After dismissing jurors for the day, Cannone said she was “not persuaded” by the defense team’s arguments in favor of excluding a new report from prosecution expert Shanon Burgess of accident reconstruction and biomechanics company Aperture LLC.
While Cannone didn’t agree with Karen Read’s lawyers that prosecutors were delayed in turning over the May 8 report, she left the door open for “ample” cross-examination when Burgess takes the stand.
“And I will give you a lot of leeway with that, Mr. Alessi,” the judge added, pointing to Alessi’s “fullsome” cross-examination of past witnesses.
...
Vallier testified about examining the various items and sorting them by color to look for possible matching edges. According to Vallier, several pieces of plastic fit together into a larger section that was a physical match for Read’s broken taillight. Lally displayed photos of the reconstructed taillight, its broken pieces fit together and held with tape as they overlaid the tailight housing.
Lally then turned his attention to the debris from O’Keefe’s clothing, and Vallier testified about examining the debris under a microscope and finding dirt and apparent pieces of plastic contained within.
...
“Respectfully, your honor, the defense is very confused,” he said.
Other discovery material filed in the case “shows that time, 12:31:43 [a.m.], has never changed,” Brennan argued. “This does not change the testimony of anybody.”
According to Brennan, Burgess’s new report just contains further analysis of information and opinions already provided to the defense.
“There’s nothing new here; nothing has changed,” Brennan argued.
...
John O’Keefe was exponentially more likely than not to have contributed to a three-person mixture of DNA found on Karen Read’s taillight, according to Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab forensic scientist Andre Porto.
As for O’Keefe’s fingernail clippings, Porto said he identified a single source of DNA, naming O’Keefe as the likely contributor.
...
With the defense team’s approval, special prosecutor Hank Brennan then offered jurors a clarification on medical examiner Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello’s prior testimony. He explained that former Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, a lead investigator on Read’s case, was not one of two troopers present during her boyfriend John O’Keefe’s autopsy.
Read’s lawyers have sought to implicate Proctor in their coverup claim, accusing him of lying and fabricating evidence to frame Read for murder. State Police
fired Proctor earlier this year in light of his conduct during the investigation, particularly his
vulgar personal texts about Read.
Jurors also watched a clip from a 2024 interview Read gave for Investigation Discovery’s docuseries on her case.
Speaking to an off-camera interviewer, Read said O’Keefe had a piece of glass “perched” on his nose when she found him unresponsive in the snow outside 34 Fairview Road on Jan. 29, 2022. The shard, she explained, was “wedged” in O’Keefe’s skin as though it were a splinter.
While she acknowledged at one point that an abrasion on the side of O’Keefe’s nose could be consistent with a punch, Scordi-Bello also confirmed other consistent scenarios included injuries from broken glass, sharp plastic shards, and first aid efforts.
“Anything is possible,” she added.
Judge Beverly Cannone ultimately ruled to allow a prosecution expert to reference the report, despite objections from the defense.
www.boston.com
5.16.2025
www.wcvb.com
