Karen Read‘s second trial in connection with the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, continued on Monday in Dedham’s Norfolk Superior Court before Judge Beverly Cannone.
During an abbreviated day Friday, the jury heard from two forensic scientists at the Massachusetts State Police crime lab about key physical evidence in the case.
People to know:
Robert Alessi, lawyer for ReadHank Brennan, special prosecutor for the Norfolk district attorney’s officeShanon Burgess, digital forensics examiner at Aperture
Follow along with live updates from Monday’s testimony below:
3:51 p.m. – Cannone sends jury home
With Burgess still on the stand, Cannone told jurors they were excused for the day.
Alessi was in the middle of a line of questioning about what Burgess knew of a report completed by another digital forensics expert testifying for the prosecution, Ian Whiffin.
Burgess said he had reviewed a report Whiffin completed in which Whiffin concluded O’Keefe’s phone showed a health event — taking 36 steps — concluding at 12:32 a.m. and 16 seconds.
That is after 12:31 a.m. and 43 seconds, which is the time Burgess identified for the second tech stream event, the “backing maneuver.” But Burgess said the clocks in Whiffin’s report had not been adjusted to account for the variance.
Still, Alessi pressed on, noting that another expert from Aperture, Judson Welcher, uses the 12:31 a.m. timestamps.
Alessi shifted his questioning to Whiffin’s conclusion that O’Keefe’s phone showed a “pocket state” at 12:33 a.m. and 14 seconds. Burgess did not answer questions about that issue, as Cannone sent the jury home after calling the lawyers to sidebar.
3:22 p.m. – Alessi grills Burgess about May 8 report
Alessi’s cross-examination moved to a series of questions about a report Burgess submitted on May 8, in the middle of the trial.
It was for the first time in that report that Burgess mentioned the two techstream events, one of which prosecutors have said represents the moment Read hit O’Keefe.
Burgess admitted it was the first time in a decade he had submitted a report in the middle of a trial. He said the report was not a change of his analysis, but merely a supplement of a report he submitted in January.
He said he was motivated to produce the report after receiving a PowerPoint presentation prepared by a defense expert. The report addressed the issue of a clock variance.
When Burgess submitted the report to Brennan, he wrote it was “pursuant to” his request. But Burgess said that was simply a “holdover” from the first report.
But he did admit to discussing the report with Brennan before submitting it. Burgess said he had a “handful” of conversations with Det. Lt. Brian Tully in the preparation of his reports.
2:59 p.m. – Burgess questioned about methodology
As his cross-examination continued, Alessi noted that Burgess attempted to reinstall and test the infotainment and telematics modules in Read’s actual SUV.
But he was unable to do so successfully, and noted in his report that the infotainment system “did not respond as expected.”
Alessi asks Burgess if there was any scientific literature stating “the methodology you used for this Lexus is the appropriate methodology for this Lexus model.”
Burgess admitted there wasn’t.
2:34 p.m. – Burgess pressed on data misunderstanding
In Burgess’ proposed protocol, he indicated he believed not all of the data from Read’s SUV was extracted on an initial procedure conducted before her first trial.
But the protocol was based on what Burgess described as a “working theory” and “misinterpretation” of the data. He confused megabits for megabytes in his protocol, he admitted.
Alessi asserted the “entire foundation” of his proposal was a “fundamental misunderstanding.” Burgess pushed back, saying he had “always known the difference” between bits and bytes.
“You obtained no information from the chips that were already analyzed, did you?” Alessi asked.
Burgess said that was true, but said “there was no data of value from those chips to begin with.”
1:30 p.m. – Alessi homes in on Burgess’ credentials
After the lunch break, Alessi began his cross-examination of Burgess. The questioning began with an exchange about confirmation bias.
The questions moved quickly to Burgess’ credentials. Alessi noted that Burgess provided a CV to the prosecution, defense and the court in the Read case. He handed Burgess a copy of his CV from November 2024.
The document indicates Burgess is pursuing a degree in mathematics and business administration at the University of Alabama. Alessi provided him another copy of his CV, this one from April 2025. Both documents say Burgess has not earned a bachelor’s degree.
But Aperture’s website lists Burgess as having obtained a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and business administration.
“You do not have a bachelor’s in mathematics and business administration, do you?” Alessi asked. Burgess said that was correct.
The hyperlink to Burgess’ LinkedIn page leads to a 404 error, indicating the page doesn’t exist.
Alessi asked if he was aware if anyone from the defense had viewed the page in the last 72 hours, or if anyone at Aperture had asked for the page to be taken down.
Burgess said he wasn’t. Alessi attempted to move a copy of Burgess’ LinkedIn page into evidence, prompting an objection from Brennan.
After a sidebar, Burgess confirmed it was an accurate depiction of his LinkedIn page.
The page listed a Bachelor of Science obtained between 2016 and 2018. Burgess said at the time that would have been an expected graduation date.
A copy of Burgess’ CV posted to the company’s website indicates he obtained a Bachelor of General Sciences in 2022.
That is three different places where Burgess inaccurately represents his education, Alessi noted.
“There’s not even a degree called Bachelor of General Sciences in mathematics and business administration at the University of Alabama, correct?” Alessi asked.
Burgess said that was correct. He said the first time he pursued a Bachelor of Science was in 2008.
12:32 p.m. – Burgess describes timing of ‘backing maneuver’ from SUV
After establishing the variance, Burgess said he was able to determine the second techstream event on Read’s Lexus, a “backing maneuver,” ended at 12:31 a.m. and 43 seconds, according to the clock in the car.
Applying the variance to that time shows the event ended between 12:32 a.m. and four seconds and 12:32 a.m. and 12 seconds.
Burgess said the SUV captures data from five seconds before the trigger event and five seconds after if the event lasts longer than 10 seconds. The window showing when the event ended doesn’t necessarily include the entire event, he said.
Brennan concluded his questions there and Cannone sent the jury out for a lunch break.
12:11 p.m. – O’Keefe’s phone clock ahead of Lexus clock
Burgess explained that the Lexus clock and the clock in an iPhone could have a variance of up to 60 seconds. The car’s clock is accurate to the minute, not the second like the clock in the phone.
He said he used a three-point turn event in the data from the car and location data from O’Keefe’s phone to synchronize the clocks. O’Keefe’s phone was recording specific location data because he was using the Waze app for navigation.
Burgess said he looked deeper into the clock variance unprompted after being given a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation misinterpreted the variance, he said.
His investigation determined a variance of about 21 to 29 seconds between the clock in the car and the clock in the phone. The Lexus showed the three-point turn at 12:23 a.m. and 38 seconds, while the phone showed it at between 12:23 and 59 seconds to 12:24 a.m. and seven seconds.
11:37 a.m. – Burgess details results of Lexus testing
Burgess determined Read’s Lexus was powered on for the first time on Jan. 29, 2022, at 12:12 a.m. The car was then not powered off until 12:42 a.m., he said.
There were no power-on, power-off events in between those two times. Burgess’ tests were conducted on an exemplar vehicle — a 2021 Lexus with the same software as Read’s on that date.
He explained the timestamps represented not when the ignition was triggered, but when the infotainment system powered on, a roughly three-second difference.
The timestamp was based on the clock in the Lexus, which he explained wasn’t synced perfectly with other devices.
But even though different devices may show different times, they can corroborate one another, Burgess said.
“Even with a variance, those timestamps can be consistent with one another,” he said.
Both the 12:12 a.m. and 12:42 a.m. timestamps were reliable as to the clock inside the car, Burgess said.
The next power-on event occurred at 5:07 a.m., and the system showed a power-off event at 5:46 a.m. Those times are also accurate down to the second based on the clock in the car, he said.
Burgess used Ring camera videos taken outside O’Keefe’s home to validate the timestamps.
The next power-on event was at 12:35 p.m., followed by a power-off event at 2:12 p.m. Those timestamps reflected the time Read travelled to her parents’ home in Dighton, he said.
The next power-on event came at 4:11 p.m., when Read’s car was towed away. The car was shut off just before 4:13 p.m.
Burgess said he used video from an Alarm.com camera to validate some of the timestamps, particularly when Read’s car arrived in Dighton, then when it was towed away.
The data show another power-on event at 5:34 p.m. and a power-off event at 5:36 p.m., when a tow truck unloaded the SUV at the Canton Police Department.
Those marked the final power-on and power-off events from that day, he said.
11 a.m. – Cannone calls morning recess
With Burgess still on the stand detailing the process of recovering data from Read’s SUV, Cannone sent the jury out for a 15-20 minute break.
Before the break, Burgess explained he recovered a microSD chip from one of the modules in the Lexus. That chip appeared to not have been tested during a previous “chip-off” procedure, he said.
A chip-off procedure is the process of removing chips from the module and testing them.
10:46 a.m. – Expert explains testing of data from Read’s SUV
The next witness to testify Monday morning was Burgess, who has been a forensic analyst for 10 years. Burgess works at the firm Aperture and has testified in state court for both the prosecution and the defense in criminal cases.
Burgess said he wrote a paper on damaged modules in vehicles.
In the Read case, he received raw data taken from chips on the infotainment and telematics modules in her Lexus SUV. Burgess concluded that data was missed during an initial download from those chips.
He believed there was either a partial download or an overlooked chip, resulting in the missing data.
Burgess told the jury he was focused on two techstream events: a three-point turn and a backing maneuver. Those events are documented with a time count beginning when the ignition comes on, he said.
The clock functions as a stopwatch, Burgess explained.
10:12 a.m. – Hair pulled from Read’s SUV matched O’Keefe
Karl Miyasako, a senior analyst with Bode Technology, described his role at the DNA testing company and his qualifications during questioning by prosecutor Adam Lally.
Miyasako described the process of testing DNA using comparative methods, using a known sample and an evidentiary sample.
Specifically, he tested a hair pulled from Read’s SUV and compared it to O’Keefe’s mitochondrial DNA, which a person shares with their maternal relatives.
He said the “majority of the population” can be excluded as the source of the DNA.
But on cross-examination from Alan Jackson, a lawyer for Read, Miyasako acknowledged the DNA would have matched O’Keefe’s mother, sister or maternal niece and nephew. O’Keefe was the guardian of his niece and nephew at the time of his death.
He admitted that he was not saying the hair belonged to O’Keefe specifically.
“I can’t exclude maternal relatives,” Miyasako said.
9:28 a.m. – John O’Keefe’s DNA found on Read’s taillight
Nicholas Bradford, an analyst with Bode Technologies in Virginia, said the lab compared DNA taken from Read’s taillight to a sample of O’Keefe’s DNA.
During the comparison, Bradford concluded the DNA was 740 nonillion times more likely to belong to O’Keefe and two unknown, unrelated individuals than three unknown, unrelated individuals. A nonillion is one followed by 30 zeros.
The lab also tested DNA samples from two of the Massachusetts State Police investigators in the case: Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenik and former trooper Michael Proctor. Bradford said there was strong support in the testing that neither man’s DNA matched the taillight.
Bradford said the hair received at the lab was transferred to another unit for additional testing.
Lally concluded his questioning there.
During a brief cross-examination, Jackson focused most of his questions on the result regarding Proctor’s DNA.
Jackson noted that the testing showed it was 76,000 times more likely the DNA came from three unknown unrelated individuals than Proctor and two unknown unrelated individuals. The testing showed stronger support for inclusion of O’Keefe’s DNA.
Bradford also confirmed he was never asked to compare DNA from the taillight to anyone other than O’Keefe, Bukhenik and Proctor.
9:05 a.m. – Trial resumes
As she does each morning, Cannone asked the jury if they had been able to follow her instructions about discussing the case and avoiding media coverage. Each juror said they had.
Lally called Bradford to the stand as the first witness of the day.
Read more: Key takeaways from week 4 of the Karen Read retrial
Bode received several items for testing from the Massachusetts State Police crime lab, including a hair pulled from Read’s SUV.
Read, 45, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of O’Keefe, who was found outside the home of a fellow Boston police officer on Jan. 29, 2022.
Norfolk County prosecutors say Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV while driving intoxicated. Read’s attorneys say her car never struck O’Keefe and that others are to blame for his death.
