness of the plaintiffs, Your Honor has persuasive
authority from the Zachary case that shows that an NIED
(52:46):
case can survive even when the close family doesn't see
the deceased body or the injured body until a day
later after the wrongdoing.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
There is no bright line test.
Speaker 4 (53:01):
NIED is a fact intensive analysis, and when we apply
the law to the facts of this case, let's look
at where when and how the injury enters into the
consciousness of the people that we're bringing those cases for.
It's twelve thirty AM, and nobody except Karen Reid knows.
Speaker 1 (53:25):
About JJ's injuries.
Speaker 4 (53:27):
Defendants wrongdoing continues into those early hours.
Speaker 1 (53:32):
She knows she struck them, she seeks no medical help.
Speaker 4 (53:36):
Instead, she chooses to cover it up and hides the
injuries from anyone. It's not until six AM that JJ's
injuries are even capable of getting into anyone's consciousness. The
Okay family immediately learns of JJ's injury and they closely
(53:56):
on the hails. They rush to the hospital, at which
time they see the deceased body within minutes of him
being declared dead. It is incredulous to think that a
wrongdoer who hides the wrongdoing and the injury from anybody
can be relieved of liability simply because the injury becomes
(54:22):
knowable only after they disclose it. The defendant cited cases
are inapposite. They have no relationship to what is being
asked of this court. They all involve a motion for
summary judgment standard, which is a very different standard than
the one that we are talking about here today.
Speaker 1 (54:39):
The motion of smiths the lowest hurdle to overcome.
Speaker 4 (54:43):
They try to equate it to a mother who learns
of the rape of her daughter seven months later, but
that rape was known to other people within days.
Speaker 1 (54:54):
They try to relate it to the Migliori case, which
has no relevance because it deals with somebody who no
close the close relationship.
Speaker 4 (55:02):
They didn't even know the decedent, and therefore it doesn't
meet that standard. And then they rely on the Coen case,
which I heard both sides try to suggest has relevance.
But in that case, Your Honor, the mother learns of
her son's that seven.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
Hours after.
Speaker 4 (55:22):
After the death, that seven hours after the injury occurred,
and by the way, it was already knowable seven hours
earlier by other people when that plane crash was projected,
and the son of the woman who brought the claim
knew about her own his brother's death. The mother is
(55:43):
a thousand miles away, so spatial proximity is not there,
and she only learns of it via phone, does not
experience the injury and never sees the body. Contrasts that
with everything that we talked about, Your Honor, where as
soon as it was knowable, they learned about it, they
(56:04):
rushed to the hospital, they saw the body, and they
saw the body within minutes and being declared dead.
Speaker 2 (56:11):
The purpose, right, I mean, they're essentially saying Karen Reid's
defense is essentially saying because Karen Reid hid this all
night and sat on it from when she ranch on
o'keef over a little twelve thirty little after twelve thirty
(56:32):
am that because she said nothing and plotted how to
get away with it, that the O'Keefe family couldn't because
they didn't see her do it, that they couldn't be traumatized.
I mean, this is absurd of the law. I mean
they had to wait to cave for Karen Reid to
notify them, because Karen reidn't notify them at the time.
Speaker 4 (56:56):
Is to distinguish between emotional distress from perceiving an injury
versus the expected anguish that any person would feel from
the death of a loved one.
Speaker 1 (57:08):
I want to talk.
Speaker 4 (57:09):
Briefly about Kaylee and her nieed claim to suggest because
she wasn't at the scene, or because she was not
at the hospital that day and I tried to spare
her of that does not suggest she doesn't have a right.
Speaker 1 (57:24):
In fact, she experiences.
Speaker 4 (57:26):
The trauma, the panic, the chaos of the injury contemporaneous
with Karen Reid waking her up in the middle of the.
Speaker 3 (57:34):
Night and exclaiming that her parental figure, the third that
she has now lost, was dead, hit by a plow
or her suv. Notably, this enters into her consciousness before
anyone other than the wrongdoer knows of the injury, to
(57:55):
the extent that defendant seeks relief because Kaylee did not
see with her own two eyes.
Speaker 4 (58:03):
I refer you also to the cod case, which these
cite for different reasons, but in it, the language talks
about sensory perceptions to suggest that you can't use other
senses in order to perceive and experience the injury or
the injurious event is wrong.
Speaker 1 (58:23):
Otherwise no blind person would have a legal right.
Speaker 4 (58:26):
Under Nied, we have many senses, we use them all
the time, and when it enters into our consciousness it's
hard to.
Speaker 1 (58:34):
Undo of it.
Speaker 4 (58:35):
It is very different, very different from learning that your
close family member has died. That is upsetting, It will
be upset into anybody, But to have experience the event
or the injury and enters into your consciousness. That is
the very reason in the foundation why NIED exists as
(58:57):
a claim.
Speaker 2 (58:59):
So on, let's say, right, because Karen Reid brought all
these people into it to start mixing it up. She didn't,
there was no need. She never called nine one one,
she never called her actual help. It was all getting
other characters involved to absolve, you know, to be able
to point the finger elsewhere later, to create chaos, to
(59:22):
create confusion, to point the finger away from herself. So
she brings Caylee in to help solve this mystery of
John O'Keefe something. The only person that knew that something
terrible had happened to him was Karen Reid. And why
our supporters can't understand that, and why the jury didn't
get that, I mean, I think they just basically nullified it,
(59:46):
felt the public pressure and hated the police and was
just decided to give the big middle finger to the
police and the man by letting Karen Reid walk. But
everybody else who's lived on planet Earth knows that when
(01:00:06):
you're not calling for help and you're not doing logical
things right, it looks very suspect. Do you think something's
happened to your boyfriend? Right, and you're worried he didn't. First,
she never looked for him. When she said she pretended
(01:00:27):
that he was lost, she never really looked for him.
She pretended to look for him, and then she led.
She called up her first person. She wanted to get
with the Cameranos because she knew that they would by
the way they look at the way they testified for her,
they were essentially testifying for the prosecution. Michael Camerono Weekly
(01:00:50):
said that John O'Keefe was angry because Karen Reid was
late coming out because she said she was waiting for
a plumber. She ever got that plumbing and that rusty
pipe fixed, or if she ever did call the plumber,
or if this was just another lie told by Karen
Reid to piss John O'Keefe off and it worked. John
(01:01:13):
o'keef told Michael Cameron Oi, who was pissed off, that
Karen Reid hadn't asked her. So dad's a plumber, him
and his dad to fix her plumbing. But it seems
if you look at the text messages between Karen Reid,
seems pretty apparent that it's Karen one of another one
(01:01:36):
of Karen Reid's tactics to get power and control over John,
get him involved with her, rile him up.
Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
I can we also suggest that you should deny it
because they experiences the injuries closely on the heels of
them being knowable.
Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
I mean, this was never really prosecuted. It really should
have been prosecuted as a DV case if Karen Reid
were a man, and that's exactly how it would be prosecuted.
And these same facts were an evidence that they fought
all day via text message, that they had been fighting,
that she tried to kick this man out of her
(01:02:27):
home and a man ran over his girlfriend and left
her to die in the snow. We'd all be talking
about it like it was a DV case because that's
exactly what the facts the evidence shows. But because it's
a woman can't possibly be abusing a man psychologically. It's unfortunate.
(01:02:56):
I hope this changes and perceivable to anybody third your honor.
Speaker 4 (01:03:03):
The defendants argue that the infliction the intentional slash reckless
infliction of emotional distress claims should fail because there's no
extreme or outrageous conduct directed towards the plaintiffs. But when
if you're holistically the facts demonstrate that miss Read should
have known her extreme and outrageous conduct would be detrimental
(01:03:28):
to these vulnerable plaintiffs.
Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
I mean even, I mean, the thing that's helpful is
that she's been convicted of drunk driving. She was driving drunk.
She should have known by backing up at that speeds
great rate of speeds, that she could have caused his death. Kitties,
thanks so much. I really appreciate your support. They are
(01:03:54):
threatening to recreate the trial circus. Yeah, do we know
the judge's record. We don't. Right, it's in Plymouth County
about an my understanding, about forty five minutes an hour
away from Canton. Tomorrow, I'm going to be speaking with
(01:04:18):
Brendan Caine, who's John o'cue's friend, about this hearing. He
attended this hearing, so I'm not sure. Do you guys
have questions for him? Do you want that to be
a live show? I'm trying to figure out if I
(01:04:39):
should do it live or would you prefer a more
tightened tape show. Let me know, I don't know. Maybe
it's not going to be at the same time. If
it's going to be live, it's to be early in
(01:05:00):
the morning, and I use.
Speaker 4 (01:05:02):
The word vulnerable plaintiffs because it's relevant to our case law,
your honor, it's misplaced to suggest that the conduct needs
to be directed immediately towards those plaintiffs. As long as
she should have known that the emotional distress was a
likely result of her conduct, that's sufficient under the reckless
(01:05:22):
infliction of emotional distress standard. So how do we evaluate
what is extreme and outrageous? It's fact intensive, but the
law does recognize that some critically important factors that need
to be considered when evaluating what is extremely outrageous plaintiff susceptibility,
(01:05:44):
defendants knowledge of that susceptibility, and the relationship between defendant
and plaintiff. Case law all suggests that that gives rise
to extreme and outrageous conduct in evaluating whether defendants conduct.
Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
All right, Okay, I mean some of this is case
law mixed in with some really good singers at Karen
Reid is the judge. Later he calls us a novel
approach at one point, and then he gives a long
speech here about how they should settle and how this
(01:06:23):
could go on for years, that he has one case
that's eighteen years old, and Karen Reid will never settle.
She will let this go on as long as she
can continue to revictimize the Oki family and continue to
gain power through the courts. I mean, she's gone from
(01:06:45):
strength to strength to strength. She sold her rights, her
book rights or movie rights. Most of these lawyers, I
believe are working pro bono. She's not losing any money
on this. Anything that she spends on lawyers, her fans,
her murderer groupies will pick up the tab for so
she doesn't have much to lose. But the idea that
(01:07:08):
they'd settle, I think the Keeps would be happy to settle.
They just want her to take some responsibility. She never
will take any responsibility. She will be playing victim until
the end. This is her new identity, and she will
be trying to cement this idea that she's a victim
into the public consciousness as long as she lives. And
(01:07:31):
this is part of innocence fraud. It's also, as you know,
she told Natalie Bernscheider were Wiki that she'd gotten rid
of all of John O'Keefe's pictures because she could stand
to look at his face. She wants to seemingly erase
John O'Keefe from off of the face of the earth
(01:07:54):
and replace herself as the victim in this case. So
this is a very unusual pre pre trial innocence fraud campaign.
(01:08:18):
Usually I'm talking about campaigns that where person gets convicted
and how somehow they successfully overturned the case fourteen years
and later with either podcasts or you know, faux documentaries
(01:08:39):
or books or just a public campaign or all of
the above. But this is a rare pre trial innocence
fraud campaign, and I think we're going to see a
lot more of them now that this was so successful
and so lucrative. So that is what I have for today.
(01:09:05):
But I just thought the judge is gonna come back
with a ruling on this whether Karen Reid can continue
to sue in this court, and it will be interesting
to see. I will be watching if the judge says no,
and that will be a minor miracle, I think, because
(01:09:28):
what we've seen so far is just judges allowing all
of this really unprecedented nonsense in her case to bring in.
I mean, they weren't allowed to argue third party, but
they basically argued third party anyway. You were allowed to
develop it, but they really argued it anyway. So if
(01:09:54):
the judge allows it, I think it's over for the o'keefes.
I think they should drop their case. That that's they
bring in all these other people, it's over for them.
They cannot win with this. With Karen Reid playing fast
and loose with the rules, and there's fifty million different
people she's suing at the same time that she's also
(01:10:14):
defending herself, it's just going to create too much chaos
and confusion. But it's very much like the way Karen
Reid has done things since the beginning of this case,
since the very I mean, if you don't think that
Karen Reid plotted out how to get away with this
by starting to call people, I mean, Catherine Camerano strangely
(01:10:34):
had a very vague memory on the stand as to
what Karen Reid told her on the phone. She knew
the characters and their weaknesses and what you know. The
Cameranos seem like people that don't want to want to
put their neck out and stand up for their murdered friend.
(01:10:59):
They rather just go with the flow and say as
little as possible and hop off the stand and expose
Karen Reid as the psychopath that she is. I mean,
she knew this. She's a psychopath. She could read these people,
she knew the kind of character she wanted to bring
in to be able to point the finger at. And
(01:11:25):
that's what she did all these I mean, we all
have human frailties and they all can be exaggerated and
exploited as a distraction tool. And that's how this campaign worked.
I mean, there was no need to call Jen McCabe,
there was no need to involve Carrie Roberts or the
Cameranos or Cayley. All she had to do was call
(01:11:50):
nine one one. But what happens if she calls nine
to one one. She's just there alone, no one else
to point the finger at. It's her. It's just Karen Reid.
All right. I have a great night, everybody, Thanks so
much for listening, and I'll see you back here. I
guess tomorrow at ten am, a special live show, different
(01:12:13):
time tomorrow. I don't rarely do it, but I had
to accommodate Brendan Gaines's schedule. So we're going to be
on live talking about this very hearing with Brendan Kane
and what it's like to be on the you know,
to be with the victims facing this kind of massive
innocence fraud campaign. Okay, I hope. I'll see you all
(01:12:36):
there tomorrow at ten am Eastern
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!