Trial 2 Trial Day
◀ Day 24 Trial 2 Day 26 ▶

Day 25 - June 2, 2025

Judge Beverly J. Cannone · Trial 2 · 12 proceedings · 2,130 utterances

Day 25 of 36
Appearing:

Defense completes authentication of Proctor's group texts, then faces a damaging turn when Canton PD officer Kelly Dever claims the defense team threatened her with perjury to preserve her Sallyport observation. Dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russell takes the stand as Brennan begins a credibility-focused cross.

Full day summary

Day 25 opened with the conclusion of Jonathan Diamandis's testimony authenticating Michael Proctor's group text chain before the jury, with Brennan reading the most offensive messages aloud while drawing a sharp line between personal misconduct and evidence tampering. The day's defining confrontation came during Kelly Dever's testimony: the former Canton PD officer, called by the defense to establish that Higgins and Berkowitz were alone in the Sallyport with Read's SUV, instead testified that she had determined her original observation was a false memory — and that during a pre-trial phone call, the defense team had raised their voices, threatened her with perjury, and tried to coerce her into repeating testimony she no longer believed. Jackson's redirect challenged the perjury threat as legally meaningless and noted Dever had no FBI report documenting it, while also establishing that Dever watched trial footage during sequestration and is personal friends with Sarah Levinson. The afternoon shifted to forensics as defense expert Dr. Marie Russell testified that O'Keefe's arm wounds were caused by dog bites — characterizing them as pathognomonic — before Brennan began a cross-examination targeting her lack of prior forensic dog bite credentials and the evolution of her opinions.

  • Diamandis authenticated Proctor's group text chain before the jury, with Brennan reading Proctor's most offensive messages about Karen Read — including use of a sexual slur — while eliciting Diamandis's unambiguous denial that Proctor ever suggested planting or tampering with evidence.
  • Kelly Dever testified that during a pre-trial phone call, the defense team became 'very aggressive,' raised their voices, and threatened to charge her with perjury when she refused to testify that she saw Higgins and Berkowitz in the Sallyport with Read's car.
  • Jackson established on redirect that defense attorneys cannot charge crimes, that Dever has no FBI report documenting the alleged threat, and that she told the defense team 'I know you're going to tear me a new one because I'm changing my testimony.'
  • Dever revealed she is personal friends with Sarah Levinson since middle school and admitted watching trial footage in clips despite a sequestration order she claimed not to know about.
  • Dr. Marie Russell testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that O'Keefe's arm wounds were inflicted by a dog attack, characterizing the wound pattern as pathognomonic, before Brennan cross-examined her on having no prior forensic dog bite credentials and initiating her own involvement in the case.
Kelly Dever
“They became very aggressive, raised their voices, and the one word that I can very definitely remember is they said that they would charge me with perjury.”
The day's most explosive moment — a defense witness accusing the defense team of witness intimidation, turning the Sallyport testimony sequence from a potential defense asset into a prosecution narrative about misconduct.
Kelly Dever
“My entire job revolves around what I say on the stand right now. If I were to lie, I lose my job. I lose everything. I'm here to tell the truth. I cannot lie while sitting on this stand.”
Dever's closing statement on her career stakes became the emotional capstone of her testimony, used simultaneously by both sides — Brennan as evidence of honest correction, Jackson as evidence of incentive to protect fellow officers.
Marie Russell
“Those wounds were inflicted as the result of a dog attack.”
Russell's central opinion framing O'Keefe's wounds as a dog attack rather than a vehicle strike — the defense's alternative injury theory stated at its most definitive, before Brennan's credentialing cross.

Jonathan Diamandis - Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross

Diamandis authenticated a group text chain (Exhibit Triple N) featuring Michael Proctor and testified across four proceedings regarding Proctor's messages about Karen Read and his firing from the Massachusetts State Police.

Direct
Jonathan Diamandis David Yannetti
104 utt.

Yannetti recalled Jonathan Diamandis to authenticate the nine-person group text chain (Exhibit Triple N) before the jury, following the prior day's voir dire and admissibility hearing. Diamandis confirmed he recognized the document as a portion of a text chain that had existed for over 10 years among Canton high school friends. He identified his own phone number and a text he sent, confirmed his phone was passcode-protected, and identified Michael Proctor as the participant listed as 'local user.' Diamandis also noted Proctor's nicknames were 'Chip' and 'Bear.' Yannetti offered the exhibit into evidence subject to the court's prior rulings on admissibility.

Cross
Jonathan Diamandis Hank Brennan
260 utt.

Prosecutor Brennan conducted a methodical cross-examination of Jonathan Diamandis, reading through Michael Proctor's text messages from the friend group chain (Exhibit 209, covering 38,777 messages). Brennan had Diamandis confirm Proctor's texts from January 29 and February 2, 2022, which included crude and derogatory comments about Karen Read, early case theories ('she waffled him,' 'she hit him with her car'), and statements about likely charges. Brennan emphasized that Diamandis was not part of these specific conversations, never responded to or endorsed the inappropriate comments, and would denounce them. Brennan then pivoted to establish that in all of Diamandis's conversations with Proctor, Proctor never suggested planting evidence, framing any defendant, or tampering with evidence in this or any other case. Brennan closed by noting Proctor was fired from the Massachusetts State Police.

Redirect
Jonathan Diamandis David Yannetti
13 utt.

In a brief 13-utterance redirect, Yannetti focused on two points from Brennan's cross-examination. First, he established that Michael Proctor was revealing non-public case information — including details about Karen Read's medical conditions — to his high school friend group, and that Diamandis had no independent knowledge of the case. Second, Yannetti addressed Brennan's mention of Proctor's firing by eliciting that Diamandis was unaware Proctor was specifically fired for revealing confidential investigation information and for conduct unbecoming a state trooper and lead investigator.

Recross
Jonathan Diamandis Hank Brennan
6 utt.

In a six-utterance recross, prosecutor Brennan responded to Yannetti's redirect by pressing Diamandis on the specifics of Michael Proctor's firing from the Massachusetts State Police. Brennan established that while Diamandis understood the firing was related to the text messages, he did not know that Proctor was specifically not fired for planting or tampering with evidence, nor for compromising the integrity of the investigation's evidence. Diamandis confirmed he lacked knowledge of these distinctions. The exchange aimed to neutralize the defense's redirect implication that Proctor's firing validated broader misconduct concerns.

+2 procedural segments

Kelly Dever - Direct/Redirect/Recross/Re-redirect/Re-recross

Officer Kelly Dever testified about the overnight response to Karen Read's discovery and retracted a prior statement about observing Higgins and Berkowitz with the vehicle in the Sallyport.

Direct
Kelly Dever Alan Jackson
340 utt.

Officer Kelly Dever, now with Boston PD but formerly Canton PD patrol, testified about her role on the overnight shift of January 28-29, 2022. She was assigned to dispatch after the call came in about a person found in a snowbank. Jackson established that Dever was never interviewed by Canton PD or Massachusetts State Police about her observations that night — her first interview was by a separate law enforcement agency in August 2023. The central confrontation involved Dever's prior statement that she saw Brian Higgins and Chief Berkowitz go into the Sallyport alone with the SUV for 'a wildly long time,' which she now characterized as a 'false memory' after being provided timeline evidence. Jackson also elicited that Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox summoned Dever — then a rookie — to his office to tell her the department supported her and to 'do the right thing,' something Cox had never done for any of her other cases.

Cross
Kelly Dever Hank Brennan
113 utt.

Brennan established that Dever had minimal contact with the defense — one substantive phone call before the first trial and a scheduling call before this trial. He then drew out Dever's account of retracting her Sallyport observation after learning the vehicle arrived 90 minutes after her shift ended, framing it as a good-faith correction based on timeline evidence. The central moment came when Dever testified that during her pre-trial phone call with the defense, team members became 'very aggressive,' raised their voices, and threatened to charge her with perjury when she refused to testify that she saw Higgins and Berkowitz in the garage with the car. Brennan then systematically established that neither Canton PD, Boston PD, Commissioner Cox, nor the Norfolk DA's office ever pressured Dever to shape her testimony in any direction.

Redirect
Kelly Dever Alan Jackson
107 utt.

On redirect, Jackson systematically dismantled Dever's cross-examination claim that the defense threatened to charge her with perjury, establishing that defense attorneys cannot charge crimes and that Dever had no FBI report documenting the alleged threat. He then re-read Dever's August 2023 statement describing Higgins and Berkowitz alone in the Sallyport with Read's car for 'a wildly long time,' which Dever confirmed was her recollection at the time. Jackson elicited that Dever had said during the defense phone call 'I know you're going to tear me a new one because I'm changing my testimony.' He closed by establishing that Dever is personal friends with Sarah Levinson, watched clips of the trial despite a sequestration order she claimed not to know about, and had never spoken with the DA's office about the case.

Recross
Kelly Dever Hank Brennan
51 utt.

On recross, Brennan established that Dever was subpoenaed by the defense, not the Commonwealth, and that the defense never informed her about the sequestration order. He highlighted that Dever's friendship with Sarah Levinson was disclosed in her 2023 law enforcement interview and was never concealed. Brennan then returned to the central theme from cross — that the defense pressured Dever when she told them she had made a mistake about seeing Higgins and Berkowitz in the Sallyport. Dever testified that the defense 'wanted me to repeat a lie' and threatened perjury charges if she did not comply. Brennan closed by asking why Dever chose to testify truthfully despite the pressure, and Dever responded that her career depends on her credibility: 'If I were to lie, I lose my job. I lose everything.'

Redirect
Kelly Dever Alan Jackson
18 utt.

In a brief re-redirect of just 18 utterances, Jackson returned to Dever's recross testimony that her career depends on her credibility as a witness. He reframed that logic against her: if she agreed with her August 2023 statement about Higgins and Berkowitz being alone in the Sallyport, she would be implicating two fellow law enforcement officers. Dever resisted the framing, insisting the statement was not true, but Jackson closed by highlighting the tension — her career incentive cuts both ways, potentially motivating her to protect colleagues rather than simply tell the truth.

Recross
Kelly Dever Hank Brennan
16 utt.

In a brief re-recross of 16 utterances, Brennan asked Dever a series of pointed questions about what she told law enforcement agents during her interviews. Dever confirmed she never implicated Higgins or Berkowitz in evidence tampering, framing, or touching the defendant's vehicle. When asked directly whether she was protecting anyone, Dever responded 'I have no one to protect.' Judge Cannone then excused the witness and sent the jury to morning recess.

Marie Russell - Direct

Defense expert Dr. Marie Russell testifies that wounds on John O'Keefe's right arm were caused by dog bites and claw marks, not a motor vehicle strike, based on wound pattern recognition and differential diagnosis.

Direct
Marie Russell Robert Alessi
714 utt.

Defense attorney Robert Alessi called Dr. Marie Russell, an emergency physician and forensic pathologist with over 30 years of experience, to testify about the wounds on John O'Keefe's right arm. Russell detailed her extensive background treating dog bite injuries (estimated 500+ personally, 500+ supervised) at Los Angeles County USC Medical Center, her forensic pathology fellowship at the LA County Medical Examiner's Office, and her co-authorship of peer-reviewed articles on law enforcement dog bite injury patterns. After reviewing photographs of O'Keefe's arm (Exhibits 1 and 167), the autopsy report, medical records, and clothing evidence, Russell concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the wounds were caused by dog bites and/or claw marks. She identified multiple groupings of linear abrasions on the posterior surface of the arm, an arch-like structure near the wrist consistent with a dog's front teeth, and holes in O'Keefe's hoodie she attributed to canine tooth punctures. Russell performed a differential diagnosis, ruling out motor vehicle injuries by comparing O'Keefe's wounds to a pedestrian-vehicle fatality case (Exhibit 206) and noting the absence of degloving injuries, fractures, or internal trauma typically seen in vehicle strikes.

Marie Russell - Cross (Part 1)

Prosecution challenges Dr. Russell's qualifications as a dog bite expert and probes how she inserted herself into the case.

Cross
Marie Russell Hank Brennan
370 utt.

Prosecutor Hank Brennan cross-examined defense expert Dr. Marie Russell, focusing on her lack of formal credentials in forensic dog bite analysis. Brennan established that Russell had never testified as a dog bite expert before this case, had never been asked to forensically evaluate whether a wound was a dog bite, had taken no courses in dog bite pattern recognition, and had authored no publications on the subject since the 1990s. Brennan highlighted that Russell initiated her own involvement by contacting a Los Angeles district attorney with ties to the defense team, and later used her trial participation to market herself as a dog bite expert. Brennan also pressed Russell on her agreement that the arm wounds were superficial with no punctures or depth, and began exploring how her opinions evolved from 'animal attack' with 'bite or scratch wounds' toward her more definitive 'dog bite' testimony at trial. The proceeding was cut short by the court's daily recess.

◀ Day 24 Trial 2 Day 26 ▶