A Blizzard of Lies - Dave Wedge on the Karen Read Trial

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:02 Dave: It's not like they had this volatile horrible, relationship that came to a head and she, killed him in rage. They just had a fight and and something went horribly wrong yeah if you believe that that O'Keefe was killed by someone else um have to believe that he he dropped his phone when then he went inside the house killed killed and then whoever killed killed him dragged him back back outside outside in a blizzard drunk in the dark and and placed him on top of his phone that he dropped earlier so

0:00:41 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1296. I'm Thomas Smith, and in a moment, I'll be joined by Matt and a special guest. It's a Monday interview. This month's book club book is Blizzard of Lies. It is by Dave Wedge, and Dave was kind enough to come on the show and speak to us about it. This is, of course, about the Karen Reed trial. Like me, you kind of remember it. But also could use a refresher. I took a little bit into the conversation. Before I could get Matt and Dave to kind of step back and reset for us a little bit. So I'll just kind of remind you. This was the one where Karen Reed. The cops were involved. She was drunk. They were all probably drunk. And her story was she dropped him off never saw him again uh story or the most likely story in their view was that she dropped him off uh again late at night drinking uh in a blizzard by the way and then didn't see and just backed over him or something and uh you remember it was a big trial uh some reason she really became kind of famous and talked about it a bit but there's a lot that has come out since then which is really interesting um I civil trials a lot like with oj where there wasn't a conviction criminally, but in the civil trials, a lot more has come out. Journalist and author Dave Wedge has written a book about it. Yeah, and Turtle Boy. Remember Turtle Boy? Times. Right, well, enough of this. Excited to get on over to the interview. Take that usual first break, which you can avoid at patreon .com slash law, support the show, get a lot off of movies, and skip those ads. All right, I'll be on with Matt and Dave Wedge after this.

0:02:21 Matt: Our guest today is Dave Wedge, a journalist who's written about any number of Boston issues, but most recently the Karen Reid trial, which we've covered ourselves, and the book Blizzard of Lies, which is this month's OA Book Club selection. Dave, we're really glad to have you. Can you tell us a little bit about how you came to this story and why you wrote this book?

0:02:38 Dave: Thanks for having me, guys. Appreciate it. I was a reporter at the Boston Herald for 14 years and a newspaper journalist for over 20 years. And my book was about the Boston Marathon bombings. My book became the movie Patriot's Day, starring Mark Wahlberg. Happened, and I started writing books kind of full time and left the Herald, got out of the daily news business. So since then, I've written eight books. This is my eighth book. I guess I've kind of built up a reputation here in Boston of kind of being one of the true crime guys up here. So when this incident happened in 2022, January, I started getting calls kind of right away. People like, hey, you got to look at this thing. It's crazy. Like, you should do a book on this and all that. And I really wasn't thinking about it originally because it seemed to just be, you know a horrible tragedy where the original story was you know john o 'keefe and karen reed had you she he got out of the car and she hit him and seemed like maybe an accident or something like that but as time went on we obviously learned that you know there was a little bit more to it and then when they charged with second degree murder um that's when I kind of really started to look at the case harder I started going to some of the court proceedings and um I had just finished another book about the boxer or marvelous marvin haggler and uh when I was finished with that it was shortly before the first trial so I covered that first trial and then the second trial and dann wrote the book so but it kind of came to me through a lot of different people that I trust in the news business and and uh world of of storytelling and and books and journalism that I come from

0:04:09 Matt: That's the most interesting thing of all of this. And honestly, looking back, reading this book, I remember how unique and interesting the story is. And we are more of a true law podcast and true crime. We really want to focus on the legal aspects here. But thing to me is the way that the contrast between... This book is journalism. You're just doing a straight -up account. You've talked to as many people as you can. I can tell. Worked from all the primary sources. You are taking a fairly objective look at this trial. A lot of what you're talking about and a lot of it has surrounded this trial has been independent media, has been not just independent, but social media, the sort of conspiracy thinking that's come around that. What's your take on, because I know it's a big part of the book here, but about the contrast between how independent media covered this versus traditional media and what it means for this?

0:04:50 Dave: Media is one thing but you and bloggers and law and talking heads, that's a whole different thing. They're not journalists. They're out there gathering the facts and covering these things in a traditional way. Now, that said, in this case, certainly there was some incredible work done by many folks, most notably Turtle Boy, you know, blew the lid off the case by getting some exclusive information that he broke about Karen Reid's defense. Defense, it's turned out that, you know, that was all part of a, uh, you by the defense to use him to get that information out there and taint the jury pool and, know, and impact the, was going on in the courtroom, which, is difficult, you know, is that at least that's the allegation that's going on in the civil suits right now, you sure.

0:05:32 Matt: For everybody, so we can back up, Aidan Kearney, better known as Turtle Boy. And I really do appreciate that all the way through the book, you just call him Turtle Boy, because that's what he calls himself. Would this story exist? Would Karen Reid be Karen Reid? Or would this trial have existed this way without Aidan

0:05:45 Dave: Don't think so. I think that he really took it to the next level. You know, he's got a pretty big following up here in new England. And now, obviously, globally, he's got, you know, fans all over the world now because of this case. Do think that the case would have risen to a higher level than it was at in 2022, 2023. Once that evidence was put on, well, the accusations were put in by Karen Reid's defense. And once she affirmed that as her defense, I think that the case would have elevated through the traditional media. But the way it came out through Turtle Boy kind of breaking it as news that this other thing happened, that kind of changed the trajectory of the coverage. And then now the traditional media was chasing him and trying to verify the accusations that he was making. So answer to your question is I think because of the way It unfolded, he elevated the attention on the case, certainly, and brought it to the level it was. And frankly, had he not done that, I don't know if some of this stuff would have really caught on. It would have just landed differently, and I don't know that Karen Reid would be free today if he hadn't have built this sort of grassroots movement around her.

0:06:51 Matt: Yeah that's my take too and I think you know when you're talking about this and I just want to back up because I know that most people listening to this probably have some familiarity with the case but you were two trials of Karen Reed and there were different conspiracy theories presented two like distinct conspiracy theories, presented by the defense and the first one it was very much the turtle boy conspiracy theory of and just remind everybody of course uh O 'Keefe who we'll talk about in a minute uh died outside uh home at 34. Fairview and Canton, where a number of prominent people connected to the police lived. And so the conspiracy theory was that Karen was being blamed for this, that there were cops that were somehow in on this or covering for it. And Turtle Boy, of course, being somebody who's constantly covered, even though he's very pro -police for the most part, he's always been on top of police corruption and other things. And I know you're not taking a position on this, but what is the defense's most concise version of this theory?

0:07:39 Dave: So I lay it out in the book, kind of the two scenarios that played out during the trial. Scenario one is that John O 'Keefe and Karen Reid leave a bar, and they get to the house for an after -party. Karen doesn't want to go in. Gets out. They have some sort of argument or dispute and gets out of the car she spED backwards hits him he falls hits his head and dies and she goes home and that's scenario one scenario two is same thing they leave the bar they go to this after party he gets out Of the car, she never sees him again is what she claims. He goes into the house or near the house are in the garage somewhere. It was never established. Know where exactly he He went. It really a theory that he went somewhere in the house and was attacked, beaten up and bitten by the family dog, Chloe. Those were the two scenarios that out played in court. But the only one that was litigated was the prosecution's version, because the other one was just her defense. So they don't have to prove that. They just had to plant the seed of doubt with the jurors. And they did that.

0:08:35 Matt: Still took that usual step of opening with Dave Iannotti standing up and saying, Karen Reid was framed. That's a very bold statement.

0:08:41 Dave: Used a very a very affirmative defense on her that, you you know, she's they got the wrong person that she was framed. In fact, in the first trial, they even implicated three people. They implicated Brian Albert, who is a Boston police officer that lived at the house. Brian Higgins, a federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who was at the House partying, friend of Brian Albert's and Brian Albert nephew, Colin Albert, was 18 years old and was there partying with a bunch of kids. In the second trial, they did not allow the defense to point the finger at Colin Albert, but they did allow them to pointed at the two Bryans thank

0:09:14 Matt: We'll talk about the second trial in a minute, but that was a much more subdued kind of take, I think, on the conspiracy. But overall, I really want to say the thing I appreciated the most about your book, and I really think it's, so far, it's the account of this trial. I really is. No, because I've seen a lot of, honestly, pretty bad coverage of all of this, and

0:09:26 Dave: I appreciate that thank you Matt well

0:09:32 Thomas: Gonna say it, that's a lot coming from Matt. He's consumed a lot on this show.

0:09:37 Matt: I live in Boston. It's all anybody was talking about for months, and my wife's a prosecutor, so this is what happens. Really appreciated the focus on John O 'Keefe and his family and the effect that all of this had on them. And I'd love if you could share a little bit about what you know. I know you've talked to a lot of his colleagues and his

0:10:00 Dave: Part of why I wrote the book the way I did Matt because I think that he was lost in all the um you know tabloid and circus nonsense that you know became the Karen Reid case and the family always said why isn't it the John O 'Keefe case he's the one that lost his life became all about Karen Reid and Karen Reid was framed and if this can happen to her what's going to happen to you lady down the street or the, you know, the single mom and, and, Mattapan, you know, that the justice system is broken and they're, you know, persecuting an innocent woman. So it became all about that. And John O 'Keefe and his life was kind of forgotten and all that. So when I was writing this book, you know, again, this is my eighth book and I was a journalist for 20 years. So I've always tried to keep the victims of all the stories that I write in mind and be sensitive to what happened to them. And cause their families are the ones that were impacted the most, no matter what anybody else wants to think. Here on the 25th anniversary of 9 -11 today. And, you Know, when I covered that, I covered about the people who I don't mean to compare this to that, but it's always about the person who is impacted the most and that person's person that lost their life here being John O 'Keefe. So I did speak with his family a lot. I spoke with some of his fellow police officers, people that knew him. Got a good good amount of time with what with an old girlfriend that really no one had heard from before who uh had some really beautiful stories about him some heroic things he did one of them was they were going on a cross -country trip to visit her family out in wisconsin and they're driving down the highway in an rv with the two children that john had become the guardian of after his sister and her husband died um know john took these two kids in they were little kids at the time um driving down the highway and there was a horrible accident a car had flipped over in the median and john pulled over and just sprung into action uh he's in flip flops and shorts and he ran across the median that he rescued a woman from the car that was on its side she couldn't get out she was trapped and there's a beautiful photo of that moment in the book and it's just kind of a snapshot of the kind of guy he was you know he wasn't superman he wasn' perfect but he was kind of just a good like guy next door that's a cop that you something went down, you could rely on him to help. Know that's kind of who he was.

0:12:01 Thomas: Remind me, sorry, I want to take us back because you guys are so into this thing and I like the probably most of the listeners and I'm kind of remembering it now that we talk about and I think a lot of listeners will be in the same position so my vague memory was that like a lot the problem was just how badly it was handled an investigation and all that but I did want to ask on the topic that you were on just now it the case like no matter what the theory was the guy was a victim right like was there any conspiracy theory that involved him being some sort of villain or anything

0:12:33 Dave: Accusations of him being abusive or anything like that. And you know I do write a lot about Karen and John's relationship in the book and you there was not accusations that he was ever mean to her or hurt her in any way. There was a lot of drinking with them and there was some fighting. But again I lay it all out in the book that I found I haven't heard anyone say anything really bad about him but there were some people that had some bad things to say about karen reed that she was volatile she was jealous um she was not completely happy in the relationship he was not happy in relationship there at the end and that was a big source of stress leading up to that um I write about in the books of infamous trip that they took to aruba around on new year's eve um before this happened in 2021 um went to aruba with a bunch of other couples and john was out late drinking one night and karen had gone back to the room to be with the kids she got mad because he wasn't home at like two three in the morning or whatever and goes down to the lobby and he's hanging out with like these two girls that were like old friends of his and she accused him of trying to hook up with them and there was this big blowout and karen has to apologize afterwards to all these people so that said you know the the family family that I interviewed for the book, they all really liked Karen and they thought that she was good for John. Um, they spent a lot of time with her. She was around for holidays. She she helped him a lot with the kids. She Was like that kind of blended family kind of step -mom sort of figure and the kids liked her. It's And, not like they had this horrible, volatile relationship that came to a head and she, she killed him in rage. They just had a fight and something went horribly wrong yeah

0:14:00 Matt: And I want to emphasize again that he had had taken in, as you said, these two young children after his sister tragically died of cancer, and then her husband died pretty soon after that, if I recall. And just that alone, I think, says a lot about who John O 'Keefe was, even apart from any other stories. I think that's just such an indicator. Was just really appalled because I hadn't followed this part of it, and think that really goes to the media's failures here. I did not realize the extent to which the O' Keefe family was getting threats and harassment and getting Paul O 'Keefe getting all these messages, the brother, in the course of all of this. I mean, that really, I think that the reason I really wanted to talk about this book is because we're seeing this kind of conspiracy thinking. And I recently heard it called forensic fandom, right? The idea that you get to play along at home and this is a trial that you can participate in.

0:14:43 Matt: And as you said in the book, anybody with a social media account at this point could be a journalist and have their Which is fine with a lot of stories, but when you're talking about real lives and real people, I was just appalled at what this family had been through already with the death of their sister and then having to endure the way that he was treated and the way they were treated.

0:15:01 Dave: Well don't mean to be a broken record here and talk like the old guy at the party but I mean this is not my first rodeo and and you know I've I've always been look I worked at the boston herald where the internet and you knows started there in 1999 when we would put something on the front page it was a big deal and it was massive impact and the tv would follow it and people People would be talking about it and people would see it. So I always had to make sure, A, that it was correct and B, that I was being sensitive to the victims. And you weren't successful and, you know, you would hurt the victim's families through that. But it was always accidental. It was never on purpose. And we talk a lot in, you Know, in the legal circle, certainly in the victim witness advocates, those sort of people. We don't want to see victims re -victimized you know and as a journalist I never wanted to be accused of re -vitimizing a victim and it does happen sometimes just by telling the story of what happened to their loved one in this case I was shocked myself I knew some of it was going on because I wanted it while I was doing the research but as I really dug in and interviewed the family and talked to people the level of depravity among some keyboard warriors is is unconscionable and was shocking. Boy himself and I went on a show recently and, you know, a disgrace to say the things that he said about about O 'Keefe. You know. He called her worst,

0:16:18 Dave: Most vile names you can call people. And he defends that, saying that, you they don't really want justice. They're in on this conspiracy and they're more concerned with covering it up. They don't really want the truth. And he's fighting for the truth so he takes that then to the next level by thinking it's okay to put them down and call them names and his followers followed along you disgusting and and it's it's part of the lawsuits that's going on and I lay it out in the book and you know it's the language is not for the faint of heart you

0:16:46 Matt: To the point that you've got people talking this way about Kaylee, a child who's testifying about the death her adopted father that she loved. I mean, that really broke me when I read it. I had no idea. I wasn't following the social media stuff that much.

0:16:55 Dave: Know people are accusing her of of being you know coached to on what to say like like these people you know I like that forensic fandom because Because and know, off the top, I talked about, you know, the independent journalists and the difference. And I don't mean to put people down, but like cover a story and dig out facts and post the court files and, you know, quote the lawyers and quote the people that you interview. That's great. Like traditional journalism. But to then add opinion and conjecture and try to connect the dots yourself, like you're a detective is kind of ridiculous. And it's and interfering in the process now. And we're seeing it. We saw it with Lindsay Clancy. We're we start with Karen Reed. And, you know, one of the things I've been talking about is I think what we saw with the Lindsay Clancy case is the quote unquote Karen Reed effect where, this social media noise and these grassroots movements that are coming to the courthouses is impacting what's happening in the courtroom. It's impacting jurors. Just saw a story the other day that one of the Lindsay Clancy jurors apparently was a huge Karen Reid fan. And it was in like fan groups with Karen Reid. And like, you know, the courts have a big problem here. In the old days, you could just say to the jurors, like, did you read anything about the case? Did you watch the six o 'clock news? But now everybody's got a phone. And even if you're not following the case, memes are popping up. Your friends are sending stuff and it's on social media and you can't escape it. So the courts have a big problem on how to how to find impartial jurors with these cases.

0:18:22 Matt: Yes, and that's actually really why why I wanted to to talk talk about this, because, can talk about Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan, who I already knew, and certainly anybody in the legal community in Massachusetts was familiar with as a very, very well -known defense attorney, defended Woody Bulger, among others, but was, of course, appointed by the Norfolk DA to be the special prosecutor in this case, and you can talk why, but the statement, I hadn't seen this, you quoted his statement in here, it's just on point here with what you just said. This is very unusual for a prosecutor. After a verdict, to come out and say that not only did he disagree with the verdict, but he said the campaign of intimidation and abuse that is waged, funded, and promoted in public and on social media is the antithesis of justice. That this type of conduct becomes commonplace that will threaten the integrity of our judicial system, affecting both victims and criminally accused. We cannot condone witness abuse, causing participants to worry for their own safety and that of their families. And that is exactly what you're saying. And I am very concerned, especially after seeing what people were saying about Patrick Clancy, a man who had to see his wife murder his children, being blamed as a perpetrator. I mean, this is really concerning.

0:19:23 Dave: Is. And I've never seen anything like it. And, you know, Mike, I've covered hundreds of murders in my career and countless court proceedings, you trials and things like that. I've just never seen any of it. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's like everything in society right now where we're kind of losing control of technology, you is a citizen journalist and you see someone like Turtle Boy, who is a good journalist. He of, he has journalistic instincts. And I write about that in the book where he did break some huge stories that really were meaningful. And he held some very powerful people accountable for some terrible things they did. And I support that. But to then turn it into a personality, market it, monetize it. And now you've given every single person out there with a cell phone and a podcast a playbook and a roadmap on how to do this and not everybody is responsible with that authority that they get you some people just take it and run with it and we're seeing it with the lindsey clancy thing I do think also that you know alan jackson and david and eddie have created a playboy here with the karen reed case on how to use social media and how to co -op these independent journalists to really um their case. Know, it's an interesting dynamic that's unfolding. I'm concerned about it, as you said, because I don't think that the justice system is ready for it.

0:20:39 Thomas: How How much do you get the sense that it's organic versus there's these ringleaders, you know, and I don't, maybe that's the same thing at this point, because everybody's got a microphone, but I always think like, on one hand, it's like, oh, it'S just, you KNOW, itS all these people who organically are concerned, and then you find out like, Oh, actually, there'S these kind of influencer ringleaders who, who sick people at people, people, you Know what I mean? And I, I don'T know if that'S a meaningful distinction. What do you think?

0:21:03 Dave: Mob mentality. But, you you no one can be held accountable for someone else's actions. You know, Turtle Boy can't be be held accountable for what one of his followers says or does um the difference is that he did organize rolling rallies at these witnesses homes like he invited his fans live streamed it from outside their house with a bullhorn calling them cop killers yelling at them and he organized those things so they were events to raise his own profile so said this when I went on his show like you know that's not journalism like you're not you're not a journalist when you're doing that. Like, yeah, you have the right to protest and you have the right To express your opinion, but you don't have the right to organize people and use your platform to rally people to go to a murder cases, a witness's house and call them names like I would have been fired from the Boston Herald if I did that, you know, he is facing criminal witness intimidation charges. And he kind of battled with me about that like know look it's not my job I'm not a cop I'm not a prosecutor but I wouldn't do that whether I was employed by the boston herald or I'm just a regular citizen I think it crosses a line I think you can go and ask people hard questions I think that's good journalism follow them outside of the court and ask them questions that's fine but to organize events to the sole purpose of harassing and bullying these people to know I don't know if it's illegal if it'S criminal but it'S It's definitely not a good thing to do, in my opinion. I don't see what purpose it serves.

0:22:29 Matt: That is the irony that that the the only person to do time in this case was Turtle Boy.

0:22:34 Dave: Is. It is, oneof the things that we talked about is, you prosecutors were obviously very upset with him and they were aggressive in their prosecution of him. They went to his house and they searched his house. They tossed his house. And, know, he explained to me they went through his son's draws and all that. So I think that's overly aggressive as well. So I don't support these like, you know, Gestapo tactics on people that speak out. But at the same time, what I said before, when you have a platform, you have to use it responsibly, you forget him for a minute, like a lot of these people have built huge followings off of this case. And now the Lindsay Clancy case, and they're these self -anointed sort of experts on on crime and they went from you followers to in cases in some cases hundreds of thousands what you are you going to do with that new audience how are you gonna use that responsibly that's the question I

0:23:22 Matt: And the only way to keep it is to to continue continue to talk about conspiracy theories about, you know, sort of beyond what the media is talking about. And your incentive as a journalist is to get the story right. And their incentive is to make hundreds of thousands of dollars on YouTube, potentially. I don't know. Do you have any idea how much Turtle Boy might have made out of all of this?

0:23:36 Dave: I have no idea but I mean his you know his following went from you knows tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand you know I'm not sure what metrics I be honest with you I don'T really I DON'T watch his content I know what he's about I used to read his blog back when I was at the herald because he always came across some interesting stories and it's fun reading and stuff but you know I do think that there's an element with him and a lot of these folks that are now doing it there's other ones too and know there's a woman boozy beauty and there's another one you mama know llama and all these crazy names and they're all like they're monetizing this stuff that you know know I don't know how much money they're making but it is certainly growing their platforms and growing their brand and good for them that's great awesome do it but just do it responsibly and most of all have a heart you know have a hard towards these victims because going on your podcast or your social media channel and berating the families uh and the loved ones and friends of murder victims is I there's no you couldn't pay me enough to do that so I don't know why they're doing it

0:24:34 Matt: And I mean, that is another irony I I think think here is that, this is just my take, I'm interested to see what you think, but, you know, the first trial they lean into the conspiracy full on and they say that, you, know, there's something going on in that house and they knew what happened and they're not going to tell us, but you know we know that Karen Rhee didn't do it. And the second trial I think they appropriately focused on just how bad the investigation is, which is kind of where I'd like to turn here, but I think by kind of backing off from the social media, not interacting as much with the fans that way, it's crazy to say fans even, but that's what it was, I mean I think that is how she ended up.

0:25:06 Dave: My wife and I uh talk about this my wife was a reporter at the boston herald for 20 years and um know we're seeing the stuff with the lindsey clancy case but it's kind of like chicago you know playing out in real life you these the female people accused of murder that are becoming celebrities you know you know and it goes back in time through lizzie borden and pamela smart and casey anthony you you know, and these are the next ones that are here. And, you know there is a fascination with females who are charged with murder or commit murder. So that's a part of it, but you're right with regards to the two trials. I you know, all the social media nonsense and theatrics aside Alan Jackson and David Yannetti did a wonderful job during the second trial of breaking down the prosecution's case and poking holes in it and raising significant significant reasonable doubt, not just a little, but significant. And we can talk all day about the, things you that the prosecution failed at, you Know, most of all, on the medical evidence side, you Know, they didn't have any medical evidence that John O 'Keefe was hit by a car, you Know, They didn't get that in front of the jury, they Didn't have a good explanation or anyone to really explain what those wounds were on His arm that looked like dog bites in defense did have a very very credible experts saying these are absolutely dog bites and they had nothing to counter that. They You kind of, you know, chipped away at it on cross examination, but they should have had an accident reconstructionist, a medical expert, a doctor, someone saying, yeah, I've seen injuries like this all the time. They're called friction tears and you got to put that in front of the jury and they never did.

0:26:37 Matt: That's just the the issues with the the trial. The investigation, of course, is a whole other thing.

0:26:42 Dave: Yeah. That thing was a mess. And you KNOW, they highlighted such horrendous police misconduct surrounding the officers involved that it muddied the waters even more horrible

0:26:50 Matt: Sure, it should have. I mean, it's almost unforgivable with the combination of things here. And I guess we should introduce Michael Proctor as a character here, obviously the lead investigator who, when we covered this, we played some of him reading his own texts, which are just unconscionably, intentionally bad. And that's even what we knew at the time. Of course, you mentioned at the very end that there's some stuff that's come out since then in the civil suits that are far beyond, like things I couldn't read on this show, like I would not want to read out loud, like even with censored, I mean they're so bad. Time, the family's saying, well, all they had on him was these texts about the Karen Reid case, which were already enough that he shouldn't have. Thing is, I think that if there had been a straight investigation, this is just theory, I don't know. Again, I'd love to know what you think, but just kind of in reviewing all this again, I feel like if they had had a regular lead investigator that had not done all of this, and if they maybe hadn't collected blood and plastic cello caps, they could have actually been able to present him at the second trial. But because of how badly it went for him at the first trial, they had to just kind of have this boogeyman that the defense got to use because Hank Brennan knew better than to call him again because they'd have to go through all this, right?

0:27:48 Matt: So, I mean, do you think it is possible she could have gotten convicted if he was a regular investigator?

0:27:48 Dave: Yeah drawn the comparison to the oj case and I know people don't like that but but it is a it is fair comparison where you know oj simpson got off because the gloves didn't fit but also because mark firman was a racist in this case you have you know no medical evidence that john John O 'Keefe was hit by a car and you have a misogynist police investigator. So I think when those text messages landed in Alan Jackson and David Yannetti's inbox, it was a gift from God for them that just added that cloud of corruption to the case that, you helped stoke the flames and turn the jury. And, you look, juries generally follow the law, but they are people, they're humans, and they they do get emotional. Emotional there's no way a juror can hear those texts and they were read into the record in both in the first trial they were red by proctor himself and the second they were led by one of the guys who received them and I felt bad for that guy having to read that trash but the jurors can't unhear that you know they can't on here the lead investigator investigating this woman for homicide making sexual innuendos about her commenting on her body and her you know saying saying she should commit suicide. They can't unhear that. So when you add that to the sloppiness of the investigation, the lack of collecting video, you the red solo cops, which I have an opinion on, but all that stuff, you, no wonder the juries were like, this is a circus. This is ridiculous. Like she's innocent. Let's get out of here.

0:29:15 Matt: Yeah. So much of it.

0:29:16 Thomas: At least reasonable doubt, you

0:29:18 Dave: Percent reasonable doubt. I mean, I've, I'm asked all the time, what do you think happened? You know, what do you think? And my answer is, the jury got it right. They had plenty of reasonable doubt. They listened to all the testimony, and you you did not have enough to convict her of second -degree murder behind a reasonable doubt that said, you there's no proof that John O 'Keefe ever went in that house either. So the conspiracy theory was not proven either. So really left where we are, where I end the book with, let's see what happens. You know know maybe we get some answers out of the civil case but we certainly don't have any justice right now there will be some movies there'll be there's already one I guess and there's a couple more I know elizabeth banks is supposedly developing something and I know ben and matt are working on something as well I know it's got that I tanya sort of feel to it you these creepy you know characters and these you higgins and all this you know text text messages, Proctor, all that. But one quick thing, Matt, on the Red Solo Cup, something that I've thought about

0:29:49 Matt: We'll certainly get some movies, if nothing else. I mean that's, as you pointed out, so many deals. Yeah,

0:30:14 Dave: Since

0:30:14 Thomas: Do you want to just refresh? Yeah, sorry. Do you wanna just refresh everybody?

0:30:17 Dave: John O 'Keefe's body in a blizzard. His body's taken away to the hospital, and they never really secured the crime scene. They didn't put up the yellow tape. It was a very hasty, sloppy investigation. And one thing I've talked about with this is, you know, Now, you have to remember, hindsight's 20 -20. At the time, they thought this was just a simple hit and run. Karen Reed's crying. She's saying, I hit him. She's drunk. Her car taillight's broken, and she goes off to the hospital, and she's going to be charged. They're not thinking of this as a whodunit like someone else was involved, so they were sloppy. If they could do it over again, you can bet they would. They would have done things very differently, but in that moment, everything they did is kind of standard operating procedure, and what What I've learned since is like picking – so they picked up blood in red solo cups that was in the snow, the Canton police officers. And what I've thought about since then is like, so what? What did they need that blood for? Was not evidence. John O 'Keefe's dead. Guess they could have tested it to see if there was someone else's DNA in it and that sort of thing. But if there were other DNA in the blood, believe me, we would know about it, whether it was collected in a solo cup or vial or anything else. And then you know there was no other dna but

0:31:25 Matt: Take your point.

0:31:26 Dave: Was dna on john o 'keefe sneakers though but that's not surprising either he had been a million places you

0:31:31 Matt: Of course. Of course. It just doesn't sound great when you're talking about collecting blood in silo cups and stop -and -shot bags.

0:31:34 Dave: Sounds bad again it's optically terrible couple that with the horrible comments by proctor and you know add some you defense theatrics and there

0:31:42 Matt: Got a case. Yeah the second conspiracy theory I think was much more plausible because it sounds a lot more like something that would happen, which is that maybe the law enforcement went a little over the top in trying to plant some evidence to frame a guilty person, basically to somebody that they assumed had done it. And maybe they sprinkle some taillight pieces around the yard. Maybe they mess with the car in the sally port, right? I don't know. I'm not saying those things happen, but those are things the defense was able to raise because of the evidence in front of them, right, because the investigation was so bad. And I think that was a much more effective conspiracy if you're going to present one, right.

0:32:15 Dave: Absolutely and and again though you know one one thing I've said about this case in the beginning the reason part of the reason I wrote the book was because because there were so many unexplained things that happened out Judge Canone did not do a good job in the pretrial proceedings of closing some of these gaps like We haven't even talked about the Google search, you know, things like that. Like, where's the dog? Still don't have a conclusion to any of it. It was it became a battle of the experts. And you're right. You know the Sally Port video. It was in for you. So for you listeners that don't know, There was a video in Karen Reed's car after John O 'Keefe was found and brought to the hospital and Karen Reed was in custody. Her vehicle was brought back to the Canton Police Department and Brian Higgins and another officer are in there looking at the taillight and the video is inverted so you can't really see what they're doing. They were in there supposedly for an inordinately long amount of time the theory that's been floated by the defense is that perhaps they took pieces of the taillight they broke it there and they brought them back to canton and sprinkled them in the lawn afterwards so that happened or not we'll probably never know but the video doesn't look good and it gave the jury more reasonable doubt it

0:33:23 Matt: It is a little strange that all all those pieces were found, what, two, three days later, not the day of?

0:33:27 Dave: Is and it isn't I was a blizzard I mean we got 20 inches of snow. It wasn't it was a pretty big blizzard, you of it looked good. But then, you know, they did find a lot of pieces of the taillight embedded in his sweatshirt as well, you theorists will say, yeah. But there was no blood on him, no DNA, all that stuff. There's a lot of things that don't add up in this case.

0:33:30 Matt: That's right. I remember it.

0:33:46 Thomas: What are some of the other things you said we don't have answers to? You us a little bit. About a dog.

0:33:51 Dave: Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, there was the claim is that, you O 'Keefe had pretty significant significant uh and scrapes on one of his arms the prosecution says that's from the taillight being broken and ripping his skin as the car sped backwards and struck him um the defense knew there were dog bites and brian albert who lived at the house had a german shepherd that had been vicious and bitten people before the dog um you know the dog or got rid of them they rehomed them is the word that's been Well, that's what the conspiracy theorists will say, that Khloe did it. Learned since is that, and depends on who you believe, but the dog, I believe, is in Vermont and is alive and well. And the defense knew exactly where it was the entire time. And they decided to never test the dog. So they could have done that if they wanted. They never did. But what I'm saying is Judge Canone, I think, should have ordered that. She should have had some sort of inquest. And Matt, you're a lawyer, so you tell me if I'm out of line here, but I think that's a pretty big piece of it. And the other one is the Google search where, you McCabe, one of the witnesses in the House, Googled at some point how long to die in the snow, and she misspelled how as H -O -S, so it's how long it's long to Die in the Snow. It's become a slogan for the conspiracy theorists. Who believe the conspiracy will say that it search was made at 2:27 a.m. in the morning four hours before John O'Keefe's body was found so if that's true obviously she knew he was dead how did she know he's dead because something must have happened in the house but experts on the other side for the prosecution say no that was a mistake in the data the search was actually made at 6:04 a.m. after the body was found, whatever time it was 6:33 or something when

0:34:21 Thomas: The dog did this whole thing. Sorry, I'm just kidding.

0:35:30 Matt: With Karen Reid present.

0:35:31 Dave: With karen reed present so you let that just go to the trial and let that be something that they battle out with the experts like can't you get a ruling on that from these know from one of these companies like have a have a judicial inquest and have an official finding of when that search was made instead it became this battle of experts their credibility is ripped apart and I think that was Judge Canone strategy was you is a matter of evidence that should be part of the trial. My opinion, again, I'm not a lawyer, I am not a judge, but that's a mistake because you should get an answer to that. Think there was a lot of things in this case that have been left open -ended like that.

0:36:07 Thomas: Stopping there because we are a lost show. I mean, isn't it normal for the judge to say it's kind of up to the two sides to prove what happened? Or are there things...

0:36:16 Dave: Is, but I think that in the pre -trial proceedings that I was in, And, you it was just kind of floated out there and the judge was like, OK. And example, they said, you there was Know, a video from the public library that films all the cars going by near the house. Four minutes missing from that video. The four minutes that are missing are the time that Karen Reed would have been leaving the house and going back to her house after the accident. And the theory is that it would have shown whether or not her taillight was broken. And so during the pretrial proceedings, that was discussed. And the defense said, we want that missing video. Where is it? And the time, Adam Lally, told the judge and the defense, said, well, we turned over all the video that we got from the town. And Judge Kanone just said, OK. And they moved on to the next one. It was never talked about again. Again, I've since learned and most people have learned it came out at the trial that that video, the prosecution says there is no video because it's motion activated. So she never drove by at that time. That's what they say. The defense had the impression out there that someone did something nefarious, took that video and destroyed it. A pretty big deal. You know, and the judge, I feels like could have gone the extra mile there and said, we need to know what happened to that video. I want a hearing, I want to talk to the person in charge of the video from the town, I want to get that on the record on what happened, and that didn't happen.

0:37:38 Matt: A lot of that could have been sharpened up for sure before trial. There's so many questions going in that I totally agree with you about the evidence.

0:37:44 Dave: Was unusual to me, especially in such a high -profile case, that there were so many things like that that were left with no answers.

0:37:52 Thomas: Just wanted to ask Matt, I mean, is it the kind of thing where does the judge have the freedom to kind of do that if they want to or like does that work but if both sides are like okay yeah that's we're satisfied with this that's kind of it I

0:38:00 Matt: For motion practice, certainly you could narrow down with the discovery and Yeah,

0:38:07 Dave: I guess both sides were okay with battling it out, but it seems to me like the judge knowing, I think, again, looking back, hindsight's 20-20, Judge Canone probably wishes she did some things differently. But I would venture a guess to say that she could have at some point said, you know what, guys, this is a material fact that we need to get an answer to. I'd like to have a hearing on this matter.

0:38:27 Matt: And what this is.

0:38:28 Dave: Had a purview to do that, isn't she, Matt?

0:38:30 Matt: I think there certainly were plenty of places where that could have been narrowed down in discovery and in pretrial. And there were two trials, so they really had the chance to get it right the second time. Do want to ask, as somebody who's a veteran reporter, and as you said, I since 1999, you've been covering murder trials. You've been spending a lot of time around law enforcement, getting a sense of how things are done in Massachusetts. The level of, I guess I'm going to say, both negligence and possible misconduct in this case surprise you?

0:38:54 Dave: It does. Mean, I certainly have covered cases and trials over the years where there were mistakes or there was incompetence or was a couple of cases I can think of in Boston where there was deliberate or planting of evidence to frame people that were perhaps guilty. You know, I'm aware of cases like that, which is obviously a horrible thing to do. And it in goes direct contrast to the spirit of the Constitution. But stupid Michael Proctor and his friends were technically. Know, know I know cops are people and you know sometimes the locker room boys will be boys and they say things and they you humor like that stuff exists we had the herald newsroom you know we said things that if there was a recorder in there people would not believe that we said them but sometimes in those situations when you're dealing with death you know gallows humor gets you through doesn't make it okay but you can't be insensitive to people and you certainly don't put in a text message so I was shocked at the things they were texting And I was also shocked at, the sloppiness, uh, like the things we're talking about, you know, the videos, they, one thing that will always bother me about this case is that they did not go around that neighborhood and gather every, every ring camera and every video from the neighborhood, because I know from covering lots of cases, what comes to mind is the Boston marathon bombings. They tracked those kids from the bombing down to UMass Dartmouth, back to Watertown. They had them on video everywhere they went. The whole thing was, you know, like watching a movie. So I would only imagine that there's tons of video somewhere that should have been collected and it wasn't. So, I don't understand why that didn't happen.

0:40:25 Matt: Yeah, I guess my other question about the police and reading this book especially is I guess I was aware that cops like to drink, but cops really like to drank. That was something I really learned from this book.

0:40:34 Thomas: Think

0:40:37 Dave: Yeah, this was next level, you know, and I thought the same thing and I've said in other interviews that I think, you a lot of tips in this case, but one of them is that, you John O 'Keefe and Karen Reid weren't drinking that night, John O .Keeffe would would be alive you know and that's a fact no matter what you think happened but cops at the house Brian Albert and Brian Higgins were drinking at a funeral in new york that morning and they continued to drink on the road back to boston then they went to a bar and then they Went to another bar and they went To the after party so they were drinking for you know 12 14 hours straight and then brian Higgins testified that after he left the after -party he went home and drank more so the level of drinking and karen reed I mean she uh on video I lay it out in the book having nine drinks and she was some of those she was putting shots in so they were doubles you she's 100 pounds I

0:41:20 Matt: The overall picture of the way that the cops were drinking was pretty shocking to me, for

0:41:25 Dave: There was some testimony from one of the police officers that was kevin albert was out drinking with um of the other cops and he had forgotten his gun he thought he forgot his gun and his badge and the cruiser and they were kind of like joking about it in text so I think this case definitely did give um stark look into the behavior of these police officers and it raised the question of you know what are these cops doing out there are they taking you know their job responsibly and it certainly was not a shining moment for the police in Massachusetts.

0:41:58 Matt: Timing of this, we're talking about a week after Lindsay Clancy had a mistrial. And as we were talking about right up front, that had a lot to do, I think, with the coverage and with the way that the defense was kind of interplayed with the social media coverage. Am very concerned after reading this book and things we've been talking about. How do you think that we come back from this? Do you think there's a way that we can kind of cue back to regular journalism, that we could find some kind of objective truth around these trials?

0:42:23 Dave: It's like, you know, this AI world we're living in. I think, you humans have to be responsible for their own actions. So I think people have to take individual accountability and look themselves in the mirror and be able to live with their actions. Don't think systematically there's much that can can be done. You certainly can't control what people say and do, and you can't restrict people and censor people from doing podcasts and things like that. But I mean, look, we saw it in Sandy Hook with Alex Jones.

0:42:52 Dave: Alex Jones lost a $100 million lawsuit because he said the Sandy Hook families were fake. So three civil suits here left to play out in this case we'll see what happens but I do have faith in the court system that that will get some more facts into the record and that you people will be held responsible for what they have or have not done uh kind of a purist in that way we'll See how it plays out but I'm hopeful that the family at the very least can get some more answers about what happened to john o 'keefe yep

0:43:20 Matt: Yeah, it'd be great to see some shame shame around, you know, acting the way, and honestly, again, as you said, Turtle Boy is capable of being a journalist. He's this at the time we were covering this, that every community needs a citizen journalist like that. He has broken a lot of things. He actually uncovered police corruption in a very real way.

0:43:36 Matt: But there has to be a way to do it without harming people the way that they are, and also being an activist.

0:43:36 Dave: Well this you know and again not to be the resident old guy here but you I started in the newspaper business when you went to the library and pulled up microfilm. You went to The Police Station and you pulled the paper binder with the police log and read the police reports to find out what happened. Saw as journalism progressed, the internet came along and all that. I would see these young reporters come out when Twitter was coming out, for example, in 2008, 2009. And all of a sudden, these kids wanted to blow up on Twitter. They wanted to be Twitter and that compromised their reporting, in my opinion. They started reporting to become a personality rather than reporting the story and trying to get it right, and I think that's going on now more than ever. These people are not reporting because they want to expose the fact. Of them are, and it's a win -win, but in my opinion, more of them are doing it to, just Turtle Boy, this isn't an accusation on him alone, because I do think he has an interest in the truth. But I think some of these people are reckless with this responsibility and they're doing it solely to build their own brand and build their own platform and monetize it and get quote unquote famous and become an influencer. And even worse now with Lindsay Clancy. We're seeing these people just living and dying by this case and And they're acting like like they're the one that's, you to solve it and all this stuff. And it's really, really shameful, in my opinion. And it's disrespectful to the victims.

0:45:08 Matt: Absolutely. And I certainly can't disagree with women who want to make this an issue and talk about postpartum depression and mental health. But the other thing we're talking about here, where they just want to reinvestigate and make arguments the defense was never making about did it. I it's so out of line.

0:45:22 Dave: Saw Kevin Reddington, the lawyer for Lindsey Clancy, yesterday in an interview, I think it was on NBC News. Was asked about the claims that Patrick Clancy had something to do with it. He called it ridiculous. He said it's horrible and they should leave the guy alone. He lost his kids, you know. Kevin very well. He's a good man. And he's a great lawyer. And, the defense lawyer is telling you to stop, maybe like, listen, you know, but are so distrustful of police, the media, and the government more than ever that, you know, they look to these people that are independent journalists or people that are, you know, have some sort of platform that don't work for a corporation. And I I think they want to find an alternative reality and they want to find a truth that they don't think can possibly exist. You I'm here to say, as someone who worked in the media for, you know, 25 years or whatever, is that off a conspiracy is impossible. It just doesn't happen. There's too many people that have to be paid off or shut up or, it's usually a small mistake that blows it wide open. Now, are things that are covered up in our world, obviously. But when cases get to this level, Patrick Clancy had killed those kids, he would be charged. If John O 'Keefe was killed inside that house, why hasn't anyone else been charged? So let's see the evidence. You know, and that's what I'm saying with the civil cases. I hope that these civil cases will shed some more light on what actually happened that night and either put it to rest or point it in the other direction where someone else can be charged. But we haven't seen that.

0:46:52 Matt: Right, exactly. And that's what I've always said about the Karen Reid situation, that the conspiracy that the defense was positing, if you really step back from it, requires a couple dozen people, I think, including first responders, potentially, and a bunch of people who had nothing to do with John O 'Keefe or Karen Reid.

0:47:05 Dave: Have explanations for that, too, Matt. You there's a lot of things we can talk about that forever but if you believe that that o 'keefe was killed by someone else um have to believe that he he dropped his phone when the car backed up and then he went inside the house was killed and then whoever killed him dragged him back outside in a blizzard drunk in the dark and placed him on top of his phone that he dropped earlier so It's not out of the question. I guess it's possible, but that's what you would have to believe based on the evidence that we have. Again, maybe there's something else we don't know.

0:47:07 Matt: I'm sure they do.

0:47:38 Thomas: You put it like that it seems so crazy what are we doing here that seems pretty yeah

0:47:42 Dave: Well, I mean, again, we just went through it, Thomas. I mean there's a ton of unanswered questions here. Alan Jackson and David Iannetti and Turtle Boy, they raised a lot of questions about the facts of the case and the timelines and the witnesses' credibility and all that stuff. So that's why we are where we are.

0:48:00 Thomas: And and the bad investigation in the you know and the sexist cop yeah yeah

0:48:03 Dave: All of it. Michael Proctor being a terrible human, you know for saying the things that he said you I hope that the courts figure out a way to filter out some of these um that may be compromised by social media and I don't know what you do I mean certainly we can't have every juror um in a hotel room we can we can sequester everybody in society but But these high-profile cases, I They may have to take away phones. I don' t know. I it' s bad.

0:48:08 Thomas: For sure thank

0:48:33 Matt: Dave Wedge, thanks so much for your time. The The book is Blizzard of Lies. And anything else, anywhere else you want to point people or anything else you wanna talk about?

0:48:39 Dave: No, but if people want to follow me, they can find me on social media or they can go to DaveWedge.com and I post most of my stuff there.

0:48:46 Matt: Excellent. Well, thanks, so much. Love the book. And again, that's our book club selection. And we're gonna come back and talk about it at the end of the month. And I hope you'll join us.

0:48:53 Dave: Thanks, guys.

0:48:54 Matt: Thanks again.

0:48:52 Thomas: You so much hang

0:48:55 Dave: Right, take care.

0:48:59 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon.com/law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments@gmail.com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.