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