Monday, December 14, 2009

Daniel Talbot Murder Accomplice Changes Plea

Gia Nagy (Boston Herald)
Now for those of you who follow this blog semi-regularly, you know that I've been following the Daniel Talbot case quite closely. The last development was a big one, when Derek Lodie, who had been charged as an accessory before the fact of Daniel Talbot's murder, changed his plea to guilty and received a sentence of 8-12 years. Given that accessories before the fact of a felony in Massachusetts receive the same punishment as the principle if convicted, 8-12 years, at least on the surface, looks like a very good deal for Lodie.

Today Nagy has changed her plea on the indicted charge, which is accessory after the fact to murder. She is charged with helping her boyfriend Robert Iacoviello, the alleged shooter, to break down the alleged murder weapon (a 9mm) and dispose of it while providing an alibi for Iacoviello.

This brings the number of people involved in this case who have pleaded guilty to five (by my count.)  There's Lodie and Nagy, as well as three unidentified individuals who are apparently well-known in Revere and were offered deals in pending, unrelated cases to testify about their knowledge in the case. One was also allegedly put into witness protection and flown out to Vegas. Of the three, two have since had run-ins with the law and, according to the Revere Journal, one is now behind bars.

Judge Brady handed down a sentence of 1-2 years for Nagy, which is what the Suffolk DA's office was looking for. As far as Nagy testifying against Iacoviello during his upcoming trial next month, the DA's office says that Nagy did not sign a cooperation agreement with them. As of right now I've yet to receive comment from Nagy's lawyer as to whether she plans to testify against Iacoviello.

So how does this change things for Iacoviello? Will he still go to trial in January as planned or will he be looking to cut a deal now that two people have pled to accessory charges in related to his alleged crime? Iacoviello's lawyer had no comment.

A trial would force the DA to show their entire hand, hopefully meaning that more details would come out about what happened, because the official story of what happened seems a bit off to me. I'm not saying that the DA's office is lying or anything like that, but this particular incident is so filled with questions of "Why?" that for it to make sense would not make sense, if that makes sense. But then again, violent deaths tend to conjure up more questions than answers.


  1. How about this...they are cutting deals with DA because the evidence is that strong against them. Ever think of that one? I would NEVER cut a deal if I was 100% innocent, why would anyone?? This isn't something someone would want following them around the rest of their lives, like a badge of honor. These kids are so dumb. Lets see how they're doing in life 10 years from now. Good luck trying to find a job, Gia! hahaha

    Employer- "Oh I see you "served time", what was this for?"
    Gia- "Ummmmm, accessory after the fact of MURDER."

    I've been reading this drivel/conspiracy crap on your blog since 2007 and by me even responding to you kind of legitimizes you a degree, but you should wake up and smell the coffee son.

  2. What "conspiracy crap" are you referring to? Let's see, a few cops (adults) go drinking behind a school one night (yes that makes sense). Then they pick a fight with a person known to have gang ties (again, perfect sense). Then they wait for the kid to come back with their gang friend (really?) - so now it's 2 (the kids) against 4 (trained cops, some of them were armed, albeit drunk). A kid shoots a cop in the head and none of the others get even close to hitting the kids? Then one of the cops flees the scene, meets another cop, and asks to be taken to his home rather than the crime scene b/c he is too drunk (umm, what?). I don't think Kane was pointing any fingers (yet), but if that story makes perfect and total sense to you then something is awry. The DA could be putting forth the truth, which I think they are, but to say it's the complete truth is a bit of a stretch. There's video evidence that they still won't release. Why? It's a simple question that has nothing to do with a conspiracy, that I think people are justified in asking.

  3. No DA's office releases potential evidence in advance of a murder trial. That includes surveillance footage, which criminal courts have impounded and civil courts have deemed not open to public records requests.