Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Very very pleased to welcome back to the show my
friend Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector. He's an attorney as
well and just an all around interesting guy. He hosts
a substack called the Ops Desk opsdes Case. You can
go find the Ops Desk substack and subscribe there. He's
a Fox News contributor as well. Paul, when the when
(00:21):
your camera was on, I saw you wandering around. Are
you at Fox or where are you right now?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
I'm at Fox.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
You know, obviously it's a busy news day here, especially
with this shooting.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, so in fact, let's let's start with that. I
mentioned it briefly on the show. But you have a
lot more information than I do. Plus you, you know,
you're a New York cops So just tell us whatever
you want to tell us about the shooting this morning.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, unfortunately I don't have.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
That much more information than you do, because it seems
that nobody does.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I would say this.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
The thing that we can say in terms of hard
and fixed is that, in my mind, anyway, the shooter
new enough to put the victim at that location at
that time. Reportedly, shooter arrives just five minute or so
before the victim exits the hotel, or at least or
is in that in front of that. There's some conflicting
reporting on that, but the shooter was able to put
the victim tragically at that location at that time. That
(01:12):
tells me that the convention, the thing that the victim
was attending, is the point of ingress. That's the hard
data point that the shoot was going off of. And
so as your possibility of getting a street level solve
on this thing, because obviously it's starting to go cold,
and it's not a cold case by any means, but
I mean in terms of getting him in.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Flight or something like that. Obviously now was starting to dissipate.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
You're going to start doing the background work into the
victim's life to ascertain what might have led to this.
And one of the starting points almost certainly is who
had access to that schedule knew he would be there,
and then you want to try to cross reference that
with somebody with a great right.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
And you know, I think given that it was he's
the CEO of a company and that was the shareholders meeting,
there probably was a schedule that a thousand people had
saying so and so is going to speak at such
and such a time, which is not really the same
as saying he's going to arrive at the building at
that time. So you know, if he actually had that
level of detail, that would be that would be a
different thing. And then as far as the gripe, I mean,
(02:12):
the obvious thing would be somebody who was pissed off
that that the health insurance company that the guy ran
maybe declined to claim and his wife died of cancer
or something, but it could be something else. Maybe maybe
that CEO was, you know, sleeping with the killer's wife.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
We just don't know, right, we don't.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
And you know, to leverage the cliche here, love more money, right, Yeah,
So you'll be thinking in terms.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Of all of that.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
He didn't live in New York.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
He's from Minnesota, so you know you have to does
he come to New York a lot? Did he have
established relationships here or something like that. You know, you
definitely have to look at that sort of thing. You're
going to digitally go into his background and do everything
you can to access the victim's phone. A lot of
this is going to be digital now. And then look,
we don't want confirmation bias here. As the saying goes
(03:02):
we don't always take assumptions and leap off of those
and be led in the wrong direction. And so you
have to keep an open mind to a couple of possibilities.
Number one, is it a hired killer, And if that's
the case, then you'll want off from the motive, and
so that gets a little bit tougher. Number two, what
if it's in case of mistaken identity, What if the
person shot the wrong guy? Well, that's the possibility. You
(03:23):
have to have all of these open. But that said,
it looks very planned, very targeted, and the guy knew
the shooter, knew how to get out of there, and
he knew enough to get on a bike at all
separate location. Yeah, I know the cutthrough that he ran through,
So he planned that. I would be pulling the video
from weeks before the event to see if you have
somebody casing that whole thing out.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
And then he knew enough to.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Get to Central Park. We had some coverage. This camera's
in there, but you know the trees getting away, and
he had that backpack on which I would believe almost
certainly had a change of clothes in it.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Okay, so let me ask you just a couple more
things about investigating this kind of thing. So it I
believe he was wearing a mask. So, but it's also
New York City, a big hotel, very very busy part
of the city, so I would imagine that he was
caught on camera at multiple locations. So my question for
(04:18):
you is, is the quality of AI or some similar
kind of investigative tool good enough that if he's in
the system already, his face might be able to be
matched even though he's wearing a mask.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
I would I would throw water on that. I don't
think it is at that level. There's a lot of
stuff coming out in that area. I've been promised even
when I'm retired about three years, but even as I
was leaving, I was promised everything under the sun regarding
some of these programs. I was promised at one point,
for instance, a fool proof lie detective test that a
company wanted me to And you know, you vet these
(05:01):
things out and they're never as good as the demonstration
that they give you.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
So somebody wearing what looks.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
To be a pretty full face mask leaving on a bicycle,
they could be one in a million.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
You know.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
One of the things that's coming out now is in
the area that you're talking about, which is kind of interesting,
is a gate identifier. When I mean when I say
gate g A, I T the way you walk and
believe it or not, that's quite specific.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I don't know that the PD has gotten that mind understanding.
I don't.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
I've never heard that they do, and I probably would
have heard that's the kind of stuff that is coming
on market. You know, you may be able to go
to the FBI or something like that, but you know, Russ,
you make this salient point, which is he has to
be in the system already, and if he is not,
if it's let's say a hired person or somebody who's
just never encountered law enforcement, you don't have that kind
of information. You can't match to anything. And that goes
(05:54):
by the way for the ballistics as well. They got
three realms because he cleared a jam, you know enough
that to do that, and apparently they feel it fairly professionally.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
But if the dude has that, he in the system.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
With the ballistic stuff already, and if you're not, you're
not going to get it that way, right.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But if the dude is on social media, killer is
on social media at all or anywhere at some point
we're going to get to AI that tries to match
him against a massive online database. And I think if
people have posted their pictures publicly, they have no expectation
of privacy and the cops would not need a warrant
to I think compare security footage to you know, every
(06:30):
kind of screen grabbed Facebook picture that had been posted
publicly anyway.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Right, Yes, if it's out there, you posted it on
to social media, you're not going to have to drop
a warrant. You know, they make payper rate just to
cover themselves. But no, if it's out there and no
expectation of privacy, you can do it. You'd have to
hope then, you know, look, his face is covered, you
don't have a lot to work with. And even the
photos that they released, which I assume are the best
ones they got, are quite blurry.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
So that I think is going to be a shot
in the dark.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
But if you get a clearer picture of his face,
or as I said, if the gate is available and
you have if you know, the AI goes through the
entire Internet manages to match him to a walk boy,
what are in a story case that would be. And
these are the kind of things that are coming online
right now. I don't know we're going to get a
quick solve that way. I think if I had a guess,
(07:20):
it's going to come from backgrounding into the victim's life,
somebody who's got a gripe. But the guy very clearly
did what he could to cover his tracks. So this
one looks challenging. It looks challenging.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Okay, let's switch gears.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
I've wanted to talk to you for a while about
the Daniel Penny trial, and I guess the fact that
you're on with me right now means that we don't
have a verdict yet, because if we had a verdict already,
you'd be on Fox News. So I have not talked
about this trial since maybe the indictment or something. So
for folks who don't know, just give a very brief
(07:55):
summary of what this trial is about, and then I
want your insight as to how you think it's gone,
and if you were a betting man, what you think
the verdict will be.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
Okay, So, relatively crowded train car in Manhattan, A person enters.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
That's Jordan nearly he's six ' to one.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
He takes off his jacket, throws on the ground, starts screaming.
Various reports about what he says, but essentially makes a
threat that he doesn't care if he dies or goes
to jail, that somebody is going to die. Today's screaming exactly,
very erratically. Everybody's scared. He seems to move towards a
mother and child, according to the reporting, and the mother
tries to sort of shield the child. At that point,
(08:34):
d Daniel Penny, the Filma Marine comes up out of
his chair, puts nearly in a hold.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Around his neck.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
I'm cognizant, cognizantly not saying chocold, because that's one of
the issues at trial, takes him down, pulds him down,
nearly struggles, and there's various reporting as to how long,
at least several minutes, and then ultimately nearly dies. It
comes several Number one, did Penny kill him? And is
(09:05):
it only Penny that killed him? The victim had K two,
a very rulant drug in him. He also had sickle
cell which had damaged a lot of his organs. Reportedly,
he'd had a number of psychotic episodes in the past.
One corner that we've had on the air here at
Fox has said that it looks like a cardiac event
to him, there were no broken bones, and then that
we sh will almost always get in a strangulation that
(09:27):
the hyoid bone, which breaks quite easily, was not broken.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
So does a question of whether Penny.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
He killed him, or if in fact he did kill him,
was it justified, because that's Penny's defense, the justification of
the justification defense, which is I met force commensurate with
the threat that we faced, and it's a reasonable person
test as to whether or not a reasonable person would
have taken in those steps. Penny's case is helped by
(09:57):
the fact that he gave an interview right after the event,
not knowing that Neely was dead, in which case he
makes every indication that he thought it was a serious
threat and that he did only what he thought was
necessary to mitigate the threat.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
But then, more to the point, several other people.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
On that train car stuck around talked to the police
it's on body cam that's introduced a trial, saying how
thankful they were that Penny acted the way he.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Did and that they felt that he was quote.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Unquote only trying to restrain the victim, the victim in
this case being nearly all of This goes to the
idea that, in my estimation, you should have out of
twelve reasonable doubt that Penny did not act.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
First of all, he's not charged with intentionally killing him.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
He's charged with either recklessly or negligently killing him, and
the prosecution is hinging it on the idea that Penny
held on fifty one seconds too long. A lot of
us who have been in Manhattan have been in those
circumstances were a person who's unhinges skins on a train
is saying to themselves, do I have to carry in
a stopwatch now to make sure I don't get charged
(10:58):
in a certain circumstance with somebody who's got clearly a
break with reality. It turns out he's got numerous priors.
He was out on a felony warrant for randomly punching
an old woman in the face in the subway. He
was under mandatory psychiatric treatment that he walked out of.
So how mandatory could it have been? And so it
admits a lot of the issues that are in play
here in New York City. A lot of people feel
(11:19):
like the case should not have been brought, and a
lot of people feel and myself included that there should
be reasonable doubt. I think there will be at least
one person among the twelve on the jury, including several
lawyers who they want to say I can't convict on
this thing.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
So my prediction is a hung jury.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
I agree with everything you said, and I agree with
your prediction as well. And I have about ninety seconds here.
So this is a Manhattan jury, and it's a case
of a white guy maybe killing, maybe being responsible for
the death of but at least, let's say, interacting with
a black guy who then died. And you can imagine
these left wing New York juries want to convict wanting
(11:57):
to convict a white guy or the death of a
black guy. But it's also a Manhattan jury that is
to deal with the Manhattan subway all the time and
knows what it's like, you know, like the kind of
escape from New York vibe you.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Get from time to time.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
And I say this as a guy who was born
in New York and has ridden the subway a lot.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
And I actually I love the New York subway, I
really do.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
And so I think you're gonna get New Yorkers saying,
all right, I don't dig that a guy died, but
we've all felt that fear on the subway. I'll give
you the last thirty second, No, twenty nine seconds. I
have to do a prime number. I'll give you the
last twenty nine seconds.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Every juror on this case in Vadir in the jury
selection stated that they are somebody who takes the subway.
They all know that feeling. The defense is banking on that.
Remember something. The police did not even make the arrest. Initially,
they declined to make the arrested, kick the whole thing
over to the DA for presentation to the grand jury.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Then the protest.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Started, and just as you said, the left wing groups
all came out and racialized this, and that's when city
Hall buckled and had him arrested before he even got
to the grand jury.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Really shouldn't have gone that way.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
And all I would say, just to close out, is this,
after seeing an interview with Daniel Penny and getting a
measure of his character according to all reporting, would he
have done anything different if Jordan Neely had acted that way.
I've been a white guy and my estimation is no.
I think a lot of New Yorkers agree with that.
I don't think this is a race case. They tried
to make it one, including a prosecution, which I think
(13:29):
is shameful and I hope he gets off.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Paul Morrow is a former NYPD inspector. He's the proprietor
of the Ops Desk. You can find him online. Just
search for the Ops Desk. You'll find the website and
the substack.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
I encourage you to subscribe.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
To the substacks and fascinating information and insights from a
guy whose experience you just won't have access to otherwise.
He's a Fox News contributor as well. Very grateful for
you squeezing us into day, Paul. I know you're really busy,
so thank you so much. Anytime, Paul, you thank you
all right, bye, Paul
Very very pleased to welcome back to the show my
friend Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector. He's an attorney as
well and just an all around interesting guy. He hosts
a substack called the Ops Desk opsdes Case. You can
go find the Ops Desk substack and subscribe there. He's
a Fox News contributor as well. Paul, when the when
(00:21):
your camera was on, I saw you wandering around. Are
you at Fox or where are you right now?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
I'm at Fox.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
You know, obviously it's a busy news day here, especially
with this shooting.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, so in fact, let's let's start with that. I
mentioned it briefly on the show. But you have a
lot more information than I do. Plus you, you know,
you're a New York cops So just tell us whatever
you want to tell us about the shooting this morning.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, unfortunately I don't have.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
That much more information than you do, because it seems
that nobody does.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I would say this.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
The thing that we can say in terms of hard
and fixed is that, in my mind, anyway, the shooter
new enough to put the victim at that location at
that time. Reportedly, shooter arrives just five minute or so
before the victim exits the hotel, or at least or
is in that in front of that. There's some conflicting
reporting on that, but the shooter was able to put
the victim tragically at that location at that time. That
(01:12):
tells me that the convention, the thing that the victim
was attending, is the point of ingress. That's the hard
data point that the shoot was going off of. And
so as your possibility of getting a street level solve
on this thing, because obviously it's starting to go cold,
and it's not a cold case by any means, but
I mean in terms of getting him in.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Flight or something like that. Obviously now was starting to dissipate.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
You're going to start doing the background work into the
victim's life to ascertain what might have led to this.
And one of the starting points almost certainly is who
had access to that schedule knew he would be there,
and then you want to try to cross reference that
with somebody with a great right.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
And you know, I think given that it was he's
the CEO of a company and that was the shareholders meeting,
there probably was a schedule that a thousand people had
saying so and so is going to speak at such
and such a time, which is not really the same
as saying he's going to arrive at the building at
that time. So you know, if he actually had that
level of detail, that would be that would be a
different thing. And then as far as the gripe, I mean,
(02:12):
the obvious thing would be somebody who was pissed off
that that the health insurance company that the guy ran
maybe declined to claim and his wife died of cancer
or something, but it could be something else. Maybe maybe
that CEO was, you know, sleeping with the killer's wife.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
We just don't know, right, we don't.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
And you know, to leverage the cliche here, love more money, right, Yeah,
So you'll be thinking in terms.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Of all of that.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
He didn't live in New York.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
He's from Minnesota, so you know you have to does
he come to New York a lot? Did he have
established relationships here or something like that. You know, you
definitely have to look at that sort of thing. You're
going to digitally go into his background and do everything
you can to access the victim's phone. A lot of
this is going to be digital now. And then look,
we don't want confirmation bias here. As the saying goes
(03:02):
we don't always take assumptions and leap off of those
and be led in the wrong direction. And so you
have to keep an open mind to a couple of possibilities.
Number one, is it a hired killer, And if that's
the case, then you'll want off from the motive, and
so that gets a little bit tougher. Number two, what
if it's in case of mistaken identity, What if the
person shot the wrong guy? Well, that's the possibility. You
(03:23):
have to have all of these open. But that said,
it looks very planned, very targeted, and the guy knew
the shooter, knew how to get out of there, and
he knew enough to get on a bike at all
separate location. Yeah, I know the cutthrough that he ran through,
So he planned that. I would be pulling the video
from weeks before the event to see if you have
somebody casing that whole thing out.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
And then he knew enough to.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
Get to Central Park. We had some coverage. This camera's
in there, but you know the trees getting away, and
he had that backpack on which I would believe almost
certainly had a change of clothes in it.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Okay, so let me ask you just a couple more
things about investigating this kind of thing. So it I
believe he was wearing a mask. So, but it's also
New York City, a big hotel, very very busy part
of the city, so I would imagine that he was
caught on camera at multiple locations. So my question for
(04:18):
you is, is the quality of AI or some similar
kind of investigative tool good enough that if he's in
the system already, his face might be able to be
matched even though he's wearing a mask.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
I would I would throw water on that. I don't
think it is at that level. There's a lot of
stuff coming out in that area. I've been promised even
when I'm retired about three years, but even as I
was leaving, I was promised everything under the sun regarding
some of these programs. I was promised at one point,
for instance, a fool proof lie detective test that a
company wanted me to And you know, you vet these
(05:01):
things out and they're never as good as the demonstration
that they give you.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
So somebody wearing what looks.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
To be a pretty full face mask leaving on a bicycle,
they could be one in a million.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
You know.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
One of the things that's coming out now is in
the area that you're talking about, which is kind of interesting,
is a gate identifier. When I mean when I say
gate g A, I T the way you walk and
believe it or not, that's quite specific.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I don't know that the PD has gotten that mind understanding.
I don't.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
I've never heard that they do, and I probably would
have heard that's the kind of stuff that is coming
on market. You know, you may be able to go
to the FBI or something like that, but you know, Russ,
you make this salient point, which is he has to
be in the system already, and if he is not,
if it's let's say a hired person or somebody who's
just never encountered law enforcement, you don't have that kind
of information. You can't match to anything. And that goes
(05:54):
by the way for the ballistics as well. They got
three realms because he cleared a jam, you know enough
that to do that, and apparently they feel it fairly professionally.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
But if the dude has that, he in the system.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
With the ballistic stuff already, and if you're not, you're
not going to get it that way, right.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But if the dude is on social media, killer is
on social media at all or anywhere at some point
we're going to get to AI that tries to match
him against a massive online database. And I think if
people have posted their pictures publicly, they have no expectation
of privacy and the cops would not need a warrant
to I think compare security footage to you know, every
(06:30):
kind of screen grabbed Facebook picture that had been posted
publicly anyway.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Right, Yes, if it's out there, you posted it on
to social media, you're not going to have to drop
a warrant. You know, they make payper rate just to
cover themselves. But no, if it's out there and no
expectation of privacy, you can do it. You'd have to
hope then, you know, look, his face is covered, you
don't have a lot to work with. And even the
photos that they released, which I assume are the best
ones they got, are quite blurry.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
So that I think is going to be a shot
in the dark.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
But if you get a clearer picture of his face,
or as I said, if the gate is available and
you have if you know, the AI goes through the
entire Internet manages to match him to a walk boy,
what are in a story case that would be. And
these are the kind of things that are coming online
right now. I don't know we're going to get a
quick solve that way. I think if I had a guess,
(07:20):
it's going to come from backgrounding into the victim's life,
somebody who's got a gripe. But the guy very clearly
did what he could to cover his tracks. So this
one looks challenging. It looks challenging.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Okay, let's switch gears.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
I've wanted to talk to you for a while about
the Daniel Penny trial, and I guess the fact that
you're on with me right now means that we don't
have a verdict yet, because if we had a verdict already,
you'd be on Fox News. So I have not talked
about this trial since maybe the indictment or something. So
for folks who don't know, just give a very brief
(07:55):
summary of what this trial is about, and then I
want your insight as to how you think it's gone,
and if you were a betting man, what you think
the verdict will be.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
Okay, So, relatively crowded train car in Manhattan, A person enters.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
That's Jordan nearly he's six ' to one.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
He takes off his jacket, throws on the ground, starts screaming.
Various reports about what he says, but essentially makes a
threat that he doesn't care if he dies or goes
to jail, that somebody is going to die. Today's screaming exactly,
very erratically. Everybody's scared. He seems to move towards a
mother and child, according to the reporting, and the mother
tries to sort of shield the child. At that point,
(08:34):
d Daniel Penny, the Filma Marine comes up out of
his chair, puts nearly in a hold.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Around his neck.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
I'm cognizant, cognizantly not saying chocold, because that's one of
the issues at trial, takes him down, pulds him down,
nearly struggles, and there's various reporting as to how long,
at least several minutes, and then ultimately nearly dies. It
comes several Number one, did Penny kill him? And is
(09:05):
it only Penny that killed him? The victim had K two,
a very rulant drug in him. He also had sickle
cell which had damaged a lot of his organs. Reportedly,
he'd had a number of psychotic episodes in the past.
One corner that we've had on the air here at
Fox has said that it looks like a cardiac event
to him, there were no broken bones, and then that
we sh will almost always get in a strangulation that
(09:27):
the hyoid bone, which breaks quite easily, was not broken.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
So does a question of whether Penny.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
He killed him, or if in fact he did kill him,
was it justified, because that's Penny's defense, the justification of
the justification defense, which is I met force commensurate with
the threat that we faced, and it's a reasonable person
test as to whether or not a reasonable person would
have taken in those steps. Penny's case is helped by
(09:57):
the fact that he gave an interview right after the event,
not knowing that Neely was dead, in which case he
makes every indication that he thought it was a serious
threat and that he did only what he thought was
necessary to mitigate the threat.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
But then, more to the point, several other people.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
On that train car stuck around talked to the police
it's on body cam that's introduced a trial, saying how
thankful they were that Penny acted the way he.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Did and that they felt that he was quote.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Unquote only trying to restrain the victim, the victim in
this case being nearly all of This goes to the
idea that, in my estimation, you should have out of
twelve reasonable doubt that Penny did not act.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
First of all, he's not charged with intentionally killing him.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
He's charged with either recklessly or negligently killing him, and
the prosecution is hinging it on the idea that Penny
held on fifty one seconds too long. A lot of
us who have been in Manhattan have been in those
circumstances were a person who's unhinges skins on a train
is saying to themselves, do I have to carry in
a stopwatch now to make sure I don't get charged
(10:58):
in a certain circumstance with somebody who's got clearly a
break with reality. It turns out he's got numerous priors.
He was out on a felony warrant for randomly punching
an old woman in the face in the subway. He
was under mandatory psychiatric treatment that he walked out of.
So how mandatory could it have been? And so it
admits a lot of the issues that are in play
here in New York City. A lot of people feel
(11:19):
like the case should not have been brought, and a
lot of people feel and myself included that there should
be reasonable doubt. I think there will be at least
one person among the twelve on the jury, including several
lawyers who they want to say I can't convict on
this thing.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
So my prediction is a hung jury.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
I agree with everything you said, and I agree with
your prediction as well. And I have about ninety seconds here.
So this is a Manhattan jury, and it's a case
of a white guy maybe killing, maybe being responsible for
the death of but at least, let's say, interacting with
a black guy who then died. And you can imagine
these left wing New York juries want to convict wanting
(11:57):
to convict a white guy or the death of a
black guy. But it's also a Manhattan jury that is
to deal with the Manhattan subway all the time and
knows what it's like, you know, like the kind of
escape from New York vibe you.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Get from time to time.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
And I say this as a guy who was born
in New York and has ridden the subway a lot.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
And I actually I love the New York subway, I
really do.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
And so I think you're gonna get New Yorkers saying,
all right, I don't dig that a guy died, but
we've all felt that fear on the subway. I'll give
you the last thirty second, No, twenty nine seconds. I
have to do a prime number. I'll give you the
last twenty nine seconds.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Every juror on this case in Vadir in the jury
selection stated that they are somebody who takes the subway.
They all know that feeling. The defense is banking on that.
Remember something. The police did not even make the arrest. Initially,
they declined to make the arrested, kick the whole thing
over to the DA for presentation to the grand jury.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Then the protest.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Started, and just as you said, the left wing groups
all came out and racialized this, and that's when city
Hall buckled and had him arrested before he even got
to the grand jury.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Really shouldn't have gone that way.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
And all I would say, just to close out, is this,
after seeing an interview with Daniel Penny and getting a
measure of his character according to all reporting, would he
have done anything different if Jordan Neely had acted that way.
I've been a white guy and my estimation is no.
I think a lot of New Yorkers agree with that.
I don't think this is a race case. They tried
to make it one, including a prosecution, which I think
(13:29):
is shameful and I hope he gets off.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Paul Morrow is a former NYPD inspector. He's the proprietor
of the Ops Desk. You can find him online. Just
search for the Ops Desk. You'll find the website and
the substack.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
I encourage you to subscribe.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
To the substacks and fascinating information and insights from a
guy whose experience you just won't have access to otherwise.
He's a Fox News contributor as well. Very grateful for
you squeezing us into day, Paul. I know you're really busy,
so thank you so much. Anytime, Paul, you thank you
all right, bye, Paul
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.