Billy & Lisa in the Morning
Karen Read Trial Recap 6.21.24
Hey everyone, it is Ryan Seacrest here. Ready to heat up your summer vacation? Get ready, things are about to get sizzling at Chumba Casino. Your summer getting a whole lot hotter with a special daily login bonus waiting just for you. So sign up now for reals of fun and reals of prizes right here at Chumba Casino. With yours truly, join me at Chumba Casino.com and dive into a summer of social casino fun. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary, VGW Group, void were prohibited by law, 18 plus terms and conditions apply. Brand new cold play right there. Brand new cold play feels like I'm falling in love and Lisa couldn't be happy or she's in love with Chris Martin. Well, I just highly respect him and I got to interview him several years ago. So that was fun. Yeah. It was very therapeutic for both of them. Martin said so. He actually said that. Oh, what a call. This has been so relaxing. We talked for an hour. Did you really? Yeah. That never happened. They usually get you in and get you out. He's pretty up there. Yeah. That voice is the voice of Catherine Loftus, our legal expert from the law firm of Loftus and Loftus. And whenever there's testimony the day after we've got Catherine in and I've heard something rumblings in the studio this morning, Catherine, between Winnie and Lisa that we may have gotten a smoking gun yesterday or not or not. Not very unimpressed. No, we were waiting. Well, and really, we've talked about it here for a couple of weeks. We've been talking about these voicemails, these texts. What's going to come? What's going to come the fact that they saved them to the very end. I think we all thought something significant was going to come from it. And I do think there are some things that can be gleaned about what was happening that night. Clearly, there was clearly they were arguing. Clearly, something happened between when they were at the barn came out. But there's nothing that points, oh my goodness, this is what we were waiting for. This is why she was charged with secondary. None of that came from the process. No, there was not a clear path for the prosecution to say, okay, this is what happened. Well, we should recap for the audience. For weeks, we would talk this is the eight week trial so far. And then everyone's like, well, just wait till the end because we're like, well, this is a really big case. You know, the witnesses talk, the evidence is awful. And everyone's like, well, wait till you see the text in the voicemail. Wait. And I'm waiting. They came yesterday. She's just a crazy bitch that was mad that he didn't come home. Like, that was all it was. Come home. I'm home with the niece and nephew. Like, that was the brunt of it. Was it not? Yeah, I think. And I do think, you know, there's some interesting stuff that came out of it. The phone calls to her mom and dad, I think are interesting to call in the middle of the night, if you're just in a regular fight with your boyfriend. So there are some things, but they don't go to the intent that's needed to be proven by the Commonwealth for charging her with second degree matter. I mean, I don't know how they I don't know how a grand jury indicted her on second degree. Right. I keep saying that. How did this even how we even hear? But also coupled that with the fact that Garino, his timeline started not fitting what we heard from Jen McCabe earlier in the trial. Right. Can you explain that? Well, and I do think one of this these things that we've talked about quite a bit is that the elephant in the room that both the defense and the Commonwealth kind of address but don't is that everybody is so intoxicated. So really, we probably should take Guarino's recitation of the timeline over Jen McCabe's because she was drinking all that night. We got the blood alcohol from the medical examiner that said Johns was at point two one and was probably higher when he was killed. So who is Guarino? Trubogorino who is the we call them the they do the cell phone dumps. So basically when you get a phone a physical phone and they have software that goes through all the possible passwords to try to get into it. And that's where the information was extracted from John O'Kee's phone. So, you know, I think it's I think it's interesting that we have so many different kind of theories. We have different recitations of the facts. And ultimately, it's up to the jury to to weed through that and figure out what really happened that night. But with the Commonwealth leading with a secondary murder charge, I just, I don't I don't see how they got there. But for the jury listening to those voicemails, do they have to decide aside among themselves now whether they think she was angry enough to run them over? I mean, that's ultimately and I don't even know that it's about angry enough. If you for a second degree, you have to prove that it was an intentional act either she intended to kill him or to cause serious bodily harm. I don't see the intent in those voicemails. Do I see I understand what the Commonwealth is trying to show is that it wasn't just this pretty picture night that you know, oh, he went in and I wasn't feeling well. So I went home. That's clearly not what it was. It does lay a foundation for something else. But really, I know I've just said it three times, but I don't know how I don't know how they there's not a clear path to conviction here. I don't want to speak for every woman in the world, but I feel like most of us have been in relationships similar to this one. And like I was we've all been probably in care and shoes. I wasn't blackout drunk. But when you're with a guy, you it's it's ending. You feel like it's falling apart. And you're like literally fighting for a relationship with someone that doesn't care that from her point of view. I know he was obviously on the side of the road or wherever he was at the time. But I'm saying in her point of view, they've been going back and forth. He's been distant. And then I drop you off at this house and then now I'm home babysitting your niece and nephew. And I'm like, where's this guy? To me, that doesn't mean she thought that he was dead somewhere. That means she thought he was out partying and she was watching the niece and nephew. Right. And I think that's what any juror might enter. And that's the thing because your your somebody who would be in Norfolk County will be on the jury and people are going to interpret things different ways. And you know, it might be, you know, on the other hand, you're going to have jurors who don't ever have any experience with having this kind of relationship. And so when they hear things like this, go like this is crazy the way they're talking to each other. So it all comes back to the jury's perspective. And ultimately, you know, you need 12 people to come to a unanimous decision. I think it's going to be very, very difficult. I think it's probably likely that pretty people are pretty dug in as to what the positions are. Again, if you're listening and you don't know what we're talking about, this Karen read trial is a local story. It happened in Canton. The trial is in Dedham and it's gone viral. Everybody is obsessed with this case and she's charged with running her boyfriend over who was a Boston police officer. The prosecution is trying to prove that and the defense is trying to prove that it's some sort of a cover up. So can we talk to you about the medical examiners, you know, testimony yesterday? Yep, a little bit and that it's still inconclusive, but could have been, you know, blunt force trauma to the head from something could have been a fight, but not really. I mean, again, it was just sort of muddled. And I think it goes to, and she testified a little bit about this yesterday, that we rely on, you know, we're looking at the medical examiner, like she's supposed to know what happened that night. All she gets is the body of, you know, whatever, not just in this case, in any case, and unless it's obvious, you know, that we know that somebody, she said a homicide would clearly be if somebody puts a gun in it, you know, the bullet goes to the brain. That's, okay, this is a homicide, right? When you have blunt force trauma, she can't opine as to what cause she said that she doesn't know. Right. And so it's really, we're looking for her to make a legal determination. We want, you know, everybody wants, whether you're on the defense side or the commonwealth side, we want to be able to say, oh, the medical examiner's finance point to this. But really what her job is just to look at what the body is, tell us what the injuries are. And then it's the lawyer's jobs to say, this is most consistent with this type of injury. And the fact that it's a blunt force, I mean, the blunt force object can be anything. Right. So it 100% could be, he's getting hit by a car and maybe his head goes back and he hits it on the ground. And that's the blunt force, or he could get hit in the back of a head with an object. But there's zero ability to tell which one it is. It's almost like nothing's been proven for either side. Well, you know, and that's why I just started doing my recant them. And I think that's what it is. And obviously I want to reiterate, and I've said this many times, the defense has no obligation to prove a case. They only have to show and create reasonable doubt. However, they have presented this theory, they argued in opening statements that she was framed. I don't see anything coming to fruition, any real evidence of this third party theory. And I don't see any evidence that there was an intentional homicide by Karen Reidy. I mean, as the longer we go, it seems like both sides lose me and maybe there's someplace in the middle. Yeah, traditionally on the show now, it's topic time when it's a day after testimony in the Karen Reid trial. Well, the topic is the Karen Reid trial. And we've got our counselor, our in house expert, our legal expert, Katherine Loftus in studio ready to take your questions. So let's go to the phones and we'll start with Tony Tony. What's up? What's your question? Hi, am I on? Yes, you're on Tony. Go. All right. So my question is with regards to the blood that was found on John O'Keece's clothes. They reported that he had three people's blood on his clothes, one being his own. And I guess my question is, playing into the narrative of that, you know, he might have been in a fight. Why aren't they making up more of a big deal that he had multiple people's blood on his clothes? Good one, Katherine. So from the defense's perspective, I think, so originally we had pretrial litigation to of the troopers, Buchanan can practice blood was tested against it. There was never any request for anybody else to, and I don't, likely, that would have not been allowed anyway, if they had asked pretrial to, you know, test bright outputs, blood or Brian Higgins. And sometimes you don't want to ask questions if you don't, you know, know the answer for certain. So if that wasn't their blood on it, it arguably could have more ruled out that theory. So it you usually what the defense does is they would prefer to make the inferential argument than the actual argument because if you have if you look for the evidence and it's not helpful, you know, it's like when you ask a client, they say, get it on, it's gone camera. Is it really going to be good on camera? You show we want this because sometimes we don't want things that are actually going to hurt the case. So it makes sense. Ask an answer. Let's go to Kenneth, Kenneth, you're up next. You have a question? Kenneth. Oh, hi, I'm just morning, or Kenneth. Kenneth, hey, Kenneth. Yes. How are you doing? I just wanted to make a comment. I drive for the last eight months, I've been driving about six months and driving the same car as Karen Reed. And I just want to say that the car is like really big, a lot of blind spots. And I mean, I've already hit several things, not knowing that I even hit it, parking this thing. It's the big car that's really high up. So I just thought that was kind of curious. I mean, it's interesting. I think maybe that goes to we were talking a little bit off air about this. The charge is that Karen Reed is facing the second degree versus the manslaughter and, you know, whether this could have been an accident. And who knows? I mean, I've never been in that type of vehicle. But yeah, Trooper Paul kind of talked about the car more and some of the blind spots right when he was on the stand. Right. And but it's interesting. So that came from the calm wall is expert and that I think would lead you more towards if you think she did it. It was an accident versus an intentional right. Which we need is that murder. Right. Yeah. So of all the evidence so far, the craziest part is where Trooper Paul said that he flew through the air for 30 feet. But then yet he hit his head on the curb. I don't just don't understand how that masher mashes. He he flew 30 feet. Well, that was the opinion of true ball. And I think it goes to this is that oftentimes these are opinions based on the data that the expert is looking at. Right. And they can't really conclude one way or the other. I don't think it was good that he he should have just said we aren't clear about we're not sure about what happened. This is what we think we found him this far based on the backing up the of the vehicle. We think it stopped here. But do I know exactly how he was hit or how he was how we landed? No, because there's no way you can actually tell that no expert that testifies unless you were there unless we have it on video unless you start with your two eyes. It's really just a theory. And that theory seemed a little incredible. Yeah. When he said he was side swiped and he turned this way. I just was like, this is he's pirouading. And this is your opinion. I don't know. It just it was it didn't come across well to me. It didn't make sense because based on I think all of us are looking at the data. All of us are looking at what's the evidence that has been presented. And that would it it doesn't make sense that you could actually form that opinion. You might be able to say, could he have done this? Maybe could he have done something else? But to pick one specific theory and say this is what it is. I think everybody found pretty unreliable. Call me crazy. This is the first trial I've ever seen where there are no conclusions. It, you know, Billy, they'll be saying to me, like, that's what you do. You prove things. It's maddening because we've all been watching it for two months, hours and hours and hours. And we still don't know. Right. And I think that goes to that that the longer we go into it, the more questions we have, which is not the way it it's not the way it should be. Obviously, the calm wealth doesn't seem to be really be proven their second degree. The defense has poking all the holes, but not really proven the third party, which they don't have to. Well, you were a prosecutor at one point. Yes. And if you were Adam Lally, at some point in the last eight weeks, would you have switched up your tactics? Because what he's doing is clearly not what he's been doing did not work. I think that the I understand the strategy of the calm wealth because we had so much intense pressure, pretrial and leading up to this about the third party theory. So he spent so much time on the front end. And I honestly felt like, okay, I can understand that because maybe the real strength in some crazy voicemails or other things that are going to come that are going to show us not only is the third party theory, it doesn't make sense. But we have evidence of what we want you to believe. I think the fact that they don't have that, you know, wow moment that makes us all say, Oh, this is what we've been waiting for. They probably, if I'm being really honest, I think the outside pressure kind of got to the calm wealth. And instead of focusing on just proving their case, they sort of cowed out to the outside just in talkbacks are still coming in. Yeah, it's amazing around the country around the world how many people are following this case. And you know, there are people that listen to this show Catherine from around the world and around the country. So let's go to Vegas. Hey, good morning guys. This is Vegas Ray. And I just wanted to call in ask, is it absolutely 100% proven that this gentleman never made it inside the house? That would be something I would be interested in. And I've been following it as far as I can from being so far away. But is it absolutely proven that he never made it inside? No, nothing's proven. So it's not proven. And again, so Tuba Guarino testified. Yeah, he he tried. Right. So if you ask the calm wealth, their position is, yes, he never made it in the house that at 1231, his phone stopped. It shows that he was in a three feet radius. He didn't go in. Now we're going to have likely an expert on the defense aside that's going to say exactly the opposite. And that's ultimately what what it comes down to is that we have an expert for everything that we have an expert that supports the calm wealth theory. We have an expert that sports the defense theory. And it's the jury's, you know, it's the jury's job to figure out which one they believe. All I know is if I ever get called for jury again, I'm not going. I'm just not going. I can't put myself. I'd like to be a sure. Let's go to Steve. Steve, you have a question for Catherine? Yes. Hi, Catherine. Good morning. Well, the jury was a jury be given any option other than murder if they do think she did it, but it was an intentional. Yes. So they she actually is charged with three three three charges. She has second degree murder. Then she has manslaughter while driving under the influence. And then she has leave in the scene of personal injury or death. So they could theoretically find her not guilty of the second degree, find her guilty of the manslaughter. I don't think there's a world where they just find her guilty of leaving the scene of personal injury because you have to you have to prove knowledge. She has to have known that he was there. So I think that they leave in the scene and kind of tied up in one. But theoretically, they could. Yeah. Well, those voiceless troops, she didn't know. I think it shows, you know, I don't know that it shows that she didn't know. I think it shows that there was a lot going on that night. There's high levels of intoxication. I don't think it's one way or the other. Yeah, she was definitely drunk and she seemed very panicked. Right. And I think it does go to, you know, the, the idea of what was happening in the moment. And that's what the Commonwealth is trying to show with this. They're trying to show that, okay, this wasn't some, we're just dropping somebody, my boyfriend off. And then, you know, 10 minutes later, I'm home because 10 minutes later, we're getting screaming phone calls with all kinds of crazy stuff. So clearly, there's something that happens in the interim and the Commonwealth believes that goes to, oh, she was, you know, enraged and she hit him. I don't think it gets there. But I think it obviously shows that something happened in between. So full day of testimony today, you know, initially it was going to be a change. Did they change it a full day? Yeah, so full day of testimony. And we'll have you back to recap what happens today on Monday. Yeah, I'll be here. That's Catherine Loftus, the law firm of Loftus and Loftus. No, my objection, you got to go there with the Lucky Land sluts. You can get lucky just about anywhere. Daily Beloved, we're gathered here today. Has anyone seen the bride and groom? Sorry, sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo when we lost track of time. No, Lucky Land Casino, with cash prizes that add up quicker than a guest registry. In that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play for free at LuckyLand Sluts.com. No purchase necessary. BG, W. Garaboid, we're prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply.