Speaker 1: Hey, welcome back to calling all beings call him Boston Deal.
Speaker 1: Hope you all are doing great tonight, So I have
Speaker 1: the honor and pleasure tonight. We have two great guests
Speaker 1: coming on, retired Sergeant Peter Murphy and retired attorney Val
Speaker 1: hell Law. So unfortunately DJ is feeling a little under
Speaker 1: the weather, so you have me for tonight as your host.
Speaker 1: So thank you all for joining and with the further ado.
Speaker 1: Let's see who's backstage? Hey, Hey, yes, I'll be like DJ.
Speaker 2: Can we get in?
Speaker 3: Aymen? Aymen?
Speaker 4: Great to see you, Bia.
Speaker 3: Good to see you too.
Speaker 4: Val.
Speaker 2: How are you so?
Speaker 3: I think Val is on mute?
Speaker 4: Okay, all right.
Speaker 2: So there we go. Yes, all right, all right. I'm
Speaker 2: sorry to hear about DJ.
Speaker 3: That sucks, I know, but that's all right. He sent
Speaker 3: me into a replacement. So how are you doing, Val?
Speaker 2: I'm doing pretty good.
Speaker 5: I'm looking at Peter and thinking he looks happier than
Speaker 5: I've seen him before.
Speaker 2: Are you thinking about the win yesterday?
Speaker 4: Oh? You nailed it? You you going on with that one? Val?
Speaker 4: And by the way, I'm very nice to talk to you,
Speaker 4: meet you and discuss things with you. I'm really looking
Speaker 4: forward to it. You can tell me a little more
Speaker 4: about your Massachusetts history, I guess at some point. But yeah, no,
Speaker 4: we are living the dream. After what happened last night.
Speaker 4: You probably know what the vote count was. We were
Speaker 4: thirty close to thirty three, one hundred to seventeen hundred.
Speaker 4: It was a landslide and it was very, very positive,
Speaker 4: and I think the town today had a great day
Speaker 4: in general. I think they see the light at the
Speaker 4: end of tunnel for improvement in the quality of life
Speaker 4: for everybody.
Speaker 3: That's right. So were you watching the val were you
Speaker 3: watching the results of the election?
Speaker 5: Yes, well I got a bit of a frenzy because
Speaker 5: I was jumped around to all the different channels talking
Speaker 5: about it, and it was a little confusing because a
Speaker 5: lot of people were going off John Commo's stream, I think,
Speaker 5: and then of course Mike get the Young Turks. It
Speaker 5: was both very exciting and like such a relief, like
Speaker 5: just oh my God, thank God. Like and I think
Speaker 5: my follow up question for Peter, which you sort of
Speaker 5: have already answered, is leading up to the election, did
Speaker 5: you have a sense that this is the way it
Speaker 5: would go?
Speaker 2: Or was it like a nail blighter at the end.
Speaker 4: Or well, I guess I could answer that with two responses.
Speaker 4: That one would be I did the standouts holding Susan
Speaker 4: Harrington signs for I think three out of the fall
Speaker 4: weeks or whatever it was that we did standouts on weekends,
Speaker 4: and we did them at three different locations or two
Speaker 4: and three different locations in the town. And I can
Speaker 4: tell you that we probably had a group of twelve
Speaker 4: to fifteen on any time that we did a standout,
Speaker 4: and the opponent, the incumbent, I'm not even going to
Speaker 4: mention his name. His group was standing about twelve fifteen
Speaker 4: feet to our right or towards the north, and the
Speaker 4: people coming up to our left would see our signs first, obviously,
Speaker 4: and they would beep and wave and thumbs up and
Speaker 4: high five, and they were so animated, and it grew
Speaker 4: with every weekend that we were there, and I mean
Speaker 4: we just felt the momentum and I think the enthusiasm
Speaker 4: that the town had had enough enough is enough, as
Speaker 4: one of our signs that we hold out in front
Speaker 4: of the police station twice a week, and I think
Speaker 4: enough is enough set it all and they were ready
Speaker 4: for change. They saw it, they saw the need for it,
Speaker 4: and they pushed the buttons. It was good. Yeah, it
Speaker 4: was really good. And we had, to Susan's credit, she
Speaker 4: had a masterful organization for campaign organization. And they had
Speaker 4: you know, I'm not going to say they had algorithms,
Speaker 4: but they had a lot of data and statistics and
Speaker 4: what the votes for Conley had been over the last
Speaker 4: four decades. And they had a dialed there and they
Speaker 4: knew if we could get a big number of people
Speaker 4: to the polls, that we overpower him and take the wheel. Jesus,
Speaker 4: we did it, and that's amazing.
Speaker 1: I saw that she had Rita had mentioned earlier that
Speaker 1: she had gone to over two thousand houses like door
Speaker 1: to door, and that's that's amazing she did.
Speaker 4: She did door knocks, two thousand is right, that's a
Speaker 4: good number. I know. They did a phone bank, they
Speaker 4: did calls, they did postcards, you know, they did meet
Speaker 4: and greets, They went to different forms and venues. She
Speaker 4: just she did a great job. And I didn't actually
Speaker 4: know her before I got involved in this campaign. I
Speaker 4: certainly knew the other individual, and I was very very
Speaker 4: impressed with her. I'm very very impressed with her. Her sincerity,
Speaker 4: her willingness to listen to people was incredible, and I
Speaker 4: think she's going to do a magnificent job my real leader.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think she's definitely been paying attention.
Speaker 1: I see her at the select board meetings well now
Speaker 1: that they're back in person, and she's always there, paying attention.
Speaker 3: And ready to speak up.
Speaker 1: So good for her, Great for the town of Canton,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. So, Val, why don't you tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about your background?
Speaker 4: M h.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 5: I talked to DJ about this a little bit. I'm
Speaker 5: kind of paranoid about my anonymity. Oh, of course, you know,
Speaker 5: so I don't necessarily. I've just had some kind of
Speaker 5: unique experiences in my life, and I would be easily
Speaker 5: recognizable with certain information. But I graduated from law school
Speaker 5: in the mid nineties, I beautiful, and early on I
Speaker 5: clerked for a couple of judges, which is where a
Speaker 5: lot of my interest in the cases that I watch now,
Speaker 5: and especially this case where you have this sort of
Speaker 5: very complicated ball of all sorts of.
Speaker 2: Legal issues and.
Speaker 5: Can you appeal them and you know, can the judge
Speaker 5: get away with X, Y and Z all these things
Speaker 5: like That's where it really comes from. And I'm just
Speaker 5: as brother counsel says, I'm just a law nerd So
Speaker 5: you know, the deeper the dive possible, the better.
Speaker 3: So what type of law did you practice? Do you
Speaker 3: mind sharing that with us?
Speaker 5: Well, it was more general practice. But I'm not litigation, Like,
Speaker 5: I haven't been in the courtroom, so in that sense,
Speaker 5: I'm like everyone else.
Speaker 2: Who's a court watcher.
Speaker 5: I may be a little more obsessed than some people,
Speaker 5: but mostly that's it.
Speaker 2: Like the applying.
Speaker 5: It's kind of funny because it's amazing how much that
Speaker 5: you learn in law school that stays in your head
Speaker 5: and then you're just sitting around and you hear someone
Speaker 5: say something on the stream. You're like, all of a sudden,
Speaker 5: you're like spurating out by wrote what the standard is.
Speaker 5: And if you're sitting around a bunch of lawyers, very often.
Speaker 4: It's the news that's really funny.
Speaker 1: So what made you take an interest in the Karen
Speaker 1: read like, how did you hear about it?
Speaker 3: Like just on the news?
Speaker 5: Like all of us here, yep, I in the beginning
Speaker 5: of my story. It's very it's like ninety nine percent
Speaker 5: of us. I heard about it on the news and
Speaker 5: I thought, oh my god, that's horrible, you know, and
Speaker 5: I did a little there, but for the grace of
Speaker 5: God moment, you know, And I didn't really pay attention
Speaker 5: until I think it was like the end of twenty
Speaker 5: twenty three when a friend of mine was telling me
Speaker 5: all about the caste and it just sounded insane because
Speaker 5: you know how hard it is to explain to a
Speaker 5: new person. And even then I was kind of like, oh,
Speaker 5: oh ka, But it was a really a police conspiracy.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's what they all say, right, Like I
Speaker 5: think there's some saying like, oh, there are no guilty
Speaker 5: people in prison. They're all innocent, right according to them.
Speaker 5: And then after that I Melanie Little started covering it
Speaker 5: and we all know, you know, the progression of that,
Speaker 5: and then I started getting into the documentation and stuff,
Speaker 5: and I was just thinking about this today. There was
Speaker 5: a to me, there was one thing that I started
Speaker 5: to see in the pre trial hearing documents and then
Speaker 5: in the hearings and the trial itself, is.
Speaker 2: The prosecution.
Speaker 5: Was engaged in a very particular kind of lying.
Speaker 2: That for me is always.
Speaker 5: Like a really really huge red flag in there's even
Speaker 5: I looked it up. There there's even a name for it.
Speaker 5: It's called paltering. And the definition of paltering is.
Speaker 2: The art of lying by telling the truth.
Speaker 5: So one of the clearest examples, which we hadn't seen
Speaker 5: yet in the trial is, you know, they did the
Speaker 5: DNA tests and then all of a sudden, the prosecution's
Speaker 5: running around saying, oh, John's DNA was on the tail light,
Speaker 5: it's definitive, blah blah blah blah blah. Well, yeah, that
Speaker 5: technically that is true, but you know, you, you the speaker,
Speaker 5: know that when you were saying that.
Speaker 2: The person listening to you.
Speaker 5: Is receiving that information was a totally different meaning. And
Speaker 5: you know that like you're doing that purposely, I mean,
Speaker 5: because you know it was touched DNA. So it really
Speaker 5: doesn't matter. You know, it's not even they're not even
Speaker 5: like arguing about facts. They're like they're trying to insert
Speaker 5: lies into the case.
Speaker 2: And that's not the only time they did it.
Speaker 5: You know, there's a all along they're kind of inserting
Speaker 5: these lies throughout the case. And like I said, I
Speaker 5: just find it really offensive, and it really is. It's
Speaker 5: a red flag, doesn't you know, it doesn't matter if
Speaker 5: it's a criminal case. It doesn't matter a criminal civil
Speaker 5: big little a lot of publicity no publicity. If you
Speaker 5: are watching a case and one side, like when it
Speaker 5: comes time to show the evidence and you match it
Speaker 5: to what they've been telling you about it, and you
Speaker 5: see that it has that mismatch between technical truth and
Speaker 5: real truth, you know that side should lose, right, you
Speaker 5: know they don't have a case, and you know they are.
Speaker 2: Verging on very unethical.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean. The thing is is
Speaker 3: that you don't really need a lot of a lot
Speaker 3: of people for you know, for corruption either.
Speaker 1: You only need a few key players to you know,
Speaker 1: for this to have gone on and continue to be
Speaker 1: going on.
Speaker 3: So, Peter, and how did you first hear about the case?
Speaker 2: Wow?
Speaker 4: I think probably like most people here in the in
Speaker 4: the Boston area, I saw it on the news. I
Speaker 4: saw pictures of the house, the snow, and it was
Speaker 4: probably on the It was either the twenty ninth or
Speaker 4: the thirtieth of January that I saw, you know, the
Speaker 4: initial broadcast that there had been a tragic death allegedly
Speaker 4: caused by a motor vehicle by the victim's girlfriend. And
Speaker 4: having been a cob for almost thirty three decades and
Speaker 4: wanting to be one all my life, I believed the
Speaker 4: narrative that was being told by law enforcement. Why wouldn't I,
Speaker 4: you know, And I worked in the organizations in police
Speaker 4: department for all those years. I believed in the judicial
Speaker 4: system as being believable and authentic and trustworthy. And did
Speaker 4: I have some some questions over the years as far
Speaker 4: as when I saw cases unfold or I testified and
Speaker 4: you know, how things might have gone. But for the
Speaker 4: most part, I believed in the system. And then all
Speaker 4: of a sudden, that was in January of twenty nine,
Speaker 4: almost February first of twenty twenty two, and then obviously
Speaker 4: in twenty three of April, things started to unravel. The
Speaker 4: onion got peeled back, autopsy pictures were becoming available. Turtle boy,
Speaker 4: you know, cracked open his case. I have a Boston
Speaker 4: police officer who lives very close to me, and I
Speaker 4: asked him about it. I said, what's going on at
Speaker 4: the water bubble right and what are you hearing? What
Speaker 4: do you know what's being said? And he said, mum's
Speaker 4: the word. Nobody is saying a god damn thing about it.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 4: This is a Boston police officer many many, many years,
Speaker 4: and he said, it's quiet crickets, And that raised some
Speaker 4: red flags right away, and I said that's all, isn't it.
Speaker 4: And he goes, well, I'll leave it to your discretion.
Speaker 4: But he said, do you know Turtle Boy? And I said,
Speaker 4: turtle Boy, what the hell is that a cartoon? He goes, no,
Speaker 4: he said, he told me what he is. He's a
Speaker 4: professional journalist, blogger and all that. I said, oh okay,
Speaker 4: And I started watching that and I listened to that,
Speaker 4: and I mean it was basically it was a physical evidence.
Speaker 4: It was the arm, the picture of the arm, and
Speaker 4: I just couldn't ever go back to not thinking that
Speaker 4: she's innocent.
Speaker 1: Right, So there's a question here for Mary was saying,
Speaker 1: what can you tell us about the missing plaque?
Speaker 4: Who was that directed to to you?
Speaker 3: Peter?
Speaker 4: Oh? Okay, the missing the missing plaque? Do we know
Speaker 4: what that? I need more info on what the missing
Speaker 4: plaque is? I think, yeah, you know what what? That
Speaker 4: refers to?
Speaker 1: No clue missing plaque? And because yeah, somebody else said
Speaker 1: I heard this too and would like to hear Peter
Speaker 1: thought and why Helena would do that? Yeah hmm all right,
Speaker 1: So Mary, if you can expand on that question, let
Speaker 1: us know what you're referring to.
Speaker 4: Could that be the plaque. The only thing I can
Speaker 4: think of here is that inside the inside the foyer
Speaker 4: of the main entry room to the Kenton Police Station
Speaker 4: at fourteen ninety two Washington Street, there was a series
Speaker 4: of plaques on the wall and it had several police
Speaker 4: officers' names on them because they have since retired, and
Speaker 4: my name was on it. And evidently somebody who's been
Speaker 4: in there recently said that one of the plaques is missing,
Speaker 4: the one I guess that had my name on it.
Speaker 4: So I think people are speculating that maybe something's going
Speaker 4: on specifically inherent to my my plaque on my name.
Speaker 4: That's the only thing I can attribute to what that
Speaker 4: questions for.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Okay, yeah, it kind of sounds yeah, because Denn,
Speaker 1: it's the same plaque in the lobby was down down
Speaker 1: there adding a name, So hmm.
Speaker 4: Interesting, that's usually why they would take it down with
Speaker 4: somebody else's retired and they had a plaque made a
Speaker 4: name tag made up and they were going to win
Speaker 4: start it. But that would be a guest, he asked.
Speaker 1: So, okay, so that clears up that confusion, A right,
Speaker 1: sounds good.
Speaker 5: Wait, so I'm confused. So there's multiple names on a plaque.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's it's okay, all right. It's sort of like
Speaker 4: a plaque of honor val where there's a list of
Speaker 4: police officers that I guess they're they're indicating that the
Speaker 4: or the administration's indicating that they served admirably and left
Speaker 4: in good standing.
Speaker 2: I see.
Speaker 5: So presumably the plaque goes back up with the additional name.
Speaker 2: But your name is still there.
Speaker 4: It would be on the plaque that hopefully gets replaced
Speaker 4: up there, and I hope they didn't take my name down,
Speaker 4: but it's possible.
Speaker 5: Well, I just thought that maybe with why people were asking,
Speaker 5: because I would be like, you know, those dirty dogs
Speaker 5: like killing.
Speaker 6: Are you familiar with the the case part of my
Speaker 6: story that I was brought to court for tresassing on
Speaker 6: private property to which the church next door.
Speaker 4: You can see the church in the back here if
Speaker 4: I move, you see that white that's a church immediately
Speaker 4: adjacent to the Canton Police station. They actually share a
Speaker 4: common driveway. And I was criminally charged back on December
Speaker 4: twenty seventh for trespassing on private property, but to it
Speaker 4: the church. The individual beside me was never charged. He
Speaker 4: was never even addressed by the two sergeants and the
Speaker 4: sign that was ten inches by ten inches black in collar,
Speaker 4: was under a big pile of snow and was not
Speaker 4: visible to the human eye. Yet they still charged me.
Speaker 4: And they've charged a lot of other individuals over the
Speaker 4: course of time. If you're familiar with the case as
Speaker 4: far as just sort of how I say it, intimidation
Speaker 4: and harassment. The Canton nine Richie shiff of the duck
Speaker 4: Guy Whitey for assault and battery on a public servant,
Speaker 4: and then the Peter Murphy case trespassing on church property,
Speaker 4: and all the cases went suf.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would hope, so so yeah, so much for
Speaker 1: thirty six pages for rubber duckys and that went nowhere.
Speaker 3: And the thing is is.
Speaker 1: That they could have out just come out and asked
Speaker 1: you to move like they you didn't have They didn't
Speaker 1: have to have you sit there the whole time and
Speaker 1: then go home and then all of a sudden, now
Speaker 1: you're being notified that you were trespassing. Right, they should
Speaker 1: have addressed it while it was happening, or don't you
Speaker 1: think if it was truly a concern.
Speaker 4: Well, I raised the question at the time to the
Speaker 4: sergeant who I actually have known for a long time,
Speaker 4: including his family, and I said, I'm not clear on
Speaker 4: where the elements of this trespassing charge you have been
Speaker 4: met in this instance. I said, I've never been put
Speaker 4: on notice by anybody. I've never been served anything in writing.
Speaker 4: And when we got to court, val will appreciate this,
Speaker 4: he said, get off the property. I'm not going to
Speaker 4: discuss the case. I said, sure, sorry, I respect that
Speaker 4: you respect the uniform and the badge and I left immediately.
Speaker 4: I only there to exchange some signs with the gentleman
Speaker 4: beside me. We weren't going to use the property, but
Speaker 4: we had used the property so many times in the
Speaker 4: past for standouts, is recently in a big one in
Speaker 4: September fourteenth of that same year where there were seventy
Speaker 4: five of us and we all parked there and we
Speaker 4: were welcome there. But getting back to the actual merits
Speaker 4: of the case and the elements of the crime veil
Speaker 4: which you probably would like to hear about. We were
Speaker 4: in the court magistrate hearing and the question came up,
Speaker 4: had I been put on notice? And that was raised
Speaker 4: by my attorney and the prosecutor for the police department said, yeah,
Speaker 4: he was put on notice back in September fourteenth, and
Speaker 4: it wasn't one of the seventy five people that were
Speaker 4: there that day that ever, Saigny police officers put anybody
Speaker 4: on notice. They never even came out. So if I
Speaker 4: were to tell you that the magistrate couldn't produce that
Speaker 4: supplemental report as they called it, that put me on note,
Speaker 4: and I didn't have a copy in my discovery, and
Speaker 4: neither did the lawyer, and neither did the magistrate. It
Speaker 4: was kind of a how would I say it, unveiling
Speaker 4: of perhaps some untruth that were being told about me
Speaker 4: being put unnoticed.
Speaker 5: So this goes back to a point that Andrew Burkhardt.
Speaker 5: I don't know if everyone's familiar with Andrea, but she
Speaker 5: often makes which is the process is the punishment? Right,
Speaker 5: They can't get at any of us, and hopefully never
Speaker 5: succeed in getting at Karen, So they use the process
Speaker 5: to hurt all these people at the very least inconvenience them.
Speaker 2: Or like, if you're like Peter, you said you get
Speaker 2: to get a lawyer.
Speaker 5: I mean that's ridiculous to hurt them anyway they can.
Speaker 4: Correct, not only but to stifle and discourage you from
Speaker 4: saying anything or doing any of the standouts or holding
Speaker 4: a sign and to send a message to the rest
Speaker 4: of the people. And I can tell you I lived
Speaker 4: in the town for forty years now. I brought my
Speaker 4: children up in the town, and I have several people
Speaker 4: still living in the town, relatives and so forth, and
Speaker 4: I talked to them. It's recently Saturday, at that audit
Speaker 4: meeting at the Campton High School, and I want to
Speaker 4: tell you that fear in Canton is alive and well.
Speaker 4: People are terrified and afraid of retaliation and a weaponization
Speaker 4: of the system against them in their family, in their businesses,
Speaker 4: in their children, and alienation in school settings. They are
Speaker 4: paranoid and hence they sit on their hands and they're
Speaker 4: afraid to come out and say anything. And that is
Speaker 4: a horrible way to spend your life, day in and
Speaker 4: day out, in the community.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and Val, did you watch any of the the
Speaker 1: audit result meeting. I'm haaty.
Speaker 5: I heard a lot about it, and honestly, I didn't
Speaker 5: think I could. What I heard was that great disrespect
Speaker 5: was paid to Peter and I honestly I didn't think
Speaker 5: I could stand to watch that. Like I was kind
Speaker 5: of like, okay, I'm gonna be just as disgusted as
Speaker 5: if I had watched it, and I'm gonna hopefully send
Speaker 5: that out into the universe and join with all the
Speaker 5: other people's feelings and have the same effect as.
Speaker 2: If I did watch it.
Speaker 5: And maybe that was just kind of an excuse, But
Speaker 5: there are moments in this trial where I'm like, I
Speaker 5: just don't think I can view this, or maybe i'll
Speaker 5: view it later, do you know what I mean? When
Speaker 5: it's not quite like it didn't just happen. I'll go
Speaker 5: back and I'll I'll see. Like there's some people who
Speaker 5: testify that I have a hard time watching when they're live,
Speaker 5: like especially Jen mccabem well, actually now they think of it,
Speaker 5: a lot of them. But I think I imagine, or
Speaker 5: I hope that the select board victory was some I
Speaker 5: don't want to say vengeance, because that's not really what
Speaker 5: we want to be about. But for Peter that that
Speaker 5: that was like, Okay, fine, you guys decided to be
Speaker 5: big fat jerks and this is what you get.
Speaker 1: H Yeah, I know, where do you see this? Where
Speaker 1: do you see the town moving forward?
Speaker 3: Peter? After this?
Speaker 1: You know, now we have Susan Harrington as a new
Speaker 1: select board member. We have the audit results coming out.
Speaker 1: So where do you see the town? How do you
Speaker 1: see the town moving forward?
Speaker 4: Well, I know, just in talking to people since last
Speaker 4: night's certificate. While it hasn't been officially, I guess they
Speaker 4: have ten days I think to do it. But since
Speaker 4: the official will count came in noticeably and substantially indicative
Speaker 4: that Susan won by you know, fifteen hundred votes whatever
Speaker 4: their final number was, but it was big, it was
Speaker 4: very big, and I think the direction of the town
Speaker 4: has sort of a It's u four. People are feeling
Speaker 4: like they have finally turned the tide a little bit.
Speaker 4: Now they have two new select people and by just happenstance,
Speaker 4: both women, Trash Boyden and now Susan Harry Rington. The
Speaker 4: forty year repeat offender John Corney has gone his history.
Speaker 4: There's a couple of the other players, one being Chris
Speaker 4: Albert Mike Lochran who's a chairperson right now, and JR. McCourt,
Speaker 4: jus nephew by chance, was a Canton police officer and
Speaker 4: left abruptly after the Birchmore murder. Oh just went into
Speaker 4: another line of work. Valve just left the department, which
Speaker 4: very speaks volumes as you and b A no. I
Speaker 4: mean for somebody to just suddenly bail on a career
Speaker 4: that most people have wanted all their lives, and his
Speaker 4: what would it be? His grandfather was a lieutenant mccannon police,
Speaker 4: and so he would have been almost like a second
Speaker 4: generation officer. There's been I think the comment I got
Speaker 4: yesterday was thirteen police officers have fled, for one of
Speaker 4: a better word, either retiredransferred, or or or just just quit,
Speaker 4: even sometimes without necessarily tenure or retirement, going into other
Speaker 4: lines of work. I think that tells a story. And
Speaker 4: so to answer your question, I'm sorry I got to
Speaker 4: offer the track. I think it's a two pot story.
Speaker 4: It's uh. One is we've now started to change the
Speaker 4: mindset of the select board, and I think there's there's
Speaker 4: a good opportunity, a huge opportunity there. It's a it's
Speaker 4: a new world of order in that community right now.
Speaker 4: There's going to be lots of changes. You know, in
Speaker 4: a five person board or whatever. If you think one
Speaker 4: person's going to make a difference, well it is, it's
Speaker 4: going to be huge. And the person that is now
Speaker 4: not there anymore, you know, he coordinated the show for
Speaker 4: forty years, and I think things are going to get
Speaker 4: rapidly improved quickly. And the other thought is it's gonna
Speaker 4: it's going to migrate into the police department, the police chief.
Speaker 4: It's been there for a long long time. She was
Speaker 4: connected at the hip with John Conley and d Marcy.
Speaker 4: All you have to do is look at a retirement
Speaker 4: party she had for Berkowitz, the former chief, and you
Speaker 4: look at the players who are there, and you know
Speaker 4: it's telling, very telling. So I think, what's going to happen.
Speaker 4: I mentioned it on a post earlier today that there
Speaker 4: has to be this deck in Velgan is aware of this,
Speaker 4: probably in v Ares too. There's decades and decades that
Speaker 4: go into a police organization, a law enforcement organization which
Speaker 4: is paramilitary in its own nature by itself, decades and
Speaker 4: decades of mentorship, and when you come on, you field
Speaker 4: training officer takes you around, shows you the streets, and
Speaker 4: basically tells you how you are going to act as
Speaker 4: a police officer for the rest of your career, or
Speaker 4: at least what the guidelines are. And I could speak
Speaker 4: to some issues about that, but let's just leave it
Speaker 4: that it takes decades to build a culture in a
Speaker 4: police department, it's going to change. To change that culture,
Speaker 4: you have to bring in someone from the outside. I
Speaker 4: believe that'll just like Governor Healy finally did after you know,
Speaker 4: eighteen to twenty months of putting up with the former
Speaker 4: acting colonel. She brought in this guy from New Jersey Noble,
Speaker 4: and that speaks volumes. She brought in somebody from the
Speaker 4: outside she didn't filled from withinside, and that sends a
Speaker 4: message to the rank and file. Things aren't right, folks
Speaker 4: were changing. It's like changing a goalie when when you
Speaker 4: know things aren't going well on the ice, it sends
Speaker 4: a message and you know, you got to smell the
Speaker 4: coffee or you're going to be gone too.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Do you think she'll align with so Susan Harrington will
Speaker 1: align more and allow Trish.
Speaker 3: Boyden to have more of a voice, Like if those
Speaker 3: two select women kind of.
Speaker 1: Come together, because it kind of feels that Trish just
Speaker 1: kind of goes a lot along with everything and doesn't
Speaker 1: really question. I think at the beginning she used to
Speaker 1: question things, but now it's just like, you know, she
Speaker 1: agrees with everything that's going on. Do you think this
Speaker 1: will give her a voice that maybe she wasn't able
Speaker 1: to speak up before.
Speaker 4: I certainly think it will. And in to Tricia's credit,
Speaker 4: I speak to Trisha quite often. I've worked with her
Speaker 4: on the campaign, and her hands are pretty well tied,
Speaker 4: or they were tied with the odds in the numbers
Speaker 4: that were against her. Now she's you know, now she's
Speaker 4: coming to the game with a plan that she and
Speaker 4: Susan can work together on. And the strength and numbers
Speaker 4: we all know that, you know that name, and I
Speaker 4: think they can collectively very much have an impact on
Speaker 4: the community, and they're going to do it very quickly.
Speaker 4: And Tricia's she's voted no on many issues that were controversial.
Speaker 4: Into her credit, she stood up and said no or
Speaker 4: or went against the you know, the momentum of the others,
Speaker 4: and I do give a credit for that. I think
Speaker 4: she's trying to work within the survival mode that she's
Speaker 4: had to put herself into. But I think now it's
Speaker 4: going to be she's on offense, and I think Susan
Speaker 4: and she are going to do a great job together
Speaker 4: and you're going to see immediate improvements.
Speaker 3: Right, and then another chair is up next year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there's hope there too, so hopefully the there's
Speaker 1: somebody in the works that wants to seat and yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, can I can I ask a real dorky question,
Speaker 5: so thing I know, So if the if the vote
Speaker 5: is we assume is mostly three to two. Now in
Speaker 5: the other direction, like how how how does the chair
Speaker 5: get to be chair?
Speaker 2: Like does the board vote or.
Speaker 5: Does someone run specifically to be chair of the select Board?
Speaker 4: If that's addressed to me, though, I would say I
Speaker 4: believe it's more of an attrition or a rotation type
Speaker 4: of thing. Somebody is a secretary, you know, somebody's the chairperson,
Speaker 4: somebody else is this and I think they kind of
Speaker 4: rotate through. I haven't really read the bylaws. I can't
Speaker 4: confirm to you rate this minute with full knowledge of
Speaker 4: who would be the next chairperson will say in the
Speaker 4: next election, I can't tell you how that's going to
Speaker 4: rotate through. I know Mike Lochran currently is the chairperson,
Speaker 4: and I don't know how that would play out. But
Speaker 4: I'm sorry if that doesn't answer a question. But I can't.
Speaker 4: I don't have the knowledge of the receipts to tell
Speaker 4: you how it's gonna play out. For the next term.
Speaker 5: I was looking on some of the public Canton pages
Speaker 5: and I couldn't track down how that.
Speaker 2: What's the word I want?
Speaker 5: Like the nomination or appointment of someone too begitear work,
Speaker 5: because I was.
Speaker 2: Thinking that could be another benefit to the change in
Speaker 2: attitude of the board.
Speaker 5: Sure, going really far into the future, and I don't
Speaker 5: want to count any chickens before they're hatched.
Speaker 2: But in I think it's in twenty six morisses up.
Speaker 2: And do you think.
Speaker 5: That the success that the people can't have been having
Speaker 5: recently will carry that far over into the future. I mean,
Speaker 5: do you think he'll leave run?
Speaker 4: Is that for me?
Speaker 2: A ber?
Speaker 4: Do you want to jump on that? I could take
Speaker 4: a shot at it.
Speaker 2: But beer, well, both of you.
Speaker 4: Well, they had a fundraiser for him recently that we
Speaker 4: had a standout at and there was you know, significant
Speaker 4: players from Canton that showed up at that fundraiser in Quincy.
Speaker 4: For Marcy. He has run unopposed for a number of
Speaker 4: terms up until I'm hearing the two perspective candidates are
Speaker 4: gonna run against them. I believe one female and one male.
Speaker 4: Don't hold me that if they still have kept their
Speaker 4: papers in But I think I think the whole county,
Speaker 4: I think the whole state is ready for change, and
Speaker 4: I think they're they're seeing basically how you know the
Speaker 4: birch More case was handled, how the Read case has
Speaker 4: been handled. There's been a couple Yeah, Enrique, my god,
Speaker 4: you know I I spoke at that at the at
Speaker 4: the vigil back in February at just Nut Hill. Where
Speaker 4: where I'm going to use a word he was assassinated
Speaker 4: or executed. I mean, it's it's it's scary. It's scary.
Speaker 4: I really, there's no other way to put it. And
Speaker 4: I support law enforcement I have all my life and
Speaker 4: I still do. But god, damn it. I mean, you
Speaker 4: you you gotta have accountability and transparency, and it certainly
Speaker 4: is lacking in the Enrique case. And I'm sorry I
Speaker 4: was talking about I could confused Justin Root case. Then
Speaker 4: you talk about Enrique is another issue. I mean, it's
Speaker 4: just it's just one cascades into the other. If you're
Speaker 4: familiar with the Justin Root case, are you, well?
Speaker 5: Yes, Actually I briefly had the opportunity to uh talk
Speaker 5: to his sister.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Her first name just went right out of my head
Speaker 5: when she was fillowing her cer petition to the United
Speaker 5: States Supreme Court. So I got a little bit of
Speaker 5: a legal background that way. And the facts of that
Speaker 5: are I mean, okay, each case that we talk about,
Speaker 5: the facts are heartbreaking, but.
Speaker 2: It's just heartbreaking. You know.
Speaker 5: It's not very often that you're sitting around reading a
Speaker 5: legal brief and you're starting to tear up because it's
Speaker 5: such a horrific story.
Speaker 2: But all like each of these cases, just the plane.
Speaker 5: Usually boring facts that that that lawyers put in their communications,
Speaker 5: they're they're tragic in an overwhelming kind of way. Yeah,
Speaker 5: so I'm really hoping because Okay, so one of the
Speaker 5: things that lawyers do very often is they think of
Speaker 5: the best case scenario in the worst case scenario. And
Speaker 5: I'm gonna put out a worst case scenario, and not
Speaker 5: because I think it could happen, but just because you know,
Speaker 5: you want to game out all the moves. Let's say
Speaker 5: the worst happens and or not the worst The worst
Speaker 5: is a conviction. But let's say there's another mistrial, which
Speaker 5: some people think is likely just because of all the
Speaker 5: forces raid against Karen, and we go through another trial,
Speaker 5: and it seems to me at that point one of
Speaker 5: the few things that can stop the repeat cycle of
Speaker 5: miss trials because I just don't see this prosecution or
Speaker 5: Morrisey ever stopping is getting Morrissey out of office so
Speaker 5: some normal moral person can get in there and make
Speaker 5: a different decision.
Speaker 4: I agree, go ahead, be I'm sorry, No, I was going.
Speaker 1: To say, and that's why you know his he's coming
Speaker 1: up next year as well, in twenty twenty six, right,
Speaker 1: his seat is up for so hopefully we have people
Speaker 1: that are out there wanting change and are willing to
Speaker 1: run for his seat. And hopefully that isn't Hank Brennan,
Speaker 1: by the way, hopefully not, because that's what a lot
Speaker 1: of people speculate. That's why he was brought on to
Speaker 1: try this case. But yeah, so Peter, you know, I
Speaker 1: know you feel this question. A lot people are always asking,
Speaker 1: which I did see on here about Walmless and the tail.
Speaker 3: Light, and have you brought this information to the defense?
Speaker 4: Yeah, just maybe quickly summarize for perhaps people who are
Speaker 4: up to speen with that year if I may is well,
Speaker 4: of course, all right, So when you asked me a
Speaker 4: few minutes ago when I jumped into the case, and
Speaker 4: I said it was April of twenty three, I was
Speaker 4: actually up in the office of office of Brian Wanless,
Speaker 4: which is an auto body in Canton, Billion's auto body,
Speaker 4: and I was actually having a conversation with him face
Speaker 4: to face in his building. He was a friend of
Speaker 4: mine for twenty ideas in the police department and as
Speaker 4: a neighbor, and we were friends, and we were also
Speaker 4: co workers, and I was a supervisor as a sergeant
Speaker 4: and knew his family well. So the point of my
Speaker 4: story is I had said to him in a couple
Speaker 4: of other offices on a boat that first or second
Speaker 4: week in April, I said, hey, amen, you know we
Speaker 4: worked together for years. We got in and out of
Speaker 4: some dangerous situations together. I don't want to see you
Speaker 4: get jammed up in this case. I said, if there's
Speaker 4: anything that's you need to talk to me about off
Speaker 4: the record, you know I'm retired. Obviously I'm not a supervisor,
Speaker 4: but I'd be glad to help you with her, make
Speaker 4: some advice, give you some advice, and even help you
Speaker 4: get through it. I said, what you don't want to
Speaker 4: do is get caught from behind by another agency to
Speaker 4: wit the blue jackets with the yellow lettering that says FBI.
Speaker 4: I said, if you've got some connection, I'm not saying
Speaker 4: it's nefarious to this case. You want to get out
Speaker 4: in front of it. You don't want them to come
Speaker 4: from behind. And that's when he said to me face
Speaker 4: to face, Hey, Merph, don't worry about me. And the
Speaker 4: only thing I did was take the tail light out
Speaker 4: of the lexus. And I said, what I almost got
Speaker 4: weak need right. The only thing you did was take
Speaker 4: the tail light out of the lexus, which is the
Speaker 4: murder weapon. That's the smoking gun, right.
Speaker 2: That is the thing, that is the thing. It's the
Speaker 2: whole thing.
Speaker 4: It's the whole angeloe. So I said to him, Brian,
Speaker 4: that is huge. What do you mean that's all you did?
Speaker 4: I said, that is that's the whole mcgilla ry. He said, ah,
Speaker 4: I don't worry about it. They asked me to take
Speaker 4: it out, and I said, Brian, did you do a
Speaker 4: chain of custody report? Did you do a supplemental report
Speaker 4: like on such and such a day to attorney val
Speaker 4: from Officer Wanless. I was asked to remove the tail
Speaker 4: light because my skill set from being in the auto
Speaker 4: body business, and they couldn't do it. And then I
Speaker 4: said what did it look like? And who told you
Speaker 4: to do it? And he clammed up. He said, no,
Speaker 4: I can't tell you. And here we are twenty years,
Speaker 4: twenty five years with best friends, and now all of
Speaker 4: a sudden he's gone into gag mode. And I said, Brian,
Speaker 4: we got a problem. You and I got a problem
Speaker 4: right now. I said, I'm really really concerned that there's
Speaker 4: something going on in this case. If you can't tell
Speaker 4: me who told you to do it and if you
Speaker 4: did reports, And his comment was, I don't know what
Speaker 4: they did. I didn't do anything. So tell tale speaks volumes,
Speaker 4: so that that's the story in the tail light, and
Speaker 4: that's how it got brought out. And to my knowledge today,
Speaker 4: val and Be his name, to my knowledge, hasn't appeared
Speaker 4: in any reports anywhere in the state police or the
Speaker 4: Canton Police that he was brought in to remove that
Speaker 4: tail light, when he did, at what time he did it,
Speaker 4: who witnessed it. There are some, I understand, some video
Speaker 4: captions of him being at the scene and taking it
Speaker 4: out and putting on a pair of gloves. Eventually again.
Speaker 5: Concerning well, but I think didn't his name turn up
Speaker 5: on the prosecution's witness list it did?
Speaker 4: It did this time, but not the first trial.
Speaker 2: Right right? Yeah, no one knew who he was the
Speaker 2: first time. But yeah, so I'm still kind of puzzled
Speaker 2: trying to puzzle that.
Speaker 4: Out, aren't we? All? Yeah? I mean the whole case
Speaker 4: starts with a tail light. It starts with none being
Speaker 4: found in the snow, with a couple of inches of
Speaker 4: snow in a leaf blower, and it proliferates into forty
Speaker 4: seven pieces within a couple of days. How could you
Speaker 4: not have brought the story of that tail light into
Speaker 4: the case on the first trial?
Speaker 2: Fell well, and didn't.
Speaker 5: One of the early I think it was a Canton
Speaker 5: police officer who testified, said that he watched them take
Speaker 5: the tail light out. I can't remember who it was,
Speaker 5: but it was like the first week or two, and
Speaker 5: it's like it and then it disappeared like no one
Speaker 5: ever mentioned it again, which to me, would provide corroboration
Speaker 5: for what Brian Wanless was saying.
Speaker 4: M Yeah, I honestly just to comment on that, I honestly,
Speaker 4: and I might be suffering from data overload on this
Speaker 4: case and the other cases that I've been involved with,
Speaker 4: but I do not recall any officer ever testifying or
Speaker 4: even me hearing that anyone else witnessed him do it,
Speaker 4: And in fact I asked him who directed him to
Speaker 4: do it, and he took the fifth So I cannot
Speaker 4: corroborate with you on that. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 4: that didn't happen or that information isn't in testimony somewhere.
Speaker 4: Abl please believe me when I tell you, I just
Speaker 4: can only say I haven't heard that.
Speaker 5: Well, you know what, I can assign myself ask of
Speaker 5: taking that up because we were all on data overload,
Speaker 5: you think, you know? Like, yes, sometimes sometimes I start
Speaker 5: to think that things various players have said or thought
Speaker 5: are like my own thoughts.
Speaker 2: Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 5: Because that would be really interesting, Yes, because it is
Speaker 5: very curious for them to call uh Ononless to the stand.
Speaker 1: And I think, now what you're remembering is the person
Speaker 1: who did the forensics. I think alluded to the fact
Speaker 1: that they had that somebody else removed the tail light,
Speaker 1: and I just think his name wasn't mentioned because I
Speaker 1: think that it was a woman on the stand. I
Speaker 1: totally forgot her name, but she was testifying and she
Speaker 1: was the one that also stated there was no DNA
Speaker 1: of John's underneath the vehicle. So I believe it was
Speaker 1: a forensic lady who was given that testimony, and she
Speaker 1: just said somebody had taken out the tail light, that
Speaker 1: she didn't do it herself. Was the line of questioning,
Speaker 1: Does that sound familiar to you?
Speaker 2: Yes? That is sounding familiar.
Speaker 5: So I think so there's a clue and hopefully we
Speaker 5: can follow I can follow it back to see if
Speaker 5: I am imagining this.
Speaker 4: Sure, Just to comment again, if you add more to
Speaker 4: to the story, valgo with it. Otherwise I'll just make
Speaker 4: one other comment about the tail light. No, okay, So,
Speaker 4: since that conversation I had with Officer Wanless, and he
Speaker 4: was still in the job at the time, he since retired.
Speaker 4: He's one thirteen that has since retired. I think the
Speaker 4: numbers thirteen were up to thirteen since the Birchmore case,
Speaker 4: which is, you know, in a very short period of
Speaker 4: time and cost to town a huge amount of money.
Speaker 4: But there is a story that somebody has told me
Speaker 4: that may may show up in evidence at some point
Speaker 4: as a witness, that he made a comment to somebody
Speaker 4: that whatever Karen backed into in that lexus was heavy
Speaker 4: and bode the tail light inside, cracking it and putting
Speaker 4: a piece of the tail light into the assembly of
Speaker 4: the whole entire lens, a piece, not forty six other
Speaker 4: pieces fell. And if reasonable people can conclude that what
Speaker 4: he was speaking to was not a human body that
Speaker 4: weighed two hundred and twenty pounds, and that his arm
Speaker 4: was not bitten by man eating taillight animal, then we
Speaker 4: can we can come to the perhaps conclusion that the
Speaker 4: fracture in the light lens that he spoke of happened
Speaker 4: when she bumped into John's traverse backing out of her garage,
Speaker 4: and we saw the wheel cavitate rotate just that small degree.
Speaker 4: And nobody's testified that were broken pieces in his driveway.
Speaker 4: Yet forty six pieces or forty seven pieces showed up
Speaker 4: in the street over the course of four days, but
Speaker 4: were never found by the thirteen or the Canton police.
Speaker 4: Keska seig.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's insane.
Speaker 1: And some of it was supposedly found where his body was,
Speaker 1: and they were able to recover every single piece. And
Speaker 1: you know, as you would imagine the plow drivers, I mean,
Speaker 1: that tail light wouldn't have shattered and then spread all
Speaker 1: over the lawn. It would have just come down on
Speaker 1: the ground, and the plows going behind it one after
Speaker 1: another would have at some point moved that tail light
Speaker 1: to probably three houses down.
Speaker 3: Like how was it all in the lawn where John's
Speaker 3: bar he was found?
Speaker 1: Doesn't even make sense if you even believe that crazy theory.
Speaker 4: Right, right?
Speaker 5: What say you val well, thinking that, uh, what you're
Speaker 5: what your other person had said to you lines exactly
Speaker 5: up with all the evidence that the defense has put forward, right,
Speaker 5: you can believe that, and right now it's just hearsay, right,
Speaker 5: and and only you know who the person is, so
Speaker 5: we don't know any The rest of us don't know
Speaker 5: any like level of credibility or trustworthiness for all those things.
Speaker 2: Right, But you can slot it in.
Speaker 5: To all the other testimony the defense is brought forth
Speaker 5: to offer to Barrios, too, even to carry Roberts when
Speaker 5: she said she saw I can't remember exactly her words,
Speaker 5: but she saw peace sticking out.
Speaker 2: She never said any thing about the whole thing was
Speaker 2: like smashed.
Speaker 5: Pieces, right, And it makes sense that I mean, I
Speaker 5: am no engineer and I'm no physics expert, but.
Speaker 2: It makes it looks like a likely result of.
Speaker 5: What we see on the film at John's house, whereas
Speaker 5: their version of events, which has changed like every five seconds,
Speaker 5: only brings up more.
Speaker 2: Like questions like a reasonable yes exactly.
Speaker 3: Not distractors reasonable doubts.
Speaker 2: If so, Peter, I'm sure you have.
Speaker 5: We heard many times about the information that Scanlon brought
Speaker 5: to the defense team, and I kind of put this
Speaker 5: a little bit in the same category as the treatment.
Speaker 2: Of of of of one less in the first trial.
Speaker 5: You know, then call him, how much do you think
Speaker 5: that that account of what happened inside fair View.
Speaker 2: Is probably true?
Speaker 4: That uh, that Scanlon allegedly gave to Yunetti's office and
Speaker 4: then backed out of an affidavit, Is that what you're
Speaker 4: referring to him. Yeah, Yeah, I have no reason to
Speaker 4: believe that whatever he passed on to the defense was
Speaker 4: anything short of, you know, firsthand of the maya and
Speaker 4: indoor or truth. I have no reason to doubt his
Speaker 4: his authenticity.
Speaker 1: I guess I do have a comment on that because
Speaker 1: the recent the ID Channel, when they asked David Yannette
Speaker 1: about this, he said that he received a phone call
Speaker 1: from this person named Mike and that basically he didn't
Speaker 1: have firsthand knowledge that he just told them that he
Speaker 1: knew Ba and knew how dangerous he was, and that
Speaker 1: just kind of put them on a path. David Yanetti
Speaker 1: did not admit that he gave him any kind of
Speaker 1: information because he himself wasn't in that house, so any
Speaker 1: information he had would be secondhand knowledge, would it not?
Speaker 3: He just knew him because they used to box together.
Speaker 5: Well, I think, yeah. So cirl Boy's point, which is
Speaker 5: made many times, is that the details that Scalon gave
Speaker 5: to Yanetti included information that was consistent with the uh
Speaker 5: uh medical examiners the injuries.
Speaker 2: Yeah, even though the.
Speaker 5: Report wasn't out yet, And and presumably the only way
Speaker 5: you could know is if whatever Scalon was told was
Speaker 5: essentially true. And the reason I was I was bringing
Speaker 5: it up is because the same way what Wanless told
Speaker 5: you and then the other unnamed person told you about
Speaker 5: the tail light, Yeah, there has been no evidence inconsistent
Speaker 5: with those accounts.
Speaker 2: And and you know until uh, what's Wanless's first name?
Speaker 5: Is it?
Speaker 2: Brian?
Speaker 4: Yes? Now the Bryant until.
Speaker 5: Brian want Wantless, you know, testify some court it is
Speaker 5: here say and the Scanalt account could be double or
Speaker 5: triple here, I could even be quadruple here, say which
Speaker 5: you know, not just judge Canoni, but no judge would
Speaker 5: countenance letting in.
Speaker 2: But there there there aren't.
Speaker 5: There's just no contradictory evidence that's solid, right, like that's
Speaker 5: forensic or like material physical evidence that contradicts that. And
Speaker 5: that's kind of where I keep coming back to. And
Speaker 5: it's very frustrating if those accounts don't get into court.
Speaker 5: Like I don't just agree with why they're not getting
Speaker 5: into court, because you can't just have people running around
Speaker 5: telling tales and you know whatever, right.
Speaker 2: But but it's kind of like it was. The case
Speaker 2: was solved that first week. Are you on mute b oh?
Speaker 3: Yes, I was, thank you for noticing. So, Peter, I
Speaker 3: have a question here.
Speaker 1: It says was O j O's car taken for repairs
Speaker 1: by pack?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 3: P O k Slash o j Oh's dad.
Speaker 4: Was the first part of the question again, was so
Speaker 4: was John's.
Speaker 3: Car taken for repairs?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 4: That question has been raised by many people over the
Speaker 4: course of time. And I have no receipts for what
Speaker 4: where that cop went anytime after the morning that we
Speaker 4: saw Karen's com make contact with it. I have no receipts.
Speaker 4: I hope somebody does.
Speaker 1: So thank you for the two dollars I got. I
Speaker 1: got to know, but unfortunately we don't know. I do
Speaker 1: have a question for you here, Why for Peter, Why
Speaker 1: aren't more cops and or retired cops coming forward like you?
Speaker 3: Where are they?
Speaker 4: That's that's a thousand dollars question too. I don't I
Speaker 4: don't know. I mean, I could see why. I Unfortunately
Speaker 4: I am only too familiar with the culture within a
Speaker 4: police organization and the fear and intimidation tactic tactics. Offices
Speaker 4: probably have been pretty much made clear to them that
Speaker 4: if they speak out about this case, their career is
Speaker 4: going to be over on paper. If not, it's actually over.
Speaker 4: So I can kind of I sympathize with the pressure
Speaker 4: they have on them, But for anybody retired, what are
Speaker 4: they going to you know, what are they going to
Speaker 4: do to me?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 4: I guess I know what they're gonna do. They've said
Speaker 4: they get there's a target on my back. Don't don't
Speaker 4: come to Canton for any police funerals because there's a
Speaker 4: target on your back. Pay that's been told to me
Speaker 4: by sworn offices that were still on duty and active
Speaker 4: at the time. Val So I neglected to go to
Speaker 4: a couple offices funerals because of that reason. And lo
Speaker 4: and behold, there is a target on my back because
Speaker 4: they took me to court pretty much under false pretenses.
Speaker 4: So am I going to stop?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and
Speaker 4: I ain't got no quit. So they're going to see
Speaker 4: a lot more of me over the next couple of
Speaker 4: months during this trial. And I can assure you that.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean the strength and numbers too, you know where
Speaker 1: you're out there doing peaceful protests, speaking up, and yeah,
Speaker 1: we ain't got no.
Speaker 3: Quit, no.
Speaker 4: And I have an instances we were police organizations. Police
Speaker 4: departments have taken a voter no confidence against their chief
Speaker 4: because it gets to a point where morale is so low.
Speaker 4: They've had twelve or thirteen police officers vacate the department
Speaker 4: for various other either law enforcement jobs or just got
Speaker 4: out pulled early retirement or or retirement unexpectedly, well in
Speaker 4: advance of when they had told people they were going
Speaker 4: to go out. So you know, I don't know, a
Speaker 4: union does have some power. They could take a vote
Speaker 4: of no confidence. That doesn't mean the chief it's going
Speaker 4: to be terminated. But it's volumes as far as where
Speaker 4: the rank and file within a police organization are at,
Speaker 4: as far as their mindset and want to change in
Speaker 4: the culture. Right, would we ever see that in Canton?
Speaker 4: I don't know. I know there's some good offices. There's
Speaker 4: still good officers that are still working there that we're
Speaker 4: under my command when I work there, And I have
Speaker 4: no reason to believe that they are going to bed
Speaker 4: every night with extreme headaches and lack of sleep in
Speaker 4: the morning when they wake up because of what they
Speaker 4: probably know about this case.
Speaker 1: Right, all right, I know we're coming up on an
Speaker 1: hour here, and I just wanted to know if you
Speaker 1: had any final words, statements, comments, emotional outbreaks that you'd
Speaker 1: like to share with the rest of us.
Speaker 4: Can I think.
Speaker 2: Here about one more?
Speaker 5: Of course you're saying, I don't know, Peter, if you
Speaker 5: had heard, uh Bia, this is the thing that we
Speaker 5: talked about on the phone with DJ, this mysteriously manifesting
Speaker 5: police like at the end of Karen's driveway in the morning.
Speaker 2: Have you heard about that at all, Peter.
Speaker 4: I've just heard that in the last week or so
Speaker 4: because it's been sort of chatted about for one of
Speaker 4: a better word on some podcasters, blogs and content writers.
Speaker 4: It's it's only come to my attention now in the
Speaker 4: last I don't know a week or ten days about
Speaker 4: hearing anything about perhaps a police cruiser behind her car
Speaker 4: at five in the morning. That's all I can tell
Speaker 4: you is it's kind of new and fresh information that
Speaker 4: I haven't been able to verify, and it's only come
Speaker 4: to me in the last ten days, which I probably
Speaker 4: heard on the media common media posts.
Speaker 2: Anyway, have you have you seen it? Did you get
Speaker 2: a chance to see it at all?
Speaker 4: No, I have not. Have you did you see it?
Speaker 4: It doesn't look like a police cruiser with bullets.
Speaker 5: It really does, Okay, But I think I saw it
Speaker 5: on It was video Jesus talking on I think John
Speaker 5: Cammo's show, all right, And in order to see it,
Speaker 5: she did have to slow the video down, and she
Speaker 5: explained a lot about some stuff that I honestly didn't
Speaker 5: understand about the cameras and you know what, the there's
Speaker 5: kind of the strobing effect from the lights and all that.
Speaker 5: But it really really looks like you see Karen reach
Speaker 5: into the driveway, you see her turn left out of
Speaker 5: the driveway, you see headlights come on behind her, like
Speaker 5: I think they said eight or ten seconds behind her.
Speaker 5: Then you see red and blue lights alternating right, you know,
Speaker 5: at the height of the top of a vehicle, and
Speaker 5: then you see that vehicle pull out behind her, and
Speaker 5: at some point when it's pulling out, then the lights
Speaker 5: shut off, but you can kind of still see the.
Speaker 2: Headlights, you know, like following her. And I know, you know,
Speaker 2: like b are We.
Speaker 5: Talk with DJ and it seems like this is highly
Speaker 5: unlikely to be evidence that would actually get into trial
Speaker 5: because they don't have.
Speaker 2: Really way to authenticate it in any evidence that.
Speaker 5: Logs anything like that, or well, well, we're probably never
Speaker 5: even created if it is really a can't police cruiser,
Speaker 5: or if they were created, they're gone now, you know.
Speaker 5: They would be beyond foolish to keep anything like that
Speaker 5: around at this point.
Speaker 2: But I was shocked and fascinated and it was a.
Speaker 5: The other moment in the first trial, during one of
Speaker 5: the pre trial hearings, the moment was when Yannetti dropped
Speaker 5: that Higgins had done a proffer with the Feds. In
Speaker 5: this moment, this like, I mean, because no, there's there's
Speaker 5: no other reason.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, it's not a coincidence.
Speaker 5: Some police cars just hanging around in the middle of
Speaker 5: the night outside of John O'Keefe's house and just happens
Speaker 5: to follow Karen down the road.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's ridiculous. Those two moments are like, oh
Speaker 2: my god.
Speaker 5: But it's all information that they probably can't get into court.
Speaker 2: But it made my jaw drop.
Speaker 1: I mean, I saw the same thing, and I think, really,
Speaker 1: all that's going to prove is that the fix had
Speaker 1: been in before they found his body. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, Arca said John didn't die by
Speaker 1: that car, So whatever, you know, a story happened with that,
Speaker 1: I feel like only brings it to the fact that
Speaker 1: the fix had been in. Maybe they were watching her,
Speaker 1: but it still doesn't change the fact that Karen didn't
Speaker 1: hit John and John didn't die because of her car.
Speaker 5: So yes, And I think I think the reason why
Speaker 5: the defense team and I feel like all of us
Speaker 5: kind of in the first trial, we're riding so high
Speaker 5: by the time the defense completed their case is we
Speaker 5: were all like, okay, Arca just blew the entire prosecution
Speaker 5: out of the order, out of the sorry, out of
Speaker 5: the water. And then obviously it was such a disappointment
Speaker 5: when the jury came back with the results that they did.
Speaker 5: And I am I still feel that for all of
Speaker 5: our analysis about you know, what went wrong with the
Speaker 5: jury and what can they change and and and I
Speaker 5: think there's you know, tremendous potential for them two remake
Speaker 5: the case. Maybe remake is maybe not the right word.
Speaker 5: I don't mean like a total overhaul, but reposition the case.
Speaker 5: But I am still bothered because I feel like there's
Speaker 5: something about what the jury did that isn't quite explained. Okay, yeah, anyway, Yeah, sorry,
Speaker 5: I don't I don't mean to prolong the No.
Speaker 3: No, that's fine.
Speaker 1: So Peter, do you have any final words for us today,
Speaker 1: or emotional outbursts whatever you'd like, take your pick.
Speaker 4: If you've seen the A couple of things, if you've
Speaker 4: seen the the video of the auditorium on Saturday, and
Speaker 4: what I was the direction I started to head in.
Speaker 4: I had some very very plenty of questions that I
Speaker 4: was going to ask, but as you saw, I was
Speaker 4: kind of shot down for one of a better word,
Speaker 4: and and people turned their back and I didn't get
Speaker 4: a chance to ask follow up questions. Uh, but I
Speaker 4: guess what I'd like to do is perhaps consider a
Speaker 4: GoFundMe for having maybe a Coppenter build me a soapbox
Speaker 4: over the next couple of months.
Speaker 2: Deloxe Deluxe soapbox.
Speaker 4: You know, something with the American flag or the scales
Speaker 4: of justice on it fell and.
Speaker 2: Exactly whatever whatever we can come up with.
Speaker 4: But no about the case in seriousness. I mean, we're
Speaker 4: talking about a brother officer that has been murdered and
Speaker 4: there is nothing humorous about that going forward in this
Speaker 4: next trial. What I think needs to come out in
Speaker 4: my opinion, and I was surprised more wasn't made of it.
Speaker 4: And see what you to think is I believe, if
Speaker 4: my memory serves me right, is that there were three
Speaker 4: leaders of blood that were allegedly discussed by the autopsy
Speaker 4: doctor that his body was missing. He had three liters
Speaker 4: of blood and we know I had wound. Usually will
Speaker 4: believe profusely the ground was frozen that morning. They've said
Speaker 4: it was what caused the fracture to his head. To
Speaker 4: my opinion, he would have to have been dropped from
Speaker 4: a crane at defeat and land raid on his head
Speaker 4: to do any damage at all, not get hit by
Speaker 4: and deflect off and skid along the snow. But you know,
Speaker 4: we don't have any photos. We have nothing of him
Speaker 4: being spun around or skidding across the surface of the
Speaker 4: lun no pool of blood of three leads at all.
Speaker 4: But he's one of the biggest things that hasn't come
Speaker 4: out either, is in the investigation and why I believe
Speaker 4: that the Canton police and the police chief and the
Speaker 4: command staff should have been put on administrative leave soon
Speaker 4: after the accident or murder. I guess one of a
Speaker 4: better word, and that is a police officer should have
Speaker 4: gone in that ambulance. That ambulance was a continuation of
Speaker 4: the prime scene. The crime scene got split up between
Speaker 4: thirty four to five of you and the ambulance. Right
Speaker 4: that body contained in his clothing and everything was laden
Speaker 4: with evidence. It could be dog salvrary, it could be
Speaker 4: other DNA from other combatants. He could have had a
Speaker 4: bullet hole. He could have had a knife sticking out
Speaker 4: of his back, you know, and I know, and we
Speaker 4: saw it in the videos that they and I was
Speaker 4: an EMT for most of my career. The first thing
Speaker 4: you'd do is you cut with scissors and remove clothing
Speaker 4: and expose the body to find out trauma and wounds, fractures, bleeding.
Speaker 4: There were no wounds consistent with being hit by a
Speaker 4: car from his chin down to his feet, but there
Speaker 4: was a lot of evidence on his right arm that
Speaker 4: he'd been bitten by a dog. Now, had a police
Speaker 4: officer been in that ambulance when they cut that sleeve open,
Speaker 4: they could have communicated right back to dispatch or back
Speaker 4: to the crime scene incident commander, which they never established.
Speaker 4: We can talk about that all night long, but they
Speaker 4: should have communicated back. Hey, you know, we're almost to
Speaker 4: the hospital. This guy's got what appears to be lacerations
Speaker 4: and puncture wounds from a canine, and there is a
Speaker 4: canine at their house, or if you want to play dumb,
Speaker 4: we didn't know there was a canine. Knock on the
Speaker 4: door and ask him if they've got a dog, and
Speaker 4: see if you get a dog barking. You know, you
Speaker 4: tell me was it intentional that nobody went in that
Speaker 4: ambulance and they didn't, And then you see the evidence
Speaker 4: piled up in a pile next to the gurney, and
Speaker 4: who knows how long that had been there. That was
Speaker 4: later in the day when Practo was there. I mean
Speaker 4: it just it was on the floor. Yeah. But the
Speaker 4: point I'm making is, had the information been observed by
Speaker 4: an officer going in that crime scene, maybe his body
Speaker 4: core temperature would have been raised to a point where
Speaker 4: he might have quickly or suddenly or briefly regained consciousness
Speaker 4: and said made a dying declaration. Yeah, you know, terrible,
Speaker 4: terrible absence of police protocol.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: And how about you, Val, do you have any final
Speaker 1: words for us?
Speaker 5: I'm still a little bit thinking about what Peter was saying.
Speaker 5: I think that the praise weaponized incompetence is kind of
Speaker 5: what what covers most.
Speaker 2: Of the case.
Speaker 5: And I would almost add I think it's kind of
Speaker 5: a separate category of like weaponized inadequacy, because it's not
Speaker 5: just the evidence that was actively disappeared or actively messed
Speaker 5: around with. It's all the evidence that they failed to get.
Speaker 2: Right like you.
Speaker 5: To me, it seems to me that a police officer's job,
Speaker 5: if they're doing an investigation, that what leads you follow
Speaker 5: through to the end is kind of the biggest discretionary piece, Right,
Speaker 5: You need the most judgment to decide, oh is this
Speaker 5: a red herring or is you know this something to
Speaker 5: pursue do we wanna.
Speaker 2: I can't think of a good example right now, but.
Speaker 5: Uh, like like the whole thing about uh go for
Speaker 5: the geolocation data, and I mean, we know that was
Speaker 5: messed up, but failing to go after data that you
Speaker 5: knew would be available, it's a fuzzy, fuzzier category than
Speaker 5: the the other kinds of messing with evidence, but it.
Speaker 2: It's just as like pernicious.
Speaker 5: And it's also I don't know if either of you've
Speaker 5: been following it all the Delphi case in Indiana, that
Speaker 5: same thing happened there. That was also very bad police investigation,
Speaker 5: like whatever you think of like the results of that case,
Speaker 5: and I think it was horrible.
Speaker 2: But the very obvious things.
Speaker 5: They just didn't do, like and they were very critical
Speaker 5: things like determinative like.
Speaker 2: You'd have the answer, you'd know right anyway.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so I don't have I usually do have a
Speaker 5: pretty good rant ready, but you know, I didn't know
Speaker 5: you'd be asking, so I hav a cued one up.
Speaker 3: All right, that's all right. So I want to thank
Speaker 3: you both for taking.
Speaker 1: The time to come on calling all beings, and thank
Speaker 1: you for not backing out just because DJ was six.
Speaker 1: So thank you for a great conversation and for all
Speaker 1: you guys had you know, your thoughts, opinions, and yes,
Speaker 1: so thank you so much for being on. So I'll
Speaker 1: let you guys go and I'll just close out the
Speaker 1: show here.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Did a great you did a great job. Bell, very
Speaker 4: nice talking with you discussing this. Okay, stay well, all right,
Speaker 4: all right, have a great night. Bye bye,