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 her undisclosed social connection to Caitlin Albert, whose family owns the property where O'Keefe was found.
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.”
Core prosecution evidence — Karen Read's repeated statement to a first responder, corroborated by multiple bystanders
“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.”
Clothing condition consistent with prolonged exposure to snow and cold
“I didn't see any.”
No tears or holes in clothing — relevant to whether injuries were caused by a vehicle strike or other mechanism
“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 understand what you're saying. So has your story evolved? Okay, yes.”
McLaughlin concedes her account has changed between the Proctor interview and her trial testimony.
“I don't write a report in this scenario of my job... So those are the people that write reports, and I was neither of those, so I did not write that in a report.”
Explains why no contemporaneous documentation exists of the statement McLaughlin attributes to Read.
“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 repeated downplaying of the relationship despite photographic evidence of socializing together
“I've never had a conversation with Caitlin about that call or this case.”
McLaughlin's categorical denial of discussing the case with her friend whose family's home was the scene
“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.”
Of 500+ social media friends, McLaughlin considers fewer than 10 actual friends — contextualizing Caitlin Albert as one of hundreds of casual connections.
“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.
“No.”
When asked whether she ever spoke to Caitlin Albert about the events at 34 Fairview Road — closes the door on any suggestion of coordination or shared narrative.
“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.
“We went to high school together. We're in the same grade. We have mutual friends... 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 close personal relationship with her.”
Brennan preemptively addresses the Caitlin Albert connection that the defense used for impeachment in Trial 1.
“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.'”
Core prosecution evidence — Read's repeated admission at the scene, witnessed by a paramedic gathering medical information rather than conducting a police investigation.
“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.
“She was distraught.”
McLaughlin retreats from her prior characterization of Read as 'overly frantic and almost hysterical' when confronted with video evidence showing Read standing relatively still.
“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.
- Through voir dire examination in Trial 1, Jackson used social media photographs to establish that McLaughlin had a longstanding social relationship with Caitlin Albert — including shared trips and group outings — a connection McLaughlin had not disclosed to investigators and which she characterized as an acquaintanceship within large friend groups.
- 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.