Prosecutors, Read attys clash in pre-trial hearing

In a highly anticipated pre-trial hearing that drew over 100 spectators and a throng of media members to Norfolk Superior Court, defense attorneys for Karen Read sparred with county prosecutors over key pieces of evidence and offered radically different theories as to their significance in the January 2022 death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.

Read, a Mansfield resident who was O’Keefe’s girlfriend, has been accused of striking O’Keefe with her SUV and then leaving him to die in a snowstorm outside a home on Fairview Road. She faces a charge of second-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, as well as charges of motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision causing death.

Atty. Alan Jackson, standing beside his client, Karen Read, addresses reporters outside Norfolk Superior Court after Wednesday’s hearing. (Jay Turner photo)

Prosecutors allege that Read, who worked as an equity analyst at a financial firm and as an adjunct professor of finance at Bentley University, had dropped off O’Keefe at the home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston police officer, after a night of bar-hopping in Canton Center on January 28, 2022. However, after making a three-point turn to reverse direction, they say that Read allegedly slammed into O’Keefe and fled the scene.

Read, however, not only maintains her innocence; her attorneys contend that others are responsible for O’Keefe’s death and that the evidence points to a cover-up. Alan Jackson, attorney for the defendant, noted that federal investigators have recently started looking into the case. “But Karen Read should not have to wait for the feds to figure out which heads should roll,” Jackson said.

At issue in Wednesday’s proceedings were motions filed by the defense to access what they believe is game-changing evidence that will result in a dismissal for their client. But prosecutors insist that the hard evidence still points squarely at Read and that her attorneys are wildly speculating as part of what they say is the “epitome of a fishing expedition.”

As they stated in a written memorandum opposing the defense team’s motion to obtain Albert’s cell phone records: “The motion merely assumes, through no evidentiary support, that such a wide-ranging conspiracy exists and that any such content indicative of said conspiracy must be found within this phone … and would be relevant. However, the motion is scant in any evidence that any such statement was ever made by the witness or that such conspiracy ever existed.”

While both sides will have to wait until a May 25 hearing to argue for or against the relevance of those cell records, attorneys weighed in this week on another defense motion seeking records from the town of Canton pertaining to the Alberts’ German shepherd. Specifically, Read’s attorneys have asked the court to compel both the Canton Town Clerk’s Office and Animal Control Department to hand over any records for the dog dating to 2015, citing analysis from their medical expert that they say concluded “to a scientific certainty” that the wounds observed on O’Keefe’s right arm — and shown in court this week in autopsy photos — were caused by scratches/bites from an animal, “period, full stop.”

Further, Attorney Jackson stated that within weeks of the defense team making its initial inquiries about the Alberts’ dog, Brian Albert allegedly informed Canton Animal Control that the dog had recently been “rehomed” out of state. Jackson also cited testimony from Albert to investigators in which he stated that the dog was at the home on the night in question, was inside the house, and was “not great with strangers.”

“That’s a euphemism for, ‘The dog bites; the dog attacks,’” Jackson said.

He went on to note that Albert subsequently “ripped out the floor in the basement” and has since sold the home on Fairview Road. “I think we’ve established this is not just a fishing expedition,” Jackson said. “We’ve got a fish on the hook; we just need the court’s help to reel it in.”

Defense attorneys did not, however, offer any kind of motive for Albert’s involvement, nor has he been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Norfolk ADA Adam Lally, in response to the defense counsel’s motion for accessing the dog records, again emphasized the lack of evidentiary support. He stated that neither the medical professionals at the hospital O’Keefe was transported to nor the state’s medical examiner found any evidence that O’Keefe was “beaten and left for dead.” As for O’Keefe’s blackened and swollen eyes shown in autopsy photos, Lally said the medical examiner testified that the swelling and bruising were due to a skull fracture and that the injury “started in the back of the head.”

Lally also cited the testimony of multiple witnesses — some who were inside the Alberts’ home on the night O’Keefe died and another person who was outside when Read arrived to drop him off — and none of them claim to have seen O’Keefe exit Read’s vehicle or enter the Alberts’ home. (The witness who was outside stated that he only saw Read in the SUV and did not observe a passenger.)

“I’m confused,” Lally said, referencing the defense team’s theory that O’Keefe was beaten to death in the home. “Are all the other people in the house in on the conspiracy?”

In their memorandum opposing the defense motion to access Albert’s cell records, prosecutors also raised doubts about some of the other “bombshell” evidence that the defense team has introduced to support their claims of a murder and cover-up. For instance, prosecutors insist that a defense expert’s analysis of a party guest’s cell records, which seemingly show a Google search for the phrase “ho[w] long to die in cold” made at 2:27 a.m. — several hours before O’Keefe was found — was taken from a database file used to temporarily store data that can contain “multiple copies of the same page, each with different data/records.” The memorandum states that an initial extraction of the cell data by investigators did not contain that allegedly incriminating search, and their records also show another search with the same time stamp for a basketball website.

In response to the defense team’s previous revelation that health data from O’Keefe’s iPhone showed he took 80 steps and climbed three flights of stairs after being driven to Fairview Road — suggesting that he made it inside the Alberts’ home — prosecutors said the same data indicated O’Keefe somehow took hundreds of steps in the hours after he was pronounced dead. “To call this data unreliable is an understatement,” they said.

Left unanswered, however, is who had possession of O’Keefe’s phone after his body was discovered and whether that individual is responsible for the additional steps that were recorded.

In addition to cell records and town records pertaining to the Alberts’ dog, attorneys for Read said they also are waiting for the prosecution to turn over several pieces of previously requested discovery material, including O’Keefe’s clothing at the time of his death; evidence seized from Read’s vehicle; autopsy samples; any DNA or trace evidence; and the original surveillance footage from the Canton Public Library that is believed to have captured Read’s vehicle passing by. Defense Attorney David Yannetti stated in court this week that the copies of footage that the prosecution previously turned over was incomplete — and specifically was missing a crucial two-minute window after Read allegedly struck O’Keefe that they believe would show her vehicle was undamaged.

However, ADA Lally said that everything they turned over to the defense team constituted the entirety of the footage that they had received from the State Police through the town of Canton’s IT manager. Lally added that he has been in communication with the state lab regarding some of the other requested items and the bulk of it should be ready to be handed over by early next week.

Still, Yannetti said he has no reason to take the state at its word based on his experience in this case and asked Judge Beverly Cannone to give prosecutors a hard deadline for all requested evidence. He added that every extra day they have to wait only further infringes on his client’s right to a speedy trial and to due process.

“The bottom line here, your honor, is that we’ve spent 15 months trying to uncover the truth,” Yannetti said. “We are not afraid of whatever evidence is unearthed from whatever source, because for 15 months, every stitch of evidence has been consistent with my client’s innocence.”

On the steps of the courthouse after the hearing — which ended without a ruling on any of the contested motions — Yannetti said the defense team will continue to fight “tooth and nail” to expose the truth in this case and is confident that their client will be cleared of all charges. He added that while the public has yet to hear from Read herself, they “ultimately will.”

“From the jump she has not been able to do anything except fight for her life,” he said. “But know this: Karen Read is a strong woman. Karen Read will not let them do this to her.”

Reached via email after the hearing, David Traub, spokesman for the Norfolk DA’s office, said he did not have any additional comments at this time “outside of what ADA Lally put into the record in court.”

The pre-trial process in the case against Karen Read will continue with an evidentiary hearing on May 25.

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=109096

Posted by Jay Turner on May 4 2023. Filed under News. Both comments and pings are currently closed.