Karen Reed (41:02)
I hope within five years we've written the book, which I think will take longer. I'm not even. I can get there if I have to, but I'm not even in the head space to start regurgitating and reliving all this. I would, and I need the money, so I'll do it when I have to start doing it. But I think the easiest thing I can do is just keep telling the story. There are so many facets to this that the public doesn't know just because there hasn't been. I mean, this is my first real interview. There's so much of what is entailed in this fight that you know more about this case than average, partly because it's played out twice and it's about to be played out in a different form a third time. But what it takes to mount a defense, to even state somewhat competitive to the. To the prosecution. I think the details, the financial costs, the sweat equity, what these lawyers have to sacrifice, it's amazing anyone's acquitted. It really amazes me. And my case was easy to prove. My case was logical. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And we still were met with just such a fight from the government that I've paid taxes to, and they. They threw everything at me that they could and didn't come close. I think the public needs to know. They need to be more careful. They need to know their rights. They need to know, not ever to speak to law enforcement. Unfortunately, we can't cooperate the way we would think we need to, because if, God forbid, this goes south, it will be used against you in a court of law. It will be. It will be manipulated against you in a court of law. It will be taken out of context against you in a court of law. You know, we're trying to put together this. This YouTube channel, Alan and I, and I read a couple comments like, I'm done hearing from Karen. What is. What does she have to. And I can tell you what it's like to be a defendant, and I can tell you what it takes to beat the system. It's a lot more than what you think. I've lived now six months, three continuous at a time, with my defense team, with ancillary members of the defense team, with law students. We had a documentary crew with us at one point. It's emotional and trying and exhausting, and there's a lot of choreography and personal management, I'll call it. To walk in a court looking how we looked every day and to be cohesive. And I had three men in their 60s from three different firms, very seasoned in their careers, all having spent time as prosecutors. And then Liza made partner along the way, also experienced with her own opinions. We don't just show up and put Kelly Deaver on the stand. Everyone has their own experience and therefore their own strategy and their own way of doing things. And they all fall on me to break the tie. It's very, very trying. It's why I feel this crash from trial because it wasn't just sitting there and trying to keep my emotions in check, which sometimes I didn't do a very good job of. It was what was happening. Honestly, trial sitting there was oftentimes easier than having to go home. The worst nights, the worst moments of trial at times were Monday and Tuesday nights where we just had a grueling day at court and some big witness is coming on Thursday, or worse, we think a big witness is coming Thursday. But Brennan hasn't finalized the batting order yet. So it could be the children are testifying on Thursday, or it could be Buchnik or it could be Tully, one of the four. I mean, that's how it goes. That's the dirty pool that's happening, is we are finding out sometimes within one day's notice, who was going to testify. We were told that now I can't remember her name, the dog DNA expert from UCAL Berkeley. She was on the witness list. We were told every Friday when the judge would call us up at sidebar and say, what are the plans? Who's coming up next? We were told every Friday, she's coming. She should be coming. This week. We're trying to make travel arrangements. She should be coming. She never came. And we have our own opinions about why she didn't testify. But it wasn't as if we had this roadmap of trial and we had some time to plan. We, for example, did not know if we could call ARCA until trial had already started. So Judge Kanone told Allen the morning of opening statements in Trial two that she had not made up her mind about arca, and he was therefore disallowed from mentioning ARCA in his opening statements. So that meant Hank Brennan presented his case, and you're going to hear from Aperture, ladies and gentlemen, and two PhDs. Oh, that's right. Shannon Burgess lied about his degrees. One PhD is going to tell you that that car backed up at 24 miles an hour, 62ft, and it spun him around like a top and he fell and cracked his head open. Then we get up to give opening statements, and we've got the federally contracted ARCA PhDs who've done all this work, and we. And we've had them now for a year, and we can't mention them. So if jurors were paying attention, they'd say, well, wait a minute. So the prosecution has a physical reconstructionist who's going to tell us that car damaged that body and that body damaged that car. But Reed doesn't have why they can't prove it. So they go into trial thinking. I don't think Reid can physically prove. Yeah. That this didn't happen. This is Kanoni handicapping us. So she said to Alan the morning of opening, you have 10 minutes. I have not ruled on arca. And Alan said, you, Honor, it's in my opening statement. I can't not talk about. They're arguably our two most important witnesses. And she said, you have 10 minutes to sit at the table and edit your opening. And she gave him exactly that. I've never seen Alan, and I've seen him in different states of pressure. This was unspeakable, what she was putting him through.