June 18, 2025 • 38 mins
After 21 hours of deliberations, the jury in the Karen Read murder trial found Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend John O’Keefe. However, the jury did find Read guilty of OUI, which was a lesser charge that was added to the verdict slip for the second trial. Judge Beverly Cannone sentenced Read to one year probation after the verdict was announced. Read will be sentenced at a later court date. We spoke with criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy about the conclusion of Karen Read’s series of tumultuous trials!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back. Everybody, got one line opened six.
We'll get to Tim and Mark and Justin and Judy,
I promise, But first we're going to talk with Boston
longtime criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy. Fill your reaction to
the verdict today. How surprised or how how expecting expected
were you of it?
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Well?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
I was not surprised because reasonable doubt had been built
into this case and by a lot of collateral issues
that had nothing to do with the actual death. Oh well,
excuse me that the stuff with the police and their
bad behavior in their unprofessional way, and the investigation was
(00:55):
somewhat compromised by the way they went about it. The
reality was it was a tough case to investigate in
one sense, blinding snowstorm, the middle of the night, black
and of course the people had been drinking. And of
course I think the jury wondered why didn't they go
knock on the front door of the house.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
There reasonable question, reasonable question, no doubt. Yeah. The other
question is do you think do you think do you
think Morrissey overcharged the case the DA?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (01:26):
Absolutely, I like Morrissey I think he's a fair guy.
But I will tell you the way to approach this
case for me would have been strictly motor vehicle uh manslaughter.
In other words, instead of going for murder, they should
have gone for the motor vehicle manslaughter. Now that happens
all the time, you know, you hear what these horrendous crashes,
(01:49):
somebody's killed, that's you know, they get serious sentences for
committing O U Y while one and committing death. And
this is what we have here. We have her death.
The jury has said she was under the influence, and
I think the evidence says she was well onder the influence.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Yeah, it was. That's an interesting issue, Phil, And I'll
ask a criminal defense lawyer. I'm going to ask you this. Obviously,
this videotape of her drinking, she's said and acknowledged that
she had several drinks, however, she wanted to quantify them.
And then whatever happened at twelve thirty in Canton happened.
She wakes up at five o'clock in the morning, returns
(02:33):
looking for his body, finds, finds the body. At some point,
then she is taken into custody and she is given
I'm not sure if it was a breathalyzer or a
blend alcohol contact test, but whatever she exhibited it was,
it was over you know, the point zero eight? Oh yeah, presumption.
(02:55):
How did they backtrack that? Phil In other words, if
just because you will point zero eight at nine o'clock
in the morning or whatever, you I think she might
have been pulled one for I assume that she might
have been higher than that earlier in the morning, if
you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Yeah, I think that's not in question. Now. Of course
she is outside with her lawyers and her fans. They're
so happy about the situation. But the reality is she
was drunk. I don't believe in this conspiracy theory that
(03:38):
the police beat them up and guard shoot them up
and they threw them out on their front lawn. That
doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of how would
you keep everybody from cracking under that kind of pressure
to disclose the truth? Now, what happened. She must have
(03:58):
hit them and it was probably accidental, and I think
the jury felt there was reasonable though built into the
case by a lot of the collateral and extraneous issues,
and so therefore they weren't going to find her guilty.
They were never going to find a guilty of second
grew murder because they don't. I don't think they thought
(04:20):
that she was trying to kill him. Now she could
have been. There's a lot of theories about this. She
could have been mad at him because whether he wanted
to go to party or she did whatever. She backed
up at twenty four miles an hour, that's an incredibly
fast reversal speed. So I don't know what happened. I
(04:41):
don't know when she went back. She went right to
the spot. She didn't go to the driveway on the
other side. She went right to the spot where he
was with her vehicle.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
So that arguably is a consciousness of guilt issue. The
fact that she didn't get on the witness stand problem.
He was a wise thing, but it was not a
wise thing to do those those interviews. I guess Christina
Rextelmi earlier tonight be that she was doing those during
the period of time of the first trial.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
I think I think Christina did a great job covering
this case. But I will tell you this, I think
I feel badly for missus O'Keefe, the mother and the
children here. This guy was somewhat of a hero of
Boston police offic who adopted two children from his sister
who had died along with her husband. So he had quality.
(05:38):
There was a quality individual.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Not every not every guy would do that, there's no question.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
About And they were breaking up, and you know, it's
a very con Now. I've never seen anybody go through
two trials as happy as this defendant, smiling, waving for
the camera, you know, sort of promenading for the camera.
(06:03):
I didn't like it at all. I would have liked
more humbled us and more sympathy for the Okay family.
But that's not what you got in.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
This case, not at all. Phil. Tracy has always thank
you very much. I got pack lines. So I'm going
to keep going to my listeners. Thank you, my friend.
We will talk soon. Thanks for thanks for all your
help along the way in this one. Phil. I don't
know about you, but I'm glad it's finally over.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Oh I'm glad it's over. This had ever been a
hung jury, I couldn't imagine putting the Okey family through this. Again.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I agree with you that although they probably would have
wanted it, when you think about it, wanted.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Case that's coming. And she even found to have been drunk,
so that will.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Will civil case not against herbing against the the bars
that they may they may have deeper pockets. Thanks you
have one. Let me go next to Tim and Worcester. Tim,
want to get you in here. You've been on hold
for a long time.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Go ahead, Tim, Hey Dan, how you doing? And I
know Sill's a buddy, he goes, but he's got an
axtra grind. I mean to let him get on there
and say the stuff he's saying. That's ridiculous. She was
found not guilty. She was found innocent.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Let's be let's be accurate. He No one's found innocent.
You're either found guilty or not guilty and not guilty.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
You know, however you want to semantics, but dantics that
you're Tim.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Tim. I'm not looking to fight with you. I just
want to Tim, please give me the courtesy of being
able to explain the difference to the audience. Okay, you
were innocent of this crime. You had nothing to do
with this you ye. Okay. The jury never comes back
and says innocent. They will either say guilty or not guilty.
That's all. That's all I want people to understand. Because
(07:49):
there's a lot of confusion about that go.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Ahead however, however you guys want to frame it. But
the bottom line is doing you know better than anybody.
You're the one that works so hot on the Joe
Sevadie case, the Pitty DJ case, all the circumstances there,
they uncovered the fraud amongst the FBI. What I find
to be interesting is that this time the FBI actually
came in and helped. The SEDGE actually came in and
(08:12):
helped in this case. And back then when you were
investigating all that, the State Police were the ones that
were doing everything on the up and up, and the
FBI wasn't. Now this can down. Here we are thirty
forty years later, it's the FEDS that came in and
saved the day, and it's the state police that are
under the microscope. And you know, Phil can get on
and say everything he wants to say, but the bottom
(08:33):
line is you've got to the focus should be on
the FEDS and the job that they did. They're the
ones that went and talked, took statements from Higgins, Alberts,
Jim McCabe, Colin Albert, They went down to Bridgewater, the
state and they ended up interviewing the kid. So the
Feds saved the day. They didn't have to do any
of that. They didn't have to do any of that.
They didn't have to hire an action and reconstructions, they
(08:55):
didn't have to do any of that. And i'd like
you to comment on that then, because the Feds really
did save the day.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Well, I don't know what the purpose that the federal
investigation which has been rumored. I've never seen any documentation
of whether they were investigating wrongdoing by other people who
have been purportedly associated with the case or not. So
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
I guess my question is, Dan, how come they couldn't
mention the Feds were the ones that did the investigation
and the grand jury to the jury. How come they
couldn't mention the Fed? How come that had to be
kept a secret? How come that could not be let up?
You know?
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Well, first of all, the Feds publicly were asked and
they said no comment. The Feds are always saying no comment.
The current US Attorney, Leo Foley is very adamant in
releasing information, which I think will make her it an
excellent US attorney. But my recollection, and I'm telling you,
(09:58):
I will be the first to admit had not covered
this case on a daily basis. I'm a talk show host.
I'm not you did it somebody in.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
The Soviety case. You did that case. I mean, the
way you had passion for the Seviety case is the
way people have passions.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
You can't know. And let me tell you something. I
worked the Selvidi case as a reporter day in and
day out, night in and night out. Along with being
a reporter and TV I followed this case a little
bit mindus standing. There was an investigation that the FEDS ran,
and I think they were looking at some of the
other circumstances and they came back with nothing.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
I don't know, Dan, you know, Dan, what they did
was they ended up going down to the school and
interviewing the kid. They went and interviewed Jim mckaye, They
interviewed Brian all But, they interviewed Brian Higgins. They did
a wonderful job in their investigation and then they handed
it over to the defense and defense that's why the
defense had the accident reconstructionist on. He was the one
(10:55):
that was able to testify. That wasn't their witness. That
was the fed's witness.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Well, look, if the FEDS in effect assisted the what
you're trying to tell me, and I'm more than happy
to listen to it, that the FEDS attempted to help
the defense team. Correct?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Correct?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Okay? Assuming that's true, that means that the FEDS must
have doubted that Karen Reid had any wrongdoing in this matter?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Correct? Right? They did not follow.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
This logically with me, Tim. Okay. So, now, if the
FEDS believed that Karen Reid had no wrongdoing in this matter,
why did they not prevail upon the district attorney and said, look,
here's what we've found out. You got the wrong person here.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Oh, I'm sure they did. I'm sure they did.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
If the FEDS walk in and tell If the FEDS
walk in and tell a district attorney you got the
wrong pre I think you're making some leaps of faith here, Tim,
which might not be justified. That's all I'm trying to
say to you.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, I mean, i'm you know, I'm I'm in the
same boat you're in. Dan, We're all, we're all. I
didn't investigate it the way you did the Solvati case,
and you know, I mean, basically we're all just getting
the information as we see it. But the bottom line
is we'd be remiss if we didn't think that the
FEDS had a lot to do with this and very
helpful in her case.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Well again, if they were as helpful as you suggest,
my question is why did they not try to interrupt
the prosecution. I'll just leave that there and we'll just
maybe someone smarter than you and me we'll be able
to answer that one.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Fair enough sounds good.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Thank you, Jim, appreciate the call. Quick break here at
Nightside only line is six one seven.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
All right, we're going to get back to the phones
here real quickly and we're going to go to Judy
and ever Judy your next on Nightside Goright ahead, Judy,
thank you for taking the time to call in tonight
your thoughts on this.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Well, thank you for taking the call.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
Sir.
Speaker 6 (13:04):
I am a corporate investigator in the corporate world for
many forty four years, and this case was with troublesome
from the word go sure, I want to make a prediction,
and I understand exactly what you're saying, guilty and not guilty,
and I predict someday, and I hope I'm alive to
hear it. Somebody is their conscience is going to get
them and somebody's going to talk or they're going to
(13:26):
say something to somebody, and I think it will come
out someday, because how do you live with this?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So I assume I just want to make sure I'm clear,
I understand what you're saying. I assume you believe that
Karen Reid was not involved in the death of John O'Keefe,
and you think that there was some other party that
was involved in it, and some one of those individuals
will come forward.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
That's my feeling.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
That's my feeling.
Speaker 6 (13:56):
And maybe she knows, and maybe that she knows, maybe
she was there. Maybe things happened that we'll never know
because there's an investigator. You try to turn every stone
and open every door, but sometimes you don't always.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Get what you need.
Speaker 6 (14:10):
And I feel that's what will happen.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
Somebody's conscience will It's a terrible thing. How do you
live with that?
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Well?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
I can only tell you that there's no statute limitation
in Massachusetts on murder, so if something really untoward happened,
those people could be at risk for twenty thirty, forty
forty years from now, so we'll see absolutely.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
And we've seen it in the past. I mean, it
has happened on occasions that you know, you hear somebody
on their deathbed, you know, this is what I did.
And I feel for the O'Keefe family, I truly do.
I mean because at the end of the day, there
was a fatality in this in those kids.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah, I always had hoped that whoever else might have
been involved, because I'm convinced that there was more involved
in the John Kennedy President Kennedy assassination. I agree alive
for that, and I don't know if you were or not,
but I was alive for that. And I always thought
there would be someone on their deathbed who would get
some religion and say, you know, I got I gotta
(15:16):
tell you here's what happened.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
But if they find the higher power and they just
have to get it off their chests, and I'm convinced,
I think at some point in time and maybe it
will give the closure to the O'Keefe family, because I
think they deserve that. In a lot of callers have mentioned,
you know, it was watched, and we all know that,
but we can't go backwards.
Speaker 5 (15:36):
We have to go, you know, forwards.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, it's botched and she is at this point she
has she's not going to be prosecuted for this case. Again.
I mean, it's it's it's over for her. It's oh
sadly over for John O'Keefe. And you know, again, it
just it proves us to us that we don't live
in a perfect world, because in a perfect world we
(16:00):
would know exactly what happened. I don't think we do
know what happened at this point.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
Yeah, and she has to live with herself too. I
mean that's going to be that won't.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
Be easy, you know.
Speaker 6 (16:09):
And the gentleman had mentioned prior to the prior call
is that, you know, I felt that she should be
more humble. Well, I have interviewed people that have committed
million dollar crimes and some laugh, some cry.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
Everybody handles themselves differently.
Speaker 6 (16:24):
Too, so we have to take that into consideration.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
But I do think that that for tonight and going forward,
she can always say, Look, I was tried for the
murder and for the manslaughter and for leaving the scene
of an accident, and I was acquitted on those three charges.
So I think that.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
If she was overcharged. You're absolutely right, she was overcharged
and it could have been a different outcome. But that
should have, would have, could have. And at the end
of the day, I just hope both families can go forward.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Yeah, it's got to be tough. It's just got to
be tough. Again. It just shows what do they say
your mother told you when you were young, Nothing good
happens after midnight, and this is a proof of that,
that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
With alcohol involved.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
Don't forget that.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Oh no, no, no, So generally that is a that
is a companion after midnight in some form of fashion. Judy,
thanks very much. I don't know I've had the pleasure
of your company before, but thank you for calling. I
really really appreciated your call.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
I have a great evening.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
You're welcome. Okay, we're right up on our news. So
I've got Harvey Silverglade waiting on the other side of
the newscast, Matt and Florida. We're going to get to Matt,
going to get to Mark and Boston and Justin got
a couple of lines. You guys know the numbers, fill
them up. Coming back on nightside.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
You're on night side with Dan Ray. I'm telling you
Boston's news radio, all.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Right, going to try to move quickly. I'm going to
go to Harvey Silverglade who joins us. Harvey longtime criminal
defense attorney from Cambridge. He's handled some very high profile trials.
I assume, Harvey, you are not surprised by the outcome today.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
I was not surprised at all. I would have been
active stay with Henry being other than the verdict of
the jury. I was surprised that it took two trials
to get to this point. And let me tell you
what the point of my call is. Morrissey. DJ Morrissey
spent a lot of money, the taxpayers money, hiring a
(18:19):
special prosecutor. The case could have been lost for free.
And that's that's my point. Was a clear loser and
it could have been lost for nothing.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Well that's the irony, that's the already no again. I'm
sure that he thought it was a brilliant move to
bring Hank Brennan in, who's a good defense lawyer. I'm
sure you know his reputation. Maybe Morrissey thought, well, I'll
bring a defense lawyer in to be the special prosecutor.
And he will be able to figure out where the
(18:57):
defense wants to go. Maybe he figured that was the
sort of change up that he needed, but it didn't work.
It didn't work.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
One of the things that surprised me was that Hank
Brennan didn't say to Morrissey, this is a loser just
ind for drunk driving.
Speaker 8 (19:15):
Yeah, I mean he is.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
He's a very good defense lawyer. He should have known better.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Okay, well, you know, next time I talked to Hank,
I'll tell him you said so. Uh no, yeah, but
uh you know again, like anything else, a lot of lawyers,
and Hank's a goodwin. Lawyers rise to the challenge. Lawyers
take on tough cases. I remember, you know you had
the Louise Woodward case. I was convinced that of her
(19:43):
guilt until I saw your presentation in court. And that
was the moment in time where I said this, Harvey
silver Glat knows how to try try a case, and
you you were masterful in that case.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
I guess Hank Brennan made a tack the cool decision
here and took on a case that was tougher than
even he could have imagined. But bottom line is, the
system works. I think it was a gest under the
circumstances that that I was exposed to.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Go ahead, Harvey, the Uberna, the Lewis Woodward case. She
gets about it, She gets in touch with me every
start working from England. She is now a mother.
Speaker 8 (20:22):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Yeah, wasn't she thinking about going to law? Wasn't she
thinking about going to law school over there?
Speaker 3 (20:30):
She she was. She decided not to do it. Yeah,
which is I think, very sad.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Well, very experience. You you you saved her life in
many many respects, and you came to convince me that
I walked in covering that case, figuring this is a
horrible human being. And yeah, you turned that. You turned
that jury around, and you turned the judge around, and
I think you turned and I know you turned me
around on it. Harvey is always thank you so much? Right, oh,
(21:00):
pretty much, talk to you soon. Okay, let me get
Matt in Florida. Matt and you're next on Nightsiger, right ahead.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
Yeah, I can't wait for the civil part of this
because what's gonna happen is there's gonna have more discovery
coming out and tell me if I'm wrong, But you
can actually the discovery is a lot more abroad in
a civil case.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Right, So, uh, this judge, this judge, I.
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Think a lot of people don't understand that this judge
told the defense they could not look at third parties.
So the judge wasn't on it too, And thank god
she's been she's been released from this. But this has
only just gotten started. And if there's any integrity on this.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
What do you mean when you say the judge is
in on it too?
Speaker 5 (21:45):
Why is the judge allowed to tell the defense you
can't look at third party in this in this second trial?
Why why even though there's overwhelming evidence of other basically
be in the truth.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Again, I'm assuming that the judge, who, by the way,
interestingly enough, I found out today she has sort of
a reputation as a defense council judge. She worked, I
guess before she became a judge for twenty years for
(22:21):
some of the public defender programs, and her dad before
her worked for twenty years, so it's sort of the
defense instinct is kind of in that family's bloodstream.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
I think she also rented a vacation house from the
people in the house, So I.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Mean, well, okay, first of all, that may be true,
I don't know that to be true. It would seem
to me that a smart defense lawyer, when confronted with that,
would have filed a motion to recuse her for the
judge to accuse herself. I don't know. I don't think
that was filed.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
I think they did, actually, I don't know. But like
I said, that's not fair. That's not fair for me
to just come on and make a statement like that.
So I apologize for that, but I just I can't
understand Dan, how like now now the narrative is, well,
she did it, but she got off the overwhelming I
just feel like there's overwhelming evidence. People just get on
(23:24):
here and they just want to ignore, Like there's just
I could spend an hour telling you anything about it,
and it's it's I mean, I think I.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Think most of the callers tonight, Matt, that I've listened
to all the callers, Yes, yes, yeah, I'm saying most
of my callers have seemed to be pretty comfortable with
the decision.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
Right.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
No, I just it's not over and this isn't justice.
They need to the indictments need to come down from
the Feds and everything that that guy I think three
callers ago about when talking about the FBI. That's one
hundred percent of what was going on. And I mean,
I don't know. I just I know I sound like
a lunatic.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Well, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (24:03):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
I don't know that there's a federal jurisdiction in this case.
I mean, at its core, man, it's a it's a
motor vehicle accident. At its core. I don't think that
she ever should have been charged with murder. Okay, But
even even if you believe that some other activity occurred nearby,
(24:26):
and I know what you're alluding to and all of.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
That, I don't.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
I don't. I don't see it as a federal case.
I don't know how you get it in as a
federal prosecution, is what I'm saying. You're not talking about
a Rico statute here. You're not talking about anything that
is that has involved interstate commerce. I don't see it's
you know, at worst or or at best it's a
(24:51):
it's a it's a fight inside. Maybe you know the
allegation of private residence, but the FEDS looked at that
and all right, you know, so I don't know. I
think it's done except for the civil case and when
I'm proven wrong on that. I want my friend Matt
and Florida call me back, and.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Is there a chance is there a chance that when
they get discovery in that case that you know, they
can go after like these witnesses and everything and stuff
can come out, like if they get their cell phone
subpeeding again, because it's just like it's just this evidence
of like you know, the FBI had told some of
the people, some of these third parties to keep their
(25:32):
cell phone and then they destroy their cell phone. So
it's like it's just hard for someone who's been following
this as intently to just ignore literally like really good.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Yeah, I've read you know what I mean. I think
some people have followed it too intently. You might be
in that category because I think what happens is if
you don't screen the statements that a lot of stuff
was out on the internet out of this, and once
it's on the internet, everybody believes it's true and it
is necessarily true just because it's on the intenet. You
know that better than I do.
Speaker 5 (26:03):
You're oh no, no. In the first trial, a lot of
it was kind of confirmed. But Dan, again, thank you
for always taking my calls. Let me talk and let
everyone else talk. But my final thought is just that
I hope indictments come down Monday morning on these other people,
and they were just waiting for this to end.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
So don't don't hold your body. Okay, thanks for you,
Thank you much. Marcus in Boston, Mark next on nights,
I go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (26:27):
Hey, Dan, nice to see you tonight.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
I heard my man Phil Tracy speak.
Speaker 7 (26:32):
Dan.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
I thought this whole.
Speaker 7 (26:33):
Case from the first from the beginning of the first trial,
the prosecution depoped out of Da Barisse's office.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
I thought did a terrible job.
Speaker 7 (26:42):
First of all, I don't know why they did not
even secure the crime scene with yellow tape, knock on
that door and interview each individual separately, not as a
group party. This was in a party. This is a vehicular.
And you're an attorney.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
I'm not an attorney.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
I thought his office has brought when.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
The body, when the body, when John o' keep's body
was discovered at six fifty or whatever the time was,
probably most of the people who had been in the
house had gone their separate way. So I mean, it's
not as if the investigators were there and they said, okay,
let's let's keep everybody in the house and nobody leaves
(27:22):
and we're going to talk to everybody. I think the
investigators did a horrific job. They again, it was just
it was a disgrace.
Speaker 7 (27:32):
They did a great job, a disgraceful job, Dan, disgrace, disgraceful, disgraceful.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Absolutely, Why were they not?
Speaker 2 (27:39):
Why would they not? Why would they not have gone
to the other homes in the area. Now, maybe I'm
mistaken and asked other people, did you hear anything? Uh?
You know, do you have a video door camp?
Speaker 7 (27:53):
There's the ring camera for that.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Other officer were across the street there. Albert's brother Chris,
his video.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Camera did not work that day.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
It happened to be out of honor all the phones
that are destroyed. But marrassy.
Speaker 7 (28:06):
She was overcharged Dan, She should have been even if
she was found guilty. But she got the right charge
today like a tourney. Phil Tracy said, yep and uh.
And it was a disgraceful when they when they got
to the scene, it was never covered off like with
yellow tape, you know, to secure the crime scene. And
you're telling me if someone's on your lawn at five
(28:27):
o'clock in the morning, at six o'clock in the morning
and you're you're a Boston Police Officers detective, you would
not come out to doing you wouldn't hear commotion.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
That's bull I don't believe that that is one of
the most important things that anyone has mentioned tonight. Because
the normal curiosity and your drive into the cape and
there's an accent on the other side of Rout three,
everybody flows down and looks because we're inherently curious. And
if all of a sudden, you know, there was that
(28:57):
activity in your front lawn. Look, if I see somebody
in my neighborhood or I don't wreck the neighborhood, I
don't recognize. I'm good. I am very right to go
say hey, how you doing, what's going on? Can I
help you? You know that sort of thing. I mean,
particularly if they can the other thing.
Speaker 7 (29:11):
The driveway was on the right side of that house
where it stands. His body was found towards the left
side where there was no driveway, you know, by the
flag pole and stuff. I own a house on the
next street over behind them on that whole and Canton too, Dad,
And I was just, you know, I thought Morrissey's office,
like you know with Proctor and no big deal, skate car.
(29:32):
I thought he did it for being a detector, an
investigator on a client, any kind of clime.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
He was terrible.
Speaker 7 (29:40):
He you know, No, he never stealed the evidence, never
got a warrant to search that house just afterwards or whatever.
He could have got a warr and if they didn't
open the door. He knows the proper procedure being a detective.
You know, I thought it was a terrible job. All
the phone records were all destroyed. I think, you know,
the dog good put to sleep again.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
I think some of these points that.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
The executed around of Morrissey's.
Speaker 7 (30:04):
Office, I think every one of them should have been
brought in and fight it, you know.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
All right, Okay, Mark, Mark, Mark, You're going a little
long on me here, so I'm gonna let you run.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
All right.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Thank you, buddy, much the pleasure.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Thank you you soon one line six ten thirty Back
with Justin right after.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
This night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Back to the phones we go. Let's go to Justin
and Marlboro. Justin next on Nightsiger, right ahead, Justin, Thanks
for your patience.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Thanks for giving the call regarding Tim's call, I wanted
to tell him to piggyback on his call. David Jannetti
had a conference call with Lally Attorney Lally and the FEDS,
and Jetti said an open court that the FED said,
in good conserence, they can't let this go to trial.
(30:57):
So because of that, we're going to send you three
thousand pages of findings. That's how the defense and the
prostitute got all the fed's findings.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Okay, So so that means that the Feds were supportive
what I think I'm reading into supportive of Karen reads
defense team. Correct, Yes, Okay, So then my question is
why would the feds uh, and this is before Leo
(31:31):
Foley was the US attorney, this is with her predecessor.
If the FEDS thought that the wrong person was being
prosecuted for this crime, why would they not have intervened?
Speaker 3 (31:42):
I think possibly they want to put Morrissey on the
spot because of the Have you been following the Sandra
Birchmore trial?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
No? No, I know. I know that case is a
mess too, and I just don't want.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
To open up.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
That's a that's a big can of worms, justin And again, I'm.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Not right, but I'm answering your question, I'm thinking that
the Feds putting it on and more like letting Morrissey
have a chance to hang himself. That's what I'm like.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
I I think that's first of all, I think that
that's look. A prosecutor has great discretion, uh in in
following a case. I don't believe that, as much as
people want to make Morrissey a bad guy, that he
is intentionally messing up cases to protect people that would
be he should you know that would that would lead
(32:39):
to a criminal indictment. I'm I'm I can't believe that
any prosecutor would be either that arrogant or that.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
I hope you're right, but many of us don't. Many
of us unfortunately, no, I understand that.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
The only thing I would say, justin is I've had
a lot of experience dealing with prosecutors in my career,
both in television and in radio.
Speaker 8 (33:05):
Many of them have made mistakes, but but they don't
try to use their office, in my opinion too uh
to abuse their office and protect other people, because by
doing that they they then put themselves in the cross
here of a potential indictment and to.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Suffer County DA he's in jail. But yeah, for the
same Yeah, it happens, unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
But I whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa whoa what Suffer.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
County well, Long Island, Suffer County in Long Island.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah, well that's that's a real distinction. I'm not familiar
with that. Suffer County is but we have a Suffer
County here. So as much as I might criticize.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
New York, I'm sorry, I know, but I'm just.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Saying that's the sort of thing that when you say
that on the radio, someone is going to say, well,
I've heard her go on to radio last night. I said,
the Suffoc County. You guys in jail. He's not in jail.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
D A.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Hayden is not in jail. So anyway that can lead
together the.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Former DA is in jail in New York and the
same thing with the lead the chief of police in
New York, New York.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Again justin I don't get it, you guys. Some of
you are so involved in this that you assumed that
because there's look, there's a there's a police chief in
Arkansas who just escaped from prison. But I'm just saying,
you know, I'm not telling you. I'm just telling you
that the people that I have dealt with over the
(34:37):
years don't engage in that sort of activity. And to
be honest with you, it's way off topic tonight. So
I'm gonna let you go. Thanks, justin appreciate it. Next
up is Lauren in Plymouth. Lauren, how are you, Lauren?
Go read ahead. I know you've that trouble getting through.
Speaker 9 (34:52):
Hi Dan, can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (34:54):
I can hear you? Find Lauren?
Speaker 9 (34:55):
Go right ahead, Hi Dan, I'm pulled over now. I
last you a few.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Times, no problem.
Speaker 9 (35:02):
So basically, for the last twenty five years, I've been
a street vendor, so I've done a lot of traveling
on the road and such, through all kinds of weather
conditions and all this. Right now, I'm leaving Plymouth heading
to North Carolina, and then I'm going to Florida and
then I'm going to QS.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
I hope you keep listening to night Side along the Way,
but go at WBZ along the way. Go ahead, Lord.
Speaker 9 (35:28):
You know what I find troubling. This is what I
find troubling. I've done so much driving. I've been I've
been through so many vehicles and vans, and I've been
through so many bad weather conditions. I've come close to
hitting people before they were on the road, you know,
(35:49):
on the wrong side of the road, jaywalking, sleeping on
the side of the highway. Now, what if the weather
conditions were wintery?
Speaker 6 (35:59):
What if it was wide out?
Speaker 9 (36:01):
What if it was slippery? What if I hit them?
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Now?
Speaker 9 (36:04):
Where would I would be? Would I be in jail?
Speaker 1 (36:07):
No?
Speaker 2 (36:07):
I think. I think every case depends upon circumstances. Every
every criminal case involves the faction.
Speaker 9 (36:16):
Let's just say, let's say let's say she hit him
by accident. You know, I mean, are we going to
how much?
Speaker 2 (36:22):
How much? Well, you know she she has admitted to
having been drinking that night.
Speaker 9 (36:27):
If yeah, yeah, yeah, well yes, exactly, you hit him.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
No, if you have an accident and you're not drinking,
it's an accident unless you know, again, laurd the facts
of the case. If all of a sudden, you're in
a road rage incident with someone, or some guy goes
up to your window and you decide, well, I'm going
to run this guy down, It's a different story, is
(36:50):
what it is. It's an accident.
Speaker 9 (36:52):
Yeah, it's an accident. Now, if drinking is involved, that's
the whole different scenario exactly. I understand, I understand him
a little off top of here, but you know, I
get nervous. I'm nervous. I get nervous.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Drive carefully, that's all you all, dRIT Have you ever
hit anyone in you? How many miles have you driven
in your life? Lauren?
Speaker 9 (37:11):
Would you say, oh, let's see here, probably about a million?
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Okay, how many people have you hit?
Speaker 6 (37:19):
Zero?
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Pretty good?
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Bad?
Speaker 9 (37:22):
But I've come close.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Well, I think a lot of people come close to things.
Speaker 9 (37:26):
But most of us and it wasn't my fault.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
So what's the solution. Do we basically tell people when
you're driving clear off the road?
Speaker 3 (37:33):
I mean, it's what's the solution.
Speaker 9 (37:36):
I don't know what the solution is.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
But you know, if you don't drive, I would just say,
if you don't drive, you won't hit anyone with your car.
Speaker 9 (37:45):
But you have to want to say one last thing,
and I want all the viewers here.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
You got to say it quickly, quickly, quickly, quickly.
Speaker 9 (37:51):
God bless all the Americans who have been driving, who
have been in accidents that weren't their fault, where somebody
was hit.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Okay, and I got you in Lauren, I'm up on
my news, so I wanted to get you in because
I was afraid. At Lujah, stay safe, keep listening, keep calling.
Speaker 9 (38:08):
Okay, well time, Dan, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
Thanks Lauren, have a great night. The only line opened
six one seven nine three one ten six one seven
nine three one ten thirty back after the ten o'clock
news
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back. Everybody, got one line opened six.
We'll get to Tim and Mark and Justin and Judy,
I promise, But first we're going to talk with Boston
longtime criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy. Fill your reaction to
the verdict today. How surprised or how how expecting expected
were you of it?
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Well?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
I was not surprised because reasonable doubt had been built
into this case and by a lot of collateral issues
that had nothing to do with the actual death. Oh well,
excuse me that the stuff with the police and their
bad behavior in their unprofessional way, and the investigation was
(00:55):
somewhat compromised by the way they went about it. The
reality was it was a tough case to investigate in
one sense, blinding snowstorm, the middle of the night, black
and of course the people had been drinking. And of
course I think the jury wondered why didn't they go
knock on the front door of the house.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
There reasonable question, reasonable question, no doubt. Yeah. The other
question is do you think do you think do you
think Morrissey overcharged the case the DA?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (01:26):
Absolutely, I like Morrissey I think he's a fair guy.
But I will tell you the way to approach this
case for me would have been strictly motor vehicle uh manslaughter.
In other words, instead of going for murder, they should
have gone for the motor vehicle manslaughter. Now that happens
all the time, you know, you hear what these horrendous crashes,
(01:49):
somebody's killed, that's you know, they get serious sentences for
committing O U Y while one and committing death. And
this is what we have here. We have her death.
The jury has said she was under the influence, and
I think the evidence says she was well onder the influence.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Yeah, it was. That's an interesting issue, Phil, And I'll
ask a criminal defense lawyer. I'm going to ask you this. Obviously,
this videotape of her drinking, she's said and acknowledged that
she had several drinks, however, she wanted to quantify them.
And then whatever happened at twelve thirty in Canton happened.
She wakes up at five o'clock in the morning, returns
(02:33):
looking for his body, finds, finds the body. At some point,
then she is taken into custody and she is given
I'm not sure if it was a breathalyzer or a
blend alcohol contact test, but whatever she exhibited it was,
it was over you know, the point zero eight? Oh yeah, presumption.
(02:55):
How did they backtrack that? Phil In other words, if
just because you will point zero eight at nine o'clock
in the morning or whatever, you I think she might
have been pulled one for I assume that she might
have been higher than that earlier in the morning, if
you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Yeah, I think that's not in question. Now. Of course
she is outside with her lawyers and her fans. They're
so happy about the situation. But the reality is she
was drunk. I don't believe in this conspiracy theory that
(03:38):
the police beat them up and guard shoot them up
and they threw them out on their front lawn. That
doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of how would
you keep everybody from cracking under that kind of pressure
to disclose the truth? Now, what happened. She must have
(03:58):
hit them and it was probably accidental, and I think
the jury felt there was reasonable though built into the
case by a lot of the collateral and extraneous issues,
and so therefore they weren't going to find her guilty.
They were never going to find a guilty of second
grew murder because they don't. I don't think they thought
(04:20):
that she was trying to kill him. Now she could
have been. There's a lot of theories about this. She
could have been mad at him because whether he wanted
to go to party or she did whatever. She backed
up at twenty four miles an hour, that's an incredibly
fast reversal speed. So I don't know what happened. I
(04:41):
don't know when she went back. She went right to
the spot. She didn't go to the driveway on the
other side. She went right to the spot where he
was with her vehicle.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
So that arguably is a consciousness of guilt issue. The
fact that she didn't get on the witness stand problem.
He was a wise thing, but it was not a
wise thing to do those those interviews. I guess Christina
Rextelmi earlier tonight be that she was doing those during
the period of time of the first trial.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
I think I think Christina did a great job covering
this case. But I will tell you this, I think
I feel badly for missus O'Keefe, the mother and the
children here. This guy was somewhat of a hero of
Boston police offic who adopted two children from his sister
who had died along with her husband. So he had quality.
(05:38):
There was a quality individual.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Not every not every guy would do that, there's no question.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
About And they were breaking up, and you know, it's
a very con Now. I've never seen anybody go through
two trials as happy as this defendant, smiling, waving for
the camera, you know, sort of promenading for the camera.
(06:03):
I didn't like it at all. I would have liked
more humbled us and more sympathy for the Okay family.
But that's not what you got in.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
This case, not at all. Phil. Tracy has always thank
you very much. I got pack lines. So I'm going
to keep going to my listeners. Thank you, my friend.
We will talk soon. Thanks for thanks for all your
help along the way in this one. Phil. I don't
know about you, but I'm glad it's finally over.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Oh I'm glad it's over. This had ever been a
hung jury, I couldn't imagine putting the Okey family through this. Again.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I agree with you that although they probably would have
wanted it, when you think about it, wanted.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Case that's coming. And she even found to have been drunk,
so that will.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Will civil case not against herbing against the the bars
that they may they may have deeper pockets. Thanks you
have one. Let me go next to Tim and Worcester. Tim,
want to get you in here. You've been on hold
for a long time.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Go ahead, Tim, Hey Dan, how you doing? And I
know Sill's a buddy, he goes, but he's got an
axtra grind. I mean to let him get on there
and say the stuff he's saying. That's ridiculous. She was
found not guilty. She was found innocent.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Let's be let's be accurate. He No one's found innocent.
You're either found guilty or not guilty and not guilty.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
You know, however you want to semantics, but dantics that
you're Tim.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Tim. I'm not looking to fight with you. I just
want to Tim, please give me the courtesy of being
able to explain the difference to the audience. Okay, you
were innocent of this crime. You had nothing to do
with this you ye. Okay. The jury never comes back
and says innocent. They will either say guilty or not guilty.
That's all. That's all I want people to understand. Because
(07:49):
there's a lot of confusion about that go.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Ahead however, however you guys want to frame it. But
the bottom line is doing you know better than anybody.
You're the one that works so hot on the Joe
Sevadie case, the Pitty DJ case, all the circumstances there,
they uncovered the fraud amongst the FBI. What I find
to be interesting is that this time the FBI actually
came in and helped. The SEDGE actually came in and
(08:12):
helped in this case. And back then when you were
investigating all that, the State Police were the ones that
were doing everything on the up and up, and the
FBI wasn't. Now this can down. Here we are thirty
forty years later, it's the FEDS that came in and
saved the day, and it's the state police that are
under the microscope. And you know, Phil can get on
and say everything he wants to say, but the bottom
(08:33):
line is you've got to the focus should be on
the FEDS and the job that they did. They're the
ones that went and talked, took statements from Higgins, Alberts,
Jim McCabe, Colin Albert, They went down to Bridgewater, the
state and they ended up interviewing the kid. So the
Feds saved the day. They didn't have to do any
of that. They didn't have to do any of that.
They didn't have to hire an action and reconstructions, they
(08:55):
didn't have to do any of that. And i'd like
you to comment on that then, because the Feds really
did save the day.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Well, I don't know what the purpose that the federal
investigation which has been rumored. I've never seen any documentation
of whether they were investigating wrongdoing by other people who
have been purportedly associated with the case or not. So
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
I guess my question is, Dan, how come they couldn't
mention the Feds were the ones that did the investigation
and the grand jury to the jury. How come they
couldn't mention the Fed? How come that had to be
kept a secret? How come that could not be let up?
You know?
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Well, first of all, the Feds publicly were asked and
they said no comment. The Feds are always saying no comment.
The current US Attorney, Leo Foley is very adamant in
releasing information, which I think will make her it an
excellent US attorney. But my recollection, and I'm telling you,
(09:58):
I will be the first to admit had not covered
this case on a daily basis. I'm a talk show host.
I'm not you did it somebody in.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
The Soviety case. You did that case. I mean, the
way you had passion for the Seviety case is the
way people have passions.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
You can't know. And let me tell you something. I
worked the Selvidi case as a reporter day in and
day out, night in and night out. Along with being
a reporter and TV I followed this case a little
bit mindus standing. There was an investigation that the FEDS ran,
and I think they were looking at some of the
other circumstances and they came back with nothing.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
I don't know, Dan, you know, Dan, what they did
was they ended up going down to the school and
interviewing the kid. They went and interviewed Jim mckaye, They
interviewed Brian all But, they interviewed Brian Higgins. They did
a wonderful job in their investigation and then they handed
it over to the defense and defense that's why the
defense had the accident reconstructionist on. He was the one
(10:55):
that was able to testify. That wasn't their witness. That
was the fed's witness.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Well, look, if the FEDS in effect assisted the what
you're trying to tell me, and I'm more than happy
to listen to it, that the FEDS attempted to help
the defense team. Correct?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Correct?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Okay? Assuming that's true, that means that the FEDS must
have doubted that Karen Reid had any wrongdoing in this matter?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Correct? Right? They did not follow.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
This logically with me, Tim. Okay. So, now, if the
FEDS believed that Karen Reid had no wrongdoing in this matter,
why did they not prevail upon the district attorney and said, look,
here's what we've found out. You got the wrong person here.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Oh, I'm sure they did. I'm sure they did.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
If the FEDS walk in and tell If the FEDS
walk in and tell a district attorney you got the
wrong pre I think you're making some leaps of faith here, Tim,
which might not be justified. That's all I'm trying to
say to you.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, I mean, i'm you know, I'm I'm in the
same boat you're in. Dan, We're all, we're all. I
didn't investigate it the way you did the Solvati case,
and you know, I mean, basically we're all just getting
the information as we see it. But the bottom line
is we'd be remiss if we didn't think that the
FEDS had a lot to do with this and very
helpful in her case.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Well again, if they were as helpful as you suggest,
my question is why did they not try to interrupt
the prosecution. I'll just leave that there and we'll just
maybe someone smarter than you and me we'll be able
to answer that one.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Fair enough sounds good.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Thank you, Jim, appreciate the call. Quick break here at
Nightside only line is six one seven.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
All right, we're going to get back to the phones
here real quickly and we're going to go to Judy
and ever Judy your next on Nightside Goright ahead, Judy,
thank you for taking the time to call in tonight
your thoughts on this.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Well, thank you for taking the call.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
Sir.
Speaker 6 (13:04):
I am a corporate investigator in the corporate world for
many forty four years, and this case was with troublesome
from the word go sure, I want to make a prediction,
and I understand exactly what you're saying, guilty and not guilty,
and I predict someday, and I hope I'm alive to
hear it. Somebody is their conscience is going to get
them and somebody's going to talk or they're going to
(13:26):
say something to somebody, and I think it will come
out someday, because how do you live with this?
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So I assume I just want to make sure I'm clear,
I understand what you're saying. I assume you believe that
Karen Reid was not involved in the death of John O'Keefe,
and you think that there was some other party that
was involved in it, and some one of those individuals
will come forward.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
That's my feeling.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
That's my feeling.
Speaker 6 (13:56):
And maybe she knows, and maybe that she knows, maybe
she was there. Maybe things happened that we'll never know
because there's an investigator. You try to turn every stone
and open every door, but sometimes you don't always.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Get what you need.
Speaker 6 (14:10):
And I feel that's what will happen.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
Somebody's conscience will It's a terrible thing. How do you
live with that?
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Well?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
I can only tell you that there's no statute limitation
in Massachusetts on murder, so if something really untoward happened,
those people could be at risk for twenty thirty, forty
forty years from now, so we'll see absolutely.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
And we've seen it in the past. I mean, it
has happened on occasions that you know, you hear somebody
on their deathbed, you know, this is what I did.
And I feel for the O'Keefe family, I truly do.
I mean because at the end of the day, there
was a fatality in this in those kids.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah, I always had hoped that whoever else might have
been involved, because I'm convinced that there was more involved
in the John Kennedy President Kennedy assassination. I agree alive
for that, and I don't know if you were or not,
but I was alive for that. And I always thought
there would be someone on their deathbed who would get
some religion and say, you know, I got I gotta
(15:16):
tell you here's what happened.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
But if they find the higher power and they just
have to get it off their chests, and I'm convinced,
I think at some point in time and maybe it
will give the closure to the O'Keefe family, because I
think they deserve that. In a lot of callers have mentioned,
you know, it was watched, and we all know that,
but we can't go backwards.
Speaker 5 (15:36):
We have to go, you know, forwards.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, it's botched and she is at this point she
has she's not going to be prosecuted for this case. Again.
I mean, it's it's it's over for her. It's oh
sadly over for John O'Keefe. And you know, again, it
just it proves us to us that we don't live
in a perfect world, because in a perfect world we
(16:00):
would know exactly what happened. I don't think we do
know what happened at this point.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
Yeah, and she has to live with herself too. I
mean that's going to be that won't.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
Be easy, you know.
Speaker 6 (16:09):
And the gentleman had mentioned prior to the prior call
is that, you know, I felt that she should be
more humble. Well, I have interviewed people that have committed
million dollar crimes and some laugh, some cry.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
Everybody handles themselves differently.
Speaker 6 (16:24):
Too, so we have to take that into consideration.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
But I do think that that for tonight and going forward,
she can always say, Look, I was tried for the
murder and for the manslaughter and for leaving the scene
of an accident, and I was acquitted on those three charges.
So I think that.
Speaker 6 (16:38):
If she was overcharged. You're absolutely right, she was overcharged
and it could have been a different outcome. But that
should have, would have, could have. And at the end
of the day, I just hope both families can go forward.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Yeah, it's got to be tough. It's just got to
be tough. Again. It just shows what do they say
your mother told you when you were young, Nothing good
happens after midnight, and this is a proof of that,
that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
With alcohol involved.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
Don't forget that.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Oh no, no, no, So generally that is a that
is a companion after midnight in some form of fashion. Judy,
thanks very much. I don't know I've had the pleasure
of your company before, but thank you for calling. I
really really appreciated your call.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
I have a great evening.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
You're welcome. Okay, we're right up on our news. So
I've got Harvey Silverglade waiting on the other side of
the newscast, Matt and Florida. We're going to get to Matt,
going to get to Mark and Boston and Justin got
a couple of lines. You guys know the numbers, fill
them up. Coming back on nightside.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
You're on night side with Dan Ray. I'm telling you
Boston's news radio, all.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Right, going to try to move quickly. I'm going to
go to Harvey Silverglade who joins us. Harvey longtime criminal
defense attorney from Cambridge. He's handled some very high profile trials.
I assume, Harvey, you are not surprised by the outcome today.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
I was not surprised at all. I would have been
active stay with Henry being other than the verdict of
the jury. I was surprised that it took two trials
to get to this point. And let me tell you
what the point of my call is. Morrissey. DJ Morrissey
spent a lot of money, the taxpayers money, hiring a
(18:19):
special prosecutor. The case could have been lost for free.
And that's that's my point. Was a clear loser and
it could have been lost for nothing.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Well that's the irony, that's the already no again. I'm
sure that he thought it was a brilliant move to
bring Hank Brennan in, who's a good defense lawyer. I'm
sure you know his reputation. Maybe Morrissey thought, well, I'll
bring a defense lawyer in to be the special prosecutor.
And he will be able to figure out where the
(18:57):
defense wants to go. Maybe he figured that was the
sort of change up that he needed, but it didn't work.
It didn't work.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
One of the things that surprised me was that Hank
Brennan didn't say to Morrissey, this is a loser just
ind for drunk driving.
Speaker 8 (19:15):
Yeah, I mean he is.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
He's a very good defense lawyer. He should have known better.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Okay, well, you know, next time I talked to Hank,
I'll tell him you said so. Uh no, yeah, but
uh you know again, like anything else, a lot of lawyers,
and Hank's a goodwin. Lawyers rise to the challenge. Lawyers
take on tough cases. I remember, you know you had
the Louise Woodward case. I was convinced that of her
(19:43):
guilt until I saw your presentation in court. And that
was the moment in time where I said this, Harvey
silver Glat knows how to try try a case, and
you you were masterful in that case.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
I guess Hank Brennan made a tack the cool decision
here and took on a case that was tougher than
even he could have imagined. But bottom line is, the
system works. I think it was a gest under the
circumstances that that I was exposed to.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Go ahead, Harvey, the Uberna, the Lewis Woodward case. She
gets about it, She gets in touch with me every
start working from England. She is now a mother.
Speaker 8 (20:22):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Yeah, wasn't she thinking about going to law? Wasn't she
thinking about going to law school over there?
Speaker 3 (20:30):
She she was. She decided not to do it. Yeah,
which is I think, very sad.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Well, very experience. You you you saved her life in
many many respects, and you came to convince me that
I walked in covering that case, figuring this is a
horrible human being. And yeah, you turned that. You turned
that jury around, and you turned the judge around, and
I think you turned and I know you turned me
around on it. Harvey is always thank you so much? Right, oh,
(21:00):
pretty much, talk to you soon. Okay, let me get
Matt in Florida. Matt and you're next on Nightsiger, right ahead.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
Yeah, I can't wait for the civil part of this
because what's gonna happen is there's gonna have more discovery
coming out and tell me if I'm wrong, But you
can actually the discovery is a lot more abroad in
a civil case.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Right, So, uh, this judge, this judge, I.
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Think a lot of people don't understand that this judge
told the defense they could not look at third parties.
So the judge wasn't on it too, And thank god
she's been she's been released from this. But this has
only just gotten started. And if there's any integrity on this.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
What do you mean when you say the judge is
in on it too?
Speaker 5 (21:45):
Why is the judge allowed to tell the defense you
can't look at third party in this in this second trial?
Why why even though there's overwhelming evidence of other basically
be in the truth.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Again, I'm assuming that the judge, who, by the way,
interestingly enough, I found out today she has sort of
a reputation as a defense council judge. She worked, I
guess before she became a judge for twenty years for
(22:21):
some of the public defender programs, and her dad before
her worked for twenty years, so it's sort of the
defense instinct is kind of in that family's bloodstream.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
I think she also rented a vacation house from the
people in the house, So I.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Mean, well, okay, first of all, that may be true,
I don't know that to be true. It would seem
to me that a smart defense lawyer, when confronted with that,
would have filed a motion to recuse her for the
judge to accuse herself. I don't know. I don't think
that was filed.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
I think they did, actually, I don't know. But like
I said, that's not fair. That's not fair for me
to just come on and make a statement like that.
So I apologize for that, but I just I can't
understand Dan, how like now now the narrative is, well,
she did it, but she got off the overwhelming I
just feel like there's overwhelming evidence. People just get on
(23:24):
here and they just want to ignore, Like there's just
I could spend an hour telling you anything about it,
and it's it's I mean, I think I.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Think most of the callers tonight, Matt, that I've listened
to all the callers, Yes, yes, yeah, I'm saying most
of my callers have seemed to be pretty comfortable with
the decision.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
Right.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
No, I just it's not over and this isn't justice.
They need to the indictments need to come down from
the Feds and everything that that guy I think three
callers ago about when talking about the FBI. That's one
hundred percent of what was going on. And I mean,
I don't know. I just I know I sound like
a lunatic.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Well, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (24:03):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
I don't know that there's a federal jurisdiction in this case.
I mean, at its core, man, it's a it's a
motor vehicle accident. At its core. I don't think that
she ever should have been charged with murder. Okay, But
even even if you believe that some other activity occurred nearby,
(24:26):
and I know what you're alluding to and all of.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
That, I don't.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
I don't. I don't see it as a federal case.
I don't know how you get it in as a
federal prosecution, is what I'm saying. You're not talking about
a Rico statute here. You're not talking about anything that
is that has involved interstate commerce. I don't see it's
you know, at worst or or at best it's a
(24:51):
it's a it's a fight inside. Maybe you know the
allegation of private residence, but the FEDS looked at that
and all right, you know, so I don't know. I
think it's done except for the civil case and when
I'm proven wrong on that. I want my friend Matt
and Florida call me back, and.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Is there a chance is there a chance that when
they get discovery in that case that you know, they
can go after like these witnesses and everything and stuff
can come out, like if they get their cell phone
subpeeding again, because it's just like it's just this evidence
of like you know, the FBI had told some of
the people, some of these third parties to keep their
(25:32):
cell phone and then they destroy their cell phone. So
it's like it's just hard for someone who's been following
this as intently to just ignore literally like really good.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Yeah, I've read you know what I mean. I think
some people have followed it too intently. You might be
in that category because I think what happens is if
you don't screen the statements that a lot of stuff
was out on the internet out of this, and once
it's on the internet, everybody believes it's true and it
is necessarily true just because it's on the intenet. You
know that better than I do.
Speaker 5 (26:03):
You're oh no, no. In the first trial, a lot of
it was kind of confirmed. But Dan, again, thank you
for always taking my calls. Let me talk and let
everyone else talk. But my final thought is just that
I hope indictments come down Monday morning on these other people,
and they were just waiting for this to end.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
So don't don't hold your body. Okay, thanks for you,
Thank you much. Marcus in Boston, Mark next on nights,
I go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (26:27):
Hey, Dan, nice to see you tonight.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
I heard my man Phil Tracy speak.
Speaker 7 (26:32):
Dan.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
I thought this whole.
Speaker 7 (26:33):
Case from the first from the beginning of the first trial,
the prosecution depoped out of Da Barisse's office.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
I thought did a terrible job.
Speaker 7 (26:42):
First of all, I don't know why they did not
even secure the crime scene with yellow tape, knock on
that door and interview each individual separately, not as a
group party. This was in a party. This is a vehicular.
And you're an attorney.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
I'm not an attorney.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
I thought his office has brought when.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
The body, when the body, when John o' keep's body
was discovered at six fifty or whatever the time was,
probably most of the people who had been in the
house had gone their separate way. So I mean, it's
not as if the investigators were there and they said, okay,
let's let's keep everybody in the house and nobody leaves
(27:22):
and we're going to talk to everybody. I think the
investigators did a horrific job. They again, it was just
it was a disgrace.
Speaker 7 (27:32):
They did a great job, a disgraceful job, Dan, disgrace, disgraceful, disgraceful.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Absolutely, Why were they not?
Speaker 2 (27:39):
Why would they not? Why would they not have gone
to the other homes in the area. Now, maybe I'm
mistaken and asked other people, did you hear anything? Uh?
You know, do you have a video door camp?
Speaker 7 (27:53):
There's the ring camera for that.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Other officer were across the street there. Albert's brother Chris,
his video.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Camera did not work that day.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
It happened to be out of honor all the phones
that are destroyed. But marrassy.
Speaker 7 (28:06):
She was overcharged Dan, She should have been even if
she was found guilty. But she got the right charge
today like a tourney. Phil Tracy said, yep and uh.
And it was a disgraceful when they when they got
to the scene, it was never covered off like with
yellow tape, you know, to secure the crime scene. And
you're telling me if someone's on your lawn at five
(28:27):
o'clock in the morning, at six o'clock in the morning
and you're you're a Boston Police Officers detective, you would
not come out to doing you wouldn't hear commotion.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
That's bull I don't believe that that is one of
the most important things that anyone has mentioned tonight. Because
the normal curiosity and your drive into the cape and
there's an accent on the other side of Rout three,
everybody flows down and looks because we're inherently curious. And
if all of a sudden, you know, there was that
(28:57):
activity in your front lawn. Look, if I see somebody
in my neighborhood or I don't wreck the neighborhood, I
don't recognize. I'm good. I am very right to go
say hey, how you doing, what's going on? Can I
help you? You know that sort of thing. I mean,
particularly if they can the other thing.
Speaker 7 (29:11):
The driveway was on the right side of that house
where it stands. His body was found towards the left
side where there was no driveway, you know, by the
flag pole and stuff. I own a house on the
next street over behind them on that whole and Canton too, Dad,
And I was just, you know, I thought Morrissey's office,
like you know with Proctor and no big deal, skate car.
(29:32):
I thought he did it for being a detector, an
investigator on a client, any kind of clime.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
He was terrible.
Speaker 7 (29:40):
He you know, No, he never stealed the evidence, never
got a warrant to search that house just afterwards or whatever.
He could have got a warr and if they didn't
open the door. He knows the proper procedure being a detective.
You know, I thought it was a terrible job. All
the phone records were all destroyed. I think, you know,
the dog good put to sleep again.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
I think some of these points that.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
The executed around of Morrissey's.
Speaker 7 (30:04):
Office, I think every one of them should have been
brought in and fight it, you know.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
All right, Okay, Mark, Mark, Mark, You're going a little
long on me here, so I'm gonna let you run.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
All right.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Thank you, buddy, much the pleasure.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Thank you you soon one line six ten thirty Back
with Justin right after.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
This night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Back to the phones we go. Let's go to Justin
and Marlboro. Justin next on Nightsiger, right ahead, Justin, Thanks
for your patience.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Thanks for giving the call regarding Tim's call, I wanted
to tell him to piggyback on his call. David Jannetti
had a conference call with Lally Attorney Lally and the FEDS,
and Jetti said an open court that the FED said,
in good conserence, they can't let this go to trial.
(30:57):
So because of that, we're going to send you three
thousand pages of findings. That's how the defense and the
prostitute got all the fed's findings.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Okay, So so that means that the Feds were supportive
what I think I'm reading into supportive of Karen reads
defense team. Correct, Yes, Okay, So then my question is
why would the feds uh, and this is before Leo
(31:31):
Foley was the US attorney, this is with her predecessor.
If the FEDS thought that the wrong person was being
prosecuted for this crime, why would they not have intervened?
Speaker 3 (31:42):
I think possibly they want to put Morrissey on the
spot because of the Have you been following the Sandra
Birchmore trial?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
No? No, I know. I know that case is a
mess too, and I just don't want.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
To open up.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
That's a that's a big can of worms, justin And again, I'm.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Not right, but I'm answering your question, I'm thinking that
the Feds putting it on and more like letting Morrissey
have a chance to hang himself. That's what I'm like.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
I I think that's first of all, I think that
that's look. A prosecutor has great discretion, uh in in
following a case. I don't believe that, as much as
people want to make Morrissey a bad guy, that he
is intentionally messing up cases to protect people that would
be he should you know that would that would lead
(32:39):
to a criminal indictment. I'm I'm I can't believe that
any prosecutor would be either that arrogant or that.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
I hope you're right, but many of us don't. Many
of us unfortunately, no, I understand that.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
The only thing I would say, justin is I've had
a lot of experience dealing with prosecutors in my career,
both in television and in radio.
Speaker 8 (33:05):
Many of them have made mistakes, but but they don't
try to use their office, in my opinion too uh
to abuse their office and protect other people, because by
doing that they they then put themselves in the cross
here of a potential indictment and to.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Suffer County DA he's in jail. But yeah, for the
same Yeah, it happens, unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
But I whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa whoa what Suffer.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
County well, Long Island, Suffer County in Long Island.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah, well that's that's a real distinction. I'm not familiar
with that. Suffer County is but we have a Suffer
County here. So as much as I might criticize.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
New York, I'm sorry, I know, but I'm just.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Saying that's the sort of thing that when you say
that on the radio, someone is going to say, well,
I've heard her go on to radio last night. I said,
the Suffoc County. You guys in jail. He's not in jail.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
D A.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Hayden is not in jail. So anyway that can lead
together the.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Former DA is in jail in New York and the
same thing with the lead the chief of police in
New York, New York.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Again justin I don't get it, you guys. Some of
you are so involved in this that you assumed that
because there's look, there's a there's a police chief in
Arkansas who just escaped from prison. But I'm just saying,
you know, I'm not telling you. I'm just telling you
that the people that I have dealt with over the
(34:37):
years don't engage in that sort of activity. And to
be honest with you, it's way off topic tonight. So
I'm gonna let you go. Thanks, justin appreciate it. Next
up is Lauren in Plymouth. Lauren, how are you, Lauren?
Go read ahead. I know you've that trouble getting through.
Speaker 9 (34:52):
Hi Dan, can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (34:54):
I can hear you? Find Lauren?
Speaker 9 (34:55):
Go right ahead, Hi Dan, I'm pulled over now. I
last you a few.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Times, no problem.
Speaker 9 (35:02):
So basically, for the last twenty five years, I've been
a street vendor, so I've done a lot of traveling
on the road and such, through all kinds of weather
conditions and all this. Right now, I'm leaving Plymouth heading
to North Carolina, and then I'm going to Florida and
then I'm going to QS.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
I hope you keep listening to night Side along the Way,
but go at WBZ along the way. Go ahead, Lord.
Speaker 9 (35:28):
You know what I find troubling. This is what I
find troubling. I've done so much driving. I've been I've
been through so many vehicles and vans, and I've been
through so many bad weather conditions. I've come close to
hitting people before they were on the road, you know,
(35:49):
on the wrong side of the road, jaywalking, sleeping on
the side of the highway. Now, what if the weather
conditions were wintery?
Speaker 6 (35:59):
What if it was wide out?
Speaker 9 (36:01):
What if it was slippery? What if I hit them?
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Now?
Speaker 9 (36:04):
Where would I would be? Would I be in jail?
Speaker 1 (36:07):
No?
Speaker 2 (36:07):
I think. I think every case depends upon circumstances. Every
every criminal case involves the faction.
Speaker 9 (36:16):
Let's just say, let's say let's say she hit him
by accident. You know, I mean, are we going to
how much?
Speaker 2 (36:22):
How much? Well, you know she she has admitted to
having been drinking that night.
Speaker 9 (36:27):
If yeah, yeah, yeah, well yes, exactly, you hit him.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
No, if you have an accident and you're not drinking,
it's an accident unless you know, again, laurd the facts
of the case. If all of a sudden, you're in
a road rage incident with someone, or some guy goes
up to your window and you decide, well, I'm going
to run this guy down, It's a different story, is
(36:50):
what it is. It's an accident.
Speaker 9 (36:52):
Yeah, it's an accident. Now, if drinking is involved, that's
the whole different scenario exactly. I understand, I understand him
a little off top of here, but you know, I
get nervous. I'm nervous. I get nervous.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Drive carefully, that's all you all, dRIT Have you ever
hit anyone in you? How many miles have you driven
in your life? Lauren?
Speaker 9 (37:11):
Would you say, oh, let's see here, probably about a million?
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Okay, how many people have you hit?
Speaker 6 (37:19):
Zero?
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Pretty good?
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Bad?
Speaker 9 (37:22):
But I've come close.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Well, I think a lot of people come close to things.
Speaker 9 (37:26):
But most of us and it wasn't my fault.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
So what's the solution. Do we basically tell people when
you're driving clear off the road?
Speaker 3 (37:33):
I mean, it's what's the solution.
Speaker 9 (37:36):
I don't know what the solution is.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
But you know, if you don't drive, I would just say,
if you don't drive, you won't hit anyone with your car.
Speaker 9 (37:45):
But you have to want to say one last thing,
and I want all the viewers here.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
You got to say it quickly, quickly, quickly, quickly.
Speaker 9 (37:51):
God bless all the Americans who have been driving, who
have been in accidents that weren't their fault, where somebody
was hit.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Okay, and I got you in Lauren, I'm up on
my news, so I wanted to get you in because
I was afraid. At Lujah, stay safe, keep listening, keep calling.
Speaker 9 (38:08):
Okay, well time, Dan, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
Thanks Lauren, have a great night. The only line opened
six one seven nine three one ten six one seven
nine three one ten thirty back after the ten o'clock
news
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.