The Karen Read Saga Continues…

This week the Karen Read defense team filed a motion to dismiss two of the three charges against Read citing affidavits that four jurors indicated to them that the jury unanimously agreed to acquit her of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. The prosecution from the case clapped back against the motion calling the claims, “hearsay.” We discussed!

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Boston's news radio. It's Night Sidewith Dan Ray on w B Boston's news
radio. Well, I think allof us are familiar with the Karen Reid
murder trial, which ended in lateJune, when the jury told the judge

(00:20):
that they were deadlocked and that therewas no hope of changing that deadlock,
and the judge, Beverly Canoni,did give them all of the instructions necessary
to reach a verdict, but theywere unsuccessful. So in the wake of

(00:41):
that, there are news reports andthere are claims by Karen Reid's defense lawyers,
and I assume all of you knowthe story. We're talking about.
Karen Reid, the woman who wasaccused of second degree murder in the death
of her boyfriend John O'Keefe. Sheallegedly backed into him on a snowy evening

(01:11):
in January of twenty twenty two,hit him, and he ended up,
according to the theory of the prosecution, on the lawn of a house that
he was about to visit to attenda party. She was charged with a
second degree murder leaving the scene ofan accident in personal injury or death,

(01:34):
but there was also a manslaughter charge. The defense attorneys say that they have
been contacted by four of the twelvejurors or four either directly or indirectly,
meaning through an intermediary, and basedupon that, the defense lawyers earlier this

(01:57):
week have asked for as Michel adismissal of two of the three charges that
remained pending after the July first mistrial. That again came a weekend, well
a little bit more than a weekand a half ago. Now the prosecution
is pushing back and they're saying thatthis is based on hearsay and there was

(02:24):
no verdict rendered, which is true, and therefore no verdict. The jury
never reached a verdict, although againfour of the jurors have indicated either directly
or indirectly to the defense lawyers thatthe jury had come to a unanimous decision

(02:46):
of not guilty on the second degreemurder charge and on the charge of leaving
the scene of an accident. Letme make sure that I'm reporting that to
you correctly. Reed's lawyers have saidin recent effidavits that four drawers indicated to
them, either directly or through intermediarys that the jury unanimously agreed to acquit

(03:07):
her of second degree murder and leavingthe scene of personal injury and death,
but had remained deadlock on a manslaughteraccount. Now you could look at that
and say, well, that soundslike an inconsistent it's not a verdict,
but it presents some very novel legalissues in my opinion. Now, I
was listening today to tonight the Channelfive, and former Massachusettorney General Martha Cochley,

(03:31):
who have great respect for said thatthat claim is without any basis.
That there's no way that because thejury did not reach a verdict, you
cannot claim afterwards that a verdict wasreached but was not reported back to the
court. So we're getting into anarea here that is kind of a novel

(03:52):
situation, and I'd like to hearfrom as many of you as possible.
To me, it seems to methat juries are allowed and in the past
have come back with partial verdicts.So someone is accused of let's say ab

(04:13):
C and D four charges, andthe jury agrees on two and is deadlocked
on the other two. They cancome back and say, we have a
verdict on A and B, butwe do not have a verdict on C
and D, so that the juryis not obligated to reach a final unanimous
verdict on each and every charge.We know that the issue here is if

(04:38):
this jury, in their deliberations,after having listened to the whatever it was,
seventy five witnesses, all the evidencethat was put in over this trial,
which was somewhere from six to eightweeks. It is a long trial,
and if they reached a unanimous verdictin the confines of the jury room,
but did not report that for verdict, it seems in the interest of

(05:02):
justice that if this is true,if this is true, there should be
a way, in my opinion,to bring those juris back into court and
be questioned by the judge, andthe judge then should make some sort of

(05:23):
a decision here, because it trulywould be unfair to the defendant in this
trial. If this jury had reacheda verdict, had agreed that she was
not guilty of second degree murder andof leaving the scene of an accident,
did not come back on the manslaughtof charge, it would seem to me

(05:46):
that the judge in this case shouldbring in the interest and again this is
I might be wrong legally. Idon't think I'm wrong legally, because I
think we're in an area that it'suncharted waters, but just in the in
the in the concept of justice,the consequence of justice as it applies to

(06:10):
Karen Read and to everybody else involvedin the case. Now, if the
jury comes back and a couple ofthe jurists say, oh, no,
no, no, I never agreedto an acquittal, well that's the end
of that conversation and let's move onto the next trial or whatever. So
I'd like to get your reaction tothis because it is novel, and if
there are lawyers out there who wantto weigh in, that is fine.

(06:35):
I think that because of the theintense publicity surrounding this trial, that if
there's a if there are future trialswhen juries are deadlocked and they report back
their deadlocked I suspect that judges certainlywill ask the person of the jury,

(07:00):
are you deadlocked on all of thecharges in the indictment? Or have you
reached a verdict? Have you haveyou come to a unanimous conclusion. I
wouldn't say verdict because that would beimproper, but have you do you have
have you reached the unanimous conclusion onany of the charges. Because again,

(07:21):
the trial eight weeks long, thejurors have been there for eight weeks,
the court has been used for eightweeks. So my instinct is, let's
get to the bottom of it,let's find out where the truth is.
And you have twelve jurors again,it's unprecedented. You can tell the jurors

(07:42):
that they're going to be asked somequestions under the pains and penalties of perjury
because they are still you know,they've been relieved of their duties, but
they're called back because of exigen circumstances, and we want to make sure that
justice is done. And if whyshould Karen Reid face a second trial?

(08:07):
If there truly was a unanimous consensuswhich did not make its way onto a
vertic slip. That's my sense.Now again, legally I might be wrong,
but I think equitably I'm correct.And if there are any judges out
there who are listening, or lawyerswho would like to weigh in, that's

(08:28):
fine. But I also want tohear from you six one seven, whether
you're a lawyer, a judge ornot six one seven, two, five
four ten, or a law professorsix one seven, two five four ten
thirty six one seven nine three oneten thirty. I think it's a fascinating
case because it is a case thefirst impression. Covered a lot of trials
in Massachusetts in my days as areporter, I've never heard of one like

(08:50):
this. I have heard of trialswhere there was one juror who was a
holdout and in effect what I wouldconsider to be the ultimate jury nullification.
Somehow the juror passed the voidere,but the juror's mind was made up.
That's that should be of concern toeveryone. If if the juror, if

(09:11):
the jury is impaneled and one memberof the jury already has a decision from
which they are not going to retreat, So let's have at it. It's
Friday Night, six seven thirty sixmonths, seven nine, three, ten
thirty back on Night's side. I'dlove to hear what the consensus of my
audiences on this, because I thinkit's a case of first impression and it's

(09:33):
one that maybe with us for months, if not years. And then,
of course, the question is whatis the DA going to do now?
Armed with the information they may saythis information is is irrelevant to the to
the case that came back with ahung jury was and was decleared a mistrial.

(09:56):
However, it certainly has to influenceI think the District Attorney's office as
to what charges will come back ifin the case of a second trial.
It's complicated, I know, butstick with us and feel free to help
us uncomplicate this complicated matter. Backon Nightside after this. Now back to

(10:16):
Dan ray Mine from the Window WorldNightside Studios on WBZ, the news radio.
All right, let's get right tothe phones. Phones of lit up,
which is always a good sign,and let's see what people have to
say. Let's go start it offwith carrying Watertown. She has followed this
trial very closely. Hey, Karen, welcome back. How are you?
Thank you? Dan, I haveto work there anyway, thank you.

(10:41):
Okay, yeah, I think youknow how I feel like Karen reading and
I just this this motion by thedefense, I mean when they said,
oh there were jury members of cryingFord. Oh and the really performance?
I just thought, really, soyou don't do you not believe? Do

(11:05):
you not believe them? I dobelieve them, but it sounds specious,
you know. Performance. That's howthey refer to them, you know,
And I'm not I'm sorry. Thephrase they used was informants yes, yes,
Okay, they said there were journmembers and informants. Well yeah,

(11:28):
I think what they meant was thatthere now the jury, no one,
to the best of my knowledge,has talked publicly from the jury. Okay,
but but let's give it for let'sfor a second assume that, first
of all, I can't imagine thatthe lawyers, including Jackson and Ynetti,
would engage in some sort of afraud on the court, because that's kind

(11:52):
of what you're implying. No,no, no, I'm not saying that.
But the word no, Dan,it was during your birthday, it
was the term was informants. Okay, told him about you know, different
persuasions of the journey. And Ijust found this whole thing, let me

(12:13):
use the word again, specious.You know, I just found it really
questionable. And I'm so glad thatthe prosecution did what they did today saying
pure say, because that's what Ibelieve. No, no, no,
what hits lost in this is thatJohn Keith. I just want to make
sure Johnald Keith stuff at a horribledeath. We know that, Karen,

(12:37):
just bear with me for a second, if you will. But people think
that he was beaten to death bypolice colleagues, and that was like the
forest for the truth, Karen.I'm not looking to discuss the case.
Then there was, because that's Iknow that you have, you know,
a strong view of the case.But let me read to you from an

(12:58):
article that should appear tomorrow in TheBoston World written by Travis Anderson. Reed's
lawyers have said in recent affidavits thatfour juris indicated to them either directly or
through intermediaries. That's the word thatthe Globe was using intermediaries. What that
would mean to me would be eitherone of the jurors said to it a

(13:22):
close friend and neighbor, or toa spouse or a relative that the jury
and animously agreed to acquit her ofsecond degree murder and leaving the scene of
personal injury and death, but hadremained deadlocked on the manslaughter account. So
let us assume, hypothetically, letus assume hypothetically that that is accurate.

(13:45):
Just assume that's accurate. I wouldassume that you would would want to see
justice done here. I'm trying totell and Judge Canoni, according to massach
of state law, was not obligatedto ask them, gee, have you

(14:05):
been have you reached, you know, unmos judgment about sudness such a thing.
Article today even mentioned that, evenquoted Nancy Gerner that, no,
she was not obligated to ask themthat right, but she could have.
She could have, but she didn't. No, I understand that. So

(14:28):
then the question becomes again from theperspective of her defense team. Now,
the defense could have asked the judgeto make that inquiry, but they chose
not to. The prosecution exactly couldhave asked the judge to make that inquiry,
but they chose not to. Butif it were you on trial,

(14:50):
or if it were me on trial, and all of a sudden information was
percolating up that somehow the system brokedown, that the juries the jurists did
not understand or did not were notadvised, that they could render a partial
verdict. And if indeed the twelvejurors had agreed within the confines of the

(15:13):
jury room to acquit her on themurder charge, boy, that's an appealable
issue. That that that's it,That is overreach. Well I understand,
I don't really understand is why theywould. There was they were split on
the manslaughter, but then they wereunanimous on the leaving the stem an accident,

(15:37):
which she clearly did that I measuredthat earlier. That seems that seems
a little inconsistent, seems But Ido think that we should get to the
truth of the matter, because ifnothing else, this should be a cautionary
tale for other judges in a multicount indictment when the jury comes back and
says, we are, you know, irretrievably broken, We we can't reach

(16:02):
a verdict, that that this mightbe a way in which in future cases
the judges will ask, are youtelling me that you are that you cannot
come to a verdict on any ofthe indictment, any of the chargers,
or are you telling me just getget a straight answer, because well that's

(16:25):
been that's been discussed as the Globe. Did you know earlier to say and
you know the judge just did notdo that, and she wasn't operated to
do that, which I answered before, but she couldn't. Sorry, I'm
not a fan for you can't read. You got to take and read one

(16:45):
of it, and you've got tosay if it was if it was you
on trial, and and that's that'sthat's what I'm saying. I understand how
you feel about the case. Sorry, what I would have done, Dan,
I would have said, Okay,I was drunk, I black out.
You're arguing the case, and that'sthat's not what I'm trying to do.
That But that's what happened. Ithink that's what happened. And you

(17:10):
think, okay, that's what happened. That's what happened. You think,
okay. But if the jury didcome to the conclusion that that she was
not guilty, that that the thatthe the evidence was not proven beyond all
the elements of the crime was notproven beyond a reasonable doubt, and they
came back, even though they mighthave think she had some culpability. But

(17:33):
but they come back. People docome back with a not guilty who are
not innocent. I'm not suggesting innocencehere. I'm just suggesting fundamental procedure.
This should not have happened, andit should not happen to someone else.
That's all. That's all I don'tunderstand. But in this case, well,
in this case, you want tomake sure that there's a second trial

(17:56):
in all three charges, Well Idon't. I don't think they should retry
the secondary murder. Well, that'sa decision. That you and I can't
make. That's a decision the attorneywill make, all right, Taron is
always a great call, a challengingsometimes in the same day we got back
to I think we got back towhere where we at least understand each other's

(18:18):
position a little better. Thank youso much. Have a great weekend,
Okay, stay dry, have agreat week. Good night, all right,
let me keep rolling here. Peterin West Roxbury. Hey, Peter,
you're next on Nightsiger, right ahead, good evening. I don't see
how anybody dan uh can say anythingother than the judges responsible for all of

(18:41):
this. She failed to give thejury proper instructions. She failed to give
the jury form and proper instructions.You're an attorney. You're also a reporter.
You've been in court many many times, yep. And you know count
one innocent or not guilty, Counttoo guilty even though she wasn't obligated to

(19:03):
inform the jury of this. Isn'tit just common sense to tell the jury
that you can be guilty on somecounts and not guilty on others, even
though she's not obligated. It's commonsense. Yeah, No, I understand
that. I think that the positionthat she took. And there was some
in reading the articles in the lastfew days in the papers and catching up

(19:25):
to this, although I followed itwhile I was on vacation. There are
some who suggest and who say,look, the judge needs to appear to
be totally, absolutely neutral, andeven a comment like that might be construed
by a jury member to go inone direction or the other. I can't
put myself in the position and thejudge. I'm not a judge and I

(19:49):
wasn't in court. I don't knowwhat she was. I don't know what
she said. I don't know thejurors. You know, if any of
them had any sense on that itis true, and I don't know it's
true. But if they bring thejury back and they say, Ladies and
general jury, there's an extraordinary circumstanceof circumstances. We would like to have
you tell us. Now. Ifthe jury says, oh, no,

(20:11):
we never had no and there's acouple of jurors who somehow came to that
conclusion. But if if the juryis going to say, no, no,
no, we never had a vote, we never raised hands, or
then in that case this all goesaway. But the lesson for future judges
would be to say, in acase like this, which is complicated,
and arguably to avoid this, thisshould be the new practice of judges in

(20:37):
Massachusetts. That's all. There couldbe a little a problem with the verdicts
lips. There was a problem withthe verdicts lips, and Jackson had an
issue with the judge on that.But it's true. It's just very obvious
to the common man that I thinkshe was very careless on. I think

(20:57):
the judge then changed the verbiage onthe on the vertic slip, even though
she gave Jackson a good a littlebit of a hard time in court.
I thought she came back and Ithink agreed with him and did change the
presentation of the vertic slip. Maybethat added the confusion. I don't know
that becomes an appealable issue. Bythe way. Yeah, there's a lot

(21:21):
of time and money involved in thisfor the Reed family also, I mean
absolutely as well as the time.That's true. I can I can't imagine
what her legal bill has. It'sgot to be several million dollars, I
would guess. I don't know ifit's several million dollars to be honest with
you, but it could be veryclose to a million dollars when you talk
the amount of the work that's ona case like that. I know that

(21:41):
she had a GoFundMe page which hadraised US several hundred thousand dollars, So
I mean, I'm not trying todiminish it. But obviously there's contending interest
here. The O'Keefe family wants toknow what truly happened, and they,
I think obviously believe in the theoryof the prosecution. Uh and uh.

(22:04):
There's two competing theories here, onlyone of which. She couldn't have both
hit him with the car and havehim fall down and lose consciousness on the
lawn and then go into the party, get into a fight, lose consciousness
again and have someone put him onthe lawn. You could You cannot reconcile
the two theories, right, true, Well, see what happens, But

(22:27):
again I think the judge could havedone a better job and constructing the jury.
All right, fear enough, Peter, thanks for the call. Excellent,
excellent points, nice counterpoints to Karen. Thank you. We'll come back
on Nightside right after the news breakat the bottom of the hour. The
only line that's opened. Well,this one open here at six one seven

(22:47):
thirty and one at six one sevennine thirty. Come on right back on
Nightside. You're on night Side withDan Ray on Boston's news radio. All
right, we're going right back tothe phones. Try to move people a
little bit more quickly. Let mego to Bob and hang them Bob next
to on night Side. Your thoughtson the din you develop it to the

(23:08):
Karen Wee case. Hey, Jan, how are you? Great pleasure to
listen to you? I need someI need some help from the audience.
I've been a juror at least adozen times in my life, and mostly
in Tufferk County. But every timeI was a juror, you were given

(23:33):
the option of if there were severalcharges against someone, you could find a
person juilting on one charge but noton the other. And I don't know
why that didn't happen in Norfolk County. I would have made it a lot
simpler. You know, you hadfour or five charges, and you know,

(23:56):
okay, you can't find a aguilty verdict on one of them,
but if you do on others.Yeah, there should be like a checklist
or something. There's a checklist onthe verdict slip, you know, where
you could indicate that. Apparently thatwas not in the instructions. Normally,

(24:19):
the instructions that the judge gives toa jury. This motions filed by both
the prosecution and the defense with recommendationsof instructions and language. And maybe neither
neither the prosecution nor the defense wantedto even give them the option of a
split verdict, and maybe the judgefailed to provide that option. I don't

(24:41):
know. I wasn't in court.I haven't seen all of those documents.
I think there has to be athorough examination of what might have gone wrong
here, and if nothing went wrong, so be it. But if something
did go wrong, maybe we couldwe could make sure it doesn't happen again.
Well, I agree, And youknow, like said, many many
times I've been on a jury foundpeople guilty of one offense but not guilty

(25:06):
of others. Uh, And Ithink that would have simplified this case a
great deal. My own personal opinionis it just wasn't a police officer that
passed away, And I have manyrelevant to the police officers. You know,
it wouldn't be this big of adeal. It wouldn't be you know,

(25:33):
even I think I came up.I think it became a big deal
in terms of the circumstances of theaccident and the fact that this the victim
here, the gentleman mister o'keith wholost his life allegedly was going inside a
house to attend a party that involvedthe presence of other police officers, so

(25:57):
that that it up. I mean, if this was a well known professional
athlete, uh, all of therewas elements of this story, and there
you know, there was elements ofwhat was the relationship. It's one of
those those stories that that unfortunately orfortunately bubble up to the surface and the
public it's involved in it. Youhad a lot of conversations, a lot.

(26:18):
It became a hot topic on theinternet. It's it was like a
perfect storm. But even as let'ssay for a second, she did back
up until them they were both drunkand women over star storm. I mean,
the charges equal to what transpired thatnight thought they were the prosecution thought

(26:47):
they were, and I disagree withthem. Since stay one, I assume
that's where that's where the that's wherethe conversation was going to end up.
Hey, I got to keep runninghere because I got full lines. Bob.
I appreciate you call drive. Thankyou much, thank you. Okay,
janis in Rosslindale is in Rossendale,Janie, you are next on Nightside.

(27:11):
Welcome, go ahead, Jennis,Hi, thank you, thank you.
You've really answered my question way backwith Karen, and then I just
was too lazy to google. Iwondered, if you know, if they
could have said, well, weare unanimous on two of the counts,

(27:33):
and or if they should have saidthat, And then I did wonder,
well, wouldn't the judge ask that? So I have no legal background and
I'm listening to this casually, Iwould say following it. The whole thing
is so sad on many levels.But I just think, like Peter said

(27:53):
in West Roxby, like why wouldn'tI would think I would. It would
be you know, it should bea requirement to ask did you agree on
any of the accounts? Yeah,on any of the counts. I think
that's the lesson to be learned here. On a multi count indictment, and

(28:18):
obviously second degree murder is a moreserious crime, although vehicular homicide the result
is the same, but one involvesa level of intention that the other doesn't,
and the penalties are more serious forsecond degree murder than they are for
a vehicular homicideicide. So I justthink that, look this, maybe there

(28:45):
have been other cases that have beenhandled well, and I'm not saying that
this case wasn't handled well, butit seems to me that for all of
a sudden, I assumed when whenthey came back and they said that they
were they just couldn't reach your verdict. I assume that they were probably ten
to two, nine to three orsomething like It goes normally when when one

(29:07):
juror is a holdout, the othereleven uh and I've never been a duror,
but the other eleven, i'm told, will try to prevail upon the
one and try to answer the questionsthat the one might have the reservations,
unless that jurory is sitting there sayingI'm not interested, I'm going to vote
to do this, I'm going tovote to acquit or convict, And it

(29:29):
became it becomes just a somebody whois who never should have been on the
jury in the first place. Ifyou're sitting in a room and eleven people
disagree with you and you've you've you'veviewed the same evidence. Uh, and
you theoretically come with an open mindin the trial. I think it'd be
tough to remain as a holdout.Now if it's nine to three and you've
got some support or six you know, uh, split sixty six or or

(29:53):
eighty four, then it becomes thatis really where jury is split. But
with eleven one and I suspect thatboth the prosecution and the defense were a
little scared to ask, well,can you know? They could have filed
the motion and and and said tothe judge, we'd like you to inquire.
Now, the judge at that pointmight have said I will inquire,

(30:14):
or I choose not to inquire.The judges why would they be scared to
ask that, Well, let's sayyou're the prosecution and you think that this
case has has gone in but there'sbeen all sorts of well, yes,
okay, okay, so the prosecutionand it also might be that the the
defense might say to themselves, look, you know, she'll send them back

(30:38):
and uh, and and we're inwe're in pretty good shape here. Let's
let's not let's not roll the dice. I mean, you never know what's
going through the minds yea of thelawyers as why do any of these people
want to go through this? Again? Like, I don't know. Again,
I agree with Peter used the termcommon sense. I I just think

(31:00):
it's common and can someone, Imean, can someone Does it have to
be an official court appearance to askthe judge? Did you ask them?
But I guess we don't have toask that because she wasn't required to.
Well, she's apparently not required to, and there's gonna be there's a there's
a transcript, so whatever the judgesaid has been recorded in court and at

(31:22):
some point those transcripts will become available. But I suspect that if she asked
the jury or told the jury thatthey could come to a verdict on one
or more of the indictments, theydid not have to come to a unanimous
verdict on all three indictments, butthey had to be unanimous on any indictment
that they that they they decided averdict. Maybe maybe the jury was confused

(31:47):
and they thought they had to beunanimous in all three. And again that's
I'd love to go back and readand read what the jury instructions were.
So may yes, that's what happenssometimes in a case this which is so
high profile, it will set itand it will set an example. Dennis,
thanks so much for calling. Youask good questions, appreciate it well,
Thank you very much. Have agreat night YouTube. We'll take a

(32:12):
break. We're coming back. I'mgoing to get everybody in. Bob,
Ken, Michael, and Susan.You stay right there. We'll try to
get everybody in. I promise wecan go into the next hour if you
want. I had intended to talkabout President Biden and the struggle of the
Democratic Party in the next hour.We can always put that off. But
let's see what we uh, howwe proceed from here? Coming back on
night Side. Now, back toDan Ray live from the Window World Nightside

(32:37):
Studios on WBZ News Radio. Geta crimped on time here. Let's try
to move everybody a little bit morequickly. Bob and South Boston. Hey,
Bob ahead, Bob, Hey,Dan Hallaia call. Yeah. I
definitely think, uh, you know, instead of they definitely should try to

(32:58):
bring back everybody find it as muchinformation that can't Why spend the tax payers
money to go through another trial wouldbe but yeah, to challenge there's much
information out of the existence trial wouldbe due diligence. Yeah, what's done.
What's done is done. The questionis do we ignore this. The

(33:21):
prosecution obviously wants it to be ignored, and they want an opportunity to come
back, and I guess there's apre trial conference on the twenty second and
decide whether or not they're going tobring back any or all of the chargers.
But in a sense is basically saying, hey, they should be precluded.
Here there's a double jeopardy issue.Now again, if the jurors come

(33:43):
back and several of the jurors say, no, I don't know what you're
talking about. I never had madea decision. They were conversations, you
know. But if each twelve,it's all twelve jurors say yes, we
did decide. We we did decide. Now again, the jury wasn't,
to the best of my knowledge,wasn't pold. It wasn't as if they

(34:05):
all stood there and said, yes, we can't reach a decision. I
believe, and I stand to becorrected here that the jury foreman reported and
I'm sure that the judge said,okay, thank you for your service,
you're excused, and that was prettymuch it and they were gone. I
think that these are serious people thatthey will tell the truth. And if

(34:30):
if all twelve of them say yeah, we thought that was a done deal,
but we were under the impression thatyou had to have a unanimous verdict
on all three of the charges.No, I mean, I totally agree
with you. I mean it shouldbe you know, whatever the facts are,
the facts that you know, presentthem to everybody, you know,
don't hide. I'm with you totally. I'm with you totally. But it

(34:53):
will be interesting because the prosecution isgoing to say, oh no, no,
what was done was done and yougot to move forward. That's going
to be the prosecutions. I mean, before before you get a second,
Bye to the apple, buddy,you know you got, you got.
Let's get to the again. Thisis all just speculation, this is all
just spin. Yep. Then okay, let's move on from it. Let's

(35:14):
find out that let's let's yeah,that's us free on this one, maybe
too, thanks Bob. Yeah,but all right, talk you soon.
Good night. Let me go nextto Michael and Pembroke. Michael next on
nightside. We're a little tight ontime. Go right ahead, Hello,
Dan, I think I can untanglethis very quickly. First of all,

(35:36):
I think Karen was exonerated by afour footed animal who left the wonder.
Yeah, I know what you're doing, Michael is you're arguing the case.
I don't want to argue the case. We're not arguing substance here. We're
dealing with pure procedure. Okay,what are we talking about. We're not
talking about the evidence of the case. We're talking about did did jury received

(36:00):
proper instructions? Did they follow theinstructions properly? And all? Well,
they have they have some kind ofverted slips, and this should be a
verted slip for each charge, andthey can indicate on that slip. We're
aware of that. We are absolutelyaware of. Where is it where there

(36:22):
were no verdict slips rendered because thejury reported that they were irretrievably in disagreement
and they could they could not reachit. This whole thing is getting wrapped
up and in in I don't know, and things that can't be resolved.

(36:45):
Well, it can be resolved,as they say, bring the jury away.
I still say Karen is totally ina second. Okay, Well,
thank you very much. I appreciatethat point of view a lot of people
will agree with you, Thank youvery much, but that's not what we're
talking about tonight. Let me gonext to I can infoulm it. Ken
welcome next on Nightsid. Hey,how you doing Dan, I'm doing great.
Ken welcome, first time, Imean yeah, first time calling in.

(37:10):
She's definitely not guilty. Okay,Well, again, that's not the
issue at hand here. The issueis here and is well, how do
we deal with this delay? Thefirst of all, let's give you a
quick run of the pause. Goright ahead. I really think that Karen
Reid is bode to have the jurorsgo back as them to go back and

(37:35):
resolve it. I would agree it'sbeen a botched court case from the very
beginning, from two years ago.So that's how I feel. All Right,
you got it in, and yougot it in quickly, and I
appreciate it because they got time forone more call. Ken, appreciate your
calling. How's the weather down yourway? Pretty good? Awesome? Okay?

(38:00):
July and Foulma Susan and Gabridge Susan, you call it late. I
got about a minute and a half. What are your thoughts? Okay?
So my question is if I'm alittle bit uncomfortable with the fact that they
have that these jurors have only reachedout to the defense and that people,
I mean, they could have,you know, reached out while they were

(38:22):
still you know, actively acting asa jury to the judge to to say,
you know, look, you know, normally the full person is the
person who communicates yeah with the judges, you know, so it's very difficult,
and I do I do think thatthe judge probably took her cues from
the jury several times, saying wereirretrievably you know, deadlocked, and not

(38:45):
giving any indication of you know,that it was only on one charge or
whatever. And I also think thatI'm uncomfortable with the defense not having asked
at the time to you know,to poll about that, and now coming
back, I'm just very uncomfortable.There was nothing to poll about it.

(39:07):
There was there was you poll orasked asked for a poll. Well,
they could have made a motion inwhich they could have said to them,
they should have. They could havemade a motion, but neither defense or
the prosecution did that. Both ofthem probably felt they were in pretty good
shape and we're not going to doit. If they're not going to do
it. Then they don't. Theydon't get to You're ready, You're ready

(39:29):
to You're ready to see a retrial, is what I'm hearing you said.
Yeah, but my hope is thatthey jettison the second degree because there wasn't
enough evidence, and that they justgo with the mass water. Well,
I think that is always an optionas well, and this is not going
to encourage the prosecution to bring togo back on this on the second degree
charge, that's for sure. Sore. Thanks, thanks, thanks for calling.

(39:50):
Sorry you call it late because Ihad the jam. Thanks, thanks
much, welcome back, Thank youmuch. All right, take you a
break, we come back. We'rethen to talk about Obiden last night and
he is he's I don't think he'sout of the woods. Let me put
it like that. I want totalk with you coming back on Nightside later
tonight at eleven. Who'sh Donald pickas his vice presidential candidate. I'd love

(40:15):
to hear what you think. We'recoming. That will be an eleven back
on Nightside after the News at ten