"The Politics of Murder"- a controversial verdict, with author Margo Nash!

True Crime Screening Room is a presentation of podcast picks with Jim the podcast Sherpa. Please keep in mind that some of the topics discussed might be too intense for younger or sensitive listeners. Even Jim the podcast Sherpa conducts some of these interviews while hiding under his desk, all while holding a stuffed mountain lion named Mr. Wubby. Welcome to True Crime Screening Room, the podcast featuring interviews with creators who dedicate their work to unraveling true crime mysteries. We're now entering the investigation room in the Sherpa Shale to meet your host, Jim the podcast Sherpa. Hello there Rebels of the Sherpa Lucian and welcome to True Crime Screening Room, it is a side project of podcast picks with Jim the podcast Sherpa. We just happen to be me coming to you from Sherpa Lucios, you're in the Sherpa Shale, high atop Mount Podcast, the hour I overlook the millions and millions of podcasts that are out there. But these are for you to crime lovers out there and this this week we we get to talk to you a true crime creator, she is an author, her name is Margot Nash. She was involved in a case serving as guardian as light, which means that she was like a representative for a minor in this case and the book is called the politics of murder the power and ambition behind the altar boy murder case. Now in 1995 a woman named Janet Downing was found murdered she was stabbed 98 times and investigators accused a 15 year old boy named Eddie O'Brien who was her neighbor and friends with her son actually. And it's seen that it is a course of this investigation that they ruled out any other suspects and Margot actually wrote this book a while back. There was now actually an expanded and revised edition of it that's come out recently and the matter of it is very controversial. I know between a lot of people who live in that neighborhood to this day still people let know both of the families and there's questioning of the evidence was he railroaded. This was one of the points that was brought up that prosecutors were noticing that there was something called super predators in the area and they felt that I'm naming Eddie O'Brien a super predator that they would be take him off the streets. And Margot's answers that they did not consider other people. So I get to spend a little time with Margot getting to know her and we talked about this case. To me it's a frustrating read and it has nothing to do with Margot style of writing or anything like that but to read all these things that happened I was just dumbfounded over why certain things were overlooked. You know I don't know what the truth is I probably never will or hopefully the truth welcome to light we can only hope for that. But it was a real true crime read in regards to maybe it was a matter of a lot of reasonable doubt or circumstantial evidence or a lot of other legal terms that you may hear in murder cases like this it was really unique. The book really discusses a lot of the people involved in the story and some of the background that was going on behind it but we will get to talk to that with Margot Nash again the author of the politics of murder several listen right now. Hello there rebels we are here in the investigation room of the Sherpa Shelley my guest today is an author and was a lawyer try lawyer for over 30 years she has a new book out called the politics of murder this case is wow it is very controversial in the state of Massachusetts and probably in many legal circles I would imagine as well. Our name is Margot Nash coming to us from lovely cake God Massachusetts Margot welcome to the show thank you very much and thank you for inviting me Jen now the book was actually released was it 2016. Yes the book politics of murder was released in 10 years ago and I just wrote an updated addendum for the second edition and that's what came out today. What is the updated version of how recent is that. It just got published today oh no I meant as far as like the any hearings or everything. Everything up to 2026 yes oh okay well so we're very current here yeah very current okay we should explain to everybody that you were. The guardian at light them is that is that how we say it that's how we say it guardian at light him for Eddie O'Brien who was 15 at the time. So you basically he's advocate right you you had to rely on what was in his best interest exactly that you know he had parents and the reason that I was appointed was because. They put his father on the witness list the prosecution did and so the they asked for a guardian at light them to be appointed the lawyers did. Normally it's not done it's very unusual that's done in a juvenile case. Well to put it mildly there's this a lot that was very unusual about this case there is nothing usual about this case everything is unusual about this case and continues to be yeah and I want to say to you and you know and and to the listeners as well. I was getting frustrated reading the book not because of your writing style because it was written beautifully but just every circumstance every twist in turn there was like how could this happen you just kept like scratch. Yeah like this this doesn't happen in America but and yet. I'm reading about it yes and well as I say it in the addendum when I wrote this book in 2016 I don't think that people generally were ready to believe that this kind of. Corruption frankly occurred and we just weren't ready to hear it and it was recently in Massachusetts there was a case called the Karen read case which made national headlines and a lot of people follow that and watched on TV the corruption happening. And I think as I say in the book I think that she that her case became a catalyst for other kinds of cases that had this kind of corruption and it's only now that people are saying oh well doesn't seem so far far fetch now anymore. Maybe she wouldn't you know maybe she was under something in 2016 but it was a hard read I think in 2016 yeah yeah I agree with you I think actually I interviewed one of the authors of one of the camera we booked was that the lady that backed into her husband. It's no storm that's lady who didn't back into her boyfriend who was a police officer yeah at the home of another Boston police officer where he was found the next morning. Murge right yeah yeah I definitely did cover that episode as well and that yeah it was another crazy book to read about everything that was. Oh yeah that's still going on in terms of the repercussions I mean state police have been fired that police you know the local police have been fired I mean there's it's just keep it just keeps giving more information about how deep it went. Yeah now now you're you're talking what about 20 years after Eddie's conviction now right with the release of this book roughly. Well he was convicted in 97 and this came out in 2016 yeah okay right so I mean what happens now is is there any sort of agents for change in here or what do you think can happen in regards to. You know his verdict you know in overturning it well. Any wrongful conviction is difficult to overturn I mean just it's not a pill battle all the way and this particular one because it's so politically connected and the. All the people are still around I mean governor well is no longer the governor but he's still a very active number of. of the Republican Party. And Tom Wiley is actually living on Cape Cod, I believe, right now. So the actors are still there, and I don't believe it's realistic to think that any of them are going to come out and say, you know, we really did this wrong. And we want to apologize. I think that the only thing that can happen is that a judge can see that this case needs to be completely reopened and set for a new trial and give us a level playing field. And I think that the truth will come out and any will be exonerated by the new trial. Do you think that that will actually happen? I, that's my hope, I believe it can happen, enough people will, you know, say, we're not going to stand for this, you know, I think that it's certainly something that the court can order, right? So in the family and the downing family, yes, I mean, what happened to like the children of family? I mean, obviously, Eddie was friends with one of the sons. Yes. I mean, did they believe in his innocence at all, or did they just write off the bat to say, well, this is what happened because this is what we've been told. What did you think, anyway? No, right off the bat, nobody believed it, and actually Ryan called Eddie and asked him to be the, to serve as the altar boy and his mother's funeral mass. And he was, of course, arrested before that. And so the family never suspected that or didn't expect that. And then I think that right now they're very much a united front in terms of believing everything that the district attorney told them. And I think that they had 30 years of believing in the facts as a district attorney leave them out. Yeah. I mean, the way that the book is written, it really points to, I mean, what everyone calls a railroading. Yes. It was like there was no hope for Eddie. No. As a matter of fact, there's a website called the truth about Eddie O'Brien dot com. Eddie has put up all of the legal documents. And in one of those legal documents, his an interview with the innocence project between the innocent project and Judge Heffrinon, who was the first judge in his juvenile trial that said he should be kept in the, in the juvenile system. And essentially, Judge Heffrinon says the same thing. He says that nobody could save this kid because there were forces at work that were going that already predetermined what was going to happen. Yeah. And it's interesting that you use those words because I got through like a third of the book and I was like, this is like a perfect storm of corruption. Yeah. You know, they were talking about the super predators and it was like they wanted to put a face on it. And at that time, because he was a kid, we just happened to walk into his neighbor's house, they, they pinned it on him. Right. And you know, there, there is so little forensic evidence tying him to it. And that, that forensic evidence is what I address in the second part because I was able to get the actual lab results, not just the reports. And the reports are different from the handwritten notes of the chemist. And in each, there are three very minor places where it's alleged his blood is found. And they're just three, almost just three droplets. And two of them are in the, in the basement, not near where Janet was murdered. And the, the actual DNA testing shows that the blood that they're calling a mixture of Janet's and Eddie's also has a third DNA in it, which is that thing 10, they call it in every single one of those. So it really, to me, calls into question the integrity of that testing because they didn't, they didn't report that, of course. I found that in the notes. Yeah. And obviously, you know, as an experienced trial lawyer, I mean, when you look back on those early trials, do you think that there was something that Eddie's defense should have done differently? I think there's everything that Eddie's defense should have done differently. I mean, this was a perfect storm in terms of the political agenda of the people at the time, Governor, well, running for, for resigning as a governor so he could run for the Senate, I mean, who does that? And Tom Riley, the district, the elected district attorney, running for attorney general, but he had a lot of unsolved murders. And this, their agenda to be, to change the juvenile law and be hard on crime, except that they had to not use a black or a brown person as the defendant, because the racial tension in Boston was horrific at the time. Right. It's been through the Charles Stewart murder and Carol DiMADY, the guy, the white couple, and he killed his wife. And then he said that a black guy did it. It was just a very difficult time politically in Massachusetts. So I think that you asked me if his defense should have done anything different. His defense didn't really put on a defense, if you asked me. They didn't hire any experts. They didn't independently test the evidence. The DNA was, this is the first time that DNA was allowed into evidence in Massachusetts without having to challenge the statistics that they used, you know, how do you get this one and two million thing? You used to have to be able to prove that. And it was very complicated to get it into evidence. But this was a brand new technology and this lawyer, this particular lawyer, wasn't familiar with it. And he was going to get an expert, but he never did. And it's just snowball. I mean, there was the perfect storm of the political and the racial atmosphere in Boston. And also that you had a, you know, not a terrible investigation that was, what do they call tunnel vision, terrible investigation with tunnel vision, where they arrested this kid three, two days, three days after the murder with no investigation being done yet. And then we had a prosecutor who had an agenda that was not, let's find the truth here. It was, let's get me elected. And I can get free press on this every single day, Gavaldi Gavacore TV, and a bad defense. So that's the first, that's what, that's what always makes a wrongful conviction. All your defense, all your prosecution, and failure of the police. I'm not sure about the technicalities behind that. I mean, would it be possible for, for it to go on like a completely different venue? I mean, is, I think today, I mean, if he had a new trial, yes, yes. Oh, we don't need a different venue today. We have a more, we have a level playing field today. We have, we know the evidence now, right? We know what is dependable evidence, and what is not dependable evidence, and they, they, they cannot get a conviction based on the evidence as it really exists. Right. I don't think, and I, I don't think, I don't think I'm exaggerating that. So no, the population is not the problem. It was all of the bad publicity at all of the political hype that was going on at the time, and that made this case what it was at the time. You've actually spoken to Eddie over the years, and could you kind of compare that kid of 15 to, I guess, the man who's in his mid 40s now, like, what is his outlook on life? He's an amazing person. His outlook is phenomenal. I mean, he is a, he's known as a peacekeeper in prison. He doesn't have infractions. He doesn't belong to a gang. He doesn't drink. He doesn't do drugs. Never has. Right. He still is a practicing Catholic and always has been, he was confirmed at Walpole Prison. Yeah. He received his confirmation at Walpole Prison when he was first admitted. And into the system. He doesn't, he's not bitter. He's not, he's not accusatory. [BLANK_AUDIO] He just feels like he deserves the truth to come out. And if the truth comes out and people still think that he committed this murder, which I don't think anybody could think that if they knew the facts, so be it. He says basically that he's going to be fine, no matter where he lives out the rest of his life. If he has to live out the rest of his life in prison, because they won't parole him, or he doesn't get a second trial, that's okay. He's going to be fine. But he wants to expose what happened to him so that it doesn't happen to anybody else. Yeah. I mean, that's an amazing attitude to have, having gone through that from a young age. I mean, obviously, I mean, you know, it doesn't make a rocket scientist to figure that, you know, events like that that he went through would make somebody very bitter towards the rest of the world. But, you know, here he is optimistic. I'm more bitter than he is, you know, and he has always had that attitude. And he says, and he just says, you know, a lot of people walk out of this prison, and they get their freedom because the truth comes out, and I've got to believe that I'm going to be one of them. Yeah. That's really true. I mean, I think that's all that anybody can hope for, just the truth. I mean, you know, there's, and it's a relatively simple thing to find. And I think if, you know, if they plug in all the real variables on this case, and, you know, they're bound to see something different, we can only hope at the very least. Right. Right. Exactly. Well, he didn't have, he didn't have the mode of, he had no mode of, he didn't have the availability. He didn't have, I mean, you know, we're talking about a horrific murder that took place in, you know, over the three or four rooms and up and down the stairway and 98 stabbings. And he had a white t-shirt on that he had on all day from morning till night, when he was brought to the hospital by the police, and he, he didn't have a drop of blood on him. Right. And he, it was a blood bath in that house. So, and he would have had to do it. He would have had between, I think, seven and nine minutes to, to commit that murder with his father, 25 yards away in his family, 25 yards away. Some or night, everybody's windows open and, and get away with it. Right. Yeah. I mean, you would really plot it out the timeline really well in the book. And, and it was just like, it was another one of those things where, again, you're, you throw in your hands up and you're saying, "How was this even possible that they're looking at this kid for, you know, for these actions?" There's just too much that would make, you know, that would give him way if he was the perpetrator. Right. Right. Yeah. It is, it is just, it's terrible to think that, you know, in these times that you see a court like that where, you know, we, I mean, well, you're, you've been a lawyer and you, you know, you've always wanted to uphold the law and preserve justice. And this, it was just completely, like, avoided at this point. Yeah. It was, it was a real shock to me as well. And I had been a lawyer for, since 1983, and so I'd been a lawyer for a little while when I was appointed to this case. And I believe that the system was somewhat flawed, but it generally worked. And I totally, that, that was totally shown to me to be completely untrue in this situation. It's still very hard for me to, to say, to say that it's still very hard. I have a tremendous respect for the legal system and the law and not, not anymore. And it's, I'm sad to say that. Yeah. I, I get that, you know, and, you know, I guess to, to be witness to everything that was there. And I mean, you were obviously in the courtroom and, and you saw what all the data that passed through to you. You really know a larger percentage than what these, you know, so-called online pundits say, oh, well, there's evidence that says this. And you know, you're like, no, it isn't. Yeah. It's not there. They, they wanted to say, well, they found her blood on his chin. They took a swamp of a drop of blood on his chin, and it was hers. And that is, and that's what the DA said, too, to the jury. That's untrue. It was A.D. blood. She had A.B. blood. But it was consistent with everybody who has A.B. blood. Not just females who have A.B. blood because they did not do the subtesting, which is required to further narrow down the group of A.D. blood people. And so it, it, it, it, it's meaningless without further narrowing it down and to say it was her blood or can, you can't even say it was consistent with her blood. Because it was, you have to say, it was consistent with anybody with A.D. blood. Yeah. And the, the day of the, of Janet's murder, you know, any statements that there was somebody there who threatened him. Yes. And was there any, there was no pursuit of that. There was just like, no, they just, they just didn't believe him. No, they just didn't believe him. And there was no, and there's, you know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of avenues that were never pursued in, in this case, but that's certainly, they never even considered that. Right. They never even considered that as an avenue of, of looking at anybody. I mean, especially when you're talking about looking at someone, when they talk about Janet's brother-in-law, already, or teens. And again, how, how is that all just completely overlooked? It's, it's crazy. I mean, and she had even told her friends that you mentioned in the book that, you know, this, you know, this, this guy, he's, you know, he, we, we get them out of the house. He was dealing drugs, and then we're showing up and all of his friends, his, his cabs are following me and just like, no thought was given to any of that. They wouldn't, they wouldn't even follow up on that. And those statements were written and given to the DA. So he knew that, and he refused to interview that witness who sat with her. And Gina Mahoney was with Janet the whole day of the day of her murder. She was with her from early morning until five o'clock when Janet went shopping. Janet when food shopping came home, the groceries were still on the counter when she was murdered. She was still on the counter when the, when the, when they, when she was found deceased. And so, I mean, and it was during that time, those nine hours that she sat with her friend across the street, she made it very clear. She was very afraid of Arty Ortiz that he had keys to her house that he was, he was doing things that really were upsetting and scary to her. And that if anything happened to her, that Gina should make sure that the case was investigated, investigated, investigated. She said that three times pounding her fist and your hand. She said, Gina, investigate, investigate, investigate. Please, if something happens to me. Now she says that an hour before she's murdered and the judge wouldn't let it in. That jury never heard it. It is so crazy. I mean, when you think about it, I mean, going with the presumption that this case was to reopen, it would be like a jury is hearing a completely different story. Totally. You know, compared to what was presented to the original jury. Right. What was presented and what was not presented because of either the failure of the defense or the rulings by the superior court judge who heard this case, who was, whose rulings were questionable, if you asked me, is evidentiary rulings, but some of them, some of them were, were right, were correct. But he was given the wrong information by the detention attorney who could have gotten that statement in a number of ways and, and he messed it up. So, you know, it's just there, as you said, there's enough blame to go around in this case. Yes. The only one that has no blame whatsoever is Eddie. Yeah. Yeah. And he's the one who's ultimately paying for all this, which is. 31 years of his life. Yeah. That's that is the saddest part of all of it. Now, you actually have a website. Is it the politics of murder dot com, right? Yes. Yes. Could you talk a little bit about that? Well, I started that web page when I wrote the book in 2016. Okay. And I posted things to it intermittently. I'm posting a lot right now because a lot is going on. The book dropped today. and it's now for sale as of today through Amazon and it contains both the first volume and the new addendum that I put in the back so it's the full the full story right up to date and so I did that and and I was doing a whole lot of traveling around and and and and you know I posted all all of that and started in newsletter and you know but then it's been ten years between doing all that work and and and today and it was only since this case picked up momentum when the Karen Reed case stopped and all these podcasters had been putt had been doing covering the Karen Reed case they started covering this case and there's there's three podcasters that are covering it now they're all sort of competing for an audience and it's it's a big deal here and I think it's there's a whole lot of supporters and the free free Eddie O'Brien movement and I think he has a real chance of getting the support he needs to get his voice heard yeah and it is so divisive I mean I've seen some of the clips on social media and there are still people you know who argue is innocent or people who feel that he's guilty and you know they're kind of drawing your own conclusions but I'm even like thirty something years later it's amazing that people are that passionate about it yeah yeah there are and it's it's very difficult because you know Janet was very Janet he knew Janet's this he was a toddler right and as his friend Joseph Burrow who he was in prison with said and who's now out said you know that Eddie turned to him one time he said you know what they never even let me mourn her death I never even got a chance to mourn her death and she was a friend of Trisha and Ed the parents and that got all wiped away and and it was just and there the Orion state in that neighborhood until just about a year ago year and a half ago they were there the whole time and there was no bad ill-feeling or anything like that toward them but there are lots and lots of people and I am sure it is painful beyond belief for the downings to have to listen to this again and again and again and I don't know but we have to say it again and again and again and I keep saying justice for Eddie is justice for Janet because her killer is walking around out there absolutely absolutely is there is there anything else that people can do I mean if they want to find out what else here been working on in regards to this or the website was doing we're doing huge fundraising effort right now and we're going to have a book signing and there's a producer who's doing a documentary and he's going to show some of that film and we're doing all of that on a couple of dates in August in September we also have I will give you I gave you the the site where you can read all the police reports timelines witness statements the truth about Eddie O'Brien dot com all one word and also we are raising money through his defense for his defense fund through Venmo and cash app so let's go to cash app yeah and there's also a given go www give give send go dot com site that is raising money so he needs funds for these expert witnesses to be hired and that is the full court press that we have on this summer we're trying to fundraise yeah well I mean I don't know if if it's been said but I mean you really just never a lot of credit for keeping the fight for his innocence alive and you know I and it could host you for that and also you know congratulations on the book and hopefully you know we can get the time to turn regarding this matter and you know just like said we get the truth to come out and that's that's the best that we can do and at least put some face back in the legal system that's right that's right then that's all we're trying to do right again this is Margot Nash the her book is called the politics of murder it the new second edition is out so be sure to check it we will have the link in our show notes Margot thank you so much for coming on the show thank you for inviting me Jim thanks so much to Margot Nash for springing by true crime screening room and of course as you know those of you who've been this part of podcast before we will include of course the link to the show in the show notes if you'd like to check it out and as I mentioned earlier definitely an interesting read and really almost makes the question the legal system sometimes if if nothing else but we will see what the result is with everything and again hopefully justice will be served which is all that we can hope for in any of these true crimes cases so that will do it for me on Saturdays we have Sherpa select where you can hear some of my favorite shows and we're going into season eight where you can check some of the classics out there and I just kind of pretty it up for you then we have new episodes what we try to have new episodes every Wednesday for you right here on your favorite podcast apps or on the Sherpa Lucian YouTube page make your pick and hopefully you will enjoy what you hear now until then I say to you Liva last Sherpa Lucian thanks for listening to true crime screening room subscribe to the show on podcast apps or the Sherpa Lucian YouTube page until then stay away from evil and more important Viva la Sherpa Lucian (upbeat music)