How ‘long to die in cold’ search was made when John O’Keefe’s body was found, specialist testifies - The Boston Globe (2024)

Here’s a primer on some key witnesses who’ve testified so far in the high-profile trial.

Here’s how testimony unfolded on Monday.

4 p.m. — State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino details texts sent between Read and O’Keefe on Jan. 28, 2022.

Guarino also read text threads between John O’Keefe and Karen Read on the afternoon of Jan. 28. Read had written at one point that “you really hurt me” and “said terrible things” and O’Keefe told her he had apologized and that things had been difficult between them for “a while,” Guarino said.

On the afternoon of Jan. 28, he texted her to stop calling him after she placed over a dozen calls, Guarino said.

Read asked him, “why would you start with me this morning,” and added, “You’re setting me up to fail.”

She also wrote at one point that he should “stop starting with me!” At 2:38 p.m., she wrote that she was going to grab a drink in a bit.

Guarino also read text threads between O’Keefe and Read on the afternoon of Jan. 28, a few hours before they met each other out.

After Read said O’Keefe had lashed out at her that morning, he replied, “I’m sorry. This has been an issue w me for 8 years. It physically [hurts] me to see EVERYONE else in their life do things for them and I’m forced to ALWAYS be the bad guy!”

Witnesses have testified that Read and O’Keefe fought over the Dunkin’ food she had bought his niece and nephew, whom he took in after their parents died.

“I’m not the same as everyone else,” Read wrote. “Most of the time I try to do what is healthy smart for them. More importantly I try to support you and what you need. You just lashed out at me and said terrible things. I don’t know how you’ve gotten to this point with me when I’m just trying my hardest. You made your point, and continue to beat me down. I have a lot going on too. Physically I am falling apart and trying to get answers and help.”

Witnesses have testified that Read suffers from Multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease.

“Not sure what you want me to do,” O’Keefe replied. “I said I’m sorry and I was outta line. If you prefer to stay home I totally get it.”

“Tell me if you are interested in someone else,” Read wrote later. “Can’t think of any other reason you’ve been like this.”

“Sick of always arguing and fighting,” O’Keefe wrote. “It’s been weekly for several months now. So yeah I’m not as quick to jump back into being lovie dovie as you apparently.”

He also wrote, “Omg!! Stop calling.”

“Yes John. You gave me utter grief this morning,” she wrote. “I’d like you to call me for a mins.”

She also wrote that she had been “trying to get over the hump [with] arguing and now you tell me you’re not into things. And you don’t want to fight weekly but fly off the handle at 8 am w me. Like you’re setting me up to fail.”

3 p.m. — Prosecutors call State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino to the stand

Guarino said he’s currently assigned to the detective unit of the Norfolk District Attorney’s office. He said analysts tried to extract data from Read’s SUV after it was seized.

A company called Berla has technology that can help investigators obtain vehicular data, but it’s not supported by the model of Lexus SUV Read owned, Guarino said,

Guarino said Berla “released a new item” similar to a mechanic’s scan tool that yielded “no readable data” on the SUV.

Ultimately, authorities did a destructive procedure called a “chip off” to take memory chips off the vehicle.

“As I was told ... there was no data that was recovered off the infotainment system or the telematics module from the chip off,” Guarino said.

He said he also reviewed hard drives from a laptop and a desktop computer taken from O’Keefe’s home.

“We were looking for Ring [home security] video to see if either computer was used by Officer O’Keefe” to access the account. Neither was used, he said. He used his phone instead.

He said he performed cellphone extractions for O’Keefe and Read’s devices, as well as Jennifer McCabe and Kerry Roberts, the two woman who were with Read when she found O’Keefe’s body in the snow.

Guarino said he received Read’s phone on the evening of Jan. 29, 2022, from Trooper Michael Proctor, a lead investigator in the case.

“I believe it was in airplane mode,” Guarino said. “The phone was in good working order.”

He said Proctor also provided him with O’Keefe’s phone, which was in the “same condition.”

Guarino said authorities were able to access the data in Read’s phone via passcode on Aug. 16, 2022.

Investigators learned there was privileged communication between Read and her counsel, so the process was stopped so the privileged information could be removed.

Guarino said the phone came back to his office in spring 2023 for review.

“I didn’t see that many” GPS locations in Read’s phone, Guarino said. “I didn’t see anything ... that stuck out to me.”

O’Keefe’s phone, however, had “quite a bit” of GPS locations stored, “especially on Jan. 29,” he said.

Regarding McCabe’s phone, Guarino said he reviewed the defense expert’s report on her device.

“It was mostly incorrect,” Guarino said. “He states that there’s a Google search that’s done at 2:27 a.m.”

That file did not come from a database that would have shown the searches, he said. The expert also erroneously concluded that McCabe had deleted 18 phone calls, while in fact the records indicate the calls were deleted from a temporary storage area of the device, Guarino testified.

An individual user can’t make those deletions, he said.

The defense report also said McCabe deleted a screen shot of Brian Albert’s contact information on her phone. His contact information remained in her phone, Guarino said.

2:45 p.m. — Computer specialist continues his testimony

Ian Whiffin said five records came up for different pages on the phone at 2:27 a.m., including pages related to banking and YouTube.

Whiffin also identified additional records showing McCabe had Googled the same youth sports program twice on the night of Jan. 27 that she searched for on Jan. 29. There were also five searches for the same YouTube video for a song on Jan. 27 that McCabe also searched on Jan. 29, Whiffin said.

He said he determined the hypothermia searches were conducted on a tab that had been opened earlier for the youth sports searches. Whiffin said a defense investigator erroneously concluded the search was done at 2:27 a.m., but was an indication of when the tab was first opened.

On cross-examination, Whiffin told Read attorney David Yannetti that a simulated comparison must be accurate as possible.

He told Yannetti the “session history” of the Google search “hos [sic] long to die in the cold,” could not be recovered. Whiffin said he could only recover the first page of the session history.

“Would you agree with me that somebody who had access to the data before it was extracted and sent to you could have made selective deletions from the data?” Yannetti asked.

”No, I don’t,” Whiffin said.

Yannetti asked if someone could use an app to make selective deletions.

Whiffin said a “hash mechanism” can show analysts when things are being deleted.

”I have no doubt that the only time those two Google searches were conducted” were at 6:23 a.m. and 6:24 a.m., Whiffin said on redirect.

2 p.m. — Digital forensic specialist resumes testimony

Ian Whiffin, a product manager at Cellebrite, a digital forensics firm, testified about the timing of a Google search witness Jennifer McCabe made to determine how long John O’Keefe could survive in the cold.

McCabe, who was at the Fairview Road home when Read dropped O’Keefe off, has testified that she made the search at Read’s request after discovering O’Keefe’s body after 6 a.m. Lawyers for Read have asserted she made the search at 2:27 a.m., when Read had already returned to O’Keefe’s home.

Whiffin broke broke down various elements of the URL code of the search timestamped 2:27 a.m.

Among those components was a record indicating the search query was conducted via the Safari browser, Whiffin said.

He said the search was done in “the Safari search bar feature.”

Whiffin said the records produced no title for a web page after the search, which led him to believe the queries never went through.

Searches about youth sports timestamped around 2:27 a.m. did produce website titles, according to the records. McCabe had testified she Googled about youth sports at that time.

Additional records showed the youth sports pages visible on screen at that time, while the dying in cold searches weren’t visible on screen until 6:23 a.m. and 6:24 a.m, supporting McCabe’s account.

Whiffin said he also determined McCabe’s phone was connected to a WiFi network called “McCabe” at 2:12 a.m. on Jan. 29. He said the phone disconnected from the network at 5:39 a.m. and there was “no further activity” until later in the morning.

Whiffin said “there’s no evidence of any records being deleted” from McCabe’s phone since early January 2022.

He said the records would show certain gaps if anything had been deleted subsequently, gaps he did not detect.

”During the times of Safari usage, records exist ... that certainly appear to indicate” that nothing was deleted, Whiffin said.

The fact that the dying in cold searches did not exist in a history database means the user never had the option to selectively delete them, he added.

12:20 p.m. ― Prosecutors next called Ian Whiffin, a product manager at Cellebrite, a digital forensics firm.

Whiffin detailed his training and professional experience for police agencies in the United Kingdom and Canada before moving on to Cellebrite.

He said he currently works as a “decoding project manager” for the company.

He said he has testified approximately 20 times in prior cases.

Whiffin said he started working on the Read case in September.

“People were looking for an explanation as to how this particular timestamp was relative to the case,” Whifflin said, referring to the 2:27 a.m. timestamp on Jennifer McCabe’s “hos [sic] long to die in cold” search on her phone, mistakenly typing “hos” instead of “how.”

He said he examined “what the issue was that was causing the confusion.”

Whiffin said the 2:27 a.m. timestamp was “not the time, in my opinion, that the search was conducted.”

He said there’s “plenty” of evidence showing the search was conducted at 6:23 a.m., as well as a wealth of evidence that there was other activity on the phone at the earlier time. Whiffin said the records showed McCabe searching for a youth sports team at 2:27 a.m.

McCabe, whose sister lived at the Fairview Road home where O’Keefe’s body was found, said she made the search about hypothermia at Read’s request and that Read saw O’Keefe’s body well before she did as they arrived on the street in heavy snow before sunrise.

Whiffin said “the record itself has been deleted,” referring to the 2:27 a.m. timestamped search. He said he didn’t find evidence that the user had made the deletion. The lawyers were then called to sidebar.

After the sidebar, Whiffin identified a document laying out McCabe’s searches on the phone. The document was placed on the monitor for jurors.

It showed two searches for dying in the cold at 6:23 a.m. and 6:24 a.m. on Jan. 29, followed by a search for “bpd & John O’Keefe” at 8:06 p.m. O’Keefe was an officer for the Boston Police Department.

”If these searches had been conducted while in private browsing mode, these searches would not exist within this file,” Whiffin said. If pages are unable to load after a search, that will be recorded, but if a device simply stalls, nothing is written to the history database, he said.

Judge Beverly Cannone called a lunch recess at 1 p.m.

11:45 a.m. — State Police Trooper Joseph Paul testifies on redirect

Paul told prosecutor Adam Lally that one “triggering event” on Read’s SUV data was suggestive of a pedestrian strike because the speed slowed down and the wheel shifted.

Paul said he was also told of Read’s statements at the scene.

Asked if the data was consistent with her statements, Paul said, “yes it is.”

He said he didn’t know if O’Keefe’s cell phone, which was found under his body, was in his hand or his pocket at the time of impact.

He said he determined that O’Keefe was struck near where his sneaker was found in front of the curb, since that was “the furthest point of evidence away” from where his body was found.

Lally put up a photo of the snow-covered Fairview yard taken Feb. 3, 2022, and Paul said O’Keefe’s body was likely struck in the vicinity of the fire hydrant, using a laser pointer to highlight the area.

“He was struck along the right side [in the area of his] arm ... and eventually hit the ground and came to final rest,” Paul said.

Lally asked if Paul determined in his report that O’Keefe flew 30 feet in the air, and Paul said he had no evidence that he did.

Asked how far O’Keefe may have traveled “tumbled or rolling” after hitting the ground, Paul said that would be difficult to determine since O’Keefe was sideswiped, so the formula used would underestimate the speed of the SUV at the time.

Paul told Lally the glass could have been “attached to [O’Keefe’s] hand” when he was struck, or it could have gotten attached to another part of his body.

Paul said the presence of O’Keefe’s DNA on the taillight was also consistent with a pedestrian collision.

Lally asked if Paul was aware that the crime lab had determined the glass found on the bumper was consistent with the glass found in the road. Paul said he was unaware of the lab’s findings.

Paul said he determined that eight minutes elapsed between Read’s three-point turn and when she hit O’Keefe, according to her vehicle data.

“The evidence from the vehicle, based on the injuries to John O’Keefe,” as well as the broken taillight and the dent are all “consistent with” O’Keefe holding a glass at the time of being hit, Paul said.

Paul stepped down from the stand and the judge called a brief reccess.

11 a.m. — Crash reconstruction specialist faces sharp questioning from defense

Read lawyer Alan Jackson asked State Police Trooper Joseph Paul to specify whether he determined Read had initially made a U-turn or three-point turn on Fairview Road. He said Paul had testified Friday that Read made a U-turn.

“Those are two very different maneuvers,” Jackson.

Paul said his diagram showed Read making a three-point turn.

“Or could it possibly have been a U-turn,” Jackson said.

“It’s a three-point turn,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if Paul had any “scientific evidence” to determine where Read drove after leaving Fairview Road.

“Her odometer mileage on the car from the download and the time we had the vehicle shows 36 miles,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if Paul tried to access Read’s cellphone data to determine where she went.

Paul said he did not.

Jackson said a vehicle’s “key cycle” denotes the time it turns on from the time it turns off but doesn’t indicate where an automobile is at any given time.

“The key cycle does not give a location,” Paul said.

He told Jackson he didn’t know if a key cycle would be recorded when the SUV was turned on and placed on a flatbed tow truck in Dighton, where police seized Read’s car.

“I can’t speak to why it did not record,” Paul said.

The SUV had to be driven into the Canton police station, Jackson said, triggering another key cycle.

Earlier key cycles, Jackson said, would have come up if Read drove the SUV from O’Keefe’s house to Jennifer McCabe’s house in Canton on the morning of Jan. 29 and later drove to her parent’s house in Dighton.

Jennifer McCabe was with Read when Read found O’Keefe’s body in the snow.

“It’s possible,” Paul said.

On June 9, 2022, Jackson said, Paul told a grand jury that analysts can do “certain calculations” to determine how far a body is thrown from a collision with a vehicle.

Paul said Monday that he “looked into” certain formulas, which he would not use “for this type of collision.”

Jackson asked Paul to describe for the calculations for the jury.

Paul said the collision was “more of a sideswipe” so the formulas wouldn’t work.

They would have worked if he “was more in line with the vehicle” when he was struck, he said.

“Based on the evidence it appeared to be a sideswipe,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if Paul could calculate how far O’Keefe’s body would be thrown after impact based on the mass of the other object.

Paul said no because of the sideswipe.

“Are you saying that principles of physics are incapable of determining” how far O’Keefe’s body would have moved, Jackson said.

“No,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if Paul had been formally trained in physics, and he said it’s covered in the crash reconstruction training.

Based on the reconstruction, Jackson said, “exactly how was that taillight shattered?”

Paul said he determined the light was shattered when it struck O’Keefe’s arm, which he was possibly holding out by his side.

“So the full mass, the full weight of that truck, hit him” on the elbow, Jackson said.

“Arm [and] shoulder, yes,” Paul said. “He got spun around.”

Paul said O’Keefe would have been spun counterclockwise after being struck.

Jackson asked how O’Keefe’s arm got so many scratches, and Paul said the SUV could have left them when it “passed by.”

“He started rotating counterclockwise,” Paul said.

Jackson said O’Keefe had no injuries on his shoulder, “not a single one,” nor did he have injuries on his back or torso.

Paul also said one possibility is that O’Keefe may have hit his head on the curb.

“In your scenario that you just told us, he flew through the air,” Jackson said.

“Projected just means you got pushed forward,” Paul said.

Jackson asked how Paul could account for the fact that O’Keefe did not sustain any broken bones.

Paul said he could not.

“John O’Keefe’s injuries do not look anything like” a vehicle crash, Jackson said after a sidebar.

”Yes they do,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if Proctor “told” him to come to the conclusions he did, and Paul said no.

Judge Beverly Cannone called a morning recess around 11 a.m.

10:20 a.m. — Crash reconstruction specialist continues his testimony under cross-examination

State Police Trooper Joseph Paul told Read attorney Alan Jackson that Read’s SUV was taken from the Canton police station to the State Police’s Middleborough barracks.

Since Read’s SUV was being seized as potential evidence, best practice would be to get it out of inclement weather as soon as possible, Jackson said.

“That would be beneficial, yes,” Paul said.

Jackson said the Foxborough and Middleborough barracks with the garages are closer to Dighton, where Read’s SUV was first towed, than the Canton police station.

Jackson also asked who gave Paul instructions to “reconstruct this incident.”

Paul said his sergeant “gave me the phone call.”

Jackson said Paul had been provided “some basic parameters” of what occurred, and Paul said “some basic stuff.”

“Did someone give you a summary of what you were being asked to do?” Jackson said.

“When I got to the garage ... I was told that there was a pedestrian crash and he was a Boston police officer involved,” and that the SUV was “traveling in reverse,” Paul said.

Jackson asked who specifically told him that, and Paul said Trooper Zachary Clark gave him the “lowdown” on some details.

Jackson asked how Paul determined that scratches on the back of Read’s SUV were caused during the alleged collision or at some point beforehand.

Paul said he had no information that the scratches had occurred previously.

“Do you have any scientific evidence” that Read’s SUV got the rear scratches on Jan. 29, 2022, around 12:45 a.m., versus any other time, Jackson said.

He noted Paul had testified that the dent and scratches on Read’s SUV could have been from O’Keefe’s hand.

“Hand and a glass cup,” Paul said.

“Is there any way to scientifically date a scratch?” Jackson asked.

“No,” Paul said. “There’s no way to say that specific date and time.”

Jackson asked if it’s possible if the SUV scratches could have predated Jan. 29, 2022.

“You’re being pretty broad on your scratches here,” Paul said.

Jackson repeated the question.

“I don’t know every single scratch on that car,” Paul said.

Jackson also asked about glass on the SUV bumper which Paul testified could have come from a drinking cup.

“Were you informed that none of the glass pieces ... could be matched to a cup?” Jackson said.

“I don’t know anything about that,” Paul said.

“If you knew the glass pieces on the bumper did not match the cup, would that change your opinion?” Jackson said.

“It’s what it was told to me as evidence,” Paul said. “By crime scene. ... When I was at my inspection, at the initial inspection.”

“Did crime scene say anything else?” Jackson said.

“I don’t know what else you want me to say,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the case, told him the glass pieces were from a cup. Paul said he did not.

“It’s glass,” Paul said. “It doesn’t belong to the vehicle. It’s glass.”

Jackson asked if Paul’s opinion would change if the glass didn’t match the cup.

Paul said his opinion was that it was “glass from a cup” but he never said it matched the glass found at the Fairview Road scene.

Jackson asked Paul who told him O’Keefe’s body was roughly seven feet from the road, and Paul said a Canton police lieutenant did.

Did that lieutenant, Jackson asked, tell him the first officer on scene estimated O’Keefe was found 15 to 20 feet from the road?

“No,” Paul said.

He also said no when Jackson asked if the lieutenant had told Paul that he never personally saw O’Keefe’s body at the scene.

Jackson noted authorities recovered a Nike sneaker and plastic taillight pieces on Jan. 29, as well as a broken cup.

“Who told you where the pieces were found?” Jackson said.

Paul said the items were noted in a report from State Police Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully.

He said he measured the length of the various pieces of debris from O’Keefe’s body by estimating where O’Keefe’s “center mass” would have been at the time of the crash.

“Did you have to sort of guess at where you thought John O’Keefe’s body was?” Jackson asked.

“I did not guess,” Paul said.

9:50 a.m. — Crash reconstruction specialist continues his testimony under cross-examination

Read lawyer Alan Jackson asked State Police Trooper Joseph Paul if John O’Keefe “was hit with the SUV and flew 30 feet.” He noted Paul had previously testified O’Keefe was struck and “projected” to his final resting spot.

Paul said he determined O’Keefe “got pushed forward in that direction. ... there’s no evidence that he flew through the air.”

“Exactly,” Jackson said. “Right? Exactly.”

Judge Cannone sustained a government objection.

Jackson asked how O’Keefe managed to hold onto a glass cup despite being projected 30 feet.

“It just could have been with him the whole way,” Paul said, adding that he couldn’t say for certain. “It could have been tucked next to his clothing.”

Witnesses have said pieces of glass were found near O’Keefe’s body.

Jackson also noted O’Keefe’s cell phone was under his body.

“How do you account for that?” Jackson said. “What’s your theory on how that cell phone ended up flying 30 feet with him?”

“It just did,” Paul said. “I didn’t put the evidence there.”

“Well, you didn’t,” Jackson said, stressing the “you.”

Judge Beverly Cannone sustained a government objection and warned Jackson “don’t do it” again, referring to ad hominem comments.

9:45 a.m. — Crash reconstruction specialist testifies under cross-examination

Read attorney Alan Jackson asked State Police Trooper Joseph Paul if he holds any degrees in mathematics or physics and he said he did not.

He said he took a course on kinematics, or the mechanics of motion, as part of his training.

“What’s the difference between constrained and unconstrained motion?” Jackson said.

Paul said he couldn’t recall.

Jackson said constrained motion has a predetermined path whereas unconstrained motion is when it’s not predetermined.

“You couldn’t remember that from your class?” Jackson asked.

Paul said the class didn’t go that in depth of the terms.

“We had to go over the physics part of it,” Paul said.

Jackson stressed that Paul’s findings were his “opinion based on your training and experience.”

“Yes,” Paul said.

Jackson asked if snow on the roadway could impact the movement of tires.

“In a way,” Paul said.

Jackson said every time someone slows down and moves the steering 10 degrees, that doesn’t mean they’re trying to “hit a pedestrian.”

“Correct,” said Paul, who testified last week that the data showed Read’s SUV slowed up briefly as she made a three-point turn and that she adjusted the wheel 10 degrees.

Jackson also displayed a photo of Paul’s diagram of the crime scene that showed debris on the front lawn of Fairview as well as the spot where O’Keefe’s body was found near the road.

Jackson asked if Paul determined the point of impact of the collision was at a spot on the front lawn near debris located some 30 feet from O’Keefe’s body, since that debris was the farthest away from him.

“I said the area of impact was probably along the roadway,” Paul said.

Jackson noted a different piece of debris was found “right under the fire hydrant,” even farther away from the body.

“Are you now indicating ... that that’s the area of impact,” Jackson said.

Judge Cannone sustained a prosecution objection.

“It’s along the roadway,” Paul said, adding that he couldn’t tell the precise spot of impact. “It’s a linear field.”

Jackson asked if Paul could point to an area within “five feet or so” of the point of impact.

He used a laser pointer to highlight a circular radius near the fire hydrant.

“Would you agree ... that’s probably a good 35, 40 feet” from the area designated as O’Keefe’s final resting place, Jackson asked.

“It’s approximately 30 feet,” Paul said.

9:15 a.m. — State Police Trooper Joseph Paul, a crash reconstruction specialist, returns to the stand

On Friday, Paul testified that the data collection system on Read’s SUV showed that she put the car into reverse, pushed the accelerator, and sped up to 24.2 miles per hour. Hitting a person at that speed would cause the kind of injuries he saw on O’Keefe, he said.

“The lacerations to the arm from the taillight, the dent with the scratches where his hand could be, those are something that would be consistent — in this particular case — with striking the Lexus,” Paul said Friday.

On Monday, he told prosecutor Adam Lally that any items in the SUV were removed before he conducted the acceleration and brake tests.

When vehicles collide, Paul said, paint can transfer from one vehicle to another, or there can be scratches.

He said he determined Read’s SUV collided around 12:45 a.m. on Jan. 29.

“It occurred in the area of 34 Fairview Rd,” he said. “The operator appeared to be Karen Read, and the pedestrian was John O’Keefe.”

He said the SUV traveled more than 24 miles per hour approximately 60 feet before O’Keefe was struck.

He was “ejected” onto the front lawn, Paul said.

“There were no mechanical defects” to the SUV, Paul said. “There were no roadway or environmental factors that contributed to this collision.”

Throughout his investigation, the case appeared to be “a single-car collision involving a pedestrian,” Paul said. He said the SUV “accelerated at a high rate of speed” before it struck O’Keefe and the driver “subsequently left him at the scene.”

Even if Read’s camera systems were “covered in snow,” an “attentive and reasonable operator would not” have reversed at such a high rate of speed, he said.

Travis Andersen can be reached at travis.andersen@globe.com.