Briefing: Karen Read Murder Retrial - Recent Developments

Briefing: Karen Read Murder Retrial - Recent Developments

Date: June 10th, 2025 Subject: Review of Recent Developments in the Karen Read Murder Retrial

Summary: The provided sources offer a glimpse into the ongoing Karen Read murder retrial, focusing on the beginning of the defense's case, key expert testimony, strategic maneuvering between the prosecution and defense regarding potential witnesses, and previews of closing arguments. A major point of contention is the defense's argument of a conspiracy and cover-up, contrasting with the prosecution's focus on Karen Read's intoxication and physical evidence. The retrial carries significant weight as the first trial resulted in a hung jury.

Key Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

1. The Defense's Conspiracy and Cover-Up Narrative:

• The defense, led by Alan Jackson and Robert Alessi, is presenting a narrative of a cover-up orchestrated by "a house full of secrets where fellow officers allegedly knew more than they let on." This directly challenges the prosecution's case.

• The defense's strategy appears to be focused on exposing reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence and highlighting inconsistencies or potential misconduct by investigators and witnesses. As one source states, the defense "don't approve anything... their job is to expose that reasonable doubt in your closing argument."

2. Expert Testimony and Data Analysis (Matthew Gras, Dr. Daniel Wolfe, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata):

• Matthew Gras: A new defense witness, an engineer specializing in vehicle data, testified about comparing data from John O'Keefe's cell phone and the locking mechanism of Karen Read's SUV.

• His analysis of 30 possibilities suggested that in 25 scenarios, the lack of an "on key" cell phone event happened after the SUV recorded a reverse trigger event. Only 3 out of 30 possibilities (10%) occurred before the reverse event.

• The defense will likely "lean on that" to argue that the data does not conclusively support the prosecution's timeline. Gras stated, in response to whether there was "any ability to say to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. That that extreme event occurred after the last physical interaction with Jonathan's phone," "Yes that would be 3, 3, out of the 30 possibilities would result in that."

• During cross-examination, the prosecution, Hank Brennan, attempted to highlight that Gras's analysis could not rule out a pedestrian collision altogether, noting that collision data is not a trigger for texting data.

• Brennan also zeroed in on the fact that Gras did not conduct his own testing, relying solely on the "aperture" (likely referring to data collected by the prosecution's experts).

• Dr. Daniel Wolfe: An accident reconstruction expert called by the defense.

• The defense called for a mistrial during Brennan's cross-examination of Dr. Wolfe regarding holes in the back of O'Keefe's sweatshirt. The prosecution had suggested these were road rash, but they were actually made by a state criminalist cutting them during examination. This led to Robert Alessi's "dramatic courtroom move" of slamming his palms on the podium while wearing black gloves. Alessi accused the prosecution of "intentional misconduct."

• Dr. Wolfe conducted crash tests. A Reddit discussion thread notes that ARCCA's tests showed that a person's arm can break a taillight, contrary to some initial beliefs. This same thread criticizes the defense for using a lighter weighted arm in their test, suggesting it was done to achieve desired results. The user writes, "The main issue here is that an arm can certainly break a taillight given the right amount of weight, speed, and force."

• The crash test footage also allegedly showed tiny taillight fragments impacting the dummy's clothing, which the user on Reddit found "obvious how tiny little fragments could have ended up in JOK clothing."

• Another point of contention surrounding Dr. Wolfe's testimony was the resemblance of holes produced in the crash test to dog bites. The Reddit user highlights that "this type of injury can cause holes in the shirt that closely resemble that of a dog bite," potentially undermining the dog attack theory.

• Dr. Wolfe admitted to deleting texts and using the Signal app, which the prosecution (Brennan) used to question his credibility.

• Dr. Elizabeth Laposata: Expected to be one of the final defense witnesses.

• She testified that O'Keefe's skull fracture was consistent with a backward fall.

• Crucially, she also testified that something else, possibly a fist or another object, caused the cut above his right eye. When asked by Jackson if it could be from "an object" or "a fist," Laposata responded "Possible" to both.

• The defense sought to have Dr. Laposata testify about whether the injuries to O'Keefe's arm were caused by dog bites, arguing "Those injuries on John O’Keefe’s arm are from a dog, period. Full stop." However, the judge denied this request, ruling she was not qualified to testify on that specific matter.

• The prosecution (Brennan) also sought to challenge Dr. Laposata's credibility based on published reports and an audit during her time as Chief Medical Examiner of Rhode Island, citing an "extraordinary number of individuals that were improperly attended to, showing negligence, if not malfeasance." The defense countered that Brennan himself had hired her and knew her qualifications.

3. Strategic Maneuvering Regarding Michael Proctor:

• A fascinating dynamic has emerged regarding calling lead investigator Michael Proctor to the stand. Both the prosecution (Hank Brennan) and the defense (Alan Jackson) are daring the other side to call him.

• Brennan is quoted as saying, "I dare you to call Michael Proctor," while the defense is "like well, I dare you to call Michael Proctor to the stand."

• Neither side appears eager to call him, but both want the other side to do so to potentially use him for their own advantage during cross-examination.

• The defense wants to introduce critical evidence through Proctor, including his text messages, such as one allegedly saying "pin it on the girl" and another about the homeowner Brian Albert (a Boston cop) not getting "any slack for any of this."

• The prosecution may be hesitant to call Proctor due to potential credibility issues, particularly concerning his "inappropriate text" messages. There is speculation that Proctor may not testify at all. Defense attorney Joseph Croskey suggests that calling Proctor would allow Brennan to "cross examine him and essentially tell their case and their theory of the case through Michael Proctor in a very leading man are." However, it would also "open the door for him to explain. What was his state of mind when he made those inappropriate text."

4. Previews of Closing Arguments:

• Motions to dismiss charges at the end of the state's case, though rarely granted, provide a "sneak peak" of the defense's closing argument.

• Defense's Argument (Alan Jackson): Jackson argued to the judge that the Commonwealth had "simply not prove[n] in even in the light most favorable to them that there was a..." This motion to dismiss serves as a preview of their strategy to argue that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense will likely emphasize the lack of proof of intent to kill or harm O'Keefe or leave him for dead.

• Prosecution's Argument (Hank Brennan): Brennan previewed the prosecution's closing by highlighting key elements of their case:

• Karen Read's intoxication, supported by "many many admissions by the defendant about her level of intoxication."

• Physical evidence, including "tell like fragments from the defendant's own Lexus from her shattered right tail light. found Mister refuses close."

• The speed and movement of her car ("back and win over. At least 24 miles per hour.").

• Injuries to O'Keefe "consistent with the damage to her Lexus right rear tail light."

• Scientific data, including "telestream data Apple health care data battery temperature data."

• Karen Read's actions of "stopping and then driving back to Mister o'keefe."

• Her conduct was "intentional" and created a "plane and strong likelihood of death."

• Read's own statements, including one referencing throwing "firefighter back" or being upset, and text messages suggesting an "attempted break up."

• Brennan also mentioned a statement where Read allegedly told a story of what happened, including possibly hitting him or running over his foot and leaving him. Defense attorney Joseph Croskey views this as a "confession" and "deeply concerning for the defensive end."

5. Reasonable Doubt and the Burden of Proof:

• The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is central to the trial. Vinnie Politan emphasizes its importance, stating the jury "you've got to be convinced and the prosecutors got to be convincing." The defense's primary goal is to "expose that reasonable doubt."

• Several sources and commentators, particularly those aligned with the defense or observing from a defense perspective, highlight perceived reasonable doubt throughout the case, pointing to issues with witness credibility (Sam Burgess's credentials), inconsistent evidence (glass on bumper not matching cocktail glass), text messages suggesting a different narrative (Brian Higgins's text), lack of physical evidence (no taillight found initially), and the meteorologist's testimony about the amount of snow.

• A Reddit user states, "Every witness and every piece of evidence in this case has reasonable doubt attached all over it."

• Another Reddit user, however, argues that looking at the "totality of the evidence" instead of isolated pieces eliminates reasonable doubt, suggesting that "every other possible explanation is completely closed now."

6. Defendant's Public Presence and Supporters:

• Karen Read is notably out on bond and has a visible presence outside the courthouse, interacting with supporters.

• Her lead attorney, Alan Jackson, also engaged in a fundraiser that involved cooking ("lead attorney lead chef").

• These aspects are described as making the case "unique" and potentially a trend in high-profile cases.

7. Mistrial Motions:

• The defense has made multiple motions for a mistrial, including the one related to the hoodie holes and the cross-examination of Dr. Wolfe. These motions underscore the contentious nature of the trial and the defense's efforts to challenge the prosecution's conduct.

8. Karen Read Testifying:

• There is speculation about whether Karen Read will take the stand in her own defense. When asked, she responded "tbd."

• Commentators have varying opinions, with some giving a low probability due to perceived weaknesses in the prosecution's case, while others suggest it might be necessary to address her prior statements, which are seen as potentially damaging to the defense.

9. Diddy Sex Trafficking Trial Mention:

• One source includes a brief segment on the Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial, including testimony from a former assistant. This is unrelated to the Karen Read trial but included in the Court TV coverage.

Analysis of Source Reliability:

• The sources include excerpts from news broadcasts (Court TV, Fox News, NBC Boston), which typically provide reporting from the courtroom and interviews with legal experts and individuals involved in the case.

• The Reddit thread offers a mix of user discussion, including analysis by individuals with relevant backgrounds (an engineer), observations from those following the trial closely, and shared documents (motions, transcripts). While offering diverse perspectives and details, it's important to note that these are not official journalistic reports and may contain personal opinions and interpretations.

• Quotes attributed to individuals in court are generally reported as direct quotes or paraphrased from courtroom proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Karen Read murder retrial is marked by a sharp contrast between the prosecution's case, relying on physical evidence, digital data, and the defendant's statements, and the defense's counter-narrative of a cover-up supported by challenges to the prosecution's evidence and expert analysis. The strategic dance surrounding potential witnesses like Michael Proctor and the outcome of expert testimony on key pieces of evidence (vehicle data, injuries, crash tests) will likely be pivotal in the jury's decision. The focus on "reasonable doubt" remains central to the defense's strategy, while the prosecution aims to convince the jury through a combination of circumstantial and scientific evidence, bolstered by Read's own words. The fact that the first trial resulted in a hung jury highlights the complexities and contested nature of the evidence in this case.