Steven Saraf - Cross/Redirect

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Morning, Officer Saraf.

MR. JACKSON: Um, is there anything that you would like to change or amend or modify about your testimony yesterday which you thought about overnight?

MR. JACKSON: Um, did you discuss your testimony with any person between the time you got off the stand yesterday and coming back to the courtroom?

MR. JACKSON: Um, Officer Saraf, I want to ask you a question about — or a couple of questions about — something called a dispatch log. You know what a dispatch log is?

MR. JACKSON: What is a dispatch log? Can you describe to the jurors?

MR. JACKSON: It's an official document generated by the Canton Police Department, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And it's kept in the ordinary course of business?

MR. JACKSON: It's created at or near the time of the event that it's recording,

MR. JACKSON: And it's supposed to be accurate?

MR. JACKSON: And in fact, what it has is the dispatch details of the event that's in question — whoever, whatever officers show up, what time they show up, the order in which they show up, the location to which they're dispatched — things of that nature, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Um, have you looked at the dispatch log in this case?

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: This has been premarked as Exhibit 20-something. Take a glance at that and tell me if you recognize that document.

MR. JACKSON: How do you recognize it?

MR. JACKSON: Oh, okay. So that's the dispatch log for what date?

MR. JACKSON: Do you see your name somewhere on that dispatch log?

MR. JACKSON: Yes. And that looks like the dispatch log for the call-out that you were testifying about yesterday — is that right?

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: If you look to the right, there appear to be three entries for the dispatch of the officers that were on the scene about which you testified yesterday, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And in fact, this dispatch log shows that you — and then Officer Mullaney and then Sergeant Goode — all arrived to 32 Fairview that morning within 7 seconds of each other, correct?

MR. JACKSON: It actually has Officer Mullaney arriving first at 6:09:26. You see that?

MR. JACKSON: And you see that it also has, uh, 3 seconds later at 6:09:29, you arriving — is that right?

MR. JACKSON: 6:09.

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry.

MR. JACKSON: And then it has Sergeant Goode arriving 4 seconds after you at 6:09 and 33 seconds, correct?

MR. JACKSON: So all three of you, according to the official document generated by Canton Police Department for this event, has Officer Mullaney arriving first, you arriving second, Sergeant Goode arriving third, all within 7 seconds of each other, correct?

MR. JACKSON: That is completely false, isn't it?

MR. JACKSON: Yeah. You looked at your — I'm sorry — your dash cam, correct? And clearly we saw it yesterday — you arrive and there's nobody else on scene, correct?

MR. JACKSON: In fact, about 6:10 a.m. that you arrived, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And then Officer Mullaney actually arrives after you, about 6:11 a.m. — is that right?

MR. JACKSON: And Sergeant Goode does not arrive, according to your own dash cam, until about 6:16 — little after quarter after 6?

MR. JACKSON: All right. So right off the bat, the official Canton Police Department dispatch log — one of the first documents generated in any investigative event — that's completely wrong, right?

MR. JACKSON: Well, the times and the orders, right? I mean, not only did Officer Mullaney not arrive first — you arrived first — and then he arrived — sure. So that's two things that are wrong about just that, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And then it has Officer — I'm sorry — Sergeant Goode arriving 4 seconds after you, which is also incorrect?

MR. JACKSON: He didn't arrive until about 6 or 7 minutes after you, right?

MR. JACKSON: All right. Have you reviewed this document in the past?

MR. JACKSON: You've never seen the dispatch log?

MR. JACKSON: Did you ever seek to make sure that the dispatch log — that's so important and so vital in an investigation — was actually accurate before it was turned over to the defense, for instance?

MR. JACKSON: Right. But without that dispatch log — sorry — without your dash cam, we would be relying on your dispatch log to be true and accurate — is that right?

MR. JACKSON: And do you think it's accurate otherwise?

MR. JACKSON: Other than order and the time that the officers are responding, is it correct in all other aspects in your mind? Can you rephrase one more time? Let's take away the order and the time that the officers responded. Ignore that. Is the dispatch log otherwise accurate?

MR. JACKSON: Take a look at the left-hand column where it's highlighted in green. What's that address?

MR. JACKSON: That's okay. Um, it says "32 Fairview." Did you arrive to 32 Fairview Road?

MR. JACKSON: You arrived to 34 Fairview.

MR. JACKSON: Yep. So that — even the location on the dispatch log — is faulty, is that right?

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: You testified at a grand jury in April of 2022, correct?

MR. JACKSON: At that grand jury, do you remember telling the grand jurors what address you actually responded to? Lights, please.

MR. JACKSON: Would it refresh your recollection if you took a quick glance at a copy of your grand jury testimony?

MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Officer Saraf, I've done you the favor of highlighting a page — on page 9 — where did you indicate to the grand jurors that you actually arrived?

MR. JACKSON: I know what it says. I'm asking if it refreshes your recollection that you actually testified under oath that you responded to 35 Fairview.

MR. JACKSON: And that is incorrect as well, isn't it?

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed any of the other officers' reports that relate to your dispatch out to the location that you've been testifying to?

MR. JACKSON: Did you ever review Officer — or Sergeant Goode's — report?

MR. JACKSON: Are you aware — have you ever discussed with Sergeant Goode that he wrote in his official report that you responded to 32 Fairview Road?

MR. JACKSON: And of course, we just talked about the fact that the dispatch log lists 32 Fairview Road and not 34 Fairview Road, correct?

MR. JACKSON: So none of the initial police reports — not the dispatch log, not your police report, apparently not Sergeant Goode's — list 34 Fairview Road. ...as the actual location where you responded that morning, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Was there an effort on your part or anybody else's, to your knowledge, to mask the actual address of Brian Albert's house as 34 Fairview Road?

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Over and over and over.

MR. JACKSON: When you made contact with the victim and the women that you described yesterday, did you see any evidence that any of the women had been engaged in life-saving measures?

MR. JACKSON: What did you see?

MR. JACKSON: You saw — I don't want to get too graphic, but you saw blood on her face?

MR. JACKSON: You saw blood on his face?

MR. JACKSON: Saw blood in her hair?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't notice that?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. But certainly blood on her face from having engaged in some sort of CPR activity?

MR. JACKSON: Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation — you said it looked like it?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. You also saw Kerry Roberts seemingly assisting with chest compressions, is that right —

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Did you also see Kerry Roberts seemingly assisting in chest compressions?

MR. JACKSON: What about the third woman, Jennifer McCabe?

MR. JACKSON: Did you see Jennifer McCabe ever engage with John O'Keefe as he lay on the ground and assist in any life-saving measures? Did you witness that?

MR. JACKSON: But you do recall my client engaged?

MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true that Jennifer McCabe pulled you aside while my client and Kerry Roberts stayed with John O'Keefe and began engaging you in a conversation?

MR. JACKSON: And she was providing some sort of a narrative to you, correct?

MR. JACKSON: While the other two women are trying to save John O'Keefe's life, she's talking to you — for brief

MR. JACKSON: You saw — that the dash cam video — those several minutes on the dash cam video where she's standing and having a conversation with you — are those the brief seconds?

MR. JACKSON: Right after you got there.

MR. JACKSON: Did you ever see Jennifer McCabe do anything physically to help John O'Keefe?

MR. JACKSON: Did Jennifer McCabe offer to you — during this conversation she was having with you — did she ever offer the fact that she was standing in front of her sister's house?

MR. JACKSON: Did she ever offer the fact that her brother-in-law who lives in the house is a first responder?

MR. JACKSON: Were you advised at any time while you were out there that the homeowner was a first responder?

MR. JACKSON: Based on your observations, between Karen Read and Jennifer McCabe, which one of those women appeared to be more focused on trying to save John O'Keefe's life in the moment?

MR. JACKSON: Between Karen Read and Jennifer McCabe, which one of those two women, based on your observations, appeared to you to be more focused on physically trying to save John O'Keefe's life in the moment?

MR. JACKSON: You would agree with me, Officer Saraf, that in any investigation, details matter, accuracy matters, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Reports are written in police investigations in order to memorialize observations, things heard, seen, experienced by the officers, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And generally speaking, you're trained to write those reports and memorialize those observations as quickly as possible so that things are fresh in your memory, correct?

MR. JACKSON: No. As a matter of fact, you're trained exactly the opposite. When you respond to a scene somewhat important, you need to get it down on paper as quickly as possible for detail and accuracy, right?

MR. JACKSON: You did in fact write a report — a supplemental report for this investigation — where you laid out your observations of that morning, correct?

MR. JACKSON: These are called incident reports, correct?

MR. JACKSON: I'm holding what appears to be a multi-page document that is entitled an incident report. May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Take a look at the tab page and tell me if you recognize what's on that page.

MR. JACKSON: You recognize that — all I'm asking — you recognize that as your report?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did you write that?

MR. JACKSON: When did you write that?

MR. JACKSON: That's correct. A little bit later in the morning, after you left the scene?

MR. JACKSON: And you were reflecting back on what had just happened — minutes or hours before — correct?

MR. JACKSON: And you were trying to be as truthful as possible, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You were trying to be as accurate as possible?

MR. JACKSON: As comprehensive as possible?

MR. JACKSON: And as thorough as possible?

MR. JACKSON: You wrote in that report, quote, "Karen Read kept screaming 'is he dead, is he dead?' She was severely distraught and not able to tell me what happened." Correct?

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: There was no limit to the amount of words that you could put on the page, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, there's a ton of white space left unutilized, right?

MR. JACKSON: You could have taken as much time as you wanted to in writing this report, is that right?

MR. JACKSON: Is that yes?

MR. JACKSON: There was no reason to abbreviate anything, is that right?

MR. JACKSON: And you tried to be as accurate as you possibly could in that moment?

MR. JACKSON: And put everything down in that report that reflected what you experienced, what you observed, and what you heard that morning, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And the only statement you attribute to my client on that morning — just hours after the incident, or minutes after the incident — was she kept repeating "is he dead," right?

MR. JACKSON: You were interviewed by Trooper Proctor the next day, weren't you?

MR. JACKSON: Refresh your recollection, take a look at the report. May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Take a look at that report — that's dated March 15 but reflects an interview on January 30 — and then tell me if you recognize it.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's — officer — I'm sorry, that's Trooper Proctor's report of an interview that he did with you, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And if you look on the second page, the paragraph about what you stated to Trooper Proctor — that's highlighted, is it?

MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. Did you tell Trooper Proctor — let me withdraw that, ask it a different way. Were you trying to be as thorough and comprehensive with Trooper Proctor as you were in your own report?

MR. JACKSON: You weren't holding anything back in that interview, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You wanted to be as truthful and as honest as you possibly could?

MR. JACKSON: And as comprehensive as you possibly could, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You told Trooper Proctor that you could, quote, hear Karen Read continually state "is he dead" as the paramedics treated the victim — Officer Saraf had been seeing Karen inside her friend's vehicle. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: So the only statement you attributed to my client the day after this incident was the first three words — "is he dead" — that she continually repeated. Is that right?

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: In the two times that you were asked to reflect back on exactly what happened that morning — on January 29th and January 30th — both times you attributed only three words to my client, having been repeated continually in her distraught state: "is he dead." Right?

MR. JACKSON: And she wasn't saying that calmly, I'm assuming?

MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, you used the word — she was severely distraught — is that right?

MR. JACKSON: When you say severely distraught — we saw part of that on your dash cam — she was emotional?

MR. JACKSON: Upset?

MR. JACKSON: Focused on John?

MR. JACKSON: Trying to save his life?

MR. JACKSON: And asking — what was the question that she asked? Is he dead — over and over and over?

MR. JACKSON: Then you were asked to testify in April of 2022 — April 14th of 2022 — at a state-run Grand Jury by the Commonwealth?

MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, Mr. Lally was the fine prosecutor who was asking you the questions, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Between the time you wrote your report on January 29th and you gave a statement officially on January 30th — between that time and when you testified in April of 2022 — do you have any meetings with anybody from the Massachusetts State Police?

MR. JACKSON: Do you have any meetings with Mr. Lally?

MR. JACKSON: Did Mr. Lally put you on the stand without talking to you first?

MR. JACKSON: April 14th, 2022 — that grand jury.

MR. JACKSON: You don't recall if you met with either Mr. Lally or any of his contemporaries to discuss your potential testimony?

MR. JACKSON: Correct. But your testimony now is that he didn't meet with you — or you did not connect with him to discuss your testimony before the April grand jury?

MR. JACKSON: When you did testify in that grand jury, you changed your story, didn't you?

MR. JACKSON: You believe you testified completely — — consistently at that grand jury as you had in your report?

MR. JACKSON: I see. Was your memory better in April than it was minutes or hours after the event? Was it better — was it better or worse?

MR. JACKSON: Do you think your memory gets better as time goes on?

MR. JACKSON: No. Usually it's the opposite, isn't it?

MR. JACKSON: Memories get foggy, they fade?

MR. JACKSON: Which is why you write reports the day of the incident, if you can, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You remember what you testified to at the grand jury in April of 2022? The whole thing?

MR. JACKSON: Sorry, that was a bad question on my part. Just as it — — relates to statements attributed to my client. What was your exact testimony in April of 2022?

MR. JACKSON: Would it refresh your recollection if you saw a copy of your —

MR. JACKSON: — grand jury transcript? May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: Page 18. Let me know once you review that and tell me if that refreshes your recollection.

MR. JACKSON: In fact, on April 14th, 2022 — months after this event — for the first time you said, quote — and these are your words, tell me if I get them right: "She — you know — 'this is my fault' — I don't know, I don't know — she said, you know, 'I can't believe this happened' —" — "I mean, she kept asking if he was going to die, if he's dead, and, you know, I just basically said, you know, we're doing the best that we could." End quote.

MR. JACKSON: May I approach?

MR. JACKSON: So in April of 2022, for the first time you attributed the phrase "this is my fault, I can't believe this happened" to my client, correct?

MR. JACKSON: But nowhere in your official report did you say that?

MR. JACKSON: And nowhere in your interview with Trooper Proctor the next day did you say that?

MR. JACKSON: You think that was a pretty important omission on your part?

MR. JACKSON: An oversight.

MR. JACKSON: That a woman who you made contact with — standing over the body of a fallen police officer — said to you "this is my fault" — just missed that one?

MR. JACKSON: And then of course you testified — — yesterday, and your statement changed again, right?

MR. JACKSON: Well, I wrote it down. Let's see if this helps. Yesterday you said that my client said, quote, "It's all my fault, I did this." End quote. Yes? Remember that?

MR. JACKSON: But you didn't say that at the grand jury?

MR. JACKSON: And you didn't say that to Trooper Proctor?

MR. JACKSON: And you didn't put it in your report?

MR. JACKSON: If you were to testify in another two or three weeks, think her statement will just keep evolving?

MR. JACKSON: Now I want to shift gears for a second and talk about what Miss Read actually said that morning. You said that you reviewed your dash cam video, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You remember when you arrived, one of the first things out of your mouth was the question "what happened"?

MR. JACKSON: That would be a natural question to ask — trying to assess the scene and assess the situation?

MR. JACKSON: And you would want to listen closely to what that answer was, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Miss Read did in fact answer you, didn't she?

MR. JACKSON: — said? She said, quote, "My boyfriend — I left him and he never came home." End quote. Correct?

MR. JACKSON: You agree — we've already agreed — that details matter in any investigation?

MR. JACKSON: They certainly matter in this investigation, correct?

MR. JACKSON: I'd like you to take a look at what's been premarked as Exhibit 26. This is about the — this is about the 3:50 run time. I'm not looking at the actual time of day over here. I'm looking at the run time, which is down at the bottom. So if [unintelligible] you could put this about — can you pause it just to orient everybody. Does this appear to be your dash cam?

MR. JACKSON: Same — — dash cam you were looking at yesterday?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's go ahead and play. Officer Saraf — just like it's not an eye exam, it's not a hearing exam either. I'm going to do the best I can to raise the volume. And Officer Saraf, I want to focus your attention, if you wouldn't mind, on nine seconds after you say "what happened" — just count in your head — and listen very, very carefully to the woman's voice that responds to what she — — says. Very, very hard to hear. Have you listened to that before?

MR. JACKSON: Does it appear to you that she said "my boyfriend, I left him and he never came home"?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let's replay it one more — — time. Turn the volume up one more time. Right at that moment, listen for a woman's voice, just — — under. Sorry. I was asking — Officer Saraf, please listen. There's a din of noise — obviously road noise, wind noise, et cetera. It's your dash cam — the audio from your dash cam — once you close the door. Listen very carefully, about nine seconds after you say "what happened," for a woman's voice, and see if you can make out what that voice says.

MR. JACKSON: Stop. Did you hear "I left him and he never came home"?

MR. JACKSON: You couldn't understand that?

MR. JACKSON: You want to hear one more time?

MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize your dash cam video being on the left of the screen?

MR. JACKSON: Turn the lights on, please. Now, if my client had said "my boyfriend, I left him and he never came home," would that be something that you would find important to put in your report?

MR. JACKSON: Going to keep playing it at the 28-minute mark — uh, 28 minutes and 20 seconds or so. Can I see counsel at sidebar for just a minute, please?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Have you looked at Sergeant Goode's dash cam video, which is squared up on the right side of the screen?

MR. JACKSON: You've never seen it?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Does it appear to you that these are two different perspectives of the same scene? In other words, you see the car — or the SUV — on the left side of the screen right here, correct?

MR. JACKSON: See that same SUV right there, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Does that appear to be two different perspectives, two different angles?

MR. JACKSON: Of basically the same thing?

MR. JACKSON: Stop. Have you seen the person in the dark jacket leave this view?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. I want to draw your attention to the individuals to the left of the SUV right here. There's a person wearing a hood with fur on it. Is that Kerry Roberts, to your memory?

MR. JACKSON: Stop. And now I'm going to draw your attention to that car with snow on it. Pay special attention to that car as the film continues to run. Go ahead.

MR. JACKSON: Do you see a person standing in front of the car?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. There appears to be another person with a darker jacket standing just in front of that person with the hood and fur. You see that person?

MR. JACKSON: Stop. Did you see that?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'm going to ask you to focus on the person in the darker jacket.

MR. JACKSON: I believe — and the only reason I'm asking you to focus at this point is because I want to try to play this just once and see if you recognize what's depicted in the video. What I expect you may see is this person move out of sight behind the SUV, and then in the background there's an SUV parked in the driveway. Pay special attention to that portion of the SUV and see if you see that person in the dark jacket pass from right to left in front of that SUV, as if they're going to the house. Let's go ahead and play it.

MR. JACKSON: Did she appear to go behind the SUV?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. Go ahead and play it.

MR. JACKSON: Walking from right to left?

MR. JACKSON: Would that be toward the house?

MR. JACKSON: Okay. And also, if you wouldn't mind switching your perspective — now you're looking more at the front of the house. Continue watching the film and see if you see that same person walking toward the house.

MR. JACKSON: Yes. A shadow walking toward the front of the house?

MR. JACKSON: That was Jennifer McCabe going into the house, wasn't it?

MR. JACKSON: Was it a person going into the house?

MR. JACKSON: Did you give anybody any permission to go into the house?

MR. JACKSON: Would you think that — um — we can go ahead and raise the light, thank you — would you think that a witness at a homicide scene being allowed to go into a house, uh, to make contact with other witnesses —

MR. JACKSON: If I could — if I could finish my question. Do you think it's appropriate for a witness at a potential homicide scene — an unconscious person scene, whatever crime scene — to make contact with other witnesses and begin discussing the situation unsupervised?

MR. JACKSON: Do you think that's an appropriate thing to have happen?

MR. JACKSON: Officer Saraf, when you go to a crime scene —

MR. JACKSON: — one of the first things that you'd want to do is secure the scene and separate witnesses so that interviews could be conducted, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You wouldn't want witnesses just cavorting together and getting their story straight, right?

MR. JACKSON: You'd want to avoid that at all costs, right?

MR. JACKSON: And why is that?

MR. JACKSON: There was a — sorry — there was a person walking from the area where a body was found in the lawn of a house, walking into the house to make contact with other individuals, correct?

MR. JACKSON: Does that seem appropriate to you?

MR. JACKSON: Of course. We've talked a bit about what you did and didn't hear at the scene from my client. At any point when you were at that location, did you hear my client repeating the phrase "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him"?

MR. JACKSON: You never heard her whisper it, yell it, say it, or otherwise?

MR. JACKSON: If you had heard that statement, you likely would have written it down, wouldn't you?

MR. JACKSON: You likely would have reported that to Trooper Proctor the next day, wouldn't you?

MR. JACKSON: You likely would have mentioned it in your grand jury testimony, correct?

MR. JACKSON: And you did none of those things because you did not hear that statement, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You were at 34 Fairview for more than an hour before you cleared the scene, right?

MR. JACKSON: You were at the location of the body of John O'Keefe?

MR. JACKSON: In other words, you didn't just stay in your cruiser — you walked out to where John O'Keefe was.

MR. JACKSON: I must — bad question. Okay. You didn't just stay in your cruiser — at points you got out of your cruiser, walked over, made contact with the women, and you were standing next to the body?

MR. JACKSON: And you were obviously looking around — you noticed some footprints?

MR. JACKSON: And you even noticed some lack of footprints?

MR. JACKSON: So you were being observant at the area of the body?

MR. JACKSON: And the area adjacent to the body?

MR. JACKSON: You were looking for anything that might have been out of place?

MR. JACKSON: Anything of any evidentiary value, correct?

MR. JACKSON: You never saw or otherwise observed a single piece of tail light material?

MR. JACKSON: You certainly didn't see 45 pieces of broken plastic or tail light material, did you?

MR. JACKSON: You never located or otherwise observed John O'Keefe's missing shoe?

MR. JACKSON: Or any other clothing of his?

MR. JACKSON: Officer Saraf, did you ever think to look inside the house?

MR. JACKSON: That missing shoe — that never crossed your mind?

MR. JACKSON: Do you think that might have been a smart thing to do — [unintelligible] — rephrase the question. Do you think that would have been appropriate protocol when dealing with a body laying on a lawn that is partially unclothed — to look inside the house off the lawn?

MR. JACKSON: You didn't think that would have been appropriate protocol? For you or anybody else?

MR. JACKSON: Obviously you did not conduct a search of that house, did you?

MR. JACKSON: And to this day, no law enforcement officer ever conducted a search of that house?

MR. JACKSON: No further questions, Judge.

MR. JACKSON: Nothing, your honor. Thank you.