Opening-Proceedings
60 linesPROCEEDINGS April 29, 2024
(Court in session at 9:57 a.m.)
(Defendant present. Jury not present.)
COURT CLERK: 22-117, the Commonwealth versus Karen Read. Would counsel identify --
JUDGE CANNONE: Could I please see counsel at Sidebar?
(Whereupon, there was a sidebar conference as follows:)
Court Order: Jurors or Juror Issues
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Is there anything we need to talk about before we get started?
COURT CLERK: No, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: Just -- it doesn't have to be now, but I just wanted to address the issue of exhibits before we start with any witnesses. That's all.
JUDGE CANNONE: What issue with exhibits?
MR. LALLY: So I don't think anything has been, despite our best efforts, I don't think anything has been premarked yet. I think there is a list as far as an agreement as far as different exhibits and what they'd be numbered. I just am looking for some guidance from the Court as to how you want to refer to them.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, I believe that Ms. King would tell you that she will be here at 8:30 every morning and one lawyer from each side has to be here if you want anything marked from 8:30 to 8:50 and that's it.
MR. LALLY: Okay
JUDGE CANNONE: All right? Is there anything more? Do you want to come over here?
COURT REPORTER: I explained it to both sides this morning. Ms. McLaughlin was present for the prosecution and everyone was in agreement.
MR. LALLY: No. I'm still in agreement with that. I'm more just seeking your guidance as far as what do you want me to call something without --
JUDGE CANNONE: Are you using exhibits today?
MR. LALLY: Yes. There's not very many of them but yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mark them one at a time as we go?
COURT REPORTER: Sure. I'm ready to go.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Let's do that. If they are agreed upon, you can just bring them up and they will be marked as you go to introduce them.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Anything else?
MR. LALLY: No. No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So it will take a few minutes to get the jurors over here. So let's take five minutes.
MR. LALLY: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are they ready to come over?
COURT OFFICER: Not yet.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon, there was a brief recess taken.)
(Court resumes at 10:11 a.m.)
(Defendant present. Jury present.)
COURT CLERK: I'm sorry, jurors. Could you stand one more time and raise your right hands?
(Whereupon, the jury is duly sworn.)
COURT CLERK: You can have a seat. Jurors, harken to these indictments: 2282CR117-001, Karen Read, of Mansfield, in the County of Bristol, on or about January 29th, 2022, at Canton, in the County of Norfolk, did assault and beat John O'Keefe with intent to murder such person and, by such assault and battery, did kill and murder the said John O'Keefe and is guilty of murder in the second degree and not in the first degree, in violation of General Law, Chapter 265, Section 1. O02. Karen Read, of Mansfield, County of Bristol, on or about January 29, 2022, at Canton, in the County of Norfolk, did operate a motor vehicle upon a way as defined in Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 90, Section 1, or a place in which the public has a right of access or upon the way Or in a place to which members of the public has access aS invitees or licensees, with a percentage by weight of alcohol in her blood of eight-one hundredths or greater or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and did so operate said motor vehicle so that the lives and safety of the public might be endangered and, by such wanton and reckless conduct so described, did cause the death of another person, to wit: John O'Keefe, in violation of General Law, Chapter 265, Section 13 1/2.
O03. Karen Read, of Mansfield, in the County of Bristol, on or about January 29th, 2022, at Canton, in the County of Norfolk, did operate a motor vehicle upon away or ina place to which the public has a right of access or upon away or ina place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees and without stopping and making known her name, residence and registration number of a motor vehicle, did go away to avoid prosecution or evade apprehension after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to John O'Keefe, such injuries having resulted in the death of said person, in violation of General Law, Chapter 90, Section 24, (2) (a 1/2) (2). To these indictments, the defendant has pled that she is not guilty and for trial has put herself upon the country, which country you are, and you are sworn to try the issue. If she is guilty, you are to say so. If she is not guilty, you are to say so and no more. Jurors, harken to the evidence.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you very much. Counsel, identify yourselves, please.
MR. LALLY: Adam Lally, for the Commonwealth. Good morning, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Mr. Lally.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Laura McLaughlin, for the Commonwealth.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Ms. McLaughlin.
MR. JACKSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Alan Jackson, on behalf of Ms. Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Mr. Jackson.
MS. LITTLE: Good morning, Your Honor. Elizabeth Little, also on behalf of Ms. Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Ms. Little.
MR. YANNETTI: Good morning, Your Honor, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name is David Yannetti, and I represent Karen Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Mr. Yannetti. Good morning, Ms. Read. All right. Good morning, jurors. Before we begin, I have to ask you three questions that I'm going to ask you every single time we meet. The first question is were you all able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone? Everyone said "yes" or nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said "yes" or nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear or read anything about this case since we were last in court? Everyone said "no" or shook their heads. Thank you. All right. Jurors, I'm about to make some preliminary remarks to you to acquaint you with some of the legal principles, procedure and terminology that you'll hear about during the course of the trial.
But these comments are not intended to be a substitute for the detailed instructions on the law which I will give you at the conclusion of the case. This is the trial of a criminal case, as you've heard, and you've heard that the defendant is charged with second degree murder. She is also charged with manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene after causing personal injury or death. I will describe in detail at the end of the case each of these indictments when I teach you the law. But, briefly, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. In order to prove the defendant guilty of second degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an unlawful killing and that it was done with malice. In comparison, manslaughter while operating under the influence is an unintentional, unlawful killing caused by wanton or reckless conduct while under the influence of intoxicating liguor.
Again, these terms and elements of the crimes including the additional crime of leaving the scene of an accident after causing personal injury or death will be described for you in detail at the end of the case. Please remember that the defendant starts this trial presumed to be innocent. The fact that she was arrested or that she was indicted is not proof of anything. An indictment is just a piece of paper. It just makes an accusation. So it's merely a formal manner of accusing a person of a crime to bring her to trial in the superior court. But it is only the jury, in other words, you folks, who can decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Commonwealth does not do that, then the presumption of innocence, alone, requires you to find the defendant not guilty. The law does not require a defendant to prove her innocence, to produce any evidence whatsoever or to do anything other than attend the trial.
This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant until you, the jury, make your determination after listening and considering all the evidence. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if after you have compared and considered all of the evidence you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case. I have told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. That is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, our system of justice depends on judges
JUDGE CANNONE: like me and jurors like you being able and willing to make careful and fair decisions. All people deserve fair and equal treatment in our system of justice regardless of their race, national origin, age, ability, gender, sexual orientation, education, income level or any other personal character. You have agreed to be fair, and I'm sure you want to be fair, but that is not always easy. One difficulty comes from our own built-in expectations and assumptions. They exist even if we are not aware of them and even if we believe we do not have them. Some of you may have heard this called implicit bias, and that is what I'm talking about. Of course, we judges have the same problem as everyone else. So let me share a few strategies that we have found useful. First. Slow down. Do not rush to a decision. Hasty decisions are more likely to reflect stereotypes or hidden biases. Second. Keep an open mind.
Avoid drawing conclusions until the end of the case when you and your fellow jurors deliberate. Remember that when you deliberate, you will have all the evidence and all of the time you need to make a careful decision. So there truly is no need to start making up your mind beforehand. Third. You should listen closely to all the witnesses. That is the best way to ensure that you decide this case based on the evidence and the law instead of upon unsupported assumptions. Fourth. As you listen to the testimony about the people involved in this case, consider them as individuals rather than as members of a particular group. Finally, I might ask myself would I view the evidence differently if the people were from different groups such as different racial, ethnic or gender identity groups? At the end of the case, I will remind you of these strategies and ask you to focus on the evidence instead of any unsupported assumptions you may have.
All we ask is that you individually and as a group do your best to resolve this case based upon the evidence and the law without sympathy, bias or prejudice to the best of your ability as human beings. Now, when I finish with these initial instructions, Mr. Lally will make his opening statement. Mr. Yannetti can choose to make an opening statement or not because the defendant has no burden of proof and doesn't have to prove anything. Her lawyer doesn't even need to make an opening statement. An opening statement is a summary of what the lawyer expects the evidence at trial will be. It is intended to introduce the main issues in the case. Next, the prosecution will introduce evidence in support of the charges in the indictments. After that, the defendant may present evidence on her behalf if she wishes to do so. But, again, she is not obligated to do so. Remember, the burden of proof is always on the Commonwealth to prove the defendant is guilty.
The law does not require any defendant to prove her innocence or to produce any evidence at all. After all the evidence, each side will have an opportunity to offer you closing arguments about what conclusions you might draw from the evidence. Like the opening statements, the closing arguments are not evidence. They are merely intended to help you understand the respective contentions of the parties. Finally, after all the evidence and the lawyers' arguments, I will instruct you in detail on the principles of law which you are going to apply in your deliberations when you retire to consider your verdict. Your verdict must be unanimous. You see that we have many of you. We have 17 of you, and only 12 will ultimately decide this case, and that's done at the end of the case. We impanel so many jurors in a case, it's going to take a long time in case something comes up and a juror cannot complete his or her service. Let me talk briefly about our respective roles in this case.
As the judge, my responsibility is to see to it that this case is tried in an orderly, fair and efficient manner. It's also my function to decide any questions of law that come up during the trial and to instruct you about the law that applies to this case. It is your duty to accept the law as I state it to you whether you agree with it or not. The jury's function: You folks are the most important people in this courtroom. You determine the facts of this case. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You, alone, determine what evidence to believe, how important any evidence is that you do believe and what conclusions all the believable evidence leads you to.
JUDGE CANNONE: You will have to consider and weigh the testimony of all the witnesses who appear before you, and you, alone, will determine whether to believe any witness and the extent to which you believe any witness. You can believe all of what a witness says, some of it or none of it. It is entirely up to you. It is part of your responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the testimony that may arise during the course of the trial and to determine where the truth lies. Ultimately, you must determine whether or not the Commonwealth has proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The lawyers have their own important role in this trial. They are, of course, advocates. Their job is to bring to your attention the evidence and arguments that best support their position. They may also object to evidence offered by the other Side that may not be admissible under our rules of evidence. Similarly, we may engage in sidebar conferences over here out of your hearing.
They are not intended to keep secrets from you but to allow the lawyers a little more time to argue their points so that I can rule on what you may consider as evidence. If I agree with an objection to a question during trial, I will use the term "Sustained." You are then to disregard that question and you're not to speculate as to what the answer might have been. In the same way, you are to disregard any evidence that I tell you is stricken from the record. If I reject or overrule an objection, I will allow the witness to answer the question, and you may consider that answer. But you're not to give that answer any more weight than you would have had no objection been made. Please do not hold it against the lawyers if they make an objection. That's part of the lawyer's job. The lawyers have to let me know when there is a potential issue about the admissibility of certain evidence of law under our laws.
You must decide this case solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom, and this will included the sworn testimony of witnesses and may also include exhibits that are admitted into evidence, any facts which I tell you may have been agreed upon by both sides and any facts which I indicate to you that you may take as a matter of common knowledge. A question to witnesses, no matter how artfully phrased, are not evidence. Only the answers that you receive from the witnesses who are testifying under oath are evidence. Tf one of the lawyers or I refer to some part of the evidence that does not coincide with your own recollection, it is your collective recollection which you are to follow in your deliberations. In this case, I'll allow you folks to take notes.
Any jurors who wish to take notes during the course of the trial except during opening statements and closing arguments because, again, those aren't evidence, we will hand out notebooks after the openings this morning so that you can take notes. They will be provided to you daily. Your notebooks will be collected every day. They will be kept locked up and confidential, and they are destroyed at the end of the trial. You're not required to take notes. The choice is completely up to you. Some jurors may feel that notes are helpful, particularly if the case involves many witnesses or complicated issues. Notes can also help you to remember specific testimony or evidence such as times, places, dates, names, relationship, events, distances, things of that nature. Other jurors may feel that note taking is a distraction and may interfere with hearing and evaluating the evidence. If you do take notes, I suggest you keep them brief.
They are not and cannot be considered official transcripts of the trial testimony. However, bear in mind that although the court reporter is recording everything that transpires here, we do not have the capability of providing you with a transcript of the testimony at the conclusion or anytime during the trial. So you will have to rely on your own memories of the testimony perhaps supplemented by your notes. Regardless of whether or not you take notes, remember that how a witness testifies may be just as important as what he or she says. Therefore, your observations of the witness's appearance and demeanor on the witness stand may play an important part in your assessment of his or her credibility. So please do not let your note taking distract you from an appreciation of all of the evidence. Now, I'm going to address the issue of public interest in this case again and the duty of this
JUDGE CANNONE: Court and this jury to adhere to the rule of law because it is so very important. Remember, John Adams said that we are a government of laws, not of men, and that the law must be deaf to the clamoring of the public. He meant that while public opinion about a given subject may ebb and flow, the law must be steady, reliable and evenhanded. We know that on the subject of this case, there are people advocating for one outcome or another with intensity but without the benefit of having heard or seen any evidence at all. The law works ina different way, and the difference is crucial to our system of justice. This jury will decide. This jury selected for this trial will hear and judge the evidence. You will decide what the facts are, and where the evidence is contested, you will determine where the truth lies. Ultimately, this jury, you folks, will decide whether the Commonwealth has carried its burden of proving that the defendant is guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
People outside of this building have rights and we know that they have voices, but this trial will be decided by you, an independent jury, free from outside interference based only upon the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law. This is the only way to ensure that every person who comes before the Court receives a fair trial. It is just that simple and that important. So while public comment will likely continue, you must ignore it so that in this courtroom, the rule of law will be upheld. This means that during the trial, until you retire to deliberate, you must not discuss this case with anyone. This includes family and friends and even your fellow jurors, nor should you allow anyone to communicate with you about any aspect of this case. You must not conduct any independent research about this case, the matters in this case, the individuals involved in this case.
In other words, you must not consult the Internet, including social media, and do anything else to find out any information from any source outside the confines of this courtroom. As best as you recognize them, please have no contact with any of the participants in this trial or anyone associated with either side, including the lawyers. Please do not visit any locations that may be mentioned during the trial. We will go on a view, and I will discuss that with you before we go. Remember, you were instructed that you must not, and you assured us that you would not, read, watch or listen to any account of any aspect of this case in any news media or from any other source. It is critical that you follow that instruction, as hard as it's going to be. Finally, please continue to keep an open mind. Now, I know that you will try this case according to the oath that you have taken as jurors. When you took that oath, you promised that you would well and truly try the issues between the Commonwealth and the defendant according to the evidence and the law. If you follow that oath, approach this case with an open mind and make your decisions fairly and without prejudice, bias or sympathy for anyone, then you will arrive at a true and just verdict, and that's what we ask of you. So with that, it's time for opening statements. Whenever you are ready, Mr. Lally. I ask only that you keep your voice up, please.
MR. LALLY: I will do my best, Your Honor. OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH
MR. LALLY: Good morning. So as Her Honor was telling you, this is one of the two opportunities that I will get to address you. First of which, right now, essentially what I'm going to attempt to do -- and I know you heard over the course of the impanelment process, a number of different witnesses that were listed out as far as potential witnesses in this case. So what my intent here is, is to provide as much of a roadmap as I can through the waters and help you to navigate sort of who these people are and what relation they have to this case. Let me start with John O'Keefe. John O'Keefe grew up in Braintree. He was 46 years old when he passed. He was the son of John O'Keefe, Jr. and Margaret, or Peggy, O'Keefe. He was a brother to Paul O'Keefe and to his sister, Kristen Furbush. Kristen was married. So John's brother-in-law was a man named Stephen Furbush. And they had two children who were very young in 2013.
Now, in 2013, Kristen, unfortunately, tragically, passed away, succumbing to cancer in November of 2013. Within months of that, Mr. O'Keefe's brother-in-law, Kristen's husband Stephen, passed away, as well. Now, initially, when John O'Keefe's sister passed away, sort of the initial plan for that Situation was that John O'Keefe was going to move in with Stephen Furbush and the kids and assist as far as raising those kids. And then, when Stephen passed away a few months after his wife, before those plans could be finalized, John O'Keefe then moved in with his niece and nephew and assumed a parental role and assumed legal guardianship with respect to both of those children. Now, he was assisted in this by a great number of people within the town of Canton where the Furbushes lived and where John moved into the home with the two children there. There were other parents within the neighborhood, other parents within the children's age group.
You'll hear from a number of them over the course of this trial. But they include a Mrs. Kerry Roberts and Mrs. Jennifer McCabe. They helped Mr. O'Keefe out during those initial stages and during the time that he assumed this role. He also got help from his work. John O'Keefe was a proud member of the Boston Police Department and had been for many years. He had been a patrolman prior to moving in with the children and assuming this sort of role. The Boston Police Department helped him greatly as far as transitioning him to more of a desk role, working in the sex offender unit with more regular hours to sort of assimilate himself to his new life in this new role that he had assumed with these children. Initially, John O'Keefe lived in the house with the kids. However, in 2018, they moved into a new home, sort of new home that they could have as their own. That home was located also within the town of Canton, sort of on the Stoughton side of Canton at One Meadows Avenue.
John O'Keefe raised these children, assuming guardianship for them for about eight years. His niece, who was the elder of the two, was about 14 at the time that John O'Keefe died. His nephew was about 11 years old when John O'Keefe died. January 28th, 2022 was a relatively typical day. It was a Friday, going into Saturday, January 29th. Sort of typical in a2 sense of most sort of suburban parents, there were a lot of activities, weekend sports, practice games, things of that nature that the O'Keefe and Furbush family had to look forward to. One little difference when it came to that particular day of January 28th, into the 29th is the weather. So there had been predicted and there was going to be a snowstorm and significant. A blizzard, essentially, was coming in overnight that Friday into Saturday, lasting through most of the day on Saturday, the 29th.
And, as a result of that, most of those sort of typical, you know, weekend routine activities that would keep most people busy, including those within the town of Canton, had been cancelled. Everybody knew what was coming. Everybody knew essentially you weren't going to leave your house all that much the following day. Now, also on January 28th, Mr. O'Keefe had received some news in respect to his niece. So his niece and her best friend were in eighth grade at the time, going into high school in the fall of 2022. They had both applied to a private school called Bishop Feehan, and they had both found out on the 28th that they had been accepted to that school. So the friend, as well as her father, a gentleman by the name of Michael Camerano, who both
MR. LALLY: he and his wife, Katherine Camerano, were friendly with John O'Keefe. They had children around the same ages as both John's niece and his nephew, and they had come over to their house on Meadows Ave. that evening to celebrate the girls getting into that school. The nephew of John, the 11-year-old, was sleeping over a friend's house that night. He left that home sometime around 7:00 p.m. or so, got picked up and went to sleep over his friend's house. John O'Keefe and Michael Camerano then decided to travel out to a local establishment on Washington Street called C.F. McCarthy's. It's a bar and restaurant. You're going to hear testimony and your going to see surveillance video and you're going to see receipts and all kinds of things from a variety of different establishments, all sort of located within Canton Center, along that strip on Washington Street. Now, they get -- Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Camerano leave the girls at home. They then go to C.F.
McCarthy's, arriving there sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. They eventually cajoled another friend of theirs, a Mr. Curt Roberts, to come out to the bar and join them, as well. And there are some other people that are located within the bar, including a Mr. James Sullivan, who we hear from who was present at the bar that night, as well. Eventually, the defendant, Karen Read, joins them at this establish of C.F. McCarthy's sometime just before 9:00 p.m. Now, John O'Keefe and Karen Read had met sometime in 2004. They had dated briefly during that time and reconnected sometime around March of 2020, around the COVID-19 sort of pandemic shutdown. They had started dating around that time period or reconnected during that time period, and the defendant had stayed at the house in Canton several nights a week. She had helped out with the children. In the month or so leading up to Mr. O'Keefe's death, the relationship soured. You will see text messages between Mr. O'Keefe and Ms.
Read to that effect. You will hear testimony from the children, from John's niece and nephew, in regard to things they observed within that relationship; and you'll hear testimony from some other individuals as far as their observations or things that they heard. Turning to January 29th, 2022, just after 6:00 a.m., the Canton Police Department received a 911 call from a woman reporting a male party subsequently identified as John O'Keefe found in the snow outside a residence at 34 Fairview Road. At the time, as I had mentioned, the blizzard that had been predicted was occurring. Heavy snow, temperatures in the teens, wind bustling around. Officer Steven Saraf and Officer Stephen Mullaney of the Canton Police were dispatched along with Canton Fire and EMS. And you'll hear from them in regard to their response and what they observed on scene.
In particular, with Officer Saraf, you'll have as an exhibit I anticipate a cruiser camera video from his cruiser, detailing or memorializing sort of his response in the darkness in the blizzard- type conditions as he's driving from the Canton Police Station, where he was located when he received the call to 34 Fairview Road. When they arrived there, they observed three individuals, three females, sort off to the left side of the property. And, when I say "the left side of the property," I mean if you're standing out in the street, facing 34 Fairview Road, off to the left side of the property, there is a flagpole. There is a fire hydrant. There's some bushes. That is where Mr. O'Keefe was located. Off to the right side of the property is sort of the driveway, the mailbox and other things that you'll become familiar with through photographic evidence and other means through the course of this trial.
The three females that the officers observed there were then identified as the defendant, Karen Read; Mrs. Jennifer McCabe, who had received a phone call earlier in the morning from the defendant; as well as Mrs. Kerry Roberts, who had also received a phone call earlier that morning from the defendant. Several firefighters from the Canton Fire Department you'll hear from in regard to their observations of injuries, abrasions and lacerations to the right arm of Mr. O'Keefe. You'll hear their testimony in regard to swelling of his eyes and other injuries that he observed. They observed redness from the cold that he had been lying out in for some time. You'll hear the testimony from the firefighters, Timothy Nuttall, Anthony Flematti,
MR. LALLY: Matthew Kelly, Francis Walsh, Katie McLaughlin and Greg Woodbury. And at least from three of those firefighters, you're going to hear testimony, I anticipate, detailing statements that the defendant made to them when they had asked about the origination of some of those injuries. And the defendant stated repeatedly, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Mr. O'Keefe was then taken from the front lawn onto what they call a scoop stretcher. As he is doing that, I anticipate you'll hear Ms. Roberts' testimony that despite the six inches of snow approximately that was on top of Mr. O'Keefe's body and the snow throughout the roadway, the front yard, everywhere around where he was, there was grass underneath Mr. O'Keefe where his cell phone was located underneath his body as he lay on that front lawn. He was then transported by Firefighters Kelly, Flematti and Nuttall, as well as the ambulance being driven by Firefighter McLaughlin to the Good Samaritan Medical Center.
Once there, there were some observations, and you'll hear testimony from Dr. Justin Rice from that facility as far as observations consistent with what I anticipate you'll hear from those firefighters. But then there is a certain warming procedure that they go through, trying to bring his body temperature up because when Mr. O'Keefe arrives at the Good Samaritan Medical Center, his body temperature is 80. And, after those resuscitative efforts prove unsuccessful, Mr. O'Keefe is eventually pronounced by Dr. Rice at approximately 7:50 in the morning. Shortly after that when the defendant is then being driven away from the scene by Ms. Roberts, who is now going to go pick up Mr. and Mrs. O'Keefe, John O'Keefe's parents, in Braintree and then bring them to the Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton, the defendant makes some statements of self-harm.
As a result of that, she is then transported to the Good Samaritan Medical Center, as well, by two firefighters named Daniel Whitley and Jason Becker. And amongst the statements that they gained from the defendant as they are having a conversation with her in regard to that, in regard to her treatment and diagnosis, she indicate that the last time that she saw Mr. O'Keefe, they had gotten into an argument before he had gotten out of the car in front of Fairview Road. Now, you'll also hear testimony from some of the other first responding officers from the Canton Police Department, including Lieutenant Paul Gallagher, Sergeant Sean Goode and Sergeant Michael Lank in regard to their initial response, their observations, the people that they spoke to, where they went, and their ability to recover within these blizzard conditions that are still ongoing certain pieces of evidence that they located in and around the area where Mr. O'Keefe's body was found.
You'll also hear from Lieutenant Charles Ray of the Canton Police Department, who was tasked with -- at this point in time, the Canton Police were unaware that the nephew was over ata sleepover. They weren't aware that Mr. Camerano had come over to the residence on Meadows Ave. and picked up the niece, bringing her back to his house, as she was left unattended when the defendant left to go looking for Mr. O'Keefe. So unaware of that, they go do a well-being check at approximately 8:22 in the morning, and they also have cruiser camera video attached to their cruiser. And you'll see that video. And, when they pull into the driveway at Meadows Ave., at approximately 8:22 in the morning, they pull in directly behind where eventually you'll hear Ms. McCabe left the defendant's vehicle, after driving it from her house to Meadows Ave. in search of Mr. O'Keefe.
You'll have that footage, and you'll be able to see the back of the defendant's vehicle, specifically the right rear taillight of that vehicle. Now, you'll also hear testimony, as I mentioned, from the Cameranos, from Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sullivan. You'll also -- they were all present with the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe at C.F. McCarthy's. You'll hear testimony from a number of other individuals who were at the Waterfall. The Waterfall is a bar located across the street essentially from C.F. McCarthy's on Washington Street and Canton Center and somewhere that Mr. O'Keefe and the defendant went after leaving C.F. McCarthy's at approximately 11:00 p.m. or so. Now, from that establishment, you'll hear from Rebecca Trayers, who was working as a bartender at the Waterfall that evening. You'll hear froma
MR. LALLY: couple named Nicholas and Karina Kolokithas, who were friends of friends, who had known Mr. O'Keefe through -- they had a daughter around the same age as Mr. O'Keefe's niece. Ms. Kolokithas had some conversation with the defendant that evening, as well as herself and Ms. McCabe at the Waterfall. She left around the same time as they did. She parked on Washington Street around the same area as Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Read did, specifically, in Ms. Read's car. And she observed Mr. O'Keefe and the defendant walking toward the defendant's vehicle and, specifically, the defendant walking towards the driver's side of that vehicle. Now, you'll hear testimony from a Christopher and Julie Albert, who were people who were at one point neighbors of Mr. O'Keefe. They knew him well from being neighbors of him. Christopher Albert owned a pizza shop also located within that Canton Center area. Now, Mr.
O'Keefe, earlier on the day of the 28th, had been in that pizza shop along with his nephew to get his nephew a slice. Christopher Albert and Mr. O'Keefe had some conversation what they were doing that night, and it was Christopher Albert who actually texts Mr. O'Keefe and indicates that they are over at the Waterfall and that he should come over, shortly before Mr. O'Keefe and the defendant make their way from C.F. McCarthy's over there. Now, Christopher Albert left directly from the Waterfall and went home. He lives sort of walking distance away from there. His wife, Julie Albert, had left earlier in the evening. There was a band playing at the Waterfall that night. Mrs. Julie Albert started to get a migraine, and she left before most of the group did. Included in that group and sort of how they came to the Waterfall, the Albert family in particular, Julie Albert went there along with her Sister-in-law, Nicole Albert, as well as her niece, Caitlin Albert; her niece's boyfriend, a Mr.
Tristin Morris; and they had dinner at the Waterfall earlier in that evening. Now, Nicole Albert lives at 34 Fairview Road and she has a husband named Brian Albert, who was also a Boston police officer. Brian Albert had gone with a friend of his, who is also in law enforcement, a man named Brian Higgins. And they had gone separately but had come home together from a funeral for a fallen police officer in New York City. They came home early to sort of beat the weather and, eventually, they meet up with Brian Albert's family at the Waterfall. Now, Tristin Morris, who is Caitlin Albert's boyfriend, had left the Waterfall at some point in the evening. He then returns later to the residence on Fairview Road and picks up Caitlin Albert and brings her home. All of this is in relation to Brian Albert and Nicole Albert's son, Brian Albert, Jr., whose birthday was coming up the following day, the day of the snowstorm on the 29th.
So he had been back at the house at 34 Fairview while his family was out at the Waterfall. He had a number of friends that had come over that evening to celebrate his birthday with him. Now, among those friends was two individuals named Sara Levinson and Julie Nagel, and they were at the residence at 34 Fairview for a good portion of the night. Now, those individuals from the Waterfall that leave and then come to 34 Fairview, they do so sometime shortly after midnight. And shortly after midnight is when it starts to snow. The flurries are starting to come down. The snow is starting to stick to some degree to the road, to the front lawn, to the grassy areas around the town of Canton. Now, from that group, the group that goes back, it's obviously Brian Albert and Nicole Albert, as they live there; Caitlin Albert, because it's her parents and her boyfriend is picking up there; as well as Jennifer McCabe, who is Nicole Albert's sister; and her husband, Matthew McCabe.
They go back to that, and there is an open invitation to essentially anybody that's there. John O'Keefe takes them up on that. There were certain text messages and phone conversations between John O'Keefe and Jennifer McCabe as to where this house is located as he's never been there before. Then he and the defendant drive in the defendant's vehicle to 34 Fairview Road. Once there, there are several witnesses from within the home that observed the vehicle parked. So I had mentioned earlier there are two females that were with Brian Albert, Jr. at the house, one of them being Julie Nagel. At some point, she had called her brother, a Mr. Ryan Nagel, for a ride
MR. LALLY: home. He then gets a ride from his friends, Ricky D'Antuono, as well as Mr. Nagel's girlfriend, a Heather Maxon, that's ride in the back of Mr. D'Antuono's pickup truck. I say that because they arrive at Fairview Road around the same time as the defendant. The defendant is coming in from one direction. The pickup with the Nagel brother is coming in from another direction. The pickup truck that the Nagel brother is riding in flashes its lights, signaling the defendant to go. She goes first. They follow in behind; and, lo and behold, they end up at the same house. They park the pickup truck somewhere in that right side of the property if you're facing it from the street in the area of the driveway, and the defendant, in her black Lexus SUV, parks a little bit further up.
Different people from within the pickup and different people from within the house observe that Lexus SUV in one location, pull up a little bit further and then pull up a little bit further until it's in the area of that fire hydrant, of that flagpole, where Mr. O'Keefe is located the following morning. Now, from their position, I anticipate the testimony that you're going to hear is that Heather Maxon from that pickup truck observes a male passenger and a female operator when the pickup truck operator flashes those lights at the vehicle as they're facing each other before they pull down Fairview. What you'll hear also, I anticipate, from all three of those individuals in the pickup and Julie Nagel, who comes out to the pickup to talk to her brother, is that no one ever exits that vehicle. There are no footprints around that vehicle. There is no damage that they observe to that vehicle at that time. Again, it's just started to snow. Things aren't sticking really too much at this point.
Julie Nagel has a conversation with her brother and decides that she is going to stay at the house longer and makes other arrangements for a ride home, and the pickup truck leaves from that point. As they pass by, they observe a female operator matching what I submit is a description of the defendant. From all of those people within that house that evening, none of them at any point in time observed John O'Keefe come into the house. They see the vehicle out front. They see the vehicle pull away, and they just assume that they left and that no one was coming in. You will hear testimony from other individuals who were at the house that night, including Colin Albert, who is Julie and Christopher Albert's son. He is also the cousin of Brian Albert, Jr., who was having people over for his birthday. He is leaving the house around the time that the initial people coming back from the Waterfall, which includes the homeowners and Mr. Higgins, are sort of coming into the house.
At that point, Colin Albert is leaving. He is getting picked up by a young lady named Allison McCabe, who is Jennifer and Matthew McCabe's daughter, who is also friends with Colin Albert and also cousins of Brian Albert, Jr., who is within the home, celebrating his birthday. As I mentioned, you'll hear testimony from Matthew McCabe and from Jennifer McCabe in regard to their observations that particular evening both at the Waterfall as well as at the residence on Fairview Road. And then you'll hear testimony in regard to a phone call, a phone call that Jennifer McCabe receives from John O'Keefe's niece at approximately 4:53 in the morning. She answers that phone call, speaks to the niece briefly, and the niece hands the phone over to the defendant. Now, you'll hear testimony from the niece, as well, that at about 4:30 in the morning or so, the defendant came into her room in a frantic state, Saying that Mr. O'Keefe had not come home the night before.
So initially when the defendant is talking to Ms. McCabe, she indicates to Ms. McCabe that the last time she saw Mr. O'Keefe was at the Waterfall. Eventually, as Ms. McCabe is waking up, she reminds the defendant that she not only saw them leave the Waterfall around the same time as herself but also saw the vehicle, the defendant's vehicle, outside of the home on Fairview Road. Eventually, the defendant, while driving around, and this will come in as far as other testimony and related testimony as it develops, but she's driving around on that morning. She's calling a bunch, a number of different people, friends of Mr. O'Keefe. She is calling Mr. O'Keefe, himself. She also calls Ms. Roberts. So Kerry Roberts received a call about 5:00 a.m.
MR. LALLY: from the defendant, indicating that Mr. O'Keefe did not come home, indicating that he got hit by a plow and that he must be dead. Ms. Roberts then gets ready. Ms. McCabe is getting ready, as they're all sort of planning to go out and look for Mr. O'Keefe and see if they can locate him. They call numerous times, and you'll see that within the text messages and the phone extractions from a variety of people's different phones throughout the course of this trial, as well. So eventually, the defendant comes to Ms. McCabe's home, indicates at some point prior to that that she has a cracked taillight. Ms. McCabe then gets in the driver's seat due to the defendant's frantic state. Ms. Roberts is there, as well. Ms. Roberts follows Ms. McCabe, driving the defendant's vehicle back to Mr. O'Keefe's residence on Meadows Ave., checks on the niece. The defendant then shows both Ms. Roberts and Ms.
McCabe the damage to her right rear taillight, which it's essentially missing a number of different pieces from that right rear taillight. They then proceed off to drive and see if they can locate Mr. O'Keefe. The defendant is insistent that they go to that residence on Fairview Road. Again, they are driving down there in the dark, in the snow, in the wind, in the blizzard. As they approach towards that residence, there is one person -- so they are seated within the vehicle. This is Ms. Roberts' vehicle which she's driving. Mrs. McCabe is in the front passenger seat, and the defendant is in the rear passenger seat. The defendant is the only one who sees Mr. O'Keefe and yells and screams at Ms. Roberts to stop the vehicle. Ms. Roberts and Ms. McCabe, I anticipate, will testify that they did not see Mr.
O'Keefe, not only as they were driving past him but even after they got out of the vehicle until the defendant gets out of the backseat and makes a B-line essentially right over to where Mr. O'Keefe's body is found. Mrs. McCabe then dials 911 and shortly after that is when the officers and the Canton firefighters arrive on scene. Now, while they are waiting there at approximately 6:23, 6:24 a.m. during a conversation with the defendant, the defendant asks Ms. McCabe to look up on her phone how long someone has to be out in the cold to die from hypothermia, or something to that effect. And you'll hear some dispute as to when that search was made, but you'll hear testimony from three different forensic extraction experts. It will be Trooper Nicholas Guarino, Ms. Jessica Hyde anda Mr. Ian Whiffin, who you'll hear about a lot of things called extraction reports from cell phones. And the extraction reports are done with a program Cellebrite, and Mr.
Whiffin is someone who writes that software for Cellebrite. And I anticipate you'll hear from each of their testimonies that that Google search that was done on Ms. McCabe's phone was done at the same time frame that she indicates the defendant requested her to do it and that at 6:23 and 6:24 in the morning. You'll hear testimony from Ms. Roberts, Ms. McCabe, the firefighters and the responding Canton police officers about a repeated phraseology that the defendant stated while there, asking again and again in regard to Mr. O'Keefe, is he dead, is he dead. You will also hear testimony, as I indicated, about the sort of treatment that she received at the Good Samaritan Medical Center, and that would involve testimony of a Ms. Daisy Ormseth and a Ms. Kathleen Wilfert and a Dr. Garrey Faller. You will hear testimony from a number of different analysts from the state police crime lab and some other laboratories, as well. Included within that will be a Mr. Nicholas Roberts, a Ms.
Maureen Hartnett, Mr. Andre Porto, Ms. Ashley Vaillier and a Ms. Christina Hanley, those all being from the state police lab. You will hear testimony in regard to an incident which occurred earlier in January, right around New Year's. Mr. O'Keefe, the defendant and the children had been invited with a much larger group, approximately 70 people or so, to spend New Year's in Aruba. This was a trip that was organized by a friend of Mr. O'Keefe's named Laura Sullivan. You will hear testimony from her as well as from her sister, Ms. Marietta Sullivan, as well as you'll hear testimony from the two children in relation to this. Essentially day two or so of this trip, Marietta Sullivan, the sister of Laura, is walking through the lobby, and she runs into Mr. O'Keefe. Now, this is someone she refers to as "Godfather"
MR. LALLY: because John O'Keefe is also the godfather of Laura Sullivan's son. Runs into him in the lobby, gives him a hug and sort of pointing him in the direction of where she believes he's going into his room. The defendant is in the area. The defendant starts yelling and screaming and swearing at Ms. Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan responds in kind and, essentially, for the most part, the Sullivan sisters see very little of Mr. O'Keefe throughout the remainder of their trip to Aruba. And you'll also hear testimony from the children that shortly after this or immediately after this, there is an approximately 20-minute screaming match going on between Mr. O'Keefe and the defendant within their hotel room in front of the children. Now, you'll also hear testimony from the defendant's phone in regard to and from another individual's phone in regard to that Aruba trip in regard to text messages of an amorous nature that she had with Mr.
Brian Higgins, who was at the Waterfall and also at the residence on 34 Fairview because he was friends with the homeowner, Brian Albert. But he was also friends with Mr. O'Keefe and had also met the defendant before. And, throughout the course of those amorous text messages, there is references that the defendant makes to that incident in Aruba, as she purports it to be Mr. O'Keefe cheating on her. She insists that he was making out with Marietta Sullivan in that lobby as opposed to her giving him a hug and makes repeated reference to that within the contents of those text messages, as well. Now, you'll hear testimony from a number of other individuals, a Mr. Michael Trotta, who has a supervisory role with the Canton Department of Public Works. You'll hear from Mr.
Louis Jutras, who has a supervisory role with regard to IT, with regard to certain video that was recovered from the town of Canton, as well as from a temple located along the route that the defendant traveled both away from Fairview that evening as well as -- to Fairview from Waterfall, away from Fairview to Mr. O'Keefe's residence on Meadows and then later in the morning at 5:00 a.m., because if you recall, Ms. McCabe, I anticipate, will testify that she receives the call from the defendant about 4:53 in the morning. The defendant then drives around Canton for some perceptible half hour or so period of time prior to even getting to Ms. McCabe's house.
What I submit the evidence or what I anticipate the evidence will show based on sort of the tracking of her phone records, testimony you'll hear from Lieutenant Brian Tully of the state police from these VoLTE records and RTT accounts that the defendant, while she's using her phone, is driving in the direction of Fairview Road prior to going to Ms. McCabe's house, where she meets Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts. Now, again, you'll hear testimony froma number of different troopers who were involved in the investigation with regard to this case. You'll hear from Trooper Michael Proctor and Sergeant Yuri Bukhenik with the state police. You'll hear from Lieutenant Brian Tully. You'll hear some testimony from Trooper Joseph Paul, who was in a specialized unit within the state police called CARS, for short.
But, essentially, it's collision analysis and reconstruction section within the Massachusetts State Police and his examination of the vehicle, his examination of the scene, his examination of specifically some Toyota data because Lexus is essentially owned by Toyota or vice versa. So there is some data that he is able to recover from that and back the vehicle up based on its known locations and travel and key cycles and essentially opines, I'll anticipate he'll opine, that around 12:45 in the morning when the vehicle was in front of the residence on Fairview, that for some perceptible period of time, that vehicle travels over 60 feet in reverse at over approximately 24.2 miles per hour. Now, you'll hear testimony, as I said, froma number of different troopers as well as froma number of different analysts from different labs. Included within that is a Ms. Maureen Hartnett, who collected items from the vehicle, the defendant's vehicle, including the taillights, sort of housing from that vehicle, pieces of the taillight that were discovered in sort of the front grass and from the street area. There is a specialized team called the SERT team. You will hear from Lieutenant Kevin O'Hara, who has a supervisor role in relation to that and that later on that day of the 29th, he, along with Lieutenant Tully anda
MR. LALLY: number of different members from his SERT team, were searching for evidence within the mounds of snow in front of that house as the blizzard is still ongoing at this point sort of the afternoon hours. And among the items that they locate is a sneaker. When Mr. O'Keefe is transported to the hospital, he's found to only have one sneaker on his feet. They find the other sneaker in that area of the body. They find various pieces of taillight. And, as is wont to do, over the course of the following days, the temperatures rise. There is a rainstorm that comes in, and the snow melts. And, over those successive days, there are additional pieces of taillights that are eventually discovered in that area of the front lawn and the street. Now, from these different pieces, they also locate a cocktail glass that's located on the bumper or the rear area of that scene, and she locates a human hair on the back of the defendant's vehicle, as well.
Now, the cocktail glass and the bumper, you'll also see a surveillance vehicle from the Waterfall. And Mr. O'Keefe is observed on that surveillance video, essentially walking out of the Waterfall with a cocktail glass in his right hand, the same right hands that has minor injuries to it and the same right hand that is attached to his right arm that has the abrasions and lacerations that are observed by the paramedics, that are observed by the doctors at Good Samaritan and observed by the medical examiner, as well. You will hear testimony from another analyst, a Christine Hanley, about the forensic consistency between a drinking glass that was in the defendant's bumper and drinking glass pieces that were found on scene at 34 Fairview. You'll hear her testimony in regard to pieces of red and clear plastic that were microscopic in size that were found within Mr.
O'Keefe's clothing, consistent, in her opinion, I anticipate she'll testify, with the same pieces of plastic contained within the defendant's taillight. You'll hear from an Ashley Vaillier, who works for the lab, as well, and how she fit the various pieces of broken taillight from the scene together and over that taillight housing, finding them to be consistent with each other, as well. You'll hear testimony from Andre Porto, who is essentially a DNA analyst for the lab and samples, DNA samples, that were taken from the taillight, from the clothes of Mr. O'Keefe and the broken drinking glass that were consistent with Mr. O'Keefe. Those items were also sent, the taillight pieces, the taillight DNA, was also sent to an independent lab, Bode Technology, located in Lorton, Virginia. And you'll hear from an analyst there, a Mr. Nicholas Bradford, indicating that the DNA on the defendant's taillight, in his opinion, is consistent with that of Mr.
O'Keefe and inconsistent with Trooper Proctor and Sergeant Bukhenik, who were the two sort of preliminary investigators and primary investigators when it came to this case. You'll also hear from Ms. Tess Chart from that Bode laboratories in regard to some mitochondrial DNA that she examined in regard to that hair that Ms. Hartnett found on the bumper of the car and her opinion that it was consistent with that of Mr. O'Keefe, as well. Now, lastly, you'll also hear from Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello and Dr. Renee Stonebridge of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in regard to their various examinations. Dr. Stonebridge is a neuropathologist. She essentially examines brain findings. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello is a forensic pathologist who does the sort of autopsy and medical examination of Mr. O'Keefe's body, and you will hear about the variety of sort of injuries that she observed over Mr. O'Keefe's body from that.
In particular, you'll hear testimony in regard to a laceration to the right back of his head. You'll hear testimony in regard to an initial sort of skull fracture that occurs to the back of his head and then sort of a radiating skull fracture that goes throughout his skull which then leads to a subdural hemorrhage or essentially bleeding on the brain and then swelling of the brain, which then causes a condition called ecchymosis, which then sort of leads to the swelling of both of Mr. O'Keefe's eyes that is observed by the initial respondents. You will hear various testimony about sort of issues in regard to his pancreas and how that's indicative of hypothermia. Now, again, as I said, this is the first of two times that I have an opportunity to address you