Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveKatie McLaughlin
Testimony Impact
Katie McLaughlin is a Canton Fire Department firefighter-paramedic who was part of the crew that responded to 34 Fairview Road on January 29, 2022, where John O'Keefe was found unresponsive in the snow. While gathering medical information from those at the scene, she heard Karen Read make the statement 'I hit him' multiple times. She testified in both trials and became one of the prosecution's primary first-responder witnesses, while also becoming a focus of defense scrutiny over whether her social connection to Caitlin Albert was closer than the acquaintance and large-group relationship McLaughlin described.
Challenges & Responses
What attorneys challenged during examination and how the witness responded.
Jackson challenged McLaughlin on three overlapping fronts: the inconsistency between her original January 30 statement to Trooper Proctor — in which Read's words were directed at a civilian woman — and her trial account in which Read responded directly to McLaughlin's medical question; her failure to document the statement in any written record despite being an active note-taker at the scene; and her characterization of her social relationship with Caitlin Albert, whose family owns the property where O'Keefe was found. McLaughlin maintained throughout that she heard the statement clearly and that her relationship with Caitlin Albert was limited to large group settings.
Trial 1 vs Trial 2
In Trial 2, McLaughlin's examination was substantially compressed relative to Trial 1, with the voir dire proceedings consolidated and the Caitlin Albert relationship addressed more efficiently given its full airing in the first trial. Jackson adapted his approach by using surveillance video from the scene to challenge McLaughlin's characterization of Read as 'obviously upset and overly frantic,' and by more directly probing whether McLaughlin's pre-trial preparation with ADA Brennan reflected prosecutorial coaching on how to preemptively address the Albert relationship. The prosecution in Trial 2 also shifted from Lally to Brennan for both direct and redirect, adjusting the rehabilitation framing around McLaughlin's role as a medical responder with no investigative obligations.
Notable Quotes From The Record
“So at that point I asked her if there had been any significant trauma that happened before this.”
Establishes the specific question that prompted Read's statement — a standard medical inquiry, not police interrogation
“So she said, "I hit him." She repeated it. There was a woman standing across from her who I believe at that point said, "You're hysterical, you need to calm down." She repeated, "I hit him." And there was a police officer who was in that vicinity, kind of with us, who replied, "You what?" She repeated it one more time, and that officer then signaled to somebody, "Get Goode down here," which I'm assuming would be the sergeant.”
McLaughlin's testimony that Read repeatedly said "I hit him" after a medical question; nearby people were present according to McLaughlin's account.
“I noted he had injuries to his face. I noticed some blood from his nose, from his mouth, and most notably he had some swelling to his eyes — mostly the right eye — and a laceration above the right eye.”
Independent first responder documentation of O'Keefe's visible injuries
“I noted that he was wearing jeans. I noticed like a black zip-up jacket or sweatshirt — it was like a lighter jacket. I noticed he had one sneaker on, and that was it.”
Documents O'Keefe's clothing and the missing shoe, consistent with other witness accounts
“Um, it was uh soaked through.”
McLaughlin's description of the clothing's condition
“I didn't see any.”
McLaughlin said she did not see any tears or holes in the clothing.
“The patient was off the road, um, so my view of this call was the patient was uh on the side of the road. The only thing that I noted was a fire hydrant.”
Places O'Keefe's body off the road near a fire hydrant, establishing scene geography from a first responder's perspective
“I don't write a report in this scenario of my job.”
McLaughlin said writing a report was not part of her role in this scenario.
“I don't know that I agree with that.”
McLaughlin did not agree with Jackson's characterization that her account had evolved.
“I would consider — we have mutual friends, I wouldn't consider her a close friend, but yeah — I mean, that would be my answer.”
McLaughlin's characterization of Caitlin Albert as not a close friend, despite mutual friends; Jackson's questioning challenged that characterization.
“I've never had a conversation with Caitlin about that call or this case.”
McLaughlin denied having a conversation with Caitlin Albert about the call or the case.
“it does get brought up, but I just avoid it. I don't engage in the conversations.”
Acknowledges the case is discussed at the fire station but claims she avoids those conversations
“Um, I would categorize our relationship as always being just acquaintances. I knew her, we had some mutual friends, but we were never close friends. We don't have a one-on-one relationship.”
McLaughlin's fullest characterization of her relationship with Caitlin Albert — the answer Lally needed for rehabilitation.
“10.”
McLaughlin estimated more than 500 social-media connections but fewer than 10 actual friends, describing only her general distinction between social-media connections and actual friends.
“I don't think I agreed with you on that. It's changed, it's different. I've always testified to — I feel as though my testimony has been consistent.”
McLaughlin pushes back on Jackson's characterization that her statement 'evolved,' attempting to preserve her credibility despite acknowledging differences between her Proctor statement and trial testimony.
“I would describe it as — we're not close friends. I would say we're more acquaintances. We have mutual friends. I don't have a one-on-one relationship with her.”
Directly counters defense implication that McLaughlin and Caitlin Albert were close friends whose relationship might create bias.
“from a civil service perspective, you're given more points for residency, so it's actually — I would say preferred, or you're placed higher on the list if you have residency in that town.”
Normalizes the fact that McLaughlin works in her hometown, preempting any suggestion that her local ties are unusual or compromising.
“I don't have a choice. I just have to respond to the call.”
Establishes that even if McLaughlin had known the Albert family, she had no discretion to decline the call — neutralizing any suggestion she should have recused herself.
“No.”
McLaughlin denied speaking with Caitlin Albert about what happened that morning at 34 Fairview Road.
“To help the patient, to save someone's life.”
Establishes McLaughlin's focus was medical, not investigative — framing Read's statement as spontaneous rather than elicited by law enforcement.
“I asked if there had been any significant trauma that happened that preceded this. And she answered with a series of statements that she repeated. 'I hit him. I hit him.' There was a woman next to us who told her to calm down. 'Stop talking. Calm down. You're hysterical.' So she repeated, 'I hit him.' And a police officer asked her, said, 'You what?' And she repeated it again. 'I hit him.'”
McLaughlin testified that, in response to her question about significant trauma while gathering medical information, Read repeated ‘I hit him.’ The meaning of those words is for the factfinder to assess.
“I didn't feel comfortable pushing and asking for more. I just didn't think that it was the right time for that. And it was also really not my place at that point. I feel like that was something that the police were — that's more their role.”
Explains why McLaughlin did not follow up on Read's statement, reinforcing the line between medical and police roles.
“We went to high school together. We're in the same grade. We have mutual friends, and growing up we had different friend groups, but those groups would often get together in bigger groups and hang out. I see her in group settings. I socialize with her occasionally. I don't have a personal relationship with her. I wouldn't consider her to be a friend of mine, but I do see her occasionally because of social events. I don't have a one-on-one. I don't have a close personal relationship with her.”
Brennan preemptively addresses the Caitlin Albert connection that the defense used for impeachment in Trial 1.
“She was distraught.”
McLaughlin described Read as 'distraught' during Jackson's video questioning. She later said the video was hard to assess and that Read looked hysterical and was extremely upset, rather than adopting Jackson's interpretation.
“I explained the relationship over and over again throughout the testimony.”
Counters Jackson's implication that McLaughlin minimized or concealed her connection to Caitlin Albert
“I just felt bad for her at the time. It was a very disturbing scene and I did not want to push further down that road. It's not my job and I didn't feel comfortable doing it.”
Explains why McLaughlin did not follow up on Read's statement — humanizes the witness and reinforces her non-investigative role
“I won't ever forget those statements.”
Emotional anchor for the prosecution's case — addresses the defense argument that failure to document means unreliable memory
“I heard "I hit him" repeatedly.”
McLaughlin's final word on the central disputed statement — she maintains it was a declaration, not a question.
“Never. No.”
Flat denial of any knowledge that Kevin Albert coordinated her interview with Proctor.
Key Moments
- McLaughlin testified that while asking bystanders whether there had been any significant trauma before the emergency — a standard medical inquiry — Karen Read responded by repeating 'I hit him' multiple times, a statement McLaughlin relayed to fellow firefighters at the scene.
- During cross-examination in Trial 1, Alan Jackson confronted McLaughlin with her January 30 statement to Trooper Proctor, which described Read's statement as directed at a civilian woman standing nearby rather than in response to McLaughlin's medical questioning — a discrepancy Jackson argued reflected an evolving account.
- Jackson introduced the civilian woman's version of the same statement as questions — 'Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?' — establishing for the jury that two witnesses at the same scene heard the same utterance differently, one as a confession and one as a question.
- During Trial 1 voir dire, Jackson used social-media photographs and questions about McLaughlin's shared friends, school history, socializing, and trips with Caitlin Albert to challenge McLaughlin's characterization of Albert as an acquaintance rather than a close friend; McLaughlin acknowledged knowing Albert since high school, being social-media friends, sharing mutual friends and social events, and recognizing them together in photographs, while maintaining that Albert was not a close friend.
- McLaughlin acknowledged that despite having a pen and actively writing on her glove during the scene interaction, she never documented Karen Read's statement in any written report, note, or record of her own — a fact Jackson used in both trials to challenge the reliability of her recollection.