Day 18 - May 19, 2025

Nicholas Bradford, a DNA analyst from Bode Technology, testified about his qualifications, laboratory procedures, and DNA analysis performed on evidence in the Karen Read case. He explained that the tail light extract from the passenger side of Read's vehicle contained a three-person DNA mixture; John O'Keefe could not be excluded as a potential contributor, and the likelihood ratio was 740 nonillion times more likely for a mixture of O'Keefe and two unknown unrelated individuals than for three unknown unrelated individuals. Bradford testified that the statistical comparisons provided very strong support for exclusion for Yuri Bukhenik and strong support for exclusion for Michael Proctor. Bradford also tested a hair shaft from the same vehicle panel area but found the autosomal DNA was below the limit of detection, so the sample was forwarded to another analyst for mitochondrial DNA testing.

Defense attorney Alan Jackson focused on two points during this brief cross-examination. First, he asked about the statistical contrast between the DNA results involving Michael Proctor and John O'Keefe. Bradford cautioned against population analogies and explained that the evidence profile was 76,000 times more likely if it involved three unknown unrelated individuals than if it involved Proctor and two unknown unrelated individuals. When Jackson asked whether that meant Proctor was not completely excluded as a potential contributor, Bradford answered that he was stating what the numbers showed and that there was strong support for exclusion. Second, Jackson asked whether Bradford had been asked to compare known DNA samples from Brian Higgins, Brian Albert, Kevin Albert, or former Chief Kenneth Berkowitz against the taillight extract; Bradford answered no to each. The prosecution declined redirect.

Carl Miyasako, a senior DNA analyst at Bode Technology in Virginia, testifies about mitochondrial DNA testing performed on a hair sample recovered from the rear panel of Karen Read's vehicle. After establishing his qualifications and explaining DNA analysis methodology to the jury, Miyasako describes comparing the hair sample's mitochondrial DNA profile to John O'Keefe's known standard. He concludes that O'Keefe could not be excluded as a possible source and reports that, with 95% confidence, at least 99.895% of the population can be excluded as sources; he separately states 99.985% in one answer. He explains that mitochondrial DNA is not unique to an individual and that maternally related individuals also could not be excluded.

Alan Jackson cross-examines Carl Miyasako on the limitations of mitochondrial DNA analysis. Jackson methodically establishes that mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely through the maternal line, meaning John O'Keefe's mother, siblings, nieces, nephews, and all maternal relatives share the identical profile. Miyasako repeatedly confirms he cannot say the hair specifically belonged to O'Keefe, only that O'Keefe and his maternal lineage cannot be excluded. Jackson also establishes that the analysis cannot determine when or how the hair arrived at the location where it was found. The judge sustains multiple objections and eventually directs Jackson to move on after the point is made.

In a brief redirect of eight utterances, ADA Adam Lally asks Carl Miyasako to restate his overall conclusion from the mitochondrial DNA comparison. Miyasako confirms that John O'Keefe's known standard could not be excluded as consistent with the hair sample from the rear quarter panel of Karen Read's vehicle, and that with 95% confidence, at least 99.895% of the population can be excluded. Lally then asks whether Miyasako maintains that 95% confidence level, prompting Miyasako to clarify that he also cannot exclude anyone maternally related to O'Keefe.