Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news.
Speaker 2: Video Christina Rex, do you know that theme song?
Speaker 3: I don't. I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 4: You shouldn't be because you're too young to know that.
Speaker 3: What is it?
Speaker 4: That is the theme song from La Law?
Speaker 3: Oh? Okay, no, I don't know it.
Speaker 4: Did you have a watcher?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: I might be too young. I think you're right.
Speaker 4: Sorry, yourself an attorney. I just want to say that,
Speaker 4: I'm very proud. I think it's great. Congratulate. We're going
Speaker 4: to talk about the case. Of course, that is driving
Speaker 4: us crazy, but you know, I think I think it's
Speaker 4: really amazing, and I think it's it's great quality that
Speaker 4: not only are a terrific journalist, you've also been going
Speaker 4: to law school and you've got your degree here an attorney,
Speaker 4: just like Dan Ray. I worked with Dan at Channel
Speaker 4: four and I never I never knew the guy was
Speaker 4: an attorney as well. So I mean, it's one thing
Speaker 4: to be a journalist, it's another thing to also go
Speaker 4: to law school and become an attorney. Yeah, congratulations, thank.
Speaker 3: You so much. I still have to pass the bar,
Speaker 3: so we can't can't count our chickens before they hatch
Speaker 3: but look, hopefully the.
Speaker 4: Bar in July JFK Junior, God rest his soul. It
Speaker 4: took him three times. You'll be fine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, hopefully it only takes one.
Speaker 4: Hopefully you'll be fine. You'll be fine. So, you know,
Speaker 4: I see big things happening Court TV. That that's okay.
Speaker 4: People at Channel four are going to get mad at
Speaker 4: me for saying that. So I feel the need to
Speaker 4: talk about the Karen Reed trial. I have to be
Speaker 4: honest with you. I'm fatigued. I'm like, let's make a call, folks,
Speaker 4: yay or nay. I'm done.
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people feel that way.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean it's got to be even. I mean,
Speaker 4: you're into it. You're an attorney, you find it interesting.
Speaker 4: So yeah, but I don't know who to believe because
Speaker 4: today they say that the prosecution had a good day.
Speaker 4: Is that the case.
Speaker 3: Who said that? Well, I was really I mean Court TV?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Court TV. But the the crash reconstruction expert Welcher
Speaker 4: said that. Welcher, yeah, that the cut was consistent with
Speaker 4: being hit by the Lexus Fillason correct.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 3: He is a private, independent crash reconstruction expert who is
Speaker 3: hired by the State, by the way, which we found
Speaker 3: out today according to the defense for three hundred and
Speaker 3: twenty five thousand dollars is what his company has been paid,
Speaker 3: and that's taxpayer money. So he according to his research
Speaker 3: and testing he did. He says that John O'Keefe's arm
Speaker 3: injuries are consistent with being hit by the Lexus tail light.
Speaker 3: He also says that the information in the car is
Speaker 3: consistent with a collision occurring, so it's the damage to
Speaker 3: the car. So in that regard, that might be why
Speaker 3: people are saying it's a good day for the Commonwealth.
Speaker 3: The other thing is that ninety plus percent of the
Speaker 3: day was cross examination of the same guy, and it
Speaker 3: was we now learned at the end of the day
Speaker 3: that that cross examination is only halfway done, so four
Speaker 3: hours in, it's only halfway done. And it was just
Speaker 3: kind of one of the more prolonged cross examinations that
Speaker 3: didn't necessarily have like really punchy gotcha moments like other
Speaker 3: cross examinations have had so far. But we got to
Speaker 3: see how tomorrow goes too, especially since this is only
Speaker 3: halfway through.
Speaker 4: I know, as a reporter, you're not going to give
Speaker 4: me an opinion, so I mean just answer this question,
Speaker 4: especially can yep. Could it be that he was struck
Speaker 4: by the vehicle but he was already dead, or he
Speaker 4: was on his way to you know, he was injured,
Speaker 4: he was lying in the snow. I mean, it always
Speaker 4: seems to me the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 4: Is that a possibility?
Speaker 3: So, honestly, I don't even if us as an opinion,
Speaker 3: I think anybody in the case, involved in the case
Speaker 3: would agree the scenarios you're putting out there. I don't
Speaker 3: think there are a possibility because based on the timing
Speaker 3: of when John o'keef and Karen Ree left the bar
Speaker 3: and got to thirty four fair View, there's the state
Speaker 3: is alleging that this crash, and then this expert is
Speaker 3: saying that according to the car data, it happened. We're
Speaker 3: talking within minutes to seconds of them arriving in front
Speaker 3: of the house. So the times wouldn't line up for
Speaker 3: John O'Keefe to already have been injured in some way
Speaker 3: before that crash happened, Which is why I think the
Speaker 3: art between both sides is the crash happened or it didn't.
Speaker 4: Okay, all right, I understand that I got you, now,
Speaker 4: so when do you think this thing? How much longer
Speaker 4: do we have?
Speaker 3: So I have some insight on this. So it's our
Speaker 3: belief based on various information, that this guy, Judson Welcher
Speaker 3: is the final Commonwealth witness. So however, he might be
Speaker 3: on the stand through Friday at this rate, given how
Speaker 3: long his testimony is taking. But when he's done, we
Speaker 3: expect that the Commonwealth will rest and then the defense
Speaker 3: says that their case will be about a week and
Speaker 3: a half. And then there's a potential that prosecutors will
Speaker 3: call some rebuttal witnesses which did not happen last trial,
Speaker 3: because they have some of their own experts this time
Speaker 3: to talk about whether or not John o'kee's injuries or
Speaker 3: dog bites. So if the defense presents a case about
Speaker 3: dog bites, the state might want to rebut that and
Speaker 3: so that could be few more days, so like two
Speaker 3: more weeks of testimony ish, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4: Is there a concern with jury fatigue?
Speaker 3: Yes, except I will say, well, so there's eighteen jurors,
Speaker 3: and I would say generally speaking, I got to give
Speaker 3: them credit because during the last trial, it started with
Speaker 3: nineteen and by the last day we were down to fourteen.
Speaker 3: I think not one juror has dropped out, so kudos
Speaker 3: to them because they've all been there for six weeks straight. However,
Speaker 3: if we're talking about juror fatigue, like on a daily basis,
Speaker 3: there are certainly some jurors. There are some who are
Speaker 3: diligent note takers who are locked in all the time,
Speaker 3: and others who at times look like they have completely
Speaker 3: zoned out, depending on kind of what point we're at
Speaker 3: in testimony.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so is there now we're talking strategy here or
Speaker 4: second guessing strategy. Is there a benefit to maybe for
Speaker 4: the defense expediting the process, or does it benefit them
Speaker 4: to drag it out, because it seems to me they're
Speaker 4: dragging it out.
Speaker 3: I think it depends. That was such a lawyer answer.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but during the last trial, the Commonwealth called
Speaker 3: sixty eight witnesses and then the defense only called six,
Speaker 3: and it was like two days quick, punchy to the point,
Speaker 3: you know, and I think that that was a strategy.
Speaker 3: That's not going to be the case here the defense
Speaker 3: that's going to take a week and a half. It
Speaker 3: has a much longer witness list than it did in
Speaker 3: the previous trial. On the flip side, the Commonwealth's witness
Speaker 3: list is practically cut in half. They've called thirty eight witnesses,
Speaker 3: not sixty eight. So we're certainly seeing things kind of
Speaker 3: meet in the middle in that regard. But you do
Speaker 3: notice almost that slip of that technique. For example, Robert Lessi,
Speaker 3: the defense attorney who I told you is up right now.
Speaker 3: He's really methodical and he's like really into the data,
Speaker 3: and so his questions are really data focused, and at
Speaker 3: times it can take you know, a dozen questions to
Speaker 3: get to the answer looking for. And then on the
Speaker 3: flip side, on redirect examination, you see Hank Brennan get
Speaker 3: up there after him and he asks like three or
Speaker 3: four questions really fast, and then the witness gets off
Speaker 3: the stand, and you have to imagine that's a strategy.
Speaker 3: It's hard to envision that it's anything but a strategy
Speaker 3: when somebody has been on cross the gamination for hours
Speaker 3: and hours and hours to then come up and kind
Speaker 3: of be zippy and get them off the stand quickly.
Speaker 3: So we certainly are seeing My point is each side
Speaker 3: kind of do the opposite of whatever the other side
Speaker 3: is doing at any given point, so it'll be interesting
Speaker 3: Robert Alessi has played a huge role for the defense
Speaker 3: and cross examination during the commonwealths case. I imagine I
Speaker 3: don't know this, but I imagine that during the defense's
Speaker 3: case in chief, perhaps Alan Jackson, David Yannetti, the attorneys
Speaker 3: who played a bigger role last trial will be the
Speaker 3: ones kind of leading the charge.
Speaker 4: Christina retches, our guest esquire.
Speaker 6: Not yet, not yet, bar bar pending bard bar pending
Speaker 6: when I was in college or your age bar pending
Speaker 6: at a completely different meaning.
Speaker 5: Yes, we have.
Speaker 4: But the big question that we're going to ask is
Speaker 4: should we expect to change in the outcome versus last time.
Speaker 4: That's coming up in our next segment with Christina right
Speaker 4: here on WBZ.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 4: Great book Blood in the Water, Casey Sherman writes about
Speaker 4: it or wrote that book, and he's coming up at
Speaker 4: nine thirty. We all know about that case, dead mother,
Speaker 4: that grandfather who plus tic on that one in Casey
Speaker 4: is a very unique, very unique opinion on that. Okay,
Speaker 4: let's get back to another very unique case. The Karen Retrala.
Speaker 4: Joining us is Christina Rex. Christina who done a great
Speaker 4: job covering this.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Why do you Why is it allowed that people can
Speaker 4: pay witnesses. I don't understand it.
Speaker 1: In general.
Speaker 3: Yes, this is I mean expert witnesses. That's a field
Speaker 3: of that's a career. I mean, you can be an
Speaker 3: expert witness in like you can be a doctor and
Speaker 3: one who does expert testimony. On the side. There are
Speaker 3: expert witnesses who are government employees, for example, like the
Speaker 3: state medical examiner or a state trooper who does a
Speaker 3: very specific line of work. Those are the kinds of
Speaker 3: people who are expert witnesses to do it for a living,
Speaker 3: and they always testify on behalf of the case. But
Speaker 3: it's the tale as old as time that you can
Speaker 3: pay an expert witness.
Speaker 4: But to me, and again, I mean, but you just
Speaker 4: brought it up. And I understand there are people that
Speaker 4: should be paid for their expertise, but you just brought
Speaker 4: it up. As soon as I say, I'm the prosecution,
Speaker 4: I have a defense witness. I have to pay him
Speaker 4: three hundred thousand dollars. The defense says they just bought
Speaker 4: this guy for three hundred grand. I'm on the jury
Speaker 4: and I'm just a regular citizen, you know. Working a
Speaker 4: regular job and in my mind thinking, Okay, they paid
Speaker 4: this guy off to tell their story.
Speaker 3: Right, and the jury can be instructed often to not
Speaker 3: come to that conclusion, like jury instructions are a thing
Speaker 3: that the judge can give. On the flip side, the
Speaker 3: defense also has crash reconstruction experts that it has paid.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the total is, but it has
Speaker 3: paid as well. And I can guarantee on cross examination
Speaker 3: of those witnesses that the prosecutor will lack how much
Speaker 3: they were paid for their testimony. So just exactly that's
Speaker 3: the exact point I'm trying to make. As normal as
Speaker 3: it is to have an expert witness, it's like a
Speaker 3: guaranteed throwaway question almost that a lawyer is going to ask,
Speaker 3: weren't you paid to be here today? And how much
Speaker 3: were you paid to be here? I think for this
Speaker 3: witness who's on the stand today and tomorrow and yesterday,
Speaker 3: the interesting part about him being paid is that allegedly
Speaker 3: it's three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars, and that's
Speaker 3: taxpayer money. So typically the state has government employees who
Speaker 3: do this work, Like during the last case, it was
Speaker 3: a state trooper who did that work right, So the
Speaker 3: taxpayers weren't paying extra. Now that taxpayer money going to
Speaker 3: an independent company for the prosecution's case. So that's what
Speaker 3: made it a little more interesting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that it's just a bad look. I mean, yeah, And.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you we have I put a public records
Speaker 3: request in yesterday to get an itemized receipt of the
Speaker 3: money paid to this company, because again this is just
Speaker 3: coming out on cross examination, so I just have to say,
Speaker 3: you know, the defense says the bill was this much,
Speaker 3: but hopefully I'll get an actual copy of the bill
Speaker 3: from the state. At some point I.
Speaker 4: Lost track of this. Wasn't there a witness from the
Speaker 4: last trial that was on Read's defense team.
Speaker 3: Who got paid?
Speaker 4: You mean or it was. I don't know if they
Speaker 4: got paid, but I remember when the trial began that
Speaker 4: there was They said there was a witness that they
Speaker 4: from the previous trial that they were using for her call.
Speaker 4: Did I get that right?
Speaker 3: I assume you're referencing the crash reconstruction experts. So there
Speaker 3: was like a lot of drama about this in between
Speaker 3: the two cases. Basically, in the first trial, these crash
Speaker 3: reconstruction experts who had been privately hired by the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice as part of a federal investigation. They testified
Speaker 3: for the defense, and then it was revealed in about
Speaker 3: February of this year that the defense had paid for
Speaker 3: their services and that had not been revealed to the court.
Speaker 3: And so that was like a big yeah, that was
Speaker 3: like a big kind of dramatic situation. The judge had
Speaker 3: like considered sanctions on one of the defense attorneys, and
Speaker 3: there were several hearings about it. So I think that
Speaker 3: I assume that's what you're thinking about. But those same
Speaker 3: experts are now coming back to testify in this case
Speaker 3: and they do work for the defense. Now in this case,
Speaker 3: their witnesses on behalf of the defense.
Speaker 4: You know, I'm confusing it with an episode of All
Speaker 4: Law from nineteen eight.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm doing before my time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, you just gotta, you gotta go. You gotta
Speaker 4: watch it on two B or something, just to look
Speaker 4: at the clothes and the hair cells. You gotta oh,
Speaker 4: I will you got it? Okay. So Karen Reid seemed
Speaker 4: to be this cult figure. Is some of her shine
Speaker 4: off her star been dulled.
Speaker 3: In person, no, so in person at the courthouse every
Speaker 3: day there is. There's a whole new system compared to
Speaker 3: the last trial, but there's still a crowd of dozens
Speaker 3: of people every single day. They gather out there in
Speaker 3: their you know, shirts that say free Karen Reid or
Speaker 3: their pink outfits. They cheer for Karen and her team
Speaker 3: as they drive in. Karen usually flows down as she
Speaker 3: unrolls the window and she talks to them for a
Speaker 3: couple of minutes before she goes in. Some a lady
Speaker 3: from Toronto I think it was the other day, came
Speaker 3: and was like, can I please get a selfie with you?
Speaker 3: I came from Canada to be here, so in person,
Speaker 3: no on social media. I get the impression that there's
Speaker 3: a lot a much bigger range of opinions this time around,
Speaker 3: and people who are into the case posting about it
Speaker 3: more so than there was last trial.
Speaker 4: I just know, if you hang around too long, you're screwed,
Speaker 4: you know, with public perception. I mean seriously, you know,
Speaker 4: like it gets people go okay, go away. And I'm
Speaker 4: not even talking about whether she's guilty or not. I
Speaker 4: think that's just how people think. I mean, in this
Speaker 4: day and age, you know, people.
Speaker 3: Get yeah, kind of the celebrity of it all.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, it's like here today, gone tomorrow. Do you,
Speaker 4: as I look at this from one hundred miles away,
Speaker 4: I don't see how there's a change in the outcome
Speaker 4: versus last time. Am I wrong?
Speaker 3: No? I think you might be right. It's certainly a
Speaker 3: different case this time around. I mean, there is new
Speaker 3: evidence the prosecution has put on a very different case.
Speaker 3: And the biggest mom maybe I shouldn't say biggest, but
Speaker 3: one big thing that they have used that they didn't
Speaker 3: use the last trial is that they have an entireative
Speaker 3: hours and hours of unedited raw interview footage with Karen
Speaker 3: Reid that they've played twenty five plus clips of on
Speaker 3: the screen for the jury where the defendant herself admits
Speaker 3: to how much she drank, whether or not she should
Speaker 3: have been driving, etc. And so that's certainly new information
Speaker 3: that could make a jury feel one way or the other.
Speaker 3: At the same time, a lawyer said this to me
Speaker 3: during the last trial, and I think of it all
Speaker 3: the time, which is that if you get ten people
Speaker 3: in a room and you bring up the Karen Reid trial,
Speaker 3: you cannot get all ten people to agree. And I
Speaker 3: think that's still true, and I think that that could
Speaker 3: very well be true for a jury as well.
Speaker 4: I don't expect you to give an answer on this
Speaker 4: on which way you think it'll go. But in your mind,
Speaker 4: do you think you know what happened? Because I don't.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, and actually no, thank you for this question.
Speaker 3: Can I tell you yes? Because one very strange aspect
Speaker 3: of kind of the social media of this case is
Speaker 3: that so I do these social media recaps the end
Speaker 3: of every day after I'm on TV, and yeah, one
Speaker 3: of the top comments I get is like, whose side
Speaker 3: are you on? Why don't you tell us what you
Speaker 3: think you know? I can't tell which team you're on.
Speaker 3: And I tell people this in person often and they
Speaker 3: don't believe me, Like I truly, as a journalist and
Speaker 3: as a person, do not have a strong opinion about
Speaker 3: what happened in any direction. I think the reason this
Speaker 3: case has taken off so much is because there is
Speaker 3: so much gray area, generally speaking, and people have so
Speaker 3: many different opinions about what might have happened. And I'm
Speaker 3: someone whose job it is to know all of those
Speaker 3: theories and all of the other sink court and all
Speaker 3: of the witnesses and so every day. I'm just inundated
Speaker 3: with more information that I'm always fascinated by the people
Speaker 3: who claim that they know exactly what happened.
Speaker 4: There's no way that you can be objective and say that.
Speaker 3: I just you know, way you can be objective and say, oh,
Speaker 3: it's so obvious that this is what happened, or it's
Speaker 3: clear that this is what happened, because the only thing
Speaker 3: that objective people could agree upon in this case is
Speaker 3: that it's not clear.
Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, well that'll do it for the that's that's
Speaker 4: the third act, and we still don't know who did it,
Speaker 4: you know, I mean, well, but it's true.
Speaker 3: I mean, the thing is that the really really unique
Speaker 3: thing about this entire situation, which has made prosecutors job
Speaker 3: really tough from the beginning, is that there's not a
Speaker 3: single eyewitness to what they say happened. Do you know
Speaker 3: how rare that is for an event like what the
Speaker 3: prosecution says occurred to happen and to not have a
Speaker 3: single person witness it. I mean, that's a really tough
Speaker 3: case from the start. So you can't say anything's clear
Speaker 3: if not a single person saw it.
Speaker 4: Agreed, there's a cut that looks like it was done
Speaker 4: by the light. She said I hit him, I hit him.
Speaker 4: But then I look at that and I say, she
Speaker 4: thought she hit him. She was panicked, she didn't know
Speaker 4: what she was talking about. Then they sell the house,
Speaker 4: they paint the floor, the dog disappears, ying and Yang,
Speaker 4: I'm going I'm confused, and I think I.
Speaker 3: Think it's you can only imagine how the jury feels, right.
Speaker 4: I think it's a really hard thing to do. And
Speaker 4: I think I think she's going to walk again because
Speaker 4: I don't think that there's going to be I just
Speaker 4: don't see it changing, you know, I just do not.
Speaker 4: I do not see the outcome changing. And I'm not
Speaker 4: pro either way. I just don't think the evidence is there.
Speaker 4: I have to ask you a question, what are your
Speaker 4: plans now? Are you going to continue to do television journalism?
Speaker 4: And I don't want to put you in trouble with
Speaker 4: your bosses. I used to work there with no.
Speaker 3: No, no, I am. I genuinely am going to I
Speaker 3: feel like, especially given the opportunity to cover this trial
Speaker 3: the last two years, I'm just in a really good place.
Speaker 4: Any network, any network, would be crazy not to go
Speaker 4: get you in regard to this. Yeah, well, no, I
Speaker 4: mean it's true. I mean, like, you know, look, I
Speaker 4: worked at television for a long time. In radio, there
Speaker 4: could there are some real I've worked with some real
Speaker 4: morons behind the mic, and there are some people that
Speaker 4: really know what the hell is going on. Dan Ray is
Speaker 4: one of them who was an attorney that worked at
Speaker 4: Channel four. And you're an attorney that worked at Channel four,
Speaker 4: and you know there's a lot of there's a lot
Speaker 4: of value in that final question, how has this case
Speaker 4: changed your approach to being an attorney or your desire
Speaker 4: to be an attorney?
Speaker 3: I think it's kind of ignited my passion even more.
Speaker 3: I mean I think, like I told you, I'm in
Speaker 3: a good place at work. I really feel like I'm
Speaker 3: where I'm supposed to be right now. I can imagine
Speaker 3: that someday, years years down the line, maybe I'll practice
Speaker 3: law and I find a lot to be so exciting,
Speaker 3: and this covering this case has been real world experience
Speaker 3: that I couldn't have asked for anywhere else. So it's been,
Speaker 3: you know, maybe even better than the classroom for the
Speaker 3: last two years at certain times, and so I don't know, yeah,
Speaker 3: in that regard, it's been really just made me more
Speaker 3: interested in law, and but it's another thing is that
Speaker 3: I think that it's brought me a unique perspective when
Speaker 3: covering this case, because, like we've talked about, did anyone
Speaker 3: really know what happened? A lot of people will say, like,
Speaker 3: you know, everyone's trying to no one's fighting for the truth,
Speaker 3: and there's a lot of accusations about that. I've been
Speaker 3: in a unique position to try to explain to people
Speaker 3: that you know, unfortunately, for better or for worse, evidence
Speaker 3: in court is not always about finding the truth of
Speaker 3: what happened. It's about proving a case, there's no doubt.
Speaker 4: Great job, Christina. We have appreciate your time. Best of
Speaker 4: luck and congrats where to go.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 4: Okay, take it Christina Rex Follow her a Channel four
Speaker 4: follow on Instagram if you're into the Caenry case. She's
Speaker 4: got great insight and she's gonna pass the bar. Are
Speaker 4: you kidding me the first time? No problem. Casey Sherman's
Speaker 4: got another great book out. Sherman is on a roll,
Speaker 4: Blood in the Waters. Next on w Z.
Speaker 1: Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4: Okay, pay attention to people, Gary Tagway for Dan Ray Here,
Speaker 4: listen to this list. The Finest Hours, Helltown, Hunting Whitey,
Speaker 4: Last Days of John Lennon, The inside story of Tom
Speaker 4: Brady's fight for redemption and murder in Hollywood. Amazing work.
Speaker 4: I do want to also say Dave Wedge or Buddy
Speaker 4: worked on a couple of these books with Casey Sherman.
Speaker 4: But Casey is joining us right now and he's got
Speaker 4: a new book out, Blood in the Water, the untold
Speaker 4: story of a family tragedy. And we all remember this.
Speaker 4: I mean we all remember this story in twenty sixteen
Speaker 4: when Linda Carman she drowned and her son Nathan was
Speaker 4: rescued in a lifeboat, and then all kinds of suspicion
Speaker 4: came out, did this son do it? The grandfather was
Speaker 4: murdered three years earlier, he was shot. There's a lot
Speaker 4: of money involved. I've set the scene. Casey, you are
Speaker 4: the go to guy for these books right now. I
Speaker 4: have to tell you this, and I know you'll take
Speaker 4: this as a compliment. You are the Flee Bailey of
Speaker 4: true crime. Because if somebody's got a big story, it's
Speaker 4: like if you needed, if you needed a defense attorney
Speaker 4: to get you out of jail. You went to E.
Speaker 4: Flee Bailey. If you need an author right now to
Speaker 4: write a book about a crime situation with a lot
Speaker 4: of juice to it, you were the guy. How did
Speaker 4: this one come to you?
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, thank you, Gary, and I take
Speaker 5: that as a compliment. Flee Bailey was a good friend
Speaker 5: of mine, so you know this story came to me
Speaker 5: much like it came to all of your listeners. Learned
Speaker 5: about it via the news in twenty sixteen when this
Speaker 5: miraculous rescue occurred one hundred and fifteen miles south of
Speaker 5: Martha's Vineyard, where Nathan Carmen, a young man on the
Speaker 5: autism spectrum, was rescued. He'd been on a life raft,
Speaker 5: according to him, eight days in the North Atlantic before
Speaker 5: he was rescued by the crew of a passing Chinese
Speaker 5: cargo ship. And when the story broke it was a
Speaker 5: bittersweet story because his mother, fifty four year old Linda Carmen,
Speaker 5: was missing, but Nathan had been rescued. And I remember
Speaker 5: that there were no images of Nathan or the rescue
Speaker 5: in the first twenty four hours, so the media was
Speaker 5: using clips of the old Tom Hanks film castaway to
Speaker 5: try to tell this story, and I thought, Okay, this
Speaker 5: is an interesting story that's unfolding in our waters. And
Speaker 5: I've always been fascinated, of course with everything that the
Speaker 5: Coastguard does, having written The Finest Hour, So my antenna
Speaker 5: went up right away thinking is this a heroic story
Speaker 5: or is this a story with a lot of darkness
Speaker 5: in it? And turns out this is a story with
Speaker 5: a with a tremendous amount of darkness surrounding it.
Speaker 4: What did you find that other people had not?
Speaker 5: Well, that's that's that's the key, right. So you know,
Speaker 5: when Nathan Nathan was eventually arrested and charged with murder
Speaker 5: on the high Seas basically he was accused of killing
Speaker 5: his mother and he was about to go on trial
Speaker 5: for that in twenty twenty three when he died under
Speaker 5: mysterious circumstances while he was incarcerated. So at that point
Speaker 5: I really had to gumshoe this case. And I interviewed,
Speaker 5: you know, well over forty key witnesses to the case,
Speaker 5: both on the record and off the record. I gathered
Speaker 5: up all of the primary source documents. And when I
Speaker 5: first went into this project, Gary, I thought there was
Speaker 5: a right line between the allegations against Nathan Carmen and
Speaker 5: his guilt, not only guilt in the disappearance and likely
Speaker 5: murder of his mother, but as you mentioned, the murder
Speaker 5: of his grandfather in twenty thirteen. When I investigated this story,
Speaker 5: I found the complete opposite that there wasn't a straight
Speaker 5: line to his guilt. In fact, several suspects emerge in
Speaker 5: this story, and at the end of the day, Nathan
Speaker 5: Carmen may have been innocent.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, Casey, what else is new? I mean,
Speaker 4: this is the stuff you do, and it's terrific. I
Speaker 4: want to go back to what you said. I wrote
Speaker 4: it down. You said Nathan Carmen did according to reports,
Speaker 4: he took his own life. You said suspicious circumstances. So
Speaker 4: you do not believe he took his own life.
Speaker 5: Well, I've got my questions about that. His lawyers certainly
Speaker 5: do not believe he committed suicide. You know, the warden
Speaker 5: at the jail where Nathan died said it was a
Speaker 5: suicide and then immediately said he'd left a suicide note behind.
Speaker 5: That wasn't a suicide note. It was actually a note
Speaker 5: to his lawyers to follow up on an investigative lead
Speaker 5: the next day. I will tell you this, Gary, that
Speaker 5: Nathan Carmen had an incredibly strong defense. I think he
Speaker 5: would have been acquitted of the charge of murdering his mother.
Speaker 5: He was only three months out before his murder trial
Speaker 5: was supposed to start. So why would Nathan take his
Speaker 5: own life? There are several theories, you know, surrounding that,
Speaker 5: including that somebody may have killed him while he was incarcerated.
Speaker 4: I want to ask this question. I say, I don't
Speaker 4: want to offend anybody, because I understand you know, you know,
Speaker 4: autism and in people on the spectrum live very fulfilling lives.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm not going but I does his medical
Speaker 4: condition can come into play as far in this at all.
Speaker 5: Garry, And the reasonably why I'm saying I'm.
Speaker 4: Not trying to offend anybody, Yeah, yeah, no, I get it.
Speaker 5: And Nora was I when I when I wrote this book,
Speaker 5: but I wanted to have a better understanding of autism
Speaker 5: spectrum disorder. And Nathan always believed that he was targeted
Speaker 5: by police and Windsor, Connecticut for the murder of his
Speaker 5: grandfather because he was considered quote low hanging fruit, because
Speaker 5: he was on the autism spectrum disorder or the spectrum
Speaker 5: I should say. I will say that the FBI and
Speaker 5: Coast Guard investigators never consulted any experts on autism spectrum disorder.
Speaker 5: And when I interviewed, the FBI said, you know, it's
Speaker 5: curious to me that you never had anyone with expertise
Speaker 5: in this disorder in any of your interview sessions with Nathan,
Speaker 5: nor did windsor police in Connecticut have that. Because Nathan
Speaker 5: can respond to questions in an unusual way, because his
Speaker 5: brain processes information differently from you or me. Not that
Speaker 5: it's that it's unusual, it's just a different way that
Speaker 5: he processed information. And you know the fact that you
Speaker 5: know there was no expertise involved here really struck me
Speaker 5: as curious. And when I asked the FBI about this,
Speaker 5: the FBI said, no, you know, we let our own
Speaker 5: profilers profile Nathan, but we were getting to that, meaning
Speaker 5: they were going to bring in an expert at some
Speaker 5: point in time. And I said, you were getting to that,
Speaker 5: I said, I said the young man's debt. I said,
Speaker 5: you know, it took you this long to do that,
Speaker 5: and he never got his chance in court?
Speaker 4: Was it simply just lazy police work.
Speaker 5: Well, they blamed it on COVID. I think it was
Speaker 5: a lot of lazy police work. Quite frankly, but they said, well,
Speaker 5: you know, we couldn't get to Nathan because it was COVID,
Speaker 5: and you know, he was all lowered up x y Z.
Speaker 5: I said, look, you know, you know, do your due
Speaker 5: diligence here, and quite frankly, you know, you know, these
Speaker 5: are my theories on the case. Gary. But the book
Speaker 5: Blood in the Water, I throw my fast fall straight
Speaker 5: down the middle, meaning I present the reader the prosecution's case,
Speaker 5: I present the reader the defense's case, and I put
Speaker 5: the reader in the jury box because I want the
Speaker 5: reader to decide whether or not Nathan is guilty or innocent.
Speaker 5: And you know, and the jury and the verdict really
Speaker 5: has been mixed amongst my readers. Some online reviewers believe
Speaker 5: that he was targeted because he was autistic. Others say
Speaker 5: that he was a criminal mastermind. So it's interesting that
Speaker 5: this has become a very big debater and talker amongst
Speaker 5: my readers.
Speaker 4: That is a big difference being targeted in a criminal mastermind.
Speaker 4: That is, that's a wide gap there, you know, as
Speaker 4: far as as far as perception. And also I don't
Speaker 4: believe Unfortunately, I don't think people and I don't claim
Speaker 4: to an expert, but I have a I think I
Speaker 4: have a I think I have a compassionate understanding that
Speaker 4: when you talk about people on the spectrum, there's a
Speaker 4: wide range, and I would say overall the population doesn't
Speaker 4: quite understand it.
Speaker 5: No, and even the experts of still trying to catch up,
Speaker 5: you know, with certain you know, variations of autism spectrum.
Speaker 5: Nathan had. We don't call it this anymore, but he
Speaker 5: had Asperger syndrome. Now Asperger doctor Asberger you know, eventually
Speaker 5: was deemed a Nazi, so we don't use that word anymore.
Speaker 5: But I just want your listeners to understand this is
Speaker 5: who Nathan was. He processed information differently, he emoded differently.
Speaker 5: Some people would say he was aloof or you know,
Speaker 5: had no compassion. You know, Nathan had great compassion, according
Speaker 5: to the people that I interviewed for this book, but
Speaker 5: he was never able to project that outwardly toward other people.
Speaker 5: So of course people thought he was odd and you know,
Speaker 5: portrayed bizarre behavior.
Speaker 4: This may be sorry to interrupt you, but this may
Speaker 4: be an exaggeration, but What comes to mind is when
Speaker 4: you say doesn't show emotion because of his conditions, some
Speaker 4: people maybe say, oh, he's cold blooded.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's true, And I think that's you know, the
Speaker 5: common theme of people that just read reports about Nathan
Speaker 5: or newspaper reports, or saw his you know, stoic image
Speaker 5: on television, and there are some photos where Nathan looks
Speaker 5: quite menacing, But that was the way Nathan always, you know,
Speaker 5: had these facial expressions that didn't mean he was, you know,
Speaker 5: capable of murder, not just one murder, but two. You know, Gary,
Speaker 5: I've covered two hundred homicides in my career as an
Speaker 5: investigative journalist. I know how difficult it is to pull
Speaker 5: off one perfect crime, but to pull off two, one
Speaker 5: on land and one on sea is almost nearly impossible,
Speaker 5: and quite frankly, it's probably giving Nathan Carmen more credit
Speaker 5: than he deserves in that realm.
Speaker 4: We have a theme tonight, follow the Money. It's you know,
Speaker 4: that's that's what it's all about. We're going to get
Speaker 4: to the money and his relationship with his grandfather that
Speaker 4: Casey dives into, which I found very interesting. That's next
Speaker 4: on WBZ talking to Casey Sherman Blood in the Water, you're.
Speaker 1: On Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4: Him in the book is Blood in the Water? Casey
Speaker 4: Sherman's done, and again from my money, Helltown. When you
Speaker 4: get Blood in the Water, you're read you also have
Speaker 4: to read Helltown, which is about the serial killer on
Speaker 4: Cape cod which is freaking Is that the that's gonna
Speaker 4: be a I don't want to put you on the spot,
Speaker 4: but I hope I see that on the big screen
Speaker 4: someday because that story is crazy. All right, So let's
Speaker 4: get back. Let's talk about the grandfather with the Blood
Speaker 4: in the Water. We're talking about Nathan Carman, who was
Speaker 4: accused of murdering his mother back in twenty sixteen after
Speaker 4: they went on a fishing trip. So his grandfather, and
Speaker 4: I want to get the last name right as a
Speaker 4: Chacalos Chocols Chocolus, John Chocolas was shot and killed at
Speaker 4: twenty thirteen. Now, a lot of people said after his
Speaker 4: mom died, well he killed both of them or allegedly.
Speaker 4: But with what you write is she was very close
Speaker 4: to his grandfather, so close that other members of the
Speaker 4: family were jealous.
Speaker 5: That's correct. So John Chockolus, eighty seven years old, had
Speaker 5: built a fifty million dollar empire. Basically, he was designing
Speaker 5: and building assisted living facilities all around New England. And
Speaker 5: John was actually going to give the business to his
Speaker 5: firstborn adult or male grandchild, Nathan Carmen. And of course,
Speaker 5: you know there are people and you know within the
Speaker 5: family that didn't want that to happen. But it just
Speaker 5: goes to show you that John loved Nathan Carmen and
Speaker 5: Nathan really loved his grandfather. Nathan had zero motivation to
Speaker 5: murder his grandfather because he was going to get everything,
Speaker 5: the keys to the kingdom, So there was really no
Speaker 5: reason for Nathan to murder his grandfather. But several other
Speaker 5: suspects to emerge in the pages of Blood and the Water.
Speaker 5: John Chocolus, who you know from the outside looking in,
Speaker 5: was a very benevolent person that did a lot for
Speaker 5: his communities, but he also had a twenty five year
Speaker 5: old mistress. John had some shady business dealings. You know,
Speaker 5: there are people enough people out there that wanted John
Speaker 5: Chocolas dead.
Speaker 4: How about this theory? I wrote this down. The screenwriter
Speaker 4: in me came up with this one case. Could Nathan
Speaker 4: have murdered his mother to avenge his grandfather's death, meaning
Speaker 4: did he think his mother had something to do with
Speaker 4: her father's death so she could get the money. How
Speaker 4: about that one.
Speaker 5: You know, it's an interesting theory and some people have
Speaker 5: certainly raised it, and you know, there are really only
Speaker 5: three people that know exactly what happened, and all of
Speaker 5: them are dead. There's another theory that Linda Carman herself
Speaker 5: may have murdered John Chockolas. Linda had a very volatile
Speaker 5: and violent relationship with her father over the care of
Speaker 5: her son, Nathan. Linda wanted to keep Nathan in bubble wrap,
Speaker 5: wanted to get him, you know, basically wanted to keep
Speaker 5: him institutionalized because of his disorder, whereas John Chockolas overlooked
Speaker 5: Nathan's you know, social challenges and was willing to give
Speaker 5: him the family business. So there there arguments over Nathan's
Speaker 5: care actually spilled over into violence. I write a scene
Speaker 5: in the book where John and Linda actually attack each
Speaker 5: other at a psychiatric hospital in Hartford, Connecticut over Nathan's care. So,
Speaker 5: you know, there is a lot of theories out there
Speaker 5: in terms of whom they have killed John shock Listen.
Speaker 4: Why now do you believe that Linda drowned? Well, I
Speaker 4: shouldn't say. I don't want to put you on the
Speaker 4: spot there, but it's okay, So the grandfather was shot
Speaker 4: and then there would be no foul play with Linda obviously, right,
Speaker 4: I mean if we believe, if you believe that Nathan's innocent,
Speaker 4: then her death was an accident.
Speaker 5: Then her death was an accident. You know, the question is.
Speaker 4: There with anybody else getting involved somehow?
Speaker 5: No, you know, with with Wnda's yeah, I mean I
Speaker 5: don't think i'm reaching. It's sure, sure, Well you're a screenwriter, Gary,
Speaker 5: and I get it. But I will say that, you know, obviously,
Speaker 5: there was some questions that Coast Guard investigators had about
Speaker 5: Nathan because Nathan claimed that he was a castaway in
Speaker 5: a life wrapt for seven to eight days. Now, this
Speaker 5: is after the US Coast Guard had a search and
Speaker 5: rescue mission that spanned over sixty four thousand square miles
Speaker 5: of the North Atlantic and no one could find any
Speaker 5: trace of Linda or Nathan during that time. And once
Speaker 5: they gave up the search, all of a sudden, Nathan
Speaker 5: pops up out of nowhere and is rescued by a
Speaker 5: crew of a passing Chinese cargo ship. But when they
Speaker 5: bring him aboard the ship, he's not malnourished, he's not hypothermic,
Speaker 5: he's not weak. He looks very strong. Actually, he you know,
Speaker 5: climbs the accommodation ladder and gets on that ship really
Speaker 5: without any help. So that was something that the Coastguard
Speaker 5: felt that was incredibly odd. They also believed that Nathan
Speaker 5: was lying because Nathan said that he was fishing in
Speaker 5: a particular area called Block Canyon, and the fathoms are
Speaker 5: incredibly deep there, and basically you need a vessel that
Speaker 5: it's about forty feet long, if not longer, a crew,
Speaker 5: a very you know, polished crew, and you know technology
Speaker 5: to get out to where that was. You know, those
Speaker 5: fishing grounds are. Nathan was out there in a thirty
Speaker 5: one foot aluminum fishing boat with two fishing rods and
Speaker 5: his mother as his crew. And if the boat went
Speaker 5: down where Nathan claimed it had gone down, Nathan's life
Speaker 5: raft would have drifted in the opposite direction from where
Speaker 5: he was found. That's why the Coast Guard investigators believed
Speaker 5: that Nathan killed his mother. And I've interviewed these Coast
Speaker 5: Guard investigators and I say Okay, I'm going to follow
Speaker 5: you on this theory. I get it. You know what
Speaker 5: you just told me was, you know, completely plausible in
Speaker 5: terms of Nathan possibly lying about what had happened at sea.
Speaker 5: But if he'd planned this murder, how does he plan
Speaker 5: his getaway? Where was he during those seven days? Did
Speaker 5: he take that thirty one foot aluminum boat back to
Speaker 5: shore and then go back out one hundred and fifteen
Speaker 5: miles south of Martha's vineyard just in the hopes that
Speaker 5: he would be rescued? And is Nathan following you the
Speaker 5: shipping lanes of the North Atlantic, monitoring the shipping lanes
Speaker 5: in the hopes that he's going to get rescued. Now
Speaker 5: a tanker, a freighter rescued him. So the likelihood that
Speaker 5: the tanker could have even seen him, let alone rescued
Speaker 5: him out in the middle of the North Atlantic, seems
Speaker 5: incredibly implausible to me. And if they couldn't answer that
Speaker 5: question to me, which they couldn't, they couldn't have been
Speaker 5: able to answer that question to jurors in a criminal.
Speaker 4: Trial Casey, It's great stuff. I think many people on
Speaker 4: the Service just assumed that the young man was guilty.
Speaker 4: You're going to read this book. It's a different story
Speaker 4: Blood in the Water, and you can get it everywhere.
Speaker 4: I assume case you.
Speaker 5: Can get every book Stordan, you get it online, so
Speaker 5: it's everywhere in America right.
Speaker 4: Now, gerh And also follow Casey on Instagram because if
Speaker 4: you're looking where he's going to be. He loves to
Speaker 4: talk to readers. He's very available if he's doing a
Speaker 4: reading at a bookstore, it's a great take and he
Speaker 4: will not only sign your book, but he will also
Speaker 4: have a conversation with you, which is not always the
Speaker 4: case with bestsellers. Casey talked to you soon. Thanks for joining.
Speaker 5: Us, all right, thank you, Gary, appreciate it.
Speaker 4: We'll talk to you later. Let in the Water, Casey Sherman.
Speaker 4: Check it out. And also Helltown two and Murder in Hollywood.
Speaker 4: They're all good stuff. They're all good. Okay, still to
Speaker 4: come here on WBZ. Jackson Tolliver is going to join
Speaker 4: us and we will discuss the Patriots and the Celtics.
Speaker 4: We're got to light in the mood a little bit
Speaker 4: with my buddy Odie Henderson. The Life of Jack Lemmon
Speaker 4: Next to WBZ