Karen Read murder trial: Three things to know now that the prosecution has rested
After six weeks and dozens of witnesses, Massachusetts prosecutors retrying Karen Read on a murder charge in the widely publicized death of her boyfriend three years ago rested their case Thursday.
While the theory put forward by special prosecutor Hank Brennan was the same as that offered by the assistant district attorney who previously tried the case — Read, drunk and angry, struck Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV and left him for dead on Jan. 29, 2022 — there were some notable changes from Read's first trial, which ended with a hung jury last summer.
Absent were two high-profile witnesses who were key to the defense's claims that Read was framed. Also missing was the former Massachusetts state trooper who led the investigation into O'Keefe's death and was fired after revelations of misconduct emerged in the first trial.
Another notable change was the role of Read, who has maintained her innocence, herself. In addition to her remarks to reporters outside the courtroom, her words have been a regular presence in Brennan's presentation, which has featured a series of interview clips that show what Brennan has described as Read's 'campaign' of public statements.
Read's lawyers are expected to begin making their case Friday.
The prosecution's final witness was one of its most important. No cameras captured the events that led to O'Keefe's death, nor have any witnesses claimed to have seen what happened at 34 Fairview Road — the home in Canton, just south of Boston, where O'Keefe, 46, was found unresponsive in the front yard shortly after 6 a.m. on Jan. 29.
But Judson Welcher, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstruction expert, testified that data from Read's 2021 Lexus showed that at 12:32 a.m., outside 34 Fairview, the vehicle drove forward 34 feet, then reversed 53 feet. The SUV was traveling at nearly 24 mph, he said, with a throttle of 74%.
While there was no vehicle data to support Brennan's allegation of a collision, Welcher testified that lacerations on O'Keefe's right arm were 'consistent' with injuries caused by a broken rear right taillight on the SUV.
Welcher testified that his height and weight approximated O'Keefe's — around 6 feet tall and 220 pounds — and that he conducted re-enactments showing what such a collision might look like. In one video, Welcher wore clothes similar to O'Keefe's from Jan. 29 — jeans, a T-shirt, a baseball cap — while a Lexus that was the same model and year as Read's backed into him at 2 mph.
Welcher also knocked down the defense's claim that the taillight was broken in a different collision on Jan. 29. As Read left her home around 5 a.m. to look for O'Keefe, she was in a panic, she has said, and she backed her Lexus into his Chevrolet Traverse. Ring camera video played in court captured the incident.
But Welcher testified that an analysis of the video showed Read was driving less than 1 mph at the time and that there was no evidence of any damage to either vehicle.
'That impact did not break or crack that taillight," Welcher said.
Michael Proctor, the ex-trooper and case agent who managed the investigation into O'Keefe's death, was included on the prosecution's list of possible witnesses. In the first trial, Proctor spent hours on the stand and acknowledged that comments he made to friends, family and supervisors about Read were unprofessional and that they 'dehumanized' her. But prosecutors did not call him to testify in the retrial.
Massachusetts State Police dishonorably discharged Proctor in March after an internal investigation found that he violated agency rules by sending derogatory messages and sharing confidential investigative details with non-law enforcement personnel.
Proctor testified that his conduct did not harm the investigation. He has not publicly commented on his termination, but his family has criticized his former employer, saying he was unfairly scapegoated. His former supervisor testified this month that Proctor had acted with 'honor and integrity.'
'I believe human beings all have biases,' Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik told the jury. 'Especially in this case, they did not affect the outcome of the investigation.'
Bukhenik acknowledged that he was disciplined in part for failing to adequately supervise Proctor and lost five vacation days.
Proctor is listed as a possible witness for the defense, which has accused him of bias and manipulating evidence.
Two other figures who played an outsized role in the first trial — Brian Albert and Brian Higgins — were also on the prosecution's witness list but were not called to testify.
Albert, a retired Boston police sergeant, lived with his family at 34 Fairview at the time of O'Keefe's death and had a gathering at his home on Jan. 29 that O'Keefe planned to attend. Prosecutors — and Albert — have said that O'Keefe never made it to the party and that no one who was there that morning saw him inside.
But the defense has alleged that O'Keefe entered Albert's home and was beaten, bitten by the family's German shepherd and dragged outside, where he died. They have pointed to Higgins, an agent with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who was at the gathering, as a possible conspirator in this alternative theory of the case.
In the weeks before O'Keefe's death, a series of text messages introduced as evidence showed Higgins flirting with Read and appearing frustrated when she did not speak more candidly about what she wanted from him. The tension most likely prompted the fight that led to O'Keefe's death, the lawyers have said. (Through their attorneys, both men have denied involvement.)
Albert and Higgins are both on the defense's list of possible witnesses.
Read has been unusually candid with journalists, and Brennan has shown a series of clips from interviews she has given to reinforce the prosecution's theory of O'Keefe's death.
In one clip, shown during opening statements on April 22, Read was captured telling 'Dateline' that she could have 'tagged' O'Keefe in the knee 'and incapacitated him. He didn't look mortally wounded as far as I could see. But could I have done something that knocked him out?'
In another clip, shown this month, she was captured telling 'Investigation Discovery' about the moment she found O'Keefe in the yard of 34 Fairview. She wondered out loud whether she could have run over his foot as she began driving from Albert's home.
'He's roughly where I left him, so yeah, when I found him I was thinking, did I, like, clip him somehow?' she said.
In another series of clips introduced as evidence last month, Read was shown talking openly about her drinking. She and O'Keefe had been at two bars before they drove to Albert's house, and in an interview with "20/20," she was asked whether she felt fine to drive after four drinks.
'Yup,' she responded.
In a separate clip, she told a Boston Magazine reporter that she drank a 'normal amount' — a vodka tonic every 40 minutes.
Outside court last week, Read was asked whether she had any reaction to the videos.
'No,' she said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What caused a deadly crash in San Francisco — a ‘madman' driver or a ‘malfunctioning' Tesla?
The Tesla hurtled down the Interstate 280 offramp to Sixth Street, sideswiping three vehicles along the way. It picked up speed, running red lights and nearly touching 90 mph as it raced northwest toward downtown San Francisco. At Sixth and Harrison, the Tesla Model Y slammed into a Lexus at a stoplight, then spun into oncoming traffic. Seven people were injured, one of whom described the impact of the crash as an explosion. The driver of the Lexus, San Francisco resident Mikhael Romanenko, was killed. Witnesses would later describe the car to police as a 'black blur' and the driver 'a madman,' according to a police report. But as the Tesla's driver, Jia Lin Zheng, 66, was being treated for his own injuries in the wake of the Jan. 19 crash, he offered a chilling explanation: The car, he told police, had accelerated on its own. 'The Tesla malfunctioned and began to speed up' as he exited the highway, San Francisco police wrote in a report, describing Zheng's account. 'Zheng stated every time he stepped on the brake of the Tesla, he felt the car accelerate.' Drivers have reported incidents of what is known as sudden unintended acceleration for decades, and for an array of vehicle makes and models. While the accelerations can be triggered by a mechanical defect or electrical failure, they can also be the result of driver error, such as mistaking the gas and brake pedals. But the claim by Zheng — who has a history of speeding tickets, records show — echoed those of a long line of Tesla drivers, who over the last several years have reported the cars jolting forward or backward on their own. Tesla has issued few public statements on the issue, and it did not respond to the Chronicle's requests for comment for this story. But in a 2020 blog post, recent legal filings and communications with customers, the company has largely maintained that the incidents were caused by driver error, an assertion supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Following a review of nearly 250 sudden unintended acceleration claims in Teslas, the agency in 2021 published a report finding no evidence of a design factor or electrical issue with the vehicles that would cause the alleged problems. Yet, claims like Zheng's following the deadly San Francisco crash have continued accruing, with people alleging in NHTSA complaints, media interviews and social media posts that their Teslas accelerated on their own. The question remains: Is there an undiagnosed problem in some battery-driven cars featuring advanced driver-assist systems, or are the cars' drivers looking for high-tech excuses for accidentally punching the gas? NHTSA is now weighing another petition to investigate and potentially recall Tesla cars over the alleged sudden unintended acceleration problems, based on newly obtained information on the car's electrical system. The results could have weighty implications for Tesla and for the untold number of drivers who, like Zheng, face costly damage fees, lawsuits or even prison time for crashes they swear they didn't cause. A violent wreck In the moments before his death, Romanenko, his girlfriend, Linh Luu, and her 8-year-old dog were on their way to pick up Luu's family members for a trip to the airport, she said. When the Tesla smashed into the couple's car at Sixth and Harrison streets, the impact thrust their vehicle forward into an unoccupied Waymo robotaxi and several other vehicles, and sent the Tesla spiraling into a truck on the other side of the street, according to police reports. Romanenko was killed almost instantly as one side of the Lexus was torn off. Luu was hospitalized with broken bones and her dog, Keeper, was pronounced dead at the scene. Seven people from six other vehicles were injured. Police arrested Zheng on suspicion of vehicular manslaughter, but city prosecutors have not made a decision on whether to charge him. According to a police report, Zheng — whose attorney declined to comment for this story — had no alcohol in his system and his vitals suggested he hadn't recently suffered from a medical episode. Anna Dubrovsky, an attorney for Romanenko's mother, Julia Romanenko, filed a wrongful death lawsuit May 21 against Zheng in San Francisco Superior Court. Zheng and his relatives had not been officially served the lawsuit as of Friday evening, Romanenko's attorneys said. The defendants declined to comment. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, also names Zheng's son and daughter-in-law, saying they owned the Tesla and were 'well aware of Jia Lin Zheng's tendency to drive dangerously, and at a high rate of speed, without any regard for traffic signals.' Zheng's history of traffic incidents in his home state of Hawaii include five citations for speeding, records show. Other infractions included allegedly running a red light and disobeying a traffic control sign. 'This gentleman is clearly ignoring the rules of the road and endangering people,' Dubrovsky said in an interview. That the car was a Tesla may or may not factor into the criminal investigation and lawsuit, as drivers who blame their cars for their crashes are often treated skeptically. In San Francisco, an 80-year-old woman is facing both a wrongful death lawsuit and criminal charges of felony vehicular manslaughter following a West Portal crash in March 2024 that killed a family of four, including two young children. Mary Fong Lau allegedly drove her Mercedes sport utility vehicle at high speed into an oncoming lane of traffic and then slammed into a transit shelter. Police said investigators who looked at 'every aspect' of the case couldn't find evidence that the car malfunctioned. Long-running dispute But Lau wasn't driving a Tesla. Beginning in the 2010s, high-profile allegations of sudden unintended accelerations in the company's vehicles began cropping up around the country, often covered by local news stations when the cars rammed into nail salons, gas stations and garages. Following a 2019 petition to investigate the matter and issue a recall, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations reviewed 246 complaints made to the agency of sudden unintended acceleration — sometimes abbreviated as SUA — filed for Tesla models 3, S and X since 2013, 203 of which involved crashes. Tesla called the petition 'completely false,' stressing that the person who filed it was a short-seller of the company's stock. 'We investigate every single incident where the driver alleges to us that their vehicle accelerated contrary to their input, and in every case where we had the vehicle's data, we confirmed that the car operated as designed,' the company said in a 2020 blog. 'In other words, the car accelerates if, and only if, the driver told it to do so, and it slows or stops when the driver applies the brake.' Federal officials largely echoed this sentiment a year later after completing their review, maintaining that drivers were to blame. 'In every instance in which event data was available for review by ODI (the Office of Defects Investigations), the evidence shows that SUA crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication,' the agency wrote in 2021. In many of the incidents reviewed by NHTSA, the car recorded that accelerators were depressed at or near 100%. Some Tesla owners and their lawyers, though, assert that a car's record of a depressed accelerator doesn't necessarily mean it was pushed down by the driver. 'Tesla takes the position that when the data shows 100% acceleration, that must mean the driver was pushing on the acceleration pedal with 100% force,' said attorney Todd Walburg, who represented family members of a Tesla driver who was killed four years ago in Ohio in what they alleged to be a crash caused by sudden unintended acceleration. 'In our view, when the 100% acceleration occurs in a situation that it just doesn't make sense,' Walburg said, 'it's more likely than not evidence of a malfunction.' In some cases, those who allege sudden unintended acceleration in Teslas contact the company directly. Tesla's response often comes as a phone call along with a letter, altered case by case to describe the specific amount of force the company says was used by the driver, according to documents posted on NHTSA's website. 'Based on this review, Tesla determined that the vehicle operated without fault and that the accelerator pedal was manually pressed by the driver immediately prior to the incident,' one letter stated. Some drivers remain unconvinced. 'Does not make logical sense that the car could accelerate 87% in a matter of 2 feet!' one Model S driver wrote in her complaint to NHTSA. 'I am 150% sure I did not hit the accelerator. I am (not someone) who may have pedal confusion.' Another: 'I contacted Tesla and was told I step on the gas 100% in under 2 second[s], and they would not claim responsibility. As I tell them I am 100% sure I did not step on anything 100% (gas or brake) when I am in a busy parking lot. They still denied and said it was my fault.' Mystery settlement Last month, as San Francisco authorities continued investigating the Sixth Street crash, Tesla attorneys signed off on what experts said may be the company's first settlement of a wrongful death lawsuit claiming sudden unintended acceleration in one of its vehicles, according to court records. While the terms of the settlement are unknown, as is whether the company accepted fault, some observers interpreted the agreement as a concession by Tesla, citing CEO Elon Musk's 2022 statement on the platform now known as X that the carmaker would 'never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose.' The suit stemmed from a fatal 2021 crash in Jeffersonville, Ohio. After passing through an intersection, Clyde Leach's Tesla Model Y hopped a curb and slammed into a gas station pillar, igniting a fire. Leach's estate alleged that the crash was due to sudden unintended acceleration, and that Tesla knew about the problem and failed to warn its customers. Tesla's attorneys maintained that Leach floored the car's accelerator. The settlement ended months of litigation over whether Tesla should be forced to turn over documents the company deemed confidential. Walburg, who represented Leach's estate, said he could not comment on the settlement or even its existence. And while Tesla has settled few cases in court, it remains unclear how claims of sudden unintended acceleration have fared in private arbitration that the company uses by contract in many disputes with customers. In the past, other car companies have acknowledged problems with sudden unintended acceleration, but these cases have generally involved physical flaws with pedals and floor mats that prompt a pedal to stay depressed. Andrew McDevitt, a San Francisco attorney who has filed lawsuits against Tesla, said it's possible that some alleged incidents of sudden unintended acceleration were caused by a mix of design flaws and user error. An uninitiated Tesla driver, he said, may accidentally activate some of the car's driver-assist features, such as cruise control. The bigger mystery, McDevitt asserted, surrounds the incidents that drivers believe are caused by an electrical malfunction, even as Tesla and the government see human error. 'The (question) most people are focused on is what would be the electrical explanation, where it truly is spontaneous,' McDevitt said. 'You didn't accidentally push the wrong lever, you didn't accidentally push the pedal, but the car took off.' Claims persist In the years following NHTSA's January 2021 report clearing Tesla of defects, at least 270 other complaints have been filed with the regulatory agency alleging that the company's vehicles accelerated without a driver's input, according to a Chronicle review of materials on the department's website. Many of the claims involved accidents; at least two resulted in a fatality. The information provided in the reports is often limited, though a few patterns emerge. Most of the complainants, for instance, said the events occurred while the cars were moving slowly, such as in parking lots or while pulling into garages. Others, however, made claims similar to those in the San Francisco case, saying they lost control while on the highway and that the brake pedal seemed to make the car go faster. Complaining parties include drivers who said they were using driver-assist modes including Autopilot, which steers the vehicle and controls its speed, as well as those who weren't. One San Jose woman said that while she was driving at about 65 mph, with Autopilot engaged, she pushed the brake pedal only to have the vehicle speed up, while the steering wheel became difficult to turn. After steering left to avoid a rear-end crash, she said, 'the vehicle's front end had crashed into the divider wall and the vehicle ricocheted across four lanes of traffic and ran off the roadway.' The woman was hospitalized with fractures to her spine and ribs. Two years ago, NHTSA agreed to take a second look at the sudden unintended acceleration allegations in Teslas, following a petition by a retired Minnesota engineer who independently reviewed the vehicles' design details. The engineer, Ronald Belt, said in his petition that the details had previously been difficult to obtain but had been posted on open-source networks. In his petition, Belt contended that some or all of the sudden unintended acceleration events may have been caused by high-voltage electrical demands on the car's battery. Further, he said, false accelerator signals may be sent to the vehicle's event data recorder, 'causing Tesla and NHTSA to conclude that the driver caused the sudden increase in torque by stepping on the accelerator pedal.' Belt, who has published research papers on auto safety, said he became interested in the phenomenon following the incidents involving Toyota cars. 'I was saddened to see how drivers were ridiculed by saying that they were the cause of the sudden acceleration by stepping on the accelerator pedal, when my engineering background in electronics told me that the vehicle electronics could have caused the sudden acceleration,' Belt said in an email to the Chronicle. Though NHTSA accepted Belt's petition in June 2023, its website still lists an 'open investigation.' A spokesperson said the agency had no updates on the case's status, but that it conducts a 'technical analysis' on all such petitions. If a petition is granted, the government opens a recall investigation. Aside from a form letter he received from the agency acknowledging his petition, Belt said NHTSA has not communicated with him. He's unaware of whether Tesla has responded to his concerns.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Karen Read retrial: Biggest takeaways from week 6 as prosecution rests its case
The prosecution rested this week in the Karen Read retrial after calling their last witness, a crash reconstruction expert who testified about his opinions whether John O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with being struck by an SUV. The prosecution's theory is that Read struck O'Keefe in a fit of rage outside of 34 Fairview Road in Canton in January 2022 and left him incapacitated to die in the snow. Judson Welcher, an accident reconstructionist and biomechanical engineer, spent three days testifying about his analysis of Read's Lexus and injuries to O'Keefe. Welcher testified that his opinion is that the damage to Read's SUV and the evidence in the case was 'consistent with a collision' with O'Keefe. He said that data from her SUV shows she drove in reverse at more than 20 mph outside of the Canton home where his body was found on Jan. 29, 2022. He also said that the car driving faster than 8 mph and hitting an arm in a sideswipe could've cracked the taillight. Then prosecutors used Read's own words to cap off their presentation of their case. Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan has woven interview clips of Read throughout the trial, and he saved one for the end. Here are the biggest takeaways from the week: At the end of Tuesday's testimony, Brennan asked a pointed question about whether Welcher believed, based on his analysis of the evidence, that Read's Lexus collided with O'Keefe around 12:32 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022. 'Yes, based on the totality of evidence ... that is what happened,' Welcher said. The defense objected to the question, and the judge ultimately struck the statement from the record. The question then set off a debate between lawyers, but jurors heard Welcher's answer. Welcher had gone through the day explaining how he derived his opinion. 'Red marks' surrounded the broken cocktail glass in the snow at the scene. He had played videos of tests he conducted using an 'exemplar' Lexus, another way of saying he had bought the same Lexus model that Read had driven that night. In one test, the Lexus backed up at 2 mph and struck his right arm, bent and holding a cocktail glass. Blue paint on the taillight transferred onto his arm and left a large mark. When compared side by side with photos of O'Keefe's injuries, they were similar in coverage area. During cross-examination, Welcher said he did not use a crash dummy because he would only have one or two 'shots at it' before they damaged the car. 'Pedestrian impacts are so sensitive to initial angles,' he said. 'I was not going to hit myself with the Lexus at 20 mph.' Welcher also pointed out that there was a bruise on O'Keefe's right knee approximately at the height of the bumper of Read's SUV. He said the cuts on his arm were consistent with the 'geometry and orientation' of the right taillight. Still, he admitted that a lot of information was still unknown about the physics of the crash. 'We don't know the exact point of impact,' Welcher said. 'We don't have absolute information to say exactly where he was.' Based on the car's data, however, Welcher said that Read's SUV went three quarters 'full throttle' in reverse on Jan. 29, 2022, at around 12:30 a.m. and reached about 23 mph and traveled a total of 87 feet in reverse. A large part of Welcher's testimony involved attempting to dispel a theory put forward by the defense last trial. The issue of when Read cracked her taillight is highly contested. Her lawyers have pointed to a Ring video recorded by a security camera above O'Keefe's garage as evidence that she could've cracked it on the morning of Jan. 29, 2022, before she found O'Keefe. Neama Rahmani, an attorney and former federal prosecutor based in Los Angeles, said Welcher's testimony was useful for prosecutors in combatting one of the defense's big arguments. 'There was also important testimony about the broken taillight and how the broken taillight was consistent with Read hitting John O'Keefe as a pedestrian, and that it was not consistent with an accident with John O'Keefe's vehicle,' said Rahmani, who's followed both trials. In one video from Jan. 29, 2022, before she found O'Keefe's body, Read backs up and makes contact with O'Keefe's Chevrolet Traverse. Central to the prosecution's theory of the case is that Read backed up her SUV and struck O'Keefe, smashing the taillight on his arm in the process. 'Obviously, the defense is arguing that the taillight was broken in another incident with O'Keefe's car or it was broken when law enforcement impounded the vehicle and towed it in the blizzard,' Rahmani said. Welcher's presentation, using a PowerPoint, explaining how the company he works for, Aperture, created digital 3D models of both vehicles using laser scanners along with videos. From the videos and laser scans, Welcher said they figured out 'the exact position of the vehicles when that Lexus stopped … and the exact contact.' 'The only evidence of contact is nowhere near the upper taillight,' Welcher said. Using a photograph of O'Keefe's Traverse, he showed that only a scuff mark remained from when Read's SUV made contact well below the taillight. He said that Read's SUV drove 1 mph or less during the impact with O'Keefe's car. 'That impact did not break or crack that taillight,' Welcher said. A feature of this retrial is the prosecution's use of video clips of Read's various media interviews in recent years. None of the videos were played in the first trial. Brennan, who was hired specifically to try the Read case, has woven video clips in between witness testimony. 'These videos are really hurtful,' Jack Lu, a retired superior court judge, said in an interview last week. After a collection of videos was played last week, Lu said the videos 'alone might be enough to convict the defendant.' After Welcher, the prosecution's final witness, stepped off the stand on Thursday, Brennan played one final clip. Here is the full quote Read said in the clip: So I thought, 'Could I have run him over?' Did he try to get me as I was leaving and I didn't know it. I mean, I've always got the music blasting. It's snowing. I got the wipers going, the heater blasting. Did he — did he come in the back of my car and I hit him in the knee and he's drunk and passed out and asphyxiated or something. And then I hired David Yannetti, I asked him those questions. 'The night of January 29, David, what if, I don't know, what if I ran his foot over, or what if I clipped him in the knee and he passed out and or went to care for himself and threw up or passed out.' And David [said] 'Yeah, then you have some element of culpability.' As the prosecution wound down its case in chief, Read told reporters she would put on a fuller and deeper defense during the retrial than she did at her first trial. On Friday, that began with Matthew DiSogra taking the stand. DiSogra is the director of engineering for the Event Data Recorder lab at Delta V and is an expert in vehicle data. His primary role for the defense was not to counter Welcher's testimony, but to offer a different interpretation of the data taken from Read's SUV. While DiSogra relied on the testing of Welcher's Aperture colleague, Shanon Burgess, he came to a different conclusion. DiSogra told the jury that all the clock variances identified by Burgess created 30 possibilities for when exactly the techstream event identified as a 'backing maneuver' happened relative to the last time O'Keefe locked his phone. It's critical for the prosecution's case that the phone was locked before the 'backing maneuver' ended, because they claim that maneuver is when Read hit O'Keefe with her car. DiSogra explained that of those 30 possibilities, just three showed the phone lock occurring before the end of the event. Since DiSogra was called by the defense, Brennan got his first chance to cross-examine a witness. Jurors saw a different side of the prosecutor, whose experience as a criminal defense attorney was evident during the questioning. Brennan came out swinging. 'Are you trying to offer an opinion suggesting Ms. Read's Lexus never hit John O'Keefe on Jan. 29, 2022?' he asked. 'Is that your opinion?' The opening question set the stage for what was a thorough cross-examination of DiSogra, during which Breannan sought to undermine the accuracy of some of his conclusions. But Alan Jackson, one of Read's lawyers, noted on redirect that all of DiSogra's conclusions were based on the data from Aperture. The defense will call its next witness when the trial resumes at 9 a.m. Monday. MassLive reporter Charlie McKenna contributed to this story. Karen Read trial recap: 1st defense witness provides alternate theory of SUV data Karen Read trial recap: Prosecution rests its case against Read Karen Read trial recap: Sideswipe at 8 mph could've shattered taillight, expert says Karen Read trial recap: Expert dressed like John O'Keefe and used paint to test car crash scenarios Takeaways from week 5 of Karen Read retrial: Clocks, injuries and broken glass Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Karen Read's lawyers call first 2 witnesses to testify, say they won't call Trooper Michael Proctor
Embattled former State Police Trooper Michael Proctor played a big role in Karen Read's first trial. It appears that will not be the case this time around. Although Read's defense listed him as a potential witness for her retrial, late Friday afternoon we learned we likely won't be seeing him. On the way out of court, Read's lawyer David Yannetti said it was a 'team decision' to not have Proctor take the stand. Instead, the defense plans to use people Proctor messaged as a way to introduce his crude texts in the trial. Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan fought to keep Proctor's texts out of the retrial altogether. 'It would be distracting, confusing to the jury, and it could be unfair for either side because it will lead to arguments over what it means without a factual basis,' Brennan said. 'I think that's the whole impetus of this objection, so that we will call a witness they they do not have confidence in to call themselves,' Yannetti said. 'It's unheard of in a murder case that you don't call the lead investigator.' In court, the jury heard from a crash expert hired by the defense. He told the jury the prosecution's timeline is wrong and he says that John O'Keefe was still using his phone after the prosecution alleges a collision occurred. The trial will resume on Monday. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW