November 14, 2025 • 41 mins
Charlie DeLoach hit a few innocence fraud talking points during his interview in front of law students at Fisher College on Thursday. A conviction wouldn’t get him rich but the blood money from an acquittal might line his pockets. Let’s talk about it!
Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by 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!
Beth, Shelley Safford, 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 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!
Beth, Shelley Safford, 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 (00:04):
We know who did it, Steve, we know, and we
know who spearheaded this cover up.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house. Who did it? We don't know. We
don't know. We don't know, and it's not for us
to know.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Somebody other than Karen.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Somebody other than Karen is responsible for that for the
killing of John.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:35):
Glass True Crime Report, putting the true back in true
crime from New York City. ROBERTA. Glass is now on
the record.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Okay, here we go a special unusual Friday presentation. Hello, Maestro,
thank you for moderating. Hello, ain't no hollo backal, Hello Melanie,
nice to see you. Hello, dark Side, Hello cath Hello,
(01:30):
Ain't no hallo backgirl. Did I get everybody? I think
I got everybody. I think it's just as chickens here today, Gigi.
Did I forget anyone? I didn't mean too if I
forgot anyone? Hello, Hello, Hello, she Fly nine, Hello Larry,
Hello everybody. So I wanted to talk about the Karen
(01:53):
Ree jury foreman coming out and giving a rather longer interview.
So this was done at Fisher College on Thursday, in
front of a bunch of law students. He sat down
and gave his take as to why they acquitted Karen
(02:17):
Reid of all the serious charges in the case. And
I think it's really being misunderstood as to his motivations
and what it's about. Just to I've seen people say,
you know, on our side of the fence, which is
(02:38):
on my side of the fence, which is I feel
Karen Reid is guilty of the murder of John of Keith,
and I think the evidence proves it. I think I
see people on my side saying that this man was stupid,
that he didn't understand the evidence, or that it was
(03:05):
some kind of personal personality the defect on his part
that led him to a sincere belief in Karen Reid's innocence.
And I would say, this is not what this is about.
What you're looking at is you're looking at innocence fraud,
(03:26):
which is a bunch of Really it's a criminal person
or you know, he took an oath to just look
at the evidence, and he betrayed that oath purposely in
order to gratify himself and to get money from this
case he's looking for a book deal. He immediately was
(03:49):
looking for a and got a pr representative. So it's
a willful uprooting of our legal system in order to
get a killer out to further their own ends. So
that's really what innocence fraud is all about, whether to
(04:12):
gain money, to gain power, to further an ideology, to
further an ideology is on the lowest end of it,
but it is part of it sometimes. And this is
fueled by a hatred towards the police that he has,
and just a general anger in general towards our our
legal system, and and an adoption of this kind of
(04:38):
idea that that our legal system is systematically unfair and
that there's uh big injustices that happen in it, that
are that are that aren't corrected, and often, you know,
I think this is just the kind of American myth
that goes around. So this is a flat out innocence fraudster,
(05:03):
who's you know, this guy's a fraud. That's what he
and I think he's What he says is very telling
in this interview, which is that after the first witness,
Timothy Nuttle, he was already planned to quit Karen Reid.
So he's saying, I'm betraying my oath. So when you're
(05:23):
a juror, they tell you not to make up your
mind till you get into the into the jury room.
But he says he made up his mind after the
first witness, so he came in there with an agenda
to free Karen Reid. And they talk a little bit
(05:44):
about how he got picked is very interesting. He sounded
like he wanted to be picked. If you don't want
to be picked for a jury, I think everybody knows that.
The thing you say is I can't be objective. I
can't I think she's guilty. You come in and you say,
I think she's guilty. If he didn't want to be picked,
he said, I didn't want to be picked, and I
played it cool. If you don't want to be picked,
(06:05):
everyone knows how to not be picked for a jury.
Say oh, they're all guilty, you know, I mean, yeah,
they probably did it. They'll throw you out so fast.
So it's not a complicated situation we have going here.
(06:25):
I just, you know, I see things like on X
about bias, and this is not about bias. This is
about a criminal act. So criminals helping other criminals. So
he acted like a criminal, betraying his oath, going against
(06:46):
the law to further himself to get book money and
whatever other money he could get from being a jury
foreman or a juror on this case. And he's continuing
to go through it to pretend like he has something
that's insightful to say about the evidence or the case,
or maybe we have to really listen to him. And
(07:07):
they could have tried this case differently and it would
have changed this guy's mind. Clearly, this guy came on
with an agenda, and I have issues with the way
that they tried this case. I think there would be
better ways that would have been harder for these people
to come out and give any reason why they acquitted
Karen Read. I think that the DV aspects were much
(07:30):
more on the money. I think this is a DV
case than trying it with the Karen Red is so jealous.
And this concentrating on the car data I thought was
a mistake because what we had in court was like
two dueling experts, and we also had a judge who
(07:53):
allowed things to be presented with zero zero to little
evidentiary support, and she allowed it to be a Zoo.
So you know, so many things went in Karen Reid's favor,
but this idea that you know, to concentrate on the
phone data and the reversing and not Karen Reid's own
(08:16):
behavior and own lies and contradictory statements, I think was
own actions was a mistake. So and I think that
if they go this way with the civil trial, Karen
Reid will win again. I think Karen Reid is again
(08:38):
an advantage in the civil trial. And unless the witnesses
become aware that they have been brainwashed too by Karen
Reid's innocence fraud campaign, and that many of them in
the language that they use and the way that they
describe things in protecting things that are private about themselves
(09:01):
that they don't want to expose, that Karen Reid has
knows that Karen Reid will exploit all those things, so
meaning that they're testifying in ways where they don't want
their dirty laundry out and it protects Karen. Karen Reid
already knows all about their dirty laundry and has used
(09:21):
it against them. So you know, why didn't we hear
about Christmas Eve or Karen Reid spending Christmas alone or
you know, the way that it was described this Christmas
Eve by Paul O'Keefe was like, oh, I you know,
(09:45):
I just went up to the Reed family and thank them,
really like really like things were at a breaking point
by that Christmas. And we didn't hear that Karen Reid
spent Christmas alone. And I'll be talking about that, Chris
smiss Karen Reid spent alone in the circumstances around it
in the future episode. But Karen Reid, as a psychopath,
(10:08):
has already really profiled all the witnesses in this case,
so she knows their weaknesses, she knows their strengths, and
has played and has played them all. But they don't
know the way that Karen read text. They haven't yet
figured out how Karen Reid text, how she's a psychopath,
(10:32):
how she's an actress, how she fooled them all, what
a absolutely pathological liar she is, and how she coercively
controlled kept and I and demanded to John to report
(11:01):
to her where he was at all times with a
picture sending pictures to her proving where he was. That's abuse,
and the more honest that the witnesses can get, the
(11:21):
better put it out. There put it all out there
because Karen Reid already already already knows, and she's going
to be propagandizing the public NonStop through the civil trial.
So let's get into the reporting on Charles Deloche, the
(11:44):
innocence fraudster jury foreman. Let's look at some of the
reporting on this. Okay, let me actually, I really wanted
to show you guys this one first hold on a second.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Name.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Been good evening to you.
Speaker 6 (12:11):
Yes, the former or jury foreman says he is currently
working on a book about his life and his experience
on the Read trial. He says he's currently in the
process of shopping that book around.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Right, He's looking for money. So this was I mean,
under the guise of talking to law students. There's nothing
that law students can gain from listening to Charles Deloche
except for knowing that there's innocent fraudsters out there who
are happy to line their pockets with blood money, acquitting killers,
(12:43):
their hip to the fraud, their hip to the fraud.
He knows that he's not going to get a lot
of money. Nobody wants to hear about that. The popular
side of this story is the Karen Read conspiracy angle.
The Karen Read innocence fraud is big bucks, and he
wants he wants, he wants a piece of the blood money.
(13:05):
That's what they could learn. But they're not going to
get inside the juror's minds and learn how to try
cases from this. Instead, the media is going with this like, oh,
we can just have to sincerely listen to this criminal
helping another criminal out. You can really learn a lot
(13:27):
from him and maybe that we could try cases better. No,
that's a joke. It's a joke.
Speaker 6 (13:34):
At this question and answer event at Fisher College, Charlie
Delote says no one was more surprised than he was
when he was chosen to sit on the Karen Read jury.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
You knew a little bit about the case going in,
but you kind of played dumb because you didn't want
to get picked and did that shirt?
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Wait so wait, so he didn't want he knew, so
he was already propagandized by the innocence fraud, but he
pretended he didn't know more about the case. So he
sounds like he wanted to be picked a way not
to be picked also to say I know all all
about the case and I have a strong opinion that
can't be changed. Everybody knows how to get off jury
(14:12):
duty if you don't want to do it. When I
did jury duty, I wanted to. I wanted to have that.
I was happy to do it. I knew what I
wanted to say. I knew what I could say if
I if I, if I wanted to shirk my duties,
I was open to doing it. And like I said,
(14:35):
that was a and I learned a lot from that experience.
First vote was eleven to one guilty. So that'll tell
you about the jury that I sat on. We had
one hold out and she flipped pretty quickly. So it
wasn't uh wasn't something decided over days or it was
just a couple of hours of It was about one
(14:57):
and a half weeks trial. I sat on you, or.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Did that serve the prosecution and defense?
Speaker 1 (15:06):
It backfired on me because I was the first one
pick did.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
Let's describe growing up in Boston public housing during the
eighties and nineties and says he was often stopped and
harassed by police.
Speaker 7 (15:15):
In the height of the Charles stewartcase. It was scary
because it was targeted black men.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
So this is the Charles shortcase is a famous Boston
case of it's really like the Susan Smith's case of Boston.
A guy who killed his pregnant wife for the insurance
money and he ended it all before he could face
(15:48):
criminal punishment.
Speaker 8 (15:50):
But for.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
A couple he said a black man did it, and
they they rounded up. They were looking for a black suspect.
On Charles Stewart's word, this is the eighties, this is
decades ago, but this is he doesn't like the police.
(16:13):
One of the reasons he doesn't like the police is
because it's not like someone was convicted for this case wrongfully.
It didn't go that far. They had one suspect that
they were honing in on but never tried. I mean,
(16:34):
this is why he thinks our justice system is flawed.
First of all, the justice system. There's very little in
life that is perfect, and I would not say our
justice system is perfect. Mistakes happened, but not at the
rate that the Wrongful Conviction movement is selling it anywhere
(16:56):
near that deluxe hold students.
Speaker 6 (16:58):
He found the prosecutions against Red Fishy as soon as
the first witness took the stand, and E. M. T.
Who couldn't remember if John O'Keefe was found with a coda.
Speaker 7 (17:07):
I didn't take one note. I didn't have to after
the first song witness.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
It was a sight after the first witness, so he
didn't take one note. But he didn't think of taking
a note at the first witness. He knew what he
was in there for. He knew the assignment. The assignment
was to free Karen read and get rich, get the
blood money. That's what this is about. It's not complicated.
(17:34):
Does everybody understand this mindset? It's a middle finger to
the O'Keefe family, a middle finger to the police, a
middle finger to our justice system. And I'm going to
get mine. What's to explain here? That's it. That's it.
(17:56):
That's the fraud. I'm going to gain power. I'm going
to gain money because I don't have a I don't
have a moral compass. I don't care about that morals.
What are morals? I'm gonna get rich from this team killer.
(18:23):
That's what it's about. It's not complicated at all.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay, I see where this is going.
Speaker 6 (18:29):
Luke stands by is not guilty, verdics and remains convinced
someone other than Karen Reid killed John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Right, this is this is where it gets very contradictory.
And this is why where you where he really exposes
himself and his his ideology. Okay, so if you believe
that Karen Reid he stands behind the verdict and he
thinks that it was a conspiracy and someone else killed
John o'keef. Okay, if they really believes that, then what
(18:58):
he's gonna say next makes zero sense whatsoever, and.
Speaker 6 (19:04):
Also says the outcome of the trial might have been
different if Reid had only been charged with manslaughter.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
No, No, that doesn't make any sense. If you think
someone else did it, you're saying that you want to
falsely convict her of manslaughter. So he doesn't believe. He
knows Karen Reid did it. He knows she's guilty, He
just doesn't care. And had there been manslaughter, you wouldn't
(19:32):
have convicted her anyway. He was. The mission was to
free Karen Reid, and it didn't matter what happened in
that court. There may have been some things done that
may have made it harder for him to but just
(19:53):
all everything was a perfect storm of the right types
of people in the jury room. Terrible jury pick by
Hank Brennan. The worst.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Would it have been more likely that she would have
been found guilty.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
Yes, yeah, because then she would have not felt like
it was.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Over.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
She could overcome that, and some of the journeys.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
She could overcome it. She can overcome a manslaughter charge.
He's making no sense. That makes no sense whatsoever. He's
saying he wants to falsely convict Karen Read for a
manslaughter charge she didn't do. He wants to take part
in a fraud. And in another kind of what that
(20:43):
means is he knows she's guilty, and he's just it's
just another way to criticize the the prosecution. It wasn't
that way, and he wouldn't have convicted her manslaughter either.
Let's be honest here, what are we talking about?
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Might have been more swayed exact, weren't that?
Speaker 2 (21:06):
You know?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
It was the less of the charge of the murder and.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Souf with the personalities, But they got the stronger personalities
to fold who thought she was guilty. So maybe basically
saying that, with the other personalities, maybe they could have
come to a thing of manslaughter. Definitely not. It never
(21:32):
would have happened. Never would have happened, not with that
crowd out there. Let's take a look at CBS boss
and this is their reporting on it.
Speaker 9 (21:48):
After years of speculation, weeks of testimony in two trials,
he was the one who officially declared Karen Reid not
guilty in the murder of John O'Keefe. The jury, Foremant
is opening up now about reaching a vert.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
He's the one who did it, and he's looking for
some blood, money, payback.
Speaker 9 (22:04):
And the critical piece of evidence that swayed the jury.
Speaker 10 (22:07):
Brandon Truett reports, Speaking to a room full of criminal
justice students, Charlie Delouche made the case that the justice
system is flawed. Sharing is up close and personal experience
with one of the biggest trials in the country.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
What say, is the defendant the right?
Speaker 3 (22:23):
So they're going to spread the innocence fraud talking point
that the justice system is so flawed. The reason it's
so flawed is because of innocence frauds. There's like Charles
Deloche and lying lawyers, lying criminal lawyers like David Yannetti
and Alan Jackson, and a movement that has has perpetrated
(22:44):
frauds on the court over and over again, freeing guilty
killers and making them victims. The America in the consciousness
of the American public and revictimizing victims, family members. That's
the real, the real corruption in our criminal justice system.
(23:08):
I mean, this is the biggest fraud in America bar none,
the wrongful conviction movement, and it is brainwashed. Generations of
young people are not.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Guilty or guilty not guilty.
Speaker 10 (23:23):
Millions watched as the verdicts were read that ultimately freed
Karen Reid, But that unseen voice uttering the jury's decision
belongs to Charlie DeLoach.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
It was intense because before I got to the last
not guilty, the crowd abrupted.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
It was already right.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Judge Canoni made a circus and not unlike O. J. Simpson,
very same kind of weak judges allowed their courtroom to
be a kangaroo court. And that's what you get. You
get you get fraudulent verdicts like this. It was a
(24:03):
fraud upon the court that he took part and I
like it was.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
A basketball stadium outside.
Speaker 10 (24:09):
Speaking to a room of criminal justice students at Fisher
College on Thursday, Deelote says, despite thirty one days of testimony.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Wow, that's like almost it not a packed room? Is it?
Speaker 10 (24:21):
Me? And hundreds of pieces of evidence his mind.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
So they're listening to this set hearing that the criminal
justice system is so racist, so unfair. We're overcharging people
like fair verdicts could happen if we didn't overcharge. I
think anything Karen Rude is undercharged. The more I look
at it, the more I think it's premeditated.
Speaker 10 (24:44):
Was made up early.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
I didn't take one note. I didn't have to.
Speaker 7 (24:47):
After the first witness, it was just like, oh, okay,
I see where this is going.
Speaker 10 (24:54):
Delotes believes there was some kind of cover up. He
takes issue with investigators never entering the Canton home and
thinks overall the testimony was weak except that of John
O'Keeffe's mother.
Speaker 7 (25:05):
She was broken up already trying to even talk about
her daughter who passed right.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
And then I'm going to revictimize her. And I enjoy
revictimizing her as long as it can line my pockets.
I'm going to say, I'm going to talk about John
o'keef's mother because it's going to make me look good,
look like I might be a feeling person, but I'm
really not. I really give him the middle finger to
John O'Keefe's mother, and and I love lining my pockets
(25:33):
with all the blood money I get from this case, and.
Speaker 7 (25:38):
Also her son in law who passed away, and then
seeing her really break down when she's talking about John.
Speaker 10 (25:48):
When the jury was finally free to deliberate, Deloache says
all of them wanted to look at one piece of evidence,
the tail light, and claims Minia. Jurors came to the
conclusion it had been tampered.
Speaker 7 (26:00):
This is way different than the tailight we've seen on
the ARCA report and.
Speaker 3 (26:08):
On the ARCA report, the report that took only the
stuff from the defense. You mean the ARCA witnesses that
communicated via signal. You mean the ARCA witnesses who lied
to the first jury and said that they weren't paid,
that they they had no communication that they were neutral witnesses,
those fraud witnesses. That's that's what you were going by
(26:30):
the ARCA report, the ones who destroyed all their communications
with the with the with the defense in order to
sandbag the prosecution. Wow. Shocker. So I mean, you know,
(26:53):
I think that the best the best analogy given was
Innocent Fraud Watch. I think I reposted it, wrote a
post saying that this is like o J. Simpson juror
(27:24):
of Carrie Bess. It's like it's like her. Let's take
a listen to the OJ Simpson duror to just give
you guys a sense of please get this man on
your showy Melanie. He wouldn't come on my show. They
don't answer really tough questions. These people don't answer tough questions.
(27:45):
You're kidding. I'll try, but I don't think so. They
talk to other fraudsters and other softies. That's been my
experience in the ten years that I've been covering this subject.
I've tried to get so many people with opposite side
opinions on on the other side of innocence fraud, and
(28:05):
I've had zero luck because it's like I said, it's
not it. It's not like you can it's not like
there's any logic behind it. It's just fraud. It's just
organized crime. It's fraud. It's crime. There's no like great
(28:28):
thinking behind it. But here, take a listen. This is
from the fantastic documentary OJ Made An America. Take a
listen to carry Bess and her and why she acquitted O. J.
Simpson Take a listen. Spoiler alert, it didn't have to
do with the evidence.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
That voted to a quot OJ because of Ronnie King. Yes,
you do. How many of you think felt that way?
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Oh did you feel that way?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Yes? Of the OJ Simpson jury were looking They weren't
looking at the evidence. So all you wanted Duror to
do is look at the evidence and make a decision
from the evidence, including all the testimony, etcetera. On both sides.
(29:28):
But this is something else. This is saying I'm mad
about Rodney King, I hate the police. I'm going to
give a middle finger to the justice system and unquit
this killer. Also, strangely, also a high profile trial that
might be good for me to acquit and I might
be able to line my pockets because I have anger
(29:50):
towards the police. I have anger towards the justice system.
And it's not about the evidence. It's it's about getting
away with fraud, you know, committing of fraud.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
That was paid back. M h.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
I think that was payback if Charles Deluge, I think
we're honestly say it's payback, and it's I want to
be paid back too. The added added element they were
mad about what they thought of the Rodney King situation.
(30:32):
They were going to pay back the LAPD by the
same thing by acquitting just like Karen Read another rich,
privileged person. Because also these lawyers make it so easy, right,
(30:58):
these lines criminal lawyers.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
The majority of the world are the majority of Americans
think that we're a group of idiots who didn't get
it right. I think that the jury was made to
be the scapegoat for their faults. It was a mistake
to present firm in the way they did. It was
a mistake to let Darden get up there and be
a part of that case.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Okay, because she didn't like Furman, she says, all the
evidence goes out the window because of Urman's racial bias.
She's going to throw out all the evidence. Okay. I
don't think that's looking at all the evidence, but okay,
And she didn't like Darden, she didn't like the prosecutor.
(31:53):
Those are her reasons. But I guess she's the ten
percent of the jury that's not going for a payback.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
For Rudney Gig that they come correct, that they had
the right attorneys up there putting on the case that
they need to put on, they would have won.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
It wasn't right attorneys. What are the right attorneys. First
you said it's Furman. Do you mean the right police
officers or the right attorneys? Then you said it's Darden.
You didn't like Darden. What about Marsha Clark. So if
Marsha Clark and Darden and they didn't use Mark Furman somehow,
(32:29):
what you're going to erase him from the It didn't
make any difference taking taking Proctor, who I find a
lot less offensive than Mark Verman. But okay, out of
the case and Garrett Reid payback. They messed up. They
(33:01):
messed up, right, So they're never going to take any responsible.
It's just it's just a mindset. It's a criminal mindset.
It's a middle finger to the criminal justice system, a
middle finger to the police. And I don't think that
they did any of those O. J. Simpson yours write
a book, I'm not. I don't remember them writing a book.
(33:24):
I don't know how much they profited. But this profit
is really key in the Karen Read Innocent fraud grift.
There's just a lot of money taking the pro Karen
side and not a lot of money on this side.
I can attest to that. So that is just a
quickie for today. That's what I have for today. I
(33:46):
mean I see things like just before I go, I
see things being expressed.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
On X.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
This is like a good example, this tweet. This is
I think a misunderstanding of what's going on here. Charles
Deloche Karen Read Jerry Foreman from the Second Trial spoke
at a recent event at Fisher College alongside Casey Sherman,
a pr rep and true crime author. So Casey Sherman's
(34:20):
getting in on the grift, Charlie commented, I didn't take
one note to Loach said, I didn't have to after
the first witness an emt. He also went on to
discuss a period in Boston history where black men were targeted, Well,
they weren't targeted by the police, they were targeted by
a killer who wanted to get away with it. He
said it was a black guy, so they look for
(34:42):
a black guy, okay. And his own experiences growing up,
he expressed that he went into the trial already thinking
things were fishy. It is an important reminder that we
all have biases. No, this is not about biases. This
is about crime. Innocent fraud. Crime, a criminal act, a
(35:05):
middle finger to our justice system, a middle finger to
our collective morality, a middle finger to the victims' families
and to all victims families everywhere. Biases can cause us
to think more emotionally. He wasn't thinking emotionally, was not
(35:27):
thinking emotionally. He was thinking very rationally, and he decided
that he'd make more money and get more out of
acquitting Karen Reid personally, get the satisfaction of giving the
middle finger to everyone, justice system, police, victim's family, and
(35:49):
he'd get more money from it. End of story. End
a story when perhaps the situation was surprised to be
thoughtful and analytical. Justice for John the victim depended on
people looking at the hard facts and the case. I
can't disagree with that number of science timelines. And Karen
Read's own behavior is left out of this. The relationship
(36:10):
between the perpetrator and the victim is key left out here.
The family friends of John O'Keefe witnesses an entire community
depended on it, and so they go through these biases,
decisions that harm, anchoring, bias, authority, bias, None of these
things came into play. Wasn't his biases, not at all.
(36:34):
He wasn't blinded by biases. He was blinded by a
need to give the middle finger to the police and
to the justice system and to gain money. And that's
what innocent Throat is about. It's not like they don't
(36:57):
know these people are guilty. He knows Karen's guilty. He
just doesn't care. He'll gain more by acquitting air and
the Innocent Fraud campaign gives him an excuse. So that
is what I have for today. Have a great night
(37:20):
and a great beginning of the weekend. Everybody, I'll see
you tomorrow at six. Back here at six. Please hit
the thumbs up on your way out. Support the channel,
then buy me a coffee. Patreon all very needed ways
to support this channel in excellent ways. Links always in
(37:46):
the description of each and every episode. Have a great night, everybody,
see you tomorrow at six. Boyfriend with my car.
Speaker 11 (38:03):
It wasn't an accident, but with Lion lawyers I'll go far.
Lion Lawyers and witness forrassment.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
All avoid prison. It was some one I pushed the
pain on.
Speaker 11 (38:25):
Now get him hard now the legal.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
System my clonel.
Speaker 11 (38:39):
Insince for a campaign to save my skin.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Making money.
Speaker 11 (38:47):
Truth is my second victim.
Speaker 12 (38:51):
Carry carry gingen like John you were Mama, My innocence
for campaign is my biggest hid it.
Speaker 11 (39:21):
M I hid my boyfriend with my coat. It wasn't as.
Speaker 8 (39:43):
Both flying lawyers all go far lion lawyers and witness
harassment olivoid prison.
Speaker 3 (39:55):
It was snowing. I pushed the pedal down.
Speaker 11 (39:59):
He it am hard now the legal system my claim.
Speaker 12 (40:07):
Inceense Frock campaign, Save my skin.
Speaker 3 (40:14):
Making money truth.
Speaker 12 (40:16):
It is my second victim carry carrying ginger like John
you were, Mama.
Speaker 3 (40:27):
My innocence.
Speaker 8 (40:28):
Frock campaign is my biggest it. Yeah, it was was
(41:01):
puppy why I had
Okay, just to be clear, you didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
We know who did it, Steve, we know, and we
know who spearheaded this cover up.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house. Who did it? We don't know. We
don't know. We don't know, and it's not for us
to know.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Somebody other than Karen.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Somebody other than Karen is responsible for that for the
killing of John.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.
Speaker 5 (00:35):
Glass True Crime Report, putting the true back in true
crime from New York City. ROBERTA. Glass is now on
the record.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Okay, here we go a special unusual Friday presentation. Hello, Maestro,
thank you for moderating. Hello, ain't no hollo backal, Hello Melanie,
nice to see you. Hello, dark Side, Hello cath Hello,
(01:30):
Ain't no hallo backgirl. Did I get everybody? I think
I got everybody. I think it's just as chickens here today, Gigi.
Did I forget anyone? I didn't mean too if I
forgot anyone? Hello, Hello, Hello, she Fly nine, Hello Larry,
Hello everybody. So I wanted to talk about the Karen
(01:53):
Ree jury foreman coming out and giving a rather longer interview.
So this was done at Fisher College on Thursday, in
front of a bunch of law students. He sat down
and gave his take as to why they acquitted Karen
(02:17):
Reid of all the serious charges in the case. And
I think it's really being misunderstood as to his motivations
and what it's about. Just to I've seen people say,
you know, on our side of the fence, which is
(02:38):
on my side of the fence, which is I feel
Karen Reid is guilty of the murder of John of Keith,
and I think the evidence proves it. I think I
see people on my side saying that this man was stupid,
that he didn't understand the evidence, or that it was
(03:05):
some kind of personal personality the defect on his part
that led him to a sincere belief in Karen Reid's innocence.
And I would say, this is not what this is about.
What you're looking at is you're looking at innocence fraud,
(03:26):
which is a bunch of Really it's a criminal person
or you know, he took an oath to just look
at the evidence, and he betrayed that oath purposely in
order to gratify himself and to get money from this
case he's looking for a book deal. He immediately was
(03:49):
looking for a and got a pr representative. So it's
a willful uprooting of our legal system in order to
get a killer out to further their own ends. So
that's really what innocence fraud is all about, whether to
(04:12):
gain money, to gain power, to further an ideology, to
further an ideology is on the lowest end of it,
but it is part of it sometimes. And this is
fueled by a hatred towards the police that he has,
and just a general anger in general towards our our
legal system, and and an adoption of this kind of
(04:38):
idea that that our legal system is systematically unfair and
that there's uh big injustices that happen in it, that
are that are that aren't corrected, and often, you know,
I think this is just the kind of American myth
that goes around. So this is a flat out innocence fraudster,
(05:03):
who's you know, this guy's a fraud. That's what he
and I think he's What he says is very telling
in this interview, which is that after the first witness,
Timothy Nuttle, he was already planned to quit Karen Reid.
So he's saying, I'm betraying my oath. So when you're
(05:23):
a juror, they tell you not to make up your
mind till you get into the into the jury room.
But he says he made up his mind after the
first witness, so he came in there with an agenda
to free Karen Reid. And they talk a little bit
(05:44):
about how he got picked is very interesting. He sounded
like he wanted to be picked. If you don't want
to be picked for a jury, I think everybody knows that.
The thing you say is I can't be objective. I
can't I think she's guilty. You come in and you say,
I think she's guilty. If he didn't want to be picked,
he said, I didn't want to be picked, and I
played it cool. If you don't want to be picked,
(06:05):
everyone knows how to not be picked for a jury.
Say oh, they're all guilty, you know, I mean, yeah,
they probably did it. They'll throw you out so fast.
So it's not a complicated situation we have going here.
(06:25):
I just, you know, I see things like on X
about bias, and this is not about bias. This is
about a criminal act. So criminals helping other criminals. So
he acted like a criminal, betraying his oath, going against
(06:46):
the law to further himself to get book money and
whatever other money he could get from being a jury
foreman or a juror on this case. And he's continuing
to go through it to pretend like he has something
that's insightful to say about the evidence or the case,
or maybe we have to really listen to him. And
(07:07):
they could have tried this case differently and it would
have changed this guy's mind. Clearly, this guy came on
with an agenda, and I have issues with the way
that they tried this case. I think there would be
better ways that would have been harder for these people
to come out and give any reason why they acquitted
Karen Read. I think that the DV aspects were much
(07:30):
more on the money. I think this is a DV
case than trying it with the Karen Red is so jealous.
And this concentrating on the car data I thought was
a mistake because what we had in court was like
two dueling experts, and we also had a judge who
(07:53):
allowed things to be presented with zero zero to little
evidentiary support, and she allowed it to be a Zoo.
So you know, so many things went in Karen Reid's favor,
but this idea that you know, to concentrate on the
phone data and the reversing and not Karen Reid's own
(08:16):
behavior and own lies and contradictory statements, I think was
own actions was a mistake. So and I think that
if they go this way with the civil trial, Karen
Reid will win again. I think Karen Reid is again
(08:38):
an advantage in the civil trial. And unless the witnesses
become aware that they have been brainwashed too by Karen
Reid's innocence fraud campaign, and that many of them in
the language that they use and the way that they
describe things in protecting things that are private about themselves
(09:01):
that they don't want to expose, that Karen Reid has
knows that Karen Reid will exploit all those things, so
meaning that they're testifying in ways where they don't want
their dirty laundry out and it protects Karen. Karen Reid
already knows all about their dirty laundry and has used
(09:21):
it against them. So you know, why didn't we hear
about Christmas Eve or Karen Reid spending Christmas alone or
you know, the way that it was described this Christmas
Eve by Paul O'Keefe was like, oh, I you know,
(09:45):
I just went up to the Reed family and thank them,
really like really like things were at a breaking point
by that Christmas. And we didn't hear that Karen Reid
spent Christmas alone. And I'll be talking about that, Chris
smiss Karen Reid spent alone in the circumstances around it
in the future episode. But Karen Reid, as a psychopath,
(10:08):
has already really profiled all the witnesses in this case,
so she knows their weaknesses, she knows their strengths, and
has played and has played them all. But they don't
know the way that Karen read text. They haven't yet
figured out how Karen Reid text, how she's a psychopath,
(10:32):
how she's an actress, how she fooled them all, what
a absolutely pathological liar she is, and how she coercively
controlled kept and I and demanded to John to report
(11:01):
to her where he was at all times with a
picture sending pictures to her proving where he was. That's abuse,
and the more honest that the witnesses can get, the
(11:21):
better put it out. There put it all out there
because Karen Reid already already already knows, and she's going
to be propagandizing the public NonStop through the civil trial.
So let's get into the reporting on Charles Deloche, the
(11:44):
innocence fraudster jury foreman. Let's look at some of the
reporting on this. Okay, let me actually, I really wanted
to show you guys this one first hold on a second.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Name.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Been good evening to you.
Speaker 6 (12:11):
Yes, the former or jury foreman says he is currently
working on a book about his life and his experience
on the Read trial. He says he's currently in the
process of shopping that book around.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Right, He's looking for money. So this was I mean,
under the guise of talking to law students. There's nothing
that law students can gain from listening to Charles Deloche
except for knowing that there's innocent fraudsters out there who
are happy to line their pockets with blood money, acquitting killers,
(12:43):
their hip to the fraud, their hip to the fraud.
He knows that he's not going to get a lot
of money. Nobody wants to hear about that. The popular
side of this story is the Karen Read conspiracy angle.
The Karen Read innocence fraud is big bucks, and he
wants he wants, he wants a piece of the blood money.
(13:05):
That's what they could learn. But they're not going to
get inside the juror's minds and learn how to try
cases from this. Instead, the media is going with this like, oh,
we can just have to sincerely listen to this criminal
helping another criminal out. You can really learn a lot
(13:27):
from him and maybe that we could try cases better. No,
that's a joke. It's a joke.
Speaker 6 (13:34):
At this question and answer event at Fisher College, Charlie
Delote says no one was more surprised than he was
when he was chosen to sit on the Karen Read jury.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
You knew a little bit about the case going in,
but you kind of played dumb because you didn't want
to get picked and did that shirt?
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Wait so wait, so he didn't want he knew, so
he was already propagandized by the innocence fraud, but he
pretended he didn't know more about the case. So he
sounds like he wanted to be picked a way not
to be picked also to say I know all all
about the case and I have a strong opinion that
can't be changed. Everybody knows how to get off jury
(14:12):
duty if you don't want to do it. When I
did jury duty, I wanted to. I wanted to have that.
I was happy to do it. I knew what I
wanted to say. I knew what I could say if
I if I, if I wanted to shirk my duties,
I was open to doing it. And like I said,
(14:35):
that was a and I learned a lot from that experience.
First vote was eleven to one guilty. So that'll tell
you about the jury that I sat on. We had
one hold out and she flipped pretty quickly. So it
wasn't uh wasn't something decided over days or it was
just a couple of hours of It was about one
(14:57):
and a half weeks trial. I sat on you, or.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Did that serve the prosecution and defense?
Speaker 1 (15:06):
It backfired on me because I was the first one
pick did.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
Let's describe growing up in Boston public housing during the
eighties and nineties and says he was often stopped and
harassed by police.
Speaker 7 (15:15):
In the height of the Charles stewartcase. It was scary
because it was targeted black men.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
So this is the Charles shortcase is a famous Boston
case of it's really like the Susan Smith's case of Boston.
A guy who killed his pregnant wife for the insurance
money and he ended it all before he could face
(15:48):
criminal punishment.
Speaker 8 (15:50):
But for.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
A couple he said a black man did it, and
they they rounded up. They were looking for a black suspect.
On Charles Stewart's word, this is the eighties, this is
decades ago, but this is he doesn't like the police.
(16:13):
One of the reasons he doesn't like the police is
because it's not like someone was convicted for this case wrongfully.
It didn't go that far. They had one suspect that
they were honing in on but never tried. I mean,
(16:34):
this is why he thinks our justice system is flawed.
First of all, the justice system. There's very little in
life that is perfect, and I would not say our
justice system is perfect. Mistakes happened, but not at the
rate that the Wrongful Conviction movement is selling it anywhere
(16:56):
near that deluxe hold students.
Speaker 6 (16:58):
He found the prosecutions against Red Fishy as soon as
the first witness took the stand, and E. M. T.
Who couldn't remember if John O'Keefe was found with a coda.
Speaker 7 (17:07):
I didn't take one note. I didn't have to after
the first song witness.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
It was a sight after the first witness, so he
didn't take one note. But he didn't think of taking
a note at the first witness. He knew what he
was in there for. He knew the assignment. The assignment
was to free Karen read and get rich, get the
blood money. That's what this is about. It's not complicated.
(17:34):
Does everybody understand this mindset? It's a middle finger to
the O'Keefe family, a middle finger to the police, a
middle finger to our justice system. And I'm going to
get mine. What's to explain here? That's it. That's it.
(17:56):
That's the fraud. I'm going to gain power. I'm going
to gain money because I don't have a I don't
have a moral compass. I don't care about that morals.
What are morals? I'm gonna get rich from this team killer.
(18:23):
That's what it's about. It's not complicated at all.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay, I see where this is going.
Speaker 6 (18:29):
Luke stands by is not guilty, verdics and remains convinced
someone other than Karen Reid killed John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Right, this is this is where it gets very contradictory.
And this is why where you where he really exposes
himself and his his ideology. Okay, so if you believe
that Karen Reid he stands behind the verdict and he
thinks that it was a conspiracy and someone else killed
John o'keef. Okay, if they really believes that, then what
(18:58):
he's gonna say next makes zero sense whatsoever, and.
Speaker 6 (19:04):
Also says the outcome of the trial might have been
different if Reid had only been charged with manslaughter.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
No, No, that doesn't make any sense. If you think
someone else did it, you're saying that you want to
falsely convict her of manslaughter. So he doesn't believe. He
knows Karen Reid did it. He knows she's guilty, He
just doesn't care. And had there been manslaughter, you wouldn't
(19:32):
have convicted her anyway. He was. The mission was to
free Karen Reid, and it didn't matter what happened in
that court. There may have been some things done that
may have made it harder for him to but just
(19:53):
all everything was a perfect storm of the right types
of people in the jury room. Terrible jury pick by
Hank Brennan. The worst.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Would it have been more likely that she would have
been found guilty.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
Yes, yeah, because then she would have not felt like
it was.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Over.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
She could overcome that, and some of the journeys.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
She could overcome it. She can overcome a manslaughter charge.
He's making no sense. That makes no sense whatsoever. He's
saying he wants to falsely convict Karen Read for a
manslaughter charge she didn't do. He wants to take part
in a fraud. And in another kind of what that
(20:43):
means is he knows she's guilty, and he's just it's
just another way to criticize the the prosecution. It wasn't
that way, and he wouldn't have convicted her manslaughter either.
Let's be honest here, what are we talking about?
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Might have been more swayed exact, weren't that?
Speaker 2 (21:06):
You know?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
It was the less of the charge of the murder and.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Souf with the personalities, But they got the stronger personalities
to fold who thought she was guilty. So maybe basically
saying that, with the other personalities, maybe they could have
come to a thing of manslaughter. Definitely not. It never
(21:32):
would have happened. Never would have happened, not with that
crowd out there. Let's take a look at CBS boss
and this is their reporting on it.
Speaker 9 (21:48):
After years of speculation, weeks of testimony in two trials,
he was the one who officially declared Karen Reid not
guilty in the murder of John O'Keefe. The jury, Foremant
is opening up now about reaching a vert.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
He's the one who did it, and he's looking for
some blood, money, payback.
Speaker 9 (22:04):
And the critical piece of evidence that swayed the jury.
Speaker 10 (22:07):
Brandon Truett reports, Speaking to a room full of criminal
justice students, Charlie Delouche made the case that the justice
system is flawed. Sharing is up close and personal experience
with one of the biggest trials in the country.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
What say, is the defendant the right?
Speaker 3 (22:23):
So they're going to spread the innocence fraud talking point
that the justice system is so flawed. The reason it's
so flawed is because of innocence frauds. There's like Charles
Deloche and lying lawyers, lying criminal lawyers like David Yannetti
and Alan Jackson, and a movement that has has perpetrated
(22:44):
frauds on the court over and over again, freeing guilty
killers and making them victims. The America in the consciousness
of the American public and revictimizing victims, family members. That's
the real, the real corruption in our criminal justice system.
(23:08):
I mean, this is the biggest fraud in America bar none,
the wrongful conviction movement, and it is brainwashed. Generations of
young people are not.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Guilty or guilty not guilty.
Speaker 10 (23:23):
Millions watched as the verdicts were read that ultimately freed
Karen Reid, But that unseen voice uttering the jury's decision
belongs to Charlie DeLoach.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
It was intense because before I got to the last
not guilty, the crowd abrupted.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
It was already right.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Judge Canoni made a circus and not unlike O. J. Simpson,
very same kind of weak judges allowed their courtroom to
be a kangaroo court. And that's what you get. You
get you get fraudulent verdicts like this. It was a
(24:03):
fraud upon the court that he took part and I
like it was.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
A basketball stadium outside.
Speaker 10 (24:09):
Speaking to a room of criminal justice students at Fisher
College on Thursday, Deelote says, despite thirty one days of testimony.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Wow, that's like almost it not a packed room? Is it?
Speaker 10 (24:21):
Me? And hundreds of pieces of evidence his mind.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
So they're listening to this set hearing that the criminal
justice system is so racist, so unfair. We're overcharging people
like fair verdicts could happen if we didn't overcharge. I
think anything Karen Rude is undercharged. The more I look
at it, the more I think it's premeditated.
Speaker 10 (24:44):
Was made up early.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
I didn't take one note. I didn't have to.
Speaker 7 (24:47):
After the first witness, it was just like, oh, okay,
I see where this is going.
Speaker 10 (24:54):
Delotes believes there was some kind of cover up. He
takes issue with investigators never entering the Canton home and
thinks overall the testimony was weak except that of John
O'Keeffe's mother.
Speaker 7 (25:05):
She was broken up already trying to even talk about
her daughter who passed right.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
And then I'm going to revictimize her. And I enjoy
revictimizing her as long as it can line my pockets.
I'm going to say, I'm going to talk about John
o'keef's mother because it's going to make me look good,
look like I might be a feeling person, but I'm
really not. I really give him the middle finger to
John O'Keefe's mother, and and I love lining my pockets
(25:33):
with all the blood money I get from this case, and.
Speaker 7 (25:38):
Also her son in law who passed away, and then
seeing her really break down when she's talking about John.
Speaker 10 (25:48):
When the jury was finally free to deliberate, Deloache says
all of them wanted to look at one piece of evidence,
the tail light, and claims Minia. Jurors came to the
conclusion it had been tampered.
Speaker 7 (26:00):
This is way different than the tailight we've seen on
the ARCA report and.
Speaker 3 (26:08):
On the ARCA report, the report that took only the
stuff from the defense. You mean the ARCA witnesses that
communicated via signal. You mean the ARCA witnesses who lied
to the first jury and said that they weren't paid,
that they they had no communication that they were neutral witnesses,
those fraud witnesses. That's that's what you were going by
(26:30):
the ARCA report, the ones who destroyed all their communications
with the with the with the defense in order to
sandbag the prosecution. Wow. Shocker. So I mean, you know,
(26:53):
I think that the best the best analogy given was
Innocent Fraud Watch. I think I reposted it, wrote a
post saying that this is like o J. Simpson juror
(27:24):
of Carrie Bess. It's like it's like her. Let's take
a listen to the OJ Simpson duror to just give
you guys a sense of please get this man on
your showy Melanie. He wouldn't come on my show. They
don't answer really tough questions. These people don't answer tough questions.
(27:45):
You're kidding. I'll try, but I don't think so. They
talk to other fraudsters and other softies. That's been my
experience in the ten years that I've been covering this subject.
I've tried to get so many people with opposite side
opinions on on the other side of innocence fraud, and
(28:05):
I've had zero luck because it's like I said, it's
not it. It's not like you can it's not like
there's any logic behind it. It's just fraud. It's just
organized crime. It's fraud. It's crime. There's no like great
(28:28):
thinking behind it. But here, take a listen. This is
from the fantastic documentary OJ Made An America. Take a
listen to carry Bess and her and why she acquitted O. J.
Simpson Take a listen. Spoiler alert, it didn't have to
do with the evidence.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
That voted to a quot OJ because of Ronnie King. Yes,
you do. How many of you think felt that way?
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Oh did you feel that way?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Yes? Of the OJ Simpson jury were looking They weren't
looking at the evidence. So all you wanted Duror to
do is look at the evidence and make a decision
from the evidence, including all the testimony, etcetera. On both sides.
(29:28):
But this is something else. This is saying I'm mad
about Rodney King, I hate the police. I'm going to
give a middle finger to the justice system and unquit
this killer. Also, strangely, also a high profile trial that
might be good for me to acquit and I might
be able to line my pockets because I have anger
(29:50):
towards the police. I have anger towards the justice system.
And it's not about the evidence. It's it's about getting
away with fraud, you know, committing of fraud.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
That was paid back. M h.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
I think that was payback if Charles Deluge, I think
we're honestly say it's payback, and it's I want to
be paid back too. The added added element they were
mad about what they thought of the Rodney King situation.
(30:32):
They were going to pay back the LAPD by the
same thing by acquitting just like Karen Read another rich,
privileged person. Because also these lawyers make it so easy, right,
(30:58):
these lines criminal lawyers.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
The majority of the world are the majority of Americans
think that we're a group of idiots who didn't get
it right. I think that the jury was made to
be the scapegoat for their faults. It was a mistake
to present firm in the way they did. It was
a mistake to let Darden get up there and be
a part of that case.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Okay, because she didn't like Furman, she says, all the
evidence goes out the window because of Urman's racial bias.
She's going to throw out all the evidence. Okay. I
don't think that's looking at all the evidence, but okay,
And she didn't like Darden, she didn't like the prosecutor.
(31:53):
Those are her reasons. But I guess she's the ten
percent of the jury that's not going for a payback.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
For Rudney Gig that they come correct, that they had
the right attorneys up there putting on the case that
they need to put on, they would have won.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
It wasn't right attorneys. What are the right attorneys. First
you said it's Furman. Do you mean the right police
officers or the right attorneys? Then you said it's Darden.
You didn't like Darden. What about Marsha Clark. So if
Marsha Clark and Darden and they didn't use Mark Furman somehow,
(32:29):
what you're going to erase him from the It didn't
make any difference taking taking Proctor, who I find a
lot less offensive than Mark Verman. But okay, out of
the case and Garrett Reid payback. They messed up. They
(33:01):
messed up, right, So they're never going to take any responsible.
It's just it's just a mindset. It's a criminal mindset.
It's a middle finger to the criminal justice system, a
middle finger to the police. And I don't think that
they did any of those O. J. Simpson yours write
a book, I'm not. I don't remember them writing a book.
(33:24):
I don't know how much they profited. But this profit
is really key in the Karen Read Innocent fraud grift.
There's just a lot of money taking the pro Karen
side and not a lot of money on this side.
I can attest to that. So that is just a
quickie for today. That's what I have for today. I
(33:46):
mean I see things like just before I go, I
see things being expressed.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
On X.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
This is like a good example, this tweet. This is
I think a misunderstanding of what's going on here. Charles
Deloche Karen Read Jerry Foreman from the Second Trial spoke
at a recent event at Fisher College alongside Casey Sherman,
a pr rep and true crime author. So Casey Sherman's
(34:20):
getting in on the grift, Charlie commented, I didn't take
one note to Loach said, I didn't have to after
the first witness an emt. He also went on to
discuss a period in Boston history where black men were targeted, Well,
they weren't targeted by the police, they were targeted by
a killer who wanted to get away with it. He
said it was a black guy, so they look for
(34:42):
a black guy, okay. And his own experiences growing up,
he expressed that he went into the trial already thinking
things were fishy. It is an important reminder that we
all have biases. No, this is not about biases. This
is about crime. Innocent fraud. Crime, a criminal act, a
(35:05):
middle finger to our justice system, a middle finger to
our collective morality, a middle finger to the victims' families
and to all victims families everywhere. Biases can cause us
to think more emotionally. He wasn't thinking emotionally, was not
(35:27):
thinking emotionally. He was thinking very rationally, and he decided
that he'd make more money and get more out of
acquitting Karen Reid personally, get the satisfaction of giving the
middle finger to everyone, justice system, police, victim's family, and
(35:49):
he'd get more money from it. End of story. End
a story when perhaps the situation was surprised to be
thoughtful and analytical. Justice for John the victim depended on
people looking at the hard facts and the case. I
can't disagree with that number of science timelines. And Karen
Read's own behavior is left out of this. The relationship
(36:10):
between the perpetrator and the victim is key left out here.
The family friends of John O'Keefe witnesses an entire community
depended on it, and so they go through these biases,
decisions that harm, anchoring, bias, authority, bias, None of these
things came into play. Wasn't his biases, not at all.
(36:34):
He wasn't blinded by biases. He was blinded by a
need to give the middle finger to the police and
to the justice system and to gain money. And that's
what innocent Throat is about. It's not like they don't
(36:57):
know these people are guilty. He knows Karen's guilty. He
just doesn't care. He'll gain more by acquitting air and
the Innocent Fraud campaign gives him an excuse. So that
is what I have for today. Have a great night
(37:20):
and a great beginning of the weekend. Everybody, I'll see
you tomorrow at six. Back here at six. Please hit
the thumbs up on your way out. Support the channel,
then buy me a coffee. Patreon all very needed ways
to support this channel in excellent ways. Links always in
(37:46):
the description of each and every episode. Have a great night, everybody,
see you tomorrow at six. Boyfriend with my car.
Speaker 11 (38:03):
It wasn't an accident, but with Lion lawyers I'll go far.
Lion Lawyers and witness forrassment.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
All avoid prison. It was some one I pushed the
pain on.
Speaker 11 (38:25):
Now get him hard now the legal.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
System my clonel.
Speaker 11 (38:39):
Insince for a campaign to save my skin.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Making money.
Speaker 11 (38:47):
Truth is my second victim.
Speaker 12 (38:51):
Carry carry gingen like John you were Mama, My innocence
for campaign is my biggest hid it.
Speaker 11 (39:21):
M I hid my boyfriend with my coat. It wasn't as.
Speaker 8 (39:43):
Both flying lawyers all go far lion lawyers and witness
harassment olivoid prison.
Speaker 3 (39:55):
It was snowing. I pushed the pedal down.
Speaker 11 (39:59):
He it am hard now the legal system my claim.
Speaker 12 (40:07):
Inceense Frock campaign, Save my skin.
Speaker 3 (40:14):
Making money truth.
Speaker 12 (40:16):
It is my second victim carry carrying ginger like John
you were, Mama.
Speaker 3 (40:27):
My innocence.
Speaker 8 (40:28):
Frock campaign is my biggest it. Yeah, it was was
(41:01):
puppy why I had
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com