0:01

Some people just know the best rate for

0:03

you is a rate based on you with

0:06

Allstate. Not a rate based on

0:08

Terry who keeps... ...and

0:10

makes the car behind them. Oh

0:13

no, they're about to... Save

0:16

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

0:19

pay a rate based on you. Not

0:22

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating factors and savings

0:24

vary, and in some states your rate could increase with high-risk driving. Allstate

0:27

Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois.

0:32

Some people just know the best rate for you

0:34

is a rate based on you with Allstate. Not

0:37

a rate based on Terry who keeps... ...and

0:40

makes the car behind them. Oh

0:43

no, they're about to... Save

0:47

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

0:49

pay a rate based on you. Not

0:52

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating

0:55

factors and savings vary, and in some states your rate

0:57

could increase with high-risk driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance

0:59

Company in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois. You know how to book

1:01

flights and hotels. All you're missing is

1:03

a tool to plan the travel experiences you'll have once

1:05

you arrive. That's. Why you

1:07

need via tour books, guided tours, excursions

1:09

in more in one place. There are

1:11

over three hundred thousand travel experiences to

1:13

choose from, so you can find something.

1:15

For everyone and by a tour. offers

1:18

free cancellation and twenty four seven customer

1:20

support for worry free travel. Download the buy It or Ap

1:22

Now and use code by a top ten

1:24

for ten percent off your first book in

1:26

in the app by Travel Experiences for you

1:28

do more with via Tor. The. French

1:31

revolution set Europe. A blaze.

1:33

It was an age of enlightenment and

1:35

progress. Now

1:38

back to the courtroom. Thank

1:45

you. Maybe see the footnotes up here. 22-117, the

1:47

Commonwealth vs. Karen Reid. Good

1:51

morning, Council. Ms. Reid,

1:53

are all of the witnesses here, Mr. Jackson?

1:55

They are, you are. I'd like to hear

1:57

from Dr. Russell first. Are you both prepared?

1:59

I'm so sorry I could not hear you.

2:02

I would like to hear from Dr. Russell first.

2:04

Is that her name? Dr. Russell, yes. The order

2:06

would be based

2:09

on scheduling Dr. Russell, Dr. Wolf, Dr. Russell.

2:11

Okay then that's good because that's the order item.

2:14

All right. Do you

2:16

have a CV for her? Good morning. Do

2:18

you have a CV I could look at

2:20

for her please? Yes.

2:28

And she has not written a report. All right

2:31

let's bring her in please. Your Honor

2:34

before we get started I get an understanding.

2:36

We started to say that at sidebar the

2:38

other day and you said you wanted that

2:40

often to get to the witnesses but I

2:42

need a little bit of an understanding of

2:44

what what's expectations are. My understanding of what

2:46

year which this seems to be unusual in

2:48

terms of the timing of it. So the

2:50

understanding of the voir dire is this

2:52

is for the Commonwealth's motion to exclude

2:54

this testimony. All right that's what we're

2:56

here for the rule 14 violations. Is that

2:58

the same with Dr. Wolf and Dr. Brinchkoff? Well

3:01

I thought that would help both of them. Commonwealth has

3:03

nothing on that and you say you haven't been able

3:05

to even talk to them at all about this case.

3:07

That's correct. So I want to find out if they

3:09

have any credible competent evidence to forward so

3:12

we'll have a voir dire on them

3:14

as well. But for Dr. Russell what

3:16

we're doing here today is there's an

3:19

alleged viable. There appears to me to

3:21

be a violation of the reciprocal discovery

3:23

obligations of Defense Counsel regarding Dr. Russell.

3:25

So let's hear from her today to

3:28

see what the appropriate remedy is for

3:30

this violation. So my intention

3:32

is to ask her the so I have

3:34

the court understands my sort of guardrails my

3:37

intention is to ask her what her qualifications

3:39

are which is the the basis for one

3:41

year and that's where I'm gonna stop. I'm

3:43

not intending to ask her what her opinions

3:46

are illusions I'm gonna ask her she's come

3:48

to opinions but I'm gonna have to examine

3:50

her concerning her full opinions

3:52

or full illusions what she's what she's

3:54

based those on. That's unfair. We've provided

3:56

the defense everything that we I'm sorry

3:59

the prosecution everything that we need to provide

4:01

to them in terms of disclosure. They've got the

4:03

equivalent of a report. They've got a summary of

4:05

what she's gonna testify. When was that

4:07

provided? My order was one week

4:09

from the start of trial, right?

4:12

Well, we didn't, Your Honor, in fairness, they didn't

4:14

even finish their discovery one week before the start

4:16

of trial. So it's a little unfair for us

4:18

to be put on the scene. One

4:20

week from the filing of

4:22

the certificate of compliance? Well,

4:25

I don't know when there's, I can't remember, my

4:27

co-counsel indication was the day before trial. So

4:29

during the course of the trial is a

4:31

dynamic thing. During the course of the trial,

4:33

I did not know who Dr. Marie Russell

4:35

was at the time that they filed their

4:37

certificate of compliance. We then attempted to and

4:39

did give them the reciprocal discovery that we

4:41

were obligated to do after they filed their

4:44

certificate of compliance. When? Then three

4:46

days of that. We'd been giving them information prior

4:48

to that, but at least within three days of

4:50

that. We've continued, so the record's clear, we've continued

4:52

to get additional discovery from the Commonwealth and notices

4:55

of discovery throughout the trial. They have

4:57

not finished. In fact, during the trial,

4:59

they interviewed Jen McCabe, apparently, had a

5:01

full interview with her. Lieutenant

5:03

Tully took a report, dated the report, and

5:05

then they held on to that report until

5:07

after she testified. The interview, the report, and

5:09

the completion of the report were all done

5:11

before her testimony. Do you need to

5:13

call her again? You know, that's not my, and

5:16

I think the court understands, that's not my fault. My point

5:18

is not, I need to call Jennifer McCabe back. I've done

5:20

the damage that needs to be done on Jennifer. The point

5:22

is- I'm sorry, I missed that. You've what?

5:24

I've done the damage that needs to be done

5:26

on Jennifer. I don't need to call her back.

5:29

The point is that what's good for the goose

5:31

is good for the game. Commonwealth doesn't have, doesn't

5:33

get to stand in the position of peace-mealing and

5:35

feeding us invasion reports, discovery, to a similar information

5:37

about an expert that we did not know about,

5:39

never met, never heard of. Within three days of

5:42

that, we provide everything that we have about that

5:44

witness to the Commonwealth. They can't then turn around

5:46

and say, oh, well, it's all the defenses, so

5:48

we want to have a voir dire, which means

5:51

that the euphemism for that voir dire is, we

5:53

want to have two shots at the, two bites at the

5:55

apple. We want to be able to

5:57

quickly cross-examine her, then go back to our expert,

5:59

and if she- testifies cross-exameter again after consulting

6:01

with our expert. That's two bites of the apple

6:03

and that's not fair. If the court wants to

6:06

hear whether or not Dr. Marie Russell is qualified

6:08

to testify about the arm injuries that I believe

6:10

is the parameters, the proper parameters of the guadir.

6:12

That's what I'm prepared to do today. But I

6:15

wasn't planning on this of her testimony because that's

6:17

been provided. And I don't think Mr. Lally should

6:19

be able to get into the substance of her

6:21

testimony because he knows what her substance is because

6:24

like I said, that's been my thing. All right.

6:26

So I disagree. I'm going to hear from

6:28

the Commonwealth on this. Ms. McLaughlin or Mr.

6:30

Lally? Your

6:32

honor, just briefly in regard to what

6:35

counsel was referencing with Ms. McCabe, it

6:37

was not a full interview by Lieutenant

6:39

Tully. It was

6:41

a and I can give I don't

6:43

have it on me at this moment, but I

6:45

can give the court a copy of that report.

6:47

But essentially it was Ms. McCabe met with Lieutenant

6:49

Tully, looked at some video and was

6:51

asked a single question. That

6:54

report wasn't available. I didn't have it

6:56

until after Ms. McCabe testified, but it

6:58

was given to counsel prior to Lieutenant

7:00

Tully testifying. And there were no questions asked

7:02

of Lieutenant Tully in regard to that. The

7:06

my issue and I wasn't asking for

7:08

a guadir as it proposed to as

7:10

it relates to Dr. Russell is that

7:12

we first heard of Dr. Russell on

7:14

May 21st, which was I think six

7:16

weeks in a trial. So that's

7:18

what I asked. And you told me it

7:20

was three days after the beginning of trial,

7:22

Mr. Jackson. I said I said

7:24

this side by the other day. I just said it

7:26

again today. I let the Commonwealth and the court know

7:28

about Dr. Murray Russell three days after I learned about

7:30

her. I had never heard of her. I didn't know

7:33

who she was. We made contact.

7:35

I determined that she would be useful for

7:37

the jury in terms of the specifically the

7:39

injuries to John O'Peep's arm. I didn't have

7:41

one conversation with her. Then immediately within three

7:43

days of that turned that information over to

7:45

the to the prosecution. So I didn't say

7:48

that I gave this over three days of

7:50

the trial. That's not what I said. But you

7:52

were ordered to do it. Miss Jean Eddy. What was

7:54

the date? You had one week

7:56

from when the Z before and five. So

7:58

we're going to leave. So

8:00

what we knew as a fact that you

8:03

required internal... I need

8:05

to take a quick... All right. Let's

8:08

go back. Commonwealth's

8:10

motion. Never mind. All right, so the Commonwealth

8:13

has moved that I exclude the testimony of

8:15

Dr. Russell based on a violation of the

8:17

Reciprocal Discovery obligations of the defense. So I

8:20

do find that there is a violation of

8:22

the Reciprocal Discovery obligations of Rule 14.

8:24

Quoting the court's notes, as you all know,

8:26

in the process of the very pager judicial

8:28

system and confidence system, and no full disclosure

8:31

of all the acts of evidence to show

8:33

that justice is done. It is a parrot

8:35

puncture that holds the process available for the

8:38

production of evidence served by the Russians.

8:40

So we get to do today's side a

8:42

remit for the violation. And that's why we

8:44

may not call it on their existence to

8:47

the alternatives. She does so. Commonwealth

8:49

and our expropriates got a switch. So I ask they

8:51

to ask. So who is that? I'm not. I'm

8:54

not. This was something brought up

8:56

to scramble. So all right. So

8:58

that's the. So why don't you. Your voice up. All

9:01

right. Go ahead. Re-Russell R.L.L.

9:03

I have a miracle. OK. Well,

9:06

I've had about at least six formal...

9:08

Initially, am I aware of my pre-med?

9:10

I don't. And so am I

9:12

aware of my pre-med? And then I had a life

9:15

event at the end of the way. I took time

9:17

off during that time. I had another in my life.

9:19

So I had a long life. And I had a

9:21

full-time event. That was the 1970 war. I

9:24

did. Once I became a black man, I

9:26

attended the Bough work. That was the 1970. Yes,

9:28

I did. I worked at the city of Malden full-time. I did. So

9:31

I took as many courses as I could from Macrainy.

9:33

I was in a course in graphic photography. And

9:38

then I also had a college. I did that part

9:40

of where I got a back-time college. That was from

9:42

North America. I think it was a

9:44

bachelor of science. So, yes. So I decided

9:46

that I did more to Metraere. And so I

9:48

met Metraere for you. Yes, the doctor of Metraere.

9:50

And that's correct. I did. I

9:52

did two things, at least one. But I did

9:54

my first medicine combined in Nippon Resin. And I

9:57

did that in Long County, which is a very...

10:00

and what I did or very bit. That is correct.

10:03

Yes, I did my internship and read it

10:05

there. Oh yeah, I was trainee, so I

10:07

did all the waiting papers. Yeah, so I

10:09

finished during that time period. Did you indicate

10:11

a second residency? Tell me about that. Okay,

10:13

so I still realized I

10:15

had an interest in forensics, and

10:18

so I decided that I wanted to

10:20

also train in forensic pathology. So I

10:22

did a second residency in anatomic

10:25

pathology, two years followed by

10:28

forensic pathology fellowship at the

10:30

Los Angeles County coroner's office

10:32

for two years. And the

10:34

years, if that's four years, that

10:36

would be from 1991 to 1995 approximately? That

10:38

is correct. Tell me what

10:40

your experience was as a fellow at

10:43

the Los Angeles coroner's office, Los Angeles

10:45

County coroner's office. Yes, well, it

10:47

also was a very busy coroner's office. And

10:50

so every day there would be cases,

10:53

I probably did at least two cases

10:55

a day, most days, and

10:58

plus conferences and educational

11:00

opportunities. But the

11:02

interesting thing about being a fellow is they tried

11:04

to give you a wide assortment

11:07

of cases. So for

11:09

instance, I not only saw numerous

11:12

victims of gunshot violence and stabbings,

11:14

but I saw numerous victims of

11:16

motor vehicle accidents and natural

11:20

death, overdoses. And then if there was an

11:22

unusual case, it usually went to the fellow,

11:24

because the fellow was also being supervised. Did

11:26

any of those unusual cases, and we'll get

11:29

more into this in just a second, but

11:31

did any of those unusual cases include animal

11:33

attacks? Yes. Did you become a professor,

11:36

an educator at any point? Yes, so

11:38

during my 29 years at LA County

11:40

Hospital, well,

11:44

during the last 25 of those, I

11:47

was a assistant professor

11:50

or an instructor, but mostly an assistant

11:52

professor. And what that meant is that

11:55

I was responsible for overseeing the care

11:57

that was provided by the interns and

11:59

residents. So when a patient

12:01

would come in to the hospital, the

12:03

emergency room, they were

12:05

oftentimes usually seen by the intern or

12:08

resident, and then I would go and

12:10

subsequently see that patient also. And that

12:13

was in addition to my own cases. So I'd

12:15

see my cases and their cases. And that was

12:17

at LA USC, correct? That is correct. Can

12:20

I ask a quick question? Yes. LA

12:22

USC, for those of us who are not

12:24

necessarily familiar with it, is that associated

12:26

with the University of Southern California Medical Center?

12:28

Yes. That's the school in other words. Yes.

12:31

So it stands for Los Angeles County

12:33

slash University of Southern California Medical Center. And

12:35

that's where you were an assistant professor for

12:37

the majority of the rest of your career.

12:40

Correct. Were you also an assistant or

12:42

an adjunct professor at Cal State Los Angeles? Yes. For

12:45

how long were you an adjunct professor there? I

12:47

believe that was four or five years,

12:50

and I taught criminalistics, forensic medicine there.

12:52

As an attending physician in the ER,

12:54

in other words, a supervising physician in

12:56

the ER, can you tell us what

12:58

some of your duties and responsibilities included,

13:00

especially as it pertains to trauma, and

13:02

then I'll get more specific in just

13:04

a sec. Okay. Well, so I would

13:06

oversee the care of all the patients

13:08

that came in during a particular shift.

13:12

And that would include medical patients

13:14

and trauma patients. As

13:16

I mentioned, it was a very busy

13:18

trauma center, so we had lots of

13:20

trauma patients, including the types of violence

13:22

I described earlier that I saw at

13:25

the coroner's office, but lots

13:27

of motor vehicle accident victims

13:29

because there was a highway there right nearby,

13:31

there were a couple of highways. And

13:34

so, yeah, so a wide variety

13:36

of accidents. Did your supervision include

13:39

assessing, diagnosing, and treating patients? Correct.

13:42

In terms of the middle part of

13:44

that, diagnosis, was part of your job

13:46

to determine the cause of injuries or

13:48

to at least assess the cause of

13:50

injuries? Yes, and I

13:52

took that on a little bit more because I

13:54

was interested in the forensics aspect of the injuries.

13:57

The forensic aspect? Yes. Okay.

14:00

LA USC even after you left the Los

14:02

Angeles coroner's office as a fellow did you

14:04

continue to stay in contact with the coroner's

14:07

office and have relationship with the coroner's office

14:09

as a supervising physician? I continued to stay

14:11

in contact with the coroner's office and I

14:13

used to attend their conferences as often as

14:16

I could not as a supervising physician but

14:18

as a as a physician and a graduate

14:20

of their program. During your tenure at LA

14:23

USC did you ever become the director of

14:25

any programs at LA USC? Yes. Does that

14:27

include the director of Center for Life Support

14:29

Training? Yes. What years was that if you

14:32

remember? I don't remember that. Early 2000s late

14:34

90s? Yes that sounds about right

14:37

and we would conduct lots of

14:39

courses including trauma life

14:42

support courses. Did LA USC incorporate

14:44

a quality improvement program within their

14:46

institution? Yes. Did you become a

14:48

director of that as well? Yes.

14:50

So you were director of Center

14:53

for Life Support Training and director

14:55

of LA USC Medical Center quality

14:57

improvement is that right? The quality

14:59

improvement was for the emergency department.

15:01

Yes. And did you also become

15:04

the director for jail medical services?

15:06

Yes. What is the association between

15:08

LA USC and the very very

15:10

expansive jail system in Los Angeles

15:12

County? So LA County

15:14

Hospital was unique in that they many

15:17

many years ago developed a jail what

15:19

they called a jail ward which was

15:21

a combined inpatient, outpatient and ER. So

15:24

there was a dedicated jail ER and

15:26

that had been in existence for probably

15:28

about 70 years now and

15:31

so patients that were

15:34

placed under arrest by

15:36

either LA Sheriff's, LAPD,

15:38

California Highway Patrol or any of the municipal agencies

15:40

in the area and I think there were about

15:42

70 or more municipal

15:45

agencies could bring their patients to the

15:47

LA County Jail Ward where they the

15:49

patients would get treatment. Ultimately you became

15:51

the director of that entire program right?

15:53

Yes. Did you also work

15:55

with the state medical board of California in

15:57

any capacity? Yes. Tell us

15:59

about that. For about seven years

16:01

I worked part-time for

16:04

the California Medical Board as

16:06

a physician assigned to

16:08

one of their enforcement teams. And

16:11

I did that one day a

16:13

week and I did my other job at the county

16:15

hospital the other 40 hours a

16:17

week. So you didn't take off time from

16:20

your duties as an ER physician, as an

16:22

emergency physician? This was in addition to you

16:24

being an emergency physician? That is correct. If

16:27

you hold the title of Chief Medical

16:29

Executive for the California State Prison System,

16:31

specifically a court print, tell us

16:33

about that. So I retired from

16:35

LA County Hospital and I went

16:37

on to move on to

16:40

the California Department of

16:42

Corrections and Rehabilitation. What year

16:44

was that? Did you make that transition? So

16:47

2018 is when I started for the

16:49

state prison system and I worked there for five

16:51

years as director of their medical

16:53

service in Corcoran. So

16:55

for that prison within that system,

16:58

you were the chief medical executive for the entire

17:00

agency, correct? That is correct. For the

17:02

entire prison. Understood. Are

17:05

you board certified in emergency medicine? Yes. Are

17:08

you a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners?

17:10

Yes. Are you a member of the

17:12

American Academy of Forensic Science? Yes. Do

17:14

you have any publications in the area? And I'm going

17:16

to be very specific because you've been relatively widely published,

17:18

is that right? Some people would say

17:21

yes, some people would say no. More

17:23

than a couple of publications. Correct. And you've also

17:25

peer reviewed journals, correct? Yes. I

17:27

want to focus your attention on animal injuries. Have

17:29

you been published in the area of animal injury

17:31

specific? Yes. Do you recall

17:34

those publications? Yes. They had to do with

17:36

law enforcement dog bites. Did you draft

17:38

an article or co-author an article called Managing

17:40

Law Enforcement Dog Bites in the ER? Yes.

17:43

I was a co-author. Sounds

17:46

right. And that was a peer reviewed article? Yes. Ultimately

17:49

published? Yes. And ultimately available to

17:51

be cited by other doctors and studied by other doctors, correct? Correct. And

17:54

you can also read the author or co-author

17:56

an article entitled Law Enforcement Canine Dog Bites

17:58

Injuries, Complications, and Trends. Yes, I did.

18:00

Is that in 1997? Sounds right. Is

18:03

that also peer reviewed? Yes. And

18:05

that publication was also available for other physicians

18:07

throughout California and throughout the country to refer

18:09

to for the study of animal bites and

18:11

dog bites, correct? Dog bites, yes. Dog

18:13

bites. Concerning animal injuries, during the course

18:15

of your professional experience, how many patients

18:18

have you seen, diagnosed, and or treated

18:20

with animal injuries, including dog bites and

18:22

scratches, if you had to estimate? Many

18:25

hundreds. Would you say it's over or under

18:27

a thousand? I would say it's over 500.

18:31

I don't know because we didn't keep really

18:33

good records back in the earlier days. But

18:35

it's safe to say you've seen hundreds and

18:37

hundreds and hundreds of dog bites and scratches.

18:40

Yes. In my 29 years

18:42

at LA County Hospital, yes. And my dog bites,

18:44

I mean, dog bites I took care of and

18:46

dog bites that the residents took care of, yes.

18:48

And you've even published articles and studied, not just

18:50

seen them, but studied dog bites and dog wounds,

18:52

correct? Yes. Have you qualified as

18:55

an expert previously in other courts in

18:57

emergency medicine? Yes. Have you qualified

18:59

as an expert in other courts in forensic pathology and wounds?

19:01

Yes. Has that been in both state and federal

19:03

court? Yes. Doctor, were you asked

19:05

to review certain materials related to this case?

19:08

Yes. And that was in furtherance of

19:10

coming to, if you could, come to an opinion or a

19:12

conclusion about injuries to the victim in this case, a person

19:14

by the name of John O'Mara. Yes. What

19:17

did you review in anticipation of your determining whether

19:19

or not you could come to an opinion or

19:21

inclusion? So I

19:23

reviewed hospital photographs,

19:26

autopsy photographs, autopsy

19:28

report, grand

19:30

jury testimony from the

19:32

medical examiner in this case. There

19:35

may be some other... Based on this. I just want to

19:37

ask about that. Do you have notes with you as to

19:40

what you reviewed? No. Okay. So

19:42

when you say there might be other, you don't... Oh, if... Yeah.

19:45

If he tells you what you reviewed, you'd know it? I would

19:47

recognize it. All right. But I want to

19:49

hear it from you. Oh, that's it. Okay. Anything

19:52

else that you've reviewed? This is sort of ports to Jackson. Okay.

19:55

Can you think of anything else,

19:57

Dr. Bessarzis? The autopsy photographs, the

19:59

autopsy report. Neuropathology report, toxicology report,

20:02

and the grand jury testimony. Okay,

20:04

so as you recall, the items

20:06

that you reviewed include an autopsy

20:08

report by Dr. Scordibello, correct? Yes.

20:11

A neuropathology report by a doctor

20:13

named Stonebridge, correct? Yes. Toxicological reports

20:15

associated with the autopsy? Yes. Grand

20:18

jury transcripts from Dr. Scordibello? Yes. Photographs

20:21

of evidence items, including a gray sweatshirt? Oh

20:23

yes, yes. And autopsy photos that were taken,

20:25

attended to the actual autopsy? Yes, and photographs

20:27

that were taken in the hospital, and I

20:30

read the hospital ER record also.

20:32

So in addition to what you just listed,

20:34

there's also hospital photos separate and apart from

20:36

the autopsy photos, is that correct? Yes. And

20:39

those hospital photos showed the injuries to Mr.

20:41

O'Keefe's arm, is that right? Yes. And

20:44

you also reviewed emergency room records that are

20:46

attendant to his initial acceptance into the emergency

20:48

room on January 29th, 2020, correct? That's

20:51

correct. Based on your review of all of

20:53

those materials, were you able to confidently come

20:55

to any conclusions or opinions about the nature

20:58

of the injuries suffered by John O'Keefe, specifically

21:00

as they relate to

21:02

John O'Keefe's right arm? Yes. What

21:04

is your opinion and conclusion concerning those injuries? Those

21:07

injuries appear to be consistent with an

21:09

animal attack. Can you be more specific

21:11

in terms of the type of animal,

21:13

or are you relegated to simply an

21:16

animal attack? Well, they are consistent with

21:18

a large dog attack. There's

21:21

a combination of both what I consider

21:23

bite wounds and scratch wounds on the

21:25

arm. There were also some puncture wounds

21:27

in that shirt. And on the front?

21:29

I'm sorry, puncture wounds in the shirt?

21:31

Puncture hold in the shirt. And

21:34

on what do you base the opinion that

21:36

the injuries are consistent with dog bite or

21:38

scratch marks? Well, the patterns.

21:40

There are several patterns of

21:42

parallel wounds that appear

21:44

to be superficial scratches that could have been

21:47

caused by nails or could have been caused

21:49

by teeth. There

21:52

are different angles on the arm and different

21:54

locations on the arm. But

21:57

they're generally oriented in a specific.

21:59

direction and there's also an area

22:01

the distal forearm which is close

22:03

to the wrist which

22:06

shows what I believe is an

22:08

arch area of teeth marks. And

22:10

what's the significance of the arch

22:12

area? Well, so the arch would

22:14

be the front area of the

22:16

jaw of the animal, you know, or

22:18

the dog in this case where the

22:20

teeth tend to be close together

22:23

and curved. There's a curved

22:25

pattern to the configuration of the

22:27

teeth. Dr.

22:32

I want to show you a series of photographs.

22:34

Can I approach her on this? Yes. First,

22:39

can you describe whether or not you recognize what's depicted in

22:41

that photograph? Have you seen that photograph before? Yes, I have.

22:43

Is that part of what you reviewed in coming to your

22:45

Pennian's Inclusions? Yes. What

22:47

is that photograph of? So this

22:49

is a photograph of the

22:52

decedent's arm, arm

22:54

near the elbow. And

22:56

do you want me to describe what it shows?

22:58

Just briefly. Okay. And it shows wounds.

23:01

Your Honor, I would ask that the mark is next in order. All

23:03

right, so for this voir dire, we'll have

23:05

separate evidence, right? Is this an exhibit number

23:07

in the trial already? It has not been

23:10

marked yet, so I'm fine with starting over

23:12

sort of for the purposes of your process.

23:14

How are you going to do it? So

23:16

this will be a separate voir dire

23:18

with separate exhibit, yes. So it's going

23:20

to be exhibit one? Yes. Your

23:25

Honor, I want to move this along. This has

23:27

been marked, but I think for... Hold on, but

23:29

okay. I'm so sorry. No, go ahead. This

23:32

one of the three, one of the three has already

23:34

been marked, but if just for consistency, I'd rather mark

23:36

it additionally for voir dire. Yes, sir. You need a

23:38

separate record. May I approach? Yes. This

23:41

one's already been marked, but I'll read it. And if you'd tell

23:43

me the exhibit numbers that they are... So

23:46

you're putting these in now. There's no objection, Mr.

23:48

Lally? For purposes of this, no. Okay, so we'll

23:50

mark these now, but... May I approach? Yes.

23:53

The one with the label 2858 on the bottom

23:55

has previously been marked in the trial. I would

23:57

ask that this be marked... Is the next thing

24:00

we'll look for in one year? But what I

24:02

want is the exhibit number at the trial. I'll get

24:04

that one. I believe it's exhibit

24:06

19. OK. But

24:10

19. It's 19. OK. And

24:12

is the third one also in evidence, you said? Two of

24:14

the three have not been marked. I'll get it. Soon

24:17

as about a quarter quarter is ready. She's ready. May

24:19

I just establish the foundation? Yes. The

24:21

following two photographs that I just showed you,

24:23

doctor, do you recognize those? Yes. Did you

24:25

also review those in terms of, in

24:28

further terms of coming to your opinions

24:30

and conclusions? Yes. Do they also appear to

24:32

be different photographs of John O'Keefe's arms? Yes. I would

24:35

like to show both of those. Your honor, for purposes

24:37

of one year. There's been no objection to it. So

24:39

they're in. They've already marked. I just need

24:41

to know which one is two and which one is three.

24:43

May I approach? Yes. OK. My

24:47

best. With

24:49

the court of permission, may I publish

24:51

exhibit two for one year? Yes. Is

24:55

this a photograph of John O'Keefe's arm?

24:57

Yes. This is one of the several photographs

24:59

that you reviewed in coming to your opinion

25:01

and conclusions. Yes. I want to ask you

25:03

a couple of questions about this. There should

25:05

be a laser pointer on the desk. OK.

25:07

Can you explain for the jurors what it

25:09

is about the injuries that assisted you in coming

25:11

to your opinion and inclusion that this is from an animal

25:13

attack? OK. There's several patterns here.

25:15

So for instance, let's look here

25:18

right near the elbow, the exterior

25:20

part of the elbow. There's these

25:22

two linear marks, which appear

25:24

to be from upper teeth and

25:27

two punctures below those, which are

25:29

superficial, meaning they didn't go very

25:31

deep into the skin. But they

25:34

appear from the lower teeth. So

25:36

that's one pattern. There's

25:38

another pattern close to the

25:40

shoulder, which shows parallel marks,

25:42

these two, and maybe a third

25:45

one in the middle, parallel

25:47

marks that are oriented at

25:49

a certain angle. And these

25:51

are superficial wounds, which

25:54

are consistent with teeth marks.

25:56

They also could be possibly

25:59

consistent with nail marks. marks

26:01

but with what? Nails from

26:03

from cloth. Yes. We

26:05

have some more here similar with

26:07

from you know obviously different teeth

26:09

involved or different claws and and

26:12

then over down here closer to

26:14

the wrist we have an unusual

26:16

pattern of at least four striations

26:18

the way I see it at

26:20

least four striations that I believe

26:22

are caused from the teeth towards

26:24

the front of the mouth near

26:27

the arch. It appears that there's

26:29

an arch pattern here so. In

26:31

a dog attack or in an

26:33

animal attack in your experience just

26:37

let's cover the ground on the three exhibits

26:39

that we've already marked and we take a

26:41

look at exhibit one. Is this

26:45

just a close-up

26:48

of the same injuries? Yes. He's appeared to

26:50

be consistent with what you just testified to

26:52

in terms of teeth or claw marks especially

26:54

as it as it relates

26:56

to the area closest to elbow. Yes. Is

26:58

this a close-up view of

27:01

area closer to the

27:05

wrist that indicated those parallel you use

27:07

the word striations? Yes. He's here to

27:09

be taken attended to autopsy as opposed

27:11

to other photographs and then two was

27:14

taken in the hospital. Is that right?

27:16

That is correct. And would that with the

27:19

time difference account for the slight change in

27:21

the nature of the wound? It

27:23

could. A photograph of the wound I

27:25

guess? It could or different technique yes.

27:27

Did you take into consideration the lack

27:30

in coming to your opinion conclusion? The

27:32

lack of other injuries for instance fractures,

27:34

broken bones or deep bruising, soft tissue

27:36

injuries. Oh yes. How did that play

27:38

into your opinion? Well so of course

27:41

I considered you know what else could

27:43

have caused these wounds you know and

27:45

before coming to my conclusion and and

27:48

so I wanted to rule out other things and there

27:50

were no significant

27:52

major bodily injuries

27:56

outside the head. There was

27:59

nothing there was no for the

28:01

long bones, the chest, the pelvis,

28:03

you know, the arms. So yeah,

28:05

so having seen hundreds and hundreds

28:08

of car accident victims and people

28:10

hit by cars, I ruled

28:12

that out very quickly. Okay. And

28:14

in terms of the injuries that kids see, especially

28:17

as they're intended to be armed, based on everything

28:19

that we've discussed today, is your opinion based on

28:21

a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that those injuries

28:23

are assisted with an animal attack as opposed to

28:26

a motor vehicular pedestrian incident? Yes. All

28:29

right, Mr. Lally. Good morning, ma'am. Good morning.

28:31

We're going to take you back to you.

28:33

We're talking about some police training that you

28:35

had received when you were in the academy

28:37

or while you were working with the police

28:39

department here in Massachusetts. Is that right? Yes.

28:42

What kind of training did, what did that

28:44

training system? Well, I attended and graduated from

28:46

the standard police academy at that time. And

28:51

then I took additional courses that

28:53

were offered from the Massachusetts Criminal

28:55

Justice Training Council. And these

28:57

were taught generally by experts

29:00

in their fields. And there was a variety

29:02

of subjects that are listed in my

29:04

CV, including the hit and run accident

29:08

investigation, forensic... Dr.,

29:11

in reference to your training as it retains

29:14

hit and run accident, what did that training

29:16

consist of? Oh, well,

29:18

mechanisms of how

29:21

accidents occur, mechanisms of how

29:23

to determine what vehicle was

29:27

involved in an accident. I

29:30

don't... It was a long, long time ago.

29:33

But yeah, so determining if

29:35

people were struck by vehicles, what vehicle was

29:38

involved, or if it was auto versus auto

29:40

accident, what vehicles were involved. And I don't

29:42

mean to belittle this training whatsoever, but is

29:44

it fair to say that that was relatively

29:46

rudimentary training that you received in the academy?

29:49

Probably. I would not... Yes,

29:52

okay, probably. Training and crash instruction or

29:54

anything like that? That is correct. Am

29:56

I correct in you indicating that you're

29:58

board certified in emergency medicine? Is that

30:01

right? That's correct. So you're not board

30:03

certified in parent pathology or anatomical pathology

30:05

or any kind of pathology? That's correct.

30:07

And the last time that you worked

30:10

as a coroner, when was that? Last

30:12

time was in 1995 when

30:14

I was doing autopsies for the coroner's office.

30:16

I have since, though, consulted on numerous, well,

30:18

some cases from the LA coroner's office. What

30:20

about 30 years ago? Was that a part

30:22

of our right? For autopsy? Yes. So

30:25

you were certified in ACE in which either

30:27

Ms. Jackson or Attorney Little were

30:29

counseled. Not that I'm aware of, no. And when was

30:32

it that you first contacted a

30:34

reference case? The first contact

30:36

was May 15th. May 15th of what year?

30:38

May 17th, excuse me, of this year, 2024.

30:42

And went through a list of things that

30:44

you were providing and you reviewed and you

30:47

mentioned hospital photos, correct? Yes. Autopsy

30:49

photos, is that correct? Yes. An autopsy

30:51

report, is that correct? Yes. Grand Jury

30:53

Testimony for the Medical Examiner, is that correct? Yes. A

30:56

neuropathology report, is that correct? Yes. A psychology report,

30:58

is that correct? Yes. And I

31:00

think you also remembered some photos of a folding item, is that correct? Yes,

31:03

sure. Anything else? Yeah, hospital ER

31:05

record. Hospital ER record? Yes. Anything

31:07

else that you can think of? No. Did you

31:09

ask for anything else to review? No. Were you

31:12

told of any other material that was available for

31:14

your review that you weren't then given? Well,

31:16

I requested that I

31:19

focus in on the wound, so I didn't ask

31:21

for a lot of material in this case. So,

31:24

was it fair that you were looking for anything and everything,

31:26

anything and everything, your material to the wounds that you

31:28

were asked to look at? Let me say that again. It

31:30

was fair to say that you would want to look at

31:32

anything and everything that was related to the wounds that

31:34

you were asked to look at? Yes. So,

31:37

did you make any specific requests as to

31:39

what material you were provided or were you

31:41

just handed some material or forwarded some material

31:43

and you looked at what you were given?

31:45

No, I requested that I have the autopsy

31:47

photographs, the ER records, the ER photographs, I

31:49

requested those. Did you mention some

31:51

articles that you had written that were published back in 1996

31:53

to 1997 related to dog bites? Is

31:56

that right? Yes. Are

31:59

those publicly available articles? And in

32:01

those articles that you wrote, you were

32:03

talking about law enforcement bikes, correct? Yes.

32:05

So law enforcement K9 bikes typically

32:08

involved with all sort of a bite and hold tech.

32:10

Is that correct? Yes. Yes. So

32:13

is there a difference between, through your

32:15

experience and the hundreds of dog bites

32:17

seen, is there a difference between what

32:19

you would observe from a dog bite

32:21

from a law enforcement K9 versus a

32:23

Mr. domesticated dog? Well, yes. Now,

32:26

the study, one of those studies was

32:28

over 700 dog bite wounds. And

32:31

there were two techniques used at that time. Bite

32:33

and hold. And later on bark

32:35

and hold, or bark and alert, or

32:39

something of that nature. So there

32:42

are different techniques. But yes,

32:44

to specifically answer that question, which

32:47

was, are they different from, generally

32:49

different from regular domestic

32:51

dog bites? Yes. Did you write a report in

32:53

regard to your opinion that you've testified to here

32:56

today? No. Why not? I don't think there

32:58

was much time. And I didn't know if I was going

33:00

to be actually testifying. How long would it take you to

33:02

write a report? I wasn't asked to write a report. Excuse me.

33:04

Were you asked specifically not to write a report? No. Now, at

33:06

any point in time, did you ever look

33:08

at anything related to Mr. O'Keefe's head injury? Oh,

33:10

yes. So you reviewed reports in relation to that,

33:12

correct? Yes. Do you have any opinion as it

33:15

pertains to that? I would

33:17

rather defer to the pathologist and

33:19

neuropathologist on that. So

33:22

who contacted you about this case? I

33:25

contacted a district attorney that I had

33:27

worked with in the past. We were

33:29

discussing a different case, a case that

33:31

I autopsied in 1995. And

33:35

I mentioned that I heard that there was a

33:38

dog. There was a case in Massachusetts that might

33:40

have been being handled

33:42

by one of his colleagues, his former colleagues,

33:44

and that there was an issue of whether

33:46

something was a dog bite. And then I

33:48

might be able to help in that case

33:50

to clarify. And so when you were

33:52

provided this material, what is it that

33:54

you were specifically asked you? To look

33:57

at the wounds and the reports and

33:59

the materials were sent to me and render

34:02

an opinion. And so before you had

34:04

even been provided any material, before you

34:06

had even looked at anything, you had

34:08

already heard information related to there being

34:10

a dog bite involved in this case,

34:12

correct? I had heard that there was

34:14

a controversy, that there are some certain

34:16

wounds could have been a dog bite

34:18

versus perhaps inflicted

34:20

by a motor vehicle. That's what I had

34:22

heard. So I am just what I'm really

34:24

trying to get at, doctor, is sort of

34:26

the timeline. So you hear about this. When

34:28

was that? Sometime just before May 17th. Sometime

34:32

just prior to that, you're about some controversy in

34:34

a case in Massachusetts involving a dog bite. On

34:36

May 17, you were reached out to

34:39

by a Pacific. His name is John

34:41

Lewin. He's an attorney in the LA district attorney's office.

34:43

And then who did you talk to after that? I

34:46

reached out to him. I said I might

34:48

be able to clarify. And then he reached

34:51

out to Mr. Jackson, I believe. And then

34:53

Mr. Jackson contacted me. And not asking specifically

34:55

anything you spoke about, but at some point,

34:57

the discussion came specifically to talk, correct? Yeah,

34:59

he sent me the materials. He asked me

35:02

my opinion. You mentioned the materials. I asked

35:04

your opinion. When did you buy that opinion?

35:06

Probably the next day. I said, yes, I

35:08

know it was the next day. The very

35:10

next day on May 18th, you provided an

35:12

opinion? Yes. Was that opinion by fashion, orally?

35:15

How was that provided? Orally. So you reached

35:17

out or someone, shortly before May 17, spoke

35:20

to Mr. Jackson on the 17th, received all the material,

35:22

and then had an opinion by May 18th. Yes. You

35:24

didn't write any of that down. No. Now, beyond the

35:26

materials that you were provided, what else were you told

35:28

about the case? I

35:31

was told that the victim was a police

35:33

officer. The decedent was a police officer. I

35:37

was told that the defendant

35:40

had been charged. And I

35:42

was told that there was

35:44

a controversy about whether or not these

35:47

injuries had been caused by motor vehicles.

35:50

And I was also told, and I

35:52

read in the medical record, that the

35:54

decedent was found outdoors, I believe, in

35:56

the snow and hypothermic. Now in regard

35:58

to what you reviewed, you didn't review

36:00

any investigative reports, is that correct? That

36:02

is correct. Review any witness statements, is

36:05

that correct? That's correct. Review any lab

36:07

reports as far as from the forensic

36:09

lab or anything like that? I reviewed

36:11

the toxicology report. Beyond that, any other?

36:13

If it was part of the autopsy

36:15

report, I reviewed it. You reviewed everything

36:17

attended to the medical examiner's file, is

36:20

that correct? Yes. Nothing from

36:22

the lab beyond that? I don't believe I did. Now this

36:24

first instance when you say you heard about it, how did

36:26

you hear about it? Well,

36:28

I believe it was via

36:30

a headline that I received in my email

36:32

from the Boston Globe headline.

36:35

It was some kind of interesting case. And

36:40

I got it as an email and I looked

36:42

into it. And when was that? That was that

36:44

week in May, just a few days before May

36:46

17th. Did you

36:48

subscribe to the Boston Globe online? I

36:51

did at that time. I have not renewed it. How long

36:53

had you been a subscriber to the Boston Globe? I'm

36:57

going to allow it. Probably a year or

36:59

six months, six months to a year. Never

37:01

any headlines or anything else that you saw

37:03

about this prior to that week just before

37:05

May 17th? Not that I paid attention to.

37:08

Anything further, Mr. Jackson? Nothing further. All right.

37:11

So since this is a voir dire, I get to ask

37:13

questions, doctor. Oh, yes. I just have a

37:15

couple of questions for you. I don't think I really heard

37:17

you. So could you tell me again

37:20

what your opinion is and to what degree

37:22

you hold that opinion? Yes.

37:24

The injuries in the arm are,

37:26

my opinion is that they are the result

37:28

of animal bites or scratches. Do you know

37:30

what kind of animal? Oh, yes. Most

37:33

likely dog, large dog. And

37:35

I'm very

37:37

sure to, you know, it's the

37:39

word I want, medical certainty. Very

37:42

high degree of medical certainty.

37:45

Reasonable degree of medical certainty.

37:47

Yes, definitely. Okay. Another

37:50

question. So I received information that

37:52

you also viewed all

37:54

reports associated with Chloe, a dog's

37:56

prior bite history. Did you review

37:59

those? No, I don't recall ever

38:01

seeing anything like that. You also

38:04

reviewed the UC Davis DNA testing

38:06

results submission forms? No, I don't recall seeing them.

38:08

Okay, any follow-up, any questions based on my question?

38:10

Not for the Commonwealth, no. All right, you are

38:12

all set, doctor. I don't know yet whether you'll

38:14

be okay. We'll try and let you know. Are

38:17

you going to be around today? No. We'll

38:21

let you know as soon as we can. Okay. Okay,

38:24

thank you. All right, thank you. So,

38:32

I would like to hear argument on

38:34

this witness before we hear the other

38:36

witnesses. So, and, Mr. Yannetti, I asked

38:38

you the other day whether she reached

38:40

out to you or you reached out

38:42

to her and you said there was

38:44

an intermediary. But my concern was

38:47

whether she came out of nowhere and reached

38:49

out about this case. And that seems to

38:51

sort of... It wasn't Mr. Yannetti's name. Okay.

38:53

All right. The question I asked

38:55

was answered pretty much by this witness, whether

38:58

she saw something and decided she wanted to

39:00

come forward. All right. It's

39:02

the Commonwealth's motion. What are

39:04

you asking me to do? Again, I found a violation of

39:07

Rule 14. There are

39:09

two concerns here, the competency of the

39:11

witness's testimony, how much she can testify

39:13

to, whether she should testify at all.

39:16

What is it you're asking me, Mr. Lally? Your Honor,

39:18

I'm asking that the witness be excluded from testifying at

39:20

the trial for the violation of

39:22

Rule 14, specifically, I believe it's Rule

39:25

14A6. This

39:27

is a witness, as the court picked up

39:29

on, that reached out, albeit through

39:32

an intermediary, with

39:34

reference to just sort of discovering or

39:36

coming upon this case in

39:39

several weeks into the trial. It

39:41

is concerning, given the fact that the witness represented

39:43

that she had a subscription to the Globe Online,

39:45

received word of this, and the first time that

39:47

she had ever seen it or had grabbed her

39:50

attention was in that first week of May, when,

39:53

as the court is well aware, there's been

39:55

widespread media coverage, particularly through the Boston Globe,

39:57

for years at this point. The

40:00

limitations of the testimony, it's

40:03

also concerning because the disclosure from

40:05

counsel indicated, again, as

40:07

the court had noted, I didn't want to

40:10

get into too much as far as for

40:12

purposes of this voir dire, but there

40:14

was additional material that was indicated in the

40:16

disclosure that the witness had reviewed, including the

40:18

UC Davis related to the canine DNA

40:21

or the lack thereof, as well

40:24

as, forgive me,

40:26

the dog bite

40:28

history of that specific dog, which also I

40:30

would know for the court includes photographs

40:33

of what a dog bite from that

40:35

specific dog looks like. And

40:37

that specifically apparently was not

40:39

provided to this witness who's

40:41

then opining on, infurably

40:44

at least, that that dog was

40:46

the cause of these particular injuries. However,

40:49

was not shown specifically anything to do with

40:51

that bite history as far as by way

40:54

of reports or photographs. So

40:56

that juxtaposed or coupled with the

40:59

immensely late disclosure, I mean, we're talking

41:01

about at least the sixth

41:03

week of trial by the time this

41:05

witness is even mentioned, not on the

41:07

defendant's witness list, not mentioned

41:09

at any point in time during the pendency of the

41:11

case, and then sort

41:13

of pops up in the middle of May and

41:16

to the point that the

41:18

limited amount of material or information

41:20

that's provided by counsel as

41:22

far as disclosure opinion doesn't come until

41:25

today. So for all those reasons, Your

41:27

Honor, the Commonwealth is requesting that her

41:29

testimony in its entirety be excluded

41:31

from this trial. More raw courtroom coverage

41:33

of the trial of Karen Reed is

41:36

coming up from True Crime Today and

41:38

the Hidden Killers podcast. Press

41:40

subscribe so you don't miss a minute. Some

41:46

people just know the best rate for you is

41:48

a rate based on you with all state, not

41:51

a rate based on Terry who keeps and

41:54

makes the car behind them. Save

42:01

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

42:03

pay a rate based on you. Not

42:06

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions. Rating factors and

42:08

savings vary, and in some states your rate could increase with high-risk

42:10

driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty

42:12

Insurance Company in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois. Time

42:15

is a luxury for us, especially if

42:17

you're a mom. That's why we need

42:19

a skincare routine that's easy, fast, and

42:22

gives us results. Plus, what if your

42:24

products had thousands of 5-star reviews? Were

42:26

natural and affordable? Well, say hello to

42:29

Dime Beauty. Dime Beauty is clean, high-end

42:31

skincare that is affordable, and it really

42:33

works. Not sure where to

42:35

start? I highly recommend the Work System. It's

42:38

everything you need in one powerful package. Take

42:41

out the guesswork with a proven

42:43

routine that includes a gentle yet

42:45

effective cleanser, a super skin toner,

42:47

two incredible serums, and two luxurious

42:49

moisturizers. See what everyone

42:51

is raving about. From serum sets to

42:53

the always sold out Retinol Alternative TBT

42:55

cream, you'll find your perfect skincare match.

42:59

Dime has over 2 million happy customers,

43:01

and their product reviews are literally 5

43:03

stars. Love your skin again. Go

43:05

to dimebeautyco.com and

43:07

unlock your discount.

43:10

That's dimebeautyco.com. That's

43:12

dimebeautyco.com. Some

43:16

people just know the best rate for you

43:18

is a rate based on you with Allstate.

43:21

Not a rate based on Terry, who keeps... and

43:24

makes the car behind them. Oh

43:27

no, they're about to... Save

43:31

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

43:33

pay a rate based on you. Smoothie

43:44

King's new lemonade lineup is here. Lemonade,

43:47

lemonade, the Smoothie King way.

43:49

Try a strawberry guava lemonade

43:51

SK refresher. Yum, yum, gotta

43:53

get some. Made with real

43:55

fruit, real juice, and real

43:57

energy. Who's thirsty? Some

44:03

people just know the best rate for you

44:05

is a rate based on you with Allstate.

44:08

Not a rate based on Terry who keeps and makes the car

44:10

behind them. and makes the car behind them.

44:12

Oh no, they're about to... Oh

44:14

no, there boxers! Save

44:18

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

44:20

pay a rate based on you. Not

44:24

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating factors and

44:26

savings vary, and in some states your rate could increase with high-risk

44:28

driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

44:30

in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois. Smoothie King's new lemonade lineup is here. Lemonade, lemonade,

44:32

the Smoothie King way. Try

44:35

a strawberry guava lemonade SK

44:37

refresher. Yum, yum, gotta get

44:39

some. Made with real fruit,

44:41

real juice, and real energy.

44:43

Who's thirsty? Some

44:48

people just know the best rate for you

44:50

is a rate based on you with Allstate.

44:53

Not a rate based on Terry who keeps and makes the car behind

44:55

them. and makes the car behind

44:57

them. Oh no, they're about to... Oh

45:00

no, there boxers! Save

45:03

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

45:05

pay a rate based on you. Not

45:09

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating factors and

45:11

savings vary, and in some states your rate could increase with high-risk

45:13

driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

45:15

in affiliates Northbrook, Illinois. Sweaty Kings new lemonade lineup

45:18

is here. Name and a

45:20

lemonade. The Smoothie King Way

45:22

try strawberry. Glob Eliminate S K

45:24

refresher over ice a power up

45:26

in it come in or dad

45:29

or a blueberry lemonade smoothie landed

45:31

up being it. Made

45:33

with real fruit. Real juice for

45:36

a real sipping good summer. Yum

45:38

yum! Data to a. Smoothie

45:40

Kings new lemonade lineup all for

45:42

a limited time. Who Doris Day?

45:47

Some people just know the best rate for you

45:49

is a rate based on you with Allstate. Not

45:52

a rate based on Terry who keeps... It

45:55

makes the car behind them. Oh

45:58

no, they're about to... Save

46:02

with DriveWise and the Allstate app and only

46:04

pay a rate based on you. Not

46:07

available in every state, subject to terms and conditions, rating

46:09

factors and savings vary and in some states your rate

46:12

could increase with high risk driving. Allstate Fire and Casualty

46:14

Insurance Company in Affiliates, Northbrook, Illinois. Hey guys, it is Ryan.

46:16

I'm not sure if you know this about me, but I'm a

46:18

bit of a fun fanatic when I can. I like to work,

46:20

but I like fun too. It's a thing. And

46:23

now the truth is out there. I can

46:25

tell you about my favorite place to have

46:27

fun. Chumba Casino. They have hundreds of social

46:29

casino style games to choose from with new

46:31

games released each week. You can play for

46:34

free anytime, anywhere and each day brings a

46:36

new chance to collect daily bonuses. So

46:38

join me in the fun. Sign

46:40

up now at chumbacasino.com. Judy

46:46

was boring. Hello. Then

46:48

Judy discovered chumbacasino.com. It's

46:50

my little escape. Now Judy's the life

46:53

of the party. Oh baby, mama's bringing home

46:55

the bacon. Whoa, take it easy Judy.

46:59

The Chumba life is for everybody. So

47:01

go to chumbacasino.com and play over a

47:03

hundred casino style games. Join today and

47:05

play for free for your chance to

47:07

redeem some serious prizes. chumbacasino.com.

47:11

No purchase necessary for you. We're prohibited by law.

47:13

18 plus terms and conditions apply. See website for

47:15

details. Step into the world of

47:17

power, loyalty and luck. I'm

47:19

going to make him an offer

47:22

he can't refuse. It's family, canoles

47:24

and spins mean everything. Now you

47:26

want to get mixed up in

47:29

the family business. Introducing the Godfather

47:32

at chumbacasino.com. Test

47:35

your luck in the shadowy world of

47:37

the Godfather slot. Someday I will call

47:39

upon you to do a service for

47:42

me. Play the Godfather now at chumbacasino.com.

47:44

Welcome to the family. No purchase

47:46

necessary. VGW group. Judy

47:50

was boring. Hello. Then,

47:52

Judy discovered chumbacasino.com. chumbacasino.com.

47:54

It's my little escape. Now, Judy's

47:56

the life of the party. Oh baby, mama's bringing

47:59

home the bacon. Whoa, take it

48:01

easy, Judy. Ch-ch-ch-ch-chumba.

48:03

The Chumba life is for everybody. So

48:05

go to chumbacasino.com and play over 100

48:08

casino-style games. Join today and play

48:10

for free for your chance to

48:12

redeem some serious prizes. Ch-ch-ch-chumba. chumbacasino.com.

48:15

No purchase necessary for you. We're prohibited

48:17

by law. Terms and conditions apply. See

48:19

website for details. Hey guys, it

48:21

is Ryan. I'm not sure if you know this

48:23

about me, but I'm a bit of a fun

48:26

fanatic when I can. I like to work, but

48:28

I like fun too. It's a thing, and now

48:30

the truth is out there. I can tell you

48:32

about my favorite place to have fun. Chumba Casino.

48:35

They have hundreds of social casino-style games to choose

48:37

from, with new games released each week. You can

48:39

play for free anytime, anywhere, and each day brings

48:41

a new chance to collect daily bonuses. So join

48:44

me in the fun. Sign up

48:46

now at chumbacasino.com. No

48:48

purchase necessary. VTW Group. Voidware prohibited by law. See terms and conditions.

48:50

It's time for today's Lucky Land

48:52

Horoscope with Victoria Cash. Life's

48:55

gotten mundane. So shake up the daily

48:57

routine and be adventurous. With a trip

48:59

to Lucky Land. You know what they

49:01

say. Your chance to win starts with

49:03

a spin. So go to luckylandslots.com to

49:05

play over a hundred social casino-style games

49:07

for free. For your chance to redeem

49:10

some serious prizes. Get lucky today. At

49:13

luckylandslots.com. Available to players in the U.S. Excluding

49:15

Washington and Michigan. No purchase necessary. VGW Group.

49:17

Void we're prohibited by law. 18 plus. Terms

49:20

and conditions apply. Hey, guys, it is Ryan. Hey guys, it is

49:22

Ryan. I'm not sure if you know this about

49:24

me, but I'm a bit of a fun fanatic

49:27

when I can. I like to work, but I

49:29

like fun too. It's a thing, and now

49:31

the truth is out there. I can tell you

49:33

about my favorite place to have fun. Chumba Casino.

49:35

They have hundreds of social casino-style games to

49:37

choose from, with new games released each week. You

49:40

can play for free anytime, anywhere, and each day

49:42

brings a new chance to collect daily bonuses.

49:44

So join me in the fun. Sign

49:46

up now at chumbacasino.com. No

49:49

purchase necessary. VGW. Void or prohibited by law. See terms and conditions.