The Karen Read Trial(s)

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:58 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1147. I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is real life attorney Matt Cameron. How you doing?

0:01:04 Matt: Well, Thomas, the day has come. We're going to talk about Karen Reed. I'm approaching this with some trepidation, but it has been more than a year and we haven't talked about Karen Reid, and this is right in my backyard, since the trial.

0:01:11 Thomas: It's been more than a year? Oh my god. Yeah, no, it's been too long. We gotta cover it.

0:01:19 Matt: You've got everything that you want in a murder trial. You've an attractive woman who says she's been framed for the death of a Boston cop. You got a lovable snowplow driver named Lucky. Yeah.

0:01:26 Thomas: A lovable snowplow driver? Wow. I didn't know I wanted that, but now I do.

0:01:32 Matt: You have one of the top suspects isn't even human.

0:01:35 Thomas: What?

0:01:35 Matt: Yeah we'll get there, we'll We'll get there.

0:01:36 Thomas: Wow, well not since the staircase have I had one like that.

0:01:39 Matt: Oh man, that guy did it so hard. He did it so much.

0:01:42 Thomas: Yeah that, that, uh, that owl. I agree. That bird is guilty. Guilty.

0:01:46 Matt: That is another conversation. I think we have touched on that before, but man, that guy did it. It's interesting you mentioned that, though, because it is a similar situation of someone with a lot of privilege who's on trial for something who says she didn't do. I do have a pretty strong legal opinion at this, which I will reserve for the end. I will make you wait to tell you how I feel about what actually happened here. But it is quite a case. And what we're going to try to do today is just catch everybody up because I've been contacted by so many people from around the world who want us to talk about this story. This is an internationally famous story at this point in my own backyard, just a few miles. I'm in Boston. This happened in Canton, Massachusetts, about 15 miles south of me.

0:02:19 Thomas: Yeah, Matt might have done it, actually.

0:02:20 Matt: That's true. I've not totally ruled out. I don't remember where I was that night.

0:02:24 Thomas: Oh god is that what you have to do to be ruled out? Okay guys, I'm now not ruled out of any murder ever. All the way to Jimmy Hoffa.

0:02:25 Matt: So yeah, a lot of people don't Remember. The

0:02:33 Thomas: Like I'm just not, I don't remember where I am at any given time.

0:02:36 Matt: Reason we're talking about it now is she is about to be retried. We are seating a jury right now. It's going to take a while because this case has so much publicity. But I want to kind of explain what happened in the last trial, how it got to a mistrial, all the issues since then and what to look for in the retrial. This may well be gavel gavel content in the future, but I think for now we just need a quick catch up.

0:02:53 Thomas: How are you doing all this in one episode, Matt? I'm skeptical.

0:02:55 Matt: We're doing it. We can do this.

0:02:56 Thomas: Okay you better talk even faster than your normal self.

0:02:59 Matt: I am prepared. I can do that. Careful what you ask for.

0:03:02 Thomas: All right well should we just get over to it then? We got no time to spare, no time time to waste.

0:03:05 Matt: Let's do it. All right.

0:03:05 Thomas: In fact, we don't have time for commercials. So everyone had better go to patreon.com/law and pledge as little as a dollar. And then you don't Have to hear any ads and that'll that'll, that'll help us go faster somehow. That's my story. Stick into it.

0:03:17 Matt: Good plan.

0:03:18 Thomas: After this, we'll get to it. Okay, who or what is Karen Reed?

0:03:25 Matt: All Right. So I'm sure that you must've heard something about this.

0:03:29 Thomas: A little bit, but I was trying to go spoiler free for gavel gavel.

0:03:32 Matt: Sure. Great.

0:03:32 Thomas: So I'm really fresh on this. I only know a few things.

0:03:34 Matt: Well, there's going to be a lot of surprises along the way then, but I will tell you that everybody in new England at this point has an opinion about this case. I live and work in Boston, as you know, and it just comes up constantly, especially when people find out I'm a lawyer. I've talked to Uber drivers and bartenders. The guy who manages our band's practice space is obsessed with it.

0:03:49 Thomas: It's fun when you have that one random guy that you have to talk about the one thing with every time. It's fun. I like that. That's kind of funny.

0:03:54 Matt: No, I love Bob. He's great. And shout out to Bob. But listeners will know, regular listeners will know, I do have a prosecutor in my life. And every prosecutor that she knows is talking about this case. Every defense attorney I know has opinions. I'm going to tell you upfront that I believe that both the prosecution and the defense made significant mistakes in this last trial. And I'm afraid they're going to make those mistakes again. But let's just give a quick rundown of what this case is. I'm going to warn everybody up front. I know a lot about this case, but there are lawyers who have been covering this much more obsessively than we're ever going to.

0:04:23 Thomas: Unless we do it on gavel gavel, then it will be honestly, it'll be that obsessively.

0:04:25 Matt: Oh, yeah, it will be very good. Right. No, but we won't be doing like the four hour like sped up video, which I can't take. I don't know about you, but like watching sped video court proceedings with people talking over it. We'll play clips, but it's awful, honestly. I want to try to distill this down to what matters. Talk about the legal issues. Make sure you're familiar with the facts. But there is so much going on here. And it's also there's a bigger commentary about the role of social media and sort of our moment right now and about the way that truth and fiction work. And also about true crime, which again, I want to emphasize, we are not a true crime show.

0:04:35 Thomas: Is that what they do? Yep.

0:04:57 Matt: And I'm really going to try to approach this in a non -true crime way, which I think might disappoint some listeners. But this is true law is what we're trying to do here.

0:05:02 Thomas: Instead of a genre that has millions of listeners, we're a genre That has a handful.

0:05:05 Matt: So that's right. But very dedicated and much smarter and frankly, much better looking than other true crime listeners. So no question about that. So Karen Reed, she's now 44. She was 41 at the time of everything we're going to talk about. But she is a financial analyst and she was a lecturer at Bentley, which is a big school around here. She actually was teaching a financial markets and investments course, unfortunately lost her job after this, but comes from a professional background, but also fairly modest, grew up in Taunton, Massachusetts. And her Fall River accent has actually come up in this trial. And I want to note that this trial is full of awesome Massachusetts accents. So many good ones. Yeah.

0:05:37 Thomas: Man, I can't wait.

0:05:40 Matt: Great audio. And it also involves a bunch of cops. So it's basically this woman who was dating a Boston cop named John O 'Keefe. They kind of reconnected during the pandemic and a a bunch of people that John O 'Keefe knew who were state and local cops. There's a bunch of characters here. I'll try to keep them straight best I can as we talk. But what you should know about John O'Skeefe is that he was a Boston cop for 16 years. As far as I can tell from having followed this case pretty closely, it doesn't seem like anyone but Karen Reed really had any issues with him, but they were partners and they had the kind of issues that you have sometimes up and down with relationships. It wasn't anything more than that from what I can tell, but it seems like a really good guy. And I think one of the most important things to know about him, and obviously I'm no fan of Boston cops generally, but nobody deserves to die of hypothermia in the cold, which is very likely what happened here. But he moved to Canton in 2014 to raise his niece and nephew after his sister died of a brain tumor and her husband had a heart attack two months later.

0:06:29 Matt: So yeah, good guy. I mean, apparently these kids loved him and imagine they had to lose him now, you know, on top of that. So I want to make sure that one of the many ways that we're not a true crime podcast is that we are not sensationalizing just the point we forget that there is an actual man in the middle of all this who died and someone that a lot of people seem to like. So the night we're talking about here is January 28th going into January 29th 2022. And this was a blizzard night. I don't remember this particular blizzard night. I'm sure if I went back, I could find something in my records or text, but blizzard nights are something special around here. You got to hunker down, you got to get your toilet paper and your bread and your eggs and you know, pretend you're about to lose power for four days or whatever, because maybe you will, especially if it's on a weekend, it's a good time.

0:07:05 Thomas: In my mind, this happens twice a week. How often is it really?

0:07:08 Matt: There was one winter where it did happen twice a week and we all just about killed each other. It was really bad. The 2014 winter, everybody were listening. I remember that if they were around for it, it was just Mad Max in the snow over here in East Boston. But generally speaking, especially these days with climate change, we're getting maybe one of these a year, a couple of these a year. Yeah, I do. I mean, but I love them because I grew up in Washington State where we got maybe an inch of snow and we're very excited about that. So it was a birthday party that night for the son of a retired Boston cop named Brian Albert. And the Albert family is going to feature very prominently in this story because the home at 34 Fairview in Canton Canton is where the Alberts lived. And there are just a bunch of people with the last name Albert who are going to be involved here. Since this is just an overview, I'm not going to try to go too deep on all this. But what you should know is that most of these people were cops or related to cops or involved with cops. And Chris Albert owned a pizza shop, but a bunchof cops hang out there. So that is part of what makes this story so interesting is that you've got a bunch of Boston local cops .And again, Canton is south of Boston, but he was working for the Boston Police Department. And state troopers are also involved. That night, they were out drinking, as you do before a blizzard. And there's no dispute that Karen Reed had quite a lot of alcohol that night, as did everybody else. And, there was a plan to go back to the Albert House to keep the party going. And Karen Reed didn't want to go, but she drops her boyfriend, John O 'Keefe, off at that house. And then, her story is that she woke up at 4 .30 in the morning at his house. She doesn't really remember what happened between then and there. And realized that he wasn't there in his house, realized that his niece and nephew had no idea where he was, and started to panic, and wondered what might have happened, because she just didn't know. And you know there's that that movie trope where people wake up and have no idea what just happened and they have to reconstruct. That's actually like that. I didn't think that was a thing, but that actually happened here, if you believe the defense's version. And I do, I will say, I believe a lot of what she's saying. She's very sincere when she talks about this. There's an entire HBO documentary series that you can watch already

0:08:45 Thomas: Yeah Yeah. Wow. Crazy. Already? Wow. They're fast on those now.

0:09:01 Matt: About the first trial. Yeah, they were following around for the first trial. I think they were thinking that was going to be the end of the case. And of course, now there's second season opportunities for this show.

0:09:08 Thomas: Yeah. I can't wait to monetize my inevitable trial. I don't know what I'll be on trial for, but okay. Do you have your preferences?

0:09:13 Matt: Well, I hope it's not killing a Boston cop. That That would be very inconvenient for you, but there's a lot of this stuff that is like very movie or TV worthy, like because again, movie and TV just loves Boston anyway, which I completely understand, like, you know, but There's also just a lot of weird details and things that happen. Now, the Commonwealth's theory, just to get this out, is that Karen Reid was very upset they were having a fight that night, and there's no question that they were in a fight that night because she did leave him a series of really angry voicemails, which were all played at trial. But they were the kind of voicemail that you would not leave for someone after you had just killed them. They're the kind of voicemails that you would leave for somebody when you're mad at them. But it'd be really weird and a weird cover -up if you know you're going to be the prime suspect in a murder to leave these particular voicemail.

0:09:57 Thomas: That would be along the lines of evil genius, also good actor, which people just aren't that. There's no real examples of that ever.

0:10:05 Matt: Now, Karen Reid's pretty smart, but I don't know about that. Yeah. So the prosecution's theory is that she was very angry with him, that she was drunk, and that there's also, I should point out, a cocktail glass that was found in the scene. He took it with him. It's on the video from the bar. And it looks like he probably threw the cocktail glass at her car or SUV. The prosecution theory is that she backed up 24 miles an hour for 60 feet and hit him and then sped off and data from her suv does suggest that she did at some point do that go in reverse that way yeah I will say that there there is a decent amount of evidence but there's also quite a lot of reasonable doubt like just oodles of reasonable drought all over this

0:10:40 Thomas: I want to make sure I don't know what is like you're presenting information in a particular order for effect, which is totally fine. I love it. Versus how much is like, I actually am the one person in the earth who doesn't know this story. So we got an Albert's house. We got, she was going to drop him off at a party. She did, I guess. And then she at some point blacked out from there.

0:10:46 Matt: Case she just doesn't remember she says what happened she was driving no no no doubt that she was drinking and driving as were a number of other people including cops in this story not great at

0:11:01 Thomas: Okay. But she was driving. Okay. Not good. Yep. Yep. Yep. And then he wakes up at her place or like the, oh,

0:11:10 Matt: All his place they They didn't live together, but she was staying at his place all the time. And so she drove over to his place.

0:11:14 Thomas: Okay, okay. Gotcha. So she wakes up. She's like, where is he? So far, I, the listener, don't know where he is. Has he been found dead already at this point?

0:11:19 Matt: He has not. So at this point, she starts to panic and realizes that she doesn't know where he is. And she has this thought that he could have been hit by a snowplow or he could otherwise be stumbling around in the cold because he'd had a lot to drink and she just doesn't know what happened. And she doesn'T even know that he was in the house and nobody seems to know where he is." So she calls people that she knows, including Jennifer McCabe, who was also in the house, who's related to the Alberts. And there is a search, crucially, that is performed either at 2 .27am or around 6 .23am, depending on how you read the evidence. And this is forensic evidence that we'd have to break down and gavel gavel. It would take a little while. But this is a really vital piece of information because the evidence is that there was a search for how long to die in cold, which is extremely damning as a search.

0:12:05 Thomas: Well, it could be damning, but it could also be you're worried about someone, right? And you're like, shit, possibly.

0:12:11 Matt: Obviously right sure right there's a lot of different ways you could read that you could also be I mean it's not inconceivable you're just sitting around thinking hey it's a blizzard how long would it take for somebody to die of hypothermia out there completely apart from any of that reasonable doubt wise there's something to that but the idea was either Jennifer McCabe very intentionally searching this because there'd been a conspiracy of people who just murdered john o

0:12:40 Thomas: Oh, those are two very different things.

0:12:42 Matt: 'Keefe and left him out to die or it was that as Jennifer McCabe testified karen reid showed up to the scene karen Jennifer McCabe was there by then and started giving john cpr and yelled can you search how long it takes to die if hypothermia in the cold very different things. And you'd think we would know a little better, but it's something to do with Apple and not being able to know for sure.

0:12:48 Thomas: So what device was this search on?

0:12:51 Matt: I believe it was on Jennifer McCabe's. So this is one of the people associated with the Alberts. She testified at trial along with all these other people. But let me just make sure we're keeping the bigger picture here, which is that there was a snowplow driver named Lucky, one of those star witnesses of the case. Snowplow driver testified that he didn't see anything unusual. He was going about his business, getting ready for this blizzard. He would have seen a body lying out in the yard at that point.

0:13:10 Thomas: All right. Where is the body? I wasn't sure if you were telling us that yet.

0:13:13 Matt: So the body is out front on 34 Fairview. It's out in the front lawn.

0:13:17 Thomas: Oh, wow. Wow. When was it discovered and by whom?

0:13:20 Matt: So it was discovered by Karen when she went back to search the scene, apparently, and called the police. And the snowplow driver says that he didn't notice anything unusual around 2 .30 when he went by. Now, again, it's very possible that as a snowplowing driver, you don't see everything as you're going by. There's big snowstorms going, you're trying to drive a snow plow, but it does seem a little unusual that he didn't see anything when his lights would have been bright there. And there were 11 people in the house at the time still having a party.

0:13:41 Thomas: That's that's what I was wondering. Yeah.

0:13:43 Matt: There was an open question as to whether the victim was even in the house. Right.

0:13:46 Thomas: Oh, like ever or. OK.

0:13:47 Matt: At all. Because there's some data from his phone that makes it look like maybe he was going up and down some stairs. Again, there's a lot of open questions around all of this. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

0:13:52 Thomas: There's so much. Yeah, this is that we're trying to digest this very quickly.

0:13:57 Matt: So again, there are a whole lot of different evidentiary things we could pick up, a lot different threads we could follow, but I'm just trying to give you the overview as much as possible. She did notice, Karen Reed noticed there was a crack in her taillight, and she wonders at that point if she had hit him. She later says that she thinks she hit his SUV and not him, but he also did have pieces of a taillate on him, and his DNA was found on her car, like outside.

0:14:18 Thomas: Shit.

0:14:19 Matt: Yeah. Yeah it's not great. The evidence is not great for her all of the time. She's also still pretty drunk at this point. The evidence is that she had been drinking. She was legally drunk at least eight hours after she'd left. But the autopsy is extremely unusual. This is where I don't know what to make of any of this. And again, this is a body that's been out a few hours in a snowstorm. Medical examiner said he had two swollen black eyes, a cut on the left side of his nose, a two -inch laceration of the back of the head, and multiple skull fractures. He had blood around his nose and mouth, and his baseball hat and one one of his black sneakers were missing. So just a weird thing for somebody who's been hit by a car. I mean, again, if you've been hit back at 24 miles an hour, it's possible your shoe pops off, your hat pops off. Certainly.

0:14:57 Thomas: Yeah I could see. Yeah or like you're what you're bending over and get hit by maybe are you tying your shoe. Did you just take your shoe off I'll forgive, I don't know.

0:15:05 Matt: Yeah. Or the two black eyes though. I mean that, that is really odd.

0:15:09 Thomas: Yeah I mean if you get if you I don't know bending over got hit in the face or something

0:15:14 Matt: Yeah he's got some very strange lacerations on his arm, which the prosecution insists were from a tail light. And it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. When you see the pictures, this is where the non -human culprit comes in because Chloe, the German Shepherd plays a role here and perhaps was involved in either mauling him or potentially causing his death. We're not really sure. The dog was later disappeared somewhere upstate. I believe she's still alive, but within four months, this was the Alberts' dog.

0:15:18 Thomas: Maybe hmm oh oh geez what whose dog is that oh

0:15:39 Matt: And this is a dog of seven years, and they arranged her to disappear. Now, could be because she had a known history of violence, could because she was evidence. It's just another open question in the case. One of the many, many things that screams reasonable doubt about all of this. That's about all we need to know of the facts for now.

0:15:42 Thomas: What the hell yeah yeah

0:16:05 Matt: No.

0:16:05 Thomas: Let me make sure we have it okay so we've got she's super drunk but still driving doesn't seem great they're partying at a cop's house they're going the plans were to go to drop him off at that house right but somehow there's no we don't have any verification that he ever went in the house it's interesting now Now he's discovered just right in the front, right in the yard, but okay. Wouldn't it be pretty evident? Do they know for sure that that he was hit by a car and that's the cause of death? Like what have they decided is the cause of death.

0:16:21 Matt: That's right. The prosecution is presenting the theory that it was from getting hit by a car, but that's not necessarily conclusive. And there are experts that testified at the first trial who we'll talk about shortly who don't believe that the car was necessarily the cause of death.

0:16:26 Thomas: I guess I'm just saying if he's on a lawn, I feel like it'd be obvious a car drove over a lawn. Do they know that? Hmm. Interesting.

0:16:38 Matt: No, no, I don't think the car is anywhere it wasn't supposed to be.

0:16:40 Thomas: Was he moved or anything? Do they have anything about that?

0:16:43 Matt: That possible. But again, the evidence is, I mean, it's not a good crime scene. That thing I should mention.

0:16:45 Thomas: I just think, I mean, it's no, isn't this all this stuff obvious? Like, isn'T that's weird, which is weird. Cause you think if a murder happened at a house with a million cops and they weren't responsible, responsible, you would think that would be like the best crime scene, wouldn't you? They'd be like, wow, preserve everything. We know how to do this because this is literally our job.

0:17:01 Matt: So let me tell you a little bit about the Canton Police Department and how they they handled this, because I should have mentioned earlier that the real problem for the prosecution is that there is some abysmal policing beyond anything you're going to believe when we get to the testimony. So let's just start with the fact that they collected evidence in Solo cups, red Solo cups.

0:17:22 Matt: They just showed up and started scooping up blood in solo cup. And they put those solo cups in two Stop & Shop grocery bags. And that was how they collected the evidence.

0:17:29 Thomas: What?

0:17:29 Matt: They didn't separate the witnesses and just started interviewing them all together. Yeah, stuff like that.

0:17:33 Thomas: And this isn't just like the people that were partying did this. This was like actual cops showed up.

0:17:37 Matt: No, this is actual people that were supposed to be professionals doing this. Yeah. They also drove the car back, Karen Reed's car, back to the police station. And again, we're talking about a blizzard, but they didn't do any preliminaries on the car at all. They didn't leave it in place. So they might've lost some evidence there because there is hair and DNA and whatever else that was on the card they might have lost. There was some they were able to find. There's also an extremely suspicious video from when the car is in police custody that we'll probably talk about. But this is just a quick look at how bad the policing was. But if you want to to know just how bad it got, let's look at the testimony of lead investigator Michael Proctor, who is a state investigator. Now, Michael Proactor's testimony and the things that he did in this case should be more than enough to tank the entire case because this man, as you may not be surprised to learn, this isn't going to be a spoiler, is no longer a cop.

0:18:24 Matt: But let's listen to a minute of his testimony, just a quick minute excerpt where he has to try to explain some text messages that he sent.

0:18:24 Thomas: I already want to say like, I'm coming to this. I don't know anything, everyone. So don't blame me if there's some like information that you all I'll have that I don't, but just prima facie, someone could be guilty and the cops are terrible and they try to frame a guilty person. That does happen.

0:18:44 Matt: Could all happen.

0:18:45 Thomas: Could all be happening. So let's hear it.

0:18:46 Clip: And turning your attention to the next page, 2538, at the top, if you could just read, you know, a series of responses from yourself, correct?, Yes, sir., read from those, sir, yep, so these came from me, from all accounts, he didn't do anything wrong, she's a whack job, C-U-N-T, objection, so don't spell it, you have to, so this, these are your words, Trooper Proctor?, yes, Your Honor, go ahead and say them, We had Fall River Accent though, no ass. And sir, what is it that you were referring to there?

0:19:18 Thomas: No, don't bleep it. What?

0:19:28 Matt: It's so bad.

0:19:29 Thomas: I, I, that was so weird. I couldn't even, he said, what?

0:19:33 Matt: So bad. She's a babe, Gabe, weird Fall River accent, long paws, no ass.

0:19:39 Thomas: Is this after the murder?

0:19:41 Matt: This is all things he's texting after the murder. He's the lead investigator. And I'm giving Michael Proctor a break by not playing some of the other things that he texted, which included, and this is some ofthe cringiest testimony you're ever going to see in your life in any case, because he had to sit there and read through all of these horrible things he texted about her. He was looking on her phone for nudes, for example, becausehe thought that'd be a fun thing to do. And he also had all kinds of connections to the people involved that he never disclosed.

0:19:43 Thomas: After the murder. Okay. Oh my God. Wow.

0:20:04 Matt: So bad, bad stuff. Yeah. Yeah. So that's just a little taste.

0:20:07 Thomas: I just assumed this is how every police investigation is though, by the way. This is what I assume. Boy, that's not great.

0:20:13 Matt: And if we're going to do this on gavel gavel, we could go back and do like three days on Michael Proctor's testimony.

0:20:17 Thomas: I can't wait.

0:20:17 Matt: It was really something. There's an open question about how he's going to be presented at the next trial because well, we'll get there.

0:20:26 Matt: Let's just talk about the charges. I want to just make it very clear that the prosecution made a tremendous mistake in the way they charged this case. No question about that. And I think they're making a tremendous mistakes in how they're now recharging it. The opening charge on this was murder in the second degree in Massachusetts, which requires the defendant defendant intended to kill the victim, or intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim or intended to do an act, which in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. So that requires intent, as you might understand by hearing that obviously second degree murder, that's MGL 265 section one. She was also charged with manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, which is 265, section 13 and a half. And she was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury resulting in death, which is MGL 9024 -2. So those two last two make some sense based on what we've ever heard so far, that they can prove maybe that the car hit him and she drove away. That was the indictment that issued in June 2022. Her trial began on April 16th, 2024 with those three charges. The trial went on for 37 days. There were 74 witnesses, 657 exhibits. A lot of it was on YouTube and a whole lot of It, as I said, was carefully picked apart by legal experts. Probably probably one of the most covered trials ever so far. It was incredibly covered because of all the weird stuff that was going on here. We have to talk about very quickly a man professionally known as Turtle Boy.

0:21:48 Matt: Professionally known as Turtle boy. His ex -handle is actually Dr. Turtle Boy, which I really appreciate.

0:21:51 Thomas: Oh, okay. He didn't go to turtle medical school for however many years to be called Mr. Turtle Boy.

0:21:56 Matt: So Thomas, one of my favorite things about doing the show with you, one OF my many favorite things is getting your live reactions to things that you haven't seen before.

0:22:03 Thomas: Fantastic.

0:22:03 Matt: And to introduce to the idea of why he's named Turtle Boy a little bit of local lore, because it doesn't get talked about enough. I'm going to send you the picture of the statue statue after which Turtle Boy takes his name. And you're just going to go ahead and describe to our audience of families listening what the statue is.

0:22:18 Thomas: Families. Oh. This is somebody being a turtle.

0:22:21 Matt: Yes, it is.

0:22:21 Thomas: Okay. This is a twink being a turtle. Roughly what I see.

0:22:25 Matt: And the turtle looks surprised a little bit.

0:22:28 Thomas: Oh boy. I mean, I'm not a scientist. I'm That looks like terror to me, but maybe when turtles do it, that could be normal. I don't know what's par for the turtle course.

0:22:41 Matt: Yeah, this is the Burnside Fountain in Worcester. It's a very, very famous sculpture in Worcester, at least around here. And it was for some reason commissioned in memory of someone's father, a prominent lawyer in 1905.

0:22:51 Thomas: It's a real turtle.

0:22:54 Matt: It's officially called boy with a turtle, but of course the locals know it simply as Turtle Boy. It is the unofficial mascot of Worcester.

0:23:00 Thomas: Considering what it looks like, Turtle Boy is like much more polite than I think a nickname would be for this.

0:23:06 Matt: Yeah, you really have to see it to believe it. You really do. No.

0:23:07 Thomas: It's, I mean, this is not me making a stretch for a joke. Like this is just a dude being a turtle.

0:23:13 Matt: Absolutely it is.

0:23:13 Thomas: There's no ambiguity whatsoever. There is some ambiguity in the facial expression of the turtle. I'll give you that. Matt thinks the turtle's having a hell of a time. I think the turtle looks terrified and is trying to get away. But, you know, to each their own.

0:23:25 Matt: I don't know what turtles look like during coitus. But you know, I just think it's worth pointing out just because I have this local lore. So I don'T want to dwell too much on Turtle Boy, but it's a very interesting part of the story. Very important part of story because you may not have ever heard of this if it weren't for Aidan Carney, Mr. Turtle Boy himself. He has a long, complicated history. If you can imagine basically like Jerry Springer as a local blog. He enjoyed pointing out sort of weird local people, a lot of them not white, doing lots of racist stuff, inviting people to be racist at people who are in unfortunate circumstances.

0:23:48 Thomas: The guy in the statue?

0:23:54 Matt: No, Guy in the Statue is blameless except for the whole turtle thing.

0:23:57 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. Except for what I'm looking at right now. The only thing I've ever seen him do.

0:24:01 Matt: Yeah, maybe not blamless.

0:24:03 Thomas: I don't know if he, like, donated in his personal time, but the only thing I've seen him doing, Matt, is that turtle.

0:24:10 Matt: So I'll put it this way. Aidan Kearney is, we have to acknowledge, he is a journalist. He has actually done, yeah, Turtle Boy.

0:24:11 Thomas: Who is he? Oh, okay. So he's a, so, and, but he's no, were you just showing me a funny but unrelated fact or is he named after the statue okay

0:24:24 Matt: He is named after the statue. Statue that's why I want to make sure we brought that in because it just it this is why it's so complicated because I do consider him to be a journalist but he's named after the statue yeah

0:24:26 Thomas: Why yeah yeah and he and he accepts that it wasn't like people started insulting him by comparing him to this turtle it's that he I'm gonna have to do so many bleeps in this

0:24:44 Matt: He took it on that was his moniker

0:24:45 Thomas: One okay took it on like that kid took on that

0:24:48 Matt: But I will say just to give mr carony his credit he has a good history of going after bad cops he really loves going after mad cops and he's very good at it he is also he's

0:24:54 Thomas: Turtle oh I thought she's saying he was doing a bunch of racist stuff before oh all right

0:24:59 Matt: A complicated man so I just want to give him his due for

0:25:01 Thomas: So some of Those who burn crosses are the same who go after the forces. That's interesting.

0:25:03 Matt: That forces yeah yeah as the the old song goes. Yeah. We will link to the Atlantic piece profiling Turtle Boy and his work in this case. But I just wanted to mention him because he is so central to a lot of this. He is not invited on the show. We're not going to talk to him, but I sort of appreciate him as a local media figure. And I wish that there were more of him, but different.

0:25:26 Matt: Everywhere. Because he is a true local independent journalist and he is saying and doing things that local media, honestly, the Boston Globe has just gone down the toilet recently. It's not a good paper the way it used to be. And we need more people doing local local investigation. And so he got a tip about this case. He started reading the motions. He got obsessed with it and he started making content about it. And he's got more than 500 YouTube videos. He's monetized this pretty well. And we do have to point out, you know, I don't know how much I was looking, trying to estimate maybe like 100 ,000 over the course of this trial or something, but he's gotten quite a lot of fame and attention from this.

0:25:54 Matt: And he is now leading the Free Karen Reid movement. And this is a movement. It is a massive international movement at this point. We have heard from so many listeners who are curious about this case, who are in places that I never would have thought would be interested in a Canton, Manhattan, Massachusetts murder case.

0:26:07 Thomas: The Galapagos Island, weirdly enough. I don't know why there's so many people there.

0:26:10 Matt: The turtles. You know, he's really galvanized people around this thing, and it's become like a religion. It's become almost like a cult, this free Karen Reid thing. And that's part of the reason I didn't want to talk about it, is because there's just a lot of fanatics who are probably going to yell at us just for talking about it at all, or suggesting that she might have actually done something wrong. But we have to look at this like any other legal case. And we have look at the evidence and what was presented and the mistakes that were made by both sides. Now, I've told you about the mistake that I think was made, the fundamental mistake was made by the prosecution, and they made quite a number of mistakes in the last trial. So the primary mistake the prosecution made, obviously, was charging her with second -degree murder. But they also put on a prosecutor named Adam Wally, who there's already plenty of criticism of him out there, I won't add to it, but he didn't do a great job, frankly. And Karen Reed engaged the services of David Yannetti, who's a very, very well -known and very well -respected local defense attorney, and also Alec Jackson, who is a California defense

0:26:16 Thomas: Oh, God. Great. Yeah.

0:26:59 Matt: Attorney. And I have to say, as a Massachusetts defense attorney this annoys me greatly. We have lots of really good defense attorneys here. And she flew some guy in from California and put him up in the Seaport District at a nice hotel and has been paying a lot of his bills. And again, Alec Jackson is a good lawyer. I'm not going to discount it.

0:27:14 Thomas: Does she have money?

0:27:16 Matt: She's been raising a lot money. She sold her house. She was a professional. It sounds like she's spent well over a million so far, and that was in her first trial. And you can imagine facing a second one. She's become the biggest expert in her own case. She is very, very smart about all this. She has kept it organized. And as you can see in the documentary, she's helping her lawyers in a way that I would really appreciate if I were one of the lawyers here, not in the interfering kind of way, but actually helping you stay on track and keeping organized and planning strategy. But Alan Jackson is an interesting guy in himself. And again, not a Massachusetts lawyer, but a very well -known defense attorney. He actually prosecuted Phil Spector when he was a prosecutor, but also defended Harvey Weinstein, among others, famously in his case. Yeah, mixed bag. But again, we don't judge people by their clients necessarily. He's just a, yeah.

0:27:51 Thomas: Mixed bag. Okay. I do, but it's fine.

0:27:58 Matt: But Jackson is a showboat, no doubt. He is a guy who likes being out in front of cameras, and he's good at court. He's got his moments. And that cross -examination of Michael Proctor is so excruciating in part, I mean, it would have been anyway, but in part because Alec Jackson is such a good lawyer. So, you know, I just have to mention that it's a little strange that she had to go to California when we have plenty of great lawyers in this time zone.

0:28:15 Thomas: Yeah yeah did she have some connection there or did you just like by reputation wanted this guy or

0:28:21 Matt: But I wouldn't be surprised if he reached out, seeing an opportunity, but also maybe just by reputation. So this case goes on, as I said, for many, many days, 37 days. The jury deliberates for 28 hours and they come back with three notes. And the third note, I will just read to you because this becomes important. Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives and the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe the evidence surpasses the burden of proof. Conversely, others find the evidence to meet this standard. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise those deeply held beliefs. I'm going to tell you why I think the jury ended up deadlocked. Now, there's evidence they weren't actually quite as deadlock as this note might suggest, jest,

0:28:22 Thomas: Something huh all right

0:29:03 Matt: But I'm going to play you a little clip here from the first seconds of the opening argument made by Dave Yannetti. And again, nothing against Dave Yiannetti, I think is a very good lawyer, but I think it's really interesting the way that the defense team incorporated the social media rhetoric and incorporated the movement into their defense. So since you don't know what their defense is yet, let's just hear it.

0:29:03 Thomas: What weird no okay oh wow that's bold

0:29:23 Clip: Karen Reid was framed. Her car never struck John O'Keefe. She did not cause his death. And that means that somebody else did. Did. You will learn that it was no accident that John O'Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton on January 29th of 2022. You will learn at that address lived a well-known and well-connected law enforcement family in Canton. The Alberts. Because the Alberts were involved, and because they had close connections to the investigators in this case, Karen Reid was framed for a murder she did not commit.

0:30:16 Clip: Good morning again ladies and gentlemen as I previously...

0:30:19 Matt: So yeah, I don't think that's good there. That's good there.

0:30:19 Thomas: Oh wow I like that he goes right in with a cold open you know and then he's like hi my name is like resets it you

0:30:23 Matt: Yeah. It's good. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. No, it is a good opening and I take issue with with the strategy as we'll talk about, but it is, I mean, I remember the first, I've watched that opening a couple of times. And the first time I heard that, it really gripped me because you've never heard anything like that. I've never heard an opening argument start out with,

0:30:32 Thomas: Know huh usually when that's your story that's not a good sign like usually when it's like frame someone someone else did it. It's like, eh, okay.

0:30:44 Matt: Right, yeah. Because remember, of course, and this is Criminal Defense 101, I'm sure that our audience knows this and you certainly do. It's not your job to tell the jury what happened. You're the defense. Your job is to poke as many holes into the prosecution and show that they didn't meet their burden of proving your case beyond a reasonable doubt. But they went in hard. They came in with a big swing and said, not only did Karen Reid not do it, but here's who did it.

0:31:08 Thomas: Like they actually named the person or just saying that family.

0:31:10 Matt: They're saying that there were people in that house that know what happened. We can't tell you exactly what the conspiracy was or how it happened or how he died, but she didn't do it. And now they're framing her because she's an outsider because she is from Taunton and she's not a cop and they have all the resources to frame her that they want. And they're covering up for whatever did happen. And there's a number of different theories, which I won't get into about exactly what combination of people might've done it. But again, remember he did have two black eyes and there's other injuries that aren't necessarily consistent with getting hit by a car.

0:31:37 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, how long does a black eye take to even, like if does that, do you get black eyes if whatever injury that caused them is part of what killed you? I don't even know the medical science behind that.

0:31:45 Matt: I would think, but I don't know.

0:31:47 Thomas: Yeah I don't know.

0:31:47 Matt: I don't want to speculate on forensics.

0:31:48 Thomas: If the black eye is like a response, usually a black eye when you get punched takes until like the next day to have it. So I don't know. That's weird.

0:31:54 Matt: I haven't seen much about where that might have come from, except obviously some kind of a fight. And remember, these were all friends of his, allegedly, in this house, and these are not people. There's no known issues. Now, there was another person involved here named Brian Higgins, who Karen Reid might have been interested in and acknowledged that there were some flirtatious texts going. There might be some other stories about what happened or motives or other things like that. But at the end of the day, you're talking about the defense fully committing to an alternate theory of what happened versus just coming in and saying this case was so poorly investigated. I mean, just start with the red solo cups, go to Michael Proctor texting horrible things about her. And again, I'm not even telling you about the most horrible things he said and just everything else from there. And also just the fact that you've got a connected law enforcement family and maybe there's something else going on, but I don't know. But instead, they just go straight for she was framed and that's what happened.

0:32:42 Thomas: Straight for the juggler.

0:32:43 Matt: Yep. And that is a bold strategy. That is a, I don'T remember ever hearing a case like this done that way, defended that way. And it's the kind of thing that's going to work or it doesn't. So that's why I think the jury was having a lot of trouble at the end. Now, at least one juror, and I think two at this point, have come out and said that on count one, which was the murder, second degree murder, and on count three, which is leaving the scene, that the jury of six men and six women were fully prepared to acquit, that they actually were ready to go, but that they were deadlocked on manslaughter, which is, I think, the only thing that they really could prove, potentially, maybe. We'll get there. So because of that, a juror contacts the defense the next day after there was a mistrial declared after that note, the judge did not inquire any further and found a complete mistrial on all three charges. But a juror contacted defense the next day and reported that they'd basically been ready to acquit, as I said, on the two of these charges. So this raised a really interesting legal issue about finding out a post-trial account, as the Supreme Judicial Court would later say, post-trial account of jurors' private deliberations that's inconsistent with public communications in court. Does that render the declaration of a mistrial improper or constitute an acquittal where the jury did not announce a

0:33:47 Matt: Recorded verdict? The defense is trying to argue you that the judge had an inquiry responsibility here to look into a little further about,

0:33:52 Thomas: To say, okay. So is the thinking that at first it was like the notes said we're deadlocked, hopeless, can't do it. But now the thinking is, well, wait, they might've just been deadlocked on one count, but not on the others.

0:34:03 Matt: And that she doesn't have a legal responsibility necessarily to inquire about how you feel about each one of the charges

0:34:07 Thomas: The judge doesn't. Who's she? The judge.

0:34:07 Matt: When they come back with this. And they didn't say in the note, right, yes, the judge, Beverly Kudan. And the jurors didn't stay. They just said we're in an impasse. They didn't state which charges.

0:34:13 Thomas: Okay, huh? Is that an outcome that can happen where you've got three counts and the jury's like, well, guilty here, can't come to a decision here or something like is that can you finish a trial that way or what happens when that's the case?

0:34:25 Matt: Potentially, you could still have not guilty and then an MS trial on one count where they're just unable. Potitionally, that could happen. But yeah.

0:34:30 Thomas: But big difference between that and just a mistrial completely. Right.

0:34:34 Matt: And I think the defense could have asked the judge to inquirer a little farther. I'm not sure why they didn'T do that. But they've reached the point where they'RE saying to continue to deliberate would be futile. And I remember talking to Liz about this, about the New York speech that they give when they're about to deadlock and about like, come on, just try, can you get a little further?

0:34:48 Thomas: And Alan charge.

0:34:49 Matt: She gave a speech similar to that. Yeah, it's a Tui Rodriguez charge here in Massachusetts, but same idea. So that became the basis for a very interesting appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The defense was represented by Marty Weinberg, who's a Boston civil rights legend and really interesting legal issue. It's something I was actually thinking about just doing a whole episode on that at some point about the arguments, because it's just not something I'd had argued before. But at the end of the day, the SJC found that this was not improper and that it was an appropriate mistrial.

0:35:16 Matt: And the First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld that. They're actually taking this to the Supreme Court, even though we're getting started with trial now, but I doubt that's going to go anywhere. So that's where we land right now. As of the week that we're recording this, we're still a few days into jury selection. I think I saw that maybe 10 jurors at this point have been seated. So it's going take a little longer because you're talking about a jury pool that is coming from Norfolk County, where this has been nothing but anything that anybody's talking about. I mean, I can't imagine you're going to find somebody in Norfolk County who just doesn't know the name Karen Reed, but you just have to find something that doesn't have a strong opinion about her guilt or innocence and can fairly talk about the cops in Norford County. There has just been an audit that was done, an independent audit, but done by a company in Miami of the police department in this case. And they determined that from what they can tell from a very thorough outside investigation, there's no evidence of any kind of conspiracy. And this just came out a couple of days before the trial was getting going again, but they certainly did take issue with collecting evidence in red solo cups and not splitting witnesses up, that kind of thing. So there's a lot of things that they should be teaching cops to do better, including carrying evidence kits, but there's nothing to support the defense's thing. Now, Adam Lawley, the previous prosecutor in this case, has been replaced by a special prosecutor. And this is especially interesting to me. This special prosecutor is named Hank Brennan, and he's a very, very well-known defense attorney here in Massachusetts, very well-respected. And he was actually one of the defense attorneys on the Whitey Bulger case, one of most famous criminal cases here in Massachusetts in quite a while. And he's always been known as a defense guy, but he's been appointed to be the prosecutor and he's taking it very seriously. He has come hard for this. I think he's tried to learn some of the lessons from the last trial because a lot of what they did, the other mistake I think that the prosecution made throughout the first trial was constantly responding to this conspiracy thing instead of just focusing on the evidence that they had.

0:35:42 Thomas: No kidding. Yeah yeah.

0:36:53 Matt: And they really stretched it out and I think made it more confusing and also validated too much, I think, of what the defense was raising instead of just saying, here's everything that ties her to the scene, that ties to the fact that she hit him.

0:37:03 Thomas: What strikes me is like if the jury again, I'm just working on what you're telling me. I don't know anything else. If the jury is saying, well we We were going to convict on manslaughter. I mean, there's got to be something to this case then. I mean how do they – or just juries are dumb. But like I wasn't sure if there was going to be any other bombshells you're going to drop on me about evidence.

0:37:22 Thomas: So are they pretty sure that the car hit him? I mean they had the blood and all that. So that was on the like taillights, right, or something, DNA on the something?

0:37:30 Matt: Right. But the cause of death, that's a real open question. And now there were these witnesses that testified in the first trial from an organization called ARCCA, they're expert witnesses. And what the jury didn't know in the First Trial was that these expert witnesses were actually retained by the FBI to investigate this case, because there was a federal investigation of all of this. And this is something, this is the reason I really got into this case last year, was when I realized that most of the people, most ofthe players in this case had at some point been called in to testify before a federal grand jury, which we still don't know what the U .S. Attorney's Office was doing, but it does appear, overwhelmingly appears, that they're investigating corruption in this police department and in Norfolk County. And there's another extremely high -profile case, which is much worse, which was much, much worse than this, of a death of a woman named Sandra Birchmore, who was having a sexual relationship with a police officer who almost certainly murdered her when he found out that she was pregnant.

0:38:24 Matt: I don't want to talk too much more about it right now, but I will just say the evidence really points to him having killed her and possibly a cover -up. And that's something else they're investigating as well. And there was the rest of this audit. So obviously real cleanup needed at this police department all around, for sure. It doesn't help that every movie you've ever seen about Boston cops is about corrupt Boston cops, but that does seem to be a long tradition.

0:38:36 Thomas: And all of them. Well, when the shoe fits.

0:38:45 Matt: But just a wrinkle here, because these experts came in and said that this evidence was not consistent with being hit by a car and that there's really a strong reason to believe that something else is going on here. They were involved with the federal investigation, but they were also paid by the defense, and that wasn't disclosed until very recently, and the judge got very upset when she found out that they had been paid in some way by the offense, and there's a whole open question about exactly how and when and what the timing was and what they were supposed to disclose or what they weren't. The judge has some very stern words about what she called flagrant violations and pretty much deliberate misrepresentations about their relationship with these experts, but they're too important not to testify. They're going to testify again. The judge is also limiting the third -party culprit evidence they're allowed to present under the arguments they were allowed to make, because they were talking about two members of the Albert family, but they were also implicating Colin Albert, who I believe is a nephew of one of them, a younger man who wasn't necessarily there at all. So the judge is going to keep him out. And again, I'm glossing over a lot of this, but I want to give you an idea of what's coming here. So we've got a prosecution team now being led by a very experienced defense attorney who has analyzed the first trial very thoroughly. The defense team is pretty much the same, but they've added an employment lawyer named Victoria George, who this is, I've never heard of anything like this in my life. She was a juror in the first trial.

0:39:51 Thomas: What?

0:39:52 Matt: She's a lawyer who was on the jury, who is now going to be one of Karen Reid's defense attorneys, who has a special insight into all of this. Yeah, there's no rule against it. Yeah.

0:39:57 Thomas: Wow. I was going to say, I can't, I can't think of like, I, Hmm. Hmm. Yeah. Very interesting. I can think of anything where reason it would be not allowed, but it also is like, yeah, I guess it's a smart move. I don't know.

0:40:03 Matt: Just another weird little wrinkle on this whole thing.

0:40:10 Matt: Yeah it is. Yeah somebody who got the whole insight and knows what the jury was talking about the first time around. But we don't know exactly what the strategy is going to be. I think it's going to pretty similar.

0:40:16 Thomas: Now, did they bring the same counts or charges or whatever? Did they change it up?

0:40:21 Matt: Same charges. So the question was whether this was double jeopardy because there's a mistrial. And that was another issue before the SJC. They found it wasn't, and they're allowed to go forward again.

0:40:26 Thomas: Uh, well, not because of the mistrial because of the possible possible acquittals on the two. Yeah yeah.

0:40:32 Matt: Right. Because the possible acquittal, right? In connection with the mistrial, right? And about how much the jury was prepared to do or not do if they'd been asked.

0:40:35 Thomas: Just want to make sure because because it was plain plain mistrial, you can redo it. No, no problem. Right. Yeah.

0:40:40 Matt: Yeah, of course. Yeah. Sorry. Right? That's right. Yeah? To be clear, yes. This is a very unusual mistrial. It's a very usual trial. Everything about this is unusual. And this is, as far as I can remember, this is certainly the most significant retrial in Massachusetts history. I think it's one of the most significantly retrials ever. I mean, it's really, with all the attention this has gotten, and I will say too, this has divided reminded the local community and people have very strong opinions about it up here but from what I've seen down in Canton I mean people are getting into shouting matches it's you know like people aren't talking to each other like the free care and read movement has become so powerful and I mean in a way it's good because they're taking on corruption locally they are very concerned about what's been going on with the police department's gotten a lot more awareness with that but I will say that you know Turtle Boy has his own share of blame here for stirring this stuff up I think it's interesting that the reason that the world knows about this story I think those of us around here would have known the story either way but the reason it's become an international phenomenon is because there's this core committed group of people who are showing up rain, snow, and sleet to sit outside the courthouse, to do standouts on highways, to put out signs, wearing t -shirts. It's like marriages that have come out of this movement and social

0:41:42 Matt: Groups and Facebook stuff. I mean, it's just like, it is.

0:41:44 Thomas: So weird. That's everything now. It's like just wow.

0:41:47 Matt: People need connection. People need something to be part of. Yes.

0:41:49 Thomas: Yeah and they but they also need to connect over believing so and don't at me. I don't know anything about this but believing someone's innocent usually when they're not or something, you know, like something like that, you know, they all come together over that's really fascinating except

0:42:02 Matt: I've never seen a civic movement like this that has been built around the idea of someone's innocence for murder. It's a very unusual thing.

0:42:09 Thomas: One Luigi Mangione and that I

0:42:13 Matt: And we're not even saying he's innocent. Yeah.

0:42:14 Thomas: I agree with, yeah. I mean, I agree with starting a movement over him.

0:42:18 Matt: Everybody watched him do it. That's a little different.

0:42:20 Thomas: Hard disagree. He was with me at the time. He couldn't have done it, Matt. Not sure why you said that.

0:42:25 Matt: Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to snatch. I don't know if everybody's seen the video. But my take on the Karen Reid situation at this point, yeah.

0:42:32 Thomas: Yeah, you teased your take for the end. Lawyer take. Here we go.

0:42:35 Matt: And again, this is just my opinion, and I understand a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but I'm just looking at the objective view of the evidence and what I see here. I do not think it is possible that there is a conspiracy amongst the dozens and dozens of people, including first responders on the scene and everybody else that nobody would shut up and never say a single thing about the fact that they framed an innocent woman. So let's start with that. I think that's a huge stretch. I do think there's been plenty of incompetence. I Think the state's case should not be a conviction on any count because they did such a bad job of pulling this case together. And I think they shouldn't have retried her. But I think what happened is that she got drunk, she got mad, and she backed into him, whether she remembers doing it or not.

0:43:10 Thomas: Yeah. That's what I was going to say.

0:43:13 Matt: Maybe she wasn't even mad.

0:43:14 Thomas: Yeah, that's right. Everything you've said is consistent with being mad, but blackout drunk and hitting him and then forgetting. And that's why you're sending those messages or that's what you're doing. All that's, you know, know like that's possible or yeah not even realizing like when you hit someone going not that fat you know I don't know like depending on how she hit him it wouldn't be like that obvious to a drunk person that she hit someone like that you know like depends on how it happened I think there's all kinds of explanations with all I've heard about this I'm honestly surprised I thought there was going to be more about more to the evidence of of conspiracy or something based on what I'd heard but that's just because I'm absorbing a little bit here and there from the the zeitgeist from what you presented me and that's all I have to react on it's like well it seems like she probably hit the car with a car right like seems like that happened right

0:43:57 Matt: It does seem that way, but that isn't necessarily how he died either. So, right? I mean, And she didn't necessarily mean to hit him. And that's a really important question for murder.

0:44:04 Thomas: I'd really want if I wanted to have a meaningful opinion on this and I want to before anyone gets mad at me I don't I'm not suggesting that I have a meaningful opinion on this because I don't know anything about it so please don't get mad at me as though I'm saying I do I don't have a meaningful opinion on this if I want to have a meaningful opinion on it at the very least I Would I would have a lot of questions for the medical examiners or medical or I would want to of like absorb all that testimony and then also review it with somebody who's not paid by either the defense or the prosecution you know get like a medical expert to talk because like all those questions seem like vitally important like the black eyes thing the you know like precisely cause of death thing like that all seems pretty important and I just don't feel confident that right now that I know enough about how that would have gone

0:44:43 Matt: There was a very young, kind of inexperienced trooper named Joseph Paul who testified about the evidence and how it would be consistent with having been hit by a car. And they just ripped him apart. Because, I mean, it doesn't make a lot of sense. They're essentially saying these lacerations somehow are consistent with the taillight and the things that would have to happen. But it's a confusing, chaotic scene that was badly prepared. And there's a lot we may never know. So again, what I'm saying is I would acquit. I would totally acquit from everything that I've seen. No question. Yeah, absolutely. But I do think that factually, there is some reason to believe that she was blackout drunk and did hit him, whether it was intentional or not. But she shouldn't be charged with second degree murder, and she should not have been charged a second time.

0:44:44 Thomas: Down wow, huh oh sure yeah separate separate question, yeah. Yeah, yeah,

0:45:20 Matt: They should have left it where it was after this mistrial, especially after finding out that there were 12 jurors who were ready to acquit on murder and on leaving the scene, which would suggest, obviously, that she knew that she'd hit somebody if it's leaving the scene.

0:45:23 Thomas: So it's, yeah okay, so the man, I was going to ask that too, so the manslaughter is more like she didn't, wasn't even really aware, the jury is thinking like she wasn't really aware of what happened.

0:45:33 Matt: Yeah. Because it's OUI manslaughter. It's drunk driving manslaughter, basically. So she was just not necessarily acting in an intentional kind of way, just being reckless. And I I think that's appropriate based on the evidence, but I still couldn't convict based on everything I've seen here. And I do feel for her. And especially if you watch the documentary, she comes off very well, I think, at least.

0:45:52 Thomas: Is this another Adnan situation, Matt? Are we in Adnan territory? Jesus Christ, can't wait for all the emails.

0:45:57 Matt: I think the evidence is stronger than Adnan, but I will say that there are a lot of people who feel the way that...

0:46:01 Thomas: Wait, evidence is stronger than Adnan? What evidence? Which way?

0:46:06 Matt: The evidence against her, I believe, is...

0:46:08 Thomas: Evidence against her is stronger than the evidence against Adnan. Holy shit.

0:46:11 Matt: I think so. If you're talking about physical evidence, sure. There just wasn't a lot physical evidence against Adnan Syed. It was circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence gets people convicted all the time. And he also had the testimony of a co-conspirator who said that he did it. So right.

0:46:15 Thomas: It yeah okay I was the case as a as a whole yeah I yeah yeah

0:46:28 Matt: Evidence, evidence, right? I guess I shouldn't say stronger. It's very hard to relatively compare those.

0:46:31 Thomas: Yeah it's like all the stuff combined and we've gone through it and we'll go through it more but like all this stuff combined was what makes the uh Adnan guilt so certain for me it's the whole picture and I guess here it's like I see it as strongly probable from what you've told me that she hit him with her car at some point but exactly how and why and when and where and how strongly they have that I don't know

0:46:52 Matt: There's more direct evidence that she was involved in his death, I'll put it that way, than there would be for direct on the scene, no question kind of evidence. But I mean, just in terms of this as a phenomenon, and I just want to remind everybody, this is a very quick preliminary sort of preview of everything, a rundown. I'm sure I've gotten a couple of small details wrong. I's sure that I have not gone into as much of the conspiracy as a lot of people would have liked me to have I've gone into, but I'm just trying to give you the idea of what was presented at trial and the way that I see things here. But I don't know. I mean, it's a completely different kind of phenomenon. Like I said, I haven't seen anything like it where you have this kind of a social movement and this kind OF a religious fervor around someone. And I don'T think it's necessarily healthy. Yeah.

0:47:28 Thomas: It's not good. At least, I mean, parts of it I get. But here's what's not good about it. Here's where there's a lot of things. One thing that's not good about is when it's creeping into the courtroom, because I think with how much we're covering the Blake Lively thing and the Johnny Depp thing, I think there's this disturbing trend of influencing a very gullible populace online with misinformation and evidence that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny or be allowed in a trial because it's just nonsense. Influencing masses of people and then using that to then influence the courtroom is a bad thing that's just like a bad way to do justice

0:47:59 Matt: It is. It IS. And the fact is that she is an attractive white woman with money. And so that's going to get more attention. There are people who have have absolutely been framed by local cops around here, no doubt, that never got this kind of attention. But I mean, obviously they have every right to present this defense. There's a lot of weird stuff going on here. There are a lot super connected people that are on the other side of this. It's a completely legitimate defense to have presented. I just happen to think it was a mistake to swing all the way for the fences and say that it was the only explanation, but it could just be me on that one.

0:48:29 Thomas: All right so you're saying a second trial starting up like around like already now crazy

0:48:34 Matt: Jury selection's in progress. So we'll have openings within the next week or two.

0:48:35 Thomas: I'll just see how that goes yeah all right well and now I'm excited for whatever future season of gavel gavel that is geez

0:48:37 Matt: Yeah, yeah. A lot to do. And we'll Have a lot good audio from it.

0:48:44 Thomas: Yeah is that like covered like they doing Doing like a TV thing or something.

0:48:46 Matt: So they did let cameras in last time. I should mention the only person to have gone to jail over this so far is Turtle Boy, who did 60 days for saying some pretty threatening things about the DA and witnesses and other things.

0:48:58 Thomas: Wow. Turtle boy. Stick to turtle. Man, come on.

0:49:01 Matt: Yeah, but I think it's just healthy in these kinds of things to step back and remember that at the end of the day, a decent man died in probably a way that was pretty unpleasant. And there are people who loved him and cared about him. And I'm not presenting this necessarily for entertainment. I just think that as a legal matter, this is a very very interesting trial.

0:49:19 Matt: And it is also worth putting some spotlight on what the police were doing and how badly they did it.

0:49:24 Thomas: Yeah. No kidding. Please be better at your jobs. That'd be great for everybody involved in all ways. All right. Well, thanks for listening, everyone. Thanks, Matt, for that breakdown. Really curious to hear more about that at some later date. But until then, until next time, we'll see you. Thanks for listening. I'll wait for the sirens to pass.

0:49:58 Matt: All right. Canton PD is coming to get me. I said too much.

0:50:00 Thomas: Yeah. He doesn't know where he was that night. Get him. Oh, this is somebody being a turtle.