Day 29 - June 21, 2024

Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello continued her direct examination, explaining that she requested additional investigative information after John O'Keefe's unwitnessed death but lacked enough information to determine the manner of death. She identified photographs of O'Keefe's injuries, testified that the arm abrasions were superficial and not contributory to death, and said the head injury could be consistent with several mechanisms while the observed injuries were not classic pedestrian injuries. She concluded that the cause of death was blunt impact injuries of the head and hypothermia.

Defense counsel questioned Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello about John O'Keefe's injury pattern, including facial injuries, arm abrasions, hand bruising, skull fractures, and a tongue laceration. Dr. Scordi-Bello said possible mechanisms included punches, a fall, blunt objects, or multiple impacts, but she said she could not offer a reconstruction opinion about a vehicle because she was not a reconstruction or biomechanics expert and had not inspected the vehicle. The court sustained objections to some broader hypotheticals. The court admitted an autopsy photograph as Exhibit 65, and the witness identified discoloration near O'Keefe's ribs in People's Exhibit 648 as postmortem lividity rather than an injury.

Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello testified that facial and other injuries could have several possible mechanisms, including a fall or contact with a blunt object. She said an isolated abrasion near the head laceration was not typical of dragging, though possible, and described defensive injuries she would expect to see in some circumstances. After the court required the prosecutor to rephrase a question, she said she did not know how Mr. O'Keefe's injuries occurred but that a single fall impact could cause the observed skull and brain injuries.

Brian Loughran, a Canton DPW snowplow driver familiar with the Albert family, described repeated passes along Fairview beginning at about 2:45 a.m. He testified that he saw nothing near the flagpole on early passes; on a later pass around 3:15 to 3:30, he saw a Ford Edge by the flagpole, did not report it because he was being courteous to the Albert family, and said State Police first contacted him in 2023.

The Commonwealth questioned snowplow driver Brian Loughran about Canton plow routes, limited lighting near 34 Fairview Road, his identification of a Ford Edge, and the timing of his passes. Loughran said his knowledge of where Mr. O'Keefe's body was found came from police-related information and news coverage rather than personal observation. The questioning also addressed inconsistencies he disputed in reported accounts and his inability to recall when he struck a basketball hoop while plowing. At sidebar, the judge barred questioning about a 2015 pedestrian collision as too remote.

Brian Loughran clarified that he did not see a Lexus at 5:00 a.m. or at any point while plowing in front of 34 Fairview.

The Commonwealth challenged Brian Loughran's account that he was on Fairview Road at about 5:00 a.m., contrasting it with his stated route timing. Loughran said that while completing nearby streets he monitored Fairview from Cedarcrest and would return to Fairview if snow conditions required it.

Dr. Marie Russell described her emergency-medicine, forensic-pathology, and animal-injury experience before testifying that John O'Keefe's right-arm injuries appeared to have been caused by an animal, possibly a large dog. The court overruled an objection to her review of materials, sustained an objection to one question about UC Davis materials, and later directed the defense to avoid comparisons with police K-9s.

The Commonwealth challenged Dr. Russell's qualifications, the timing and completeness of her review, and the absence of a written report for her opinion that Mr. O'Keefe's right-arm injuries were consistent with an animal attack. The judge clarified that Russell's testimony was confined to the right arm and animal-attack opinion, and later permitted cross-examination using a National Academy of Sciences report. Russell said she had not read that report, could not identify the animal, breed, or location of an alleged attack, and did not attribute injuries elsewhere on Mr. O'Keefe's body to an animal. She agreed that the UC Davis results were negative for canine DNA but maintained that the arm injuries did not look like blunt-force injuries.

Dr. Marie Russell said she understood the NAS report to find individual identification from bite marks unreliable, and she described the range of injuries dogs can inflict and factors that can affect wound patterns. She said she had not analyzed the reported pig DNA to a scientific certainty. The judge sustained repeated objections to renewed questions about Russell's ultimate opinion on Mr. O'Keefe's arm injuries; following sidebar, the judge ended the examination and the Commonwealth had no further questions.

Digital-forensics expert Richard Green described reviewing data associated with phones belonging to Karen Read, John O'Keefe, and Jennifer McCabe. He testified that O'Keefe's phone first registered in the 34 Fairview driveway at 12:24:28, but that no location data met a three-foot accuracy filter; he also explained that Apple Health distance, steps, and elevation records covered time ranges rather than pinpointing when within those ranges movement occurred. Green gave the opinion that the "hos long to die in cold" search occurred at or before 2:27:40 a.m., after the judge rejected a proposed scientific-certainty formulation. He later testified that the identified early-morning call records on Jennifer McCabe's phone were all found deleted and, in his opinion, user deleted. Exhibits 652 through 656 were marked, and the court ordered the call-log exhibit redacted and removed from display because phone numbers had not been redacted.

The Commonwealth cross-examined digital-forensics expert Richard Green about competing interpretations of Safari search data, his lack of a specific Cellebrite certification, and the scope of his phone review. Green acknowledged that further testing had changed his earlier affidavit-based view of a "how long to digest food" item, which he now believed was probably an automatic suggestion. He continued to defend his interpretation of the disputed search timing, and described a Waze-related offset as a possible explanation for differences among Apple Health and location data. The judge sustained one objection to the form of a question and later permitted the clarified question.