The Globe is all over the story of AG/Gov candidate Tom Reilly’s call to Worcester County DA John Conte regarding the autopsy records of the girls who died in a car crash early on October 13. So is the Herald – Reilly’s face covers the front page with the headline “Reilly on the ropes,” and there are two big articles plus an opinion column (reg. req’d) inside on the subject. A Google News search shows that the story has been picked up in Seattle, LA, Tuscaloosa (of all places), and on CNN. And some of the more right-of-center (to put it mildly) bloggers ’round these parts are having a field day.
Let’s try to cut through the hoopla here. A couple of things seem clear enough from the information that’s been made public so far. (1) The underage driver had been drinking, and was quite likely seriously intoxicated when she drove away from the party (based on the police report). (2) No drunk driving charges can be brought, since the driver died in the crash. (3) An autopsy report might well confirm that the driver was drunk, but obviously would say nothing about the source of the alcohol.
The investigation was as to whether there was enough evidence to charge someone under the “social host” law that creates liability for hosts who knowingly allow minors to drink on premises that they own or control. But from what we know so far, it seems reasonably clear that the issue wasn’t whether the victim was drinking – there seems to have been lots of evidence that she was. The issue, instead, seems to have been whether the guy hosting the party met the other requirements of the social host law (in particular, did the 20-year-old “own or control” the premises? He surely didn’t “own” it – it seems to have been his parents’ house). The autopsy records would shed no light on those issues.
So it does not seem unreasonable to me to say that the autopsy records should stay private (and note that, apparently, Reilly called DA John Conte only to urge that the records not be released to the media; he didn’t prevent the police from seeing them). That said, however, it is weird that Reilly involved himself. This kind of case is a matter for the police and the DA’s office; I cannot imagine a good reason why Reilly saw it necessary to offer unsolicited advice to the Worcester County DA’s Office.
Bottom line as I see it: Reilly’s action probably had no impact on the case, especially if, as he says (and there’s no contrary evidence so far), his call was only with respect to releasing the records to the media. The records don’t seem to be relevant to what were likely the key sticking points in the investigation. So the claims of a “cover-up” seem a tad overstated, and the vitriol coming from some quarters a tad misplaced. That said, Reilly was really stupid to make the call that he made. It smacks of exactly what lots of people don’t like about Massachusetts politics: powerful elected officials wielding their influence on behalf of their friends. Conte undoubtedly knew what the law was on this, and he probably would have done what he did without Reilly weighing in. Relatedly, Reilly says he’s done similar things in other cases, but “when pressed” he refused to give details. Again, that just makes him look bad – other cases involving his friends?
Like all situations of this kind, Reilly should just acknowledge that what he did was a mistake. He can then explain – accurately, it seems to me – that what he did had no impact on the investigation of any crimes that may have been committed, and people will take that explanation seriously. But if he continues to insist that what he did was perfectly appropriate and that he’d do it again, the story will continue to dog him, and it will be easier and easier to dismiss him as just another pol who’s more interested in helping out his friends than in protecting the public interest. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of Reilly, but incidents like this make it easier to wonder.
So, Reilly is right on the law, he’s not responding to some wish to repay a political contributor… and yet we’re on his case because of the “optics” ?
<
p>
I know what you mean, and he sounded terrible on “Greater Boston” the other night. But still.. shouldn’t we be more vigorous in debunking the “inapropriate behavior” meme if he was doing something perfectly legal?
It’s that if, God forbid, another family found themselves in similar circumstances, and had no personal connection to Tom Reilly, I frankly doubt that they could pick up the phone to Reilly and have him make a call to the DA handling the case. It’s about wielding influence inappropriately, regardless of whether it was technically illegal. I think, frankly, that what he did was inappropriate. I just don’t think it can accurately be called a cover-up, or obstruction of justice, as some have tried to describe it.
and I’m just playing devil’s advocate here because I agree with alot of whats been said hear, but lets say you’re friend (ditch the contributor part, just as its doubtful that the AG would pick up the phone for ANY family, its also doubtful he’d do it for ANY donor) looses two of their kids in a horrific accident. Calls you and asks if there’s anyway you can legally make sure the media doesn’t get their autopsy records, wouldn’t you make the call?
<
p>
I agree it was a mistake to call, but the decision about the call isn’t as easy as we might make it seem.
Charley, I put the transcript of that Greater Boston interview up on .08 Acres, if anyone missed it.
sco, I read everything you write. đŸ™‚
The Reilly Campaign just emailed out this statement:
<
p>
Tom Reilly tom@tomreilly.orgto me More options 6:05 pm (17 minutes ago)
<
p>
I wanted to speak to you about an issue that has been given quite a bit of attention over the past couple days.
<
p>
I’m sure many of you have seen the news reports about my decision to weigh in on behalf of the families of two young girls from Southborough, Meghan and Shauna Murphy, who died in a tragic car accident in October. The family was concerned that the autopsy records were going to find their way to the media, and I made a phone call to District Attorney John Conte of Worcester to make sure that would not be the case.
<
p>
What I did, I did out of concern for the family. The parents of these young girls had gone through a horrific tragedy, a tragedy that they will live with for the rest of their lives. I simply do not believe that they, or any parents, should have to relive such a tragedy by seeing their daughters’ autopsies splashed in the papers or on television.
<
p>
The law in this area is very clear. Autopsies are private medical records and can only be released to the media with the family’s permission. The District Attorney agreed with me and assured me he had no intention of releasing the records to the public.
<
p>
The investigation into the cause of the accident or whether alcohol was involved never came up in our conversation. I have personally prosecuted many drunk driving cases and overseen countless others. I have long fought to toughen our drunk driving laws as District Attorney and again this past year with Melanie’s bill. I would never do anything to hamper an investigation into any crime, but especially drunk driving.
<
p>
My request to keep the documents private from the media had absolutely nothing to do with a criminal investigation. If the District Attorney or the local police want to further investigate or bring charges in any way, they have the absolute right to do so.
<
p>
What the Governor and Lt. Governor are doing by spreading the lie that I impeded an investigation or engaged in a “cover-up” is beyond belief. To exploit the deaths of these two girls to score political points is totally offensive to me. It just goes to show the depths that they will go to hold on to power and distract attention from their failed record. I believe the voters will reject this most disgraceful form of attack politics.
<
p>
If any of us lost our children in a tragic accident, would we want to see their autopsies published in the press? I simply can’t imagine living through that. And that’s what I fought to prevent from happening. Nothing more. Nothing less.
<
p>
People have asked me if I now regret making that phone call because of the political fallout. All I can say is that I would do the exact same thing every time. Whether it’s victims of crime or victims of tragedy, I have always stood with victims’ families. That’s what I’ve done for my entire career and it’s what I will always do.
<
p>
If I changed now, then this election is not even worth winning.
<
p>
Thank you and God bless.
<
p>
Sincerely,
<
p>
Tom
<
p>
**************************************************************
“People have asked me if I now regret making that phone call because of the political fallout. All I can say is that I would do the exact same thing every time. Whether it’s victims of crime or victims of tragedy, I have always stood with victims’ families. That’s what I’ve done for my entire career and it’s what I will always do.”
<
p>
Sorry, Tom. That dog won’t hunt.
<
p>
Only one of these girls was a victim. Her older sister was a drunk driver, and she committed vehicular homicide.
<
p>
The public had a legitimate right to know her blood alcohol level, and YOU made sure that didn’t happen.
I’m not sure about the public’s legitimate interest in knowing the driver’s blood alcohol level. Wouldn’t that only be relevant if there were any possibility of prosecuting her?
<
p>
That said, I agree with your basic point that Reilly’s letter is not a terribly convincing explanation of what happened. He’s got his story and he’s stickin’ to it, I guess, but I wonder whether it’s going to fly.
even though Reilly has plenty of time to recover from this, this will haunt him. Will Deval show that understands politics is a blood sport and use this in September, or will we have to wait for Muffy’s pros to crave him up in November?
<
p>
The only way Reilly gets elected is by having his opponents self destruct even worse. And both Deval and Healy have that capability. (Muffy could show us her nouveau riche b*tch side and Deval may fly to close advocating a tax increase.)
None of you has ever lost a child or a sibling like i have 11 years ago i lost my brother he died when he was 27.He had an accident at his work.That day was the worst day of my life.If my brother died in a car accident and he was drinking i would not want his blood alcohol known to the public that is a private matter.And even if there are criminal charges brought against the young man who had the party and the young man goes to jail or does community service it not going to bring Shauna and Meghan back.And even if there is a civil case and The Murphy’s get money from it i think they would rather have Shauna and Meghan back than any money.
Wolfie,
I respectfully disagree about the public’s right to know.
A terrible crime was committed, and we are entitled to know the facts.
<
p>
As sad, tragic, and yes, embarrassing to the family as this case is, this person drove drunk on the public ways – and caused death and injury to others.
<
p>
Think of the young people of our state who might be saved by learning the lessons of this tragedy – lessons that the AG has denied them by doing favors for his political contributors.
Hell, what about the old people? I think there’s not a little bit of age-hypocrisy going on in this case — everyone so shocked that the girls were under-age, the social-host law, the whole bit. What crap. Older people — with more judgement, more experience, and less excuse — drive drunk, too.
<
p>
Everyone who drank under-age, raise your hand. Two hands if it was “at every possible opportunity”. (Then put ’em down, ’cause it looks silly to raise your hands in front of the computer like that.)
Yeah maybe i would because is a police officer.He knows a lot of people lawyers and judges.