Trial 1 Trial Day
◀ Day 25 Trial 1 Day 27 ▶

Day 26 - June 17, 2024

Paul Reconstruction Testimony, McCabe Phone Records, and Lexus Forensics

10Proceedings
6Pages
3Witnesses
3,030Lines
15 sidebars
Day 26 of 35
Appearing:

Trooper Paul completed crash-reconstruction testimony, followed by expert testimony on Jennifer McCabe's phone records and Guarino's digital-forensics work.

Full day summary

Trooper Joseph Paul completed testimony on his crash reconstruction. He testified that the Lexus reversed near 34 Fairview Road and struck John O'Keefe, while acknowledging on cross-examination that a particular Techstream data point did not definitively identify where a pedestrian was struck, key-cycle data did not provide a location, and he had not calculated the collision. He later explained that his analysis used key cycles, odometer mileage, and triggering-event information. Cellebrite product manager Ian Whiffin testified about browser and phone records from Jennifer McCabe's phone. He said the 2:27:40 a.m. browser-state timestamp reflected when a tab took focus rather than when the cold-related searches were run, and he placed two searches at 6:23 and 6:24 that morning. On cross-examination, he confirmed that his demonstration used a later iOS version than the phone's version and discussed limits on recovering deleted session history. Trooper Nicholas Guarino then described digital-forensics work. He testified that Read's Lexus trim level was unsupported by Berla and that a later chip-off attempt recovered no data from the infotainment system or telematics module. He also gave his view that certain Safari and call-log records from Jennifer McCabe's phone were system-managed WAL-file records rather than user-deleted records.

Trooper Paul States Collision Reconstruction Opinion

After directing counsel to use simpler questions, the court heard Paul's reconstruction opinion that the Lexus reversed at up to 24 miles per hour for about 62 feet and struck John O'Keefe near 34 Fairview Road.

View moment →

Trooper Paul - Cross-Examination

Paul qualified his interpretation of a Techstream data point, saying it was consistent with a pedestrian strike or another object but did not definitively identify where a pedestrian was struck.

View moment →

Ian Whiffin Direct Examination: Safari Search-Timestamp Analysis

Whiffin testified that the browser-state timestamp reflected when a tab took focus, not necessarily when the search occurred, and described the timing he attributed to the searches.

View moment →

Ian Whiffin - Redirect

Whiffin gave his conclusion that the two Google searches were conducted at 6:23 and 6:24 on the morning of the 29th.

View moment →

Nicholas Guarino — Direct Examination

Guarino described efforts to recover data from Read's Lexus infotainment system. He said the trim level remained unsupported by Berla and that, according to AG Speake, the later chip-off produced no recovered data from the infotainment system or telematics module.

View moment →
Joseph Paul
“I do go in my report saying I can't say that's definitively where a pedestrian was struck, but --”
Paul limited the certainty of his interpretation of the particular Techstream data point.
Ian Whiffin
“I'm of no doubt that the only time those two searches were conducted was at 6:23 and 6:24 on the morning of the 29th.”
Whiffin stated his conclusion about the timing of the two searches.
Nicholas Guarino
“Yeah, so he stated that Ms. McCabe had deleted 18 phone calls from the morning after John O'Keefe's body was found. Looking at the data from her call log, those calls, while they do show marked as deleted, again, they come from the WAL file, and they're also located in two other parts of the database. Again, as a user of an iPhone, you can't go in and just delete these files. They're handled by the operating system. It's impossible.”
States Guarino's technical basis for disputing the claimed user deletion of the cited call records.
Video thumbnail for Day 26 — Paul (redirect), Whiffin, Guarino 7h 32m
Watch →

1. Joseph Paul — Direct

Trooper Joseph Paul resumed direct examination on vehicle damage, Techstream data, and his crash-reconstruction opinion that the Lexus reversed near 34 Fairview Road, struck John O'Keefe, and left the area.

sidebar
Taillight Damage Video Questions
19 lines

The court limited questioning of the witness about video evidence and force sufficient to damage a taillight, while permitting general testimony about bumpers and car collisions.

Direct
Joseph Paul Adam Lally
98 lines

Trooper Paul resumed direct examination on vehicle damage, Techstream data, and his crash reconstruction. He testified that the data appeared to place a reverse maneuver on Fairview and concluded that the Lexus reversed near 34 Fairview Road, struck John O'Keefe, and left the area. The court required counsel to break the opinion into simpler questions and later sustained an objection and struck Paul's response about what an attentive and reasonable operator would do before reversing.

2. Joseph Paul — Cross

Defense counsel challenged Trooper Joseph Paul’s crash-reconstruction analysis, while Paul said the vehicle data did not identify a strike location and he had not performed a collision calculation.

Cross
Joseph Paul Alan Jackson
1269 lines

Defense counsel challenged Trooper Paul's crash-reconstruction qualifications, Techstream interpretation, scene mapping, and impact mechanics. Paul said a particular Techstream data point was consistent with a pedestrian strike or another object but did not definitively identify where a pedestrian was struck. He testified that key-cycle data does not provide a location, that Lieutenant Gallagher identified the location he marked for the body's final rest, and that he did not perform a collision calculation. Paul also described his opinion that contact with John O'Keefe's arm shattered the taillight. The court sustained several objections during the examination.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Impounded Trooper Paul Sidebar The transcript identifies this as an impounded sidebar during Trooper Paul's cross-examination.

3. Joseph Paul — Redirect/Recross

Trooper Joseph Paul completed testimony about vehicle data, his proposed collision reconstruction, and the limits of his analysis.

Redirect
Joseph Paul Adam Lally
177 lines

Trooper Paul reiterated that he considered the reverse triggering event consistent with a pedestrian strike and agreed that it was consistent with the defendant's reported three-point turn near 34 Fairview Road. He described his proposed impact path and post-impact movement of Mr. O'Keefe, explained why he relied on odometer mileage rather than key cycles to contextualize Techstream data, and gave his opinion about the taillight, glass, and vehicle damage. Paul also acknowledged that he had no calculation for this sideswipe-style crash and did not know exactly how Mr. O'Keefe or glass interacted with the vehicle.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Sealed Joseph Paul Sidebar The transcript identifies this sidebar during Joseph Paul's redirect as a sealed portion of the transcript.
Recross
Joseph Paul Alan Jackson
72 lines

Defense counsel questioned Trooper Joseph Paul about whether his reconstruction relied on key cycles, odometer mileage, or both. Paul said he used key cycles, mileage, and information within the triggering events; he also said he could not definitively identify every route traveled. After a sidebar, the court allowed one limited follow-up on the point and a short prosecution follow-up, then treated a final custody-related question as beyond recross scope.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Key Cycles Recross Scope Counsel disputed whether recross questions about key cycles and mileage exceeded the scope of redirect, and the court allowed the question with limited follow-up.
Redirect
Joseph Paul Adam Lally
7 lines

Trooper Joseph Paul agreed that his proposed travel range fit the odometer-based sequence described by the prosecutor, including the vehicle's presence near 34 Fairview Road and a later reverse movement. His testimony then concluded.

4. Ian Whiffin — Direct

Cellebrite coding product manager Ian Whiffin testified that browser-state records from Jennifer McCabe's phone did not show the cold-related searches occurred at 2:27:40, and described other recovered phone records and search times.

Direct
Ian Whiffin Adam Lally
670 lines

Ian Whiffin, Cellebrite's coding product manager, testified about browser-state, history, plist, and Knowledge C records recovered from Jennifer McCabe's phone. He opined that the 2:27:40 browser-state timestamp reflected when a tab took focus rather than when the cold-related searches were run; he placed one search at 6:23/6:24 and said the other later appeared on screen at 10:33 a.m. He also testified, based on his analysis, that the records could not have been selectively deleted by a user. The court admitted multiple charts, overruled objections to a search-term exhibit, required hearsay material on later exhibit pages to be redacted for the jury, and instructed that Whiffin's live-phone demonstration was only an aid to understanding the evidence.

5 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. User Deletion Opinion Notice Counsel disputed whether discovery gave notice of an opinion about user deletion, and the court directed them to locate the relevant material during the break.
  2. Phone Extraction Report Objection Counsel objected to a report-derived list as hearsay and not a business record, while the Commonwealth said it came from the witness's phone extraction and informed his opinion.
  3. Whiffin Attachment Disclosure Counsel discussed late-disclosed Whiffin attachments and whether they supported an opinion about deletion, with the court deferring the issue for the defense expert.
  4. User Deletion Hearsay Objection Counsel renewed a hearsay objection concerning the witness's opinion about user deletion, and the court left the material admitted pending later review.
  5. Hearsay Labels on Exhibits Counsel objected to labels on computer-generated pages as hearsay, and the court required redaction before the pages could go to the jury.

5. Ian Whiffin — Cross/Redirect/Recross

Ian Whiffin completed testimony about browser-data timestamps, deleted records, and whether the extraction showed signs of tampering.

Cross
Ian Whiffin David Yannetti
84 lines

Defense counsel questioned Cellebrite expert Ian Whiffin about testing on iOS 15.8.2 instead of the 15.2.1 version on Jennifer McCabe's phone. Whiffin confirmed recovery of the URL associated with a deleted browser-state record at 2:27:40 a.m., while explaining that the deleted session history could not be fully recovered. He said altered database files could be returned to an extraction but that hash verification would show changes, and he qualified that undetectable renumbering would require substantial knowledge and skill.

Redirect
Ian Whiffin Adam Lally
10 lines

Ian Whiffin testified that his testing across iOS versions showed the relevant timestamp marked when a browser tab took focus. He said the absence of missing history-database records meant they could not have been selectively deleted, and he saw nothing in the extraction itself indicating tampering, while noting he lacked the original hash information. He concluded that the two Google searches were conducted at 6:23 and 6:24 on the morning of the 29th.

Recross
Ian Whiffin David Yannetti
9 lines

Ian Whiffin said he was not familiar with the term “spontaneous deletion” when defense counsel asked about it on recross. He was then excused from the witness stand.

6. Nicholas Guarino — Direct (Part 1)

Trooper Nicholas Guarino testified that no readable data was recovered from Karen Read's Lexus infotainment system and addressed phone-record evidence, including Jennifer McCabe's Safari and call-log data.

Direct
Nicholas Guarino Adam Lally
537 lines

Trooper Nicholas Guarino described his digital-forensics work, including unsuccessful efforts to obtain readable data from Read's Lexus infotainment system. He said the vehicle's trim level was not supported by Berla and that, according to AG Speake, no data was recovered through a later chip-off attempt. Guarino also described extracting and reviewing phones, disputed Richard Green's interpretation of Jennifer McCabe's Safari and call-log data, and explained his view that the cited WAL-file records were automatically handled by the operating system rather than user-deleted. The Commonwealth marked and published text-message and call-log records involving Read, John O'Keefe, Laura Sullivan, and Erin O'Keefe.

3 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Audience Conduct and Discovery Notice Counsel raised courtroom audience conduct and disputed notice of computer-and-Ring-device evidence; the court declined to find the Commonwealth had not provided the material and addressed the conduct concern through court staff.
  2. Courtroom Conduct Reminder The court addressed high emotions, laughter, and inappropriate comments involving families and counsel, and instructed that no further statement was needed.
  3. Juror Availability and Trial Time The court discussed the remaining examination time for the witness and whether jurors could continue the session until 4:15.
sidebar
Voir Dire and Thursday Schedule
13 lines

After sending the jurors home, the court discussed next-day voir dire and whether the Commonwealth might rest on Thursday.

sidebar
Witness Availability and Trial Order
17 lines

Counsel discussed remaining Commonwealth witnesses, possible Thursday testimony, and the defense's anticipated witness order after voir dire.

Procedural
Procedural - Recess
3 lines
sidebar
Defense Witness and Trial Schedule
45 lines

Counsel outlined anticipated defense witnesses and trial timing, including that Dr. Van Nee would not be called, while the court discussed the expected schedule.

◀ Day 25 Trial 1 Day 27 ▶