The Howie Carr Radio Network
Bederow on Karen Read Mistrial, Trooper Investigations and the Feds | 7.24.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 2
(upbeat music) - Live from the Aviva Trataria Studio, it's the Grace Curly Show. - We gotta bring in a new voice, a young voice, a rising voice, Grace Curly. - You can read Grace's work in the Boston Herald and the spectator. - Well, you don't want too much, Grace. - Here's the millennial with the mic. - Grace Curly. - Grace Curly. - Grace Curly. - Let's bring in the host of the Grace Curly Show, Grace Curly. - We either have Grace or you don't. - Especially Grace, Grace, Grace Curly. - Grace Curly. - Welcome back everyone to the Grace Curly Show. So there's been a break in the action as far as Karen Reid goes. But we do have updates, and I thought it would be a great time to bring on attorney Mark Bedero. We only have a short amount of time here. He's a very busy man. So we're gonna get right into it. Mark, thank you for joining the show. We still have jurors confirming that on two charges they were unanimous on acquitting Karen Reid. Last time we spoke to you and it's been a while, you told me the Karen Reid was entitled to those verdicts. The defense attorneys want the judge to dismiss those two charges. Where are you at right now? Do you have anything extra to add to that that we didn't know before? - Well, I think they're entitled to a hearing and gathering evidence to determine whether they're entitled to the verdicts. I think that they have certainly submitted a high amount of evidence that tends to suggest that there were acquittals and they're no longer just in attorney after Davis. I mean, one of the jurors the other day independently confirmed this to a member of the mainstream media, which certainly again suggests that this is real. So I think when the issue you're talking about is whether a woman was found not guilty of murder, is that the kind of thing that a court should flesh out and make a determination? And to me, the answer is quite clearly yes. And to deny it based upon the fact that there's no verdict sheet that was checked off is too simplistic. I mean, the bottom line is, I think, what the jurors are suggesting is that we were confused by the instructions. We didn't know what we were supposed to do. There's no harm in hearing this out considering the arguments. And if Karen Reid was acquitted on those two counts, I think it would be unconscionable to try her again. And if nothing else, I think the DA ought to reevaluate what they're doing, because whether this issue is going to be decided legally in favor of the defense or not, they should take notice from what they're being told, which is that she quite clearly, it appears, was acquitted on two of the three counts. - This was such a high-profile trial. I mean, everyone, especially here in New England, but really all over the country, we're glued to their computers, watching this day in and day out. Do you see a world in which they actually retry this entire case? I know she said a January date there. Talk about the adjournment date and the amount of time we have until then, and kind of the pros and cons of that for Karen Reid. - I mean, I think the DA's intention for now is to retry the case. A lot can happen in six months. To me, I'm not sure it's a wise thing to do. And if they do retry it, frankly, I think the judge would be doing them a favor if she entered judgments of acquittal on the two counts that we just spoke about. Over the next six or seven months, the defense is going to be able to completely reevaluate, look at every transcript of every witness, go through the trial. Are there certain tweaks that they would make, certain witnesses that they would deal with? Are they going to get more evidence from the FBI? Are they gonna be allowed to talk to some of the witnesses who originated from the federal government that they were not allowed to talk to before trial? Are the feds doing anything with any of the witnesses in this case? You saw even just yesterday, more relevant state troopers are in trouble. How is that gonna play out? So all of this time, I mean, this really favors the defense going forward. The public pressure is only gonna get worse on the DA. The case is only gonna get worse for them. And the other reality here is, how is the DA gonna pick a jury for round two given what's going on? Everybody knows, I mean, you think it was hard the first time, the prospective jurors are watching everything now, and moreover, are going to know that for all intents and purposes, it seems almost certain at this point that Karen Reid was in fact acquitted on two of the three indicted charges. So this time delay will greatly favor the defense. - Yeah, you'd have to go to another planet to find people who haven't heard about this case at this point. You just brought up the other two troopers here, and they were a trooper proctor, supervisors, Buchanan and Tully. And now they are subjects in an active investigation coupled with obviously proctor's own issues. How would that affect a retrial? Tell us a little bit about that and what you make of it. - Well, I think it would affect a retrial substantially, especially Buchanan. I mean, he, for lack of a better term, is a peeing a pod with proctor in this case. I mean, they're attached to the hip, and let's be clear, they tried to use Buchanan as much as they could to avoid having proctor testify about details. And if proctor is beyond damage good at this point, which he is, I mean, he is useless to the prosecution. He is as disgrace as disgrace gets. But if Buchanan is also damaged, that's just gonna impact everything. So I think that if he is in trouble, and I mean, we don't really know what it's about, people speculate, is it related to his failure to supervise proctors, is it something deeper? We don't know. But either way, it's just a terrible thing for the DA. And Tully as well, if he's a supervisor and he was involved in arranging the cert team to do the search, and why were there delays? If it turns out that he's compromised in some capacity as well, this is just a disaster for the DA. So it's just gonna get worse and worse. I mean, they're never gonna have a better case. They're not gonna find expert witnesses who are going to disagree with the engineers and physics experts who essentially found that there was no car access. So I just don't see practically speaking where they go from here. It's just gonna get worse and worse. They got what they got. They apparently got a majority of jurors on one count. But even that, that you have to get 12 and how are they ever gonna get 12? I just don't see it. - Yeah, something I wanted to ask you, Mark, is that part of the problem here is that trooper proctor is overseeing, or he was at least before he was put on leave or suspended, however you wanna put it. He was overseeing a lot of different cases, and I'm sure in his past, he's been lead investigator in a number of cases that were very important. My question for you is if you had a client, for example, who was put in jail for something that trooper proctor oversaw, do you, is that enough for a reason to appeal that verdict or to start questioning some of these cases that he was involved in? - I can't say it's enough to appeal without knowing what the evidence in any particular cases, but is it a basis to start firing off, discovery, demands, letters and all sorts of things? Absolutely. I mean, look, if anybody seriously believes that Michael Proctor's testimony that he was so upset and traumatized by the facts of this case that eight months later, it led him to write some of the text messages that he did. That's just, I mean, that's nonsense. I mean, does anybody seriously believe that? And it begs the next question, if you do accept that, which I don't think any sane person would, if that was so upsetting, what about these other horrible cases that he's been working on? Do those upset him to the point that he did the same thing? And so it's not even just the convicted cases, it's the open cases. I mean, everybody knows about that horrible Brian Walsh case, that just the horrible set of facts about which he was the lead investigator on. And was he looking through phones in that case as well? Was he looking for nudes in that case? Was he texting his buddies and his family members about all those investigations? We don't know, perhaps the feds do, perhaps they do. But he has compromised not only the Karen Reed case, anything he's touched in the last, perhaps several years, he's completely touched. I mean, he is prosecutorial poison. And if he's metastasizing to the point where he's now dragging down other members of the state police, I mean, this is just an embarrassment. And this is a unit that works directly in the Norfolk DA's office. So it all goes back to the whole culture and practice inside that DA's office. It's very disturbing. - Really well said, Mark, I know you have to go. I wanna ask you one more really quick question. There's a lot of people that we have on this program that we see on social media who have been following this case, who are very confident that the feds are going to bring justice in one way or another eventually. We haven't heard much, but we know that they hired their own reconstruction experts. That's what a lot of people claim to as far as the feds taking an act of interest and what's going on here and trying to write this ship. Do you feel that way? - I mean, it's hard to tell what ultimately they're gonna do or not do, but let's be honest. You know that they convene the grand jury. You know that they brought in several witnesses and you know that they got accident reconstruction people and let's be clear. They did that to determine is this even worth looking at? I mean, if the accident reconstruction people said that this is an open and shut state court typical homicide case where a drunk lady just ran over her boyfriend, you'd have to think that that would make them a lot less interested. But when they get the conclusion back saying scientifically, it doesn't even appear to be a possibility, which also necessarily leads to the next conclusion, which is if the car accident is not a scientific possibility, then how the hell did 45 pieces of taillight get out there? And that's not a natural act that has to be planted. If there's no car accident, which leads to the whole with their police malfeasance and whatnot. So yeah, I would take that as a very serious sign that they are looking into acts of official corruption and federal criminal civil rights violations that may have been committed by certain members of the state police and God knows who else. - Attorney Mark Betero, thank you so much for your time, sir. We always truly appreciate it. You can follow him on social media at Betero Law. He's a great resource if you've been following this Karen Reed case or even if you just wanna catch up and you're just starting to take an interest. It's never too late to find out more information. So follow him at Betero Law. We hope to talk to you very soon. We'll keep everyone posted here as we find out more. And we will be right back. - Hi, it's Toby from Cape Gun Works. I'm taking all your firearm and self-defense questions every Tuesday. Join Grace and me for two a Tuesday, Tuesdays at 2 p.m. (dramatic music) - This is The Grace Curly Show. (upbeat music) - This Axios story is beautiful. I have really, it's chef's kiss. It's every thing I love about covering the media. The Axios article headline, "The Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the border czar title, which she never actually had." And then Sean Davis and other people, but I mentioned Sean Davis 'cause he's been on a roll this week. He tagged Axios in their own story that they wrote. And he highlighted the part of the story where they wrote, "Harris appointed by Biden as borders czar said she would be looking at the root causes that drive migration." And he wrote beneath the tweet, "Is this you?" Well, I have another update for all of you who have been following this fake news from Axios. They have now added a little note at the bottom, an editor's note at the bottom of the article, and they wrote that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a borders czar back in 2021. So is Axios part of the Trump campaign and the Republicans who were calling her this? Or maybe it was everyone, because maybe she was the borders czar. And a lot of people on social media have been pointing out that this whole idea of calling people czar in their title was actually, it became very popular during the Obama administration. But sure, when you're out of ideas, blame it on the Republicans. We're pouncing, we're weaponizing, we're seizing. I can assure you, I did not come up with borders czar that never would have crossed. I'm not being on the czar, I don't throw that out there. Axios did, I did not. Todd, you're up next on The Race Curly Show. What's going on, Todd? - Hi, Grace. My name is Todd, I call a little bit ago. I just heard your little segment about Karen Reed. And what I want to say was, I have been a fan of yours and Howie's for a long time. Even when I was a child, my parents would listen to Howie. We're just huge fans. But this Karen Reed thing is not a conservative or liberal issue. This is an issue of truth and evidence. And when you put on something like attorney federal, I've never even heard of him going on about how the feds are coming and it's gonna be justice. - The grand jury in the federal part of this matter occurred over a year ago and nothing has happened. And any lawyer in the work there knows, the grand jury meets and nothing happens. - Wait, hold on. - It's a big sign that nothing is happening. - Todd, I wanna disagree with you because if we're gonna talk about the feds and if anything happened, in March before this case went to trial, we found out that the feds brought in their own reconstruction experts who said that John O'Keefe's injuries were not caused by a vehicle. And that to me blew this entire thing open. That to me changed the trajectory of this entire case. So right there, I have to disagree with you that nothing has happened. Arguably one of the biggest change-ups in this case is that the feds brought in their own reconstruction experts that completely decimated the Commonwealth's case to begin with. - Great, great, okay, if that were, what I was talking about, there's no charges, there are no charges forthcoming from that federal grand jury. If there were, it would have already happened because when a grand jury meets at the conclusion of it, they either no bill it or they true bill it. And this case, they didn't do that here and you can't come back a year later and say, "Oh, now we're gonna charge them." It would have already happened. And when I say, your point, again, if that were absolutely true that the actual reconstructionist found no evidence of an accident, well, or whatever it is you just said, I miss, I'm not, I can't remember exactly what you said, but the fact of the matter is that those federal action reconstructions didn't get all the evidence though. It weren't given all of the evidence that the Commonwealth was in possession of. They only took the evidence that the federal government gave them which they got from Karen Reed's defense team. - Where do you have... - You're gonna present yourself and expert witness, you need to have all of the information, not just part of it. - Where do you believe that they didn't have all of the information? - The Commonwealth never cooperated, never was even asked by these accident reconstruction people to give them all of the information that they had. Like the fact that the taillight was scattered all over this poor man's body. The taillight fragments were all in as close. They didn't know that. They didn't ever even talk to the DA's office. - Right, but don't you think that if their job is to figure out if a body's injuries are consistent with getting hit by a car and they were able to say that that didn't happen, that for me is, I do trust them. I mean, they were brought in by the feds, they didn't really have a dog in this fight. And that was, and I watched the entire trial, I watched these guys, I read about their credentials, I heard them explain their expertise, I found them to be a lot more reliable witnesses than anyone in the Commonwealth than Trooper Proctor or Trooper Tully or Trooper Buchanan. So if we're going based off that, then I think that the Commonwealth's witnesses or the Commonwealth's people that they brought up were a lot worse than these reconstruction experts. And I don't really have a reason to trust a lot of the information that they gave us to begin with, because not only were they collecting it in red solo cups, but they were caught lying multiple times throughout the case. I don't think they were caught lying multiple times, but listen, I know you're gonna let me go here in a second, I could talk about this all day, but I would say this. The scandal here is how the U.S. Attorney's Office got involved in this to begin with. The U.S. Attorney who was in charge over there when this whole thing started was Rachel Rollins. Now again, how you and how you can put such faith in this investigation, when it was launched by Rachel Rollins is very, it's beyond me, I don't understand it. And at least grant me that if these acts and reconstructionists at the federal government hired didn't have all of the evidence, it would be a scandal. Wouldn't it? I mean, you say they had it. Okay, fine. - Wait, but Todd, you're telling me-- - In conclusion, it would be faulty, wouldn't they? - You're telling me that you don't have faith in this investigation. You have faith in Trooper Proctor. You have faith in Tully. You have faith in people who are texting their high school friends eight hours into this thing, saying they were gonna get her and that she did it and talking about her balloon knot. You have faith in those people? - What evidence? Okay, he called her a bad name. I get it, that's inexcusable. But what evidence did a Proctor actually falsified actual evidence? - We'll talk about the evidence when we come back. We're running out of time. Thanks, Todd. We'll be right back. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) - Live from the Aviva Thratria studio. - It was an interesting call from Todd and he's getting some heat on the text line, which is part of the course. But I liked it, he was very respectful. He made his point, some people think he was wrong. That's okay. I did find it interesting that he would trust, for example, like Trooper Paul versus some of the experts that Karen Reed's lawyers brought in. And maybe we just require different credentials or he puts a lot more stock in other things than I do. - It was told to me like the crime scene. - But I didn't think that there was anything about the way whether it was Trooper Proctor, Trooper Paul, Trooper Buchanan. The text messages, the handling of the evidence, the inverting of the video. I didn't think there was really anything that made me feel like the narrative they were putting forward was full proof or was something that I could trust. And so that's just a different way we see it. And I mentioned the lies and I guess you can frame it whichever way you want because anything's impossible. And I'm not a cell phone expert. But I also didn't buy the stuff about Jenn McCabe that she claims she Googled how long to die in cold at like 620 and 630 but the one at 227 AM wasn't her. There were a lot of things. - A lot of fun to die in cold. - There were a lot of things in this case that I really did think were strange and suspicious and worth investigating. And when I hear from someone like Todd who has such faith in the Commonwealth's case, which was awful. I mean, I should have asked Todd that. Like, did you think they did a good job of presenting the evidence? Because the big smoking gun at the end was, you know, Karen redid it because she wore her shoes and John O'Keefe's house. - There's no story. There's facts and truth on this side. There's no story. - And by the way, if the Commonwealth did such a bang up job and the feds aren't moving on this and it's all a moot point, then why did the jurors come to the unanimous acquittal verdict on two of the charges? Like, I'm not alone in this. If you were listening to Todd, you would think that I'm the only one who's thinking like this. But I think that there was a cornucopia of evidence that would make an average person kind of scratch their head. Let's go to Chris. You're up next on the Grace Curly show. Go ahead, Chris. - Hey, Grace. I've called you before about Karen red. I watched every day. Your last caller is literally delusional. Arca said they did scientific tests and it was impossible to hit someone going 24 miles an hour in reverse, mind you. In the snow, and then the body fly docked your wet land and the cell phone land under him. It was impossible, but down in North County, we don't let facts get in the way of the narrative, right? Who are you going to believe? Trooper Paul or the archa experts? Well, that was part of what I didn't get about Todd's point. And I do appreciate anyone. If you call up and you disagree with me, I'm not an expert on all these things. I'm open-minded, I like to think. But this idea that they didn't have all the evidence because they didn't know where the tail light landed, their job was to see if his injuries were consistent with someone who got hit by a vehicle. That was their job. That's what they were hired to do. And they said it was impossible. They said his injuries were not consistent with that. I don't really understand how the tail lights would have changed that, would have changed the way they reconstructed this crime scene. And so Chris, I think you have a really good point there. And also, there was a lot of holes in the Commonwealth's case that were brought forward that people had questions about that didn't add up. And I think that you can get mad at people for questioning things. And it kind of goes back to this whole thing about the attempted assassination of Donald G. Trump. Like, you can get mad at me for asking questions or for being curious or for wondering how these things went down. But it's the Commonwealth's job, it's Lally's job, it's Morrissey's job to prove that she did this beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think there's any question that they failed at that job. Would you agree, Chris? - A hundred percent, like I said, I watched every day on court TV in long time. In work, I work at a law firm and all the lawyers were like, how is this still going on? And they were fixated on that stupid tail light and then Jen McCabe's Google searches. I don't care. Prove to me that this woman got behind the car, put it in reverse and hit the guy. They didn't do that. They're they're fixated on the Google searches. I don't care. - We Chris, I agree with you now. - I have a question for you, Chris, because part of what Todd called up about was that he doesn't think the feds are moving on this. They haven't done anything. And that's how we got into the conversation about the reconstruction experts. 'Cause for me, when I think about the feds in this Karen Reed case, I think about that news that dropped in March that they brought in their own people and they hired kind of these straight shooters to give us a rundown of whether or not his injuries were consistent when getting hit by a car. But beyond that, he was saying that there's no question that the feds aren't going to do anything. He's pretty positive about that. And I guess that's, you know, if he wants to make that bet, he can. But there are a lot of people, Chris, who think that there's still more to come here with the feds that they are looking into this as someone who's a lawyer and who's been following this. What do you think? - So I work with attorneys who do like sexual harassment, employment law, stuff like that. They said there's special stuff with just his text messages about her, like the ones where he said different, various terrible words and call their name stuff. They could get her on some like EDOC federal thing and stuff like that. So it's not just like, oh, he manipulated evidence. It's like the civil rights violations they could get him on too. Like that's sort of another avenue. - So you're not convinced that this is one and done that we're never going to hear from the feds again on the Karen Reed case. - Oh no, there's going to be multiple things. This is not going away for Canton and Norfolk County and Nicole Morris and all those clowns down there. - I don't know why he was so convinced that there's nothing there. Like the way he framed it was like I'm crazy for thinking that the feds are going to move on this. But I think that that's the more popular opinion after what we've been watching. - They can move on, like legitimately multiple things. Not even just like the manipulation of the evidence. Just like I said, EDOC stuff, how they handle things. Brian Higgins, if he flips, I mean, there's so many things there. And it's like, oh no, it's not going to happen. It's like, how do you know this? - Yeah, as if it would be too wild, like this case hasn't been wild enough. Hey, Chris, I have one more question for you. Do you think, so they're saying the date, the adjournment date or whatever, they're saying that they want to retry this come January, do you think that's going to happen? If you were a betting man and you were in Vegas, do you think we get another Karen Reid trial or does something happen in between now and January? - I wouldn't say I put all my money on, but I'll put in most of my money, this trial's never going to happen. Something's going to break in some weird day, after Labor Day, before Thanksgiving, just a news drop Friday afternoon. Hey, Procter got incredibly indicted, this one got indicted, that indicted on the stage, just says, "Nope, that's what I think is going to happen." - All right, so Chris is thinking that someone's going to get indicted and Todd is saying, "No way, no how." Thank you for the call, Chris. I appreciate it. Call back, you're a great resource for us. Let's go to Dick, you're up next on the Grace Curly Show. Go ahead, Dick. - Hi, Grace, how you doing? - I'm good, what's going on? - Okay, I was on a jury several years ago, they made me the form of all things. So they were two guys who were accused, and he had three charges against him. We found the first guy, he was clearly the most, he was the instigator of everything, but found him guilty on three charges, on all three charges. And the second guy found guilty on the most serious one, but not the other two. So when we went down with our deliberations, who came out, the judge stood me up, and she says, "How do you find?" She went down, "Each of the six counts." So the answers were guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, not guilty, not guilty, can all never did that. And what I don't like is, she's a questionable judge anyway, especially from that shooting case in Wameth with a cop was shot point blank. But I hate the fact that she sees beginning off Scott Green, she did a lousy job. And I'd like to know why, at the end of this jury, she didn't stand the foreman up and say, "How do you find on this charge, this charge, this charge?" - Yeah. - How did she have done that? If she had done that, the foreman was there for the jury to answer each of the charges and the knock guilty on first and third were to come out. It's always if she was complicit in hiding the results, it was she put whatever reason, maybe she wanted all or nothing, guilty and all free or nothing else. And the way the jury slips were and just all of that, it was outrageous and yet nobody's wanting to hold her responsible. - Yeah, so the verdict forms became a big issue before we got the final mistrial conclusion from Judge Kanoni. Alan Jackson did have an issue with the verdict forms. He thought they were too complicated. He thought that it didn't give the jurors an option of not guilty on some of the lesser charges. What I wanna say as far as not going down the list with the jurors and I'm not making excuses for Judge Kanoni, but I do wanna let people know that there's, there's a few different avenues this could have, how this could have played out. And the one that I've kind of settled on is that when those jurors came in and they gave their note to Kanoni, the note made it seem, if I were a judge, and again, she should have followed up. I'm not saying she should have ended up there. We could have avoided a lot of this chaos ever since, but the way the note came off to me was that these people were deadlocked on everything. Like, I think they said hopelessly deadlocked or were never going to see eye to eye. This isn't a question of, you know, not understanding the evidence, this is fundamentally, we can't, and it just kind of read, and I can play the note for you, but it read like people who were deadlocked on everything. Like, there was no, it didn't give off. And I had, again, I don't know how you'd even do that, but it didn't even hint at the idea that on two of them, we're all good, on one of them, we're a little murky. I don't know how you would have written a note like that, but I do think there was a way they could have written a note that didn't seem as though on all three, they were stuck in the mutt, here's the note. - All right, so, Jaz, I am in receipt of your note. Judge Kanoni, despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind. The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry, ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds. - Now, I have never been, you know, part of a trial or part of a jury, even, I've never, I'm gonna get jury duty, I bet today, 'cause I'm saying it, but I've never, I think I got it once and then it was on a Friday and I called up on Thursday and they said, "No, no, no, we're not coming in." And I said, "Perfect." But, so I don't really know what I'm trying to say is, I don't really know behind the scenes how this happens, like what you can tell the judge or how much communication you have with the judge, but that note, I don't think did a good job of relaying the fact that we are all pretty much on board with two, we just have one, is there a way, like I think there would have been a way to communicate that. Now, on the flip side, I think there were, there was plenty of opportunity for Kanoni to hear that note and ask a follow-up question and say, is there any movement on any of these? Like, is there any way we can get to a conclusion on any of these charges? But she took that note and immediately said, "All right, but Taylor, do you, when you read that, would you think that there was wiggle room or like that two of them had been decided and one of them they were stuck on?" I would read that and think, "Oh, these people are half and half on each of these charges." Deeply divided, deeply, like can't come to a consensus. It's unattainable. We understand the implications. It sounded like a letter basically saying like this is never going to happen ever. - Yeah, it sounded to me like they were quibbling over the main charge, like the murder too. I personally, I mean, in retrospect, we say that it would be easy to go back and say that, you know, we should be deliberating or we should question, you know, which counts they came to a verdict on, if any. And I think I would like to think that I would have done that at that point if I were the judge. But it just seems incomprehensible to me that the judge wouldn't go back and say, "Have you reached a verdict anywhere?" - Yeah. - Like where complete lapse in her judgment. - And that's kind of a question for lawyers. Does that happen where the judge comes back? - I know that the judge during a case, especially a high profile case like this where it's a lot of man hours, there's a lot of time spent there. It's a lot of pressure on these jurors. I know that typically the judge is kind of this figure where they can turn to and explains a lot of things to them and they kind of develop this bond, not to sound like, I'm not trying to sound like sentimental or anything, but they develop a bond with the judge because she's the one walking them through all these things. I don't know behind the scenes how much interaction the judge is supposed to have with the jurors, but if there was an opportunity where you could say, "Hey, just walk me through where you guys are at," then I think this would have been solved. I just don't know if you're allowed to do that. - Did we ever get confirmation that there were actual current or former attorneys on that jury? - I never received confirmation on that. - Assuming that there were, pretend I'm Hank Johnson and pretend everything I'm saying is true. - Assuming what I'm telling you is true. I knew there were on the Hush Money trial and I would always get a confused, the juror description of the Hush Money people versus the Karen Reed people 'cause it was all kind of happening at the same time. - I had also heard that there were attorneys on the Karen Reed jury, but if there were, it's also troubling to me that they would let that note go out to the judge so vaguely and not describe exactly where they were hung. - Yeah, 'cause if I had been in there for nine weeks, I'm like, tell, I would be like, tell them in the note that we're close, but we just need a little help or something. And maybe you're not supposed to do that, I don't know. - But that could have also stemmed from the verdict form. They thought that they had to come to a unanimous verdict on everything before they came back to the judge and said we finished the verdict. - That's how it's done, that's how it's done in Massachusetts, Mr. Cormier, that's how it's done. We'll be right back, 844-542-42 BB Netanyahu is addressing Congress, no Nancy Pelosi, no Kamala Harris, obviously no Joe Biden, and we will discuss that when we come back. - The Grace Curly Show will be right back. (upbeat music) - Today's poll question is brought to you by Perfect Smiles. Don't be fooled by imposters with similar names if you're unhappy with your smile. You need to visit Dr. Bruce Houghton in Nashua. I do have my invisible lines in by the way. It was a very painless process, very easy. Dr. Tam hooked me up with these awesome invisible line trays. If you do notice that I'm speaking a little bit differently, just give me like a day or two, okay? - How did your first day go, any big difference? - Honestly, well, here's the thing. Whenever I get anything done, I'm the type of person. I'm like how you get the laser cap. Day one, I'm like, wow, I look great. That's just how I roll. So it doesn't, I know I'm gonna have them in for six months. I'm sure by the end of six months it'll be such a difference, but I already notice a difference. But I do that with everything. Like when I get Botox, they'll say to me, it's two weeks before you see any difference. I'm two minutes out of there and I'm like, damn, I look good. - I come out of the gym day one. I look phenomenal. - Yeah, I can already see them. - I can already see the definition in my arms. So yeah, I've noticed that it looks pretty good. Call 1-844-Perfect-Smile or visit PerfectSmiles.com. They don't just do invisible lines. They can totally transform your smile, veneers, or just a teeth cleaning. Whatever you want, check them out at PerfectSmiles.com and tell them I said hi. Taylor, what is the poll question? And what are the results thus far? - Today's poll question, which you can vote in at gracecurlyshow.com, is will you be watching the Paris 2024 Olympics? Yes, no, or I'll tune in here and there. - I read the Washington Post article anti-Israel protests and threats set tone for politically charged Olympics. Politically charged Olympics is not something I'm interested in watching at all. I will vote that I will tune in here and there because it's inevitable that somebody will have it on the TV and I'm not gonna tell them to switch it. And I don't mind. I don't mind watching the gymnastics. - I think that's some of you. - I don't mind watching the swimming. Like there's some that I'll watch. - We'll put them on Harry Potter. 28% say I'll tune in here and there. 66% say they will not be watching at all. - All righty. When we come back, Bebe Netanyahu's in Congress giving an address in Kamala Harris, there's nowhere to be found. We're gonna talk about the why there. Why doesn't she wanna meet Bebe Netanyahu? We'll be right back. (upbeat music)