November 20, 2025 • 38 mins
There is a bit of controversy over proposed legislation called the “Massachusetts Survivors Act.” The bill proports to provide some legal consideration for survivors of domestic and sexual violence who subsequently commit acts of violence against others. Attorney Wendy Murphy who specializes in women’s constitutional and civil rights, criminal justice policy, and sexual and domestic violence feels this legislation is unrealistic and provides too much consideration for people who are convicted of crimes against others irrespective of what violence they might have suffered early in their life. Wendy joined us to discuss.
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 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Thank you, Dan Watkins.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
As we move into our nine o'clock hour with me,
is attorney Wendy Murphy. Wendy's a former prosecutor. She had
been a very active attorney and also a I would
say a bit of an activist. She has always been
in the forefront of women's rights issues, and she has
(00:30):
identified a piece of legislation on Beacon Hill that is
really bothering her, and the more I looked at it,
it bothers me as well.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Wendy, Welcome back to Nightside. How are you.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
I'm well, Dan, Thanks for having me again.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, my pleasure, and I hope my identification of you.
You represent all sorts of clients, but you are very
interested and you have always been identified as an attorney
who's very concerned about.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
The rights of women.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
The rights of women, yes, in general, and the specific
rights of women who've been abused, raped, and so forth.
That is my particular subspecialty absolutely my whole career.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
And of course, as as a prosecutor, you often were
supporting victims of crime. So this piece of legislation, which
is probably inaptly titled the Massachusetts Survivors Act has gotten
your attention. I read the piece that you wrote in
(01:31):
the in the Herald a few days ago, and that's
why we are here. I use the phrase ineptly titled.
I don't think it's much to do with the with survivors,
to be honest with you, I think it's more the
the the the Massachusetts Protection Act for abusers and rapists
(01:54):
and murderers.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Absolutely. And you know, I don't know if there's a
word for what lawmakers are doing when they call something
one phrase but it actually means the opposite. I have
no doubt this is common when they're trying to sneak
something under the radar by mischaracterizing it in its title.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Misleading that I mean, it's just genuinely misleading. And you
hear the word survivors and immediately you say, so, well,
that must be good. I'm glad they're working on something
finally that helps someone. But you view it differently. So
I want to Yes, you give you the opportunity because
it's your column.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
You wrote it. Well, I've read it.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I've actually gone and read the Act also today, and
I think you have a very accurate description of this
inaptly titled proposed piece of legislation.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
So the floor is yours, well, thank you. And I
started off by saying, it's incredibly frustrating for me to
see a law framed like that, because as an advocate
for victims, I'm excited when I see a title like that, Oh,
let me see what they're trying to do to help victims.
And then when I read it, my heart just sank.
(03:13):
I mean, what it does is it gives criminals, rapists, murderers,
sex traffickers, child pornographers. It doesn't matter if you're a
serial killer or if you have trafficked babies, it doesn't matter.
This law will give you, the criminal, a right to
(03:36):
file a motion with the court, taxpayer funded attorney, a
motion with the court asking for either your case to
be eventually dismissed. Of course, that means you haven't been
convicted yet, or if you've already been convicted, like let's
say you're doing life without parole right now for murder.
(03:57):
Another thing the bill lets you do is file emotion
and go to court and ask for your life without
parole sentence to be reduced to ten years or less.
And here's what you need to do. This is the
only thing you have to do as a criminal. You
get to file this motion no matter what crime you committed,
so long as you said been an acid David saying
(04:18):
that you were abused at some time before the crime,
and get this definition of abuse for the purpose of
the law. The definition of abuse short includes being raped
and beaten and so forth, but it also includes this
that someone made you feel scared, not touched you, not
(04:42):
raped you, not hit you, but they caused you to
feel traumatized and afraid, even if only with words.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Then tell you I'm right now going to claim that
I was abused. I'll state this publicly because I felt
scared of Sister Francis to sales the principle of say no,
she was lovely. I'm only teasing. Obviously, if you're a
kid and someone doesn't scare you, whether it's your father
(05:14):
or your mother or the neighbor whose window you broke,
I mean, this is crazy.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
This is crazy.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
This is getting people a complete free past.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
And then, by the way, let me be clear, I'm
not saying judges are required to grant your motion. What's
nutty about this, though, is that it allows you to
ask and because of how broad the definition of abuses.
Every single criminal at Walpole right now, at Cedar Junction,
(05:47):
or at any of the other facilities, no matter what
they're in for, has a right, at tax payer expense,
to go to court, submit an affidavit and demand some
sympathy that they probably already brought up when they were
sentenced the first time. Because you know, when I was
a prosecutor forty years ago, if you committed a crime
(06:09):
and then the judge had to figure out what punishment
you had get, you were allowed to say I was
abused as a child, and none yelled at me, my
mother slapped me, whatever. So it's already been taken into account,
and now you get this kiss from the legislature. That's
more than just compassion. This is the deepest discount I've
(06:29):
ever seen in Massachusetts lawmaking history. Life without parole down
to under ten years because someone yelled at you when
you were a kid. Get out of here.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
So I know that these pieces of legislation are hard
to follow. First of all, who are some of the
legislators who are pushing this idea? And why would of
all the problems we're facing now we have the people
who can't get food. We have people who can find housing.
(07:06):
We have all sorts of problems. We're going to have heating,
oil problems and cold weather problems in the next few months,
next few weeks, maybe the next few days. Actually I
should amend that. Who are the legislators who have enough
time in their hands and why are they looking after
the rights of people who have committed some horrific crimes. Again,
(07:28):
there's no need for this piece of legislation. Any lawyer
worth his or her assault at the time of sentencing
would be making emotion to the judge to consider whatever
circumstances they should consider when they sentence someone who's been
convicted of a crime.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Yes, well, let me say this. I don't want to
take up your entire show listing the number of state
representatives who signed on. But there are twenty one of them,
and at the time off of the list is a
representative named Barber. I don't know if you know her.
I don't dealt with her.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
I've tried to deal with her. She always refuses to
come on the show. She's from somewhere in western Massachusetts,
and she does get involved in issues and legislation that
always attracts my attention.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
I think, oh, well, that's interesting, isn't it. And then
there's a Senate version of the bill. You know how
this works, Dan, There's a House bill, there's a Senate bill,
and usually they match, or sometimes they have a little
bit of difference between them. Here are some of the
Senate leaders. I wanted you to know. Barber was the
leader on the House, but there are twenty one people
who put their name on this and the Senate bill
(08:41):
is the leader is Michael Rush.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Rush is a rational individual, at least when I knew
him out of West Roxbury, I believe. When I saw
that he was the lead sponsor in the Senate, it
really stunned me.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
To be honest with you.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Well, you know, I don't we can talk about I
can tell you what I think about what motivates people
to do this. But Jason Lewis is on there, Mike Connolly.
I don't really know these people, because again it's not.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Conley. Lewis and Conley.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
I would expect they are very progressive and they I'm
sure that this for them is an opportunity to virtue signal,
but it does, as you say, diminish the rights of
the actual victims. And that is not to say that
someone cannot have a bad experience as a ten year
(09:37):
old or a six year old, and it doesn't have
to you know, get up to sexual abuse. But you
can have a tough childhood. A lot of people have
tough childhoods. But when they go out and they rape
someone else, or they light someone on fire in the subway,
as we've seen now happen twice today in Chicago and somewhere.
(09:57):
There's a lot of real tough criminals.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
There these days, yep.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
And we like to think that there's a reason they
do it, and it's tied to childhood. It makes us
feel better that we can say, oh, had they only
had a loving family, this might not have happened. Let
me be clear, because I've represented women who've been extremely
abused throughout their lives and in very severe ways, and
they never hurt a fly. So when I hear a
(10:26):
member of the state legislature say, well, this is a
way of respecting women abuse victims, because it recognizes that
they might just go and beat up their abuser if
they get desperate, what I hear when I hear them
say that is you're out of your mind. Most abused
(10:46):
women never hurt a fly. If anything, they hurt themselves.
They don't hurt others. This bill is about helping abusive men,
for the most part, who would abuse and steal and
rob and kill regardless of their childhood. That's what we
keep forgetting. Yes, people with tough childhood can go down
(11:10):
the wrong path, but being yelled at by your parent
or even being hit does not cause you to hit
someone else. It doesn't cause crime period.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
My guest is Attorney Wendy Murphy. She is a prosecutor.
She's also been a defense attorney, and she has been
in the forefront of victims' rights, and particularly when those
victims are women. She has identified this piece of legislation
at Beacon Hill. It's amazing to me that this legislation
(11:44):
is contemplated and filed. I do not see any benefit
to it. If any of these state representatives or state
senators would like to join us, not tonight, but at
any time later this week or next week to talk
about this. I have called Representative my team have called
Representative Christine Barber. Very rarely do we ever get even
(12:06):
the courtesy of a phone call back, but I would
love to have some of you who are listening tonight,
contact us and tell us if you think this makes
any sense. Do we need more laws at the Statehouse
on the books with all the problems that we are
dealing with right now? You know, Snap recipients are having
(12:28):
trouble getting their Snap cards refilled so their families can
be fed. We're now three weeks into November. We obviously
have a winter season coming up, all sorts of questions
about heating bills, gas bills, electric bills, and even the
availability for some people to get heat. There's all sorts
(12:49):
of issues, and yet our legislature seems to focus on this.
Wendy's explained it very well. I'm sure most of you
can follow what she said. Love to have you join
the conversation six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty And it's
simplest form. If someone commits a horrific crime of sexual abuse,
(13:11):
domestic abuse, murder, rape, you name it, with this piece
of legislation, judges would be obligated, obligated to deal with
as an additional issue post conviction, pre sentencing, and as
Wendy indicated, a lot of this Apparently, Wendy, it has
(13:31):
some retroactivity. So even people who are currently incarcerated for
crimes committed in the past would be able still if
this piece of legislation passed, avail themselves of this legislation
and go in and file motions to have their sentences reduced.
I that's what I understand you to say.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Okay, we'll take a break.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
The numbers as always six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
Most of us do not have the time the ability
to monitor legislation as it is proposed, and oftentimes we
are saying, how did that pass? Well, Wendy Murphy tonight
is basically doing what all of us probably aren't able
(14:12):
to do. She's identified this piece of legislation. I'd like
to hear some outrage six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty,
or in the alternative, if you think this is a
great idea, feel free to join the conversation and tell
us why Wendy Murphy is wrong and why I'm wrong
on this piece of legislation. Back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Right up to this Night Side with Dan Ray on
WBZ Boston's news radio, We're.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
With Wendy Murphy. She's an attorney and she's she's identified
this piece of legislation at Beacon Hill. There's no way
on on at this moment, by the way, to understand
what the potential future of this legislation is. However, Wendy,
when you look at the number of legislators who have
signed on as co sponsors, it's a significant group in
(15:02):
both the House and Senate side. In our conversations today,
it sounds to me as if you were pointing this out,
you know, raising the alarm whatever you want to call it,
because this is one that you think has the potential
to pass. It sounds to me that you're concerned about this.
(15:22):
This is this is not an idle column that you wrote.
This is one that I can read the passion and
the concern between the lines very very clearly.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Yes, I do think this is one of those bills that,
for whatever reason, is heavily funded. I can talk later
about who I think the dollars are coming from. I
think it's heavily funded, and those tend to go very
quickly from start to finish. This bill was filed in
February of this year, and it's already out with a
(15:55):
favorable vote from the Joint Judiciary Committee. That does not
happen often bills, as you know, can take years to
get anywhere before the first time round on a Judiciary
committee hearing it's going to go into a study. I mean,
they just don't do this. But it was voted out
(16:15):
favorably just over a month ago, and now it's in
ways and means, yes, there's still a lot left to go,
but there's agreement on the language. There's agreement on all
the thing between both houses on what we've discussed in
terms of how easy it is to file, how the
taxpayers are going to have to fund it, how judges
(16:36):
have basically total discretion. I mean, there is a standard
of proof for some of it. A judge, under one
of the conditions, if he finds by or she finds
by a mere preponderance of evidence that there's some abuse
in the history of the criminal and that it's related
not causal, doesn't cause the crime, but is somehow to
(17:01):
why the crime occurred, that judge is basically required to
grant some kind of relief either pushed the case off
into some kind of diversion program if there's no conviction
yet and then eventually the diversion program cases get dismissed.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Yeah, they become you know, a continuous without a finding
a cooth.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Yes, And this bill says they get dismissed if you
get a diversion gift. And then again, as you pointed out,
if you're in Walpole doing life for serial killing, and
you file one of these motions and the judge makes
a determination by a certain standard of proof that your
childhood or some abuse you suffered is related to why
(17:42):
you became a serial killer, you're basically walking free because
your sentence goes down to ten years or less, not
twenty years or less. Ten ten years or less. Well
has already passed the Joint Judiciary Committee with a favorable vote.
It's not in a study to see if they can
tweak the language.
Speaker 6 (18:02):
Yeah, that is the Rocket talcket.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
And the other thing is we're not coming up in
the end of a legislative session. This is an odd
year number meeting twenty twenty five. There's still a full
year left in this legislative session until well January of
twenty twenty seven, or for all intents and purposes, thirt
twenty of the time thirteen plenty of time thirteen more months.
So let's let's take a break here for the news
(18:29):
at the bottom of the r which we are required
to do. And when we get back, I want to
talk about some of the funding and I want to
talk about the motivation because I just don't understand how
the empathy of so many of these state legislators can
be so misplaced that the empathy is not with the
true victims, the most recent victims. It's with the criminals
(18:54):
who have committed these crimes. Even though the title is
the Massachusetts Survivors Act. And yes, I would assume that
that any person who faces a criminal prosecution or a
criminal conviction can point to something backwards in their own life,
in their own experience, which would suggest some level of discomfort,
(19:16):
and there could be some genuine, you know, abuse issues.
Not try to diminish that, but as you said, many
abuse victims get on with their life and the last
thing they want to do is inflict on another child
which might have been inflicted upon them. It's almost insulting
to thee to the abuse victims who live their lives
(19:39):
beyond reproach. I have wide open lines, ladies and gentlemen,
if you think that this is a piece of legislation
that you agree with, feel free to give us a
call if you disagree six seven both six one seven
two five four ten thirty or six one seven nine
three one ten thirty. Don't call me a year from
(20:00):
now or six months when this passes, because now is
the time to talk about it and hopefully energize other
people to let their friends know about it, and talk
to your state rep and let them know this is
a step too far, even from Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Back on Nightside right after.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
This, It's Night Side with Ray Boston's news radio Werendya.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
A lot of people I think should understand that this
is a complicated.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Issue, but it's a serious issue, okay, in which there
will be more. We have seen in recent days.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
I don't know if you saw that horrific event out
in Chicago where a woman was lit on fire on
what the l trains? You saw the woman down in Charlotte,
North Carolina, who was stabbed by this guy for no
reason at all. This stuff happens, and I have learned
from doing this show that many people are concerned about it,
(21:02):
but they're not concerned enough to speak up about it.
I don't know if people are scared or if people
are intimidated. But you did mention, and I want people
to get the whole story here, that there are some
very significant forces behind this type of legislation and the
(21:23):
finances that are behind this sort of legislation, because I
don't understand why anybody would say, oh, this sounds like
a great idea, let's give a break to rapist murderers
and child molesters, which is what this legislation would do,
because they had a bad experience. You know, their parents
gave them apple juice instead of orange juice or something
(21:46):
like that, and they were they were traumatized. Talk to
us about the funding, because you've got to always follow
the money.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
Yes, yeah, I'm so glad you said that. It is
how I It's not cynical, by the way, to follow
the money. It's just the right thing to do. It's pragmatic.
You follow the money because if you know anything about
how lawmaking works, not just in Massachusetts but in general,
the well funded bills go to the top of the list,
They get lots of signatures, and they go zip through
(22:16):
the process and become law before you blink your eyes.
Often they go through covertly because the you know, if
a bill is clearly not what the public would want,
it's got to go through under the radar. And that
is part of what we're seeing with this bill. Obviously
it's an irrational, nutty bill, so it hasn't gotten a
(22:37):
lot of press. If it was actually good for humanity,
it'd be on the front page of the globe every
day and people would know about it.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
You know, is your article in the first second paragraph
points out it's the Massachusetts Survivors Act. I mean, who, right,
you know, would say, well, I don't want to vote
for that if you say, of course, we've got survivors,
we want to support them.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
But it's not quite what it sounds like. Oh so
where's the money coming out?
Speaker 4 (23:03):
No? No, And not only that, since my article came out,
people have been very comfortable communicating with me in social
media or whatever, saying why don't you care about victims?
You know they need this kind of compassion, And so
it takes a lot more effort now for me to
explain why. It's not a lack of compassion. It's the
right kind of compassion that I have. And I am
(23:25):
not stupid, and I don't think people in Massachusetts are stupid,
But I think so, here's the thing. Number one, why
would this bill be going through so quickly? Answer, because
there's a lot of funding behind it. Well, where would
that funding come from? Who benefits? This is what I
always think. Who benefits financially from this bill passing? The
(23:45):
short answer is organized crime, illegal crimes, you know, sex traffickers,
the porn you know, the illegal child porn industry, and
drug dealing, all of the dark, ugly, dirty money benefits.
Why because when they're clients and I mean their producers
(24:05):
go to prison, they can't make profits, they can't make
new product, they can't go get new children, new victims,
they can't shoot other gang members. You know, there's a
lot here that if you just pull back the layers
a little bit, you see that if drug dealers kill
each other because they did something to hone in on
(24:26):
each other's territory, you now are doing life behind bars. Well,
you can't now help fuel the illegal drug industry. So
if you get out under this special law, you're back
on the streets making money for the illegal drug industry.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
Can I.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
In a word, when they you're back in the game.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
You're back in the you're back to work. You're back
to work.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Now.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
I can't prove to you where dark money comes from.
That's the nature of dark money that it gets funneled
through proxy groups. So, not surprisingly, Jane Doe is one
of the LEA supporters on this. Jane Doe is the
statewide group that organizes rape crisis centers and battered women's programs.
Now you're shaking your head. What is wrong with these people?
Why would they do this? Well, funding comes to mind.
(25:13):
If they get a boatload of money and the money says,
we're going to keep giving you this money year after
year as a donation. But here's what we want you
to support, this silly idea that this is a compassionate
way to deal with violence against women. And they'll take it.
They will sell their mother's soul for cash. That's the
(25:35):
kind of organization they are. You give them money, you
might be deep dark money, but if you give it
to a group like Jane Doe, they will promote your bill,
even if it causes more rape, more abuse, more violence
against women.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Now, Jane Doe as an organization has a great reputation.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Not with people that I know, not at all, not
at all know.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
But what I'm saying is I've never seen and I'm
not challenging you on it, because you know this area
very well, this is where you practice. But I've only
seen glowing reports about the Jane Do organization.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
Well, let me tell you this other one, Dan, let
me tell you this one before you move on. About
ten years ago, they actively and aggressively promoted a law
that gave parental rights to rapists who impregnate their victims,
even if the victim is a child whoa exactly, you
(26:34):
should be shocked, you should be disgusted, and you should
always remember that about them. They openly supported it, saying, well,
judges are giving parental rights to the rapist anyway, so
we figured we may as well just you know, make
a law about it. No an asinine reason to do it.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
The difference for people to understand, and I think it's
an important point you're making.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
I just want to help you with it here.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
The difference is you can have a wacky judge who
has discretion within his or her courtroom and baking him
down with some crazy rulings, and there's very little that
can be done to, you know, to take it. A
bad judge off the bench, and occasionally they cannot be
budges bad judges off of the bench. But once it's
a legislative, legislatively mandated, the judge doesn't have a choice.
(27:20):
There's no discretion.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
And that's exactly right now that the judge says, well,
I'm supposed to do this as long as they prove
by such and such an amount of evidence, Well, guess
what the evidence that a criminal needs. Again, we're talking
about serials, serial killers, child rapists, the worst of the worst.
All they need is their word. There doesn't have to
be any corroboration, there doesn't have to be any proof.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Justice which is about what people don't realize. That is
that you swear to something and uh, and the the
person who signs the affidavit doesn't know anything about the
underlying truth. All they can say is that they were
a witness and then you signed the affidavit in front
of them.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
How do you discredit them?
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Again, I think the standard is more likely than not
preponderance of the evidence.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
That's that's right.
Speaker 4 (28:14):
That's for the diversion cases, and that's the most important
one because that gets you the discount before you even
go to prison.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
You don't even go let me get a caller in
here for us, and then we're going to have to
take a quick break. We will get to everybody who's
on the line, so please stay there, Terry and Harwich. Terry,
you lead us off tonight. Your thoughts on this conversation
with Wendy Murphy. Say he to Wendy and you're on
the air.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Go right ahead, Terry, Hi, Dan, thank you for.
Speaker 8 (28:39):
Taking my cur Atturney Murphy. I'm honored to speak with you.
I am so thankful that there are people like you
watching what's happening, because this is shocking in a word,
and I just can't even believe that this is happening.
(29:01):
There are so many things Beacon Hill can be focused
on that are important. They should never be helping evil,
evil criminals to get a lesser sentence. They get enough
of that from from the people in Washington, d C.
(29:24):
They don't need help locally. We could whack a noodles
and I refuse this.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Oh, that's a federal case. This doesn't reply to federal cases.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
But the principal, but I think Terry's question is if
there was a statute like this federally, assuming that that Senaia,
you know, again is he's been convicted. The only thing
on appeal for him is the death penalty. It is
a federal case, but the the the principal Terry is
(29:59):
correct that that if it was a federal statute and
in federal court, the defense layer could Terry, what you
got to do is when you're down there, talk to
your friends, let them know about it, and they need
to talk to their state legislator down.
Speaker 8 (30:14):
There to I will call her tomorrow. You can be
sure of that because I know her.
Speaker 5 (30:20):
Okay, this is awful.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
It's called I think.
Speaker 8 (30:27):
I think you, Attorney Murphy, because I had no idea
this was going on. There's so much there's so much
distraction in everybody's lives today. Every second there seems to
be a new Pandora's box stick gets open. There's no
way you could keep your eye on every single thing
(30:49):
that's happening.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Well, that's what that's why you listen, horrible, that's why
you listen to Night Side, Terry, and thank you for listening. Okay.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
It's called the Massachusetts the inaptively named Massachusetts Survivors Act.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Terry, I get you before the break, but we got
to go to break. Thank you so much.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
I hope you both have a wonderful Thanksgiving with all
of your loved ones. Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
Good night Banks.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Terry is a dear friend of mine. Dear friend of mine.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
We'll be back on Night's Side right after this couple
of quick calls and we'll wrap it up with Wendy Murphy.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Stay right there. If you're on the line, we will
get to you. I promise.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
By the way, I would remiss if I if I
did not mention that Wendy is involved in a pretty
big case in federal court dealing with the right for
women in America to register for the draft, that that
obligation still rests on menu you.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
That case is going to be heard, I believe sometime
in December.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Wendy, Yes, thanks so much for mentioning December sixteenth. If
anybody wants to there, it's two o'clock with Judge Young
and Federal Courthouse down the seaport, and it's a really
important case because women are citizens, and with as citizens,
we have rights and responsibilities, and we want both. We
don't want to be seen as people who only demand
(32:15):
rights but don't want to have the same responsibilities as men.
We want both and that's what my case is about.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
All right, well, we will be following that case as well.
In the meantime, let me get to I'm going to
try to get to three calls quickly. Let's see what
we can do.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Fill in Boston, Phil, you've been winning the longest your
next one night, Siger, right.
Speaker 7 (32:30):
Ahead, thank you. I can in this kind of leap.
But isn't the when you're in trial, defense lawyer would
present these things that are judge and they wouldn't make
depending on the situation with whose abuse the child, the butter,
bngled or bong. Shouldn't that be taken care of without
(32:51):
the law in the court level?
Speaker 3 (32:56):
Phil, Phil, I just want to don't want to cutch
your short here, but you've called late and I just.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
You're correct. You're correct.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
Normally, if a conviction occurs, it probably very rarely is
going to be allowed in uh, in front of a jury,
because there'd be questions of relevance, okay, uh and it
you know it, it also would in my in my opinion,
it would not be relevant. Some medical people would say
(33:25):
one thing, some medical people would say something else. You know, again,
Wendy can contradict me if she wants. The time set
might be raised would be post conviction, prior to sense.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
Yes, well, well one other one other might be if
your defense is insanity, then you can bring up anything
that's ever happened to you in your whole life.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Oh sure, but I'm talking. Yeah, but I'm talking. That's weird.
That's not what we're talking about here. But yeah, you're
if you're going to do.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
It in sanity place. Yeah, or if it's self defense
and the abuse is happening to you right now and
then you kill someone, that's different. We're talking about abuse
that has nothing thing to do with why you committed
the crime, and this law will suddenly make it relevant.
As Dan said, even though and I want to be clear,
(34:09):
even though it's not relevant at the time of trial,
it is always fair game at the time of sentencing,
and you would you would get you would get sued
for malpractice as a defense attorney if you didn't bring
up somebody's abuse during sentencing, because that does get you
the sympathy that maybe you deserve a little, right, and
then it's.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
The point is currently feel your correct, it's the discretion
of the judge. This is going to obligate all judges
to uh with when if this is on the books,
that's going on, Phil, if you listened a little earlier,
it is going along at a very fast pace, which
(34:48):
might indicate that the skids have been greased. If you
get my draft, yeah, I know you do. Okay, and
that's why we're kind of blowing the whistle, Phil. I
want to try to get a couple more in.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Okay, thanks for good night. Let me go to Laurie
in Idaho. Hey, Laurie, next on nightside.
Speaker 6 (35:05):
Hey there, So yes, I'm obviously in Idaho, but I've
been in Massachusetts for years and this is appalling and
thank you turning four bringing this to everybody's attention. And
my eyes are going to be wide open no matter
where I live based on this stuff. But I have
a lot of friends in Massachusetts too, and I'm not
sure they're aware, so I'm going to be letting them know.
So I really appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
We thank you. That's what we need. That's exactly what
we need people like you making it an issue at
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Laurie, Thank you so much. I appreciate it very much.
Speaker 6 (35:35):
Okay, yep, all right, thank you, thank you, bye bye.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Quickly to the point last call, Tony and Brockton. Tony,
you are with Wendy Murphy. Go right ahead, Tony real quick.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
Dan, old friends in you're a hero, Dan to a
lot of us and as well as Wendy. Complete hero.
Wish I had more time. Very quickly. You mentioned where
the money's coming from. Obvious question unless I miss it,
where's it going? If there's a court case the attorneys?
But it's not as legislator, I know you laughing. Okay,
(36:05):
it sounds like what we're saying here is the money's
going to the legislators.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
Well, you know there's a reason they all.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Wendy, go ahead, anything make the connection. You know, Wendy
is not knowing anyone individually here. Okay, No, no, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (36:24):
I'm not. But I'm not the first person to notice
that certain people get very wealthy after they become members
of the legislature or Congress, even though their salaries don't
exactly justify their new purchases. We're not stupid people. The
fact is lobbyists spend money either for re election campaigns,
and it goes right into those conference or it goes
(36:45):
indirectly through some other way that benefits people who are
making these laws happen. I've had good ideas for laws.
If it doesn't go to the state House with a
bucket of cash, I might get somebody to support it,
maybe one person, maybe two, But it doesn't get the
attention this is getting. This is a heavy money, heavy
dark money funded bill, and we'll never see the exact
(37:09):
source because that's.
Speaker 5 (37:13):
I just wanted to make sure we further close the
loop on where it could be goin. I think don't
pay attention to this stuff, and they don't know.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Tony. I think you helped close the loop or loop
or connect the dots. Thank you so much. Okay, hey,
well good Thanks Tony. Wendy. We will follow this. We'll
continue to follow.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
We'll also follow the case about women wanting to have
the right to register for the draft.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
So thank you for what you do.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
I hope people will get a chance they can google
the article that you that appeared in the Herald earlier
this week. Beacon Hill shouldn't excuse rape and murder by
Wendy Murphy, Attorney Wendy Murphy.
Speaker 4 (37:52):
Thank you very much, Dan, thank you, thank you talk soon.
Speaker 2 (37:56):
Okay, here comes to ten o'clock News.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
We're going to talk about a really crazy set of
stories that have happened in the last twenty four hours
involving some Democrats and President Trump.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
I think they're all off base.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WVZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Thank you, Dan Watkins.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
As we move into our nine o'clock hour with me,
is attorney Wendy Murphy. Wendy's a former prosecutor. She had
been a very active attorney and also a I would
say a bit of an activist. She has always been
in the forefront of women's rights issues, and she has
(00:30):
identified a piece of legislation on Beacon Hill that is
really bothering her, and the more I looked at it,
it bothers me as well.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Wendy, Welcome back to Nightside. How are you.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
I'm well, Dan, Thanks for having me again.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, my pleasure, and I hope my identification of you.
You represent all sorts of clients, but you are very
interested and you have always been identified as an attorney
who's very concerned about.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
The rights of women.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
The rights of women, yes, in general, and the specific
rights of women who've been abused, raped, and so forth.
That is my particular subspecialty absolutely my whole career.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
And of course, as as a prosecutor, you often were
supporting victims of crime. So this piece of legislation, which
is probably inaptly titled the Massachusetts Survivors Act has gotten
your attention. I read the piece that you wrote in
(01:31):
the in the Herald a few days ago, and that's
why we are here. I use the phrase ineptly titled.
I don't think it's much to do with the with survivors,
to be honest with you, I think it's more the
the the the Massachusetts Protection Act for abusers and rapists
(01:54):
and murderers.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Absolutely. And you know, I don't know if there's a
word for what lawmakers are doing when they call something
one phrase but it actually means the opposite. I have
no doubt this is common when they're trying to sneak
something under the radar by mischaracterizing it in its title.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Misleading that I mean, it's just genuinely misleading. And you
hear the word survivors and immediately you say, so, well,
that must be good. I'm glad they're working on something
finally that helps someone. But you view it differently. So
I want to Yes, you give you the opportunity because
it's your column.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
You wrote it. Well, I've read it.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I've actually gone and read the Act also today, and
I think you have a very accurate description of this
inaptly titled proposed piece of legislation.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
So the floor is yours, well, thank you. And I
started off by saying, it's incredibly frustrating for me to
see a law framed like that, because as an advocate
for victims, I'm excited when I see a title like that, Oh,
let me see what they're trying to do to help victims.
And then when I read it, my heart just sank.
(03:13):
I mean, what it does is it gives criminals, rapists, murderers,
sex traffickers, child pornographers. It doesn't matter if you're a
serial killer or if you have trafficked babies, it doesn't matter.
This law will give you, the criminal, a right to
(03:36):
file a motion with the court, taxpayer funded attorney, a
motion with the court asking for either your case to
be eventually dismissed. Of course, that means you haven't been
convicted yet, or if you've already been convicted, like let's
say you're doing life without parole right now for murder.
(03:57):
Another thing the bill lets you do is file emotion
and go to court and ask for your life without
parole sentence to be reduced to ten years or less.
And here's what you need to do. This is the
only thing you have to do as a criminal. You
get to file this motion no matter what crime you committed,
so long as you said been an acid David saying
(04:18):
that you were abused at some time before the crime,
and get this definition of abuse for the purpose of
the law. The definition of abuse short includes being raped
and beaten and so forth, but it also includes this
that someone made you feel scared, not touched you, not
(04:42):
raped you, not hit you, but they caused you to
feel traumatized and afraid, even if only with words.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Then tell you I'm right now going to claim that
I was abused. I'll state this publicly because I felt
scared of Sister Francis to sales the principle of say no,
she was lovely. I'm only teasing. Obviously, if you're a
kid and someone doesn't scare you, whether it's your father
(05:14):
or your mother or the neighbor whose window you broke,
I mean, this is crazy.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
This is crazy.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
This is getting people a complete free past.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
And then, by the way, let me be clear, I'm
not saying judges are required to grant your motion. What's
nutty about this, though, is that it allows you to
ask and because of how broad the definition of abuses.
Every single criminal at Walpole right now, at Cedar Junction,
(05:47):
or at any of the other facilities, no matter what
they're in for, has a right, at tax payer expense,
to go to court, submit an affidavit and demand some
sympathy that they probably already brought up when they were
sentenced the first time. Because you know, when I was
a prosecutor forty years ago, if you committed a crime
(06:09):
and then the judge had to figure out what punishment
you had get, you were allowed to say I was
abused as a child, and none yelled at me, my
mother slapped me, whatever. So it's already been taken into account,
and now you get this kiss from the legislature. That's
more than just compassion. This is the deepest discount I've
(06:29):
ever seen in Massachusetts lawmaking history. Life without parole down
to under ten years because someone yelled at you when
you were a kid. Get out of here.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
So I know that these pieces of legislation are hard
to follow. First of all, who are some of the
legislators who are pushing this idea? And why would of
all the problems we're facing now we have the people
who can't get food. We have people who can find housing.
(07:06):
We have all sorts of problems. We're going to have heating,
oil problems and cold weather problems in the next few months,
next few weeks, maybe the next few days. Actually I
should amend that. Who are the legislators who have enough
time in their hands and why are they looking after
the rights of people who have committed some horrific crimes. Again,
(07:28):
there's no need for this piece of legislation. Any lawyer
worth his or her assault at the time of sentencing
would be making emotion to the judge to consider whatever
circumstances they should consider when they sentence someone who's been
convicted of a crime.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Yes, well, let me say this. I don't want to
take up your entire show listing the number of state
representatives who signed on. But there are twenty one of them,
and at the time off of the list is a
representative named Barber. I don't know if you know her.
I don't dealt with her.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
I've tried to deal with her. She always refuses to
come on the show. She's from somewhere in western Massachusetts,
and she does get involved in issues and legislation that
always attracts my attention.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
I think, oh, well, that's interesting, isn't it. And then
there's a Senate version of the bill. You know how
this works, Dan, There's a House bill, there's a Senate bill,
and usually they match, or sometimes they have a little
bit of difference between them. Here are some of the
Senate leaders. I wanted you to know. Barber was the
leader on the House, but there are twenty one people
who put their name on this and the Senate bill
(08:41):
is the leader is Michael Rush.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Rush is a rational individual, at least when I knew
him out of West Roxbury, I believe. When I saw
that he was the lead sponsor in the Senate, it
really stunned me.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
To be honest with you.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Well, you know, I don't we can talk about I
can tell you what I think about what motivates people
to do this. But Jason Lewis is on there, Mike Connolly.
I don't really know these people, because again it's not.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Conley. Lewis and Conley.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
I would expect they are very progressive and they I'm
sure that this for them is an opportunity to virtue signal,
but it does, as you say, diminish the rights of
the actual victims. And that is not to say that
someone cannot have a bad experience as a ten year
(09:37):
old or a six year old, and it doesn't have
to you know, get up to sexual abuse. But you
can have a tough childhood. A lot of people have
tough childhoods. But when they go out and they rape
someone else, or they light someone on fire in the subway,
as we've seen now happen twice today in Chicago and somewhere.
(09:57):
There's a lot of real tough criminals.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
There these days, yep.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
And we like to think that there's a reason they
do it, and it's tied to childhood. It makes us
feel better that we can say, oh, had they only
had a loving family, this might not have happened. Let
me be clear, because I've represented women who've been extremely
abused throughout their lives and in very severe ways, and
they never hurt a fly. So when I hear a
(10:26):
member of the state legislature say, well, this is a
way of respecting women abuse victims, because it recognizes that
they might just go and beat up their abuser if
they get desperate, what I hear when I hear them
say that is you're out of your mind. Most abused
(10:46):
women never hurt a fly. If anything, they hurt themselves.
They don't hurt others. This bill is about helping abusive men,
for the most part, who would abuse and steal and
rob and kill regardless of their childhood. That's what we
keep forgetting. Yes, people with tough childhood can go down
(11:10):
the wrong path, but being yelled at by your parent
or even being hit does not cause you to hit
someone else. It doesn't cause crime period.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
My guest is Attorney Wendy Murphy. She is a prosecutor.
She's also been a defense attorney, and she has been
in the forefront of victims' rights, and particularly when those
victims are women. She has identified this piece of legislation
at Beacon Hill. It's amazing to me that this legislation
(11:44):
is contemplated and filed. I do not see any benefit
to it. If any of these state representatives or state
senators would like to join us, not tonight, but at
any time later this week or next week to talk
about this. I have called Representative my team have called
Representative Christine Barber. Very rarely do we ever get even
(12:06):
the courtesy of a phone call back, but I would
love to have some of you who are listening tonight,
contact us and tell us if you think this makes
any sense. Do we need more laws at the Statehouse
on the books with all the problems that we are
dealing with right now? You know, Snap recipients are having
(12:28):
trouble getting their Snap cards refilled so their families can
be fed. We're now three weeks into November. We obviously
have a winter season coming up, all sorts of questions
about heating bills, gas bills, electric bills, and even the
availability for some people to get heat. There's all sorts
(12:49):
of issues, and yet our legislature seems to focus on this.
Wendy's explained it very well. I'm sure most of you
can follow what she said. Love to have you join
the conversation six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty And it's
simplest form. If someone commits a horrific crime of sexual abuse,
(13:11):
domestic abuse, murder, rape, you name it, with this piece
of legislation, judges would be obligated, obligated to deal with
as an additional issue post conviction, pre sentencing, and as
Wendy indicated, a lot of this Apparently, Wendy, it has
(13:31):
some retroactivity. So even people who are currently incarcerated for
crimes committed in the past would be able still if
this piece of legislation passed, avail themselves of this legislation
and go in and file motions to have their sentences reduced.
I that's what I understand you to say.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Okay, we'll take a break.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
The numbers as always six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
Most of us do not have the time the ability
to monitor legislation as it is proposed, and oftentimes we
are saying, how did that pass? Well, Wendy Murphy tonight
is basically doing what all of us probably aren't able
(14:12):
to do. She's identified this piece of legislation. I'd like
to hear some outrage six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty,
or in the alternative, if you think this is a
great idea, feel free to join the conversation and tell
us why Wendy Murphy is wrong and why I'm wrong
on this piece of legislation. Back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Right up to this Night Side with Dan Ray on
WBZ Boston's news radio, We're.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
With Wendy Murphy. She's an attorney and she's she's identified
this piece of legislation at Beacon Hill. There's no way
on on at this moment, by the way, to understand
what the potential future of this legislation is. However, Wendy,
when you look at the number of legislators who have
signed on as co sponsors, it's a significant group in
(15:02):
both the House and Senate side. In our conversations today,
it sounds to me as if you were pointing this out,
you know, raising the alarm whatever you want to call it,
because this is one that you think has the potential
to pass. It sounds to me that you're concerned about this.
(15:22):
This is this is not an idle column that you wrote.
This is one that I can read the passion and
the concern between the lines very very clearly.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Yes, I do think this is one of those bills that,
for whatever reason, is heavily funded. I can talk later
about who I think the dollars are coming from. I
think it's heavily funded, and those tend to go very
quickly from start to finish. This bill was filed in
February of this year, and it's already out with a
(15:55):
favorable vote from the Joint Judiciary Committee. That does not
happen often bills, as you know, can take years to
get anywhere before the first time round on a Judiciary
committee hearing it's going to go into a study. I mean,
they just don't do this. But it was voted out
(16:15):
favorably just over a month ago, and now it's in
ways and means, yes, there's still a lot left to go,
but there's agreement on the language. There's agreement on all
the thing between both houses on what we've discussed in
terms of how easy it is to file, how the
taxpayers are going to have to fund it, how judges
(16:36):
have basically total discretion. I mean, there is a standard
of proof for some of it. A judge, under one
of the conditions, if he finds by or she finds
by a mere preponderance of evidence that there's some abuse
in the history of the criminal and that it's related
not causal, doesn't cause the crime, but is somehow to
(17:01):
why the crime occurred, that judge is basically required to
grant some kind of relief either pushed the case off
into some kind of diversion program if there's no conviction
yet and then eventually the diversion program cases get dismissed.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Yeah, they become you know, a continuous without a finding
a cooth.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Yes, And this bill says they get dismissed if you
get a diversion gift. And then again, as you pointed out,
if you're in Walpole doing life for serial killing, and
you file one of these motions and the judge makes
a determination by a certain standard of proof that your
childhood or some abuse you suffered is related to why
(17:42):
you became a serial killer, you're basically walking free because
your sentence goes down to ten years or less, not
twenty years or less. Ten ten years or less. Well
has already passed the Joint Judiciary Committee with a favorable vote.
It's not in a study to see if they can
tweak the language.
Speaker 6 (18:02):
Yeah, that is the Rocket talcket.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
And the other thing is we're not coming up in
the end of a legislative session. This is an odd
year number meeting twenty twenty five. There's still a full
year left in this legislative session until well January of
twenty twenty seven, or for all intents and purposes, thirt
twenty of the time thirteen plenty of time thirteen more months.
So let's let's take a break here for the news
(18:29):
at the bottom of the r which we are required
to do. And when we get back, I want to
talk about some of the funding and I want to
talk about the motivation because I just don't understand how
the empathy of so many of these state legislators can
be so misplaced that the empathy is not with the
true victims, the most recent victims. It's with the criminals
(18:54):
who have committed these crimes. Even though the title is
the Massachusetts Survivors Act. And yes, I would assume that
that any person who faces a criminal prosecution or a
criminal conviction can point to something backwards in their own life,
in their own experience, which would suggest some level of discomfort,
(19:16):
and there could be some genuine, you know, abuse issues.
Not try to diminish that, but as you said, many
abuse victims get on with their life and the last
thing they want to do is inflict on another child
which might have been inflicted upon them. It's almost insulting
to thee to the abuse victims who live their lives
(19:39):
beyond reproach. I have wide open lines, ladies and gentlemen,
if you think that this is a piece of legislation
that you agree with, feel free to give us a
call if you disagree six seven both six one seven
two five four ten thirty or six one seven nine
three one ten thirty. Don't call me a year from
(20:00):
now or six months when this passes, because now is
the time to talk about it and hopefully energize other
people to let their friends know about it, and talk
to your state rep and let them know this is
a step too far, even from Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Back on Nightside right after.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
This, It's Night Side with Ray Boston's news radio Werendya.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
A lot of people I think should understand that this
is a complicated.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Issue, but it's a serious issue, okay, in which there
will be more. We have seen in recent days.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
I don't know if you saw that horrific event out
in Chicago where a woman was lit on fire on
what the l trains? You saw the woman down in Charlotte,
North Carolina, who was stabbed by this guy for no
reason at all. This stuff happens, and I have learned
from doing this show that many people are concerned about it,
(21:02):
but they're not concerned enough to speak up about it.
I don't know if people are scared or if people
are intimidated. But you did mention, and I want people
to get the whole story here, that there are some
very significant forces behind this type of legislation and the
(21:23):
finances that are behind this sort of legislation, because I
don't understand why anybody would say, oh, this sounds like
a great idea, let's give a break to rapist murderers
and child molesters, which is what this legislation would do,
because they had a bad experience. You know, their parents
gave them apple juice instead of orange juice or something
(21:46):
like that, and they were they were traumatized. Talk to
us about the funding, because you've got to always follow
the money.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
Yes, yeah, I'm so glad you said that. It is
how I It's not cynical, by the way, to follow
the money. It's just the right thing to do. It's pragmatic.
You follow the money because if you know anything about
how lawmaking works, not just in Massachusetts but in general,
the well funded bills go to the top of the list,
They get lots of signatures, and they go zip through
(22:16):
the process and become law before you blink your eyes.
Often they go through covertly because the you know, if
a bill is clearly not what the public would want,
it's got to go through under the radar. And that
is part of what we're seeing with this bill. Obviously
it's an irrational, nutty bill, so it hasn't gotten a
(22:37):
lot of press. If it was actually good for humanity,
it'd be on the front page of the globe every
day and people would know about it.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
You know, is your article in the first second paragraph
points out it's the Massachusetts Survivors Act. I mean, who, right,
you know, would say, well, I don't want to vote
for that if you say, of course, we've got survivors,
we want to support them.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
But it's not quite what it sounds like. Oh so
where's the money coming out?
Speaker 4 (23:03):
No? No, And not only that, since my article came out,
people have been very comfortable communicating with me in social
media or whatever, saying why don't you care about victims?
You know they need this kind of compassion, And so
it takes a lot more effort now for me to
explain why. It's not a lack of compassion. It's the
right kind of compassion that I have. And I am
(23:25):
not stupid, and I don't think people in Massachusetts are stupid,
But I think so, here's the thing. Number one, why
would this bill be going through so quickly? Answer, because
there's a lot of funding behind it. Well, where would
that funding come from? Who benefits? This is what I
always think. Who benefits financially from this bill passing? The
(23:45):
short answer is organized crime, illegal crimes, you know, sex traffickers,
the porn you know, the illegal child porn industry, and
drug dealing, all of the dark, ugly, dirty money benefits.
Why because when they're clients and I mean their producers
(24:05):
go to prison, they can't make profits, they can't make
new product, they can't go get new children, new victims,
they can't shoot other gang members. You know, there's a
lot here that if you just pull back the layers
a little bit, you see that if drug dealers kill
each other because they did something to hone in on
(24:26):
each other's territory, you now are doing life behind bars. Well,
you can't now help fuel the illegal drug industry. So
if you get out under this special law, you're back
on the streets making money for the illegal drug industry.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
Can I.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
In a word, when they you're back in the game.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
You're back in the you're back to work. You're back
to work.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Now.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
I can't prove to you where dark money comes from.
That's the nature of dark money that it gets funneled
through proxy groups. So, not surprisingly, Jane Doe is one
of the LEA supporters on this. Jane Doe is the
statewide group that organizes rape crisis centers and battered women's programs.
Now you're shaking your head. What is wrong with these people?
Why would they do this? Well, funding comes to mind.
(25:13):
If they get a boatload of money and the money says,
we're going to keep giving you this money year after
year as a donation. But here's what we want you
to support, this silly idea that this is a compassionate
way to deal with violence against women. And they'll take it.
They will sell their mother's soul for cash. That's the
(25:35):
kind of organization they are. You give them money, you
might be deep dark money, but if you give it
to a group like Jane Doe, they will promote your bill,
even if it causes more rape, more abuse, more violence
against women.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Now, Jane Doe as an organization has a great reputation.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Not with people that I know, not at all, not
at all know.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
But what I'm saying is I've never seen and I'm
not challenging you on it, because you know this area
very well, this is where you practice. But I've only
seen glowing reports about the Jane Do organization.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
Well, let me tell you this other one, Dan, let
me tell you this one before you move on. About
ten years ago, they actively and aggressively promoted a law
that gave parental rights to rapists who impregnate their victims,
even if the victim is a child whoa exactly, you
(26:34):
should be shocked, you should be disgusted, and you should
always remember that about them. They openly supported it, saying, well,
judges are giving parental rights to the rapist anyway, so
we figured we may as well just you know, make
a law about it. No an asinine reason to do it.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
The difference for people to understand, and I think it's
an important point you're making.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
I just want to help you with it here.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
The difference is you can have a wacky judge who
has discretion within his or her courtroom and baking him
down with some crazy rulings, and there's very little that
can be done to, you know, to take it. A
bad judge off the bench, and occasionally they cannot be
budges bad judges off of the bench. But once it's
a legislative, legislatively mandated, the judge doesn't have a choice.
(27:20):
There's no discretion.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
And that's exactly right now that the judge says, well,
I'm supposed to do this as long as they prove
by such and such an amount of evidence, Well, guess
what the evidence that a criminal needs. Again, we're talking
about serials, serial killers, child rapists, the worst of the worst.
All they need is their word. There doesn't have to
be any corroboration, there doesn't have to be any proof.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Justice which is about what people don't realize. That is
that you swear to something and uh, and the the
person who signs the affidavit doesn't know anything about the
underlying truth. All they can say is that they were
a witness and then you signed the affidavit in front
of them.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
How do you discredit them?
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Again, I think the standard is more likely than not
preponderance of the evidence.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
That's that's right.
Speaker 4 (28:14):
That's for the diversion cases, and that's the most important
one because that gets you the discount before you even
go to prison.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
You don't even go let me get a caller in
here for us, and then we're going to have to
take a quick break. We will get to everybody who's
on the line, so please stay there, Terry and Harwich. Terry,
you lead us off tonight. Your thoughts on this conversation
with Wendy Murphy. Say he to Wendy and you're on
the air.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Go right ahead, Terry, Hi, Dan, thank you for.
Speaker 8 (28:39):
Taking my cur Atturney Murphy. I'm honored to speak with you.
I am so thankful that there are people like you
watching what's happening, because this is shocking in a word,
and I just can't even believe that this is happening.
(29:01):
There are so many things Beacon Hill can be focused
on that are important. They should never be helping evil,
evil criminals to get a lesser sentence. They get enough
of that from from the people in Washington, d C.
(29:24):
They don't need help locally. We could whack a noodles
and I refuse this.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Oh, that's a federal case. This doesn't reply to federal cases.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
But the principal, but I think Terry's question is if
there was a statute like this federally, assuming that that Senaia,
you know, again is he's been convicted. The only thing
on appeal for him is the death penalty. It is
a federal case, but the the the principal Terry is
(29:59):
correct that that if it was a federal statute and
in federal court, the defense layer could Terry, what you
got to do is when you're down there, talk to
your friends, let them know about it, and they need
to talk to their state legislator down.
Speaker 8 (30:14):
There to I will call her tomorrow. You can be
sure of that because I know her.
Speaker 5 (30:20):
Okay, this is awful.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
It's called I think.
Speaker 8 (30:27):
I think you, Attorney Murphy, because I had no idea
this was going on. There's so much there's so much
distraction in everybody's lives today. Every second there seems to
be a new Pandora's box stick gets open. There's no
way you could keep your eye on every single thing
(30:49):
that's happening.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Well, that's what that's why you listen, horrible, that's why
you listen to Night Side, Terry, and thank you for listening. Okay.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
It's called the Massachusetts the inaptively named Massachusetts Survivors Act.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Terry, I get you before the break, but we got
to go to break. Thank you so much.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
I hope you both have a wonderful Thanksgiving with all
of your loved ones. Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
Good night Banks.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Terry is a dear friend of mine. Dear friend of mine.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
We'll be back on Night's Side right after this couple
of quick calls and we'll wrap it up with Wendy Murphy.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Stay right there. If you're on the line, we will
get to you. I promise.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
By the way, I would remiss if I if I
did not mention that Wendy is involved in a pretty
big case in federal court dealing with the right for
women in America to register for the draft, that that
obligation still rests on menu you.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
That case is going to be heard, I believe sometime
in December.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Wendy, Yes, thanks so much for mentioning December sixteenth. If
anybody wants to there, it's two o'clock with Judge Young
and Federal Courthouse down the seaport, and it's a really
important case because women are citizens, and with as citizens,
we have rights and responsibilities, and we want both. We
don't want to be seen as people who only demand
(32:15):
rights but don't want to have the same responsibilities as men.
We want both and that's what my case is about.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
All right, well, we will be following that case as well.
In the meantime, let me get to I'm going to
try to get to three calls quickly. Let's see what
we can do.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Fill in Boston, Phil, you've been winning the longest your
next one night, Siger, right.
Speaker 7 (32:30):
Ahead, thank you. I can in this kind of leap.
But isn't the when you're in trial, defense lawyer would
present these things that are judge and they wouldn't make
depending on the situation with whose abuse the child, the butter,
bngled or bong. Shouldn't that be taken care of without
(32:51):
the law in the court level?
Speaker 3 (32:56):
Phil, Phil, I just want to don't want to cutch
your short here, but you've called late and I just.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
You're correct. You're correct.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
Normally, if a conviction occurs, it probably very rarely is
going to be allowed in uh, in front of a jury,
because there'd be questions of relevance, okay, uh and it
you know it, it also would in my in my opinion,
it would not be relevant. Some medical people would say
(33:25):
one thing, some medical people would say something else. You know, again,
Wendy can contradict me if she wants. The time set
might be raised would be post conviction, prior to sense.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
Yes, well, well one other one other might be if
your defense is insanity, then you can bring up anything
that's ever happened to you in your whole life.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Oh sure, but I'm talking. Yeah, but I'm talking. That's weird.
That's not what we're talking about here. But yeah, you're
if you're going to do.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
It in sanity place. Yeah, or if it's self defense
and the abuse is happening to you right now and
then you kill someone, that's different. We're talking about abuse
that has nothing thing to do with why you committed
the crime, and this law will suddenly make it relevant.
As Dan said, even though and I want to be clear,
(34:09):
even though it's not relevant at the time of trial,
it is always fair game at the time of sentencing,
and you would you would get you would get sued
for malpractice as a defense attorney if you didn't bring
up somebody's abuse during sentencing, because that does get you
the sympathy that maybe you deserve a little, right, and
then it's.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
The point is currently feel your correct, it's the discretion
of the judge. This is going to obligate all judges
to uh with when if this is on the books,
that's going on, Phil, if you listened a little earlier,
it is going along at a very fast pace, which
(34:48):
might indicate that the skids have been greased. If you
get my draft, yeah, I know you do. Okay, and
that's why we're kind of blowing the whistle, Phil. I
want to try to get a couple more in.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Okay, thanks for good night. Let me go to Laurie
in Idaho. Hey, Laurie, next on nightside.
Speaker 6 (35:05):
Hey there, So yes, I'm obviously in Idaho, but I've
been in Massachusetts for years and this is appalling and
thank you turning four bringing this to everybody's attention. And
my eyes are going to be wide open no matter
where I live based on this stuff. But I have
a lot of friends in Massachusetts too, and I'm not
sure they're aware, so I'm going to be letting them know.
So I really appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
We thank you. That's what we need. That's exactly what
we need people like you making it an issue at
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Laurie, Thank you so much. I appreciate it very much.
Speaker 6 (35:35):
Okay, yep, all right, thank you, thank you, bye bye.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Quickly to the point last call, Tony and Brockton. Tony,
you are with Wendy Murphy. Go right ahead, Tony real quick.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
Dan, old friends in you're a hero, Dan to a
lot of us and as well as Wendy. Complete hero.
Wish I had more time. Very quickly. You mentioned where
the money's coming from. Obvious question unless I miss it,
where's it going? If there's a court case the attorneys?
But it's not as legislator, I know you laughing. Okay,
(36:05):
it sounds like what we're saying here is the money's
going to the legislators.
Speaker 4 (36:11):
Well, you know there's a reason they all.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Wendy, go ahead, anything make the connection. You know, Wendy
is not knowing anyone individually here. Okay, No, no, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (36:24):
I'm not. But I'm not the first person to notice
that certain people get very wealthy after they become members
of the legislature or Congress, even though their salaries don't
exactly justify their new purchases. We're not stupid people. The
fact is lobbyists spend money either for re election campaigns,
and it goes right into those conference or it goes
(36:45):
indirectly through some other way that benefits people who are
making these laws happen. I've had good ideas for laws.
If it doesn't go to the state House with a
bucket of cash, I might get somebody to support it,
maybe one person, maybe two, But it doesn't get the
attention this is getting. This is a heavy money, heavy
dark money funded bill, and we'll never see the exact
(37:09):
source because that's.
Speaker 5 (37:13):
I just wanted to make sure we further close the
loop on where it could be goin. I think don't
pay attention to this stuff, and they don't know.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Tony. I think you helped close the loop or loop
or connect the dots. Thank you so much. Okay, hey,
well good Thanks Tony. Wendy. We will follow this. We'll
continue to follow.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
We'll also follow the case about women wanting to have
the right to register for the draft.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
So thank you for what you do.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
I hope people will get a chance they can google
the article that you that appeared in the Herald earlier
this week. Beacon Hill shouldn't excuse rape and murder by
Wendy Murphy, Attorney Wendy Murphy.
Speaker 4 (37:52):
Thank you very much, Dan, thank you, thank you talk soon.
Speaker 2 (37:56):
Okay, here comes to ten o'clock News.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
We're going to talk about a really crazy set of
stories that have happened in the last twenty four hours
involving some Democrats and President Trump.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
I think they're all off base.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
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.