June 20, 2025 • 39 mins
On the night of June 18th, in the hours after the Karen Read murder retrial verdict was announced, a local polling and market research firm asked 1,170 Norfolk County residents, who met the qualifications to be selected as jurors, for their opinions on the case. Brian Wynne, President of Opinion Diagnostics, joined Dan to share the results of their poll.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, I think that all of us by now know
the legal result in the criminal case, the criminal case
against Karen Reid. Yesterday she was acquitted on all of
the serious charges, including a murder to manslaughter and also
(00:31):
leaving the scene of an accident. She was convicted on
operating under the influence, which was the least of the charges.
So I think all of us know that story. But
I saw this morning a survey of Norfolk County eligible
drawers which was conducted I guess overnight with us now
(00:57):
is the pollster who did this poll, Brian Win. He
is with a polling company called Opinion Diagnostics. Brian, the
results of the poll are to me very surprising. I
don't know if you had the same reaction. But before
we go to the poll, tell us about Opinion Diagnostic.
(01:17):
You're a Massachusetts based polling and market research firm. How
long you've been around, and we'll talk a little bit
about the methods that you use to conduct this poll.
Right after the jury came down with their decision, So
let's talk about opinion. First of all, Welcome, Brian. Let's
talk about your company, Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Welcome well, thanks thanks Dan for having me and thanks
for letting me share this survey and the results with
your listeners. So Opinion Diagnostics is a polling firm. I
started back in twenty twenty three, but before that had
done polling and political consulting for a variety of clients
(01:58):
over the course of fifteen years. And they've been in
Massachusetts now for really since two thousand and eight. I
actually came up here for college at Boston College and
never left. I had the opportunity along the way to
do work in politics and masters usets. I moved up
here originally to work for Governor Baker on his first
camp or his second campaign, his first winning campaign in
(02:20):
twenty fourteen. I had the opportunity to serve as the
executive director of the mass Use Republican Party and then
as Governor Baker's campaign manager in twenty eighteen. Politics and
public policy for a long time here in mass but
now I'm a full time poster.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Do you do polling for a commercial industry, businesses as
well or as it all political?
Speaker 3 (02:41):
So it breaks into three different categories. The first is political,
the second is more of traditional market research for corporations,
and then there's sort of the intersection of those things,
which are issues of public policy that oftentimes are either
solving that for business or elected officials or for just
sort of good governments organizations to figure out how to
(03:03):
how they should work with and address the problems that
they have when talking to the electorate.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Okay, one of the things that I stress with polsters
who I respect, and I certainly respect seeing what you
did on this ball, but with people like Dave Paleologus
who's been a friend for many years, Spencer Kimball, David Suffolk,
Spencer Kimball at Emerson, and when people are skeptical of polsters,
(03:27):
I always always explain to them that it is in
the interest of a polster to first and foremost be accurate.
They're almost like the equivalent of a baseball umpire. I mean,
the baseball umpire doesn't really care if it's a strike
or a ball. But if it's you know, three feet
(03:48):
off the plate and they call it a strike, or
if it's right down the middle and they call it
a ball, they're not going to be an umpire very
long anywhere. And the same way with polsters. So you
went into this last night obviously in the hours after
the verdicts came down to the Karen Reid case, and
(04:10):
you tell us what you did. You reached out to
a lot of people, and so I think the quality
of this poll was done properly. The results to me
are kind of surprising. So let's talk about the procedure
that you employed last night around this time.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Sure, so I've done more than four hundred poles in
Massachusetts over the years, and so I'm well versed and
experienced and how to conduct these in this state. This
poll was interesting because of how quickly I wanted to
be able to move on it. So this was drafted
and ready to go and ready to go at a
moment's notice. And we sort of had the false alarm
(04:51):
on Tuesday when it seemed like the jury might reach
a verdict on Tuesday night after those jury questions, and
so was ready to go on Tuesday night, but ultimately
when in the field on Wednesday night, this poll was
available for respondents to take from five pm until eleven
to fifty nine pm. The people we wanted to survey
were eligible jurors in Norfolk County, which to be an
(05:11):
eligible juror in Norfolk County. You need to be a
United States citizen, you need to be over the age
of eighteen, and you need to be able to reasonably
understand English. And we targeted individuals with the survey that
we sent the survey to that we thought met those criteria.
But we also confirm thatt during the course of the survey.
So ultimately we selected out of the five hundred and
thirty five thousand people in Norfolk County that meet that
(05:34):
criteria to serve as a juror. We selected seventy thousand
of those individuals in a random sample that we thought
we would reach out to. Every one of those seventy
thousand individuals received a text message last night, and in fact,
I know that many of your listeners probably live in
Norfolk County and a lot of them probably received this
text message ask to them to take the survey. Ultimately,
one hundred and seventy people that met the criteria did
(05:56):
in fact take the survey. And to add extra confidence,
every person that received the text message had a unique
alpha numeric code in it to make sure that you
couldn't share the survey. If two people took the survey
with the same code, we could see that, and we
could flag that. And in fact, normally when we do surveys,
maybe three to five people share the survey say, you know,
(06:16):
theyfore the text message to a friend, or they post
on social media. In this case, this was the largest
number I've ever seen. There was one hundred and sixty
one duplicate responses, and I could tell from the responses
that somebody had posted it on social media. Now we
consider those results to be unscientific because we're trying to
take a random sample of the eligible jurors in Norfolk County.
So we discarded those one hundred and sixty one responses.
(06:38):
So this is one one hundred and seventy responses from
people that we have a high degree of confidence that
they are eligible to service jurors, that it was individuals
that we affirmatively contacted and so have a lot of confidence.
And overall, this survey has a margin of error plus
and minus two point nine percent. So any number that
I quote tonight, that's the top line number. We could
think that number could be plus three minus three roughly,
(07:02):
but somewhere in that range. With ninety five percent confidence,
what prompted.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
You to be poised and ready to do this poll.
Obviously you thought about it ahead of time. This wasn't
a spur of the moment poll, I assume, And if
I'm asking a business question to which you cannot answer,
I'm assuming you did not do this at the behest
of anyone other than your own idea. Here, there's no
(07:28):
political candidate who wanted this poll done. There's no lawyers,
defense lawyers, prosecutors, nothing, No one sponsored the poll.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Correct, Correct, there's no sponsor in this poll. This was
something that I decided to do and that our firm
decided to do ourselves because we had interest in the
case and.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Thought that it would be interesting to share everybody had
interest in this case.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, And frankly, we thought that we were sort of
uniquely qualified to move quickly and get the data and
get it out into the ecosystem. And so this was
something we did not at the behest of anyone. But
I will say my phone has been ringing off the
hook today with these results.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Absolutely, we're going to get to the results. I think
they're surprising. Uh, without exposing we'll get to the results
right after the break. Were you surprised by the by
some of the results I.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Had suspicions that a majority of people would be sort
of in favor of Karen Reid uh and think that
she was innocent. But the numbers and how large that
those numbers were were somewhat startling to make.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Yeah, and that's that's what we're going to talk about.
My guest is Brian Winn. He runs a company called
Opinion Diagnostics, been around for about three years, uh, and
it is it's making an impact tonight with this pole
fascinating results. We're going to go to the numbers, and
then I'm going to ask all of you to We'll
do a little poll of some of you if you'd
(08:53):
like to talk to a pollster. Six one seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one seven, nine, ten thirty. I'm fascinating
by polls, know a lot of pollsters. I find that
most pollsters are much more accurate that we give them
credit for. And you can be the judge of that
when we get some of the numbers for you. Right
after the break, you have the phone numbers. Those are
(09:14):
the most important one numbers six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six seven. Coming right back on Night Side
with my guest Brian Winn of Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
So let's go to the top line here. My guest
on the line with us right now is the owner,
the founder of Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And this is a polling firm that that is is
going to have a pretty big footprint. Brian Winn is
his name, uh, and going to have a very big footprint.
Founded twenty twenty three, but it has been around for
a while even before that. So amongst this the group
of pollsters of people who you pulled the quote unquote
eligible jurors and you feel this is within a margin
(10:12):
of era of a little less than three percent. What
percentage felt read was guilty?
Speaker 3 (10:21):
So we asked people. Uh. So we read to people
right after the verdict in case they hadn't seen it.
We told them what the verdict was, which is that
she had been acquitted of numerous charges, but she had
been convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence
of liquor commonly known as OUI. When we asked people, first,
you believe the jury reached the correct verdict? So acquittal
on a manslaughter but conviction on Oui. And of people
(10:46):
that were familiar with the trial, which was ninety three
percent of all jurors in Norfolk County said that they
were familiar with the trial. So of that ninety three percent,
seventy percent said yes, the jury had reached the correct verdict,
compared to only eleven percent that said no.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
And by the way, you didn't ask them about murder.
It looks to me as if you asked them about manslaughter,
and I did.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
And the reason for that is what we got to
in the next in the next two questions. And so
the first question we asked is if for if on
the manslaughter charge, right, because her Oui was a lesser
included of the manslaughter charge.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yep, right.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
So the question was how close was the jury to
finding her guilty of one of the higher of those
lesser included charges. They found her guilty of the lowest
of the lesser included charge. And so we asked people,
should she have been found guilty of manslaughter or should
she have been found not guilty because you have reasonable
doubts but she might have committed the crime, but you
(11:44):
have reasonable doubts or should she have been found not
guilty because she's totally innocent of that crime. And among
the people that were familiar with the trial, only six
percent thought that she should have been found guilty because
she committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, compared to
fifty four percent that said she should be found out
guilty because she's totally innocent. So a majority of people
(12:05):
familiar with this trial, fifty four percent say that she
is totally innocent, not even that she's innocent because of
a reasonable doubt, which is another twenty four percent on
top of that.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah, that gets you to that gets you to three
quarters of the respondents would have would have voted to
acquit on manslaughter and sixteen percent are unsure. And I'm
sure the people who were unsure if they were in
a jury room. Boy, that is a stunning number to me.
I don't think she was guilty of manslaughter. I think
(12:34):
the case was overcharged, But I still think that that
there's a certain number of people who are going to
be always influenced by the present presentation of the government,
and the government obviously they didn't have a chance of
going into this this trial in my opinion.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Oh not not at all. And the last top line
that we asked, and this goes to the presentation of
the government and the evidence that they showed to the jury.
We tried to predict what Norfolk County jurors would do
in the upcoming civil trial. Remember, Karen Reid is still
going to have a civil trial. That's a wrongful death lawsuit,
and the standard, as many people probably know, is different
(13:16):
in a civil trial. It's preponderance of the evidence. Is
it more likely than not that Karen Reid is liable
for the wrongful death of John o'keef. And we asked
people did they think that the preponderance of evidence showed
that she was liable or did the preponderance of evidence
not show that she is liable? And seventy three percent
said that based off the information that they knew, that
the preponderance of evidence showed that she was not liable
(13:39):
for the death of John o'keef. And so with that
in mind, it is incredibly difficult to imagine how a
wrongful death lawsuit is going to proceed given just the
evidence that we have, and presumably at this point, through
multiple years and two different trials, and all the things
that weren't presented a trial, but were sort of known
from outside of it without any additional information coming out.
(13:59):
To start off with, roughly three quarters of everyone familiar
with this case and roughly sixty eight percent of every
person that's in eligible jur in Northfook County thinking that
the evidence that current that currently exists is not enough
evidence to find her liable of ronful death.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Yeah, and it's it's it's almost a ten to one ratio.
Sixty eight percent feel that the preponderance evidence does not
prove liability. Seven percent think that does. That's a ten
to one sixty eight to seven, you know, sixty.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Eight Put that into statistical terms if you were trying
to find it. And jury selection is not a random process, right,
As people remember, in the beginning of the care and
Reed trial, they went through many, many jurors to find
jurors that they were impartial. Almost ninety percent of the
jurors said that they were familiar with the case during
jury selection, but they tried to find jurors that were impartial.
(14:52):
So if you were to say, need I need to
randomly select twelve people from Norfolk County to be on
a jury in a civil trial, wrongful death, and what
are the odds that is sixty eight percent of all
the people in Norfolk County think that she is totally
that the propondence of the evidence shows that she is
not liable. What are the chances of getting twelve people
in a row? And if you do the mathm that
(15:14):
it's a one in eight hundred and sixty nine thousand
chants that a randomly selected jury would have twelve people
that think that the propondence the evidence either shows that
she is liable or that are unsure or just don't
know about the case. So one in eight hundred and
sixty nine thousand chance.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, there's another question that you highlight. Amongst eligible jurors
familiar with the case, sixty four percent believed that John
O'Keefe was killed by someone else.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Well, and that's that's truly the crux of this right,
And so the next section of this poll, after those
the verdicts and what people would do with their jurorsey
is what do they believe about the facts of the case.
And when you get into the facts of the case,
the one that is maybe the most startling, and it's
it's the largest is sixty four percent like you said,
believe John o'keeith was killed by someone other than Karen Reid.
(16:08):
And so that sort of is the reason why you
would think that she that these jurors would not see
the preponderance of evidence of her being liable. You know,
the preponderance of evidence standard, which is lower, not going
to be You're not going to beat that standard of
sixty four percent of people believe that someone else killed them.
(16:29):
How can you say that she's liable for his death
when sixty four percent of people believe that someone else
killed them. And it goes down from there. Sixty three
percent of these of these eligible jurors believe that evidence
was planted to help ensure that Karen Reid was found guilty,
and sixty one percent believe that some of the injuries
on John o'keeith's body were caused by a dog.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
And the dog that is in question is the dog
that was in the house.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
So presumably that would be the dog that's in the house.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah, not some dog was out for a midnight stroll.
Eleven percent, again a starkly different number, believe that some
of the injuries were caused by a vehicle, and only
nine percent nine percent believe that the investigation was full
(17:19):
and fair.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
Yeah, that vehicle number is startling, because really, what the
second trial came down to was are the injuries on
John o'keith's body caused by a dog or are they
caused in a vehicle? Right, And that's sort of the
central argument between the prosecution and the defense, and so
who wins that argument? Well, sixty one percent believe that
the injuries are caused by a dog and eleven percent
(17:41):
believe they're caused by the vehicle. And so if you're
looking at the witnesses that testified and having read some
of the insights from the jurors today that have done
media interviews during the course of today, the jurors believe
that the injuries were caused by a dog, and most
of them had serious doubt that there is a vehicle involved.
And some of them say that they are completely certain
(18:03):
there is no vehicle involved. And it seems to reflect
the data that this survey showed.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Okay, now we got to take a break here for
the news at the bob of the hour. But there's
some other questions that I think are very important, both
retroactively and prospectively. I'll get to those next, and I'll
also invite callers to join the conversation. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
(18:30):
This is I don't know if any other poll that
was done this quickly following of jury verdict in such
a high profile trial. This never was done, I believe,
in the in the wake of the OJ Simpson trial
or any other trial that I can think of. But
this is amazing because this really does show what jurors
(18:55):
or potential jurors, the group of jurors from which were
chosen feel about this case literally the day and the
day after, the day, the evening of the verdict. So
these are these are I think amazing numbers, and I
think it was a brilliant idea to run this poll.
And we'll talk more about it, and I'd love to
(19:17):
have some of you join the conversation. We're back on
Nightside right after the news at the bottom of the.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Hour's Boston's News Radio. It's Night Side with Dan Ray,
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
My guest here tonight is the founder and the owner
of a company called Opinion Diagnostics. Diagnostics Brian Wynn has
done what I considered to be an amazing poll of
Norfolk potential Norfolk County jurors. These are people who would
be eligible for the jury pool from which the Karen
(19:58):
Reid jury was chosen. Now what I want to do, Brian,
is I got some phone calls here already, so I
want to go to at least one or two, and
then I want to get back to other conclusions that
this poll has drawn, and I want to ask some questions.
In the meantime, let me start it off with Mike
in Dallas, Texas. Mike, welcome to Nightside. I don't know
(20:21):
if ever had the pleasure of your company here on
Nightside before. How are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (20:25):
No, Dan, I'm a first time call or long time
listener ever since I was a child in Buffalo, New York.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Come on, so you're a run of applause to you, Mike.
We do have listeners in Texas, so you're not the
first listener from Texas. But I thank you very much
for listening to us down there and calling and calling
us tonight. What question or comment would you like to make?
We have Brian Winn with us, who's in charge of
this company that conducted the poll, Opinion Diagnostics, So.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
My question is this in a soivil trial. Of course,
if she will have to give a deposition, she will
have to testify in a civil trial. And I'm curious, Brian,
as to whether your survey revealed anything about how the
public views Karen Reid as a person, whether that dynamic
(21:18):
will actually maybe change the results or change the opinion
of people as to whether they're going to give her
a clean bill of health in a civil case.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Brother, if I could mike real quickly, you sound like
you're a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
Actually, wow, I'm a law professor.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
How about that? Huh? What law school? If I could,
I'm a lawyer, as you probably know if you listen,
I'm going to BEU Law School, Boston University Law School graduate.
Do you teach? So?
Speaker 4 (21:48):
I teach to the University of North Texas at Dallas.
We're a young law school. We've been around for eleven years,
but I practiced law for thirty four years before I
entered the academy.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Wow, boy, well, congratulations, you're uh, you're sort of from
my generation. That again, the reason I was able to
take a pretty good guess at that, as you sound
like a lawyer, and uh, and take that as a
compliment because she's coming from one lawyer to another. A
great question. Uh, Brian, would you take a shot at
Mike's question.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Sure, I'm not sure that my survey answers your question
beyond the fact that if people truly believed that he
was killed by someone else, or that evidence was planted,
or that these injuries were caused by a dog, and
they find that she is, you know, totally innocent of
the crime of which she was which she was accused
(22:42):
in this in the criminal case, I don't know how,
even even if she comes off as the worst human
being in the world, how a jury could find her
liable if in a civil case, if they truly believe
that she was sort of uninvolved in always in this case,
what I can tell you was, having read some of
the stories shared by the jurors today, I think I
(23:03):
saw the two jurors and an alternate juror at least
as of nine PM, and done interviews and one of
the jury's and I'll share this this is sort of
outside the survey, but the juror said, when she walked in,
she thought that she thought that she was not going
to like Karen Reid. She thought that she sort of
got the wrong vibe from Karen Reid, and during the
course of the trial, the juror said that her read
(23:25):
on Karen Reid changed to be somebody that was fighting
for her life and had been put in an impossible position,
and she grew to admire her. So that's the words
of one juror. I can't speak to any other random
juror in any other case, but maybe a small case
study of how people might see her. Now, remember people
didn't hear from her because she didn't testify in this case,
(23:48):
but the prosecution played all of the clips from her
HBO documentary. And I'll just say this is this is
my personal view on it. I watched the HBO documentary
when it came out a few months ago. I didn't
think Karen Reid came off particularly well in that documentary.
I don't think she came off as particularly likable. And
that's just that's just sort of my personal opinion. And
(24:10):
so that's that's the Karen Reid that that jury was
presented with the one that was in the HBO documentary.
They you know, her in person in a civil trial
might be far better than that.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
You know, I'm someone who believes that sometimes in the
quote of public opinion, you can influence the judicial system,
as I think I was able to do in the
Joe Salvati case, the Salviati Lamoni case up here, which
some of you in my audience I know still remember.
But I think it was a still a fundamental mistake
(24:43):
to have her go on television, you know, because those
those audio clips were used against her, and it might
have been that those audio clips if she hadn't gone on,
maybe she would have swept the table. Let me ask, Mike,
the law school professor, would you have allowed Karen Reid
(25:05):
to go on television? I think she was on Dateline
and maybe a couple of other shows in advance of
that second trial.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
I watched the show The Body in the Snow. I
would never in a million years have her done those interviews.
I think she came across very poorly. I think she
made admissions against interest, and I think it was a
terrible strategic mistake. But in the end, I guess it
just didn't matter.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, yeah, and wait, we're gonna have some other statistics here, Mike.
I'm honored that you called. I truly mean that, and
I hope that you'll call more often. If you get
up to Boston, give me a call. We'll grab a coffee.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
I'd like that very much. Have a good evening, gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Thanks Mike. Send me an email so I can be
in touch. I'll have no giving direct.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
How do I get your email?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
You hold on here and I'm going to have no
give you my direct line and my email. No, we'll
give the professor Mike, who shall have forever been known
as Professor Mike here on Nightside, my email in my
and my direct phone number. Okay, don't hang up, Mike.
You just all right. They'll take care of that. Let's
get another call for you. Brian here, and we're going
(26:15):
to get a little closer to home. We're going to
go directly to the to the heart of this Canton
Carol from Canton. Hi, Carol, welcome to Nightside.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
How are you, Hi, Dan, Thank you for having me,
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Very much for calling you. Brian Winny, they had to
Brian win He is a ban a really good pusson.
Speaker 5 (26:35):
I'm disgusted. I'm disgusted by the all because I am
one of the very few that believe carried it is
totally guilty of what she's charged what's not second degree murder,
but the hictil homicide would have been good. I don't
think there's any third party. His friends beating him up, sorry,
(27:00):
out in the yard. I don't believe those dog bites.
I have three, you know, four dogs, and I know
what dog bites look like. And I'm just I'm just
really upset with the whole with the whole thing, really
am I just wanted to be down and I don't
want to be seep ink anymore.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Well, I'd like to ask you, Carol, Can I ask
you what? Carol? Can I ask you one question? What
amongst your friends in Canton? The town itself has been
its battered from pillar a house here in many in
many respects, what is the feeling amongst your friends? Realizing
(27:38):
that probably most of the people who are your friends
are going to be people who somewhat.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Agree with you, We're very divided, very divided. Some of
my family agree with me, so my family doesn't. I
have a bet with a friend and now I owever
her dinner, Well.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Do make make sure it's a friendly dinner and don't
let her rub it in.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
Okay, yeah, yeah, the way that people don't do that
in Canton. We don't beat up each other and throw them.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
And I have a lot of friends. I have a
lot of friends in Canton, and it's a good town.
Have you called before? This is your first call, This is
my first call. We want to give you a round
of applause too, our digital studio audience. We really appreciate
first time call.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
And I really think the jurors were afraid to charge
her with anything more because they probably would have been
a harass for the rest.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
Of their lives.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (28:34):
And everybody else, well, I don't know that you have comments.
Go to parents. She had nice flow.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
She you know, she looks good. But I did I
did want to.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
I did want to comment quickly, go ahead, say right there.
We did in this survey. One of what we did
in the survey was we took a sample of people
that live in Canton. Now it's not a gigantic sample,
it's fifty four people out of that one. Ken is
a relatively small part of Norfolk County, right compared to
like Quinsy, for example, which is the largest. And the
(29:08):
results in Canton were generally the same as they were
everyone else, but much more I'd say the temperature was higher. So,
for example, ninety three percent of people in the whole
county know about the Karen Read case, but it's one
hundred percent of those fifty four people in Canton, obviously, right.
And if you ask people whether whether they believe, whether
(29:30):
they believe that the verdict should have been guilty overall
the whole county, it's five percent. In Canton it's twenty one.
And whether or not she was not guilty because she
was completely innocent, and the whole county it's fifty. In
Canton it's forty nine, so a little lower, but you
do have but you have zero percent of people.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
With to let it, let him finish, hold on, he
was just finishing his sentence. Go ahead, go ahead by.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
There in the in the full county, we had fifteen
percent of people that were unsure about the verdict in
the town of Cannon. Of those fifty four people we surveyed, zero,
literally not one of them said that they were unsure. Yeah, well,
it'll people either were guilty or not.
Speaker 5 (30:09):
Getting people like to jump on the bandwagon.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
All right, all right, Carol, thank you for your call.
I hope the interview more up and on other topics
as well, thank you, thank you all. Can I we'll
take a very quick break if you'd like to ask
Brian Won a question. We have some other really start
lead statistics which we can get to and we can
drill down them on them a little bit. Six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten
(30:35):
thirty O'Brien, it's it's amazing. You get two people who
have never called night Side before on this topic, a
law professor from Dallas.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
That's what this case does.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Yeah, well it's also what happens on this also what
happens on this this radio station. To be honest with you,
it has a tremendous reach and a lot of people.
I'd love to find out from Mike how he first
found WBS. We have a lot of what I would call,
you know at ex pats from New England who move
I have people in New Mexico and other states, far
(31:07):
flong states who stay in contact Alaska. I have listeners
that I know of in Alaska. But it didn't sound
to me like Mike necessarily had roots back here. So
I'll figure out. But it's it's an amazing radio station,
and this is an amazing story. So I'm not surprised.
We'll take a quick break if you'd like to ask
Brian win a question. He's the founder of Opinion Diagnostics,
(31:30):
and there are some statistics here which also portend the future,
and we'll get to those right after the break.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
My guess is Brian Wynn. He is the founder of
a new, well relatively new company, been around for a
couple of years, but he's been doing this for a
longer time. This company's called Indian Diagnostics. Was Opinion Diagnostics
found in twenty founded in twenty twenty three or was
it previous in his previous incarnation also Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Brian no, it was founded as Opinion Diagnostics in March
of twenty twenty three. So we just celebrated our second
anniversary about three months ago. But like I said, I've
been doing polling for fourteen years now.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Yeah, So in this situation, you're a founder and an
owner as opposed to someone who is working on a
campaign or someone who is a contract worker. So let's
go to some of these statistics which I think are interesting,
current former elected officials in Norfolk County's criminal justice system
have lost public support. Why don't we hit the three
(32:46):
I'm surprised that the judge is not held in higher repute.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Yeah, so only eighteen percent of eligible jurors approved of
Judge Beverly Cononi's handling of the case or job performance
on the case. And so we explained in advance what
just to make sure that sort of less informed people
understood that a judge was not the one making the
decision in a criminal case, it was a jury. We
(33:14):
explained what a judge did, and then we asked people whether,
based off their knowledge of the case they approved or disapproved.
That it was of people familiar with the case, it
was eighteen percent approved, in fifty four percent disapproved.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Well, you know, as a lawyer, I was critical of
Judge Canoni after the first case when the jury came
back and said that they were deadlocked. I firmly believe
that she should have asked a simple question, are you
deadlocked on all three counts? Or have you arrived at
a consensus and an agreement on any of the counts,
(33:46):
And if you believe what some of the jurors said,
she would have been acquitted on the murder indictment the
first time around, and also leaving the scene of an accident.
So I think that this jury was very similar by
the questions or asked, and a lot of the the
additional expense could have been avoided. Now her behavior, her
(34:11):
actions were upheld. They were not overturned by the s
JAC or by the US Supreme Court, which decided not
to grant Scherai. But I think the State Supreme Court
should have issued an advisory opinion that in cases where
there are multiple counts and the jury comes back and
says they are hung or they're deadlocked, or whatever terminology
(34:32):
they use, a judge should be required because partial vertics
are acceptable. You could have a partial vertical accounts one
and two or two in three three.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
To put a fine point on that. Alan Jackson said
in an interview earlier today that he believes he's the
first duo of defendant and defense attorney to be acquitted twice. Yeah, okay,
you've never seen never seen that ad I think you're
correct on that double jeopardy is institutionally protected or prohibited.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So yeah, well I think that that. Well, again, it's
tough to get sir, sure are with the US Supreme Court,
but I think the Massachusetts State Supreme Court missed an
opportunity to provide guidance for superior court judges. Okay, Massachusetts
State Police, once considered a top police agency, they're under
(35:24):
intense criticism. Three quarters of the people polled agree with
the decision to fire the lead investigator, who was on
television last night, I believe, with ABC saying what a
great job he had done. This fellow named Michael Proctor.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Correct. So that's seventy six percent agreed that he should
have been fired by the state Police. Only six percent
disagree with the remainder unsure. And then you know, sort
of just a startling indictment of his actions in this case.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yeah, and his behavior, and then of all the people
involved with his case, the biggest loser at this point
appears to be the district attorney, Mike Morrissey, who's up
for reelection in twenty twenty six. What did the numbers
show for the big incumbent district attorney?
Speaker 3 (36:14):
So for me, someone that had worked in politics, these
might be the most startling numbers in the entire poll.
So we asked, remember this was all eligible jurors, and
you don't need to be registered to vote to be
a juror, but you do need to be over the
age of eighteen and a United States citizen. So about
ninety five percent of the individuals that took this survey
(36:35):
or are registered voters, so they would be eligible to
vote in twenty twenty six. And we asked just that
ninety five percent of the survey respondents whether or not
Michael Morrissey had performed his job well enough as Norfolk
County District Attorney to deserve reelection or is it time
to give a new person a chance? Four percent said
he deserves reelection, sixty percent said it's time to give
(36:58):
a new person a chance. Is pretty standard wording I
use in questions in political surveys I do for my
clients and have used this wording for probably the better
part of the last eight or nine years, and never
have I seen results that are within twenty points of this.
You know, there are individuals that are elected officials under
indictment that probably have better numbers for their deserves re
(37:18):
election than Mike Morrissey does.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Right now, Wow, wow, I would I'm look, yeah, politicians
have to have to read polls, and I'm sure that
he is. I don't think he'll run for re election.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
And here here's his big his big problem is, if
you are a Democrat, eight percent believe he deserves reelection,
in fifty three percent believe in your person deserve I
should have a chance. Now, he already has Democratic primary
opponents that have already announced in a running against him.
So how he wins the Democratic primary is beyond me.
And then even if he were to make it to
(37:58):
a general election, only about three and a half percent
of all the Republicans and independence combined believe he deserves reelection,
and so how he would win against a Republican and
a general election is beyond me. I saw here he
issued a four word statement earlier today something to the
effect of the jury has spoken, or the jurors have
spoken to me, is you know, putting back my head
(38:20):
as a political strategist, I don't. That to me seems
like a resignation that his term is as district attorney
is over, and I think these poll results.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Bear that out.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah, that's waving the white flag, that is for sure
in my opinion, Brian, I love this hour and we'll
do it again. I really thank you for this. I
think people have learned a lot and it's an amazing
poll and I think people should go find it and
look at it Opiniondiagnostics dot com and they will find
(38:53):
it pretty easily on the website. I assume it's highlighted
on your website tonight.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
Top top of the website tonight, canvass it ro.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
I really enjoyed the conversation today and also our hour tonight.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
We will talk and thank you to you and your
listeners really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Absolutely great hour. Thank you so much. All Right,
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, I think that all of us by now know
the legal result in the criminal case, the criminal case
against Karen Reid. Yesterday she was acquitted on all of
the serious charges, including a murder to manslaughter and also
(00:31):
leaving the scene of an accident. She was convicted on
operating under the influence, which was the least of the charges.
So I think all of us know that story. But
I saw this morning a survey of Norfolk County eligible
drawers which was conducted I guess overnight with us now
(00:57):
is the pollster who did this poll, Brian Win. He
is with a polling company called Opinion Diagnostics. Brian, the
results of the poll are to me very surprising. I
don't know if you had the same reaction. But before
we go to the poll, tell us about Opinion Diagnostic.
(01:17):
You're a Massachusetts based polling and market research firm. How
long you've been around, and we'll talk a little bit
about the methods that you use to conduct this poll.
Right after the jury came down with their decision, So
let's talk about opinion. First of all, Welcome, Brian. Let's
talk about your company, Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Welcome well, thanks thanks Dan for having me and thanks
for letting me share this survey and the results with
your listeners. So Opinion Diagnostics is a polling firm. I
started back in twenty twenty three, but before that had
done polling and political consulting for a variety of clients
(01:58):
over the course of fifteen years. And they've been in
Massachusetts now for really since two thousand and eight. I
actually came up here for college at Boston College and
never left. I had the opportunity along the way to
do work in politics and masters usets. I moved up
here originally to work for Governor Baker on his first
camp or his second campaign, his first winning campaign in
(02:20):
twenty fourteen. I had the opportunity to serve as the
executive director of the mass Use Republican Party and then
as Governor Baker's campaign manager in twenty eighteen. Politics and
public policy for a long time here in mass but
now I'm a full time poster.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Do you do polling for a commercial industry, businesses as
well or as it all political?
Speaker 3 (02:41):
So it breaks into three different categories. The first is political,
the second is more of traditional market research for corporations,
and then there's sort of the intersection of those things,
which are issues of public policy that oftentimes are either
solving that for business or elected officials or for just
sort of good governments organizations to figure out how to
(03:03):
how they should work with and address the problems that
they have when talking to the electorate.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Okay, one of the things that I stress with polsters
who I respect, and I certainly respect seeing what you
did on this ball, but with people like Dave Paleologus
who's been a friend for many years, Spencer Kimball, David Suffolk,
Spencer Kimball at Emerson, and when people are skeptical of polsters,
(03:27):
I always always explain to them that it is in
the interest of a polster to first and foremost be accurate.
They're almost like the equivalent of a baseball umpire. I mean,
the baseball umpire doesn't really care if it's a strike
or a ball. But if it's you know, three feet
(03:48):
off the plate and they call it a strike, or
if it's right down the middle and they call it
a ball, they're not going to be an umpire very
long anywhere. And the same way with polsters. So you
went into this last night obviously in the hours after
the verdicts came down to the Karen Reid case, and
(04:10):
you tell us what you did. You reached out to
a lot of people, and so I think the quality
of this poll was done properly. The results to me
are kind of surprising. So let's talk about the procedure
that you employed last night around this time.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Sure, so I've done more than four hundred poles in
Massachusetts over the years, and so I'm well versed and
experienced and how to conduct these in this state. This
poll was interesting because of how quickly I wanted to
be able to move on it. So this was drafted
and ready to go and ready to go at a
moment's notice. And we sort of had the false alarm
(04:51):
on Tuesday when it seemed like the jury might reach
a verdict on Tuesday night after those jury questions, and
so was ready to go on Tuesday night, but ultimately
when in the field on Wednesday night, this poll was
available for respondents to take from five pm until eleven
to fifty nine pm. The people we wanted to survey
were eligible jurors in Norfolk County, which to be an
(05:11):
eligible juror in Norfolk County. You need to be a
United States citizen, you need to be over the age
of eighteen, and you need to be able to reasonably
understand English. And we targeted individuals with the survey that
we sent the survey to that we thought met those criteria.
But we also confirm thatt during the course of the survey.
So ultimately we selected out of the five hundred and
thirty five thousand people in Norfolk County that meet that
(05:34):
criteria to serve as a juror. We selected seventy thousand
of those individuals in a random sample that we thought
we would reach out to. Every one of those seventy
thousand individuals received a text message last night, and in fact,
I know that many of your listeners probably live in
Norfolk County and a lot of them probably received this
text message ask to them to take the survey. Ultimately,
one hundred and seventy people that met the criteria did
(05:56):
in fact take the survey. And to add extra confidence,
every person that received the text message had a unique
alpha numeric code in it to make sure that you
couldn't share the survey. If two people took the survey
with the same code, we could see that, and we
could flag that. And in fact, normally when we do surveys,
maybe three to five people share the survey say, you know,
(06:16):
theyfore the text message to a friend, or they post
on social media. In this case, this was the largest
number I've ever seen. There was one hundred and sixty
one duplicate responses, and I could tell from the responses
that somebody had posted it on social media. Now we
consider those results to be unscientific because we're trying to
take a random sample of the eligible jurors in Norfolk County.
So we discarded those one hundred and sixty one responses.
(06:38):
So this is one one hundred and seventy responses from
people that we have a high degree of confidence that
they are eligible to service jurors, that it was individuals
that we affirmatively contacted and so have a lot of confidence.
And overall, this survey has a margin of error plus
and minus two point nine percent. So any number that
I quote tonight, that's the top line number. We could
think that number could be plus three minus three roughly,
(07:02):
but somewhere in that range. With ninety five percent confidence,
what prompted.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
You to be poised and ready to do this poll.
Obviously you thought about it ahead of time. This wasn't
a spur of the moment poll, I assume, And if
I'm asking a business question to which you cannot answer,
I'm assuming you did not do this at the behest
of anyone other than your own idea. Here, there's no
(07:28):
political candidate who wanted this poll done. There's no lawyers,
defense lawyers, prosecutors, nothing, No one sponsored the poll.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Correct, Correct, there's no sponsor in this poll. This was
something that I decided to do and that our firm
decided to do ourselves because we had interest in the
case and.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Thought that it would be interesting to share everybody had
interest in this case.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, And frankly, we thought that we were sort of
uniquely qualified to move quickly and get the data and
get it out into the ecosystem. And so this was
something we did not at the behest of anyone. But
I will say my phone has been ringing off the
hook today with these results.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Absolutely, we're going to get to the results. I think
they're surprising. Uh, without exposing we'll get to the results
right after the break. Were you surprised by the by
some of the results I.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Had suspicions that a majority of people would be sort
of in favor of Karen Reid uh and think that
she was innocent. But the numbers and how large that
those numbers were were somewhat startling to make.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Yeah, and that's that's what we're going to talk about.
My guest is Brian Winn. He runs a company called
Opinion Diagnostics, been around for about three years, uh, and
it is it's making an impact tonight with this pole
fascinating results. We're going to go to the numbers, and
then I'm going to ask all of you to We'll
do a little poll of some of you if you'd
(08:53):
like to talk to a pollster. Six one seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one seven, nine, ten thirty. I'm fascinating
by polls, know a lot of pollsters. I find that
most pollsters are much more accurate that we give them
credit for. And you can be the judge of that
when we get some of the numbers for you. Right
after the break, you have the phone numbers. Those are
(09:14):
the most important one numbers six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six seven. Coming right back on Night Side
with my guest Brian Winn of Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
So let's go to the top line here. My guest
on the line with us right now is the owner,
the founder of Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And this is a polling firm that that is is
going to have a pretty big footprint. Brian Winn is
his name, uh, and going to have a very big footprint.
Founded twenty twenty three, but it has been around for
a while even before that. So amongst this the group
of pollsters of people who you pulled the quote unquote
eligible jurors and you feel this is within a margin
(10:12):
of era of a little less than three percent. What
percentage felt read was guilty?
Speaker 3 (10:21):
So we asked people. Uh. So we read to people
right after the verdict in case they hadn't seen it.
We told them what the verdict was, which is that
she had been acquitted of numerous charges, but she had
been convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence
of liquor commonly known as OUI. When we asked people, first,
you believe the jury reached the correct verdict? So acquittal
on a manslaughter but conviction on Oui. And of people
(10:46):
that were familiar with the trial, which was ninety three
percent of all jurors in Norfolk County said that they
were familiar with the trial. So of that ninety three percent,
seventy percent said yes, the jury had reached the correct verdict,
compared to only eleven percent that said no.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
And by the way, you didn't ask them about murder.
It looks to me as if you asked them about manslaughter,
and I did.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
And the reason for that is what we got to
in the next in the next two questions. And so
the first question we asked is if for if on
the manslaughter charge, right, because her Oui was a lesser
included of the manslaughter charge.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yep, right.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
So the question was how close was the jury to
finding her guilty of one of the higher of those
lesser included charges. They found her guilty of the lowest
of the lesser included charge. And so we asked people,
should she have been found guilty of manslaughter or should
she have been found not guilty because you have reasonable
doubts but she might have committed the crime, but you
(11:44):
have reasonable doubts or should she have been found not
guilty because she's totally innocent of that crime. And among
the people that were familiar with the trial, only six
percent thought that she should have been found guilty because
she committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, compared to
fifty four percent that said she should be found out
guilty because she's totally innocent. So a majority of people
(12:05):
familiar with this trial, fifty four percent say that she
is totally innocent, not even that she's innocent because of
a reasonable doubt, which is another twenty four percent on
top of that.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah, that gets you to that gets you to three
quarters of the respondents would have would have voted to
acquit on manslaughter and sixteen percent are unsure. And I'm
sure the people who were unsure if they were in
a jury room. Boy, that is a stunning number to me.
I don't think she was guilty of manslaughter. I think
(12:34):
the case was overcharged, But I still think that that
there's a certain number of people who are going to
be always influenced by the present presentation of the government,
and the government obviously they didn't have a chance of
going into this this trial in my opinion.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Oh not not at all. And the last top line
that we asked, and this goes to the presentation of
the government and the evidence that they showed to the jury.
We tried to predict what Norfolk County jurors would do
in the upcoming civil trial. Remember, Karen Reid is still
going to have a civil trial. That's a wrongful death lawsuit,
and the standard, as many people probably know, is different
(13:16):
in a civil trial. It's preponderance of the evidence. Is
it more likely than not that Karen Reid is liable
for the wrongful death of John o'keef. And we asked
people did they think that the preponderance of evidence showed
that she was liable or did the preponderance of evidence
not show that she is liable? And seventy three percent
said that based off the information that they knew, that
the preponderance of evidence showed that she was not liable
(13:39):
for the death of John o'keef. And so with that
in mind, it is incredibly difficult to imagine how a
wrongful death lawsuit is going to proceed given just the
evidence that we have, and presumably at this point, through
multiple years and two different trials, and all the things
that weren't presented a trial, but were sort of known
from outside of it without any additional information coming out.
(13:59):
To start off with, roughly three quarters of everyone familiar
with this case and roughly sixty eight percent of every
person that's in eligible jur in Northfook County thinking that
the evidence that current that currently exists is not enough
evidence to find her liable of ronful death.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Yeah, and it's it's it's almost a ten to one ratio.
Sixty eight percent feel that the preponderance evidence does not
prove liability. Seven percent think that does. That's a ten
to one sixty eight to seven, you know, sixty.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Eight Put that into statistical terms if you were trying
to find it. And jury selection is not a random process, right,
As people remember, in the beginning of the care and
Reed trial, they went through many, many jurors to find
jurors that they were impartial. Almost ninety percent of the
jurors said that they were familiar with the case during
jury selection, but they tried to find jurors that were impartial.
(14:52):
So if you were to say, need I need to
randomly select twelve people from Norfolk County to be on
a jury in a civil trial, wrongful death, and what
are the odds that is sixty eight percent of all
the people in Norfolk County think that she is totally
that the propondence of the evidence shows that she is
not liable. What are the chances of getting twelve people
in a row? And if you do the mathm that
(15:14):
it's a one in eight hundred and sixty nine thousand
chants that a randomly selected jury would have twelve people
that think that the propondence the evidence either shows that
she is liable or that are unsure or just don't
know about the case. So one in eight hundred and
sixty nine thousand chance.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, there's another question that you highlight. Amongst eligible jurors
familiar with the case, sixty four percent believed that John
O'Keefe was killed by someone else.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Well, and that's that's truly the crux of this right,
And so the next section of this poll, after those
the verdicts and what people would do with their jurorsey
is what do they believe about the facts of the case.
And when you get into the facts of the case,
the one that is maybe the most startling, and it's
it's the largest is sixty four percent like you said,
believe John o'keeith was killed by someone other than Karen Reid.
(16:08):
And so that sort of is the reason why you
would think that she that these jurors would not see
the preponderance of evidence of her being liable. You know,
the preponderance of evidence standard, which is lower, not going
to be You're not going to beat that standard of
sixty four percent of people believe that someone else killed them.
(16:29):
How can you say that she's liable for his death
when sixty four percent of people believe that someone else
killed them. And it goes down from there. Sixty three
percent of these of these eligible jurors believe that evidence
was planted to help ensure that Karen Reid was found guilty,
and sixty one percent believe that some of the injuries
on John o'keeith's body were caused by a dog.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
And the dog that is in question is the dog
that was in the house.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
So presumably that would be the dog that's in the house.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah, not some dog was out for a midnight stroll.
Eleven percent, again a starkly different number, believe that some
of the injuries were caused by a vehicle, and only
nine percent nine percent believe that the investigation was full
(17:19):
and fair.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
Yeah, that vehicle number is startling, because really, what the
second trial came down to was are the injuries on
John o'keith's body caused by a dog or are they
caused in a vehicle? Right, And that's sort of the
central argument between the prosecution and the defense, and so
who wins that argument? Well, sixty one percent believe that
the injuries are caused by a dog and eleven percent
(17:41):
believe they're caused by the vehicle. And so if you're
looking at the witnesses that testified and having read some
of the insights from the jurors today that have done
media interviews during the course of today, the jurors believe
that the injuries were caused by a dog, and most
of them had serious doubt that there is a vehicle involved.
And some of them say that they are completely certain
(18:03):
there is no vehicle involved. And it seems to reflect
the data that this survey showed.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Okay, now we got to take a break here for
the news at the bob of the hour. But there's
some other questions that I think are very important, both
retroactively and prospectively. I'll get to those next, and I'll
also invite callers to join the conversation. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
(18:30):
This is I don't know if any other poll that
was done this quickly following of jury verdict in such
a high profile trial. This never was done, I believe,
in the in the wake of the OJ Simpson trial
or any other trial that I can think of. But
this is amazing because this really does show what jurors
(18:55):
or potential jurors, the group of jurors from which were
chosen feel about this case literally the day and the
day after, the day, the evening of the verdict. So
these are these are I think amazing numbers, and I
think it was a brilliant idea to run this poll.
And we'll talk more about it, and I'd love to
(19:17):
have some of you join the conversation. We're back on
Nightside right after the news at the bottom of the.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Hour's Boston's News Radio. It's Night Side with Dan Ray,
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
My guest here tonight is the founder and the owner
of a company called Opinion Diagnostics. Diagnostics Brian Wynn has
done what I considered to be an amazing poll of
Norfolk potential Norfolk County jurors. These are people who would
be eligible for the jury pool from which the Karen
(19:58):
Reid jury was chosen. Now what I want to do, Brian,
is I got some phone calls here already, so I
want to go to at least one or two, and
then I want to get back to other conclusions that
this poll has drawn, and I want to ask some questions.
In the meantime, let me start it off with Mike
in Dallas, Texas. Mike, welcome to Nightside. I don't know
(20:21):
if ever had the pleasure of your company here on
Nightside before. How are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (20:25):
No, Dan, I'm a first time call or long time
listener ever since I was a child in Buffalo, New York.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Come on, so you're a run of applause to you, Mike.
We do have listeners in Texas, so you're not the
first listener from Texas. But I thank you very much
for listening to us down there and calling and calling
us tonight. What question or comment would you like to make?
We have Brian Winn with us, who's in charge of
this company that conducted the poll, Opinion Diagnostics, So.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
My question is this in a soivil trial. Of course,
if she will have to give a deposition, she will
have to testify in a civil trial. And I'm curious, Brian,
as to whether your survey revealed anything about how the
public views Karen Reid as a person, whether that dynamic
(21:18):
will actually maybe change the results or change the opinion
of people as to whether they're going to give her
a clean bill of health in a civil case.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Brother, if I could mike real quickly, you sound like
you're a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
Actually, wow, I'm a law professor.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
How about that? Huh? What law school? If I could,
I'm a lawyer, as you probably know if you listen,
I'm going to BEU Law School, Boston University Law School graduate.
Do you teach? So?
Speaker 4 (21:48):
I teach to the University of North Texas at Dallas.
We're a young law school. We've been around for eleven years,
but I practiced law for thirty four years before I
entered the academy.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Wow, boy, well, congratulations, you're uh, you're sort of from
my generation. That again, the reason I was able to
take a pretty good guess at that, as you sound
like a lawyer, and uh, and take that as a
compliment because she's coming from one lawyer to another. A
great question. Uh, Brian, would you take a shot at
Mike's question.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Sure, I'm not sure that my survey answers your question
beyond the fact that if people truly believed that he
was killed by someone else, or that evidence was planted,
or that these injuries were caused by a dog, and
they find that she is, you know, totally innocent of
the crime of which she was which she was accused
(22:42):
in this in the criminal case, I don't know how,
even even if she comes off as the worst human
being in the world, how a jury could find her
liable if in a civil case, if they truly believe
that she was sort of uninvolved in always in this case,
what I can tell you was, having read some of
the stories shared by the jurors today, I think I
(23:03):
saw the two jurors and an alternate juror at least
as of nine PM, and done interviews and one of
the jury's and I'll share this this is sort of
outside the survey, but the juror said, when she walked in,
she thought that she thought that she was not going
to like Karen Reid. She thought that she sort of
got the wrong vibe from Karen Reid, and during the
course of the trial, the juror said that her read
(23:25):
on Karen Reid changed to be somebody that was fighting
for her life and had been put in an impossible position,
and she grew to admire her. So that's the words
of one juror. I can't speak to any other random
juror in any other case, but maybe a small case
study of how people might see her. Now, remember people
didn't hear from her because she didn't testify in this case,
(23:48):
but the prosecution played all of the clips from her
HBO documentary. And I'll just say this is this is
my personal view on it. I watched the HBO documentary
when it came out a few months ago. I didn't
think Karen Reid came off particularly well in that documentary.
I don't think she came off as particularly likable. And
that's just that's just sort of my personal opinion. And
(24:10):
so that's that's the Karen Reid that that jury was
presented with the one that was in the HBO documentary.
They you know, her in person in a civil trial
might be far better than that.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
You know, I'm someone who believes that sometimes in the
quote of public opinion, you can influence the judicial system,
as I think I was able to do in the
Joe Salvati case, the Salviati Lamoni case up here, which
some of you in my audience I know still remember.
But I think it was a still a fundamental mistake
(24:43):
to have her go on television, you know, because those
those audio clips were used against her, and it might
have been that those audio clips if she hadn't gone on,
maybe she would have swept the table. Let me ask, Mike,
the law school professor, would you have allowed Karen Reid
(25:05):
to go on television? I think she was on Dateline
and maybe a couple of other shows in advance of
that second trial.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
I watched the show The Body in the Snow. I
would never in a million years have her done those interviews.
I think she came across very poorly. I think she
made admissions against interest, and I think it was a
terrible strategic mistake. But in the end, I guess it
just didn't matter.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, yeah, and wait, we're gonna have some other statistics here, Mike.
I'm honored that you called. I truly mean that, and
I hope that you'll call more often. If you get
up to Boston, give me a call. We'll grab a coffee.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
I'd like that very much. Have a good evening, gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Thanks Mike. Send me an email so I can be
in touch. I'll have no giving direct.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
How do I get your email?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
You hold on here and I'm going to have no
give you my direct line and my email. No, we'll
give the professor Mike, who shall have forever been known
as Professor Mike here on Nightside, my email in my
and my direct phone number. Okay, don't hang up, Mike.
You just all right. They'll take care of that. Let's
get another call for you. Brian here, and we're going
(26:15):
to get a little closer to home. We're going to
go directly to the to the heart of this Canton
Carol from Canton. Hi, Carol, welcome to Nightside.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
How are you, Hi, Dan, Thank you for having me,
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Very much for calling you. Brian Winny, they had to
Brian win He is a ban a really good pusson.
Speaker 5 (26:35):
I'm disgusted. I'm disgusted by the all because I am
one of the very few that believe carried it is
totally guilty of what she's charged what's not second degree murder,
but the hictil homicide would have been good. I don't
think there's any third party. His friends beating him up, sorry,
(27:00):
out in the yard. I don't believe those dog bites.
I have three, you know, four dogs, and I know
what dog bites look like. And I'm just I'm just
really upset with the whole with the whole thing, really
am I just wanted to be down and I don't
want to be seep ink anymore.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Well, I'd like to ask you, Carol, Can I ask
you what? Carol? Can I ask you one question? What
amongst your friends in Canton? The town itself has been
its battered from pillar a house here in many in
many respects, what is the feeling amongst your friends? Realizing
(27:38):
that probably most of the people who are your friends
are going to be people who somewhat.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Agree with you, We're very divided, very divided. Some of
my family agree with me, so my family doesn't. I
have a bet with a friend and now I owever
her dinner, Well.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Do make make sure it's a friendly dinner and don't
let her rub it in.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
Okay, yeah, yeah, the way that people don't do that
in Canton. We don't beat up each other and throw them.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
And I have a lot of friends. I have a
lot of friends in Canton, and it's a good town.
Have you called before? This is your first call, This is
my first call. We want to give you a round
of applause too, our digital studio audience. We really appreciate
first time call.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
And I really think the jurors were afraid to charge
her with anything more because they probably would have been
a harass for the rest.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
Of their lives.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (28:34):
And everybody else, well, I don't know that you have comments.
Go to parents. She had nice flow.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
She you know, she looks good. But I did I
did want to.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
I did want to comment quickly, go ahead, say right there.
We did in this survey. One of what we did
in the survey was we took a sample of people
that live in Canton. Now it's not a gigantic sample,
it's fifty four people out of that one. Ken is
a relatively small part of Norfolk County, right compared to
like Quinsy, for example, which is the largest. And the
(29:08):
results in Canton were generally the same as they were
everyone else, but much more I'd say the temperature was higher. So,
for example, ninety three percent of people in the whole
county know about the Karen Read case, but it's one
hundred percent of those fifty four people in Canton, obviously, right.
And if you ask people whether whether they believe, whether
(29:30):
they believe that the verdict should have been guilty overall
the whole county, it's five percent. In Canton it's twenty one.
And whether or not she was not guilty because she
was completely innocent, and the whole county it's fifty. In
Canton it's forty nine, so a little lower, but you
do have but you have zero percent of people.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
With to let it, let him finish, hold on, he
was just finishing his sentence. Go ahead, go ahead by.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
There in the in the full county, we had fifteen
percent of people that were unsure about the verdict in
the town of Cannon. Of those fifty four people we surveyed, zero,
literally not one of them said that they were unsure. Yeah, well,
it'll people either were guilty or not.
Speaker 5 (30:09):
Getting people like to jump on the bandwagon.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
All right, all right, Carol, thank you for your call.
I hope the interview more up and on other topics
as well, thank you, thank you all. Can I we'll
take a very quick break if you'd like to ask
Brian Won a question. We have some other really start
lead statistics which we can get to and we can
drill down them on them a little bit. Six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten
(30:35):
thirty O'Brien, it's it's amazing. You get two people who
have never called night Side before on this topic, a
law professor from Dallas.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
That's what this case does.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Yeah, well it's also what happens on this also what
happens on this this radio station. To be honest with you,
it has a tremendous reach and a lot of people.
I'd love to find out from Mike how he first
found WBS. We have a lot of what I would call,
you know at ex pats from New England who move
I have people in New Mexico and other states, far
(31:07):
flong states who stay in contact Alaska. I have listeners
that I know of in Alaska. But it didn't sound
to me like Mike necessarily had roots back here. So
I'll figure out. But it's it's an amazing radio station,
and this is an amazing story. So I'm not surprised.
We'll take a quick break if you'd like to ask
Brian win a question. He's the founder of Opinion Diagnostics,
(31:30):
and there are some statistics here which also portend the future,
and we'll get to those right after the break.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
My guess is Brian Wynn. He is the founder of
a new, well relatively new company, been around for a
couple of years, but he's been doing this for a
longer time. This company's called Indian Diagnostics. Was Opinion Diagnostics
found in twenty founded in twenty twenty three or was
it previous in his previous incarnation also Opinion Diagnostics.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Brian no, it was founded as Opinion Diagnostics in March
of twenty twenty three. So we just celebrated our second
anniversary about three months ago. But like I said, I've
been doing polling for fourteen years now.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Yeah, So in this situation, you're a founder and an
owner as opposed to someone who is working on a
campaign or someone who is a contract worker. So let's
go to some of these statistics which I think are interesting,
current former elected officials in Norfolk County's criminal justice system
have lost public support. Why don't we hit the three
(32:46):
I'm surprised that the judge is not held in higher repute.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Yeah, so only eighteen percent of eligible jurors approved of
Judge Beverly Cononi's handling of the case or job performance
on the case. And so we explained in advance what
just to make sure that sort of less informed people
understood that a judge was not the one making the
decision in a criminal case, it was a jury. We
(33:14):
explained what a judge did, and then we asked people whether,
based off their knowledge of the case they approved or disapproved.
That it was of people familiar with the case, it
was eighteen percent approved, in fifty four percent disapproved.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Well, you know, as a lawyer, I was critical of
Judge Canoni after the first case when the jury came
back and said that they were deadlocked. I firmly believe
that she should have asked a simple question, are you
deadlocked on all three counts? Or have you arrived at
a consensus and an agreement on any of the counts,
(33:46):
And if you believe what some of the jurors said,
she would have been acquitted on the murder indictment the
first time around, and also leaving the scene of an accident.
So I think that this jury was very similar by
the questions or asked, and a lot of the the
additional expense could have been avoided. Now her behavior, her
(34:11):
actions were upheld. They were not overturned by the s
JAC or by the US Supreme Court, which decided not
to grant Scherai. But I think the State Supreme Court
should have issued an advisory opinion that in cases where
there are multiple counts and the jury comes back and
says they are hung or they're deadlocked, or whatever terminology
(34:32):
they use, a judge should be required because partial vertics
are acceptable. You could have a partial vertical accounts one
and two or two in three three.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
To put a fine point on that. Alan Jackson said
in an interview earlier today that he believes he's the
first duo of defendant and defense attorney to be acquitted twice. Yeah, okay,
you've never seen never seen that ad I think you're
correct on that double jeopardy is institutionally protected or prohibited.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So yeah, well I think that that. Well, again, it's
tough to get sir, sure are with the US Supreme Court,
but I think the Massachusetts State Supreme Court missed an
opportunity to provide guidance for superior court judges. Okay, Massachusetts
State Police, once considered a top police agency, they're under
(35:24):
intense criticism. Three quarters of the people polled agree with
the decision to fire the lead investigator, who was on
television last night, I believe, with ABC saying what a
great job he had done. This fellow named Michael Proctor.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Correct. So that's seventy six percent agreed that he should
have been fired by the state Police. Only six percent
disagree with the remainder unsure. And then you know, sort
of just a startling indictment of his actions in this case.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yeah, and his behavior, and then of all the people
involved with his case, the biggest loser at this point
appears to be the district attorney, Mike Morrissey, who's up
for reelection in twenty twenty six. What did the numbers
show for the big incumbent district attorney?
Speaker 3 (36:14):
So for me, someone that had worked in politics, these
might be the most startling numbers in the entire poll.
So we asked, remember this was all eligible jurors, and
you don't need to be registered to vote to be
a juror, but you do need to be over the
age of eighteen and a United States citizen. So about
ninety five percent of the individuals that took this survey
(36:35):
or are registered voters, so they would be eligible to
vote in twenty twenty six. And we asked just that
ninety five percent of the survey respondents whether or not
Michael Morrissey had performed his job well enough as Norfolk
County District Attorney to deserve reelection or is it time
to give a new person a chance? Four percent said
he deserves reelection, sixty percent said it's time to give
(36:58):
a new person a chance. Is pretty standard wording I
use in questions in political surveys I do for my
clients and have used this wording for probably the better
part of the last eight or nine years, and never
have I seen results that are within twenty points of this.
You know, there are individuals that are elected officials under
indictment that probably have better numbers for their deserves re
(37:18):
election than Mike Morrissey does.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Right now, Wow, wow, I would I'm look, yeah, politicians
have to have to read polls, and I'm sure that
he is. I don't think he'll run for re election.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
And here here's his big his big problem is, if
you are a Democrat, eight percent believe he deserves reelection,
in fifty three percent believe in your person deserve I
should have a chance. Now, he already has Democratic primary
opponents that have already announced in a running against him.
So how he wins the Democratic primary is beyond me.
And then even if he were to make it to
(37:58):
a general election, only about three and a half percent
of all the Republicans and independence combined believe he deserves reelection,
and so how he would win against a Republican and
a general election is beyond me. I saw here he
issued a four word statement earlier today something to the
effect of the jury has spoken, or the jurors have
spoken to me, is you know, putting back my head
(38:20):
as a political strategist, I don't. That to me seems
like a resignation that his term is as district attorney
is over, and I think these poll results.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Bear that out.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah, that's waving the white flag, that is for sure
in my opinion, Brian, I love this hour and we'll
do it again. I really thank you for this. I
think people have learned a lot and it's an amazing
poll and I think people should go find it and
look at it Opiniondiagnostics dot com and they will find
(38:53):
it pretty easily on the website. I assume it's highlighted
on your website tonight.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
Top top of the website tonight, canvass it ro.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
I really enjoyed the conversation today and also our hour tonight.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
We will talk and thank you to you and your
listeners really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Absolutely great hour. Thank you so much. All Right,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.