May 13, 2025 • 38 mins
The second Karen Read murder trial continues into its 4th week this week. On Monday, State Police Sergeant Yuri Bukhenik took the stand and testified about evidence that led to Karen Read’s arrest. Does the second trial feel different than the first trial? Do you think the trial is going in a different direction than that of the first? We discussed the latest from the Karen Read trial and heard listeners' thoughts. Attorney Phil Tracy joined us to discuss!
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 w b Z,
Boston's news radio toll right.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Thanks very much, Dan Watkins, and joining us is an
old friend and longtime criminal defense attorney here in the
Massachusetts area, Phil Tracy Councilor. How are you this evening?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I'm well, Dan, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Well, I thought tonight might be a good night to
spend a few minutes looking at this case that has
come out a little evolved, a little differently. And you're
a participant. You argue in these courts all the time,
(00:44):
so you can you can analyze how the prosecution and
the defense are doing in this case. My sense, from
my limited view, is that the prosecution in this case,
this second trial so far is more effective than in
(01:05):
the first trial. And I'm wondering if you agree with that,
and if so, what makes you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Well, I do agree with it, and I'll tell you
there's a subtle thing that's going on, and that is
Prosecutor Brennan. The new prosecutor, is seated beside him as
Adam Ladley, who tried the first case for the DA's office,
and he's an excellent prosecutor. But the fact that he's there.
(01:34):
He was there during the first trial, and Brennan wasn't
now the defense counsel. They were there at the first trial.
So there's nothing that Brennan could be surprised at. And
he's doing a very good job, especially when it comes
to making the family of the decease part of the thing,
(01:57):
part of the case. In other words, the big flaw
for Karen Reed is that she's never expressed any sort
of sympathy or sorrow about the death of this man,
this officer, who was a fine person who adopted relative children,
(02:18):
relative children, and she hasn't said anything about I'm sorry
he's dead, I'm sorry that the family had to go
through this. I didn't do it, but you know that
would have come out a lot better than some of
the interviews she had with the television people. She seemed narcissist,
(02:38):
angry that she's in this position, and not my sympathy
for the family.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, it's interesting one of the elements that are being
played in this trial are a lot of the interviews.
She had not done interviews before the first trial, to
the best of my relation, and that in that period
from the time the mistrial was to clear last summer
(03:06):
to when the trial, the new trial started last month.
The second trial started last month. She did a series
of interviews. I mean, really, I wonder why her lawyers
were not more judicious. She she did these interviews in
a variety. There was one I just saw she was
like doing an interview with the guy riding in a car.
(03:30):
And it wasn't as if she was sitting down with
you know, Walter Cronk guy or or or someone. She
was sitting down with lots of different people, and it
said some intemperate things which are now being played back
in the courtroom. Has that changed? Has that changed the
tenor or the trial of your opinion?
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Oh, it definitely has. I mean it was, you know,
everybody can Monday morning quarterback, but I wouldn't have let
her speak to anybody other than they the love of
my life is dead. I'm sorry about it. I didn't
do it. Now the questions coming out, She's made a
(04:09):
few comments could I have hit him? Which and you
put those together with the medical people saying that she
was yelling I hit him, I hit him. Could I
have hit him? She said to one interviewer. And the
reality is it's harder for the prosecution to move forward
(04:29):
with you know, some sort of admission from her. Now,
the questions that the jurors have about the misbehavior of
the police investigation are somewhat muted this time around because
they were there the first time. They were shocking to
(04:50):
the consciousness of the public, and the court of public
opinion did not like the way the police handled this case. Now,
most of those jurors have heard about the case. They
know about Procta and his bad behavior, and it's.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Not Proctor was the Massachusetts way state.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Whereas the first jury. I think it might have swayed them.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Proctor was to remind anyone, it was the Massachusetts State
Police detective who had sent some text messages to some
of his friends, and also I guess they were seen
by some other police officers, which were you know, still
looking for you know, nude photos. Or he made some
(05:38):
pretty disparaging, unprofessional, minimally unprofessional comments. Now I'm not sure
that Proctor's on the witness list in the second trial.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Oh, I doubt that they doubt that the prosecution will
call them because they had an excellent detective on the
stand who basically was stood the barrage of questions from
the defense team and he basically I think was trying
to say, look, you know, we just did the job
(06:10):
was supposed to do. And I think that she was
vindictive towards him. Now that that's a difficult problem for
the defense because that leads to maybe she did back
up into him on purpose. I think my guesses and
of course, you know you again, you're an armchair quarterback,
(06:32):
so you say, I think she might have in a rage,
you know, tried to scare him or something, but never
intended to hit him. But then I think she woke
up and you know, she said where is he? And
now it became crazy. You know, there's a lot of
drinking going on that night by all the parties.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, well see, here's here's my take on all of that.
And I'll be interested if you agree, disagree whatever. My
take is the the the dumb, ignorant texts that Proctor said,
totally inappropriate, unprofessional, that drew attention of the jurors away
(07:18):
from the critical question is what happened from the moment
that John O'Keefe left the vehicle, alighted from the vehicle
and was he hit, was he not? Did he walk
in the house or whatever?
Speaker 4 (07:34):
It?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
It just changed the focus. I mean, no one's going
to look at at proctic at practice text and say, boy,
he was a pretty sharp detective, was I mean? Yeah?
Sending dumb, stupid, ignorant text like that.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Yeah, and that just as you say I think it.
It caused the jurists to say, well, wait a minute again.
If if you were a good juror and you're listening,
you might say, I think she did it, either voluntarily
or involuntarily, but I have reasonable doubt. And reasonal doubt
(08:08):
creeps into the case when they start saying, well, the
NPS are all in it to frame her, you know,
which is how could they possibly put together this type
of charade with all these people involved to try to
frame it. That's just not real. But the jurors could say, look,
(08:29):
I think she did it, but I got a reasonable
doubt here because of the way they conducted their investigation,
and you know, that's the problem for the prosecution. But
this time around they seem to be The difference is,
just as you said, these interviews that she gave to
a lot of different people, she's going to get crossed
(08:51):
up because you're going to say something different one time
and then something contradictory on another interview, and that makes
you look like you're lying or you're hiding something.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Well, Phil, I'll tell you it's We will continue to
follow on on this. I appreciate you checking in with
us every every week or so. H and I just
thought this was a good time to check in on.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
It, and I appreciate it is you know, I I
hackned back to UH when we first did these type
of things with O. J. Simpson, and that went on
and on and on, and the distractions cause the jury
to find them not guilty, no question, there's many distractions.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
No, the whole, the whole. If the glove does not fit,
you must have quit. I mean the fact that they
hand the prosecutor a huge mistake by a prosecutor to
hand him the glove and say try it on. What
do they think they're going to do? He was going
to try to put it on. I mean, he was
going to expand his head as much as he possibly could. Yeah,
there's no glove here, But there is that that that light.
(10:00):
There's there's some there's some some some some substantial evidence
that have that have that has gone in And I
think that I think you're right. I think that her
own words have probably hurt her more, and that the
difference between the two cases are the television interviews. That
I'm a huge believer in the court of public opinion, Phil,
(10:24):
as as I think I showed in the Salvadi Lamoni case.
But when you're really certain that your guys were that
the people were framed in their case of actual innocence,
well we will see. Phil. I appreciate it as always.
You know that, my friend. Thank you. We'll talk soon. Phil, Tracy,
ladies and gentlemen, Boston a defense attorney and give us
(10:44):
his perspective. Now, I want your perspective. I don't know
if you're following the Karen Reid case as closely today
as you did back then number one a year ago. Uh.
By the way, the protesters did win a bit of
a victory today in federal court in front of the
(11:08):
First Circuit Court of Appeals. They had asked that the
buffer zone that they have now been pushed back from
the near the courthouse. UH. They took an appeal on
that the state Supreme Court upheld the trial judge on
the buffer zone the expanded buffer zone. A single federal
(11:31):
District court judge also chose to uphold the trial judges determination,
but the Federal Court of Appeals has sent it back
down to the first Circuit. I guess with the to
the to the first the district court, the appeals court,
the first Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the matter
(11:52):
down to the district court judge with the instructions of
take a closer look at this, which probably means they
will get to be able to hold their demonstrations a
little closer, a little more approximate to the courthouse. So
I just want to open these lines up and talk
about the Karen Reid case. Do you think we are
going to see a verdict in this case? It supposedly
(12:17):
is is if not ahead of schedule, it is, it
is close to being on schedule. There were some rulings
made today by the trial court judge in the case
in which certain statements made by messages text messages were
(12:40):
not going to be allowed to be read in to
the to the in front of the jury. Now, again,
the jury probably is aware of all of this, because
it's tough not to be. But we like to have
you join us. Give us a call. Six one, seven,
two thirty, six seven, nine, ten thirty are you looking
at this case a little differently? Halfway through? We're about
(13:04):
it to halfway point, we're getting close to the prosecution resting.
Love to know if you are changing your view or
if you look into this case just differently, or maybe
you hold on to the opinion that you had of
this a year ago. This time coming back on Nightside,
you have the numbers back after this.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio. Night
Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
All right, so we're asking sort of an open ended question.
And the open ended question and it's one that I
want to hear both from men and women on this
is is your sense that this version of the Karen
Reid trial is going a little differently than the first version?
(13:57):
And Phil Tracy and I identified a couple of areas
where I think there has been a difference. One the
comments that she's made to television and network television, and
I guess podcasters which I don't think have pictured her
(14:17):
as an empathetic or sympathetic a person. And then the
other question is some of this stuff from the police department,
it's I don't know that it's going to have as
much relevance to what the jury decides, because it is
the question is not whether or not Michael Procter did
(14:39):
a good job as the lead investigator of this case.
He may have, he may have done a good job
investigating it. That's really for the jury to decide. But
these these ignorant comments that he made, these ignorant emails
or texts, that's for him in his ca conscience. I
(15:00):
don't know that that really has any bearing irrelevance on
the ultimate question, which of course is guilt innoscence. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
We will be introducing you to reintroducing you to a
guest on addiction and the road to recovery in America
(15:20):
from for people who are addicted to virtually anything. Adam
Vibe Gunton will be joining us.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
He is a founder of Recovered on Purpose and Behavioral
Health Partners. In the meantime, let's go to phone calls.
Let's go to Steve and Merrimack, New Hampshire. Steve, you
are first up this hour and Nightsiger right ahead, Hey.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
Dan Elyah good Sear, thanks for taking my call. You're
welcome I've been following this trial and it kind of
reminds me of you know, another high profile trial, the
Family Smart case, where she had the prosecut's prosecution bamboozled
because they didn't have a whole lot to tire to
(16:01):
the crime until she hung herself with her own words
when they got the wire with the other friend of hers.
This one, I can't believe that Karen Reid would get
up in front of the cameras and talk about the
trial because it doesn't it's not what they want to portray.
(16:22):
From the defense point of view, Phil Tracy, you know's
and you were, your point of view is absolutely correct.
She should have just kept her mouth shut. She should
not have done anything that would have changed the or
altered what happened in the previous trial. From my point
of view, I think, you know, right from the get go,
I think she was guilty in the last trial, but
(16:42):
not of second degree. I think it's manslaughter, and I
think they just try this whole thing was fueled by
intense drunkenness, and I don't think she knew what she
was doing. I don't think she remembers what she did,
so I don't know. I really think that you know,
this time around, you know, depending on how the what
(17:04):
the context of the jury is, I think they they
may come up with a different verdict. I don't see
hung jury. I think it's it's not going to be
second degree, though I don't think they can prove it.
I think that's it's a higher level, you know, and
all the stuff that went on with the cops and
Proctor and all that, you know, had nothing to do
(17:27):
with anything. It's just that they just, you know, he
just made some bad decisions, you know, with his text
and everything, and they're just trying to smear the whole
trial with what he did. But really she's the one
that killed the guy, not him. So I think that's
the way it's going to go down. I think it'll
probably be in about ten days to two weeks.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Well, I think it's going to go a little longer
than that. And again, I I don't know, you never
know what a jury's going to do. I just think
that the tone is different. I just think the tone
is is different. And I think that the the interviews
that she did, I still don't understand why or how
her lawyers allowed her to participate in those interviews. It
(18:11):
seems to me that there was nothing to gain there.
Maybe she got some publicity. I get that, and she
got some attention, but that did make her look good
in any way, shape or form in my opinion.
Speaker 5 (18:26):
But we'll say, I've never appeared or been on a
jury before. You know, I usually try to get out
of it. I don't like to be on that sort
of thing. Yeah, but if you're on a jury, it's
the perception of guilt that does work against you. And
she did not sound like an innocent And this girl
is not stupid. She's a very smart girl. I think
(18:47):
that she is trying to do anything she can to
get out of being found guilty of anything. I think
they probably should have plot it down. If I were
her and her attorneys, that would probably done that. But
you know, she's trying to get off this thing scott free.
I don't think she's Scott. I think she did it.
There's no one else.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Well, we'll see what We'll see what other people think.
And again, I'm more interested at this point in the
whole question or the whole issue of whether or not
this this trial just has a different feel to it,
just a totally different agree.
Speaker 5 (19:21):
I absolutely agree with you and then they keep saying
about somebody dragging you know, O'Keefe out, you know, from
the house to the front yard. Yeah, they were too
drunk to do that. I really know I would.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
I would think that.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
My view is that if that if all of a sudden,
you're at a party and somebody there's a fight, and
somebody ends up dead, you're going to sober up pretty
pretty quickly. And I'm not sure that the smart than change.
Speaker 5 (19:45):
It would change what even even if you were inebriated
to the point of not knowing, you know, what day
it is, you would still you know, act differently. I
would agree, But I think that she I believe she
will be found guilty this time. I don't think it's
going to be a young jury, but it won't be
the more severe charge. That's my prediction.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
All right, appreciate you, Carl, Thanks very much.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Steve, Okay, thanks Dan one, good night, all right again.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Wide open lines here six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
My focus is, and I'd like you if you could
focus with me, is are you getting a different vibe
from this trial than the first? Again, none of us
are in the courtroom. Uh, for the entire time. The
only people who are there obviously are the is the jury,
(20:30):
the judge, and the lawyers. We we know that. But
the question is the question is is this starting to
sound differently to you? It is to me, it is
to me. Back on night Side six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten thirty.
Back on night Side. Right after this, it's night Side
(20:52):
with Dan Ray.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Hey, Hey, Danny bes Boston's News Radio. You're on night
Side with Dan on Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
All right, let's keep rolling here. We're going to go
next to Alex Millers. Alex, welcome, next on Nightside. How
are you?
Speaker 6 (21:13):
Thank good eating Dan?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
How are you We're doing? But what's your take? Are
you Are you noticing anything different than this trial?
Speaker 5 (21:20):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Absolutely. She has to learn how to use her big words,
you know, because she's you know, I mean, uh, this woman,
even even the way she conducted herself towards uh, you know,
Officer Keith's mother. You know, I mean, I don't understand her.
You know, she she's not very Uh, she doesn't come
(21:42):
across as very Oh, I'd say a person that has uh,
you know, no emotion, you know, towards towards what happened,
whether she did it by accident or uh, you know,
or she intentionally. I think, you know, I wouldn't find her,
I would find her guilty.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Well, it isn't a question of what you would find her,
because you're not unasured. You're not unasured. But I just
my sense is that the way this case is being
put in by the prosecution is much more effectively than
the way the case was put in initially by the prosecution.
(22:29):
I know that the defense lawyers have tried to shake
the prosecution witnesses. I don't think they've done a great
job on it at this point, to be really honest
with you. And my sense is that some of the
videotapes that they have played are really devastating videotapes because
it shows a demeanor and an attitude which is not
(22:53):
only well, it's not empathetic towards what happened. No matter
what happened, someone lost their life here. John o'ca is dead, Okay.
All the information that I've read sounds think he was
a pretty good guy. How no one can ever get
inside the the the interpersonal relationship of a couple of
(23:15):
people unless you're part of that relationship. So that's been
my experience. And she she does. She comes across not
someone who is going to generate a lot of sympathy.
This is not someone who seems to still be grieving.
And I don't know if the defense will put her
on the witness stand. If they do, I think it
(23:40):
would be a mistake. And if they do, I think
it would indicate in their mind that maybe this case
is for them in jeopardy. But we'll see.
Speaker 6 (23:49):
So so she I. I was just going to ask you,
since her defense team is, you know, uh is supposed
to be outstanding, why would they allow her, I know,
your furious guests to you know, do all these interviews
with ABC and all the other networks, you know, and
it probably jeopardized her. You know, Uh, I guess uetting
(24:17):
getting a fair trial.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Well, she's going to get a fair trial. That that
has nothing to do with a fair trial. I mean,
a fair trial does not necessarily lead to an acquittal
or conviction. A fair trial leads to a fair trial.
She made the decision that she wanted to talk in
the media after she had, you know, gone through that
first trial with a hung jury. And maybe the fact
(24:40):
that some of the jurors were saying that they actually
had concluded on two of the charges, that they were
ready to acquit her, maybe that gave her some false hope.
I don't know. I criticized the judge last summer, and
I felt that that the judge should have followed up
with the full person of the jury when they came
(25:01):
back and said we're hung. She should have said, does
that mean you're telling me you hung on all charges
or on one or two of the charges? And at
that point that answer would have, I assume, responded elicited
a response which might have said, no, we're only hung
on one charge, or we've reached a consensus on two charges.
And she could have sent the jury back and said,
(25:21):
we'll please fill out a verdict slip if you've reached
a verdict and come to us. But maybe that gave
her some false hope, some false confidence. I don't know, Alex.
It is tough to figure. Tough to figure.
Speaker 6 (25:34):
Yeah, of the two trials, which one do you think
gets the most you know, publicity, the Sean Didty Combs
or Karen Reed trial.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Well, I think the Sean Didty Combs is truly a
national trial because he well, it has become that. It
has become that. But I do think that when the
Sean Ditty Combs trial gets going, I think that will
get a lot of network publicity just by virtue of
who he is. Thanks Alex, I gotta run. Thank you much,
appreciate the call. Six one seven, four ten thirty six
(26:07):
one seven, nine three one ten thirty. I don't want
to chorte short change anyone. I got Joanne from West Roxbury.
She'll be next. I got a couple of open lines
if you want to get in here. We will be
changing topics at ten o'clock. I guarantee you that because
we have a guest coming in talking about addiction, addiction
of all sorts, but specifically drug addiction. Six one seven,
(26:27):
two five four ten thirty six one seven nine three
one ten thirty. Dial Now I can get you in
coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
It's night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Or let's get back to the call sixty six one
seven nine three ten thirty. Let me go next to
Joe Inn in West Roxbury. Hey, Joeanne, how are you
welcome back?
Speaker 7 (27:14):
Good evening. I was just wondering why they in the
first trial as well as in the second trial, why
the person was not acquitted because of the mishandling and
contamination of the evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Uh.
Speaker 7 (27:32):
I was in involved in a case in which a
relative had a nurse who withheld her medication when she
went to the emergency room with a broken hip, and
the nurse was acquitted because of the contamination of the evidence,
And I wondered why that wasn't a case that was
that Why that wasn't a situation that was utilized more
(27:56):
effectively in the first and in the second trial.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
Well, I don't know that there was contaminated evidence or
evidence that went in. I mean, there was all sorts
of questions about the lights, there was, there was a
lot of factual questions back and forth.
Speaker 7 (28:14):
But I don't know if any improperly it was improperly
collected in solo.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
Uh yeah, right, okay, so fine. Well, I think that what,
in my opinion was would have been argued was that
there were exits in circumstances that the blood was connected,
was being collected in a in a in a snowstorm, situation.
(28:42):
And I assume that if that, if that evidence was eliminated, uh,
then that it would have never the jury would have
been told to have disregarded it. Uh. If on the
other hand, uh it there would have been a motion
(29:03):
to uh you know, to to to you know, keep
the evidence away from the jury. I assumed that the
defense filed all the motions. I mean, I know that
there was a great deal of uh you know, media
discussion about uh, you know, blood that was picked up
in solo cups. But again, I think this was in
what what one would have called probably there would have
(29:24):
been some exception of what's called exigen circumstances. I mean,
what choice, what other choice did they have to do.
It wasn't as if the accident occurred on a on
a sunny day in May when there was no precipitation,
and all they had to do was secure the crime
scene and and and and and get the proper methods
(29:45):
available to secure the evidence. That's the That's the only
answer I can give you that.
Speaker 7 (29:51):
The only question I had was why the defense hadn't
used that as a really really good defense.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Well, I constan for the defense. Again, I'm being very
honest when I tell people I haven't sat in for
the first or the second, either or both. But she
has very competent defense counsel. There's no doubt about that.
And maybe they did file motions to suppress evidence, but
(30:19):
it was it was allowed to be submitted because of
the circumstances. The word exigent is one of those legal
words which mean it was the best they could do
under the circumstances. They weren't trying to doctor evidence. They
were trying to preserve as much evidence as they could. Now, again,
i'd have to go back and rever you the trial transcripts.
(30:42):
I don't have that option. And if there's anyone out
there who wants to lend some some light on your question,
your question is a good question. I guess you have.
You're pretty much convinced that that she should have been
acquitted in the first trial. I assume am I reading
your question and.
Speaker 7 (30:59):
I'm just one wondering. No, I have no idea whether
she's guilty or not. I was just wondering because I
had a relative who had had that situation.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Well, the other question, the question, the other question would
be okay. John O'Keefe's body was found in a snow bank,
he had suffered blood loss. There was blood, and I
assumed that the blood that was scooped up in the
(31:29):
solo cups was then tested to make sure it was
his blood, just what you would be done in a
normal investigation. I mean, if all of a sudden the
blood that was there was someone else's, well, now you've
got real questions. So maybe they simply scooped it up
in the solo cup, or maybe the defense said, look,
(31:49):
there's there's no need for us to fight this because
we there's there's no doubt that the body was discovered,
There's no question about that. The question is how did
he get into that snowbank. Did he go in the
house and end up in some sort of a brawl
that that cost him his life and then he was
taken and dragged out onto the lawn or carried out
(32:10):
onto the lawn, or was he you know, was he
hit either intentionally or or unintentionally by Karen Reeve's vehicle.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
I mean, that's the other question. Was The other observation
I had was that you asked what the difference was
between the two trials. I think that I'm not sure,
but I think that the person who was on the
witness stand for the longest this time. I don't believe
that he was on the witness stand the last time.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Of long you're talking about the state police lieutenant who
has just gotten off the witness stand.
Speaker 7 (32:46):
Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Think he was. He was a witness the first longer
he wasn't. He wasn't. It was focused much more on Michael.
Speaker 5 (32:53):
Proctor, who That's what I thought.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, But for some reason, and I don't understand, and
I haven't seen any reports about why, uh Proctor is
not testifying now. He lost his job, and it could
be that that his lawyers have made it clear that
he if he was put on the witness stand, he
would simply take the Fifth Amendment because they're fearful that
he might have other Again, I'm speculating that it would
(33:20):
seem to me that the defense would want to put
him on again and have him once again read the
comments that he made, the inappropriate comments, that the really
decidedly inappropriate comments that he made about Karen Reid. But
I don't have I don't have anything further on that.
(33:42):
But again, thank you very much, thank you very much.
I appreciate, as I say, what I'm looking for tonight
is do you have My question is, Joanne, is do
you have a sense that this trial is going differently
than the first? That's really my question, and I know that's.
Speaker 7 (33:55):
A very That's what I felt. I felt that it's
going differently cause of the people as they have and testify.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
And is it your sense that it's going that's the
sledding is getting a little tougher for the defense.
Speaker 7 (34:12):
I can't tell about that. I just think that it's
interesting to listen to the different witnesses, and I think
a lot depends on the credibility if your witnesses.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Any question, always does, always does. Thank you so much,
appreciate you call. Have a great nights for you. All right,
good night. Let me go next to Doreen from Chelsea. Hi, Doreen,
welcome back next on Nightside.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Yeah, Hi Dan, how are you. I I've been following
this trial only by news, the news, okay, news, how
most people have to yes, but this is what I
want to know. In the first trial, now where they
she had all that rallying and protesting, Yeah, on her side.
(35:03):
I was wondering, in the case, what case if you
run over a police officer or shoot isn't that a
federal offense? Capital no offense? No, no, no, no, no,
all right.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
I mean it, Uh if you if you if you
shoot or or injure someone who works for the federal government, Uh, yeah,
it's a federal crime. I mean if if you were
to I'm not going to say anybody who works for
the federal government, who if they're the victim of a crime,
it's going to be a federal crime. But this is
a Boston police officer. It's not a federal rights by
(35:41):
the way, And there's no it's the capital punishment doesn't
exist in Massachusetts.
Speaker 4 (35:47):
Okay, I know a capital So what I want to
ask you could have they in the first trial have
a change of venue take a another.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Well, they couldn't have taken it to another state, but
they could have moved. Uh and and I have to
go back and check whether or not there was a
motion for for a change of venue. But sure, yeah,
they could have moved for a change of venue. The
other thing which they can do sometimes in cases that
are high, high profile cases, they can they can decide
(36:27):
that they will h panel jurors uh in a in
another county.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Uh and right.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
And they can have they they could bring the jurors
in uh into Norfolk County, So in ef fact, you
bring a new jury in every day. But then there's
there's also there's always other questions in terms of whether
or not jurors are going to be sequestered. That's that's
always a factor to uh. So, Yeah, well there's you
(36:56):
raise good issues, you raise good issues.
Speaker 4 (36:59):
But and dan another thing too, the first trial when
she said did I run over him? That is the
key to this case and the first case. And that
man that calls you a couple of callers back was
absolutely right. She stated, she made a statement.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Yeah, that that that's gone has gone in the right,
that has gone in in evidence, So that that is
that evidence has gone in. Okay. So now again what
happens is the jury has to wave has to weigh
the probate value of that evidence. So some jurors might say, well,
you know, you know she she she didn't that they
(37:45):
might see that not as an admission, but did I
do something? Someone else might say, that's a consciousness of guilt.
That's those are the facts that it's up to a juror,
up to the jury as a whole.
Speaker 4 (37:58):
To decide.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
Yeah, you got it.
Speaker 4 (38:01):
So there is a different twist in turn with all
the other witnesses that come out.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
All right, yeah, Jorena, I'm told that I'm flat out
of time and we're into the ten o'clock news, so
I gotta let you run. This was a great call, Dorian.
You're always a good caller. Tonight you're a great caller.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
For you very much, Dan, you talk soon.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio toll right.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Thanks very much, Dan Watkins, and joining us is an
old friend and longtime criminal defense attorney here in the
Massachusetts area, Phil Tracy Councilor. How are you this evening?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I'm well, Dan, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Well, I thought tonight might be a good night to
spend a few minutes looking at this case that has
come out a little evolved, a little differently. And you're
a participant. You argue in these courts all the time,
(00:44):
so you can you can analyze how the prosecution and
the defense are doing in this case. My sense, from
my limited view, is that the prosecution in this case,
this second trial so far is more effective than in
(01:05):
the first trial. And I'm wondering if you agree with that,
and if so, what makes you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Well, I do agree with it, and I'll tell you
there's a subtle thing that's going on, and that is
Prosecutor Brennan. The new prosecutor, is seated beside him as
Adam Ladley, who tried the first case for the DA's office,
and he's an excellent prosecutor. But the fact that he's there.
(01:34):
He was there during the first trial, and Brennan wasn't
now the defense counsel. They were there at the first trial.
So there's nothing that Brennan could be surprised at. And
he's doing a very good job, especially when it comes
to making the family of the decease part of the thing,
(01:57):
part of the case. In other words, the big flaw
for Karen Reed is that she's never expressed any sort
of sympathy or sorrow about the death of this man,
this officer, who was a fine person who adopted relative children,
(02:18):
relative children, and she hasn't said anything about I'm sorry
he's dead, I'm sorry that the family had to go
through this. I didn't do it, but you know that
would have come out a lot better than some of
the interviews she had with the television people. She seemed narcissist,
(02:38):
angry that she's in this position, and not my sympathy
for the family.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, it's interesting one of the elements that are being
played in this trial are a lot of the interviews.
She had not done interviews before the first trial, to
the best of my relation, and that in that period
from the time the mistrial was to clear last summer
(03:06):
to when the trial, the new trial started last month.
The second trial started last month. She did a series
of interviews. I mean, really, I wonder why her lawyers
were not more judicious. She she did these interviews in
a variety. There was one I just saw she was
like doing an interview with the guy riding in a car.
(03:30):
And it wasn't as if she was sitting down with
you know, Walter Cronk guy or or or someone. She
was sitting down with lots of different people, and it
said some intemperate things which are now being played back
in the courtroom. Has that changed? Has that changed the
tenor or the trial of your opinion?
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Oh, it definitely has. I mean it was, you know,
everybody can Monday morning quarterback, but I wouldn't have let
her speak to anybody other than they the love of
my life is dead. I'm sorry about it. I didn't
do it. Now the questions coming out, She's made a
(04:09):
few comments could I have hit him? Which and you
put those together with the medical people saying that she
was yelling I hit him, I hit him. Could I
have hit him? She said to one interviewer. And the
reality is it's harder for the prosecution to move forward
(04:29):
with you know, some sort of admission from her. Now,
the questions that the jurors have about the misbehavior of
the police investigation are somewhat muted this time around because
they were there the first time. They were shocking to
(04:50):
the consciousness of the public, and the court of public
opinion did not like the way the police handled this case. Now,
most of those jurors have heard about the case. They
know about Procta and his bad behavior, and it's.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Not Proctor was the Massachusetts way state.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Whereas the first jury. I think it might have swayed them.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Proctor was to remind anyone, it was the Massachusetts State
Police detective who had sent some text messages to some
of his friends, and also I guess they were seen
by some other police officers, which were you know, still
looking for you know, nude photos. Or he made some
(05:38):
pretty disparaging, unprofessional, minimally unprofessional comments. Now I'm not sure
that Proctor's on the witness list in the second trial.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Oh, I doubt that they doubt that the prosecution will
call them because they had an excellent detective on the
stand who basically was stood the barrage of questions from
the defense team and he basically I think was trying
to say, look, you know, we just did the job
(06:10):
was supposed to do. And I think that she was
vindictive towards him. Now that that's a difficult problem for
the defense because that leads to maybe she did back
up into him on purpose. I think my guesses and
of course, you know you again, you're an armchair quarterback,
(06:32):
so you say, I think she might have in a rage,
you know, tried to scare him or something, but never
intended to hit him. But then I think she woke
up and you know, she said where is he? And
now it became crazy. You know, there's a lot of
drinking going on that night by all the parties.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, well see, here's here's my take on all of that.
And I'll be interested if you agree, disagree whatever. My
take is the the the dumb, ignorant texts that Proctor said,
totally inappropriate, unprofessional, that drew attention of the jurors away
(07:18):
from the critical question is what happened from the moment
that John O'Keefe left the vehicle, alighted from the vehicle
and was he hit, was he not? Did he walk
in the house or whatever?
Speaker 4 (07:34):
It?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
It just changed the focus. I mean, no one's going
to look at at proctic at practice text and say, boy,
he was a pretty sharp detective, was I mean? Yeah?
Sending dumb, stupid, ignorant text like that.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Yeah, and that just as you say I think it.
It caused the jurists to say, well, wait a minute again.
If if you were a good juror and you're listening,
you might say, I think she did it, either voluntarily
or involuntarily, but I have reasonable doubt. And reasonal doubt
(08:08):
creeps into the case when they start saying, well, the
NPS are all in it to frame her, you know,
which is how could they possibly put together this type
of charade with all these people involved to try to
frame it. That's just not real. But the jurors could say, look,
(08:29):
I think she did it, but I got a reasonable
doubt here because of the way they conducted their investigation,
and you know, that's the problem for the prosecution. But
this time around they seem to be The difference is,
just as you said, these interviews that she gave to
a lot of different people, she's going to get crossed
(08:51):
up because you're going to say something different one time
and then something contradictory on another interview, and that makes
you look like you're lying or you're hiding something.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Well, Phil, I'll tell you it's We will continue to
follow on on this. I appreciate you checking in with
us every every week or so. H and I just
thought this was a good time to check in on.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
It, and I appreciate it is you know, I I
hackned back to UH when we first did these type
of things with O. J. Simpson, and that went on
and on and on, and the distractions cause the jury
to find them not guilty, no question, there's many distractions.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
No, the whole, the whole. If the glove does not fit,
you must have quit. I mean the fact that they
hand the prosecutor a huge mistake by a prosecutor to
hand him the glove and say try it on. What
do they think they're going to do? He was going
to try to put it on. I mean, he was
going to expand his head as much as he possibly could. Yeah,
there's no glove here, But there is that that that light.
(10:00):
There's there's some there's some some some some substantial evidence
that have that have that has gone in And I
think that I think you're right. I think that her
own words have probably hurt her more, and that the
difference between the two cases are the television interviews. That
I'm a huge believer in the court of public opinion, Phil,
(10:24):
as as I think I showed in the Salvadi Lamoni case.
But when you're really certain that your guys were that
the people were framed in their case of actual innocence,
well we will see. Phil. I appreciate it as always.
You know that, my friend. Thank you. We'll talk soon. Phil, Tracy,
ladies and gentlemen, Boston a defense attorney and give us
(10:44):
his perspective. Now, I want your perspective. I don't know
if you're following the Karen Reid case as closely today
as you did back then number one a year ago. Uh.
By the way, the protesters did win a bit of
a victory today in federal court in front of the
(11:08):
First Circuit Court of Appeals. They had asked that the
buffer zone that they have now been pushed back from
the near the courthouse. UH. They took an appeal on
that the state Supreme Court upheld the trial judge on
the buffer zone the expanded buffer zone. A single federal
(11:31):
District court judge also chose to uphold the trial judges determination,
but the Federal Court of Appeals has sent it back
down to the first Circuit. I guess with the to
the to the first the district court, the appeals court,
the first Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the matter
(11:52):
down to the district court judge with the instructions of
take a closer look at this, which probably means they
will get to be able to hold their demonstrations a
little closer, a little more approximate to the courthouse. So
I just want to open these lines up and talk
about the Karen Reid case. Do you think we are
going to see a verdict in this case? It supposedly
(12:17):
is is if not ahead of schedule, it is, it
is close to being on schedule. There were some rulings
made today by the trial court judge in the case
in which certain statements made by messages text messages were
(12:40):
not going to be allowed to be read in to
the to the in front of the jury. Now, again,
the jury probably is aware of all of this, because
it's tough not to be. But we like to have
you join us. Give us a call. Six one, seven,
two thirty, six seven, nine, ten thirty are you looking
at this case a little differently? Halfway through? We're about
(13:04):
it to halfway point, we're getting close to the prosecution resting.
Love to know if you are changing your view or
if you look into this case just differently, or maybe
you hold on to the opinion that you had of
this a year ago. This time coming back on Nightside,
you have the numbers back after this.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio. Night
Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
All right, so we're asking sort of an open ended question.
And the open ended question and it's one that I
want to hear both from men and women on this
is is your sense that this version of the Karen
Reid trial is going a little differently than the first version?
(13:57):
And Phil Tracy and I identified a couple of areas
where I think there has been a difference. One the
comments that she's made to television and network television, and
I guess podcasters which I don't think have pictured her
(14:17):
as an empathetic or sympathetic a person. And then the
other question is some of this stuff from the police department,
it's I don't know that it's going to have as
much relevance to what the jury decides, because it is
the question is not whether or not Michael Procter did
(14:39):
a good job as the lead investigator of this case.
He may have, he may have done a good job
investigating it. That's really for the jury to decide. But
these these ignorant comments that he made, these ignorant emails
or texts, that's for him in his ca conscience. I
(15:00):
don't know that that really has any bearing irrelevance on
the ultimate question, which of course is guilt innoscence. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
We will be introducing you to reintroducing you to a
guest on addiction and the road to recovery in America
(15:20):
from for people who are addicted to virtually anything. Adam
Vibe Gunton will be joining us.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
He is a founder of Recovered on Purpose and Behavioral
Health Partners. In the meantime, let's go to phone calls.
Let's go to Steve and Merrimack, New Hampshire. Steve, you
are first up this hour and Nightsiger right ahead, Hey.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
Dan Elyah good Sear, thanks for taking my call. You're
welcome I've been following this trial and it kind of
reminds me of you know, another high profile trial, the
Family Smart case, where she had the prosecut's prosecution bamboozled
because they didn't have a whole lot to tire to
(16:01):
the crime until she hung herself with her own words
when they got the wire with the other friend of hers.
This one, I can't believe that Karen Reid would get
up in front of the cameras and talk about the
trial because it doesn't it's not what they want to portray.
(16:22):
From the defense point of view, Phil Tracy, you know's
and you were, your point of view is absolutely correct.
She should have just kept her mouth shut. She should
not have done anything that would have changed the or
altered what happened in the previous trial. From my point
of view, I think, you know, right from the get go,
I think she was guilty in the last trial, but
(16:42):
not of second degree. I think it's manslaughter, and I
think they just try this whole thing was fueled by
intense drunkenness, and I don't think she knew what she
was doing. I don't think she remembers what she did,
so I don't know. I really think that you know,
this time around, you know, depending on how the what
(17:04):
the context of the jury is, I think they they
may come up with a different verdict. I don't see
hung jury. I think it's it's not going to be
second degree, though I don't think they can prove it.
I think that's it's a higher level, you know, and
all the stuff that went on with the cops and
Proctor and all that, you know, had nothing to do
(17:27):
with anything. It's just that they just, you know, he
just made some bad decisions, you know, with his text
and everything, and they're just trying to smear the whole
trial with what he did. But really she's the one
that killed the guy, not him. So I think that's
the way it's going to go down. I think it'll
probably be in about ten days to two weeks.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Well, I think it's going to go a little longer
than that. And again, I I don't know, you never
know what a jury's going to do. I just think
that the tone is different. I just think the tone
is is different. And I think that the the interviews
that she did, I still don't understand why or how
her lawyers allowed her to participate in those interviews. It
(18:11):
seems to me that there was nothing to gain there.
Maybe she got some publicity. I get that, and she
got some attention, but that did make her look good
in any way, shape or form in my opinion.
Speaker 5 (18:26):
But we'll say, I've never appeared or been on a
jury before. You know, I usually try to get out
of it. I don't like to be on that sort
of thing. Yeah, but if you're on a jury, it's
the perception of guilt that does work against you. And
she did not sound like an innocent And this girl
is not stupid. She's a very smart girl. I think
(18:47):
that she is trying to do anything she can to
get out of being found guilty of anything. I think
they probably should have plot it down. If I were
her and her attorneys, that would probably done that. But
you know, she's trying to get off this thing scott free.
I don't think she's Scott. I think she did it.
There's no one else.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Well, we'll see what We'll see what other people think.
And again, I'm more interested at this point in the
whole question or the whole issue of whether or not
this this trial just has a different feel to it,
just a totally different agree.
Speaker 5 (19:21):
I absolutely agree with you and then they keep saying
about somebody dragging you know, O'Keefe out, you know, from
the house to the front yard. Yeah, they were too
drunk to do that. I really know I would.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
I would think that.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
My view is that if that if all of a sudden,
you're at a party and somebody there's a fight, and
somebody ends up dead, you're going to sober up pretty
pretty quickly. And I'm not sure that the smart than change.
Speaker 5 (19:45):
It would change what even even if you were inebriated
to the point of not knowing, you know, what day
it is, you would still you know, act differently. I
would agree, But I think that she I believe she
will be found guilty this time. I don't think it's
going to be a young jury, but it won't be
the more severe charge. That's my prediction.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
All right, appreciate you, Carl, Thanks very much.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Steve, Okay, thanks Dan one, good night, all right again.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Wide open lines here six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
My focus is, and I'd like you if you could
focus with me, is are you getting a different vibe
from this trial than the first? Again, none of us
are in the courtroom. Uh, for the entire time. The
only people who are there obviously are the is the jury,
(20:30):
the judge, and the lawyers. We we know that. But
the question is the question is is this starting to
sound differently to you? It is to me, it is
to me. Back on night Side six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten thirty.
Back on night Side. Right after this, it's night Side
(20:52):
with Dan Ray.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Hey, Hey, Danny bes Boston's News Radio. You're on night
Side with Dan on Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
All right, let's keep rolling here. We're going to go
next to Alex Millers. Alex, welcome, next on Nightside. How
are you?
Speaker 6 (21:13):
Thank good eating Dan?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
How are you We're doing? But what's your take? Are
you Are you noticing anything different than this trial?
Speaker 5 (21:20):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Absolutely. She has to learn how to use her big words,
you know, because she's you know, I mean, uh, this woman,
even even the way she conducted herself towards uh, you know,
Officer Keith's mother. You know, I mean, I don't understand her.
You know, she she's not very Uh, she doesn't come
(21:42):
across as very Oh, I'd say a person that has uh,
you know, no emotion, you know, towards towards what happened,
whether she did it by accident or uh, you know,
or she intentionally. I think, you know, I wouldn't find her,
I would find her guilty.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Well, it isn't a question of what you would find her,
because you're not unasured. You're not unasured. But I just
my sense is that the way this case is being
put in by the prosecution is much more effectively than
the way the case was put in initially by the prosecution.
(22:29):
I know that the defense lawyers have tried to shake
the prosecution witnesses. I don't think they've done a great
job on it at this point, to be really honest
with you. And my sense is that some of the
videotapes that they have played are really devastating videotapes because
it shows a demeanor and an attitude which is not
(22:53):
only well, it's not empathetic towards what happened. No matter
what happened, someone lost their life here. John o'ca is dead, Okay.
All the information that I've read sounds think he was
a pretty good guy. How no one can ever get
inside the the the interpersonal relationship of a couple of
(23:15):
people unless you're part of that relationship. So that's been
my experience. And she she does. She comes across not
someone who is going to generate a lot of sympathy.
This is not someone who seems to still be grieving.
And I don't know if the defense will put her
on the witness stand. If they do, I think it
(23:40):
would be a mistake. And if they do, I think
it would indicate in their mind that maybe this case
is for them in jeopardy. But we'll see.
Speaker 6 (23:49):
So so she I. I was just going to ask you,
since her defense team is, you know, uh is supposed
to be outstanding, why would they allow her, I know,
your furious guests to you know, do all these interviews
with ABC and all the other networks, you know, and
it probably jeopardized her. You know, Uh, I guess uetting
(24:17):
getting a fair trial.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Well, she's going to get a fair trial. That that
has nothing to do with a fair trial. I mean,
a fair trial does not necessarily lead to an acquittal
or conviction. A fair trial leads to a fair trial.
She made the decision that she wanted to talk in
the media after she had, you know, gone through that
first trial with a hung jury. And maybe the fact
(24:40):
that some of the jurors were saying that they actually
had concluded on two of the charges, that they were
ready to acquit her, maybe that gave her some false hope.
I don't know. I criticized the judge last summer, and
I felt that that the judge should have followed up
with the full person of the jury when they came
(25:01):
back and said we're hung. She should have said, does
that mean you're telling me you hung on all charges
or on one or two of the charges? And at
that point that answer would have, I assume, responded elicited
a response which might have said, no, we're only hung
on one charge, or we've reached a consensus on two charges.
And she could have sent the jury back and said,
(25:21):
we'll please fill out a verdict slip if you've reached
a verdict and come to us. But maybe that gave
her some false hope, some false confidence. I don't know, Alex.
It is tough to figure. Tough to figure.
Speaker 6 (25:34):
Yeah, of the two trials, which one do you think
gets the most you know, publicity, the Sean Didty Combs
or Karen Reed trial.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Well, I think the Sean Didty Combs is truly a
national trial because he well, it has become that. It
has become that. But I do think that when the
Sean Ditty Combs trial gets going, I think that will
get a lot of network publicity just by virtue of
who he is. Thanks Alex, I gotta run. Thank you much,
appreciate the call. Six one seven, four ten thirty six
(26:07):
one seven, nine three one ten thirty. I don't want
to chorte short change anyone. I got Joanne from West Roxbury.
She'll be next. I got a couple of open lines
if you want to get in here. We will be
changing topics at ten o'clock. I guarantee you that because
we have a guest coming in talking about addiction, addiction
of all sorts, but specifically drug addiction. Six one seven,
(26:27):
two five four ten thirty six one seven nine three
one ten thirty. Dial Now I can get you in
coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
It's night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Or let's get back to the call sixty six one
seven nine three ten thirty. Let me go next to
Joe Inn in West Roxbury. Hey, Joeanne, how are you
welcome back?
Speaker 7 (27:14):
Good evening. I was just wondering why they in the
first trial as well as in the second trial, why
the person was not acquitted because of the mishandling and
contamination of the evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Uh.
Speaker 7 (27:32):
I was in involved in a case in which a
relative had a nurse who withheld her medication when she
went to the emergency room with a broken hip, and
the nurse was acquitted because of the contamination of the evidence,
And I wondered why that wasn't a case that was
that Why that wasn't a situation that was utilized more
(27:56):
effectively in the first and in the second trial.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
Well, I don't know that there was contaminated evidence or
evidence that went in. I mean, there was all sorts
of questions about the lights, there was, there was a
lot of factual questions back and forth.
Speaker 7 (28:14):
But I don't know if any improperly it was improperly
collected in solo.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
Uh yeah, right, okay, so fine. Well, I think that what,
in my opinion was would have been argued was that
there were exits in circumstances that the blood was connected,
was being collected in a in a in a snowstorm, situation.
(28:42):
And I assume that if that, if that evidence was eliminated, uh,
then that it would have never the jury would have
been told to have disregarded it. Uh. If on the
other hand, uh it there would have been a motion
(29:03):
to uh you know, to to to you know, keep
the evidence away from the jury. I assumed that the
defense filed all the motions. I mean, I know that
there was a great deal of uh you know, media
discussion about uh, you know, blood that was picked up
in solo cups. But again, I think this was in
what what one would have called probably there would have
(29:24):
been some exception of what's called exigen circumstances. I mean,
what choice, what other choice did they have to do.
It wasn't as if the accident occurred on a on
a sunny day in May when there was no precipitation,
and all they had to do was secure the crime
scene and and and and and get the proper methods
(29:45):
available to secure the evidence. That's the That's the only
answer I can give you that.
Speaker 7 (29:51):
The only question I had was why the defense hadn't
used that as a really really good defense.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Well, I constan for the defense. Again, I'm being very
honest when I tell people I haven't sat in for
the first or the second, either or both. But she
has very competent defense counsel. There's no doubt about that.
And maybe they did file motions to suppress evidence, but
(30:19):
it was it was allowed to be submitted because of
the circumstances. The word exigent is one of those legal
words which mean it was the best they could do
under the circumstances. They weren't trying to doctor evidence. They
were trying to preserve as much evidence as they could. Now, again,
i'd have to go back and rever you the trial transcripts.
(30:42):
I don't have that option. And if there's anyone out
there who wants to lend some some light on your question,
your question is a good question. I guess you have.
You're pretty much convinced that that she should have been
acquitted in the first trial. I assume am I reading
your question and.
Speaker 7 (30:59):
I'm just one wondering. No, I have no idea whether
she's guilty or not. I was just wondering because I
had a relative who had had that situation.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Well, the other question, the question, the other question would
be okay. John O'Keefe's body was found in a snow bank,
he had suffered blood loss. There was blood, and I
assumed that the blood that was scooped up in the
(31:29):
solo cups was then tested to make sure it was
his blood, just what you would be done in a
normal investigation. I mean, if all of a sudden the
blood that was there was someone else's, well, now you've
got real questions. So maybe they simply scooped it up
in the solo cup, or maybe the defense said, look,
(31:49):
there's there's no need for us to fight this because
we there's there's no doubt that the body was discovered,
There's no question about that. The question is how did
he get into that snowbank. Did he go in the
house and end up in some sort of a brawl
that that cost him his life and then he was
taken and dragged out onto the lawn or carried out
(32:10):
onto the lawn, or was he you know, was he
hit either intentionally or or unintentionally by Karen Reeve's vehicle.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
I mean, that's the other question. Was The other observation
I had was that you asked what the difference was
between the two trials. I think that I'm not sure,
but I think that the person who was on the
witness stand for the longest this time. I don't believe
that he was on the witness stand the last time.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Of long you're talking about the state police lieutenant who
has just gotten off the witness stand.
Speaker 7 (32:46):
Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Think he was. He was a witness the first longer
he wasn't. He wasn't. It was focused much more on Michael.
Speaker 5 (32:53):
Proctor, who That's what I thought.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, But for some reason, and I don't understand, and
I haven't seen any reports about why, uh Proctor is
not testifying now. He lost his job, and it could
be that that his lawyers have made it clear that
he if he was put on the witness stand, he
would simply take the Fifth Amendment because they're fearful that
he might have other Again, I'm speculating that it would
(33:20):
seem to me that the defense would want to put
him on again and have him once again read the
comments that he made, the inappropriate comments, that the really
decidedly inappropriate comments that he made about Karen Reid. But
I don't have I don't have anything further on that.
(33:42):
But again, thank you very much, thank you very much.
I appreciate, as I say, what I'm looking for tonight
is do you have My question is, Joanne, is do
you have a sense that this trial is going differently
than the first? That's really my question, and I know that's.
Speaker 7 (33:55):
A very That's what I felt. I felt that it's
going differently cause of the people as they have and testify.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
And is it your sense that it's going that's the
sledding is getting a little tougher for the defense.
Speaker 7 (34:12):
I can't tell about that. I just think that it's
interesting to listen to the different witnesses, and I think
a lot depends on the credibility if your witnesses.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Any question, always does, always does. Thank you so much,
appreciate you call. Have a great nights for you. All right,
good night. Let me go next to Doreen from Chelsea. Hi, Doreen,
welcome back next on Nightside.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Yeah, Hi Dan, how are you. I I've been following
this trial only by news, the news, okay, news, how
most people have to yes, but this is what I
want to know. In the first trial, now where they
she had all that rallying and protesting, Yeah, on her side.
(35:03):
I was wondering, in the case, what case if you
run over a police officer or shoot isn't that a
federal offense? Capital no offense? No, no, no, no, no,
all right.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
I mean it, Uh if you if you if you
shoot or or injure someone who works for the federal government, Uh, yeah,
it's a federal crime. I mean if if you were
to I'm not going to say anybody who works for
the federal government, who if they're the victim of a crime,
it's going to be a federal crime. But this is
a Boston police officer. It's not a federal rights by
(35:41):
the way, And there's no it's the capital punishment doesn't
exist in Massachusetts.
Speaker 4 (35:47):
Okay, I know a capital So what I want to
ask you could have they in the first trial have
a change of venue take a another.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Well, they couldn't have taken it to another state, but
they could have moved. Uh and and I have to
go back and check whether or not there was a
motion for for a change of venue. But sure, yeah,
they could have moved for a change of venue. The
other thing which they can do sometimes in cases that
are high, high profile cases, they can they can decide
(36:27):
that they will h panel jurors uh in a in
another county.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Uh and right.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
And they can have they they could bring the jurors
in uh into Norfolk County, So in ef fact, you
bring a new jury in every day. But then there's
there's also there's always other questions in terms of whether
or not jurors are going to be sequestered. That's that's
always a factor to uh. So, Yeah, well there's you
(36:56):
raise good issues, you raise good issues.
Speaker 4 (36:59):
But and dan another thing too, the first trial when
she said did I run over him? That is the
key to this case and the first case. And that
man that calls you a couple of callers back was
absolutely right. She stated, she made a statement.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Yeah, that that that's gone has gone in the right,
that has gone in in evidence, So that that is
that evidence has gone in. Okay. So now again what
happens is the jury has to wave has to weigh
the probate value of that evidence. So some jurors might say, well,
you know, you know she she she didn't that they
(37:45):
might see that not as an admission, but did I
do something? Someone else might say, that's a consciousness of guilt.
That's those are the facts that it's up to a juror,
up to the jury as a whole.
Speaker 4 (37:58):
To decide.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
Yeah, you got it.
Speaker 4 (38:01):
So there is a different twist in turn with all
the other witnesses that come out.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
All right, yeah, Jorena, I'm told that I'm flat out
of time and we're into the ten o'clock news, so
I gotta let you run. This was a great call, Dorian.
You're always a good caller. Tonight you're a great caller.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
For you very much, Dan, you talk soon.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.