Dateline NBC - Karen Read's retrial kicks off. A verdict in the "Mommy Doomsday" case. And Scott Peterson's blockbuster filing.

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

Listen to this week's episode of the Dateline: True Crime Weekly podcast with Andrea Canning. In Massachusetts, opening statements in the second trial of the woman accused of running over her police officer boyfriend. In Arizona, a jury returns a verdict at Lori Vallow Daybell's latest trial. Harvey Weinstein faces a new accuser, and Scott Peterson's defense team says it has new witnesses and new evidence to prove his innocence. Plus, a juror turned podcaster.Find out more about the cases each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.comListen to Keith's podcast, Mommy Doomsday, about the Lori Vallow Daybell story here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mommy-doomsday/id1540849480Link for "Sequestered" here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sequestered-podcast/id1792642561

Hey, good morning. It's time for Dateline's morning meeting. So here we go. Let's do a fast meeting. I'm sure you guys have a really busy day. Our producers are swapping tips about breaking crime news around the country. This does feel like it's gone to trial very quickly. There's an actual real issue of a new charge that just came up.

We'll see what happens with that. Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's April 24th and here's what's on our docket. There is a verdict in the Arizona murder trial of Lori Vallow Daybell, aka Mommy Doomsday. Did her high-risk gamble to represent herself backfire? Lori Vallow had no reaction. She stood up, walked out of the courtroom, and that was that.

Other stories we've got our eyes on this week, a bombshell filing in Scott Peterson's case. His defense team says they have evidence that proves his innocence. And testimony begins at the retrial of disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein. The big difference is Weinstein is facing a new charge, an additional charge of first-degree criminal sexual act against a new charge, an additional charge of first degree criminal sexual act against a new accuser. Plus, we'll be talking to juror number 11, or Sarah Reed, as she's known in her daily

life. She'll tell us about her experience as a juror on the Jasmine Pace murder trial and her hit podcast, Sequestred. All of the questions and emotions and details, you just carry them around in silence. It's almost like an emotional pressure cooker. But before all that, we're heading to Dedham, Massachusetts, where Karen Reed's retrial has finally begun. On Tuesday morning, more than nine months after her last trial ended with a hung jury,

Karen Reed's case made its way back to court for opening statements. For the honorable Beverly Canone, the justice of the superior court, this court is in session, please be seated. Karen Reed is accused of the murder of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe. Prosecutors say Reed hit him with her SUV outside a party hosted by another Boston officer

and left him to die in the snow. The charges Reed is facing in her second trial may sound familiar. They're the same as last time. Second degree homicide, manslaughter while under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing death. Reed has pleaded not guilty to all charges

and her defense has argued she's being framed for O'Keefe's death. Now with a new prosecutor, new witnesses, and months of media coverage, all eyes are on this second trial. Dateline producer Sue Simpson is back to take us inside Opening Statements. Sue, thank you so much for joining us again. Thank you, Andrea. It's great to be back and I will tell you it's great to get this trial underway. Yeah, so up first, we had the prosecution's opening statement. Good morning, Your Honor, Hank Brennan for the Commonwealth.

Hank Brennan was hired by the Norfolk County DA's office as a special prosecutor to try the case. He is well known in Massachusetts because he represented notorious Boston crime boss, James Whitey Bulger during his 2013 trial. You probably remember that, Andrea. Oh, yes. Yeah. He was very calm, almost soft spoken, but he's also crisp. He goes through things very matter of factly, very straightforwardly. He really started to get detailed with his opening statement for the jury. At 6.04 a.m. on January 29, 2022,

the alarm bell sounded in the Canton Fire Department. Firefighter, paramount, Timothy Nuttall knew what that meant. His heart skipped a beat, he raced to his equipment, and he picked up his bag, which was meticulous. He approached his opening remarks as if he were telling a story to the jury. You know, the time, the morning, the alarm bell, we're living in a certain POV, a perspective of a firefighter, paramedic Timothy Nuttall, one of the first responders who came to the scene.

And he looked up at Miss Reed and he said, what happened? And you'll hear her words through a firefighter, not all. She said, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. He is important because he heard Karen say, I hit him, meaning I hit John, and the prosecution says Karen confessed at the scene by saying these words, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. And the prosecution went on to play a clip of Karen's interview with Dateline correspondent, Dennis Murphy, where she talks about that moment. I mean, I didn't think I hit him, hit him,

but could I have clipped him? Could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him? He didn't look mortally wounded as far as I could see. Or could I have done something that knocked him out and his drunkenness and in the cold didn't come to again. And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party. Yeah, yeah. Would have had to. Karen contends that she phrased it as a question, not as a statement.

Could I have hit him? So by playing it, the prosecution apparently wants to show jurors that Karen in the moment was trying to work out how she could possibly have injured John with her car. Do you feel like Hank Brennan gave an outline of how the state will proceed with their case, Sue? What I think, Andrea, is that he focused on data. He focused on the technical aspects and the technology of the case. And he said all of those would show that Karen Reid killed

John O'Keefe. I simply ask you to follow the evidence, follow the science, follow the data. Ignore speculation, surmise conjecture. It will lead you to the truth. He also talked about John O'Keefe's cell phone at length, that it was found under John's body at the scene, and that it had a lot to say. He focused on location data, on health data, and interesting here, the temperature of the

cell phone battery. What he did was he picked plot points where John and Karen were and what the temperature was at certain points in their storyline that night. pick plot points where John and Karen were and what the temperature was, you know, at certain points in their storyline that night. He also said there'd be evidence from the black box, he called it, from Karen's Lexus, her SUV. And some of that evidence will be new because the prosecution retested her car after the first trial.

Now, Alan Jackson, who was on Karen's team for the first trial, he is back and he delivered the opening statement for the defense. What did he have to say? Well, Alan Jackson has such a different style in court than Hank Brandon. You probably remember that, Andrea. I mean, Alan Jackson's style, right? He's more forceful and really understands the spectacle of a criminal trial. There was no collision with John O'Keefe.

There was no collision. There was no collision. John O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle, period. Alan Jackson said the investigation was riddled with errors and corrupted from the start. Yes, he did. So right off the bat, Jackson focused on Michael Proctor, who was the lead investigator in the case, who sent demeaning and derogatory text messages about Karen during the investigation. This case carries a malignancy, one that has spread through the investigation.

It spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump. A cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured. And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor. Also Sue, the defense has said that there was a coordinated effort among members of law enforcement and others to cover up John's death. That's right. I mean, they say that the people who were at the house during this party at Boston police officer Brian Albertson, that they all worked together to create a story and to conspire to make her what Alan Jackson calls the outsider as the killer.

In a pretrial decision, Sue, the judge put some limits on who the defense could present as alternate suspects. Have we seen that playing out yet? Well, so that constraint, Andrea, it's interesting, is really just for opening statements. So Jackson in his opening obviously didn't accuse anyone specifically, but he did draw the jury's attention to the behavior of some of the people who were at the party that night. You know, Brian Albert was the homeowner.

Picture the scene. Blood curdling screams, ambulances, emergency lights on, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol cruisers, police engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol cruisers, police officers, first responders, firefighters, all swarming all over Brian Albert's lawn, literally feet under his bedroom window. Yet Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder himself, never walked outside his house to see if he could help a fallen fellow officer

on his own front lawn. I remember during the first trial, Brian Elbert testified that he was asleep and had his window curtains closed at the time. Okay, Sue, there is so much to this story. So much. So we'll get into all of it too, Andrea. We will. And even

though this is the second trial, somehow it feels just as interesting as the first one. Thank you, Sue. We'll be hearing from you a lot. Thanks, Andrea. Can't wait. Up next, earlier this week, Lori Valo-Daybell made a final plea to the jury at her Arizona murder trial before deliberations began. What did they decide? Lori Vallow-Daybell, aka Mommy Doomsday, has spent the last few weeks on trial in Phoenix, Arizona for conspiring to murder her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. Lori has also spent the last few weeks serving as her own defense attorney,

arguing that her brother, Alex, shot Charles in self-defense. Did you see with your eyes, or hear with your ears, or personally witness me conspire with my brother, Alex Cox, to murder my husband, Charles Vallow? No. On Monday, she left the jury with murder my husband, Charles Bell. No. On Monday, she left the jury with her closing arguments and deliberations began.

Tuesday, they came back with a verdict. Here to fill us in is Nate Eaton, news director at East Idaho News. Andy is also serving as an NBC News contributor on the case. Hi, Nate. You're actually in Phoenix, away from home, covering this. Yeah, I've been here the past few weeks and what a ride it's been. Yeah, no kidding. So, Nate, before we get into the verdict, the big question when we last checked

in with you was whether or not Lori would take the stand in her own defense. What happened? Well, it was the decision she made kind of at the last minute. Nobody knew if she was going to testify or not. The judge asked her when it came time for the defense to present their case, if she planned to call any witnesses. She said no. And then she said the defense rests. That's, wow. I mean, that's jarring in itself just to have this buildup and then suddenly I'm done.

I think a lot of people were caught off guard. So that all happened last week. The jury took the weekend off, came back this week for closing arguments. Prosecutor Trina Kay went first. What were her main points? Trina Kay really stressed that this was a premeditated execution of Lori Vallow's fourth husband because Lori Vallow thought she would be getting $1 million in life insurance money and she wanted to be with her new boyfriend, now husband, Chad Daybell.

Her words tell us that she was involved in this killing. Her actions and her words tell us the motives behind this murder. Chad and money. The prosecutor also highlighted a text from Lori to Chad. Right, yes. She texted Chad something to the effect of bad news, I'm not the beneficiary. So I talked to the insurance company. He changed it in March.

Probably it was Ned before we got rid of him. The prosecutor said, Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell believed that a spirit, a zombie, you could say, named Ned had inhabited Charles' body. Chad then wrote back, I wonder if he made the change before he got two bullets to the chest. That's a lot. Pretty chilling evidence there. The jury got to hear Laurie give her closing argument, and this was really the final test

of her acting as her own attorney in this trial. How do you think she did? Lori prepared a passionate closing argument, and she really tried to stress that this was a family tragedy and not a crime. This is an attempt by the state to try to retrofit a crime that doesn't exist. This event was not a crime. It was a tragedy. Don't let them turn my family tragedy into a crime. She did try to testify a couple of times during that closing statement, which was not allowed. The prosecution objected to that. A two-minute period changed our lives forever. How are you supposed to choose between three

people you love? Your husband, your daughter, your brother? I'm not going to testify at this point. All right. I'll caution the defendant not to testify about things that were not entered into evidence. The jury got the case Monday. They went home, then started deliberating again Tuesday morning. How long would you say in total they were deliberating on this? The first day the jury deliberated about 17 minutes, that probably gave them enough time to pick a four person, and then they probably said, we're going to go home and sleep on this.

They came back the next day on Tuesday and they total deliberated a little less than three hours. All right. What was the verdict, Nate? Verdict was guilty. Lori Vallow had no reaction. She kept a very serious face. She stood up, walked out of the courtroom and that was that.

Any reaction from the courtroom? The family members who were there on behalf of Charles Vallow were smiling, felt relief. It was just a very memorable day that's been almost six years coming. There was a lot the jurors didn't know about Laurie Vallow and her history, and they were surprised as the trial was over, and they were allowed to know these things about her? Very surprised, Andrea. Shocked, you could say. They did not know anything about what happened in Idaho, that Lori Vallow is a convicted killer for killing her two children and her new husband's wife. They didn't know any of this. They didn't know that Dateline's

done multiple episodes about this story. So as they were walking out of that deliberation room, somebody said Google Tylee Ryan, her daughter. And one of the jurors I spoke with said they pulled it up right there and were stunned to see that Tylee was dead. And many of them said they were going to go home and watch all the date lines and really get caught up to speed on this complicated, crazy case. What else did you hear from jurors that really stood out to you? Juries really paid attention to Lori Valodabel's behavior during the trial. In any days, she just was like smiling and laughing and didn't seem to take anything very seriously.

How much of that did that play into factoring the decision? It did. They were not impressed with her defense as she represented herself. When it came time for the defense, they were hoping to hear something. They were hoping she would testify when she simply said that she was resting. A lot of them were disappointed. They wanted to hear more. Do you think Lori wants her money back for representing herself?

You know, that's the great question. I have a feeling she has one more trial that she will try to do it again and we will see what happens there. Yeah, tell us what is the next one. Yes, we have one more and it is the final one. Lori Vallow is charged with conspiracy to commit the murder of her former nephew. Brandon Boudreaux is his name. He was married to Lori's niece who was involved in their group.

He was driving home from the gym one day when somebody shot at his window nearly killed him. And that person, the shooter, police believe is Alex Cox, who's Lori's brother. So that trial is set to begin the beginning of June. Nate, thank you so much for these updates all throughout the trial. For more of Nate's coverage of the trial and the case in general, check out eastidahonews.com. And to learn more about Lori's story, check out Keith's podcast series, Mommy Doomsday, which is available wherever you get your podcasts.

Thanks so much. Thank you. When we come back, it's time for Dateline Roundup. We've got the latest twist in Scott Peterson's campaign to prove his innocence. And Harvey Weinstein faces a new accuser in court. Plus, a woman tells us how jury service changed her life and why she made a podcast about it. Welcome back.

Joining us for this week's Roundup is Dateline digital producer, Veronica Mazaka. Hey, Veronica. Hey. So our first story comes out of New York where opening statements began this week in the retrial of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. His first trial really was one of the defining moments of the Me Too movement. Veronica, just give us a refresher. Yeah, so back in 2020, Weinstein was convicted in New York on two counts, the third degree rape of an aspiring actress and a criminal sexual act against a production assistant. But last year, almost exactly a year ago, actually, a panel of appellate court judges ruled for three

that the trial court had erred by allowing the prosecution to bring in evidence of prior acts that Weinstein wasn't charged for. And what they're talking about is at the trial, the prosecution, in addition to calling the two women I just mentioned, called four additional women to the stand to describe their experiences with Weinstein. Lyle Ornstein, who has maintained his innocence from the beginning, remained in prison this past year because New York isn't the only place

where he's been convicted of a rape charge. KATE BOWEN Right. He was convicted in California in 2022, and he's appealed that as well. KATE BOWEN Do we know what the prosecution will do differently this time? KATE BOWEN The big difference is Weinstein is facing a new charge, an additional charge of first-degree criminal sexual act against a new accuser, a third woman. Her identity had been hidden until

yesterday when it was revealed in opening statements. Now we know she's Kaia Sokola and she was a 16-year-old model aspiring actress when she says Weinstein assaulted her the first time. About four years later, she says he assaulted her the first time. About four years later, she says he assaulted her again. In the defense's opening statement, Weinstein's attorney said that Kaya's relationship with him was consensual. Okay, we will keep an eye on the retrial. Speaking of overturning convictions, Scott Peterson, who has been fighting for 20 years to get his conviction overturned, just filed a blockbuster

petition asking for a retrial. And to remind everyone about this case, Scott Peterson was charged with killing his wife Lacey and their unborn son, Connor, just before Christmas in 2002. But the Los Angeles Innocence Project now says they found new evidence that Scott didn't do it and should get a new trial. Yeah. So this filing is thousands of pages long. It was filed with the California Court of Appeals late on Friday. The LA Innocence Project says that they've been reinvestigating Peterson's case and they've

found evidence that, quote, undermines the prosecution's entire circumstantial case. Remind us what the prosecution's case was versus the defense's. Yes, so the prosecution argued in court that Scott killed Lacey sometime on the night of December 23rd. They said he then dumped her body in the San Francisco Bay from his fishing boat and went home and reported her missing to cover his tracks. The defense said no, Lacey was alive when Scott left to go fishing on the morning of December 24th, and many neighbors saw her walking their golden retriever that morning. They say after she got back from that walk, Lacey saw people breaking into the house across

the street and confronted them, and it was those burglars who abducted her, held her for a while, and then killed her. And the burglary theory, that's not new. The defense used that at Scott Peterson's original trial. Right. The prosecution said investigators tracked down the burglars and they weren't connected to the murder. So what is new?

What is the LA Innocence Project saying that they have found to undermine the prosecution's theory with all these pages? Yes. There's a lot, but two big things stood out to us. In the petition, they say that they have a new witness who says she overheard one of the burglars say that a pregnant lady with a dog came over from across the street to confront them. The other thing is that during Peterson's trial, the prosecution relied on an expert

in fetal biometry to give them a date of death for Lacey's unborn son, Connor. He used fetal growth data to come up with the estimate, which he said was December 23rd. But Peterson's team says they recently asked the expert to take a second look at his findings in light of the latest science. And he now says that Connor's death was on January 2nd. That's huge because by that time,

Peterson was already under surveillance and his car and his boat had been impounded. So what is next then with all of this? So the Court of Appeal judges will probably ask for a response from the prosecution. They could ask to hear oral arguments or they could just reject this petition entirely. Our NBC affiliate asked the Stanislaus County DA's office for comment, but they declined saying it has yet to see the petition. Must be so hard for Lacey's family having this come up. Absolutely.

Finally, there's been a development in a case I've been following for almost a decade that listeners might know from a recent Dateline episode called Poison Twist. It's the story of an upstate New York office manager, former office manager named Katie Conley, and she was convicted of killing her boss, Mary. Right. So Mary Yoder was a chiropractor who also happened to be Katie's ex-boyfriend's mother, and Katie actually went on trial twice. I spoke to Katie before her first trial.

Would you ever have any reason to do anything to Mary? No. No reason ever. for her first trial, would you ever have any reason to do anything to Mary? No. No reason ever. We never had so much as a crossword with each other. Did you poison Mary Yoder? No. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So the first jury was hung, and after Katie's retrial, she was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 23 years in prison. But her

conviction was overturned a few months ago. And Katie Conley has been home since February, but we just got some very big news in this case. It's a bit of a jaw dropper. The Oneida County District Attorney announced he's going back to a grand jury. He wants to try Katie Connolly for a third time. That's a huge deal. Veronica, thank you so much for all of this news and keeping us updated. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. For our final story, we are taking a look at a murder trial from an unusual perspective, the jury box.

We talked so much on the show about jury selection and jury deliberations. We wanted to know what it feels like to experience a jury summons, sit through hours of testimony, and ultimately decide the fate of a person accused of an unthinkable crime. Our next guest, Sarah Reed, did just that earlier this year at a Tennessee murder trial we followed closely here on Dateline. For nine days in the Hamilton County courthouse, Sarah was known as juror number 11 as she heard the evidence against Jason Chen, a college student who'd been charged with the first degree murder of Jasmine Pace, also known as Jazzy, to her friends and family. And if you need a refresher on the case, you can check out Blaine's recent episode, The

Pin at apartment 210, which dropped earlier this week in the Dateline feed. Sarah says her experience as a juror was so eye-opening that she decided to document it and share what she learned in a podcast called, Sequestred. Sarah, welcome to the show. Thank you. I'm so happy to be here. So take us back to the beginning of when you got the jury summons. What are you thinking? I'd never been called for jury duty before so it was definitely intriguing and

Honestly a little nerve-racking just not knowing what to expect, you know on the podcast We've been talking a lot about for dear these past few weeks in connection to the Karen Reed a retrial. What is it like? to Experience jury selection firsthand? I was seated in the gallery for like the majority of the voir dire process. It was definitely intense though. They started out with basic information like,

what is your job? Like what's your profession and are you married? And then it just goes into like, have you ever been arrested? How do you feel about police? So we should be clear. You're not from the same county where Jazzy's murder happened.

There was so much media attention around the case. The judge ordered jurors to be actually brought in from a different county. So were you bused in every day? Were you in a hotel? How did that work? Yeah. So after the jury selection in Davidson County in Nashville,

they said you could be gone 10 to 14 days, pack what you need for two weeks, meet back here at the courthouse on Sunday. And then they took our phones away at the beginning right before we got in the vans. We put our luggage in and got in and drove to Chattanooga. And we were sequestered in a hotel for the whole trial. In the hotel, you don't have your TV,

they've taken like the clock radio out of there. Of course we don't have our phone or anything. It's just silence. It was wild. You don't have your TV. They've taken the clock radio out of there. Of course, we don't have our phone or anything. It's just silence. It was wild. You say on your podcast you described it as grounding yet suffocating, like an unexpected social experiment. Yes.

Yeah. Think about it. You're completely cut off. So in some ways, it forces you to be really present. But it's also stifling. You're with strangers. And the only thing connecting you all is this one tragic event that you're not even allowed to talk about.

So everything just kind of stays in your head. And at least that was the case for me, all of the questions and emotions and details, you just carry them around in silence. It's almost like an emotional pressure cooker. And you had to sit through a lot of emotional testimony. Jazzy's mom, Katrina, testified. So you really have to separate the emotions you're feeling when you're listening to someone who's lost a child,

and you have to follow the law. How do you kind of separate all that while you're sitting there listening to all of this? Right, absolutely. Those are the hardest parts, was seeing, honestly, both moms on the stand, but Katrina being the first witness that we saw. I mean, it smacks you right in the face. Not only does she look just like Jazzy, but the emotions make you want justice, right?

And the facts and the details, they just, they have to be the things that guide you. Describe the jury deliberations for us. Did you already feel like you knew walking into that deliberation? I had a strong sense, but I stayed open. Like we kind of, after choosing our four person, we put it to an initial vote with the plan kind of being to begin discussions if the vote was not unanimous, which it wasn't. There was two of us that, myself included, that were hesitant. And I think for me, it was me just really myself needing to understand the definition of what premeditation meant and how that applied to this case. All right. So you all came up with your verdict in, was it less than an hour?

Yeah, it was much quicker than I think anyone expected. And so you started your podcast called Sequestred. Why did you decide to bring this to the masses, your experience? Yeah, I mean, it didn't really hit me until about halfway through the trial. I just remember it just smacked me in the face like, oh my gosh, like I could bring this unique perspective

from sitting in the jury box and hearing this story unfold day after day, just like as I heard it in the trial. I wanted the listeners to kind of have that same experience. I mean, I'm assuming this is the kind of experience that is now going to stay with you forever. Oh, yeah. This whole thing has changed me. I still haven't processed it all.

I pretty much jumped right into telling this story. And yeah, it was just a very profound and life-changing experience. Well, you were a part of Justice for Jazzy. Yeah, I feel honored to be. And Sarah, we're gonna include a link in our show description for listeners to check out. Thank you.

Sarah, thank you so much for sharing your journey with us. Absolutely. It was so great to talk with you. Thank you again. That's it for this episode of Dateline True Crime Weekly. To get ad-free listening for all our podcasts, subscribe to Dateline Premium. Coming up this Friday on Dateline, I've got an all new two-hour episode about Michael Cochran, a West Virginia dad and husband who died suddenly in his home in 2019.

I recently met with his family and friends who told me they were stunned when they started to piece together the horrifying truth. It moves from a mystery novel to a horror flick. Watch The Devils and the Details this Friday on NBC at 9, 8 Central or stream it on Peacock on Saturday. Thanks for listening.

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. Veronica Mazayka 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 Cole is senior executive producer of Dateline. Anything else? All right, thanks very much. See you everyone.