It's Nightside with Dan Ray. I'm easy Boston News Radio.
All right, ol, thanks a lot, big hour, folks, really big hour going on right now here on night Side. Gary Tank waiting for Dan Ray. Karen Reader's speaking out on ABCTV Channel five locally here in Boston. Beginning at nine o'clock. They were airing an interview with her with Matt Gutman. So I've been doing a talk show, as you know, and watching her and just watching and not really be able to do two things at once because I'm not that smart. So I'm bringing him some legal
eagles to help me out. Bill kick Him is with us and attorney Robert George to kind of do an analysis of what they've seen so far during this special here on twenty twenty on ABC and channel five. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us here on night Side.
Glad to be here. You're welcome, Glad to be here.
Okay, So Bill, I'm gonna start with you here. Why did they decide to hold this because this was recorded before the trial, from what I understand, was recorded.
Before the trial. What I understand also why they decided to hold it unclear? You know, I guess a lot of people are still scratching their heads as to what's going on, and they thought it would be a good draw.
Well, I mean, there was a mistrial. Just if people are listening and they need to play catch up. She was accused of murdering her boyfriend of police officer General Keef. There was a mistrial on three counts. That's going to be tried again in January. So we have seen members of the O'Keefe family speak out. And I was the brother. Yeah, I was wondering if that had something to do with this.
Yeah, probably did.
Yeah, you know, so the people who think she's guilty, the members of the O'Keefe family have spoken out. So did she feel she needed a rebuttal? Plus also, they made an appeal to have the second degree degree murder charge drop. So, you know, Robert our last you I should know this. Do you prefer Bob? Robert?
No? Bob is fine? Bob?
Okay?
Fine?
So Bob. You know, did they feel because they didn't get the appeal on the second degree murder and her family has spoken, they needed to do something?
Well? I find it interesting that, you know, Karen Reid is so vocal, especially when she didn't testify at her you know at her first trial, right that she would ever that she would ever lock herself in to a version of events, although it's a well known version of events that she would ever lock herself in to such a public proclamation, you know, of any kind prior to a second trial in January. She you know, she's limiting herself into what into the different directions she could go
if she chose to testify at the second trial. I guess another thing we should be looking at is this is her unsworn statement to the public. You know, she's actually testifying. When she didn't testify at the first trial, she likely won't testify at the second trial unless something different happens. And now she's testifying to the general public, which well, you know, I hate to talk about politics,
but she's trying to fire up her base. I don't know if firing up her base does are a bit of good in the courtroom, especially in Norfolk County where we know what happened the first time around. You know, she had eight to four hung in the jury room for a verdict of guilty on this second indictment. And at this point, all I've seen so you know, Gary, so far on the special you're talking about is her
and Alan Jackson speaking to the public. And I don't know when it was filmed or when it wasn't filmed, but I can tell you this. They're locking themselves into a version of events that they very well may have
wanted to drop the second time around. It appears that they did up more than they can chew in the first child, when all they have to prove is nothing more than a raising reasonable doubt as opposed to prove in a very complex and you know, exciting conspiracy theory that they don't need to prove to win the case.
You know, Bill, that's a great point, because excuse me, Bob, that's a great point, Bob, And I want Bill to jump in on that, because yeah, I mean, I'm not an attorney, and we talked about this so much that in one of the discussions I had it might have even been with you, Bill, you know, I said, isn't doesn't she just have to prove, Well, she doesn't have to prove anything. Doesn't she just have to convince the jury that she didn't hit him with the truck. That's it.
She doesn't have to do this. All this dog and pony show about what happened in the house, and to me that that hurt her credibility bill where you have all these theories that may be true, they may not be not. I don't know where there was a fight in the house. Who was killed in the house. They dragged him from the house, they put them in the dry way. All they had to do is say, look, she couldn't have killed them with the truck.
Right in terms of forensics and physics, Yes, because there was a lot to raise in terms of the physics of the allegations and the forensics particularly you know, the lack of injuries to his lower body, which they expected. If, as you like, that would have striked someone, right, it would have been I think I think it would have been better to just try to raise reasonable doubt all over rather than trying to prove a specific series of events.
Okay, guys, what you've seen so far, and Bob, you just gave me some thoughts built with what you've seen on this special and again I've been on the air. But basically, her attorney and Karen Reid have spoken, has she done herself? Has she helped her cause at all? With what she's had to say?
Well, you know, she's trying the case in the court of public opinion and not a court that matters. Really, it really doesn't. And I agree with Bob that she's limiting her potential theories in this in the retrial by
being so vocal about it. You know, there's a there's an old expression, Darry in the criminal law when you try a lot of cases like like I have, you don't need a horse the water unless you're going to give it the water, you know, And in this particular case, her and her attorney, from what I've seen so far, are still especially her attorney, I mean the California attorney Jackson.
He's very clear in arguing that there is a corrupt cover up and that there was a murder in the house, no matter what the pink lad people got in front of the courthouse or whether the billboards that are all over the South Shore are saying, that's not something you have to prove. It's something that's very difficult to get
Lily White Jerry out in Norfolk County to swallow. You know, back in the day when I was trying a lot of cases in Norfolk County and even through today, if you went a police officer who was accused of a crime. The first place you'd want to try that case is in Norfolk County because they do not want to believe that their cops are dirty. Now, I understand in this
case we have some dirty cops. That much is clear, But as Bill has said, how much of that is important in determining whether or not she backed the car to him or did not back the car again if the forensics, if the forensics set you free, why would you ever try to prove there was a murder in a house and that you then took the body and threw it on your own front yard and waited for you know, waited for the police to arrive, instead of taking the body somewhere else and don't forget where the
world would never see it again. It just is something.
Then. I think that that particularly jury pool out in Norfolk County would have a hard time swallowing. I'm not saying I believe it or don't believe it. All I'm saying is why would I take that on if I don't have to? Right? It doesn't make it. It just doesn't. It's too much weight to carry.
Yeah, I mean, between the prosecution and the defense, the prosecution has the burden of proof here, all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt. And I agree with Bob. I mean, when you take a laser focused approach that only one thing happened and try to prove that that happened, then the roles between prosecution and defense are kind of interposed. I mean, now it's the defense trying to prove that one thing happened, right a reasonable doubt?
Well, but but it's almost like you have two based on what you're saying. It's like both parties are prosecutors. The state is trying to prosecute her, but her defense returned. Are you trying to prosecute the family that own the house?
The burden the burden improof In any criminal case, as anyone knows, everybody knows is on the prosecution. They have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would I, as a defense lawyer, try to prove any case beyond the fact that the conwealth hasn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt when all I'm trying to do is set the woman free. That's all I'm trying to do is set the woman free. I'm not trying to make my case for my novel. I'm not trying to make
my case for my Netflix special. I'm not trying to make my case so the people up front can cheer me on the front steps of the courthouse. I'm trying to set Caaron Read free. And believe me when I tell you, as she sits here today, she's trying to figure out how to pay lawyers for a second trial because they didn't win the first row. I maybe do no fault of their own it with this particular jury pull.
But when you try to to demonstrate that this this very this very dramatic conspiracy to murder and murder occurred in that house, and then you can't prove it, you're taking on You're taking on a burden you don't have to take on when, as Bill said, you could be focused on whether or not the prosecution's proven this case, which, by the way, in this case they did not do right.
They did not do they did You're right, and that was the result of the trial any and the defense muddied it up. We've guys, We've just getting started. Bill Kickham is criminal defense attorney. You can find him online at criminal dot kickim legal dot com. Also, you can call his office at six one seven two eighty five
thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood. And then Bob George is joining us, also a criminal defense attorney, and his phone numbers five aweight seven seven six, twelve twenty and he's at George Law dot com sless contact us and he's in Lovely Hiatus again. You can find these gentlemen online. They're taking time to join us. I have to ask you about the personalities because this has become a reality
TV show. I understand completely what you guys are saying, what you gentlemen are saying in regard to what makes sense for the logistics of the case, but it's become bigger than that. That's next on wbz's night Side.
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
We're talking about the broadcast the airing of Karen Reads the interview on ABC and Channel five locally that started at nine o'clock. We understand it's going two hours, but it was a little late for us to start at eleven, so we decided to get get in on the action find out if there was anything different that we learned through the airing of the special guys. I want to
talk about the personalities involved. Bill Kickham is joining us and Bob George, both criminal defense attorneys, and Bill, I'll start with you. She loves this. She is a reality body TV star right now.
She loves this, and that's a There's a dangerous instrument in the human condition and it's called the ego, and we all have one, and it can be a dangerous instrumentality because it's very seductive and it's very appealing, but you know, it can work against you in a million different ways, and she did. She has become a reality star and that is, if not a soap opera star, and that is the reality of this. And to resist that is it takes a lot of discipline, but she
has become a cause celeb for both sides. I think I think that her team might have coached her to contain some of that ego go drawing fascets of the case.
What do you think, Bob, of her personal.
Let's just say I'm the you know, let's let's imagine me as the m picturer, you know, the one of the people that maybe they're trying to reach. I never heard Cameron Reid's voice until today. I never saw her express herself until today. All I had was her walking in and out of court, sitting there in her business suit. And let's say I had a favorable impression on that. Let's say that the soft picture, the fuzzy picture that
I was seeing in the court room were appearances. Everything, especially when you don't testify, is the most important thing at Jerry can see. Well, now that's all gone. I'm not saying she's making a bad impression. I'm not saying she's making a great impression. I'm all I'm saying is the mystery of Karen Read not testifying is now gone. So that is a powerful, powerful tool of defense, has
my understanding? Isn't the second part of the show, which we're not watching now, and she talks about how she dresses for record, She talks about her sleeve length, she talks about what closed she picks for court, and how she presents herself. Well, the problem with that is, and having done a thousand interviews with cameras, it's hard to present yourself in a sympathetic way when the camera is heating up your face and melting your makeup and you're
on TV. Perhaps, like Bill says, for the first time in her whole life, and it's just once again, Gary, she's taking on more than she has to take on. See, what makes this whole show odd is that there is a pending retrial in her case. There is no there
is no final verdict. So for us, whether it's ABC or Alan Jackson, Orkaron Reid or whoever trying to get glory from or get attention from this show, good or bad, it's it's odd because the timing of it is before a retrial in January, and if she doesn't want to testify in January for whatever reason, perhaps she can't stand up on cross examination because he doesn't have the personality
for it. Perhaps it's a strategic move. You don't want to testify for obvious reasons because you don't want to once again take on more than you have to take on. But that is now gone because she has told the story that she has to stick to without fine tuning it to the left or to the right or upper down, because she's been on national DP which will be played in the courtroom. If she ever varies her story one eye order from what she's saying on TV tonight, it
just isn't good strategy. As far as I'm concerned, that's just me talking, that's all Bill.
What if she's telling the truth.
Well, if she's telling the truth, that's a powerful element. But it does I go back to what Bob says, it locks her in, right, So.
Here's my point, just to try to play Devil's advocate with it, like I'm trying to think out loud. So possibly she testifies the second time around, right, Maybe she does. Maybe she just does decide to testify. This is the warm up act. The strategy could be, Bill, you have to keep your testimony the same as what you did on television. So they watched the television, they watch the tape. She rehearses it, rehearses it. Maybe she's telling the truth.
So she tells the same story. And it's not a story, it's real. I don't know, I'm throwing it out there, but.
It's basically, she would be retelling the story that her attorney's already told.
Is it different coming from her?
It had more pinematic impact coming from the defendant herself. But she would be subjecting herself to cross examination from the prosecutor, which could be withering.
And not only that, why you know everybody knows that the last place a person wants to be in the court, well, let alone being in the courthouse is on the witness right.
The last place, well, Bob, you know, I hear you, Bob, but let me she's I don't want to misspeak because I don't know her. We're talking, Bob, we're talking about a unique personality. Maybe she wants to be on the stand she I mean guys personally like, I don't know how you would feel about defending her, But to me, it seems like it would be a nightmare. I mean an absolute like, Bob, based on which you're telling me,
I don't think you would defend her. I don't think there's enough money in the world for you to take this case.
Well, the bottom line is it's a it's a good try, it's a great triable case. The second time around, it is not as triable as the first time because the first time you have the options of going in one hundred different directions. Now you're locked in because of transcripts and records and tape. You know, you know, transcripts of the first trial lock you into what you can do in the second trial. But say in the second trial you wanted to try it in a much cleaner sense.
You wanted to just put it in on reasonable doubt, which I'm telling you is the way out is the way out the front door of the courthouse. I'm telling you that's the way.
And Bill Bill Bill was on early when we talked to Bill earlier during the trial, and he said the same thing. There's no doubt about it, Bill is And what both of you guys answered this, is there anything that she did that you guys saw on television to night that would help her cause, whether it's her appearance, the story she told. She seems to be very confident. I'm looking at visual cues because I have the volume down. She seems to be somebody who's very confident in her story.
So Bill, I'll start with you. Did she help her cause with what you've seen in public opinion? Because that's all that matters in public opinion.
Yeah. I didn't see the full tape because I was a little late getting to the TV. But I don't think she lacks in terms of confidence and in terms of presentation. I just think that you know, Bob is right when he says that she's locked herself in to a certain version that she cannot vary at all from and that is limiting.
And I know, I know, go ahead, Bob.
I noticed some people who, especially to you, Gary, that it sounds what Bill and I say, you know that someone is locking themselves in that The easy answer is to say, oh, if she's locking herself into the truth, what difference does it make? The courtroom is is is a very difficult place. You know, you're inside the four sterile walls of a courtroom trying to convince sixteen people sitting in a jury box that you know you're you're
you're innocent. You know you're that the government has a proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a place that's sterile. It's it's not, it's not, as Bill said, in the court of public opinion. That's why all of these protesters or supporters outside of the courthouse don't make a bit of difference to what happens in the courtroom, other other than irritating court officers, sitting jurors, judges, probation officers, and witnesses in the courthouse. In other words, it could hurt.
It could hurt much more than help. That's the trouble. Everything we're talking about is as trial lawyers, and whether or not, whether she's confident or not, whether or not she looks like a million bucks on TV or not, whether or not it matters, It doesn't matter in the courtroom because in the courtroom, that's where the action is. That's where the verdict comes in. And I'm telling you that always drama going on outside the courthouse may not
be helping her. It may make her, it may make it may make the defense feel much more confident and powerful and give them a mission. But I'm telling you, when it comes to what's happening in that courtroom, it doesn't matter.
No, it may as well be a thousand miles away, you know, it's if it's you know, a two dozen feet away, it doesn't matter. I mean, I noticed the passion of these protesters. They if you looked at them and you watch them and you listen to them, they really believed that their presence there was going to swing the juror's verdict. They really believed that they were going
to make a difference, right. And you know, it would be hard to convince them if you took them aside and say, you know, you're being here isn't going to change things? One way or the other. They probably never believed you, but they.
See as Bill has said it. Bill's right. But the thing is what I'm trying to say, what I hope the impression I'm conveying is this, there is plenty of meat on this bone for beaten. They've beaten the prosecution into the ground with text messages, bad cops, bad forensics, bad everything. But you could bring all of that in just trying your case unreasonable doubt without staying to a jury.
I'm going to prove to you that the Alberts and everyone in that house murdered John O'Keefe and then took him down the basement and brought him up the bulkhead and threw them out in the front yard for the world to find. I mean, why would I take that on, even if I believe it, if I could bring it in at the trial without biting it off of something I'm trying to prove to a jury, even if I don't have to prove anything to a jury. They have to prove the case, not me, and they have not
proven their case. Who knows if that jury got hung up because they didn't believe that the defense hadn't proven to them there was a conspiracy.
Oh, there's no doubt. And I know Bill has talked about that un an appearance before they mucked it up. And I said, and folks, and Bill Kickham is our guest, along with Robert George, both the criminal defense attorneys. We got more coming up with these guys. I have some questions to ask them about the defense attorneys. And if you want to reach Bill you can do so at criminal dot kickim legal dot com six one seven two
eighty five thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood. And Bob George, criminal defense attorney, he's in Hyannis at five o' eight seven seven six twelve twenty and you can reach them online at George lawt dot com slash contact us. Desperation by the Defense is next on WBZ.
It's Night Side with Dan on WBZA, Boston's news Radio.
Well thanks a lot, buddy, Bill kick him. Bob George, criminal defense Attorney's joining us here on Night's Side, breaking down the first hour of the Karen Reid special. Well, it's really crazy, fellas, with technology now and the way television happens. I just I just had a reality check. We are sitting here talking about a woman who's going on trial and watching her TV show, it is really bonkers. So Bill, I want to start with you on this.
Everything that you've said and what Bob says makes complete sense. So I'm wondering why her defense team does not follow your thought pattern. Are they desperate? Do they feel because she is being retried that she's going to go to jail? And this is a hail Mary.
Well?
Any why did they choose to do what they did because in any given case, sometimes there's a variety of ways to approach it, and Monday morning quarterbacking is not something I enjoy doing it. I don't want to do it. But they made their decisions because they I think largely they felt that they had enough malignancy to present on the police side and the investigative side and the state police and the local police that they wanted to go and present that malignancy as as strongly as they could.
They felt it was their strongest suit.
So do they think they're going to lose? That's what I'm wondering. I mean, I listen, I'm asking you guys to speculate, and it's it's almost like we're talking about a football game, which is a little scary, but I don't and I know you have to answer in the best way manner because you're professionals, best way you can I mean, Bob, That's what I'm wondering. Are they're so desperate thinking they need to get the court of public opinion in, they need to try to sway this somehow.
They need a letter writing I mean an email writing campaign, because they think she's going to go to jail if they don't do something. Because what everybody has told me, including you, gentlemen, is that the second time around, it's really hard to get off.
Well it's because it's because the prosecution has already learned what your defense is. They put they plug the holes. Well, they you can't plug a hole, as Michael Procter in this case, you know, you couldn't. You couldn't possibly do it. You couldn't cover up the police missed Diggs and that can't leash mistakes in a million years. But the trouble is they now know what the defense is.
So I mean, were there really any do you think there were any surprises?
Well there may not have been surprises, but now that they've hurt the defenses, right, they will plug those holes. Unless they're dumb. But now you've got a television special they had that further experience that further exposes and explains
the defense that they'll try to plug those holes. But as far as your question Gary about why people don't do these kinds of things, you know, the Code of Ethics in Massachusetts says that you can't try the case of in the court of public opinion, and the local rules for the federal court actually prohibited. And because we don't know when this was filmed, I just want to
say one thing. I only saw Alan Jackson, uh, you know, in the first half of this this uh, and he's the one barking, you know, barking about the police conspiracy and the murder in the house. So we don't know what what the you know, whether the David and Ettie is involved in this, which I don't believe he is, at least not what I saw on the first you know before I it.
Seems to the LA guys the lead dog in this race.
And here's the problem. You've got a guy who you know, who's been involved in Harvey Weinstein's case, who's involved in Still Spector's case, who's involved in all these other high profile cases that we've heard about. But the trouble is, he's doing his interview from la He's doing his interview from Hollywood. He's not sitting out and get him and doing his interview. He's not sending in downtown Boston where you know where people are going to judge her in January.
You know, these these claims are being made from a skyscraper in Beverly Hills. So the problem is the problem is, and the problem is going to be that she needs to get a fair trial the second time around, and if the case is tried clean and sharp, without all the side tracking, she could very well get on with
her life and put this behind her. But the thing we're forgetting is if she gets convicted of the motor vehicle, you know, a homicide aspect of the case, she's looking at a one year minimum mandatory, So she's going to jail. And all of this I don't believe. I don't know. I don't think it's being done in any way to feather their own nest. I don't know if there's any strategy behind it or anything. All I know is, in my opinion, in my opinion, she hasn't hurt herself at all.
But I don't know if it helps, That's all I'm saying. And I don't think it does help. I don't think it hurts. I don't think it helps.
Don do you see this as a as a desperate move? I mean, bills? Do you have any further comment on that?
Well, whether or not to deserate moves largely turns on whether or not that they influenced when it was going to be broadcast. You know, I don't know that her defense team targeted this day or targeted this time. I don't know from what I understand, generally speaking, this was filmed at least two months ago.
Oh, this was before the trial, right, So I think that the deal that they made with ABC was we will determine when it can be aired, because I think that's what the attorney wanted to do. He wanted to keep this as a chip in his pocket, you know. He wanted when do I need to play this? And maybe they've and obviously they felt that they needed to play this. Now. Is there any way that this affects
the jury? And I know that the Bobbers talked about this bill, but what about because everybody's going to see this? That's another thing. I mean, there's no way members of the jury are gonna they're going to see it. So yeah, I mean they're going to see it. So because of what happened, what happened, because of what happened with the mistrial, does the defense team say, well, we've got to put this out there, We've got to try to sell the jury before it's even selected.
I don't know that that's going to help much.
Yeah, Jerry, the jury is going to be asked, the jury pooll is going to be asked at the second you know, at the second sitting, whether or not they've seen this. They won't mention this specifically, and unless they in less then they lie, which, by the way, you know, let's not be stupid.
You know, people lie, They're going to people are gonna lie.
They're gonna lie.
Yeah, But the thing is, if they've seen it and it's affected their opinion, they're supposed to they're supposed to reveal.
But I know that, I know, I know. But the first time around, it seems like they picked the jury that was able to, you know, to be able to shell all that stuff out, able to keep all that stuff out of the jury room because they went in there and they deliberated, and they came back, and no matter whether you believe what's been going on in the post trial stuff or not, it seems like they were able to filter out all of the screaming and yelling in front of the courthouse and everything that was on
the news every night, and all the opinions that were all over the internet, and Turtle Boy and the rest of their crew outside. They were able to come to a decision, well sorry, come to an indecision in the case, and able to keep all of that stuff out of their deliberation room. It seems that that's what happened, because if it hadn't happened, they would have marched about the door in ten minutes. Were not guilties.
We got a final segment coming up, guys, I have some final questions on one lies ahead coming up next again. Criminal defense attorneys have been kind enough to join us and Bill kick Him and Bob George. You can reach Bell at six seven eight five thirty six hundred in Westwood and at criminal dot Keekeimleegal dot com and Bob at five oweight seven seven six twelve twenty again at George Law dot com, slash contact us final segments, So final questions for our attorneys coming up on WBZ.
Now Back to Dan ray Line from the Window World night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Welcome back to night Side talking about the Karen retronel and the appearance on ABC tonight, Bill kick Him and Bob George criminal defense attorneys, guys, thank you so much for your time here insight. It's been great. So what about as we stand right now? And Bill also, you were you surprised that they weren't able to get rid of the second degree murder charge?
I was.
I thought there would be some interest in finding some that negotiated posture, but it seems as though Norfolk DA is just you know, inflexible on this and they're just going to do They're going to retry the whole thing.
What did you think about that, Bob.
Haven't been involved in you know, post trial inquiries into into juries and you know, and deliberations when you get contact from jurors. I wasn't surprised, only because the jurors themselves didn't come forward and weren't prepared to come in with affidavits and testify front and judge. Canone you know
as to what happened. Had they had those jurors you know, offered to do that, the four or five jurors that you know that the defense had spoken to, perhaps they would have been in a better position to come into court and have a hearing where jurors will put on the witness stand and examined. But when jurors are second and third hand hearsay, you know when you're getting information second and third end yearsay. Most judges, if not all judges, are not going to stick their fingers into the jury
room and try to interfere in deliberations. So I agree with Bill that if the prosecution wanted to have a stronger case second time around, without all the white noise of the extra charges. Because Karen Reid has been overcharged, everybody knows that. You don't need to go to law school to know that she shouldn't be charged with murder in this case. But the bottom line is because he's dug because they've dug their heels in out of Norfolk
County and won't admit that they've overcharged. You're about to see this that's occur all over again.
If she is convicted of second degree murder and you gentlemen have said she's being overcharged. Well, I'll ask you, does make Does that create a better opportunity for an appeal?
Theoretically?
I don't know if it does them much good practically, right, what do you think about it? You know it absolutely, you know it creates a group for an appeal. But who wants to do an appeal while you're riding in a cell out at the Woman's President at Framingham, you know, waiting for your lower try to get you out. That's the danger of all of this. You're talking about life with the possibility parole. We're on second degree in Massachusetts,
you do twenty three years. I mean, like I told you, as I told you before, conviction on a motor vehicle homicide count, even with the alcohol involves, is a one year minimum mandatory in a house of correction somewhere, which is basically like day camp compared to going to the Woman's prison Framingham. So the bottom line is you're not supposed to overcharge people. You're supposed to charge people what you know. You honestly believe you could prove. They already
know they can't prove second degree. They already know it. You know, they don't need to have it, have it happened all over again, and by charging her with second degree they may have cost themselves with the conviction for motivehicle homicide. So the smart thing to do would be to just proceed under lesser charge. But they can't admit they're wrong. It's just like they woulded they were wrong about all the police misconduct of the case. They're not going to omit they're wrong now.
And Bill, what about the fact that Brian Albert is the former homeowner? Now? And you and I discussed this before, And I don't know if this re enters into the case again, but the receiling of the basement floor moving from the home just sort of attempting to push all of this aside very conveniently. Does that enter into the picture again at all?
It may, but then again I don't know it does. It's helpful on the issue of reasonable doubt, right.
Bob, do you have any thoughts on that.
I can tell you the smartest thing the Elberts ever did was move out of town. But the trouble is, with the Feds looking at the case, it won't make a bit of difference if they want to do some damage here. So I mean, the bottom line is, it's all white noise. Gary, It's all white noise. We're talking about something that the jury didn't hear a word about and won't hear a word about the second time around.
Guys, do any final comments as we wrap it up? And I really appreciate your time, Bill, do you have any final thoughts?
You know, a sequel and it's going to be a television sequel, and it's going to be a soap opera sequel, and it's going to continue to fascinate and grab the public's attention in about another four months or five months.
Yeah, you seem to be disgusted with the whole thing. Are you as a legal professional?
Well, I think it's just become a cause celeb and it needs to be more an issue of jurisprudence and less an issue of drama.
And I think it's basically a motor vehicle homicide case that's gone ay what you know, and in other words, it's a roottine case that's gone insanely haywire because of everything we've been talking about and everything we've seen that's been going on from the beginning, most of which is occurring outside of the courthouse. And I can tell you now that the people in that courthouse, and I don't know this personally, but the people in that court so
I've been in that courthouse for fifty years. I could tell you now the people in that courthouse don't appreciate the kind of attention, whether for good or for bad, that's going on out there. And I just think it could have been a straightforward case. I think she'd be home now with are not guilty on a straight motoracle homicide?
And instead what you've got is, you know, Netflix specials and and ongoing attention for a case that should have just been routinely handled in the criminal justice system the same way I would want and handled for you, me or anyone else.
Well, maybe if there's a movie somebody will play you guys as commentators on the radio. How about that?
Maybe Aben in Costellos.
You guys have been great, and Bill's been on before. I really appreciate your time. Bob has been great talking to you, gentlemen. Take care and have a good night.
Oh thank you, right, take care, Bob?
All right? Bill? Kick him check him out criminal dot kickimlegal dot com six one seven two eight five thirty six hundred. He's in Westwood and Robert George Bob George is five O eight seven seven six twelve twenty George law dot com contact us and he is located in Hyennas. I want to get your phone calls next on this at six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty. Did you watch the whole special? We were only able to watch the first hour. I wanted to get some attorneys
in here and start talking about this. It just it is. It's a soap opera. It's a made for TV special, It really is. It's it's gone crazy, and I agree with Bill. Bill from the beginning has said all they needed to do is say prove it. They didn't have to bring in Was he killed in the basement? And I, I'm such a sucker. I buy into that stuff. I still wonder, you know, was Officer O'Keefe. Was there a fight in the basement? Did he fall and hit his head?
Was he dragged outside? Why was he outside? You know, without a coat. All of those things come into play. I've seen too many csis and gimitting a homicide, life on the streets, and law and orders, and I buy into all that crap. What do you guys think, did you watch the television show tonight? Did you learn anything? Do you like her more or less? Did she become more likable tonight on television? I think she presents herself very well on television. I think she does. She could
be guilty of overexposure. I'd like to know why they decided to do it now. To me, it's a desperate move because they could have aired this prior to the trial. I think they feel they could get convicted the second time around, so now they're pulling out all the stops. That's what I think. But what the hell do I know? Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty the telephone number your calls on this next on w b Z