Day 24 - June 13, 2024

Continuing from the previous day, Lt. Brian Tully testified about the decision not to search the interior of 34 Fairview Road, explaining that without evidence placing John O'Keefe inside the home, there was no probable cause for a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. He then walked the jury through surveillance videos from the Canton Public Library and Temple Beth Abraham showing a large black SUV consistent with Read's vehicle traveling northbound on Washington Street at 12:27 a.m. and again at 5:18 a.m. Tully presented cell site location information (CSLI) maps he created from Read's Verizon call detail records, showing her phone connecting to antennas near 34 Fairview Road between 12:33 and 12:38 a.m., then near 1 Meadows Lane from 12:39 to 5:08 a.m., before moving through downtown Canton between 5:16 and 5:37 a.m. He also presented ranging data that narrowed the phone's location to specific arcs around cell towers, which he testified were consistent with the surveillance video and witness accounts of Read's movements.

Defense attorney Alan Jackson cross-examined Lt. Brian Tully across four main areas. First, Jackson established that investigators never sought a search warrant or even requested consent to search the interior of 34 Fairview Road, despite circumstantial indicators — O'Keefe's missing coat, missing shoe, a broken drinking glass, and reports of a possible physical altercation — that the house merited investigation. Second, Jackson confronted Tully with his own police report documenting three pieces of plastic recovered from the scene, while the evidence bags presented to the jury contained five pieces, with Tully unable to account for the discrepancy beyond speculation that a fragment broke off. Third, Jackson challenged the reliability of the RTT (ranging) data Tully used to create cell tower arc maps, presenting a calculation that would require a device to travel 135,000 miles per hour if the two arcs represented sequential phone positions 0.004 seconds apart. Tully agreed with the arithmetic and that such phone travel would be impossible, but testified that the record did not necessarily indicate sequential positions and that he was not suggesting the phone traveled at that speed. Jackson also showed that the cell tower pinging Read's phone between 5:20-5:37 a.m. was significantly closer to Jennifer McCabe's residence than to 34 Fairview. Finally, Jackson questioned Tully about a Ford Edge; Tully testified that investigators assessed the witness account and that he believed Proctor and Bukhenik had investigated vehicle registrations, though Tully personally had not searched the records and did not know the result or whether an Albert owned a Ford Edge.

ADA Lally calls Sgt. J. Ryan Gallerani of the Needham Police Department, who testifies about his certification in DNA buccal swab collection through Mass. State Police training. On January 16, 2024, Gallerani collected buccal swab samples from Sgt. Bukhenik and Trooper Proctor at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office in Canton. He explains the physical collection process, confirms he secured the samples in evidence at his department, and states the samples were later shipped to Bode Technology in Lorton, Virginia following their protocols. Lally establishes that Gallerani had no prior involvement with the case and did not know any of the parties.

Nicholas Bradford, a DNA analyst from Bode Technology in Lorton, Virginia, testified about DNA analysis performed on evidence from the passenger side rear of Karen Read's vehicle. Bradford explained that the tail light extract contained a three-person DNA mixture. Using STRmix software and likelihood ratio analysis, he found very strong support for inclusion of John O'Keefe's DNA (740 nonillion times more likely), and strong support for exclusion of both Trooper Yuri Bukhenik and Trooper Michael Proctor. Bradford also tested a hair shaft from the same panel area but found the autosomal DNA was below the limit of detection for STR testing. The hair was subsequently forwarded to analyst Tess Chart for mitochondrial DNA testing.

Prosecution calls Tess Chart, a forensic DNA analyst at Bode Technology in Virginia, to testify about mitochondrial DNA analysis performed on a hair sample (E01) submitted by the Norfolk District Attorney's office. Chart explains her qualifications, the difference between autosomal and mitochondrial DNA, and the testing methodology including PCR amplification, gel visualization, and DNA sequencing. She testifies that the mitochondrial DNA profile from the hair sample was consistent with John O'Keefe's reference profile, and that using the EMPOP international population database, at least 99.89% of the US population can be excluded as a source of the hair, with 95% statistical confidence.

Andre Porto, a forensic scientist in the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, testified about his educational background, lab accreditation, and the four-step DNA testing process (extraction, quantitation, amplification, detection). He analyzed numerous evidence items in the case, finding DNA profiles consistent with John O'Keefe on the passenger side tail light (510 nonillion times more likely), a broken drinking glass exterior (530 nonillion times more likely), multiple stains on O'Keefe's jeans (570–830 nonillion times), stains on an orange T-shirt and gray long sleeve shirt (up to 490 octillion times), and fingernail clippings. A hair root from the vehicle's rear panel yielded no detectable human DNA and was sent to Bode Technology for mitochondrial testing. Porto also explained that DNA analysis cannot determine when or how DNA was deposited.