Trial 2 Trial Day
◀ Day 23 Trial 2 Day 25 ▶

Day 24 - May 30, 2025

Judge Beverly J. Cannone · Trial 2 · 10 proceedings · 1,828 utterances

Day 24 of 36
Appearing:

The defense opens its case with an EDR expert challenging the prosecution's clock alignment analysis, then moves to authenticate lead investigator Proctor's group texts revealing bias.

Full day summary

Day 24 opened with Alan Jackson's Rule 25(a) motion for a required finding of not guilty, which Judge Cannone denied on all three counts, allowing the defense case to begin. Defense expert Matthew DiSogra of Delta V Forensic Engineering testified that under all clock alignment scenarios derived from Aperture LLC's own reports, O'Keefe's phone lock event occurred after — not before — the Techstream vehicle event, with 25 of 30 scenarios favoring the defense timeline. Prosecution cross-examination by Hank Brennan attacked DiSogra's lack of mobile forensics credentials, his reliance on a PowerPoint rather than a formal report, and the uncertain data source for five key clock offset points. The day closed with voir dire testimony from Jonathan Diamandis to authenticate a group text chain involving lead investigator Michael Proctor, followed by a contested admissibility hearing in which Yannetti read aloud Proctor's early texts about Karen Read — 'We're going to pin it on the girl' — as the judge took the matter under advisement.

  • Judge Cannone denies the defense's Rule 25(a) motion for required finding of not guilty on all three counts.
  • DiSogra testifies that applying all of Burgess's own clock offsets, 25 of 30 scenarios show O'Keefe's phone lock occurred after the Techstream vehicle event.
  • Brennan forces DiSogra to concede he cannot determine the data source for five key offset points, potentially invalidating a large portion of the analysis.
  • DiSogra confirms no Techstream event on Read's vehicle was ever collision-triggered, but concedes the system would not necessarily capture a pedestrian impact.
  • Yannetti reads Proctor's group texts aloud — 'She's going to go down for this. We're going to pin it on the girl' — during the admissibility hearing; ruling taken under advisement.
David Yannetti
“She's going to go down for this. We're going to pin it on the girl. We're going to make sure that there are some serious charges. She's effed.”
Yannetti's reading of Proctor's early texts into the record is the sharpest moment of the day, laying bare the defense's core bias theory against the lead investigator before the judge has even ruled on admissibility.
Matthew DiSogra
“He calculated all of them, but he didn't apply any of them.”
DiSogra's methodological critique of Burgess — that he calculated all seven offsets but applied none — encapsulates the defense's central challenge to the prosecution's digital timeline.
Matthew DiSogra
“I don't know how the clocks are synchronized when you plug an iPhone into a car.”
DiSogra's admission that he cannot explain how the iPhone syncs to the infotainment clock is the pivotal concession of Brennan's cross, undermining the foundation of the defense's scenario analysis.

Procedural - Motions

Defense argues for required finding of not guilty under Rule 25(a), contending the Commonwealth failed to prove a collision occurred. Judge Cannone denies the motion on all three counts.

Procedural
Procedural - Motions
17 utt.

Alan Jackson presents a Rule 25(a) motion for required finding of not guilty, arguing the Commonwealth proved no collision at 34 Fairview Road on January 29, 2022. He emphasizes the absence of eyewitnesses, the lack of physical evidence of a vehicle strike found by Dr. Scordi-Bello, and the biomechanics expert's admission that there was insufficient evidence to recreate the impact. Jackson highlights Jennifer McCabe's testimony that she watched the SUV the entire time and never saw it reverse, and points to alternative evidence of a physical altercation inside the home. ADA Brennan responds that evidence of intoxication and collision is abundant, citing taillight fragments in O'Keefe's clothing, telematics and Apple Health data, Read's own statements about hitting or clipping O'Keefe, and the backing maneuver at 24 mph. Judge Cannone denies the motion as to all three counts.

+1 procedural segment

Matthew DiSogra - Direct

Defense expert Matthew DiSogra reviews Aperture LLC's clock alignment analysis of Karen Read's Lexus data, concluding that 25 of 30 possible offset scenarios show John O'Keefe's phone lock occurred after the vehicle's Techstream event 1162-2.

Direct
Matthew DiSogra Alan Jackson
556 utt.

Matthew DiSogra, director of engineering for EDR services at Delta V Forensic Engineering, testified as a defense expert reviewing the clock alignment analyses performed by Shanon Burgess and Judson Welcher of Aperture LLC. DiSogra explained that Burgess's January 2025 report calculated seven phone-call-based clock offsets but never applied them to determine the timing relationship between Techstream event 1162-2 and the lock event on John O'Keefe's phone. DiSogra applied all offsets himself and found the phone lock always occurred after the vehicle event. He also noted Burgess identified a 3-second key-on delay in exemplar testing but never applied it. When Burgess issued a supplemental May 2025 report using a three-point turn alignment method, the range expanded to 30 possible scenarios: 25 positive (phone lock after), 2 simultaneous, and 3 negative. DiSogra also testified that the vehicle's airbag control module recorded no collision events, and none of the 19 prior Techstream triggers on Read's vehicle were collision-triggered.

Matthew DiSogra - Cross (Part 1)

Prosecution cross-examines defense expert DiSogra on his qualifications, lack of independent testing, and the limitations of his critique of the Aperture clock alignment analyses.

Cross
Matthew DiSogra Hank Brennan
438 utt.

Hank Brennan challenged DiSogra's qualifications by establishing he has no training, publications, or expertise in mobile forensics despite testifying about phone-to-vehicle clock variances. Brennan highlighted that DiSogra conducted no independent testing, collected no data, never spoke to Dr. Welcher, and never wrote a formal report — only a PowerPoint prepared at defense counsel's direction. Brennan walked DiSogra through Techstream data limitations: collisions are never a direct trigger, the data captures only 10 seconds around a triggering event, and nothing is known about what happened before or after that window. DiSogra conceded that Burgess's choice to align from the end of the event rather than the trigger point was equally legitimate, undermining his own critique. The examination was interrupted for lunch after a sidebar.

Matthew DiSogra - Cross (Part 2)

Prosecution challenges DiSogra's clock offset analysis, questioning whether key data points compare infotainment-to-iPhone or iPhone-to-iPhone timestamps, and whether his 3-second delay adjustment constitutes double-counting.

Cross
Matthew DiSogra Hank Brennan
391 utt.

Hank Brennan continued cross-examining defense expert Matthew DiSogra on his clock alignment analysis. Brennan established that DiSogra's 3-second key-on delay adjustment may constitute double-counting, since the infotainment clock already begins after the delay. Brennan then challenged the foundation of DiSogra's entire analysis by questioning whether the first five call-log data points compare infotainment timestamps to iPhone timestamps or iPhone-to-iPhone timestamps synced after reconnection — a distinction DiSogra admitted he could not resolve because no testing was done. DiSogra conceded that if those five data points were iPhone-to-iPhone, they should be excluded, reducing his 30-scenario analysis significantly. Brennan also established that the three-point turn timestamp 154 marks the beginning rather than the end of the maneuver, and that Burgess's 8-second range was a conservative approach encompassing the full turn. The examination concluded with DiSogra confirming the Techstream data would not necessarily reflect a collision even if one occurred, noting Read's vehicle bumped another car at 5:07 a.m. with no corresponding data event.

Matthew DiSogra - Redirect/Recross

Final examination of data analyst Matthew DiSogra on vehicle and phone timeline methodology, spanning defense redirect on data labeling and prosecution recross on independent verification.

Redirect
Matthew DiSogra Alan Jackson
146 utt.

Alan Jackson conducted a focused redirect to rehabilitate Matthew DiSogra after Hank Brennan's cross-examination. Jackson first established DiSogra's truthfulness about his credentials and expertise boundaries. He then addressed the column-labeling dispute by having DiSogra read Burgess's own header — 'Infotainment call timestamps' — arguing that any data-source ambiguity originated with Burgess, not DiSogra. Jackson reaffirmed that the 3-second key-on delay reflects a real misalignment between two independent vehicle systems (VCH timer and infotainment clock) that Burgess never corrected. He introduced a hypothetical: if the relevant phone event shifted from 12:32:09 to 12:32:16 (based on step data), all 30 scenarios would show the phone interaction occurred after the vehicle event — changing the result from 25-of-30 to 30-of-30. Jackson closed by confirming that DiSogra's January 2025 analysis, based solely on Burgess's original report, already showed the lock event occurred after the vehicle event in every scenario.

Recross
Matthew DiSogra Hank Brennan
67 utt.

Hank Brennan conducted a focused recross challenging Matthew DiSogra's methodology of critiquing Aperture LLC's reports without performing independent analysis or contacting the original analysts. Brennan pressed DiSogra on whether the first five call-log data points reflected infotainment or iPhone timestamps, eliciting repeated admissions that DiSogra did not know and had not read Ian Whiffin's report addressing that question. Brennan then turned to the Techstream data window, establishing that the vehicle was still moving at both the start and end of the 10-second capture, and that DiSogra's conclusions addressed only the data recording period — not what happened in real life before or after. Brennan closed by establishing that DiSogra did not know John O'Keefe's phone moved for the last time at 12:32:16, four seconds after the data window ended, and did not know what O'Keefe was doing in that interval.

Redirect
Matthew DiSogra Alan Jackson
14 utt.

Alan Jackson conducted a brief re-redirect of Matthew DiSogra following Hank Brennan's recross. Jackson attempted to question whether steps were actually taken at 12:32 but was sustained on objection. He then pivoted to a simple closing point: if the underlying data is wrong, DiSogra's conclusions would be wrong — but the data he relied on came from the prosecution's own experts, Burgess and Welcher. The exchange lasted under a minute.

Procedural - Kelly Dever Summons

Judge Cannone dismisses the jury for the day and instructs defense witness Kelly Dever to return Monday morning under her existing summons.

Procedural
Procedural - Kelly Dever Summons
24 utt.

After dismissing expert witness DiSogra, Judge Cannone consults with counsel and decides to release the jury early rather than begin another witness. She instructs the jurors to return Monday for a full day starting at 9:00 AM with the standard admonitions. After the jury exits, Kelly Dever is sworn in briefly and Judge Cannone confirms that Dever has been present all day under summons but will not be reached. Dever agrees to return Monday morning before 9:00.

Jonathan Diamandis - Voir Dire

Jonathan Diamandis authenticated text messages from lead investigator Michael Proctor's private group chat. Judge Cannone then heard argument on whether the messages are admissible as evidence of Proctor's bias.

Voir Dire
Jonathan Diamandis David Yannetti
123 utt.

Jonathan Diamandis, a 30-year friend of former state trooper Michael Proctor, testified to authenticate a group text message chain among their friend group. Yannetti walked Diamandis through identifying his own phone number, matching other participants' numbers to his contacts, and confirming the chain's content. Diamandis identified 'local user' in the text records as Michael Proctor based on the content of the messages, and confirmed the document fairly and accurately represented the conversation. Prosecutor Brennan's brief cross established that Diamandis had no independent memory of the text conversations.

Procedural
Admissibility Hearing - Diamandis Texts
50 utt.

After Diamandis's voir dire testimony, Judge Cannone heard extended argument on both authentication and admissibility of the Proctor friend group text chain. Yannetti argued the texts were properly authenticated through Diamandis's identification of phone numbers, nicknames, and content, and that the messages are not hearsay because they are offered to show Proctor's state of mind and bias as lead investigator — not for the truth of the insults. He systematically dismantled the Commonwealth's cited case law, arguing none of the cases applied. Brennan countered that Diamandis had no memory of the texts and could not authenticate individual messages, and that while the texts may be relevant to bias, they should come through Proctor himself so the jury can assess context. The judge took the matter under advisement, promising a decision before 4:30. A brief exchange on the Commonwealth's reciprocal discovery motion was also addressed, with Yannetti objecting on Rule 14 grounds.

◀ Day 23 Trial 2 Day 25 ▶