Welcome back to calling on things.
I'm your host DJ, along with the one and only Massachusetts one of Troy, my homie Boston BA.
What's up?
What's up? Happy Saturday night.
Happy Saturday night to you. What we got going on tonight?
Via, Well, we have two amazing ladies coming on to talk to us.
That's right, that's right, that's right, all right.
You guys know her because she has appeared on shows, and essentially, this young lady, this successful business owner, entrepreneur, owner of two law firms, and she sits on more boards than a lot of surfers do, has come here to shed light on what is almost unbelievable what's happening in Massachusetts with regard to bias. Bev and her cast of characters from the Norfolk DA, the MSP, and the Kenton Police Office.
Hi Helena Rafferty xoxo. So, and she's actually.
I heard her today on Young Jerks, a great show with Mike, and she was encouraging other She used the word barristers, which really struck my English, my UK soul to come and join her in this fight. So, without further delay, let us please welcome in cab Homie. Awesome attorney, cool badass lady ned Gallop.
Did somebody get in amen? Then gall you miss Joy? Yes?
And can I add she's also very down to earth and very yes, very down to earth, very approachable.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Guys. It's always the warmest welcome when I come see you. How are you today?
We're doing great, man, We got We've got a great bunch of people in the chat.
Got some working out done this morning so we could try to look like you.
Oh there ain't no, there ain't no muscle here. BIA's met me in person. It's just it's kind of just not much there.
Sinewy your sinewy? Is that the right way? I don't know if that's.
That's a good word for me.
I like them, And you know what, it's funny. I had to write down a question uh today that is a take off from your conversation with Mike.
And you you spoke about and so we're gonna do this and then what's gonna happen. First of all, Hello, everybody in chat.
Hello, Kimberley macguiere, Welcome in, Debbie Blair and everybody else, Hillary, everybody that's here.
I just saw somebody, uh and and Webb a.
Timely manner. I love some of your names. Valhall Law, the Massachusetts attorneys here.
Your colleague, uh hey, And so I'm sitting there listening to you, and you said that there's going to be a reckoning for Hank Brennan, and I was curious what type of reckoning could be.
So, in other words, what form could that take? Uh, some sort of reckoning after this trial unfolds and comes to a conclusion.
That's a great question. And I have used that word just a handful of times, and one of which was today, And for anyone who's interested, I kind of stole that line from the end of There's a movie that came out I think it was in two thousand and two called Cold Mountain with Nicole Kidman and Jude Law and it was Civil War based love story and war story.
And towards the end of the movie, after all of this kind of corruption in how the Civil War deserters were treated, those who just walked away from the war, Nicole Kidman had a line where she looked one of the corrupt law enforcement individuals in the face and she said, there will be a reckoning. And that always kind of stuck with me, and I'm sure, and I really just don't know, but I'm sure there is some biblical background to it, but it's I took it from the cinema.
But in terms of a reckoning, I really do believe in that, in that in this case, the Karen Reid case, and frankly the Aiden Carney case, which is tied to it but certainly separate from it, I'm of the opinion, with my legal background, to say that I look at once she is acquitted and he is acquitted, although perhaps his charges will be dismissed outright, and there's some pending applications to do that, that there will be some type of look back, whatever it is, in terms of what
went wrong, what officers were really at fault, who covered things up, what individuals who have been named as third party culprits and or co conspirators in any potential cover up of you know what. I I don't believe was ever an intentional murder of John O'Keeffe. I just feel that there was probably something that went awry, and then I wish cooler heads had prevailed and that law enforcement
had been called and people had been held accountable. But that does not seem to have been the case as it tracks with the facts that have come out, and once there is this quote look back. There will be consequences, consequences that range from those who were really at ground zero from the tragic events of January twenty ninth, twenty
twenty two, stemming all the way through the investigation. And you've already seen one of those reckonings with the former trooper Proctor, mister Michael Proctor now, and I always, I always try to make sure I emphasize that, and I hope you all do too. But that's one little depth.
Then there will be some looking at the prosecutor, the district attorney in that in that county, and whether or not he had a hand in orchestrating and or not properly investigating and prosecuting ms Read and possibly Aiden Carney
as well. Also, I think that in terms of reckoning, there will likely be a complete overhaul for not only how just ground level investigations are performed, but also ranging all the way up through how cases are brought, when, how the decision making is done, how that sausage is made.
Do we bring charges against this person, do we bring this level of charges against this person, and by this person, I mean any of you, any of your loved ones that in that community up there, and hopefully perhaps a judicial overhaul if if there has been a determination that some of the decisions were biased, there needs to be some accountability there. And the accountability is all to the taxpayers.
I'm not a taxpayer there, but if I were any of your viewers listening and watching, saying I pay taxes to this county or this this town, I would want to make sure that only the best law enforcement were policing the streets and that there wasn't a thin blue line. So there there's going to be a look back or a reckoning, and one day, I really do hope it comes to fruition, because this has been not only a financial strain, but it's been an emotional one, a psychological one. Yeah, look at this.
Somebody is checking you out right from here from Bartha Colona. Right, go ahead, that's right, look at that. What's up?
There's my homie from Franklin, mass where my college is Deborah.
What's up? Homes? How are you?
And so there before there is quite we already have interesting questions for you, But I want to say thank you very much for AJK for gifting ten calling all beings memberships, and I mustay I really appreciate you when you see me raise my hands up that but my guest is speaking.
That's what I'm saying is thank you, even though it's just visual in nature.
I love I love you guys so much. You are the most like the sweetest hosts and also not only to your guests but to your chat. It's wonderful.
Thank you.
We feel honored that they have chosen to take time. They could be doing anything right now, but they have chosen to come and spend it with us, and that's that's an honor.
So great.
You very happy. This lady right here we expect here on here shortly.
This is Kate Casey, the host of Reality Life, and she is the one who interviewed the documentarian I think that did the Karen Reid Netflix show.
So I I.
When she comes, I'm basically going to turn it over to her because I don't feel like they have a great understanding of what's so egregious in the case in this case, and who better to explain that to her than Nan Gallagher.
I'm gonna explain it to her. DJ I'm explain it to her.
Yeah, I mean, I don't.
I don't know if she has a sense of how bizarre this is and how out of character and out of any legal norm that any of you have ever seen, anyone from Mark to Melanie and probably out if you were having private conversations, probably Alan David and Eliza and Robert Alisi or Lessie, depending upon where you're from, would say this, that they're saying, this is completely out of the norm.
Well, and I think that it being so out of the norm is I know, it's what caused me. It was one of two contributing factors to what caused me to start speaking up. The other factor was the fact that one attorney in the Dallas area had donated one billable hour of her time in the form of a donation. And I don't recall if she donated it to the Karen Reid Defense Fund or to Turtle Boy, but you know, I was like, oh, I guess I could do that, and then it kind of evolved in terms of donations
after that. But then also the abnormalities are so striking, the contrariness to the way jurisprudence is supposed to be done, that is so notable to me and I know to others and even to the newest juror, former juror who was an alternate Victoria George. She in a really badass move, just decided to move from a former juror on this case to a defense council on behalf of the defendant
for whom she sat as an alternate juror. So it's it runs against our very mental and experiential constitution, and I'm I got to do something that's that's my mindset, and I know all of you feel the same way totally.
Yeah, there's so there's two questions for you already that I want to get to. But I want to thank AJK for donating another cab ten cab memberships. Thank you very much. We don't have a whole lot of members I think we're like under one hundred or something, so thank you very much.
I was very very kind of you. Thank you.
And now I must say the other one is okay, CoP's daughter wants to know.
I want to know what Nan and Mike Croft had said that they know.
Well. And it's funny. I know we both said earlier on The Young Jerks that we know some things, and I can't remember in what context CoP's daughter. I said that because I happen, I happen to know a few things which I'm not at liberty to say. But I don't know. Oh what, Oh how.
Adorable buddy Julia the polar Bear.
Oh my gosh, if that puppy is going to be on this stream, I'm not going to pay attention at all. Well, I wish I could pick my dog up like that. My dog is eighty pounds, and I mean, at this point she could probably pick me up. But anyway, there's just a few things that I have heard, which I always discount. When I hear things, I'm like, Okay, maybe that's a rumor mill. And then I've had an opportunity
CoP's daughter to have some conversations. I don't know if what I know is what Mike Crawford knows, So I can't even I can't even validate that we both know the same things. So I'm sorry if that was in any way a dissatisfying answer. But what I have heard and have on good information is that this is going to be a completely different trial, a very completely different trial.
Lord here a prayer.
I retired North Carolina State Highway Police, so basically state trooper. He says, Nan, have you ever seen a case where the lead investigator was.
Fired and the case proceeded. I haven't. In one hundred percent of those penning cases are always dismissed. Always, So what's your reaction to that.
Well, first, I want to say hey to you, because I know I've seen you put in chats on some of the shows I've been on, so it's great to see you. And I've heard you call in to the young jerks. I've heard you call into seeking justice. I believe, and you know your stuff. I have never had a case or seen a case where the lead investigator had been fired, at least during the pendency of the trial proceedings, which we are in. Even though two point zero didn't
start yet, we're in the pendency of the trial. I have to believe that in the cases where the lead investigator has been fired, and I imagine that's not many, that the prosecutor would always decide to dismiss I mean, it's your lead investigator. It would be the same if the medical examiner just absolutely would not agree with the prosecution's position. So right now we're in a position where
the medical examiner doctor Scordy Bellow. It's not that she doesn't agree with the prosecution's theory in terms of cause and manner of death. She's just not able to cross that threshold of saying, yes, I can definitively say that this is the cause and this is the manner of death. She will She's kind of hedging on the manner of death, so they don't need to sever ties with her completely, although it seems to me that they're pretty much severing ties with her because she did not give them the
manner of death that they wanted. She's only saying it's undetermined, and she's willing, as was seen in Trial one point zero, to make concessions to the defense in terms of what could have been other potential causes or manners of death
for John O'Keefe. So in this case, I would simply say that the fact that former Trooper Proctor or Michael Proctor was fired and they're still not willing to dismiss the charges or to downgrade them or make this some type of more attractive plea deal for Karen, which I still would not suggest, But the fact that they won't do that just tells me that they're so locked in to their current position and they've come too far and there's too much at risk for law enforcement and the
prosecution to do it, that they're pot committed, as I say, and they're just going to move forward. But I will say, whichever side calls Trooper Proctor former Trooper Proctor, it's going to be a very spicy testimony. Whether the questions come from the prosecution to the former officer, or they come from Alan Jackson or David Yannetti or any one of the team. I am here for it, and I'm really looking forward to it because he's going to be absolutely mauled on the stand.
Yeah, you know, the thing is, I don't think there's a I'm going to use the word realistic here. I don't think there's a realistic circumstance where they would dismiss the case and with.
That that qualifier.
In other words, yes, if there was a video of Karen's car where it was indisputable, clear photo of the red tail light after the supposed, uh you know, faked thing happened, that they say that that she hit him with the vehicle, I don't think. I don't think of outside of that, I don't think there's any circumstance where they would dismiss the case. But tell me if if I'm wrong, is there I don't think there's a realistic circumstance.
No, I mean unless it suddenly becomes clear as day that you know the the evidence that has been discovered thus far as to the third party culprits who are Brian Albert, Brian Higgins and Colin Albert, or those who are in my opinion, accessories or co conspirators, those in the realm of Jen McCabe, Matt McCabe, Chris Albert, those who Julie Nagel, people who clearly have shown that they were somehow possibly involved or know something. That's what evidence
is showing to me. It might not show that way to a jury or to any of you. But unless that stuff gets so credibly revealed and not subject to question, this isn't going to go away until a jury finds her not guilty. And it's really unfortunate because this is not the way, in my opinion, that our system of jurisprudence in any jurisdiction should work. We should be in a position where prosecutors bring charges based on credible facts and not stretches, and not junk science and not ill equipped,
poorly educated accident reconstructionists. I'm referring to trial one point zero when I say that it's it's just not the type of financial investment that any government and its judiciary and its prosecutors should be wasting their time on. I find that really insulting to the legal profession. And that's why I take it so personally.
And do you really believe that the Feds on January eighteenth wrote a letter to both the defense and the prosecution regarding their investigation that was ongoing, and by February they just called up Hank on the phone and say, hey, it's over, do you There's no way, right.
Yeah, there is no way anybody's going to convince me of that. So just and I can't remember if I explained this to you guys the last time I was on I might have said it on some other streams. But in my practice, so I do civil, administrative and criminal law, and I've done it now for many, many years, almost a quarter of a century. And in that quarter of a century, throughout I have dealt with federal criminal investigative agencies as well as state criminal investigative agencies, and
many times they work hand in hand. Sometimes they don't, but many times they do. In every single one of those investigations by a federal investigating body, not once, never, once have they ever quote closed their investigation with some type of confirmatory call, email, or letter. It has never
happened in my practice. And I do that type of work a lot, So it's not like I'm saying, ah, you know, I've done a handful no in my field, which is healthcare law, which is a fancy way of saying I do everything for doctors, and there are a lot of criminal things that can happen to doctors in my field. The federal investigating body are really hands on because there's usually types of insurance fraud moneies that are being taken in by payers and Medicare medicaid at the
state level. Of these investigative arms, they never tell you that they're closing out, so you know it to send some letter in January only to confirm that they're closing things out or completing things in February. It doesn't track
for me. Also, I do make my clients who want closure on pending investigations, I make them put to me in writing every time I say, put it in writing to me if you're insisting that I follow up with the Department of Justice, or you're insisting that I follow up with the Office of the Inspector General, which is another criminal federal investigating body, because many times, from my experience, when I do that, when I have to follow up with these bodies to say what's the status here these agencies,
they get so vindictive that I'm following up with them, and many times my inquiry is just prompting them to dust something off on their desk. So when I do follow up, invariably a week or two or a month later, I'm getting yet another request from them or getting called in for a hearing for my client. So I don't believe it. I do not believe that it is closed at this point, and someone's going to have to put a piece of paper from the FEDS under my nose for me to believe otherwise.
Well, that letter was published by.
Helena Rafferty, dated March fourth that said it's dismissed. And I don't know about you, but it's so hard for me to believe.
That Chief Rafferty would say anything that wasn't true.
But that was her own letter on her letter head.
Tissues. No tissues here, I'm sorry to go.
Let me get you some tissues. Djay. Yeah, you make a great point, because that letter, which I happened unless I'm unless there was a letter that I missed, And I tell everybody I don't see everything. I was looking at that letter earlier. Someone had it on X and I was looking at it, going, wait, okay, I know I saw this a few weeks back, but this is on Canton p D Letters. You know I could I could put it, whip up something on my letter head that says, you know, I'm the best thing since slice bread.
Give it to you, and you should not be drawing the conclusion that I'm the best thing since sliced bread.
Like.
I think it was done not only for the pr of it. I forget exactly what part of the timeline this was released. It was right before I believe the motion to dismiss was argued by the defense, and I
think it was a bit of a pr stunt. I am not in any way saying that you know it's perhaps it's I mean, it is possible that Chief Rafferty spoke to someone at the federal level or Brennan spoke to someone at the federal level and was given some information, but I know from experience the information they did not get, which is we closed our investigation or it's completed. And often there are times when agencies will complete their investigation, but that doesn't mean it's over. That means the fact
finding is over. So once an investigation arguably is quote completed, there are times and not few and far between, when the investigation kind of completes I guess for a poetic licensure state. But when you take it beyond that, many times I've seen indictments follow after that.
Well, there's a legal review of what they found. I mean, that could take months.
To figure out what can we charge and who can we tie to up.
That's right, So you know, it's one of those things. I don't believe it until you know with certainty. And there's a reason why the FEDS have such a high conviction rate. There is, and there is also a significant reason why the Feds took great lengths to investigate kind of all of the different tentacles of this matter, ranging from I'm surmising the Karen Reid case, the accident. Then they had hired ARCA. They looked at phone records, they
looked at cell data, they looked at computer records. From everything I recall seeing was handed over to them. Then they probably I'm not sure, but they probably also looked into any perceivable connection with Birchmore Central Birchmore case, possibly the just on Root case. I don't know any of the last two things to be true, but I have to believe because of some overlap, they're probably looking at trends.
And when there are trends, that's where federal agencies and investigative criminal bodies do focus interest because they want to see if there is this level of corruption that would peak their interest. Because normally a state is sovereign, it can do what it wants, how it operates is normally not of the business of the federal government. But when there's patterns and there's prosecutorial overreach and clear in my opinion, or at least questionable in the fed's opinion, evidence of corruption,
they're all over it. So I just don't believe it. I don't I agree.
In Let me, first of all, let me think the travel off of fives.
But I'll read this in the accent that I was working on last night.
Would be funny to hear it it was Winston Churchill.
Did we see the lightest drole that just dropped? So? Did you?
Was there another wait? Is there another Bedroll letter that dropped? Like today? I have not seen it.
Yeah, So if anybody has the details of that or wants to let us know during the show, I.
Can put up the cab call in number.
Yeah.
I aiden just released it forty minutes ago. Okay, now, yeah, I can send it to you DJ on Twitter.
Thank you so much you. I'm on It's lord it.
I had the opportunity to meet Mark Bettero in person when I went up to visit. He's fantastic.
I did too.
It's about Okay.
This is one of the things I wanted to ask you when we when we said, hey, we're gonna book you know, he was like, you got to book Nan again.
I'm like, yeah, we got it. We got a book her.
On here and we put a ways back like I think I might have even been writer in Boston when we booked it in the Boston area.
Yes, what was it like? What were the conversations like?
And we're not asking for details that have to do with legalities and things.
You want to say they went to dinner together too.
Yeah, well, I always want to preface when I mentioned meeting him in my conversation with him, and Will the Glarer was there as well, so I want to thank Will for presenting me with that wonderful opportunity to meet him.
But I always want to preface by saying, Mark Betteroh, did not discuss anything involving Aiden Carney with me, or anything involving, you know, any particularities that might have been within his knowledge base concerning Karen Reid as he was poised to be hopefully at that point appointed as in pro hac vice, which ended up getting denied a few days after I met him, which is a ridiculous ruling, and I think the judge was wrong. But we did
have a great dinner. We went to Smith and Lensky in Boston, and I mean the steaks there, God, Like, they're just unbelievable. I should probably eat there more often, just to build more muscle from all the protein. And I know the Glarer thought like his steak was perfectly cooked. But Mark was so so much fun. He's very very funny, very snarky, makes great eye contact. He also had a few drinks, as did Will. Like I was drinking, like, I think, one cocktail and a bunch of ginger ales.
But the conversation between two lawyers who do criminal defense work who are from the cold, dark streets of Manhattan him more than me. Yeah, Like we were like head to head at that table kind of talk in this case and all of the issues we see with it. Because as I started out at the top of your hour, I'm like, this stuff is so like crazy to lawyers
who know how it's supposed to work. So at some point, you know, I think Will was sitting there kind of going, I'm just gonna let I'm gonna let you guys talk, and probably some of what we were saying was flying over his head. But Mark was really a pleasure. I told him, I said, we got to go out for some dirty water dog switch are hot dogs from a street cart in Manhattan?
Yes, yes, yes, yeah yeah.
And then also I was a little surprised because Beto was like, let's like they were shutting down the restaurant. I forget what time it was, but he was like, yeah, let's let's go get another cocktail. I don't know how people can stay up as late as they stay up. When I went to visit there, it's unbelievable. And normally I would say, but yeah, he's a New Yorker, but he's originally from there. So I am convinced there is something baked into the DNA up in Massachusetts that keeps
people awake late at night. I just I had fun.
You awesome visitors. That's what keeps us awake.
When the company's good, you don't want it to end, man, I mean, that's the bottom line here.
Thank you. By the time I got home, though, it literally took me four days to recover. Yeah, easily, easily four days late.
Nights, you know what I mean.
But so it was compelling conversation and you guys could bounce ideas off each other, and you might have had some ideas for him about that he hadn't thought of, and vice versa.
Et cetera.
Yeah, it was very collaborative. And also we gave our which I won't share, but we kind of gave our opinions on who we feel are some of the most useful tools to just the free Karen read movement on x and on these streams and chats, and you know, I'm not referring to content creators when I say that, but people we see in the chats, because I'm normally a chat surfer, and we had a lot of similar opinions about that. He's a great guy.
Yeah, that's our opinion too. We've got him coming back.
Shortly.
He and a brother counsel that they didn't get to talk last time, So we're going to get in a talk this time.
Because we didn't know that Mark was joining the defense team.
Oh yeah, that's right. He was supposed to join us, and I think we've got Olivia join Olivia, Nile or Lambeau join instead. God, that seems like forever ago.
It does. In cam Reidland, it was like six months ago.
Yeah, because I did my first I was looking back. I think I did my first stream with the Young Jerks in like the last week of January, and you know, it's the almost the end of March. Now. It feels like a million years. And I will be scaling back my streaming in the coming weeks just because I think I've hit all the creators and I think people have
heard enough from Nan Gallagher. I'm probably going to be doing more tweeting and posting on Facebook social media occasion popping into Seeking Justice with Tom Cpu and Boston Mike.
Well, I have to say, as the trial starts, we're all going to need this a breakdown and we're gonna we want to hear what you have to say, so hopefully you'll come back and visit, because.
That's when it gets real.
Now we're kind of rehashing things from one point zero. When two point oh starts, we're going to need that law tuber type of tell us what we just watched all day and tell us that it's nonsense.
So I well, I tell I'm gonna tell everybody always feel free to ask, like if I if it, if it feels right and works, I'm happy to And I love DJ, like DJ and you both like reached out to me a few weeks ago, and I'm like, this date would work, and thank you so much for holding it for me. And I do feel I feel I
don't want to say badly. I feel a lot of sensitivity to the the Free Care and read supporters who have a lot of questions about what just happened, or I'm worried about this, this just just got filed, what does this mean? And so many times it's nothing to worry about. So I'm a mummy, you know, I want to com My job is to calm people. And I feel like, hey, if I can tell you this is nothing and you feel a little better about it, great,
you know. And then there's times where I say everyone should be worried about that, or you know, even yesterday, Aiden Carney had had a hearing before a different judge on the Karen Reid case with regard to the phone extractions that the Commonwealth, not Brennan of the Commonwealth, but the other kind of arm of the Commonwealth, special Appointed Prosecutor Cosgrove has and you know, in that hearing, a lot of people were worried about it because they thought,
oh my god, there's an emergency hearing. And I'm like, no, no, no, I don't know. It's really a status hearing. Don't worry about it is not I don't know what's going to be discussed, but I can tell you it's it's not as bad as you think. And some people felt better when they heard that. And then during the hearing, the judge essentially spanked Cosgrove and Brennan, which I was very happy to hear and watch as I'm sure. Yeah, I'm sure that other people were as well. Actually, that's the
way judges are supposed to work. That's that's this kind of unbiased. Both sides are accountable no matter which side it is. Well, that's what we're used to seeing.
Nan.
Are you saying that you're not supposed to just like pick aside that you don't like and treat them poorly and then the other side you're really nice to.
Is that? What is that how it's supposed to go.
Yes, that that is the way it's works to go.
So the judges supposed to like justice is blind and really like what.
Def thumb and blind or whatever. Yeah, it's it's definitely something to.
Expect.
I expect it when I'm before judges, and I've been in the hot seat, you know, I was happy to
see it. And in that regard, like I think a lot of people in the Free Karen Reid and the Free Turtle Boy movements, they felt comforted not only by the fact that Brennan and Cosgrove were dished it by Judge Adam Sisiski, but also that, oh, okay, this is a refreshing breeze of or breath of fresh air because look, a judge actually called balls and strikes here, and it wasn't just oh my god, he's going to deny this, or he's going to award all of these you know,
expand his ruling to include communications between Aiden and Karen attorneys. So it's it's it's the way it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be fair, and when it's not fair, I think everybody, whether you're a lawyer or not, or a content creator or not, we get frustrated. So I'm hopeful that, I mean, I do believe that Judge BEV follows the kind of social media aspects of this case, maybe not as assiduously as others do, but I'm hoping that she starts to curb some apparent bias that is
just so it's just so present. I hope that changes. We'll see I don't.
I don't.
I'm sorry that I don't see that happening. I think when she grants emotion in their favor. What were we talking about the other night, bea, he granted one in their favor, and it's.
Like she'll go, okay, duck, duck, goose, and like.
So she'll give them some thing that's kind of not very impactful or groundbreaking, just to say that she ruled one motion in their favor and then she'll go back to approving other inappropriate motions or ruling against them. And I think Microdots once did he did a breakdown of this one second real quick. I just want to say thank you the cat Lady. The cat Lady is one of our new mods. She's awesome, and she has gifted thirty memberships, so now must day cat Lady.
We appreciate you, and then we will get If you.
Have a question for Nan Gallagher, please put like some sort of a question mark so we know it. If you don't like to type in all caps, put like a question mark at the beginning something like that, because we want to get her to answer your questions before we get out of here tonight.
Yeah, yes, ma'am, you were going to say, answer your questions or just try to make them stand out as best as possible. And so many people have questions and then questions stemming from answers that they hear. So yeah, it's a really great job you guys do trying to bring people together to try to make them more aware of this stuff. Yeah.
Yeah, that's basically you know, what we're trying to do is we are not going to leave Karen alone because people in other communities. I've covered other genres obviously, and people have asked me, and I said, you know, we're going to stay on this case. I'm going to go to Massachusetts again, just like you did. Just I just want to make sure Elon's not going to fire me.
And I'm going to book another trip to Massachusetts and support the movement and I'll stand out and I'll do another meal of food and all that stuff.
So I wish we had known you when we did that that meal of food And was.
That twelve, yeah, January twelfth.
Yes, we have like one hundred people.
And it's so interesting because I was clearly writing Chats, you know, throughout but when you write, what I wasn't doing from twenty twenty three to twenty twenty five was making sure I never missed a show of anybody. Now I try to never miss a show of anybody in Chats, and I've tried to, you know, when asked to come on the different creators, just to help them understand or
frame their mindsets. But yeah, so I'm sure there was plenty of things like that DJ or b O, Like when you guys that did the meal of food, I didn't happen to pick that up whatsoever just from writing chats, but I will moving forward.
Yeah, well we're going to make sure now that we know you we can invite you.
But yeah, it was it was really good.
We wanted there were people that felt left out because basically, Karen did a fundraiser to ear and you know, she couldn't invite everybody for the room that she had, but she was trying to make money for her defense fund obviously, which is very understandable. And by the way, the Karen Reied Defense Fund is pinned to the top of the chat,
so if you're so inclined, please donate. And so therefore, when people were aggrieved, we had already planned our meal of food for about twenty so after we found out people were kind of bummed out, we said, okay, well instead of just twenty, I mean everyone was always invited anyway. We didn't have a you know, we didn't say, oh, only these people can come, but we just started off with a tacit list. So then we just said, okay,
everyone in the community, you are invited. This is where we're going to be this is the time, this is the place, So just come there and book a table and we're going to hang out. And we had Aiden and Meredith, we had Jason, we had Brian LTL.
Maza.
Uh it came so and and then myself and Bia so and then just tons of people showed up.
It was I got to streaming.
It was just the station and you know it was nice.
Yeah, oh that's that's great. It must have been cold. Then you said January. It was, Yes, it was cold when I went up there. So when I when I was up there, I guess it was March, maybe March third or so through six, something like that. It was cold.
So I have a number.
I'm planning planning to go up in some time in April, and hopefully it's a little milder.
It should be on air. Somebody's on air or not. It says unknown. That could be bad. All right, let me hang up on it. I don't know who that was.
We do have questions for you, though, Alica. Let's see if we can get to our police. Uh So, here's one we got to tag. We're going to tag this one from Christina Maria.
Help me out.
Here, oh, joba, yeah, if you got one.
Oh yeah, go ahead, you can go ahead.
Oh are you asking me to read it?
I'm sorry, absolutely, go ahead, yes, please.
If the judge misquotes facts are evidence, i e. The conclusion the confusion between polycarbonate and glass, Is there any recourse.
If the judge misquotes it? So you know, the recourse would be for the attorneys at the time that it happens, the misquoting happens. To correct respectfully correct the judge depends on what's being misquoted. This is an important thing to quote properly because there is a big difference, especially in this case between polycarbonate and glass, when you have a broken alleged broken tail light and at least one, possibly two tumbler or cocktail glasses that may or may not
have left the bar establishments. So it's really to just respectfully correct the judge. I'd have to know a little bit more as to the context there in Lemonade pickets where where the judge would have misquoted it. But I believe I heard witnesses interchanging glass and tail light or tail light pieces in glass in questions, and I think I heard that on both sides I think I heard the defense doing it and the prosecution doing it, which makes for a little bit of a confusing factual scenario
for a jury. So if I can give any advice to the attorneys for the defense, I don't like to give advice to the Commonwealth other than dismiss this case
and dismiss the case against Aiden cases against Aiden. If I can give any advice to the Karen Reid defense team, it would just be to make sure that you're very nicely and in a likable way, being very consistent with the terminology of polycarbonate versus glass or tail light versus glass in what context correct anyone or object to any question where that is used incorrectly.
Yeah, And I think with a fair degree of confidence that that polycarbonate that the tail light lens is made out of would not have shattered in that manner hitting John's arm, probably not hitting him center mass It would not have broken in that manner. So that they're going to need someone who's an automotive expert and expert in plastics.
Someone actually reached out to me that had.
A degree from Massachusetts, that had a degree and that type of science that produces plastics, and he never answered me back though he never came on the show, but I would have loved to have had them.
This one is from Mary Milachey. I truly enjoy Attorney Non Gallagher's condor and humor, as we learn so much from her live stream visits. He's a treasure, Thank you very much, Not Gallagher.
Thank you Mary. And I love it because DJ gets to do the accents. This is always so much fun. I think though it's important to be funny, Like even though none of this is funny, it's like, can we find some level of humor or entertainment as you guys all who are boots on the ground, And I mean that in not just the standing outside of the courthouse way, but the people who are dedicated to the chats and the people who don't stand out at the courthouse every
day but are from the community. You have to, in my opinion, find some ways to make light of this. And I'm sure in some ways I don't know this, but I really have to believe even Karen and her family hopefully do, that they find joy amongst these horrible set of really prolonged, just horrible facts. Their life has just been ruined. It's been ruined, and I don't think it's comorable for them. So I did say that just so you know. I did have a chance to speak
to Karen and her family. They were the ones that had invited me to come to Massachusetts when I did, and to go to court with them, which that was very sweet of them to do, and I was like, are you guys sure you know I didn't. I still don't understand, but when they asked me. I remember during that call. I think it was that particular night, or maybe a couple nights later, I was supposed to be on the Glarer's program and I like apologized to them.
I said, you know, I'm I'm going to be on his program, and I know, we laugh a little bit about some of these stupid things that are going on and I mean, no disrespect to you, and they they kind of laughed. They're like, we understand. So they're like really down to earth. You know. I can't say I know them very well, but I I knew enough to apologize for making light of some things, and they were really friendly and receptive when I said that, and thought that my apology was ridiculous.
Yeah, I've never met them, but they just seem like very very as you said, down to Earth is about as well as you very genuine people that there's no pretense about them.
Yeah. Oh, and I see this question here. This is like all caps, so yes, I have to say I can read this without my glasses, which is like completely unbelievable to me. But the question that Ken Hathaway has in terms of, you know, if the prosecutor's going to really push it with the ARCA experts, can they bring their own lawyers in he's called them liars, Yes they can.
In fact, I don't know how much Judge Bev would allow lawyers for witnesses to have a role in proceedings, but I will say, drawing upon prior experience, she did allow the lawyer for Brian Higgins to kind of step in and with outside of the presence of the jury and to kind of say, no, you know, everything's fine, or I'm going to I've talked to my client. So I think she was very respectful and deferential to the
fact that a lawyer for a witness was present. But yeah, I have served in that capacity where my client has been a fact witness or an expert witness, and in fact he was an expert witness on a particular case, he was getting bullied by the plaintiff's attorney, the litigant's attorney, for opinions he had, and this litigant was going after my client's license because he disagreed with his opinions. He went after my client's board certification as a medical doctor
because he didn't like the opinions. And that's why my client retained me. He's like, I feel like I'm serving as an expert, but I'm on the defensive here what's going on? And I had to come to trial with him. It was only one day, he was testifying one day, and that that judge allowed me to protect his rights, like I was going to protect my client who was answering questions that were being asked by someone else, to
make sure that my client wasn't being trampled upon. So yes, Ken, I definitely think if Hanky wants to push it with ARCA, they should come in with their own attorneys. And that is really risky if Hank wants to do that, if he wants to push it and try to smear or besmirch these experts so much who were sound enough to be engaged by the federal government and who from what
I understand, render expert opinions for the military. And I believe I heard NASA, although Hockey too, and Hockey and maybe not NASA, I'm not But yeah, if they're if they're nationally regarded experts, and he wants to try to smear them, that can backfire in front of a jury, whether there's an attorney who comes in for them or not. If you try to make someone who's been accepted in courts look like an idiot, you make yourself look like an idiot if you don't do it properly.
So Russell essentially, yeah.
Yeah, that was completely Oh and look, Kimberly. Every once in a while, I look at the chat, Kimberly is saying, yes, NASA, see I must have heard it right, you got ye. The only reason, the only reason I noticed it is because NASA was all capps. So but yeah, I definitely think he should think twice before he does that, because someone like doctor Marie Russell, who is, as I've said before and others have too, the most uniquely qualify expert
on a case I've ever encountered. She dished it back to him and you never you never want an expert to stay back to you in front of a jury. I'm a little offended by what you're asking me right now. Yes, And in her scenario, she is a more seasoned expert. She's been practicing and working in her fields for many decades. You can come off as like bullying bully. Yeah, doesn't always track well with a jury, and one little thing
like that is enough to really set jurors mindsets. So you have to kind of choose your battles if you're going to go that route.
And thank you for the five dollars, Mata Milachey, I greatly appreciated.
Oh that one didn't come off so well. All right, I'm gonna work on my Scottish all right.
So now, with as much as the calemand seems dead to get a guilty verdict, we are the chances the judge would overrule a jury verdict.
You're awesome none exclamation point.
So the chances a judge would overrule a jury verdict. Thank you so much, by the way, Shilah, Shilah Janelle, what a pretty handle. So it doesn't it doesn't work that way. If a verdict comes in, this judge wouldn't overrule it so you know, there is an opportunity at
the close of the Commonwealth's case. The Commonwealth goes first, and when they rest at the end of the presentation of their case, an application can and should be made by the defense to move for dismissal for failure to establish all of the elements of the crimes and enough reasonable doubt, et cetera. And it is that decision before the defense has a chance to go give their turn, where a judge could decide on a motion to dismiss at the close of the Commonwealth case, to dismiss all
of the charges. I think that the judge, this judge, will not do that. Another judge might have so. But if a jury verdict comes in, this judge, meaning Judge Beverly Cononi, would not do that. She can't do that. The only remedy available to the defendant Karen at that time would be to file a motion for an appeal like she'd have to file for an appeal, a post conviction appeal. And I hope that answers your question. You're awesome too.
We've got a lot of questions here to get to why is there nothing that can be done with their obvious judge biased, and basically, I think you guys have said on multiple shows there is not a remedy at this level, below the appellate level for this.
That's right. And you know some people have been taking to well, pardon my dog. My dog wants to file a complaint against Yes, yes, but but anyway, there's been a push I've seen on social media to file complaints and register bad reviews for this judge. I don't condone that. I don't think that's advisable for anyone to do. At
the appellate level. If it's found that Judge Canoni has made biased rulings or rulings that are beyond her discretionary authority, then they can that appellate court or a higher appellate court can overrule her decisions. They could give Karen a new trial, they could dismiss the charges outright, they could reverse the conviction. It's that's the place to do it.
Yeah, yeah, And unfortunately she would already will have been if and I don't I don't, even, like I said, I've said before, I don't even think there's a chance they have enough evidence to convict her. So I don't think that's happening I think Hank was hired for the
hung jury. That was the reason why they brought him in because they know they don't have any evidence to convict her, but they can just try to bankrupt her more, which is even in a way, it's even more evil because they're just trying to injure her financially and emotionally and reputationally, knowing that they can't actually earn a conviction.
Yeah, I think there's something to that that makes sense. You guys really provide a lot of thoughtful analysis to this case. You know, I very much like that when I listen to your streams, and you know, it's very interesting to hear all of the different perspectives on it. So not everyone of the free Karen Reid supporters all have the same views on everything that you know, not everything is kind of cookie cutter. But I really do think you've made a good point there.
This is good because most people are throwing items of food at their screen when I'm on air, so this is really a very pleasant change. Yeah, so Java time you want to read this one. DEALW sure if.
You were cross examining Brian Albert, Brian Higgins and Colin or Colon, what is one question you didn't ask each of them as part of the third party culprit defense.
Oh my god, Java.
Yeah, let's get it, man, let's get that.
That's a good one.
Awesome, that's sorry.
There goes and my questions probably like no one get their hopes up. I would be asking questions that you guys all might ask yourselves too. But in terms of Brian Albert, the one question I would ask him in terms of the third party culprit defense, it's it's two can I'm going to say two for him. The first one would be why why didn't you come out of the house that night? Why did you you know? And I I have my theories, I think we all do, but why didn't you come out of the house once
you you? He had to have heard, he had to have known. I don't believe that he didn't know what was going on, But once he knew, once you knew what was going on, once your sister in law came into that house, why didn't you come out? And I think it's very telling that he did not. I would also want to ask Brian Albert, if I understand the waterfall video properly, he was the one who stopped Higgins, right, isn't he the one that He's not the one that stopped all of these bald Irish guys.
He's the one on the select board.
Yes, well, who else was on that again? Vision impaired? That was Higgins in the middle. Chris is the one who grabbed his arm.
Ryan was like behind him, I believe.
Kind of to the left of him.
Ok, that would but by the way that the grabbing of the arm with the peacocking that was going on, I would I would want to ask Chris Albert that so I know that's not part of this question. That's good as far as Higgins is concerned. I really would need to drill down more on the getting rid of his phone, the self curation of text messages. You know,
some he's making himself. He made himself out to sound like he was being charitable and helpful by picking and choosing a small subset of text messages with Karen to help the investigation. Meanwhile, what should have been done was to hand over your phone and then the discarding of the phone on the wake of news breaking that there was going to be an order entered to procure his phone,
and how he discarded his phone. It just nobody does that, So I would want to pursue that, and I would probably also want to if I were a female asking him questions, I would I would want to probe a little bit in terms of like how he thought he had a snowball's chance in hell with that woman? Like, you know, I would want to ras him a little bit, like you thought she was into you? Tell me why, and start embarrassing him as a female, because you know,
we all have our tools as lawyers. As a female, if I were in that courtroom, I'd want to shame him a little bit on the whole what were you doing with her? Or what were you communicating with her about? But like he's you know, John O'Keefe there in the house,
and like what's going on here? And then as far as Colin Albert, I think that the whole issue of when he was in the house, when he left that little window, when Ali allegedly picked him up, and the text communications which I think were fudged between the two self curated and suspicious to me, then also leading to where did you go after that? And why did you not communicate with her via text? For weeks and weeks
and weeks later. Now I understand there's other text modalities, you know, platforms, et cetera, but i'd want to drill down more on that.
And can I.
Add one thing to that too In regards to Hagen's phone, The thing is is that not everybody in the house had to turn over their phone, so he just went to voluntarily do.
This so that he see the fix was in.
And then on top of that, he choose you know, so he was just being nice because they didn't get everybody's phone who was in that house, so why was out of all of them, he was going to be the one that whose phone they were going to, So he had to do it backwards and say this is what I want to give you. And he had the perfect chance to be her hero that day when she sent him a mess at tax saying John died and he didn't. So that goes to show you right then and there that he was just in with the fix.
I agree that's very important too, Like I that enough just that as to Higgins is enough for reasonable doubt, and that is why it's very important in my opinion, for there to be allowed a third party culprit defense, which that decision is still pending by Judge Canoni. But out of all I think we can all agree, out of all of the third party culprits and out of all of those additional kind of accessories or co conspirators that I was mentioning before, Higgins had all of the
reasons in the world. He had the motive, which doesn't need to be proven for these charges to stick. But he had the motive, he had the communications with her. He had not only motive, but just the receipts with her. He's the one who had some type of I'm gonna call it romantic, although I don't believe it was in any way romantic for Karen, but he had the romantic dalliance with her, which goes beyond motive. It's more of a what was he hiding? Like? What kind of guy
is he? So beyond motive if you're going to do that, you know she's got a boyfriend, like and the boyfriend is the custodian and caregiver of children of family members who have passed. What kind of guy are you? And the jury should be able to draw inferences from that.
Yeah, I have some thank yous.
I've got to hit because these people have have donated. Thank you Ken Hathaway from Nottingham, England, and thank you the.
Cat Lady again.
You're so awesome, ma'am, and we're so lucky to have you as part of our team here and.
Calling all beings and this is this a cat cat something? Randall? Is that what that says? I might need me glasses not a count se.
R b al cat Randall.
I think you're right, Randall. Thank you seeing me and be a brother.
I can't read that.
Yep, thank you so much for five memberships. Thank you.
Sherry Dizzel made it in. I knew she was going to be a little late. She messaged me.
Right before we started. Thank you Sherry Dizzel for twenty memberships. Love the mistake.
We thank Mary Milackey goodness six and we've got to thank Tommy mack mack.
She's like a boss. I'm Scottish and irons for got six.
Thank you very much for five memberships and then AJK another ten.
You are our hero of calling all beings. I don't know how many of that is tonight, but it must be like thirty or forty. Thank you very much, No must stay. You guys are so cool.
A lot of memberships. That's good for you guys.
It is.
It's pretty cool. We don't I think last week I was like, b I think we have like forty eight members. We didn't have very many, So that's pretty awesome. Uh, this one right here none. How can the Commonwealth have won theater with true papoul in one point zero and another and another expa in two point zero?
How is that legal to change staff theory?
That's a great that's a really good question because I often thought that myself when I was new at practicing criminal defense work. The Commonwealth is allowed to change its theory. It shouldn't, and I think it it doesn't track well because if you're going to commit people in one you hope you only have one trial, But if you're going to commit people to testimony in the trial which ends up being the first trial of hopefully only two trials, you can mess things up and make it very confusing
for the second trial that you hope never happens. But they are allowed to change their theory. What that does, though, is signal to all of you and all of those watching, and all of the defense team that they don't have credibility. They meaning the Commonwealth if they first think it was you know, John standing a certain way and then gets hit and does a pure wet and falls back on Smacks's head. Then if and I don't know what their new theory is, if that came out, I completely missed
that because we don't see the expert reports. But if they're going to come out with something different in terms of how that accident transpired, or okay, really the car didn't back up at this many miles per hour for this many feet and it didn't hit him this way, it hit him that way, then the defense knows that they're fully you know, they're full of you know what they're they're grasping, and it really means that their opinions are hollow and that two of their own two of
the Commonwealth's own experts are are in disagreement, which is, you know, grounds for cross examination. They can say to the new is it Welcher jud whoever the new reconstructionist is, They can say to him, well, are you aware that Trooper Paul reached these different conclusions if there's a difference, you know in it previously, Yes, I'm aware, Well why would you disagree with him? He was there at some
point being spoken to by an inanimate crime scene. But you know they have the ability to cross examine the new accident reconstructionist on the differences between the two different opinions. But they can do it. They're allowed to change their theory. It just doesn't look good for them.
Man.
Can we also say that if reasonable doubt were a pie, this would be inclosing a huge slice of that pie. You know that guy Thanksgiving that goes and you're like wow, he makes that first slice and then the second one is like way over there and it's almost like a third.
Of the pie.
Yeah, that is huge reasonable doubt on the prosecution's theory, which is what they had.
They're going to argue this time they have.
To, and now they're bringing in somebody to say the ground was hard as a rock.
I mean, let me see, I think the ground was hard that night, based like, how do you know that?
I just I don't see how that is a credible conclusion that mister Gilman or doctor. I don't know if he's a doctor. I'm a doctor of meteorology. I don't know if he's a doctor. But I don't know how mister Gilman can reach that type of conclusion. I think that's a reach. If they're going to try to say that a contracou type of injury was caused by that,
that's a reach. And I would expect the defense to fully explore that with the neurosurgeon who has been permitted now been permitted to testify, kind of in place of the medical examiner, you know, asking him because he's a neurosurgeon, he's probably treated those types of injuries. So they should fully explore that.
And I have two words, just do it?
Do it?
Oh yeah, yeah, it says do it a j Yeah, go ahead.
I keep showing up shirts. Someone sent me this. It's my favorite color. I was lucky. It's so everyone's so sweet. They've sent me things, but they keep it really simple. They either send me funny shirts or like some light little trinkets, or I get boxes of O's cereal, which I told Auntie deb a few weeks ago that I really love and they don't sell it down here in the stores. So I have boxes and boxes of O's and I love them.
Nan during any since we got a heart from Swiss miss during any of your trips over seas, had you learned how to yodel?
At all. Have you been to Switzerland?
Me, No, I've only I've only been to Uh. I'm sorry. I don't even think I would be good at yodeling. I've been to only to South America is the only place I would think is remotely considered overseas, and it's probably not because we consider that to be Europe. Yeah, right, Well, I mean I guess, yeah, no, I've not. I guess I eat yodles yodel's of the chocolatey treat, but no, I don't know how to yodel.
Okay, so even I think that's that.
I like Swiss Miss Hot Chocolate. I like that brand hot Chocolate definitely.
As as do I.
Let's see what we have here, please tell Everyone was sure to mention Nicole Albert's obsession with cleaning very suspicious. I think they expected the house to be searched. Yeah, I mean, who the hell is cleaning in the middle of the night like that? So yeah, that's I don't even think bea cleans in the middle.
Of I know, I was gonna say I love to clean, but not in the middle of the night.
No.
For me, it's the fact that they mentioned it. I think there were three witnesses if I recall who mentioned cleaning, and it was like Nicole Albert, Brian Albert Junior, and I want to say it was one other who I
can't recall. The fact that they felt in a murder trial that the reference to cleaning was in any way important makes me think, hmm mm hmm, okay, in case, for example, the house had they were cleaning up, or the house was searched, or interviews were being taken place there in the coming hours, if the house smelled like bleach, anything like that. I'm not an investigator, but I think the fact that they mentioned her obsessive cleaning is enough
for me to ask more questions about it. And that's something I would be probing those witnesses on Nicole Albert, Brian Albert Junior, and if there was a third on that very issue, because I find it interesting.
I think the third person was Jem McKay when she was ascribing her sister.
As yeah, yeah, it was. I think it was Gen. You have a better memory of this bea than I do. I also think there's something there about the whole It's raining men song that Jen that seems to have and like whoo, who would have thought it's raining men would become like an important little side road on a murder trial. But I think there's something off about that as well. It just doesn't flow. It's kind of like the old games. You ever play that game, like which of these things
is not like the other? Or find the thing that doesn't match the rest of the picture that to me is not matching. And I have to believe, although I don't have any knowledge on this subject, that people who read body language and assess people's words and mannerisms, they might say these little irrelevant facts are telling I bet you they would say that.
The number three comes into my mind as well, and that is there is three leaders of blood that are unaccounted for in the lawn, which means they're inside the house. And every CSI guy especially are we haven't heard from our New York Cops guys in a while, because I believe not Ed, but the other gentleman duty Ron, I believe is battling cancer.
Bless him, bless him. But Ed would have said, oh, I would have had a field day of Kate Casey's asking him still launch She's just pulling back and I'll.
Just tell her so yep, we're here, Kate Casey, Yeah, okay, And so they would have found that blood, they would have they could have.
Bleached from now. And I think Ed said that as much. He said that on.
Their show, you can bleach, you can try to clean it up. You're not going to get it all, and we're going.
To find it.
Yeah, and I and I also believe that like no normal average household would be prepared for the exanguination of three leaders of blood. Like if if I went out in my home right now and I there was a horrible accident, I love to clean, I've got a lot of cleaning supplies. I think I'd be challenged cleaning up that much blood. So if this was, as I think it was, an accident, that should have you know, they should have done the right thing and taken honorable steps
to report it and accept any consequences that came. Then if it really was unplanned, then they likely wouldn't have had proper cleaning supplies, in my opinion.
Or enough bounty paper towels.
Right right, Ah, there's are you not going to like from what Ed says that the splatter and things like that, you're just not going to get it all. You're not going to get it all out of the carpet. If they had carpet down in the basement, which they did. They did have cart because they had so, so that would be the other thing. Hey, Brian, what what does it major ed?
Remove that carpet? And so I would have asked them like a three and one.
You removed the carpet, and then you you sold the house that was your childhood home. I'm wondering, really wondering if who going into retirement sells a paid off house sixty thousand dollars under market value and then has to go buy a house. Nobody does that when that's the house Brian grew up in.
You already know that.
Yeah, so surely it had to have been paid off by then. Why would you want to get rid of that house? Like nobody does that?
I agree. And I don't know the ages of all of his children. I don't even know the number of all of his children. Doesn't he have like five kids in some sud I don't know.
Maybe Scotty or or actually Dennis Sweeney or Scotti in the chat can let us know?
And then if you see it pop up, Well, here's here's something that I had just popped into my mind a few months back when I had you know, little things pop in from time to time, and I was like, oh, five kids, BA has five. Okay, so I don't know all of their ages. But when when these little facts pop into my head, I say to myself like, Okay, some of these kids are grown, or maybe all of them are. But if you're post pandemic, okay, So now
we're twenty twenty two. The market was thriving, the real estate market, at least in my area, and I have to believe nationally was thriving, but probably up in that area as well. And if you have children who are grown and some or all of them are in relationships, and now, as you said, DJ, like he sells this house only to buy another house, which is what I had heard as well.
Yes, you earn do that.
You know, I could understand if they said, okay, we're downsizing, let's get a little townhouse or a condo. But if you buy another house, that doesn't track to me. If you have grown kids, many times you sell your home to your child. So it's like, if they're going to be starting out into marriages and relationships, maybe you sell your house to your child. I recognize what I'm telling you right now is just complete speculation on my part.
It just it's like a little fact that shows me there was a cover up here down to you.
They're disassociating themselves with the dog, with.
The house, house, the phone.
You know.
Yeah, So let's let's bring in Kate Casey because she's backstage right here. So, folks, this young lady right here is the host of Reality Life with Kate Casey.
She is a phenomenal individual.
Her her own life story Blew Me Away as one as another compelling story. On her channel, she interviews reality TV stars, showrunners, directors, documentarians. She recently interviewed a documentarian that covered the.
Karen Reid case.
And she's been my friend for several years and an interviewer who is phenomenal who I admire in this business, one of the people that I look at to try to model myself after.
So party people put your hands together for my home girl, pay say.
It's way too nice.
I'm hi, Kate, Hi.
I feel like a dingling compared to your guests, who like, are so up to date on this case. I mean, I'm I'm familiar with it because I covered it the first trial. But I'm you know, I by no means am like like a total expert on this case. I find what's most fascinating is the fact that even at this point in time, you have two camps of people that are absolutely sure of their own opinion. And I wondered why you think that is that people still to this day are so divided with as much information that
is out in the ether. Hah, Why are people so strong in their points of view?
Wow? I mean, but do you want me to answer that?
Kate?
It's so nice to meet you, but I'm sure even DJ and Bia have their own answers to that.
Well, let me set the table for what's about to happen here. We are turning this over to Kate. I want to get her questions in there for nance so she can get a sense of exactly she just framed it up beautifully right there, So Bia and I are stepping aside. Please take it away, Kate.
And now, oh okay, all right, so you guys are just voyeurs. All right, Well, it's very nice to meet you, Kate. So at this point in time, why I think both sides are so polar opposite and divided? Is probably because of the continuing revelation of more and more evidence that has come out even post first trial. So since that first trial, there has been late productions of additional videos
that are arguably exculpatory to Karen. There's new video that was produced of one of the alleged third party culprits on the phone in the middle of the night at the outside of the police station where he previously testified that he didn't talk to anyone that night. There's evidence being revealed that the I'm going to get this wrong. I think he's a Lieutenant Fanning had a role of oversight the commander to oversee this jury. Meanwhile, he had
connections with the investigating lead investigator, former Trooper Proctor. So why this Lieutenant Fanning had any oversight whatsoever, whether he had first hand contact with jury or not, But that's come to light. He was involved with some of the text messaging of that for former investigator Proctor that were selectacious and inappropriate in nature. So this Fanning, who has also had ties I believe to the Sandra Birchmore case.
Although I might be wrong, that's a tangential case in that geographic zone, which is also problematic if you don't know anything about that case, Kate.
No, I'm familiar with that good.
Yeah, I was going to say that we should definitely make you aware of it. Also, there's there has been more and more chicanery, I guess I would call it with the new specially appointed prosecutor Hank Brennan in terms of misrepresentations as for my observation that he's made to the court and some very imbalanced rulings coming down from the court that even contravene her prior rulings in the
first trial. So while there was two different camps, there's now it's like throwing gasoline on a fire because with all of and those are just some examples that I've just laid out to you, With all of that happening, we're now in a position where we're the people who feel so strongly for Karen Reid and civil rights and her right to a fair trial. They now feel validated from the sense I'm getting that there's really something going
on wrong. And then the other side of the camp, the anti free Karen readers there, from my observation, getting very agitated at the groundswell of frustration and the kind of uproariousness of the free Karen Reid movement in the wake of all of these developments that it's just kind of caused more of a just a chasm between both sides, and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.
Yeah, what do you what do.
You think is an attorney is going to be the plight for the defense in trial number two?
The plight for the defense in trial number two, meaning what is going.
To be what is their biggest obstacle, biggest obstacles.
That's a good question. So the biggest obstacle as I see it, for the defense in trial two point zero who. I don't know if I want to say that publicly because I don't want to signal to the commonwealth because I make no secret of what side I fall on. But you know, to answer your question, my my, my feeling is the biggest obstacle will be the.
Put it on screen here? What is that the judge?
Do I not see? Do I not see her on the screen? Oh? Yeah, I just can't judge. I mean, well, the judge, the judge is the biggest plight she this case. I mean I I do agree with you, DJ, she she is the biggest plight, but she's more of a proceduralist. She's the one that's supposed to properly be calling balls
and strikes from a factual standpoint. The biggest bad fact that I think she has to Karen, meaning Karen and her team have to surmount, is the fact that she has been speaking to publications and giving her statements, none of which I feel are inculpatory to her. But I can understand why some people feel that they are either inconsistent with her position as throughout the defense, as has
been communicated in testimony or statements of her attorneys. So what she's been saying to some of these publications has at least caused people to suspect that you know she did something wrong and is trying to cover it up.
I disagree with that. I can reconcile all of her public statements to journalists and say no, no, no. This would have been the mindset of a woman who had been consuming alcohol, which she makes no secret of the night before, and wakes up after a few hours of sleep, and her boyfriend's not in the house, and your mind is in a tizzy. You're trying to piece it together. I think it's her statements. If they do come into evidence, and there's different ways for them to come into evidence,
those will be a challenge. And then also there is going to be and I don't know what it says in it, a new accident reconstruction. So presumably if they have and again this is a presumption, if they have a better expert outlay on how this accident could have taken place within the very limited parameters of Apple phone health data, GPS data, the key cycles, the data from
the chip off of the lexus. If the Commonwealth, through its reconstruction expert can present a more credible explanation than they did in one point zero as to how her vehicle could have caused this accident, that would be a bad fact. But I just don't know it to be true yet.
And then conversely, what's the plight of the prosecution.
That's a good question. So the plight of the prosecution is, I mean, it's everything, it's every single thing. All of the different facts amount to reasonable doubt from a legal standpoint. So from the prosecutorial standpoint, you have got a corncopia of issues down to there's Apple phone health data that shows he surmounted he meaning John O'Keeffe surmounted, went up
and down three flights of stairs. You've got the fact that Karen's vehicle hit the or connect did with his home WiFi at one Meadows by twelve thirty six am. As that is not subject to debate. That came from the testimony of the Commonwealth's own witness, Nicholas Guarino. So as far as this officer is concerned, and he's kind of entangled himself up into some other snares in the Birchmore case for example, but he puts her connected to the Wi Fi at one Meadows by twelve thirty six am.
And if that's the case, there is no way unless she is Mario Andretti or someone out of a Jetson's episode, she would be able to fly her way from thirty four fair View Drive to one Meadows in a matter of minutes. And the minutes don't track with the other evidence. You know, when the other car which was driven by I want to say it was Ryan Nagel was driving,
it might have been Dantano, but chat forgive me. But when they were at the scene by the time Karen was there and was spotted alone in her vehicle by three fact witnesses d'antano, Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxon being alone in that car uh and then the time that she would have left the scene and got into one meadows. It does it. It's impossible for that to have happened.
Then you couple the fact that just the messier stupid facts, like the third party culprits, none of their testimony is credible on key issues ranging from why phones were discarded by Brian Albert Brian Higgins, why the same day and on the wake of news breaking at least in a small circle that their phones were going to be requested to be they got word.
That there was going to be a cord order to retain their phone one day in advance. So that's the day they both got rid of their phones.
Right, So the same day that happens, and it's right when they get word that it's going to happen. You've got self curated texts from Brian Higgins and a decorated dude, a self proclaimed decorated dude, you know, but you've got text texts that he curated on his own between him and the defending Karen Reid that he you know, for
what it's worth. He procures them through a kiosk, a federal kiosk at the Canton Police Department, But he selected what text he was going to hand over to the investigating officers as opposed to handing over his entire phone. He knows how these investigations work, and he testified that he knows how these investigations work. So there's something suspicious there.
You've got a panoply of butt dials. I mean, I don't know if the laws of physics seek to exist or the laws of telephonics seek to exist in Canton or on that night, but by my count, it was like ten different butt dials between back and forth between Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Jennifer McCabe, John O'Keefe, to the point where technologically speaking, it certainly doesn't track because these calls would have gone to voicemail. There would have been
no callbacks. I know, I'm missing very important facts.
So, uh, Nicholas Borrows So the one officer in the town. I think I told you this when we spoke on the phone, Kate, that Nicholas Borrows was a Dyton police officer where Karen's mom and dad lived, which is not close to Canton, So when the state police asked him to join in the seizure of the vehicle, he described the tail light as having a crack with a piece fallen down inside. And then when they took it back to Canton and brought it to their police sally Port,
the photograph. They didn't photograph the car as it sat when they seized it, they didn't have a photographer come, they didn't do any of that. They photographed it after they got it to the police sally Port, and it was a completely smashed tail light in forty five pieces.
Yeah, and that actually helps me DJ because now I'm remembering the other parts of the plight because not only not only that, where you have the officer from Dighton who basically said it the tail light was cracked but not completely broken, and he has no dog in this fight, I mean, and not his pig, not his farm. But the lack of documentation, whether it's photographic written in written form by law enforcement, of key pieces of evidence or
key interviews of witnesses. So the fact that there were no pictures taken, like how many people just take a picture when you're pulling into a parking garage to say, okay, this is where I parked me. Remember what floram on. He didn't take a picture of the tail light. There's no picture of that tail light that is anywhere has been produced since it until after that that vehicle had
been within the custody of the Massachusetts State Police. The fact that there were multiple other locations that this vehicle could have been taken and were passed by, but only was taken. It was taken further to the Canton PD, where there's a conflict of interest.
Yee.
That's what Clerk Jim Clown is saying here, is that although the the so because Brian Albert's brother was a detective on the camp in the Canton Police Department, and because it was a murder, so there was actually two reasons for the recusal. One is because I don't think cant and PD handles murder cases. They give it over to the detectives within the Norfolk County DA's office, which are troopers.
They did not bring it to an MSP barracks.
In fact, there were two closer to Dighton where they could have brought the vehicle, but instead they brought it to Canton. The one police organization that had recused itself from the investigation.
And this way.
I actually called Peter Murry, officer Peter Murphy today and ask him this very question, and I said they had to have called if someone from the Norfolk Diezo had have called the police barracks and those guys said, hey, man, don't bring.
That car here. We know about o'keep. We don't want any part of this.
And they must have been told that because they weren't going to participate in any because now we had a video expert on and she said that the video copy is not original. What Nan was referring to as the copies of the cell phones that they got. They could see that not one of them were a genuine forensic cell phone extraction.
All of them had been altered.
And Olivia Niles in the chat right now and she explains this better than I can. The hash values were missing and data was missing because they had been altered. That is what they turned over to the defense in August or something like that.
I don't remember.
It was a long time after the event. So Olivia, if you're there, you could explain hashvalag But essentially that's what happened. They monkeyed with everything from the computer on Karen's car, to the tail light, to the cell phones. Everything, it's just it it defies You just can't believe this actually happened.
I know.
That's all I have for you.
That's so true, though, you know, it's one of those things where in trying to boil down all of the challenges that the Commonwealth has to face, there's just so many like I cannot believe all of the things that I know that I'm even forgetting, Like, thank you DJ, thank you Olivia for just adding that on. So the bigger picture of it all, Kate is it's just some of these things are on their own amount to reasonable doubt under the legal standard, and then when you put
them all together, you're like, what's going on here? Which is one of the reasons why like a lawyer like myself not from that jurisdiction has among others, have chosen to speak up because we just don't see it working that way. And I'm assuming you had heard that one of the alternate jurors who didn't fit now she's working for the defense. That's a very telling to someone like me. Well I did.
My last question is do you think this is going to be a precedent setting verdict. Do you think that or what is the legacy of this case?
Yeah, so a precedent setting verdict. I can't say that just because if it's not I mean, if she's acquitted or she's convicted, I think it's just the conviction or the acquittal is just going to get lost in the sauce. It's going to be. The verdict is going to be what it is. But in terms of the legacy of the case, I'm hopeful she will be acquitted. So I'm going to answer your question from that perspective. When she's acquitted, when a jury applies the correct legal standard, and when
there is what I describe as a future reckoning. A look back of all of the missteps down ranging from how it was investigated from the moment it was reported to the continuing investigation that went on thereafter, to the missteps in terms of the law enforcement hierarchical structure two, then the involvement by the District Attorney's office and the up charging of her when what appears to me that she wasn't going to plee and she was going to
put up a fight, then she gets up charged. To the the additional factors of all of the missteps of trial one point zero and the judge. The judge factor, because this judge clearly is making rulings that are inequal to both sides and they just continue to this day. That when there is that reckoning, it is my feeling that there is going to be a complete overhaul of the law enforcement up in that neck of the woods,
the Massachusetts State Police as well. And that was a good start that Trooper Proctor, former Trooper Proctor was fired, and he was fired partially in relation to his investigation
and bias exhibited in this case. But in addition to that, I think there's going to be While well, I cannot forecast robust future prosecutions of those who really committed this crime, because, as we all know, when you pursue one defendant so hard, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you're wrong, because you're then giving other future potential culprits an easy person to point to and to get themselves out of future charges related to the murder or killing of John o'keef.
But I think that there will be a reckoning and an overhaul of all of those systems from judiciary all the way down to law enforcement, and I hope that does happen, and I do truly hope that one day Karen decides to file a civil rights action and to point out all of the different ways that she and her due process rights have been abused throughout the course of the last three years, and ones that go far beyond the fact that she was wrongfully prosecuted, because this
case also has that additional element of confirmation bias and complete violation of her civil rights as it relates to the lead investigator objectifying her and speaking with about her in such an inappropriate manner, exhibiting nothing but bias as to her, to his buddy's end, to some of his
fellow law enforcement officers. So there's a different level to a future civil rights action that they all should be concerned about, but most notably former Trooper Proctor because his conduct, especially if he's not aware of this now, he should be soon, which is his conduct as it relates to how he spoke about her in those text communications, and I'm sure there were more, and I'm sure there were also private communications where he said it as well verbally.
That is, those are things that are not covered by insurance. They're not uncovered by self insurance programs or captive programs that different public entities have, different municipalities have, different states have. Those are things that are wilful and wanton levels of conduct that would never be covered by insurance. So he's got a lot of personal financial exposure to her as well. Well.
Thank you for letting me jump in. I think I'm gonna have I think I'm gonna have a former FBI agent on my show this week to talk about their investigations. So if you want to jump over and check out my podcast, please do so. And grateful for your time. Thank you so much, thank you.
Yes, we will have you in the show notes and everything, Kate, and you on your substack as well.
And oh thank you ma'am, thank you, thank you for joining by.
Yeah, it's so difficult to explain you because there's so many elements of this case, you know, I we hadn't even gotten to how the uh I think her name was Katie McLoughlin was a fan of Caitlin Albert and is the one that says I heard her say I did it. So there's just so many elements to this that that it's just uh, can you check and see what's dropped by better?
Oh, oh, that's right, I still haven't seen I didn't look at that while I've been streaming.
I appreciate you n CSHP retire. We're about out of time. We're very appreciative of Nan giving so much of her time to us tonight, and I appreciate all your questions. The super chats, the gifts of the memberships is really cool. This is probably like the most energetic episode we've had in months.
Probably really so yeah.
I mean, let me tell you, I don't know. I haven't seen these kind of numbers. It's been a while, so you're definitely drawing them in Nan despite the fact. So yeah, thank you so much.
Thanks everyone for joining. But you guys should show up all the time for all beings, whether I'm here or not. These two are sweethearts.
We really appreciate you. I know that you know you're a very wanted commodity.
I know you've already appeared on air today and the community here, all these folks in here, I'm seeing them in lemon pickets, timely manner are new.
Cat, I'm retired teacher.
There's so many of you, AJK, You've been incredibly incredibly generous tonight. All of us appreciate what you've done, man, because without you, we.
Don't understand what the hell's going on in this case.
Thank god. Oll. I plan to keep showing up, maybe not so much on YouTube, but people should ask if I'm around and enable and motivated, I'm happy to pop in, and definitely if anyone is interested. I'm quite active on Twitter and on like a it's more of like a Facebook page, not my personal Facebook, so if anyone wants to follow my thoughts there, but otherwise, let's just all be on the same team and work together and watch and support and spread the word because Karen needs all
the help she's going to get. You know, she needs it.
She does, she does.
Anybody I don't know that, you know, emotionally or mentally, me, myself or a lot of us could handle what she has, knowing how dishonest and how they're really just trying to ruin her because they know they can't convict her.
They don't have the evidence.
To get that, to get twelve people to say that, unless they literally hire twelve people, they're not going to get that. So, yeah, she's carrying a heavy load, and people like you and you know Beatrice here help her kind of bear that load.
So Nan, can I ask you one final question?
Do you think there's anything.
Odd about the fact that she's pushing for this set of April first jury pool? You find it anything wonky there?
Yeah, I do, because every attorney who does trial work, whether it's civil or criminal, will tell you in normal jurisdictions, everything's fungible. So even if Karen needs to have her trial her retrial before July first to comport with mistrial rules up there. Even if that's true, and I've only heard that to be true, I didn't read the statue, but let's assume that's true. There's time between April first and July first for that to take place. But beyond
that they can. It seems a little suspicious that she wants this jury pool in by in an April first start date, But many attorneys will tell you you can bring those jurors in and you can stagger them, and you can even tell them report back on May first. You can tell them report back on May fifteenth, so you're not wasting the jurors. Feel like it seems a little pushed for me, a little too, sus As my
kids say, you know something sus about that. I can't put my finger on it, but yeah, she wants to go to her cottage, as I've heard her somewhat cottage.
Yeah, that's that. You could see the way she thinks.
She thinks not like the best of civil servants, but like the worst, the laziest sort of connotation of civil servants, and thinks about stuff, you know, these long launch breaks and you know, just making people jump to her thing because she can not being a servant of the people. Is like, Okay, I'll stay late so that this this, so that we can hear all these motions today, I can make a ruling from the bench and then maybe these people can go back to Los Angeles and that
this defendant doesn't have to shell out more money. Bev cares about Bev and she is not fooling anybody.
I'm sorry.
I mean that may be it. I've even heard there's suspicions that there are plants, you know, people, I was getting that people planted in this jury pool. I don't know. Conspiracy theorists might be able to better articulate it for me. Other it might be she wants her summer. It might be there's planted people in the pool. It might be a whole slew of different factors. What I can tell you is I know, as other lawyers do that in the real legal world, this trial did not have to
take place April first. So it just feels unnatural to me and inflexible, especially when, at least up until a few days ago, there were pending appeals of her convictions and I have heard, although I didn't see that, she Karen may want to go to the Supreme Court and apply for cert before the Supreme Court, which you know, I'm not saying. There's a lot of hope to be held in that avenue, but something just doesn't ad up be as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, Thank you, mods, Thank you guests on behalf of Nan Gallagher BIA.
This is DJ and calling all beings guys, see you down the road.
Thanks guys. Everyone has a great night. It's been a pleasure being here and keep showing up. Thank you, love bye guys.