Yuri Bukhenik

“No, absolutely not.”

Bukhenik's answer to Lally's question whether plastic recovered from 34 Fairview Road was ever placed in the same evidence bag as clothing

“I observed a damaged rear right tail light fixture on the vehicle. From my vantage point I also told Trooper Proctor to approach the vehicle closer and confirm what I was seeing, which he did.”

Bukhenik testified that he observed damage to Read's right rear tail light at the Dighton residence and directed Proctor to look at it more closely.

“She was asked how she found out about the damage to her vehicle, to which she stated, quote, 'I don't know, it happened last night,' end quote.”

Read's own statement acknowledging the vehicle damage occurred the night of the incident

“She stated that she was having stomach issues and did not want to enter the residence.”

Read's stated reason for not going inside 34 Fairview Road — a key point in the timeline of events

“I asked her to walk through step by step her operating the vehicle and exactly what she did. Prior to that I asked — excuse me — she was asked to give a step-by-step recollection of what she did maneuvering the vehicle and leaving the scene.”

Bukhenik testified that Read said she was willing to answer questions but did not want to provide too much detail; after the step-by-step vehicle-maneuvering question, he said the interview was terminated.

“The video shows nine drinks being consumed by the defendant, and that's between when she arrives at C.F. McCarthy's until the time she leaves the Waterfall.”

Establishes Read's alcohol consumption on the night in question from surveillance evidence.

“The data returned had video that would have been captured from the defendant arriving home after midnight on the 29th, after she dropped Mr. O'Keefe off at 34 Fairview Road. That video was not present in the data that was returned from Ring.”

Highlights missing Ring footage during the critical window when Read allegedly dropped O'Keefe off — a key point for both prosecution and defense theories.

“There was also video missing of the defendant showing Miss McCabe and Miss Roberts the damage to her right rear tail light.”

Second missing Ring video involves Read displaying the very taillight damage central to the case.

“We located Mr. O'Keefe's baseball hat. We located a drinking straw from a cocktail glass. We located items of colored plastic and other shards of colored plastic at the location.”

Catalogues the physical evidence recovered from the lawn at 34 Fairview Road, linking O'Keefe and vehicle debris to the scene.

“I advised the defendant not to speak further.”

Records Bukhenik's advice to Read after the recorded statement.

“Nothing provided by Ring proved or suggested any evidence of that type of activity, no.”

Records Bukhenik's answer that nothing provided by Ring proved or suggested Read accessed the Ring account; he also testified that the return document was the first time he had seen it.

“I communicated our suspicions to the medical examiner's office, and that was at 10:41, or thereabouts, in the morning. Correct.”

Establishes that by 10:41 a.m. on January 29th — before interviewing any civilian witnesses — investigators already suspected a physical assault, yet never searched inside 34 Fairview.

“First portion — we did not secure the home as a crime scene. And the second portion — yes, I do know how to do that.”

Bukhenik concedes he knew how to secure 34 Fairview as a crime scene but chose not to — central to the defense theory that investigators never treated the house as a potential crime scene.

“To the best of my knowledge, those items are drying on the butcher paper for six days — if that's what the label maker says.”

Bukhenik testified, to the best of his knowledge and contingent on the label-maker date, that O'Keefe's clothing was drying on butcher paper for six days; Jackson used the answer to challenge evidence handling.

“Did not, no.”

In response to Jackson's question, Bukhenik agreed that he did not mention the video inversion during the continued direct examination.

“It's just a mirror image.”

Bukhenik described the displayed video as a mirror image while maintaining that it accurately depicted the activity shown.

“That is the video that captures that time frame.”

Bukhenik said this camera captured the relevant time frame and separately agreed it captured the vehicle's right-rear area.

“It's not missing, it's just not recorded. It's not there.”

Bukhenik described the interval as not recorded rather than missing and said he did not know whether the omitted footage existed elsewhere.

“Outside of it being a mirror image of itself, it accurately depicts any activity or action in the sallyport.”

Concedes the inversion while maintaining the video's substantive accuracy

“We absolutely did not.”

Emphatic denial that he or Trooper Proctor touched or manipulated the taillight area while the vehicle was in the sallyport

“I could tell that the glass was most likely not the object — the weapon — which was used to cause the injury to the back of Mr. O'Keefe's head.”

Shows the investigation's theory evolved after physical observation, contextualizing the early domestic assault report as preliminary

“That there was a possibility that the deceased was struck to the face with a glass.”

At recross, Bukhenik described his report to the medical examiner as stating a possible facial-glass strike. On redirect, he testified that, after observing the injuries, he believed glass was most likely not the object that caused the injury to the back of O'Keefe's head.

“He never told me that.”

Bukhenik testified that Flatley never personally told him about the alleged statement; he then said first responders supplied the information and Sergeant Goode relayed it.

“I don't believe so.”

Bukhenik said he did not believe a report memorialized Sergeant Goode's relay of the alleged statement before 10:41 a.m.

“That video was never secured by me. I was not asked to secure it. I was just asked to review it.”

Bukhenik testified that he did not secure the video and was asked only to review it; when asked who secured it, he said he did not know.

“It came from the Canton Police Department.”

Bukhenik identified the Canton Police Department as the entity from which the sallyport video came. He testified that, as advised by Detective Lieutenant Tully, Canton Police had recused themselves from interviews; the judge sustained objections to questions proposing a reason for that recusal.

“Canton police, out of overwhelming precaution of impropriety — not that there was one — decided to step away from any interview or investigation assistance with us.”

Prosecution proactively addresses Canton PD's recusal, framing it as routine precaution rather than evidence of conflict

“We are not ruling people in as much as we're ruling people out. So we need to get as much information as possible — in physical form, statement form, and circumstantial factors as well.”

Bukhenik frames the investigation as open-ended fact-finding, countering defense claims of tunnel vision

“At that point, our theory had evolved to a vehicle strike, based on the injuries. And I was suspecting that he was hit out of his shoes.”

Establishes early investigative reasoning for the vehicle-strike theory based on the missing sneaker

“Um she was asked about um the damage to her rear tail light, to which she stated quote, "I don't know how I did it last night." End quote.”

Bukhenik testified that Read made this reported statement about the taillight damage; the court instructed jurors not to consider alleged defendant statements as evidence unless the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Read made them voluntarily, freely, and rationally.

“The second photo is a closeup of Mr. O'Keefe's hat, flattened and frozen to the ground, with portions of it exposed from underneath the piled-up snow.”

Bukhenik's description of the second photograph of O'Keefe's hat, flattened and frozen under piled-up snow.

“I directed my members to go by the scene every day as the temperatures rose. Snow would expose more evidence on the lawn, with the hopes of finding each and every item that was present.”

Shows systematic evidence collection protocol over multiple days as snow melted

“I glanced at it, took part of the information that came through, and acknowledged it with a thumbs up emoji, indicating that I read it.”

Bukhenik's account of receiving part of the text chain on his Apple Watch and acknowledging it with a thumbs-up emoji; he also testified that the investigation resulted in two sustained findings and loss of five vacation days.

“She was asked about the damage to her rear tail light, to which she stated, quote, 'I don't know how I did it last night.' End quote.”

Bukhenik's testimony reporting a statement attributed to Read during the Dighton interview; the quoted statement is presented through Bukhenik and is subject to the court's limiting instruction.

“In his right hand, he's holding a short-style cocktail glass with a black drinking straw protruding from it, as it is backdropped on the snow on the hood of the car that's parked outside.”

Bukhenik's surveillance-image observation that O'Keefe held a drink with a black straw; the testimony did not identify that straw as the one recovered at 34 Fairview.

“It's impossible to know everything somebody was doing.”

Bukhenik describes a limit on any supervisor's knowledge; elsewhere he described Proctor as case officer among a team of investigators.

“We did not create a log to document the documentation. So, that'd be redundant, really.”

Bukhenik said no separate log was created because he viewed it as documenting existing documentation, after denying that custody was undocumented.

“The exact location where each item was recovered from was not documented with a picture or GPS location.”

Concedes that allegedly crucial impact-site evidence was collected with no photographic or coordinate documentation.

“I'm sorry. English is like a third language for me. So if you can bring up the Webster's dictionary, I can read it out.”

Bukhenik's deflection when pressed on whether investigators worked from a 'theory' — a word he himself used moments earlier.

“John died.”

The text message 'John died,' authored by Karen Read, was read aloud by Yuri Bukhenik at utterance 261446 as the final message in the Higgins-Read string.

“My opinion is that it's an angry girlfriend trying to set up a hookup — to her John. To her John.”

Records Bukhenik's interpretive opinion about Read's motive, which Jackson challenged on cross-examination; the exchange supplied the defense with a basis to argue bias rather than establishing bias as fact.

“We did not try to get Brian Albert's phone for any reason whatsoever.”

Records Bukhenik's testimony that investigators did not try to obtain Brian Albert's phone; Jackson used that investigative-scope decision in his challenge.

“We never sought to get Brian Higgins's phone. He was not looked at as an individual that we would need to get his information for any reason at that point.”

Records Bukhenik's testimony that investigators did not seek Higgins's full phone. He separately testified that Higgins's supplied communications with Read and O'Keefe were cross-checked against counterpart devices; the defense challenged the decision not to acquire the full device.

“Logically speaking, the two vehicles had to have come into contact for the tire to move.”

Bukhenik gave a qualified video-based opinion that apparent tire movement logically implied slow-speed contact and said the Lexus's right rear area appeared to contact the Traverse; he also stated that he could not be 100 percent certain that the tire moved.

“Year and a half later, we did the best we can.”

Bukhenik's explanation for the 18-month delay in interviewing eyewitnesses D'Antuono and Maxon undercuts claims of a thorough investigation.

“Correct. He did not tell me that he was going through — uh, for naked pictures through the phone. He wrote "No nudes so far."”

Bukhenik confirmed Proctor wrote 'No nudes so far,' while stating that Proctor did not tell him he was searching the phone for naked pictures.

“The investigation was handled with integrity and honor.”

Bukhenik doubles down on defending Proctor's integrity despite the text messages, undermining his own credibility as a supervisor.

“That text message does not show integrity.”

Bukhenik said the text message did not show integrity. After Jackson's intervening question asking whether it showed honor, Bukhenik separately answered, 'That text message does not show honor.'

“This footage, the way it is depicted right now, very accurately represents what I remember from being there.”

Bukhenik said the corrected video accurately represented his memory. He separately stated that, if the person was Proctor, the person appeared to walk to the SUV's right rear; this testimony did not establish contact with the taillight or a reason for the video orientation.

“I looked into that matter. It produced the fact that it had been recording that way prior to January 29th.”

Establishes the sallyport camera inversion was a pre-existing condition, countering the defense's manipulation theory

“Not obviously tied at the hip, but we were within eyesight, traveling together.”

Bukhenik testified that he and Proctor were within eyesight and traveling together at Canton PD, while qualifying that they were not 'tied at the hip'; this addressed questions about Proctor's movements.

“That would be absurd.”

Bukhenik's response to the suggestion that Proctor placed taillight pieces in his folder, expressing his view of that suggestion.

“My understanding is that nobody else was with him.”

Bukhenik testified that, to his understanding, nobody else was with Proctor during recovery of other evidence on three dates not covered on direct.

“It suggests that Mr. O'Keefe impacted the grass area with his left glute, transferring green staining onto his pants.”

Bukhenik's opinion that the grass staining suggested O'Keefe's left glute contacted grass and transferred green staining to his pants.

“There's a possibility there, but I didn't see it.”

Bukhenik concedes the possibility of Higgins having a jealousy motive but admits he never explored it — key to the defense argument that investigators had tunnel vision.

“We did not follow up on that aspect based on the totality of the entire investigation.”

Acknowledges that the jealousy motive for Higgins was never investigated despite being identified as a possibility.

“Giving you courage that truly shouldn't be there. That you might not otherwise have if you weren't drinking.”

Bukhenik's own definition of 'liquid courage' applied by Jackson to Higgins's state of mind on the night in question.