Dateline NBC - Former MLB pitcher on trial for murder. New evidence in Karen Read. Plus, testifying anonymously.

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Listen to this week's episode of the Dateline: True Crime Weekly podcast with Andrea Canning. In Placer County, California, a former MLB pitcher is on trial for gunning down his in-laws at their home. He says he didn't do it.  A new expert testifies at the Karen Read retrial about data pulled from Read's car. He says it nails down the prosecution's timeline of what happened. Updates on the Menendez brothers and Lori Vallow Daybell. Plus, an attorney talks about witnesses who testify anonymously. 

Hey, good morning. Good morning, everyone. You're listening in to Dateline's morning meeting here at 30 Rockefeller Center. Eight years later, there's been an arrest. Our producers are catching up on breaking crime news around the country. She apparently wore a wig at a mosque. There's CCTV footage of her entering this house. They had all this evidence.

They just didn't act on it until recently. Dana Chandler has violated the no contact order with her daughter, of her entering this house. So they had all this evidence. They just didn't act on it until recently. Dana Chandler has violated the no contact order with her daughter and she keeps calling her about, what did you say on Dateline? Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's May 22nd and here's what's on our docket.

In Detta, Massachusetts, the prosecution is winding down at the retrial of Karen Reed, but the courtroom drama isn't. The defense was on the attack from the jump. In Dateline Roundup, we've got the latest on some stories we've been watching. The Michigan mom, convicted of killing her husband by setting him on fire and running him over with a van, learns her fate. And Lori Valodet-Bell has a bold request for her trial judge. I have to ask that you would recuse yourself from the obvious personal bias that you have against me.

Plus, in the next week or so, a Jane Doe will testify against Sean Combs at his federal trial. We've asked an attorney to give us the lowdown on witnesses who are anonymous in the courtroom. Probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns. But before all that, we're heading to Northern California, where a former Major League Baseball pitcher is on trial for murder.

On June 5, 2021, on the west shore of Lake Tahoe in California, someone entered the home of Robert Gary Spore and his wife Wendy Wood. This intruder hid in a closet and waited. When the couple returned after an afternoon at the lake, the intruder shot them. Gary was killed, but Wendy survived with severe injuries. Then two years later, in the fall of 2023, investigators made an arrest.

It was none other than Gary and Wendy's son-in-law, Dan Serafini. Serafini is a former major league baseball pitcher and was also featured in 2015 on an episode of the TV show Bar Rescue. Serafini pleaded not guilty to charges including murder and attempted murder, and this week his trial began in the Placer County Superior Court in Auburn, California. Here to tell us more about the case is Dateline producer Vince Sterla. Vince, thanks for coming on the podcast. Yeah, happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

Tell us a little bit about the victims, Wendy and Gary. They seem like a really lovely couple. I mean, I know we say that a lot, but in their case, it's certainly true. They met in college. They met 50 years ago. They started dabbling in real estate, just kept making good investments over and over and over again, apparently. Their estate overall is worth maybe 10 million, 10 plus. They also have two daughters, Aaron and Adrian.

Tell us about the kids and this connection to Serafini. Yeah, three years apart. The oldest one, Aaron, married Danny Serafini, who was an interesting character, left-handed reliever, journeyman, pitched at a variety of baseball teams in the major leagues. Then he eventually retired, he aged out. They settled in an area called Sparks, which is adjacent to Reno.

He bought a bar there called The Bullpen, since he was a bullpen pitcher. Yeah. I don't know how successful the bar was. What was the first sign that something had happened to Wendy and Gary? It was a bullpen picture. Yeah. And I don't know how successful the bar was. What was the first sign that something had happened to Wendy and Gary? So there was a 911 call. Someone was on the line, but sort of moaning, breathing, and they could hear a television

in the background. Oh, wow. And that's it. EMTs went out there, and it took them a while to find the house just because it was a cell call. And they went up into the family room, the TV's on, and they found Gary slumped to the side dead, had been shot in the head. They saw there was a blood trail and they followed the blood trail into a bathroom and they found Wendy. There was an EMT chucked on Wendy, thought she was dead. And then she

moaned and said, oh my gosh, she's alive. Oh, that's awful. And then she was medevaced to a trauma center in Reno. Police investigators do not believe she's going to make it. And weeks go by, and then she comes out of a coma. Really? And she's questioned. She has no memory of what happened, though. Police, we know they canvass. They talk to neighbors. They look for surveillance video, which everyone has now on their doorbells and everywhere else. So

this is the first big clue for them, right? Some footage that they found, the police? Yes. They looked at the family security system, and what had happened that day is that Gary and Wendy had Aaron and the grandchildren over to go boating, and there's footage of that. Then, while they're away, a person comes walking up their road and then into their driveway. And this person's wearing a hoodie, wearing a surgical mask, and presumably goes inside the house through the garage door. And then— Scary.

Yes. Erin leaves with the kids. And after she leaves, there's a recording of five gunshots. And then a couple of minutes later, you see this person with the hoodie on, the mask leave the same way they came in. Did the police have any idea who this masked person was? No, not at all. None at that point.

The case goes cold about a couple of years go by. Wendy is actually doing much better at this point. She's doing very well. She's gone through rehab. She's learned how to ride a bike again. But tragedy strikes again. Yes. Apparently, Wendy was found dead, I think it was 23 months or so after the shooting. The death is ruled to be a suicide. Wow, that's so sad.

Yeah, yeah, very much so. What happens to the case? There was no public disclosures as far as in terms of how the investigation was progressing. It got handed down from like one prosecutor to the next and the latest prosecutor really chewed away at it, as did the lead detective. To the best of your knowledge then, why did they start to zero in on Danny Serafini? I believe they were on, they were looking at him hard early on, at least judging from the preliminary hearing.

Danny Serafini was having financial problems. Investigators said that he burned through all of his money that he got from Major League Baseball years earlier. And so it seems like he always had to go hat in hand to his in-laws to ask for money to help keep the bar going, to help keep his kids in school, to help pay his mortgage, and finally got tired of it. And one of his inheritance earlier than was due. There was a detective that testified to possibly three people who said that Danny would get

so angry talking about his in-laws, he would say that I would like to kill them or find someone to kill them. COLLEEN O'BRIEN. Police end up arresting Dani Serafini. Yes, and this woman named Samantha Scott. Oh. And we're wondering, well, who's Samantha Scott? And it turns out it was kind of a friend of Aaron and Dani Serafini.

COLLEEN O'BRIEN. And in their opening statements earlier this week, prosecutors said Dani and Samantha Scott were more than friends. They alleged they were having an affair, which is something Samantha had denied up until now. So do we know what led up to her arrest? The reason why she was arrested, as it turns out,

is that as police were going through and pulling all the surveillance camera from basically residences all around the West in the West shore. They kept seeing a particular car that would pop up, a brown Subaru with a dent on the back left fender. And that's exactly the kind of car that Samantha Scott had. And so they went to her and looked at her and found out her cell phone was pinging in that area.

This is around hours of the murder. And then just a few months ago, Samantha took a plea deal for accessory to murder. Prosecutors are saying she drove Serafini from Nevada, where he was working, to the Tahoe area to commit the crime. It seems like she's going to be extremely important in this trial, right? Samantha Scott definitely is going

to be the most important witness in this case, because there's no evidence of Danny being there that day, other than Samantha Scott definitely is going to be the most important witness in this case, because there's no evidence of Danny being there that day other than Samantha Scott's testimony. That's what she does testify to. Danny Serafini has denied any involvement in this crime. What is his defense that you know so far? Yeah, no, it's interesting at the preliminary hearing. So they showed the video of this person walking into the house and out. And the defense was saying that video proves it's not

Serafini because the person looks smaller and lighter. Danny's a pretty buff guy, big shoulders. They claim that that video proves it's not him, it's not Danny. And their contention is, why kill the golden goose? Aaron's parents were giving them all the money they wanted, so why put an end to that? So Erin has not been charged or been named a suspect. She's saying that her husband

had nothing to do with this and that she has nothing to do with this. Absolutely. Erin is expected to testify for the defense? That's what we understand, that Erin will testify on the behalf of her husband. All right, Vince, again, Danny Serafini has pled not guilty and we look forward to getting updates from you. Oh yeah, there will be a lot of updates. It's going to go on for a while.

Okay. Thank you so much. Up next, the prosecution has been presenting its case against Karen Reed for a second time. Earlier this week, prosecutors called a brand new witness armed with a brand new timeline about what happened the night John O'Keefe was killed. Karyn Reid's retrial has now entered its fifth week and the prosecution is winding down its case. Reid is accused of backing her SUV into her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe, and leaving him to die in the cold back in January 2022.

She has pleaded not guilty, with her defense arguing that law enforcement set her up to take the fall for O'Keefe's death after he was beaten up at a house party. This week, the prosecution's focus turned toward two kinds of forensic evidence, DNA found on the tail light of Karen's SUV, and digital data from the car itself. And they called a brand new witness to the stand, an expert who says newly recovered data proves the Commonwealth's case. Here to bring us the latest is Dateline producer Sue Simpson. Sue, hello again.

Hello, Andrea. Yes, my first question. You know what it is. Let's not jinx it. I did win. You won. Okay, amazing. All right, so let's jump right into the testimony. First up, we had some expert testimony on DNA. That's right, Andrea. The first witness, Nicholas Bradford, was a DNA expert who testified during the first trial, and he looked at the DNA on testified during the first trial and he looked at the DNA on that tail light and he found that there was very strong support, his words, that the DNA matched John O'Keefe and two other unknown

unrelated individuals. So this is unknown DNA. Sue, doesn't this open the door to the defense theory then that there might be other people involved in O'Keefe's death? Exactly. Remember, the defense alleges that John O'Keefe was beaten up at this after party and dragged outside and left for dead in the snow. And on cross-examination, Alan Jackson pointed out several members of law enforcement were present at the after party the night John O'Keefe died, and their DNA was not compared to the DNA on that broken tail light.

And in this clip, the defense is basically naming two of the people they claim beat up John O'Keefe, ATF agent Brian Higgins and former Boston police officer Brian Albert. Were you asked to compare a known sample from a person by the name of Brian Higgins? No. Were you asked to compare a known sample from a person by the name of Brian Higgins. No. We asked to compare a known sample from a person by the name of Brian Albert. No. Sue, over the past few weeks, we've been hearing from a lot of people who also testified in the first trial, and we've mostly been looking at the same evidence as last time.

But on Monday afternoon, there was a new witness who had new evidence. Tell us about him. Yes. This was a man named Shannon Burgess. He's an expert in digital forensics in vehicles and cell phones at a company called Aperture. And he was on the stand for the better part of two days. His testimony was so technical, Andrea, at times it was just laced with strings of numbers. But basically, he took a look at the data found in what's called the infotainment

module from Karen Reed's SUV. And that data includes things like when the car turned on and turned off and when and how the car moved and what time those movements happened. So he said that he believes there was data from the car that was missed when the data was originally downloaded. Burgess said when the data was initially downloaded an SD card was missed. He got his hands on it and he testified that he was able to get information from it that gave him a clear idea about the timeline of what actually happened that

night. So Burgess testified that the car was turned on at 12 12 36 a.m. and turned off about 30 minutes later. So that would cover the time that Karen and John left the bar and drove to the after party and then when Karen returned to John's house alone. Burgess also testified about a backup maneuver. Does this change anything with the timeline Sue or add any insight or was it more just informative for the jury? No, it changes things. I mean, it allows them to make the case. John O'Keefe was using an app on his iPhone that night, you know, Waze, which gives you directions to places. Burge has testified that Karen put her car into reverse between, now

here come the numbers, 1232.04 and 1232.12.. Burgess said that John O'Keefe last used his iPhone at 12-3209 while Karen was still backing up. And then O'Keefe never used his phone again. So the prosecution is using Burgess' testimony to establish a timeline to say that Karen Reid did hit John O'Keefe. Some very technical testimony, Sue. The defense spent a lot of time questioning this witness about his credentials. That's right. The defense was on the attack from the jump.

Attorney Robert Alessi, he's a new member of Karen Reed's team, hammered Burgess's credibility, accusing him of misrepresentation for saying that he had a bachelor's of science degree when he doesn't. If I did the math correctly, sir, you've been pursuing a bachelor of science degree for 17 years, correct? That is correct. And you have not obtained it as you sit here today? That is correct. And yet there are the various documents that we've seen that state that you have attained the bachelor of science.

This is a strategy, Andrea, that we've seen the defense use before. In the first trial, they went after the credentials of another accident reconstructionist who did not have a bachelor's degree either, and they took them apart. You know, he's clearly hoping that the jury will believe that neither the witness nor his work can be trusted because of this. How did this witness respond to that? You know, by having his credentials attacked? You know what amazed me about that? Honestly, Andrea, if it was me, I would have crumpled.

But he really stayed calm. How did the prosecution handle the misrepresentation claim on redirect? Well, after Alessi finished his cross-examination, the prosecutor did push back on the idea that Burgess needed a degree to be an expert in the field. Is a bachelor's degree a prerequisite of success in a particular field? No, it is not. You ever hear of Bill Gates? Yes. Steven Jobs? Yes. Oprah Winfrey? Sustained.

So you were in the courtroom for most of the first trial and now the second trial. The prosecution's case is almost over. Any big differences that stand out to you at this point? Well, Andrea, the prosecution case is so streamlined this time around the second trial. There are many fewer witnesses. What we have seen is a very strong emphasis on technical, on science, on data, on things like the dwindling battery power in John O'Keefe's cell phone the night he died, showing what the prosecution says that, you know, he lay out on the lawn, he was slowly dying of his injuries and hypothermia. And of course, we have another accident reconstructionist to come in the prosecution's case, and he's expected to lay out exactly how prosecutors believe John O'Keefe was killed.

And prosecutors hope that he'll wrap up the case for them. It's also fascinating. Thank you so much for bringing us this latest chapter in the Karen Reed retrial. Thanks Andrea. Coming up, it's Dateline Roundup. We've got updates on the Menendez brothers' fight for freedom and Lori Valo Debel is back in court. Plus everything you didn't know about testifying in court anonymously. Welcome back. Joining us for this week's roundup is Dateline producer Rachel White. Welcome

back, Rachel. Hi, Andrea. Let's get right to it. First up, an update out of Paw Paw, Michigan in the Linda Sturmer retrial. Rachel, quickly remind us about that case. Sure. So Linda was accused of killing her husband, Todd Sturmer, by setting him on fire and then running him over with a van back in 2007. And as you mentioned, this was her second trial and now her second conviction. Yeah.

So she was convicted of his murder as we reported on the podcast last month. And now we're back in court for sentencing. That's right. And Todd's family was there. His mother, sister, and brother all gave victim impact statements. Todd's death was nearly 20 years ago. You could still sense how much his death has affected the family. Definitely. Todd's sister told the court that one of the biggest heartbreaks in all of this for her is that there's no question that he suffered an excruciating and painful death.

So she didn't mince words when she addressed Linda in court. I have zero forgiveness in my heart for Linda. And I hope when death comes for her, I hope it is painful and is agonizing. This is the one you could talk to. You deserve it. When it was Linda's turn to give a statement, what did she say? She didn't apologize and gave no words of comfort for the family. She maintained that she's innocent and, you innocent and said that she was prepared for the battle ahead to clear her name.

Okay, and when handing down her sentence, the judge had some really strong words for Linda Sturmer. Murder is by its nature a monstrous deed, but the one you've committed is even more gruesome than most. Yeah, and ultimately the judge sentenced Sturmer to life without the possibility of parole, adding that only this sentence could quote,

protect others from Linda and deter others from committing similar conduct. So up next, we are in Phoenix, where Lori Valo Debo was back in court ahead of her second criminal trial in Arizona. Rachel, as we know, Lori is facing charges of conspiring to murder her niece's ex-husband, Brandon Boudreau. We talked about this last week, but quickly remind us again what exactly happened to Brandon.

So according to investigators out of Gilbert, Arizona, someone parked a Jeep Wrangler outside of Brandon's home and fired a shot at him back in October 2019. Brandon wasn't hurt, but the bullet shattered the driver's side window of his car. Investigators believe that Lori's brother, Alex Cox, was the shooter, but he was never charged because he died before charges were even filed. Investigators did, however, charge Lori, who is pleaded not guilty. As we mentioned last week, she's representing herself for the second time now. And at her most recent pretrial hearing, things got quite heated when Lori confronted the

judge. Let's take a listen. I have to ask that you would recuse yourself from the obvious personal bias that you have against me. And what personal bias is that? A lot. Obviously, the personal bias that you're against me. And what personal bias is that? A lot. Obviously the personal bias that you're showing right now. Okay, well,

I don't have any personal bias. You denied every single one of my motions for a year and a half that I've been here. Every single one of my motions has been denied. And have any of those motions not have merit? I think I was here this morning about 15 minutes ago when I granted your motion to meet with your attorneys over the lunch hour. And Andrea, this back and forth went on for a few more minutes. The judge said that he had ruled on Lori's motions as required by law and refused to

recuse himself. When can we expect that trial to start, Rachel? Opening statements are scheduled for June 2nd, and the trial is expected to last until June 13th. Okay, so for our final story, we are headed to Los Angeles for news in a case we've been talking about a lot recently, the Menendez brothers. They were convicted in 1996 for killing their parents, and they were serving life sentences without the possibility of parole until last week when a judge resentenced them,

making them eligible for parole. What is happening there now, Rachel? The Menendez brothers were set to go before the parole board at a hearing on June 13th. That's the next big step in their quest for freedom. But this week, a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said the brothers' parole hearing has been delayed to August 21st and August 22nd.

Do we know why the delay? The June 13th hearing wasn't initially supposed to be a parole hearing. It was a separate hearing for their effort seeking clemency from California Governor Gavin Newsom. But when the Brothers were resentenced last week, the Parole Board asked to convert that clemency hearing into a parole hearing. But when the Parole Board informed key parties involved in the case, including victims' families, of the June date, some parties raised objections. So the parole hearing got moved to August. Any idea what those objections were?

We don't know as of right now, but the brothers' cousin, Anna Maria Buralt, who's been very vocal in supporting them, spoke out on TikTok and she said this actually isn't a bad thing. This is actually a pretty good thing because they have time to prepare. Are the brothers still going to be in court June 13th for the clemency hearing then with all this happening? It's unclear, but their clemency application is still active. Okay, Rachel, thank you so much for these updates. Thank you for having me. If you were paying attention to the opening statements at the Federal Trial of Record executive Sean Diddy Combs, you'll have heard the prosecution talking about a witness known

as Jane. We know she's a single mom. We know she is alleging that Combs abused her. What we don't know is her real name. She will be testifying as a Jane Doe. The defense attorneys for Shawn Combs, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, tried and failed to get the judge to force the woman to use her name. It made us think when sharing deeply personal and sensitive information, how can witnesses be protected? And when does anonymity become something that's unfair for the defendant?

Here to break it down for us is attorney Lindsay Goldbrum, a partner at Goddard Law who has represented several anonymous witnesses at high profile trials. Lindsay, thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much for having me. All right. So you are no stranger to representing clients who wish to remain anonymous in court proceedings. And there's a high profile case that you are involved with right now.

Tell us a little bit about that case. Yes. So my client who is no longer anonymous, Kaia Sokola, testified against Harvey Weinstein in his current trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. Leading up to the trial after the indictment, she was known to the public only as Jane Doe. It wasn't until opening statements that her name was said in open court

and people realized who she was. Listeners may remember last week, we talked about Kaya's testimony at Weinstein's retrial on sex assault charges. He has pleaded not guilty and says Kaya's story is made up. So what changed, Lindsay? Why did Kaya decide to go public? She always knew that she was going to allow that to happen. The problem is when you do reveal yourself to the public, you are going to be subject to a lot of noise, a lot of

opinions. And so leading up to trial, it was important that she remain anonymous so that she could focus solely on her testimony and preparing for trial. And so even though the name might be Jane Doe, the defense team, of course, knows exactly who these people are. And that's important for the defense to prepare. From their perspective, obviously it helps them out a lot if they can figure out who these people are, right, to prepare, you know, from their perspective, you know, obviously it helps them out a lot if they can figure out like who these people are, right, to prepare. Absolutely.

Yeah. So Weinstein and Sean Combs, these high profile trials aren't the only ones where plaintiffs have sought anonymity. It happens quite a bit in these cases, right? Absolutely. You see it in high profile cases more often. So you've seen it in various civil and criminal cases against not only Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs, but also Jeffrey

Epstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson. What are the rules, legally speaking, when someone can and can't be anonymous? Is it kind of case by case basis with the judge? Yeah, so it's a case by case basis and it varies by jurisdiction. And so each jurisdiction has adopted some sort of balancing test that balances the right of the defendant, the privacy rights of the survivor, and then the right of the public to know. Does this weigh into the judge's decision if revealing the person's identity could put them in danger?

That's probably one of the most important factors that a judge weighs is safety concerns because it is the responsibility of the plaintiff or the Jane Doe to show that they have specialized circumstances that entitle them to remain anonymous and so safety concerns, privacy concerns, I think you find that it's a bit easier when there are certain special issues such as there's a minor involved and so that's more likely to allow them to remain

anonymous but you also worry about emotional well-being and professional consequences and family protection. From everything you've told me, it's about trying to just strike the right balance between all the parties involved and whether it's the prosecution, the defense, the public, the judge. Which does make it difficult to advise clients because you can't guarantee that they're going to be able to remain anonymous because it's impossible to tell with any form of certainty which way a judge is going to rule.

Lindsay, thank you. It's so informative for you to break it down for us. We very much appreciate your time. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you having me on the show. That's it for this episode of Dateline True Crime Weekly. Don't forget to check out our coverage of the Shawn Combs trial. Every day after court, I'm checking in with NBC News correspondent Chloe Moloss about what she's seen, the witnesses, the evidence, and what it all means. And we're dropping those conversations in our podcast feed dedicated to all things Dateline True Crime Weekly.

So search for Dateline True Crime Weekly wherever you get your podcasts and follow us to listen to that. If you got any questions for the team or any cases you think we should cover, send us a message through social media or leave us a voicemail at 212-413-5252. Coming up this Friday on Dateline, we've got a classic Dennis Murphy story. The case of 12-year-old Janelle Matthews, who went missing from Greeley, Colorado in 1984. Her case went cold until 2019, when a construction crew at an oil pipeline found something. This is where this poor kid was for decades.

For 35 years. And think of the world that's changed while she was here. Winter's here, summer's here, and here she is. Getting rid of a world that's changed. Winter's here. Winter's here. Summer's here. And here she is. Getting rid of a body out here is extremely easy. Would the culprit be brought to justice? Watch Dennis' episode, Footprints in the Snow, this Friday on NBC at 9, 8 Central. Thanks for listening. To get ad-free listening for all of our podcasts, subscribe to Dateline Premium.

Dateline True Crime Weekly is produced by Franny Kelly and Katie Ferguson. Our associate producers are Carson Cummins and Caroline Casey. Our senior producer is Liz Brown-Kuruloff. Production and fact checking help by Kim Flores Gaynor. Veronica Mazaka is our digital producer. Rick Kwan is our sound designer.

Original Music by Jesse McGinty. Bryson Barnes is head of audio production. Paul Ryan is executive producer, and Liz Kola is senior executive producer of Dateline. All right, thanks everybody.