Forensic evidence takes center stage in Karen Read murder retrial

The Guardian

25-05-2025

During week five of the retrial of Karen Read, a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend, prosecutors continued to present forensic evidence to prove that she intentionally ran over the victim. Meanwhile, defense attorneys tried to illuminate potential flaws in their case, according to legal experts.
The case, which has attracted true crime fans around the globe and was the subject of an HBO Max docuseries, previously ended in a mistrial in July 2024 after a jury could not reach a verdict.
This time around, Hank Brennan, who represented notorious mobster James 'Whitey' Bulger in a murder trial, is leading the prosecution, but much of the evidence is the same as during the first trial, according to the experts.
'There is a steady drip of problems with the government's case,' said Rosanna Cavallaro, professor of law at Suffolk University.
'The defense doesn't have to have a clear counter-narrative. They just have to be able to poke holes and say that the government's case is not beyond a reasonable doubt.'
To review the incident that precipitated the trials, on 29 January 2022, John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, was found dead in the snow on a fellow officer's lawn. Read had dropped him off there after a night of drinking. Prosecutors allege Read, in a drunken rage, then purposely backed over him in her Lexus SUV.
Read pleaded not guilty to charges including second-degree murder, manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of a deadly crash.
The defense has claimed that Read was framed by officers who beat O'Keefe to death.
During the retrial, both sides appear to be focused on the forensic evidence to make their case, per legal experts.
'There was no collision,' Alan Jackson, Read's defense attorney, said during his opening statement. 'The evidence will show that. The data will show that. The science will show that.'
In his opening, Brennan also said the 'facts, science and data', including information from a navigation app and the temperature of O'Keefe's cellphone battery, would show that after an argument, Read put her car in reverse and ran over O'Keefe.
This week, prosecutors called a digital forensics expert, Shanon Burgess, to testify about data from Read's car and O'Keefe's phone. The data seemingly indicated a synchronization between when Read moved the Lexus and when O'Keefe last used his phone, which prosecutors suggest indicates that Read struck O'Keefe while in reverse.
During a cross-examination, defense attorney Robert Alessi tried to raise questions about Burgess's credibility. Alessi pointed out that Burgess claimed in multiple documents that he had a bachelor's degree in mathematics and business administration; he does not.
'Are you familiar with the phrase academic dishonesty?' Alessi asked Burgess.
The prosecutors also called Dr Aizik Wolf, a neurosurgeon, who testified that the only way O'Keefe could have obtained his head injuries was a fall backwards and that the injuries did not indicate that he was attacked with a weapon.
That came after medical examiner Dr Irini Scordi-Bello testified that she could not determine the cause of O'Keefe's death. The defense raised questions about whether injuries on the victim could have come from a source other than the vehicle.
Scordi-Bello said some of the other injuries could have been caused by a punch.
'The defense theory is that there was some kind of confrontation or brawl inside the house, and maybe a fall backwards, and then, once they realized that he was dead,' they decided to 'put him out in the driveway and blame her', Cavallaro said.
'They are trying to put that together with bits and pieces.'
Christina Hanley, a forensic scientist, also testified this week that pieces of plastic in the victim's clothing were consistent with plastic from Read's taillight.
During cross-examination, Jackson, the defense attorney, asked Hanley whether the plastic could have come from another source besides the taillight. Hanley said it was possible.
Still, Hanley's testimony was 'pretty effective' for the prosecution, according to Daniel Medwed, a professor of law at Northeastern University.
'In a case like this that has so many big-picture, hyperbolic advocates, opponents and thinkers, having pedestrian, very technical testimony' to 'ground it, I think is helpful', Medwed said.
Prosecutors also appear to be more focused on forensic evidence than during the 2024 trial, which Shira Diner, lecturer and clinical instructor at Boston University School of Law, says is because the defense focused on that evidence the last time.
'The government is trying to counter what they anticipate the defense will be doing by putting on experts to talk about forensic issues,' Diner said.
Notably, the trial has not focused entirely on science. Yuri Bukhenik, an investigator in the case, also testified about Michael Proctor, a Massachusetts state trooper and the lead investigator in the case, who was fired over text messages he sent about Read.
During the first trial, Proctor read texts he sent to friends in which he described Read as 'babe' and 'a whack job cunt'.
'We're gonna lock this whack job up,' Proctor said in another text.
When cross-examined during this trial about the former officer's handling of the case, Bukhenik said, 'the investigation was handled with integrity by Michael Proctor.'
But during the last trial, 'missteps in the police investigation really overshadowed the case', Medwed said. 'This time around, the prosecution, oddly enough, seems to have the advantage of knowing that there were missteps in the investigation … so it's almost like they could plan accordingly to pre-empt some of the defense strategies'.
After the court proceedings on Wednesday, the judge dismissed the jury until next week. The prosecution only has one remaining witness, Read told reporters, according to CBS News.
Then the defense will present its case.
'I feel great,' Read said after the hearing. 'I'm ready to put on our case, which will be more robust than it was last year.'