Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

DFA Cambridge Questions Galluccio

By

Shai Sachs reports: “What happened in December, Anthony? That was the question Sam Seidel asked Anthony Galluccio at yesterday’s Progressive Democrats of Cambridge meeting, regarding an allegation that he was driving drunk at the time of an auto accident last December.

“Galluccio’s response: it was a minor incident, he made sure that no one was injured and that everyone was compensated (and that sort of thing), and that he wasn’t drunk but stunned by the airbag. (I’m paraphrasing from a rather vague set of statements, here.) He claims the Boston policeman on the scene wasn’t aware he was a Cambridge city councillor, or at any rate didn’t treat him gently because of it. “I hate to say it, but when I walk the streets in Boston, they’re not throwing rose petals at my feet,” he said. He thinks the folks making noise about this incident now were motivated either monetarily or politically.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. This is my first post on this site.  To be honest with you, I have never ever been to this site before today.  Regardless, I’m happy to be here any contribute what I can.  Unfortunately I won’t be contributing too much speculation, but what I can offer you are the facts that I have about that night back in December.  Why would I know?  Well, I guess you could say that I’ve had a unique insight into what happened that night.  I’m Peter; you might be familiar with the back of my head from the Channel 5 piece.  I’ve asked to have my anonymity preserved through this ordeal, as reported by Janet Wu, because of reasons that are truly “unrelated to the accident”.
    So what did really happen that night, Anthony?  I’m more and more surprised every time I hear something new from him on the matter, and Bob’s article is not exception.  What’s interesting is that he seems to recount the night as though he actually remembers what happened.  This, coming from a guy, as I’ve been told by his insurance company, who called them the next day to report his car stolen.  If he wasn’t lying about that, my best guess is that he woke up the next day not remembering much about the night before, to find that his car was gone and really did thing that it had been stolen.  The next call to his insurance company, as I’ve been told, was to say that I had run a red light and hit him and the he wasn’t able to stop in time to avoid me hitting him because he hit black ice.  Those are some mind boggling logistics with the amount of rear end damage sustained to my vehicle, let alone the other vehicles involved.  I’ve also been told that was followed by a signed operators report on Cambridge City Councilor’s stationary to the same, faxed to his insurance company.  If he had lied about it, I think that gets closer to the heart of his character than anything.
    I would be very surprised if Mr. Galluccio could tell any part of that night’s story consistent with the stories of the other 10 people who where there.  I’d be surprised if he could identify me or any of the others at the scene, or the officer that he’s saying didn’t know who he was and did not “treat him lightly because of that” (keep in mind that the officer never actually saw him).  Also keep in mind that, in the opinions of those who were there, this is someone who didn’t only have a few too many, but appeared to be so drunk that he couldn’t even walk or talk.  “Legless” is the term most often used.  This is someone who had to be physically removed from his vehicle because he was about to drive off into a crowd of people in the street.  This is barely someone who could make “sure that no one was injured and that everyone was compensated”.
    As for my motivation, I’m sorry to report that it’s neither monetary nor political, as suggested by Mr. Galluccio.  My motivation is a commitment to seeking justice.  It’s about the truth, and it’s about protecting the public.  Even if the system may have failed, I’d argue that Mr. Galluccio will think twice about getting into a car after drinking.  That’s a good start to protecting someone else from being injured, or even killed.  The truth is all I seek to give.  If you have any questions about that night and want the plain facts, feel free to ask.  I’m here to offer the facts as I remember them.  My memory and conscience are pretty clear.

  2. When I first read about this story the other day, I thought of an accident I had been at fault in some years age.  There was no alcohol involved, and nobody was injured, but I was quite distraught and disoriented.  It was at less than 10mph, but caused enough damage that my car and one other had to be towed away and needed body work before being safe to take on the road.  What if it had been more serious, at higher speed, like this accident?  I understand that Gallucio was injured, and taken away in an ambulance.  Could he have been as disoriented as described, without being drunk?

    <

    p>
    In reflecting about the facts, it seems we have four confirmed witnesses: Gallucio, who says he accepted responsibility for the accident all along and that he had not been drinking; and the three other drivers, one of whom I think isn’t speaking on the record.  So what I wonder is, where’s the police officer?  Gallucio didn’t take a breathalyzer test because he wasn’t asked to, right?  So what was the officer’s reasoning?  Did he not see evidence of alcohol?  If so, his would be an important side of the story to hear.

    <

    p>
    Much of the information we’re getting in this case is hearsay from people who were directly involved, about things that are not public.  But I think the key to making a reasonable judgement about who to believe, lies in hearing what the officer who responded to the accident has to say.  Has anyone heard from him?

    • Janet Wu reported in her Channel 5 story that she asked to talk to the officer, but she was not allowed to do so because the police have reopened their investigation into the accident.

      <

      p>
      Also, just to clarify a terminology point: what we’ve heard from Ed Prisby, Peter, and cab driver William Jones, both on Channel 5 and on Ed’s blog and this blog, is definitely not “hearsay.”  To the contrary, it is eyewitness testimony (hearsay is person A testifying about something that person B said).  It would certainly be interesting to hear from the officer, but the officer’s testimony would not necessarily have any more probative value than what any other eyewitness has to say.  It’s just a question of who is most believable.

      <

      p>
      Finally, sure, Galluccio could easily have been disoriented from the impact and the airbag.  But that wouldn’t explain the smell of alcohol reported by Prisby, Peter, and Jones.  There are lots of unanswered questions out there.

      • I agree with Cos’ post above – the key to this story is the cop.  As I watched the story the other night, while I was not surprised to see a politician in some trouble, I could not believe how poorly presented and one-sided Janet Wu’s story was.  This “gotcha” journalism leaves a number of very important questions out there that she should have asked as a responsible journalist:

        <

        p>
        (1) Peter, what I cannot understand is that if your motivation is “a commitment to seeking justice” than why did you wait two whole months to come forward with your story.  I’m sure that the police report was available within days of the incident.  Why the delay?

        <

        p>
        (2) According to your story, Galluccio may have been drunk, but if your allegations are true, than isn’t the cop is the one who really impeded “justice” here…what were your observations of the officer that evening and why no harsh words for the reporting officer or the Boston Police Department?  What was he/she doing on the scene?

        <

        p>
        (3) Can you truly deny any monetary motivation in taking this story to the media?  Do have have any pending lawsuits against Galluccio or the BPD?

        <

        p>
        Two other things on Prisby – by his own admission on his blog, says that he and his friends had been at Jose MacIntyre’s for FIVE HOURS and that his girlfriend was the designated driver for the evening.  His words:

        <

        p>
        “On Saturday, December 17, the Beedabee, my brother, his friend, my cousin, two of her friends, and I went out in Boston. We hit Jose MacIntire’s and were there for about five hours. Maybe more, maybe less, I don’t recall. The Beedabee was our designated driver. When the bar let out at 1:30, she drove us home”

        <

        p>
        To me, five hours at a bar downtown and specifically pointing out that they had a designated driver tells me that he and his friends were drunk, and therefore, in no position to make a judgment another’s level of sobriety.  The smell of alcohol at the scene could have been coming from Prisby and Co. for all we know.  Wouldn’t it be more credible if the sober driver came forward to substantiate the claims?

        <

        p>
        Also, if you look at Prisby’s attorney bio at(www.barronstad.com/attorneys.html), “he worked litigating insurance defense matters involving personal injury and motor-vehicle liability.”  He’s clearly familiar with this territory.  Has he filed any lawsuit against Galluccio and can he and his friends deny any monetary motivation in coming forward?

        <

        p>
        There are so many questions out there and answers to these questions would really help clear up the story.  Do we have a crooked politician and cop on our hands or three guys trying seeking retribution?

        • And when I say final, I’m trying to mean final.  But there’s final and there’s final.  Which will this be?

          <

          p>
          At any rate, yes, I’m an attorney who has done more than my fair share of car accident cases.  But, no, I’m not bringing a lawsuit.  I wasn’t hurt.  Plain and simple.

          <

          p>
          So, I can deny monetary motivation.  MY friends?  I’m not sure what friends you’re talking about.  There were other cars in the accident if that’s what you mean.  I met Peter and the cab driver twice.  Once at the accident scene and once at Channel 5.

          <

          p>
          Was I at Jose’s for about five hours?  I think we probably got there at about 9:30-10ish.  And the accident happened at 2.  But, this was a special occassion.  I was out with some friends I hadn’t seen in a while and we were tearing up the dance floor.  That’s right.  Tearing it up, baby.  You couldn’t stop me, you could only hope to contain me.  So, I was too busy having my own fun to be carrying around drinks all night.  Was I drinking?  Yes.  I was.  I’d say I had about 4 beers.  Too much to drive.  Like the commercial says, “Buzzed driving is drunk driving.”  Did it effect my perception or memory?  Absolutely not.  I think most adults can differentiate social drinking from the kind that leaves spots in your memory.  That’s the honest truth.  You’re obviously free to believe me or not.  Up to you.  But since you weren’t there, lets leave the speculation about who was smelling like what to the actual witnesses, okay?

          <

          p>
          And why wait two months?  That’s just the way it worked out.  If you go running to the papers you look like an opportunist, and if you wait too long people will think something of that too.  There’s no hand-book for this, so stop reading too much into it.

          <

          p>
          And “retribution” is a funny word.  I’m not looking for money here.  But am I angry?  Yeah, I’m angry.  My fiance was driving our car.  I do believe that if this accident happens 10 times, that some one gets seriously hurt 6 of those 10 times.  So help me God, if it had been my fiance getting hurt…  Anyway, put yourself in our shoes.  A guy puts you in mortal danger and appears to get away with it.  What do you do?

      • I didn’t write clearly enough, but here is what I meant:

        <

        p>
        We have some confirmed witnesses, and I referred to them as witnesses.  I tried to draw a distinction between the witness testimony, and the other stuff we’re hearing.  Gallucio’s disorientation, for example, is something we have confirmed by direct witness testimony.  The “other stuff”, which I am using “hearsay” to describe, are things like Gallucio’s supposed false excuses, the Cambridge letterhead, and so on.  We’re getting a lot of that and I think we should put it all aside for now and just consider what we actually know.

  3. It’s funny that someone is calling the first-hand accounts of multiple eyewitnesses hearsay. No, hearsay is something that you say someone else told you. Eyewitness accounts are never hearsay. And, interestingly, at law laypeople are not allowed to give opinion testimony on very many subjects. One subject which is absolutely open for lay opinion is whether someone is drunk. And it looks like about ten people on the scene that night formed the opinion that Galluccio was drunk.

    <

    p>
    Now think about that crash for a minute. No precipitation for over a day and half, tempertures hovering just around freezing, and nobody else saw it, but Galluccio claims black ice. The police reported conditions were “clear.” Hmmm. And the impact was hard enough to cause the airbags to fire in Galluccio’s car. That doesn’t happen at low speeds; you need to be going fairly fast before the airbags fire. AND, when they do fire, they are really good at preventing injuries. So head injury sounds like a pretty lousy excuse for being dazed or disoriented after a collision that was (and this is, admittedly, a rough approximation) probably around 20-30 m.p.h. It had to be in that range, because Galluccio caused a chain collision in three (count ’em) cars in front of him, pushing the third many feet into the intersection.

    <

    p>
    Sadly, Galluccio’s story does not add up. I think the Herald’s re-run of pardoned juvenile crimes is irrelevant and unnecessary. But Galluccio should come clean about his whereabouts that night, and should share his ambulance and hospital records if he wants to clear his name on this one. Hiding behind prepared statements will not make this go away.

  4. I understand what Cos is saying. 

    <

    p>
    He’s right.  No one has seen the actual document on Cambridge City Counsel letter head where he says his car is stolen.  That’s a rumor. 

    <

    p>
    So, you weigh the facts and consider the source and decide what you believe.  I believe it’s true.

  5. “it was a vast cabbie,lawyer, anon. conspiracy!” Well that’s just to rally the troops. My question is where’s the political motivation? I can see where there would be some political motivation to make sure Galluccio doesn’t go down too hard — many Cantabrigians, progressives included, lined up behind Galluccio well before this little debacle exploded.

    <

    p>
    It is a little odd to think the cops were giving him a free pass, b/c anyone who’s worked in local politics knows that the avg joe has hard time placing a local rep/city councillor’s face and name. But the question to ask is does Galluccio have any cop union connections? He’s been around for a while, and has a well-established voting base — does that transfer into political protection… this is all pure speculation.

    <

    p>
    I’m surprised to hear people attacking eyewitness accounts, particularly when the three all come to one account, and the only one at the accident scene who differs (Galluccio) comes to three different accounts. That’s just silly.

    <

    p>
    And yes, this is an adult discourse and we all know the difference between having a few beers, as Priz has admitted to, and being sloshed, as Galluccio is accused of.

    <

    p>
    the real question is, does Galluccio still run for senate, stay with his city council seat or resign altogether. I don’t feel the local political pressure to push him out completely… but these things take time.

    <

    p>
    pressure-cookin’ from the gutter,

    • It is a little odd to think the cops were giving him a free pass, b/c anyone who’s worked in local politics knows that the avg joe has hard time placing a local rep/city councillor’s face and name. But the question to ask is does Galluccio have any cop union connections?

      <

      p>
      I wouldn’t be surprised if a municipal police officer knew their own city councillor / alderman.  But this happened in Boston, right?  I’d be very surprised if the average Boston police officer had ever heard of Gallucio, and would even recognize his name or face at all.  On the other hand, there are probably some (not many) who do.  Yet another reason why I think finding out who this cop was and what he has to say, could be the key to figuring out what happened here.

      <

      p>
      does Galluccio still run for senate, stay with his city council seat or resign altogether

      <

      p>
      Depending on how this plays out, it’s possible he’ll bow out of the race, though at this stage it seems unlikely to me.  Resigning from the city council, I think is very far-fetched.  If there’s one constant to Cambridge politics over the past decade, it’s that in every municipal election, before the campaigning has even begun, everyone already knows Gallucio will get more votes than quote on the first round by a substantial margin, and most likely nobody else will be elected on the first round (or, in the rare case someone else is, it’s by a tiny margin).  Gallucio could lose literally half his support and still be re-elected.  I don’t see his North Cambridge base losing their loyalty to him unless one of their own challenges him internally, and I don’t think that’s likely.

      <

      p>
      In 2005, Gallucio got 2001 #1 votes.  The second place candidate, Marjorie Decker, got 1524, and the 9th place (last one elected), Craig Kelley, got 1042.

      <

      p>
      In 2003, Gallucio got 2994 #1 votes.  Second was Henrietta Davis with 1846.  Ninth was David Maher with 1190 – he was actually 10th on the first round, but transfer votes from Gallucio’s excess got him elected.

      <

      p>
      In 2001, Gallucio got 3230 #1’s, second place got 1716.  In 1999, Gallucio got 2716 #1’s, second place got 1662.

  6. In my mind, the fact that a Senate candidate/Cambridge City Councilor is involved only gives the story pizzaz, and is a distraction from the significant issue that he was not checked for drunken driving at the scene, despite the pleas of all who were on the scene, as reported in the news. 

    <

    p>
    The problem is the police did not do their job, and they let this fellow just go without proper inquiry. Then, when prodded by the victims and their attorney(s), the police department still did nothing. The delays discussed above occurred while the victims waited, patiently, for some response from the Boston Police Department. They got nothing until story splashed across the TV news, then suddenly the department woke up again.

    <

    p>
    Put the notion that any of the victims are looking for political retribution out of your minds. Galluccio should be treated like any other and every other suspect: the police should investigate, the courts should take appropriate action, and the questions should be answered, at trial if necessary. He is certainly entitled to his presumption of innocence.  But when you hear what all the victims were saying, it is clear that the D.A. would at least have his prima facie case.

    <

    p>
    And finally, Galluccio hasn’t compensated anybody. His insurance company will be paying a lot of bills on his behalf, but there won’t be a dime out his pocket for property damage or bodily injury. He does, however, have a little insurance surchage to look forward to.

Archives