Advertisement

Karen Read case: Disputed dog bite expert’s testimony resumes

Live updates from the courtroom

Updated: 11:49 AM EST Jan 7, 2025

A key defense expert in the Karen Read case is expected to return to the courtroom on Tuesday to resume a hearing to decide whether her testimony will be permitted in the upcoming second trial. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, with her SUV outside a Canton, Massachusetts, home on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snowstorm following a night of drinking at two bars.Her first trial ended July 1 with a hung jury, and she is attempting to convince the Supreme Judicial Court to drop some charges while she awaits a second trial.Live updates from court: 11:45 a.m. Brennan is asking about particular wounds. He’s asking if Russell’s testimony about whether these are teeth or claw marks has changed. He says she testified at trial they could be either. “I think it’s still teeth, but I can’t rule out claws,” she says.11:32 a.m. After a recess, the hearing resumes. Brennan is asking about the left-most wounds. He asks if these were likely caused by a dog’s upper or lower teeth. She says dog usually begin biting with their upper teeth.11:08 a.m. The judge calls for a 15-minute break.11:07 a.m. Alessi shouts an objection. Brennan asks for a sidebar. The attorney meet at the bench then return to their desks. Then the judge calls them back for another sidebar.11:05 a.m. Read turns to defense attorney Alan Jackson. She smiles and uses her arm to mimic a dog bite on her arm. She says something to Jackson but I can’t hear what it is.11:03 a.m. Brennan says dogs bite with top and lower jaws and pull. Russell says not always. Russell she cannot tell which direction the alleged bite wounds were made.10:59 a.m. Russell says she now believes “more clearly” that the wounds were caused by teeth after noticing small puncture wounds above the abrasions.10:54 a.m. Brennan is now showing Russell a picture of O’Keefe’s arm injuries and asking about the left-most wounds. He says she originally testified that wound might have been caused by teeth or nails and asks if she testified the same thing at trial. “It sounds right,” she says. 10:47 a.m. “I have no evidence. That’s correct,” Russell says when asked about her assertions that something might have gone wrong in the DNA sample collection process.10:44 a.m. Russell says there were errors in the sample collections but says she can’t provide specific evidence for those errors. “I didn’t mean to say there were definite errors in the process but there could be,” she says.10:42 a.m. Brennan says lab technicians swabbed all of the holes in O’Keefe’s sweatshirt and found no DNA. He asks if she finds that remarkable. She says no.10:39 a.m. Brennan asks Russell knows that no canine DNA was found on O’Keefe’s clothing. She says she knows that but understands there were issues with the collection.10:37 a.m. Brennan asks if knowing about the debris field and the glass shards in clothing alters her analysis about the dog bite. She says no.10:35 a.m. Brennan asks if Russell is aware that taillight shards were found in O’Keefe’s clothing. “I did not know that,” she says. “When you did you learn that?” Brennan asks. “Right now,” she says.10:33 a.m. “I understand you have an opinion,” Brennan says. “Oh it’s a fact,” Russell replies when discussing the kinds of wounds left by tempered glass.10:32 a.m. Brennan is asking if sharp objects, like taillight fragments, could puncture clothing and cause puncture wounds and linear abrasions. Russell says yes “but not in that pattern.”10:29 a.m. Brennan is repeatedly using the term “differential diagnosis.” He seems to be challenging her ability to exclude other scenarios that led to the arm injuries.10:28 a.m. Brennan asks if Russell knows what happens when a Lexus taillight breaks, whether the pieces are random or not. Russell says she doesn’t know but has an idea.10:23 a.m. Brennan asks if Russell if she knew that Read told Boston Magazine that she might have clipped O’Keefe or run over his foot.10:24 a.m. Brennan is now asking Russell is she knew about statements from first-responders who say they heard Read say things like “This is all my fault” and “I hit him”.10:20 a.m. “No car accident scenario could create that configuration of wounds on the arm,” Russell says.10:18 a.m. Russell says she did not know that O’Keefe’s DNA was found on car parts or that one of O’Keefe’s hairs was found on the bumper when she made her determination about the cause of the arm wounds.10:16 a.m. Russell says she later learned about the sneaker. She says people suffering from hypothermia sometimes take off their clothes in a condition known as “paradoxical undressing.”10:14 a.m. Brennan is now asking about Russell’s experience as a police officer and the evidence sometimes found at the scene of car collisions. “You heard the phrase ‘knocked out of you shoes’?” Brennan asks. Russell says she did not know that one of O’Keefe’s was found at the scene.10:08 a.m. Brennan seems to be challenging Russell’s ability to exclude car impact as a cause. He asks about details of the scene. “You have no idea,” Brennan says. “I disagree,” she responds.10:04 a.m. Russell says injuries from a car impact would be much more irregular, would not be parallel lines such as the ones she saw on O’Keefe’s arm.10:03 a.m. Brennan resumes questions, continues to ask about details of the alleged vehicle impact, such as O’Keefe’s body position. “I went through the process of what the wounds would like in those various positions,” she says.9:58 a.m. Russell says she formed her opinions before reading the official reports about O’Keefe’s deaths. Brennan asks if Russell knew speed, angle and distance of alleged vehicle impact. Russell says no. Defense attorney Robert Alessi repeatedly objects. Sidebar.9:54 a.m. Russell says she excluded car accident as a possible cause of death, in part because of the absence of other injuries on O’Keefe’s body. 9:53 a.m. “I didn’t want to get involved but I thought I should,” Russell says after learning about the case. Brennan asks what she knew about the case before offering to get involved. “I believe I read there was something about car accident versus dog bites,” she says.9:51 a.m. “I’m not perfect. I’m not a perfect human being,” Russell says. Brennan asks if she went through the process of “differential diagnosis.” She says she considered other possible causes such as self-infliction or road rash but ruled them out quickly.9:47 a.m. “With all due respect, Mr. Brennan, I’m not somebody who just came in off the street,” says Russell. “I’m relying on my personal experience plus what I have learned from these numerous articles.”9:46 a.m. Russell is now summarizing an article she read about dog bite wounds. It dealt with a fatal dog bite attack. She says the authors of the article “were not in a position to create a standard.”9:43 a.m. Russell says she is not aware of a published standard for recognizing dog bite wounds. She says her expertise is based on her 30 years of experience and published articles she has read.9:40 a.m. Brennan says there is no standard for identifying dog bites. Russell says there is. She says the pattern can be used to recognize bite wounds. “It’s a multi-factorial process,” Russell says. Brennan suggests Russell is using her personal views to recognize bite wounds. She replies, “I actually find that offensive.”9:37 a.m. The hearing resumes. Brennan continues to ask if Russell’s position has changed. He asks her to look at the transcript of her testimony from first trial. Brennan says she said “possibly a large dog.” Russell says she said it that way because in medicine there are no absolutes.9:33 a.m. During the break defense attorney Alan Jackson was showing Read a video on his phone. She smiled and said, “Wow.”9:19 a.m. We’re in a five-minute recess while court staff make copies of the transcripts of Russell’s previous testimony to distribute to Russell and the attorneys.9:16 a.m. Russell say she now recalls having said that but continues to insist her opinions have not changed. Brennan is now showing her a transcript of her trial testimony.9:12 a.m. Hank Brennan resumes his cross-examination. He suggests her opinions have changed, but she says they have not. Brennan says at a previous hearing, Russell testified that a large dog “most likely” caused the wounds on John O’Keefe’s right arm. She says she does not recall and asks to see the transcript of her previous testimony.9:10 a.m. Court is called to order. Attorneys introduce themselves for the record and Dr. Russell is called back to the stand. 9 a.m. Good morning. A hearing resumes today about whether Dr. Marie Russell will be able to testify as a dog-bite expert at Read’s second trial for the death of John O’Keefe. We may also learn more about the schedule of hearings leading up to the trial on April 1st. Ahead of the second trial, prosecutors asked the judge to bar Dr. Marie Russell, a retired emergency room doctor and medical director for a prison in California, who testified for the defense in Read’s first trial.”I believe that these injuries were sustained by an animal, possibly a large dog, because of the pattern of the injuries,” she said during her testimony.Russell cited “parallel marks” on the upper part of O’Keefe’s arm that she opined were inflicted by either “teeth or claws.”Read’s defense contends O’Keefe was dragged outside after he was beaten up in the basement and bitten by a dog at fellow Boston officer Brian Albert’s home in Canton.The commonwealth argues Read’s defense team failed to prove Russell was an expert in canine bites and claw marks. One-half of the hearing hearing about Russell’s testimony was held on Dec. 12 and Special Assistant District Attorney Hank Brennan is expected to continue his questioning on Tuesday. Judge Beverly Cannone could also decide to hear several motions on Tuesday. In a motion filed last week, the state asked the judge to block the proposed testimony of Richard Green, the founder of United States Forensics, who analyzed the cellphones belonging to Read, O’Keefe and friend Jen McCabe. He testified that McCabe’s phone was used to search Google for “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27 a.m.The state wants the alleged Google search and testimony about any deletion of data from McCabe’s phone to be excluded. “Exclusion is appropriate because both claims lack any evidentiary support, and the claims cannot be made in good faith,” the motion read. “Allowing introduction of baseless claims without any scientific, forensic, or factual support would be misleading to the jury and disruptive to the interest of justice.” Prosecutors are trying to show that Read’s alleged actions outside 34 Fairview Road were intentional. Read’s lawyers have alleged there was a cover-up involving members of several law enforcement agencies. They say O’Keefe was beaten by someone else inside the home, bitten by a dog and then left outside.Prosecutors suffered several notable setbacks during their presentation of the first trial, including embarrassing revelations about the “very regrettable” messages sent by a Massachusetts State Police trooper assigned to the case. Trooper Michael Proctor was later suspended, and others have faced internal affairs investigations.On Monday, the prosecution informed the court that Proctor may face ‘permanent discipline’ at a state police hearing next week.In the wake of the first trial, attorneys in this case and others have debated whether Proctor’s email and text message records can be reviewed as evidence by the defense.Read’s defense also tried to raise questions about how and when her SUV became damaged, including questioning surveillance video from a police garage that appeared to be inverted.Read’s second trial is scheduled to begin on April 1.

Source