Karen Read's New Civil Ruling! Read Breaks Ties Publicly with Aidan "Turtleboy" Kearney!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, just to be sure 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 1 (00:08):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house. Who did it?

Speaker 3 (00:13):
We don't know.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
We don't know.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
We don't know, and it's not for us to know.
Somebody other than Karen.

Speaker 4 (00:20):
Somebody other than Karen is responsible for that, for the
killing of John.

Speaker 5 (00:34):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.

Speaker 6 (00:35):
Glass True Crime report putting the true back in true crime.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
From New York City.

Speaker 5 (00:47):
ROBERTA.

Speaker 6 (00:47):
Glass is now on the record.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Okay, how is everybody? Hello? Dark Side, Hello, she Fly,
Hello Alain, Hello Maestro. He is gram. I just came
on early. We're having people over tonight, so it's going
to be a madhouse in this apartment. So I just

(01:36):
decided to come on early and do my show early.
So whoever is catching it live, I'm sorry, it's everyone.
It's a little rude of me not to announce it earlier,
but sometimes life is just hectic like that. Thank you, Liz.
So yeah right. Not kosher, not kosher, thanks Sonny. Not

(02:00):
the Kosher couple again, someone else, so big Karen read
news let's start off with her civil hearing. I mean,
so much to talk about. Karen Reid civil ruling came down,
so she was putting an emotion to dismiss, which means

(02:23):
like throwout, throw out charges against her, and she got
two no's in a yes, we'll go over it. Pretty
short to the point ruling, So let's bring that up first. Also,
in other news, Karen Reid lights a match last night

(02:47):
as soon as free. Karen Reid was content made nice
with Aiden Turtleboy Carney for the allegations, and you can
listen to the evidence of it on my channel in
the shorts that he taped Karen Reid without her consent

(03:09):
or knowledge. She drops into JFK show last night and
into the she was in the chat and she was saying, yeah,
he taped me and things are over. So she's publicly
making a break with eight internal boy Carney. Is this,

(03:33):
I mean, so many interesting things about what's going on. Also,
I mean, is this just because I mean the rumors,
I mean, they may just be rumors, but the rumors
of some kind of grand jury investigation into Karen Reid
and witness harassment is certainly going wild. Saw Chris Albert

(04:01):
yesterday was leaving the courthouse just as the grand juror,
Jessica Leslie pled guilty and got sentenced. She got sentenced
yesterday to two years of probation and two months of
home confinement. And her attitude Grant Smith Ellis caught her,

(04:32):
her and her mother and their attitude is something to
be behold as the only one in the courthouse was
Grant Smith Ellis reporting on it that I heard, I know,
mainstream media, but giving a play by play of everything
that went on, a real detailed run down, and he

(04:56):
was saying that she gave this tearful speech and I'm
really suspect of these like tearful speech. And her lawyer
said she did it for Karen Reid. She went into
free Karen read That's why she was leaking grand jury information.
So indeed, it does have very much to do with

(05:17):
Karen Reid. And is Karen Reid making this public break
with aid internal boy to keep her followers always one
step ahead right before there's some kind of grand jury
indictment into this. They have her phones, Cosgrove just asked
to get into her phones. Is she does she ever

(05:39):
ear to the ground. That's the question. I don't mean
to look at it in the conspiratory spiritual way, spiritory way,
but odd, right, Just the timing of all this stuff
is just very odd. Like I mean, Aiden Carney has
been public about taping his phone calls for a long time.

(06:02):
She had to know, She had to suspect this is
really what's gonna blow up their relationship. It just seems
like to my eye that she doesn't need him anymore.

(06:22):
She's now inviting JFK. She's discarding him just the same
way she discarded John O'Keefe. At the end, she was
looking for other people while desperately pretending in the text
messages to be hanging on to the relationship. She knew
it was over. She wasn't leaving. She was just gonna
make sure she could leave him the way that she wanted,

(06:43):
that she could hurt him. So Commonwealth Massachusetts, Paul O'Keeffe
and others CC's hospitality. This matter arises out of the
January twenty twenty nine, twenty twenty two death of John

(07:03):
Joseph O'Keefe. The third defendant and moving party, Karen reid
And was previously charged with several crimes in connection with
JJ's death during the pendency of Reed's criminal case. Plaintiffs
Margaret O'Keefe, JJ's mother, John O'Keefe the second, JJ's father,

(07:29):
Paul O'Keefe, JJ's brother and personal representative of JJ's estate,
and Kaylee Furbish, Kaylee JJ's niece, filed this civil lawsuit
asserting claims against Reed for wrongful death, negligent and or
reckless infliction of emotional distress, and negligent, reckless and intentional

(07:49):
infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs also asserted claims for
wrongful death and negligent affliction of emotional distress against hospitality
by a against CC Hospitality. Moreover read made of looks

(08:16):
like there's a page missing here. Moreover read made these statements,
I mean anyway, I'm like made these statements upon waking
up Kaylee at four point thirty, which was plausibly contributed

(08:37):
to the distressing nature of the interaction, even in this
court were to accept resposition that she was merely engaging
in telephone conversations conduct otherwise reasonably made because torturous when
directed at an individual known to be particularly susceptible to
infliction of emotional distress, both at the time of this interaction.

(08:59):
It can be efferred that Read knew Kelley was a
vulnerable minor who previously lost both parents and lived with JJS,
her surrogant parent. Given such status, Kaye would be particularly
vulnerable to distress caused by additional loss of a parental figure. Thus,
based upon Kaylee's vulnerability and susceptibility, Read, at a minimum

(09:21):
knew or should have known that her conduct would cause
Kaylle to suffer emotional distress. This plausibly supports a claim
for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the defendant's motions
to dismiss are denied as to their arguments regarding the
efficiency of Kaylee's claims. This is really good news. Wherefore,

(09:44):
the defendant's motions are allowed as to the negligent infliction
of emotional distress asserted by Kaylee, and denied as to
their claims for reckless and or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
So what does this mean? This means that they cannot

(10:05):
sue The o'keey family cannot sue Karen Reid for negligent
infliction of emotional distress, but she can. They can sue
her for claims for reckless and or intentional infliction of
emotional distress. I would love to talk to a lawyer
about really the difference in those claims and the defendants

(10:29):
motion are denied in all other respects. So, I mean
a lot of no's for Karen Reid. There, this is
a good sign with this judge Daniel O'Shea. I hope
he stays on the case. Right, What does everybody think

(10:50):
of that? Good news, good news for the o'kee family,
Very bad news for Karen Reid. It's all going forward. Yes,
Massachusetts is a two party state. You have to get consent.
You do need consent to tape someone not in New
York City but in New York, but in Massachusetts.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
You do.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
So that is that really good news? Should we all
just like just soak in the good news?

Speaker 1 (11:37):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (11:37):
I hope he stays on it. I don't know, you
just don't know. I know he was especially appointed on
that case. I'm almost there. What do you mean, I'm
almost there? I'm almost there? What did he got? Four

(11:57):
years in two months? Whoa? I wonder what that means. Yeah,
in federal cases, you don't get that time off that
you do in staatecases. That's good news too. Could have
gotten a lot more, but at least the women of
New York will be in Florida and wherever else he

(12:20):
is will be safe for a little bit. Okay, So
Karen Reid last night, let me just show you so
Adan Carney was really riling up the troops after these

(12:42):
these audio clips were released. I'm sure everybody's heard them.
If you haven't, there on the my shorts, go listen
to them. But what it sounds like is two criminals
talking to each other, screaming at each other. Really, and
if you've lived on planet Earth for a little while,

(13:05):
you may think, listening to those tapes, a reasonable person
could conclude that they were up to some very suspicious
behavior in actions just listening to those recordings. A sane
person could conclude, just listening to those little clips, that

(13:25):
these are two criminally inclined people screaming at each other,
worried about getting in trouble with the law. They could
they could conclude that. So right before Karen Reid threw
a match on everything, we had a bus stop live
by Aiden Turtleboy Carney and I thought this was interesting

(13:50):
to listen where he's basically rallying up anyone who had
asked questions about this and wondered about the morality and
just the how Turtle Boy acted, that he would be
loyal to all the people. He's always loyal to the

(14:12):
people who stick by his side. He remembers in times
like this, who's loyal to take a lesson?

Speaker 7 (14:18):
Everybody, have a good morning. Twitter blew up overnight. I
tried not to pay attention to that. You might notice
I really have been on Twitter much. But like I
said on the other night on my show, I never
forget okay, and I will if you've bett with me
for this long, you know, you know there's always more

(14:41):
to every story. That's it, and it will not be tomorrow,
it will not be next week. But eventually the whole story,
you know, is going to be told, and I will
remember JFK and others. I will remember who was not,

(15:01):
who jumped on the bandwagon, and who was so quickly.

Speaker 2 (15:07):
You know, when they say this, the story will be told.
My experience of that is that when people say that, like,
I can't tell you the full story now, but sometime
I will tell you the full story, like it can't
be told now. When you're being when the person is
accused of doing something really sus usually it means forget

(15:31):
about it, and you never do hear the full story.
It's like, just forget about it for now, and you
never do hear that full story? Do you? People have
lived on planet Earth for a little.

Speaker 7 (15:41):
While, quickly ready to accept turtle boy bad. I will
remember that, I will always, and I will remember who
stood by me.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
I will remember that, So it's not turtle boy bad.
It's like a great way to just not answer any
of your critics, just say it's all because they don't
like me. We see this an innocence fraud too. Somehow
everybody in Massachusetts wanted to frame Karen Reid. They didn't
know her, they didn't even know who she was, but

(16:15):
they all wanted to plan evidence, cover things up, and
all pined on Karen Reid. Not some like you know,
ten time reckless driver, not someone you know, not someone
with like some long history of reckless driving, or someone
who's been in and out of the that they were

(16:35):
familiar with. They didn't.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
They didn't.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
They didn't find that tail light. They went to Karen Reid. Strangely,
they knew that Karen Reid would say I hit him,
I hit him, I hit him to all these first responders.
But it's the same thing, like it's just all personal
that they that everyone wants to say turtle Boy bad,
Turtle Boy bad. It's catchy, but it's just a kind

(17:02):
of thought stopping exercise. Don't look further, don't think about
it further, don't ask questions. If you do, you're just
saying turtle Boy bad. You're not being loyal and you're
not sticking by me. This is like some serious cult
leader stuff.

Speaker 7 (17:19):
So you can make your decision now about do I
want to jump on a bandwagon or wait for the
facts to come out, because Turtle Boy has earned our
trust over the years. Turtle Boy always brings receipts and
there's certain things.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
That So I covered two trials of cult leaders. Larry Ray,
who was a cult leader on my alma mater, Sarah
Lawrence's campus. Went to every day of that trial. And
Keith Runari, who I went to all of the hearings
and it was all the defendants and then it was

(17:58):
just they all pled out and was just Thronira and
I went to a good portion of his trial. And
so this is like something right out of Nexium or
the Larry Ray story. Trust me, don't ask questions. I
can't talk about it. This is like what co leaders do.

(18:22):
You're either for they make this, they make it us
versus them. You were there for us or against us.
And this was really successful until last night. And I'll
get into that.

Speaker 7 (18:36):
I'm not gonna say, but I will. It's we'll all
come out and I know everything. So remember that. It
was like on Christmas Eve when I got arrested for that,
well Lindsay Gatani. You know, some people were like, Wow,
what the hell happened? It's got a gooman that what's happening?
She's pregnant, blah blah blah, And I'm in jail and
I couldn't tell my story. And I'm like, even some

(18:58):
of my supporters thought, right, he can't.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
Tell his story. But he can't. He can't even apologize
to the people who he said were lying and show
the receipts. Then they did show the receipts, and then
he said he couldn't talk about it. So neither for
everyone's saying it's Ai. Neither Aiden Carney nor Karen Reid

(19:22):
are saying it's Ai. That would be the first thing.
If it were AI that they'd be saying saying this
is a fake. The only people that are saying that
are Free Karen readers, but not Karen Reid and not
Aiden Turtleboy Carne. They're not saying it. So just a

(19:48):
little interesting piece of news. So here she is last
night I'll spare you in JFK show saying, obviously I
was recorded without my consent or even knowledge. You know,
he really and we haven't seen the entire tape. Apparently

(20:12):
it's a thirty minute tape that Aiden can Carney was
passing around to people. There are content creators, Karen Reid said,
who supposedly support me, who knew I was recorded and
they shared it with other people. These are people who
supposedly supported me. Always the victim, Karen Reid, always the victim.

(20:36):
I asked for honesty and was lied to repeatedly. I mean,
and it was like Karen Reid is the the picture
of honesty. How many times did Karen Reid get caught
and lies I did a turn, I didn't do a turn.

(20:56):
I saw John go into the house, I didn't see
I didn't see John go into the house. Then she
did see John go into the house, I did a
three point turn. I didn't do a three point turn.
I mean, these two are really cut from the same
psychopathic cloth. So for all those people, they just remind

(21:22):
me of scientologists who who want to do independent scientology.
I want to support Karen Reid, but I don't want
to support Turtle Boy. It's all the connected and the
same thing there are. I mean, Karen Reid was really

(21:44):
calling the shots with what Turtle Boy did, telling Turtle
Boy to go up to Jen McCabe and say this
and ask Jen McCabe, you think Karen Reid cann out
smart you. I mean she was. I think we're gonna see.
I mean we saw in the search warrants for so

(22:06):
the restaurants are the search warrants for Aidan Karney, all
the back and forth between them, and also you see
through the intermediary Natalie Bernschneider, we week it and over
that of azillion times. And then here's Karen Reid inviting

(22:26):
JFK to the next hearing. So now they've been anointed
the next the next people, you know in the good
with Karen Reid, the JFK show, come to the next
civil hearing. It shall be aventful. You can say hi
to mom and dad. Yes, you're welcome to the civil proceedings.

(22:47):
And then Nick Rocco says, look like the JFKSE show
just earned a starting spot. No more succe set. So
they've been anointed the new people going you know, the
people going forward, the chosen ones with Karen Reid. So

(23:21):
let's look at a little reporting on this grand juror,
shall we? Moving on to the grand durer.

Speaker 4 (23:35):
Second trial of Karen Reid will spend two years on
supervised release, including two months.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
On house arrest.

Speaker 4 (23:41):
Thirty four year old Jessica Leslie from drake It pleaded
guilty in August to just closing information presented to the
federal grand jury during the second trial. The information leaked
included the names of various witnesses and the substance of
witness testimony, and the sentencing sentencing memorandum final Thursday it
says Leslie will fired from her state job with an
apartment of children and families.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
So yeah, that's what she was also crying about. Thank
you for reminding me of losing your job. But then
you can see Grant Smith Ellis put this up just
he got her mom stopped Grant and started screaming at them,

(24:29):
beeped and started screaming at the reporters and specifically Grant there.
And this is his footage.

Speaker 8 (24:40):
You beat me, you beat me, you beat me, You.

Speaker 1 (24:48):
Gave yourself away.

Speaker 2 (24:55):
Right, you can't get it right, you never do. But
she's interacting with him. I mean, this is how seriously
she took her grand jury leaking. So first she's crying
in front of you know just what twenty minutes forty
minutes before she's weeping in front of the judge. So

(25:19):
she's another actress. She's lost her job over this, and
the her lawyer says, she did this all to the
free Karon Reid. So that's how.

Speaker 7 (25:42):
That's unfair to talk to you.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
You're talking to me right now by yellowing and me
on the road. I'm a smart person than.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
He says, thank you. So that's that. But I mean,
just the maturity and you're just taking your daughter. He's
gotten sentence and you're yelling at press. We would have
talked to you. They weren't talking to any press. But

(26:16):
you never get it right. Nothing specific that he got wrong,
just he never gets it right. Unreal, Right, they're vulgar. Yeah, correct,

(26:36):
you know, we'll see just as she was leaving, Chris
Albert was walking out for something else. I mean, the
rumors are definitely a buzz. I don't know. I'm still skeptical.
Call me crazy, but I'm skeptical that anything's gonna happen
with Karen Reid. I mean, I mean, they're really like

(26:57):
Karen Reid's are really above the law. I don't know
what they found on our phones. But the grand jury
meets on Thursday, So were they meeting? I mean, this
is the question. Are they trying to is the grand
was the grand jury meeting on trying to indict Aiden
Carney and Karen Reid or just Karen Reid? If something else,

(27:19):
I don't know. I doubt it though, I don't know.
I'm so skeptical, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it happens.
I will be surprised. So that is that? Did I
hit everything very quickly? Is that everything I have to
talk about? I think? So let me say hold on

(27:48):
one second, let me look at my Yeah, there's that,
I mean, just so interesting, you know. And then here's

(28:17):
JFK last night saying that just as just as Turtle
Boy said to him, here's JFK repeating exactly what Turtle
Boy told them. Hold on, look sack.

Speaker 1 (28:35):
Thank you.

Speaker 9 (28:35):
Going to jump tell people they do not know the
full story with Aiden, they will talk soon, come to
Straga next time.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
I got you, Karen, nothing but love girl.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
So Karen saying like they won't know the full stories,
and Karen saying exactly what Aiden's saying here. She's threatening
to throw out some full story, not the butler, and
Aiden's threatening to throughout the full story. I think it's
just a deflection to me.

Speaker 7 (29:06):
But love and I could show you the text right now,
but I'm not gunn on because that's my business.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
That's between me and Karen.

Speaker 8 (29:14):
Right.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
They're now close to their queen. They're accused killer queen Karen.
What a world we live in? So yeah, that's all
the really, I mean, all the newsprint, but very good news.
I mean, can we have like a little celebration with

(29:35):
all her lawyers? I mean, does anybody remember her army
of lawyers? Can we have a just a reminder of
what she wanted to hold on? For those that forgot
what Karen Reid brought into the civil hearing, I gotcha.

(29:57):
I'm gonna start talking like JFK, I got YOUA I gotcha.
For those that didn't hear this civil hearing, I gotcha.
Let's see Hold on one second, let me actually pull
up Karen Reid's civil trial here one hot minute. I

(30:18):
just want you to see her army of lawyers. This
is like absurd. I mean they brought she brought seven
lawyers to the I mean she brought seven lawyers to

(30:40):
this thing. So I think a little before here, does
anybody remember this? So there's mom and dad and then
so I get to the part where they just all
announced themselves.

Speaker 5 (31:01):
Good, good afternoon, A good afternoon.

Speaker 10 (31:12):
All before the court is twenty fourty three CB six
ninety two. This is the case of Paul o'keith and
Alia versus C and C Hospitality l C dB A,
c F mccarts Ohia. Cases called for status and VI
rule twelve motions.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
Council.

Speaker 10 (31:26):
Please introduce yourself there right at the beginning of the
plaintiff's council, and if you say the part of your
represent as well, thank you.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Good afternoon, your honor Attorney Mark Dylan on behalf of
the plaintiffs. Good afternoon, your honor, Dan buck On behalf
of the plaintiffs Good Good Afternoon, your own. Damon seles
On behalf of the defendant, Karen read Good after your honor,
Charles Waters for defending Karen read Good Afternoon, your owner.

(31:51):
Alan Jackson'll behalf of.

Speaker 10 (31:52):
This Read Good Afternoon, your owner Aaron Rosenberg also on
behalf of this Read Good, Good Afternoon.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
You're on? Or will you.

Speaker 5 (32:06):
Kareny?

Speaker 2 (32:11):
They're laughing when it gets to them, they're laughing. Is
anyone else interested in listening? A little bit too? I mean,
this is just kind of a hangout, But is anyone
else interested in listening to Mark Dillar's argument on this?
I thought it was really good or it would they

(32:34):
be bored? I don't know. I'd like to hear it.
I'd like to hear it again. But I mean to
just win. Yeah, okay, dark Side says, yes, dark Side
is with me, and everybody else could leave. It will
be just me and dark Side. No one else is interested.
I'd like to hear it. I mean to go up
against that many lawyers and do so well. So it's

(32:58):
not really it's really At this point, so her lawyer
is saying she wants to sue a list as long
as it arm. I'll just give you the you know,
this is really for the free Karen read people. And
he's like, well, you haven't put anything in writing. We
still haven't seen those filings. Has anyone else seen those

(33:20):
filings of Karen Reid suing everyone else? They're like, this
is the kind of novel approach. And here's Mark Dillar.
I think this is where.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
The new cases and throw it as far wide ranging
as they've just announced. And there's no way that we
would not be prejudiced by their strategy in the plaintiffs
underline case.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
Okay, all right, those issues are reserved. I'm certainly not
going to make any ruling on that.

Speaker 11 (33:50):
There's nothing formally before the court, no written motion, no
rule nine A or nine C certificate, none of that stuff.

Speaker 1 (33:57):
So it's not procedurally before the court.

Speaker 11 (33:59):
But certainly appreciate hearing the argument nonetheless that this may
be the future landscape of the case.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
What also brings us.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
You know, what is Karen Reid's IT guy doing here?

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Now?

Speaker 2 (34:15):
He's like an essential part of her legal team. He's
got to come to these hearings. Wasn't he supposed to
be a neutral party. I was always found him very
suss Was he supposed to be a neutral party? What
is he doing at these things?

Speaker 11 (34:36):
When I noticed the the status conference for today at
the defendants and file motions to dismiss. If you're prepared
to go quote on that, let you deal with the
substances of the motions to dismiss. I have read through
your materials, so I get the gist of what the
defendants are raising. Counsel, would you like to see Thank you, honor.

(34:57):
As we've briefed here on the can.

Speaker 2 (35:00):
We just skip past Siegelman and I just want to
get to Diller's part where he talks about the motion
to dismiss.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
I'm assuming all facts are true, indulging every inference in
the plaintiff's favor. Does the plaintiff's complaint plausibly suggest that
plaintiffs are entitled to relief? The answer is yes. This
is a motion to dismiss the lowest standard the bron cause.
Plaintiff's obstacle is a minimal hurdle, a relatively light burden.

(35:35):
So long as the court looks at the allegation holistically,
its relief to the plaintiff is plausible. By the cumulative
effect of all the factual allegations planned, we survive the
motion to dismiss standard, and we move forward to discovery.

Speaker 2 (35:52):
If he's a lawyer, why does he stand up and
say he's representing Karen Reid? All the other lawyers who
were all the lawyers who working on this case stood up.
You have to announce yourself for the record.

Speaker 1 (36:08):
You should in all cases, and in this one. There
are three arguments that my brothers have put forward in
this case. We oppose all three of them as follows.
Number one, the defendants incorrectly state the law by suggesting
that NIED claims are subsumed or preempted by the wrongfulbest statute.

(36:32):
Number two, Your honor, 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 failed to holistically consider the facts allege and the

(36:53):
known vulnerabilities of the plaintiffs when evaluating the defendants extreme
and outrageous conduct and violation of the infliction of emotional
distress standard. I recognize that this court is not new
to this case, and I recognize that most people already
understand the facts, but I think it is important and

(37:16):
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'keith as JJ.
That is what he was affectionately referred to by his
niece and nephew. JJ no longer has a voice. His
life was wrongfully taken on January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two.

(37:41):
He lived a life of service, he was a Boston
Police officer, and his personal life when JJ's older system.

Speaker 2 (37:49):
That's such an important point that these victims don't have
a voice, and Karen Reid has done everything to make
herself the victim and to ghost John o'keeth from this
story and actually make his family, you know, public enemy

(38:09):
number one. I mean, they have a million disparaging nicknames
for Peggy o'keef, Paul O'Keefe, screaming at them in front
of the court. I mean, whatever side of the fence,
if you have any morality at all, you have to
know that's disgusting. I mean, this family has been through it,

(38:37):
talk about trauma, and they were want to talk about
Karen Reid's trauma. They went to see Karen Reid in
their press conference in front of the court after this,
she was so traumatized. She's laughing and joking. The happiest
murderer defendant now she's the happiest civil defendant, civil murder defendant,

(39:00):
wrongful death defendant.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Brother in law tragically passed two months apart from each other,
leaving two young children orphaned. JJ stepped up. He agreed
to parent those children, to raise them as his own,
and to support them. Fast forward to twenty twenty two
year Honor JJ is involved in a relationship with Miss

(39:23):
Reid's been going on for a period of time at
that time, January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, Karen drives drunk,
She reverses her SUV. She knocks JJ down. She leads
him to die in the cold, and Reid knows that
she strikes the plaintiff. Rather than seeking to help or

(39:46):
calling nine to one one, she returns to JJ's home.
They are JJ's fourteen year old niece, Hayley, a plaintiff
in this case, is home alone asleep. That's when Karen
starts plotting. Now it is significant for the facts we
understand the context here. Karen Reid knows Kaylee well. She's

(40:10):
been in her life for almost up to two years.
She has served as a part time maternal figure.

Speaker 2 (40:19):
That's something I don't want to stop this too much,
but that's something that I really wish Hank Brennan had
honed in on, which is her she didn't go to
her own house. She went to John O'Keefe's house and
she started plotting. The other thing that I thought that
he should have brought up. I mean he I think
he brought it up at one hearing and you know,

(40:42):
he brought up all these things like you thought he
was going to go gangbusters, and then you just never
heard about it again. You know.

Speaker 1 (40:53):
His so just.

Speaker 2 (40:59):
You know, I have some issues with that. Brettan just
my big issue that is that he didn't push for
any prison time because he is the voice of John
O'Keefe in the courtroom, and I agree with aiden turtleboy Carney.
I don't think he realizes that I agree with him

(41:19):
that I agree that. I think he was embarrassed and
wanted to get out of that courtroom and just wanted
to be liked. And your job as a lawyer it's
not to be liked. To do the right thing, even
if it's going to get turned down. It's a symbol
symbolic act, even in front of Canoni, who's always going

(41:39):
to go Karen Reid's way. I really think he should
have asked for your prison time, asked for the maximum
when she got convicted of OUI that's my feeling and
other issues. It's not that I don't think he did
a good job on other things, but there are things
that are key in this, like why didn't she call

(42:00):
nine one one? Why did she why did she bring
in Why did she have to call Jen McCabe and
carry Roberts at all? Why did they need to be
involved at all? She only got help for herself. She
never got help for John O'Keefe. She knew right where

(42:20):
he was. She's like, we really have to go back
to the house. I don't have to take my boots
off for this because I know John O'Keefe's not coming back. No,
he's dead. She's telling everyone that morning he's dead. To
bother me about keeping my shoes on in the house.
He's got a rule, no shoes on in the house.

(42:42):
But it's not coming back to bother me about this.
Then she's like, let's get can we get through with
this house search as quickly as possible, because I really
got to take you to the place where he is.
She pretended not to know where he is. I think
Carrie Roberts don't figure that out. I don't know about
Jen McKay that she knew all along where he was.

(43:07):
She's the only one that sees him out the door
in a sea of snow. No one else sees anything,
but Karen Reid can see him like a buffalo in
a prairie. She's got like superhuman eyesight. She runs out,

(43:33):
let me out of the car, kicking the car door.
Let me out, Let me out, Let me out, runs
on him, jumps on him with no fear, and rips
up her shirt in his shirt to warm him up.
Never does any real CPR on him because she's gotta
do her hysterical act called Daddy get Karen recive section

(44:00):
so she doesn't have to talk to the police. But
without Carrie Roberts there, without Jen McCabe there, she would
have no one else to mix into the story. And
I think she's been doing this for her whole life to
get out of responsibility for her actions, mixing other people
into the story that have huge human frailties like we

(44:20):
all do, so she can accentuate them and point to
them in a way from herself. I bet her life
has been one big deflection campaign from her own behavior,
her own psychopathic and abusive behavior.

Speaker 1 (44:41):
In her life. She knows that Kaylee is a vulnerable child,
having lost two parents tragically, and one to two hours
before JJ's body is ever found, before anybody knows his whereabouts,
Aaron Reed decides to wake up Kaylee in a panic.

(45:05):
She tells Kaylee something happened to Jj. He's dead. He's
been hit by a plow. Did I hit him? All
to a fourteen year old child woken up from sleepers
already lost to parents. After provoking miss chaos in the
middle of the night, ms Reid leaves Kaylee alone, vulnerable,

(45:28):
shocked and afraid. It's now one to two hours later,
it's at her around six am in the morning, JJ's
injured body is now found right where Karen left him,
buried in the snow. Nine to one one is called
Now is when JJ's family learns of JJ's injury. JJ's

(45:55):
injuries at this point enter into the O'Keeffe's consciousness at
her around six am. They rush to the hospital. It's
seven point fifty am. That's when the hospital pronounces JJ dead.
And within minutes of being pronounced that, that's when the

(46:16):
Opefe 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. She launches a public campaign of disinformation,

(46:36):
and she involves a blogger named turtle Boy. She leaks
not for public information through him.

Speaker 2 (46:44):
Can we just see that again? That was such a good,
little little little summation of what she did. I would
call it an innocence fraud campaign, but he wants to
call it a propaganda campaign. Go ahead.

Speaker 1 (46:58):
Products January twenty ninth, Forward your honor, Karen Reid plots
she fabricates a conspiracy, She launches a public campaign.

Speaker 2 (47:09):
Of disinformation, fabricates a conspiracy. Conspiracy mindset is very key
in these a lot of these innocent's road campaigns. You
have to believe that something very improbable might happen, that

(47:29):
might have happened based on your imagination, not the evidenceation.

Speaker 1 (47:37):
And she involves a blogger named Turtle Boy. She leaks
not for public information. Through him, she pits her followers
against the Otefe family, and all the while Karen knows
that the O'Keefe family is also vulnerable greeting another tragedy

(47:59):
in their family. The o'keefes and 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

(48:22):
are duplicative of the wrongful death statue. We reject that argument.
JJ's parents are the next of kin and their emotional
distress claims are not preempted by the wrongful death statue.
They took their first shot across the bow by making
that their primary argument. Presumptively, they did so because it

(48:44):
believed it's their best argument. But the problem with that argument,
as your Honor has already pointed out, it packling mistakes
Massachusetts law. You have pointed out the Semino case where
let me point out first to wrongful that statute it
has two components for damages. It has two buckets of damages.

(49:05):
It has the estates damages. Those all are JJ's damages,
his conscious plain and 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 value of JJ being in his next of kin's life.

(49:27):
And in that case, Your Honor, it is just to parents.
Now they suggest that those are overlapping with the nied,
but your Honor was right to point out the Samino case,
where a drunk driver kills a nine year old boy.
The father of that nine year old boy brings a
case against the drunk and the bar for overserving them.

(49:48):
The father brings two separate causes of action, one for
wrongful death, one for nied neglige and infliction of emotional distress.
The court held in and I quote argument that plaintiff's
claim for emotional distress is preempted by wrongful death action
misconstrues the common law cause of action for emotional distress.

(50:13):
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.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
That was such an outrageous argument because Karen Reid hid
her murder of John O'Keefe and plotted for hours and
Kelly didn't. She didn't do it in front of Kelly's eyes.
Kelly couldn't have been traumatized. I mean, there was no need.

(50:56):
She couldn't reach John O'Keeffe. Call nine one one, go
back to the scene alone.

Speaker 5 (51:03):
You didn't want to.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Why didn't you want to go back to the scene.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
She didn't.

Speaker 2 (51:06):
Don't don't want to go back to the scene with
her smashed to Smitherin's tail light, which was seen When
does anybody remember that was seen by the police when
they did the wellness check on Kelly. She didn't want

(51:35):
to go there if she didn't have Jen McCabe, she
didn't have Carrie Roberts. She went back to the scene
and everything, all her behavior that morning was to protect herself.
Wasn't about John O'Keefe. It was all to protect herself
and get out of responsibility. They thought they would run

(52:02):
with this because Kelly didn't witness it. They thought, as
Diller says, they thought that that was their best argument.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
A claim for damages based on emotional distress, the court says,
does not include an administrator's claim for loss of consortium,
which will be present in every wrongful death action such
as this. Since emotional distress is a wrong to plaintiff
distinct from what was done to his son and the

(52:31):
statutory beneficiaries of the descendent, it is not a duplicative remedy.
It is not preempted by the wrongful death statue. And
that's page three thirty four of the Samano case. Your Honor,
Smino still remains good law. You were right to point
that out. That directly contradicts everything that my brothers just

(52:52):
argued here in this court. And I see no reason
why this court should should overturn the good standing law
that exists under the Somino We ask that your honor
deny emotion dismiss for that first argument. The second argument
that they make, Your Honor, is that the plaintiffs ed

(53:14):
claims are not sufficiently contemporaneous with the alleged accident, because
the family sees JJ seven hours after the accident. That
the law does not endorse such a narrow, arbitrary interpretation
of the law. It is misplaced for the defendants to

(53:35):
focus arbitrarily on the time of the accident, because let's
look at the law itself. The liability for nied depends
on number of factors, where, when, and how the injury
enters into the consciousness of the plaintiffs, and it also

(53:58):
requires the degree have relationship between those plaintiffs. But I repeat, where,
when and how the injury enters into their consciousness. It
is misplaced for the defendants to suggest that it matters
that plaintiffs were not at the scene of the accident, because,

(54:18):
as you pointed out, the Tharader case stands in the
exact opposite where the plaint diffu rushes onto the scene
and finds his loved ones injured, has no greater entitlement
to emotional distress for that shock than a plaint difflu
rushes to the hospital so long as the shock follows

(54:40):
closely on the heels of It is misplaced for the
defendants also 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

(55:04):
from the Zachary case that shows that an NIED 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. There is no bright line test. NIED
is a fact intensive analysis, and when we apply the

(55:29):
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.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
I'm sorry, miss Mandy. Thank you so much. It's really
nice to have you on board. You made my day.
Glad you finally saw the light.

Speaker 12 (55:55):
Hi.

Speaker 2 (55:58):
Sorry to keep that up.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
Those cases for It's twelve thirty am and nobody except
Karen Reid knows about JJ's injuries. Defendant's wrongdoing continues into
those early hours. She knows she struck them, she seeks
no medical help. Instead, she chooses to cover it up

(56:25):
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 on the hails. They rush to the hospital,

(56:47):
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 ondoing and the injury
from anybody can be relieved of liability simply because the

(57:08):
injury becomes 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.
The motion to smiths the lowest hurdle to overcome. They

(57:31):
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. They try
to relate it to the Migliori case, which has no
relevance because it deals with somebody who has no close
the close relationship. They didn't even know the decedent, and

(57:52):
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 hours after
after the death, that seven hours after the injury occurred,

(58:15):
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 bought the claim
knew about her own his brother's death. The mother is
a thousand miles away, so spatial proximity is not there,
and she only learns of it via phone, does not

(58:39):
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
rushed to the hospital, they saw the body, and they
saw the body within minutes of and being declared dead.

(58:59):
The purpose of the law 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.
I want to talk briefly about Kaylee and her nieed
claim to suggest because she wasn't at the scene, or

(59:20):
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. In fact, she experiences the trauma,
the panic, the chaos of the injury, contemporaneous with Karen
Reid waking her up in the middle of the night
and exclaiming that her parental figure, the third that she

(59:44):
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 the
extent that defendant seeks relief because Kayley did not see

(01:00:04):
with her own two eyes. I refer you also to
the cod case, which leads site 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.

(01:00:28):
Otherwise no blind person would have a legal right under NIED.
We have many senses, we use them all the time,
and when it enters into our consciousness it's hard to
undo of it. It is very different, very different from
learning that your close family member has died. That is upsetting,

(01:00:49):
It will be upsetting to anybody. But to have experience
the event or the injury and enters into your consciousness,
that is the very reason and the foundation like NIED
exists as a claim. So on the second we also
suggest that you should deny it because they experience the

(01:01:09):
injuries closely on the heels of them being knowable and
perceivable to anybody third, Your honor. 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

(01:01:32):
directed towards the plaintiffs. But when if you holistically, the
facts demonstrate that misread should have known her extreme and
outrageous conduct would be detrimental to these vulnerable plaintiffs. And
I use the word vulnerable plaintiffs because it's relevant to
our case law, Your honor, it's misplaced to suggest that

(01:01:54):
the conduct needs to be directed immediately towards those plaintiffs.
As long as she should have known that the emotional
distress was the likely result of her conduct, that's sufficient
under the reckless infliction of emotional distress standard. So how
do we evaluate what is extreme and outrageous? It's fact intensive,

(01:02:18):
but the law does recognize that some critically important factors
that need to be considered when evaluating what is extreme
and outrageous. Plaintiff susceptibility, defendant's knowledge of that susceptibility and
the relationship between defendant and plaintiff. The case law all
suggests that that gives rise to extreme and outrageous conduct.

(01:02:44):
In evaluating whether defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, the
courts should consider whether individuals at whom conduct is directed
is known to be particularly susceptible to infliction of emotional distress.
Boyle versus Rank, nineteen seventy nine case we cited to

(01:03:06):
your honor. Our case law has recognized susceptibilities to evaluate
extreme and outrageous conduct to be a recent hospitalization in
the Boil case, a cancer patient in the Harrison case,
elderly or frail people in the Bailey case, or children

(01:03:29):
minors based on their age in the Sircona's case. All
that we've cited to your honor, and I'm happy to
give you sites. The law in Roman versus Trustees of
Tuff's College says, as it relates to this, the court
should put as harsh a face on the defendant's actions
as the basic facts would reasonably allow. The relationship of

(01:03:55):
a plaintiff to the defendant and her knowledge of the
sensitivities is an important consideration in determining whether the challenge
conduct satisfies the extreme and outrageous conduct. That's the Russell case.
Let's talk about Kaylee as it relates to the affliction

(01:04:16):
of emotional distress? Should defendants? Should defendant Karen Reid have
known that emotional distress was the lightly result of her conduct?
Was defendant's conduct extreme and outrageous? Those are the questions
that ultimately reposed to a jury. Kaylee was young fourteen
years old. The defendant had a relationship with her, knew

(01:04:39):
she was emotionally fragile, knew she was orphaned at the
age of six, knew that she lost both parents tragically.
The defendant assumed the pseudo parental role with Kaylee for
nearly up to two years. The defendant, Miss Reid, knows
that she knocked JJ down to the middle of the night,

(01:05:01):
she wakes up Kaylee abruptly she talks about JJ being dead,
being struck by a clout, being struck by a vehicle.
Mind you, this is all hours, hours before anybody has
even discovered his body, and she is now actively talking
about him being dead. Then, after creating this chaotic, upsetting

(01:05:28):
situation in this young fragile girl's sightly she leaves her
She leaves her home alone, shocked and frightened. Compound that
by defendant's choice to speak her false narrative publicly, to
use social media, to leak public information through turtle Boy

(01:05:50):
to control that narrative. Why is turtle Boy out there
saying the O'Keefe family period of grief has expired and
they are now fair game? Who leaked the autopsy photos
that got published by Turtle Boy for this vulnerable family

(01:06:10):
to have to be exposed to that they weren't seen before,
To the extent that the defendant argues that this is
not extreme and outrageous. Remember the law, it is the
jury's role to decide whether the defendant's conduct was rude
and clumsy or extreme and outrageous. That comes right from

(01:06:34):
the case law as it relates to the family, your honor.
Should the defendant Karen Reid have known that emotional distress
was the likely result of her conduct? Was defense conduct
extremely rageous? Again, those are the questions posed for a jury. Ultimately,
what the law says, conduct which the actor should have

(01:06:57):
known would result in distress is actionable and the plausibility
standard the motion to the Smith standard, which is where
we're at right now, Your Honor, simply calls for enough
facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of the illegal conduct. Margaret and John have now

(01:07:18):
buried two children. Paul has buried all his siblings. Defendant
always knew this, She has always known their vulnerability, and
that she creates a calculated and malicious campaign of disinformation
designed to hide the truth. In this case, she pits
the O'Keefe family versus the Reed family and a reporter

(01:07:43):
who she asserts editorial control publicly proclaims to read supporters.
The O'Keefe families period of greek has expired, and they
are now fair gain. Discovery will track how much leaked
information to and should have known would result in distress
to the Okie family to the extent that the defendant

(01:08:07):
suggests that this case it's nicely within any other case.
Decide on this issue. Remember, the facts and circumstances here
are exceptional. We wouldn't have these TV cameras or a
full court house if they weren't exceptional. That is why
we are here, Your Honor. It doesn't fit within a
nice box like every one of those cases. They say,

(01:08:28):
the polite case where we talked about false police reports
and harassment. Petitions were not considered towards towards emotional distress
because they were petitioning activity. I want to talk about
that briefly, because what Miss Reid has done is not
petitioning activity. It is not asserting a defense within a courthouse,

(01:08:50):
or having her legal counsel assert that defense, or testifying
at a court hearing. Instead, what Karen Reid is doing
is now petitioning at all. She is waving her Fifth
Amendment privilege. She's speaking anywhere and everywhere that would give
her a friendly audience with editorial control. She's gone on Dateline,

(01:09:13):
Nightline twenty twenty, Fox twenty five, Boston Magazine, Very Fair, WEEI,
Turtle Boy, HBO, max ID, Discovery, etc. There are more.
This is an exceptional case that requires exceptional discovery, that
requires us to decide this matter by a jury, not

(01:09:34):
by emotion. To dismiss phase your honor. It is not
like the Quinn case that they cite, where and there's
an open adultare involved, and so they think that's not
extreme and outrageous, and it's not extremely outrageous like the
It has nothing to do with the employment case where
they fired somebody who had a criminal case pending and

(01:09:58):
they brought them back on and he didn't like the
way that they treated him after he was found not guilty,
which is different, by the way, than innocent. The court
should deny the third of those arguments. They should know
that plaintiffs susceptibility and vulnerability are at issue in this

(01:10:22):
case and the very reason and foundation why it is
extreme and outrageous conduct, and that defendants improper actions would
cause severe emotional distress. Defendant's actions were not rude and clumsy,
they were extreme and outrageous. We ask your honor to.

Speaker 9 (01:10:42):
Allow this case to go forward with discovery, allow us
to explore each and every one of those issues, because
these are real damages for real people who have suffered
long enough.

Speaker 1 (01:10:53):
Thank you, thank you any respond.

Speaker 2 (01:10:57):
Yeah, that was my problem with this approach in the
second trial, certainly, was that somehow Karen Reid was really hysterical.
I think she was acting hysterical. I don't know someone

(01:11:18):
who's really hysterical. It's gonna jump on a body like
that that she knows is deceased. I think she was
doing everything she could to create chaos, inflict a fear
response and the people that she was with and shut

(01:11:39):
down critical thought. I mean, if you have someone scream
your name over and over, I mean, everyone knows what
that'll do to you. So I think this will be
interesting if they keep they keep sticking with Karen Reid

(01:12:02):
doesn't do anything. You know, she's such a plotter and
a planner and maintaining power and control is so key.
And these intentional acts of involving all these other people

(01:12:23):
mixing it all up, and it didn't matter to her.

Speaker 13 (01:12:26):
She was.

Speaker 2 (01:12:31):
Inflicting trauma on a minor who had been through a lot,
who she had acted as a guardian for somewhat, you know,
her very limited capacity, but was part of her life
for two years. I mean, the full story of what

(01:12:54):
went on between Karen and Cally has really not come out,
but we know that Cayley and John had such a
close relationship. They had such trust that even when John's
not there, she's still obeying his rules and putting her
phone in his.

Speaker 1 (01:13:11):
Room to charge.

Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
I mean, and he was texting her. We still don't
know what that text was from the bar that night.
That hasn't been put in the public domain. There's a
lot of stuff that still needs to come out to
tell the full story of what happened that night. I mean,

(01:13:34):
it's not going to change who did it, but it
will give us an idea of some missing some of
them were missing pieces. All right, that is a great job,
Mark Dillar, very good result for us. Almost everything stays

(01:13:55):
in for our side. Oh hey, Dystopian, No, just Karen read.
Everything's ago in her civil case pretty much except one
charge got thrown out. But it's a lot like another charge.

(01:14:16):
I think. I don't know, at least on the surface.
I'll have to do some research, talks to some civil
attorneys I know, to figure out what exactly the differences
and if anyone has the entire judge's decision, let me know.
All right, hit the like button on your way out.

(01:14:39):
Good day. Did he gets four and a half years?
Pretty good for New York with the small things he
was convicted of. I think he should have been convicted
for a lot more of those charges, just my understanding
of the facts of that case. But okay, he's a
major celeb with megabucks, sawid supporters, you know, rubbing baby

(01:15:03):
oil on each other in the front of the courthouse.
Please hit the thumbs up on there on your way out.
UH support the channel. Venmo buy me a coffee. Thank
you Tammy for buying a coffee. I appreciate it. There's
someone else I have to think. I think I'm gonna

(01:15:25):
hit it next time. I will do thank you next time. Patreon,
venmo buy me a coffee. All great ways to support
the channel. I will see you tomorrow at my usual
time six pm Eastern and have a great Friday. Everybody,
Happy weekend.

Speaker 14 (01:15:56):
I hit my boyfriend with my car. It wasn't an accident,
but with Lion lawyers, I'll go far. Lion lawyers and
witness harassment all avoid prison.

Speaker 8 (01:16:16):
It was snowing.

Speaker 15 (01:16:20):
I pushed the pain on now hit him hard now
the legal system my clan insince for campaign to save
my skin.

Speaker 5 (01:16:43):
Making money.

Speaker 8 (01:16:45):
Truth is my second victim.

Speaker 12 (01:16:49):
Carry carry ginger like John you were Mama.

Speaker 8 (01:16:56):
My innocence for a campaign is my biggest d.

Speaker 1 (01:17:19):
M.

Speaker 13 (01:17:26):
I hid my boyfriend with my coat.

Speaker 2 (01:17:34):
It wasn't a.

Speaker 12 (01:17:40):
Both flying lawyers, all go far, Lion lawyers and witness
harassment O the void prison.

Speaker 2 (01:17:52):
It was snowing.

Speaker 13 (01:17:54):
I pushed the pedal down, hit him hard now the
legals system my claim insense.

Speaker 8 (01:18:06):
Frad campaign, Save my Skin making money Truth. It is
my second victim, carried.

Speaker 12 (01:18:18):
Carried ginger like John You word, Mama.

Speaker 13 (01:18:24):
My innocence fraud campaign is my biggest it.

Speaker 12 (01:18:30):
Yeah, I got

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Karen Read's New Civil Ruling! Read Breaks Ties Publicly with Aidan "Turtleboy" Kearney!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

All Episodes

Karen Read's New Civil Ruling! Read Breaks Ties Publicly with Aidan "Turtleboy" Kearney!

Stuff You Should Know