Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveYuri Bukhenik - Recross
167 linesMR. JACKSON: If I may.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: You were just asked about Brian Higgins — and your interview with Brian Higgins. Where did that take place?
MR. BUKHENIK: In Sharon, at a — like an attorney's office, at his lawyer's house. I'm not sure if he resides there, but there was an office with his lawyer present.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Yes. Do you find that unusual?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: He wasn't under arrest, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: You hadn't read him his rights.
MR. BUKHENIK: No need to. No need to, because he wasn't in custody.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He was just a witness in a case that you were investigating.
MR. BUKHENIK: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: But he asked that you interview him in his lawyer's presence.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked about any evidence of Brian Higgins having a motive to murder John O'Keefe just a few minutes ago by Mr. Brennan, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you said, "No, I didn't find a motive that Brian Higgins would want to murder John O'Keefe." Is that right?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's right.
MR. JACKSON: What about a motive to confront him about a girl he was interested in? Did you see that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I believe the text messages speak for themselves. Everybody heard me read them out loud.
MR. JACKSON: Yep. The text messages do. But I'm asking you — you were just asked about your opinion whether or not there was a motive that you found for Brian Higgins to want to murder John O'Keefe. I'm asking you a different question. Did you, in your mind, in your opinion, after having read those texts, find a motive for Brian Higgins to perhaps want to confront John O'Keefe because of jealousy?
MR. BUKHENIK: If you're asking for my opinion, my opinion is that he would need to confront Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. O'Keefe was not the one pursuing Mr. Higgins. It was your client that was pursuing Mr. Higgins.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So — well, the text messages, like you said, speak for themselves. You'll agree that they show that there was a mutual interest, right? It just wasn't one-sided.
MR. BUKHENIK: At times there were flattering text messages from both sides. But your client reached out to him first, right?
MR. JACKSON: I mean, somebody's got to reach out, right? Everybody's got to reach out to somebody first. Someone's got to do it first, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Well, it depends. Doesn't mean that there's not mutual affection for one another.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right? Or at least perceived mutual affection?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't understand the question.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see in those text messages, in your mind, a motive that might lead to jealousy on the part of Brian Higgins?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. I think Brian Higgins was pretty clear in his request for explanation of what the defendant wanted out of this, and stated that he's friends with Mr. O'Keefe. He wanted clarity from the defendant about what was going on.
MR. JACKSON: Actually, no. Sorry. Go ahead.
MR. BUKHENIK: I didn't read it to be that he was jealous.
MR. JACKSON: As I sit here thinking back on the content — what about after drinking Jameson and ginger all night long and sending a text that said, "Um, well —"
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: — might that change things?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know what Mr. Higgins's state of mind was. "Um, well" could mean many different things. They could have had a face-to-face interaction. A look. We'd be strictly speculating what was intended by that, or what was the intent of communication by that text message.
MR. JACKSON: After weeks of communicating with Miss Read in a romantic manner and then seeing her walk in the door with John O'Keefe, and sending the text message "um, well" after having been intoxicated — you see that, Detective, as an investigator, as a reasonable, objective investigator, as a possible scenario for Brian Higgins to be jealous about John O'Keefe?
MR. BUKHENIK: There's a possibility there, but I didn't see it.
MR. JACKSON: Did you explore that possibility when you got all these text messages?
MR. BUKHENIK: We did not follow up on that aspect based on the totality of the entire investigation.
MR. JACKSON: Did you pull the tape at the Waterfall and review the tape as we did here in court? Did that happen?
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Did you see on the tape a time just before Brian Higgins left the location where he was confronted by Chris Albert?
MR. BUKHENIK: Change the wording.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Did you see a circumstance? Did you see a situation on that tape where Brian Higgins is standing and Chris Albert physically puts his hand on Brian Higgins' arm on his left arm?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have a specific memory of that.
MR. JACKSON: You remember a circumstance on that tape where Brian Higgins pulled his arm away and looked past Chris Albert over toward the bar, which is where John O'Keefe was standing. You see that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I do remember you pointing that out, but we couldn't tell exactly who he was looking at based on the video.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see a circumstance in which Brian Higgins then put his hand on his forehead and began rubbing his forehead like this?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have a memory of that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see a circumstance in which he then motioned over toward that side of the bar with his left hand?
MR. BUKHENIK: That I remember. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did that seem realistic to you? Let me ask it a different way. Did that seem to you as a reasonable interpretation? "Hey, come on outside. Come here."
MR. BUKHENIK: Very reasonable, since they've been invited to 34 Fairview.
MR. JACKSON: Did it look in your opinion that that was just a "hey, let's go together," or did it look more to you like "hey, come outside" or "let's step outside"?
MR. BUKHENIK: The totality of the investigation — the fact that when they stepped outside there was no confrontation and they were invited to the address. Again, totality of the investigation suggests otherwise.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about that totality of the investigation. You're aware that Brian Higgins left first. He was the first to arrive at 34 Fairview, even before Brian [unintelligible].
MR. BUKHENIK: I am. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're also aware that John O'Keefe and Karen Read were among the last to arrive. So they didn't step outside together, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: They didn't step outside, but once he was invited, according to your narrative, wouldn't they have had a discussion outside where he was invited to come out?
JUDGE CANNONE: So Mr. Jackson, I just want to ask you how much longer you think.
MR. JACKSON: Not long. I can finish this up — give me probably 10 minutes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Jurors are saying yes. Is it okay with all the jurors? We usually break at four. I don't want to overstep.
MR. JACKSON: I'm happy to stop now, but I think I can get finished. I'd like to finish with this witness and not have to bring it back again tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate the accommodation. You're aware that according to the tape, John O'Keefe left about 10 minutes after Brian Higgins or so.
MR. BUKHENIK: I'll take your word for it.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You would agree as a homicide investigator, not every death starts off as an intended murder.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I will agree to that.
MR. JACKSON: Sometimes a fight could go wrong and you intend to fight and duke it out. Something goes wrong, something goes south, someone dies.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Is that something that you —
JUDGE CANNONE: It's beyond the scope. Move on.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked on redirect examination about tail light pieces that were found by the search team. I want to ask you about that. Your testimony was you recall that the search team found a large piece of red tail light material during their initial search. Is that correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: That's my recollection. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You had a debriefing with the search team, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: Not the search team. I had a debrief with the members of our unit at the Canton PD conference room. I do not have a memory of the search team being there.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall ever being told or informed that the search team actually recovered maybe five or six pieces, maybe seven pieces of small plastic material in addition to the shoe, as opposed to a large piece of red tail light?
MR. BUKHENIK: The memory that stands out to me is that there was a large piece of plastic recovered. It wasn't a shard. It was significant enough — shown on the photograph taken by Detective Lieutenant Tully.
MR. JACKSON: And do you recall, or were you ever informed, that the search team found those, according to the search team, within inches of one another, within about a two-foot square radius?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have a memory of where they found them exactly. I wasn't there.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. You were asked about the tail light. You were shown a photograph of the tail light where almost the entirety of that lens material is missing. It's gone.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you remember talking to Jen McCabe originally, interviewing her within days of this incident happening?
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. It was the 29th — that day. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember her saying that the tail light was cracked/broken?
MR. BUKHENIK: She communicated that over the phone to Michael Proctor, which was then documented later in the interview report.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. From early — I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. BUKHENIK: And it was documented within the interview report.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And in that interview report, it doesn't say the entire lens cap of that tail light is gone.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. The report does not say that.
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: And she didn't describe that, did she?
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know what she described to Michael Proctor over the phone.
MR. JACKSON: You pulled out a pair of jeans belonging to Mr. O'Keefe just a second ago.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you noted that on his — what would be his left rear pocket — there was a stain.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You said that was an apparent grass stain and it was green.
MR. BUKHENIK: Based on my observation here holding them, that's what it appeared. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Maybe dirt, maybe other substances. That was my question. Did you seek to analyze what that discoloration was from, or have caused that to be analyzed by the crime lab or anybody else?
MR. BUKHENIK: The jeans were processed. I don't know what their protocol is to analyze it. They process those jeans. There are pieces missing from cuttings and stuff like that.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. So, as you sit here, you have no evidence at all that those are grass stains.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Strictly my experience of knowing grass stains and observing it.
MR. JACKSON: Could be dirt, could be oil or grease.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't know about that, but they look brown.
MR. JACKSON: Stains look brown, don't they?
MR. BUKHENIK: There's different parts of the stain — some has brown, some has green. Different parts of it.
MR. JACKSON: Could you get, in your experience, stains on the back of pants from being dragged?
MR. BUKHENIK: I've never dragged anybody, so from my experience I can't tell you.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't ask if you've ever dragged anybody. You've never murdered anybody either, but you're a homicide investigator, right? Did you get those stains from being dragged? It's just a common sense question.
MR. BUKHENIK: My common sense dictates that it was not a drag mark, because it would have linear characterizations and it would be both buttocks engaged in contact with the ground while being dragged.
MR. JACKSON: He was being dragged and he had something in his pocket, or being dragged at an angle — dragged through a spot that was only on the left. What about all those possibilities?
MR. BUKHENIK: Again, my opinion — common sense dictates it was not the case.
MR. JACKSON: But you certainly didn't take any action to investigate forensically what those stains actually were.
MR. BUKHENIK: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: By the way, can you lose a shoe from being dragged?
MR. BUKHENIK: It depends. I guess you can, depending on how loose it is.
MR. JACKSON: You said that there was no information that you had regarding Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe having any animosity toward each other prior to January 29th, 2022.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: But you did. We talked about that. Now let's talk about January 29th, 2022. In your experience, does drinking alcohol increase the likelihood or increase the possibility of getting into an altercation?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would say in my experience, in my opinion, alcohol could — you know — become a social lubricant and exacerbate emotions, but to speak in a definitive form here, I can't.
MR. JACKSON: You've heard of beer muscles? That's a common phrase, right?
MR. BUKHENIK: Never heard that before. No.
MR. JACKSON: Beer guts. You ever heard that one?
MR. BUKHENIK: I've heard of beer gut, but not beer guts.
MR. JACKSON: Having the guts to walk up to someone you might not otherwise walk up to in a bar, because you had too much to drink. Is that what beer muscles could mean?
MR. BUKHENIK: I would say maybe liquid courage.
MR. JACKSON: Even better. What does liquid courage mean?
MR. BUKHENIK: Giving you courage that truly shouldn't be there. That you might not otherwise have if you weren't drinking.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah.
MR. BUKHENIK: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can we wrap this up, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: I'm trying, Judge. I won't be much longer. You had evidence that Brian Higgins had been drinking most of the afternoon and evening — that night, or most of the night — at the time that John O'Keefe and Karen Read walked into the Waterfall.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. I had information that Brian Higgins had returned from a police officer's funeral and then went to Waterfall after he changed clothes and took a shower. Went to the Hillside before he went to Waterfall and started drinking there.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. BUKHENIK: I don't have an independent memory of that.
MR. JACKSON: No. But you did — at the time, you didn't pull the tape at the time. At the time, you didn't pull the tape at CPD that we saw with Brian Higgins on the phone at 1:30 in the morning.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't have that information.
MR. BUKHENIK: I'm sorry. Can you give me a reference — when at the time?
MR. JACKSON: At the beginning of your investigation. January 29th and probably the next, let's call a couple months.
MR. BUKHENIK: Mhm.
MR. JACKSON: You did not have that information, correct?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, we did not.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't seek that information from CPD at that time?
MR. BUKHENIK: No. I had no information that he went there.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you didn't extract his phone.
MR. BUKHENIK: Correct. That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And finally, you indicated that you were asked on redirect examination — did you have any evidence that John actually went into the home? Did you ever interview Trooper Guarino during the course of your investigation, anytime? Interview him, talk to him about his extraction of John O'Keefe's phone and any of the data that came off of his phone?
MR. BUKHENIK: No.
MR. JACKSON: You did not realize that Trooper Guarino had information that John O'Keefe took 36 steps covering a distance of some 84 ft. That would have placed Mr. O'Keefe inside the residence at 12:32:16.
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did you have any information from Trooper Guarino about steps that were logged on Mr. O'Keefe's phone?
MR. BUKHENIK: No, I did not.
JUDGE CANNONE: That it, Mr. Jackson? You said finally. That's why I'm wondering.
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I'm trying to wrap this up. I only have a couple more things, but I may be able to finish it with one question. As you sit here now, are you aware of whether or not there's evidence that John O'Keefe's phone describes John O'Keefe's phone taking 36 steps covering a distance of about 84 ft at 12:32 and 16 seconds on the morning of January 29th, 2022?
MR. BRENNAN: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that? Are you aware of that?
MR. BUKHENIK: I am not, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: The answer was: no, I'm not aware of that. All right. All right. Thank you. I appreciate you staying late. Sergeant Bukhenik, you do not have to return.
MR. BUKHENIK: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Those same cautions. Please do not discuss this case. If anyone — don't do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case, please disregard it. Let us know, and be careful with your social media use. We'll see you tomorrow.