Livestream: Karen Read’s lawyers continue to make their case (2024)

Livestream via NBC10 Boston.

On the stand Monday:

After Andrew Rentschler testified, Karen Read’s defense team rested.

“Jurors, that is the evidence in this case, after all these weeks that’s the evidence that you will hear in this case,” Judge Beverly Cannone said.

Cannone said closing arguments will take place Tuesday morning, with each side getting an hour. “I’ll instruct you on the law and then 12 of you will begin your deliberations sometime tomorrow,” she said.

• Andrew Rentschler, ARCCA LLC
• Daniel Wolfe, ARCCA LLC
• Dr. Frank Sheridan, forensic pathologist, San Bernardino, CA

12:15 p.m. update: Damage to Karen Read’s taillight ‘inconsistent’ with striking John O’Keefe’s head, crash reconstructionist says

The damage to Karen Read’s taillight was inconsistent with striking a human head or arm, crash reconstructionist Daniel Wolfe testified.

Wolfe, director of accident reconstruction at ARCCA, said during voir dire questioning last week that the private company was retained not by the defense or prosecution, but by the Department of Justice and FBI.

On the stand Monday, Wolfe said his accident reconstruction in Read’s case was focused on determining whether or not the damage to Read’s Lexus was consistent with striking John O’Keefe. The analysis also considered whether O’Keefe’s injuries were the result of being struck by a vehicle, he said.

Wolfe noted that the “primary damage” to Read’s SUV was to the right taillight, which was broken and missing the majority of its red and clear plastic. He also described a small dent and superficial scratches on the vehicle’s rear.

In pedestrian collisions where the person is standing upright, damage to the bumper is expected, Wolfe said. In many cases, he explained, “the force of that impact will oftentimes cause the bumper to kind of become unmounted, or unclipped. You certainly could see deformation to body paneling such as the lift gate or the quarter panel, as well.”

“Is that especially true at higher speeds, meaning above 15 mph or so?” defense attorney Alan Jackson asked. Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joseph Paul testified last week that Read accelerated in reverse and reached a speed of about 24 mph.

“Oh absolutely, yes,” Wolfe replied.

“Was there any apparent damage to the Lexus that appeared consistent with any kind of pedestrian interaction, that you saw?” Jackson asked.

“No,” Wolfe said. “Again, it was really confined to just the taillight — a very isolated portion of the vehicle.”

Wolfe testified that ARCCA’s crash reconstructionists were asked not to conduct any outside research or investigation into Read’s case. “It was to be based solely on the evidence that we were provided,” he said.

Pointing to the broken drinking glass recovered at the scene, he said he and one of ARCCA’s lab technicians developed a pressurized air cannon capable of firing a glass at a taillight. According to Wolfe, they performed two tests with target speeds of around 30 and 40 mph, roughly the speed at which an adult male could throw a drinking glass.

Wolfe said they were able to replicate the damage to Read’s taillight by firing a glass at 37 mph. The ARCCA team did not do any testing to see whether the same damage could occur if a person were simply holding a glass while a car backed into them, he said.

Another experiment, a “drop test,” analyzed O’Keefe’s head injuries using a test dummy at an impact speed of 15 mph, he said.

“So what is your opinion or conclusion as to whether or not the damage to the taillight was caused by striking John O’Keefe’s head?” Jackson asked.

“From a damage standpoint, it was inconsistent,” Wolfe said.

Wolfe further testified that a person would not be projected if they were struck only on their arm. Paul, the State Police crash analyst, previously testified that O’Keefe was projected several feet following the alleged collision.

Wolfe also said the taillight damage on Read’s car was inconsistent with striking a human head or arm.

Answering later questions from Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, Wolfe confirmed there was nothing in the materials provided to ARCCA indicating O’Keefe was struck only on his arm or that the SUV’s taillight struck O’Keefe in the back of the head.

He also said it was fair to describe the tests he did in this case as “experiments.”

Wolfe testified that he had “no idea” video existed of O’Keefe leaving the Waterfall Bar & Grille with a co*cktail glass in hand after midnight on Jan. 29, 2022. He said ARCCA’s testing used a rocks glass that was approximately 3 or 4 inches tall.

He said the taillight fragments they found in their testing were of various shapes in sizes. Asked if the shards were consistent with the broken taillight pieces found near O’Keefe’s body, he replied, “Yes, I would say that’s fair.”

Lally asked Wolfe to describe the scope of ARCCA’s crash reconstruction work in Read’s case.

“The entity that retained us in this asked us to evaluate whether or not the damage to the vehicle and the injuries to Mr. O’Keefe were consistent with the interaction, or an interaction between the two,” Wolfe replied.

Lally then asked if the crash reconstructionists were somewhat restricted in their scope, based on those parameters.

“Sure,” Wolfe acknowledged.

He said he was not aware Read allegedly said “I hit him” to multiple people outside 34 Fairview Road the morning of the 29th, nor was he aware DNA consistent with O’Keefe’s had been recovered from Read’s taillight.

Wolfe testified that he was not shown a State Police crash reconstruction report for Read’s case. He said there were “no events recovered on the black box” from the defendant’s SUV, though he acknowledged this is not unusual in pedestrian collisions that do not cause the airbags to deploy.

While he was aware a hair was found on Read’s rear quarter panel, Wolfe said he did not know subsequent DNA testing found the hair was consistent with O’Keefe.

Lally also asked Wolfe about a video jurors have seen of Read reversing out of O’Keefe’s garage at about 5:07 a.m. on Jan. 29. The defense has suggested the video shows Read backing into O’Keefe’s parked car in the driveway, possibly damaging her car.

Wolfe said he was not provided a copy of the video, though he opined that hitting something while reversing slowly wouldn’t cause the damage he observed on Read’s taillight.

10:30 a.m. update: John O’Keefe’s injuries could be consistent with physical altercation, forensic pathologist says

John O’Keefe’s injuries could be consistent with a fight or physical altercation, according to Dr. Frank Sheridan, a retired forensic pathologist from California.

Sheridan, the former chief medical examiner for California’s San Bernardino County, estimated he’s performed between 12,000 and 13,000 autopsies throughout his career. He said he reviewed a number of documents in Karen Read’s case, including photographs of O’Keefe’s injuries and his autopsy, neuropathology, and toxicology reports.

Defense attorney Elizabeth Little projected an image of O’Keefe’s wounded right arm for jurors, and Sheridan offered some thoughts on the injuries.

“We classify them under the general category of blunt force injury, but these particular ones are abrasions,” he said, adding, “These are friction injuries, essentially.”

He said O’Keefe sustained the arm injuries before he died.

“Based on your extensive training and experience, what is your opinion regarding whether those injuries are consistent with an individual being struck by a vehicle?” Little asked.

“I would say no, it doesn’t look like that at all,” Sheridan replied.

“If you’re hit by a vehicle, or whichever part of your body is hit, if it’s a significant impact at all, you’re going to get bruising,” he elaborated. “And we don’t have any bruising here. We just have linear … abrasions without any bruising.”

Sheridan said O’Keefe’s arm injuries don’t appear “remotely like an impact from a motor vehicle.” He further opined that the wounds were consistent with an animal attack.

“I’m not 100% sure about this, but my initial reaction when I saw this photograph was that it was probably an animal — most likely, I would say, a dog,” Sheridan said. He identified what he described as possible bite and claw marks.

Little later asked Sheridan whether the injuries were consistent with a scenario in which O’Keefe was struck by the rear of an SUV traveling 24 mph as he stood with his arm outstretched.

“No, I do not think so,” Sheridan replied, adding, “One thing that’s not there that should be there given that idea, that scenario, is there should be bruising. At least bruising, if not perhaps even more than that.”

He went on to testify that O’Keefe’s wound patterns didn’t seem to fit with the rear of a vehicle. Later on, he also noted that leg injuries — particularly fractures — are common when a pedestrian is struck by a car. O’Keefe had a small abrasion to the side of his right knee, but no leg fractures.

Little then turned her attention to O’Keefe’s head injuries. Sheridan said O’Keefe’s head trauma caused the brain to swell and herniate down toward the top of his spinal cord.

“And this would have been the final straw, so to speak,” Sheridan said. “That’s what would lead to respiratory failure and death. So this was a fatal injury, for certain.”

He explained that O’Keefe would have been unconscious but able to breathe on his own for some time following the head trauma. Sheridan also asserted that dirt or grass would have been too soft to cause O’Keefe’s head injuries.

Little asked whether O’Keefe’s injuries were instead consistent with a fight or physical altercation.

“In a general sense, they can be,” Sheridan replied. “They could be, yes.”

He pointed to a laceration over O’Keefe’s right eyelid and “scrape marks” on his face, as well as bruising on the back of his right hand.

“That kind of injury on the hands can be what we call a defensive injury,” Sheridan said. “In other words, an injury that occurs when you’re protecting yourself and you’re hit either with another fist or with a hard object.”

As Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally cross-examined Sheridan, the defense expert said that aside from O’Keefe’s arm wounds, he saw no other injuries on the victim consistent with an animal attack. Sheridan also confirmed he could not definitively say what type of animal might have caused the marks.

He further testified that he could not say when or where the wounds were inflicted, though he said O’Keefe’s arm was likely injured “minutes to hours” before he died.

“You can’t time injuries as exactly as you might think from ‘CSI’ or one of these television programs,” Sheridan said. “But they are generally fresh, for sure.”

Lally asked a series of questions gauging Sheridan’s familiarity with the physical evidence in the case, including evidence recovered from Read’s SUV and from the scene outside 34 Fairview Road.

Sheridan said he wasn’t aware that the University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Forensic Unit found no signs of canine DNA on swabs taken from O’Keefe’s shirt.

He also said he was unaware that the Albert family’s dog, a German shepherd mix named “Chloe,” attacked another dog months after O’Keefe died and injured a human who tried to intervene. Likewise, Sheridan couldn’t recall whether he was aware investigators found microscopic pieces of plastic consistent with Read’s taillight among O’Keefe’s clothing.

“Were you ever shown any material indicating that there was DNA from the defendant’s taillight housing that was consistent with Mr. O’Keefe?” Lally asked.

“I asked about that, myself,” Sheridan replied. “But I think the answer I got was, ‘No.’”

Turning his attention back to O’Keefe’s arm injuries, Lally asked Sheridan whether he thought it impossible O’Keefe was wounded by shattered glass, taillight fragments, or some other piece from a vehicle.

“They don’t look remotely like that to me,” Sheridan replied.

Pointing to Sheridan’s prior statement that the ground would have been too soft to cause O’Keefe’s head injuries, Lally asked whether Sheridan’s opinion would change if the ground were frozen solid at the time. Judge Beverly Cannone sustained a defense objection, forcing Lally to rephrase his question.

If O’Keefe were hit by a vehicle and struck his head on the ground, Lally asked, would that be enough force to cause the skull fracture to the back of his head?

“If all that happened, yes,” Sheridan replied. “Onto asphalt or something like asphalt, yes. If that’s indeed what happened. But for other reasons, I don’t think that is what happened.”

Karen Read’s lawyers are back in the spotlight Monday as the defense continues to make its case to jurors.

Read, 44, is accused of backing her Lexus SUV into her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, outside a home in Canton in January 2022. Prosecutors allege she was driving drunk and struck O’Keefe intentionally while dropping him off at a house party. However, lawyers for the Mansfield woman say she was framed in a widespread coverup among witnesses and law enforcement.

The prosecution rested its case Friday, and Read’s lawyers called their first three witnesses: A snowplow driver and experts on dog bites and digital forensics. Outside the courthouse Friday, defense attorney Alan Jackson told WBZ the defense could rest its case as early as Monday.

“I think we’re going to be done on Monday,” Jackson said, according to the news outlet. “I think closing [arguments] on Tuesday. And then we’ll charge the jurors. They will have it maybe end of the day Tuesday.”

According to WBZ, the defense still plans to call two crash reconstructionists and a medical examiner to the stand.

On Friday, jurors heard testimony from snowplow driver Brian Loughran, who said he didn’t see anything outside 34 Fairview Road when he initially drove by around 2:45 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022. O’Keefe’s body was found on the home’s front lawn just hours later.

Loughran also testified that he saw nothing outside 34 Fairview Road when he passed by a second time that morning. Answering a question from defense attorney David Yannetti, he specifically denied seeing a body on the lawn.

Read’s lawyers have suggested that O’Keefe walked into 34 Fairview Road sometime after midnight on the 29th and was beaten, attacked by the family’s dog, and dumped outside in the snow.

Defense expert Dr. Marie Russell — a retired emergency room physician and forensic pathologist — testified Friday that the wounds on O’Keefe’s right arm “were sustained by an animal, possibly a large dog, because of the pattern of the injuries.”

Russell has authored or co-authored several peer-reviewed papers on law enforcement dog bites.

Another key piece of evidence in the defense team’s coverup theory is a Google search witness Jennifer McCabe made for “hos long to die in cold.” While two digital forensics experts have testified that McCabe made the search shortly after 6:20 a.m. on the 29th — after O’Keefe was found in the snow — defense expert Richard Green said the search actually occurred hours earlier, at 2:27 a.m.

Green testified that the search “happened at or before 2:27 a.m.” and “was in a deleted state” when he parsed through data from McCabe’s phone. Two other digital forensics experts, Jessica Hyde and Ian Whiffin, previously testified that the 2:27 a.m. timestamp actually indicates when McCabe first opened the browser tab.