April 10, 2025 • 56 mins
Susan Clare Zalkind is an investigative journalist who wrote the book The Waltham Murders. She also wote and produced the Hulu docuseries The Murders Before The Marathon. Lisa and Susan sat down to discuss her book and were joined by our expert at large, Katherine Loftus, to discuss the way the Karen Read case is similar. With the Karen Read retrial starting next week this is the perfect time to listen to this episode!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hey, Welcome to Lisa's book Club, a podcast where I
interview best selling authors from the New England area, pulling
back the curtain on what it's really like being a
best selling author. They're guilty pleasures, latest projects, and so
much more.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Well, Welcome into Lisa's book Club podcast.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I sat down with Susan Zalkin, who's an investigative journalist
and she wrote the book The Walfaan Murders that was
also turned into the docu series, and we talked a
lot about what's going on with that case and how
it still hasn't been solved. But also we had Catherine
loftis our attorney expert on the Karen Reid trial, and
it was a really amazing book club. We talked about
(00:42):
the Wallfam murders and the Karen Reid trial and some
of the similarities.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
So can you give us a brief overview.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Of the Wallfam murders, the key people in it, what
happened on September eleventh, twenty eleven, for the people that
have read the book, for the people that are here
that want to read the book, and the people that
are here that are currently reading the book.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Okay, so thank you again. This is incredible, and it's
such an honor to be here, you know, investigating terrorism murder.
It really made me appreciate the people in places that
bring people together, right, And I don't know if there's
any institution that embodies that more in Massachusetts. And Kiss
went away right, very true, thank you, and so I'm
(01:31):
very honored to be here and to have this conversation
with all of you. So it's a heavy conversation, but
let's start with the five main characters that you need
to think about. The victims. Raphael techn it's the son
of a local Jewish spiritual leader, Eric Wiseman. He was
my friend. He was really an incredible human being. And
(01:52):
Brendan Mess who was also you know, a legend in
his own time. So those are the victims. And if
you kind of think about it as a ven diagram
ven diagram, you think of Brendan Mess and his gym buddies. Right,
you have Brendan Mess, then you have Tamerlin Sirnaiev. Brendan
was a kickboxer, Tamerlin Sirnaiev. Before he was a terrorist,
(02:13):
he was a boxer as well, and so Brendan and
Tamerlin were close friends. They worked out at the same
gym two or three days a week. And there was
another gentleman who Tamerlin also knew from the Chechen community,
who he became closer to when the lead up to
the murders. That's Ibrahim Tadashev.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
So you have three friends who are marijuana dealers, right,
including Brendan Mess, and then you have three gym buddies.
Those are the five key characters. I think there's there's
other people. There's the woman who found the bodies, but
those are the key ones. So the three men were murdered.
It was a horrific and unusual murder at Brendan Mess's
apartment on September eleventh, twenty eleven. Their throats were slit.
(02:58):
There was marijuana dumped on the bodies. There was cash
strewn around the crime scene. It was very unusual, very
graphic crime. But because you know, the victim's sold cannabis
and there was literally drugs on the body. The initial
reporting about this case was as a drug killing, right right,
and it was in the news for about almost less
(03:21):
than two weeks, kind of slipped away until eighteen months
later the Boston Marathon bombing. Tamerlin Surnaive and his younger
brother Shakhar set off to a pair of pressure cooker
bombs at the finish line. It was horrific. I'm sure
many of you don't have direct connections, sort of feel
(03:41):
connected to that case.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
We all are connected to that. Yeah, we all remember it.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Because that's what terrorism is, right, and it was very visceral,
very public. You know, three young people killed, even a child,
and so there are questions after the murder, after the bombing,
you know, could Tamerline have been involved in this horrific
homicide of his friend on nine to eleven. And for
people close to this case, as horrific as it was,
(04:05):
there was sort of a sense, Okay, soon we're going
to have answers from someone official. The whole world is looking.
But one month later, Youbreham Dadashev, you know, the fifth
guy I was talking about, He was questioned in his
own home in Florida and he was shot to death
by law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
We all remember that too. Strange odd story.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
And there's never been the case is still officially open.
There's never been a public you know, accounting for the
connection between Tamerlin ser Naive and the earlier murder and
there is one that's it took me a long time
to figure it out. And that's really what the book
is about. You know, what happened to law enforcement, you
know in the early stages, you know, at the bombing
(04:49):
you Bereham, to Dashav being killed, and up until today
and creating a record of accounts so we can have
these conversations.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
So thank you for that, because it is it's very involved.
It has a lot of a lot of characters in it,
a lot of backstories. So you spent the last ten
years investigating this triple homicide. But for me reading the book,
your work on this is incredible. Can you give us
(05:20):
sort of a behind the scenes, behind the curtain look
at what it's like being an investigative reporter, because when
I was reading this, I thought, Wow, did Susan did
you get death threats? Like? Have you like, do you
worry about your safety sometimes? Like do you like walk
(05:42):
us through what your life is like and what it's
been like for the last ten years.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
It's never boring, It doesn't seem to be.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
It's never boring. I think you know, there was a
sense after Tadashcheff was killed there were a lot of
conspiracy theories. You know, there were a lot of there.
There was no official saying anything, So there was all
these rumors. And I actually listening to Eric's sister Ariya,
you know what her real fear was was the unknown,
you know, And so it was kind of my mission
to was exactly my mission to figure it out. As
(06:12):
scary as what I found is, it was at least
it was the facts. I mean, initially, you know, that
first trip to Florida, I'm I'm I'm sick to my stomach.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Right, I thought about it.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You're just yeah, I did anything. And the initial stages,
I was doing a lot of door knocking alone. And
you know, some of those door knocks are in the book,
some of them aren't. You never know what's going to happen,
and I was determined just to find the answers. That
was part of why I did the docuseriies, right, but
(06:44):
you know, you're meeting with people, You're getting midnight phone calls,
you know, you're hoping people slide you documents, and it
is scary and I won't do it again, but I'm
glad I did it this time.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Well, it seems like you would go down a lot
of roads that ended up not producing anything, right, and
then some scary roads, and then some roads that really
did help you.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Certainly, and you know, some of the roads that don't
produce anything, you still have to go there right to
figure it out. And there's many interviews or conversations that
don't end up in the book, but they inform what
I do put in the book as well. And there's
also the emotional impact of just dealing with these material.
Theres the insomnia.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Dealing with the families of the victims.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
I mean, that's an honor right, but they're that heaviness
of their.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Loss certainly, And that's something I would say to a
lot of people on the phone with them, because I
think there's sort of an expectation for me to perform
my grief and I do in private, and I'm not
always able to do that in public, not able to
go there, and I think that's as it should be, right.
(07:55):
You know, you kind of have to go into one
mode when you're writing and then I mode when you're investigating.
And I'm glad I did it. Like I said, I
will not do something like this again. And also shout
out to my sister who was always on the phone,
every stuff of the way, my addresses, she's here, emotional.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
She came in from Philly.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Yeah, you do.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
You need a support system.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
So what were some of the.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Most important facts you uncovered that led you to believe
that there was a connection between Tamerlin Sarnayev and the
Waalfam murders.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Well, what were the key points?
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Ibrahim Tadashav? The man was killed. He did confess before
he was killed, and there were a lot of questions,
a tracking down that confession, the handwritten no, the bits
of the transcription that I gained, But that interview was
so unusual. You know, they're confronting a trained fighter for
three and a half hours in his own home. I
(08:55):
couldn't trust you know, that confession alone. I was a
to get eyewitness accounts from law enforcement on record backing
up his confession to the murder scene, so that was helpful.
But a lot of the information was financial. You know,
journalism is about following the money, and you have Tamalin
(09:16):
Sirnayav and Ibrahim Dadashev were broke. They're exchanging messages about
stealing from infidels and the lead up to the killing,
there's a call that goes out from that apartment to
one of Ibrahim Tadashev's roommates who was working at a
local pizza place. So there was a delivery order, and
(09:37):
I found out the guy who picked up the call
he had been Ibrahim Tadashev. So that's another connection. You
have Ibrahim Tadashev changing his phone number after making a
call just after midnight. You have him leaving town, lying
about leaving town shortly after the murders, his wife and
himself lying about it. And you have him and Tameralin
(09:59):
suddenly having a whole lot of money. You have Tamerlin's
wife making Google searches with Tamerlin's name connected to the murder.
Shortly after. You have you know, Ibraham Tadashev suddenly gets
a car, he suddenly has cash. There's no accounting for
the money. And Tamerlin, who had previously been broke, suddenly
he's able to go to Dagistan. And Tadashev had another roommate,
(10:21):
and there's money gram transfers that match, you know, Tamerlin's
travel travel. But there was there was the triple homicide.
There was a robbery the same night at Raphael Ryl
Techan's house. So there's significant amount of money that was
taken as well, and so that about that. Uh, those
proceeds match money grams from an associate who went out
(10:44):
to lunch with Tamerlin hours after the bombing that stop
when he's there and pick up again when he's back.
There's another financial transaction, and so all of that leads
me to think that, you know, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Right together motives, right, or a motive or yeah?
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I mean you also have the motive. There's a financial motive,
and they're exchanging message about stealing from infidels to carry
out jihad. And you also have Tamerlin Sernaiev who is
in the house. Unlike Dadashav, he's social with Brendan Mess.
He's been at Raffi's house and he's having arguments about
Israel and the lead up of the killing. So you
(11:26):
have he's broke. I mean, that's a pretty there's cash
lying around. Brendan Mess is in a relationship with a
Muslim woman at the time that's pretty contentious. There's a
lot of.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Her name is Hibba, and we're going to talk about
her because there are still so many unanswered questions about
her and her.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Relation to this crime.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Correct, correct, But if you look at it, look, this
is a very unusual crime, a nine to eleven eleven crime,
and you have the Boston Marathon bomber, who is friends
with one of the victims, never showed up to the memorial.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Service, and neither did she.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
You know, there's yeah, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
It is.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
We talked on the phone prior to this discussion. In
your opinion, how did the way Massachusetts investigates homicides affect
certain elements of this investigation and why they didn't go
to Rafe's home that had been broken into and you know,
dusted it for fingerprints, Like why didn't they talk to
(12:31):
friends of Brendan, friends of Eric that could have told
them about Tamberlin.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
But you know what I mean, So what's going on here?
Speaker 3 (12:40):
You know, you can come up with all sorts of
theories of why law enforcement did or did not act
like they did. And I think at the end of
the day, there is an issue with that distracting from
the fact that the police work here could have been better. Right,
You know that they had Tamerlin Sarnaya's name, they didn't
follow up, you know, they have a lot of information
suggesting that this is a co implicated crime. They're not
(13:01):
pursuing those leads. You have a robbery they're not looking into.
And what I did find is that the victims were
marijuana dealers, but members of law enforcement were also involved
in the same drug world. This was difficult information to
track down. There's documents, there's multiple members of law enforcement,
but you have the victims buying from a local drug
(13:21):
dealer who members of law enforcement are socializing with extensively.
So that's one reason not to pursue leads is for
fear of what the investigation might uncover. No murder investigations
are revealing if they're done right, all sorts of things
are uncovered about the decedents' lives. So there's reasons for
(13:44):
law enforcement not to pursue a lead that may have
nothing to do with the homicide. It's just kind of
the culture here in Massachusetts. And we can talk about
more about these cases being under the jurisdiction of Middle
of District attorney's offices don't have a major crime unit. Instead,
our our homicide investigations are very localized. We task state
(14:08):
troopers directly to DA's office instead of having one centralized unit,
we have eleven separate units and another one for the AG.
So problems happen if everybody knows everybody in a small town,
there's isn't this checks and balances Because you have the
DA who's a politician working side by side for local police.
(14:29):
You know, everything is hunky dory until it's not.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Can we talk a little bit about Hibba?
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Who here saw the docuseries? Okay?
Speaker 1 (14:43):
I felt like, and if Winnie's watching, who is on
the billion lease?
Speaker 2 (14:47):
In the morning show?
Speaker 1 (14:48):
After Susan came in the first time to talk about
the docu series, because that came out first, we came
into the office and we said, that woman has some
connection to this.
Speaker 2 (14:59):
That's just gut instinct.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
It's but it's not just gut instinct, it's based on
your investigation. What have facts that you uncovered about her?
Speaker 2 (15:07):
So do you want to talk about it?
Speaker 3 (15:08):
I wouldn't have been able to even include that if
I didn't have significant reporting, correct, And then after the
docuseries aired, I got more reporting Like this isn't easy
to talk about. You know, the information involving Hibba is
not conclusive. You know, it's possible that she you know,
had orchestrated prior robberies in which she recruited accomplices, which
(15:31):
I heard multiple accounts backed up by police documents. You know,
it's possible that she had had violent fights through knives
at Brendan Mess and Raphael Techan and other men at
her lives and still had nothing to do with the
triple homicide in Waltham. And it's possible that she lied
to me and others multiple times.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
That's possible, Yes, I met. What about the five people
that so deceased?
Speaker 3 (15:56):
I mean that is also it's that's almost sort of
a myth part part of the story. It's eight people
for one, it's you know, there's the a prior boyfriend
years ago who was murdered in a home invasion. There
is an ex boyfriend September one, two thousand, so that's
ten days before the Waltham killings who was killed. There's
(16:20):
Brendan Mass and the two victims who she was fighting
with prior. So it's if you think about it, the
victims would not have been at that house if she
was there. She had a violent fight with Brendan slash Tires.
She had previously thrown a knife in an argument with Raffi.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
And that the slash tires was right before.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
You know, she went to Miami and Brendan told friends
that she wasn't coming back. He told the landlord that
she was in Virginia and she bought a one way ticket.
You now, by her own account, she threw a knife,
not at Raffi's head, but that's the violent act. It's
a pretty violent act. And she comes back and doesn't
have a key and opens the door. I felt terribly
(17:05):
for her. You know, I had written a report and
she contacted me and she you know, you want to
leave people right. And also people close to this case
have other reasons for lying, for not wanting to disclose
everything to report her. But look, this case is still open.
It's officially unsolved. The Middlesex DA says there could be
(17:27):
other people involved. And the fact of the matter is
her husband who was killed.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
His name is Jay.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Yeah, his death it looks pretty convincing that his death
is by suicide. And I have to say her prior boyfriend.
You know, there's three men. I talked to the killer
and he said he said that he did it. But
this is spoiler. Her husband, Jay, wrote a letter implicating
her of the murders. So she is squarely part of
(17:56):
the story. And look orchestral robberies in which she recruit
accomplices that are financially motivated and vengeful. That is a
unique m O. I will just say, that is a
unique m O. And for me to be saying this
and to be even dangling questions about a living woman,
(18:16):
that bar for me is high. But I cannot talk
about this case truthfully, honestly without introducing it. And it's
very challenging because I've interviewed her, I've emailed her, and
she's lied repeatedly to me, so that also makes it challenging.
Now her response to this reporting is that she's being
(18:36):
discriminated against. And look, I mean that's a concern, and
especially when I was talking to people in the aftermath
of the killing, the hatred was palpable. But you know,
the individuals who I spoke to who had the most
damning information, you liked her. You know, I wanted to
(19:00):
figure out the story as well. Look, this is scary.
This is again why you wish that law enforcement was
on this, and why it's so concerning that if her
husband is leaving a note implicating Hibba in the crime.
Why lawn a month after the murders? Why isn't law
enforcement doing more to investigate the victim's social circles? Now,
that's unaffair to Hibba as well.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Another thing that we that you touched on at the
beginning was the man in Orlando that was shot by
the FBI, Abraham, and his connection to Tamerlin, and that
he did sign a confession. But can you sort of
go into the details around that whole what happened in
Orlando Ibrahim and what you found out.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
But when I first went to Orlando, there are many
people who loved Ibrahim Tadashev, his wife and his girlfriend,
all right. I think his father was a aware of
the girlfriend, but not the wife. His mother was aware
of the wife, but not the girlfriend. These a lot
of people in this story. It's the same with led,
(20:10):
very compartmentalized lives. I was the same with Jay. You know,
he gave candy to neighbors And when I initially went
down there, I was speaking to the girlfriend. I did
not have evidence linking him to the crime. He was.
He was killed, No, whether or not, no one deserves
to die like that, even if they are a murderer. Right,
what's so disturbing about Ibrim Dadashiv is he is a
(20:32):
violent man, and he's a trained fighter. He's from Chetscha.
Look at his history. He's a war survivor. You know,
he's threatening to kill people over traffic stops. You two
weeks before he was killed, he's rearranging a man's teeth
over a parking dispute. Investigators knew that about this guy,
and they had significant evidence linking him to the crime.
(20:56):
The phone call and leaving, and they confront a trained
fighter with a hair trigger temper in his own home
for hours. Now, what's so extraordinary about this is it
was an FBI agent who pulled the trigger. This is
unique to Massachusetts. The guys in the room weren't taking
(21:17):
orders from the FBI. They were taking orders from an
ADA Assistant District Attorney in Middlesex County. You'd think, you know,
this is a case link to the Boston marathon bombing.
It's serious. They text the ADA. They say, Okay, he's confessing.
The ADA says, don't put him in cuffs. The ADA
(21:38):
needs to drive to his office and write up a warrant.
And they're texting him. They're calling him. They saying, wait, wait,
So you've got Ibrahim who's just confessed to murder and
he's sitting there in his apartment waiting for what happens next.
You know, I think would be shocking if he didn't attack.
I'm surprised he held it together, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Going back to your work with the docuseries which came
before the book, what was the hardest to work on?
Was it the docuseries writing that and producing that or
was it the book.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
I mean, I think what's so great about Eric Wiseman
is just who he was as a human being. He
had this unique gift. You know, the friends who are like,
celebrate your wins for you, Like he was that guy.
And he was also, you know, a supporter of artists.
What's really embarrassing, Lisa is I was singing reggae songs
and bars when I met him, but he was right there.
(22:37):
And when I switched to journalism, He's like, I didn't
know anything about sports. I applied as a job, but
he was texting me all the lingo that I needed
to use. He was really supportive in that way, and
his family as well. And so to feel that, you know,
I'm not an activist. I'm here for the truth, but
to feel that that was in some way respecting who
(22:59):
Eric was really, you know, it made it all worth it.
You know, it held together. The docu series was hard
because I'm getting interviewed by my friend's murder and I'm
trying to keep it on track. That was challenging. The
book was challenging was because I had never written a book.
I was like, Okay, I need to write a book
to keep investigating. I better start reading some books I had.
(23:22):
But putting to it was all very It was all
very hard, and also I'm glad I did it, and
I hope it honors Eric and the victims in some
ways that I kind of kept going. I would not
have been able to if it was not for his memory.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
I totally agree, and that's why just your work is
so important on so many different levels.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Thank you, Lisa. Doesn't she give the best compliments, She
just like makes you feel like a rock star. No.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
I mean, I know that you are connected to Eric,
but I think that investigative journalism more than ever. I
know it's an exhausting process and can be scary, but
I mean, we really applaud you for everything that you've
brought to light with the docusaries with the book, and
(24:06):
we hope that things may change a little bit.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Is that your hope?
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Yeah? I mean it's hard because I'm not an activist,
right and I.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Really but you're shining a light on something.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
It's shining a light and also creating a resource. So
if someone else wants to pick this up, the facts
are there. You know. I tried to write the book
by putting my own self in it. I didn't have
to sell the book on a thesis that especially because
I hadn't really figured out if they had done it
or not, and I don't know. It's the truth, man,
(24:41):
that's it. That's what I worked hard.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Have the families read the book and have they reached
out or seen the docuseries?
Speaker 3 (24:51):
You know that you have three families here. I think
the families, the members of all three families who I
spoke to, wanted information, right, So by putting myself in
the docuseries, I was able to say, hey, I can
get these resources, and if you want to be involved, great,
If you don't, you know, it's not going to be
forcing you to put yourself into a position that you
(25:13):
don't feel comfortable. With to get the answers that you need.
I think for all three families, the fact that I
would be their best hope for information, it's not a
great situation, right, you know, and I've certainly had very
moving messages from all three members. But I also don't
(25:34):
want to say that the victims' families, you know, approve
of every single sentence that I wrote, and I would
also just respect their privacy as well as much as
I can. I kept the information that was relevant to
the story, and I kept the families in mind every
single step of the way.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Do you think that this case will eventually.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Be solved?
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Will they come out and it won't be an open
case anymore?
Speaker 3 (26:06):
I mean, if the public demands it in a really
consistent way, I'm not. You know, this is a book,
so it's sort of one and done if other members
of the press pick it up and hold people to account.
But you know, the Middle SEXDA, you have one narrative
of this case that kind of went through the younger
(26:28):
brother's trial where the government essentially said that this case
was unsolvable. That will never know at the same time
kind of nodding will never know, but also will never
know because the two people who did it are dead,
which is a little bit hypocritical, right, and frustrating if
you're looking at this case and you believe there could
actually be other people involved and you're just waiting, and
(26:51):
you're waiting and waiting, but the case still falls under
the jurisdiction of the district attorney. After the Supreme Court hearing,
she said, you know, we're still hot on the chase. Chase.
You know, one month after the hearing, we got a
new lead. She all then told a reporter at the
Commonwealth Beacon after the book came out, you know, sometimes
it takes fifty years to solve the homicide.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
I wasn't that convenient.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
And she's going to be around, right, And she solved
a case like that recently, an engine what they found,
they found police misconduct.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Well that's an interesting segue, Susan. I'd like to invite
up Catherine Loftus. Yes, a lot of you here, our
listeners to kiss one away. So you know that Catherine
welcome has been on the billion LEAs in the morning
show covering the Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We couldn't have done it without her.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
I'm so excited to be hearing it too. They were well,
so special being up here.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
You're in the hot seat, I know, and these are
comfy seats, right, So welcome Catherine. I want to introduce you.
You are a licensed attorney. You've worked for Suffolk a
DA office for eight years. You have a law practice
with your dad, Loftus and Loftus as Billy loves to say.
And again, you've been covering the Karen Reid trial on
(28:19):
your own for the past two years. And you can
follow Katherine at note my objection, on TikTok, Instagram.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
Everywhere, same handle everywhere, and.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
She breaks down the trial like nobody else.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Truly.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Yeah, I appreciate coverage.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
You're very fair, you're very smart, You're very honest, and
that's why we are so happy that you've been with
us on the show.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate it, and it's
been fun. I have to tell you. I've been watching
Lisa and listening to Lisa and Billy with my mom
since I was a little kid.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
So it's making.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
No no.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
So I had Catherine come tonight because I really feel
like there are a lot of common threads between the
Wallfam murders, and the Karen Reid trial they're obviously very different.
But like Susan just mentioned, there's been a lot of
(29:26):
stuff that shouldn't.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Have happened in my opening a lot.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
So the first common thread I want to throw out
there to the two of you is when investigators decide
on one theory and in the Wallfam it was really
this is a drug thing, this is an inside job.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
Use outsiders too have been it was quote unquote Mexicans.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Right, drugs, But that's what they were going That's what
they were that was the direction that they were going in.
And in the Karen Reid trial, we know it was
that Karen hit John O'Keefe and never went.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Inside the Albert house and we know what happened after that.
So do you guys want to talk about that. I'd
love to hear thoughts from you on sort of Well.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
I think it's interesting that we're kind of in a
time where people are realizing, you know, the police in
the system is not perfect, and obviously it's run by
human beings, right, so everybody is susceptible to all kinds
of you know, influence, a corruption, and we we want
(30:31):
to hope and expect that people in certain positions are
less susceptible to that, but at the end of the day,
sometimes they're not. And I think one of the main
things that were you know, similar in this case, is
this idea of tunnel vision, right and deciding right away
this is what we think it is. And sometimes when
(30:53):
you have that tune tunnel vision, it is what you
think it is, right. And that's often the problem because
a lot of times, for police and investigations, what the
most obvious answer is is the correct answer. The problem
is that when you get an idea in your head,
you subconsciously dismiss everything else. So, you know, like in
(31:18):
the Karen Read case, they decided pretty quickly this was her,
she hit John O'Keeffe, and therefore we're going to everything
we're going to find is going to fit into that narrative,
you know, and similar to the wealthy amertis you know. Particularly,
I think in a suburban county which maybe there is
(31:39):
less drug drug crime, this I.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
Think there was quite a lot of drug crime.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
You know, and when they say, you know what it's
it's unfortunate. But I think there's sometimes an undercurrent in
policing when they when the victims are involved in criminal activity,
you know, whether it's a gang member or drag deal are.
You know, it's there's a little bit of the feeling
(32:04):
that well, when you're in the game, you know, sometimes
this is the stuff that happens, you know, and that's
the problem, and that's the problem.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Yeah, I guess I would say that. You know, one
of the moments that I really hone in on the
Karen Reid case as is Michael Proctor not his language,
but when his colleague asks, you know, I think, is
the homeowner going to get some shit? The homeowner being
another Boston cop, and Proctor says no, because he's a
Boston cop.
Speaker 5 (32:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:33):
Right. I think there's a culture here of not looking
at leads that might end up in law enforcement. And
to be clear, it's coming from the top.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
You know.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
I talk to many members of local law enforcement who
say that they would be punished chastise for so much
as ticketing is a powerful member of time got crime.
If you look at Worcester County, I think it's Ali Bibard,
a judge's daughter. In that case, the state trooper said
(33:03):
he was ordered by his superiors to the change report
after pulling over a judge's daughter. Now the judge says,
you know, I had nothing to do with it, But
it's really part of the culture. If you look at
the pizza place with Tadasha's roommate also connected to a
local state Rep. Mike Long. So there's a real culture here,
(33:24):
especially because we don't have a centralized major crimes unit.
We have these little isolated pockets where everybody knows everybody
and hey, it's fine to maybe do it. I'm not
saying it's fine, but you can imagine a culture where
people do favors for people that they know, and that's
not great. But it's really not great if it's a homicide,
(33:46):
because not only are you going to miss a lead potentially,
but a defense attorney who, if he's doing his job,
is going to.
Speaker 4 (33:53):
Poke holes and you really, you know, reduce the credibility
in the system, because ultimately, what is so great about
our country, and really what's supposed to be special about it,
is that we have a system. You know, anywhere else,
for the most part in the world, you don't get
the benefit of the doubt in a lot of places,
(34:14):
right and here you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty,
and so you want and hope that your law enforcement
when you arrest somebody, you want them to really have
the confidence that this is the person, and not only
that they're confident, but that they have explored every single
option out there. Because, as you said, any good defense attorney,
(34:37):
like in the Karen Reid case, is going to find holes, right,
And so you would think that in the best you know,
the best outcome we want is that as homicide detectives,
you would expect that, you know, we want to make
sure everything is so buttoned up that nobody could poke
a hole in it, because in theory, you know, there's
(34:59):
a world where, say, in the Karen Reid case, if
they had explored all these things, if they had gone
in the house, if they had interviewed additional people, they
might still have come back to Karen Reid, right. But
the problem is when you don't do that, then you
allow for all of these possibilities to just be out there.
(35:20):
And if you're a defendant in you're charged, you know
you don't want the possibilities out there.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Well, this was the other common thread the conspiracy theories.
So that opens the door to all of this stuff.
And you Susan Wright in the book, and I'm going
to read right from the book. A historian Catherine Olmsted
asserts that a conspiracy theory is nothing more than a
theory about collusion that may or may not be true.
It has yet to be proven. And then you go
(35:47):
on and you say cautions us to watch out for
conspiracy theories that tie together unrelated events and make sense
of errant data. Another warning sign is when the theory
becomes impossible to disproof. Belief in or attachment to a
story can become so intoxicating they begin to construe facts
(36:08):
that might undercut their beliefs. And I feel like that
was very, very much happening in the last Karen reidtrial,
don't you think.
Speaker 4 (36:16):
I think so? I mean, I think from you know,
it's so sensationalized, and there's so much information out there,
and it becomes really difficult to discern what's real and
what's not. And often that's a really, you know, interesting quote,
because underlying most conspiracy theories is some basis of truth, right,
(36:39):
so there usually is a negative truth in there. The
problem is how far do we go with it?
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Right?
Speaker 4 (36:44):
And then do we get lost in is all of
this true? Is some of this true, do we then
become the same you know, I see sort of both
sides on the Karen readcase as having tunnel vision. I
think the people who are in insistent that she's guilty,
I mean, they're so closed minded to anything the defense presents.
(37:05):
I think the people who think she's innocent are so
closed minded to anything the calmwealth presents. And so we
really But but it.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
Comes back to what you guys were saying about the
police work, and it opens that opportunity.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
It does.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
I'll say, also, if the victims I happen to like
one of them, it doesn't matter. I was talking to
Ed Davis just about homicide at large. As the former
police commissioner. You want to go after killings within the
criminal world because those are the incidents that are most
likely to result in more violence, Like that's gangland. You
(37:42):
don't want that in your community. That is not safe.
So for conspiracy theories, for me, you can imagine the
kind of conspiracy theories that happened after Ibrahim Dasha was killed,
and in retrospect I was able to track a lot
of the conspiracy theories back to Russian propaganda. Now, the
conspiracies may be true. They may not be. They're about timerline,
(38:04):
and but ultimately the story is that, you know, the
FEDS are really really good at deceiving people. They're highly coordinated,
and they're on it, whereas you know, another theory could
be that they weren't, you know, that something went wrong.
But the result was that people brought forth these conspiracy
(38:25):
theories to officials and the officials were able to say, no,
that's not true, and at the same time side step
that there was a problem at all.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
And I think sometimes what happens when you have just
like that, So if you know, there's probably a certain
sub section of people who believe one thing about that story,
and it's very difficult to change that person's mind. I mean,
I find that once people are convinced of a position,
that's it. You know, they don't want to change, and
(38:56):
so you know, it's really difficult, I think, even with
in our own minds to challenge, you know, kind of
set beliefs and and what we perceived to be true
and to you know, you know, Michael was always question, question, question.
But if the police were, you know, dotting every tea
and crossing every ta and dotting every eye, then maybe
(39:19):
we wouldn't have the opening for conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1 (39:22):
But I don't know about you guys, but when we
were watching the Karen Reid trial, I was like starving
for the facts. I just wanted what is real here?
What can we really hang our hat on?
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Right?
Speaker 4 (39:34):
Right? And we spent a lot of time on you know,
speculation and fluff and maybe this happened, and maybe maybe
this didn't happen. And I mean the Commonwealth spent you know,
damn near all that time on disproving the defense theory,
which is not really their job. And so what happens when,
you know, I think in this trial and probably others,
(39:55):
is that you lose sight of what am I supposed
to be paying attention to? And if this is a
homicide trial, we have a victim, and we have somebody
whose life is on the line because she's charged with
a crime. Why is this so confusing? Why do we
not have the facts?
Speaker 3 (40:10):
And to bring that back, I think it's dry stuff.
But district attorneys have jurisdiction. Those are the people in charge.
When they aren't forthcoming with information, which you know, I
was already Tadashev was killed. I thought someone official was
going to at least make a statement. To this day,
no public official has accounted for the connection between the
(40:32):
Waltham crime and the Boston Marathon bombing. No one, no.
After Foyer request, after fouryer request. The Middle SEXDA at
least this was in twenty twenty two, finally released a
statement to me naming them, you know, Ibraham Tadashev and
Tamerlin Sernaia is person of interest, but no public statement.
(40:55):
So of course people are going to ask questions. I'd
also have to say, though, this is Massachusetts, so do
you know there's above The district attorney is the attorney general?
Speaker 2 (41:05):
Right?
Speaker 3 (41:06):
So the first AG was Martha Coakley. Cokeley had been
at the Middlesex DA's office herself, right, you guys remember
the nanny trial, Louise Woodward. Now she had tried the
nanny trial with Jerry Leoni, who was the DA at
her office was another ADA who had been working at Middlesex.
(41:27):
So this is an insular culture we have. The next
AG was more Heally, our governor, who steadfast refused to
even look at the crime, to even get an assessment
from the DA. You know what's going on? She refused
to do that. Oft to also say, you know, there's
(41:48):
another case in Somerville where a Somerville detective was found
text messaging a drug dealer the home address of his rival,
resulting in a near faise snabbing. Right the same Ada
who ordered the men in Tadashev's apartment not to cuff
him up wrote to Heally and said, you know, I
don't think this is a good guy. He's part of
(42:10):
a team, and she looked the other way. Now that's
not to say Healey's involved in anything, but it's a
culture of looking the other way because you know, ten
out of eleven DA's in the state or Democrats, to
go after a DA would be to go after her Ally.
That's not to say Democrats are like this. It's about
having a single party and a culture that looks the
(42:34):
other way.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
So I asked you this about the Waltham murders. Will
we ever see you know, will this case ever be
solved or closed? In the Karen Reid trial the second trial,
do you think there's going to be as much interest
as it was the first time around?
Speaker 2 (42:53):
How do you think? And then I'd like to hear
from all of you. We're going to take your questions.
Speaker 4 (42:57):
I think there will, just because it's garnered so much attention.
And I actually think, you know, I mean, we all
know locally how big it's been, but it really started
to go on the national attentions towards the back end
of it. And I think that because we have you know,
we've heard from the jurors, we kind of have an
(43:17):
insight into what they were thinking. So people are going
to be you know, have that in the back of
their heads going forward. And it will be interesting to see,
like from from my perspective, what's the second case going
to look like? Because it could look completely different, right,
It's it might not look like the same trial at all.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Well, they introduced a new lawyer.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
Yeah, you know he's he's Marty Weinberg. I mean he's
he's one of Boston's best legal minds, right right. I mean,
you look at Alan Jackson, he's done Weinstein, Marty's done Epstein.
We'll see, we'll see what Marty does next. I mean,
I think you'll you have a defense approach. And the
(44:00):
initial case I went to a pre child hearing. There's
lots that's you know, I've never seen anything like this,
But what was so fascinating to me was watching the
defense accuse the judge of being in on the cabal
in this big sensational hearing, And it feels different if
you're in the court room and you're watching Karen Reid
in her designer's seat and suits and you're looking at
(44:22):
the victims' families, and then the defense turns to the
camera and says that we need legal funds. The narrative
that they've put forth does really well on the algorithm, right,
and it's done a really good job of paying for
her defense.
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
So the question is if is Alan Jackson has put
forth similar types of campaigns in his political career, will
Marty Weinberg try a case like that? I think Marty
is going to be more concerned with an acquittal.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
I think so, and I think it's it's interesting for me.
One of the most fascinating things about this case is
the social media aspect to it, and you know how
how you can utilize it, you know, particularly as a
defense because you know the thing about the Commonwealth, they
don't it's really not you wouldn't want them out there
(45:18):
really talking about the case. It's you know, kind of
put in their theories out there. You want them you
really want them to present you know it in quote.
You don't want them trying to swear the public opinion.
But you know, when you're a defense attorney's very different
than a prosecutor, right, And their job is to get
their client off. And so if that includes convincing the
public of something and you know, changing perception and introducing
(45:42):
them to new theories, then that's what they're going to do.
And and if they were very effective at doing it. It'll
be interesting to see, you know, with Attorney Weinberg, you know,
he'll be arguing the case the motion to dismiss on
August ninth, So it'll be interesting to see is it
sticks around or not.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Is it confirmed that Alan Jackson will be on case.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
I think you will. I think if you look at
like the OJ Simpson trial, which this case is most
similar to, that case really brought in a new era
of TV news. Right. This is an influencer case, right,
That's that's where it's tried. But you also look at
if you ever watched Johnny Cochrane's closing argument, it's all
about you know, being the conscience of society, and it's
(46:22):
not about OJ being innocent, right, It's about Oj deserving
an acquittal, you know, who is policing the police, whereas
you have these two ex prosecutors who are saying that,
you know, he Usually usually defense attorneys try to keep
the bar of moral certitude high, right, whereas you have
(46:43):
Alan Jackson who's saying, I can prove that without question,
what happened was John O'Keefe went into this apartment, he
got attacked by a dog and then beaten up. And
that's that's interesting, that's new. That's not typically a defense's approach.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
It's not an in you know, because really at the
end of the day, you don't have to prove anything
as so why you know, I mean I think probably
you know, the third party culprit theory benefited them because
it's a way to explain the strength that the camwalth has,
like you know, the physical evidence and different things. So
(47:21):
it's it's not a you know, it's used sometimes, but
you know, it's it's difficult because there are lines. You know,
when I think about I try to really evaluate both
sides of the case, and I think about, Okay, well,
Karen Reid has the presumption of innocence right, and I
(47:42):
don't think she should be either accused or convicted of
anything unless the camwalth is held to their proof right,
which is beyond a reasonable doubt. And for me, I
hold that same standard to everybody in the house. That's
Brian Albert, Colin, Albert All and so you know, it's
it's difficult, but then you know when it becomes part
(48:02):
more of a story and you know it's the perception
of the perception versus reality. Like you were saying in
the courtroom, how it feels different than what we saw
on TV, right, And I thought, to me, the most
fascinating thing that came from the jurors is that, you know,
(48:22):
what we all, I think knew was that there was
no way she was ever going to be convicted of
second degree right. Everybody, nobody was going to convict her
of that. But that eight, possibly nine for the last vote,
we're going to convict her of manslaughta right. So what
the public thought was that we were going to have
not guilties in thirty minutes on everything was not what
(48:44):
the people sitting in that jury it was actually thought.
So it's so you know, sometimes the even though we
feel it on TV, it's it's different than seeing live
witnesses and attorneys, and we're.
Speaker 1 (48:57):
Going to take some questions just because we're running out
of time. Here a couple of questions from the audience. Yes,
we have a microphone for you. I have a question.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
What are your thoughts on Aunt BEV. Do you think
she's non biased? I think there's a big conflict of
interest there.
Speaker 4 (49:21):
I don't. I don't, I actually, you know, I mean
I think that again, for me, it's about perception versus reality,
and I think that I think that she follows the
law pretty she's she's her decisions have sounded pretty well
within the law. Even the decisions that were appealed. I
(49:44):
think there was one that was overturned, but everything else
was was affirmed. I think she's you know, she's a
lifelong public defender, so she sent spent her entire career,
like twenty five years defendant poor you know, minority defendants,
And you know, I think it's difficult as a judge
to be in that situation. She's in charge of not
(50:05):
only handling the case, but controlling the courtroom, you know,
kind of controlling the chaos that came with it. I
have not seen anything that actually substantiates the claim that
she's conflicted. Aside from allegations and speculations. Really everything that
I have seen in the room is out there. You know,
for me to say a judge is biased a conflicted,
(50:27):
you need you need to show me she's conflicted before
I'm going to say that about it, right, And I like,
I don't see it. It's not I'm open to seeing.
Speaker 3 (50:34):
I think what a lot of the reaction also speaks to,
And the same with the OJ trial is people's perception
of law enforcement and people's own understanding of the justice system.
Rather than making it about Aunt Bev, you can look
at this other case where you do have a judge's
daughter who's getting special treatment. So you can understand the
(50:55):
response to cases like this, even if it's not about her,
that people might have that distrust, you distrust due to
other incidents in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
Well, I like that you think that Judge Bev is
doing a good job. I wonder if if all of
the attention that she's been getting, I wonder how she's
feeling about that and has that kind of gotten in
her head at all.
Speaker 4 (51:17):
Well, it's going to be a little bit stressful. I mean,
she's she's the raj which is the sitting justice. Each
court county has one judge who basically manages everything. So
usually the judges who are in those positions are the
ones who can kind of handle it.
Speaker 2 (51:33):
You know.
Speaker 4 (51:34):
Even when people were asking is there going to be
a different judge assigned for the for the second trial,
you know, my thought was, She's she's kind of already
dealt with it. She's getting it. She's probably just going
to continue to take it. So you know, it's it's
I'm sure it's not easy to get all the hate.
Speaker 2 (51:50):
I can't imagine. We have a question right.
Speaker 5 (51:51):
Here, documentary versus the book, like.
Speaker 2 (52:00):
The process of doing the documentary versus the book.
Speaker 5 (52:03):
How you decided what to put in the Hulu series.
You got a lot of information, so yeah, making it TV.
Speaker 3 (52:10):
I think you can understand this being in radio to
the amount of information that you can include in a
TV series or verbally is limited. You can't get into details,
but you can also portray elements that you can't portray
in a book, right. I think for me, my motive
has always been the truth. Initially, I didn't want to
(52:30):
do a docuseries, as odd as that sounded, because I
was afraid of my journalistic ethics or having reporters get
in the way. And then I was reached out to
by the screenwriter of Patriots Day, who again I was
about to get an angry call with him, but he's
an Iraqi warvette and I was like, Okay, it might
be nice to have you knocking on doors with me.
(52:53):
And so for me, I was able to kind of
align just getting the information. So I was able to
do a lot more rapport getting the detailed information while
producing the docu series that I was then able to
put in the book.
Speaker 2 (53:08):
I think, oh, one more quick question, and you might
have said this on the radio when I missed it.
Speaker 6 (53:15):
Does Karen Reid have the option of going before just
a judge rather than a jury? And would that have
been in her best interest? Honestly, you do.
Speaker 4 (53:27):
Anytime you're on trial, you have the option to go
to a jury trial, so you get twelve year peas
in superior court, six in district court, or you can
go with a bench trial, which is just before a
single judge. Anything from as a defense attorney, I would
only go bench on things that I am very confident
on the law, very very confident. Otherwise, because the judges
(53:50):
know the law, So they're not going to be persuaded
by you know, third party theories or this and that.
They're going to be looking at what are the facts,
What can we prove? What can't we prove? With the jury,
you have a jury of your ps people made up
of all different kinds of you know, backgrounds, education, So
as a defense attorney, you have a much higher chance
(54:11):
of convincing. All you need is one out of the twelve, right,
So it's a big you know, you either go fifty
to fifty on a bench trial. So unless you're very
very confident, you don't go bench.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
That happened in the Michelle Carter trial didn't work out
well for the defense.
Speaker 1 (54:28):
Right before we finish, I know that both of all
three of us, we really want to remember all of
the victims in both of these cases, the three men
in Waltham and John O'Keefe and their families in both
of these cases. This is so hard obviously for all
(54:49):
of them. And I want to say that kiss went away.
We love talking about these things, and we like all sides.
Speaker 2 (54:56):
We like to hear from everyone.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
It's a same space, and that's how we've approached the
Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
And we will continue to do so.
Speaker 1 (55:05):
I wanted to I wanted to mention that I really
love that Susan was here.
Speaker 2 (55:12):
How can people find you? How can they follow you?
Speaker 3 (55:14):
Instagram is probably where I'm most active, Susan Claire's all kind.
Also Twitter, but there's a substack too on my website
if you go to follow. I did one essay on
Karen Reid, but Instagram is the most consistent social.
Speaker 2 (55:29):
Media that I and how can people find you?
Speaker 4 (55:30):
And everyone can find me? Mostly I'm on TikTok. That's
really my main platform. It's note my objection, but anywhere
you go Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, which I try to stay
away from because Twitter is like a whole different world.
But mostly note my objection on TikTok is where you
can find me.
Speaker 2 (55:49):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (55:50):
Well, the Karen Reid trial is set to start next week,
and I thought it was a really good time to
post the conversation I had with Susan Zalkin, who wrote
the Waalfam Murder, and our discussion with Catherine loftis our
attorney expert on the Karen retrial. So I hope you
enjoyed it. Coming up, we are going to sit down
with Caroline Kepnis, but we're going to be on the road.
(56:11):
We're going to Hartford and you can come with us.
It's May seventh. Look on my Instagram for a registration
link to sign up. The U Series drops the fifth
and final season April twenty fourth, so it's the perfect
time to reconnect with our author friend Caroline Kepnis, who
created the U series.
Speaker 2 (56:29):
So enjoy
Hey, Welcome to Lisa's book Club, a podcast where I
interview best selling authors from the New England area, pulling
back the curtain on what it's really like being a
best selling author. They're guilty pleasures, latest projects, and so
much more.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Well, Welcome into Lisa's book Club podcast.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I sat down with Susan Zalkin, who's an investigative journalist
and she wrote the book The Walfaan Murders that was
also turned into the docu series, and we talked a
lot about what's going on with that case and how
it still hasn't been solved. But also we had Catherine
loftis our attorney expert on the Karen Reid trial, and
it was a really amazing book club. We talked about
(00:42):
the Wallfam murders and the Karen Reid trial and some
of the similarities.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
So can you give us a brief overview.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Of the Wallfam murders, the key people in it, what
happened on September eleventh, twenty eleven, for the people that
have read the book, for the people that are here
that want to read the book, and the people that
are here that are currently reading the book.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Okay, so thank you again. This is incredible, and it's
such an honor to be here, you know, investigating terrorism murder.
It really made me appreciate the people in places that
bring people together, right, And I don't know if there's
any institution that embodies that more in Massachusetts. And Kiss
went away right, very true, thank you, and so I'm
(01:31):
very honored to be here and to have this conversation
with all of you. So it's a heavy conversation, but
let's start with the five main characters that you need
to think about. The victims. Raphael techn it's the son
of a local Jewish spiritual leader, Eric Wiseman. He was
my friend. He was really an incredible human being. And
(01:52):
Brendan Mess who was also you know, a legend in
his own time. So those are the victims. And if
you kind of think about it as a ven diagram
ven diagram, you think of Brendan Mess and his gym buddies. Right,
you have Brendan Mess, then you have Tamerlin Sirnaiev. Brendan
was a kickboxer, Tamerlin Sirnaiev. Before he was a terrorist,
(02:13):
he was a boxer as well, and so Brendan and
Tamerlin were close friends. They worked out at the same
gym two or three days a week. And there was
another gentleman who Tamerlin also knew from the Chechen community,
who he became closer to when the lead up to
the murders. That's Ibrahim Tadashev.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
So you have three friends who are marijuana dealers, right,
including Brendan Mess, and then you have three gym buddies.
Those are the five key characters. I think there's there's
other people. There's the woman who found the bodies, but
those are the key ones. So the three men were murdered.
It was a horrific and unusual murder at Brendan Mess's
apartment on September eleventh, twenty eleven. Their throats were slit.
(02:58):
There was marijuana dumped on the bodies. There was cash
strewn around the crime scene. It was very unusual, very
graphic crime. But because you know, the victim's sold cannabis
and there was literally drugs on the body. The initial
reporting about this case was as a drug killing, right right,
and it was in the news for about almost less
(03:21):
than two weeks, kind of slipped away until eighteen months
later the Boston Marathon bombing. Tamerlin Surnaive and his younger
brother Shakhar set off to a pair of pressure cooker
bombs at the finish line. It was horrific. I'm sure
many of you don't have direct connections, sort of feel
(03:41):
connected to that case.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
We all are connected to that. Yeah, we all remember it.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Because that's what terrorism is, right, and it was very visceral,
very public. You know, three young people killed, even a child,
and so there are questions after the murder, after the bombing,
you know, could Tamerline have been involved in this horrific
homicide of his friend on nine to eleven. And for
people close to this case, as horrific as it was,
(04:05):
there was sort of a sense, Okay, soon we're going
to have answers from someone official. The whole world is looking.
But one month later, Youbreham Dadashev, you know, the fifth
guy I was talking about, He was questioned in his
own home in Florida and he was shot to death
by law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
We all remember that too. Strange odd story.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
And there's never been the case is still officially open.
There's never been a public you know, accounting for the
connection between Tamerlin ser Naive and the earlier murder and
there is one that's it took me a long time
to figure it out. And that's really what the book
is about. You know, what happened to law enforcement, you
know in the early stages, you know, at the bombing
(04:49):
you Bereham, to Dashav being killed, and up until today
and creating a record of accounts so we can have
these conversations.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
So thank you for that, because it is it's very involved.
It has a lot of a lot of characters in it,
a lot of backstories. So you spent the last ten
years investigating this triple homicide. But for me reading the book,
your work on this is incredible. Can you give us
(05:20):
sort of a behind the scenes, behind the curtain look
at what it's like being an investigative reporter, because when
I was reading this, I thought, Wow, did Susan did
you get death threats? Like? Have you like, do you
worry about your safety sometimes? Like do you like walk
(05:42):
us through what your life is like and what it's
been like for the last ten years.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
It's never boring, It doesn't seem to be.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
It's never boring. I think you know, there was a
sense after Tadashcheff was killed there were a lot of
conspiracy theories. You know, there were a lot of there.
There was no official saying anything, So there was all
these rumors. And I actually listening to Eric's sister Ariya,
you know what her real fear was was the unknown,
you know, And so it was kind of my mission
to was exactly my mission to figure it out. As
(06:12):
scary as what I found is, it was at least
it was the facts. I mean, initially, you know, that
first trip to Florida, I'm I'm I'm sick to my stomach.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Right, I thought about it.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You're just yeah, I did anything. And the initial stages,
I was doing a lot of door knocking alone. And
you know, some of those door knocks are in the book,
some of them aren't. You never know what's going to happen,
and I was determined just to find the answers. That
was part of why I did the docuseriies, right, but
(06:44):
you know, you're meeting with people, You're getting midnight phone calls,
you know, you're hoping people slide you documents, and it
is scary and I won't do it again, but I'm
glad I did it this time.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Well, it seems like you would go down a lot
of roads that ended up not producing anything, right, and
then some scary roads, and then some roads that really
did help you.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Certainly, and you know, some of the roads that don't
produce anything, you still have to go there right to
figure it out. And there's many interviews or conversations that
don't end up in the book, but they inform what
I do put in the book as well. And there's
also the emotional impact of just dealing with these material.
Theres the insomnia.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Dealing with the families of the victims.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
I mean, that's an honor right, but they're that heaviness
of their.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Loss certainly, And that's something I would say to a
lot of people on the phone with them, because I
think there's sort of an expectation for me to perform
my grief and I do in private, and I'm not
always able to do that in public, not able to
go there, and I think that's as it should be, right.
(07:55):
You know, you kind of have to go into one
mode when you're writing and then I mode when you're investigating.
And I'm glad I did it. Like I said, I
will not do something like this again. And also shout
out to my sister who was always on the phone,
every stuff of the way, my addresses, she's here, emotional.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
She came in from Philly.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Yeah, you do.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
You need a support system.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
So what were some of the.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Most important facts you uncovered that led you to believe
that there was a connection between Tamerlin Sarnayev and the
Waalfam murders.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Well, what were the key points?
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Ibrahim Tadashav? The man was killed. He did confess before
he was killed, and there were a lot of questions,
a tracking down that confession, the handwritten no, the bits
of the transcription that I gained, But that interview was
so unusual. You know, they're confronting a trained fighter for
three and a half hours in his own home. I
(08:55):
couldn't trust you know, that confession alone. I was a
to get eyewitness accounts from law enforcement on record backing
up his confession to the murder scene, so that was helpful.
But a lot of the information was financial. You know,
journalism is about following the money, and you have Tamalin
(09:16):
Sirnayav and Ibrahim Dadashev were broke. They're exchanging messages about
stealing from infidels and the lead up to the killing,
there's a call that goes out from that apartment to
one of Ibrahim Tadashev's roommates who was working at a
local pizza place. So there was a delivery order, and
(09:37):
I found out the guy who picked up the call
he had been Ibrahim Tadashev. So that's another connection. You
have Ibrahim Tadashev changing his phone number after making a
call just after midnight. You have him leaving town, lying
about leaving town shortly after the murders, his wife and
himself lying about it. And you have him and Tameralin
(09:59):
suddenly having a whole lot of money. You have Tamerlin's
wife making Google searches with Tamerlin's name connected to the murder.
Shortly after. You have you know, Ibraham Tadashev suddenly gets
a car, he suddenly has cash. There's no accounting for
the money. And Tamerlin, who had previously been broke, suddenly
he's able to go to Dagistan. And Tadashev had another roommate,
(10:21):
and there's money gram transfers that match, you know, Tamerlin's
travel travel. But there was there was the triple homicide.
There was a robbery the same night at Raphael Ryl
Techan's house. So there's significant amount of money that was
taken as well, and so that about that. Uh, those
proceeds match money grams from an associate who went out
(10:44):
to lunch with Tamerlin hours after the bombing that stop
when he's there and pick up again when he's back.
There's another financial transaction, and so all of that leads
me to think that, you know, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Right together motives, right, or a motive or yeah?
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I mean you also have the motive. There's a financial motive,
and they're exchanging message about stealing from infidels to carry
out jihad. And you also have Tamerlin Sernaiev who is
in the house. Unlike Dadashav, he's social with Brendan Mess.
He's been at Raffi's house and he's having arguments about
Israel and the lead up of the killing. So you
(11:26):
have he's broke. I mean, that's a pretty there's cash
lying around. Brendan Mess is in a relationship with a
Muslim woman at the time that's pretty contentious. There's a
lot of.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Her name is Hibba, and we're going to talk about
her because there are still so many unanswered questions about
her and her.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Relation to this crime.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Correct, correct, But if you look at it, look, this
is a very unusual crime, a nine to eleven eleven crime,
and you have the Boston Marathon bomber, who is friends
with one of the victims, never showed up to the memorial.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Service, and neither did she.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
You know, there's yeah, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
It is.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
We talked on the phone prior to this discussion. In
your opinion, how did the way Massachusetts investigates homicides affect
certain elements of this investigation and why they didn't go
to Rafe's home that had been broken into and you know,
dusted it for fingerprints, Like why didn't they talk to
(12:31):
friends of Brendan, friends of Eric that could have told
them about Tamberlin.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
But you know what I mean, So what's going on here?
Speaker 3 (12:40):
You know, you can come up with all sorts of
theories of why law enforcement did or did not act
like they did. And I think at the end of
the day, there is an issue with that distracting from
the fact that the police work here could have been better. Right,
You know that they had Tamerlin Sarnaya's name, they didn't
follow up, you know, they have a lot of information
suggesting that this is a co implicated crime. They're not
(13:01):
pursuing those leads. You have a robbery they're not looking into.
And what I did find is that the victims were
marijuana dealers, but members of law enforcement were also involved
in the same drug world. This was difficult information to
track down. There's documents, there's multiple members of law enforcement,
but you have the victims buying from a local drug
(13:21):
dealer who members of law enforcement are socializing with extensively.
So that's one reason not to pursue leads is for
fear of what the investigation might uncover. No murder investigations
are revealing if they're done right, all sorts of things
are uncovered about the decedents' lives. So there's reasons for
(13:44):
law enforcement not to pursue a lead that may have
nothing to do with the homicide. It's just kind of
the culture here in Massachusetts. And we can talk about
more about these cases being under the jurisdiction of Middle
of District attorney's offices don't have a major crime unit. Instead,
our our homicide investigations are very localized. We task state
(14:08):
troopers directly to DA's office instead of having one centralized unit,
we have eleven separate units and another one for the AG.
So problems happen if everybody knows everybody in a small town,
there's isn't this checks and balances Because you have the
DA who's a politician working side by side for local police.
(14:29):
You know, everything is hunky dory until it's not.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Can we talk a little bit about Hibba?
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Who here saw the docuseries? Okay?
Speaker 1 (14:43):
I felt like, and if Winnie's watching, who is on
the billion lease?
Speaker 2 (14:47):
In the morning show?
Speaker 1 (14:48):
After Susan came in the first time to talk about
the docu series, because that came out first, we came
into the office and we said, that woman has some
connection to this.
Speaker 2 (14:59):
That's just gut instinct.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
It's but it's not just gut instinct, it's based on
your investigation. What have facts that you uncovered about her?
Speaker 2 (15:07):
So do you want to talk about it?
Speaker 3 (15:08):
I wouldn't have been able to even include that if
I didn't have significant reporting, correct, And then after the
docuseries aired, I got more reporting Like this isn't easy
to talk about. You know, the information involving Hibba is
not conclusive. You know, it's possible that she you know,
had orchestrated prior robberies in which she recruited accomplices, which
(15:31):
I heard multiple accounts backed up by police documents. You know,
it's possible that she had had violent fights through knives
at Brendan Mess and Raphael Techan and other men at
her lives and still had nothing to do with the
triple homicide in Waltham. And it's possible that she lied
to me and others multiple times.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
That's possible, Yes, I met. What about the five people
that so deceased?
Speaker 3 (15:56):
I mean that is also it's that's almost sort of
a myth part part of the story. It's eight people
for one, it's you know, there's the a prior boyfriend
years ago who was murdered in a home invasion. There
is an ex boyfriend September one, two thousand, so that's
ten days before the Waltham killings who was killed. There's
(16:20):
Brendan Mass and the two victims who she was fighting
with prior. So it's if you think about it, the
victims would not have been at that house if she
was there. She had a violent fight with Brendan slash Tires.
She had previously thrown a knife in an argument with Raffi.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
And that the slash tires was right before.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
You know, she went to Miami and Brendan told friends
that she wasn't coming back. He told the landlord that
she was in Virginia and she bought a one way ticket.
You now, by her own account, she threw a knife,
not at Raffi's head, but that's the violent act. It's
a pretty violent act. And she comes back and doesn't
have a key and opens the door. I felt terribly
(17:05):
for her. You know, I had written a report and
she contacted me and she you know, you want to
leave people right. And also people close to this case
have other reasons for lying, for not wanting to disclose
everything to report her. But look, this case is still open.
It's officially unsolved. The Middlesex DA says there could be
(17:27):
other people involved. And the fact of the matter is
her husband who was killed.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
His name is Jay.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Yeah, his death it looks pretty convincing that his death
is by suicide. And I have to say her prior boyfriend.
You know, there's three men. I talked to the killer
and he said he said that he did it. But
this is spoiler. Her husband, Jay, wrote a letter implicating
her of the murders. So she is squarely part of
(17:56):
the story. And look orchestral robberies in which she recruit
accomplices that are financially motivated and vengeful. That is a
unique m O. I will just say, that is a
unique m O. And for me to be saying this
and to be even dangling questions about a living woman,
(18:16):
that bar for me is high. But I cannot talk
about this case truthfully, honestly without introducing it. And it's
very challenging because I've interviewed her, I've emailed her, and
she's lied repeatedly to me, so that also makes it challenging.
Now her response to this reporting is that she's being
(18:36):
discriminated against. And look, I mean that's a concern, and
especially when I was talking to people in the aftermath
of the killing, the hatred was palpable. But you know,
the individuals who I spoke to who had the most
damning information, you liked her. You know, I wanted to
(19:00):
figure out the story as well. Look, this is scary.
This is again why you wish that law enforcement was
on this, and why it's so concerning that if her
husband is leaving a note implicating Hibba in the crime.
Why lawn a month after the murders? Why isn't law
enforcement doing more to investigate the victim's social circles? Now,
that's unaffair to Hibba as well.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Another thing that we that you touched on at the
beginning was the man in Orlando that was shot by
the FBI, Abraham, and his connection to Tamerlin, and that
he did sign a confession. But can you sort of
go into the details around that whole what happened in
Orlando Ibrahim and what you found out.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
But when I first went to Orlando, there are many
people who loved Ibrahim Tadashev, his wife and his girlfriend,
all right. I think his father was a aware of
the girlfriend, but not the wife. His mother was aware
of the wife, but not the girlfriend. These a lot
of people in this story. It's the same with led,
(20:10):
very compartmentalized lives. I was the same with Jay. You know,
he gave candy to neighbors And when I initially went
down there, I was speaking to the girlfriend. I did
not have evidence linking him to the crime. He was.
He was killed, No, whether or not, no one deserves
to die like that, even if they are a murderer. Right,
what's so disturbing about Ibrim Dadashiv is he is a
(20:32):
violent man, and he's a trained fighter. He's from Chetscha.
Look at his history. He's a war survivor. You know,
he's threatening to kill people over traffic stops. You two
weeks before he was killed, he's rearranging a man's teeth
over a parking dispute. Investigators knew that about this guy,
and they had significant evidence linking him to the crime.
(20:56):
The phone call and leaving, and they confront a trained
fighter with a hair trigger temper in his own home
for hours. Now, what's so extraordinary about this is it
was an FBI agent who pulled the trigger. This is
unique to Massachusetts. The guys in the room weren't taking
(21:17):
orders from the FBI. They were taking orders from an
ADA Assistant District Attorney in Middlesex County. You'd think, you know,
this is a case link to the Boston marathon bombing.
It's serious. They text the ADA. They say, Okay, he's confessing.
The ADA says, don't put him in cuffs. The ADA
(21:38):
needs to drive to his office and write up a warrant.
And they're texting him. They're calling him. They saying, wait, wait,
So you've got Ibrahim who's just confessed to murder and
he's sitting there in his apartment waiting for what happens next.
You know, I think would be shocking if he didn't attack.
I'm surprised he held it together, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Going back to your work with the docuseries which came
before the book, what was the hardest to work on?
Was it the docuseries writing that and producing that or
was it the book.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
I mean, I think what's so great about Eric Wiseman
is just who he was as a human being. He
had this unique gift. You know, the friends who are like,
celebrate your wins for you, Like he was that guy.
And he was also, you know, a supporter of artists.
What's really embarrassing, Lisa is I was singing reggae songs
and bars when I met him, but he was right there.
(22:37):
And when I switched to journalism, He's like, I didn't
know anything about sports. I applied as a job, but
he was texting me all the lingo that I needed
to use. He was really supportive in that way, and
his family as well. And so to feel that, you know,
I'm not an activist. I'm here for the truth, but
to feel that that was in some way respecting who
(22:59):
Eric was really, you know, it made it all worth it.
You know, it held together. The docu series was hard
because I'm getting interviewed by my friend's murder and I'm
trying to keep it on track. That was challenging. The
book was challenging was because I had never written a book.
I was like, Okay, I need to write a book
to keep investigating. I better start reading some books I had.
(23:22):
But putting to it was all very It was all
very hard, and also I'm glad I did it, and
I hope it honors Eric and the victims in some
ways that I kind of kept going. I would not
have been able to if it was not for his memory.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
I totally agree, and that's why just your work is
so important on so many different levels.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Thank you, Lisa. Doesn't she give the best compliments, She
just like makes you feel like a rock star. No.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
I mean, I know that you are connected to Eric,
but I think that investigative journalism more than ever. I
know it's an exhausting process and can be scary, but
I mean, we really applaud you for everything that you've
brought to light with the docusaries with the book, and
(24:06):
we hope that things may change a little bit.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Is that your hope?
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Yeah? I mean it's hard because I'm not an activist,
right and I.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Really but you're shining a light on something.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
It's shining a light and also creating a resource. So
if someone else wants to pick this up, the facts
are there. You know. I tried to write the book
by putting my own self in it. I didn't have
to sell the book on a thesis that especially because
I hadn't really figured out if they had done it
or not, and I don't know. It's the truth, man,
(24:41):
that's it. That's what I worked hard.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Have the families read the book and have they reached
out or seen the docuseries?
Speaker 3 (24:51):
You know that you have three families here. I think
the families, the members of all three families who I
spoke to, wanted information, right, So by putting myself in
the docuseries, I was able to say, hey, I can
get these resources, and if you want to be involved, great,
If you don't, you know, it's not going to be
forcing you to put yourself into a position that you
(25:13):
don't feel comfortable. With to get the answers that you need.
I think for all three families, the fact that I
would be their best hope for information, it's not a
great situation, right, you know, and I've certainly had very
moving messages from all three members. But I also don't
(25:34):
want to say that the victims' families, you know, approve
of every single sentence that I wrote, and I would
also just respect their privacy as well as much as
I can. I kept the information that was relevant to
the story, and I kept the families in mind every
single step of the way.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Do you think that this case will eventually.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Be solved?
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Will they come out and it won't be an open
case anymore?
Speaker 3 (26:06):
I mean, if the public demands it in a really
consistent way, I'm not. You know, this is a book,
so it's sort of one and done if other members
of the press pick it up and hold people to account.
But you know, the Middle SEXDA, you have one narrative
of this case that kind of went through the younger
(26:28):
brother's trial where the government essentially said that this case
was unsolvable. That will never know at the same time
kind of nodding will never know, but also will never
know because the two people who did it are dead,
which is a little bit hypocritical, right, and frustrating if
you're looking at this case and you believe there could
actually be other people involved and you're just waiting, and
(26:51):
you're waiting and waiting, but the case still falls under
the jurisdiction of the district attorney. After the Supreme Court hearing,
she said, you know, we're still hot on the chase. Chase.
You know, one month after the hearing, we got a
new lead. She all then told a reporter at the
Commonwealth Beacon after the book came out, you know, sometimes
it takes fifty years to solve the homicide.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
I wasn't that convenient.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
And she's going to be around, right, And she solved
a case like that recently, an engine what they found,
they found police misconduct.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Well that's an interesting segue, Susan. I'd like to invite
up Catherine Loftus. Yes, a lot of you here, our
listeners to kiss one away. So you know that Catherine
welcome has been on the billion LEAs in the morning
show covering the Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We couldn't have done it without her.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
I'm so excited to be hearing it too. They were well,
so special being up here.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
You're in the hot seat, I know, and these are
comfy seats, right, So welcome Catherine. I want to introduce you.
You are a licensed attorney. You've worked for Suffolk a
DA office for eight years. You have a law practice
with your dad, Loftus and Loftus as Billy loves to say.
And again, you've been covering the Karen Reid trial on
(28:19):
your own for the past two years. And you can
follow Katherine at note my objection, on TikTok, Instagram.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
Everywhere, same handle everywhere, and.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
She breaks down the trial like nobody else.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Truly.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Yeah, I appreciate coverage.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
You're very fair, you're very smart, You're very honest, and
that's why we are so happy that you've been with
us on the show.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate it, and it's
been fun. I have to tell you. I've been watching
Lisa and listening to Lisa and Billy with my mom
since I was a little kid.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
So it's making.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
No no.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
So I had Catherine come tonight because I really feel
like there are a lot of common threads between the
Wallfam murders, and the Karen Reid trial they're obviously very different.
But like Susan just mentioned, there's been a lot of
(29:26):
stuff that shouldn't.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Have happened in my opening a lot.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
So the first common thread I want to throw out
there to the two of you is when investigators decide
on one theory and in the Wallfam it was really
this is a drug thing, this is an inside job.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
Use outsiders too have been it was quote unquote Mexicans.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Right, drugs, But that's what they were going That's what
they were that was the direction that they were going in.
And in the Karen Reid trial, we know it was
that Karen hit John O'Keefe and never went.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Inside the Albert house and we know what happened after that.
So do you guys want to talk about that. I'd
love to hear thoughts from you on sort of Well.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
I think it's interesting that we're kind of in a
time where people are realizing, you know, the police in
the system is not perfect, and obviously it's run by
human beings, right, so everybody is susceptible to all kinds
of you know, influence, a corruption, and we we want
(30:31):
to hope and expect that people in certain positions are
less susceptible to that, but at the end of the day,
sometimes they're not. And I think one of the main
things that were you know, similar in this case, is
this idea of tunnel vision, right and deciding right away
this is what we think it is. And sometimes when
(30:53):
you have that tune tunnel vision, it is what you
think it is, right. And that's often the problem because
a lot of times, for police and investigations, what the
most obvious answer is is the correct answer. The problem
is that when you get an idea in your head,
you subconsciously dismiss everything else. So, you know, like in
(31:18):
the Karen Read case, they decided pretty quickly this was her,
she hit John O'Keeffe, and therefore we're going to everything
we're going to find is going to fit into that narrative,
you know, and similar to the wealthy amertis you know. Particularly,
I think in a suburban county which maybe there is
(31:39):
less drug drug crime, this I.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
Think there was quite a lot of drug crime.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
You know, and when they say, you know what it's
it's unfortunate. But I think there's sometimes an undercurrent in
policing when they when the victims are involved in criminal activity,
you know, whether it's a gang member or drag deal are.
You know, it's there's a little bit of the feeling
(32:04):
that well, when you're in the game, you know, sometimes
this is the stuff that happens, you know, and that's
the problem, and that's the problem.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Yeah, I guess I would say that. You know, one
of the moments that I really hone in on the
Karen Reid case as is Michael Proctor not his language,
but when his colleague asks, you know, I think, is
the homeowner going to get some shit? The homeowner being
another Boston cop, and Proctor says no, because he's a
Boston cop.
Speaker 5 (32:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:33):
Right. I think there's a culture here of not looking
at leads that might end up in law enforcement. And
to be clear, it's coming from the top.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
You know.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
I talk to many members of local law enforcement who
say that they would be punished chastise for so much
as ticketing is a powerful member of time got crime.
If you look at Worcester County, I think it's Ali Bibard,
a judge's daughter. In that case, the state trooper said
(33:03):
he was ordered by his superiors to the change report
after pulling over a judge's daughter. Now the judge says,
you know, I had nothing to do with it, But
it's really part of the culture. If you look at
the pizza place with Tadasha's roommate also connected to a
local state Rep. Mike Long. So there's a real culture here,
(33:24):
especially because we don't have a centralized major crimes unit.
We have these little isolated pockets where everybody knows everybody
and hey, it's fine to maybe do it. I'm not
saying it's fine, but you can imagine a culture where
people do favors for people that they know, and that's
not great. But it's really not great if it's a homicide,
(33:46):
because not only are you going to miss a lead potentially,
but a defense attorney who, if he's doing his job,
is going to.
Speaker 4 (33:53):
Poke holes and you really, you know, reduce the credibility
in the system, because ultimately, what is so great about
our country, and really what's supposed to be special about it,
is that we have a system. You know, anywhere else,
for the most part in the world, you don't get
the benefit of the doubt in a lot of places,
(34:14):
right and here you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty,
and so you want and hope that your law enforcement
when you arrest somebody, you want them to really have
the confidence that this is the person, and not only
that they're confident, but that they have explored every single
option out there. Because, as you said, any good defense attorney,
(34:37):
like in the Karen Reid case, is going to find holes, right,
And so you would think that in the best you know,
the best outcome we want is that as homicide detectives,
you would expect that, you know, we want to make
sure everything is so buttoned up that nobody could poke
a hole in it, because in theory, you know, there's
(34:59):
a world where, say, in the Karen Reid case, if
they had explored all these things, if they had gone
in the house, if they had interviewed additional people, they
might still have come back to Karen Reid, right. But
the problem is when you don't do that, then you
allow for all of these possibilities to just be out there.
(35:20):
And if you're a defendant in you're charged, you know
you don't want the possibilities out there.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Well, this was the other common thread the conspiracy theories.
So that opens the door to all of this stuff.
And you Susan Wright in the book, and I'm going
to read right from the book. A historian Catherine Olmsted
asserts that a conspiracy theory is nothing more than a
theory about collusion that may or may not be true.
It has yet to be proven. And then you go
(35:47):
on and you say cautions us to watch out for
conspiracy theories that tie together unrelated events and make sense
of errant data. Another warning sign is when the theory
becomes impossible to disproof. Belief in or attachment to a
story can become so intoxicating they begin to construe facts
(36:08):
that might undercut their beliefs. And I feel like that
was very, very much happening in the last Karen reidtrial,
don't you think.
Speaker 4 (36:16):
I think so? I mean, I think from you know,
it's so sensationalized, and there's so much information out there,
and it becomes really difficult to discern what's real and
what's not. And often that's a really, you know, interesting quote,
because underlying most conspiracy theories is some basis of truth, right,
(36:39):
so there usually is a negative truth in there. The
problem is how far do we go with it?
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Right?
Speaker 4 (36:44):
And then do we get lost in is all of
this true? Is some of this true, do we then
become the same you know, I see sort of both
sides on the Karen readcase as having tunnel vision. I
think the people who are in insistent that she's guilty,
I mean, they're so closed minded to anything the defense presents.
(37:05):
I think the people who think she's innocent are so
closed minded to anything the calmwealth presents. And so we
really But but it.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
Comes back to what you guys were saying about the
police work, and it opens that opportunity.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
It does.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
I'll say, also, if the victims I happen to like
one of them, it doesn't matter. I was talking to
Ed Davis just about homicide at large. As the former
police commissioner. You want to go after killings within the
criminal world because those are the incidents that are most
likely to result in more violence, Like that's gangland. You
(37:42):
don't want that in your community. That is not safe.
So for conspiracy theories, for me, you can imagine the
kind of conspiracy theories that happened after Ibrahim Dasha was killed,
and in retrospect I was able to track a lot
of the conspiracy theories back to Russian propaganda. Now, the
conspiracies may be true. They may not be. They're about timerline,
(38:04):
and but ultimately the story is that, you know, the
FEDS are really really good at deceiving people. They're highly coordinated,
and they're on it, whereas you know, another theory could
be that they weren't, you know, that something went wrong.
But the result was that people brought forth these conspiracy
(38:25):
theories to officials and the officials were able to say, no,
that's not true, and at the same time side step
that there was a problem at all.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
And I think sometimes what happens when you have just
like that, So if you know, there's probably a certain
sub section of people who believe one thing about that story,
and it's very difficult to change that person's mind. I mean,
I find that once people are convinced of a position,
that's it. You know, they don't want to change, and
(38:56):
so you know, it's really difficult, I think, even with
in our own minds to challenge, you know, kind of
set beliefs and and what we perceived to be true
and to you know, you know, Michael was always question, question, question.
But if the police were, you know, dotting every tea
and crossing every ta and dotting every eye, then maybe
(39:19):
we wouldn't have the opening for conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1 (39:22):
But I don't know about you guys, but when we
were watching the Karen Reid trial, I was like starving
for the facts. I just wanted what is real here?
What can we really hang our hat on?
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Right?
Speaker 4 (39:34):
Right? And we spent a lot of time on you know,
speculation and fluff and maybe this happened, and maybe maybe
this didn't happen. And I mean the Commonwealth spent you know,
damn near all that time on disproving the defense theory,
which is not really their job. And so what happens when,
you know, I think in this trial and probably others,
(39:55):
is that you lose sight of what am I supposed
to be paying attention to? And if this is a
homicide trial, we have a victim, and we have somebody
whose life is on the line because she's charged with
a crime. Why is this so confusing? Why do we
not have the facts?
Speaker 3 (40:10):
And to bring that back, I think it's dry stuff.
But district attorneys have jurisdiction. Those are the people in charge.
When they aren't forthcoming with information, which you know, I
was already Tadashev was killed. I thought someone official was
going to at least make a statement. To this day,
no public official has accounted for the connection between the
(40:32):
Waltham crime and the Boston Marathon bombing. No one, no.
After Foyer request, after fouryer request. The Middle SEXDA at
least this was in twenty twenty two, finally released a
statement to me naming them, you know, Ibraham Tadashev and
Tamerlin Sernaia is person of interest, but no public statement.
(40:55):
So of course people are going to ask questions. I'd
also have to say, though, this is Massachusetts, so do
you know there's above The district attorney is the attorney general?
Speaker 2 (41:05):
Right?
Speaker 3 (41:06):
So the first AG was Martha Coakley. Cokeley had been
at the Middlesex DA's office herself, right, you guys remember
the nanny trial, Louise Woodward. Now she had tried the
nanny trial with Jerry Leoni, who was the DA at
her office was another ADA who had been working at Middlesex.
(41:27):
So this is an insular culture we have. The next
AG was more Heally, our governor, who steadfast refused to
even look at the crime, to even get an assessment
from the DA. You know what's going on? She refused
to do that. Oft to also say, you know, there's
(41:48):
another case in Somerville where a Somerville detective was found
text messaging a drug dealer the home address of his rival,
resulting in a near faise snabbing. Right the same Ada
who ordered the men in Tadashev's apartment not to cuff
him up wrote to Heally and said, you know, I
don't think this is a good guy. He's part of
(42:10):
a team, and she looked the other way. Now that's
not to say Healey's involved in anything, but it's a
culture of looking the other way because you know, ten
out of eleven DA's in the state or Democrats, to
go after a DA would be to go after her Ally.
That's not to say Democrats are like this. It's about
having a single party and a culture that looks the
(42:34):
other way.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
So I asked you this about the Waltham murders. Will
we ever see you know, will this case ever be
solved or closed? In the Karen Reid trial the second trial,
do you think there's going to be as much interest
as it was the first time around?
Speaker 2 (42:53):
How do you think? And then I'd like to hear
from all of you. We're going to take your questions.
Speaker 4 (42:57):
I think there will, just because it's garnered so much attention.
And I actually think, you know, I mean, we all
know locally how big it's been, but it really started
to go on the national attentions towards the back end
of it. And I think that because we have you know,
we've heard from the jurors, we kind of have an
(43:17):
insight into what they were thinking. So people are going
to be you know, have that in the back of
their heads going forward. And it will be interesting to see,
like from from my perspective, what's the second case going
to look like? Because it could look completely different, right,
It's it might not look like the same trial at all.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Well, they introduced a new lawyer.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
Yeah, you know he's he's Marty Weinberg. I mean he's
he's one of Boston's best legal minds, right right. I mean,
you look at Alan Jackson, he's done Weinstein, Marty's done Epstein.
We'll see, we'll see what Marty does next. I mean,
I think you'll you have a defense approach. And the
(44:00):
initial case I went to a pre child hearing. There's
lots that's you know, I've never seen anything like this,
But what was so fascinating to me was watching the
defense accuse the judge of being in on the cabal
in this big sensational hearing, And it feels different if
you're in the court room and you're watching Karen Reid
in her designer's seat and suits and you're looking at
(44:22):
the victims' families, and then the defense turns to the
camera and says that we need legal funds. The narrative
that they've put forth does really well on the algorithm, right,
and it's done a really good job of paying for
her defense.
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
So the question is if is Alan Jackson has put
forth similar types of campaigns in his political career, will
Marty Weinberg try a case like that? I think Marty
is going to be more concerned with an acquittal.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
I think so, and I think it's it's interesting for me.
One of the most fascinating things about this case is
the social media aspect to it, and you know how
how you can utilize it, you know, particularly as a
defense because you know the thing about the Commonwealth, they
don't it's really not you wouldn't want them out there
(45:18):
really talking about the case. It's you know, kind of
put in their theories out there. You want them you
really want them to present you know it in quote.
You don't want them trying to swear the public opinion.
But you know, when you're a defense attorney's very different
than a prosecutor, right, And their job is to get
their client off. And so if that includes convincing the
public of something and you know, changing perception and introducing
(45:42):
them to new theories, then that's what they're going to do.
And and if they were very effective at doing it. It'll
be interesting to see, you know, with Attorney Weinberg, you know,
he'll be arguing the case the motion to dismiss on
August ninth, So it'll be interesting to see is it
sticks around or not.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Is it confirmed that Alan Jackson will be on case.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
I think you will. I think if you look at
like the OJ Simpson trial, which this case is most
similar to, that case really brought in a new era
of TV news. Right. This is an influencer case, right,
That's that's where it's tried. But you also look at
if you ever watched Johnny Cochrane's closing argument, it's all
about you know, being the conscience of society, and it's
(46:22):
not about OJ being innocent, right, It's about Oj deserving
an acquittal, you know, who is policing the police, whereas
you have these two ex prosecutors who are saying that,
you know, he Usually usually defense attorneys try to keep
the bar of moral certitude high, right, whereas you have
(46:43):
Alan Jackson who's saying, I can prove that without question,
what happened was John O'Keefe went into this apartment, he
got attacked by a dog and then beaten up. And
that's that's interesting, that's new. That's not typically a defense's approach.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
It's not an in you know, because really at the
end of the day, you don't have to prove anything
as so why you know, I mean I think probably
you know, the third party culprit theory benefited them because
it's a way to explain the strength that the camwalth has,
like you know, the physical evidence and different things. So
(47:21):
it's it's not a you know, it's used sometimes, but
you know, it's it's difficult because there are lines. You know,
when I think about I try to really evaluate both
sides of the case, and I think about, Okay, well,
Karen Reid has the presumption of innocence right, and I
(47:42):
don't think she should be either accused or convicted of
anything unless the camwalth is held to their proof right,
which is beyond a reasonable doubt. And for me, I
hold that same standard to everybody in the house. That's
Brian Albert, Colin, Albert All and so you know, it's
it's difficult, but then you know when it becomes part
(48:02):
more of a story and you know it's the perception
of the perception versus reality. Like you were saying in
the courtroom, how it feels different than what we saw
on TV, right, And I thought, to me, the most
fascinating thing that came from the jurors is that, you know,
(48:22):
what we all, I think knew was that there was
no way she was ever going to be convicted of
second degree right. Everybody, nobody was going to convict her
of that. But that eight, possibly nine for the last vote,
we're going to convict her of manslaughta right. So what
the public thought was that we were going to have
not guilties in thirty minutes on everything was not what
(48:44):
the people sitting in that jury it was actually thought.
So it's so you know, sometimes the even though we
feel it on TV, it's it's different than seeing live
witnesses and attorneys, and we're.
Speaker 1 (48:57):
Going to take some questions just because we're running out
of time. Here a couple of questions from the audience. Yes,
we have a microphone for you. I have a question.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
What are your thoughts on Aunt BEV. Do you think
she's non biased? I think there's a big conflict of
interest there.
Speaker 4 (49:21):
I don't. I don't, I actually, you know, I mean
I think that again, for me, it's about perception versus reality,
and I think that I think that she follows the
law pretty she's she's her decisions have sounded pretty well
within the law. Even the decisions that were appealed. I
(49:44):
think there was one that was overturned, but everything else
was was affirmed. I think she's you know, she's a
lifelong public defender, so she sent spent her entire career,
like twenty five years defendant poor you know, minority defendants,
And you know, I think it's difficult as a judge
to be in that situation. She's in charge of not
(50:05):
only handling the case, but controlling the courtroom, you know,
kind of controlling the chaos that came with it. I
have not seen anything that actually substantiates the claim that
she's conflicted. Aside from allegations and speculations. Really everything that
I have seen in the room is out there. You know,
for me to say a judge is biased a conflicted,
(50:27):
you need you need to show me she's conflicted before
I'm going to say that about it, right, And I like,
I don't see it. It's not I'm open to seeing.
Speaker 3 (50:34):
I think what a lot of the reaction also speaks to,
And the same with the OJ trial is people's perception
of law enforcement and people's own understanding of the justice system.
Rather than making it about Aunt Bev, you can look
at this other case where you do have a judge's
daughter who's getting special treatment. So you can understand the
(50:55):
response to cases like this, even if it's not about her,
that people might have that distrust, you distrust due to
other incidents in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
Well, I like that you think that Judge Bev is
doing a good job. I wonder if if all of
the attention that she's been getting, I wonder how she's
feeling about that and has that kind of gotten in
her head at all.
Speaker 4 (51:17):
Well, it's going to be a little bit stressful. I mean,
she's she's the raj which is the sitting justice. Each
court county has one judge who basically manages everything. So
usually the judges who are in those positions are the
ones who can kind of handle it.
Speaker 2 (51:33):
You know.
Speaker 4 (51:34):
Even when people were asking is there going to be
a different judge assigned for the for the second trial,
you know, my thought was, She's she's kind of already
dealt with it. She's getting it. She's probably just going
to continue to take it. So you know, it's it's
I'm sure it's not easy to get all the hate.
Speaker 2 (51:50):
I can't imagine. We have a question right.
Speaker 5 (51:51):
Here, documentary versus the book, like.
Speaker 2 (52:00):
The process of doing the documentary versus the book.
Speaker 5 (52:03):
How you decided what to put in the Hulu series.
You got a lot of information, so yeah, making it TV.
Speaker 3 (52:10):
I think you can understand this being in radio to
the amount of information that you can include in a
TV series or verbally is limited. You can't get into details,
but you can also portray elements that you can't portray
in a book, right. I think for me, my motive
has always been the truth. Initially, I didn't want to
(52:30):
do a docuseries, as odd as that sounded, because I
was afraid of my journalistic ethics or having reporters get
in the way. And then I was reached out to
by the screenwriter of Patriots Day, who again I was
about to get an angry call with him, but he's
an Iraqi warvette and I was like, Okay, it might
be nice to have you knocking on doors with me.
(52:53):
And so for me, I was able to kind of
align just getting the information. So I was able to
do a lot more rapport getting the detailed information while
producing the docu series that I was then able to
put in the book.
Speaker 2 (53:08):
I think, oh, one more quick question, and you might
have said this on the radio when I missed it.
Speaker 6 (53:15):
Does Karen Reid have the option of going before just
a judge rather than a jury? And would that have
been in her best interest? Honestly, you do.
Speaker 4 (53:27):
Anytime you're on trial, you have the option to go
to a jury trial, so you get twelve year peas
in superior court, six in district court, or you can
go with a bench trial, which is just before a
single judge. Anything from as a defense attorney, I would
only go bench on things that I am very confident
on the law, very very confident. Otherwise, because the judges
(53:50):
know the law, So they're not going to be persuaded
by you know, third party theories or this and that.
They're going to be looking at what are the facts,
What can we prove? What can't we prove? With the jury,
you have a jury of your ps people made up
of all different kinds of you know, backgrounds, education, So
as a defense attorney, you have a much higher chance
(54:11):
of convincing. All you need is one out of the twelve, right,
So it's a big you know, you either go fifty
to fifty on a bench trial. So unless you're very
very confident, you don't go bench.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
That happened in the Michelle Carter trial didn't work out
well for the defense.
Speaker 1 (54:28):
Right before we finish, I know that both of all
three of us, we really want to remember all of
the victims in both of these cases, the three men
in Waltham and John O'Keefe and their families in both
of these cases. This is so hard obviously for all
(54:49):
of them. And I want to say that kiss went away.
We love talking about these things, and we like all sides.
Speaker 2 (54:56):
We like to hear from everyone.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
It's a same space, and that's how we've approached the
Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
And we will continue to do so.
Speaker 1 (55:05):
I wanted to I wanted to mention that I really
love that Susan was here.
Speaker 2 (55:12):
How can people find you? How can they follow you?
Speaker 3 (55:14):
Instagram is probably where I'm most active, Susan Claire's all kind.
Also Twitter, but there's a substack too on my website
if you go to follow. I did one essay on
Karen Reid, but Instagram is the most consistent social.
Speaker 2 (55:29):
Media that I and how can people find you?
Speaker 4 (55:30):
And everyone can find me? Mostly I'm on TikTok. That's
really my main platform. It's note my objection, but anywhere
you go Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, which I try to stay
away from because Twitter is like a whole different world.
But mostly note my objection on TikTok is where you
can find me.
Speaker 2 (55:49):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (55:50):
Well, the Karen Reid trial is set to start next week,
and I thought it was a really good time to
post the conversation I had with Susan Zalkin, who wrote
the Waalfam Murder, and our discussion with Catherine loftis our
attorney expert on the Karen retrial. So I hope you
enjoyed it. Coming up, we are going to sit down
with Caroline Kepnis, but we're going to be on the road.
(56:11):
We're going to Hartford and you can come with us.
It's May seventh. Look on my Instagram for a registration
link to sign up. The U Series drops the fifth
and final season April twenty fourth, so it's the perfect
time to reconnect with our author friend Caroline Kepnis, who
created the U series.
Speaker 2 (56:29):
So enjoy
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.