June 17, 2025 • 39 mins
On the second full day of jury deliberations in the Karen Read trial, the jury came back and asked the judge presiding over the trial, Judge Beverly Cannone, four questions related to evidence and charges. The first question was about the time frame for the OUI charge. The second asked if Read's interviews are evidence and how they can be considered. The third question asked for clarity for convicting on a lesser charge. Then the fourth question was, "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" to which Judge Cannone said she could not answer.
Stay tuned in to WBZ NewsRadio 1030 with the IHeart Radio app, online, in your car, or on your favorite listening device for the latest update on this developing story!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Stay tuned in to WBZ NewsRadio 1030 with the IHeart Radio app, online, in your car, or on your favorite listening device for the latest update on this developing story!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
He's night side with Dan Ray I'm w Bsy Costin's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Theyy you very much. Dan Walkers also bring Red Sox
fans up to date. Raffie Devers, in his first ab
for the San Francisco Giants struck out, so he's all
for one for the Giants, but I suspect he'll hit
a home run pretty soon. We're going to take an
opportunity here to talk about the Karen Reid trial today.
(00:26):
There were four questions that were submitted by the jurors
to the judge, Judge Beverly Canoni. All of those questions
have been interpreted differently by different people. Very difficult to
tell what's going on. My suspicion is that I thought
the questions overall, just overall, were beneficial for the defense.
(00:51):
That was my take on it. Now you might agree
or disagree, It doesn't really matter what to know what
you're taking is on the case. And also love to
talk to some people who have actually been out there
for the duration or have been out there many days
as part of the support team of Karen Reid. I
think it's interesting. It's a high profile case and people
(01:12):
do get interested and they become committed and again, I'm
not going to detegrate what they're doing out there. They
have every right to be out there, and I'm sure
that it provides her a lot of psychological support. The
only lines open right now are six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty. You could be from New England
(01:33):
because this is a New England case of Massachusetts case,
or you can be from anywhere in the country and
you may have a belief in what did or did
not happen. That's what we're talking about. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty. Next up is Steve in Bridgewater. Steve, Welcome
to Night's I go right ahead, Steve.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Hi Jan Yeah, I got a few things I want
to say. Comments first, and that is yeah, I heard
a gal talk a couple of several calls ago, and
she went over a lot of things that she the
one that said nobody will ever know what really happened
that night, which is she's one thousand percent correct, but
(02:16):
based on a lot of things she said, obviously she's
been following the case a lot more than I have been,
and I hear the case being saturated with reasonable doubt.
That's how I hear it. So I think the jury
should have an easy time getting you know, finding her
not guilty. But the question that they asked the judge today,
(02:39):
you know, and the judge said she couldn't answer.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
I think that I think that the question that the
judge felt she could not answer was the fourth question.
If we find not guilty on two charges but can't
agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on
all three charges or just one charge? That was a
very specific question. Uh, And she said this is a
(03:03):
theoretical question, not one that I can answer. I think
that's the one you're talking.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
About, right, Yeah, But I thought they have to find
they have to come to an agreement on all of them,
you know, not no.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no no. That's the
point that was I thought the mistake if there was
a mistake in the first trial. So she's charged with
let's just walk through it. She's charged with second degree murder.
That's the most serious charge. You have to prove on
second degree murder, some form of intent. I don't think
(03:36):
that there's any evidence that you could come up with
any sort of intent. Normally, second degree murder can be
a crime of passion. It's you know, a barroom fight
and and some guy hits uh, hits the guy, no
question about that. Hits him. However, however, h he didn't
(03:56):
intend to kill him, and it's he hit his head
on the floor or whatever, and so that's what happens.
It's more, it's not an accident. He threw the punch.
But that's your classic second degree murder case or a
crime of great passion. All of that. Then the second one,
manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. Now,
(04:20):
if you take that, there's three lesser included charges, which
means they could come back with simply manslaughter without reference
to the liquor. They could come back with motor vehicle homicide,
or they come back with a simple OUI. And then
the third one, leaving the scene of an accident resulting
in death. They could come up with any combination here.
(04:41):
I think second degree murder is probably off the board.
I think yes, leaving the scene of an accident resulting
in a death, that's kind of straightforward. She did not know,
she did not have to know as an element of
that crime that the guy was dead. But she could
have known, or you could impute knowledge to her that
(05:03):
that she hit him if she did. And again that's
why the lawyers are arguing there's no evidence and that
that that her vehicle struck him. It's not like she's
got to get out and say Lee looks dead to me,
I'm getting the hell out of here. No, it's it's
you have an accident in the road with somebody, uh,
and and and you don't go over and and somehow,
(05:25):
some way that person dies from the accident. You could
be on the hook for leaving the scene of an
accident resulting in death or resulting in damage to personal property.
So yeah, I think that if they come back, they
could come back or they could say not guilty on one,
they could say not guilty on two, and they could
come back with guilty on three. Well they could yeah, yeah,
(05:48):
or different combination.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Yes, that's true. There are times people are found not
guilty on certain things but guilty on this. Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Absolutely. Yeah, juris can come back with split verdicts. It's
attap to that. So we'll see what I make.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
One of the comic you know, you mentioned about, you
mentioned about you. Don't think the entire country knows you.
I think every everybody in else, the entire US knows.
You know why I'm saying that, Why that's your tube.
I watched Court TV and there and they talk about
it every night and there.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
I know they're nation wide, well they are nationwide. But
I got to tell you, there's a lot of people
who don't know the name of the vice president of
the United States. They do those polls all the time.
There's a lot of people who live in their own
reality and they just don't have a clue. I mean,
you know, that's just that's the reality that they have.
(06:44):
They're they're living their life. Yeah, when I say it's
I mean I think everybody knew about the O. J.
Simpson case. I don't think this is at that level.
It's known by a lot of people, there's no question,
but yeah, I don't think everyone. There's a lot of
people kind of zone out. They lived their life and
they probably there were some people who don't know. Well,
(07:06):
it was tough to Donald Trump, but there were people
when they asked who was president with Joe Biden, there
were people who were I'm not sure.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I knowed My brother out in Arizona. If he knows,
I'll ask him tomorrow. He lives out in Tucson. Dan
I'm gonna ask him if he knows, all right.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Call me back, let me know what he says.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Okay, thanks, all right, Jan, thanks for the call.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Thanks Fred, appreciate your call. Brother, Steve, excuse me, thank you, Steve.
I appreciate your call.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Frank is next. I got some open lines here. Six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
I'm still looking for the first person who has been
out there, uh, and would love to express why again.
I can understand following the case. I can understand maybe
be over there a couple of days, but there are
(07:54):
people who have been out there religiously throughout the trial.
That's quite a commitment. Six one, seven, two, five, four
tenth six seven the Karen Read case. My sense is
that with based on the jury decision questions that were
directed to the judge today, I think you're going to
get a decision on this tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
Now.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
I'm not going to bet my life on that, but
I think it's more likely than not you'll get a
decision tomorrow. If you don't get one tomorrow, we'll get
it on Thursday. I think that this this jury is
getting close, and that's my view. Whatever you have to
say on it. Agreed, disagree, More importantly what you think.
(08:34):
That's what I want to hear from you. Join the
conversation back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
All right, let's get right back to the calls. You're
going to go to Frank in Boston. Frank, appreciate your patience.
It is paid off. You are next on Nightside, Frank.
Speaker 5 (08:55):
Hey, thank you, sir. Hey, he got hit by the car. Okay,
he got hit by the car, the tail gate smashed,
the the sharp edges and the cutting his arm and
that's how he got the cuts. And also my my,
my other question, but my question is after that, just
(09:18):
why are these people gravitating to this woman so much?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Okay? Well, first of all, I think you stated you're
The first thing you stated was your belief in the case, right.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Yes, okay.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Uh. I think that there's a lot of people who
have come to the belief that nothing happened at the
car and that uh, he went into the party at
this house and got into a bit of a dust
up or a fight, whatever you want to call it,
(09:55):
with people inside. Uh, and.
Speaker 6 (09:59):
The the are argument that people have made to me
is oh, yeah, he he uh, he got punched out
by someone and then uh, maybe they they didn't realize
he was dead and they just threw him out on
the lawn to have him, you know, sleep it off
or something.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
That's that's the the other point of view. And you
can talk to some of those folks and they are
deeply committed to that belief. They they they cite all
sorts of uh facts. For example, they will tell you
that there was a dog that was in the house
which was rehoused, was moved away. I had no idea
(10:36):
where the dog ended up. I don't know if the
dog is still alive. And and that they there was
a carpet which was cut up and removed. And obviously
people who believe that, and I haven't seen evidence to that.
It was not put in as an affirmative defense to
the best of my knowledge, but but that's what people believe.
(10:59):
And and as a result of those beliefs, they assume
that Karen Reid is being set up for a homicide indictment,
when in fact she's a victim like her former boyfriend
who was killed but not by Karen Reid. That's where
that's where they come from. Where they're coming from.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Well, I think that that that's my scenario about the
sharp ends on the cracked tailgate light tail light might
be the cause of those those scars on those cuts
on his arm.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Well, I think that's what the prosecution would like the
jury to believe. I think you're right on that. That's
what the I think that you're correct that with that's
the prosecution's theory.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
But I still don't understand how these there's something going
on in that community have made these people such celebrities.
I mean, something bad going on over there for them
so jump on his case like they have. It seems like, well.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
It's a it's a high profile case and it involves
a young couple.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
You think so, I don't think so. It seems like
it seemed like a recul murder case that that would
that that would just be on the news one off
the news the next day.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Well, I mean, the man who's dead is a police officer,
his girlfriend is his girlfriend is accused of having in
some form of fashion killed him. That's I think That's
what I don't know. Maybe someone will call and have
a better explanation of a Frank I'm I'm I'm not
an expert.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
No reason I say that is because they've come out
so loudly against the police.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Well they kept them come out against I think the
Canton police. Yeah yeah, well, I mean I think that. Well.
I think that as the story got told and retold,
people came to believe it. I don't know the truth.
I'm not I don't know what happened. I wasn't there.
(13:13):
All right, Frank appreciate you call. Always gonna hear your voice.
Thanks much. Tuck right back at you. Okay, we're picking
it up a little bit here. Let me go next
to Matt in Franklin. Hey, Matt, welcome back to night
sig go righthead, Matt.
Speaker 7 (13:26):
Yeay dan So I said from the beginning, I thought
they should have sequestered the jury and relocated the trial.
I just think she went on such a pr campaign
with the bloggers that everybody's mind was already made up.
And the Free Karen re conspiracy people. You can't convince
them otherwise. They're just completely convinced. It's like, have any
(13:47):
of you people done any serious drinking in your life?
The first thing you remember when you sober up is
what you did wrong, and she is four hours later
going out looking for someone she's assuming's dead. It's like
usually when you get into the argument met with someone
that's like got to be your ex, It's like I'll
wake up and noon and forget about it and maybe
we're still together. But she's out there looking for him
(14:07):
like he's dead and finds them. It's like, well, that's
usually what happens when you sort of blackout or a
blackout or were almost there. So it's just like, yeah,
they're gonna have a tough time. I think it's gonna
be a repeat.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Well, I don't know. You know, Matt, It's funny, if
you were a psychology professor, you could have been a
witness in this case because if you had yeah, if
you had the.
Speaker 7 (14:32):
She's from here, they flow her out. She's like, oh,
I want to come home and visit and I sort
of know you Alan, and then they fly her out
here for the weekend and she's somehow an expert after
having treated the dog bite in thirty five years.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
So yeah, okay, well you obviously know more about the
case than I do. I was joking with you, and
what I'm saying to you is that if Let's say
you were you had a psychology decree, then you could
have gone in there and you could have presented that
and said, hey, the first thing that people think of
(15:06):
in the morning is oh, that's what I did, you
know whatever.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
First hand experience from back in the day. What I'm
gonna say too.
Speaker 7 (15:14):
About that's crazy about it is like everybody's like everybody
in the town's in on it. It's you're from Sherburne, right.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I lived in We lived in sherburn for twenty.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Years, but I grew up overnight.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
Like a lot of those towns are like the Keystone
Cops overnight. It's like, does anybody think we'd have like
the best of the best investigating this thing in the
morning at seven in the morning. It's like and they're like, oh,
they all know each other. It's like that's every single
town around Boston. It's all people that are like Irish
that move one town over.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Wait, no, we got we got be knocking the Irish
here on dan Ratio.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Go yeah, but I mean I'm Irish.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
No, no, no, no no. What I'm saying to you
is this, when I understand the argument you're making. However,
what mitigates against your your argument is that when a
police officer is dead, generally police officers get on their
best behavior because that's the case they want to solve. Now,
(16:18):
the behavior of a couple of the state police investigators
on that case seem to be pretty cavalier, which surprised.
Speaker 7 (16:29):
That they obviously weren't expecting them to get up their
hands on the phone. And I think a lot of
that had to do with Rachel Rollins.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
So well, again, you're you're going deep into, uh, into
a theory that I'm not familiar with. But what I'm
saying is, as a police officer, and you're a state
police officer, and you're a homicide investigator, and and the
and the and the body that you're investigating or the
(16:56):
crime you're trying to solve is that of a fellow
police officer. In my opinion, most police officers to take
that responsibility pretty seriously. They wouldn't be saying, hey, check
her file for nude pictures or whatever. I'm checking her
file for new I mean, that's a little over the top,
but and and I think it's it was egregious, that's all.
(17:19):
You don't think that.
Speaker 7 (17:20):
Yeah, And at the same time, like if you have
the woman that was hammered outside the house screaming should
hit him, and then their cars.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Damn.
Speaker 7 (17:28):
It's like, how much of an investigation are they really
going to do into.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
The house, on the surrounding tables, the bodies on the yard.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
There's a glass there that they found. It's like, why
would they talk to all these Okay, well.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
You're well, I still think I would think that that
even if they concluded, let's assume that they concluded, oh yeah,
this uh, this this woman who's running around saying I
think I might have hit him. I think I might
have hit him. I would think. And I'm not a
police officer, No will life play one of the radio,
but I would think that I might not loo on
(18:00):
a few doors in the area and say, hey, you
guys happen to have like a video cam or anything
that that that has been you know, those cameras as
you know, self erase in many cases after twenty four hours. Yeah,
you would think that did you hear anything out here
last night? Were you guys asleep at twelve o'clock? Oh no,
(18:20):
we had a party. Oh really? Oh okay, any drinking
going on? You know? I mean, I would think not
only the house where he was found on the lawn dead,
but maybe the next door neighbor's house and the guy
across the street. I would think, I don't know, maybe
I'm asking too much, but.
Speaker 7 (18:41):
You or no, they're probably half awake anyways.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
But that's that's.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Why, that's why, that's why God invented Duncan Donuts coffee
so police would wouldn't be half half asleep in the morning.
Come on, a man, I love you.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Call you.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
You got to You're you're kind of sardonic, but I
loved your call. Thanks man, keep calling. Okay, it's a
good one. Coming back on Nightside, we get the news
at the bottom of the hour. We are keeping our
eye in the Middle East. Don't worry about that. Coming
right back on Nightshide.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Your own personal Raffie Devers watch continues here on Nightside.
Devers has just doubled first hit with the Giants and
drove in his first run with the Giants. Meanwhile, the
Red Sox are losing in Seattle tonight. The last time
I looked at it still is five to nothing. Let's
keep going here. We're talking about a different scorecard and
(19:43):
gonna go to John in Salem, Massachusetts. We're talking about
the Karen retrap. I'm still looking for some people who
have been out there a day after day after day.
Hey John, welcome next on Nightshide.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Hey how you doing.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
So I just want to answer that guy's question real quick,
is why is the fanfare about so high?
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It's always that way when it's.
Speaker 8 (20:02):
Just non criminal people. I mean, nobody's going to follow
a trial of some criminal that you know, murdered somebody
in the streets somewhere. But anyway, that's why they're They're
all kind of normal people.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
She was a professor, he was a policeman.
Speaker 8 (20:14):
It's understandable.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
I think that's a great point obviously, the O. J.
Simpson trial because of who O J. Simpson was, the
guy who played football, the guy who was a Heisman
Trophy winner, the guy who was was it was it
hurts or avis that he was that he used to
run through airport.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (20:32):
And then and then you had the Scott Peterson and
the Standard you know, husband kills the wife and the baby.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
You know the Peterson Well, they weren't well known people.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
So I mean that's if Peterson is closer.
Speaker 8 (20:42):
To this, but that Yeah, that's what I'm saying, though
there were not they were non criminal people, whether or not.
I mean, no, I know it wasn't well known either.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Yeah. If there's a couple of guys who you know,
end up in a in a fight, I don't know,
you know it involved you know, in drug deals or
something like that, you kind of assume that that's what's
going to happen, you know.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
Yeah, when it's clearly somebody that's guilty, you don't really
want to follow them.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Yeah, let me ask you one more question.
Speaker 8 (21:11):
Sure anywhere in the trial, and I know you haven't
been there the whole time in me neither, but did
anyone ever talk about insurance? Like, you know, so I
have a trampoline in a pool, and if somebody gets hurt,
just hurt, you know, and maybe brought to the emergency
room for stitches, the insurance company does investigations, and what
do they think happened? And was the body really on
(21:33):
city property or their front lawn because it was their
front lawn, there's going to be one hundred page report
on that.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Well, first of all, I assume that whoever owned that
home would have had some homeowners insurance because obviously, if
someone walks up your steps and slips on your steps,
so there's a loose brinker front steps, and you have
personal liability. So I would assume that, but maybe they don't.
I don't know that this is ever brought up at all.
(22:03):
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't followed the
case on a day to day basis, but I haven't
followed like I'm following Raffie Devers in San Francisco tonight.
Let me put it like that.
Speaker 8 (22:13):
Yeah, and maybe maybe he did just stagger out there.
I mean to be honest with you that I staggered
home a couple of times in my days, and I
don't want to tell you where I was sitting on
rocks or doing whatever I was doing. Yeah, so maybe
he didn't get dragged. Maybe he did get in a fight,
they thought it was over, he walks out, thinks she's
coming back, and he just falls down.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
I guess that's why I said earlier. No matter what
happens with the verdict, I'm not sure that we're ever
gonna know for sure. I mean, if there has been
a doorbell camera, Let's say that there was a doorbell
camera that the state police had discovered and on the
camera were pictures of him walking into the house, and
(22:56):
the state police had secured that camera, that video footage
that night. She never would have been indicted.
Speaker 8 (23:03):
But if it really was a blizzard, those cameras aren't
the best things in the world anyway. If it's a blizzard,
you could just see an image walking in. But I
think he walked out on his own after a brawl.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Well again, what you think? And I think it is interesting,
but it doesn't the jury's not going to have go No.
Speaker 8 (23:21):
I wanted I wanted to know what the insurance company thinks.
That's where I want to know.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yeah, well I don't. I don't know if to the
best of mine, I have heard nothing in any of this,
and we have a lot.
Speaker 8 (23:32):
Of and even the even the auto insurance. If you
have a beautiful Lexus that kill somebody or you know,
at least accused of, there's going to be an investigation
there as well.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Absolutely there should be.
Speaker 8 (23:44):
But again then you can compare it, and then you
compare all three. Yeah, okay, one, all right, John, thank you, Dan,
thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Maybe there's someone out there listening who's going to be
able to say to us there was an insurance report filed.
I don't know that to be the truth. So simple
as that, I'm one of these guys. I enjoy the conversation.
I learned as much from you guys as you might
learn from me. I probably learned more from you guys.
It's as simple as that. I there are some things that.
Speaker 8 (24:13):
I and there is a bottom line here. The bottom
line is something something happened to him.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
It's the bottom line is a young guy who adopted
two children. Uh is not in a police officer people?
Speaker 9 (24:26):
Well, yeah, I mean you assume we're all flawed, right, Yeah,
they weren't gang members, is what I think you're trying
to say to me in a different way.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Simple as that, Hey, John, I gotta roll here. You
gotta go. Thank you much, Thank you. Good call. Thoughtful, thoughtful,
Appreciate it, Appreciate it. Mike is in Newton, Mike, you
were next on a Nightsiger Right ahead, Mike.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Damn, my blood is boiling.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Well, I'm I'm happy to that. I hope it's only
caused by the conversation and you don't have some sort
of blood.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
Go ahead, No, I haven't been down in Denham, but
I've watched just about every single day of both trials.
We have watched everything. People that are calling in they
haven't watched the evidence, Dan, the evidence, the arc of people.
(25:21):
They didn't nobody hit him. The vehicles did not hit him. That,
doctor Lapisada. The vehicle did not hit him. The X rays,
there was no bruising, There were no broken bones, Doctor Russell.
They were dog bites. There were animal bites. The Dighton
cop who picked up the car from Karen's father's house
(25:45):
said it was a cracked tail light. And when he
was instructed to go to the house at five o'clock
or something in the afternoon there to pick up the
car from from her father's house, he said, we're investigating
the homicide. That it was a done deal by the
time they got to the car at Karen's house. And
(26:07):
then a hare followed from from wherever it was. I
don't know where it was. It was fall River or something.
All the way back to the Canton Sallyport. One piece
of hair was stuck on the bumper. And then the
Boston cop who recanted her complete story, her complete testimony
(26:29):
because she went upstairs and talked to the police commission.
Oh that I had a brain. I had a brain.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Here's the deal, here's the deal. You're you're speculating wildly
in terms of that. She talked to the police commissioner.
I know no evidence that that was introduced in court
to that effect.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
It came out in trial, Jess. They talked to See
the problem is you guys didn't listen to the trial.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Well, here's the deal. Here's the deal. It came up,
here's the deal. Here's the deal. You're correct. Let me
be honest with you. Okay, Mike, you're correct. I did
not spend my day as apparently you were able to
do listening to No, No, No, No.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
I didn't. I didn't spend my day. No. I worked
all day and then I came home at night and
Will I listened to Better Throw. I listened to UH
a number of other stations. We watched the trial. We
watched every single bit of it. We watched all the evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Okay, you got to get a life, John, You've got
to get a life here, Okay, excuse me, Mike, Mike.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
Dan You're you're losing it. You got a little dementia.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Oh please, you know what, Mike, you know want you
you know, stick it in your ear. Okay, have a
great mode. Yeah, okay, uh see you see you. I
was actually I was panning to go to my lext
my next caller. Uh. You you need to get a life, Okay.
Uh I I know enough about the case to know
(27:55):
what what made UH coverage both in the Globe, the
Herald and on the major stations. So again, anyway, stick
it in your ear mind as simple as that. Okay,
we'll leave it at that. We'll take a no, I'll
take one more call here. Actually I'm going to go
to Ian and San Antonio, Texas. Ian has this story
(28:15):
made its way all the way to Texas?
Speaker 10 (28:18):
Oh? Yes? And yeah. So this is what I wanted
to tell you about the way I see things. And
I didn't follow the first trial. It was a glance.
It was at a glance every once in a while.
What caught my attention on the first trial was the
(28:39):
comments of a detective proctor. I couldn't believe my ears,
but it harkened me back to when I grew up
there and I knew and I have one hundred support
behind law enforcement. Personally, I believe in safety. But there
(29:01):
is something particular, particularly peculiar about some jurisdictions there in Massachusetts.
I grew up there, and I've seen it with my
own eyes, and I did watch the first trial because
I didn't want to make an opinion unless I saw
(29:24):
for myself the evidence in trial.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Okay, so what's.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
That.
Speaker 10 (29:31):
She is completely not guilty. It was a frame up.
The evidence in court was compelling in that in all
those on all that those counts, they police completely did
not do their job un ethically or ethically. The night
(29:57):
of the accident. Nothing he was investigated but a little,
a little bit around him. They didn't knock on if
this is what I think happened, if they had done
their job that night, they would have known what happened.
I believe that he walked in the house, into the
(30:17):
not into the house, excuse me, the garage. There's a
door to the right that went directly into the garage,
and he was attacked by the dog. In the force
of that dog, uh knocked him back right back on
his head, and the dog did him. Okay, I don't
(30:38):
believe there was a fight. I believe they came. They
didn't know this happened. The occupants of the house for
a little for a bit, and then he was found,
and then they tried to cover it up and frame her.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (30:52):
Well again, well I don't want to say frame her. No,
I take that back. They I think they really did
want to make it look like the plow, you know, stopping.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
Their job.
Speaker 10 (31:07):
Okay for investigation.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
So did you grow up in Boston? And is that
what you said?
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Oh, come on, you realize that. So you're not related
to Dave the other fellow who calls from San Antonio. No,
I didn't know if you were next door neighbor or something.
How'd you get to San Antonio?
Speaker 10 (31:30):
My husband's job is taking us all around the world.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Really, okay? Military military, Yes, yes, good for you, Thank you,
thank your husband for service. Well, I that's you presented
it very well. You presented what your belief is, which
is what which is what we do here on night side.
Speaker 10 (31:48):
And uh, I believe that she was drunk driving, I
mean to drink that much and go in a car,
and they all did and that was I found that
quite striking that nobody and this is law enforced, and
they had no compunction about getting in the cars and
driving after drinking at a bar.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
There was Well, I think that part of that is
that police officers sometimes figure that they get a courtesy
from another police officer. But like anything else, you gotta
you gotta always make sure that Yeah, no, you're right
on that one. Yeah, thank you so much. That was
a great I really appreciate it. Keep in touch. I
(32:26):
thought you would like I don't know. I figured that
you must have known Day from San Antonio. When you
see him down there, say hello for me.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
Okay, okay, thanks, I talk.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
To you than now. See I just had a mystery solve.
Let me take a quick break. Come right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Right, let's keep rolling here. I'm gonna go to John
and Boston John next on nights. I go ahead, thanks you.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
I don't want to nurse. The other n I called
to that he was Johnald Key was missing three liters
of blood. There was a lot of blood that was missing.
I try to find that in the records of the
court that I couldn't quite fight. It's not saying it's
not there, but whether I do no, even if it
was three pints of blood, it would be all over
that ground there, and it just wasn't that amount of blood. Also,
(33:19):
there was blood going down a shirt. And if he
was laying a hit by the car, he would it
would be around his neck and his shoulders. And a
couple observations also did the experts. The experts said he
was not hit by a car. So then what are
the amateur jer was supposed to think? If the experts
said that he was not hit by a car, then
how was the amateur jervey What are they supposed to think?
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (33:43):
And you don't need to be a trained journalist or
at the beginning to know that. Hey, you know, just
to the Palace of O. You can't have a tremendous
grass of the obvious, just know one. Hey, wait a minute,
the experts said he wasn't hit by a car.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
No, No, I get that. No, I get that. I
understand what you say, and I understood it was but
normally normally, and again I had the disadvantage of being
honest with people. I'm not going to tell you that
I watched every frame of the testimony, that I stayed
up late at night, like my friend Mike. I don't
know what Mike does for a living, but he's got
(34:17):
a lot, he's got too much time in his hands.
What I'm saying is there probably was experts on the
other side. Normally in these cases you have two experts prosecution, defendant,
a defense expert, and one says one thing, one says
the other. It's very rare John that Let's say an
expert gets up with the witness stand and the lawyer
(34:40):
for the other side jumps up and says, your honor,
I have no questions. This guy knows what he's talking about.
I'm with him, or vice versa. That's all I'm saying
is that there's probably stuff that that the jury can
look at from different ways. If that's the way trials work.
It's as simple as that.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
I agree to you. Like Brettan, he's highly educated trained.
I'm sure in the powers of observation. I'm sure both
sides had access to all the documents the examiners had
ye like, for instance, Attorney Brennan, and he had access
to the Document's examiner cut the holes in the back
of John o'keith sweatshirt, and yet he presents the sweatshirt
(35:18):
to the jury and points out the holes, specifically implying
that they were created by getting hit by a car,
and that they were created by as opposent. He had
the document did yet he was highly educated and he
knew he had the documents from the medical examiner that
(35:38):
said they were created by her, and he presented it
to the jury. And then he says he makes a mistake.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
That's exactly true. Guess what, John, John, Guess John, John.
I bet you you've made a few mistakes in your life.
I know I've made mistakes in my life.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
And I don't believe it was a mistake. I'm I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
You don't, John. I'm sure you don't, John, And I'm
not going to disabuse you of that notion. John. And
there's no reason to talk over me. I've given you
plenty of time to talk here.
Speaker 4 (36:04):
What I'm saying you interrupted, no time to explained before
I got my thought through, that's all, Dan.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
I think you've got your points out very clearly. John. Okay.
Is there any point that I have prevented you from making?
Speaker 4 (36:17):
Sometimes you just cut in and just stolen me finish it,
that's all, But go ahead.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
No, But is there a point that you want to
make that you haven't made?
Speaker 4 (36:26):
The only other point I'm make, Dan, is the detective
Galagher is here in the morning, thirty years experience. He
doesn't check the video across the street that's looking at
the crime scene, but he goes and gets borrows the
leaf flower to blow snow. Does that not create suspicions?
I would go up and again you be you're a
detective of thirty years and you don't go check the
video on a ringer that's at the crime scene.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
John, all of that evidence is going to be with
the jury. What I'm what I disagree with you about.
You're making a conclusion that Hank Brennan, who I know
a little bit is a highly ethical lawyer, would be
(37:09):
a fool, and he's not a fool, would be a
fool to try to say, well, I'm gonna I'm somehow
gonna scam the jury here into thinking I don't know,
I've made mistakes, You've made mistakes. I think we're all
pretty hypercritical here tonight, and a lot of you have
figured this out. And it's too bad that you weren't
(37:30):
in the jury, because maybe we would have a verdict
by now. All I'm just telling you is, go ahead, John.
I'm sorry to be talking while you're interrupting me.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
But go ahead, go ahead ahead. I'm not good.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
Well, you were trying to you were accusing me of
interrupting you, and then you're doing the same thing to me.
All I'm saying, John, is that I don't know the
answers that you seem to have, and that Mike from
Newton has the and others have. I'm simply trying to
whenever a set of viewpoint, I play a little what's
called Devil's advocate, John. That's my job. My job is
(38:05):
not to sit here and say what George, right up, yup,
up up up up? Good good points, John, And guess.
Speaker 4 (38:11):
What I get it?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Matt. Matt was Matt was right on the money. Matt
was right. I don't do that, John. I I try
to pick your arguments apart. That's what my job is.
So don't be offended by it. Okay, that's all I'm saying.
Don't be offended by it.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
Yeah, I'm it's just said. It's not even my eye,
but just telling you what what the attorney said in
court and what and as matter of fact, character.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
I know what he said in court, John, and he
said I made a mistake. Have you ever made a
mistake in your life? John? Have you ever said to
someone guess what. I'm wrong. I made a mistake.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
I have I just again. You know, he had access
to the documents, he.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
Knew he was.
Speaker 10 (38:51):
Trying.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
He was trying to scam the joy throwing up John,
him up on my brake. I gotta let you run.
Speaker 4 (38:55):
I think you got it. Attorney too, So let's hold
him again.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Let's hold that against him, because Whitey Bulger didn't deserve
to have a decent attorney. He had to be crumbed.
He probably worked with Mighty, with Whitey Bulger, maybe killing
a few people. Come on, John, that's really beneath you. John,
And I know you well enough to know that's beneath you.
There's a lot of people of Alan Dershowitz was Donald
Trump's attorney, Okay, and Alan Dershowitz, come on, that's beneath you.
(39:24):
Good Night, Back on Night's side. Right after this
He's night side with Dan Ray I'm w Bsy Costin's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Theyy you very much. Dan Walkers also bring Red Sox
fans up to date. Raffie Devers, in his first ab
for the San Francisco Giants struck out, so he's all
for one for the Giants, but I suspect he'll hit
a home run pretty soon. We're going to take an
opportunity here to talk about the Karen Reid trial today.
(00:26):
There were four questions that were submitted by the jurors
to the judge, Judge Beverly Canoni. All of those questions
have been interpreted differently by different people. Very difficult to
tell what's going on. My suspicion is that I thought
the questions overall, just overall, were beneficial for the defense.
(00:51):
That was my take on it. Now you might agree
or disagree, It doesn't really matter what to know what
you're taking is on the case. And also love to
talk to some people who have actually been out there
for the duration or have been out there many days
as part of the support team of Karen Reid. I
think it's interesting. It's a high profile case and people
(01:12):
do get interested and they become committed and again, I'm
not going to detegrate what they're doing out there. They
have every right to be out there, and I'm sure
that it provides her a lot of psychological support. The
only lines open right now are six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty. You could be from New England
(01:33):
because this is a New England case of Massachusetts case,
or you can be from anywhere in the country and
you may have a belief in what did or did
not happen. That's what we're talking about. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty. Next up is Steve in Bridgewater. Steve, Welcome
to Night's I go right ahead, Steve.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Hi Jan Yeah, I got a few things I want
to say. Comments first, and that is yeah, I heard
a gal talk a couple of several calls ago, and
she went over a lot of things that she the
one that said nobody will ever know what really happened
that night, which is she's one thousand percent correct, but
(02:16):
based on a lot of things she said, obviously she's
been following the case a lot more than I have been,
and I hear the case being saturated with reasonable doubt.
That's how I hear it. So I think the jury
should have an easy time getting you know, finding her
not guilty. But the question that they asked the judge today,
(02:39):
you know, and the judge said she couldn't answer.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
I think that I think that the question that the
judge felt she could not answer was the fourth question.
If we find not guilty on two charges but can't
agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on
all three charges or just one charge? That was a
very specific question. Uh, And she said this is a
(03:03):
theoretical question, not one that I can answer. I think
that's the one you're talking.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
About, right, Yeah, But I thought they have to find
they have to come to an agreement on all of them,
you know, not no.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no no. That's the
point that was I thought the mistake if there was
a mistake in the first trial. So she's charged with
let's just walk through it. She's charged with second degree murder.
That's the most serious charge. You have to prove on
second degree murder, some form of intent. I don't think
(03:36):
that there's any evidence that you could come up with
any sort of intent. Normally, second degree murder can be
a crime of passion. It's you know, a barroom fight
and and some guy hits uh, hits the guy, no
question about that. Hits him. However, however, h he didn't
(03:56):
intend to kill him, and it's he hit his head
on the floor or whatever, and so that's what happens.
It's more, it's not an accident. He threw the punch.
But that's your classic second degree murder case or a
crime of great passion. All of that. Then the second one,
manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. Now,
(04:20):
if you take that, there's three lesser included charges, which
means they could come back with simply manslaughter without reference
to the liquor. They could come back with motor vehicle homicide,
or they come back with a simple OUI. And then
the third one, leaving the scene of an accident resulting
in death. They could come up with any combination here.
(04:41):
I think second degree murder is probably off the board.
I think yes, leaving the scene of an accident resulting
in a death, that's kind of straightforward. She did not know,
she did not have to know as an element of
that crime that the guy was dead. But she could
have known, or you could impute knowledge to her that
(05:03):
that she hit him if she did. And again that's
why the lawyers are arguing there's no evidence and that
that that her vehicle struck him. It's not like she's
got to get out and say Lee looks dead to me,
I'm getting the hell out of here. No, it's it's
you have an accident in the road with somebody, uh,
and and and you don't go over and and somehow,
(05:25):
some way that person dies from the accident. You could
be on the hook for leaving the scene of an
accident resulting in death or resulting in damage to personal property.
So yeah, I think that if they come back, they
could come back or they could say not guilty on one,
they could say not guilty on two, and they could
come back with guilty on three. Well they could yeah, yeah,
(05:48):
or different combination.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Yes, that's true. There are times people are found not
guilty on certain things but guilty on this. Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Absolutely. Yeah, juris can come back with split verdicts. It's
attap to that. So we'll see what I make.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
One of the comic you know, you mentioned about, you
mentioned about you. Don't think the entire country knows you.
I think every everybody in else, the entire US knows.
You know why I'm saying that, Why that's your tube.
I watched Court TV and there and they talk about
it every night and there.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
I know they're nation wide, well they are nationwide. But
I got to tell you, there's a lot of people
who don't know the name of the vice president of
the United States. They do those polls all the time.
There's a lot of people who live in their own
reality and they just don't have a clue. I mean,
you know, that's just that's the reality that they have.
(06:44):
They're they're living their life. Yeah, when I say it's
I mean I think everybody knew about the O. J.
Simpson case. I don't think this is at that level.
It's known by a lot of people, there's no question,
but yeah, I don't think everyone. There's a lot of
people kind of zone out. They lived their life and
they probably there were some people who don't know. Well,
(07:06):
it was tough to Donald Trump, but there were people
when they asked who was president with Joe Biden, there
were people who were I'm not sure.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I knowed My brother out in Arizona. If he knows,
I'll ask him tomorrow. He lives out in Tucson. Dan
I'm gonna ask him if he knows, all right.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Call me back, let me know what he says.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Okay, thanks, all right, Jan, thanks for the call.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Thanks Fred, appreciate your call. Brother, Steve, excuse me, thank you, Steve.
I appreciate your call.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Frank is next. I got some open lines here. Six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
I'm still looking for the first person who has been
out there, uh, and would love to express why again.
I can understand following the case. I can understand maybe
be over there a couple of days, but there are
(07:54):
people who have been out there religiously throughout the trial.
That's quite a commitment. Six one, seven, two, five, four
tenth six seven the Karen Read case. My sense is
that with based on the jury decision questions that were
directed to the judge today, I think you're going to
get a decision on this tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
Now.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
I'm not going to bet my life on that, but
I think it's more likely than not you'll get a
decision tomorrow. If you don't get one tomorrow, we'll get
it on Thursday. I think that this this jury is
getting close, and that's my view. Whatever you have to
say on it. Agreed, disagree, More importantly what you think.
(08:34):
That's what I want to hear from you. Join the
conversation back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
All right, let's get right back to the calls. You're
going to go to Frank in Boston. Frank, appreciate your patience.
It is paid off. You are next on Nightside, Frank.
Speaker 5 (08:55):
Hey, thank you, sir. Hey, he got hit by the car. Okay,
he got hit by the car, the tail gate smashed,
the the sharp edges and the cutting his arm and
that's how he got the cuts. And also my my,
my other question, but my question is after that, just
(09:18):
why are these people gravitating to this woman so much?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Okay? Well, first of all, I think you stated you're
The first thing you stated was your belief in the case, right.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Yes, okay.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Uh. I think that there's a lot of people who
have come to the belief that nothing happened at the
car and that uh, he went into the party at
this house and got into a bit of a dust
up or a fight, whatever you want to call it,
(09:55):
with people inside. Uh, and.
Speaker 6 (09:59):
The the are argument that people have made to me
is oh, yeah, he he uh, he got punched out
by someone and then uh, maybe they they didn't realize
he was dead and they just threw him out on
the lawn to have him, you know, sleep it off
or something.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
That's that's the the other point of view. And you
can talk to some of those folks and they are
deeply committed to that belief. They they they cite all
sorts of uh facts. For example, they will tell you
that there was a dog that was in the house
which was rehoused, was moved away. I had no idea
(10:36):
where the dog ended up. I don't know if the
dog is still alive. And and that they there was
a carpet which was cut up and removed. And obviously
people who believe that, and I haven't seen evidence to that.
It was not put in as an affirmative defense to
the best of my knowledge, but but that's what people believe.
(10:59):
And and as a result of those beliefs, they assume
that Karen Reid is being set up for a homicide indictment,
when in fact she's a victim like her former boyfriend
who was killed but not by Karen Reid. That's where
that's where they come from. Where they're coming from.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Well, I think that that that's my scenario about the
sharp ends on the cracked tailgate light tail light might
be the cause of those those scars on those cuts
on his arm.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Well, I think that's what the prosecution would like the
jury to believe. I think you're right on that. That's
what the I think that you're correct that with that's
the prosecution's theory.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
But I still don't understand how these there's something going
on in that community have made these people such celebrities.
I mean, something bad going on over there for them
so jump on his case like they have. It seems like, well.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
It's a it's a high profile case and it involves
a young couple.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
You think so, I don't think so. It seems like
it seemed like a recul murder case that that would
that that would just be on the news one off
the news the next day.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Well, I mean, the man who's dead is a police officer,
his girlfriend is his girlfriend is accused of having in
some form of fashion killed him. That's I think That's
what I don't know. Maybe someone will call and have
a better explanation of a Frank I'm I'm I'm not
an expert.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
No reason I say that is because they've come out
so loudly against the police.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Well they kept them come out against I think the
Canton police. Yeah yeah, well, I mean I think that. Well.
I think that as the story got told and retold,
people came to believe it. I don't know the truth.
I'm not I don't know what happened. I wasn't there.
(13:13):
All right, Frank appreciate you call. Always gonna hear your voice.
Thanks much. Tuck right back at you. Okay, we're picking
it up a little bit here. Let me go next
to Matt in Franklin. Hey, Matt, welcome back to night
sig go righthead, Matt.
Speaker 7 (13:26):
Yeay dan So I said from the beginning, I thought
they should have sequestered the jury and relocated the trial.
I just think she went on such a pr campaign
with the bloggers that everybody's mind was already made up.
And the Free Karen re conspiracy people. You can't convince
them otherwise. They're just completely convinced. It's like, have any
(13:47):
of you people done any serious drinking in your life?
The first thing you remember when you sober up is
what you did wrong, and she is four hours later
going out looking for someone she's assuming's dead. It's like
usually when you get into the argument met with someone
that's like got to be your ex, It's like I'll
wake up and noon and forget about it and maybe
we're still together. But she's out there looking for him
(14:07):
like he's dead and finds them. It's like, well, that's
usually what happens when you sort of blackout or a
blackout or were almost there. So it's just like, yeah,
they're gonna have a tough time. I think it's gonna
be a repeat.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Well, I don't know. You know, Matt, It's funny, if
you were a psychology professor, you could have been a
witness in this case because if you had yeah, if
you had the.
Speaker 7 (14:32):
She's from here, they flow her out. She's like, oh,
I want to come home and visit and I sort
of know you Alan, and then they fly her out
here for the weekend and she's somehow an expert after
having treated the dog bite in thirty five years.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
So yeah, okay, well you obviously know more about the
case than I do. I was joking with you, and
what I'm saying to you is that if Let's say
you were you had a psychology decree, then you could
have gone in there and you could have presented that
and said, hey, the first thing that people think of
(15:06):
in the morning is oh, that's what I did, you
know whatever.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
First hand experience from back in the day. What I'm
gonna say too.
Speaker 7 (15:14):
About that's crazy about it is like everybody's like everybody
in the town's in on it. It's you're from Sherburne, right.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I lived in We lived in sherburn for twenty.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Years, but I grew up overnight.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
Like a lot of those towns are like the Keystone
Cops overnight. It's like, does anybody think we'd have like
the best of the best investigating this thing in the
morning at seven in the morning. It's like and they're like, oh,
they all know each other. It's like that's every single
town around Boston. It's all people that are like Irish
that move one town over.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Wait, no, we got we got be knocking the Irish
here on dan Ratio.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Go yeah, but I mean I'm Irish.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
No, no, no, no no. What I'm saying to you
is this, when I understand the argument you're making. However,
what mitigates against your your argument is that when a
police officer is dead, generally police officers get on their
best behavior because that's the case they want to solve. Now,
(16:18):
the behavior of a couple of the state police investigators
on that case seem to be pretty cavalier, which surprised.
Speaker 7 (16:29):
That they obviously weren't expecting them to get up their
hands on the phone. And I think a lot of
that had to do with Rachel Rollins.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
So well, again, you're you're going deep into, uh, into
a theory that I'm not familiar with. But what I'm
saying is, as a police officer, and you're a state
police officer, and you're a homicide investigator, and and the
and the and the body that you're investigating or the
(16:56):
crime you're trying to solve is that of a fellow
police officer. In my opinion, most police officers to take
that responsibility pretty seriously. They wouldn't be saying, hey, check
her file for nude pictures or whatever. I'm checking her
file for new I mean, that's a little over the top,
but and and I think it's it was egregious, that's all.
(17:19):
You don't think that.
Speaker 7 (17:20):
Yeah, And at the same time, like if you have
the woman that was hammered outside the house screaming should
hit him, and then their cars.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Damn.
Speaker 7 (17:28):
It's like, how much of an investigation are they really
going to do into.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
The house, on the surrounding tables, the bodies on the yard.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
There's a glass there that they found. It's like, why
would they talk to all these Okay, well.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
You're well, I still think I would think that that
even if they concluded, let's assume that they concluded, oh yeah,
this uh, this this woman who's running around saying I
think I might have hit him. I think I might
have hit him. I would think. And I'm not a
police officer, No will life play one of the radio,
but I would think that I might not loo on
(18:00):
a few doors in the area and say, hey, you
guys happen to have like a video cam or anything
that that that has been you know, those cameras as
you know, self erase in many cases after twenty four hours. Yeah,
you would think that did you hear anything out here
last night? Were you guys asleep at twelve o'clock? Oh no,
(18:20):
we had a party. Oh really? Oh okay, any drinking
going on? You know? I mean, I would think not
only the house where he was found on the lawn dead,
but maybe the next door neighbor's house and the guy
across the street. I would think, I don't know, maybe
I'm asking too much, but.
Speaker 7 (18:41):
You or no, they're probably half awake anyways.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
But that's that's.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Why, that's why, that's why God invented Duncan Donuts coffee
so police would wouldn't be half half asleep in the morning.
Come on, a man, I love you.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Call you.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
You got to You're you're kind of sardonic, but I
loved your call. Thanks man, keep calling. Okay, it's a
good one. Coming back on Nightside, we get the news
at the bottom of the hour. We are keeping our
eye in the Middle East. Don't worry about that. Coming
right back on Nightshide.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Your own personal Raffie Devers watch continues here on Nightside.
Devers has just doubled first hit with the Giants and
drove in his first run with the Giants. Meanwhile, the
Red Sox are losing in Seattle tonight. The last time
I looked at it still is five to nothing. Let's
keep going here. We're talking about a different scorecard and
(19:43):
gonna go to John in Salem, Massachusetts. We're talking about
the Karen retrap. I'm still looking for some people who
have been out there a day after day after day.
Hey John, welcome next on Nightshide.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Hey how you doing.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
So I just want to answer that guy's question real quick,
is why is the fanfare about so high?
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It's always that way when it's.
Speaker 8 (20:02):
Just non criminal people. I mean, nobody's going to follow
a trial of some criminal that you know, murdered somebody
in the streets somewhere. But anyway, that's why they're They're
all kind of normal people.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
She was a professor, he was a policeman.
Speaker 8 (20:14):
It's understandable.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
I think that's a great point obviously, the O. J.
Simpson trial because of who O J. Simpson was, the
guy who played football, the guy who was a Heisman
Trophy winner, the guy who was was it was it
hurts or avis that he was that he used to
run through airport.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (20:32):
And then and then you had the Scott Peterson and
the Standard you know, husband kills the wife and the baby.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
You know the Peterson Well, they weren't well known people.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
So I mean that's if Peterson is closer.
Speaker 8 (20:42):
To this, but that Yeah, that's what I'm saying, though
there were not they were non criminal people, whether or not.
I mean, no, I know it wasn't well known either.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Yeah. If there's a couple of guys who you know,
end up in a in a fight, I don't know,
you know it involved you know, in drug deals or
something like that, you kind of assume that that's what's
going to happen, you know.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
Yeah, when it's clearly somebody that's guilty, you don't really
want to follow them.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Yeah, let me ask you one more question.
Speaker 8 (21:11):
Sure anywhere in the trial, and I know you haven't
been there the whole time in me neither, but did
anyone ever talk about insurance? Like, you know, so I
have a trampoline in a pool, and if somebody gets hurt,
just hurt, you know, and maybe brought to the emergency
room for stitches, the insurance company does investigations, and what
do they think happened? And was the body really on
(21:33):
city property or their front lawn because it was their
front lawn, there's going to be one hundred page report
on that.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Well, first of all, I assume that whoever owned that
home would have had some homeowners insurance because obviously, if
someone walks up your steps and slips on your steps,
so there's a loose brinker front steps, and you have
personal liability. So I would assume that, but maybe they don't.
I don't know that this is ever brought up at all.
(22:03):
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't followed the
case on a day to day basis, but I haven't
followed like I'm following Raffie Devers in San Francisco tonight.
Let me put it like that.
Speaker 8 (22:13):
Yeah, and maybe maybe he did just stagger out there.
I mean to be honest with you that I staggered
home a couple of times in my days, and I
don't want to tell you where I was sitting on
rocks or doing whatever I was doing. Yeah, so maybe
he didn't get dragged. Maybe he did get in a fight,
they thought it was over, he walks out, thinks she's
coming back, and he just falls down.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
I guess that's why I said earlier. No matter what
happens with the verdict, I'm not sure that we're ever
gonna know for sure. I mean, if there has been
a doorbell camera, Let's say that there was a doorbell
camera that the state police had discovered and on the
camera were pictures of him walking into the house, and
(22:56):
the state police had secured that camera, that video footage
that night. She never would have been indicted.
Speaker 8 (23:03):
But if it really was a blizzard, those cameras aren't
the best things in the world anyway. If it's a blizzard,
you could just see an image walking in. But I
think he walked out on his own after a brawl.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Well again, what you think? And I think it is interesting,
but it doesn't the jury's not going to have go No.
Speaker 8 (23:21):
I wanted I wanted to know what the insurance company thinks.
That's where I want to know.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yeah, well I don't. I don't know if to the
best of mine, I have heard nothing in any of this,
and we have a lot.
Speaker 8 (23:32):
Of and even the even the auto insurance. If you
have a beautiful Lexus that kill somebody or you know,
at least accused of, there's going to be an investigation
there as well.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Absolutely there should be.
Speaker 8 (23:44):
But again then you can compare it, and then you
compare all three. Yeah, okay, one, all right, John, thank you, Dan,
thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Maybe there's someone out there listening who's going to be
able to say to us there was an insurance report filed.
I don't know that to be the truth. So simple
as that, I'm one of these guys. I enjoy the conversation.
I learned as much from you guys as you might
learn from me. I probably learned more from you guys.
It's as simple as that. I there are some things that.
Speaker 8 (24:13):
I and there is a bottom line here. The bottom
line is something something happened to him.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
It's the bottom line is a young guy who adopted
two children. Uh is not in a police officer people?
Speaker 9 (24:26):
Well, yeah, I mean you assume we're all flawed, right, Yeah,
they weren't gang members, is what I think you're trying
to say to me in a different way.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Simple as that, Hey, John, I gotta roll here. You
gotta go. Thank you much, Thank you. Good call. Thoughtful, thoughtful,
Appreciate it, Appreciate it. Mike is in Newton, Mike, you
were next on a Nightsiger Right ahead, Mike.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Damn, my blood is boiling.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Well, I'm I'm happy to that. I hope it's only
caused by the conversation and you don't have some sort
of blood.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
Go ahead, No, I haven't been down in Denham, but
I've watched just about every single day of both trials.
We have watched everything. People that are calling in they
haven't watched the evidence, Dan, the evidence, the arc of people.
(25:21):
They didn't nobody hit him. The vehicles did not hit him. That,
doctor Lapisada. The vehicle did not hit him. The X rays,
there was no bruising, There were no broken bones, Doctor Russell.
They were dog bites. There were animal bites. The Dighton
cop who picked up the car from Karen's father's house
(25:45):
said it was a cracked tail light. And when he
was instructed to go to the house at five o'clock
or something in the afternoon there to pick up the
car from from her father's house, he said, we're investigating
the homicide. That it was a done deal by the
time they got to the car at Karen's house. And
(26:07):
then a hare followed from from wherever it was. I
don't know where it was. It was fall River or something.
All the way back to the Canton Sallyport. One piece
of hair was stuck on the bumper. And then the
Boston cop who recanted her complete story, her complete testimony
(26:29):
because she went upstairs and talked to the police commission.
Oh that I had a brain. I had a brain.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Here's the deal, here's the deal. You're you're speculating wildly
in terms of that. She talked to the police commissioner.
I know no evidence that that was introduced in court
to that effect.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
It came out in trial, Jess. They talked to See
the problem is you guys didn't listen to the trial.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Well, here's the deal. Here's the deal. It came up,
here's the deal. Here's the deal. You're correct. Let me
be honest with you. Okay, Mike, you're correct. I did
not spend my day as apparently you were able to
do listening to No, No, No, No.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
I didn't. I didn't spend my day. No. I worked
all day and then I came home at night and
Will I listened to Better Throw. I listened to UH
a number of other stations. We watched the trial. We
watched every single bit of it. We watched all the evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Okay, you got to get a life, John, You've got
to get a life here, Okay, excuse me, Mike, Mike.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
Dan You're you're losing it. You got a little dementia.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Oh please, you know what, Mike, you know want you
you know, stick it in your ear. Okay, have a
great mode. Yeah, okay, uh see you see you. I
was actually I was panning to go to my lext
my next caller. Uh. You you need to get a life, Okay.
Uh I I know enough about the case to know
(27:55):
what what made UH coverage both in the Globe, the
Herald and on the major stations. So again, anyway, stick
it in your ear mind as simple as that. Okay,
we'll leave it at that. We'll take a no, I'll
take one more call here. Actually I'm going to go
to Ian and San Antonio, Texas. Ian has this story
(28:15):
made its way all the way to Texas?
Speaker 10 (28:18):
Oh? Yes? And yeah. So this is what I wanted
to tell you about the way I see things. And
I didn't follow the first trial. It was a glance.
It was at a glance every once in a while.
What caught my attention on the first trial was the
(28:39):
comments of a detective proctor. I couldn't believe my ears,
but it harkened me back to when I grew up
there and I knew and I have one hundred support
behind law enforcement. Personally, I believe in safety. But there
(29:01):
is something particular, particularly peculiar about some jurisdictions there in Massachusetts.
I grew up there, and I've seen it with my
own eyes, and I did watch the first trial because
I didn't want to make an opinion unless I saw
(29:24):
for myself the evidence in trial.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Okay, so what's.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
That.
Speaker 10 (29:31):
She is completely not guilty. It was a frame up.
The evidence in court was compelling in that in all
those on all that those counts, they police completely did
not do their job un ethically or ethically. The night
(29:57):
of the accident. Nothing he was investigated but a little,
a little bit around him. They didn't knock on if
this is what I think happened, if they had done
their job that night, they would have known what happened.
I believe that he walked in the house, into the
(30:17):
not into the house, excuse me, the garage. There's a
door to the right that went directly into the garage,
and he was attacked by the dog. In the force
of that dog, uh knocked him back right back on
his head, and the dog did him. Okay, I don't
(30:38):
believe there was a fight. I believe they came. They
didn't know this happened. The occupants of the house for
a little for a bit, and then he was found,
and then they tried to cover it up and frame her.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (30:52):
Well again, well I don't want to say frame her. No,
I take that back. They I think they really did
want to make it look like the plow, you know, stopping.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
Their job.
Speaker 10 (31:07):
Okay for investigation.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
So did you grow up in Boston? And is that
what you said?
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Oh, come on, you realize that. So you're not related
to Dave the other fellow who calls from San Antonio. No,
I didn't know if you were next door neighbor or something.
How'd you get to San Antonio?
Speaker 10 (31:30):
My husband's job is taking us all around the world.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Really, okay? Military military, Yes, yes, good for you, Thank you,
thank your husband for service. Well, I that's you presented
it very well. You presented what your belief is, which
is what which is what we do here on night side.
Speaker 10 (31:48):
And uh, I believe that she was drunk driving, I
mean to drink that much and go in a car,
and they all did and that was I found that
quite striking that nobody and this is law enforced, and
they had no compunction about getting in the cars and
driving after drinking at a bar.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
There was Well, I think that part of that is
that police officers sometimes figure that they get a courtesy
from another police officer. But like anything else, you gotta
you gotta always make sure that Yeah, no, you're right
on that one. Yeah, thank you so much. That was
a great I really appreciate it. Keep in touch. I
(32:26):
thought you would like I don't know. I figured that
you must have known Day from San Antonio. When you
see him down there, say hello for me.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
Okay, okay, thanks, I talk.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
To you than now. See I just had a mystery solve.
Let me take a quick break. Come right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Right, let's keep rolling here. I'm gonna go to John
and Boston John next on nights. I go ahead, thanks you.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
I don't want to nurse. The other n I called
to that he was Johnald Key was missing three liters
of blood. There was a lot of blood that was missing.
I try to find that in the records of the
court that I couldn't quite fight. It's not saying it's
not there, but whether I do no, even if it
was three pints of blood, it would be all over
that ground there, and it just wasn't that amount of blood. Also,
(33:19):
there was blood going down a shirt. And if he
was laying a hit by the car, he would it
would be around his neck and his shoulders. And a
couple observations also did the experts. The experts said he
was not hit by a car. So then what are
the amateur jer was supposed to think? If the experts
said that he was not hit by a car, then
how was the amateur jervey What are they supposed to think?
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (33:43):
And you don't need to be a trained journalist or
at the beginning to know that. Hey, you know, just
to the Palace of O. You can't have a tremendous
grass of the obvious, just know one. Hey, wait a minute,
the experts said he wasn't hit by a car.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
No, No, I get that. No, I get that. I
understand what you say, and I understood it was but
normally normally, and again I had the disadvantage of being
honest with people. I'm not going to tell you that
I watched every frame of the testimony, that I stayed
up late at night, like my friend Mike. I don't
know what Mike does for a living, but he's got
(34:17):
a lot, he's got too much time in his hands.
What I'm saying is there probably was experts on the
other side. Normally in these cases you have two experts prosecution, defendant,
a defense expert, and one says one thing, one says
the other. It's very rare John that Let's say an
expert gets up with the witness stand and the lawyer
(34:40):
for the other side jumps up and says, your honor,
I have no questions. This guy knows what he's talking about.
I'm with him, or vice versa. That's all I'm saying
is that there's probably stuff that that the jury can
look at from different ways. If that's the way trials work.
It's as simple as that.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
I agree to you. Like Brettan, he's highly educated trained.
I'm sure in the powers of observation. I'm sure both
sides had access to all the documents the examiners had
ye like, for instance, Attorney Brennan, and he had access
to the Document's examiner cut the holes in the back
of John o'keith sweatshirt, and yet he presents the sweatshirt
(35:18):
to the jury and points out the holes, specifically implying
that they were created by getting hit by a car,
and that they were created by as opposent. He had
the document did yet he was highly educated and he
knew he had the documents from the medical examiner that
(35:38):
said they were created by her, and he presented it
to the jury. And then he says he makes a mistake.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
That's exactly true. Guess what, John, John, Guess John, John.
I bet you you've made a few mistakes in your life.
I know I've made mistakes in my life.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
And I don't believe it was a mistake. I'm I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
You don't, John. I'm sure you don't, John, And I'm
not going to disabuse you of that notion. John. And
there's no reason to talk over me. I've given you
plenty of time to talk here.
Speaker 4 (36:04):
What I'm saying you interrupted, no time to explained before
I got my thought through, that's all, Dan.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
I think you've got your points out very clearly. John. Okay.
Is there any point that I have prevented you from making?
Speaker 4 (36:17):
Sometimes you just cut in and just stolen me finish it,
that's all, But go ahead.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
No, But is there a point that you want to
make that you haven't made?
Speaker 4 (36:26):
The only other point I'm make, Dan, is the detective
Galagher is here in the morning, thirty years experience. He
doesn't check the video across the street that's looking at
the crime scene, but he goes and gets borrows the
leaf flower to blow snow. Does that not create suspicions?
I would go up and again you be you're a
detective of thirty years and you don't go check the
video on a ringer that's at the crime scene.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
John, all of that evidence is going to be with
the jury. What I'm what I disagree with you about.
You're making a conclusion that Hank Brennan, who I know
a little bit is a highly ethical lawyer, would be
(37:09):
a fool, and he's not a fool, would be a
fool to try to say, well, I'm gonna I'm somehow
gonna scam the jury here into thinking I don't know,
I've made mistakes, You've made mistakes. I think we're all
pretty hypercritical here tonight, and a lot of you have
figured this out. And it's too bad that you weren't
(37:30):
in the jury, because maybe we would have a verdict
by now. All I'm just telling you is, go ahead, John.
I'm sorry to be talking while you're interrupting me.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
But go ahead, go ahead ahead. I'm not good.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
Well, you were trying to you were accusing me of
interrupting you, and then you're doing the same thing to me.
All I'm saying, John, is that I don't know the
answers that you seem to have, and that Mike from
Newton has the and others have. I'm simply trying to
whenever a set of viewpoint, I play a little what's
called Devil's advocate, John. That's my job. My job is
(38:05):
not to sit here and say what George, right up, yup,
up up up up? Good good points, John, And guess.
Speaker 4 (38:11):
What I get it?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Matt. Matt was Matt was right on the money. Matt
was right. I don't do that, John. I I try
to pick your arguments apart. That's what my job is.
So don't be offended by it. Okay, that's all I'm saying.
Don't be offended by it.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
Yeah, I'm it's just said. It's not even my eye,
but just telling you what what the attorney said in
court and what and as matter of fact, character.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
I know what he said in court, John, and he
said I made a mistake. Have you ever made a
mistake in your life? John? Have you ever said to
someone guess what. I'm wrong. I made a mistake.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
I have I just again. You know, he had access
to the documents, he.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
Knew he was.
Speaker 10 (38:51):
Trying.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
He was trying to scam the joy throwing up John,
him up on my brake. I gotta let you run.
Speaker 4 (38:55):
I think you got it. Attorney too, So let's hold
him again.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Let's hold that against him, because Whitey Bulger didn't deserve
to have a decent attorney. He had to be crumbed.
He probably worked with Mighty, with Whitey Bulger, maybe killing
a few people. Come on, John, that's really beneath you. John,
And I know you well enough to know that's beneath you.
There's a lot of people of Alan Dershowitz was Donald
Trump's attorney, Okay, and Alan Dershowitz, come on, that's beneath you.
(39:24):
Good Night, Back on Night's side. Right after this
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.