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