Speaker 1: Welcome back to calling on things.
Speaker 2: I'm your host DJ, along with the one and only
Speaker 2: Massachusetts one of Troy, my homie Boston BA.
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 3: What's up? Happy Saturday night.
Speaker 1: Happy Saturday night to you. What we got going on tonight?
Speaker 3: Via, Well, we have two amazing ladies coming on to
Speaker 3: talk to us.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right, that's right, all right.
Speaker 2: You guys know her because she has appeared on shows,
Speaker 2: and essentially, this young lady, this successful business owner, entrepreneur,
Speaker 2: owner of two law firms, and she sits on more
Speaker 2: boards than a lot of surfers do, has come here
Speaker 2: to shed light on what is almost unbelievable what's happening
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts with regard to bias. Bev and her cast
Speaker 2: of characters from the Norfolk DA, the MSP, and the
Speaker 2: Kenton Police Office.
Speaker 1: Hi Helena Rafferty xoxo. So, and she's actually.
Speaker 2: I heard her today on Young Jerks, a great show
Speaker 2: with Mike, and she was encouraging other She used the
Speaker 2: word barristers, which really struck my English, my UK soul
Speaker 2: to come and join her in this fight. So, without
Speaker 2: further delay, let us please welcome in cab Homie. Awesome attorney,
Speaker 2: cool badass lady ned Gallop.
Speaker 1: Did somebody get in amen? Then gall you miss Joy? Yes?
Speaker 4: And can I add she's also very down to earth
Speaker 4: and very yes, very down to earth, very approachable.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I appreciate that. Guys. It's always the warmest
Speaker 5: welcome when I come see you. How are you today?
Speaker 2: We're doing great, man, We got We've got a great
Speaker 2: bunch of people in the chat.
Speaker 1: Got some working out done this morning so we could
Speaker 1: try to look like you.
Speaker 5: Oh there ain't no, there ain't no muscle here. BIA's
Speaker 5: met me in person. It's just it's kind of just
Speaker 5: not much there.
Speaker 1: Sinewy your sinewy? Is that the right way? I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's.
Speaker 5: That's a good word for me.
Speaker 2: I like them, And you know what, it's funny. I
Speaker 2: had to write down a question uh today that is
Speaker 2: a take off from your conversation with Mike.
Speaker 1: And you you spoke about and so we're gonna do
Speaker 1: this and then what's gonna happen. First of all, Hello,
Speaker 1: everybody in chat.
Speaker 2: Hello, Kimberley macguiere, Welcome in, Debbie Blair and everybody else, Hillary,
Speaker 2: everybody that's here.
Speaker 1: I just saw somebody, uh and and Webb a.
Speaker 2: Timely manner. I love some of your names. Valhall Law,
Speaker 2: the Massachusetts attorneys here.
Speaker 1: Your colleague, uh hey, And so I'm sitting there listening
Speaker 1: to you, and you said that there's going to be
Speaker 1: a reckoning for Hank Brennan, and I was curious what
Speaker 1: type of reckoning could be.
Speaker 2: So, in other words, what form could that take? Uh,
Speaker 2: some sort of reckoning after this trial unfolds and comes
Speaker 2: to a conclusion.
Speaker 5: That's a great question. And I have used that word
Speaker 5: just a handful of times, and one of which was today,
Speaker 5: And for anyone who's interested, I kind of stole that
Speaker 5: line from the end of There's a movie that came
Speaker 5: out I think it was in two thousand and two
Speaker 5: called Cold Mountain with Nicole Kidman and Jude Law and
Speaker 5: it was Civil War based love story and war story.
Speaker 5: And towards the end of the movie, after all of
Speaker 5: this kind of corruption in how the Civil War deserters
Speaker 5: were treated, those who just walked away from the war,
Speaker 5: Nicole Kidman had a line where she looked one of
Speaker 5: the corrupt law enforcement individuals in the face and she said,
Speaker 5: there will be a reckoning. And that always kind of
Speaker 5: stuck with me, and I'm sure, and I really just
Speaker 5: don't know, but I'm sure there is some biblical background
Speaker 5: to it, but it's I took it from the cinema.
Speaker 5: But in terms of a reckoning, I really do believe
Speaker 5: in that, in that in this case, the Karen Reid case,
Speaker 5: and frankly the Aiden Carney case, which is tied to
Speaker 5: it but certainly separate from it, I'm of the opinion,
Speaker 5: with my legal background, to say that I look at
Speaker 5: once she is acquitted and he is acquitted, although perhaps
Speaker 5: his charges will be dismissed outright, and there's some pending
Speaker 5: applications to do that, that there will be some type
Speaker 5: of look back, whatever it is, in terms of what
Speaker 5: went wrong, what officers were really at fault, who covered
Speaker 5: things up, what individuals who have been named as third
Speaker 5: party culprits and or co conspirators in any potential cover
Speaker 5: up of you know what. I I don't believe was
Speaker 5: ever an intentional murder of John O'Keeffe. I just feel
Speaker 5: that there was probably something that went awry, and then
Speaker 5: I wish cooler heads had prevailed and that law enforcement
Speaker 5: had been called and people had been held accountable. But
Speaker 5: that does not seem to have been the case as
Speaker 5: it tracks with the facts that have come out, and
Speaker 5: once there is this quote look back. There will be consequences,
Speaker 5: consequences that range from those who were really at ground
Speaker 5: zero from the tragic events of January twenty ninth, twenty
Speaker 5: twenty two, stemming all the way through the investigation. And
Speaker 5: you've already seen one of those reckonings with the former
Speaker 5: trooper Proctor, mister Michael Proctor now, and I always, I
Speaker 5: always try to make sure I emphasize that, and I
Speaker 5: hope you all do too. But that's one little depth.
Speaker 5: Then there will be some looking at the prosecutor, the
Speaker 5: district attorney in that in that county, and whether or
Speaker 5: not he had a hand in orchestrating and or not
Speaker 5: properly investigating and prosecuting ms Read and possibly Aiden Carney
Speaker 5: as well. Also, I think that in terms of reckoning,
Speaker 5: there will likely be a complete overhaul for not only
Speaker 5: how just ground level investigations are performed, but also ranging
Speaker 5: all the way up through how cases are brought, when,
Speaker 5: how the decision making is done, how that sausage is made.
Speaker 5: Do we bring charges against this person, do we bring
Speaker 5: this level of charges against this person, and by this person,
Speaker 5: I mean any of you, any of your loved ones
Speaker 5: that in that community up there, and hopefully perhaps a
Speaker 5: judicial overhaul if if there has been a determination that
Speaker 5: some of the decisions were biased, there needs to be
Speaker 5: some accountability there. And the accountability is all to the taxpayers.
Speaker 5: I'm not a taxpayer there, but if I were any
Speaker 5: of your viewers listening and watching, saying I pay taxes
Speaker 5: to this county or this this town, I would want
Speaker 5: to make sure that only the best law enforcement were
Speaker 5: policing the streets and that there wasn't a thin blue line.
Speaker 5: So there there's going to be a look back or
Speaker 5: a reckoning, and one day, I really do hope it
Speaker 5: comes to fruition, because this has been not only a
Speaker 5: financial strain, but it's been an emotional one, a psychological one. Yeah,
Speaker 5: look at this.
Speaker 1: Somebody is checking you out right from here from Bartha Colona. Right,
Speaker 1: go ahead, that's right, look at that. What's up?
Speaker 2: There's my homie from Franklin, mass where my college is Deborah.
Speaker 1: What's up? Homes? How are you?
Speaker 2: And so there before there is quite we already have
Speaker 2: interesting questions for you, But I want to say thank
Speaker 2: you very much for AJK for gifting ten calling all
Speaker 2: beings memberships, and I mustay I really appreciate you when
Speaker 2: you see me raise my hands up that but my
Speaker 2: guest is speaking.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying is thank you, even though it's
Speaker 1: just visual in nature.
Speaker 5: I love I love you guys so much. You are
Speaker 5: the most like the sweetest hosts and also not only
Speaker 5: to your guests but to your chat. It's wonderful.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: We feel honored that they have chosen to take time.
Speaker 2: They could be doing anything right now, but they have
Speaker 2: chosen to come and spend it with us, and that's
Speaker 2: that's an honor.
Speaker 5: So great.
Speaker 1: You very happy. This lady right here we expect here
Speaker 1: on here shortly.
Speaker 2: This is Kate Casey, the host of Reality Life, and
Speaker 2: she is the one who interviewed the documentarian I think
Speaker 2: that did the Karen Reid Netflix show.
Speaker 1: So I I.
Speaker 2: When she comes, I'm basically going to turn it over
Speaker 2: to her because I don't feel like they have a
Speaker 2: great understanding of what's so egregious in the case in
Speaker 2: this case, and who better to explain that to her
Speaker 2: than Nan Gallagher.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna explain it to her. DJ I'm explain it
Speaker 5: to her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know if she has a sense of how
Speaker 2: bizarre this is and how out of character and out
Speaker 2: of any legal norm that any of you have ever seen,
Speaker 2: anyone from Mark to Melanie and probably out if you
Speaker 2: were having private conversations, probably Alan David and Eliza and
Speaker 2: Robert Alisi or Lessie, depending upon where you're from, would
Speaker 2: say this, that they're saying, this is completely out of
Speaker 2: the norm.
Speaker 5: Well, and I think that it being so out of
Speaker 5: the norm is I know, it's what caused me. It
Speaker 5: was one of two contributing factors to what caused me
Speaker 5: to start speaking up. The other factor was the fact
Speaker 5: that one attorney in the Dallas area had donated one
Speaker 5: billable hour of her time in the form of a donation.
Speaker 5: And I don't recall if she donated it to the
Speaker 5: Karen Reid Defense Fund or to Turtle Boy, but you know,
Speaker 5: I was like, oh, I guess I could do that,
Speaker 5: and then it kind of evolved in terms of donations
Speaker 5: after that. But then also the abnormalities are so striking,
Speaker 5: the contrariness to the way jurisprudence is supposed to be done,
Speaker 5: that is so notable to me and I know to
Speaker 5: others and even to the newest juror, former juror who
Speaker 5: was an alternate Victoria George. She in a really badass move,
Speaker 5: just decided to move from a former juror on this
Speaker 5: case to a defense council on behalf of the defendant
Speaker 5: for whom she sat as an alternate juror. So it's
Speaker 5: it runs against our very mental and experiential constitution, and
Speaker 5: I'm I got to do something that's that's my mindset,
Speaker 5: and I know all of you feel the same way totally.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's so there's two questions for you already that
Speaker 2: I want to get to. But I want to thank
Speaker 2: AJK for donating another cab ten cab memberships. Thank you
Speaker 2: very much. We don't have a whole lot of members
Speaker 2: I think we're like under one hundred or something, so
Speaker 2: thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I was very very kind of you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And now I must say the other one is okay,
Speaker 2: CoP's daughter wants to know.
Speaker 1: I want to know what Nan and Mike Croft had
Speaker 1: said that they know.
Speaker 5: Well. And it's funny. I know we both said earlier
Speaker 5: on The Young Jerks that we know some things, and
Speaker 5: I can't remember in what context CoP's daughter. I said
Speaker 5: that because I happen, I happen to know a few
Speaker 5: things which I'm not at liberty to say. But I
Speaker 5: don't know. Oh what, Oh how.
Speaker 1: Adorable buddy Julia the polar Bear.
Speaker 5: Oh my gosh, if that puppy is going to be
Speaker 5: on this stream, I'm not going to pay attention at all. Well,
Speaker 5: I wish I could pick my dog up like that.
Speaker 5: My dog is eighty pounds, and I mean, at this
Speaker 5: point she could probably pick me up. But anyway, there's
Speaker 5: just a few things that I have heard, which I
Speaker 5: always discount. When I hear things, I'm like, Okay, maybe
Speaker 5: that's a rumor mill. And then I've had an opportunity
Speaker 5: CoP's daughter to have some conversations. I don't know if
Speaker 5: what I know is what Mike Crawford knows, So I
Speaker 5: can't even I can't even validate that we both know
Speaker 5: the same things. So I'm sorry if that was in
Speaker 5: any way a dissatisfying answer. But what I have heard
Speaker 5: and have on good information is that this is going
Speaker 5: to be a completely different trial, a very completely different trial.
Speaker 1: Lord here a prayer.
Speaker 2: I retired North Carolina State Highway Police, so basically state trooper.
Speaker 2: He says, Nan, have you ever seen a case where
Speaker 2: the lead investigator was.
Speaker 1: Fired and the case proceeded. I haven't. In one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of those penning cases are always dismissed. Always, So
Speaker 1: what's your reaction to that.
Speaker 5: Well, first, I want to say hey to you, because
Speaker 5: I know I've seen you put in chats on some
Speaker 5: of the shows I've been on, so it's great to
Speaker 5: see you. And I've heard you call in to the
Speaker 5: young jerks. I've heard you call into seeking justice. I believe,
Speaker 5: and you know your stuff. I have never had a
Speaker 5: case or seen a case where the lead investigator had
Speaker 5: been fired, at least during the pendency of the trial proceedings,
Speaker 5: which we are in. Even though two point zero didn't
Speaker 5: start yet, we're in the pendency of the trial. I
Speaker 5: have to believe that in the cases where the lead
Speaker 5: investigator has been fired, and I imagine that's not many,
Speaker 5: that the prosecutor would always decide to dismiss I mean,
Speaker 5: it's your lead investigator. It would be the same if
Speaker 5: the medical examiner just absolutely would not agree with the
Speaker 5: prosecution's position. So right now we're in a position where
Speaker 5: the medical examiner doctor Scordy Bellow. It's not that she
Speaker 5: doesn't agree with the prosecution's theory in terms of cause
Speaker 5: and manner of death. She's just not able to cross
Speaker 5: that threshold of saying, yes, I can definitively say that
Speaker 5: this is the cause and this is the manner of death.
Speaker 5: She will She's kind of hedging on the manner of death,
Speaker 5: so they don't need to sever ties with her completely,
Speaker 5: although it seems to me that they're pretty much severing
Speaker 5: ties with her because she did not give them the
Speaker 5: manner of death that they wanted. She's only saying it's undetermined,
Speaker 5: and she's willing, as was seen in Trial one point zero,
Speaker 5: to make concessions to the defense in terms of what
Speaker 5: could have been other potential causes or manners of death
Speaker 5: for John O'Keefe. So in this case, I would simply
Speaker 5: say that the fact that former Trooper Proctor or Michael
Speaker 5: Proctor was fired and they're still not willing to dismiss
Speaker 5: the charges or to downgrade them or make this some
Speaker 5: type of more attractive plea deal for Karen, which I
Speaker 5: still would not suggest, But the fact that they won't
Speaker 5: do that just tells me that they're so locked in
Speaker 5: to their current position and they've come too far and
Speaker 5: there's too much at risk for law enforcement and the
Speaker 5: prosecution to do it, that they're pot committed, as I say,
Speaker 5: and they're just going to move forward. But I will say,
Speaker 5: whichever side calls Trooper Proctor former Trooper Proctor, it's going
Speaker 5: to be a very spicy testimony. Whether the questions come
Speaker 5: from the prosecution to the former officer, or they come
Speaker 5: from Alan Jackson or David Yannetti or any one of
Speaker 5: the team. I am here for it, and I'm really
Speaker 5: looking forward to it because he's going to be absolutely
Speaker 5: mauled on the stand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the thing is, I don't think there's
Speaker 2: a I'm going to use the word realistic here. I
Speaker 2: don't think there's a realistic circumstance where they would dismiss
Speaker 2: the case and with.
Speaker 1: That that qualifier.
Speaker 2: In other words, yes, if there was a video of
Speaker 2: Karen's car where it was indisputable, clear photo of the
Speaker 2: red tail light after the supposed, uh you know, faked
Speaker 2: thing happened, that they say that that she hit him
Speaker 2: with the vehicle, I don't think. I don't think of
Speaker 2: outside of that, I don't think there's any circumstance where
Speaker 2: they would dismiss the case. But tell me if if
Speaker 2: I'm wrong, is there I don't think there's a realistic circumstance.
Speaker 5: No, I mean unless it suddenly becomes clear as day
Speaker 5: that you know the the evidence that has been discovered
Speaker 5: thus far as to the third party culprits who are
Speaker 5: Brian Albert, Brian Higgins and Colin Albert, or those who
Speaker 5: are in my opinion, accessories or co conspirators, those in
Speaker 5: the realm of Jen McCabe, Matt McCabe, Chris Albert, those
Speaker 5: who Julie Nagel, people who clearly have shown that they
Speaker 5: were somehow possibly involved or know something. That's what evidence
Speaker 5: is showing to me. It might not show that way
Speaker 5: to a jury or to any of you. But unless
Speaker 5: that stuff gets so credibly revealed and not subject to question,
Speaker 5: this isn't going to go away until a jury finds
Speaker 5: her not guilty. And it's really unfortunate because this is
Speaker 5: not the way, in my opinion, that our system of
Speaker 5: jurisprudence in any jurisdiction should work. We should be in
Speaker 5: a position where prosecutors bring charges based on credible facts
Speaker 5: and not stretches, and not junk science and not ill equipped,
Speaker 5: poorly educated accident reconstructionists. I'm referring to trial one point
Speaker 5: zero when I say that it's it's just not the
Speaker 5: type of financial investment that any government and its judiciary
Speaker 5: and its prosecutors should be wasting their time on. I
Speaker 5: find that really insulting to the legal profession. And that's
Speaker 5: why I take it so personally.
Speaker 4: And do you really believe that the Feds on January
Speaker 4: eighteenth wrote a letter to both the defense and the
Speaker 4: prosecution regarding their investigation that was ongoing, and by February
Speaker 4: they just called up Hank on the phone and say, hey,
Speaker 4: it's over, do you There's no way, right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there is no way anybody's going to convince me
Speaker 5: of that. So just and I can't remember if I
Speaker 5: explained this to you guys the last time I was
Speaker 5: on I might have said it on some other streams.
Speaker 5: But in my practice, so I do civil, administrative and
Speaker 5: criminal law, and I've done it now for many, many years,
Speaker 5: almost a quarter of a century. And in that quarter
Speaker 5: of a century, throughout I have dealt with federal criminal
Speaker 5: investigative agencies as well as state criminal investigative agencies, and
Speaker 5: many times they work hand in hand. Sometimes they don't,
Speaker 5: but many times they do. In every single one of
Speaker 5: those investigations by a federal investigating body, not once, never,
Speaker 5: once have they ever quote closed their investigation with some
Speaker 5: type of confirmatory call, email, or letter. It has never
Speaker 5: happened in my practice. And I do that type of
Speaker 5: work a lot, So it's not like I'm saying, ah,
Speaker 5: you know, I've done a handful no in my field,
Speaker 5: which is healthcare law, which is a fancy way of
Speaker 5: saying I do everything for doctors, and there are a
Speaker 5: lot of criminal things that can happen to doctors in
Speaker 5: my field. The federal investigating body are really hands on
Speaker 5: because there's usually types of insurance fraud moneies that are
Speaker 5: being taken in by payers and Medicare medicaid at the
Speaker 5: state level. Of these investigative arms, they never tell you
Speaker 5: that they're closing out, so you know it to send
Speaker 5: some letter in January only to confirm that they're closing
Speaker 5: things out or completing things in February. It doesn't track
Speaker 5: for me. Also, I do make my clients who want
Speaker 5: closure on pending investigations, I make them put to me
Speaker 5: in writing every time I say, put it in writing
Speaker 5: to me if you're insisting that I follow up with
Speaker 5: the Department of Justice, or you're insisting that I follow
Speaker 5: up with the Office of the Inspector General, which is
Speaker 5: another criminal federal investigating body, because many times, from my experience,
Speaker 5: when I do that, when I have to follow up
Speaker 5: with these bodies to say what's the status here these agencies,
Speaker 5: they get so vindictive that I'm following up with them,
Speaker 5: and many times my inquiry is just prompting them to
Speaker 5: dust something off on their desk. So when I do
Speaker 5: follow up, invariably a week or two or a month later,
Speaker 5: I'm getting yet another request from them or getting called
Speaker 5: in for a hearing for my client. So I don't
Speaker 5: believe it. I do not believe that it is closed
Speaker 5: at this point, and someone's going to have to put
Speaker 5: a piece of paper from the FEDS under my nose
Speaker 5: for me to believe otherwise.
Speaker 1: Well, that letter was published by.
Speaker 2: Helena Rafferty, dated March fourth that said it's dismissed. And
Speaker 2: I don't know about you, but it's so hard for
Speaker 2: me to believe.
Speaker 1: That Chief Rafferty would say anything that wasn't true.
Speaker 3: But that was her own letter on her letter head.
Speaker 1: Tissues. No tissues here, I'm sorry to go.
Speaker 5: Let me get you some tissues. Djay. Yeah, you make
Speaker 5: a great point, because that letter, which I happened unless
Speaker 5: I'm unless there was a letter that I missed, And
Speaker 5: I tell everybody I don't see everything. I was looking
Speaker 5: at that letter earlier. Someone had it on X and
Speaker 5: I was looking at it, going, wait, okay, I know
Speaker 5: I saw this a few weeks back, but this is
Speaker 5: on Canton p D Letters. You know I could I
Speaker 5: could put it, whip up something on my letter head
Speaker 5: that says, you know, I'm the best thing since slice bread.
Speaker 5: Give it to you, and you should not be drawing
Speaker 5: the conclusion that I'm the best thing since sliced bread.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 5: I think it was done not only for the pr
Speaker 5: of it. I forget exactly what part of the timeline
Speaker 5: this was released. It was right before I believe the
Speaker 5: motion to dismiss was argued by the defense, and I
Speaker 5: think it was a bit of a pr stunt. I
Speaker 5: am not in any way saying that you know it's
Speaker 5: perhaps it's I mean, it is possible that Chief Rafferty
Speaker 5: spoke to someone at the federal level or Brennan spoke
Speaker 5: to someone at the federal level and was given some information,
Speaker 5: but I know from experience the information they did not get,
Speaker 5: which is we closed our investigation or it's completed. And
Speaker 5: often there are times when agencies will complete their investigation,
Speaker 5: but that doesn't mean it's over. That means the fact
Speaker 5: finding is over. So once an investigation arguably is quote completed,
Speaker 5: there are times and not few and far between, when
Speaker 5: the investigation kind of completes I guess for a poetic
Speaker 5: licensure state. But when you take it beyond that, many
Speaker 5: times I've seen indictments follow after that.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a legal review of what they found. I mean,
Speaker 1: that could take months.
Speaker 2: To figure out what can we charge and who can
Speaker 2: we tie to up.
Speaker 5: That's right, So you know, it's one of those things.
Speaker 5: I don't believe it until you know with certainty. And
Speaker 5: there's a reason why the FEDS have such a high
Speaker 5: conviction rate. There is, and there is also a significant
Speaker 5: reason why the Feds took great lengths to investigate kind
Speaker 5: of all of the different tentacles of this matter, ranging
Speaker 5: from I'm surmising the Karen Reid case, the accident. Then
Speaker 5: they had hired ARCA. They looked at phone records, they
Speaker 5: looked at cell data, they looked at computer records. From
Speaker 5: everything I recall seeing was handed over to them. Then
Speaker 5: they probably I'm not sure, but they probably also looked
Speaker 5: into any perceivable connection with Birchmore Central Birchmore case, possibly
Speaker 5: the just on Root case. I don't know any of
Speaker 5: the last two things to be true, but I have
Speaker 5: to believe because of some overlap, they're probably looking at trends.
Speaker 5: And when there are trends, that's where federal agencies and
Speaker 5: investigative criminal bodies do focus interest because they want to
Speaker 5: see if there is this level of corruption that would
Speaker 5: peak their interest. Because normally a state is sovereign, it
Speaker 5: can do what it wants, how it operates is normally
Speaker 5: not of the business of the federal government. But when
Speaker 5: there's patterns and there's prosecutorial overreach and clear in my opinion,
Speaker 5: or at least questionable in the fed's opinion, evidence of corruption,
Speaker 5: they're all over it. So I just don't believe it.
Speaker 5: I don't I agree.
Speaker 2: In Let me, first of all, let me think the
Speaker 2: travel off of fives.
Speaker 1: But I'll read this in the accent that I was
Speaker 1: working on last night.
Speaker 2: Would be funny to hear it it was Winston Churchill.
Speaker 1: Did we see the lightest drole that just dropped? So?
Speaker 1: Did you?
Speaker 5: Was there another wait? Is there another Bedroll letter that dropped?
Speaker 5: Like today? I have not seen it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So if anybody has the details of that or
Speaker 2: wants to let us know during the show, I.
Speaker 1: Can put up the cab call in number.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I aiden just released it forty minutes ago. Okay, now, yeah,
Speaker 4: I can send it to you DJ on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much you. I'm on It's lord it.
Speaker 5: I had the opportunity to meet Mark Bettero in person
Speaker 5: when I went up to visit. He's fantastic.
Speaker 3: I did too.
Speaker 1: It's about Okay.
Speaker 2: This is one of the things I wanted to ask
Speaker 2: you when we when we said, hey, we're gonna book
Speaker 2: you know, he was like, you got to book Nan again.
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, we got it. We got a book her.
Speaker 5: On here and we put a ways back like I
Speaker 5: think I might have even been writer in Boston when
Speaker 5: we booked it in the Boston area.
Speaker 1: Yes, what was it like? What were the conversations like?
Speaker 2: And we're not asking for details that have to do
Speaker 2: with legalities and things.
Speaker 4: You want to say they went to dinner together too.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I always want to preface when I mentioned
Speaker 5: meeting him in my conversation with him, and Will the
Speaker 5: Glarer was there as well, so I want to thank
Speaker 5: Will for presenting me with that wonderful opportunity to meet him.
Speaker 5: But I always want to preface by saying, Mark Betteroh,
Speaker 5: did not discuss anything involving Aiden Carney with me, or
Speaker 5: anything involving, you know, any particularities that might have been
Speaker 5: within his knowledge base concerning Karen Reid as he was
Speaker 5: poised to be hopefully at that point appointed as in
Speaker 5: pro hac vice, which ended up getting denied a few
Speaker 5: days after I met him, which is a ridiculous ruling,
Speaker 5: and I think the judge was wrong. But we did
Speaker 5: have a great dinner. We went to Smith and Lensky
Speaker 5: in Boston, and I mean the steaks there, God, Like,
Speaker 5: they're just unbelievable. I should probably eat there more often,
Speaker 5: just to build more muscle from all the protein. And
Speaker 5: I know the Glarer thought like his steak was perfectly cooked.
Speaker 5: But Mark was so so much fun. He's very very funny,
Speaker 5: very snarky, makes great eye contact. He also had a
Speaker 5: few drinks, as did Will. Like I was drinking, like,
Speaker 5: I think, one cocktail and a bunch of ginger ales.
Speaker 5: But the conversation between two lawyers who do criminal defense
Speaker 5: work who are from the cold, dark streets of Manhattan
Speaker 5: him more than me. Yeah, Like we were like head
Speaker 5: to head at that table kind of talk in this
Speaker 5: case and all of the issues we see with it.
Speaker 5: Because as I started out at the top of your hour,
Speaker 5: I'm like, this stuff is so like crazy to lawyers
Speaker 5: who know how it's supposed to work. So at some point,
Speaker 5: you know, I think Will was sitting there kind of going,
Speaker 5: I'm just gonna let I'm gonna let you guys talk,
Speaker 5: and probably some of what we were saying was flying
Speaker 5: over his head. But Mark was really a pleasure. I
Speaker 5: told him, I said, we got to go out for
Speaker 5: some dirty water dog switch are hot dogs from a
Speaker 5: street cart in Manhattan?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes, yeah yeah.
Speaker 5: And then also I was a little surprised because Beto
Speaker 5: was like, let's like they were shutting down the restaurant.
Speaker 5: I forget what time it was, but he was like, yeah,
Speaker 5: let's let's go get another cocktail. I don't know how
Speaker 5: people can stay up as late as they stay up.
Speaker 5: When I went to visit there, it's unbelievable. And normally
Speaker 5: I would say, but yeah, he's a New Yorker, but
Speaker 5: he's originally from there. So I am convinced there is
Speaker 5: something baked into the DNA up in Massachusetts that keeps
Speaker 5: people awake late at night. I just I had fun.
Speaker 3: You awesome visitors. That's what keeps us awake.
Speaker 2: When the company's good, you don't want it to end, man,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the bottom line here.
Speaker 5: Thank you. By the time I got home, though, it
Speaker 5: literally took me four days to recover. Yeah, easily, easily
Speaker 5: four days late.
Speaker 1: Nights, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: But so it was compelling conversation and you guys could
Speaker 2: bounce ideas off each other, and you might have had
Speaker 2: some ideas for him about that he hadn't thought of,
Speaker 2: and vice versa.
Speaker 1: Et cetera.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it was very collaborative. And also we gave our
Speaker 5: which I won't share, but we kind of gave our
Speaker 5: opinions on who we feel are some of the most
Speaker 5: useful tools to just the free Karen read movement on
Speaker 5: x and on these streams and chats, and you know,
Speaker 5: I'm not referring to content creators when I say that,
Speaker 5: but people we see in the chats, because I'm normally
Speaker 5: a chat surfer, and we had a lot of similar
Speaker 5: opinions about that. He's a great guy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's our opinion too. We've got him coming back.
Speaker 1: Shortly.
Speaker 2: He and a brother counsel that they didn't get to
Speaker 2: talk last time, So we're going to get in a
Speaker 2: talk this time.
Speaker 1: Because we didn't know that Mark was joining the defense team.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, that's right. He was supposed to join us,
Speaker 5: and I think we've got Olivia join Olivia, Nile or
Speaker 5: Lambeau join instead. God, that seems like forever ago.
Speaker 1: It does. In cam Reidland, it was like six months ago.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because I did my first I was looking back.
Speaker 5: I think I did my first stream with the Young
Speaker 5: Jerks in like the last week of January, and you know,
Speaker 5: it's the almost the end of March. Now. It feels
Speaker 5: like a million years. And I will be scaling back
Speaker 5: my streaming in the coming weeks just because I think
Speaker 5: I've hit all the creators and I think people have
Speaker 5: heard enough from Nan Gallagher. I'm probably going to be
Speaker 5: doing more tweeting and posting on Facebook social media occasion
Speaker 5: popping into Seeking Justice with Tom Cpu and Boston Mike.
Speaker 4: Well, I have to say, as the trial starts, we're
Speaker 4: all going to need this a breakdown and we're gonna
Speaker 4: we want to hear what you have to say, so
Speaker 4: hopefully you'll come back and visit, because.
Speaker 3: That's when it gets real.
Speaker 4: Now we're kind of rehashing things from one point zero.
Speaker 4: When two point oh starts, we're going to need that
Speaker 4: law tuber type of tell us what we just watched
Speaker 4: all day and tell us that it's nonsense.
Speaker 5: So I well, I tell I'm gonna tell everybody always
Speaker 5: feel free to ask, like if I if it, if
Speaker 5: it feels right and works, I'm happy to And I
Speaker 5: love DJ, like DJ and you both like reached out
Speaker 5: to me a few weeks ago, and I'm like, this
Speaker 5: date would work, and thank you so much for holding
Speaker 5: it for me. And I do feel I feel I
Speaker 5: don't want to say badly. I feel a lot of
Speaker 5: sensitivity to the the Free Care and read supporters who
Speaker 5: have a lot of questions about what just happened, or
Speaker 5: I'm worried about this, this just just got filed, what
Speaker 5: does this mean? And so many times it's nothing to
Speaker 5: worry about. So I'm a mummy, you know, I want
Speaker 5: to com My job is to calm people. And I
Speaker 5: feel like, hey, if I can tell you this is
Speaker 5: nothing and you feel a little better about it, great,
Speaker 5: you know. And then there's times where I say everyone
Speaker 5: should be worried about that, or you know, even yesterday,
Speaker 5: Aiden Carney had had a hearing before a different judge
Speaker 5: on the Karen Reid case with regard to the phone
Speaker 5: extractions that the Commonwealth, not Brennan of the Commonwealth, but
Speaker 5: the other kind of arm of the Commonwealth, special Appointed
Speaker 5: Prosecutor Cosgrove has and you know, in that hearing, a
Speaker 5: lot of people were worried about it because they thought,
Speaker 5: oh my god, there's an emergency hearing. And I'm like, no, no, no,
Speaker 5: I don't know. It's really a status hearing. Don't worry
Speaker 5: about it is not I don't know what's going to
Speaker 5: be discussed, but I can tell you it's it's not
Speaker 5: as bad as you think. And some people felt better
Speaker 5: when they heard that. And then during the hearing, the
Speaker 5: judge essentially spanked Cosgrove and Brennan, which I was very
Speaker 5: happy to hear and watch as I'm sure. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 5: sure that other people were as well. Actually, that's the
Speaker 5: way judges are supposed to work. That's that's this kind
Speaker 5: of unbiased. Both sides are accountable no matter which side
Speaker 5: it is. Well, that's what we're used to seeing.
Speaker 1: Nan.
Speaker 2: Are you saying that you're not supposed to just like
Speaker 2: pick aside that you don't like and treat them poorly
Speaker 2: and then the other side you're really nice to.
Speaker 1: Is that? What is that how it's supposed to go.
Speaker 5: Yes, that that is the way it's works to go.
Speaker 1: So the judges supposed to like justice is blind and
Speaker 1: really like what.
Speaker 5: Def thumb and blind or whatever. Yeah, it's it's definitely
Speaker 5: something to.
Speaker 3: Expect.
Speaker 5: I expect it when I'm before judges, and I've been
Speaker 5: in the hot seat, you know, I was happy to
Speaker 5: see it. And in that regard, like I think a
Speaker 5: lot of people in the Free Karen Reid and the
Speaker 5: Free Turtle Boy movements, they felt comforted not only by
Speaker 5: the fact that Brennan and Cosgrove were dished it by
Speaker 5: Judge Adam Sisiski, but also that, oh, okay, this is
Speaker 5: a refreshing breeze of or breath of fresh air because look,
Speaker 5: a judge actually called balls and strikes here, and it
Speaker 5: wasn't just oh my god, he's going to deny this,
Speaker 5: or he's going to award all of these you know,
Speaker 5: expand his ruling to include communications between Aiden and Karen attorneys.
Speaker 5: So it's it's it's the way it's supposed to work.
Speaker 5: It's supposed to be fair, and when it's not fair,
Speaker 5: I think everybody, whether you're a lawyer or not, or
Speaker 5: a content creator or not, we get frustrated. So I'm
Speaker 5: hopeful that, I mean, I do believe that Judge BEV
Speaker 5: follows the kind of social media aspects of this case,
Speaker 5: maybe not as assiduously as others do, but I'm hoping
Speaker 5: that she starts to curb some apparent bias that is
Speaker 5: just so it's just so present. I hope that changes.
Speaker 5: We'll see I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry that I don't see that happening. I think
Speaker 2: when she grants emotion in their favor. What were we
Speaker 2: talking about the other night, bea, he granted one in
Speaker 2: their favor, and it's.
Speaker 1: Like she'll go, okay, duck, duck, goose, and like.
Speaker 2: So she'll give them some thing that's kind of not
Speaker 2: very impactful or groundbreaking, just to say that she ruled
Speaker 2: one motion in their favor and then she'll go back
Speaker 2: to approving other inappropriate motions or ruling against them. And
Speaker 2: I think Microdots once did he did a breakdown of
Speaker 2: this one second real quick. I just want to say
Speaker 2: thank you the cat Lady. The cat Lady is one
Speaker 2: of our new mods. She's awesome, and she has gifted
Speaker 2: thirty memberships, so now must day cat Lady.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you, and then we will get If you.
Speaker 2: Have a question for Nan Gallagher, please put like some
Speaker 2: sort of a question mark so we know it. If
Speaker 2: you don't like to type in all caps, put like
Speaker 2: a question mark at the beginning something like that, because
Speaker 2: we want to get her to answer your questions before
Speaker 2: we get out of here tonight.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yes, ma'am, you were going to say, answer your
Speaker 5: questions or just try to make them stand out as
Speaker 5: best as possible. And so many people have questions and
Speaker 5: then questions stemming from answers that they hear. So yeah,
Speaker 5: it's a really great job you guys do trying to
Speaker 5: bring people together to try to make them more aware
Speaker 5: of this stuff. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's basically you know, what we're trying to do
Speaker 2: is we are not going to leave Karen alone because
Speaker 2: people in other communities. I've covered other genres obviously, and
Speaker 2: people have asked me, and I said, you know, we're
Speaker 2: going to stay on this case. I'm going to go
Speaker 2: to Massachusetts again, just like you did. Just I just
Speaker 2: want to make sure Elon's not going to fire me.
Speaker 2: And I'm going to book another trip to Massachusetts and
Speaker 2: support the movement and I'll stand out and I'll do
Speaker 2: another meal of food and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: So I wish we had known you when we did
Speaker 1: that that meal of food And was.
Speaker 5: That twelve, yeah, January twelfth.
Speaker 1: Yes, we have like one hundred people.
Speaker 5: And it's so interesting because I was clearly writing Chats,
Speaker 5: you know, throughout but when you write, what I wasn't
Speaker 5: doing from twenty twenty three to twenty twenty five was
Speaker 5: making sure I never missed a show of anybody. Now
Speaker 5: I try to never miss a show of anybody in Chats,
Speaker 5: and I've tried to, you know, when asked to come
Speaker 5: on the different creators, just to help them understand or
Speaker 5: frame their mindsets. But yeah, so I'm sure there was
Speaker 5: plenty of things like that DJ or b O, Like
Speaker 5: when you guys that did the meal of food, I
Speaker 5: didn't happen to pick that up whatsoever just from writing chats,
Speaker 5: but I will moving forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well we're going to make sure now that we
Speaker 2: know you we can invite you.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it was it was really good.
Speaker 2: We wanted there were people that felt left out because basically,
Speaker 2: Karen did a fundraiser to ear and you know, she
Speaker 2: couldn't invite everybody for the room that she had, but
Speaker 2: she was trying to make money for her defense fund obviously,
Speaker 2: which is very understandable. And by the way, the Karen
Speaker 2: Reied Defense Fund is pinned to the top of the chat,
Speaker 2: so if you're so inclined, please donate. And so therefore,
Speaker 2: when people were aggrieved, we had already planned our meal
Speaker 2: of food for about twenty so after we found out
Speaker 2: people were kind of bummed out, we said, okay, well
Speaker 2: instead of just twenty, I mean everyone was always invited anyway.
Speaker 2: We didn't have a you know, we didn't say, oh,
Speaker 2: only these people can come, but we just started off
Speaker 2: with a tacit list. So then we just said, okay,
Speaker 2: everyone in the community, you are invited. This is where
Speaker 2: we're going to be this is the time, this is
Speaker 2: the place, So just come there and book a table
Speaker 2: and we're going to hang out. And we had Aiden
Speaker 2: and Meredith, we had Jason, we had Brian LTL.
Speaker 1: Maza.
Speaker 2: Uh it came so and and then myself and Bia
Speaker 2: so and then just tons of people showed up.
Speaker 1: It was I got to streaming.
Speaker 3: It was just the station and you know it was nice.
Speaker 5: Yeah, oh that's that's great. It must have been cold.
Speaker 5: Then you said January. It was, Yes, it was cold
Speaker 5: when I went up there. So when I when I
Speaker 5: was up there, I guess it was March, maybe March
Speaker 5: third or so through six, something like that. It was cold.
Speaker 1: So I have a number.
Speaker 5: I'm planning planning to go up in some time in April,
Speaker 5: and hopefully it's a little milder.
Speaker 1: It should be on air. Somebody's on air or not.
Speaker 1: It says unknown. That could be bad. All right, let
Speaker 1: me hang up on it. I don't know who that was.
Speaker 2: We do have questions for you, though, Alica. Let's see
Speaker 2: if we can get to our police. Uh So, here's
Speaker 2: one we got to tag. We're going to tag this
Speaker 2: one from Christina Maria.
Speaker 1: Help me out.
Speaker 2: Here, oh, joba, yeah, if you got one.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, go ahead, you can go ahead.
Speaker 3: Oh are you asking me to read it?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, absolutely, go ahead, yes, please.
Speaker 4: If the judge misquotes facts are evidence, i e. The
Speaker 4: conclusion the confusion between polycarbonate and glass, Is there any recourse.
Speaker 5: If the judge misquotes it? So you know, the recourse
Speaker 5: would be for the attorneys at the time that it happens,
Speaker 5: the misquoting happens. To correct respectfully correct the judge depends
Speaker 5: on what's being misquoted. This is an important thing to
Speaker 5: quote properly because there is a big difference, especially in
Speaker 5: this case between polycarbonate and glass, when you have a
Speaker 5: broken alleged broken tail light and at least one, possibly
Speaker 5: two tumbler or cocktail glasses that may or may not
Speaker 5: have left the bar establishments. So it's really to just
Speaker 5: respectfully correct the judge. I'd have to know a little
Speaker 5: bit more as to the context there in Lemonade pickets
Speaker 5: where where the judge would have misquoted it. But I
Speaker 5: believe I heard witnesses interchanging glass and tail light or
Speaker 5: tail light pieces in glass in questions, and I think
Speaker 5: I heard that on both sides I think I heard
Speaker 5: the defense doing it and the prosecution doing it, which
Speaker 5: makes for a little bit of a confusing factual scenario
Speaker 5: for a jury. So if I can give any advice
Speaker 5: to the attorneys for the defense, I don't like to
Speaker 5: give advice to the Commonwealth other than dismiss this case
Speaker 5: and dismiss the case against Aiden cases against Aiden. If
Speaker 5: I can give any advice to the Karen Reid defense team,
Speaker 5: it would just be to make sure that you're very
Speaker 5: nicely and in a likable way, being very consistent with
Speaker 5: the terminology of polycarbonate versus glass or tail light versus
Speaker 5: glass in what context correct anyone or object to any
Speaker 5: question where that is used incorrectly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think with a fair degree of confidence
Speaker 2: that that polycarbonate that the tail light lens is made
Speaker 2: out of would not have shattered in that manner hitting
Speaker 2: John's arm, probably not hitting him center mass It would
Speaker 2: not have broken in that manner. So that they're going
Speaker 2: to need someone who's an automotive expert and expert in plastics.
Speaker 1: Someone actually reached out to me that had.
Speaker 2: A degree from Massachusetts, that had a degree and that
Speaker 2: type of science that produces plastics, and he never answered
Speaker 2: me back though he never came on the show, but
Speaker 2: I would have loved to have had them.
Speaker 1: This one is from Mary Milachey. I truly enjoy Attorney
Speaker 1: Non Gallagher's condor and humor, as we learn so much
Speaker 1: from her live stream visits. He's a treasure, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much, Not Gallagher.
Speaker 5: Thank you Mary. And I love it because DJ gets
Speaker 5: to do the accents. This is always so much fun.
Speaker 5: I think though it's important to be funny, Like even
Speaker 5: though none of this is funny, it's like, can we
Speaker 5: find some level of humor or entertainment as you guys
Speaker 5: all who are boots on the ground, And I mean
Speaker 5: that in not just the standing outside of the courthouse way,
Speaker 5: but the people who are dedicated to the chats and
Speaker 5: the people who don't stand out at the courthouse every
Speaker 5: day but are from the community. You have to, in
Speaker 5: my opinion, find some ways to make light of this.
Speaker 5: And I'm sure in some ways I don't know this,
Speaker 5: but I really have to believe even Karen and her
Speaker 5: family hopefully do, that they find joy amongst these horrible
Speaker 5: set of really prolonged, just horrible facts. Their life has
Speaker 5: just been ruined. It's been ruined, and I don't think
Speaker 5: it's comorable for them. So I did say that just
Speaker 5: so you know. I did have a chance to speak
Speaker 5: to Karen and her family. They were the ones that
Speaker 5: had invited me to come to Massachusetts when I did,
Speaker 5: and to go to court with them, which that was
Speaker 5: very sweet of them to do, and I was like,
Speaker 5: are you guys sure you know I didn't. I still
Speaker 5: don't understand, but when they asked me. I remember during
Speaker 5: that call. I think it was that particular night, or
Speaker 5: maybe a couple nights later, I was supposed to be
Speaker 5: on the Glarer's program and I like apologized to them.
Speaker 5: I said, you know, I'm I'm going to be on
Speaker 5: his program, and I know, we laugh a little bit
Speaker 5: about some of these stupid things that are going on
Speaker 5: and I mean, no disrespect to you, and they they
Speaker 5: kind of laughed. They're like, we understand. So they're like
Speaker 5: really down to earth. You know. I can't say I
Speaker 5: know them very well, but I I knew enough to
Speaker 5: apologize for making light of some things, and they were
Speaker 5: really friendly and receptive when I said that, and thought
Speaker 5: that my apology was ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've never met them, but they just seem like
Speaker 2: very very as you said, down to Earth is about
Speaker 2: as well as you very genuine people that there's no
Speaker 2: pretense about them.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Oh, and I see this question here. This is
Speaker 5: like all caps, so yes, I have to say I
Speaker 5: can read this without my glasses, which is like completely
Speaker 5: unbelievable to me. But the question that Ken Hathaway has
Speaker 5: in terms of, you know, if the prosecutor's going to
Speaker 5: really push it with the ARCA experts, can they bring
Speaker 5: their own lawyers in he's called them liars, Yes they can.
Speaker 5: In fact, I don't know how much Judge Bev would
Speaker 5: allow lawyers for witnesses to have a role in proceedings,
Speaker 5: but I will say, drawing upon prior experience, she did
Speaker 5: allow the lawyer for Brian Higgins to kind of step
Speaker 5: in and with outside of the presence of the jury
Speaker 5: and to kind of say, no, you know, everything's fine,
Speaker 5: or I'm going to I've talked to my client. So
Speaker 5: I think she was very respectful and deferential to the
Speaker 5: fact that a lawyer for a witness was present. But yeah,
Speaker 5: I have served in that capacity where my client has
Speaker 5: been a fact witness or an expert witness, and in
Speaker 5: fact he was an expert witness on a particular case,
Speaker 5: he was getting bullied by the plaintiff's attorney, the litigant's attorney,
Speaker 5: for opinions he had, and this litigant was going after
Speaker 5: my client's license because he disagreed with his opinions. He
Speaker 5: went after my client's board certification as a medical doctor
Speaker 5: because he didn't like the opinions. And that's why my
Speaker 5: client retained me. He's like, I feel like I'm serving
Speaker 5: as an expert, but I'm on the defensive here what's
Speaker 5: going on? And I had to come to trial with him.
Speaker 5: It was only one day, he was testifying one day,
Speaker 5: and that that judge allowed me to protect his rights,
Speaker 5: like I was going to protect my client who was
Speaker 5: answering questions that were being asked by someone else, to
Speaker 5: make sure that my client wasn't being trampled upon. So yes, Ken,
Speaker 5: I definitely think if Hanky wants to push it with ARCA,
Speaker 5: they should come in with their own attorneys. And that
Speaker 5: is really risky if Hank wants to do that, if
Speaker 5: he wants to push it and try to smear or
Speaker 5: besmirch these experts so much who were sound enough to
Speaker 5: be engaged by the federal government and who from what
Speaker 5: I understand, render expert opinions for the military. And I
Speaker 5: believe I heard NASA, although Hockey too, and Hockey and
Speaker 5: maybe not NASA, I'm not But yeah, if they're if
Speaker 5: they're nationally regarded experts, and he wants to try to
Speaker 5: smear them, that can backfire in front of a jury,
Speaker 5: whether there's an attorney who comes in for them or not.
Speaker 5: If you try to make someone who's been accepted in
Speaker 5: courts look like an idiot, you make yourself look like
Speaker 5: an idiot if you don't do it properly.
Speaker 1: So Russell essentially, yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that was completely Oh and look, Kimberly. Every once
Speaker 5: in a while, I look at the chat, Kimberly is saying, yes, NASA,
Speaker 5: see I must have heard it right, you got ye.
Speaker 5: The only reason, the only reason I noticed it is
Speaker 5: because NASA was all capps. So but yeah, I definitely
Speaker 5: think he should think twice before he does that, because
Speaker 5: someone like doctor Marie Russell, who is, as I've said
Speaker 5: before and others have too, the most uniquely qualify expert
Speaker 5: on a case I've ever encountered. She dished it back
Speaker 5: to him and you never you never want an expert
Speaker 5: to stay back to you in front of a jury.
Speaker 5: I'm a little offended by what you're asking me right now. Yes,
Speaker 5: And in her scenario, she is a more seasoned expert.
Speaker 5: She's been practicing and working in her fields for many decades.
Speaker 5: You can come off as like bullying bully. Yeah, doesn't
Speaker 5: always track well with a jury, and one little thing
Speaker 5: like that is enough to really set jurors mindsets. So
Speaker 5: you have to kind of choose your battles if you're
Speaker 5: going to go that route.
Speaker 2: And thank you for the five dollars, Mata Milachey, I
Speaker 2: greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: Oh that one didn't come off so well. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna work on my Scottish all right.
Speaker 2: So now, with as much as the calemand seems dead
Speaker 2: to get a guilty verdict, we are the chances the
Speaker 2: judge would overrule a jury verdict.
Speaker 1: You're awesome none exclamation point.
Speaker 5: So the chances a judge would overrule a jury verdict.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, by the way, Shilah, Shilah Janelle,
Speaker 5: what a pretty handle. So it doesn't it doesn't work
Speaker 5: that way. If a verdict comes in, this judge wouldn't
Speaker 5: overrule it so you know, there is an opportunity at
Speaker 5: the close of the Commonwealth's case. The Commonwealth goes first,
Speaker 5: and when they rest at the end of the presentation
Speaker 5: of their case, an application can and should be made
Speaker 5: by the defense to move for dismissal for failure to
Speaker 5: establish all of the elements of the crimes and enough
Speaker 5: reasonable doubt, et cetera. And it is that decision before
Speaker 5: the defense has a chance to go give their turn,
Speaker 5: where a judge could decide on a motion to dismiss
Speaker 5: at the close of the Commonwealth case, to dismiss all
Speaker 5: of the charges. I think that the judge, this judge,
Speaker 5: will not do that. Another judge might have so. But
Speaker 5: if a jury verdict comes in, this judge, meaning Judge
Speaker 5: Beverly Cononi, would not do that. She can't do that.
Speaker 5: The only remedy available to the defendant Karen at that
Speaker 5: time would be to file a motion for an appeal
Speaker 5: like she'd have to file for an appeal, a post
Speaker 5: conviction appeal. And I hope that answers your question. You're
Speaker 5: awesome too.
Speaker 2: We've got a lot of questions here to get to
Speaker 2: why is there nothing that can be done with their
Speaker 2: obvious judge biased, and basically, I think you guys have
Speaker 2: said on multiple shows there is not a remedy at
Speaker 2: this level, below the appellate level for this.
Speaker 5: That's right. And you know some people have been taking
Speaker 5: to well, pardon my dog. My dog wants to file
Speaker 5: a complaint against Yes, yes, but but anyway, there's been
Speaker 5: a push I've seen on social media to file complaints
Speaker 5: and register bad reviews for this judge. I don't condone that.
Speaker 5: I don't think that's advisable for anyone to do. At
Speaker 5: the appellate level. If it's found that Judge Canoni has
Speaker 5: made biased rulings or rulings that are beyond her discretionary authority,
Speaker 5: then they can that appellate court or a higher appellate
Speaker 5: court can overrule her decisions. They could give Karen a
Speaker 5: new trial, they could dismiss the charges outright, they could
Speaker 5: reverse the conviction. It's that's the place to do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And unfortunately she would already will have been
Speaker 2: if and I don't I don't, even, like I said,
Speaker 2: I've said before, I don't even think there's a chance
Speaker 2: they have enough evidence to convict her. So I don't
Speaker 2: think that's happening I think Hank was hired for the
Speaker 2: hung jury. That was the reason why they brought him
Speaker 2: in because they know they don't have any evidence to
Speaker 2: convict her, but they can just try to bankrupt her more,
Speaker 2: which is even in a way, it's even more evil
Speaker 2: because they're just trying to injure her financially and emotionally
Speaker 2: and reputationally, knowing that they can't actually earn a conviction.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think there's something to that that makes sense.
Speaker 5: You guys really provide a lot of thoughtful analysis to
Speaker 5: this case. You know, I very much like that when
Speaker 5: I listen to your streams, and you know, it's very
Speaker 5: interesting to hear all of the different perspectives on it.
Speaker 5: So not everyone of the free Karen Reid supporters all
Speaker 5: have the same views on everything that you know, not
Speaker 5: everything is kind of cookie cutter. But I really do
Speaker 5: think you've made a good point there.
Speaker 1: This is good because most people are throwing items of
Speaker 1: food at their screen when I'm on air, so this
Speaker 1: is really a very pleasant change. Yeah, so Java time
Speaker 1: you want to read this one. DEALW sure if.
Speaker 4: You were cross examining Brian Albert, Brian Higgins and Colin
Speaker 4: or Colon, what is one question you didn't ask each
Speaker 4: of them as part of the third party culprit defense.
Speaker 5: Oh my god, Java.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's get it, man, let's get that.
Speaker 5: That's a good one.
Speaker 1: Awesome, that's sorry.
Speaker 5: There goes and my questions probably like no one get
Speaker 5: their hopes up. I would be asking questions that you
Speaker 5: guys all might ask yourselves too. But in terms of
Speaker 5: Brian Albert, the one question I would ask him in
Speaker 5: terms of the third party culprit defense, it's it's two
Speaker 5: can I'm going to say two for him. The first
Speaker 5: one would be why why didn't you come out of
Speaker 5: the house that night? Why did you you know? And
Speaker 5: I I have my theories, I think we all do,
Speaker 5: but why didn't you come out of the house once
Speaker 5: you you? He had to have heard, he had to
Speaker 5: have known. I don't believe that he didn't know what
Speaker 5: was going on, But once he knew, once you knew
Speaker 5: what was going on, once your sister in law came
Speaker 5: into that house, why didn't you come out? And I
Speaker 5: think it's very telling that he did not. I would
Speaker 5: also want to ask Brian Albert, if I understand the
Speaker 5: waterfall video properly, he was the one who stopped Higgins, right,
Speaker 5: isn't he the one that He's not the one that
Speaker 5: stopped all of these bald Irish guys.
Speaker 3: He's the one on the select board.
Speaker 5: Yes, well, who else was on that again? Vision impaired?
Speaker 5: That was Higgins in the middle. Chris is the one
Speaker 5: who grabbed his arm.
Speaker 1: Ryan was like behind him, I believe.
Speaker 3: Kind of to the left of him.
Speaker 5: Ok, that would but by the way that the grabbing
Speaker 5: of the arm with the peacocking that was going on,
Speaker 5: I would I would want to ask Chris Albert that
Speaker 5: so I know that's not part of this question. That's
Speaker 5: good as far as Higgins is concerned. I really would
Speaker 5: need to drill down more on the getting rid of
Speaker 5: his phone, the self curation of text messages. You know,
Speaker 5: some he's making himself. He made himself out to sound
Speaker 5: like he was being charitable and helpful by picking and
Speaker 5: choosing a small subset of text messages with Karen to
Speaker 5: help the investigation. Meanwhile, what should have been done was
Speaker 5: to hand over your phone and then the discarding of
Speaker 5: the phone on the wake of news breaking that there
Speaker 5: was going to be an order entered to procure his phone,
Speaker 5: and how he discarded his phone. It just nobody does that,
Speaker 5: So I would want to pursue that, and I would
Speaker 5: probably also want to if I were a female asking
Speaker 5: him questions, I would I would want to probe a
Speaker 5: little bit in terms of like how he thought he
Speaker 5: had a snowball's chance in hell with that woman? Like,
Speaker 5: you know, I would want to ras him a little bit,
Speaker 5: like you thought she was into you? Tell me why,
Speaker 5: and start embarrassing him as a female, because you know,
Speaker 5: we all have our tools as lawyers. As a female,
Speaker 5: if I were in that courtroom, I'd want to shame
Speaker 5: him a little bit on the whole what were you
Speaker 5: doing with her? Or what were you communicating with her about?
Speaker 5: But like he's you know, John O'Keefe there in the house,
Speaker 5: and like what's going on here? And then as far
Speaker 5: as Colin Albert, I think that the whole issue of
Speaker 5: when he was in the house, when he left that
Speaker 5: little window, when Ali allegedly picked him up, and the
Speaker 5: text communications which I think were fudged between the two
Speaker 5: self curated and suspicious to me, then also leading to
Speaker 5: where did you go after that? And why did you
Speaker 5: not communicate with her via text? For weeks and weeks
Speaker 5: and weeks later. Now I understand there's other text modalities,
Speaker 5: you know, platforms, et cetera, but i'd want to drill
Speaker 5: down more on that.
Speaker 1: And can I.
Speaker 4: Add one thing to that too In regards to Hagen's phone,
Speaker 4: The thing is is that not everybody in the house
Speaker 4: had to turn over their phone, so he just went
Speaker 4: to voluntarily do.
Speaker 3: This so that he see the fix was in.
Speaker 4: And then on top of that, he choose you know,
Speaker 4: so he was just being nice because they didn't get
Speaker 4: everybody's phone who was in that house, so why was
Speaker 4: out of all of them, he was going to be
Speaker 4: the one that whose phone they were going to, So
Speaker 4: he had to do it backwards and say this is
Speaker 4: what I want to give you. And he had the
Speaker 4: perfect chance to be her hero that day when she
Speaker 4: sent him a mess at tax saying John died and
Speaker 4: he didn't. So that goes to show you right then
Speaker 4: and there that he was just in with the fix.
Speaker 5: I agree that's very important too, Like I that enough
Speaker 5: just that as to Higgins is enough for reasonable doubt,
Speaker 5: and that is why it's very important in my opinion,
Speaker 5: for there to be allowed a third party culprit defense,
Speaker 5: which that decision is still pending by Judge Canoni. But
Speaker 5: out of all I think we can all agree, out
Speaker 5: of all of the third party culprits and out of
Speaker 5: all of those additional kind of accessories or co conspirators
Speaker 5: that I was mentioning before, Higgins had all of the
Speaker 5: reasons in the world. He had the motive, which doesn't
Speaker 5: need to be proven for these charges to stick. But
Speaker 5: he had the motive, he had the communications with her.
Speaker 5: He had not only motive, but just the receipts with her.
Speaker 5: He's the one who had some type of I'm gonna
Speaker 5: call it romantic, although I don't believe it was in
Speaker 5: any way romantic for Karen, but he had the romantic
Speaker 5: dalliance with her, which goes beyond motive. It's more of
Speaker 5: a what was he hiding? Like? What kind of guy
Speaker 5: is he? So beyond motive if you're going to do that,
Speaker 5: you know she's got a boyfriend, like and the boyfriend
Speaker 5: is the custodian and caregiver of children of family members
Speaker 5: who have passed. What kind of guy are you? And
Speaker 5: the jury should be able to draw inferences from that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have some thank yous.
Speaker 2: I've got to hit because these people have have donated.
Speaker 2: Thank you Ken Hathaway from Nottingham, England, and thank you the.
Speaker 1: Cat Lady again.
Speaker 2: You're so awesome, ma'am, and we're so lucky to have
Speaker 2: you as part of our team here and.
Speaker 1: Calling all beings and this is this a cat cat something? Randall?
Speaker 1: Is that what that says? I might need me glasses
Speaker 1: not a count se.
Speaker 3: R b al cat Randall.
Speaker 1: I think you're right, Randall. Thank you seeing me and
Speaker 1: be a brother.
Speaker 5: I can't read that.
Speaker 1: Yep, thank you so much for five memberships. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Sherry Dizzel made it in. I knew she was going
Speaker 2: to be a little late. She messaged me.
Speaker 1: Right before we started. Thank you Sherry Dizzel for twenty memberships.
Speaker 1: Love the mistake.
Speaker 2: We thank Mary Milackey goodness six and we've got to
Speaker 2: thank Tommy mack mack.
Speaker 1: She's like a boss. I'm Scottish and irons for got six.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for five memberships and then AJK
Speaker 2: another ten.
Speaker 1: You are our hero of calling all beings. I don't
Speaker 1: know how many of that is tonight, but it must
Speaker 1: be like thirty or forty. Thank you very much, No
Speaker 1: must stay. You guys are so cool.
Speaker 5: A lot of memberships. That's good for you guys.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: It's pretty cool. We don't I think last week I
Speaker 2: was like, b I think we have like forty eight members.
Speaker 2: We didn't have very many, So that's pretty awesome. Uh,
Speaker 2: this one right here none. How can the Commonwealth have
Speaker 2: won theater with true papoul in one point zero and
Speaker 2: another and another expa in two point zero?
Speaker 1: How is that legal to change staff theory?
Speaker 5: That's a great that's a really good question because I
Speaker 5: often thought that myself when I was new at practicing
Speaker 5: criminal defense work. The Commonwealth is allowed to change its theory.
Speaker 5: It shouldn't, and I think it it doesn't track well
Speaker 5: because if you're going to commit people in one you
Speaker 5: hope you only have one trial, But if you're going
Speaker 5: to commit people to testimony in the trial which ends
Speaker 5: up being the first trial of hopefully only two trials,
Speaker 5: you can mess things up and make it very confusing
Speaker 5: for the second trial that you hope never happens. But
Speaker 5: they are allowed to change their theory. What that does, though,
Speaker 5: is signal to all of you and all of those watching,
Speaker 5: and all of the defense team that they don't have credibility.
Speaker 5: They meaning the Commonwealth if they first think it was
Speaker 5: you know, John standing a certain way and then gets
Speaker 5: hit and does a pure wet and falls back on
Speaker 5: Smacks's head. Then if and I don't know what their
Speaker 5: new theory is, if that came out, I completely missed
Speaker 5: that because we don't see the expert reports. But if
Speaker 5: they're going to come out with something different in terms
Speaker 5: of how that accident transpired, or okay, really the car
Speaker 5: didn't back up at this many miles per hour for
Speaker 5: this many feet and it didn't hit him this way,
Speaker 5: it hit him that way, then the defense knows that
Speaker 5: they're fully you know, they're full of you know what
Speaker 5: they're they're grasping, and it really means that their opinions
Speaker 5: are hollow and that two of their own two of
Speaker 5: the Commonwealth's own experts are are in disagreement, which is,
Speaker 5: you know, grounds for cross examination. They can say to
Speaker 5: the new is it Welcher jud whoever the new reconstructionist is,
Speaker 5: They can say to him, well, are you aware that
Speaker 5: Trooper Paul reached these different conclusions if there's a difference,
Speaker 5: you know in it previously, Yes, I'm aware, Well why
Speaker 5: would you disagree with him? He was there at some
Speaker 5: point being spoken to by an inanimate crime scene. But
Speaker 5: you know they have the ability to cross examine the
Speaker 5: new accident reconstructionist on the differences between the two different opinions.
Speaker 5: But they can do it. They're allowed to change their theory.
Speaker 5: It just doesn't look good for them.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: Can we also say that if reasonable doubt were a pie,
Speaker 2: this would be inclosing a huge slice of that pie.
Speaker 2: You know that guy Thanksgiving that goes and you're like wow,
Speaker 2: he makes that first slice and then the second one
Speaker 2: is like way over there and it's almost like a third.
Speaker 1: Of the pie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is huge reasonable doubt on the prosecution's theory,
Speaker 2: which is what they had.
Speaker 1: They're going to argue this time they have.
Speaker 3: To, and now they're bringing in somebody to say the
Speaker 3: ground was hard as a rock.
Speaker 1: I mean, let me see, I think the ground was
Speaker 1: hard that night, based like, how do you know that?
Speaker 5: I just I don't see how that is a credible
Speaker 5: conclusion that mister Gilman or doctor. I don't know if
Speaker 5: he's a doctor. I'm a doctor of meteorology. I don't
Speaker 5: know if he's a doctor. But I don't know how
Speaker 5: mister Gilman can reach that type of conclusion. I think
Speaker 5: that's a reach. If they're going to try to say
Speaker 5: that a contracou type of injury was caused by that,
Speaker 5: that's a reach. And I would expect the defense to
Speaker 5: fully explore that with the neurosurgeon who has been permitted
Speaker 5: now been permitted to testify, kind of in place of
Speaker 5: the medical examiner, you know, asking him because he's a neurosurgeon,
Speaker 5: he's probably treated those types of injuries. So they should
Speaker 5: fully explore that.
Speaker 3: And I have two words, just do it?
Speaker 5: Do it?
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, it says do it a j Yeah,
Speaker 4: go ahead.
Speaker 5: I keep showing up shirts. Someone sent me this. It's
Speaker 5: my favorite color. I was lucky. It's so everyone's so sweet.
Speaker 5: They've sent me things, but they keep it really simple.
Speaker 5: They either send me funny shirts or like some light
Speaker 5: little trinkets, or I get boxes of O's cereal, which
Speaker 5: I told Auntie deb a few weeks ago that I
Speaker 5: really love and they don't sell it down here in
Speaker 5: the stores. So I have boxes and boxes of O's
Speaker 5: and I love them.
Speaker 2: Nan during any since we got a heart from Swiss
Speaker 2: miss during any of your trips over seas, had you
Speaker 2: learned how to yodel?
Speaker 1: At all. Have you been to Switzerland?
Speaker 5: Me, No, I've only I've only been to Uh. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: I don't even think I would be good at yodeling.
Speaker 5: I've been to only to South America is the only
Speaker 5: place I would think is remotely considered overseas, and it's
Speaker 5: probably not because we consider that to be Europe. Yeah, right, Well,
Speaker 5: I mean I guess, yeah, no, I've not. I guess
Speaker 5: I eat yodles yodel's of the chocolatey treat, but no,
Speaker 5: I don't know how to yodel.
Speaker 1: Okay, so even I think that's that.
Speaker 5: I like Swiss Miss Hot Chocolate. I like that brand
Speaker 5: hot Chocolate definitely.
Speaker 1: As as do I.
Speaker 2: Let's see what we have here, please tell Everyone was
Speaker 2: sure to mention Nicole Albert's obsession with cleaning very suspicious.
Speaker 2: I think they expected the house to be searched. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, who the hell is cleaning in the middle
Speaker 2: of the night like that? So yeah, that's I don't
Speaker 2: even think bea cleans in the middle.
Speaker 3: Of I know, I was gonna say I love to clean,
Speaker 3: but not in the middle of the night.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: For me, it's the fact that they mentioned it. I
Speaker 5: think there were three witnesses if I recall who mentioned cleaning,
Speaker 5: and it was like Nicole Albert, Brian Albert Junior, and
Speaker 5: I want to say it was one other who I
Speaker 5: can't recall. The fact that they felt in a murder
Speaker 5: trial that the reference to cleaning was in any way
Speaker 5: important makes me think, hmm mm hmm, okay, in case,
Speaker 5: for example, the house had they were cleaning up, or
Speaker 5: the house was searched, or interviews were being taken place
Speaker 5: there in the coming hours, if the house smelled like bleach,
Speaker 5: anything like that. I'm not an investigator, but I think
Speaker 5: the fact that they mentioned her obsessive cleaning is enough
Speaker 5: for me to ask more questions about it. And that's
Speaker 5: something I would be probing those witnesses on Nicole Albert,
Speaker 5: Brian Albert Junior, and if there was a third on
Speaker 5: that very issue, because I find it interesting.
Speaker 3: I think the third person was Jem McKay when she
Speaker 3: was ascribing her sister.
Speaker 5: As yeah, yeah, it was. I think it was Gen.
Speaker 5: You have a better memory of this bea than I do.
Speaker 5: I also think there's something there about the whole It's
Speaker 5: raining men song that Jen that seems to have and
Speaker 5: like whoo, who would have thought it's raining men would
Speaker 5: become like an important little side road on a murder trial.
Speaker 5: But I think there's something off about that as well.
Speaker 5: It just doesn't flow. It's kind of like the old games.
Speaker 5: You ever play that game, like which of these things
Speaker 5: is not like the other? Or find the thing that
Speaker 5: doesn't match the rest of the picture that to me
Speaker 5: is not matching. And I have to believe, although I
Speaker 5: don't have any knowledge on this subject, that people who
Speaker 5: read body language and assess people's words and mannerisms, they
Speaker 5: might say these little irrelevant facts are telling I bet
Speaker 5: you they would say that.
Speaker 2: The number three comes into my mind as well, and
Speaker 2: that is there is three leaders of blood that are
Speaker 2: unaccounted for in the lawn, which means they're inside the house.
Speaker 2: And every CSI guy especially are we haven't heard from
Speaker 2: our New York Cops guys in a while, because I
Speaker 2: believe not Ed, but the other gentleman duty Ron, I
Speaker 2: believe is battling cancer.
Speaker 1: Bless him, bless him. But Ed would have said, oh,
Speaker 1: I would have had a field day of Kate Casey's
Speaker 1: asking him still launch She's just pulling back and I'll.
Speaker 2: Just tell her so yep, we're here, Kate Casey, Yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: And so they would have found that blood, they would
Speaker 2: have they could have.
Speaker 1: Bleached from now. And I think Ed said that as much.
Speaker 1: He said that on.
Speaker 2: Their show, you can bleach, you can try to clean
Speaker 2: it up. You're not going to get it all, and
Speaker 2: we're going.
Speaker 1: To find it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I and I also believe that like no
Speaker 5: normal average household would be prepared for the exanguination of
Speaker 5: three leaders of blood. Like if if I went out
Speaker 5: in my home right now and I there was a
Speaker 5: horrible accident, I love to clean, I've got a lot
Speaker 5: of cleaning supplies. I think I'd be challenged cleaning up
Speaker 5: that much blood. So if this was, as I think
Speaker 5: it was, an accident, that should have you know, they
Speaker 5: should have done the right thing and taken honorable steps
Speaker 5: to report it and accept any consequences that came. Then
Speaker 5: if it really was unplanned, then they likely wouldn't have
Speaker 5: had proper cleaning supplies, in my opinion.
Speaker 3: Or enough bounty paper towels.
Speaker 2: Right right, Ah, there's are you not going to like
Speaker 2: from what Ed says that the splatter and things like that,
Speaker 2: you're just not going to get it all. You're not
Speaker 2: going to get it all out of the carpet. If
Speaker 2: they had carpet down in the basement, which they did.
Speaker 2: They did have cart because they had so, so that
Speaker 2: would be the other thing. Hey, Brian, what what does
Speaker 2: it major ed?
Speaker 1: Remove that carpet? And so I would have asked them
Speaker 1: like a three and one.
Speaker 2: You removed the carpet, and then you you sold the
Speaker 2: house that was your childhood home. I'm wondering, really wondering
Speaker 2: if who going into retirement sells a paid off house
Speaker 2: sixty thousand dollars under market value and then has to
Speaker 2: go buy a house. Nobody does that when that's the
Speaker 2: house Brian grew up in.
Speaker 1: You already know that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so surely it had to have been paid off
Speaker 2: by then. Why would you want to get rid of
Speaker 2: that house? Like nobody does that?
Speaker 5: I agree. And I don't know the ages of all
Speaker 5: of his children. I don't even know the number of
Speaker 5: all of his children. Doesn't he have like five kids
Speaker 5: in some sud I don't know.
Speaker 2: Maybe Scotty or or actually Dennis Sweeney or Scotti in
Speaker 2: the chat can let us know?
Speaker 5: And then if you see it pop up, Well, here's
Speaker 5: here's something that I had just popped into my mind
Speaker 5: a few months back when I had you know, little
Speaker 5: things pop in from time to time, and I was like, oh,
Speaker 5: five kids, BA has five. Okay, so I don't know
Speaker 5: all of their ages. But when when these little facts
Speaker 5: pop into my head, I say to myself like, Okay,
Speaker 5: some of these kids are grown, or maybe all of
Speaker 5: them are. But if you're post pandemic, okay, So now
Speaker 5: we're twenty twenty two. The market was thriving, the real
Speaker 5: estate market, at least in my area, and I have
Speaker 5: to believe nationally was thriving, but probably up in that
Speaker 5: area as well. And if you have children who are
Speaker 5: grown and some or all of them are in relationships,
Speaker 5: and now, as you said, DJ, like he sells this
Speaker 5: house only to buy another house, which is what I
Speaker 5: had heard as well.
Speaker 1: Yes, you earn do that.
Speaker 5: You know, I could understand if they said, okay, we're downsizing,
Speaker 5: let's get a little townhouse or a condo. But if
Speaker 5: you buy another house, that doesn't track to me. If
Speaker 5: you have grown kids, many times you sell your home
Speaker 5: to your child. So it's like, if they're going to
Speaker 5: be starting out into marriages and relationships, maybe you sell
Speaker 5: your house to your child. I recognize what I'm telling
Speaker 5: you right now is just complete speculation on my part.
Speaker 5: It just it's like a little fact that shows me
Speaker 5: there was a cover up here down to you.
Speaker 4: They're disassociating themselves with the dog, with.
Speaker 1: The house, house, the phone.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So let's let's bring in Kate Casey because she's
Speaker 2: backstage right here. So, folks, this young lady right here
Speaker 2: is the host of Reality Life with Kate Casey.
Speaker 1: She is a phenomenal individual.
Speaker 2: Her her own life story Blew Me Away as one
Speaker 2: as another compelling story. On her channel, she interviews reality
Speaker 2: TV stars, showrunners, directors, documentarians. She recently interviewed a documentarian
Speaker 2: that covered the.
Speaker 1: Karen Reid case.
Speaker 2: And she's been my friend for several years and an
Speaker 2: interviewer who is phenomenal who I admire in this business,
Speaker 2: one of the people that I look at to try
Speaker 2: to model myself after.
Speaker 1: So party people put your hands together for my home girl,
Speaker 1: pay say.
Speaker 6: It's way too nice.
Speaker 1: I'm hi, Kate, Hi.
Speaker 6: I feel like a dingling compared to your guests, who like,
Speaker 6: are so up to date on this case. I mean,
Speaker 6: I'm I'm familiar with it because I covered it the
Speaker 6: first trial. But I'm you know, I by no means
Speaker 6: am like like a total expert on this case. I
Speaker 6: find what's most fascinating is the fact that even at
Speaker 6: this point in time, you have two camps of people
Speaker 6: that are absolutely sure of their own opinion. And I
Speaker 6: wondered why you think that is that people still to
Speaker 6: this day are so divided with as much information that
Speaker 6: is out in the ether. Hah, Why are people so
Speaker 6: strong in their points of view?
Speaker 5: Wow? I mean, but do you want me to answer that?
Speaker 1: Kate?
Speaker 5: It's so nice to meet you, but I'm sure even
Speaker 5: DJ and Bia have their own answers to that.
Speaker 2: Well, let me set the table for what's about to
Speaker 2: happen here. We are turning this over to Kate. I
Speaker 2: want to get her questions in there for nance so
Speaker 2: she can get a sense of exactly she just framed
Speaker 2: it up beautifully right there, So Bia and I are
Speaker 2: stepping aside. Please take it away, Kate.
Speaker 5: And now, oh okay, all right, so you guys are
Speaker 5: just voyeurs. All right, Well, it's very nice to meet you, Kate.
Speaker 5: So at this point in time, why I think both
Speaker 5: sides are so polar opposite and divided? Is probably because
Speaker 5: of the continuing revelation of more and more evidence that
Speaker 5: has come out even post first trial. So since that
Speaker 5: first trial, there has been late productions of additional videos
Speaker 5: that are arguably exculpatory to Karen. There's new video that
Speaker 5: was produced of one of the alleged third party culprits
Speaker 5: on the phone in the middle of the night at
Speaker 5: the outside of the police station where he previously testified
Speaker 5: that he didn't talk to anyone that night. There's evidence
Speaker 5: being revealed that the I'm going to get this wrong.
Speaker 5: I think he's a Lieutenant Fanning had a role of
Speaker 5: oversight the commander to oversee this jury. Meanwhile, he had
Speaker 5: connections with the investigating lead investigator, former Trooper Proctor. So
Speaker 5: why this Lieutenant Fanning had any oversight whatsoever, whether he
Speaker 5: had first hand contact with jury or not, But that's
Speaker 5: come to light. He was involved with some of the
Speaker 5: text messaging of that for former investigator Proctor that were
Speaker 5: selectacious and inappropriate in nature. So this Fanning, who has
Speaker 5: also had ties I believe to the Sandra Birchmore case.
Speaker 5: Although I might be wrong, that's a tangential case in
Speaker 5: that geographic zone, which is also problematic if you don't
Speaker 5: know anything about that case, Kate.
Speaker 6: No, I'm familiar with that good.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I was going to say that we should definitely
Speaker 5: make you aware of it. Also, there's there has been
Speaker 5: more and more chicanery, I guess I would call it
Speaker 5: with the new specially appointed prosecutor Hank Brennan in terms
Speaker 5: of misrepresentations as for my observation that he's made to
Speaker 5: the court and some very imbalanced rulings coming down from
Speaker 5: the court that even contravene her prior rulings in the
Speaker 5: first trial. So while there was two different camps, there's
Speaker 5: now it's like throwing gasoline on a fire because with
Speaker 5: all of and those are just some examples that I've
Speaker 5: just laid out to you, With all of that happening,
Speaker 5: we're now in a position where we're the people who
Speaker 5: feel so strongly for Karen Reid and civil rights and
Speaker 5: her right to a fair trial. They now feel validated
Speaker 5: from the sense I'm getting that there's really something going
Speaker 5: on wrong. And then the other side of the camp,
Speaker 5: the anti free Karen readers there, from my observation, getting
Speaker 5: very agitated at the groundswell of frustration and the kind
Speaker 5: of uproariousness of the free Karen Reid movement in the
Speaker 5: wake of all of these developments that it's just kind
Speaker 5: of caused more of a just a chasm between both sides,
Speaker 5: and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what do you what do.
Speaker 6: You think is an attorney is going to be the
Speaker 6: plight for the defense in trial number two?
Speaker 5: The plight for the defense in trial number two, meaning
Speaker 5: what is going.
Speaker 6: To be what is their biggest obstacle, biggest obstacles.
Speaker 5: That's a good question. So the biggest obstacle as I
Speaker 5: see it, for the defense in trial two point zero who.
Speaker 5: I don't know if I want to say that publicly
Speaker 5: because I don't want to signal to the commonwealth because
Speaker 5: I make no secret of what side I fall on.
Speaker 5: But you know, to answer your question, my my, my
Speaker 5: feeling is the biggest obstacle will be the.
Speaker 1: Put it on screen here? What is that the judge?
Speaker 5: Do I not see? Do I not see her on
Speaker 5: the screen? Oh? Yeah, I just can't judge. I mean, well,
Speaker 5: the judge, the judge is the biggest plight she this case.
Speaker 5: I mean I I do agree with you, DJ, she
Speaker 5: she is the biggest plight, but she's more of a proceduralist.
Speaker 5: She's the one that's supposed to properly be calling balls
Speaker 5: and strikes from a factual standpoint. The biggest bad fact
Speaker 5: that I think she has to Karen, meaning Karen and
Speaker 5: her team have to surmount, is the fact that she
Speaker 5: has been speaking to publications and giving her statements, none
Speaker 5: of which I feel are inculpatory to her. But I
Speaker 5: can understand why some people feel that they are either
Speaker 5: inconsistent with her position as throughout the defense, as has
Speaker 5: been communicated in testimony or statements of her attorneys. So
Speaker 5: what she's been saying to some of these publications has
Speaker 5: at least caused people to suspect that you know she
Speaker 5: did something wrong and is trying to cover it up.
Speaker 5: I disagree with that. I can reconcile all of her
Speaker 5: public statements to journalists and say no, no, no. This
Speaker 5: would have been the mindset of a woman who had
Speaker 5: been consuming alcohol, which she makes no secret of the
Speaker 5: night before, and wakes up after a few hours of sleep,
Speaker 5: and her boyfriend's not in the house, and your mind
Speaker 5: is in a tizzy. You're trying to piece it together.
Speaker 5: I think it's her statements. If they do come into evidence,
Speaker 5: and there's different ways for them to come into evidence,
Speaker 5: those will be a challenge. And then also there is
Speaker 5: going to be and I don't know what it says
Speaker 5: in it, a new accident reconstruction. So presumably if they
Speaker 5: have and again this is a presumption, if they have
Speaker 5: a better expert outlay on how this accident could have
Speaker 5: taken place within the very limited parameters of Apple phone
Speaker 5: health data, GPS data, the key cycles, the data from
Speaker 5: the chip off of the lexus. If the Commonwealth, through
Speaker 5: its reconstruction expert can present a more credible explanation than
Speaker 5: they did in one point zero as to how her
Speaker 5: vehicle could have caused this accident, that would be a
Speaker 5: bad fact. But I just don't know it to be
Speaker 5: true yet.
Speaker 6: And then conversely, what's the plight of the prosecution.
Speaker 5: That's a good question. So the plight of the prosecution is,
Speaker 5: I mean, it's everything, it's every single thing. All of
Speaker 5: the different facts amount to reasonable doubt from a legal standpoint.
Speaker 5: So from the prosecutorial standpoint, you have got a corncopia
Speaker 5: of issues down to there's Apple phone health data that
Speaker 5: shows he surmounted he meaning John O'Keeffe surmounted, went up
Speaker 5: and down three flights of stairs. You've got the fact
Speaker 5: that Karen's vehicle hit the or connect did with his
Speaker 5: home WiFi at one Meadows by twelve thirty six am.
Speaker 5: As that is not subject to debate. That came from
Speaker 5: the testimony of the Commonwealth's own witness, Nicholas Guarino. So
Speaker 5: as far as this officer is concerned, and he's kind
Speaker 5: of entangled himself up into some other snares in the
Speaker 5: Birchmore case for example, but he puts her connected to
Speaker 5: the Wi Fi at one Meadows by twelve thirty six am.
Speaker 5: And if that's the case, there is no way unless
Speaker 5: she is Mario Andretti or someone out of a Jetson's episode,
Speaker 5: she would be able to fly her way from thirty
Speaker 5: four fair View Drive to one Meadows in a matter
Speaker 5: of minutes. And the minutes don't track with the other evidence.
Speaker 5: You know, when the other car which was driven by
Speaker 5: I want to say it was Ryan Nagel was driving,
Speaker 5: it might have been Dantano, but chat forgive me. But
Speaker 5: when they were at the scene by the time Karen
Speaker 5: was there and was spotted alone in her vehicle by
Speaker 5: three fact witnesses d'antano, Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxon being
Speaker 5: alone in that car uh and then the time that
Speaker 5: she would have left the scene and got into one meadows.
Speaker 5: It does it. It's impossible for that to have happened.
Speaker 5: Then you couple the fact that just the messier stupid facts,
Speaker 5: like the third party culprits, none of their testimony is
Speaker 5: credible on key issues ranging from why phones were discarded
Speaker 5: by Brian Albert Brian Higgins, why the same day and
Speaker 5: on the wake of news breaking at least in a
Speaker 5: small circle that their phones were going to be requested
Speaker 5: to be they got word.
Speaker 2: That there was going to be a cord order to
Speaker 2: retain their phone one day in advance. So that's the
Speaker 2: day they both got rid of their phones.
Speaker 5: Right, So the same day that happens, and it's right
Speaker 5: when they get word that it's going to happen. You've
Speaker 5: got self curated texts from Brian Higgins and a decorated dude,
Speaker 5: a self proclaimed decorated dude, you know, but you've got
Speaker 5: text texts that he curated on his own between him
Speaker 5: and the defending Karen Reid that he you know, for
Speaker 5: what it's worth. He procures them through a kiosk, a
Speaker 5: federal kiosk at the Canton Police Department, But he selected
Speaker 5: what text he was going to hand over to the
Speaker 5: investigating officers as opposed to handing over his entire phone.
Speaker 5: He knows how these investigations work, and he testified that
Speaker 5: he knows how these investigations work. So there's something suspicious there.
Speaker 5: You've got a panoply of butt dials. I mean, I
Speaker 5: don't know if the laws of physics seek to exist
Speaker 5: or the laws of telephonics seek to exist in Canton
Speaker 5: or on that night, but by my count, it was
Speaker 5: like ten different butt dials between back and forth between
Speaker 5: Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Jennifer McCabe, John O'Keefe, to the
Speaker 5: point where technologically speaking, it certainly doesn't track because these
Speaker 5: calls would have gone to voicemail. There would have been
Speaker 5: no callbacks. I know, I'm missing very important facts.
Speaker 2: So, uh, Nicholas Borrows So the one officer in the town.
Speaker 2: I think I told you this when we spoke on
Speaker 2: the phone, Kate, that Nicholas Borrows was a Dyton police
Speaker 2: officer where Karen's mom and dad lived, which is not
Speaker 2: close to Canton, So when the state police asked him
Speaker 2: to join in the seizure of the vehicle, he described
Speaker 2: the tail light as having a crack with a piece
Speaker 2: fallen down inside. And then when they took it back
Speaker 2: to Canton and brought it to their police sally Port,
Speaker 2: the photograph. They didn't photograph the car as it sat
Speaker 2: when they seized it, they didn't have a photographer come,
Speaker 2: they didn't do any of that. They photographed it after
Speaker 2: they got it to the police sally Port, and it
Speaker 2: was a completely smashed tail light in forty five pieces.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that actually helps me DJ because now I'm
Speaker 5: remembering the other parts of the plight because not only
Speaker 5: not only that, where you have the officer from Dighton
Speaker 5: who basically said it the tail light was cracked but
Speaker 5: not completely broken, and he has no dog in this fight,
Speaker 5: I mean, and not his pig, not his farm. But
Speaker 5: the lack of documentation, whether it's photographic written in written
Speaker 5: form by law enforcement, of key pieces of evidence or
Speaker 5: key interviews of witnesses. So the fact that there were
Speaker 5: no pictures taken, like how many people just take a
Speaker 5: picture when you're pulling into a parking garage to say, okay,
Speaker 5: this is where I parked me. Remember what floram on.
Speaker 5: He didn't take a picture of the tail light. There's
Speaker 5: no picture of that tail light that is anywhere has
Speaker 5: been produced since it until after that that vehicle had
Speaker 5: been within the custody of the Massachusetts State Police. The
Speaker 5: fact that there were multiple other locations that this vehicle
Speaker 5: could have been taken and were passed by, but only
Speaker 5: was taken. It was taken further to the Canton PD,
Speaker 5: where there's a conflict of interest.
Speaker 1: Yee.
Speaker 2: That's what Clerk Jim Clown is saying here, is that
Speaker 2: although the the so because Brian Albert's brother was a
Speaker 2: detective on the camp in the Canton Police Department, and
Speaker 2: because it was a murder, so there was actually two
Speaker 2: reasons for the recusal. One is because I don't think
Speaker 2: cant and PD handles murder cases. They give it over
Speaker 2: to the detectives within the Norfolk County DA's office, which
Speaker 2: are troopers.
Speaker 1: They did not bring it to an MSP barracks.
Speaker 2: In fact, there were two closer to Dighton where they
Speaker 2: could have brought the vehicle, but instead they brought it
Speaker 2: to Canton. The one police organization that had recused itself
Speaker 2: from the investigation.
Speaker 1: And this way.
Speaker 2: I actually called Peter Murry, officer Peter Murphy today and
Speaker 2: ask him this very question, and I said they had
Speaker 2: to have called if someone from the Norfolk Diezo had
Speaker 2: have called the police barracks and those guys said, hey, man,
Speaker 2: don't bring.
Speaker 1: That car here. We know about o'keep. We don't want
Speaker 1: any part of this.
Speaker 2: And they must have been told that because they weren't
Speaker 2: going to participate in any because now we had a
Speaker 2: video expert on and she said that the video copy
Speaker 2: is not original. What Nan was referring to as the
Speaker 2: copies of the cell phones that they got. They could
Speaker 2: see that not one of them were a genuine forensic
Speaker 2: cell phone extraction.
Speaker 1: All of them had been altered.
Speaker 2: And Olivia Niles in the chat right now and she
Speaker 2: explains this better than I can. The hash values were
Speaker 2: missing and data was missing because they had been altered.
Speaker 2: That is what they turned over to the defense in
Speaker 2: August or something like that.
Speaker 1: I don't remember.
Speaker 2: It was a long time after the event. So Olivia,
Speaker 2: if you're there, you could explain hashvalag But essentially that's
Speaker 2: what happened. They monkeyed with everything from the computer on
Speaker 2: Karen's car, to the tail light, to the cell phones. Everything,
Speaker 2: it's just it it defies You just can't believe this
Speaker 2: actually happened.
Speaker 5: I know.
Speaker 1: That's all I have for you.
Speaker 5: That's so true, though, you know, it's one of those
Speaker 5: things where in trying to boil down all of the
Speaker 5: challenges that the Commonwealth has to face, there's just so
Speaker 5: many like I cannot believe all of the things that
Speaker 5: I know that I'm even forgetting, Like, thank you DJ,
Speaker 5: thank you Olivia for just adding that on. So the
Speaker 5: bigger picture of it all, Kate is it's just some
Speaker 5: of these things are on their own amount to reasonable
Speaker 5: doubt under the legal standard, and then when you put
Speaker 5: them all together, you're like, what's going on here? Which
Speaker 5: is one of the reasons why like a lawyer like
Speaker 5: myself not from that jurisdiction has among others, have chosen
Speaker 5: to speak up because we just don't see it working
Speaker 5: that way. And I'm assuming you had heard that one
Speaker 5: of the alternate jurors who didn't fit now she's working
Speaker 5: for the defense. That's a very telling to someone like me.
Speaker 5: Well I did.
Speaker 6: My last question is do you think this is going
Speaker 6: to be a precedent setting verdict. Do you think that
Speaker 6: or what is the legacy of this case?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so a precedent setting verdict. I can't say that
Speaker 5: just because if it's not I mean, if she's acquitted
Speaker 5: or she's convicted, I think it's just the conviction or
Speaker 5: the acquittal is just going to get lost in the sauce.
Speaker 5: It's going to be. The verdict is going to be
Speaker 5: what it is. But in terms of the legacy of
Speaker 5: the case, I'm hopeful she will be acquitted. So I'm
Speaker 5: going to answer your question from that perspective. When she's acquitted,
Speaker 5: when a jury applies the correct legal standard, and when
Speaker 5: there is what I describe as a future reckoning. A
Speaker 5: look back of all of the missteps down ranging from
Speaker 5: how it was investigated from the moment it was reported
Speaker 5: to the continuing investigation that went on thereafter, to the
Speaker 5: missteps in terms of the law enforcement hierarchical structure two,
Speaker 5: then the involvement by the District Attorney's office and the
Speaker 5: up charging of her when what appears to me that
Speaker 5: she wasn't going to plee and she was going to
Speaker 5: put up a fight, then she gets up charged. To
Speaker 5: the the additional factors of all of the missteps of
Speaker 5: trial one point zero and the judge. The judge factor,
Speaker 5: because this judge clearly is making rulings that are inequal
Speaker 5: to both sides and they just continue to this day.
Speaker 5: That when there is that reckoning, it is my feeling
Speaker 5: that there is going to be a complete overhaul of
Speaker 5: the law enforcement up in that neck of the woods,
Speaker 5: the Massachusetts State Police as well. And that was a
Speaker 5: good start that Trooper Proctor, former Trooper Proctor was fired,
Speaker 5: and he was fired partially in relation to his investigation
Speaker 5: and bias exhibited in this case. But in addition to that,
Speaker 5: I think there's going to be While well, I cannot
Speaker 5: forecast robust future prosecutions of those who really committed this crime, because,
Speaker 5: as we all know, when you pursue one defendant so hard,
Speaker 5: you're shooting yourself in the foot if you're wrong, because
Speaker 5: you're then giving other future potential culprits an easy person
Speaker 5: to point to and to get themselves out of future
Speaker 5: charges related to the murder or killing of John o'keef.
Speaker 5: But I think that there will be a reckoning and
Speaker 5: an overhaul of all of those systems from judiciary all
Speaker 5: the way down to law enforcement, and I hope that
Speaker 5: does happen, and I do truly hope that one day
Speaker 5: Karen decides to file a civil rights action and to
Speaker 5: point out all of the different ways that she and
Speaker 5: her due process rights have been abused throughout the course
Speaker 5: of the last three years, and ones that go far
Speaker 5: beyond the fact that she was wrongfully prosecuted, because this
Speaker 5: case also has that additional element of confirmation bias and
Speaker 5: complete violation of her civil rights as it relates to
Speaker 5: the lead investigator objectifying her and speaking with about her
Speaker 5: in such an inappropriate manner, exhibiting nothing but bias as
Speaker 5: to her, to his buddy's end, to some of his
Speaker 5: fellow law enforcement officers. So there's a different level to
Speaker 5: a future civil rights action that they all should be
Speaker 5: concerned about, but most notably former Trooper Proctor because his conduct,
Speaker 5: especially if he's not aware of this now, he should
Speaker 5: be soon, which is his conduct as it relates to
Speaker 5: how he spoke about her in those text communications, and
Speaker 5: I'm sure there were more, and I'm sure there were
Speaker 5: also private communications where he said it as well verbally.
Speaker 5: That is, those are things that are not covered by insurance.
Speaker 5: They're not uncovered by self insurance programs or captive programs
Speaker 5: that different public entities have, different municipalities have, different states have.
Speaker 5: Those are things that are wilful and wanton levels of
Speaker 5: conduct that would never be covered by insurance. So he's
Speaker 5: got a lot of personal financial exposure to her as well. Well.
Speaker 6: Thank you for letting me jump in. I think I'm
Speaker 6: gonna have I think I'm gonna have a former FBI
Speaker 6: agent on my show this week to talk about their investigations.
Speaker 6: So if you want to jump over and check out
Speaker 6: my podcast, please do so. And grateful for your time.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yes, we will have you in the show notes and everything, Kate,
Speaker 2: and you on your substack as well.
Speaker 1: And oh thank you ma'am, thank you, thank you for
Speaker 1: joining by.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's so difficult to explain you because there's so
Speaker 2: many elements of this case, you know, I we hadn't
Speaker 2: even gotten to how the uh I think her name
Speaker 2: was Katie McLoughlin was a fan of Caitlin Albert and
Speaker 2: is the one that says I heard her say I
Speaker 2: did it. So there's just so many elements to this
Speaker 2: that that it's just uh, can you check and see
Speaker 2: what's dropped by better?
Speaker 5: Oh, oh, that's right, I still haven't seen I didn't
Speaker 5: look at that while I've been streaming.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you n CSHP retire. We're about out of time.
Speaker 2: We're very appreciative of Nan giving so much of her
Speaker 2: time to us tonight, and I appreciate all your questions.
Speaker 2: The super chats, the gifts of the memberships is really cool.
Speaker 2: This is probably like the most energetic episode we've had
Speaker 2: in months.
Speaker 1: Probably really so yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, let me tell you, I don't know. I
Speaker 2: haven't seen these kind of numbers. It's been a while,
Speaker 2: so you're definitely drawing them in Nan despite the fact.
Speaker 2: So yeah, thank you so much.
Speaker 5: Thanks everyone for joining. But you guys should show up
Speaker 5: all the time for all beings, whether I'm here or not.
Speaker 5: These two are sweethearts.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate you. I know that you know you're
Speaker 1: a very wanted commodity.
Speaker 2: I know you've already appeared on air today and the
Speaker 2: community here, all these folks in here, I'm seeing them
Speaker 2: in lemon pickets, timely manner are new.
Speaker 1: Cat, I'm retired teacher.
Speaker 2: There's so many of you, AJK, You've been incredibly incredibly
Speaker 2: generous tonight. All of us appreciate what you've done, man,
Speaker 2: because without you, we.
Speaker 1: Don't understand what the hell's going on in this case.
Speaker 5: Thank god. Oll. I plan to keep showing up, maybe
Speaker 5: not so much on YouTube, but people should ask if
Speaker 5: I'm around and enable and motivated, I'm happy to pop in,
Speaker 5: and definitely if anyone is interested. I'm quite active on
Speaker 5: Twitter and on like a it's more of like a
Speaker 5: Facebook page, not my personal Facebook, so if anyone wants
Speaker 5: to follow my thoughts there, but otherwise, let's just all
Speaker 5: be on the same team and work together and watch
Speaker 5: and support and spread the word because Karen needs all
Speaker 5: the help she's going to get. You know, she needs it.
Speaker 1: She does, she does.
Speaker 2: Anybody I don't know that, you know, emotionally or mentally, me,
Speaker 2: myself or a lot of us could handle what she has,
Speaker 2: knowing how dishonest and how they're really just trying to
Speaker 2: ruin her because they know they can't convict her.
Speaker 1: They don't have the evidence.
Speaker 2: To get that, to get twelve people to say that,
Speaker 2: unless they literally hire twelve people, they're not going to
Speaker 2: get that. So, yeah, she's carrying a heavy load, and
Speaker 2: people like you and you know Beatrice here help her
Speaker 2: kind of bear that load.
Speaker 3: So Nan, can I ask you one final question?
Speaker 5: Do you think there's anything.
Speaker 4: Odd about the fact that she's pushing for this set
Speaker 4: of April first jury pool? You find it anything wonky there?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I do, because every attorney who does trial work,
Speaker 5: whether it's civil or criminal, will tell you in normal jurisdictions,
Speaker 5: everything's fungible. So even if Karen needs to have her
Speaker 5: trial her retrial before July first to comport with mistrial
Speaker 5: rules up there. Even if that's true, and I've only
Speaker 5: heard that to be true, I didn't read the statue,
Speaker 5: but let's assume that's true. There's time between April first
Speaker 5: and July first for that to take place. But beyond
Speaker 5: that they can. It seems a little suspicious that she
Speaker 5: wants this jury pool in by in an April first
Speaker 5: start date, But many attorneys will tell you you can
Speaker 5: bring those jurors in and you can stagger them, and
Speaker 5: you can even tell them report back on May first.
Speaker 5: You can tell them report back on May fifteenth, so
Speaker 5: you're not wasting the jurors. Feel like it seems a
Speaker 5: little pushed for me, a little too, sus As my
Speaker 5: kids say, you know something sus about that. I can't
Speaker 5: put my finger on it, but yeah, she wants to
Speaker 5: go to her cottage, as I've heard her somewhat cottage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that. You could see the way she thinks.
Speaker 2: She thinks not like the best of civil servants, but
Speaker 2: like the worst, the laziest sort of connotation of civil servants,
Speaker 2: and thinks about stuff, you know, these long launch breaks
Speaker 2: and you know, just making people jump to her thing
Speaker 2: because she can not being a servant of the people.
Speaker 2: Is like, Okay, I'll stay late so that this this,
Speaker 2: so that we can hear all these motions today, I
Speaker 2: can make a ruling from the bench and then maybe
Speaker 2: these people can go back to Los Angeles and that
Speaker 2: this defendant doesn't have to shell out more money. Bev
Speaker 2: cares about Bev and she is not fooling anybody.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: I mean that may be it. I've even heard there's
Speaker 5: suspicions that there are plants, you know, people, I was
Speaker 5: getting that people planted in this jury pool. I don't know.
Speaker 5: Conspiracy theorists might be able to better articulate it for me.
Speaker 5: Other it might be she wants her summer. It might
Speaker 5: be there's planted people in the pool. It might be
Speaker 5: a whole slew of different factors. What I can tell
Speaker 5: you is I know, as other lawyers do that in
Speaker 5: the real legal world, this trial did not have to
Speaker 5: take place April first. So it just feels unnatural to
Speaker 5: me and inflexible, especially when, at least up until a
Speaker 5: few days ago, there were pending appeals of her convictions
Speaker 5: and I have heard, although I didn't see that, she
Speaker 5: Karen may want to go to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 5: apply for cert before the Supreme Court, which you know,
Speaker 5: I'm not saying. There's a lot of hope to be
Speaker 5: held in that avenue, but something just doesn't ad up
Speaker 5: be as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, Thank you, mods, Thank you guests
Speaker 2: on behalf of Nan Gallagher BIA.
Speaker 1: This is DJ and calling all beings guys, see you
Speaker 1: down the road.
Speaker 5: Thanks guys. Everyone has a great night. It's been a
Speaker 5: pleasure being here and keep showing up. Thank you, love
Speaker 5: bye guys.