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.

New Development in Daniel Talbot Case: Lodie Changes Plea

Derek Lodie (Boston.com)

It was announced today that Derek Lodie, the teenager charged as an accessory to murder in the slaying of Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot almost two years ago, has changed his plea to guilty of accessory to manslaughter before the fact and received 8-12 years in prison. The charges have stemmed from a September 29, 2007 incident in which Lodie allegedly was walking behind Revere High at 1:30 am when he got into a verbal altercation with Daniel Talbot. Talbot apparently was taunting Lodie about being a member of the Bloods street gang and allegedly led the suspect to believe that he and his fellow officers were members of a rival gang (Lodie's attorney suggested this, and the D.A.'s office has stated to me that "The evidence does not suggest that Lodie knew Officer Talbot and his compatriots were police officers, but nor does it suggest that anyone led Lodie to believe they were members of a rival gang.").

The prosecution says that Lodie then called up Robert Iacoviello, a suspected Blood member, who then ambushed Talbot while Talbot and Lodie argued. Two other individuals have been charged - Gia Nagy and James Heang - as accessories after the fact for storing and helping to get rid of the murder weapon (which has not been found - see comment below, the alleged murder weapon has been recovered).

The story of what happened still does not make perfect sense, and the prosecution's refusal to make public tapes of the incident from Revere High's surveillance cameras (on public property, paid for with public funds) only further clouds the whole thing. One officer, Sergeant Evan Franklin, who was with Talbot at the time (five people have been confirmed as being there - Talbot, Talbot's fiancee, Franklin and two other Revere Police officers) has been fired for directing a responding unit to not respond to the scene but rather take an inebriated Franklin home. Couple that with the fact that four police officers are behind a public high school at 1:30 am drinking and a 20 year old with no formal firearms training is able to shoot one of the officers in the head while escaping from returning fire unscathed, and we have a very tragic and confusing situation.

In all, Lodie is getting off pretty easy, considering that in Massachusetts if you are an accessory before the fact in a felony you are punished in the manner of the principal (i.e. he who committed the felony.) So, in essence, Lodie got 8-12 years for killing a cop, which is a pretty lenient plea deal given the alleged crime.

It's hard to say what role Lodie's plea change will play in Iacoviello's upcoming January trial. The media is not saying whether Lodie will testify for the prosecution, though I cannot think of another reason to give Lodie 8-12 years for this. The DA's office, however, states that Lodie did not sign a cooperation agreement. Hopefully during trial the videotapes of the event (there is some fear that they have been damaged or destroyed) are made public so that we know what truly happened that fateful morning behind Revere High.

Ambrosino Finally Fires Franklin: More Details Emerge that Make the Case Even More Confusing

Revere Police Sergeant Evan Franklin
(Christopher King Blogspot)

Despite being a few weeks late, Revere Mayor Thomas Ambrosino finally fired disgraced Revere Police Sergeant Evan Franklin, the ranking officer at the scene of Daniel Talbot's murder who fled when gunfire erupted while his colleague stayed behind to allegedly try to fire back or protect Talbot's civilian fiance. Unfortunately, Mayor Ambrosino's document outlining why Franklin was fired, while offering some more details as to Franklin's involvement in the shooting and subsequent fleeing that night, simply brings up more questions as to what really happened that night back in September on Revere High School's baseball fields.

In a scathing letter, Mayor Ambrosino detailed why he felt that Sergeant Evan Franklin no longer belonged on the police force. What is surprising is that it is not Franklin's fleeing from the scene of a shooting in which one of his own men was hit (Franklin and fleeing go together, as he fled from the scene of an accident in 1995 on Route 1), but the fact that he stopped officer Robert Impemba, who was responding to the shooting and ordered him to drive him home instead of going to help his fellow officers who were allegedly involved in a shoot out with gang members. Mayor Ambrosino wrote the following in his decision to can Franklin:

There is no evidence to support any claim that Sgt. Franklin got into the cruiser not knowing that Impemba was responding to the scene of a shooting. The evidence instead supports the finding that Franklin used his supervisory position to interrupt the emergency response of a police cruiser fairly close to the scene of a shooting, which in fact became a murder.

Revere Mayor Thomas Ambrosino
(Boston Globe)

While I would argue that Franklin's fleeing the scene alone warrants an immediate dismissal from the force, and his later actions would demand that Franklin give back the previous eight or so months of taxpayer money he has received by being on paid leave since the incident, Mayor Ambrosino sees it differently and, ultimately, he is sitting in the boss's chair.

I would, however, urge Suffolk County DA Daniel Conley to press charges against Sergeant Franklin for not only lying to State Police investigators, but also impeding Officer Impemba's response to the crime scene. A good place to start, depending on whether or not Franklin gave written statements, would be Chapter 268, Sections, 6A, 24, and 40. Those are simply the crimes that I found that I believe Evan Franklin committed that night (beyond leaving his firearm unsecured in the back of an unlocked vehicle belonging to Officer Soto, a felony.)

One question that arises is, why did it take Mayor Ambrosino so long to come to this decision? Is it not obvious, given Franklin's horrendous behavior, that he is unfit to be a police officer? I would have argued that he was unfit following his first committal of a crime when he fled the scene of an accident on Route 1, but it seems that common sense is a rare natural resource. Mayor Ambrosino also stated that he would probably have a decision a few weeks ago, but obviously that was not true. By sitting on this decision, it makes it seem that there are mitigating circumstances that are not being disclosed to the public. Neil Rossman, Evan Franklin's attorney, takes to blaming everyone else but Franklin for his client's behavior. He says that:

This had nothing to do with police work. It had to do with five knuckleheads drinking in a park at 2 a.m., who happened to have day jobs as police officers. It is tragic for everyone, especially Officer Talbot who had this needless interaction with these young thugs.

So, for those of you keeping track at home, the officers drinking at the scene (and Talbot's fiance) are knuckleheads and it is a tragic situation for Franklin because of the "interaction" with these young thugs. Again, ask yourself why would you even "interact" with these "young thugs?" It takes two to tango, and they could have just let Lodie roll through without exchanging words with him, but they chose not to. After the verbal altercation that could have either left or called for backup, but did neither. Instead, something highly mysterious happened that night, that gets more confusing and bewildering as more details emerge.

Impemba told Franklin that he was responding to a shooting at Revere High (the shooting that Franklin fled) but he instead ordered the responding officer to drop him off elsewhere. This poses a major issue, beyond the fact that Franklin acted cowardly and callous. Why would Sergeant Evan Franklin, an 11 year veteran of the force, order a responding officer who was going to the scene of an officer shooting to stop responding to drop him off at home? I want to revisit one of two scenarios that I brought up in my original post about Officer Talbot's murder:

Then there's scenario number two: these cops are at Revere High at 1 am for whatever reason, an argument or something occurs within the group, Talbot is killed by someone in the group with a non-department issued weapon, which they then break down and toss in a storm drain. Then the group comes up with a story involving a "homeless misfit", as the Herald describes him, and a group of his apparently unknown friends. Like something out of a movie.

Now add to that that Sergeant Evan Franklin flags down the responding officer and distracts him to buy more time for others at the scene to destroy evidence (the broken down handgun found in the storm drain) and come up with suspects (known gang members and a "homeless misfit"). In my original post I stated that I believed that what actually happened is somewhere between scenario 1 (the prosecutor's story) and scenario 2 (the above scenario, with newly added points due to more details emerging.)

Suffolk County DA Daniel F. Conley (Wikipedia)

I still believe this. I only throw out the second scenario as an extreme to show how, given the information the public has about this case at this point, the facts of the case can be twisted to portray a different story.

But I've said it before and I will say it again, something simply does not add up in this case and I fear that something is missing from what the DA and officials are feeding us. Some people will say that questioning the "official" account of what occurred that night is a slight to the memory of Daniel Talbot. I would argue the exact opposite: if you truly want justice for Daniel Talbot, you cannot sincerely look at the prosecutor's case and take it at face value given the incredibly nebulous details emerging.

To genuinely bring justice for Daniel Talbot, the absolute truth must be uncovered, not the most convenient story for prosecutors to put this tragedy behind everyone. If Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley wants to release public information regarding this case, starting at the very least with the videotapes from the cameras mounted on Revere High (paid for and maintained through taxpayer money), and that information corresponds to the story that his office is giving to us, then I will be the first to say Talbot's killers may be in custody. Until then, we are left guessing.

The Daily Item Seeks Tape from Talbot Case

Kudos to the Daily Item for exercising their right to information sketched out in Massachusetts' Public Records Law in suing Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley for withholding the crucial tape of the events that occurred behind Revere High's on September 29, 2007. These videotapes allegedly show some of the events (though I am not sure if it is all of the events) of what happened the night that Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot was murdered.

Since the outset of this case I, along with many other people with blogs or just people commenting on news stories, have felt that something is being held from the public. Just for reference, I have also talked about this case here, and here. The story that the DA's office is spinning just does not add up. Four off-duty cops who felt their presence at area bars may stir up trouble are "socializing" behind a high school at 1 am, and one ends up shot with one officer running away and the other two unable to hit any of the assailants (despite having their weapons with them and being trained police officers). A canvas of the area turns up little but a disassembled, non-police issue handgun in a storm drain. The DA comes out less than 24 hours after the incident to say that Talbot was not killed by one of his fellow officers' guns, despite the fact that no one had thought about that before the DA said it. From the seemingly small amount of evidence, four people are arrested. A "homeless misfit" is charged with accessory before the fact (calling up someone to kill Talbot because the two got into a verbal altercation at the park), a girl and a guy are charged with accessory after the fact (breaking down the gun which I do not think has been reported as having prints on it), and one person has been charged as the principal shooter. All of this is laid out in the links to my other posts, I was just giving a brief overview to portray how confusing and illogical this all sounds.

Many of the questions I have asked about this case have gone unanswered. Why were these off-duty cops behind the school? Why have two of them been allowed back to work, but not one of them? Why did the police officers think their presence would cause alarm at local bars? Why did they not call on their fellow boys in blue when they got into a fight with Derek Lodie (the minor charged with accessory before the fact)? More importantly: what is going on?

This brings me to the Daily Item's pending legal action. Under Massachusetts' version of the Freedom of Information Act (which at the federal level does not apply to states, thus why MA has their own version), a public record is to be released to the public if it is requested in writing, which the Daily Item did. The DA's office refused to release the tape after receiving the December 6, 2007 letter, citing the ongoing investigation. The Item responded a week later, outlining the reasons that the DA's office was obligated to release the tape, to which the DA's office did not respond.

There is no doubt that the tape itself is public record. It is on public property (Revere High) and its installation and maintenance is paid for with public funds (i.e. taxpayer money). The office that is withholding it from the public is a public office and some of the subjects on the videotape were public officials. The only way that the DA's office could hold onto the tape is by exception 26f in Massachusetts Public Law Chapter 4 Section 7 (the state's version of the Freedom of Information Act) which states that public records should be disclosed unless they are "investigatory materials, necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials, the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest."

Is the tape considered "investigatory materials"? Yes. The question is will it hinder the prosecution of the four defendants. Not in my eyes. There is little doubt that the tape will be shown at trial anyway and it seems that the investigation is not currently ongoing (no further arrests have been hinted at). Withholding the tapes is certainly not in the public interest, as many have asked why the details of the shooting are so sketchy. It would actually be in the DA's interest to release the tapes and silence the rumors right now. Everything about this case involves public monies, the public has a right to know what happened. Since the DA clearly cannot communicate what happened in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the events of that night, maybe the tape can. Peace.

Photos - Suffolk County DA Daniel Conley (news.bostonherald.com), Officer Daniel Talbot (www.whdh.com)

Something Just Doesn't Add Up II

Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot (My Fox Boston)

On September 29, Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot was shot in the head by unknown assailants who were in their late teens to early twenties. Talbot was not alone, as he was with several other Revere off-duty officers (one report says two other officers another says three.)  Reports also say that his fiancee was with the group as well. The facts of this story are extremely nebulous. According to various Boston media outlets, Talbot and his cop friends were hanging out in the parking lot of Revere High when there was a confrontation with a group of young men. From this point on, the details seem to conflict. Boston.com has reported that an altercation occurred between the officers and a group of young men and that shots rang out, but the website states in a different article that Derek Lodie - the only person being charged in connection with the crime (accessory before the fact) - got into a confrontation with the group of officers (and whoever else was there) and then called his friends on a cell phone, when a second altercation occurred and that's when someone started shooting.

Derek Lodie being led to arraignment (Boston.com)

What's also strange is the brevity with which the DA's office released a report exclaiming that the bullet did not come from one of the other officer's guns. The report was released on Monday, October 1, only two days after the officer's death (less than 48 hours, considering his time of death was around 10pm Saturday). There do not seem to be any reports pointing to any of the officers as suspects before the autopsy results came out, so the rush to have them released seems slightly out of place. Additionally, the DA's office has a suspect in custody - the man who allegedly orchestrated the whole incident - but have charged him with only being an accessory before the fact (which, according to Massachusetts Law, carries the same punishment as the principal felon [aka the shooter] so it is akin to facing the murder charge, just not directly). So that means that Lodie did not pull the trigger, only asked someone to do it for him, which makes little sense because the media does not report that Lodie is part of any gang and at 17 years old, even if he were part of a gang, I doubt he would be such a heavy hitter as to order a hit on a cop and actually have it done, for no reason. I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm just saying that the charges they are holding him on are strange.

More oddities in the case include the sealing of anything having to do with the case in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, two other people's names keep popping up in the news as to their involvement in the crime, but they have yet to be charged with anything and are simply being held on probation violations and/or seperate charges [included in article last linked to]. Despite Boston.com's report of a lot of gang activity in the area coming from MS-13, it turns out 2 of the 3 arrests so far have been white individuals, and the one identified gang member (a white kid) is of the Bloods street gang, a home-grown violent group.

Suffolk County DA Daniel F. Conley (Wikipedia)

This brings up a lot of questions that have yet to get answered, and may never be. Why were the off-duty cops at the Revere High parking lot at 1:30 am after having been out drinking during the night? One article says that the cops believed their faces would arouse trouble at a bar or on Revere Beach, so they headed to the isolation behind Revere High (trespassing in the process, as well as other crimes if they were drinking). I'm not exactly sure why their faces would cause trouble at places, considering that a fellow officer was quoted at the arriagnment of Lodie as saying "You think you're working and living in a city that's safe and something like this happens." Also, as some posters on web boards have alluded to, just because a department-issued glock was not used does not mean that a cop could not have pulled the trigger (I'm not saying a cop did it, I am raising that as a possibility considering part of the murder weapon was found in a storm drain and thus no one has possession of it anymore, but the DA has already ruled out that a cop was the one who did it). Additionally, reports say that a gun battle ensued, but only Talbot was hit, and in the head no less. So an amateur shot a police officer in the head with a pistol (so it could not have been too far away) and the officers who were there with their service weapons, with which they are trained, were unable to hit any of the assailants? It's one thing if the Revere PD wants to admit that the criminals in their city are better shooters than they are, but I highly doubt that a) they would ever admit that, and b) that the criminals in the city are actually better shooters than them.


View Larger Map

Let me give you two scenarios. The first one would be that what happened is exactly what the prosecutors and investigators are telling us: for whatever reason these off-duty cops (along with Talbot's fiancee and whoever else may have been there - no one is saying) are behind Revere High at 1 am doing whatever it is people do behind public high schools late at night. Lodie comes along, and a verbal argument erupts. Apparently the cops think nothing of it because they did not leave or call any of their fellow on-duty brethren to come over. Lodie calls his boys up, they come down to Revere High armed, get into another argument and start shooting, hitting Talbot in the head once. Talbot's friends shoot back at these kids, somehow missing all of them. Did they chase the kids? Did they get a good look at the kids? Are there sketches of what these kids look like? No one is saying.

The scene after the shooting (Boston.com)

Then there's scenario number two: these cops are at Revere High at 1 am for whatever reason, an argument or something occurs within the group, Talbot is killed by someone in the group with a non-department issued weapon, which they then break down and toss in a storm drain. Then the group comes up with a story involving a "homeless misfit", as the Herald describes him, and a group of his apparently unknown friends. Like something out of a movie.

What do I think happened? I think it's somewhere between the two. I don't think that investigators are giving us the whole story, but I don't think that the second scenario is true, either. I only point out the second scenario to serve as an example of what can be concluded with what little information the investigators are releasing to people. If the first scenario is true, then it is unfair to Officer Talbot and his family to allow so much uncertainty to surround his death. If the story that the investigators are trying to give us is incorrect, then it is unfair to Officer Talbot and his family, as well as the public, to lie about an incident concerning a police officer's death on public property. Hopefully the full story will come out (there's allegedly video footage of what happened directly before the incident, but of course it is not being released) and the people will know the truth.