The Phoenix Network:
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In

See no evil

What’s on the videotape Dan Conley won’t make public? Plus, winners in the Times ’ McCain mess.
By ADAM REILLY  |  February 27, 2008

HIDE AND SEEK: Suffolk County DA Dan Conley is willing to go to court to keep a surveillance tape tied to a Revere cop’s murder out of the Lynn Daily Item’s hands.

In terms of drama and scope, it’s not quite the Pentagon Papers. But an intriguing battle pitting government against the press is currently percolating on the North Shore and here in Boston.

The showdown — which involves the Daily Item of Lynn and Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley — has its origins in the fatal shooting, on September 29, 2007, of Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot. (Disclosure: I worked at the Item for four months in 2003.) The murder of a cop always packs an extra emotional wallop, since the men and women of law enforcement risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe. And in Talbot’s case, some added details — including his age (30), his imminent nuptials, and reputation as a nice guy and good cop — made his death seem particularly tragic.

At the same time, ever since Talbot’s murder hit the papers and the airwaves, the circumstances surrounding it have been perplexingly murky. For one thing: why were Talbot, his fiancée, and several other police officers hanging out behind Revere High School at 1:30 am? For another: prosecutors have acknowledged that the group’s members were having “a couple beers.” How many is that, exactly?

And here’s a third lacuna. Conley originally said that Talbot was killed after his group had a “heated exchange” with 17-year-old Derek Lodie, who then called several friends to the scene. One of these, Robert Iacoviello, 20, allegedly shot Talbot in the head. (Iacoviello has been charged with Talbot’s murder; in addition to Lodie, James Heang and Gia Nagy, both 17, have also been charged as accessories.) Since then, however, prosecutors have acknowledged that Talbot initiated the exchange in question. What did he say, exactly? And what transpired between his initial comments and his murder?

The answers — some of them, at least — may exist on videotape that was shot that night by a camera mounted on the wall of Revere High School. But when the Item requested a copy of the video this past December, Conley’s office refused. And when the paper tried again later that month, explaining in greater detail why it felt its request was justified, Conley’s office again chose not to make the tape available.

Fast forward to earlier this month. On February 7, the Item filed suit in Suffolk Superior Court in yet another attempt to obtain the video. Right now, a hearing on the matter is scheduled for March 19; the goal, from the paper’s point of view, is to convince the court that the Massachusetts Public Record Law (MPRL) mandates the tape’s release.

“We as an organization believe that the taxpayers of the city of Revere deserve to know what happened that night,” Item editor Henry Collins tells the Phoenix. “There are a lot of questions leading up to the time surrounding Officer Talbot’s death. Maybe there are answers on the videotape; maybe there aren’t — but if there’s nothing on it, then we should be able to say that.

“This was a videotape made with a camera placed on a public building, videotaping a public field, and as it turns out a public officer was killed,” Collins adds. “We believe it’s a public record based on that.”

For its part, the DA’s office is arguing that tape is part of an ongoing investigation — and that its release could improperly harm the defendants. “Our take, frankly, is that the defendant simply couldn’t receive a fair trial if the videotape were broadcast,” says spokesman Jake Wark. (His assumption — which may be correct — is that the tape would make its way from the Item to local TV newscasts upon release.)

In theory, the investigatory exemption is a tough one to obtain: it’s limited, according to the text of the law, to materials whose disclosure would “probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” What’s more, Conley’s office has already made multiple arrests in the case, which could make it harder for the DA to argue that disclosure would be detrimental. “It won’t disclose a confidential source,” argues Peter Caruso Sr., the Item’s attorney. “It won’t impede the prosecution of a perpetrator. It just doesn’t fall into any of the categories for an investigative exemption.”

On the other hand, Massachusetts courts have tended to look skeptically on attempts by the press to obtain video evidence. The best-known example came in 1993, when the Supreme Judicial Court barred the release of videotape from a police line-up following the murder of Carol DiMaiti Stuart. Stuart was killed by her husband, Charles, who blamed a nonexistent black man for the crime and later committed suicide. The tape in question, which was sought by WBZ-TV, showed Stuart falsely identifying an innocent man as the perpetrator. But despite the fact that the ensuing grand-jury investigation was complete — and that much of the information of the tape had already been made public — the SJC unanimously ruled that, as a product of grand-jury deliberations, it couldn’t be released.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: Feeding the rabid right, The Mormonator, Straight talk, More more >
  Topics: Media -- Dont Quote Me , Mitt Romney, Paul Cahill, Warren Payne,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
See no evil
Adam- It seems that you're hinting that the real reason for not releasing the tape is something different than what the DA's office has said, sort of like the Bush administration's constant usage of the "national security" exemption to hide their own misconduct. Notwithstanding this, do you think that the "prejudicial to a not-yet-seated jury who might see the tape on television" argument is ever valid for things like this?
By Farnkoff on 02/28/2008 at 1:48:19
See no evil
Farnkoff--perhaps. But I'd rather have that determination made by someone other than the prosecutors.
By Adam on 02/28/2008 at 3:13:58
See no evil
this investigation smelled from day one. i am disquested with the police news investigators and judges. we the people have a god given right to have information given to us.we send our son and daughter to protect our freedom(and die for us)but yet bullshit revere police treat people like we have no reason to be here
By LJ on 03/01/2008 at 9:59:25
See no evil
all the papers in revere and boston are letting once again the revere police and its city goverment to hide and do what tey want to do to their citizens and they get away with it.
By LJ on 06/01/2008 at 9:45:49
See no evil
i did and you refuse to post it
By LJ on 06/01/2008 at 9:47:23
See no evil
forget it
By LJ on 06/01/2008 at 9:48:31

Share this entry with Delicious
  •   MENINO'S JUNKED MAIL  |  September 16, 2009
    Two years ago, when I wrote a column griping about the Boston media's apathy-inducing disinterest in city politics, Boston Globe metro editor Brian McGrory told me his paper had given the lackluster 2007 elections as much coverage as they deserved, but hinted that things would be different in 2009.
  •   BLOWHARD, INTERRUPTED  |  September 11, 2009
    Former Red Sox great Curt Schilling isn't the only prospective US Senate candidate agonizing over whether to run for Ted Kennedy's old seat. But unlike some of his potential rivals the Bloody Socked One seems determined to share his Hamlet act with the biggest possible audience.
    Last week, during an appearance on the Washington, DC–based Diane Rehm Show on NPR, Ted Kennedy biographer Edward Klein suggested that if Kennedy could witness his own funeral he'd probably crack a joke.
  •   THE END OF THE AFFAIR?  |  August 27, 2009
    During Mitt Romney's failed bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, he demonstrated a potent knack for wooing the conservative commentariat.
  •   DEFAMING TWITTER  |  August 19, 2009
    Hate Twitter? Then you're probably loving a new, buzz-generating study — released last week by the Texas market-research firm Pear Analytics — which found that the vast majority of Twitter messages, a/k/a tweets, are pretty much worthless.

 See all articles by: ADAM REILLY

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group