[Music] I'm just a girl, a wonderful girl, the sweetest one in town. Can search for miles around and no one like me can be found. I have your smile, a wonderful smile, a certain little way. Every time the boys get near me, they look at me and say, "Redot mama, red hot mama, you're the one we need. Red hot some drama. Yes indeed. Say that I should be in the fall. Hot tamal say that I got a pair of eyes just like old spies. I confess that I possess the sweetest charms in town. And unless I miss my guess the boys will hold me around. I can make a music master drop. Make a ball. Hit a man his hair in the middle. Red hot mama. Red hot mama. I have to turn my temper down. [Music] Oh, I'm just a girl, a wonderful girl, the sweetest one in town. can search for miles around and no one like me can be found. I got a smile, beautiful smile, a certain little way. Every time the boys get near me, they look at me and say, "Rad mama, red hot mama, I'm the one you need." Red hot mama. Yes. You say that I should be in the fall. say that I got a pair of eyes just like old. I confess that I possess the sweetest charms in town. And unless I'm miss the boys will follow me around. I can make a Texas farm. Forget his hey. Make the devil throw his fork away. Red hot mama. Red hot mama. But I'll have to turn my temper down. I'll have to turn my temper down. I'll have to turn my temper down. I'll have to turn my down. Yo yo yo, good morning. How the hell are you, Hank? I'm alive. How are you? Awake? You're alive? Okay. Becking pot of coffee done. So, yeah. Yep. So, I'll be awake at least until lunch. Good. Uh, I am babysitting today. So, Junior Jan is in the room with me and he is currently playing Roblox. Good morning, Virgo Wraith. Good morning, Serial Goodie. Good morning, everybody on Twitter and all the ones over on YouTube. Uh today we're here for the charging conference, which is essentially a pre-trial hearing where they're going to go over jury instructions exactly like Hank described it yesterday. Cuz Hank is right. Do you remember describing it, Hank? I took a edge guess. Well, I Googled it last night and Hank was 100% right. So, they're going to go over instructions to the jury, last minute stuff. It's probably going to take a couple of hours. We'll be here for it. They're not going to do closing arguments till sometime tomorrow. And then the case goes to the jury. Hey, unclean Hands. So, I since I was right and I are a journalism, I must go journal this. Yes, you have to go journal it. You have to do the journal thing. Uh, we have a big not so secret Monday night coming up since Phil is out of town all next week and the sucket Phil or Phil sucks, whatever it is, uh, slot is open. It is someone's birthday on Hey, Facebook Karen. Uh, it is someone's birthday on Monday. Do you know whose birthday it is? It is Pants's birthday and we have quite the extravaganza plotted out for Mr. Pants. Oh boy. He probably should have never said it was day on Monday and he had nothing planned because now Mr. Pants has stuff planned for at least for an hour. And if he doesn't show up, well, we'll still be putting on the pants show for an hour. on Monday night. So, Monday night 8:00 Eastern, 7 o'clock where it counts, 6 o'clock mountain time, and 5:00 on the West Coast. We will be having a very special pants holiday celebration. Will be putting on pants for for his birthday. Yes. Uh so, how much coffee have you had today? Uh, egg. I've had two pot. Two pots. Uh, we do have celebrity guests lining up for some pants. So, that will have to remain a size. Good morning. Good morning, T. Hi. So, we were just making the announcement that Monday instead of the Phil show, it's going to be the Pants birthday show. Oh, wonderful. Yes. And we we've got some surprises for Pants if everything works out. Nice. So, uh Ariel, in fact, is going to bake a cake so someone can jump out of it. Now, now, Gia. Yeah, I know. We risk you breaking a hip. I can't. There's no more jumping. Okay, we we can have like like some nitrous oxide in there and just launch you out of the cake. It's got to be somebody who can jump. I can roll. I can roll out of the cake. Well, that might be something Pants is into. I don't know. You know, Pants is strange sometimes. That's We We'll work on that. Maybe Maybe between you and Touche, you can hijack someone to be thrown out of the cake cuz I I know both of you are strong enough to throw somebody out of the cake. Or another rocket. Zoe, stop. Yes. Stop. Yes. So, it's too early for that. Knock it off. So, get with Hank about the rockets red glare for pants Monday night. Happy birthday, Pants. Yes. Happy birthday, Pants. Wow, another June baby. I know. That's strange. We don't normally see all these June people together on the same panel. It's like a plot or something. And you're September. September 30th. Yes. And what are you, Hank? [Music] Hank doesn't celebrate a birthday. Oh, okay. He would he would just appeared fully formed as Hank with full beard. Born with a beard out of the out of the darkness one day Hank appeared. Yeah. Through the mist. Yes. So, we've got some wonderful music lined up. We already had uh uh Justin provided some music and we we we will have some wonderful tributes. That's all I'm going to say. But today we're second to last step of the Karen Reed murder trial. Yep. We did get some feedback last night. Uh I'm just going to address this. There are 500 million pro Karen Reed channels out there. Really, if you're looking, there are there's tons. But I mean, it's easy. If we switched to being pro Karen Reed, our numbers would go through the roof and we'd probably be making a money off of it because unbelievable. Let's face it. Uh people want to believe Karen Reed is whatever and there's a grand conspiracy and all that crap for if you're looking for that. There are the 100 million channels out there for you to watch it. We don't have to be that channel. We we don't necessarily completely back the police on this. They did screw up the case. a horrible snowstorm, but we aren't going to be labeled in with Turtle Boy and the rest of them who are completely beyond help. Just saying my opinion. Uh, we see Logic, we call balls and strikes, and that's what this channel is all about. If there is something stupid on the prosecution side, we call it out. If there's something completely insane on the green side, we call it out. But if you're looking for coverage of people who are 100% pro carried, rah rah, that ain't us. Yep. That's uh channel does not have to have to uh add her IQ's together to make the double digits. Yes. That said, all opinions are welcome, especially in our side chats, as long as you are not abusive towards the rest of the room. So, coming in like we had few last night saying yada yada yada these losers, yada yada, get your banned. I don't care. It's disruptive. Keep the side chat going. So, thank you everyone for for tuning in to us. And that's just our stance. Yep. So, that said, we're we're going to be with you for a couple hours today as they hash out essentially the jury instructions. This is what the uh judge is going to read for the jury to consider before going into deliberations. Tomorrow, they're going to do the closing arguments. I believe each side is given a chance to say what they're going to say and then I I think uh prosecution gets a rebuttal at the end. I'm not sure. I don't remember how works and I've had a rough I think they do. Maybe. Yes, I think they do cuz they have the burden of proof. Yes. Y and then it will go to the jury. Every day that the jury is out, if it's if it makes it through Friday, uh we will be doing a show to start the day for a little bit. When they adjourn uh or when they when they adjourn that little hearing, we will come back as they always come back to end the day. And that's around 4:00 in the afternoon. and I'll be monitoring it. We'll have a little live stream in the afternoon. The jury comes back with the verdict. We will be live when the verdict happens. Uh I'll be monitoring the whole thing and we'll have show set up just in case. So, you can get the you can get coverage here. Not going to be broadcasting all day like we usually are cuz I anticipate at least a few days for the jury to be out. I wonder if they're amping up security around the courthouse during debations when they're or when a verdict is reached. Well, I remember last year it was a carnival the last week they had hundreds of people out there. Now, there are accusations those hundreds of people were of dubious means, but uh it is what it is. There were tons of supporters. There was a uh supporters who who mysteriously didn't come back this year in the into the exclusion zone. Y this year's been a much different animal. Yep. There hasn't been a jury members kicked out. There hasn't been a constant presence of a bloggering the lives of the jury. Yep. Uh he's got his own problems now. Yes. Yes. That blogger is on trial. His trial finishes today for violating a protection order uh basically related to this case uh for his ex-girlfriend. His trial for uh witness intimidation, I believe, is later this summer. Uh, I don't think it'll be televised or probably won't be covering it, but we will provide updates in the daily newspaper and newscast on this channel. You noticed we didn't have a newscast today, mainly cuz I was asleep and I told Pants to go back to bed on his part. So, yeah. Plus, you really didn't want to read an article about uh Jeff Gray whining about Lane Myers at least. No, no, no. And what's that one about Denver Metro Cardigan? Denver Metro Audits has indeed sued uh auditor Paul. He has filed suit. Now, this is where it gets weird. Denver Metro Audits is based in Colorado. His lawyer is based out of New York City while the case was filed in I believe San Francisco area in California. Okay. And it's about Troll did a reaction video in 2022. In 2024, Mr. Cardova or Cordova uh DMA copy filed for the copyright for his video of the material that fraud troll used. So he is retroactively suing fraud troll for the video he made two years previous to copyrighting it and if predator troll is indeed Canadian for the record before the court is comm for trial if the parties could please identify themselves for the Morning. Good morning, Miss Mclofflin. Good morning, Mr. Lai. Good morning, your honor for the final. Good morning, Mr. Morning, your honor. Robertie from Miss Reed. Good morning, Mr. Allessie. Good morning, David. Good morning, Metti. Good morning, Miss Reed. All right. So, um, Miss Dian standing in also or Mr. Jackson and Miss Little. Okay. All right. So first thing we left off yesterday was whether KKK for identification the PowerPoint of Dr. Wrenchler would be entered into evidence. Uh it will not be based on the objection. So it is excluded from evidence. So it's marked still for identification and your rights are saved on that. So, we ready to go forward with the charge conference? Uh, yes, your honor. Uh, I guess I have a question first as to whe So, no, we can do that now. So, now that my ruling is on this, evidence is closed. Evidence is closed as it was yesterday. So, go ahead on your required finding argument. Um, and this is not lengthy, judge. Five or 10 minutes. Take the take your time. Thank you. Uh, we are renewing our motion for required finding of not guilty at the close of all evidence. And in so doing, your honor, we're incorporating our oral argument in support of this motion that we made at the close of the Commonwealth case. Uh, at that juncture, your honor, the Comwalth had produced no witnesses to testify that John O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with his having been hit by a motor vehicle. And if he was not hit by a motor vehicle, none of these three indictments may stand. The Commonwealth, we believe, at that time fell woolfully short of proving their case. Now that the defense has put on a case, the Commonwealth's case has been further weakened such that none of these charges can stand. Uh nearly every witness, your honor, we have called we would submit has destroyed the Commonwealth of the case. Dr. Russell testified for the defense. Uh she's a leading expert on dog uh bite wound pattern recognition in the country and she testified about medical in her own mind causation and provided the jury with her expert opinion that John O'Kee were consistent with dog inflicted wounds both bites and scratches. Um, I would remind the court at this juncture that there was a dog at the very residence where John O'Keefe was found. A dog which was a longtime member of the free which the family gave away after John O'Keefe's death. A dog which mysteriously was absent from the home at 6:30 in the morning on January 29th when Jennifer McCabe claimed that she burst into Brian Albert's bedroom where the dog always slept. a dog which was absent from the home when the Canton police entered the home later that morning. Importantly, Dr. Russell agreed with the Commonwealth's medical examiner, Dr. Scotty Bellow, that John O'Keefe suffered no injuries that were consistent with having a motor vehicle collision. And again, if there's no collision, there's no case. Dr. Lope, one of the most experienced and accomplished forensic pathologists you could find anywhere, agreed with Dr. Russell that John O'Keefe's injuries were consent with an animal attack and she agreed with both Dr. Russell and the Commonwealth's ex expert Dr. Scorty Bellow that John O'Keefe was not hit by a motor vehicle. So the question is, in what type of murder case would a judge ever allow a motion for required finding of not guilty? In a murder case where expert testimony on both sides is that the evidence is inconsistent completely with the Commonwealth of the case, that's exactly what we have here. But it doesn't stop there. Both witnesses from ARCA drove a stake through the heart of the Commonwealth's case. Dr. Wolf concluded that the damage to Ms. reads Lexus was inconsistent with having come from a collision with John O'Keefe. Unlike Dr. Welchure, who created, we would submit a meaningless experiment based on no sign. I can see why Jackson's not here. He couldn't get through this without laughing. Concluded reads Lexus was not damaged by the body or the arm of John O'Keefe. His testimony was unimpacted by cross-examination and it's devastating to the Commonwealth's case. Dr. Wrenchler fermented that there was no collision between the Lexus and John O'Keefe. It is simply not possible that this 6,000lb SUV hit John O'Keefe at 24 mph and caused only superficial wounds to his right arm with no injuries to legs or lower body. The SUV did not hit him. John O'Keeffe was not hit by the SUV. The case is over. But on top of all that scientific evidence, your honor, there were three additional facts. All right, everybody. Byebye. Testified defense who corroborated that the Commonwealth's theory of the case is false. Sergeant Nicholas Baros, a sworn police officer, testified that when he saw Miss Reed's SUV that day before it was towed to the Canton Police Sallyport, the tail lightly cracked. when he was shown photos of what it looked like in the sallyport after Michael Proctctor had access to it. Sergeant Barrows confirmed that it was absolutely different. Karina Kolk has confirmed that there were no problems between Aaron and John O'Keefe that night, even remarking on just how sweet he kissed her on the forehead shortly before they left the waterfall. But perhaps more importantly, that kiss happened right in front of Brian Higgins. The same Brian who had been flirting with Karen Reed that month. The same Brian Higgins whom Karen had ghosted for several days before January 28th. The same Brian Higgins who had texted Karen that very night um well, and received no response. The same Brian Higgins whom Karen had given her back to all night. The same Brian Higgins who had to be restrained at the end of the night by Chris Albert on video. The same Brian Alberts who is on video angry. Yeah, I I meant Higgins. Yes. Yeah. The same Brian Higgins. You had to correct him. That's hilarious. Angry and gesturing to John O'Keefe to meet him outside shortly before they left the waterfall and shortly before John O'Keefe w. And finally, Brian Laughron plowing Fairview Road at 2:45 in the morning, was attentive, watching everything in front of him, very familiar with the Albert's residence, and had every reason to protect the Albert family. You recall that he did protect the Albert family to a degree that night by choosing not to call follow protocol and call the DPW or the police about the Ford Edge parked on the street outside their property during a snow emergency. Brian Laughron confirmed that John O'Keefe was not on the front lawn at the Albert residence at 2:45 a.m. That means that Karen did not hit him. There was no collision. All the experts agree on that, including the Commonwealth's expert, and the only eyewitness that confirms it. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth at this juncture with their evidence weakened by an airtight defense to these charges. These indictments cannot stand and wish this court to enter required findings of not guilty on all three indictments. Air tight. Thank you, your honor. Conalt requests that the defendant's motion for acquired finding not guilty at this juncture as it was at the close of the comm's case be denied. Uh the state of the evidence is not uh dramatically changed uh since uh the comm arrested uh its case and chief. Uh council makes reference uh to dog or canine. I would uh remind the court that there is absolutely no evidence, none, uh not even a pill of evidence of a dog. There is no evidence of an absence of a dog. You have uh Miss McCabe testifying that she didn't see it in the morning, which does not equate to there being an absence of a dog there. The arg council of Commonwealth would suggest grossly exaggerates uh the strength of the defense witnesses in their case. uh the bias and advocacy uh exhibited by those witnesses from that witness stand uh do not amount uh to credible witness bony uh that undermined the Palmwell's case in any way, shape or form. Couple of specific examples when it came to officer Baros, his testimony was also that it the cruiser camera footage from 8:22 in the morning at the driveway at one Meadows. He indicated the damage to the tail light was consistent with the damage uh that he observed in the driveway at the defendant's parents home which was then consistent uh from the video or the photographs within the sallyport. It's also consistent with 5:07 a.m. One meadows a uh on the still frame shots uh from that ring camera video. Essentially the comm would submit that the defense witnesses uh all conflict with each other. You have a couple witnesses testifying about dog or animals. Then you have the arc of witnesses testifying about superficial abrasions. You have Dr. Labasada talking about the drop in body temperature which conflicts with Mr. Lafren's testimony uh as far as his confusion as far as the hours of of when he sees uh or claims to have driven by there and not seen a body. is the same witness who is, I would submit, very confused on times and then also backed into a basketball hoop uh during the course of his plow duties uh on that particular early morning as well. And as the court could see uh from the the cruiser camera video, drove by the scene countless times uh essentially rubbernecking it as he's uh going past doing his duties. Your honor, what Comwalth would submit is that his case uh was more efficiently strong at the close uh of the evidence in his case and chief, there has been nothing presented in the defendant's case uh to diminish uh particularly to the standards uh in the light's favor of the Commonwealth uh and request that the defendants's motion be denied. So, Miss TN, you know, I have to view this in the light. I do. And viewing it that way has met its burden. So, the motion's denied. Okay. All right. So, regarding the charge. So, we'll start with the Take it easy, NCR. Missing witness request. Who's arguing that motion? We're not arguing that, honor. I apologize, but we made the decision last night to with two of our requested instructions to shorten things today. I think it's Oh, okay. So everything on this is done, right? The the defendant's motion to present a mismargument and request for instruction. You're withdrawing that? With regard to absent witness instruction, we're withdrawing that request. Okay. And what else from your missing witness instructions? You said there were two. What's the second one? The second is that there's an entry on our request for lost evidence that Okay. I had a question about that. All right. Thank you. There is a supplemental instruction that uh we're asking the court to give regarding the display of this sweatshirt. I Oh, that's right. You filed you. I saw it on email. I don't have a hard copy of it. That's your honor. If it's helpful to your honor, I'll hand up my hard copy. Okay. If you could do that, I'd like to go back through the rest of it back to that after I've read it. Okay. Who's arguing for the rest of the defendant's proposed instructions? I am. Okay. So, we're going to go through them one at a time. Um, who's arguing for the common law? Okay. So, I think you're sort of in agreement on the basis of the the law, right? All right. So, model homicide instructions just as last time. So, that takes a lot of time out of today. Attention. Comall does have a request for and I'm saying might on this but as far as the instructions come and see instruction on the problem. All right, we will deal with that. Um I'm going to go through the defendants instructions are sort of the general instructions first. So it's probably easier to go through those and then we'll have the argument on that. So um presumption of innocence I think presumption of innocence is a little more robust than what you've requested. So I will probably Okay. Um, and I will give some version. I know I know that there was a attention paid and some appellet decisions on the um each individual indictment. I'll give some further language on that. You've got an instruction a proposed on page reaching a verdict. Just I will make it crystal clear though. I think it was and I was upheld on it. So I will make it crystal clear. Okay. So So I I'll give you that, Miss Eddie. There is evidence. I probably won't give verbatim what you have. I'll I'll take a look at it, but I will certainly cover all these topics. Um so Mr. Gan Eddie, you're telling me that your client wants me to give a uh defendant did not testify in. Yes, please. Again, if you want to take a look at what I gave last year, I think it's a little more robust than this. I think we answered satisfied with the court's instructions on that. So, we would be satisfied again. Okay. Uh humane practice. I will give I will give you Bowden. Um, I'm going to take a look size this up with what I gave last year. I gave Bowden last year. I gave a Bowden instruction. I don't think objects, right? We would object to the instructions. Okay. Go ahead. Do you want to make an argument? Just briefly, Ar um when it comes to the voting um and I would incorporate and I know there's no obstruction third party culprit but the com would be making similar request that council beh or Bowden or or Bowden. I'm sorry you you don't com the defense should be allowed to make a Bowden instru to argue Bowden. So I I would submit your honor that the entirety of any testimony or evidence related to either party culprit in this has come from questions from defense from actual evidence in the case testimony witnesses on the stands that have been put into evidence or anything of the like. So in in the instruction argument based or predicated on evidence not Obviously, as you're well aware, there's specific instructions that no matter how powerful they are, questions council are not evidence. So, what would submit looks at what is actually in evidence in this case? Um there is no basis whatsoever for not only a third party construction um but specifically for even council to make that argument during the course of a little bit more loose as far as certain so I'm going to ask Missetti um to explain to me. All right. So I disagree with you on Bowden but I I'll take a closer look at it. Mr. Gianetti, what is the Bowden evidence that warrants an instruction? Uh, I think it's multifaceted, your honor. Uh, the police did not secure the crime scene properly. They use inac inadequate materials packed evidence, chain of custody, was contaminated and corrupted. Uh, there was evidence of bias, the lead investigator, failure to pursue other suspects. uh specifically selling plans that the homeowner was sacrificing for the philosophy everybody else. It was not an open-ended investigation from day one person and one person only. Um and just responding briefly to Mr. Lai's comments about how he introduced affirmative evidence of the proper way to do an investigation. We Your honor, we uh made a motion and renewed it asking for reconsideration of the court's ruling that Mike Easter could not testify about an investigation. So to say that we didn't introduce that evidence when we tried to do it. I I think what was saying that you asked questions but weren't given answers and and and so I I think that's what was said. I'm going to give I'm going to Mr. Yedi. going to allow you to argue Bowden and I am going instruction. So third party culprit's an entirely different animal here. I know but tell me are you going to argue it? Are you going is the defense going to argue that Brian Higgins did this? No argue that failed to investigate whether Brian did. Okay. So just so that it's clear that you all know I believe third party culprit separately is a lot different than third party culprit owes to Bowden. I ruled pre-trial that there was there could be no attempt at introducing third party culprit evidence regarding um Colin Albert. So that was separate. But I say that I would give you the opportunity to try and develop testimony regarding Brian Higgins and Brian Albert as third party culprits. That threshold that you need to make to do that to argue them as three culprits has not been made by the defense. So you cannot argue that either Brian Higgins or Brian Albert committed or had the motive and all of that not third party culprit. You understand that? It's soundly telling me you don't intend to do that. We understand the distinction you are and we're strictly going with a vow. Okay. So, you can get into third party culprit with Brian Higgins that the were aware of whatever you're going to argue and failed to act on it. But it's strictly for that purpose. Okay. That's really what I was just clarification. Yeah, I so Misty and Eddi and of course I take him at his word tells me that they're not going to do pure third party culprit. Okay, that's that's great. That makes that easier. So I will give I'm sorry. Sure. Go ahead. Yeah, I have a check mark next to that. Um, Miss Eddie, tell me about this. The absence of re-recording. Are you the police should have recorded Ms. Reed at her parents' house? Right. So, uh, you know, obviously it's not the strongest DGista argument that we would have at a police station, but you know, these days, your honor, it's common knowledge. Everybody has access to a recorder, even on their own cell phone. It could have been done. It wasn't done. we have to rely on police memory of what my client said or didn't say when there was for a recording. So, we still think we're entitled to do you think it was custodial interrogation? Um, so or I guess I should say do you think the evidence supports I think there's an argument that it was a custodial interrogation. you know, we had police officers who, you know, refused to sit down in the living room. They were surrounded with her. Um, someone who was not familiar with dealing with the police at all. So, yes, I think there's an argument that it could be considered. All right. What do you say about all this, Mr. I would also add seize her deal around the same time. So um you know the issue of custody and my client being able to deny. All right. What do you say? That's the very nature of the objection is the nonveral nature of this. So the troopers spoke to at her parents house as they did with a number of different witnesses on that day as well. They spoke for a while. She was seated on the couch. your parents living [Music] verified that they can't use a third party culprit as far as saying instructions and then following the DGMA language and the defendants request jury instructions there goes on to all of this other requests regarding your compromised mental state and all these other things that while if it were to be given by the court should be given in the same context between practice. I don't think it's something that should be highlighted in two different sections. I would submit that there is no evidence of perhaps mental state or anything to that effect. She exercised her judgment as far as when she was speaking with Sergeant that initially she said she wanted she's fine with answering questions but didn't want to get into any details the questions became centered on more on the field at that point and I know that's not the jury whether she then ended the questioning so I don't I don't think there's any evidence of her having a compromised meal state for this interview and I don't think that it rises to the level of instruction. So I would ask basically that everything on page 8 prior to instruction. All right. I'll take another look at this and I'll just let you know in the morning with regard to the compromised mental state. Um we agree that that does not apply to the interview at your presence. Um but we believe that it applies within the humane practice context. That is where it makes sense. So um All right. Yeah. I think that's fair. Okay. Okay. All right. Um prior statements. I will give some instruction on prior inconsistent and I'll give a prior consistent statement. I will talk about the view. The absent witness instruction is so not that's okay. That's okay. With respect to the view, your honor, we did include a language reinforcing the fact that the drop that they saw on the was not present on January 29th. So you'd ask the court to repeat that one sentence. Okay. So, I did not see this when I took a quick look at the view. All right. I'm not going to repeat it. All right. Lost or destroyed evidence. You're withdrawing direct and indirect evidence. I'm going to try and give a short shorter instruction on that. So, I will I'm even my the one I gave is too long. I'm trying to cut down the time the jury needs to hear general instructions that I think they're perfectly capable of hearing in a shorter period of time. All right. Thank you. Credibility the same law enforcement witness. I think I gave some instruction on that. I'll include that somewhere in it. I might just reference to that. Sure. Language in there. Okay. a police officer or someone else. Oh, what do you mean by that? I think that was taken into account perhaps. Um, we're not Yeah, I'll do police officer because their police testimony. I'm not going to go beyond that. I think that might be okay. Thank you. I'll do the photographs, the opinion, testimony, notes. I'm not saying I'm giving exactly this, but I will give I'll cover all those topics. I just What page you want? Okay. One suggestion there was photographs in evidence. Yeah. I'm just going to say there are photographs that are in evidence. Was that the nature of your objection? I I I actually think that introduced more photographic. Yeah. So I I would just say you've seen photographs or there were photographs and evidence. I I instructed twice anyway, maybe three times on it. So I'll give some version of that. Juror notes, I'll give some version. The implicit bias instruction, I'm going to give exactly what the SJC told me I should give. All right. So the Commonwealth requests are sort of in the you start with the law and then you get into the general instructions, Mr. Lai. So let's skip to your it's not numbered. Uh your supplemental instructions, use of a dangerous weapon. Yes. All right. So I'm going to give that Miss Yianetti. I gave a dangerous weapon instruction last year on the motor vehicle. Understood. All right. So, I'll give probably what I gave last year and this looks like it's it is not evidence. Evaluating the I'm going to give what is not evidence. Um, evaluating the evidence. There's some instruction. Um, Miss Tidy, what do you think about the short instruction on jurors? Sort of makes sense to me after such a long trial. No juror is better qualified to determine the truth of the facts and controversy or to deliberate upon a verdict than any other juror um or solely because of that not or solely because of that juror's occupation, education, experience or any other characteristic. Okay, thank you. Charts and summaries I'll talk a little bit about chocks and inferences. I will give some I'll give the redacted exhibits instruction witness preparation for trial. Do you both want this? There was testimony on both sides. It's simply there was testimony at trial that the attorneys and and I may say if you find or something preface it witnesses when um the attorneys interviewed witnesses when preparing for and during the course of the trial. No. uh you may not draw any unfavorable inferences solely from that fact. There is nothing improper about conducting such interviews. On the contrary, the attorneys are obligated to prepare their case as thoroughly as possible and may interview witnesses. I don't know if there's a sequestration order if this is appropriate though where it says during trial. During the course of the trial, I'll just say when preparing for trial. Yeah, we we're joining in. I don't know that we included that in our instructions, but we're joining in the combo request for that. All right. Okay. Expert witnesses, electronic communication. So, I'm going to go through um the limiting instructions I gave. I need to just do this again here. So, electronic communications, I have that on my list. the emotional impact photos um humane practice. We'll get back to consciousness of guilt in a minute. I'm also going to um give the prior bad acts instruction. I did that in regard to the um Aruba incident if you want to call it that. I gave a prior bad acts instruction before that testimony came in. I also gave the instruction that I will also give on the state of mind of John O'Keefe. John O'keefee as to um his state of mind being known by the defendant and the likelihood that she would act on it. So Commonwealth versus Bins in those cases. I thought it came in through Kaye. It I should say it did come in through Kaye. That's when I gave gave the prior bad acts instruction. She testified. Kaye is John O'Keefe's minor adopted daughter. Did I give it any other time that we did not see that testimony that I should highlight? I don't I don't think so. contemporaneous instruction I don't think there was an instruction all right I think I have to add that here so all right and I will look at it and decide whether I need to add it specifically it might be covered enough might be covered enough when I give the electronic communications instructions So I will think about that. All right, those were the limiting instructions I wanted to get to. So we would object to the part of that link to the text message. All right. I'm going to take a look at that, Mr. Leie. All right. Um, consciousness of guilt. Okay. All right. All right. So tell me where the difference is and what I gave last year from the model homicide instruction on secondderee murder and where you're saying I should not this year. Mr. Lai be nice. One second. Let me just pull that up. Okay. your polish request severely uh not for any change or operation any instructions given other than there are three malice and essentially is requesting speak up merely on third balance that's the only one that really applies okay here the first two are essentially traination and you know Um, do you have support of case law for me to single this out? What do you say, Miss Yianetti? I mean, Mr. Brian essentially stated that in his opening statement. Stated what? Well, he in his opening statement, he stated that is not alleging that she intended to do his father did not intend to kill him. Uh and it was just the third. He stated that in his opening. Um I imagine that's what he'll likely argue in his closing. Um you know I I I don't have a position on this. Uh I just don't know and I think the court's going through this analysis as well whether it's principal or not. I just raised that as an I don't have I could say the parties agree that the first prong and the second prong are not applicable here. I think we're just at a position where we'll defer to the court. Well, I'm not going to say you agree if there's no agreement. You can get me a case by this afternoon. I don't endeavor to do so. You're I'm inclined to go with the model. Um, I'll see if there's something I can find. You're probably better at finding it than I am, Mr. Lai, but um, I'll see if there's something I can find to support the position that it's just the third prong and therefore I only have to give that instruction. I don't think I'll find anything, but let me see. Um cuz I I can understand why both of you don't want it. Just let the jury focus on what they need to focus on. That's really the only reason. But I understand and I don't you know I could al I suppose I could always tell the jurors that the Supreme Judicial Court has come out with jury instructions that I must give in their entire format. And that sort of explains why I say something that doesn't apply. Maybe maybe I'll do that. But let me see if I can find something. If I can find something that says I don't have to give those first two prongs. Um I'll let you know before you begin. All right. And your before the court makes a decision on that. We see what the court is proposing. If you are going to if I alter it, it means I remove those two. That's all. No, we just want Yeah, sure. Sure. My guess is that won't happen. But, um, we can see. All right. So, uh, lesser included offenses. Did you want to know UI instruction? You were asking for that. Okay. All right. Right. I think that's it aside from Mr. Allessie's motion regarding the exhibit. Right. Is there anything else that's that we're missing? Just a couple of other issues. One is um with regard to the doctor of text messages, we have a redacted version now um which we'd like to submit to the court of public. You recall that we had agreed essentially on a redaction subject to the court's rulings. Okay. But it wasn't in final form. We believe it's in final form. And you all agree that it's in final form? Well, they haven't seen it. I'm going to give it to them now. So he's handing it to them now. Sure. Thank you. Huh. All right. So the only other issue, your honor, is hold on one second on this issue still. So I will give the Commonwealth this afternoon to take a look at this. Um and tomorrow morning if you don't have agreement, then we'll have to deal with it. and I'd prefer not to have to deal with it. So, I'm sure we can be in touch this afternoon. I do not believe there's going to be any problem. Okay. A couple other things before we get to this. Yeah. One is that um we do have the uh Dr. Wolf introduced Dr. Wolf or Dr. Wrenchler. All right. And this was allowed into evidence unobjected to. I thought we already had it. We didn't. We have redacted. Okay. And the Commonwealth has seen it. All right. So, they'll have to see it. Um, so Mr. Blley, Mr. Brennan, Miss Mclofflin, one of you has to take a look at it. And then, um, will the court allow more than an hour? I'll I'll allow more than an hour. I'll allow an hour and 15 minutes. Thank you. All right. And I think I did mention that we had a proposed verdict for me, your honor, if I didn't. You did not. Okay. We do have one. Can I hand? Sure. Is it the same as last year's, but now with a It's different. Okay. All right. Oh, I I digested it. Mr. Allessie, go ahead. I'll hear you. I'm actually Yianetti. Geez. I'm sorry. So, you're on your call. Uh we uh we had uh some spirited argument uh both before and after regarding this particular issue. And our concern, your honor, was that uh it's it's obviously a confusing indictment because it's the number of lesser included and the number of elements that are different for each lesser included. And we were uncomfortable with you know there being one option for not guilty at the top of the form and then multiple options for multiple different types of guilty verdicts where else the remainder of the form. So what we have done is to fashion this in a way where the jury uh pursuant to the court's instructions would first decide the offense as charged uh and if it's a guilty verdict then clerk um you know the analysis is over. If it's a not guilty verdict, they go on to the next lesser included offense and again same analysis applies. Uh if it's not guilty, they then go to the next until they finally reach the final verdict which the lessest the least I should say of the lesser included offenses is simple upper right-handed influence where they have an option for not guilty or guilty. Um, we've also changed a little bit of the wording. Uh, you'll see, which I think makes it clearer and less confusing. Um, when the jury is given options for theories of guilt on at least like three, one, two, three of the charges, including the main charge. Uh, because there's this issue of either under the influence or 08 or greater. Um, it the the way it originally read, your honor, uh, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol was repeated twice. It was repeated once where there's an option for guilty and then it was repeated again with both of the other options. We think that this is simpler, it's cleaner, it's it's clearer. Uh, and we believe that uh, this verdict is the most appropriate one. Mr. Your honor, as the court's probably well aware, the call is not requesting any professor included and I certainly understand that the evidence supports the defense request. Having said that, um the slip was used in this matter last year. The only other thing I would bring to the court's attention, I don't know if you're aware, there was um a case recently while this case was going on trial before judge for a while um in which he had similar issues had I believe used at least part of the B slip from trial in this case as sort of template for the lesser included instructor. I I don't have a copy of it on me, but I can certainly get a copy of the doctor, but that may somewhat helpful, of course. Okay. Was that on murder case? It was not, but it had to do um with the felony of homicide. Okay. Yeah. I'll I'll take a look at it. Mr. Turk, um Mr. Turk, Mr. Mr. Yianetti. Um I don't believe I'm going to give this but I'll take a closer look at it. Well, we appreciate that judge is an excellent judgment. Uh we think that this verd is what is uh it provides the most clarity to the jury. That's why we're okay and that's where I think we disagree. So I will take a closer look at that. And um so has it been filed officially and docketed? I just handed it. All right. So, Madame Clerk, you have a copy up there. The proposed I think this is the only Okay, that's what I was wondering. Okay. Sure. Yes. Or you know what? Just mark it for identification. Margaret, we'll do that. Chrissy, please. just for ID. Um, it's L L for ID. Thank you. Alli just uh one request circling back to the con field instruction request for the instruction. Okay. However, would be seeking to make some argument was referenced to specific condition. Um so the two areas that are that are sort of within that that make some argument the jury regarding is the defendants taking up the Lexus from one metal came to her parents res and then certain statements made in reference statements okay would be the one she said Okay. All right. Misty and Eddie, do you want to weigh in on that? Yeah. To that. I don't see it's her or being evidence of consciousness. And the notion that she's driving from one residence that the police know of to another residence that the police know of, which is her parents' house. The car is open. obvious in the driveway. In fact, when the police call, she says, "Yes, come on over." I don't see that as being any evidence. Okay. So, uh I'm going to allow them because they're permissible inferences from what's in evidence, but I'm not going to give even before it was withdrawn, I wasn't going to give a consciousness of guilt on those. And just to be further clear, there may be other. Yes. So, I did want to ask you though, Miss Yianetti. I think it's an argument that can certainly be made by the Commonwealth regarding the um video clips that your client gave during various interviews. I think consciousness of guilt is a a um a permissible inference from some of those. Are you sure you don't want me to give the consciousness of guilt? Cuz it's got helpful language for a defendant in it as well. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to give you the opportunity. Okay. All right. Anything else? Anything else, Mr. Unetti? We're going to hear from Mr. Allessie, but the does not object to the reaction. That's great. Thank you. One less thing you all have to do today. Okay. This is Mr. I know. All right. So, let's make that Are we switching that um new redacted version? with an exhibit number. Do we know what it was before? Excuse me. Um the redactions on the Higgins messages. That's what you're saying you're fine with, right? Uh Proctor Communications. Proctor Communications. Okay. This is testimony that came in of Proctor. I was Yes. All right. So, we'll find the exhibit number and we'll just 209 209. Is everybody in agreement that it's exhibit 209? Uh, yes. Okay. Does the court have a copy or do they need a com? Uh, no. I Oh, I wrote on it. I need the comals. This is a clean copy. So, that will now be 209 in evidence. You know what? Can we make that 209A? We need Misty and Eddie. We need to keep record of the first one that was not redacted. So any objection to making this 209A? I have no objection that and and so original 209 will not be sent. Is that it becomes what you think? Yeah. ID. Yeah. So we'll switch it back to ID and this will just be no matter. All right. Did we have an ID number on it originally? Can it still be that? Is it NN or No, it can say that. Okay. Oh, it's just NN. It's not No, it became 209. Our thinking is it needs to be sent back to letters for ID. I will be marked MM for ID. That's great. And then and then the redacted version will now just y and we'll hear from you this afternoon. Just somebody send us an email uh to the clerk's office. So, um, someone sent an email to the clerk's office today letting us know if the wolf PowerPoint is ready to be put into evidence after the Commonwealth looks at it. Absolutely. Okay. So, we'll take care of that. All right, Mr. Leie, I'll hear you. Thank you, your honor. Uh if I might suggest uh respectfully a procedure to the court, I have spoken with the Commonwealth uh about what the topic is. It's obviously not new to anyone, but perhaps to expedite uh this matter. If I might suggest to your honor could avoid a more lengthier argument, it might have been truncated down to 30 seconds. If uh we could hear from the Commonwealth on what we have requested and the topic specifically is entitled defendants motion for curative instruction regarding exhibit 88 in introduction into evidence of exhibits. The exhibits is taken care of. That's no longer an issue. But I did speak with Mr. Lai and uh if I could suggest Mr. Lai can state his position as I understand it and then I can go from there and it may not be necessary for me to continue on. Right. What's the uh KO's position? Commonw position is ultimately heard of the court as far as whether or not it's appropriate instruction to give uh in final charge. Um what would submit is that the contemporaneous instruction was more than sufficient to address the issue uh and that it doesn't require any sort of differing language for further instruction. Okay. All right. I'll hear you. Mr. May I go to the podium? Yes. Thank you. Your honor, I have given and your honor has provided me previously with a generous opportunity to be heard on this, but I do need to cover some points uh with regard to the matter. I was was hoping to avoid doing this, but uh given uh what what we've just heard uh it it needs to be done respectfully. Uh as your honor knows uh we have submitted this this motion and as part of the motion it is really consists of two parts. The first part is the the text in the basis uh for what we're requesting. I'll come to that in a moment. And then attached to it are uh that is exhibit A and exhibit B. And those exhibits are our best effort at transcribing because there's not an official transcript at this point of exactly what happened. Why do we put in the exhibits? We put in the exhibits because we believe it really sets forth and illuminates uh quite vividly what occurred. It occurred rather rapidly. Uh but uh I think this allows for a much more reflect. These exhibits allow for a much more reflective uh analysis. So just briefly what as we know happened is uh attorney Brennan took exhibit 88 uh encased in whatever the the plexiglass material had it set up and we understand this now in retrospect uh behind the witness stand and then at at a certain time in the crossexamination of our witness uh Dr. Wolf uh confronted Dr. Wolf with it uh as part of an accident reconstructionist uh cross-examination and challenging Dr. Wolf on several aspects and this one was particularly um apt that the subject matter not the manner of the examination was Dr. Wolf, you're saying this, these are your theories. However, did you consider uh and take into account the holes in the back of the hoodie? And um the that led to uh a series of questions and a series of answers. And I want to go right to the end because I think going right to the end better elucidates what actually occurred and the depth of the issue in the problem here in this this misconduct which we believe was intentional. Specifically, the end is we know and I believe it is completely undisputed that the holes in each and every hole in the back of the hoodie was caused um by the criminalist, a witness in this case uh Miss Hartnett who um made those cuts as part of her analysis. And that was in May of 2023, long after the alleged incident of January 29, 2022. So that's sort of the end undisputed. Now, let's go back to what happened in the examination, a cross-examination of of of Dr. Wolf. So he's confronted and I think uh you know we we put in uh exhibit A and B uh of it but I what what is is particularly striking um is on page seven of exhibit A and it's the colloqui that starts in the middle which we've yellow highlighting um attorney Brennan saying when you were making that opinion about consistent or inconsist exist in. Did you ever consider whether there were holes in Mr. O'Keefe's sweatshirt other than the right arm? Dr. Wolf started to answer, "Well, I know that there was cutting to," and I emphasize cutting. And then he was cut off by attorney Brennan. And attorney Brennan said, "May I approach and receive the exhibit, your honor?" And we note that in the context of many other statements uh in this regard as to as to what happened. So now this comes to the requested relief and I'm I'm going to uh move to the part of the argument your honor that we believe respectfully compels um what we're requesting. So now I want to just state what we request. We uh believe it's what we've requested is quite modest given what happened. And our proposed curative instruction is on page two of our motion. It states, "During the crossexamination of Dr. Wolf, Mr. Brennan asked Dr. Wolf about holes in the back of the sweatshirt. Exhibit 88, falsely insinuating that those holes were sustained on January 29, 2022 from a fall backwards. I instruct you that those holes were not present on January 29, 2022. Those holes were made by Moren Hartnett, a criminalist at the Massachusetts State Police. I've got the acronym MSP Crime Lab. In the course of her inspection and sampling of the clothing on May 18, 2023, Dr. Wolf correctly testified that those holes did not come from any alleged event on or about January 29, 2022. Please juxtapose that with regard to the instruction your honor had given, which was a sentence. So jurors, I instruct you that those holes were made by the criminalist, Miss Hartnett, during the course of her inspection and sampling of the sweatshirt. Didn't I include the date you requested, the May 18th date? I thought I did. You know, your honor, I think the answer is no, but because I'm doing it from memory and I I I don't This is not an official transcript, right? Exactly, your honor. So I can't say it with certainty, I don't believe it was. Okay. Because that date you told me was important to you, right? among other factors the date was important is it's May 18th right? Uh yes your honor and and and so your honor the I believe what is fair in the analysis and as objective as I can be here is I think the curative instruction has to tether to and relate to in its details the degree of what happened. This was on a very significant topic, accident reconstruction. A a significant piece of evidence, the hoodie. There's been much discussion among many expert witnesses about this hoodie, what it stands for. There's been videos on it. you know, our position. The hoodie in a proper accident reconstruction uh would be completely unaffected by any alleged motor vehicle um incident. And then to to show the witness on this for the defense, it clearly left the impression uh to any objective observer that Dr. Wolf had somehow uh been in incompetent, which is 180 degrees of of of the reality, but also uh that he he just wasn't otherwise diligent and the jury therefore should not weigh and value his opinion. This is very, very significant. And I underscore, your honor, we didn't cause this problem. We didn't cause any of this issue. So to me, I do not understand why the Commonwealth would not support this. What we have written down here supports the truth. We all, I believe, should have the common goal of the jury receiving the truth. I looked at the jury. I'm no soothsayer or mind readader, but I looked at the jury and they look confused when I looked over at them. But I think even aside from looking at a jury, what your honor did in good faith, I don't believe is clear enough on this key issue. And I'm not understanding why there would be any real contest over making it clear to the jury on this very important point. the defense to my point of being measured at the time and being measured now, we could be requesting a lot more statements about what occurred. And I've been in situations in other trials where things have happened and and there's been many more significant things stated. So in conclusion, your honor, the defense not having contributed at all to this issue, the significance of the issue, the significance of the air, it's undisputed about the air to me respectfully all augars for more clarity here. And the final point, there's two issues here. There's the fact of when these holes occurred, these cuts and how they occurred. That's one bucket. But the second bucket, which is not in the current instruction, is our expert witness, Dr. Wolf, and the impression left upon him. And that is why we have the language in there. Again, we believe quite measured. just the sentence at the end to take care of the harm to our witness with regard to what occurred. So therefore, your honor, we respectfully request that this be given um so that the jury has a clear and complete and truthful understanding of the what not only what happened but also to make sure that it is what's created for the jury is accuracy. Hence truth can be concluded. Thank you your honor. Thank you. I do just want to point out one thing. It was not objected to at the time it came in. That's my only comment. I will consider this. I'm going to hear from Mr. Ly. I will consider this. What is it that was not objected? The testimony was not objected to. I didn't hear this until I think after another witness. Your honor, if I could just thank you for raising that 10 seconds for that. I will uh and I made this point the very time that I made the argument last time. We were not shown we were not shown that exhibit 88 in the encasement. It was behind the witness. We didn't even know that it was behind the witness. So what happened was Brennan went up, retrieved it. It immediately went to the witness with it, showed it. We couldn't even see what was happening. There was no physical nor other ability for us to object at the time. So I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to respond to that. All right, Mr. Lally. Keep your voice up. Yes, very briefly. I'm not going to get into a belabor point as far as the back and forth conduct council. Um during during extended exchange with a witness on the stand echoing acknowledged uh and echoing accepted uh as a mistake uh there were numerous offers uh by the commonwealth to offer uh a stipulation as to uh the I don't hear an echo as far as the evidence is concerned uh that were rejected by the defense uh they wanted the curative instruction. They got it contemporaneous uh with when the evidence came in. Um there have been many many instances of uh similar type conduct that didn't uh result in a curative instruction and to accentuate it uh further in the final charge to the jury uh is simply improper. Um it was a situation uh that arose as far as um whatever misstatement uh was made at the time as far as whether it's from the testimony from the witness or the question from councel uh was immediately remedied was taken care of. Um I don't think that there's any confusion by the jury and uh furthermore as I indicated the comm offered uh a stipulation at the time that this occurred which was uh essentially rejected by the defense. They got the curative instruction at the time that is all that is required is more than sufficient and it doesn't need to be uh accentuated or addressed further in the final charge. Okay. So I'll consider it Mr. Allessie. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else? Um, two things I'd like to talk about for scheduling. The jurors get here early. Uh, I'm going to ask if the court officers to call the jurors and ask them two things. To ask them if they can get here a little bit earlier so that we can all be in the courtroom at 8:45 ready to start. So things take a little while generally. That will assure us that closing arguments will start right at 9:00, maybe a few minutes earlier. Uh the goal would be to hear arguments from both council and then take an early lunch break. I would ask that council plan on just a half an hour lunch break. I'd like the point being I want the jurors to start deliberating. I don't want to end the charge and send them home for the weekend. That's not fair after they've waited so long. So a a short lunch you're free to stay in the building and court officers will help you with accommodations for that. but a short lunch and then I'll come out and do the the charge. Um, and then at least hopefully there'll be some time for them to deliberate. I'm going to ask the court officers to call the jurors uh to see if they can stay as late as 5:00 or 5:30 tomorrow night. I just don't think it's fair after they've sat through so much of this trial with the various delays that we've had to not let them start deliberating. We have no objection to that. One request we have, judge, is during the last trial, during deliberations, the court had asked us to be within five minutes of the courthouse. My office is about 10 minutes away. Um, I I'm sure we can make accommodations for that. Um, but at some point we may have to talk about security issues. So, a lot may depend on that. All right. Uh, does the Commonwealth have any objection to that schedule? No, your honor. Not at all. All right. So, we'll see council in here no later than 8 8:30 tomorrow morning. Sure. Council here at 8:30. All right. Thank you. All right. Please. Nice. Is there already one of these? Like, are we swapping? Yes. I expected more drama. Um, yeah, there was just a little drama at the end there with the instructions about what happened with the holes in the in the back of the the shirt. Uh, it was a mistake. I thought it was already addressed and taken care of, but it was, but they're trying for any advantage in those instructions. Look how stupid the prosecutor is. doesn't even know what damage was done to the shirt. Yeah. Uh just like the start where uh Yanetti was uh pressing to have the entire thing uh dismissed based on uh 100% glowing endorsement of everything the defense did. Everything was perfect, including Ly's insane ramblings. All of this proved she was not guilty. So, they were pie in the sky stuff today. They're trying to get everything in at the last minute cuz this is literally their last chance. Yep. To get something. Even Even the Commonwealth agreed with our stuff. Yeah. So, uh let's see. So, for tomorrow, we normally start at 8:55 a.m. Tomorrow, we'll probably get here around 8:30 a.m. just in case they do start early. I'm sure we'll find something to fill time with if we need to, but it's only a few minutes and a few times Griffy has bribed us to go early anyway. So, not that bad. We'll just sit here and talk if need be. Tomorrow after the after they go to the jury. Okay. It depends on what time the jury gets the case. If it's within an hour of close, we may just sit here and do some drunk girl until they close shop. provided that the jury doesn't get uh doesn't immediately come back with a verdict. Uh if it's early like 2 3 hours, what we'll do is we'll end the show. Then we will come back around 4:30 and then have a show from 4:30 until 5:15ish Eastern time. So that way we're set and uh that gets us covered. We'll do the same sort of thing the rest of next week as long as the jury is out. That said, anybody else got anything? Goddamn bondsman. Yeah. Are you finally out, Phil? Uh folks took forever. You know how they tried to short change me on the value of the Pope mobile. Uh Pope Phil was in custody last night due to uh what was it? It was the overflowing stench of death from the property from all of those unused sidebars you've allegedly been letting pile up. No, it was a violation of my first amendment freedom of religion. I'm suing. I'm suing. 1983. 1983, I tell you. Now, uh, what about these rumors that you were trying to flee to Canada next week? What What form of time machine are you what what form of time machine are you using to get back to 1983? [Laughter] My neighbor's Delorean. Oh, boy. Uh, so yes, the FD the FDA is at the property now cleaning up what is estimated at 5,000 unused sidebars that are apparently rotting on the property is the allegation. The good news is because of the current administration, the buffoons of the FDA don't know what [ __ ] they're doing. That's the good. That's the good. And after a sizable donation from the church of Phil will take care of the rest. Yes. Yes, it will. Yes, it will. Uh some some uh 20some year old named Big Balls is here. I don't know. Okay. Uh in other news, Chile Dcastro did not go live last night. We do. We will have coverage of fraudtor troll being sued by Denver metro audits in the most bizarre lawsuit. Okay. Essentially what happened was fraud troll did a reaction video of a DMA uh video back in 2022. In 2024, uh, DMA actually filed a for copyright on that video and has has legally has copyright over his video, not not the fraud or troll version, but his original video. So now he is suing retroactively uh fraud troll for copyright infringement because now he owns the copyright but back then he did not and he says that supersedes anything. Oh I'm sure I'm sure it will go go very far. Yeah. He of course is having trouble finding fraud troll as uh the address listed for fraud troll is a holding company in New York which provides uh random uh provides storefronts and workspaces for various organizations and there is no suite number provided plus the fact that he thinks that Fer troll is a Canadian. So he may be asking this to go on without frontitor troll actually being served which is going to be that won't work. Yes. Yes. But this is a federal civil rights lawsuit. We will have details in the paper tomorrow morning. Yeah. Yeah. He's he went this this went under the radar. Frauded or troll. We did we we watched a video on big yesterday. Yeah. Yeah. And a frauded or troll video and it's a staged incident between a woman and a police officer. There's been tons of staged ones on airplanes. You know what I mean? He actually he actually showed this as being a real situation. Everybody in side chat's going, "This is fake. This is staged," right? Is that how desperate he is now? Uh, I do not know. And we are not making that official accusation should someone get latigious on his own. We are not. So, we're Oh, we're not talking about DMA. We are talking about Denver, which is a completely separate madeup person. No, no. She's saying that Froder Troll was playing these videos. Yeah. And also, also, I I do have to give props to Let me finish this one. Uh, we do have to give props to Troll Media Group for originally breaking the story and alerting everyone to this actual lawsuit. They found it first. Hats off to them. Go ahead. Good job. Do you have any proof that troll um fraud auditor troll is not a madeup entity? Uh who knows? I think he is completely madeup entity. Well, he's entertaining. That's you know I don't know how I don't know how seriously we need to take him. He is entertaining. Yeah. I haven't watched him in a long time. Yeah, he's usually up against us uh when he goes live. So, I think the last time I watched him was the sentencing hearing for DMA of all people. Anyoo, by the way, um I you did get a shout out by a big dummy. Okay. Uh, we did. Yes. Demi Krueger had a post lay Myers docks. So, and then uh Patrick J. Darcy then gave Dummy a shout out, but our name was on the screen the entire time as a from the shout out from Dummy Krueger. Yeah. So, you know, yeah, Patrick, please, you know, you can always give us a shout out, too, directly instead of just really cool news being off the screen for the entire broadcast. That was hilarious. At least you're on screen. At least you're on screen. Take the window. Finally, uh, Monday night is Pance's birthday. We will have Pants's uh uh birthday party on air because the second Phil Monday is suspended as Phil will be in Canada visiting I mean Kentucky Kentucky wink wink eating poutine wink wink I I mean biscuits and gravy I mean that's what he'll be doing I I'll be in the land of in Appalachia. So folks, uh are you taking tour? I I am taking the white water rafting. Yes. Ah, so please plan on being with us Monday night 8:00. It's going to be a special show. I've got some special things lined up. Wink wink. Uh, that may might work. Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Yes. Including Gia launching. Gia has to get with Hank about launching someone. What was it, Gia? I don't know. I don't remember. I'm not jumping out of anything. You said you weren't going to jump out of a cake, but you could get Hank to set up an explosion or something to launch someone out of the cake who's not you. Uh, Coke Dog's ashes. There's no ashes left. He's I thought I thought NCR said they landed on his yard. Uh, he's completely mistaken. NASA was tracking the debris field heading straight for Jim's anus, I mean Uranus. And they suspect it's going to cause a noxious noxious smell emitting from Uranus for the end of time. Okay then. So Monday night we've got some big things planned and yes, Pope Phil may be sending in a special statement from Canada. Special. Yeah, Kentucky. Whatever. Exactly. Exactly. Through his attorney. No, he might be doing a direct statement uh via video. Well, from Kentucky, so Canada, whatever. Will will the will the phrase of boy you got a pretty mouth be in that video? Maybe. Maybe. A maybe. Boy, you got a pretty mouth. A cuz he's in Canada. or Kentucky. Okay. Uh anywh who, we will be back with you tonight at 8:00 Eastern for our normal gym sucks Thursday night. Uh we will be discussing ins and out of Karen Reed and other situations, the usual stuff, plus some drunk girl. I hope you all can meet us uh or be with us there. And remember, please have a safe and happy afternoon. With that, uh, we're out of here. Have a good one. Bye. Bye. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Enjoy the rest of your day. Hey, please come back for tonight's show. Gia have planned something very special.