Well, hello there!
It’s a busy week, so I decided to drop this briefing a tad early to get ya all up-to-date.
Here’s what’s happening this week in the Karen Read case…
Wednesday (1/29/25) is the three year mark of John O’Keefe’s passing. And although Karen Read told Vanity Fair that she no longer ‘grieves’ for him, many people who never even knew John have naturally picked up the sorrow Karen swiftly abandoned, and have chosen to carry it with the family in spirit.
His life mattered.
Friday (1/31/25) - A hearing is scheduled regarding The Commonwealth’s motion to exclude defense witness Richard Green’s “debunked opinions”.
I briefly summarize this motion in a previous post HERE if you want to refresh.
Alan Jackson told the court that they needed a couple of weeks to respond to the CW’s motion, however, as I write this, we’ve passed the “couple of weeks” mark and their response has still not been filed. This leads to questions regarding whether the defense can or even will fight back on this argument of the 2:27 am google search debate.
If the defense chooses to keep Richard Green as an expert witness, the judge may rule for a Daubert Hearing.
I am unclear if this upcoming hearing on Friday will include the topic of the CW’s motion to exclude the ARCCA (Accident Reconstruction) experts due to not meeting Rule 14 obligations for discovery (evidence). The defense has still not filed a response to this motion as of today.
Ok, moving on to the most interesting part of the week —
The defense team’s newest filing.
(It’s a doozy guys, so find a seat and prepare for lots of hyperbole.)
The defense filed a motion to:
Recover Expert-Related Expenses from the Commonwealth.
(This filing also includes: Certificate of Service, and an Affidavit of Defense Expert Matthew Erickson in Support of Motion to Recover Expert-Related Expenses from the Commonwealth)
This filling is multi-layered, and somewhat scattered in my opinion, but here are the highlighted points —
Karen Read is asking for the CW to reimburse her for the cost of having her digital tech expert fly out from AZ to MA to analyze the security camera DVR video footage from 1/29/22 at the police station. The expert’s trip was fruitless, and the defense claims they were misled that there would be original footage to access, so they are seeking the CW to pay for the trip expenses (including the expert’s airport snacks🥨🍿).
The filing also states that…
“…all original DVR footage [via Canton Police Security Cameras] from the relevant date had been destroyed at best, due to improper preservation by the Commonwealth.”
The formal copy of the security footage in question was already in discovery via a digital link for last trial, so the CPD were not concerned with saving the original on the system anymore. The surveillance system overwrites footage all the time due to storage space in order for new footage to be recorded.
Referring to it as ‘destroyed’ is the same dramatic word choice that we’ve seen the defense use several times before.
Like here…
The defense is arguing that despite the security footage already being in evidence, it was the Commonwealth’s responsibility to have the police department save the original footage on their system just in case the defense wanted to do a forensic extraction from it.
They assert that this could have potential exculpatory footage on it because despite the motion-activated sensors that pick up recording, the defense claims there is missing footage.
What would that alleged missing footage be of?
Defense states:
“The sallyport front wall footage provided by the Commonwealth omitted a 42-minute interval during which the SUV arrived at the CPD Sallyport Garage. (Trial transcript, vol 28 at 31:9-31:22). This missing footage could have been used to show the condition of the SUV’s right taillight upon arrival at the sallyport, and to date, would be the only footage that serves this purpose.”
They continue this statement with…
“The condition of the right rear taillight of the Lexus SUV at the time it entered law enforcement custody is perhaps one of the most critical and highly contested issues.”
I had to side-eye this claim because we already know there are 2 earlier images of her taillight.
There is footage of her back taillight (with a visible hole when her break lights turn off) at 5am that morning. This was before LE were ever involved.
And then there’s the police cam footage of when the officer pulled up behind Karen’s SUV at 8:35 am that morning. Her SUV had been outside in the snow for several hours at this point during the blizzard, but you can still clearly see the back right taillight is not the same as the left one.
And there’s also witness testimony where the Dighton officer testified that when he saw the vehicle that afternoon, it was heavy snow conditions. Despite snow being caked on the vehicle, he noticed that there was a piece of her wrap-around taillight missing.
It appears that the defense is refusing to acknowledge these digital pieces of evidence of her broken taillight and witness testimony, so they can argue that the CW “destroyed” the “only footage” that “serves the purpose” of showing the condition of Karen’s rear taillight.
I’m not buying this claim, but we shall see where all this goes.
The defense is also asserting that the CW held back evidence because video footage handed over from the police department has trickled in past the timeframe of when the system is set to overwrite footage.
This claim also makes little sense to me because if the CW is hiding things, then why would they hand them over later unsolicited?
A clip of Officer Brian Higgins was recently handed over to the CW from the CPD. The footage has nothing to do with Karen’s vehicle. It’s from a different outside camera, and it shows him arriving and leaving the station in a 9 minute window during the night in question.
The timeframe confirms Higgins testimony, however the defense added in their motion that he is on the phone with an “unidentified person”. Clearly alluding that this is nefarious.
The defense has his call records, so I am unsure why they say “unidentified”, but I think we will hear future clarification on this down the road. I will not be surprised if this is another defense red herring they are throwing into the pot to stir more conspiracy theories up, but we shall see.
Lastly,
The defense team is claiming that a motion for Egregious Government Misconduct is “forthcoming”. They boasted about this same motion last pretrial, yet never followed through after reading the entire Federal Report.
We will see if they file it this time around.
The notice of their intent to file this motion is asserted to be “based on the destruction of this [police department security footage], and other, exculpatory evidence”.
That was a long post for the day. If you made it to the end of this briefing, you deserve the rest of the week off. Tell your boss I gave you permission.😄