June 25, 2024 • 40 mins
Closing arguments were presented in the high-profile Karen Read murder trial. Read is charged with second-degree murder for the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe and has plead not guilty. The defense has argued that Read was framed for the murder. We brought you sound from Tuesday’s closing arguments, broke down the case, and heard listeners' thoughts.
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
It's night Side with Dan rays Costin'svideo. Right, everyone, there was
a big development in the Karen Reidtrial today because the closing arguments by both
the prosecution and defense were presented tothe jury. We have some of that
(00:21):
sound and the jury deliberate, soundedlike a little over two hours. And
again, I think it would havebeen exceptionally quick to come back with a
verdict. But I got to tellyou, my thought is that this jury
is I don't think likely to comeback with a conviction. I think it's
(00:43):
very unlikely as a matter of fact, that it would be a conviction.
You, I guess could have someonein the jury pool who would hold out
for a conviction and maybe get ahung jury. But I'm just amazed that
a case like this ended up asit has UH. And we'll have to
(01:03):
see what happens. But for thoseof you who are following the trial,
I'd love to hear from you asto how you think it's going to how
how it's going to end. Imean, I look, today's Tuesday.
There's no way that this case UHis not concluded by week's end. In
my opinion, I just can't imagineother than again, some in effect jury
(01:26):
nullification with one person saying, hey, I'm I'm I'm not going to do
this. I will not vote tohim to acquit for whatever reason. And
again you can always have again anullifying a nullifier as a juror. But
you hope that this trial, whichhas gone on for two months now,
will will will end with a witha resolution that everyone can can agree upon,
(01:52):
and I don't think they will uhend in total agreement. Let me
let me just give you a littlebit of a cent of the closing arguments
today from both the defense attorney,Alan Jackson, who's a lawyer out of
California and has represented some high profilecases. This has become a high profile
(02:13):
case. This is a case thatnow has in the last couple of weeks
begin to get some coverage on nationalnews networks, and whatever the result is,
I'm sure it will get national coverageon well, I suspect all of
the major news outlets. We're goingto go first to cut number twenty.
(02:34):
This is the defense lawyer, oneof the defense lawyers for Karen Reid.
The closing arguments. This is abouta minute and twenty seconds. It's attorney
defense attorney Alan Jackson. Cut twenty. Please rob for the investigator. Decide
on a narrative early on. Don'tgo to the crime scene. Don't take
witnesses in for questioning. Quitness questionall the witnesses together. Ignore witnesses who
(02:57):
don't fit your narrative. Allow friendsand family to tech those same witnesses.
Don't record interviews, write vague andfalse police reports, omit witnesses names,
omit witnesses interviews altogether. Don't photographthe evidence. Don't conduct any forensics.
Don't document the evidence, don't documentthe logs, don't create any logs whatsoever,
and don't maintain a chain of custody. Keep all the evidence in the
(03:21):
hands of one person, and thenmanipulate that evidence meaning videos. Don't turn
over videos, invert videos, turnfour sixteen pm into five point thirty PM,
and affidavits. Turn three pieces oftail aight into five pieces of tail
aight. De lead forty two minutesof surveillance footage. High personal relationships.
(03:45):
Make this case cut and dry,and ensure the homeowner quote never sees any
because he's a Boston cop. Butmost importantly, pick your Patsy, pend
it on the girl. It's notthat it could happen. It's that every
(04:05):
single one of those things I justmentioned did happen right in front of you.
Pretty powerful. Let's hear from theprosecutor, Adam Lally, who has,
by the way, a great reputationwithin the legal community. I've talked
with many people. I just thinkthat this case became so complicated. But
(04:30):
this is this is his his concludingremarks, his closing summary, State summation
Statements of the jury cut twenty five. Please Rob, he's the prised.
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.
What was the words of the defendant? Four times you were a testimony
from four different witnesses who overheard andobserved those statements from the defendant. On
(04:54):
January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, you were a testimony from firefighter Timothy
Nuttle. He was trying to bagvalve mask mister O'Keefe. He was working
on resuscitative efforts to try to savemister O'Keefe's life. He asked if anyone
saw anything or knew what happened,and the defendant said, I hit him,
(05:15):
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. Firefighter Anthony
Fammai was asking if anyone had informationon why Minster O'Keeffe was there in the
snow. The defendant repeatedly said,I hit him. I hit him.
Oh my god, I hit him. And I'm going to take one more
(05:38):
sound bite from both. We'll goto break and then we'll get to phone
calls. Cut twenty four A pleaserobins eighteen seconds. This again is the
defense lawyer Alan Jackson, basically hisfinal words to the jury. When you
stare the truth down, you'll seethat the Commonwealth has not proven a face
beyond a reasonable doubt into a morals, not even close. Ladies and gentlemen,
(06:02):
Karen Reid is innocent. Do justiceand find her not guilty. Ironically,
as Lally was finishing as the prosecutoragain Adam Walley was finishing his remarks
to the jury, the judge brieflyinterrupted, but I think again things didn't
(06:30):
go well for the prosecution in thiscase. This was his finish again about
the same length of time. I'vetried to pick some sound bites which indicate
what it was like in court today. This is cut number thirty two.
The conclusion by the prosecutor Adam Lally, what the constellation and the facts and
the evidence inelluctively demonstrate here was thatthe defendant drove a vehicle in reverse for
(06:55):
twenty four points from mars role forsixty two and a half struck, causing
those catastrophic head injuries, leaving himincapacitated. Increasing mister Lelly, I have
to stop you. You've gone over. I go that one sentence, one
sentence. I'll give you back fromthat facts and that evidence I would submit
(07:17):
an eluctably demonstrates her guilts on eachof the indictments before you, and I
would ask you to find you sothank you. Hey, the indictments second
degree murder, there's a manslaughter.There are lesser included defenses in voluntary manslaughter,
motor vehicle homicide, uh, andthen a simple leaving the scene of
(07:38):
an accident. We will be backwith your phone calls. How you feel
this case has gone. You donot have to be a lawyer to call.
If you are a lawyer, youwill particularly welcome. UH feel free.
Let's know what your gut tells you. Uh. Where do you think
this jury will land? Now again, I've often said you cannot predict what
(07:58):
a jury will do unless you've beenin the courtroom for the entirety of the
trial. I do believe that,but I think there is so much reasonable
doubt here. I cannot see aconviction issuing from this jury. But I've
been wrong before. It could bewrong again. Do not be intimidated.
I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to find out what you
think. Six one, seven,two, five, four, ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty, triple eight
(08:22):
nine to nine, ten thirty Backon night Side right after this, Now
back to Dan Ray live from theWindow World night Side Studios on WBZ News
Radio. We were talking about theKaren Reid case. I stayed away from
this case early on because I feltit was a pretty complicated case. I
(08:43):
heard a lot of the scuttle butt, if you will, and it was
not something that I would take onas a talk show host. But I
think at this point my view ofit has crystallized, and I hope yours
has as well. And we're goingto start off with a lawyer, a
lawyer who's a friend of mine.Let me welcome back to Nightside, attorney
(09:05):
Bill Kickham, Bill kick Him,Welcome to night Time. Let me put
you up here in the magic ofthe electronic magic. Hey Bill, how
are you tonight? Welcome? Howare you doing, jan I'm doing just
great. I know that you practicea lot in Norfolk County. I'd love
to know what your thoughts on thiscase are. Well, they reflect a
(09:28):
lot of yours. I think thisreasonable doubt that runs through this case northwest,
east and south, and I can'tsee this jury coming back with a
guilty. There may be a lessonincluded offense they might come back with,
but as to the chargers of seconddegree murder and hicular homicide, I don't
(09:50):
see it. I don't see itat all. And I think the real
loser here is a mass stake place. Oh, definitely, at a time
when they have an interim State Policecolonel, and also at a time when
the governor has been authorized legislatively togo beyond the leadership of the Massachusetts State
(10:13):
Police in picking the next head ofthe Massachusetts State Police, this would be
a very interesting choice that Mara Healeywill be able to make. Yeah,
I agree, And you know,one of the reasons why this case is
so captivating is that it's so frighteningbecause by all apparent indications, she was
(10:35):
framed, By all apparent indications.This is either a product of incredible incompetence,
I mean just eye popping incompetence onan investigatory law enforcement level, or
it's not incompetence, it's intentional.Either way, it's quite frightening to the
(10:58):
average person and out there. Yeah, the strongest part of the prosecution's case,
obviously are the excited utterances that sheallegedly stated upon discovering, you know,
the body in the front lawn.And normally, obviously though that's it,
(11:20):
that's admissible because it's an excited utterance. She chose not to get on
the witness stand, which is fine, but normally utterances like that would be
conclusive. But there was just somuch other questions around it, and then
and I think about you know,you're quite correct, it would be as
(11:41):
an excited utterance admissible normally, Butwhen you think of just context, I
mean, you have a woman whohad an argument with her boyfriend, apparently
a very serious argument which people canget in. She was probably spilled with
a lot of sense of self consciousnessand feeling bad about that, and that
(12:01):
can translate to oh, it's myfault, it's my fault, I did
it, I did it. Idid it. I'm so sorry that kind
of thing, that kind of thinking, that's entirely possible. You're talking about
someone that was in an extremely stressful, frightening situation, and it can entirely
Let me ask you another question,okay, and that is this, which
(12:22):
again, if O'Keefe does go intothe house, if he wasn't hit by
the car, and somehow, someway there's a brawl that breaks out,
and and and he you know,even if it's a lucky punch and he
hits his head on the side ofthe table and he's he's either dead or
(12:45):
an extremists, you've got to plantthem on your front lawn, agreed.
But they may have panicked. Theymay have said, where else are we
going to put him? The lastplace we saw him is where can left
them off? Yeah, the boythat have to have some clear force to
(13:07):
come up with that at that point. Well, you know, I think
I think, as as members ofvarious police departments, we have not seen
a lot of high IQs on displayhere. No, No, I mean
again, you would think that ifthey really you know, put them whatever.
I don't know, it's it's Ithink two of the most damaging pieces
(13:30):
of excalpatory evidence. Not talked abouta great deal a boy the media mentioned.
But is the fact that number one, his lower body, from his
waist and pelvis to his legs werecompletely untouched. Now, if someone is
(13:52):
hit by something, the size ofthe lexis suv in reverse, it's going
to hit that per in the legsdepending on how tall they are, or
the pelvis or the waist his legs. His pelvis was completely undamaged completely,
and then you have the defensive whatI believe are the defensive wounds on his
(14:16):
arms with puncture mocks and scratches.I mean, it's just unbelievably inculpatory evidence
has to I want you to reactto this. This is a little confusing,
but essentially Lally, the prosecutor isreduced to trying to argue in the
(14:39):
closing in his closing argument that thefact that Reid did not take off her
shoes when she came back to thehouse, I find that ridiculous. Well,
I want to play the art.I want to play the sound.
I thought you would, but let'slisten to it. This has cut twenty
eight, cut twenty eight. Pleaserob the bird. That's Aaron o'keef called
(15:05):
the defendant on the morning of thetwenty ninth because she was concerned for her
She wanted to know what was goingon with someone she considered her friend.
The defendant yells John is dead,and Miss Robertson grabs the phone and then
updates Erin O'Keefe as to what's goingon with John. Erin o'keef again calls
back later because she's concerned for someonethat she considered her friends. How's the
(15:26):
defender respe These are some of thelittle things. De Fennant indicates to Miss
o'keef that she just has to rememberthe bad times, and indicates to her,
I don't think I'll ever see youguys. This is after she's done
her quick in and out at OneMeadows app and is now with her parents
or with her father driving that car, essentially taking the murder weapon from Canton
(15:50):
and bringing it down to her parents'house in Dieton. She's indicating over the
phone to Aaron O'Keeffe, I don'tthink I'll ever see you guys. Why
if she didn't kill John, whywould she say them? Okay, I
actually asked Rob for the wrong bike. This is the bit that I want
you to react to. That wasmy fault, Rob Please cut twenty nine.
(16:10):
I misread the bike. Cut twentynine. This is the one about
taking Miss Nicabe and Miss Roberts indicates, and you heard this testimony from a
number of different pieces friends and familyof mister O'Keefe that you get a rule,
I'm pretty sure rule in this houseas far as you take the shoes
off when you come in the house. And so what a miss McCabe and
Miss Roberts both do when they're enteringin that house on January's play Now they
(16:34):
take off their boots, they mountainsnow, they take off their boots in
the mudroom and then they walk in. What did they both indicate that the
defendant did that morning when she cameback to the house, walked right in
with the shoes. You hear thatsecond voicemail. It's after the defendant's ride
back of one mentos apt after herphone is reconnected with mister o'keef's WiFi,
(16:57):
and you can hear the footsteps.Are that maybe in the grass or they
might be in a house. Whyis it that the defendant has no issue
with wearing shoes in the house whenmister o'keef has that strict rule because she
knows where he is. She knowsit's not an issue. He's not coming
home because she hit him with theirsuv and she left him in the snow.
(17:22):
I thought that was if that's thebest that they have, you know,
Myria, mister Lallely is charged withdoing the best he can with the
evidence he has, weak or strong. He made a decision to use that,
(17:42):
and that, in my opinion,was extremely unwise as a strategic matter
and a substantive legal evidentiary matter thata woman who was in the state she
was in would think that a priorityis to take her shoes off a push
comes in the house. Is it'sjust ludicrous. I mean, it speaks,
(18:03):
it doesn't speak, It screams ofdesperation. Now he had to do
what he could with what he had. Had that been me, had I
been the prosecutor, I would nothave included that in my clothing. It
comes. It comes across as asunnecessarily weak. It's it just you know.
(18:26):
But translation to the jury is,listen, ladies and gentlemen, I
don't have a lot to work withhere. Okay, just just go with
me on this one. Okay,I don't have a lot to work with
here. I'm doing the best Ican. And then, by the way,
there the jury is six men andsix women, and I suspect that
a lot of women on that jurythey could put themselves in her position,
(18:48):
uh and say they're taking on shoes. Would be the last thing you'd be
thinking of in those those moments ofdistress. Whether you hit him or well,
whether you you knew you didn't hithim, you still know that that
he didn't come home that night,Bill kick him. As always, I
appreciate you taking the time. Greatanalysis, Thank you, my friend,
(19:12):
great show. Take care Dan talkall right? All right? Uh,
the only line that is open rightnow, six one, seven, four,
ten thirty. Your thoughts on theKaren Reid case and where you think
this jury will ultimately leand you knowwhat I feel. I'm more interested in
what do you feel. I'm notlooking to argue with you on this one.
Just give me your reasons why youbelieve one way or the other.
(19:32):
We'll be back right after the newsat the bottom of the hour. It's
night Boston's news radio. Back tothe phones, we go. Your thoughts
as to what the Karen Reed juryis likely to come back with Justin and
Marlborough Justin welcome back, How areyou, sir? Hi, thanks for
(19:56):
taking my call. You're welcome.I believe this has been I believe this
has been such a waste of moneyfor the Norfolk County residents. This would
never have gone to trial because haveyou ever driven twenty four miles per hour
and re this that's in a snowstorm. That's tough. That's very yes.
(20:21):
And also I have a lawyer questionfor you. Is it common for lawyers
in the opening comments to change theiropinion when they closed, Because when Manny
spoke, he said the accident happenedat twelve forty five in his opening,
in his opening, but in hisclothes he said it happened at twelve thirty.
(20:45):
I found that very odd. Yeah, I don't know. I'll be
honest with you. Probably have followedthe case more effectively than I have.
Yeah, I mean you would thinkthat a case was investigated properly, have
been able to to to cite thesame time. Maybe it was a statement
sometimes people speaking the thing. Yeah. The reason he did that is because
(21:15):
she went on to he Cam andReid got onto John o'keef's cell phone at
his house and it came in attop thirty six. That's how we knew
was wrong. But my main pointI'll leave you with is that Tuper Paul
I thought sorry for him. Hewas enough accounting to the paid for a
(21:40):
specialist. He he's that he spunaround and traveled thirty feet. That's and
with no debt, with no bruisesto his body. That's impossible. I
mean, I don't know why thelawyer just says, you have no chance
of doing this. Yeah, wellagain, it certainly was a badly tried
(22:03):
case. Now, having said that, who knows what the jury's going to
do, right, I would bestunned if the jury comes back with a
conviction and they could come back onsome sort of lesser, lesser charge.
I mean, I don't think there'sany suggestion that that they're going to get
her on a murder murder in thesecond degree, because obviously she would have
to have an intent that I don'tthink she could have formulated. Now,
(22:26):
the potential I think you can arguewould be that the car was in reverse.
They had an argument. He getout of the car and he's walking
towards the house and she's going tojust floor it. I'm speculating here,
and she didn't take it out ofreverse, and and she thinks she's she's
(22:48):
flooring it to go off, youknow, you know, in a in
a blaze of glory, and shegoes in reverse. I mean, that's
one conceivable way that you could somehowtravel. I think they said sixty two
feet if I'm not mistaken, attwenty four miles an hour. Yeah,
that's a picture's mountain. So that'sa that's a that's a good length of
(23:10):
a good distance. But who knows, you know, but justin your parents,
Yep, go ahead. Yeah,I just want to say I have
I had her father as a professorthirty years ago, and I'm going to
go to the hearing tomorrow, soI hope I get to say hi to
him and give him his best Ifeel so sorry for his family. I
(23:33):
hope it ends good. Very nice, very nice gesture, justin, very
nice gesture. So you're you're predictingan acquittal, I assume I hope.
So yes, Okay, great,have a great night. Thanks, Thanks
Justin. Let's keep you. Thanksfor being the subject though You're very welcome.
Thanks justin appreciate it. Let's keeprolling here as we're going to get
(23:55):
one more before the break. Jill, you are next to nights, I
go ahead. Geo. Hello,Dan, I have good evening. I
have followed this in a very superficialway. I haven't listened to anything.
I've read almost nothing, but Ihave heard commentators talk about it, and
I reflect back on this such aincompetence that it reminds me of a conspiracy
(24:23):
of thieves, my father would say, or a cult who is all they're
all collaborating to protect the culture.And I believe Karen is an accessory after
the fact, and part of herpart in murdering this person was to say
that she ran over him, althoughit was unnecessary because he died in some
(24:48):
other way so years ago. Soyou think that there was actually a conspiracy
that involved Karen Read and the folksin the house. Yeah, I believe.
I believe that she is going toHer job was to take the pressure
off of them by saying she didit, and so people would say,
(25:10):
well, it wasn't murder, itwas a mistake. It was a traffic
accident, and so we'll find hernot guilty. But you know, someplace
along the way. The performance ofthe murder just went totally wrong. I
can say that knowing what little Iknow about fentanyl. And the previous lawyer
(25:32):
was talking about how did he diewhen he had nothing below his waist or
his hips? And it's possible ifyou blackjacked him because he refused to take
a drink that you offered him andhe thought there was fentyel in it.
So the drink stills on the floor. You blackjacked him. Somebody grabs the
(25:53):
drink and they pour it in hismouth. It gets all over him.
He's now wet. We can geta mop. But the thing, how
do we dry him off before thebefore we call the police. Well,
let's take him out and dump himin the snow. Again, there's been
no there's been no mention of sentinelat no, of course not you.
Yeah, yeah, I believe that. Uh, the d toxology, I
(26:15):
mean, I'm sure that there wasa toxology before done. So yes,
there was, there were There wasforensic done, but the forensics are only
done if the DA on what theDA asks for. And I think the
DA, the police and the forensicslab was proven ten years ago when one
(26:36):
hundred people got out of jail forbad evidence against them that the technician said.
I was told time after time bythe DA what you you have opened
up a conspiracy geo, which doesn'tsurprise me. You you think outside the
box. I'll ask you the ultimatequestion, how do you think the jury's
going to come back? Uh?Well, I was pretty right question.
(27:00):
I'm up on my break here,so that's why I think it's going to
be an acquittal or guilty. Ithink if there was an accessory after the
fact, but that couldn't be becausethey haven't had the federal trial yet.
After the federal trial, she'll becharged and found guilty of accessory after the
fact. But now I get youdown to that, Gill, I got
to run because I'm up against itand I appreciate interesting, interesting perspective.
(27:23):
I must tell you, there's there'slittle of what you said that I had
even thought about, but you threwit out there, and that's what we
do one night side. Thank youmuch, if you very good. Thank
you have a great night. Okay, let me get Kathy in hull here.
Kathy, I'm going to try toget you in before the break.
Go ahead, Kathy, what's yourthought? On that, I think she's
(27:44):
going to come back as innocent.So well, they don't come back as
innocent, it's only not guilty orguilty, so as an acquittal. Yeah,
what makes you think that, Kathy, Because when the I didn't hear
a lot about it when it firsthappened, and then in the last thirty
days, of course, the mediahas taken a hold of it, finally
(28:07):
starting to pay attention, and peopleare starting to pay attention to this,
and the more and more from thefirst day of this case, listening to
it, there was so much shadinessgoing on behind the scenes with the offices
and the state troopers and the prosecutor, and definitely innocent. I don't think
the women on that jury will findher guilty. I don't believe so.
(28:30):
And if I was sitting on theguilty, if I was sitting on that
jury, she'd come back not guilty. Yeah. Well again, I think
it's it's certainly conceivable that a verdictcould come tomorrow, and you know,
tomorrow night we'll be talking a lotabout the debate, the presidential debate on
Thursday night, so we may haveto with the verdict. If the verdict
(28:52):
does come back tomorrow. We haveto make room for that of the show
as well, so we may havea Jim packed show tomorrow night. We
will certainly want to have one ofthe things I wanted to say with you,
I don't want them. People werecommenting today that John o'keef got lost
in this trial, and our heartsgo out to his parents, and our
hats go out to read in herparents, because no matter what the outcome
(29:14):
of this is, they've lost.We've lost an officer, we've lost an
uncle, we've lost a brother,a father, and he apparently caring for
it, caring for two children whowere either a nephew and me. So
it pot all the way around.So if stay of prayer tonight, and
you know, hopefully everything goes welltomorrow and she's found not guilty. All
(29:37):
right, Thanks Kathin. All right, have a good evening, Thanks key,
Thank you all. More often,I loved you. I loved your
the sobriety of your call, meaningin other words, you really analyzed it
very well, I thought, thankyou so much. Thank you. You
have a good evening, you too. Coming back. We got Susan,
we got Catherine, and we gotMatt, and I got room for you.
We have two lines open at six, one, seven two. Jump
(30:00):
on board, might even get youin before the eleven o'clock news. Well,
I'm more than happy to continue thisinto the eleven o'clock hour tonight.
Six one, seven, two,five, four, ten thirty dial away.
You'll well we get one field alreadystill got one there, Keep going,
keep dialing, coming back on Nightside. Now, back to Dan Ray
live from the Window World nights SideStudios on DOMENYBZ News Radio. Susan is
(30:26):
in cabridge. Susan, your nextnights. I'd love to know what you
think. I suspect I know whatyou're going to say, but let's hear
it. This is one time wemight be in agreement, Susan, I
think go ahead well with regardless.Just to your last call or, I
did want to mention that John o'keith'sfamily was sitting in court today with the
(30:47):
Alberts and the McCabe. Yes,I think that they're not buying the frame,
you know, the idea that youknow that she was framed by them,
And as you know, proversations,I think you're right, yep.
And as you know from our priorconversations, you know I do not buy
(31:11):
you know, uh, I thinkit's a ludicrous theory. However, I
do think that the prosecution made acritical error when they went for a murder
charge. I don't know if theydid it maybe to try to get her
to plead out, you know,and then she didn't plead out for you
(31:33):
know, a lesser manslaughter charge.But I think it's pretty clear that they
did not have the evidence, uhfor you know, a second degree murder
charge. And I feel like,uh, the victim here has been badly
served by that, by that error, because I think we could have been
(31:56):
saved a whole lot of you know, the ridiculous sir that has gone on
for you know, the duration ofthis case, and one thing that I
think has gotten lost in all ofthis and for all the you know,
raw Rah Karen Reid people, shehad already endangered his life that night by
(32:17):
driving very very drunk. You know, there's no question that she was drunk,
and she endangered his life, herlife, you know, whoever she
passed on the road. And Ifeel like, you know, if this
had just been as simple, ifthe prosecution had just done a simple you
(32:39):
know, manslaughter charge, I feellike that would have highlighted, you know,
more sort of the dangers of drinkingand driving, especially in this stage
when they might not to argue withinthis one. But I think the point
he makes a good one. Butwhen that case first comes in and they
look at it and they listened tothe to the to the tapes, the
(33:04):
audio tapes, if I hate yourguts and blah blah, this is a
relationship which seemed to be headed intoheading in a bad place. And so
maybe they said, hey, thiswoman was really drunk and she must have,
you know, hit this guy again. I initially my initial reaction and
I'll tell you my point of viewhas changed on this that initially I thought
to myself, how dumb would thesepeople be in the house if they really
(33:29):
beat the heck out of us ofthis guy and they're going to plant him
on the front lawn. I mean, you know, how crazy would you?
But so that was dumb but alsojust I mean not just dumb,
but I mean who does that?Like this was supposedly their friend. Why
wouldn't they have said there was anaccident called nine to one one like it
(33:52):
just it makes no sense on itjust and then like show me another time
when that has happened when there's beena case in which you know, I
mean, I just find it ludicrous. I mean, if if the animus
between and amongst these families existed,why would this fellow John o'keef, who
(34:13):
I assume as a Boston police officer, was smart enough to sense danger.
Why would he have even walked intothat house that night? I mean,
if if I thought he was agroup of people who lived in my town
who really didn't like me, andI felt uncomfortable and threatened, and they
said, wait, come on off, we're having a little fourth at July
barbecue, would love to have youover. Uh So I would probably say,
(34:37):
gee, I I got some otherplans, but thanks for the invite.
I don't know right right, butyou said your viewpoint has changed on
it, so what Initially? No, Initially I thought to myself, Yeah,
this makes sense. She was mad, she backed up, maybe intentionally,
maybe not, and then she madestatements of I hit him, I
(34:58):
hit him, I hit him.And the alternative you were hearing was that
they beat the heck out of thisguy in the basement and then someone planted
him on the lawn. I mean, I could just see people will turning
around. I don't care how blitchedyou are, and you're going to say,
we just killed this guy. Whatare we going to do? I
got a great idea. Let's puthim out in the front lawn, knowing
the house it's snowing. I mean, it's you know. The other thing
(35:22):
with regard to her drinking is sobecause of that creep Proctor's text. We
know that she had Crones disease,and I have a friend who has Crown's
disease. You're not supposed to drinkat all when you have crones. It's
not only you know, if you'rein the midst of about of it,
it you know makes it. Youknow, yeah, way worse you're not
(35:47):
in the midst of about it triggersit. So I don't know, very
bad judgment. Okay, so letme get you on the jury. How
do you think that sor he comesback when it comes back. I think,
you know, I think they're goingto equit. I'm holding out my
because I honestly believe that you know, it is a that she did hit
(36:12):
him, that it was you know, involuntary manslaughter. But I think that
they will most likely equit due toin large part Proctor. You know I
got you. I gotta as alwaysappreciate your call. Appreciate you loyalsly Tonight's
I thinks, okay, we agree, Thank you, Mad in Florida,
Mad, what do you think?Thank God? I never heard so many
(36:36):
experts in my life. God thatthis is exactly why this country system is
the worst. I mean, yougot these people who you follow the evidence.
It doesn't matter what you think orany of that medical examiner who dedicates
his life for like forty years tomedical science says that there is no evidence
(37:00):
at all that he got hit bya car. Sorry, that's reality,
that's science. I don't care whatyou think. Oh, she had Crone's
disease, so you know she killedthem? No, no, no,
the better one was my friend Gillacquitted. Because this is this whole thing
has been a waste of time anda complete disgrace. I'll all you got
(37:21):
to say the lawyers will be wellcompensated, which is understandable. Uhh.
And I think she has a GoFundMepage which has raised a lot of money.
And there'll be a movie, I'msure. I mean, yeah,
it's actually already on Netflix getting editedapparently so that'll be the next big documentary.
(37:44):
Unbelievable. It's unbelievable. And ofcourse the real tragedy is a former
bust and police officer remains dead.Well, I just hope the FEDS,
like the FEDS would open up anew case, right or would they just
kind of like wash the hands ofthis whole thing. I don't know.
I mean, I've heard for amonth or so that the FEDS are looking
into it, but the FEDS keeppretty tight lipped, you know, so
(38:06):
that's not gonna run. Well,they'll probably mess it up anyway, so
you know, that's all they dois mess things up and waste money.
So funny, Hey, who knows? Okay, Well, well, I
think the the interim US attorney whowe had on recently, pretty solid guy.
They that's that's a pretty effective officehere in Boston. At this point,
(38:27):
Matt is always what you saying,thank you, thanks? All right,
So we got to take a breakhere. I don't want to short
change anyone. So therefore, whatwe're going to do is simply, we
got one line open at six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty. We got one lineopen at six one, seven,
nine, ten thirty. I gotMichael and Addleborough, Mike and Framingham and
Catherine and Marshfield. You folks willbe first up next hour. Batting order
(38:52):
will be Catherine, followed by Michaeland Attleborough and Mike and Framingham. And
we got a couple of lines open. The question is very simple, and
that is when Karen read jury returns, what do you believe their verdict will
be guilty or not guilty? Jury'sremember, never come back and say innocent.
(39:15):
Sometimes people who are acquitted are indeeda fact a case of actual innocence.
They're always a situation where the governmenthas failed to prove the elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.So keep that in mind. We just
want to know what to think.So far, every one of my callers
(39:37):
have said innocent or not innocent,have said not guilty, although some of
them might have expressed a belief thatshe is truly innocent, and that might
have been a frame going on here. One person who is going to look
good in retrospect here as the freelancejournalist Turtle Boy. This has been a
(40:00):
bizarre, bizarre case from start tofinish, and I feel that the majority
of my listeners are correct. Itwill result in an acquittal, and I
would suspect that if it's gonna resultin acquittal, it will probably happen sometime
tomorrow. We will to want Ipreview the presidential debate at eight o'clock,
(40:22):
and we're gonna certainly follow play it. You'll hear it live here on WBZ,
and then you can respond to itand tell us who you think one
or who you think fared better,either President or Biden or fuller President Trump
back on Night's side right after theeleven o'clock It was here on a Tuesday night.
It's night Side with Dan rays Costin'svideo. Right, everyone, there was
a big development in the Karen Reidtrial today because the closing arguments by both
the prosecution and defense were presented tothe jury. We have some of that
(00:21):
sound and the jury deliberate, soundedlike a little over two hours. And
again, I think it would havebeen exceptionally quick to come back with a
verdict. But I got to tellyou, my thought is that this jury
is I don't think likely to comeback with a conviction. I think it's
(00:43):
very unlikely as a matter of fact, that it would be a conviction.
You, I guess could have someonein the jury pool who would hold out
for a conviction and maybe get ahung jury. But I'm just amazed that
a case like this ended up asit has UH. And we'll have to
(01:03):
see what happens. But for thoseof you who are following the trial,
I'd love to hear from you asto how you think it's going to how
how it's going to end. Imean, I look, today's Tuesday.
There's no way that this case UHis not concluded by week's end. In
my opinion, I just can't imagineother than again, some in effect jury
(01:26):
nullification with one person saying, hey, I'm I'm I'm not going to do
this. I will not vote tohim to acquit for whatever reason. And
again you can always have again anullifying a nullifier as a juror. But
you hope that this trial, whichhas gone on for two months now,
will will will end with a witha resolution that everyone can can agree upon,
(01:52):
and I don't think they will uhend in total agreement. Let me
let me just give you a littlebit of a cent of the closing arguments
today from both the defense attorney,Alan Jackson, who's a lawyer out of
California and has represented some high profilecases. This has become a high profile
(02:13):
case. This is a case thatnow has in the last couple of weeks
begin to get some coverage on nationalnews networks, and whatever the result is,
I'm sure it will get national coverageon well, I suspect all of
the major news outlets. We're goingto go first to cut number twenty.
(02:34):
This is the defense lawyer, oneof the defense lawyers for Karen Reid.
The closing arguments. This is abouta minute and twenty seconds. It's attorney
defense attorney Alan Jackson. Cut twenty. Please rob for the investigator. Decide
on a narrative early on. Don'tgo to the crime scene. Don't take
witnesses in for questioning. Quitness questionall the witnesses together. Ignore witnesses who
(02:57):
don't fit your narrative. Allow friendsand family to tech those same witnesses.
Don't record interviews, write vague andfalse police reports, omit witnesses names,
omit witnesses interviews altogether. Don't photographthe evidence. Don't conduct any forensics.
Don't document the evidence, don't documentthe logs, don't create any logs whatsoever,
and don't maintain a chain of custody. Keep all the evidence in the
(03:21):
hands of one person, and thenmanipulate that evidence meaning videos. Don't turn
over videos, invert videos, turnfour sixteen pm into five point thirty PM,
and affidavits. Turn three pieces oftail aight into five pieces of tail
aight. De lead forty two minutesof surveillance footage. High personal relationships.
(03:45):
Make this case cut and dry,and ensure the homeowner quote never sees any
because he's a Boston cop. Butmost importantly, pick your Patsy, pend
it on the girl. It's notthat it could happen. It's that every
(04:05):
single one of those things I justmentioned did happen right in front of you.
Pretty powerful. Let's hear from theprosecutor, Adam Lally, who has,
by the way, a great reputationwithin the legal community. I've talked
with many people. I just thinkthat this case became so complicated. But
(04:30):
this is this is his his concludingremarks, his closing summary, State summation
Statements of the jury cut twenty five. Please Rob, he's the prised.
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.
What was the words of the defendant? Four times you were a testimony
from four different witnesses who overheard andobserved those statements from the defendant. On
(04:54):
January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two, you were a testimony from firefighter Timothy
Nuttle. He was trying to bagvalve mask mister O'Keefe. He was working
on resuscitative efforts to try to savemister O'Keefe's life. He asked if anyone
saw anything or knew what happened,and the defendant said, I hit him,
(05:15):
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. Firefighter Anthony
Fammai was asking if anyone had informationon why Minster O'Keeffe was there in the
snow. The defendant repeatedly said,I hit him. I hit him.
Oh my god, I hit him. And I'm going to take one more
(05:38):
sound bite from both. We'll goto break and then we'll get to phone
calls. Cut twenty four A pleaserobins eighteen seconds. This again is the
defense lawyer Alan Jackson, basically hisfinal words to the jury. When you
stare the truth down, you'll seethat the Commonwealth has not proven a face
beyond a reasonable doubt into a morals, not even close. Ladies and gentlemen,
(06:02):
Karen Reid is innocent. Do justiceand find her not guilty. Ironically,
as Lally was finishing as the prosecutoragain Adam Walley was finishing his remarks
to the jury, the judge brieflyinterrupted, but I think again things didn't
(06:30):
go well for the prosecution in thiscase. This was his finish again about
the same length of time. I'vetried to pick some sound bites which indicate
what it was like in court today. This is cut number thirty two.
The conclusion by the prosecutor Adam Lally, what the constellation and the facts and
the evidence inelluctively demonstrate here was thatthe defendant drove a vehicle in reverse for
(06:55):
twenty four points from mars role forsixty two and a half struck, causing
those catastrophic head injuries, leaving himincapacitated. Increasing mister Lelly, I have
to stop you. You've gone over. I go that one sentence, one
sentence. I'll give you back fromthat facts and that evidence I would submit
(07:17):
an eluctably demonstrates her guilts on eachof the indictments before you, and I
would ask you to find you sothank you. Hey, the indictments second
degree murder, there's a manslaughter.There are lesser included defenses in voluntary manslaughter,
motor vehicle homicide, uh, andthen a simple leaving the scene of
(07:38):
an accident. We will be backwith your phone calls. How you feel
this case has gone. You donot have to be a lawyer to call.
If you are a lawyer, youwill particularly welcome. UH feel free.
Let's know what your gut tells you. Uh. Where do you think
this jury will land? Now again, I've often said you cannot predict what
(07:58):
a jury will do unless you've beenin the courtroom for the entirety of the
trial. I do believe that,but I think there is so much reasonable
doubt here. I cannot see aconviction issuing from this jury. But I've
been wrong before. It could bewrong again. Do not be intimidated.
I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to find out what you
think. Six one, seven,two, five, four, ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty, triple eight
(08:22):
nine to nine, ten thirty Backon night Side right after this, Now
back to Dan Ray live from theWindow World night Side Studios on WBZ News
Radio. We were talking about theKaren Reid case. I stayed away from
this case early on because I feltit was a pretty complicated case. I
(08:43):
heard a lot of the scuttle butt, if you will, and it was
not something that I would take onas a talk show host. But I
think at this point my view ofit has crystallized, and I hope yours
has as well. And we're goingto start off with a lawyer, a
lawyer who's a friend of mine.Let me welcome back to Nightside, attorney
(09:05):
Bill Kickham, Bill kick Him,Welcome to night Time. Let me put
you up here in the magic ofthe electronic magic. Hey Bill, how
are you tonight? Welcome? Howare you doing, jan I'm doing just
great. I know that you practicea lot in Norfolk County. I'd love
to know what your thoughts on thiscase are. Well, they reflect a
(09:28):
lot of yours. I think thisreasonable doubt that runs through this case northwest,
east and south, and I can'tsee this jury coming back with a
guilty. There may be a lessonincluded offense they might come back with,
but as to the chargers of seconddegree murder and hicular homicide, I don't
(09:50):
see it. I don't see itat all. And I think the real
loser here is a mass stake place. Oh, definitely, at a time
when they have an interim State Policecolonel, and also at a time when
the governor has been authorized legislatively togo beyond the leadership of the Massachusetts State
(10:13):
Police in picking the next head ofthe Massachusetts State Police, this would be
a very interesting choice that Mara Healeywill be able to make. Yeah,
I agree, And you know,one of the reasons why this case is
so captivating is that it's so frighteningbecause by all apparent indications, she was
(10:35):
framed, By all apparent indications.This is either a product of incredible incompetence,
I mean just eye popping incompetence onan investigatory law enforcement level, or
it's not incompetence, it's intentional.Either way, it's quite frightening to the
(10:58):
average person and out there. Yeah, the strongest part of the prosecution's case,
obviously are the excited utterances that sheallegedly stated upon discovering, you know,
the body in the front lawn.And normally, obviously though that's it,
(11:20):
that's admissible because it's an excited utterance. She chose not to get on
the witness stand, which is fine, but normally utterances like that would be
conclusive. But there was just somuch other questions around it, and then
and I think about you know,you're quite correct, it would be as
(11:41):
an excited utterance admissible normally, Butwhen you think of just context, I
mean, you have a woman whohad an argument with her boyfriend, apparently
a very serious argument which people canget in. She was probably spilled with
a lot of sense of self consciousnessand feeling bad about that, and that
(12:01):
can translate to oh, it's myfault, it's my fault, I did
it, I did it. Idid it. I'm so sorry that kind
of thing, that kind of thinking, that's entirely possible. You're talking about
someone that was in an extremely stressful, frightening situation, and it can entirely
Let me ask you another question,okay, and that is this, which
(12:22):
again, if O'Keefe does go intothe house, if he wasn't hit by
the car, and somehow, someway there's a brawl that breaks out,
and and and he you know,even if it's a lucky punch and he
hits his head on the side ofthe table and he's he's either dead or
(12:45):
an extremists, you've got to plantthem on your front lawn, agreed.
But they may have panicked. Theymay have said, where else are we
going to put him? The lastplace we saw him is where can left
them off? Yeah, the boythat have to have some clear force to
(13:07):
come up with that at that point. Well, you know, I think
I think, as as members ofvarious police departments, we have not seen
a lot of high IQs on displayhere. No, No, I mean
again, you would think that ifthey really you know, put them whatever.
I don't know, it's it's Ithink two of the most damaging pieces
(13:30):
of excalpatory evidence. Not talked abouta great deal a boy the media mentioned.
But is the fact that number one, his lower body, from his
waist and pelvis to his legs werecompletely untouched. Now, if someone is
(13:52):
hit by something, the size ofthe lexis suv in reverse, it's going
to hit that per in the legsdepending on how tall they are, or
the pelvis or the waist his legs. His pelvis was completely undamaged completely,
and then you have the defensive whatI believe are the defensive wounds on his
(14:16):
arms with puncture mocks and scratches.I mean, it's just unbelievably inculpatory evidence
has to I want you to reactto this. This is a little confusing,
but essentially Lally, the prosecutor isreduced to trying to argue in the
(14:39):
closing in his closing argument that thefact that Reid did not take off her
shoes when she came back to thehouse, I find that ridiculous. Well,
I want to play the art.I want to play the sound.
I thought you would, but let'slisten to it. This has cut twenty
eight, cut twenty eight. Pleaserob the bird. That's Aaron o'keef called
(15:05):
the defendant on the morning of thetwenty ninth because she was concerned for her
She wanted to know what was goingon with someone she considered her friend.
The defendant yells John is dead,and Miss Robertson grabs the phone and then
updates Erin O'Keefe as to what's goingon with John. Erin o'keef again calls
back later because she's concerned for someonethat she considered her friends. How's the
(15:26):
defender respe These are some of thelittle things. De Fennant indicates to Miss
o'keef that she just has to rememberthe bad times, and indicates to her,
I don't think I'll ever see youguys. This is after she's done
her quick in and out at OneMeadows app and is now with her parents
or with her father driving that car, essentially taking the murder weapon from Canton
(15:50):
and bringing it down to her parents'house in Dieton. She's indicating over the
phone to Aaron O'Keeffe, I don'tthink I'll ever see you guys. Why
if she didn't kill John, whywould she say them? Okay, I
actually asked Rob for the wrong bike. This is the bit that I want
you to react to. That wasmy fault, Rob Please cut twenty nine.
(16:10):
I misread the bike. Cut twentynine. This is the one about
taking Miss Nicabe and Miss Roberts indicates, and you heard this testimony from a
number of different pieces friends and familyof mister O'Keefe that you get a rule,
I'm pretty sure rule in this houseas far as you take the shoes
off when you come in the house. And so what a miss McCabe and
Miss Roberts both do when they're enteringin that house on January's play Now they
(16:34):
take off their boots, they mountainsnow, they take off their boots in
the mudroom and then they walk in. What did they both indicate that the
defendant did that morning when she cameback to the house, walked right in
with the shoes. You hear thatsecond voicemail. It's after the defendant's ride
back of one mentos apt after herphone is reconnected with mister o'keef's WiFi,
(16:57):
and you can hear the footsteps.Are that maybe in the grass or they
might be in a house. Whyis it that the defendant has no issue
with wearing shoes in the house whenmister o'keef has that strict rule because she
knows where he is. She knowsit's not an issue. He's not coming
home because she hit him with theirsuv and she left him in the snow.
(17:22):
I thought that was if that's thebest that they have, you know,
Myria, mister Lallely is charged withdoing the best he can with the
evidence he has, weak or strong. He made a decision to use that,
(17:42):
and that, in my opinion,was extremely unwise as a strategic matter
and a substantive legal evidentiary matter thata woman who was in the state she
was in would think that a priorityis to take her shoes off a push
comes in the house. Is it'sjust ludicrous. I mean, it speaks,
(18:03):
it doesn't speak, It screams ofdesperation. Now he had to do
what he could with what he had. Had that been me, had I
been the prosecutor, I would nothave included that in my clothing. It
comes. It comes across as asunnecessarily weak. It's it just you know.
(18:26):
But translation to the jury is,listen, ladies and gentlemen, I
don't have a lot to work withhere. Okay, just just go with
me on this one. Okay,I don't have a lot to work with
here. I'm doing the best Ican. And then, by the way,
there the jury is six men andsix women, and I suspect that
a lot of women on that jurythey could put themselves in her position,
(18:48):
uh and say they're taking on shoes. Would be the last thing you'd be
thinking of in those those moments ofdistress. Whether you hit him or well,
whether you you knew you didn't hithim, you still know that that
he didn't come home that night,Bill kick him. As always, I
appreciate you taking the time. Greatanalysis, Thank you, my friend,
(19:12):
great show. Take care Dan talkall right? All right? Uh,
the only line that is open rightnow, six one, seven, four,
ten thirty. Your thoughts on theKaren Reid case and where you think
this jury will ultimately leand you knowwhat I feel. I'm more interested in
what do you feel. I'm notlooking to argue with you on this one.
Just give me your reasons why youbelieve one way or the other.
(19:32):
We'll be back right after the newsat the bottom of the hour. It's
night Boston's news radio. Back tothe phones, we go. Your thoughts
as to what the Karen Reed juryis likely to come back with Justin and
Marlborough Justin welcome back, How areyou, sir? Hi, thanks for
(19:56):
taking my call. You're welcome.I believe this has been I believe this
has been such a waste of moneyfor the Norfolk County residents. This would
never have gone to trial because haveyou ever driven twenty four miles per hour
and re this that's in a snowstorm. That's tough. That's very yes.
(20:21):
And also I have a lawyer questionfor you. Is it common for lawyers
in the opening comments to change theiropinion when they closed, Because when Manny
spoke, he said the accident happenedat twelve forty five in his opening,
in his opening, but in hisclothes he said it happened at twelve thirty.
(20:45):
I found that very odd. Yeah, I don't know. I'll be
honest with you. Probably have followedthe case more effectively than I have.
Yeah, I mean you would thinkthat a case was investigated properly, have
been able to to to cite thesame time. Maybe it was a statement
sometimes people speaking the thing. Yeah. The reason he did that is because
(21:15):
she went on to he Cam andReid got onto John o'keef's cell phone at
his house and it came in attop thirty six. That's how we knew
was wrong. But my main pointI'll leave you with is that Tuper Paul
I thought sorry for him. Hewas enough accounting to the paid for a
(21:40):
specialist. He he's that he spunaround and traveled thirty feet. That's and
with no debt, with no bruisesto his body. That's impossible. I
mean, I don't know why thelawyer just says, you have no chance
of doing this. Yeah, wellagain, it certainly was a badly tried
(22:03):
case. Now, having said that, who knows what the jury's going to
do, right, I would bestunned if the jury comes back with a
conviction and they could come back onsome sort of lesser, lesser charge.
I mean, I don't think there'sany suggestion that that they're going to get
her on a murder murder in thesecond degree, because obviously she would have
to have an intent that I don'tthink she could have formulated. Now,
(22:26):
the potential I think you can arguewould be that the car was in reverse.
They had an argument. He getout of the car and he's walking
towards the house and she's going tojust floor it. I'm speculating here,
and she didn't take it out ofreverse, and and she thinks she's she's
(22:48):
flooring it to go off, youknow, you know, in a in
a blaze of glory, and shegoes in reverse. I mean, that's
one conceivable way that you could somehowtravel. I think they said sixty two
feet if I'm not mistaken, attwenty four miles an hour. Yeah,
that's a picture's mountain. So that'sa that's a that's a good length of
(23:10):
a good distance. But who knows, you know, but justin your parents,
Yep, go ahead. Yeah,I just want to say I have
I had her father as a professorthirty years ago, and I'm going to
go to the hearing tomorrow, soI hope I get to say hi to
him and give him his best Ifeel so sorry for his family. I
(23:33):
hope it ends good. Very nice, very nice gesture, justin, very
nice gesture. So you're you're predictingan acquittal, I assume I hope.
So yes, Okay, great,have a great night. Thanks, Thanks
Justin. Let's keep you. Thanksfor being the subject though You're very welcome.
Thanks justin appreciate it. Let's keeprolling here as we're going to get
(23:55):
one more before the break. Jill, you are next to nights, I
go ahead. Geo. Hello,Dan, I have good evening. I
have followed this in a very superficialway. I haven't listened to anything.
I've read almost nothing, but Ihave heard commentators talk about it, and
I reflect back on this such aincompetence that it reminds me of a conspiracy
(24:23):
of thieves, my father would say, or a cult who is all they're
all collaborating to protect the culture.And I believe Karen is an accessory after
the fact, and part of herpart in murdering this person was to say
that she ran over him, althoughit was unnecessary because he died in some
(24:48):
other way so years ago. Soyou think that there was actually a conspiracy
that involved Karen Read and the folksin the house. Yeah, I believe.
I believe that she is going toHer job was to take the pressure
off of them by saying she didit, and so people would say,
(25:10):
well, it wasn't murder, itwas a mistake. It was a traffic
accident, and so we'll find hernot guilty. But you know, someplace
along the way. The performance ofthe murder just went totally wrong. I
can say that knowing what little Iknow about fentanyl. And the previous lawyer
(25:32):
was talking about how did he diewhen he had nothing below his waist or
his hips? And it's possible ifyou blackjacked him because he refused to take
a drink that you offered him andhe thought there was fentyel in it.
So the drink stills on the floor. You blackjacked him. Somebody grabs the
(25:53):
drink and they pour it in hismouth. It gets all over him.
He's now wet. We can geta mop. But the thing, how
do we dry him off before thebefore we call the police. Well,
let's take him out and dump himin the snow. Again, there's been
no there's been no mention of sentinelat no, of course not you.
Yeah, yeah, I believe that. Uh, the d toxology, I
(26:15):
mean, I'm sure that there wasa toxology before done. So yes,
there was, there were There wasforensic done, but the forensics are only
done if the DA on what theDA asks for. And I think the
DA, the police and the forensicslab was proven ten years ago when one
(26:36):
hundred people got out of jail forbad evidence against them that the technician said.
I was told time after time bythe DA what you you have opened
up a conspiracy geo, which doesn'tsurprise me. You you think outside the
box. I'll ask you the ultimatequestion, how do you think the jury's
going to come back? Uh?Well, I was pretty right question.
(27:00):
I'm up on my break here,so that's why I think it's going to
be an acquittal or guilty. Ithink if there was an accessory after the
fact, but that couldn't be becausethey haven't had the federal trial yet.
After the federal trial, she'll becharged and found guilty of accessory after the
fact. But now I get youdown to that, Gill, I got
to run because I'm up against itand I appreciate interesting, interesting perspective.
(27:23):
I must tell you, there's there'slittle of what you said that I had
even thought about, but you threwit out there, and that's what we
do one night side. Thank youmuch, if you very good. Thank
you have a great night. Okay, let me get Kathy in hull here.
Kathy, I'm going to try toget you in before the break.
Go ahead, Kathy, what's yourthought? On that, I think she's
(27:44):
going to come back as innocent.So well, they don't come back as
innocent, it's only not guilty orguilty, so as an acquittal. Yeah,
what makes you think that, Kathy, Because when the I didn't hear
a lot about it when it firsthappened, and then in the last thirty
days, of course, the mediahas taken a hold of it, finally
(28:07):
starting to pay attention, and peopleare starting to pay attention to this,
and the more and more from thefirst day of this case, listening to
it, there was so much shadinessgoing on behind the scenes with the offices
and the state troopers and the prosecutor, and definitely innocent. I don't think
the women on that jury will findher guilty. I don't believe so.
(28:30):
And if I was sitting on theguilty, if I was sitting on that
jury, she'd come back not guilty. Yeah. Well again, I think
it's it's certainly conceivable that a verdictcould come tomorrow, and you know,
tomorrow night we'll be talking a lotabout the debate, the presidential debate on
Thursday night, so we may haveto with the verdict. If the verdict
(28:52):
does come back tomorrow. We haveto make room for that of the show
as well, so we may havea Jim packed show tomorrow night. We
will certainly want to have one ofthe things I wanted to say with you,
I don't want them. People werecommenting today that John o'keef got lost
in this trial, and our heartsgo out to his parents, and our
hats go out to read in herparents, because no matter what the outcome
(29:14):
of this is, they've lost.We've lost an officer, we've lost an
uncle, we've lost a brother,a father, and he apparently caring for
it, caring for two children whowere either a nephew and me. So
it pot all the way around.So if stay of prayer tonight, and
you know, hopefully everything goes welltomorrow and she's found not guilty. All
(29:37):
right, Thanks Kathin. All right, have a good evening, Thanks key,
Thank you all. More often,I loved you. I loved your
the sobriety of your call, meaningin other words, you really analyzed it
very well, I thought, thankyou so much. Thank you. You
have a good evening, you too. Coming back. We got Susan,
we got Catherine, and we gotMatt, and I got room for you.
We have two lines open at six, one, seven two. Jump
(30:00):
on board, might even get youin before the eleven o'clock news. Well,
I'm more than happy to continue thisinto the eleven o'clock hour tonight.
Six one, seven, two,five, four, ten thirty dial away.
You'll well we get one field alreadystill got one there, Keep going,
keep dialing, coming back on Nightside. Now, back to Dan Ray
live from the Window World nights SideStudios on DOMENYBZ News Radio. Susan is
(30:26):
in cabridge. Susan, your nextnights. I'd love to know what you
think. I suspect I know whatyou're going to say, but let's hear
it. This is one time wemight be in agreement, Susan, I
think go ahead well with regardless.Just to your last call or, I
did want to mention that John o'keith'sfamily was sitting in court today with the
(30:47):
Alberts and the McCabe. Yes,I think that they're not buying the frame,
you know, the idea that youknow that she was framed by them,
And as you know, proversations,I think you're right, yep.
And as you know from our priorconversations, you know I do not buy
(31:11):
you know, uh, I thinkit's a ludicrous theory. However, I
do think that the prosecution made acritical error when they went for a murder
charge. I don't know if theydid it maybe to try to get her
to plead out, you know,and then she didn't plead out for you
(31:33):
know, a lesser manslaughter charge.But I think it's pretty clear that they
did not have the evidence, uhfor you know, a second degree murder
charge. And I feel like,uh, the victim here has been badly
served by that, by that error, because I think we could have been
(31:56):
saved a whole lot of you know, the ridiculous sir that has gone on
for you know, the duration ofthis case, and one thing that I
think has gotten lost in all ofthis and for all the you know,
raw Rah Karen Reid people, shehad already endangered his life that night by
(32:17):
driving very very drunk. You know, there's no question that she was drunk,
and she endangered his life, herlife, you know, whoever she
passed on the road. And Ifeel like, you know, if this
had just been as simple, ifthe prosecution had just done a simple you
(32:39):
know, manslaughter charge, I feellike that would have highlighted, you know,
more sort of the dangers of drinkingand driving, especially in this stage
when they might not to argue withinthis one. But I think the point
he makes a good one. Butwhen that case first comes in and they
look at it and they listened tothe to the to the tapes, the
(33:04):
audio tapes, if I hate yourguts and blah blah, this is a
relationship which seemed to be headed intoheading in a bad place. And so
maybe they said, hey, thiswoman was really drunk and she must have,
you know, hit this guy again. I initially my initial reaction and
I'll tell you my point of viewhas changed on this that initially I thought
to myself, how dumb would thesepeople be in the house if they really
(33:29):
beat the heck out of us ofthis guy and they're going to plant him
on the front lawn. I mean, you know, how crazy would you?
But so that was dumb but alsojust I mean not just dumb,
but I mean who does that?Like this was supposedly their friend. Why
wouldn't they have said there was anaccident called nine to one one like it
(33:52):
just it makes no sense on itjust and then like show me another time
when that has happened when there's beena case in which you know, I
mean, I just find it ludicrous. I mean, if if the animus
between and amongst these families existed,why would this fellow John o'keef, who
(34:13):
I assume as a Boston police officer, was smart enough to sense danger.
Why would he have even walked intothat house that night? I mean,
if if I thought he was agroup of people who lived in my town
who really didn't like me, andI felt uncomfortable and threatened, and they
said, wait, come on off, we're having a little fourth at July
barbecue, would love to have youover. Uh So I would probably say,
(34:37):
gee, I I got some otherplans, but thanks for the invite.
I don't know right right, butyou said your viewpoint has changed on
it, so what Initially? No, Initially I thought to myself, Yeah,
this makes sense. She was mad, she backed up, maybe intentionally,
maybe not, and then she madestatements of I hit him, I
(34:58):
hit him, I hit him.And the alternative you were hearing was that
they beat the heck out of thisguy in the basement and then someone planted
him on the lawn. I mean, I could just see people will turning
around. I don't care how blitchedyou are, and you're going to say,
we just killed this guy. Whatare we going to do? I
got a great idea. Let's puthim out in the front lawn, knowing
the house it's snowing. I mean, it's you know. The other thing
(35:22):
with regard to her drinking is sobecause of that creep Proctor's text. We
know that she had Crones disease,and I have a friend who has Crown's
disease. You're not supposed to drinkat all when you have crones. It's
not only you know, if you'rein the midst of about of it,
it you know makes it. Youknow, yeah, way worse you're not
(35:47):
in the midst of about it triggersit. So I don't know, very
bad judgment. Okay, so letme get you on the jury. How
do you think that sor he comesback when it comes back. I think,
you know, I think they're goingto equit. I'm holding out my
because I honestly believe that you know, it is a that she did hit
(36:12):
him, that it was you know, involuntary manslaughter. But I think that
they will most likely equit due toin large part Proctor. You know I
got you. I gotta as alwaysappreciate your call. Appreciate you loyalsly Tonight's
I thinks, okay, we agree, Thank you, Mad in Florida,
Mad, what do you think?Thank God? I never heard so many
(36:36):
experts in my life. God thatthis is exactly why this country system is
the worst. I mean, yougot these people who you follow the evidence.
It doesn't matter what you think orany of that medical examiner who dedicates
his life for like forty years tomedical science says that there is no evidence
(37:00):
at all that he got hit bya car. Sorry, that's reality,
that's science. I don't care whatyou think. Oh, she had Crone's
disease, so you know she killedthem? No, no, no,
the better one was my friend Gillacquitted. Because this is this whole thing
has been a waste of time anda complete disgrace. I'll all you got
(37:21):
to say the lawyers will be wellcompensated, which is understandable. Uhh.
And I think she has a GoFundMepage which has raised a lot of money.
And there'll be a movie, I'msure. I mean, yeah,
it's actually already on Netflix getting editedapparently so that'll be the next big documentary.
(37:44):
Unbelievable. It's unbelievable. And ofcourse the real tragedy is a former
bust and police officer remains dead.Well, I just hope the FEDS,
like the FEDS would open up anew case, right or would they just
kind of like wash the hands ofthis whole thing. I don't know.
I mean, I've heard for amonth or so that the FEDS are looking
into it, but the FEDS keeppretty tight lipped, you know, so
(38:06):
that's not gonna run. Well,they'll probably mess it up anyway, so
you know, that's all they dois mess things up and waste money.
So funny, Hey, who knows? Okay, Well, well, I
think the the interim US attorney whowe had on recently, pretty solid guy.
They that's that's a pretty effective officehere in Boston. At this point,
(38:27):
Matt is always what you saying,thank you, thanks? All right,
So we got to take a breakhere. I don't want to short
change anyone. So therefore, whatwe're going to do is simply, we
got one line open at six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty. We got one lineopen at six one, seven,
nine, ten thirty. I gotMichael and Addleborough, Mike and Framingham and
Catherine and Marshfield. You folks willbe first up next hour. Batting order
(38:52):
will be Catherine, followed by Michaeland Attleborough and Mike and Framingham. And
we got a couple of lines open. The question is very simple, and
that is when Karen read jury returns, what do you believe their verdict will
be guilty or not guilty? Jury'sremember, never come back and say innocent.
(39:15):
Sometimes people who are acquitted are indeeda fact a case of actual innocence.
They're always a situation where the governmenthas failed to prove the elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.So keep that in mind. We just
want to know what to think.So far, every one of my callers
(39:37):
have said innocent or not innocent,have said not guilty, although some of
them might have expressed a belief thatshe is truly innocent, and that might
have been a frame going on here. One person who is going to look
good in retrospect here as the freelancejournalist Turtle Boy. This has been a
(40:00):
bizarre, bizarre case from start tofinish, and I feel that the majority
of my listeners are correct. Itwill result in an acquittal, and I
would suspect that if it's gonna resultin acquittal, it will probably happen sometime
tomorrow. We will to want Ipreview the presidential debate at eight o'clock,
(40:22):
and we're gonna certainly follow play it. You'll hear it live here on WBZ,
and then you can respond to itand tell us who you think one
or who you think fared better,either President or Biden or fuller President Trump
back on Night's side right after theeleven o'clock It was here on a Tuesday night.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.