Local

Update: Defense rests in Karen Read murder trial, closing arguments begin Tuesday

DEDHAM, Mass. — Testimony could wrap up in the Karen Read murder trial as the defense called its final three witnesses to the stand on Monday.

The defense in the Karen Read murder trial rested its case a little after 1 p.m. on Monday afternoon. Closing arguments will begin on Tuesday.

Read, 44, of Mansfield, has pleaded not guilty to charges including second-degree murder in the death of John O’Keefe, her Boston police officer boyfriend.

Prosecutors say Read backed over O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV and left him for dead in a snowstorm outside 34 Fairview Road in Canton in January 2022 after a night of heavy drinking. The defense aims to prove that O’Keefe was murdered by someone inside the home and then tossed into the snow.

After 68 witnesses, the prosecution rested on Friday in the Karen Read murder trial. The defense began its presentation to the jury after the judge denied their request to immediately find Read not guilty.

LIVE PLAY-BY-PLAY FROM COURT:

1:05 p.m.

  • The defense has rested in the Karen Read murder trial. Closing arguments will begin on Tuesday.

12:30 p.m.

  • Dr. Andrew Rentschler tells AJ injuries to JO are not consistent with being hit at 24 mph : “24 mph,you start to see fractures, ligament and tendon damage... leg and knee... At that speed you are going to produce up 1k force on the body”

12:15 p.m.

  • The defense calls Dr. Andrew Rentschler, Senior Biomechanist specializing in the study of the forces and mechanics associated with injuries to the human body at ARCCA.

12:10 p.m.

  • AL asks DW if he saw the video of KR backing out of JO’s driveway and making contact with JO’s vehicle. He says no.
  • Lally then asks if the damage to KR’s taillight could have been caused by an impact less than 5mph
  • DW: “At that speed, no” Defense has previously said that impact “cracked” taillight but did not shatter it.

12:05 p.m.

  • AL: Are you aware that microscopic pieces of plastic were recovered from Mr. O’Keefe’s clothing?
  • DW: No, I don’t believe so.

11:35 a.m.

  • ADA Lally on cross, Dr. Wolfe tells him if there is a collision where a vehicle strikes just an arm, he wouldn’t expect a shoe to come off.

11:10 a.m.

  • Wolfe says there was no observable damage between the dent and the taillight on KR’s Lexus and he would expected that if it struck JO’s arm as indicated by Trooper Paul.

10:50 a.m.

  • The jury now knows the ax recon firm ARCCA was not hired by the defense to do their analysis.
  • “You don’t work for us” AJ says. Dr. Wolfe says the damage to KR’s Lexus was confined to her taillight.
  • This is interesting and something I’ve never heard before: Dr. Wolfe says his team came up with a theory for the broken taillight and glass on KR’s bumper.
  • DW: “Potentially an individual threw a drinking glass at the taillight” He says his team built a cannon to test that. They fired a glass at the taillight at 37mph.

10:30 a.m.

  • AJ calls Dr. Daniel Wolfe from the ax recon firm ARCCA.
  • He testified last week without the jury present.
  • ARCCA was hired by the feds in their investigation of this case.

10:10 a.m.

  • ADA Lally asks Dr. Sheridan if the lacerations on JO’s face could have been caused by something that shattered?
  • RS: “I find that very hard to even conceive...”

9:50 a.m.

  • Eliza Little asks Dr. Sheridan about injuries JO would have if he was struck by a vehicle.
  • FS: “It’s going to cause at least bruising... This particular case, one of the things that struck me was the distinct absence of bruising.”
  • EL asks if JO’s injuries are consistent with a fight or altercation.
  • FS: In a general sense, they could be.

9:38 a.m.

  • Judge sends the jury out for a short recess and leaves the bench to her chambers.

9:30 a.m.

  • Little frames the question in a different way.
  • FS: If you get hit, you are going to get bruising, you don’t have any bruising. That doesn’t look remotely like the impact from a vehicle
  • EL then asks if a dog could have caused the injuries to JO’s arm.
  • Dr. Sheridan’s answer: I would say they are... scrape marks from the paws and possibly bite marks from the teeth

9:25 a.m.

  • Judge orders A/C off due to Dr. Sheridan being a low-talker.
  • EL: Are those injuries consistent with getting struck by a vehicle while holding a drinking glass?
  • AL: Objection,
  • BC: sustained, quick sidebar

9:10 a.m.

  • The defense calls Dr. Frank Sheridan, a Forensic Pathologist, San Bernadino, CA. He’s the medical examiner they’ve hired.

PREVIOUS STORY:

The jury heard from Dr, Maria Russel who is a recently retired ER Doctor and forensic pathologist. She testified that the injuries to John O’Keefe’s body were consistent with an animal attack, possibly a large dog.

However, under cross-examination, she said she was aware that O’keefe’s closing swabs tested negative for canine DNA.

The jury also heard from Brian “Lucky” Loughran who works for the town of Canton and was plowing overnight on January 29, 2022.

He testified that when he passed by 34 Fairview at 2:45 a.m. and then 30 minutes later, he did not see a body on he front lawn but did see a car parked in the front of the house.

The defense says this testimony from one of the first witnesses that morning was incredibly important to prove the theory.

Defense Attorney David Yanetti says he found the plow driver two weeks after O’keefe’s death, while he claims the prosecution didn;t interview him until a year and a half later.

“He should be the number one witness for an honest prosecution,” Yanetti said. “The prosecution should’ve been trying to find out who plowed the street on a night when there was an absolute blizzard somebody had to and did they see a body in the lawn. Is our theory correct? Apparently they didn’t care. We did.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.

Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.

Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW

0
Comments on this article
0