Closing Argument - Defense

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Look the other way. Look the other way. Four words that sum up the Commonwealth's entire case. Four words that sum up the hopes of those who have tried to deceive you. Conflicts of interest? Doesn't matter. Just look the other way. Magic hairs, magic glass? Look the other way. Late-night calls and Google searches, falsified affidavits, inverted videos, and butt dials galore? Just look the other way. That's what they want. That's what they're counting on. But the uncontroverted fact is, you have been lied to in this courtroom, and your job is to make sure you don't ever, ever look the other way. Your singular duty is to stare down the evidence and do it unflinchingly and do it unwaveringly.

MR. JACKSON: You see, you're the only thing standing between Karen Read and the tyranny of injustice. It's a job you didn't ask for, probably a job you didn't want, but it's the greatest responsibility we have as citizens here in America. Lest the government stop answering to us and we start answering to the government. And lo and behold, anyone — any one of us — who might find themselves in the crosshairs of a Michael Proctor. Preparing for today, I was reminded of a quote. It's a quote about the truth, and I want to share it with you. It is of great importance to set a resolution never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible. And those who permit themselves to tell a lie once find it much easier to do it a second time and a third.

MR. JACKSON: This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time it depraves all its good dispositions. What does that mean? It means that it's been observed that to tell an untruth, to exaggerate, to make a false claim — it's a cancer. One lie begets another, and it's a malignancy that grows over time. And that, folks, is how a coverup is born. That's how a Massachusetts state trooper says, in whispered tones to his friends, when he thought no one was looking or listening, how he would make a case, how he would make it cut and dry, no matter the truth, how he would make sure to put, quote, "serious charges on the girl" — in other words, hang it on the girl. You may ask yourself, how does this happen? How could this happen? It's 2024.

MR. JACKSON: Surely people aren't going to come to this courtroom, this hall of justice, and lie to us. Just give us false information. They wouldn't do that. They wouldn't try to cover up the truth. The Alberts, the McCabes, Higgins, Lank, Michael Proctor, Yuri Bukhenik, Brian Tully — you don't have to wonder if they would lie to support their narrative. You need only wonder how many times they did lie, over and over and over. They and others were caught deceiving you — big things, small things, it didn't really matter. They feared nothing. They'll look you in the eye and deny phone calls. They'll deny secret meetings. They'll claim that calls are butt dials and butt dials are answered. They'll show you a video and tell you left is right and right is left.

MR. JACKSON: They'll magically turn three pieces of plastic into five right before your eyes. And even when they're caught with their own lies, they won't blink, they don't sweat — they'll just look you in the eye and demand, "Pay no attention. You folks, look the other way." Ladies and gentlemen, there was a cover-up in this case, plain and simple. You'll surely say to yourself, "I don't want to believe it. I don't want to believe that can happen in our community." But sadly, over the past eight weeks, you've seen it right before your eyes. So how does a coverup happen? How could that happen? Well, let's count the ways, shall we? Handpick your investigator. Make sure it's someone we know, someone on our side. Keep him close. Offer him help. Offer him a gift. Have secret friends and family meetings.

MR. JACKSON: Get your story straight. Delete your call history. Make mysterious phone calls at 2:22 a.m. Delete Google searches. Monitor police activity. Get rid of evidence. Get rid of your dog. Destroy your phones. Destroy your SIM card. For the investigator: decide on a narrative early on. Don't go to the crime scene. Don't take witnesses in for questioning. Question all the witnesses together. Ignore witnesses who don't fit your narrative. Allow friends and family to contact those same witnesses. Don't record interviews. Write vague and false police reports. Omit witnesses' names. Omit witnesses' interviews altogether. Don't photograph the evidence. Don't conduct any forensics. Don't document the evidence. Don't document the logs. Don't create any logs whatsoever.

MR. JACKSON: And don't maintain a chain of custody. Keep all the evidence in the hands of one person, and then manipulate that evidence, including videos. Don't turn over videos. Invert videos. Turn 4:16 p.m. into 5:30 p.m. in affidavits. Turn three pieces of tail light into five pieces of tail light. Delete 42 minutes of surveillance footage. Hide personal relationships. Make this case cut and dry. And ensure the homeowner, quote, "never sees any," because he's a Boston cop. But most importantly, pick your patsy and pin it on the girl. It's not that it could happen — it's that every single one of those things I just mentioned did happen, right in front of you. But this sort of injustice can't happen in a vacuum, so what about the prosecution? What about the Commonwealth?

MR. JACKSON: What does it look like when the government picks a narrative and then tries to form a prosecution around the narrative instead of the other way around? Looks a lot like this: if you don't have actual evidence, just throw every single thing you can against the wall to see what sticks. Drag her through the mud and make sure you attack her character. And that's what you saw in this case. The Commonwealth spent much of their time and resources trying to vilify Karen Read. They desperately resorted to calling witnesses to talk about Karen Read and John O'Keefe's arguments. They even stooped so low as to call the children and put them through this ordeal — all to say that John sometimes got upset because Karen was too kind, too nice, spoiled them too much.

MR. JACKSON: Their arguments illustrated what anybody could imagine is a normal set of ups and downs for any couple. Even on January 28th they talked it out, they communicated, they worked out their issues, and they had a nice affectionate evening out with their friends. And you don't have to take my word for it — pull the tape, as they say. Look at the videos. C.F. McCarthy's, Waterfall. What are the words that every single person who testified in this case used about Karen Read and John O'Keefe that night? Getting along, no issues, good mood, happy, affectionate, even lively — no issues, no toxicity. They were a loving couple right up until the time Karen Read dropped him off and he walked into 34 Fairview. If an argument with a loved one is a motive for murder, folks, we're all in trouble.

MR. JACKSON: Speaking of which, what is the evidence that John went into the house? The Commonwealth will tell you undoubtedly no, he never went in the house, and they'll point to certain witnesses who they say didn't see him go in. Well, the question you have to ask yourself is: can you rely on that? First, these are all people who are related to or committed to the Alberts in some way or another — that all-powerful Canton family. It's easy to say I didn't see something, because how can that really be challenged? Some are secondhand; some actually may not have seen John walk into the house — they were in the kitchen, as you recall from Nicole. Third, at least one witness, Brian Higgins, forgot his narrative, at least for a second, and he admitted a man did in fact come into the house.

MR. JACKSON: And then when he was caught and asked to describe that man, he had to — it was a little bit vague. You remember what he said: he was tall with dark hair. That was a telling slip of the tongue by Brian Higgins. But what's the real evidence? The unbiased data — the data that's not connected to the Albert family. How about John's Apple Health data? It shows at 12:21 a.m. — an important time — John arrived. That's established by the monotonic time clock that you heard about in this trial. It was on his phone. And that represents a huge problem for the Commonwealth. It shows that he took 80 steps and ascended or descended three flights of stairs at that time. And that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

MR. JACKSON: It matches — walks into the house, goes directly to the basement, there's your 80 steps and you're descending flights of stairs. The big problem for the Commonwealth is he wasn't outside at the car — ascending and descending stairs, not climbing on top of the car. So they'll tell you: wait, wait, wait — don't look at the Apple Health data, look at this other thing called Waze. But Rick Green explained that if you apply the three-minute offset that is built into that monotonic time, it aligns perfectly. They don't want you to see that. They don't want you to pay attention. They want you to look the other way. But even more importantly, at approximately 12:32 a.m., someone holding John's phone takes another 36 steps and travels 25 meters. Why is that so important?

MR. JACKSON: Because by 12:32 a.m., Karen Read was gone — she had already left the location. She left at 12:30. Trooper Guarino told you that Karen Read's phone connected to John's Wi-Fi at what time? 12:36. It is undisputed in this case that it's a six-minute drive on a good day from 34 Fairview over to 1 Meadows. She was gone by 12:30 and John's phone was taking 36 steps and logging 25 meters at 12:32 — after she left. So don't be fooled: John walked into that house, after which Karen drove away, and the scientific data all proved it. But also Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxon proved it. In addition to the Apple Health data, Ryan and Heather both independently testified that they passed Karen's SUV as they drove away after talking to Julie, and Karen was alone in the SUV.

MR. JACKSON: John was not with her — he wasn't in the car, he wasn't standing outside the car, he wasn't sitting beside the car, he wasn't laying on the ground beside the car. He was nowhere in sight. There's only one other place that John could have been, and that's in the house — exactly where the Apple Health data places it. So it all fits. And Ryan was right behind her, remember, staring at her tail lights — undamaged, brightly lit. That brings up another difficulty for the Commonwealth, and that's their star witness Jennifer McCabe. You'll recall that Jennifer McCabe claimed that she was looking out the door, staring at that SUV over and over and over again from 12:29 to 12:50. She was very specific about that time frame.

MR. JACKSON: But we know that the SUV was gone from 34 Fairview by about 12:30 — had to be, in order to connect to the Wi-Fi at 12:36. So unequivocally, Jennifer McCabe was lying about watching that SUV, and it makes you wonder why. And to add to that deceit, she was also blatantly lying about the calls to John's phone. You remember that [unintelligible] back and forth? She said that every single one of those calls to John's phone during that time was a butt dial. How are those lies connected and why are they connected? Jennifer McCabe knows. Was she butt dialing John over and over, or was someone looking for John's phone that went missing? Let's talk for a second about what actually happened in the time leading up to everyone going to 34 Fairview.

MR. JACKSON: Brian Albert, Brian Higgins show up drunk at the Waterfall. They had been drinking in the afternoon. You know about the flirtatious texts that were sent between Karen Read and Brian Higgins — was clearly pining over Karen. But for her, the flirtation had run its course — it was done. She was happy and committed to John. You can see that in her actions with John that night. You don't have to guess. Brian Higgins, however — you can see in his actions he wasn't quite so satisfied, and he wasn't done. His text message — "WTF," meaning "what the hell, Karen, what about me" — seemed aggressive, seemed annoyed. He didn't like being ignored, that was pretty clear. So he's five or six whiskies deep into the night by this time, and she continued to ignore him.

MR. JACKSON: Then, oddly, Higgins, who doesn't know John all that well, seems to want to coax John to 34 Fairview. I draw your attention to the Waterfall tape — if you want to take another look at it, it's at the 11:57 mark. Between 11:57 and 11:58, take a look at that tape. He's just about to leave — Higgins is just about to leave — he points over at John and motions for him: come on, come on, come with me. And then at 12:20 he texts him, "You coming here?" This is a person he doesn't really know and didn't really talk to that entire night. Ask yourself: why was Higgins so insistent that John go to 34 Fairview that night?

MR. JACKSON: And then there's that sparring and fighting that he and Brian Albert were engaged in — of all the things they could be doing, this is what they were doing just minutes before John O'Keefe walked into that house at 34 Fairview. We know that once John actually did walk in the door, it's about two steps — four feet or so, two steps for an adult male — to reach that basement door. Remember, everybody was gathered in the kitchen. It's what Nicole Albert said, and every single witness agreed that at some point Brian Higgins and Brian Albert left the group and went to another room. Where did they go? Where did they go together? Another important point: Chloe was not upstairs.

MR. JACKSON: Brian Albert slipped in his testimony that he provided — quote, "I was watching Chloe downstairs, monitoring her because of the other people in the house — she's not good with strangers." Remember that testimony. So what happened next? We absolutely know that John was in the house. The data, Ryan, Heather — they all established that. We know that John ascended or descended stairs. We know that Brian Higgins and Brian Albert excused themselves. How long does it take to have cross words? How long does it take to have a fight? How long would it take for Brian Higgins to say to John, "You know, your girl's been texting me" — a push, a punch, a fall, pull Chloe off his arm, and now it's done? What is that — five seconds? Ten? Doesn't take long at all. And then the panic sets in.

MR. JACKSON: Wasn't intended to go that far, but what's done is done. And then some very, very odd things start happening at the Albert household — very odd indeed. What do we know? We know through the testimony and key swipes that Brian Higgins very oddly goes directly to Canton Police Department. Why would he do that after a night of drinking and partying? Why go to CPD when you're drunk? What was so important there? He couldn't even get his own story straight — first he said it was administrative work, then he said he was moving cars, then he said it was a factor of both. Is it both? Was it either? Or was he there to gather intel? Ask yourself why go. But the odd things keep piling up, and here's another: Chloe was the Albert family pet.

MR. JACKSON: Not only did she appear to be gone from the house that morning on January 29th — nobody saw her there; even Jen McCabe admitted, "I didn't see her there" — but they actually got rid of the dog altogether within months of this incident. The dog was gone out of the house — rehomed, never to be seen again. This was a dog they had had for seven years, also a dog who had a bite history. Why was it so important to get rid of that dog? Was there something about the dog they did not want law enforcement to find out? Recall what Dr. Russell said: she's seen up to a thousand animal attacks, and her expert opinion is John's right arm — those injuries are from an animal, quote, "most likely a large dog." Dr. Russell's testimony, I'll remind you, was undisputed by any witness for the Commonwealth.

MR. JACKSON: But there are more odd and unexplained things. After a night of drinking and hanging out and partying, after being together for the entire day at 2:22 a.m. Brian Albert decides to call Brian Higgins. That call was missed, but 17 seconds later Higgins calls Brian back and they speak for 22 seconds. Now that call is odd and suspicious enough in and of itself — the fact that the call was made — but what's even more incriminating is that both men, both of them, lied about the calls happening. They both claim, astonishingly, that those calls — you can probably say it with me — they're butt dials. Amazing. But Albert and Higgins take it a step further: not only did they claim that they were making calls as butt dials, but they were answering calls as butt dials.

MR. JACKSON: And Higgins seemed awfully defensive about that call. Didn't remember on cross-examination — when I was asking him, can you have a conversation in 22 seconds, he unequivocally said no, that's impossible, it's not reasonable, you can't do it. Let's test that out. Hey, did you make it over to Canton? Yep. Haven't been any calls, nobody knows a thing. All right, don't talk to anybody until we talk again. Okay, fine. And by the way, come back over, I need help moving something heavy. How long did that take? 15 seconds maybe. But the odd behavior isn't done yet. Five minutes after that call that we just talked about, Jennifer McCabe is on her phone at her house Google searching how long it takes for someone to die in the cold. That was at 2:27 a.m. That timeline seems to fit, doesn't it?

MR. JACKSON: And it fits a very telling and a very clear story. That search became a focal point of the Commonwealth's entire case. This case was starting to look a lot more like the defense of Jennifer McCabe than anything else. That's probably because there is no innocent explanation for that Google search at 2:27 a.m. None. At the end of the day, clearing away all the confusion, the Commonwealth's experts were left with two things that are true. First, neither of their experts could absolutely rule out that Jennifer McCabe made that search at 2:27 a.m. — neither. And second, the only person to use the actual phone model, the actual data, and the actual precise operating system was Rick Green, and he was clear: that search was at or before 2:27 a.m., and then it was deleted.

MR. JACKSON: So what else was going on at or around this same time, when all this suspicious activity was happening at the Albert house and the McCabe house? Three minutes after that search and 8 minutes after the Albert-Higgins 2:22 a.m. call, Brian Loughran drives down the street in his snowplow, and he told you that there is no body laying on the lawn at 34 Fair- view at 2:30 in the morning. Importantly, he didn't just simply say he didn't see a body, he wasn't paying attention — he said there was nobody there. He knows the property, he knows the owners, he's grown up with these folks, he passes by all the time. Not once, not twice — three passes — there was nobody on that lawn. Period. At 2:30 a.m. And what other suspicious thing happened that night? By 3:30 a.m.

MR. JACKSON: someone moved a Ford Edge in front of the very area that would obstruct the view of where John's body would ultimately be discovered. Who's the only person in this case that you've heard about with a Ford Edge? Brian Albert. Remember, as you're thinking about this — the basement at 34 Fairview is serviced by a bulkhead. It's a quick and convenient door to the backyard, and that backyard is serviced by a side fence, and that side fence is easily accessible to the front yard, at the side of the house — which side of the house? The side where John's body was found. And by 6:00 a.m. John's body was in fact now outside. While this flurry of suspicious activity was going on with the Alberts and the McCabes, what's happening with Karen?

MR. JACKSON: All she knows at this point — think about it — at approximately 12:21 she dropped off John, he walked into 34 Fairview, and that's all she knows. She knows nothing else that was going on. So what was she left to think? He goes in to check the party out, but all of a sudden he's not coming back, he's not responding. Minutes start to pass — one minute turns to two, two turn to ten. Where is he? Why isn't he responding? She's sitting in the cold dark freezing outside in the car. Naturally she's perturbed. Being perturbed turns into being peeved, being peeved eventually turns into being pissed. By 12:30 Karen's mad. She's left 34 Fairview to make a point, but she's still texting and calling. What could she reasonably be thinking at this point? What's going through her mind?

MR. JACKSON: 12:33 turns into 12:34 — I can't believe he'd do this to me. 12:34 turns into 12:35 — where is he, why aren't you answering, John? 12:35 turns to 12:36 — Jesus Christ, I'm calling and you're not answering, where are you, pick up the phone. But there's still no answer, there's still no response. By 12:37 she's getting furious. She does not know that something has happened to John. She does not know that. So she leaves the first angry voicemail — illustrates frustration, aggravation, all the normal responses anybody might have, you and I might have. But little did she know. The next open voicemail has Karen parking at John's garage after she gets home. You can hear her heels clicking across the garage floor.

MR. JACKSON: For all she knows at this point, John's just drunk, he's been partying, he's hanging out, just forgot about her, blowing her off. But John's still not responding, and as the minutes tick by Karen becomes increasingly upset. Those are the voicemails that you heard. How could he do this? Why is he ignoring me? Why is he ignoring the kids? Those are the thoughts bearing down on Karen Read as she sat in an empty house late at night by herself. Ladies and gentlemen, she did not know what had happened to John. But within the next voicemail you quickly learned what she was thinking, what she was feeling. Now it's 5:23 a.m. She's woken up. She's realized that he hasn't come home and he hasn't responded to a single text, not a single call. And anger quickly turns to panic and abject fear.

MR. JACKSON: She's so distraught she reaches out to him again — "John, where the [expletive] are you?" — she says through tears and desperation. And at 6:03 that question was answered and her worst fears are realized when she finds his body laying dying in the cold in Brian Albert's front yard. You heard her. You can feel the grief, you can feel the raw anguish, you could see it. You don't have to wonder about the emotional journey that Karen traveled that night — you can see it in the video, you can hear it in the audio. From the time he left her and walked into 34 Fairview, she called, she reached out 53 times. She called him 53 times before finding his body. Think about that.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth wants you to believe that she murdered this man, and then after that murder she called him — not once, not twice — 53 times. It makes no sense. What does make sense is that she emotionally moved from anger into panic into grief. So back at 5:07, when she began her search looking for John, she backed out of the garage. And what would happen next would change the entire course of this case — as she backed out of that garage she hit John's Traverse and cracked her right rear tail light. Folks, the Commonwealth has one job to do in this courtroom — it's an immutable responsibility to provide you with the truth. That's it. Not to win the case, but to seek justice, and to do it through the truth. Ask yourself: did you get that truth from the Commonwealth?

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth continually tried to tell you that that video showed that the SUV came close to John's Traverse, and it took us showing you the video to unequivocally establish that Karen hit that car and cracked her tail light at 5:07. You can almost hear an audible gasp in the courtroom when we finally showed you the actual video — we can see that tire move. I'm only going to show you one series of exhibits during my entire closing, but it's that important, and it's this. Look at the condition of her tail light when she pulls out of the driveway at 5:07. That tail light — and I'm going to choose my words very carefully here — that tail light is cracked but it's not completely damaged.

MR. JACKSON: And if there was any question in your mind about the level of damage to that tail light at 5:07, all doubt was extinguished when Dighton police officer Barros walked into this courtroom. He's a sworn officer. He's not associated with Canton, he's not associated with the Alberts, he's not associated with the McCabes, he doesn't know Michael Proctor — in other words, he doesn't answer to any of these folks. He's an outsider and he's completely independent. And his words were the following: quote — that tail light was not completely damaged, it was cracked, a piece was missing, but not completely damaged. Take a look at this photograph and tell me which one looks like officer Barros's description — the one on the left or the one on the right.

MR. JACKSON: The reconstructed light on the left is what that light looked like before it was in Trooper Proctor's possession. Remember that. That's what it looked like before Trooper Proctor had access to the SUV — and you have an independent police officer telling you so. You'll recall that after John's body was discovered, Lank — very good friend of the Alberts — walked into Brian Albert's house and had an off-the-record meeting with him. No one's ever going to know exactly what that meeting was about, what they discussed, because that interview — like everything else in this case — it wasn't recorded, it wasn't memorialized. But we do know that shortly thereafter the Canton Police Department was recused from the matter entirely and the case was assigned to one Michael Proctor.

MR. JACKSON: You have to believe that when the Alberts found that out they thought they hit the lottery. They thought they hit the lottery. What are the chances — the department where my brother works — that would have been great to investigate this case, but that Department's been recused? That's tough luck. But the guy who catches the case is Michael Proctor — a guy we go back with for decades. What a break. They probably thought: when this is over, we need to get that dude a gift. Oh — wait a minute — they didn't think that, they said it out loud. But still, you've got to imagine that the Alberts had to be stressed. What with that whole thing about a dead body being on their lawn — that might get some attention — and they had to be wondering: will he set up a crime scene?

MR. JACKSON: Is he going to come into the house? Is he going to search the house? Is he going to send in a forensics team? Is he going to interview witnesses? Is he going to take us to the station? Will he take our phones? Will he look at our communications? Will he look at our Google searches? Will he look at our early morning phone calls? Is he going to look in the basement? And Michael Proctor answered every single one of those questions: resounding nope. He's [unintelligible] too. And with that, Michael Proctor didn't draw a Thin Blue Line — he erected a tall blue wall. A wall that you can't scale. A wall that Karen Read certainly couldn't get over. A wall between us and them. A place you folks are not invited. We protect our own. It's us or it's them. And by the way, who's she after all? Nobody.

MR. JACKSON: An outsider. This is going to be easy — or so they thought. Let's look at what Michael Proctor actually did and did not do in this case. One of the consistent issues that's come up throughout this trial is how evidence always seems to be changing and evolving when in Michael Proctor's hands — or somebody in his orbit. If it happens once, let's chalk it up to a mistake. Twice — starting to look a little bit like incompetence. If that happens every single time, it becomes intentional, which means it becomes corruption. The defense spent some time — we spent some time — discussing the tow time that Michael Proctor swore to in affidavit. There was a reason that we believed it was so important, and I want to talk about that for just a quick second.

MR. JACKSON: Because this was a concerted effort by Michael Proctor to falsify the time the car was seized, so that no one would know that he actually had possession of the car before the first pieces of tail light were ever discovered at the scene. But he got caught. And when he did, the best he could come up with was: it was a typo — like a dozen times, a typo. You'll remember what that testimony was. The truth is that car was in Michael Proctor's possession from about — sorry — 4:12 in the afternoon. He said it was 4:16 when he finally had to tell the truth, or some version of the truth. Those first pieces of tail light were not found until after 5:45 p.m. That is the very fact that Michael Proctor was trying to hide by those falsified affidavits, saying he didn't seize the car until 5:30.

MR. JACKSON: But that wasn't Michael Proctor's only manipulation of the investigation. What about Brian Loughran? You met him. Michael Proctor did his level best to not just hide evidence, but to hide human beings from you and from us. Michael Proctor was informed that the plow drivers were out that night — there would be a witness potentially along 34 Fairview at the exact times in question. Even Michael Trotta expressly told Michael Proctor that 34 Fairview had in fact been plowed that morning, and by whom. Proctor not only did not interview Brian Loughran, he never disclosed his name in a single report. He hid him. This is a witness who was literally on 34 Fairview at the time in question, where a body was found on the lawn. Wouldn't you want to get the truth from an eyewitness?

MR. JACKSON: Wouldn't you want to seek that out? Not if you're Michael Proctor — a close friend of the Alberts. If it were up to Proctor, you literally never would have heard of or from Brian Loughran. That's a scary prospect. I want to touch briefly on the additional physical evidence — or some additional physical evidence — presented by the Commonwealth in this case. You'll recall Hanley. She established to a scientific certainty the glass on the bumper, which was told to you in opening statement was going to have something to do with this case — the glass on the bumper was going to match that cocktail glass. She told you unequivocally: the glass on the bumper did not match the cocktail glass. They came from two different sources. The glass on the bumper has nothing to do with the cocktail glass.

MR. JACKSON: So that glass on the bumper had to get there somehow. It didn't get there by being broken from the cocktail glass. See the point? It had to get on the bumper somehow — it didn't jump up there by itself. And what's really interesting is that there was one piece on the bumper — one, only one — that matched something else in the case. It was a perfect match to a piece of glass that was supposedly found at the scene. Who do you think had possession of that matching glass? Michael Proctor. So the glass on the bumper had to be placed there, and the only person who had anything close to matching the pieces that had to be placed there is Michael Proctor. You do the math. That leads us to the magic hair.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth spent a lot of time bringing in experts about mitochondrial DNA and maternal DNA lines and comparative analyses — and all that sounds really great and really sciency — except for the fact that it just doesn't matter. Why? Because you would have to believe that that little hair — tiny, tiny little hair — barely perched on the side of that SUV, somehow survived nearly 75 miles of a raging blizzard outside. That would be a magic hair indeed. That magic hair means nothing. The DNA means nothing. And that's because the hair was from somewhere else. It certainly was not from a motor vehicle incident at 34 Fairview on January 29th. That hair was placed there. The DNA on the outside of the tail light housing also merits very little discussion.

MR. JACKSON: John's DNA would be expected to be found all over that SUV — inside, outside, the exterior, the interior — everything he touched would have had his DNA on it. Here's what's actually important about that DNA: no DNA was found on the interior of that tail light — the tail light that they now claim crashed into his arm and shattered. No blood was found anywhere on that tail light or any tail light pieces. And no tissue was found anywhere on that tail light or any tail light pieces. But we're to believe that that tail light literally exploded on John's arm at 25 miles an hour with a thousand pounds of pressure? We talked about the evidence doing very funny things when in Proctor's possession — or the possession of somebody in his orbit. Now think about the videos that you saw.

MR. JACKSON: How many videos appear to be somehow manipulated or altered? Just about every single one of them. Look at the video of the sallyport — let's take that one for example — that grainy one. It's missing the exact time that would show the condition of the tail light when it was pulled in to the sallyport. Pretty important time, wouldn't you think? Did someone not want you to see what the condition of the tail light was at that exact time? But the good news is there's a second video. It's much clearer and it's from the same time frame. We didn't get that one for about two and a half years into the investigation — literally, it was after the trial started that that one was turned over. And this is important. The Commonwealth introduced you to a person by the name of Yuri Bukhenik.

MR. JACKSON: They presented video showing what was clearly the right side of the car. They asked questions about the right side of the car. You'll recall Mr. Lally asked Sergeant Bukhenik: did you or Trooper Proctor ever go to or at or near the right side of that tail light? And while he was asking the question, what appeared to be the right side of the car was looking at you — the video was still up. Bukhenik paused, turned earnestly into the microphone, stared at you, and said: never. We never went anywhere around that tail light. While he was showing you the right side of the car. And that trick might have worked — until we got up to cross-examine him.

MR. JACKSON: And only then, on the second day of his testimony, did he have to admit that the video was actually inverted — it was backward — and it was cleverly inverted at that. The time stamp had the proper orientation, which means that time stamp had to be removed, the video inverted, and the time stamp placed back on it — which means that was done intentionally. That was not a mistake. And when caught in that obvious fabrication, Bukhenik doubled down and said: it's exactly the same. You remember that back and forth. "It's exactly the same," he said — as if we're stupid. Is it exactly the same, or is it exactly opposite? Ladies and gentlemen, you were lied to. There is no other way to say it. It's inexcusable. It's abhorrent.

MR. JACKSON: But it's also a parade of everything that the investigators have been willing to do in this case: lie, obfuscate, manipulate, alter — and when they're caught they just excuse it away. Doesn't matter. It's the same thing. What's the big deal? Just look the other way. And don't forget — Bukhenik is Proctor's supervisor, and he was in that little group chat where Karen Read's naked photos were being searched for. You know the saying about the apple falling from the tree. Ladies and gentlemen, we haven't even started talking about the tail light yet. You'll recall that at the very beginning of this case, you were introduced to no fewer than five CPD officers, very early on, who searched the scene. None of them — not a single one — found any tail light material at the scene. Zero.

MR. JACKSON: Steven Saraf. Sean Goode. Steven Meaney?. Michael Lank, Paul Gallagher — they were all there, they were all walking right around there, they were all looking. They were searching with their eyes, they were searching with their hands, some said they were searching with their feet. They even used tools — a leaf blower. Not one piece of bright red tail light material was at the scene, not a single piece. But incredibly, over the course of the next three weeks, according to Michael Proctor, 47 pieces of tail light material would end up being found, some of which were the size of a salad plate. The C team shows up later on January 29th. According to O'Hara, the first few pieces of tail light were found about 5:45. And here's some interesting testimony you heard — who else was there?

MR. JACKSON: Who did O'Hara say was there? Well, he said his team was there — we certainly expected that — but then he said there were others, these other mysterious figures, some from Canton PD, some from the Massachusetts State Police, that he could not account for: heavy coats, big masks, hats. Even Lieutenant O'Hara could not tell who was who. But he did note Canton police officers were there who were unaccounted for, Massachusetts state troopers were there unaccounted for. And during that search that was overseen by Trooper Tully, Proctor's supervisor, three pieces of tail light material were found. That's super important and I want to concentrate on that for a second. O'Hara said all three pieces were in an area about 12 by 12 inches square — that's an area about as big as your dinner plate.

MR. JACKSON: Tully, however, claimed that one red piece was found about 3 feet away from — that was a shoe — about one and a half, sorry, one to two feet from that was a clear piece of plastic, and a few feet away from that was a red piece of plastic. So we have red, clear, and red over the span of — added up — probably 10 or 12 feet. Ladies and gentlemen, both of those things cannot be true. Somebody is taking liberties with the facts. Then Lieutenant Tully comes to court and makes this big grand gesture of opening all these evidence bags. These two evidence bags in particular represent exactly what we're talking about — those three pieces: red, clear, red. They're marked, they're sealed, they look official. They're not Stop & Shop bags — thank God, at least they've moved up from that.

MR. JACKSON: They've even got evidence tape on them. Who knew there was evidence tape around here? So this must be real evidence, right? It must be real evidence in this case. And after making that big theatrical display, he opens up the bag with the red pieces and he pulls two pieces out. That's okay — put the two red pieces together — good, so far. Then he opens up the second bag under Lally's questioning, and you remember he hesitated just a second, opened that bag and pulled out one piece of clear plastic, then pulled out a second piece of clear plastic, with no explanation as to how that could have possibly happened. And he quickly returned — turned all four of those back into the bag, sealed them up, and we're done for the day. The next day I asked about that evidence again.

MR. JACKSON: I asked him to open up that bag with the red pieces, and he did the same thing — pulled out two red pieces of plastic. I said, you recall this. I said: look deeper, look closer, sir — pull everything out of that bag. Would he have, had I not suggested it? And then he pulled a third piece of red plastic out of the bag. So miraculously, Tully's three pieces of plastic became five pieces of plastic right before your eyes. Ladies and gentlemen, the forces at play that multiply those pieces of plastic inside those evidence bags are the same forces at play that multiplied the pieces of plastic at 34 Fairview. Think about that — let that sink in for a second. How easy is it? That's not sloppiness, that's evidence manipulation.

MR. JACKSON: That's how over the course of three weeks those pieces of plastic go from 0, to 3, to 5, to 47 — ever increasing in size with every single search. Now, knowing all that, ask yourself the looming question: who had access to that tail light — the cracked tail light? Who was it? Go back and watch the sallyport video — I'll give you the time stamp: 5:37 — and see it for yourself. We know that Trooper Proctor, with binder in hand, walked by himself. Once we corrected the video from being inverted, you can see that he walked back by himself to the right rear tail light where nobody could see what he was doing. Higgins's own key swipes put him in the sallyport that same afternoon and evening.

MR. JACKSON: And then the sallyport video magically skips, and Chief Berkowitz appears right next to Proctor at the back of that vehicle, in the same spot, and they walk out of the sallyport together. Where were they going? Remember — O'Hara — unidentified troopers and Canton cops were at the scene search at 34 Fairview. How hard is it to drop a piece of plastic? We spent a long time talking about the compromised and altered and tampered and manipulated evidence, and now I want to switch and talk a little bit about the true facts in this case, because you did hear some true evidence and true facts. The Commonwealth presented about 67 — maybe more — witnesses and expended 30-plus days of trial and nine weeks of your life — maybe. Maybe we're in the tenth week. For what?

MR. JACKSON: It should be relatively simple, right? The Commonwealth claims that Karen Read pulled up to 34 Fairview, John got out of the car, she reversed into him and hit him, and then she drove home. That's four facts — it's just four facts, that's all it is. What evidence do they actually have to prove that that SUV ever hit John? The answer is none. They don't have any. There's no evidence whatsoever that Karen Read's vehicle ever struck John O'Keefe, or that Karen Read ever wanted to strike John O'Keefe. In fact, every single piece of material evidence in this case unequivocally proves the opposite. John went into that house, that SUV was not damaged by hitting John, and John's injuries did not come from being hit by a car. That's what the evidence actually shows.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth knows that, and they've known it for a long time, and Proctor knows that. Because of that, the Commonwealth just resorts to character assassination and talking for weeks on end about the snow. Let's talk about what the real evidence actually shows — the reliable science. Let's talk about the truth concerning John's injuries. First, the Commonwealth's own medical examiner, Dr. Scordi-Bello, could not conclude that John was hit by a car. Think about that. And she would not even say that it was a homicide. She told you, without any dispute in this case, quote: "Evidence pointing toward one manner of death is no more compelling than evidence of a competing manner of death," end quote — her words, not mine.

MR. JACKSON: She went on to say it's just as likely that he was punched and fell backward, his injuries are consistent with that. In fact, in her expert opinion, his injuries are consistent with a physical altercation, as she testified. But they are not — in her words — classical injuries from an auto-pedestrian accident. That by itself is reasonable doubt. But the evidence and the truth goes far further. We introduced you to not one but two thoroughly credentialed medical examiners — or medical experts — Dr. Sheridan and Dr. Russell, both of whom said John's arm injuries are consistent with an animal attack. Dr. Russell studied, diagnosed, and treated up to a thousand animal wounds.

MR. JACKSON: She's an expert in animal wounds, and she was unequivocal: those wounds are from an animal — likely a large dog — which means that John was attacked inside the home where Chloe was. There is no other possibility. And Dr. Sheridan, for his part, with 13,000 autopsies under his belt, decades of experience as the chief medical examiner, who's triple-credentialed in anatomical, forensic, and neuropathology — he told you that John's injuries are inconsistent with a motor vehicle accident or incident. They're consistent, however, with a physical altercation. In layman's terms: the science proves John was beaten. That also is reasonable doubt and should end this case. But the facts and evidence don't stop there.

MR. JACKSON: Two of the most highly educated and highly qualified engineers you'll ever meet — Dr. Dan Wolfe and Dr. Andrew Rentschler, mechanical engineer and biomechanist — they reviewed this case, they did testing, they did analysis, they evaluated the case scientifically. They were not hired by the defense, not by the Commonwealth. They're completely, 100% independent of any party in this case, and they were equally available, by the way, to the Commonwealth — they could have called them. They explained that John's injuries were not caused by being hit by Ms. Read's SUV, and that the SUV was not damaged by coming in contact with John O'Keefe's body. That should end the inquiry right there — both sides of the equation.

MR. JACKSON: From a physics, engineering, and biomechanical standpoint, they established that John O'Keefe was not struck by Karen Read's vehicle, period. And that is yet another fact that establishes reasonable doubt and should put it into this case. So instead of calling the ARCCA experts, which they had available to them, the Commonwealth chose to introduce you to Trooper Joe Paul. You'll remember his testimony — I think I'm being kind when I say that Trooper Paul's analysis lacked credibility. Trooper Paul lacks the experience, the education, the training, the background, and the knowledge to not only render opinions on these issues but to even understand the issues themselves.

MR. JACKSON: He makes the absurd claim that John was hit on the elbow area of his arm by a tail light, he was spun to the left in a pirouette, his arm stayed on the light long enough for the sharp shards of plastic to explode around him, scratching his arm even though he was wearing long sleeves, then projecting him 30 feet to the left — but not before making a stop to hit his head on either the curb or the pavement before coming to his final resting place with his unbroken phone tucked neatly under his body. It's nonsensical. It borders on laughable. Compare that testimony to Dr. Dan Wolfe and Dr. Andrew Rentschler — both PhDs in engineering, both top of their field in accident reconstruction, both published peer-reviewed articles on the issues.

MR. JACKSON: Both men are highly sought after by the likes of national sports leagues and the United States Department of Defense, and these men are unrivaled in accident reconstruction. What did Dr. Rentschler say before he left the stand? This was even under cross-examination. He said that the physics and the science don't lie. His words were, "You can't deny the science and the physics." John wasn't hit by that car. Period. The Commonwealth cannot explain J. O'Keefe's injuries. They can't explain his head wound. How did he get the head wound if he landed on snow-covered grass and dirt? And by the way, before Mr. Lally gets up and says it — because I know he's going to — there is zero evidence before you, zero, that cold grass and dirt turns into ice or turns into concrete. Zero.

MR. JACKSON: They can't explain the injury above his right eye — that laceration. They can't explain his nose. They haven't even tried to. They can't explain the injury to his tongue — the laceration on his tongue. They cannot explain the injuries to his back, to the back of his hands, the bruises, and certainly they cannot explain the injuries to his right arm. But maybe most importantly, they cannot — and haven't even tried to — explain the lack of injuries on John's body from the neck down. Nothing. He was pristine. Not a bump, not a bruise, not a fracture, not a broken bone — nothing to suggest that he was hit by a 7,000-pound SUV going 25 miles an hour. And what of that right arm?

MR. JACKSON: According to the Commonwealth's best and brightest, Trooper Paul, John absorbed the entirety of the collision — the whole collision with that three-and-a-half-ton SUV — entirely with his right arm, launching him some 30 feet. But amazingly, the arm suffered no break, no fracture, and didn't even get a bruise. So how are those injuries properly explained? The evidence is simple. John got into an altercation. He was punched. He tried to defend himself by putting his hands up. He may have even scratched his own nose by putting his hands in front of his face to defend himself. His hands were bruised in covering up—

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. He got hit, punch went through, and he fell to the ground, fracturing his skull. At some point during that altercation the dog got a hold of him and the dog was pulled away. Every single injury is answered. Every single injury is explained by that. Ladies and gentlemen, given what we know about the facts and the physical evidence in this case — the actual truth in this case — how did this happen? How did we end up here? We ended up here because of relationships, insider trading, playing the who-you-know game, and building a tall blue wall which takes decades and generations. But the real question is: is it going to continue?

MR. JACKSON: Well, this festering malignancy that allows a lead detective and his supervisor to gloat, sneer while looking over naked pictures — or looking for naked pictures — of the woman that they've targeted: will that continue? And the answer should be, not if you have anything to say about it. Michael Proctor is the lead investigator in this case, and much as the Commonwealth might try, they cannot — they cannot — distance themselves from the stench of him on this case and this investigation. Those secret group chats illustrate the quality and character of his investigation. Remind yourself how an "unbiased" and objective investigator — someone who's supposed to be looking for facts — ask yourself, how did he approach his job?

MR. JACKSON: Late at night, sitting there in his office, deviously looking for naked pictures of Karen Read and talking about her like she's a piece of meat, talking about her bodily functions, her medical conditions, calling her vile names — I don't even have it in me to repeat what he said about her. He reduced her to an object, and he went further by insulting her. He went further than insulting her, and he dehumanized her. And when he was done betraying that very humanity, he wished for her to commit suicide. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you frame someone. That's how you dehumanize someone so viciously that you can just pin it on the girl and cover for the homeowner because he's a Boston cop.

MR. JACKSON: That's how you rip a person's life apart and sleep like a baby while doing it — and then further that by saying "I hope she kills herself." Ladies and gentlemen, I just began the discussion this afternoon — or this morning — with a quote about the truth, and I did that because that's what this case is about, top to bottom, tip to tail. It's about the truth — not hiding it or concealing it, but exposing the truth. The truth is immutable. It's not a feeling. It's not a whim. It's unflinching. It's unchanging and it's everlasting. That's why the law is steady. That's why it's not captive to the whims of people drunk with power who think they're above the law, who think they're above scrutiny. That's why you stand as the guardian of justice and the protector of justice.

MR. JACKSON: The law demands the very integrity that the true Proctor and his investigation lacks, and it requires that you cannot convict Karen Read unless the Commonwealth has met its incredibly high burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. And our moral certainty is defined as the highest degree of certainty possible in matters related to human affairs. It's the highest degree possible in your life. That's the level of certainty. And I'll leave you with this: you have the most powerful tool known to American jurisprudence, because you have your vote. No one can take that away from you — not me, not the Commonwealth, not the court. You may not have asked to be here, but each of you have given something very special of yourself.

MR. JACKSON: You've agreed to do that which is the highest calling a citizen can answer in any way. You've agreed to give your community your best. And my question to you is: what will you do with this moment? Ignore the lies and the manipulations, the misogyny, the bias, the lack of evidence — could you ever do that? Would you ever do that? Or will you say with your verdict, "I see the truth and I will not ever look the other way"? When you stare the truth down, you'll see that the Commonwealth has not proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty — not even close. Ladies and gentlemen, Karen Read is innocent. Do justice and find her not guilty. Thank you. Thank you very much.