The Murder Police Podcast
The Murder Police Podcast
Is Karen Read this Generation's O.J. Simpson?
The suspicious death of John O'Keefe and the subsequent trials of Karen Reed have divided communities, sparked heated debates online, and left countless questions unanswered. Was this a tragic accident, or something far more sinister? Join Wendy and David as they each share "3 Things" that they take away from this case.
We dive deep into three key elements that raise serious doubts about what really happened that fateful night. First, the mysterious series of "butt dials" to O'Keefe's phone suggests someone was desperately searching for his device during critical hours. Second, the disturbing injuries on O'Keefe's arm – wounds containing pig DNA that resembled animal bites rather than car damage – coincided with the Alberts rehoming their German Shepherd shortly after the incident. Third, the suspicious Google searches asking "how long to die in the cold".
Beyond the evidence itself, this case highlights systemic issues that plague our justice system. The shocking misconduct by State Trooper Michael Proctor, who sent horrifically unprofessional text messages about Karen Reed, undermined the prosecution's credibility. Meanwhile, the exceptional work of Reed's defense team exploited these vulnerabilities to create reasonable doubt. The decision to elevate charges from reckless behavior to murder may have ultimately backfired, as the evidence struggled to support such serious allegations.
The Karen Reed case may well become this generation's OJ Simpson trial – legally resolved but forever questioned in the court of public opinion. Did the perfect storm of police misconduct, skilled defense work, and media attention prevent the truth from emerging? Or did the system work exactly as designed by preventing conviction when reasonable doubt existed? What do you think happened that night? Join the conversation and share your theories with us on YouTube or social media.
David's book, True Crime and Consequences is FINALLY available!
This book explores the intricate and often controversial relationship between the true crime community and law enforcement. For amateur sleuths, true crime fans, and social media detectives and cops everywhere.
http://truecrimeconsequences.com/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FBQ4BT5Q
Do you have your copy of David's book True Crime and Consequences? Get your copy today at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FBQ4BT5Q.
See what you have been missing on YouTube!
When they swabbed that arm the DNA came back as pig DNA Right and the first thing I thought and then minutes later they said it I said to you that could be a pig's ear, like the rawhide the pig's ear that you get. Right? I mean, let's be honest, the Alberts don't have a pot-bellied pig living in their living room. Who's attacking this man, right?
Speaker 2:Three Things. Karen Reed, a Murder Police Podcast production.
Speaker 1:Warning the podcast you're about to listen to may contain graphic descriptions of violent assaults, murder and adult language. Listener discretion is advised. Hello and welcome back to Murder Police Podcast. Today we are bringing you our newest well, I guess not so new now series that we have called Three Things, and today we are going to talk about the Karen Reeb case. So, david, how are you?
Speaker 2:Doing good. I think that this is interesting. This is you crash-coursed it and got it, and I've watched it over the last few years, but I'm going to be honest, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention because information was flying from every direction and you know me, it ain't over until it's been in court and it's over for the second time Now it's over and over.
Speaker 2:But I do think that our audience will be interested in what our three perspectives are. That's what we do on Three Things. And for the audience if you're not on YouTube, you should have subscribed by now. If you're not subscribed to us on YouTube, go to YouTube, find the Murder Police Podcast channel and subscribe. Then, based on what me and Wendy talked about with, our.
Speaker 2:Three Things is. We would love it for you all to jump in the comments section and tell us what you think. Tell us if we're wrong. I mean we will be the first to say that on these cases.
Speaker 1:Yeah, these are strictly our opinions, that's it.
Speaker 2:We don't have everything. We have people that watch and listen to our show that have paid much more attention to the cases, so teach us to.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm kind of not new to the Karen Reid, but of course I recall when it first came out. I think about that time you were up in Massachusetts teaching and some of the guys that you were teaching I don't know if it was their department or someone close by, but anyway you mentioned it and and you know me, I've always got true crime on and I guess, well, I guess, just to be real honest with you, uh, joe Kenda just took precedence over Karen Reed and I couldn't let him go.
Speaker 1:I love Joe Kenda just took precedence over Karen Reed and I couldn't let him go. I love Joe Kenda. Everybody knows that, well, almost everybody and so I didn't really follow it until you wanted to do three things on Karen. So, like you said, I crash-coursed it, watched it yesterday.
Speaker 2:You were transfixed too, by the way. Oh, I didn't get up.
Speaker 1:I finally, after four straight episodes and they're like 41, 42 minutes each, that's without the little commercial breaks I had to get up. I mean, I had sat there for four straight episodes and I said I've got to get up from this TV.
Speaker 2:So Well, it's the. What we're talking about is the original Netflix. I shouldn't say Netflix because it's moved around, but it was the original Netflix. I shouldn't say Netflix because it's moved around, but it was the original documentary on her first trial, and that's what we've watched. Now there isn't a second one yet. I'm pretty sure it's in the works right now and somebody will drop that. But then we also gathered some other information from news articles.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we did some digging and researching, like we typically do. But you know, when I started watching it I will say and not too often, usually when I'm on something I have an opinion from the beginning and it just usually doesn't change. And yesterday I had my opinion and I think I wasn't even two episodes in and I totally flipped and changed on my opinion. And again I'm glad you said it's only our opinions. I'm not saying mine's right, but it's mine.
Speaker 2:So that's the fascination with this case and it'll probably come up in our three things a little bit is it's been all over the place and sadly there's reports of family members turning against family members over.
Speaker 1:Oh, I can see that.
Speaker 2:As you know, death and craziness does that Well, yeah you know the other thing too, is that the big thing, and people have heard me say before it only really matters to the people in that courtroom because we are only seeing and hearing what people deliver to us. And if there's ever time to have critical thinking skills especially as a true crime community member is now is to be very careful about what we consume and collect it and validate it and whatnot. So let's go ahead and roll.
Speaker 1:Yeah, with that, let's start. We'll start with your number one. My number one, my three things. I'm going to admit I've kind of sneaked another one in there. So my first, and I don't recall which episode it was on this series, but were the series of butt dials as they called them. Now, you know, back in the day.
Speaker 2:Is that butt with one T or two?
Speaker 1:That is two Ts.
Speaker 2:Two Ts as in the cheeks, all right.
Speaker 1:Gotcha. Now, we know, back in the day and some of our listeners may not remember, depending on their age, cell phones had buttons. We didn't have the screens that were, you know, touchscreen and you didn't lock them. You couldn't lock the screen, so it was very easy to butt dial.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:That is not all impossible, but it's a little more challenging with one of these smartphones. But what I found so bizarre about that is it wasn't just a butt dial, it was a series like upwards of six or seven of them back to back, with a little bit of minute or two in between. So I don't for one minute think it was a butt dial. It was made by two or three different people who supposedly butt dialed John O'Keefe's phone and, like I said, there was a minute in between, two minutes in between. First thing I thought is somebody is looking for this man's phone and they keep calling it to see where it is.
Speaker 1:What a great first one so that's my first one was the series of and OK, now take that.
Speaker 2:What does that mean? Does somebody watching the case? What does that infer? What does that make you think?
Speaker 1:Well, just what I said. I think that they were looking for his phone.
Speaker 1:Right so they keep calling it to hear when it's going to ring and find it Now. Why they're looking for his phone I don't know. But I will tell you that Karen Reed had said when he had gone into the home, when John went in that home, she kept trying to reach him. She kept calling him and they replayed, I think, the voicemails and she was saying to him you know, get out here. What's taking you so long, that kind of thing. That's not verbatim, but that's kind of the gist of it. I'm getting so tired of you being in there, hurry up. And so she kept saying she doesn't know why he's not answering.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:I keep calling. He's not answering. Then you've got these butt dolls that's looking for his phone. Well, obviously the phone wasn't out there with her, she wouldn't have been calling it. She would have called it once and said there it is and it started ringing, or all of the butt dials they called would have rang. So I found that a little peculiar, because they were butt dialing, I think, looking for the phone. Karen keeps calling, repeatedly, texting where are you Get out of here? I'm done waiting on you. Basically, I'm leaving, I'm tired of waiting. There we go. So that's what it inferred to me.
Speaker 2:Big picture and just easy based on that and you don't have to go into the why right now, because I think people will get the why and everybody struggled with it. Did that help Karen's defense or hurt it?
Speaker 1:I think it helped it because it led Credence, in my opinion, to she's looking for him. What I want to know is what's going on in there that he's not answering his phone?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And now, why are they also?
Speaker 2:there's. There's what I was. I think that's what, like there's gonna be so much of that.
Speaker 1:What we might think are small things that added up into that's kind of the pivotal moment that it started to turn for me well, go ahead, just we can turn.
Speaker 1:And let's turn to number two number two, the autopsy photo that it showed of john o'keefe's arm. As soon as I saw all these cuts on his arm, prosecution was trying to say, oh well, it was from her tail light at the back of her Lexus. Soon, as I saw that, I looked at you and I said that is not from a tail light and it was a series of cuts, scratches, if you will, and they were some long in nature. But when they showed his upper arm there were two very deep ones and I said that is a bite, like a dog bite.
Speaker 1:At this time I didn't know that the Alberts had a German shepherd named Chloe, but that's the first thing I said is something has bitten his arm and scratched him and my first thought was he's putting his arm up to protect himself and this dog's coming after him. I do not think they were cuts. I don't do that for a living but when I saw that I'm thinking that did not come from a broken tail light. I think it would have been jagged. These were very clean cuts and very deep bites that were like tears. There's a little bit of space that I saw on the autopsy photo of two of the deep bites. I thought those are two canines that's ripping through this man.
Speaker 2:I think the injury to him period in a lot of ways, specifically the arm because it's so visible is one of the most contentious pieces of evidence out there in the community right now as far as people coming to that, because, again, neither one of us are forensic pathologists, we never studied that, but you know, some things lend themselves to the naked eye and the naive eye.
Speaker 1:That's right. And let me say what else seemed very odd to that is the Alberts rehomed that dog just a very short time later.
Speaker 1:Yes yes, why did you get rid of your dog? Because this big lug laying here at my feet that's not supposed to be down here. There's no way I would rehome my dog. I'm just thinking it and the reason they gave and I um, somewhere along the lines of it, it got into a fight or a quarrel or couldn't get along with a neighbor dog or something along those lines. Why are you rehoming your dog over?
Speaker 1:there we go and know they also said the medical examiner said or maybe it wasn't the medical examiner someone on there said when they swabbed that arm, the DNA came back as pig DNA, right, and the first thing I thought and then minutes later they said it I said to you that could be a pig's ear, like the rawhide the pig's ear that you get that could be a pig's ear, like the rawhide, the pig's ear that you get, right.
Speaker 1:I mean, let's be honest, the alberts don't have a pot-bellied pig living in their living room. Is attacking this man, right? So whatever got a hold of his arm had pig dna. I don't think there's pig dna on the back of that lexus taillight that was busted not likely not likely. So I'm thinking that dog bit his arm. Maybe it had been chewing on a pig's ear. The lazy down here don't get pig's ears, but I mean we'd have milk bone DNA on our arm for sure, because she loves her milk bones.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, well, there's milk bone DNA all over this house.
Speaker 1:But that to me seems so suspicious. The cuts, the bites on his arm, that's just so.
Speaker 2:And then getting rid of the dog, getting rid of it and I don't want to because it's you have one more to go, but I want to. I want to tease. This is the dog wasn't the only thing that got rid of. I mean, we had a cell phone disposed and a sim card disposed yes, I don't want to go there, I don't yeah yeah, but I just want to because I don't want to interrupt and I'm going to get to your number three, but for the audience is again what all that starts to mean, as far as that's right.
Speaker 1:Why are you getting rid of a SIM card and destroying it on an Army base there?
Speaker 2:we go.
Speaker 1:Well, let's go to your number three, because again, I don't want to Number three was Jennifer McCabe's Google search at both 2.27 am and, I think, 625, 624-ish am somewhere along there. Howls H-O-S. Howls long to die in the cold, quote. Okay, why are you searching that? Because this man was found out in the cold, yes. So why are you searching that? Did something happen to him in your house like the dog bite, and obviously he suffered from skull fracture? Were you sticking him out there, hoping that he'd die, under the pretenses that maybe he fell on the ice and he died of hypothermia? I don't know, but that certainly seemed peculiar that she searched that on her phone right, yeah, what did you think?
Speaker 2:and again, we're not doing an expose on the documentary. However, I'll say this the documentary I think was actually'll say this the documentary I think was actually pretty level because, you have to remember, the information on the documentary has been provided primarily from the defense and from Karen herself, which was bizarre that they even let her interview. But I will say this I think the defense team was trying a lot of this in the public part of their strategy. So I think it was a balanced documentary because they're not getting anything from the prosecution. But I guess what got me when we talked about that is the first time I saw the 247 or whatever, and the audience can correct that the first search looks incriminating as to being too close to the event.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like he just died a minute ago and now you're searching.
Speaker 2:Not to mention that she is saying that she did that on behalf of Karen Reed asking that question. That said now me just going because I'm kind of anal this way is the first thing I thought. Are there technical reasons why that date can show up? Because forensic data analysis is not just seeing the thing, it's the background. So here we go. In the documentary they talked about how each side produced expert testimony, which probably got qualified through hearings, as to what they thought. And here we go, you've got the prosecution brings on some experts that say that that was based on the last tab open, that it held that date and it held that time yes.
Speaker 2:So again, whether you believe one or the other, my first thought was this is why it's difficult to be a juror. Oh, yes, as Ray the DA rest in peace the juror.
Speaker 1:Jurors, that's right.
Speaker 2:God bless him. He would draw that out. But there we go. That's where I think people have to understand when you sit there and say, well, if I was in a courtroom I'd do this. Well, now imagine yourself going back to that jury room and having two qualified expert testimonies that contradict which. Welcome to the murder trial business.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:That would have been really, really tough, because they both have very different opinions.
Speaker 2:But I mean still, but they're credentialed, they're credentialed, they are credentialed yeah.
Speaker 1:So that that for me, whether Karen told her to do it, whether she did it, because we know that Karen wasn't there at the two o'clock hour. She had already left.
Speaker 2:Yeah, she didn't come back until the 6 o'clock hour. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the 247 is an infirmament that the alternative theory to defense brought it supports that. It's that something happened at that house. They were in panic mode.
Speaker 1:They left his body out front and whatever he left his body out front and whatever.
Speaker 2:On the other side, if we believe that that was a dated time stamp and, for whatever reason, technology didn't update it because of a tab or whatever, is that? On the other hand, it would lead to credence that she simply did it because Karen asked her.
Speaker 1:Right, but this thing just continues to have things. Well, it just. Yeah, there's so many turns and you know one. I know I've given my three things, but I have to say this the other thing that really it isn't even funny, it's just so utterly embarrassing and really honestly pathetic was the trooper, michael proctor, who sent the the text group text. I think seven or eight people or something. A good bit of people were in there, the things that he was. He. He's investigating it, right, and he's saying things about Karen. That is horrendous. Now we do know he's lost his job since then, rightfully so. You're investigating this, calling her terrible names and saying that you hope she kills herself.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:That was.
Speaker 2:That leads into my list and where I start.
Speaker 1:See, we've got that same thing going on, you and I Telekinesis, our kismets together, yes, it's fantastic.
Speaker 2:Three things, by the way, Thank you. I think you hit, even though you crash-coursed this. I think you hit what largely a lot of people in our audience are going to say was speaking to them like yelling to them. So let me run my three and see let's hear them.
Speaker 1:So let me run my three.
Speaker 2:Ok, let's hear my first. One is directly related to that text messaging was the allegations of misconduct and and the criticism of the investigation by all the agencies involved up there. And that one registered with me because somebody who comes from that business that's painful One. Nobody wants to hear that. But then again, when you spend enough time in the business you realize it's made up of human beings and different motivations and not everybody does as well. Now the allegations are pretty stiff for up there and I'll say this till the cows come home it doesn't speak for the entirety of any of those organizations. There's a lot of people that stereotype right off the bat and throw everybody under the bus, and that's an opinion that you're entitled to have. But I've worked too closely with a lot of those agencies that are mentioned up there and I know that if there's something wrong with the behavior of a few people it doesn't represent the agency. That said, the impacts that it has is on the case.
Speaker 1:Well, it was just so ridiculous. I mean, it's one thing if you're sitting in a room with your friends and you say that because it's just you all sitting in a room, but to put that in text, you know, even if you delete that, it's not gone. Why would you do that? That's so stupid.
Speaker 2:There's a certain amount of bonehead in this, and can I say too that even sitting in a room with your friends, the and I can say too that even sitting in a room with your friends, the problem with the text too, is as long as first being in their imprint. So they're there, the first thing is being tacky and unprofessional. The real thing that I think the defense grasps onto and this is why I'm even saying it is it leads and bleeds into showing a really bad bias.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:And we've talked before that you can't do that.
Speaker 1:No, you should have never been sharing any of that with people.
Speaker 2:Exactly Well, and thinking it, here's the thing yes. Is that you have different operating theories and not all of them are going to be right, and the trick is you don't vocalize them and you don't the minute it becomes ad hominem and you're worried about saying specific things like that because maybe I hope she kills herself. Might have been the least of some of the comments.
Speaker 1:The comments were just horrible. That's bias.
Speaker 2:And a good defense attorney is going to smell that and work that in. And that's my point is again. There was just enough of that conduct from many people involved in that to where there were other things that weren't perfect but they also weren't awful. But now you, now you throw the awful in there with the stuff that could be workable and it's hard for a jury not to just say I find no credibility in the people coming to the stand. And there's other nightmares. We didn't even talk about that the audience.
Speaker 1:Oh gosh, yes.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's some you haven't seen yet because of stuff during the second trial and I purposely didn't hit that because I hope the audience fills us in the law enforcement industry is to realize that the whole industry is under a microscope, has been and will be and, to be candid, for good reason, because when the industry does well, it does well, but in those exceptional times that it does poorly, they make a big difference in things. A big difference in things, and I think that everything that happened supported the alternative theory that the defense had regarding that house where he was found in the front yard and had the conduct been a little bit better, a lot better it would have been harder for them to sell that.
Speaker 2:But one of the goals when I would get cross-examined and my defense attorney friends would tell you this is it is can they attack my or anybody else's credibility, can they? All I've got to do is start getting somebody in the jury to doubt not the whole thing, and I guess the sad thing is is that clearly, unequivocally, some of those people involved. Their conduct was very unprofessional. Again, it does not speak for their entire organization. Proctor lost his job. We just don't need any room for that, but that had a very big impact on the trial. The first one and the second one is the balance act. That said, my number two is I'm flipping over to the other side and that's the tenaciousness and skill of that defense team.
Speaker 1:They were exceptional.
Speaker 2:They were. Now a lot of people got mad at them If you were pro-victim and anti-Karen, the camps were criticizing the defense team but, just like the pro-Karen Reid people had nothing good to say about the judge and I watched the judge and the judge had a circus on her hands. Oh yes, part of the defense team's tactic was public, public, public, public and I'm not going to say they did it. There were allegations at some point that somebody leaked some critical stuff in the beginning. I'd never say that and say it was them. Somebody in the system did that, said they were tigers.
Speaker 2:And they were intellectual and they were critical thinkers and I'm watching the documentary and reading the news articles and I'm like that's skill.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that team was superb, that's it.
Speaker 2:Part of it is they found the vulnerabilities in the investigation and with the conduct of the people involved and exploited them, because a defense can develop an alternative theory and they're never really required to prove that theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Most judges won't let you come in with alien stuff and stuff like that. They're not going to come in and say that an alien came and made me do it. They're not going to go along with that. But if you were to go back and watch the trial is when the judge let it go because in the end they giftedly delivered reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2:As I was seeing this from a distance and you'd see people on social media saying it's full of reasonable doubt. As I was seeing this from a distance and you'd see people on social media saying it's full of reasonable doubt. Myself I hadn't dug and seen much of it. I'm like, well, maybe, maybe not, but in the end they met the standard of reasonable doubt. Now, the little thing that is not even an inside scoop I have from meeting people up in Boston and Massachusetts and everything a few people I spoke to when I said what are the problems with this before the second trial is there was a candid reflection that the DA overcharged, and you'll see that in the media too, where the first charges were based on reckless behavior behind the wheel of a car, probably with alcohol involved, something like that.
Speaker 2:And then it bumped up to a form of murder in.
Speaker 2:Massachusetts, and I'm not saying that she would have pled guilty to the lesser one. But when the facts change like that, you have to fight that with everything you know. And there were some fundamental things missing, for example in manner of death in the autopsy that weren't there, which I'm like. How do you get to murder without that? But I'm not an attorney, I'm just looking at it. But back to where I started. My number two is just the incredible skill of those attorneys and their tenaciousness is that if anybody wants an attorney, that's the part I'm getting them.
Speaker 2:Well, them or somebody. There's tons of attorneys I know like that, but you want somebody that breathes and eats that stuff. So that's my number two. The third one is kind of like a roundup of what we've talked a little bit about was the public reaction and how kind of went crazy a few times.
Speaker 1:Yeah, one of the episodes was even called something like a town divided or something like that. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2:And I guess for me this is all theoretical and philosophical, but it's like to me the criminal justice system is something that is quiet, respected, revered, hopefully a sterile environment, because one of the things that was going criticism to this guy is the pro-Karen Reid faction was outside and yelling loud enough to be heard by the jury. Well, that should never happen, because there's a sanctity there and every attorney that walks in defense or prosecution will tell you they don't want that. So, and again, people not coming against each other.
Speaker 2:I guess the big thing was a lot of people got these opinions and they really weren't terribly knowledgeable about how the system works, and so what you're left with there is hijacked emotions and that makes some pretty bad opinions and some pretty bad conjectures and things like that.
Speaker 2:Ashley Flowers, several weeks ago, posted a quick snippet and of course she's she's from crime junkies, which I respect their work immensely because they're well researched but she even made a quick remark does this enthusiasm ever go too far? And in a case like that, for some people, I, I was really watching and I'm like really there's, you're really overly engaged in this. And and the other thing too, is that one of the things I think every investigator does and does and checks is they ask themselves a question constantly what if I'm wrong? And if we're wrong, then maybe we're adding pain to people. And I think I'll finish with that, with one thing that I thought was the over the edge on that, where there's a video out there of a woman dancing in front of O'Keeffe's family's house in the wake of the not guilty verdict, and I'm like there we go.
Speaker 1:Well, that's just trashy and horrible. I mean, they lost their son.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and there we go. There's the. If there's a line in here that we could agree to, I think everybody would say that's it. That's a sick mind.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's horrible, because, regardless if you were, supporting Karen or not.
Speaker 2:This man died, that's it. And when you cross that point now, arguably Karen had a hung jury the first time because they couldn't come to grips with it. It's over, it's over and she's not guilty in a court of law. I've said before that could this be this generation's OJ Simpson?
Speaker 1:because everybody's got lingering doubts and stuff like that.
Speaker 2:But in the end she's been through it, she's done, they're finished. Oh sure, yes, and I have to agree that what I saw between the news articles and this limited that I could see that jury coming to a reasonable doubt decision pretty quickly, that's over.
Speaker 2:But that doesn't mean that you go and harass the people that lost a loved one. No, but that's the sad thing on this is that all of these problems, all of this mess, it making it into the high profile way it did. If we accept that she didn't have any culpability, then did this whole mess deny any real justice? Or did he step out into the ice with a cocktail glass in his hand and slip and fall? Or did something happen into that house?
Speaker 1:You know, the arm is the thing I'm going to stick with the arm. That glass didn't cut that arm. Yeah, exactly that's what.
Speaker 2:I'm saying, I'm saying that you know, I just know that he had a skull fracture.
Speaker 1:He had a skull fracture, which a slip and a fall to the back is easy. I've worked.
Speaker 2:Cases where people were just living their life and slipped and fell. But here's my point is that again, all of these, was this a perfect storm for the truth to maybe not get uncovered? And we've covered some other cases where the circus might not allow the final act to ever come. I don't want to rabbit hole it. Jonbenet Ramsey comes to mind first. So much buffoonery that justice for that little girl may never really be seen in this world.
Speaker 2:So those are my three, and I think yours were good. I think that when we sat down, it was pretty clear what we were grasping. I think we grasped what most people were doing, and now it's time. So again, if you're listening on audio, hike over to YouTube. The conversations are really good over there. Subscribe and tell us what you think. Tell us what you think we've gotten wrong.
Speaker 1:It's amazing how many people will bring facts into one of these that we didn't know oh sure, yeah, we always welcome our listener of yours opinions and their their thoughts because, like you said, it may be something that I didn't think of. You know you watch something once.
Speaker 2:You maybe miss something when you're I've learned turn around not paying attention. I learned so much from the true crime community. So with that that I'll let you tell everybody goodbye, until the next time.
Speaker 1:Well before we tell them goodbye, I would like for you to share your book with us, oh, yeah, okay. Thank you. Well, let me just say my lovely husband here. He's been working on a book. It's called True Crime and Consequences. It is now out, so get the book. It's a good book.
Speaker 2:And I've mentioned in it it's the back, but I'm in it Exactly. Yeah, for everybody that you could. We've got some other information on it, but it's a. It's a discussion of the true crime community when it meets real investigations, and my whole thing is can we all learn enough about each other to get real investigators to work more with the true crime community? And the other thing, too, is I tell people at a minimum minimum, if you get this book and read it, you might be the smartest cat in a true crime chat is that we talk about a lot of what we talked about here and I break it down and it's a very conversational tone get the book amazon, you know.
Speaker 1:You know, I'd be willing to say, if, if, our, our listeners, viewers, what have you wanted one? I bet you'd even be willing to personalize it, autograph it and send it to them.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Can I go on a whim and say that yeah, yeah. I mean, everybody wants your autograph.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if you go to murderpolicepodcastcom, I have my own e-commerce site up there. That's the place to do that, because in the comments section you can say please autograph too. I still don't feel comfortable autographing things because I don't think I've deserved it.
Speaker 1:Maybe because that signature is not listed.
Speaker 2:Oh, it's horrible, it's terrible, it's horrible. But other than that, amazon, barnes, noble, any of those places are the link at Murder Police Podcast.
Speaker 1:Show us again One more time the book.
Speaker 2:MurderPolicePodcastcom. That's what it looks like. Don't confuse it with anything else True crime.
Speaker 1:and the guy luring in the night? Yeah, exactly, in the dark shadow take a look at it.
Speaker 2:Um, we, we, I'd love, I'd be flattered. Uh, it just give it a list, give it a look and let me know what you yeah, and once again, thank you for listening.
Speaker 1:Share your three things, or four, like I had and if I could get my lazy dog up, I'd love to share her, but I don't think she's moving.
Speaker 2:I took a picture of her at your feet. That's going to show up today on. So if you follow us on Facebook, instagram, tiktok and stuff like that, I'll show you a picture of this big beast.
Speaker 1:This big beast, long-coated German shepherd, imported from Poland and Becca do you.
Speaker 2:I don't know if she'll get in. Is she in the shot? I'm Becca, I'm Becca, I'm Becca, hi Whoa. Meet Becca, her ears that's all you can see right now.
Speaker 1:Becca.
Speaker 2:She looks right over. Take care, you can't see her in the camera.
Speaker 2:Thanks so much for listening Take care it gets here in the camera. Yeah, thanks so much for listening. Take care. The Murder Police Podcast is hosted by Wendy and David Lyons and was created to honor the lives of crime victims, so their names are never forgotten. It is produced, recorded and edited by David Lyons. The Murder Police Podcast can be found on your favorite Apple or Android podcast platform, as well as at MurderPolicePodcastcom, where you will find show notes, transcripts, information about our presenters and a link which is closed caption for those that are hearing impaired. Just search for the Murder Police Podcast and you will find us. If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe for more and give us five stars and a written review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you download your podcasts. Make sure you set your player to automatically download new episodes so you get the new ones as soon as they drop, and please tell your friends.
Speaker 1:Lock it down.
Speaker 2:Judy.
