April 22, 2025 • 38 mins
The second murder trial began Tuesday for Karen Read, who is accused of killing her police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe. Prosecutors argue Read backed her SUV into O’Keefe after dropping him off at a party and returned hours later to find him dead. The defense says Read is being framed and is part of a vast conspiracy among the homeowners, law enforcement, and fellow afterparty guests. Read has been charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene. We discussed the trial’s opening statements and discussed how this trial might differ from the 1st trial.
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 Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, today the second trial got started for real. We've
been listening for months about various motions to dismiss and
appeals on how the first trial ended. It was officially
a hung jury, although some of the jurors claimed that
(00:28):
they had agreed while seated as a jury that went
all the way up to the US Supreme Court, went
through the Court of Appeals here in Massachusetts, but to
no avail, and so Karen Reid now faces a second
trial for three charges, fully leave the scene of an accident, manslaughter,
(00:48):
and murdering the second degree. So a lot of people
have opinions on this case, and I thought this is
the night when we could really talk about this from
whatever perspective you want fairness obviously, there are things that
(01:08):
all of us can agree upon, whatever side of the
divide you stand on, whether you're on the Karen Reid
side or the prosecution side. We do know that a
man and Boston police officer lost his life. So that
is something that I think we as society need need
(01:30):
to figure out. And the way we figure that out
is through jury trials and presentation of evidence in courtrooms. Again.
This is a trial that has not only dominated the
news here in New England, but once again is a
national news story and in some respects an international news story.
(01:52):
I know people in San Diego, California who listen to
this program who are deeply invested in the trial. I
don't know what happened that that that January morning. I
don't know anyone who's listening knows exactly what happened for sure.
(02:13):
For certain, we all have opinions. I have an opinion,
but I don't view my opinion as a fact. Today,
the prosecutor and the one of the defense attorneys, Alan Jackson,
begin with their presentation. Now, uh, the prosecutors a fellow
named Hank Brennan. He's primarily a defense attorney, has made
(02:33):
his reputation as a defense attorney and was brought in
as a special prosecutor. He was not involved in the
first prosecution. He's brought in as a special prosecutor in
this case. And he made his presentation and unfortunately, the
audio I'm not sure if he was standing away from
the microphones, but the audio is is difficult to hear.
(02:57):
But I do want to play a little bit in
fairness to him, the audio from Alan Jackson is much better.
This we're gonna first start off Rob. This again is
the prosecutor, Hank Brennan, talking about Karen Reid's actions, in
(03:18):
which she she discloses to mutual friend that she thinks
John got hit her boyfriend, John O'Keefe got hit by
a plow. Again. I wish the audio was better, So
we'll just play this. This is cut twenty A. Please
listen carefully, okay. Twenty eight Rob, she got.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Manslated, calls another purse, Kerry Roberts, a friend of John O'Keeffe.
Some of those not friends with defendant, but they know
because they helped raise the kids. When they interacted. She
had nothing to do with the night before, wasn't at
the bars, was home with her family. She calls her
and says, I think John hit by a plow.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
I think he said.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
I'll start with that in.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Call hospitals. Hear her voice, man, and then he gives
not a call on a bit of bank and he
tells me the ban comes.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
To my house.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I will help you most him and I I don't
remember anything.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Okay. So that's the prosecutor. I want to play a
little bit of the defense lawyer, Alan Jackson, who was
the defense lawyer in the first case. He wanted the
defense lawyers and he he has some some interesting comments here.
(04:48):
He speaks about this case as definitively as he can
that basically his argument in this case is made up
out of whole cloth, and it was an effort to
convict an innocent woman and to cover up the actual
(05:09):
circumstances that led to the death of John O'Keefe. Let's start,
if we can, with cut number twenty seven. Please rob
cut twenty seven. This is the defense attorney.
Speaker 6 (05:24):
You will learn that John did not have a single
injury consistent with being.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Hit by a car.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
Let me say that again. The evidence will establish that
John did not suffer a single injury on his body
consistent with having been hit by a car, not one.
You'll learn that John's torso, his ribs, his chest, his arms,
his hips, his legs, his knees, his ankles, his feet,
all of them. No broken bones, no fractures, no contusions,
(05:56):
no torn ligaments, no internal injuries, not even a bruise.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Alan Jackson, he goes what essentially the argument that he
wants to make is that John O'Keeffe went into the
home where he was dropped off that night by Karen Reid,
and that something happened inside the home, and that when
(06:27):
John O'Keeffe was found, he had what looked like bite
marks on his arm. So this is cut injury number
twenty eight.
Speaker 6 (06:37):
Please, Rob, we'll take one look at these injuries and
you'll agree with doctor Lafasata. The evidence will show that
these injuries are from an animal, like a large dog,
like the large dog that was inside the Albert house
that night. You'll learn that Brian Albert has actually admitted
that his large dog, the family dog, is quote not
(06:59):
good with strangers, and of course John, ever having been
to the house before, was this.
Speaker 7 (07:04):
Stranger that night.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
You'll also learned that oddly, very oddly, after having their
family pet for seven years, a short time after this incident,
the Albert's got rid of that dog. They called it
rehoming her, but she was gone.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
And then the final SoundBite that I want to play
from Alan Jackson, and again the audio on his presentation
is clearer, so you'll understand his arguments pretty succinctly completely.
This is his final comments to the jury today. Cut
number thirty Robin.
Speaker 6 (07:51):
By the end of this trial, you'll conclude that Karen
Reid is not guilty of hitting John O'Keefe with her SUV.
There was no collision. She's the victim of a botched
and biased and corrupted investigation that was never about the truth, folks,
it was about preserving loyalty. You'll find that this case
(08:12):
is the very definition of reasonable doubt. And at the
end of this trial, we'll ask you to return the
only verdicts, all three of them, that are consistent with
the evidence, the science, the truth, and justice. Not guilty,
not guilty, not guilty.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Now, the prosecutor, Hank Brennan has in his arsenal in
this retrial statements that Karen Reid made during some television
interviews she made voluntarily, which in the last hour Phil
Tracy was alluding to, which were not available because she
(08:59):
made these comments between trial the ending of trial one
in the beginning of trial number two. So it's going
to be an interesting trial. And I would like to
know if there's anywhere else anyone out there tonight who
does not have an opinion on this. If you want
to express your opinion, you are more than welcome. But
if there's anyone out there tonight who is either so
(09:19):
confused that you do not have an opinion as to
what happened, or or if you have an opinion either way.
Six seven, two, five, four ten thirty six one seven, nine,
three one ten thirty. This has been just an extraordinary
trial to follow. It is now national and international news.
(09:42):
I have no idea how this is trial is going
to come out. I know many of you are convinced
that it's going to come out one way or the other.
If you have had that conviction, you like to join
the conversation. Great. As the trial goes on, I'm sure
we are going to continue to follow the resus else
on a daily basis, and that there will be uh
(10:06):
developments uh and and surprises uh and uh and witnesses
that uh that that may pull you back and forth.
But let's start with a relatively clean slate tonight and
see what my listeners think. Six one seven, two, four
ten thirty, six one seven, nine three ten thirty. This
is nightside and we're not trying the case. But man,
(10:29):
I'll tell you this is I cannot I cannot remember
a case in New England that drew as much interest
as this one, and and I'd love to talk about
it with you back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
It's night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
All right, the only line that is open is six, one, seven, nine,
ten thirty. We have a guest coming up at ten o'clock,
so don't don't be shy if you want to jump
on board and talk about this. We will close this
part of the conversation up at by ten. So some people,
I think Rob has told me'd like to wait until
(11:12):
like ten of the hours so they get the last
word in. Well, you won't get in with the last
word tonight. Let me go to Grant and Belmont. Greg
you're a next your first this hour night Side. Thanks
for getting us going, Grant, go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
Thanks for having the conversation.
Speaker 8 (11:27):
Dan.
Speaker 5 (11:27):
It's great to be back with you.
Speaker 6 (11:31):
Dan.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
This trial has captivated America. But what I noticed today
was two things. One Karen Reid was down to about
twenty five supporters, and two, Hank Brennan is a different
prosecutor than Adam Lally, and I thought he presented a
case with no notes that a jury could buy.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Well, I have a lot of faith in Hank Brennan's
ability as a lawyer. I thought Jackson did a great
job as well. Well. I will tell you the audio
levels that I have to deal with tonight. I can
play a little bit more of the Hank Brennan presentation,
(12:09):
but to be honest with you, the audio is not
nearly as it should be. Let me play one more
SoundBite here from from the prosecutor in the case, and
let me Rob just trying to be fair here, but
it is much tougher to listen to. I want you
(12:31):
to react to it for me, grant. This is cut
number twenty three. Rob.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I simply asked you to follow the evidence, follow the signs,
follow the day, ignore speculation and surmise conjecture. Stay true
to the evidence.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
It will lead you through the truth.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
That on Ganoid twenty nine twenty twenty two are very prosecuted.
And was angry and arguing about the relationship up with
John O'Keefe. And after the fight was over, she left,
but she brought the fight back hand the.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
Form of her SUV.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
She clipped him and fell backwards.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
He broke his head.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And then this man who helped a lifetime of help
was left help the fascinata in the dance moving into
the truth and it defends all words from everything he looted.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
What I didn't understand about that, Grant, was he he
implied that they had had an argument, uh, and that
she brought the argument back to him, I guess by
backing into him or clipping him with the SUV. It
was a little vague from I wanted to know more
with much more specificity, you know, if he felt that,
(13:50):
you know, she had put the car in. My thought
is that the car might have been inadvertently in reverse
and she went to you know, to drive away quickly
and inadvertently backed up. But maybe he did not want
to make that concession because that could take away that
that would that would leave her open to manslaughter, but
would take away theoretically that the the secondary murdered murder.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
Yeah, Dan, absolutely, And I can give you a little
context there, which is that Karen was cheating on John
in the relationship.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
So please do me a favor as long if this
evidence look you know again, please don't do that to me. Okay,
if evidence has been put in in the case, I
have no idea what your source on that is, Grant. Uh.
And therefore, as the judge here on nights side, I'm
going to not allow that.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
In go ahead, Well, I promise you it's in the
evidentiary record, Dan, I would when.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
When it when it when it appears during this trial.
When it when it is in the record in this trial.
And someone wants to bring it up, that's okay. But
I do not want it to be brought up. You know,
I I followed the didn't follow it as closely as
you did. I know that there was some jealousies and
all of that. I just I'm not going to go there, Grant,
because it's it's it's not fair to my audience.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
But that's there, Dan.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
And I'll just conclude by saying, I think what Brennan
was saying was the two were in an argument. Karen
Reid's blood alcohol was point one three to two point
two nine, and there's data showing the car collided with John.
That's enough for a conviction.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Okay, So you you believe in the conviction again. I
you know again, I know that there were folks I
know who you are, and I know that there are
folks out there who followed this case very closely, which
you know I admire. But until it comes in in
evidence in the second trial, the trial that Hank Brennan
(15:43):
is going to put on. I don't want it on
my show, so we'll just well let it go with that.
I appreciate your call and feel free to call again. Thanks,
Thanks Gren, Thanks Jan, have a great night. Let me
keep rolling. You're going to go to John and Kingston.
John Welcome. How are you sir?
Speaker 4 (16:00):
How you doing Dan?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
I'm doing fine. Trying to control trying to control this
a quoted public opinion.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
This whole thing, Like what I know, everyone gets behind
all this. What was his toxicology and what did he
actually die of? Was it blunt force trauma? Was he
in the bag with the drugs in the system. It
seems odd that someone going to back into him he
falls over and just doesn't get up from the snow.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Well again, I I don't know, and I'm interested to
see what the you know, what what trial? What the
trial is? What what evidence comes in at the trial? Okay,
that's that's the only thing the jury is supposed to hear.
I don't know if this jury is a questioned I
don't believe. I haven't heard anything that it has that
(16:52):
it has been sequestered. So you know, let's you know,
let's see what happens as we go. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
I don't know the first trial was there was it
a system? Was he you know?
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I don't know that that a so called blood blood
back of blood alcohol content was done on Reid or
other on John O'Keeffe. This video that I saw, they
were both apparently drinking at a bar. And if they
drink it at a bar, I assume they it includes alcohol.
There was no suggestion that either one of them were
just drinking you know, Lime Ricky's or something like that,
(17:31):
if anybody remembers Lime Ricky's. But no, it's uh, something happened.
What we know is that one individual is dead. Someone's dead,
and the prosecution obviously believes that Karen Reid was the
cause of his death. Uh. The the defense is trying
(17:55):
to make the argument that O'Keeffe winning the house, some
sort of a fight ensued and he was attacked by
individuals and or a dog. But my question has always been,
and I don't know if if you want to react
to this, my question has always been, if he was
(18:17):
killed in the house and there were a bunch of
other people there, including police officers, would someone turn around
and say, I got a great idea, let's get him
out of the house and put plant him on the
front lawn.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
I get it, But what was his actual cause of death?
Was it like blunt for sir?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Uh? Well, there will be autopsy results. I don't know,
and if someone you know again, I'm sure that there'll
be medical officials on the stand. Uh, medical experts.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
I don't get. I'll get the whole. However, one's all
infatuated by it, you know. Yeah, well that people get behind.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
You know, yeah, I mean, well, obviously there's a lot
of people out there who are convinced that she's being framed.
And then there's a lot of people out there who
convince it was her vehicle. They buy the prosecution case
that her vehicle backed into him, either inadvertently or intentionally.
(19:22):
And I don't know, I don't know that that there's
there's gonna be no videotape which is going to prove
to us. You know, a jury will come back with
a decision, But there's no videotape. It wasn't like there
was a camera uh trained on the front of the
house that night, and we can look at the camera
and we can see what happened.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Mixed bag for the jury again.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
You know, I'm kind of thinking that as well. I
think that the jurors might say, we we need to
come back with some decision here and maybe again, but they.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
Will we don't really, we can't tell either way. So therefore, yeah,
you know, figure it out. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I don't know that they I don't know that we're
gonna get a second hung jury. That's I I kind.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
Of think of guarantee if there is one, they'll definitely
pull the jury this time.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Right, Yeah, I would say, I would think. I think
I think you're right on that. John. Thank you very
much for your call. As always, I appreciated, have a
great talk again. Thanks. Okay, here comes the news a
couple of minutes late, but I didn't want a short change, John,
so we'll be back on night side. I have one
line which John just vacated six one, seven, two five four,
ten thirty, and I have one line at six one seven,
(20:36):
nine three one ten thirty. Uh. This is a it's
a big case. It's been a case that's going on
a long time. I haven't figured it out. Maybe you have.
We'll be back on nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
It's Nightside with w Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Thanks shre You know it's interesting. The only only person
who really, I guess, knows what happened for certain is
Karen Reid. And if she really believes, as I apparently
think she does, that she's innocent, that she did nothing
(21:17):
to hurt John O'Keefe, Boy, what an experience this has
been for her. And who knows where the jury where
the jury will come out in a few weeks from now.
If if she's if she in her in her soul
knows that that she did, in a moment of anger,
(21:39):
do something that she now regrets. What a burden that
is it. I mean, we all make mistakes in life,
but this is a huge mistake in some form of fashion,
and it's up to the courts, in twelve jurors to
figure it out. And that is something to think of
(22:02):
the next time that you get real angry. I guess
as I have, and as I think most of us
have at some point, Alex and millis Alex next on nights,
I go ahead.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
Guilty or.
Speaker 7 (22:22):
Oh you're still there?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
He yeah, I am. Were you on some sort of
device or something?
Speaker 7 (22:29):
Oh no, I got distracted. I'm sorry, what do you mean?
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Okay, you you sounded off microphone. I wasn't sure if
you were on some sort of different device.
Speaker 7 (22:40):
Oh no, no, no it was it was something going
on in the other room, and I wasn't sure. So anyway,
what I'm offering you, I.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Don't understand that. But that's okay. You were talking but
we weren't able to hear you.
Speaker 7 (22:54):
Well, so go ahead, okay, okay, I jumped the gun.
So aren't they able to extract data from the SUV?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Because yeah, that's that is something that the prosecution. That
is something that the prosecution has implied that they have,
and that sort of forensics could be very important in
this trial, depending upon what that data says.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
Obviously, right and fast forward. So, if she is found
out guilty or if there is a hung jury, the
money that she's raised the legal defense fund, and if
she becomes very wealthy because of this, will she be
obligated to pay that back? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (23:35):
No? No? First of all, I think that whatever money
has been raised for her, her legal firepower will more
than eat up that money. These are not inexpensive lawyers
who are representing her. And even if there's some money
left over if if she's able to spend it, meaning
(23:57):
if she gets in guilty verdict, I think she certainly
would deserve some time off to resurrect your life. Yeah,
interesting question.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
Yeah, they say, you know, they make you make your
bed and you lie in it. But I mean, you know,
I don't know. She's an never She's supposed to be
a very intelligent woman. I'm not trying to. I'm not
trying to.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You know, she is an intelligent woman. She she taught
I believe, was it accounting or something like that at
Babson if I'm not mistaken of one of the Yeah,
so yeah, clearly she's an intelligent woman. But intelligent people
sometimes do stupid things.
Speaker 7 (24:34):
Yeah, how do you get yourself involved with these things?
Speaker 2 (24:37):
You know?
Speaker 7 (24:38):
Or certain people?
Speaker 2 (24:39):
I don't get it, well, Alex. Intelligent people have been
known to do stupid things, and people who are under
the influence of alcohol sometimes exercise poor judgment. And sometimes
when you mix in emotions, they say, you know, a
(24:59):
fine line, a thin line between love and hate. I mean, look,
you know, it's I think you're experienced enough to be
able to understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 7 (25:07):
I know, thanks, thank.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Yeah, Yeah, I think yeah, the nuns gave you probably
if you talk by nuns. I gave you good advice
to avoid occasions of sin. I got you. Thanks Alex,
Doc deal later. Have a great night, Gail and Siduate. Gail,
thank you for that lovely magazine that you sent me
with all sorts of chocolate recipes.
Speaker 9 (25:30):
Oh you're welcome.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Dan. Just reading it, just just reading it, I put
on I think three pounds. I never only teasing.
Speaker 9 (25:40):
I know, I know what you mean. I went through
it myself. I thought, oh my lord, oh my lordy.
So when I saw it, I thought, I go.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
I send this to Dan.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (25:50):
You're welcome. So Dan, I have followed the case a
little bit, not entirely. And the one thing that keeps
making me think, you know, I keep wondering about is
how John O'Keefe got outside and why was he outside?
So he goes into the Albert's house. It's clearly evident
(26:11):
that he was attacked by the Albert's dog, which I
believe was the German shepherd. And when you get attacked
by a dog like that, it's pretty traumatic. So he
goes outside somehow, and Alan Jackson even said there was
no bodily injury to him whatsoever. So Alan Jackson needs
to get hold of that autopsy report. The autopsy report,
(26:35):
it's going to explain everything that I think. There's a
possibility maybe he had a heart attack or aneurysm, and
then he's left out in the snow, he you know,
falls back and guys of hypothermia, which adds to it.
I mean, I'm just I think that autopsy report is
gonna is going to explain plenty.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, that's true, But then the question is, let's assume
that he did go into the house. Make that assumption
for a moment, and let's assume that you're right that
the dog bit him or jumped at him, and maybe,
you know, the normal reaction of a dog owner is
to try to pull the dog off. I mean, that's
(27:14):
what normally would happen. And let's assume everybody's had a
few drinks and he's mad, I'm going to get the
hell out of here, and he walks outside and he
let's assume, you know, he has some sort of stroke
or whatever you want to you know, aneurysm, whatever, right, right,
Why would then the people who were in the house,
(27:39):
even if they didn't have the good sense to go
out and check and make sure. And when you walk
when he walked away, I mean, wouldn't someone say, hey,
where you're going? You know, you need a ride somewhere?
I mean, assuming that there was no hostility, right, and
why would they not have at least said, yeah, he
came in the house and our dog attacked him. It's
(27:59):
not our fault that the dog is very protective. No,
they they all testified he never came in the house.
Speaker 9 (28:09):
Albert's testified he did not. John o'keef did not go
in the house.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
I believe and again I believe that the police report
that Proctor put together, uh suggested that that that he
never had gone in the house. I don't think there's
any evidence. Look, if there was any evidence that he
went in the house, if there was any evidence that
he went in the house, why is Karen Reid on trial?
Speaker 9 (28:35):
Right, Well, we cannot go by what Proctor said in
his report because he's not credible enough. You know, he
would say that the boogeyman exists. We have to, like
I think, we have to take Proctor out of the
picture because in order for the only well, what we
know is that he had bite marks from an animal
from a dog on his arm. Alan Jackson said that,
(28:57):
so somehow John o'keef came into contact with the Albert's
dog and so ended up outside. So that's where it's
that's where the question is. And I think that I
really think that that that oh god, what's it called again?
The report? The oh, I forgot the name of the report.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Autopsy autopsy, Jackson is saying. Jackson said he had no
other injuries. Okay, So so let's assume that he was
Let's let's keep it simple. Well, let's let's let's let's
say that he's that she drives off, doesn't hit him,
and he's so drunk, hypothetically that he falls down in
(29:38):
the snow. Okay, And and let's assume that you know,
maybe you know, he just fell in the snow, and
there could be any animal out there at night that
could be out there, could be a fox or whatever.
But let's assume why would the why would the the
(30:02):
Alberts or whomever was in that house. Someone should have
should have gone on the record and said, look, never
came in the house. I mean, if they have nothing
to hide, okay. And I'm not saying that they did anything.
But you would think that at some point, well, I'm
saying that at some point Proctor would have would have,
you know, filed the report. I don't know all the
(30:22):
specifics of the case, but but you would you think
it's either he got hit by the car or he
went in the house and something bad happened and he
got put out in the lawn. I think those are
the two options. Would you agree?
Speaker 9 (30:36):
Well, I'm not sure if I can, because the Alberts
could be lying. They could be lying just to stay
out of it.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
No, but I'm saying there's only no what I'm saying,
there's only whoa. But but if he never came in
the house and and the police found someone dead on
by lawn tomorrow morning, I would be out there and saying,
what the hell's going on?
Speaker 4 (30:57):
Pretend?
Speaker 9 (30:58):
So let's pretend that John o'keef did not go in
the Elbert's house, and somehow the dog was outside. He
gets attacked by the dog, German shepherd, big dog, you know,
heavy bite, the heavy bite, uh pressure, that's going to
leave a mark on your arm. So he gets the
he gets the bite marks from the dog which is
probably outside, and then somehow in some maybe drunken, stupidor
(31:19):
he falls and that's when he's that's how he gets outside.
Well he's outside anyway, and that's how he ends up
on the snow. But I really think that autopsy report
is going to tell everything.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Well, let's let us hope, let us hope. Gail always
great to talk to me here. Thank you so much.
You've you've maybe confused some people and confused me a
little bit, but but you've you've raised really good questions
and I really do appreciate. Let's focus on the autopsy report. Uh,
maybe I'll do a little research on that and try
to find out what was entered during in the first trial.
In that, Okay, well on the.
Speaker 9 (31:50):
Second ten how old was John Keith? Was he in
his forties?
Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think somewhere in that. I'm just.
Speaker 9 (31:58):
Like, once you get if he was like forty five
and above, you know, once you get past forty five,
anything can happen. So I'm listening. It's a possibility he
could have had a heart attack on aneurysm, and and
you know, yeah, it.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Comes back to injury, back to the autopsy. Certainly it
was a sudden death. There should be an autopsy and
we'll try to figure out what that says. I gotta run, Gail.
I thank you so much. We'll talk soon. Okay, you're
gonna join us on Sunday at.
Speaker 8 (32:24):
The brunch or no, I'm sorry, I can't.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Okay, no problem, no problem, gonna have a big crowd anyway,
Thanks Gail, talk to you soon. Quick break here on Nightside,
coming right back.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Okay, back to the phones to go. We're gonna try
to get everybody in the lake callers. I don't think
you're gonna make it. Let me go to Paul in Dorchester.
Paul next on Nightside.
Speaker 10 (32:49):
Go ahead, Hey Dan, can you tell me the investigators
ever enter the premises the of the home?
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Yes?
Speaker 10 (32:57):
Or no?
Speaker 2 (32:58):
My recollect And again I'm not an expert in this case.
Is that Proctor, Michael Proctor never went into the house. Okay,
now as an investigator.
Speaker 10 (33:11):
Okay, that's okay, that's one thing. Now, how did all
the cell phones get disposed of? They was destroyed? They
were okay, whatever happened was the dog Chloe? How do
you get me.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
When I guess the phrase they used that Chloe was rehomed.
I don't know if Chloe is alive today. I don't
know if Chloe has gone on to that big dog
pound in the sky. I really don't know.
Speaker 10 (33:42):
I bet, I bet Chloe had a new bright smile,
at least I was. I was would not be funny
he came in with a human smile, you know, I
guess I think the dog disappeared? Now did they not
sell that at home? And also they refurnished the floor of.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
That I read stuff like that, But I read stuff
like that, but again I don't have I haven't followed
this trial as closely as I as I would like.
I'm hoping people like you either ask questions or provide information.
That's that's the injury tonight.
Speaker 10 (34:19):
The injury seem inconsistent with getting backed into buy a car.
If you get bumped by a car, you may get
a bump in like one spot and fell got in
his head. But like the woman was saying, I don't
see how the puncture wounds were there from from that?
How and also how the in the in the tail
light they had it backwards in the auto shopped them
(34:42):
and and and the dog disappeared. That's what gets me,
Man how can you get rid of your dog after
eight years?
Speaker 2 (34:48):
Yeah, that's true. I don't I don't quite understand, Paul,
I got a bunch of others. Isn't going to try
to get a couple more in at least? Okay? Thanks man,
We ready to smiled. You raised the questions. You raised
the questions, and it raised them.
Speaker 8 (35:00):
Well.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Thank you, John and hanover John next on nightside, A
little tight on time, Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
John, Hey, Dan, good evening.
Speaker 11 (35:06):
I was a witness at a trial once in Quincy
District Court. I was the only witness and vendant was
a buddy of mine, and I'll tell you twenty years later.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
He was innocent.
Speaker 11 (35:14):
But someone in the case knew the district attorney of
someone in their office, so they brought someone in from
Middlesex to prosecute, and it was our governor more heally
at the time this kid got convicted. It forever shook
my faith in our judicial system, because I know he
wasna Yeah what.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Was he convicted of? Without you don't give me much
information about you know, his name or anything, but what
what was he? What was he charged with?
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Uh?
Speaker 11 (35:38):
It was the charge was domestic He was my roommate.
Speaker 7 (35:41):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (35:42):
We had a mutual friend.
Speaker 7 (35:43):
She came all over.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
I thought she was I thought I was getting lucky.
It turned out to be a setup.
Speaker 11 (35:46):
It was his ex girlfriend and he came home and
she beat him up a little bit, and he picked
her up and put her outside the door and then
just stared me down, you know, And it was just
it's one of those things.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
She was assumed. Did she not testify? You were a witness?
Did she not testify?
Speaker 11 (36:02):
No, she didn't. She she called it in like a
couple of days later, her father called us and gave
us a heads up. My roommate and her were both
kind of, I don't want to say disturbed, but they
had some emotional problems in high school.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
That's how they met.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Uh was your roommate and was your roommate male or female?
Speaker 4 (36:19):
He was a male and she was a female.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
So so if how did they get how did they
get the evidence in? If she didn't testify.
Speaker 11 (36:27):
It was a statement that they brought forth. But the
whole point was they brought me forth as a witness,
the only one. And I was indifferent because I had
thrown him out because he owed me money for rent
at that point, because it was a months later, and
the way more heally conducted herself was like she was
trying to sell a story to the jewelry and she
didn't really care what I had to say at all,
(36:48):
And it just I was founded.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
But it certainly, it certainly doesn't sound like it was
something that should make the judicial system proud. John. Interesting, interesting,
a little off topic, but very interesting. Thank you so much. Yeah,
have a good night, you too. Mixed up last one
of the hour, Chuck and Plymouth. Chuck, I got about
a minute for you, would you Lake?
Speaker 8 (37:10):
Thank of my call. You know, I think Alan Jackson's
done a great job of mutting the waters with with
the Snell phones being destroyed and the floor being redone
in the house being sold. But people need to follow
the facts. So many people are like, oh my god,
she has to be innocent because Procer lick through her
phone for nudes.
Speaker 4 (37:25):
What a rude jerk.
Speaker 8 (37:27):
If they follow the facts, they could figure it out
what I think happened in this case. If if he
in anyway o'keith entered that house, and how did he
get out if they dragged him outside he was dead.
Don't you think he'd leave a plow from two guys
carrying a man outside of the house. I think he
got hit by the car, hit his head on the ground,
and then I think a snowplow goosed him up on
(37:47):
the sidewalk, and that's where he died, on the sidewalk,
after a plow goosted him up there. But if the
bottom line is this, like you said, either somebody went
in the house, he went in the house and got
beat or you hit on the car. And even you said,
you said it best she wouldn't be on trial if
he went in the house. How can all those people
in the house keep a secret for this long? No,
(38:10):
that one that one giving anything saying that, Oh my god,
I just saw that.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
That's that's that's a strong argument. And what do you plan?
I don't know, you know it just neither story. Really,
there's nothing that's clear cut here. So let's let's hope
the evidence is presented more effectively by both sides. Hey, Chuck,
I appreciate.
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Thanks man.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Okay, thank you, Chock. That's it. We're going to talk
about tariffs. Unfortunately, those of you who are still on
the line, I told you Paul earlier, you're not going
to get on because we got the ten o'clock news.
Back on night Side, We're going to talk about tariffs
with a Boston University business professor from their business school.
He's a really good we'll we'll introduce you to him
(38:56):
right after this
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, today the second trial got started for real. We've
been listening for months about various motions to dismiss and
appeals on how the first trial ended. It was officially
a hung jury, although some of the jurors claimed that
(00:28):
they had agreed while seated as a jury that went
all the way up to the US Supreme Court, went
through the Court of Appeals here in Massachusetts, but to
no avail, and so Karen Reid now faces a second
trial for three charges, fully leave the scene of an accident, manslaughter,
(00:48):
and murdering the second degree. So a lot of people
have opinions on this case, and I thought this is
the night when we could really talk about this from
whatever perspective you want fairness obviously, there are things that
(01:08):
all of us can agree upon, whatever side of the
divide you stand on, whether you're on the Karen Reid
side or the prosecution side. We do know that a
man and Boston police officer lost his life. So that
is something that I think we as society need need
(01:30):
to figure out. And the way we figure that out
is through jury trials and presentation of evidence in courtrooms. Again.
This is a trial that has not only dominated the
news here in New England, but once again is a
national news story and in some respects an international news story.
(01:52):
I know people in San Diego, California who listen to
this program who are deeply invested in the trial. I
don't know what happened that that that January morning. I
don't know anyone who's listening knows exactly what happened for sure.
(02:13):
For certain, we all have opinions. I have an opinion,
but I don't view my opinion as a fact. Today,
the prosecutor and the one of the defense attorneys, Alan Jackson,
begin with their presentation. Now, uh, the prosecutors a fellow
named Hank Brennan. He's primarily a defense attorney, has made
(02:33):
his reputation as a defense attorney and was brought in
as a special prosecutor. He was not involved in the
first prosecution. He's brought in as a special prosecutor in
this case. And he made his presentation and unfortunately, the
audio I'm not sure if he was standing away from
the microphones, but the audio is is difficult to hear.
(02:57):
But I do want to play a little bit in
fairness to him, the audio from Alan Jackson is much better.
This we're gonna first start off Rob. This again is
the prosecutor, Hank Brennan, talking about Karen Reid's actions, in
(03:18):
which she she discloses to mutual friend that she thinks
John got hit her boyfriend, John O'Keefe got hit by
a plow. Again. I wish the audio was better, So
we'll just play this. This is cut twenty A. Please
listen carefully, okay. Twenty eight Rob, she got.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Manslated, calls another purse, Kerry Roberts, a friend of John O'Keeffe.
Some of those not friends with defendant, but they know
because they helped raise the kids. When they interacted. She
had nothing to do with the night before, wasn't at
the bars, was home with her family. She calls her
and says, I think John hit by a plow.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
I think he said.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
I'll start with that in.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Call hospitals. Hear her voice, man, and then he gives
not a call on a bit of bank and he
tells me the ban comes.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
To my house.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I will help you most him and I I don't
remember anything.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Okay. So that's the prosecutor. I want to play a
little bit of the defense lawyer, Alan Jackson, who was
the defense lawyer in the first case. He wanted the
defense lawyers and he he has some some interesting comments here.
(04:48):
He speaks about this case as definitively as he can
that basically his argument in this case is made up
out of whole cloth, and it was an effort to
convict an innocent woman and to cover up the actual
(05:09):
circumstances that led to the death of John O'Keefe. Let's start,
if we can, with cut number twenty seven. Please rob
cut twenty seven. This is the defense attorney.
Speaker 6 (05:24):
You will learn that John did not have a single
injury consistent with being.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Hit by a car.
Speaker 6 (05:32):
Let me say that again. The evidence will establish that
John did not suffer a single injury on his body
consistent with having been hit by a car, not one.
You'll learn that John's torso, his ribs, his chest, his arms,
his hips, his legs, his knees, his ankles, his feet,
all of them. No broken bones, no fractures, no contusions,
(05:56):
no torn ligaments, no internal injuries, not even a bruise.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Alan Jackson, he goes what essentially the argument that he
wants to make is that John O'Keeffe went into the
home where he was dropped off that night by Karen Reid,
and that something happened inside the home, and that when
(06:27):
John O'Keeffe was found, he had what looked like bite
marks on his arm. So this is cut injury number
twenty eight.
Speaker 6 (06:37):
Please, Rob, we'll take one look at these injuries and
you'll agree with doctor Lafasata. The evidence will show that
these injuries are from an animal, like a large dog,
like the large dog that was inside the Albert house
that night. You'll learn that Brian Albert has actually admitted
that his large dog, the family dog, is quote not
(06:59):
good with strangers, and of course John, ever having been
to the house before, was this.
Speaker 7 (07:04):
Stranger that night.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
You'll also learned that oddly, very oddly, after having their
family pet for seven years, a short time after this incident,
the Albert's got rid of that dog. They called it
rehoming her, but she was gone.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
And then the final SoundBite that I want to play
from Alan Jackson, and again the audio on his presentation
is clearer, so you'll understand his arguments pretty succinctly completely.
This is his final comments to the jury today. Cut
number thirty Robin.
Speaker 6 (07:51):
By the end of this trial, you'll conclude that Karen
Reid is not guilty of hitting John O'Keefe with her SUV.
There was no collision. She's the victim of a botched
and biased and corrupted investigation that was never about the truth, folks,
it was about preserving loyalty. You'll find that this case
(08:12):
is the very definition of reasonable doubt. And at the
end of this trial, we'll ask you to return the
only verdicts, all three of them, that are consistent with
the evidence, the science, the truth, and justice. Not guilty,
not guilty, not guilty.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Now, the prosecutor, Hank Brennan has in his arsenal in
this retrial statements that Karen Reid made during some television
interviews she made voluntarily, which in the last hour Phil
Tracy was alluding to, which were not available because she
(08:59):
made these comments between trial the ending of trial one
in the beginning of trial number two. So it's going
to be an interesting trial. And I would like to
know if there's anywhere else anyone out there tonight who
does not have an opinion on this. If you want
to express your opinion, you are more than welcome. But
if there's anyone out there tonight who is either so
(09:19):
confused that you do not have an opinion as to
what happened, or or if you have an opinion either way.
Six seven, two, five, four ten thirty six one seven, nine,
three one ten thirty. This has been just an extraordinary
trial to follow. It is now national and international news.
(09:42):
I have no idea how this is trial is going
to come out. I know many of you are convinced
that it's going to come out one way or the other.
If you have had that conviction, you like to join
the conversation. Great. As the trial goes on, I'm sure
we are going to continue to follow the resus else
on a daily basis, and that there will be uh
(10:06):
developments uh and and surprises uh and uh and witnesses
that uh that that may pull you back and forth.
But let's start with a relatively clean slate tonight and
see what my listeners think. Six one seven, two, four
ten thirty, six one seven, nine three ten thirty. This
is nightside and we're not trying the case. But man,
(10:29):
I'll tell you this is I cannot I cannot remember
a case in New England that drew as much interest
as this one, and and I'd love to talk about
it with you back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
It's night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
All right, the only line that is open is six, one, seven, nine,
ten thirty. We have a guest coming up at ten o'clock,
so don't don't be shy if you want to jump
on board and talk about this. We will close this
part of the conversation up at by ten. So some people,
I think Rob has told me'd like to wait until
(11:12):
like ten of the hours so they get the last
word in. Well, you won't get in with the last
word tonight. Let me go to Grant and Belmont. Greg
you're a next your first this hour night Side. Thanks
for getting us going, Grant, go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
Thanks for having the conversation.
Speaker 8 (11:27):
Dan.
Speaker 5 (11:27):
It's great to be back with you.
Speaker 6 (11:31):
Dan.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
This trial has captivated America. But what I noticed today
was two things. One Karen Reid was down to about
twenty five supporters, and two, Hank Brennan is a different
prosecutor than Adam Lally, and I thought he presented a
case with no notes that a jury could buy.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Well, I have a lot of faith in Hank Brennan's
ability as a lawyer. I thought Jackson did a great
job as well. Well. I will tell you the audio
levels that I have to deal with tonight. I can
play a little bit more of the Hank Brennan presentation,
(12:09):
but to be honest with you, the audio is not
nearly as it should be. Let me play one more
SoundBite here from from the prosecutor in the case, and
let me Rob just trying to be fair here, but
it is much tougher to listen to. I want you
(12:31):
to react to it for me, grant. This is cut
number twenty three. Rob.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
I simply asked you to follow the evidence, follow the signs,
follow the day, ignore speculation and surmise conjecture. Stay true
to the evidence.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
It will lead you through the truth.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
That on Ganoid twenty nine twenty twenty two are very prosecuted.
And was angry and arguing about the relationship up with
John O'Keefe. And after the fight was over, she left,
but she brought the fight back hand the.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
Form of her SUV.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
She clipped him and fell backwards.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
He broke his head.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And then this man who helped a lifetime of help
was left help the fascinata in the dance moving into
the truth and it defends all words from everything he looted.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
What I didn't understand about that, Grant, was he he
implied that they had had an argument, uh, and that
she brought the argument back to him, I guess by
backing into him or clipping him with the SUV. It
was a little vague from I wanted to know more
with much more specificity, you know, if he felt that,
(13:50):
you know, she had put the car in. My thought
is that the car might have been inadvertently in reverse
and she went to you know, to drive away quickly
and inadvertently backed up. But maybe he did not want
to make that concession because that could take away that
that would that would leave her open to manslaughter, but
would take away theoretically that the the secondary murdered murder.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
Yeah, Dan, absolutely, And I can give you a little
context there, which is that Karen was cheating on John
in the relationship.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
So please do me a favor as long if this
evidence look you know again, please don't do that to me. Okay,
if evidence has been put in in the case, I
have no idea what your source on that is, Grant. Uh.
And therefore, as the judge here on nights side, I'm
going to not allow that.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
In go ahead, Well, I promise you it's in the
evidentiary record, Dan, I would when.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
When it when it when it appears during this trial.
When it when it is in the record in this trial.
And someone wants to bring it up, that's okay. But
I do not want it to be brought up. You know,
I I followed the didn't follow it as closely as
you did. I know that there was some jealousies and
all of that. I just I'm not going to go there, Grant,
because it's it's it's not fair to my audience.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
But that's there, Dan.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
And I'll just conclude by saying, I think what Brennan
was saying was the two were in an argument. Karen
Reid's blood alcohol was point one three to two point
two nine, and there's data showing the car collided with John.
That's enough for a conviction.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Okay, So you you believe in the conviction again. I
you know again, I know that there were folks I
know who you are, and I know that there are
folks out there who followed this case very closely, which
you know I admire. But until it comes in in
evidence in the second trial, the trial that Hank Brennan
(15:43):
is going to put on. I don't want it on
my show, so we'll just well let it go with that.
I appreciate your call and feel free to call again. Thanks,
Thanks Gren, Thanks Jan, have a great night. Let me
keep rolling. You're going to go to John and Kingston.
John Welcome. How are you sir?
Speaker 4 (16:00):
How you doing Dan?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
I'm doing fine. Trying to control trying to control this
a quoted public opinion.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
This whole thing, Like what I know, everyone gets behind
all this. What was his toxicology and what did he
actually die of? Was it blunt force trauma? Was he
in the bag with the drugs in the system. It
seems odd that someone going to back into him he
falls over and just doesn't get up from the snow.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Well again, I I don't know, and I'm interested to
see what the you know, what what trial? What the
trial is? What what evidence comes in at the trial? Okay,
that's that's the only thing the jury is supposed to hear.
I don't know if this jury is a questioned I
don't believe. I haven't heard anything that it has that
(16:52):
it has been sequestered. So you know, let's you know,
let's see what happens as we go. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
I don't know the first trial was there was it
a system? Was he you know?
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I don't know that that a so called blood blood
back of blood alcohol content was done on Reid or
other on John O'Keeffe. This video that I saw, they
were both apparently drinking at a bar. And if they
drink it at a bar, I assume they it includes alcohol.
There was no suggestion that either one of them were
just drinking you know, Lime Ricky's or something like that,
(17:31):
if anybody remembers Lime Ricky's. But no, it's uh, something happened.
What we know is that one individual is dead. Someone's dead,
and the prosecution obviously believes that Karen Reid was the
cause of his death. Uh. The the defense is trying
(17:55):
to make the argument that O'Keeffe winning the house, some
sort of a fight ensued and he was attacked by
individuals and or a dog. But my question has always been,
and I don't know if if you want to react
to this, my question has always been, if he was
(18:17):
killed in the house and there were a bunch of
other people there, including police officers, would someone turn around
and say, I got a great idea, let's get him
out of the house and put plant him on the
front lawn.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
I get it, But what was his actual cause of death?
Was it like blunt for sir?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Uh? Well, there will be autopsy results. I don't know,
and if someone you know again, I'm sure that there'll
be medical officials on the stand. Uh, medical experts.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
I don't get. I'll get the whole. However, one's all
infatuated by it, you know. Yeah, well that people get behind.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
You know, yeah, I mean, well, obviously there's a lot
of people out there who are convinced that she's being framed.
And then there's a lot of people out there who
convince it was her vehicle. They buy the prosecution case
that her vehicle backed into him, either inadvertently or intentionally.
(19:22):
And I don't know, I don't know that that there's
there's gonna be no videotape which is going to prove
to us. You know, a jury will come back with
a decision, But there's no videotape. It wasn't like there
was a camera uh trained on the front of the
house that night, and we can look at the camera
and we can see what happened.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Mixed bag for the jury again.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
You know, I'm kind of thinking that as well. I
think that the jurors might say, we we need to
come back with some decision here and maybe again, but they.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
Will we don't really, we can't tell either way. So therefore, yeah,
you know, figure it out. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I don't know that they I don't know that we're
gonna get a second hung jury. That's I I kind.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
Of think of guarantee if there is one, they'll definitely
pull the jury this time.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Right, Yeah, I would say, I would think. I think
I think you're right on that. John. Thank you very
much for your call. As always, I appreciated, have a
great talk again. Thanks. Okay, here comes the news a
couple of minutes late, but I didn't want a short change, John,
so we'll be back on night side. I have one
line which John just vacated six one, seven, two five four,
ten thirty, and I have one line at six one seven,
(20:36):
nine three one ten thirty. Uh. This is a it's
a big case. It's been a case that's going on
a long time. I haven't figured it out. Maybe you have.
We'll be back on nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
It's Nightside with w Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Thanks shre You know it's interesting. The only only person
who really, I guess, knows what happened for certain is
Karen Reid. And if she really believes, as I apparently
think she does, that she's innocent, that she did nothing
(21:17):
to hurt John O'Keefe, Boy, what an experience this has
been for her. And who knows where the jury where
the jury will come out in a few weeks from now.
If if she's if she in her in her soul
knows that that she did, in a moment of anger,
(21:39):
do something that she now regrets. What a burden that
is it. I mean, we all make mistakes in life,
but this is a huge mistake in some form of fashion,
and it's up to the courts, in twelve jurors to
figure it out. And that is something to think of
(22:02):
the next time that you get real angry. I guess
as I have, and as I think most of us
have at some point, Alex and millis Alex next on nights,
I go ahead.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
Guilty or.
Speaker 7 (22:22):
Oh you're still there?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
He yeah, I am. Were you on some sort of
device or something?
Speaker 7 (22:29):
Oh no, I got distracted. I'm sorry, what do you mean?
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Okay, you you sounded off microphone. I wasn't sure if
you were on some sort of different device.
Speaker 7 (22:40):
Oh no, no, no it was it was something going
on in the other room, and I wasn't sure. So anyway,
what I'm offering you, I.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Don't understand that. But that's okay. You were talking but
we weren't able to hear you.
Speaker 7 (22:54):
Well, so go ahead, okay, okay, I jumped the gun.
So aren't they able to extract data from the SUV?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Because yeah, that's that is something that the prosecution. That
is something that the prosecution has implied that they have,
and that sort of forensics could be very important in
this trial, depending upon what that data says.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
Obviously, right and fast forward. So, if she is found
out guilty or if there is a hung jury, the
money that she's raised the legal defense fund, and if
she becomes very wealthy because of this, will she be
obligated to pay that back? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (23:35):
No? No? First of all, I think that whatever money
has been raised for her, her legal firepower will more
than eat up that money. These are not inexpensive lawyers
who are representing her. And even if there's some money
left over if if she's able to spend it, meaning
(23:57):
if she gets in guilty verdict, I think she certainly
would deserve some time off to resurrect your life. Yeah,
interesting question.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
Yeah, they say, you know, they make you make your
bed and you lie in it. But I mean, you know,
I don't know. She's an never She's supposed to be
a very intelligent woman. I'm not trying to. I'm not
trying to.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You know, she is an intelligent woman. She she taught
I believe, was it accounting or something like that at
Babson if I'm not mistaken of one of the Yeah,
so yeah, clearly she's an intelligent woman. But intelligent people
sometimes do stupid things.
Speaker 7 (24:34):
Yeah, how do you get yourself involved with these things?
Speaker 2 (24:37):
You know?
Speaker 7 (24:38):
Or certain people?
Speaker 2 (24:39):
I don't get it, well, Alex. Intelligent people have been
known to do stupid things, and people who are under
the influence of alcohol sometimes exercise poor judgment. And sometimes
when you mix in emotions, they say, you know, a
(24:59):
fine line, a thin line between love and hate. I mean, look,
you know, it's I think you're experienced enough to be
able to understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 7 (25:07):
I know, thanks, thank.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Yeah, Yeah, I think yeah, the nuns gave you probably
if you talk by nuns. I gave you good advice
to avoid occasions of sin. I got you. Thanks Alex,
Doc deal later. Have a great night, Gail and Siduate. Gail,
thank you for that lovely magazine that you sent me
with all sorts of chocolate recipes.
Speaker 9 (25:30):
Oh you're welcome.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Dan. Just reading it, just just reading it, I put
on I think three pounds. I never only teasing.
Speaker 9 (25:40):
I know, I know what you mean. I went through
it myself. I thought, oh my lord, oh my lordy.
So when I saw it, I thought, I go.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
I send this to Dan.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (25:50):
You're welcome. So Dan, I have followed the case a
little bit, not entirely. And the one thing that keeps
making me think, you know, I keep wondering about is
how John O'Keefe got outside and why was he outside?
So he goes into the Albert's house. It's clearly evident
(26:11):
that he was attacked by the Albert's dog, which I
believe was the German shepherd. And when you get attacked
by a dog like that, it's pretty traumatic. So he
goes outside somehow, and Alan Jackson even said there was
no bodily injury to him whatsoever. So Alan Jackson needs
to get hold of that autopsy report. The autopsy report,
(26:35):
it's going to explain everything that I think. There's a
possibility maybe he had a heart attack or aneurysm, and
then he's left out in the snow, he you know,
falls back and guys of hypothermia, which adds to it.
I mean, I'm just I think that autopsy report is
gonna is going to explain plenty.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, that's true, But then the question is, let's assume
that he did go into the house. Make that assumption
for a moment, and let's assume that you're right that
the dog bit him or jumped at him, and maybe,
you know, the normal reaction of a dog owner is
to try to pull the dog off. I mean, that's
(27:14):
what normally would happen. And let's assume everybody's had a
few drinks and he's mad, I'm going to get the
hell out of here, and he walks outside and he
let's assume, you know, he has some sort of stroke
or whatever you want to you know, aneurysm, whatever, right, right,
Why would then the people who were in the house,
(27:39):
even if they didn't have the good sense to go
out and check and make sure. And when you walk
when he walked away, I mean, wouldn't someone say, hey,
where you're going? You know, you need a ride somewhere?
I mean, assuming that there was no hostility, right, and
why would they not have at least said, yeah, he
came in the house and our dog attacked him. It's
(27:59):
not our fault that the dog is very protective. No,
they they all testified he never came in the house.
Speaker 9 (28:09):
Albert's testified he did not. John o'keef did not go
in the house.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
I believe and again I believe that the police report
that Proctor put together, uh suggested that that that he
never had gone in the house. I don't think there's
any evidence. Look, if there was any evidence that he
went in the house, if there was any evidence that
he went in the house, why is Karen Reid on trial?
Speaker 9 (28:35):
Right, Well, we cannot go by what Proctor said in
his report because he's not credible enough. You know, he
would say that the boogeyman exists. We have to, like
I think, we have to take Proctor out of the
picture because in order for the only well, what we
know is that he had bite marks from an animal
from a dog on his arm. Alan Jackson said that,
(28:57):
so somehow John o'keef came into contact with the Albert's
dog and so ended up outside. So that's where it's
that's where the question is. And I think that I
really think that that that oh god, what's it called again?
The report? The oh, I forgot the name of the report.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Autopsy autopsy, Jackson is saying. Jackson said he had no
other injuries. Okay, So so let's assume that he was
Let's let's keep it simple. Well, let's let's let's let's
say that he's that she drives off, doesn't hit him,
and he's so drunk, hypothetically that he falls down in
(29:38):
the snow. Okay, And and let's assume that you know,
maybe you know, he just fell in the snow, and
there could be any animal out there at night that
could be out there, could be a fox or whatever.
But let's assume why would the why would the the
(30:02):
Alberts or whomever was in that house. Someone should have
should have gone on the record and said, look, never
came in the house. I mean, if they have nothing
to hide, okay. And I'm not saying that they did anything.
But you would think that at some point, well, I'm
saying that at some point Proctor would have would have,
you know, filed the report. I don't know all the
(30:22):
specifics of the case, but but you would you think
it's either he got hit by the car or he
went in the house and something bad happened and he
got put out in the lawn. I think those are
the two options. Would you agree?
Speaker 9 (30:36):
Well, I'm not sure if I can, because the Alberts
could be lying. They could be lying just to stay
out of it.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
No, but I'm saying there's only no what I'm saying,
there's only whoa. But but if he never came in
the house and and the police found someone dead on
by lawn tomorrow morning, I would be out there and saying,
what the hell's going on?
Speaker 4 (30:57):
Pretend?
Speaker 9 (30:58):
So let's pretend that John o'keef did not go in
the Elbert's house, and somehow the dog was outside. He
gets attacked by the dog, German shepherd, big dog, you know,
heavy bite, the heavy bite, uh pressure, that's going to
leave a mark on your arm. So he gets the
he gets the bite marks from the dog which is
probably outside, and then somehow in some maybe drunken, stupidor
(31:19):
he falls and that's when he's that's how he gets outside.
Well he's outside anyway, and that's how he ends up
on the snow. But I really think that autopsy report
is going to tell everything.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Well, let's let us hope, let us hope. Gail always
great to talk to me here. Thank you so much.
You've you've maybe confused some people and confused me a
little bit, but but you've you've raised really good questions
and I really do appreciate. Let's focus on the autopsy report. Uh,
maybe I'll do a little research on that and try
to find out what was entered during in the first trial.
In that, Okay, well on the.
Speaker 9 (31:50):
Second ten how old was John Keith? Was he in
his forties?
Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think somewhere in that. I'm just.
Speaker 9 (31:58):
Like, once you get if he was like forty five
and above, you know, once you get past forty five,
anything can happen. So I'm listening. It's a possibility he
could have had a heart attack on aneurysm, and and
you know, yeah, it.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Comes back to injury, back to the autopsy. Certainly it
was a sudden death. There should be an autopsy and
we'll try to figure out what that says. I gotta run, Gail.
I thank you so much. We'll talk soon. Okay, you're
gonna join us on Sunday at.
Speaker 8 (32:24):
The brunch or no, I'm sorry, I can't.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Okay, no problem, no problem, gonna have a big crowd anyway,
Thanks Gail, talk to you soon. Quick break here on Nightside,
coming right back.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Okay, back to the phones to go. We're gonna try
to get everybody in the lake callers. I don't think
you're gonna make it. Let me go to Paul in Dorchester.
Paul next on Nightside.
Speaker 10 (32:49):
Go ahead, Hey Dan, can you tell me the investigators
ever enter the premises the of the home?
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Yes?
Speaker 10 (32:57):
Or no?
Speaker 2 (32:58):
My recollect And again I'm not an expert in this case.
Is that Proctor, Michael Proctor never went into the house. Okay,
now as an investigator.
Speaker 10 (33:11):
Okay, that's okay, that's one thing. Now, how did all
the cell phones get disposed of? They was destroyed? They
were okay, whatever happened was the dog Chloe? How do
you get me.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
When I guess the phrase they used that Chloe was rehomed.
I don't know if Chloe is alive today. I don't
know if Chloe has gone on to that big dog
pound in the sky. I really don't know.
Speaker 10 (33:42):
I bet, I bet Chloe had a new bright smile,
at least I was. I was would not be funny
he came in with a human smile, you know, I
guess I think the dog disappeared? Now did they not
sell that at home? And also they refurnished the floor of.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
That I read stuff like that, But I read stuff
like that, but again I don't have I haven't followed
this trial as closely as I as I would like.
I'm hoping people like you either ask questions or provide information.
That's that's the injury tonight.
Speaker 10 (34:19):
The injury seem inconsistent with getting backed into buy a car.
If you get bumped by a car, you may get
a bump in like one spot and fell got in
his head. But like the woman was saying, I don't
see how the puncture wounds were there from from that?
How and also how the in the in the tail
light they had it backwards in the auto shopped them
(34:42):
and and and the dog disappeared. That's what gets me,
Man how can you get rid of your dog after
eight years?
Speaker 2 (34:48):
Yeah, that's true. I don't I don't quite understand, Paul,
I got a bunch of others. Isn't going to try
to get a couple more in at least? Okay? Thanks man,
We ready to smiled. You raised the questions. You raised
the questions, and it raised them.
Speaker 8 (35:00):
Well.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Thank you, John and hanover John next on nightside, A
little tight on time, Go ahead.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
John, Hey, Dan, good evening.
Speaker 11 (35:06):
I was a witness at a trial once in Quincy
District Court. I was the only witness and vendant was
a buddy of mine, and I'll tell you twenty years later.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
He was innocent.
Speaker 11 (35:14):
But someone in the case knew the district attorney of
someone in their office, so they brought someone in from
Middlesex to prosecute, and it was our governor more heally
at the time this kid got convicted. It forever shook
my faith in our judicial system, because I know he
wasna Yeah what.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Was he convicted of? Without you don't give me much
information about you know, his name or anything, but what
what was he? What was he charged with?
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Uh?
Speaker 11 (35:38):
It was the charge was domestic He was my roommate.
Speaker 7 (35:41):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (35:42):
We had a mutual friend.
Speaker 7 (35:43):
She came all over.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
I thought she was I thought I was getting lucky.
It turned out to be a setup.
Speaker 11 (35:46):
It was his ex girlfriend and he came home and
she beat him up a little bit, and he picked
her up and put her outside the door and then
just stared me down, you know, And it was just
it's one of those things.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
She was assumed. Did she not testify? You were a witness?
Did she not testify?
Speaker 11 (36:02):
No, she didn't. She she called it in like a
couple of days later, her father called us and gave
us a heads up. My roommate and her were both
kind of, I don't want to say disturbed, but they
had some emotional problems in high school.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
That's how they met.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Uh was your roommate and was your roommate male or female?
Speaker 4 (36:19):
He was a male and she was a female.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
So so if how did they get how did they
get the evidence in? If she didn't testify.
Speaker 11 (36:27):
It was a statement that they brought forth. But the
whole point was they brought me forth as a witness,
the only one. And I was indifferent because I had
thrown him out because he owed me money for rent
at that point, because it was a months later, and
the way more heally conducted herself was like she was
trying to sell a story to the jewelry and she
didn't really care what I had to say at all,
(36:48):
And it just I was founded.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
But it certainly, it certainly doesn't sound like it was
something that should make the judicial system proud. John. Interesting, interesting,
a little off topic, but very interesting. Thank you so much. Yeah,
have a good night, you too. Mixed up last one
of the hour, Chuck and Plymouth. Chuck, I got about
a minute for you, would you Lake?
Speaker 8 (37:10):
Thank of my call. You know, I think Alan Jackson's
done a great job of mutting the waters with with
the Snell phones being destroyed and the floor being redone
in the house being sold. But people need to follow
the facts. So many people are like, oh my god,
she has to be innocent because Procer lick through her
phone for nudes.
Speaker 4 (37:25):
What a rude jerk.
Speaker 8 (37:27):
If they follow the facts, they could figure it out
what I think happened in this case. If if he
in anyway o'keith entered that house, and how did he
get out if they dragged him outside he was dead.
Don't you think he'd leave a plow from two guys
carrying a man outside of the house. I think he
got hit by the car, hit his head on the ground,
and then I think a snowplow goosed him up on
(37:47):
the sidewalk, and that's where he died, on the sidewalk,
after a plow goosted him up there. But if the
bottom line is this, like you said, either somebody went
in the house, he went in the house and got
beat or you hit on the car. And even you said,
you said it best she wouldn't be on trial if
he went in the house. How can all those people
in the house keep a secret for this long? No,
(38:10):
that one that one giving anything saying that, Oh my god,
I just saw that.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
That's that's that's a strong argument. And what do you plan?
I don't know, you know it just neither story. Really,
there's nothing that's clear cut here. So let's let's hope
the evidence is presented more effectively by both sides. Hey, Chuck,
I appreciate.
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Thanks man.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Okay, thank you, Chock. That's it. We're going to talk
about tariffs. Unfortunately, those of you who are still on
the line, I told you Paul earlier, you're not going
to get on because we got the ten o'clock news.
Back on night Side, We're going to talk about tariffs
with a Boston University business professor from their business school.
He's a really good we'll we'll introduce you to him
(38:56):
right after this
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.