Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveYuri Bukhenik - Cross (Part 2)
1,329 linesCOURT OFFICER: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons having anything to do before the Honorable Justices of the Superior Court now sitting at Dedham within and for the County of Norfolk, draw near. If your attendance shall be — God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Court is in session. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Miss Read. Good morning, jurors. Morning. Happy Friday. I do have to ask you those three questions. Were you all able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday? Everyone said yes affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left yesterday? Everyone said no. Thank you. Can we bring Sergeant Bukhenik in, please? And Mr. Jackson, are you ready?
MR. JACKSON: I'm ready.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Follow me. — you're still on the road. Thanks.
MR. BUKHENIK: Morning. Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Good morning, Sergeant.
MR. BUKHENIK: Good morning, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Yesterday when we left off, we had been discussing one of the trips you made out to 34 Fairview, specifically on an occasion in which you met Chief Berkowitz. I want to ask you a couple of questions to follow up on those questions that I asked yesterday. Did Chief Berkowitz ever talk to you about his communications with Brian Albert and or Brian Higgins either at that time or afterward?
PARENTHETICAL: [objection — speaker uncertain]
MR. JACKSON: : Objection. Did you learn that Chief Berkowitz had communicated one way or the other — without telling me anything that they said — did you learn whether or not Chief Berkowitz had communicated with Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you learn that Chief Berkowitz had communicated with Brian Albert? And I'm talking about in the days before you were at 34 Fairview, which was February 4th — from the 29th to February 4th.
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: You returned to the scene, you indicated on direct examination, on or about February 10th, 2022, to conduct yet another search. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. And on that particular occasion, you recovered some six pieces of red and/or clear and/or black plastic. Is that how you testified? There were numerous pieces. The exact number I don't know. You'd have to refresh my memory with a report. Okay. There were several pieces. The exact number I'm not really worried about. There were several. There's more than one.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. There were also some clear glass pieces. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Again, I don't know exactly, but if a report can be presented, it would refresh my memory.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's do that real quick. May I approach, your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Actually, turn to the front page — about that as well. Just familiarize yourself with it.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Let me know when you familiarize yourself with that report. May I approach, your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Sergeant, did you have an opportunity to take a look at this report?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Did that refresh your recollection as to the items generally that you recovered on February 10th?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: Did you recover approximately six pieces of red, black, and clear plastic and 14 pieces of glass and plastic fragments?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You would obviously consider that to be an incredibly important part of the investigation, recovering physical items at the scene of the incident. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Every piece of evidence is important.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe for the jurors exactly where each of — let's take them one at a time — where each of the six pieces of plastic fragments were found?
MR. BUKHENIK: All items recovered that day were found in the general vicinity where the other items were also located. The area had been excavated. I've been to that location several times and it was all located in the general vicinity where it was initially excavated, but also where I was told Mr. John O'Keefe was found on the morning of January 29th, 2022. So other than saying "in the general vicinity," did you seek to — did you seek to actually document where each item was found? In other words, by cross-coordinates or some other such manner. The exact location where each item was recovered from was not documented with a picture or GPS location.
MR. BUKHENIK: It was still within the general vicinity of that 40 to 50 square feet or so by my approximation — near the flagpole, between the street, the flagpole, and the fire hydrant. It was all the same general vicinity.
MR. JACKSON: So 40 to 50 square feet would be a 10-foot by 5-foot square. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Generally speaking, 50 by 10 general area.
MR. JACKSON: If I may, your honor — if I may approach — Christine?, would you agree with me — I'm not going to pull out a measuring tape — would you agree I'm about 10 feet from you right now?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would agree with you. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And from the jury bar, probably about 5 feet from there.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So we're talking about a relatively broad area for small pieces of physical evidence to be found. You would agree with that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would again estimate it was the general area — maybe 10 feet in one direction, 10 feet in another, and 5 feet out, maybe 3 feet out. They were in the general area where it was initially excavated and then expanded with the snow melting, and all the pieces were within that general area.
MR. JACKSON: But you were working on an assumption at that point — on an assumption that there was some sort of an impact at 34 Fairview. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't understand what you're asking.
MR. JACKSON: You were working on an assumption or presumption that there was an impact of a physical item — in your view, an SUV — with a human being. Correct. That was your presumption at the time.
MR. BUKHENIK: The evidence was pointing that impact took place because there was damage to the tail light. Large chunks of it were missing. And we were locating pieces that were consistent with texture, color, and size — fragments from that SUV on the lawn. So I wasn't assuming anything. The evidence was speaking to us.
MR. JACKSON: You weren't there, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was there recovering the evidence. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You weren't there at the time of the incident?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, of course not.
MR. JACKSON: So you were utilizing assumptions and presumptions based on information that was provided to you? Yes or no?
MR. BUKHENIK: We work by learning information, collecting evidence, and getting that evidence to suggest what happened. That evidence is tested and then it's all put together into the case.
MR. JACKSON: You use the word "to suggest what happened," correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Another word for a suggestion is — if something is suggested to you, you then receive it and assume certain things based on that suggestion. What we do
MR. BUKHENIK: With suggestions, we corroborate them. A witness statement is — I guess you can say — a suggestion, and then we corroborate it through evidence.
MR. JACKSON: And of course you make assumptions based on those suggestions. Correct? Yes or no?
MR. BUKHENIK: We have theories.
MR. JACKSON: Another term for a theory is an assumption or presumption. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: I guess in some respect you can — you can say that. But I'm not — I'm not going to argue about semantics here.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you'll agree that words matter, right? I mean, you're testifying, so words do matter.
MR. BUKHENIK: Words do matter. That's — you know — that's important.
MR. JACKSON: So, working off of your — as you put it — your theory, you theorized that there was an impact spot at 34 Fairview Road, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on the statement "I hit him," I assumed that Mr. O'Keefe was impacted with something. Initial hours of the investigation, we had those statements "I hit him." We had the statement "Oh my god, did I hit him?" So utilizing that information with the evidence at that point that we had — was a broken cocktail glass. So a theory would be: why is the cocktail glass broken? Because it came into contact with the victim. So that's why my information communicated to the ME's office was a possible domestic involving a glass strike to the victim. As a result, we had to go and see the victim's body and the injuries. So Mr. O'Keefe's injuries presented a certain way and we learn more information.
MR. BUKHENIK: So the more information that comes in, the more information that we are able to corroborate statements and collect evidence that further corroborates other information is helpful in the investigation. That's how investigations develop. If we knew everything we knew from day one, it wouldn't be a process of developing investigation.
MR. JACKSON: So the answer to my question, Sergeant, is you were working off of a theory, correct? Yes or no?
MR. BUKHENIK: We were working off of a report of an injured male party and then we developed the information, collected the evidence, and developed the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what the word "theory" means?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry. English is like a third language for me. So if you can bring up the Webster's dictionary, I can read it out.
MR. JACKSON: You want me to pull up a Webster's dictionary? You want to take a break real quick and pull up the Webster's dictionary to define a word that you used in an answer about 40 seconds ago — "we're working off of a theory," quote unquote. You said it, not me. You want me to go get a dictionary so we can figure out for the jurors what that word means?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Let's move on, please.
MR. JACKSON: You would agree with me, Sergeant Bukhenik, that if your theory was that there was an impact, the site of that impact would be incredibly important. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: Very important. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And on February 10th, you went out to the scene and you indicate that you found six pieces of black, clear, and red plastic material and 14 pieces of glass material and some other plastic material as well. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't photograph it. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't do any plotting of cross coordinates, which would have been easy to do to determine exactly where each piece was found. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: It would not be easy for me. I don't know how to do that.
MR. JACKSON: You've never learned how to plot cross coordinates?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have the tools to GPS coordinate an item.
MR. JACKSON: You take two points that are stable — you know what cross coordinates are? Take two points that are stable. Like, for instance — I don't know — let's pick something like a flag pole that doesn't move. And you draw a line. Pull a string directly over the item that you find. Then you take another stable item that's perpendicular to that. Pull that straight, put it down. You measure the distance between the two. That's exactly where that item — where those two strings cross. That's exactly where that item is found. That's cross coordinates, isn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever heard of that?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what cross coordinates are?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know how to plot cross coordinates?
MR. BUKHENIK: You just demonstrated to me.
MR. JACKSON: Does that sound reasonable and easy?
MR. BUKHENIK: What you explained sounds easy. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't do that.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: By the way, you had your cell phone when you went out there on February 10th, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would assume so. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your cell phone has a camera built into it. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it does.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated on direct examination you didn't think it was necessary to call out a forensic photographer to photograph and photo document where these items were found. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's right.
MR. JACKSON: But you could have pulled your cell phone out and taken photographs of them. Right.
MR. BUKHENIK: I guess I could have. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't do any coordinates and you didn't take any photos.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Can you show us a report that memorializes where you supposedly recovered these items?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. The report you showed me — number 83 — that documents that they were all recovered at 34 Fairview Road.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So that's correct. There's a report after the fact that establishes that they were recovered generally at 34 Fairview Road on February 10th. But is there a report that describes exactly where on the property at 34 Fairview Road — or off the property at 34 Fairview Road — these 20 items were found? That's a question. I'm waiting.
MR. BUKHENIK: All right. I didn't realize.
MR. JACKSON: Do you need me to repeat the question?
MR. BUKHENIK: Go ahead, please.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Is there a report that documents exactly where at 34 Fairview Road on the property these 20-odd items were found? Exactly.
MR. BUKHENIK: The report documenting where they were recovered from is number 83 that you just presented. The exact location is the same general vicinity. If it was something different — if we located these items across the street, different section of the yard — that would have been documented.
MR. JACKSON: What's documented in the report that you just referenced says bullet point 2/10/22 — meaning February 10th, '22 — at 9:51 — sorry — 9:15 a.m., Sergeant Bukhenik secured six pieces of red, black, and clear plastic. Period. That's what it says, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Same general vicinity. If there was a different location, that's what the report says.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it? That's all I'm asking. That's what the report says.
MR. BUKHENIK: What I just quoted — that's the description of the items.
MR. JACKSON: So the answer is yes, that's what the report says.
MR. BUKHENIK: That is part of the report. That is the description of the items recovered on that date.
MR. JACKSON: And the bullet point beneath that says February 10th, 2022 at 9:15 a.m. Sergeant Bukhenik secured 14 pieces of glass and plastic fragments. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: There is no further description of where those items were found, is there? Where's the report with the further description of exactly where they were found?
MR. BUKHENIK: It might not be in the report. It might be on the description of the bag describing that it was 34 Fairview Road. The report indicates and encompasses itself where those items were recovered from. Clearly the same general vicinity the initial items were recovered from. If there was a need to document a different location, it would have happened.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't see the need to document the exact coordinates where those items were found, did you? You didn't see the need.
MR. BUKHENIK: It did not happen.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at that photograph. Tell me if you recognize it. What's depicted in it?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do. It's the side of an evidence bag that the items were secured in. It documents the case number, the date, time, who recovered it, and general description of the six pieces of red, black, and clear plastic recovered from 34 Fairview Road in Canton.
MR. JACKSON: Like to have that marked and moved into evidence. Is there any objection?
MR. LALLY: No. [unintelligible]
COURT CLERK: Is it 111?
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that the evidence bag would help determine where the exact location was that these items were found. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: The general location where they were recovered from.
MR. JACKSON: Publish this.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Does this look like the photograph that you were just reviewing?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it does.
COURT CLERK: That's just been marked as evidence.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And can Mr. Woll — can we make that a little larger so it's more legible? Can you read that from where you are?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can.
MR. JACKSON: Moving on to the date. What date was that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Date collected is 2/10/22. So that's the date that we've been talking about. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That is correct. And this indicates "collected by." And who's that?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's myself, Sergeant Bukhenik.
MR. JACKSON: "Description of evidence" — this is where the description of the evidence is located on this evidence bag. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: General description identifying what's inside.
MR. JACKSON: And what is that description?
MR. BUKHENIK: Six pieces of red, black, and clear plastic.
MR. JACKSON: And that's all it says about
MR. BUKHENIK: The description. Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And it indicates location where collected. And there's several lines that are available to fill in.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. On that first line, what does that read?
MR. BUKHENIK: 34 Fairview Road, Canton, MA.
MR. JACKSON: And that's it.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's all that was put. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't fill this bag out, did you?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Who did?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Who did?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: You don't recognize the handwriting?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You don't recognize the handwriting of your partner and subordinate, Michael Proctor? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that Michael Proctor filled this out? Objection. Were you with Michael Proctor when you when this was bagged?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I was not. I was by myself.
MR. JACKSON: Did you give the items of evidence to Michael Proctor to bag?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Who did you give it to to bag?
MR. BUKHENIK: I bagged it myself.
MR. JACKSON: Whose handwriting is that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: If you bagged it yourself, why didn't you fill out the evidence envelope?
MR. BUKHENIK: I bagged it and turned it over and I told him exactly where it was and what time.
MR. JACKSON: So someone else wrote the information. You just said "I bagged it and told him, turned it over."
MR. BUKHENIK: No, sir. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What you just said was "I bagged it and turned it over."
MR. BUKHENIK: Turned it over to him.
MR. JACKSON: And you don't know who it is that you turned it over to? Who's the "him"?
MR. BUKHENIK: Turned it over to them. Them. Them. Whoever wrote it. Whoever wrote it.
MR. JACKSON: So we're just in a circle here. You had items of evidence that you've already described as being incredibly important. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Those are your words. I actually changed. I said every piece of evidence is important.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Since this is part of every piece of evidence, do you think this evidence was important?
MR. BUKHENIK: Every piece of evidence is important.
MR. JACKSON: So, was this evidence important? Yes or no?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So, you had the evidence and turned it over to someone whom you don't know and can't identify. Is that what we understand?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was a member of the Massachusetts State Police assigned to our office. It wasn't just a random person. I can't specifically identify who it was or who wrote on that bag. I know it was a trusted member of our unit and part of the investigative team.
MR. JACKSON: How do you know it was a trusted member of your unit and a part of the investigative team if you can't tell these jurors who it was? How do you know that?
MR. BUKHENIK: Because I wouldn't have turned it over to a random stranger.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So let's figure out the possibilities. Who are among those to whom you would have turned this stuff over? Who are among them?
MR. BUKHENIK: There were four troopers in the detective unit at that point assigned to homicide.
MR. JACKSON: Let's name them. Who are they?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was Trooper DiCicco, Trooper Kakowski, Trooper Dunn, and Trooper Mike Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: As you sit here today, do you believe or do you recall turning it over to Trooper Dunn? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are we going to go through each person?
MR. JACKSON: Everyone — there's only four.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow this question.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember turning it over to Trooper Dunn?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember turning it over to Trooper Picowski?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember turning it over to Trooper DiCicco?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember turning it over to Michael Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: So, it might have been just a random stranger, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's a ridiculous suggestion.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever seen Trooper Proctor's handwriting before?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'm guessing not dozens, maybe hundreds of times.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Not hundreds of times. No.
MR. JACKSON: Dozens of times.
MR. BUKHENIK: Sure. Over the years. Sure.
MR. JACKSON: On evidence bags, on logs, on notes, things of that nature.
MR. BUKHENIK: Some evidence bags, some notes. Yeah. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you take a look at that document and tell me if you recognize it?
MR. BUKHENIK: The whole thing or just a front page?
MR. JACKSON: No, just flip through and tell me if you recognize generally what that is.
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears to be a bunch of handwritten notes from possibly witness interviews. Handwritten notes. Well, you labeled it "Proctor." I don't know who it is based on the individuals interviewed — might suggest that these are Michael Proctor's notes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you're testifying that I labeled that "Proctor."
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So you don't know. Well, you provided the document to me. So I know.
MR. BUKHENIK: And then you just testified that I labeled that "Proctor." How do you know I labeled that "Proctor"?
MR. JACKSON: Well, I got it from you.
MR. BUKHENIK: You didn't see me write that. Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Questions, please.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. That appears to be [unintelligible] a series of Proctor's notes, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's what's suggested. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you turn to the first tab? Just a simple flip. Some of these came off.
MR. BUKHENIK: It's fine. It's fine.
MR. JACKSON: I'm just interested in the purple tab. Do you see a series of handwritten notes that appear to be from Michael Proctor? Not worried about the content.
MR. BUKHENIK: Sure. The highlight. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What's the word that's handwritten in that highlight? Objection. So why don't we come to sidebar? Seriously, may I have just a moment, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. BUKHENIK: Fill it out later if you have the time and you know where you recovered it from, which, you know, in this instance, if it was a general vicinity where all the other fragments of evidence were collected from, it's known that it was within the general area of that section of the lawn near the flag pole, between the street and the flag pole and the fire hydrant.
MR. JACKSON: So the person that filled out that evidence bag wasn't with you.
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, I passed that information along to them.
MR. JACKSON: I see. So now it's hearsay information being passed along to someone else to fill out this — Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: It's secondhand. Let's use that word. Secondhand information to the person that's filling out the evidence bag. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, it's firsthand information. I passed that along to them.
MR. JACKSON: So it went from you to a person filling out the bag who wasn't there.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's the policy. I was by myself. So, yes, I told the individual what time, what location, the case number, the date.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, how do you know? How do you know that you told the individual to whom you passed this along the time, the location, the date? How do you know that as you sit here?
MR. BUKHENIK: Because that information was then put on the bag and documented.
MR. JACKSON: But you can't even remember who you talked to.
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not remember specifically who I talked to.
MR. JACKSON: Now, if you can't remember who you talked to, you don't remember what you said. Goes hand in hand, doesn't it?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's not true. I might not remember now, but the day that it was bagged on February 10th, 2022, I remembered. And that's why the accurate detailed information is on the bag.
MR. JACKSON: A bag you didn't fill out.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And information provided to someone you can't remember today.
MR. BUKHENIK: I can't remember. No.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that that particular evidence bag was not booked until March 14th, 2022. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't understand what you're saying.
MR. JACKSON: Those pieces of evidence were never booked into evidence until March 14th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: Those particular pieces of evidence were collected on February 10th, 2022.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant Bukhenik, do you know the difference between collecting a piece of evidence and booking it into evidence, creating a booking label, creating an evidence log, things of that nature? Do you know the difference?
MR. BUKHENIK: I understand the difference. Yes. But you claiming that it wasn't booked into something doesn't mean that it wasn't properly handled in custody and under our control.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, I'm not claiming anything. You're testifying. I'm asking questions. Was it booked into evidence on February 10th?
MR. BUKHENIK: If you show me a document, I can tell you what it might be suggesting.
MR. JACKSON: By the way, can I have the actual piece of evidence — the photo? Court exchange — document retrieval
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Can we move on and come back to this? Mr. Jackson, I think I've just gotten the documents — the two documents here. Did you show Mr. Brennan?
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can take a look at those two documents and tell me whether or not you
MR. BUKHENIK: Recognize them.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, I'm going to leave those up there with you. Does one of those appear to be the log sheet for the crime lab?
MR. BUKHENIK: One is a chain of custody report for the crime lab of all the evidence that was processed, received, processed and returned. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the other document?
MR. BUKHENIK: The other document is simply a receipt of evidence being submitted on a certain day to the lab.
MR. JACKSON: And both of those documents indicate that the first time the evidence was submitted to the crime lab was March 14th, 2022. Correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that. I will have to take a look.
MR. BUKHENIK: It's going to be some time. Please. Well, you can look at the top.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let me ask it in question form. If you look through the log, it's in chronological order. The chain of custody log.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. By item, I believe, but I didn't take a deep dive into it. I have to take a look.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Do you see any item — especially focusing on item 712, or items 712 — do you see any item being booked into the crime lab before March 14th, 2022?
MR. BUKHENIK: All right, I'll take a look.
MR. JACKSON: Did that refresh your recollection as to when the items were booked at the crime lab according to this document?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, yes, there were items booked at the crime lab prior to March 14th. In particular, to answer your question — for completeness — that one item does indicate that the first time the lab received it for processing was March 14th. So they were booked at the lab March 14th.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. The first time the lab received these items for processing according to this document is March 14th. And there's no indication on any document as to where those items were before March 14th.
MR. BUKHENIK: There is — we displayed the bag, me collecting them on February 10th, and they were in our possession at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office.
MR. JACKSON: Whose possession?
MR. BUKHENIK: The Norfolk District Attorney's Office.
MR. JACKSON: Your possession specifically.
MR. BUKHENIK: At one point they were in my possession. Then I turned it over.
MR. JACKSON: Right. After you turned it over — February 10th was the day that you claimed to have found these items. After February 10th, they were not in your possession anymore. Before then?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. Once I turned them over, they're not in my possession. No.
MR. JACKSON: When you say "turn them over," you're talking about turning them over to someone whom we don't know.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. As we sit here. Right now I don't have a memory of who I turned it over to, but it was a member of our homicide team.
MR. JACKSON: So the next time — Sergeant Bukhenik, the next time there's any documentation about those items is March 14th — nearly 6 weeks later. 5 weeks later.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know that to be correct.
MR. JACKSON: No. But you can't point to any documentation. You're looking at the logs. You can't point to any documentation indicating the chain of custody of these items between February 10th and March 14th. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: This is simply a log from the lab.
MR. JACKSON: Yes or no? Can you point to any documentation?
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask the question.
MR. JACKSON: Can you point to any documentation indicating where those items went, whose possession they were in, in what circumstance between — uh, February 10th and March 14th? Can you point to any document?
MR. BUKHENIK: I know that it was collected on February 10th. It's documented that it was collected. It was at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office before it was logged into the lab for processing.
MR. JACKSON: You keep answering the same question that I'm not asking.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. No comments.
MR. JACKSON: Do you understand my question? I'm asking, can you point to a single document for these jurors as to where those items went and in whose possession they remained specifically between February 10th when you lost sight of them and March 14th when the crime lab received them?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As the supervisor, you're generally aware of the evidence in this case, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: It depends, but very generally on most cases. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As the supervisor, one of your duties would be to make sure that evidence is collected and processed appropriately and properly.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That is a standard. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're also aware that all of the physical evidence that was booked eventually at the crime lab on March 14th, 2022 was done so by Michael Proctor, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm not sure exactly who delivered it or who booked it in. But if you have a document, I will look at it.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at that. Tell me if that refreshes your recollection.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it does.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is this document you just looked at?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's the receipt of evidence submission to the crime lab.
MR. JACKSON: And based on that document, who submitted all of that evidence to the crime lab?
MR. BUKHENIK: Michael Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: You're also aware that Michael Proctor eventually submitted a total of some 46 or so pieces of taillight material that was claimed to have been recovered at 34 Fairview Road — on January — I'm sorry, since January 29th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know the total pieces, but we didn't claim to recover it there — we recovered it there.
MR. JACKSON: You're testifying that they were recovered, but you didn't recover all of them, did you?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not recover all of them. No.
MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, Michael Proctor, according to you, recovered some of those items.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Some of those items were recovered by Michael Proctor. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're also aware that he submitted pieces of taillight material that he indicated he recovered as late as February 18th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I am aware that there were items recovered on February 18th. I am not sure exactly if it was him or someone else that recovered it.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated — I think in direct examination yesterday — that as of February 3rd or February 4th the weather had broken — generally correct? Was it getting warmer?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, the weather was warmer. There were rainy days following — the 3rd, I believe. The 4th — the 4th, it was raining when I picked up that piece of evidence. So yeah, the weather had warmed up. It was raining and somewhat storming on the third. On the fourth there was precipitation when I recovered that item. I mean, I don't know if it was storming, if there was a low pressure cell coming through. I have no idea.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. But that's the same day that you were told that Chief Berkowitz was driving by and saw the piece.
MR. BUKHENIK: The day I picked up the single piece with Canton PD present. It was raining.
MR. JACKSON: So he would have been driving by, windows up, water on the windows in the rain, and saw the red piece.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yeah.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that on February 10th when you made your final visit to 34 Fairview Road, you indicated yesterday during testimony that there was quote unquote very little snow present.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Come on. Switch.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant, that's a two-page document. Could you familiarize yourself with those two pages, please, and let me know when you're finished?
MR. BUKHENIK: You're fine. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. What do those two pages purport to reflect? What are they pictures of?
MR. BUKHENIK: Just generally, an evidence bag and something else.
MR. JACKSON: The first one's an evidence bag with — the date — just so we can cut to the chase. The date of that evidence collection according to the bag.
MR. BUKHENIK: The date is 2/11/22. On the sticker there's another date — there's a sticker, March 9th of '22.
MR. JACKSON: What's the — there's also a date at the — I'm just interested in the two pages just generally. I need to mark them for evidence. What's the second page look like?
MR. BUKHENIK: Second page is a large piece of red and black taillight plastic cover and it's identified by a lab number.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. So, one page is an evidence bag. The other page purports to be the item that was in the evidence bag.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know that. No. It's just one's an evidence bag with information on it. Then there's a photograph of a piece recovered. I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: I'd love to have this marked and introduced as next A and B. Is there any objection from the Commonwealth?
MR. LALLY: No objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Exhibits 112 A and B — request to publish.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
MR. JACKSON: Taking a look at this item, can you describe for the jurors what they're looking at, please?
MR. BUKHENIK: This is an evidence bag. It is labeled with case number, date collected, time, who collected it, description of items enclosed, the location it was recovered, and the victim's full name. It also has a two-scale ruler for the photograph and some identifying marks from the laboratory.
MR. JACKSON: Can you indicate for the jurors who was it that collected this item according to the evidence bag?
MR. BUKHENIK: According to this evidence bag, it was collected by Trooper Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: And can you show the date or tell the jurors the date that it indicates the item was collected or items were collected?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe it says 2/11/22. February 11th.
MR. JACKSON: So that would be the day after you were at the location.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Uh it would be the day after. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can we have the full screen, Mr. Woll? You see the designation at the bottom uh beneath the um measuring ruler?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh yes, I do. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a case number or case designator starting with 22?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I believe. I'm not sure, but I believe that's a LIMS number 22-02184.
MR. JACKSON: And do you see an item number listed right next to that uh case number.
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh yes, this indicates it's 7-15.
MR. JACKSON: And there's a uh there's another set of initials beneath that, it appears.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's — I mean, there's letters. I don't know if there's someone's initials. I don't know what it is. I'm sorry.
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear date]
MR. JACKSON: — a year later.
MR. JACKSON: Fair enough. Uh this appears to be something that was filled out by the crime lab — the black lettering and numbering.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I would assume. I don't know for sure though.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And obviously there's a date down here —
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then it says Canton at the bottom.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If we could have the full screen, please. Okay. Uh you also indicated that there was a label up at the top.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. If we could go to the second page, it'd be page B of this. Can you look at — first of all, look at the bottom and tell me if that number designator appears to be the same as on the previous page. The LIMS or the item?
MR. BUKHENIK: The LIMS or the item?
MR. JACKSON: Item. Item.
MR. BUKHENIK: The item number is 715.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And that comports with what we just saw in the previous page.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That is the same number.
MR. JACKSON: All right. This would be an exemplar. One of the items in that evidence bag labeled 715. Correct. There were several items, but this is one of them. Is that right? How the crime lab keeps them separate?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe so. I don't know their procedures. I believe so. I know they use uh alpha numeric identifiers. I can't testify to their procedures, why they do it, how they do it, or the sequence or the choice in numbers or letters. I have no idea, okay, about any of that.
MR. JACKSON: We can have the lights up with the court's permission. Would you leave this up? If you can leave that up, Mr. Woll. All right. Uh you can still see that on the screen.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You went out to 34 Fairview on February 10th, 24 hours before February 11th, right? To — I'm sorry, to look for additional items of evidence.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I collected uh I believe 20 pieces in total.
MR. JACKSON: Six and 14 the day prior.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You see the size of this according to the ruler, generally?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How big is that?
MR. BUKHENIK: At the widest part, it appears — if there's no uh optical illusion with the ruler location — 6 inches.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, uh that 6 inches is the size of a dollar bill, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Uh it also looks like it may be more than that from top to bottom — 6 to 7 inches, top to bottom. Can you give us an estimate?
MR. BUKHENIK: Possibly a little bit more. Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Wasn't there, was it?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's not what I'm saying. I said if I saw it, I would have picked it up.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't see it, did you?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not see it.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, according to the information that we just presented, this item was found the next day.
MR. BUKHENIK: [unintelligible]
MR. JACKSON: Based on the information presented, that's what it says.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: We can take that down. May I approach one more time?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: This is a three-page document. [unintelligible] Thank you.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did previously.
MR. JACKSON: Are you familiar with that document? When I — that's a bad question. Let me ask it a different way. Uh do you recognize what's generally in those three pages?
MR. BUKHENIK: I got to take a look. I must have missed your uh first uh request.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant, uh, can you describe generally, just very generally, so I can either mark it or not mark it, do you recognize what's depicted on the first page, the second page, and the third page?
MR. BUKHENIK: The first page depicts an evidence bag uh labeled uh date of collection 2/18/22. Second page is a red piece of plastic. Um and uh third page is also a photograph of a longer red piece of plastic with a little bit of black um molding on it.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, I would ask that be moved into evidence as A, B, and C subordinately.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there any objection?
MR. LALLY: No objection.
COURT CLERK: Exhibits 113 A, B, and C.
MR. JACKSON: Move to publish, your honor. Okay, Sergeant, uh, same couple of questions if we could. Uh, do you see a date of collection on this evidence envelope?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: This photograph indicates 2/18/22, and collected by whom?
MR. BUKHENIK: Trooper Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: Full view, Mr. Woll. Thank you, sir. And then if we could highlight the lower portion um that appears to be by the ruler. Do you see the same — I think you called it a lens number.
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh LIMS. L-I-M-S.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The LIMS number is the same number, the 22-02184, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the item number in this one is handwritten as what?
MR. BUKHENIK: 7 uh 16.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, if we can go to the second page please. Do you see, first of all on the bottom, the same item designator number?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. 716.
MR. JACKSON: And what is depicted in this photograph?
MR. BUKHENIK: A red piece of plastic. That would be a piece of plastic, according to the uh item number, that would be contained in that uh evidence envelope. One of the pieces at least, I would assume.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Uh is that a similar 6-inch ruler that's being photographed with that red piece?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: And how long at its longest point would you estimate that piece of plastic to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, it's more than six inches. I mean, probably seven, maybe.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Maybe seven. I know this is a little bit of a challenge, but how uh from top to bottom, what would you estimate the distance to be at its longest points?
MR. BUKHENIK: Three, three and a half inches, I guess.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And then the next page, please — the final page, which would be sub-C. Do you see the same designator on the bottom right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, yes, I do. That's 716.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Appears to be out of the same evidence envelope. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's what's suggested. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And how long would you estimate this item to be?
MR. BUKHENIK: 7 and a half, 8 inches.
MR. JACKSON: And maybe what? Three inches tall? Four?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yeah. Three. Um, three.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. We can have the lights up, your honor, with the court's permission. Again, the last time you were out at the location with very little snow on the ground, you collected certain items of evidence on February 10th.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. February 10th was the last time I collected. Um, I said there was still snow on the ground, maybe in piles where it was excavated. There was very little, but there was still snow on the ground.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you obviously looked around the area. You talked about the general area — I think you used the word "general vicinity," right? When you collected your items.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Uh, you didn't see this and you didn't see the one before it either, did you?
MR. BUKHENIK: If I saw any of these items, they would have been collected. Uh we did not excavate anything. We simply allowed the thawing and natural recession of the snow to reveal additional items.
MR. JACKSON: Um when you were there on the 3rd, February 3rd, there was still some snow on the ground, but you did excavate, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, there was a lot of snow on the ground. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: By February 4th, that snow was dissipating some.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. It was. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were excavating through that as well, right? Uh on the fourth.
MR. BUKHENIK: No, we did not excavate on the 4th. The item revealed itself and I collected it. That was it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, fair enough. Uh then on the 10th, you didn't need to do any more excavating because there was, quote unquote, in your words, very little snow.
MR. BUKHENIK: Very. Right. Those were my words. Compared to the first day, there was very little snow on the ground.
MR. JACKSON: And in fact, you did not see any of the items that were collected or claimed to have been collected at 34 Fairview by Michael Proctor on February 11th, the day after you were there.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Did not see that item. Did not see that item. No.
MR. JACKSON: And did not see any of the items that you've seen that were claimed to have been collected by Michael Proctor on February 18th, a week later.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Those items were not observed by me or else I would have collected them.
MR. JACKSON: We can take this down. I want to change gears for a second. Um, Sergeant, if it's okay with you, and switch to the Waterfall Bar & Grille. You indicated that on direct examination you reviewed video evidence and you had information that John O'Keefe and Karen Read arrived at the Waterfall after leaving C.F. McCarthy's. Is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to ask you about who your investigation revealed was there at the Waterfall when they arrived. What about Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. The investigation revealed Brian Higgins was at the Waterfall at their arrival.
MR. JACKSON: And you learned that John O'Keefe and Karen Read arrived at the Waterfall together, not separately.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: About what time did, according to your investigation, Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Read arrive at the Waterfall?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe it was 11:03, but I could be wrong.
MR. JACKSON: When they walked in, you've reviewed the video, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, we played it yesterday. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: When they walked in, Brian Higgins was already situated in the Waterfall standing or sitting at a sort of a high top bar table. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: Brian Higgins was present. I don't know his exact location. The video would depict it.
MR. JACKSON: You did learn that Brian Higgins, on January 28th going into January 29th, 2022, had what could be generally referred to as a romantic interest in Ms. Read?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you receive certain text messages from Brian Higgins during the course of your investigation?
MR. BUKHENIK: I received an extraction of his text messages. I did not receive any text messages directly.
MR. JACKSON: Did you actually receive an extraction from his phone or was it simply text messages that he supplied to you on his own?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was an extraction of text messages on a CD and also printed out — the same document.
MR. JACKSON: Did you perform that extraction or was that extraction performed at your request by Massachusetts State Police from his phone?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was not performed by me and it was not performed at my request.
MR. JACKSON: So, in fact, when you met with Brian Higgins, he simply provided you something that he said had been extracted from his phone.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did he provide you something?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did Brian Higgins indicate that he had taken those off of his phone?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: What was your understanding about what the items were — the pages of text messages that you received? What was your understanding about where they came from, from his device and his communications with the defendant and Mr. John O'Keefe? But you did not have a forensic extraction performed. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And Brian Higgins never gave you his phone to perform a forensic extraction.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So, the items that you received were directly from him and him alone. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: He handed me the items. I don't know who else was involved.
MR. JACKSON: You said him alone — he handed me the items. That's what I mean. You reviewed those text messages back and forth, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's been some time, but yes, I had.
MR. JACKSON: And those purported to be — I think you already said — two strings. I'm going to call them strings of texts. A string of text messages between Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And a string of text messages between Brian Higgins and Karen Read.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Would you describe the text messages between Brian Higgins and Karen Read that he presented to you as flirtatious in nature?
MR. BUKHENIK: Without having recently reviewed them in detail, I don't want to label it something without having a complete understanding of the content. I'm not comfortable putting a label on something.
MR. JACKSON: Well, how would you describe them? Were these business texts?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, these were friendly communications. I again don't want to put a label on it. These were communications between acquaintances or people that know each other. There was text message communication. As far as flirtations, I would have to take a look at the content for certain terms that would support that label.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember a text message exchange about a kiss that was shared?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember any text message between the two of them that suggested a romantic interest that either one of them may have had based on the text messages?
JUDGE CANNONE: Counsel, may approach. [unintelligible — sidebar] I don't want to make you wait here. So, we'll take our morning break right now. [unintelligible] Thank you.
COURT OFFICER: This court is back in session. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. Sergeant, you had an opportunity — obviously, you read them — so you familiarized yourself with that series of text messages that you received from Brian Higgins, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. May I approach? Sergeant, I've handed you a document in addition to what's been marked as evidence item 111. There's a document that's heavily redacted. Do you recognize or do you see that document?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see a word on that document?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: Does that appear to be a redacted form of the document — the same document, or the same page or copy of that page — that you saw this morning from those notes?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'd like to have that marked as next in order — the redacted document — with the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: And with the court's permission — hold on.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
COURT CLERK: Exhibit 114.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Okay. Your honor, may I — with the court's permission — put a side-by-side of the single word that we discussed at sidebar, from evidence item 111 and what's been marked as 114?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection?
MR. LALLY: There is. Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Not at this time, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: In your opinion, having seen those two words next to each other, do they appear to be the same or similar handwriting?
MR. BUKHENIK: In my opinion, they appear very similar. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. May I inquire with counsel for just a second?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. May I approach one more time, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes, I see that you are. Of course.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sergeant, could you just flip through that briefly and tell me if you generally recognize what that document —
MR. BUKHENIK: Absolutely. Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Sergeant. What is that document generally?
MR. BUKHENIK: Generally, it appears to be screen captures of a text message conversation.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the document that you earlier referred to as having received from Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's a printout of the document. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You saw something in electronic format, I take it?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you reviewed it on a computer?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you receive the electronic file on a thumb drive or a CD or something like that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And this appears to be a true and accurate representation of that electronic copy that you received from Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: To the best of my understanding, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And is that document reflective of the text messages that Mr. Higgins indicated to you were between — the string, as I use that word — between Brian Higgins and Karen Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: This is what was provided, to the best of my understanding, and has now been printed out.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. With the court's permission, I'd like to ask the witness to read the text messages that he was provided by Brian Higgins. So, we're going to mark this for identification only.
COURT CLERK: [Exhibit] 115-E for identification.
JUDGE CANNONE: You're certainly not asking him to read this whole document.
MR. JACKSON: I expect to.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I'm going to see counsel. All right. So, jurors, we're really trying to be as expeditious as we can be. There was a big stack of messages that are going to be marked as the next exhibit. And I have two instructions for you folks. First is — as I've told you before — before you consider any electronic communication in your deliberations, you must first find that it is more likely true than not that the person who authored or sent or created or transmitted the communication was in
JUDGE CANNONE: fact here, the defendant or Brian Higgins. If you do not find that it is more likely true than not that Ms. Read was the person who authored or created or transmitted the electronic communication, or Brian Higgins was the person who authored or created or transmitted the communication, then you may not consider that electronic communication at all in deciding your case. Now, if you do — if it gets past that and you do find that that burden has been met — these messages are not being offered to show the truth of the statement. They're simply to show that this information was in fact provided to the Mass State Police for their investigation. Those are the instructions. All right, with that, Mr. Jackson, go right ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. I appreciate that. Um, yes. I'm going to let the witness have that pack. Oh, he's got one. Oh, you know what, Chrissy? I'll take one back. The one for ID will now be the exhibit. And I'll take the other one.
COURT CLERK: Of course.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Sergeant Bukhenik, uh, do you have the document in front of you that's been marked as exhibit 115?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: If you could, starting at the beginning, uh, do those purport to be text messages between uh, Brian Higgins and Karen Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they are.
MR. JACKSON: Does that print out accurately accurately reflect what you received in electronic form from Brian Higgins during your interview?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If you could start at the beginning uh and read the text string indicating the date of the text if it's dated, who it's from, who it's to, and the content.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. The text messages begin Wednesday, January 12th at 8:27 p.m. Uh, incoming text message to Brian Higgins's phone from Karen Read: "Hey, Brian, it's the weed whacker." The response is a question mark, followed by a picture of a Smirnoff Ice screwdriver in what appears to be a package store cooler. Uh, followed by a "yo yo" response, and that is uh it for January 12th, Wednesday. Do you want me to continue, sir?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Just a moment, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Going back to the Smirnoff container — that was from whom and to whom? For the picture of the Smirnoff.
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears it was from Brian Higgins to Karen Read.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. If you could make sure to delineate from whom and to whom each text is, every time.
MR. BUKHENIK: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Okay. Yes. And go ahead and proceed.
MR. BUKHENIK: Thursday, January 13th, 9:24 a.m., from Karen Read to Brian Higgins: "Did you try those Smirnoff?" There is a "haha" acknowledgement response to that text message by Brian Higgins. The next page, it's the same bubble, but continue to the next page. I will repeat. "Did you try those Smirnoff screwdrivers? I stopped at the Hillside for one last night." A biting emoji showing teeth. That is sent from Karen Read to Brian Higgins.
MR. JACKSON: If you could, and I hate to ask this of you, but if you could tell us who it's from before the content — for instance, "from Karen Read to Brian Higgins: content" — that would just be a little easier, I think, in flow.
MR. BUKHENIK: The last one was from Karen Read. She stated, um, "Did you try those Smirnoff screwdrivers?" And that she stopped by at the Hillside last night for one. From Brian Higgins to Karen Read: "Haha." Same person: "How did you get my digits?" Karen Read to Brian Higgins: "The Melissa and Leto show." Brian Higgins to Karen Read: "Haha." Brian Higgins to Karen Read: "I thought you creeped John's phone." Brian Higgins to Karen Read: "Haha." Karen Read to Brian Higgins: "No way." With an emoji — an X, a person holding an X in front of them. "I was the last person in greater Canton who didn't have your number sign. I think even Carrie has it."
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to see counsel at sidebar for just a minute, please. We're trying to make this easier for everybody to either read or listen to or look at. So, we're just going to take a minute. We think that we have this document here. Um, and also to make it a little bit easier for everybody, Sergeant Bukhenik, you do not have to describe the emojis. You don't have to say anything about what the pictures are, and you don't have to say the punctuation, now that we'll be able to have it. But you are being asked to read um which text is from whom. Maybe if we agree upon the color, you won't have to say that. Um, can there be an agreement with that, counsel?
MR. LALLY: We can do that. I'll stipulate that the blue bubbles appear to be Mr. Higgins and the gray appear to be Ms. Read's text responses.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, that's agreed. All right, I appreciate that. So, you can just read the screen or read what you have in front of you.
MR. BUKHENIK: Do you want me to start at the beginning or—
MR. JACKSON: No, let's just — I'm sorry. Start where you ended, if you could, please. Could we turn the lights down?
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. BUKHENIK: Jesus, is he alive? Was he from Massachusetts?" "Yes, he is alive. Not from MA. We were thinking late March. I guess a guy in his group is friends with Old Dominion band. Kid Rock's supposed to be there, too." "I have a tough time with country. I was a Kid Rock fan back in the day." "I agree." "Of course you were. From Brockton, lol.
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. BUKHENIK: previously. Oh, really? Did you mention that?" "Anna Maria, Quincy College and BHCC. I teach afternoons and work downtown during the day." "What is BHCC?" "University of Southern Charleston. A.k.a. Bunker Hill Community College." "Oh, nice." "Trust is life. Line from Good Will Hunting in the classroom at BHCC." "Funny. A savant from Brockton. I'm not making fun of BHCC. My parents met at community college." "
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. BUKHENIK: , that all you got? We chat." "Sure. You're from Brockton. Spit it out."
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. BUKHENIK: You're very random." "How so?" "You just are." "I don't think so. What's random?" "Haha. I had no idea who this was last night for a few minutes anyways. I mean, what's random about me? I think I'm pretty predictable." "How so?" "
PARENTHETICAL: [unclear]
MR. BUKHENIK: weed whackers." "Excuse me." "Nope. Never. It was my one time thing."
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you see it, Sergeant, with the lights off?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay, thank you.
MR. BUKHENIK: "I just don't give my personal number to anyone. How would Carrie have my number? Melissa had it. I actually don't know if Carrie does. Just felt like everyone had it." "Haha, I knew she did. Sorry you felt neglected." "Haha. So, no dice on the Smirnoff. I have not tried it. Saw it in the store the other day and thought of you." "I laughed out loud." "Don't give Carrie my digits." "Thought of me and everyone's grandfather." "I won't give your digits to anyone." "You don't like Carrie?" "I have no issues with Carrie. Just don't want her having my jack." "Saving you as Karen screwdriver or weed whacker. Need to think about it a little." "I'd prefer weed whacker." That's to think about nicknames. "We were tossing around the idea of a short vacay with the current show.
MR. BUKHENIK: Wanted to see if you were game. You don't have to say. You don't have a say." "Vacation where? I know they need to happen organically. I'm the queen of nicknames." "Was just going to rent a beach house in Fort Laud. Something quick and easy." "Hm. I'm queen of vacays, too. Always a good time." "I'm going to Nashville next month, 19th through the 21st for a benefit. One of our guys got shot in the head. You guys should come." "So you claim.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's how I got my street cred." "Funny. I didn't know you had any." "Lol." "Carrie said you tag along. No one would say that about me." "How would I know? We all frequent the same watering hole. I don't know Carrie well. She talks about herself a lot. But I guess so does everyone. I don't ask questions, just make observations, assess, and decide. I am quiet." "That's a good policy. You can read most people in a few minutes." "Excuse me. Mins." "Yep. For sure." "Who did you go out with last night?" "Myself. I only had a drink and a half. Sadly, I know everyone in at this point. Lame." "Why is that bad?" "BC. That's how much I go in there." "What do you do for work?" "I've never had a problem going to bar/rest solo. I go there a little. I'm a college professor." "Solo is cool."
MR. BUKHENIK: "I was in a
MR. BUKHENIK: "Sounds like I'm scattered and all over the place. I learned my lesson." "You have your shit together." "That was mortifying. I am still really sorry." "Not completely, but for the most part." "Yes." "Hm." "Sure you are." "One thing I don't think you were was sensitive." "When was I sensitive?" "The weed whacking incident." "I just snapped when I think guys are being creeps. Can't help it." "I'm not a creep." "No, you're not a creep." "Nope. You're kind of a loner, which I used to be." "Not really. I have a ton of buddies, but I only let a handful of friends in that I am tight with." "So, you think you got me figured out?" "Circle of trust." "Yeah, I said loner, not loser." "I assume you know a lot of people." "You never really can figure anyone out completely."
MR. BUKHENIK: "Your dad died when you were young." "He died in March of 2020. I am so not a loser." "You won't figure me out." "Lol." "No one is a loser. I just didn't mean loner to imply friendless. I'm sorry." "That's recent. Wasn't it — was it COVID?" "Cancer." "I know you date girls who don't lock the house behind them, and you're private and observant." "I'm sorry." "What kind?" "Lung, brain, kidney, and pelvis." "How do you know all these things?" "Lol. You're funny." "Yikes. Wow, that's rough. Jesus. I'm sorry." "We chat a lot at the Hillside." "Don't be sorry. Life is hard sometimes. I always figure it out." "Who chats?" "Life is hard, but losing people is the hardest. So, I'm sorry." "
MR. BUKHENIK: "You and I chatted about the girl who kept forgetting the door lock." "Oh, she has been out of play for like three months now." "Out of rotation?" "Nah, just out of play. I am solo. No rotation. I am not a hoe. Solo. Solo — like no rotation or a woman for that matter. Not locked down. Haha. Good for you. That's the best way to be. Yep. Has its benefits for sure. Are you working remotely? Oh, tough life. Live like a queen. I just got a Saturday invite. Did you say yes? Not yet. But did respond. What did you say, Mr. Elusive? No. I just don't want to intrude on your couple's night. Haha. I am shy. We prefer to hang out with non-couples. Bob Gallerani is probably coming too, solo. We'll probably do cards or something at some point. Some P.T., excuse me. I'm inviting you. Haha.
MR. BUKHENIK: John said, quote, "Brian is being wishy-washy now." End quote. Haha. Did you tell him to text me? No. You cranky now? Haha. No. Just stop being so anti-couples. Most couples don't even like each other. Name a few. Name a few. I don't know. All of them. They all want to hang out with single people. Hm. I need a drink. I had a blueberry beer. I'm jealous. Hey, I'm trying to menu plan for Saturday, Mr. Elusive. Don't count on me. Boo. Haha. I am sure you will get over it. Just got my first drink. Where? Brick House. You tied one on last night. I was just thinking about you. Uh-huh. Yes. 4:30 a.m. came early this morning. Eek, that's early. You out late with the Commodores, solo? Yeah, but you're always lining up your afterparty. Nope, not me. Selective. I am not a hoe. Hey, no judgment.
MR. BUKHENIK: Haha. You make me laugh. I know I'm funny. Haha. What's on your mind? Nada. Just about to start cooking. Okay. What's on yours? I'm going to a Hillside regular's 60th tomorrow. This could be a new low for me.
MR. LALLY: Detective, if I could interrupt one second — when there is a date delineated, could you just state the date out loud so the jurors can follow the date progression? Starting with the next one.
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm saying the next text message date?
MR. LALLY: Or date within — above or below the bubbles.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. Yep. So, this screen here is Friday, January 13th at 3:33 p.m.
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe I stopped before — Bob Clinton. Everybody can't stand him. I detest him. His breath smells like ass. OMG. Always. His daughter and I have mutual friends. I actually don't mind him when he's socially distant. I think he's friendly. Why the test? Yeesh. Talks like an ass clown. Maybe I am being too hard. He just says crazy shit. Doesn't know his audience. Jeez. Is he different from anyone else in there? Haha. His wife and daughter are cooler than he is. I like his wife. Never met the daughter. A nurse. Yes. Her fiance is a firefighter. By coincidence with people I grew up with. Crazy. Sunday, January 16th, 12:59 a.m. You're nuts. Foul ball. You stink. You suck and you're double trouble. You're hot. Are you serious or messing with me? No, I'm serious. Feeling is mutual.
MR. BUKHENIK: Is that bad? How long have you thought that? Are you okay driving? You don't want to stay here? I am fine. I have an office at the PD. You didn't answer the question. Rather you stay here. I wish. I think you're messing with me. Why do you think that? Because this is so out of left field. Where did these feelings come from? I just think you're like me. Meaning, do you have your own kids? I have no kids. How am I like you? Um, hello. Aren't we alike? I think so. So, why did you get my number and reach out to me? Shoot straight with me. I told you. I just think we're alike, right? Yes. Agree. Now what? I don't know. Hm. Shouldn't you know? Do you like me? Yes. From jump. When was jump? First time I saw you. When was that? Hm. Hillside for sure. When were you interested? I don't know.
MR. BUKHENIK: You're just my type. You think you can handle me? I thought you were happy. How do you know if I'm happy? I just assumed. Are you hard to handle? What do you like about me? I just feel like you're from my neighborhood. Yeah. Ditto. And I think you're hot. You really think that? I have always thought that about you. What? That you're hot, smart, witty. But I didn't think you were interested. Witty. Yeah. Meaning quick with a response. Tell me why you got my number and reached out to me. Just thought we were the same — from the same neighborhood. Are you afraid to say what's on your mind? No, didn't I? I am glad I stopped by. I should have come earlier. Do you really live in Mansfield? Yeah, I was basically begging you. You don't have to be begged. Beg, huh?
MR. BUKHENIK: I will give you whatever you want. How are you texting right now? Leaving me hanging. No kids kind of. How am I texting? Is everyone asleep? I'm just wide awake on my phone. Yes, they are. I should have stayed. So, now what? Yes, you should have. That would have been distracting. So, no. What? Now what? What? Ball's in your court. What do you want? Loaded question. What do you want? I asked you. Nope. You initiated this. Spit it out. Hey, we're single and we don't have kids. We can do whatever we want. Don't you have a boyfriend? Where are you? Canton. Where? My office at the PD. Why are you going to Mansfield? Where is that? Canton PD. I have a house there from before I reconnected with John. Oh, I feel like you're not really saying what's on your mind. Do you like me? Yes, clearly.
MR. BUKHENIK: Come over to my house whenever works for you. When works for you. I ask you first. I think you're messing with me. I'm glad you came over tonight. Me, too. Ball's in your court. What do you want, Karen? You look great tonight. I don't know. What do you want? You always dodge, dude. Yeesh. Really? Why? I look great. You're full of it. I think you're hot. Always have thought that. Just have not revealed my thoughts. I'm hot for the Hillside. Low comps. Knock it off. You're hot. Period. Are you glad you walked me out? Yes. Are you deaf? Yes. Are you going home tonight or tomorrow a.m.? We kissed, right? Is this a trick question? I don't know when I'm going home. I am selling my house. What a trick question. Are you moving to Canton? I am following your lead with this.
MR. BUKHENIK: I live here, but I have a property in Mansfield. Why my lead? I don't want any responsibility. You started this, right? Why did you get my number and reach out to me? Still have not told me. Sorry. Should I not have? I am fine with it. Just don't know why you can't answer. You're mad at me. OMG. No, not at all. You're being silly. I told you. I just think you're like me and I am attracted to you a lot. Feeling's mutual. I just never saw this coming. Why? Because I just assumed you were happy with your situation. I was, but things have deteriorated. Why? How so? What did Melissa say when you asked for my number? It is very, very complicated. He and I dated when we were kids. And then his sister died and everything got fucked up. He seemed very into you.
MR. BUKHENIK: I just told Melissa that I had your number but lost it. That's cute. She wasn't suspicious. No, she's great. Does she know you like me? She's a sweetie. We just agreed that you're great. What does that mean? I was jealous that she had your number. You're either all in or you're out. Why would you be jealous? I am not attracted to her at all. I have always been attracted to you. Really? Yes. Since the first time I saw you, we would have fun. Where are you? I told you, Canton PD, my office. So, are you selling your place and moving to Meadows? Yeah, but where is that? I have had all my shit here for a couple of years and my house has been vacant, but I'd like to get closer to the water. Hm. Are you breaking up or staying together? I don't know. He hooked up with another girl on vacation.
MR. BUKHENIK: I am very close to his niece. It is a very fucked up situation. When was that? And how did you find out? He hooked up. I don't want to complicate your situation. We went away for New Year's, the four of us. I put the kids to bed and found him in the lobby of our hotel all over one of our friends. Whatever. It doesn't matter. It does matter. Did they bang? Does that matter? Sorry, I was just asking. I was just trying to figure shit out. It doesn't really matter. Okay, I won't ask again. I don't care. It doesn't matter. Okay. Hear you loud and clear, Karen. Oh, okay. Why are you getting your thing all twisted up over simple questions, Dawn? I am not. Am I? You're kind of getting defensive. Not at all. What is the question? Do you feel guilty texting me? No. Okay. What do you want from me?
MR. BUKHENIK: Nothing. Do you want anything from me? I would hang out. Oh, gee. Thanks. OMG. What am I supposed to say? You're being tough on me. None of us is married. True. So, game on. We can say whatever we want. Game on. You sent mixed messages. I wish I stayed. Okay, game on then. Kind of. Can you hang? Sure. I hope you toss and turn tonight. I always do. Why? Why'd you say that? I just do. Why? Because you're fresh. No, I'm not. Okay. Do you always get what you want? Be sweet to me, please. I could be so sweet. I've been very sick. I had colon cancer and 10 surgeries in 18 months. I'm a wreck. I had no idea. Are you okay now? I never get what I want. Just what I need. I am okay. What do you need? What do I need to be content? What can I do to make you happy? Haha. Don't worry.
MR. BUKHENIK: I've always been very happy. You're talking riddles. Just tell me why you contacted me. Huh? What's the big deal? I told you. Just think you're like me. What does that mean? Like you want to hang with me. You asked why I contacted you. Yes. Excuse me. Yeah, I did ask. We are attracted to each other, right? Reasonable question. Yes, 100%. Okay. We did kiss earlier. No. I think you initiated that. No. Yep. Do I owe you an apology? OMG. No. Why are you being sensitive? I am not, kind of. No. Excuse me. Never. What do you want from me? What's on the table? What do you want? Ideally, the real deal. Sunday, January 16th, 7:37 a.m. Doesn't exist. Haha. Sunday, January 16th, 5:53 p.m. So, you like Hennessy XO? Sunday, January 16th, 7:15 p.m. I am hurting so bad. Yeah, me too.
MR. BUKHENIK: The currents went after it again at noon today. No way. This was about 2 hours before you came over. Haha. I am heading for drinks soon. Really? Yeah. Tuesday, January 18th, 5:09 p.m. What's on tap? Haha. What does that mean? Usually means, uh, what are you up to? Cute. I just wrapped work. Unpacking some groceries. You — what's on tap? Also unpacking crap for my car. Anything good? Nothing on tap. Shame. You were ghost yesterday. I can't be the cruise director every day. Shame. Julie McCoy. Wish I was at my cave house in front of the fire sipping a drink. Wish I knew how to use my fireplace. From the Love Boat. How old is your bad self? Haha, that was my — that was my guess. 42 next month. I know the Love Boat. I was more Brady Bunch. Haha. What day? 2:26. Nice. You're just a tad. Poke.
MR. BUKHENIK: Poke. Pull. Gotcha. When is the next party? Poll. Oops. It's all relative. What pole and poke? I'd have a party every weekend if it were up to me. No. 42 equals Tadpole. Oh, I keep reminding myself that aging is a privilege. The better parties are at my house. No kids. Why are they better? Well, first, because there's no kids. You were ghost yesterday. Thought I heard the last of you. Phones work both ways. I don't want to disturb you. Or you could be otherwise engaged. I don't know your routine. I didn't use the word engaged, did I? Huh? Engaged as like doing something with someone. Yes, that's what I thought you meant. Are you being fresh today? No. Now that you sobered up. Haha. I felt sober next to everyone else on Saturday. Good point. You're still real trouble. Uh-huh. Why?
MR. BUKHENIK: Am I just playing with you? What is that? Whiskey with a big ice cube. What kind of whiskey? Jameson, right? Cherry in middle. What good does that do? Are you on the rocks? So good. Yeah. Do you have a 4:30 a.m. bell tomorrow? Why do you ask? Trying to figure out how many whiskies you're going to have? Depends. I don't restrict myself from having fun. How many Hennessy XOs you having? None. I have none at my house. Haha. I am not really trouble. Want me to pick you up next time I go to the base? Usually cheaper and tax-free. Just a little, based on your conduct. The base, military base. I go through the Hennessy fast. I shop there a lot. I can, as a veteran. My conduct. I'm not married. I'm the only one who does everything right. What kind of veteran? Where is the base, dude? Chillax.
MR. BUKHENIK: Teasing you. Are you serious? Veteran from Iraq. I can go to any base, but usually Hanscom in Bedford or down the Cape. Which base? Down the Cape. Which branch? Army. I'm not abnormally sensitive. Joint Base Cape Cod. Aw, I won't be so hard on you. Oh my god, you're not. You called me trouble. That makes me sound bad. I was just playing with you. You weren't. But that's okay. Stop being sensitive. Please. I am not. Okay. So, what's up? Did you figure out how many whiskies? You mean tonight? Yes. Not sure. I am flexible and adaptable. Why are you so curious? Are you drinking? I haven't had a drink yet. Just want to see what you're looking for — an influencer. My day was long. Influenced — how are you? In Canton or Mansfield tonight? Influence to have a drink even though it's Tuesday.
MR. BUKHENIK: In Mansfield. How often do you stay there? Is it a nice crib? House or condo? I stay here once or twice a week. House. I guess it's nice. I like it. How long have you owned it? How many beds? Rooms. 2017 or '18. Five bedrooms. What? Why so big? I don't know. It's an old colonial. It has a lot of bedrooms. More than you clearly need. Are you moving to Canton? I know. Seriously, some rooms I only go into to dust. Not anytime soon. I'm there for most of the time, but sometimes it's a lot. A lot. Why? Do you even know what you want or who? Because I went from being solo to trying to give attention to kids who aren't mine. And I never wanted kids. I thought you were in this happy relationship. Everyone is happy at Hillside. Oh god, you avoid things.
MR. BUKHENIK: It's just a very, very complicated dynamic with the four of us. He isn't cut out for what he's doing, and the kids present constant issues. I think he believes he is doing the right thing. Well, of course he is, but his heart isn't in it. It's only because he was very, very close to his sister. I know how you feel, kind of. I was married and when I met her, she had a two-and-a-half-year-old. I went from being single to being a dad. It's hard. I am divorced since 2017 and have no kids. I try very hard, but they are very spoiled and they're not my family. My parents keep telling me I'd feel different if they were mine or my own sisters. Then I told you he got drunk and sloppy on New Year's Eve while we were away and that it has really affected me. What did he exactly do?
MR. BUKHENIK: I never got married and now somehow I'm arguing with someone about raising kids. Why won't you tell me? He was a puddle all day and then disappeared. Then I found him all over a friend's sister in the lobby of our hotel. And she's gross, which I think may actually be worse. Not sure. Oh god, did they bang? So, I was with the kids celebrating New Year's without him, which shouldn't be my role. No, I doubt it. He was a mess. Hm. Was it the first time with her or do you think there were others? I don't really think there were others. I'm with him all the time. He never seems to want to go anywhere without me. But honestly, the issues with the kids bother me more than him actually cheating. They're constant and it feels like lose-lose.
MR. BUKHENIK: You clearly have a lot of feelings swirling inside of you. Yeah, it's very complicated. Sorry for the rant. You can vent, babe. Basically, I just feel like I spread myself too thin and sometimes it's thankless. Hm. You probably felt that way too. I did at times. It was one, not two, thankfully. Want to grab a drink? If you gave me some notice, I could have. You said you were adaptable. I am, but I have my work truck with me and not my personal. Do you get angry when you don't get your way? That sounds like an excuse. I rarely get my way. I don't make excuses. I don't make excuses. If I don't want to deal with someone, I tell them. Then I am a ghost. Why do you even want to hang with me? Don't we already hang out? I don't make excuses. Work truck. Personal truck.
MR. BUKHENIK: What does that — sound like a massive problem? I end up drinking with you at least once a week. I'd say I can't use my work truck for transportation to go drink. You think so? What makes you so sure? Probably would be fun. I think I see you about once a week at a bar. No, not lately, but yes. Okay. So, you asked why I want to hang out. I'm just saying that I already hang out with you. Yeah, but we have never one-on-one. Does going to a friend's house qualify as transportation to drink? Yeah, cuz I can't just have one. Can't drive that banged up. Have none then. There's five bedrooms here. Does mine have a lock on the door? Haha. Lol. I don't even know. I think so. You probably have a spare key. I don't know if I ever shut and locked a door here. Funny. Trust me, I am tempted.
MR. BUKHENIK: Grab the Hennessy. Thanks, doll. Funny. I am confused. You don't feel guilty inviting me over. Should I? I don't know. Who knows what you feel? Only know what you said when you were drinking Hennessy. Haha. Jeez, I just explained everything I thought. Wow. You get angry easy. What are you talking about? I'm not angry in the least. Okay, good. And I haven't had a single drink today. Okay. I don't really think I should feel guilty. Why is that? Why should I not? Dude, I am just asking. Don't get your thong all twisted up. Yeah, I just don't know what the question was. You have no impact on my thong. I think I try my best to do right by people and sometimes people suck. And I'm not married nor do I have kids. I agree. But you kind of have a living boyfriend.
MR. BUKHENIK: You act like I ask dumb questions. Yeah, kind of. But it's been a long time and there's ups and downs. So, at some point, you have to think more rationally. Do you plan on leaving him? I'm sorry. I don't think they're dumb. I just — it's just hard back and forth on text to understand the question. When you asked "what day" earlier — read my birthday. I thought for a full minute that you meant what day did I use to watch the Brady Bunch, and I had typed a text every school day at 4 and 4:30. I meant what day was your birthday? I don't have any plans at the moment in either direction. Sometimes I go back and forth. Yeah, I figured that out. What's your interest in me? I assume people have been interested in you before. True. First, I think you're fun to talk to.
MR. BUKHENIK: I like sizing other people up. And you seem to be private, which I also like, and probably pretty independent too. So, like, I am a ton of fun. I am super private and do not talk out of school. I am safe. Does that make sense? I am all of that and more. Safe like I am private. Don't talk out of school with what I do or who I hang with. Do I aggravate you? Haha. No. According to John, you may occasionally talk out of school. He said that about me, but that's none of my business. With respect to what exactly? None of my biz. So then why invite me to your house party? Now I am aggravated. Tonight's party? Excuse me. Tonight's house party or last week? OMG. Why? Last week? Like why would he talk shit about me? Because we all like you. Everyone does.
MR. BUKHENIK: Geez, you just said he talked shit about me. He wasn't talking shit at all. He always says how much he likes you. Just mentioned Brian does all right for himself. He has not said one negative thing about you ever. I just didn't think you were that private. That's all. I am about a lot of things. Don't be so sensitive. I am good. Oh jeez. Are your panties in a twist now? Stop. Nah, my boxers are just fine. Okay, you're not going to run your work truck through the gears tonight? I thought you were tons of fun. No, I am not. As much as I would like to. Moving on to the next call. Huh? Will you stop? You sensitive again? I can't really follow your thought process. You keep kind of insulting me a little. I am still confused why you want to hang with me. It's also out of left field.
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I am not. Are you single? Yes. I don't think it's out of left field. Wasn't I already begging you to come over last Saturday? You getting my number from Melissa and reaching out to me and then on vacay and probably a few other occasions. You didn't really beg. I asked at least twice. How do people usually reach out to each other? Why would I have thought you had any interest in me? Um, usually do it when they do live with someone. Do not, maybe, maybe not. So, you have sent me signs before that. Did I miss them? John and I have had a lot of ups and downs, and we already did this nearly 20 years ago, and there's kids involved that get attached, and things get muddy.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know what the answer is, but I feel very strongly that I've put my best effort in with all three of them and the extended family, too. At some point, I get — it gets frustrating and my actual feelings take precedence. I get it. I am not denying that or that it gets tough. Do you remember anything you said to me the other day, the other night? I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from. Yes, I get it. I deleted it because I didn't want to do my own text walk of shame, but I'm pretty sure I remember everything. Um, okay. So, don't you think it would complicate and confuse your situation if we hang out? Fair question. Probably. Do you only do things that simplify your life? Nope. I complicate my life on the regular. Yeah. So does everyone else.
MR. BUKHENIK: Just so you know, I thought you were extremely hot off the rip. Amazing personality. I could go on and on, but I do not want to pump your shit up too much. Thanks for saying that, but low comps at Hillside. You know how to ruin something nice. I frequent other places. John has showed me about five times the ring video of me walking you out on Saturday, and my voice and my accent are killing me softly. Um, what? Yeah, he has cameras everywhere. You cops? Jesus. He — like Christ. Are you guys hooking up? OMG. Great. I don't need your drama, dude. No, it's fine. Seriously, I am serious. You legit planted one on me. I know where the cameras are anyway. Duh. Oh my god. So, your slick move isn't on there. Of course not. OMG, I almost — it was a peck. Anyway, I kissed Carrie and gay Jeff, too.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yeah, weak. I agree. Lol. Funny. So now he is jealous of me. No, I told you he likes you a lot. Which makes this worse. You said or did something at the bar last week and he goes, "I like Brian more and more. I think he is a good dude, too." Yeah, he is funny. What's your endgame? What do you want from me? You will just confuse the shit out of yourself. Shit. Because I am a lot of fun. So am I. I'm sure I'm more fun than you. How so? Details. I don't know. I hate people on the whole, but I've been told by many people that I'm a lot of fun. I don't do anything half-ass. Nothing. So, what do you want from me? I don't know. I just like you. So I reached out. You have zero idea? Nope. Oh, god. What now? Why? Oh, God. Because I need some direction. Well, I'm not an F'n F'n oracle. Sorry.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's actually funny. Do you eventually get what you want? I told you rarely. So, you're a quitter, a realist. So, you reached out to me. A ballsy move. Now what? The things I worked the hardest for have meant the most. Does Melissa know you dig me? Ballsy? Not really. I already know you. True, but you have a man. I figured if you text with Melissa, you definitely text with me. She isn't trying to hang with me. Of course she is. Plus, I never really texted with her other than to see if they were headed out. I asked you over. Is — is what? You made excuses. That's fine. But I'm not asking again. She doesn't like me like that. I'm sure she does. What makes you so sure, BC? She said, "I'd love to set Brian up with my sister. She deserves such a good guy like him."
MR. BUKHENIK: That doesn't mean she wants to bang me herself. And I think Leo is kind of a dink. So I'm sure Melissa likes you a wee bit herself. Yeah, he is. Interesting. Have you always had trouble accepting compliments? Yeesh. Not at all. All yours came to me after a day of drinking. You were way more all over me that day. So what, don't most compliments come that way? Like all over me with compliments and how you felt. It was 3:30 a.m. It was fun. I've complimented you today, too, and kicked my nuts in. Oh my god. Ow. If I had more notice, I would have grabbed a drink somewhere. So, I am all set with that. That's fine, but I am not asking again. Well, it was 7:00 p.m. and I'm super cool. So, right now, asking again. Excuse me. So, right now, asking again.
MR. BUKHENIK: Coming to your house would have been bad for the both of us. For starters, you wouldn't have wanted me to leave. That sounds good. That's trouble. Why? Because you would have made me stay. Locked me in your room. No, I wouldn't have. Haha. You wish. I don't share a bed with anyone ever. I have my own room in Canton. What? Yeah, I think sharing a bed is archaic. Is that the one you wanted me to stay in? You like to be spooned. You don't — not for more than a minute or two. Weird. You would rather sleep alone. I've got to make my sleep count. So, doesn't everyone? Honestly, I am the world's lightest sleeper. I can hear an ant crawling across the floor and I wake up almost hourly, which isn't fair to whoever I'm sleeping with. Okay, bet Melissa isn't like that. Haha. Lori wouldn't like that.
MR. BUKHENIK: I know for a fact Melissa isn't like that. She told me she can't even fall asleep unless they're spooning. Leo rolled his eyes and pointed a gun at his head. You've probably got to go to work on your truck. Talk soon. Whatever. Lighten up, Francis. Let me know when you figured your shit out. That's a tailor-made joke for an army vet. No one else has it figured out. Why do I? Combat vet. I didn't say non-combat. I told ya, I think you're hot and I've told you how cool I think you are. Maybe you're actually a jerk. What do you want me to say/do? I'm pretty sure you're seeing people too. I am not a jerk. Don't change the narrative to suit yourself. Own your words. I don't think you're a jerk. I don't have simple answers to your questions. It's actually simple. What do you want from me?
MR. BUKHENIK: What do you desire? To start, I would just like to hang out because I like to talk to you and hear what you have to say. If that's it, I'd be happy. Okay. I will lock you into that statement. That's fine. I suspect you will give up eventually. Just so you know, I will still be your friend. Clearly, you're trying to give me a Heisman. No, not at all. Why would you say that? Because I've tried and I am failing. Tried what? Failing what? Hot and personality. And what else? What's the "I could go on and on" part? You see, it feels like a Heisman sugarcoated with a few compliments. That's okay. I asked you over on a seemingly uneventful Tuesday. Yeah, with zero heads up. I have to get up at 4:30 a.m. Didn't hear from you yesterday at all.
MR. BUKHENIK: So, I should have been a mind reader that you were going to extend an offer to your crib for a drink. If you want to give up, that's on you. You're being silly. For the record. No, I'm busting your chops. It's okay. No, you're sensitive. Nice try. You don't think if I came over for a drink, we would have got carried away? You said you were adaptable and tons of fun. I took that as an invite. Oh, okay. I'm 42. I know what happens when you invite someone for a drink. You're the master of avoidance. So, you think I would just give it up to you? I've been through a lot in my life. I have a little bit of a carpe diem mindset. What am I avoiding? I'm not afraid to be direct. Answer my questions. Okay, which — ask again. Nope. Tricks are not for kids. I'm pretty sure we would have hooked up.
MR. BUKHENIK: Okay, I can't say that. Of course you can. Did I miss any other questions, sir? Probably. Are you having a drink right now? Yeah. On my second. Show me what you got. I went for some wine and downgraded to a mudslide. The taunting in me. Haha. I had to make another one because you got me all worked up. I could have made it for you, weirdo. Sure you could have done a lot. And you got yourself worked up, buddy. Yep, I am. What a crime. Uh, excuse me. Is that a crime? Are you annoyed? Kind of. Why? Because you threw this offer on me last minute. I could have made three round trips by now. Excuse me. I apologize. You could have made three round trips by now. Oh, I bet. Crickets. Four round trips. Bite me. Jeez, that's fresh. So, you only say like one nice thing per day. Tough.
MR. BUKHENIK: You're impossible. Let me know when you figure this out. You're impossible. I've been pretty straightforward. You're wishy-washy. What do you want from me? Doesn't matter. Okay, then. Wednesday, January 19th, 10:08 a.m. Sup. Sup. You tell me. Player, just working remotely. Sweet. From Mansfield. Yep. You? I am in Canton at the moment. I want a drink. Haha. Is that bad? Really? I think day drinking once a week is okay. Go celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Tuck Rule. I can't wait until tonight. Wednesday, January 19th, 10:07 p.m. Where are you planning on heading? Not sure. Wednesday, January 19th, 3:34 p.m. I'd invite you over here, but you probably have your work truck. Here we go. I assume that's a pass. No problem. What's wrong with you? Excuse me? I didn't answer fast enough. Huh?
MR. BUKHENIK: Where do you get that from? You're tough to make plans with. I'm headed out shortly. I tried. Where to? I'm meeting my friend in town till about 7:00 and then likely make my way back. Okay. Where are you headed back to? Shady. I assume that means Shady. I'm meeting my gal pal who's from Canton back to Mansfield. Do I know her name? I don't think so. Julia Melon lives on Sherman. Hm. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't want any drama for either of us. I don't either. Okay. Trust me, I am tempted. I don't think it's a big deal. What? You coming over to my place or are you coming over to mine? Um, okay. You clearly are getting aggravated with me and my lack of participation. No, I'm not aggravated at all. Okay, we're good. I will see you around. I knew this is how you would act.
MR. BUKHENIK: Whatever. You can get most any guy you want. So, you're not losing any sleep over this. None of that is true. I'm not talking to any other guys. And I have issues with John and things are far from perfect. You just happen to know about him because we all hang out at the same bar. I'm sure you talk to other girls. That's what single people do. I'm not married and neither are you. Neither is John. Was that your attempt at a lecture or deductive reasoning? What do you want from me? That's just how I feel. Excuse me. That's just how I think slash feel. You don't need to approve. I've already answered that last question a couple of times. I think I'm not judging you. Never have. Never will. You shouldn't. I don't know what your private life is about. Nor is it my business.
MR. BUKHENIK: You just happen to know what I see — that I see someone. I don't have kids and I'm not married. Aren't you afraid you might actually like me? I don't think that's a bad thing. Isn't that the point? Well, it would be complicated because you have a boyfriend. That's funny. You said we are all a lot alike. Because we are. Yeah. Life never stays the same. Things always change. Okay. Why? Why are we alike according to you? Because we go with our gut and how we feel. Isn't that kind of what you told me? Yes, that's true. Have a good night. You're clearly irritated. Sorry to bother you. Either texting is bad or you're sensitive. I'm not irritated at all. I swear. I had been going out with someone for a few years when I reconnected with John, and John and I got on very well at the same time.
MR. BUKHENIK: So, I broke it off with the other guy. He was probably starting to see other people if I was completely honest with myself. I don't feel bad about any of that. I think it was meant to work out that way. So, what's your point? Are you legitimately interested, unhappy in your relationship, mad because you saw him all over another girl, or a hybrid of all of it? My only point is that there's a difference between being married to someone and dating someone. And we have no intention of ever getting married. The point of dating is to not get tied down if you're not confident. You should be, in my mind anyways. The first two, but I don't care too much about the other girl. Okay. So, he is cool with you dating other people.
MR. BUKHENIK: And I'm not happy per se, just realistic that there's cracks and it's far from perfect. I doubt it. If he is seeing someone else, I wouldn't want to know either way. He probably feels the same. And you probably feel that way about whoever you hook up with. I think that's normal. Okay. You don't agree with me. You make some valid points. No shit, Sherlock. Come on. I'm funny. Sit on that and spin. See, now you have to go below the belt. Love it. There. Do you wear belts? Only once in a while. Okay. When I go into the office. Okay. Rando. Haha. I was teasing you. You getting all dressed up for me. Haha. I pretty much wear all black every day. Love it. Where you going in town? Newbury. She works there. She works for my friend who's a plastic surgeon. That's how I know her. Coincidence?
MR. BUKHENIK: She lives around the corner. So funny. Around the corner from your second home. Haha. Oh. Haha. I had to come downtown earlier, so told her I'd meet her for a drink. You there now? You would like my spot at the Cape? I have a great spot for dinner and drinks down there. Are you there tonight? I'm a beach worshipper. Where's that? I'm in West Roxbury, a spot in West Roxbury. [unintelligible]. I have a pass to drive my Jeep on the beach. Lots of fun to be had. I — excuse me, I used to rent with my friends on the beach for seven straight years. I miss it. I've been thinking about moving to Tiverton. I can give you all the beach life you can handle. Stopping for a drink later. By where? My spot in West Roxbury? Probably not for a bit. Okay. At a bar. I wasn't suggesting anytime soon.
MR. BUKHENIK: I know you're with your friend. I meant my house. Probably after 8. Okay. If you don't want to, that's fine. No pressure. I will. A drink. What do you drink? Are you out now? Sorry. I'll drink whiskey if that's what you're having. Haha. Send me a pic of you two. Ha. I figured my shit is tight. Sure you can handle this. Huh? Please bite me. Stop saying fresh things. Why?
MR. BRENNAN: Excuse me. I'm sorry, detective. There may have been a page that is missing in that document, or it's not comporting with the —
MR. BUKHENIK: Oh, you're right. I did accidentally turn the page. No problem. I apologize. I think starting at — I usually drink whatever the person with me is having. Yep. I usually drink whatever the person with me is having. Oh, okay. I don't take selfies either. I don't really even know how. Whatever. I wanted to see your smile. I hate having my photo taken. Weak. Sorry. I am a very particular person. What's that mean? Okay, never mind. Go enjoy your friend. Go clean your house, will you? My shit is spotless. Haha. I figured my shit is tight. Sure you can't handle this. Please bite me. Stop saying fresh things. Why are those statements tempting? Nope. Oh, which statements? Perhaps you should drive directly to Mansfield. You said bite me like three times. Okay. 8:30ish is too late for what? Drink.
MR. BUKHENIK: No. Why are we not meeting up? You can stop over for a drink. Ball's in your court. Are you going to give me the address? Yeah, we don't have to meet up if you don't want to. But I'm leaving town now. I am up for a drink. Okay. Should I drive around West Roxbury yelling your name? I assume it says yelling your name. It's cut off. Are you going to give me the address? Yeah, we don't have to meet up if you don't want to, but I'm leaving town now. All right, that repeats itself. I apologize. So, okay. Should I drive around West Roxbury yelling your name? Haha. No. Where are you now, Newbury? Do you really want to come over? Only if you want me to. Can you take charge? I thought we already settled this. Haha. Okay. Well, I am in my car and now getting on the highway.
MR. BUKHENIK: This feels like I am forcing you. Not at all. I am game. Okay. Well, I'd like to know where the hell I'm going. Pike or 93. You just want to meet me at the crib, or do you want to come over? Pike. I would say. You decide. I don't know either. Whatever you want. I don't either. I don't either place. So, wherever you're comfortable. You know anyone in West Roxbury? I don't think so. Haha. Then just stop by for a drink. Up to you. No pressure. Just give me an address. I hate texting while driving. Bryant Road. Text me when close. Okay. I will show you where to park. That's West Roxbury. It's not coming up. Yeah. Then put Boston in. Bryant Road, West Roxbury. Searching for a friend. Then add your phone contact so you can search for their address on maps.
MR. BUKHENIK: It's a screenshot — excuse me, first one. What app do you use? Turn around on the street. Park at the top of the street across from the red minivan. LMK when you're here. Wednesday, January 19th, 11:13 p.m. Home alive. Cool. Thoughts? Maybe you — what? You asked my thoughts. You didn't answer. I don't know my thoughts. Okay, I think I get it. You have any? Thursday, January 20th, 12:27 p.m. Hi. How was your day? Good. Yours? I'm exhausted. Yeah, that makes two of us. But I want a drink. Really? I'll give you Hardy's Digits. Who? Hardy from 985 Midday Show. He hangs out at the Currents sometime. He's a spokesperson for Recovery Center of America. Haha. I don't have a problem. Kidding. I know. Good riddance. Haha. Stranger. Stranger. Hey, I was at Hilly all weekend. Have not heard from you.
MR. BUKHENIK: Haha. I apologize. Sunday, January 23rd, 9:40 p.m. Phone Works. Thought you were all set with talking? No. Hm. You sure? Friday, 11:32 p.m. Hm. Well, Saturday, 11:54 a.m. John died.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. The lights, please. Court would like to see counsel. Just a second about scheduling, please. Why don't you come in?
COURT OFFICER: This court is back in session. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. Sergeant, you had an opportunity — obviously, you read them — so now you familiarized yourself with that series of text messages that you received from Brian Higgins, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Would you — let me ask — I'm going to ask you the same question again. Would you consider those text messages, as you reviewed them when you received them from Brian Higgins, as being flirtatious or romantic in nature?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would not categorize them to that extent. Certain parts of it might be, but the total conversation — if you want my opinion, I can provide you with it.
MR. JACKSON: Was there some flirtation in the text messages that you noted?
MR. BUKHENIK: There are terms that were used — "you're hot," witty, stuff like that. Talking about banging and hooking up. Which — what word would you use to describe them if not flirtatious?
MR. JACKSON: The totality of the conversation. Sure. Let's start there.
MR. BUKHENIK: My opinion is that it's an angry girlfriend trying to set up a hookup — to her John. To her John.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. Would you consider the responses from Brian Higgins to be flirtatious in nature?
MR. BUKHENIK: There are parts of the conversation that are enticing — maybe a little of advances — but the totality — to put a label on the whole thing, my opinion is that she's trying to get revenge.
MR. JACKSON: Get revenge.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Get revenge on John.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, for what happened on New Year's Eve.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. When you say revenge, you don't mean physical revenge.
MR. BUKHENIK: Emotional revenge. She's trying to hook up with Higgins and then hurt John by cheating on him.
MR. JACKSON: And in fact, you did note that John O'Keefe was not privy to these, right?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: He's not on these texts, is he?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know if their accounts are synced at this point. I don't know if he's seen them. I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: He's not. His phone — do you know what his phone number is? You guys got his phone, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: We do have his device. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have any evidence that his account is somehow suddenly synced with — Karen's account?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not from his device. No.
MR. JACKSON: But he could have seen the text messages. Okay. So there's no evidence that his account was synced with anything, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry. Can you repeat your question? You were facing the other way. I didn't hear.
MR. JACKSON: There's no evidence that his account was synced with anything.
MR. BUKHENIK: Not his device that we have. No.
MR. JACKSON: And you don't have — as you sit here — you don't have any evidence whatsoever that he saw any of these text messages, correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: We don't have that, but I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So as you sit here — my question is very simple. Do you have evidence, affirmative evidence, that John O'Keefe ever saw these text messages?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not have evidence that he saw them.
MR. JACKSON: So would you agree that the text messages show a romantic interest — for whatever motivation — a romantic interest from Brian Higgins toward Ms. Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: You have to ask that differently.
MR. JACKSON: In your mind, as you read the text messages, did you determine in your head that there was a romantic interest by Brian Higgins toward Karen Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: In my mind, I saw the text messages for what they were — initiated by Karen Read — and she began a text message conversation with Brian Higgins, and — Brian Higgins was responsive to those text messages.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. They did communicate back and forth. He was responsive to the overtures that Ms. Read made toward him, correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Such suggestions — "Let's get together for a drink. Come over to my house. I'll come over to your house." Things of that nature — those went back and forth between the two, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, they were back and forth. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And did you determine that there was an interest by Brian Higgins in Karen Read? I read that he repeatedly asked her what's her plan, what's her goal, what's her interest, what's her intent. Did that show you an interest on his part in her?
MR. BUKHENIK: I think at one point he said he was confused, if I'm not mistaken — or what's the term he used? He was unsure what she wanted.
MR. JACKSON: He called her hot.
MR. BUKHENIK: He did. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Called her witty.
MR. BUKHENIK: Right.
MR. JACKSON: From the rip.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He said he wanted to spend time with her.
MR. BUKHENIK: Spend time. Yes. Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: He was interested in going over to her house.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He was interested in her possibly coming over to his house.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He told her that he thought she was hot — his words — from the jump.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: From the jump. Yep. How do you interpret that?
MR. BUKHENIK: From the jump, I would interpret it as right from the beginning — maybe the first time they saw each other, laid eyes on each other.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, he basically said that, didn't he, in the text message — "From the first time I saw you, I thought you were hot."
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He constantly was using phrases — to use your words — phrases interested in knowing how she felt about him, correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Did you interpret any of his text messages as Brian Higgins being interested in knowing how she felt, what she was thinking about him?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it again.
MR. JACKSON: When you first saw these text messages and you reviewed them, did you interpret those text messages — that's what I'm interested in, your mind — as Brian Higgins being interested in knowing how Karen Read felt about it?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe his statements indicate that he was interested in seeing what her interest was, what her intentions were, and questioning the fact that she's dating — living with — her boyfriend, with his buddy.
MR. JACKSON: He used the word "ghost" several times, correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: I do recall reading the word ghost.
MR. JACKSON: How did you interpret that word?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BUKHENIK: I interpreted "ghost" in the common slang terminology as to abandon conversation — stop communicating. He indicated that two different times in the text string.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. I know — I read the text messages by reading them out loud to a room full of people. I might not have remembered how many times the term "ghost" came through. I was concentrating more on the reading, not the comprehension of each word. Fair enough. But you did note that he used that term in his text messages to her, correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: I think I recall at least once that the term "ghost" was present in the communication.
MR. JACKSON: Did you interpret — I'm looking for what was in your mind — did you interpret the use of that word by Brian Higgins as showing some level of frustration at her abandonment of the conversation?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not. Not at all. No.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever heard the phrase, "You ghosted me?"
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How do you interpret that phrase, just in general?
MR. BUKHENIK: I've heard it communicated between other people. I've never used the term "ghosted." I think it's a little after my time in communicating with others, but I take it as you stopped responding to my text messages.
MR. JACKSON: Do you interpret that as a positive or a negative comment? "You ghosted me."
MR. BUKHENIK: I interpret it as a matter of fact — like, you stopped talking to me. I never thought about it in a positive or negative connotation. I never gave it any thought.
MR. JACKSON: As you sit here now, if you do give it thought, would you put a positive or a negative connotation on the phrase, "You ghosted me?"
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that based on the text messages that we just saw, there was a series of text messages that went back and forth starting in mid-January and basically ending around January 23rd, correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: This chain of text messages began January 12th and ended January 29th.
MR. JACKSON: Right. I'm going to get to the 29th, but the back and forth ended on January 23rd, did it not?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't recall as specifically. I can leaf through it and tell you what it is. I know I read the dates out loud, and again, I was concentrating on
MR. JACKSON: Do you have the document in front of you?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Could you turn to the last page?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. I believe it's the last page. It may be the second to the last page or something.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see an entry on January 23rd, 2022? A text message from Brian Higgins: "Thought you were all set."
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And Miss Read responded with "Talking. No." Period.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That is her response.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Higgins then responds "Hm" with four N's behind the H.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then he responds. By the way, did Miss Read respond to the "Hm"?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, she did not.
MR. JACKSON: And then he follows up with "You sure?" with no punctuation.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did Miss Read respond to "You sure?"
MR. BUKHENIK: She did not.
MR. JACKSON: The next text is on January 29th at 11:32 p.m.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry — January 28th at 11:32 p.m. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: Is that from Miss Read or from Mr. Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: At 11:32 p.m. on Friday, January 28th, it is from Mr. Higgins.
MR. JACKSON: That's all I ask. And now, can you tell the jurors what that text is? And then the next text immediately after it. Well, so — between January 23rd and January 28th, would you describe Miss Read's side of the conversation as having ghosted Mr. Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, she initiates the conversation.
MR. JACKSON: You had me read the second text message in the chain — between January 23rd, when that last text message was sent by Brian Higgins —
MR. BUKHENIK: Mhm.
MR. JACKSON: — until January 28th at 11:32. Would you describe that as Miss Read having ghosted Mr. Higgins for those five days?
MR. BUKHENIK: Strictly looking at the text message communications and not knowing whether they —
MR. JACKSON: I'm not asking you to speculate. I know there's other stuff you want to say. I'm asking you just to answer the question I've asked based on the text in front of you, Sergeant Bukhenik.
MR. BUKHENIK: Mhm.
MR. JACKSON: Does it appear that Miss Read ghosted, as you define the term, Mr. Higgins from January 23rd until January 28th?
MR. BUKHENIK: One could read into that in that manner.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. And then on January 28th when Brian Higgins sends — did Miss Read respond?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, she did not. They were together at the same location.
MR. JACKSON: Did she respond to the text on that day?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Not on a text message. No.
MR. JACKSON: You said they were together. That means that Brian Higgins was together in the same room with Miss Read when he sent his text.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And she ignored it, didn't she?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You also received from Mr. Higgins certain text messages between him, Mr. Higgins, and John O'Keefe himself.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes. Yes, we did.
MR. JACKSON: And one of those text messages — one of the last text messages that they exchanged — as a matter of fact, the last text message that was exchanged — was Brian Higgins at 12:20 a.m. on January 29th, 2022 texting Mr. O'Keefe, "You coming here?" with three question marks.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I would have to take a look at the document. I don't have a memory of it specifically. I know I reviewed it, but I don't have a memory of the time and content.
MR. JACKSON: May I put this up?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.
MR. BUKHENIK: Thank you, sir. No worries. Based on this extraction, I cannot definitively say that this text message was sent on January 29th. Because of the file source time and the JPEG being so small, I can't testify to that, sir.
MR. JACKSON: May —
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Brennan has kindly offered to stipulate that the "you coming here" text was sent. I would offer the following stipulation: that the "you coming here" text was sent on January 29th at 12:20 a.m. from Brian Higgins to John O'Keefe's phone. Quote: "You coming here?" Three question marks following it.
JUDGE CANNONE: What was the time?
MR. JACKSON: 12:20 a.m.
JUDGE CANNONE: May we enter that stipulation with the court's permission?
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
JUDGE CANNONE: So, jurors, you've heard that the lawyers agree that that fact is true.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you, Sergeant. So you were aware of a timeline on or about January 29th — when, first of all, Karen Read had not responded to a text message from January 23rd throughout January 28th and into January 29th. Sorry — throughout January 28th by 11:32 p.m. or so. She had not responded.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So the text message that she sent to Brian Higgins — the last time she sent a text message was on the 23rd. And he responded with several text messages to which she did not respond on January 23rd.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I believe she sent two and he sent three, I believe. So the answer is yes.
MR. JACKSON: There was a text message — I'm sorry — that he sent. No response. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: On the 23rd, he was the last one to send a text message on the 23rd. That was following multiple text messages back and forth between the two of them spanning a couple of weeks. Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Then on January 28th, 2022, Brian Higgins is at the Waterfall Bar & Grille after 11 — 11:30 p.m.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Karen Read then walks into that same Waterfall Bar & Grille accompanied by her boyfriend John O'Keefe.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. They did.
MR. JACKSON: Brian Higgins then texted Karen Read, who's standing in the room.
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Karen Read ignored that text.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Karen Read did not respond to that text. There's no text. Brian Higgins then — little less than an hour later — texts John directly, "You coming here?" with three question marks.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Correct. It's been stipulated.
MR. JACKSON: That is an accurate timeline of the events that we've just talked about.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You're also aware of a call. Your investigation revealed a call between Brian Higgins and Brian Albert at 2:22 a.m. on the 29th.
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did your investigation reveal a call between — I'm sorry — between Brian Higgins and Brian Albert at 2:22 a.m.?
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Let me reapproach on that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. I got you. Okay. Just one more.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Sergeant Bukhenik, did you become aware during the course of your investigation — then I'll narrow the time frame — during the course of your investigation that there were calls between Brian Higgins and Brian Albert at approximately 2:22 a.m. on the 29th?
MR. BUKHENIK: During the course of my investigation, I was not aware of that. If you have a document that I can see, I can tell you if I've ever seen it before.
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek to secure Brian Albert's cell phone to determine what calls he did and didn't make on January 29th or January 28th?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, we did not.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Would, in your experience, would a phone extraction — a cell phone extraction of Brian Albert's phone — have revealed calls made and received in the time frame that we're talking about, the 28th and the 29th of January, 2022?
MR. BUKHENIK: If a phone is extracted, the records of phone calls being made and received would show those records.
MR. JACKSON: You did receive information from Brian Higgins' phone, specifically the texts that he claimed he pulled off of his phone and gave to you.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Correct. We received the text messages that I read today that Brian Higgins provided from his phone.
MR. JACKSON: Did you seek to secure his actual phone for a forensic download or forensic mirror image to get the actual calls made and received, or text messages made and received, from his phone?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, we did not.
MR. JACKSON: At some point — this is just yes or no — at some point, did you become aware of a call between Brian Higgins and Brian Albert at 2:22 a.m. on the morning of the 29th? Just yes or no?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: As you sit here today — this is new information to you. Let me rephrase that. This is unknown information to you. You do not have any information about that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Sustained. We need a time frame.
MR. JACKSON: I realize that, Judge. That's why I'm asking it this way. As you sit here, are you aware of a phone call between Brian Albert and Brian Higgins at 2:22 a.m. on January 29th, 2022?
MR. BUKHENIK: Look, you just shared that with me. I have no memory or record of seeing that it actually took place. I do not know.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you've never heard that before?
MR. BUKHENIK: That — that was what I was getting to.
MR. JACKSON: You've never heard that before?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You indicated that you did not seek to secure Brian Albert's phone to do a phone extraction at any time.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. We did not try to get Brian Albert's phone for any reason whatsoever.
MR. JACKSON: Did you become aware during the course of your investigation that Brian Albert destroyed his phone?
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection. Jurors, disregard that question.
MR. JACKSON: A sidebar, please. May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you become aware of a call that was made by Brian Higgins at 1:35 a.m. while at Canton Police Department?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not aware of that. No.
MR. JACKSON: So you did nothing in terms of investigating any phone call that Brian Higgins did or didn't make while at Canton PD on the night, or the early morning hours, of January 29th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: We never sought to get Brian Higgins's phone. He was not looked at as an individual that we would need to get his information for any reason at that point — even after you received and read all of those text messages between him and Karen Read.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And even after you became aware of the timeline that we just walked through, starting on January 23rd going all the way into January 28th and into January 29th, you did nothing to investigate that.
MR. BUKHENIK: We had the information that we had. We did not need to get his phone.
MR. JACKSON: And the information that you had came from Brian Higgins himself, not from a forensic extraction.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. The extraction that Brian Higgins provided was a forensic extraction of his communications with Mr. O'Keefe and Karen Read. We had Mr. O'Keefe's phone and we had Karen Read's phone so we could verify and confirm that those text message communications were accurate, unredacted, not deleted, and were a true representation of what their communications consisted of.
MR. JACKSON: And that was a representation made by whom?
MR. BUKHENIK: The totality of it.
MR. JACKSON: That was a representation made by whom? A person made that representation to you that it was fair and accurate. Who made that representation?
MR. BUKHENIK: It wasn't a person. It was the extractions between the three devices.
MR. JACKSON: Well, an extraction that you were handed on a device by someone.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. No, I said that we had all three devices, and as I told Mr. Higgins in our interview together, I said, "Brian, we have those two devices — if you and [unintelligible]."
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Okay. If —
MR. BUKHENIK: — there's anything deleted or altered in any way, we will have proof of it. So please make sure that you understand the magnitude of this situation. We're investigating a homicide. It needs to be accurate, and it was.
MR. JACKSON: And you trusted that coming from Brian Higgins rather than simply getting an extraction from his phone. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir. I trusted him. Yes. Because we trust and verified, and after verifying, the extractions were correct.
MR. JACKSON: And following that verification of the text messages, did that raise any suspicion in your mind about any possible motives Brian Higgins may have relative to John O'Keefe?
MR. BUKHENIK: Suspicions of motives. Is that your — — question?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: No, the evidence spoke for itself. The honesty, cooperation of all the witnesses, and corroborating supporting facts spoke for themselves. So I was not suspicious of his motives. The conversation was documented over text message and spoke for itself.
MR. JACKSON: Supporting documentation, including a text message — the text message at 12:20 a.m. — just minutes before John O'Keefe arrived at 34 Fairview from Brian's, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: 12:20 a.m. That's one of the factors, correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's one of the factors that is part of the entire investigation.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: One of the other factors is John's body was found in the lawn at 34 Fairview — do you — — just feet, just feet from the front door, the side door, and the garage door?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is where Mr. O'Keefe was found, on the left side of the lawn. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: One of the factors was you originally said that it appeared that it may be an incident involving a [unintelligible] to the face.
MR. BUKHENIK: Initially, based on verbal reports, that was a possibility.
MR. JACKSON: Again, it was before — that's what I'm asking. Yes, initially it was a possibility. And when you saw John O'Keefe at the hospital, a big contusion above his right eye — correct? He had a big egg just above his right eye.
MR. BUKHENIK: That is — — not correct. His eyelids were swollen, not above his eye, and there wasn't a contusion.
MR. JACKSON: Two different paramedics said that they saw what they described as an egg above his right eye. Well, let me ask you differently. Did you speak to any of the paramedics?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did they describe an egg above his right eye?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'd have to see a report to confirm it was described as an egg above his right eye.
MR. JACKSON: Did you notice a laceration at his right eye?
MR. BUKHENIK: His right eyelid did have a tiny, tiny laceration.
MR. JACKSON: You see a small laceration on his nose.
MR. BUKHENIK: A tiny, tiny laceration. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You noted that he didn't have any broken bones or fractures other than to his — — skull.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not know that. I didn't conduct X-rays or conduct the autopsy. I'm not a medical professional.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't ask the doctors at the time you went and visited him and saw him in the hospital whether or not he had broken bones or fractures.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't believe they reported that.
MR. JACKSON: And another factor that you considered was the fact that in the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022 — around 6:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 8:00 a.m. — there were no tail light pieces found at that location. Zero. You consider that.
MR. BUKHENIK: At what point on January 29th — say 6 a.m., 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 9:00 a.m. — once we learned that there was damage to — — the defendant's right rear tail light, I could only consider it at that point, because I didn't know what I didn't know.
MR. JACKSON: Right. We don't know. We work with the evidence that's presented and we develop the investigation.
MR. BUKHENIK: And the evidence that was presented at that time, Sergeant, was — a snowblower — sorry — a leaf blower was used to search the area, the exact area that you've described for this jury as being the area around the fire hydrant, the flag, and where John's body was. And no tail light material was found at all in the first searches. You aware of that? Yes or no? Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, you're also aware — — that no tail light material was found until after that SUV was in Massachusetts State Police custody and sitting at [unintelligible]. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe the first tail light piece was found after it was in our custody. I don't know the exact time. I might have to see it.
MR. JACKSON: When you talked to Brian Albert — I'm sorry — when you talked to Brian Higgins, Brian Higgins, did you ask Brian Higgins about potentially seeing John's body when he left 34 Fairview and headed over to Canton PD?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: You knew that at that time — say 1:00, 1:30 in the morning — there was about 2/10 of an inch, a dusting of snow. Correct. Very light.
MR. BUKHENIK: At that point in time, there was a coating. I cannot speak to the amount of snow that was on the ground, but —
MR. JACKSON: Brian Higgins told you in that interview that he didn't see the body because it was hidden by a snowbank.
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Did he say that to you?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have a memory of that.
JUDGE CANNONE: There you go. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at page three, highlighted portion, if you wouldn't mind. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does that refresh your recollection that Brian Higgins said something about a snowbank at the time when he left 34 Fairview?
MR. BUKHENIK: He stated the reason he did not pay attention to the grass is he was concerned with his snowplow on his — — vehicle and was not paying attention to anything over the snowbank, just with the plow in front of him as he operated the vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: And of course, you knew at the time, as a detective and an investigator — you knew at the time — that with a dusting of snow, there is no snow, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: He mentioned plowing the driveway for the Alberts when he arrived. So there might have been a coating and he was just plowing it and creating a line. I cannot speak to how much snow was actually being plowed with the dusting that was on the ground. So there might have been a small snowbank. Again, he was referencing it. He was not — — paying attention to anything behind the snowbank.
MR. JACKSON: So behind the snowbank — being in the yard?
MR. BUKHENIK: Actually, he said the lawn.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. Sorry. He talked about the snowbank being in the lawn.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. He said he was not paying attention to anything past the snowbank — the snowbank being in the lawn — and did not pay too much attention to the lawn area behind the snowbank. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Off to that area. Right. Did that raise any suspicions in your mind that Brian Higgins may have been being less than truthful with you?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: Getting back to the Waterfall Bar & Grille, you were also aware that Brian Albert was at the Waterfall, correct? —
MR. BUKHENIK: — at one point. Yes, we learned that.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew that Brian Albert and Brian Higgins were friends with each other. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: We learned that as well. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You've already indicated that you did not seek Brian Higgins's phone records. I may have asked you this, and if I did, I apologize. Did you seek Brian Albert's phone records or an extraction from his phone?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, we did not.
MR. JACKSON: Did you look at the entirety of the Waterfall video? Did you review the entirety of the Waterfall video when you first obtained it, or have you looked at it since?
PARENTHETICAL: [video plays]
MR. BUKHENIK: I have, at one point or another, viewed the entire video.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, your honor — with the court's permission — this has already been marked as evidence, but I cannot — it's not my exhibit 22, I'm told. Okay. May we publish that for the jurors?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'm asked to advance this to run time 8:20 / 8:30 to about 11:08 — so a couple of minutes — with the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go ahead and play that. Can we pause it briefly, Mr. Woll? Yes. Thank you, sir. Can you please, if you can, point for the jurors whether or not you see Brian Higgins in that video?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'll use the screen in front of me for initial indication. I believe that is Brian Higgins right there.
MR. JACKSON: Can you do me a favor, just so everybody has a perspective? Can you also point to him there?
MR. BUKHENIK: Okay, there you go. Right there. I believe that is Brian Higgins.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Do you see Brian Albert in that video?
MR. BUKHENIK: I can't tell you exactly. Maybe if you run it a little bit longer, or zoom it in, I could possibly tell you, but from right here right now I cannot.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant, why don't — — we play this for a couple of seconds, and if you don't mind — if you get to a point where you recognize the person that you know is Brian Albert, could you just tell me to stop and I'll pause it.
MR. BUKHENIK: Absolutely.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go ahead and play it with the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Can you pause it? Stop it. Go ahead, Sergeant.
MR. BUKHENIK: Brian Albert is the individual right there. Right there.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe what — and by the way, for the record, your honor, the witness indicated the person toward the left, right under the "29" on the chyron on top — the "29"?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Can you describe what you see — the two — individuals — Brian Albert and Brian Higgins — doing in this scene?
MR. BUKHENIK: It looks like they are facing each other, possibly squaring off in a stance.
MR. JACKSON: Can we go ahead and play this forward, please? Can we pause it? Sergeant, did you see either of the two men — or both of them — squaring off in what you would consider to be a fighting stance?
MR. BUKHENIK: I guess it could be considered that. I would look at it more like a couple of buddies roughhousing around.
MR. JACKSON: Not suggesting they were actually fighting, but a fighting stance.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yeah. No, they were not. They were not fighting. No.
MR. JACKSON: Go ahead and play it. Can you pause it, Sergeant? Do you happen to see in this shot — just for orientation — do you see my client, Miss Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry. I was paying attention to the two gentlemen.
MR. JACKSON: That's fair. That's kind of an unfair question. Could you, if we play this a few more seconds, could you look around, scan around, and tell me if you see someone that you believe is my client?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I will try.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go ahead and play. Go ahead and pause it. Do you see anybody that looks like Miss Read?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. I believe she's in the top left — excuse me, top right corner of the frame, talking to Mr. O'Keefe and I believe two other gentlemen.
MR. JACKSON: Long hair on your client, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's go ahead and play this up to 11:08, please. Is that up to 11:08? Okay, thank you. We can take that one down briefly. Can we have the lights? Thank you, Sergeant. This is at the Waterfall just before midnight on January 29th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What you just saw — that footage is from the Waterfall just before midnight on the 28th. I'm sorry, my mistake. On January 28th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Going into midnight January 29th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: All right. This would be just minutes before everyone headed out of the Waterfall and went back towards Fairview.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Not everyone. The band didn't go to Fairview.
MR. JACKSON: Well, obviously I'm not talking about the band or the bartenders. I'm talking about Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Jen McCabe, Matt McCabe, John O'Keefe, Karen Read, those folks.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: It's before some of those individuals left the bar and headed to 34 Fairview. If we could push to runtime 16:35 to 17:22. While you're queuing that up — did you see, after I asked you initially about the stance that the two men were taking, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins, did you see them continue to take what could be reasonably described as a fighting stance toward each other, even in jest?
MR. BUKHENIK: They were squaring off and roughhousing. Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What does squaring off mean?
MR. BUKHENIK: Facing an opponent in like a wrestling or a martial art, I guess. Hands up.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Fair enough. You are former military?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And current law enforcement?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is hand-to-hand fighting taught in both military and paramilitary organizations like law enforcement?
MR. BUKHENIK: I had hand-to-hand combat training in the Marine Corps. I had defensive tactics in law enforcement capacity — in the Marine Corps, federal, local, and state agencies?.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that Brian Albert is former military?
MR. LALLY: Objection. All of it.
MR. BUKHENIK: I am aware that Brian Albert is former military, and Brian Albert was also a Boston police officer. I am aware of that as well. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that Brian Higgins was former military and a combat veteran?
MR. BUKHENIK: Now I am. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And are you aware that Brian Higgins, at the time this video was taken, was also a federal law enforcement agent?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was aware. Yes, I was.
MR. JACKSON: If we can go ahead and run 16:35 to 17:22, with the court's permission.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: If you can pause it. Can you describe for the jurors what you see Brian Albert and Brian Higgins doing in this footage?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on my understanding, it looks like he's giving him the Heimlich maneuver — or abdominal thrust, I guess. I don't know what he's doing. Brian Albert's got his hands around Brian Higgins.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's what it looks like from here. I have no idea what he's doing.
MR. JACKSON: Could it be described as wrestling or grappling?
MR. BUKHENIK: I guess. Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, let's go ahead and play it. Thank you. If we can take that down. During the course of reviewing this video — or the entirety of the video, not just the clips that you just reviewed — did you see where John O'Keefe was generally speaking, relative to Brian Higgins and Brian Albert, throughout the entire time?
MR. BUKHENIK: He wasn't standing still.
MR. JACKSON: I understand that. But generally, was he standing with them or was he closer to the bar, in the back of the video?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe, after Mr. O'Keefe arrived and embraced a few people with hugs, I'd have to estimate — most of the time he was on the other side of the table, which would be closest to the bar area.
MR. JACKSON: And after you saw Mr. O'Keefe walk in and greet everybody with salutations, did you ever see him interacting with Brian Higgins and Brian Albert throughout the evening again on this video?
MR. BUKHENIK: On this video? I did not, no.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to play one more clip, your honor. Runtime 19:15 to 19:57. About 45 or 50 seconds. Can you pause it just to orient the jurors? Can you see any individuals that you earlier described — Brian Higgins, Brian Albert, John O'Keefe, Karen Read — any of those individuals in this clip as yet? Or do we need to play it a little further?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would need you to play it a little bit further, please.
MR. JACKSON: Is it possible, with the court's permission, to zoom in on the upper portion of the video? Okay, if you could center that just a little bit to the right — other way. There we go. Thank you. And if we could go ahead and play that from 19:15 to about 19:57. Pause it. Do you recognize the three people center screen now?
MR. BUKHENIK: I really can't make it out. I would have to be assuming — guessing. I can't make it out to identify each individual.
MR. JACKSON: Let's play it forward if we can. One more time at this point. Go ahead and pause it. At this point, can you make out any individuals?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. At this point, I can say that looks like Brian Higgins in the middle of the three gentlemen.
MR. JACKSON: What is he wearing?
MR. BUKHENIK: It looks like a hooded sweatshirt.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And the person to his — sorry, let's do it from your perspective, or the jurors' perspective. The person to the left of Brian Higgins.
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe that's Brian Albert.
MR. JACKSON: And the person to the right of Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: To the right from my perspective?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe that's Chris Albert, but I'm not positive. I'm not positive.
MR. JACKSON: Play it. Stop. Did you see Brian Higgins just do something?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not paying attention to his gesture.
MR. JACKSON: We have to replay that, please. Does it appear he's looking in a particular direction?
MR. BUKHENIK: He is looking in a particular direction based on that frame. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that toward the bar area?
MR. BUKHENIK: It's in that direction. I don't know exactly where he's looking — whether he's looking at the bar, to the right of the bar — I can't tell from this.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And John O'Keefe — you indicated earlier that John O'Keefe, that's where you saw him most of the video, toward the bar area, to the right of the bar. If you scroll — push the screen to the right,
MR. BUKHENIK: I can tell you where Mr. O'Keefe is.
MR. JACKSON: With the court's permission?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see Mr. O'Keefe in that group of people?
MR. BUKHENIK: I cannot make him out. Could you play the video? Maybe he is behind an individual.
MR. JACKSON: Let's go back — with the court's permission, I'd like to go back to the full video and let's play it from here. Pause it. Could you see what was happening with Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: He was gesturing to someone. I was trying to see Mr. O'Keefe. We were talking about Mr. O'Keefe, so I apologize.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. With the court's permission, could I play the video one more time with it focused on the other side of the bar?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Last time.
MR. BUKHENIK: Can you tell me who to focus on, please, so I'm not looking for the wrong person?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Sure. Pause it. Do you see John O'Keefe there?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you point to where he is for the jurors, please, on both televisions?
MR. BUKHENIK: Mr. O'Keefe is right there, wearing the sweatshirt — a multi-tone gray sweatshirt with the hood on it and his hat — and the TV right there. He appears to be at the bar, paying the bill.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. With this perspective, could we just go ahead and play that 30 or 45 seconds one more time, and please focus on Mr. O'Keefe. Pause it. Do you see where Mr. O'Keefe is looking at this point?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where is he looking? What direction?
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, from this vantage point, it looks like he's looking to the left on the screen at the individual he appears to be conversing with.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, go ahead and play it. Pause it. And what about now?
MR. BUKHENIK: Same individual. He's still engaged in conversation.
MR. JACKSON: Pause it. And what about now? He's taking a sip of beer, right? Which direction is he looking?
MR. BUKHENIK: In the same direction.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Go ahead and play. Go ahead and pause it. We could go back out to the full screen at this point. Does it appear in the video that Brian Higgins, Brian Albert, Chris Albert have all left the bar?
MR. BUKHENIK: There's someone standing across the table from Mr. O'Keefe to his rear. I don't know who that is, so I can't testify that the others have left.
MR. JACKSON: Given this perspective — now that we've seen both zoomed — do you have an opinion as to whether or not it appeared that Mr. Higgins was gesturing toward John O'Keefe just before he left the bar?
MR. BUKHENIK: Given this perspective, he might have been. I don't know who he was gesturing at.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, we can have the lights up and take that down. I want to change gears for a second. Let me ask one more series of questions if I could. Sergeant, what we've just seen was ...literally Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, uh, leaving Waterfall to go to a different location. What was the location they were headed to?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on your investigation, they were heading to 34 Fairview Road.
MR. JACKSON: And shortly thereafter, who else followed to go to 34 Fairview?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry. You said Chris Albert.
MR. JACKSON: No, I didn't.
MR. BUKHENIK: No, you didn't. Okay. Um, Brian Albert, um, Brian Higgins, they went to 34 Fairview. And then, um, Mr. O'Keefe um also traveled there.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I want to shift gears if I could uh to another video. Uh, did you review certain ring videos specifically uh relative to [unintelligible] the outdoor ring video uh servicing the carport area?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, I have reviewed those uh videos.
MR. JACKSON: If we could, your honor, um — this has previously been marked as 12A. Okay. If we could with the court's permission, zoom in on the um — on the Chevy Traverse in the upper left-hand — the vehicle in the upper left-hand corner of the video. Okay, pause it. Let's go and zoom in on the upper left-hand corner. Okay, go ahead and play. Pause. Did you see anything happen with the right — I'm sorry, the left rear tire of the other car in the driveway?
MR. BUKHENIK: Of which — which car you talking about?
MR. JACKSON: The highlighted portion, the parked car, which is the left rear tire that's zoomed in on.
MR. BUKHENIK: I wasn't paying attention to uh the tire.
MR. JACKSON: Can you play it again, please? With the court's permission. Okay, let's try that one more time. Pause it. Okay, you can take that down. Did you see anything happen with that left rear tire of the Chevy Traverse?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, based on that video, it appears there might have been movement there last year.
MR. JACKSON: And you've seen this video several times, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I have.
MR. JACKSON: You saw it during the course of your investigation, not just in the course of proceedings.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Uh, last year you indicated that you observed the vehicle, Ms. Read's vehicle, come near Mr. O'Keefe's car. Which one in that video was Mr. O'Keefe's car?
PARENTHETICAL: [objection/ruling]
MR. JACKSON: : Objection. Ask it different. Sure. Given what you've just seen, what is your testimony now about whether or not that SUV struck the Chevy Traverse?
MR. BUKHENIK: The Chevy Traverse.
MR. JACKSON: And that would be the car that was parked and static, not moving.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Uh, having seen this, uh, do you still believe that the SUV came near the Chevy Traverse or do you believe it struck the Chevy Traverse?
MR. BUKHENIK: With the clarity of that — that video, there is a lot of movement in the shot. Um, not with great certainty. It appeared that there was movement of the tire, but I cannot say with 100% certainty that there was movement.
MR. JACKSON: You can't say with 100% certainty that that tire literally shifted and wiggled upon some sort of an impact.
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on the video, there appeared to have been movement.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You had this video for the first three years of your investigation. You had this video very early on. Correct?
PARENTHETICAL: [objection/ruling]
MR. JACKSON: : Objection.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And for the first several years of your investigation, did you either deny — well, let me ask it this way. Was it your assessment that the SUV did not contact that Chevy Traverse?
MR. BUKHENIK: My assessment with the totality of it all was that based on the video, there was no damage uh that occurred to either vehicle at that point in time.
MR. JACKSON: That wasn't my question, Sergeant. My question was, was your assessment that there was no contact between the two vehicles? Is that what you assessed during the course of your investigation?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not assess that there was no contact. No.
MR. JACKSON: Even as recently as last year, you testified in another proceeding that the SUV came close to the Chevy Traverse. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. I said there's a lot of movement in that shot. It's difficult to tell. If there was more for me to observe and push that certainty level up, I would have testified differently.
MR. JACKSON: As you've seen the video enhanced, zoomed in on, do you wish to amend that testimony from last year?
PARENTHETICAL: [objection/ruling]
MR. JACKSON: : Objection.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: I think I forgot where I left off. May I — may I, your honor? Thank you. Uh, Sergeant, at some point during the course of your investigation, did you learn that the Albert family had gotten rid of the dog named Chloe?
MR. BUKHENIK: There is movement of the tire. There is movement of the tire. Could be an earthquake. Could be someone standing there pushing the car.
MR. JACKSON: I'm asking you based on what you just saw in this video, do you believe that the SUV struck the Chevy Traverse?
MR. BUKHENIK: Logically speaking, the two vehicles had to have come into contact for the tire to move.
MR. JACKSON: They had to have collided. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: At a slow speed. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, which area of the SUV collided with the Chevy Traverse? The front? The rear?
MR. BUKHENIK: It appears from the video the right rear area of the Lexus SUV that comes into contact with the Traverse.
MR. JACKSON: What time was this video taken?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe that is at 5:07 a.m. if I'm not mistaken.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Sergeant. Um, I want to change gears again if I could and ask you about a dog. You're aware that the Alberts, uh, Nicole Albert, Brian Albert, had a dog that they named Chloe on — July — I'm sorry, uh, on January 28th, 29th of 2022. Correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow the question.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware of that?
MR. BUKHENIK: At what point in time, sir?
MR. JACKSON: January 28th, 29th, that area.
MR. BUKHENIK: Was I aware that they owned a dog on January 28th or 29th? No.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware now that on January 28th or 29th they owned a dog — there was a dog in the house?
MR. BUKHENIK: Now I am aware. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. During the course of your investigation, you learned that. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: During the course of your investigation, did you also become aware that the Alberts got rid of their family dog?
JUDGE CANNONE: May I see counsel at sidebar on this, please?
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. BUKHENIK: We learned that they no longer cared for the dog. I don't know if "get rid of" is accurate.
MR. JACKSON: Well, they don't have it anymore, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So, what would you call it?
MR. BUKHENIK: Giving it up for adoption, I guess. I don't know. I'm not a pet owner.
MR. JACKSON: What if they didn't give it up for adoption? I'm sorry. What if they didn't give it up for adoption?
MR. BUKHENIK: Rehomed, I guess.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So, it's no longer with them, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. They no longer own the dog.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So, they got rid of it. It's like you get rid of a car, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Right. Uh, you can get rid of a car. Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you can get rid of a dog. It's all I'm asking.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, you can get rid of a dog. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. At some point during the course of your investigation, did you find out that the Albert family got rid of Chloe?
MR. BUKHENIK: We learned that they no longer owned Chloe. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. When did you learn that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I cannot tell you exactly. I can tell you when we looked into it officially.
MR. JACKSON: When did you look into it officially?
MR. BUKHENIK: I traveled to the dog's home and um assisted with um identifying the dog and investigating that animal.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, what documentation did you use to identify that animal?
MR. BUKHENIK: It was um veterinary records.
MR. JACKSON: Don't stop there. Veterinary records from whom?
MR. BUKHENIK: From the Albert family. I did not get any veterinary records from the Albert family.
MR. JACKSON: The veterinary records that you did get were veterinary records that had been utilized with the Albert name. Where did you — where were these veterinary records?
MR. BUKHENIK: Uh, the veterinary records were with the vet that's caring for the dog and also owns the dog now.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And those records also had uh been dated prior to when the dog was owned by the Alberts. Okay. Uh, so other than some veterinary records — and by the way, the dog's not even named Chloe.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The new owners renamed the dog.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Cora.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the new owners did not get that dog from Brian and Nicole Albert, did they?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, they did not.
MR. JACKSON: They got it from a separate person. Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Separate person named Riley. That's her last name.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Um, and did this person Riley have any records showing purchase of Chloe or adoption of Chloe from the Alberts?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: The um — you did write a report about the newest owner of this animal, this dog. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I documented my trip to the location and the steps I took and the services I provided in the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: And in that uh in that report, you omitted the name of the new owner.
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm not sure.
MR. JACKSON: Did you omit the location of where you actually came in contact with this animal?
MR. BUKHENIK: You're going to have to show me my report. I don't remember.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the right one?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I apologize about that.
MR. BUKHENIK: No problem.
MR. JACKSON: The one slowing us down just a little bit. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did this uh — reviewing your report refresh your recollection as to whether or not the new owner's identifying information is in this report?
MR. BUKHENIK: It did.
MR. JACKSON: And is that information in the report?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, it is not.
MR. JACKSON: You've got um — there are some veterinary records that you supplied along with your report.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That you gathered — I'm sorry. What was that — you gathered along while you were doing?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. If you'll take a look at those four documents, do those appear to be the veterinary records that you gathered related to this animal?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes, it does.
MR. JACKSON: Do any of those records — any of the veterinary records, the four pages that you're holding — even include the name Cora or the name of the new owner?
MR. BUKHENIK: I browsed through it and no, it does not appear that Cora or the new owner are included in any of these four pages.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You don't have any transfer records for Chloe.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. All the records that are provided by the owner.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to go through a series of questions. Sergeant, if you can answer yes or no, that might make it go a little faster. You don't have any transfer records, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would know what it looks like. That's why it's even quicker me telling you that — that's all the records that I have.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I want an answer to my question. You don't have any transfer records.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know what a transfer record would look like. So I can't — I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You don't have any rehoming records?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: You don't have any purchase records?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: The only records you do have are those four pages of veterinary records that don't have the name Cora and don't have the new owner's name. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: You would agree — shifting gears for a second — that timely report writing obviously is an important aspect of any investigation.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. It is important, but we can only write reports as feasibly and possibly as we're capable of doing. Sometimes investigations are rapid so you can't write a report. You take notes and some time goes by before you actually document the information on an official report. The information is there. It's gathered. It's maintained by the investigator. It's shared. It's acted on at times. But the official reports might take some time to write.
MR. JACKSON: So obviously, if things are fast-moving in an investigation, it might be that you interview a witness on a Tuesday — they're super busy on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday — it might be Friday before you can even sit down and draft a report about that interview that you did on Tuesday. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Different circumstances dictate differently. That would be completely normal. Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: But most of the time, it's best practices — and you're taught, and you teach your subordinates — that it's best practices to reduce to writing and memorialize a report as close in time to the event in question that's being memorialized as you can. Right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Perfect world. In a perfect world, we'd write it as it's happening.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that more than 20 official police reports in this case were not recorded for more than 100 days from the time that the event in question was being memorialized?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not know the exact date and delay.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that there are 11 reports that are more than 300 days from the time of the event that was being memorialized?
MR. BUKHENIK: I was not aware. No.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that there are three reports that are more than 400 days from the time of the event that was being memorialized?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not aware. No.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that there are four reports that are more than 500 days from the time of the event that's being memorialized?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not aware. No.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that the longest delay of any report in this investigation was 581 days?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not aware of that. No.
MR. JACKSON: You became aware early on in your investigation of two individuals named Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: They are witnesses. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Both Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon — you learned — were outside 34 Fairview in the early morning hours of January 29th. Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: We did learn within our investigation at some point. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you learned, Sergeant, very early on in that investigation because you interviewed Ryan Nagel in February of 2022 — just days after the event. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm not sure of the exact date.
MR. JACKSON: Obviously, as you just said, you became aware that Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon were witnesses in your homicide investigation. Important witnesses. You'd agree?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. They were witnesses.
MR. JACKSON: You learned that they arrived at the house at 34 Fairview sometime after Karen Read and John O'Keefe arrived and pulled up behind their parked SUV. Correct.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that. Can you repeat
MR. JACKSON: That, please? Sure. You learned that where they fit into the investigative puzzle is that they pulled up behind Karen Read — Karen Read's SUV — when Karen Read and John O'Keefe arrived at 34 Fairview. They pulled up sometime after that and pulled up right behind them. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's not correct.
MR. JACKSON: What is not correct about that?
MR. BUKHENIK: They arrived simultaneously. Karen Read took a right onto Fairview. They yielded to them and followed towards 34 Fairview, stopping at the driveway as Karen proceeded further up.
MR. JACKSON: Did you listen to the testimony in this case up to this point?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. There's a sequestration order. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Means you can't listen to the testimony of witnesses — eyewitnesses who are testifying in front of these jurors. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You don't know how witnesses have testified — what a witness said in front of these jurors. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I have no idea.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So your information is that they pulled up simultaneously. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's my memory from what the investigation — the interview produced.
MR. JACKSON: You certainly knew that there were eyewitnesses to the condition and the location of Miss Read's SUV, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. From their interviews. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're also aware that they would have been in a position to see the occupants of Miss Read's SUV as they were behind it and then pulled around it. Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you become aware that they were in a position behind the SUV and as they pulled around it, they could still see the SUV?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You knew what potential role they played in your investigation as eyewitnesses. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Generally, when we interviewed them, when we learned of their existence, when we interviewed them, we collected information based on their recollection.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. My question was — you're aware that they had a certain perspective as it relates to the SUV that night, early morning hours, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on their interviews, they had a perspective with the brake light being on constantly.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not asking you what they said. I'm asking you if during the course of your investigation, you learned that Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon had a perspective — they were eyewitnesses to certain things as to the SUV, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You instructed your subordinate, Michael Proctor, to interview those witnesses in August of 2022. Correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm not sure when they were interviewed. I don't have a memory of instructing him to go interview them.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Can you take a look at that document and tell me — why don't you just tell me whether or not that refreshes your recollection as to communications you had with Michael Proctor specifically? Thank you, Sergeant. Does that refresh your recollection as to a communication that you had with Michael Proctor?
MR. BUKHENIK: Unfortunately, it does not. I will take the document at face value. I do not have a memory of having these communications, but I will take the document — if it's authentic and it is true and accurate that it took place — but I don't have a memory of sending these documents. Yes. Also, my name's misspelled in there. Is that from the extraction or where is that from?
MR. JACKSON: Couldn't tell you. Wasn't me.
MR. BUKHENIK: Appreciate it. Thank you. I can't take credit for that.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. If your memory is not refreshed about that particular communication, do you remember in general communicating with Michael Proctor about interviewing Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon?
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not. No.
MR. JACKSON: Would that have been something that you would have found important relatively early on in the investigation? These are eyewitnesses. Let's get them interviewed. Yes?
MR. BUKHENIK: It is important to interview anyone that's an eyewitness. Sometimes it takes longer because —
MR. JACKSON: Are you listening?
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry. You asked a question. I just wanted to answer.
MR. JACKSON: I know the answer to my own question. Go ahead.
MR. BUKHENIK: Okay. So, while we want to interview every eyewitness, sometimes an important fact is already detailed and witnessed by another witness. So, in this situation, we had already interviewed one of the occupants — the one that was driving, the one that had observed the events taking place — and we asked them if we were going to talk to the other two, would they have the same recollection, observations? Did they leave the vehicle to go in the house at all? Anything like that? Anything different?
MR. JACKSON: So, it would be important obviously to interview witnesses in a timely manner in some instances. Yes?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember when Proctor actually interviewed Ricky D'Antuono and Heather Maxon?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do not have a memory of that. I'm sure a report would indicate when.
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sorry — take a look at that. I thought that was a report from somebody else. It's a report from you actually. Tell me if that refreshes your recollection as to when Ricky D'Antuono was actually interviewed.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes. This report authored by me states that on Saturday, September 2nd he was interviewed.
MR. JACKSON: What year?
MR. BUKHENIK: 2023.
MR. JACKSON: So that would have been a year and a half later, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you believe that's a timely report — or rather a timely interview — for an eyewitness the gravity of which is described in your report?
MR. BUKHENIK: We — again, ideal world scenario, it would be quicker.
MR. JACKSON: So that would be — no excuses, I'm not throwing barbs — but that would be untimely, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Year and a half later, we did the best we can.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that your memory was that the cars arrived simultaneously. [unintelligible] — you see the highlighted portion?
MR. BUKHENIK: I see it.
MR. JACKSON: Ricky actually told you the car —
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. PROSECUTION: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. May we approach?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Can I see that please? [unintelligible]: May I, your honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't it true that when you interviewed Ricky D'Antuono, he indicated that upon their arrival at home — at the home, sorry, 34 Fairview — quote, "A dark-colored SUV was parked in front of the home facing up towards Captain Street." That's what he told me.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's what the report indicates for Ricky's interview.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And in fact, you wrote this report based on Ricky's interview.
MR. BUKHENIK: I wrote that report. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. If I may have just a moment, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, I'm — I'm just about to start.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't we — [unintelligible]. Especially as this moves along, I think it becomes more important for me to talk to the lawyers about schedule to give you some idea on how we're doing. I can tell you that everybody's in agreement that we are right on schedule. So we're not behind schedule. Optimistically, maybe we're still a little bit ahead. But we are on schedule for management. Monday, I'm going to ask you all to come in at 10:00. So we'll start at 10:00 on Monday and we will go a full day Monday. We'll do every day next week a full day. So we will see you next week. Those same cautions — please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into this case.
JUDGE CANNONE: If you happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case, please disregard it and let us know. Be very careful with your social media use, and remind you — Monday. Goodbye.
COURT OFFICER: All rise, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So Monday we'll start with the jury at 10:00. If you need me before 10, please let people know so that we can deal with anything we can beforehand. I should be here — I'll be here before 10:00. So, all right. We'll see you on —