Opening Statement - Defense

MR. JACKSON: Could I have just a moment to readjust?

MR. JACKSON: May I? The evidence in this case will establish above everything else three points. There was no collision with John O'Keefe. There was no collision. There was no collision. John O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle. Period. The facts will show that, the evidence will show that, the data will show that, the science will show that, and the experts will tell you that. You'll learn that the Commonwealth has pinned its entire case on a brazen and a flawed assertion that is untethered, unconnected to the facts and to the evidence. And their assertion is contrary to science. Because at the end of the day, folks, there was no collision with John O'Keefe. So, how did we end up here?

MR. JACKSON: How does Karen Read end up sitting in that chair on trial for something— for an event that literally never happened? Well, the evidence is going to explain it, and it can be summed up in the following text message at the very beginning of this investigation. A text message of a now-fired Massachusetts State Police officer named Michael Proctor. He was the lead investigator on this case and he was talking about a fellow officer, a fellow cop who owned the property where John O'Keefe's body was found. Text message with a buddy. Question: Is the homeowner going to catch any shit? Answer: Nope. He's a Boston cop, too. That quote defines the lack of integrity of the Commonwealth's entire case, its entire investigation, and this prosecution.

MR. JACKSON: During the course of this trial, you'll learn much more about Mr. Proctor, why he said that, and what it really means. What you'll see and hear in this courtroom in the coming weeks is not just a story of a tragic loss. And make no mistake, John O'Keefe's death is and was a tragic loss. But the story you'll hear is about an investigation that was riddled with errors from the beginning. A rush to judgment, conflicted, and corrupted from the start. Corrupted by bias, corrupted by incompetence, and corrupted by deceit. Finally, it was corrupted by a deliberate effort to avoid and to cover up the very truth that you are seeking. You'll find when you hear the evidence that the Commonwealth's case is the literal definition of reasonable doubt. They won't be able to talk their way out of it.

MR. JACKSON: They won't be able to explain their way out of it. They won't be able to excuse their way out of it. And they can't meet their extreme burden of proof, which the court will tell you is beyond any and all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. Members of the jury, Karen Read found John O'Keefe dead on the front lawn of Boston police officer Brian Albert, at 6:00 a.m. on January 29th, 2022. Picture the scene. Blood-curdling screams, ambulances, emergency lights on, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol cruisers, police officers, first responders, firefighters, all swarming all over Brian Albert's lawn, literally feet under his bedroom window. Yet Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder himself, never came outside.

MR. JACKSON: Never went outside to see what the chaos was about. Never went outside to see if he could assist a man in need. Never walked outside his house to see if he could help a fallen fellow officer on his own front lawn. More shockingly, you'll learn that lead investigator for the Massachusetts State Police, Michael Proctor, never set foot inside Brian Albert's house that day. Never engaged in any investigation inside that house that day, even though a party with much alcohol had just occurred in that house. And even though a Boston police officer was found dead or dying just mere feet from the front door on that lawn, he never secured the crime scene, never separated and secured witnesses. He never properly collected evidence. He never secured the evidence.

MR. JACKSON: He never searched for signs of a struggle inside or outside the home. He never properly canvassed the neighborhood. Michael Proctor never did any of these things. Even though a fellow officer — even though fellow officers of his, of Michael Proctor's — actually mentioned in their words, not mine, that it looked like John O'Keefe may have been quote in a fight. You'll have questions about that conduct. During the course of this trial, you'll find that the Commonwealth will not have answers. You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy. One that is spread through the investigation. It's spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump. A cancer that cannot be cut out. A cancer that cannot be cured. And that cancer has a name.

MR. JACKSON: His name is Michael Proctor. Now, you didn't hear his name in the prosecution's opening statement, not once. And I suspect that was probably by design. But make no mistake about it, the evidence will show in this case that Michael Proctor is the very definition of the Commonwealth's case. And he's also their Achilles heel. He was the lead investigator on the case, the case officer, the architect of the entire prosecution. You'll learn there's not a single part of this case, folks. Not a single part that he didn't touch, that he didn't direct, that he didn't orchestrate personally. Every single bit of it has his fingerprints on it.

MR. JACKSON: You'll learn that Michael Proctor was a longtime family friend of the Alberts and he's been disgraced by his own agency, not by us, by the Massachusetts State Police. Investigated, suspended, and fired. The evidence will show that Massachusetts State Police found him guilty, found Michael Proctor guilty of bringing dishonor to the department for his conduct. Not in some other case, not in some tangential case. In this case, the investigation of Karen Read. Conduct that included bias in favor of his friends, the all-powerful Albert family, and bias against my client, Miss Read, the outsider. You have any idea how hard it is for a state trooper to get fired? Well, the evidence is going to show that Michael Proctor earned it. Every bit of it.

MR. JACKSON: You'll hear that within hours of a Boston police officer being found dead on Brian Albert's lawn, Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, who had investigated exactly nothing up to this point, right at the beginning, made an early pronouncement that Brian Albert himself was not going to quote catch any shit, end quote. And that was for one reason and one reason only. He's a Boston cop. The evidence will show that Michael Proctor made this statement in a text conversation with his high school buddies. A text he never thought would see the light of day. Certainly never thought we would get a hold of. And when he thought no one was looking, he actually said the quiet part out loud. He's a cop, too. We'll give him a pass. You'll learn that in Michael Proctor's world, rank has its privileges.

MR. JACKSON: The evidence will show those are privileges that you don't get and I don't get. But apparently a Boston police officer, Brian Albert and his friends, they do get. You'll learn that in Michael Proctor's world, he didn't care about finding the truth. In his world, his priority was to protect the brotherhood, to protect that blue wall, to protect his friends who were at the Alberts' house that night. I want to take a step back if I could and spend the next few minutes talking in a little bit more detail about what the actual facts in this case will show. Not based on speculation, not based on surmise, not based on guesswork or conjecture, but the actual true facts that you will learn through the course of this trial. On January 28th, 2022, it was a Friday night.

MR. JACKSON: John and Karen had made plans to meet up with friends for drinks. It was a happy and normal night for them. They were affectionate, they were loving, they were in good spirits, nothing out of the ordinary. They started at a local watering hole called C.F. McCarthy's. You've heard that name before, and you'll hear it again. And eventually they made their way over to the Waterfall Bar and Grill, another bar where they ended up. When they got to the Waterfall Bar and Grill, the Albert family was already there, already heavily drinking. You'll learn that this was no ordinary family, the Alberts. The Albert family was a well-known Canton family. Some might even describe them as a very powerful Canton family. Brian Albert was there at the Waterfall.

MR. JACKSON: You'll hear that he is a longtime Boston police officer. His wife Nicole Albert was there with him. His brother Chris Albert, a powerful Canton politician. He sits on the select board. The select board actually governs the police department, the Canton PD. He was there. His wife, Julie Albert, was there. Their daughter, Caitlin Albert, was there. His sister-in-law, Jennifer McCabe, was there. Her husband, Matt McCabe, was also there. They were all there drinking before John and before Karen ever arrived. You'll learn that a man by the name of Brian Higgins, also a law enforcement officer and longtime friend, longtime pal of Brian Albert, he was also there. And the two of them, the two Brians, had been drinking most of the night together.

MR. JACKSON: You'll see video footage from the Waterfall, which will show you that Karen and John were happy. They were affectionate. They were caring. They were loving. Just business as usual out on a date on a Friday night. But that exact same video footage — which lead investigator Michael Proctor plainly chose to ignore — paints a very different picture of Brian Higgins. You'll learn that Higgins had romantic designs for Karen. That becomes important. Brian Higgins had engaged Karen in flirtatious texts, but days earlier she had put a stop to it. She had ghosted him, in common parlance. In other words, just ignored him.

MR. JACKSON: The evidence will show that the first time he saw her and was in her presence after being rejected by her was when she walked into the Waterfall Bar and Grill along with her boyfriend John O'Keefe. At 11:58 p.m., just minutes before John ultimately arrived at the Albert residence, you'll see a video at the Waterfall of an unsettling interaction, a troubling interaction between Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe. And unlike the lead investigator, Michael Proctor in this case, you won't ignore that evidence. As the bar was closing around 12 midnight, the Alberts invited everybody back to their house for a get-together to just keep the night going. And you'll learn that Karen and John ultimately pulled up to the house. They got out of the SUV to make sure they had the right address.

MR. JACKSON: You see, neither John nor Karen had ever been to 34 Fairview. They weren't even sure they were at the right address. And the evidence will establish that John got out of the SUV and went into the house. Let me say that again. The facts unequivocally, the data, the science, the witnesses will all unequivocally establish that John O'Keefe went into the Albert home that night. Eyewitnesses and forensic data will establish that fact. When he didn't come back out, you'll learn that Karen grew increasingly frustrated. She got upset. She was left alone in a car in the cold in the middle of the night with the car idling. John had gone into the house. She expected him to come right back out. And when he didn't, seconds turned into minutes and minutes started to clock away.

MR. JACKSON: She left John a voicemail. Then another voicemail, voicemail after voicemail after voicemail, text messages, but he was unresponsive. He didn't pick up a single call. He didn't respond to a single text. The longer he didn't respond, the more upset she got. The Commonwealth will intimate, as they already have in their opening statement, that these voicemails are evidence that the two were fighting. The actual evidence in this case, however, will show the exact opposite. You'll hear that Karen was very agitated. You'll hear some voicemails where she's swearing. You'll hear voicemails where she calls him names. There's name calling. But you'll also hear the context of those voicemails.

MR. JACKSON: And every single one of them, every single one of those voicemails was left for John after he failed to come back out of the house, after he failed to respond to her voicemails and to her texts. Karen believed John had just left her sitting there, grabbed a beer, was partying with his friends. The evidence will actually show that John and Karen never had a cross word, not a single cross word that entire evening before he left that SUV and went inside the house. And you will learn what Karen had absolutely no way of knowing at the time. It wasn't that he wouldn't respond to her. It's that he couldn't respond to her. And the evidence will show you why. Let's talk about that.

MR. JACKSON: We'll introduce you to a doctor named Elizabeth Lopea, a renowned forensic pathologist, a medical examiner, and a professor at Brown University. She will tell you that the injury to the back of John's head, first of all, was immediately incapacitating. And that has meaning. At the moment he suffered that fatal head injury, he couldn't walk, talk, grab his phone, cry for help, nothing. He was completely incapacitated, completely unconscious from the moment he suffered that injury. He was completely still and incapable of interacting with anyone or anything. But the doctor will tell you something more and just as important. She'll tell you that John O'Keefe did not suffer from hypothermia as the Commonwealth will undoubtedly allege. His body showed no signs of it.

MR. JACKSON: No frostbite, no cold induced injuries to his organs, no damage based on cold or frost. Ladies and gentlemen, the scientific evidence and the medical evidence will establish that John O'Keefe had to be injured somewhere else, somewhere warmer, and his body had to have been moved out into the cold. And that's where ultimately at 6:00 a.m. Karen found him. The next morning, you will learn that John did not have a single injury consistent with being hit by a car. Let me say that again. The evidence will establish that John did not suffer a single injury on his body consistent with having been hit by a car. Not one. You'll learn that John's torso, his ribs, his chest, his arms, his hips, his legs, his knees, his ankles, his feet, all of them.

MR. JACKSON: No broken bones, no fractures, no contusions, no torn ligaments, no internal injuries, not even a bruise. Nothing consistent with a car accident, despite the Commonwealth's contention that he was slammed into by a 6,000-pound SUV, not a bruise. Dr. Laposata will tell you with medical certainty that in fact John was not struck by a vehicle. Medically and scientifically he could not have been struck by a vehicle. Therefore, as I said, there was no collision. She will tell you that the patterned abrasions on John's right arm, the patterned abrasions you see over my left shoulder, they're not the result of being struck by a car or a tail light. You'll take one look at these injuries and you'll agree with Dr. Laposata.

MR. JACKSON: The evidence will show that these injuries are from an animal like a large dog, like the large dog that was inside the Albert house that night. You'll learn that Brian Albert has actually admitted that his large dog, the family dog, is quote, "not good with strangers." And of course, John, never having been to the house before, was a stranger that night. You'll also learn that oddly, very oddly, after having their family pet for seven years, a short time after this incident, the Alberts got rid of that dog. They called it rehoming her, but she was gone. Dr. Laposata will also tell you that the injury to John's head was not the result of falling backward onto a flat lawn, cold or otherwise. Rather, Dr.

MR. JACKSON: Laposata will tell you with medical certainty that the injury pattern to his scalp was produced by an impact from a raised or ledged surface, a surface that does not exist on Brian Albert's front lawn where John was found. The medical evidence will establish no hypothermia, no injuries from a car strike, no collision with a motor vehicle, and forensic analysis of John's cell phone. ADA Brennan mentioned that in his opening statement. The Commonwealth's own expert will ultimately support the exact facts that I just told you, including the temperature data. John O'Keefe was injured someplace warmer and he was moved. That alone is reasonable doubt. But there's much more.

MR. JACKSON: You'll also learn that there were many people at that after hours gathering at Brian Albert's house who would have left by the front door just feet from where John O'Keefe's body would have ultimately been had he actually been there right after 12:30 a.m., which is what the Commonwealth's claim is. There were nearly a dozen people who walked out that front door directly adjacent to the precise spot where John O'Keefe would have been lying. Not a single person, not one, not a single person saw a 6'2, 216-pound man laying sprawled in the front lawn in dark clothing on a light white dusting of snow. Not one.

MR. JACKSON: Then the evidence will also show that every one of those same people drove by that same spot, not walked by it, drove by it to leave the house, and still not one of them saw John laying in the yard when they left between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. in the morning. But you know who else you will find never saw a body on that lawn? The snowplow driver. A completely independent witness charged with plowing the streets in Canton that night. You'll hear that Michael Proctor — oh, he's not done yet, Mr. Proctor — you'll hear that Michael Proctor wrote a report where he claimed that Fairview had not been plowed that night. You'll learn that that was completely false. That was a lie. Michael Proctor did not want any more witnesses. He didn't want the truth.

MR. JACKSON: And he falsely claimed that the road was never plowed. You'll learn that he wouldn't look for the plow driver, but we did and we found him, and we'll introduce you to Brian Loughran. He plowed Fairview that night. And what he's going to tell you is that there was nobody on that lawn at 2:30 in the morning. You'll learn that Brian Loughran passed by 34 Fairview, traveling right next to Brian Albert's front yard. And at 2:30 a.m., John O'Keefe was not there. But you'll see that the plow driver also provides some other troubling information, troubling testimony for the Commonwealth. You'll learn that after making that pass at 2:30 a.m., he showed up with his plow an hour later. He stopped at the entrance of Fairview.

MR. JACKSON: He was looking up Fairview to decide whether or not to plow it, but he saw an obstruction. At 3:30 a.m., he looked down the street and in the very spot, the very spot precisely where Karen would later find John's body laying at 6:00 a.m., there was a car parked in front of it, a Ford Edge. You're going to ask yourself, who's moving a car at 3:30 in the morning into a blizzard on the side of the road? You'll learn that Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, intentionally ignored this fact as well. He did no investigation to find out who owned a Ford Edge, but again, we did. And the evidence will establish that that Ford Edge happens to be a favorite model of the Albert family. More than one Albert owned a Ford Edge at the time.

MR. JACKSON: You'll learn that those facts will add to the mounting and the overwhelming evidence that there was no collision and John O'Keefe's body was moved onto that lawn. You will find that this is yet additional reasonable doubt in the case. You'll be introduced to science and physics, even from the Commonwealth's own experts. That science will establish that Karen Read's SUV was not damaged by hitting a pedestrian. And conversely, John O'Keefe's injuries did not come from being struck by a vehicle. The Commonwealth mentioned triggering events, but what you'll actually learn from the experts, some of them the Commonwealth's own experts, is that a triggering event is not evidence of an accident. It does not evidence a collision. That's why we're here. A collision, and there's no evidence of one.

MR. JACKSON: Zero. You'll also find that those exact sort of triggering events that the Commonwealth will rely on are relatively commonplace on Karen's SUV and none of them are associated with a claim of a collision. Folks, the science will not lie and the physics cannot lie. And that science will tell you with certainty there was no collision with John O'Keefe. You'll add that to that rising mountain of reasonable doubt. I want to take you back to the night in question, January 29th, for just a few minutes. Remember, Karen had gone home after dropping off John and John walking to the house. While Karen was asleep at home with John's 13-year-old niece, what were the people who had been at Brian Albert's house that night? What were they doing while she slept?

MR. JACKSON: What you'll find, and what the evidence will show, is that they were extremely busy. You'll learn that after a long night of heavy drinking, Brian Higgins left the Albert residence, but he didn't drive home. Rather, he drove over to the Canton Police Department where he kept an office at about 1:25 a.m. Not a Canton police officer, but he kept an office there. Why go back to his office at 1:25 a.m.? Why go back to the Canton Police Department at 1:25 in the morning on the night of a blizzard? You'll learn that while there, Higgins made a call at 1:30 a.m. Higgins will later deny that he made that call. You'll find that curious. And his explanation for that late night visit to Canton PD, you'll find that it changes nearly every time he's asked about it.

MR. JACKSON: You'll learn that after everyone left Brian Albert's house, Brian Albert actually claimed he had no contact with anybody else except his wife. No contact until he woke up the next morning. So he says. Then you'll learn that that too is a complete lie. His phone records established that he placed a call to none other than Brian Higgins at 2:22 a.m. Shortly after Higgins completed that late night visit over to Canton PD, you'll wonder what did they possibly need to talk about at 2:22 a.m. that night? The evidence will establish that Brian Albert called Brian Higgins first. Brian Albert then disconnected that call when Higgins didn't answer it. Seconds later, Brian Higgins returned the call. Brian Albert then did answer that call.

MR. JACKSON: They spoke for 22 full seconds, had a conversation, then they both hung up their respective phones. You'll learn that when they were asked about these calls and conversations, both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins lied about it. Both of them. They said they never had a call with each other. But then ultimately when they were confronted with their own cell phone records and they could no longer deny the calls, they were asked independently, "Explain yourself." And they both came up with the exact same explanation, a butt dial. The evidence will make you question, why did Albert and Higgins speak at 2:22 a.m. and why did they both try to cover up that phone call?

MR. JACKSON: You'll also learn after this incident and within days of one another, both Brian Higgins and Brian Albert, both police officers, both trained investigators, got rid of their phones. Both of them. And what else you'll learn? Brian Albert got rid of shortly after this incident, Brian Albert got rid of his house, the whole thing. Just sold it. His childhood home, a home that had been in the Albert family for generations. He literally sold it mere months after this incident. Dog rehomed, phones destroyed, house sold. You'll learn that all these things happened shortly after the incident where John O'Keefe was found unresponsive and dying in Brian Albert's front lawn. And you'll also learn that Michael Proctor looked the other way. He did not investigate any of what I'm telling you.

MR. JACKSON: He pre-selected Karen Read from the start and he ignored everything and everyone else. Let's get back to what was happening with the others while Karen slept. What you'll learn during this trial is that Brian Albert's sister-in-law, you've heard her name before, Jennifer McCabe, she was at the Waterfall that night and she was over at the Albert's house that evening as well. She left the after-hours gathering about 2 a.m., a little before 2 a.m., got home around 2 a.m. And you'll learn that according to the Commonwealth's own evidence from a forensic software program called Physical Analyzer made by Cellebrite, it's considered the gold standard for forensic tools. You'll learn that a Google search was discovered on Jennifer McCabe's phone.

MR. JACKSON: A Google search that Michael Proctor and his investigators never revealed to us, but we found anyway. A Google search that was timestamped, according to their own data, at 2:27 a.m., 5 minutes after that 2:22 a.m. call that Higgins and Albert denied having. And that Google search on Jennifer McCabe's phone read, "Hos long to die in cold." Now she misspelled the first word. "Hos" is supposed to be "how." But the meaning is the same. How long does it take to die in the cold? Timestamped 2:27. And then that search was also noted by the same Cellebrite program as having been deleted. The evidence will force you to ask, "Why is there a search on her phone? Why is it logged at 2:27 a.m.

MR. JACKSON: when the Commonwealth claims that she first learned of John's death and where his body was hours later at 6:00 a.m.?" So, what you'll learn is that while Karen slept, here's what was actually happening by some other very busy bees. 1:25 a.m. Brian Higgins makes an unexpected visit to Canton PD. 1:30 a.m. He makes a phone call that he later denies ever making. At 2:22 a.m., Brian Higgins and Brian Albert talk. They both deny and lie about having made that phone call. 2:27 a.m. — 5 minutes later — a Google search appears on Jennifer McCabe's phone. "Hos long to die in cold," hours before John's body was ever discovered. A Google search she denies making and that was later logged as deleted.

MR. JACKSON: Meanwhile, at 2:30 a.m., the plow driver confirms that O'Keefe's body was not on the lawn of Brian Albert's house. Not at 2:30 in the morning. And at 3:30 in the morning, that area was obstructed by a Ford Edge. A Ford Edge like the one the Albert family likes to own. The evidence will show in the meantime, Karen dozed in and out of a fitful sleep for the rest of the night, only to awaken just before 5:00 a.m. And that's when she realized in a panic John had never come home. And you'll see it wasn't like John to not come home. That morning, you'll see and hear evidence that Karen's emotions had morphed. It'd gone from frustration and anger, which you'll hear in the voicemails, to abject fear. Fear that something bad had happened.

MR. JACKSON: The evidence will establish by this time Karen was panic-stricken. She had a feeling something was very, very wrong. She was unable to get a hold of John. Karen went to go look for him. She got in her Lexus and she backed up to leave her garage at One Meadows. You'll hear a lot about that address, One Meadows. That was John's house where Karen was staying. She backed out of the garage and during the course of the trial, you'll hear that she actually struck another car with that right rear tail light. During the course of this trial, the Commonwealth is going to desperately claim that Karen Read's tail light was actually damaged by hitting John O'Keefe. They'll have no evidence of it, mind you. None. But they'll make the claim.

MR. JACKSON: We'll show you a video of exactly how that tail light was originally damaged — exactly what happened at 5:07 in the morning. The facts will show that it was damaged in John's own driveway at 5:07 when Karen backed up and made contact with another car in the driveway. This is 5 hours after she dropped John off and he went into the Albert residence. As a result, the tail light was minimally cracked, but it wasn't completely shattered or damaged or broken. And that's the condition of the SUV when Michael Proctor got a hold of it. That becomes important.

MR. JACKSON: You'll hear from an independent police officer, an eyewitness to the damage on that SUV, someone not connected to Michael Proctor or under his control, and he'll tell you that he saw the tail light damaged before it was in Michael Proctor's possession, but it was not completely shattered. And you won't have to speculate how that tail light got cracked originally. You'll see it for yourself. It's on video. You'll learn that part of the reason that Karen's Lexus hit that car at One Meadows is because she backed out looking for him at a time when she was absolutely panicked. Panic-stricken and grief-stricken. Where was John? Why hadn't he come home? Where? What had happened to him? Is he hurt? Is he passed out somewhere? Her mind was reeling.

MR. JACKSON: The evidence will establish she wasn't giving anything away. Everything was on the table. What could have happened to John? You'll learn that when she woke up and he still wasn't home, she was just racking her brain for what could have happened to him. And she was worried about possibly the worst. He had gotten out of the car. He'd walked to the house. She was confused. And later, when she found him at 6:00 a.m. on the lawn where she last saw him going toward the house, her mind started reeling, "Oh my god, did a plow hit him? Did I hit him? Could I have hit him? What could have happened to him?" And that video clip that you saw out of context when she said the words, "He did not look like he was mortally wounded" — she's not talking about at midnight. She's talking about at 6:00 a.m.

MR. JACKSON: when she found him. That's what she was talking about. Your job will be to make sure that the evidence isn't presented to you too cute by half. She was saying all those things. Did a plow hit him? Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? She was saying that to herself and to other people. And the Commonwealth very obviously will try to seize on that panic and twist this into some admission. But here's the actual truth. That's not a confession. Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Could a plow have hit him? That's a person trying to make sense of an unexplainable circumstance, a natural concern of a bereaved significant other, a woman desperately trying to piece together what could have happened on this tragic night. John didn't come home.

MR. JACKSON: And the evidence will show that Karen Read never said, "I hit him." Never. Not in the background of the 911 recording, not on any dash cam video, not on any audio, not on any police body cam, not to a first responder. It's never mentioned in a single report. It's never reported in a single report from January 29th, not by one person, because it never happened. The evidence will show that — I'm sorry — the evidence will show that there were at least 13 members of law enforcement or first responders and two civilian witnesses that were intently focused on what was happening at that scene. They were all over the lawn. They were all over Karen.

MR. JACKSON: Officer Saraf, Mullaney, Goode, Lank, EMT Nuttall, Flatley, Kelly, Walsh, Woodbury, Whitley, Becker, Roby, McLaughlin, Kerry Roberts, Jennifer McCabe — they were all there watching and listening. On January 29th, when John O'Keefe was found, not one first responder reported having heard Karen Read say the words, "I hit him." Not one. Not one civilian reported having heard Karen Read say, "I hit him." The facts will show that the first time this improvised statement was ever claimed to have been made was some 24 hours later by a single EMT in an interview. Now listen to this — in an interview coordinated by a Canton police detective named Kevin Albert, Brian Albert's brother. And remember, Chris Albert, the other brother, is a board selectman to whom the Canton Police Department reports.

MR. JACKSON: And what's more, you'll learn that Katie McLaughlin, that's the EMT, that's the single EMT, the first person to have claimed to have heard this unrecorded and unreported statement, is yearslong close personal friends with a young woman named Caitlin Albert. You heard that right. It's Brian Albert's daughter. During the course of this trial, you'll become familiar with and you'll realize that the Alberts are indeed a powerful and indeed an influential family. And that will mean something. You'll learn that there are other major problems with the prosecution's case. The evidence will establish that Michael Proctor himself, the lead investigator and architect of this entire case, has a long-standing and personal relationship with the Albert family. Yes, that same Albert family.

MR. JACKSON: His sister was close friends with Julie Albert. He personally sat at head tables at weddings with the Albert family. He entrusted the Alberts with babysitting his own children. You heard that correctly. And yet he was the lead detective assigned to investigate the circumstances of a Boston police officer laying dead on the Alberts' front lawn. That's not just bias. You'll learn that's not just coincidence. That, folks, is corruption. And you'll see how far it went. Michael Proctor was alone with all the critical evidence in this case. Alone with Karen Read's phone, alone with John's phone, alone with video footage, alone with the taillight material, alone when he claimed to recover evidence from 34 Fairview. He wrote the search warrants. He transported the evidence. He secured it.

MR. JACKSON: He submitted it. He did it all. That's Michael Proctor, and he did it without any reasonable oversight. You'll see during the trial that he intentionally lied and fabricated evidence during the course of this investigation. He lied in reports, warrants. He lied under oath. He lied about the time that he actually secured Karen Read's vehicle. Why? Why would he lie about that? The evidence will give you the answer. He lied because he did not want it revealed that he had access to that vehicle and he had access to that tail light before any tail light fragments were found at 34 Fairview. Appreciate that he had access to the vehicle before a single piece of tail light material was ever found at the scene. You'll find that there were two searches. The first and second search found zero.

MR. JACKSON: Nothing. Nothing around John's body, nothing in the street, not one piece of tail light fragment. But once Michael Proctor had that SUV and had the tail light in his custody and control, suddenly items started magically showing up. And not just a few items. 46 pieces of bright red tail light laying in the snow, supposedly found in the exact same spot that was searched not once but twice by independent officers, came up with zero. To be clear, you'll learn that before Michael Proctor had access to that tail light, not a single piece was ever recovered at 34 Fairview. That will become vitally, vitally important. And what about those shards of plastic? By the way, what about this DNA that the Commonwealth mentioned?

MR. JACKSON: They're going to try to dazzle you with talk of DNA because it sounds so scientific. The DNA was on the tail light, but you'll learn that there was no DNA on the actual shards that they claim came in contact with John's arm. None. There was no blood, no tissue, no skin, no DNA on a single shard of plastic that they claim cut deep abrasions into John's arm. The arm that you saw overhead. The DNA that was actually found — the actual science will show — was found outside of the tail light housing where anyone with access to that vehicle would have touched. And it wasn't just one male's DNA. In that exact same sample, there were three men found. John and two unidentified males.

MR. JACKSON: So unless the Commonwealth is going to shift their theory that that SUV hit three men that night, their entire theory falls apart. And speaking of DNA, the evidence will further establish that John O'Keefe's shoe, the one that he was wearing when he was found, was sampled. And that DNA revealed five — count them — five unidentified males. Recall that the evidence will establish independently that John was injured someplace warmer and had to be moved onto that lawn. Five unidentified males touching that shoe. You'll also learn that you are not the first — not the first to hear about the Commonwealth's theory of this case, that John was hit by an SUV. That's their theory. The Commonwealth presented this exact same claim to their own medical examiner, a woman by the name of Dr.

MR. JACKSON: Irini Scordi-Bello. And you'll learn that after reviewing what's called a law enforcement accident notification with law enforcement's theory of the collision written in it, described in it, after conducting the autopsy herself, after examining John's injuries in detail, she refused to conclude that John's death was a homicide based on the Commonwealth's presentation and their theory. That's right. The Commonwealth's own medical examiner will not deem the manner of death in this case a homicide. She won't do it. But they're nonetheless back again trying to present the exact same theory to you in this trial. Again, the evidence will show that that is reasonable doubt.

MR. JACKSON: Throughout this trial, the Commonwealth will try to convince you of paranormal events — phones calling themselves, messages deleting themselves, Google searches made and then unmade, evidence magically appearing, and evidence magically disappearing. But all that smoke and all those mirrors will not ever reach their burden, because that's what this case is ultimately about. It's about the Commonwealth's burden of proof. You'll learn that during the trial, the Commonwealth bears the highest burden known to our justice system. They must prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. And you'll learn that moral certainty means the highest level of certainty known in human affairs. It's not a small thing. They're not going to be able to do that.

MR. JACKSON: Not when every piece of this case was handled by a disgraced investigator with a motive to protect his friends. Not when the physical evidence contradicts their very theory. Not when their own medical examiner won't call this case a homicide based on the exact theory that they're presenting to you. Not when the conduct of those in the house and the utter lack of investigation speaks volumes about those who actually have something to hide. By the end of this trial, you'll conclude that Karen Read is not guilty of hitting John O'Keefe with her SUV. There was no collision. She's the victim of a botched and biased and corrupted investigation that was never about the truth, folks. It was about preserving loyalty. You'll find that this case is the very definition of reasonable doubt.

MR. JACKSON: And at the end of this trial, we'll ask you to return the only verdicts — all three of them — that are consistent with the evidence, the science, the truth, and justice. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Thank you.