December 29, 2025 • 39 mins
Bradley Jay Fills In On NightSide with Dan Rea:
The Vermont-based ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s has certainly seen its share of legal issues this year. Back in March, the ice cream company claimed that its parent company, Unilever, unlawfully fired its CEO David Stever. Then in September, co-founder Jerry Greenfield quit the business after 47 years, citing Unilever’s halting of the company’s social activism. Bradley reviewed this case and more with Mike Coyne, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's NIC's Eyes with Dan Ray. I'm going easy Boston's
News radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
That is correct. It is night Side and I'm in
for Dan Bradley Jake. A couple of things.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
If you are in the car now and you get
home and you kind of want to listen to the
rest of what we're talking about, but you don't want
to sit in the cold car, you can go in
the house, even if you don't have a radio there.
You can listen on the iHeartRadio app. And if you
missed a part of a segment you want to go
back and listen, you can just google Nightside on demand.
(00:36):
Our first guest is one of your favorites. It's Michael Coin,
dean of the Massachusetts School of Law. And Mike is
up north. I believe he's so kind is to take
the evening of a vacation day here a holiday and
call in from a ski trip.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
So how was today? Did it Did it turn to snow?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
No, it didn't turn to snow up here at all.
It was raining, probably still is raining a little bit
right now. So it was pouring on the way up.
It was a miserable ride up to North Conway, but
it's beautiful once you're hear. It's a real Christmas town.
I think if anyone who was ever visited here, no,
So we're looking forward to some better weather tomorrow, even
(01:17):
though it'll be cold, but we'll get some skiing in
with any luck tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
So you did not you were not able to ski today?
How did you spend the day?
Speaker 4 (01:26):
We didn't get up till probably about two o'clock. We
had a nice late lunch and we were supposed to
go tubing, but it really was so cold and windy
and rainy that we talked to them at Cranmore and
they agreed to give us vouchers for another day so
we'll be able to go sometime later during the time
(01:48):
we're here. So they were very kind about it. It's
a beautiful mountain and we were looking forward to it,
but it would have been miserable with the kids and
they would have gotten soaked wet. So maybe another afternoon
or evening when it's a little dryer will be better.
Even snow would be more preferable than this miserable rain.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
By the way, what route do you take when you
go up there?
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Do you go ninety five to Portsmouth and then up
route spelling Turnpike and whatever that.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Is after that, Yeah, we go.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
We take that route up and I always took it up.
We used to come up here quite often. My brother
had a home up here as well, so we would
be up here frequently. But we take Root sixteen. And
you know, in good weather, Route sixteen is great, but
there are times when in the fall foliage especially, it
can be a chore. But once you get here, you
(02:37):
always enjoy the fact that you're hear and it is different,
obviously than the Boston metropolitan area.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Another way to go is up ninety three and then
across the King of Augus, right.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Yeah, and I saw the kangam Angus today as we
got into town, and I did think about that that
I always enjoyed that trip across as well. But no,
we usually we live closer to ninety five now, so
it really is a better shot. And even when we
lived in the other side of town and closer to
(03:12):
ninety three, I still think it's a little shorter getting here.
But ninety three is a nice ride, and especially as
you point out, taking the Caanga Mangus across is a
beautiful road. We used to camp off the Kanga Mangus
when we were teenagers, but that was an awful long
time ago. You're from New Hampshire originally, right.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Yes, from from Rochester, which is kind of I don't know,
almost to the Lakes region.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
But yeah, well I came. I came through Rochester today
to get here, that's right.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So let's get to the legal stuff.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Some of that we're going to get to today includes
the just the awful fighting going on inside the Ben
and Jerry's company and what's going on with the Demulis family,
as well as the Walch case after man and maybe
comparing a little bit to the Reed trial and the
(04:07):
Reed civil suit. And I'm curious on the latest on
Trooper Proctor. And also there's the Rhiner murders and the
fact that Alan Jackson's now representing them, and talk about
I guess the blood A judge blocked release of autopsy results,
and I'm curious about motive and what kind of case
(04:29):
they have and are they gonna do an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
That's kind of hard to do, But we'll get to
all that.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
And also, actually this is kind of an aside, but
it might have a legal angle to it. Seriously, since
you're you know, kind of in the mountains. You heard
a while ago a couple of eighteen year olds got
stuck and got in trouble up in Menadna and they
got to be rescued, and it looks like they might.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Have to pay.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
But I'm wondering how to how they can be compelled
to pay, Like, who decides.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That you were.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Careless enough that you have to pay, but you were
not careless enough. Couldn't they mount some sort of legal
defense if it were, you know, worth the money?
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Uh? Yeah, they could. But see that's that one. You
left out a key detail in that case, as I
understand it. Yeah, my understanding is the two young men
were quite intoxicated, and because of their level of intoxication
and it was both if it's the same case, and
(05:34):
if I remember the details right, both drugs and alcohol,
that they they left themselves in a very perilous condition.
And then, of course, obviously, especially when you're up here
for a while, you can see the danger that's all around.
Is that so then the rescuers are placed in some
danger to go out in the middle of the night,
(05:56):
when it's cold and dark and slippery, to go out
rescue people. They do it selflessly. But but I do
understand the argument when you have been so reckless that
that you have caused others to go to great expense
to save you from your own stupidity, that there is
a question about is it fair to make those folks
(06:19):
pay for some are all of the cost of rescuing them.
But but as you point out, so how reckless then
would you have to be in order to have a
fair way to evaluate it.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
It's kind of a slippery slope. It's not slippery with
the alcohol. That's an easy line to draw alcohol or
legal drugs. But in cases and then I talk about
this at eleven again and recount this story. And I
also did something quite stupid on Mountain Ednth. It resulted
in a broken finger.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
It was it was. It was bad, bad news. But
I'll talk about that later.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Okay, So let's say, after this little break, we're gonna
get to the legal will start with Ben and Jerry's It's.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
So sad to me what's going on with Ben?
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Yeah, you're a chunky monkey fan. Huh.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
It's like they're trying to do they try to do
good stuff and they're stemied or they're having trouble. Then
you're gonna run down all the details on Ben and
Jerry's after this on w b Z.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Bradley J. For Dan.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
If you want to find out more about me, if
you don't know me at all, go to Bradley J.
That's Jay dot org. And if you want to find
out more about Dean Michael Coin's Massachusetts School of Law,
which my brother loves and wants to go to. And
if I were a little younger and not on the radio,
I'd go myself. I would love it. Tell us a
little bit about the school before I move on.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Wow, we just finished the fall semester. We have a
new class starting the first week a second week of January.
We now so offer a one year Masters of Science
and Law degree, which we just in the fall received
approval for. So it's geared to business and law. So
(08:13):
make sure that both lawyers know more business, but especially
important that business people know a little more law to
keep them out of trouble. So where's finding some significant
interest in people having and want to know more about
the law and how it affects their business and how
they can keep themselves out of trouble, but they don't
intend to practice law and they have no desire to
(08:34):
stay three years, which is what it would take for
a typical law degree.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
You have a different sort of mission statement in most
schools of law. Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (08:42):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
What we try to do is offer opportunity to people
to prove their merits and to really look for a
much more diversified buyer people of all ages. You know,
I always tell people our youngest graduate was a twenty
year old Hispanic woman who graduated high school in college
by the time she was seventeen, and then went on
(09:06):
to law school. And then our oldest graduate was used
to be a seventy three year old retired nun and
ultimately then became a seventy eight year old retired service
person who then ended up going into the district Attorney's
office and is still practicing law into his eighties. So
we look for a very different student population. We welcome
(09:31):
absolutely everyone to really come and make a contribution to
the community. So I'm very fortunate I get to have
a job that I love, like you have a job
that you love, and to be able to do that
and to really to make a difference in people's lives
and have them then make a difference in their communities
is really very fulfilling. And we're very lucky we have
(09:53):
the greatest students in the world.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Now getting back to there's one other angle that I
need to run by you when it comes to the
Monadnock boys. Okay, that sounds like a hardy boy mystery. Okay,
here's the situation. Let's say underage kids have a party,
this booze.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
And the.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Smoking, then they smoking bed or somebody and the husband's down,
fire department comes. They were drinking in this scenario. They
were under age in the scenario. And you can tell me,
I don't know for sure, do would they or their
parents have to pay the fire department to rescue them
to put a fire out?
Speaker 2 (10:39):
No?
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Right, no, generally no. And that's the point you raise
is where is that line when you talk about slippery slope?
This is the problem with it is people. We expect
people to be careless at times. We should expect people
to do stupid things at times. And the question is
(11:00):
where is the line, dron When you have insurance or
you pay your taxes for public safety, where are you
going to draw the line to say Okay, now you've
got to reimburse us for what we've expended because of
your stupidity or carelessness, because unfortunately, you know, we see
people speeding all the time. I drove up here in
(11:23):
the rain and the ice, and there were people going
a lot faster than I was. And so what happens
when those people who act recklessly or carelessly? But don't
we expect that. Haven't we all done that at times
in our life? We wouldn't want to have to spend
fifty thousand and sixty one hundred thousand or even more
(11:46):
for a rescue from the fire department or from the
search and rescue teams up here. I understand the point. Generally,
the problem is it's I guess I'm going to use
the old line from the law. It's like pornography. You
know it when you see it, when you're gone simply
too far. That's where the common sense should say, well,
(12:10):
at the minimum that the town, the state, whoever, shouldn't
have to bear that entire expense themselves either.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Okay, but I can see where they're representative might say,
you know what, we pay our taxes, right, and that
should cover us for when we make mistakes.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
And then I could further say and make make my.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Party underage drinking house burning down situation and say would
they would they have to pay for that?
Speaker 2 (12:40):
No, so why should we?
Speaker 4 (12:44):
I don't go. I don't really disagree with you that much,
having represented teenagers many times and not exactly the situation
you're talking about, but drinking in the house and then
unfortunately tragic things ultimately happen. You know, you do you
want people to go to jail, first of all, criminally
for some of those things. But the point you raise
(13:07):
is a little different, is, well, okay, if we're not
going to put them in jail, should they be responsible
for the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in
damages that they've caused in a civil suit. That's one
thing lible to someone else. But now we're talking about
libel to the public authorities who are paid to try
and keep us safer, especially safer from our own stupid mistakes.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Well, they're from Massachusetts. I understand that.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
I wonder if I wish have a try I wish
there would be a trial, even, you know, some sort
of trial that I could see on TV.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
I would love to see that trip.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
Well, if they're from Massachusetts, and it's a question of
whether New Hampshire will charge them. Then you know they're
gonna they're gonna tax and make those people in Massachusetts paid, right, Okay, Now.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Ben and Jerry's Ben and Jerry try to do the
right thing. They made some turned good ice cream, try
to raise a lot of money, help a lot of people.
And they, you know, the business got big and they
kind of wanted to change their position in the business,
bring other people in and a lot of times that's
just a bad thing. And maybe you can outline what
(14:17):
happened overall through their career and you know, the cliff
notes of that, and then drill down a little bit
on what the current situation is.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Started out as a real hot warming story. They made
all these different kinds of fancy ice cream that many
of us loved, chunky Monkey and cherry Garcia. And they
also not only made great ice cream, they had a
social purpose, a real mission to try and make sure
(14:49):
that the profits were used to benefit society and to
really improve our communities. And they had a very strong
public in function. As that company grew and grew and grew,
it also had from a standpoint of corporate governance. It
(15:10):
had a much fairer pay system than many so that
you know, in essence, the CEO, the chief executive officer
didn't make ten million dollars, while the guys working on
the line, the men and women there only made you know,
minimum wage and the like. So their pay structure also
(15:32):
was part of the social mission of the institution. But
then at some point, as they became profitable and the
founders got older, they decided that they were going to
cash out and take some of their hard earned profits
(15:53):
themselves for the company itself, and so they sold the
company and took a bag of money and what they
did and trying to structure that exchange, the company that
purchased them agreed that they would continue to be able
to have their social mission and do whatever virtually in
(16:17):
that vein that they chose to do without interference from
the new company. They set up an independent board that
would run the charitable foundation, and it was truly independent
of the companies, so that they could do as those
(16:39):
directors felt was important and they continue to take significant
positions on social causes. Well. The new owners at some
point decided that this wasn't good business for them to
be into some of these controversial projects that they wanted
to speak out on, and as Ben and Jerry sees it,
(17:02):
they decided to put more pressure on the company to
and the charitable foundation to keep their nose out of
some of these more controversial disputes, because as they saw it,
it was hurting the company's bottom line. And so what's
happened now is that the board of directors of the
(17:25):
charitable Foundation has been changed significantly through the adoption of
term limits, in essence saying that the directors can only
stay for so long, so many years consecutively, and a
lot of companies have term limits limiting to how many
times are what age you can serve too in order
to bring new ideas and to bring about change. And
(17:50):
so in some ways some would argue, well, that's not
a bad thing, but Ben and Jerry sees it as
a very bad thing because what it was done is
to violate the agreement that was made when the company
was sold to allow this charitable foundation to continue to
do independent projects and to support independent causes, even some
(18:16):
that would be seen as highly controversial. Well, if the
directors are then removed through this new policy, and now
Ben and Jerry says, well, that's all violates the contract
that we had when we sold the company to you folks,
and Magnum. You can't do this. We want the Border
(18:37):
Directors reinstated and we want to continue to do what
we're doing without interference for whatever social causes the Border
Directors ultimately support. So what you've got is a corporate
divorce in essence, and a pretty nasty one at this point,
because what you're talking about is whether the original agreement
(19:01):
has been breached, and if so, can the court then
award them relief in the form of reinstating the board
of directors, awarding money, damages. All of it is on
the table at this point, and it's obviously it tarnishes
the image of Ben and Jerry's as the social conscience
(19:24):
of a lot of causes.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
This is the kind of thing where your contract is
really important. By the way, the Magnum ice Cream company
is massive. If you go anywhere in Europe and even
other places and you need if you need something fast,
you can go into any little store and they have
coolers full of Magnum ice cream. They're a Dutch company,
and their corporate worth, as I see it here, market
(19:49):
cap as eight billion bucks, so they're pretty they're pretty
big company. What I don't understand is why do they
want to mess with the do Gooding, Ben and Jerry?
Does it cost them anything? Why don't they just leave
them alone? They're making money?
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Well, I think it's at least the latest dispute is
recounted in the media reports is that they weighed in
on this the Palestinian and Israeli issue with respect to
the sales of their ice cream and the like there.
And the problem is is that there are, obviously, and
(20:27):
that is one of them, there's some causes that companies
just don't want any part of. They see it as
the third rail in essence that win. There's no winning.
You're going to you're going to aggravate someone and you're
going to hurt the image of the company. At the
bottom line is we're in business, right, We're there to
(20:48):
make money. That's what businesses do. And the problem is,
though they've got an agreement set up that they are
now part of that said, well, there are some things
that you got to keep your nose out of and
and sometimes it's going to hurt. Well, they've decided that, well,
it's not we can we can alleviate some of this, uh.
(21:09):
And yeah, we're a big company. We could probably take
a small hit. But every business wants to make more money.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
And if you're hurting our bottom line is they must
likely see that this, this support of this cause is
hurting our bottom line. They don't want any part of it.
And obviously you would have thought that they would have
both sides. We might may have wanted to resolve this
without the glare of the media that it's now taking.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Right. You mentioned every company wants to make money, but.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Ben and Jerry weren't all about the money, and that's
that's where they were a little bit different. Of course
they had to make money at all. All right, thanks
for that update. After this break, we'll get to the
DMULA situation, see see how similar it is, and then
we'll also get to Brian Walls, Karen, Karen Reid, and.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
I think there might be something else you busy.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Let's continue with Dean Michael Coyne of the Maschool of
Law and talk a little bit about what's going on
with the Demulles Artie de Mulish case. Very briefly, because
I got a lot of questions about the Waltz case
AFTERMN are there, what's going on with that and what
are the.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
Para It's another corporate divorce or at least a breakup.
Just like you've got the feuding parties in Ben and Jerry's,
you have the family feuding in Demulas, so that Arthur Demulis,
who has been the head of the market basket company
and grew it over the last few decades from a
(22:46):
small company to a very large company, a billion dollar company,
is now feuding with his sisters for whether he can
continue to run the company as he has. He's been
the president for well over a day, came now and
bought his cousin out with his sisters a number of
years ago when the company shut down, or at least
(23:09):
many people boycotted the company over what they thought at
that point was his unfair treatment. And now this time
there's a suit ongoing in Delaware where his sisters have
filed suit to for a declaratory judgment saying that they're
entitled to remove him over issues about succession planning, being
(23:35):
informing the board of his future plans and the sisters
who owned sixty percent of the company say that, well,
we want to be better informed about future growth, future
store openings, the annual budgets, expenditures, and we also want
to really sit down and have a serious discussion about
(23:58):
who is going to see He's in his seventies. None
of us live forever. Obviously, it becomes a fiduciary responsibility
by the board of directors to make sure that the
company is in good hands after he's gone, and he's
not ready to go, And what he would like to
(24:19):
see happen ultimately is his son and daughter, who have
worked for the company for years, ultimately succeed him. But
that's really a question for the board to decide at
some point who would be the next president of market Basket.
From a consumer standpoint, what we all want is the
company to continue to be run as well as it
(24:39):
has over the last couple of decades, with very good
prices for our grocery. So, to some extent, consumers have
a big stake in this fight, even though they don't
have a voice at the table.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Are they almost be kind of a different cloth than
a more resilient cloth.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
If it were me, tell you what give me?
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Oh, I don't know twenty fifteen, excuse me my cut
of a billion bucks and I will just travel around.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
I don't need this hassle. That's me.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
There must be something in the self identify. He must
identify with the company, and wouldn't feel a part of
him would kind of die if you weren't involved with
that company.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
He wouldn't be the man anymore.
Speaker 4 (25:26):
Kind of Well, I think it goes beyond that. Actually,
I think it's about work ethic. It's about a different generation.
I mean, remember, his father grew this from a very
small store in Lowell, in the acre where they served
the immigrant community, and it really did grow from a
(25:48):
tiny grocery store to a multi billion dollar business. So
I think it becomes part of who you are, and
especially having taken it from its infancy to this massive
company it is now. You know, it's like your child.
Although all of us parents have to talk ways and
(26:11):
give our children room to grow, I think it'd be
very It's very difficult, and it goes beyond just I
want to be the man. It's that I want to
make sure that this company survives and does well, and
I personally need to work. That's what that's my identity
at this point is this work ethic and this success
(26:35):
and making sure everything is done the way it's done
that it's been done for years and it has been
successful for us. So I think it's a very complicated
and obviously it's a complicated family dynamic here because the
three sisters and author are originally banded together to try
(26:57):
and make sure that their side of the family was
able to wrest control from his cousin's family. The two
brothers ultimately two brothers started this decades ago in Lowell,
So I mean that at one point they were all allies,
and now the problem is is that there's fighting over
(27:19):
and they're not illegitimate issues on either side. When you
talk about succession on a family owned business, that becomes
a real issue. I mean, they did a TV show
on this right that ran from many seasons. So it's
an interesting dynamic, and I think the court and Delaware
(27:40):
has a lot to try and work through. It's unfortunate
that from both a litigation and a family issue, that
they couldn't come to some sort of sort of mediation
or resolution of the matter without having to engage all
of the lawyers and put all of this issue out
(28:02):
in the public domain.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Okay, next to the Wolfs case aftermath?
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Okay, what was the I know, I'm moving right along
because I haven't No, no, no, not at all, not
at all. Well, what's interesting to me about the Walls
case as you talk to people, and I'd be interested
in knowing if your listeners feel any differently, Uh, is
that most people think he got exactly what he deserved.
That life in prison without the benefit of parole is
(28:32):
what he deserves because of what he what he's admitted doing,
which is dismembering his wife and then lying to the
police for many days about her disappearance.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
So can anyone ever ask I didn't see this, Why
would anyone dismember your yours body if you didn't kill them?
Why wouldn't you just call the police? But it's such
a giant hassle. For one thing, it's much easier just
to call the police.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
Well, and it's even worse than that because it's you know,
he bought a hacks, he bought a hatchet, he bought
all sorts of equipment, tin snips, so to do it
as effectively as you possibly could. So, and you're right,
that was the problem with the defense from the outset
(29:26):
is that he on the very just about as we
finished jury selection, he acknowledged that, yes, I failed to
properly in turn my wife's body what I oftentimes referred
to it as is the dismemberment charge, and on multiple
(29:48):
occasions I lied to the police. So he faced three
charges initially, first agree murder, the failure to intern the
body properly, and then the lying to the police.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
As you have put.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
Out, three years seems like not that much for dismembering
a body. I know.
Speaker 4 (30:06):
See that's an interesting thing, I think when we start
to think about it. So it's the two secondary charges.
It's twenty years up to twenty years for lying to
the police, but only three years in essence dismembering your
wife's body, failing to properly notify authorities and have them
(30:26):
or have the enviroments or whoever properly dress the body
and take care of it, and then to dispose of
it properly by burial and the like. But that charge,
which we know what he did because of the significant
evidence that supports it, with the videos that show him
(30:50):
walking around home depot and selecting all sorts of equipment
he needed to the physical tools he got, which is
the hacks are the hatchet, the tin snips, the hammer.
When you look at the extent to which he obtained equipment,
(31:13):
none of which, by the way, were electrical. So all
of these things he had to physically do this in
order to be able to dismember her body, and to
do it with such precision and degree that they never
found any portion of her body other than some blood
(31:35):
suggesting in one of the dumpsters. And he used dumpsters
in both the South and the North Shore. So, I mean,
when you look at how grow gruesome her end of
her after she was murdered, what her days ended up like,
(31:56):
and as her sister pointed out in her Victim's Impacts,
they and so they never have a place now where
they could go pray or say goodbye to her sister.
They never had the opportunity for a mass or whatever
religious service they might have to to honor and remember her.
(32:17):
I mean, it's really quite something when you think about
what he did to her family. But to me, it's
what's especially problematic is what he did to the three
young boys that were that were hers and his. I
mean they're now ten, eight and six. They were two,
four and six years old at the time. It's just
(32:40):
almost unconscionable that you know you could you could do
this to that degree, not just to your wife, but
to the other people that should have been the most
important people in the world to him.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Wait, a couple of things I can't believe, and you
don't need to comment on it, just because we're long
on time.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
I can't believe he was.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I think that there will be cameras in the home
improvement store recorded.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
But here's the thing.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
I thought he might beat murder one because he did.
He bought that stuff after the fact, as I understand it,
which would take away malice a forethought or at least
a four thought part.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
Yeah, and that's the question. And that's what I think
some people and we could focus on that. A first
degree murder charge requires premeditation, some plotting, some planning, but
it doesn't necessarily require that long standing planning and plotting
that we sometimes think about and see in movies.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
It can be five minute thing.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Yeah, it can be minutes, and especially as the jury
was instructed. The use of a weapon is some evidence
of intent, because you obviously have to go get a
weapon to use it, and you know, the fact is
is that he certainly had a motive and multiple motives
actually for wanting her gone because he needed money. He
(34:02):
owed almost five hundred thousand dollars in restitution on an
at fraud charge, so he had to be trying to
figure out ways to n Plus he was due for
just about forty months in prison as well in federal
prison for that offense. But the premeditation was light. There's
no doubt about it, and that's the question. Some people
(34:25):
were saying, well, it could be second degree murder, where
he would then be eligible for parole. But I think again,
and this is why when I've talked to people about it, Yeah,
they are willing to acknowledge that the premeditation evidence might
be light. But her dismemberment was so gruesome. His after
(34:48):
the fact conduct was so cold and calculating that he
wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt on
the premeditation.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Now let's break, and then we'll just have a couple
of comments on the Read case and the Reiner case.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
On why You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on
WBS Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Back with Michael Quarantine and the Mas School of Law.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
We have such a short period of time here that
I just have one question on each of these two
for a fairly concise answer. Okay, this is a broad one.
What is the ninety seconds? What's the status of the
reed civil suit?
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Well, they're really just beginning the discovery phase, which means
they'll be exchanging documents, they'll be depositions held at some
point further down the road. They're going to try and
gather as much information as possible from each side because
there's both suits and countersuits here to be able to
try and prove their case. And it's a very complicated
(35:58):
case because of all the sides and issue that they've raised.
I wouldn't expect it to go to trial, not in
twenty twenty six, probably the year after. I would say, Okay.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Now we go to the Rhiner situation. Alan Jackson representing
Rob Ryer's son. First of all, Jackson must be happy
to have a client that's got deep pockets for a change.
Speaker 4 (36:18):
Well, and that's the question is who is paying him
for this case at this point? But someone is interested
enough to try and help the son, who obviously has
significant legal as well as other problems.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
Why would a.
Speaker 3 (36:34):
Judge block the autopsy findings from being well.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
I think you'd want to be careful at this point
to not prejudice any potential jury. So until the sides
have an opportunity to examine the reports the toxicology and
then make their arguments to the court as to whether
they think that should be held while the case is
pending or can be released in advance. I think the
(37:01):
court is doing it out of an abundance of caution
to make sure you don't overly prejudice a jury. I
think it's going to be very difficult to impanel a jury,
but you will be able to. But it's obviously a
case that has gathered so much publicity coast to coast.
You can only imagine what it must be like in
the LA area to try and find people who will
(37:22):
look past all the news reports on this case.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
At this point, well question about ninety seconds stance of that?
Why is it?
Speaker 3 (37:28):
I mean, people are going to be looking to the
insanity case, but those are hard to prove.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Why because most people reject the idea that you're not
responsible for your actions, and the insanity defense standard is
quite high. It's that you really could not understand that
what you were doing was wrong. And that may be
problematic here for Rob Reiner's son, because you know, he
(37:54):
went and he tried to change his clothes and get
rid of the blood, and he went to a hotel room.
There are steps he took subsequent to the murder which
would indicate, or at least the government would suggest it
indicates that what he knew was wrong because he was
trying to cover it up. He's not crazy, he's crazy
as a fox.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
They just don't have a motive, do they.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
Don't you need a motive, now, well, you don't need
a motive in order to prove murder.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
No motive that would go to insanity.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Well, that that would be the argument is in fact,
these folks were his meal ticket. They took care of him,
tried to make sure they could get him this drug
treatment he needed.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
It.
Speaker 4 (38:37):
Obviously doesn't make any sense to any of us why
he would kill his parents in such a gruesome fashion.
It does show some evidence of a troubled mind, but
a troubled mind isn't necessarily enough to prove the insanity
defense tot least have that insanity defense be successful.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Perfect.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
I have to stop you there because I thank you
so much for taking time I'm out of your ski
holiday to talk to all of us back here in
Boston on WBZ. Hopefully we'll have you in for the
two hours next time.
It's NIC's Eyes with Dan Ray. I'm going easy Boston's
News radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
That is correct. It is night Side and I'm in
for Dan Bradley Jake. A couple of things.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
If you are in the car now and you get
home and you kind of want to listen to the
rest of what we're talking about, but you don't want
to sit in the cold car, you can go in
the house, even if you don't have a radio there.
You can listen on the iHeartRadio app. And if you
missed a part of a segment you want to go
back and listen, you can just google Nightside on demand.
(00:36):
Our first guest is one of your favorites. It's Michael Coin,
dean of the Massachusetts School of Law. And Mike is
up north. I believe he's so kind is to take
the evening of a vacation day here a holiday and
call in from a ski trip.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
So how was today? Did it Did it turn to snow?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
No, it didn't turn to snow up here at all.
It was raining, probably still is raining a little bit
right now. So it was pouring on the way up.
It was a miserable ride up to North Conway, but
it's beautiful once you're hear. It's a real Christmas town.
I think if anyone who was ever visited here, no,
So we're looking forward to some better weather tomorrow, even
(01:17):
though it'll be cold, but we'll get some skiing in
with any luck tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
So you did not you were not able to ski today?
How did you spend the day?
Speaker 4 (01:26):
We didn't get up till probably about two o'clock. We
had a nice late lunch and we were supposed to
go tubing, but it really was so cold and windy
and rainy that we talked to them at Cranmore and
they agreed to give us vouchers for another day so
we'll be able to go sometime later during the time
(01:48):
we're here. So they were very kind about it. It's
a beautiful mountain and we were looking forward to it,
but it would have been miserable with the kids and
they would have gotten soaked wet. So maybe another afternoon
or evening when it's a little dryer will be better.
Even snow would be more preferable than this miserable rain.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
By the way, what route do you take when you
go up there?
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Do you go ninety five to Portsmouth and then up
route spelling Turnpike and whatever that.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Is after that, Yeah, we go.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
We take that route up and I always took it up.
We used to come up here quite often. My brother
had a home up here as well, so we would
be up here frequently. But we take Root sixteen. And
you know, in good weather, Route sixteen is great, but
there are times when in the fall foliage especially, it
can be a chore. But once you get here, you
(02:37):
always enjoy the fact that you're hear and it is different,
obviously than the Boston metropolitan area.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Another way to go is up ninety three and then
across the King of Augus, right.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Yeah, and I saw the kangam Angus today as we
got into town, and I did think about that that
I always enjoyed that trip across as well. But no,
we usually we live closer to ninety five now, so
it really is a better shot. And even when we
lived in the other side of town and closer to
(03:12):
ninety three, I still think it's a little shorter getting here.
But ninety three is a nice ride, and especially as
you point out, taking the Caanga Mangus across is a
beautiful road. We used to camp off the Kanga Mangus
when we were teenagers, but that was an awful long
time ago. You're from New Hampshire originally, right.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Yes, from from Rochester, which is kind of I don't know,
almost to the Lakes region.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
But yeah, well I came. I came through Rochester today
to get here, that's right.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So let's get to the legal stuff.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Some of that we're going to get to today includes
the just the awful fighting going on inside the Ben
and Jerry's company and what's going on with the Demulis family,
as well as the Walch case after man and maybe
comparing a little bit to the Reed trial and the
(04:07):
Reed civil suit. And I'm curious on the latest on
Trooper Proctor. And also there's the Rhiner murders and the
fact that Alan Jackson's now representing them, and talk about
I guess the blood A judge blocked release of autopsy results,
and I'm curious about motive and what kind of case
(04:29):
they have and are they gonna do an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
That's kind of hard to do, But we'll get to
all that.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
And also, actually this is kind of an aside, but
it might have a legal angle to it. Seriously, since
you're you know, kind of in the mountains. You heard
a while ago a couple of eighteen year olds got
stuck and got in trouble up in Menadna and they
got to be rescued, and it looks like they might.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Have to pay.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
But I'm wondering how to how they can be compelled
to pay, Like, who decides.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That you were.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Careless enough that you have to pay, but you were
not careless enough. Couldn't they mount some sort of legal
defense if it were, you know, worth the money?
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Uh? Yeah, they could. But see that's that one. You
left out a key detail in that case, as I
understand it. Yeah, my understanding is the two young men
were quite intoxicated, and because of their level of intoxication
and it was both if it's the same case, and
(05:34):
if I remember the details right, both drugs and alcohol,
that they they left themselves in a very perilous condition.
And then, of course, obviously, especially when you're up here
for a while, you can see the danger that's all around.
Is that so then the rescuers are placed in some
danger to go out in the middle of the night,
(05:56):
when it's cold and dark and slippery, to go out
rescue people. They do it selflessly. But but I do
understand the argument when you have been so reckless that
that you have caused others to go to great expense
to save you from your own stupidity, that there is
a question about is it fair to make those folks
(06:19):
pay for some are all of the cost of rescuing them.
But but as you point out, so how reckless then
would you have to be in order to have a
fair way to evaluate it.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
It's kind of a slippery slope. It's not slippery with
the alcohol. That's an easy line to draw alcohol or
legal drugs. But in cases and then I talk about
this at eleven again and recount this story. And I
also did something quite stupid on Mountain Ednth. It resulted
in a broken finger.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
It was it was. It was bad, bad news. But
I'll talk about that later.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Okay, So let's say, after this little break, we're gonna
get to the legal will start with Ben and Jerry's It's.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
So sad to me what's going on with Ben?
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Yeah, you're a chunky monkey fan. Huh.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
It's like they're trying to do they try to do
good stuff and they're stemied or they're having trouble. Then
you're gonna run down all the details on Ben and
Jerry's after this on w b Z.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Bradley J. For Dan.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
If you want to find out more about me, if
you don't know me at all, go to Bradley J.
That's Jay dot org. And if you want to find
out more about Dean Michael Coin's Massachusetts School of Law,
which my brother loves and wants to go to. And
if I were a little younger and not on the radio,
I'd go myself. I would love it. Tell us a
little bit about the school before I move on.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Wow, we just finished the fall semester. We have a
new class starting the first week a second week of January.
We now so offer a one year Masters of Science
and Law degree, which we just in the fall received
approval for. So it's geared to business and law. So
(08:13):
make sure that both lawyers know more business, but especially
important that business people know a little more law to
keep them out of trouble. So where's finding some significant
interest in people having and want to know more about
the law and how it affects their business and how
they can keep themselves out of trouble, but they don't
intend to practice law and they have no desire to
(08:34):
stay three years, which is what it would take for
a typical law degree.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
You have a different sort of mission statement in most
schools of law. Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (08:42):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
What we try to do is offer opportunity to people
to prove their merits and to really look for a
much more diversified buyer people of all ages. You know,
I always tell people our youngest graduate was a twenty
year old Hispanic woman who graduated high school in college
by the time she was seventeen, and then went on
(09:06):
to law school. And then our oldest graduate was used
to be a seventy three year old retired nun and
ultimately then became a seventy eight year old retired service
person who then ended up going into the district Attorney's
office and is still practicing law into his eighties. So
we look for a very different student population. We welcome
(09:31):
absolutely everyone to really come and make a contribution to
the community. So I'm very fortunate I get to have
a job that I love, like you have a job
that you love, and to be able to do that
and to really to make a difference in people's lives
and have them then make a difference in their communities
is really very fulfilling. And we're very lucky we have
(09:53):
the greatest students in the world.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Now getting back to there's one other angle that I
need to run by you when it comes to the
Monadnock boys. Okay, that sounds like a hardy boy mystery. Okay,
here's the situation. Let's say underage kids have a party,
this booze.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
And the.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Smoking, then they smoking bed or somebody and the husband's down,
fire department comes. They were drinking in this scenario. They
were under age in the scenario. And you can tell me,
I don't know for sure, do would they or their
parents have to pay the fire department to rescue them
to put a fire out?
Speaker 2 (10:39):
No?
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Right, no, generally no. And that's the point you raise
is where is that line when you talk about slippery slope?
This is the problem with it is people. We expect
people to be careless at times. We should expect people
to do stupid things at times. And the question is
(11:00):
where is the line, dron When you have insurance or
you pay your taxes for public safety, where are you
going to draw the line to say Okay, now you've
got to reimburse us for what we've expended because of
your stupidity or carelessness, because unfortunately, you know, we see
people speeding all the time. I drove up here in
(11:23):
the rain and the ice, and there were people going
a lot faster than I was. And so what happens
when those people who act recklessly or carelessly? But don't
we expect that. Haven't we all done that at times
in our life? We wouldn't want to have to spend
fifty thousand and sixty one hundred thousand or even more
(11:46):
for a rescue from the fire department or from the
search and rescue teams up here. I understand the point. Generally,
the problem is it's I guess I'm going to use
the old line from the law. It's like pornography. You
know it when you see it, when you're gone simply
too far. That's where the common sense should say, well,
(12:10):
at the minimum that the town, the state, whoever, shouldn't
have to bear that entire expense themselves either.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Okay, but I can see where they're representative might say,
you know what, we pay our taxes, right, and that
should cover us for when we make mistakes.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
And then I could further say and make make my.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Party underage drinking house burning down situation and say would
they would they have to pay for that?
Speaker 2 (12:40):
No, so why should we?
Speaker 4 (12:44):
I don't go. I don't really disagree with you that much,
having represented teenagers many times and not exactly the situation
you're talking about, but drinking in the house and then
unfortunately tragic things ultimately happen. You know, you do you
want people to go to jail, first of all, criminally
for some of those things. But the point you raise
(13:07):
is a little different, is, well, okay, if we're not
going to put them in jail, should they be responsible
for the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in
damages that they've caused in a civil suit. That's one
thing lible to someone else. But now we're talking about
libel to the public authorities who are paid to try
and keep us safer, especially safer from our own stupid mistakes.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Well, they're from Massachusetts. I understand that.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
I wonder if I wish have a try I wish
there would be a trial, even, you know, some sort
of trial that I could see on TV.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
I would love to see that trip.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
Well, if they're from Massachusetts, and it's a question of
whether New Hampshire will charge them. Then you know they're
gonna they're gonna tax and make those people in Massachusetts paid, right, Okay, Now.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Ben and Jerry's Ben and Jerry try to do the
right thing. They made some turned good ice cream, try
to raise a lot of money, help a lot of people.
And they, you know, the business got big and they
kind of wanted to change their position in the business,
bring other people in and a lot of times that's
just a bad thing. And maybe you can outline what
(14:17):
happened overall through their career and you know, the cliff
notes of that, and then drill down a little bit
on what the current situation is.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Started out as a real hot warming story. They made
all these different kinds of fancy ice cream that many
of us loved, chunky Monkey and cherry Garcia. And they
also not only made great ice cream, they had a
social purpose, a real mission to try and make sure
(14:49):
that the profits were used to benefit society and to
really improve our communities. And they had a very strong
public in function. As that company grew and grew and grew,
it also had from a standpoint of corporate governance. It
(15:10):
had a much fairer pay system than many so that
you know, in essence, the CEO, the chief executive officer
didn't make ten million dollars, while the guys working on
the line, the men and women there only made you know,
minimum wage and the like. So their pay structure also
(15:32):
was part of the social mission of the institution. But
then at some point, as they became profitable and the
founders got older, they decided that they were going to
cash out and take some of their hard earned profits
(15:53):
themselves for the company itself, and so they sold the
company and took a bag of money and what they
did and trying to structure that exchange, the company that
purchased them agreed that they would continue to be able
to have their social mission and do whatever virtually in
(16:17):
that vein that they chose to do without interference from
the new company. They set up an independent board that
would run the charitable foundation, and it was truly independent
of the companies, so that they could do as those
(16:39):
directors felt was important and they continue to take significant
positions on social causes. Well. The new owners at some
point decided that this wasn't good business for them to
be into some of these controversial projects that they wanted
to speak out on, and as Ben and Jerry sees it,
(17:02):
they decided to put more pressure on the company to
and the charitable foundation to keep their nose out of
some of these more controversial disputes, because as they saw it,
it was hurting the company's bottom line. And so what's
happened now is that the board of directors of the
(17:25):
charitable Foundation has been changed significantly through the adoption of
term limits, in essence saying that the directors can only
stay for so long, so many years consecutively, and a
lot of companies have term limits limiting to how many
times are what age you can serve too in order
to bring new ideas and to bring about change. And
(17:50):
so in some ways some would argue, well, that's not
a bad thing, but Ben and Jerry sees it as
a very bad thing because what it was done is
to violate the agreement that was made when the company
was sold to allow this charitable foundation to continue to
do independent projects and to support independent causes, even some
(18:16):
that would be seen as highly controversial. Well, if the
directors are then removed through this new policy, and now
Ben and Jerry says, well, that's all violates the contract
that we had when we sold the company to you folks,
and Magnum. You can't do this. We want the Border
(18:37):
Directors reinstated and we want to continue to do what
we're doing without interference for whatever social causes the Border
Directors ultimately support. So what you've got is a corporate
divorce in essence, and a pretty nasty one at this point,
because what you're talking about is whether the original agreement
(19:01):
has been breached, and if so, can the court then
award them relief in the form of reinstating the board
of directors, awarding money, damages. All of it is on
the table at this point, and it's obviously it tarnishes
the image of Ben and Jerry's as the social conscience
(19:24):
of a lot of causes.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
This is the kind of thing where your contract is
really important. By the way, the Magnum ice Cream company
is massive. If you go anywhere in Europe and even
other places and you need if you need something fast,
you can go into any little store and they have
coolers full of Magnum ice cream. They're a Dutch company,
and their corporate worth, as I see it here, market
(19:49):
cap as eight billion bucks, so they're pretty they're pretty
big company. What I don't understand is why do they
want to mess with the do Gooding, Ben and Jerry?
Does it cost them anything? Why don't they just leave
them alone? They're making money?
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Well, I think it's at least the latest dispute is
recounted in the media reports is that they weighed in
on this the Palestinian and Israeli issue with respect to
the sales of their ice cream and the like there.
And the problem is is that there are, obviously, and
(20:27):
that is one of them, there's some causes that companies
just don't want any part of. They see it as
the third rail in essence that win. There's no winning.
You're going to you're going to aggravate someone and you're
going to hurt the image of the company. At the
bottom line is we're in business, right, We're there to
(20:48):
make money. That's what businesses do. And the problem is,
though they've got an agreement set up that they are
now part of that said, well, there are some things
that you got to keep your nose out of and
and sometimes it's going to hurt. Well, they've decided that, well,
it's not we can we can alleviate some of this, uh.
(21:09):
And yeah, we're a big company. We could probably take
a small hit. But every business wants to make more money.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
And if you're hurting our bottom line is they must
likely see that this, this support of this cause is
hurting our bottom line. They don't want any part of it.
And obviously you would have thought that they would have
both sides. We might may have wanted to resolve this
without the glare of the media that it's now taking.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Right. You mentioned every company wants to make money, but.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Ben and Jerry weren't all about the money, and that's
that's where they were a little bit different. Of course
they had to make money at all. All right, thanks
for that update. After this break, we'll get to the
DMULA situation, see see how similar it is, and then
we'll also get to Brian Walls, Karen, Karen Reid, and.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
I think there might be something else you busy.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Let's continue with Dean Michael Coyne of the Maschool of
Law and talk a little bit about what's going on
with the Demulles Artie de Mulish case. Very briefly, because
I got a lot of questions about the Waltz case
AFTERMN are there, what's going on with that and what
are the.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
Para It's another corporate divorce or at least a breakup.
Just like you've got the feuding parties in Ben and Jerry's,
you have the family feuding in Demulas, so that Arthur Demulis,
who has been the head of the market basket company
and grew it over the last few decades from a
(22:46):
small company to a very large company, a billion dollar company,
is now feuding with his sisters for whether he can
continue to run the company as he has. He's been
the president for well over a day, came now and
bought his cousin out with his sisters a number of
years ago when the company shut down, or at least
(23:09):
many people boycotted the company over what they thought at
that point was his unfair treatment. And now this time
there's a suit ongoing in Delaware where his sisters have
filed suit to for a declaratory judgment saying that they're
entitled to remove him over issues about succession planning, being
(23:35):
informing the board of his future plans and the sisters
who owned sixty percent of the company say that, well,
we want to be better informed about future growth, future
store openings, the annual budgets, expenditures, and we also want
to really sit down and have a serious discussion about
(23:58):
who is going to see He's in his seventies. None
of us live forever. Obviously, it becomes a fiduciary responsibility
by the board of directors to make sure that the
company is in good hands after he's gone, and he's
not ready to go, And what he would like to
(24:19):
see happen ultimately is his son and daughter, who have
worked for the company for years, ultimately succeed him. But
that's really a question for the board to decide at
some point who would be the next president of market Basket.
From a consumer standpoint, what we all want is the
company to continue to be run as well as it
(24:39):
has over the last couple of decades, with very good
prices for our grocery. So, to some extent, consumers have
a big stake in this fight, even though they don't
have a voice at the table.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Are they almost be kind of a different cloth than
a more resilient cloth.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
If it were me, tell you what give me?
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Oh, I don't know twenty fifteen, excuse me my cut
of a billion bucks and I will just travel around.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
I don't need this hassle. That's me.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
There must be something in the self identify. He must
identify with the company, and wouldn't feel a part of
him would kind of die if you weren't involved with
that company.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
He wouldn't be the man anymore.
Speaker 4 (25:26):
Kind of Well, I think it goes beyond that. Actually,
I think it's about work ethic. It's about a different generation.
I mean, remember, his father grew this from a very
small store in Lowell, in the acre where they served
the immigrant community, and it really did grow from a
(25:48):
tiny grocery store to a multi billion dollar business. So
I think it becomes part of who you are, and
especially having taken it from its infancy to this massive
company it is now. You know, it's like your child.
Although all of us parents have to talk ways and
(26:11):
give our children room to grow, I think it'd be
very It's very difficult, and it goes beyond just I
want to be the man. It's that I want to
make sure that this company survives and does well, and
I personally need to work. That's what that's my identity
at this point is this work ethic and this success
(26:35):
and making sure everything is done the way it's done
that it's been done for years and it has been
successful for us. So I think it's a very complicated
and obviously it's a complicated family dynamic here because the
three sisters and author are originally banded together to try
(26:57):
and make sure that their side of the family was
able to wrest control from his cousin's family. The two
brothers ultimately two brothers started this decades ago in Lowell,
So I mean that at one point they were all allies,
and now the problem is is that there's fighting over
(27:19):
and they're not illegitimate issues on either side. When you
talk about succession on a family owned business, that becomes
a real issue. I mean, they did a TV show
on this right that ran from many seasons. So it's
an interesting dynamic, and I think the court and Delaware
(27:40):
has a lot to try and work through. It's unfortunate
that from both a litigation and a family issue, that
they couldn't come to some sort of sort of mediation
or resolution of the matter without having to engage all
of the lawyers and put all of this issue out
(28:02):
in the public domain.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Okay, next to the Wolfs case aftermath?
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Okay, what was the I know, I'm moving right along
because I haven't No, no, no, not at all, not
at all. Well, what's interesting to me about the Walls
case as you talk to people, and I'd be interested
in knowing if your listeners feel any differently, Uh, is
that most people think he got exactly what he deserved.
That life in prison without the benefit of parole is
(28:32):
what he deserves because of what he what he's admitted doing,
which is dismembering his wife and then lying to the
police for many days about her disappearance.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
So can anyone ever ask I didn't see this, Why
would anyone dismember your yours body if you didn't kill them?
Why wouldn't you just call the police? But it's such
a giant hassle. For one thing, it's much easier just
to call the police.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
Well, and it's even worse than that because it's you know,
he bought a hacks, he bought a hatchet, he bought
all sorts of equipment, tin snips, so to do it
as effectively as you possibly could. So, and you're right,
that was the problem with the defense from the outset
(29:26):
is that he on the very just about as we
finished jury selection, he acknowledged that, yes, I failed to
properly in turn my wife's body what I oftentimes referred
to it as is the dismemberment charge, and on multiple
(29:48):
occasions I lied to the police. So he faced three
charges initially, first agree murder, the failure to intern the
body properly, and then the lying to the police.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
As you have put.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
Out, three years seems like not that much for dismembering
a body. I know.
Speaker 4 (30:06):
See that's an interesting thing, I think when we start
to think about it. So it's the two secondary charges.
It's twenty years up to twenty years for lying to
the police, but only three years in essence dismembering your
wife's body, failing to properly notify authorities and have them
(30:26):
or have the enviroments or whoever properly dress the body
and take care of it, and then to dispose of
it properly by burial and the like. But that charge,
which we know what he did because of the significant
evidence that supports it, with the videos that show him
(30:50):
walking around home depot and selecting all sorts of equipment
he needed to the physical tools he got, which is
the hacks are the hatchet, the tin snips, the hammer.
When you look at the extent to which he obtained equipment,
(31:13):
none of which, by the way, were electrical. So all
of these things he had to physically do this in
order to be able to dismember her body, and to
do it with such precision and degree that they never
found any portion of her body other than some blood
(31:35):
suggesting in one of the dumpsters. And he used dumpsters
in both the South and the North Shore. So, I mean,
when you look at how grow gruesome her end of
her after she was murdered, what her days ended up like,
(31:56):
and as her sister pointed out in her Victim's Impacts,
they and so they never have a place now where
they could go pray or say goodbye to her sister.
They never had the opportunity for a mass or whatever
religious service they might have to to honor and remember her.
(32:17):
I mean, it's really quite something when you think about
what he did to her family. But to me, it's
what's especially problematic is what he did to the three
young boys that were that were hers and his. I
mean they're now ten, eight and six. They were two,
four and six years old at the time. It's just
(32:40):
almost unconscionable that you know you could you could do
this to that degree, not just to your wife, but
to the other people that should have been the most
important people in the world to him.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Wait, a couple of things I can't believe, and you
don't need to comment on it, just because we're long
on time.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
I can't believe he was.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I think that there will be cameras in the home
improvement store recorded.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
But here's the thing.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
I thought he might beat murder one because he did.
He bought that stuff after the fact, as I understand it,
which would take away malice a forethought or at least
a four thought part.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
Yeah, and that's the question. And that's what I think
some people and we could focus on that. A first
degree murder charge requires premeditation, some plotting, some planning, but
it doesn't necessarily require that long standing planning and plotting
that we sometimes think about and see in movies.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
It can be five minute thing.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Yeah, it can be minutes, and especially as the jury
was instructed. The use of a weapon is some evidence
of intent, because you obviously have to go get a
weapon to use it, and you know, the fact is
is that he certainly had a motive and multiple motives
actually for wanting her gone because he needed money. He
(34:02):
owed almost five hundred thousand dollars in restitution on an
at fraud charge, so he had to be trying to
figure out ways to n Plus he was due for
just about forty months in prison as well in federal
prison for that offense. But the premeditation was light. There's
no doubt about it, and that's the question. Some people
(34:25):
were saying, well, it could be second degree murder, where
he would then be eligible for parole. But I think again,
and this is why when I've talked to people about it, Yeah,
they are willing to acknowledge that the premeditation evidence might
be light. But her dismemberment was so gruesome. His after
(34:48):
the fact conduct was so cold and calculating that he
wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt on
the premeditation.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Now let's break, and then we'll just have a couple
of comments on the Read case and the Reiner case.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
On why You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on
WBS Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Back with Michael Quarantine and the Mas School of Law.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
We have such a short period of time here that
I just have one question on each of these two
for a fairly concise answer. Okay, this is a broad one.
What is the ninety seconds? What's the status of the
reed civil suit?
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Well, they're really just beginning the discovery phase, which means
they'll be exchanging documents, they'll be depositions held at some
point further down the road. They're going to try and
gather as much information as possible from each side because
there's both suits and countersuits here to be able to
try and prove their case. And it's a very complicated
(35:58):
case because of all the sides and issue that they've raised.
I wouldn't expect it to go to trial, not in
twenty twenty six, probably the year after. I would say, Okay.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Now we go to the Rhiner situation. Alan Jackson representing
Rob Ryer's son. First of all, Jackson must be happy
to have a client that's got deep pockets for a change.
Speaker 4 (36:18):
Well, and that's the question is who is paying him
for this case at this point? But someone is interested
enough to try and help the son, who obviously has
significant legal as well as other problems.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
Why would a.
Speaker 3 (36:34):
Judge block the autopsy findings from being well.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
I think you'd want to be careful at this point
to not prejudice any potential jury. So until the sides
have an opportunity to examine the reports the toxicology and
then make their arguments to the court as to whether
they think that should be held while the case is
pending or can be released in advance. I think the
(37:01):
court is doing it out of an abundance of caution
to make sure you don't overly prejudice a jury. I
think it's going to be very difficult to impanel a jury,
but you will be able to. But it's obviously a
case that has gathered so much publicity coast to coast.
You can only imagine what it must be like in
the LA area to try and find people who will
(37:22):
look past all the news reports on this case.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
At this point, well question about ninety seconds stance of that?
Why is it?
Speaker 3 (37:28):
I mean, people are going to be looking to the
insanity case, but those are hard to prove.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Why because most people reject the idea that you're not
responsible for your actions, and the insanity defense standard is
quite high. It's that you really could not understand that
what you were doing was wrong. And that may be
problematic here for Rob Reiner's son, because you know, he
(37:54):
went and he tried to change his clothes and get
rid of the blood, and he went to a hotel room.
There are steps he took subsequent to the murder which
would indicate, or at least the government would suggest it
indicates that what he knew was wrong because he was
trying to cover it up. He's not crazy, he's crazy
as a fox.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
They just don't have a motive, do they.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
Don't you need a motive, now, well, you don't need
a motive in order to prove murder.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
No motive that would go to insanity.
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Well, that that would be the argument is in fact,
these folks were his meal ticket. They took care of him,
tried to make sure they could get him this drug
treatment he needed.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
It.
Speaker 4 (38:37):
Obviously doesn't make any sense to any of us why
he would kill his parents in such a gruesome fashion.
It does show some evidence of a troubled mind, but
a troubled mind isn't necessarily enough to prove the insanity
defense tot least have that insanity defense be successful.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Perfect.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
I have to stop you there because I thank you
so much for taking time I'm out of your ski
holiday to talk to all of us back here in
Boston on WBZ. Hopefully we'll have you in for the
two hours next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.