February 11, 2025 • 40 mins
Massachusetts’ highest court rejected Karen Read’s defense bid to drop two of the charges against Read: second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe. The push to drop two of Read’s charges came after Read’s defense argued that five jurors from the first trial later said they were deadlocked only on the manslaughter count, that the jurors unanimously agreed she wasn’t guilty on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. This latest ruling clears the way for a second, new trial this year.
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm telling you easy Boston Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
All Right, so we're talking about the Karen Reid trial.
The second trial now scheduled for April first. It looks
as if it will proceed on schedule. We'll have to
see what happens in the next two months. But today
the Massachusetts State Supreme Court unanimously decided to reject her appeal,
(00:27):
particularly as it relates to double jeopardy, saying that the
judge was not required to do anything more than she
than she did. Judge Beverly Canoni, and she will be
the presiding judge beginning on April first, and will be
very similar to a year ago. It will probably start
(00:48):
in April and wind its way through May and maybe
get to the jury sometime in June. So it's sort
of like just the calendar is going to be taken
back a year. And the question is was the court
correct in their decisions today? In my opinion, there was
an opportunity for them to at least leave an instruction
(01:10):
for future trials in Massachusetts when a jury comes back,
and the way it goes is the jury sends a
note to the judge and there's not a lot of
conversation generally between the jury four person and the judge.
Sometimes there's absolutely no conversation.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
I was not in.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Court when these notes were passed back three times. According
to the the State's High Court, the state Supreme Court,
the judge did what only what she was obligated to do,
didn't have any further obligation. I think that the judge,
you know, in the interest of judicial economy, should have
(01:51):
said to the four person, are you telling the court
that you are deadlocked on all three counts? Count one,
count two, and count three?
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Yes? Or no?
Speaker 3 (02:04):
That's all? And if they said yes, we're deadlocked on
all three counts at that point, as long as no
jurors said whoa, wait a second, hold it, wait a second,
that would have been the end of it. If if,
on the other hand, the fourth person said, we're deadlocked
(02:24):
on one count, your honor, the judge then could have
easily said, have you reached a verdict?
Speaker 4 (02:31):
Have you reached.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Consensus in the jury room if the guys, if the
four person said, yes, your honor, we have reached consensus
on two of the three counts, the judge then could
have said, well, there's nothing wrong with the partial verdict.
Please go back to the jury room, and if you
remain in consensus, feel free to fill out the verdict
(02:55):
slipt on whatever verdicts you have reached, and I will
take those verdicts and we will declare a mistrial on
the verdicts that you have not reached consents.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
It's as simple as that.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
But the quote chose not to give that guidance or
that instruction, although from a practical point of view, I
think any judge going forward would be swat to follow
that that advice. Let me go to the call is
going to go to Fred and Needham. Fred, you were
next on nights. I appreciate you holding through the news.
Go right ahead, Fred, I am.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
I agree with you and a couple of the previous calls.
I feel really sorry for this women. The state and
the judge are doing a lousy job. But from my experience,
personal experience many years ago, the minor situation and this
is like we're talking maybe thirty years ago at least.
(03:49):
But you know, if there's a second trial, and whether
it's defense or prosecution, second time around, they do a
lot of bitage job and they usually they make out
my bandit's getting their ways. So I think she's in trouble.
I think the state is going to do a lot
(04:09):
better job in in spite of everything that's going on.
So that's my opinion. I think she's in big trouble
because they're out together, and second time around, they're going
to be a lot smarter than they were the first time.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Well, I think they have a very experienced lawyer in
Hank Brennan. I don't know Attorney Brennan very well, but
I know enough of his reputation to know that he
will come very well prepared. I think that he will
probably be interact with the jury more effectively than the
(04:46):
assistant district attorney who handled the case the first time.
But at the same time, the defense now normally in
a situation like this, knows where the prosecution's going. They're
a little bit more familiar with the evidence. Maybe they
can find they can poke holes in the evidence more effectively.
I mean, it's it's a chess game. It's a chess match,
(05:07):
even though it deals with the wives and in this case,
the death of a human being and the future life
of Karen Reid. It sounds to me like you think
that they're going to be able to get a prosecution
to get a successful prosecution the second time around, is
what I'm hearing you say.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
Between the lines, right, because because they're going to be
a lot smarter than the first time. But the other thing,
where does Karen Reid these lawyers sound that she has.
They sound intredibly expensive. Where does she get that kind
of money to be able to afford lawyers of the
(05:46):
scalab I'm glad she has them, but it's I.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Think if I'm not mistaken, and someone might know better
than me, but I believe that she has a GoFundMe
page which has raised I think I've seen figures close
to a half a million dollars or maybe more. Her
legal expenses far exceed that. I assume the lawyers may
be giving her a little bit of a break because
the one thing that a lot of criminal defense lawyers
(06:14):
enjoy is some notoriety in publicity because that will drive
other clients to them, so they may be they may
be in it. And and what happens sometimes is a
lawyer really gets committed to the case and is willing
to give the their client a little bit of a
break on the on the costs, particularly when it gets
(06:34):
up to these sort of figures.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
I mean, we were talking about.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
A minimum of a million dollar case and it probably
is going to be close to two million dollars when
you had in the second trial. So now that's some
factors that play. And I don't know if she has
family money or whatever, but but lawyers are you know,
no lawyer is going to walk away from her at
this point.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
She does not have to worry about that. In my opinion,
it's good to know.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
And uh, thanks for then. The other thing though, it's, uh,
you know, right from the beginning, Uh, I had dinner
with friends around the time of this trial in Canton,
and the neighborhood. Uh they you know, people who are
a lot closer to what's going on in Canton were
(07:21):
really suspicious of the whole thing. So I think the state,
like you said, it's a chess game, unfortunately, and uh,
it's more of a chess game and an out together
situation by the prosecution. And uh, in a way, I'm ashamed.
I'm ashamed of that that that our state is uh
(07:44):
is behaving the way they are in this case. It's uh,
they you know, they're capable of a lot, uh a
lot better behavior than they're they're showing in this case,
and that opportunity.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yeah, for the from the point of view of the prosecutor,
if the prosecutor were sitting with you and me tonight,
that prosecutor would say, look, an individual unnecessarily lost their
life that night, and the state has an obligation to
find out what happened and whether there was any criminal
(08:20):
culpability involved in his death. Now, if it was a
pure accident in which there were no you know, no
factors which pushed it beyond simple accident, then it's an accident.
But they need to they would argue that as a prosecutor,
they they need to find out if there was any
criminal intent, any criminal negligence, gross negligence involved here. That
(08:44):
that because someone lost lost their life. I mean, the
the O'Keefe family has lost a son and a father.
So that's the balance the prosecutor has to has to
take into consideration.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
I mean, just one last thing. I agree with you
that if it just like you said, if it's an accident,
I think after all this time, they should know. You know,
I had respect for for our system in Massachusetts. If
it was an accident, they should know. And I think
(09:24):
I hate to say it. I think they're out to
get this woman, even knowing it was an accident. I think.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
I think there are many people, There were many.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
There are many people on your side of the courtroom
who's shared that point of view.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Fred.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Appreciate you taking the time and the corriage to call tonight.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Talk to you soon.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
Oh, thank you, Dan, Okay, good night.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
All right, keep rolling here A six one seven four
ten thirty. That's the only line that's opened right now.
All the others are full six one seven two five
four ten thirty. Back with more phone calls right after
the break.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Now back to Dan Way live from the Window World.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Nice sights too, yours Don Basy News Radio.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Most of the callers on this topic tonight have been men.
So let's go to Diane and Peabody and see what
she thinks. Diane, you were next on Nightside.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Welcome.
Speaker 6 (10:13):
Hi, thank you so much for having me on the call,
and thank you for covering this very, very heartbreaking case.
I have been following this case really since day one.
I remember when she was arrested and walked in with
her face mask on and her hands cut behind her back,
(10:34):
and something just didn't feel right to me right from
day one, it didn't make sense to me how this woman,
who was highly successful and by all accounts from everybody
who knew her, just a really loving, caring, wonderful person,
how all of a sudden she just lost her mind
(10:56):
and either on purpose or accidentally killed her boyfriend.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
And then I think of the one of the arguments
that was involved was there was a lot of drinking
going on that night.
Speaker 6 (11:11):
Yes there was, And if you tuned into Ted Daniel's
interview with her last night or Super Bowl evening, she
admitted that there was a lot of drinking that happened
in their relationship in general. When you think about it,
he was a Boston police officer. It's kind of strange
that he let her drive when she was that intoxicated.
(11:33):
And what the prosecution is alleging is that she had
nine Votga tonics. I don't know if you've ever seen
Karen Reid, but I don't think she even tips the
scales at ninety five pounds, and she has a multitude
of health issues, so the likelihood of her being able
to drink nine Votga tonics over a period of four
(11:56):
to five hours is pretty absurd. That being said, you know,
when you think about the prosecution's entire case, their theory
is that they were out drinking, they were invited to
an after party. They pulled up to the after party
at some point Karen and John allegedly gotten a really
(12:18):
heated argument. He got out of the car, and she
deliberately or accidentally knowingly hit him with her vehicle and
left him for dead. With that awareness of that, then
she drove home to his house, where his niece and
nephew were, and then called her mother and father to
(12:42):
allegedly confess to doing this, and then decided to call
John repeatedly and lead very hateful voicemails, and then decided
to call two of his friends who are particularly Diane.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I think we're Diane. I think we're familiar with a
lot of that. And again, I'm you clearly believe that
that something untoward has happened to to to Karen Reid.
I understand that, and clearly you have a lot of
more insight into her personality. You mentioned the fact that
(13:18):
if if you're a Boston cop and you've been drinking, uh,
you probably don't want to drive, and he might have
been more than happy to have her drive in case
you get pulled over and you're a Boston cop.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
That can cost you a job. So there's arguments on
both sides, you know, and and it's going to get unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Well let me yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
I just you were making the case, you were making
the closing eyes.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
That I didn't hear that you. Yeah, let me just
hear say something that I don't think you touched on
this evening. And a lot of callers did touch on
a lot of great things. But before the jury went
to deliberation, there was a serious issue and a serious
concern about that jewelry ballot and it was raised by
Attorney Jackson and and that was really and she got
(14:06):
really angry.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah she did.
Speaker 6 (14:08):
We're absolutely allow.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Me to at least confirm you're correct, okay, but I
also want you to know it was alluded to last hour.
So yeah, there was some confusion there, and there's some responsibility.
Again when you're the judge, you're in charge, and you're
in charge for all the right reasons as well as
the wrong reasons. And uh, it's too bad that she
(14:32):
did not inquire the judge did not inquire of the
jury for person and make sure that they were indeed
deadlocked on all three counts because maybe two of them
could have been disposed of.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Thank you much as great agreed.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
Actually a very bad for her, But she does have
she does have a lot of donations coming her way.
So she's up to almost a million dollars in donation
from people not only in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but
actually all around the world and as far as Australia is.
So that's where in part she's getting the money. Plus
she sold her house. So thank you so much for
(15:13):
covering this really important case.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Yep, we'll continue to us well, thanks for listening. Thank
you much, Thank you, Diane. Let me go to John
in Bridgewater. John, appreciate your patience here next one night,
Zacher right.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Ahead, Hi Dan, how are.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
You good, sir? What's your take on this?
Speaker 2 (15:30):
My take is that when Karen was at thirty four
three of you with John, she dropped them off, allegedly
right went back to his home. She woke up about
five am, four and a half hours later after she
allegedly hit him.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Where is he?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
So, as you probably remember the footage of her backing
out of his garage and tapping his traverse with her
right tail light.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Yeah, I've seen footage.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Again, I don't want to proclaim myself to be an
expert here. I think there was some disagreement as to
whether or not contact was made at that point.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
But I know the footage you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Okay, she proceeds forward down John's driveway to go look
for him. If you freeze frame that, you will see
both rear tail lights are completely intact. Okay, they both
match perfectly. There was no piece missing from that right
(16:37):
tail light, let alone finding forty seven pieces on thirty four.
Fear of you, days and days later, this case. If
they show that footage alone, this case is over. Her
tail light was not damaged.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Was that?
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I'm asking you now an honest question. I'm not trying
to trick you. I'm asking you honest question that evidence
presented to the jury.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
I'm not aware. I don't know. I've been following the
case closely, but I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
That's why.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
No, Well, that's why I asked you the question, because
when you said to me, I remember seeing that that videotape,
and I thought there was some question.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
Again, I followed it casually.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
I thought that there was some question about whether there
ever was a contact made.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
And so well, then when the car went down supposedly
I don't know where it was fall river or that
officer Barrows was testifying said that he only saw the
tail like cracked. There were no missing pieces, Dan none,
So how did they come up with forty seven pieces?
Days later? You could take that footage you can watch
it on YouTube and when the cars driving down the
(17:56):
driveway freeze.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
The kitchen, Yeah, no, I understand, fatail and of course,
and of course what your what your what your argument
is is that that was at around five thirty in
the morning, some four hours or four and a half
hours after the h the impact would have occurred and
the tail light would have been broken.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
That's exactly she dropped them off approximately twelve thirty and
then five or seven Yeah, yeah, after she allegedly hit them.
It's still intact.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
But again, what I would question is was that was
that presented the jury and presented effectively or has that
uh that videotape come up after the trial if because
if it was not available at trial, if it was
available a trial and it wasn't presented the jury, you
make a very compelling argument.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
It should have been.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
You know exactly, you know that. I don't know, Dan,
but I mean it's a slam dunk once. Once you
see that, you'll say no idea again.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
If you made the point, you made the point, you
made it well two times, three times. I just you
follow this case more closely than I did.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
That I did.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
And that's why I'm asking you if you knew, and
you're telling me you don't.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
So I'll accept that.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Why the defense did not get that if that video
was available, why the defense didn't make a big deal
out of that and get it into evidence.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
That's that's a big.
Speaker 5 (19:24):
Question on me, I know.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
And if it came from John's home, came from his camera.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Yeah, okay, you know, all right, fair enough. Thanks thank you, John,
John from Bridgewater. See if other people react to what
you have to.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
Say, Thanks you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
All right, good night. Coming back on Night's side. After
the break here at ten thirty we got the news
six two, five, four, ten thirty one line there two
lines at six one, seven, nine thirty. We will get
to the other topic of the night, and that is
what is going on with the US Agency for International
Development That has of course become a big point of
(20:03):
concern between the Trump administration and now judges and Democrats.
We're going to get to that. There's an interesting article
in the Washington Post today that I'd like to bring
to your attention. But I'm more than willing to talk
about this at least until eleven o'clock.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
But if you want to.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Join the conversation, do it now, because if not, we'll
be wrapping this up on the other side after a
couple of callers six one, seven, nine, three one ten
thirty or six one, seven, two five four to ten thirty.
Back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Back to the phones we go. Let me go to
Mark in Austin. Mark, welcome back. How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 7 (20:42):
Hi Dan, good evening, and thanks for taking my call.
Maybe I have a special perspective on this case because
I am a survivor. I don't cry myself. I generally
avoid watching must crime.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Yeah you know, Mark, hold on for a second. You
have a bad connection here, so I want Rob to c.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Connection.
Speaker 7 (21:09):
Okay, other electronic device in my apartment is turned safely off.
That's weird.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Okay, Well hold on, Rob will clean you up. We're
gonna get you maybe get closer to a window, don't
hang up. We'll get you on and then back at
in a minute.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Rob.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
Please take care of Mark. Let's in the meantime go
to in Florida. Matt, you were next on Nightside. I'm
sure your connection in Florida is going to be cleaner
than Mark's and Alston.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
I hope.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
So you know.
Speaker 8 (21:38):
I know you're a lawyer. I'm in the lead. I
used to be in the legal field. I have respect
for the legal system, but it doesn't want it anymore.
You got the guy you called two times ago. He
made a really good point about that evidence clear as
as day. Okay, wait, no one's in charge of what's
(22:01):
going on with this stuff. The second that is discovered,
along with the evidence that his app that the dead
guy's Apple Watch was moving around after he was dead,
that evidence right there, Someone, someone, an adult in society,
needs to stand up and say no, there's clear evidence.
(22:22):
This is not what is going on here, and it
shouldn't be up to a new crop of nine idiots
who could who who get put up on a journey
to decide what's going on When the whole world realizes
that this is a sham. And again, I'm not trying
to like make a bigger point of this, but it's
(22:42):
the same joke as why you know Trump can't bring
in a national god in Chicago and raid everyone's house
and get rid of all the guns. That is what
needs to get done. And this ridiculous legal system we
have in this country, it's a it's a fraud, Dan,
It's a fraud. And it gets me really angry that
(23:04):
we just keep going with this.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Here's my well, Matt, hold say, I want to ask
you a question because you make a lot of sense here.
Speaker 4 (23:11):
So the question is if.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
The evidence is that overwhelming and I didn't cover the
story as a when I was a reporter, I was
in the courtroom talking to lawyers, you know. I covered
the stories pretty effectively, I think, and I took them
very seriously. My question is, if this evidence is as
overwhelming as you say it isn't it it very well?
Speaker 4 (23:36):
Maybe it's so much evident.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Okay, hold on, hold on, she has some very good lawyers, Okay,
Alan Jackson, Ynedni. They're very competent lawyers. How did they
not drive these points home during the testimony? You know,
and in the closing argument, so that the jury could
have walked into the jury room and said, what, we've
(24:00):
wasted our time for the evidence.
Speaker 8 (24:02):
I think they did, And I think it just goes
to more of what I'm trying to say of like
this whole system it doesn't work. You're you're a perfect example.
You and your partner got an innocent guy who I'm
sure you guys knew the whole time how much of
a fraud that case was. But you guys probably you
(24:24):
guys probably had like clear stay evidence. And there needs
to be a mechanism in this country where it's like
where where an adult in the room, and I know
there isn't any but where someone can just go listen,
look at this. That's ridiculous. Why we're doing this, Like
you said, it goes to judicial economy and the money.
So everyone knows that this whole world is gonna watch
(24:47):
us on Netflix. Everyone even already knows what's going on.
So we're gonna go through this again. It's like, it's
like it's insane to me, and I, like I said,
it dovetails with these other issues that will.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Be Yeah, but here's here's the difference. Okay, in this case,
you have a police officer who's dead, so that's you
got to get to the truth of what happened. Now
you're saying, Okay, the evidence is overwhelming. I look at
(25:24):
the case and I don't know enough about the case.
I know about the Salvadi Lamoni case, but we were
fighting corrupt FBI agents and the legacy of corrupt FBI
agents and also corrupt police officials who did not want
as I the phrase I used was their scrapbook were rearranged.
You know, they had gotten the convictions. That's all they
(25:46):
cared about. This is in the nineteen sixties. It was
like they didn't care whether these people were innocent or not,
or if they were guilty or not.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
They were going to convict them because they were bad guys.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
And if they could get people on the witness and
that the jury would believe who were who were?
Speaker 4 (26:03):
Who were?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
You know, criminals themselves. You couldn't have a better witness
to convince the jury. Back in those days, the jury
system was fooled, actively fooled by corrupt FBI agents in
the nineteen sixties. In the Savada Lamona case, this situation
is much more open. There are television cameras in courts,
in this case in court, I think what you're really
(26:28):
you're really condemning I think the jurors and saying, how
could these juris sit there and see this evidence and
not come to the obvious conclusion. That's what I think
you're saying.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
I just I think I'm really just more the whole system.
I just this happened so often. I just and like
the whole point of this is just to get to
the truth of it, right, Why all these laws, all
these laws we have, they should say, listen, Carrie, it
clearly didn't have anything to do with it, looking at
this evidence. Why don't we Why don't we arrest these
people from this house, make them, make them take light
(26:59):
Attacktive has make them And like I know this, there's
like these personal liberties and all this crap. But I
mean it's.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Called they it's called the constitution.
Speaker 8 (27:08):
Well, no, I don't. I think it needs I think
we need a complete reworking in this country. And again
I'm not trying to act like a lunatic here, but
we we need like your Banillavit dictator in this country
to come may.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Have one at displaying you may have one good, Thank
you Dan.
Speaker 8 (27:25):
Can I make what can I just make one more
quick statement? I think it goes in regards to the
next topic. But uh, none of this stuff Trump's doing
with the aid and all this unless our taxes get lowered,
none of it needs anything. So this guy could could
clear up all the corruption. But as long as my
tax rate is still thirty five percent on FEDS, it
(27:47):
doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
None of it matters.
Speaker 8 (27:48):
So that's why I just want to say that, thank you.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
That's good, got it all in, Thank you man, appreciate it.
Good night, six thirty one line there.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Six.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
We don't want to short change Mark, but we will
get him next. I'm gonna go to the break. Is
Mark's line cleared up for us?
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Joe?
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Thanks Rob, Okay, we'll take a quick break. I got
room for a couple more calls if you'd like, six, one, seven.
We will wrap this at ten, I promise, and we
will get to the whole question of usaid. And there's
an interesting article on the Washington Post that is it's
it you find it. I think you're going to find
the next hour very interesting as well, And not that
this has not been interesting, that's for sure. Feel free
(28:30):
to join the conversation back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the window World.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Nights Side Studios on w b Z, the news Radio.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Let's go to back to Mark and Austin.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Mark, I want to see if you get a better connection,
Gorett ahead.
Speaker 7 (28:46):
Oh thank you, Dan, and thanks for taking that call
the season.
Speaker 8 (28:50):
I'll be sure it's.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
A much better it's a much better connection. It's worth it.
Go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (28:55):
Oh, thank you. Maybe we were attacked by Graham Ones
just the joke. Anyway, I'm informed very much by my
very positive experience as a juror in a Maritaco Now
Practice case back in two thousand and five presided over
(29:16):
by the late great Judge Ralph Kance, and you know,
generally speaking, jurors followed the Judge's instructions very carefully. We
had a tape recording of Judge Kance's instructions, and we
took only about eight hours to find for the defendant.
(29:40):
The key instruction really was, we could consider this equipment
maker's report to the FDA, but only if we believed
that it had originated directly from somebody who was clearly
in the operating room at the time.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
This is this is this telephone?
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Mark?
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
This is a complicated case of which no one in
my audience has any knowledge. So I would prefer you
to apply your experience with what the court said today.
Do you think that the judge at trial last July
should have taken the additional step and said to the jurors,
you tell me you're deadlocked? Are you deadlocked on all
(30:26):
three counts? Or are you deadlocked on one or two
of the counts? If she'd simply asked that question.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
And I agree with.
Speaker 7 (30:38):
That, the judge should have asked a direct question and
gotten a direct answer. Because judge generally just hate just
hate them. And almost always in any case in a courtroom,
the judge or issues of very careful and thoughtful menu
(31:02):
of options to the jury, like in this particular case,
it would have been something like second degree murder versus
first degree murder.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
Well, first agree murder.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Mark wasn't on the table, Mark, Mark, first degree murder
wasn't on wasn't on the table, It was a second agreement.
Speaker 7 (31:20):
Well, so justice would have been done with a second
degree murder.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Uh, not necessarily because because they because the jurors, Mark,
if you're familiar with the case said that they had agreed,
uh that she was not guilty of second degree murder,
and they said that.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
Only on.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
I mean, so, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
To I'm sorry to confuse the conversation with facts from
the decision. But I've had the advantage.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I'm sorry. I'm going with many facts that I know
for sure. I mean, the charge was essentially.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
Very very familiar, very familiar with charge.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
More Mark, there are some people who are often mistaken
but never endowed in. On this case, I think I'm
gonna put you that category. She was charged with second
degree murder. The jurors subsequent to the trial reported to
both the prosecution I believe, and to the defense lawyers
that they were unanimous to acquit her on second degree
(32:24):
murder and to acquit her on leaving the scene of
an accident. And that was the threat. That was the quest.
Speaker 7 (32:31):
I just don't understand it.
Speaker 3 (32:33):
Yeah, okay, I I that's the I agree with you
that you you don't quite understand that, and a lot
of other people don't as well.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
I appreciate you, Carl, thank you much, appreciate it. Much
better connection this time.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Let me go to Frank.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
Yeah, why don't you get Frank. Oh my god, I'll
tell you what. If Frank's ready, great, If not, we're
just gonna move. We're gonna move fun.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
I'm right here, Dan, can you hear me?
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Yeah, Frank, were you in a barroom or something?
Speaker 7 (33:04):
A what?
Speaker 1 (33:05):
No?
Speaker 4 (33:07):
No?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Then I was yelling?
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Who was yelling at you? Frank?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
They've been yelling since I called you. You may recall
on the day that this appeal was filed and you
had the issue that that night was you were predicting
that the court would rule in favor of the appeal.
(33:35):
And I called and said, this is procedural nonsense. That
was my exact words. And I said, if I was
a judge, I would have just uh dismissed it at
the time. And you told me that day, Okay, let's
wait to see when the court issues the decision and
call back and when the issue decision.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
So I remember the call, So take your victory. Laugh
right ahead.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
No, but but I'm not well, it's it's very predictable.
And because as sensational as it sounds, uh to the public,
it is procedural nonsense. It was from the beginning. And
and just like they're saying, we'll take it at federal court. Now,
(34:23):
federal court will laugh them out. It's it's absolutely ridiculous.
The premise of this.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Well, I can tell you is that I respectfully disagree
with you tonight. I I respectfully disagreed with you when
we spoke about it last fall. Your prediction is accurate.
Have you had a chance to read the decision today
or no?
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Yes? And and the thing how many?
Speaker 4 (34:50):
How many pages?
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Thirty five? Thirty five pages?
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Goods so so the the justice is did not dismiss
it as cavalierly as you might have. Obviously you look
at it as balder dash. I think it's a serious question.
Let me ask you this question. You tell me at
the time you're a lawyer, correct, yes, yeah, Okay. Going forward,
(35:17):
let us assume that at some point there's a similar case,
a criminal case where there are multiple counts and the
jury comes back and represents to the judge that they
are deadlocked. Do you think that the judge in that case,
hypothetical case going forward is likely to remember this case
(35:37):
and inquire of the jurors if they are deadlocked on
all of the counts or on just some of the counts.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
The judge made. But I will point out that the defense,
even though they won't say it, they would have at
the time, made a calculated decision. I'm not going to
ask the I'm not going to ask, but but listen,
here's no one's uh, no one's no, one's focusing on
(36:09):
this man. The defense when the jury came back and
said we are deadlocked, the defense was like, our whole
defense was based on. This was a frame up which
if the jury bought that, they would have been back
with are not guilty? In two minutes. When they came
(36:30):
back and said we are deadlocked, the defense said, okay,
they blew that. So we're not going to ask for
are you in agreement on any counts because the answer
could be yes, we're we're in.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
The agreement and correct correct on that because obviously by
their actions the actions, we know what they chose not
to do. The point is that normally in a criminal
case of this magnitude, and when the jury comes back
truly deadlocked, and whether these guys were truly deadlocked on
all three or just on one, it's moved.
Speaker 4 (37:08):
For the moment.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
The defense looks that as a victory because any good
defense lawyer will tell you that now we have a
chance to get a second bite at the apple. And
we know the prosecution strategy, we know the weaknesses of
their case, we know the strengths of their case. That
the defense generally in a case like this, has an
advantage post deadlock. Would you agree with me on that?
Speaker 1 (37:33):
I would because I'm a criminal defense and usually a
mistrial is a victory. But in the case where your
defense is that it's a frame up, and then the
jury comes back and says no. And if you look
at what the jurors said, and I believe that those
jurors when they came after the fact and said this
(37:55):
is what we were hung up on, I believe that
was true. They said we would ten to two guilty
of manslaughter.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
So they nine. Let me correct your counselor.
Speaker 3 (38:09):
In the decision today, the s JC reported that the jurors,
one juror reportedly said that they were nine to three.
Uh two.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Yeah. But if you but if you look at one
at one of the jurors had questions that were very
intelligent and very technical, which which if you look at
it meant that that juror was convinced that she hit him.
So that was that was they.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
None of that None of that was in the the
decision that I read today.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
I don't know what this is, no, but it was,
but it was if you look at what the jurors,
jurists said so anyway, so whether it's nine to three,
are ten to two with they you had a very
intelligent jury who heard all of the evidence. So all
of this stuff that calls a calling this, what about that?
What about the dogs?
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Let's see, let's see, let's say we're gonna she's gonna
probably go to go.
Speaker 4 (39:06):
To the retrial starts on April first, and let's continue
the issue. The issue was.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
The issue was not did she hit The issue for
that jury was no, it wasn't murder, but she hit him.
It was from that from the beginning they overcharged her.
That was the fault of the uh the prosecutions.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
That you know, if you're if you're a criminal defense attorney,
if you're a criminal defense attorney and I suspect you are,
you know that often prosecutors will overcharge in hopes of saying, well,
we might we might not hook her on on on
murder too, but that's going to make it easier for
the jury to.
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Come back with a compromise. And hook her on involuntary manslaughter.
That's what they were probably shooting for.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
And that and that jury was very intelligent and they
said it wasn't murder, but they were equally intelligent saying, well,
they rejected, they rejected that if you look at.
Speaker 3 (40:06):
Okay, all right, Frank, Frank, we have gone on very
long here, and unfortunately I'm up against my time limit.
I wish that we could continue the conversation. We'll continue
the conversation when the trial starts in April.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Okay, after the guilty of manslaughter. That's my great action.
Speaker 4 (40:22):
Well, thanks very much. You were right the first time.
Speaker 3 (40:25):
I'm not sure that legally or procedurally it's it's a
good position to take, but you were accurate. Thanks very much,
appreciate your call. Here comes the eleven o'clock News, and
to the callers who are now calling in here a
little late, we're going to change topics on the other side.
It's with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm telling you easy Boston Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
All Right, so we're talking about the Karen Reid trial.
The second trial now scheduled for April first. It looks
as if it will proceed on schedule. We'll have to
see what happens in the next two months. But today
the Massachusetts State Supreme Court unanimously decided to reject her appeal,
(00:27):
particularly as it relates to double jeopardy, saying that the
judge was not required to do anything more than she
than she did. Judge Beverly Canoni, and she will be
the presiding judge beginning on April first, and will be
very similar to a year ago. It will probably start
(00:48):
in April and wind its way through May and maybe
get to the jury sometime in June. So it's sort
of like just the calendar is going to be taken
back a year. And the question is was the court
correct in their decisions today? In my opinion, there was
an opportunity for them to at least leave an instruction
(01:10):
for future trials in Massachusetts when a jury comes back,
and the way it goes is the jury sends a
note to the judge and there's not a lot of
conversation generally between the jury four person and the judge.
Sometimes there's absolutely no conversation.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
I was not in.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Court when these notes were passed back three times. According
to the the State's High Court, the state Supreme Court,
the judge did what only what she was obligated to do,
didn't have any further obligation. I think that the judge,
you know, in the interest of judicial economy, should have
(01:51):
said to the four person, are you telling the court
that you are deadlocked on all three counts? Count one,
count two, and count three?
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Yes? Or no?
Speaker 3 (02:04):
That's all? And if they said yes, we're deadlocked on
all three counts at that point, as long as no
jurors said whoa, wait a second, hold it, wait a second,
that would have been the end of it. If if,
on the other hand, the fourth person said, we're deadlocked
(02:24):
on one count, your honor, the judge then could have
easily said, have you reached a verdict?
Speaker 4 (02:31):
Have you reached.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Consensus in the jury room if the guys, if the
four person said, yes, your honor, we have reached consensus
on two of the three counts, the judge then could
have said, well, there's nothing wrong with the partial verdict.
Please go back to the jury room, and if you
remain in consensus, feel free to fill out the verdict
(02:55):
slipt on whatever verdicts you have reached, and I will
take those verdicts and we will declare a mistrial on
the verdicts that you have not reached consents.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
It's as simple as that.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
But the quote chose not to give that guidance or
that instruction, although from a practical point of view, I
think any judge going forward would be swat to follow
that that advice. Let me go to the call is
going to go to Fred and Needham. Fred, you were
next on nights. I appreciate you holding through the news.
Go right ahead, Fred, I am.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
I agree with you and a couple of the previous calls.
I feel really sorry for this women. The state and
the judge are doing a lousy job. But from my experience,
personal experience many years ago, the minor situation and this
is like we're talking maybe thirty years ago at least.
(03:49):
But you know, if there's a second trial, and whether
it's defense or prosecution, second time around, they do a
lot of bitage job and they usually they make out
my bandit's getting their ways. So I think she's in trouble.
I think the state is going to do a lot
(04:09):
better job in in spite of everything that's going on.
So that's my opinion. I think she's in big trouble
because they're out together, and second time around, they're going
to be a lot smarter than they were the first time.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Well, I think they have a very experienced lawyer in
Hank Brennan. I don't know Attorney Brennan very well, but
I know enough of his reputation to know that he
will come very well prepared. I think that he will
probably be interact with the jury more effectively than the
(04:46):
assistant district attorney who handled the case the first time.
But at the same time, the defense now normally in
a situation like this, knows where the prosecution's going. They're
a little bit more familiar with the evidence. Maybe they
can find they can poke holes in the evidence more effectively.
I mean, it's it's a chess game. It's a chess match,
(05:07):
even though it deals with the wives and in this case,
the death of a human being and the future life
of Karen Reid. It sounds to me like you think
that they're going to be able to get a prosecution
to get a successful prosecution the second time around, is
what I'm hearing you say.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
Between the lines, right, because because they're going to be
a lot smarter than the first time. But the other thing,
where does Karen Reid these lawyers sound that she has.
They sound intredibly expensive. Where does she get that kind
of money to be able to afford lawyers of the
(05:46):
scalab I'm glad she has them, but it's I.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Think if I'm not mistaken, and someone might know better
than me, but I believe that she has a GoFundMe
page which has raised I think I've seen figures close
to a half a million dollars or maybe more. Her
legal expenses far exceed that. I assume the lawyers may
be giving her a little bit of a break because
the one thing that a lot of criminal defense lawyers
(06:14):
enjoy is some notoriety in publicity because that will drive
other clients to them, so they may be they may
be in it. And and what happens sometimes is a
lawyer really gets committed to the case and is willing
to give the their client a little bit of a
break on the on the costs, particularly when it gets
(06:34):
up to these sort of figures.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
I mean, we were talking about.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
A minimum of a million dollar case and it probably
is going to be close to two million dollars when
you had in the second trial. So now that's some
factors that play. And I don't know if she has
family money or whatever, but but lawyers are you know,
no lawyer is going to walk away from her at
this point.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
She does not have to worry about that. In my opinion,
it's good to know.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
And uh, thanks for then. The other thing though, it's, uh,
you know, right from the beginning, Uh, I had dinner
with friends around the time of this trial in Canton,
and the neighborhood. Uh they you know, people who are
a lot closer to what's going on in Canton were
(07:21):
really suspicious of the whole thing. So I think the state,
like you said, it's a chess game, unfortunately, and uh,
it's more of a chess game and an out together
situation by the prosecution. And uh, in a way, I'm ashamed.
I'm ashamed of that that that our state is uh
(07:44):
is behaving the way they are in this case. It's uh,
they you know, they're capable of a lot, uh a
lot better behavior than they're they're showing in this case,
and that opportunity.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yeah, for the from the point of view of the prosecutor,
if the prosecutor were sitting with you and me tonight,
that prosecutor would say, look, an individual unnecessarily lost their
life that night, and the state has an obligation to
find out what happened and whether there was any criminal
(08:20):
culpability involved in his death. Now, if it was a
pure accident in which there were no you know, no
factors which pushed it beyond simple accident, then it's an accident.
But they need to they would argue that as a prosecutor,
they they need to find out if there was any
criminal intent, any criminal negligence, gross negligence involved here. That
(08:44):
that because someone lost lost their life. I mean, the
the O'Keefe family has lost a son and a father.
So that's the balance the prosecutor has to has to
take into consideration.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
I mean, just one last thing. I agree with you
that if it just like you said, if it's an accident,
I think after all this time, they should know. You know,
I had respect for for our system in Massachusetts. If
it was an accident, they should know. And I think
(09:24):
I hate to say it. I think they're out to
get this woman, even knowing it was an accident. I think.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
I think there are many people, There were many.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
There are many people on your side of the courtroom
who's shared that point of view.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Fred.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Appreciate you taking the time and the corriage to call tonight.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Talk to you soon.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
Oh, thank you, Dan, Okay, good night.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
All right, keep rolling here A six one seven four
ten thirty. That's the only line that's opened right now.
All the others are full six one seven two five
four ten thirty. Back with more phone calls right after
the break.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Now back to Dan Way live from the Window World.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Nice sights too, yours Don Basy News Radio.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Most of the callers on this topic tonight have been men.
So let's go to Diane and Peabody and see what
she thinks. Diane, you were next on Nightside.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Welcome.
Speaker 6 (10:13):
Hi, thank you so much for having me on the call,
and thank you for covering this very, very heartbreaking case.
I have been following this case really since day one.
I remember when she was arrested and walked in with
her face mask on and her hands cut behind her back,
(10:34):
and something just didn't feel right to me right from
day one, it didn't make sense to me how this woman,
who was highly successful and by all accounts from everybody
who knew her, just a really loving, caring, wonderful person,
how all of a sudden she just lost her mind
(10:56):
and either on purpose or accidentally killed her boyfriend.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
And then I think of the one of the arguments
that was involved was there was a lot of drinking
going on that night.
Speaker 6 (11:11):
Yes there was, And if you tuned into Ted Daniel's
interview with her last night or Super Bowl evening, she
admitted that there was a lot of drinking that happened
in their relationship in general. When you think about it,
he was a Boston police officer. It's kind of strange
that he let her drive when she was that intoxicated.
(11:33):
And what the prosecution is alleging is that she had
nine Votga tonics. I don't know if you've ever seen
Karen Reid, but I don't think she even tips the
scales at ninety five pounds, and she has a multitude
of health issues, so the likelihood of her being able
to drink nine Votga tonics over a period of four
(11:56):
to five hours is pretty absurd. That being said, you know,
when you think about the prosecution's entire case, their theory
is that they were out drinking, they were invited to
an after party. They pulled up to the after party
at some point Karen and John allegedly gotten a really
(12:18):
heated argument. He got out of the car, and she
deliberately or accidentally knowingly hit him with her vehicle and
left him for dead. With that awareness of that, then
she drove home to his house, where his niece and
nephew were, and then called her mother and father to
(12:42):
allegedly confess to doing this, and then decided to call
John repeatedly and lead very hateful voicemails, and then decided
to call two of his friends who are particularly Diane.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I think we're Diane. I think we're familiar with a
lot of that. And again, I'm you clearly believe that
that something untoward has happened to to to Karen Reid.
I understand that, and clearly you have a lot of
more insight into her personality. You mentioned the fact that
(13:18):
if if you're a Boston cop and you've been drinking, uh,
you probably don't want to drive, and he might have
been more than happy to have her drive in case
you get pulled over and you're a Boston cop.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
That can cost you a job. So there's arguments on
both sides, you know, and and it's going to get unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Well let me yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
I just you were making the case, you were making
the closing eyes.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
That I didn't hear that you. Yeah, let me just
hear say something that I don't think you touched on
this evening. And a lot of callers did touch on
a lot of great things. But before the jury went
to deliberation, there was a serious issue and a serious
concern about that jewelry ballot and it was raised by
Attorney Jackson and and that was really and she got
(14:06):
really angry.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah she did.
Speaker 6 (14:08):
We're absolutely allow.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Me to at least confirm you're correct, okay, but I
also want you to know it was alluded to last hour.
So yeah, there was some confusion there, and there's some responsibility.
Again when you're the judge, you're in charge, and you're
in charge for all the right reasons as well as
the wrong reasons. And uh, it's too bad that she
(14:32):
did not inquire the judge did not inquire of the
jury for person and make sure that they were indeed
deadlocked on all three counts because maybe two of them
could have been disposed of.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Thank you much as great agreed.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
Actually a very bad for her, But she does have
she does have a lot of donations coming her way.
So she's up to almost a million dollars in donation
from people not only in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but
actually all around the world and as far as Australia is.
So that's where in part she's getting the money. Plus
she sold her house. So thank you so much for
(15:13):
covering this really important case.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Yep, we'll continue to us well, thanks for listening. Thank
you much, Thank you, Diane. Let me go to John
in Bridgewater. John, appreciate your patience here next one night,
Zacher right.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Ahead, Hi Dan, how are.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
You good, sir? What's your take on this?
Speaker 2 (15:30):
My take is that when Karen was at thirty four
three of you with John, she dropped them off, allegedly
right went back to his home. She woke up about
five am, four and a half hours later after she
allegedly hit him.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Where is he?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
So, as you probably remember the footage of her backing
out of his garage and tapping his traverse with her
right tail light.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Yeah, I've seen footage.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Again, I don't want to proclaim myself to be an
expert here. I think there was some disagreement as to
whether or not contact was made at that point.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
But I know the footage you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Okay, she proceeds forward down John's driveway to go look
for him. If you freeze frame that, you will see
both rear tail lights are completely intact. Okay, they both
match perfectly. There was no piece missing from that right
(16:37):
tail light, let alone finding forty seven pieces on thirty four.
Fear of you, days and days later, this case. If
they show that footage alone, this case is over. Her
tail light was not damaged.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Was that?
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I'm asking you now an honest question. I'm not trying
to trick you. I'm asking you honest question that evidence
presented to the jury.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
I'm not aware. I don't know. I've been following the
case closely, but I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
That's why.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
No, Well, that's why I asked you the question, because
when you said to me, I remember seeing that that videotape,
and I thought there was some question.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
Again, I followed it casually.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
I thought that there was some question about whether there
ever was a contact made.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
And so well, then when the car went down supposedly
I don't know where it was fall river or that
officer Barrows was testifying said that he only saw the
tail like cracked. There were no missing pieces, Dan none,
So how did they come up with forty seven pieces?
Days later? You could take that footage you can watch
it on YouTube and when the cars driving down the
(17:56):
driveway freeze.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
The kitchen, Yeah, no, I understand, fatail and of course,
and of course what your what your what your argument
is is that that was at around five thirty in
the morning, some four hours or four and a half
hours after the h the impact would have occurred and
the tail light would have been broken.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
That's exactly she dropped them off approximately twelve thirty and
then five or seven Yeah, yeah, after she allegedly hit them.
It's still intact.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
But again, what I would question is was that was
that presented the jury and presented effectively or has that
uh that videotape come up after the trial if because
if it was not available at trial, if it was
available a trial and it wasn't presented the jury, you
make a very compelling argument.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
It should have been.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
You know exactly, you know that. I don't know, Dan,
but I mean it's a slam dunk once. Once you
see that, you'll say no idea again.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
If you made the point, you made the point, you
made it well two times, three times. I just you
follow this case more closely than I did.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
That I did.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
And that's why I'm asking you if you knew, and
you're telling me you don't.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
So I'll accept that.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Why the defense did not get that if that video
was available, why the defense didn't make a big deal
out of that and get it into evidence.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
That's that's a big.
Speaker 5 (19:24):
Question on me, I know.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
And if it came from John's home, came from his camera.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Yeah, okay, you know, all right, fair enough. Thanks thank you, John,
John from Bridgewater. See if other people react to what
you have to.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
Say, Thanks you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
All right, good night. Coming back on Night's side. After
the break here at ten thirty we got the news
six two, five, four, ten thirty one line there two
lines at six one, seven, nine thirty. We will get
to the other topic of the night, and that is
what is going on with the US Agency for International
Development That has of course become a big point of
(20:03):
concern between the Trump administration and now judges and Democrats.
We're going to get to that. There's an interesting article
in the Washington Post today that I'd like to bring
to your attention. But I'm more than willing to talk
about this at least until eleven o'clock.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
But if you want to.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Join the conversation, do it now, because if not, we'll
be wrapping this up on the other side after a
couple of callers six one, seven, nine, three one ten
thirty or six one, seven, two five four to ten thirty.
Back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Back to the phones we go. Let me go to
Mark in Austin. Mark, welcome back. How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 7 (20:42):
Hi Dan, good evening, and thanks for taking my call.
Maybe I have a special perspective on this case because
I am a survivor. I don't cry myself. I generally
avoid watching must crime.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Yeah you know, Mark, hold on for a second. You
have a bad connection here, so I want Rob to c.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Connection.
Speaker 7 (21:09):
Okay, other electronic device in my apartment is turned safely off.
That's weird.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Okay, Well hold on, Rob will clean you up. We're
gonna get you maybe get closer to a window, don't
hang up. We'll get you on and then back at
in a minute.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Rob.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
Please take care of Mark. Let's in the meantime go
to in Florida. Matt, you were next on Nightside. I'm
sure your connection in Florida is going to be cleaner
than Mark's and Alston.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
I hope.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
So you know.
Speaker 8 (21:38):
I know you're a lawyer. I'm in the lead. I
used to be in the legal field. I have respect
for the legal system, but it doesn't want it anymore.
You got the guy you called two times ago. He
made a really good point about that evidence clear as
as day. Okay, wait, no one's in charge of what's
(22:01):
going on with this stuff. The second that is discovered,
along with the evidence that his app that the dead
guy's Apple Watch was moving around after he was dead,
that evidence right there, Someone, someone, an adult in society,
needs to stand up and say no, there's clear evidence.
(22:22):
This is not what is going on here, and it
shouldn't be up to a new crop of nine idiots
who could who who get put up on a journey
to decide what's going on When the whole world realizes
that this is a sham. And again, I'm not trying
to like make a bigger point of this, but it's
(22:42):
the same joke as why you know Trump can't bring
in a national god in Chicago and raid everyone's house
and get rid of all the guns. That is what
needs to get done. And this ridiculous legal system we
have in this country, it's a it's a fraud, Dan,
It's a fraud. And it gets me really angry that
(23:04):
we just keep going with this.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Here's my well, Matt, hold say, I want to ask
you a question because you make a lot of sense here.
Speaker 4 (23:11):
So the question is if.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
The evidence is that overwhelming and I didn't cover the
story as a when I was a reporter, I was
in the courtroom talking to lawyers, you know. I covered
the stories pretty effectively, I think, and I took them
very seriously. My question is, if this evidence is as
overwhelming as you say it isn't it it very well?
Speaker 4 (23:36):
Maybe it's so much evident.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Okay, hold on, hold on, she has some very good lawyers, Okay,
Alan Jackson, Ynedni. They're very competent lawyers. How did they
not drive these points home during the testimony? You know,
and in the closing argument, so that the jury could
have walked into the jury room and said, what, we've
(24:00):
wasted our time for the evidence.
Speaker 8 (24:02):
I think they did, And I think it just goes
to more of what I'm trying to say of like
this whole system it doesn't work. You're you're a perfect example.
You and your partner got an innocent guy who I'm
sure you guys knew the whole time how much of
a fraud that case was. But you guys probably you
(24:24):
guys probably had like clear stay evidence. And there needs
to be a mechanism in this country where it's like
where where an adult in the room, and I know
there isn't any but where someone can just go listen,
look at this. That's ridiculous. Why we're doing this, Like
you said, it goes to judicial economy and the money.
So everyone knows that this whole world is gonna watch
(24:47):
us on Netflix. Everyone even already knows what's going on.
So we're gonna go through this again. It's like, it's
like it's insane to me, and I, like I said,
it dovetails with these other issues that will.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Be Yeah, but here's here's the difference. Okay, in this case,
you have a police officer who's dead, so that's you
got to get to the truth of what happened. Now
you're saying, Okay, the evidence is overwhelming. I look at
(25:24):
the case and I don't know enough about the case.
I know about the Salvadi Lamoni case, but we were
fighting corrupt FBI agents and the legacy of corrupt FBI
agents and also corrupt police officials who did not want
as I the phrase I used was their scrapbook were rearranged.
You know, they had gotten the convictions. That's all they
(25:46):
cared about. This is in the nineteen sixties. It was
like they didn't care whether these people were innocent or not,
or if they were guilty or not.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
They were going to convict them because they were bad guys.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
And if they could get people on the witness and
that the jury would believe who were who were?
Speaker 4 (26:03):
Who were?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
You know, criminals themselves. You couldn't have a better witness
to convince the jury. Back in those days, the jury
system was fooled, actively fooled by corrupt FBI agents in
the nineteen sixties. In the Savada Lamona case, this situation
is much more open. There are television cameras in courts,
in this case in court, I think what you're really
(26:28):
you're really condemning I think the jurors and saying, how
could these juris sit there and see this evidence and
not come to the obvious conclusion. That's what I think
you're saying.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
I just I think I'm really just more the whole system.
I just this happened so often. I just and like
the whole point of this is just to get to
the truth of it, right, Why all these laws, all
these laws we have, they should say, listen, Carrie, it
clearly didn't have anything to do with it, looking at
this evidence. Why don't we Why don't we arrest these
people from this house, make them, make them take light
(26:59):
Attacktive has make them And like I know this, there's
like these personal liberties and all this crap. But I
mean it's.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Called they it's called the constitution.
Speaker 8 (27:08):
Well, no, I don't. I think it needs I think
we need a complete reworking in this country. And again
I'm not trying to act like a lunatic here, but
we we need like your Banillavit dictator in this country
to come may.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Have one at displaying you may have one good, Thank
you Dan.
Speaker 8 (27:25):
Can I make what can I just make one more
quick statement? I think it goes in regards to the
next topic. But uh, none of this stuff Trump's doing
with the aid and all this unless our taxes get lowered,
none of it needs anything. So this guy could could
clear up all the corruption. But as long as my
tax rate is still thirty five percent on FEDS, it
(27:47):
doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
None of it matters.
Speaker 8 (27:48):
So that's why I just want to say that, thank you.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
That's good, got it all in, Thank you man, appreciate it.
Good night, six thirty one line there.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Six.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
We don't want to short change Mark, but we will
get him next. I'm gonna go to the break. Is
Mark's line cleared up for us?
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Joe?
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Thanks Rob, Okay, we'll take a quick break. I got
room for a couple more calls if you'd like, six, one, seven.
We will wrap this at ten, I promise, and we
will get to the whole question of usaid. And there's
an interesting article on the Washington Post that is it's
it you find it. I think you're going to find
the next hour very interesting as well, And not that
this has not been interesting, that's for sure. Feel free
(28:30):
to join the conversation back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the window World.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Nights Side Studios on w b Z, the news Radio.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Let's go to back to Mark and Austin.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Mark, I want to see if you get a better connection,
Gorett ahead.
Speaker 7 (28:46):
Oh thank you, Dan, and thanks for taking that call
the season.
Speaker 8 (28:50):
I'll be sure it's.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
A much better it's a much better connection. It's worth it.
Go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (28:55):
Oh, thank you. Maybe we were attacked by Graham Ones
just the joke. Anyway, I'm informed very much by my
very positive experience as a juror in a Maritaco Now
Practice case back in two thousand and five presided over
(29:16):
by the late great Judge Ralph Kance, and you know,
generally speaking, jurors followed the Judge's instructions very carefully. We
had a tape recording of Judge Kance's instructions, and we
took only about eight hours to find for the defendant.
(29:40):
The key instruction really was, we could consider this equipment
maker's report to the FDA, but only if we believed
that it had originated directly from somebody who was clearly
in the operating room at the time.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
This is this is this telephone?
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Mark?
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
This is a complicated case of which no one in
my audience has any knowledge. So I would prefer you
to apply your experience with what the court said today.
Do you think that the judge at trial last July
should have taken the additional step and said to the jurors,
you tell me you're deadlocked? Are you deadlocked on all
(30:26):
three counts? Or are you deadlocked on one or two
of the counts? If she'd simply asked that question.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
And I agree with.
Speaker 7 (30:38):
That, the judge should have asked a direct question and
gotten a direct answer. Because judge generally just hate just
hate them. And almost always in any case in a courtroom,
the judge or issues of very careful and thoughtful menu
(31:02):
of options to the jury, like in this particular case,
it would have been something like second degree murder versus
first degree murder.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
Well, first agree murder.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Mark wasn't on the table, Mark, Mark, first degree murder
wasn't on wasn't on the table, It was a second agreement.
Speaker 7 (31:20):
Well, so justice would have been done with a second
degree murder.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Uh, not necessarily because because they because the jurors, Mark,
if you're familiar with the case said that they had agreed,
uh that she was not guilty of second degree murder,
and they said that.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
Only on.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
I mean, so, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
To I'm sorry to confuse the conversation with facts from
the decision. But I've had the advantage.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I'm sorry. I'm going with many facts that I know
for sure. I mean, the charge was essentially.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
Very very familiar, very familiar with charge.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
More Mark, there are some people who are often mistaken
but never endowed in. On this case, I think I'm
gonna put you that category. She was charged with second
degree murder. The jurors subsequent to the trial reported to
both the prosecution I believe, and to the defense lawyers
that they were unanimous to acquit her on second degree
(32:24):
murder and to acquit her on leaving the scene of
an accident. And that was the threat. That was the quest.
Speaker 7 (32:31):
I just don't understand it.
Speaker 3 (32:33):
Yeah, okay, I I that's the I agree with you
that you you don't quite understand that, and a lot
of other people don't as well.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
I appreciate you, Carl, thank you much, appreciate it. Much
better connection this time.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Let me go to Frank.
Speaker 3 (32:51):
Yeah, why don't you get Frank. Oh my god, I'll
tell you what. If Frank's ready, great, If not, we're
just gonna move. We're gonna move fun.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
I'm right here, Dan, can you hear me?
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Yeah, Frank, were you in a barroom or something?
Speaker 7 (33:04):
A what?
Speaker 1 (33:05):
No?
Speaker 4 (33:07):
No?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Then I was yelling?
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Who was yelling at you? Frank?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
They've been yelling since I called you. You may recall
on the day that this appeal was filed and you
had the issue that that night was you were predicting
that the court would rule in favor of the appeal.
(33:35):
And I called and said, this is procedural nonsense. That
was my exact words. And I said, if I was
a judge, I would have just uh dismissed it at
the time. And you told me that day, Okay, let's
wait to see when the court issues the decision and
call back and when the issue decision.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
So I remember the call, So take your victory. Laugh
right ahead.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
No, but but I'm not well, it's it's very predictable.
And because as sensational as it sounds, uh to the public,
it is procedural nonsense. It was from the beginning. And
and just like they're saying, we'll take it at federal court. Now,
(34:23):
federal court will laugh them out. It's it's absolutely ridiculous.
The premise of this.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Well, I can tell you is that I respectfully disagree
with you tonight. I I respectfully disagreed with you when
we spoke about it last fall. Your prediction is accurate.
Have you had a chance to read the decision today
or no?
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Yes? And and the thing how many?
Speaker 4 (34:50):
How many pages?
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Thirty five? Thirty five pages?
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Goods so so the the justice is did not dismiss
it as cavalierly as you might have. Obviously you look
at it as balder dash. I think it's a serious question.
Let me ask you this question. You tell me at
the time you're a lawyer, correct, yes, yeah, Okay. Going forward,
(35:17):
let us assume that at some point there's a similar case,
a criminal case where there are multiple counts and the
jury comes back and represents to the judge that they
are deadlocked. Do you think that the judge in that case,
hypothetical case going forward is likely to remember this case
(35:37):
and inquire of the jurors if they are deadlocked on
all of the counts or on just some of the counts.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
The judge made. But I will point out that the defense,
even though they won't say it, they would have at
the time, made a calculated decision. I'm not going to
ask the I'm not going to ask, but but listen,
here's no one's uh, no one's no, one's focusing on
(36:09):
this man. The defense when the jury came back and
said we are deadlocked, the defense was like, our whole
defense was based on. This was a frame up which
if the jury bought that, they would have been back
with are not guilty? In two minutes. When they came
(36:30):
back and said we are deadlocked, the defense said, okay,
they blew that. So we're not going to ask for
are you in agreement on any counts because the answer
could be yes, we're we're in.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
The agreement and correct correct on that because obviously by
their actions the actions, we know what they chose not
to do. The point is that normally in a criminal
case of this magnitude, and when the jury comes back
truly deadlocked, and whether these guys were truly deadlocked on
all three or just on one, it's moved.
Speaker 4 (37:08):
For the moment.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
The defense looks that as a victory because any good
defense lawyer will tell you that now we have a
chance to get a second bite at the apple. And
we know the prosecution strategy, we know the weaknesses of
their case, we know the strengths of their case. That
the defense generally in a case like this, has an
advantage post deadlock. Would you agree with me on that?
Speaker 1 (37:33):
I would because I'm a criminal defense and usually a
mistrial is a victory. But in the case where your
defense is that it's a frame up, and then the
jury comes back and says no. And if you look
at what the jurors said, and I believe that those
jurors when they came after the fact and said this
(37:55):
is what we were hung up on, I believe that
was true. They said we would ten to two guilty
of manslaughter.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
So they nine. Let me correct your counselor.
Speaker 3 (38:09):
In the decision today, the s JC reported that the jurors,
one juror reportedly said that they were nine to three.
Uh two.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Yeah. But if you but if you look at one
at one of the jurors had questions that were very
intelligent and very technical, which which if you look at
it meant that that juror was convinced that she hit him.
So that was that was they.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
None of that None of that was in the the
decision that I read today.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
I don't know what this is, no, but it was,
but it was if you look at what the jurors,
jurists said so anyway, so whether it's nine to three,
are ten to two with they you had a very
intelligent jury who heard all of the evidence. So all
of this stuff that calls a calling this, what about that?
What about the dogs?
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Let's see, let's see, let's say we're gonna she's gonna
probably go to go.
Speaker 4 (39:06):
To the retrial starts on April first, and let's continue
the issue. The issue was.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
The issue was not did she hit The issue for
that jury was no, it wasn't murder, but she hit him.
It was from that from the beginning they overcharged her.
That was the fault of the uh the prosecutions.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
That you know, if you're if you're a criminal defense attorney,
if you're a criminal defense attorney and I suspect you are,
you know that often prosecutors will overcharge in hopes of saying, well,
we might we might not hook her on on on
murder too, but that's going to make it easier for
the jury to.
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Come back with a compromise. And hook her on involuntary manslaughter.
That's what they were probably shooting for.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
And that and that jury was very intelligent and they
said it wasn't murder, but they were equally intelligent saying, well,
they rejected, they rejected that if you look at.
Speaker 3 (40:06):
Okay, all right, Frank, Frank, we have gone on very
long here, and unfortunately I'm up against my time limit.
I wish that we could continue the conversation. We'll continue
the conversation when the trial starts in April.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Okay, after the guilty of manslaughter. That's my great action.
Speaker 4 (40:22):
Well, thanks very much. You were right the first time.
Speaker 3 (40:25):
I'm not sure that legally or procedurally it's it's a
good position to take, but you were accurate. Thanks very much,
appreciate your call. Here comes the eleven o'clock News, and
to the callers who are now calling in here a
little late, we're going to change topics on the other side.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
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!
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