Speaker 1: Get a getting man.
Speaker 2: Yes, we're closing on what is a party people? I'm
Speaker 2: your host DJ, and.
Speaker 3: That lady right there is Fostina.
Speaker 2: Oh look at that. It shouldn't it should have faded out,
Speaker 2: all right. I forgot to get that button, all right,
Speaker 2: fade out the applause all right? Uh wow. So yeah,
Speaker 2: we we were building up this week. Of course we
Speaker 2: did a win a midweek show with the idea that
Speaker 2: we we was fin to have a superstar up in
Speaker 2: this joint, somebody who we really admire, somebody who's gonna
Speaker 2: who's become a friend or in Spanish and Amiga and
Speaker 2: I have news. Well, you know what, we should release
Speaker 2: the news for all of the irishmen in the chat,
Speaker 2: including Kimberley McGuire, that we found out just moments ago
Speaker 2: news broke that in fact, Nan Gallagher is no Irish
Speaker 2: nat six, she is Scottish sick. Can't throw your bloody head.
Speaker 2: And Luca's here, Debbie Blair and Heather from Baba is here.
Speaker 2: So without any further delay, we got to get her
Speaker 2: in here because girlfriend got lots to say and she
Speaker 2: about to say it. So people of calling all beings
Speaker 2: party people, put chands together for our od girl, Nan Geller,
Speaker 2: nobody me an amen in this joint? Yes?
Speaker 3: Amen? Amen? How are you all the amens? Oh?
Speaker 2: Wow, Nan Galligan, welcome back. Non, It's so good to
Speaker 2: have you back in the cob.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I love love talking with you guys.
Speaker 3: And when we figured out tonight would be a good
Speaker 3: rescheduled night for last week's debacle, I apologize for that
Speaker 3: to everyone. This was the best way I want to
Speaker 3: spend my Saturday night. So thanks for everyone for joining.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying too. And I just want to
Speaker 2: say my head doesn't look this fat in person. I
Speaker 2: just not that. I don't know what brought that on anyway.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Nan fan here, Yes, smart, what does that say? Smart? Smart? Hurry?
Speaker 2: I love that. Oh and here's the legend right here.
Speaker 2: She's from the Bronx, New York. You know what I'm
Speaker 2: talking about, Nan.
Speaker 3: You know I'm originally from the Bronx myself, and I
Speaker 3: went to college in the Bronx.
Speaker 2: So you want to ford.
Speaker 3: Them or something I did.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, Well did you go to it for
Speaker 2: law school? If you under grad?
Speaker 3: Undergrad? I went there undergrad and then I went to
Speaker 3: New York Law school. So I'm a New Yorker at heart.
Speaker 2: As I am I as am I. Another thing we
Speaker 2: have in common other than that we're both, you know,
Speaker 2: reasonably cool. I suppose look at that, my sister, all right,
Speaker 2: you know, we got to get into it.
Speaker 3: Nan.
Speaker 2: I figured what we would do is kind of let
Speaker 2: you just kind of do some scream of consciousness because
Speaker 2: I assume that there has been certain events during the
Speaker 2: trial or the trial stuff that you just have thoughts
Speaker 2: about or that you want to Oh, somebody wants to
Speaker 2: know what kind of lipsticks?
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness, everyone wants to know my lipstick.
Speaker 2: So well, it's good. Yeah, I mean that's positive.
Speaker 3: DJ, you got to have the lips. If you don't
Speaker 3: have the lips, no one's gonna pay attention to you.
Speaker 3: So to Laura and anyone else, just message me. I
Speaker 3: actually typed it out what I do for my lips,
Speaker 3: and I'm happy to send it to you. It's actually
Speaker 3: like five different products. So wow. But you know, I
Speaker 3: get a lot of feedback and it's generally positive. So yeah,
Speaker 3: thank you for the I'm going to take it as
Speaker 3: a compliment. If you want to know my lipstick, then
Speaker 3: I must be banging.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, I mean last time it was
Speaker 2: there was a a viewer that wanted to know Boston
Speaker 2: Brandy's dental tips for her white teeth, and this time
Speaker 2: it's your lipstick.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I had clips for white teeth too. Okay,
Speaker 3: you know I should tell your audience. Though it's very
Speaker 3: it's probably worth mentioning. They make this purple powder and
Speaker 3: they sell it on Amazon, and you just mix it
Speaker 3: in with your toothpaste and your it's got blue and
Speaker 3: purple particles in it, and your teeth come out looking
Speaker 3: like the day you were born, except you don't have
Speaker 3: teeth when you're born. But you know what I'm getting at.
Speaker 2: Man, we've already got a question for you. This was
Speaker 2: really quick, Nan. Would would you like to read that one?
Speaker 2: And oh? Yeah, take that?
Speaker 3: So should the defense call proctor if the Commonwealth doesn't?
Speaker 3: Absolutely Elena gill uh Well, and it doesn't appear, let's
Speaker 3: and I will do stream of consciousness DJ. But it
Speaker 3: does not appear right now that the Commonwealth is going
Speaker 3: to call proctor. They've taken the step of skirting around
Speaker 3: some very important issues and very important people so far.
Speaker 3: But it's really hard for trial attorneys like myself to
Speaker 3: forecast exactly where they're going, because they're kind of calling
Speaker 3: witnesses out of order. They're calling is in this disjointed
Speaker 3: non fung Shue order that would allow someone like me
Speaker 3: to forecast like I can tell you, and I'm sure
Speaker 3: your audience can assume. Okay, they still have to call
Speaker 3: their equivalent of a medical examiner and their accident reconstructionist.
Speaker 3: But for someone like me who looks at this and
Speaker 3: knows how trials are put together and stories are supposed
Speaker 3: to be told, I would have called the lead investigator
Speaker 3: by now. But when we hear things like Uri Buchanic
Speaker 3: over the last two trial days distance himself so far
Speaker 3: away from Proctor. I mean, they are worlds and universes apart,
Speaker 3: dj so galaxies apart. One might say, so, I don't
Speaker 3: think they're going to call them, and I think your
Speaker 3: audience would would be in agreement with that. And if
Speaker 3: they're not going to call him, I know some lawyers
Speaker 3: have said, nah, they may, the defense may not, but
Speaker 3: I definitely think they need to. They need to go
Speaker 3: for it. They got they they've got to call him.
Speaker 3: The defense is referred to Proctor as a cancer in
Speaker 3: the Massachusetts State Police. He has been disciplined, he has
Speaker 3: been terminated, He had his hands in everything. So even
Speaker 3: though we're seeing a little bit of this salacious story
Speaker 3: about him and his police sing misconduct and missteps through
Speaker 3: the testimony of other people, the defense has to go
Speaker 3: for it. They've got to get him on the stand.
Speaker 3: And even though on direct examination the defense may be
Speaker 3: a little bit hindered in how so.
Speaker 2: Could you explain that for the audience? What's the difference
Speaker 2: between your their direct witness or cross right?
Speaker 3: So, when when you call your own witness on direct examination,
Speaker 3: you have to ask them open ended questions, so you
Speaker 3: cannot lead them. You can't say things like we've heard
Speaker 3: from Alan Jackson like you committed misconduct. Correct. You can't
Speaker 3: say that you've led with your conclusion and you're asking
Speaker 3: them to agree or disagree. When you call a witness
Speaker 3: on direct exam, you have to say things like, well,
Speaker 3: what if anything, And you don't always have to say
Speaker 3: what if anything, but what if anything, did you do
Speaker 3: at the crime scene? And then the witness has as
Speaker 3: much description and latitude and subjectivity as possible to answer
Speaker 3: that question however they want, unless they're not answering your question,
Speaker 3: and they're being evasive in a very measurable form that
Speaker 3: the attorney can then ask the judge permission or motion
Speaker 3: to hold the witness or consider the witness hostile. If
Speaker 3: you want to declare a witness as a hostile witness,
Speaker 3: then you can ask them as many leading questions as
Speaker 3: you want. But with Judge Bev, there's so much discretional
Speaker 3: authority that she has exerted over trial one point zero
Speaker 3: and one point two point zero. I just don't think
Speaker 3: that that is going to be a safe bet. I
Speaker 3: don't think that Judge Bev will just willingly hold a
Speaker 3: witness as a hostile witness for the defense. She doesn't
Speaker 3: really exhibit much of an affinity for the defense. So
Speaker 3: I do think that they should call Proctor ask as
Speaker 3: many open ended questions as the defense can possibly ask him.
Speaker 3: I am confident that they've been working very hard all
Speaker 3: along the way to craft questions that they're going to
Speaker 3: ask him that are not leading, but will lead him
Speaker 3: to have to make certain concessions that will be favorable
Speaker 3: for the defense and Proctor, even if he didn't testify,
Speaker 3: we got so much good stuff out of Buchanic, so
Speaker 3: far and it's going to continue on Monday at ten am.
Speaker 3: That were definitely yeah, see he was barbecued. We're definitely
Speaker 3: And by the way, we haven't even seen all of
Speaker 3: the important things come out yet. They've got to talk
Speaker 3: about the inverted video. They've got to talk about all
Speaker 3: of the investigation or lack thereof, into the communications between
Speaker 3: the fact witnesses and the interviewing of the fact witnesses
Speaker 3: and things like we know Proctor did but Buchanic wasn't
Speaker 3: involved in. So Monday is going to be yet again
Speaker 3: another in my opinion, full day of fireworks for the defense.
Speaker 2: This is.
Speaker 3: Something that many people will not see in their lifetime,
Speaker 3: this type of revelation of such important testimony where they
Speaker 3: don't even have to call Proctor, but they will.
Speaker 1: And especially because he lost his job as a direct
Speaker 1: result of this investigation. So I think that's what needs
Speaker 1: to I mean, that was also mentioned in opening, but
Speaker 1: I think to hear it from the horse's mouth will
Speaker 1: be really nice.
Speaker 3: I agree, And I was so tickled pink that the
Speaker 3: disciplinary board that rule then found four different findings. If
Speaker 3: I recall as to Procter, that they did specifically tie
Speaker 3: his conduct in the Karen Reid investigation to their decision
Speaker 3: to discipline him and to ultimately terminate him, because they
Speaker 3: didn't have to they could, you know, we would have
Speaker 3: all been frustrated he they couldn't. They didn't have to
Speaker 3: be so specific, but they did specifically state that he
Speaker 3: exhibited bias in this investigation, and the bias of the
Speaker 3: lead investigator looking into a defendant, coupled with the salacious
Speaker 3: texting amongst his superiors and his colleagues and his friends.
Speaker 3: So there's really two different kind of layers of text messaging,
Speaker 3: and I believe only one layer has come out in
Speaker 3: court thus far because those are the ones that Buchanic
Speaker 3: was on and Buchanic was his superior. But the only
Speaker 3: way to get the really bad, additionally bad texts in
Speaker 3: the ones where we're Proctor was insulting Karen's appearance and
Speaker 3: you know, her health conditions and her accent, those can
Speaker 3: only come in through Procter. So once we're able to
Speaker 3: parse through all of the things that the defense thus
Speaker 3: far can get from Buchanic, a decision will be made
Speaker 3: as to whether they want to bring Procter in. But
Speaker 3: I think Proctor's reputation thus far in front of this
Speaker 3: jury is completely barbecued. To use your viewer's comment, there's
Speaker 3: no recovering from that image hit. And honestly, if I
Speaker 3: were to ramble on a little bit, I think buchanics,
Speaker 3: what do I want to call it? His act in
Speaker 3: front of the jury thus far, it can't possibly be
Speaker 3: playing well. He is coming across and I get now,
Speaker 3: especially now, why the defense feels and felt that it
Speaker 3: was so important for the jury to be able to
Speaker 3: see the witness's faces when they're testifying. I always knew
Speaker 3: that's an important thing. But the jury gets to see
Speaker 3: Buchanic's smirk and his visibly apparent feigning of lack of memory.
Speaker 3: He's saying in one breath that he needs a dictionary
Speaker 3: to define the word theory because he speaks English as
Speaker 3: a third language. But yet, if you all notice, he
Speaker 3: was able to read the text messages, which I have
Speaker 3: to say that was that was like a Christmas gift
Speaker 3: come early to me to have Buchanic read those horrible,
Speaker 3: I mean just horrible text messages between Higgins and Karen.
Speaker 3: He has no game. It's it's unbelievable, unbelievable. But that's
Speaker 3: why those text messages could be read by Buchanic is
Speaker 3: because Buchanic had received them from Higgins. They were curated
Speaker 3: by Higgins, and Buchanic says he considered them and I
Speaker 3: dare say dismissed them as being important evidence as part
Speaker 3: of his investigation. So now the jury is left going
Speaker 3: into this weekend thinking, wait, what's going on with Higgins?
Speaker 3: Who is this guy? Like? Why is he texting with Karen?
Speaker 3: So it was a great way to end the week
Speaker 3: and to leave that thought in the jury's mind as
Speaker 3: they go into a weekend. Yeah, it's good stuff.
Speaker 2: I just want to say this in response to somebody
Speaker 2: who's joking about URI's citizenship, and this is kind of
Speaker 2: probably in response to my friend and colleague Turtle Boy's
Speaker 2: comment about the culture that he comes from in Russia,
Speaker 2: and my response to that was simply that whatever you
Speaker 2: think about and I'm not a fan of the communist
Speaker 2: culture at all or the regime that's in charge there
Speaker 2: at all, but I do want to say that whatever
Speaker 2: culture Uri comes from, he seems to be perfectly in
Speaker 2: concert with his colleagues who are very much American and
Speaker 2: born in Massachusetts and raised in Massachusetts. So I don't
Speaker 2: see any goal for any difference between Tully Fanning Proctor
Speaker 2: Albert Buchanic. Tell me if I've missed anybody, did Chic
Speaker 2: go You know all those trooper Paulgorno, they all seem
Speaker 2: to be the troopers that were in Canton p D.
Speaker 2: They're all in concerts. So whether he comes from Russia
Speaker 2: or not is immaterial, because they all are just covering
Speaker 2: one another's ass and they've taken this oath, put their
Speaker 2: hand on the Bible and taken an oath, and now
Speaker 2: they're they're just crapping all over it to protect someone
Speaker 2: because obviously apparently protecting another officer who's committed a crime
Speaker 2: is more important than sort of honoring the oath that
Speaker 2: one took. And that's coming from a flawed person, just
Speaker 2: like everybody else out there that we're all floored flawed
Speaker 2: persons who are not perfect. But that's that's how I
Speaker 2: see that with Yuri and his colleagues, whether he's from
Speaker 2: a communist country or not. Please go ahead.
Speaker 1: I was gonna mention what about when Yuri says to Jackson,
Speaker 1: are you listening to me? And he goes, I am.
Speaker 1: There's no question that like basically paraphrasing here, there's no
Speaker 1: question I don't have the answer to. Was that not
Speaker 1: the best line ever?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, I have to say that that was a
Speaker 3: great line. And one of the points that I always
Speaker 3: like to make is if you notice, and it's come
Speaker 3: out several times in both trials, the judge will tell
Speaker 3: the jury don't consider the statements of the attorneys as evidence.
Speaker 3: She's also cautioned both attorneys not to make meaning both
Speaker 3: sides not to make these kind of extra commentary. You know,
Speaker 3: you'll hear you'll hear AJ say things like we could
Speaker 3: do this all day, which, by the way, I want
Speaker 3: a T shirt any So many viewers and free Karen
Speaker 3: Reid supporters are so creative and they make things. Someone
Speaker 3: needs to make a T shirt that says we could
Speaker 3: do this all day and put AJ's face on it.
Speaker 3: But what I love most about this issue is that
Speaker 3: the judge will say, mister Jackson, like, please don't make comments,
Speaker 3: and I'm paraphrasing, and he's like absolutely or yeah, certainly,
Speaker 3: you're I'm sorry you're on her, But then he does
Speaker 3: it in the next breath like he doesn't care. And
Speaker 3: I'm to be honest as someone who has to respect
Speaker 3: judges as part of what I signed up for when
Speaker 3: I became an attorney. I have to agree with his
Speaker 3: approach because we went through that whole thing with him
Speaker 3: being questioned and his integrity being questioned and his truthfulness
Speaker 3: concerning ARCA. We went through her grave concerns as to
Speaker 3: whether or not there was extra dealings with ARCA, which
Speaker 3: I thought was just ridiculous. That I think the attorneys
Speaker 3: on the defense team, while they're certainly excellent attorneys and
Speaker 3: the epitome of integrity and ethical attorneys, I think you
Speaker 3: hit a point where you're like, screw this. I'm going
Speaker 3: to do one hundred percent of what I want to
Speaker 3: do within ethical bounds for my client. So he'll make
Speaker 3: his little We could do this all day, or I
Speaker 3: don't have to answer your questions. I'm the one asking them,
Speaker 3: and I love it because I would do that too.
Speaker 3: That's very in line with my personality. So there's a
Speaker 3: little level of I'm done with this. We're not going
Speaker 3: to play your game, BEV. We're going to play our game,
Speaker 3: because you know, the first time around it the way
Speaker 3: they played it didn't work out for them. So I
Speaker 3: definitely feel that you're going to see more of that
Speaker 3: snark from AJ on Monday and with other witnesses too,
Speaker 3: and it's probably, although I don't know, it's probably also
Speaker 3: done to bother the witness. And I detected when watching Buchanic.
Speaker 3: I detected that Buchanic did not like that he was
Speaker 3: kind of reacting to AJ's level of snark. The goal
Speaker 3: is to get under the witness's skin. So oh, hey, Nexus, Lexis,
Speaker 3: how are you you know you try to get under
Speaker 3: witness's skin. I apologize if I'm glitching, guys. So yeah,
Speaker 3: so what do we got here? Nan? What's Commonwealth appellate
Speaker 3: attorney doing in the courtroom? I've heard this question a lot,
Speaker 3: so there is, and he was there the day I
Speaker 3: was the second day I was there, which was last month.
Speaker 3: The Commonwealth has their appellate Council who's been sitting in
Speaker 3: all of the proceedings. That's actually nothing to worry about
Speaker 3: and very common. So I believe I even heard, at
Speaker 3: least on some of the days Karen had her appellate
Speaker 3: attorney or attorneys in court with her. I know she's
Speaker 3: had on some of the days her civil attorneys because
Speaker 3: she's a defendant in a wrongful death action. Her civil
Speaker 3: attorneys have been present for some of the time. It
Speaker 3: actually makes for what's called judicial economy. Sometimes the appellate
Speaker 3: lawyers or the civil lawyers just want to be in
Speaker 3: real time for the testimony, to kind of of judge
Speaker 3: for themselves, how a witness is testifying, how a jury
Speaker 3: response to them, and to see real time whether or
Speaker 3: not certain appellate issues arise. So nothing like that concerns me.
Speaker 3: But I will tell you a little inside baseball, if
Speaker 3: you guys would like please, which is when I was
Speaker 3: in court. When was that? It was in April. I
Speaker 3: can't remember what day, but in April I sat in
Speaker 3: court for one day of jury selection, and that appellate
Speaker 3: lawyer for the Commonwealth was sitting right in front of
Speaker 3: I'm gonna call it team read. So while we were
Speaker 3: all waiting, and I was sitting with some of her
Speaker 3: family and some of her friends, and it was a
Speaker 3: limited amount of people who were permitted to be in
Speaker 3: the courtroom for jury selection, but we were sitting there
Speaker 3: and out of this whole big courtroom which had to
Speaker 3: be saved for the jury veneer to come in, the
Speaker 3: appellate lawyer for the Commonwealth sat right in front of us,
Speaker 3: and Karen had come over to speak with us as
Speaker 3: we were waiting for the jury to come in, and
Speaker 3: we all noticed him there. He could have sat elsewhere,
Speaker 3: and we hushed, we didn't. We were not speaking loudly
Speaker 3: because who knows if the walls have ears. I thought
Speaker 3: it was a bush league move, mister appel At attorney,
Speaker 3: and I don't like being eaves dropped on. So but
Speaker 3: I don't worry about him. He's nothing, and Karen's going
Speaker 3: to get acquitted, so it's going to be it's gonna
Speaker 3: be nothing to worry about.
Speaker 2: And you know, I was going to this a perfect
Speaker 2: segue to ask you that question, Nan, What was it
Speaker 2: like interacting with Karen and her family?
Speaker 3: Oh? My goodness. Uh, if it was, what was a
Speaker 3: great question. It was really wonderful. So I I had
Speaker 3: first started having just some light phone calls with Karen's
Speaker 3: family and Karen a couple times through the course of
Speaker 3: me being part of this movement, and they are just
Speaker 3: salt of the earth, really personable, very hardened people like
Speaker 3: this has hardened them, which is a complete shame because
Speaker 3: of all that they've gone through, and it's very hard
Speaker 3: for them to trust people and their government and their
Speaker 3: police and all of that, but in dealing with them,
Speaker 3: the level of graciousness just they are so polite. It's
Speaker 3: it's very refreshing. I have some pictures at some point
Speaker 3: where I will share where I got some pictures with
Speaker 3: Karen and the family, but out of respect for them,
Speaker 3: I'm not sharing them yet because I really don't want to.
Speaker 3: I don't want to make it look like, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm trying to show, hey, I'm friends with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's okay if people do it for themselves,
Speaker 3: but that's just not my thing. I will say, though, Caen,
Speaker 3: the last time I was in Karen's presence, I felt
Speaker 3: like she was my kid's sister. I'm only just a
Speaker 3: handful of years older than her. I'm actually the same
Speaker 3: age as John O'Keeffe down to the birth month, which
Speaker 3: is why I love when the trolls call me elderly.
Speaker 3: I'm like, you realize, you realize I'm the same age
Speaker 3: as John O'Keeffe would have been. But Karen, I felt
Speaker 3: like I was dealing with just a kid's sister, you know,
Speaker 3: talking about girl stuff, just things that ladies can talk about.
Speaker 3: And I'm happy that I don't know her. I don't
Speaker 3: know her very well at all, but I'm happy that
Speaker 3: she was, that that part of her hasn't been snuffed out,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. And she will never be
Speaker 3: the same no matter how this cookie crumbles. No, but
Speaker 3: when she gets to the other side of it, I
Speaker 3: know that her spirit hasn't been extinguished and she's going
Speaker 3: to be just fine. And one last point on this
Speaker 3: DJ She's she is, truly and I know this from
Speaker 3: speaking with her and her beautiful parents and her brother.
Speaker 3: They are so truly appreciative of content creators and the
Speaker 3: boots on the ground and those who watch YouTube programs.
Speaker 3: So everyone should always just keep showing up. I know
Speaker 3: that has become a bit of a punchline some recently,
Speaker 3: but I will say it's very important. It fuels the
Speaker 3: reads a little bit. Yeah, and I'm just not going
Speaker 3: to stop saying it.
Speaker 2: Keep saying it. I love it. Yeah. People are trolling
Speaker 2: you because it's a great saying and they wish they
Speaker 2: could have co opted it or thought of it themselves.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, I want to thank a meatball Morrissey
Speaker 2: sketty stain, which is probably right on if he's wearing
Speaker 2: I cautioned him against wearing white dress shirts. I just
Speaker 2: want to say, as a normal dog mom, I think
Speaker 2: it's gross to change an old dog's name. You're changing
Speaker 2: its family, but giving it a name it doesn't recognize.
Speaker 2: I mean, granted, I don't believe it's really Chloe, but
Speaker 2: if it was, okay, So let me address this. It's
Speaker 2: not Chloe, And first of all, it's not really Chloe.
Speaker 2: I think Chloe is no longer a living being on
Speaker 2: this earth, unfortunately, sadly. Obviously I'm a dog dad. But
Speaker 2: what I what I want to say is unless you
Speaker 2: have a microchip with one of those companies like Avid
Speaker 2: that is predated to January twenty nine, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: like when they would have gotten the dog and taken
Speaker 2: them for their first vet and had that put in
Speaker 2: the back of the neck, until we can see paperwork
Speaker 2: from Avid that says that this number equates to this
Speaker 2: dog with a scan tool that would be done by
Speaker 2: an independent party, and then we could see that same
Speaker 2: dog today where we could scan that dog and see that. Yes,
Speaker 2: unless they're able to call Avid and convince them that
Speaker 2: Brian Albert is going to beat up all of Avid
Speaker 2: then it's not the same dog, and the dog doesn't exist,
Speaker 2: think Brennan saying it's the same dog is simply to
Speaker 2: put uh sort of. It goes to them saying that
Speaker 2: the dog was re home to Vermont, which nobody believes.
Speaker 2: We all know that somebody as cruel as Brian Albert
Speaker 2: would have just put a forty five shell in the
Speaker 2: dog and buried it somewhere in like western Massachusetts, put
Speaker 2: in his pickup truck, wrapped him up in some sort
Speaker 2: of a tarp, and and buried the dog so that
Speaker 2: it could never be forensically examined, particularly the dental portion
Speaker 2: of the dog. So unless they produce that, there's no Chloe.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 2: Well that okay.
Speaker 3: So by the way, I think Morris he I think
Speaker 3: I heard.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: I just want to thank for the donation. That was
Speaker 2: very very kind of you. Thank you, Eddie Stein. We
Speaker 2: do appreciate that, and I hope you have oxy clean
Speaker 2: to be able to remove that stain.
Speaker 1: I met well last I met this person last week.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think that was I think she might
Speaker 3: have been dancing with Mike Crawford. I think I saw
Speaker 3: that at he mentioned he met her, So that's awesome, I.
Speaker 2: Had her to DJ, I did oh, I didn't even
Speaker 2: know that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the issue with the dog. While we're
Speaker 3: on the dog, I put on Twitter yesterday, poor Chloe
Speaker 3: or Cora has entered the Canine Witness Protection program. This
Speaker 3: issue with the dog, I have a sneaking suspicion is
Speaker 3: going to be discarded by the jury. Now, don't get
Speaker 3: me wrong. The wounds on the arm are dog bites
Speaker 3: and dog scratches and puncture wounds, and we can forecast
Speaker 3: that Garrett Wing, the expert, is going to give stellar
Speaker 3: testimony linking those injuries to the acts of a dog.
Speaker 3: I think there's value in all of that. But in
Speaker 3: terms of this dog is now Cora and was in
Speaker 3: Vermont and was not permitted to be seen by the defense,
Speaker 3: but was seen by the commonwealth representatives, that whole issue
Speaker 3: is not going to be of significance. The Commonwealth literally
Speaker 3: wants to take the trust me bro approach as it
Speaker 3: relates to Chloe, and I think all of us are
Speaker 3: smart enough to know, like, as DJ had said, like
Speaker 3: this dog is no longer. If the dog existed still,
Speaker 3: the dog would have been made readily available to the defense,
Speaker 3: probably even brought to court if need be. But it's
Speaker 3: just not It's not going to be considered more than
Speaker 3: the fact that there is tremendous weight of evidence that
Speaker 3: the defense is going to produce that those are dog bites,
Speaker 3: whether it's Marie Russell, Garrett Wing, the medical expert that
Speaker 3: the defense has engaged out of I believe Rhode Island.
Speaker 3: I cannot think of the doctor's name. I think it
Speaker 3: begins with an L. So I think that is just
Speaker 3: a complete it's a joke. If the Commonwealth thinks that
Speaker 3: the general public and the jury are dumb enough to
Speaker 3: believe that Chloe is Cora and exists in Vermont, they
Speaker 3: are way underestimating all of us. And it's been rehomed twice, yeah.
Speaker 2: The original Well no, it has not. It has not
Speaker 2: been rehomed twice. Well, well, according to once you get overlying, no,
Speaker 2: And they had to find when they hired Hank Brennan,
Speaker 2: they had to find a prodigious liar. And once they
Speaker 2: found somebody who was willing to take on the role
Speaker 2: of defense attorney, because then you know, if you're lying,
Speaker 2: you know it's a defense attorney. Now I realize there's
Speaker 2: Officer of the Court but to offer a vigorous defense
Speaker 2: who you're a client who may in fact be guilty,
Speaker 2: is completely different than being a prosecutor, as Nan Well knows.
Speaker 2: So once they find a liar, then you could lie
Speaker 2: about anything. And clearly, uh, they have found somebody that
Speaker 2: is willing to play ball, that has seen the facts
Speaker 2: of the case and is willing to to play the charade.
Speaker 2: He has no idea, He doesn't have a way of
Speaker 2: knowing if that's Chloe. He doesn't There isn't such a
Speaker 2: way that he said.
Speaker 1: He that it got rehomed, that the that she got rehomed,
Speaker 1: and then the people that it got rehomed to also
Speaker 1: rehomed her.
Speaker 2: Right, And I also think, yeah, it's a lie. So
Speaker 2: that's not what happened. And Uri also is willing and all.
Speaker 2: And URI's also willing to lie because look what he
Speaker 2: look what he said about the about the thing about
Speaker 2: the reports where you said when you said a report
Speaker 2: wasn't written un till eighteen months later. Is that is
Speaker 2: that common? Well, you know reports are done all the time,
Speaker 2: and eh, you know your liar, I mean, you're a liar.
Speaker 1: One of them was like five hundred and eighty or something.
Speaker 1: Something days later. Yeah. Crazy.
Speaker 3: We should mention this while we're on this point, the
Speaker 3: juxtaposition that Alan took with Buchannick on when witnesses were
Speaker 3: interviewed and or reports were written, and when he went
Speaker 3: through and did the and it was this many days
Speaker 3: to the date of incident that you interviewed this person,
Speaker 3: and this many days and got all the way out
Speaker 3: to I don't know what the highest was, eight hundred
Speaker 3: something days or five hundred something days. That was genius.
Speaker 3: You're now showing police incompetence. There has to have been
Speaker 3: a reason why the police would have had to have
Speaker 3: interviewed people like Heather Maxin and was it Dano. Yeah,
Speaker 3: these people should have been interviewed around when Ryan Nagel
Speaker 3: and Julie Nagel were interviewed. And I don't know all
Speaker 3: of the dates. I try to keep my analysis very Hey, Dennis,
Speaker 3: how are you because to see you. I might be
Speaker 3: seeing you soon, Dennis. But anyway, I feel like it's
Speaker 3: very important for the jury to measure how the police
Speaker 3: misstepped along the way, and that was genius to do that.
Speaker 3: And there were other things too, like the with the dog.
Speaker 3: The jury is going to realize Okay, the minute that
Speaker 3: the body was examined by Buchanic and whomever else was
Speaker 3: present for whether it was Keith, whoever was present for
Speaker 3: the autopsy. Look at I mean, look at the wounds.
Speaker 3: They just shout out animal. They shout out animal injury.
Speaker 2: So I'm not polycarbonate plastic from a tail light exploding,
Speaker 2: really exploding polycarbonate. Wow.
Speaker 3: I agree. It's unbelievable. And I feel like, you know,
Speaker 3: the jury's going to see these pictures and go, what
Speaker 3: tail light? That's why when we're this many days into
Speaker 3: the trial, because there's there's rumors, and I think I've
Speaker 3: even I'm not sure. I don't want to misquote him,
Speaker 3: but I could have sworn. I even heard Aiden Carneye
Speaker 3: state recently, like the rumor has it they're wrapping up soon.
Speaker 3: I thought I heard him say it as well. There's
Speaker 3: so much of a story that the Commonwealth still has
Speaker 3: to tell, like how did this out? Exactly? How did
Speaker 3: this happen? Oh wait, this is an important comment here.
Speaker 3: We have to we have to, we have to read
Speaker 3: this so.
Speaker 2: They cannot be shouted out. They can now permanent stains.
Speaker 2: Each one represents another. I've corrupted.
Speaker 3: That's true, but you know that.
Speaker 2: Thank you for the donation, Thank you for your membership
Speaker 2: to the cab membership club there, and for that really
Speaker 2: funny commentary. Thank you.
Speaker 3: You know it's while she mentioned staines, I have to
Speaker 3: mention a fun fact about myself. I worked in a
Speaker 3: dry cleaners from the time I was fourteen years old
Speaker 3: until I well after I became a lawyer.
Speaker 2: I worked.
Speaker 3: Yes, I worked all the way through, all the way
Speaker 3: through high school, all the way through college. Plus I
Speaker 3: did waitressing all the way through law school, all the
Speaker 3: way through my judicial clerkship, and then as I after
Speaker 3: I passed the bar exams and started practicing law, I
Speaker 3: was still working at the same dry cleaner on the weekends,
Speaker 3: just part time to help my boss of like fourteen
Speaker 3: or fifteen years. And on that note, I know how
Speaker 3: to take almost any stain out of work.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we've had we've had lipstick advice on the show,
Speaker 2: We've had how to white in your teeth. Let's get
Speaker 2: how to get stains out of clothing. Man, take it away.
Speaker 3: Trust me, bro, I'll clear the stains out of the
Speaker 3: Norfolk County real quick.
Speaker 1: But I.
Speaker 3: See what Morrissey's meatball Morrissey's steady stain was doing like
Speaker 3: there's some stains up there that cannot be shouted out.
Speaker 3: The shout is not the way to do it. There's
Speaker 3: better products. For more information, contact me please. I saw
Speaker 3: that Dennis Sweeney asked, what do I think of the
Speaker 3: buffer zone? Yeah, buff zone ruling. So I didn't fully
Speaker 3: read it, but I saw that. I think Jason Grant
Speaker 3: Public posted it and I was like, ooh, okay. So
Speaker 3: here's my understanding without having read it, is that the
Speaker 3: federal court has said this is too oppressive of a
Speaker 3: buffer zone, and they're kicking it back down to Judge
Speaker 3: Bev to narrowly tailor a more reasonably restricted buffer zone.
Speaker 3: And I will not say buffer anymore because you guys
Speaker 3: all say buffer up there, but a buffer zone up there. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I say things like ka, I say k I say
Speaker 3: cottage buffer zone. There's oh, I say stop stop.
Speaker 2: That from the glare. The glare totally made that awesome
Speaker 2: with his Michael Morrissey impression.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, if he's yeah to listen to the glare,
Speaker 3: just get into roll. And when he is going through
Speaker 3: any kind of hunches in and does his his Morrissey's
Speaker 3: hostage video. I can't like, I cannot keep my composure.
Speaker 3: But the buffer zone ruling, it's now been remanded down
Speaker 3: to the lower court level for Judge Bev to take
Speaker 3: it upon herself to narrowly construe and to reduce the
Speaker 3: parameters of the buffer zone. With that said, I believe
Speaker 3: I heard that there's some Hey Boston, Brandy, love you girl.
Speaker 3: I believe that there's some time constraint that if she
Speaker 3: doesn't do it within a certain time period, the federal
Speaker 3: court will do it for her. So this is great news.
Speaker 3: This is why it's important to challenge decisions that come
Speaker 3: down from all different types of courts. If you disagree
Speaker 3: with them or you feel their unconstitutional, appeal them and
Speaker 3: don't be discouraged if you lose certain level appeals. Just
Speaker 3: keep going. In my field, which is healthcare law, I
Speaker 3: often lose at the first and second levels of appeal,
Speaker 3: but I always win at the third level of appeal.
Speaker 3: Now that is is a very oversimplified way of stating it.
Speaker 3: But you just got to keep fighting and this was
Speaker 3: a great result. But I don't know more than that, Dennis.
Speaker 3: I'm super excited to see what BEV does and It's
Speaker 3: very professionally embarrassing, no matter how anyone spends it. It
Speaker 3: is professionally embarrassing for a judge to be told by
Speaker 3: a federal court you did this wrong, rubb her nose
Speaker 3: in it, spank the newspaper on her nose, and say
Speaker 3: do it better. So I hope her weekend is ruined
Speaker 3: trying to do that. Ha ha.
Speaker 2: I love the pro hok beach. Do you want to
Speaker 2: take some quick We have a bunch of questions starred,
Speaker 2: so I just want to yes, please, ma'am.
Speaker 1: Okay, So here's I've been thinking about this. So what
Speaker 1: do you think about this? We had a Canton police
Speaker 1: officer Gallagher on the stand. Why do you think it
Speaker 1: hasn't been brought up that there was never an accident
Speaker 1: report for this supposed accident? And wh do you think
Speaker 1: that was a missed opportunity because I haven't heard anybody
Speaker 1: talk about it, and I know it would be the
Speaker 1: local police department, not the Massachusetts State Police because they
Speaker 1: know they do the roadways and murder investigations and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. But you had a Canton police officer up
Speaker 1: in the stand. Why do you think they never asked
Speaker 1: about that?
Speaker 3: So? I've heard that question often. I think it was
Speaker 3: a missed opportunity. I truly do. It's not too late,
Speaker 3: and maybe Karen's team will be alerted to it, but
Speaker 3: it's not too late for them to ask questions like that.
Speaker 3: But in some jurisdictions, a police accident report is not
Speaker 3: a requirement, So I am not sure what the defense
Speaker 3: team was thinking. I think it would have been very
Speaker 3: helpful for them to ask that, because it really undermines
Speaker 3: the fact that the defense excuse me, the commonwealth from
Speaker 3: all along. They're kind of saying, we knew, we knew
Speaker 3: this was an accident based on her admissions, Karen's admissions
Speaker 3: at the scene on that point. On that point, though,
Speaker 3: in one breath, Buchanic said yesterday that she said she
Speaker 3: hit him at the scene, and then in the next
Speaker 3: breath he said she was questioning whether she hit him.
Speaker 3: So I think he's even conflating and convoluting her alleged
Speaker 3: versions of events, And that also convolutes and conflicts with
Speaker 3: what Proctor had said in one point Oh, if everyone
Speaker 3: remembers in one point Oh, Proctor had said something to
Speaker 3: the effect of quote, initially, we didn't know what we
Speaker 3: had because there was all this kind of evidence that
Speaker 3: was coming out about he looked like John looked like
Speaker 3: he had gone rounds with Mike Tyson, and that he
Speaker 3: had looked beaten up. So you had testimony prior testimony
Speaker 3: from Procter where he was saying, an Ishi, we didn't
Speaker 3: know what we had. So that conflicts with Buchanick saying, well,
Speaker 3: based on her admissions at the scene, we knew it
Speaker 3: was a car accident. I think it was a missed opportunity. However,
Speaker 3: the absence of a police accident report isn't going to
Speaker 3: make or break It's not going to make or break
Speaker 3: the case. It would have just been additional evidence that
Speaker 3: the defense could show to say you didn't know exactly
Speaker 3: what was going on at ground zero, and even if
Speaker 3: you thought you did, you don't get to wrap a
Speaker 3: case up in a neat and tidy bow from moments
Speaker 3: after it happened. You need to knock on doors, look
Speaker 3: at ring videos, ask questions to quester witnesses, make sure
Speaker 3: you're asking them witnesses go in and check the albert residents,
Speaker 3: and they didn't do that. I'm hoping the jury understands
Speaker 3: that with all of that confusion, and the police missteps
Speaker 3: that that in and of itself is enough to create
Speaker 3: and foment reasonable doubt. That was a long winded answer
Speaker 3: to your question, but it would have helped if they
Speaker 3: went that.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, let me, uh, you know what we're
Speaker 2: gonna get to. I'm gonna take a group of questions.
Speaker 2: I'd like to do them as quick, quick hitters, rapid fire,
Speaker 2: because there's a lot of them. A lot of people
Speaker 2: have questions. But I want to thank a couple of
Speaker 2: people we have. Do we have a new member? Let
Speaker 2: me see so we have welcome, facts, opinions in real talk.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. I'm gonna have to check out
Speaker 2: your I assume that you have a channel, so thank
Speaker 2: you very much. Now, I mustay that was very cool
Speaker 2: of you to join us. I think we're only ninety
Speaker 2: nine cents a month. We're pretty cheap.
Speaker 3: So I've seen them on Twitter. I think I've seen them.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna look you up.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, I want Yeah, I'm gonna have to look
Speaker 2: that up too. Let me look at its facts, opinions
Speaker 2: and real talk, so yes, I will. I would look
Speaker 2: for you mate. Uh. We also have love a Romi
Speaker 2: with cheese as nurse Kim likes to call her Hiro.
Speaker 2: Thank you for being here. Look at this the legend
Speaker 2: twenty duns. Are you mad? Dennis? Thank you so much, brother,
Speaker 2: that's very very kind of you. Still got to get
Speaker 2: you to answer my question. I got to call you.
Speaker 2: Uh so I can, I can interview you on the phone.
Speaker 2: So thank you, Dennis. Those very kind of you. Uh So,
Speaker 2: all right, let me get let me get to the
Speaker 2: top and see. Uh let's take these again, rapid fire,
Speaker 2: quick hitters, and forgive me if we were so. I
Speaker 2: think you already answered this one. Yes, they're gonna call Proctor. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think we got to that one from our theay
Speaker 2: better right, Yeah, this is from the cat lady. Uh
Speaker 2: and maybe you'd like to read this in some sort
Speaker 2: of an Irish No, I'm just kidding. Go ahead and
Speaker 2: read this one, Dan.
Speaker 3: The Commonwealth is also not planning on calling Brian Colin,
Speaker 3: Albert Higgins, Tully Scordy Bellow. According to TB, I agree
Speaker 3: with that. Should the defense also call these witnesses as
Speaker 3: adverse witnesses? I do think yes, I do so. We
Speaker 3: don't need to prove the third party culprit. It's we
Speaker 3: want to emphasize reasonable doubt. If we're team Karen Reid,
Speaker 3: but inviting Brian, not inviting, compelling Brian to Brian Albert
Speaker 3: and Brian Higgins to the stand. Let them face scrutiny
Speaker 3: for their conduct, let them fall on their faces that
Speaker 3: you can't pull punches here. You got to go for it.
Speaker 3: Colin Albert, I have a little sensitivity in terms of
Speaker 3: how I answer it, because I'm not one hundred percent
Speaker 3: sure Judge bev is even going to let them call
Speaker 3: him to the stand. I know they can't pursue third
Speaker 3: party culprit and if they're limited in what they can
Speaker 3: get from him, it might not be worth it to
Speaker 3: bring them to the stand. I mean, I think he
Speaker 3: was fully involved in what happened with John m'keeefe. But
Speaker 3: if they're hands are tied, their hands.
Speaker 1: Are tied, her knuckles.
Speaker 3: Tully needs to come to exactly. Tully needs to come
Speaker 3: answer questions and Scorty Bellow one hundred percent, she's a
Speaker 3: medical examiner and she did not give Proctor or Buchanic
Speaker 3: what they wanted in terms of the manner of death.
Speaker 3: So they'll be calling her and hopefully she has a
Speaker 3: little bit of a chip on her shoulder towards the
Speaker 3: commonwealth that abandoned her. And maybe she'll be a little
Speaker 3: bit more forthcoming in her medical testimony as to whether
Speaker 3: or not certain things were reasonably probable as causes of injury.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll see, because then they're going to be like then,
Speaker 2: un Cross, They're going to say, well, last time you
Speaker 2: said this was your testimony, not this so umm, and
Speaker 2: this one right here. What does it take to qualify
Speaker 2: for a witness to become a hostile witness? What are
Speaker 2: the rules? From miss Jessica and easy armud.
Speaker 3: That's a great question, So that varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
Speaker 3: but generally speaking, to ask the court to label a
Speaker 3: witness as a hostile witness, you have to have asked
Speaker 3: that witness several times questions that are perfectly phrased, that
Speaker 3: are not objectionable, and the witness is just evading the answer.
Speaker 3: They're just not answering it. So if you're saying, you know,
Speaker 3: what color was the traffic light when you proceeded through
Speaker 3: the intersection, and they're saying, oh, the sky is blue
Speaker 3: and the grass is green, ask them several times. They
Speaker 3: don't give you the answer to a very reasonable question.
Speaker 3: You then can make an application to the court to
Speaker 3: say I need permission to declare this witness as hostile.
Speaker 3: Nine out of ten judges will and Bev is a
Speaker 3: huge variable at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wanted to say also, I've heard several of
Speaker 2: you attorneys. I just want to stitch back to Colin.
Speaker 2: Several of you attorneys have said that in putting on
Speaker 2: a vigorous defense from someone for someone who's supposed to
Speaker 2: be presumed innocent until proven guilty, she should have allowed
Speaker 2: calling in and the third party culprit because you have
Speaker 2: to allow them every opportunity to clear their client and
Speaker 2: just hope that the prosecution has enough to impeach the test,
Speaker 2: you know, impeach their cross examination or the facts. But
Speaker 2: they don't write they should he should have been allowed.
Speaker 2: According to the attorneys i've heard, I agree.
Speaker 3: I think there was enough for Colin Albert to be
Speaker 3: considered a third party culprit from the get go. I
Speaker 3: don't love, in fact, I absolutely hate the fact that
Speaker 3: Judge Bev did not permit him to be included in
Speaker 3: the list of three along with Brian Albert and Brian Higgins.
Speaker 3: And I'll go one step Further, I hate the fact
Speaker 3: that Judge bev in her written opinion on it actually editorial,
Speaker 3: the fact that it was a bit of a stretch
Speaker 3: to have included Colin Albert in the first place. I
Speaker 3: think there's quite a bit of reasonable probative evidence that
Speaker 3: would show at a minimum that Colin Albert was involved
Speaker 3: in a cover up, if not the alleged crime itself.
Speaker 3: This is more gamesmanship on in my mind. This goes
Speaker 3: along with that hostage video DJ that you were talking
Speaker 3: about where you meet Paul Morrissey was going out of
Speaker 3: his way to say Colin had nothing to do with this,
Speaker 3: and we now know that there was emails or communications
Speaker 3: from a person named Julie, whether it was his mother
Speaker 3: or another Julie, directly to the prosecutor's office to influence
Speaker 3: the content of that hostage video. In terms of not
Speaker 3: including or somehow sidelining Colin from involvement, this is wholly improper.
Speaker 3: So I think Colin, it's a shame Collin's not going
Speaker 3: to be included in terms of third party culprit. But
Speaker 3: in light of that ruling, which I believe is reversible
Speaker 3: error if there has to be an appeal later. But
Speaker 3: in light of that ruling, I'm still not sure it's
Speaker 3: a productive use of time for the defense to call
Speaker 3: him to the stand unless there's something that is really
Speaker 3: important that they have to prove, and that may very
Speaker 3: well be tied to Ali McCabe and her involvement and
Speaker 3: her whereabouts and her whereabouts with him after they left
Speaker 3: the house. So I kind of I'm going to hold
Speaker 3: whole decision on whether or not I think he should
Speaker 3: be called, but they'll call him if they think it's important.
Speaker 3: I just think they're going to go after the two
Speaker 3: Brians for now, and especially Brian Higgins, especially him.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, he's a soft target, isn't he. I just
Speaker 2: want to respond to this one for me from rights on.
Speaker 2: Once again, I said to you in the chat, no,
Speaker 2: we do not do politics on cab Ever, I was
Speaker 2: responding because there was an assertion and we have been
Speaker 2: corrected that in fact, Yuri's of family hales or he
Speaker 2: was born in Ukraine and not in Russia, which is
Speaker 2: I don't care where the guy's from. My whole point was,
Speaker 2: he's part of this culture. Now. It's like when you
Speaker 2: join the military and you spend you find yourself and
Speaker 2: you're like oh my god, I've been in for ten years.
Speaker 2: You find that the military culture becomes imbued in you.
Speaker 2: You start to say things and act in a certain
Speaker 2: way that you wouldn't have acted as a civilian. Well,
Speaker 2: in fact, the culture of covering for other cops and
Speaker 2: for whitewashing things and thinking that you're above the law,
Speaker 2: that you actually can commit crimes as a law enforcement
Speaker 2: officer or a peace officer, depending on what your astiction
Speaker 2: you're in, you could be referred to as a peace officer.
Speaker 2: That this culture is something that is imbued in uri.
Speaker 2: He is acting in concert like anyone who was born
Speaker 2: here in America. And let me tell you something, You're
Speaker 2: going to find few people that love immigrants more than
Speaker 2: I am a married to one than I do. But
Speaker 2: he is part of the MSP culture. Forget about what
Speaker 2: country he's from, whether it's Ukraine, Russia, or any country
Speaker 2: in the globe. He has decided that he is going
Speaker 2: to cover for those people that are committing these types
Speaker 2: of crimes and that that's okay because they're blue and
Speaker 2: I'm blue. Well, I'll tell you what. Like I've said
Speaker 2: a dozen and a half times on the show The
Speaker 2: Seals who dimed out Chief Eddie Gallagher, Chief Petty Officer
Speaker 2: Eddie Gallagher, the Navy seal who shot and killed that
Speaker 2: fifteen year old Afghani boy, shot him in the face
Speaker 2: and executed him. Those guys had seen him do several
Speaker 2: different acts, and that was the act that culminated that.
Speaker 2: The seals on his team reported him to the JAG.
Speaker 2: Not other troops, not RMYSF, not Marine Corps guys, not
Speaker 2: Air Force combat controllers, not Pj's his own team. So
Speaker 2: take that, Take that, MSP guys and Canton guys, because
Speaker 2: you guys are not more together than Navy seal teams.
Speaker 2: Sorry to sorry to break that to you if I'm
Speaker 2: the first one.
Speaker 3: Can I just speak to this briefly, DJ. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: think everyone everybody who looks at the witnesses in this
Speaker 3: case should focus, in my opinion, should focus on what
Speaker 3: they're saying and how important it is as to what
Speaker 3: they're saying or what they're lying about or what doesn't
Speaker 3: make sense as opposed to who's from a country who
Speaker 3: got to glow up and got highlights and you know,
Speaker 3: bronze er on their face, Like I just feel, and
Speaker 3: maybe it's because because I've been a little bit paid
Speaker 3: attention to or negatively. As I've been part of this
Speaker 3: from the sidelines, I think it just be be beneficial
Speaker 3: for everyone to kind of say it doesn't matter if
Speaker 3: the guys you're Ukrainian or Russian, or whether someone looks
Speaker 3: a certain way and let's Lithuanian. Why.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But I don't mean to stand on a soapbox when
Speaker 3: I say that, because, to be honest with you, I
Speaker 3: have certain opinions that I hold and biases that I hold,
Speaker 3: as do everyone on certain things, and I just keep
Speaker 3: them to myself. That's how I comport myself. But I
Speaker 3: like the fact that you don't put politics on cabs.
Speaker 2: Yeah no, because you know where everybody is entitled to
Speaker 2: their political opinion. Politics frankly drives us apart as Americans.
Speaker 2: I just had to say that because I'm part of
Speaker 2: the reunion committee from my high school and one of
Speaker 2: the members of the committee got too politically charged DMS.
Speaker 2: So I put out something to the entire group that's coming.
Speaker 2: You know, please leave your politics at home, bring your henhood,
Speaker 2: sale or pride to the event, and leave your politics
Speaker 2: either at the hotel room or at your house.
Speaker 3: No, I will mention. Though on this point, I think
Speaker 3: it was really sleazy for Brennan to be even asking
Speaker 3: Buchanic about his history and where you're from, and you know,
Speaker 3: he's trying to pluck at the heartstrings of tell us
Speaker 3: your sob story and oh you were in the military,
Speaker 3: and look, all of that is wonderful history for someone
Speaker 3: if they've emigrated to this country, if they have military service.
Speaker 3: Do not get me wrong, folks. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: who the fuck cares what did you do at the
Speaker 3: crime scene? I apologize for using profanity.
Speaker 2: I never this topic. Does it to you?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Like, what did you do with the crime scene?
Speaker 3: Who did you not interview? What missteps were made? Why
Speaker 3: are we wasting your taxpayer dollars? Like, that's the stuff
Speaker 3: that's important. So when I hear lawyers try to conjure
Speaker 3: up these kind of artificial, artificially harvested sentiments from a
Speaker 3: jury by telling someone or bringing forth testimony about someone's
Speaker 3: history like that, it gives me the ick. I'm like, oh, God, Like,
Speaker 3: I don't even do that. I don't. I think it's
Speaker 3: just bush league, as I call it.
Speaker 2: There's one segment of society, one group in all of
Speaker 2: American society that can remove you from your freedom at
Speaker 2: will and then just have to demonstrate after the fact
Speaker 2: that it was warranted and that was our police officer.
Speaker 2: So when they are not comporting themselves ethically and honestly,
Speaker 2: and are in fact lying and framing and planting evidence,
Speaker 2: that's a big problem. And that's the big problem with
Speaker 2: Uri is that he is part of that group that
Speaker 2: can remove you from your freedom. We just had Brandy
Speaker 2: had a scare at the courthouse the other day for
Speaker 2: saying peekaboo like absurd. So that's what it is.
Speaker 3: Call me Brandy on that. I want to chat with
Speaker 3: you about that if you want. If you want buzz
Speaker 3: we have.
Speaker 2: It looks like we got another Oh this is from Terry.
Speaker 2: This one just thank you Terry Sue for saying that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I appreciate that. Like I love everybody, and
Speaker 3: when I took about a week off from streaming, I
Speaker 3: missed everybody, and I really try to recognize handles and
Speaker 3: use her names. And thanks to everybody who reached out
Speaker 3: to me. Love you too, Terry Sue.
Speaker 2: Here's another one. Uh Nan, Can they ask Uri, are
Speaker 2: are you aware of why Proctor is no longer I
Speaker 2: think she means with MSP and try to get the
Speaker 2: text in that way a couple of words missing. But
Speaker 2: I think can they ask Procter? Why can they ask Uri?
Speaker 2: Why Proctor is no longer with MSP.
Speaker 3: So they can ask him? You know you are you
Speaker 3: aware he's no longer with the MSP. Whether BEV will
Speaker 3: allow that is beyond me. I mean, she sustains so
Speaker 3: many of the Commonwealth objections. The texts are coming in.
Speaker 3: The texts are in evidence, at least the ones right
Speaker 3: now between the police, you know, Proctor and Buchanic, and
Speaker 3: I think Fanning was on the chain as well, those
Speaker 3: have I believe come into evidence. It's the ones right
Speaker 3: now involving the friends, the really sleazy ones where he
Speaker 3: degraded an objectified Karen, that are fair game right now
Speaker 3: as to how they come in. So I think it's
Speaker 3: sometimes risky to ask too many questions of a witness
Speaker 3: about an individual if you're trying to prove a point,
Speaker 3: because they've already I believe asked Buchanic, like I'm paraphrasing,
Speaker 3: but like what did you think of him? And he
Speaker 3: said he has integrity, The investigation was conducted with integrity,
Speaker 3: like if you ask it too much, you're then diluting
Speaker 3: the impact of what you already got out of him.
Speaker 3: So if I were the defense, I wouldn't touch it
Speaker 3: anymore with Buchanic as to what he thinks of Proctor,
Speaker 3: I would want to argue in closing arguments and can
Speaker 3: you believe his superior you're a Buchanic sat in front
Speaker 3: of you and said that this investigation was conducted with integrity.
Speaker 3: This investigator comported himself professionally and properly and with integrity.
Speaker 3: But as you saw, these were messages sent and this
Speaker 3: is what happened in terms of reports with wrong times,
Speaker 3: and there was this and that going on. So sometimes
Speaker 3: it's best not to really ask all the questions we
Speaker 3: want to ask, because you don't know what you're gonna get. Plus,
Speaker 3: I'll bet my law licenses that Buchanic is prepping all
Speaker 3: weekend with Brennan again, which is improper, but I know
Speaker 3: it's happening.
Speaker 2: Because they don't have any ethics whatever, whatever they're not
Speaker 2: supposed to do, they're going to do. Yep. And thank
Speaker 2: you very much, Laurie Ross for that fiver. I really
Speaker 2: appreciate that was very kind of you.
Speaker 3: Oh you know what I'm going to do, guys for
Speaker 3: the rest of for your stream tonight, if anyone is interested,
Speaker 3: I'm going to chat match. So for anyone who throws
Speaker 3: a super chat, I will match that when when it's
Speaker 3: all reconciled through the YouTube reporting, I'm going to chat
Speaker 3: match to the Karen Reid Defense Fund.
Speaker 2: So sorry, I was going to say thank you, Nan Gallagher.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay if you want.
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am And just for everybody, at the top of
Speaker 2: the screen pins at the top of the chat is
Speaker 2: the Karen Reid Defense Fund for you to donate if
Speaker 2: you are so inclined, and please Misscalagher take it away,
Speaker 2: all right?
Speaker 3: Can Brian Higgins and Brian Albert's phone records get admitted
Speaker 3: without calling them as witness new That way they can
Speaker 3: show the calls between them at two twenty am or answered,
Speaker 3: not butt dials.
Speaker 1: See.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the answer to that is no. They have to
Speaker 3: be authenticated. And unless they're going to call an individual
Speaker 3: from like Verizon for example, that could authenticate phone records,
Speaker 3: you can't get their phone records in. But I will
Speaker 3: say this, you want them to testify about the butt
Speaker 3: dials like their testimony is so unbelievable on the subject.
Speaker 3: I want the jury to see that nobody butt dials
Speaker 3: that much, and all answers butt dials, butt answers and
Speaker 3: all in that little truncated window of time, Like they're
Speaker 3: the most talkative people between like two am and five am,
Speaker 3: Like whether it's and by talkative, I mean active, whether
Speaker 3: they're butt dialing, whether they're butt hanging up, but answering.
Speaker 3: Apple Health data is showing Jen McCabe was up all night.
Speaker 3: We want these people to have to explain themselves.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean people guys do not leave parties
Speaker 2: say goodbye and then go and text that person at
Speaker 2: two something in the morning. They don't do that.
Speaker 3: So yeah, And did you guys see I only saw
Speaker 3: a fleeting comment about it, not on your stream. Did
Speaker 3: you see that Aiden Carney made a comment about Brian
Speaker 3: Higgins's apparel? Did you hear that?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Okay, So everyone should always know this about me. I
Speaker 3: don't read everything. I read just enough to understand, and
Speaker 3: then I promised myself I'll find time later, and then
Speaker 3: I don't. But I believe there was a comment that
Speaker 3: came out of Turtle Boys tweets yesterday that said something
Speaker 3: to the effect of everybody pay attention to what Brian
Speaker 3: Higgins is wearing in the waterfall video versus thereafter. So
Speaker 3: I have a feeling the video of the sally Port
Speaker 3: vicinity that was kind of more recently produced is going
Speaker 3: to show him wearing a different shirt. Now, I don't
Speaker 3: mean to be a conspiracy theorist when it comes to
Speaker 3: talking about stuff like that, but maybe everyone should pay
Speaker 3: attention to that. I don't know, Well, what if.
Speaker 2: He was wearing a different shirt, what would that indicate
Speaker 2: to You.
Speaker 3: Could possibly and I didn't see the video, so it
Speaker 3: was snowing, maybe he had a jacket on or something.
Speaker 3: But if he had a different shirt or different sweatshirt
Speaker 3: just a few hours after having left the waterfall, it
Speaker 3: could indicate that maybe they're was bloodborne packagens on his
Speaker 3: shirt from some type of scuffle or kerfuffle that took
Speaker 3: place at the Albert residence at thirty four Fairview. Why
Speaker 3: would you change I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if he had, if he has a fireplace, I
Speaker 2: would think that's where that article of clothing ended up maybe,
Speaker 2: which which again, if you had a forensic team in there,
Speaker 2: they would they would figure that out, you know. I mean,
Speaker 2: I know that guy from duty ron Ed said, you know,
Speaker 2: he would have found the blood one hundred percent he
Speaker 2: would have found the blood in the basement. I'm sure
Speaker 2: he would have found the blood there.
Speaker 3: And don't forget too.
Speaker 1: In the text messages that were red Friday, Brian Higgins
Speaker 1: says that he sometimes sleeps at the Canton Police Department.
Speaker 1: He has an office there and alluded to have he's
Speaker 1: slept there before, so he doesn't always have to drive home,
Speaker 1: So just keep that in mind.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and he's a total loser. He needs to get
Speaker 3: a life. If you're if you find that you got
Speaker 3: to sleep at the Canton in your little satellite office,
Speaker 3: and you have no game with texting Karen Reid, who
Speaker 3: was clearly just checking her market value, and you know
Speaker 3: you go home at night and eat your Swanson Hungry
Speaker 3: Man dinners. Brian Higgins, you are a total loser. And
Speaker 3: that is why I donated yesterday to the Karen Reid
Speaker 3: defense Fund. So maybe someone can buy you some game.
Speaker 3: Oh anyway, all right, what have we got, oh, Lena?
Speaker 3: Should we worry about the Commonwealth motion regarding the ring video?
Speaker 3: Do never apologize for a questions?
Speaker 2: We're here we're here for it.
Speaker 3: Should we worry about it? We're not worrying about anything, Elena.
Speaker 3: I know right now that the ring video or whatever's
Speaker 3: in that motion, which I haven't fully read it, it's
Speaker 3: nothing to worry about. There is enough probative evidence if
Speaker 3: it can be clearly explained to the jury that there
Speaker 3: was ring video. It was notated by I think it
Speaker 3: was de Chico. I'm not sure. Some officer noted the
Speaker 3: presence of video in a certain window of time that's
Speaker 3: no longer there. And it appears that Procter had access
Speaker 3: and means an opportunity to the ring video over a
Speaker 3: period of time to discard it. That is a reasonable
Speaker 3: inference that I'd like to see the defense make. That's
Speaker 3: where I'm going to focus my attention, and I'm not
Speaker 3: going to worry about any motion that the Commonwealth files
Speaker 3: in that regard. But yet again, it's just opportunity after
Speaker 3: opportunity for the defense, excuse me, for the Commonwealth to
Speaker 3: try to knock out all of Karen's reasonable defenses to
Speaker 3: protect her due process rights to get herself a fair trial,
Speaker 3: because she's sure as hell isn't getting one from the
Speaker 3: Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Speaker 2: Uh, and we should clarify ring video. I believe the
Speaker 2: you mean from John's house, I do, okay, yeah, and.
Speaker 1: What it's go And the one that's conveniently missing is
Speaker 1: her coming home from thirty four fairvuear, which would show
Speaker 1: the taillight is intact. So let them dig it up.
Speaker 3: I say, do it, do it?
Speaker 1: Do it?
Speaker 3: I agree. I love when you say it. Do it
Speaker 3: like we want it. And if you've ever noticed when
Speaker 3: when when AJ has been interviewed, he's always saying things like, yeah,
Speaker 3: no objection, we want it, we wanted to come in.
Speaker 3: They're not hiding anything. The only thing that the defense
Speaker 3: really put up a fight for was Karen's protected privileged
Speaker 3: communications between her and her attorneys that should have never
Speaker 3: been asked for. I have lost any modicum of respect
Speaker 3: that I had for Brennan, which was minimal at best
Speaker 3: to begin with when he asked for it. But everything else,
Speaker 3: Karen and her team are like, We're an open book.
Speaker 3: Just ask for it, Come at me, you know, do it,
Speaker 3: so to speak. So I'm not worried about any of that.
Speaker 2: Is his behavior consistent with that of an defense that
Speaker 2: he's acting in the role of a defense attorney, a
Speaker 2: little bit.
Speaker 3: I hear people saying he's kind of acting like a
Speaker 3: defense attorney. Yeah, I mean he's trying to knock out
Speaker 3: things that are being used as swords against his quote client,
Speaker 3: which is the Commonwealth and the Mcalberts and the police
Speaker 3: and the Massachusetts State Police. So in that respect, he is.
Speaker 3: But I and I heard another lawyer on another stream
Speaker 3: today kind of say, defense attorneys or salesmen. Defense criminal
Speaker 3: attorneys or salesman, we have to sell certain things to
Speaker 3: a jury. I disagree with that, and I want to
Speaker 3: point this out because while Brennan is a defense attorney
Speaker 3: and he's serving as a special appointed prosecutor, and he's
Speaker 3: acting a lot like a defense attorney for the reasons
Speaker 3: I just described defense criminal defense attorneys who comport themselves
Speaker 3: ethically and with skill. We're not salesmen. We are strict
Speaker 3: proponents of justice. There's a big difference. You know, Karen
Speaker 3: will never be declared innocent. At best, She's going to
Speaker 3: be declared not guilty, and that basically means that the
Speaker 3: Commonwealth did not prove or satisfy it's burden to prove
Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime or these different
Speaker 3: layers of crime were committed, so she's never going to
Speaker 3: be named as an innocent person. And I feel like
Speaker 3: people like Brennan who are wearing on one side of
Speaker 3: their head the prosecutor cap. On the other side of
Speaker 3: their head, they're wearing the defense attorney cap. You know
Speaker 3: what he should be doing. He should be staunchly standing
Speaker 3: up for the principal of the United States Constitution and
Speaker 3: give her the fair trial. Present all of the evidence fairly,
Speaker 3: don't hide it, don't hide metadata, make excuses, don't do
Speaker 3: any of that. Give her, not the Commonwealth, her the
Speaker 3: constitutional right to a fair trial that she's entitled to. So, yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess he's acting like one. I frankly think he's
Speaker 3: acting like a jerk, and I don't like listening to
Speaker 3: him anymore. I miss Lally.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, but it just it seems like if
Speaker 2: you're given the case that he has, with a bunch
Speaker 2: of planted, manipulated evidence, liars, criminals that are acting in
Speaker 2: the role of police officers, he's probably playing the only
Speaker 2: card that he has. And you guys have so many
Speaker 2: questions here, we've got don't get to let me get
Speaker 2: to this last one. They are gonna. I Nan does
Speaker 2: think that she's going to call Higgins. So you can
Speaker 2: answer that one quickly. This one says, I was so
Speaker 2: depressed today listening to Sean and the Young Jerks. She's
Speaker 2: probably talking about Sean McDonough. I didn't know who was it. Sean.
Speaker 3: There was an attorney. I think his name was Sean Martin.
Speaker 3: He was a guest on the Young Jerks today.
Speaker 2: Okay, talk about I'm sorry, good No.
Speaker 3: He expressed some doubts that Karen will win this trial.
Speaker 2: I mean, to me, the one card that they have
Speaker 2: to play after like, because if they keep presenting reasonable
Speaker 2: doubt in this manner, I think they're going to pile up,
Speaker 2: as Mark likes to say, your colleague, Mark betro a
Speaker 2: mountain of reasonable doubt. But I think the final card
Speaker 2: they have to play. And I'll ask you too if
Speaker 2: you think they will play that card is to try
Speaker 2: to influence the jury, and I mean the Alberts or
Speaker 2: their proxies trying to influence the jury and scare the jury.
Speaker 2: Do you think that that card is that's their last card?
Speaker 2: That's your thoughts on that, Nan and Bea.
Speaker 3: I think they're going to I think they're going to
Speaker 3: try to do that, and if the defense was smart,
Speaker 3: they'll get out ahead of it and say this is
Speaker 3: not to take place anymore. You know, they're not allowed
Speaker 3: to sit in for closing arguments. And as far as
Speaker 3: influencing the jury, you know, the bingo balls and deciding
Speaker 3: whose alternates are not that has to be clearly observed, monitored, audited,
Speaker 3: supervised as best as possible. I think this is where
Speaker 3: having the addition of Attorney Victoria George will be vital
Speaker 3: to them, just in terms of, you know, she doesn't
Speaker 3: seem to be robustly substantively involved at a public level,
Speaker 3: but just keeping eyes on the process and making sure
Speaker 3: that there is integrity in how how these jurors are
Speaker 3: kept away from public or Mcalbert influence. It's just there's
Speaker 3: a lot of an honor code here. You know. The
Speaker 3: defense has done everything they can to try to say
Speaker 3: there's been governmental misconduct of an extraordinary nature in how
Speaker 3: this jury one point zero was handled or mishandled. I
Speaker 3: have a feeling it's not going to happen again because
Speaker 3: all eyes are on it. So those are my thoughts.
Speaker 3: I don't know what you think bea well, wasn't.
Speaker 1: There emotion that the defense had filed to keep them
Speaker 1: out of closing arguments that they lost. So I think
Speaker 1: the defense was kind of thinking ahead to it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, to that.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, I think if they I think the
Speaker 1: o'keefes are going to want them there to intimidate the jury,
Speaker 1: and I think that is I do agree that is
Speaker 1: probably their final, you know, try at it. But I
Speaker 1: think the defense did get that motion denied, and so
Speaker 1: I do think that they tried. But so I think
Speaker 1: they're going to come back again.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's really sleazy. I think it was
Speaker 3: sleazy when they came in theiring closing arguments in the
Speaker 3: first place.
Speaker 2: I think, right, well, to me, I'm the way I'm
Speaker 2: looking at it, you know, based on some let's just say,
Speaker 2: some oral testimony that we took about Marty Kraft showing
Speaker 2: up at a certain event and then doing something that
Speaker 2: was quite scary to people that were protesting. Karen Reid.
Speaker 2: I won't get into the details of it, but that's
Speaker 2: something that is alleged to have happened. Although I don't
Speaker 2: I'm not a first persason witness, I have somebody that
Speaker 2: believes that that's what they saw happening, So I wouldn't
Speaker 2: I wouldn't rule out them showing up in a parking lot,
Speaker 2: showing up at a kid's school or event and just
Speaker 2: staring at the person. I mean, there's not much you
Speaker 2: need to do when you look like one of those guys,
Speaker 2: when you look like an Albert or a Proctor and
Speaker 2: showing up there. So I think that's a play that
Speaker 2: they would make, in my personal opinion saying that that happens.
Speaker 3: I hope it doesn't, but I agree.
Speaker 2: I want to thank Carla FKR for gifting ten calling
Speaker 2: all the Beings memberships. That was so kind of you.
Speaker 2: And this is our mott aka the cat Lady. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much for twenty cab memberships. Now must day.
Speaker 2: I must stay my friend. We're so lucky to have you.
Speaker 2: And this right here, Oh, here's from Susie CJ. Okay,
Speaker 2: this is you, Nan.
Speaker 3: I can't understand who to have a negative word to
Speaker 3: say about our beloved Nan. Oh, you are loved and admired.
Speaker 3: Hope you have a happy Mother's Day. Agreed, thank you,
Speaker 3: that's all hard. Thanks so much, Susie CJ. I also
Speaker 3: want to you reminding me I want to wish everybody
Speaker 3: a happy Mother's Day tomorrow, including the non mothers and
Speaker 3: those who have mothers, which is everybody, or those who
Speaker 3: have lost their mothers. I've lost mine and I miss her,
Speaker 3: and if she were alive, she'd be all over this trial.
Speaker 3: So I just want to wish everyone a happy Mother's Day,
Speaker 3: take time to reflect and share love and just relax tomorrow.
Speaker 3: And you know it only comes but once a year
Speaker 3: where you're forced to think about how wonderful your mom is.
Speaker 3: And I'm going to force my kids to do it
Speaker 3: with me.
Speaker 2: I was going to say dog moms too, but I
Speaker 2: was going to tell you that I interviewed a brilliant
Speaker 2: broadcaster on the other Cab show and her name is
Speaker 2: that's the one where we do UFO's big Foot Paranormal.
Speaker 2: And this woman is named Meredith for Real. She has
Speaker 2: a great podcast. She's from Pensacola, and she's I said,
Speaker 2: are you a mom? She goes, well, I'm a plant mom,
Speaker 2: and I just I almost I almost fell off my chair.
Speaker 2: What you call this plant?
Speaker 3: I kill plants. I killed plants and fish. I don't
Speaker 3: kill kids, though.
Speaker 2: So that's good, that's very positive that I'll keep you
Speaker 2: out of Court.
Speaker 3: That's awesome.
Speaker 2: This is anti be Kangaroo Court three ring circus. Oh boy,
Speaker 2: never heard a more accurate description of Auntie Bev and
Speaker 2: her fiefdom. Man, what question would you want Alan to
Speaker 2: ask that he hasn't already asked?
Speaker 3: Okay, by the way, every time I hear Uri, I
Speaker 3: think of the movie No Way Out. Do you remember
Speaker 3: No Way Out with Kevin Costner.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know if I saw that one anyone,
Speaker 2: but I know that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if you haven't seen No Way Out, it's like
Speaker 3: from the eighties with Kevin Costner, Sean Young, the late
Speaker 3: Gene Hackman. It's fantastic, and the lead character is named
Speaker 3: Yuri and there are some parallels there. That's all I'm
Speaker 3: going to say. But anyway, what question would I ask?
Speaker 3: I think a key question that has to come up
Speaker 3: is about the invert the presentation of the inverted video.
Speaker 3: That I don't know how I would ask it, because
Speaker 3: I don't know how the evidence is going to be
Speaker 3: permitted to come in or what BEV will allow. But
Speaker 3: I think that BEV has to allow some questioning about
Speaker 3: the presentation of an inverted video during one point zero,
Speaker 3: and I would want to know from Uri Buchanic, you
Speaker 3: know you gave prior testimony at a prior proceeding concerning
Speaker 3: a video in the sally Port. Is that correct? Correct?
Speaker 3: And that you testified that that was a true and
Speaker 3: accurate depiction of the scene and circumstances involving the Sallyport?
Speaker 3: Is that correct? Yeah? Okay, but what you actually presented
Speaker 3: was an inverted video, but you tried to let a
Speaker 3: jury know that it was fair and accurate. Can you
Speaker 3: explain that? And he'll give his answer. But it really
Speaker 3: doesn't even matter what Buchanic answers. The key is in
Speaker 3: the questions. If you notice, half the time when BEV
Speaker 3: sustains the Commonwealth subjections, AJ doesn't care because he got
Speaker 3: the question out. So hopefully the jury's picking up on
Speaker 3: this stuff.
Speaker 1: And there's no way that they can show because the
Speaker 1: Commonwealth didn't show it, they're the incorrect in the inverted
Speaker 1: video because it didn't come from the Commonwealth.
Speaker 3: Right, That's what I believe to be true. I wouldn't
Speaker 3: be surprised if the defense wants to try to present
Speaker 3: the inverted video somehow. I don't think BEV will allow it.
Speaker 3: So I don't let myself go down that rabbit hole
Speaker 3: too often. But I would try. I would try to
Speaker 3: show the jury both videos. I just don't think Bev's
Speaker 3: going to allow it.
Speaker 2: The other thing that's problematic is that she allows non answers.
Speaker 2: She allows them to answer the question. Brother counsel, your
Speaker 2: colleague and that you were on with previously said that
Speaker 2: you have to at least what he says. I don't
Speaker 2: know what y'all y'all's rules are, but he said you
Speaker 2: have to answer the question I ask. You can't just
Speaker 2: answer what you want.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's it's an art, by the way, and it's
Speaker 3: very important for trial lawyers to listen to the answers
Speaker 3: that's not easily done, and to be able to bob
Speaker 3: and weave based on the information you're given. Like I
Speaker 3: don't think AJ was expecting Buchanic to completely not admit
Speaker 3: eventually that Proctor was the lead investigator. Like AJ was like, wait,
Speaker 3: you're can you just admit he was the lead investigator?
Speaker 3: And Buchanic would not go there. So what did he do?
Speaker 3: He went to Plan B and he's like, I am
Speaker 3: going to show you this binder and we are going
Speaker 3: to go tab by tab, page by page in excruciating
Speaker 3: detail as to every single who signed, yeah, subpoena, warrant, anything,
Speaker 3: report that Proctor signed. And this is where Buchanic lost
Speaker 3: so much additional credibility when he's like, well, you know
Speaker 3: this isn't signed. If you show me an authentic copy,
Speaker 3: I'll be able to tell you if that was Proctor.
Speaker 3: And then he says he doesn't recognize if Procter's handwriting
Speaker 3: is on evidence bag. This is this is not going well.
Speaker 3: Not going well.
Speaker 2: Such a garbage person. Thank you Anti Bev's Kangaroo Court
Speaker 2: for your VENTI sinko, your twenty five dollars. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much. It's very kind of you. And the next
Speaker 2: one is from Boston Branda, thank you very much for
Speaker 2: our mud.
Speaker 3: I love her, I do.
Speaker 2: She is awesome. Andy.
Speaker 3: You you love all the way. You you don't know
Speaker 3: how to love halfway. You are a special person. So
Speaker 3: is b by the way, and you are too, DJ
Speaker 3: But thank you uch a special place in my heart
Speaker 3: for those two.
Speaker 2: Thank you as you should, as you should. Jim's honesty
Speaker 2: nine dollars and ninety nine cents, Thank you very much, mate,
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. And Nan will read this with her dulcatone.
Speaker 3: Voice dulcetone shit, I don't even know that word, all right,
Speaker 3: and I was very much major. Oh okay, hi Nan.
Speaker 3: Can the defense use the Canton audit to show police
Speaker 3: protocol if they call proctor, he needs to be last
Speaker 3: to leave that house impression on the jurors. There might
Speaker 3: be a spelling error here, but anyway, yes, they should
Speaker 3: be able to use the Canton audit. I don't know
Speaker 3: if BEV is going to allow it. That's always the
Speaker 3: variable here. But the police audit that came out from
Speaker 3: I forget the name of the group that did it,
Speaker 3: that it came out last month, that audit is it's relevant.
Speaker 3: I think it's favorable. As many people think, oh my god,
Speaker 3: it's not a good audit for the defense, I think
Speaker 3: it's a great audit for the defense. They went down
Speaker 3: different channels where they were saying, oh, there was no
Speaker 3: evidence tampering, etc. But none of those findings are real findings.
Speaker 3: They weren't even charged to look into evidence tampering. That
Speaker 3: audit shows on a very superficial accreditation type of level
Speaker 3: that there was lack of equipment, lack of proper protocols
Speaker 3: followed in terms of photographing the scene in interviewing witnesses.
Speaker 3: So I think they should use that to cross examine Proctor.
Speaker 3: But even if they don't, there's a way to do
Speaker 3: it effectively. You're seeing it with Buchanic, you saw it
Speaker 3: a little bit with the other Gallagher, And if it
Speaker 3: doesn't come in, they'll be fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and they also so yes it was five stones,
Speaker 1: thank you to that. Yes, But so who would they
Speaker 1: bring that in through? Would it need to be a
Speaker 1: police officer like what?
Speaker 3: So if they want to bring in the five stone
Speaker 3: five stones audit, they'd have to the defense has to
Speaker 3: name and make an application to name them as a
Speaker 3: witness to go over some of their findings to authentic
Speaker 3: kate the document. This is why I don't think it's
Speaker 3: coming in. I think it should come in, but I
Speaker 3: don't think it is coming in. But you don't need
Speaker 3: it to come in before a jury to be able
Speaker 3: to use it to question a jury, not jury, excuse
Speaker 3: me a witness. So if you if you want to
Speaker 3: question a witness and you want to say to them, okay,
Speaker 3: well do you feel that there was a properly uh,
Speaker 3: you were properly equipped to handle this crime scene in
Speaker 3: the in the oncoming hours of a blizzard, like you
Speaker 3: can ask those questions without saying and here's an audit report.
Speaker 3: It takes a little level of sophistication in terms of
Speaker 3: how you're laying out the questions.
Speaker 1: But Helena's on the yeah, and Helena's on the witness list,
Speaker 1: so she would probably be a good one.
Speaker 3: And this is why, and I see you have someone
Speaker 3: there saying this is then Easter should be able to
Speaker 3: come in. He should have never been denied. Michael, Easter
Speaker 3: should have been admitted as a police protocol expert or
Speaker 3: an FBI protocol investigative expert to support the boat in defense.
Speaker 3: That was that is reversible error. But they're doing okay.
Speaker 3: The defense, in my opinion, is doing okay without them
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 2: Reversible error. So before I get so, Mark, first of all,
Speaker 2: I just want to thank you for your nine to
Speaker 2: ninety nine donation. Mark is also an I went to
Speaker 2: my alma mater, Dean College, donating cause. Nan is matching
Speaker 2: how we all doing tonight. What's up, brother, We're doing good.
Speaker 2: Keep showing up. What changes when the defense has to
Speaker 2: call these comebacks as supposed to spanking? She got to
Speaker 2: that earlier, but basically the way the questions are asked.
Speaker 2: So Nan will finish the point that you were going
Speaker 2: to make, and then we'll get to this one.
Speaker 3: I don't remember what point I was making.
Speaker 2: It was from the chat it.
Speaker 3: Oh Easter Michael Easter.
Speaker 2: Yes, with vod in defense. Yeah, well you talked about
Speaker 2: that there could be redress or remedy. Does that mean
Speaker 2: appeal or what does that mean?
Speaker 3: Essentially, so, the failure of Judge Bev to allow Michael
Speaker 3: Easter in as an expert to support a Boden defense
Speaker 3: where the defense wants to be able to show this
Speaker 3: was an investigative disaster, that there were police missteps. Not
Speaker 3: allowing an expert to come in to support those opinions,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, is reversible error. So if Karen is convicted,
Speaker 3: that is one decision among many that should be included
Speaker 3: in her appeal.
Speaker 2: Among many, among many many not yet not allowing her,
Speaker 2: not allowing the pro hoc feature of Mark Better, I
Speaker 2: don't know if that's something you can name. But not
Speaker 2: allowing her the maximum ability to defend herself against the
Speaker 2: commonwealth charges, so against her presumption of innocence. Yeah, for a.
Speaker 3: Good roadmap of her appellate issues, but not an all
Speaker 3: inclusive list. One should look at her motion to dismiss
Speaker 3: the charges for extraordinary prosecutorial misconduct. That is a great
Speaker 3: roadmap for appellate issues that have already arisen. Now that
Speaker 3: motion was denied, and that is not an all inclusive
Speaker 3: list of why she has appellate rights and likely would
Speaker 3: be successful on an appeal if she's convicted, because there's
Speaker 3: other decisions that were made, like barring Michael Easter or
Speaker 3: permitting other witnesses for the Commonwealth to testify on things
Speaker 3: that they're clearly not qualified to testify on. So I mean,
Speaker 3: it's a very long list, but the most salient and
Speaker 3: strong appellate arguments are in that motion to dismiss. And
Speaker 3: thank you Mark for your DONO. I did answer that,
Speaker 3: but if you want to reach out, like, I'm happy
Speaker 3: to answer that again for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just just real, real, briefly, basically, it gets to
Speaker 2: the way that you ask questions. You know, it's that
Speaker 2: what is that phrase that Lally used over.
Speaker 3: What if any? What if any anything?
Speaker 2: And then they have the latitude to expound upon that.
Speaker 2: It's not asking yes or it's not the Kurt yes
Speaker 2: or no. Kind of way you can frame up questions.
Speaker 2: They have the ladder latitude to pontificate a bit on
Speaker 2: your questions. Is that fair? Yeah?
Speaker 3: You should go to law school, DJ, you know.
Speaker 2: No, you know, maybe I should. I got a full
Speaker 2: time job. Thank you La Kitty for becoming a member.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you, mate. And here's our friend from the Bronx. Hey,
Speaker 2: I just got back. Who's messing with nan? Oh see
Speaker 2: she wants already beat Somebody's.
Speaker 3: A few people. You know what is I will say this,
Speaker 3: I can hold my own with trolls. It's not all trolls,
Speaker 3: that's all I'll say, Pepper.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that is more of a conversation for offline.
Speaker 2: But unfortunately there are jealousies and all kinds of things
Speaker 2: that happen that really don't need to happen when we're
Speaker 2: dealing with something that's this serious. Yeah, So meet Paul
Speaker 2: Marcy Nan. I like to call myself the Doctor Kavorkian
Speaker 2: of plants. Please come into my house for assistance. I
Speaker 2: love it's so funny. Oh my god, it's so funny.
Speaker 2: I love your personality totally totally. All right, we're getting clothes,
Speaker 2: We're we're really at the time for NaN's closing arguments.
Speaker 2: As she's doing that, I know, we go about an
Speaker 2: hour and a half and we start we start shutting
Speaker 2: the store down. But I want to put some of
Speaker 2: these up in here. Uh that is one hundred percent correct.
Speaker 2: You cannot will not find a realer and more amazing
Speaker 2: person in this movement. I've encountered and my co host
Speaker 2: here has met a lot more people, Sabilla, have you met?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: And the thing is she's she's boots on the ground,
Speaker 1: she's in the courtroom, she's and everywhere she says she's
Speaker 1: gonna be, that's where she's at.
Speaker 3: And I'll leave it to Oh my god, you guys
Speaker 3: are gonna be a woman of her word.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's one. So I'm gonna keep going through this.
Speaker 2: But but while we're doing that to see if there's
Speaker 2: something we got to get to. It looks like we
Speaker 2: got another donu we're gonna have to get to and
Speaker 2: once obviously, you guys know YouTube takes thirty percent of these.
Speaker 2: But I will tabulate and donate these two Karen Reid's
Speaker 2: Defense Fund when they bestow that upon us, which is
Speaker 2: around the end of each month. If I'm not yes,
Speaker 2: so we're.
Speaker 3: Gonna you and I will talk offline. There's a there's
Speaker 3: a way to do it. I love doing chat matches though,
Speaker 3: because it's a way to help. In my opinion, this
Speaker 3: is what I'm comfortable doing. I know some lawyers who
Speaker 3: come on streams don't like to do this, and I
Speaker 3: respect that as well. But I love to make people
Speaker 3: feel like they're doubling their money. They give what they can,
Speaker 3: they feel generous, and you don't have to give give
Speaker 3: of yourself. Put something out on social media, Come come
Speaker 3: do a standout. Tell five friends about the Karen Reid case.
Speaker 3: Like my son who's ten, tells people all the time
Speaker 3: about this. I think the people in our town think
Speaker 3: I'm absolutely bad, shit crazy. But the point is, keep
Speaker 3: showing up doesn't mean opening your wallet. It means opening
Speaker 3: your heart and opening your heart for Karen and for
Speaker 3: justice and against what's going on in Massachusetts. Because if
Speaker 3: it can happen there, and it can happen to her,
Speaker 3: it can happen to you or your loved ones. So
Speaker 3: I love to make people feel inspired. And if they think, Okay,
Speaker 3: I made a five dollars or one dollar, dono, well
Speaker 3: you just doubled it. And it's going to go to
Speaker 3: the Karen Reid Fund. So I'll work it out with
Speaker 3: DJ and BIA.
Speaker 1: It all adds up for.
Speaker 2: Sure, It most certainly does. Let's see if they want
Speaker 2: to bring Easter given URI's testimony, since it's evidentiary, could
Speaker 2: it be an interlocatory appeal?
Speaker 3: Okay, great questions. So if they want to bring if
Speaker 3: they want to ask to bring in Easter given his testimony,
Speaker 3: I don't think it could be an interlocatory appeal, which
Speaker 3: is an appeal filed in the midst of a trial
Speaker 3: or in the midst of a proceeding, meaning a case
Speaker 3: leading up to a trial. But I have heard buzz
Speaker 3: about this. I have heard people say in light of
Speaker 3: Yuri's testimony, there's been enough stated from him as far
Speaker 3: as police missteps and investigative missteps, that there should be
Speaker 3: a renewed motion to permit Easter to testify. I do
Speaker 3: believe there should be a renewed motion to have the
Speaker 3: judge reconsider her decision to bar Michael Easter. She's going
Speaker 3: to deny that, so nobody get their hopes up. It will,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, not trigger an immediate right to an
Speaker 3: interlocatory appeal. I see it as a post trial appellate issue.
Speaker 3: That's my opinion. Different lawyers might disagree on.
Speaker 2: That, And that's because and explain interlocatory appeals basically during
Speaker 2: the trial.
Speaker 3: Essentially, Yeah, like it's got to be real serious, and
Speaker 3: that's it's the Easter issue. Isn't really serious. It is important,
Speaker 3: But an interlocatory appeal in the midst of an ongoing
Speaker 3: criminal trial, when a jury has been impaneled and they've
Speaker 3: been sworn and jeopardy has attached, it's the likelihood that
Speaker 3: an appeal could be filed on an interlocatory meaning in
Speaker 3: the midst type of basis for relief is so low
Speaker 3: that I wouldn't I wouldn't waste time or breath on it.
Speaker 2: And the money, Yeah, it would be more. It would
Speaker 2: be sort of more damaging to Karen from a financial
Speaker 2: perspective to have to hold everything up, pay the lawyer,
Speaker 2: get the appellate lawyer probably to go and present this case,
Speaker 2: and then how long until they hear it. Yeah, it
Speaker 2: would piss bev off big time.
Speaker 3: I don't think mechanically it could happen, guys, because you've
Speaker 3: got a jury waiting, Like, it's just not it's not
Speaker 3: going to happen. But also, like I said, I think
Speaker 3: the defense is doing just fine without him. I don't
Speaker 3: think he's necessary. They have his report, they can still
Speaker 3: use him as a consultant. So I mean, I serve
Speaker 3: as a consultant on different trials. People call me all
Speaker 3: the time and say, we're not calling you as a witness,
Speaker 3: but what do you think of this? Or can you
Speaker 3: do this or this with these witnesses for us? So
Speaker 3: they can still rely upon Michael Easter without putting Michael
Speaker 3: Easter before a jury, And that is where I think
Speaker 3: their time and money and resources are better served.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Audrey Sova for the five dollars. That was
Speaker 2: very kind of you. I don't but it's completely improper
Speaker 2: for her not to be able to show from a
Speaker 2: professional investigator how shoddy this investigation was. And it seems
Speaker 2: like Bev is portraying this as as poisoning the jury or.
Speaker 3: How am I You're saying it's.
Speaker 2: Just prejudice, you got it, Yeah, prejudicing the jury towards
Speaker 2: the prosecution. But that's what the defense's job is is
Speaker 2: to impeach the prosecution's case and show how what they
Speaker 2: did was improper, was faulty was maybe conspiratorial if if,
Speaker 2: if they wanted to go So, I don't like she's
Speaker 2: depriving Karen of her right to bring in someone say say, yes,
Speaker 2: this is all the areas where their investigation was flawed.
Speaker 2: I don't see how on what ground she could deny that.
Speaker 3: I agree. I'm sorry to interrupt you, DJ because her
Speaker 3: decision Judge Bed's decision to bar a police investigative expert.
Speaker 3: I know he's an FBI guy. I do think they
Speaker 3: probably should have gotten a police expert as opposed to
Speaker 3: FBI that could have made or made or broke whether
Speaker 3: or not she granted the motion, I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: Retired state trooper detective from another state.
Speaker 3: Yeah, in fact, I know some. I know some because
Speaker 3: I've engaged some on some police matters that I did
Speaker 3: back in the day. But with that said, I feel
Speaker 3: very strongly that she made absolutely a bad ruling by
Speaker 3: barring him. Most jurisdictions in the nation permit the admission
Speaker 3: of an expert to come in to support a boden
Speaker 3: defense where there is and the defense wants to show
Speaker 3: police missteps. Investigator right, So she seems to think, oh,
Speaker 3: that would prejudice the Commonwealth or somehow taint the jury
Speaker 3: against the Commonwealth. If only one side, meaning the defense,
Speaker 3: brings in an expert, either side is able to have
Speaker 3: experts of their choosing. If you saw, like, if you know,
Speaker 3: Commonwealth has a stupid weather expert who you know, the
Speaker 3: at least the original plan was for him to say
Speaker 3: the ground was hard as a rock. Do we have
Speaker 3: a defense weather expert? No, because they don't give a shit.
Speaker 3: You know, I feel like it's it's absolutely the Commonwealth's choice.
Speaker 3: They couldn't. Not only could they have contacted Arca and
Speaker 3: used Arka, but they put their blinders on and ignored Arca.
Speaker 3: They could have tried and tried to hire police experts
Speaker 3: to defend the absolutely abysmal investigative conduct of the Canton
Speaker 3: p D and the Massachusetts State's Police State Police. They
Speaker 3: didn't do that. They could have on do you know
Speaker 3: where they spent their time, folks, let's recap. They spent
Speaker 3: their time and their money ignoring Arca and ignoring getting
Speaker 3: a police expert. They decided to hire Sir Ian Wiffen,
Speaker 3: who completely just eviscerated on the stand the other day
Speaker 3: in front of Alessi or Jessica Hyde, and why did
Speaker 3: they do that. They put both of these people who
Speaker 3: made horrible concessions for the Commonwealth that completely benefited the defense.
Speaker 3: They put these people on because their testimony is the
Speaker 3: only testimony that could have tried to refute the two
Speaker 3: twenty seven am call and some of the whereabouts and
Speaker 3: quote steps. Yes, he get the Apple health data, you know,
Speaker 3: talk about Apple source code. These are the types of
Speaker 3: people that the Commonwealth wants you to trust them.
Speaker 2: Bro.
Speaker 3: So okay, but the judge should have allowed Michael Easter
Speaker 3: in and they didn't. So here we are. But either way,
Speaker 3: I'm giving the defense team. You guys are getting an
Speaker 3: a minus thus far from Nan Gallagher in terms of
Speaker 3: I think it's been thirteen days of trial, things are
Speaker 3: looking great, and you haven't even rolled your sleeves up
Speaker 3: and put on your case. Yeah, it's the same going
Speaker 3: to give you always got to give people an a minus,
Speaker 3: otherwise they rest on their laurel much much better. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, Thank you very much, gabble Guide for the nine
Speaker 2: to ninety nine Thank you for the coverage and inside
Speaker 2: free Care and read Free Turtleboy one hundred and we're
Speaker 2: with you on that. Uh, this is crochet Crime thirty.
Speaker 2: Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Nan, Always love how
Speaker 2: cordial you are with all. Yeah, that's Nan Gallagher. That's
Speaker 2: that's her off air when you're talking to her. Is
Speaker 2: what exactly what you see here. That's what happens when
Speaker 2: we speak with her off air.
Speaker 3: So that's true. I was raised right my mama me,
Speaker 3: My mama told me to always be nice. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Uh, Nan, don't know the ghost of Brian Higgins sim
Speaker 2: Card somewhere in a in a dump somewhere in Greater
Speaker 2: Massachusetts area. Don't knock the meteorologist. Not only did he
Speaker 2: do a bang up job for the defense, he also
Speaker 2: taught us the origin of wind chill. Oh fair pace,
Speaker 2: thank you so much. Yeah, that temperature and due point
Speaker 2: and the wind speed thing is just it's uh, it's
Speaker 2: very hard for the mind to grasp something. We love that.
Speaker 3: I agree, But you know what, if I were a juror,
Speaker 3: I would be like, why are you telling me this stuff?
Speaker 3: Like why am I listening to a meteorologist? But you're right,
Speaker 3: ghost of Brian Higgins Simcard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the uh yeah, I mean, once they see that injury,
Speaker 2: they're gonna have to square that injury. On the back
Speaker 2: of his head with with what the frozen ground theory.
Speaker 2: If they if they can even prove that it's a
Speaker 2: that is frozen ground, that is going to be a
Speaker 2: very very difficult Oh here's another one from Boston, Branda.
Speaker 2: It's going to be very difficult for them to to
Speaker 2: prove that there is something.
Speaker 3: I would want to mention. I know you want to
Speaker 3: You're going to be coming to a close and I'm
Speaker 3: trying to answer this question in more moment. There was
Speaker 3: something that popped up yesterday about uh Buchanic claiming that
Speaker 3: Karen stated that John hit his head two days before
Speaker 3: accident or sustain some type of head injury. I don't
Speaker 3: remember what the words were. People are buzzing about it.
Speaker 3: What's going on? What do you mean she said he
Speaker 3: hit his head two days before. I don't know, but
Speaker 3: it is my current working theory that that injury, alleged
Speaker 3: injury two days before is going to tie into the
Speaker 3: Commonwealth's neurosurgeon experts findings. He's the neurosurgeon for the Commonwealth
Speaker 3: who is replacing Scorty Bellow. I don't think he's qualified
Speaker 3: to he's not a forensic pathologist. But they found someone
Speaker 3: not the medical examiner, who's supporting their findings. And I
Speaker 3: have a feeling that a hit or impact two days
Speaker 3: prior to the event in question on the head is
Speaker 3: somehow going to tie into the neurosurgeon's findings. So if
Speaker 3: I'm right, folks, and I don't see these reports, If
Speaker 3: I'm right, you got to buy me a coke.
Speaker 1: There we go.
Speaker 3: And I think there was a question from people in
Speaker 3: court that I missed when I went off on that tangent.
Speaker 2: So i'll do guys, it was, but I'll go back. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'll go back up to that. I'll try to find
Speaker 2: that one.
Speaker 3: If I missed it, people in court, you can always
Speaker 3: just reach out to me on Twitter or Facebook.
Speaker 2: It might have been about Jen mccabs people in court.
Speaker 2: Is not this one? Right? I think it might have
Speaker 2: been about Jen McCabe's health data.
Speaker 3: Okay, oh yeah, here it is. Why did they not
Speaker 3: ask about Jen's Apple health data and about her being
Speaker 3: up all night? I agreed that I don't know, and
Speaker 3: I think that was a missed opportunity. But the net
Speaker 3: grade that she gets on her testimony, she gets an
Speaker 3: F minus. She did so poorly that I don't care.
Speaker 3: I don't care that they didn't ask her so.
Speaker 1: And hopefully they picked up on the fake apologies because
Speaker 1: Jackson called her out on them.
Speaker 3: I think that was great, and he was trying to
Speaker 3: jab her a little bit, and I think it was
Speaker 3: that those are good little dramatic moments that the jury
Speaker 3: will pick up on. Can I explain the buffer zone
Speaker 3: ruling suit?
Speaker 1: TI?
Speaker 3: I didn't read it, but I did talk about it earlier.
Speaker 3: It looks like the federal court wants Judge Bev to
Speaker 3: reduce the breath and scope that the wid and geographic
Speaker 3: diameter of the buffer zone, and they're giving Judge Bev
Speaker 3: a certain timeframe in which to do so.
Speaker 2: Another quickit hit her here, among many things, how problemmatic
Speaker 2: is it for Higgins to have said he didn't see
Speaker 2: John o'keef because of the snowbank when he left, but
Speaker 2: the weather witness said there was only enough snow to
Speaker 2: track a cat.
Speaker 3: Well, Richard Johnson, I think you know the answer to that.
Speaker 3: Your answer to your question is in your question. He lied.
Speaker 3: So I think that's a good tip for AJ to, Thanks,
Speaker 3: Miss Lynn. I think that's a good tip for AJ
Speaker 3: to kind of go at him. Sometimes it's best not
Speaker 3: to call experts because they will provide you with testimony
Speaker 3: that you don't want. And wasn't it great? Did you
Speaker 3: all see Jessica Hyde apologize Brenn in the other day
Speaker 3: for having to concede about the failure to put the
Speaker 3: phone in a Faraday bag. Love it this stuff. This
Speaker 3: trial is the gift that keeps on giving.
Speaker 2: Right now to me, the biggest witness, to me, the
Speaker 2: most important witness in the trial. There's two things I think.
Speaker 2: One of them is to show the defenses uncut, unedited
Speaker 2: video of Karen backing out tapping John's car and then
Speaker 2: when she hits the brake lights and comes to a stop,
Speaker 2: showing that video unfettered the way that because this is
Speaker 2: what Olivia told us, unfettered in the way that Lally
Speaker 2: showed it last time. So for the devents to show
Speaker 2: their video so they can just see it at speed,
Speaker 2: then they can see it slow mo, they can see
Speaker 2: the red light. And then Officer Nicholas Barrows. Because if
Speaker 2: you believe Officer Nicholas Burrows, the case is over.
Speaker 3: Oh I agree, it is over. And all of your audience,
Speaker 3: if you're not sorry, I'm glitching. If you're not following
Speaker 3: Olivia Olivia Lambeau, who's known on I think she's known
Speaker 3: on YouTube as Olivia Nile. But if you're not following her,
Speaker 3: it's a huge missed opportunity. She She's one of several
Speaker 3: key people who the ones to watch, and the way
Speaker 3: she delves through data and analysis is just spot on.
Speaker 3: I learn a lot from her and I'm in awe
Speaker 3: of her every day when I read her posts.
Speaker 2: But now, if you could speak to Nicholas Barrows and
Speaker 2: the gravity of the lack of photos of the vehicle
Speaker 2: as it's set there, which I think would violate any
Speaker 2: police protocol that any of us lay persons have ever
Speaker 2: heard of, and then the fact that he says that
Speaker 2: if he can establish that the photo they're showing does
Speaker 2: not match up with what he saw, then the only
Speaker 2: thing Hank's left with is whatever dirt that Marty Kraft
Speaker 2: has dug up on Nicholas Barrows and that they can
Speaker 2: attack his character.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Nicholas Burrows is really he seems to be an
Speaker 3: honorable an honorable cop. There are not many in this storyline,
Speaker 3: and frankly, I wonder if there are many in that
Speaker 3: geographic zone. But what I will tell you is that
Speaker 3: Nicholas Borrow seems to be one of very few people
Speaker 3: who had first hand observation of the condition of the
Speaker 3: tail light at the time that the vehicle was procured
Speaker 3: from the parents home and put on the tow truck.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the tow truck driver is going
Speaker 3: to say. Either way, I don't know why anyone didn't
Speaker 3: photograph this, even if that car worke.
Speaker 2: Yes, you do, yes, you do know? Why why didn't
Speaker 2: they photograph it?
Speaker 1: Nan?
Speaker 2: But people like, but why didn't they photograph it? Because
Speaker 2: they could?
Speaker 3: Karen, Well, I agree, but the tow truck driver.
Speaker 2: Come well, I'm not talking about the tow truck driver.
Speaker 2: I wanted state police metadata photos and you know why
Speaker 2: they didn't take those photos that I know, But the.
Speaker 3: Tow truck driver sorry bee, go ahead, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: go ahead. Like the tow truck driver, I don't really
Speaker 3: know fully what Nicholas borrows specific role was at that
Speaker 3: specific time. Maybe I could give him a pass for
Speaker 3: not taking a picture. But the tow truck driver, I mean,
Speaker 3: I got my car towed and it was it exploded
Speaker 3: on the side of a highway a few years back.
Speaker 3: I'll send you pictures. It's pretty amazing. But anyway, the
Speaker 3: tow truck driver took pictures right away because just for
Speaker 3: it's a bailment. You know, this is the condition of
Speaker 3: your car when you give it to me.
Speaker 2: Can I present this scenario for you?
Speaker 3: I would love that.
Speaker 2: Okay, So if two troopers want your tow truck driver
Speaker 2: who may have a record of who knows what, and
Speaker 2: two troopers walk up and say, you're not going to
Speaker 2: take photos of this car, you can take photos of
Speaker 2: the car. No, there you go. But you know all
Speaker 2: these things, so all these things are very easily answered.
Speaker 2: The troopers didn't take photos because they need they needed
Speaker 2: to not have present any evidence to the defense that
Speaker 2: could act Skullpate Karen and the tow truck driver. If
Speaker 2: they told him you're not taking pictures of the car,
Speaker 2: he would have not have said do you understand that? Yes,
Speaker 2: I understand that these guys are not you know, talk
Speaker 2: about how they came in Brandy the other day. These guys,
Speaker 2: these guys come at you with an authoritative posture, especially
Speaker 2: if they're a state trooper, more so even than if
Speaker 2: they're a town police officer. Because obviously it's hierarchical. If
Speaker 2: there would have been an FBI agent who had some
Speaker 2: sort of command of the case, what do you think
Speaker 2: his posture would have been over the other two the
Speaker 2: town cop, the and the state trooper. He was up,
Speaker 2: this is my crime scene. Everybody make a thirty foot
Speaker 2: circle around it and don't penetrate that, and then everybody.
Speaker 2: So you have to understand that in this case, the
Speaker 2: authoritative tative figure are the troopers with the state police badges.
Speaker 2: And if they would have told that guy, you're not
Speaker 2: taking photos, then he's going to say yes, sir, and
Speaker 2: he's not going to take photos.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And in regards to Officeer Barrows, if the prosecution doesn't
Speaker 1: call him, but the defense does, they would be able
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with him prior and show him
Speaker 1: the taillight to already know the answer when he testifies.
Speaker 3: Correct, that's right, which I would strongly recommend because you
Speaker 3: know the old adage never ask a question you don't
Speaker 3: know the answer to. And my personal opinion is that
Speaker 3: Barrows' testimony in one point zero was favorable. Yeah, the
Speaker 3: taillight was was cracked but not completely broken or whatever
Speaker 3: he specifically said, but it was limited so I worry
Speaker 3: deep down as to what he will say if he's
Speaker 3: asked more questions about it. Like, so, I have a
Speaker 3: little bit of trepidation. I'm putting a lot of faith
Speaker 3: in Nicholas Barrows. I'm calm implementing him as a witness
Speaker 3: for being honest. But I have a level of anxiety
Speaker 3: that I'm afraid that I don't know what else he
Speaker 3: has to say. So they should talk with him, they
Speaker 3: shouldn't met with him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it you know very clearly you have to
Speaker 2: present the juxtaposition to his testimony on screen. First of all,
Speaker 2: what did you see? This is what I saw. Now
Speaker 2: we're going to show you what's been presented by the
Speaker 2: prosecution here. That's the smash tail light that was forty five?
Speaker 2: Is that what you saw?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Are you sure? And then you're left to have Hank
Speaker 2: Brennan do his very unlikable sort of eton schoolboy bully
Speaker 2: tacked tactics, and then that's what they're gonna be left with.
Speaker 3: So Mike drop moment. If they get that favorable testimony
Speaker 3: out of Barrows, that is a Mic drop moment.
Speaker 2: Now unless BEV won't allow them to show the photo
Speaker 2: and I can envision that so you can, but they
Speaker 2: have to present it as evidence, so you're just presenting
Speaker 2: their evidence on screen. You know, it's just prosecution. What
Speaker 2: do they call it? Prosecution? I don't remember how. And
Speaker 2: then they'll state the number and then they'll they'll they'll.
Speaker 3: They'll put it up, Yeah, their exhibit.
Speaker 2: Exhibit exactly the exhibit, and then they'll put it up
Speaker 2: on screen. Is that what you saw based on your
Speaker 2: Is that? No? That is not what I saw? Okay, Well,
Speaker 2: we'd like to know from the We would like to
Speaker 2: know how it got that way, but what you saw
Speaker 2: was not that. Okay. I want to say hello to
Speaker 2: Heather Honey from Heather Honey, thank you very much for
Speaker 2: your supersticker. We got to meet her last weekend UH
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts and she will be up coming up. Is
Speaker 2: it is it this week or next weekend? On Calling
Speaker 2: All Beings along with Jan Holman Sears from Mississippi and
Speaker 2: possibly Vicky from Yaksha, England, And it's going to be
Speaker 2: the out of town episode, so we're very excited to
Speaker 2: do an added towner's episode. A great question from Lena
Speaker 2: b Ado, Are you nan you are such a class act?
Speaker 2: Could alessi or lisy, depending upon where you're from. Have
Speaker 2: asked Jessica Hyde about her apology.
Speaker 3: He could have. I'm not sure he saw it. I
Speaker 3: didn't see it either until after, but he could have.
Speaker 3: But again, it goes into the be careful what you
Speaker 3: ask if you don't know the answer. She's kind of witty.
Speaker 3: I don't know if she would have formulated something that
Speaker 3: could have backfired. I hope the jury saw the little apology,
Speaker 3: so I wouldn't have asked why she did.
Speaker 1: But she had already by the time it was brought
Speaker 1: to lights. She was already off the stand, so they
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to recall her back right when she
Speaker 1: was off the stand, she was gone.
Speaker 3: That's true. But in the moment, right in the moment,
Speaker 3: maybe he could have said, did you just apologize? Like it?
Speaker 3: It's an art. I always tell people it's a feel
Speaker 3: when you are cross examining someone. Also, the two of
Speaker 3: them going at each other, it was like the friendliest
Speaker 3: nerd showdown I've ever seen. They were so gracious and
Speaker 3: like passive aggressive with each other. It made me feel
Speaker 3: really dumb watching them. But it was like a polite
Speaker 3: little debate between two people about tech that is so
Speaker 3: far over my head. But overall, ALESSI won that. He
Speaker 3: won that debate by.
Speaker 2: Far as one would expect. Also, seeing that photo of
Speaker 2: him on Twitter, clearly the guys in shape and has
Speaker 2: like zero body fat on him. My goodness, that guy's
Speaker 2: in shape.
Speaker 3: I've met him and I've told him to his face.
Speaker 3: He's got a set of guns. He has a set
Speaker 3: of guns.
Speaker 2: And no fat on whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Guy is anomaly.
Speaker 2: He is very, very fit. We know what he's doing
Speaker 2: when he's on a trial. He's out using the hotel.
Speaker 2: Tell Jim or he's gone out for a long run. Suans,
Speaker 2: thank you for the Thank you for the nine to
Speaker 2: ninety nine, Lena Bee, Thank you, Susie CJ for the five.
Speaker 2: What about the judge telling the jury that the evidence
Speaker 2: mess is normal because of the quantity of evidence. Your thoughts.
Speaker 3: She shouldn't be having to make these statements to the jury.
Speaker 3: She shouldn't be telling Alessie, I think it was a lessie,
Speaker 3: all right, this is the last time you're coming up
Speaker 3: to the bench. She apologized for that. She made some
Speaker 3: other comment to them in front of the jury, and
Speaker 3: I don't remember what that was. She is really annoying
Speaker 3: to me in terms of how Judge Bev deals with
Speaker 3: this jury. In addition, it was noteworthy for what it's
Speaker 3: worth to me that she did not Judge Bev did
Speaker 3: not give any instruction to the jury when the text
Speaker 3: messages of Karen and John were brought forth before the jury.
Speaker 3: She did not give this like this type of instruction
Speaker 3: that says, you know, keep in mind when you're listening
Speaker 3: to text messages. It doesn't mean that it was for
Speaker 3: the truth of the matter asserted, or that the individual
Speaker 3: is the person who wrote the text messages. She did
Speaker 3: not give that kind of advisory guidance to the to
Speaker 3: the jury. But you know when she did when the
Speaker 3: text messages between certain officers or certain Commonwealth type of
Speaker 3: individuals was presented. So I think it was ones that
Speaker 3: Guarino was reading, and I don't remember with whom. So
Speaker 3: the point is her bias has now just so hit
Speaker 3: a fever pitch to me that you know, I was
Speaker 3: saying back in January on streams. In this case, I'm
Speaker 3: like Jesus, you know, someone should count how many times
Speaker 3: she rules in favor of the commonwealth versus the defense.
Speaker 3: We've gone so far beyond that now she sustains almost
Speaker 3: every single one of the Commonwealth's objections. She overrules almost
Speaker 3: every single one of the defense's objections. So the bias
Speaker 3: is it's legendary. At this point it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm glad you finally got there. You started out
Speaker 2: kind of soft and then you kind of took out
Speaker 2: like at least like the pickleball paddle and slapped her
Speaker 2: with it. So that was nice during the course of that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that particular iteration. So this is Blomodone are ours, We
Speaker 2: love our only nan. I'll be honest here in Nova Scotia,
Speaker 2: I've never had a toe truck driver take a pic.
Speaker 2: And we have total companies for reach jurisdiction we patrol.
Speaker 2: So I'm taking it that this young lady or gentleman
Speaker 2: is a police officer and say that the total truck
Speaker 2: drivers don't take picks. So yeah. I Also, I've had
Speaker 2: my car flat betted my subrew when it had the
Speaker 2: battery in the back, so I had no spare tire.
Speaker 2: I only had a patch kit and totally destroyed the tire.
Speaker 2: So uh, they didn't. I don't believe they took pics
Speaker 2: of it. Maybe in jurisdictions they do. But like I said,
Speaker 2: if if the troopers being the authoritative figures they were,
Speaker 2: if that guy would have flipped took out his phone,
Speaker 2: they would have said put that away, no photos today. Well,
Speaker 2: then if it was on.
Speaker 1: The officers, because this is the alleged murder weapons.
Speaker 3: So honestly, even if it's not a protocol for tow
Speaker 3: truck drivers, even in the audit report that came out
Speaker 3: from five Stones in a day and age, when there
Speaker 3: is cell phones that are at the ready at our fingertips,
Speaker 3: it would have been reasonable, it would have been expected
Speaker 3: and it would have been sound judgment for any of
Speaker 3: the officers, whether it's Procter, Buchanic or anyone else, to
Speaker 3: have photographed the condition of the tail light at the
Speaker 3: time they first encountered it.
Speaker 2: Any I mean, you could have put police tape around
Speaker 2: that car and literally you could have had what most
Speaker 2: in something that was at that point it was a murder.
Speaker 2: You you could have literally put police tape and had
Speaker 2: the whole the forensics team come and had the crime
Speaker 2: scene photographers come with the professional professional cameras and take
Speaker 2: video and photos of the entire vehicle. So that should
Speaker 2: tell the jury. That should tell You don't have to
Speaker 2: be you know, I don't need to be duty ron
Speaker 2: or ed. Yeah, to know that that's proper. Everybody knows that.
Speaker 2: If you've watched any crime drama on TV, any documentaries
Speaker 2: on TV, you know that that car, as she said,
Speaker 2: Bias said, was the murder weapon. They should have photographed
Speaker 2: the entire vehicle as it sat there as they seized
Speaker 2: the vehicle. That should have been not the crime scene,
Speaker 2: but the murder weapon. And the reason they didn't do
Speaker 2: that is because for sure, they wanted to be able
Speaker 2: to exculpate. They didn't want to provide any evidence because
Speaker 2: they already were gonna blame it on Karen from what
Speaker 2: three hours after when Jen McCabe called back, who was
Speaker 2: it Pulley or No, I think it wasank It was Lanker,
Speaker 2: that's right, and gave him. They basically gave them the
Speaker 2: whole scenario that they needed. They're very thankful to her
Speaker 2: because they didn't know who to pin it on. They
Speaker 2: were scared to death to go knock on Brian Alberts store,
Speaker 2: so they needed to pin it on someone, and Jen
Speaker 2: McCabe gave it to him. She delivered them the whole
Speaker 2: the case they just had to figure out how to
Speaker 2: make it work.
Speaker 3: I tell all of I just tell all people wanting
Speaker 3: to learn about the law, think about what's called the
Speaker 3: totality of circumstances. That's a legal standard. So it's not
Speaker 3: just the failure to take the picture. It's not just
Speaker 3: the failure to properly interview witnesses in a timely fashion,
Speaker 3: or to separate them to properly interview them, or to
Speaker 3: the application of a leaf blower at the crime scene,
Speaker 3: or collection of biological evidence in solo cups, or putting
Speaker 3: things in stop and shop bags.
Speaker 2: So there's financial fact after days later.
Speaker 3: Six or forty seven pieces of tail light that seemed
Speaker 3: to even grow in size that were not readily apparent
Speaker 3: on the night or morning in question. There's such a
Speaker 3: long list. And if you look at that long list
Speaker 3: of anomalies, inconsistencies, things that should have been pursued that weren't,
Speaker 3: things that were missteps, things that should have been photographed
Speaker 3: but weren't. In looking at the totality of circumstances, what
Speaker 3: does that do that creates reasonable doubt? And it's considering
Speaker 3: all of them, which is that's why, And it's not
Speaker 3: just my opinion. I'm sure it's all of yours, and
Speaker 3: I know there's other law tubers who have it. The
Speaker 3: defense should take all of these things in that list
Speaker 3: that I'm talking about and go through them as articulately
Speaker 3: as possible in a story form fashion for the jury
Speaker 3: in closing arguments to tell a tale of how there
Speaker 3: is reasonable doubt, And even one of them alone is
Speaker 3: enough in all, not all of these things in the list,
Speaker 3: but some of them alone are enough in and of
Speaker 3: themselves to create reasonable doubt. I feel very, very optimistic
Speaker 3: as far as what has happened thus far and what
Speaker 3: I know firsthand is coming. Buckle up for it. But
Speaker 3: I feel very confident to tell you I am strongly,
Speaker 3: strongly predicting an acquittal here. I know people worry about
Speaker 3: a mistrial. I don't. I don't worry about a mistrial.
Speaker 3: So those are my thoughts.
Speaker 2: God, oh, thank God, that's the best news.
Speaker 3: Just want to put it out there.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, I know, I know you're on there.
Speaker 2: Barros's we got two more questions, then we're going to
Speaker 2: get out of here. Borros is not on prosecution unless
Speaker 2: he's on the fenceless Aj said to trooper b he
Speaker 2: knows the answers to all his questions. Hope he shuts
Speaker 2: it all down. Yeah, I mean it's basically there. It's
Speaker 2: going to be up to Hank Brandon to impugne his character.
Speaker 2: You would think in a normal prosecution they would be calling, uh,
Speaker 2: they would have interviewed Nicholas Borrows and go when we
Speaker 2: I don't know if we actually have a case here,
Speaker 2: but that but again, nothing about this is normal. So
Speaker 2: and thank you so much for for the five. That's
Speaker 2: very very nice of you. The Ghosts of Brian higginsim
Speaker 2: card and we've got another one from Canada follow up
Speaker 2: by saying, if seizing a vehicle involved in a crime,
Speaker 2: I would oh, so obviously this person is police officer.
Speaker 2: I would request photos by ident our CSI photograph before
Speaker 2: it was moved. Well, that's exactly what we just said.
Speaker 2: And you don't need to be a law enforcement professional
Speaker 2: like this person is to know that.
Speaker 3: And thank you for common sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just common sense. Yeah, I mean we've seen enough.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you've seen documentaries, I mean, they're always
Speaker 2: going to take whatever piece of evidence it is in
Speaker 2: the plant. Now, what they would have wanted to do
Speaker 2: was if Jen mccaven all of them would have said
Speaker 2: that at the time, they would have arrested Karen at
Speaker 2: the scene and they would have photographed the car right
Speaker 2: there and right there in front of thirty four Fairview
Speaker 2: where she parked the vehicle, so it would have happened there.
Speaker 2: But obviously they didn't think of that, had to blame
Speaker 2: how to shift and frame Karen until later on, and
Speaker 2: once they came up with the tail light thing, then
Speaker 2: the you know, obviously they would have done it in
Speaker 2: the Fortunately the Karen the Reeds families driveway. Thank you
Speaker 2: very much. It really does help us. Let me see,
Speaker 2: if I'm saying this is it, I might have to
Speaker 2: put me goss his own for the smite by biomit
Speaker 2: Biomiden's Biomiden are ours. I don't know that you've been
Speaker 2: here before. Thank you very much because the perspective of
Speaker 2: law enforcement being here, just like our South Carolina State
Speaker 2: trooper that comes in, is invaluable to us, just like
Speaker 2: it is when Nand goes into chat or goes on
Speaker 2: a show. You know, we need we need perspectives just
Speaker 2: like duty ron ed l the LV cops, Brian and Gonzo,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So uh oh, we've got more. Okay, we
Speaker 2: got one more, We've got another one.
Speaker 3: The more came in and I am happy to tackle
Speaker 3: them because Lena b earlier in the stream, I definitely
Speaker 3: went through the whole Chloe Kora craziness. So thank you
Speaker 3: for your donation. I'm gonna chat match tonight, but I
Speaker 3: would encourage you to track and and just if you're
Speaker 3: going to take anything away from this, Chloe is dead.
Speaker 3: She's dead. This is a whole bunch of malarkey.
Speaker 2: But it is shrod, as they say in England, it's
Speaker 2: it's a host shrod. Is it NodD And like I
Speaker 2: said earlier, because if you weren't here, Lenabe, unless you
Speaker 2: have you know, Companion has a dog chip microchip. What's
Speaker 2: the other one named Avid is one. There's several companies
Speaker 2: that have microchips that you register that chip, you you
Speaker 2: use it with a scan tool. If they don't have
Speaker 2: that from pre twenty twenty two that shows when that
Speaker 2: dog was registered and they can scan it today, then
Speaker 2: it's not Chloe and they don't have that because if
Speaker 2: they did have that, then Hank Brennan would be presenting
Speaker 2: that paperwork at court. He would be showing this is
Speaker 2: Chloe right here now, you would, I mean you would
Speaker 2: literally probably have to have a member of the defense
Speaker 2: present with a member of the a neutral party with
Speaker 2: the scan tool to scan and print what the dog's
Speaker 2: identity is. Like literally you would have to do like
Speaker 2: what they were attempting to do with the computer when
Speaker 2: they wasted Karen's twelve thousand dollars, for that expert to
Speaker 2: go to Canton and say, oh, we don't have anything
Speaker 2: for you. I don't know why you hear so, And
Speaker 2: can I.
Speaker 1: Just add the jurors don't even know the significance of
Speaker 1: Chloe at this point because they don't have anything of
Speaker 1: how this even happened.
Speaker 2: Sure, but they'll get there. Guys are going to get
Speaker 2: there yet may know now, but they will know. And
Speaker 2: the fact of the matter is that the only way
Speaker 2: they can establish the dog's identity is through microchip data
Speaker 2: from when they got the dog or from any time
Speaker 2: before and any time before January twenty ninety, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: and they have to be able to show the same
Speaker 2: thing today is verified by an independent party, and then
Speaker 2: that company would also have to verify that they have
Speaker 2: had that dog in their records from that day with
Speaker 2: the same chip number. So and they're not going to
Speaker 2: do that because if they're going to do that, Hank
Speaker 2: Brennan would say I have that evidence, and he doesn't.
Speaker 3: So I agree with all of that, But at Tabia's point,
Speaker 3: this disjointed order of telling the story. It's, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: the jury's hearing this information about Cora or Chloe and
Speaker 3: then going with where does this Where does this fall
Speaker 3: in level of importance? For me, it's kind of like
Speaker 3: when you're reading a novel and you're like, wait, I
Speaker 3: have a feeling this might become important later, but I
Speaker 3: wish I understood right now the importance of it. It's
Speaker 3: not conducive to how a reasonable person processes information in
Speaker 3: terms of the order of storytelling. Yes, yes, that's just
Speaker 3: my take, but I think I'm not alone.
Speaker 2: No, no, but there's probably a reason. It's to confuse
Speaker 2: so that they remember, so that they're not able because
Speaker 2: they're not going to have a transcript because you know, Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: they have not figured out how to produce court transcripts
Speaker 2: that they can give. You know that, you know that
Speaker 2: with the price of printering these days, just can't do it.
Speaker 2: So they won't provide the jury of transcript so they
Speaker 2: can go back and deliberate with the historyonics of the case.
Speaker 2: They're only going to have their notes and what this
Speaker 2: moron says at her nonsensical during her nonsensical jury instructions,
Speaker 2: Charles argos from South Africa. I had mkat TOEG and
Speaker 2: the tow truck driver took photographs all round my cav
Speaker 2: for proof that the condition he received it for possible liability. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think I sound more Australian. I'm sorry, that might
Speaker 2: be all right. I'm sorry to all my Moto GP
Speaker 2: writer uhs from South Africa, like Brad Minder and so forth,
Speaker 2: So I apologize if I screwed up your accent. Thank
Speaker 2: you Charles for this seventy of South African. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure what did I would imagine it would be the
Speaker 2: same denomination as England, but I could be wrong. So
Speaker 2: what do you say about that? Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 2: mean this is basically what we're saying that they in
Speaker 2: South Africa they do take photos of the vehicle, and
Speaker 2: Nan obviously sees that in Jersey.
Speaker 3: I think it varies jurisdiction. A jurisdiction tow truck driver
Speaker 3: to tow truck driver. But at the same time, this
Speaker 3: is a police confiscation of an alleged murder weapon. I
Speaker 3: have to believe that there are protocols that are in
Speaker 3: place for how that's supposed to go down, and they
Speaker 3: were not followed. This may be further discussed with Buchanic
Speaker 3: or with Proctor or with Barrows. I don't know. We'll
Speaker 3: have to wait and see. But you know what, even
Speaker 3: if they don't hit this with questions, a jury of
Speaker 3: reasonable people should ask that saying, well, when were the
Speaker 3: first pictures that came out depicting the taillight? They were
Speaker 3: all after the evidence was quote proctored. So he's got
Speaker 3: a really, really significant name. He proctored and doctored a
Speaker 3: bunch of different evidence in this case, and he got
Speaker 3: disciplined and terminated for it, in my opinion, whether it
Speaker 3: was just his own personal bias or not. And you've
Speaker 3: got skunks and jerks like Buchanic and the other Gallagher
Speaker 3: and the Guarinos and the da Chicos and all of
Speaker 3: the other questionable police in my opinion, up there covering
Speaker 3: for him when this should have gone away long long ago.
Speaker 3: If the right people stood up, had some integrity, faced
Speaker 3: the music, and were just simply not a bunch of
Speaker 3: cowards willing to lie to protect one or a very
Speaker 3: small number. So I wish Karen well in her next
Speaker 3: week of trial. And it's hard. It's hard on her,
Speaker 3: it's hard on the family, it's hard on all of you.
Speaker 3: I'm sure you're juggling jobs, trying to follow everything and
Speaker 3: cover it totally showing up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I appreciate. I have to get it kind of
Speaker 2: like after work secondhand. I kind of have to get
Speaker 2: the information that way. I can't sit and watch the
Speaker 2: trial all day.
Speaker 3: Long, but I put two point oh speed and I run.
Speaker 3: I go running in the morning and make sure I
Speaker 3: listen to it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's awesome.
Speaker 3: So I got That's how I lost a bunch of weight.
Speaker 3: I was rage running during one point zho. So it worked.
Speaker 3: Anyone looking struck, anyone wants to lose the fluff start
Speaker 3: rage running to these trials.
Speaker 2: And more of Alisi. Thank you so much for five
Speaker 2: dollars in gratitude for Nan and for every creator who
Speaker 2: hosts her. And I would just say, if you are
Speaker 2: going to send Bob Lacy a gift, I would say
Speaker 2: probably don't send him fat burners. Maybe just you know,
Speaker 2: sort of a meal replacement protein shake.
Speaker 3: He eats some weird stuff in his yetty. He's he's
Speaker 3: constantly eating constantly, which is really good for.
Speaker 2: Your health metabolism. Going, yeah, bless them. Uh, Spanky's case
Speaker 2: is so disjointed, and I say, by design, yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 2: they are trying to h they're achieving their goal. They're
Speaker 2: trying to get the jury to not be able to
Speaker 2: put it together, knowing that their notes is all they're
Speaker 2: going The closing argument is going to have to do it,
Speaker 2: and then whatever notes they take or don't take. And
Speaker 2: as you guys know, some people are great note takers,
Speaker 2: some people aren't. And that is all they're gonna have.
Speaker 2: They are not going to have I know, you're like,
Speaker 2: this is twenty twenty one, and they're not gonna have
Speaker 2: a transfer. They're not gonna have like a big screen
Speaker 2: where they could put on the even if it were
Speaker 2: electronic and they could screen in the jury room. They're
Speaker 2: gonna have nothing to refer back to other.
Speaker 3: Than their gad Yeah, and they don't they don't know
Speaker 3: this case like like all of you do. Or if
Speaker 3: you have viewers learning the case now. So it's it's
Speaker 3: just different experience as a juror. And that's why the
Speaker 3: method in which they're teaching this is presenting it is
Speaker 3: not it's not conducive to good storytelling. And Alan Jackson,
Speaker 3: he's a seasoned tactician. Alessie Steady as Stone Yanetti, he's
Speaker 3: just the local archer. This is why I wrote my
Speaker 3: epic tale about these guys. So all of them, Liza
Speaker 3: little Like, they're all an important team, and I really
Speaker 3: think they're going to tell a better story in the
Speaker 3: defense case.
Speaker 2: And Chief please post that again so that we can
Speaker 2: retweet that if you would, Nan, which you wrote, so
Speaker 2: that everybody here can read that. I'd like to thank
Speaker 2: the mods, all of you that are here, all of
Speaker 2: the questions we got. I'm sorry we couldn't get to
Speaker 2: all of you. I see so many of our friends
Speaker 2: in here, Tiff, I see tons of you. It's just
Speaker 2: when Nan shows up, we get so many there it's
Speaker 2: just difficult to get to them all. So I apologize.
Speaker 2: We've gone two hours and sixteen minutes, but that's what
Speaker 2: we do for Nan Gallery. That's just how the damn
Speaker 2: thing go. Nan, thank you so much for joining us
Speaker 2: again and for giving us of your time. You can
Speaker 2: hear Eddie Vedder in the background love it, playing along
Speaker 2: to save it for later, and that's what we'll have
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 3: I know how to play that on the guitar.
Speaker 2: What oh my god. Next time, Nan Gallagher, I will
Speaker 2: be asking for you to bring your guitar to Calling
Speaker 2: All Beings so you could play this amazing version of
Speaker 2: the English Beats song Save It for Later by Eddie Vedder.
Speaker 2: It's so beautiful.
Speaker 3: One of these days I might surprise you with some
Speaker 3: musical talents.
Speaker 2: Man. For Nan Gallagher, thank you so much, Maud, thank
Speaker 2: you for everybody in the chat. For and Ba. This
Speaker 2: is DJ saying peace out, one love. We'll see down
Speaker 2: the road, see you soon.
Speaker 1: Bye.
Speaker 3: Thank you man.