June 13, 2025 • 43 mins
Prosecutors and defense attorneys delivered their closing arguments today in Karen Read’s second trial over the death of her boyfriend, BPD officer John O’Keefe. Dan shared the latest details from this case.
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the 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 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Foston's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, as I think all of you know, the
Karen Reid trial is now in the hands of the jury.
So it's been a long slog, not only for Karen
read in this trial, but also in her last trial.
It's been a long slog. So the jury today got
(00:32):
the case I guess around two forty and they were
allowed to deliberate for till two thirty till four thirty,
a little less than two hours. And you would not
expect it in a case of this complexity and this challenge,
such a challenging case, that they would have come up
with a verdict. So the situation that we find ourselves
(00:57):
in is that the jury will spend the weekend on
their own and they will reconvene on Monday. There apparently
today was some motion made by the defense lawyers which
would have had Karen Reid I guess was denied by
(01:17):
the judge. I've never heard of this before, a motion
whereby Karen Reid would have assisted in the What they
do is they have eighteen jurors who listen to the case.
Rob if you could clear that call in number five,
that would be a good thing, if you had a moment. Okay,
thank you very much. I appreciate it. And let me
know with this SoundBite. I can always send that to
(01:38):
you during the break if I have to. I have that.
We can take care of all of that. So they
will spend the weekend on their own, not talking about it,
not listening to shows like Nightside, not reading the newspaper
or anything like that. We will then see how it results,
what happens. I have no idea as to how the
(02:01):
jury will go on any of these counts. There are
three major counts, second degree murder, manslaughter while operating a
vehicle under the influence of liquor. There are a couple
of what's called lesser included charges there involuntary manslaughter, motor
(02:22):
vehicle homicide and a simple OUI and then the third
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. So
these are serious charges and it is a lot for
the jury to consider, and they will resume their consideration
Monday morning. And I am interested to find out now
(02:43):
that the case has been finished, the closing arguments today
and the instructions of the jury. As I started to
talk about this motion that was made where by somehow
never heard of this before. That the defense said that
in order to maintain the integrity of the judicial system
(03:04):
that the defendant would never been done before. What they
do is, you have eighteen people on the jury, and
eventually twelve will become the jew rows, and six of
them have to be They basically take them out of
it kind of looks like a watto barrel, and they
(03:29):
tick out six who become alternate jurors. And the motion
that was made was that Karen Reid would be able
to participate in that. It's generally done by the Clerk
of Courts, as it was today. Anyway, the point of
the story is that this case has always been full
(03:49):
of surprises, and we'll see. I mean, I think the
jury could come back with anything. They could come back
with acquittal, they could come back with convictions on some all.
I don't think they're going to come back with a
second degree murder. I think that's that is a in
my opinion, a not guilty pretty clearly. But I'd love
(04:10):
to know what you think. So here the number six, one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
We were missing a couple of sound bites here and
I'm going to take a quick break here. Rob and
I are going to get our act together, and we'll
be right back after the break here on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Last night we talked about the case a little bit.
We started talking about the Karen Read case and then
we we moved on to the the situation there was
quickly developing in the Middle East. So tonight I decided
to do the reverse because obviously people had an opportunity
(04:55):
towards the end of the show last night to talk
about the Middle East, and uh, they had an opportunity
in the beginning of the show to talk about Karen Reid. So,
having explain to you why I took him in reverse order,
there was one caller who called in and he leaves
voicemails for me. He's a caller who just doesn't like
(05:18):
me or doesn't like my show, and he's I like
to talk to these people or talk about these people,
and they're often mistaken, never in doubt. And this is
this caller doesn't leave his name, but his voice will
be recognized. And of course when you leave a voicemail,
for me on the machine. I tell you, hey, this
(05:41):
might meet be on the air. So we're ab going
to play the cut that I just sent you. It's
only seventeen seconds long. But this was a caller who
was very upset with our discussion. We had a very
high level legal discussion with a veteran criminal defense lawyer,
Phil Tracy. Caller predicted the outcome of the case, and
(06:03):
he put a deadline on it. So I don't know
if his outcome is going to be right, might be,
but certainly the deadline that he put on his past
cut number ten. Go right ahead, Robb.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Karen read jury will come back and look till late
afternoon tomorrow with a not guilty verdict. That's making a
fool out of till Tracy, you and Hank Bennan and
believe me, I will call to rub it in tomorrow evening.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Well, if you're out there listening tonight and you'd like
to call in and take a victory lap and rub
it in. Oh the jury didn't come back with a verdict. Oh,
I see. Well, I wonder if this caller, whose voice
is a very distinctive voice, by the way, is going
to have the backbone to call in and say, guess
(06:50):
what I was wrong because he was wrong. Now I
don't know, and I've said all along, I don't know
how the case will come out because I haven't been
in the courtroom every day. I'm prepared to do my
show every day. So if he's listening and he wants
to call in and take a victory lap, feel free
(07:12):
because not only well the words speak for themselves seventeen
seconds of your thoughts last night, which proved to be
wrong again. Sorry, no one is hanging their head. Phil
Tracy's not hanging his head. I'm not hanging my head,
and Hank Brennan isn't hanging his head. We all happen
(07:35):
to We all happen to be lawyers. Phil Tracy and
Hank Brennan a very experienced trial lawyers in the courts
of Massachusetts. And I'm sure that you probably have a
deep Whoever this caller is, I'm sure you probably have
a deep legal background. I bet you probably at some
point of watch Judge Judy a couple of times, and
so you have a degree from the school of Judge Judy.
(07:57):
Let me go to the callers. Six months, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six one, seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. First
up is Gideon in Quincy. Gideon, thank you for calling in.
You are next on Nightside. Hey, how are you?
Speaker 4 (08:09):
Thank you? I'm great.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
First of all, Dan, I do like you and I
do like your show, so I want to start with that.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
You're welcome. Okay, So about Karen Reid, what I really
want to say is, I don't think she's a murderer.
I just don't believe that. You know, I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I yeah, I agree with you. I don't think she Yeah,
I don't think the case was made to a convictor
on the second degree murder charge. I agree with you.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Go right ahead, right And you know, with the alcohol
and everything, we don't really know what happened. I'm not
sure i'd buy the widespread conspiracy. But based on her behavior,
you know, I understand she was the next day, she
was worried about whether.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
She'd hit him.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
She was not behaving like a murderer. Now, you know,
maybe leaving the scene of an accident. But you take
the fact they charged her with murder, and then you
add on top of that some of the mistakes that
were made of the trial and what was you know
true for Procto, the things he said, looking through her phone,
with the looking for the nude pictures. You take all that,
(09:21):
put it all together, and I hope she gets a pass.
I feel sorry for the family. I feel sorry for
the victim, I really do. But I just don't think
she's a murderer. And you put it all together, and
I think that she I think she should get a pass.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
You know, well, here's the prom my thought. Okay, no, no,
those thoughts, and I agree with you. In order to
prove murder, even murder in the second degree, you have
to prove a level of intent that I just don't
think is there. However, when when you have someone whose
life has been cut short, and you have someone who
(10:04):
and I don't know exactly how old mister O'Keeffe, officer
O'Keefe was, but it looked to me like he was
somewhere in his forties. He obviously had many years of life.
Something happened, something happened. It's up to the jury to
decide if what happened involved her, So if if hypothetically
(10:27):
she was overserved, and if hypothetically she had been in
an argument with mister O'Keefe, and if hypothetically the argument
got heated and he wanted to go into the to
the party and she had no interest in doing that.
(10:47):
And if she decided that she was once he left
her vehicle or the vehicle, she was going to make
a dramatic departure, let's put it like that, and in
the middle of a snowstorm, I guess was a pretty
intense snowstorm, decided to just step on the gas and
(11:08):
go away to make the point that she was upset.
And if, unfortunately the car was in reverse and not
in forward going you know, in drive, If if the
jury would have believed that, do you still give her
a pass?
Speaker 4 (11:28):
I don't, you know, I don't know. It's tough. I mean,
I'm glad I'm not on that journey jury. I mean,
I'm really glad, And I don't know. But I just
think that if the government, I think I think it
seems a little unfair that the government can charge her
with murder and then sort of say, well, okay, she's
(11:49):
not a murderer, but well then jumped down to you know,
leaving the scene of an accident and manslaughter. I just
feel it should be you know, either murder or not murder.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Well again, there's well, Gideon, Gideon, there's there's every case,
the facts of the case to find what the charge
might be. Now, is she overcharged? I would armor from
the case I saw that she's overcharged when he come
to murder. But can you get a man slain of
conviction out of there? Voluntary or involuntary? I think that's possible,
(12:27):
certainly on the involuntary leaving the scene of an accident.
You know, again, that's tough because that's a state of
mind situation, motor vehicle homicide. That's that's that's doable. So anyway, look,
it's the way the court system works. The court system
isn't perfect. Yeah, as someone once said, it's the second
(12:49):
worst court system in the world, and the first worst.
The worst ones are all the others. So we'll see.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
They say the same thing about democracy, right, all the others.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
That's a good one.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
That's a great time.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Geddy and I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you very much.
Let me go to Matt in Florida. Matt has strong
viewpoints always. Matt, welcome back, Dan.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
What do you think happened? You've you've yet to give
your theory. Well, or can you not because you know
they could see you?
Speaker 2 (13:27):
No, no, no, I can give a theory. I can
give a theory.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
I want to I want to hear it. I've been
waiting for it for years.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Well, well, the more I look at it, I find
it difficult to believe that he got into the house.
And I know that there's all the evidence that people
will hear that he get into the house and he
got into a fight and either was intentionally killed or
someone hit him with a lucky punch and he hit
(13:56):
his head. But he's dead in the house. And then
at some point someone said, well, what are we going
to do? And you've got like all these people kicking around,
and they're going to conclude, you know, let's just put
them out in the front lawn. No one's going to
notice that. That, to me, stretches credibility. What doesn't stretch
credibility is that there could have been a horrible accident,
(14:20):
meaning that these two folks are have a and no
one knows, I mean the only person who knows, and
maybe she doesn't even know because she had apparently she
was over served that night. So so assume they have
a big, a big argument and she's turned the car
(14:40):
around and the car she thinks the car is in drive,
and it's actually in reverse. He gets out of the car,
and she decides that she's going to make a dramatic
getaway and hits the gas pedal thinking she's going to
go forward, and it goes backwards by mistake.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
That's right, the eyes.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Yeah, that's the only conceivable theory that makes any sense
to me. Although I can't prove that, right, you know,
I don't know that the prosecution should prove that.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Yeah, right. And this is the thing. I was so
into the conspiracy, and you know, I listened to Brennan,
who I can't stand. I don't like him, but I
mean his I thought his closing arguments were actually pretty good.
And like, I just think Karen Reid got really really
really really really times a thousand lucky in that there
(15:38):
was just no evidence of what actually happened. You know,
I think she actually, after years of looking at this,
I don't know, I just I'm doing a complete one
eighty here, but I think she did it, and she
got a great lawyer, and she lucked out in that.
You know, he didn't, you know, what if he saw
(15:58):
the car coming back where then he slipped, And you know, like,
I just think she got really lucky in that there's
really no evidence against her, really, and I just that's
my theory now, is just that she got lucky. There's
no evidence and all the evidence has really fed the
conspiracy because the heart evidence is it's more plausible looking
(16:20):
at the heart evidence that there was a conspiracy versus
her actually hitting them.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
But so let me ask you this. Okay, if you
go back to the to the conspiracy, if he went
into the house and there were words exchanged and a
fight ensued, and I know that people are gonna call
it in, tell me about the rug was taken out
and the dog was put somewhere. All of that. I
was hoping that the forensics on the automobile would be
(16:50):
more dispositive of what might have happened. But let's assume
hypothetically that it for no good reason, there's a fight
and somebody pushes him, and this can happen. People hit
their head and they die. I mean they you know,
no one was intentionally going to kill him, But let's
assume that that is the theory. I think that in
(17:15):
that situation, and I'm not I don't believe that is
what happened. But I would think that that it would
be very difficult to get you know, five six, seven,
eight nine people who were in the house at that
point to say, Okay, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to put him out in the front lawn.
And we're all everybody's mum's, you know, nobody's saying anything, right,
There's just too many people there, and and well, I think,
(17:38):
what did they go ahead? Go ahead?
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Right?
Speaker 5 (17:40):
So what I think could have happened really was and
what I believe was there was a fight, and you know,
he walked out on his own volition and then passed out.
You know, they yelled at him, they said, get the
hell out of hair, you drunk, and he just was
walking out and you know, basically passed out. Because I
can't get over the evidence of the toeture of of
the snowplow driver and the the testimony of the kid
(18:06):
who was picking up his girlfriend from the house or
his sister and he said he saw Karen Reid, but
no one else was in the suv. Those those are
two third party people who have nothing to do with it.
The snow plow driver and the kid picking up his
sister or his girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
I just can't snow the snowplow. Yeah, the snowplow driver
doesn't give me much of a problem because I've been
I covered enough snowstorms, uh, and have driven in enough
snowstorms at night that if you're if you're in the
middle of a snowstorm, and particularly I'm not a snowplow driver.
And once the snow there's three or four inches of
snow on the ground or two or three inches of
(18:45):
snow on the ground, things have covered up, so that
again I'd like to know more about the time of
when he came by. And uh, but whatever, we'll we'll
find out. We neither one of us were in the
court room for the entirety for the trial. And I
learned a long time ago, both as a lawyer and
(19:06):
as a reporter. Uh, the only people who really are
going to understand this case, and maybe they won't are
the yours.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
That's fair. And I just, I just I have no
faith in humanity, So I think, I think I don't.
Every day I run into people and I just shake
my head and go, what is what is wrong with
this world? So I don't believe that you know, However,
many people are on that jury. I cannot believe that
every single one of them can have sat there rationally
(19:37):
and listen to everything. I just don't. I just can't
do it. But well, interesting, I'll tell you this, that's
for sure.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
If they do hook her for something, it's going to
be the she never should have done those television interviews.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
Well, and that's what makes me think, ultimately, I think
she did it. You know, she's just like I said
at the beginning of the phone call, my final answer,
I think she did it. She just really lucked out
in that there was just no hard evidence against her
because I don't I haven't seen it yet. You know.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Well, again, it's it's one of those it's one of
those cases, and maybe we'll never know the truth. I
just think it was a huge mistake how her lawyers
allowed her to do those phone calls, to do those interviews.
I just think that it's.
Speaker 5 (20:25):
Oh, can I ask you one last quick question as
a lawyer, would you do you see do you think
it's weird that no one in the house or the
lady google in how long does it take to die
in the snow? Do you find it bizarre that not
one of them have done a TV interview or is
that just kind of the right thing to do, just
don't even get involved, to shut up and just let
(20:46):
it take its course.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Why would anyone do a TV interview here? I mean,
no one, No one is going to No one is
the person who you know, if there was someone who
get well, no, but I'm saying there, why would anybody?
First of all, all you're going to do is put
yourself under the light of suspicion. So if you did something, uh,
(21:08):
if you were somehow involved, you don't do the interview.
If you weren't involved, why do you want to put
yourself The only way you should you would do an
interview is if you happened to walk out two minutes
after the uh O'Brien either fell down or it was
hit by the car, and you somehow gave him multimouth
resuscitation called nine to one one and saved his life
(21:30):
and you're a hero.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
No, I just yeah, you're just not getting anything out
of it. So yeah, all right, thank you, apprecious.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Thanks Matt, great dear you have great weekend, Happy Father's Day.
He hung up real quickly six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six, one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Again
it's up to the jury. What generally juries get it right.
We'll see. I kind of imagine what this woman has
(21:56):
gone through, uh for the last three years now. Uh,
this is it just it just shows that that that
that that life can be unfair. It certainly wasn't fair
to John O'Keeffe whatever happened to him, and maybe it's
going to be unfair to Karen Reid. But life is unfair.
(22:19):
Six one seven, two four thirty, six one seven, nine thirty.
Coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
It's Night Side with Y Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
I love that phrase getting stored. That's an interesting piece
by Mike Macklin. Thank you all. Okay, we're going to
continue talking about the Karen Reid case. It is now
in the hands of the jury. I hope that the
jury I think, I hope the jury can come to
a decision. Whatever the decision is, I'm willing to accept it.
(22:54):
I think that, Uh, there's I don't think there should
be a third trial, although it would be. It's very
hard for a prosecutor to walk away if there's a
couple of mistrials. We'll see again. I don't have. I'm
not particularly invested in the whole case, and for a
long time really kind of stayed away from the case.
(23:16):
But there came a point in time where it just
became too big to avoid. Let me go to Donna
in Berkeley, Massachusetts. Donna in Berkeley, Welcome, how are you hi, Idanne,
I've talked to you before.
Speaker 6 (23:30):
I'm on my way to work.
Speaker 7 (23:31):
I'm a nurse.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Thank you for what you do. Thank you.
Speaker 7 (23:37):
But two things I watched both trials, and if I'm
not mistaken, doctor Sordy Bellow in the first trial not
the second trial, said that John o'keith launched three liters
of blood. And I just had a patient bleed out
last week and she bled out twenty two hundred CC's
of blood. That is a lot of blood. So when
(24:00):
you're talking about all the forensics and all the evidence
and everything else where, was three leaders of blood if
this man was supposedly died on the side of the road.
That's one.
Speaker 6 (24:12):
The other one is they never took swaths of each
of the marks on his arms. They never did that,
and there's where you probably would have found some DNA
of whatever. My other question to you is I agree
with you that I don't think she should have done
the interviews.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
I think that was kind of.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
A shot in the foot.
Speaker 8 (24:34):
But does she get paid where she's so in debt,
does she get paid for those interviews?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Well, in the old days, no self respecting journalists would
ever pay for an interview that was not considered appropriate. However,
times have changed, and as we've gotten away from the
big three networks, ABC and b C, CBS. Uh, and
you get to some of these shows that that I
(25:06):
think she was on. Uh, it's not inconceivable that that
she that she was paid, but I don't know, is
it possible? Yeah, but uh, you know, the the journalistic
ethics that existed in the era of Walter Cronkite no
longer exist in my in my opinion, So yeah, so
(25:31):
it's conceivable. But again, I can't imagine that she would
have done those with the with the support of her attorneys,
because it makes their I mean that that she did
not come across in those interviews as an empathetic figure,
(25:52):
and they can be they've been used in court. Obviously
she didn't have you know, she she could have stayed
off the witness stand and obviously and basically choose to
invoke her rights against self incrimination. But once you do
that television interview and it is out there, it's part
of the public record. So I don't think again if
(26:13):
she does, if she does get convicted for anything, those
interviews might be the downfall. We'll have to see, we'll
have to see what.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
Right.
Speaker 7 (26:23):
And like you said, you know, maybe the lesser chargers,
but you know again about leaving the scene and all that,
they didn't prove that there was a scene yet, you know,
they didn't, they didn't really, the Commonwealth didn't really prove
you know, sure, yeah, yeah, that was Jackson.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
That was Jackson's arguments. As a matter of fact, I
had some sound bites of the closing arguments that I
but unfortunately we don't have them available for you. But
you're you're, you're, you're, you're, you're quoting essentially what Jackson
told the jury and if the jury chooses to believe
that and if there was no impact and uh and
they they believe there was no impact.
Speaker 7 (27:02):
Time, Yeah, right, there's no scene. Did you see jas
You probably didn't watch it today, but Jackson got choked
choked up on the lost sentence. Did you happen to
see that.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
No I didn't explain it, I'm sure you can describe it.
Speaker 8 (27:20):
So the last three things he said was not guilty.
And then on the second one he said not guilty,
and you could see him get choked up. And then
on the third one he said not guilty. And it
was like he was so passionate, and it was like, oh,
you had just bled for all involved, but you know,
you just bled that they have worked so hard.
Speaker 7 (27:42):
To try to prove her innocence. It was it was
quite a moment.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I thought, yeah, well, again, the burden of proof is
not on them to prove her innocence. The burden of
proof is on the prosecution to prove her guilt all
the elements of the crime charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's important to realize that that the burden of proof
is on the government, and the government always has an
advantage in these cases because most people want to want
(28:08):
to believe what the government presents.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
So we'll see, it's it's going to be however it
comes out. It's going to be interesting. I will say
right now, I have no idea how it would come out.
The only way that I think it comes out as
a guilty at any level. Is if the jury somehow,
out of all of the facts that are presented, comes
to this conclusion that there there was a mistake made
(28:35):
and she read the vehicle instead of going forwards, which
she thought the car was in drive, it went backwards.
Speaker 8 (28:43):
I have none a quick question for you. Do you
think that this case will ever see the lighter day
in textbooks for all the lawyers to come.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
I doubt it, to be honest with you, because I mean,
it could be taken up. But but well, these do
these cases do come along at different times in their
high profile cases. I can think of others in my
career as a as a reporter. Uh, the the Louise
(29:15):
Woodward case was a very interesting case. Do you remember
that was the woman who was in nanny who was
charged with killing one of the bab a child, a
baby that was in her care. So you get those
cases that are emotionally charged. I don't think the O. J.
Simpson case would be in a textbook, because that's that's
(29:37):
my thought. We'll see. I mean, there could be some
criminal lawyer who might try to use the case in
kind of a mood courts situation, I guess, but that's
we'll see. Hey, Donad, thank you for what you do
and thank you for listening to the show. Thank you
so much. Thank you, don I appreciate that home good Thanks.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
I cliped that a little bit early. I apologize. Six
one seven, two, five, four, ten thirty. We we got
a couple of lines open if you'd like your choice.
Six one seven nine three one ten thirty. I got
Christine and Karen. And I'm glad to have some female
voices on this because I think that, well, women may
have a different perspective. I think that that it. I
(30:24):
just think that that men and women might look at
one of these cases differently. That's not to say all
men and all women. But I'm interested with Karen has
to say. I think I know where she's coming from,
and I know where Christine is coming from. Uh, And
I'm looking forward to hearing from both of them and
maybe you if you want to call six one seven, two, five,
four ten thirty. Six one seven, nine three one ten thirty,
(30:44):
we'll be right back on Night Side.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
All right, let's get to the Phone's going to go
to Christine in Denim. Christine, I know how you feel
about this case. Tell us why go right ahead?
Speaker 9 (31:01):
Well, I was like that play game Prey today and
we thought, we thought afterwards that everybody would be there
after the court here, but nobody showed up. Everybody was
saying this first time I heard this, that he had
fight moks on his arms and his neck and prime
mops on his arms and neck like he said that.
(31:22):
They said the dog could have killed him with his
bite on his neck, could have he could have been
bitten so badly that he could have died instantly and
been brought outside. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Yeah, uh, I guess that's another theory. Uh but yeah,
I think it's that. It's a theory and uh uh,
it's just it's a tragedy all around one. One person
is dead, another person's life has been really uh in
limbo on hold for three years. Even if she's acquitted,
(32:01):
how does she recover? I don't know.
Speaker 9 (32:03):
I mean, I feel bad, so bad to his family
and to her family. It's it's terrible for them to
be going through all of this, you know. And that's
you know what they were saying too. I never heard this,
they were saying. I hate to say that they found
a piece of hair on the tail light and that
have belonged to his nephew.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
How can that be?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I have no idea. You know, there's a lot of
stuff you hear. Okay, okay, yeah, there's there's just a
lot of stuff that you hear and you don't know
where it's from. So the jury in these cases, they
have to be uh that, they have to be careful
(32:48):
in what they're exposed to, and hopefully they make their
decision based upon what they heard.
Speaker 9 (32:55):
I hope, I hope they take their time with us.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Well, that's what the judge told them to do. The
judge said, don't rush a decision. We'll see. It could
be a few it could be a good days.
Speaker 9 (33:07):
How come they work cats for the weekend? Like why
they should have been kept? So they don't What if
they go home and talk about it?
Speaker 2 (33:14):
I mean, well, they're they're they're told frequently in court
in a case like this, not to discuss it with anyone,
not to read newspaper stories, not to listen to talk
radio shows, not to uh not to watch even television news.
Speaker 9 (33:27):
Uh so uh, everybody knows, I.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Mean, but yours take their take their responsibility seriously. Thank goodness.
Christine has always thank you so much, appreciate your calls
and we will talk to thank Christine. I really appreciate it.
Thank you much. Have a great one. Let me go
to Karen in Watertown. Karen, welcome back. How are you?
Speaker 10 (33:52):
Andrew well? Thonk you and you're well?
Speaker 3 (33:56):
Tour tickets Yep.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I'm kind of a tough day, uh in the in
the business here of I'm not good at migrating information
from one computer to another computer. But that's the story
that that I've shared with Rob in detail, but I'm
not going to talk about that one.
Speaker 10 (34:13):
Probably I heard Alan Jackson his complete closing argument. I
had to leave to go to work during prank Brennan's
but I've got most of it, and that was both
of both of them did a great job. And so
I thought after Alan Jackson, I was like, oh my god, like,
how to thank Brandon accounted this? And he did, And
(34:35):
you said you weren't really like wrapped up in this
I am.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
I don't know. We've talked before. Yeah, that's why That's
why I'm so happy you go ahead.
Speaker 10 (34:45):
When Carol went to johnal Keith's mother, I mean emotional,
she lost her son yep, and Karen Reid really self
indicted her. She in tired herself when she agreed to
all these interviews. I think that's probably going to be
(35:09):
her undoing. Let me ask you, I'm not sure you know,
really to.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Ask you a question. Have have you changed your view
during during the case. I thought, for some.
Speaker 10 (35:24):
Reason, I've been following this case from the very beginning
when she was when Karen Reid was jailed, and I
thought she probably an alcoholic blackout to around what you did.
But Brennan didn't go there when because she start of uh,
(35:46):
he started mentioning all the pup when she was mentioning
all the possibilities about oh what maybe it was the
snow plow, maybe.
Speaker 5 (35:54):
It was this, and.
Speaker 10 (35:57):
She was inconsistent and what she said.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
You you mentioned the closing arguments, and I now have
a little bit of sound from each of them. I
just want to play a little sound from both the
prosecutor and the defense lawyer. Let me let me start
off with the defense lawyer, Alan Jackson. Okay, So let's
I'm trying to look at these very quickly here and
(36:23):
see which one I want to I want to play
and want it to be Okay, let's let's he's his emphasis. Obviously,
as any good defense lawyer is on reasonable doubt, this
has cut number four. Run Can you play four?
Speaker 11 (36:42):
Before we examine the evidence in the case, which we
will do, we need to understand the very foundation of
the entire system of justice in which we operate, the
bedrock on which this entire system is built reasonable doubt.
This isn't just a technical and it's not a slogan.
It's a constitutional shield that protects the innocent and prevents
(37:05):
the government from punishing without proof. The Commonwealth has the
high burden to prove every single element of every single
charge beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.
As I said, those powerful words are not just some
legal jargon. They're your mandate, they're your obligation, they're your
(37:26):
community's protection against injustice.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
So Dr Karen, that's just a snippet.
Speaker 10 (37:39):
County, Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
I want you to react to that, and then I
want to play one sound bye from Hank Brennan. Go ahead,
you react to that's a pretty compelling argument that they
can be made in any case, But on a case
like this, where it's not a slam dunk, it becomes
even more compelling your comment, So.
Speaker 10 (38:00):
Go ahead about Adam Jackson's. Yeah, he was really convincing,
and I thought, holy cow, how is Hank brand Gold
you know, react to this?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Okay, then let's do this. I just happened to have.
I just happened to have. This was forty seven seconds.
I'm trying to be fair. The Hank Brennan sound by
his forty six seconds. So let's see. You can compare.
You can respond to both of these. This is cut
number nine. Rock the prosecutor in this case, Hank Brennan.
Speaker 12 (38:34):
We have inevitably, without any doubt, without any doubt, that
on January twenty nine, twenty twenty two, miss Reid was
with mister Keith and she got drunk. She drank, She
was two to three times over the legal limit, and
(38:54):
they went to a party and after party and they
were fighting.
Speaker 13 (38:58):
They were fighting. It was a relationship and decline and you.
Speaker 12 (39:02):
Get out of the car. A had a brief window
of life left.
Speaker 13 (39:08):
Oh when he got out and she drove away, she
couldn't let it go. She get drunk, she hit him.
She left them to die.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
It's that simple, Okay. I think that is the essence
of both of these arguments when you cut away all
of the specifics. I think that's essentially those are two
good comparative sound bites. You listen to one, you think, oh,
(39:40):
I tend to agree with the defense lawyer. Then you
listen to the prosecutor, and maybe it pulls you over.
What do you think that you're always going to do? Oh,
you didn't expect me to ask me questions?
Speaker 10 (39:55):
Apparently, Dan, I'm just following this, like, really.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Well, who better to ask?
Speaker 10 (40:03):
They're apparently a very young jury. You know, these are
people who didn't know anything about this case beforehand, so
they're not super well informed people. But apparently they're right.
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Okay, that's my position. I have no idea what the
jury is going to do either, even though you you
had the advantage over me, Karen that you listened to
both trials, uh, And I just I hope the jury
gets can resolve the issues, can come to an agreement
either of a guilt on some charge or charges, or
(40:41):
a complete innocence not guilty across the board. Because I
don't think that most of us can stand a third
trial in this case.
Speaker 10 (40:50):
We have to get on with the understand that and
that's what I think is being lost. You know, there's
this all this wearing pink and the whole you know,
we said work Kiara read, she's attractive, particulate.
Speaker 14 (41:05):
She was a college she was a college for I'm
going to sound really obnoxious, really bold, but if the
defendant were black or hispanic, there would not be any
of this going on.
Speaker 10 (41:21):
She's a white, attractive, wealthy woman.
Speaker 2 (41:25):
Well, she maybe may have been wealthy when she started,
but I don't think she's wealthy now.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
No, I know.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
Yeah, okay, so so so last comment, and I only
have about thirty seconds left. I don't think you want
to take a stab at it. But you listen to
the closes. You tell me you follow the case twice,
both both trials. You're you're you're still not convinced one
(41:52):
way or the other. It sounds to me that's like
what you're saying.
Speaker 10 (41:54):
You know what I'm gonna really candid. I told my
boyfriend last night, I said, I have this manifestations vision
that you've been taken away with handcuffs. Okay, and I'm
going with that because I believe that is the most
that we'll give the justice for John CU's Fanley Okay.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
We'll leave it at that. We'll see what happens. Karen
is always great to hear your voice. It is drama,
there's no doubt. Thanks Karen. Okay, good night. All right,
so we end the week on a dramatic note. However, however,
we have one more hour left and I want to
take this next hour and I want to give you
an opportunity to salute your favorite father who's either still
(42:42):
with us or has passed on. And it can be
a variety of people. Could be your father, could be
your father in law, could be your grandfather, could be
an uncle, but your favorite father. That's what we're going
to talk about in the next hour, and we're going
to kind of take the temperature down a little bit
and finish the week and slide into the weekend. My
(43:04):
name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside. You have the phone numbers,
dial away coming back right after this
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Foston's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, as I think all of you know, the
Karen Reid trial is now in the hands of the jury.
So it's been a long slog, not only for Karen
read in this trial, but also in her last trial.
It's been a long slog. So the jury today got
(00:32):
the case I guess around two forty and they were
allowed to deliberate for till two thirty till four thirty,
a little less than two hours. And you would not
expect it in a case of this complexity and this challenge,
such a challenging case, that they would have come up
with a verdict. So the situation that we find ourselves
(00:57):
in is that the jury will spend the weekend on
their own and they will reconvene on Monday. There apparently
today was some motion made by the defense lawyers which
would have had Karen Reid I guess was denied by
(01:17):
the judge. I've never heard of this before, a motion
whereby Karen Reid would have assisted in the What they
do is they have eighteen jurors who listen to the case.
Rob if you could clear that call in number five,
that would be a good thing, if you had a moment. Okay,
thank you very much. I appreciate it. And let me
know with this SoundBite. I can always send that to
(01:38):
you during the break if I have to. I have that.
We can take care of all of that. So they
will spend the weekend on their own, not talking about it,
not listening to shows like Nightside, not reading the newspaper
or anything like that. We will then see how it results,
what happens. I have no idea as to how the
(02:01):
jury will go on any of these counts. There are
three major counts, second degree murder, manslaughter while operating a
vehicle under the influence of liquor. There are a couple
of what's called lesser included charges there involuntary manslaughter, motor
(02:22):
vehicle homicide and a simple OUI and then the third
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. So
these are serious charges and it is a lot for
the jury to consider, and they will resume their consideration
Monday morning. And I am interested to find out now
(02:43):
that the case has been finished, the closing arguments today
and the instructions of the jury. As I started to
talk about this motion that was made where by somehow
never heard of this before. That the defense said that
in order to maintain the integrity of the judicial system
(03:04):
that the defendant would never been done before. What they
do is, you have eighteen people on the jury, and
eventually twelve will become the jew rows, and six of
them have to be They basically take them out of
it kind of looks like a watto barrel, and they
(03:29):
tick out six who become alternate jurors. And the motion
that was made was that Karen Reid would be able
to participate in that. It's generally done by the Clerk
of Courts, as it was today. Anyway, the point of
the story is that this case has always been full
(03:49):
of surprises, and we'll see. I mean, I think the
jury could come back with anything. They could come back
with acquittal, they could come back with convictions on some all.
I don't think they're going to come back with a
second degree murder. I think that's that is a in
my opinion, a not guilty pretty clearly. But I'd love
(04:10):
to know what you think. So here the number six, one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
We were missing a couple of sound bites here and
I'm going to take a quick break here. Rob and
I are going to get our act together, and we'll
be right back after the break here on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Last night we talked about the case a little bit.
We started talking about the Karen Read case and then
we we moved on to the the situation there was
quickly developing in the Middle East. So tonight I decided
to do the reverse because obviously people had an opportunity
(04:55):
towards the end of the show last night to talk
about the Middle East, and uh, they had an opportunity
in the beginning of the show to talk about Karen Reid. So,
having explain to you why I took him in reverse order,
there was one caller who called in and he leaves
voicemails for me. He's a caller who just doesn't like
(05:18):
me or doesn't like my show, and he's I like
to talk to these people or talk about these people,
and they're often mistaken, never in doubt. And this is
this caller doesn't leave his name, but his voice will
be recognized. And of course when you leave a voicemail,
for me on the machine. I tell you, hey, this
(05:41):
might meet be on the air. So we're ab going
to play the cut that I just sent you. It's
only seventeen seconds long. But this was a caller who
was very upset with our discussion. We had a very
high level legal discussion with a veteran criminal defense lawyer,
Phil Tracy. Caller predicted the outcome of the case, and
(06:03):
he put a deadline on it. So I don't know
if his outcome is going to be right, might be,
but certainly the deadline that he put on his past
cut number ten. Go right ahead, Robb.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Karen read jury will come back and look till late
afternoon tomorrow with a not guilty verdict. That's making a
fool out of till Tracy, you and Hank Bennan and
believe me, I will call to rub it in tomorrow evening.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Well, if you're out there listening tonight and you'd like
to call in and take a victory lap and rub
it in. Oh the jury didn't come back with a verdict. Oh,
I see. Well, I wonder if this caller, whose voice
is a very distinctive voice, by the way, is going
to have the backbone to call in and say, guess
(06:50):
what I was wrong because he was wrong. Now I
don't know, and I've said all along, I don't know
how the case will come out because I haven't been
in the courtroom every day. I'm prepared to do my
show every day. So if he's listening and he wants
to call in and take a victory lap, feel free
(07:12):
because not only well the words speak for themselves seventeen
seconds of your thoughts last night, which proved to be
wrong again. Sorry, no one is hanging their head. Phil
Tracy's not hanging his head. I'm not hanging my head,
and Hank Brennan isn't hanging his head. We all happen
(07:35):
to We all happen to be lawyers. Phil Tracy and
Hank Brennan a very experienced trial lawyers in the courts
of Massachusetts. And I'm sure that you probably have a
deep Whoever this caller is, I'm sure you probably have
a deep legal background. I bet you probably at some
point of watch Judge Judy a couple of times, and
so you have a degree from the school of Judge Judy.
(07:57):
Let me go to the callers. Six months, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six one, seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. First
up is Gideon in Quincy. Gideon, thank you for calling in.
You are next on Nightside. Hey, how are you?
Speaker 4 (08:09):
Thank you? I'm great.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
First of all, Dan, I do like you and I
do like your show, so I want to start with that.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
You're welcome. Okay, So about Karen Reid, what I really
want to say is, I don't think she's a murderer.
I just don't believe that. You know, I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I yeah, I agree with you. I don't think she Yeah,
I don't think the case was made to a convictor
on the second degree murder charge. I agree with you.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Go right ahead, right And you know, with the alcohol
and everything, we don't really know what happened. I'm not
sure i'd buy the widespread conspiracy. But based on her behavior,
you know, I understand she was the next day, she
was worried about whether.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
She'd hit him.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
She was not behaving like a murderer. Now, you know,
maybe leaving the scene of an accident. But you take
the fact they charged her with murder, and then you
add on top of that some of the mistakes that
were made of the trial and what was you know
true for Procto, the things he said, looking through her phone,
with the looking for the nude pictures. You take all that,
(09:21):
put it all together, and I hope she gets a pass.
I feel sorry for the family. I feel sorry for
the victim, I really do. But I just don't think
she's a murderer. And you put it all together, and
I think that she I think she should get a pass.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
You know, well, here's the prom my thought. Okay, no, no,
those thoughts, and I agree with you. In order to
prove murder, even murder in the second degree, you have
to prove a level of intent that I just don't
think is there. However, when when you have someone whose
life has been cut short, and you have someone who
(10:04):
and I don't know exactly how old mister O'Keeffe, officer
O'Keefe was, but it looked to me like he was
somewhere in his forties. He obviously had many years of life.
Something happened, something happened. It's up to the jury to
decide if what happened involved her, So if if hypothetically
(10:27):
she was overserved, and if hypothetically she had been in
an argument with mister O'Keefe, and if hypothetically the argument
got heated and he wanted to go into the to
the party and she had no interest in doing that.
(10:47):
And if she decided that she was once he left
her vehicle or the vehicle, she was going to make
a dramatic departure, let's put it like that, and in
the middle of a snowstorm, I guess was a pretty
intense snowstorm, decided to just step on the gas and
(11:08):
go away to make the point that she was upset.
And if, unfortunately the car was in reverse and not
in forward going you know, in drive, If if the
jury would have believed that, do you still give her
a pass?
Speaker 4 (11:28):
I don't, you know, I don't know. It's tough. I mean,
I'm glad I'm not on that journey jury. I mean,
I'm really glad, And I don't know. But I just
think that if the government, I think I think it
seems a little unfair that the government can charge her
with murder and then sort of say, well, okay, she's
(11:49):
not a murderer, but well then jumped down to you know,
leaving the scene of an accident and manslaughter. I just
feel it should be you know, either murder or not murder.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Well again, there's well, Gideon, Gideon, there's there's every case,
the facts of the case to find what the charge
might be. Now, is she overcharged? I would armor from
the case I saw that she's overcharged when he come
to murder. But can you get a man slain of
conviction out of there? Voluntary or involuntary? I think that's possible,
(12:27):
certainly on the involuntary leaving the scene of an accident.
You know, again, that's tough because that's a state of
mind situation, motor vehicle homicide. That's that's that's doable. So anyway, look,
it's the way the court system works. The court system
isn't perfect. Yeah, as someone once said, it's the second
(12:49):
worst court system in the world, and the first worst.
The worst ones are all the others. So we'll see.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
They say the same thing about democracy, right, all the others.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
That's a good one.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
That's a great time.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Geddy and I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you very much.
Let me go to Matt in Florida. Matt has strong
viewpoints always. Matt, welcome back, Dan.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
What do you think happened? You've you've yet to give
your theory. Well, or can you not because you know
they could see you?
Speaker 2 (13:27):
No, no, no, I can give a theory. I can
give a theory.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
I want to I want to hear it. I've been
waiting for it for years.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Well, well, the more I look at it, I find
it difficult to believe that he got into the house.
And I know that there's all the evidence that people
will hear that he get into the house and he
got into a fight and either was intentionally killed or
someone hit him with a lucky punch and he hit
(13:56):
his head. But he's dead in the house. And then
at some point someone said, well, what are we going
to do? And you've got like all these people kicking around,
and they're going to conclude, you know, let's just put
them out in the front lawn. No one's going to
notice that. That, to me, stretches credibility. What doesn't stretch
credibility is that there could have been a horrible accident,
(14:20):
meaning that these two folks are have a and no
one knows, I mean the only person who knows, and
maybe she doesn't even know because she had apparently she
was over served that night. So so assume they have
a big, a big argument and she's turned the car
(14:40):
around and the car she thinks the car is in drive,
and it's actually in reverse. He gets out of the car,
and she decides that she's going to make a dramatic
getaway and hits the gas pedal thinking she's going to
go forward, and it goes backwards by mistake.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
That's right, the eyes.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Yeah, that's the only conceivable theory that makes any sense
to me. Although I can't prove that, right, you know,
I don't know that the prosecution should prove that.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Yeah, right. And this is the thing. I was so
into the conspiracy, and you know, I listened to Brennan,
who I can't stand. I don't like him, but I
mean his I thought his closing arguments were actually pretty good.
And like, I just think Karen Reid got really really
really really really times a thousand lucky in that there
(15:38):
was just no evidence of what actually happened. You know,
I think she actually, after years of looking at this,
I don't know, I just I'm doing a complete one
eighty here, but I think she did it, and she
got a great lawyer, and she lucked out in that.
You know, he didn't, you know, what if he saw
(15:58):
the car coming back where then he slipped, And you know, like,
I just think she got really lucky in that there's
really no evidence against her, really, and I just that's
my theory now, is just that she got lucky. There's
no evidence and all the evidence has really fed the
conspiracy because the heart evidence is it's more plausible looking
(16:20):
at the heart evidence that there was a conspiracy versus
her actually hitting them.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
But so let me ask you this. Okay, if you
go back to the to the conspiracy, if he went
into the house and there were words exchanged and a
fight ensued, and I know that people are gonna call
it in, tell me about the rug was taken out
and the dog was put somewhere. All of that. I
was hoping that the forensics on the automobile would be
(16:50):
more dispositive of what might have happened. But let's assume
hypothetically that it for no good reason, there's a fight
and somebody pushes him, and this can happen. People hit
their head and they die. I mean they you know,
no one was intentionally going to kill him, But let's
assume that that is the theory. I think that in
(17:15):
that situation, and I'm not I don't believe that is
what happened. But I would think that that it would
be very difficult to get you know, five six, seven,
eight nine people who were in the house at that
point to say, Okay, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to put him out in the front lawn.
And we're all everybody's mum's, you know, nobody's saying anything, right,
There's just too many people there, and and well, I think,
(17:38):
what did they go ahead? Go ahead?
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Right?
Speaker 5 (17:40):
So what I think could have happened really was and
what I believe was there was a fight, and you know,
he walked out on his own volition and then passed out.
You know, they yelled at him, they said, get the
hell out of hair, you drunk, and he just was
walking out and you know, basically passed out. Because I
can't get over the evidence of the toeture of of
the snowplow driver and the the testimony of the kid
(18:06):
who was picking up his girlfriend from the house or
his sister and he said he saw Karen Reid, but
no one else was in the suv. Those those are
two third party people who have nothing to do with it.
The snow plow driver and the kid picking up his
sister or his girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
I just can't snow the snowplow. Yeah, the snowplow driver
doesn't give me much of a problem because I've been
I covered enough snowstorms, uh, and have driven in enough
snowstorms at night that if you're if you're in the
middle of a snowstorm, and particularly I'm not a snowplow driver.
And once the snow there's three or four inches of
snow on the ground or two or three inches of
(18:45):
snow on the ground, things have covered up, so that
again I'd like to know more about the time of
when he came by. And uh, but whatever, we'll we'll
find out. We neither one of us were in the
court room for the entirety for the trial. And I
learned a long time ago, both as a lawyer and
(19:06):
as a reporter. Uh, the only people who really are
going to understand this case, and maybe they won't are
the yours.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
That's fair. And I just, I just I have no
faith in humanity, So I think, I think I don't.
Every day I run into people and I just shake
my head and go, what is what is wrong with
this world? So I don't believe that you know, However,
many people are on that jury. I cannot believe that
every single one of them can have sat there rationally
(19:37):
and listen to everything. I just don't. I just can't
do it. But well, interesting, I'll tell you this, that's
for sure.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
If they do hook her for something, it's going to
be the she never should have done those television interviews.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
Well, and that's what makes me think, ultimately, I think
she did it. You know, she's just like I said
at the beginning of the phone call, my final answer,
I think she did it. She just really lucked out
in that there was just no hard evidence against her
because I don't I haven't seen it yet. You know.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Well, again, it's it's one of those it's one of
those cases, and maybe we'll never know the truth. I
just think it was a huge mistake how her lawyers
allowed her to do those phone calls, to do those interviews.
I just think that it's.
Speaker 5 (20:25):
Oh, can I ask you one last quick question as
a lawyer, would you do you see do you think
it's weird that no one in the house or the
lady google in how long does it take to die
in the snow? Do you find it bizarre that not
one of them have done a TV interview or is
that just kind of the right thing to do, just
don't even get involved, to shut up and just let
(20:46):
it take its course.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Why would anyone do a TV interview here? I mean,
no one, No one is going to No one is
the person who you know, if there was someone who
get well, no, but I'm saying there, why would anybody?
First of all, all you're going to do is put
yourself under the light of suspicion. So if you did something, uh,
(21:08):
if you were somehow involved, you don't do the interview.
If you weren't involved, why do you want to put
yourself The only way you should you would do an
interview is if you happened to walk out two minutes
after the uh O'Brien either fell down or it was
hit by the car, and you somehow gave him multimouth
resuscitation called nine to one one and saved his life
(21:30):
and you're a hero.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
No, I just yeah, you're just not getting anything out
of it. So yeah, all right, thank you, apprecious.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Thanks Matt, great dear you have great weekend, Happy Father's Day.
He hung up real quickly six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six, one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Again
it's up to the jury. What generally juries get it right.
We'll see. I kind of imagine what this woman has
(21:56):
gone through, uh for the last three years now. Uh,
this is it just it just shows that that that
that that life can be unfair. It certainly wasn't fair
to John O'Keeffe whatever happened to him, and maybe it's
going to be unfair to Karen Reid. But life is unfair.
(22:19):
Six one seven, two four thirty, six one seven, nine thirty.
Coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
It's Night Side with Y Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
I love that phrase getting stored. That's an interesting piece
by Mike Macklin. Thank you all. Okay, we're going to
continue talking about the Karen Reid case. It is now
in the hands of the jury. I hope that the
jury I think, I hope the jury can come to
a decision. Whatever the decision is, I'm willing to accept it.
(22:54):
I think that, Uh, there's I don't think there should
be a third trial, although it would be. It's very
hard for a prosecutor to walk away if there's a
couple of mistrials. We'll see again. I don't have. I'm
not particularly invested in the whole case, and for a
long time really kind of stayed away from the case.
(23:16):
But there came a point in time where it just
became too big to avoid. Let me go to Donna
in Berkeley, Massachusetts. Donna in Berkeley, Welcome, how are you hi, Idanne,
I've talked to you before.
Speaker 6 (23:30):
I'm on my way to work.
Speaker 7 (23:31):
I'm a nurse.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Thank you for what you do. Thank you.
Speaker 7 (23:37):
But two things I watched both trials, and if I'm
not mistaken, doctor Sordy Bellow in the first trial not
the second trial, said that John o'keith launched three liters
of blood. And I just had a patient bleed out
last week and she bled out twenty two hundred CC's
of blood. That is a lot of blood. So when
(24:00):
you're talking about all the forensics and all the evidence
and everything else where, was three leaders of blood if
this man was supposedly died on the side of the road.
That's one.
Speaker 6 (24:12):
The other one is they never took swaths of each
of the marks on his arms. They never did that,
and there's where you probably would have found some DNA
of whatever. My other question to you is I agree
with you that I don't think she should have done
the interviews.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
I think that was kind of.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
A shot in the foot.
Speaker 8 (24:34):
But does she get paid where she's so in debt,
does she get paid for those interviews?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Well, in the old days, no self respecting journalists would
ever pay for an interview that was not considered appropriate. However,
times have changed, and as we've gotten away from the
big three networks, ABC and b C, CBS. Uh, and
you get to some of these shows that that I
(25:06):
think she was on. Uh, it's not inconceivable that that
she that she was paid, but I don't know, is
it possible? Yeah, but uh, you know, the the journalistic
ethics that existed in the era of Walter Cronkite no
longer exist in my in my opinion, So yeah, so
(25:31):
it's conceivable. But again, I can't imagine that she would
have done those with the with the support of her attorneys,
because it makes their I mean that that she did
not come across in those interviews as an empathetic figure,
(25:52):
and they can be they've been used in court. Obviously
she didn't have you know, she she could have stayed
off the witness stand and obviously and basically choose to
invoke her rights against self incrimination. But once you do
that television interview and it is out there, it's part
of the public record. So I don't think again if
(26:13):
she does, if she does get convicted for anything, those
interviews might be the downfall. We'll have to see, we'll
have to see what.
Speaker 5 (26:23):
Right.
Speaker 7 (26:23):
And like you said, you know, maybe the lesser chargers,
but you know again about leaving the scene and all that,
they didn't prove that there was a scene yet, you know,
they didn't, they didn't really, the Commonwealth didn't really prove
you know, sure, yeah, yeah, that was Jackson.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
That was Jackson's arguments. As a matter of fact, I
had some sound bites of the closing arguments that I
but unfortunately we don't have them available for you. But
you're you're, you're, you're, you're, you're quoting essentially what Jackson
told the jury and if the jury chooses to believe
that and if there was no impact and uh and
they they believe there was no impact.
Speaker 7 (27:02):
Time, Yeah, right, there's no scene. Did you see jas
You probably didn't watch it today, but Jackson got choked
choked up on the lost sentence. Did you happen to
see that.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
No I didn't explain it, I'm sure you can describe it.
Speaker 8 (27:20):
So the last three things he said was not guilty.
And then on the second one he said not guilty,
and you could see him get choked up. And then
on the third one he said not guilty. And it
was like he was so passionate, and it was like, oh,
you had just bled for all involved, but you know,
you just bled that they have worked so hard.
Speaker 7 (27:42):
To try to prove her innocence. It was it was
quite a moment.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I thought, yeah, well, again, the burden of proof is
not on them to prove her innocence. The burden of
proof is on the prosecution to prove her guilt all
the elements of the crime charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's important to realize that that the burden of proof
is on the government, and the government always has an
advantage in these cases because most people want to want
(28:08):
to believe what the government presents.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
So we'll see, it's it's going to be however it
comes out. It's going to be interesting. I will say
right now, I have no idea how it would come out.
The only way that I think it comes out as
a guilty at any level. Is if the jury somehow,
out of all of the facts that are presented, comes
to this conclusion that there there was a mistake made
(28:35):
and she read the vehicle instead of going forwards, which
she thought the car was in drive, it went backwards.
Speaker 8 (28:43):
I have none a quick question for you. Do you
think that this case will ever see the lighter day
in textbooks for all the lawyers to come.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
I doubt it, to be honest with you, because I mean,
it could be taken up. But but well, these do
these cases do come along at different times in their
high profile cases. I can think of others in my
career as a as a reporter. Uh, the the Louise
(29:15):
Woodward case was a very interesting case. Do you remember
that was the woman who was in nanny who was
charged with killing one of the bab a child, a
baby that was in her care. So you get those
cases that are emotionally charged. I don't think the O. J.
Simpson case would be in a textbook, because that's that's
(29:37):
my thought. We'll see. I mean, there could be some
criminal lawyer who might try to use the case in
kind of a mood courts situation, I guess, but that's
we'll see. Hey, Donad, thank you for what you do
and thank you for listening to the show. Thank you
so much. Thank you, don I appreciate that home good Thanks.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
I cliped that a little bit early. I apologize. Six
one seven, two, five, four, ten thirty. We we got
a couple of lines open if you'd like your choice.
Six one seven nine three one ten thirty. I got
Christine and Karen. And I'm glad to have some female
voices on this because I think that, well, women may
have a different perspective. I think that that it. I
(30:24):
just think that that men and women might look at
one of these cases differently. That's not to say all
men and all women. But I'm interested with Karen has
to say. I think I know where she's coming from,
and I know where Christine is coming from. Uh, And
I'm looking forward to hearing from both of them and
maybe you if you want to call six one seven, two, five,
four ten thirty. Six one seven, nine three one ten thirty,
(30:44):
we'll be right back on Night Side.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
All right, let's get to the Phone's going to go
to Christine in Denim. Christine, I know how you feel
about this case. Tell us why go right ahead?
Speaker 9 (31:01):
Well, I was like that play game Prey today and
we thought, we thought afterwards that everybody would be there
after the court here, but nobody showed up. Everybody was
saying this first time I heard this, that he had
fight moks on his arms and his neck and prime
mops on his arms and neck like he said that.
(31:22):
They said the dog could have killed him with his
bite on his neck, could have he could have been
bitten so badly that he could have died instantly and
been brought outside. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Yeah, uh, I guess that's another theory. Uh but yeah,
I think it's that. It's a theory and uh uh,
it's just it's a tragedy all around one. One person
is dead, another person's life has been really uh in
limbo on hold for three years. Even if she's acquitted,
(32:01):
how does she recover? I don't know.
Speaker 9 (32:03):
I mean, I feel bad, so bad to his family
and to her family. It's it's terrible for them to
be going through all of this, you know. And that's
you know what they were saying too. I never heard this,
they were saying. I hate to say that they found
a piece of hair on the tail light and that
have belonged to his nephew.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
How can that be?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I have no idea. You know, there's a lot of
stuff you hear. Okay, okay, yeah, there's there's just a
lot of stuff that you hear and you don't know
where it's from. So the jury in these cases, they
have to be uh that, they have to be careful
(32:48):
in what they're exposed to, and hopefully they make their
decision based upon what they heard.
Speaker 9 (32:55):
I hope, I hope they take their time with us.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Well, that's what the judge told them to do. The
judge said, don't rush a decision. We'll see. It could
be a few it could be a good days.
Speaker 9 (33:07):
How come they work cats for the weekend? Like why
they should have been kept? So they don't What if
they go home and talk about it?
Speaker 2 (33:14):
I mean, well, they're they're they're told frequently in court
in a case like this, not to discuss it with anyone,
not to read newspaper stories, not to listen to talk
radio shows, not to uh not to watch even television news.
Speaker 9 (33:27):
Uh so uh, everybody knows, I.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Mean, but yours take their take their responsibility seriously. Thank goodness.
Christine has always thank you so much, appreciate your calls
and we will talk to thank Christine. I really appreciate it.
Thank you much. Have a great one. Let me go
to Karen in Watertown. Karen, welcome back. How are you?
Speaker 10 (33:52):
Andrew well? Thonk you and you're well?
Speaker 3 (33:56):
Tour tickets Yep.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I'm kind of a tough day, uh in the in
the business here of I'm not good at migrating information
from one computer to another computer. But that's the story
that that I've shared with Rob in detail, but I'm
not going to talk about that one.
Speaker 10 (34:13):
Probably I heard Alan Jackson his complete closing argument. I
had to leave to go to work during prank Brennan's
but I've got most of it, and that was both
of both of them did a great job. And so
I thought after Alan Jackson, I was like, oh my god, like,
how to thank Brandon accounted this? And he did, And
(34:35):
you said you weren't really like wrapped up in this
I am.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
I don't know. We've talked before. Yeah, that's why That's
why I'm so happy you go ahead.
Speaker 10 (34:45):
When Carol went to johnal Keith's mother, I mean emotional,
she lost her son yep, and Karen Reid really self
indicted her. She in tired herself when she agreed to
all these interviews. I think that's probably going to be
(35:09):
her undoing. Let me ask you, I'm not sure you know,
really to.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Ask you a question. Have have you changed your view
during during the case. I thought, for some.
Speaker 10 (35:24):
Reason, I've been following this case from the very beginning
when she was when Karen Reid was jailed, and I
thought she probably an alcoholic blackout to around what you did.
But Brennan didn't go there when because she start of uh,
(35:46):
he started mentioning all the pup when she was mentioning
all the possibilities about oh what maybe it was the
snow plow, maybe.
Speaker 5 (35:54):
It was this, and.
Speaker 10 (35:57):
She was inconsistent and what she said.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
You you mentioned the closing arguments, and I now have
a little bit of sound from each of them. I
just want to play a little sound from both the
prosecutor and the defense lawyer. Let me let me start
off with the defense lawyer, Alan Jackson. Okay, So let's
I'm trying to look at these very quickly here and
(36:23):
see which one I want to I want to play
and want it to be Okay, let's let's he's his emphasis. Obviously,
as any good defense lawyer is on reasonable doubt, this
has cut number four. Run Can you play four?
Speaker 11 (36:42):
Before we examine the evidence in the case, which we
will do, we need to understand the very foundation of
the entire system of justice in which we operate, the
bedrock on which this entire system is built reasonable doubt.
This isn't just a technical and it's not a slogan.
It's a constitutional shield that protects the innocent and prevents
(37:05):
the government from punishing without proof. The Commonwealth has the
high burden to prove every single element of every single
charge beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.
As I said, those powerful words are not just some
legal jargon. They're your mandate, they're your obligation, they're your
(37:26):
community's protection against injustice.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
So Dr Karen, that's just a snippet.
Speaker 10 (37:39):
County, Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
I want you to react to that, and then I
want to play one sound bye from Hank Brennan. Go ahead,
you react to that's a pretty compelling argument that they
can be made in any case, But on a case
like this, where it's not a slam dunk, it becomes
even more compelling your comment, So.
Speaker 10 (38:00):
Go ahead about Adam Jackson's. Yeah, he was really convincing,
and I thought, holy cow, how is Hank brand Gold
you know, react to this?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Okay, then let's do this. I just happened to have.
I just happened to have. This was forty seven seconds.
I'm trying to be fair. The Hank Brennan sound by
his forty six seconds. So let's see. You can compare.
You can respond to both of these. This is cut
number nine. Rock the prosecutor in this case, Hank Brennan.
Speaker 12 (38:34):
We have inevitably, without any doubt, without any doubt, that
on January twenty nine, twenty twenty two, miss Reid was
with mister Keith and she got drunk. She drank, She
was two to three times over the legal limit, and
(38:54):
they went to a party and after party and they
were fighting.
Speaker 13 (38:58):
They were fighting. It was a relationship and decline and you.
Speaker 12 (39:02):
Get out of the car. A had a brief window
of life left.
Speaker 13 (39:08):
Oh when he got out and she drove away, she
couldn't let it go. She get drunk, she hit him.
She left them to die.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
It's that simple, Okay. I think that is the essence
of both of these arguments when you cut away all
of the specifics. I think that's essentially those are two
good comparative sound bites. You listen to one, you think, oh,
(39:40):
I tend to agree with the defense lawyer. Then you
listen to the prosecutor, and maybe it pulls you over.
What do you think that you're always going to do? Oh,
you didn't expect me to ask me questions?
Speaker 10 (39:55):
Apparently, Dan, I'm just following this, like, really.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Well, who better to ask?
Speaker 10 (40:03):
They're apparently a very young jury. You know, these are
people who didn't know anything about this case beforehand, so
they're not super well informed people. But apparently they're right.
I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Okay, that's my position. I have no idea what the
jury is going to do either, even though you you
had the advantage over me, Karen that you listened to
both trials, uh, And I just I hope the jury
gets can resolve the issues, can come to an agreement
either of a guilt on some charge or charges, or
(40:41):
a complete innocence not guilty across the board. Because I
don't think that most of us can stand a third
trial in this case.
Speaker 10 (40:50):
We have to get on with the understand that and
that's what I think is being lost. You know, there's
this all this wearing pink and the whole you know,
we said work Kiara read, she's attractive, particulate.
Speaker 14 (41:05):
She was a college she was a college for I'm
going to sound really obnoxious, really bold, but if the
defendant were black or hispanic, there would not be any
of this going on.
Speaker 10 (41:21):
She's a white, attractive, wealthy woman.
Speaker 2 (41:25):
Well, she maybe may have been wealthy when she started,
but I don't think she's wealthy now.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
No, I know.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
Yeah, okay, so so so last comment, and I only
have about thirty seconds left. I don't think you want
to take a stab at it. But you listen to
the closes. You tell me you follow the case twice,
both both trials. You're you're you're still not convinced one
(41:52):
way or the other. It sounds to me that's like
what you're saying.
Speaker 10 (41:54):
You know what I'm gonna really candid. I told my
boyfriend last night, I said, I have this manifestations vision
that you've been taken away with handcuffs. Okay, and I'm
going with that because I believe that is the most
that we'll give the justice for John CU's Fanley Okay.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
We'll leave it at that. We'll see what happens. Karen
is always great to hear your voice. It is drama,
there's no doubt. Thanks Karen. Okay, good night. All right,
so we end the week on a dramatic note. However, however,
we have one more hour left and I want to
take this next hour and I want to give you
an opportunity to salute your favorite father who's either still
(42:42):
with us or has passed on. And it can be
a variety of people. Could be your father, could be
your father in law, could be your grandfather, could be
an uncle, but your favorite father. That's what we're going
to talk about in the next hour, and we're going
to kind of take the temperature down a little bit
and finish the week and slide into the weekend. My
(43:04):
name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside. You have the phone numbers,
dial away coming back right after this
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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.