Flurry of last-minute Read case motions
Prosecutors, defense submit various filings ahead of murder trial
In the tumultuous Karen Read saga, prosecutors and defense lawyers don’t agree on much. But they’re united on one point ahead of her murder trial — both want the judge to limit what, if anything, the jury hears about Aidan Kearney, the blogger known as Turtleboy.
Read, 44, of Mansfield, has pleaded not guilty in Norfolk Superior Court to charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of an accident causing injury and death. Jury selection begins Tuesday, with the trial expected to last several weeks.
On Jan. 29, 2022, Read allegedly backed her SUV into her boyfriend, Boston police Officer John O’Keefe, outside the Canton home of another Boston officer after a night of bar-hopping and left him for dead, according to prosecutors. Her lawyers have asserted that O’Keefe was fatally beaten inside the home before his body was planted outside.
Prosecutors said in a motion filed Wednesday that they want to preclude “any reference” to Kearney and his blog postings, demonstrations in support of Read, or his pending criminal charges, records show.
“Mr. Kearney is an extremely vocal observer of this case,” prosecutors wrote Wednesday. “He is not a witness to the facts and circumstances that led to John O’Keefe’s death and is only peripherally related due to his criminal conduct of harassing and intimidating witnesses.”
Kearney has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
In a separate motion Wednesday, Read’s attorneys said they want to bar any references “to alleged harassment and/or intimidation of witnesses” by Kearney.
“Clearly, the issue of whether Mr. Kearney allegedly intimidated or harassed witnesses ... is not an element of any of the crimes for which Ms. Read had been indicted,” her lawyers wrote.
The two motions were part of a flurry of 11th-hour filings intended to shape what information jurors will be permitted to hear at trial. A final pretrial hearing is scheduled for Friday morning.
Prosecutors allege that Read returned to the Canton scene hours after hitting O’Keefe and discovered his snow-covered body, later telling a first responder “I hit him,” prosecutors said.
Read’s lawyers have maintained she is being framed. They’ve cited several pieces of evidence they say absolve her, including phone records suggesting witnesses lied to the grand jury about their communications around the time of O’Keefe’s death, personal ties between witnesses and the lead State Police investigator, and the timing of a Google search from someone inside the Canton residence.
A federal grand jury was convened to review law enforcement’s handling of the case, a highly unusual move, and State Police have said the lead investigator is the subject of an internal review but remains on full duty.
Another motion that Read’s lawyers filed Wednesday seeks to exclude “prejudi
cial prior bad character evidence” related to a trip to Aruba that Read and O’Keefe took about a month before he died.
Another woman in the traveling party testified to the state grand jury that Read became angry at her at one point because Read mistakenly believed O’Keefe had kissed the woman, prompting Read to swear at the woman, who described Read as an “asshole,” the motion said.
That anecdote “is simply not probative of a motive to murder O’Keefe more than a month later when the parties were, by all accounts, in good spirits,” the motion stated.
Prosecutors have said voicemails recovered from O’Keefe’s phone around the time of his death suggested Read continued to harbor animosity toward him.
“The first voicemail in time consists of the defendant screaming, ‘John, I [expletive] hate you!’” prosecutors wrote in February. “The defendant continues to leave additional voice messages during this time frame where she is stating that she hates the victim, calls him a ‘pervert,’ and accuses the victim of ‘[expletive] another girl.’”
Prosecutors also filed a motion Wednesday to bar any reference at trial to the federal probe of the state investigation into O’Keefe’s death.
“Throughout the course of the federal investigation, the defense communicated with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and provided material and records that advanced the defendant’s theory of the case,” prosecutors wrote. “This unusual collaboration resulted in discovery that far exceeds the bounds permitted by the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Acting US Attorney Joshua S. Levy’s office hasn’t commented publicly on the federal probe.
“Revealing the mere existence of a federal grand jury, particularly one that has no target, no resulting criminal charges, nor any factual evidence that would considerably undermine the Commonwealth’s case, is irrelevant” and would confuse jurors, prosecutors wrote.
In February, federal prosecutors turned over thousands of pages of materials related to their investigation to the Norfolk district attorney’s office and Read’s lawyers. Read’s lawyers have said in court they show that crash reconstruction experts hired by the FBI determined O’Keefe’s injuries were “inconsistent with” being struck by a car.
Prosecutors also want to bar references to “any internal affairs investigations” pending against law enforcement witnesses, an apparent reference to Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case. Proctor’s lawyer has said he stands by his work in the case.
“Internal affairs investigations are confidential and disclosure of any investigations that have not resulted in a sustained finding of misconduct would serve no purpose other than to risk materially prejudicing the proceedings or confuse the jury,” prosecutors wrote.
Read’s lawyers have said the sealed federal documents show that 10 days before O’Keefe’s death, Proctor texted relatives about having Julie Albert, sisterin-law to Brian Albert, the nowretired Boston police officer who owned the Canton home, babysit his child.
Another major point of contention ahead of trial has been a Google search from the phone of Jennifer McCabe, who was at the Canton home on the morning O’Keefe was killed. Read’s lawyers have cited records indicating McCabe searched “hos [sic] long to die in cold” shortly before 2:30 a.m., hours before O’Keefe’s body was found.
Prosecutors have said McCabe conducted that search shortly after 6:20 a.m. at Read’s request when she, Read, and another woman discovered O’Keefe’s body in the snow.
In one motion Wednesday, prosecutors requested that digital forensic expert Ian Whiffin be permitted at trial to conduct a demonstration of how data was stored on McCabe’s phone.
“This demonstration would closely mirror the actual Google searches conducted by Jennifer McCabe ... and would aid the jury in understanding how Mr. Whiffin is able to opine that the contested searches occurred at approximately 6:24 a.m. and not 2:27 a.m.,” prosecutors wrote.
The two sides have also squabbled over DNA evidence. One defense motion filed Wednesday seeks to bar any reference at trial to DNA testing of “a purported hair recovered” from the back of Read’s SUV.
“It was forensically determined that no human DNA was detected,” Read’s lawyers wrote.
Prosecutors later sent the hair to Virginia-based Bode Technology for further testing, and Read’s lawyers have yet to receive any results, with prosecutors saying during a court hearing last week that the lab has indicated a report will likely be available some time after the start of trial.
“The results of any forensic inspection and/or DNA testing by Bode Technology remain unknown, and, at this point, would constitute an unfair surprise to the defense,” the filing said.
Judge Beverly J. Cannone signaled agreement with the defense during a recent hearing, telling prosecutors she would “entertain a motion to exclude the DNA” owing to the delay in the testing results.
Prosecutors have pointed to additional DNA evidence, asserting that Read’s right taillight was broken after hitting O’Keefe and that testing at the State Police lab revealed that “DNA present on the broken taillight and microscopic pieces of red and clear apparent plastic located in the victim’s clothing.”