Closing Argument — Commonwealth

MR. LALLY: So within minutes of that vehicle's data going 24.2 miles an hour in reverse for 62 1/2 feet, the defendant leaves that voicemail, seething in rage, as she's screaming, "John, I fucking hate you." 12:40 to 12:42. Ms. McCabe is texting Mr. O'Keefe. She tries calling Mr. O'Keefe, gets no answer. If you recall from her testimony around this time frame, about 12:40, she was unsure whether the vehicle was actually still out front or if it had gone at that point. But she was looking for John because she had seen the defendant's vehicle in front of the house and no one had come in. So she was wondering where her friend, Mr. O'Keefe, was. 12:55. The defendant texts John, See you later. 12:59. The defendant calls, leaves another voicemail for Mr. O'Keefe, Exhibit 637, and it sounded like this.

MR. LALLY: But somebody did know where Mr. O'Keefe was. The defendant knew exactly where he was. She had driven him there. She had struck him there. She had left him to die there. 1:02 a.m. The defendant leaves another voicemail with no content. And then she texts John, "Your kids are fucking alone." 1:09 a.m. The defendant texts John, "I'm back in Mansfield. The kids are home alone." She is not -- you know, GPS, you know, as far as the -- it never disconnects from the WiFi until the following morning. There is no indication that Ms. Read left and went to her home in Mansfield at any point in time. 1:10 a.m. The defendant calls her parents. 1:11 a.m. She calls Mr. O'Keefe and leaves this voicemail.

MR. LALLY: 1:18 a.m. The defendant leaves another voicemail. Now, about 1:43 or 1:45 a.m. is when Julie Nagel testified that they were leaving the house, and she sees a large, black object on the lawn near the flagpole while leaving 34 Fairview Road, doesn't think much of it at the time, isn't expecting Mr. O'Keefe or any body to be out on the front lawn. 4:42 a.m. The defendant calls and speaks. The calls to her parents are finally answered. 4:49 a.m. The defendant calls Ms. Camerano, screaming, where's Mike? 4:53 in the morning is when the defendant instructs [REDACTED], Mr. O'Keefe's niece, to call Ms. McCabe. Why? Because the defendant doesn't have Ms. McCabe's phone number. Indicates that John didn't come home. We got ina fight and I left him at the Waterfall. Those are the first statements or the first version of events that she is able to communicate out to the world as to what happened to Mr. O'Keefe and where he is. We got into a fight. I left him at the Waterfall. 5:00 a.m.

The defendant calls Kerry Roberts, saying, John's dead. Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. Hangs up the phone. 5:01. The defendant calls Kerry Roberts again. And it's at this point that she indicates that John's dead. He must have been hit by a plow. 5:07 a.m. The defendant leaves One Meadows Ave. You have the video of that. It's No. 153 in Exhibit 6. We'll get to that a little more ina moment. About 5:10 a.m., the defendant calls Kerry Roberts. Ms. Roberts starts calling hospitals, calling Canton P.D., calling 911, something that you would do if you didn't know where Mr. O'Keefe was for all of these hours that all of these other phone calls are being made and these text messages are being sent and calling your parents and all of these other things. No calls from 911 to the defendant while John O'Keefe is laying, freezing and dying from a brain injury and skull fracture on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road. 5:11 a.m.

The defendant's vehicle is seen on the Canton Library camera, heading towards the Waterfall. It seems to be sort of retracing the steps. 5:18 a.m. The defendant's vehicle was seen at Washington Street in Chapman on the Temple Beth Abraham video, heading in the same direction that it was the night before when it was heading toward 34 Fairview Road. 5:35 is when the defendant arrives at Ms. McCabe's house. Ms. Roberts arrives shortly thereafter. Both of them see the broken taillight at that time in the driveway. Now, that gap of 5:18 to 5:35 is way too much time to be driving from the area of the Waterfall to Jennifer McCabe's house. And, as I indicated a moment before, heading in the same direction, the same directionality, retracing the steps from the night before, heading towards 34 Fairview Road. Why is it that the defendant can see Mr. O'Keefe when they eventually get to Fairview Road and no one else can? It's because she knew exactly where he was.

She had hit him and left him there the night before and she had gone back during that time frame between 5:18 a.m., when she's seen on the temple video, and 5:35, when she arrives at Ms. McCabe's house. 5:23 -- I'm sorry. 5:33 is when the defendant, Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts return to One Meadows Ave., searching for John. 6:03 is when the defendant and no one else spots Mr. O'Keefe's body buried in the snow. Exhibit 12, indicating this cruiser camera video, which I know you've seen a dozen times before. So where I'm starting it from this point in this part right here is the spotlight that Officer Saraf had to use in order to locate, even with the vehicle of Ms. Roberts parked right in the middle of the road.

MR. LALLY: In the darkness, in the snow, in the blizzard, in those conditions, the defendant, sitting in the back seat of the vehicle, knows exactly where Mr. O'Keefe is, covered in snow, as you heard from all of the paramedics, from the civilian witnesses, from the first responders. The defendant knows exactly where he is. 6:07 a.m. Ms. McCabe calls 911. 6:08. The defendant leaves that four- or five-minute voicemail, leaving the phone in the car for some reason to Mr. O'Keefe's phone. 6:23 and 6:24 in the morning is when Ms. McCabe conducts those Google searches. 7:50 in the morning is when Mr. O'Keefe is pronounced deceased at Good Samaritan Hospital. 4:13 to 4:20 p.m. is when the defendant's SUV is towed from her parents' house in Dighton. 5:20 p.m. is when the SERT team arrives in the area of 34 Fairview Road to conduct the search for evidence. 5:30 p.m. is when the defendant's vehicle arrives at the Canton Police Department sally port. Let me circle back for a moment to Mr.

O'Keefe, to his families, to his friends and to his relationship with the defendant. You heard testimony from Paul and Erin O'Keefe that they liked the defendant, that they thought he (sic) was good for John, thought he (sic) was good for the kids. All outward appearances of the relationship were good. You heard testimony from the children that that was not true behind closed doors. But Paul O'Keefe said that he told the defendant's parents this, that he liked Ms. Read, that he thought that she was good for John, thought that she was good for the kids, weeks before John's murder, even blew her a kiss in the emergency department at Good Samaritan as he was walking out and she was still being treated while they were there, invited over to John's house to grieve with them, invited her to sit down with him while he explained to their nephew, [REDACTED], about John's passing.

The defendant shows up at the house, abruptly goes upstairs with her father for a period of about 15 minutes, which is about half of the time that she spent there that morning, grieving with the family. She left with a bag of her belongings, drove with her family there and then took an extra vehicle in the height of the blizzard now, around 12:00-1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, drive that vehicle all the way from Canton, where it was parked at her boyfriend's house where she stayed over on many occasions, and drove that vehicle or felt the need to drive that vehicle from Canton, all the way down to her parents' house in Dighton at the height of the blizzard. You heard testimony from Erin O'Keefe of the text messages and the phone call on January 28th. You've heard that Erin O'Keefe called the defendant on the morning of the 29th because she was concerned for her. She wanted to know what was going on with someone she considered her friend. The defendant yells, John is dead. Ms.

Roberts then grabs the phone and then updates Erin O'Keefe as to what's going on with John. Erin O'Keefe again calls back later because she is concerned for someone that she considered her friends. How does the defendant respond? These are some of the little things. The defendant indicates to Ms. O'Keefe that she just has to remember the bad times and indicates to her, I don't think I'll ever see you guys again. This is after she's done her gquick-and-out at One Meadows Ave. It is now with her parents or with her father, driving that car, essentially taking the murder weapon from Canton and bringing it down to her parents' house in Dighton. She is indicating over the phone to Erin O'Keefe, I don't think I'll ever see you guys again. Why? If she didn't kill John, why would she say that? You heard a lot of testimony about New Year's Eve in Aruba. You heard the testimony from Ms.

O'Keefe in regard to them exchanging, her and the defendant exchanging, text messages on the flight down, arranging times to meet up, and then the defendant telling Erin via text message that she caught Johnny kissing Laura's sister in the hotel lobby. She got into an argument about it, and then they never met up, meaning the defendant, Mr. O'Keefe, got into an argument about it and she and Erin O'Keefe never ended up meeting up in Aruba. You heard testimony consistent from Laura Sullivan, Marietta Sullivan as well as the children. The kiss never happened. It never would happen based on the relationship, the godfather relationship that John O'Keefe had with Laura Sullivan, her family and particularly Laura Sullivan's child.

MR. LALLY: The defendant persists with this unfounded suspicion and accusations of infidelity in her text messages with Mr. O'Keefe, in her text messages with Mr. Higgins, where she is accusing Mr. O'Keefe of making out in the lobby with Marietta Sullivan. Both of the Sullivans and the children have the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe following this incident with Marietta Sullivan going into a room. Both of the children testified that they're in that room for about 20 to 25 minutes, and they're arguing. And they're arguing about the defendant indicating that Mr. O'Keefe kissed someone in the lobby. Then you have Laura Sullivan's testimony about 20 to 25 minutes after her sister comes out and states her displeasure about the defendant, it's about 20 to 25 minutes before Mr. O'Keefe comes out. And then he and Ms. Sullivan have a conversation. Ms. Sullivan indicates that Mr.

O'Keefe's phone is essentially blowing up, lighting up with calls and texts from the defendant, I would submit, similar to the afternoon of January 28th. Mr. O'Keefe says, she's crazy, and he needs to take this and goes off from there. Ms. Sullivan has later conversations with Mr. O'Keefe on this Aruba trip, asks him if he's okay, asks him if he's happy. She indicated in her testimony that Mr. O'Keefe shrugs it off and says, it is what it is. You heard testimony from the children about the arguments in the weeks and the months. And I know this is a displeasure to defense counsel that the children came in and actually testified as to what happened behind closed doors in the house. They both recall frequent fights. They both recall Mr. O'Keefe trying multiple times to break up with the defendant, asking her to leave the house, the defendant refusing to leave the house. Per his niece, [REDACTED], John tried to defuse. He tried to walk away.

And the defendant would follow each time, during each argument. They both indicate that Mr. O'Keefe had told the defendant that the relationship had run its course, Similar to language within the text messages you have between the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe, that Mr. O'Keefe was sick of arguing, again, mirroring those text messages from January 28th, leading up into going out to see if McCarthy is eventually at the Waterfall and the defendant killing Mr. O'Keefe in the early morning hours of January 29th. You have the testimony in regard to the Ring camera. [REDACTED] indicated in her testimony that John had had that for about a year. So during the course of the two years or so of the relationship with the defendant, he got it while he was dating the defendant. The defendant had the security code to the garage. Neither of the kids had access to the camera.

Trooper Guarino checked the laptop and the desktop that were left after the defendant did the guick cleanup upstairs with her father, upstairs in the home. Neither of those devices had access to the Ring cameras. John had access on his phone. The defendant indicates, if you recall, in some of those text messages in regard to the romantic kiss that she placed on Mr. Higgins earlier on January whatever it was during the Patriots game. Mr. Higgins, who Mr. Jackson was indicating, weren't very good friends with Mr. O'Keefe but had been invited over to his home for a Patriots game, at which time the defendant escorted Mr. Higgins out of the garage and placed a romantic kiss on him. But, during those text messages when they are talking about that, if you recall, the defendant is Saying something or joking about something that Mr. O'Keefe had been looking at the videos and had been asking her if there was something going on with her and Mr. Higgins. And what was her response to that?

I know where the cameras are. There are only two videos missing from that Ring system, one being the defendant getting to Mr. O'Keefe's house after murdering him, and the other when the defendant is showing Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts the broken taillight, both of which, both Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts, testified as having occurred. There is no video of that. There's a variety of stories that the defendant tells on the morning of January 29th. There are text messages and voicemails from the defendant to Mr. O'Keefe, 53 phone calls from 12:33 a.m. to 6:03 a.m., zero phone calls to 911. The defendant calls Katie Camerano. The defendant calls her parents at 1:18 in the morning, 4:38 in the morning, 4:42 in the morning. They call then from [REDACTED]'s phone to Ms. McCabe because

MR. LALLY: the defendant didn't have Ms. McCabe's phone number. Both [REDACTED] and Ms. McCabe indicate that the defendant initially indicates or says that she got into a fight with Mr. O'Keefe and left him at the Waterfall. From this information, Ms. McCabe then testifies she starts to call Julie Albert because Chris Albert, Julie Albert, they live close by the Waterfall. Maybe that's where he went. As the phone is ringing -- and this is a phone call that both Ms. Albert and Ms. McCabe testified was never answered. As the phone is ringing, her husband, Matthew McCabe, reminds her that they saw the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe in the car outside of 34 Fairview. So she hangs up. During this call or during these subsequent calls, the defendant indicates to Ms. McCabe, maybe I hit him. Did I hit him? She then calls Ms. Roberts at 5:00 a.m. on the dot and indicates, John is dead, hangs up the phone, calls back a minute later, indicates that Mr.

O'Keefe was now hit by a plow and that he's dead and then indicates further that she is drunk and doesn't remember. She tells Ms. McCabe about the cracked taillight before they even get in the vehicle and go anywhere, as you recall the testimony of Matthew McCabe, indicating that he had some concerns about them driving around in a vehicle with a damaged taillight in the middle of a blizzard. Ms. Roberts’ testimony that she saw the broken taillight in the driveway at Ms. McCabe's house and that it was consistent with what she observed in the photographs that were shown to her of it later in the sally port at the Canton Police Department garage when the search warrant is executed on February 1st. You have the text messages between the defendant and Laura Sullivan from January 29th in which the defendant indicates to Laura Sullivan that John is dead, indicates that we found him in the snow at 5:00 a.m., when every indication is that he was found in the snow by the defendant, Ms.

McCabe and Ms. Roberts around 6:00 a.m. 5:00 a.m. would be about an hour before. 5:00 a.m. would be between that time where the defendant is unaccounted for, headed in the direction of 34 Fairview Road at 5:18 to 5:35. Little things. The defendant asked Ms. McCabe how long to die in the cold. She did so at 6:23 and 6:24 in the morning. You have the testimony of Ms. Hyde and Mr. Whiffin as to SQLite databases, plist databases KnowledgeC databases, State Db tabs as far as all of that also from Trooper Guarino, as well. These searches were unequivocally done at 6:23 and 6:24 in the morning and not at 2:27:40 in the morning. They were not deleted by a user. That is not what deleted means. Frankly, Mr. Green, the last question that I asked Mr. Green is, was he aware that Cellebrite, and, by "Cellebrite," the person who designed that, being Mr. Whiffin, had to alter exactly how their software worked because of people like Mr. Green misinterpreting the data as he did in this case.

And what did Mr. Green say? Yes. But those guestions as far as how long to die in the cold, I would submit, mirror the questions that the defendant asked Firefighter Whitley in the back of the ambulance. If you recall those, she asked Firefighter Whitley how long to die in the cold without a jacket. She knew how Mr. O'Keefe was dressed. She knew when she left him to die in the cold how he was dressed. The defendant made statements to Firefighter Becker that the last time that she saw Mr. O'Keefe, they were in an argument, again, in the back of the same ambulance as Firefighter Whitley. You have testimony from Firefighter Woodbury, the same kind of questions, if Mr. O'Keefe could be alive without a jacket. You have the testimony from each of these firefighters as to sort of the vacillating, emotional state of the defendant that morning. What you have in the testimony from firefighter Woodbury is that despite all that, there are no tears that he observed from the defendant at that time.

What each of those first responders indicated was that the defendant repeatedly stated, is he dead, is he dead, not is he okay, is he going to be okay, how is he, any sort of questions about the medical condition. Is he dead, that phraseology repeated over and over and over again. And, when you take into juxtaposition that phraseology, the text to Laura Sullivan, we found him in the snow at 5:00 a.m., the unaccounted-for time heading in the direction of 34 Fairview Road, 5:18 to 5:35, the repeated questioning of Firefighter Whitley,

MR. LALLY: Firefighter Woodbury, asking Ms. McCabe to look up those things in her phone. She is looking for confirmation, is what she's looking for, when she asks over and over again, is he dead, is he dead, is he dead. You have the testimony that you heard from Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts. I say them together because as far as these two women were concerned, they did not know each other really at all. The only time, as they both testified to, that they had ever spent appreciably together prior to January 29th, 2022 is when Mr. O'Keefe nicely took them out for sneakers because he had some sort of deal ata Reebok's outlet or something like that to sort of try to pay them back for the help that they provided him and the children, Jennifer with respect to the niece and Kerry with respect to the nephew. But they are both contacted by the defendant in the early morning of January, of January 29th. As Ms. McCabe testified, John was my friend. I loved John. He was an amazing guy. At the Waterfall, Mr.

Albert said, going home to have a drink with his son, Brian, Jr., if anyone wants to come, an open invitation to the table. She said to Mr. O'Keefe and the defendant, you guys should come. Both the defendant and the victim indicated that they wanted to come and that they were coming. She describes the phone calls and the text messages that she receives from Mr. O'Keefe, that she's providing directions. She indicates she's providing directions to go down Chapman. She describes how that is. And you've heard this testimony from a couple of different witnesses as far as the steepness as you're going down Chapman -- excuse me -- going down Fairview and coming off of Chapman, that you first go down a big, steep hill. It flattens out for a little bit, and then you go down a second hill, two hills going down on Chapman, matching the GPS native location and the health data as far as where Mr.

O'Keefe's phone is a half mile away from 34 Fairview Road at the time that his health data is recording that he's ascending or descending three flights of stairs. You hear the testimony from Ms. McCabe as far as the last time she spoke to Mr. O'Keefe. And she is still trying to provide directions to Fairview because Mr. O'Keefe has never been there before and neither has the defendant, which is further corroborated with Trooper Guarino's testimony as far as the vehicle passing by Fairview and then coming back in on the other side, having to reverse direction. But she's giving directions and she indicates that she uses a house that Mr. O'Keefe would be familiar with that belonging to [REDACTED] or [REDACTED]'s mom. [REDACTED]'s mom is an ex-girlfriend for a short period of time from a long time ago.

However, in the defendant's mind, it's so fresh and on her mind that she's still talking about it the next morning or later on that morning when she's riding, going towards Fairview Road with Ms. Roberts and Ms. McCabe in Ms. Roberts' car. She is still talking about that at that time, it's that much on her mind. Ms. McCabe indicated that she looked out and she saw the vehicle initially in front of the front door, as did Mr. McCabe, as did Brian Albert, Jr., as did Julie Nagel, as did Ryan Nagel, and the vehicle moved up several times or several spots to where it was then positioned initially at some point in front of the door. Then it moves up further so that it's in the area of the fire hydrant and the flagpole where Mr. O'Keefe's body was discovered later on that morning, at least by Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts, and then moves up further beyond that.

And I say that in the sense that it moves up further beyond that with sufficient distance for it to then go in reverse for 62 1/2 feet to at 24.2 miles per hour, striking Mr. O'Keefe and leaving him where he was found later on on the 29th. Again, the testimony from Ms. McCabe that about 12:40 when she's texting him, she's indicated in her testimony she couldn't be certain if Mr. O'Keefe was still out front or had left at that point. She wakes up to a phone call from John's niece, [REDACTED], at 4:53 in the morning. This is from an eighth grader, a 14-year-old girl. That's why she answers the phone at 4:53 in the morning. She then hears the defendant screaming loudly, over and over again, Jen, Jen, Jen. John didn't come home. We got ina fight and I left him at the Waterfall. The variations, the different iterations of that story as it evolves and changes over the course of that morning.

MR. LALLY: Ms. McCabe then indicates to the defendant, we Saw you outside of my sister's house. Then she starts yelling, Jen, Jen, did I hit him? Could I hit him? Then they start discussing or the defendant brings up her cracked taillight, and then hear her, both Ms. McCabe and Mr. McCabe, hear the defendant screaming outside of their home at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning or shortly after 5:00 o'clock in the morning. They go to Mr. O'Keefe's house, and both Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts indicate, and you heard this testimony from a number of different witnesses, friends and family of Mr. O'Keefe, that he had a rule, a pretty strict rule, in his house as far as you take your shoes off when you come in the house. And so what do Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts both do when they are entering in that house on January 29th? They take off their boots. They've been out in the snow. They take off their boots in the mudroom and then they walk in.

What did they both indicate that the defendant did that morning when she came back to the house? She walked right in with the shoes on. You hear that second voicemail. It's after the defendant arrives back at One Meadows Ave. after her phone is reconnected with Mr. O'Keefe's WiFi. And you can hear the footsteps. Part of that may be in the garage. Part of that might be in the house. Why is it that the defendant has no issue with wearing shoes in the house when Mr. O'Keefe has that strict rule? Because she knows where he is. She knows it's not an issue; he's not coming home because she hit him with her SUV and she left him in the snow. Ms. Roberts and Ms. McCabe are frantically sort of running around the house, looking for Mr. O'Keefe. The defendant is not. They then get in the vehicle. They drive back towards Fairview Road.

And, again, the defendant, from the back seat of the vehicle, immediately sees the defendant, starts pulling and kicking on the door and runs in sort of a B-line, straight over to where Mr. O'Keefe is laying on the front lawn. We have the testimony from Ms. Roberts as far as John's phone. John's phone, when the firefighters pick him up, and you'll recall several witnesses testifying about that, pick him up on the scoop stretcher and bring him over to the ambulance while they are conducting the resuscitative efforts, trying to save Mr. O'Keefe's life. What did Ms. Roberts indicate that she observed underneath him? The phone, the phone on the grass, on the grass in the area that is completely covered in snow in every other area except under Mr. O'Keefe, which I would submit indicates how long Mr. O'Keefe has been there. Now, recall, around 12:00 o'clock or so is when it starts to snow and it starts to stick a little bit, and you heard all of that testimony.

And I know it was a lot of testimony about snow and a lot of testimony about weather, but there is a purpose to that. There is a point to that, okay, as far as the grass underneath Mr. O'Keefe's body where his cell phone was and Ms. Roberts observes some six hours later after it starts snowing. It's still visible only under Mr. O'Keefe where his body is, which I would submit is evidence to you as to how long he's been there. Now, on top of that, you also have hours of Ring video, of the driveway as far as shoveling and Paul O'Keefe and other people snow blowing and shoveling and all those kinds of things. There is a purpose to that, as well. If you look at those, if you look at the video of the defendant crashing into Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle at a speed of anywhere from zero to five, which even Dr. Wolfe would indicate would not cause the damage to the taillight that was observed in this case -- but you know what you don't see? You don't see snow move off Mr.

O'Keefe's vehicle when they come into contact. You don't see any red or clear plastic pieces in the snow. And, if you look at those stills, not the ones that counsel put up there during his closing, but if you look at each of the video and the stills, you can see the damage consistent with the taillight at each and every point. You see the damage consistent with the taillight from the 5:07 video. You see the damage consistent from the 8:22 video from Lieutenant Rae from the cruiser camera video when he's pulling into the driveway. You see the damage consistent from the Dighton video at the defendant's home. You see the damage consistent from the light here, February 1st, 2022, when the search warrant is conducted and Ms. Hartnett removes all those pieces from the vehicle.

MR. LALLY: The weather is also important when it comes to the hair, the magic hair, as Mr. Jackson likes to call it. See, the magic hair was actually frozen to the vehicle, as was the glass to the bumper, because the vehicle looked like that on the left when it was caked in snow when Officer Barros saw it in the driveway in Dighton as they were wading through a foot and a half of snow, walking up, because, remember, they didn't even pull into the driveway because they had to have someone come down and plow it before they could get into it. That's what the vehicle looked like. What you can see, however, is the damage to the taillight, to the side of that taillight consistent with it. So that hair, that seven- eighths of an inch hair, was frozen to the side.

And, as you remember the testimony from Sergeant Bukhenik about the heated condition of the Canton Police Department garage -- and that's one of the reasons they took it there, because the other barracks that they could have taken it to didn't have that heated condition. So, yes, after it's been in there from January 29th at about 5:30 p.m. until February lst, when they conducted the search warrant, the hair isn't still frozen as it's contained within a heated garage, and the pieces of glass on the rear bumper have melted. The snow has melted, as you can see, from left to right. The weather, also important, I would submit. The weather was the weather. Remember, the cause of death here is not just blunt impact injuries. There's blunt impact injuries and hypothermia. And you heard all that medical testimony in relation to it, and you heard all that testimony in relation to the snow and the weather and the wind, wind gusts up to 37 miles per hour, while Mr.

O'Keefe is out there in just a shirt and jeans. Now, you heard also testimony from Ms. Roberts in relation to the injuries she observed to Mr. O'Keefe, that initially on scene there was one eye that was swollen, not the other. I submit that's an indication of the swelling that Dr. Scordi-Bello was testifying to and no indication of physical altercation. And then both eyes being swollen when Ms. Roberts viewed Mr. O'Keefe's body after his passing at the Good Samaritan. I submit that all the testimony tells you the same consistent account, internally, externally, from civilian testimony, to investigator testimony, to medical testimony, to forensic testimony, to the reconstruction testimony. You have the testimony from Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts that they couldn't see Mr. O'Keefe at Fairview when they initially pulled up. You can see that from Officer Saraf's cruiser video. You have Mr. O'Keefe being covered in snow from the storm. You know where Mr. O'Keefe's body was.

It's clearly visible on the cruiser camera from Officer Saraf. You have the testimony of each of the responding officers anywhere from five to 12 feet off the roadway, and from the civilians, as well. Ms. McCabe, Ms. Roberts, Officer Mullaney has Six inches of snow on Mr. O'Keefe when he first sees him. Firefighter Kelly says that he couldn't even see Mr. O'Keefe until he was five feet away, in the darkness, in the snow, in the blizzard conditions. There's no footprints around the body. There's no drag marks around the body. There is no evidence of anything in relation to Brian Albert and Brian Higgins. Brian Albert and Brian Higgins spent January 28, 2022 traveling to New York City to go to a funeral for another police officer for another department who they didn't even know, traveled all the way down to New York and then came back before the blizzard, only to come back from that to go out drinking, to come back to Mr.

Albert's house, to then murder another police officer who they did know who worked for the same department as them. And then, criminal mastermind genius that Brian Albert is, 28 years on the Boston Police Department, he's then just going to leave Mr. O'Keefe's body on his front lawn? Really? That's the conspiracy? What evidence do you have of that? You have statements that the defendant made to Sergeant Bukhenik on January 29th. She was willing to speak but didn't want to give too much detail. A conversational tone throughout. She indicated that the night before, they had gotten into an argument, something about what was fed to the children, nothing about the detailed arguments and incessant phone calls and everything else that you saw from the defendant and Mr. O'Keefe's phone on the 28th. She indicated going to C.F. McCarthy's around

MR. LALLY: 9:00 p.m., started drinking vodka sodas. The men were drinking beers. When asked where she parked her vehicle, she said she parked on Washington Street, across from C.F. McCarthy's, facing northbound on the same side as Waterfall, the same testimony that you heard from Ms. Kolokithas, observing the defendant going over to her vehicle, getting in the driver's seat and then the victim, Mr. O'Keefe, getting into the passenger seat. She said they left the Waterfall, were invited to a residence. She drove her and John to the location in Canton. She dropped Mr. O'Keefe off, did not see him walk in the home. She, being the defendant, stated she made a three-point turn and then left. When asked about the damage to her vehicle, she indicated to the troopers, I don't know. It happened last night. June 2022. You have that other reporting of that other version that she now has evolved into as far as stating to Sergeant Bukhenik that John was beaten up by Brian and Colin Albert?

We're all in on the same joke, right? John was pulverized and my taillight was cracked. What evidence do you have of that? Mr. O'Keefe never went in the house. You have testimony from Nicole Albert; Brian Albert; Jennifer McCabe; Matthew McCabe; Caitlin Albert; Brian Albert, Jr.; Sara Levinson; Julie Nagel, all indicating never went in the house. John O'Keefe's phone never went in the house from the testimony and the data points that you have from Trooper Guarino. You know how Mr. O'Keefe was dressed, and you know the defendant knew that. You have the testimony from Kurt Roberts, Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, Karina Kolokithas, Nicholas Kolokithas, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, Brian Higgins, all indicated in their testimony, and the defendant knew based on her questions to the firefighters the next morning, that Mr. O'Keefe was not dressed for the weather when he left the Waterfall. The weather was a weapon.

You have the testimony about the car, the defendant's car being there in front of the house, moving multiple times. You have that from multiple sources. You have that from Matthew McCabe. You have that from Jennifer McCabe. You have that from Brian Albert, Jr. You have that from Julie Nagel. You have that from Ryan Nagel. You have the testimony of Ryan Nagel, Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon. Ms. Maxon indicated she saw a male passenger, a female operator as the vehicle was turning. Remember, they're coming towards Fairview at the same time. The defendant, after conducting that reverse or three-point turn on Cedarcrest, is then taking a right onto Fairview while Mr. Nagel and Mr. D'Antuono and Ms. Maxon are taking a left onto Fairview. Mr. Nagel indicates that Mr. D'Antuono then flashed his lights. During that time, Ms. Maxon can see inside the vehicle. She sees a male passenger. She sees a female operator. They follow the vehicle as they are turning onto the street.

Lo and behold, they are going to the same residence. They park. There is nothing in between them and the defendant's vehicle. They indicate that at no time do they see anybody get out of the vehicle. At no time do they see any damage to the vehicle because the murder hasn't happened yet. At no time do they see anyone leave the vehicle and go into the house. The vehicle moves up on different, successive occasions, as testified to by Mr. Nagel and several others. As they are passing that vehicle, Mr. Nagle indicates that he sees a female operator in the vehicle with the dome light on. Now, interesting, when I asked Mr. Nagel as far as when Julie Nagle came out to the vehicle did he roll down the window or did he open the door, he indicated he opened the door. And I asked him, what happened when you opened the door? What happens when you open the door to a vehicle? The dome light comes on. So the reason, I would submit, or the inference that you can make is that no one sees Mr.

O'Keefe in the vehicle because that's the moment he steps out of the vehicle. And then they are gone. The Nagels, Ryan Nagel, Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon drive away from them. You heard the testimony from Julie Nagel and Sara Levinson, the peanut butter and jelly sandwich conversation they had with Ms. McCabe which, while they are pulling away from the house where everybody's attention is drawn, Ms. McCabe is turned around, facing both of them in the back seat. Ms. Nagel is facing Ms. Levinson on the passenger side, looking out the window towards 34 Fairview Road. Ms. Levinson is looking back at

MR. LALLY: Ms. Nagel, away from that area, in which Ms. Nagel indicates that she sees a five- to six-foot dark blob on the lawn near the pole and the hydrant, which is just where Mr. O'Keefe is discovered the next morning. You have the testimony, you recall, and you have text messages in regard to Colin Albert when he gets picked up from Colin --

MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor. From Colin Albert; Allison McCabe; Brian Albert; Nicole Albert; Caitlin Albert; Brian, Jr. all indicated that he was picked up around that time at 12:10 a.m. You have the testimony from Chris and Julie Albert, his parents, as far as when he comes home and kisses them goodnight before he goes to bed. You have that testimony in regard to Chris Albert as far as John O'Keefe and the defendant come to be at the Waterfall in the first place as far as John O'Keefe and his nephew coming in earlier in the day, getting a couple slices of pizza, what are you doing later on, contained within those text messages. You have the testimony from Lieutenant O'Hara, Lieutenant Tully, Sergeant Bukhenik about those items being recovered. And, in particular, the items being recovered on January 29th by that SERT team, what did Lieutenant O'Hara say? The items were found close to the curb.

The items were at ground level, three feet of snow that they had to sift through in order to find those particular things. The detail or the delay in the recovery of evidence, the photos in the video, most of which you have in evidence, is earlier in the storm. This is before the 18 inches of snow falls down, before there is drifts and three feet of snow in places. They found the evidence where it had been at that same ground level, in the grass, under the snow at 34 Fairview Road. You heard all of the medical testimony which I would submit is consistent from Firefighter Flematti to Dr. Rice. You heard the testimony regarding the defendant's blood alcohol concentration from Dr. Faller and Nick Roberts, 93 milligrams per deciliter; .07 to .08 percent at 9:08 in the morning. You heard Mr. Roberts' testimony in regard to the retrograde extrapolation, .13 to .29, extrapolating back to the time of the operation. The defendant admits to drinking vodka. It's on the receipts from C.F.

McCarthy's and from the Waterfall, and you have the witness's testimony and the surveillance videos. The forensic testimony that you have: In regard to the medical testimony, you have the sort of pattern abrasions, the clear plastic that's recovered by Lieutenant O'Hara and Lieutenant Tully on January 29th, the clear plastic that has the dimples on it. No one, not Trooper Paul, not anyone at any point in time ever said that Mr. O'Keefe's arm was out like this at the time that he is struck and that he did a pirouette and then flew 30 feet in the air. The 12 inches of abrasions that the doctors or the biomechanical people were talking about yesterday, 12 inches, and then six inches for the taillight, is easily solved by this, and the dimples on his arm that I would submit are consistent with the dimples on the taillight copper piece are right around this area of the elbow. You have the testimony in regard to forensics as far as Mr. Porto and Mr. Bradford.

John O'Keefe's DNA is on that taillight housing, on the housing. His DNA is there to the exclusion, as well, of Sergeant Bukhenik and Trooper Proctor. Mr. O'Keefe's DNA is on the exterior of the broken drinking glass. Mr. O'Keefe's DNA and only Mr. O'Keefe's DNA is on his clothing and his fingernails, consistent with Dr. Scordi-Bello's testimony that there is no evidence of a fight or an altercation. There is no one else's DNA under his fingernails. There's no one else's DNA on his clothing. You have the testimony from Ms. Hartnett and Trooper Paul in regard to the damage that they observed, the dent, the scratches, the seven-eighth of a inch hair. You have the testimony from Ms. Chart in regard to the mitochondrial DNA profile from that hair being consistent with the DNA profile of Mr. O'Keefe. You have the testimony from Ms. Vaillier and Ms. Hanley in regard to the microscopic pieces, 1/16 of an inch by 1/16 of an inch --

MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor. -- all consistent with the pieces of taillight that are found within his clothing. Ms. Gillman, if I could? This is what this vehicle looked like backing up at that speed for approximately that distance. There was another lawyer years and years ago who started practicing in Norfolk County in Braintree, what iS now Quincy, and eventually became a far smarter man than myself, eventually became president of the United States. His name was John Adams. John Adams once wrote, “Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and the evidence." What the constellation of the facts and the evidence ineluctably demonstrate here is that the defendant drove her vehicle in reverse for 24.2 miles per hour for 62 1/2 feet, struck Mr. O'Keefe, causing those catastrophic head injuries, leaving him incapacitated and freezing to death.

MR. LALLY: I literally have one sentence left, Your Honor.

MR. LALLY: From those facts and that evidence, I would submit it ineluctably demonstrates her guilt on each of the indictments before you, and I would ask you to find her so. Thank you.