Legally Brunette: Karen Read

Hi guys, welcome to Legally Brunette. I will be your host today Emily Simpson and my co.

Host Shane Simpson.

All right, so first of.

All, we're going to go to just a little bit of a brief update on the Menindez case. So, there were two prosecutors, Brock Lunsford and Nancy Theeburg, who filed notices of claim on Monday that they intend to sue DA Hawkman and the Deputy District Attorney John Lewin for retaliation, defamation,

So one of them.

Says that he's now been moved to a calendar clerk or something like that, and then the other one claims that she received high regards in her position, but now she's been moved to something else. So they're saying that they've been retaliated against because they've been supporting the resentencing of the Menendez brothers. Also, what's interesting is they're hearing on March twentieth and twenty. First, if you guys have

Absolutely, And also are you gonna be there?

I would love to be there if I can get a ticket.

And also I heard that they cannot wear regular clothing. Like if you remember when Luigi made his first Luigi Mangioni, he made his appearance, he was like decked in designer.

I mean, he's gonna wear his prison uniform.

They're gonna they're gonna wear a prison.

Well, the reason is because he's already sentenced. He's they're already in jail. So when they have someone on trial innocent before proven guilty, right, so they don't Sometimes they don't want the jury to prejudge by seeing them in like, you know, an orange jumpsuit, right, so they have home dress and then come into the court and then change back into their jumpsuit or whatever the uniform is, go

Right, and just a reminder that it's not the da Hawkman who makes the decision for them to be resents. All he does is make a recommendation to the judge and then the judge ultimately decides right.

But important nevertheless, because he's still presenting evidence to the judge right and making the case right.

Exactly the case.

Based upon everything that we've heard about Hawkman so far, my gut feeling is that he's not going to be very pro recently.

Now. I saw him on TV like a couple months ago, I don't know why because I wasn't following the case as close as you. But he he made a good point. He goes, I'm not just gonna just throw it in front of the judge because it's popular and because it's all over media. He goes, I'm now in, you know, in my position where I have to review it. Like he's kind of like, okay, now it's it's on my desk. I got to review it. I gotta like, I can't just go off of everyone's word because it's on Netflix.

Maybe yeah, all right, So we're gonna move on.

And we've already done two podcasts on the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni mess.

That's what I call it. It is a it is a p R.

It is a juicy mess. If you haven't listened to our first two podcasts, go back and listen. We go through up until today where we're going to start. First of all, the last thing we have not spoken about. They did have a hearing. It was a pre trial conference, and basically what happened was there was a gag order that was requested. They really wanted Brian Friedman to shut up and stop talking. Brian Friedman, he's out there a lot, he's out there on TMZ, he's he's doing podcasts, He's

Allegedly, it looks like they just colluded with the New York Times and the New York City.

Reynolds wants it to continue to be one sided.

It was very It was very one sided. The article was very one sided. It was not a balanced article. And again, if you recall we've talked about this in our first podcast, they gave Justin Baldoni's side, very very little time to respond. I think they got an email the night before basically saying, hey, do you want to.

Respond to this?

So anyway, what happened was and the hearing, the judge basically said, let's just follow the you know, the professional rules of responsibility, which is Rule three point six, which says which basically bars lawyers from making statements publicly that could sway the outcome.

Of the trial.

First of all, to me, that is a very generalized broad statement. I mean clearly, any attorney talking on behalf of their client is going to advocate.

Well, I think, I know, I know, but I think the ideas because you see them making press conferences all the time right from big profile, high profile cases, So I think the ideas they can. They're supposed to only go on there and say things like my client's innocent.

We're going to argue.

Zellously blah blah blah, not giving specific facts like they can deny things, but you don't want them to come in there and you know, give the you know, taints the jury with evidence that may not be admissible in court, but they're throwing it out there right public.

But what also is interesting is that Brian Friedman and Justin Baldoni's team released the website two days before that pre trial conference where they were going to discuss a gag order. So I call him the FAFO attorney because he knew that that was going to be discussed. They want a head and through that website out there. Anyway, if you have the chance to look at it, what he did was he put the amended complaint on there and also the whole text message email chain between him.

They're just putting it.

All out there, and they're probably arguing two cases, one in court and one with the public.

Well, that's absolutely and I would say at this point he's winning in the public.

It's if this is.

A if this is the court of pr and publicity, Baldoni is on.

Top of this team. Baldoni.

Yeah.

So also in this hearing, Justin Baldoni's attorney, Brian Freeman, claims that his client is devastated financially and emotionally, and he also wants to depose Blake Lively quickly and get.

Right into discovery.

Then I also saw he did Brian Freeman did a podcast the other day. There's a new podcast called Two Angry Men, which is Mark Garregos and Harvey Levin, who is the TMZ guy, And on that podcast, Brian Freeman was making reference to Justin Baldoni. Basically losing four projects because of these accusations against him. So when people are like, wow, four hundred million dollars, well, that's because they're going to argue. They're going to argue that those are the damages and

Who is Okay Lively is amending her complaints? Do we have any idea what she's trying to amend.

Well, here's my thoughts.

First of all, if she's amending the content, like I have more allegations against him, I find that to be suspect because if you were originally going to file a complaint about someone, you had months and months to prepare it, you're working with The New York Times on it, you would have thrown everything out there in the beginning.

You wouldn't have held stuff.

So it's not an amendment to add evidence, it's just an like cause of action. Well, because evidence is for trial, right, So I mean it's probably yeah, you're right, it's probably more causes of action.

I don't know what those are. I assume they would have been originally. I do think that she's probably going to add Jed Wallace. He is the guy that is in Texas that he was named in the original complaint that Blake Lively filed. Or he has some kind of PR type of business where I don't know he does, like astroturfing or bots or something like that. So Blake

On the automation.

When it's in court, you have the immunity quasi immunity, which you know, you're allowed to say things in court make those accusations.

I don't know.

Anyway, maybe publicly she also threw it out there or something.

I don't know.

Well, I mean, he's named in this complaint and everybody's talking about all these PR people that are all involved in these smear campaigns, and so he got pulled into this smear campaign against.

Sure, I want the deposition of Taylor Swift.

Yes, well, that's interesting you bring that up, because when Brian Friedman did this podcast recently, Harry Harvey said to him, you're you're clearly going to depose Taylor Swift, right, And he said, you know, I don't know. We'll figure that out at game time. And Harvey's like, are you kidding me? Of course you're going to depose Taylor Swift. She was.

You think Taylor's sing. What the heck? Why did I become friends with her?

Well, I mean, I have read some things and this is just alleged. I don't know exactly what Taylor Swift is thinking, but clearly there's people you know, close to Taylor that are saying she's distancing herself from Blake Lively and that she doesn't want to be involved in this lawsuit and she doesn't want to have anything to.

Tell with it.

Taylor Swift should give Blake Lively some advice, and you know what that would be, shake it off.

Shake it off.

That was a good one, Shane. I didn't even know you knew Taylor Swift song.

I just know that one.

So there we go.

Hopefully when they am in a complaint gets file, we will do another podcast.

We will talk about it.

We will figure out did she add in new causes of action? Did she add in new defendants? What's going on there?

When she amends the complaints, then there can be allowed a response to those to the new amended causes of action. Okay, just to be clear for the listeners.

All right, So here's some things that have been going on in the media with this Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni situation. First of all, I don't know if you saw this, but Colleen Hoover is back on Instagram. She deactivated her Instagram, I'm sure because she was just getting hit with she went on polse.

Yes she did.

She is now back.

But yeah, right, So she's back on Instagram.

We'll see what happens there.

I did read in an article that she had removed anything that really had to do with Justin or Blake or it ends with us. I mean, I'm sure she doesn't want to give people an avenue where they can comment. Now, if they want to comment, they have to find, you know, a picture of Yeah, that would be that would be a that would be a series. So Blake Lively right litigates with us.

That's a good one.

So Blake Lively is now seeking Justin Baldoni's phone records to show that there was a smear effort against her. This was in a Variety article that came out last night. Blake Lively's lawyers sent a subpoena on Wednesday, February thirteenth for Justin Baldoni's phone records. Lively's attorneys sent subpoenas to three phone carriers, AT and T, Risen and T Mobile seeking phone records. What's his meant, No, that that one has a protective order? Probably kidding, Yeah, yeah, exactly.

He's like he gets he's like denied. Yeah, I don't know who our cell carrier is. That's interesting.

They're seeking records pertaining to Baldoni, the producer Jamie Heath, who is one of the Wayfarer founders, and billionaire Wayfair Studios co founder Steve Sorrowitz. The subpoenas also seek the phone records of Abel, she is Wayfarers and Baldoni's publicist. She is the one who her phone was confiscated by Stephanie Jones, who is.

Another PR person. There's so much PR people at.

The suppose it and release it.

I don't know about that subpoena, but anyway, Jennifer Able her phone was confiscated by Stephanie, and then that's how they propagated all those text messages that Blake Lively used and her complaint and that The New York Times also used, and allegedly that's.

Kind of a little sneaky. There was something going on there, right.

Oh yeah, of course, I mean if you in in Justin's complaint, he lays out that she went to the to work one day and then she got put into a room and there was a security guard there and they confiscated her phone and they made her sign all these documents and it was her personal cell phone, her personal cell phone number. Then Blake Lively gets a hold of all these text messages that she uses in her complaints.

I wouldn't don't ever give up your cell phone.

No, race is like that. No, you just throw it.

If anything, they'd start to go for you throw it out in the past, so you don't have.

To give them the cast code.

Yeah, that's true.

The subpoenas seek the phone records Amable and publicist Melissa Nathan. Melissa Nathan is the publicist who is the crisis PR publicist that Justin Baldoni hired. You know when the movie came out. He's hearing that he's been referred to as a sexual predator. He hires the same PR crisis management team that represented Johnny Depp. So not so he has a regular publicist and then he hired this crisis management team.

So there are so many PR people.

I know that's the way it's deviating. But do you know how much money is being made off of everyone outside of this, all the like social media stuff, articles written, you know, TV shows or whatever, news casting. Then you have all these PR crisis people that are hired. Who knows how many therapists are hired. The lawyers are hired, right, tons of investigators.

It creates so much like money.

Yeah, but but these.

PR people are all being sued and they're all suing each other, so they also have to.

They're also PR people are hiring PR people, They're hiring.

Attorneys to defend them. I mean, they're all suing each other. It's just it's a mess.

Send them all to an island.

So where are we at?

Lively's lawyers also sent subpoenas to two internet providers, cloud Fare and Aol, as well as to Jed Wallace, who we talked about earlier. He's the crisis consultant who is accused of launching a digital army against Lively on Baldoni's behalf. I anticipate that when she files her when Blakely, Blakely, Blake Lively, see, I have to say her name so many times. I just made it Blakely. When Blake Lively files her amendic complaint, she's probably going to add Jed

So that's been their thing the whole.

That's my means, I got nothing to hide. Let's get it all out there on the table.

Right, And that was the whole point of their website was to say, look, our hands are clean. Here's everything. We're not hiding anything. Here's all the messages to.

The other end, here's all the crap that Blake is doing, so have at it.

So Justin Baldoni, there was a recent podcast he was actually the podcast was actually taped before the Blake Lively court filing. It was taped back in November. I don't know why they held onto it so long, but it just got released a couple days ago, so I'm not sure. I don't know if they recorded it and they always had the intent of holding onto it this long, or it just worked out that way. But anyway, he appeared on an episode of the Gents Talk podcast. It was

Doesn't know to ask more.

Questions because they don't know exactly what he's making reference too. But now we know, I'm sure he's making reference to the year and a half of hell that he had to deal with.

Okay, let's talk about the regular stuff. Have they been in court yet together? They haven't any. No, they haven't made an appearance.

Together when they both have to go.

Well, here's my thought on stuff like that. And you know what the Amber heard Johnny Depp stuff.

I don't think it's going to get that far.

It may not, but you think it's it'll settle. I think someone will drop it.

I think it has to settle. Because do you think that Blake Lively wants to be deposed by Brian Friedman?

I know she doesn't want to take two parties, so she can offer all she wants. He'd have to accept. And I'm I'm speculating.

I don't know.

I would think that he might be like, hell with this, No, we're going to court like Johnny Depp did. Johnny Depp wasn't trying to get two million bucks or whatever. He was trying to say, I'm clean, she's nasty, she pooped on my pillow and I was making a movie, right or whatever?

He does right right.

Well, you know that's interesting because they also in that podcast that Brian Friedman just did, they said, you know, would you be would you be willing to settle?

Wow?

And he doesn't say yes or no. He's very smart in his wording.

Of course, but he says, look, this is about a man's reputation. He's been referred to as a sexual predator. And does the settlement mean hey, let's just figure this all out and let's back out. But does it also mean are you going to publicly say right?

Because if they settle and the terms are kept private, then everyone's gonna think, oh, everyone's dirty or whatever. No one wants anything exposed, like Johnny Depp. But if he says no, let's go to court and let's expose it all, let's.

Clear my name.

Plus, if his reputation and his business is suffering, then he may need the money to offset his losses. And if he's suing for four hundred or whatever, you think they're going to cough up anywhere near that.

I mean, he's suing the New York Times too for defamation, So I.

Mean he's he's.

Asking for a lot of money out there. He's suing up Blake or a set.

I always included a written statement too, yeah, which I don't know if that's enough.

Does a written statement? Is that enough to cure the fact that.

Someone provided facts, like you know, clarification of them? But no, So I hope he takes it all the way because I want some good court TV.

Yeah, well you want to see well, it's in federal court, so I don't know do they film. I know state courts. I don't know if they if it's going to end up on television. Like Johnny Depteck was a state court. That's a different.

Are they all federal courts all all these cases?

Yeah, they're all in they've all been. They're all in New York now.

So he dismissed his action against The New York Times in California. That's why he amended the complaint. And now in the New York filing, he added New York Times into that amended complaint.

So it's all in the same court. Now.

On another thing, I want to bring up, which I'm probably throwing you off, that video that came out where she says she just does whatever to get the job and she acts like an actor. That's then I get in and I infiltrate. Yes, that's oh my gosh. She is terrible, she is nasty. She's an idiot for saying that she is an idiot. What year was that?

That was in twenty twenty two, so that was idio.

Prior to her, she thought she was so smart, like, she's clever like and then I get in and I just do.

Whatever I want. Well, let me get into that and anything.

I could finish that video, all right, and here that's next on my In a resurface interview from the twenty twenty two Forbes Power Our Women's Summit, Lively said just following direction as an actress was not fulfilling for her, and that.

She's received to be nasty on top of it that filling for me, and that.

She has received backlash for stepping in and trying to be a part of costume design, writing and other aspects of a project.

How would you want to do that?

I get paid twenty million dollars to act. I'm not going to go above and beyond.

I'm just going to act because at that point, it's an ego. It's not about actually doing your job and staying within the scope of your employee.

I want to be bigger in Hollywood, right, you want to be like, I'm a big executive producer on this that now I'm going to do another movie?

I don't know.

She said she has had writers, producers, and directors welcome that and invite that, but she's also had others who resented her for stepping on toes. She also said she hasn't always been upfront with her plans to step into other parts of a project where she has where she was just hired as the actress, and that she wouldn't reveal that I actually need to have authorship in order to feel for filled. Sometimes that might have felt like

There is no one like You're a no person, right, you are?

Like I would say when people are like, oh, you've been on TV for a long time, but you really haven't changed.

I have. I can't because my husband tells.

Me every day that I am not a star, that I am not famous, that I am not special, that I am a mom.

I need to go make some chicken nuggets in the kitchen.

You're a civilian. I am a civil person. I am a regular person. He tells me that daily, and I have remained humble.

I'm the star.

Yes, I know, you are the star. I got it. But the problem with Blake Lively.

And Ryan Reynolds is that everyone walks on eggshells around them, and everyone is a yes person around them.

Her attorneys are yes people.

Yes.

Her attorneys are like oh yeah, yeah, yeah, well we got this, we got this, Okay, you know, give us a blank check. Right, and then when those attorneys go in public and they do the little uh you know, press conference, and they say, we will fight this to the end. No, we will fight this so long as she keeps us and the until they those checks stop coming, then we will not.

Fight it anymore. And that's all that. That means.

They don't really whether she's guilty or not. I mean they should if she hires them, they should defend her obviously, but there it's all about the money.

Well, yeah, they're getting paid regardless of whether she has a great case or whether she has a crappy case.

I mean, it makes no different exactly. You know how much her bills are because you know they call all like Lively and Reynolds are like constantly like here's another email, here's this now I wanted to mend it.

When can we do this?

And you know they're just taking it's going to be seven figures like big time.

Oh yeah absolutely. But here's the thing.

I don't think she wants to go to trials. So how do they get out of this?

Well, if if you say she has this ego, she may not settle, but.

She's already I have read and I'm sure it's true, but allegedly she does not want Brian Friedman to depose her. She wants if she has to be deposed, she wants someone else. It doesn't work like that. Brian Friedman is going to depose.

Her, and let's talk about depositions really quickly.

But her ego is going to be the death of her if it's as you say, and as Kenny Rogers says, he had no one to fold them, and he got no one to hold them. Yeah, and she's got a fold. But when your ego is there, you hold out maybe just maybe maybe maybe I'll win, Maybe I'll win, and then you don't.

I just want to talk about just quickly, like depositions. She does not want to be deposed.

Well, explain what a deposition is, the basic structure of it.

Well, okay, so basic structure would be Brian Friedman. He can't wait to do Discovery. This man is like chomping at the bank. He wants to do Discovery right now, and he wants to He wants to depose everyone and anyone that's on set that has anything to say. The actors, Taylor Swift, Ryan Reynolds.

I mean, this guy's chalking the.

Deposition, they sit down and they get to do Q and A.

They get asked all kinds of questions, right, and the questions can be they don't have to just be about direct evidence, because it could be a question that my lead to evidence. So they can ask all kinds of questions about her relationship with Taylor Swift. And then if she says the wrong thing, then like she starts to open up the door to certain text messages, then they might be able to subpoena Taylor Swift's cell phone carriers and blah blah blah. So it can get really bad.

Forget it, forget it, and they'll either drop it or be quick to settle. Right.

And also in a deposition there isn't a judge there where your side can object. The only thing really that you can object to is anything has to do with privilege.

Well, you can object, you can you can object to hear say and all the regular ones, but they still have to answer the question. So you object in a deposition to preserve it for when it goes to court to be inadmissible. But so a lot of times when we've done depositions, like their attorney will be like objection and then the person's like thinking, oh, I don't have to answer the question. Their attorney looks a him and goes, no, you still got to answer the question. They're like what

I would want to be a fly on the wall if Brian Friedman has the opportunity.

And they might try to video it.

That is true.

It would be on camera, yes, absolutely, And I don't know about media rules with depositions and recording it, but knowing Brian Friedman and his concept of transparency, ye, it'll be like live stream.

On the website.

But we're going to move on and we're going to talk about a new case because this is a very interesting case. A lot of people have been invested in this. It is the Karen Reid case. Now Karen Reid is going to go on trial again on April first, so I wanted to do a quick just synopsis background. Her first trial was a hung jury, so she is now being retried and she goes a trial on April first. So I know that there's going to be a media storm around this trial and everybody's going to be invested

Right, So what are the charges? It's criminal, right, Yeah.

So John O'Keefe had been an officer with the Boston Police Department for sixteen years when he died January twenty ninth. On twenty twenty two, he had been dating Reid. This is Karen Reid, and she was an equity analysis at Fidelity Investments for two years. According to the Norfolk County Assistant District Attorney Adam Lawley, troubles in the couple's relationship appeared to intensify in the months before O'Keeffe's death, which

Who are these people? Are they regular people?

They're just regular people. But he's a he's a police officer. And this is his girlfriend, Karen Reid. And I'll tell you this case is. People are very invested in this case. And I'll tell you why this. Let me go through it in the way.

What's the crime.

I'm getting there.

Just start with the crime.

I'm just giving you a background of who the people are.

He's an officer, this is the girlfriend. On January twenty eighth and twenty twenty two, Reed's defense lawyer, David Yanetti claims that the couple seem fine while they were out at a bar in a Boston suburb. They're at out at a bar with other current and former law enforcement officers.

She couldn't find him. She wakes up at like four in the morning, and she realizes he's not home.

So he spent the night I know.

No, he did not spend the night. He got dropped off at a party. This is what she claims.

Okay, Okay, she.

Claims that she dropped him off at a party. They went to a bar. They're inebriated, they're drinking, she drops him off, she's driving. Clearly, she's drove him to a house.

I'm already not believing this story. They went to a party or a bar or whatever. Yes, I had a bunch of drinks, her girlfriend and boyfriend, and then she drops him off somewhere. They don't go home together, They don't spend more time together.

No, Apparently she drops him off at a home that was having an after party and the home is owned by a former police officer.

Okay, and she doesn't go to the party no.

She leaves and goes home, sure and passes out or whatever. Then she wakes up at like four in the morning.

He's already not believable.

Okay, why can I tell what hydern I even got through the facts the case?

Yelty, Okay, go ahead, sorry.

Anyway, she wakes up, she realizes that she can't find him. He never came home that morning. She she has some friend that goes with her. They drive around, they go back to the house, and she spots his body outside of the home on the morning of January twenty ninth, and then one of the women dialed nine to one to one.

Oh, Keith, this is.

Okay, I know I got to ask these questions though, So she gets her friends says, let's go look for my boyfriend.

Yes, okay.

Why is she suspicious the boyfriend's missing because she text him and he doesn't respond because he never came home, so he didn't fall through whatever his routine was, and he's missing.

He's missing, so he's not there. So she gets up. It's early in the morning.

They drive I need to go get an alibi. So she's like, hey, come with me to find my boyfriend. He's on this lawn over there. Sorry, this is pretty obvious. Okay, keep going. I don't know why I was ungury Okay, go ahead, sorry you.

Are okay, go ahead, Karen read.

All right, So you got me all confused.

She went and found him on the lawn or something.

Yes, at like six am, they called nine to one one the police calm, he's pronounced dead. They take him to the hospital. He's pronounced dead at seven fifty am. At the hospital, the medical examiner attributed his cause of death to blunt force trauma to the head. Blunt force trauma to.

The head, trauma to the rest.

Yeah, the head, Yes, it could be to like your your chest, your Yeah.

If she wants to kill him, she's gonna hit him in the head.

Okay, in hypothermia. So, Reid was charged with manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. The prosecution alleges that Reid backed her Lexus SUV into O'Keefe outside of the home, causing a skull fracture and brain bleed, and that she left him there to die.

Yeah, as a prosecution, right, that's a different story.

Basically, they got into a fight and she's aee breed and he's a nee breed, and she's in the car and she's pissed off and she backs over him and then leaves him there. Okay, story, that's the prosecution story. Even though Reid said she dropped O'Keefe off at Albert home, the assistant DA said that no one at the after party recalled seeing O'Keeffe inside.

See.

That was interesting to me because she claims that she dropped him off at this house.

There's all these people at a party.

That was one of my first questions, except he kept telling me not to ask questions. Was she drops off? She claims to drop him off at a party where there's all these witnesses. Ridiculous.

She was an idiot.

She should have said I dropped him off, like on the corner where he wanted to walk or something.

Okay, But there's no witnesses.

Okay.

So this is where it gets moundy for me, because I don't understand why if he went inside the house, there's witnesses that can't confirm that he's ever inside this house.

But of course he didn't go inside the house.

You don't think he ever went sie?

Sorry, newsflash, No, No, she dumped him on the lawn at what time, I don't know, after she ran him over. Whatever she did, she puts him on the lawn at the party. The party's probably over by now, or she put them on the lawn hoping someone from the party would see him. They clearly didn't. And then she grabbed her friend as a witness so the friend could testify like, oh, I don't know, we were driving around, we found them, she didn't touch them.

Okay, let's get back to the facts.

I like, how you figure this, figured this whole case out before you could.

Get through it, and I need to be on the jury.

Yeah they was, Yeah, okay, they claim. So people in this home claim that they saw the suv pull up to the house then leave, and they assumed no one from the vehicle was joining them. But vehicle data from Reed's suv showed that at twelve forty five am, while outside of Albert this is the other police officer at home, the Lexus Trevel traveled backward for sixty feet at twenty four miles per hour.

This is what the prosecution played.

Don't realize your car documents a lot. It's called an OBD two sensor. It's not surprised her that you know, regulated and all cars have them.

Does my car know how many times I've been through McDonald's drive through? That's what I want to know.

Yes, it senses the egg mcmuffins and it reports it to me. I have an app, no really, that has an OBD two sensor and it documents. So if you hard breaks air bags and a miles per hour, it can I don't think GPS so much. That might be some, but that's not required.

Okay, let me go on with the prosecution side, and then we'll get into the defense. The SUV's tail light was broken, and pieces of the light from the tail light were later found outside of Albert's home.

And tail lights can be very distinctive, like sometimes they have veins on them and stuff, so they can really know which tail light, like which car goes to.

Okay, again, this is just the prosecution, so we're going to get to the defense. The forensic testing showed that O'Keefe's hair was found on the vehicle's bumper and his DNA was found on the tail light. Investigators also found the remnants of a cocktail that appears to have been build on the bumper.

The prosecutor said.

She's built her cocktail. Oh or it probably is, huh.

O'Keefe was captured on video leaving the bar with a cocktail in his hand, and bits of what the prosecutor described as a drinking glass were found in the SUV's bumper.

All right, let's get to the defense. The defense. Yes, there's always a defense. There was a hung jury. There's clearly a defense.

Reed's lawyers developed a theory that Karen Reid did drop off O'Keefe at the party, after which O'Keefe got into a fight with someone at the party and was attacked by the family dog. Because apparently there were scratches all over his arms that aren't consistent with someone running over him. Reed's defense brought in experts to say that O'Keefe's wounds were consistent with a dog bite from a dog the size of the one that lived at that home, who

Theory as someone else beat him up and killed them. Their theory.

Yeah, and they all wanted to cover up because they're men.

They're all conspiring because they're protecting each other. And that's her theory.

Yeah, that on this phone doesn't have a ring camera or something. Man, that would solve a lot of problems.

Right at the house. Yeah, aren't there neighbors that have a ring camera?

Like someone's got we've got cameras on this house, Like someone's got to have cameras somewhere these days. So this is interesting. So the lead investigator in this case texted inappropriate comments about Karen Reid to others, to like his high school friends, his sister. Three different prosecution witnesses testified that at crucial times, including the night of the killing, their calls back and forth to each other were inadvertent

They don't have the content of the call. They just have phone logs.

They just have phone logs, and like one calls a couple seconds, the other one's like twenty two seconds. So you know, that's the defense saying that they're the.

Calls are probably did you hear that car crash? It's sound like she ran over someone. What's that tail light over there?

All right?

So the lead investigator in this case, he's state Trooper Michael Proctor. He's a Massachusetts State police trooper that led the investigation in this car case. No, his name's Proctor, Michael Proctor. He's the lead investigator. Oh okay, he's a trooper,

That's a fair that's a fair concern. Right.

So the defense is saying, look, not only is he's sending inappropriate you know text that have to do with this case. He called her a like a whack job, and he said he texted.

Like sure, he called her all kinds of things.

Yeah, And he also said like when he was.

Going through a killer called her that.

Well, he called her a whack job.

He also made reference to like going through her phone and saying, oh, I couldn't find any news.

Yeah, you know, I agree with the arguments biased and it's a conflict of interests that doesn't negate my findings. She's guilty.

You're so convinced she's.

Gold, right, they definitely you definitely need someone more neutral, right, And that's a shame, Okay.

So in her first trial, So during this is Michael Proctor again.

Wait when was the first trial?

So this trial, her.

First trial took place in twenty twenty four, So Michael Proctor again, he is the lead investigator. And during his testimony during the trial, Proctor read through a text conversation that he had with a group of friends he'd known since childhood on the evening of January twenty ninth, which is the day O'Keefe died. After some discussion, a friend wrote back, in this text, this group text, I'm sure

So this came out during the trial.

He also told his friend that read waffled O'Keefe waffled. I guess that means just is that like literal? Like it looked like a waffle.

I don't know what mean.

That's what he said.

Verb it is now waffle is a verb? He waffled, or she waffled.

O'Keefe's body, who was banged up and he saw it at the hospital. When a friend asked, is she hot? At least, Proctor replied, from all accounts, he didn't do anything wrong. She's a whack job.

Then spelled out a vulgar word for a woman, which we can all guess what that vulgar word is. It starts with the sea, ends in a cat. Yes, cat, I love that your micros.

Read's attorney objected and said, these are your words, and then the judge said, these are your words, Trooper Proctor, and he had him say the C word out loud, which it's not cat, it's the cun t word. Proctor continued, She's a babe weird fall River accent, though then added a disparaging comment about her rear. So clearly this is the lead investigator. He's making He's there's these text messages

A quick question, so, as a hung jury, do we know how many voted or how they casted theirs?

I don't know, But what came out later was that the jury was unanimous on two of the counts, but that was not made public, and I don't think the judge do that. So what what her defense is trying to do now currently is to get those two charges dismissed because during that original trial, he's saying, throw those two charges out because the jury was unanimous that she wasn't guilty on those two charges.

When they have a second trial, because there's a little bit of tainting on this investigation, I do agree that it's unfortunately biased. Whether it affected the investigation or not, it's still not a good look. Do they have a new investigator, do they do anything different or do they present the same evidence?

I don't know, but that is a very good question, and that is something that we'll have to talk about again when this trial starts April first.

How they're going to proceed for.

I always think I don't I don't have the experience, but I certainly a second trial after Hungary is always a little weird because they do it's a different delivery. Yeah, well, when you almost should just get a new jury and just have them watch the trial the original trials. They've the can come up with a different response. I don't know, because sometimes it happens. I've read in cases they can't recall the top of my head. But the second case, well,

Yeah.

It was like, I G that was you that I was talking about that I was trying to say.

I was like, yes, the second trial and Mendez was completely different.

It's terrible, it's completely different.

Yeah, they didn't allow like ninety percent of the evidence or the testimony to add to do with the alleged abuse and all that.

Well that's one reason why.

Well, yeah, that's the risk you take with the jury. But with a judge, you'll never have a.

Hung jury, hung judge, no, you won't. Not to be taken out of context, right exactly, Okay, all right.

So on June twenty eighth, twenty twenty four, this is during her first trial, juror sent a note to Judge Canoni telling her that they are deadlocked. The judge responded that she did not believe that they had deliberated long enough and asked them to continue trying to reach a verdict. Then, on July first, twenty twenty four, the jury sent another note to the judge for a second time, telling her

So he's removed.

Yeah, now we're going to.

Get to the retrials.

So the state's top court ruled that Karen Reid can be retried on all the same charges and the death of her Boston Police officer boyfriend. Prosecutors have sought to retry Read this year on charges of second degree murder, manslaughter,

I don't have the experience, but the whole hung jury and a second trial, second jury, it just never sat right. With me, it's like and then when the judges and I get that they they're not doing the wrong thing. But when they're like, no, go back in there and figure it out, because it's kind of like, oh, you're honor. Six of us, you know, think he's guilty and the other six don't. Oh well, go back in there until you change your minds. I mean, it's it's just and

Don't like that. But I know that, you know, I don't know what the answer would be.

So so Weinberg argued and the appeal that trying her again would amount to double jeopardy and urge the court to allow on evidentiary hearing where jurors could be asked whether they had reached final not guilty verdicts on any.

Of the charges.

That's right, double jeopardy because if they're found if a jury found them not guilty, found her not guilty on two things, and they say, okay, yeah, but we're gonna go have a net. We're going to charge you again, right, We're going to prosecute you again, right on the same because double jeopardy is on the same set of facts and the same crime, not just the same crime, the same set of facts. And in this case there are no new real facts as to the alleged crime.

So she's going to go back to trial again on ape. Well, first, I don't think they've determined whether she's going to be retried on all three charges or just on the one. I think that that is still the one being aslaughter, the one being manslaughter.

I find out in due time. Yes, how old is Karen read by the way, how old are these people?

Well? Do you want to know if she's hot and what?

But I also I just want to know what they're like, like, do they have kids? How loo they've been together?

Is this a crime of passion?

It is? Right, Well, it's a crime of alcohol too. Well, that's what happens when everybody.

I don't know if it's crime passion, but it was between two lovers, two lovers.

Yes, Okay, so she's going to go back to trial April first. But the judges ruled that she's going to go back and they're going to deliberate all three charges, even though there was evidence that jurors came forward and said that there was a unanimous.

Argument that double jeopardy was overridden by the judge. Yeah, so, which is interesting. That's interesting. So what we learn, we think we learn is it's all or nothing. If we're going to retry the case, We're going to try it all. But it would go the other way around too. They found her guilty on certain charges and not guilty and hung on other charges. Again, they would throw it all out and have to start all over.

The problem is is that I don't think the jury that might get appealed.

The jury did not.

I guess the jury wasn't forthcoming and what they were unanimous on. They just basically were like, we just can't come to a decision on all three. And then later it was determined that they did actually come to a

Question.

Yes, during all this time, is she in custody or is she out on bail?

That's what I want to know.

Okay, So she's out.

On bail, okay.

And they were dating for two years and she is forty four, So those are your and you can google an image of her so that you can see what she looks like. All right, So there you go. That's a little brief. I know that if a lot of you followed the care and read trial, I know that there was a lot more involved. There were like seventy witnesses or something.

I just looked her up guilty, Okay.

So I understand that there's a lot more details. However, we wanted to do a brief overview just so that we could all kind of be on the same page, that we all have a basic understanding of what happened and where we're at, so that we can follow this starting on April first. So again, thank you guys so much for all the amazing feedback. So many of you have reached out and said that you enjoy listening. Also,

Thank you bye people.

A