Why Karen Read Keeps Winning!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Just to be sure you didn't do it.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
We know who did it, Steve, we know, and we
know who spearheaded this cover up.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
You all know if John was beaten up and attacked
in that house.

Speaker 4 (00:12):
Who did it?

Speaker 1 (00:12):
We don't know. We don't know, We don't know, and
it's not for us to know.

Speaker 4 (00:17):
Somebody other than Karen, somebody other than Karen is responsible
for that, for the killing of John.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.

Speaker 5 (00:35):
Glass True Crime Report putting the true back in true crime.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
From New York City. ROBERTA. Glass is now on the record.

Speaker 4 (01:08):
Hellllo, how is everybody here? We go again? Hello Case ten,
Hello Christina, Hello dark side of the Moon. Hello TFLN.
How is everybody doing? Hello Pepper? Happy Thursday, Saturday? What

(01:29):
the hell? Thursday Saturday? Happy Saturday, everybody. I hope you're
having a good weekend. I wanted to talk about why
Karen Reid and her innocence fraud campaign, how she won
the criminal case, and why I think she continues to
keep winning and going from strength to strength today. And

(01:54):
when I talk about innocence fraud campaigns or innocence fraud,
a lot of people I know my audience think maybe
it's a phrase. Think maybe it's a phrase that I created.
It is not a phrase I created, so innocent fraud.
Where I learned this phrase is back in twenty nineteen

(02:19):
when I interviewed John Collins, who had the Forensic Foundations group.
Let me just share my screen so I can show
you what I'm talking about. He wrote this amazing port
It's like this book called the Crime Lab Report, and
he was he's a forensic expert, and he was looking

(02:42):
at what he called the wrongful conviction of forensic science.
So he felt that the wrongful conviction movement was really
trying to degrade and throw out as they and he's right.
They were, They were and are trying to degrade forensic science.

(03:03):
So I think some things they've gone after are how
do I put this fiber evidence? They've gone after. They'll
go after DNA results if it's you know, if they
can and say it's been corrupted. But I think the
wrongful conviction movement goes after whatever evidence is the strongest evidence.

(03:25):
So's if it's a confession, the wrongful conviction Movement's going
to call it a false confession. If it's an eyewitness testimony,
they're going to go after eyewitness testimony, testimony. Uh, if
it's forensics, they'll go after the forensics. So I don't
think it's a particularly I don't agree with John Collins,
particularly that they that it's just forensic science, that that

(03:49):
the wrongful Conviction movement is trying to make totally null
and void. But anyway, so he had this book, The
Crime Lab Report, back in the day, and then I
interviewed him and you can find it on my channel,
The Wrongful Conviction of Forensic Science. That's my interview with

(04:10):
John Collins, who was the first person I ever heard
use the phrase innocent fraud. But it's not my phrase,
it's not my brand. It's just a very apt description
of these campaigns for killers and other kinds of convicts

(04:31):
and criminals. So they leave out a lot of the evidence.
They will blatantly lie about the evidence. They will lie
by omission, they'll lie directly. And the people that are
really cleaning up on this are the lawyers. Are the

(04:52):
lawyers because not only do they represent these clients to
get them out, meaning they represent these killers and get
them out of prison, but once they get them out
of prison by hook er by crook, mostly by Krook.
They go and sue in our civil courts for multi
million dollar payouts. And that's who's getting really rich from

(05:15):
these from this movement is are the lawyers. And they
all know this is going on. I talked to I
always talk to anytime I interview a lawyer, we always
talk about innocence rod Behind the scenes, they all know
what's going on. It's the biggest grift in America that
no one or very few of us are talking about.

(05:37):
And here we are with Karen Reid case where Karen
Reid started a pre trial innocence fraud campaign and she
poisoned the jury pool and she used our very very
eager to always to help a murder or press to
spin her campaign, and the jury was touched by the

(06:00):
innocence fraud campaign and acquitted her of the most serious charges,
only convicting her of a drunk driving charge, of which
she did. You know, she's doing some piddy time on probation.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
On So.

Speaker 4 (06:20):
Yeah, why I think why these campaigns work so often,
and why Karen Reid's campaign works so often, it's because
there's no pushback, and people are really afraid to push back.
And the only way that you can push back is
by the truth and the unvarnished truth, and in this case,

(06:44):
nobody wants to talk about that this was a DV case.
If it were reversed, if Karen Reid were a man
and she killed a man who killed his girlfriend in
this manner by putting his foot seven four point five
percent down on the gas pedal, meaning like a seventy

(07:04):
four point five percent throttle, meaning almost putting the pedal
all the way down to the metal, all the way
down to the floor, so she was seventy four zero
point five percent down on the gas pedal going in
reverse up to speeds of twenty four miles an hour,

(07:26):
if she were a man in a relationship that was
breaking up, and that the woman was trying to get
rid of this abuse of man who insisted on having
pictures of where of you know, where you know, the

(07:50):
victim in this had to give pictures of where they
were every single time they were away from someone like
Karen Reid. If Karen read were a man, everyone would
get that this a DV case. But because it's a woman,
somehow we're supposed to think that this is just a
case of jealousy and Bella's mom and drunkenness and accident,

(08:13):
and that's just not the truth. Karen Reid doesn't say
it's an accident. Karen Reid says that to think that
this crime wasn't planned as a mistake. She also said
that the plan was to teach John O'Keefe a lesson
at minimum. So you have to push back with the

(08:37):
unvarnished truth, and you have to have the courage to
It will put you out of the out of the
mainstream because our mainstream media is so in love with
this innocence fraud and promotes it. There's not a mainstream
YouTube channel in true crime that has not promoted the

(09:00):
innocence of a guilty murderer once or twice. It's almost
it's almost required to have a popular true crime YouTube channel.
So when you come in, so when people ask me, well,
why are you why don't you why aren't you nicer

(09:22):
to people who agree with you or your allies? Well,
I don't see people who agree with me on this
case as my allies. If you've promoted the innocence, the
dubious innocence of another guilty killer, then you're not my ally.
If you've victimized a victim's family member or members by

(09:44):
supporting the release of a guilty murderer in any in
it in one or more cases, we're not simpatico. I'm
not down with that. I take a very firm anti
murderer stance. I know that that is rare nowadays, but
I do take a very firm no murderer stance, no

(10:08):
revictimizing the family stance. And I get frustrated in this
community with the amount of grifting YouTube lawyers. And if
they were really any good, they'd be in court, they
wouldn't be on YouTube who are happy to grift and
pretend like that we somehow need their expertise. When our

(10:31):
legal sism is set up so that any lay person
can join a jury and help make a decision on
a case. You do not have to be a lawyer
to have an opinion or to understand our legal system.
And thank Heaven's our legal system is set up that way.
So let us look. Last time we were talking about

(10:55):
why I feel that this campaign for the harassed and
smeared witnesses, and they were harassed and smeared by Karen Reid, murderer,
psychopathic murderer, Karen Reid and her lying criminal lawyers, her
flying monkeys and enablers all smeared the witnesses in this

(11:21):
case and organized our witness harassment campaign for the witnesses
in this case to point to help Karen Read get
away with her crime. So there's a campaign going now
that is a kind of kinder, gentler campaign. It doesn't
seem to want to call out Karen Reid. They refer
to Karen Reid as Karen like it's their best friend.

(11:45):
Not psychopathic murderer Karen Reid, not pathological liar Karen Read,
but Karen and her lawyers, not Karen Read under criminal lawyers,
but Karen Read and her lawyers. So they seem to
want to legitimize her and not want to gut her
on any issues of character, even though it's been pretty

(12:09):
obvious here they were supposed to go over. So this
is the same. They're now calling themselves the forensic Room,
so meaning forensic like four and now they're I guess
we're supposed to believe they're forensic experts or there are
four experts who are going to go through the forensics
because they have some kind of expertise in forensics. I

(12:32):
don't know, but here we go. This is how they
started their livestream. Their first live stream they took down
and erased.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
All right, welcome guys, how is everyone? Hi, everybody, I'm
Tooday and with me here is the lovely Julie Carpenter.
I have Harry Lama and my ginny Jams or known

(13:05):
as Jam Jams.

Speaker 4 (13:06):
So last time we saw these four women, Jams on
the upper left and Julie Carpenter on the bottom right.
Julie Carpenter had a picture of David Yanetti behind her,
and Jams had a picture of Karen Reid's lying criminal lawyer,

(13:30):
Alan Jackson behind her. And my point was, why would
you want to legitimize those creep azoids broadster lawyers. So
they seem to have taken that criticism to heart and
have taken that down. That's a plus there, Ams.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
And we have a little bit of housekeeping to do
before we start, and I'm just going to pass it
on to Julie. Maybe you can touch base on this.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
Yep.

Speaker 6 (13:58):
So we had a law tuber who leveled a pretty
serious accusation at us. This person stated that we had
doxed their children, which is so.

Speaker 4 (14:10):
This person spoiler alert, this person is Melanie Little, and
they don't want to call out Melanie Little. They're going
to call her this person. Why why are they protecting
Melanie Little? Call her out? She lied about you doxing
her children? Call her out? What is this person and

(14:31):
that person? And I mean, you're you're really again, you're
you're elevating her. I mean she's mhm. I went over
her legal career, was not impressive as a as a
civil lawyer where she worked, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
Completely false. We have not doxed anyone's child. It's happened.
It's happened to me. My child was doxed.

Speaker 6 (14:59):
It's not something that we can don't I would welcome
from this person. They are supposedly not on Twitter, but
they seem to know everything that's going on on Twitter.
So if you could find a channel to get to
me this proof that you have that your child was doxed.

Speaker 4 (15:15):
She knows there's no proof. There's no proof because she
made it up. She just smeared you that. It's a
horrible feeling to just be smeared. Randomly, call her out,
call her out by name. What are they doing here?

Speaker 6 (15:31):
I would love to publicly denounce it because it's not
something we support, can don't or anything that we would do.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Right. I'm appalled by that person's statement, the blatant statement.
And I have never doxed anyone. I am a proponent
against doxing. I think people deserve their privacy and so
it's a pretty bold assertion to make. So but with

(16:04):
that said, I do want to.

Speaker 7 (16:08):
Yep.

Speaker 4 (16:09):
So it doesn't sound like a bold assertion to make.
It sounds like a lie. That's what it sounds like.
Sounds like a lie in a smear, and one that
she will never be able to back up. So call
it out for what it is. So this is just
really important to just pinpoint exactly, you know, what's going on.

(16:29):
So here's they go through. I'm not going to go
through all of this, but they go through. It's almost
like they're really like they go through the trial again.
So they go through the prosecutions, all the crusts of
the prosecution's case in the second trial, which is the
of course, they went with the tech stream data and

(16:51):
they show how you know, but this all failed in
the second trial. So they go over there tex stream
data and how you can see that John o'keef never
went in the house. You can't get to the garage
from the house, you have to go outside. All that

(17:12):
kind of stuff. They go over at nauseum how many
steps he took at you know, steps he took. But
I think it's more important to go over Karen Reid's behavior.
But and talk about her what a liar she is,
I mean, lie she got caught in, talk about you know,

(17:35):
talk about her abuse of John. Why did she? I mean,
she's asking John o'keef to send her pictures to proved
where he is and who he's with. And that's something
that he did on that his last day alive, was
sending a picture with his dad on the couch to
show Karen read that her dad was on the couch.
And then they play some tapes of Karen Rei talking

(17:59):
about her alcohol consumption. Let's take a like Siculsen.

Speaker 3 (18:05):
The final comb of my alcohol and takes probably about
five or six or four the drinks that they would
rred be at McCarthy's, which is where it was.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Food.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
Most of the alcohol was the leagest black platonic. If
she said, just like all solo water will lose line.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Not that they get into the AMRTI but it.

Speaker 3 (18:28):
Might have to splash a black in it, so John,
I said, John the streets.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
He said, it has no why in it. He said,
just get get shot and mix it yourself. So she would.

Speaker 3 (18:40):
So each drink was being comfed as a double, so
I would get a black atonic and then I before
a shot into it.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
So that would comes too kind. Frankly, it just felt
like a regular kind of cocktail. It was just a
really week or so.

Speaker 3 (18:56):
I asked for a shot, so for my taste, just
a taste of like that's a normal strength of what
a drink should be.

Speaker 4 (19:06):
I mean, how much does this alcohol really come into it? Though?
She was convicted of drunk driving, and she's adding up
her drinks wrong, and the Commonwealth added them up wrong
wrongly too. She had John O'Keeffe had her eleventh drink
he was holding when he was when she reversed into him.

(19:27):
So she had nine drinks and a fire fireball shot
ten drinks and he had her eleventh he was holding,
and she backed into him, clipped him and left him
to die. So I had two.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
Or three that are being counted as four and six,
and I don't know.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
I felt I felt like I was.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
And then there was one trick of the last.

Speaker 1 (20:04):
One that was given to me, which I would have
counted a three, but they're counting this.

Speaker 4 (20:08):
On a six cocktail.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
The guys that were got around shots and they gave
me one that it didn't drink, but I poured it
in my drink. So that's now my fifth and sixth
drinks with the seventh which is a shot that i'll
the men did and I record it, so that would
one of the lass.

Speaker 1 (20:23):
And I'm holding that. I go over the water bowl
and has three.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Drinks in it, a bive of time and two shots,
and which is why John said to me, you're not
leaving that drink here like you haven't touched it and
just poured a bunch of dings. I'll just take it
with you, which was something he always did.

Speaker 6 (20:38):
So then I go.

Speaker 7 (20:39):
Into medfol and I looked at drink down and I.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
Would socialize most of the time, So that would have
been like the sixth, sixth, and seventh drinks the John
orders major the water bowl that I don't drink that
he takes with him, and then there wasn't around shots
that Chris Haller book that I did take, so that
would have been.

Speaker 1 (20:58):
That would have been the night.

Speaker 4 (21:00):
But I do know, no, I agree with you, Barbe,
play a loud laugh track through the back of this
would have been more effective. Great idea, but this, the reverence,
the reverence towards Karen is unreal, you know, because like

(21:22):
I said before, both sides of this case have been
brainwashed by Karen Reid's innocence fraud campaign.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
So nine marginis or take nine shots, depending on how
you count it, and the last two drinks I didn't
touch need that a last.

Speaker 7 (21:51):
I've lot more growing up, like a little block behind
every minutes, okay.

Speaker 8 (21:59):
And the feeling, Yeah, was she really feeling buzzed?

Speaker 4 (22:10):
Though She's like, yeah buzzed. Yeah, I was buzzed. But
nobody said she was so drunk that morning I talked
to when I interviewed Brendan Kine. He talked about going
out with Karen Reid and having your drink all day
into the night and not showing any signs like she's
a pro drinker. We saw her drive very well, I mean,

(22:37):
for what she we know she was wasted, you know, technically,
but it just seems like alcohol doesn't touch the sides
with her. So I mean, I don't know if you
if alcohol you think is a main motivation in this,
I don't think so. I don't see it like that.

(23:00):
Hold on one second, let me take a quick break
and I'll be right back. Don't go anywhere, my check.

Speaker 9 (23:25):
Roberta strides through the static case true crime Gotham, where
the shadows play their place, frauds to fold when a
spotlight beams, fack focus, queen busting, propaganda schemes, glass shadow
lies that goes through the streets, standing for victims, giving
voice that beats and yc post truth sharpest night, Roberta
exposing She's the ANTSI frowd light pardcast warrior that said

(24:00):
than Satan's defense, twisted innocense, claims, breaking pretense, Gotam's truth
seeker cuts clean with the blade facts in the forefront,
No justice gets swayed. Cold facts drip, heavy real talk.
Gun furls, cracking cases open like oysters with pearls, inno
sense gimmicks, crumble the dust in the wind for victims,
Her creed justice till the end, headphones blazing. She drops

(24:34):
heavy artillery now that it has twisted meat, blunt objects, civility.
Roberta god receipts that unraveled, deploy exposing the lies these
frauds to deploy Glass yet his lies that goes through
the streets, standing for victims, giving voistair beats and washy
sin pulse truth Sharpest Knight for Urda exposed it. She's
the anti fraud light.

Speaker 4 (25:24):
Okay, we're back. So in the beginning they talk about
how it's really important to have good sources, and they
hear they recommend some sources for true crime people following
the I guess the Karen Rei Kayser true crime.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
I think it's important to find the right source when
you're watching a trial. One of my pet peeves is
trial attorneys who stream trials and they talk in the
middle of testimony and they'll pause testimony and they'll give
their own opinion to their viewers instead of allowing their
own viewers to internalize the testimony themselves and analyze it.

(26:04):
I think it's a little condescending and arrogant to do.
But I do recommend there are some great attorneys to follow.
I like Matt to Panic.

Speaker 1 (26:15):
I don't know if.

Speaker 4 (26:15):
I'm I would suggest not following any anybody who's a
lawyer who's on YouTube, anybody who's a lawyer's who's working
as a lawyer shouldn't be on YouTube, should have no
desire to, should be so happy practicing law in a
courtroom that they have no desire to comment on our

(26:39):
on our legal system on YouTube. So Matt to Panic
thinks that Karen Read's guilty in this case, so of
course she's going to recommend. But it's not about an
opinion on one case. It's how it's how these grifting

(27:01):
YouTube lawyers exploit these cases. And they they'll in a
dime support an innocence fraud campaign if they think it
can help them.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
He's saying his name right, he's so refreshing and Scott Reisch.
I don't know if I'm saying his last name, but
he does crime talk. I believe he is streaming the
Walsh case right now.

Speaker 4 (27:28):
I think, I mean that case, Brian Walsh case. I
find so boring, so obvious he's guilty. I don't know
what's going to happen in Blue Massachusetts. And no, maybe
they'll but really, I mean, he admits that he he
got rid of his wife's body, but he didn't kill her.

Speaker 2 (27:49):
Come on, really, and he's just unbiased, very very professional
and of.

Speaker 4 (27:57):
Course grifter another grifter Scott.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
First I mentioned last time. Note my objection. She actually is.

Speaker 4 (28:07):
A woman who I mean, I would, I would, I would,
I would go to none of these people. These people
I would say, I mean, for if you want't be entertained,
maybe to entertainment, but not to take seriously, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't advise to take any YouTube lawyer who's on

(28:30):
YouTube seriously. They were any good, they'd be in court.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
It's going to kind of follow the civil trial that's
going on, you know, regarding Karen Reid and all the witnesses.
She has no attachment to either side. She seems to
try really really hard to remain neutral.

Speaker 4 (28:54):
And occasionally I'll have on a lawyer like I did
in this for the civil trial, just to talk about
some civil issues and what are different differences in our
civil case. But I'm not bringing on anyone who's a
professional YouTuber or has a YouTube channel, or any lawyer

(29:16):
with the YouTube with a regular YouTube channel on my show,
No way, forget it.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
She's I find her to be a really good teacher
regarding the legal system, and I think that's a perk
for online attorneys, is they can really be a great
asset of just being educational, helping us.

Speaker 4 (29:40):
What do you need a lawyer for? Really seriously, seriously.
Occasionally maybe they can bring up in legal issued and
think of but for the most part, our legal system
has been meant to understand, is made for lay people
to understand and participate in. So this lawyer worship, let's

(30:03):
get rid of this lawyer worship we have in this community.
Enough of it. I mean, the amount of disturbed lawyers
with disturbed personalities and who are totally missing a moral compass.
Don't get me started, but I just couldn't believe they

(30:27):
were promoting that nonsense. Oh and then they go on, wait,
hold on right, let me see if I can get
to the end of it.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
Viewers instead of allowing their own viewers to eat their
legal system. And I think that's a perk for online attorneys,
is they can really be a great asset of just
being educational, helping us, you know, analyze cases and trials.

Speaker 4 (30:56):
And because the audience just needs to be spoon fed
what to think about the trials at every minute. But
she doesn't want you to be spoon fed as long
as they don't interrupt at the time. But you want
you want lawyers to give their opinions on the cases,
but you don't like it when they give their opinions

(31:17):
on the cases at the time during testimony, but they
can give it after testimony. I'm confused. I don't know
how this works. Do you want their opinion or do
you not want their opinion? Do you want the audience
to develop their opinion independently? Then why are you sending
them to all these lawyers. It seems to me if

(31:39):
you want someone on the Karen Reid case, don't go
to the ROBERTA. Glass Channel anyone, but refer to class
There's here's a whole host of people who will push
other innocence fraud campaigns and won't talk about it. Here's
people won't talk about innocence fraud. You can trust them.
They're good sources.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Without you know, some other attorneys online will be flipping
the camera off. They'll be counting coughs of a you know,
a judge. How many times a judge is coughing and
saying that they're doing it because they're corrupt and they're
trying to send a secret signal to a prosecutor.

Speaker 4 (32:22):
I need This is a common wrongful conviction movement tactic.
This is something that Tuesday is at, who followed Hayman
Lee's case, knows about. They'll make up stuff like coughing
in Morris Code, giving messages and coughing, also anything to
try to show a conspiracy. The conspiracy mindset is key

(32:45):
in innocence fraud. You know, there always always a conspiracy
of some sort that a wrongful conviction quote unquote lol arised.
It's usually my opinion, you know, more than nine times
out of ten a rightful conviction of a very guilty person.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
I mean, there are some some wild statements out there,
so I say stick with some really great Uh.

Speaker 4 (33:14):
So those are other other law tubers, but these are
the good law tubers. There's good law tubers and bad
lack to I say they're all I say they're all
sus I say follow them at your own risk. I
say they're all grifters who care little about you know.
This is Tuesday Gazette who said she's a victim's rights advocate.
What she's basing that on, I'm not sure. I'm not

(33:38):
familiar with her work championing the rights of victims families.
Maybe she can enlighten me, but this is I mean,
I would avoid these people at all costs lawyers.

Speaker 2 (34:01):
There's also the Prosecutor's podcast Alison Bray.

Speaker 4 (34:06):
I do prosecutors podcasts that promoted the release of Timogen Kinsu,
woman beater murderer until they were clowned by another podcast
with the truth on that case clowned them. Now, no

(34:27):
their advocacy, they don't seem to be advocating so much.
But when it was popular and true crime to say
Timogen kin Sue got a bad rap until another podcast
did a whole series on it, completely debunking the innocence
fraud campaign of that guilty murderer. The Prosecutor podcast was

(34:50):
all up trying to get that guilty disturbed, dangerous, very
dangerous man, especially to women. Killer. They were trying to
get a killer released and revictimize another victims family members.

(35:12):
But as long as it's not the o'keefes, it's Oki
dok right, great Tuesday, Okie doke. You love them for
all their work trying to get that killer released. Wasn't
that great? Didn't they do great work Tuesday trying to
release that psychopathic murderer, love to beat women, kill women,

(35:33):
live about his crime, get him out of prison. Bronto.
I give the big middle finger to the prosecutor's podcast. Seriously,
fuck them. I'll never forgive them for that. Ever, they're

(35:54):
not my allies, no matter how many cases I agree
with them on, I'm not going to forgive them for that.
So back to Karen Reid. So then they showed this.
Then they showed this clip.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Hold on and I did not think.

Speaker 10 (36:14):
I just try to get Yeah, how did you.

Speaker 1 (36:20):
Feel after that?

Speaker 11 (36:21):
Maybe try me got my card and feel like die.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
I feel well.

Speaker 3 (36:26):
I wanted to go on an expressway that I wouldn't
have gotten on the expressway.

Speaker 1 (36:32):
At twelve teen on January twenty nine. I mean, it
was quiet. The worlds were very quiet. You can see
it up in the videos. And I was going, you
know what, I what I had? If the parents and
I drive.

Speaker 3 (36:43):
I drive extra slow, so I know why by one of.

Speaker 1 (36:48):
My alerts are aren't astraps. They should be, but I
should should have been driving. But it's amazing how she
laughs about that. I know I was thinking the same thing. Yeah,
mirk on her face like the entire time.

Speaker 11 (37:10):
Entire guys, can you imagine saying, well they counted as six,
I only say it's three. I mean I know, it's
just it's according to what type of.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
Matthew you do, right, I mean, I mean.

Speaker 7 (37:26):
Fault.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
You know, I said John, these are weak and he.

Speaker 5 (37:29):
Said it to them and Chris Albert bought shots, and
it's it's always somebody else's fault.

Speaker 4 (37:38):
That's a good point. Why don't you talk about how
Karen Reid deflects? Talk about Karen Reid's psychopathic personality, talk
about all her lies, her lies and deflection and how
she ropes another. I mean that was like a really
important point, and it just kind of goes. It gets lost.

(38:02):
Go hard against Karen Reid the murderer. These soft and
general campaigns, you lose. You lose with them, call her
behavior out. But you know, you talk about having courage,
but you to have courage, you have to tell the

(38:22):
full truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And
if it makes you an outcast, and if people leave
your show and say you know, you're you know, please
or offend, you got to tell the truth. But we've
never had the real narrative of this case out there.

(38:48):
Maybe I'll show it tomorrow, but there's a in a hearing,
a pre trial hearing. Just looking at today Hank Brennan
says this was a domestic type case. I don't even
know what he means by that. I mean, that's my
that may not be a word for word quote. But
he uses the word domestic, but he doesn't use the

(39:09):
word DV or he doesn't put the second word violence
with it. But that's what he means, but never touches
it again. I mean, you just look at the pattern
of the text messages between Karen Reid and John O'Keeffe.

(39:30):
I mean, you can't miss it. You can't miss it. Guys,
leave me alone. Stop calling Karen enough. John O'Keeffe was
screaming at her, respect my boundaries. No, she just kept

(39:53):
violating it, calling him, calling him, calling him, calling, texting, Textingame, oh, Richie,
the plumber's over, can't come out show he showed me
this rusty part. Don't know what it is. He went
to home depot, be back Manyatta. They're going back and
forth about the plumber for an over an hour. Never
mentioned in two trials. How about Karen Reid telling Brian

(40:18):
Higgins ten cancer surgeries she had for colon cancer, her
fake brain tumor that came about for medication she utilized
that she had her entire colon removed that lie that

(40:40):
she never put a pinky finger on Brian Higgins. I
mean it's not short on it. I mean, you know,
we're not in short and short of material. Karen Reid
lying she saw him walk in the front She didn't
see him walk in the front door. Then she did
see him walking in the front door. Everybody knows who

(41:02):
did it. Now we don't know. Everybody knows. It's so obvious.
Everybody knows. Until we don't know till years later, we
don't know. We don't know who did it. We all know,
I know, we all know. We don't know.

Speaker 6 (41:18):
Yeah, she never takes responsibility for any of it, and
it's yeah.

Speaker 5 (41:22):
Crazy, so yeah so and then the next one is
on there on her complaints.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
Which one is okay, is it the outside clip?

Speaker 5 (41:41):
Oh yeah, okay, No, I think it's the.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
Right.

Speaker 2 (41:49):
I believe the evidence is all out and in part
from Ian Whiffen, Well.

Speaker 1 (41:54):
You're still disputing the this is going on. I think
it's a good point. Though they had no expert.

Speaker 5 (42:10):
I was going to hit to twenty seven for a
second after That's why you probably have got there.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
They didn't dispute any of it.

Speaker 4 (42:18):
Right, guys, what is that?

Speaker 1 (42:20):
What is what?

Speaker 11 (42:21):
We only though it once?

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Right?

Speaker 4 (42:24):
But they had put it in their innocence fraud campaign
so much that that the jury bought it without even
having to really argue it in court. They didn't buy
the prosecution's case. As for the defense, it's uncertain. Everyone's like,

(42:47):
something else happened, not Karen. That was basically the jurors
were like, not Karen for no reason other than you know,
I mean to think that what Judge Canoni, how she
revictimized the O'Keefe family in this no victims family should
have to sit and listen to cheers as their son's

(43:10):
killer gets acquitted, coming in like through crowds of people
allowed to gather while while a jury is deliberating outside
a courthouse. That was shameful. What Judge Cononi, the circus
Judge Canoni allowed with all these murderer group bees outside
the courthouse, I mean, just absolutely shameful. So is so

(43:42):
there they have raised seventy five thousand dollars for five witnesses.
Is there going to be a fundraiser for the o'keefes,
And is seventy five thousand dollars going to cover lawyer
fees for five witnesses. That seems like awfully low. I mean,

(44:03):
this could go on, I mean, the civil trial could
go on for quite some time. No, but they seem
to just want to talk about, you know, tex stream data,
talk about Karen Reid's behavior, gut her on issues of character,

(44:24):
because Karen Reid has won with her character. Nobody knows
these witnesses. They haven't done successful interviews. They've done a
few interviews, but not successful interviews that have really helped them.
Ditto the O'Keefe family. So Karen Reid is the one

(44:46):
that the public has rallied behind.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
What it is, you actually have to have it analyzed
and so that's where the expertise comes in. And in
most experts understood this concept. Richard Green, I don't know
if he didn't understand the concept. I know Ian within
the Celebrate had offered him to get certified and celebright

(45:23):
And as far as I'm.

Speaker 4 (45:24):
Aware, Richard Green knew that he was making a mistake.
He knew that he was testifying to wasn't true, and
he didn't carry one in the money from the defense team.
He's a fraudster, is that hard to figure out. Like

(45:44):
all the fraudster witnesses for Karen Reid, whether it's Arca
who wanted to know other content from the Commonwealth, they
only went in information from the defense team and they
violated their sequestration order and listened to all the other

(46:09):
testimony going on in the first trial via the Federal
office gave them all the information about how everyone was testifying,
and then they got rid of They destroyed all their
emails and their phone messages, their phone text messages because
they were on signal with the killer and her legal team.

(46:31):
How about Marie Russell, who just volunteered herself into the
They're all fraudsters. These people, they don't really believe. Marie
Russell doesn't really believe that's a dog bite. She just
wants to get paid. She just wants to be important.
That's how fraud works. You scratch, I mean ditto Adam Diich.

(46:53):
You know you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I
somehow this killer is going to help me in some way.
Being kind to this killer is going to help me
in some way. Whether I'm a politician who wants to
get elected, whether I'm a lawyer wants to get rich,
whether I'm a lawyer who wants a lot of clicks
on my YouTube channel or whether I'm a creator wants

(47:15):
a lot of clicks on my YouTube channel. Americans cannot
get enough of this. It is crack cocaine to Americans,
innocent fraud. They can't get enough. Or that was.

Speaker 2 (47:32):
Declined by Richard Green. But yeah, yeah, So what they
did is they did a new software update where it
was not doing last tab open timestamp polls. Right, So
that's what happened. That's that's the technology behind it. So

(47:56):
you can ignore it, or you can be open minded
and really try and wrap your mind around why the
you know, world renowned companies Celebright is correct.

Speaker 11 (48:15):
And Richard again, this did not just happen. Oh I'm sorry, Julie.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
You can don't go ahead, No, go ahead.

Speaker 11 (48:22):
This wasn't just a problem in this case like that
clip was.

Speaker 4 (48:27):
Well, I don't believe Celbright because their world renowned. It's
just that you had two good experts testify consistently and
there's no expert debunking it. So I mean, even if
Celbright didn't have a good reputation, you just you know,
we don't want to go into like appeals to authority
here because certainly you could say ARCA. You know, on

(48:48):
the other side, they said they think Arca the sun
rises and sets with the fraudster ARCA witnesses who perjured themselves,
by the way, testifying that they weren't going to get
getting paid. They lied to the first jury. And Karen
Reid supporters are sure that that that that they proved
that John O'Keeffe wasn't hit by a car. I mean,

(49:13):
expert witnesses dominic John used to call him horrors of
the court.

Speaker 11 (49:22):
Is there right where he talks about the other Yes, yes, yeah, Hi,
this issue was happening in other areas of the world.
He was getting these calls.

Speaker 4 (49:35):
So.

Speaker 11 (49:38):
They're not They did not delete or change the program
for Karen Reid. I mean, come on, guys, yeah, for
Jen McCabe. Sorry, they did not change that for It's
a billion dollar company. Do you know what they would
be putting at stake if they changed that program for

(50:00):
one court case because they were trying to get a
certain outcome, They're putting the entire company on the line.

Speaker 4 (50:10):
Well, they did change the way that it was read
because it was falsely read. It was read wrongly so
they didn't want that mistake to happen again. So in
some ways they did change the way it was read
so it couldn't be misread and those mistakes couldn't happen,
or those fraudulent claims couldn't be made for a defense

(50:33):
team again. So in some ways it was I mean
it's partially true that they changed the way they cleared
it up. I mean I don't think change is the
right way. They cleared it up so that they couldn't
go so defence teams couldn't go with that fraudster defense

(50:54):
of an open browser, meaning it's the same as the
time search, and I really know.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
How powerful the mcalberts are, right.

Speaker 6 (51:07):
I think a lot of it came from the way
the field was labeled last time viewed, and that's why
a lot of people thought that it was the last
time he viewed the search. Richard Green did that with
the clocks too, do you remember in trial one, Yeah,
trying to talk about the monitonic clock. And he did
a beautiful job as well during his testimony explaining the

(51:30):
clocks in the phone and that you have to actually
do an offset, right, so you have to do calculation,
so Richard Green. You know, I don't know if it's
if he's an EPT, if he's just not a not
a good data analysis.

Speaker 4 (51:48):
He's a fraudster. He's exactly the kind of fraudster witness
that Karen Reid looks for and guilty killers look for
to represent them.

Speaker 6 (51:57):
Analyst, or if it was on purpose, I really don't no,
because he did with two twenty seven what he did
with the clocks too, remember, because they wanted him to
be to arrive earlier. Yeah, and that was you know,
we found out in trial too when Ian explained it.
This was a person who was misinterpreting with data once again,

(52:17):
and that was data that had come out of that
Axiom report as well.

Speaker 11 (52:24):
And that's another point too. Celebrate is not the only
one that changed their program to make this clearer, to
make that tab, you know, so it wouldn't be so confusing.
Everyone has and I think so.

Speaker 4 (52:36):
Now you're admitting they did change their program, You're right,
you know, it's a better way to put it clearer, clearer,
they cleared it up. But you see how innocent fraend
campaigns take advantage of and make a conspiracy out of
something like that. So you have to be really careful
about what language you use. I mean, I wouldn't say

(53:00):
change that. I think you got the right idea, like,
you know, clarified the language so big mistakes couldn't happen again.

Speaker 6 (53:08):
Experts just are paid, they're paid advocates. And it is
interesting that he just disappeared, you know. I mean if
what he was weird somable, then why wasn't he in
trial too? I mean if someone should ask Karen that
where did where did your where'd your boy Richie go?

Speaker 4 (53:29):
Not?

Speaker 1 (53:29):
I didn't ask the other one, she said, Ian with answered.

Speaker 6 (53:33):
Yeah, yeah she I you're right, she said that son
a few more things.

Speaker 4 (53:45):
Of course you're not talking about Richie the plumber, coming
about micro dots. So yeah, this is I just I
really want them to succeed. Just come at this hard,
Come at and read hard. Stop pussy footing around the issue.
Stop calling her Karen like she's your best friend, and

(54:08):
call her the murdering, psychopathic, pathological liar that she is.
Come on, women, stop pulling punches. You know they have
a so on their website. Let me see if I
can show you this. They have a video, and I'm

(54:28):
not sure I can show it just because of the
So it has a lot of music on it, but
so it starts out saying the only thing that's necessary
for the triumph of evil, of evil is for good
men to do nothing right, no pushback. And when you
push back, you have to push back hard on these

(54:49):
innocents fraud campaigns and call them out, lay them bare,
call them out for the fraud that they are and
for the evil. I mean this, this is the most
to me. I don't know what is more evil and
taking a guilty killer and turning them into a victim
and a hero while ghosting the real victims family altogether,

(55:11):
and not only just ghosting them, but vilifying them. And
this has been done in I mean so many campaigns
that Jody Jones's murderer. They don't respect the victim's grave,
they don't respect the victim's family. They've accused the victim's
family of doing of killing their own. Did a West

(55:34):
Memphis three Amandon Knox. Theyed to just say one person
did it alone, which no court agrees with at all
and totally negates the decision that let Amanda Knox go,
she was there at the scene of the crime, and
that she washed the victim's blood off her hands. What

(55:54):
an exonerating decision that let Amandon Knox go. So what
are you gonna do? So they talk about courage, how
courage is the most important thing, But you need real
courage to call this thing out for what it is.

(56:18):
It's a fraud, it's a con. And it's not just
unhinged team criminal people. There's always going to be the
team criminal people, the people that love to see criminals
get over, that hate the police, that will join these
innocence fraud campaigns and then fact go from one innocence
fraud campaign to the next. But it's also a very

(56:43):
special kind of innocence fraud campaign that can convince good
people and fair minded people and brainwash them. And I
think people have been brainwashed. The witnesses in this case
seem to have been brainwashed by care innocent fraud campaign.
Talking about how she was so hysterical that morning. Now

(57:06):
she was acting hysterical, that she was frantic because she
didn't know where John was. No, she knew right where
John was. She didn't want to go back. She humored
Carrie Roberts to search John O'Keeffe's house for him. She
never looked for him. When do you look, not look

(57:27):
for something that you've lost? She knew he wasn't there.
She took them right to thirty four Fairview. No one
saw John o'keeff in the snow, but strangely, Karen Reid
had this belief that morning. Not that John O'Keeffe was
asleep on someone's couch or just slept over during the

(57:47):
nor'easter at someone's house and didn't get a ride home. No,
Karen Reid on Karen Read that only Karen Reid knew
that something terrible happened to John O'Keeffe. She was sure
he was dead. Is Karen Read a psychic? Or is
it more likely that she knows because she's the killer.
I say the latter, but I miss when you know.

(58:15):
Let's talk about how it's not none of that. What
she said that morning was maybe he got hit by
a plow. When he strangely got hit by another six
thousand pound vehicle, Karen Reads, clipped by it and left
to die in the snow. Karen Reid knows exactly how
he was injured, and she strangely knows he's dead before

(58:41):
anyone else. Come on, what are we talking about here?
I mean you can talk I mean, you know, you
can talk about car stream data, but I say, talk
about Karen Reid's behavior. It's just not logical to assume,

(59:02):
to be to assume something something, something so terrible had happened,
and so close to what happened. How could she be
so right on the money about what happened to John O'Keefe.
So that's what I have for today, guys, just a
little just checking in. I really do want the witnesses

(59:29):
to do well in court. I hope they get their
testimony together and look at some inconsistencies in their testimony
from trial one to trial two, pull it all together
and reflect on the language that they're using when they're
testifying regarding Karen Read. But the time for to treat

(59:59):
Karen Read murderer like a hero is over. Move away
from it. Dittoh you know. So when I said, just
to clarify, just before I go, just to clarify. So
when I talked about the witnesses putting out their text messages,

(01:00:23):
and I said, this is where you have to be
really careful with what you're say. What I said is
put them all out there. I meant all the text
messages in regards in relation to Karen Reid that aren't
in the public domain. I think would be really helpful
for the witnesses to put them all out in the
public domain, and anything that they're hiding, put it out
in the public domain, because Karen Reid will be counting
on using anything that they're hiding or embarrassed about. Put

(01:00:47):
it all out in the public domain, because Karen Reid
already knows and will exploit it. But I think that
if they put their text messages and phone calls out
in relation to Karen Reid, she will have less places
to go as far as trying to prove a criminal

(01:01:09):
conspiracy in this. And we know that everybody talk behind
the scenes because that's the way that people talk, you know,
that's what people do, they talk to each other, especially
after such a traumatic event. Hey, tater Bug, thanks for
holding down the fort. I appreciate it, all right, keep
exposing her for what she is. I do this. I

(01:01:32):
say this not out of I want our side to
be better. I want her side to win. But to
fight an innocence broad campaign, you have to understand the opponent.
And I think that there's been a real lack of
concentration on Karen Reid and what makes her tick in

(01:01:53):
how she If you can understand her mindset, you can
see and under innocence fraud, you can see where her
next move is going to be and try to get
one step ahead. But Karen Reid has always been one
step ahead. So while the witnesses people on this side

(01:02:14):
are ignoring Karen Reid, Karen Reid is watching and looking
how the state is mounting a case against her and
looking to undermine it. And one of the first things
she did was undermine any support for the O'Keefe family
and really paint them as villains and that was helped

(01:02:38):
along with the O'Keefe and the witness of silence in
this case. So there has been no real pushback. Thing
that would be helpful would be, you know, really detailed
information that debunks Karen Reid's talking points, you know that someone,

(01:03:00):
But instead we get there's just all the information on
the Defending the Truth website is just about the people
created the website, not so much about the harassed witnesses
and what happened to them. Put it all out there,

(01:03:23):
and if you have more information about Karen Reid's history
of DV with the way she abused. John o'keeff put
it out in the public domain, because that's really the
crux of the case. I hope. I mean, I got

(01:03:45):
very encouraged when I heard the o'keef lawyer talk about
how Karen Reid started a I don't know exactly what
he called it, maybe propaganda campaign with Aiden Carney, propagandaize
the public. I hope that comes into the civil case.

(01:04:06):
So I think it's really important. I thought it was
always a mistake for Hank Brennan to avoid it, even
when Turtle Boy took you know, said he was going
to take the fifth. Could he have brought it in
in another way? Aiden Carney's cases are looking tougher and tougher.

(01:04:27):
And talk about that tomorrow. Interesting new filing. Excited to
I was excited to read it and excited to talk
about it tomorrow. Please hit the thumbs up, subscribe to
the channel, share this episode. Thank you so much, Tammy.
Appreciate you. Buying me a coffee or a couple couple

(01:04:48):
couples of coffee today, appreciate it. If you want to
support the channel, links are in the description of this episode.
You can buy me a Coffee, Venmo, Patreon. All great
ways to support the channel. Links are in the description
of this in every episode, please hit the thumbs up
on your way out. Guys, I'll see you tomorrow at six.

(01:05:08):
Thanks so much for listening. Have a great night, everybody.

Speaker 12 (01:05:23):
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 holl avoid prison.

Speaker 4 (01:05:43):
It was soe.

Speaker 7 (01:05:47):
I pushed the paddle.

Speaker 4 (01:05:49):
Now get him now.

Speaker 7 (01:05:53):
The legal system.

Speaker 4 (01:05:55):
My clown.

Speaker 7 (01:06:03):
Innocence Frog campaign to save.

Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
My skin.

Speaker 12 (01:06:11):
Making money.

Speaker 10 (01:06:12):
True things my second victim carry carry ginger.

Speaker 7 (01:06:20):
Like John you were Mama. My innocence for A campaign
is my biggest.

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
God.

Speaker 10 (01:06:53):
I hit my boyfriend with my coat.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
It wasn't a.

Speaker 7 (01:07:04):
Sec both liing lawyers, I'll go far, Lion lawyers and
witness harassment Ola void prison.

Speaker 4 (01:07:19):
It was snowing.

Speaker 7 (01:07:21):
I pushed the pedal.

Speaker 10 (01:07:23):
Down, hit him hard.

Speaker 7 (01:07:25):
Now.

Speaker 10 (01:07:26):
The legal system of my clown.

Speaker 7 (01:07:32):
Innoceense Frog campaigns saved my skin making money.

Speaker 10 (01:07:40):
Truth is my second victim, carry carrying chinging like John
you were la Mark.

Speaker 7 (01:07:51):
My innocence for AD campaign is my biggest hid

Speaker 10 (01:07:57):
It

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

.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;}Why Karen Read Keeps Winning!

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

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Why Karen Read Keeps Winning!

Stuff You Should Know