June 18, 2025 • 36 mins
After 21 hours of deliberations, the jury in the Karen Read murder trial found Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend John O’Keefe. However, the jury did find Read guilty of OUI, which was a lesser charge that was added to the verdict slip for the second trial. Judge Beverly Cannone sentenced Read to one year probation after the verdict was announced. Read will be sentenced at a later court date. CBS Boston’s Kristina Rex joined us to kick off the conversation about Karen Read’s acquittal!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's nice with Ray. I'm doing you easy Bondon's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Thank you, Madison Well. Tonight is kind of a different
night on Night Side because it was a very interesting
day here in Boston. We had four guests lined up,
but we have moved them out of the way tonight
because there is one story in Boston, and that is
the Karen Reid trial. It finished today. I think all
of you probably know at this point that she was
(00:28):
acquitted on the most serious charges she has been convicted
on operating under and we have a program lined up
for you tonight. Most of you are going to be
the stars of the show because you'll have an opportunity
to call in in all four hours. Normally in this
hour we don't take phone calls. My name's Dan Ray Im.
The host of the show, Rob Brooks is back in
(00:49):
the control room. He's all set. And of course, if
you anyone anywhere near a radio, television, some sort of
a computer or cell phone, you found out sometimes this
afternoon that Karen Reid has been acquitted of the most
serious charges that she has faced. Now twice. Jury cleared
her of the murder charge, the manslaun charge, and the
(01:14):
leaving a scene of an accident in charge. She was
convicted on operating under the influence and for that she
will be on probation for a year and also lose
her license, her right to operate. We are delighted to
be joined by WBZTV's Christina Rex who had covered this trial. Also, Christina,
besides being a great reporter at WBC, is also just
(01:34):
finished up at the New England School of Law. And
now you're all set, I think, Christina for the bar
exam in July. Certainly, any questions dealing with criminal law,
I know you're going to ace. How are you tonight?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Thank you for having me, Daniel. I certainly got a
front row feet to criminal procedure and criminal law. So
I beg you to take some time to study the rest.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah right, get everything outside of you can fall becused
on that. The UCC is of course very important to
remember that one.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Yeah, I gotta get on that.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yeah, that's that's easy. That's that's Oh god, a nightmare?
Is that? That stuff made of? Nightmare? Nightmare time? Anyway,
So you were in the courtroom for this trial, you
also did you also covered for the first for the
first trial, I.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
Did, I did.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
I've been here since the pre trial hearings ahead of
the first trial the whole time.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Okay, how would you, for the lay person characterize the
defense in the first trial which ended in a hung jury,
and the defense in this trial, which ended successfully for
the defendant except for the misdemeanor charge of driving under Yeah,
(02:47):
that's on.
Speaker 5 (02:47):
The first trial.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
In the first trial, as you know, the defense had
no burden of proof. But in the first trial, the
defense really chose to focus on its own narratives, own
version of events, and try and convince the of what happened.
The defense in the first trial tried to convince the
jury that John O'Keefe went into the house in Canton
that night, was beaten by any combination of three men,
(03:10):
attacked by a dog, his body later dragged out onto
the front lawn, and then Karen Reid framed for the crime.
They did not go that far in the second trial.
The second trial was focused much more on a substandard
police investigation and mostly on the fastpat According to the defense,
there was no collision. I mean, the majority of defense
(03:30):
witnesses were expert witnesses and they really spent the large
majority of their time discrediting any prosecution witnesses who alleged
that there was a collision. So the focus of the
second trial was, you know, there was no car crash,
so it was much simpler than the first.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
I'm sure the confusion in the first All of a sudden,
the defense lawyers in effect are in effect becoming a
second team of prosecutors. I mean, Andrew Lally was prosecuting
Karen Reid, and her defense lawyers were trying to prosecute
people who may or may not have been in the courtroom,
but they were not at the defense bar, so that
(04:07):
had to be confusing.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Did you have a sense, Yeah, I did feel like that.
I did feel like that at time.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Did you have a sense at this trial that it
had gone better? I thought that the videotape that Karen
Reid had done with a number of television networks was
tough on the defense, and I thought that actually was
something that could have could have hurt her more more
(04:33):
badly than the apparently it did. But what was your thought,
again before the verdict came in today about her I
don't understand how her lawyers would have allowed her to
do those interviews, because obviously they came back. I don't
think they were helpful, but the ray hips alogue of
the results speaks for itself. They got acquittals here. I
(04:57):
still don't understand why she why she did Now is
the time to do whatever television interviews she wants to do.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I think so. The thing about those clips that were played,
the large majority of them were from a documentary series
that was shot over the course of the first trial,
and it became pretty clear watching that series and also
watching the behind the scenes of it all, that Karen
Reid and her team did that series expecting an acquittal.
(05:25):
So you know, you can imagine that those statements were
given so freely because Karen Reid and her team probably
didn't imagine they'd be brought back to court again and
faced with those statements in front of the jury. And
I think you make a good point. You know a
lot of people have said the defense did a better
job this time. So did the prosecution. I mean, Hank Brennan,
(05:45):
the special prosecutor, played one of those media clips, a
relevant portion of a media clip after every like category
of testimonies. So drunk driving testimony boom, there's an interview
of Karen Reid talking about three days driving. You know,
they really would have hurt her, but clearly didn't.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yeah, it's a fascinating case. The other question is I
wonder if Alan Jackson miscalculated in the first trial. He's
sort of He's a California lawyer, and Massachusetts coatrooms have
often not been have not treated out of state lawyers
as well as they treat homegrown lawyers.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I think you might be read about that. And you've seen,
I mean, anybody who's watched knows that there's been a
good bit of tension between Alan Jackson and Judge Canoni,
to the point where there was one one period where
she nearly revoked his pro host VJ status to be
able to try this case. So, you know, that was
(06:50):
a criticism from the first trial that maybe he kind
of brought a California flash and storytelling that the jury
didn't jive with. But at the end of the day,
the jury was hung. But we don't really know, you know,
but he certainly was more toned down this time around.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Yeah. I was reminded today by a friend of mine
who's a former Superior Court judge that Judge Canone at
heart was a defense lawyer, public defender, and her dad
before her had been a public defender because I sensed
that she was not happy with I didn't spend a
lot of time watching the case, but that she was
(07:30):
not happy with Jackson. And I wasn't sure if that
was directed in effect towards the defender or Jackson. But
based upon what you say, obviously, I believe since you
were there, that whatever animist might have existed was much
more directed towards towards Jackson. I wonder oftentimes when these
cases conclude, the judge will meet with either the prosecutor
(07:57):
and or the defense lawyer defense lawyer. I didn't get
a sense there was any of that judicial conveniality that
was going to occur after things wrapped up today. Am
I correct on that?
Speaker 3 (08:10):
I think you're correct on that. I mean, we don't
know for sure, but there was certainly no indication that
there would be a meeting whatsoever. It seems like once
everybody left this courthouse, they didn't want to come back.
I mean, even Alan Jackson said on the microphone, this
case is over. So I wouldn't hold your breast for.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
That last question. No response from the Norfolk County District
Attorney's office, as I understand that at this point now
written or verbal. Did Morrissey ever make an appearance at
all during either trial, even to sit behind his prosecutor?
Speaker 3 (08:46):
No, never, which I mean that's rare, right, we can't
deny that. That's really unusual. When you have a high
profile case like this, you usually see the DA who
is the figurehead elected official bringing the case. You see
them at some point. I have not seen Michael Morphy
in this courthouse since maybe a pre trial hearing before
the first trial. Truly, he has never been in the
(09:09):
courtroom for any day of testimony in either trial. I've
reached out numerous times, including today, for statement or interviews,
and we have not heard back.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
That's so frustrating as a reporter, I said, last question,
but just give us a quick synopsis, if you will.
What was it like in the last three or four
minutes there? It was all disposed of so quickly, you know.
The clerk accepted the verdict slip, handed it to the judge.
She looked at it, She did not display any emotion.
(09:40):
The clerk then then read it off reconfirmed with the jurors.
There was no effort by Hank Brennan to ask the
jury jury be pulled individually. It was really quick, really quick.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
What was it?
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Just give us the atmospherics, if you would, and then
so long there. You probably got some reporting to do
tonight as well. I thank you for your time.
Speaker 6 (09:59):
Go ahead, yeah, thank you.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
It was the law. It was a really quick moment
and it was really high emotions, right. So, like you said,
the verdict reading happened so quickly. Okay, Karen Reid is listening.
Once she realizes what the verdict is, she breaks down
in tears. And her lawyer, David you Eddi, her Massachusetts layer,
he starts crying too. She starts hugging all of her attorneys,
the O'Keefe family, some of them start crying, the Reed family,
(10:25):
some of them start crying. And this incredible moment, and
I mean incredible in the unbelievable sense, is that as
the verdict is being read, after the first count is done,
you hear the cheers of the thousand or so people
outside come through the courtroom to the point where it
was difficult to hear what the foreman was saying. It
(10:47):
was so loud, people screaming and then chanting. Free Karen
read that we could hear in that courtroom. As you know,
the victim family is right there, really emotional. The O'Keefe
skirted out very quickly. Then the jurors walked out, and
I actually saw one female juror crying as they left,
one of the deliberating jurors. So it was just so
(11:07):
short in time, but so high in emotion.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
There was one point where I saw a shot of Reid.
Her hands were shaking. I can imagine what the emotion
must have been for her. Again, great job, Christina, best
of luck on the bar exam. I'm sure you're going
to ace it, no problem.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
I wish you all the all the best in that
and we'll be looking for your reports. I read that
you had were in law school, and now that I
know that you've completed law school, this again it's it's
it's a great it's a great education to have as
a reporter. So again, carry carry on the tradition at
w b Z, keep at it.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Thank you so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Christina rex Ez, reporter on the scene. Thanks Christina. All right,
we're going to take a quick break. When we get back,
we'll get to some phone calls. In the meantime. You
just got to light these lines up. Six one, six, one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty most of you. We're going to go to
phone calls right after the break. I probably will have
Phil Tracy, defense attorney who's been covering this with us
(12:12):
from Afar. He hasn't been in the court room, but
he's been our guy on and he's a really veteran
criminal defense lawyer here in Boston. We'll also talk with
Attorney Bill kick Him a little bit later on during
this hour as well to get their perspective. But the
perspectives I want most are my listeners six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six, one, seven, nine, ten thirty. And by
(12:32):
the way, it is no shame to announce that you
are surprised, because frankly, I I'm not surprised. The murder
case was way overcharged, way overcharged, no question about that.
We'll get to more phone calls. We'll get to our
first phone calls, and then we will talk with Bill
(12:52):
kick Him, and we'll also talk with Attorney Phil Tracy.
This is going to be our conversational topic for the
ninth There's no way to get around it, and I'm
looking for as many different voices as possible. We'll be
right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Okay, let's get a couple of phone calls in here
before the break. Let me go to Bill in Norfolk. Bill,
We're going to get you on here real quickly so
you don't have to wait too long. Go right ahead, Bill,
Welcome to Night Side.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
Hey, Dan, like you, I didn't want a whole bunch.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
Of this, but I have two quick questions for you,
since you were a lawyer.
Speaker 8 (13:28):
And how was she convicted of o U I without
direct evidence?
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Well, they they didn't. They did a breathalyzer or a
blood alcohol content test on her about about.
Speaker 6 (13:42):
Eight I would not know that, ye, So they did
do that.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, she or at some point in the morning after
the body was found she was taken into custody. They
went and they met with her and apparently she submitted
to either breath alezer or be what we call BAC
blog alcohol alcohol content, and it was it was pretty
(14:07):
high that came in that came in as evidence. So
that's what they would have gotten her on on that issue.
And that's that's that's a serious charge, don't get me wrong,
But it's not nearly as serious as murder or manslaughter
or leaving the seat of an accident. So she was
not unhappy with you know, she she was. I'm sure
(14:29):
she she would prefer not to have that on her record,
but compared to what she was facing. And we also
need to remember here that a guy who's who many
people said was an awfully good guy, John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
The O'Keefe family have lost a family member, so we
need to keep it in contact, you.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
Know, all right.
Speaker 7 (14:46):
My other question quickly was why why did they bring
in a high gun special prosecutor?
Speaker 4 (14:52):
And I heard they spent two and fifty grand on
the guy.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
I mean, don't we have Yeah, I think they spent more.
They brought him in for the second case, not in
the first case. There was an assistant DA who prosecuted
the first case, Assistant DA Lally, they got a hung jury,
and I think that they thought, well, we got to
bring someone else in with a fresh look at the case.
(15:17):
Why they didn't find an assistant DA in the office
to take over the case, that's a question, that's a
judgment that's done internally. I mean, the question that every
Red Sox fan will always ask is why did they
take Jim Willoughby out in the seventh game of the
nineteen seventy five World Series against the Reds. He was
pitching pretty well and they brought in a left hand
(15:39):
or to face Joe Morgan, and Morgan dropped a single
into center field.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
For many years, why they leave?
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Yeah, sure, that's the other question. You know what cost
Grady Little his job. But so it's easy to second guess.
But they Brennan is a very competent defense attorney, and
maybe they thought by bringing another defense attorney to the
to the table as a as a prosecutor, temporary prosecutor,
that might have changed the result. It did change the
(16:10):
result that the result went from hung juration.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
It was worse. We spent a whole bunch of money.
It was worse.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Welcome to Massachusetts, all right, thanks man, great question, one,
great questions. Thank you much.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
Six.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Tim, You've been holding on to get you in here
real quickly. What you think today, Tim?
Speaker 6 (16:29):
Hi?
Speaker 8 (16:29):
Dan today? Right when I got the news, right, I
always jumped up and down. I was doing the stone
wall and stone him. I listened to WBZ on the
first trial. In the second one, this one, anyhow, I
followed like I'm believed. Boy was she tested. Two and
(16:50):
a half years a living hell for her, and all
she got, all right, was a year's vobation. I thought
she might do two years. She's not doing it anything.
Power to her. Great your Atturney's know what you're doing.
And it's not a pat in the back of the
fact that I like anyhow, what the heck?
Speaker 2 (17:12):
You know what everybody has, everybody has a talent. You're
a great mason. I know that from our conversations before.
I couldn't even attempt to build a stone wall. Trust
me on that. Okay, so I was.
Speaker 8 (17:23):
Doing a stone wall, right, I almost jumped up and down.
I got paid. Well, this isn't the stone The big
money's doing stone work and I do it in brick blocks,
stone concrete, stays everything. Doing the stone walls like a
day at the beach for me. Well just look at me,
right and say, look at this guy, and anyhow, it's great.
(17:44):
It's the best day. This is the happiest I think
I've ever been.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Well, I'm happy for you. And tomorrow, bring a lot
of water because it's going to be warm out there tomorrow.
If you're working outside tomorrow too.
Speaker 8 (17:57):
Beasy said today is going to be ninety one and
you so, I will.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Good good advice. Thanks my friend. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 8 (18:04):
Okay, thanks, any, I'll keep up the good work.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
We'll try, I promise. I will thank you Tim, you.
Speaker 8 (18:09):
Too, you do it, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Thanks, good night. Take a quick break here. We got
the news at the bottom of the hour. Only one
line at six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty.
We will be talking with another lawyer on the other
side of the news and we'll be talking. We have
Loller and san Diego, Patron, Austin, Steven Merrimack, New Hampshire
coming up. And as they say, one line open, six
one seven, two, five, four ten thirty, get you in.
(18:31):
I'd like to go through a lot of people tonight.
Just give everybody an opportunity to react to this verdict.
You might like it. We we must never forget that
a person lost their life, a Boston police officer lost
his life. Clearly, at this point, the defendant, Karen Reid
has been acquitted of the serious charges that dealt with
(18:51):
the loss of life. She was convicted. And again, sometimes
a jury on a multiple count indictment will throw one
conviction in there, and in this case it was the
least serious, although again, operating under the influence is a serious,
serious crime, and it's this is a tragedy all around,
(19:12):
a lot of a lot of lives ruined and a
lot of lives at minimum. Others impacted would and they
will never be the same. Back on Nightside right after.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
This, It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Okay, we're going to go to one of our other
pre scheduled guests, Attorney Bill Kickham. Bill Kickham, welcome back
to Nightside. How are you, sir?
Speaker 7 (19:36):
I'm good, Dan, How are you good?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Let me get right to it here because we get
packed lines. Your reaction to the verdict today is surprised
or expected?
Speaker 6 (19:47):
I was not.
Speaker 7 (19:48):
Surprised, and I think it can be summed up in
three words, kinetics versus conspiracy. In the first trial, the
defense really leaned heavily on trying to prove that somebody,
that the mccaig's or the Alberts were involved, and there
was a conspiracy involved. And in this trial they focused
(20:09):
on the kinetics the fists, showing that it was extremely unlikely,
if not just next to impossible, that he was struck
by a vehicle. No bruises on his body, no broken
bones on his waist level or below the waist where
the vehicle would have struck him. No collision, no case.
(20:30):
So I think it bows down to those three words
kinetics versus collisions.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
That's pretty good analysis. And the lead defense attorney, Attorney Jackson,
kept saying there was no collision, there was no collision,
there was no collision. So we know that Karen Reid
will never be retried on this case novel jeopardy issues.
I don't think they can bring a case against anyone
(20:55):
else at this point. I don't see how Norfolk County
unless the FED jump in. But the Feds it looked
at this case and I probably did nothing on it about.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
A year ago.
Speaker 7 (21:06):
Regretably, I agree with you. I don't think that there's
going to be a relaunch of an investigation that could
be if it's conducted by milk A County officials considered trustworthy, legitimate,
And I don't think the FEDS are going to dive
back in either. So I think this may this case
(21:28):
may remain in limbo in terms of anyone becoming accountable.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Yeah, we will never know definitively what happened. I also
think that this may cost the district attorney Mike Morrissey
his job. Eventually, he really staked his reputation, in his
office's reputation on this prosecution.
Speaker 7 (21:54):
And he spent a lot of the taxpayer of money.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
So ask that question by a call over the last hour,
love to get your reaction. Why do you think they
brought Hank Brennan in very competent defense attorney, good guy,
ultimate professional in my opinion, but there was no one
else in the office that could have taken over from
Lally With the second bite at the apple, I.
Speaker 7 (22:16):
Sense what you're saying, and I agree with it, and
my only reaction would be that, you know, personal relationships
here often turned the knob.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
I get you, I get you one way or another. Yeah.
What I'd like to look at it is that maybe
the Norfolk DA felt that he needed a veteran defense lawyer. Obviously,
people in Ada's a lot of them are younger, they're
all prosecutors, and maybe he felt what he needed to
shake this up was to bring in a veteran defense
(22:48):
lawyer who could kind of figure out where the red
defense was going. But obviously it didn't mark, it didn't work,
and it cust.
Speaker 7 (22:56):
I think he I think Marcy thought he was going
to insulate himself against being accused of waging some war
against Karen Reid by saying, hey, I chose someone from
outside my office number one and number two who's a
defense attorney.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yeah, what two hundred and fifties to start, and I
think it eventually got up to around three point fifty.
Speaker 7 (23:18):
That's oh god, that's that's a huge amount of money
for you know, a case.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Well, it's a huge amount of money because normally prosecutors
are on the payroll and they're going to get paid
what ada's or you know or just well adas make
even if their first assistance. But that's a tidy sum
for in effect one year on the case. Now again, oh,
Hank Brennan could have made probably more money if he
(23:45):
devoted it to his own defense practice. So a lot
of people impacted adversely on this case. Karen Reid tonight,
I hope she's not celebrating publicly because I don't.
Speaker 7 (23:57):
Think we can find that would be in very poor taste.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Yeah. I just think that it's good, good for her,
good for her family, but horrible for the Okay family.
And again the loss of life. Bill Kickham has always
appreciate your your insight and your analysis. Well we will
talk soon. Okay, thank you, Bill say had to Debbie
for me.
Speaker 4 (24:16):
You take care.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Now let's get right back to the calls.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
Here.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
A lot of people are waiting, and that's what I
want to do is get as many of you in
as possible. Steve and Merrimack, New Hampshire. Steve, welcome back,
you're on night Siger.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Right ahead, Steve, Hi, Hi, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
You're ready, you're You're welcome and by the way, thanks
for your patience. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
So here here's the way I look at. The jury
is spoken. She can never be tried again on the
criminal case. Correct, it's over, which I'm really happy about it.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
The criminal case is over, not the uh not the
civil Yeah, not the civil case.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Right, and I hit it, but it was like fifty thousand.
I thought that was kind of low. Wouldn't you sue
for a lot more? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Maybe I'm wrong, Yeah, I that could be that. That's
what's called the addendum, but you can always adjust that.
I heard that figure mentioned tonight on one of the newscasts.
I haven't followed this case as closely as many of
my listeners have. But again, the standard of proof is
not beyonder reasonable doubt all the all the elements of
(25:18):
the crime. It's preponderance of the evidence. Uh, the bars,
I guess she she is O'Keefe is being sued rather
read is being sued by the Okay family, but also
the Okay family is suing a couple of bars with
the waterfall, and there was another one. Those bars probably
have insurance policies. I don't know how much how deep
(25:43):
Karen Reid's pockets are, particularly at this time. I'm sure
that a lot of her family money has been spent
on her defense lawyers.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
So the other thing I wanted to bring up is
I'm really perplexed as to why or how you can
be found guilty of d w I and you were
placed at the scene of the crime and not be
found guilty of anything else unless the jury was either tainted,
didn't like cops. I mean, you got that Proctor guy
(26:12):
that did a terrible job for the state police. And
also the victim was a cop. So I don't know
if this all fits in or not.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
But well, what Bill Kickham just said. What Bill Kickham
just said, And I thought He was pretty pretty effective
in saying that that in the first case, they were
kind of talking about conspiracy. She was the victim of
a conspiracy. She didn't do it, but there are others
who might have done it. So they became almost the
second prosecutor in the case as her defense lawyers. In
this case, they went more towards the kinetics and also
(26:44):
some of the documentation that you would pull out of
the the internals of the automobile, and they must have
convinced the jury that no matter how under the influence
of alcohol she was, that she did not impact him
when he get out of the car, And that was
what Alan Jackson emphasized in his clothes to the to
(27:07):
the jury, which was thinking, there was no collision. So
if there's no collision, how do you hook her on
manslaughter or or for that matter, murder too.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
I think there was a collision, but they couldn't prove it.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
I think you, no, you have every right to believe that, Okay,
something happened. But obviously for the jury, I think the
jury came back with the right decision under the circumstances.
I don't think the case was effectively made, and I
think that the defense. You know, the burden of proof
is with the prosecution. They didn't need it. It's as
(27:41):
simple as that.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Yeah, hats off to the defense team because they sure
did a good job I will give I'll hand them that.
My heart goes out to the Okee family because I
think they're still, you know, in a lot of sorrow
for a loser.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
They have to be in a world of her now
at this point. And uh again, whatever money they might
recover in a in a civil case, I'm sure they
would trade that for whatever that amount of money is for.
For for you know, John being alive. There's no question
about that.
Speaker 7 (28:13):
Well.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
The last thing I want to say was I was
kind of shocked because I did think she was guilty
of something, but I didn't think it was going to
be reduced to the d WY. I thought it would
be the manslaughter or leaving the scene something like that.
I didn't think that they would go all the way
down to that. I thought they if they were going
to go that far, they should have just let her
off scott free on everything. You know. That's that's the
(28:35):
way I look at it.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
But that that could have been what they were arguing
about it in the last hours. It could have been
that they went through the murder and said nope manslaughter
of nope, And maybe there was one or two who said, uh,
what what you said, Well, let's let's let it go.
But maybe enough said no, there was a problem here
and she needs to we need to bring back some
sort of a conviction, and sometimes juries do that on
(28:58):
a multi count indictment. They their senses something went down.
They can't really prove it all. They could prove the
the the OUI because she did test that morning once
she was in custody. Thanks Dave, appreciate your calling.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
Thank you very much, Dan, Good night, have a great night.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Quick break here on Nightside, coming right back, we got
Pedro next from Allston Lowland with San Diego. Will get
you guys in and we get Tim and Nina. And
the only line right now is six one seven nine thirty.
Listen to me and you'll know what line to the
diile six. I don't want people breaking their nails or
their fingers. Tonight six one, seven nine thirty. Back on Nightside,
(29:41):
It's Night Side with.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Next on Nightside, Pedro from Alston Pedro, Welcome, how are
you sir?
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Dan?
Speaker 6 (29:51):
Well, thank you, thank you for letting me on, because
I have a lot to say about this case.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Go right ahead.
Speaker 6 (29:59):
First, I'm happy that the conclusion of this trial's taking
place in the outcome was what it should have been.
But what every caller, every single person that's listening to
this radio show, quite frankly, everyone in Massachusetts to be
really frustrated with is the fact that this was not
about justice for John o'keith. This was about everybody's show,
(30:21):
voting between these defense attorneys, getting all this free publicity,
free media. Everybody wanted to get there three minutes, fifteen
minutes of fame. But think about it, Mike Morrisky is
the biggest clown I've ever met. He spent half a
million bucks that they said, up to a half a
million according.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
To the Globe.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
One special prosecute brought Brennan. On top of that, another
two hundred and fifty eight thousand dollars spent on the
state police in Massachusetts to provide security, So taxpayer money.
The first trial was forty three forty four thousand. This
second trial they spent a lot more. For all the victims,
the said victim in Norfolk County, I want you to
(31:02):
go to Mike Morrissey's office. They challenge you to do
this and say, hey, Mike, why haven't you spend this
much money in this case, on my loved ones case?
How often have you brought in a special prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
You're asking, You're asked, Petro, You're asking all the right questions.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
And Morrissey I believe is up for reelection in November
of twenty twenty six, if he's still the district attorney
by then, and that's when the voters in Norfolk County
will have a chance to vote. The defense lawyers got
themselves involved in a high profile case. There's no reason
to hold them guilty of anything. It's like the defense
lawyers or the O. J. Simpson case. You know, they're
(31:42):
high profile defense lawyers and they tend to make themselves available. Obviously,
Brennan was not someone who was out chatter boxing on
the sidewalks, because a prosecutor should not be doing that.
He conducted himself professionally and happened to lose the prosecution.
Maybe the case just wasn't there, Maybe the case was
flawed because of the poor police detective work of Michael Proctor.
(32:08):
The State Police officer who spent more time trying to
I guess, send eat text and emails to his buddies
and find nude photos of Karen Reid. I mean, how
weird is how sick is that there's a.
Speaker 4 (32:21):
Lot part of this.
Speaker 6 (32:24):
I was watching this case and you know, maybe this
is a Catholic guilt in me, but I don't think
it is. I'm a devout Catholic and I try to
look at things from different perspectives, Okay, And one of
the things that literally brought me to tear dan I mean,
I mean, I'm having a hard time seeing this, but
you kind of think about these children. No one ever
thought about these four kids. They lost three parents. I
(32:47):
literally I prayed for them on Sunday. I pray for
them all the time. But you know, this is what
happens a lot in our society. We forget about the kids.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Well, I will bet you that, based up all they
know about the Okay family, that will people who will
step into the breach and those kids will will have
parental or you know, you know in Locus, in loci
locus parents support.
Speaker 4 (33:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
I wish I would have wished Mike Morrisy spent that
money putting in these kids five twenty nine plan.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
We're putting in the right kind of therapy, because that's
the other thing about this case.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
You know, legitimate comments, Pedro, legitimate comments. You've called before, right, Oh, yes,
I call a lot. Keep calling. Okay, you you a
great presentation. Thank you, Pedro. We'll talk again.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
Thank you, Thanks as usual, Bye bye.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Right back at you. Let me go to Lola in
San Diego. Lola, you have been a supporter of Karen
Reid on the West coast for a long time. You've
done standouts there and you've called us, and uh, I
want to give you an opportunity to take a little
bit of about and I go right ahead, Lola.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
Well thanks stan So. The whole movement was about pre
Karen Reid in justice to John o'keeith, and the state
of Massachusetts, in my humble opinion, has let it let
the O'Keefe family down over one hundred percent. They need
to reopen the case and go find the culprits. And
(34:15):
they're they're local, and that's all I'm going to say.
They know.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
I don't think you're going to you're going to be
disappointed there, because I think that it's very difficult for
a prosecutor to go and and indict different people for
a crime that they couldn't the first bite of the apple.
They lost the defense one.
Speaker 5 (34:36):
It was the person.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I understand that. But but look, if you're if you're
hoping that they're going to indict us another group of people,
although you might be right, it's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen. And if it does, it
would be it would be mind boggling and precedent setting,
because the lawyers for the second group of people would say,
(34:58):
wait a second, didn't you prosecute someone else for this crime,
for these exacts, same crime? How did the prosecutor get
past that defense?
Speaker 7 (35:08):
Okay, I have a suggestion.
Speaker 5 (35:13):
You're innocent until proven guilty. So she was proven not guilty,
So now go find somebody else because the evidence is there.
The evidence is there. They overlooked it. And we can
start with mister Proctor. We can start with the police
who came to Karen's.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Aid when well Proctor, for all his faults, had nothing
to do with the death of John O'Keefe. He may
have bungled the prosecution by having engaged in texting activity
which was beneath what a professional investigator surely the mass
how State police officer conduct should be.
Speaker 5 (35:51):
John O'Keeffe didn't, didn't just randomly fall on the property
of thirty four fee of you like?
Speaker 8 (36:00):
Come on, all right, Lola.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
I got you in here before the nine o'clock news.
You made a strong case for a second prosecution. Keep
listening and stay on top of this. Okay, we'll talk again.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
Thank you much, Lola Jaya, Massachusetts has let more than
the oh keeps down. The next victims are going to
be up against the same problem.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
All right, Thanks Lola, talk soon, Thank you very much.
Lola in San Diego, a regular listener and a fierce
advocate on behalf of Karen Reid. We're going to take
a break. Nine o'clock news coming up. If you're on
the line, stay there. If you're not a got one
line at six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
and one in six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
We are talking about this case until midnight, so just
(36:43):
keep the phone lines busy. Coming back on night's side,
It's nice with Ray. I'm doing you easy Bondon's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Thank you, Madison Well. Tonight is kind of a different
night on Night Side because it was a very interesting
day here in Boston. We had four guests lined up,
but we have moved them out of the way tonight
because there is one story in Boston, and that is
the Karen Reid trial. It finished today. I think all
of you probably know at this point that she was
(00:28):
acquitted on the most serious charges she has been convicted
on operating under and we have a program lined up
for you tonight. Most of you are going to be
the stars of the show because you'll have an opportunity
to call in in all four hours. Normally in this
hour we don't take phone calls. My name's Dan Ray Im.
The host of the show, Rob Brooks is back in
(00:49):
the control room. He's all set. And of course, if
you anyone anywhere near a radio, television, some sort of
a computer or cell phone, you found out sometimes this
afternoon that Karen Reid has been acquitted of the most
serious charges that she has faced. Now twice. Jury cleared
her of the murder charge, the manslaun charge, and the
(01:14):
leaving a scene of an accident in charge. She was
convicted on operating under the influence and for that she
will be on probation for a year and also lose
her license, her right to operate. We are delighted to
be joined by WBZTV's Christina Rex who had covered this trial. Also, Christina,
besides being a great reporter at WBC, is also just
(01:34):
finished up at the New England School of Law. And
now you're all set, I think, Christina for the bar
exam in July. Certainly, any questions dealing with criminal law,
I know you're going to ace. How are you tonight?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Thank you for having me, Daniel. I certainly got a
front row feet to criminal procedure and criminal law. So
I beg you to take some time to study the rest.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah right, get everything outside of you can fall becused
on that. The UCC is of course very important to
remember that one.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Yeah, I gotta get on that.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yeah, that's that's easy. That's that's Oh god, a nightmare?
Is that? That stuff made of? Nightmare? Nightmare time? Anyway,
So you were in the courtroom for this trial, you
also did you also covered for the first for the
first trial, I.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
Did, I did.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
I've been here since the pre trial hearings ahead of
the first trial the whole time.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Okay, how would you, for the lay person characterize the
defense in the first trial which ended in a hung jury,
and the defense in this trial, which ended successfully for
the defendant except for the misdemeanor charge of driving under Yeah,
(02:47):
that's on.
Speaker 5 (02:47):
The first trial.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
In the first trial, as you know, the defense had
no burden of proof. But in the first trial, the
defense really chose to focus on its own narratives, own
version of events, and try and convince the of what happened.
The defense in the first trial tried to convince the
jury that John O'Keefe went into the house in Canton
that night, was beaten by any combination of three men,
(03:10):
attacked by a dog, his body later dragged out onto
the front lawn, and then Karen Reid framed for the crime.
They did not go that far in the second trial.
The second trial was focused much more on a substandard
police investigation and mostly on the fastpat According to the defense,
there was no collision. I mean, the majority of defense
(03:30):
witnesses were expert witnesses and they really spent the large
majority of their time discrediting any prosecution witnesses who alleged
that there was a collision. So the focus of the
second trial was, you know, there was no car crash,
so it was much simpler than the first.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
I'm sure the confusion in the first All of a sudden,
the defense lawyers in effect are in effect becoming a
second team of prosecutors. I mean, Andrew Lally was prosecuting
Karen Reid, and her defense lawyers were trying to prosecute
people who may or may not have been in the courtroom,
but they were not at the defense bar, so that
(04:07):
had to be confusing.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Did you have a sense, Yeah, I did feel like that.
I did feel like that at time.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Did you have a sense at this trial that it
had gone better? I thought that the videotape that Karen
Reid had done with a number of television networks was
tough on the defense, and I thought that actually was
something that could have could have hurt her more more
(04:33):
badly than the apparently it did. But what was your thought,
again before the verdict came in today about her I
don't understand how her lawyers would have allowed her to
do those interviews, because obviously they came back. I don't
think they were helpful, but the ray hips alogue of
the results speaks for itself. They got acquittals here. I
(04:57):
still don't understand why she why she did Now is
the time to do whatever television interviews she wants to do.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I think so. The thing about those clips that were played,
the large majority of them were from a documentary series
that was shot over the course of the first trial,
and it became pretty clear watching that series and also
watching the behind the scenes of it all, that Karen
Reid and her team did that series expecting an acquittal.
(05:25):
So you know, you can imagine that those statements were
given so freely because Karen Reid and her team probably
didn't imagine they'd be brought back to court again and
faced with those statements in front of the jury. And
I think you make a good point. You know a
lot of people have said the defense did a better
job this time. So did the prosecution. I mean, Hank Brennan,
(05:45):
the special prosecutor, played one of those media clips, a
relevant portion of a media clip after every like category
of testimonies. So drunk driving testimony boom, there's an interview
of Karen Reid talking about three days driving. You know,
they really would have hurt her, but clearly didn't.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yeah, it's a fascinating case. The other question is I
wonder if Alan Jackson miscalculated in the first trial. He's
sort of He's a California lawyer, and Massachusetts coatrooms have
often not been have not treated out of state lawyers
as well as they treat homegrown lawyers.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I think you might be read about that. And you've seen,
I mean, anybody who's watched knows that there's been a
good bit of tension between Alan Jackson and Judge Canoni,
to the point where there was one one period where
she nearly revoked his pro host VJ status to be
able to try this case. So, you know, that was
(06:50):
a criticism from the first trial that maybe he kind
of brought a California flash and storytelling that the jury
didn't jive with. But at the end of the day,
the jury was hung. But we don't really know, you know,
but he certainly was more toned down this time around.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Yeah. I was reminded today by a friend of mine
who's a former Superior Court judge that Judge Canone at
heart was a defense lawyer, public defender, and her dad
before her had been a public defender because I sensed
that she was not happy with I didn't spend a
lot of time watching the case, but that she was
(07:30):
not happy with Jackson. And I wasn't sure if that
was directed in effect towards the defender or Jackson. But
based upon what you say, obviously, I believe since you
were there, that whatever animist might have existed was much
more directed towards towards Jackson. I wonder oftentimes when these
cases conclude, the judge will meet with either the prosecutor
(07:57):
and or the defense lawyer defense lawyer. I didn't get
a sense there was any of that judicial conveniality that
was going to occur after things wrapped up today. Am
I correct on that?
Speaker 3 (08:10):
I think you're correct on that. I mean, we don't
know for sure, but there was certainly no indication that
there would be a meeting whatsoever. It seems like once
everybody left this courthouse, they didn't want to come back.
I mean, even Alan Jackson said on the microphone, this
case is over. So I wouldn't hold your breast for.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
That last question. No response from the Norfolk County District
Attorney's office, as I understand that at this point now
written or verbal. Did Morrissey ever make an appearance at
all during either trial, even to sit behind his prosecutor?
Speaker 3 (08:46):
No, never, which I mean that's rare, right, we can't
deny that. That's really unusual. When you have a high
profile case like this, you usually see the DA who
is the figurehead elected official bringing the case. You see
them at some point. I have not seen Michael Morphy
in this courthouse since maybe a pre trial hearing before
the first trial. Truly, he has never been in the
(09:09):
courtroom for any day of testimony in either trial. I've
reached out numerous times, including today, for statement or interviews,
and we have not heard back.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
That's so frustrating as a reporter, I said, last question,
but just give us a quick synopsis, if you will.
What was it like in the last three or four
minutes there? It was all disposed of so quickly, you know.
The clerk accepted the verdict slip, handed it to the judge.
She looked at it, She did not display any emotion.
(09:40):
The clerk then then read it off reconfirmed with the jurors.
There was no effort by Hank Brennan to ask the
jury jury be pulled individually. It was really quick, really quick.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
What was it?
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Just give us the atmospherics, if you would, and then
so long there. You probably got some reporting to do
tonight as well. I thank you for your time.
Speaker 6 (09:59):
Go ahead, yeah, thank you.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
It was the law. It was a really quick moment
and it was really high emotions, right. So, like you said,
the verdict reading happened so quickly. Okay, Karen Reid is listening.
Once she realizes what the verdict is, she breaks down
in tears. And her lawyer, David you Eddi, her Massachusetts layer,
he starts crying too. She starts hugging all of her attorneys,
the O'Keefe family, some of them start crying, the Reed family,
(10:25):
some of them start crying. And this incredible moment, and
I mean incredible in the unbelievable sense, is that as
the verdict is being read, after the first count is done,
you hear the cheers of the thousand or so people
outside come through the courtroom to the point where it
was difficult to hear what the foreman was saying. It
(10:47):
was so loud, people screaming and then chanting. Free Karen
read that we could hear in that courtroom. As you know,
the victim family is right there, really emotional. The O'Keefe
skirted out very quickly. Then the jurors walked out, and
I actually saw one female juror crying as they left,
one of the deliberating jurors. So it was just so
(11:07):
short in time, but so high in emotion.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
There was one point where I saw a shot of Reid.
Her hands were shaking. I can imagine what the emotion
must have been for her. Again, great job, Christina, best
of luck on the bar exam. I'm sure you're going
to ace it, no problem.
Speaker 5 (11:24):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
I wish you all the all the best in that
and we'll be looking for your reports. I read that
you had were in law school, and now that I
know that you've completed law school, this again it's it's
it's a great it's a great education to have as
a reporter. So again, carry carry on the tradition at
w b Z, keep at it.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Thank you so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Christina rex Ez, reporter on the scene. Thanks Christina. All right,
we're going to take a quick break. When we get back,
we'll get to some phone calls. In the meantime. You
just got to light these lines up. Six one, six, one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty most of you. We're going to go to
phone calls right after the break. I probably will have
Phil Tracy, defense attorney who's been covering this with us
(12:12):
from Afar. He hasn't been in the court room, but
he's been our guy on and he's a really veteran
criminal defense lawyer here in Boston. We'll also talk with
Attorney Bill kick Him a little bit later on during
this hour as well to get their perspective. But the
perspectives I want most are my listeners six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six, one, seven, nine, ten thirty. And by
(12:32):
the way, it is no shame to announce that you
are surprised, because frankly, I I'm not surprised. The murder
case was way overcharged, way overcharged, no question about that.
We'll get to more phone calls. We'll get to our
first phone calls, and then we will talk with Bill
(12:52):
kick Him, and we'll also talk with Attorney Phil Tracy.
This is going to be our conversational topic for the
ninth There's no way to get around it, and I'm
looking for as many different voices as possible. We'll be
right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Okay, let's get a couple of phone calls in here
before the break. Let me go to Bill in Norfolk. Bill,
We're going to get you on here real quickly so
you don't have to wait too long. Go right ahead, Bill,
Welcome to Night Side.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
Hey, Dan, like you, I didn't want a whole bunch.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
Of this, but I have two quick questions for you,
since you were a lawyer.
Speaker 8 (13:28):
And how was she convicted of o U I without
direct evidence?
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Well, they they didn't. They did a breathalyzer or a
blood alcohol content test on her about about.
Speaker 6 (13:42):
Eight I would not know that, ye, So they did
do that.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, she or at some point in the morning after
the body was found she was taken into custody. They
went and they met with her and apparently she submitted
to either breath alezer or be what we call BAC
blog alcohol alcohol content, and it was it was pretty
(14:07):
high that came in that came in as evidence. So
that's what they would have gotten her on on that issue.
And that's that's that's a serious charge, don't get me wrong,
But it's not nearly as serious as murder or manslaughter
or leaving the seat of an accident. So she was
not unhappy with you know, she she was. I'm sure
(14:29):
she she would prefer not to have that on her record,
but compared to what she was facing. And we also
need to remember here that a guy who's who many
people said was an awfully good guy, John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
The O'Keefe family have lost a family member, so we
need to keep it in contact, you.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
Know, all right.
Speaker 7 (14:46):
My other question quickly was why why did they bring
in a high gun special prosecutor?
Speaker 4 (14:52):
And I heard they spent two and fifty grand on
the guy.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
I mean, don't we have Yeah, I think they spent more.
They brought him in for the second case, not in
the first case. There was an assistant DA who prosecuted
the first case, Assistant DA Lally, they got a hung jury,
and I think that they thought, well, we got to
bring someone else in with a fresh look at the case.
(15:17):
Why they didn't find an assistant DA in the office
to take over the case, that's a question, that's a
judgment that's done internally. I mean, the question that every
Red Sox fan will always ask is why did they
take Jim Willoughby out in the seventh game of the
nineteen seventy five World Series against the Reds. He was
pitching pretty well and they brought in a left hand
(15:39):
or to face Joe Morgan, and Morgan dropped a single
into center field.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
For many years, why they leave?
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Yeah, sure, that's the other question. You know what cost
Grady Little his job. But so it's easy to second guess.
But they Brennan is a very competent defense attorney, and
maybe they thought by bringing another defense attorney to the
to the table as a as a prosecutor, temporary prosecutor,
that might have changed the result. It did change the
(16:10):
result that the result went from hung juration.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
It was worse. We spent a whole bunch of money.
It was worse.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Welcome to Massachusetts, all right, thanks man, great question, one,
great questions. Thank you much.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
Six.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Tim, You've been holding on to get you in here
real quickly. What you think today, Tim?
Speaker 6 (16:29):
Hi?
Speaker 8 (16:29):
Dan today? Right when I got the news, right, I
always jumped up and down. I was doing the stone
wall and stone him. I listened to WBZ on the
first trial. In the second one, this one, anyhow, I
followed like I'm believed. Boy was she tested. Two and
(16:50):
a half years a living hell for her, and all
she got, all right, was a year's vobation. I thought
she might do two years. She's not doing it anything.
Power to her. Great your Atturney's know what you're doing.
And it's not a pat in the back of the
fact that I like anyhow, what the heck?
Speaker 2 (17:12):
You know what everybody has, everybody has a talent. You're
a great mason. I know that from our conversations before.
I couldn't even attempt to build a stone wall. Trust
me on that. Okay, so I was.
Speaker 8 (17:23):
Doing a stone wall, right, I almost jumped up and down.
I got paid. Well, this isn't the stone The big
money's doing stone work and I do it in brick blocks,
stone concrete, stays everything. Doing the stone walls like a
day at the beach for me. Well just look at me,
right and say, look at this guy, and anyhow, it's great.
(17:44):
It's the best day. This is the happiest I think
I've ever been.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Well, I'm happy for you. And tomorrow, bring a lot
of water because it's going to be warm out there tomorrow.
If you're working outside tomorrow too.
Speaker 8 (17:57):
Beasy said today is going to be ninety one and
you so, I will.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Good good advice. Thanks my friend. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 8 (18:04):
Okay, thanks, any, I'll keep up the good work.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
We'll try, I promise. I will thank you Tim, you.
Speaker 8 (18:09):
Too, you do it, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Thanks, good night. Take a quick break here. We got
the news at the bottom of the hour. Only one
line at six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty.
We will be talking with another lawyer on the other
side of the news and we'll be talking. We have
Loller and san Diego, Patron, Austin, Steven Merrimack, New Hampshire
coming up. And as they say, one line open, six
one seven, two, five, four ten thirty, get you in.
(18:31):
I'd like to go through a lot of people tonight.
Just give everybody an opportunity to react to this verdict.
You might like it. We we must never forget that
a person lost their life, a Boston police officer lost
his life. Clearly, at this point, the defendant, Karen Reid
has been acquitted of the serious charges that dealt with
(18:51):
the loss of life. She was convicted. And again, sometimes
a jury on a multiple count indictment will throw one
conviction in there, and in this case it was the
least serious, although again, operating under the influence is a serious,
serious crime, and it's this is a tragedy all around,
(19:12):
a lot of a lot of lives ruined and a
lot of lives at minimum. Others impacted would and they
will never be the same. Back on Nightside right after.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
This, It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Okay, we're going to go to one of our other
pre scheduled guests, Attorney Bill Kickham. Bill Kickham, welcome back
to Nightside. How are you, sir?
Speaker 7 (19:36):
I'm good, Dan, How are you good?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Let me get right to it here because we get
packed lines. Your reaction to the verdict today is surprised
or expected?
Speaker 6 (19:47):
I was not.
Speaker 7 (19:48):
Surprised, and I think it can be summed up in
three words, kinetics versus conspiracy. In the first trial, the
defense really leaned heavily on trying to prove that somebody,
that the mccaig's or the Alberts were involved, and there
was a conspiracy involved. And in this trial they focused
(20:09):
on the kinetics the fists, showing that it was extremely unlikely,
if not just next to impossible, that he was struck
by a vehicle. No bruises on his body, no broken
bones on his waist level or below the waist where
the vehicle would have struck him. No collision, no case.
(20:30):
So I think it bows down to those three words
kinetics versus collisions.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
That's pretty good analysis. And the lead defense attorney, Attorney Jackson,
kept saying there was no collision, there was no collision,
there was no collision. So we know that Karen Reid
will never be retried on this case novel jeopardy issues.
I don't think they can bring a case against anyone
(20:55):
else at this point. I don't see how Norfolk County
unless the FED jump in. But the Feds it looked
at this case and I probably did nothing on it about.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
A year ago.
Speaker 7 (21:06):
Regretably, I agree with you. I don't think that there's
going to be a relaunch of an investigation that could
be if it's conducted by milk A County officials considered trustworthy, legitimate,
And I don't think the FEDS are going to dive
back in either. So I think this may this case
(21:28):
may remain in limbo in terms of anyone becoming accountable.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Yeah, we will never know definitively what happened. I also
think that this may cost the district attorney Mike Morrissey
his job. Eventually, he really staked his reputation, in his
office's reputation on this prosecution.
Speaker 7 (21:54):
And he spent a lot of the taxpayer of money.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
So ask that question by a call over the last hour,
love to get your reaction. Why do you think they
brought Hank Brennan in very competent defense attorney, good guy,
ultimate professional in my opinion, but there was no one
else in the office that could have taken over from
Lally With the second bite at the apple, I.
Speaker 7 (22:16):
Sense what you're saying, and I agree with it, and
my only reaction would be that, you know, personal relationships
here often turned the knob.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
I get you, I get you one way or another. Yeah.
What I'd like to look at it is that maybe
the Norfolk DA felt that he needed a veteran defense lawyer. Obviously,
people in Ada's a lot of them are younger, they're
all prosecutors, and maybe he felt what he needed to
shake this up was to bring in a veteran defense
(22:48):
lawyer who could kind of figure out where the red
defense was going. But obviously it didn't mark, it didn't work,
and it cust.
Speaker 7 (22:56):
I think he I think Marcy thought he was going
to insulate himself against being accused of waging some war
against Karen Reid by saying, hey, I chose someone from
outside my office number one and number two who's a
defense attorney.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yeah, what two hundred and fifties to start, and I
think it eventually got up to around three point fifty.
Speaker 7 (23:18):
That's oh god, that's that's a huge amount of money
for you know, a case.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Well, it's a huge amount of money because normally prosecutors
are on the payroll and they're going to get paid
what ada's or you know or just well adas make
even if their first assistance. But that's a tidy sum
for in effect one year on the case. Now again, oh,
Hank Brennan could have made probably more money if he
(23:45):
devoted it to his own defense practice. So a lot
of people impacted adversely on this case. Karen Reid tonight,
I hope she's not celebrating publicly because I don't.
Speaker 7 (23:57):
Think we can find that would be in very poor taste.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Yeah. I just think that it's good, good for her,
good for her family, but horrible for the Okay family.
And again the loss of life. Bill Kickham has always
appreciate your your insight and your analysis. Well we will
talk soon. Okay, thank you, Bill say had to Debbie
for me.
Speaker 4 (24:16):
You take care.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Now let's get right back to the calls.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
Here.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
A lot of people are waiting, and that's what I
want to do is get as many of you in
as possible. Steve and Merrimack, New Hampshire. Steve, welcome back,
you're on night Siger.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Right ahead, Steve, Hi, Hi, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
You're ready, you're You're welcome and by the way, thanks
for your patience. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
So here here's the way I look at. The jury
is spoken. She can never be tried again on the
criminal case. Correct, it's over, which I'm really happy about it.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
The criminal case is over, not the uh not the
civil Yeah, not the civil case.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Right, and I hit it, but it was like fifty thousand.
I thought that was kind of low. Wouldn't you sue
for a lot more? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Maybe I'm wrong, Yeah, I that could be that. That's
what's called the addendum, but you can always adjust that.
I heard that figure mentioned tonight on one of the newscasts.
I haven't followed this case as closely as many of
my listeners have. But again, the standard of proof is
not beyonder reasonable doubt all the all the elements of
(25:18):
the crime. It's preponderance of the evidence. Uh, the bars,
I guess she she is O'Keefe is being sued rather
read is being sued by the Okay family, but also
the Okay family is suing a couple of bars with
the waterfall, and there was another one. Those bars probably
have insurance policies. I don't know how much how deep
(25:43):
Karen Reid's pockets are, particularly at this time. I'm sure
that a lot of her family money has been spent
on her defense lawyers.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
So the other thing I wanted to bring up is
I'm really perplexed as to why or how you can
be found guilty of d w I and you were
placed at the scene of the crime and not be
found guilty of anything else unless the jury was either tainted,
didn't like cops. I mean, you got that Proctor guy
(26:12):
that did a terrible job for the state police. And
also the victim was a cop. So I don't know
if this all fits in or not.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
But well, what Bill Kickham just said. What Bill Kickham
just said, And I thought He was pretty pretty effective
in saying that that in the first case, they were
kind of talking about conspiracy. She was the victim of
a conspiracy. She didn't do it, but there are others
who might have done it. So they became almost the
second prosecutor in the case as her defense lawyers. In
this case, they went more towards the kinetics and also
(26:44):
some of the documentation that you would pull out of
the the internals of the automobile, and they must have
convinced the jury that no matter how under the influence
of alcohol she was, that she did not impact him
when he get out of the car, And that was
what Alan Jackson emphasized in his clothes to the to
(27:07):
the jury, which was thinking, there was no collision. So
if there's no collision, how do you hook her on
manslaughter or or for that matter, murder too.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
I think there was a collision, but they couldn't prove it.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
I think you, no, you have every right to believe that, Okay,
something happened. But obviously for the jury, I think the
jury came back with the right decision under the circumstances.
I don't think the case was effectively made, and I
think that the defense. You know, the burden of proof
is with the prosecution. They didn't need it. It's as
(27:41):
simple as that.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Yeah, hats off to the defense team because they sure
did a good job I will give I'll hand them that.
My heart goes out to the Okee family because I
think they're still, you know, in a lot of sorrow
for a loser.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
They have to be in a world of her now
at this point. And uh again, whatever money they might
recover in a in a civil case, I'm sure they
would trade that for whatever that amount of money is for.
For for you know, John being alive. There's no question
about that.
Speaker 7 (28:13):
Well.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
The last thing I want to say was I was
kind of shocked because I did think she was guilty
of something, but I didn't think it was going to
be reduced to the d WY. I thought it would
be the manslaughter or leaving the scene something like that.
I didn't think that they would go all the way
down to that. I thought they if they were going
to go that far, they should have just let her
off scott free on everything. You know. That's that's the
(28:35):
way I look at it.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
But that that could have been what they were arguing
about it in the last hours. It could have been
that they went through the murder and said nope manslaughter
of nope, And maybe there was one or two who said, uh,
what what you said, Well, let's let's let it go.
But maybe enough said no, there was a problem here
and she needs to we need to bring back some
sort of a conviction, and sometimes juries do that on
(28:58):
a multi count indictment. They their senses something went down.
They can't really prove it all. They could prove the
the the OUI because she did test that morning once
she was in custody. Thanks Dave, appreciate your calling.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
Thank you very much, Dan, Good night, have a great night.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Quick break here on Nightside, coming right back, we got
Pedro next from Allston Lowland with San Diego. Will get
you guys in and we get Tim and Nina. And
the only line right now is six one seven nine thirty.
Listen to me and you'll know what line to the
diile six. I don't want people breaking their nails or
their fingers. Tonight six one, seven nine thirty. Back on Nightside,
(29:41):
It's Night Side with.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Next on Nightside, Pedro from Alston Pedro, Welcome, how are
you sir?
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Dan?
Speaker 6 (29:51):
Well, thank you, thank you for letting me on, because
I have a lot to say about this case.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Go right ahead.
Speaker 6 (29:59):
First, I'm happy that the conclusion of this trial's taking
place in the outcome was what it should have been.
But what every caller, every single person that's listening to
this radio show, quite frankly, everyone in Massachusetts to be
really frustrated with is the fact that this was not
about justice for John o'keith. This was about everybody's show,
(30:21):
voting between these defense attorneys, getting all this free publicity,
free media. Everybody wanted to get there three minutes, fifteen
minutes of fame. But think about it, Mike Morrisky is
the biggest clown I've ever met. He spent half a
million bucks that they said, up to a half a
million according.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
To the Globe.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
One special prosecute brought Brennan. On top of that, another
two hundred and fifty eight thousand dollars spent on the
state police in Massachusetts to provide security, So taxpayer money.
The first trial was forty three forty four thousand. This
second trial they spent a lot more. For all the victims,
the said victim in Norfolk County, I want you to
(31:02):
go to Mike Morrissey's office. They challenge you to do
this and say, hey, Mike, why haven't you spend this
much money in this case, on my loved ones case?
How often have you brought in a special prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
You're asking, You're asked, Petro, You're asking all the right questions.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
And Morrissey I believe is up for reelection in November
of twenty twenty six, if he's still the district attorney
by then, and that's when the voters in Norfolk County
will have a chance to vote. The defense lawyers got
themselves involved in a high profile case. There's no reason
to hold them guilty of anything. It's like the defense
lawyers or the O. J. Simpson case. You know, they're
(31:42):
high profile defense lawyers and they tend to make themselves available. Obviously,
Brennan was not someone who was out chatter boxing on
the sidewalks, because a prosecutor should not be doing that.
He conducted himself professionally and happened to lose the prosecution.
Maybe the case just wasn't there, Maybe the case was
flawed because of the poor police detective work of Michael Proctor.
(32:08):
The State Police officer who spent more time trying to
I guess, send eat text and emails to his buddies
and find nude photos of Karen Reid. I mean, how
weird is how sick is that there's a.
Speaker 4 (32:21):
Lot part of this.
Speaker 6 (32:24):
I was watching this case and you know, maybe this
is a Catholic guilt in me, but I don't think
it is. I'm a devout Catholic and I try to
look at things from different perspectives, Okay, And one of
the things that literally brought me to tear dan I mean,
I mean, I'm having a hard time seeing this, but
you kind of think about these children. No one ever
thought about these four kids. They lost three parents. I
(32:47):
literally I prayed for them on Sunday. I pray for
them all the time. But you know, this is what
happens a lot in our society. We forget about the kids.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Well, I will bet you that, based up all they
know about the Okay family, that will people who will
step into the breach and those kids will will have
parental or you know, you know in Locus, in loci
locus parents support.
Speaker 4 (33:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
I wish I would have wished Mike Morrisy spent that
money putting in these kids five twenty nine plan.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
We're putting in the right kind of therapy, because that's
the other thing about this case.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
You know, legitimate comments, Pedro, legitimate comments. You've called before, right, Oh, yes,
I call a lot. Keep calling. Okay, you you a
great presentation. Thank you, Pedro. We'll talk again.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
Thank you, Thanks as usual, Bye bye.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Right back at you. Let me go to Lola in
San Diego. Lola, you have been a supporter of Karen
Reid on the West coast for a long time. You've
done standouts there and you've called us, and uh, I
want to give you an opportunity to take a little
bit of about and I go right ahead, Lola.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
Well thanks stan So. The whole movement was about pre
Karen Reid in justice to John o'keeith, and the state
of Massachusetts, in my humble opinion, has let it let
the O'Keefe family down over one hundred percent. They need
to reopen the case and go find the culprits. And
(34:15):
they're they're local, and that's all I'm going to say.
They know.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
I don't think you're going to you're going to be
disappointed there, because I think that it's very difficult for
a prosecutor to go and and indict different people for
a crime that they couldn't the first bite of the apple.
They lost the defense one.
Speaker 5 (34:36):
It was the person.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I understand that. But but look, if you're if you're
hoping that they're going to indict us another group of people,
although you might be right, it's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen. And if it does, it
would be it would be mind boggling and precedent setting,
because the lawyers for the second group of people would say,
(34:58):
wait a second, didn't you prosecute someone else for this crime,
for these exacts, same crime? How did the prosecutor get
past that defense?
Speaker 7 (35:08):
Okay, I have a suggestion.
Speaker 5 (35:13):
You're innocent until proven guilty. So she was proven not guilty,
So now go find somebody else because the evidence is there.
The evidence is there. They overlooked it. And we can
start with mister Proctor. We can start with the police
who came to Karen's.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Aid when well Proctor, for all his faults, had nothing
to do with the death of John O'Keefe. He may
have bungled the prosecution by having engaged in texting activity
which was beneath what a professional investigator surely the mass
how State police officer conduct should be.
Speaker 5 (35:51):
John O'Keeffe didn't, didn't just randomly fall on the property
of thirty four fee of you like?
Speaker 8 (36:00):
Come on, all right, Lola.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
I got you in here before the nine o'clock news.
You made a strong case for a second prosecution. Keep
listening and stay on top of this. Okay, we'll talk again.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
Thank you much, Lola Jaya, Massachusetts has let more than
the oh keeps down. The next victims are going to
be up against the same problem.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
All right, Thanks Lola, talk soon, Thank you very much.
Lola in San Diego, a regular listener and a fierce
advocate on behalf of Karen Reid. We're going to take
a break. Nine o'clock news coming up. If you're on
the line, stay there. If you're not a got one
line at six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
and one in six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
We are talking about this case until midnight, so just
(36:43):
keep the phone lines busy. Coming back on night's side,
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.