June 12, 2025 • 43 mins
Criminal Defense Attorney Phil Tracy was in to chat about both Karen Read trials. As the retrial comes to an end, Tracy shared legal analysis on both cases and discussed what changed between the two and more.
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW 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 NEW 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 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Well, welcome back everyone, Thanks very much Dan Watkins. As
we move into the nine o'clock hour, and I will
in for me that this hour we are going to
talk about the Karen Reid trial. Now, all that is
left the closing arguments tomorrow to be made by both
the defense and the prosecution. Each of them are supposed
(00:29):
to get about an hour and fifteen minutes to wrap
up their case, and then the case will go to
the jury. The jury will get their instructions from the judge.
And apparently, according to reports I saw tonight, the jury
might actually be allowed to begin some deliberations tomorrow and
(00:50):
could stay as late as till five point thirty. The
jury was not in court today, and it's conceivable, it's
conceivable that the jury could request to in on Saturday,
two days from now, to continue their deliberations. This has
been an ordeal for a lot of people, the defense lawyers,
(01:10):
certainly the defendant herself, family members, O'Keefe family members, as
well as the family of friends of Karen Reid, and
with us is Boston criminal defense attorney. Veteran criminal defense
attorney Phil Tracy, who not only followed the first reed
trial which ended up with that hung jury and all
(01:31):
the controversy about whether they were truly hung on all
three of the charges that she's facing, he now has
followed this trial very close. He will make it clear Fiel,
that you haven't been in court. You actually are very
active practicing criminal defense attorney. But you've done as best
you could for us to follow this trial. And let's
start off by first of all saying are you glad
(01:53):
we have finally reached this point where it's almost over.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Oh, I think there's a fatigue out of public opinion
has really had it with this case. And you know
there's a lot to it that is different from the
first case. They brought in the prosecutor Special prosecutor Brennan
(02:17):
now Adam Lallely who tied the first case, was right
by his side and assisting him in helping him because
he had the first case, Adam Lallely, So they added
more high power to it. Looked as if there was
at turning name Alefi who has come into the pray
(02:40):
with with the with the Jackson attorney and David Yannetti,
the very original attorney on the case, so otheran it's
it's a pretty pretty different approach this time around. It
looks as if the defence is not trying to prop
(03:03):
up the argument that they use in the first that
he was assaulted, beaten up in the in the house
and then dropped out on the lawn. I don't think
after looking at it so many times, I don't think
a lot of people think that really did happen that way.
(03:24):
Now comes down to the question of whether or not
she backed up the vehicle into them, into the deceased O'Keefe,
or she did it accidentally or on purpose. So that's
the high pot. That's the well.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
If it's on purpose, they theoretical could get it for
a second degree murder. If it's accidental, then she's got
a potential manslaughter conviction. That's right, So it's high here
for her. Let me ask you this, Phil if I can.
You've watched the presentation. Obviously the players have changed a
little bit. There's also I think has added to her
(04:10):
the red defense team. A woman who was an alternate
juror happens to be a lawyer, but she was an
alternate juror in the first case, and now she hasn't
played a primary role here, but she's been in court,
sitting at the defense table with Karen Reid and her team.
Do you think the prosecution, let's deal with the prosecution first,
(04:31):
then we'll deal with the defense. Do you think the
prosecution of this case from your perspective from what you've seen.
You're not a jury, you're not predicting the results of
what the jury will do. But do you think the
prosecution has put in a stronger or a weaker case
or is it about the same.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Well, I think it's hard to determine because you can't
remember every detail from the first case. But I do
think that they did a very good job of condensing
a lot of the evidence so that you could just
say basically the drinking part of it that she participated in.
(05:15):
That then led to they were in two bars. Then
there was a blinding snowstorm. They drive to this house.
I think they were trying to go for something like this.
They had an augment or with him outside, maybe he
wanted to go in and she didn't, And then the
(05:35):
vehicle went in reverse twenty four miles an hour. Now,
that is an absolute speeding at ninety miles an hour,
going forward. That's in a snowstorm. So, I mean, I
think they were trying to say, why would she drive
in reverse twenty four miles an hour And when she
(05:58):
woke up after a lot of drinks at five in
the morning, she go right back to the exact spot
where he was, not the driveway, but way over to
the left by a hydrant or a flag pole. So
those they kind of indicate that, you know, she knew
what happened, and she knew she went right back. Now,
(06:20):
the X factor here is besides them. In the first case,
they were saying I hit him, I hit him, I
must have hit him. Now they have her on tape
saying I might have clipped him. Now clip is a
very interesting word in this case. I might have clipped him. So,
(06:43):
you know, the decision for her to go public with
so many venues may have been a bad decision because
the prosecution turned that around on her.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Well, those I mean those video tapes, those videotapes were
made after the first trial, the interviews she consented to.
I kind of understand why her lawyers allowed her to
do that, knowing that the case can't be I mean,
it's it's we'd love to find out the story there,
(07:13):
and I think that puts her in the most serious
jeopardy because she did not come across And again I
didn't watch all of them, I didn't watch them frame
by frame, but I don't think she came across as
someone who was particularly a sympathetic character. And that might
that those those videotapes that she that she consented to,
(07:37):
that she did voluntarily might be her her downfall.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Now me and you know, she does not appear to
be a very sympathetic person, a person that the public
has come behind or some people. But a lot of
people are saying, why if you went on TV, wouldn't
you say he was the love of my life? He's dead.
(08:05):
I didn't do it, And I feel so bad for
his mother and the two nephews nieces or that he adopted.
He was, you know, he she should have pointed him
out as a great guy. Now, of course, at the
end of this, surrounding this so harboring over is the
fact that their relationship was teetering, uh and maybe was
(08:28):
going to go into a breakup.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
But that I don't think I think that I don't
think Phil, I don't think that would that easily could
have been explained. And a lot of people are in
a relationship, a lot of people in a marriage and
and and an ensign divorce, so the relationship breaks up,
and they only had good things to say about the
other person, which is, you know, it was much more
(08:53):
my fault than hers or whatever, that I should have
been more attentive or whatever. Uh, and wish her the best.
There was none of that, at least for what was reported. Phil,
I want to take a break and we come back.
I want to talk about your opinion of how we
talked about how the prosecution did what strategies, because the
defense strategy changed a little bit as well.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
And do you think that the defense was as effective
or more effective? I mean, it's conceivable that you could
conclude that both the prosecution with the second bite at
the apple and the defense with a second bite of
the apple did a did a cleaner, better job. But
we'll we'll get your reaction to how the defense handled
the second trial if you like to join the conversation.
(09:39):
We have only some lines at six one seven, nine
to three one ten thirty six one seven nine three
one ten thirty Uh. The other the six one seven, two,
five four to ten thirty a full We'll get to
those callers, but feel free six one seven, nine three one,
ten thirty. And again you at this point you can
(09:59):
you can offer your your predictions. I'm not asking Phil
Tracy because as a lawyer I have too much respect
for him as a lawyer to put him in that spot.
Because no one knows what goes on in the jury room,
just as no one really knows what goes on in
a marriage or in a relationship. Back on Nightside if
you like to join the only two lines open right now,
(10:20):
six seven, nine thirty, A word to the wise. Back
on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Bzy Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
My guest is Phil Tracy, longtime criminal defense attorney, talking
about the Karen retrial. The defense has rested, the prosecution
has rested. Tomorrow closing arguments. There will be instructions to
the jury, and there could be some deliberations tomorrow, and
there could even be some deliberations should the jury choose
and the judge allowed on Saturday. We'll see how that
(10:53):
plays out. The jury was off today, so they're going
in tomorrow relatively fresh off off a day off. Phil
so we talked about the prosecution, and I think we
both feel that the prose, at least I feel the
prosecution did a cleaner presentation. They had some hiccups, but
I think that they did a cleaner presentation in trial
number two as I would expect them to. Are you
(11:15):
with me on that?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Agreed completely? I agreed completely? Yes, you're definitely.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Your thoughts on the defense. The defense was able to
basically get a mistrial, which would in normal circumstances, is
in a case like this be considered a victory for
the defense. How did they do the second time? How
did the defense time?
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Well, I think they, as you said, they added some
players to try and I think spread it out a
little bit and take it the spotlight off of attorney Jackson. Now,
of course, in the first case, he dominated defense posture.
In this case they used another attorney, Alessi, and you
(12:06):
saw him on TV and he was pounding the table
looking for miss trials, and so, in other words, they
came a little more aggressive. Now, the other thing is
the last thing the jury heard after such a long
trial is the expert witnesses for the defense trying to
(12:29):
debunk the prosecution's expert witnesses and that is the last
thing they heard, and sometimes that can be impactful on
a jury. On the other hand, they know that this
young man, this young police officer, is dead because something
(12:55):
happened over on the street, and so what is the
possible explanation other than she hit him with a cot
either accidentally or on praise. They don't think it's on purpose,
but it sure looks like it was accidental. But I mean,
(13:15):
it was one of those things when she went on
and said I might have clipped them. That's dangerous for sure.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
And that is that's that's part of the prosecutions ammunition,
which they didn't have at the first trial. So putting
aside the prosecution, the case they put in, which we
agree is better was the defense normally in a second
bite at the apple, the defense is going to be
able to clean up a lot of problems given the
(13:41):
fact that they had to deal with these out of
court audio clips of video clips, which they had no
I mean, once they were done, they were done and
they were in play, would you say the defense had
had it? They have. They have tightened their case up
a little here they have.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I think they did, and what they did, I think
well was prepare their witnesses, their expert witnesses for a
wrestling cross examination by Prosecutor Burnett. And so those witnesses
held up fairly well under that cross examination. But I
(14:27):
still think that part of the renewed prosecution case were
the tapes of her talking to media and that sort
of thing. Also, Harold has put her picture on their
front page day after day. She doesn't looked like somebody
(14:48):
who is really upset about this situation. It's almost like
she's looking at her fifteen minutes of fame. And that's
disturbing to me. And if I was a your I
would be saying, now, missus O'Keefe is right behind her,
only ten to fifteen feet away. They haven't been anything
(15:11):
that has come out of the except for the civil suit,
and very much like the old O J case, he
was acquitted, but then he was found libel for the
murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Well, we will across a lot that's.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Yet to come. Now, let's tell.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
We cross that bridge when we come to it. Phil
Tracy talking about the Karen Read case. The other thing
which I want you to come in quickly on as
a veteran criminal defense attorney. The final word to the
jury will be from the prosecution. The defense will go
(15:54):
first tomorrow and the prosecution we will have the final
attention they reach getting supposed to be an hour and
a half ninety minutes in a case like this, Will
that make a difference? You were talking about those costs.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Oh, that's the and it's extremely hard to marshal the
facts of a case this long. In other words, you know,
I've been trying cases for fifty years, and the idea
is this, when you have a case that goes for
a day or two, I mean, that's that's something that
you can marshal the facts into an argument. On the
(16:32):
other hand, this type of case with multiple witnesses and
multiple videos and multiple looks at the vehicle and that
sort of thing. So you know, that's that's hard to
put that into You've got to really prepare and I
hope both sides do a good job, but you know,
(16:54):
you can miss something easily in the closing argument, then
the judge of course will give in fructions on the law. Now,
one of the complaints from the first case was that
the judge did not put the verdict slip in a
comprehensible way for the jurors who allay people did not lawyers,
(17:15):
so that that is going to be scrutinized from all
sides and objective.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
That objection was raised by Jackson before the jury started
to deliberate, so he and he was sort of dismissed.
It was the idea of, well, you're a California lawyer,
you don't know how we do things here in Massachusetts.
And as it turned out, he was right. There was
a lot of confusion with that jury, which ended up
with all of those sed cases, double jeopardy, et cetera.
(17:45):
And I think from what I've read, I don't know
that she's going to be particularly open to changing the
presentation of the verdict slip slip or her instructions.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I think one thing she will always or she will
certainly say, have you reached a verdict on any of
the charges? Now? If you have not, tell me if so.
That was the confusion the last time they were still
interested in They said we're in a deadlock, but they
(18:21):
didn't say that we we've agreed to find her not
guilty on a couple of the charges.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Well she should have. She should have said, in my opinion.
You're telling me, I assume that you're deadlocked on all
three counts. And if they said, yes, we're deadlocked on
all three counts, she's covered. Never asked that question, Yeah,
and the course did not want to did not want
(18:51):
to chastise her or even say that going forward, which
which was interesting. I think judges kind of closed ranks
behind her.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
In my opinion, Yes, there's no question about that, and I.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Didn't want to even ask you that because you're going
to be a friend of some of those judges. Go ahead,
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Oh well, but let me say this one last thing.
I want to say. It is a rule process for
the judge, for the lawyers, for the clerks, for the
for the court officers. It's a trial like this is
tremendously difficult. You know, you get worn out, and I think,
(19:33):
like I say, there's there's fatigue for the whole case
among the court of bubble opinion.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
All right, my guest is Phil Tracy. Well, we'll get
to yet. If you have a question for Phil, or
you want to express a point of view, Phil, stick
with us. Normally I'll let you go at this point,
but i'll screen the questions. I'll decide if the questions
are relevant and all of that. So don't worry about that. Okay,
there may be questions that that I have not been
(20:00):
smart enough enough to ask in my audience will ask
them for It's the only lines that are opened. Six one, seven,
nine thirty. Coming right back on Night's Side.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
All right, we're gonna go to the phones. Let me
go first off to Justin in Marlborough. Justin, you were
first tonight on talking about the Karen Reid trial. I'm
gonna go to the jury tomorrow. You're all with at journey,
Phil Tracy, go ahead, Justin, Thank.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
You for taking my call. I have two points I
want to say. Three independent medical diaminers were adamant that
John o'keef was not hit by a Karen and AKA
did not hit John o'keith, and that it was likely
he might have been punching the face. And two biomechanical
(20:50):
engineers with PhDs said the same thing.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
And also, so we're justin, let me ask you this.
You can you can you phrase this in the form
of a question for my expert here. I want to
make sure that Phil is involved in our conversation.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Okay, sure, why does the toney Tracy is adamant that
the Perton got hit by a car. Well, it looks
more likely he got hit in the face with a punch.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Okay, let's let's let me. Let's let let's let Fiel
addressed that I'm not sure he said what you think
you heard. He said, say, but go ahead, Phil, Well.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Let me just say this that the experts on both
sides are paid experts, paid to evaluate and give an
opinion that the prosecution and the defense want heard by
the jury. Now in some cases those they cross each
other out because the commonwealths experts are saying that it
(21:53):
was consistent with a clipping that we're using that word again,
clipping of O'Keefe. The other people say for the defense
that those and this is a very good point for
the defense, that there weren't any other broken bones. So
(22:14):
the kamwealth says he was hit and fell back and
hit his head. The defense says those he would have
had broken bones if that was the case. So I mean,
that's for the jury to decide. They can weigh the
(22:34):
evidence of the experts, and they can disbelieve or believe them,
but I think they kind of cross each other out,
and then the juries left with what are the real
facts here?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
The other thing Justin to remember is that the experts
who are presented, either the prosecution or the defense, has
to lay a foundation to qualify them as witnesses expert witnesses.
They're not witnesses who are on the scene of a
crime and they're asking about their observations. They're asking about
(23:11):
their expertise. Now, I think that there are generally a
lot of experts who can look at something like this
as Phil says and arrive at a different conclusion. But
they have to You just kind of pull some guy
off the street and say, hey, this guy's name is
Harry Bananas. He's got no background, but he's my expert witness.
(23:31):
They have to qualify them. So the jury listens to
both both sets of experts, or both experts who sometimes
are in conflict. Is what It's important to understand that.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
But the medical I'm from Massachusetts is for the Commonwealth,
and she said he was not hit by Again.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
I think what you do in justin, I think you're
listening and you're putting it. You believe she's innocent. Okay,
you believe she's not guilty. I get that, no problem.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
But what I'm saying is the Commonwealth Examiner was the
witness for the Commonwealth, not for the defense, and she
spoke on she was the witness for the common weapons
and she didn't get.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Well in that case. Then then if you're right here, Justin,
the jury's going to come back with it with a
not guilty in about twenty five minutes. So let's see
what happens.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It's what did you say?
Speaker 3 (24:29):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, I know I know what Justin. You said something
I spoke over you. What was that?
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Yeah, I'm sorry, I just wanted to correct you. They
were allotted seventy five minutes.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
That's what I think. I said, an hour and a quarter.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
You said ninety. You said, well fine, I know, I
just wanted to say that seventy five minutes.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Yeah, thanks, Justin, appreciate you. Quch All right, thank you.
Let me go to Joe and Belmont. Joe, you're next
on nights. I got a question or comment for Phil Tracy. Please, Joe,
go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Dan. I want to tell you and the lawyer why
I think she's innocent. The man slaughter.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Well, I wish you'd ask him a question, Joe, to
be honest with you, because he's got some experience in this,
in this practice of the law. He's been in the
criminal defense attorney for almost a half a century and
has handled capital cases like that. If you got a question,
that'd be great if you want to tell him why
you think she's innocent, and he can do it in
about a minute, Go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
Oh, yes, you had a caller about three or four
weeks ago, a woman and she said there was just
too many coincidences that happens that she was innocent. Now,
when coincidence happened too many of them, things are very
fishy that she's innocence.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
And what would what would what were the two coincidences
or two or three coincidence that that that you would
like to cite for us, Joe, I.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
Can't cite him, but I wish the call Okay, so.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
All right, fair enough? If you could cite him, it
might have been a stronger argument. Phil Would you like
to comment to that.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Well, I mean, once again, at the prosecution tightened the
case from the first time around. Uh, they have a theory. Uh,
the defense has used the opposite theory of what we
call another possibility of the of the of the injury
(26:24):
to O'Keefe. And I think the judge covered that today
in which they are either unable to use say that
this guy Albert or Higgins might have done this. They
can't say that, but they can say that the police
(26:45):
did not look into that. And I think that's what what.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
The defense the defenses, I understand it, Phil agreed to that,
whether whether they agreed to involuntarily or involunteer they have,
they have agreed to that. As how great, Hey, Joe
is always.
Speaker 5 (27:06):
Man.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Yeah, Joe, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
If you in twenty seconds, I'd wish some of your
callers would call in and name the coincidences that happened.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
If there's anyone out there who wants to name those coincidences,
that's great, Joe. But that that that word is invented
on your mind and that has helped you make your decision.
And but you're not in the jury. Thanks Joe, appreciate
the call so much. Talk to you later. Let me
go to Suzannah Newton. Susanne question, if you will for
my guest.
Speaker 6 (27:35):
I have been watching the chargy. What I knowed the dermatologists,
but h I uh, I think they she ran over
the conflict blah blah, and it was snowing and aparently
at some point they said a dog.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah, So Susanne, is there a question shit here for Phil?
Or did you just want to.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
Actually I have a I have a call for a while,
so I'm watching it. I love ohady, Okay.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Well, thank you for calling, nonetheless appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (28:14):
Well, I'm glad to get Kurd tonight side because I'm
watching tea Get to Eat two but not tonight right.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Well you yeah, you You've got a lot of trial
watching to do, Susan, and I wish I had that
amount of time. But keep it. You must post it
on both of those cases. Very two very interesting cases
for different reasons. Let me keep rolling here, Phil, let
me get one more in here before the break. Let
me go to Jason down in the Cape. Jason, you're
next on Nightsacker.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
Right ahead, Thanks very much.
Speaker 7 (28:42):
I want to preface my comments with well, I live
in the Cape. I actually grew up in Canton, so
I know some of these fellows that you'll you'll see
on the stand and then throughout this case. And sure
I would say that my question would be, if he
was found guilty, does she have good grounds for appeal?
Speaker 3 (29:03):
Sure, that's a good question. Yeah, she certainly has. So
much has been put into both the first and the
second trial. There's been a federal appeal on double jeopardy.
There's just a boatload now. Interestingly, in the state courts,
(29:24):
if you are convicted of say, murder, of robbery or
kidnapping or rape or something like that, you don't get
to stay out, usually out of jail while the appeal
is going on. Now that's going to be an interesting
question or whether they'll allow her to stay out on
(29:45):
veil while the appeals go through. Combine that with the
fact that it's going to be a civil case too,
in which the proponents of the evidence is so fifty
one to forty nine, and that's something that's not proof
beyond a reasonable doubts, so that I believe will possibly
(30:07):
end up with a liability finding against her. That could happen.
So there's a lot of thoughts that.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
I just want to admit. Field. I thought that her
appeals and the double jeopardy issue, and on the failure
of the judge to ask that second set of questions
of the jurors when they came back and said they
were deadlocked. I thought those were pretty strong appeals. It
just shows how difficult it is to prevail on an
appeal on a case like.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
This.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
You got two trials, so you've got a lot of stuff.
Something went wrong in the first trial. They appealed. There's
going to be a lot of appeals in this case.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
I can't think of anything if she comes back with
a conviction, Just Jason, I don't see, on the face
of it, a strong appellate issue because I think that
the the double jeopardy issue has been disposed of, both
in federal court and in state courts, and I think
(31:16):
that that this trial there will always be issues for appeal.
I mean clearly, and every one of the motions for
a for a mistrial, or for the outright request for
dismissals with prejudice, all of those are appealable issues.
Speaker 7 (31:37):
I'm sorry I follow this for interrupting.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
No, I'm just saying I think they're appealable issues. I
don't know they win, so.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
There's definitely going to be an appeal, ye lawyer.
Speaker 7 (31:50):
If we don't know, no lawyer, I guess I'd just
like to play one for fun every now and then.
But I wonder, I'll just what you see with the
judge and some of the what the prosecution had done.
It seemed like they opened a lot of doors for appeals.
(32:10):
But again, I I we're just I guess I'm just
watching it on TV. I'm not there in the room.
And I know there's a lot of rules.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
There's a lot of rulings that the judge has made
which could be questioned. Okay, I get it. I get
what you're saying. Just remember this. If the if the
defense wins, the prosecution has no grounds for repealed. That's it.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
That's over, and that I do know.
Speaker 7 (32:32):
Yeah, yeah, well, very interesting. I hit your time tonight.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
All right, Jason, thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Phil. We got one more segment ago we got full lines.
We now just have one line at six one, seven ninety.
We'll get Joe and Geo and Ed and Priscilla. Matter
of fact, Priscilla is going to be first up on
the other side. Priscilla will be with you right after
this quick break.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Back to the phones, we go with Attorney Phil Tracy
a veteran criminal defense attorney here in Boston, and Phil
practices with Demento and Sullivan, very successful criminal criminal law firm.
Priscilla in Mattapan. Hi, Priscilla, welcome, you were.
Speaker 9 (33:17):
Yes, I had a couple of questions.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Ad Priscilla, focus focus on us and make sure that
radio is turned down. Go ahead, Priscilla.
Speaker 9 (33:27):
They were thinking about you know how I know some
of the evidence has not appeared because what I hear
they said, John O'Keefe, you know he was bitten by
the dog. So and I don't know.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
How to well what what the what the defense is
trying to get in is that that he was he
was bitten by a dog. But I don't think that
they were able to get in that he was bitten
by a dog inside the house. Am I right on
that film? Yes he could have if he if he
(34:09):
was theoretically, if he was hit by the vehicle and
was unconscious and and and froze to death, there could
have been a dog or a coyote that theoretically could
have bit him while he was on the lawn. They
did not get to the point of putting. They did
not put him in. They did not place him in
the house. The defense did not at this case try
(34:32):
to place him in the house.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
That's right. They moved away from him. Blame they moved
away from him.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Priscilla, hold on for one second, Phil, Tracy just wanted
to comment.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
Go ahead, Phil, No, I think they moved away from
the theory that he went in the house, was attack,
beaten up by a dog, and thrown out on the
front lawn. I mean, that didn't make sense. If that
really happened, wouldn't they try to hide the body or
(35:07):
do something different than putting it on the front putting
the body in the front lawn. Yeah, the bills, he
was going to die. He was just beating nothing thrown
out there. But that's again, it's highly They called it
for a conspiracy among multiple police people and things like that. Now,
(35:31):
I'm not saying that that. Sometimes the police needs fruit
me and maybe this department does, but I mean, it
just doesn't make a lot of sense that that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
Yeah, Priscilla, go ahead, I'll give you final word. Priscilla,
I interrupted you. I apologize, Go ahead.
Speaker 9 (35:51):
Oh, I was just wondering. You know, it's just so
so many things.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
Confusing, set of facts, that's for sure.
Speaker 9 (36:01):
Yeah, and then you know that they got rid of
the house. That's good.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Yeah, the house was sold and the dog disappeared, and
we know all of that. I don't think much of
that if any of that got in in front of
the jury. And and that's the real jury.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
This time it wasn't. Yeah, this time they really take.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Kind did you feel? Correct me if I'm wrong. But
the jury cannot take into consideration facts that they may
have learned from other sources with them into the jury room.
They got to come in with what they've heard in
the case exactly.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
And one of the hardest things for the public to understand,
and for me and for you, Dan, we weren't in
the courtroom every single day, watching every single with the
jury was, and sometimes what you hear coming out of
the courts is not exactly what was was said or
(37:02):
was meant. And the jury obviously sees everything. We don't
see everything. We read the newspaper reports and we see
the television, but that's only a snippet of what's happening.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Aslutely, Priscilla, thanks you.
Speaker 9 (37:19):
The judge asked the question one of the people about
the dogs situation. Stuff too so.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Yeah, yeah, well the judge has has discussed that that
had did come up in the context of for the clothing,
the piece of clothing that they showed. So we'll have
to see what the instruction, what the judges instructions are tomorrow. Priscilla,
thank you very much for your call. I appreciate you
taking the time. Have a great night. Well, thank you, Priscilla.
(37:48):
I love that. Is this your first time.
Speaker 9 (37:52):
Time?
Speaker 2 (37:53):
All right? Well, come on back more often, Okay, I
want to hear from you more often. Thanks, Priscilla, take
it easy, good night. Let me go to Ed and Marshfield.
Ed you next on nice. I want to get you
and hopefully a couple more in Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
Ed, Oh are you Dan?
Speaker 2 (38:08):
Good sir, you're also Tracy. Go ahead?
Speaker 1 (38:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (38:12):
Help Joe out with the coincidences. The Jim McCabe lying
to the FBI about five phone calls. That's that's you know,
there's a lie on the other side.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
What was that was that entered into evidence in this
in this trial?
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I believe it was.
Speaker 8 (38:35):
And Brendan Lyon about the shirt.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
I don't I don't think that's a he said. He
he said that he made a mistake.
Speaker 10 (38:47):
He's been lying and he got caught in that lie.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yeah, you know what, Ed, And I gotta tell you,
I know a little bit of Hank Brennan's reputation. I
think Phil knows a little bit of his reputation. And
I don't think the word liar a lie is one
that you should be. He's a he's a good lawyer,
and I appreciate it, but I just you know, I'm
(39:13):
not I'm the judge here in the quote of public opinion.
I'm going to rule that out of water. Thanks Ed.
GEO in handover GEO next to Nice.
Speaker 8 (39:23):
I go ahead, Geo, Hello Phil, to you and Phil Tracy,
both really good lawyers.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Phil.
Speaker 7 (39:30):
At the very.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
Beginning, I uh, well, I I set up clinical laboratories
and forensic laboratories in New York. They tested for curare,
which was an African killer that the doctor was using.
Speaker 4 (39:45):
Uh.
Speaker 8 (39:46):
Your case is most was mostly about incidental and circumstantial
rather than the corpus, rather than the corpse. I did
not follow it once they once they said they didn't
do what I thought was the obvious thing to do.
Can you comment on what was the matter of any
(40:06):
substantial facts from one and two an autopsy and a
forensic toxicology report.
Speaker 3 (40:16):
Well, let me just say this, I think that the
product you brought up something that I hadn't touched on,
and that was some of the unexplained Now everybody, I mean,
some people say it's a it's a conspiracy and whatever.
But the DNA aspect of it indicated there was no
(40:38):
dog DNA on him. There was his DNA on the
broken tail light. Now that would require I guess somebody
to have done that in a way that in order
to frame Karen read It seems a long stretch to
(40:59):
say that that kind of evidence is not credible. I
think it's very credible when you say there's DNA of
this man who's dead on the tail light, and that's
what they've proved, I mean that that's what they attempted
to prove.
Speaker 8 (41:16):
Let me let me give you a for instance. He
would walk up to the body in the lobby and
he would be regurgitating or drooling or bleeding, and you
would take a paper towel or a napkin, wipe it,
walk out to the tail light and rub it on
the tail light. That would be good enough to present
(41:36):
for a laboratory test to say his DNA is on
the tail light, but it says nothing about how it
got there, well the other the other things.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
I mean, just think about it. He could have gotten
out of that car. Uh and as he's walking with
the snow falling down his hand if he if he
didn't have gloves on, his bare hand, could have steadied
himself and could have put his hand on it on
the light, and there'd be perhaps some DNA from his hand.
Speaker 8 (42:04):
Well, yeah, that is a possibility, but it doesn't it
doesn't fit what its known evidence. I haven't paid a
lot of attention, but recently there's a testimony about a
place where the car was and somebody saw the something
was different relative to the tail light. It was a
different tale light.
Speaker 2 (42:22):
That was the first gill. That was the first trial
where there was a videotape that was presented into Evan
which apparently was flipped backwards. Okay, I'll go back. Geo. Unfortunately,
autopsy Geo?
Speaker 8 (42:37):
Was there an autopsy?
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Geo? Geo? I don't know the answer to that question.
And I'm flat out of time. I have the ten
o'clock news.
Speaker 4 (42:44):
I'm glad.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Okay, Phil, I want to thank you, thank you, Geo, Phil,
thank you for your time tonight obviously when this verting
come man.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
Thank you for having me on. This is a case
that captured the imagination of the of the and is
being reported nationally.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
But I also think we cannot forget that there's a
young man whose life has been lost and whatever in
this case, we need to focus Phil. Thank you. I'm
going to let you go.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
For those of you on the line.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Talk to you soon.
Speaker 5 (43:20):
Pal.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
For those of you on the line, Joe and Michael
and Alex and Jonie, stay there. I want to continue
this and I'll accommodate all of you during the next hour.
We may do two hours on this tonight, we'll do
at least probably another fifteen to twenty minutes right after
the ten o'clock news on Nightside
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Well, welcome back everyone, Thanks very much Dan Watkins. As
we move into the nine o'clock hour, and I will
in for me that this hour we are going to
talk about the Karen Reid trial. Now, all that is
left the closing arguments tomorrow to be made by both
the defense and the prosecution. Each of them are supposed
(00:29):
to get about an hour and fifteen minutes to wrap
up their case, and then the case will go to
the jury. The jury will get their instructions from the judge.
And apparently, according to reports I saw tonight, the jury
might actually be allowed to begin some deliberations tomorrow and
(00:50):
could stay as late as till five point thirty. The
jury was not in court today, and it's conceivable, it's
conceivable that the jury could request to in on Saturday,
two days from now, to continue their deliberations. This has
been an ordeal for a lot of people, the defense lawyers,
(01:10):
certainly the defendant herself, family members, O'Keefe family members, as
well as the family of friends of Karen Reid, and
with us is Boston criminal defense attorney. Veteran criminal defense
attorney Phil Tracy, who not only followed the first reed
trial which ended up with that hung jury and all
(01:31):
the controversy about whether they were truly hung on all
three of the charges that she's facing, he now has
followed this trial very close. He will make it clear Fiel,
that you haven't been in court. You actually are very
active practicing criminal defense attorney. But you've done as best
you could for us to follow this trial. And let's
start off by first of all saying are you glad
(01:53):
we have finally reached this point where it's almost over.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Oh, I think there's a fatigue out of public opinion
has really had it with this case. And you know
there's a lot to it that is different from the
first case. They brought in the prosecutor Special prosecutor Brennan
(02:17):
now Adam Lallely who tied the first case, was right
by his side and assisting him in helping him because
he had the first case, Adam Lallely, So they added
more high power to it. Looked as if there was
at turning name Alefi who has come into the pray
(02:40):
with with the with the Jackson attorney and David Yannetti,
the very original attorney on the case, so otheran it's
it's a pretty pretty different approach this time around. It
looks as if the defence is not trying to prop
(03:03):
up the argument that they use in the first that
he was assaulted, beaten up in the in the house
and then dropped out on the lawn. I don't think
after looking at it so many times, I don't think
a lot of people think that really did happen that way.
(03:24):
Now comes down to the question of whether or not
she backed up the vehicle into them, into the deceased O'Keefe,
or she did it accidentally or on purpose. So that's
the high pot. That's the well.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
If it's on purpose, they theoretical could get it for
a second degree murder. If it's accidental, then she's got
a potential manslaughter conviction. That's right, So it's high here
for her. Let me ask you this, Phil if I can.
You've watched the presentation. Obviously the players have changed a
little bit. There's also I think has added to her
(04:10):
the red defense team. A woman who was an alternate
juror happens to be a lawyer, but she was an
alternate juror in the first case, and now she hasn't
played a primary role here, but she's been in court,
sitting at the defense table with Karen Reid and her team.
Do you think the prosecution, let's deal with the prosecution first,
(04:31):
then we'll deal with the defense. Do you think the
prosecution of this case from your perspective from what you've seen.
You're not a jury, you're not predicting the results of
what the jury will do. But do you think the
prosecution has put in a stronger or a weaker case
or is it about the same.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Well, I think it's hard to determine because you can't
remember every detail from the first case. But I do
think that they did a very good job of condensing
a lot of the evidence so that you could just
say basically the drinking part of it that she participated in.
(05:15):
That then led to they were in two bars. Then
there was a blinding snowstorm. They drive to this house.
I think they were trying to go for something like this.
They had an augment or with him outside, maybe he
wanted to go in and she didn't, And then the
(05:35):
vehicle went in reverse twenty four miles an hour. Now,
that is an absolute speeding at ninety miles an hour,
going forward. That's in a snowstorm. So, I mean, I
think they were trying to say, why would she drive
in reverse twenty four miles an hour And when she
(05:58):
woke up after a lot of drinks at five in
the morning, she go right back to the exact spot
where he was, not the driveway, but way over to
the left by a hydrant or a flag pole. So
those they kind of indicate that, you know, she knew
what happened, and she knew she went right back. Now,
(06:20):
the X factor here is besides them. In the first case,
they were saying I hit him, I hit him, I
must have hit him. Now they have her on tape
saying I might have clipped him. Now clip is a
very interesting word in this case. I might have clipped him. So,
(06:43):
you know, the decision for her to go public with
so many venues may have been a bad decision because
the prosecution turned that around on her.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Well, those I mean those video tapes, those videotapes were
made after the first trial, the interviews she consented to.
I kind of understand why her lawyers allowed her to
do that, knowing that the case can't be I mean,
it's it's we'd love to find out the story there,
(07:13):
and I think that puts her in the most serious
jeopardy because she did not come across And again I
didn't watch all of them, I didn't watch them frame
by frame, but I don't think she came across as
someone who was particularly a sympathetic character. And that might
that those those videotapes that she that she consented to,
(07:37):
that she did voluntarily might be her her downfall.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Now me and you know, she does not appear to
be a very sympathetic person, a person that the public
has come behind or some people. But a lot of
people are saying, why if you went on TV, wouldn't
you say he was the love of my life? He's dead.
(08:05):
I didn't do it, And I feel so bad for
his mother and the two nephews nieces or that he adopted.
He was, you know, he she should have pointed him
out as a great guy. Now, of course, at the
end of this, surrounding this so harboring over is the
fact that their relationship was teetering, uh and maybe was
(08:28):
going to go into a breakup.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
But that I don't think I think that I don't
think Phil, I don't think that would that easily could
have been explained. And a lot of people are in
a relationship, a lot of people in a marriage and
and and an ensign divorce, so the relationship breaks up,
and they only had good things to say about the
other person, which is, you know, it was much more
(08:53):
my fault than hers or whatever, that I should have
been more attentive or whatever. Uh, and wish her the best.
There was none of that, at least for what was reported. Phil,
I want to take a break and we come back.
I want to talk about your opinion of how we
talked about how the prosecution did what strategies, because the
defense strategy changed a little bit as well.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
And do you think that the defense was as effective
or more effective? I mean, it's conceivable that you could
conclude that both the prosecution with the second bite at
the apple and the defense with a second bite of
the apple did a did a cleaner, better job. But
we'll we'll get your reaction to how the defense handled
the second trial if you like to join the conversation.
(09:39):
We have only some lines at six one seven, nine
to three one ten thirty six one seven nine three
one ten thirty Uh. The other the six one seven, two,
five four to ten thirty a full We'll get to
those callers, but feel free six one seven, nine three one,
ten thirty. And again you at this point you can
(09:59):
you can offer your your predictions. I'm not asking Phil
Tracy because as a lawyer I have too much respect
for him as a lawyer to put him in that spot.
Because no one knows what goes on in the jury room,
just as no one really knows what goes on in
a marriage or in a relationship. Back on Nightside if
you like to join the only two lines open right now,
(10:20):
six seven, nine thirty, A word to the wise. Back
on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Bzy Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
My guest is Phil Tracy, longtime criminal defense attorney, talking
about the Karen retrial. The defense has rested, the prosecution
has rested. Tomorrow closing arguments. There will be instructions to
the jury, and there could be some deliberations tomorrow, and
there could even be some deliberations should the jury choose
and the judge allowed on Saturday. We'll see how that
(10:53):
plays out. The jury was off today, so they're going
in tomorrow relatively fresh off off a day off. Phil
so we talked about the prosecution, and I think we
both feel that the prose, at least I feel the
prosecution did a cleaner presentation. They had some hiccups, but
I think that they did a cleaner presentation in trial
number two as I would expect them to. Are you
(11:15):
with me on that?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Agreed completely? I agreed completely? Yes, you're definitely.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Your thoughts on the defense. The defense was able to
basically get a mistrial, which would in normal circumstances, is
in a case like this be considered a victory for
the defense. How did they do the second time? How
did the defense time?
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Well, I think they, as you said, they added some
players to try and I think spread it out a
little bit and take it the spotlight off of attorney Jackson. Now,
of course, in the first case, he dominated defense posture.
In this case they used another attorney, Alessi, and you
(12:06):
saw him on TV and he was pounding the table
looking for miss trials, and so, in other words, they
came a little more aggressive. Now, the other thing is
the last thing the jury heard after such a long
trial is the expert witnesses for the defense trying to
(12:29):
debunk the prosecution's expert witnesses and that is the last
thing they heard, and sometimes that can be impactful on
a jury. On the other hand, they know that this
young man, this young police officer, is dead because something
(12:55):
happened over on the street, and so what is the
possible explanation other than she hit him with a cot
either accidentally or on praise. They don't think it's on purpose,
but it sure looks like it was accidental. But I mean,
(13:15):
it was one of those things when she went on
and said I might have clipped them. That's dangerous for sure.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
And that is that's that's part of the prosecutions ammunition,
which they didn't have at the first trial. So putting
aside the prosecution, the case they put in, which we
agree is better was the defense normally in a second
bite at the apple, the defense is going to be
able to clean up a lot of problems given the
(13:41):
fact that they had to deal with these out of
court audio clips of video clips, which they had no
I mean, once they were done, they were done and
they were in play, would you say the defense had
had it? They have. They have tightened their case up
a little here they have.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I think they did, and what they did, I think
well was prepare their witnesses, their expert witnesses for a
wrestling cross examination by Prosecutor Burnett. And so those witnesses
held up fairly well under that cross examination. But I
(14:27):
still think that part of the renewed prosecution case were
the tapes of her talking to media and that sort
of thing. Also, Harold has put her picture on their
front page day after day. She doesn't looked like somebody
(14:48):
who is really upset about this situation. It's almost like
she's looking at her fifteen minutes of fame. And that's
disturbing to me. And if I was a your I
would be saying, now, missus O'Keefe is right behind her,
only ten to fifteen feet away. They haven't been anything
(15:11):
that has come out of the except for the civil suit,
and very much like the old O J case, he
was acquitted, but then he was found libel for the
murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Well, we will across a lot that's.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Yet to come. Now, let's tell.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
We cross that bridge when we come to it. Phil
Tracy talking about the Karen Read case. The other thing
which I want you to come in quickly on as
a veteran criminal defense attorney. The final word to the
jury will be from the prosecution. The defense will go
(15:54):
first tomorrow and the prosecution we will have the final
attention they reach getting supposed to be an hour and
a half ninety minutes in a case like this, Will
that make a difference? You were talking about those costs.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Oh, that's the and it's extremely hard to marshal the
facts of a case this long. In other words, you know,
I've been trying cases for fifty years, and the idea
is this, when you have a case that goes for
a day or two, I mean, that's that's something that
you can marshal the facts into an argument. On the
(16:32):
other hand, this type of case with multiple witnesses and
multiple videos and multiple looks at the vehicle and that
sort of thing. So you know, that's that's hard to
put that into You've got to really prepare and I
hope both sides do a good job, but you know,
(16:54):
you can miss something easily in the closing argument, then
the judge of course will give in fructions on the law. Now,
one of the complaints from the first case was that
the judge did not put the verdict slip in a
comprehensible way for the jurors who allay people did not lawyers,
(17:15):
so that that is going to be scrutinized from all
sides and objective.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
That objection was raised by Jackson before the jury started
to deliberate, so he and he was sort of dismissed.
It was the idea of, well, you're a California lawyer,
you don't know how we do things here in Massachusetts.
And as it turned out, he was right. There was
a lot of confusion with that jury, which ended up
with all of those sed cases, double jeopardy, et cetera.
(17:45):
And I think from what I've read, I don't know
that she's going to be particularly open to changing the
presentation of the verdict slip slip or her instructions.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I think one thing she will always or she will
certainly say, have you reached a verdict on any of
the charges? Now? If you have not, tell me if so.
That was the confusion the last time they were still
interested in They said we're in a deadlock, but they
(18:21):
didn't say that we we've agreed to find her not
guilty on a couple of the charges.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Well she should have. She should have said, in my opinion.
You're telling me, I assume that you're deadlocked on all
three counts. And if they said, yes, we're deadlocked on
all three counts, she's covered. Never asked that question, Yeah,
and the course did not want to did not want
(18:51):
to chastise her or even say that going forward, which
which was interesting. I think judges kind of closed ranks
behind her.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
In my opinion, Yes, there's no question about that, and I.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Didn't want to even ask you that because you're going
to be a friend of some of those judges. Go ahead,
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Oh well, but let me say this one last thing.
I want to say. It is a rule process for
the judge, for the lawyers, for the clerks, for the
for the court officers. It's a trial like this is
tremendously difficult. You know, you get worn out, and I think,
(19:33):
like I say, there's there's fatigue for the whole case
among the court of bubble opinion.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
All right, my guest is Phil Tracy. Well, we'll get
to yet. If you have a question for Phil, or
you want to express a point of view, Phil, stick
with us. Normally I'll let you go at this point,
but i'll screen the questions. I'll decide if the questions
are relevant and all of that. So don't worry about that. Okay,
there may be questions that that I have not been
(20:00):
smart enough enough to ask in my audience will ask
them for It's the only lines that are opened. Six one, seven,
nine thirty. Coming right back on Night's Side.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
All right, we're gonna go to the phones. Let me
go first off to Justin in Marlborough. Justin, you were
first tonight on talking about the Karen Reid trial. I'm
gonna go to the jury tomorrow. You're all with at journey,
Phil Tracy, go ahead, Justin, Thank.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
You for taking my call. I have two points I
want to say. Three independent medical diaminers were adamant that
John o'keef was not hit by a Karen and AKA
did not hit John o'keith, and that it was likely
he might have been punching the face. And two biomechanical
(20:50):
engineers with PhDs said the same thing.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
And also, so we're justin, let me ask you this.
You can you can you phrase this in the form
of a question for my expert here. I want to
make sure that Phil is involved in our conversation.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Okay, sure, why does the toney Tracy is adamant that
the Perton got hit by a car. Well, it looks
more likely he got hit in the face with a punch.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Okay, let's let's let me. Let's let let's let Fiel
addressed that I'm not sure he said what you think
you heard. He said, say, but go ahead, Phil, Well.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Let me just say this that the experts on both
sides are paid experts, paid to evaluate and give an
opinion that the prosecution and the defense want heard by
the jury. Now in some cases those they cross each
other out because the commonwealths experts are saying that it
(21:53):
was consistent with a clipping that we're using that word again,
clipping of O'Keefe. The other people say for the defense
that those and this is a very good point for
the defense, that there weren't any other broken bones. So
(22:14):
the kamwealth says he was hit and fell back and
hit his head. The defense says those he would have
had broken bones if that was the case. So I mean,
that's for the jury to decide. They can weigh the
(22:34):
evidence of the experts, and they can disbelieve or believe them,
but I think they kind of cross each other out,
and then the juries left with what are the real
facts here?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
The other thing Justin to remember is that the experts
who are presented, either the prosecution or the defense, has
to lay a foundation to qualify them as witnesses expert witnesses.
They're not witnesses who are on the scene of a
crime and they're asking about their observations. They're asking about
(23:11):
their expertise. Now, I think that there are generally a
lot of experts who can look at something like this
as Phil says and arrive at a different conclusion. But
they have to You just kind of pull some guy
off the street and say, hey, this guy's name is
Harry Bananas. He's got no background, but he's my expert witness.
(23:31):
They have to qualify them. So the jury listens to
both both sets of experts, or both experts who sometimes
are in conflict. Is what It's important to understand that.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
But the medical I'm from Massachusetts is for the Commonwealth,
and she said he was not hit by Again.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
I think what you do in justin, I think you're
listening and you're putting it. You believe she's innocent. Okay,
you believe she's not guilty. I get that, no problem.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
But what I'm saying is the Commonwealth Examiner was the
witness for the Commonwealth, not for the defense, and she
spoke on she was the witness for the common weapons
and she didn't get.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Well in that case. Then then if you're right here, Justin,
the jury's going to come back with it with a
not guilty in about twenty five minutes. So let's see
what happens.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It's what did you say?
Speaker 3 (24:29):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, I know I know what Justin. You said something
I spoke over you. What was that?
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Yeah, I'm sorry, I just wanted to correct you. They
were allotted seventy five minutes.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
That's what I think. I said, an hour and a quarter.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
You said ninety. You said, well fine, I know, I
just wanted to say that seventy five minutes.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Yeah, thanks, Justin, appreciate you. Quch All right, thank you.
Let me go to Joe and Belmont. Joe, you're next
on nights. I got a question or comment for Phil Tracy. Please, Joe,
go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Dan. I want to tell you and the lawyer why
I think she's innocent. The man slaughter.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
Well, I wish you'd ask him a question, Joe, to
be honest with you, because he's got some experience in this,
in this practice of the law. He's been in the
criminal defense attorney for almost a half a century and
has handled capital cases like that. If you got a question,
that'd be great if you want to tell him why
you think she's innocent, and he can do it in
about a minute, Go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
Oh, yes, you had a caller about three or four
weeks ago, a woman and she said there was just
too many coincidences that happens that she was innocent. Now,
when coincidence happened too many of them, things are very
fishy that she's innocence.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
And what would what would what were the two coincidences
or two or three coincidence that that that you would
like to cite for us, Joe, I.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
Can't cite him, but I wish the call Okay, so.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
All right, fair enough? If you could cite him, it
might have been a stronger argument. Phil Would you like
to comment to that.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Well, I mean, once again, at the prosecution tightened the
case from the first time around. Uh, they have a theory. Uh,
the defense has used the opposite theory of what we
call another possibility of the of the of the injury
(26:24):
to O'Keefe. And I think the judge covered that today
in which they are either unable to use say that
this guy Albert or Higgins might have done this. They
can't say that, but they can say that the police
(26:45):
did not look into that. And I think that's what what.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
The defense the defenses, I understand it, Phil agreed to that,
whether whether they agreed to involuntarily or involunteer they have,
they have agreed to that. As how great, Hey, Joe
is always.
Speaker 5 (27:06):
Man.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Yeah, Joe, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
If you in twenty seconds, I'd wish some of your
callers would call in and name the coincidences that happened.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
If there's anyone out there who wants to name those coincidences,
that's great, Joe. But that that that word is invented
on your mind and that has helped you make your decision.
And but you're not in the jury. Thanks Joe, appreciate
the call so much. Talk to you later. Let me
go to Suzannah Newton. Susanne question, if you will for
my guest.
Speaker 6 (27:35):
I have been watching the chargy. What I knowed the dermatologists,
but h I uh, I think they she ran over
the conflict blah blah, and it was snowing and aparently
at some point they said a dog.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah, So Susanne, is there a question shit here for Phil?
Or did you just want to.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
Actually I have a I have a call for a while,
so I'm watching it. I love ohady, Okay.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Well, thank you for calling, nonetheless appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (28:14):
Well, I'm glad to get Kurd tonight side because I'm
watching tea Get to Eat two but not tonight right.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Well you yeah, you You've got a lot of trial
watching to do, Susan, and I wish I had that
amount of time. But keep it. You must post it
on both of those cases. Very two very interesting cases
for different reasons. Let me keep rolling here, Phil, let
me get one more in here before the break. Let
me go to Jason down in the Cape. Jason, you're
next on Nightsacker.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
Right ahead, Thanks very much.
Speaker 7 (28:42):
I want to preface my comments with well, I live
in the Cape. I actually grew up in Canton, so
I know some of these fellows that you'll you'll see
on the stand and then throughout this case. And sure
I would say that my question would be, if he
was found guilty, does she have good grounds for appeal?
Speaker 3 (29:03):
Sure, that's a good question. Yeah, she certainly has. So
much has been put into both the first and the
second trial. There's been a federal appeal on double jeopardy.
There's just a boatload now. Interestingly, in the state courts,
(29:24):
if you are convicted of say, murder, of robbery or
kidnapping or rape or something like that, you don't get
to stay out, usually out of jail while the appeal
is going on. Now that's going to be an interesting
question or whether they'll allow her to stay out on
(29:45):
veil while the appeals go through. Combine that with the
fact that it's going to be a civil case too,
in which the proponents of the evidence is so fifty
one to forty nine, and that's something that's not proof
beyond a reasonable doubts, so that I believe will possibly
(30:07):
end up with a liability finding against her. That could happen.
So there's a lot of thoughts that.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
I just want to admit. Field. I thought that her
appeals and the double jeopardy issue, and on the failure
of the judge to ask that second set of questions
of the jurors when they came back and said they
were deadlocked. I thought those were pretty strong appeals. It
just shows how difficult it is to prevail on an
appeal on a case like.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
This.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
You got two trials, so you've got a lot of stuff.
Something went wrong in the first trial. They appealed. There's
going to be a lot of appeals in this case.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
I can't think of anything if she comes back with
a conviction, Just Jason, I don't see, on the face
of it, a strong appellate issue because I think that
the the double jeopardy issue has been disposed of, both
in federal court and in state courts, and I think
(31:16):
that that this trial there will always be issues for appeal.
I mean clearly, and every one of the motions for
a for a mistrial, or for the outright request for
dismissals with prejudice, all of those are appealable issues.
Speaker 7 (31:37):
I'm sorry I follow this for interrupting.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
No, I'm just saying I think they're appealable issues. I
don't know they win, so.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
There's definitely going to be an appeal, ye lawyer.
Speaker 7 (31:50):
If we don't know, no lawyer, I guess I'd just
like to play one for fun every now and then.
But I wonder, I'll just what you see with the
judge and some of the what the prosecution had done.
It seemed like they opened a lot of doors for appeals.
(32:10):
But again, I I we're just I guess I'm just
watching it on TV. I'm not there in the room.
And I know there's a lot of rules.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
There's a lot of rulings that the judge has made
which could be questioned. Okay, I get it. I get
what you're saying. Just remember this. If the if the
defense wins, the prosecution has no grounds for repealed. That's it.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
That's over, and that I do know.
Speaker 7 (32:32):
Yeah, yeah, well, very interesting. I hit your time tonight.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
All right, Jason, thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Phil. We got one more segment ago we got full lines.
We now just have one line at six one, seven ninety.
We'll get Joe and Geo and Ed and Priscilla. Matter
of fact, Priscilla is going to be first up on
the other side. Priscilla will be with you right after
this quick break.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Back to the phones, we go with Attorney Phil Tracy
a veteran criminal defense attorney here in Boston, and Phil
practices with Demento and Sullivan, very successful criminal criminal law firm.
Priscilla in Mattapan. Hi, Priscilla, welcome, you were.
Speaker 9 (33:17):
Yes, I had a couple of questions.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Ad Priscilla, focus focus on us and make sure that
radio is turned down. Go ahead, Priscilla.
Speaker 9 (33:27):
They were thinking about you know how I know some
of the evidence has not appeared because what I hear
they said, John O'Keefe, you know he was bitten by
the dog. So and I don't know.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
How to well what what the what the defense is
trying to get in is that that he was he
was bitten by a dog. But I don't think that
they were able to get in that he was bitten
by a dog inside the house. Am I right on
that film? Yes he could have if he if he
(34:09):
was theoretically, if he was hit by the vehicle and
was unconscious and and and froze to death, there could
have been a dog or a coyote that theoretically could
have bit him while he was on the lawn. They
did not get to the point of putting. They did
not put him in. They did not place him in
the house. The defense did not at this case try
(34:32):
to place him in the house.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
That's right. They moved away from him. Blame they moved
away from him.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Priscilla, hold on for one second, Phil, Tracy just wanted
to comment.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
Go ahead, Phil, No, I think they moved away from
the theory that he went in the house, was attack,
beaten up by a dog, and thrown out on the
front lawn. I mean, that didn't make sense. If that
really happened, wouldn't they try to hide the body or
(35:07):
do something different than putting it on the front putting
the body in the front lawn. Yeah, the bills, he
was going to die. He was just beating nothing thrown
out there. But that's again, it's highly They called it
for a conspiracy among multiple police people and things like that. Now,
(35:31):
I'm not saying that that. Sometimes the police needs fruit
me and maybe this department does, but I mean, it
just doesn't make a lot of sense that that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
Yeah, Priscilla, go ahead, I'll give you final word. Priscilla,
I interrupted you. I apologize, Go ahead.
Speaker 9 (35:51):
Oh, I was just wondering. You know, it's just so
so many things.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
Confusing, set of facts, that's for sure.
Speaker 9 (36:01):
Yeah, and then you know that they got rid of
the house. That's good.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
Yeah, the house was sold and the dog disappeared, and
we know all of that. I don't think much of
that if any of that got in in front of
the jury. And and that's the real jury.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
This time it wasn't. Yeah, this time they really take.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Kind did you feel? Correct me if I'm wrong. But
the jury cannot take into consideration facts that they may
have learned from other sources with them into the jury room.
They got to come in with what they've heard in
the case exactly.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
And one of the hardest things for the public to understand,
and for me and for you, Dan, we weren't in
the courtroom every single day, watching every single with the
jury was, and sometimes what you hear coming out of
the courts is not exactly what was was said or
(37:02):
was meant. And the jury obviously sees everything. We don't
see everything. We read the newspaper reports and we see
the television, but that's only a snippet of what's happening.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Aslutely, Priscilla, thanks you.
Speaker 9 (37:19):
The judge asked the question one of the people about
the dogs situation. Stuff too so.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Yeah, yeah, well the judge has has discussed that that
had did come up in the context of for the clothing,
the piece of clothing that they showed. So we'll have
to see what the instruction, what the judges instructions are tomorrow. Priscilla,
thank you very much for your call. I appreciate you
taking the time. Have a great night. Well, thank you, Priscilla.
(37:48):
I love that. Is this your first time.
Speaker 9 (37:52):
Time?
Speaker 2 (37:53):
All right? Well, come on back more often, Okay, I
want to hear from you more often. Thanks, Priscilla, take
it easy, good night. Let me go to Ed and Marshfield.
Ed you next on nice. I want to get you
and hopefully a couple more in Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
Ed, Oh are you Dan?
Speaker 2 (38:08):
Good sir, you're also Tracy. Go ahead?
Speaker 1 (38:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (38:12):
Help Joe out with the coincidences. The Jim McCabe lying
to the FBI about five phone calls. That's that's you know,
there's a lie on the other side.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
What was that was that entered into evidence in this
in this trial?
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I believe it was.
Speaker 8 (38:35):
And Brendan Lyon about the shirt.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
I don't I don't think that's a he said. He
he said that he made a mistake.
Speaker 10 (38:47):
He's been lying and he got caught in that lie.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yeah, you know what, Ed, And I gotta tell you,
I know a little bit of Hank Brennan's reputation. I
think Phil knows a little bit of his reputation. And
I don't think the word liar a lie is one
that you should be. He's a he's a good lawyer,
and I appreciate it, but I just you know, I'm
(39:13):
not I'm the judge here in the quote of public opinion.
I'm going to rule that out of water. Thanks Ed.
GEO in handover GEO next to Nice.
Speaker 8 (39:23):
I go ahead, Geo, Hello Phil, to you and Phil Tracy,
both really good lawyers.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Phil.
Speaker 7 (39:30):
At the very.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
Beginning, I uh, well, I I set up clinical laboratories
and forensic laboratories in New York. They tested for curare,
which was an African killer that the doctor was using.
Speaker 4 (39:45):
Uh.
Speaker 8 (39:46):
Your case is most was mostly about incidental and circumstantial
rather than the corpus, rather than the corpse. I did
not follow it once they once they said they didn't
do what I thought was the obvious thing to do.
Can you comment on what was the matter of any
(40:06):
substantial facts from one and two an autopsy and a
forensic toxicology report.
Speaker 3 (40:16):
Well, let me just say this, I think that the
product you brought up something that I hadn't touched on,
and that was some of the unexplained Now everybody, I mean,
some people say it's a it's a conspiracy and whatever.
But the DNA aspect of it indicated there was no
(40:38):
dog DNA on him. There was his DNA on the
broken tail light. Now that would require I guess somebody
to have done that in a way that in order
to frame Karen read It seems a long stretch to
(40:59):
say that that kind of evidence is not credible. I
think it's very credible when you say there's DNA of
this man who's dead on the tail light, and that's
what they've proved, I mean that that's what they attempted
to prove.
Speaker 8 (41:16):
Let me let me give you a for instance. He
would walk up to the body in the lobby and
he would be regurgitating or drooling or bleeding, and you
would take a paper towel or a napkin, wipe it,
walk out to the tail light and rub it on
the tail light. That would be good enough to present
(41:36):
for a laboratory test to say his DNA is on
the tail light, but it says nothing about how it
got there, well the other the other things.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
I mean, just think about it. He could have gotten
out of that car. Uh and as he's walking with
the snow falling down his hand if he if he
didn't have gloves on, his bare hand, could have steadied
himself and could have put his hand on it on
the light, and there'd be perhaps some DNA from his hand.
Speaker 8 (42:04):
Well, yeah, that is a possibility, but it doesn't it
doesn't fit what its known evidence. I haven't paid a
lot of attention, but recently there's a testimony about a
place where the car was and somebody saw the something
was different relative to the tail light. It was a
different tale light.
Speaker 2 (42:22):
That was the first gill. That was the first trial
where there was a videotape that was presented into Evan
which apparently was flipped backwards. Okay, I'll go back. Geo. Unfortunately,
autopsy Geo?
Speaker 8 (42:37):
Was there an autopsy?
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Geo? Geo? I don't know the answer to that question.
And I'm flat out of time. I have the ten
o'clock news.
Speaker 4 (42:44):
I'm glad.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Okay, Phil, I want to thank you, thank you, Geo, Phil,
thank you for your time tonight obviously when this verting
come man.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
Thank you for having me on. This is a case
that captured the imagination of the of the and is
being reported nationally.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
But I also think we cannot forget that there's a
young man whose life has been lost and whatever in
this case, we need to focus Phil. Thank you. I'm
going to let you go.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
For those of you on the line.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Talk to you soon.
Speaker 5 (43:20):
Pal.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
For those of you on the line, Joe and Michael
and Alex and Jonie, stay there. I want to continue
this and I'll accommodate all of you during the next hour.
We may do two hours on this tonight, we'll do
at least probably another fifteen to twenty minutes right after
the ten o'clock news on Nightside
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.