Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Well, welcome back everyone, Thanks very much Dan Watkins. As
Speaker 2: we move into the nine o'clock hour, and I will
Speaker 2: in for me that this hour we are going to
Speaker 2: talk about the Karen Reid trial. Now, all that is
Speaker 2: left the closing arguments tomorrow to be made by both
Speaker 2: the defense and the prosecution. Each of them are supposed
Speaker 2: to get about an hour and fifteen minutes to wrap
Speaker 2: up their case, and then the case will go to
Speaker 2: the jury. The jury will get their instructions from the judge.
Speaker 2: And apparently, according to reports I saw tonight, the jury
Speaker 2: might actually be allowed to begin some deliberations tomorrow and
Speaker 2: could stay as late as till five point thirty. The
Speaker 2: jury was not in court today, and it's conceivable, it's
Speaker 2: conceivable that the jury could request to in on Saturday,
Speaker 2: two days from now, to continue their deliberations. This has
Speaker 2: been an ordeal for a lot of people, the defense lawyers,
Speaker 2: certainly the defendant herself, family members, O'Keefe family members, as
Speaker 2: well as the family of friends of Karen Reid, and
Speaker 2: with us is Boston criminal defense attorney. Veteran criminal defense
Speaker 2: attorney Phil Tracy, who not only followed the first reed
Speaker 2: trial which ended up with that hung jury and all
Speaker 2: the controversy about whether they were truly hung on all
Speaker 2: three of the charges that she's facing, he now has
Speaker 2: followed this trial very close. He will make it clear Fiel,
Speaker 2: that you haven't been in court. You actually are very
Speaker 2: active practicing criminal defense attorney. But you've done as best
Speaker 2: you could for us to follow this trial. And let's
Speaker 2: start off by first of all saying are you glad
Speaker 2: we have finally reached this point where it's almost over.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think there's a fatigue out of public opinion
Speaker 3: has really had it with this case. And you know
Speaker 3: there's a lot to it that is different from the
Speaker 3: first case. They brought in the prosecutor Special prosecutor Brennan
Speaker 3: now Adam Lallely who tied the first case, was right
Speaker 3: by his side and assisting him in helping him because
Speaker 3: he had the first case, Adam Lallely, So they added
Speaker 3: more high power to it. Looked as if there was
Speaker 3: at turning name Alefi who has come into the pray
Speaker 3: with with the with the Jackson attorney and David Yannetti,
Speaker 3: the very original attorney on the case, so otheran it's
Speaker 3: it's a pretty pretty different approach this time around. It
Speaker 3: looks as if the defence is not trying to prop
Speaker 3: up the argument that they use in the first that
Speaker 3: he was assaulted, beaten up in the in the house
Speaker 3: and then dropped out on the lawn. I don't think
Speaker 3: after looking at it so many times, I don't think
Speaker 3: a lot of people think that really did happen that way.
Speaker 3: Now comes down to the question of whether or not
Speaker 3: she backed up the vehicle into them, into the deceased O'Keefe,
Speaker 3: or she did it accidentally or on purpose. So that's
Speaker 3: the high pot. That's the well.
Speaker 2: If it's on purpose, they theoretical could get it for
Speaker 2: a second degree murder. If it's accidental, then she's got
Speaker 2: a potential manslaughter conviction. That's right, So it's high here
Speaker 2: for her. Let me ask you this, Phil if I can.
Speaker 2: You've watched the presentation. Obviously the players have changed a
Speaker 2: little bit. There's also I think has added to her
Speaker 2: the red defense team. A woman who was an alternate
Speaker 2: juror happens to be a lawyer, but she was an
Speaker 2: alternate juror in the first case, and now she hasn't
Speaker 2: played a primary role here, but she's been in court,
Speaker 2: sitting at the defense table with Karen Reid and her team.
Speaker 2: Do you think the prosecution, let's deal with the prosecution first,
Speaker 2: then we'll deal with the defense. Do you think the
Speaker 2: prosecution of this case from your perspective from what you've seen.
Speaker 2: You're not a jury, you're not predicting the results of
Speaker 2: what the jury will do. But do you think the
Speaker 2: prosecution has put in a stronger or a weaker case
Speaker 2: or is it about the same.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's hard to determine because you can't
Speaker 3: remember every detail from the first case. But I do
Speaker 3: think that they did a very good job of condensing
Speaker 3: a lot of the evidence so that you could just
Speaker 3: say basically the drinking part of it that she participated in.
Speaker 3: That then led to they were in two bars. Then
Speaker 3: there was a blinding snowstorm. They drive to this house.
Speaker 3: I think they were trying to go for something like this.
Speaker 3: They had an augment or with him outside, maybe he
Speaker 3: wanted to go in and she didn't, And then the
Speaker 3: vehicle went in reverse twenty four miles an hour. Now,
Speaker 3: that is an absolute speeding at ninety miles an hour,
Speaker 3: going forward. That's in a snowstorm. So, I mean, I
Speaker 3: think they were trying to say, why would she drive
Speaker 3: in reverse twenty four miles an hour And when she
Speaker 3: woke up after a lot of drinks at five in
Speaker 3: the morning, she go right back to the exact spot
Speaker 3: where he was, not the driveway, but way over to
Speaker 3: the left by a hydrant or a flag pole. So
Speaker 3: those they kind of indicate that, you know, she knew
Speaker 3: what happened, and she knew she went right back. Now,
Speaker 3: the X factor here is besides them. In the first case,
Speaker 3: they were saying I hit him, I hit him, I
Speaker 3: must have hit him. Now they have her on tape
Speaker 3: saying I might have clipped him. Now clip is a
Speaker 3: very interesting word in this case. I might have clipped him. So,
Speaker 3: you know, the decision for her to go public with
Speaker 3: so many venues may have been a bad decision because
Speaker 3: the prosecution turned that around on her.
Speaker 2: Well, those I mean those video tapes, those videotapes were
Speaker 2: made after the first trial, the interviews she consented to.
Speaker 2: I kind of understand why her lawyers allowed her to
Speaker 2: do that, knowing that the case can't be I mean,
Speaker 2: it's it's we'd love to find out the story there,
Speaker 2: and I think that puts her in the most serious
Speaker 2: jeopardy because she did not come across And again I
Speaker 2: didn't watch all of them, I didn't watch them frame
Speaker 2: by frame, but I don't think she came across as
Speaker 2: someone who was particularly a sympathetic character. And that might
Speaker 2: that those those videotapes that she that she consented to,
Speaker 2: that she did voluntarily might be her her downfall.
Speaker 3: Now me and you know, she does not appear to
Speaker 3: be a very sympathetic person, a person that the public
Speaker 3: has come behind or some people. But a lot of
Speaker 3: people are saying, why if you went on TV, wouldn't
Speaker 3: you say he was the love of my life? He's dead.
Speaker 3: I didn't do it, And I feel so bad for
Speaker 3: his mother and the two nephews nieces or that he adopted.
Speaker 3: He was, you know, he she should have pointed him
Speaker 3: out as a great guy. Now, of course, at the
Speaker 3: end of this, surrounding this so harboring over is the
Speaker 3: fact that their relationship was teetering, uh and maybe was
Speaker 3: going to go into a breakup.
Speaker 2: But that I don't think I think that I don't
Speaker 2: think Phil, I don't think that would that easily could
Speaker 2: have been explained. And a lot of people are in
Speaker 2: a relationship, a lot of people in a marriage and
Speaker 2: and and an ensign divorce, so the relationship breaks up,
Speaker 2: and they only had good things to say about the
Speaker 2: other person, which is, you know, it was much more
Speaker 2: my fault than hers or whatever, that I should have
Speaker 2: been more attentive or whatever. Uh, and wish her the best.
Speaker 2: There was none of that, at least for what was reported. Phil,
Speaker 2: I want to take a break and we come back.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about your opinion of how we
Speaker 2: talked about how the prosecution did what strategies, because the
Speaker 2: defense strategy changed a little bit as well.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And do you think that the defense was as effective
Speaker 2: or more effective? I mean, it's conceivable that you could
Speaker 2: conclude that both the prosecution with the second bite at
Speaker 2: the apple and the defense with a second bite of
Speaker 2: the apple did a did a cleaner, better job. But
Speaker 2: we'll we'll get your reaction to how the defense handled
Speaker 2: the second trial if you like to join the conversation.
Speaker 2: We have only some lines at six one seven, nine
Speaker 2: to three one ten thirty six one seven nine three
Speaker 2: one ten thirty Uh. The other the six one seven, two,
Speaker 2: five four to ten thirty a full We'll get to
Speaker 2: those callers, but feel free six one seven, nine three one,
Speaker 2: ten thirty. And again you at this point you can
Speaker 2: you can offer your your predictions. I'm not asking Phil
Speaker 2: Tracy because as a lawyer I have too much respect
Speaker 2: for him as a lawyer to put him in that spot.
Speaker 2: Because no one knows what goes on in the jury room,
Speaker 2: just as no one really knows what goes on in
Speaker 2: a marriage or in a relationship. Back on Nightside if
Speaker 2: you like to join the only two lines open right now,
Speaker 2: six seven, nine thirty, A word to the wise. Back
Speaker 2: on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Bzy Boston's
Speaker 1: news radio.
Speaker 2: My guest is Phil Tracy, longtime criminal defense attorney, talking
Speaker 2: about the Karen retrial. The defense has rested, the prosecution
Speaker 2: has rested. Tomorrow closing arguments. There will be instructions to
Speaker 2: the jury, and there could be some deliberations tomorrow, and
Speaker 2: there could even be some deliberations should the jury choose
Speaker 2: and the judge allowed on Saturday. We'll see how that
Speaker 2: plays out. The jury was off today, so they're going
Speaker 2: in tomorrow relatively fresh off off a day off. Phil
Speaker 2: so we talked about the prosecution, and I think we
Speaker 2: both feel that the prose, at least I feel the
Speaker 2: prosecution did a cleaner presentation. They had some hiccups, but
Speaker 2: I think that they did a cleaner presentation in trial
Speaker 2: number two as I would expect them to. Are you
Speaker 2: with me on that?
Speaker 3: Agreed completely? I agreed completely? Yes, you're definitely.
Speaker 2: Your thoughts on the defense. The defense was able to
Speaker 2: basically get a mistrial, which would in normal circumstances, is
Speaker 2: in a case like this be considered a victory for
Speaker 2: the defense. How did they do the second time? How
Speaker 2: did the defense time?
Speaker 3: Well, I think they, as you said, they added some
Speaker 3: players to try and I think spread it out a
Speaker 3: little bit and take it the spotlight off of attorney Jackson. Now,
Speaker 3: of course, in the first case, he dominated defense posture.
Speaker 3: In this case they used another attorney, Alessi, and you
Speaker 3: saw him on TV and he was pounding the table
Speaker 3: looking for miss trials, and so, in other words, they
Speaker 3: came a little more aggressive. Now, the other thing is
Speaker 3: the last thing the jury heard after such a long
Speaker 3: trial is the expert witnesses for the defense trying to
Speaker 3: debunk the prosecution's expert witnesses and that is the last
Speaker 3: thing they heard, and sometimes that can be impactful on
Speaker 3: a jury. On the other hand, they know that this
Speaker 3: young man, this young police officer, is dead because something
Speaker 3: happened over on the street, and so what is the
Speaker 3: possible explanation other than she hit him with a cot
Speaker 3: either accidentally or on praise. They don't think it's on purpose,
Speaker 3: but it sure looks like it was accidental. But I mean,
Speaker 3: it was one of those things when she went on
Speaker 3: and said I might have clipped them. That's dangerous for sure.
Speaker 2: And that is that's that's part of the prosecutions ammunition,
Speaker 2: which they didn't have at the first trial. So putting
Speaker 2: aside the prosecution, the case they put in, which we
Speaker 2: agree is better was the defense normally in a second
Speaker 2: bite at the apple, the defense is going to be
Speaker 2: able to clean up a lot of problems given the
Speaker 2: fact that they had to deal with these out of
Speaker 2: court audio clips of video clips, which they had no
Speaker 2: I mean, once they were done, they were done and
Speaker 2: they were in play, would you say the defense had
Speaker 2: had it? They have. They have tightened their case up
Speaker 2: a little here they have.
Speaker 3: I think they did, and what they did, I think
Speaker 3: well was prepare their witnesses, their expert witnesses for a
Speaker 3: wrestling cross examination by Prosecutor Burnett. And so those witnesses
Speaker 3: held up fairly well under that cross examination. But I
Speaker 3: still think that part of the renewed prosecution case were
Speaker 3: the tapes of her talking to media and that sort
Speaker 3: of thing. Also, Harold has put her picture on their
Speaker 3: front page day after day. She doesn't looked like somebody
Speaker 3: who is really upset about this situation. It's almost like
Speaker 3: she's looking at her fifteen minutes of fame. And that's
Speaker 3: disturbing to me. And if I was a your I
Speaker 3: would be saying, now, missus O'Keefe is right behind her,
Speaker 3: only ten to fifteen feet away. They haven't been anything
Speaker 3: that has come out of the except for the civil suit,
Speaker 3: and very much like the old O J case, he
Speaker 3: was acquitted, but then he was found libel for the
Speaker 3: murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
Speaker 2: Well, we will across a lot that's.
Speaker 3: Yet to come. Now, let's tell.
Speaker 2: We cross that bridge when we come to it. Phil
Speaker 2: Tracy talking about the Karen Read case. The other thing
Speaker 2: which I want you to come in quickly on as
Speaker 2: a veteran criminal defense attorney. The final word to the
Speaker 2: jury will be from the prosecution. The defense will go
Speaker 2: first tomorrow and the prosecution we will have the final
Speaker 2: attention they reach getting supposed to be an hour and
Speaker 2: a half ninety minutes in a case like this, Will
Speaker 2: that make a difference? You were talking about those costs.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's the and it's extremely hard to marshal the
Speaker 3: facts of a case this long. In other words, you know,
Speaker 3: I've been trying cases for fifty years, and the idea
Speaker 3: is this, when you have a case that goes for
Speaker 3: a day or two, I mean, that's that's something that
Speaker 3: you can marshal the facts into an argument. On the
Speaker 3: other hand, this type of case with multiple witnesses and
Speaker 3: multiple videos and multiple looks at the vehicle and that
Speaker 3: sort of thing. So you know, that's that's hard to
Speaker 3: put that into You've got to really prepare and I
Speaker 3: hope both sides do a good job, but you know,
Speaker 3: you can miss something easily in the closing argument, then
Speaker 3: the judge of course will give in fructions on the law. Now,
Speaker 3: one of the complaints from the first case was that
Speaker 3: the judge did not put the verdict slip in a
Speaker 3: comprehensible way for the jurors who allay people did not lawyers,
Speaker 3: so that that is going to be scrutinized from all
Speaker 3: sides and objective.
Speaker 2: That objection was raised by Jackson before the jury started
Speaker 2: to deliberate, so he and he was sort of dismissed.
Speaker 2: It was the idea of, well, you're a California lawyer,
Speaker 2: you don't know how we do things here in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2: And as it turned out, he was right. There was
Speaker 2: a lot of confusion with that jury, which ended up
Speaker 2: with all of those sed cases, double jeopardy, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And I think from what I've read, I don't know
Speaker 2: that she's going to be particularly open to changing the
Speaker 2: presentation of the verdict slip slip or her instructions.
Speaker 3: I think one thing she will always or she will
Speaker 3: certainly say, have you reached a verdict on any of
Speaker 3: the charges? Now? If you have not, tell me if so.
Speaker 3: That was the confusion the last time they were still
Speaker 3: interested in They said we're in a deadlock, but they
Speaker 3: didn't say that we we've agreed to find her not
Speaker 3: guilty on a couple of the charges.
Speaker 2: Well she should have. She should have said, in my opinion.
Speaker 2: You're telling me, I assume that you're deadlocked on all
Speaker 2: three counts. And if they said, yes, we're deadlocked on
Speaker 2: all three counts, she's covered. Never asked that question, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and the course did not want to did not want
Speaker 2: to chastise her or even say that going forward, which
Speaker 2: which was interesting. I think judges kind of closed ranks
Speaker 2: behind her.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, Yes, there's no question about that, and I.
Speaker 2: Didn't want to even ask you that because you're going
Speaker 2: to be a friend of some of those judges. Go ahead,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Oh well, but let me say this one last thing.
Speaker 3: I want to say. It is a rule process for
Speaker 3: the judge, for the lawyers, for the clerks, for the
Speaker 3: for the court officers. It's a trial like this is
Speaker 3: tremendously difficult. You know, you get worn out, and I think,
Speaker 3: like I say, there's there's fatigue for the whole case
Speaker 3: among the court of bubble opinion.
Speaker 2: All right, my guest is Phil Tracy. Well, we'll get
Speaker 2: to yet. If you have a question for Phil, or
Speaker 2: you want to express a point of view, Phil, stick
Speaker 2: with us. Normally I'll let you go at this point,
Speaker 2: but i'll screen the questions. I'll decide if the questions
Speaker 2: are relevant and all of that. So don't worry about that. Okay,
Speaker 2: there may be questions that that I have not been
Speaker 2: smart enough enough to ask in my audience will ask
Speaker 2: them for It's the only lines that are opened. Six one, seven,
Speaker 2: nine thirty. Coming right back on Night's Side.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: All right, we're gonna go to the phones. Let me
Speaker 2: go first off to Justin in Marlborough. Justin, you were
Speaker 2: first tonight on talking about the Karen Reid trial. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna go to the jury tomorrow. You're all with at journey,
Speaker 2: Phil Tracy, go ahead, Justin, Thank.
Speaker 4: You for taking my call. I have two points I
Speaker 4: want to say. Three independent medical diaminers were adamant that
Speaker 4: John o'keef was not hit by a Karen and AKA
Speaker 4: did not hit John o'keith, and that it was likely
Speaker 4: he might have been punching the face. And two biomechanical
Speaker 4: engineers with PhDs said the same thing.
Speaker 2: And also, so we're justin, let me ask you this.
Speaker 2: You can you can you phrase this in the form
Speaker 2: of a question for my expert here. I want to
Speaker 2: make sure that Phil is involved in our conversation.
Speaker 4: Okay, sure, why does the toney Tracy is adamant that
Speaker 4: the Perton got hit by a car. Well, it looks
Speaker 4: more likely he got hit in the face with a punch.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's let's let me. Let's let let's let Fiel
Speaker 2: addressed that I'm not sure he said what you think
Speaker 2: you heard. He said, say, but go ahead, Phil, Well.
Speaker 3: Let me just say this that the experts on both
Speaker 3: sides are paid experts, paid to evaluate and give an
Speaker 3: opinion that the prosecution and the defense want heard by
Speaker 3: the jury. Now in some cases those they cross each
Speaker 3: other out because the commonwealths experts are saying that it
Speaker 3: was consistent with a clipping that we're using that word again,
Speaker 3: clipping of O'Keefe. The other people say for the defense
Speaker 3: that those and this is a very good point for
Speaker 3: the defense, that there weren't any other broken bones. So
Speaker 3: the kamwealth says he was hit and fell back and
Speaker 3: hit his head. The defense says those he would have
Speaker 3: had broken bones if that was the case. So I mean,
Speaker 3: that's for the jury to decide. They can weigh the
Speaker 3: evidence of the experts, and they can disbelieve or believe them,
Speaker 3: but I think they kind of cross each other out,
Speaker 3: and then the juries left with what are the real
Speaker 3: facts here?
Speaker 2: The other thing Justin to remember is that the experts
Speaker 2: who are presented, either the prosecution or the defense, has
Speaker 2: to lay a foundation to qualify them as witnesses expert witnesses.
Speaker 2: They're not witnesses who are on the scene of a
Speaker 2: crime and they're asking about their observations. They're asking about
Speaker 2: their expertise. Now, I think that there are generally a
Speaker 2: lot of experts who can look at something like this
Speaker 2: as Phil says and arrive at a different conclusion. But
Speaker 2: they have to You just kind of pull some guy
Speaker 2: off the street and say, hey, this guy's name is
Speaker 2: Harry Bananas. He's got no background, but he's my expert witness.
Speaker 2: They have to qualify them. So the jury listens to
Speaker 2: both both sets of experts, or both experts who sometimes
Speaker 2: are in conflict. Is what It's important to understand that.
Speaker 4: But the medical I'm from Massachusetts is for the Commonwealth,
Speaker 4: and she said he was not hit by Again.
Speaker 2: I think what you do in justin, I think you're
Speaker 2: listening and you're putting it. You believe she's innocent. Okay,
Speaker 2: you believe she's not guilty. I get that, no problem.
Speaker 4: But what I'm saying is the Commonwealth Examiner was the
Speaker 4: witness for the Commonwealth, not for the defense, and she
Speaker 4: spoke on she was the witness for the common weapons
Speaker 4: and she didn't get.
Speaker 2: Well in that case. Then then if you're right here, Justin,
Speaker 2: the jury's going to come back with it with a
Speaker 2: not guilty in about twenty five minutes. So let's see
Speaker 2: what happens.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that.
Speaker 2: It's what did you say?
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know I know what Justin. You said something
Speaker 2: I spoke over you. What was that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm sorry, I just wanted to correct you. They
Speaker 4: were allotted seventy five minutes.
Speaker 2: That's what I think. I said, an hour and a quarter.
Speaker 4: You said ninety. You said, well fine, I know, I
Speaker 4: just wanted to say that seventy five minutes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks, Justin, appreciate you. Quch All right, thank you.
Speaker 2: Let me go to Joe and Belmont. Joe, you're next
Speaker 2: on nights. I got a question or comment for Phil Tracy. Please, Joe,
Speaker 2: go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Dan. I want to tell you and the lawyer why
Speaker 5: I think she's innocent. The man slaughter.
Speaker 2: Well, I wish you'd ask him a question, Joe, to
Speaker 2: be honest with you, because he's got some experience in this,
Speaker 2: in this practice of the law. He's been in the
Speaker 2: criminal defense attorney for almost a half a century and
Speaker 2: has handled capital cases like that. If you got a question,
Speaker 2: that'd be great if you want to tell him why
Speaker 2: you think she's innocent, and he can do it in
Speaker 2: about a minute, Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Oh, yes, you had a caller about three or four
Speaker 5: weeks ago, a woman and she said there was just
Speaker 5: too many coincidences that happens that she was innocent. Now,
Speaker 5: when coincidence happened too many of them, things are very
Speaker 5: fishy that she's innocence.
Speaker 2: And what would what would what were the two coincidences
Speaker 2: or two or three coincidence that that that you would
Speaker 2: like to cite for us, Joe, I.
Speaker 5: Can't cite him, but I wish the call Okay, so.
Speaker 2: All right, fair enough? If you could cite him, it
Speaker 2: might have been a stronger argument. Phil Would you like
Speaker 2: to comment to that.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, once again, at the prosecution tightened the
Speaker 3: case from the first time around. Uh, they have a theory. Uh,
Speaker 3: the defense has used the opposite theory of what we
Speaker 3: call another possibility of the of the of the injury
Speaker 3: to O'Keefe. And I think the judge covered that today
Speaker 3: in which they are either unable to use say that
Speaker 3: this guy Albert or Higgins might have done this. They
Speaker 3: can't say that, but they can say that the police
Speaker 3: did not look into that. And I think that's what what.
Speaker 2: The defense the defenses, I understand it, Phil agreed to that,
Speaker 2: whether whether they agreed to involuntarily or involunteer they have,
Speaker 2: they have agreed to that. As how great, Hey, Joe
Speaker 2: is always.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Joe, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: If you in twenty seconds, I'd wish some of your
Speaker 5: callers would call in and name the coincidences that happened.
Speaker 2: If there's anyone out there who wants to name those coincidences,
Speaker 2: that's great, Joe. But that that that word is invented
Speaker 2: on your mind and that has helped you make your decision.
Speaker 2: And but you're not in the jury. Thanks Joe, appreciate
Speaker 2: the call so much. Talk to you later. Let me
Speaker 2: go to Suzannah Newton. Susanne question, if you will for
Speaker 2: my guest.
Speaker 6: I have been watching the chargy. What I knowed the dermatologists,
Speaker 6: but h I uh, I think they she ran over
Speaker 6: the conflict blah blah, and it was snowing and aparently
Speaker 6: at some point they said a dog.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Susanne, is there a question shit here for Phil?
Speaker 2: Or did you just want to.
Speaker 6: Actually I have a I have a call for a while,
Speaker 6: so I'm watching it. I love ohady, Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for calling, nonetheless appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm glad to get Kurd tonight side because I'm
Speaker 6: watching tea Get to Eat two but not tonight right.
Speaker 2: Well you yeah, you You've got a lot of trial
Speaker 2: watching to do, Susan, and I wish I had that
Speaker 2: amount of time. But keep it. You must post it
Speaker 2: on both of those cases. Very two very interesting cases
Speaker 2: for different reasons. Let me keep rolling here, Phil, let
Speaker 2: me get one more in here before the break. Let
Speaker 2: me go to Jason down in the Cape. Jason, you're
Speaker 2: next on Nightsacker.
Speaker 4: Right ahead, Thanks very much.
Speaker 7: I want to preface my comments with well, I live
Speaker 7: in the Cape. I actually grew up in Canton, so
Speaker 7: I know some of these fellows that you'll you'll see
Speaker 7: on the stand and then throughout this case. And sure
Speaker 7: I would say that my question would be, if he
Speaker 7: was found guilty, does she have good grounds for appeal?
Speaker 3: Sure, that's a good question. Yeah, she certainly has. So
Speaker 3: much has been put into both the first and the
Speaker 3: second trial. There's been a federal appeal on double jeopardy.
Speaker 3: There's just a boatload now. Interestingly, in the state courts,
Speaker 3: if you are convicted of say, murder, of robbery or
Speaker 3: kidnapping or rape or something like that, you don't get
Speaker 3: to stay out, usually out of jail while the appeal
Speaker 3: is going on. Now that's going to be an interesting
Speaker 3: question or whether they'll allow her to stay out on
Speaker 3: veil while the appeals go through. Combine that with the
Speaker 3: fact that it's going to be a civil case too,
Speaker 3: in which the proponents of the evidence is so fifty
Speaker 3: one to forty nine, and that's something that's not proof
Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubts, so that I believe will possibly
Speaker 3: end up with a liability finding against her. That could happen.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot of thoughts that.
Speaker 2: I just want to admit. Field. I thought that her
Speaker 2: appeals and the double jeopardy issue, and on the failure
Speaker 2: of the judge to ask that second set of questions
Speaker 2: of the jurors when they came back and said they
Speaker 2: were deadlocked. I thought those were pretty strong appeals. It
Speaker 2: just shows how difficult it is to prevail on an
Speaker 2: appeal on a case like.
Speaker 1: This.
Speaker 3: You got two trials, so you've got a lot of stuff.
Speaker 3: Something went wrong in the first trial. They appealed. There's
Speaker 3: going to be a lot of appeals in this case.
Speaker 2: I can't think of anything if she comes back with
Speaker 2: a conviction, Just Jason, I don't see, on the face
Speaker 2: of it, a strong appellate issue because I think that
Speaker 2: the the double jeopardy issue has been disposed of, both
Speaker 2: in federal court and in state courts, and I think
Speaker 2: that that this trial there will always be issues for appeal.
Speaker 2: I mean clearly, and every one of the motions for
Speaker 2: a for a mistrial, or for the outright request for
Speaker 2: dismissals with prejudice, all of those are appealable issues.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry I follow this for interrupting.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just saying I think they're appealable issues. I
Speaker 2: don't know they win, so.
Speaker 3: There's definitely going to be an appeal, ye lawyer.
Speaker 7: If we don't know, no lawyer, I guess I'd just
Speaker 7: like to play one for fun every now and then.
Speaker 7: But I wonder, I'll just what you see with the
Speaker 7: judge and some of the what the prosecution had done.
Speaker 7: It seemed like they opened a lot of doors for appeals.
Speaker 7: But again, I I we're just I guess I'm just
Speaker 7: watching it on TV. I'm not there in the room.
Speaker 7: And I know there's a lot of rules.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of rulings that the judge has made
Speaker 2: which could be questioned. Okay, I get it. I get
Speaker 2: what you're saying. Just remember this. If the if the
Speaker 2: defense wins, the prosecution has no grounds for repealed. That's it.
Speaker 3: That's over, and that I do know.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, well, very interesting. I hit your time tonight.
Speaker 2: All right, Jason, thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Phil. We got one more segment ago we got full lines.
Speaker 2: We now just have one line at six one, seven ninety.
Speaker 2: We'll get Joe and Geo and Ed and Priscilla. Matter
Speaker 2: of fact, Priscilla is going to be first up on
Speaker 2: the other side. Priscilla will be with you right after
Speaker 2: this quick break.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Back to the phones, we go with Attorney Phil Tracy
Speaker 2: a veteran criminal defense attorney here in Boston, and Phil
Speaker 2: practices with Demento and Sullivan, very successful criminal criminal law firm.
Speaker 2: Priscilla in Mattapan. Hi, Priscilla, welcome, you were.
Speaker 9: Yes, I had a couple of questions.
Speaker 2: Ad Priscilla, focus focus on us and make sure that
Speaker 2: radio is turned down. Go ahead, Priscilla.
Speaker 9: They were thinking about you know how I know some
Speaker 9: of the evidence has not appeared because what I hear
Speaker 9: they said, John O'Keefe, you know he was bitten by
Speaker 9: the dog. So and I don't know.
Speaker 2: How to well what what the what the defense is
Speaker 2: trying to get in is that that he was he
Speaker 2: was bitten by a dog. But I don't think that
Speaker 2: they were able to get in that he was bitten
Speaker 2: by a dog inside the house. Am I right on
Speaker 2: that film? Yes he could have if he if he
Speaker 2: was theoretically, if he was hit by the vehicle and
Speaker 2: was unconscious and and and froze to death, there could
Speaker 2: have been a dog or a coyote that theoretically could
Speaker 2: have bit him while he was on the lawn. They
Speaker 2: did not get to the point of putting. They did
Speaker 2: not put him in. They did not place him in
Speaker 2: the house. The defense did not at this case try
Speaker 2: to place him in the house.
Speaker 3: That's right. They moved away from him. Blame they moved
Speaker 3: away from him.
Speaker 2: Priscilla, hold on for one second, Phil, Tracy just wanted
Speaker 2: to comment.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Phil, No, I think they moved away from
Speaker 3: the theory that he went in the house, was attack,
Speaker 3: beaten up by a dog, and thrown out on the
Speaker 3: front lawn. I mean, that didn't make sense. If that
Speaker 3: really happened, wouldn't they try to hide the body or
Speaker 3: do something different than putting it on the front putting
Speaker 3: the body in the front lawn. Yeah, the bills, he
Speaker 3: was going to die. He was just beating nothing thrown
Speaker 3: out there. But that's again, it's highly They called it
Speaker 3: for a conspiracy among multiple police people and things like that. Now,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that that. Sometimes the police needs fruit
Speaker 3: me and maybe this department does, but I mean, it
Speaker 3: just doesn't make a lot of sense that that's what happened.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Priscilla, go ahead, I'll give you final word. Priscilla,
Speaker 2: I interrupted you. I apologize, Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Oh, I was just wondering. You know, it's just so
Speaker 9: so many things.
Speaker 2: Confusing, set of facts, that's for sure.
Speaker 9: Yeah, and then you know that they got rid of
Speaker 9: the house. That's good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the house was sold and the dog disappeared, and
Speaker 2: we know all of that. I don't think much of
Speaker 2: that if any of that got in in front of
Speaker 2: the jury. And and that's the real jury.
Speaker 3: This time it wasn't. Yeah, this time they really take.
Speaker 2: Kind did you feel? Correct me if I'm wrong. But
Speaker 2: the jury cannot take into consideration facts that they may
Speaker 2: have learned from other sources with them into the jury room.
Speaker 2: They got to come in with what they've heard in
Speaker 2: the case exactly.
Speaker 3: And one of the hardest things for the public to understand,
Speaker 3: and for me and for you, Dan, we weren't in
Speaker 3: the courtroom every single day, watching every single with the
Speaker 3: jury was, and sometimes what you hear coming out of
Speaker 3: the courts is not exactly what was was said or
Speaker 3: was meant. And the jury obviously sees everything. We don't
Speaker 3: see everything. We read the newspaper reports and we see
Speaker 3: the television, but that's only a snippet of what's happening.
Speaker 2: Aslutely, Priscilla, thanks you.
Speaker 9: The judge asked the question one of the people about
Speaker 9: the dogs situation. Stuff too so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well the judge has has discussed that that
Speaker 2: had did come up in the context of for the clothing,
Speaker 2: the piece of clothing that they showed. So we'll have
Speaker 2: to see what the instruction, what the judges instructions are tomorrow. Priscilla,
Speaker 2: thank you very much for your call. I appreciate you
Speaker 2: taking the time. Have a great night. Well, thank you, Priscilla.
Speaker 2: I love that. Is this your first time.
Speaker 9: Time?
Speaker 2: All right? Well, come on back more often, Okay, I
Speaker 2: want to hear from you more often. Thanks, Priscilla, take
Speaker 2: it easy, good night. Let me go to Ed and Marshfield.
Speaker 2: Ed you next on nice. I want to get you
Speaker 2: and hopefully a couple more in Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Ed, Oh are you Dan?
Speaker 2: Good sir, you're also Tracy. Go ahead?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 10: Help Joe out with the coincidences. The Jim McCabe lying
Speaker 10: to the FBI about five phone calls. That's that's you know,
Speaker 10: there's a lie on the other side.
Speaker 2: What was that was that entered into evidence in this
Speaker 2: in this trial?
Speaker 3: I believe it was.
Speaker 8: And Brendan Lyon about the shirt.
Speaker 2: I don't I don't think that's a he said. He
Speaker 2: he said that he made a mistake.
Speaker 10: He's been lying and he got caught in that lie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know what, Ed, And I gotta tell you,
Speaker 2: I know a little bit of Hank Brennan's reputation. I
Speaker 2: think Phil knows a little bit of his reputation. And
Speaker 2: I don't think the word liar a lie is one
Speaker 2: that you should be. He's a he's a good lawyer,
Speaker 2: and I appreciate it, but I just you know, I'm
Speaker 2: not I'm the judge here in the quote of public opinion.
Speaker 2: I'm going to rule that out of water. Thanks Ed.
Speaker 2: GEO in handover GEO next to Nice.
Speaker 8: I go ahead, Geo, Hello Phil, to you and Phil Tracy,
Speaker 8: both really good lawyers.
Speaker 3: Phil.
Speaker 7: At the very.
Speaker 8: Beginning, I uh, well, I I set up clinical laboratories
Speaker 8: and forensic laboratories in New York. They tested for curare,
Speaker 8: which was an African killer that the doctor was using.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 8: Your case is most was mostly about incidental and circumstantial
Speaker 8: rather than the corpus, rather than the corpse. I did
Speaker 8: not follow it once they once they said they didn't
Speaker 8: do what I thought was the obvious thing to do.
Speaker 8: Can you comment on what was the matter of any
Speaker 8: substantial facts from one and two an autopsy and a
Speaker 8: forensic toxicology report.
Speaker 3: Well, let me just say this, I think that the
Speaker 3: product you brought up something that I hadn't touched on,
Speaker 3: and that was some of the unexplained Now everybody, I mean,
Speaker 3: some people say it's a it's a conspiracy and whatever.
Speaker 3: But the DNA aspect of it indicated there was no
Speaker 3: dog DNA on him. There was his DNA on the
Speaker 3: broken tail light. Now that would require I guess somebody
Speaker 3: to have done that in a way that in order
Speaker 3: to frame Karen read It seems a long stretch to
Speaker 3: say that that kind of evidence is not credible. I
Speaker 3: think it's very credible when you say there's DNA of
Speaker 3: this man who's dead on the tail light, and that's
Speaker 3: what they've proved, I mean that that's what they attempted
Speaker 3: to prove.
Speaker 8: Let me let me give you a for instance. He
Speaker 8: would walk up to the body in the lobby and
Speaker 8: he would be regurgitating or drooling or bleeding, and you
Speaker 8: would take a paper towel or a napkin, wipe it,
Speaker 8: walk out to the tail light and rub it on
Speaker 8: the tail light. That would be good enough to present
Speaker 8: for a laboratory test to say his DNA is on
Speaker 8: the tail light, but it says nothing about how it
Speaker 8: got there, well the other the other things.
Speaker 2: I mean, just think about it. He could have gotten
Speaker 2: out of that car. Uh and as he's walking with
Speaker 2: the snow falling down his hand if he if he
Speaker 2: didn't have gloves on, his bare hand, could have steadied
Speaker 2: himself and could have put his hand on it on
Speaker 2: the light, and there'd be perhaps some DNA from his hand.
Speaker 8: Well, yeah, that is a possibility, but it doesn't it
Speaker 8: doesn't fit what its known evidence. I haven't paid a
Speaker 8: lot of attention, but recently there's a testimony about a
Speaker 8: place where the car was and somebody saw the something
Speaker 8: was different relative to the tail light. It was a
Speaker 8: different tale light.
Speaker 2: That was the first gill. That was the first trial
Speaker 2: where there was a videotape that was presented into Evan
Speaker 2: which apparently was flipped backwards. Okay, I'll go back. Geo. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: autopsy Geo?
Speaker 8: Was there an autopsy?
Speaker 2: Geo? Geo? I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 2: And I'm flat out of time. I have the ten
Speaker 2: o'clock news.
Speaker 4: I'm glad.
Speaker 2: Okay, Phil, I want to thank you, thank you, Geo, Phil,
Speaker 2: thank you for your time tonight obviously when this verting
Speaker 2: come man.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me on. This is a case
Speaker 3: that captured the imagination of the of the and is
Speaker 3: being reported nationally.
Speaker 2: But I also think we cannot forget that there's a
Speaker 2: young man whose life has been lost and whatever in
Speaker 2: this case, we need to focus Phil. Thank you. I'm
Speaker 2: going to let you go.
Speaker 3: For those of you on the line.
Speaker 2: Talk to you soon.
Speaker 5: Pal.
Speaker 2: For those of you on the line, Joe and Michael
Speaker 2: and Alex and Jonie, stay there. I want to continue
Speaker 2: this and I'll accommodate all of you during the next hour.
Speaker 2: We may do two hours on this tonight, we'll do
Speaker 2: at least probably another fifteen to twenty minutes right after
Speaker 2: the ten o'clock news on Nightside