April 24, 2025 • 16 mins
Katherine Loftus joins us in studio to help break down and answer questions about the Karen Read trial.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Billy and Lisa in the morning.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Hey, guys, welcome back. Happy Thursday to you. So the
Karen Reid trial is heating up again, and you really
know what's heating up when Catherine Loftus is suddenly live
in studio again, our in house lawyer, Catherine the loftis
so great to see you.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Guys, It's like deja vu.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Katherine round too.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yes, and you brought merch with you, which is very cool.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
I did a little swag bag and get to note
my objection sweatch.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
That's hat. Billy's got it on looking good. He loves
free swag.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Oh god, I knew you did. I put it on instantly.
I might put the hoodie on before this show is
over today. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (00:34):
They look really comfortable, So thank you.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Okay, So Catherine, one question to start things off. I'm
curious we've all been talking about it, the crowds outside
the courthouse, the hype around the trial. Is it bigger
now or smaller?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
It's smaller there? Is it larger? Buffer zone?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
So there was a buffer zone the first trial in
which individuals could only get a certain you know, amount
of space in close to the of the court because
there was information received later that.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
The jury could.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Hear them outside chanting talking about like that they extended
the buffer zone. That's actually in federal court because some
individuals have contested that. But as of right now, it's
a little bit quieter because you can't get as close
as you could last time.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
How about this, is the interest in the trial bigger
or smaller right now?
Speaker 4 (01:23):
I think it's I think it's the same, but in
a different way. It seems to be more national this time.
I actually feel like on the local level there's some
people who have checked out a little bit and a
little bit exhausted by the case and not really as
into it as they were the first time. But on
the national level, there's definitely more eyes on it, so
you have almost a new sort of demographic of people
(01:45):
watching it across the country.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
At least. I was surprised to see O'Keeffe's mom for
the first time on the stand.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
I'm glad you mentioned that because Peggy O'Keefe was on
the stand. She didn't take the stand in the first trial,
and then Carrie Roberts took the stand and two other people.
So my question to you is all of this sort
of circumstance, This sort of like testimony about Karen Read's
actions and demeanor. How how much of an impact is
(02:11):
that going to have versus just the evidence on whether
Karen actually hit him with her car.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, what the como is trying to do by presenting,
you know, how Karen was acting that night, that morning,
allegedly what she said to Kerrie Roberts, the testimony from
Tim Nuttle, which was obviously a little bit tough about
you know, did he actually.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Hear her say did I hit him? Could I have
hit him? Or did he not?
Speaker 4 (02:35):
It's it's a small piece of the evidence if you
think about it.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
It's not one thing that's going to convict her.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
They have to prove through a number of different sort
of pieces of evidence. A lot of it is data,
some of it is statements. They're going to use her
behavior the subsequent media interviews to show that she, you know,
has changed her story.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
They're trying to prove consciousness of guilts.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
But you know, ultimately there's a lot of sort of
peripheral evidence, information that comes into this trial that ultimately,
I don't think the jury is going to consider what
we heard from some of the juror's last time is
that they really dismissed a lot of it as distractions
that didn't ultimately go to the issue with fact of
(03:16):
whether she hit him or not. So it's going to
be interested, given that the presentation of evidence is different
with this prosecutor, whether the jury comes away with that
same understanding or different.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
If you're just tuning us, it's the Billy and Lisa
Morning Show. We're talking with the lawyer Catherine Loftus. She
is our expert counselor on the Karen Reid trial. I
don't know a whole lot about courtroom demeanor, but it
strikes me that this new special prosecutor is very good.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
He is good, and I think it's interesting to watch.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
We haven't seen him really live in action in trial
outside of we've seen him in motions and they've been
litigating for months and months. But he's very different than
Adam Lallely. I think they're both kind of a quieter sense,
not quite as bombastic as as you know Alan Jackson is,
but he's definitely more methodical and he has his story
(04:05):
planned out. He has the you know, sort of outline
of what he expects to come in there's going to
be a lot more technical evidence I think this time
for the Commwealth than there was the first and he's
really leaving no stone unturned. It's he's interesting to watch.
He's a career defense attorney. I believe he was the
prosecutor at the beginning of his career, but he's switching
(04:26):
sides really and so the insight into how an attorney,
you know, presents a case on the opposite side than
they usually are is interesting because he's he knows what
the defense is thinking because this is usually what he
does for a living.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
So it's interesting to watch.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
I think everybody's getting their feet a little what this week.
It seems to have been a little clunky the first
few days, so we'll see if everybody sort of gets
into this stride.
Speaker 6 (04:49):
Well.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
They keep saying that he has new SCUV evidence, data evidence,
and cell phone evidence. Do you think there's going to
be like the bombshell moment where something's going to come out?
Speaker 4 (05:00):
That might mean I think last time the evidence was
just very convoluted. It was difficult to understand what the
prosecutor was trying to get the jury to, you know.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And it felt a little even as a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
I could kind of see where he was going, but
it was lost in translation.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
It wasn't presented clearly through the experts.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
So I think in addition to presenting that information in
a better, stronger way, the call wall also has new
information relative you know, we don't know specifically what it was,
but relative to the car, the phone temperature of jonal'
keeffe's phone.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
The battery.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
So it'll be we're gonna have new experts and they'll
present evidence in a different way.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Call me crazy, I think Karen Reid would be better
off taking the stand than doing television interviews.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Well, I'll call you crazy, really really why?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Well, because she she says she wants everybody to know
her story. What better way than to tell her story.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Well, on the front end, it's not from my perspective,
I don't think it was a good idea that they
allowed her to talk, at least in this length. Maybe
if they were going to, you know, do one interview
at one point, but the Kalmualt is literally going to
use everything they can and play it as you saw. Yes, Yeah,
one of the statements Careen made about Peggy O'Keeffe, the
coalm wealth now wants to introduce that that's under advisement,
(06:13):
we'll hear this morning while the judge Canoni lets that in.
The reason why she's not going to get on the
stand is because she's subject to cross examination, and she's
made a number of different statements, and and they're inconsistent
in the way that each time a statement has been
made relative to that morning, this new detail details added
that are largely self serving and help the defense. And
(06:33):
I don't think that that would farewell for her under
cross examination.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And I don't know. If my life is on the line,
I think I want to tell my story.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Everybody generally wants to tell this story. It's probably not
that she doesn't want to get on the stand, but
the legal consequence will probably be a lot. I don't
think that there's a benefit to her. I think there's
far more risk than a benefit.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Before we go to break, I have a questions. So
Michael projects officially been fired.
Speaker 7 (06:58):
Do you think that's going to make a big difference
in the trial, that he's actually been fired for his actions?
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I do. I mean, I think it'll make a difference.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I don't know how substantial of a difference, only because
it was so bad the first time. I mean everything
that we heard, the text messages about Karen Reid, how
you know, he disparaged her and you know the conflict
and really everything he did was just wrong in this case,
and he did not come off is remotely likable or
sympathetic the first time.
Speaker 8 (07:24):
You know.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
It's really just sort of an.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Added confirmation from the defense to be able to say
to the jury, not only does he appear this way
to you, but he appeared this way to you know,
the departminent which he worked from.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
They term it needed him for it.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
So I do think in terms of his reliability, that's
going to help them further diminish that.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I gotta tell you, once I saw a proctor was fired,
I'm thinking, oh my, this might be over well.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
The interesting thing is generally what happens is police work
in tandems. So most of the evidence and you know
what the it was an interview, a collection of evidence
and things like that done with another officer. So he
had Trooper euro Buchinick with him for the most part.
So if it was only him and nobody could else
could testify and his credibility was shot, that would be
tough for but because we have you, Kennet to testify
(08:08):
to it.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
All right, we're talking with counselor Catherine Loftis, and she's
going to be hanging out with us, which means you
get to call in with your question six one, seven,
nine eight.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
Good morning, guys, especially Billy. Obviously, I can't get enough
of this Karen Reid hoopla and everything else about it.
All I want to know is if I'm on the
Jerry and Billy's in question, I'm lying all day long
to protect It's cute, But so what's my punishment.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Now?
Speaker 5 (08:33):
It's topic time with Billy and Lisa in the morning,
and the.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Karen Reid trial definitely is a hot topic. We've got
lawyer Catherine Loftis. She is our lawyer exclusive to the
Karen Reid trial and has been from day one. When
I think of it, right, I'll started.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Here, Billy DM to Winny, look at what happens.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
And thank you. She brought merchant. I'm not wearing everything, Okay,
I'm wearing it. Okay, that's a sign of respect. Okay.
We said we would take your calls and your questions
for Catherine Loftis on the Karen Reid trial. Let's start
with Lisa and Braintree. Good morning, Lisa, say hello, a
load of Catherine Loftis.
Speaker 8 (09:10):
Good morning, Catherine, Wanting Billy, Lisa, Justin and Winnie. I
hope you're all having a good day so far. So
like everybody, everyone's watching this case. And I have a
question about yesterday in regards to the tail light, about
the Carrie Roberts as she lied, how you know there
was only a.
Speaker 7 (09:26):
Crack and a little teeny piece of missing, but at
the end of the snowstorm.
Speaker 8 (09:30):
Twelve inches later, all of a sudden, forty or fifty
pieces appear. Okay, okay, get that that's the thing that
will cause reasonable don't so during the.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
First trial, if my memory is cracked, she testified that
there was a crack and a piece missing, and then
yesterday she testified that there was a piece missing in
the middle. So I don't know that they're super inconsistent. Obviously,
there were a number of pieces of tail light found
at the scene. Presumably that's the arguably what they're trying
to say, that piece was broken into smaller pieces, the
(10:02):
one that they see missing.
Speaker 8 (10:03):
The part is that when they did the first the
first sweep.
Speaker 7 (10:07):
Of the area. It was the beginning of the snowstorm,
and they didn't find all those pieces or his shoe.
And then you know, at the end of the day,
after everyone did what they did, all of a sudden,
twelve inches are on the ground and now they find
all the pieces, right, I mean, I.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Think ultimately it comes down to, you know, one thing
that they definitely should have done right off the bat,
and this is one of the things they talked about
and they can't nodded, is that they didn't They attempted
to secure the scene at first. There was video of
them trying to put up you know, crime scene tape,
and it was so windy that they couldn't put up
down or a tent. And what they should have done
is basically, you know, put a cruiser there until the
(10:40):
search team got there. I think it was four forty
five they arrived, which they didn't. And so that's basically
an argument that the defense gets to make to the
jury that, okay, because there was you know, this time
lapse in between, that's substandard, not normal police investigation.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
So you can take that into consideration.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Okay, thank you very much for the call. Appreciate the
kind words too. Let's go to Dina in Peabody. Dinas,
you have a quest for Catherine.
Speaker 9 (11:02):
Hi, Katherine in High Morning Team Catherine.
Speaker 10 (11:04):
I was.
Speaker 9 (11:05):
I was really invested and watched a lot of the
first trial. Since then, you know, I haven't been watching
like every day, but I did watch the HBO special,
you know, the Body and the Body in the night
or whatever it was. Can in the she said, like
in the first scene, this is my story, this is
(11:28):
my testimony. And then like later on she was she says,
I'm done morning John. I've wanted him. This is all
about me.
Speaker 10 (11:40):
Can they I just.
Speaker 9 (11:41):
Found her very cold? Can they use that since she said,
this is my testimony, this is my story, Can they
use that? Hb any scenes from HBO documentary the prosecution.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
They can, and they have already they used. One of
the first thing that they used was from Nightline. The
second statement they use was from the HBO documentary. You know,
I think it's a good reminder people hear a lot
anything you say cannon will be used to they forget
that will part You know that when you're being charged,
particularly as a criminal defendant with serious charges, if you speak,
(12:15):
the commonwealth is not only going to get that you know,
footed and statements, but they will use it against.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
You, So why do the interviews?
Speaker 1 (12:22):
It's very question.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So the HBO documentary was filmed while the first trial
was going on, and there was such exclusive access. I
really believed that they thought they were sure she was
going to be found not guilty and so it was
never going to have any consequence in court.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Clearly that was a misstep because now there's I.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Think there was four hundred hours of unedited footage and
the piece that Attorney Brennan played for the Commonwealth was
one of the pieces we didn't see. So not only
can they play what was on HBO, they can play
all of the testimony, non testimony, the statements that she made.
And the producer of the series actually gave an interview
and said that they kept out some things that you know,
(13:01):
the team are. Alan Jackson said like, don't include that,
and they kept it out of the documentary. So I
think there's probably some stuff.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Let's go to Michelle and georg Chester. Michelle, you have
a question for Catherine, Yes, good morning.
Speaker 10 (13:13):
I want to know, especially yesterday when Attorney Jackson caught
Carrie in a lie and she admitted it and then
tried to cover it. BEV saved her instead of at
what point are they going to start prosecuting these people
for perjuring themselves? They did it so much in the
last try to especially Higgins, all of a sudden, Bev said,
(13:33):
you know, let's go get your lawyer. Like the judge
knows that they are perjuring themselves and nothing's being done.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Yeah, I didn't like that the judge let carry Roberts
off the hook the way she did.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Well, So it's not I know people might not like this,
but it's not perjury. So whatury Perjury is very the
word is loosely thrown around. It's not just something that's false.
It has to be false and knowingly falsely presented. So
when you're under oath, you have to know that what
I'm saying is a lie, and I'm going to tell
the lie. Anyway, If you say something that ends up
(14:04):
being false, or you know you heard it and you
believe it to be true, that's not perjury. And so
she's not going to be charged with perjury. And because
it couldn't be proved, you know, the issue with it
is clearly she was caught in you know, making it
incorrect statement to the grand jury. Ultimately, I wonder whether
it really goes to the reliability of carry or not.
(14:25):
I think overwhelmingly she comes across as pretty reliable. She's
not connected previously to any of these people, so she
doesn't have an incentive to lie on the front end.
It's going to come down to whether clearly Jen McCabe
told her. You know, Karen told me to google hypothermia
in the CA right, And so the question is do
you believe Jemma Cabe and the celebrate in the data
or do you believe the defense in Richard Green that
(14:46):
it happened to two thirty see.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
This is why you're a lawyer and where or not?
Speaker 8 (14:50):
Justin Tom morn and Crew, it's Lisa from bringing three
Flash down, Floor Up.
Speaker 10 (14:55):
How are you to Catherine? Can you please ask her
who's on the witness list? Like its Jen mccaid and.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
The you know alber guy.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Are they all on the witness list?
Speaker 10 (15:06):
Do we know that?
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Yes, there's one hundred and fifty witnesses on the list
that's combined between the defense and the Commonwealth. Not all
of those witnesses are going to be called those It's
really a game time decision you have to put everybody
on in order to put the other party on notice.
So anybody that the or the defense could potentially call
will be on the list. But then they decide as
they go as the evidence development.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
Well we hear from those two accident reconstructionists again, yes
we will.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
So this has been up in the air because there's
been a lot of question about discovery being turned over,
what wasn't the nature of the relationship following trial one
with the defense and OKRA and so we actually have
a voidia coming up on Monday relative to that. But ultimately,
I do think they're going to testify, you know, I
think it might be a little bit different this time around,
given that we have this new information, you know, relative
(15:53):
to whether there was conversations or you know, any if
they're going to do additional testing, But I do think
they will testify.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I love that word, dear.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
It's not really a question about the trial, but I
just want to know if she thinks that Karen Reid
has the most annoying voice in the entire world. I
don't know if you can answer this, but I would
love to know if she thinks that, because a lot
of people.
Speaker 4 (16:19):
Do, including me, well, I'll give Karen a break because
I get that a lot too, you know, with my
with my Boston AX and I get a lot of pushback.
So no, she sounds okay to me. I mean I
think her facial expressions and things. You know, there's a
lot of things that she has to be aware of
that the jury and you know people are observing the
cases of watching.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
But you know, all right, we've had Catherine Loftus, let's
face it, the Karen Reid trial heating up again. Thank
you so much for coming in again after taking everybody's questions.
Uh and uh, okay.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
We'll see you next Thursday.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, oh good,
Billy and Lisa in the morning.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Hey, guys, welcome back. Happy Thursday to you. So the
Karen Reid trial is heating up again, and you really
know what's heating up when Catherine Loftus is suddenly live
in studio again, our in house lawyer, Catherine the loftis
so great to see you.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Guys, It's like deja vu.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Katherine round too.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yes, and you brought merch with you, which is very cool.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
I did a little swag bag and get to note
my objection sweatch.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
That's hat. Billy's got it on looking good. He loves
free swag.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Oh god, I knew you did. I put it on instantly.
I might put the hoodie on before this show is
over today. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (00:34):
They look really comfortable, So thank you.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Okay, So Catherine, one question to start things off. I'm
curious we've all been talking about it, the crowds outside
the courthouse, the hype around the trial. Is it bigger
now or smaller?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
It's smaller there? Is it larger? Buffer zone?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
So there was a buffer zone the first trial in
which individuals could only get a certain you know, amount
of space in close to the of the court because
there was information received later that.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
The jury could.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Hear them outside chanting talking about like that they extended
the buffer zone. That's actually in federal court because some
individuals have contested that. But as of right now, it's
a little bit quieter because you can't get as close
as you could last time.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
How about this, is the interest in the trial bigger
or smaller right now?
Speaker 4 (01:23):
I think it's I think it's the same, but in
a different way. It seems to be more national this time.
I actually feel like on the local level there's some
people who have checked out a little bit and a
little bit exhausted by the case and not really as
into it as they were the first time. But on
the national level, there's definitely more eyes on it, so
you have almost a new sort of demographic of people
(01:45):
watching it across the country.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
At least. I was surprised to see O'Keeffe's mom for
the first time on the stand.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
I'm glad you mentioned that because Peggy O'Keefe was on
the stand. She didn't take the stand in the first trial,
and then Carrie Roberts took the stand and two other people.
So my question to you is all of this sort
of circumstance, This sort of like testimony about Karen Read's
actions and demeanor. How how much of an impact is
(02:11):
that going to have versus just the evidence on whether
Karen actually hit him with her car.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, what the como is trying to do by presenting,
you know, how Karen was acting that night, that morning,
allegedly what she said to Kerrie Roberts, the testimony from
Tim Nuttle, which was obviously a little bit tough about
you know, did he actually.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Hear her say did I hit him? Could I have
hit him? Or did he not?
Speaker 4 (02:35):
It's it's a small piece of the evidence if you
think about it.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
It's not one thing that's going to convict her.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
They have to prove through a number of different sort
of pieces of evidence. A lot of it is data,
some of it is statements. They're going to use her
behavior the subsequent media interviews to show that she, you know,
has changed her story.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
They're trying to prove consciousness of guilts.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
But you know, ultimately there's a lot of sort of
peripheral evidence, information that comes into this trial that ultimately,
I don't think the jury is going to consider what
we heard from some of the juror's last time is
that they really dismissed a lot of it as distractions
that didn't ultimately go to the issue with fact of
(03:16):
whether she hit him or not. So it's going to
be interested, given that the presentation of evidence is different
with this prosecutor, whether the jury comes away with that
same understanding or different.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
If you're just tuning us, it's the Billy and Lisa
Morning Show. We're talking with the lawyer Catherine Loftus. She
is our expert counselor on the Karen Reid trial. I
don't know a whole lot about courtroom demeanor, but it
strikes me that this new special prosecutor is very good.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
He is good, and I think it's interesting to watch.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
We haven't seen him really live in action in trial
outside of we've seen him in motions and they've been
litigating for months and months. But he's very different than
Adam Lallely. I think they're both kind of a quieter sense,
not quite as bombastic as as you know Alan Jackson is,
but he's definitely more methodical and he has his story
(04:05):
planned out. He has the you know, sort of outline
of what he expects to come in there's going to
be a lot more technical evidence I think this time
for the Commwealth than there was the first and he's
really leaving no stone unturned. It's he's interesting to watch.
He's a career defense attorney. I believe he was the
prosecutor at the beginning of his career, but he's switching
(04:26):
sides really and so the insight into how an attorney,
you know, presents a case on the opposite side than
they usually are is interesting because he's he knows what
the defense is thinking because this is usually what he
does for a living.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
So it's interesting to watch.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
I think everybody's getting their feet a little what this week.
It seems to have been a little clunky the first
few days, so we'll see if everybody sort of gets
into this stride.
Speaker 6 (04:49):
Well.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
They keep saying that he has new SCUV evidence, data evidence,
and cell phone evidence. Do you think there's going to
be like the bombshell moment where something's going to come out?
Speaker 4 (05:00):
That might mean I think last time the evidence was
just very convoluted. It was difficult to understand what the
prosecutor was trying to get the jury to, you know.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And it felt a little even as a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
I could kind of see where he was going, but
it was lost in translation.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
It wasn't presented clearly through the experts.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
So I think in addition to presenting that information in
a better, stronger way, the call wall also has new
information relative you know, we don't know specifically what it was,
but relative to the car, the phone temperature of jonal'
keeffe's phone.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
The battery.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
So it'll be we're gonna have new experts and they'll
present evidence in a different way.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Call me crazy, I think Karen Reid would be better
off taking the stand than doing television interviews.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Well, I'll call you crazy, really really why?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Well, because she she says she wants everybody to know
her story. What better way than to tell her story.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Well, on the front end, it's not from my perspective,
I don't think it was a good idea that they
allowed her to talk, at least in this length. Maybe
if they were going to, you know, do one interview
at one point, but the Kalmualt is literally going to
use everything they can and play it as you saw. Yes, Yeah,
one of the statements Careen made about Peggy O'Keeffe, the
coalm wealth now wants to introduce that that's under advisement,
(06:13):
we'll hear this morning while the judge Canoni lets that in.
The reason why she's not going to get on the
stand is because she's subject to cross examination, and she's
made a number of different statements, and and they're inconsistent
in the way that each time a statement has been
made relative to that morning, this new detail details added
that are largely self serving and help the defense. And
(06:33):
I don't think that that would farewell for her under
cross examination.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And I don't know. If my life is on the line,
I think I want to tell my story.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Everybody generally wants to tell this story. It's probably not
that she doesn't want to get on the stand, but
the legal consequence will probably be a lot. I don't
think that there's a benefit to her. I think there's
far more risk than a benefit.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Before we go to break, I have a questions. So
Michael projects officially been fired.
Speaker 7 (06:58):
Do you think that's going to make a big difference
in the trial, that he's actually been fired for his actions?
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I do. I mean, I think it'll make a difference.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I don't know how substantial of a difference, only because
it was so bad the first time. I mean everything
that we heard, the text messages about Karen Reid, how
you know, he disparaged her and you know the conflict
and really everything he did was just wrong in this case,
and he did not come off is remotely likable or
sympathetic the first time.
Speaker 8 (07:24):
You know.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
It's really just sort of an.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Added confirmation from the defense to be able to say
to the jury, not only does he appear this way
to you, but he appeared this way to you know,
the departminent which he worked from.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
They term it needed him for it.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
So I do think in terms of his reliability, that's
going to help them further diminish that.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I gotta tell you, once I saw a proctor was fired,
I'm thinking, oh my, this might be over well.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
The interesting thing is generally what happens is police work
in tandems. So most of the evidence and you know
what the it was an interview, a collection of evidence
and things like that done with another officer. So he
had Trooper euro Buchinick with him for the most part.
So if it was only him and nobody could else
could testify and his credibility was shot, that would be
tough for but because we have you, Kennet to testify
(08:08):
to it.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
All right, we're talking with counselor Catherine Loftis, and she's
going to be hanging out with us, which means you
get to call in with your question six one, seven,
nine eight.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
Good morning, guys, especially Billy. Obviously, I can't get enough
of this Karen Reid hoopla and everything else about it.
All I want to know is if I'm on the
Jerry and Billy's in question, I'm lying all day long
to protect It's cute, But so what's my punishment.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Now?
Speaker 5 (08:33):
It's topic time with Billy and Lisa in the morning,
and the.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Karen Reid trial definitely is a hot topic. We've got
lawyer Catherine Loftis. She is our lawyer exclusive to the
Karen Reid trial and has been from day one. When
I think of it, right, I'll started.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Here, Billy DM to Winny, look at what happens.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
And thank you. She brought merchant. I'm not wearing everything, Okay,
I'm wearing it. Okay, that's a sign of respect. Okay.
We said we would take your calls and your questions
for Catherine Loftis on the Karen Reid trial. Let's start
with Lisa and Braintree. Good morning, Lisa, say hello, a
load of Catherine Loftis.
Speaker 8 (09:10):
Good morning, Catherine, Wanting Billy, Lisa, Justin and Winnie. I
hope you're all having a good day so far. So
like everybody, everyone's watching this case. And I have a
question about yesterday in regards to the tail light, about
the Carrie Roberts as she lied, how you know there
was only a.
Speaker 7 (09:26):
Crack and a little teeny piece of missing, but at
the end of the snowstorm.
Speaker 8 (09:30):
Twelve inches later, all of a sudden, forty or fifty
pieces appear. Okay, okay, get that that's the thing that
will cause reasonable don't so during the.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
First trial, if my memory is cracked, she testified that
there was a crack and a piece missing, and then
yesterday she testified that there was a piece missing in
the middle. So I don't know that they're super inconsistent. Obviously,
there were a number of pieces of tail light found
at the scene. Presumably that's the arguably what they're trying
to say, that piece was broken into smaller pieces, the
(10:02):
one that they see missing.
Speaker 8 (10:03):
The part is that when they did the first the
first sweep.
Speaker 7 (10:07):
Of the area. It was the beginning of the snowstorm,
and they didn't find all those pieces or his shoe.
And then you know, at the end of the day,
after everyone did what they did, all of a sudden,
twelve inches are on the ground and now they find
all the pieces, right, I mean, I.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Think ultimately it comes down to, you know, one thing
that they definitely should have done right off the bat,
and this is one of the things they talked about
and they can't nodded, is that they didn't They attempted
to secure the scene at first. There was video of
them trying to put up you know, crime scene tape,
and it was so windy that they couldn't put up
down or a tent. And what they should have done
is basically, you know, put a cruiser there until the
(10:40):
search team got there. I think it was four forty
five they arrived, which they didn't. And so that's basically
an argument that the defense gets to make to the
jury that, okay, because there was you know, this time
lapse in between, that's substandard, not normal police investigation.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
So you can take that into consideration.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Okay, thank you very much for the call. Appreciate the
kind words too. Let's go to Dina in Peabody. Dinas,
you have a quest for Catherine.
Speaker 9 (11:02):
Hi, Katherine in High Morning Team Catherine.
Speaker 10 (11:04):
I was.
Speaker 9 (11:05):
I was really invested and watched a lot of the
first trial. Since then, you know, I haven't been watching
like every day, but I did watch the HBO special,
you know, the Body and the Body in the night
or whatever it was. Can in the she said, like
in the first scene, this is my story, this is
(11:28):
my testimony. And then like later on she was she says,
I'm done morning John. I've wanted him. This is all
about me.
Speaker 10 (11:40):
Can they I just.
Speaker 9 (11:41):
Found her very cold? Can they use that since she said,
this is my testimony, this is my story, Can they
use that? Hb any scenes from HBO documentary the prosecution.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
They can, and they have already they used. One of
the first thing that they used was from Nightline. The
second statement they use was from the HBO documentary. You know,
I think it's a good reminder people hear a lot
anything you say cannon will be used to they forget
that will part You know that when you're being charged,
particularly as a criminal defendant with serious charges, if you speak,
(12:15):
the commonwealth is not only going to get that you know,
footed and statements, but they will use it against.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
You, So why do the interviews?
Speaker 1 (12:22):
It's very question.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So the HBO documentary was filmed while the first trial
was going on, and there was such exclusive access. I
really believed that they thought they were sure she was
going to be found not guilty and so it was
never going to have any consequence in court.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Clearly that was a misstep because now there's I.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Think there was four hundred hours of unedited footage and
the piece that Attorney Brennan played for the Commonwealth was
one of the pieces we didn't see. So not only
can they play what was on HBO, they can play
all of the testimony, non testimony, the statements that she made.
And the producer of the series actually gave an interview
and said that they kept out some things that you know,
(13:01):
the team are. Alan Jackson said like, don't include that,
and they kept it out of the documentary. So I
think there's probably some stuff.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Let's go to Michelle and georg Chester. Michelle, you have
a question for Catherine, Yes, good morning.
Speaker 10 (13:13):
I want to know, especially yesterday when Attorney Jackson caught
Carrie in a lie and she admitted it and then
tried to cover it. BEV saved her instead of at
what point are they going to start prosecuting these people
for perjuring themselves? They did it so much in the
last try to especially Higgins, all of a sudden, Bev said,
(13:33):
you know, let's go get your lawyer. Like the judge
knows that they are perjuring themselves and nothing's being done.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Yeah, I didn't like that the judge let carry Roberts
off the hook the way she did.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Well, So it's not I know people might not like this,
but it's not perjury. So whatury Perjury is very the
word is loosely thrown around. It's not just something that's false.
It has to be false and knowingly falsely presented. So
when you're under oath, you have to know that what
I'm saying is a lie, and I'm going to tell
the lie. Anyway, If you say something that ends up
(14:04):
being false, or you know you heard it and you
believe it to be true, that's not perjury. And so
she's not going to be charged with perjury. And because
it couldn't be proved, you know, the issue with it
is clearly she was caught in you know, making it
incorrect statement to the grand jury. Ultimately, I wonder whether
it really goes to the reliability of carry or not.
(14:25):
I think overwhelmingly she comes across as pretty reliable. She's
not connected previously to any of these people, so she
doesn't have an incentive to lie on the front end.
It's going to come down to whether clearly Jen McCabe
told her. You know, Karen told me to google hypothermia
in the CA right, And so the question is do
you believe Jemma Cabe and the celebrate in the data
or do you believe the defense in Richard Green that
(14:46):
it happened to two thirty see.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
This is why you're a lawyer and where or not?
Speaker 8 (14:50):
Justin Tom morn and Crew, it's Lisa from bringing three
Flash down, Floor Up.
Speaker 10 (14:55):
How are you to Catherine? Can you please ask her
who's on the witness list? Like its Jen mccaid and.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
The you know alber guy.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Are they all on the witness list?
Speaker 10 (15:06):
Do we know that?
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Yes, there's one hundred and fifty witnesses on the list
that's combined between the defense and the Commonwealth. Not all
of those witnesses are going to be called those It's
really a game time decision you have to put everybody
on in order to put the other party on notice.
So anybody that the or the defense could potentially call
will be on the list. But then they decide as
they go as the evidence development.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
Well we hear from those two accident reconstructionists again, yes
we will.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
So this has been up in the air because there's
been a lot of question about discovery being turned over,
what wasn't the nature of the relationship following trial one
with the defense and OKRA and so we actually have
a voidia coming up on Monday relative to that. But ultimately,
I do think they're going to testify, you know, I
think it might be a little bit different this time around,
given that we have this new information, you know, relative
(15:53):
to whether there was conversations or you know, any if
they're going to do additional testing, But I do think
they will testify.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I love that word, dear.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
It's not really a question about the trial, but I
just want to know if she thinks that Karen Reid
has the most annoying voice in the entire world. I
don't know if you can answer this, but I would
love to know if she thinks that, because a lot
of people.
Speaker 4 (16:19):
Do, including me, well, I'll give Karen a break because
I get that a lot too, you know, with my
with my Boston AX and I get a lot of pushback.
So no, she sounds okay to me. I mean I
think her facial expressions and things. You know, there's a
lot of things that she has to be aware of
that the jury and you know people are observing the
cases of watching.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
But you know, all right, we've had Catherine Loftus, let's
face it, the Karen Reid trial heating up again. Thank
you so much for coming in again after taking everybody's questions.
Uh and uh, okay.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
We'll see you next Thursday.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, oh good,
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!