The Night John O'Keefe Died: January 28–29, 2022

Explained that he and O'Keefe brought their daughters together that Friday because both girls had received school acceptance letters.

Said a group planned to go out to a bar in Canton that night, the eve of her nephew's birthday.

Said she learned of the Waterfall gathering through a text from her sister Nicole noting it was their nephew's birthday.

Said he first went to Charlestown to pick up his vehicle.

Recalled O'Keefe stopping by his pizza shop earlier that day with his nephew Patrick.

Said O'Keefe and Camerano were at McCarthy's and invited him out, but he was reluctant to leave home with a storm coming.

Said her sister-in-law Julie picked her up at her home around 7:30 to 7:45 and they drove to the Waterfall.

Confirmed her husband Curt went out with O'Keefe that evening.

Said the 28th was the day before his birthday and that he had a few friends over at the house while the rest of the family went out.

Estimated Read arrived within about an hour after he and O'Keefe got to the bar, while acknowledging he was not certain.

Relayed Read's statement that she met O'Keefe at McCarthy's at approximately 9:00 p.m.

Testified that O'Keefe and Camerano were at McCarthy's and asked him to come up to join them.

Recalled passing her husband Curt as he was heading out to meet his friends that night.

Said jurors would see surveillance video of the group, including the defendant, drinking alcohol together at McCarthy's.

Stated that the group, including Read and O'Keefe, was all present together at C.F. McCarthy's.

Said the evening began at C.F. McCarthy's, described as a local bar where the friends gathered for drinks.

Identified himself as the general manager of C.F. McCarthy's in Canton, establishing foundation for the bar's surveillance footage.

Suggested on cross-examination that Read arrived at McCarthy's around 8:30 p.m., though the witness's answer was hedged.

Testified that Read identified Camerano among the friends O'Keefe was with at McCarthy's.

Testified that O'Keefe told him he and Read had come from C.F. McCarthy's, across the street.

In opening, the prosecution stated that Brian Albert Jr. remained at the 34 Fairview house while the rest of the family was out at the Waterfall.

She testified that she and her husband dropped their youngest daughter home and then went to meet her sister Nicole at the Waterfall.

He testified that his wife Nicole told him she and a few people were at another location in Canton and invited him to come by.

He placed his departure from D&E Pizza, on the way to the Waterfall, at just before 10:00, around 9:50.

In closing, the defense narrated that O'Keefe and Read made their way to the Waterfall, where the Albert family was already present and drinking.

On cross, the defense asked the witness to confirm his best estimate of when he closed up and walked over to the Waterfall.

She testified that Julie Albert picked her up around 7:30 or 7:45 and the two went to the Waterfall, among the earliest of the group to arrive.

He estimated his own arrival at the Waterfall at around 9:00.

The investigation found that Brian Higgins was already at the Waterfall when O'Keefe and Read arrived.

She testified that her husband Nick texted her to come out because the group was going to the Waterfall.

She identified Brian Albert and Brian Higgins as the two who joined the group at the Waterfall after her husband arrived.

She testified that she and her boyfriend Tristin Morris went straight from Easton to the Waterfall, arriving before her mother and aunt Julie.

A frame-by-frame review of bar surveillance video counted nine drinks consumed between arrival at C.F. McCarthy's and departure from the Waterfall.

The prosecution told jurors the surveillance video at C.F. McCarthy's showed eight vodka drinks.

On cross-examination the defense put to a witness that Read did not appear to be under the influence, a proposition the witness affirmed.

A witness said she would not categorize Read or O'Keefe as drunk or inebriated, while qualifying that she was unsure how drunk was defined.

The defense argued that no evidence established when Read had her last drink that night.

Asked whether a retrograde calculation produced a blood-alcohol range from roughly 0.14 to 0.28, both well above the legal limit, the answer was yes.

An expert testified that retrograde extrapolation placed the minimum estimated blood-alcohol level at 0.135 percent, above the legal limit.

A witness recounted Read saying the next morning that she drank so much she remembered nothing from the night.

A witness said she saw only a clear glass with clear liquid, leaving the actual contents unconfirmed.

A partygoer said that, despite limited interaction, Read and O'Keefe did not appear drunk to him that night.

Asked whether Read appeared under the influence, a witness said he noticed nothing.

Asked whether she observed Read showing signs of intoxication, a witness said she did not, while noting she never spoke with her.

A witness said he saw Read drinking a clear liquid he assumed was a vodka soda, without confirming its contents.

She testified that she walked out of the Waterfall with Read and believed Karina Kolokithas left with them as well.

On cross-examination, he could not identify a person standing behind O'Keefe in the footage and would not confirm that the others had already left.

He recounted the order of departures, recalling his wife leaving first, then the two Brians, his sister-in-law, and another couple, with him exiting last around the same time as O'Keefe and Read.

An opening statement placed Read and O'Keefe leaving the Waterfall together at 12:12 a.m. as the ignition of the Lexus turned on with both inside.

Placed his own departure from the Waterfall at about 12:10 to 12:15 a.m.

Analysis tied the 12:12:36 power-on of the Lexus infotainment system to a GPS location outside the Waterfall, anchoring the vehicle's running-clock data to a real-world time and place.

He recalled being among the first to leave, along with his wife Nicole, daughter Caitlin, and Brian Higgins.

He explained that he and McCabe stayed behind to help clear the table and speak with the band, leaving a couple of minutes after everyone else.

In closing, the prosecution placed Read's departure from the Waterfall at approximately 12:10 a.m., with McCabe and one other woman.

Phone location data placed O'Keefe's phone at the Waterfall at 12:12 a.m., followed by a seven-minute gap before it registered near Dedham Street and Cedarcrest Road at 12:19.

She described preparing to leave as the band wrapped up, mentioning to her sister that Brian Jr. was at the house, context for the group's move to the after-party.

Analysis put the first power-on of the Lexus at approximately 12:12:36 a.m.

Cellebrite records showed McCabe placed the 12:14 call to O'Keefe and that it was answered.

She denied deleting any calls, attributing any missing entries to someone else and noting she handed her phone over willingly.

O'Keefe's phone records showed an incoming call from McCabe beginning at 12:14:36 a.m. and ending at 12:15:20, lasting 44 seconds.

O'Keefe texted his wife and she called him back, accounting for the call from McCabe to O'Keefe.

The call register noted a call at 12:14:36 a.m.

The phone stored only the most recent 200 calls, automatically deleting the oldest entry each time a new call arrived.

The lead investigator acknowledged being unaware whether texts and calls had been deleted from McCabe's phone while it was in his possession.

Repeated another analyst's finding that 18 phone calls from the morning after were shown as deleted, then offered an alternative technical explanation.

The library footage was described as showing a large black SUV on Washington Street.

Foundation testimony established that troopers retrieved surveillance footage from several locations, asking about the time frames captured at each.

Placed the vehicle near 138 D Street, having already passed Cedarcrest Road, at the time of the Waze search.

Explained that the recorded location data could result from user interaction with an app such as Waze or from background activity.

Reading a forensic report, described a dense set of high-accuracy location records logged between 12:19:33 and 12:24:38, with the device arriving outside 34 Fairview at 12:24:38.

Confirmed on direct that review of O'Keefe's phone showed a Waze search for 34 Fairview Road.

Stated that, to his knowledge, O'Keefe was using the Waze app for navigation.

On cross-examination, summarized the conclusion that O'Keefe could not have been at 34 Fairview at 12:22:14 because Waze placed him on Oakdale Road about half a mile away.

Described using updated extraction software to filter for the Waze application, which revealed a monotonic timestamp associated with Waze for the first time.

Explained that Apple Health uses device sensors to detect motion resembling walking and tracks altitude to register climbing a flight of stairs.

In closing, argued that 80 recorded steps followed by descending flights of stairs showed O'Keefe walking into the house and going to the basement.

In opening, characterized health data as registering movement, not necessarily literal steps, and as showing neither direction nor distance traveled.

Read the raw health-data windows aloud, including 80 steps and three ascending or descending floors logged between roughly 12:21 and 12:32 a.m.

Read from Whiffin's report that the device appeared to begin moving toward the house, while noting the bearing was derived from location records rather than the phone's facing.

Confirmed that 80 steps were recorded in the 12:21:10 to 12:24:22 window.

Asked the witness to cross-reference the health data with GPS to identify where O'Keefe's phone physically was during that time window.

Elicited that O'Keefe's health data showed climbing up or down three flights of stairs between 12:21 and 12:24 a.m.

Conceded that the 36-step, 84-foot event represented human activity.

Testified that a step reading reflects device motion rather than necessarily walking, and could result from carrying the phone or riding a bicycle.

Testified that placing the step event at 12:32:16 would make all 30 charted scenarios show phone activity after the alleged collision.

Declined to confirm that the wavy tire-track pattern came from a three-point turn, saying it could be consistent but that he had never examined tracks after performing one.

Argued that no eyewitness observed the SUV back up at 34 Fairview Road, despite Jennifer McCabe having watched the vehicle the entire time it sat in front of the house.

Described GPS and Cellebrite data showing the SUV overshoot Fairview Road, perform a three-point turn or otherwise turn around, then return and stop between 34 and 32 Fairview.

Placed the three-point turn or U-turn on Cedarcrest Road, after data indicated the SUV missed the turn to Fairview and had to reverse course.

Described two methodologies the prosecution used to align timing, one based on phone calls and one keyed to the three-point turn.

Recounted that Read stated in her interview that she made a three-point turn and left the scene.

Placed the three-point turn on Cedarcrest, occurring about 12 minutes and 23 seconds after the vehicle was started, based on Techstream data.

Distinguished the two Techstream events under analysis, identifying one as a three-point turn maneuver and the other as a backing maneuver.

Stated that when she looked out the front door the SUV was straight ahead and facing up Chapman Road, indicating it had turned around relative to its arrival direction.

Read O'Keefe's phone location data as showing the device appear to turn around, potentially a three-point turn.

Put to the witness that V-shaped tire tracks appeared on the street in front of the Albert home sometime after the black SUV first arrived.

Recalled that while parked behind it, he saw the SUV move forward about a car and a half, still facing in the same direction.

Recalled seeing the SUV in three successive forward positions, by the mailbox, then in front of the yard, then up toward the flagpole.

Noticed tracks in the snow indicating that the SUV had moved up from where it had been.

Asked about calls to Nicole Albert deleted before the phone was turned over, she denied deleting any calls and said any deletion happened after the phone left her hands.

Pressed that none of the supposed accidental calls appeared on the extraction of McCabe's own phone.

Argued to the jury that McCabe could not be certain whether O'Keefe's vehicle was still parked out front or had already left when she texted around 12:40.

Phone extraction showed O'Keefe's device received a text reading "Here" from McCabe at 12:27:33 a.m.

On cross-examination, confirmed an entry at 12:27:33 a.m. showing a message received from McCabe on O'Keefe's phone.

Read a later-morning "Please answer" call directed to O'Keefe.

Testified that no live call data remained in the relevant records, indicating all of the entries had been deleted.

Recalled texting and calling O'Keefe later that morning to ask where he was, part of the household's renewed efforts to reach him.

Repeated another analyst's finding that 18 phone calls from the morning after were shown as deleted, then offered an alternative technical explanation.

Cautioned that apparent shifts in the plotted GPS center point could reflect data refinement or changing environmental conditions rather than actual movement of the device.

Read the phone's last logged movement at 6:15:36 a.m. at a speed of 0.24 meters per second with an accuracy rating of 7.58 meters, or about 24 feet.

Posed whether any data showed the Lexus actually stopped at the plotted resting point after accelerating in reverse past its starting position.

Pressed on cross-examination that the report's paragraph nine did not state the plotted position's accuracy fell within three feet, challenging the GPS plot's reliability.

Reconstructed an 87-foot reverse maneuver, noting that the Techstream data ended while the vehicle was still moving at about 23 miles per hour rather than at a confirmed stop.

Confirmed that nothing in the report supported phone movement between 12:32:16 a.m. and 6:04:01 a.m., corroborating the no-movement window.

The vehicle was calculated to have traveled up to about 62 feet in reverse at a speed of roughly 24 miles per hour.

The medical examiner stated that O'Keefe's injuries were not the classic injuries typically seen in a pedestrian collision.

A defense expert described a test examining whether a direct tail-light impact to the back of the head could have caused the skull fracture.

A defense biomechanics expert testified that the testing produced no forces, undercutting the theory that the body was projected forward.

The tail-light damage was described as consistent with a collision occurring at speeds above roughly eight miles per hour.

The medical examiner was asked whether the skull fracture was consistent with being projected in a pedestrian collision and then striking the head on the ground.

The defense opening flatly asserted that no collision occurred and that O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle.

A defense pathologist stated that O'Keefe died from a blunt-force head injury.

A defense expert described being asked to assess whether the arm wounds were caused by a motor-vehicle collision.

Shattered fragments from the Lexus's right tail light were said to have been recovered from O'Keefe's clothing, offered as physical evidence of the alleged collision.

The defense pathologist testified that the arm injury did not appear consistent with a direct strike to the arm by a vehicle.

The defense opening asserted that Read was framed and that her car never struck O'Keefe or caused his death.

The medical examiner was pressed on whether the arm injury was inconsistent with being struck by a vehicle at 24 miles per hour.

An investigator testified that the working theory evolved to a vehicle strike based on the injuries and a suspicion that O'Keefe had been knocked out of his shoes.

The defense stated on the record that it vigorously contested any collision and that no collision ever occurred.

In closing, argued the witnesses who said O'Keefe never entered the house were all connected to the Alberts and could not be relied on.

In his opening statement, introduced the theory that someone inside the Albert home could have beaten O'Keefe and left him on the front lawn.

In closing, argued the phone data ruled out a fight and that O'Keefe could not have gone into any house and come back out.

In closing, argued that the people in the car never saw anyone get out of the vehicle or go into the house.

Testified that Colin Albert had left and did not remain at the house that night.

Testifying before the jury, the forensic pathologist described parallel lines on O'Keefe's arm as inflicted by teeth or claw marks.

Placed Colin Albert leaving the house just as his parents, sister, and Higgins arrived.

Vehicle data showed the Lexus infotainment system powered on at 12:12:36 a.m. and remained on until a power-off at roughly 12:42 a.m.

In opening, the Commonwealth dated O'Keefe leaving the Lexus to a final, user-initiated phone interaction at 12:32 a.m., the last time he used the device.

Reading from the forensic extraction, a log entry recording the phone being locked with the lock button marked the last human interaction with the device.

Analysis of the phone's motion data placed its last movement at 12:32 a.m., after which it stayed dormant until 6:15 a.m. the next morning.

Argued in closing that investigators failed to examine the late-night visit to the Canton police station, which followed a night of drinking.

Described an object the figure held to his face as consistent with a cellular device, possibly a phone or tablet.

Stated that he returned to the Canton police station that night.

Asked the witness what he recalled about seeing Higgins around the police station in the early morning of January 29.

Established through the dispatcher that Higgins entered the police station around 1:30 a.m. from the back parking lot.

Described the plow route as covering Cedarcrest and surrounding streets, establishing his presence in the area.

Arguing the motion for a required finding of not guilty, the defense said no neighbor or plow driver saw O'Keefe's body in the snow before Read found him around 6:03 a.m.

Arguing the renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty, the defense said the plow driver confirmed O'Keefe was not on the Albert front lawn at 2:45 a.m.

Asked on cross-examination whether the driver had told a private investigator he saw the Ford Edge from Cedarcrest rather than while passing on Fairview.

Asked on cross-examination whether the driver had stated he would have seen a body on the front lawn or sidewalk.

Explained discounting the plow-driver report because the account had changed over multiple statements and the Ford Edge identification seemed highly suggestive.

Disputed the defense characterization of the plow driver's account, saying his recollection differed from how it had been described.

Explained that the grand-jury statement about no plows rested on an interview indicating plows were not out until 2:30 a.m. and focused on main roadways.

Identified Loughran as the driver of Truck 30, a Town of Canton plow.

Denied deleting any calls, attributing any deletion to someone else and stating the phone was handed over willingly.

Previewed testimony that a 4:53 a.m. call from O'Keefe's niece reached Jennifer McCabe, and the niece then handed her phone to Read.

Asserted that calls to Nicole were deleted from the phone before it was turned over to law enforcement.

Narrated that Read woke early the next morning, beginning the sequence of calls.

Was awakened by Read screaming "Jen, Jen, Jen" through a phone call, snapping up out of bed thinking someone was in the bedroom.

Testified the early-morning call records were found as deleted data, with live data appearing only after 8:59 a.m.

Repeated another analyst's finding that 18 phone calls from the morning after were shown as deleted, then offered an alternative technical explanation.

Summarized that investigators learned Read was calling people as early as 4:45 a.m. to locate O'Keefe and left the house shortly after 5:00 a.m.

Opined that the device itself removed the entries, with the system deleting the 201st call each time a new one was added.

Noted that no call durations were recorded from 1:24 a.m. through the 5:07 a.m. call, with durations resuming only at 8:59 a.m.

Relayed Read's account that she returned to Canton, woke around 4:30 a.m. unable to find O'Keefe, and woke Kaylee to ask if she had heard from him.

A police witness testified that the video appeared to show the tire moving but could not say so with certainty.

The defense argued in closing that the video unequivocally established Read struck the parked car and cracked her taillight at 5:07 a.m.

In closing, the prosecution characterized the contact as a mere nudge and argued the taillight was already broken when she backed up.

On redirect, the prosecution directed the witness to the portion of the video where Read's vehicle allegedly came close to or contacted O'Keefe's car in the driveway.

An expert described the Ring video of Read backing the Lexus out of O'Keefe's residence around 5:00 a.m. as one focus of his analysis of the contact.

In a voir dire hearing, a reconstruction trooper concluded the SUV most likely contacted the Traverse bumper to bumper but could not be certain, noting no damage to O'Keefe's car.

The defense told jurors in opening that the video showed Read's SUV jostling the wheels and hubcaps of O'Keefe's car at the moment her taillight cracked.

On cross-examination, the defense treated the collision between Read's roughly 6,000-pound Lexus and O'Keefe's approximately 4,500-pound Traverse as undisputed.

An expert testified that vehicle data recorded the Lexus powering on at 5:07:46 a.m., fixing the start of the backing event.

A police witness described the Ring video as showing Read backing toward O'Keefe's vehicle and coming extremely close, if not slightly hitting it.

The municipal-camera canvass focused on two time windows, midnight to 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. to 6 a.m.

Police requested municipal footage facing Washington Street from either the town hall or the library.

Ring footage from O'Keefe's home was identified as showing a black Lexus SUV registered to Karen Read, matched by its license plate.

A closing argument characterized the seventeen-minute gap from 5:18 to 5:35 as excess time consistent with retracing the prior night's path toward 34 Fairview Road.

The Ring video began at approximately 5:07:58 by the camera's own clock, with the power-on event logged at 5:07:46.

Cross-examination confirmed that State Police had asked for two hours of footage, one window midnight to 1 a.m. and the other 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. on January 29.

Recalled Read's roughly 5 a.m. phone request to come over and have her car driven, saying she remembered nothing from the night.

Denied having told Read to come to her house.

Told jurors that Read also called Kerry Roberts around 5 a.m.

Recalled texting back that Read and his wife had left the house together to look for O'Keefe.

Put to McCabe that she had earlier told an investigator she directed Read to come to her house on the morning in question.

Described beginning chest compressions, calling for 911, and Read attempting mouth-to-mouth on O'Keefe at the scene.

Testified that Read told a first responder "I hit him" three times at the scene.

Recalled arriving to find three people on the snowy lawn waving him down.

Described the dispatch as reporting an unresponsive male in a snowbank at 34 Fairview Road with little further information.

Recalled Read repeating the phrase "I hit him" over and over at the scene, supporting the statement version of her words.

Argued the evidence would show Read never said "I hit him," with nothing on the 911 recording, dash cam, audio, or body cam.

Described O'Keefe lying supine on his back, parallel to the street, about eight feet from the snowbank.

Recalled Read screaming "Is that my boyfriend? Is he dead?" at the discovery scene.

Relayed Read's account to investigators that she woke, searched for O'Keefe, found him in the snow, and began CPR.

Logged a 6:04 a.m. 911 call from a woman at 34 Fairview, fixing the approximate time of discovery.

Recalled Read saying "I hit him" and repeating it after a bystander told her to calm down.

The opening described the search as timestamped at 2:27 a.m. in investigators' own data and said the defense uncovered it independently.

Forensic analysis identified two variant search terms, one reading 'how long to die in cold' and the other a misspelled version.

No other data on the device indicated that the internet query had occurred at the 2:27 a.m. timestamp.

Cross-examination framed the central question as whether the 2:27:40 a.m. timestamp belonged to the 'how long to die in the cold' search.

The opening asserted that McCabe typed the search at 2:27 a.m., over three hours before O'Keefe's body was found, and later deleted it.

The witness denied making or deleting any 2:27 a.m. search and said she would never have left O'Keefe to die in the cold.

Testimony referenced misspelled searches performed at 6:23.

Defense testimony opined that the search occurred at or before 2:27 a.m.

On redirect, the witness denied having made any such search at 2:27 a.m.

Redirect framed the expert's opinion that the search was actually entered at 6:23 and 6:24 a.m., not 2:27.

The cause of death could be determined from the autopsy, though additional information was needed before the manner of death could be certified.

O'Keefe arrived at the hospital in cardiac arrest, meaning his heart was no longer pumping blood and showed no electrical activity.

Under the medical principle that a person is not considered dead until warm and dead, core body temperature must return to normal before resuscitation is deemed futile.

O'Keefe's core body temperature was recorded at 80 degrees.

A doctor and nurse informed the family that efforts to save O'Keefe had been unsuccessful and that he had died, then offered to let them see him.

Recalled that John O'Keefe's father mentioned a Dr. Rice and said they were trying to warm John up.

Michael Proctor was the trooper on call before 7 a.m. on January 29.

Troopers spoke with Matthew and Jennifer McCabe and with Brian Albert.

At Proctor's request, the Dighton tow company was contacted to meet the troopers at the residence.

Cross-examination turned to the Dighton trip and the seizure of the SUV, noting prior direct testimony placing the seizure around 4:15 to 4:17 p.m.

During the 34 Fairview search, a relay reported that the SUV was being towed back to the Canton Police Department, so no photo was available.

On arriving in Dighton and viewing the Lexus, the witness was asked whether the focus of the investigation developed.

The troopers were following a tow truck carrying Read's vehicle from Dighton to Canton.