May 28, 2025 • 41 mins
Gary Tanguay Fills in On NightSide with Dan Rea
The Karen Read trial continues Wednesday with a crash reconstruction expert taking the stand. Crash reconstruction expert Judson Welcher testified that he found the laceration to John O’Keefe’s right eye was consistent with being struck with the rear fin, or “spoiler” portion of Read’s Lexus. CBS Boston’s Kristina Rex discussed Welcher’s testimony and more with Gary.
Then:
Author Casey Sherman joined Gary to talk about the untold story of a family tragedy; a true crime narrative that dives into the complicated and gripping story of Nathan Carman. Nathan was rescued at sea while clinging to a lifeboat and claiming his mother drowned at sea after their family boat went down. The real story is far grimmer… Casey and Gary discuss Casey’s new book, “Blood in the Water.”
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
The Karen Read trial continues Wednesday with a crash reconstruction expert taking the stand. Crash reconstruction expert Judson Welcher testified that he found the laceration to John O’Keefe’s right eye was consistent with being struck with the rear fin, or “spoiler” portion of Read’s Lexus. CBS Boston’s Kristina Rex discussed Welcher’s testimony and more with Gary.
Then:
Author Casey Sherman joined Gary to talk about the untold story of a family tragedy; a true crime narrative that dives into the complicated and gripping story of Nathan Carman. Nathan was rescued at sea while clinging to a lifeboat and claiming his mother drowned at sea after their family boat went down. The real story is far grimmer… Casey and Gary discuss Casey’s new book, “Blood in the Water.”
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.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Video Christina Rex, do you know that theme song?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
I don't. I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
You shouldn't be because you're too young to know that.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
What is it?
Speaker 4 (00:30):
That is the theme song from La Law?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Oh? Okay, no, I don't know it.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Did you have a watcher?
Speaker 1 (00:39):
No?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I might be too young. I think you're right.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Sorry, yourself an attorney. I just want to say that,
I'm very proud. I think it's great. Congratulate. We're going
to talk about the case. Of course, that is driving
us crazy, but you know, I think I think it's
really amazing, and I think it's it's great quality that
not only are a terrific journalist, you've also been going
to law school and you've got your degree here an attorney,
(01:04):
just like Dan Ray. I worked with Dan at Channel
four and I never I never knew the guy was
an attorney as well. So I mean, it's one thing
to be a journalist, it's another thing to also go
to law school and become an attorney. Yeah, congratulations, thank.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
You so much. I still have to pass the bar,
so we can't can't count our chickens before they hatch
but look, hopefully the.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Bar in July JFK Junior, God rest his soul. It
took him three times. You'll be fine.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Yeah, hopefully it only takes one.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Hopefully you'll be fine. You'll be fine. So, you know,
I see big things happening Court TV. That that's okay.
People at Channel four are going to get mad at
me for saying that. So I feel the need to
talk about the Karen Reed trial. I have to be
honest with you. I'm fatigued. I'm like, let's make a call, folks,
(01:58):
yay or nay. I'm done.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
I think a lot of people feel that way.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Yeah. I mean it's got to be even. I mean,
you're into it. You're an attorney, you find it interesting.
So yeah, but I don't know who to believe because
today they say that the prosecution had a good day.
Is that the case.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Who said that? Well, I was really I mean Court TV?
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Yeah, Court TV. But the the crash reconstruction expert Welcher
said that. Welcher, yeah, that the cut was consistent with
being hit by the Lexus Fillason correct.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
He says.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
So.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
He is a private, independent crash reconstruction expert who is
hired by the State, by the way, which we found
out today according to the defense for three hundred and
twenty five thousand dollars is what his company has been paid,
and that's taxpayer money. So he according to his research
and testing he did. He says that John O'Keefe's arm
(02:55):
injuries are consistent with being hit by the Lexus tail light.
He also says that the information in the car is
consistent with a collision occurring, so it's the damage to
the car. So in that regard, that might be why
people are saying it's a good day for the Commonwealth.
The other thing is that ninety plus percent of the
day was cross examination of the same guy, and it
(03:21):
was we now learned at the end of the day
that that cross examination is only halfway done, so four
hours in, it's only halfway done. And it was just
kind of one of the more prolonged cross examinations that
didn't necessarily have like really punchy gotcha moments like other
cross examinations have had so far. But we got to
(03:42):
see how tomorrow goes too, especially since this is only
halfway through.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
I know, as a reporter, you're not going to give
me an opinion, so I mean just answer this question,
especially can yep. Could it be that he was struck
by the vehicle but he was already dead, or he
was on his way to you know, he was injured,
(04:07):
he was lying in the snow. I mean, it always
seems to me the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.
Is that a possibility?
Speaker 3 (04:17):
So, honestly, I don't even if us as an opinion,
I think anybody in the case, involved in the case
would agree the scenarios you're putting out there. I don't
think there are a possibility because based on the timing
of when John o'keef and Karen Ree left the bar
and got to thirty four fair View, there's the state
(04:38):
is alleging that this crash, and then this expert is
saying that according to the car data, it happened. We're
talking within minutes to seconds of them arriving in front
of the house. So the times wouldn't line up for
John O'Keefe to already have been injured in some way
before that crash happened, Which is why I think the
(04:59):
art between both sides is the crash happened or it didn't.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Okay, all right, I understand that I got you, now,
so when do you think this thing? How much longer
do we have?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So I have some insight on this. So it's our
belief based on various information, that this guy, Judson Welcher
is the final Commonwealth witness. So however, he might be
on the stand through Friday at this rate, given how
long his testimony is taking. But when he's done, we
expect that the Commonwealth will rest and then the defense
(05:36):
says that their case will be about a week and
a half. And then there's a potential that prosecutors will
call some rebuttal witnesses which did not happen last trial,
because they have some of their own experts this time
to talk about whether or not John o'kee's injuries or
dog bites. So if the defense presents a case about
dog bites, the state might want to rebut that and
(05:59):
so that could be few more days, so like two
more weeks of testimony ish, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Is there a concern with jury fatigue?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yes, except I will say, well, so there's eighteen jurors,
and I would say generally speaking, I got to give
them credit because during the last trial, it started with
nineteen and by the last day we were down to fourteen.
I think not one juror has dropped out, so kudos
to them because they've all been there for six weeks straight. However,
(06:32):
if we're talking about juror fatigue, like on a daily basis,
there are certainly some jurors. There are some who are
diligent note takers who are locked in all the time,
and others who at times look like they have completely
zoned out, depending on kind of what point we're at
in testimony.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Yeah, so is there now we're talking strategy here or
second guessing strategy. Is there a benefit to maybe for
the defense expediting the process, or does it benefit them
to drag it out, because it seems to me they're
dragging it out.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
I think it depends. That was such a lawyer answer.
I'm sorry, but during the last trial, the Commonwealth called
sixty eight witnesses and then the defense only called six,
and it was like two days quick, punchy to the point,
you know, and I think that that was a strategy.
That's not going to be the case here the defense
that's going to take a week and a half. It
has a much longer witness list than it did in
(07:28):
the previous trial. On the flip side, the Commonwealth's witness
list is practically cut in half. They've called thirty eight witnesses,
not sixty eight. So we're certainly seeing things kind of
meet in the middle in that regard. But you do
notice almost that slip of that technique. For example, Robert Lessi,
the defense attorney who I told you is up right now.
He's really methodical and he's like really into the data,
(07:51):
and so his questions are really data focused, and at
times it can take you know, a dozen questions to
get to the answer looking for. And then on the
flip side, on redirect examination, you see Hank Brennan get
up there after him and he asks like three or
four questions really fast, and then the witness gets off
the stand, and you have to imagine that's a strategy.
(08:14):
It's hard to envision that it's anything but a strategy
when somebody has been on cross the gamination for hours
and hours and hours to then come up and kind
of be zippy and get them off the stand quickly.
So we certainly are seeing My point is each side
kind of do the opposite of whatever the other side
is doing at any given point, so it'll be interesting
(08:35):
Robert Alessi has played a huge role for the defense
and cross examination during the commonwealths case. I imagine I
don't know this, but I imagine that during the defense's
case in chief, perhaps Alan Jackson, David Yannetti, the attorneys
who played a bigger role last trial will be the
ones kind of leading the charge.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Christina retches, our guest esquire.
Speaker 6 (08:56):
Not yet, not yet, bar bar pending bard bar pending
when I was in college or your age bar pending
at a completely different meaning.
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Yes, we have.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
But the big question that we're going to ask is
should we expect to change in the outcome versus last time.
That's coming up in our next segment with Christina right
here on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
Great book Blood in the Water, Casey Sherman writes about
it or wrote that book, and he's coming up at
nine thirty. We all know about that case, dead mother,
that grandfather who plus tic on that one in Casey
is a very unique, very unique opinion on that. Okay,
let's get back to another very unique case. The Karen Retrala.
Joining us is Christina Rex. Christina who done a great
(09:44):
job covering this.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Why do you Why is it allowed that people can
pay witnesses. I don't understand it.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
In general.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Yes, this is I mean expert witnesses. That's a field
of that's a career. I mean, you can be an
expert witness in like you can be a doctor and
one who does expert testimony. On the side. There are
expert witnesses who are government employees, for example, like the
(10:20):
state medical examiner or a state trooper who does a
very specific line of work. Those are the kinds of
people who are expert witnesses to do it for a living,
and they always testify on behalf of the case. But
it's the tale as old as time that you can
pay an expert witness.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
But to me, and again, I mean, but you just
brought it up. And I understand there are people that
should be paid for their expertise, but you just brought
it up. As soon as I say, I'm the prosecution,
I have a defense witness. I have to pay him
three hundred thousand dollars. The defense says they just bought
this guy for three hundred grand. I'm on the jury
and I'm just a regular citizen, you know. Working a
(10:58):
regular job and in my mind thinking, Okay, they paid
this guy off to tell their story.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Right, and the jury can be instructed often to not
come to that conclusion, like jury instructions are a thing
that the judge can give. On the flip side, the
defense also has crash reconstruction experts that it has paid.
I don't know what the total is, but it has
paid as well. And I can guarantee on cross examination
(11:25):
of those witnesses that the prosecutor will lack how much
they were paid for their testimony. So just exactly that's
the exact point I'm trying to make. As normal as
it is to have an expert witness, it's like a
guaranteed throwaway question almost that a lawyer is going to ask,
weren't you paid to be here today? And how much
were you paid to be here? I think for this
(11:47):
witness who's on the stand today and tomorrow and yesterday,
the interesting part about him being paid is that allegedly
it's three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars, and that's
taxpayer money. So typically the state has government employees who
do this work, Like during the last case, it was
a state trooper who did that work right, So the
(12:07):
taxpayers weren't paying extra. Now that taxpayer money going to
an independent company for the prosecution's case. So that's what
made it a little more interesting.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Yeah, that it's just a bad look. I mean, yeah, And.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
I'll tell you we have I put a public records
request in yesterday to get an itemized receipt of the
money paid to this company, because again this is just
coming out on cross examination, so I just have to say,
you know, the defense says the bill was this much,
but hopefully I'll get an actual copy of the bill
from the state. At some point I.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Lost track of this. Wasn't there a witness from the
last trial that was on Read's defense team.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Who got paid?
Speaker 4 (12:48):
You mean or it was. I don't know if they
got paid, but I remember when the trial began that
there was They said there was a witness that they
from the previous trial that they were using for her call.
Did I get that right?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
I assume you're referencing the crash reconstruction experts. So there
was like a lot of drama about this in between
the two cases. Basically, in the first trial, these crash
reconstruction experts who had been privately hired by the Department
of Justice as part of a federal investigation. They testified
for the defense, and then it was revealed in about
(13:26):
February of this year that the defense had paid for
their services and that had not been revealed to the court.
And so that was like a big yeah, that was
like a big kind of dramatic situation. The judge had
like considered sanctions on one of the defense attorneys, and
there were several hearings about it. So I think that
(13:46):
I assume that's what you're thinking about. But those same
experts are now coming back to testify in this case
and they do work for the defense. Now in this case,
their witnesses on behalf of the defense.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
You know, I'm confusing it with an episode of All
Law from nineteen eight.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
That's what I'm doing before my time.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
Yeah, okay, you just gotta, you gotta go. You gotta
watch it on two B or something, just to look
at the clothes and the hair cells. You gotta oh,
I will you got it? Okay. So Karen Reid seemed
to be this cult figure. Is some of her shine
off her star been dulled.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
In person, no, so in person at the courthouse every
day there is. There's a whole new system compared to
the last trial, but there's still a crowd of dozens
of people every single day. They gather out there in
their you know, shirts that say free Karen Reid or
their pink outfits. They cheer for Karen and her team
as they drive in. Karen usually flows down as she
(14:45):
unrolls the window and she talks to them for a
couple of minutes before she goes in. Some a lady
from Toronto I think it was the other day, came
and was like, can I please get a selfie with you?
I came from Canada to be here, so in person,
no on social media. I get the impression that there's
a lot a much bigger range of opinions this time around,
(15:09):
and people who are into the case posting about it
more so than there was last trial.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
I just know, if you hang around too long, you're screwed,
you know, with public perception. I mean seriously, you know,
like it gets people go okay, go away. And I'm
not even talking about whether she's guilty or not. I
think that's just how people think. I mean, in this
day and age, you know, people.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Get yeah, kind of the celebrity of it all.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Oh my god, it's like here today, gone tomorrow. Do you,
as I look at this from one hundred miles away,
I don't see how there's a change in the outcome
versus last time. Am I wrong?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
No? I think you might be right. It's certainly a
different case this time around. I mean, there is new
evidence the prosecution has put on a very different case.
And the biggest mom maybe I shouldn't say biggest, but
one big thing that they have used that they didn't
use the last trial is that they have an entireative
(16:09):
hours and hours of unedited raw interview footage with Karen
Reid that they've played twenty five plus clips of on
the screen for the jury where the defendant herself admits
to how much she drank, whether or not she should
have been driving, etc. And so that's certainly new information
(16:29):
that could make a jury feel one way or the other.
At the same time, a lawyer said this to me
during the last trial, and I think of it all
the time, which is that if you get ten people
in a room and you bring up the Karen Reid trial,
you cannot get all ten people to agree. And I
think that's still true, and I think that that could
very well be true for a jury as well.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
I don't expect you to give an answer on this
on which way you think it'll go. But in your mind,
do you think you know what happened? Because I don't.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
No, no, no, and actually no, thank you for this question.
Can I tell you yes? Because one very strange aspect
of kind of the social media of this case is
that so I do these social media recaps the end
of every day after I'm on TV, and yeah, one
of the top comments I get is like, whose side
(17:22):
are you on? Why don't you tell us what you
think you know? I can't tell which team you're on.
And I tell people this in person often and they
don't believe me, Like I truly, as a journalist and
as a person, do not have a strong opinion about
what happened in any direction. I think the reason this
(17:46):
case has taken off so much is because there is
so much gray area, generally speaking, and people have so
many different opinions about what might have happened. And I'm
someone whose job it is to know all of those
theories and all of the other sink court and all
of the witnesses and so every day. I'm just inundated
with more information that I'm always fascinated by the people
(18:08):
who claim that they know exactly what happened.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
There's no way that you can be objective and say that.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I just you know, way you can be objective and say, oh,
it's so obvious that this is what happened, or it's
clear that this is what happened, because the only thing
that objective people could agree upon in this case is
that it's not clear.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
Yes, yeah, well that'll do it for the that's that's
the third act, and we still don't know who did it,
you know, I mean, well, but it's true.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
I mean, the thing is that the really really unique
thing about this entire situation, which has made prosecutors job
really tough from the beginning, is that there's not a
single eyewitness to what they say happened. Do you know
how rare that is for an event like what the
prosecution says occurred to happen and to not have a
single person witness it. I mean, that's a really tough
(19:05):
case from the start. So you can't say anything's clear
if not a single person saw it.
Speaker 4 (19:10):
Agreed, there's a cut that looks like it was done
by the light. She said I hit him, I hit him.
But then I look at that and I say, she
thought she hit him. She was panicked, she didn't know
what she was talking about. Then they sell the house,
they paint the floor, the dog disappears, ying and Yang,
I'm going I'm confused, and I think I.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Think it's you can only imagine how the jury feels, right.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
I think it's a really hard thing to do. And
I think I think she's going to walk again because
I don't think that there's going to be I just
don't see it changing, you know, I just do not.
I do not see the outcome changing. And I'm not
pro either way. I just don't think the evidence is there.
I have to ask you a question, what are your
plans now? Are you going to continue to do television journalism?
(19:52):
And I don't want to put you in trouble with
your bosses. I used to work there with no.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
No, no, I am. I genuinely am going to I
feel like, especially given the opportunity to cover this trial
the last two years, I'm just in a really good place.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Any network, any network, would be crazy not to go
get you in regard to this. Yeah, well, no, I
mean it's true. I mean, like, you know, look, I
worked at television for a long time. In radio, there
could there are some real I've worked with some real
morons behind the mic, and there are some people that
really know what the hell is going on. Dan Ray is
(20:25):
one of them who was an attorney that worked at
Channel four. And you're an attorney that worked at Channel four,
and you know there's a lot of there's a lot
of value in that final question, how has this case
changed your approach to being an attorney or your desire
to be an attorney?
Speaker 3 (20:45):
I think it's kind of ignited my passion even more.
I mean I think, like I told you, I'm in
a good place at work. I really feel like I'm
where I'm supposed to be right now. I can imagine
that someday, years years down the line, maybe I'll practice
law and I find a lot to be so exciting,
(21:06):
and this covering this case has been real world experience
that I couldn't have asked for anywhere else. So it's been,
you know, maybe even better than the classroom for the
last two years at certain times, and so I don't know, yeah,
in that regard, it's been really just made me more
interested in law, and but it's another thing is that
(21:29):
I think that it's brought me a unique perspective when
covering this case, because, like we've talked about, did anyone
really know what happened? A lot of people will say, like,
you know, everyone's trying to no one's fighting for the truth,
and there's a lot of accusations about that. I've been
in a unique position to try to explain to people
that you know, unfortunately, for better or for worse, evidence
(21:52):
in court is not always about finding the truth of
what happened. It's about proving a case, there's no doubt.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
Great job, Christina. We have appreciate your time. Best of
luck and congrats where to go.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Thank you so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Okay, take it Christina Rex Follow her a Channel four
follow on Instagram if you're into the Caenry case. She's
got great insight and she's gonna pass the bar. Are
you kidding me the first time? No problem. Casey Sherman's
got another great book out. Sherman is on a roll,
Blood in the Waters. Next on w Z.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
Okay, pay attention to people, Gary Tagway for Dan Ray Here,
listen to this list. The Finest Hours, Helltown, Hunting Whitey,
Last Days of John Lennon, The inside story of Tom
Brady's fight for redemption and murder in Hollywood. Amazing work.
I do want to also say Dave Wedge or Buddy
worked on a couple of these books with Casey Sherman.
But Casey is joining us right now and he's got
(22:54):
a new book out, Blood in the Water, the untold
story of a family tragedy. And we all remember this.
I mean we all remember this story in twenty sixteen
when Linda Carman she drowned and her son Nathan was
rescued in a lifeboat, and then all kinds of suspicion
came out, did this son do it? The grandfather was
(23:16):
murdered three years earlier, he was shot. There's a lot
of money involved. I've set the scene. Casey, you are
the go to guy for these books right now. I
have to tell you this, and I know you'll take
this as a compliment. You are the Flee Bailey of
true crime. Because if somebody's got a big story, it's
like if you needed, if you needed a defense attorney
to get you out of jail. You went to E.
(23:37):
Flee Bailey. If you need an author right now to
write a book about a crime situation with a lot
of juice to it, you were the guy. How did
this one come to you?
Speaker 5 (23:49):
Well, first of all, thank you, Gary, and I take
that as a compliment. Flee Bailey was a good friend
of mine, so you know this story came to me
much like it came to all of your listeners. Learned
about it via the news in twenty sixteen when this
miraculous rescue occurred one hundred and fifteen miles south of
Martha's Vineyard, where Nathan Carmen, a young man on the
(24:12):
autism spectrum, was rescued. He'd been on a life raft,
according to him, eight days in the North Atlantic before
he was rescued by the crew of a passing Chinese
cargo ship. And when the story broke it was a
bittersweet story because his mother, fifty four year old Linda Carmen,
(24:33):
was missing, but Nathan had been rescued. And I remember
that there were no images of Nathan or the rescue
in the first twenty four hours, so the media was
using clips of the old Tom Hanks film castaway to
try to tell this story, and I thought, Okay, this
is an interesting story that's unfolding in our waters. And
(24:54):
I've always been fascinated, of course with everything that the
Coastguard does, having written The Finest Hour, So my antenna
went up right away thinking is this a heroic story
or is this a story with a lot of darkness
in it? And turns out this is a story with
a with a tremendous amount of darkness surrounding it.
Speaker 4 (25:15):
What did you find that other people had not?
Speaker 5 (25:20):
Well, that's that's that's the key, right. So you know,
when Nathan Nathan was eventually arrested and charged with murder
on the high Seas basically he was accused of killing
his mother and he was about to go on trial
for that in twenty twenty three when he died under
mysterious circumstances while he was incarcerated. So at that point
(25:44):
I really had to gumshoe this case. And I interviewed,
you know, well over forty key witnesses to the case,
both on the record and off the record. I gathered
up all of the primary source documents. And when I
first went into this project, Gary, I thought there was
a right line between the allegations against Nathan Carmen and
his guilt, not only guilt in the disappearance and likely
(26:07):
murder of his mother, but as you mentioned, the murder
of his grandfather in twenty thirteen. When I investigated this story,
I found the complete opposite that there wasn't a straight
line to his guilt. In fact, several suspects emerge in
this story, and at the end of the day, Nathan
(26:27):
Carmen may have been innocent.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Yeah, I mean, Casey, what else is new? I mean,
this is the stuff you do, and it's terrific. I
want to go back to what you said. I wrote
it down. You said Nathan Carmen did according to reports,
he took his own life. You said suspicious circumstances. So
you do not believe he took his own life.
Speaker 5 (26:52):
Well, I've got my questions about that. His lawyers certainly
do not believe he committed suicide. You know, the warden
at the jail where Nathan died said it was a
suicide and then immediately said he'd left a suicide note behind.
That wasn't a suicide note. It was actually a note
to his lawyers to follow up on an investigative lead
(27:14):
the next day. I will tell you this, Gary, that
Nathan Carmen had an incredibly strong defense. I think he
would have been acquitted of the charge of murdering his mother.
He was only three months out before his murder trial
was supposed to start. So why would Nathan take his
own life? There are several theories, you know, surrounding that,
(27:37):
including that somebody may have killed him while he was incarcerated.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
I want to ask this question. I say, I don't
want to offend anybody, because I understand you know, you know,
autism and in people on the spectrum live very fulfilling lives.
I mean, I'm not going but I does his medical
condition can come into play as far in this at all.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Garry, And the reasonably why I'm saying I'm.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
Not trying to offend anybody, Yeah, yeah, no, I get it.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
And Nora was I when I when I wrote this book,
but I wanted to have a better understanding of autism
spectrum disorder. And Nathan always believed that he was targeted
by police and Windsor, Connecticut for the murder of his
grandfather because he was considered quote low hanging fruit, because
he was on the autism spectrum disorder or the spectrum
(28:35):
I should say. I will say that the FBI and
Coast Guard investigators never consulted any experts on autism spectrum disorder.
And when I interviewed, the FBI said, you know, it's
curious to me that you never had anyone with expertise
in this disorder in any of your interview sessions with Nathan,
(28:55):
nor did windsor police in Connecticut have that. Because Nathan
can respond to questions in an unusual way, because his
brain processes information differently from you or me. Not that
it's that it's unusual, it's just a different way that
he processed information. And you know the fact that you
know there was no expertise involved here really struck me
(29:19):
as curious. And when I asked the FBI about this,
the FBI said, no, you know, we let our own
profilers profile Nathan, but we were getting to that, meaning
they were going to bring in an expert at some
point in time. And I said, you were getting to that,
I said, I said the young man's debt. I said,
you know, it took you this long to do that,
and he never got his chance in court?
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Was it simply just lazy police work.
Speaker 5 (29:45):
Well, they blamed it on COVID. I think it was
a lot of lazy police work. Quite frankly, but they said, well,
you know, we couldn't get to Nathan because it was COVID,
and you know, he was all lowered up x y Z.
I said, look, you know, you know, do your due
diligence here, and quite frankly, you know, you know, these
are my theories on the case. Gary. But the book
(30:06):
Blood in the Water, I throw my fast fall straight
down the middle, meaning I present the reader the prosecution's case,
I present the reader the defense's case, and I put
the reader in the jury box because I want the
reader to decide whether or not Nathan is guilty or innocent.
And you know, and the jury and the verdict really
(30:27):
has been mixed amongst my readers. Some online reviewers believe
that he was targeted because he was autistic. Others say
that he was a criminal mastermind. So it's interesting that
this has become a very big debater and talker amongst
my readers.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
That is a big difference being targeted in a criminal mastermind.
That is, that's a wide gap there, you know, as
far as as far as perception. And also I don't
believe Unfortunately, I don't think people and I don't claim
to an expert, but I have a I think I
have a I think I have a compassionate understanding that
when you talk about people on the spectrum, there's a
(31:07):
wide range, and I would say overall the population doesn't
quite understand it.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
No, and even the experts of still trying to catch up,
you know, with certain you know, variations of autism spectrum.
Nathan had. We don't call it this anymore, but he
had Asperger syndrome. Now Asperger doctor Asberger you know, eventually
was deemed a Nazi, so we don't use that word anymore.
(31:34):
But I just want your listeners to understand this is
who Nathan was. He processed information differently, he emoded differently.
Some people would say he was aloof or you know,
had no compassion. You know, Nathan had great compassion, according
to the people that I interviewed for this book, but
he was never able to project that outwardly toward other people.
(31:55):
So of course people thought he was odd and you know,
portrayed bizarre behavior.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
This may be sorry to interrupt you, but this may
be an exaggeration, but What comes to mind is when
you say doesn't show emotion because of his conditions, some
people maybe say, oh, he's cold blooded.
Speaker 5 (32:14):
Yeah, that's true, And I think that's you know, the
common theme of people that just read reports about Nathan
or newspaper reports, or saw his you know, stoic image
on television, and there are some photos where Nathan looks
quite menacing, But that was the way Nathan always, you know,
had these facial expressions that didn't mean he was, you know,
(32:36):
capable of murder, not just one murder, but two. You know, Gary,
I've covered two hundred homicides in my career as an
investigative journalist. I know how difficult it is to pull
off one perfect crime, but to pull off two, one
on land and one on sea is almost nearly impossible,
and quite frankly, it's probably giving Nathan Carmen more credit
(32:58):
than he deserves in that realm.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
We have a theme tonight, follow the Money. It's you know,
that's that's what it's all about. We're going to get
to the money and his relationship with his grandfather that
Casey dives into, which I found very interesting. That's next
on WBZ talking to Casey Sherman Blood in the Water, you're.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
On Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
Him in the book is Blood in the Water? Casey
Sherman's done, and again from my money, Helltown. When you
get Blood in the Water, you're read you also have
to read Helltown, which is about the serial killer on
Cape cod which is freaking Is that the that's gonna
be a I don't want to put you on the spot,
but I hope I see that on the big screen
someday because that story is crazy. All right, So let's
(33:47):
get back. Let's talk about the grandfather with the Blood
in the Water. We're talking about Nathan Carman, who was
accused of murdering his mother back in twenty sixteen after
they went on a fishing trip. So his grandfather, and
I want to get the last name right as a
Chacalos Chocols Chocolus, John Chocolas was shot and killed at
(34:08):
twenty thirteen. Now, a lot of people said after his
mom died, well he killed both of them or allegedly.
But with what you write is she was very close
to his grandfather, so close that other members of the
family were jealous.
Speaker 5 (34:27):
That's correct. So John Chockolus, eighty seven years old, had
built a fifty million dollar empire. Basically, he was designing
and building assisted living facilities all around New England. And
John was actually going to give the business to his
firstborn adult or male grandchild, Nathan Carmen. And of course,
(34:51):
you know there are people and you know within the
family that didn't want that to happen. But it just
goes to show you that John loved Nathan Carmen and
Nathan really loved his grandfather. Nathan had zero motivation to
murder his grandfather because he was going to get everything,
the keys to the kingdom, So there was really no
(35:11):
reason for Nathan to murder his grandfather. But several other
suspects to emerge in the pages of Blood and the Water.
John Chocolus, who you know from the outside looking in,
was a very benevolent person that did a lot for
his communities, but he also had a twenty five year
old mistress. John had some shady business dealings. You know,
(35:34):
there are people enough people out there that wanted John
Chocolas dead.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
How about this theory? I wrote this down. The screenwriter
in me came up with this one case. Could Nathan
have murdered his mother to avenge his grandfather's death, meaning
did he think his mother had something to do with
her father's death so she could get the money. How
about that one.
Speaker 5 (35:58):
You know, it's an interesting theory and some people have
certainly raised it, and you know, there are really only
three people that know exactly what happened, and all of
them are dead. There's another theory that Linda Carman herself
may have murdered John Chockolas. Linda had a very volatile
and violent relationship with her father over the care of
(36:20):
her son, Nathan. Linda wanted to keep Nathan in bubble wrap,
wanted to get him, you know, basically wanted to keep
him institutionalized because of his disorder, whereas John Chockolas overlooked
Nathan's you know, social challenges and was willing to give
him the family business. So there there arguments over Nathan's
(36:42):
care actually spilled over into violence. I write a scene
in the book where John and Linda actually attack each
other at a psychiatric hospital in Hartford, Connecticut over Nathan's care. So,
you know, there is a lot of theories out there
in terms of whom they have killed John shock Listen.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
Why now do you believe that Linda drowned? Well, I
shouldn't say. I don't want to put you on the
spot there, but it's okay, So the grandfather was shot
and then there would be no foul play with Linda obviously, right,
I mean if we believe, if you believe that Nathan's innocent,
(37:24):
then her death was an accident.
Speaker 5 (37:27):
Then her death was an accident. You know, the question is.
Speaker 4 (37:30):
There with anybody else getting involved somehow?
Speaker 5 (37:32):
No, you know, with with Wnda's yeah, I mean I
don't think i'm reaching. It's sure, sure, Well you're a screenwriter, Gary,
and I get it. But I will say that, you know, obviously,
there was some questions that Coast Guard investigators had about
Nathan because Nathan claimed that he was a castaway in
a life wrapt for seven to eight days. Now, this
(37:55):
is after the US Coast Guard had a search and
rescue mission that spanned over sixty four thousand square miles
of the North Atlantic and no one could find any
trace of Linda or Nathan during that time. And once
they gave up the search, all of a sudden, Nathan
pops up out of nowhere and is rescued by a
crew of a passing Chinese cargo ship. But when they
(38:17):
bring him aboard the ship, he's not malnourished, he's not hypothermic,
he's not weak. He looks very strong. Actually, he you know,
climbs the accommodation ladder and gets on that ship really
without any help. So that was something that the Coastguard
felt that was incredibly odd. They also believed that Nathan
was lying because Nathan said that he was fishing in
(38:40):
a particular area called Block Canyon, and the fathoms are
incredibly deep there, and basically you need a vessel that
it's about forty feet long, if not longer, a crew,
a very you know, polished crew, and you know technology
to get out to where that was. You know, those
fishing grounds are. Nathan was out there in a thirty
(39:03):
one foot aluminum fishing boat with two fishing rods and
his mother as his crew. And if the boat went
down where Nathan claimed it had gone down, Nathan's life
raft would have drifted in the opposite direction from where
he was found. That's why the Coast Guard investigators believed
that Nathan killed his mother. And I've interviewed these Coast
(39:25):
Guard investigators and I say Okay, I'm going to follow
you on this theory. I get it. You know what
you just told me was, you know, completely plausible in
terms of Nathan possibly lying about what had happened at sea.
But if he'd planned this murder, how does he plan
his getaway? Where was he during those seven days? Did
(39:45):
he take that thirty one foot aluminum boat back to
shore and then go back out one hundred and fifteen
miles south of Martha's vineyard just in the hopes that
he would be rescued? And is Nathan following you the
shipping lanes of the North Atlantic, monitoring the shipping lanes
in the hopes that he's going to get rescued. Now
(40:07):
a tanker, a freighter rescued him. So the likelihood that
the tanker could have even seen him, let alone rescued
him out in the middle of the North Atlantic, seems
incredibly implausible to me. And if they couldn't answer that
question to me, which they couldn't, they couldn't have been
able to answer that question to jurors in a criminal.
Speaker 4 (40:26):
Trial Casey, It's great stuff. I think many people on
the Service just assumed that the young man was guilty.
You're going to read this book. It's a different story
Blood in the Water, and you can get it everywhere.
I assume case you.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
Can get every book Stordan, you get it online, so
it's everywhere in America right.
Speaker 4 (40:45):
Now, gerh And also follow Casey on Instagram because if
you're looking where he's going to be. He loves to
talk to readers. He's very available if he's doing a
reading at a bookstore, it's a great take and he
will not only sign your book, but he will also
have a conversation with you, which is not always the
case with bestsellers. Casey talked to you soon. Thanks for joining.
Speaker 5 (41:04):
Us, all right, thank you, Gary, appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (41:06):
We'll talk to you later. Let in the Water, Casey Sherman.
Check it out. And also Helltown two and Murder in Hollywood.
They're all good stuff. They're all good. Okay, still to
come here on WBZ. Jackson Tolliver is going to join
us and we will discuss the Patriots and the Celtics.
We're got to light in the mood a little bit
with my buddy Odie Henderson. The Life of Jack Lemmon
(41:27):
Next to WBZ
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Video Christina Rex, do you know that theme song?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
I don't. I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
You shouldn't be because you're too young to know that.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
What is it?
Speaker 4 (00:30):
That is the theme song from La Law?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Oh? Okay, no, I don't know it.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Did you have a watcher?
Speaker 1 (00:39):
No?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I might be too young. I think you're right.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Sorry, yourself an attorney. I just want to say that,
I'm very proud. I think it's great. Congratulate. We're going
to talk about the case. Of course, that is driving
us crazy, but you know, I think I think it's
really amazing, and I think it's it's great quality that
not only are a terrific journalist, you've also been going
to law school and you've got your degree here an attorney,
(01:04):
just like Dan Ray. I worked with Dan at Channel
four and I never I never knew the guy was
an attorney as well. So I mean, it's one thing
to be a journalist, it's another thing to also go
to law school and become an attorney. Yeah, congratulations, thank.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
You so much. I still have to pass the bar,
so we can't can't count our chickens before they hatch
but look, hopefully the.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Bar in July JFK Junior, God rest his soul. It
took him three times. You'll be fine.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Yeah, hopefully it only takes one.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Hopefully you'll be fine. You'll be fine. So, you know,
I see big things happening Court TV. That that's okay.
People at Channel four are going to get mad at
me for saying that. So I feel the need to
talk about the Karen Reed trial. I have to be
honest with you. I'm fatigued. I'm like, let's make a call, folks,
(01:58):
yay or nay. I'm done.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
I think a lot of people feel that way.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Yeah. I mean it's got to be even. I mean,
you're into it. You're an attorney, you find it interesting.
So yeah, but I don't know who to believe because
today they say that the prosecution had a good day.
Is that the case.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Who said that? Well, I was really I mean Court TV?
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Yeah, Court TV. But the the crash reconstruction expert Welcher
said that. Welcher, yeah, that the cut was consistent with
being hit by the Lexus Fillason correct.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
He says.
Speaker 5 (02:34):
So.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
He is a private, independent crash reconstruction expert who is
hired by the State, by the way, which we found
out today according to the defense for three hundred and
twenty five thousand dollars is what his company has been paid,
and that's taxpayer money. So he according to his research
and testing he did. He says that John O'Keefe's arm
(02:55):
injuries are consistent with being hit by the Lexus tail light.
He also says that the information in the car is
consistent with a collision occurring, so it's the damage to
the car. So in that regard, that might be why
people are saying it's a good day for the Commonwealth.
The other thing is that ninety plus percent of the
day was cross examination of the same guy, and it
(03:21):
was we now learned at the end of the day
that that cross examination is only halfway done, so four
hours in, it's only halfway done. And it was just
kind of one of the more prolonged cross examinations that
didn't necessarily have like really punchy gotcha moments like other
cross examinations have had so far. But we got to
(03:42):
see how tomorrow goes too, especially since this is only
halfway through.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
I know, as a reporter, you're not going to give
me an opinion, so I mean just answer this question,
especially can yep. Could it be that he was struck
by the vehicle but he was already dead, or he
was on his way to you know, he was injured,
(04:07):
he was lying in the snow. I mean, it always
seems to me the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.
Is that a possibility?
Speaker 3 (04:17):
So, honestly, I don't even if us as an opinion,
I think anybody in the case, involved in the case
would agree the scenarios you're putting out there. I don't
think there are a possibility because based on the timing
of when John o'keef and Karen Ree left the bar
and got to thirty four fair View, there's the state
(04:38):
is alleging that this crash, and then this expert is
saying that according to the car data, it happened. We're
talking within minutes to seconds of them arriving in front
of the house. So the times wouldn't line up for
John O'Keefe to already have been injured in some way
before that crash happened, Which is why I think the
(04:59):
art between both sides is the crash happened or it didn't.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Okay, all right, I understand that I got you, now,
so when do you think this thing? How much longer
do we have?
Speaker 3 (05:13):
So I have some insight on this. So it's our
belief based on various information, that this guy, Judson Welcher
is the final Commonwealth witness. So however, he might be
on the stand through Friday at this rate, given how
long his testimony is taking. But when he's done, we
expect that the Commonwealth will rest and then the defense
(05:36):
says that their case will be about a week and
a half. And then there's a potential that prosecutors will
call some rebuttal witnesses which did not happen last trial,
because they have some of their own experts this time
to talk about whether or not John o'kee's injuries or
dog bites. So if the defense presents a case about
dog bites, the state might want to rebut that and
(05:59):
so that could be few more days, so like two
more weeks of testimony ish, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Is there a concern with jury fatigue?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yes, except I will say, well, so there's eighteen jurors,
and I would say generally speaking, I got to give
them credit because during the last trial, it started with
nineteen and by the last day we were down to fourteen.
I think not one juror has dropped out, so kudos
to them because they've all been there for six weeks straight. However,
(06:32):
if we're talking about juror fatigue, like on a daily basis,
there are certainly some jurors. There are some who are
diligent note takers who are locked in all the time,
and others who at times look like they have completely
zoned out, depending on kind of what point we're at
in testimony.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Yeah, so is there now we're talking strategy here or
second guessing strategy. Is there a benefit to maybe for
the defense expediting the process, or does it benefit them
to drag it out, because it seems to me they're
dragging it out.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
I think it depends. That was such a lawyer answer.
I'm sorry, but during the last trial, the Commonwealth called
sixty eight witnesses and then the defense only called six,
and it was like two days quick, punchy to the point,
you know, and I think that that was a strategy.
That's not going to be the case here the defense
that's going to take a week and a half. It
has a much longer witness list than it did in
(07:28):
the previous trial. On the flip side, the Commonwealth's witness
list is practically cut in half. They've called thirty eight witnesses,
not sixty eight. So we're certainly seeing things kind of
meet in the middle in that regard. But you do
notice almost that slip of that technique. For example, Robert Lessi,
the defense attorney who I told you is up right now.
He's really methodical and he's like really into the data,
(07:51):
and so his questions are really data focused, and at
times it can take you know, a dozen questions to
get to the answer looking for. And then on the
flip side, on redirect examination, you see Hank Brennan get
up there after him and he asks like three or
four questions really fast, and then the witness gets off
the stand, and you have to imagine that's a strategy.
(08:14):
It's hard to envision that it's anything but a strategy
when somebody has been on cross the gamination for hours
and hours and hours to then come up and kind
of be zippy and get them off the stand quickly.
So we certainly are seeing My point is each side
kind of do the opposite of whatever the other side
is doing at any given point, so it'll be interesting
(08:35):
Robert Alessi has played a huge role for the defense
and cross examination during the commonwealths case. I imagine I
don't know this, but I imagine that during the defense's
case in chief, perhaps Alan Jackson, David Yannetti, the attorneys
who played a bigger role last trial will be the
ones kind of leading the charge.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Christina retches, our guest esquire.
Speaker 6 (08:56):
Not yet, not yet, bar bar pending bard bar pending
when I was in college or your age bar pending
at a completely different meaning.
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Yes, we have.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
But the big question that we're going to ask is
should we expect to change in the outcome versus last time.
That's coming up in our next segment with Christina right
here on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
Great book Blood in the Water, Casey Sherman writes about
it or wrote that book, and he's coming up at
nine thirty. We all know about that case, dead mother,
that grandfather who plus tic on that one in Casey
is a very unique, very unique opinion on that. Okay,
let's get back to another very unique case. The Karen Retrala.
Joining us is Christina Rex. Christina who done a great
(09:44):
job covering this.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Why do you Why is it allowed that people can
pay witnesses. I don't understand it.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
In general.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Yes, this is I mean expert witnesses. That's a field
of that's a career. I mean, you can be an
expert witness in like you can be a doctor and
one who does expert testimony. On the side. There are
expert witnesses who are government employees, for example, like the
(10:20):
state medical examiner or a state trooper who does a
very specific line of work. Those are the kinds of
people who are expert witnesses to do it for a living,
and they always testify on behalf of the case. But
it's the tale as old as time that you can
pay an expert witness.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
But to me, and again, I mean, but you just
brought it up. And I understand there are people that
should be paid for their expertise, but you just brought
it up. As soon as I say, I'm the prosecution,
I have a defense witness. I have to pay him
three hundred thousand dollars. The defense says they just bought
this guy for three hundred grand. I'm on the jury
and I'm just a regular citizen, you know. Working a
(10:58):
regular job and in my mind thinking, Okay, they paid
this guy off to tell their story.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Right, and the jury can be instructed often to not
come to that conclusion, like jury instructions are a thing
that the judge can give. On the flip side, the
defense also has crash reconstruction experts that it has paid.
I don't know what the total is, but it has
paid as well. And I can guarantee on cross examination
(11:25):
of those witnesses that the prosecutor will lack how much
they were paid for their testimony. So just exactly that's
the exact point I'm trying to make. As normal as
it is to have an expert witness, it's like a
guaranteed throwaway question almost that a lawyer is going to ask,
weren't you paid to be here today? And how much
were you paid to be here? I think for this
(11:47):
witness who's on the stand today and tomorrow and yesterday,
the interesting part about him being paid is that allegedly
it's three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars, and that's
taxpayer money. So typically the state has government employees who
do this work, Like during the last case, it was
a state trooper who did that work right, So the
(12:07):
taxpayers weren't paying extra. Now that taxpayer money going to
an independent company for the prosecution's case. So that's what
made it a little more interesting.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Yeah, that it's just a bad look. I mean, yeah, And.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
I'll tell you we have I put a public records
request in yesterday to get an itemized receipt of the
money paid to this company, because again this is just
coming out on cross examination, so I just have to say,
you know, the defense says the bill was this much,
but hopefully I'll get an actual copy of the bill
from the state. At some point I.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
Lost track of this. Wasn't there a witness from the
last trial that was on Read's defense team.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Who got paid?
Speaker 4 (12:48):
You mean or it was. I don't know if they
got paid, but I remember when the trial began that
there was They said there was a witness that they
from the previous trial that they were using for her call.
Did I get that right?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
I assume you're referencing the crash reconstruction experts. So there
was like a lot of drama about this in between
the two cases. Basically, in the first trial, these crash
reconstruction experts who had been privately hired by the Department
of Justice as part of a federal investigation. They testified
for the defense, and then it was revealed in about
(13:26):
February of this year that the defense had paid for
their services and that had not been revealed to the court.
And so that was like a big yeah, that was
like a big kind of dramatic situation. The judge had
like considered sanctions on one of the defense attorneys, and
there were several hearings about it. So I think that
(13:46):
I assume that's what you're thinking about. But those same
experts are now coming back to testify in this case
and they do work for the defense. Now in this case,
their witnesses on behalf of the defense.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
You know, I'm confusing it with an episode of All
Law from nineteen eight.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
That's what I'm doing before my time.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
Yeah, okay, you just gotta, you gotta go. You gotta
watch it on two B or something, just to look
at the clothes and the hair cells. You gotta oh,
I will you got it? Okay. So Karen Reid seemed
to be this cult figure. Is some of her shine
off her star been dulled.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
In person, no, so in person at the courthouse every
day there is. There's a whole new system compared to
the last trial, but there's still a crowd of dozens
of people every single day. They gather out there in
their you know, shirts that say free Karen Reid or
their pink outfits. They cheer for Karen and her team
as they drive in. Karen usually flows down as she
(14:45):
unrolls the window and she talks to them for a
couple of minutes before she goes in. Some a lady
from Toronto I think it was the other day, came
and was like, can I please get a selfie with you?
I came from Canada to be here, so in person,
no on social media. I get the impression that there's
a lot a much bigger range of opinions this time around,
(15:09):
and people who are into the case posting about it
more so than there was last trial.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
I just know, if you hang around too long, you're screwed,
you know, with public perception. I mean seriously, you know,
like it gets people go okay, go away. And I'm
not even talking about whether she's guilty or not. I
think that's just how people think. I mean, in this
day and age, you know, people.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Get yeah, kind of the celebrity of it all.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Oh my god, it's like here today, gone tomorrow. Do you,
as I look at this from one hundred miles away,
I don't see how there's a change in the outcome
versus last time. Am I wrong?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
No? I think you might be right. It's certainly a
different case this time around. I mean, there is new
evidence the prosecution has put on a very different case.
And the biggest mom maybe I shouldn't say biggest, but
one big thing that they have used that they didn't
use the last trial is that they have an entireative
(16:09):
hours and hours of unedited raw interview footage with Karen
Reid that they've played twenty five plus clips of on
the screen for the jury where the defendant herself admits
to how much she drank, whether or not she should
have been driving, etc. And so that's certainly new information
(16:29):
that could make a jury feel one way or the other.
At the same time, a lawyer said this to me
during the last trial, and I think of it all
the time, which is that if you get ten people
in a room and you bring up the Karen Reid trial,
you cannot get all ten people to agree. And I
think that's still true, and I think that that could
very well be true for a jury as well.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
I don't expect you to give an answer on this
on which way you think it'll go. But in your mind,
do you think you know what happened? Because I don't.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
No, no, no, and actually no, thank you for this question.
Can I tell you yes? Because one very strange aspect
of kind of the social media of this case is
that so I do these social media recaps the end
of every day after I'm on TV, and yeah, one
of the top comments I get is like, whose side
(17:22):
are you on? Why don't you tell us what you
think you know? I can't tell which team you're on.
And I tell people this in person often and they
don't believe me, Like I truly, as a journalist and
as a person, do not have a strong opinion about
what happened in any direction. I think the reason this
(17:46):
case has taken off so much is because there is
so much gray area, generally speaking, and people have so
many different opinions about what might have happened. And I'm
someone whose job it is to know all of those
theories and all of the other sink court and all
of the witnesses and so every day. I'm just inundated
with more information that I'm always fascinated by the people
(18:08):
who claim that they know exactly what happened.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
There's no way that you can be objective and say that.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I just you know, way you can be objective and say, oh,
it's so obvious that this is what happened, or it's
clear that this is what happened, because the only thing
that objective people could agree upon in this case is
that it's not clear.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
Yes, yeah, well that'll do it for the that's that's
the third act, and we still don't know who did it,
you know, I mean, well, but it's true.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
I mean, the thing is that the really really unique
thing about this entire situation, which has made prosecutors job
really tough from the beginning, is that there's not a
single eyewitness to what they say happened. Do you know
how rare that is for an event like what the
prosecution says occurred to happen and to not have a
single person witness it. I mean, that's a really tough
(19:05):
case from the start. So you can't say anything's clear
if not a single person saw it.
Speaker 4 (19:10):
Agreed, there's a cut that looks like it was done
by the light. She said I hit him, I hit him.
But then I look at that and I say, she
thought she hit him. She was panicked, she didn't know
what she was talking about. Then they sell the house,
they paint the floor, the dog disappears, ying and Yang,
I'm going I'm confused, and I think I.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Think it's you can only imagine how the jury feels, right.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
I think it's a really hard thing to do. And
I think I think she's going to walk again because
I don't think that there's going to be I just
don't see it changing, you know, I just do not.
I do not see the outcome changing. And I'm not
pro either way. I just don't think the evidence is there.
I have to ask you a question, what are your
plans now? Are you going to continue to do television journalism?
(19:52):
And I don't want to put you in trouble with
your bosses. I used to work there with no.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
No, no, I am. I genuinely am going to I
feel like, especially given the opportunity to cover this trial
the last two years, I'm just in a really good place.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Any network, any network, would be crazy not to go
get you in regard to this. Yeah, well, no, I
mean it's true. I mean, like, you know, look, I
worked at television for a long time. In radio, there
could there are some real I've worked with some real
morons behind the mic, and there are some people that
really know what the hell is going on. Dan Ray is
(20:25):
one of them who was an attorney that worked at
Channel four. And you're an attorney that worked at Channel four,
and you know there's a lot of there's a lot
of value in that final question, how has this case
changed your approach to being an attorney or your desire
to be an attorney?
Speaker 3 (20:45):
I think it's kind of ignited my passion even more.
I mean I think, like I told you, I'm in
a good place at work. I really feel like I'm
where I'm supposed to be right now. I can imagine
that someday, years years down the line, maybe I'll practice
law and I find a lot to be so exciting,
(21:06):
and this covering this case has been real world experience
that I couldn't have asked for anywhere else. So it's been,
you know, maybe even better than the classroom for the
last two years at certain times, and so I don't know, yeah,
in that regard, it's been really just made me more
interested in law, and but it's another thing is that
(21:29):
I think that it's brought me a unique perspective when
covering this case, because, like we've talked about, did anyone
really know what happened? A lot of people will say, like,
you know, everyone's trying to no one's fighting for the truth,
and there's a lot of accusations about that. I've been
in a unique position to try to explain to people
that you know, unfortunately, for better or for worse, evidence
(21:52):
in court is not always about finding the truth of
what happened. It's about proving a case, there's no doubt.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
Great job, Christina. We have appreciate your time. Best of
luck and congrats where to go.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Thank you so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Okay, take it Christina Rex Follow her a Channel four
follow on Instagram if you're into the Caenry case. She's
got great insight and she's gonna pass the bar. Are
you kidding me the first time? No problem. Casey Sherman's
got another great book out. Sherman is on a roll,
Blood in the Waters. Next on w Z.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
Okay, pay attention to people, Gary Tagway for Dan Ray Here,
listen to this list. The Finest Hours, Helltown, Hunting Whitey,
Last Days of John Lennon, The inside story of Tom
Brady's fight for redemption and murder in Hollywood. Amazing work.
I do want to also say Dave Wedge or Buddy
worked on a couple of these books with Casey Sherman.
But Casey is joining us right now and he's got
(22:54):
a new book out, Blood in the Water, the untold
story of a family tragedy. And we all remember this.
I mean we all remember this story in twenty sixteen
when Linda Carman she drowned and her son Nathan was
rescued in a lifeboat, and then all kinds of suspicion
came out, did this son do it? The grandfather was
(23:16):
murdered three years earlier, he was shot. There's a lot
of money involved. I've set the scene. Casey, you are
the go to guy for these books right now. I
have to tell you this, and I know you'll take
this as a compliment. You are the Flee Bailey of
true crime. Because if somebody's got a big story, it's
like if you needed, if you needed a defense attorney
to get you out of jail. You went to E.
(23:37):
Flee Bailey. If you need an author right now to
write a book about a crime situation with a lot
of juice to it, you were the guy. How did
this one come to you?
Speaker 5 (23:49):
Well, first of all, thank you, Gary, and I take
that as a compliment. Flee Bailey was a good friend
of mine, so you know this story came to me
much like it came to all of your listeners. Learned
about it via the news in twenty sixteen when this
miraculous rescue occurred one hundred and fifteen miles south of
Martha's Vineyard, where Nathan Carmen, a young man on the
(24:12):
autism spectrum, was rescued. He'd been on a life raft,
according to him, eight days in the North Atlantic before
he was rescued by the crew of a passing Chinese
cargo ship. And when the story broke it was a
bittersweet story because his mother, fifty four year old Linda Carmen,
(24:33):
was missing, but Nathan had been rescued. And I remember
that there were no images of Nathan or the rescue
in the first twenty four hours, so the media was
using clips of the old Tom Hanks film castaway to
try to tell this story, and I thought, Okay, this
is an interesting story that's unfolding in our waters. And
(24:54):
I've always been fascinated, of course with everything that the
Coastguard does, having written The Finest Hour, So my antenna
went up right away thinking is this a heroic story
or is this a story with a lot of darkness
in it? And turns out this is a story with
a with a tremendous amount of darkness surrounding it.
Speaker 4 (25:15):
What did you find that other people had not?
Speaker 5 (25:20):
Well, that's that's that's the key, right. So you know,
when Nathan Nathan was eventually arrested and charged with murder
on the high Seas basically he was accused of killing
his mother and he was about to go on trial
for that in twenty twenty three when he died under
mysterious circumstances while he was incarcerated. So at that point
(25:44):
I really had to gumshoe this case. And I interviewed,
you know, well over forty key witnesses to the case,
both on the record and off the record. I gathered
up all of the primary source documents. And when I
first went into this project, Gary, I thought there was
a right line between the allegations against Nathan Carmen and
his guilt, not only guilt in the disappearance and likely
(26:07):
murder of his mother, but as you mentioned, the murder
of his grandfather in twenty thirteen. When I investigated this story,
I found the complete opposite that there wasn't a straight
line to his guilt. In fact, several suspects emerge in
this story, and at the end of the day, Nathan
(26:27):
Carmen may have been innocent.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Yeah, I mean, Casey, what else is new? I mean,
this is the stuff you do, and it's terrific. I
want to go back to what you said. I wrote
it down. You said Nathan Carmen did according to reports,
he took his own life. You said suspicious circumstances. So
you do not believe he took his own life.
Speaker 5 (26:52):
Well, I've got my questions about that. His lawyers certainly
do not believe he committed suicide. You know, the warden
at the jail where Nathan died said it was a
suicide and then immediately said he'd left a suicide note behind.
That wasn't a suicide note. It was actually a note
to his lawyers to follow up on an investigative lead
(27:14):
the next day. I will tell you this, Gary, that
Nathan Carmen had an incredibly strong defense. I think he
would have been acquitted of the charge of murdering his mother.
He was only three months out before his murder trial
was supposed to start. So why would Nathan take his
own life? There are several theories, you know, surrounding that,
(27:37):
including that somebody may have killed him while he was incarcerated.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
I want to ask this question. I say, I don't
want to offend anybody, because I understand you know, you know,
autism and in people on the spectrum live very fulfilling lives.
I mean, I'm not going but I does his medical
condition can come into play as far in this at all.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Garry, And the reasonably why I'm saying I'm.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
Not trying to offend anybody, Yeah, yeah, no, I get it.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
And Nora was I when I when I wrote this book,
but I wanted to have a better understanding of autism
spectrum disorder. And Nathan always believed that he was targeted
by police and Windsor, Connecticut for the murder of his
grandfather because he was considered quote low hanging fruit, because
he was on the autism spectrum disorder or the spectrum
(28:35):
I should say. I will say that the FBI and
Coast Guard investigators never consulted any experts on autism spectrum disorder.
And when I interviewed, the FBI said, you know, it's
curious to me that you never had anyone with expertise
in this disorder in any of your interview sessions with Nathan,
(28:55):
nor did windsor police in Connecticut have that. Because Nathan
can respond to questions in an unusual way, because his
brain processes information differently from you or me. Not that
it's that it's unusual, it's just a different way that
he processed information. And you know the fact that you
know there was no expertise involved here really struck me
(29:19):
as curious. And when I asked the FBI about this,
the FBI said, no, you know, we let our own
profilers profile Nathan, but we were getting to that, meaning
they were going to bring in an expert at some
point in time. And I said, you were getting to that,
I said, I said the young man's debt. I said,
you know, it took you this long to do that,
and he never got his chance in court?
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Was it simply just lazy police work.
Speaker 5 (29:45):
Well, they blamed it on COVID. I think it was
a lot of lazy police work. Quite frankly, but they said, well,
you know, we couldn't get to Nathan because it was COVID,
and you know, he was all lowered up x y Z.
I said, look, you know, you know, do your due
diligence here, and quite frankly, you know, you know, these
are my theories on the case. Gary. But the book
(30:06):
Blood in the Water, I throw my fast fall straight
down the middle, meaning I present the reader the prosecution's case,
I present the reader the defense's case, and I put
the reader in the jury box because I want the
reader to decide whether or not Nathan is guilty or innocent.
And you know, and the jury and the verdict really
(30:27):
has been mixed amongst my readers. Some online reviewers believe
that he was targeted because he was autistic. Others say
that he was a criminal mastermind. So it's interesting that
this has become a very big debater and talker amongst
my readers.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
That is a big difference being targeted in a criminal mastermind.
That is, that's a wide gap there, you know, as
far as as far as perception. And also I don't
believe Unfortunately, I don't think people and I don't claim
to an expert, but I have a I think I
have a I think I have a compassionate understanding that
when you talk about people on the spectrum, there's a
(31:07):
wide range, and I would say overall the population doesn't
quite understand it.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
No, and even the experts of still trying to catch up,
you know, with certain you know, variations of autism spectrum.
Nathan had. We don't call it this anymore, but he
had Asperger syndrome. Now Asperger doctor Asberger you know, eventually
was deemed a Nazi, so we don't use that word anymore.
(31:34):
But I just want your listeners to understand this is
who Nathan was. He processed information differently, he emoded differently.
Some people would say he was aloof or you know,
had no compassion. You know, Nathan had great compassion, according
to the people that I interviewed for this book, but
he was never able to project that outwardly toward other people.
(31:55):
So of course people thought he was odd and you know,
portrayed bizarre behavior.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
This may be sorry to interrupt you, but this may
be an exaggeration, but What comes to mind is when
you say doesn't show emotion because of his conditions, some
people maybe say, oh, he's cold blooded.
Speaker 5 (32:14):
Yeah, that's true, And I think that's you know, the
common theme of people that just read reports about Nathan
or newspaper reports, or saw his you know, stoic image
on television, and there are some photos where Nathan looks
quite menacing, But that was the way Nathan always, you know,
had these facial expressions that didn't mean he was, you know,
(32:36):
capable of murder, not just one murder, but two. You know, Gary,
I've covered two hundred homicides in my career as an
investigative journalist. I know how difficult it is to pull
off one perfect crime, but to pull off two, one
on land and one on sea is almost nearly impossible,
and quite frankly, it's probably giving Nathan Carmen more credit
(32:58):
than he deserves in that realm.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
We have a theme tonight, follow the Money. It's you know,
that's that's what it's all about. We're going to get
to the money and his relationship with his grandfather that
Casey dives into, which I found very interesting. That's next
on WBZ talking to Casey Sherman Blood in the Water, you're.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
On Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
Him in the book is Blood in the Water? Casey
Sherman's done, and again from my money, Helltown. When you
get Blood in the Water, you're read you also have
to read Helltown, which is about the serial killer on
Cape cod which is freaking Is that the that's gonna
be a I don't want to put you on the spot,
but I hope I see that on the big screen
someday because that story is crazy. All right, So let's
(33:47):
get back. Let's talk about the grandfather with the Blood
in the Water. We're talking about Nathan Carman, who was
accused of murdering his mother back in twenty sixteen after
they went on a fishing trip. So his grandfather, and
I want to get the last name right as a
Chacalos Chocols Chocolus, John Chocolas was shot and killed at
(34:08):
twenty thirteen. Now, a lot of people said after his
mom died, well he killed both of them or allegedly.
But with what you write is she was very close
to his grandfather, so close that other members of the
family were jealous.
Speaker 5 (34:27):
That's correct. So John Chockolus, eighty seven years old, had
built a fifty million dollar empire. Basically, he was designing
and building assisted living facilities all around New England. And
John was actually going to give the business to his
firstborn adult or male grandchild, Nathan Carmen. And of course,
(34:51):
you know there are people and you know within the
family that didn't want that to happen. But it just
goes to show you that John loved Nathan Carmen and
Nathan really loved his grandfather. Nathan had zero motivation to
murder his grandfather because he was going to get everything,
the keys to the kingdom, So there was really no
(35:11):
reason for Nathan to murder his grandfather. But several other
suspects to emerge in the pages of Blood and the Water.
John Chocolus, who you know from the outside looking in,
was a very benevolent person that did a lot for
his communities, but he also had a twenty five year
old mistress. John had some shady business dealings. You know,
(35:34):
there are people enough people out there that wanted John
Chocolas dead.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
How about this theory? I wrote this down. The screenwriter
in me came up with this one case. Could Nathan
have murdered his mother to avenge his grandfather's death, meaning
did he think his mother had something to do with
her father's death so she could get the money. How
about that one.
Speaker 5 (35:58):
You know, it's an interesting theory and some people have
certainly raised it, and you know, there are really only
three people that know exactly what happened, and all of
them are dead. There's another theory that Linda Carman herself
may have murdered John Chockolas. Linda had a very volatile
and violent relationship with her father over the care of
(36:20):
her son, Nathan. Linda wanted to keep Nathan in bubble wrap,
wanted to get him, you know, basically wanted to keep
him institutionalized because of his disorder, whereas John Chockolas overlooked
Nathan's you know, social challenges and was willing to give
him the family business. So there there arguments over Nathan's
(36:42):
care actually spilled over into violence. I write a scene
in the book where John and Linda actually attack each
other at a psychiatric hospital in Hartford, Connecticut over Nathan's care. So,
you know, there is a lot of theories out there
in terms of whom they have killed John shock Listen.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
Why now do you believe that Linda drowned? Well, I
shouldn't say. I don't want to put you on the
spot there, but it's okay, So the grandfather was shot
and then there would be no foul play with Linda obviously, right,
I mean if we believe, if you believe that Nathan's innocent,
(37:24):
then her death was an accident.
Speaker 5 (37:27):
Then her death was an accident. You know, the question is.
Speaker 4 (37:30):
There with anybody else getting involved somehow?
Speaker 5 (37:32):
No, you know, with with Wnda's yeah, I mean I
don't think i'm reaching. It's sure, sure, Well you're a screenwriter, Gary,
and I get it. But I will say that, you know, obviously,
there was some questions that Coast Guard investigators had about
Nathan because Nathan claimed that he was a castaway in
a life wrapt for seven to eight days. Now, this
(37:55):
is after the US Coast Guard had a search and
rescue mission that spanned over sixty four thousand square miles
of the North Atlantic and no one could find any
trace of Linda or Nathan during that time. And once
they gave up the search, all of a sudden, Nathan
pops up out of nowhere and is rescued by a
crew of a passing Chinese cargo ship. But when they
(38:17):
bring him aboard the ship, he's not malnourished, he's not hypothermic,
he's not weak. He looks very strong. Actually, he you know,
climbs the accommodation ladder and gets on that ship really
without any help. So that was something that the Coastguard
felt that was incredibly odd. They also believed that Nathan
was lying because Nathan said that he was fishing in
(38:40):
a particular area called Block Canyon, and the fathoms are
incredibly deep there, and basically you need a vessel that
it's about forty feet long, if not longer, a crew,
a very you know, polished crew, and you know technology
to get out to where that was. You know, those
fishing grounds are. Nathan was out there in a thirty
(39:03):
one foot aluminum fishing boat with two fishing rods and
his mother as his crew. And if the boat went
down where Nathan claimed it had gone down, Nathan's life
raft would have drifted in the opposite direction from where
he was found. That's why the Coast Guard investigators believed
that Nathan killed his mother. And I've interviewed these Coast
(39:25):
Guard investigators and I say Okay, I'm going to follow
you on this theory. I get it. You know what
you just told me was, you know, completely plausible in
terms of Nathan possibly lying about what had happened at sea.
But if he'd planned this murder, how does he plan
his getaway? Where was he during those seven days? Did
(39:45):
he take that thirty one foot aluminum boat back to
shore and then go back out one hundred and fifteen
miles south of Martha's vineyard just in the hopes that
he would be rescued? And is Nathan following you the
shipping lanes of the North Atlantic, monitoring the shipping lanes
in the hopes that he's going to get rescued. Now
(40:07):
a tanker, a freighter rescued him. So the likelihood that
the tanker could have even seen him, let alone rescued
him out in the middle of the North Atlantic, seems
incredibly implausible to me. And if they couldn't answer that
question to me, which they couldn't, they couldn't have been
able to answer that question to jurors in a criminal.
Speaker 4 (40:26):
Trial Casey, It's great stuff. I think many people on
the Service just assumed that the young man was guilty.
You're going to read this book. It's a different story
Blood in the Water, and you can get it everywhere.
I assume case you.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
Can get every book Stordan, you get it online, so
it's everywhere in America right.
Speaker 4 (40:45):
Now, gerh And also follow Casey on Instagram because if
you're looking where he's going to be. He loves to
talk to readers. He's very available if he's doing a
reading at a bookstore, it's a great take and he
will not only sign your book, but he will also
have a conversation with you, which is not always the
case with bestsellers. Casey talked to you soon. Thanks for joining.
Speaker 5 (41:04):
Us, all right, thank you, Gary, appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (41:06):
We'll talk to you later. Let in the Water, Casey Sherman.
Check it out. And also Helltown two and Murder in Hollywood.
They're all good stuff. They're all good. Okay, still to
come here on WBZ. Jackson Tolliver is going to join
us and we will discuss the Patriots and the Celtics.
We're got to light in the mood a little bit
with my buddy Odie Henderson. The Life of Jack Lemmon
(41:27):
Next to WBZ
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.