April 28, 2025 • 38 mins
Read’s second trial for the murder of her boyfriend, former police officer John O’Keefe, began last week. Monday, a Cellebrite digital intelligence expert, Ian Whiffen, took the stand and testified that John O’Keefe’s phone stopped moving after he was dropped off at the Albert’s Canton home, that at “12:32 a.m., the device was unlocked and locked a final time, and there was no more activity on the phone until shortly after 6 a.m.” Whiffen went on to say that the temperature of O’Keefe’s phone battery dropped steadily throughout the night. We discussed the latest from the trial and how today’s testimony might impact the defense's argument.
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZY Boston's news video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Beg you, Dan Watkins. As we move into our nine
o'clock hour, we're going to talk about the testimony today
at the Karen Reid retrial. So this is really, however
you want to phrase it. This is the second week.
There was some testimony last week. I thought it was
very interesting testimony today. Now again the testimony is a
(00:30):
prosecution witness. You have to sort of weigh that a
little bit. But I want to talk a little bit
about what the prosecution witness said, what he testified to,
and who he was, and how I think it might
impact the jury. I think talking to one of my
legal beagles today, they thought that the first few days
(00:53):
of this trial has has gone pretty well for the prosecution.
Now again, the we won't know until the jury comes
in with their verdict. But I have to give you
my thoughts as the trial proceeds on a if not
a day to day basis, a week to week basis.
As I think all of us know, this is the
(01:15):
second trial. First trial ended in a hung jury. So
today on the witness stand, the prosecutors called a digital
intelligence expert. What we're really talking about here a forensics.
I mean, forensics is a broad umbrella term that can
mean anything that is sort of scientifically related. We're not
talking about junk science, but we are talking about something
(01:37):
that is scientifically related. And of course all of us
think of it in terms of, you know, DNA and
how that they can go back on some of these
criminal cases and find DNA, make DNA matches on people.
You know, they discarded Pizza cross as the guy that
did down in Long Island. He was a suspect in
(01:58):
the murders of several women on this this beach in
nott Rhode is on the Long Island, excuse me, on
Long Island. So in this instance, the focus today was
on the cell phone of the victim in this case,
John O'Keefe, the Boston you know, the late Boston police
(02:19):
officer who Karen Reid is accused of killing. She's looking
at the most serious charge, a second degree murder charge.
So the prosecutor called this fellaw Ian Whiffen, the digital
intelligence expert with a company called Celebrate, and he focused
on O'Keefe's cell phone. And I won't get into you
(02:43):
know a lot of the detail, and you can you
can follow up on that with me if you want.
But essentially, he claimed that they were able with his
with O'Keefe's cell phone to basically show a couple of
things which I think are pretty important. One is that
(03:08):
the cell phone really was in the area where his
body was found for several hours. Several hours now there
was a flagpole on the opposite side of the lawn.
(03:29):
Said according to Whiffin that the phone apparently was near
a flagpole on the opposite side of the lawn, but
on the lawn now. Could have O'Keefe discarded the cell
phone or dropped the cell phone, I guess. But the
fact that those of us who have cell phones know
(03:51):
that we're always touching our pocket to make sure we
have our cell phone, that I'll leave no, I got
my cell phone. I feel better, Okay, thirty seconds later,
where's my oh yes, my back pocket or whatever. So
that is interesting fact that the jury can take into
consideration or testimony that the jury can take into consideration.
And then the other thing that Withffin talked about was
(04:17):
that the phone's battery temperature and the Applehealth Dot data
on the phone. He said the battery temperature started off
at about eighty degrees and then a few hours later
it went as low as thirty seven degrees. Now that's
(04:41):
a tough one to overcome, because if O'Keefe did go
into the house, as the defense wants to convince the jury,
what did he do. Did he bring the cell phone
in the house and put it in the refrigerator? Probably not?
Probably not. So I think that the inclusion that maybe
(05:01):
could be drawn from that is that the cell phone
not only was on the lawn for the entirety, but
maybe it was on the lawn with in fact John O'Keefe,
which of course would be a devastating conclusion. Now again,
forensic science and all of that. Look, you watch any
(05:22):
TV show these days, and people do watch these shows.
I like to watch the show on Sunday Night called Tracker.
It's the one show that I have an opportunity to
really watch. And they're using all sorts of data, forensic data,
digital data, and that's what this guy Wiffin was talking
(05:45):
about today. So this is cut number twenty one. This
is within being asked by the prosecutor Hank Brennan about
what we've just talked about. This will give you a
little bit of a sense of what went on in
court toe they cut twenty one.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Please rub the fact that the center dots are in
different spots. Is that inconsistent with a phone being in
the same place not moving that entire night.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
It could indicate movement, it could indicate refinement.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Is it impossible to tell?
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Its possible to tell at this level of detail anyway.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Are all these dots, given the range ten meters are
under Are all these dots and all these readings of
the high frequency data that you compiled for that night,
are they all consistent with Michel Keif's phone being near
the flagpole and.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Not moving that night.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Okay. Brennan also questioned with it about he refers here
to the phone took its last steps. Obviously he's referring
to O'Keefe taking his last potentially his last last steps.
And they've got the time down to twelve thirty two,
(07:10):
and it didn't move again until six four am, which
I believe is the time when his body was actually
discovered and properly moved by EMTs. This has cut twenty three, Please.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Rob After twelve thirty two, sixteen when this phone took
its last steps did it move again until six h
four or one am.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
There would no more steps or flight climb or any
other health activity recorder during that time.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
So referring to at one point the phone suggested that
it had moved up a few feet, which someone you know,
which the defense will potentially argue that that showed him
walking up a flight of steps into the house, but
the prosecution anticipated that argument and it was explained by
(08:06):
this digital intelligence expert that the phone, while it was
in the car and moving from from point A to
point B, could have gone up you know, elevation. It's
all related, I guess to C level. So I think
that's pretty damning testimony in terms of again forensic testimony. Obviously,
(08:31):
the defense has not put on their case, the prosecution
has not finished presenting their case. But I think that
this guy, Ian Wiffen could be a pretty important witness,
and testimony from this witness that the that the jury
may want to focus on. So what I'm gonna do
(08:52):
is gonna take quick break. I'm going to invite you
to join the conversation. If you have a strong opinion
on what happened in court today, feel free if you
feel what happened in court today will be dismissable by
the defense. Feel free as well. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Again,
(09:14):
we're not going to follow this every day, but when
there is a day either for the prosecution or defense
which seems to be significant, we're going to talk about it,
and I hope you join us. Coming right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
So I've tried to explain what went on in condensed
form in court today and what I think its impact
will be. I do believe that a lot of the
forensic materials that have baffled people other juries over the
years have now come to be accepted by a lot
(09:56):
of Americans. We assume that the DNA is going to
be accurate. Now. I know that there's all sorts of
arguments prone against PROW and against it, but and and
some of it can be considered you know, junk science.
Lie detectors are not necessarily involved and used allowed in
Massachusetts courts, although light detector has been around a long time.
(10:18):
I just think that this testimony today from this digital
intelligence expert Ian Wiffin, again, I wasn't in the court room,
wasn't able to read the jury, but it sounded to
me as if it was pretty convincing, and it also
seems to be based on science that is pretty acceptable.
(10:38):
I don't know that the defense lawyers will be able
to do much with Ian Wiffin on cross examination. We
will see, but I'd love to know from you if
you listen tonight, if you if you watched it, that's
the best. I mean, it's it's streamed by most of
the local outlets, station TV station, It's now in some
(11:00):
form of fashion. If if you watch the local news tonight,
did it? How would have it impacted you? If you
remember this jury? Again, I think that I do not
believe that Wiffin was available at the first trial. I
believe that this is a new witness. I did not
(11:23):
cover the first trial, have not covered the second trial
on a day to day basis. But if I'm incorrect
on that, feel free to correct me. I think that
this was a great witness, a solid witness for the
prosecution today and a witness that the jurors probably will remember.
Let's go to the phones six one, seven, two, four, ten, thirty, six, one, seven,
(11:47):
ninety I've said this before. I always like to know
if you are still as committed to your belief in
this case, whether you believe Karen Reid is guilty or
not guilty, if that interview has changed, and what may
have caused it to change. We are into the second retrial.
Feel free. Let me go to Joe. Joe, you were
(12:09):
next on our first this hour, first this week on Nightside.
Welcome Joe.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
I'd like to make some points, two or three points
and get your comments first.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Go right ahead, Joe. I know that's why you called
I'm all ears. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Karen Reid said on a TV interview, I hit him,
I hit him, I hit him. Do you think she
could have had a blackout when if she did hit him?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
I don't know. I don't know that she said that
on a TV interview.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
I think on TV, Dan, Maybe some of your callers
can back me up.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Okay, that's fine. I think she is reported to have
said that in the morning, while you said a TV interview.
I don't think she said it on a TV interview.
I think that that there was audio in the courtroom. No,
let me help you out, Joe, Okay, please help you out.
I think that there was a police dash cam running
(13:07):
the morning that the body was discovered, at approximately six
o'clock the morning after whatever happened happened. And I believe
that that that that picked her up, that that that
her comments. It wasn't like she sat down for an
interview and admitted in the in the you know, the
the the cold well lit you know interview situation, yes,
(13:33):
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. I
don't didn't want people to come away with that impression.
She apparently blurted that out as what lawyers would call
an excited utterance or a statement against interest at approximately
the moment when they found they went back and they
found his body on the front lawn. That's that's so,
(13:56):
that's what that's what I think you're referring to. Go ahead, Joe.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
Yeah, and Dan, my prejudice tell me that I would
like to see her free of all charges, because how
do you explain the dog bites and how do you think, Dan,
that she's being framed. I'd like your opinion.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
I don't believe she's being framed, to be honest with you,
I think that there's enough evidence here which the jury
could believe to convict her. I think there's enough evidence
which the jury could believe to acquit her in terms
of the dog bites or the animal bites. If John
O'Keefe was theoretically hit by her, and if he lost
(14:38):
consciousness and was on that lawn that morning for five
and a half hours, it's conceivable that any animal might
have come along and and chewed on his arm. So
but I again, I'm not in the courtroom. I'm not
an expert. I'm just telling you what I truly think.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Okay, Dan, you have the bet jarre better than all
the rest.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Well, I appreciate that. And you're a poet, but you
don't know it. Hey, thanks, Thanks Joe. I appreciate you. Carl,
thank you much so you you you're rooting for her
to be acquitted obviously right of all charges.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
And I hope she makes a lot of money on
her book.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Okay, Joe, and you you have stuck with that opinion
from Jump Street, right, you haven't switched back and forth, right, Okay,
that's great. You're a man of your conviction. Thank you, Joe,
I appreciate it. Let me go to Joe Inn and Salem.
Joeanne a different point of view, maybe the same go ahead,
joe In.
Speaker 5 (15:37):
Hi, Dean, how are you.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
I'm doing great. Did you get a chance to watch
any of that testimony today?
Speaker 6 (15:43):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (15:43):
I've been following this case since now the beginning, since
early twenty twenty three. Yes, and Ian Whiffen did testify
in the first trial.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Okay, fair enough, Okay, thank you for that correction.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Him and Jessica Hyde was the other prosecute. You shouldn't
with this regarding the cell phone data.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
And you know, let me ask you this. How did
the defense attack that testimony in the first trial.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
Well, it was just kind of a battle of you know,
the experts, you know, it's it was I can't really
remember everything.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
So was there another Yeah, I'm just asking. I'm asking
the question, and if you don't know the answer, the
best answer is to say, g I'm not sure. Did
they bring in a digital expert to counter what he
had to say? A digital expert? Who who would have
suggested that, hey, it's impossible to tell where their phone was?
(16:44):
Or did did they did they have anyone who challenged
you know who? You know? Normally you get each each
side as an expert in normal cases, and then it's
up to the jury to decide which expert is more incredible.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Exactly, yes, And the defense did bring in somebody. They
brought in Richard Green, who is going to be bringing
in again for this trial.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
And if you.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
Listen to Ian's testimony today, he had said a colleague
had called to inquire. It was Richard Green who called Ian.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
So you know, what is this?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
What is the significance in your mind of that you in,
Because I mean Richard Green had called Ian Whippin in
the beginning before Ian.
Speaker 5 (17:27):
Whiffen had an opinion to say like, look it, do
you think this happened? You know, And it wasn't until
after when all of a sudden, Ian Whiffan comes out
and says, you know something opposite. I can't tell you
what he said. That was the first I learned him
that today.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
So so so you're like, you're like, Joe, it sounds
to me as if you're convinced that that Karen Reid
is not guilty of any of these charges. That's that's
the impression I got from you. Correct.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
Oh, absolutely, I mean there's just too many, too many
coincidences with the investigation, and just you know, it's it's
just way too many. If there's one, two or three. Fine,
but all of these ones that you're telling me a
mass gape police troopers.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
So let me let me ask you what do you think?
So you think you think that I just want to,
you know, because I am not sure. I have my
own thoughts, but i'd rather find out from you, since
you've watched probably more of the trial, the first trial
and even now the second trial that I have. So
you're convinced, therefore, that O'Keefe went into the house and
(18:34):
something bad happened inside the house.
Speaker 5 (18:37):
Yes, I don't believe any any you know, they didn't
mean to, you know, kill him, but yees, you know.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
And so then so then you think that they do
you think that they said, geez, he's dead, let's put
him on the front lawn. Or do you think they said, well,
put him out in the front lawn and he'll wake up.
I mean, what how do you think he ended and
why on the front lawn?
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Well, we have first of all, you're not going to
transport a body into anybody's vehicle. That's extra DNA. You know,
if they ever did do it any investigation, which we
know they've never even went in the house, and they'd
go into my house or your house if the body
was found on our lawn. But I think that, you know,
maybe a Socca punch was thrown to John O'Keefe. He
(19:23):
banged his head on something hard. And I mean, it
happens all the time. It happened to you.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Okay, So let's let's ass Joe in. Let's assume that happened. Okay,
So now you got However, many people are in the
house who witnessed this. Why would not someone have said, hey,
let's call an ambulance and you know, he may be
a jerk, but we don't want him to die in
the house. Or how did what do you do you
(19:50):
think they said, well, look, we'll put him out of
the lawn and nobody's going to notice him till the spring.
That's what boggles my mind.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
No, no, I don't believe that. I first of all,
I don't believe buddy that was I don't believe the
young kids were fully aware of what was going on.
I think, you know, I mean people say conspiracy. I
call it a cover up. All it takes is three
family members and a good you know relationship with you know,
law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
So you put him on the lawn, right so you
put him on the lawn, right, and then what do
you hope do you at that point say well, we
got to figure out another way. Oh let's pint it
on the woman who dropped him off. Is that is
that what you think?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
No?
Speaker 5 (20:28):
No, I don't think that was the original plan. I
think it was. I mean, he was at the edge
of the lawn. He was on Brian Obert's property, but
he was at the edge. I think the like the
scenario is the plow hit him. I think that was
going to be it. The wish she was looking for
him and she happened to have a crack tail light.
(20:48):
It just fit together.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
So you think they put him on the lawn and
the now the plow guy has said, I believe that
he never saw anything but that alone. But I think
they put him on the lawn. Well, okay, fine, I
think to that strange credibility. That's that's strange credulity in
the sense that I think if if they were corrupt people,
(21:15):
uh and particularly corrupt police, they probably would have been
more creative than that.
Speaker 5 (21:21):
Well well, I mean, you know, you got to look
at people's paths too, and it's out there, it's public
it's not made up.
Speaker 6 (21:27):
It's not rumor.
Speaker 5 (21:28):
There's very public things about Brian Albert out there. I
originally when I heard it.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Again, just just emphasize, just emphasize Brian Albert. There's no
one else on trial at this point, so uh, let's
let the defense in the court of law put put
it in. I don't want to be making any having
any allegations made against When you say something like it's
out there, I don't know what it's is. If you
(21:56):
know what I'm saying the news in the news, I understand, Well,
that's fine. Let the news defend themselves. I'm going to
defend my station and make sure that my station is
not sued. That's all I'm saying. All right, right, great,
good enough, Joe Inn hate to do this to you.
I've gone well into the news, so I gotta let
you run. But thanks very much. Interesting.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
Interesting, you appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
Hey, thanks time, and you're great.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Thank you very much. I appreciate you. Call call again. Thanks,
good night. We'll take a roy quick break. Here's the
news at the bottom of the hoar. A couple of
minutes later, I got Steve coming up, Jack coming up
in a room for you one at six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty and two at six one, seven,
nine three one ten thirty. My plan is to change
topics at ten o'clock. The number of phone calls that
we get will determine that if you want to talk
(22:41):
more about this, we can go into the ten o'clock
how if you don't, we'll wrap it up at ten.
Back after this on Night Side.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
You're on Night Side with Dan ray on'ell you Bzy
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Back to the phones we go. Let me go to
Steve and Cambridge. Steve, welcome back. You've been away for
a while. Where you've been. I've missed you, all right?
Speaker 7 (22:59):
I just Dan, for one reason or another, I've been
not not calling.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
But that's okay. Always great to hear your voice.
Speaker 7 (23:08):
Go right ahead, Thank you, Dan. I have asking for
your opinions as a man who is an attorney and
also has spent a lot of time reporting on crime
and litigation in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Sure.
Speaker 7 (23:25):
Do you think her appearance in the courtroom is good?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
No? No, I don't.
Speaker 7 (23:31):
I mean, if you were a lawyer, wouldn't you tell
her to look a little more demure?
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yeah? I think she's she's a very attractive woman. I
think she's also expressive. Uh and and again I haven't
been in that courtroom, so it's difficult for me to imagine,
but I do think that she has. She comes across
probably a little I want to pick a good word here,
(24:01):
a little cooler than that I would like if I
were representing her.
Speaker 7 (24:07):
I mean, if I were her lawyer, for example, I
would tell her to wear her hair differently.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Well, yeah, I mean all of that. There are consultants
for all of that, as you can imagine. And I
think that at this point it might be too late
to change her appearance, because I think everyone, even the
current jurors, were probably exposed to the first trial, and
if she were to change her hairstyle dramatically, now that
(24:37):
might be perceived as disingenuous.
Speaker 7 (24:40):
But you know, I've seen other cases where the important
case is where the defendant is probably paying a fortune
to be defended, and the defendant does, you know, does
not look like I would want my client to look.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
You saying, yeah, how let me ask you this, how
would you just what word would you use to describe
her appearance?
Speaker 7 (25:09):
She doesn't. She has kind of the look of oh,
I really, I mean, I dan, you know, I wouldn't
want her to go in looking like a Sunday school
teacher necessarily, but she has the look of kind of
a wild kind of a bit of a wild look.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Yeah, I don't I don't know that I would characterize
it as that, I guess one of the things that
that would trouble me. And again, they they've got in
already some of her television interviews that she did after
the first trial, between the first and second trial, and
(25:49):
she doesn't come across in at least the clips that
have been shown in my opinion, as particularly empathetic or likable.
I mean, there is an individual who has lost his
life for whatever happened, and it's also someone who she
apparently at one point fell to, you know, very close to,
(26:11):
and you would think that they would be I don't know,
there would be a demeanor which would be somewhat different
than what we that we see both walking into the courtroom,
walking out of the courtroom, and in the courtroom, it's.
Speaker 7 (26:27):
The same kind of thing I'm talking about. And I'm
surprised that lawyers, I mean, I've seen this in other
cases where I don't think the lawyers are getting a
lot of money have suggested. I mean, it doesn't appear
to me that they've suggested to their client, Well, when
you come into the courtroom tomorrow, you know, don't have
your hair flopping all over your shoulders.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Yep. Well, let's see if others agree with you, Steve,
that's an op question. Yeah, sure question. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
Well, let me just I'll tell you one thing. I
think it's going to be pretty hard for the prosecution
to convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt because this
case has so much history that's so convoluted that they've
got a rough road to hoe. I think would you agree?
Speaker 2 (27:14):
I think it depends upon the jurors and if they've
been able to pick jurors who are willing to give
it a fresh look. I mean, this is one of
those cases that every juror had to have been exposed
to it, unless you've lived under a rock or you've
just moved to Massachusetts. And even then it's such a
national case. But there are other cases that have generated
(27:34):
as much publicity. And I think that if the jurors
follow what the judge is telling them, and that is
to consider only the evidence that is put in front
of you, Let's see how the case plays out. Let's
tell you this. I think the prosecutor in this case
is a better prosecutor. Though someone said to me today
that they thought that the first prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Lally,
(27:58):
was a good prosecutor. I watched his open statement pretty
closely a year ago, and I wasn't impressed by it.
I thought that the defense from the get go had
the advantage. I think that Brennan is a It's more
effective in the in the courtroom than than Lally was.
(28:18):
But we'll see how it turns out.
Speaker 7 (28:20):
Last question, Dan, are you surprised that this bar has
not come into more scrutiny? I mean, these people are
all it appears wildly drunk. And why isn't this bar
being you know, shut either shut down or sued in
a wrongful death suit? I mean, why isn't a suit
(28:41):
being brought against this bar that all?
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I don't know that the one that one hasn't And
I don't know if they're close to the statutal limitations.
I think that they have some time in the statute
of limitations, and they might be waiting for the criminal
trial to resolve itself and see what what evidence has
has gotten in there's no rush again. I I'm assuming
the statute of limitations, and I don't know if that's
(29:02):
off of my head. This would be a wrongful death action.
I'm assuming it's somewhere in the vicinity of six years.
Speaker 7 (29:07):
I mean, certainly this bar seems like it was very negligent,
having all these wildly drunk people going out.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Well, yeah, but it's a bar. I mean, that's what
bars do. And if uh, I think that maybe they're
trying to figure out we're we're the fault. Lies. Yeah,
were people overserved? I don't know. I guess I guess
you got videotape, which would seem to suggest that. I
don't know. Thanks, Thanks, Steve, We'll talk to me. You'll
(29:36):
be a stranger. Thanks, have a great one. Good night.
Coming right back on Nightside, one line at six one,
seven thirty. I got a couple at six one seven. Again,
if you're following this trial, I thought today was a
good day for the prosecution. Agree or disagree, feel free.
Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
We go Gonna go next to Jack is a Newton Jack,
Welcome next to night saga.
Speaker 8 (30:04):
Right ahead, Yeah, Hi, how you doing. I haven't good
Jack having called in a while. Uh, I think the
titles actually turned against her. I uh, I was kind
of shocked that all these things have come out in
this second trial and not the first one. And and
I agree with you, mister Brenner is much much better.
(30:25):
And her attitude the previous caller, you know, said it right.
You know, she's a little too cocky, and I mean
she's kind of like gonna go down by her with
her own words, you know. I mean, I don't know
how the jury you can ignore that.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Uh yeah, well again it's it's it's a different jury,
you're right, And let's see how how this this plays out.
I just think this couple that a couple of good days,
uh in the in the opening of this trial for
the prosecution, which you would back, because if the prosecution
doesn't have good days when they're putting in their case
(31:04):
and the case is lost, the question is how effective
will the defense be in rebuttal And that's gonna take
a little bit of time. But at this point I
thought that I thought the idea of the forensic evidence,
the digital sort of evidence, people are much more accepting
of that these days, because they're watching CSI this and
(31:25):
CSI that on television, and I think that that could
work very much against her in this second trial.
Speaker 8 (31:35):
Yeah, I think she's gonna be charged with, you know,
in voluntary manslaughter, actually leaving the scene of a crime.
I mean after hitting him. I don't believe that other stuff,
that he was beaten up or anything like that. It's
just a little bit outrageous.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah. Well, I was talking with Joeanne about that, and
you know, what do you think kind of happened? You know,
it didn't. It doesn't that that people who would be experienced, well,
let's put them on on the front lawn. But you know,
that's I don't mean to laugh at it, but that
seems to me to be a little I don't think
(32:14):
that that police officers and a bunch of them were there,
would would say, oh, yeah, I got a great idea,
let's put them on the front lawn. No one's going
to notice.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (32:24):
A dog bid them in the middle of the night
and his body was out there.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I guess that's conceivable. There there are coyotes, there are
other animals and you know that are out out there
at night. You never know.
Speaker 8 (32:36):
And one of the interesting things about this is it's
really gardnered, really national news. It's in Vanity Fair, it's.
Speaker 6 (32:43):
In everywhere, everywhere national.
Speaker 8 (32:47):
You know. It's one of those child to just grab,
you know, the national international media.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
It's the it's on the evening news, it's on you know.
I've seen it on the ABC's World News tonight and
it's like, whoa. I mean, it's it's caught the imagination
of the public at large. Again. I guess it's it's
a young couple one ends up dead, happens to be
(33:12):
a police officer. How did who done it? How did
it happen? I guess that's the answer. That's the that's
the interest level. Hey Jack, I appreciate your call. Is
always a different take. You always you always bring your
a game. I appreciate it. Thank you much.
Speaker 6 (33:25):
Okay, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Let me go to Mario and Wilmington. Marry. I want
to get you in here before the ten o'clock news.
Go right ahead, Mario, thank you.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
I just want to get three points in with listening
to some of the calls. Last one the animal No,
there's no animals out and driving snowstorms. They they hunkered down,
so it wasn't another animal. Those bite marks or scratches
are not consistent with a hit and run. The other
one is I'm losing faith myself.
Speaker 4 (33:53):
Dad.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
I think she's going to get found guilty, but I
don't know if they can use the manslaughter charges at
this point, like they're still charging her with murder. I think, yeah,
there's there's.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
A there, there's a there's a second degree murder, there's
a there's a manslaughter, and there's leaving the scene of
an accident. So it's any combination thereof would be in.
Speaker 6 (34:15):
Place options the jurors. Okay, all right, gotcha. The other
one was, she's not that attractive to me.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
WHOA hold on, Mario, come on, I mean she's a
she's a very presentable looking woman. Okay, let's just leave
it at that. I mean the beauties in the eyevy
behold and Mario, come on, I think most people would
disagree with you, but you ever write your opinion. But
I don't want to go down that valley way if
(34:47):
you don't mind.
Speaker 6 (34:48):
She's a great look and you can say she's a
good looking woman and that's.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
It, you know what.
Speaker 6 (34:51):
I mean, but why not.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's not what we're trying to assess here. Okay, we
were talking more about her appearance and her demeanor with
Steve from Cambridge as to posed to her.
Speaker 6 (35:03):
Yeah, success, last point, if I can get into a
real question, going to get up every morning and being
court like that, it's while like going to work. I
think she's holding up very well. Her personality and her
characters is trying to deal with this. The other is
the DA's, the judges, they're all there and they were
at ease in their office work there. You're having to
(35:26):
go to court every morning. You're up at five maybe
to be there at that court at eight. It's really difficult.
And she's done. She's hung up very well at it.
You know, she's not making any here the lawyers and
everybody else. She's trying to save her life too. At
the same time. Go ahead, Dan, Sorry, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I think that's a good observation. That's one that that
people should consider. Whatever you think about her guilt or innocence,
that that it is. It has to be very strenuous
to have undergone this, and maybe she should let some
of that that anxiety or that loss show. I think
(36:12):
that that gets to the demeanor issue. She comes across
as very cool, calm and collected, and some people would
say that that's amazing, and you made the point that
it's difficult to do. But some would say that that
doesn't help her when the jury's observing her as cool,
calm and collected when we're talking about whether she was
(36:33):
a cause of it or not. She had been arguing
with her boyfriend that night that I think has been
pretty well established and that was the last. You know,
if you had a conversation with a loved one and
harsh words were exchanged and you found out that your
loved one was killed in a totally unrelated accident, you
(36:53):
certainly would for a long long time regret your last words,
if you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 6 (36:59):
Yeah, it leads me back to where I do think
he ran out of the Albert house. They figured he
took off, but he collapsed out on the snow bank.
If that's the case there, and then she didn't hit him.
It's just so bizarre that she could have possibly hit him,
but the mockings on his body don't consist of there.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Okay, you got it in. Unfortunately, I'm right at the tent,
so I got to let you go, but we'll stick
with this into the next hour for a little while. Mario,
appreciate your point of view.
Speaker 6 (37:30):
Thank you, sir, great schel, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
Good night. Okay, so Mark and Amy, you guys stay there.
I'll get you right on the other side of the
ten the only line that is opened six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty. Your observations, your comments. We don't do Karen
Reid every night of the week here on Night Side.
Whenever there's a witness that I think is significant, that's
when we'll talk about it. And I think it was
(37:54):
a significant witness today because of the again the digital
forensic technology. I think it was a very important day.
We'll see what the jury thinks at some point in
the next few weeks. Back on Night's Side, right after
the ten o'clock news, and we'll continue with this conversation
and we'll get into a couple of other topics later
on tonight as well,
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZY Boston's news video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Beg you, Dan Watkins. As we move into our nine
o'clock hour, we're going to talk about the testimony today
at the Karen Reid retrial. So this is really, however
you want to phrase it. This is the second week.
There was some testimony last week. I thought it was
very interesting testimony today. Now again the testimony is a
(00:30):
prosecution witness. You have to sort of weigh that a
little bit. But I want to talk a little bit
about what the prosecution witness said, what he testified to,
and who he was, and how I think it might
impact the jury. I think talking to one of my
legal beagles today, they thought that the first few days
(00:53):
of this trial has has gone pretty well for the prosecution.
Now again, the we won't know until the jury comes
in with their verdict. But I have to give you
my thoughts as the trial proceeds on a if not
a day to day basis, a week to week basis.
As I think all of us know, this is the
(01:15):
second trial. First trial ended in a hung jury. So
today on the witness stand, the prosecutors called a digital
intelligence expert. What we're really talking about here a forensics.
I mean, forensics is a broad umbrella term that can
mean anything that is sort of scientifically related. We're not
talking about junk science, but we are talking about something
(01:37):
that is scientifically related. And of course all of us
think of it in terms of, you know, DNA and
how that they can go back on some of these
criminal cases and find DNA, make DNA matches on people.
You know, they discarded Pizza cross as the guy that
did down in Long Island. He was a suspect in
(01:58):
the murders of several women on this this beach in
nott Rhode is on the Long Island, excuse me, on
Long Island. So in this instance, the focus today was
on the cell phone of the victim in this case,
John O'Keefe, the Boston you know, the late Boston police
(02:19):
officer who Karen Reid is accused of killing. She's looking
at the most serious charge, a second degree murder charge.
So the prosecutor called this fellaw Ian Whiffen, the digital
intelligence expert with a company called Celebrate, and he focused
on O'Keefe's cell phone. And I won't get into you
(02:43):
know a lot of the detail, and you can you
can follow up on that with me if you want.
But essentially, he claimed that they were able with his
with O'Keefe's cell phone to basically show a couple of
things which I think are pretty important. One is that
(03:08):
the cell phone really was in the area where his
body was found for several hours. Several hours now there
was a flagpole on the opposite side of the lawn.
(03:29):
Said according to Whiffin that the phone apparently was near
a flagpole on the opposite side of the lawn, but
on the lawn now. Could have O'Keefe discarded the cell
phone or dropped the cell phone, I guess. But the
fact that those of us who have cell phones know
(03:51):
that we're always touching our pocket to make sure we
have our cell phone, that I'll leave no, I got
my cell phone. I feel better, Okay, thirty seconds later,
where's my oh yes, my back pocket or whatever. So
that is interesting fact that the jury can take into
consideration or testimony that the jury can take into consideration.
And then the other thing that Withffin talked about was
(04:17):
that the phone's battery temperature and the Applehealth Dot data
on the phone. He said the battery temperature started off
at about eighty degrees and then a few hours later
it went as low as thirty seven degrees. Now that's
(04:41):
a tough one to overcome, because if O'Keefe did go
into the house, as the defense wants to convince the jury,
what did he do. Did he bring the cell phone
in the house and put it in the refrigerator? Probably not?
Probably not. So I think that the inclusion that maybe
(05:01):
could be drawn from that is that the cell phone
not only was on the lawn for the entirety, but
maybe it was on the lawn with in fact John O'Keefe,
which of course would be a devastating conclusion. Now again,
forensic science and all of that. Look, you watch any
(05:22):
TV show these days, and people do watch these shows.
I like to watch the show on Sunday Night called Tracker.
It's the one show that I have an opportunity to
really watch. And they're using all sorts of data, forensic data,
digital data, and that's what this guy Wiffin was talking
(05:45):
about today. So this is cut number twenty one. This
is within being asked by the prosecutor Hank Brennan about
what we've just talked about. This will give you a
little bit of a sense of what went on in
court toe they cut twenty one.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Please rub the fact that the center dots are in
different spots. Is that inconsistent with a phone being in
the same place not moving that entire night.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
It could indicate movement, it could indicate refinement.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Is it impossible to tell?
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Its possible to tell at this level of detail anyway.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Are all these dots, given the range ten meters are
under Are all these dots and all these readings of
the high frequency data that you compiled for that night,
are they all consistent with Michel Keif's phone being near
the flagpole and.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Not moving that night.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Okay. Brennan also questioned with it about he refers here
to the phone took its last steps. Obviously he's referring
to O'Keefe taking his last potentially his last last steps.
And they've got the time down to twelve thirty two,
(07:10):
and it didn't move again until six four am, which
I believe is the time when his body was actually
discovered and properly moved by EMTs. This has cut twenty three, Please.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Rob After twelve thirty two, sixteen when this phone took
its last steps did it move again until six h
four or one am.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
There would no more steps or flight climb or any
other health activity recorder during that time.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
So referring to at one point the phone suggested that
it had moved up a few feet, which someone you know,
which the defense will potentially argue that that showed him
walking up a flight of steps into the house, but
the prosecution anticipated that argument and it was explained by
(08:06):
this digital intelligence expert that the phone, while it was
in the car and moving from from point A to
point B, could have gone up you know, elevation. It's
all related, I guess to C level. So I think
that's pretty damning testimony in terms of again forensic testimony. Obviously,
(08:31):
the defense has not put on their case, the prosecution
has not finished presenting their case. But I think that
this guy, Ian Wiffen could be a pretty important witness,
and testimony from this witness that the that the jury
may want to focus on. So what I'm gonna do
(08:52):
is gonna take quick break. I'm going to invite you
to join the conversation. If you have a strong opinion
on what happened in court today, feel free if you
feel what happened in court today will be dismissable by
the defense. Feel free as well. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Again,
(09:14):
we're not going to follow this every day, but when
there is a day either for the prosecution or defense
which seems to be significant, we're going to talk about it,
and I hope you join us. Coming right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
So I've tried to explain what went on in condensed
form in court today and what I think its impact
will be. I do believe that a lot of the
forensic materials that have baffled people other juries over the
years have now come to be accepted by a lot
(09:56):
of Americans. We assume that the DNA is going to
be accurate. Now. I know that there's all sorts of
arguments prone against PROW and against it, but and and
some of it can be considered you know, junk science.
Lie detectors are not necessarily involved and used allowed in
Massachusetts courts, although light detector has been around a long time.
(10:18):
I just think that this testimony today from this digital
intelligence expert Ian Wiffin, again, I wasn't in the court room,
wasn't able to read the jury, but it sounded to
me as if it was pretty convincing, and it also
seems to be based on science that is pretty acceptable.
(10:38):
I don't know that the defense lawyers will be able
to do much with Ian Wiffin on cross examination. We
will see, but I'd love to know from you if
you listen tonight, if you if you watched it, that's
the best. I mean, it's it's streamed by most of
the local outlets, station TV station, It's now in some
(11:00):
form of fashion. If if you watch the local news tonight,
did it? How would have it impacted you? If you
remember this jury? Again, I think that I do not
believe that Wiffin was available at the first trial. I
believe that this is a new witness. I did not
(11:23):
cover the first trial, have not covered the second trial
on a day to day basis. But if I'm incorrect
on that, feel free to correct me. I think that
this was a great witness, a solid witness for the
prosecution today and a witness that the jurors probably will remember.
Let's go to the phones six one, seven, two, four, ten, thirty, six, one, seven,
(11:47):
ninety I've said this before. I always like to know
if you are still as committed to your belief in
this case, whether you believe Karen Reid is guilty or
not guilty, if that interview has changed, and what may
have caused it to change. We are into the second retrial.
Feel free. Let me go to Joe. Joe, you were
(12:09):
next on our first this hour, first this week on Nightside.
Welcome Joe.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
I'd like to make some points, two or three points
and get your comments first.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Go right ahead, Joe. I know that's why you called
I'm all ears. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Karen Reid said on a TV interview, I hit him,
I hit him, I hit him. Do you think she
could have had a blackout when if she did hit him?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
I don't know. I don't know that she said that
on a TV interview.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
I think on TV, Dan, Maybe some of your callers
can back me up.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Okay, that's fine. I think she is reported to have
said that in the morning, while you said a TV interview.
I don't think she said it on a TV interview.
I think that that there was audio in the courtroom. No,
let me help you out, Joe, Okay, please help you out.
I think that there was a police dash cam running
(13:07):
the morning that the body was discovered, at approximately six
o'clock the morning after whatever happened happened. And I believe
that that that that picked her up, that that that
her comments. It wasn't like she sat down for an
interview and admitted in the in the you know, the
the the cold well lit you know interview situation, yes,
(13:33):
I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. I
don't didn't want people to come away with that impression.
She apparently blurted that out as what lawyers would call
an excited utterance or a statement against interest at approximately
the moment when they found they went back and they
found his body on the front lawn. That's that's so,
(13:56):
that's what that's what I think you're referring to. Go ahead, Joe.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
Yeah, and Dan, my prejudice tell me that I would
like to see her free of all charges, because how
do you explain the dog bites and how do you think, Dan,
that she's being framed. I'd like your opinion.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
I don't believe she's being framed, to be honest with you,
I think that there's enough evidence here which the jury
could believe to convict her. I think there's enough evidence
which the jury could believe to acquit her in terms
of the dog bites or the animal bites. If John
O'Keefe was theoretically hit by her, and if he lost
(14:38):
consciousness and was on that lawn that morning for five
and a half hours, it's conceivable that any animal might
have come along and and chewed on his arm. So
but I again, I'm not in the courtroom. I'm not
an expert. I'm just telling you what I truly think.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
Okay, Dan, you have the bet jarre better than all
the rest.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Well, I appreciate that. And you're a poet, but you
don't know it. Hey, thanks, Thanks Joe. I appreciate you. Carl,
thank you much so you you you're rooting for her
to be acquitted obviously right of all charges.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
And I hope she makes a lot of money on
her book.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Okay, Joe, and you you have stuck with that opinion
from Jump Street, right, you haven't switched back and forth, right, Okay,
that's great. You're a man of your conviction. Thank you, Joe,
I appreciate it. Let me go to Joe Inn and Salem.
Joeanne a different point of view, maybe the same go ahead,
joe In.
Speaker 5 (15:37):
Hi, Dean, how are you.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
I'm doing great. Did you get a chance to watch
any of that testimony today?
Speaker 6 (15:43):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (15:43):
I've been following this case since now the beginning, since
early twenty twenty three. Yes, and Ian Whiffen did testify
in the first trial.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Okay, fair enough, Okay, thank you for that correction.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Him and Jessica Hyde was the other prosecute. You shouldn't
with this regarding the cell phone data.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
And you know, let me ask you this. How did
the defense attack that testimony in the first trial.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
Well, it was just kind of a battle of you know,
the experts, you know, it's it was I can't really
remember everything.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
So was there another Yeah, I'm just asking. I'm asking
the question, and if you don't know the answer, the
best answer is to say, g I'm not sure. Did
they bring in a digital expert to counter what he
had to say? A digital expert? Who who would have
suggested that, hey, it's impossible to tell where their phone was?
(16:44):
Or did did they did they have anyone who challenged
you know who? You know? Normally you get each each
side as an expert in normal cases, and then it's
up to the jury to decide which expert is more incredible.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Exactly, yes, And the defense did bring in somebody. They
brought in Richard Green, who is going to be bringing
in again for this trial.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
And if you.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
Listen to Ian's testimony today, he had said a colleague
had called to inquire. It was Richard Green who called Ian.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
So you know, what is this?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
What is the significance in your mind of that you in,
Because I mean Richard Green had called Ian Whippin in
the beginning before Ian.
Speaker 5 (17:27):
Whiffen had an opinion to say like, look it, do
you think this happened? You know, And it wasn't until
after when all of a sudden, Ian Whiffan comes out
and says, you know something opposite. I can't tell you
what he said. That was the first I learned him
that today.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
So so so you're like, you're like, Joe, it sounds
to me as if you're convinced that that Karen Reid
is not guilty of any of these charges. That's that's
the impression I got from you. Correct.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
Oh, absolutely, I mean there's just too many, too many
coincidences with the investigation, and just you know, it's it's
just way too many. If there's one, two or three. Fine,
but all of these ones that you're telling me a
mass gape police troopers.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
So let me let me ask you what do you think?
So you think you think that I just want to,
you know, because I am not sure. I have my
own thoughts, but i'd rather find out from you, since
you've watched probably more of the trial, the first trial
and even now the second trial that I have. So
you're convinced, therefore, that O'Keefe went into the house and
(18:34):
something bad happened inside the house.
Speaker 5 (18:37):
Yes, I don't believe any any you know, they didn't
mean to, you know, kill him, but yees, you know.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
And so then so then you think that they do
you think that they said, geez, he's dead, let's put
him on the front lawn. Or do you think they said, well,
put him out in the front lawn and he'll wake up.
I mean, what how do you think he ended and
why on the front lawn?
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Well, we have first of all, you're not going to
transport a body into anybody's vehicle. That's extra DNA. You know,
if they ever did do it any investigation, which we
know they've never even went in the house, and they'd
go into my house or your house if the body
was found on our lawn. But I think that, you know,
maybe a Socca punch was thrown to John O'Keefe. He
(19:23):
banged his head on something hard. And I mean, it
happens all the time. It happened to you.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Okay, So let's let's ass Joe in. Let's assume that happened. Okay,
So now you got However, many people are in the
house who witnessed this. Why would not someone have said, hey,
let's call an ambulance and you know, he may be
a jerk, but we don't want him to die in
the house. Or how did what do you do you
(19:50):
think they said, well, look, we'll put him out of
the lawn and nobody's going to notice him till the spring.
That's what boggles my mind.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
No, no, I don't believe that. I first of all,
I don't believe buddy that was I don't believe the
young kids were fully aware of what was going on.
I think, you know, I mean people say conspiracy. I
call it a cover up. All it takes is three
family members and a good you know relationship with you know,
law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
So you put him on the lawn, right so you
put him on the lawn, right, and then what do
you hope do you at that point say well, we
got to figure out another way. Oh let's pint it
on the woman who dropped him off. Is that is
that what you think?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
No?
Speaker 5 (20:28):
No, I don't think that was the original plan. I
think it was. I mean, he was at the edge
of the lawn. He was on Brian Obert's property, but
he was at the edge. I think the like the
scenario is the plow hit him. I think that was
going to be it. The wish she was looking for
him and she happened to have a crack tail light.
(20:48):
It just fit together.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
So you think they put him on the lawn and
the now the plow guy has said, I believe that
he never saw anything but that alone. But I think
they put him on the lawn. Well, okay, fine, I
think to that strange credibility. That's that's strange credulity in
the sense that I think if if they were corrupt people,
(21:15):
uh and particularly corrupt police, they probably would have been
more creative than that.
Speaker 5 (21:21):
Well well, I mean, you know, you got to look
at people's paths too, and it's out there, it's public
it's not made up.
Speaker 6 (21:27):
It's not rumor.
Speaker 5 (21:28):
There's very public things about Brian Albert out there. I
originally when I heard it.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Again, just just emphasize, just emphasize Brian Albert. There's no
one else on trial at this point, so uh, let's
let the defense in the court of law put put
it in. I don't want to be making any having
any allegations made against When you say something like it's
out there, I don't know what it's is. If you
(21:56):
know what I'm saying the news in the news, I understand, Well,
that's fine. Let the news defend themselves. I'm going to
defend my station and make sure that my station is
not sued. That's all I'm saying. All right, right, great,
good enough, Joe Inn hate to do this to you.
I've gone well into the news, so I gotta let
you run. But thanks very much. Interesting.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
Interesting, you appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
Hey, thanks time, and you're great.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Thank you very much. I appreciate you. Call call again. Thanks,
good night. We'll take a roy quick break. Here's the
news at the bottom of the hoar. A couple of
minutes later, I got Steve coming up, Jack coming up
in a room for you one at six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty and two at six one, seven,
nine three one ten thirty. My plan is to change
topics at ten o'clock. The number of phone calls that
we get will determine that if you want to talk
(22:41):
more about this, we can go into the ten o'clock
how if you don't, we'll wrap it up at ten.
Back after this on Night Side.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
You're on Night Side with Dan ray on'ell you Bzy
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Back to the phones we go. Let me go to
Steve and Cambridge. Steve, welcome back. You've been away for
a while. Where you've been. I've missed you, all right?
Speaker 7 (22:59):
I just Dan, for one reason or another, I've been
not not calling.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
But that's okay. Always great to hear your voice.
Speaker 7 (23:08):
Go right ahead, Thank you, Dan. I have asking for
your opinions as a man who is an attorney and
also has spent a lot of time reporting on crime
and litigation in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Sure.
Speaker 7 (23:25):
Do you think her appearance in the courtroom is good?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
No? No, I don't.
Speaker 7 (23:31):
I mean, if you were a lawyer, wouldn't you tell
her to look a little more demure?
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yeah? I think she's she's a very attractive woman. I
think she's also expressive. Uh and and again I haven't
been in that courtroom, so it's difficult for me to imagine,
but I do think that she has. She comes across
probably a little I want to pick a good word here,
(24:01):
a little cooler than that I would like if I
were representing her.
Speaker 7 (24:07):
I mean, if I were her lawyer, for example, I
would tell her to wear her hair differently.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Well, yeah, I mean all of that. There are consultants
for all of that, as you can imagine. And I
think that at this point it might be too late
to change her appearance, because I think everyone, even the
current jurors, were probably exposed to the first trial, and
if she were to change her hairstyle dramatically, now that
(24:37):
might be perceived as disingenuous.
Speaker 7 (24:40):
But you know, I've seen other cases where the important
case is where the defendant is probably paying a fortune
to be defended, and the defendant does, you know, does
not look like I would want my client to look.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
You saying, yeah, how let me ask you this, how
would you just what word would you use to describe
her appearance?
Speaker 7 (25:09):
She doesn't. She has kind of the look of oh,
I really, I mean, I dan, you know, I wouldn't
want her to go in looking like a Sunday school
teacher necessarily, but she has the look of kind of
a wild kind of a bit of a wild look.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Yeah, I don't I don't know that I would characterize
it as that, I guess one of the things that
that would trouble me. And again, they they've got in
already some of her television interviews that she did after
the first trial, between the first and second trial, and
(25:49):
she doesn't come across in at least the clips that
have been shown in my opinion, as particularly empathetic or likable.
I mean, there is an individual who has lost his
life for whatever happened, and it's also someone who she
apparently at one point fell to, you know, very close to,
(26:11):
and you would think that they would be I don't know,
there would be a demeanor which would be somewhat different
than what we that we see both walking into the courtroom,
walking out of the courtroom, and in the courtroom, it's.
Speaker 7 (26:27):
The same kind of thing I'm talking about. And I'm
surprised that lawyers, I mean, I've seen this in other
cases where I don't think the lawyers are getting a
lot of money have suggested. I mean, it doesn't appear
to me that they've suggested to their client, Well, when
you come into the courtroom tomorrow, you know, don't have
your hair flopping all over your shoulders.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Yep. Well, let's see if others agree with you, Steve,
that's an op question. Yeah, sure question. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
Well, let me just I'll tell you one thing. I
think it's going to be pretty hard for the prosecution
to convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt because this
case has so much history that's so convoluted that they've
got a rough road to hoe. I think would you agree?
Speaker 2 (27:14):
I think it depends upon the jurors and if they've
been able to pick jurors who are willing to give
it a fresh look. I mean, this is one of
those cases that every juror had to have been exposed
to it, unless you've lived under a rock or you've
just moved to Massachusetts. And even then it's such a
national case. But there are other cases that have generated
(27:34):
as much publicity. And I think that if the jurors
follow what the judge is telling them, and that is
to consider only the evidence that is put in front
of you, Let's see how the case plays out. Let's
tell you this. I think the prosecutor in this case
is a better prosecutor. Though someone said to me today
that they thought that the first prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Lally,
(27:58):
was a good prosecutor. I watched his open statement pretty
closely a year ago, and I wasn't impressed by it.
I thought that the defense from the get go had
the advantage. I think that Brennan is a It's more
effective in the in the courtroom than than Lally was.
(28:18):
But we'll see how it turns out.
Speaker 7 (28:20):
Last question, Dan, are you surprised that this bar has
not come into more scrutiny? I mean, these people are
all it appears wildly drunk. And why isn't this bar
being you know, shut either shut down or sued in
a wrongful death suit? I mean, why isn't a suit
(28:41):
being brought against this bar that all?
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I don't know that the one that one hasn't And
I don't know if they're close to the statutal limitations.
I think that they have some time in the statute
of limitations, and they might be waiting for the criminal
trial to resolve itself and see what what evidence has
has gotten in there's no rush again. I I'm assuming
the statute of limitations, and I don't know if that's
(29:02):
off of my head. This would be a wrongful death action.
I'm assuming it's somewhere in the vicinity of six years.
Speaker 7 (29:07):
I mean, certainly this bar seems like it was very negligent,
having all these wildly drunk people going out.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Well, yeah, but it's a bar. I mean, that's what
bars do. And if uh, I think that maybe they're
trying to figure out we're we're the fault. Lies. Yeah,
were people overserved? I don't know. I guess I guess
you got videotape, which would seem to suggest that. I
don't know. Thanks, Thanks, Steve, We'll talk to me. You'll
(29:36):
be a stranger. Thanks, have a great one. Good night.
Coming right back on Nightside, one line at six one,
seven thirty. I got a couple at six one seven. Again,
if you're following this trial, I thought today was a
good day for the prosecution. Agree or disagree, feel free.
Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
We go Gonna go next to Jack is a Newton Jack,
Welcome next to night saga.
Speaker 8 (30:04):
Right ahead, Yeah, Hi, how you doing. I haven't good
Jack having called in a while. Uh, I think the
titles actually turned against her. I uh, I was kind
of shocked that all these things have come out in
this second trial and not the first one. And and
I agree with you, mister Brenner is much much better.
(30:25):
And her attitude the previous caller, you know, said it right.
You know, she's a little too cocky, and I mean
she's kind of like gonna go down by her with
her own words, you know. I mean, I don't know
how the jury you can ignore that.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Uh yeah, well again it's it's it's a different jury,
you're right, And let's see how how this this plays out.
I just think this couple that a couple of good days,
uh in the in the opening of this trial for
the prosecution, which you would back, because if the prosecution
doesn't have good days when they're putting in their case
(31:04):
and the case is lost, the question is how effective
will the defense be in rebuttal And that's gonna take
a little bit of time. But at this point I
thought that I thought the idea of the forensic evidence,
the digital sort of evidence, people are much more accepting
of that these days, because they're watching CSI this and
(31:25):
CSI that on television, and I think that that could
work very much against her in this second trial.
Speaker 8 (31:35):
Yeah, I think she's gonna be charged with, you know,
in voluntary manslaughter, actually leaving the scene of a crime.
I mean after hitting him. I don't believe that other stuff,
that he was beaten up or anything like that. It's
just a little bit outrageous.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah. Well, I was talking with Joeanne about that, and
you know, what do you think kind of happened? You know,
it didn't. It doesn't that that people who would be experienced, well,
let's put them on on the front lawn. But you know,
that's I don't mean to laugh at it, but that
seems to me to be a little I don't think
(32:14):
that that police officers and a bunch of them were there,
would would say, oh, yeah, I got a great idea,
let's put them on the front lawn. No one's going
to notice.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (32:24):
A dog bid them in the middle of the night
and his body was out there.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I guess that's conceivable. There there are coyotes, there are
other animals and you know that are out out there
at night. You never know.
Speaker 8 (32:36):
And one of the interesting things about this is it's
really gardnered, really national news. It's in Vanity Fair, it's.
Speaker 6 (32:43):
In everywhere, everywhere national.
Speaker 8 (32:47):
You know. It's one of those child to just grab,
you know, the national international media.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
It's the it's on the evening news, it's on you know.
I've seen it on the ABC's World News tonight and
it's like, whoa. I mean, it's it's caught the imagination
of the public at large. Again. I guess it's it's
a young couple one ends up dead, happens to be
(33:12):
a police officer. How did who done it? How did
it happen? I guess that's the answer. That's the that's
the interest level. Hey Jack, I appreciate your call. Is
always a different take. You always you always bring your
a game. I appreciate it. Thank you much.
Speaker 6 (33:25):
Okay, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Let me go to Mario and Wilmington. Marry. I want
to get you in here before the ten o'clock news.
Go right ahead, Mario, thank you.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
I just want to get three points in with listening
to some of the calls. Last one the animal No,
there's no animals out and driving snowstorms. They they hunkered down,
so it wasn't another animal. Those bite marks or scratches
are not consistent with a hit and run. The other
one is I'm losing faith myself.
Speaker 4 (33:53):
Dad.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
I think she's going to get found guilty, but I
don't know if they can use the manslaughter charges at
this point, like they're still charging her with murder. I think, yeah,
there's there's.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
A there, there's a there's a second degree murder, there's
a there's a manslaughter, and there's leaving the scene of
an accident. So it's any combination thereof would be in.
Speaker 6 (34:15):
Place options the jurors. Okay, all right, gotcha. The other
one was, she's not that attractive to me.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
WHOA hold on, Mario, come on, I mean she's a
she's a very presentable looking woman. Okay, let's just leave
it at that. I mean the beauties in the eyevy
behold and Mario, come on, I think most people would
disagree with you, but you ever write your opinion. But
I don't want to go down that valley way if
(34:47):
you don't mind.
Speaker 6 (34:48):
She's a great look and you can say she's a
good looking woman and that's.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
It, you know what.
Speaker 6 (34:51):
I mean, but why not.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's not what we're trying to assess here. Okay, we
were talking more about her appearance and her demeanor with
Steve from Cambridge as to posed to her.
Speaker 6 (35:03):
Yeah, success, last point, if I can get into a
real question, going to get up every morning and being
court like that, it's while like going to work. I
think she's holding up very well. Her personality and her
characters is trying to deal with this. The other is
the DA's, the judges, they're all there and they were
at ease in their office work there. You're having to
(35:26):
go to court every morning. You're up at five maybe
to be there at that court at eight. It's really difficult.
And she's done. She's hung up very well at it.
You know, she's not making any here the lawyers and
everybody else. She's trying to save her life too. At
the same time. Go ahead, Dan, Sorry, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I think that's a good observation. That's one that that
people should consider. Whatever you think about her guilt or innocence,
that that it is. It has to be very strenuous
to have undergone this, and maybe she should let some
of that that anxiety or that loss show. I think
(36:12):
that that gets to the demeanor issue. She comes across
as very cool, calm and collected, and some people would
say that that's amazing, and you made the point that
it's difficult to do. But some would say that that
doesn't help her when the jury's observing her as cool,
calm and collected when we're talking about whether she was
(36:33):
a cause of it or not. She had been arguing
with her boyfriend that night that I think has been
pretty well established and that was the last. You know,
if you had a conversation with a loved one and
harsh words were exchanged and you found out that your
loved one was killed in a totally unrelated accident, you
(36:53):
certainly would for a long long time regret your last words,
if you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 6 (36:59):
Yeah, it leads me back to where I do think
he ran out of the Albert house. They figured he
took off, but he collapsed out on the snow bank.
If that's the case there, and then she didn't hit him.
It's just so bizarre that she could have possibly hit him,
but the mockings on his body don't consist of there.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Okay, you got it in. Unfortunately, I'm right at the tent,
so I got to let you go, but we'll stick
with this into the next hour for a little while. Mario,
appreciate your point of view.
Speaker 6 (37:30):
Thank you, sir, great schel, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
Good night. Okay, so Mark and Amy, you guys stay there.
I'll get you right on the other side of the
ten the only line that is opened six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty. Your observations, your comments. We don't do Karen
Reid every night of the week here on Night Side.
Whenever there's a witness that I think is significant, that's
when we'll talk about it. And I think it was
(37:54):
a significant witness today because of the again the digital
forensic technology. I think it was a very important day.
We'll see what the jury thinks at some point in
the next few weeks. Back on Night's Side, right after
the ten o'clock news, and we'll continue with this conversation
and we'll get into a couple of other topics later
on tonight as well,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com