March 14, 2025 • 38 mins
In the latest turn of the Karen Read legal battle, a federal judge denied Karen Read’s attempt to drop two of the charges against her on double jeopardy grounds. Read’s defense attorneys argued that a mistrial declaration in her first trial was not necessary and that jurors privately voted to acquit Read. Dan discussed the legalities of the Karen Read case and heard your thoughts!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's night Side with Dany. I'm Boston.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Oh, welcome back, everybody. On April first, Scant, about two
and a half weeks away, Karen Reid is scheduled to
begin her second trial in Norfolk Superior Court in debt
him on murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an
(00:30):
accident charges related to the death of her boyfriend, Boston
police officer John O'Keeffe. Now, I'm assuming that most of
you in the audience are somewhat familiar with the case
and what alligant. And of course there was a very
(00:50):
interesting non verdict last July. Just before the fourth of July,
her trial, which went for I think nearly three months,
ended after it was a two month trial, but I
guess there were it seemed like it was three months.
(01:11):
It ended when the jury came back and said they
were at an impass. Now, the judge in the case,
Judge Cannoni Beverly Canoni, gave them a couple of opportunities
to give them what they call the Rodriguez charge, And
all that basically is is a judge saying, hey, look,
I don't want to know where you are, because some
(01:34):
impasses can be six to six and some impasses can
be eleven to one. I mean, if you have a
juror who is just completely opposed to what the other
jurors believe, some would call that jury nullification. But the
way our system works, one juror can hang up an
(01:56):
entire jury and basically eithered jury from coming back with
a conviction or an acquittal. In criminal cases, jurors, at
least in this state and most states that I'm aware of,
have to come back unanimously. She's charged with murder, manslaughter,
and leaving the scene of an accident. I think all
of us know what happened, or what allegedly happened, was
(02:19):
that there was, at least from what we had been told,
a belief within that jury that there was some jurors
said after the mistrial on all three accounts was declared
that they had in fact come to a conclusion and
(02:42):
had voted to acquit her on murder and leaving the
scene of an accident. So essentially it sounded as if,
and I think that there was some suggestion that they
felt more inclined to convict her and manslaughter. Neither the
prosecution nor the defense asked the j to inquire further
to pull the jurors, et cetera. But interesting novel cases
(03:06):
were a set of appeals were created because some jurors,
and apparently several jurors, came forward and said, look, this
is where we were now. Perhaps the communication between the
judge and the four persons of the jury wasn't particularly
good case. The issues were taken on, appealed to the
(03:29):
Superior Court here in Massachusetts, that went up to the
US to the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts, and the
state Supreme Court said, no, the judge did nothing wrong.
No verdict was ever rendered, no final verdict slip was signed,
sealed and submitted to the court, and therefore whatever conversations
(03:52):
might have gone on are forever valueless. Once that jury
was dismissed. After the impasse was declared, her lawyers took
the case into federal court earlier this month on sort
of an expedited effort to convince a federal judge that
(04:16):
her rights were being violated in effect by the Massachusetts
court system, and that she was now going to face
double jeopardy a second separate trial on charges at least
two of which her lawyers believe the jury had arrived
(04:36):
at an acquittal the judge in the case of very
experienced judge and I disagree, by the way, with this decision,
but that's okay. I'm sure more of an I guess
inclined as a defense lay lawyer. Judge Dennis Sailor said,
wrote twenty nine page decision, this court sees no basis
(04:57):
to conclude that the trial judge's decision to declare a miss
trial was incorrect or improper. Goes on to say, even
assuming the jury did take a vote to acquit, there's
no basis to to conclude that any such agreement was final.
He also went on to say, as required under Massachusetts law, Accordingly,
as a matter of federal constitutional law, petition was not
(05:19):
actually acquitted of any of the relevant defenses. The decision
to declare a mistrial was the product of a multi
day discussion between counsel and the court. Under the circumstances,
the judge cannot be said to have acted precipitously and
without adequate time for reflection. Judge Sailor, federal judge concluded
that Judge Canoni was not obligated to inquire about a
(05:42):
possible partial verdict or pull the jury before discharging it now.
In my opinion, it would have been very easy for
the judge in open court to have simply inquired of
the four person us, your note tells us that you've
reached an impasse. Are you at an impasse on all
(06:06):
three counts? If the jury four person said yes, you're
on or where we are we cannot come to an
agreement on any of the three counts, fine, That question
should have been asked. What if what if the fourth
person in the jury had said to the judge, you're
(06:30):
we're at a complete impasse on at least one of
the counts, but there is a consensus, or there's more
than a consensus, whatever would have been said in court
at that point. The judge could have said, well, you
are able in Massachusetts to return a partial verdict. You're
not obligated to have a verdict on all of the
(06:53):
counts before you, and that might have resolved everything last July.
It was not done by the judge. The judge was
not obligated to do it. I think that the State
Supreme Court, from the perspective, my perspective, lost an opportunity
to basically conclude that she should have gone back and
(07:16):
inquired of the jurors that there there was an ample
opportunity for the Supreme Court to at least suggest that
it would have been better practice if going forward, all
judges in multi count cases, when an impasse is reported
just ask the simple question, are you have you reached
(07:38):
an impass on all of the counts? And if the
four person says I don't understand the question or no,
we haven't, that then could lead to other questions. But
if the four person says, yes, we are an impass
on each and every count, that is it. Then you
have a genuine impass. We will never know, but we
(08:01):
do know that Karen Reid will be tried again beginning
on April first. Now, I suspect that there might be
some motions by either the prosecution or the defense to
delay the retrial, but I want to know tonight now
that this matter has been resolved finally, not only in
the State Supreme Court, but in the federal court. And
(08:24):
I don't think there is time or probably an inclination
to appeal the case. I don't think it's even physically
possible or likely to succeed. Based upon the decision that
Judge Sail wrote, this case is not going to go
to the US Supreme Court. I think now it's time
for us to talk about the Karen Reid case tonight.
(08:49):
It's one of the top stories today. Do you feel
that Karen Reid should be put through this meat grinder
again if you will, or is it justice not only
for the commonwealth but also for the family of John
(09:09):
O'Keeffe and I suspect there will be different points of
view within this audience. This is a case that a
lot of people know a little bit about around the country.
It has certainly risen to some national news coverage. Join
the conversation. Whatever your point of view, welcome to talk
about it. We will go to the twentieth hour at
eleven o'clock. But I'd like to talk about the Karen
(09:29):
Reid case and your reaction to the failed appeals. I
thought she had substantial grounds to appeal. Obviously the judicial
system disagrees with her. Lawyers disagreed with me on it.
I don't know what happened in this case. I have
no idea. I have no idea how this is going
to resolve. I do know there's a new prosecutor in
(09:52):
the case who has a lot of experience as a
defense attorney, and I think that he will probably put
in a much case, if you will, a much more
effective case than in the first matter that ended in impasse.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one,
(10:13):
ten thirty. Are you ready for Karen Reid redu of
Karen Reid number two? It's coming down the line, Let's
talk about it, Let's stay ahead of the curve. Coming
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
So I'm kind of curious as to whether or not
people are my listeners are looking forward to the retrial
of Karen Reid and the final disposition of the case
one way or the other, assuming that there is a
jury that will come to a final disposition of either
guilt or innocence or guilt or I have to remind myself,
(10:57):
and I'll remind you that no jury comes back and
as innocent, they simply come back and say not guilty.
The elements of the crime not proven beyond a reasonable
doubt by the prosecution results in a not guilty, not
a finding of innocence, or or are you over the
Karen Reid case? I don't know that there will be
(11:19):
much new evidence. I suspect there will be some new
forensic evidence that will be introduced, maybe by both sides.
I don't know that the newly introduced forensics evidence forensic
evidence would be dispositive, but it might be important. So
the lines that are full are six one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. If you want to get in right now,
(11:41):
six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty, let me
go to Lola first. Hi, Lola, how are you. You're
in San Diego, but I know you have connections to Boston.
Has this case gotten much traction out in out in California?
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Yeah, yes, So there are standouts over the world. Free
Karen Reid and I have a group here in San
Diego and we meet periodically to do standouts, and we
get people honking the horn because there's people from Boston
all over the world, and uh oh yeah. And you
(12:19):
know this Proctor guy, the state police, Proctor dude, he
admitted that, he admitted he said some bad things and
his investigation is in one hundred percent. There's a dog
involved that's missing. The house that this John O'Keefe. They
(12:39):
said he never entered the basement floor has been replaced.
There's all kinds of stuff dan going on, and it's
just digging up all kinds of corruption, and everybody's looking
the other legs.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Okay, obviously you're you're you're an advocate for her innocence.
I understand that. So let me ask you the question
because I am truly a blank slate on this. I mean,
I've heard all the stories, and the story that you
believe is that O'Keefe goes into the house, ends up
in some sort of dispute with one or more members
(13:15):
of the people inside the house, and the fight breaks
out and a dog is involved. I know the specifics. Okay.
So let's assume for a moment that your theory is accurate. Okay,
And let's assume that amongst this group of police officers,
some of whom are police officers, they come to the
(13:35):
conclusion that this guy's dead. So why would that group
of police officers, even if they were bad police officers? Okay?
What I mean what I mean by that is even
if they if it was an accident. Let's assume that
(13:56):
somehow someone pushed him and he hit his head. That
could happen, But let's assume they're bad police officers, they're
going to take them out and put them out on
the front lawn. I would think that under those circumstances,
most police that I know, if they were bad, would say,
let's get him in the woods about five miles from here.
You know, you put him out as a piece of
(14:19):
lawn furniture. Does that make.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Sense to you, Well, no, it doesn't.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
But see that girl, Karen Reid, only weighs one hundred
and eight pounds, so she didn't carry him. She wasn't there.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
But what no, no, no, we're not no, we're not
suggesting that they called her in, that she was sitting
outside with the motor running, and they called her in
and said, Karen, we just inadvertently killed your boyfriend here.
We want nothing to do with it. Will you carry No?
Do you think that a bunch of police officers, if
somehow the fight was involved and the guy died, that
(14:52):
they're going to say, I got a great idea, let's
put him out in the front lawn. No one will
ever notice until the springtime. I mean, it doesn't make
sense anyway. That makes sense to me in this case.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Well, there's a lot of things. So why did one
of the people go down to the Canton Police station
at two o'clock in the morning. So that's that's evidence
that why what is that?
Speaker 2 (15:14):
What? Whoa whoa whoa whoa? What is that evidence off.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Something went wrong at the house. I don't have looked in.
I'm not a private investigator.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
I don't have a I'm.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Just saying that that every theory that I hear, every
theory that I hear, uh, the only theory that makes
any sense to me is that that they have an
argument and that she's going to drop them off. And
you know, we've all at some point been in one
of those arguments where whether it's with your girlfriend, your boyfriend,
(15:50):
or just a friend, and you've you've had an argument
and one says, well, I'm going in and having a
couple more drinks, and that one says, well, I'm going home,
and maybe maybe she decided, well, I'm just gonna gonna
floor it and let him know that it's you know,
how angry I am, and she simply had an reverse
and hit him. That's that's the only theory. That's the
(16:12):
only theory that I can come up with that makes
any sense.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
But but obviously, you know, the car in us it's
my understanding that the bruises on him were not from
a car hitting him.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
And they put the car. They put the car in
this thing called the sally Port and kill light, and
the skill light wasn't broken.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah, I got you, Lola, I got all of that.
I'm just I'm just simply finding to some I'm trying
to find some plausible explanation because all of the all
of the explanations I've heard, nothing hangs true to me. Lola,
I love you calls. You know that I'm I'm thrilled
to find out that this case is drawing such attention.
(16:58):
It's San Diego uh and you feel free to call
in as this case goes. I don't think they're going
to begin it on April first. But I've been wrong
on everything about this case.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
You know what, at the judge, you get to look
at the jug you gotta look at everything. Dan, let
me tell you it is. You couldn't write a script
for what is going on now being.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Let me let me let's right now.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
I know that I know that I'm not going to
try it here. I'm up with my presence.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
I know I'm gonna try it.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Yeah, I know, Dan, I know the room.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
I got a newscast, I gotta get to Okay, we'll talk,
we'll talk again.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I have a great I love you, happy.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Save Patrick's right back at you, all.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Okay, can't all right, take.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
It easy, all right, we'll continue our conversation here. Now.
All the lines at six one, seven, two, four, ten
thirty four. The two lines at six one, seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty one of which Lola was on and
one of which dropped, are open. Let's fill him up.
We'll get everybody in, I promise, and we will switch topics.
And I also expect to have a special guest at
(18:13):
eleven five tonight. I'm not going to tell you whom,
but I think it will fit in with our Saint
Patrick's Day weekend theme. Back on Nightside right after.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
This Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Plague you al, Griffith, let's keep rolling. You're going to
go to a Mark in Cambridge. Mark, you are next
on Nightside. We're talking about the Paul, the the the
Karen Reid retrial, which we'll start on April first. It appears, okay,
if Mark's not ready, we'll put Mark on hold and
(18:55):
we'll go to Stephen Bridgewater Steve, you were next on nights.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
I go right head, Steve, Hi you be Indian. Long
time to speak.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I didn't.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
We're here five nights a week. You got the number.
That stuff my fault. Go rite ahead, Steve. I'm just
doing great, Go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
All right? Yeah again, Dan, I've got a question. See
a lot of questions in my mind, but I want
to ask you this. You don't agree with the ruling
of it of the of the supreme courts, both federal
and state. Correct, it went to both both levels?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Correct, it went It went to the state. The Massachusetts
State Supreme Court ran to a single federal judge, a
district court judge. That's correct. It did not go to
the York Supreme Court. Yeah, go ahead, No, no, no,
I know.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
So my question is, Dan, if you were one of
those judges, if you either federal or state, how I
want to know how you would have ruled what you
think based on your opinion, because I know you mentioned
about ten minutes ago you didn't like their ruling. You
didn't agree with their ruling, so that's judge. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Well, well let me say this one. I have not
researched the case. Their job is to research cases. So therefore,
as a member of the bar, I certainly recognize that
the lawyers on the case, as well as most specifically
the judge on the case and the judges on the case,
(20:19):
probably have dived much more deeply into the case law
and and and and the statutes that are involved. But
at the same time, as an individual and as a
talk show host, I have expressed clearly and you've heard me,
that I was disappointed. I don't agree with the rulings
(20:39):
because I think that that the judge in the in
the case, with little extra effort, could have inquired of
the four person if if they were at an impasse
on all three of the counts or on just some
of the counts, and that extra effort wasn't made by
(21:00):
the judge, And I thought that going forward, it would
be instructive for our State Supreme Court, particularly to set
an example and provide guidance to other judges that in
multi count cases, when a four person reports there at
an impasse, make sure you're certain that it was an
(21:23):
impasse on all of the counts, not just on some
of the counts. Because people who were on a jury
sometimes feel great pressure, and many of them may become
to a belief, and maybe there should be an instruction
that defense council will start to ask the judge to
(21:43):
give to the jury, which will be that you were
able to come back. I don't believe that count was
given by this judge. I don't believe that count generally
is given. But for the economy of court resources alone,
this trial, if it was coming back just the manslaughter case,
and if they said, okay, you know there's enough here
(22:05):
to call into question whether or not the jury didequate
on counts one and three, just on the question of
the court room efficiency, this secondary trial on manslaughter would
be a lot quicker and cleaner. That's all. So that's
I think I've explained myself to you. I hope you
understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 5 (22:27):
Yeah, so you think they should have it should have
been communicated what they were stalled on instead of just saying, oh,
we can't reach a verdict and they didn't know what
it was on everything on some of it.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yes, And what I'm saying is that that I think
that the judge and it probably will be better court
room practice going forwards for judges in a similar situation, uh,
to just offer that additional question, and say, am I
to understand, mister or madam, for a person that your
(22:59):
jury are have cannot reach a verdict on any of
the counts that you are at.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
An maybe they wouldn't have been a total mistrial. Maybe
they would have found her, they would have found her
guilty of the of one charge. Correct, That's the way
I understood it. They were they were debating that maybe
on one one thing, on being slaughter, they could have
convicted her.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Well, well, what what the What the jurors have reported,
and I think I saw one juror actually interviewed on television.
What the jurors have reported is that the there was
a consensus. And again I'm relying upon what I'm seeing
on reports. I'm not involved in the defense or the prosecution,
and I'm small enough as a lawyer to know I
(23:46):
don't have all the information. But as a talk show host,
I have to give you what I think, and from
what I have seen publicly, it looks to me like
it's possible that that jury could have come to the
conclusion that she was not guilty of murder, which involves
obviously intent, and that that she was not involved in
(24:07):
leaving the scene of an accident, but she was careless
and reckless, and you could reconcile those decisions. And they apparently,
I think I saw somewhere that they their their straw
vote was nine to three in favor of conviction on manslaughter.
And you can see where a jury would say, Okay,
(24:27):
she didn't intend to kill him. She she she didn't
realize she hit him, She backed up, she wasn't. Maybe
she thought she hit a mailbox. Maybe she didn't think
she hid anything, and and and that knocked him out
and he died. Whatever. That's what juries do. That's all
I'm trying to say, And that if the judge had
(24:48):
simply asked that question, you know, madame, rather it was
a it was a man, you know, mister for Perer. Foreman,
are are you telling me that this jury is an
impass on each and every one of the three counts.
And if he had said that is what I am
informing the court. That's it clean and done.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
And I just think going forward, going forward, superior court
judges might be inclined to ask that question so they
don't find themselves in this situation, that's all.
Speaker 5 (25:21):
So we wouldn't be going to another trial. Maybe they
would have already ended, it would have been could have.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Been potentially ended on everything. Or if they were simply
stuck on manslaughter and they they were ready to come
back with clean verdicts on murder at leaving the scene,
then she would face a retrial only on manslaughter. That's
what I'm that's right positing here.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
Okay, all right, Dan, thank you, thank you, no problem.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Well, I hope I clarified it for you. Thanks so much, Steven,
you did a great night. All right, let me go
next to Frank and Hingham. Frank, you're next on nightside.
Welcome is Frank there. We're getting some people who apparently
don't have We'll put Frank on hold. We'll come back
to Frank in a moment, and we would go to
(26:08):
Paul in Dorchester. Paul, welcome that to the night side.
Speaker 6 (26:12):
Thank you, sir. Happy Saint Patrick's day to you and everyone.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
Any many happy more Saint Patrick's days as well. Go
right ahead.
Speaker 6 (26:21):
Well let me warn yet, I've been watching a lot
of Perry Mason lately since I canceled my cable TV.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Nothing like a good Perry Mason weekend. Absolutely, they talk
about three stooges weekends. Go to the Perry Mason Weekend.
Go ahead.
Speaker 6 (26:37):
I'm amazed at how many episodes I never saw my
whole life, I guess, but he's on twice a day.
And I would call this the case of the dog
bite and the broken tail light. The motivation that, yeah,
go ahead.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
I'm saying. Not only is that that preps encapsulates the case,
but it also rhymes. So that's good. Did Perry ever
lose a case that? How many Perry Mason cases have
you seen so far?
Speaker 7 (27:06):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (27:06):
My god, Dan, I I retired a couple of years ago,
and I just got wind of it. So, man, I
can't believe the guy is like, he must still be.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Getting a machine.
Speaker 8 (27:18):
God.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Yeah, Raymond Burr was a machine. He doesn't lose, does he.
I'll tell you I wouldn't want to go up against
Perry Mason, that's for sure. Go ahead. Tell us what
you think about Karen Reid.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
I think, yeah, well Karen Reid, what happened to her?
The motivation for them throwing them out in the snow
was they're all protecting the young nephew or some kid
with the bruised knuckles. The guy went in. Everybody has
had a few too many, and there was a few
too many people and they got into it. It must
have got into a heated discussion in that basement.
Speaker 8 (27:51):
Somehow it came.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Let me, let me if I can ask you, let
me just challenge you a little bit on that theory, Okay,
if I could, And I realized you, well, that's fine
again because of your position as as as a deficionado
of Perry Mason, I'm going to stand back in respect.
But I am a member of the bar here. So
(28:14):
let's assume, from what I know about police officers, you're
telling me something something bad happens in that basement, and
that at some point, however, you know, intoxicated, anyone might
have might not have been. At some point someone said,
you know, I think he's dead, and they all looked
(28:37):
at each other and said what are we going to do?
And they, between all of them, they come up, well,
let's put him on the front lawn. That's what you.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
Write, and then blame Karen.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Whoa whoa? Wait, hold on for a second. So did
they know that Karen had backed up and struck him
with her vehicle when they put him on the front lawn.
Speaker 6 (29:00):
I'm not sure that any of them would be credible
witnesses with their states of intoxication, even.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Her but judgment. I'll tell you if you just if
you've just at a moment where someone's killed, that'll sober
you up real quickly. I'm yes.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
But they didn't have time to think. Dan They says, oh, no, okay,
he's in my house, he's under let's get him out
of here. And then they just didn't think about it.
I don't think it had not a plan ahead of
it that happens.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
No, I don't think there was premeditation, P and D
premeditation and deliberation. But I think from what I know,
and again, assuming you're telling me these were bad people,
that they probably would have said there's a wooded area
about a mile from here.
Speaker 6 (29:41):
No, no, no, okay, they're all very good people. They
were all trying to cover up for the kid. They
don't want to see the kid go to jail. They're
all doing this to say, but yo.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Man, you know you're figured out. Okay, fair enough, fair enough, Okay,
I'm gonna I'm gonna let you go because I'm up
on my break here. I got you in. I think
that you made a very strong case, and I think
a lot of that has to be attributed to the
legal education that you have received watching as much Perry
Mason as you have. So uh, it's I know, I
(30:16):
think it is amazing what you and I appreciate the
fact that you would acknowledge that in the court here
in open court. Thank you, Paul. Happy Saint Patrick's Day,
have a great one. Yeah, thank you very much. We're
just we're just brothers at the bar. That's all I think. Well,
I know one of us is. Let me just say this, Paul,
I suspect very highly that one of us has been
(30:37):
at the bar tonight, if you get my drifts. Okay,
all right, begs, Happy Saint Patrick's Day. Good night. We'll
be back at night Side right after this.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
All right, let's keep rolling here. I'm gonna try Mark
in Cambridge. I think we missed him before. Mark. You
next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (31:04):
Welcome miss Ahead, Happy Friday to your happy Thanksgiving to you. Ah,
I mean, I mean Happy Saint Patrick's Day.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Okay, much clearer, go ahead.
Speaker 8 (31:25):
I'm gonna say like this, she's involved with this with
with John's stuff. This is my opinion. She's she's involved. Okay,
all these theories they're throwing up the knuckles and vest
and I mean, I don't I don't buy it, Okay,
you know, and you have a gentleman, who's who's who's deceased,
(31:46):
a human being oppressing a police officer. And it's just
like she's I've been watching the case closely, and like
she comes into court even Cononi, Judge Canoni even scolded
her coming to court. She's smiling, smirking, like the big
joke and nothing joking about this. You know, I couldn't
agree that.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
I will agree with you totally. There's nothing that's funny
about this. No matter what happened. A person lost their life.
There's no question about that, no question.
Speaker 7 (32:15):
And I'm in tired of my opinion, Like I said,
I mean, I mean, I mean, Judge Canoni already scolded
her once for it, right, and and you know, if
she's found guilty, which in my opinion, I think she
is going to be found guilty, Judge.
Speaker 8 (32:28):
Canoni's going to throw the book at her. I see
it already, And if I were to judge, I.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Would, Yeah, But my sense is that the judge is
not pleased with how the condent how they Again, I
haven't watched a lot of it. It's just an impression
that she's not particularly pleased with how the defense has
comported themselves in this case. I think I think you're
right on that, Mark, and we will see. So you
do you think that they'll come back with a guilty
(32:54):
across the border? Do you think it'll be a split decision.
Speaker 8 (33:02):
It's going I think it's gonna be split because all
the supporters out there. I mean, did you see that.
That's why you know the other side. John's side's gotta
be out there too, just like her side out there with.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Yeah, Okay, Mark, I appreciate it very much. Have a
great weekend and happy Saint Patrick's Day. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 8 (33:23):
Much, you too, And I'm gonna try to get to
that Norwood. Then you're gonna have it, Norwood. I gotta
call the number.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
It's West West next week and I'll give you the
number if you want. Okay, great, all right, thank you,
thank you, have a great night. Let me go next.
Christine is in debt him. Christine, your thoughts on the
Karen Reid case.
Speaker 9 (33:42):
Go right ahead, I say, I'm still saying she was
set up.
Speaker 7 (33:48):
I really do.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Okay, that's fine. How you think it went down.
Speaker 9 (33:54):
I think the cops all just just stood together and
just stood things. And I'm hearing a lot of talk
they were doing some dirty things.
Speaker 7 (34:04):
And I don't know.
Speaker 9 (34:06):
I just but we're also hearing now if it gets
into federal hands, if it does get you know, with
a case could be taken out an off off they
might might.
Speaker 8 (34:19):
Okay, Yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Don't think so, Christine. It's it's a the I believe
that the the U. S Attorney's Office has now confirmed
that any federal investigation was closed. Uh, and this particular case,
a homicide case, would not be be be involved in
(34:42):
federal court. Uh. It's simply a hope, you know, sadly,
but it's simply a homicide case that will be displayed.
Speaker 9 (34:51):
There's a lot of investigations going to go along with life.
They tug the other attorneys and eat that big teeth,
you know, Amarathi. They said there's something's going on there.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
Right again, I know nothing about that. All I do
know is that the US Attorney, as I understand that,
they did not address it when I had Leah Foley
on the show a couple of weeks ago, but subsequently
that they did say that they had concluded their investigation
and that investigation was over. Now this goes back to trial.
(35:29):
I think that's that's where it sits, and I think
that's where it's going to be dealt with in Judge
Canoni's court, for better or worse. Christine, thank you so much,
Thank you much. All Right, we'll talk soon. Okay, you too.
Speaker 9 (35:43):
There's a lot of buzz going around.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Yeah, I hear it, and I'm just trying to deal
with what is real and what may not be real. Thanks, Christine,
will talk so appreciate it. Have a good night. Let
me go to Norman Worcester. Norman, I think you're gonna
rap us for the hour. Go right ahead, Norm.
Speaker 10 (36:00):
Yeah, I mentioned to uh, your preview guy there, Rob
not to mention my last name because uh, and where
I was calling from, because you know, uh, I believe
Karen is guilty and they're all listening to this right now.
So the the Mino's mob would show up my house
tomorrow and be spinning on my driveway.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Yeah, well that we're not going to put your address
out there, so okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 10 (36:27):
So so uh, what what what?
Speaker 2 (36:30):
What what makes you think Norman? You said you said
that with a great deal of certainty. What makes you certain?
Speaker 10 (36:35):
Yes, I do not believe a kid, a dog, and
a bunch of cops uh chilled John and dumthing about
on the different one and that's just uh. And the
Feds investigated that. Now, the the Feds really like headlines
and they really like bringing down bad cops, and they
(36:58):
probably looked into that. And if they found out found
some bad cops that actually killed John, that they love
the headlines. They had that out there and I'm sure
they looked powered into that.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
So that that seems inconsistent, then well what you think
what you think happened? It seems to me that you're inconsistent.
Go ahead, tell me what you think actually happened.
Speaker 10 (37:26):
In your opinion, No, No, Karen hit him sort of
semi accidentally and then but it didn't happen with the
kid and the cops and the dog in the house,
And the Feds looked into that because the Karen's attorneys
and all that stuff was able to get them to
(37:47):
do that, and they were they they tried their best.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
Okay, now, now now you've you've reconciled those two two facts,
and I understand what you're saying. Well, Norm, thank you
very much again. You've you've maintained your anonymity and you've
expressed yourself, which is what we do on Nightside. So
you night when we come back, we will begin your
Saint Patrick's Day weekend celebration. We're going to be talking
(38:16):
with State Senator Nick Collins, who will be in charge
of the big breakfast on Sunday morning. We'll talk with him,
and then I'm going to open it up and get
some stories. I don't know where we're going to take it,
but it's going to be interesting, and who knows, we
may be able to even give away a couple of
T shirts next hour, coming back on Nightside, right after
(38:37):
the eleven o'clock news here on a Friday night,
It's night Side with Dany. I'm Boston.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Oh, welcome back, everybody. On April first, Scant, about two
and a half weeks away, Karen Reid is scheduled to
begin her second trial in Norfolk Superior Court in debt
him on murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an
(00:30):
accident charges related to the death of her boyfriend, Boston
police officer John O'Keeffe. Now, I'm assuming that most of
you in the audience are somewhat familiar with the case
and what alligant. And of course there was a very
(00:50):
interesting non verdict last July. Just before the fourth of July,
her trial, which went for I think nearly three months,
ended after it was a two month trial, but I
guess there were it seemed like it was three months.
(01:11):
It ended when the jury came back and said they
were at an impass. Now, the judge in the case,
Judge Cannoni Beverly Canoni, gave them a couple of opportunities
to give them what they call the Rodriguez charge, And
all that basically is is a judge saying, hey, look,
I don't want to know where you are, because some
(01:34):
impasses can be six to six and some impasses can
be eleven to one. I mean, if you have a
juror who is just completely opposed to what the other
jurors believe, some would call that jury nullification. But the
way our system works, one juror can hang up an
(01:56):
entire jury and basically eithered jury from coming back with
a conviction or an acquittal. In criminal cases, jurors, at
least in this state and most states that I'm aware of,
have to come back unanimously. She's charged with murder, manslaughter,
and leaving the scene of an accident. I think all
of us know what happened, or what allegedly happened, was
(02:19):
that there was, at least from what we had been told,
a belief within that jury that there was some jurors
said after the mistrial on all three accounts was declared
that they had in fact come to a conclusion and
(02:42):
had voted to acquit her on murder and leaving the
scene of an accident. So essentially it sounded as if,
and I think that there was some suggestion that they
felt more inclined to convict her and manslaughter. Neither the
prosecution nor the defense asked the j to inquire further
to pull the jurors, et cetera. But interesting novel cases
(03:06):
were a set of appeals were created because some jurors,
and apparently several jurors, came forward and said, look, this
is where we were now. Perhaps the communication between the
judge and the four persons of the jury wasn't particularly
good case. The issues were taken on, appealed to the
(03:29):
Superior Court here in Massachusetts, that went up to the
US to the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts, and the
state Supreme Court said, no, the judge did nothing wrong.
No verdict was ever rendered, no final verdict slip was signed,
sealed and submitted to the court, and therefore whatever conversations
(03:52):
might have gone on are forever valueless. Once that jury
was dismissed. After the impasse was declared, her lawyers took
the case into federal court earlier this month on sort
of an expedited effort to convince a federal judge that
(04:16):
her rights were being violated in effect by the Massachusetts
court system, and that she was now going to face
double jeopardy a second separate trial on charges at least
two of which her lawyers believe the jury had arrived
(04:36):
at an acquittal the judge in the case of very
experienced judge and I disagree, by the way, with this decision,
but that's okay. I'm sure more of an I guess
inclined as a defense lay lawyer. Judge Dennis Sailor said,
wrote twenty nine page decision, this court sees no basis
(04:57):
to conclude that the trial judge's decision to declare a miss
trial was incorrect or improper. Goes on to say, even
assuming the jury did take a vote to acquit, there's
no basis to to conclude that any such agreement was final.
He also went on to say, as required under Massachusetts law, Accordingly,
as a matter of federal constitutional law, petition was not
(05:19):
actually acquitted of any of the relevant defenses. The decision
to declare a mistrial was the product of a multi
day discussion between counsel and the court. Under the circumstances,
the judge cannot be said to have acted precipitously and
without adequate time for reflection. Judge Sailor, federal judge concluded
that Judge Canoni was not obligated to inquire about a
(05:42):
possible partial verdict or pull the jury before discharging it now.
In my opinion, it would have been very easy for
the judge in open court to have simply inquired of
the four person us, your note tells us that you've
reached an impasse. Are you at an impasse on all
(06:06):
three counts? If the jury four person said yes, you're
on or where we are we cannot come to an
agreement on any of the three counts, fine, That question
should have been asked. What if what if the fourth
person in the jury had said to the judge, you're
(06:30):
we're at a complete impasse on at least one of
the counts, but there is a consensus, or there's more
than a consensus, whatever would have been said in court
at that point. The judge could have said, well, you
are able in Massachusetts to return a partial verdict. You're
not obligated to have a verdict on all of the
(06:53):
counts before you, and that might have resolved everything last July.
It was not done by the judge. The judge was
not obligated to do it. I think that the State
Supreme Court, from the perspective, my perspective, lost an opportunity
to basically conclude that she should have gone back and
(07:16):
inquired of the jurors that there there was an ample
opportunity for the Supreme Court to at least suggest that
it would have been better practice if going forward, all
judges in multi count cases, when an impasse is reported
just ask the simple question, are you have you reached
(07:38):
an impass on all of the counts? And if the
four person says I don't understand the question or no,
we haven't, that then could lead to other questions. But
if the four person says, yes, we are an impass
on each and every count, that is it. Then you
have a genuine impass. We will never know, but we
(08:01):
do know that Karen Reid will be tried again beginning
on April first. Now, I suspect that there might be
some motions by either the prosecution or the defense to
delay the retrial, but I want to know tonight now
that this matter has been resolved finally, not only in
the State Supreme Court, but in the federal court. And
(08:24):
I don't think there is time or probably an inclination
to appeal the case. I don't think it's even physically
possible or likely to succeed. Based upon the decision that
Judge Sail wrote, this case is not going to go
to the US Supreme Court. I think now it's time
for us to talk about the Karen Reid case tonight.
(08:49):
It's one of the top stories today. Do you feel
that Karen Reid should be put through this meat grinder
again if you will, or is it justice not only
for the commonwealth but also for the family of John
(09:09):
O'Keeffe and I suspect there will be different points of
view within this audience. This is a case that a
lot of people know a little bit about around the country.
It has certainly risen to some national news coverage. Join
the conversation. Whatever your point of view, welcome to talk
about it. We will go to the twentieth hour at
eleven o'clock. But I'd like to talk about the Karen
(09:29):
Reid case and your reaction to the failed appeals. I
thought she had substantial grounds to appeal. Obviously the judicial
system disagrees with her. Lawyers disagreed with me on it.
I don't know what happened in this case. I have
no idea. I have no idea how this is going
to resolve. I do know there's a new prosecutor in
(09:52):
the case who has a lot of experience as a
defense attorney, and I think that he will probably put
in a much case, if you will, a much more
effective case than in the first matter that ended in impasse.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one,
(10:13):
ten thirty. Are you ready for Karen Reid redu of
Karen Reid number two? It's coming down the line, Let's
talk about it, Let's stay ahead of the curve. Coming
back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
So I'm kind of curious as to whether or not
people are my listeners are looking forward to the retrial
of Karen Reid and the final disposition of the case
one way or the other, assuming that there is a
jury that will come to a final disposition of either
guilt or innocence or guilt or I have to remind myself,
(10:57):
and I'll remind you that no jury comes back and
as innocent, they simply come back and say not guilty.
The elements of the crime not proven beyond a reasonable
doubt by the prosecution results in a not guilty, not
a finding of innocence, or or are you over the
Karen Reid case? I don't know that there will be
(11:19):
much new evidence. I suspect there will be some new
forensic evidence that will be introduced, maybe by both sides.
I don't know that the newly introduced forensics evidence forensic
evidence would be dispositive, but it might be important. So
the lines that are full are six one, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. If you want to get in right now,
(11:41):
six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty, let me
go to Lola first. Hi, Lola, how are you. You're
in San Diego, but I know you have connections to Boston.
Has this case gotten much traction out in out in California?
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Yeah, yes, So there are standouts over the world. Free
Karen Reid and I have a group here in San
Diego and we meet periodically to do standouts, and we
get people honking the horn because there's people from Boston
all over the world, and uh oh yeah. And you
(12:19):
know this Proctor guy, the state police, Proctor dude, he
admitted that, he admitted he said some bad things and
his investigation is in one hundred percent. There's a dog
involved that's missing. The house that this John O'Keefe. They
(12:39):
said he never entered the basement floor has been replaced.
There's all kinds of stuff dan going on, and it's
just digging up all kinds of corruption, and everybody's looking
the other legs.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Okay, obviously you're you're you're an advocate for her innocence.
I understand that. So let me ask you the question
because I am truly a blank slate on this. I mean,
I've heard all the stories, and the story that you
believe is that O'Keefe goes into the house, ends up
in some sort of dispute with one or more members
(13:15):
of the people inside the house, and the fight breaks
out and a dog is involved. I know the specifics. Okay.
So let's assume for a moment that your theory is accurate. Okay,
And let's assume that amongst this group of police officers,
some of whom are police officers, they come to the
(13:35):
conclusion that this guy's dead. So why would that group
of police officers, even if they were bad police officers? Okay?
What I mean what I mean by that is even
if they if it was an accident. Let's assume that
(13:56):
somehow someone pushed him and he hit his head. That
could happen, But let's assume they're bad police officers, they're
going to take them out and put them out on
the front lawn. I would think that under those circumstances,
most police that I know, if they were bad, would say,
let's get him in the woods about five miles from here.
You know, you put him out as a piece of
(14:19):
lawn furniture. Does that make.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Sense to you, Well, no, it doesn't.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
But see that girl, Karen Reid, only weighs one hundred
and eight pounds, so she didn't carry him. She wasn't there.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
But what no, no, no, we're not no, we're not
suggesting that they called her in, that she was sitting
outside with the motor running, and they called her in
and said, Karen, we just inadvertently killed your boyfriend here.
We want nothing to do with it. Will you carry No?
Do you think that a bunch of police officers, if
somehow the fight was involved and the guy died, that
(14:52):
they're going to say, I got a great idea, let's
put him out in the front lawn. No one will
ever notice until the springtime. I mean, it doesn't make
sense anyway. That makes sense to me in this case.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Well, there's a lot of things. So why did one
of the people go down to the Canton Police station
at two o'clock in the morning. So that's that's evidence
that why what is that?
Speaker 2 (15:14):
What? Whoa whoa whoa whoa? What is that evidence off.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Something went wrong at the house. I don't have looked in.
I'm not a private investigator.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
I don't have a I'm.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Just saying that that every theory that I hear, every
theory that I hear, uh, the only theory that makes
any sense to me is that that they have an
argument and that she's going to drop them off. And
you know, we've all at some point been in one
of those arguments where whether it's with your girlfriend, your boyfriend,
(15:50):
or just a friend, and you've you've had an argument
and one says, well, I'm going in and having a
couple more drinks, and that one says, well, I'm going home,
and maybe maybe she decided, well, I'm just gonna gonna
floor it and let him know that it's you know,
how angry I am, and she simply had an reverse
and hit him. That's that's the only theory. That's the
(16:12):
only theory that I can come up with that makes
any sense.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
But but obviously, you know, the car in us it's
my understanding that the bruises on him were not from
a car hitting him.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
And they put the car. They put the car in
this thing called the sally Port and kill light, and
the skill light wasn't broken.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah, I got you, Lola, I got all of that.
I'm just I'm just simply finding to some I'm trying
to find some plausible explanation because all of the all
of the explanations I've heard, nothing hangs true to me. Lola,
I love you calls. You know that I'm I'm thrilled
to find out that this case is drawing such attention.
(16:58):
It's San Diego uh and you feel free to call
in as this case goes. I don't think they're going
to begin it on April first. But I've been wrong
on everything about this case.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
You know what, at the judge, you get to look
at the jug you gotta look at everything. Dan, let
me tell you it is. You couldn't write a script
for what is going on now being.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Let me let me let's right now.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
I know that I know that I'm not going to
try it here. I'm up with my presence.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
I know I'm gonna try it.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
Yeah, I know, Dan, I know the room.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
I got a newscast, I gotta get to Okay, we'll talk,
we'll talk again.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I have a great I love you, happy.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Save Patrick's right back at you, all.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Okay, can't all right, take.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
It easy, all right, we'll continue our conversation here. Now.
All the lines at six one, seven, two, four, ten
thirty four. The two lines at six one, seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty one of which Lola was on and
one of which dropped, are open. Let's fill him up.
We'll get everybody in, I promise, and we will switch topics.
And I also expect to have a special guest at
(18:13):
eleven five tonight. I'm not going to tell you whom,
but I think it will fit in with our Saint
Patrick's Day weekend theme. Back on Nightside right after.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
This Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Plague you al, Griffith, let's keep rolling. You're going to
go to a Mark in Cambridge. Mark, you are next
on Nightside. We're talking about the Paul, the the the
Karen Reid retrial, which we'll start on April first. It appears, okay,
if Mark's not ready, we'll put Mark on hold and
(18:55):
we'll go to Stephen Bridgewater Steve, you were next on nights.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
I go right head, Steve, Hi you be Indian. Long
time to speak.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I didn't.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
We're here five nights a week. You got the number.
That stuff my fault. Go rite ahead, Steve. I'm just
doing great, Go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
All right? Yeah again, Dan, I've got a question. See
a lot of questions in my mind, but I want
to ask you this. You don't agree with the ruling
of it of the of the supreme courts, both federal
and state. Correct, it went to both both levels?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Correct, it went It went to the state. The Massachusetts
State Supreme Court ran to a single federal judge, a
district court judge. That's correct. It did not go to
the York Supreme Court. Yeah, go ahead, No, no, no,
I know.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
So my question is, Dan, if you were one of
those judges, if you either federal or state, how I
want to know how you would have ruled what you
think based on your opinion, because I know you mentioned
about ten minutes ago you didn't like their ruling. You
didn't agree with their ruling, so that's judge. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Well, well let me say this one. I have not
researched the case. Their job is to research cases. So therefore,
as a member of the bar, I certainly recognize that
the lawyers on the case, as well as most specifically
the judge on the case and the judges on the case,
(20:19):
probably have dived much more deeply into the case law
and and and and the statutes that are involved. But
at the same time, as an individual and as a
talk show host, I have expressed clearly and you've heard me,
that I was disappointed. I don't agree with the rulings
(20:39):
because I think that that the judge in the in
the case, with little extra effort, could have inquired of
the four person if if they were at an impasse
on all three of the counts or on just some
of the counts, and that extra effort wasn't made by
(21:00):
the judge, And I thought that going forward, it would
be instructive for our State Supreme Court, particularly to set
an example and provide guidance to other judges that in
multi count cases, when a four person reports there at
an impasse, make sure you're certain that it was an
(21:23):
impasse on all of the counts, not just on some
of the counts. Because people who were on a jury
sometimes feel great pressure, and many of them may become
to a belief, and maybe there should be an instruction
that defense council will start to ask the judge to
(21:43):
give to the jury, which will be that you were
able to come back. I don't believe that count was
given by this judge. I don't believe that count generally
is given. But for the economy of court resources alone,
this trial, if it was coming back just the manslaughter case,
and if they said, okay, you know there's enough here
(22:05):
to call into question whether or not the jury didequate
on counts one and three, just on the question of
the court room efficiency, this secondary trial on manslaughter would
be a lot quicker and cleaner. That's all. So that's
I think I've explained myself to you. I hope you
understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 5 (22:27):
Yeah, so you think they should have it should have
been communicated what they were stalled on instead of just saying, oh,
we can't reach a verdict and they didn't know what
it was on everything on some of it.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yes, And what I'm saying is that that I think
that the judge and it probably will be better court
room practice going forwards for judges in a similar situation, uh,
to just offer that additional question, and say, am I
to understand, mister or madam, for a person that your
(22:59):
jury are have cannot reach a verdict on any of
the counts that you are at.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
An maybe they wouldn't have been a total mistrial. Maybe
they would have found her, they would have found her
guilty of the of one charge. Correct, That's the way
I understood it. They were they were debating that maybe
on one one thing, on being slaughter, they could have
convicted her.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Well, well, what what the What the jurors have reported,
and I think I saw one juror actually interviewed on television.
What the jurors have reported is that the there was
a consensus. And again I'm relying upon what I'm seeing
on reports. I'm not involved in the defense or the prosecution,
and I'm small enough as a lawyer to know I
(23:46):
don't have all the information. But as a talk show host,
I have to give you what I think, and from
what I have seen publicly, it looks to me like
it's possible that that jury could have come to the
conclusion that she was not guilty of murder, which involves
obviously intent, and that that she was not involved in
(24:07):
leaving the scene of an accident, but she was careless
and reckless, and you could reconcile those decisions. And they apparently,
I think I saw somewhere that they their their straw
vote was nine to three in favor of conviction on manslaughter.
And you can see where a jury would say, Okay,
(24:27):
she didn't intend to kill him. She she she didn't
realize she hit him, She backed up, she wasn't. Maybe
she thought she hit a mailbox. Maybe she didn't think
she hid anything, and and and that knocked him out
and he died. Whatever. That's what juries do. That's all
I'm trying to say, And that if the judge had
(24:48):
simply asked that question, you know, madame, rather it was
a it was a man, you know, mister for Perer. Foreman,
are are you telling me that this jury is an
impass on each and every one of the three counts.
And if he had said that is what I am
informing the court. That's it clean and done.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
And I just think going forward, going forward, superior court
judges might be inclined to ask that question so they
don't find themselves in this situation, that's all.
Speaker 5 (25:21):
So we wouldn't be going to another trial. Maybe they
would have already ended, it would have been could have.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Been potentially ended on everything. Or if they were simply
stuck on manslaughter and they they were ready to come
back with clean verdicts on murder at leaving the scene,
then she would face a retrial only on manslaughter. That's
what I'm that's right positing here.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
Okay, all right, Dan, thank you, thank you, no problem.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Well, I hope I clarified it for you. Thanks so much, Steven,
you did a great night. All right, let me go
next to Frank and Hingham. Frank, you're next on nightside.
Welcome is Frank there. We're getting some people who apparently
don't have We'll put Frank on hold. We'll come back
to Frank in a moment, and we would go to
(26:08):
Paul in Dorchester. Paul, welcome that to the night side.
Speaker 6 (26:12):
Thank you, sir. Happy Saint Patrick's day to you and everyone.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
Any many happy more Saint Patrick's days as well. Go
right ahead.
Speaker 6 (26:21):
Well let me warn yet, I've been watching a lot
of Perry Mason lately since I canceled my cable TV.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Nothing like a good Perry Mason weekend. Absolutely, they talk
about three stooges weekends. Go to the Perry Mason Weekend.
Go ahead.
Speaker 6 (26:37):
I'm amazed at how many episodes I never saw my
whole life, I guess, but he's on twice a day.
And I would call this the case of the dog
bite and the broken tail light. The motivation that, yeah,
go ahead.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
I'm saying. Not only is that that preps encapsulates the case,
but it also rhymes. So that's good. Did Perry ever
lose a case that? How many Perry Mason cases have
you seen so far?
Speaker 7 (27:06):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (27:06):
My god, Dan, I I retired a couple of years ago,
and I just got wind of it. So, man, I
can't believe the guy is like, he must still be.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Getting a machine.
Speaker 8 (27:18):
God.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Yeah, Raymond Burr was a machine. He doesn't lose, does he.
I'll tell you I wouldn't want to go up against
Perry Mason, that's for sure. Go ahead. Tell us what
you think about Karen Reid.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
I think, yeah, well Karen Reid, what happened to her?
The motivation for them throwing them out in the snow
was they're all protecting the young nephew or some kid
with the bruised knuckles. The guy went in. Everybody has
had a few too many, and there was a few
too many people and they got into it. It must
have got into a heated discussion in that basement.
Speaker 8 (27:51):
Somehow it came.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Let me, let me if I can ask you, let
me just challenge you a little bit on that theory, Okay,
if I could, And I realized you, well, that's fine
again because of your position as as as a deficionado
of Perry Mason, I'm going to stand back in respect.
But I am a member of the bar here. So
(28:14):
let's assume, from what I know about police officers, you're
telling me something something bad happens in that basement, and
that at some point, however, you know, intoxicated, anyone might
have might not have been. At some point someone said,
you know, I think he's dead, and they all looked
(28:37):
at each other and said what are we going to do?
And they, between all of them, they come up, well,
let's put him on the front lawn. That's what you.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
Write, and then blame Karen.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Whoa whoa? Wait, hold on for a second. So did
they know that Karen had backed up and struck him
with her vehicle when they put him on the front lawn.
Speaker 6 (29:00):
I'm not sure that any of them would be credible
witnesses with their states of intoxication, even.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Her but judgment. I'll tell you if you just if
you've just at a moment where someone's killed, that'll sober
you up real quickly. I'm yes.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
But they didn't have time to think. Dan They says, oh, no, okay,
he's in my house, he's under let's get him out
of here. And then they just didn't think about it.
I don't think it had not a plan ahead of
it that happens.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
No, I don't think there was premeditation, P and D
premeditation and deliberation. But I think from what I know,
and again, assuming you're telling me these were bad people,
that they probably would have said there's a wooded area
about a mile from here.
Speaker 6 (29:41):
No, no, no, okay, they're all very good people. They
were all trying to cover up for the kid. They
don't want to see the kid go to jail. They're
all doing this to say, but yo.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Man, you know you're figured out. Okay, fair enough, fair enough, Okay,
I'm gonna I'm gonna let you go because I'm up
on my break here. I got you in. I think
that you made a very strong case, and I think
a lot of that has to be attributed to the
legal education that you have received watching as much Perry
Mason as you have. So uh, it's I know, I
(30:16):
think it is amazing what you and I appreciate the
fact that you would acknowledge that in the court here
in open court. Thank you, Paul. Happy Saint Patrick's Day,
have a great one. Yeah, thank you very much. We're
just we're just brothers at the bar. That's all I think. Well,
I know one of us is. Let me just say this, Paul,
I suspect very highly that one of us has been
(30:37):
at the bar tonight, if you get my drifts. Okay,
all right, begs, Happy Saint Patrick's Day. Good night. We'll
be back at night Side right after this.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
All right, let's keep rolling here. I'm gonna try Mark
in Cambridge. I think we missed him before. Mark. You
next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (31:04):
Welcome miss Ahead, Happy Friday to your happy Thanksgiving to you. Ah,
I mean, I mean Happy Saint Patrick's Day.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Okay, much clearer, go ahead.
Speaker 8 (31:25):
I'm gonna say like this, she's involved with this with
with John's stuff. This is my opinion. She's she's involved. Okay,
all these theories they're throwing up the knuckles and vest
and I mean, I don't I don't buy it, Okay,
you know, and you have a gentleman, who's who's who's deceased,
(31:46):
a human being oppressing a police officer. And it's just
like she's I've been watching the case closely, and like
she comes into court even Cononi, Judge Canoni even scolded
her coming to court. She's smiling, smirking, like the big
joke and nothing joking about this. You know, I couldn't
agree that.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
I will agree with you totally. There's nothing that's funny
about this. No matter what happened. A person lost their life.
There's no question about that, no question.
Speaker 7 (32:15):
And I'm in tired of my opinion, Like I said,
I mean, I mean, I mean, Judge Canoni already scolded
her once for it, right, and and you know, if
she's found guilty, which in my opinion, I think she
is going to be found guilty, Judge.
Speaker 8 (32:28):
Canoni's going to throw the book at her. I see
it already, And if I were to judge, I.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Would, Yeah, But my sense is that the judge is
not pleased with how the condent how they Again, I
haven't watched a lot of it. It's just an impression
that she's not particularly pleased with how the defense has
comported themselves in this case. I think I think you're
right on that, Mark, and we will see. So you
do you think that they'll come back with a guilty
(32:54):
across the border? Do you think it'll be a split decision.
Speaker 8 (33:02):
It's going I think it's gonna be split because all
the supporters out there. I mean, did you see that.
That's why you know the other side. John's side's gotta
be out there too, just like her side out there with.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Yeah, Okay, Mark, I appreciate it very much. Have a
great weekend and happy Saint Patrick's Day. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 8 (33:23):
Much, you too, And I'm gonna try to get to
that Norwood. Then you're gonna have it, Norwood. I gotta
call the number.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
It's West West next week and I'll give you the
number if you want. Okay, great, all right, thank you,
thank you, have a great night. Let me go next.
Christine is in debt him. Christine, your thoughts on the
Karen Reid case.
Speaker 9 (33:42):
Go right ahead, I say, I'm still saying she was
set up.
Speaker 7 (33:48):
I really do.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Okay, that's fine. How you think it went down.
Speaker 9 (33:54):
I think the cops all just just stood together and
just stood things. And I'm hearing a lot of talk
they were doing some dirty things.
Speaker 7 (34:04):
And I don't know.
Speaker 9 (34:06):
I just but we're also hearing now if it gets
into federal hands, if it does get you know, with
a case could be taken out an off off they
might might.
Speaker 8 (34:19):
Okay, Yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Don't think so, Christine. It's it's a the I believe
that the the U. S Attorney's Office has now confirmed
that any federal investigation was closed. Uh, and this particular case,
a homicide case, would not be be be involved in
(34:42):
federal court. Uh. It's simply a hope, you know, sadly,
but it's simply a homicide case that will be displayed.
Speaker 9 (34:51):
There's a lot of investigations going to go along with life.
They tug the other attorneys and eat that big teeth,
you know, Amarathi. They said there's something's going on there.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
Right again, I know nothing about that. All I do
know is that the US Attorney, as I understand that,
they did not address it when I had Leah Foley
on the show a couple of weeks ago, but subsequently
that they did say that they had concluded their investigation
and that investigation was over. Now this goes back to trial.
(35:29):
I think that's that's where it sits, and I think
that's where it's going to be dealt with in Judge
Canoni's court, for better or worse. Christine, thank you so much,
Thank you much. All Right, we'll talk soon. Okay, you too.
Speaker 9 (35:43):
There's a lot of buzz going around.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Yeah, I hear it, and I'm just trying to deal
with what is real and what may not be real. Thanks, Christine,
will talk so appreciate it. Have a good night. Let
me go to Norman Worcester. Norman, I think you're gonna
rap us for the hour. Go right ahead, Norm.
Speaker 10 (36:00):
Yeah, I mentioned to uh, your preview guy there, Rob
not to mention my last name because uh, and where
I was calling from, because you know, uh, I believe
Karen is guilty and they're all listening to this right now.
So the the Mino's mob would show up my house
tomorrow and be spinning on my driveway.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Yeah, well that we're not going to put your address
out there, so okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 10 (36:27):
So so uh, what what what?
Speaker 2 (36:30):
What what makes you think Norman? You said you said
that with a great deal of certainty. What makes you certain?
Speaker 10 (36:35):
Yes, I do not believe a kid, a dog, and
a bunch of cops uh chilled John and dumthing about
on the different one and that's just uh. And the
Feds investigated that. Now, the the Feds really like headlines
and they really like bringing down bad cops, and they
(36:58):
probably looked into that. And if they found out found
some bad cops that actually killed John, that they love
the headlines. They had that out there and I'm sure
they looked powered into that.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
So that that seems inconsistent, then well what you think
what you think happened? It seems to me that you're inconsistent.
Go ahead, tell me what you think actually happened.
Speaker 10 (37:26):
In your opinion, No, No, Karen hit him sort of
semi accidentally and then but it didn't happen with the
kid and the cops and the dog in the house,
And the Feds looked into that because the Karen's attorneys
and all that stuff was able to get them to
(37:47):
do that, and they were they they tried their best.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
Okay, now, now now you've you've reconciled those two two facts,
and I understand what you're saying. Well, Norm, thank you
very much again. You've you've maintained your anonymity and you've
expressed yourself, which is what we do on Nightside. So
you night when we come back, we will begin your
Saint Patrick's Day weekend celebration. We're going to be talking
(38:16):
with State Senator Nick Collins, who will be in charge
of the big breakfast on Sunday morning. We'll talk with him,
and then I'm going to open it up and get
some stories. I don't know where we're going to take it,
but it's going to be interesting, and who knows, we
may be able to even give away a couple of
T shirts next hour, coming back on Nightside, right after
(38:37):
the eleven o'clock news here on a Friday night,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.