DAY 18: Karen Read Retrial
Lexus data shows that Karen's vehicle reversed just seconds before John O'Keefe's phone registered his final steps.
Happy (and achey) Monday!
Heads up…
I’m on my 5th day of what I’m pretty sure is Covid, so forgive me for hitting the highlights in an even more simplistic way today (which I know many of you prefer anyways!).
ON THE STAND TODAY:
Nicholas Bradford (DNA Analyst for Bode Technology)
Karl Miyasako (Senior DNA Analyst for Bode Technology)
Shanon Burgess (Digital Forensic Expert for Aperture)
Nicholas Bradford (DNA Analyst for Bode Technology)
Bradford compared John O’Keefe’s DNA with the sample taken from Karen Read’s passenger taillight.
The findings show that the DNA was 740 nonillion times more likely to belong to John O’Keefe and two unknown individuals than three unknown and unrelated individuals.
Investigator Yuri Bukhenik and Investigator Michael Proctor’s DNA were also compared with the sample swabbed from the defendant’s passenger taillight. The analyst asserts that the findings show a strong support that neither of the investigators DNA matched the taillight.
Defense tries to insert that the findings concluding that it was 76,000 times more likely the DNA came from three unknown individuals than Proctor and two unknown unrelated individuals is still way less than a calculation in nonillions like how John’s DNA was ruled in. The analyst stands firm that these are still very strong numbers regarding the exclusion of Proctor.
Karl Miyasako (Senior DNA Analyst for Bode Technology
Miyasako tested the single hair found on the right side-paneling by the taillight and compared it to the victim’s mitochondrial DNA (passed down form maternal side).
He said that John could not be excluded from the match, but that a majority of the population can be excluded. It is extremely high odds that the hair is John O’Keefe’s.
Defense asks if it’s a maternal match then the hair could also be anyone with the victim’s maternal relations, like a mother, a niece, a nephew. Miyasako agrees yes.
Shanon Burgess (Digital Forensic Expert for Aperture)
Prior to Karen Read’s first trial, the black box data was pulled from the SUV and analyzed. The info provided things like key cycles, triggers, reverse speed, etc.
After the first trial (and before this retrial began), Burgess was hired to analyze the raw data taken from the SUV’s chips on the telematics & infotainment modules.
Burgess discovered that the data pulled was not complete the first time around. He surmised this was due to an unintentional partial download or simply an overlooked chip. They were successful in pulling more data the second time around.
Burgess said that the data shows when Karen’s SUV was turned on and off, and he was able to match up Ring video footage to the vehicle data to show accuracy.
On 1/29/22 Karen’s SUV was:
Powered on at 12:12 AM (Leaving the Waterfall Bar)
Powered off at 12:42 AM (At John’s house)
Powered on at 5:07 AM (Leaving John’s house)
Powered off at 5:46 AM (Either at Jen’s house or back at John’s. I’m unclear.)
Powered on at 12:35 PM (John’s house heading to Dighton)
Powered off at 2:12 PM (Arrived in Dighton. Karen’s parents’ house)
Powered on at 4:11 PM (Pulled onto tow truck)
Powered off at 4:13 PM (Parked onto tow truck)
Powered on at 5:34 PM (Pulled off of tow truck at the CPD garage)
Powered on at 5:36 PM (Turned off in Sally Port garage)
Burgess describes how the Lexus clock and an iPhone clock can have a variance of up to 60 seconds. The car’s clock is accurate to the minute, but it’s not exact to the second like the time on an iPhone.
He said this can be solved by comparing different data information with one another to find the time variation. His findings were a 21 to 29 second difference between the SUV and iPhone clock.
The SUV’s backing maneuver ended at 12:31:43 AM.
Adding the time variance to this timestamp shows the reverse maneuver ended between 12:32:04 AM and 12:32:12 AM. Burgess explains that the window of time showing when the event ended doesn’t necessarily entail the entire reverse event.
As we know —
John’s last steps registered on his iPhone at 12:32:16
So Karen’s vehicle data shows she reversed just seconds before John takes his final steps.
THIS is damning for the defense.
ON CROSS:
The defense questions the expert regarding his Linkedin profile account and his profile on the company website.
Burgess has a CV report provided to the prosecution that shows his certifications and work history. It also shows that he is still working on a BA degree.
The defense points out that despite this his Linkedin profile says he completed his degree in 2018. Burgess says that was his intended graduation date originally. The goal date has moved over time, and he still has that degree on the back burner.
(I went on Linkedin and looked to see how it was set up when entering your graduation end date and/or your expected date and they are the same box. This is likely what he did, and has never updated his Linkedin after that.)
His expected date of graduation changed after that to 2022, and then again has changed to a future date.
(The company, Aperture’s website appears to have pulled Linkedin information for all their employees for the site via some sort of digital tool used by HR companies. I assume we will hear about this on redirect tomorrow. Thank you to my smart friend Lydia for explaining this concept to me.)
This degree discrepancy is not a great moment for the prosecution’s witness, however it does seem like quite the theatrical distraction from the huge evidence Burgess just told the court regarding Karen’s reverse time.
Defense attorney questions Burgess on a report he filed and then amended right after. Burgess says he misread a symbol as megabits instead of megabytes, but then corrected his error.
Defense questions him on his supplemental report added (May 8th) after the trial had already began. Burgess agrees that it’s not typical to add a supplemental report so late in the game, however it wasn’t a change in his analysis. It was acknowledging the clock variance issue that the defense’s own expert misreported.
Court ended in the middle of cross-examination and will resume tomorrow.