August 22, 2024 • 42 mins
The battle over Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence continues. U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole, who proceeded over Tsarnaev’s death penalty case, is in the midst of investigating whether two jurors were biased during the 2015 trial. The Bomber’s defense attorneys are pushing for the death penalty to get thrown out and are seeking a recusal for Judge O’Toole, who they claim made comments about the case on podcasts and during public events. Is justice-delayed justice denied?
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
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 Costin's new.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Video Thank you, Dan Watkins. As we head into the
nine o'clock hour, we will later tonight take in its
entirety the speech of Vice President Kamala Harris her acceptance
speech at the United Center in Chicago on this the
last night of the Democratic National Convention twenty twenty four.
(00:28):
But during this hour, I would like to talk with you,
and I'd like you to talk with me about the
latest chapter, the latest chapter in the bombings at the
Boston marathon on April fifteenth, twenty thirteen. Think about that
(00:48):
for a moment. The bombings on April fifteenth, twenty thirteen.
It's now over eleven years ago. It is now twenty fourteen,
So it is. It's eleven years and four months A
long time, A long time. We know that there were
(01:10):
two brothers who were involved in this bombing, one of
whom died in the shootout in Watertown, Massachusetts. The other
has been sentenced to death, a death penalty that was
upheld by the US Supreme Court a couple of years ago,
but now finds itself back in the court, back in
(01:33):
the court of federal judge Jeorje O'Toole, who, in my opinion,
is one of the better, if not one of the best,
federal judges. I will admit that I have met Judge O'Toole.
I've had conversations with him, not about this, but he
is a well respected jurist. And what has happened is
(01:59):
that now well eleven years and four months later, this
horrific scar has once again been reopened. And now I
don't use his name, I simply refer to him as
Boston bomber number two. He was the individual who placed
(02:20):
a backpack that took the life of eight year old
Martin Richard and Lindsay Liu. At that time, she was
a twenty three year old bost University graduate student from China.
He also was involved and found responsible for the killing
of MIT police officer Sean Collier days after the blast.
(02:43):
What is to me extraordinarily frustrating about this is that
this guy had a fair trial. His lawyers admitted that
he had done what he was accused of. He was
indicted and can victed on thirty counts. The number of
(03:03):
people who died from this three from the initial bombing,
as well as the MIT police officer Officer Collier, and
there were two other deaths, one his brother, who I
(03:23):
think he might have actually, if I recall correctly, drove
over him in that shootout. Remember he was discovered a
day later hiding inside a boat in the backyard of
a home in Watertown. And also Boston Police officer Dennis Simons,
who passed away from injuries that he suffered on that day.
(03:44):
In twenty fourteen, two and eighty one people were injured,
some of them lost limbs, some of them were impacted
physically for Lifeologically, how many people besides the two hundred
and eighty one who were injured, how many spouses, how
(04:07):
many children, how many parents lived through recoveries, and how
many of those folks still Beare the psychological scars as
well as the physical scars of what happened that day.
So here we are eleven years later, and we're still
(04:28):
litigating whether or not he should receive the death penalty.
Now I have a very limited view on the death penalty,
and that is that if there is no doubt, not
a sentilla of doubt about what an individual did, and
if there are aggravating circumstances, I myself would be willing
(04:53):
to pull the switch on Boston Bomber two because he
fits into that select group of people of people for whom,
in my opinion, death is the appropriate punishment. Now, I
know lots of friends of mine disagree with me on that,
but part of the reason that I think these matters
(05:14):
should be resolved fairly but with finality. Are an example
in this case, he's been living for eleven years that
once again his lawyers are in court doing what they
need to do as lawyers. They are asking that the judge,
(05:35):
Judge o'tool recuse himself reportedly on statements that Judge o'tool
has made, either privately or publicly. I'm not aware of
what those statements are. They also want the background of
a couple of jurors investigated, and so maybe what their
(05:57):
goal is is to have another hearing in front of
a different federal judge on the issue of the death bounty,
in front of probably I assume a different jewelry, which
would probably take another if that is granted another year
and a half or so. In my opinion, that could
be wrong, and it's just going to reopen so many
(06:20):
of these scars that impact so many individuals. And again,
we have the best justice system in the world, and
we are we have fear to people, and there are
a lot of people who kill and are convicted of
murder who I would not want to see executed. But
(06:41):
it's a high profile case like this, which some would
argue is shows what a great system we have that
even someone as scurrilous as this guy gets treated fairly.
I look at it and I just begin to wonder
whether or not I think this guy has had justice,
He's had due process, and there's just something about this.
(07:03):
And I speak as a lawyer. I understand what a
lawyer's role is. And I have a good friend, many
good friends were a lawyers, one of whom we're going
to talk to in a moment who probably cann't disagree
with me on this. So I'm going to invite you
to call does this bother you? Again? This is B one.
It's not even on the front page of the Globe today.
(07:23):
It's B one. It was. It was a very thorough
article written by my great friend Shelley Murphy, who knows
this case as well as anybody. And this is just
going to go on and on and on, and I
know that there are those who say, no, he should
he should be forced to live the rest of his
life at that Supermax. Well, I disagree, uh, and I'd
(07:47):
love to hear from you. Are you Do you want
to basically put this case to bed and wish him
the best of luck and wherever he goes from here
and his miserable life, or do you feel that he
deserves yet another bite at the apple, and then maybe
(08:07):
another bite at the apple until he has finds more apples.
Here's the number. Feel free to join us six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten
thirty when we come back, when I talk to my
good friend Harvey Silverglade, who I know is going to
disagree with me on this nonetheless, and he will be
first up on the other side of the break here
on nightside. I think this is an important story. I
(08:29):
hope you do as well. It's a story that will
be remembered in Boston for years, for decades. There's no question,
and those of us who were there or who covered
the story as I did that night and for the
next few nights on radio, it was the only story.
But I think the story has been told. We know
what happened, and justice tonight is justice delayed in my opinion.
(08:53):
Back on Nightside, we'll start with Harvey, and you are
more than welcome to join the conversation. Whatever your point
of view is. You do not have to be a lawyer.
Six one seven nine six one seven two five thirty
Back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
We're talking about the fate of Boston bomber number two.
I choose not to use his name. I refer to
him as Boston bomber number two. You hear, you've heard
what I have said. I think this has gone on
now for eleven years, eleven years plus four months. I
think now we're looking at another delay in in the
resolution of this case, and probably if it's conceivable, if somehow,
(09:41):
some way, Judge O'Toole in his investigation concludes that indeed
two of the jurors were on the death penalty. They
were on the jury as well as on the death
penalty phase. UH, he might have to impanel an entire
new jury to once again RELI the gate whether or
not Bomber number two should receive the death penalty. With
(10:05):
me is my friend Harvey Silvergladen. Harvey, I suspect you
disagree with me on this. We had not talked about
it during the day. I should have probably called you,
but I'm so glad you were listening and have joined
us here. Do you how strongly do you disagree with me?
Let me ask Let me ask it that way.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Harvey, extraordinarily strongly. But let me tell you why.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Of course, first of all, a little bit of disclosure
I represented as a teacher of ZARNAEEV from Cambridge Region
Latin when he was visited by the FBI doesn't affect
my views of the case. But I feel that I
should disclose, and of course, as I always do, I
refuse to let him talk to the FBI because, as
(10:51):
you know, I don't trust the FBI. Okay, So that
little bit of disclosure is out of the way. It
has nothing to do with any sense that there is
any doubt about him being guilty, no question, we rather
that's correct. It has nothing to do with the fact
(11:13):
that he deserves to be killed. It has to do
with the system and uh. And by the way, there
are many people who think that the life in the
supermax prison is is worse than death. But we'll forget
about that for a minute. That's not my argument.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Is your view? Let me ask you those is that
your view.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
That the supermax is worse than death? It is if
I had a choice between spending a life in the
supermax prison and death. I think our issue's death. It's
a form of torture. I actually think there should be outlawed.
But again, this is not the fundamental My opposition is systemic.
(12:02):
The reason I am opposed to the death penalty is
I know as a practicing criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer,
I know how prone the system is to making errors,
including in cases where everybody is sure that somebody is guilty.
The National Innocence Project has actually come up with a
(12:23):
case after years of searching, of somebody whom they can
would confidently show is executed who is innocent. Everybody is certain,
Dura is a certain newspaper. People are certain, but there
is no certainty in any human system. The error is
(12:45):
human to forgive divine. I'm not talking about the forgiveness.
I'm talking about who makes life and death decisions.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Well, let me, I don't mean to drop Let me
just ask a truly simple question, because to stand and
it has taken the Innocent Project a lot of work
to find someone who they believe was executed wrongfully. And
we know it is a human system.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
But the the standards that I just outline, and we've
talked about this before, is there's no question in your
mind of this individual's guilt.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Correct, That is correct, okay, No, no sentilla of doubt, convicted,
pled guilty, no scentilla of doubt, no suggestion that he
was forced by his lawyers to plead out or anything
like that. And having said that, would you consider what
he did and the way in which he and his
brother did it aggravating circumstances?
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Absolutely, okay, And that is not my argument. No, I
know that argument is systemic. If we allow the death penalty,
it is inevitable, likely inevitable that at some point somebody
innocent is going to be executed. It may not be
(14:09):
during our lifetime, but it will happen.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So someone who about whom there would be no scintilla
of doubt about the guilt. And in addition to that,
on top of that, aggravating circumstances of a horrific nature.
And I realize I'm using language, but some people can
Parson and say it's vague. But if it's I know
you're opposed to it, you know, philosophically. But if you
(14:34):
are willing to say no, no sentilla of doubt, that's
a that's a legal standard. There's no question of doubt
and aggravating circumstances.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
They said, we're talking about a system, and you know,
everybody has their idea of what a sintilla of doubt is.
Everybody has your idea of what absolutely clear in certain cases,
but inevitably, inevitably, some point, if you have a death penalty,
inevitably somebody innocent is going to be executed.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
My view, your argument, go right ahead. I just wanted
to make sure that I fleshed it out. I do
understand your argument.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
It is my view that it is better that twenty horrible,
clearly guilty people live rather than one innocent be executed wrongly.
And that is my art systemic. It's got nothing to
do with its our native It's got to do with
(15:36):
the system. Okay, what you're a lawyer, you know, you
know you have talked about cases of innocent people that
you have helped get get out of the death who.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Were truly who are truly innocent, that the dead before
before firm and versus Georgia. You're absolutely correct on that.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
But but when they were sentenced, nobody should or at
least the people who sentenced them, didn't think you were innocent.
And that's my point.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
No, I understand your point, But the point I'm trying
to struggle with here is if if the the standard
by which some people would be executed is so stringent
that there is no sinillary of doubt and there are
(16:28):
aggravating circumstances, I mean, if there are no if there's
no sentillary of doubt, and and it's it's a it's
a an individual murder, even if it's no centillary of
a doubt where somebody shoots someone in Fifth Avenue in
New York, to coin a phrase, but when you have
the aggravating circumstances of these bombs being placed behind people
(16:49):
who are watching a marathon. So so let's let's assume
that I accept your argument for a second, and I
accept the which is an anti death penalty argument. Does
that also mean that we should never put people in
jail because we probably incarcerate more individuals wrongfully then we
kill individuals wrongfully.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
But incarceration is reversible, Yes, it is. That is you
can you can when an incarcerated person can show that
they're wrongfully incarcerated, yes, they get out.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
But you know how high a standard? We know how
to convict people beyond a reasonable doubt, but I still
don't know what the standard is to prove someone's innocence
after they've been convicted.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Well, those are the rules of habeas corpus emotions for
a new trial. They're all legal standards. They vary from
state to state, yes, but they're all human systems.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Okay, let's let's do this. Okay, I want to explore
this more with you. We're at nine point thirty. I'm
going to invite people to call and they can ask questions.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Can I tell you one Tindy story?
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Sure? You want to do it?
Speaker 5 (18:06):
Now?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Do you want to wait until after the newscast?
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Whatever you want, it's up to you.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Yeah, if you wouldn't mind, we have right at nine thirty.
So I'd like to do that and when we come back,
we'll tell that story. In the meantime, we'll give people
a chance to join the conversation by dialing six, one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty six, one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. Uh, this is a real case at hand.
I'm never going to win an argument against Harvey Silverglake
(18:33):
because he's one of the best lawyers that I've ever known.
But if you have a question, if you want to
make a comment, I'd invite you to join us. I
think it's an important conversation. We'll be back on Nightside
with Harvey Silverglade and your phone calls if you'd like
to take the time to dial back right after this.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
My guess is Harvey Silverglade an extraordinary attorney and a
great friend. Harvey, you said that there was a story
that you wanted to tell before we went to some
phone calls, Go right.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Ahead, right I had a drug case once in which
the agents had taken pictures of of my client. They're
doing the drug transaction, so they had photographs and they're
absolutely sure, and we get the trial, and what they
didn't know was that he was one of two exact
(19:28):
duplicate twin brothers, and they couldn't figure out which of
the brothers had done it. There's all kinds of certainties
that turn out not to be so certain. This is
this is human life we're talking about, in which the
strangest things happened.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Now I understand, I do understand the argument, and I
know that you're coming from a place where you do
not believe under any searchircumstances. I mean, if if Hitler
had been taken alive in the bunker in Germany, you
would have you would have argued that he should not
(20:09):
have been killed executed.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
That is correct because at that point, the amount of
blood that had been spilled in that war was obscene,
blood of both soldiers and millions and millions of civilians.
And the idea that you're going to redress that problem
(20:32):
by spilling more blood makes absolutely no sense. Well, Hitler
killed himself. He committed suicide. He didn't want to, right,
he didn't want to be captured.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
No, I get that. But but but if Hitler had survived,
if the Allied troops had captured him, the idea of
Hitler spending whatever time he had left in some sort
of prison, being fed, uh, you know, three meals a
day and and having a place to lay his head
at night. Uh It It just seems to me that
(21:08):
after the amount of carnage that he clearly caused. Now again,
I know that when you say to me that you
would not you would defend Hitler from being executed, that
shows the depth of your passion and the death of
your your belief.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
And I let me say this, Dad, Yeah, Hitler preferred death,
and he inflicted in himself. He was a coward death.
He preferred death for himself.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Right, I understand that. And he was a coward, and
and he was a monster. And if he had survived,
I don't think there's any anyone, well maybe you and
a few others who would say the principle is so important,
and I and I understand the principle. Let's do this, Harvey.
(21:58):
Let's get some folks involved in it. By the way,
I need to ask you, how much longer you have
more experience than I do in the courtroom. How much
longer do you think this this, this entire procedure will continue.
Judge O'Toole is supposed to conduct an investigation. I have
(22:19):
no idea what he will find, But as I understand that,
it is his findings, those findings, if if he finds
that there was no error done, and if he doesn't
recuse himself, I would have to ask you, I guess
there's a threshold question. Do you think it's likely that
that Judge o'tol will stay on or will will recuse himself?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Well, I think he may recuse himself. What he may
be recused, But I think this case is going to
golong for another year and a half or two years
before it ends at least. And I think that the
resources going into this would be much better used some
other fashion.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Right, So what you're saying is that if is that
the government turned around now and said we agree he
will not be executed, the case could end, correct, okay,
and whatever funds were going to be expended could be
put into you know, child education or whatever. Yeah, I
understand that. But it is conceivable that that this he's
(23:23):
not going to get a new trial. This is only
going to be a determination on whether or not he
should be executed.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
That is correct, fair enough, okay.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
And you think that this will finally be assuming that
that the that the government pursues this, you think it
will be concluded within a year or a year and a.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
Half, I say a year and a half.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
Yeah, so early early twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Yep, when the resources could be used for something much
much more productive.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Okay, And do you believe that there will be other
issues that that that they that a good lawyer like
you could develop.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
Well, the longer he's alive, the longer case goes forward,
the more there is a possibility that somebody will show
up who had some new evidence. And that's one of
the reasons why.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, it will be new evidence of his of his
guilt or innocence, will it.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
That's correct, It will not be. It will not be.
It may be it may be evidence of additional pressure
that his older brother put on him.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Well, that goes well, that goes to the that goes
to the to the to the the That was the
argument that was made and was rejected at trial. That
so you're saying that's still an appealable issue.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Well, the newly discovered evidence of this and and of
course people will be investigating this forever, right, I kind.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Of imagine what the newly discovered evidence would be other
than someone saying the brother marched him to Boylston Street
with a gun in his in his side pocket and
basically told bomber number two, if you don't go through
with this, I will shoot you to death. Here on
boils the street. I mean, he's failing that. I don't
(25:18):
see what other evidence could be introduced on that issue,
do you?
Speaker 3 (25:23):
But you don't even you don't even know if that
scenario is possible. You know, human life is strange, dand
it is very strange. I will not predict what's going
to happen a year and a half from now. I
will not predict, but evidence may.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Be so it's conceivable that this could go on a
lot longer than a year and a half. And what
I'm trying to I've kind of tried to trap you
here a little bit, which I shouldn't do. But if
all of a sudden, someone who comes along and says, oh,
I remember I heard them talking in a cafe, uh,
and he made a threat to his brother, Let's assume,
even if it's someone's imagination, that could be another issue
(26:00):
that could go back more, which would be another issue
that would have to be resolved.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
That will go on forever as long as there is
a death penalty hanging over his head. If the death
penalty were not in the case, I think that this
would be over. We would never hear from the guy.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
No, if there was no death penalty. Clearly the life
in prison would be done. I get it, I get no,
I understand that. Okay, we got some phone calls, Harvey.
Let's see what people have to say. And by the way,
needless to say, you're gonna be nice to me, and
you're gonna be particularly nice to my guest, Harvey Silverglade,
who is a great friend of mine and who I
admire and respect immensely. Paul in Monson, Massachusetts. Paul, welcome
(26:43):
to Knight's Side. You're on Nightside with Harvey Silverglade. We're
talking about death penalty for bomber Boston bomber number two.
Speaker 6 (26:51):
Oh Hi Dan, Hi, Harvey, thanks so much for taking
my call. I actually live in Munson, but I'm in
a big truck and water town. Dan, I'll call back
another time. I know you'd like to hear from truck drivers.
I can give you a whole rundown on driving a
big truck and labor economics in the industry. So I guess,
I guess if you wanted to prep me to that,
maybe put me on with your producer afterwards. But death
(27:12):
penalty is near and dear to my heart and my guest,
I don't want to speak for miss Silvergate but my
guess is that on his part, this isn't a matter
of belief. This is about knowledge and understanding. I've been
so opposed, completely opposed to the death penalty. I turned
fifty nine this year. When I was fourteen, I went
(27:34):
to an Anty International presentation, and I've understood since the
age of fourteen that civilized societies don't have capital punishment. Basically, now,
what we're hearing about in the news is barely a
week goes by. More than once a month somewhere in
the country, someone is released from prison or jail after
(28:00):
it was shown that they were wrongly convicted. Given the
frequency with which we hear these press reports, we can
easily extrapolate from that that we have executed scores. I
can't even imagine a number of innocent people who have
(28:22):
been executed in this country.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Is Paul, let me jump in for a second. And
I don't know if Harvy will back me up on this,
but I don't think you that that that formula can work,
because the Innocence Project has tried to find for many,
many years cases of actual innocence of people actually being executed,
(28:47):
and they have found, as I understand that, and I'm
not familiar with the case as Harvey is with that case.
There have been innocent people in this country lynched, you know,
by the Ku Klux Klan and all of that. But
in terms of going through the judicial process, I don't
think I don't think it scores. But let me see
what Harvey has to say. And again I appreciate you
(29:08):
calling in. You obviously support Harvey and his position, which
is great.
Speaker 7 (29:14):
Can I just say before before Harvest, even if the
Innocence Project doesn't find a single open and shutcase it is,
we can extrapolate. We can understand your extrapolation that there
is no way it hasn't happened.
Speaker 6 (29:29):
Please go ahead, and misters okay, let's.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
See if Harvey agrees with you on your extrapolation argument.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Harvey absolutely agree. It is inevitable that there are more
than just the one that the Innocence Project has discovered.
Is a human system, and there are obviously more than
one error. And I don't think as a moral society
we can justify the state putting somebody to death if
(29:57):
it's systemically we know that there are certain number of
innocent people who are going to be executed. It's as
simple as that.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Okay, go ahead, Paul Harvey agrees with you, and.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
You can just you can.
Speaker 7 (30:12):
Just The good news for you, Dan is that you can.
Speaker 6 (30:14):
Just understand that the argument that Harvey is making is correct.
And no matter what we say, think, do and tell ourselves,
we can do effective crime and punishment in this country
without capital punishment.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, I disagree, Paul, do me a favor. I disagree
with that argument. I made it pretty clear that there
are cases, and again Harvey disagrees with me in this,
but I'm not going to back from my position that
there are cases I disagree where there is no sentilla
of doubt.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Likes it doesn't matter that there are people.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Paul, give me the courtesy. Let me at least making
sure that.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
You understood Erica.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
I cannot argue against someone who is inextuably opposed to
capital punishment. There's no question about that. It's like someone
who is inexorably opposed to abortion under any set of circumstances,
incess rape, life of the mother. That is a position
that you can't argue with someone if that's their position.
What I'm saying is that when you have a case
(31:19):
like the Boston bomber, where there is no question, no
scintilla of doubt about what he did.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
And.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
There are aggravating circumstances. You can have a guy that
goes in to rob a bank and kills someone in
the process. I don't want that person to go to
the go to the death penalty because there's no aggravating circumstances.
Even though it's a felony murder, it's not aggravating circumstances
at the level of the Boston bomber. He put bombs
(31:50):
beside behind He and his brother put two separate bombs
behind people who watching the Boston marathon. If you cannot
authorize the death penalty for this guy, and clearly you
are someone who is an absolute opponent of the death,
which you are and which Harvey is, and I respect
both of your positions, but please don't misrepresent my position.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
Okay, I'm not misrepresenting anything.
Speaker 7 (32:15):
It's just it's just it doesn't matter, just doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Well to me, it does, and I think there will
be others who might agree with me.
Speaker 6 (32:26):
I mean, you just say, I know you want to
get the other calls, and I'd like to. I'd love
to give my number to your producer talk to you
about trucking sometime I'll just say this, I'll just on
part with this and thank you both so much. It's
the idea that you cannot have effective criminal justice without
(32:47):
capital punishment. It's just it's absurd.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
You're setting up a straw man with that argument. I'm
saying you can have effective criminal justice. However, I never
want to take off the table. I never want to
take off the table that a society can use that
to punish someone whose actions are so clearly clear without
(33:13):
a centail of doubt. We're not talking about reasonable doubt,
without a sintilla of doubt. There's no question that this
guy did this. Okay, he had a trial, and the
circumstances are just so aggravating. I mean, if if someone
goes into a skull and murders ten or twelve or
(33:34):
twenty children and they survived, like the guy down in Newtown,
you could argue to me that he's insane, and I
might agree with you on the insanity argument and say, well,
he's not going to be convicted because he's insane. He
didn't understand what he was doing right from wrong. But
if you conclude that he knew what he was doing
(33:55):
was right from wrong. He's going to take twenty kids
in five teachers' lives. That would be.
Speaker 6 (34:01):
Another champ Capital punishment gets serenayas the Supermax and Flawrence Colorado.
That's a that's a life there, that's a worst punishment.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Well, I'll tell you I've never been in the super
Max in Colorado. What I do know is that they
get fed every day, they get to put their head
on a pillow at night, they get to have visitors,
they get to correspond with people. I believe that they
also had television access to television. They don't live a
life that I want to live, but I think it's
it's it's a life that's a little bit better than
what that what I would do. Paul, we've gone on
(34:32):
really long. I loved your call. Leave your number with
Rob and Rob will give you my number. You can
call me directly at WBZ and we'll have a conversation
off air about that other topic.
Speaker 6 (34:41):
Fair enough, wonderful, Thanks, Okay, thank.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
You, Harvey. We will continue. You've got a bunch of
calls here. Stay with us. We're keeping an eye for
everyone needs to understand this on what's going on in Chicago,
and we will bring you in its entirety. Uh, the
the acceptance speech tonight of device President Vice President Harris.
We do not win, and we do not know when
(35:04):
it will stop. But will you will hear it in
its entirety, and it finishes before midnight and we have time,
we will be able to get your reaction to the
speech as well. But we got to take a quick break.
Now we'll continue with my friend Harvey Silverglade. More calls.
You could see at this point Harvey is carrying the day,
as I suspect that he would in our conversation. There's
no one who's better than my friend Harvey Silverglade. I
(35:26):
always hesitate to disagree with him on anything, but I
feel passionately about this. Back on Nightside right after this
in Harvey, by the way, I did get your email
today regarding that author and I do want to have
that author on. We can talk about that perhaps privately tomorrow.
Just I should have mentioned that earlier. We'll be right
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Back to the calls. Let me go to Sam in Bedford. Sam,
you were next on Nightside with Harvey Silverglake.
Speaker 8 (35:55):
You're right ahead, Sam, Yeah, thanks thanks for taking the call.
Speaker 3 (35:59):
Dan.
Speaker 8 (36:00):
So so the amount of pain, misery and the financial
cost you know, with this heeneous crime has been commented.
I see no reason why you know, kind of human
beings disguised, I mean there was disguised as a human beings, right.
They should not be fed to fed to sharks?
Speaker 7 (36:18):
Right?
Speaker 8 (36:18):
Why why why continue? Why why allow them to live?
Because they are not part of the civil society. They
didn't have any any any concerns for all those people, right,
so why should they be treated with such a with
such a passion.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
You know, well, haeld Harvey can speak for himself. Sam,
But uh, and Harvey, we've got a couple of a
minute and a half left here. Let me turn Sam
over to you because he's on the other side of
the issue than you are. Go ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 7 (36:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
My argument again, and I hate to sound repetitive, is
you have to make problem that's important that no sensient
human being would have a doubt about built in this case.
But this is stemid and there's in ever is over
the course of time. Time is a long time that
there would be an innocent person executed and I would
(37:08):
rather have any number of guilty people alive in a
horrible supermatch prison than one innocent person executed. This is
the stomach argument, Sam.
Speaker 8 (37:23):
Right, but then if you if you take the extremee step,
then people continue to do this, these these enious crimes,
and then know then they can they can live, They
can live comfortably for twelve fifteen years because they can
exploit the systems. So so good things are for you know,
people who made error in judgment because they made.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
A bad call.
Speaker 8 (37:43):
But this guy didn't made a back on. He intentionally knew.
And the amount of amount of pain, misery and the
cost to the to the to the country is done.
I don't think he needs to see the light of
the day. Just feel into the shocks.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Oh okay, okay, the shocks. Sam, thank you very much
for calling Harvey.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
I'd like to hold comment. When you're talking about a
supermax prison. The description of live comfortably simply doesn't resonate.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Well, that's what I want to do when I come back.
I'd like to hold you through the ten Okay, I've
never been to super max. I do not know, uh
the specific circumstances. I'd love for you to sketch out
for us what it's like for the people who are there.
I know it's the worst of the worst, but I'd
love to just get some information from you on that.
Can I hold you through the ten yep? Okay, Sam,
(38:36):
thank you for the call. All right, have a great
night to Bob and Mark. You guys, stay there. I'm
going to get to you. I don't think we're gonna
hear from the Vice President for at least a half
an hour, maybe longer. So I want Bob and Mark
to stay there, and I'll invite others to call. You
have the numbers, and Harvey is gonna, if not do
her little research. For all I know, he may have
actually visited one of his clients there. I have no idea,
(38:58):
but he will give us an explain of why he
feels life in supermacs is worth the worse than the
death penalty. Back on night side right after this, this
is Dan Ray. We all know that these times can
bring additional financial challenges. National Grid is here to help
those who need assistance. Their energy savings programs are designed
to ensure your home is healthier, more comfortable, and more affordable,
(39:19):
including a no cost home energy assessment as a National
Grid customer, I've done it and use your too, and
energy specialists can uncover energy saving solutions specifically for your home,
including money saving rebates, energy saving tips and products at
no cost. There are also generous rebates on qualifying energy
efficient heating, cooling and water heating equipment. So if you're
a customer who receives a discount rate on your energy bill,
(39:41):
all approved energy efficient home improvements are one hundred percent
no cost to you. Even if you want, you can
still get seventy five percent or more off weatherization. Just
dial pound two fifty and say keyword assessment to see
how you qualify and schedule your appointment. You'll also have
the option to receive a one time autodial text message
from iHeartMedia. National Grid is a p OLD sponsor of MASSA.
For more information about contests on WBZ, visit WBZ NewsRadio
(40:05):
dot com, slash.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Rules WBZ in Boston, w XKSFM HD two Bedford, and Iheartradiot.
This is WBZ, Boston's news radio, redefining local news.
Speaker 9 (40:27):
Good Evening, I'm Dan Watkins. Here's what's happening. After three
consecutive nights of speeches, spectacle and celebrity. Democrats in Chicago
are ready to hear from the person around which all
of it swirls. Tonight, Vice President Kamala Harris will formally
accept the Democratic nomination for president. CBS's Uija Jang is
(40:48):
at the convention and tells us what she's expected to
talk about in her speech.
Speaker 10 (40:52):
He wants to focus on sharing her personal story, talking
about coming from a middle class family, being raised by
working mother working at McDonald's. These are a lot of
the themes that we've already heard, but we expect that
she will build on it even more.
Speaker 9 (41:07):
Vice President Harris will be the first woman of color
to lead a major political party's ticket. Meanwhile, former President
Trump spent the day at the southern border in Arizona.
While there, he said, if he's elected again, he'll finish
building the wall.
Speaker 5 (41:21):
I was never in love with an architecturally until I
saw the fact that nobody could climb over it without it.
It's a big difference, is that right? Which is It's
a huge difference, big, big difftinance. So the anti time
panel at the top was a big deal.
Speaker 9 (41:33):
The former president will be in Arizona again on Friday.
A Peaboty mom is getting the attention of Noah Kahn
after a night she'll never forget. Wbz's Brooke McCarthy with
the story.
Speaker 11 (41:45):
Noah Cohn playing to pack crowds at Fenway Park last month,
and in the crowd dancing and singing all night long
was Chloe Stanko. She was nine months pregnant at the time,
but didn't let some back paine stop her. Turns out
that back pain was actually the start of labor, and
the next day Baby Noah was born.
Speaker 7 (42:04):
I know, I keep wondering.
Speaker 6 (42:05):
I'm like, if I didn't go to the concert, I
am wondering, like when I would have actually had the baby.
Speaker 11 (42:10):
Chloe and her husband always loved the name Noah, and
with Noah Cohn's concert sending her into labor, it was
the perfect fit. She recently posted a TikTok about the
whole experience.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Costin's new.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Video Thank you, Dan Watkins. As we head into the
nine o'clock hour, we will later tonight take in its
entirety the speech of Vice President Kamala Harris her acceptance
speech at the United Center in Chicago on this the
last night of the Democratic National Convention twenty twenty four.
(00:28):
But during this hour, I would like to talk with you,
and I'd like you to talk with me about the
latest chapter, the latest chapter in the bombings at the
Boston marathon on April fifteenth, twenty thirteen. Think about that
(00:48):
for a moment. The bombings on April fifteenth, twenty thirteen.
It's now over eleven years ago. It is now twenty fourteen,
So it is. It's eleven years and four months A
long time, A long time. We know that there were
(01:10):
two brothers who were involved in this bombing, one of
whom died in the shootout in Watertown, Massachusetts. The other
has been sentenced to death, a death penalty that was
upheld by the US Supreme Court a couple of years ago,
but now finds itself back in the court, back in
(01:33):
the court of federal judge Jeorje O'Toole, who, in my opinion,
is one of the better, if not one of the best,
federal judges. I will admit that I have met Judge O'Toole.
I've had conversations with him, not about this, but he
is a well respected jurist. And what has happened is
(01:59):
that now well eleven years and four months later, this
horrific scar has once again been reopened. And now I
don't use his name, I simply refer to him as
Boston bomber number two. He was the individual who placed
(02:20):
a backpack that took the life of eight year old
Martin Richard and Lindsay Liu. At that time, she was
a twenty three year old bost University graduate student from China.
He also was involved and found responsible for the killing
of MIT police officer Sean Collier days after the blast.
(02:43):
What is to me extraordinarily frustrating about this is that
this guy had a fair trial. His lawyers admitted that
he had done what he was accused of. He was
indicted and can victed on thirty counts. The number of
(03:03):
people who died from this three from the initial bombing,
as well as the MIT police officer Officer Collier, and
there were two other deaths, one his brother, who I
(03:23):
think he might have actually, if I recall correctly, drove
over him in that shootout. Remember he was discovered a
day later hiding inside a boat in the backyard of
a home in Watertown. And also Boston Police officer Dennis Simons,
who passed away from injuries that he suffered on that day.
(03:44):
In twenty fourteen, two and eighty one people were injured,
some of them lost limbs, some of them were impacted
physically for Lifeologically, how many people besides the two hundred
and eighty one who were injured, how many spouses, how
(04:07):
many children, how many parents lived through recoveries, and how
many of those folks still Beare the psychological scars as
well as the physical scars of what happened that day.
So here we are eleven years later, and we're still
(04:28):
litigating whether or not he should receive the death penalty.
Now I have a very limited view on the death penalty,
and that is that if there is no doubt, not
a sentilla of doubt about what an individual did, and
if there are aggravating circumstances, I myself would be willing
(04:53):
to pull the switch on Boston Bomber two because he
fits into that select group of people of people for whom,
in my opinion, death is the appropriate punishment. Now, I
know lots of friends of mine disagree with me on that,
but part of the reason that I think these matters
(05:14):
should be resolved fairly but with finality. Are an example
in this case, he's been living for eleven years that
once again his lawyers are in court doing what they
need to do as lawyers. They are asking that the judge,
(05:35):
Judge o'tool recuse himself reportedly on statements that Judge o'tool
has made, either privately or publicly. I'm not aware of
what those statements are. They also want the background of
a couple of jurors investigated, and so maybe what their
(05:57):
goal is is to have another hearing in front of
a different federal judge on the issue of the death bounty,
in front of probably I assume a different jewelry, which
would probably take another if that is granted another year
and a half or so. In my opinion, that could
be wrong, and it's just going to reopen so many
(06:20):
of these scars that impact so many individuals. And again,
we have the best justice system in the world, and
we are we have fear to people, and there are
a lot of people who kill and are convicted of
murder who I would not want to see executed. But
(06:41):
it's a high profile case like this, which some would
argue is shows what a great system we have that
even someone as scurrilous as this guy gets treated fairly.
I look at it and I just begin to wonder
whether or not I think this guy has had justice,
He's had due process, and there's just something about this.
(07:03):
And I speak as a lawyer. I understand what a
lawyer's role is. And I have a good friend, many
good friends were a lawyers, one of whom we're going
to talk to in a moment who probably cann't disagree
with me on this. So I'm going to invite you
to call does this bother you? Again? This is B one.
It's not even on the front page of the Globe today.
(07:23):
It's B one. It was. It was a very thorough
article written by my great friend Shelley Murphy, who knows
this case as well as anybody. And this is just
going to go on and on and on, and I
know that there are those who say, no, he should
he should be forced to live the rest of his
life at that Supermax. Well, I disagree, uh, and I'd
(07:47):
love to hear from you. Are you Do you want
to basically put this case to bed and wish him
the best of luck and wherever he goes from here
and his miserable life, or do you feel that he
deserves yet another bite at the apple, and then maybe
(08:07):
another bite at the apple until he has finds more apples.
Here's the number. Feel free to join us six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten
thirty when we come back, when I talk to my
good friend Harvey Silverglade, who I know is going to
disagree with me on this nonetheless, and he will be
first up on the other side of the break here
on nightside. I think this is an important story. I
(08:29):
hope you do as well. It's a story that will
be remembered in Boston for years, for decades. There's no question,
and those of us who were there or who covered
the story as I did that night and for the
next few nights on radio, it was the only story.
But I think the story has been told. We know
what happened, and justice tonight is justice delayed in my opinion.
(08:53):
Back on Nightside, we'll start with Harvey, and you are
more than welcome to join the conversation. Whatever your point
of view is. You do not have to be a lawyer.
Six one seven nine six one seven two five thirty
Back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
We're talking about the fate of Boston bomber number two.
I choose not to use his name. I refer to
him as Boston bomber number two. You hear, you've heard
what I have said. I think this has gone on
now for eleven years, eleven years plus four months. I
think now we're looking at another delay in in the
resolution of this case, and probably if it's conceivable, if somehow,
(09:41):
some way, Judge O'Toole in his investigation concludes that indeed
two of the jurors were on the death penalty. They
were on the jury as well as on the death
penalty phase. UH, he might have to impanel an entire
new jury to once again RELI the gate whether or
not Bomber number two should receive the death penalty. With
(10:05):
me is my friend Harvey Silvergladen. Harvey, I suspect you
disagree with me on this. We had not talked about
it during the day. I should have probably called you,
but I'm so glad you were listening and have joined
us here. Do you how strongly do you disagree with me?
Let me ask Let me ask it that way.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Harvey, extraordinarily strongly. But let me tell you why.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Of course, first of all, a little bit of disclosure
I represented as a teacher of ZARNAEEV from Cambridge Region
Latin when he was visited by the FBI doesn't affect
my views of the case. But I feel that I
should disclose, and of course, as I always do, I
refuse to let him talk to the FBI because, as
(10:51):
you know, I don't trust the FBI. Okay, So that
little bit of disclosure is out of the way. It
has nothing to do with any sense that there is
any doubt about him being guilty, no question, we rather
that's correct. It has nothing to do with the fact
(11:13):
that he deserves to be killed. It has to do
with the system and uh. And by the way, there
are many people who think that the life in the
supermax prison is is worse than death. But we'll forget
about that for a minute. That's not my argument.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Is your view? Let me ask you those is that
your view.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
That the supermax is worse than death? It is if
I had a choice between spending a life in the
supermax prison and death. I think our issue's death. It's
a form of torture. I actually think there should be outlawed.
But again, this is not the fundamental My opposition is systemic.
(12:02):
The reason I am opposed to the death penalty is
I know as a practicing criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer,
I know how prone the system is to making errors,
including in cases where everybody is sure that somebody is guilty.
The National Innocence Project has actually come up with a
(12:23):
case after years of searching, of somebody whom they can
would confidently show is executed who is innocent. Everybody is certain,
Dura is a certain newspaper. People are certain, but there
is no certainty in any human system. The error is
(12:45):
human to forgive divine. I'm not talking about the forgiveness.
I'm talking about who makes life and death decisions.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Well, let me, I don't mean to drop Let me
just ask a truly simple question, because to stand and
it has taken the Innocent Project a lot of work
to find someone who they believe was executed wrongfully. And
we know it is a human system.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
But the the standards that I just outline, and we've
talked about this before, is there's no question in your
mind of this individual's guilt.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Correct, That is correct, okay, No, no sentilla of doubt, convicted,
pled guilty, no scentilla of doubt, no suggestion that he
was forced by his lawyers to plead out or anything
like that. And having said that, would you consider what
he did and the way in which he and his
brother did it aggravating circumstances?
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Absolutely, okay, And that is not my argument. No, I
know that argument is systemic. If we allow the death penalty,
it is inevitable, likely inevitable that at some point somebody
innocent is going to be executed. It may not be
(14:09):
during our lifetime, but it will happen.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So someone who about whom there would be no scintilla
of doubt about the guilt. And in addition to that,
on top of that, aggravating circumstances of a horrific nature.
And I realize I'm using language, but some people can
Parson and say it's vague. But if it's I know
you're opposed to it, you know, philosophically. But if you
(14:34):
are willing to say no, no sentilla of doubt, that's
a that's a legal standard. There's no question of doubt
and aggravating circumstances.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
They said, we're talking about a system, and you know,
everybody has their idea of what a sintilla of doubt is.
Everybody has your idea of what absolutely clear in certain cases,
but inevitably, inevitably, some point, if you have a death penalty,
inevitably somebody innocent is going to be executed.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
My view, your argument, go right ahead. I just wanted
to make sure that I fleshed it out. I do
understand your argument.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
It is my view that it is better that twenty horrible,
clearly guilty people live rather than one innocent be executed wrongly.
And that is my art systemic. It's got nothing to
do with its our native It's got to do with
(15:36):
the system. Okay, what you're a lawyer, you know, you
know you have talked about cases of innocent people that
you have helped get get out of the death who.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Were truly who are truly innocent, that the dead before
before firm and versus Georgia. You're absolutely correct on that.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
But but when they were sentenced, nobody should or at
least the people who sentenced them, didn't think you were innocent.
And that's my point.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
No, I understand your point, But the point I'm trying
to struggle with here is if if the the standard
by which some people would be executed is so stringent
that there is no sinillary of doubt and there are
(16:28):
aggravating circumstances, I mean, if there are no if there's
no sentillary of doubt, and and it's it's a it's
a an individual murder, even if it's no centillary of
a doubt where somebody shoots someone in Fifth Avenue in
New York, to coin a phrase, but when you have
the aggravating circumstances of these bombs being placed behind people
(16:49):
who are watching a marathon. So so let's let's assume
that I accept your argument for a second, and I
accept the which is an anti death penalty argument. Does
that also mean that we should never put people in
jail because we probably incarcerate more individuals wrongfully then we
kill individuals wrongfully.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
But incarceration is reversible, Yes, it is. That is you
can you can when an incarcerated person can show that
they're wrongfully incarcerated, yes, they get out.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
But you know how high a standard? We know how
to convict people beyond a reasonable doubt, but I still
don't know what the standard is to prove someone's innocence
after they've been convicted.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Well, those are the rules of habeas corpus emotions for
a new trial. They're all legal standards. They vary from
state to state, yes, but they're all human systems.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Okay, let's let's do this. Okay, I want to explore
this more with you. We're at nine point thirty. I'm
going to invite people to call and they can ask questions.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Can I tell you one Tindy story?
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Sure? You want to do it?
Speaker 5 (18:06):
Now?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Do you want to wait until after the newscast?
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Whatever you want, it's up to you.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Yeah, if you wouldn't mind, we have right at nine thirty.
So I'd like to do that and when we come back,
we'll tell that story. In the meantime, we'll give people
a chance to join the conversation by dialing six, one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty six, one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. Uh, this is a real case at hand.
I'm never going to win an argument against Harvey Silverglake
(18:33):
because he's one of the best lawyers that I've ever known.
But if you have a question, if you want to
make a comment, I'd invite you to join us. I
think it's an important conversation. We'll be back on Nightside
with Harvey Silverglade and your phone calls if you'd like
to take the time to dial back right after this.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
My guess is Harvey Silverglade an extraordinary attorney and a
great friend. Harvey, you said that there was a story
that you wanted to tell before we went to some
phone calls, Go right.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Ahead, right I had a drug case once in which
the agents had taken pictures of of my client. They're
doing the drug transaction, so they had photographs and they're
absolutely sure, and we get the trial, and what they
didn't know was that he was one of two exact
(19:28):
duplicate twin brothers, and they couldn't figure out which of
the brothers had done it. There's all kinds of certainties
that turn out not to be so certain. This is
this is human life we're talking about, in which the
strangest things happened.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Now I understand, I do understand the argument, and I
know that you're coming from a place where you do
not believe under any searchircumstances. I mean, if if Hitler
had been taken alive in the bunker in Germany, you
would have you would have argued that he should not
(20:09):
have been killed executed.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
That is correct because at that point, the amount of
blood that had been spilled in that war was obscene,
blood of both soldiers and millions and millions of civilians.
And the idea that you're going to redress that problem
(20:32):
by spilling more blood makes absolutely no sense. Well, Hitler
killed himself. He committed suicide. He didn't want to, right,
he didn't want to be captured.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
No, I get that. But but but if Hitler had survived,
if the Allied troops had captured him, the idea of
Hitler spending whatever time he had left in some sort
of prison, being fed, uh, you know, three meals a
day and and having a place to lay his head
at night. Uh It It just seems to me that
(21:08):
after the amount of carnage that he clearly caused. Now again,
I know that when you say to me that you
would not you would defend Hitler from being executed, that
shows the depth of your passion and the death of
your your belief.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
And I let me say this, Dad, Yeah, Hitler preferred death,
and he inflicted in himself. He was a coward death.
He preferred death for himself.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Right, I understand that. And he was a coward, and
and he was a monster. And if he had survived,
I don't think there's any anyone, well maybe you and
a few others who would say the principle is so important,
and I and I understand the principle. Let's do this, Harvey.
(21:58):
Let's get some folks involved in it. By the way,
I need to ask you, how much longer you have
more experience than I do in the courtroom. How much
longer do you think this this, this entire procedure will continue.
Judge O'Toole is supposed to conduct an investigation. I have
(22:19):
no idea what he will find, But as I understand that,
it is his findings, those findings, if if he finds
that there was no error done, and if he doesn't
recuse himself, I would have to ask you, I guess
there's a threshold question. Do you think it's likely that
that Judge o'tol will stay on or will will recuse himself?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Well, I think he may recuse himself. What he may
be recused, But I think this case is going to
golong for another year and a half or two years
before it ends at least. And I think that the
resources going into this would be much better used some
other fashion.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Right, So what you're saying is that if is that
the government turned around now and said we agree he
will not be executed, the case could end, correct, okay,
and whatever funds were going to be expended could be
put into you know, child education or whatever. Yeah, I
understand that. But it is conceivable that that this he's
(23:23):
not going to get a new trial. This is only
going to be a determination on whether or not he
should be executed.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
That is correct, fair enough, okay.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
And you think that this will finally be assuming that
that the that the government pursues this, you think it
will be concluded within a year or a year and a.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
Half, I say a year and a half.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
Yeah, so early early twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Yep, when the resources could be used for something much
much more productive.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Okay, And do you believe that there will be other
issues that that that they that a good lawyer like
you could develop.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
Well, the longer he's alive, the longer case goes forward,
the more there is a possibility that somebody will show
up who had some new evidence. And that's one of
the reasons why.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, it will be new evidence of his of his
guilt or innocence, will it.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
That's correct, It will not be. It will not be.
It may be it may be evidence of additional pressure
that his older brother put on him.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Well, that goes well, that goes to the that goes
to the to the to the the That was the
argument that was made and was rejected at trial. That
so you're saying that's still an appealable issue.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
Well, the newly discovered evidence of this and and of
course people will be investigating this forever, right, I kind.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Of imagine what the newly discovered evidence would be other
than someone saying the brother marched him to Boylston Street
with a gun in his in his side pocket and
basically told bomber number two, if you don't go through
with this, I will shoot you to death. Here on
boils the street. I mean, he's failing that. I don't
(25:18):
see what other evidence could be introduced on that issue,
do you?
Speaker 3 (25:23):
But you don't even you don't even know if that
scenario is possible. You know, human life is strange, dand
it is very strange. I will not predict what's going
to happen a year and a half from now. I
will not predict, but evidence may.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Be so it's conceivable that this could go on a
lot longer than a year and a half. And what
I'm trying to I've kind of tried to trap you
here a little bit, which I shouldn't do. But if
all of a sudden, someone who comes along and says, oh,
I remember I heard them talking in a cafe, uh,
and he made a threat to his brother, Let's assume,
even if it's someone's imagination, that could be another issue
(26:00):
that could go back more, which would be another issue
that would have to be resolved.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
That will go on forever as long as there is
a death penalty hanging over his head. If the death
penalty were not in the case, I think that this
would be over. We would never hear from the guy.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
No, if there was no death penalty. Clearly the life
in prison would be done. I get it, I get no,
I understand that. Okay, we got some phone calls, Harvey.
Let's see what people have to say. And by the way,
needless to say, you're gonna be nice to me, and
you're gonna be particularly nice to my guest, Harvey Silverglade,
who is a great friend of mine and who I
admire and respect immensely. Paul in Monson, Massachusetts. Paul, welcome
(26:43):
to Knight's Side. You're on Nightside with Harvey Silverglade. We're
talking about death penalty for bomber Boston bomber number two.
Speaker 6 (26:51):
Oh Hi Dan, Hi, Harvey, thanks so much for taking
my call. I actually live in Munson, but I'm in
a big truck and water town. Dan, I'll call back
another time. I know you'd like to hear from truck drivers.
I can give you a whole rundown on driving a
big truck and labor economics in the industry. So I guess,
I guess if you wanted to prep me to that,
maybe put me on with your producer afterwards. But death
(27:12):
penalty is near and dear to my heart and my guest,
I don't want to speak for miss Silvergate but my
guess is that on his part, this isn't a matter
of belief. This is about knowledge and understanding. I've been
so opposed, completely opposed to the death penalty. I turned
fifty nine this year. When I was fourteen, I went
(27:34):
to an Anty International presentation, and I've understood since the
age of fourteen that civilized societies don't have capital punishment. Basically, now,
what we're hearing about in the news is barely a
week goes by. More than once a month somewhere in
the country, someone is released from prison or jail after
(28:00):
it was shown that they were wrongly convicted. Given the
frequency with which we hear these press reports, we can
easily extrapolate from that that we have executed scores. I
can't even imagine a number of innocent people who have
(28:22):
been executed in this country.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Is Paul, let me jump in for a second. And
I don't know if Harvy will back me up on this,
but I don't think you that that that formula can work,
because the Innocence Project has tried to find for many,
many years cases of actual innocence of people actually being executed,
(28:47):
and they have found, as I understand that, and I'm
not familiar with the case as Harvey is with that case.
There have been innocent people in this country lynched, you know,
by the Ku Klux Klan and all of that. But
in terms of going through the judicial process, I don't
think I don't think it scores. But let me see
what Harvey has to say. And again I appreciate you
(29:08):
calling in. You obviously support Harvey and his position, which
is great.
Speaker 7 (29:14):
Can I just say before before Harvest, even if the
Innocence Project doesn't find a single open and shutcase it is,
we can extrapolate. We can understand your extrapolation that there
is no way it hasn't happened.
Speaker 6 (29:29):
Please go ahead, and misters okay, let's.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
See if Harvey agrees with you on your extrapolation argument.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Harvey absolutely agree. It is inevitable that there are more
than just the one that the Innocence Project has discovered.
Is a human system, and there are obviously more than
one error. And I don't think as a moral society
we can justify the state putting somebody to death if
(29:57):
it's systemically we know that there are certain number of
innocent people who are going to be executed. It's as
simple as that.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Okay, go ahead, Paul Harvey agrees with you, and.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
You can just you can.
Speaker 7 (30:12):
Just The good news for you, Dan is that you can.
Speaker 6 (30:14):
Just understand that the argument that Harvey is making is correct.
And no matter what we say, think, do and tell ourselves,
we can do effective crime and punishment in this country
without capital punishment.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, I disagree, Paul, do me a favor. I disagree
with that argument. I made it pretty clear that there
are cases, and again Harvey disagrees with me in this,
but I'm not going to back from my position that
there are cases I disagree where there is no sentilla
of doubt.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Likes it doesn't matter that there are people.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Paul, give me the courtesy. Let me at least making
sure that.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
You understood Erica.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
I cannot argue against someone who is inextuably opposed to
capital punishment. There's no question about that. It's like someone
who is inexorably opposed to abortion under any set of circumstances,
incess rape, life of the mother. That is a position
that you can't argue with someone if that's their position.
What I'm saying is that when you have a case
(31:19):
like the Boston bomber, where there is no question, no
scintilla of doubt about what he did.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
And.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
There are aggravating circumstances. You can have a guy that
goes in to rob a bank and kills someone in
the process. I don't want that person to go to
the go to the death penalty because there's no aggravating circumstances.
Even though it's a felony murder, it's not aggravating circumstances
at the level of the Boston bomber. He put bombs
(31:50):
beside behind He and his brother put two separate bombs
behind people who watching the Boston marathon. If you cannot
authorize the death penalty for this guy, and clearly you
are someone who is an absolute opponent of the death,
which you are and which Harvey is, and I respect
both of your positions, but please don't misrepresent my position.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
Okay, I'm not misrepresenting anything.
Speaker 7 (32:15):
It's just it's just it doesn't matter, just doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Well to me, it does, and I think there will
be others who might agree with me.
Speaker 6 (32:26):
I mean, you just say, I know you want to
get the other calls, and I'd like to. I'd love
to give my number to your producer talk to you
about trucking sometime I'll just say this, I'll just on
part with this and thank you both so much. It's
the idea that you cannot have effective criminal justice without
(32:47):
capital punishment. It's just it's absurd.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
You're setting up a straw man with that argument. I'm
saying you can have effective criminal justice. However, I never
want to take off the table. I never want to
take off the table that a society can use that
to punish someone whose actions are so clearly clear without
(33:13):
a centail of doubt. We're not talking about reasonable doubt,
without a sintilla of doubt. There's no question that this
guy did this. Okay, he had a trial, and the
circumstances are just so aggravating. I mean, if if someone
goes into a skull and murders ten or twelve or
(33:34):
twenty children and they survived, like the guy down in Newtown,
you could argue to me that he's insane, and I
might agree with you on the insanity argument and say, well,
he's not going to be convicted because he's insane. He
didn't understand what he was doing right from wrong. But
if you conclude that he knew what he was doing
(33:55):
was right from wrong. He's going to take twenty kids
in five teachers' lives. That would be.
Speaker 6 (34:01):
Another champ Capital punishment gets serenayas the Supermax and Flawrence Colorado.
That's a that's a life there, that's a worst punishment.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Well, I'll tell you I've never been in the super
Max in Colorado. What I do know is that they
get fed every day, they get to put their head
on a pillow at night, they get to have visitors,
they get to correspond with people. I believe that they
also had television access to television. They don't live a
life that I want to live, but I think it's
it's it's a life that's a little bit better than
what that what I would do. Paul, we've gone on
(34:32):
really long. I loved your call. Leave your number with
Rob and Rob will give you my number. You can
call me directly at WBZ and we'll have a conversation
off air about that other topic.
Speaker 6 (34:41):
Fair enough, wonderful, Thanks, Okay, thank.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
You, Harvey. We will continue. You've got a bunch of
calls here. Stay with us. We're keeping an eye for
everyone needs to understand this on what's going on in Chicago,
and we will bring you in its entirety. Uh, the
the acceptance speech tonight of device President Vice President Harris.
We do not win, and we do not know when
(35:04):
it will stop. But will you will hear it in
its entirety, and it finishes before midnight and we have time,
we will be able to get your reaction to the
speech as well. But we got to take a quick break.
Now we'll continue with my friend Harvey Silverglade. More calls.
You could see at this point Harvey is carrying the day,
as I suspect that he would in our conversation. There's
no one who's better than my friend Harvey Silverglade. I
(35:26):
always hesitate to disagree with him on anything, but I
feel passionately about this. Back on Nightside right after this
in Harvey, by the way, I did get your email
today regarding that author and I do want to have
that author on. We can talk about that perhaps privately tomorrow.
Just I should have mentioned that earlier. We'll be right
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Back to the calls. Let me go to Sam in Bedford. Sam,
you were next on Nightside with Harvey Silverglake.
Speaker 8 (35:55):
You're right ahead, Sam, Yeah, thanks thanks for taking the call.
Speaker 3 (35:59):
Dan.
Speaker 8 (36:00):
So so the amount of pain, misery and the financial
cost you know, with this heeneous crime has been commented.
I see no reason why you know, kind of human
beings disguised, I mean there was disguised as a human beings, right.
They should not be fed to fed to sharks?
Speaker 7 (36:18):
Right?
Speaker 8 (36:18):
Why why why continue? Why why allow them to live?
Because they are not part of the civil society. They
didn't have any any any concerns for all those people, right,
so why should they be treated with such a with
such a passion.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
You know, well, haeld Harvey can speak for himself. Sam,
But uh, and Harvey, we've got a couple of a
minute and a half left here. Let me turn Sam
over to you because he's on the other side of
the issue than you are. Go ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 7 (36:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
My argument again, and I hate to sound repetitive, is
you have to make problem that's important that no sensient
human being would have a doubt about built in this case.
But this is stemid and there's in ever is over
the course of time. Time is a long time that
there would be an innocent person executed and I would
(37:08):
rather have any number of guilty people alive in a
horrible supermatch prison than one innocent person executed. This is
the stomach argument, Sam.
Speaker 8 (37:23):
Right, but then if you if you take the extremee step,
then people continue to do this, these these enious crimes,
and then know then they can they can live, They
can live comfortably for twelve fifteen years because they can
exploit the systems. So so good things are for you know,
people who made error in judgment because they made.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
A bad call.
Speaker 8 (37:43):
But this guy didn't made a back on. He intentionally knew.
And the amount of amount of pain, misery and the
cost to the to the to the country is done.
I don't think he needs to see the light of
the day. Just feel into the shocks.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Oh okay, okay, the shocks. Sam, thank you very much
for calling Harvey.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
I'd like to hold comment. When you're talking about a
supermax prison. The description of live comfortably simply doesn't resonate.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Well, that's what I want to do when I come back.
I'd like to hold you through the ten Okay, I've
never been to super max. I do not know, uh
the specific circumstances. I'd love for you to sketch out
for us what it's like for the people who are there.
I know it's the worst of the worst, but I'd
love to just get some information from you on that.
Can I hold you through the ten yep? Okay, Sam,
(38:36):
thank you for the call. All right, have a great
night to Bob and Mark. You guys, stay there. I'm
going to get to you. I don't think we're gonna
hear from the Vice President for at least a half
an hour, maybe longer. So I want Bob and Mark
to stay there, and I'll invite others to call. You
have the numbers, and Harvey is gonna, if not do
her little research. For all I know, he may have
actually visited one of his clients there. I have no idea,
(38:58):
but he will give us an explain of why he
feels life in supermacs is worth the worse than the
death penalty. Back on night side right after this, this
is Dan Ray. We all know that these times can
bring additional financial challenges. National Grid is here to help
those who need assistance. Their energy savings programs are designed
to ensure your home is healthier, more comfortable, and more affordable,
(39:19):
including a no cost home energy assessment as a National
Grid customer, I've done it and use your too, and
energy specialists can uncover energy saving solutions specifically for your home,
including money saving rebates, energy saving tips and products at
no cost. There are also generous rebates on qualifying energy
efficient heating, cooling and water heating equipment. So if you're
a customer who receives a discount rate on your energy bill,
(39:41):
all approved energy efficient home improvements are one hundred percent
no cost to you. Even if you want, you can
still get seventy five percent or more off weatherization. Just
dial pound two fifty and say keyword assessment to see
how you qualify and schedule your appointment. You'll also have
the option to receive a one time autodial text message
from iHeartMedia. National Grid is a p OLD sponsor of MASSA.
For more information about contests on WBZ, visit WBZ NewsRadio
(40:05):
dot com, slash.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Rules WBZ in Boston, w XKSFM HD two Bedford, and Iheartradiot.
This is WBZ, Boston's news radio, redefining local news.
Speaker 9 (40:27):
Good Evening, I'm Dan Watkins. Here's what's happening. After three
consecutive nights of speeches, spectacle and celebrity. Democrats in Chicago
are ready to hear from the person around which all
of it swirls. Tonight, Vice President Kamala Harris will formally
accept the Democratic nomination for president. CBS's Uija Jang is
(40:48):
at the convention and tells us what she's expected to
talk about in her speech.
Speaker 10 (40:52):
He wants to focus on sharing her personal story, talking
about coming from a middle class family, being raised by
working mother working at McDonald's. These are a lot of
the themes that we've already heard, but we expect that
she will build on it even more.
Speaker 9 (41:07):
Vice President Harris will be the first woman of color
to lead a major political party's ticket. Meanwhile, former President
Trump spent the day at the southern border in Arizona.
While there, he said, if he's elected again, he'll finish
building the wall.
Speaker 5 (41:21):
I was never in love with an architecturally until I
saw the fact that nobody could climb over it without it.
It's a big difference, is that right? Which is It's
a huge difference, big, big difftinance. So the anti time
panel at the top was a big deal.
Speaker 9 (41:33):
The former president will be in Arizona again on Friday.
A Peaboty mom is getting the attention of Noah Kahn
after a night she'll never forget. Wbz's Brooke McCarthy with
the story.
Speaker 11 (41:45):
Noah Cohn playing to pack crowds at Fenway Park last month,
and in the crowd dancing and singing all night long
was Chloe Stanko. She was nine months pregnant at the time,
but didn't let some back paine stop her. Turns out
that back pain was actually the start of labor, and
the next day Baby Noah was born.
Speaker 7 (42:04):
I know, I keep wondering.
Speaker 6 (42:05):
I'm like, if I didn't go to the concert, I
am wondering, like when I would have actually had the baby.
Speaker 11 (42:10):
Chloe and her husband always loved the name Noah, and
with Noah Cohn's concert sending her into labor, it was
the perfect fit. She recently posted a TikTok about the
whole experience.
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.