Updates in the Karen Read Case
Tuesday Briefing: Motions, Hearings, and Google Searches.
Believe it or not…
There are less than 90 days before Karen Read’s second trial is scheduled to start, and the wheels are picking up some speed as both parties prepare.
Here are the newer developments in the past month:
Defense expert, Dr. Marie Russell, took the stand in a Daubert-Lanigan hearing. The hearing will proceed for a second day on Tuesday 1/7/25 (today!!).
The Commonwealth seeks for the court to decide whether the defense team’s expert witness, Dr. Russell (Emergency Room Physician & Trained Forensic Pathologist) is qualified in the specific scope of ‘dog bite pattern recognition’ to testify an opinion.
This re-examining of Dr. Russell comes on the heels of some scattered testimony she gave during the Voir Dire & first trial.
Several instances like —
The lack of analyzing all the data (K9 DNA lab results, vet file with teeth photos) prior to the voir dire.
The confusing statements over where the wounds were swabbed for testing (trial clip below).
Deciphering what individual abrasian she’s claiming is from a bite versus a claw mark.
The Prosecution is seeking a Daubert-Lanigan hearing for defense team’s tech expert, Richard Green, and they also filed a 40 page report signed in December 2024 by Cellebrite’s Senior Forensic Digital Expert, Ian Whiffin. (Not available to the public)
The motion states that the 2:27am timestamp was further analyzed after the last trial, and Cellebrite’s Senior Digital Forensic Expert again affirms that the “hos long to die in cold” search did not happen until after John O’Keefe was found on the lawn. This is consistent with the witness statements.
Cellebrite says that Richard Green misinterpreted the report due to a parsing format in the software version used to extract Jen McCabe’s phone data. The software has since been updated, and the 227 timestamp no longer shows up on the extraction report.
The Commonwealth asserts that if Green testifies to what his original affidavit/testimony is, he would be pushing a “debunked” opinion because the search just does not exist at the time in question.
In layman’s terms, the CW is saying that you can’t argue something exists that simply and clearly is not there.
As I type this, the defense has not filed a response yet, but I think we can assume they will fight back on this.
Media records from WFXT-TV Boston 25 were requested by the Commonwealth, approved by the court, and were filed on 1/03/25. Karen Read’s parents spoke with the media regarding the case. Mr. Read states that while at the hospital, Karen told him that she remembers she “struck” something.
The CW also requested media and behind-the-scene footage/info from Dateline, 20/20. They were denied access to anything behind the scenes, but were approved to use the televised interviews in trial. That’s a pretty big win for the Prosecution.
Karen’s own words may come back to haunt her.
Request for Karen Read’s parent’s cellular records requested by the Commonwealth, but both requests were denied by the court.
The Commonwealth was seeking to examine whether Karen Read *typically* calls her parents in the middle of the night, or if the call she made at 1:10am to her mother (a little over 30 minutes after John’s phone registers his last steps on the lawn) was an isolated incident. The Commonwealth wanted to examine a month timeframe leading up to the incident, however the judge did not approve this request.