September 6, 2024 • 42 mins
Gary Tanguay filled in on NightSide:
Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe and capturing the world’s attention in her high-profile murder trial, is speaking out in a rare interview with ABC. Criminal defense attorneys William Kickham and Robert George joined Gary to discuss Read’s interview and case.
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe and capturing the world’s attention in her high-profile murder trial, is speaking out in a rare interview with ABC. Criminal defense attorneys William Kickham and Robert George joined Gary to discuss Read’s interview and case.
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 (00:01):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray. I'm easy Boston News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, ol, thanks a lot, big hour, folks, really
big hour going on right now here on night Side.
Gary Tank waiting for Dan Ray. Karen Reader's speaking out
on ABCTV Channel five locally here in Boston. Beginning at
nine o'clock. They were airing an interview with her with
Matt Gutman. So I've been doing a talk show, as
(00:26):
you know, and watching her and just watching and not
really be able to do two things at once because
I'm not that smart. So I'm bringing him some legal
eagles to help me out. Bill kick Him is with
us and attorney Robert George to kind of do an
analysis of what they've seen so far during this special
here on twenty twenty on ABC and channel five. Gentlemen,
(00:49):
thanks for joining us here on night Side.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Glad to be here. You're welcome, Glad to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Okay, So Bill, I'm gonna start with you here. Why
did they decide to hold this because this was recorded
before the trial, from what I understand, was recorded.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
Before the trial. What I understand also why they decided
to hold it unclear? You know, I guess a lot
of people are still scratching their heads as to what's
going on, and they thought it would be a good draw.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Well, I mean, there was a mistrial. Just if people
are listening and they need to play catch up. She
was accused of murdering her boyfriend of police officer General Keef.
There was a mistrial on three counts. That's going to
be tried again in January. So we have seen members
of the O'Keefe family speak out. And I was the brother. Yeah,
(01:40):
I was wondering if that had something to do with this.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Yeah, probably did.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Yeah, you know, so the people who think she's guilty,
the members of the O'Keefe family have spoken out. So
did she feel she needed a rebuttal? Plus also, they
made an appeal to have the second degree degree murder
charge drop. So, you know, Robert our last you I
should know this. Do you prefer Bob? Robert?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
No? Bob is fine? Bob?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Fine?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
So Bob. You know, did they feel because they didn't
get the appeal on the second degree murder and her
family has spoken, they needed to do something?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well? I find it interesting that, you know, Karen Reid
is so vocal, especially when she didn't testify at her
you know at her first trial, right that she would
ever that she would ever lock herself in to a
version of events, although it's a well known version of
events that she would ever lock herself in to such
(02:39):
a public proclamation, you know, of any kind prior to
a second trial in January. She you know, she's limiting
herself into what into the different directions she could go
if she chose to testify at the second trial. I
guess another thing we should be looking at is this
is her unsworn statement to the public. You know, she's
(03:02):
actually testifying. When she didn't testify at the first trial,
she likely won't testify at the second trial unless something
different happens. And now she's testifying to the general public,
which well, you know, I hate to talk about politics,
but she's trying to fire up her base. I don't
know if firing up her base does are a bit
of good in the courtroom, especially in Norfolk County where
(03:24):
we know what happened the first time around. You know,
she had eight to four hung in the jury room
for a verdict of guilty on this second indictment. And
at this point, all I've seen so you know, Gary,
so far on the special you're talking about is her
(03:46):
and Alan Jackson speaking to the public. And I don't
know when it was filmed or when it wasn't filmed,
but I can tell you this. They're locking themselves into
a version of events that they very well may have
wanted to drop the second time around. It appears that
they did up more than they can chew in the
first child, when all they have to prove is nothing
(04:06):
more than a raising reasonable doubt as opposed to prove
in a very complex and you know, exciting conspiracy theory
that they don't need to prove to win the case.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
You know, Bill, that's a great point, because excuse me, Bob,
that's a great point, Bob, And I want Bill to
jump in on that, because yeah, I mean, I'm not
an attorney, and we talked about this so much that
in one of the discussions I had it might have
even been with you, Bill, you know, I said, isn't
doesn't she just have to prove, Well, she doesn't have
(04:40):
to prove anything. Doesn't she just have to convince the
jury that she didn't hit him with the truck. That's it.
She doesn't have to do this. All this dog and
pony show about what happened in the house, and to
me that that hurt her credibility bill where you have
all these theories that may be true, they may not
be not. I don't know where there was a fight
in the house. Who was killed in the house. They
dragged him from the house, they put them in the
dry way. All they had to do is say, look,
(05:02):
she couldn't have killed them with the truck.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Right in terms of forensics and physics, Yes, because there
was a lot to raise in terms of the physics
of the allegations and the forensics particularly you know, the
lack of injuries to his lower body, which they expected. If,
as you like, that would have striked someone, right, it
would have been I think I think it would have
(05:26):
been better to just try to raise reasonable doubt all
over rather than trying to prove a specific series of events.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Okay, guys, what you've seen so far, and Bob, you
just gave me some thoughts built with what you've seen
on this special and again I've been on the air.
But basically, her attorney and Karen Reid have spoken, has
she done herself? Has she helped her cause at all?
With what she's had to say?
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Well, you know, she's trying the case in the court
of public opinion and not a court that matters. Really,
it really doesn't. And I agree with Bob that she's
limiting her potential theories in this in the retrial by
being so vocal about it. You know, there's a there's
an old expression, Darry in the criminal law when you
(06:17):
try a lot of cases like like I have, you
don't need a horse the water unless you're going to
give it the water, you know, And in this particular case,
her and her attorney, from what I've seen so far,
are still especially her attorney, I mean the California attorney Jackson.
He's very clear in arguing that there is a corrupt
(06:41):
cover up and that there was a murder in the house,
no matter what the pink lad people got in front
of the courthouse or whether the billboards that are all
over the South Shore are saying, that's not something you
have to prove. It's something that's very difficult to get
Lily White Jerry out in Norfolk County to swallow. You know,
(07:05):
back in the day when I was trying a lot
of cases in Norfolk County and even through today, if
you went a police officer who was accused of a crime.
The first place you'd want to try that case is
in Norfolk County because they do not want to believe
that their cops are dirty. Now, I understand in this
case we have some dirty cops. That much is clear,
(07:25):
But as Bill has said, how much of that is
important in determining whether or not she backed the car
to him or did not back the car again if
the forensics, if the forensics set you free, why would
you ever try to prove there was a murder in
a house and that you then took the body and
(07:47):
threw it on your own front yard and waited for
you know, waited for the police to arrive, instead of
taking the body somewhere else and don't forget where the
world would never see it again. It just is something.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Then. I think that that particularly jury pool out in
Norfolk County would have a hard time swallowing. I'm not
saying I believe it or don't believe it. All I'm
saying is why would I take that on if I
don't have to? Right? It doesn't make it. It just doesn't.
It's too much weight to carry.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, I mean, between the prosecution and the defense, the
prosecution has the burden of proof here, all the defense
has to do is raise reasonable doubt. And I agree
with Bob. I mean, when you take a laser focused
approach that only one thing happened and try to prove
that that happened, then the roles between prosecution and defense
(08:37):
are kind of interposed. I mean, now it's the defense
trying to prove that one thing happened, right a reasonable doubt?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Well, but but it's almost like you have two based
on what you're saying. It's like both parties are prosecutors.
The state is trying to prosecute her, but her defense returned.
Are you trying to prosecute the family that own the house?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
The burden the burden improof In any criminal case, as
anyone knows, everybody knows is on the prosecution. They have
to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would I,
as a defense lawyer, try to prove any case beyond
the fact that the conwealth hasn't proven their case beyond
a reasonable doubt when all I'm trying to do is
(09:25):
set the woman free. That's all I'm trying to do
is set the woman free. I'm not trying to make
my case for my novel. I'm not trying to make
my case for my Netflix special. I'm not trying to
make my case so the people up front can cheer
me on the front steps of the courthouse. I'm trying
to set Caaron Read free. And believe me when I
(09:46):
tell you, as she sits here today, she's trying to
figure out how to pay lawyers for a second trial
because they didn't win the first row. I maybe do
no fault of their own it with this particular jury pull.
But when you try to to demonstrate that this this
very this very dramatic conspiracy to murder and murder occurred
(10:09):
in that house, and then you can't prove it, you're
taking on You're taking on a burden you don't have
to take on when, as Bill said, you could be
focused on whether or not the prosecution's proven this case, which,
by the way, in this case they did not do right.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
They did not do they did You're right, and that
was the result of the trial any and the defense
muddied it up. We've guys, We've just getting started. Bill
Kickham is criminal defense attorney. You can find him online
at criminal dot kickim legal dot com. Also, you can
call his office at six one seven two eighty five
thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood. And then Bob George
(10:49):
is joining us, also a criminal defense attorney, and his
phone numbers five aweight seven seven six, twelve twenty and
he's at George Law dot com sless contact us and
he's in Lovely Hiatus again. You can find these gentlemen online.
They're taking time to join us. I have to ask
you about the personalities because this has become a reality
(11:09):
TV show. I understand completely what you guys are saying,
what you gentlemen are saying in regard to what makes
sense for the logistics of the case, but it's become
bigger than that. That's next on wbz's night Side.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
We're talking about the broadcast the airing of Karen Reads
the interview on ABC and Channel five locally that started
at nine o'clock. We understand it's going two hours, but
it was a little late for us to start at eleven,
so we decided to get get in on the action
find out if there was anything different that we learned
through the airing of the special guys. I want to
talk about the personalities involved. Bill Kickham is joining us
(11:52):
and Bob George, both criminal defense attorneys, and Bill, I'll
start with you. She loves this. She is a reality
body TV star right now.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
She loves this, and that's a There's a dangerous instrument
in the human condition and it's called the ego, and
we all have one, and it can be a dangerous
instrumentality because it's very seductive and it's very appealing, but
you know, it can work against you in a million
(12:24):
different ways, and she did. She has become a reality
star and that is, if not a soap opera star,
and that is the reality of this. And to resist
that is it takes a lot of discipline, but she
has become a cause celeb for both sides. I think
(12:47):
I think that her team might have coached her to
contain some of that ego go drawing fascets of the case.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
What do you think, Bob, of her personal.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Let's just say I'm the you know, let's let's imagine
me as the m picturer, you know, the one of
the people that maybe they're trying to reach. I never
heard Cameron Reid's voice until today. I never saw her
express herself until today. All I had was her walking
(13:31):
in and out of court, sitting there in her business suit.
And let's say I had a favorable impression on that.
Let's say that the soft picture, the fuzzy picture that
I was seeing in the court room were appearances. Everything,
especially when you don't testify, is the most important thing
at Jerry can see. Well, now that's all gone. I'm
(13:51):
not saying she's making a bad impression. I'm not saying
she's making a great impression. I'm all I'm saying is
the mystery of Karen Read not testifying is now gone.
So that is a powerful, powerful tool of defense, has
my understanding? Isn't the second part of the show, which
(14:12):
we're not watching now, and she talks about how she
dresses for record, She talks about her sleeve length, she
talks about what closed she picks for court, and how
she presents herself. Well, the problem with that is, and
having done a thousand interviews with cameras, it's hard to
present yourself in a sympathetic way when the camera is
(14:36):
heating up your face and melting your makeup and you're
on TV. Perhaps, like Bill says, for the first time
in her whole life, and it's just once again, Gary,
she's taking on more than she has to take on. See,
what makes this whole show odd is that there is
a pending retrial in her case. There is no there
(15:01):
is no final verdict. So for us, whether it's ABC
or Alan Jackson, Orkaron Reid or whoever trying to get
glory from or get attention from this show, good or bad,
it's it's odd because the timing of it is before
(15:23):
a retrial in January, and if she doesn't want to
testify in January for whatever reason, perhaps she can't stand
up on cross examination because he doesn't have the personality
for it. Perhaps it's a strategic move. You don't want
to testify for obvious reasons because you don't want to
once again take on more than you have to take on.
(15:43):
But that is now gone because she has told the
story that she has to stick to without fine tuning
it to the left or to the right or upper down,
because she's been on national DP which will be played
in the courtroom. If she ever varies her story one
(16:04):
eye order from what she's saying on TV tonight, it
just isn't good strategy. As far as I'm concerned, that's
just me talking, that's all Bill.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
What if she's telling the truth.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
Well, if she's telling the truth, that's a powerful element.
But it does I go back to what Bob says,
it locks her in, right, So.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Here's my point, just to try to play Devil's advocate
with it, like I'm trying to think out loud. So
possibly she testifies the second time around, right, Maybe she does.
Maybe she just does decide to testify. This is the
warm up act. The strategy could be, Bill, you have
to keep your testimony the same as what you did
(16:47):
on television. So they watched the television, they watch the tape.
She rehearses it, rehearses it. Maybe she's telling the truth.
So she tells the same story. And it's not a story,
it's real. I don't know, I'm throwing it out there, but.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
It's basically, she would be retelling the story that her
attorney's already told.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Is it different coming from her?
Speaker 4 (17:11):
It had more pinematic impact coming from the defendant herself.
But she would be subjecting herself to cross examination from
the prosecutor, which could be withering.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
And not only that, why you know everybody knows that
the last place a person wants to be in the court, well,
let alone being in the courthouse is on the witness right.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
The last place, well, Bob, you know, I hear you, Bob,
but let me she's I don't want to misspeak because
I don't know her. We're talking, Bob, we're talking about
a unique personality. Maybe she wants to be on the
stand she I mean guys personally like, I don't know
how you would feel about defending her, But to me,
(17:55):
it seems like it would be a nightmare. I mean
an absolute like, Bob, based on which you're telling me,
I don't think you would defend her. I don't think
there's enough money in the world for you to take
this case.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Well, the bottom line is it's a it's a good try,
it's a great triable case. The second time around, it
is not as triable as the first time because the
first time you have the options of going in one
hundred different directions. Now you're locked in because of transcripts
and records and tape. You know, you know, transcripts of
(18:27):
the first trial lock you into what you can do
in the second trial. But say in the second trial
you wanted to try it in a much cleaner sense.
You wanted to just put it in on reasonable doubt,
which I'm telling you is the way out is the
way out the front door of the courthouse. I'm telling
you that's the way.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And Bill Bill Bill was on early when we talked
to Bill earlier during the trial, and he said the
same thing. There's no doubt about it, Bill is And
what both of you guys answered this, is there anything
that she did that you guys saw on television to
night that would help her cause, whether it's her appearance,
the story she told. She seems to be very confident.
(19:06):
I'm looking at visual cues because I have the volume down.
She seems to be somebody who's very confident in her story.
So Bill, I'll start with you. Did she help her
cause with what you've seen in public opinion? Because that's
all that matters in public opinion.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Yeah. I didn't see the full tape because I was
a little late getting to the TV. But I don't
think she lacks in terms of confidence and in terms
of presentation. I just think that you know, Bob is
right when he says that she's locked herself in to
a certain version that she cannot vary at all from
(19:45):
and that is limiting.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And I know, I know, go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
I noticed some people who, especially to you, Gary, that
it sounds what Bill and I say, you know that
someone is locking themselves in that The easy answer is
to say, oh, if she's locking herself into the truth,
what difference does it make? The courtroom is is is
a very difficult place. You know, you're inside the four
(20:13):
sterile walls of a courtroom trying to convince sixteen people
sitting in a jury box that you know you're you're
you're innocent. You know you're that the government has a
proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a place
that's sterile. It's it's not, it's not, as Bill said,
in the court of public opinion. That's why all of
(20:35):
these protesters or supporters outside of the courthouse don't make
a bit of difference to what happens in the courtroom,
other other than irritating court officers, sitting jurors, judges, probation officers,
and witnesses in the courthouse. In other words, it could hurt.
(21:00):
It could hurt much more than help. That's the trouble.
Everything we're talking about is as trial lawyers, and whether
or not, whether she's confident or not, whether or not
she looks like a million bucks on TV or not,
whether or not it matters, It doesn't matter in the
courtroom because in the courtroom, that's where the action is.
(21:23):
That's where the verdict comes in. And I'm telling you
that always drama going on outside the courthouse may not
be helping her. It may make her, it may make
it may make the defense feel much more confident and
powerful and give them a mission. But I'm telling you,
when it comes to what's happening in that courtroom, it
(21:44):
doesn't matter.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
No, it may as well be a thousand miles away,
you know, it's if it's you know, a two dozen
feet away, it doesn't matter. I mean, I noticed the
passion of these protesters. They if you looked at them
and you watch them and you listen to them, they
really believed that their presence there was going to swing
(22:07):
the juror's verdict. They really believed that they were going
to make a difference, right. And you know, it would
be hard to convince them if you took them aside
and say, you know, you're being here isn't going to
change things? One way or the other. They probably never
believed you, but they.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
See as Bill has said it. Bill's right. But the
thing is what I'm trying to say, what I hope
the impression I'm conveying is this, there is plenty of
meat on this bone for beaten. They've beaten the prosecution
into the ground with text messages, bad cops, bad forensics,
(22:51):
bad everything. But you could bring all of that in
just trying your case unreasonable doubt without staying to a jury.
I'm going to prove to you that the Alberts and
everyone in that house murdered John O'Keefe and then took
him down the basement and brought him up the bulkhead
(23:12):
and threw them out in the front yard for the
world to find. I mean, why would I take that on,
even if I believe it, if I could bring it
in at the trial without biting it off of something
I'm trying to prove to a jury, even if I
don't have to prove anything to a jury. They have
to prove the case, not me, and they have not
(23:33):
proven their case. Who knows if that jury got hung
up because they didn't believe that the defense hadn't proven
to them there was a conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Oh, there's no doubt. And I know Bill has talked
about that un an appearance before they mucked it up.
And I said, and folks, and Bill Kickham is our guest,
along with Robert George, both the criminal defense attorneys. We
got more coming up with these guys. I have some
questions to ask them about the defense attorneys. And if
you want to reach Bill you can do so at
criminal dot kickim legal dot com six one seven two
(24:07):
eighty five thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood. And Bob George,
criminal defense attorney, he's in Hyannis at five o' eight
seven seven six twelve twenty and you can reach them
online at George lawt dot com slash contact us. Desperation
by the Defense is next on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
It's Night Side with Dan on WBZA, Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Well thanks a lot, buddy, Bill kick him. Bob George,
criminal defense Attorney's joining us here on Night's Side, breaking
down the first hour of the Karen Reid special. Well,
it's really crazy, fellas, with technology now and the way
television happens. I just I just had a reality check.
We are sitting here talking about a woman who's going
on trial and watching her TV show, it is really bonkers.
(24:55):
So Bill, I want to start with you on this.
Everything that you've said and what Bob says makes complete sense.
So I'm wondering why her defense team does not follow
your thought pattern. Are they desperate? Do they feel because
she is being retried that she's going to go to jail?
And this is a hail Mary.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Well?
Speaker 4 (25:20):
Any why did they choose to do what they did
because in any given case, sometimes there's a variety of
ways to approach it, and Monday morning quarterbacking is not
something I enjoy doing it. I don't want to do it.
But they made their decisions because they I think largely
(25:42):
they felt that they had enough malignancy to present on
the police side and the investigative side and the state
police and the local police that they wanted to go
and present that malignancy as as strongly as they could.
They felt it was their strongest suit.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
So do they think they're going to lose? That's what
I'm wondering. I mean, I listen, I'm asking you guys
to speculate, and it's it's almost like we're talking about
a football game, which is a little scary, but I
don't and I know you have to answer in the
best way manner because you're professionals, best way you can
I mean, Bob, That's what I'm wondering. Are they're so
desperate thinking they need to get the court of public
(26:24):
opinion in, they need to try to sway this somehow.
They need a letter writing I mean an email writing campaign,
because they think she's going to go to jail if
they don't do something. Because what everybody has told me,
including you, gentlemen, is that the second time around, it's
really hard to get off.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Well it's because it's because the prosecution has already learned
what your defense is. They put they plug the holes. Well,
they you can't plug a hole, as Michael Procter in
this case, you know, you couldn't. You couldn't possibly do it.
You couldn't cover up the police missed Diggs and that
can't leash mistakes in a million years. But the trouble
(27:04):
is they now know what the defense is.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
So I mean, were there really any do you think
there were any surprises?
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Well there may not have been surprises, but now that
they've hurt the defenses, right, they will plug those holes.
Unless they're dumb. But now you've got a television special
they had that further experience that further exposes and explains
the defense that they'll try to plug those holes. But
as far as your question Gary about why people don't
(27:35):
do these kinds of things, you know, the Code of
Ethics in Massachusetts says that you can't try the case
of in the court of public opinion, and the local
rules for the federal court actually prohibited. And because we
don't know when this was filmed, I just want to
say one thing. I only saw Alan Jackson, uh, you know,
(27:57):
in the first half of this this uh, and he's
the one barking, you know, barking about the police conspiracy
and the murder in the house. So we don't know
what what the you know, whether the David and Ettie
is involved in this, which I don't believe he is,
at least not what I saw on the first you
(28:18):
know before I it.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Seems to the LA guys the lead dog in this race.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
And here's the problem. You've got a guy who you know,
who's been involved in Harvey Weinstein's case, who's involved in
Still Spector's case, who's involved in all these other high
profile cases that we've heard about. But the trouble is,
he's doing his interview from la He's doing his interview
from Hollywood. He's not sitting out and get him and
doing his interview. He's not sending in downtown Boston where
(28:45):
you know where people are going to judge her in January.
You know, these these claims are being made from a
skyscraper in Beverly Hills. So the problem is the problem is,
and the problem is going to be that she needs
to get a fair trial the second time around, and
if the case is tried clean and sharp, without all
(29:07):
the side tracking, she could very well get on with
her life and put this behind her. But the thing
we're forgetting is if she gets convicted of the motor vehicle,
you know, a homicide aspect of the case, she's looking
at a one year minimum mandatory, So she's going to jail.
And all of this I don't believe. I don't know.
(29:28):
I don't think it's being done in any way to
feather their own nest. I don't know if there's any
strategy behind it or anything. All I know is, in
my opinion, in my opinion, she hasn't hurt herself at all.
But I don't know if it helps, That's all I'm saying.
And I don't think it does help. I don't think
it hurts. I don't think it helps.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Don do you see this as a as a desperate move?
I mean, bills? Do you have any further comment on that?
Speaker 4 (29:57):
Well, whether or not to deserate moves largely turns on
whether or not that they influenced when it was going
to be broadcast. You know, I don't know that her
defense team targeted this day or targeted this time. I
don't know from what I understand, generally speaking, this was
(30:18):
filmed at least two months ago.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Oh, this was before the trial, right, So I think
that the deal that they made with ABC was we
will determine when it can be aired, because I think
that's what the attorney wanted to do. He wanted to
keep this as a chip in his pocket, you know.
He wanted when do I need to play this? And
maybe they've and obviously they felt that they needed to
(30:42):
play this. Now. Is there any way that this affects
the jury? And I know that the Bobbers talked about
this bill, but what about because everybody's going to see this?
That's another thing. I mean, there's no way members of
the jury are gonna they're going to see it. So yeah,
I mean they're going to see it. So because of
(31:04):
what happened, what happened, because of what happened with the mistrial,
does the defense team say, well, we've got to put
this out there, We've got to try to sell the
jury before it's even selected.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
I don't know that that's going to help much.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Yeah, Jerry, the jury is going to be asked, the
jury pooll is going to be asked at the second
you know, at the second sitting, whether or not they've
seen this. They won't mention this specifically, and unless they
in less then they lie, which, by the way, you know,
let's not be stupid.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
You know, people lie, They're going to people are gonna lie.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
They're gonna lie.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Yeah, But the thing is, if they've seen it and
it's affected their opinion, they're supposed to they're supposed to reveal.
But I know that, I know, I know. But the
first time around, it seems like they picked the jury
that was able to, you know, to be able to
shell all that stuff out, able to keep all that
stuff out of the jury room because they went in
(32:04):
there and they deliberated, and they came back, and no
matter whether you believe what's been going on in the
post trial stuff or not, it seems like they were
able to filter out all of the screaming and yelling
in front of the courthouse and everything that was on
the news every night, and all the opinions that were
all over the internet, and Turtle Boy and the rest
of their crew outside. They were able to come to
(32:27):
a decision, well sorry, come to an indecision in the case,
and able to keep all of that stuff out of
their deliberation room. It seems that that's what happened, because
if it hadn't happened, they would have marched about the
door in ten minutes. Were not guilties.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
We got a final segment coming up, guys, I have
some final questions on one lies ahead coming up next again.
Criminal defense attorneys have been kind enough to join us
and Bill kick Him and Bob George. You can reach
Bell at six seven eight five thirty six hundred in
Westwood and at criminal dot Keekeimleegal dot com and Bob
at five oweight seven seven six twelve twenty again at
(33:04):
George Law dot com, slash contact us final segments, So
final questions for our attorneys coming up on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Now Back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Welcome back to night Side talking about the Karen retronel
and the appearance on ABC tonight, Bill kick Him and
Bob George criminal defense attorneys, guys, thank you so much
for your time here insight. It's been great. So what
about as we stand right now? And Bill also, you
were you surprised that they weren't able to get rid
of the second degree murder charge?
Speaker 3 (33:42):
I was.
Speaker 4 (33:42):
I thought there would be some interest in finding some
that negotiated posture, but it seems as though Norfolk DA
is just you know, inflexible on this and they're just
going to do They're going to retry the whole thing.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
What did you think about that, Bob.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Haven't been involved in you know, post trial inquiries into
into juries and you know, and deliberations when you get
contact from jurors. I wasn't surprised, only because the jurors
themselves didn't come forward and weren't prepared to come in
with affidavits and testify front and judge. Canone you know
(34:23):
as to what happened. Had they had those jurors you know,
offered to do that, the four or five jurors that
you know that the defense had spoken to, perhaps they
would have been in a better position to come into
court and have a hearing where jurors will put on
the witness stand and examined. But when jurors are second
(34:43):
and third hand hearsay, you know when you're getting information
second and third end yearsay. Most judges, if not all judges,
are not going to stick their fingers into the jury
room and try to interfere in deliberations. So I agree
with Bill that if the prosecution wanted to have a
stronger case second time around, without all the white noise
(35:06):
of the extra charges. Because Karen Reid has been overcharged,
everybody knows that. You don't need to go to law
school to know that she shouldn't be charged with murder
in this case. But the bottom line is because he's
dug because they've dug their heels in out of Norfolk
County and won't admit that they've overcharged. You're about to
(35:26):
see this that's occur all over again.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
If she is convicted of second degree murder and you
gentlemen have said she's being overcharged. Well, I'll ask you,
does make Does that create a better opportunity for an appeal?
Speaker 4 (35:42):
Theoretically?
Speaker 3 (35:43):
I don't know if it does them much good practically, right,
what do you think about it? You know it absolutely,
you know it creates a group for an appeal. But
who wants to do an appeal while you're riding in
a cell out at the Woman's President at Framingham, you know,
waiting for your lower try to get you out. That's
the danger of all of this. You're talking about life
(36:04):
with the possibility parole. We're on second degree in Massachusetts,
you do twenty three years. I mean, like I told you,
as I told you before, conviction on a motor vehicle
homicide count, even with the alcohol involves, is a one
year minimum mandatory in a house of correction somewhere, which
is basically like day camp compared to going to the
(36:28):
Woman's prison Framingham. So the bottom line is you're not
supposed to overcharge people. You're supposed to charge people what
you know. You honestly believe you could prove. They already
know they can't prove second degree. They already know it.
You know, they don't need to have it, have it
happened all over again, and by charging her with second
(36:51):
degree they may have cost themselves with the conviction for
motivehicle homicide. So the smart thing to do would be
to just proceed under lesser charge. But they can't admit
they're wrong. It's just like they woulded they were wrong
about all the police misconduct of the case. They're not
going to omit they're wrong now.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
And Bill, what about the fact that Brian Albert is
the former homeowner? Now? And you and I discussed this before,
And I don't know if this re enters into the
case again, but the receiling of the basement floor moving
from the home just sort of attempting to push all
of this aside very conveniently. Does that enter into the
(37:29):
picture again at all?
Speaker 4 (37:32):
It may, but then again I don't know it does.
It's helpful on the issue of reasonable doubt, right.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
Bob, do you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
I can tell you the smartest thing the Elberts ever
did was move out of town. But the trouble is,
with the Feds looking at the case, it won't make
a bit of difference if they want to do some
damage here. So I mean, the bottom line is, it's
all white noise. Gary, It's all white noise. We're talking
about something that the jury didn't hear a word about
(38:06):
and won't hear a word about the second time around.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Guys, do any final comments as we wrap it up?
And I really appreciate your time, Bill, do you have
any final thoughts?
Speaker 4 (38:17):
You know, a sequel and it's going to be a
television sequel, and it's going to be a soap opera sequel,
and it's going to continue to fascinate and grab the
public's attention in about another four months or five months.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Yeah, you seem to be disgusted with the whole thing.
Are you as a legal professional?
Speaker 4 (38:37):
Well, I think it's just become a cause celeb and
it needs to be more an issue of jurisprudence and
less an issue of drama.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
And I think it's basically a motor vehicle homicide case
that's gone ay what you know, and in other words,
it's a roottine case that's gone insanely haywire because of
everything we've been talking about and everything we've seen that's
been going on from the beginning, most of which is
occurring outside of the courthouse. And I can tell you
now that the people in that courthouse, and I don't
(39:11):
know this personally, but the people in that court so
I've been in that courthouse for fifty years. I could
tell you now the people in that courthouse don't appreciate
the kind of attention, whether for good or for bad,
that's going on out there. And I just think it
could have been a straightforward case. I think she'd be
home now with are not guilty on a straight motoracle homicide?
(39:33):
And instead what you've got is, you know, Netflix specials
and and ongoing attention for a case that should have
just been routinely handled in the criminal justice system the
same way I would want and handled for you, me
or anyone else.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
Well, maybe if there's a movie somebody will play you
guys as commentators on the radio. How about that?
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Maybe Aben in Costellos.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
You guys have been great, and Bill's been on before.
I really appreciate your time. Bob has been great talking
to you, gentlemen. Take care and have a good night.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Oh thank you, right, take care, Bob?
Speaker 2 (40:10):
All right? Bill? Kick him check him out criminal dot
kickimlegal dot com six one seven two eight five thirty
six hundred. He's in Westwood and Robert George Bob George
is five O eight seven seven six twelve twenty George
law dot com contact us and he is located in Hyennas.
I want to get your phone calls next on this
(40:30):
at six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty. Did
you watch the whole special? We were only able to
watch the first hour. I wanted to get some attorneys
in here and start talking about this. It just it is.
It's a soap opera. It's a made for TV special,
It really is. It's it's gone crazy, and I agree
(40:50):
with Bill. Bill from the beginning has said all they
needed to do is say prove it. They didn't have
to bring in Was he killed in the basement? And I,
I'm such a sucker. I buy into that stuff. I
still wonder, you know, was Officer O'Keefe. Was there a
fight in the basement? Did he fall and hit his head?
Was he dragged outside? Why was he outside? You know,
(41:13):
without a coat. All of those things come into play.
I've seen too many csis and gimitting a homicide, life
on the streets, and law and orders, and I buy
into all that crap. What do you guys think, did
you watch the television show tonight? Did you learn anything?
Do you like her more or less? Did she become
more likable tonight on television? I think she presents herself
(41:37):
very well on television. I think she does. She could
be guilty of overexposure. I'd like to know why they
decided to do it now. To me, it's a desperate
move because they could have aired this prior to the trial.
I think they feel they could get convicted the second
time around, so now they're pulling out all the stops.
(42:01):
That's what I think. But what the hell do I know?
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty the telephone
number your calls on this next on w b Z
It's Nightside with Dan Ray. I'm easy Boston News Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, ol, thanks a lot, big hour, folks, really
big hour going on right now here on night Side.
Gary Tank waiting for Dan Ray. Karen Reader's speaking out
on ABCTV Channel five locally here in Boston. Beginning at
nine o'clock. They were airing an interview with her with
Matt Gutman. So I've been doing a talk show, as
(00:26):
you know, and watching her and just watching and not
really be able to do two things at once because
I'm not that smart. So I'm bringing him some legal
eagles to help me out. Bill kick Him is with
us and attorney Robert George to kind of do an
analysis of what they've seen so far during this special
here on twenty twenty on ABC and channel five. Gentlemen,
(00:49):
thanks for joining us here on night Side.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Glad to be here. You're welcome, Glad to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Okay, So Bill, I'm gonna start with you here. Why
did they decide to hold this because this was recorded
before the trial, from what I understand, was recorded.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
Before the trial. What I understand also why they decided
to hold it unclear? You know, I guess a lot
of people are still scratching their heads as to what's
going on, and they thought it would be a good draw.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Well, I mean, there was a mistrial. Just if people
are listening and they need to play catch up. She
was accused of murdering her boyfriend of police officer General Keef.
There was a mistrial on three counts. That's going to
be tried again in January. So we have seen members
of the O'Keefe family speak out. And I was the brother. Yeah,
(01:40):
I was wondering if that had something to do with this.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Yeah, probably did.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Yeah, you know, so the people who think she's guilty,
the members of the O'Keefe family have spoken out. So
did she feel she needed a rebuttal? Plus also, they
made an appeal to have the second degree degree murder
charge drop. So, you know, Robert our last you I
should know this. Do you prefer Bob? Robert?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
No? Bob is fine? Bob?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Fine?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
So Bob. You know, did they feel because they didn't
get the appeal on the second degree murder and her
family has spoken, they needed to do something?
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well? I find it interesting that, you know, Karen Reid
is so vocal, especially when she didn't testify at her
you know at her first trial, right that she would
ever that she would ever lock herself in to a
version of events, although it's a well known version of
events that she would ever lock herself in to such
(02:39):
a public proclamation, you know, of any kind prior to
a second trial in January. She you know, she's limiting
herself into what into the different directions she could go
if she chose to testify at the second trial. I
guess another thing we should be looking at is this
is her unsworn statement to the public. You know, she's
(03:02):
actually testifying. When she didn't testify at the first trial,
she likely won't testify at the second trial unless something
different happens. And now she's testifying to the general public,
which well, you know, I hate to talk about politics,
but she's trying to fire up her base. I don't
know if firing up her base does are a bit
of good in the courtroom, especially in Norfolk County where
(03:24):
we know what happened the first time around. You know,
she had eight to four hung in the jury room
for a verdict of guilty on this second indictment. And
at this point, all I've seen so you know, Gary,
so far on the special you're talking about is her
(03:46):
and Alan Jackson speaking to the public. And I don't
know when it was filmed or when it wasn't filmed,
but I can tell you this. They're locking themselves into
a version of events that they very well may have
wanted to drop the second time around. It appears that
they did up more than they can chew in the
first child, when all they have to prove is nothing
(04:06):
more than a raising reasonable doubt as opposed to prove
in a very complex and you know, exciting conspiracy theory
that they don't need to prove to win the case.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
You know, Bill, that's a great point, because excuse me, Bob,
that's a great point, Bob, And I want Bill to
jump in on that, because yeah, I mean, I'm not
an attorney, and we talked about this so much that
in one of the discussions I had it might have
even been with you, Bill, you know, I said, isn't
doesn't she just have to prove, Well, she doesn't have
(04:40):
to prove anything. Doesn't she just have to convince the
jury that she didn't hit him with the truck. That's it.
She doesn't have to do this. All this dog and
pony show about what happened in the house, and to
me that that hurt her credibility bill where you have
all these theories that may be true, they may not
be not. I don't know where there was a fight
in the house. Who was killed in the house. They
dragged him from the house, they put them in the
dry way. All they had to do is say, look,
(05:02):
she couldn't have killed them with the truck.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Right in terms of forensics and physics, Yes, because there
was a lot to raise in terms of the physics
of the allegations and the forensics particularly you know, the
lack of injuries to his lower body, which they expected. If,
as you like, that would have striked someone, right, it
would have been I think I think it would have
(05:26):
been better to just try to raise reasonable doubt all
over rather than trying to prove a specific series of events.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Okay, guys, what you've seen so far, and Bob, you
just gave me some thoughts built with what you've seen
on this special and again I've been on the air.
But basically, her attorney and Karen Reid have spoken, has
she done herself? Has she helped her cause at all?
With what she's had to say?
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Well, you know, she's trying the case in the court
of public opinion and not a court that matters. Really,
it really doesn't. And I agree with Bob that she's
limiting her potential theories in this in the retrial by
being so vocal about it. You know, there's a there's
an old expression, Darry in the criminal law when you
(06:17):
try a lot of cases like like I have, you
don't need a horse the water unless you're going to
give it the water, you know, And in this particular case,
her and her attorney, from what I've seen so far,
are still especially her attorney, I mean the California attorney Jackson.
He's very clear in arguing that there is a corrupt
(06:41):
cover up and that there was a murder in the house,
no matter what the pink lad people got in front
of the courthouse or whether the billboards that are all
over the South Shore are saying, that's not something you
have to prove. It's something that's very difficult to get
Lily White Jerry out in Norfolk County to swallow. You know,
(07:05):
back in the day when I was trying a lot
of cases in Norfolk County and even through today, if
you went a police officer who was accused of a crime.
The first place you'd want to try that case is
in Norfolk County because they do not want to believe
that their cops are dirty. Now, I understand in this
case we have some dirty cops. That much is clear,
(07:25):
But as Bill has said, how much of that is
important in determining whether or not she backed the car
to him or did not back the car again if
the forensics, if the forensics set you free, why would
you ever try to prove there was a murder in
a house and that you then took the body and
(07:47):
threw it on your own front yard and waited for
you know, waited for the police to arrive, instead of
taking the body somewhere else and don't forget where the
world would never see it again. It just is something.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Then. I think that that particularly jury pool out in
Norfolk County would have a hard time swallowing. I'm not
saying I believe it or don't believe it. All I'm
saying is why would I take that on if I
don't have to? Right? It doesn't make it. It just doesn't.
It's too much weight to carry.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, I mean, between the prosecution and the defense, the
prosecution has the burden of proof here, all the defense
has to do is raise reasonable doubt. And I agree
with Bob. I mean, when you take a laser focused
approach that only one thing happened and try to prove
that that happened, then the roles between prosecution and defense
(08:37):
are kind of interposed. I mean, now it's the defense
trying to prove that one thing happened, right a reasonable doubt?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Well, but but it's almost like you have two based
on what you're saying. It's like both parties are prosecutors.
The state is trying to prosecute her, but her defense returned.
Are you trying to prosecute the family that own the house?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
The burden the burden improof In any criminal case, as
anyone knows, everybody knows is on the prosecution. They have
to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would I,
as a defense lawyer, try to prove any case beyond
the fact that the conwealth hasn't proven their case beyond
a reasonable doubt when all I'm trying to do is
(09:25):
set the woman free. That's all I'm trying to do
is set the woman free. I'm not trying to make
my case for my novel. I'm not trying to make
my case for my Netflix special. I'm not trying to
make my case so the people up front can cheer
me on the front steps of the courthouse. I'm trying
to set Caaron Read free. And believe me when I
(09:46):
tell you, as she sits here today, she's trying to
figure out how to pay lawyers for a second trial
because they didn't win the first row. I maybe do
no fault of their own it with this particular jury pull.
But when you try to to demonstrate that this this
very this very dramatic conspiracy to murder and murder occurred
(10:09):
in that house, and then you can't prove it, you're
taking on You're taking on a burden you don't have
to take on when, as Bill said, you could be
focused on whether or not the prosecution's proven this case, which,
by the way, in this case they did not do right.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
They did not do they did You're right, and that
was the result of the trial any and the defense
muddied it up. We've guys, We've just getting started. Bill
Kickham is criminal defense attorney. You can find him online
at criminal dot kickim legal dot com. Also, you can
call his office at six one seven two eighty five
thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood. And then Bob George
(10:49):
is joining us, also a criminal defense attorney, and his
phone numbers five aweight seven seven six, twelve twenty and
he's at George Law dot com sless contact us and
he's in Lovely Hiatus again. You can find these gentlemen online.
They're taking time to join us. I have to ask
you about the personalities because this has become a reality
(11:09):
TV show. I understand completely what you guys are saying,
what you gentlemen are saying in regard to what makes
sense for the logistics of the case, but it's become
bigger than that. That's next on wbz's night Side.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
We're talking about the broadcast the airing of Karen Reads
the interview on ABC and Channel five locally that started
at nine o'clock. We understand it's going two hours, but
it was a little late for us to start at eleven,
so we decided to get get in on the action
find out if there was anything different that we learned
through the airing of the special guys. I want to
talk about the personalities involved. Bill Kickham is joining us
(11:52):
and Bob George, both criminal defense attorneys, and Bill, I'll
start with you. She loves this. She is a reality
body TV star right now.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
She loves this, and that's a There's a dangerous instrument
in the human condition and it's called the ego, and
we all have one, and it can be a dangerous
instrumentality because it's very seductive and it's very appealing, but
you know, it can work against you in a million
(12:24):
different ways, and she did. She has become a reality
star and that is, if not a soap opera star,
and that is the reality of this. And to resist
that is it takes a lot of discipline, but she
has become a cause celeb for both sides. I think
(12:47):
I think that her team might have coached her to
contain some of that ego go drawing fascets of the case.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
What do you think, Bob, of her personal.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Let's just say I'm the you know, let's let's imagine
me as the m picturer, you know, the one of
the people that maybe they're trying to reach. I never
heard Cameron Reid's voice until today. I never saw her
express herself until today. All I had was her walking
(13:31):
in and out of court, sitting there in her business suit.
And let's say I had a favorable impression on that.
Let's say that the soft picture, the fuzzy picture that
I was seeing in the court room were appearances. Everything,
especially when you don't testify, is the most important thing
at Jerry can see. Well, now that's all gone. I'm
(13:51):
not saying she's making a bad impression. I'm not saying
she's making a great impression. I'm all I'm saying is
the mystery of Karen Read not testifying is now gone.
So that is a powerful, powerful tool of defense, has
my understanding? Isn't the second part of the show, which
(14:12):
we're not watching now, and she talks about how she
dresses for record, She talks about her sleeve length, she
talks about what closed she picks for court, and how
she presents herself. Well, the problem with that is, and
having done a thousand interviews with cameras, it's hard to
present yourself in a sympathetic way when the camera is
(14:36):
heating up your face and melting your makeup and you're
on TV. Perhaps, like Bill says, for the first time
in her whole life, and it's just once again, Gary,
she's taking on more than she has to take on. See,
what makes this whole show odd is that there is
a pending retrial in her case. There is no there
(15:01):
is no final verdict. So for us, whether it's ABC
or Alan Jackson, Orkaron Reid or whoever trying to get
glory from or get attention from this show, good or bad,
it's it's odd because the timing of it is before
(15:23):
a retrial in January, and if she doesn't want to
testify in January for whatever reason, perhaps she can't stand
up on cross examination because he doesn't have the personality
for it. Perhaps it's a strategic move. You don't want
to testify for obvious reasons because you don't want to
once again take on more than you have to take on.
(15:43):
But that is now gone because she has told the
story that she has to stick to without fine tuning
it to the left or to the right or upper down,
because she's been on national DP which will be played
in the courtroom. If she ever varies her story one
(16:04):
eye order from what she's saying on TV tonight, it
just isn't good strategy. As far as I'm concerned, that's
just me talking, that's all Bill.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
What if she's telling the truth.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
Well, if she's telling the truth, that's a powerful element.
But it does I go back to what Bob says,
it locks her in, right, So.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Here's my point, just to try to play Devil's advocate
with it, like I'm trying to think out loud. So
possibly she testifies the second time around, right, Maybe she does.
Maybe she just does decide to testify. This is the
warm up act. The strategy could be, Bill, you have
to keep your testimony the same as what you did
(16:47):
on television. So they watched the television, they watch the tape.
She rehearses it, rehearses it. Maybe she's telling the truth.
So she tells the same story. And it's not a story,
it's real. I don't know, I'm throwing it out there, but.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
It's basically, she would be retelling the story that her
attorney's already told.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Is it different coming from her?
Speaker 4 (17:11):
It had more pinematic impact coming from the defendant herself.
But she would be subjecting herself to cross examination from
the prosecutor, which could be withering.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
And not only that, why you know everybody knows that
the last place a person wants to be in the court, well,
let alone being in the courthouse is on the witness right.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
The last place, well, Bob, you know, I hear you, Bob,
but let me she's I don't want to misspeak because
I don't know her. We're talking, Bob, we're talking about
a unique personality. Maybe she wants to be on the
stand she I mean guys personally like, I don't know
how you would feel about defending her, But to me,
(17:55):
it seems like it would be a nightmare. I mean
an absolute like, Bob, based on which you're telling me,
I don't think you would defend her. I don't think
there's enough money in the world for you to take
this case.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Well, the bottom line is it's a it's a good try,
it's a great triable case. The second time around, it
is not as triable as the first time because the
first time you have the options of going in one
hundred different directions. Now you're locked in because of transcripts
and records and tape. You know, you know, transcripts of
(18:27):
the first trial lock you into what you can do
in the second trial. But say in the second trial
you wanted to try it in a much cleaner sense.
You wanted to just put it in on reasonable doubt,
which I'm telling you is the way out is the
way out the front door of the courthouse. I'm telling
you that's the way.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And Bill Bill Bill was on early when we talked
to Bill earlier during the trial, and he said the
same thing. There's no doubt about it, Bill is And
what both of you guys answered this, is there anything
that she did that you guys saw on television to
night that would help her cause, whether it's her appearance,
the story she told. She seems to be very confident.
(19:06):
I'm looking at visual cues because I have the volume down.
She seems to be somebody who's very confident in her story.
So Bill, I'll start with you. Did she help her
cause with what you've seen in public opinion? Because that's
all that matters in public opinion.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Yeah. I didn't see the full tape because I was
a little late getting to the TV. But I don't
think she lacks in terms of confidence and in terms
of presentation. I just think that you know, Bob is
right when he says that she's locked herself in to
a certain version that she cannot vary at all from
(19:45):
and that is limiting.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And I know, I know, go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
I noticed some people who, especially to you, Gary, that
it sounds what Bill and I say, you know that
someone is locking themselves in that The easy answer is
to say, oh, if she's locking herself into the truth,
what difference does it make? The courtroom is is is
a very difficult place. You know, you're inside the four
(20:13):
sterile walls of a courtroom trying to convince sixteen people
sitting in a jury box that you know you're you're
you're innocent. You know you're that the government has a
proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a place
that's sterile. It's it's not, it's not, as Bill said,
in the court of public opinion. That's why all of
(20:35):
these protesters or supporters outside of the courthouse don't make
a bit of difference to what happens in the courtroom,
other other than irritating court officers, sitting jurors, judges, probation officers,
and witnesses in the courthouse. In other words, it could hurt.
(21:00):
It could hurt much more than help. That's the trouble.
Everything we're talking about is as trial lawyers, and whether
or not, whether she's confident or not, whether or not
she looks like a million bucks on TV or not,
whether or not it matters, It doesn't matter in the
courtroom because in the courtroom, that's where the action is.
(21:23):
That's where the verdict comes in. And I'm telling you
that always drama going on outside the courthouse may not
be helping her. It may make her, it may make
it may make the defense feel much more confident and
powerful and give them a mission. But I'm telling you,
when it comes to what's happening in that courtroom, it
(21:44):
doesn't matter.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
No, it may as well be a thousand miles away,
you know, it's if it's you know, a two dozen
feet away, it doesn't matter. I mean, I noticed the
passion of these protesters. They if you looked at them
and you watch them and you listen to them, they
really believed that their presence there was going to swing
(22:07):
the juror's verdict. They really believed that they were going
to make a difference, right. And you know, it would
be hard to convince them if you took them aside
and say, you know, you're being here isn't going to
change things? One way or the other. They probably never
believed you, but they.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
See as Bill has said it. Bill's right. But the
thing is what I'm trying to say, what I hope
the impression I'm conveying is this, there is plenty of
meat on this bone for beaten. They've beaten the prosecution
into the ground with text messages, bad cops, bad forensics,
(22:51):
bad everything. But you could bring all of that in
just trying your case unreasonable doubt without staying to a jury.
I'm going to prove to you that the Alberts and
everyone in that house murdered John O'Keefe and then took
him down the basement and brought him up the bulkhead
(23:12):
and threw them out in the front yard for the
world to find. I mean, why would I take that on,
even if I believe it, if I could bring it
in at the trial without biting it off of something
I'm trying to prove to a jury, even if I
don't have to prove anything to a jury. They have
to prove the case, not me, and they have not
(23:33):
proven their case. Who knows if that jury got hung
up because they didn't believe that the defense hadn't proven
to them there was a conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Oh, there's no doubt. And I know Bill has talked
about that un an appearance before they mucked it up.
And I said, and folks, and Bill Kickham is our guest,
along with Robert George, both the criminal defense attorneys. We
got more coming up with these guys. I have some
questions to ask them about the defense attorneys. And if
you want to reach Bill you can do so at
criminal dot kickim legal dot com six one seven two
(24:07):
eighty five thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood. And Bob George,
criminal defense attorney, he's in Hyannis at five o' eight
seven seven six twelve twenty and you can reach them
online at George lawt dot com slash contact us. Desperation
by the Defense is next on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
It's Night Side with Dan on WBZA, Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Well thanks a lot, buddy, Bill kick him. Bob George,
criminal defense Attorney's joining us here on Night's Side, breaking
down the first hour of the Karen Reid special. Well,
it's really crazy, fellas, with technology now and the way
television happens. I just I just had a reality check.
We are sitting here talking about a woman who's going
on trial and watching her TV show, it is really bonkers.
(24:55):
So Bill, I want to start with you on this.
Everything that you've said and what Bob says makes complete sense.
So I'm wondering why her defense team does not follow
your thought pattern. Are they desperate? Do they feel because
she is being retried that she's going to go to jail?
And this is a hail Mary.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Well?
Speaker 4 (25:20):
Any why did they choose to do what they did
because in any given case, sometimes there's a variety of
ways to approach it, and Monday morning quarterbacking is not
something I enjoy doing it. I don't want to do it.
But they made their decisions because they I think largely
(25:42):
they felt that they had enough malignancy to present on
the police side and the investigative side and the state
police and the local police that they wanted to go
and present that malignancy as as strongly as they could.
They felt it was their strongest suit.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
So do they think they're going to lose? That's what
I'm wondering. I mean, I listen, I'm asking you guys
to speculate, and it's it's almost like we're talking about
a football game, which is a little scary, but I
don't and I know you have to answer in the
best way manner because you're professionals, best way you can
I mean, Bob, That's what I'm wondering. Are they're so
desperate thinking they need to get the court of public
(26:24):
opinion in, they need to try to sway this somehow.
They need a letter writing I mean an email writing campaign,
because they think she's going to go to jail if
they don't do something. Because what everybody has told me,
including you, gentlemen, is that the second time around, it's
really hard to get off.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Well it's because it's because the prosecution has already learned
what your defense is. They put they plug the holes. Well,
they you can't plug a hole, as Michael Procter in
this case, you know, you couldn't. You couldn't possibly do it.
You couldn't cover up the police missed Diggs and that
can't leash mistakes in a million years. But the trouble
(27:04):
is they now know what the defense is.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
So I mean, were there really any do you think
there were any surprises?
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Well there may not have been surprises, but now that
they've hurt the defenses, right, they will plug those holes.
Unless they're dumb. But now you've got a television special
they had that further experience that further exposes and explains
the defense that they'll try to plug those holes. But
as far as your question Gary about why people don't
(27:35):
do these kinds of things, you know, the Code of
Ethics in Massachusetts says that you can't try the case
of in the court of public opinion, and the local
rules for the federal court actually prohibited. And because we
don't know when this was filmed, I just want to
say one thing. I only saw Alan Jackson, uh, you know,
(27:57):
in the first half of this this uh, and he's
the one barking, you know, barking about the police conspiracy
and the murder in the house. So we don't know
what what the you know, whether the David and Ettie
is involved in this, which I don't believe he is,
at least not what I saw on the first you
(28:18):
know before I it.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
Seems to the LA guys the lead dog in this race.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
And here's the problem. You've got a guy who you know,
who's been involved in Harvey Weinstein's case, who's involved in
Still Spector's case, who's involved in all these other high
profile cases that we've heard about. But the trouble is,
he's doing his interview from la He's doing his interview
from Hollywood. He's not sitting out and get him and
doing his interview. He's not sending in downtown Boston where
(28:45):
you know where people are going to judge her in January.
You know, these these claims are being made from a
skyscraper in Beverly Hills. So the problem is the problem is,
and the problem is going to be that she needs
to get a fair trial the second time around, and
if the case is tried clean and sharp, without all
(29:07):
the side tracking, she could very well get on with
her life and put this behind her. But the thing
we're forgetting is if she gets convicted of the motor vehicle,
you know, a homicide aspect of the case, she's looking
at a one year minimum mandatory, So she's going to jail.
And all of this I don't believe. I don't know.
(29:28):
I don't think it's being done in any way to
feather their own nest. I don't know if there's any
strategy behind it or anything. All I know is, in
my opinion, in my opinion, she hasn't hurt herself at all.
But I don't know if it helps, That's all I'm saying.
And I don't think it does help. I don't think
it hurts. I don't think it helps.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Don do you see this as a as a desperate move?
I mean, bills? Do you have any further comment on that?
Speaker 4 (29:57):
Well, whether or not to deserate moves largely turns on
whether or not that they influenced when it was going
to be broadcast. You know, I don't know that her
defense team targeted this day or targeted this time. I
don't know from what I understand, generally speaking, this was
(30:18):
filmed at least two months ago.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Oh, this was before the trial, right, So I think
that the deal that they made with ABC was we
will determine when it can be aired, because I think
that's what the attorney wanted to do. He wanted to
keep this as a chip in his pocket, you know.
He wanted when do I need to play this? And
maybe they've and obviously they felt that they needed to
(30:42):
play this. Now. Is there any way that this affects
the jury? And I know that the Bobbers talked about
this bill, but what about because everybody's going to see this?
That's another thing. I mean, there's no way members of
the jury are gonna they're going to see it. So yeah,
I mean they're going to see it. So because of
(31:04):
what happened, what happened, because of what happened with the mistrial,
does the defense team say, well, we've got to put
this out there, We've got to try to sell the
jury before it's even selected.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
I don't know that that's going to help much.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Yeah, Jerry, the jury is going to be asked, the
jury pooll is going to be asked at the second
you know, at the second sitting, whether or not they've
seen this. They won't mention this specifically, and unless they
in less then they lie, which, by the way, you know,
let's not be stupid.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
You know, people lie, They're going to people are gonna lie.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
They're gonna lie.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Yeah, But the thing is, if they've seen it and
it's affected their opinion, they're supposed to they're supposed to reveal.
But I know that, I know, I know. But the
first time around, it seems like they picked the jury
that was able to, you know, to be able to
shell all that stuff out, able to keep all that
stuff out of the jury room because they went in
(32:04):
there and they deliberated, and they came back, and no
matter whether you believe what's been going on in the
post trial stuff or not, it seems like they were
able to filter out all of the screaming and yelling
in front of the courthouse and everything that was on
the news every night, and all the opinions that were
all over the internet, and Turtle Boy and the rest
of their crew outside. They were able to come to
(32:27):
a decision, well sorry, come to an indecision in the case,
and able to keep all of that stuff out of
their deliberation room. It seems that that's what happened, because
if it hadn't happened, they would have marched about the
door in ten minutes. Were not guilties.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
We got a final segment coming up, guys, I have
some final questions on one lies ahead coming up next again.
Criminal defense attorneys have been kind enough to join us
and Bill kick Him and Bob George. You can reach
Bell at six seven eight five thirty six hundred in
Westwood and at criminal dot Keekeimleegal dot com and Bob
at five oweight seven seven six twelve twenty again at
(33:04):
George Law dot com, slash contact us final segments, So
final questions for our attorneys coming up on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Now Back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Welcome back to night Side talking about the Karen retronel
and the appearance on ABC tonight, Bill kick Him and
Bob George criminal defense attorneys, guys, thank you so much
for your time here insight. It's been great. So what
about as we stand right now? And Bill also, you
were you surprised that they weren't able to get rid
of the second degree murder charge?
Speaker 3 (33:42):
I was.
Speaker 4 (33:42):
I thought there would be some interest in finding some
that negotiated posture, but it seems as though Norfolk DA
is just you know, inflexible on this and they're just
going to do They're going to retry the whole thing.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
What did you think about that, Bob.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Haven't been involved in you know, post trial inquiries into
into juries and you know, and deliberations when you get
contact from jurors. I wasn't surprised, only because the jurors
themselves didn't come forward and weren't prepared to come in
with affidavits and testify front and judge. Canone you know
(34:23):
as to what happened. Had they had those jurors you know,
offered to do that, the four or five jurors that
you know that the defense had spoken to, perhaps they
would have been in a better position to come into
court and have a hearing where jurors will put on
the witness stand and examined. But when jurors are second
(34:43):
and third hand hearsay, you know when you're getting information
second and third end yearsay. Most judges, if not all judges,
are not going to stick their fingers into the jury
room and try to interfere in deliberations. So I agree
with Bill that if the prosecution wanted to have a
stronger case second time around, without all the white noise
(35:06):
of the extra charges. Because Karen Reid has been overcharged,
everybody knows that. You don't need to go to law
school to know that she shouldn't be charged with murder
in this case. But the bottom line is because he's
dug because they've dug their heels in out of Norfolk
County and won't admit that they've overcharged. You're about to
(35:26):
see this that's occur all over again.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
If she is convicted of second degree murder and you
gentlemen have said she's being overcharged. Well, I'll ask you,
does make Does that create a better opportunity for an appeal?
Speaker 4 (35:42):
Theoretically?
Speaker 3 (35:43):
I don't know if it does them much good practically, right,
what do you think about it? You know it absolutely,
you know it creates a group for an appeal. But
who wants to do an appeal while you're riding in
a cell out at the Woman's President at Framingham, you know,
waiting for your lower try to get you out. That's
the danger of all of this. You're talking about life
(36:04):
with the possibility parole. We're on second degree in Massachusetts,
you do twenty three years. I mean, like I told you,
as I told you before, conviction on a motor vehicle
homicide count, even with the alcohol involves, is a one
year minimum mandatory in a house of correction somewhere, which
is basically like day camp compared to going to the
(36:28):
Woman's prison Framingham. So the bottom line is you're not
supposed to overcharge people. You're supposed to charge people what
you know. You honestly believe you could prove. They already
know they can't prove second degree. They already know it.
You know, they don't need to have it, have it
happened all over again, and by charging her with second
(36:51):
degree they may have cost themselves with the conviction for
motivehicle homicide. So the smart thing to do would be
to just proceed under lesser charge. But they can't admit
they're wrong. It's just like they woulded they were wrong
about all the police misconduct of the case. They're not
going to omit they're wrong now.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
And Bill, what about the fact that Brian Albert is
the former homeowner? Now? And you and I discussed this before,
And I don't know if this re enters into the
case again, but the receiling of the basement floor moving
from the home just sort of attempting to push all
of this aside very conveniently. Does that enter into the
(37:29):
picture again at all?
Speaker 4 (37:32):
It may, but then again I don't know it does.
It's helpful on the issue of reasonable doubt, right.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
Bob, do you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3 (37:46):
I can tell you the smartest thing the Elberts ever
did was move out of town. But the trouble is,
with the Feds looking at the case, it won't make
a bit of difference if they want to do some
damage here. So I mean, the bottom line is, it's
all white noise. Gary, It's all white noise. We're talking
about something that the jury didn't hear a word about
(38:06):
and won't hear a word about the second time around.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Guys, do any final comments as we wrap it up?
And I really appreciate your time, Bill, do you have
any final thoughts?
Speaker 4 (38:17):
You know, a sequel and it's going to be a
television sequel, and it's going to be a soap opera sequel,
and it's going to continue to fascinate and grab the
public's attention in about another four months or five months.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Yeah, you seem to be disgusted with the whole thing.
Are you as a legal professional?
Speaker 4 (38:37):
Well, I think it's just become a cause celeb and
it needs to be more an issue of jurisprudence and
less an issue of drama.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
And I think it's basically a motor vehicle homicide case
that's gone ay what you know, and in other words,
it's a roottine case that's gone insanely haywire because of
everything we've been talking about and everything we've seen that's
been going on from the beginning, most of which is
occurring outside of the courthouse. And I can tell you
now that the people in that courthouse, and I don't
(39:11):
know this personally, but the people in that court so
I've been in that courthouse for fifty years. I could
tell you now the people in that courthouse don't appreciate
the kind of attention, whether for good or for bad,
that's going on out there. And I just think it
could have been a straightforward case. I think she'd be
home now with are not guilty on a straight motoracle homicide?
(39:33):
And instead what you've got is, you know, Netflix specials
and and ongoing attention for a case that should have
just been routinely handled in the criminal justice system the
same way I would want and handled for you, me
or anyone else.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
Well, maybe if there's a movie somebody will play you
guys as commentators on the radio. How about that?
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Maybe Aben in Costellos.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
You guys have been great, and Bill's been on before.
I really appreciate your time. Bob has been great talking
to you, gentlemen. Take care and have a good night.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Oh thank you, right, take care, Bob?
Speaker 2 (40:10):
All right? Bill? Kick him check him out criminal dot
kickimlegal dot com six one seven two eight five thirty
six hundred. He's in Westwood and Robert George Bob George
is five O eight seven seven six twelve twenty George
law dot com contact us and he is located in Hyennas.
I want to get your phone calls next on this
(40:30):
at six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty. Did
you watch the whole special? We were only able to
watch the first hour. I wanted to get some attorneys
in here and start talking about this. It just it is.
It's a soap opera. It's a made for TV special,
It really is. It's it's gone crazy, and I agree
(40:50):
with Bill. Bill from the beginning has said all they
needed to do is say prove it. They didn't have
to bring in Was he killed in the basement? And I,
I'm such a sucker. I buy into that stuff. I
still wonder, you know, was Officer O'Keefe. Was there a
fight in the basement? Did he fall and hit his head?
Was he dragged outside? Why was he outside? You know,
(41:13):
without a coat. All of those things come into play.
I've seen too many csis and gimitting a homicide, life
on the streets, and law and orders, and I buy
into all that crap. What do you guys think, did
you watch the television show tonight? Did you learn anything?
Do you like her more or less? Did she become
more likable tonight on television? I think she presents herself
(41:37):
very well on television. I think she does. She could
be guilty of overexposure. I'd like to know why they
decided to do it now. To me, it's a desperate
move because they could have aired this prior to the trial.
I think they feel they could get convicted the second
time around, so now they're pulling out all the stops.
(42:01):
That's what I think. But what the hell do I know?
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty the telephone
number your calls on this next on w b Z
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!