DAY 16: Karen Read Retrial

Medical Examiner explains her autopsy findings, and we got a tiny glimpse into some of the vehicle techstream data that the Commonwealth has on deck.

Today was a bit tedious and boring…

Until it wasn’t.😳

Make sure you stay until the end of the summary to hear what the attorneys argued about in court today after the jury went home.

ON THE STAND TODAY:

1. Maureen Hartnett (Forensic Scientist)

2. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello (Medical Examiner)

---

MAUREEN HARTNETT (Forensic Scientist)

This is Maureen Hartnett’s second — and final — day on the stand. The morning begins with her on cross-examination by Defense Attorney Alessi.

• Defense asks Maureen if she saw any sand, salt, or other debris inside the taillight housing when she examined it. Maureen says no. She is aware though that the housing had snow in it at some point, due to evidence photos.

• The inside portion of the housing was not tested for biological material. Maureen defines biological material as blood, semen, saliva, and/or skin cell collection.

• The forensic scientist cannot confirm chain of custody or how the evidence was stored before they were in her care, however this is not her role. Her role is to analyze what is provided to her. She was not at the crime scene when they were collected.

• Maureen examined the SUV externally except for the roof of the vehicle. She did not examine the interior of the vehicle either.

• The victim’s shirt and sweatshirt were stored in an evidence bag together. Maureen used a “scraping mechanism” to remove any debris that was remaining on both the sweatshirt and the t-shirt. She held them up over her lab bench and took a long metal spatula, scraping any debris that was on both the items into a small glassing packet together.

• Determining, noting, and photographing the type of debris scraped out of the clothing was not her specific analysis role. Her role was to collect it.

• John’s fingernails were clipped during the autopsy for evidence, and a blood sample was saved for referencing purposes.

• Maureen has never seen evidence collected in red Solo cups before, however she also says that she is unaware of the unique circumstances and challenges (active blizzard) of this crime scene.

• The hair located on the back right side-paneling of the bumper is placed into a small glassing envelope, then placed into a larger manila envelope. Signed and sealed.

• Prosecution points out that the damage and evidence located on the vehicle are all on the right back side area of the vehicle. Maureen confirms yes.

---

Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello (Medical Examiner)

• Dr. Scordi-Bello performed John O’Keefe’s autopsy on 1/31/22.

• Explains the difference between “manner” and “cause” of death.

  • Cause of death refers to the disease or the injury that initiates a sequence of events that ultimately leads to someone's death.

  • Manner of death refers to the circumstances that led to the death. (Natural, suicide, homicide, etc). The ME could not determine the circumstances so it was marked as undetermined.

• Terminology explained:

  • Abrasions are scrapes.

  • Lacerations are tears in the skin.

  • Superficial means that the abrasion is on the superficial layers of the skin, usually the epidermis and sometimes the dermis. No penetration of the skin.

• The ME describes John’s injuries:

  • Swelling and (discoloration) bleeding under the eyelids in both eyes.

  • Small laceration on upper right eye lid.

  • 2 abrasions (scratches) on his nose.

  • Anterior rib fractures (common from resuscitation efforts).

  • Superficial abrasions on the right arm.

    

  • 2 bruises on the back of right hand with two small little pinpoint defects in the middle. (common with attempts to put an IV in by medical staff).

    

  • Small abrasion on right knee.

    

  • Laceration on the back of John’s head/skull (right-mid line, right occipital area). The laceration measured 2.5 centimeters (close to an inch). Multiple fractures on the skull that appeared to be originating from the area of the laceration or what would correspond to the area of the laceration.

  • Signs of hypothermia in the the organs which contributed to John’s death.

• ME confirms a fall backward onto a hard surface is consistent with his back head wound.

• ME confirms the medical report that when John was found in the snow, his body temperature was 18 degrees below average body temp.

• Defense Attorney Alessi spends lots of time discussing the ME’s opinion that John had signs of hypothermia that contributed to his death.

• Defense asserts that the hemorrhaging in John’s stomach and pancreas could have been caused during the use of a LUCAS machine (used in resuscitation efforts), but the ME doesn’t seem to agree. She said the hemorrhaging of John’s inner lining of his stomach and limited hemorrhaging in his pancreas does not align with his suggestion.

• ME says that John did not show any signs of frostbite by the time she performed his autopsy on 1/31/22, however this does not change her opinion of him having hypothermia as a contributing factor of his death.

• The ME examined O’Keefe’s lower extremities but found no evidence of an impact site, however she does agree that it’s possible that a vehicle clipping a pedestrian in reverse may not impact lower extremities.

  ---

  AFTER JURY LEFT FOR THE DAY, we learned some huge, new inculpatory evidence that the defense wants excluded from trial…

  

  The arguments were a tad confusing without full context, but this is what I was able to gather…

⭐️John’s phone registers his final steps at 12:32:16

⭐️The CW expert Burgess’ initial report indicates that the vehicle tech-stream data shows the trigger event (time of alleged impact) at 12:31:38

An almost 40-second time between impact and John’s last steps, which is very damning in and of itself…

HOWEVER —

After the CW’s expert read a report by the defense’s own hired expert, Matthew DiSogra, he discovered that the Lexus clock has a variance in seconds behind Apple’s clock, which means…

That the time of John’s last steps AND the time the vehicle’s tech-stream shows a trigger event (time of impact) both line up at the same time.

12:32:16 am.

This is VERY bad for the defense.

The defense argued that this is a Rule 14 violation to add this opinion in mid-trial, and the CW said they are entitled to have their expert review material, and provided the unexpected info as soon as it came to them. The defense was informed of all this on May 8th (8 days ago), and only raised a concern now.

The judge will try and reach an opinion tomorrow.