The latest on the Karen Read murder case
Sign up for our Extra newsletter to get updates from the retrial and other breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.
Karen Read trial: Defense dog bite expert says John O’Keefe’s arm injuries came from a dog
As Monday's court session came to a close, special prosecutor Hank Brennan was in the midst of cross-examining Dr. Marie Russell. That questioning will resume Tuesday morning.
On the stand Monday:
- Dr. Marie Russell, MD, CCHP-P, Los Angeles, CA
- Kelly Dever, Boston Police Department
- Jonathan Diamandis, Milton, MA
4 p.m. update: Defense dog bite expert grilled under cross-examination
Defense dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russell told jurors she “reluctantly agreed” to work for Karen Read’s defense after reaching out to attorneys last year with an offer to “clarify” whether John O’Keefe’s arm injuries could have come from a dog attack.
“Did you want to get involved?” special prosecutor Hank Brennan pressed Russell on cross-examination.
“No, not really,” Russell replied. At Brennan’s prompting, she confirmed Read’s defense has paid her for her time.
Picking up her testimony following the lunch break, Russell restated her belief that O’Keefe’s arm wounds “are the result of dog bites and/or claw marks” and confirmed she holds that opinion “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”
Advertisement:
As defense attorney Robert Alessi finished his direct examination, Russell testified she observed “multiple patterns” of linear abrasions on O’Keefe’s right arm.
Alessi displayed two different photos of O’Keefe’s wounds, and Russell noted the skin appeared more yellow in one image taken Jan. 31, 2022. She suggested the difference in skin tone could be due to either lighting or postmortem lividity — the pooling of blood after death.
Answering a question from Alessi, Russell confirmed she used her pattern recognition skills in evaluating the two photos of O’Keefe’s arm wounds. She testified the arm appeared to show “multiple strikes from a dog.”
Advertisement:
Russell also characterized the wounds as “highly specific for a dog attack,” though Judge Beverly Cannone struck the last part of Russell’s answer following an objection from prosecutors.
Elsewhere in her testimony, Russell pointed out an “arch-like structure” in the wounds on O’Keefe’s arm that she suggested had been caused by a dog’s front teeth. She also identified what she said were “incomplete” bites that had scratched the skin without penetrating into the soft tissue underneath.
Russell told jurors she has observed “many” incomplete dog bites over the course of her career, estimating she’s seen and treated “over 100” such bites and believes they constitute the majority of civilian dog bites. She further testified that O’Keefe sustained his arm wounds before he died, “because they have what we call a ‘vital reaction,’” or inflammation around the edges of the wound.
Prosecutors allege O’Keefe’s arm injuries were the result of an impact with Read’s SUV, not a dog attack. Alessi asked Russell whether the wounds she observed were consistent or inconsistent with what she’s seen in victims of motor vehicle collisions.
Advertisement:
“Inconsistent,” Russell replied.
Alessi displayed a photo prosecution accident reconstructionist Judson Welcher had used in his presentation that showed a man killed in an unrelated pedestrian collision in Los Angeles, highlighting the differences in severity between the man’s injuries and O’Keefe’s. He then pivoted to O’Keefe’s clothing, displaying an image of the sweatshirt O’Keefe was wearing when he was mortally wounded. Russell pointed out “defects,” or holes, in the right sleeve, walking jurors through a close-up of a round hole that she believed was caused by a canine tooth.
As he wrapped up his direct examination, Alessi peppered Russell with questions about the research, experience, and methodology that informed her process and expert opinions.
Stepping up for cross-examination, Brennan grilled Russell about her knowledge of the case prior to her testimony in Read’s first trial last summer. Russell previously testified she learned of Read’s case through reporting from The Boston Globe and reached out to someone at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where defense attorney Alan Jackson once worked as a prosecutor.
“You wanted to get involved in this high-profile case, didn’t you?” Brennan alleged.
Advertisement:
“No,” Russell replied. She maintained she reached out to the defense because she felt she had the “unique skills or knowledge set” to weigh in on the matter at hand.
“I thought I could help clarify the issues as to whether or not this could be a dog bite, and maybe they could move on to something else if it wasn’t,” Russell testified.
Brennan also accused Russell of using her involvement in Read’s case as a “marketing opportunity” to promote her services as an expert witness, particularly as an expert in dog bites.
“I believe I am an expert in dog bites,” Russell contended.
While she testified about attending trainings on bite marks in general, Brennan pointed out Russell has never attended a seminar or attained any certificates in pattern recognition analysis of dog bites.
“I don’t think there are any that exist, any training programs like that,” Russell fired back. She also told jurors she doesn’t know of another doctor who has done two residencies in emergency medicine and forensic pathology and who “has a lifelong interest in dog bites,” as she does.
“So Dr. Russell, from your perspective, as far as you know, you are the only person in the entire United States of America who is qualified to look at a photograph and make a determination whether the wound was derived from a dog bite?” Brennan pressed.
Advertisement:
“No,” Russell replied. “I’m the only physician that I know of that can do that. There may be, you know, a few others out there. There may be. But I don’t know of any other physicians that can do that.”
She confirmed she’s aware of another defense expert, Rhode Island forensic pathologist Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, given Laposata’s work in the medical field. However, Russell denied that she had read any report Laposata has authored for Read’s case or heard Laposata’s opinions on O’Keefe’s death.
Brennan asked Russell who informed her of Laposata’s involvement in the case, but Russell said she couldn’t remember.
“I think I got a file or something,” she answered.
Russell also acknowledged she did not observe O’Keefe’s right arm personally and relied instead on medical examiner Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello’s observations. She also agreed with Scordi-Bello’s description of the arm wounds as “superficial.”
Brennan pointed to Scordi-Bello’s assertion that she would have measured the depth of penetration in the arm wounds if she’d noticed any, and Russell said the medical examiner’s finding was not at odds with her own, as the wounds had “no measurable depth.”
Brennan put Russell in the hot seat toward the end of his questioning Monday afternoon, repeatedly accusing the expert of changing her opinions on O’Keefe’s arm wounds.
Advertisement:
“I don’t think that’s fair to say,” Russell retorted.
Brennan turned his attention to Russell’s December 2024 report, written months after Read’s first trial. He suggested Russell “had some help” in authoring the document.
“Not in the content of the report,” Russell replied, adamant that she’d written the report on her own and only received some notes on “organization.” Responding to a follow-up question from Brennan, she said someone “from the law office” helped her with those edits, possibly someone from Alessi’s office.
“Would you agree that after that report was written, many of your opinions changed?” Brennan pushed.
“No,” Russell replied.
In medicine, she added, “nothing’s 100%.” While Russell acknowledged her earliest testimony in the case was somewhat more generalized, she said she “personally was certain that those were dog marks” and that her conviction only strengthened as she reviewed additional research and evidence.
Cannone dismissed jurors for the day shortly before 4 p.m. Russell will resume her testimony Tuesday under cross-examination.
Speaking to reporters as she left the courthouse, Read reflected on the testimony former Canton police officer Kelly Dever gave Monday morning.
Now a police officer in Boston, Dever alleged Read’s lawyers threatened to accuse her of perjury if she did not testify she saw witness Brian Higgins and former Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz in the Canton Police Department garage with Read’s SUV. While Dever had previously offered that statement to law enforcement officials, she said she recanted after she was reminded she’d left the station before Read’s vehicle arrived on Jan. 29, 2022.
Advertisement:
Asked if she was suggesting Dever may have been coaxed into changing her testimony, Read replied, “I didn’t suggest it; she did. She was called into the [Boston police] commissioner’s office, and her story completely changed; she recanted.”
Read said the defense subpoenaed Dever “to testify to what she told other authorities and just wanted her to be as honest with us as she was with them.”
“And today she’s now telling us that was a lie,” Read continued. “So we just wanted her to repeat what she told other law enforcement agencies under penalty of perjury.”
1 p.m. update: Defense dog bite expert says John O’Keefe’s arm wounds were from a dog attack
John O’Keefe’s arm injuries “were inflicted as the result of a dog attack,” defense dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russell opined Monday.
A star witness for Karen Read’s defense during Read’s first trial last summer, the retired emergency room physician and forensic pathologist discussed the practice of wound pattern recognition and walked jurors through her decades of experience upon taking the stand.
She pointed to multiple “groupings” of wounds on O’Keefe’s right arm that she believes were “inflicted by the teeth and claws of a dog,” contrary to prosecutors’ claim that O’Keefe was injured in a purported collision with Read’s SUV. Read’s lawyers have floated an alternate theory that O’Keefe was beaten by guests and attacked by the homeowner’s pet dog after entering 34 Fairview Road after midnight on Jan. 29, 2022.
Advertisement:
During Read’s first trial, jurors heard testimony that the University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Forensic Unit found no signs of canine DNA on swabs taken from the shirt O’Keefe was wearing when he was injured. However, special prosecutor Hank Brennan did not raise the issue during his case in chief this time around.
Russell testified that she first learned of Read’s case through reporting by The Boston Globe and was intrigued after hearing there was a dispute over whether O’Keefe’s injuries were from a dog attack or vehicle collision. A former police officer in Malden, Massachusetts, Russell explained she’s long had an interest in injuries sustained during police interactions and has even published articles on law enforcement dog bites.
Defense attorney Robert Alessi differentiated between law enforcement K-9s and pet dogs, and Russell agreed the injury patterns from the two types of animals “are a little different.” Bites from civilian dogs are generally more minor, she said.
“The wounds I saw [from law enforcement K-9s] were extensive wounds where there was extensive ripping, tearing, crushing of tissue,” Russell testified. “And many times, even injuries to the muscles and the blood vessels underneath.”
She confirmed she’s testified as an expert in state and federal courts on a number of topics related to emergency medicine and forensic pathology, though she had not testified as an expert on dog-inflicted injuries prior to Read’s case, as “it’s not a topic that comes up very often.”
Advertisement:
According to Russell, “there are certain patterns that one expects to see when an individual is struck by a car,” as is alleged in O’Keefe’s death. She testified bruises and fractures to the lower extremities “are commonplace for someone who is struck by a car” and estimated she’s examined “probably hundreds” of lower extremity injuries in connection with motor vehicle collisions.
Later in her testimony, Russell stood from her seat to mime the act of sustaining injuries to the “posterior,” or back part of the forearm, as O’Keefe had.
“Oftentimes, when someone is being attacked, they will put their arm up to defend or protect their face, their neck, their chest — you know, their vital organs, the vital parts of their body,” she explained. “So they put their arms up, and in doing so, the posterior part of the arm becomes presented to whoever is attacking them, or whatever is attacking them. So this is the part of the arm that oftentimes gets injured when someone is defending themselves.”
Responding to a subsequent question from Alessi, she said possible injuries from a dog attack range from puncture wounds to scratches, abrasions, and bruises from crushing injuries. At Alessi’s prompting, she confirmed people with dog-inflicted injuries tend to seek care at emergency departments, not veterinary offices.
Russell explained she formed her opinion of O’Keefe’s arm injuries through pattern recognition and differential diagnosis, running through possible scenarios in her head to rule them out. She testified she looked at pictures of O’Keefe’s body and clothing — particularly his sweatshirt — as well as medical records, an autopsy report, and other documents from the Massachusetts State Police investigation.
Advertisement:
Noting the wounds on O’Keefe’s arm are “oriented in the same way,” she suggested the injuries indicated a “pulling away” motion. Russell also pointed to “punctate” marks and possible bruising that she said could represent a dog’s lower teeth.
Judge Beverly Cannone called a lunch recess shortly before 1 p.m. Russell will resume her testimony on direct examination following the break.
11 a.m. update: Ex-Canton police officer alleges Karen Read’s lawyers threatened her with perjury
In one of the most electric moments of Karen Read’s retrial, a former Canton police officer alleged Read’s lawyers threatened her with a perjury charge if she did not testify she saw witness Brian Higgins and former Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz in the station’s garage with Read’s SUV. Read more.
9:45 a.m. update: Michael Proctor’s childhood friend verifies Proctor’s vulgar texts about Karen Read
A childhood friend of former Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor squirmed uncomfortably in his seat Monday when asked to recite Proctor’s crass texts about Karen Read.
At defense attorney David Yannetti’s prompting, Jonathan Diamandis confirmed he was included on a text chain with the ex-trooper, verifying the text messages sent in the thread.
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan confirmed Diamandis to this day remains close friends with Proctor, who was fired by State Police earlier this year in light of his conduct during the investigation into the death of Read’s boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.
Brennan asked Diamandis whether there were “inappropriate” comments from Proctor on the text chain.
Advertisement:
“There are,” Diamandis replied, confirming those comments were about Read’s case. He also testified he did not respond to those particular messages.
“Did you at any time ever defend or endorse these comments?” Brennan asked later in his questioning.
“I did not,” Diamandis answered.
“Did you ever encourage him in his comments?” Brennan pressed.
“I did not,” Diamandis said.
At Brennan’s request, he began reading texts from the chain with Proctor, starting with a discussion of O’Keefe, who had taken custody of his sister’s children after their parents died just months apart. One recipient on the chain suggested the owner of the home where O’Keefe was found unresponsive in the snow would “receive some s***.”
“Nope,” Proctor replied. “Homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”
In other texts, Proctor alleged Read “waffled” O’Keefe, who was “banged up.” He also suggested Read and O’Keefe had argued outside 34 Fairview Road, and that “she hit him with her car.”
“There will be some serious charges brought on the girl,” Proctor purportedly wrote.
“She hot, at least?” one of his friends asked. Diamandis expressed his discomfort when Brennan asked him to read Proctor’s response.
“These are not my words. I’m not really comfortable reading these,” he explained. “Do I have to say these words out loud?”
Advertisement:
Following a brief sidebar with Judge Beverly Cannone, Brennan offered to read the texts aloud and have Diamandis confirm their accuracy instead. A majority of jurors scribbled in their notebooks intently as Brennan read through the messages.
“She’s a whack job [c***],” Proctor wrote about Read, according to Brennan. “Yeah, she’s a babe. Weird Fall River accent, though. No ass.”
In other messages, Proctor suggested there was “zero chance she’s skating. She’s f***ed.” In another, he called Read a “nutbag,” adding, “She’s got a leaky balloon knot. Leaks poo.”
Brennan asked Diamandis if, in his conversations with Proctor, the ex-trooper ever suggested he planted evidence in this case or others, ever suggested framing a defendant, including Read, or suggested tampering with evidence. Diamandis answered “no” to each question.
As Yannetti returned for additional questioning, Diamandis testified he was not aware whether Proctor had been fired for being biased, for revealing confidential information about an investigation, or for conduct unbecoming a state trooper.
“My understanding was it was due to the text messages,” Diamandis said, responding to a later question from Brennan. “I don’t know the other details in this situation.”
9:10 a.m. update: Judge allows Michael Proctor’s texts in through childhood friend
Karen Read’s lawyers will be permitted to introduce former Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor’s vulgar texts without calling him as a witness, Judge Beverly Cannone ruled Monday.
Advertisement:
Proctor, who led the investigation into the death of Read’s boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, rose to infamy over his handling of the case and his vulgar texts about Read. The defense had asked to introduce the texts through one of their recipients, Proctor’s childhood friend Jonathan Diamandis. Prosecutors objected, pushing for Read’s lawyers to call Proctor to the stand.
“I do find that they’re properly authenticated, and I find that they come in, as they go to the state of mind of Trooper Proctor, specifically as that goes to potentially reflecting any bias or omissions in the police investigation,” Cannone said Monday morning.
She ordered some limited redactions and said she will give jurors an instruction when the texts come into evidence.
With that, Cannone called the jury into the courtroom.
Livestream via NBC10 Boston.
Karen Read’s murder retrial enters its seventh week of testimony Monday as the defense continues to make its case for Read’s innocence.
Jurors Friday heard from the first defense witness, vehicle data expert Matthew DiSogra from DELTA |v|. Throughout nearly a full day of testimony, DiSogra offered an alternate view on the data pulled from Read’s Lexus SUV following the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.
More on Karen Read:
Prosecutors allege Read, 45, backed her SUV into O’Keefe in a drunken rage while dropping him off at an afterparty in Canton on Jan. 29, 2022. Yet Read’s lawyers are seeking to pin the blame on someone else, floating an alternate theory that O’Keefe was beaten by fellow afterparty guests and attacked by the homeowner’s dog after entering 34 Fairview Road. They contend Read was framed in a law enforcement conspiracy to protect the family and friends of the homeowner Brian Albert, a fellow Boston police officer.
Advertisement:
Defense dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russell entered the courthouse with Read’s lawyers Monday morning, though it was not immediately clear when she’s expected to testify. Russell has testified that wounds on O’Keefe’s arm were “inflicted by a dog attack,” rather than a collision with Read’s SUV.
However, prosecution accident reconstructionist and biomechanic engineer Judson Welcher testified last week that damage to Read’s SUV was consistent with a collision with O’Keefe around 12:32 a.m. on Jan. 29, just as prosecutors allege. Welcher also told jurors O’Keefe’s injuries were consistent with being struck by a Lexus identical to Read’s SUV “and ultimately contacting a hard surface, such as frozen ground.”
According to Welcher, the “Techstream” data from Read’s SUV indicates she accelerated in reverse around the same time she’s alleged to have struck O’Keefe. At bat for the defense, DiSogra testified that neither of the two “Techstream” events Read’s SUV recorded after midnight on the 29th were triggered by a collision. That’s consistent with Welcher’s testimony that the “Techstream” system is triggered by factors such as excessive acceleration, steering, or braking, and not necessarily collisions.
“Are you offering that Ms. Read’s Lexus never got into a collision before Jan. 29, 2022, or on that day?” special prosecutor Hank Brennan asked as he cross-examined DiSogra.
Advertisement:
“No,” DiSogra confirmed.
“You are not suggesting to this jury that Ms. Read’s Lexus did not ever get into a collision?” Brennan pressed in a subsequent question.
“No,” DiSogra answered.
The brunt of DiSogra’s testimony focused on the clock variance between Read’s SUV and O’Keefe’s cellphone, specifically looking at whether the last activity on O’Keefe’s phone matches up with the backing trigger Read’s SUV recorded after midnight on the 29th.
After he finished his testimony, Judge Beverly Cannone sent jurors home for the weekend and heard arguments over whether the defense should be allowed to introduce former Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor’s crass texts without calling him as a witness. The lead investigator into O’Keefe’s death, Proctor sent vulgar messages about Read to family, friends, and coworkers, casting a pall over the case and ultimately contributing to his firing.
Read’s lawyers are seeking to enter the messages through some of their recipients, including Proctor’s childhood friend Jonathan Diamandis. Brennan argued defense attorneys should call Proctor to the stand if they want to probe his texts.
“If there is an investigator in a case that makes derogatory remarks about an accused, I can’t say that doesn’t go to bias, nor do I reject the idea that it shows an unfairness or a motivation,” Brennan acknowledged. “But really, you need to put that in context.”
Advertisement:
He added: “To explore the state of mind and put it in context, you need to ask the person that you’re accusing of having the bias.”
But defense attorney David Yannetti suggested prosecutors only wanted to see the defense “call a witness that they do not have confidence in to call themselves.”
“We should not be forced to call Michael Proctor so that Mr. Brennan can then cross-examine him and lead him through basically his entire closing argument,” Yannetti stated. Cannone did not immediately issue a ruling on the defense request Friday.
The ongoing trial is Read’s second; her first trial ended in a mistrial last summer after jurors returned deadlocked.
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com