Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Speaker 1: Boston's news radio toll right.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much, Dan Watkins, and joining us is an
Speaker 2: old friend and longtime criminal defense attorney here in the
Speaker 2: Massachusetts area, Phil Tracy Councilor. How are you this evening?
Speaker 3: I'm well, Dan, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2: Well, I thought tonight might be a good night to
Speaker 2: spend a few minutes looking at this case that has
Speaker 2: come out a little evolved, a little differently. And you're
Speaker 2: a participant. You argue in these courts all the time,
Speaker 2: so you can you can analyze how the prosecution and
Speaker 2: the defense are doing in this case. My sense, from
Speaker 2: my limited view, is that the prosecution in this case,
Speaker 2: this second trial so far is more effective than in
Speaker 2: the first trial. And I'm wondering if you agree with that,
Speaker 2: and if so, what makes you agree with that?
Speaker 3: Well, I do agree with it, and I'll tell you
Speaker 3: there's a subtle thing that's going on, and that is
Speaker 3: Prosecutor Brennan. The new prosecutor, is seated beside him as
Speaker 3: Adam Ladley, who tried the first case for the DA's office,
Speaker 3: and he's an excellent prosecutor. But the fact that he's there.
Speaker 3: He was there during the first trial, and Brennan wasn't
Speaker 3: now the defense counsel. They were there at the first trial.
Speaker 3: So there's nothing that Brennan could be surprised at. And
Speaker 3: he's doing a very good job, especially when it comes
Speaker 3: to making the family of the decease part of the thing,
Speaker 3: part of the case. In other words, the big flaw
Speaker 3: for Karen Reed is that she's never expressed any sort
Speaker 3: of sympathy or sorrow about the death of this man,
Speaker 3: this officer, who was a fine person who adopted relative children,
Speaker 3: relative children, and she hasn't said anything about I'm sorry
Speaker 3: he's dead, I'm sorry that the family had to go
Speaker 3: through this. I didn't do it, but you know that
Speaker 3: would have come out a lot better than some of
Speaker 3: the interviews she had with the television people. She seemed narcissist,
Speaker 3: angry that she's in this position, and not my sympathy
Speaker 3: for the family.
Speaker 2: Well, it's interesting one of the elements that are being
Speaker 2: played in this trial are a lot of the interviews.
Speaker 2: She had not done interviews before the first trial, to
Speaker 2: the best of my relation, and that in that period
Speaker 2: from the time the mistrial was to clear last summer
Speaker 2: to when the trial, the new trial started last month.
Speaker 2: The second trial started last month. She did a series
Speaker 2: of interviews. I mean, really, I wonder why her lawyers
Speaker 2: were not more judicious. She she did these interviews in
Speaker 2: a variety. There was one I just saw she was
Speaker 2: like doing an interview with the guy riding in a car.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't as if she was sitting down with
Speaker 2: you know, Walter Cronk guy or or or someone. She
Speaker 2: was sitting down with lots of different people, and it
Speaker 2: said some intemperate things which are now being played back
Speaker 2: in the courtroom. Has that changed? Has that changed the
Speaker 2: tenor or the trial of your opinion?
Speaker 3: Oh, it definitely has. I mean it was, you know,
Speaker 3: everybody can Monday morning quarterback, but I wouldn't have let
Speaker 3: her speak to anybody other than they the love of
Speaker 3: my life is dead. I'm sorry about it. I didn't
Speaker 3: do it. Now the questions coming out, She's made a
Speaker 3: few comments could I have hit him? Which and you
Speaker 3: put those together with the medical people saying that she
Speaker 3: was yelling I hit him, I hit him. Could I
Speaker 3: have hit him? She said to one interviewer. And the
Speaker 3: reality is it's harder for the prosecution to move forward
Speaker 3: with you know, some sort of admission from her. Now,
Speaker 3: the questions that the jurors have about the misbehavior of
Speaker 3: the police investigation are somewhat muted this time around because
Speaker 3: they were there the first time. They were shocking to
Speaker 3: the consciousness of the public, and the court of public
Speaker 3: opinion did not like the way the police handled this case. Now,
Speaker 3: most of those jurors have heard about the case. They
Speaker 3: know about Procta and his bad behavior, and it's.
Speaker 2: Not Proctor was the Massachusetts way state.
Speaker 3: Whereas the first jury. I think it might have swayed them.
Speaker 2: Proctor was to remind anyone, it was the Massachusetts State
Speaker 2: Police detective who had sent some text messages to some
Speaker 2: of his friends, and also I guess they were seen
Speaker 2: by some other police officers, which were you know, still
Speaker 2: looking for you know, nude photos. Or he made some
Speaker 2: pretty disparaging, unprofessional, minimally unprofessional comments. Now I'm not sure
Speaker 2: that Proctor's on the witness list in the second trial.
Speaker 3: Oh, I doubt that they doubt that the prosecution will
Speaker 3: call them because they had an excellent detective on the
Speaker 3: stand who basically was stood the barrage of questions from
Speaker 3: the defense team and he basically I think was trying
Speaker 3: to say, look, you know, we just did the job
Speaker 3: was supposed to do. And I think that she was
Speaker 3: vindictive towards him. Now that that's a difficult problem for
Speaker 3: the defense because that leads to maybe she did back
Speaker 3: up into him on purpose. I think my guesses and
Speaker 3: of course, you know you again, you're an armchair quarterback,
Speaker 3: so you say, I think she might have in a rage,
Speaker 3: you know, tried to scare him or something, but never
Speaker 3: intended to hit him. But then I think she woke
Speaker 3: up and you know, she said where is he? And
Speaker 3: now it became crazy. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: drinking going on that night by all the parties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well see, here's here's my take on all of that.
Speaker 2: And I'll be interested if you agree, disagree whatever. My
Speaker 2: take is the the the dumb, ignorant texts that Proctor said,
Speaker 2: totally inappropriate, unprofessional, that drew attention of the jurors away
Speaker 2: from the critical question is what happened from the moment
Speaker 2: that John O'Keefe left the vehicle, alighted from the vehicle
Speaker 2: and was he hit, was he not? Did he walk
Speaker 2: in the house or whatever?
Speaker 4: It?
Speaker 2: It just changed the focus. I mean, no one's going
Speaker 2: to look at at proctic at practice text and say, boy,
Speaker 2: he was a pretty sharp detective, was I mean? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Sending dumb, stupid, ignorant text like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that just as you say I think it.
Speaker 3: It caused the jurists to say, well, wait a minute again.
Speaker 3: If if you were a good juror and you're listening,
Speaker 3: you might say, I think she did it, either voluntarily
Speaker 3: or involuntarily, but I have reasonable doubt. And reasonal doubt
Speaker 3: creeps into the case when they start saying, well, the
Speaker 3: NPS are all in it to frame her, you know,
Speaker 3: which is how could they possibly put together this type
Speaker 3: of charade with all these people involved to try to
Speaker 3: frame it. That's just not real. But the jurors could say, look,
Speaker 3: I think she did it, but I got a reasonable
Speaker 3: doubt here because of the way they conducted their investigation,
Speaker 3: and you know, that's the problem for the prosecution. But
Speaker 3: this time around they seem to be The difference is,
Speaker 3: just as you said, these interviews that she gave to
Speaker 3: a lot of different people, she's going to get crossed
Speaker 3: up because you're going to say something different one time
Speaker 3: and then something contradictory on another interview, and that makes
Speaker 3: you look like you're lying or you're hiding something.
Speaker 2: Well, Phil, I'll tell you it's We will continue to
Speaker 2: follow on on this. I appreciate you checking in with
Speaker 2: us every every week or so. H and I just
Speaker 2: thought this was a good time to check in on.
Speaker 3: It, and I appreciate it is you know, I I
Speaker 3: hackned back to UH when we first did these type
Speaker 3: of things with O. J. Simpson, and that went on
Speaker 3: and on and on, and the distractions cause the jury
Speaker 3: to find them not guilty, no question, there's many distractions.
Speaker 2: No, the whole, the whole. If the glove does not fit,
Speaker 2: you must have quit. I mean the fact that they
Speaker 2: hand the prosecutor a huge mistake by a prosecutor to
Speaker 2: hand him the glove and say try it on. What
Speaker 2: do they think they're going to do? He was going
Speaker 2: to try to put it on. I mean, he was
Speaker 2: going to expand his head as much as he possibly could. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's no glove here, But there is that that that light.
Speaker 2: There's there's some there's some some some some substantial evidence
Speaker 2: that have that have that has gone in And I
Speaker 2: think that I think you're right. I think that her
Speaker 2: own words have probably hurt her more, and that the
Speaker 2: difference between the two cases are the television interviews. That
Speaker 2: I'm a huge believer in the court of public opinion, Phil,
Speaker 2: as as I think I showed in the Salvadi Lamoni case.
Speaker 2: But when you're really certain that your guys were that
Speaker 2: the people were framed in their case of actual innocence,
Speaker 2: well we will see. Phil. I appreciate it as always.
Speaker 2: You know that, my friend. Thank you. We'll talk soon. Phil, Tracy,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen, Boston a defense attorney and give us
Speaker 2: his perspective. Now, I want your perspective. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you're following the Karen Reid case as closely today
Speaker 2: as you did back then number one a year ago. Uh.
Speaker 2: By the way, the protesters did win a bit of
Speaker 2: a victory today in federal court in front of the
Speaker 2: First Circuit Court of Appeals. They had asked that the
Speaker 2: buffer zone that they have now been pushed back from
Speaker 2: the near the courthouse. UH. They took an appeal on
Speaker 2: that the state Supreme Court upheld the trial judge on
Speaker 2: the buffer zone the expanded buffer zone. A single federal
Speaker 2: District court judge also chose to uphold the trial judges determination,
Speaker 2: but the Federal Court of Appeals has sent it back
Speaker 2: down to the first Circuit. I guess with the to
Speaker 2: the to the first the district court, the appeals court,
Speaker 2: the first Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the matter
Speaker 2: down to the district court judge with the instructions of
Speaker 2: take a closer look at this, which probably means they
Speaker 2: will get to be able to hold their demonstrations a
Speaker 2: little closer, a little more approximate to the courthouse. So
Speaker 2: I just want to open these lines up and talk
Speaker 2: about the Karen Reid case. Do you think we are
Speaker 2: going to see a verdict in this case? It supposedly
Speaker 2: is is if not ahead of schedule, it is, it
Speaker 2: is close to being on schedule. There were some rulings
Speaker 2: made today by the trial court judge in the case
Speaker 2: in which certain statements made by messages text messages were
Speaker 2: not going to be allowed to be read in to
Speaker 2: the to the in front of the jury. Now, again,
Speaker 2: the jury probably is aware of all of this, because
Speaker 2: it's tough not to be. But we like to have
Speaker 2: you join us. Give us a call. Six one, seven,
Speaker 2: two thirty, six seven, nine, ten thirty are you looking
Speaker 2: at this case a little differently? Halfway through? We're about
Speaker 2: it to halfway point, we're getting close to the prosecution resting.
Speaker 2: Love to know if you are changing your view or
Speaker 2: if you look into this case just differently, or maybe
Speaker 2: you hold on to the opinion that you had of
Speaker 2: this a year ago. This time coming back on Nightside,
Speaker 2: you have the numbers back after this.
Speaker 1: Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio. Night
Speaker 1: Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: All right, so we're asking sort of an open ended question.
Speaker 2: And the open ended question and it's one that I
Speaker 2: want to hear both from men and women on this
Speaker 2: is is your sense that this version of the Karen
Speaker 2: Reid trial is going a little differently than the first version?
Speaker 2: And Phil Tracy and I identified a couple of areas
Speaker 2: where I think there has been a difference. One the
Speaker 2: comments that she's made to television and network television, and
Speaker 2: I guess podcasters which I don't think have pictured her
Speaker 2: as an empathetic or sympathetic a person. And then the
Speaker 2: other question is some of this stuff from the police department,
Speaker 2: it's I don't know that it's going to have as
Speaker 2: much relevance to what the jury decides, because it is
Speaker 2: the question is not whether or not Michael Procter did
Speaker 2: a good job as the lead investigator of this case.
Speaker 2: He may have, he may have done a good job
Speaker 2: investigating it. That's really for the jury to decide. But
Speaker 2: these these ignorant comments that he made, these ignorant emails
Speaker 2: or texts, that's for him in his ca conscience. I
Speaker 2: don't know that that really has any bearing irrelevance on
Speaker 2: the ultimate question, which of course is guilt innoscence. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
Speaker 2: ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
Speaker 2: We will be introducing you to reintroducing you to a
Speaker 2: guest on addiction and the road to recovery in America
Speaker 2: from for people who are addicted to virtually anything. Adam
Speaker 2: Vibe Gunton will be joining us.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: He is a founder of Recovered on Purpose and Behavioral
Speaker 2: Health Partners. In the meantime, let's go to phone calls.
Speaker 2: Let's go to Steve and Merrimack, New Hampshire. Steve, you
Speaker 2: are first up this hour and Nightsiger right ahead, Hey.
Speaker 5: Dan Elyah good Sear, thanks for taking my call. You're
Speaker 5: welcome I've been following this trial and it kind of
Speaker 5: reminds me of you know, another high profile trial, the
Speaker 5: Family Smart case, where she had the prosecut's prosecution bamboozled
Speaker 5: because they didn't have a whole lot to tire to
Speaker 5: the crime until she hung herself with her own words
Speaker 5: when they got the wire with the other friend of hers.
Speaker 5: This one, I can't believe that Karen Reid would get
Speaker 5: up in front of the cameras and talk about the
Speaker 5: trial because it doesn't it's not what they want to portray.
Speaker 5: From the defense point of view, Phil Tracy, you know's
Speaker 5: and you were, your point of view is absolutely correct.
Speaker 5: She should have just kept her mouth shut. She should
Speaker 5: not have done anything that would have changed the or
Speaker 5: altered what happened in the previous trial. From my point
Speaker 5: of view, I think, you know, right from the get go,
Speaker 5: I think she was guilty in the last trial, but
Speaker 5: not of second degree. I think it's manslaughter, and I
Speaker 5: think they just try this whole thing was fueled by
Speaker 5: intense drunkenness, and I don't think she knew what she
Speaker 5: was doing. I don't think she remembers what she did,
Speaker 5: so I don't know. I really think that you know,
Speaker 5: this time around, you know, depending on how the what
Speaker 5: the context of the jury is, I think they they
Speaker 5: may come up with a different verdict. I don't see
Speaker 5: hung jury. I think it's it's not going to be
Speaker 5: second degree, though I don't think they can prove it.
Speaker 5: I think that's it's a higher level, you know, and
Speaker 5: all the stuff that went on with the cops and
Speaker 5: Proctor and all that, you know, had nothing to do
Speaker 5: with anything. It's just that they just, you know, he
Speaker 5: just made some bad decisions, you know, with his text
Speaker 5: and everything, and they're just trying to smear the whole
Speaker 5: trial with what he did. But really she's the one
Speaker 5: that killed the guy, not him. So I think that's
Speaker 5: the way it's going to go down. I think it'll
Speaker 5: probably be in about ten days to two weeks.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's going to go a little longer
Speaker 2: than that. And again, I I don't know, you never
Speaker 2: know what a jury's going to do. I just think
Speaker 2: that the tone is different. I just think the tone
Speaker 2: is is different. And I think that the the interviews
Speaker 2: that she did, I still don't understand why or how
Speaker 2: her lawyers allowed her to participate in those interviews. It
Speaker 2: seems to me that there was nothing to gain there.
Speaker 2: Maybe she got some publicity. I get that, and she
Speaker 2: got some attention, but that did make her look good
Speaker 2: in any way, shape or form in my opinion.
Speaker 5: But we'll say, I've never appeared or been on a
Speaker 5: jury before. You know, I usually try to get out
Speaker 5: of it. I don't like to be on that sort
Speaker 5: of thing. Yeah, but if you're on a jury, it's
Speaker 5: the perception of guilt that does work against you. And
Speaker 5: she did not sound like an innocent And this girl
Speaker 5: is not stupid. She's a very smart girl. I think
Speaker 5: that she is trying to do anything she can to
Speaker 5: get out of being found guilty of anything. I think
Speaker 5: they probably should have plot it down. If I were
Speaker 5: her and her attorneys, that would probably done that. But
Speaker 5: you know, she's trying to get off this thing scott free.
Speaker 5: I don't think she's Scott. I think she did it.
Speaker 5: There's no one else.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll see what We'll see what other people think.
Speaker 2: And again, I'm more interested at this point in the
Speaker 2: whole question or the whole issue of whether or not
Speaker 2: this this trial just has a different feel to it,
Speaker 2: just a totally different agree.
Speaker 5: I absolutely agree with you and then they keep saying
Speaker 5: about somebody dragging you know, O'Keefe out, you know, from
Speaker 5: the house to the front yard. Yeah, they were too
Speaker 5: drunk to do that. I really know I would.
Speaker 2: I would think that.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: My view is that if that if all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: you're at a party and somebody there's a fight, and
Speaker 2: somebody ends up dead, you're going to sober up pretty
Speaker 2: pretty quickly. And I'm not sure that the smart than change.
Speaker 5: It would change what even even if you were inebriated
Speaker 5: to the point of not knowing, you know, what day
Speaker 5: it is, you would still you know, act differently. I
Speaker 5: would agree, But I think that she I believe she
Speaker 5: will be found guilty this time. I don't think it's
Speaker 5: going to be a young jury, but it won't be
Speaker 5: the more severe charge. That's my prediction.
Speaker 2: All right, appreciate you, Carl, Thanks very much.
Speaker 5: Steve, Okay, thanks Dan one, good night, all right again.
Speaker 2: Wide open lines here six one, seven, two, five, four
Speaker 2: ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
Speaker 2: My focus is, and I'd like you if you could
Speaker 2: focus with me, is are you getting a different vibe
Speaker 2: from this trial than the first? Again, none of us
Speaker 2: are in the courtroom. Uh, for the entire time. The
Speaker 2: only people who are there obviously are the is the jury,
Speaker 2: the judge, and the lawyers. We we know that. But
Speaker 2: the question is the question is is this starting to
Speaker 2: sound differently to you? It is to me, it is
Speaker 2: to me. Back on night Side six one, seven, two, five,
Speaker 2: four ten thirty six one seven, nine three, one ten thirty.
Speaker 2: Back on night Side. Right after this, it's night Side
Speaker 2: with Dan Ray.
Speaker 1: Hey, Hey, Danny bes Boston's News Radio. You're on night
Speaker 1: Side with Dan on Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, let's keep rolling here. We're going to go
Speaker 2: next to Alex Millers. Alex, welcome, next on Nightside. How
Speaker 2: are you?
Speaker 6: Thank good eating Dan?
Speaker 2: How are you We're doing? But what's your take? Are
Speaker 2: you Are you noticing anything different than this trial?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. She has to learn how to use her big words,
Speaker 6: you know, because she's you know, I mean, uh, this woman,
Speaker 6: even even the way she conducted herself towards uh, you know,
Speaker 6: Officer Keith's mother. You know, I mean, I don't understand her.
Speaker 6: You know, she she's not very Uh, she doesn't come
Speaker 6: across as very Oh, I'd say a person that has uh,
Speaker 6: you know, no emotion, you know, towards towards what happened,
Speaker 6: whether she did it by accident or uh, you know,
Speaker 6: or she intentionally. I think, you know, I wouldn't find her,
Speaker 6: I would find her guilty.
Speaker 2: Well, it isn't a question of what you would find her,
Speaker 2: because you're not unasured. You're not unasured. But I just
Speaker 2: my sense is that the way this case is being
Speaker 2: put in by the prosecution is much more effectively than
Speaker 2: the way the case was put in initially by the prosecution.
Speaker 2: I know that the defense lawyers have tried to shake
Speaker 2: the prosecution witnesses. I don't think they've done a great
Speaker 2: job on it at this point, to be really honest
Speaker 2: with you. And my sense is that some of the
Speaker 2: videotapes that they have played are really devastating videotapes because
Speaker 2: it shows a demeanor and an attitude which is not
Speaker 2: only well, it's not empathetic towards what happened. No matter
Speaker 2: what happened, someone lost their life here. John o'ca is dead, Okay.
Speaker 2: All the information that I've read sounds think he was
Speaker 2: a pretty good guy. How no one can ever get
Speaker 2: inside the the the interpersonal relationship of a couple of
Speaker 2: people unless you're part of that relationship. So that's been
Speaker 2: my experience. And she she does. She comes across not
Speaker 2: someone who is going to generate a lot of sympathy.
Speaker 2: This is not someone who seems to still be grieving.
Speaker 2: And I don't know if the defense will put her
Speaker 2: on the witness stand. If they do, I think it
Speaker 2: would be a mistake. And if they do, I think
Speaker 2: it would indicate in their mind that maybe this case
Speaker 2: is for them in jeopardy. But we'll see.
Speaker 6: So so she I. I was just going to ask you,
Speaker 6: since her defense team is, you know, uh is supposed
Speaker 6: to be outstanding, why would they allow her, I know,
Speaker 6: your furious guests to you know, do all these interviews
Speaker 6: with ABC and all the other networks, you know, and
Speaker 6: it probably jeopardized her. You know, Uh, I guess uetting
Speaker 6: getting a fair trial.
Speaker 2: Well, she's going to get a fair trial. That that
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with a fair trial. I mean,
Speaker 2: a fair trial does not necessarily lead to an acquittal
Speaker 2: or conviction. A fair trial leads to a fair trial.
Speaker 2: She made the decision that she wanted to talk in
Speaker 2: the media after she had, you know, gone through that
Speaker 2: first trial with a hung jury. And maybe the fact
Speaker 2: that some of the jurors were saying that they actually
Speaker 2: had concluded on two of the charges, that they were
Speaker 2: ready to acquit her, maybe that gave her some false hope.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I criticized the judge last summer, and
Speaker 2: I felt that that the judge should have followed up
Speaker 2: with the full person of the jury when they came
Speaker 2: back and said we're hung. She should have said, does
Speaker 2: that mean you're telling me you hung on all charges
Speaker 2: or on one or two of the charges? And at
Speaker 2: that point that answer would have, I assume, responded elicited
Speaker 2: a response which might have said, no, we're only hung
Speaker 2: on one charge, or we've reached a consensus on two charges.
Speaker 2: And she could have sent the jury back and said,
Speaker 2: we'll please fill out a verdict slip if you've reached
Speaker 2: a verdict and come to us. But maybe that gave
Speaker 2: her some false hope, some false confidence. I don't know, Alex.
Speaker 2: It is tough to figure. Tough to figure.
Speaker 6: Yeah, of the two trials, which one do you think
Speaker 6: gets the most you know, publicity, the Sean Didty Combs
Speaker 6: or Karen Reed trial.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the Sean Didty Combs is truly a
Speaker 2: national trial because he well, it has become that. It
Speaker 2: has become that. But I do think that when the
Speaker 2: Sean Ditty Combs trial gets going, I think that will
Speaker 2: get a lot of network publicity just by virtue of
Speaker 2: who he is. Thanks Alex, I gotta run. Thank you much,
Speaker 2: appreciate the call. Six one seven, four ten thirty six
Speaker 2: one seven, nine three one ten thirty. I don't want
Speaker 2: to chorte short change anyone. I got Joanne from West Roxbury.
Speaker 2: She'll be next. I got a couple of open lines
Speaker 2: if you want to get in here. We will be
Speaker 2: changing topics at ten o'clock. I guarantee you that because
Speaker 2: we have a guest coming in talking about addiction, addiction
Speaker 2: of all sorts, but specifically drug addiction. Six one seven,
Speaker 2: two five four ten thirty six one seven nine three
Speaker 2: one ten thirty. Dial Now I can get you in
Speaker 2: coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1: Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 1: It's night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Or let's get back to the call sixty six one
Speaker 2: seven nine three ten thirty. Let me go next to
Speaker 2: Joe Inn in West Roxbury. Hey, Joeanne, how are you
Speaker 2: welcome back?
Speaker 7: Good evening. I was just wondering why they in the
Speaker 7: first trial as well as in the second trial, why
Speaker 7: the person was not acquitted because of the mishandling and
Speaker 7: contamination of the evidence.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 7: I was in involved in a case in which a
Speaker 7: relative had a nurse who withheld her medication when she
Speaker 7: went to the emergency room with a broken hip, and
Speaker 7: the nurse was acquitted because of the contamination of the evidence,
Speaker 7: And I wondered why that wasn't a case that was
Speaker 7: that Why that wasn't a situation that was utilized more
Speaker 7: effectively in the first and in the second trial.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know that there was contaminated evidence or
Speaker 2: evidence that went in. I mean, there was all sorts
Speaker 2: of questions about the lights, there was, there was a
Speaker 2: lot of factual questions back and forth.
Speaker 7: But I don't know if any improperly it was improperly
Speaker 7: collected in solo.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, right, okay, so fine. Well, I think that what,
Speaker 2: in my opinion was would have been argued was that
Speaker 2: there were exits in circumstances that the blood was connected,
Speaker 2: was being collected in a in a in a snowstorm, situation.
Speaker 2: And I assume that if that, if that evidence was eliminated, uh,
Speaker 2: then that it would have never the jury would have
Speaker 2: been told to have disregarded it. Uh. If on the
Speaker 2: other hand, uh it there would have been a motion
Speaker 2: to uh you know, to to to you know, keep
Speaker 2: the evidence away from the jury. I assumed that the
Speaker 2: defense filed all the motions. I mean, I know that
Speaker 2: there was a great deal of uh you know, media
Speaker 2: discussion about uh, you know, blood that was picked up
Speaker 2: in solo cups. But again, I think this was in
Speaker 2: what what one would have called probably there would have
Speaker 2: been some exception of what's called exigen circumstances. I mean,
Speaker 2: what choice, what other choice did they have to do.
Speaker 2: It wasn't as if the accident occurred on a on
Speaker 2: a sunny day in May when there was no precipitation,
Speaker 2: and all they had to do was secure the crime
Speaker 2: scene and and and and and get the proper methods
Speaker 2: available to secure the evidence. That's the That's the only
Speaker 2: answer I can give you that.
Speaker 7: The only question I had was why the defense hadn't
Speaker 7: used that as a really really good defense.
Speaker 2: Well, I constan for the defense. Again, I'm being very
Speaker 2: honest when I tell people I haven't sat in for
Speaker 2: the first or the second, either or both. But she
Speaker 2: has very competent defense counsel. There's no doubt about that.
Speaker 2: And maybe they did file motions to suppress evidence, but
Speaker 2: it was it was allowed to be submitted because of
Speaker 2: the circumstances. The word exigent is one of those legal
Speaker 2: words which mean it was the best they could do
Speaker 2: under the circumstances. They weren't trying to doctor evidence. They
Speaker 2: were trying to preserve as much evidence as they could. Now, again,
Speaker 2: i'd have to go back and rever you the trial transcripts.
Speaker 2: I don't have that option. And if there's anyone out
Speaker 2: there who wants to lend some some light on your question,
Speaker 2: your question is a good question. I guess you have.
Speaker 2: You're pretty much convinced that that she should have been
Speaker 2: acquitted in the first trial. I assume am I reading
Speaker 2: your question and.
Speaker 7: I'm just one wondering. No, I have no idea whether
Speaker 7: she's guilty or not. I was just wondering because I
Speaker 7: had a relative who had had that situation.
Speaker 2: Well, the other question, the question, the other question would
Speaker 2: be okay. John O'Keefe's body was found in a snow bank,
Speaker 2: he had suffered blood loss. There was blood, and I
Speaker 2: assumed that the blood that was scooped up in the
Speaker 2: solo cups was then tested to make sure it was
Speaker 2: his blood, just what you would be done in a
Speaker 2: normal investigation. I mean, if all of a sudden the
Speaker 2: blood that was there was someone else's, well, now you've
Speaker 2: got real questions. So maybe they simply scooped it up
Speaker 2: in the solo cup, or maybe the defense said, look,
Speaker 2: there's there's no need for us to fight this because
Speaker 2: we there's there's no doubt that the body was discovered,
Speaker 2: There's no question about that. The question is how did
Speaker 2: he get into that snowbank. Did he go in the
Speaker 2: house and end up in some sort of a brawl
Speaker 2: that that cost him his life and then he was
Speaker 2: taken and dragged out onto the lawn or carried out
Speaker 2: onto the lawn, or was he you know, was he
Speaker 2: hit either intentionally or or unintentionally by Karen Reeve's vehicle.
Speaker 7: I mean, that's the other question. Was The other observation
Speaker 7: I had was that you asked what the difference was
Speaker 7: between the two trials. I think that I'm not sure,
Speaker 7: but I think that the person who was on the
Speaker 7: witness stand for the longest this time. I don't believe
Speaker 7: that he was on the witness stand the last time.
Speaker 2: Of long you're talking about the state police lieutenant who
Speaker 2: has just gotten off the witness stand.
Speaker 7: Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Think he was. He was a witness the first longer
Speaker 2: he wasn't. He wasn't. It was focused much more on Michael.
Speaker 5: Proctor, who That's what I thought.
Speaker 4: Ye.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But for some reason, and I don't understand, and
Speaker 2: I haven't seen any reports about why, uh Proctor is
Speaker 2: not testifying now. He lost his job, and it could
Speaker 2: be that that his lawyers have made it clear that
Speaker 2: he if he was put on the witness stand, he
Speaker 2: would simply take the Fifth Amendment because they're fearful that
Speaker 2: he might have other Again, I'm speculating that it would
Speaker 2: seem to me that the defense would want to put
Speaker 2: him on again and have him once again read the
Speaker 2: comments that he made, the inappropriate comments, that the really
Speaker 2: decidedly inappropriate comments that he made about Karen Reid. But
Speaker 2: I don't have I don't have anything further on that.
Speaker 2: But again, thank you very much, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: I appreciate, as I say, what I'm looking for tonight
Speaker 2: is do you have My question is, Joanne, is do
Speaker 2: you have a sense that this trial is going differently
Speaker 2: than the first? That's really my question, and I know that's.
Speaker 7: A very That's what I felt. I felt that it's
Speaker 7: going differently cause of the people as they have and testify.
Speaker 2: And is it your sense that it's going that's the
Speaker 2: sledding is getting a little tougher for the defense.
Speaker 7: I can't tell about that. I just think that it's
Speaker 7: interesting to listen to the different witnesses, and I think
Speaker 7: a lot depends on the credibility if your witnesses.
Speaker 2: Any question, always does, always does. Thank you so much,
Speaker 2: appreciate you call. Have a great nights for you. All right,
Speaker 2: good night. Let me go next to Doreen from Chelsea. Hi, Doreen,
Speaker 2: welcome back next on Nightside.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Hi Dan, how are you. I I've been following
Speaker 4: this trial only by news, the news, okay, news, how
Speaker 4: most people have to yes, but this is what I
Speaker 4: want to know. In the first trial, now where they
Speaker 4: she had all that rallying and protesting, Yeah, on her side.
Speaker 4: I was wondering, in the case, what case if you
Speaker 4: run over a police officer or shoot isn't that a
Speaker 4: federal offense? Capital no offense? No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 4: all right.
Speaker 2: I mean it, Uh if you if you if you
Speaker 2: shoot or or injure someone who works for the federal government, Uh, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a federal crime. I mean if if you were
Speaker 2: to I'm not going to say anybody who works for
Speaker 2: the federal government, who if they're the victim of a crime,
Speaker 2: it's going to be a federal crime. But this is
Speaker 2: a Boston police officer. It's not a federal rights by
Speaker 2: the way, And there's no it's the capital punishment doesn't
Speaker 2: exist in Massachusetts.
Speaker 4: Okay, I know a capital So what I want to
Speaker 4: ask you could have they in the first trial have
Speaker 4: a change of venue take a another.
Speaker 2: Well, they couldn't have taken it to another state, but
Speaker 2: they could have moved. Uh and and I have to
Speaker 2: go back and check whether or not there was a
Speaker 2: motion for for a change of venue. But sure, yeah,
Speaker 2: they could have moved for a change of venue. The
Speaker 2: other thing which they can do sometimes in cases that
Speaker 2: are high, high profile cases, they can they can decide
Speaker 2: that they will h panel jurors uh in a in
Speaker 2: another county.
Speaker 4: Uh and right.
Speaker 2: And they can have they they could bring the jurors
Speaker 2: in uh into Norfolk County, So in ef fact, you
Speaker 2: bring a new jury in every day. But then there's
Speaker 2: there's also there's always other questions in terms of whether
Speaker 2: or not jurors are going to be sequestered. That's that's
Speaker 2: always a factor to uh. So, Yeah, well there's you
Speaker 2: raise good issues, you raise good issues.
Speaker 4: But and dan another thing too, the first trial when
Speaker 4: she said did I run over him? That is the
Speaker 4: key to this case and the first case. And that
Speaker 4: man that calls you a couple of callers back was
Speaker 4: absolutely right. She stated, she made a statement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that that that's gone has gone in the right,
Speaker 2: that has gone in in evidence, So that that is
Speaker 2: that evidence has gone in. Okay. So now again what
Speaker 2: happens is the jury has to wave has to weigh
Speaker 2: the probate value of that evidence. So some jurors might say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, you know she she she didn't that they
Speaker 2: might see that not as an admission, but did I
Speaker 2: do something? Someone else might say, that's a consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 2: That's those are the facts that it's up to a juror,
Speaker 2: up to the jury as a whole.
Speaker 4: To decide.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you got it.
Speaker 4: So there is a different twist in turn with all
Speaker 4: the other witnesses that come out.
Speaker 2: All right, yeah, Jorena, I'm told that I'm flat out
Speaker 2: of time and we're into the ten o'clock news, so
Speaker 2: I gotta let you run. This was a great call, Dorian.
Speaker 2: You're always a good caller. Tonight you're a great caller.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: For you very much, Dan, you talk soon.