July 30, 2025 • 37 mins
Continued conversation with longtime Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz about his election as President of the National District Attorneys Association and a new ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on "emerging adults" and life without parole.
You can hear NightSide with Dan Rea, Live! Weeknights From 8PM-12AM on WBZ - Boston's News Radio.
You can hear NightSide with Dan Rea, Live! Weeknights From 8PM-12AM on WBZ - Boston's News Radio.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBS Boston's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, we are holding over District Attorney Plymouth County
District Attorney Tim Cruz. He is also the president of
the National District Attorney's Association. Tim, I mistimed the interview
and I wanted to give you just a few more
minutes on the Mattis case. That is a Massachusetts case.
As I understand it, we are the most forgiving or liberal,
(00:31):
whatever you want to call it. There's no other state
in the country where people who are eighteen, nineteen or
twenty can commit a first degree murder and still entertain
hope for parole during their lifetime.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah, that makes some adult murderers when you're eighteen nineteen twenty.
So we're the only state in the Union that allows
for that bright line decision that came down through Madis
to ignore the facts of the situation and to say
if you follow in those parameters, you're entitled to a
parole hearing.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Just a side note. In Massachusetts, my understanding and my
experience has been that on cases like this, which are
considered critically important, the court likes to go seven to zero.
They don't like to issue decisions that are in effect
split decisions four to three on cases of this magnetude,
(01:25):
What do you think happened here?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Yeah, I'm not really sure. It's a four to three decision,
and it really means it four individuals, for non elected
individuals made this determination. And now as results of that,
you know that we're ignoring I think they're talking about
emerging science and the developing brain. Well, to me, that's
a factual question, and if it's a factual question, that
(01:51):
means that the jury should be deciding whether or not
the prosecutor has proven the appropriate state of mind of
the accused reguding was it deliberately premeditated? Is the best
entity to make this decision? Not just a bright line
out there are saying that this person is eighteen, nineteen,
or twenty, And as results, you've taken that away and
look at it and compare it to other things that
(02:12):
we do in society. When you're eighteen, you can make
decisions regarding your own medical care, you can vote for
president of the United States, you can join the military,
you can do all those things. But your brain isn't
developed yet so that you can't make the determination that
what's right or wrong regarding taking a gun, to knife,
whatever the weapon may be, and permanently ending somebody's life
in a premeditated fashion. Remember, this is not an impulsive conduct.
(02:36):
This is intentional premeditation and or extreme cruelty, atrocity and ritolity,
murder if it fits those parameters. I think that we
owe the victims. We old the victims what we told them,
that would be that these individuals would not get out,
and you know, further injured their lives because now even
if somebody gets the pearl hanger and they don't get out,
(02:59):
they're going to get another one. And these hearings are
eventually going to go on until there's an opportunity for
this individual to get out. And when you look at
many of these people who are doing time, these murderers
who are doing time, and you look at their disciplinary
records when they're inside the institutions for years and years,
many of them have been violent in every rule within
those institutions. And then when madness came down, all of
(03:20):
a sudden, they're not breaking any rules anymore because they
can control their behavior. They make those determinations because it's
in their best interests, and that's what they did back then,
so I look at the madness situation now, and this
is something which I believe it's s suc overstepping out
of their lane. I think this is a legislative issue
that should be to have a hearing up in Boston.
We should be able to bring experts in because you know,
(03:43):
there's no real clear consensus as to what age you
have a fully developed brain. It's an emerging science, but
it's e merging with no accept uniformity in the scientific community.
And you know there's also information out that this says
that by the time you're sixteen, and certainly by eight,
you can premeditate and carry out plans in the mental
state called cold cognition. So this is not an emotional impulse.
(04:07):
This is a situation where an individual made these determinations
and now they have killed somebody and taken a loved
one from somebody away forever. And now they've moved the goalposts.
These individuals are going to get their day in the
pro in the pro board, and they may kno get
out the first time or the second time, but even
if they don't get out, the families will live with
(04:27):
this forever. And you reopen the wound every three years,
five years, whatever it may be, until this person eventually
gets out.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
And by the way, when they use the phrase emerging science,
that's almost oxymoronic. If it's emerging, it's not science. It's
not science until it has reached a state of consensus
and conclusion. There might have been a time when people
thought that the emerging science was that you could use
(04:55):
leeches to cure cure diseases. Well, that didn't quite work out.
You know, there was emerging science at one point that
thought that all the ships that were disappearing were going
off the edge of the earth. It's almost laughable that
the Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court would use that.
There was a US Supreme Court decision prior to that
(05:17):
which nationwide said if you're under the age of eighteen,
you will receive a parole hearing, even in having been
convicted of murder in the first degree. That's where the U.
S Supreme Court drew the line and our Supreme Court
decided to overturn. In my opinion, I may be wrong
(05:37):
in my analysis here. Tim the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Decision, well, Miller versus Alabama came down about a decade back,
and that was that basically since you're a juvenile, that
it's not constitution that life without parole. And then subsequently
Massachusetts we had a case of a Suffer County case
Comos versus Daechenko, which allowed that to occur here. And
you know, I think of a murder case that I
did the arraignment for in nineteen eighty five.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Were these two.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Individuals when was seventeen and when it was nineteen, murdered
a seventy nine year old man in Middleburg. And really,
you know, they broke his spine, he read his fractured
his neck, that left him to die, that dissocated his elbow.
He suffered extensive injuries, and he died a very painful,
painful depth. And now these individuals, the seventeen year older
now under the Miller versus Alabama Daychenko, he had a
(06:23):
hearing to get out. I went to that hearing at
the pear board and testified against him. Originally he was denied,
but now he's out. And the subsequent guy who's nineteen,
I've gone to both of his parole hearings and testified
against him, and now he's out. So when you have
individuals that are really willing to do that conduct, that
sort of habit and destroy people's lives and lead them
to die by themselves. Seventy nine year old man who
(06:46):
was just a small, small man who had a family
that loved him and still loved him to this day.
I find it outrageous that these sort of individuals are
now being released back into our community. We're living in
a world, unfortunately, where many people are portraying criminals as victims,
and their true victims of crime are unfortunately forgotten.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Tim, Tim, I say we need people like you in
law enforcement. I'm going to see if people want to
talk about this in your in your absence here, I
don't want, I don't want to impose on you any longer,
but I just wanted you to have that opportunity to
amplify on it a little bit. And your passion is
very obvious here. So congratulations on your election as president
(07:30):
of the National District Attorneys Association, and godspeed for the
next year. But hopefully we can have you back several times.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
That'd be great.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
I really appreciate it, Tim, And the maddest decision is
one that needs to be back on people's radar screens.
It's that And again, I'm just curious am I off base.
I'm just trying to think that mostly a case of
that magnitude, the court really wants consensus. They don't want
these four to throw.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Just show you what's going on.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Yeah, yeah, it's it's very interesting, very interesting. District Plymouth
County District Attorney Tim Cruse, and also again the president
of the National District Attorney's Association. Folks, if you're on
the line, stay there, I will talk to you, but
the District Attorney has some more important business tomorrow morning
in courts in the County of Plymouth. Tim, thank you
(08:26):
so much for your time tonight, and you're extra innings tonight.
Thank you so much. No problem, okay, all right, thanks
very much. Now we get back. I'd like to talk
to you about this matters decision. I will bet most
of you were not aware of it. Again, came down
a few years ago, kind of at a time when
(08:46):
people were very much thinking about the George Floyd case
and being influenced by that. But think about the burden
that it puts on the families. If there was someone
in your family who was murdered by an eighteen year old,
nineteen year old or a twenty year old and they
were destined to receive traditionally a life in prison without parole.
(09:09):
Now they will get a sentence of life in prison,
but with the possibility of parole, which means fifteen years
from now. Depending upon who it is in your family
who's murdered, either you, your immediate family members, or your
children will be interested in having to go to those
(09:29):
parole hearings and fight to keep that person in prison.
So the balance in this country between the criminal and
I'm not talking about the criminal who is caught with
a six pack of beer behind the stadium when he's
eighteen years old, or we're not talking about the criminal
who steals a couple of packs of cigarettes from a
(09:51):
variety store. We're not even talking about a criminal who
breaks into someone's house. I think that all of those
people obviously are going to be they'll get second chances.
They'll probably get second, third, fourth, and fifth chances before
they ever see the inside of a prison cell. But
for the cold blooded first degree murderer at the age
of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty, they are old before their time.
(10:16):
And yet in Massachusetts, and in Massachusetts alone, they can
be assured even with a conviction a first degree murder,
that they'll have a shot or two at shot or
two or three or four or five at parole. And
as Tim Cruz said, so far about twenty four of
these cases, twenty one have resulted in paroles. What is
wrong with us in Massachusetts on these issues? Why can
(10:40):
we not look at someone who has committed a Hanu's
crime and say, look, you are to be separated from
us for the rest of your life. We know you're nineteen,
we know you're eighteen, we know you're twenty, but the
magnitude of the crime that you've committed is beyond the realm,
and you have consigned yourself, by your own actions, beyond
a reasonable doubt to prison two four ten thirty six
(11:02):
one seven nine three one ten thirty. We'll talk a
little bit longer about crime and punishment tonight, in large
part because I want you to talk about this case
and I want you to understand it. And if you
don't understand it, please feel free to clarify it. If
I haven't well, I know Tim Cruise explained it really well.
If I haven't explained it well, I want to stick
(11:24):
with this for a while, so please give us a call.
Coming back on Nightside. If you disagree with me on this,
I think that people who are eighteen, nineteen and twenty
and commit a heinous first degree murder should have a
parole hearing at some point in their life. Where do
you draw the line? Join the conversation. We'll be right
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
But let's go to the phone. It's gonna go to
Terry and Harwich, Massachusetts. Terry, thanks for holding on. I
was I just could not keep the DA any longer
than we did.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Right ahead, Terry, Well, Dan, I am very concerned, I
think with the premise District Attorney mister Kruz was saying
was so eloquent and so educational, and how could something
like this happened? But I think I'm even a little
(12:22):
bit more confused, and I don't know the law as
well as you do, or certainly as him. But why
can't this be revisited? You well, I believe much day
has happened.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Well, it could be revisited. And one of the things
that could be revisited, obviously, is if the legislature wanted
to take this on. But there's great deference generally given
to decisions by the Supreme Court. They made a conclusion
in this case that it was unconstitutional. So you're basically
(12:58):
going to back up to the Supreme Court if the
legislature were to try to overturn the law. It's it
doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, there's no
other state in the Union that looks at people who
are already achieved are you know, become eighteen nineteen and twenty. Again,
(13:24):
the floor in the case was this, you know this
emergency emerging science. Well, emerging science could.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
Could tell us right, yeah, It's just so I have
another question for you, go right ahead. Are you aware
of the Daubert Place, the Daubert Place Dobert case Casebart
(13:51):
versus Dow Chemical.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Nope, not specifically. Won't you tell me about it?
Speaker 5 (13:57):
Well, my case is the cannabis case, and I know
you don't know this. It was an industrial accident case
and I won every decision going until I got to
the SJC and they ruled it was a very strange ruling. Actually,
(14:17):
they reversed the decision of the Industrial Accident Board, but
they never reversed the decision of the three judge panel
at the Superior Court in Boston.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Pre judge panel would have been the Court of Appeals. Yeah,
you know, Terry, Rather Terry, this is tough to talk
about cases that one I don't know about and my
audience doesn't know about, you know, but they had to.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Do with the expert witnesses and still this unproved proven
science fit into this, And I wondered if they ruled
against their own decision previous like saying.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Yeah, I don't know. I understand the point you're trying
to make, and it's very frustrating when you're convinced on
the righteousness of your situation. And obviously there's much more
to the story that I can handle here.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
Perhaps, Oh no, I understand that I wanted to ask
the district attorney. I'm sure he knew about the case.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Well, not necessarily, because that is the case. Your case
is a civil case, and the district attorney.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
Well, yeah, that's true. That's true.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
The district attorney obviously, as a prosecutor, is dealing with
criminal cases, so he knows criminal cases very well. But
there's no reason for him to know a civil case
unless it gets a lot of publicity. You know, district
attorneys represent the people against people who have broken the law.
And that's because it's always it's in effect the district attorney.
(15:56):
It prosecutes the case, but it's the people versus the defense.
So I wish I could help you on that one more.
But perhaps we'll see each other and we'll talk about it.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
Okay, have a great night, Thank.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yous, n talk to you soon. Okay, it is ten thirty.
We got a newscast. I would like to talk about
this case, and I hope some of you would like
to engage in the conversation. There are other topics that
are on my mind tonight. I do want to get
to the republic trash collection strike, which is now went
(16:32):
out on July first, but we'll talk about that during
the eleven I just want to talk about this case,
which probably most of you are not aware of that
in Massachusetts, we're the only state which basically says to
people who are eighteen, nineteen or twenty, if you commit
a heinous murder, a first degree murder that involves felony,
(16:55):
murder that involves premeditation and deliberation, that involved extreme cruelty,
that involves in that's a first degree murder case. Normally,
if you do this. When you're twenty one, you will
be sentenced under the current rules to life in prison
without parole, without the possibility of parole. But in Massachusetts,
(17:18):
and only in Massachusetts. According to da Cruz, if you're eighteen,
nineteen or twenty and you commit a heinous murder the
US the Massachusets Supreme Court on a four to three decision,
which is very uncharacteristic for a four to three decision.
They do not like to make important decisions four to three.
(17:42):
They like them to be unanimous. That's the practice of
the court. They basically said to the victims, to heck
with you, and we don't care about you, and we
don't care about the person who was killed. Unmercifully, we
want to make sure that that eighteen, nineteen or twenty
year old gets a chance at the rest of their
(18:05):
life through a parole hearing. Not going to automatically release them,
but they get a parole hearing. And the most important
people at parole hearings, and my experience has been the
family of the victims who come and protest and oppose
the parole hearing. But a lot of families at this
point die off, they move away, and nobody shows up
(18:26):
after maybe the second or third time, and that's what's
going to happen. You're going to have these people who
commit a horrific crime here in Massachusetts and walk free
maybe ten years later, maybe fifteen years later, maybe twenty
years later, but they don't spend the rest of their
life in prison. And when we eliminated the death penalty,
(18:48):
remember the opponents of the death penalty all said, well,
the death penalty is the easy way out for these people.
Make them stay in prison for the rest of their lives. Well,
that now is off the board in Massachusett, depending upon
the emerging science and what happens. If the emerging science
says tomorrow, well, we don't want to hold people forever
if they if they committed the crime before they were
(19:09):
twenty five, well, do I hear thirty? What about thirty
five forty over here? Six one, seven, two, five, four ten,
thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty Serious
Crime and Punishment Conversation. We'll be back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'MBZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I do want to remind you of a neat, neat
way for you to be part of our Night Side broadcast.
This is so easy by utilizing our talkback feature in
the iHeart Radio app. Look, we obviously want phone calls,
no doubt about that. That's what this show is all about.
But if you're a little rushed and you can't wait,
you can make sure you download and have the free
iHeart Radio app. While listening to night Side Live on
(19:52):
WBC News Radio, tap the red microphone talkback button in
the top right corner to send us your personalized audio
message and we'll play it back on NIGHTSID. I gotta
keep it clean. It can be critical, it can be complementary,
it can be constructively critical. You do it in about
thirty seconds. Once again, you hit that red microphone button
in the top right corner of the app while listening
(20:13):
to Nightside and send us your audio message and Rob
we'll clear it and we will play it. You'll be
able to hear what it sounds like, and you can
comment on what we're talking about, or you can comment
on the program generally. Let us get back to the
phone calls. We lost Jeff there for a second. He's
called back, so we will take him in the order. Jeff,
you are next on Nightsick. Right ahead, I.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Got the problem in one word, liberalism.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Well, I can't disagree with you on that, Jeff, go
right ahead.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
Well, this state is a one the precious part of
the problem. You're part of the problem.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
And yeah, I never raised by the way, Jeff, I
never raise issues like this, Okay, Yeah, I mean you
can tell that I'm very much support of the Supreme
Court decision.
Speaker 6 (21:00):
No yours. You don't want to take a strong stand
one way or the other on issues.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
So do you have any idea what stand I'm taking
on this issue? Jeff? Or No? Have I been ambivalent?
Speaker 6 (21:12):
It's surprising, It's very surprising, refreshing for a change.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Do you listen to the show often? How long have
been listened to the show?
Speaker 6 (21:19):
I'ven't listening to the show off and on for about
ten years. But you know.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
You should listen to it more consistently and you would
understand when we talk about mass and casts. Have I
been ambivalent on that issue in your mind? Jeff?
Speaker 6 (21:37):
No?
Speaker 2 (21:38):
We Well, thank you for your honesty, I mean, thank you,
thank you very much for your honesty. But have we
been Have I been ambivalent on how I feel about
the success of President Trump on closing the border and
the necessity of him closing the border.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
No, but you give anybody a hard time to supports Trump.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
No, I give people, I give people. Jeff, let me
tell you, I'm not gonna cut you off. I'm not
gonna put you in the water. I'm gonna have a
conversation with you because I think it's important. Okay. I
give all points of view an opportunity. I have my
own points of view. I hit my own beliefs, okay.
And if you've listened to me over any period of time,
(22:20):
you know pretty much where I stand.
Speaker 6 (22:24):
Can you say George Floyd without saying the tragic murder
of George.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Was the murder? What? What else was it?
Speaker 6 (22:32):
I know? But I've heard Have you ever mentioned Ashley Babbit?
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Yes, I have mentioned the the woman who was killed,
shot as she was climbing through the window, the side
glass of a door inside the Capitol. Of course I've
mentioned Ashley. Haven't mentioned Ashley Babbitt probably in a year.
But but but George, the.
Speaker 6 (22:57):
Guy who shot her in the neck, which was a
black guy police officer, what.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Does his race have to do with it?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Is this everything to do with it?
Speaker 7 (23:06):
Why?
Speaker 6 (23:06):
Everything?
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Why? What do you think he shot it because she
was white. Come on, Jeff, that's that's where you and
I are going to disagree. Jeff, you're gonna look at
that as a racial issue. I think the guy probably Oh, well,
the guy did overreact. There was no reason that he
shouldn't shot as well. Again, you don't want to hear
what I want to say, So why do I want
to say it?
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Don't hang up for me.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Well, I'm gonna hang up on you if you don't
let me complete a sentence. You want to know how
I feel about something. I'm telling you. I don't think
that that officer who happened to be black, as I
understand that no one's been charged with that, by the way,
but all that I've read indicates that I don't think
that he said, oh, there's a white person, I want
to shoot the white person. I think the guy panicked.
I don't think the guy was qualified to be carrying
(23:50):
a gun in that set of circumstances.
Speaker 6 (23:53):
Captain, did you know that?
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Yes? Yes, yes, yes, yes. He was never charged. He
was never charged. Jeff, Okay, I didn't investigate the case.
I wasn't involved in the investigation. And guess what, I'm
not interested in spending a lot of time going over
Ashley Babbitt, You and I probably disagreed deeply over what
happened on January sixth. That was an embarrassment to the country.
(24:23):
It was absolutely wrong. There were people there who were
there to incite the crowd and convince them and compel
them and coordinate to go inside the capitol. I saw
police officers being hit over the head with sticks with signs.
I had too many friends who are police officers, Jeff
(24:44):
that I'm gonna stand with police officers. I'll stay with
the police officer who was shot and killed by the
wackadoodle that walked into that building on Park Avenue yesterday.
Speaker 6 (24:54):
Okay, Okay, just by saying that wackadoodle shows your ignorance
or mental illness.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Oh really, well, let me tell you something. Let me
tell you something. I don't know if you're mentally ill. Okay,
I haven't had enough conversations with you. But the guy
who carries an AR fifteen into a building on Park
Avenue in New York is a whack of doodle. Okay, nuts,
He took four innocent lives. And if you and I
(25:20):
kind of agree on.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
That, Jeff, don't hang up, don't hang out.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
I gotta tell you you're getting close here, because that guy
was a whack of doodle. That guy went in and
he claimed that somehow that his high school football career
had sent him over the edge. Do you know how
many people in America play high school football every year?
Speaker 6 (25:38):
Jeff, just calm down a minute to listen to me
for a minute. Too many mentally ill people are allowed
to walk around the streets. That is the problem.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
I agree with you that that is the problem. But
but you want to call someone mentally ill, I can
call him a wack of doodle, okay, because I'm not would.
Speaker 6 (26:00):
Call would you call the drug addicts and the alcoholics bumps,
But you call a mentally ill person wack adoodle.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
I would call someone who is, who does, who did
what that guy did. I'm not talking about the person
who's mentally ill and who is walking the street during
the day contributing nothing to society. They're not a whack
of doodle. They are, in my opinion, a poor lost soul. Okay.
I don't know how I got to where they got to,
but they got to a really bad place.
Speaker 6 (26:28):
They have a disease that's being treated.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Well maybe they don't want it to be treated Jeff. Okay,
there's a lot of people in this country who go
to psychiatrists and go to psychologists and submit to treatment
and they get better. Okay, maybe what we need to
do is make people put people away.
Speaker 6 (26:46):
Well, that's liberalism has stopped that.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I don't disagree with you that that in your analysis, Jeff,
And as a matter of fact, on that I will agree.
But you want to you want to criticize me in
front of my audience. I've done this show for eighteen years. Jeff.
Speaker 6 (27:03):
You handle it what You're a big boy. You can't
handle it.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Oh, believe me. I can handle much more than you, Jeff.
But what I'm telling you is, I'm doing this show
for eighteen years. I have been authentic. I have been
honest with people. I have dealt with issues. On some occasions,
I have changed my mind. I'm always open to conversations.
But when someone walks down drives from Las Vegas to
New York, like in two days, tell me what that
(27:29):
guy was on as he's driving across the country and
then goes in and murders four people.
Speaker 6 (27:33):
The problem is he wasn't on anything, and he was Oh.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
He was on something to stay awake Jeff for two days.
You don't stay awake for forty eight hours driving an
automobile for forty eight hours or seventy two hours straight.
Speaker 6 (27:46):
Why don't you have a psychiatrist on some night? You
love doctors? Why don't you have a psychiatrist?
Speaker 2 (27:51):
I have shrinks. I have shrinks on all the time,
all the time. Jeff, you got to listen more closely, Jeff,
I am. I'm up at a break. You and I
have done seven minutes thirty seconds here.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
Yah, it's probably the best pile of your show all night.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Well you may think so, okay, but I'll tell you
what it is. It's basically lays beer that you cannot
stand anyone who disagrees with whatever conclusion you draw. And
that's your problem, it's not mine. I gotta go. Thanks
for the call. We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
You're on night Side with Dan ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Okay, back to the calls we go. Let me go
to market Winchester. Mark next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (28:32):
Welcome, Hi, Dan ray Hill. Hello, can you hear me here?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
You're fine? Mark? Right ahead?
Speaker 8 (28:41):
Anyhow, I'm thinking about my younger brother, Mack, who died
a year ago. Is really horrible. And I said, I
was not. He's on my mind anyhow. Uh, it's it's
Tim anyhow, Tim Cruz unbelievable. If you see him, Tom,
Tim McMahon said, keep up a good work, and God
(29:01):
bless him.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, he's he's a really smart guy. And he now
is the the president of the National District Attorneys Association.
And it's not often that someone from Massachusetts gets elected
president of anything. Mike Dukakis trie John Gary tried, well,
did Kennedy tried?
Speaker 4 (29:20):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (29:20):
He is now president Cruise of the National District Attorney's Association,
and he's a really smart guy. And he's got his
finger on the pelts. And I will tell him you
said hello, No.
Speaker 8 (29:33):
I said that, and tell him to keep up a
good work.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
God blessing.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
This thing. That h.
Speaker 8 (29:41):
There's something the case.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
I'm sorry, try again.
Speaker 8 (29:48):
What you were talking about.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yeah, we're talking. We're talking about a case called the
Maddis case. It's the name of the case. Mater and say.
It's a case in which an individual has been given
the right to a parole hearing, even though he was
convicted for murder. In the first degree because he was
(30:11):
under the age of twenty one when he did that,
when he committed that crime, and our state Supreme Court
decided on a whim based upon what they called emerging science.
Emerging science is that it's uncorroborated science. There's a lot
of science which is emerging, and you have to test science,
(30:32):
and there was no scientific test here. They basically overruled
the state legislature on a close four to three decision. Generally,
our Supreme Court on a decision that is significant, likes
to rule seventh to nothing in United as a court.
So it just we now the only state in the
(30:56):
Union where you can kill somebody at the age of
eighteen twenty, be convicted of murder in the first degree
and still still be given a right to parole fifteen
years down there.
Speaker 7 (31:06):
Outrageous.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
That's a crime. That's outrageous. Anyhow, uh outrageous. I've been
listening to your program. You have the best program on
the year any year ever.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Well, you tell that to my friend Jeff.
Speaker 8 (31:21):
Friday. Best program on the air.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
All right, I got I gotta keep I gotta keep
rolling here, Tim, thank you much. I got a couple
of other calls. They want to get to him. We
got to switch topics at at eleven, We're going to
talk about the the the strike by the Republic Trash
Company which is not picking up trash, and a whole
bunch of Eastern Massachusetts communities Winchester, uh and in Wooburn.
(31:46):
I don't think are impacted, but a lot of communities
thanks to Thanks Tim.
Speaker 8 (31:53):
Talk to you soon anyhow.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
Thank you, Dan.
Speaker 8 (31:55):
Have a good night, you.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Too, have a good one. Let me go to Ramone
in Worcester. Ramone, you next on nightside. Welcome?
Speaker 4 (32:02):
How you doing?
Speaker 2 (32:03):
I'm doing great? Ramone? Welcome? How are you tonight?
Speaker 7 (32:05):
I know after the walker Doodle call? Uh, you know
after further review, you are a fair man, Dan. I
I'm always listening and sometimes sometimes I might have thought
you a little biased, but that's not the case. I
think you're a fair man. You give everybody a shot.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Yeah, I want to get people a shot. And and
as I've said, and I'm being honest with you, Ramone,
I don't care. I'm not trying to convince people to
think like I think. I want to just have a conversation. Uh.
And when when I referred to the guy who walked
in and killed four people in cold blood yesterday as
a whack of doodle. That's not what I really want
(32:49):
to call him. But I can't say those words on
public radio or on you know, on on on commercial radio,
or I'd lose my job.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
It was you made my day.
Speaker 7 (33:01):
I mean, I you put them in his place anyhow.
But on the current topic, yeah, I think I think
it's I have the same thought. They shoot, you know,
they stay in jail, no plasibility of parole. You know,
I know there I've been cases that after years they
(33:23):
find out that what I'm guilty about, somebody was convicted.
And I think they should create some programs. I know
they got programs that they made stuff in jail for,
like insurance company. Like my glasses they got made in jail.
My doctor told me that, No I have to tell
you that, yeah, my eyeglasses. But they should have a
program that all the proceeds will just go to pay
(33:46):
restitution to the families.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Absolutely, because the families are the ultimate victims here, and
they are victimized twice. They lose their loved one and
then yeah, because the individual who killed their loved one
was eighteen, who can they can drink. Well, they can't drink,
but they can vote, they can join the military, they
can enter into contracts, they can consider medical decisions by themselves.
(34:11):
And yet when they kill someone in a brutal fashion
and they convicted of murder one, we want to somehow
give them an opportunity to be parolled somewhere down the line,
ten fifteen, twenty years on the line. I think it's wrong.
I think it's a bad decision. And that's why I
wanted to keep Tim Cruz on talking about this one.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (34:30):
And the other thing was, I mean, I have it
seems like this story has died down about that recluit,
that that Spanish guy, that state belief that.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Yeah, I am looking into that. And someone mentioned I
asked for some suggestions the other night, and one of
our listeners said, we need to find out what's going
on there. And I'm absolutely going to try and push that.
I will do an hour on that within the next week.
I guarantee you.
Speaker 7 (34:54):
Okay, oh, great, great game. The last thing, maybe at
some point you to have some immigration type of thing
go on or something.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I think, oh, we talk, we talk about that all
the time. I'm a huge believer in legal immigration. I
want to know who's coming in the country. I want
to know who they are. I want to know what
their background is, and I think that's important. I'm going
to try to get one more call in here. Ramon,
do me a favorite. Keep calling the show. We'll talk
about guy. Let me go to Bob and Rhode Island. Bob,
(35:24):
welcome back. I think go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
Okay, Dan, I think the best seven minutes of your
program is when you add Jeff on. I'm in, Jeff,
I'm back in. Jeff.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
Good for you. I'm not surprised.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
Another thing, another thing, Well, well, hold on, I hope
that Trump gets some peach your buddy, and this time
I hope it sticks because the guy's no good.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
Well tell that, Tell that to Jeff. Okay, because he
is a Trumpet.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Touch with Jeff. He's a one in my books.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Well, he ain't one in your book. I don't know why.
But but if you knew Jeff, Jeff is a Trumper
of all Trumpers. And if you and I know you
don't like Trump, I know that you're the quintessential anti Trumper.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
Yeah, but you do like Trump?
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Well you got you got both, you got you who
hates anything that Trump does, and you got Jeff who
loves anything that Trump does. I'm the guy in the
middle who says some things he does right, some things
he may do he does wrong. Okay, So I look
at it each issue individually, just as I look at
each issue with Biden. There were things that Biden did
(36:35):
right and things that Biden did wrong. I don't say
I don't swear my allegiance to to somebody, or or
do I say that person is such a bad human
being he can't do something right. But you guys, you
made as if Trump cured cancer, you would say that
it's putting.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
Hospitals and doctors out of business.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
You missed my point because you didn't even listen. But
I do appreciate you call.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
To yours cancer. I'd still be.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Of course you would, and thank you, Bo, thank you
for your honesty, because because he could bring world peace,
and you would feel that somehow he's putting armies out
of business. I get it, Bob, do me a favor.
Do you know how to swim? We're gonna find out.
All right, we get back after the eleven o'clock news.
(37:29):
We are going to talk about something that we have
not talked about. Uh, it's now almost a month old,
and that is the trash strike here in Greater Boston,
in New England, in eastern Massachusetts. Let me be more precise,
that is what we're gonna talk about from eleven o'clock
to midnight. We'll be back on night's side after this
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBS Boston's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, we are holding over District Attorney Plymouth County
District Attorney Tim Cruz. He is also the president of
the National District Attorney's Association. Tim, I mistimed the interview
and I wanted to give you just a few more
minutes on the Mattis case. That is a Massachusetts case.
As I understand it, we are the most forgiving or liberal,
(00:31):
whatever you want to call it. There's no other state
in the country where people who are eighteen, nineteen or
twenty can commit a first degree murder and still entertain
hope for parole during their lifetime.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah, that makes some adult murderers when you're eighteen nineteen twenty.
So we're the only state in the Union that allows
for that bright line decision that came down through Madis
to ignore the facts of the situation and to say
if you follow in those parameters, you're entitled to a
parole hearing.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Just a side note. In Massachusetts, my understanding and my
experience has been that on cases like this, which are
considered critically important, the court likes to go seven to zero.
They don't like to issue decisions that are in effect
split decisions four to three on cases of this magnetude,
(01:25):
What do you think happened here?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Yeah, I'm not really sure. It's a four to three decision,
and it really means it four individuals, for non elected
individuals made this determination. And now as results of that,
you know that we're ignoring I think they're talking about
emerging science and the developing brain. Well, to me, that's
a factual question, and if it's a factual question, that
(01:51):
means that the jury should be deciding whether or not
the prosecutor has proven the appropriate state of mind of
the accused reguding was it deliberately premeditated? Is the best
entity to make this decision? Not just a bright line
out there are saying that this person is eighteen, nineteen,
or twenty, And as results, you've taken that away and
look at it and compare it to other things that
(02:12):
we do in society. When you're eighteen, you can make
decisions regarding your own medical care, you can vote for
president of the United States, you can join the military,
you can do all those things. But your brain isn't
developed yet so that you can't make the determination that
what's right or wrong regarding taking a gun, to knife,
whatever the weapon may be, and permanently ending somebody's life
in a premeditated fashion. Remember, this is not an impulsive conduct.
(02:36):
This is intentional premeditation and or extreme cruelty, atrocity and ritolity,
murder if it fits those parameters. I think that we
owe the victims. We old the victims what we told them,
that would be that these individuals would not get out,
and you know, further injured their lives because now even
if somebody gets the pearl hanger and they don't get out,
(02:59):
they're going to get another one. And these hearings are
eventually going to go on until there's an opportunity for
this individual to get out. And when you look at
many of these people who are doing time, these murderers
who are doing time, and you look at their disciplinary
records when they're inside the institutions for years and years,
many of them have been violent in every rule within
those institutions. And then when madness came down, all of
(03:20):
a sudden, they're not breaking any rules anymore because they
can control their behavior. They make those determinations because it's
in their best interests, and that's what they did back then,
so I look at the madness situation now, and this
is something which I believe it's s suc overstepping out
of their lane. I think this is a legislative issue
that should be to have a hearing up in Boston.
We should be able to bring experts in because you know,
(03:43):
there's no real clear consensus as to what age you
have a fully developed brain. It's an emerging science, but
it's e merging with no accept uniformity in the scientific community.
And you know there's also information out that this says
that by the time you're sixteen, and certainly by eight,
you can premeditate and carry out plans in the mental
state called cold cognition. So this is not an emotional impulse.
(04:07):
This is a situation where an individual made these determinations
and now they have killed somebody and taken a loved
one from somebody away forever. And now they've moved the goalposts.
These individuals are going to get their day in the
pro in the pro board, and they may kno get
out the first time or the second time, but even
if they don't get out, the families will live with
(04:27):
this forever. And you reopen the wound every three years,
five years, whatever it may be, until this person eventually
gets out.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
And by the way, when they use the phrase emerging science,
that's almost oxymoronic. If it's emerging, it's not science. It's
not science until it has reached a state of consensus
and conclusion. There might have been a time when people
thought that the emerging science was that you could use
(04:55):
leeches to cure cure diseases. Well, that didn't quite work out.
You know, there was emerging science at one point that
thought that all the ships that were disappearing were going
off the edge of the earth. It's almost laughable that
the Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court would use that.
There was a US Supreme Court decision prior to that
(05:17):
which nationwide said if you're under the age of eighteen,
you will receive a parole hearing, even in having been
convicted of murder in the first degree. That's where the U.
S Supreme Court drew the line and our Supreme Court
decided to overturn. In my opinion, I may be wrong
(05:37):
in my analysis here. Tim the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Decision, well, Miller versus Alabama came down about a decade back,
and that was that basically since you're a juvenile, that
it's not constitution that life without parole. And then subsequently
Massachusetts we had a case of a Suffer County case
Comos versus Daechenko, which allowed that to occur here. And
you know, I think of a murder case that I
did the arraignment for in nineteen eighty five.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Were these two.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Individuals when was seventeen and when it was nineteen, murdered
a seventy nine year old man in Middleburg. And really,
you know, they broke his spine, he read his fractured
his neck, that left him to die, that dissocated his elbow.
He suffered extensive injuries, and he died a very painful,
painful depth. And now these individuals, the seventeen year older
now under the Miller versus Alabama Daychenko, he had a
(06:23):
hearing to get out. I went to that hearing at
the pear board and testified against him. Originally he was denied,
but now he's out. And the subsequent guy who's nineteen,
I've gone to both of his parole hearings and testified
against him, and now he's out. So when you have
individuals that are really willing to do that conduct, that
sort of habit and destroy people's lives and lead them
to die by themselves. Seventy nine year old man who
(06:46):
was just a small, small man who had a family
that loved him and still loved him to this day.
I find it outrageous that these sort of individuals are
now being released back into our community. We're living in
a world, unfortunately, where many people are portraying criminals as victims,
and their true victims of crime are unfortunately forgotten.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Tim, Tim, I say we need people like you in
law enforcement. I'm going to see if people want to
talk about this in your in your absence here, I
don't want, I don't want to impose on you any longer,
but I just wanted you to have that opportunity to
amplify on it a little bit. And your passion is
very obvious here. So congratulations on your election as president
(07:30):
of the National District Attorneys Association, and godspeed for the
next year. But hopefully we can have you back several times.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
That'd be great.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
I really appreciate it, Tim, And the maddest decision is
one that needs to be back on people's radar screens.
It's that And again, I'm just curious am I off base.
I'm just trying to think that mostly a case of
that magnitude, the court really wants consensus. They don't want
these four to throw.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Just show you what's going on.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Yeah, yeah, it's it's very interesting, very interesting. District Plymouth
County District Attorney Tim Cruse, and also again the president
of the National District Attorney's Association. Folks, if you're on
the line, stay there, I will talk to you, but
the District Attorney has some more important business tomorrow morning
in courts in the County of Plymouth. Tim, thank you
(08:26):
so much for your time tonight, and you're extra innings tonight.
Thank you so much. No problem, okay, all right, thanks
very much. Now we get back. I'd like to talk
to you about this matters decision. I will bet most
of you were not aware of it. Again, came down
a few years ago, kind of at a time when
(08:46):
people were very much thinking about the George Floyd case
and being influenced by that. But think about the burden
that it puts on the families. If there was someone
in your family who was murdered by an eighteen year old,
nineteen year old or a twenty year old and they
were destined to receive traditionally a life in prison without parole.
(09:09):
Now they will get a sentence of life in prison,
but with the possibility of parole, which means fifteen years
from now. Depending upon who it is in your family
who's murdered, either you, your immediate family members, or your
children will be interested in having to go to those
(09:29):
parole hearings and fight to keep that person in prison.
So the balance in this country between the criminal and
I'm not talking about the criminal who is caught with
a six pack of beer behind the stadium when he's
eighteen years old, or we're not talking about the criminal
who steals a couple of packs of cigarettes from a
(09:51):
variety store. We're not even talking about a criminal who
breaks into someone's house. I think that all of those
people obviously are going to be they'll get second chances.
They'll probably get second, third, fourth, and fifth chances before
they ever see the inside of a prison cell. But
for the cold blooded first degree murderer at the age
of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty, they are old before their time.
(10:16):
And yet in Massachusetts, and in Massachusetts alone, they can
be assured even with a conviction a first degree murder,
that they'll have a shot or two at shot or
two or three or four or five at parole. And
as Tim Cruz said, so far about twenty four of
these cases, twenty one have resulted in paroles. What is
wrong with us in Massachusetts on these issues? Why can
(10:40):
we not look at someone who has committed a Hanu's
crime and say, look, you are to be separated from
us for the rest of your life. We know you're nineteen,
we know you're eighteen, we know you're twenty, but the
magnitude of the crime that you've committed is beyond the realm,
and you have consigned yourself, by your own actions, beyond
a reasonable doubt to prison two four ten thirty six
(11:02):
one seven nine three one ten thirty. We'll talk a
little bit longer about crime and punishment tonight, in large
part because I want you to talk about this case
and I want you to understand it. And if you
don't understand it, please feel free to clarify it. If
I haven't well, I know Tim Cruise explained it really well.
If I haven't explained it well, I want to stick
(11:24):
with this for a while, so please give us a call.
Coming back on Nightside. If you disagree with me on this,
I think that people who are eighteen, nineteen and twenty
and commit a heinous first degree murder should have a
parole hearing at some point in their life. Where do
you draw the line? Join the conversation. We'll be right
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
But let's go to the phone. It's gonna go to
Terry and Harwich, Massachusetts. Terry, thanks for holding on. I
was I just could not keep the DA any longer
than we did.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Right ahead, Terry, Well, Dan, I am very concerned, I
think with the premise District Attorney mister Kruz was saying
was so eloquent and so educational, and how could something
like this happened? But I think I'm even a little
(12:22):
bit more confused, and I don't know the law as
well as you do, or certainly as him. But why
can't this be revisited? You well, I believe much day
has happened.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Well, it could be revisited. And one of the things
that could be revisited, obviously, is if the legislature wanted
to take this on. But there's great deference generally given
to decisions by the Supreme Court. They made a conclusion
in this case that it was unconstitutional. So you're basically
(12:58):
going to back up to the Supreme Court if the
legislature were to try to overturn the law. It's it
doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, there's no
other state in the Union that looks at people who
are already achieved are you know, become eighteen nineteen and twenty. Again,
(13:24):
the floor in the case was this, you know this
emergency emerging science. Well, emerging science could.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
Could tell us right, yeah, It's just so I have
another question for you, go right ahead. Are you aware
of the Daubert Place, the Daubert Place Dobert case Casebart
(13:51):
versus Dow Chemical.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Nope, not specifically. Won't you tell me about it?
Speaker 5 (13:57):
Well, my case is the cannabis case, and I know
you don't know this. It was an industrial accident case
and I won every decision going until I got to
the SJC and they ruled it was a very strange ruling. Actually,
(14:17):
they reversed the decision of the Industrial Accident Board, but
they never reversed the decision of the three judge panel
at the Superior Court in Boston.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Pre judge panel would have been the Court of Appeals. Yeah,
you know, Terry, Rather Terry, this is tough to talk
about cases that one I don't know about and my
audience doesn't know about, you know, but they had to.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Do with the expert witnesses and still this unproved proven
science fit into this, And I wondered if they ruled
against their own decision previous like saying.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Yeah, I don't know. I understand the point you're trying
to make, and it's very frustrating when you're convinced on
the righteousness of your situation. And obviously there's much more
to the story that I can handle here.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
Perhaps, Oh no, I understand that I wanted to ask
the district attorney. I'm sure he knew about the case.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Well, not necessarily, because that is the case. Your case
is a civil case, and the district attorney.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
Well, yeah, that's true. That's true.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
The district attorney obviously, as a prosecutor, is dealing with
criminal cases, so he knows criminal cases very well. But
there's no reason for him to know a civil case
unless it gets a lot of publicity. You know, district
attorneys represent the people against people who have broken the law.
And that's because it's always it's in effect the district attorney.
(15:56):
It prosecutes the case, but it's the people versus the defense.
So I wish I could help you on that one more.
But perhaps we'll see each other and we'll talk about it.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
Okay, have a great night, Thank.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yous, n talk to you soon. Okay, it is ten thirty.
We got a newscast. I would like to talk about
this case, and I hope some of you would like
to engage in the conversation. There are other topics that
are on my mind tonight. I do want to get
to the republic trash collection strike, which is now went
(16:32):
out on July first, but we'll talk about that during
the eleven I just want to talk about this case,
which probably most of you are not aware of that
in Massachusetts, we're the only state which basically says to
people who are eighteen, nineteen or twenty, if you commit
a heinous murder, a first degree murder that involves felony,
(16:55):
murder that involves premeditation and deliberation, that involved extreme cruelty,
that involves in that's a first degree murder case. Normally,
if you do this. When you're twenty one, you will
be sentenced under the current rules to life in prison
without parole, without the possibility of parole. But in Massachusetts,
(17:18):
and only in Massachusetts. According to da Cruz, if you're eighteen,
nineteen or twenty and you commit a heinous murder the
US the Massachusets Supreme Court on a four to three decision,
which is very uncharacteristic for a four to three decision.
They do not like to make important decisions four to three.
(17:42):
They like them to be unanimous. That's the practice of
the court. They basically said to the victims, to heck
with you, and we don't care about you, and we
don't care about the person who was killed. Unmercifully, we
want to make sure that that eighteen, nineteen or twenty
year old gets a chance at the rest of their
(18:05):
life through a parole hearing. Not going to automatically release them,
but they get a parole hearing. And the most important
people at parole hearings, and my experience has been the
family of the victims who come and protest and oppose
the parole hearing. But a lot of families at this
point die off, they move away, and nobody shows up
(18:26):
after maybe the second or third time, and that's what's
going to happen. You're going to have these people who
commit a horrific crime here in Massachusetts and walk free
maybe ten years later, maybe fifteen years later, maybe twenty
years later, but they don't spend the rest of their
life in prison. And when we eliminated the death penalty,
(18:48):
remember the opponents of the death penalty all said, well,
the death penalty is the easy way out for these people.
Make them stay in prison for the rest of their lives. Well,
that now is off the board in Massachusett, depending upon
the emerging science and what happens. If the emerging science
says tomorrow, well, we don't want to hold people forever
if they if they committed the crime before they were
(19:09):
twenty five, well, do I hear thirty? What about thirty
five forty over here? Six one, seven, two, five, four ten,
thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty Serious
Crime and Punishment Conversation. We'll be back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Night Side with Dan Ray. I'MBZ Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I do want to remind you of a neat, neat
way for you to be part of our Night Side broadcast.
This is so easy by utilizing our talkback feature in
the iHeart Radio app. Look, we obviously want phone calls,
no doubt about that. That's what this show is all about.
But if you're a little rushed and you can't wait,
you can make sure you download and have the free
iHeart Radio app. While listening to night Side Live on
(19:52):
WBC News Radio, tap the red microphone talkback button in
the top right corner to send us your personalized audio
message and we'll play it back on NIGHTSID. I gotta
keep it clean. It can be critical, it can be complementary,
it can be constructively critical. You do it in about
thirty seconds. Once again, you hit that red microphone button
in the top right corner of the app while listening
(20:13):
to Nightside and send us your audio message and Rob
we'll clear it and we will play it. You'll be
able to hear what it sounds like, and you can
comment on what we're talking about, or you can comment
on the program generally. Let us get back to the
phone calls. We lost Jeff there for a second. He's
called back, so we will take him in the order. Jeff,
you are next on Nightsick. Right ahead, I.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Got the problem in one word, liberalism.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Well, I can't disagree with you on that, Jeff, go
right ahead.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
Well, this state is a one the precious part of
the problem. You're part of the problem.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
And yeah, I never raised by the way, Jeff, I
never raise issues like this, Okay, Yeah, I mean you
can tell that I'm very much support of the Supreme
Court decision.
Speaker 6 (21:00):
No yours. You don't want to take a strong stand
one way or the other on issues.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
So do you have any idea what stand I'm taking
on this issue? Jeff? Or No? Have I been ambivalent?
Speaker 6 (21:12):
It's surprising, It's very surprising, refreshing for a change.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Do you listen to the show often? How long have
been listened to the show?
Speaker 6 (21:19):
I'ven't listening to the show off and on for about
ten years. But you know.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
You should listen to it more consistently and you would
understand when we talk about mass and casts. Have I
been ambivalent on that issue in your mind? Jeff?
Speaker 6 (21:37):
No?
Speaker 2 (21:38):
We Well, thank you for your honesty, I mean, thank you,
thank you very much for your honesty. But have we
been Have I been ambivalent on how I feel about
the success of President Trump on closing the border and
the necessity of him closing the border.
Speaker 6 (21:54):
No, but you give anybody a hard time to supports Trump.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
No, I give people, I give people. Jeff, let me
tell you, I'm not gonna cut you off. I'm not
gonna put you in the water. I'm gonna have a
conversation with you because I think it's important. Okay. I
give all points of view an opportunity. I have my
own points of view. I hit my own beliefs, okay.
And if you've listened to me over any period of time,
(22:20):
you know pretty much where I stand.
Speaker 6 (22:24):
Can you say George Floyd without saying the tragic murder
of George.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Was the murder? What? What else was it?
Speaker 6 (22:32):
I know? But I've heard Have you ever mentioned Ashley Babbit?
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Yes, I have mentioned the the woman who was killed,
shot as she was climbing through the window, the side
glass of a door inside the Capitol. Of course I've
mentioned Ashley. Haven't mentioned Ashley Babbitt probably in a year.
But but but George, the.
Speaker 6 (22:57):
Guy who shot her in the neck, which was a
black guy police officer, what.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Does his race have to do with it?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Is this everything to do with it?
Speaker 7 (23:06):
Why?
Speaker 6 (23:06):
Everything?
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Why? What do you think he shot it because she
was white. Come on, Jeff, that's that's where you and
I are going to disagree. Jeff, you're gonna look at
that as a racial issue. I think the guy probably Oh, well,
the guy did overreact. There was no reason that he
shouldn't shot as well. Again, you don't want to hear
what I want to say, So why do I want
to say it?
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Don't hang up for me.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Well, I'm gonna hang up on you if you don't
let me complete a sentence. You want to know how
I feel about something. I'm telling you. I don't think
that that officer who happened to be black, as I
understand that no one's been charged with that, by the way,
but all that I've read indicates that I don't think
that he said, oh, there's a white person, I want
to shoot the white person. I think the guy panicked.
I don't think the guy was qualified to be carrying
(23:50):
a gun in that set of circumstances.
Speaker 6 (23:53):
Captain, did you know that?
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Yes? Yes, yes, yes, yes. He was never charged. He
was never charged. Jeff, Okay, I didn't investigate the case.
I wasn't involved in the investigation. And guess what, I'm
not interested in spending a lot of time going over
Ashley Babbitt, You and I probably disagreed deeply over what
happened on January sixth. That was an embarrassment to the country.
(24:23):
It was absolutely wrong. There were people there who were
there to incite the crowd and convince them and compel
them and coordinate to go inside the capitol. I saw
police officers being hit over the head with sticks with signs.
I had too many friends who are police officers, Jeff
(24:44):
that I'm gonna stand with police officers. I'll stay with
the police officer who was shot and killed by the
wackadoodle that walked into that building on Park Avenue yesterday.
Speaker 6 (24:54):
Okay, Okay, just by saying that wackadoodle shows your ignorance
or mental illness.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Oh really, well, let me tell you something. Let me
tell you something. I don't know if you're mentally ill. Okay,
I haven't had enough conversations with you. But the guy
who carries an AR fifteen into a building on Park
Avenue in New York is a whack of doodle. Okay, nuts,
He took four innocent lives. And if you and I
(25:20):
kind of agree on.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
That, Jeff, don't hang up, don't hang out.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
I gotta tell you you're getting close here, because that guy
was a whack of doodle. That guy went in and
he claimed that somehow that his high school football career
had sent him over the edge. Do you know how
many people in America play high school football every year?
Speaker 6 (25:38):
Jeff, just calm down a minute to listen to me
for a minute. Too many mentally ill people are allowed
to walk around the streets. That is the problem.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
I agree with you that that is the problem. But
but you want to call someone mentally ill, I can
call him a wack of doodle, okay, because I'm not would.
Speaker 6 (26:00):
Call would you call the drug addicts and the alcoholics bumps,
But you call a mentally ill person wack adoodle.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
I would call someone who is, who does, who did
what that guy did. I'm not talking about the person
who's mentally ill and who is walking the street during
the day contributing nothing to society. They're not a whack
of doodle. They are, in my opinion, a poor lost soul. Okay.
I don't know how I got to where they got to,
but they got to a really bad place.
Speaker 6 (26:28):
They have a disease that's being treated.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Well maybe they don't want it to be treated Jeff. Okay,
there's a lot of people in this country who go
to psychiatrists and go to psychologists and submit to treatment
and they get better. Okay, maybe what we need to
do is make people put people away.
Speaker 6 (26:46):
Well, that's liberalism has stopped that.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I don't disagree with you that that in your analysis, Jeff,
And as a matter of fact, on that I will agree.
But you want to you want to criticize me in
front of my audience. I've done this show for eighteen years. Jeff.
Speaker 6 (27:03):
You handle it what You're a big boy. You can't
handle it.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Oh, believe me. I can handle much more than you, Jeff.
But what I'm telling you is, I'm doing this show
for eighteen years. I have been authentic. I have been
honest with people. I have dealt with issues. On some occasions,
I have changed my mind. I'm always open to conversations.
But when someone walks down drives from Las Vegas to
New York, like in two days, tell me what that
(27:29):
guy was on as he's driving across the country and
then goes in and murders four people.
Speaker 6 (27:33):
The problem is he wasn't on anything, and he was Oh.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
He was on something to stay awake Jeff for two days.
You don't stay awake for forty eight hours driving an
automobile for forty eight hours or seventy two hours straight.
Speaker 6 (27:46):
Why don't you have a psychiatrist on some night? You
love doctors? Why don't you have a psychiatrist?
Speaker 2 (27:51):
I have shrinks. I have shrinks on all the time,
all the time. Jeff, you got to listen more closely, Jeff,
I am. I'm up at a break. You and I
have done seven minutes thirty seconds here.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
Yah, it's probably the best pile of your show all night.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Well you may think so, okay, but I'll tell you
what it is. It's basically lays beer that you cannot
stand anyone who disagrees with whatever conclusion you draw. And
that's your problem, it's not mine. I gotta go. Thanks
for the call. We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
You're on night Side with Dan ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Okay, back to the calls we go. Let me go
to market Winchester. Mark next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (28:32):
Welcome, Hi, Dan ray Hill. Hello, can you hear me here?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
You're fine? Mark? Right ahead?
Speaker 8 (28:41):
Anyhow, I'm thinking about my younger brother, Mack, who died
a year ago. Is really horrible. And I said, I
was not. He's on my mind anyhow. Uh, it's it's
Tim anyhow, Tim Cruz unbelievable. If you see him, Tom,
Tim McMahon said, keep up a good work, and God
(29:01):
bless him.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, he's he's a really smart guy. And he now
is the the president of the National District Attorneys Association.
And it's not often that someone from Massachusetts gets elected
president of anything. Mike Dukakis trie John Gary tried, well,
did Kennedy tried?
Speaker 4 (29:20):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (29:20):
He is now president Cruise of the National District Attorney's Association,
and he's a really smart guy. And he's got his
finger on the pelts. And I will tell him you
said hello, No.
Speaker 8 (29:33):
I said that, and tell him to keep up a
good work.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
God blessing.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
This thing. That h.
Speaker 8 (29:41):
There's something the case.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
I'm sorry, try again.
Speaker 8 (29:48):
What you were talking about.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yeah, we're talking. We're talking about a case called the
Maddis case. It's the name of the case. Mater and say.
It's a case in which an individual has been given
the right to a parole hearing, even though he was
convicted for murder. In the first degree because he was
(30:11):
under the age of twenty one when he did that,
when he committed that crime, and our state Supreme Court
decided on a whim based upon what they called emerging science.
Emerging science is that it's uncorroborated science. There's a lot
of science which is emerging, and you have to test science,
(30:32):
and there was no scientific test here. They basically overruled
the state legislature on a close four to three decision. Generally,
our Supreme Court on a decision that is significant, likes
to rule seventh to nothing in United as a court.
So it just we now the only state in the
(30:56):
Union where you can kill somebody at the age of
eighteen twenty, be convicted of murder in the first degree
and still still be given a right to parole fifteen
years down there.
Speaker 7 (31:06):
Outrageous.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
That's a crime. That's outrageous. Anyhow, uh outrageous. I've been
listening to your program. You have the best program on
the year any year ever.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Well, you tell that to my friend Jeff.
Speaker 8 (31:21):
Friday. Best program on the air.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
All right, I got I gotta keep I gotta keep
rolling here, Tim, thank you much. I got a couple
of other calls. They want to get to him. We
got to switch topics at at eleven, We're going to
talk about the the the strike by the Republic Trash
Company which is not picking up trash, and a whole
bunch of Eastern Massachusetts communities Winchester, uh and in Wooburn.
(31:46):
I don't think are impacted, but a lot of communities
thanks to Thanks Tim.
Speaker 8 (31:53):
Talk to you soon anyhow.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
Thank you, Dan.
Speaker 8 (31:55):
Have a good night, you.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Too, have a good one. Let me go to Ramone
in Worcester. Ramone, you next on nightside. Welcome?
Speaker 4 (32:02):
How you doing?
Speaker 2 (32:03):
I'm doing great? Ramone? Welcome? How are you tonight?
Speaker 7 (32:05):
I know after the walker Doodle call? Uh, you know
after further review, you are a fair man, Dan. I
I'm always listening and sometimes sometimes I might have thought
you a little biased, but that's not the case. I
think you're a fair man. You give everybody a shot.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Yeah, I want to get people a shot. And and
as I've said, and I'm being honest with you, Ramone,
I don't care. I'm not trying to convince people to
think like I think. I want to just have a conversation. Uh.
And when when I referred to the guy who walked
in and killed four people in cold blood yesterday as
a whack of doodle. That's not what I really want
(32:49):
to call him. But I can't say those words on
public radio or on you know, on on on commercial radio,
or I'd lose my job.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
It was you made my day.
Speaker 7 (33:01):
I mean, I you put them in his place anyhow.
But on the current topic, yeah, I think I think
it's I have the same thought. They shoot, you know,
they stay in jail, no plasibility of parole. You know,
I know there I've been cases that after years they
(33:23):
find out that what I'm guilty about, somebody was convicted.
And I think they should create some programs. I know
they got programs that they made stuff in jail for,
like insurance company. Like my glasses they got made in jail.
My doctor told me that, No I have to tell
you that, yeah, my eyeglasses. But they should have a
program that all the proceeds will just go to pay
(33:46):
restitution to the families.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Absolutely, because the families are the ultimate victims here, and
they are victimized twice. They lose their loved one and
then yeah, because the individual who killed their loved one
was eighteen, who can they can drink. Well, they can't drink,
but they can vote, they can join the military, they
can enter into contracts, they can consider medical decisions by themselves.
(34:11):
And yet when they kill someone in a brutal fashion
and they convicted of murder one, we want to somehow
give them an opportunity to be parolled somewhere down the line,
ten fifteen, twenty years on the line. I think it's wrong.
I think it's a bad decision. And that's why I
wanted to keep Tim Cruz on talking about this one.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (34:30):
And the other thing was, I mean, I have it
seems like this story has died down about that recluit,
that that Spanish guy, that state belief that.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Yeah, I am looking into that. And someone mentioned I
asked for some suggestions the other night, and one of
our listeners said, we need to find out what's going
on there. And I'm absolutely going to try and push that.
I will do an hour on that within the next week.
I guarantee you.
Speaker 7 (34:54):
Okay, oh, great, great game. The last thing, maybe at
some point you to have some immigration type of thing
go on or something.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I think, oh, we talk, we talk about that all
the time. I'm a huge believer in legal immigration. I
want to know who's coming in the country. I want
to know who they are. I want to know what
their background is, and I think that's important. I'm going
to try to get one more call in here. Ramon,
do me a favorite. Keep calling the show. We'll talk
about guy. Let me go to Bob and Rhode Island. Bob,
(35:24):
welcome back. I think go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
Okay, Dan, I think the best seven minutes of your
program is when you add Jeff on. I'm in, Jeff,
I'm back in. Jeff.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
Good for you. I'm not surprised.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
Another thing, another thing, Well, well, hold on, I hope
that Trump gets some peach your buddy, and this time
I hope it sticks because the guy's no good.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
Well tell that, Tell that to Jeff. Okay, because he
is a Trumpet.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Touch with Jeff. He's a one in my books.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Well, he ain't one in your book. I don't know why.
But but if you knew Jeff, Jeff is a Trumper
of all Trumpers. And if you and I know you
don't like Trump, I know that you're the quintessential anti Trumper.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
Yeah, but you do like Trump?
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Well you got you got both, you got you who
hates anything that Trump does, and you got Jeff who
loves anything that Trump does. I'm the guy in the
middle who says some things he does right, some things
he may do he does wrong. Okay, So I look
at it each issue individually, just as I look at
each issue with Biden. There were things that Biden did
(36:35):
right and things that Biden did wrong. I don't say
I don't swear my allegiance to to somebody, or or
do I say that person is such a bad human
being he can't do something right. But you guys, you
made as if Trump cured cancer, you would say that
it's putting.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
Hospitals and doctors out of business.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
You missed my point because you didn't even listen. But
I do appreciate you call.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
To yours cancer. I'd still be.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Of course you would, and thank you, Bo, thank you
for your honesty, because because he could bring world peace,
and you would feel that somehow he's putting armies out
of business. I get it, Bob, do me a favor.
Do you know how to swim? We're gonna find out.
All right, we get back after the eleven o'clock news.
(37:29):
We are going to talk about something that we have
not talked about. Uh, it's now almost a month old,
and that is the trash strike here in Greater Boston,
in New England, in eastern Massachusetts. Let me be more precise,
that is what we're gonna talk about from eleven o'clock
to midnight. We'll be back on night's side after this
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.