Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:07] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren, and welcome to another.
[00:00:09] Speaker A: Episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: And today we're going to be talking about the Karen Reed case. But first, we're going to talk really quick. Sorry I had the hiccups about the Amy Bradley situation. As I know we've all been, like, binging the Netflix documentary, and so we probably both have our different opinions, and we may dive into this in a later episode. So if you want us, definitely send us a DM and let us know.
So, Lacey, what do you think happened? Just real quick?
[00:00:37] Speaker A: I think she either jumped or fell off.
[00:00:41] Speaker B: I thought that as well. I thought she, like, probably was drunk and fell over. But then I'm like, those guys are sitting on the Netflix documentary. You know, like, the guys from the.
[00:00:51] Speaker A: Coast Guard, they're like, but washed her body. They would have found her body.
[00:00:55] Speaker B: So part of me wonders, did somebody, like, cut her up and put her in a suitcase and take her off, or is she still out here living her best life? And we don't.
[00:01:03] Speaker A: I just don't believe those guys when they say that I think anything can happen in the ocean.
[00:01:07] Speaker B: Well, they did say the one thing that got me was about the shark thing. We do got sharks, but they wouldn't eat all of her. Why wouldn't they eat all of her?
[00:01:15] Speaker A: Well, if you watch Shark Week, most likely they would not have, but.
[00:01:19] Speaker B: But would one not eat and then another one come along and eat the red? I don't know. Like, it was really gruesome. I kind of thought she was drunk and fell off, though.
[00:01:27] Speaker A: Went to Friends night on Friday. They all believe she's trafficked.
My cousin Paige, she said she thinks she jumped, but all her family back home thinks she was trafficked. So I think we're split. So if y' all want us to dive more into this case, check out Amy Bradley. It's on Netflix. It's about her disappearance from a cruise ship. So let us know if you want us to add that to our list. But for now, me and Lauren are split. I think she jumped.
[00:01:58] Speaker B: I think she fell off. So we're going with that. But I do have a cruise scheduled for in the future, and now I'm, like, questioning it a little bit after watching the documentary. So if any of y' all have been on cruises and want to give me advice to continue to go, feel free to DM me over that, too.
[00:02:12] Speaker A: I. Because I went on that cruise in March and had so much fun, and I literally expanse.
It was a work meeting, an extensive work meeting.
So now the IRS is gonna be listening to our podcast.
But I had a blast. And when I was watching Amy Bradley, I was actually pricing cruises because I want to go on another one so bad.
So it did not deter me. I would absolutely go on a cruise again. So, Lauren, go.
One of the public defenders was in court today and she was talking about going on the Cruise for her 20 year anniversary with her husband. And she not a cruise girl. He hasn't been. And I was just raving about it. And it was Royal Caribbean, which is the same cruise of Amy Bradley. So I stand by it. I stand by going on cruises. I, I think those things are rare, just as rare as things we deal with every day. So, Lauren, go on your cruise and have fun and I think you'll have a blast. Well, and mine is going to be.
[00:03:10] Speaker B: A Disney cruise, so there's characters on there, so we'll see. I've just put down the deposit, so I still got a while. But switching gears, we are going to talk about Kieran Rate. And I guess one thing I wanted to bring before this was something I guess I really, I've thought about, but haven't thought about is like when you have a hung jury, it means that they didn't all find you guilty or innocent. So I guess like, what's crazy to me, I guess is all 12 have to find you guilty for you to be convicted. But I've never thought about the reverse, that all 12 have to find you innocent for you to be all like, I guess, like, I know that sounds dumb, but I know this is going to come up in this. But I've never thought about the reverse yet. To be convicted, they all have to find you. But to be let off, they all have to find you innocent. And I guess I never thought about it in the reverse. Like I thought, oh, if one of them. But I'm. And that's what happened in her case. So it was just kind of interesting to think about.
[00:04:12] Speaker A: And technically it's, it's not innocent, right? Technically it's not guilty. And what that means is they don't believe the state met its burden of proof. So there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed the crime. You know, I had a trial this morning and I think the judge saw enough evidence for probable cause, but she didn't find enough evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't necessarily mean my client's innocent. The state just didn't meet their burden. So I think that's important to note too.
But yeah. So we're going to be talking about a hung jury in this case with Karen Reed. I don't know. A lot of people's names, like me and Lauren have said before when we talk about these cases, if you want the, like, all the skinny of the facts of something, there's other podcasts out there for that. We are here to really kind of give a legal. So like, basis and. And talk about our opinions on the. The legal side of things or the mom side. So Karen Reed was charged with killing her boyfriend, John o'. Keefe. So what had happened was briefly, they'd been dating on and off. I think they had some arguments and stuff like that. She was like a professor or something like that. He was a cop. This was in Massachusetts.
They were out drinking, they both got drunk. But a bunch of cop buddies of his were having like a party or maybe it was an after party after they went out. I don't really know. But John that passed away, the deceased wanted to go because those were all of his friends.
So she drove him, even though she was drunk too, to this house. And from what I know from the evidence, like, he said he. She didn't know she'd be welcome in there. So she said for him to, like, go in and, like, check it out or something.
And he didn't come back to the car. So, like, she texted him, called him, and she decided to go home. She was tired. She didn't know what's going on. But she was also mad, so. So there were like, voicemails like, I'm so tired of you. You suck.
I'm done with this relationship. Just, you know, mad girlfriend blowing him up. Well, he never came home. So she called somebody the next day. I think it was somebody at the house, might have been related to him. It was like, hey, John didn't come home last night.
What's up?
And so they go to the. She goes back over to the house where she had dropped him off at, and they found his body in the snow and he had been deceased.
So I think at one point, I don't know who was there for the ems, but she's like, I hit him. I hit him. Oh, my gosh, what have I done?
But in the trial, there were some issues.
So, for example, like, there they said that they found.
She said that her tail light was busted, right? Or somebody did, I guess maybe the cops or something. But there was no evidence of the tail light being in the driveway. But then there was later.
So that was just kind of sketchy. But what I found really interesting was this Evidence. So he had, like, scratches all on his arm. And they said he died from hypothermia and damages to his head. But he had, like, a ton of scratches on his arm. Like, multiple. Multiple scratch marks. Like, you can't explain that with being bumped by the car and then left at the cold. Also, there was somebody in the house because, like I said, lots of cops are inside the house. One of the women searched. How long does it take for a body to die in the cold on their phone?
Now, there are arguments from the state as to when that search was made.
The defense argued that the search was made before they found the body.
She testified that it was made after they found the body.
There's just also inappropriate actions by the cops. So, like, one of the cops, one of his friends was texting her, flirting with her, like, leading up to it.
And one of the cops with the lead investigator, I think at the time, he had text messages that came out that said, like, that she was a slut.
And, you know, this is. Don't worry. This will stick.
She don't stand a chance.
But just really nasty names towards her. And some of the texts are just real sketchy, like, almost to the point where they were trying to, you know, say it without saying it. Like, let's pin this on her.
And he actually was fired because of his text messages that were disclosed and let go because of the inappropriateness. Like, you can't have that from a. From a lead investigator, because his job isn't to pinpoint it on somebody. His job is to find out what happened, not convict. Right. Like, that's. That's on down the road. Like, what happened. Gather evidence. What evidence do you have to present to a judge and a magistrate? So that was really sketchy. And then another officer, the one that lived at the house, he had a phone. They were not. They wanted to get his phone, but he had destroyed it. He had taken it.
He had taken the phone and, like, completely destroyed it. Lost it. Like. And he had no explanation for why. I mean, it was just, yes, I had this phone. Yes, I live there. Okay, well, we need your text messages. What was leading up that night with him coming over and stuff like that? Well, it doesn't exist. So they were never. Never able to recover any of the data on his phone because he chunked it. And so I just. That part really bothered me. Like, you're an officer in this case. This happened at your house. Why would you get rid of your phone?
Like, what reason other than it's. There's something Incriminating in there. Would you get rid of your phone?
So, huh.
[00:10:21] Speaker B: I mean, yeah, like. And I feel like cops know better than anybody.
[00:10:25] Speaker A: Like phone. Yeah, right.
So that was really sketchy. So there was that. And then apparently the. So the defense tried to say that he was murdered or he, he was injured inside. Like they say that they think that a dog attacked him and that would be the reason for the scratches and some other stuff. And then they put him out in the cold, I think was their theory, the cop friends or whatever.
And shortly after this happened, the family did get rid of their dog. So that was kind of weird.
But the state eventually said, you know, she was an angry girlfriend, she was mad at him. So she had, you know, hit him with her car because she was mad at him and then left him out in the cold to die. That was the theory of the state. The theory of the defense was essentially what's called third party guilt.
And at least in South Carolina, you can't always get into third party guilt.
It's up to the judge as to whether that evidence, it's admissible or not.
So that was essentially the defense's theory was that this was a cover up by the police. And there's also third party guilt involved that other people were to blame. So she went to trial and the first trial ended in what Lauren was talking about, a hung jury.
So I don't think we know the number on that. So, for example, you can poll a jury after to see where they're at and they could be 7, 5, 6, 6, 10, 2, 11, 1. It doesn't matter. It's just that whole 12 has to agree either guilty or not guilty.
So I'm not sure. I'm curious to see. I don't know if that was ever released as to the split.
But you know, Lauren, if you are a prosecutor, at what point would you say, okay, let's retry this case, or, you know, I don't think we have enough and move on. Like what? Like if they polled the jury and in this case and let's say it was 10 to 2 not guilty, would you try it?
[00:12:36] Speaker B: No, I think it's got to be at least more thinking guilty than innocent. And it's going to be the debate, if it's, if it's like 7 5, is that worth it or is it more? Because I mean, if the majority of them found that it was not guilty, then there's no point in retrying it. And I think, you know, they went through this whole trial and she got found Off. She got innocent again, I guess. I wonder at what point. And I don't know. This goes into the civil side of it. So, like, okay, she pretty much had to pay for two different attorneys fees and all that. When can she sue? Do you know? She can, like, sue the state or whatever to recoup those second attorney's fees. Like, I know if you're wrongfully, like, imprisoned, you can collect, but what about when it's stuff where you're found innocent? Can you get those attorneys fees back?
[00:13:29] Speaker A: Well, that's the importance of what I was saying earlier. It's not technically innocent. She was just found not guilty that the state didn't meet their burden. You know, and I think there's some evidentiary issues in the state case.
I don't know that she actually did not do it. I, my. I say she did it. I don't think she did.
But I don't think everybody can say that. I think most people can just say, the state really messed up. This was a shoddy investigation.
We're never going to know the truth. But I don't think a lot of people are like, she's fully innocent.
[00:13:59] Speaker B: I do believe she did get convicted. Of what, a DUI or something.
[00:14:07] Speaker A: So the first trial was hung, and then they tried it again, and she was found not guilty on all on the manslaughter charge. And she was found guilty of operating under the influence, which I do want to circle back around to that later, for South Carolina law, too.
And she got probation on that. So she cannot, at least in South Carolina, like I said, every state is different. In South Carolina, I do not.
I really don't know if she would have a lawsuit or not. So what I tell my clients is for you to have a wrongful arrest, right? You have to prove there was no probable cause, and that's a lower burden. So just because they don't meet proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean there's not probable cause. So, for example, let's say that I make an allegation against my husband for hitting me, right? For domestic violence. Let's say he hit me. Domestic violence.
And we go to trial, and for some reason, maybe my husband testifies that he didn't mean to hit me, that he was, like, standing up and elbowed me. But we were arguing, and they believed that, and they find him not guilty. He's not going to be able to file a civil suit at that point. Right. Because there was still probable cause for the arrest. I made a statement. The police thought that statement was Credible. And if I had a mark on my face, they have a photo of that. So that's going to be enough probable cause. So he would not have a lawsuit for wrongful arrest, because there's still probable cause in the case to make the arrest. So even though a jury found him not guilty, it's not going to be enough. So the question really is going to be, did they meet probable cause? And I think they did. I mean, I do think she was hungover, maybe even still drunk the next day when she made the comments, I hit him. I hit him. But I think when you have him lying on the ground and you have her statement saying, I hit him, I hit him, with some other things going on. I do think there was enough probable cause. I mean, and I don't know if I heard anything for prosecutorial misconduct. I think if anything, the police really messed up. But I. I don't know in South Carolina if there would be a lawsuit, because I do think there was some evidence to charge her of the crime. Maybe not as they investigated, maybe not enough to go to a trial. I don't think they had enough to convict, and clearly not because the jury also said there was not enough evidence to convict and finding her not guilty. But I do think there was enough probable cause. So I don't know that she'll be able to recoup those expenses. It's hard to file those suits because the burden for probable causes is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
[00:16:48] Speaker B: I will say, in the civil world of cases. So, like, if somebody files like a frivolous lawsuit against you and you're wanting to go after them, I mean, you can ask for it in part of, like, your counter claim is like this, a frivolous lawsuit. But there's also this thing where if it actually goes through to a trial and you get found, like, it's found in your favor, you can go back and start a whole new lawsuit against them to recoup your attorney's fees. But here's the hard part. In the civil side of things is. I mean, it's different with the state, but like, in the civil side of things, if that person has no money, you've got a judgment against them for your attorney's fees, but you're never going to get them. I think one thing a lot of people don't realize is when you start a lawsuit and, like, you've been arrested, you may have money for a defense attorney then, and you may not be qualified for the public defender. And then during the course of a criminal lawsuit, you run out of money, or especially if there's another one, and at that point you've had to sell your house, you've lost your assets, you don't have a job, then you have to go get a public defender at that point. And I think that's something people don't realize that during the course of a lawsuit your finances can greatly change because, because especially, you know, if it's a DUI trial. I imagine Lacey, it's not millions of dollars, but thinking about like some of these big trials like her that are lasting for weeks, they might like the trial, like murder trials, all those type things where you may not can afford to continue to have that attorney, especially if there's like a hung jury. We go to a new trial and at that point you have to go ask. And this is an issue right now in South Carolina because if they don't app you a public defender at the start, they assume you don't need one. But at some point during all this, you could need one and you have to go back to the courts and ask because I don't think people realize how expensive, you know, say yes, you were found not guilty, you got off, but you just went in debt, 250, $300,000. It's not just that. I'm sure she's happy she was found not guilty. I don't know. She. This is when I really did not keep up with as much. I don't know why she did not interest me as much, but she's not got off scot free in the financial world because she has probably had to put multiple sell things, put a mortgage on her house, all this to be able to come up with this. Not. And it's really sad for people who are truly innocent and have to go through that.
[00:19:23] Speaker A: And I almost wonder if that's why she did the Netflix documentary. So the documentary follows her first trial and going through that. And it's really insightful because it does show you like what her attorneys are, are thinking and they're processing and when they're waiting for the verdict, you just see how nervous they are. You know, they, they truly care. And it's just a side side that you don't often see in documentaries. I think a lot of times and with true crime stuff, it's so state focused.
So this was a good case to kind of show the, the other side of what the defense goes through. So that was really interesting that, but it almost makes you wonder like, did they all agree to do the Netflix documentary for expenses for Money. And in that kind of situation, like you're saying, can we really blame them? I mean, because think of the experts that they got, the investigation that they did, getting cell phone data. Okay, so if I. If I get cell phone data, it's just not. I'm just not double clicking something, and everything comes up that I need.
Right. Sometimes it's very difficult to pinpoint and put all that together. Like, I get a copy, but it's not always readable. And I'm like, I can't get the software to work. And then we have to hire a cell phone expert.
We've had to hire a cell phone expert before for location data. Right. Where was this cell phone at? Does it show that my client was at the crime scene or not? And so all those things go into play when talking about these expenses, too. And like we said, this was two trials. This was not just one.
So it makes me wonder, like, did they do that documentary to help money from it?
[00:21:08] Speaker B: Because that's. You're technically not supposed to profit off of a crime.
[00:21:14] Speaker A: So, like, I'm not guilty of the crime, so. And at the time, she was not.
[00:21:21] Speaker B: They were filming it prior to her second not guilty. I don't know. There's a lot of, like, people who write, like, books and stuff, they're not ever supposed to make money from committing a crime. I think there's a lot of loopholes around things like that, because I know in the future we're going to talk about Anna Delvey, and she pretty much has made money by committing crimes and profiting on those. But I think that's kind of one of those hard things is like, what should she have got?
[00:21:49] Speaker A: Money.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: But maybe because of it, the attorneys got money, and they use some of that money to go towards her legal. Because there's nothing stopping them from taking money as long as you allow them to testify. Like, not testify, but give, I don't know, interviews or whatever.
[00:22:05] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Can they be like, hey, I made $20,000 off your Netflix documentary, so even though I quoted you a hundred thousand, I'm now willing to reduce my fee to 80? What says they can't? I don't know that there's anything that says they can't reduce their fee.
[00:22:25] Speaker B: What we want to charge for stuff based within reason, as long as it's a reasonable fee. And the thing is, if the client agrees to pay it, it's reasonable.
It's what I've been told, like, there's a lot of wiggle room for that so I think, you know, I don't. Obviously we'd have to consult an ethics attorney because obviously I've never been approached about getting money for any of this type stuff. But I think there could be wiggle room and that's maybe. Or you know, this Netflix documentary will help us pay for this expert of thing. So maybe. But it's interesting and we'll see what happens with her in the future if she gets arrested for killing any more boyfriends.
[00:23:02] Speaker A: I don't think she will.
I did say something today.
She wants her car back and her cell phone back. That's what was the latest today. So that's important to note when.
If someone is charged with a crime and. And there there's property taken. Right. If they are acquitted, you can request that back. So, you know, I have had a client charged with a crime that was later dismissed and his firearms were taken due to the. One of the charges and it was dismissed. So we got him his firearms back, rightfully so. We've had clients who were charged with drug crimes and they took their money.
And so, you know, those were dismissed, we got the money back.
And I will say for us it's technically a separate legal action if they don't just give it back. So these were cases where I reached out, told the evidence custodian that the case was dismissed. We submit the disposition. They set up a time for us to get it back. If they refuse to give it back, then what you have to do is file a forfeiture claim. Basically the state is holding onto your property and they don't have any legal rights to it yet. So. So it looks like that's what they're dealing with now.
You know, that they are trying to get. It seems like they took her car, which would make sense. They probably pulled her car data.
I'm learning a lot about car data right now. I may can talk about that later. Why. But they can tell in especially newer cars with an impact sometimes what speeds the cars were going when they made impact or what speed is going with main impact on something. And did. Did a hit register on the vehicle to begin with.
So there's different things they can pull from car data. So I'm assuming that if they took her vehicle, that's probably why. And they for sure took her cell phone to try to get her text and voice messages and the things that, you know, some of that was introduced at the trial, but now that she's been acquitted, I mean, I don't think they have a right to get it. You know, they the state can't appeal a conviction. You know, a defendant can appeal a guilty conviction, but the state can't appeal a not guilty. So I don't know why they would hang on to that. So that's something new that's going on in her case that I saw this morning.
I guess the latest there is, it appears that there may be a civil suit against her by the family.
And we kind of saw that in OJ where he was acquitted of the criminal but found liable civilly.
[00:25:43] Speaker B: And it's two different standards. So there is a different burden.
And so it'll be interesting if they do that to see.
But I'm guessing she has probably not a whole lot left to her name anymore. She's not like OJ she wasn't some super celebrity football player.
[00:26:00] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:26:01] Speaker B: We will see how all that plays out. And let us know if you want us to go more into the Amy Bradley stuff with different theories on that. And we're going to continue our infamous Women series.
[00:26:13] Speaker A: Yep. And I don't think me and Lauren have decided what we are going to do next week. Anna Delvey, maybe.
[00:26:19] Speaker B: Yep. I think maybe we can go with her, watch her net the Netflix show Dancing with the Stars. You'll learn all about her.
[00:26:26] Speaker A: I don't know that I want to watch dancing, but join us next week. Lauren's going to help us dive into that. And if you have any recommendations for our Women in Criminal World series, let us know. All right, I'll see you next week. Bye.
