Karen Read departed the Norfolk Superior Courthouse alongside her defense team following Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess’ fiery afternoon of cross-examination.
“My reaction is that attorney [Hank] Brennan represented to this court and to us just last week that he was surprised to get a report on May 8 that was only shared with us on May 11,” Read said on the steps of the courthouse. “And now we find out from this witness that attorney Brennan knew this report was coming the whole time. That’s the definition of an ambush, that’s what happened.”
Read went on to refer to the revelation regarding Burgess’ resume “errors” surrounding his education credentials as "fraudulent," while vowing to fight the prosecution’s findings regarding timeline data within her vehicle and John O’Keefe’s iPhone.
“You’ll hear more about the data,” Read said. “Our case hasn’t started.”
Immediately following an afternoon of Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess’ tense cross-examination, Karen Read’s father, William Read, greeted reporters on the steps of Norfolk Superior Courthouse with a defiant message to the prosecution.
“What this state is doing is persecution of Karen Read” William said. “This collection of actors, witnesses is just disgraceful.”
Following defense attorney Robert Alessi’s fiery cross-examination of Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess, Judge Beverly Cannone dismissed the jurors in Karen Read’s trial for the day.
Burgess is set to return to the witness stand Tuesday for additional testimony.
{{#rendered}}Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess was grilled by defense attorney Robert Alessi on the timeline of Burgess’ findings regarding data from Karen Read’s SUV and John O’Keefe’s iPhone.
Alessi pointed out that Burgess prepared his initial report on Jan. 30, 2025, but completed a second report on May 8, 2025 - two weeks after Read’s second trial began.
“I’m going to read the first line of your May 8, 2025 report,” Alessi said. “It starts, ‘Dear Mr. [Hank] Brennan, pursuant to your request I have completed an additional analysis concerning the above referenced matter to formulate opinions, the following additional items were reviewed.’”
In a fiery exchange, Alessi confronted Burgess on changes made to his data report after testimony Read’s second trial was underway.
“In your Jan. 30, 2025 report, you did not mention techstream events at all, did you?” Alessi asked.
“No,” Burgess said. “I did not.”
“And you didn’t mention collision at all,” Alessi said. “Correct?”
“No,” Burgess said. “I did not.”
“And you mentioned both of those in your May 8, 2025 report,” Alessi said. “Correct?”
Burgess testified he remembers adding the techstream events in the most recent report and communicated with Brennan and Massachusetts State Police Lt. Brian Tully after Read’s second trial had begun.
Following a lunch break, defense attorney Robert Alessi began cross-examining Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess.
Alessi grilled Burgess on the possibility of scientific bias as it relates to Burgess’ investigation into data recorded on Karen Read’s SUV and John O’Keefe’s iPhone.
“So biases are to be avoided in the application of scientific matters and methods,” Alessi said. “Because they can lead to inconclusions in science, right?”
“Right,” Burgess answered.
“And even though they’re to be avoided, you called this case a homicide,” Alessi said. “Even before you began your alleged scientific testing, isn’t that true?”
Burgess testified he did not recall using the word “homicide,” prompting Alessi to provide a copy of Burgess’ report.
“On page four, footnote three, it states, ‘Evidence review by the defense counsel, [regarding] O’Keefe, MV homicide,’” Alessi said. “Did I read that correctly?”
“Yes,” Burgess said. “You did.”
Alessi then grilled Burgess on an inconsistency regarding his college education found on his resume and LinkedIn page. Burgess’ admitted to multiple “errors” on his resume indicating he possesses a bachelor’s degree, conceding to Alessi that his highest level of education is an associate’s degree.
"If an expert witness can’t even be truthful about their own background why should anyone believe what they say,” Grace Edwards, a Massachusetts defense lawyer, told Fox News Digital. “Credibility is the most important factor to support their professional opinion. What a contrast to when Attorney [Adam] Lally goes through his experts education and experience. I can’t believe [Burgess] was even qualified as an expert when we have seen the defense experts put through the wringer."
Ronnie Estanislao, a former juror in Karen Read’s first trial, revealed the jury’s disagreements surrounding the possibility that forensic evidence could have been tampered with during deliberations in an interview with Fox Nation.
“In terms of forensics we looked at it and that's where we were stopped,” Estanislao told retired NYPD inspector Paul Mauro.
Estanislao explained that the jurors disagreed on whether the chance of the conspiracy surrounding physical evidence being tampered with created reasonable doubt.
“Then other individuals believe that no, it's very clear and almost fantastical that this would be a possibility and therefore she's guilty. So you can see how that's why we were so divided during our deliberation.
{{#rendered}}Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess testified that the clock inside Karen Read’s Lexus SUV and John O’Keefe’s iPhone clock are expected to not be perfectly synced.
“Its function is to be accurate to the minute,” Burgess said. “Its function is not to be accurate to the second.”
Burgess referred to data showing Read’s vehicle making a three-point turn at 12:23 a.m. on the morning of Jan. 29, 2022, acknowledging a variant between the times recorded on O’Keefe’s iPhone and Read’s SUV.
“So after studying the timestamp and these further GPS positions, we’re able to identify the exact time that the three-point turn occurred according to Mr. O’Keefe’s iPhone data,” Burgess said. “Now we can compare that to the three point turn from the text frame data and that running clock. Again, what we're doing is taking the power-on event at 12:12:36 a.m. and adding the time-count from the text frame data to come up with the time of 12:23:38 a.m. in the techstream data. So the techstream data indicates a three-point turn ended at approximately 12:23:38 a.m. The iPhone indicates that a three-point turn occurred between 12:23:59 a.m. and 12:24:07 a.m. So since we've got that shared event between the two devices, we can reconcile any type of clock variance. So by adjusting the Lexis clock to the iPhone clock, we can calculate that clock variance.”
Burgess testified that, by using an industry-standard method to synchronize the clock times, the two devices had a 21 to 29 second variance.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan looked to tighten up the state’s timeline, confirming with Burgess that O’Keefe’s last interaction with his iPhone occurred at 12:32:09 a.m., with Read shifting her car out of reverse between 12:32:04 a.m. and 12:32:12 a.m.
Following the conclusion of Burgess’ direct examination, the courtroom broke for lunch.
Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess testified during direct examination with special prosecutor Hank Brennan that while investigating Karen Read’s SUV, he found that powering the vehicle on and off provides a timestamp that can be used to contextualize additional data found within the “black box.”
“Ultimately, were you able to use that power-on, power-off timestamp information to identify the times of the later two events, the three-point turn and the back maneuver?” Brennan asked.
“Yes,” Burgess said. “In combination with other data, we were able to determine that.”
Brennan went on to present data charts showing the time Read’s SUV was powered on, from 12:12 a.m. to 12:46 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022, with Burgess confirming that the vehicle’s clock was consistent with the data.
Burgess then pointed to John O’Keefe’s home security footage showing Read leaving O'Keefe's home to search for him at 5:07 a.m., noting the vehicle’s data gives the same timestamp and further aligns with the second "power-on event" recorded on Read's car.
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan called Aperture digital forensics expert Shanon Burgess to the stand as the state’s next witness. Burgess specializes in digital evidence found in mobile phones and vehicles.
Burgess testified he investigated digital data within Karen Read’s vehicle surrounding a “three-point turn event” and a “backing maneuver,” noting data had been previously overlooked due to investigators not extracting a micro SD card from the console.
Burgess also pointed out damage to the module in Read’s car from overheating during a “chip-off” process - or when the chips are removed from the board.
{{#rendered}}DNA analyst Karl Miyasako testified on direct examination conducted by prosecutor Adam Lally that Bode Technology tested a hair sample and a known DNA standard from John O’Keefe.
Miyasako testified that he could not exclude O’Keefe from the hair sample found on the taillight of Karen Read’s car.
“Whenever we have a conclusion of a probable includes, like in this case where I cannot exclude John O’Keefe as being a source of the hair sample, we do a statistical analysis to give way to that probable inclusion,” Miyasako said.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson then pushed back on cross-examination, asking Miyasako about the possibility that the hair could belong to a member of O’Keefe’s maternal family.
“You cannot say the hair belonged to John O’Keefe specifically, can you?” Jackson asked.
“No,” Miyasako replied. “With mitochondrial DNA, you can't say that it’s per se an individual person, it’s more so the maternal line.”
DNA analyst Nicholas Bradford testified on direct examination by prosecutor Adam Lally that he was unable to come to a conclusion regarding the origin of the hair sample turned over to the lab by the Massachusetts State Police.
Following a short line of questioning, defense attorney Alan Jackson asked Bradford to clarify on the statistical findings ruling out former investigator Michael Proctor’s DNA from the samples found at the crime scene.
“What I’m suggesting is what the numbers state,” Bradford said. “So that it’s 76,000 times more likely that [there] were three unknown, unrelated individuals versus Michael Proctor and two unknown, unrelated individuals.”
Before concluding the defense team’s cross-examination, Jackson confirmed with Bradford that his lab was never asked to compare the DNA from the crime scene with samples from Brian Higgins, Brian Albert, Kevin Albert and former Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz.
The prosecution then called DNA analyst Karl Miyasako to the witness stand following Bradford’s testimony.
Following Court being called into session Monday morning, prosecutor Adam Lally called DNA analyst Nicholas Bradford to the witness stand. Bradford specializes in unique DNA cases as an analyst at Bode Technology in Virginia.
Bradford was tasked with testing a DNA extract from Karen Read’s taillight, a hair and reference samples from the crime scene submitted by the Massachusetts State Police, along with buccal swabs from former investigator Michael Proctor and Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik.
On direct examination, Bradford testified John O'Keefe's DNA could not be ruled out as a contributor to the mixture of DNA found on Read's taillight.
{{#rendered}}Karen Read arrived at the Norfolk Superior Courthouse alongside her defense team as the fifth week of her murder trial is set to begin Monday.
Read is facing the possibility of life in prison for the alleged murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Testimony is scheduled to resume with the Commonwealth continuing to call witnesses to the stand.
A Massachusetts judge has agreed to bar references to an unrelated, botched murder investigation in Karen Read’s second trial on murder and other charges in the 2022 death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe.
Police in Canton, a suburb about 20 miles south of Boston, inaccurately determined the Feb. 4, 2021 death of Sandra Birchmore, 24, was a suicide before federal investigators said she had been strangled and charged a Stoughton officer with her murder.
The FBI arrested former Stoughton Police Officer Matthew Farwell , 38, in August in Birchmore's murder.
He is accused of grooming her since she was a teenager, maintaining a sexual relationship for years and then killing her when she told him she'd become pregnant and staging the murder to look like a suicide.
Canton Police were also the first to respond after O'Keefe was reported unresponsive outside another Boston Police officer's house Jan. 29, 2022, during a blizzard.
"Gov. [Maura] Healey should have ordered the revamping of police training in the state after the debacle in Karen Read 1.0," said Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and criminal justice professor at Penn State Lehigh Valley. "Everything from response to the scene by patrol officers to securing the scene to identifying evidence, the proper collection of evidence, the proper containers for that evidence and so on."
Read the full story here.
Karen Read’s trial is set to enter its fifth week as the prosecution aims to further cement its timeline surrounding the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Read is facing the possibility of life in prison for the alleged murder of O’Keefe, who was found frozen to death in the front yard of 34 Fairview Road in the early morning hours of Jan. 29, 2022.
The prosecution alleges Read struck O’Keefe with her vehicle during a drunken argument, leaving him to die in the middle of a blizzard. Read’s defense, however, insists she never hit O’Keefe in a bid to maintain her innocence.
{{#rendered}}Coverage for this event has ended.