Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZY Boston's news video.
Speaker 2: Beg you, Dan Watkins. As we move into our nine
Speaker 2: o'clock hour, we're going to talk about the testimony today
Speaker 2: at the Karen Reid retrial. So this is really, however
Speaker 2: you want to phrase it. This is the second week.
Speaker 2: There was some testimony last week. I thought it was
Speaker 2: very interesting testimony today. Now again the testimony is a
Speaker 2: prosecution witness. You have to sort of weigh that a
Speaker 2: little bit. But I want to talk a little bit
Speaker 2: about what the prosecution witness said, what he testified to,
Speaker 2: and who he was, and how I think it might
Speaker 2: impact the jury. I think talking to one of my
Speaker 2: legal beagles today, they thought that the first few days
Speaker 2: of this trial has has gone pretty well for the prosecution.
Speaker 2: Now again, the we won't know until the jury comes
Speaker 2: in with their verdict. But I have to give you
Speaker 2: my thoughts as the trial proceeds on a if not
Speaker 2: a day to day basis, a week to week basis.
Speaker 2: As I think all of us know, this is the
Speaker 2: second trial. First trial ended in a hung jury. So
Speaker 2: today on the witness stand, the prosecutors called a digital
Speaker 2: intelligence expert. What we're really talking about here a forensics.
Speaker 2: I mean, forensics is a broad umbrella term that can
Speaker 2: mean anything that is sort of scientifically related. We're not
Speaker 2: talking about junk science, but we are talking about something
Speaker 2: that is scientifically related. And of course all of us
Speaker 2: think of it in terms of, you know, DNA and
Speaker 2: how that they can go back on some of these
Speaker 2: criminal cases and find DNA, make DNA matches on people.
Speaker 2: You know, they discarded Pizza cross as the guy that
Speaker 2: did down in Long Island. He was a suspect in
Speaker 2: the murders of several women on this this beach in
Speaker 2: nott Rhode is on the Long Island, excuse me, on
Speaker 2: Long Island. So in this instance, the focus today was
Speaker 2: on the cell phone of the victim in this case,
Speaker 2: John O'Keefe, the Boston you know, the late Boston police
Speaker 2: officer who Karen Reid is accused of killing. She's looking
Speaker 2: at the most serious charge, a second degree murder charge.
Speaker 2: So the prosecutor called this fellaw Ian Whiffen, the digital
Speaker 2: intelligence expert with a company called Celebrate, and he focused
Speaker 2: on O'Keefe's cell phone. And I won't get into you
Speaker 2: know a lot of the detail, and you can you
Speaker 2: can follow up on that with me if you want.
Speaker 2: But essentially, he claimed that they were able with his
Speaker 2: with O'Keefe's cell phone to basically show a couple of
Speaker 2: things which I think are pretty important. One is that
Speaker 2: the cell phone really was in the area where his
Speaker 2: body was found for several hours. Several hours now there
Speaker 2: was a flagpole on the opposite side of the lawn.
Speaker 2: Said according to Whiffin that the phone apparently was near
Speaker 2: a flagpole on the opposite side of the lawn, but
Speaker 2: on the lawn now. Could have O'Keefe discarded the cell
Speaker 2: phone or dropped the cell phone, I guess. But the
Speaker 2: fact that those of us who have cell phones know
Speaker 2: that we're always touching our pocket to make sure we
Speaker 2: have our cell phone, that I'll leave no, I got
Speaker 2: my cell phone. I feel better, Okay, thirty seconds later,
Speaker 2: where's my oh yes, my back pocket or whatever. So
Speaker 2: that is interesting fact that the jury can take into
Speaker 2: consideration or testimony that the jury can take into consideration.
Speaker 2: And then the other thing that Withffin talked about was
Speaker 2: that the phone's battery temperature and the Applehealth Dot data
Speaker 2: on the phone. He said the battery temperature started off
Speaker 2: at about eighty degrees and then a few hours later
Speaker 2: it went as low as thirty seven degrees. Now that's
Speaker 2: a tough one to overcome, because if O'Keefe did go
Speaker 2: into the house, as the defense wants to convince the jury,
Speaker 2: what did he do. Did he bring the cell phone
Speaker 2: in the house and put it in the refrigerator? Probably not?
Speaker 2: Probably not. So I think that the inclusion that maybe
Speaker 2: could be drawn from that is that the cell phone
Speaker 2: not only was on the lawn for the entirety, but
Speaker 2: maybe it was on the lawn with in fact John O'Keefe,
Speaker 2: which of course would be a devastating conclusion. Now again,
Speaker 2: forensic science and all of that. Look, you watch any
Speaker 2: TV show these days, and people do watch these shows.
Speaker 2: I like to watch the show on Sunday Night called Tracker.
Speaker 2: It's the one show that I have an opportunity to
Speaker 2: really watch. And they're using all sorts of data, forensic data,
Speaker 2: digital data, and that's what this guy Wiffin was talking
Speaker 2: about today. So this is cut number twenty one. This
Speaker 2: is within being asked by the prosecutor Hank Brennan about
Speaker 2: what we've just talked about. This will give you a
Speaker 2: little bit of a sense of what went on in
Speaker 2: court toe they cut twenty one.
Speaker 3: Please rub the fact that the center dots are in
Speaker 3: different spots. Is that inconsistent with a phone being in
Speaker 3: the same place not moving that entire night.
Speaker 1: It could indicate movement, it could indicate refinement.
Speaker 3: Is it impossible to tell?
Speaker 1: Its possible to tell at this level of detail anyway.
Speaker 3: Are all these dots, given the range ten meters are
Speaker 3: under Are all these dots and all these readings of
Speaker 3: the high frequency data that you compiled for that night,
Speaker 3: are they all consistent with Michel Keif's phone being near
Speaker 3: the flagpole and.
Speaker 2: Not moving that night.
Speaker 1: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Speaker 2: Okay. Brennan also questioned with it about he refers here
Speaker 2: to the phone took its last steps. Obviously he's referring
Speaker 2: to O'Keefe taking his last potentially his last last steps.
Speaker 2: And they've got the time down to twelve thirty two,
Speaker 2: and it didn't move again until six four am, which
Speaker 2: I believe is the time when his body was actually
Speaker 2: discovered and properly moved by EMTs. This has cut twenty three, Please.
Speaker 3: Rob After twelve thirty two, sixteen when this phone took
Speaker 3: its last steps did it move again until six h
Speaker 3: four or one am.
Speaker 1: There would no more steps or flight climb or any
Speaker 1: other health activity recorder during that time.
Speaker 2: So referring to at one point the phone suggested that
Speaker 2: it had moved up a few feet, which someone you know,
Speaker 2: which the defense will potentially argue that that showed him
Speaker 2: walking up a flight of steps into the house, but
Speaker 2: the prosecution anticipated that argument and it was explained by
Speaker 2: this digital intelligence expert that the phone, while it was
Speaker 2: in the car and moving from from point A to
Speaker 2: point B, could have gone up you know, elevation. It's
Speaker 2: all related, I guess to C level. So I think
Speaker 2: that's pretty damning testimony in terms of again forensic testimony. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the defense has not put on their case, the prosecution
Speaker 2: has not finished presenting their case. But I think that
Speaker 2: this guy, Ian Wiffen could be a pretty important witness,
Speaker 2: and testimony from this witness that the that the jury
Speaker 2: may want to focus on. So what I'm gonna do
Speaker 2: is gonna take quick break. I'm going to invite you
Speaker 2: to join the conversation. If you have a strong opinion
Speaker 2: on what happened in court today, feel free if you
Speaker 2: feel what happened in court today will be dismissable by
Speaker 2: the defense. Feel free as well. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
Speaker 2: ten thirty six, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. Again,
Speaker 2: we're not going to follow this every day, but when
Speaker 2: there is a day either for the prosecution or defense
Speaker 2: which seems to be significant, we're going to talk about it,
Speaker 2: and I hope you join us. Coming right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1: Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: So I've tried to explain what went on in condensed
Speaker 2: form in court today and what I think its impact
Speaker 2: will be. I do believe that a lot of the
Speaker 2: forensic materials that have baffled people other juries over the
Speaker 2: years have now come to be accepted by a lot
Speaker 2: of Americans. We assume that the DNA is going to
Speaker 2: be accurate. Now. I know that there's all sorts of
Speaker 2: arguments prone against PROW and against it, but and and
Speaker 2: some of it can be considered you know, junk science.
Speaker 2: Lie detectors are not necessarily involved and used allowed in
Speaker 2: Massachusetts courts, although light detector has been around a long time.
Speaker 2: I just think that this testimony today from this digital
Speaker 2: intelligence expert Ian Wiffin, again, I wasn't in the court room,
Speaker 2: wasn't able to read the jury, but it sounded to
Speaker 2: me as if it was pretty convincing, and it also
Speaker 2: seems to be based on science that is pretty acceptable.
Speaker 2: I don't know that the defense lawyers will be able
Speaker 2: to do much with Ian Wiffin on cross examination. We
Speaker 2: will see, but I'd love to know from you if
Speaker 2: you listen tonight, if you if you watched it, that's
Speaker 2: the best. I mean, it's it's streamed by most of
Speaker 2: the local outlets, station TV station, It's now in some
Speaker 2: form of fashion. If if you watch the local news tonight,
Speaker 2: did it? How would have it impacted you? If you
Speaker 2: remember this jury? Again, I think that I do not
Speaker 2: believe that Wiffin was available at the first trial. I
Speaker 2: believe that this is a new witness. I did not
Speaker 2: cover the first trial, have not covered the second trial
Speaker 2: on a day to day basis. But if I'm incorrect
Speaker 2: on that, feel free to correct me. I think that
Speaker 2: this was a great witness, a solid witness for the
Speaker 2: prosecution today and a witness that the jurors probably will remember.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the phones six one, seven, two, four, ten, thirty, six, one, seven,
Speaker 2: ninety I've said this before. I always like to know
Speaker 2: if you are still as committed to your belief in
Speaker 2: this case, whether you believe Karen Reid is guilty or
Speaker 2: not guilty, if that interview has changed, and what may
Speaker 2: have caused it to change. We are into the second retrial.
Speaker 2: Feel free. Let me go to Joe. Joe, you were
Speaker 2: next on our first this hour, first this week on Nightside.
Speaker 2: Welcome Joe.
Speaker 4: I'd like to make some points, two or three points
Speaker 4: and get your comments first.
Speaker 2: Go right ahead, Joe. I know that's why you called
Speaker 2: I'm all ears. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Karen Reid said on a TV interview, I hit him,
Speaker 4: I hit him, I hit him. Do you think she
Speaker 4: could have had a blackout when if she did hit him?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know that she said that
Speaker 2: on a TV interview.
Speaker 4: I think on TV, Dan, Maybe some of your callers
Speaker 4: can back me up.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's fine. I think she is reported to have
Speaker 2: said that in the morning, while you said a TV interview.
Speaker 2: I don't think she said it on a TV interview.
Speaker 2: I think that that there was audio in the courtroom. No,
Speaker 2: let me help you out, Joe, Okay, please help you out.
Speaker 2: I think that there was a police dash cam running
Speaker 2: the morning that the body was discovered, at approximately six
Speaker 2: o'clock the morning after whatever happened happened. And I believe
Speaker 2: that that that that picked her up, that that that
Speaker 2: her comments. It wasn't like she sat down for an
Speaker 2: interview and admitted in the in the you know, the
Speaker 2: the the cold well lit you know interview situation, yes,
Speaker 2: I hit him, I hit him, I hit him. I
Speaker 2: don't didn't want people to come away with that impression.
Speaker 2: She apparently blurted that out as what lawyers would call
Speaker 2: an excited utterance or a statement against interest at approximately
Speaker 2: the moment when they found they went back and they
Speaker 2: found his body on the front lawn. That's that's so,
Speaker 2: that's what that's what I think you're referring to. Go ahead, Joe.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and Dan, my prejudice tell me that I would
Speaker 4: like to see her free of all charges, because how
Speaker 4: do you explain the dog bites and how do you think, Dan,
Speaker 4: that she's being framed. I'd like your opinion.
Speaker 2: I don't believe she's being framed, to be honest with you,
Speaker 2: I think that there's enough evidence here which the jury
Speaker 2: could believe to convict her. I think there's enough evidence
Speaker 2: which the jury could believe to acquit her in terms
Speaker 2: of the dog bites or the animal bites. If John
Speaker 2: O'Keefe was theoretically hit by her, and if he lost
Speaker 2: consciousness and was on that lawn that morning for five
Speaker 2: and a half hours, it's conceivable that any animal might
Speaker 2: have come along and and chewed on his arm. So
Speaker 2: but I again, I'm not in the courtroom. I'm not
Speaker 2: an expert. I'm just telling you what I truly think.
Speaker 4: Okay, Dan, you have the bet jarre better than all
Speaker 4: the rest.
Speaker 2: Well, I appreciate that. And you're a poet, but you
Speaker 2: don't know it. Hey, thanks, Thanks Joe. I appreciate you. Carl,
Speaker 2: thank you much so you you you're rooting for her
Speaker 2: to be acquitted obviously right of all charges.
Speaker 4: And I hope she makes a lot of money on
Speaker 4: her book.
Speaker 2: Okay, Joe, and you you have stuck with that opinion
Speaker 2: from Jump Street, right, you haven't switched back and forth, right, Okay,
Speaker 2: that's great. You're a man of your conviction. Thank you, Joe,
Speaker 2: I appreciate it. Let me go to Joe Inn and Salem.
Speaker 2: Joeanne a different point of view, maybe the same go ahead,
Speaker 2: joe In.
Speaker 5: Hi, Dean, how are you.
Speaker 2: I'm doing great. Did you get a chance to watch
Speaker 2: any of that testimony today?
Speaker 6: Oh?
Speaker 5: I've been following this case since now the beginning, since
Speaker 5: early twenty twenty three. Yes, and Ian Whiffen did testify
Speaker 5: in the first trial.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair enough, Okay, thank you for that correction.
Speaker 5: Him and Jessica Hyde was the other prosecute. You shouldn't
Speaker 5: with this regarding the cell phone data.
Speaker 2: And you know, let me ask you this. How did
Speaker 2: the defense attack that testimony in the first trial.
Speaker 5: Well, it was just kind of a battle of you know,
Speaker 5: the experts, you know, it's it was I can't really
Speaker 5: remember everything.
Speaker 2: So was there another Yeah, I'm just asking. I'm asking
Speaker 2: the question, and if you don't know the answer, the
Speaker 2: best answer is to say, g I'm not sure. Did
Speaker 2: they bring in a digital expert to counter what he
Speaker 2: had to say? A digital expert? Who who would have
Speaker 2: suggested that, hey, it's impossible to tell where their phone was?
Speaker 2: Or did did they did they have anyone who challenged
Speaker 2: you know who? You know? Normally you get each each
Speaker 2: side as an expert in normal cases, and then it's
Speaker 2: up to the jury to decide which expert is more incredible.
Speaker 5: Exactly, yes, And the defense did bring in somebody. They
Speaker 5: brought in Richard Green, who is going to be bringing
Speaker 5: in again for this trial.
Speaker 2: And if you.
Speaker 5: Listen to Ian's testimony today, he had said a colleague
Speaker 5: had called to inquire. It was Richard Green who called Ian.
Speaker 6: So you know, what is this?
Speaker 2: What is the significance in your mind of that you in,
Speaker 2: Because I mean Richard Green had called Ian Whippin in
Speaker 2: the beginning before Ian.
Speaker 5: Whiffen had an opinion to say like, look it, do
Speaker 5: you think this happened? You know, And it wasn't until
Speaker 5: after when all of a sudden, Ian Whiffan comes out
Speaker 5: and says, you know something opposite. I can't tell you
Speaker 5: what he said. That was the first I learned him
Speaker 5: that today.
Speaker 2: So so so you're like, you're like, Joe, it sounds
Speaker 2: to me as if you're convinced that that Karen Reid
Speaker 2: is not guilty of any of these charges. That's that's
Speaker 2: the impression I got from you. Correct.
Speaker 5: Oh, absolutely, I mean there's just too many, too many
Speaker 5: coincidences with the investigation, and just you know, it's it's
Speaker 5: just way too many. If there's one, two or three. Fine,
Speaker 5: but all of these ones that you're telling me a
Speaker 5: mass gape police troopers.
Speaker 2: So let me let me ask you what do you think?
Speaker 2: So you think you think that I just want to,
Speaker 2: you know, because I am not sure. I have my
Speaker 2: own thoughts, but i'd rather find out from you, since
Speaker 2: you've watched probably more of the trial, the first trial
Speaker 2: and even now the second trial that I have. So
Speaker 2: you're convinced, therefore, that O'Keefe went into the house and
Speaker 2: something bad happened inside the house.
Speaker 5: Yes, I don't believe any any you know, they didn't
Speaker 5: mean to, you know, kill him, but yees, you know.
Speaker 2: And so then so then you think that they do
Speaker 2: you think that they said, geez, he's dead, let's put
Speaker 2: him on the front lawn. Or do you think they said, well,
Speaker 2: put him out in the front lawn and he'll wake up.
Speaker 2: I mean, what how do you think he ended and
Speaker 2: why on the front lawn?
Speaker 5: Well, we have first of all, you're not going to
Speaker 5: transport a body into anybody's vehicle. That's extra DNA. You know,
Speaker 5: if they ever did do it any investigation, which we
Speaker 5: know they've never even went in the house, and they'd
Speaker 5: go into my house or your house if the body
Speaker 5: was found on our lawn. But I think that, you know,
Speaker 5: maybe a Socca punch was thrown to John O'Keefe. He
Speaker 5: banged his head on something hard. And I mean, it
Speaker 5: happens all the time. It happened to you.
Speaker 2: Okay, So let's let's ass Joe in. Let's assume that happened. Okay,
Speaker 2: So now you got However, many people are in the
Speaker 2: house who witnessed this. Why would not someone have said, hey,
Speaker 2: let's call an ambulance and you know, he may be
Speaker 2: a jerk, but we don't want him to die in
Speaker 2: the house. Or how did what do you do you
Speaker 2: think they said, well, look, we'll put him out of
Speaker 2: the lawn and nobody's going to notice him till the spring.
Speaker 2: That's what boggles my mind.
Speaker 5: No, no, I don't believe that. I first of all,
Speaker 5: I don't believe buddy that was I don't believe the
Speaker 5: young kids were fully aware of what was going on.
Speaker 5: I think, you know, I mean people say conspiracy. I
Speaker 5: call it a cover up. All it takes is three
Speaker 5: family members and a good you know relationship with you know,
Speaker 5: law enforcement.
Speaker 2: So you put him on the lawn, right so you
Speaker 2: put him on the lawn, right, and then what do
Speaker 2: you hope do you at that point say well, we
Speaker 2: got to figure out another way. Oh let's pint it
Speaker 2: on the woman who dropped him off. Is that is
Speaker 2: that what you think?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 5: No, I don't think that was the original plan. I
Speaker 5: think it was. I mean, he was at the edge
Speaker 5: of the lawn. He was on Brian Obert's property, but
Speaker 5: he was at the edge. I think the like the
Speaker 5: scenario is the plow hit him. I think that was
Speaker 5: going to be it. The wish she was looking for
Speaker 5: him and she happened to have a crack tail light.
Speaker 5: It just fit together.
Speaker 2: So you think they put him on the lawn and
Speaker 2: the now the plow guy has said, I believe that
Speaker 2: he never saw anything but that alone. But I think
Speaker 2: they put him on the lawn. Well, okay, fine, I
Speaker 2: think to that strange credibility. That's that's strange credulity in
Speaker 2: the sense that I think if if they were corrupt people,
Speaker 2: uh and particularly corrupt police, they probably would have been
Speaker 2: more creative than that.
Speaker 5: Well well, I mean, you know, you got to look
Speaker 5: at people's paths too, and it's out there, it's public
Speaker 5: it's not made up.
Speaker 6: It's not rumor.
Speaker 5: There's very public things about Brian Albert out there. I
Speaker 5: originally when I heard it.
Speaker 2: Again, just just emphasize, just emphasize Brian Albert. There's no
Speaker 2: one else on trial at this point, so uh, let's
Speaker 2: let the defense in the court of law put put
Speaker 2: it in. I don't want to be making any having
Speaker 2: any allegations made against When you say something like it's
Speaker 2: out there, I don't know what it's is. If you
Speaker 2: know what I'm saying the news in the news, I understand, Well,
Speaker 2: that's fine. Let the news defend themselves. I'm going to
Speaker 2: defend my station and make sure that my station is
Speaker 2: not sued. That's all I'm saying. All right, right, great,
Speaker 2: good enough, Joe Inn hate to do this to you.
Speaker 2: I've gone well into the news, so I gotta let
Speaker 2: you run. But thanks very much. Interesting.
Speaker 5: Interesting, you appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Hey, thanks time, and you're great.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I appreciate you. Call call again. Thanks,
Speaker 2: good night. We'll take a roy quick break. Here's the
Speaker 2: news at the bottom of the hoar. A couple of
Speaker 2: minutes later, I got Steve coming up, Jack coming up
Speaker 2: in a room for you one at six one, seven, two, five,
Speaker 2: four to ten thirty and two at six one, seven,
Speaker 2: nine three one ten thirty. My plan is to change
Speaker 2: topics at ten o'clock. The number of phone calls that
Speaker 2: we get will determine that if you want to talk
Speaker 2: more about this, we can go into the ten o'clock
Speaker 2: how if you don't, we'll wrap it up at ten.
Speaker 2: Back after this on Night Side.
Speaker 1: You're on Night Side with Dan ray on'ell you Bzy
Speaker 1: Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2: Back to the phones we go. Let me go to
Speaker 2: Steve and Cambridge. Steve, welcome back. You've been away for
Speaker 2: a while. Where you've been. I've missed you, all right?
Speaker 7: I just Dan, for one reason or another, I've been
Speaker 7: not not calling.
Speaker 2: But that's okay. Always great to hear your voice.
Speaker 7: Go right ahead, Thank you, Dan. I have asking for
Speaker 7: your opinions as a man who is an attorney and
Speaker 7: also has spent a lot of time reporting on crime
Speaker 7: and litigation in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 7: Do you think her appearance in the courtroom is good?
Speaker 2: No? No, I don't.
Speaker 7: I mean, if you were a lawyer, wouldn't you tell
Speaker 7: her to look a little more demure?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think she's she's a very attractive woman. I
Speaker 2: think she's also expressive. Uh and and again I haven't
Speaker 2: been in that courtroom, so it's difficult for me to imagine,
Speaker 2: but I do think that she has. She comes across
Speaker 2: probably a little I want to pick a good word here,
Speaker 2: a little cooler than that I would like if I
Speaker 2: were representing her.
Speaker 7: I mean, if I were her lawyer, for example, I
Speaker 7: would tell her to wear her hair differently.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean all of that. There are consultants
Speaker 2: for all of that, as you can imagine. And I
Speaker 2: think that at this point it might be too late
Speaker 2: to change her appearance, because I think everyone, even the
Speaker 2: current jurors, were probably exposed to the first trial, and
Speaker 2: if she were to change her hairstyle dramatically, now that
Speaker 2: might be perceived as disingenuous.
Speaker 7: But you know, I've seen other cases where the important
Speaker 7: case is where the defendant is probably paying a fortune
Speaker 7: to be defended, and the defendant does, you know, does
Speaker 7: not look like I would want my client to look.
Speaker 2: You saying, yeah, how let me ask you this, how
Speaker 2: would you just what word would you use to describe
Speaker 2: her appearance?
Speaker 7: She doesn't. She has kind of the look of oh,
Speaker 7: I really, I mean, I dan, you know, I wouldn't
Speaker 7: want her to go in looking like a Sunday school
Speaker 7: teacher necessarily, but she has the look of kind of
Speaker 7: a wild kind of a bit of a wild look.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't I don't know that I would characterize
Speaker 2: it as that, I guess one of the things that
Speaker 2: that would trouble me. And again, they they've got in
Speaker 2: already some of her television interviews that she did after
Speaker 2: the first trial, between the first and second trial, and
Speaker 2: she doesn't come across in at least the clips that
Speaker 2: have been shown in my opinion, as particularly empathetic or likable.
Speaker 2: I mean, there is an individual who has lost his
Speaker 2: life for whatever happened, and it's also someone who she
Speaker 2: apparently at one point fell to, you know, very close to,
Speaker 2: and you would think that they would be I don't know,
Speaker 2: there would be a demeanor which would be somewhat different
Speaker 2: than what we that we see both walking into the courtroom,
Speaker 2: walking out of the courtroom, and in the courtroom, it's.
Speaker 7: The same kind of thing I'm talking about. And I'm
Speaker 7: surprised that lawyers, I mean, I've seen this in other
Speaker 7: cases where I don't think the lawyers are getting a
Speaker 7: lot of money have suggested. I mean, it doesn't appear
Speaker 7: to me that they've suggested to their client, Well, when
Speaker 7: you come into the courtroom tomorrow, you know, don't have
Speaker 7: your hair flopping all over your shoulders.
Speaker 2: Yep. Well, let's see if others agree with you, Steve,
Speaker 2: that's an op question. Yeah, sure question. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Well, let me just I'll tell you one thing. I
Speaker 7: think it's going to be pretty hard for the prosecution
Speaker 7: to convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt because this
Speaker 7: case has so much history that's so convoluted that they've
Speaker 7: got a rough road to hoe. I think would you agree?
Speaker 2: I think it depends upon the jurors and if they've
Speaker 2: been able to pick jurors who are willing to give
Speaker 2: it a fresh look. I mean, this is one of
Speaker 2: those cases that every juror had to have been exposed
Speaker 2: to it, unless you've lived under a rock or you've
Speaker 2: just moved to Massachusetts. And even then it's such a
Speaker 2: national case. But there are other cases that have generated
Speaker 2: as much publicity. And I think that if the jurors
Speaker 2: follow what the judge is telling them, and that is
Speaker 2: to consider only the evidence that is put in front
Speaker 2: of you, Let's see how the case plays out. Let's
Speaker 2: tell you this. I think the prosecutor in this case
Speaker 2: is a better prosecutor. Though someone said to me today
Speaker 2: that they thought that the first prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Lally,
Speaker 2: was a good prosecutor. I watched his open statement pretty
Speaker 2: closely a year ago, and I wasn't impressed by it.
Speaker 2: I thought that the defense from the get go had
Speaker 2: the advantage. I think that Brennan is a It's more
Speaker 2: effective in the in the courtroom than than Lally was.
Speaker 2: But we'll see how it turns out.
Speaker 7: Last question, Dan, are you surprised that this bar has
Speaker 7: not come into more scrutiny? I mean, these people are
Speaker 7: all it appears wildly drunk. And why isn't this bar
Speaker 7: being you know, shut either shut down or sued in
Speaker 7: a wrongful death suit? I mean, why isn't a suit
Speaker 7: being brought against this bar that all?
Speaker 2: I don't know that the one that one hasn't And
Speaker 2: I don't know if they're close to the statutal limitations.
Speaker 2: I think that they have some time in the statute
Speaker 2: of limitations, and they might be waiting for the criminal
Speaker 2: trial to resolve itself and see what what evidence has
Speaker 2: has gotten in there's no rush again. I I'm assuming
Speaker 2: the statute of limitations, and I don't know if that's
Speaker 2: off of my head. This would be a wrongful death action.
Speaker 2: I'm assuming it's somewhere in the vicinity of six years.
Speaker 7: I mean, certainly this bar seems like it was very negligent,
Speaker 7: having all these wildly drunk people going out.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, but it's a bar. I mean, that's what
Speaker 2: bars do. And if uh, I think that maybe they're
Speaker 2: trying to figure out we're we're the fault. Lies. Yeah,
Speaker 2: were people overserved? I don't know. I guess I guess
Speaker 2: you got videotape, which would seem to suggest that. I
Speaker 2: don't know. Thanks, Thanks, Steve, We'll talk to me. You'll
Speaker 2: be a stranger. Thanks, have a great one. Good night.
Speaker 2: Coming right back on Nightside, one line at six one,
Speaker 2: seven thirty. I got a couple at six one seven. Again,
Speaker 2: if you're following this trial, I thought today was a
Speaker 2: good day for the prosecution. Agree or disagree, feel free.
Speaker 2: Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1: It's night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: We go Gonna go next to Jack is a Newton Jack,
Speaker 2: Welcome next to night saga.
Speaker 8: Right ahead, Yeah, Hi, how you doing. I haven't good
Speaker 8: Jack having called in a while. Uh, I think the
Speaker 8: titles actually turned against her. I uh, I was kind
Speaker 8: of shocked that all these things have come out in
Speaker 8: this second trial and not the first one. And and
Speaker 8: I agree with you, mister Brenner is much much better.
Speaker 8: And her attitude the previous caller, you know, said it right.
Speaker 8: You know, she's a little too cocky, and I mean
Speaker 8: she's kind of like gonna go down by her with
Speaker 8: her own words, you know. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 8: how the jury you can ignore that.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, well again it's it's it's a different jury,
Speaker 2: you're right, And let's see how how this this plays out.
Speaker 2: I just think this couple that a couple of good days,
Speaker 2: uh in the in the opening of this trial for
Speaker 2: the prosecution, which you would back, because if the prosecution
Speaker 2: doesn't have good days when they're putting in their case
Speaker 2: and the case is lost, the question is how effective
Speaker 2: will the defense be in rebuttal And that's gonna take
Speaker 2: a little bit of time. But at this point I
Speaker 2: thought that I thought the idea of the forensic evidence,
Speaker 2: the digital sort of evidence, people are much more accepting
Speaker 2: of that these days, because they're watching CSI this and
Speaker 2: CSI that on television, and I think that that could
Speaker 2: work very much against her in this second trial.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think she's gonna be charged with, you know,
Speaker 8: in voluntary manslaughter, actually leaving the scene of a crime.
Speaker 8: I mean after hitting him. I don't believe that other stuff,
Speaker 8: that he was beaten up or anything like that. It's
Speaker 8: just a little bit outrageous.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I was talking with Joeanne about that, and
Speaker 2: you know, what do you think kind of happened? You know,
Speaker 2: it didn't. It doesn't that that people who would be experienced, well,
Speaker 2: let's put them on on the front lawn. But you know,
Speaker 2: that's I don't mean to laugh at it, but that
Speaker 2: seems to me to be a little I don't think
Speaker 2: that that police officers and a bunch of them were there,
Speaker 2: would would say, oh, yeah, I got a great idea,
Speaker 2: let's put them on the front lawn. No one's going
Speaker 2: to notice.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 8: A dog bid them in the middle of the night
Speaker 8: and his body was out there.
Speaker 2: I guess that's conceivable. There there are coyotes, there are
Speaker 2: other animals and you know that are out out there
Speaker 2: at night. You never know.
Speaker 8: And one of the interesting things about this is it's
Speaker 8: really gardnered, really national news. It's in Vanity Fair, it's.
Speaker 6: In everywhere, everywhere national.
Speaker 8: You know. It's one of those child to just grab,
Speaker 8: you know, the national international media.
Speaker 2: It's the it's on the evening news, it's on you know.
Speaker 2: I've seen it on the ABC's World News tonight and
Speaker 2: it's like, whoa. I mean, it's it's caught the imagination
Speaker 2: of the public at large. Again. I guess it's it's
Speaker 2: a young couple one ends up dead, happens to be
Speaker 2: a police officer. How did who done it? How did
Speaker 2: it happen? I guess that's the answer. That's the that's
Speaker 2: the interest level. Hey Jack, I appreciate your call. Is
Speaker 2: always a different take. You always you always bring your
Speaker 2: a game. I appreciate it. Thank you much.
Speaker 6: Okay, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2: Let me go to Mario and Wilmington. Marry. I want
Speaker 2: to get you in here before the ten o'clock news.
Speaker 2: Go right ahead, Mario, thank you.
Speaker 6: I just want to get three points in with listening
Speaker 6: to some of the calls. Last one the animal No,
Speaker 6: there's no animals out and driving snowstorms. They they hunkered down,
Speaker 6: so it wasn't another animal. Those bite marks or scratches
Speaker 6: are not consistent with a hit and run. The other
Speaker 6: one is I'm losing faith myself.
Speaker 4: Dad.
Speaker 6: I think she's going to get found guilty, but I
Speaker 6: don't know if they can use the manslaughter charges at
Speaker 6: this point, like they're still charging her with murder. I think, yeah,
Speaker 6: there's there's.
Speaker 2: A there, there's a there's a second degree murder, there's
Speaker 2: a there's a manslaughter, and there's leaving the scene of
Speaker 2: an accident. So it's any combination thereof would be in.
Speaker 6: Place options the jurors. Okay, all right, gotcha. The other
Speaker 6: one was, she's not that attractive to me.
Speaker 2: WHOA hold on, Mario, come on, I mean she's a
Speaker 2: she's a very presentable looking woman. Okay, let's just leave
Speaker 2: it at that. I mean the beauties in the eyevy
Speaker 2: behold and Mario, come on, I think most people would
Speaker 2: disagree with you, but you ever write your opinion. But
Speaker 2: I don't want to go down that valley way if
Speaker 2: you don't mind.
Speaker 6: She's a great look and you can say she's a
Speaker 6: good looking woman and that's.
Speaker 2: It, you know what.
Speaker 6: I mean, but why not.
Speaker 2: That's not what we're trying to assess here. Okay, we
Speaker 2: were talking more about her appearance and her demeanor with
Speaker 2: Steve from Cambridge as to posed to her.
Speaker 6: Yeah, success, last point, if I can get into a
Speaker 6: real question, going to get up every morning and being
Speaker 6: court like that, it's while like going to work. I
Speaker 6: think she's holding up very well. Her personality and her
Speaker 6: characters is trying to deal with this. The other is
Speaker 6: the DA's, the judges, they're all there and they were
Speaker 6: at ease in their office work there. You're having to
Speaker 6: go to court every morning. You're up at five maybe
Speaker 6: to be there at that court at eight. It's really difficult.
Speaker 6: And she's done. She's hung up very well at it.
Speaker 6: You know, she's not making any here the lawyers and
Speaker 6: everybody else. She's trying to save her life too. At
Speaker 6: the same time. Go ahead, Dan, Sorry, no, no, no.
Speaker 2: I think that's a good observation. That's one that that
Speaker 2: people should consider. Whatever you think about her guilt or innocence,
Speaker 2: that that it is. It has to be very strenuous
Speaker 2: to have undergone this, and maybe she should let some
Speaker 2: of that that anxiety or that loss show. I think
Speaker 2: that that gets to the demeanor issue. She comes across
Speaker 2: as very cool, calm and collected, and some people would
Speaker 2: say that that's amazing, and you made the point that
Speaker 2: it's difficult to do. But some would say that that
Speaker 2: doesn't help her when the jury's observing her as cool,
Speaker 2: calm and collected when we're talking about whether she was
Speaker 2: a cause of it or not. She had been arguing
Speaker 2: with her boyfriend that night that I think has been
Speaker 2: pretty well established and that was the last. You know,
Speaker 2: if you had a conversation with a loved one and
Speaker 2: harsh words were exchanged and you found out that your
Speaker 2: loved one was killed in a totally unrelated accident, you
Speaker 2: certainly would for a long long time regret your last words,
Speaker 2: if you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it leads me back to where I do think
Speaker 6: he ran out of the Albert house. They figured he
Speaker 6: took off, but he collapsed out on the snow bank.
Speaker 6: If that's the case there, and then she didn't hit him.
Speaker 6: It's just so bizarre that she could have possibly hit him,
Speaker 6: but the mockings on his body don't consist of there.
Speaker 2: Okay, you got it in. Unfortunately, I'm right at the tent,
Speaker 2: so I got to let you go, but we'll stick
Speaker 2: with this into the next hour for a little while. Mario,
Speaker 2: appreciate your point of view.
Speaker 6: Thank you, sir, great schel, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2: Good night. Okay, so Mark and Amy, you guys stay there.
Speaker 2: I'll get you right on the other side of the
Speaker 2: ten the only line that is opened six one, seven, two, five, four,
Speaker 2: ten thirty. Your observations, your comments. We don't do Karen
Speaker 2: Reid every night of the week here on Night Side.
Speaker 2: Whenever there's a witness that I think is significant, that's
Speaker 2: when we'll talk about it. And I think it was
Speaker 2: a significant witness today because of the again the digital
Speaker 2: forensic technology. I think it was a very important day.
Speaker 2: We'll see what the jury thinks at some point in
Speaker 2: the next few weeks. Back on Night's Side, right after
Speaker 2: the ten o'clock news, and we'll continue with this conversation
Speaker 2: and we'll get into a couple of other topics later
Speaker 2: on tonight as well,