Defense Attorney

Ruby realizes that she still has work to do in shedding those thinking errors and to reestablish a better and correct pattern of thinking and behavior. Ruby realizes that changing her thinking Re-establishing relationships and healing are not simple or easy tasks. However, she is committed to doing that work.

I would like the court to know that Ruby Franke is a delightful, respectful, and responsible person. She is open to feedback and addressing the consequences of her actions head on, and now ready to address your honor and accept your judgment.

We call Jason Young.

Are those the shoes that you had on on November the 2nd?

So between the time you smoked the cigar and went back upstairs and went to sleep, did you leave that room until the next morning?

And I realized I didn't bring those papers. Why was it important to you that somebody get those papers?

Yes, sir, I did. Did he also tell you not to talk to anybody about it?

Did you have any designs in your own mind of... Leaving Michelle Young for Michelle Money? No, sir. Describe why not.

What was your level of intoxication at that time?

Did you want to stay married to Michelle?

Were you able to afford a lawyer for a full-blown custody battle?

This is the complaint that was filed in December seeking custody of Cassidy.

You have ample evidence before you that Jason Young is not guilty.

Is it fair to say that you have a history and have admitted to being an habitual liar?

Yes, I did think they were. This, though defense attorney Hogue had known and admired Lauren. I was her teacher in a transition course from law school into law practice.

How would you rate the overall investigation in this case?

I hate to be critical, but not very good.

Yes.

You know, I saw them too. I don't see anything that jumps out to me as like, oh, my God, we got her. You know, it's small details. It's like we went from the house in Velva to the family function, and then, okay, in this first version we left out the bar. But why is that significant? She still isn't back in Minot where she would have had access to an EVA.

It jumped right out to me that they left out Devin Hall.

Have you seen photographs of Devon Hall?

I have. Can you describe him to the court? At the time, he looks fit, about 200 pounds, 6'2", short hair, dark hair. I don't know what color his eyes are. It matches the description given by Becky Ehrman of a person that she saw running away from the scene that night.

Again, highly coincidental that a person matching the description almost to a T of Devin Hall, seen running away from the area of the crime scene with a dirty or bloody shirt, is something I, as an investigator, am going to thoroughly pursue.

There's nothing to indicate on that video what the date was that it was recorded.

What sticks out to me is there's very little context leading up to when this alleged confession was made. We know that there was this drunken party and that Nicole... has been reported as being belligerently drunk. Now, was she the only one that was that drunk? How drunk were the people that allegedly heard this confession? It doesn't make sense for me.

So was there no logical follow-up conversation to that?

How would you rate the overall investigation in this case?

I hate to be critical, but not very good.

Why is that?

There's a lack of attention to detail. There's a lack of thoroughness. They seem to spend a lot of attention running down dead-end rabbit holes while glossing over some very important facts, details. What, if anything, about this case piques your interest? I don't think we have the correct person.

Correct. I did not believe this was a murder.

It was. Their case was flimsy. Their case was not about the murder. But bottom line is that they had no why, when, and how.

She defrauded friends, relatives, investors. She was involved in a Ponzi scheme. The fact that she is perhaps a fraud and perhaps a cheat does not translate into being a murderer.

That bottle to me appeared to be full.

Their expert testified it would take a fair amount.

I mean, and to say that that would be the dumbest criminal, I mean, this is an intelligent woman. So really those two things don't equate.

It had been there for a while.

For Jennifer's son.

I think any reasonable person would think that if they're jabbed with a needle and the person doing the jabbing doesn't advise you of what is in that syringe, I would call for help.

I don't think there was any evidence to prove that.

Bodybuilders do take insulin some for gaining muscle mass and burning carbohydrates. There was some innuendo that he may have been injecting insulin at some point.

Nobody was able to present any evidence to suggest that Natalie Cochran had a motive to kill her husband.

So it was going to be what, a preemptive killing? Are they, are you kidding me? That's the prosecution's theory. That's absolutely absurd.

I firmly believe that if he were alive, he would be sitting in prison as well.

Michael was up to his eyeballs in the business that he and Natalie have created.

It's overwhelming proof, ranging from his actions writing contracts, signing checks, to enjoying the harvest of their business.

In... October of 2018, stayed in the hospital for one day, was released.

He was prescribed an anticonvulsive by a physician.

Yes.

I think it was in concert of everything. But at the end of the day, a physician prescribed him an anticonvulsive, which Natalie says he refused to take.

Absolutely. Absolutely. It's certainly possible all these substances that he was taking could have had a neurologic effect that caused him to develop a seizure disorder.

Did you ever see him take insulin?

They can. It can cause the blood glucose to drop.

Would you state your name for the record?

Well, they wanted to testify. They wanted to, yes. They wanted to clarify some of the issues that were before the court.

Would you tell the jury the initials of your name?

Did he ever inject anything?

How did he start to change, sir?

In January of 2019, shortly before his death, how did he behave?

And was there a suggestion that he go to the hospital?

He had this conversation with his daughter, which was, I mean, it was almost poignant. This was like a farewell to life.

Of course. Who was working on the contracts? my dad.

Yes. There's also conventional wisdom that the jury wants to hear the defendant say, I didn't do it.

I believe Natalie Cochran has thought about the implications of testifying and may have consulted the parents, perhaps friends.

He is unconscious, let's assume. And you want him dead. Well, let him die then.

The action of a killer who wants to get away with murder?

Because he, Michael Cochran, was as involved in this conspiracy as she was. He left jurors with a final thought. If you cannot answer these three questions, what, how, and first of all and foremost, why, then the state fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You never know what a jury's going to do, but I felt strong about the defense position.

It was the first time. Talk about questionable. It doesn't sound like science to me. When Dateline continues.

Talk about questionable science, junk science. The evidence was sent to the FBI, which is the premier lab for DNA testing. They found it to be 1 in 13,000. That is exceedingly low. And eventually, they send it to this new guy, Perlin. And Perlin says, I put it into my machine, and it comes out the other side, and it's 1 in 5 billion. 189 billion. OK.

If you include Mars and Venus and everywhere, that's such a disparity that it doesn't sound like science to me.

Right from the get-go, in the newspaper, they were pointing to Kevin Foley.

He clearly heard someone yelling, I'll never loan you money again, and heard glass breaking. Of course, a window was shattered in this case. Kevin fully didn't owe Dr. Yelnik any money, so that certainly didn't fit in with Kevin.

this inmate. That was their way of rejecting him in front of the jury.

Doesn't seem to be something you can easily laugh off.

Kevin was someone you believed in, and I thought it was good that the jury got to meet him, so to speak.

I felt like that I need to be here and I need to help. Excuse me, that's what I do.

gets on the tree accidentally.

If we're going to come up with a defense, we're not going to pull Odinism out of the air. That's fantastical, right? I mean, this was driven by the evidence that was given to us.

It's, yeah.

There was nothing to gain by leaking those documents. I mean, there's just, there's no plausible gain.

Yeah.

Well, it felt, you know, from a defense perspective, it felt like a stacked deck.

Richard Allen has the right to present these alternative theories if they have some basis.

None of the people on the trail gave a description that matched Richard Allen.

And no forensic evidence. No forensic evidence.

He didn't have to do that. I don't know how somebody's supposed to react when the law enforcement gets on the TV saying, we need help. The easiest thing for him to do would have been to say nothing and leave Delphi. He did the exact opposite, which was he cooperated.

Five and a half years passed. Who, anyone here, anyone listening, who can tell you what they were doing to a specificity five and a half years ago?

None of the people on the trail gave a description that matched Richard Allen. Even the witnesses on the trail couldn't agree on what Bridge Guy was wearing. And, you know, it was jeans and a Carhartt-type coat. You're in a rural county in Indiana, probably half the men in that county have those clothes.

I was fairly well-versed in the ballistics arena. It's not what we would call or what a layperson would call science.

No.

There's no dispute that... the round, the magic bullet that was found allegedly at the scene, was cycled and not fired. But when they conducted the examination, the test-fired rounds that they actually compared to our client's firearm were fired rounds. They were not test-cycled rounds. And so the simple way of describing that is they were comparing apples and oranges.

Those conversations, he would later go on to say, I think I killed them. Maybe I killed them.

Yeah, in the same conversation.

The three of us here have been in this business a long time. We've all represented some of the worst humans on this planet. And none of us have ever seen somebody detained on a pretrial basis in the most secure unit in the state of Indiana.

That made him lose touch with reality, they said. When you're stuck in those circumstances, when you have no outside stimuli, you're stuck in a gray steel box day in, day out, lights on day in, day out. And you're trying to figure out why you might be held in this condition. It's not unrealistic that that's where you go. That's where your brain goes.

It's medieval, the way he was detained.

It's psychological warfare on a man who's a pretrial detainee.

It's textbook for an environment where somebody would spew some kind of false confession, where basically a man says, I give, I've had enough.

At the time that these statements are being made, it's hard to believe that you could give a lot of credibility to anything he was saying.

The ballistics and the magic bullet, it's just, this stuff is totally unreliable.

When you decide to be fancy after shaving.

You were a mooch. No, I wasn't. And your father saw you as the exact same way, mooching off of him.

The state has introduced a case to you, and it is so full of holes.

You're getting on the Ferris wheel.

From day one, everything was tailored specifically to attempt to convict Melody of the It was a highly circumstantial case. There was no direct evidence to tie Melody, you know, to shooting Gary. There was no gun found in the house. Melody had no accelerants on her hands. There was none of that directly tied back to Melody.

You got to have Gary alive to make the money because it didn't necessarily come out at trial. They weren't really cash rich. If Gary wasn't working, then there is no money.

The blood leading down the stairs, for instance. They never tested any of the drops on the stairs. You had two drops on the basement floor that the crime lab determined that was Gary Ferris' blood.

The weekend before, Gary Ferris had been bit by the dog, and he was bleeding when he went down the stairs from his ankle. As for the bullet found in the basement... There is no blood found around the bullet, no impact mark from the bullet on the floor. It is literally like the bullet was dropped and placed on the floor.

And the last person who was in the basement prior to law enforcement arriving was Scott.

How could a 120-pound woman move a 300-pound man down to a burn pile roughly 50 yards below the house in the woods on a relatively treacherous terrain? There is one person that could have done that, and that would have been Scott Ferris.

And your father saw you as the exact same way, and he kept a very tight rein over you and your mooching off of him.

When it came to Scott, I think it was important to show that if his mother is framed with murder, then he always saw that estate as his.

He would claim things as his that were not his. That's fair to say.

when we first learned about the phone call with Rusty Barton. That was, you know, the biggest, most damning piece of evidence.

So I need you to explain those words to that jury right there.

But then you tried to explain later that, yes, she told you about that, but that was after Gary was already found, right?

From his testimony, he was under duress and he had to, quote, give them something. He later recanted that statement and said that she told him he was on the burn pile much later after Gary's remains had already been found.

You didn't have any missing guns that you couldn't account for, right? No, sir.

That was what she was most concerned about, that she couldn't show her face in town anymore. So she felt like she needed to say something.

Who else has keys other than, I assume, the cleaning lady? Does she have a key? Oh, she may have a key. So Melody's got a key. Cleaning lady may have a key. Well, you're rusty. Rusty's got a key. Uh-huh. So at least five people.

Well, that was my idea. I was constantly trying to think of what could I use for that demonstration. I think it starts to become clear why I'm doing this. Why am I dropping these bags? These bags are 40 pounds a piece. When I would drop one of the bags, you could feel the floor shake. And I wanted that to happen because I wanted the jury specifically to know how heavy this was.

This is 320 pounds. I am 185 pounds.

The whole trial, we were noting that he was 300 pounds. She was 120 pounds. It was impossible that she could have moved him. But there was a person on the property who could. And that's Scott Ferris.

It was a strategic decision that was ultimately made.

Yeah, it's very different reading essentially a self-prepared speech than it is being under cross-examination.

I hope that Susan will be able to live with herself in prison for the rest of her life knowing that.

It doesn't take away from the horrendous nature of the crime. She knows that she's guilty. She struggles with the guilt every day.

I think that her motivation of being released is secondary. to the primary goal of if she can maybe help some other mother who is thinking of maybe the same things.

What was your reaction when you found those?

It's normal for you to break into other people's apartments.

And it's not normal for you to conduct a search like this?

How did you know to go to the apartment two times?

So they handcuffed her?

Even though she just confessed in front of a police officer, according to you?

I hit him. I hit him. It's my fault. I did it. That's a confession, correct?

And... Officer Serif just stands there, and my client walks away, correct?

The blood was stored in non-sterile solo cups, correct? Correct. We've agreed that those cups were not sealed. The cups themselves were not sealed. There was no cap. There was no plastic, plasticine, saran wrap, nothing put over the cups, correct? That is correct. So they were open... Yes. They were not in an evidence bag. They were in a grocery bag, correct? They were, yes.

Do you recall telling her at the end of the day, all you care about is seeing my girls? Remember that?

And things have to happen, but I mean, do I need to testify? What do you need? What can you do for me? What do you need from me so I can go see my girls? That's all that matters to me. Did you say that to her?

And was that the truth?

And the truth is, now that you have testified to what they need, you're going to go home and see your girls long before you would have had you been found guilty of this murder.

Everyone in America is watching.

Robert Baker decided that he was going to kill her husband. no reason that Monica would have wanted, no motive and no interest, and that it was Robert Baker who made that choice for her.

And during that period of time, Robert Baker, who you had every reason to believe was a cold-blooded killer, was left on the street, correct?

The focus was on Monica Cimentilli at that time.

Against Monica Cimentilli.

There was one that was shot dead and the other had three bullets.

There was other work that was done in this case that showed other suspects that were much more culpable than Nicole.

It was pressure from a TV show. a nationally syndicated program that came in, didn't dig up anything of substance, but put an incredible amount of pressure on the state's attorney's office, the police department, to bring charges in this case.

Did she have anything to do with the planning or the execution of the plan to kill Fabio Cimentilli?

You're sure?

Now, is this something you had done before?

How'd you get into league racquetball league?

Okay. Well, did it. I will comment on that.

And how did you determine when you would see her?

So did she talk to you about ever tell you that she would divorce her husband for you?

And eventually, did that become one of the reasons why you decided to murder him?

Then what?

Now, you are a convicted murderer, correct?

And you committed a heinous crime.

But are you telling the truth about what happened?

So these came from me. She's a whack job. She's gross. No nudes so far. No nudes so far, correct? Correct. And you said that to your bosses. Yes, sir.

In the early morning hours of November 23rd, 2022, Jason Chen killed Jasmine Pace.

Jason Chen is a first-generation Chinese-American. His parents ordered a Chinese restaurant.

Jason decides that he has to cover this up. He has to hide what he's done.

You said you would do anything to find your daughter? Wouldn't you? Of course. Okay. To find my daughter?

Why are you doing this?

It did not have relevancy in terms of the arrest investigation.

He was involved in the Ponzi scheme. He knew about multimillion-dollar purchases, the toys, the houses, trips to Paris, trips to Hawaii, expensive, lavish lifestyle. And you have to ask yourself at the end of the case, she didn't know about it? Really?

Could you please introduce yourself to the jury?

On the day or the morning of January 29, 2022, do you know who was assigned to take calls for new cases? Yes.

Was there a supervisor assigned that morning?

Do you know... what the temperature was in Canton, January 29th, 2022? I do not know. Don't you think that that would be an important piece of information? I didn't think it was.

What was your reaction when you found those?

It's normal for you to break into other people's apartments.

And it's not normal for you to conduct a search like this?

How did you know to go to the apartment two times?

Thank you. The people call Christopher Austin.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Did you have a term that you referred to him as?

What is that?

And is Rob older than you then?

How much older?

Can you please identify where she's sitting and what she's wearing?

What did Baker tell you about it?

Did the agent say to you, to me it sounded like it's the bitch who planned everything? Do you remember him saying that to you?

What did you say?

There was other work that was done in this case that showed other suspects that were much more culpable than Nicole.

It was pressure from a TV show. a nationally syndicated program that came in, didn't dig up anything of substance, but put an incredible amount of pressure on the state's attorney's office, the police department, to bring charges in this case.

Do you know... what the temperature was in Canton, January 29th, 2022? I do not know. Don't you think that that would be an important piece of information? I didn't think it was.

I think that for all intents and purposes, his credibility is shot. I think his career as a lead investigator in anything is probably by the wayside. I think there's a possibility he loses his job. That's certainly not something I know is going to happen by any stretch of the imagination.

But his statements in this case have the potential to haunt him in any other case that he ever testifies about. especially if there's a female defendant or a female suspect.

I think that for all intents and purposes, his credibility is shot.

Part of the conspiracy theory in this case is what happened to Chloe. There's no dispute that there was no animal DNA present on John O'Keefe's body. But was that because there was no animal attack or was that because the snow and the weather conditions washed it away?

I have to think that they've got a lot to weigh on both sides.

They're going to have to go through all this evidence. 74 witnesses, hundreds of pieces of physical evidence. They're going to have to go through that and take their time with it and render their decision.

There were some suggestions that Colin Albert, who at the time was 17 years old, was a bit of a hothead, and that him and John O'Keefe would have gotten into a tussle.

I think that the jury is a sampling of the population. And this case has been so polarizing for so many people that I think that there's going to be at least one juror who says, I'm not sure. You know, I'm not sure it's beyond reasonable doubt or the opposite, right? That there's going to be one or two people who think beyond a reasonable doubt and the other jurors say, no, we don't think so.

Is there a way that you could, in general, look at a scratch and say, that scratch is from such and such date?

And it's possible that any or all of those scratches on the Lexus could have predated January 29th, correct?

That's not possible?

Scratches anywhere on the car.

I'm saying it's possible since you can't date the scratch. It's possible that any or all of those scratches could predate January 29th. It's possible, right? It's possible.

I'm not being broad. Let me ask it a different way. Let me ask it again. Is it possible that any or all of the scratches noted on that car became January 21?

You testified that you noted glass on the rear bumper of the SUV, correct?

And you said something about that glass coming from the cup. Correct.

You also said that you did not see anything on that SUV that could be the source of those glass pieces on the bumper, right?

When you did your reconstruction and your analysis, were you informed that none of the glass pieces, not one of them, could be matched to the cut?

So if you knew that the glass pieces on the bumper do not match the cup, that change your opinion?

Got it. By whom?

Who told you?

That's not what you just said. You said that's what was told to me.

Can you describe for the jurors exactly what calculations you would need to employ to determine how far a body at rest would travel, having been struck by an object in motion?

Well...

Presumed by you? You didn't see how he was hit, did you?

That's your opinion?

You're saying that the principles of physics as we know them today, in modern mathematics, is thwarted by a sideswipe?

You would have to know what the initial momentum of the object is that's in motion, correct?

Yeah, you'd have to know what the initial momentum is, not speed, momentum. There's a difference.

Right? Do you agree with that?

You wouldn't have to calculate what the initial momentum is of the object in motion to determine the distance the body at rest would move?

Right, okay. Well, let's put the speed of the vehicle aside. Let's talk about initial momentum. What's the formula for calculating initial momentum?

Well, there's actually one type of momentum formula. Isn't it true, Trooper Paul, that there is a singular calculation for determining initial momentum? That is P equals M times V, where P is the momentum you're solving for that. M is mass. We multiply that by velocity. Is that right? Pretty simple.

Oh, because the pedestrian's somehow magically out of the realm of physics?

So if the vehicle is too heavy and the body is too light, you can't calculate the initial momentum of the vehicle?

Got it. Where'd you learn that?

Got it, got it, got it. Would you need to apply the theory of conservation of momentum in calculating these data?

Conservation of momentum?

You even know what that is? There's an equation for that as well, right?

You know what that is?

Based on the basic principles of physics, is the total momentum before the collision, is it greater or less than the total momentum after the collision? Basic question.

They're exactly equal in all respects under the principles of physics, right? That's the theory of the conservation of momentum. Momentum doesn't change. It's transferred from one body to another. Yes. Correct?

Why didn't you say that to the jurors? Trooper Paul, if you were qualified to, quote, look into all this stuff, you would probably know these answers. Are there any other calculations that you'd need to figure out the stuff that you were talking to about with the grand jury? How about calculating the final velocity of the objects after the collision? Would that be important?

That would be John O'Keefe's body, sir. The object you claim was flying through the air. How about calculating the displacement using kinematic equations? Would you be able to do that?

In order to calculate how far the body would move based on the mass of the object striking the body. Could you use displacement using kinematic equations?

Are you saying that the principles of physics are incapable of determining with the proper calculations how far John O'Keefe's body would have moved given the collision at issue?

Well, you just said because it was a sideswipe, all these calculations, these physics calculations are inappropriate, right?

The truth is, Trooper Paul, you have no idea what all these physics calculations mean, do you? You've not been trained in physics formally, have you?

You have been.

Right. You have a few classes that use the word physics, but you haven't been formally trained in physics, have you? You haven't been formally trained in kinematics, correct?

You haven't been formally trained and hold no degrees in biomechanics, do you?

In fact, basically what you did in this case was calculated initial cycles. And you got those wrong.

Based on your reconstruction, nearly two-year investigation, exactly how was that taillight shattered? Explain it to us.

Exactly what part of his arm?

What's his arm like?

you did the reconstruction there's exactly how his body was positioned when he was struck by that so it looks like his arm is more kind of like this if i can try to get that you're indicating out by his side correct yes all right and the taillight would have struck his arm right yes not his torso yes okay so the full mass the full weight of that truck hit him basically at the elbow is that right

The elbow and the biceps.

So his torso was spared from being hit, but the arm took the brunt, full force of the vehicle, correct?

And you said he then did a spin, like a sort of a pirouette?

So if it turns around counterclockwise, is it turning around in the air counterclockwise?

So it gets hit from the upper biceps, shoulder area, and down to the forearm, right?

By an unbroken tail end, right?

In other words, it's nice and smooth. plastic or anything broken at the time that it made contact with his arm, right?

Okay. So how does his arm get all cut up?

Got it. So he gets hit by the car, not his torso, just the arm. The taillight cracks. And as it passes by, his arm stays in

And at the same time, he does a pirouette and flies 30 feet to his final point of rest.

Well, I'm used to a pirouette. He spun around.

The truth is, you know, having investigated. look anything like an automobile pedestrian accident, do they?

Isn't it true, Trooper Paul, you came to these opinions and conclusions because Trooper Proctor told you to come to these opinions and conclusions in furtherance of his investigation?

That's why you have these opinions and conclusions that just don't make sense, correct?

And you're just trying to flip a square peg into a round hole.

You had testified on direct examination that Karen Reed's phone connected to the Wi-Fi at 1 Meadows Ave at approximately 12.36 in the morning? Yes, sir. So you can testify based on that, that by 1236 in the morning, Karen Reed was not at 34th Fairview, correct?

And that was the first of those voicemails that you testified to, correct? That was the I hate you voicemail?

Okay. And that voicemail and every other voicemail that the jury heard was left after Karen had left 34th Fairview, correct? Correct.

And except for the one after six in the morning, the four minute one, when she went back, we heard that one. But all the other ones were apparently left when she was at one medals, correct?

How much light did your headlights illuminate of the Alberts' front lawn as you were coming down from Chapman Street?

With regard to that area around the flagpole, did you see anything on the lawn?

Did you see a body?

In the initial moments of the beginning of the investigation, you were aware that John O'Keefe had been invited to a party inside a home.

You knew that that home was located at 34 Fairview.

You also knew that John O'Keefe arrived at 3430, correct?

You also knew at the time that he had been, for want of a better phrase, partying with the individuals who were inside the home, correct? Expected to meet at the house.

Look the other way. Four words that sum up the Commonwealth's entire case. Four words that sum up the hopes of those who have tried to deceive you. Conflicts of interest? Doesn't matter. Just look the other way. Magic hairs? Magic glass? Look the other way. Late night calls and Google searches, falsified affidavits, inverted videos, butt dials galore. Just look the other way.

That's what they want. That's what they're counting on, but the uncontrovertible fact is you have been lied to in this courtroom, and your job is to make sure you don't ever, ever look the other way. Preparing for today, I was reminded of a quote. It's a quote about the truth, and I want to share it with you. It is of great importance to set a resolution never to tell an untruth.

You're aware that a drinking glass was found in the yard, attendant to or close to, adjacent to where Mr. O'Keefe's body was found.

There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible. And those who permit themselves to tell a lie once find it much easier to do it a second time and a third. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart. And in time, it depraves all its good dispositions. What does that mean?

It means that it's been observed that to tell an untruth, to exaggerate, to make a false claim, it's a cancer. One lie begets another, and it's a malignancy that grows over time. And that, folks, is how a cover-up is born. That's how a Massachusetts state trooper says in whispered tones to his friends when he thought no one was looking or listening,

how he would make it cut and dry, no matter the truth, how he would make sure to put, quote, serious charges on the girl. In other words, pin it on the girl. You may ask yourself, how does this happen? How could this happen? It's 2024. Surely people aren't going to come to this courtroom, this hall of justice, and lie to us, just give us false information. They wouldn't do that.

They wouldn't try to cover up the truth. The Alberts, the McCaves, Higgins, Lank, Michael Proctor, Uri Buchanek, Brian Tully, You don't have to wonder if they would lie to support their narrative. You need only wonder how many times they did lie. Over and over and over, they and others were caught deceiving you. Big things, small things, it didn't really matter. They feared nothing.

That drinking glass had been broken, correct?

They'll look you in the eye and deny phone calls. They'll deny secret meetings. They'll claim that calls are butt dials and butt dials are answered. They'll show you a video and tell you left is right and right is left. They'll magically turn three pieces of plastic into five right before your eyes. And even when they're caught with their own lies, they won't blink. They don't sweat.

You're aware that drinking glasses are commonly found inside homes, right?

They'll just look you in the eye and demand, pay no attention. You folks look the other way. Ladies and gentlemen, there was a coverup in this case, plain and simple. You'll surely say to yourself, I don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe that can happen in our community. But sadly, over the past eight weeks, you've seen it right before your eyes. So how does a cover-up happen?

How could that happen? Well, let's count the ways, shall we? Handpick your investigator. Make sure it's someone we know, someone on our side. Keep them close. Offer them help. Offer them a gift. Have secret friends and family meetings. Get your story straight. Delete your call history. Make mysterious phone calls at 2.22 a.m. Delete Google searches. Monitor police activity. Get rid of evidence.

As well as bars, right? But at that point, you didn't know. It's just a broken glass, correct?

Get rid of your dog. Destroy your phones. Destroy your SIM card. For the investigator, decide on a narrative early on. Don't go to the crime scene. Don't take witnesses in for questioning. Question all the witnesses together. Ignore witnesses who don't fit your narrative. Allow friends and family to contact those same witnesses. Don't record interviews. Write vague and false police reports.

Omit witnesses' names. Omit witnesses' interviews altogether. Don't photograph the evidence. Don't conduct any forensics. Don't document the evidence. Don't document the logs. Don't create any logs whatsoever and don't maintain a chain of custody. Keep all the evidence in the hands of one person and then manipulate that evidence, including videos. Don't turn over videos. Invert videos.

Turn 4.16 p.m. into 5.30 p.m. in affidavits. Turn three pieces of taillight into five pieces of taillight. Delete 42 minutes of surveillance footage. Hide personal relationships. Make this case cut and dry and ensure the homeowner, quote, never sees any shit because he's a Boston cop. But most importantly, pick your patsy. Pin it on the girl. It's not that it could happen.

You also know that he was found without a coat on?

It's that every single one of those things I just mentioned did happen. right in front of you. But this sort of injustice can't happen in a vacuum. So what about the prosecution? What about the Commonwealth? What does it look like when the government picks a narrative and then tries to form a prosecution around the narrative instead of the other way around? Looks a lot like this.

Are coats normally worn outside or inside?

If you don't have actual evidence, just throw every single thing you can against the wall to see what sticks. Drag her through the mud and make sure you attack her character. And that's what you saw in this case.

What evidence do they actually have to prove that that SUV ever hit John? The answer is none. They don't have any. There's no evidence whatsoever that Karen Reid's vehicle ever struck John O'Keefe or that Karen Reid ever wanted to strike John O'Keefe. In fact, every single piece of material evidence in this case unequivocally proves the opposite. John went into that house.

Fair enough. 18 degrees, you would expect that if someone was outside, they'd have a coat on, correct? Correct.

That SUV was not damaged by hitting John. And John's injuries did not come from being hit by a car.

Ladies and gentlemen, how did this happen? How did we end up here? We ended up here because of relationships, insider trading, playing the who-you-know game, and building a tall blue wall, which takes decades and generations. But the real question is, is it going to continue?

With this festering malignancy that allows a lead detective and his supervisor to gloat and sneer while looking over naked pictures or looking for naked pictures of the woman that they've targeted, will that continue? And the answer should be not if you have anything to say about it.

Michael Proctor is the lead investigator in this case, and much as the Commonwealth might try, they cannot distance themselves from the stench of him on this case and this investigation. Those secret group chats illustrate the quality and character of his investigation. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you frame someone.

That's how you dehumanize someone so viciously that you can just pin it on the girl and cover for the homeowner because he's a Boston cop. That's how you rip a person's life apart and sleep like a baby while doing it. And then further that by saying, I hope she kills herself. Ladies and gentlemen, I just began the discussion this afternoon or this morning with a quote about the truth.

And I did that because that's what this case is about. Top to bottom, tip to tail. It's about the truth, not hiding it or concealing it, but exposing the truth. The truth is immutable. It's not a feeling, it's not a whim. It's unflinching, it's unchanging, and it's everlasting. That's why the law is steady.

All right. A true Bostonian.

That's why it's not captive to the whims of people drunk with power who think they're above the law, who think they're above scrutiny. That's why you stand as the guardian of justice and the protector of justice.

He didn't have any coat, gloves, scarf, nothing like that.

The law demands the very integrity that Trooper Proctor and his investigation lacks, and it requires that you cannot convict Karen Reid unless the Commonwealth has met its incredibly high burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. You may not have asked to be here, but each of you have given something very special of yourselves.

You've agreed to do that, which is the highest calling a citizen can answer in any way. And my question to you is, what will you do with this moment? Ignore the lies and the manipulations, the misogyny, the bias, the lack of evidence. Could you ever do that? Would you ever do that? Or will you say with your verdict, I see the truth and I will not ever look the other way.

He had no winter gear on whatsoever, correct?

When you stare the truth down, you'll see that the Commonwealth has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt into a moral certainty, not even close. Ladies and gentlemen, Karen Reid is innocent. Do justice and find her not guilty. Thank you.

Under ordinary circumstances, and you may be the exception, but under ordinary circumstances, if someone was out in 18 degree weather, you might expect they would have some winter garb, right? And you certainly would expect that if someone took their coat, their glove, their hat, their winter gear off, you might leave it inside the house, right? Rather than outside the house.

Reasonable assumption might be the winter gear might be inside the house. It's not reasonable that he would have his jacket inside the house. You wouldn't just assume that?

Correct.

All right. You didn't think it was reasonable at the time.

To even ask. But he'd have a jacket off inside the house. And I'm talking about at the time, the initial stages of the investigation.

So I'm asking if you believe it was reasonable if a man is found 30 feet outside the front door of a home and he's got no winter gear on whatsoever, that perhaps he came from inside the home not having donned his winter gear.

You also know that he didn't have a shoe on, correct?

Where might you look for the shoe if you didn't find it out by his body initially?

Well, the facts you had at the initial stages, I'm talking about just after 6.30, 7.30 in the morning when the investigation was beginning. During those times, you didn't have any information about where the other shoe was, except he just didn't have a shoe on at the hospital, correct?

Folks, this is what it looks like when you bring false charges against an innocent person. The Commonwealth did their worst. They brought the weight of the state based on spurious charges, based on compromised investigation and investigators and compromised witnesses. This is what it looks like. Guess what? They failed. They failed miserably and they'll continue to fail.

No matter how long it takes, no matter how long they keep trying, we will not stop fighting. We have no quit.

I just have two things to say, folks. Number one, I am in awe of the strength and courage of this remarkable client that I've had the privilege of representing since day one. And number two, I want to send a message to all of her supporters out there. Your support was invaluable. We are touched and we ask for your continued support. I'm not from Texas like my colleagues here. I'm a Boston kid.

But I'll repeat what he said, which is, we ain't got no quit.

So when you did find out that there was a shoe unaccounted for, one place to look might be outside, correct? Yes.

And another place to look might be inside the hall, right?

You also are aware that a body that's being dragged by the shoulders could easily lose a shoe. Have you ever experienced a homicide in which a body is dragged and you're aware of a shoe being pulled off while the body's being dragged?

Certainly not outside the realm of possibility as a professional investigator.

You're also aware that, at least initially, it appeared from accounts that John O'Keefe may have been involved in a physical altercation, correct?

As a matter of fact, that was reported by one of your subordinates, Uri Buchanek, to the medical examiner's office, right?

As a possibility. And you're aware that your other subordinate, Trooper Proctor, according to certain information he had gotten from first responders, also believed that a physical altercation was possible.

Okay. And you also knew that the house would be a normal location to have other individuals who might have been involved in that physical altercation.

Exactly.

Or they could travel 30 feet outside as well, correct?

Okay. In the early morning hours following altercation, your Massachusetts State Police initiation or engagement in this investigation, you became aware of Brian Higgins, correct?

That name was bantied about as a potential witness in the investigation, correct?

And you're aware that Brian Higgins indicated that he saw a tall, dark-haired man enter the home after he arrived, correct?

And the reason you're not aware of it, Lieutenant Tully, is because nobody bothered to interview Brian Higgins February 10th. When was Brian Higgins' first interview?

7th, 10th, yeah. In February, not January 29th, certainly.

Although he was known to be inside the house, right?

So had you known that, had you had the information, for instance, that Brian Higgins admitted to having seen a tall, dark-haired man walk in the house, that might have changed the complexion of your investigation at that time.

Right, exactly. That would just be a normal part of the investigation. You just take evidence A and link it to evidence B to evidence C. That would be the normal way to do an investigation.

But in point of fact, nobody did seek a warrant to go inside the house, correct?

Nobody did seek to have a forensic team go inside the house, and nobody asked for consent.

The eyewitness indicated that the Ford Edge was placed there sometime between 2.30 in the morning and 3.30 in the morning, correct?

As the supervising investigator, did you do anything to investigate the circumstances of that portage being placed in front of 34 Fairview sometime between 2.30 and 3.30 in the morning?

What did you do?

So did you find out anybody in the Albert family on the Ford Edge?

registration records?

Did you task anybody else to look at automobile registration records?

And do you have any idea what that investigation revealed?

Did the albums own a Ford Edge?

They did own a Ford Edge, didn't they? But nothing was done further that you're aware of to investigate the circumstances of that Ford Edge being seen placed in front of 34 Fairview, right where the body was found, between 230 and 330 and 1, right?

So you just decided, and that investigation was, is, yeah, I didn't believe him, right?

The defense would push back. Their claim is that this is all consensual sex involving adults.

So Frank Pauline was obviously lying. But Frank Pauline will testify, Detective Guillermo pressed him. Oh, come on, you must have done something. You went and whacked the girl off? And finally, Frank Pauline says, well, what do you want me to say? Is that what you want me to say? Okay, I hit her. But the sperm DNA did not match Frank Pauline Jr.

's known DNA because he provided a sample, did not match Sean Schweitzer's known DNA profile, and did not match in Schweitzer's known DNA profile. They were all excluded.

By the prosecution's account, and perhaps by some other accounts, Natalie Cochran is not a nice person. She defrauded friends, relatives, investors. She was involved in a Ponzi scheme. But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the fact that she is perhaps a fraud and perhaps a cheat,

and that you wouldn't perhaps want to invite her home for a Sunday dinner, that you wouldn't like her, does not translate into being a murderer. And I will submit to you that the state's motive in this case, as they presented to you, is absolute nonsense. The state of West Virginia is trying to tell you

Natalie Cochran, who has lived with the man who was up to his eyeballs in the policy scheme, somehow detected that he was on her. He was already detecting that she was committing a major fraud, and he was going to run straight to the federal government. But what comes to mind immediately is that bottle of insulin.

And I will submit to you that this is a smokescreen that the state is going to present to you. You will hear medical evidence that Mr. Cochran was not a healthy 38-year-old man. In fact, to the contrary, between the late 2017 At the time of his death in 2019, he was in the hospital four times. For what? For life-threatening conditions. He was a ticking bomb, the evidence will show, health-wise.

What's more, you will hear the evidence that Mr. Cochran fancied himself to be a bodybuilder. He wanted to be the Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mr. Universe. And what did he do in that regard? Mr. Cochrane has imported, let's call it medication, from Mexico, online, from sources that were not approved by any FDA or any legitimate American government sources.

And he was taking medication, steroids, that were not for human consumption. that there was some animal medication taken only by the animals. He was pumping himself with steroids and whatever other medication there was that he could get from less than legitimate sources. And you have to consider that in arriving at your verdict. The insulin that my client had had in her possession,

was the insulin that Mr. and Mrs. Davis gave her repeatedly. Why? Because they had a diabetic son.

On November the 2nd, He went to the hospital with the same or extremely similar conditions that you found him in in February of 2019.

No, he did not.

The state's argument this morning, though, is inflammatory and designed to prey on the emotions of the court. There is very clear direction in the statute about what we are to do here.