MA - Justice for Officer John O’Keefe * NO DISCUSSION * media, timelines, docs * NO DISCUSSION *

[arielilane]

Defense in Karen Read retrial rests after final witness testimony

The defense expert described his own testing methods, which included the use of a crash-dummy arm, calling it "the gold standard" for such analyses.

www.wcvb.com

6.11.2025

 

[arielilane]

The judge took a break and is now discussing the power point Rentschler used and whether it can be admitted. Cannone wants to know if videos in there have been admitted previously. Brennan is objecting to have it admitted in its entirety


Attorney Yannetti is telling the judge the defense of renewing its request for a directed finding of not guilty. He’d like time to argue that in the morning.


Attorney Alessi is arguing some items marked for identification should be entered into evidence as exhibits.


Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan says he will call no further witnesses. So that’s off the table. Jurors will not come in tomorrow. Closing arguments Friday. Then deliberations begin!

@JHall7news

 

[arielilane]

Good morning. We are having a hearing now in the #karenreadtrial - Judge Cannone enters and asks if we are ready for the "charge conference." The jury is not present.. Attnys Jackson and Little are not present.

Attorney Yannetti asks if now would be a good time to argue a renewed "motion for a directed verdict of not guilty. This will fail of course but Cannone tells him to go ahead. Yannetti says the ARCCA witnesses "drove a stake through the heart of the state's case.”

He points out the wounds are not consistent with a vehicle strike...he says the ALberts had a dog, a longtime family member - a dog the Alberts gave away.

Yannetti says the snow plow driver Brian Loughran had reason to protect the Alberts, yet testified that there was no body on the lawn. He urges a not guilty on all three indictments,


FOR THE CW- ADA Adam Lally responds. He says there has been no evidence of the presence of a dog in this case…none.


Lally discounts the plow truck driver - Loughran was confused and backed into a basketball hoop during his route. He says the state has evidence, motion should be denied. Cannone denies the motion.


We are moving onto the hearing on how the Judge should charge the jury.


Judge is discussing the bowden defense.. police failed with their investigation. Lally objects - say sthere's no evidence of that, just defense lawyer claims. Yannetti points out issues with processing the scene and not going into the ALbert home

Yannetti is successful- Judge will allow defense to argue this in closings tomorrow. Judge asks about third party culprit defense, which is a higher bar. "Is the defense going to argue Brian Higgins did this?”



Yannetti says no, same for Brian Albert. Judge says 'good that makes this easier.' So the defense may argue the police failed to investigate Albert and Higgins...and point out reasons why they should have been - but they may not directly blame Higgins and ALbert


The jury never heard from them. But they heard a lot about them. They must be wondering why?



THE DEFENSE is suggesting a new verdict slip, which Yannetti thinks is simpler and will prevent confusion. (See trial number 1) Judge says she is inclined to disagree and doubts she will adopt the defense proposal.




Judge says each side will get 1 hr 15 minutes for closing arguments, Jackson (who must be back in the Seaport writing) asked for 90 minutes.




Judge asks Yannetti if defense is sure it does not want a "consciousness of guilt" instruction for the jury - she says there is language that is helpful for the defendant. Yannetti says he knows the wording and defense is sure, they don't want that.



Here's what I found on that: If evidence of consciousness of guilt is admitted, the court should instruct
-1/ that they are not to convict the defendant on the basis of the offered evidence alone,

and 2/ and that they may, but need not, consider such evidence as one of the factors tending to prove the guilt of the defendant


Lastly the Judge gives Alessi the chance to argue that she should give the jury a curative instruction on exhibit 88. CW says no further instruction is needed. This exhibit was the John O'Keefe shirt in plexiglass..


Alessi says Brennan presented it to Dr Wolf. He mentioned holes in the back of the hoodie... he says the holes were caused by the criminalist, a witness in this case....Maureen Hartnett.


Note: the Judge has already instructed the jury the criminalist made the holes in th eback of the garment, (and therefore it had nothing to do with road rash.)


Alessi asks that Judge to strengthen her comments say "Dr Wolf correctly testified" on this - wants the date included. Judge asks if she mentioned the date..Alessi can't recall if she mentioned the date of when the holes were made. (she did say May 18 2023 on June 9th)


Alessi says he doesn't think the Judge was clear enough and there should be no opposition of this. He says it was a significant error.

@JHall7news

Note: correct spelling of last name Wolfe

 

[arielilane]

6/12/2025 10:27:21
Judge says she will allow a Bowden defense.

Closing arguments in Karen Read murder retrial to begin Friday

Lawyers are meeting to discuss the language of the jury instructions after testimony came to an end.

www.wcvb.com

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-1107-inadequate-police-investigation-evidence

 

[arielilane]

@scooperon7


Judge Cannone:Read jurors will begin their deliberations tomorrow afternoon after closings in the morning starting at 9am sharp following by a 30 minute early lunch then she’ll instruct the jury before they deliberate the fate of Karen Read

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933183367010209803

 

[arielilane]

Here's the witness testimony showing they didn't know a car was involved in John's death.

Katie McLaughlin, firefighter paramedic from timestamp 4.32.32

Q. When you were there trying to help the gentleman that was on the ground, did you know this would become a homicide investigation?

A. No.

Q. Did anybody tell you this was a homicide?

A. No.

Q. In fact when you spoke, when the defendant spoke to you, you were simply trying to get background information to help Mr O’Keefe? When she told you ‘I hit him, I hit him’ did she say that she hit him with something?

A. No

Q. Did you know whether it was with a fist or a foot?

A. No

Q. Or a Lexus?

A. No

Q. You mentioned this was not part of your role to investigate. Why didn’t you persist, why didn’t you follow up and ask more questions about that statement? What about the situation and the dynamics caused you not to ask the question?

Objection

Sustained as to that form

Q. Why didn’t you persist in getting more information from the defendant when she said I hit him I hit him?

A. I just, I felt bad for her at the time, it was a very disturbing scene and I did not want to push further down that road, it’s not my job and I didn’t feel comfortable doing it.



Lt Paul Gallagher (left 34 Fairview before 8 am, after uncovering drinking glass with leaf blower) from timestamp 5.56.24

Q. At this point did you have any position as you assessed the area whether this was a criminal investigation?

A. We had no crime at that time.

Q. When you were there were you looking for anything?

A. Yes, I was examining the scene.

Q. At that point did you have any reason to start a criminal investigation?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. When you learned that Mr O’Keefe was found outside did you go look at the particular area?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe the area that was shown to you where Mr O’Keefe was found?

A. Sure, it was on the left side of the property of 34 Fairview. You could see where first responders and witnesses and police officers had walked up to the area. It was by a flagpole on the property line of no. 32 Fairview.

[...]

6.00.00

Q. When you were at the scene did you make a decision to do anything?

A. Yes

Q. What did you decide you were going to do?

A. Since the State police were not responding I decided to process the area where Mr O’Keefe was found and try to find out why he had the medical episode he was having.

Q. If you understood this to be a medical episode and at that point you didn’t have any information it was a crime scene why were you taking the time and effort to process the scene under these conditions?

A. Because that’s what we do. Even the hospital there could be a reason, there’s obviously a reason he’s there. I think we had a duty and obligation to check around his, where he was found and see if there was any explanation to what caused his medical condition.

Q. Did you focus on a particular area when you decided to look around?

A. I did.

A. What area were you going to look at?

A. Where it was pointed out he was found and where the blood pattern was.

Q. Were you thinking about looking in any other areas around that?

A. Not at that time.

Q. Why not?

A. We didn’t have any reason to, we only had the area where he was found.

Q. And at that point did you have any idea what caused his injuries?

A. We had none.

Q. At this point when you were pointed, or you were looking at the area where Mr O’Keefe was found, was the area getting covered up at all?

A. Yes it was.

Q. With what?

A. Snow.

Q. How quickly?

A. Very quickly. I believe the it was forecast that it came down 1-2 inches an hour if I recall.

Q. Did you have any idea how hard the ground was at that point?

Objection

Did you have any idea?

A. It was frozen.

Objection

I’ll allow it.

Q. How deep was the snow covering that frozen ground?

A. Approximately four inches at that time.

Q. When you went to look around the area did you consider using a rake or a shovel?

A. I did.

Q. And did you?

A. I did not.

Q. Why didn’t you use a shovel at that point?

A. I was afraid I would miss something or possibly break something.

Q. What could you break with a shovel?

A. Anything glass or anything of that nature.

Q. What was your decision about how you would search that area. What did you want to see?

A. I wanted to see anything that was possible, whether it was any type of weapon or any type of medical bottle or any reason that he could have come to where he was.

Post and link provided by @Tortoise
Here's the witness testimony showing they didn't know a car was involved in John's death.

 

[arielilane]

Closing arguments underway in Karen Read murder retrial

After 31 days of testimony, attorneys are delivering their final arguments to the jurors in the Karen Read murder trial.

www.wcvb.com

6/13/2025