Closing Argument - Defense

MR. JACKSON: There was no collision. There was no collision. There was no collision. I want to take a minute to start off with thanking you. I want to thank you for your attention. I want to thank you for your patience. I want to thank you for your diligence. This is not an easy undertaking. Most of all, I want to thank you for your courage, because courage is what this moment demands. Not just to listen, but to stare directly at injustice and say, "Not here, not now, not on our watch." That's what you're being asked to do. Stare down injustice. I want to start with a simple truth. You folks, not us, nobody else in the courtroom. You folks are the last line of defense.

MR. JACKSON: The last line of defense between an innocent woman and a system that has tried to break her, that falsely accused her, that tried mightily, mightily, to bury the truth. This case was corrupted from the start. It was corrupted by biases and conflicts and personal loyalties that you heard about. And most fatally, it was corrupted by a lead investigator whose misconduct infected every single part of this case from the top to the bottom. In our opening comments to you a few weeks ago, we told you what to watch for. We warned you what to watch for. We begged you what to watch for. Watch for the physical evidence. Pay attention to the medical facts. Pay attention to the science and the physics. But also pay attention to the integrity — the very essence — the integrity of the investigation.

MR. JACKSON: But you also saw something during the course of the trial that none of us might have expected. Something that should sadden us. Something that maybe would anger us. On full display, you saw the lengths to which some police officers will go to protect their own at the expense of the rest of us, at the expense of Karen Read, an innocent woman. Before we examine the evidence in the case, which we will do, we need to understand the very foundation of the entire system of justice in which we operate. It's the bedrock on which this entire system is built. Reasonable doubt. This isn't just a technicality and it's not a slogan. It's a constitutional shield that protects the innocent and prevents the government from punishing without proof.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth has the high burden to prove every single element of every single charge beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. As I said, those powerful words are not just some legal jargon. They're your mandate. They're your obligation. They're your community's protection against injustice. In our system of justice, Karen Read sits here today presumed innocent, cloaked in the presumption of innocence. That presumption is not fragile. It doesn't just disappear because there's a charge or a badge or a theory. That presumption stands firm unless and until the Commonwealth clears that high bar — the highest bar the law provides — proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

MR. JACKSON: That means at the end of this case, at the end of the trial, you think about one or more of the charges. You think, you know what, maybe — maybe that's true. It might be true — then you vote not guilty. If you think it's possibly true or probably true, your vote must be not guilty. If someone among you thinks it's likely true or even very likely to be true, your vote is not guilty. It's because none of those standards — maybe, might be, possibly, probably, likely, very likely — none of those meets the extraordinary burden of beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. A moral certainty means a level of confidence so strong, so incredibly unshakable that you could go home, you would go home, look your loved ones in the eye, and say, "I am certain." Not probably, not likely.

MR. JACKSON: I'm morally certain, and my certainty remains unshakable. The law defines moral certainty as the highest level of certainty known in all human affairs. Think about that. You must be that certain about the entirety — not part of — the entirety of the Commonwealth's case. As we discuss this case, you'll see that the Commonwealth comes nowhere near, nowhere close to reaching that extreme burden of proof. Ladies and gentlemen, on January 28th, 2022, it was a Friday night. John O'Keefe and Karen Read made plans to meet up with friends, go out for drinks. You saw through video evidence and eyewitnesses that they were affectionate, they were loving, they were in good spirits throughout that evening. They started off at C.F.

MR. JACKSON: McCarthy's, which you've heard about, and eventually made their way over to the Waterfall Bar and Grille. When they got there, the Albert family, they were already there, and they were already drinking. The Albert family, it's been established as a very well-known family in Canton. They've got quite the reputation. Brian Albert was at the Waterfall, a longtime Boston police officer. His wife Nicole Albert was there. She was with him. His brother Chris Albert, who is a Canton selectman, he was there. His wife Julie Albert, their daughter Caitlin, and his sister-in-law Jennifer McCabe, whom you met, and her husband Matthew McCabe, whom you did not meet. They were all there drinking before John and before Karen ever arrived.

MR. JACKSON: But also present at the Waterfall that night was Brian Albert's friend, Brian Higgins. We know that he had a romantic design on Karen. That becomes an incredibly important fact as we discuss the facts of this case. As the bar was closing around midnight, the Alberts invited everybody back to their house. They wanted to keep the night going. But the evidence revealed something interesting — that the invitation to John O'Keefe appears to have been for a different reason, an alternate reason. Think about the video of Brian Higgins and what Michael Proctor in his investigation completely and utterly ignored. Higgins was agitated after a day of drinking. Agitated that it was John and not Karen. John with Karen, not him.

MR. JACKSON: Recall that ominous text that he sent to Karen with her and John standing just feet away. He got no response. And then we see this. That's what Brian Higgins was confronted with following his "well?" text. What of all things starts going through Brian Higgins's mind? Where does his mind go? What is he thinking about after seeing this? After witnessing this, he shows you. And if Michael Proctor had been the least bit interested, this video would have shown him too. Take a look. Sparring, practicing, fighting techniques. Where was Brian Higgins's mind? What was he thinking about? And then what happens? Before you look at the next video, think about what you're going to see.

MR. JACKSON: This next video is after he sees John kiss Karen on the forehead, after he sends that aggressive text to Karen with her standing just feet away. Watch closely and this is what you're going to see. This is what Michael Proctor and his investigation completely ignored. Higgins is very clearly upset. He's agitated. Chris Albert tries to control him. He tries to talk to him, calm him down perhaps. Chris forcefully grabs Higgins's arm. You'll see that in the video that you're about to watch. It appears that Chris is trying to calm him down from something. Brian Albert standing right there with the other two men. But Brian Higgins is having none of it. He appears to be hyperfocused on one person and one person only, John O'Keefe. In an instant, Higgins angrily jerks his arm away from Chris.

MR. JACKSON: Higgins rubs his brow and he directly gestures at John. A gesture that looks a lot like, "Let's step outside. Let's go outside." But John looks at him, takes a swig of beer, completely ignores him. Take a look. Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in this case, had all this footage, but he did nothing. He had access to the exact same thing that you saw. Why did he do nothing? A few minutes later, Higgins then texts John directly. "You coming here?" Three question marks. It's now 12:20 a.m. These guys are not good friends. They barely spoke or even acknowledged each other when they walked into the bar together, other than a quick greeting. So, why was Higgins coaxing John over to 34 Fairview? "You coming here?" And why not text Karen? Because at that moment he wasn't interested in Karen.

MR. JACKSON: He was interested in John O'Keefe. This is about five minutes before John gets out of the SUV and walks toward the house. About five minutes before Karen sees him alive for the last time. So, what happened inside that house or that basement or that garage? What evidence was there for the investigators to look into? What did they ignore? Laceration over John's right eyelid. Black eyes. A large dog at the home. An obvious dog bite on John O'Keefe's right arm. A head injury from falling backward onto a hard surface. Alleged hard surface. A text from Higgins, one of the last people to ever communicate with John O'Keefe. "You come in here." Those words now echo in the wake of John's death. But Michael Proctor, he didn't listen.

MR. JACKSON: When John didn't come back outside, Karen, very oblivious to what had happened, thinking she was just left alone in the car out in the cold in the middle of the night, she got frustrated and she drove home. She arrived back at home and her car — her phone connected to John's Wi-Fi at 12:36 a.m. It's an important time. 12:36 a.m. She left John voicemail after voicemail after voicemail. He was unresponsive. He didn't pick up a single call. He didn't respond to a single text. The longer he didn't respond, the more upset she got. Her voicemails reflect that frustration after the fact. That's the frustration that you hear in her angry voicemails. She uses harsh words and foul language. She's obviously upset.

MR. JACKSON: She's obviously irritated because he didn't come back out of the house and he wasn't responding. But Karen did not know what you know. She didn't know what the investigators should have known. She didn't know what was happening with Higgins and Albert and with her boyfriend John O'Keefe. When he didn't come home at about 5:00 a.m., Karen went looking for him in a panic. As you know, her worst fears were realized when she found John beaten, battered, bloody, and left in the snow in Brian Albert's front lawn. At 6:00 a.m., when Karen found John, you heard about the scene. It was described in detail. It was chaos. To use Mr. Brennan's word in his opening statement, it was bedlam. The screams for help by Karen. The yelling and the hollering.

MR. JACKSON: Ambulances, emergency lights, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol officers, all of them swarming all over the lawn just under Brian Albert's bedroom window. And of course, as you learned during the course of this trial, Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder trained in being a first responder, never came out of the house, never went outside to help a fallen fellow officer who was laying on his own property. Never came out. And you learned through the undisputed evidence that the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, for his part, never went into the house. The Commonwealth has struggled to try to prove that John O'Keefe ended up in Brian Albert's front lawn because he was struck by a vehicle. They have failed.

MR. JACKSON: They cannot and they will not ever be able to prove that John was struck by a vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty because the science does not lie. The medical evidence does not lie. The physics do not lie. Their investigation was flawed from the start because their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias personal loyalties. Folks, they cannot prove a collision. John O'Keefe was not hit by a car. There was no collision. So, let's start there. I want to take a minute to discuss the actual science, the actual physics, and the actual medical evidence that was presented in this case. The science — it's an old saying — is known as the silent witness. It doesn't lie. It doesn't forget. And notably, it doesn't take sides.

MR. JACKSON: If there was no collision, what are we doing here? In order for there to be a collision, there has to have been an impact site. The vehicle had to have struck John. Period. I want to remind you of some of the most important testimony in the entire case. And it comes from the Commonwealth's own medical expert, Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, the Commonwealth's medical examiner, someone governed by law to make these decisions. We know that a person struck by a vehicle suffers massive trauma. Broken bones, fractures, soft tissue damage, torn ligaments, contusions, soft tissue injury, severe tissue injury, crushing blows. None of that was present with John. None of it. Not anywhere on his body, including his right arm. Not one bruise, nothing.

MR. JACKSON: The fact is the injuries are not from a vehicle impact, not his head injury, not those scratch and bite wounds. Not a single medical expert — think about this — not a single medical expert called by the defense or called by the Commonwealth has testified that John was hit by a car. Not one. Think about the irony. Not one. That's not just significant. It's literally the most important point in the entire trial. Listen again to Dr. Scordi-Bello's words. Question: You did not include in your autopsy in any fashion any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident. Did you? Answer: No, I did not. She told you, quote, I did not see any evidence of an impact site. End quote. She was talking about John's body.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth's own medical examiner, Dr. Scordi-Bello, performed the autopsy. She did it personally. She's the only one to have personally examined John's body, and she found no evidence of an impact site on his entire body. That in and of itself is reasonable doubt. You don't need anything more. The Commonwealth's case is done. It's cooked. Their own experts said there is no evidence of a collision. No evidence of an impact. If you want to know what an impact looks like, take a look at this. This is what a body looks like after being struck by a car at 25 miles an hour. And this is what a car looks like after hitting a person at 25 miles an hour. These are exhibits from Dr. Welcher, the Commonwealth expert. John didn't even have a bruise. Make no mistake, Dr.

MR. JACKSON: Scordi-Bello was presented with the Commonwealth's theory of the case, the same case that you've been presented with, and she refused to conclude that John's death was a homicide. She flatly refused to conclude that there was a collision. And you know who agrees with that? That silent witness — the science, the physics, the data. Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Rentschler, you just met them recently. They explained they were not initially hired by the defense. They were asked by another agency to conduct their analysis. They looked at the evidence from both sides, not taking a side for the defense or the Commonwealth, completely independent. They looked at the damage to the SUV on the one side of the coin. They looked at the injuries to John O'Keefe on the other side of the coin.

MR. JACKSON: Both PhDs, both engineers determined there was no collision. I'm not saying it. The science says it. That SUV's tail light was not damaged by striking an arm. And John was not struck by a 6,000-lb SUV. Period. Full stop. Dr. Dan Wolfe did the testing on the tail light. Actual testing, not some ridiculous blue paint kindergarten project. He did lab testing. He did field testing. He did data testing, actual impact force analyses. In every single test, at every single speed, the tail light damage was inconsistent with striking an arm. In every test, the tail light damage was inconsistent with damaging the shirt, the sweatshirt. Remember that severe internal damage to Karen Read's tail light, not just the outer lens. The internal diffusers were completely smashed, completely shattered.

MR. JACKSON: ARCCA testing established that all the internal components of every single test tail light, especially the diffusers, remained completely intact. Conversely, on Karen's tail light, the diffusers were almost completely gone. Folks, understand something. If any part of that diffuser, any part of that diffuser portion of the tail light is broken. There is no light. It doesn't illuminate at all. It's just black. Let's take a look at a couple of photos. At 5:07 a.m. at One Meadows, that's the photograph on the left. What do you notice about the right tail light? It's completely illuminated. Later at 4:12 in the afternoon, photograph on the right, it's lit up. How can that be? How can that be?

MR. JACKSON: If the Commonwealth claims that those diffusers, the portion that lights up the light, were already scattered all over 34 Fairview. That's their theory. But don't believe your lying eyes. The tail lights completely lit up. That would be impossible. Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a PhD, a biomechanist, explained that at those speeds, the other side of that coin, John's arm would be basically destroyed. Contusions, swelling, torn ligaments, hyperextensions, dislocation of joints and bones, fractured, broken, and shattered. But as you know, John's arm was pristine. Save those dog and claw bites. He didn't even have a bruise. Think about this. Think about that photo of those X-rays as you deliberate. You can manipulate a tail light fragment. That's not that hard. You can't manipulate a bruise.

MR. JACKSON: If they claimed the car was going fast enough to shatter the tail light and shatter the diffusers, that it was also going fast enough to destroy and shatter John's arm and it simply did not. How do they square that? They don't. And they can't. So, they spent nearly $400,000 of taxpayer money to hire someone to dress up and look like John and paint his arm blue, which told you exactly nothing. The ARCCA testing, conversely, also established that it is impossible for John's sweatshirt sleeve to be damaged by an impact with the tail light. The Commonwealth's theory is that the sleeve of John's hoodie sweatshirt was damaged by flying shards of taillight slicing through the shirt and through John's arm. I have three questions. Number one, John's arm had about 36 abrasions.

MR. JACKSON: How did 36 shards of acrylic go through nine tiny little puncture holes? How'd that happen? Somebody needs to answer that. Number two, why are there no slices or cuts in the hoodie? All the defects are punctures. Punctures that you might get from, say, I don't know, canine teeth. And number three, if the shards cut bloody gouges into John's arm, that's their theory. Why is there no blood, no skin, no tissue on a single shard of taillight that they claim came in contact with John's arm? The Commonwealth cannot answer a single one of those questions because John's arm was not impacted by the tail light. It doesn't make sense simply because it didn't happen. Compare and contrast the ARCCA experts and their actual testing to Judson Welcher.

MR. JACKSON: He came to you in the Commonwealth's case in chief and he told you that for the better part of a half a million bucks, he'd come in and testify that John was tall enough to touch the tail light with his elbow. That's it. And even in that basic demonstration, he had to lean in to manipulate it to get the results that he wanted. Dr. Welcher then claimed that the reason he didn't do the reconstruction, the actual testing, think about what he said. There isn't enough evidence to determine what happened. I beg your pardon. What happens when there isn't enough evidence? In his words, you vote not guilty. That's what happens. That's out of his mouth, not mine. The Commonwealth also used the same company, Aperture, to try to establish a time of a collision that never occurred.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth called Shanon Burgess, the supposed expert from Aperture. There is a cardinal sin for experts, folks. A cardinal sin. It's called confirmation bias. It's when you decide to change your opinion to fit a theory. The most important tech takeaway from Shanon Burgess's testimony was how brazen, how shameless he was in trying to change the data to try to suit the Commonwealth. Remember Mr. Burgess— I'm sorry. Remember Mr. Brennan's opening statement? He made some promises to you. He said, "This case is about the data." He stressed it over and over again. They've had three and a half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had this case for three and a half years to get it right. So his top expert, Dr.

MR. JACKSON: Welcher, prepares a report and that report says that John O'Keefe was struck by Karen Read's SUV at 12:31:38. Note that time, 12:31:38. He was struck. He was immediately incapacitated. He was immediately unconscious. So says Judson Welcher and the Commonwealth's theory. But there was a huge, huge problem with that. And somewhere in the middle of trial, somebody must have realized it. They must have realized that the very data they produced unequivocally establishes that they are wrong about a collision. It could not have happened. Why? Because John was interacting with his phone after 12:31:38. Remember the collision immediately incapacitating. How could he be interacting with his phone afterward?

MR. JACKSON: He was on his phone, opening his phone, checking his phone, reading texts on his phone, and locking his phone. All of it after 12:31:38, which is the time Welcher clocked for the moment of the impact. And he was taking steps and walking with that phone after 12:31:38 also. That's what their own data showed and it devastated their case and it devastated that false theory. There must have been panic, I'm guessing, in the room. What do we do now? The data shows John wasn't struck by the car. What do we do? Enter Shanon Burgess. Question. Can you believe him? Can you believe Mr. Burgess? He came up with a brand new story right in the middle of trial. You might ask yourself, would an expert actually say something he knows not to be true?

MR. JACKSON: Would an expert actually say something he knows is not supported by fact? Would an expert shade the truth? You don't have to look any further than Shanon Burgess's CV to answer that question. That was a shame. Even with the pull and push and stretch and manipulation of the time data that Mr. Burgess came in here and told you about, it still shows that John O'Keefe was very much alive and walking around after they claimed he was hit and incapacitated. Think about that. Mr. Dogra looked at Burgess's report and told you that in 30 out of 30 scenarios of the possible time skews that Shanon Burgess identified, he came in, in the middle of trial and identified all these other time skews that he called it. In every single scenario, John was alive and walking after they said he was hit.

MR. JACKSON: And that's a problem for them because there was no collision. Just look at Mr. Whiffin's data. Ian Whiffin, John O'Keefe took 31 steps at a steady rate about 83 feet. And then think about this in a westerly direction. That would be right toward the house. Remember, it's 78 ft to that garage door. That's not a coincidence. The Commonwealth's witnesses — or the Commonwealth's witness, Mr. Ian Whiffin himself conceded that he has reasonable doubts about the accuracy of John's location data. You remember that question and answer on cross-examination by Mr. Alessi. Do you have doubts? I do. Are those doubts reasonable? They are. And remember, still the Commonwealth's burden. If their own cell phone expert has a reasonable doubt about John's location, so should you.

MR. JACKSON: John O'Keefe was inside and the phone battery temperature further proves it. This is not speculation. This is science and it's irrefutable. It tells us that he was not laying outside in the cold. He was inside somewhere a little bit warmer. Ian Whiffin told you that when the iPhone is exposed to freezing temperatures, think about these numbers. When the iPhone is exposed to freezing temperatures, it will drop from 81 to 21 degrees in 15 minutes. 15 minutes. That's a 60-degree drop in 15 minutes. Now look at John's phone. It was laying, according to the Commonwealth, directly on frozen ground. He arrived at 34 Fairview and his phone dropped only 20 degrees over the course of an hour. Then inexplicably, it stayed steady, never dropping below 50 degrees for the next 4 and a half hours.

MR. JACKSON: Never dropping below 50 degrees for the next 4 and a half hours, basically through the entire night. He was not outside. He was someplace warmer, like a basement or a garage. Dr. Laposata confirmed that John O'Keefe did not have hypothermia. No telltale signs, no telltale Wischnewski spots, no frostbite on any extremity. He did not die of hypothermia because he wasn't outside. Dr. Dan Wolfe, Dr. Laposata, Judson Welcher, Andrew Rentschler all agreed. Every expert agreed this is how John O'Keefe died — a rearward fall from a standing position. What could make you fall straight back like that? Let's just think about that for a second. What could make you fall from a standing position, as Judson Welcher just showed us, standing up, falling straight back?

MR. JACKSON: Add a laceration to the right eye consistent with a fist or a punch and you've got your answer. He certainly didn't sustain that wound on the back of his head by falling backwards onto a lawn. Dr. Laposata told you that the patterned injury on the back of John's head could only be produced by hitting a hard ridged or ledged surface like a concrete stair or step. What's just through that garage door? Michael Proctor never stepped down in that garage to find out. What a shame. And look at the arm. Just look at John's arm. You don't need the top experts in the country, but you had them. You don't need the top medical minds on the planet on this issue, but you had them. These are dog bites and scratches. These are animal wounds. Not one witness has been called in this trial. Not one.

MR. JACKSON: Eight weeks and counting. Not one witness who disputes — who actually disputes — that John O'Keefe's arm injuries are from a dog. The Commonwealth could not find a single medical expert, a single medical witness who would come in here and tell you those are inconsistent with a dog bite or a scratch. And it's equally clear that there was no collision. Dr. Laposata told you in probably the clearest voice in the entire trial. You remember her testimony. He didn't get hit by a car. Her words. He just didn't get hit by a car. You remember the question that was posed by ADA Brennan. Did you consider the speed of the vehicle? And she said speed didn't matter because he didn't get hit by a car. She repeated it three times because it's true.

MR. JACKSON: Not just because she says so, but because the medical evidence proves it. The medical science proves it. There was no collision. Dr. Rentschler told you unequivocally and just as firmly he didn't get hit by a car. The Commonwealth has not met their burden, they cannot meet their burden. The Commonwealth hasn't called a single medical professional, not one, to testify that John's wounds came from being hit by a car. Not Dr. Scordi-Bello, not Dr. Isaac Wolf. Contrast that with the caliber and the quality of the experts who came in here to tell you what is obvious to anyone with common sense. Those wounds on his right arm are from a dog. This was not an oversight by the Commonwealth. It's just that there is no one out there.

MR. JACKSON: No matter how big a check you write, there's not a medical expert who's going to disagree with that. The fact is this is the central fact in the case. The only fact that matters is literally uncontested by every medical expert. Uncontested, undisputed. There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. How much more reasonable doubt could there be? This case should be over right now. Done. Because there was no collision. So given all that, how did Karen Read end up sitting here? Why is she even here? Why is she in that chair? Why is she in this courtroom? There is a reason for that. And it's a reason they don't want to tell you. And it's a reality they don't want to admit to.

MR. JACKSON: The reason we're here is because the system, the very system that was meant to protect her, that was meant to protect all of us, that system has failed badly. So now let's discuss the facts that were and were not presented by the Commonwealth in this case. Over the next few minutes, I want to talk about the utter failure of the police to investigate this properly and to investigate this fully. And what you're going to see is that Michael Proctor, the lead investigator for the Commonwealth, did nothing to actually and properly investigate this case. Let's start with the house. That's the most logical place to start. I think you'd agree. Brian Albert's house where John's body was discovered lifeless in the lawn.

MR. JACKSON: A man, a police officer, is found dead on the front lawn and no one secures the scene. No tape, no preservation of evidence, no crime scene log, no search warrants, no consent searches, no photographs of the house interior. They didn't treat the house as a crime scene. And shamefully, they didn't even treat the yard as a crime scene. The lame excuse offered by retired Lieutenant Gallagher — it was really cold and windy and I didn't know if there was a crime that had been committed. What? You didn't know that a crime had potentially been committed? You have a man laying dead in the yard and here are the undisputed facts that those officers were confronted with. Black eyes. Obviously, black eyes are consistent with a fight. Bloody nose, also consistent with a fight.

MR. JACKSON: Bleeding from the face, consistent with a physical altercation. A cut over the right eye, consistent with a punch. No coat in the freezing cold. Not dressed for outside, dressed for inside. And one shoe on. I wonder where the other shoe could be. I don't know, maybe in the house 30 feet away. And then you find a broken and shattered drinking glass next to him. The type of glass that you might find, I don't know, let me think about this — in a kitchen in a house 30 feet away. And John's phone was tucked neatly under his back shoulder. Lieutenant Gallagher actually claimed he did not know it was a potential crime that needed investigating.

MR. JACKSON: The neighbor across the street, Detective Lieutenant Keller, had a Ring camera, a Ring camera that was pointed at the exact direction where John O'Keefe would have been hit and nobody bothered to secure it. Nobody bothered to secure it. Nobody even bothered to look at it. Of course, this was a potential crime scene. Of course, it was. Let's not forget this was Brian Albert's house. And that comes with privileges. Quote, "Is the homeowner going to catch any shit?" Nope. He's a Boston cop, too." End quote. That quote starts to make a little more sense now, doesn't it? Michael Proctor wrote those words just hours after John's body was found. He sent this in a private chat, in a private text he never ever believed would ever be revealed.

MR. JACKSON: He sent that text in a series of messages that now belong to you. You weren't given the opportunity to hear from Michael Proctor, but you can read his thoughts for yourself. And I urge you go read them. They're in Exhibit 209 — 209 — in case you're wondering. But here are the highlights. Proctor starts the conversation. Quote, "All the powers that be, one answers ASAP. He's getting pressure obviously. Get this done." His friend then asks what Proctor's probably thinking at the time. Quote, "I assume you guys are out to make it cut and dry since it involves cops. Something stinks." And Proctor responds, "Yeah, to the something stinks." And then he goes on, "But there will be some serious charges brought on the girl." Think about that.

MR. JACKSON: Hours into this investigation, there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. She's a whack job. Yeah, she's a babe. Weird Fall River accent, though. No ass. She's got a leaky balloon knot. Leaks poo. Zero chance she skates. And up to this point, Michael Proctor had done zero investigation, nothing, save talk to a grand total of three people, all of whom were named Albert or McCabe. That's it. And this was his mindset. This is the same lead investigator who sent the group chats that you heard about with Sgt. Bukhenik — late night sitting at his office, rifling through Karen's phone, bragging about looking for naked pictures of her. That text wasn't sent to his buddies or his friends. That text was sent to his supervisors at the Massachusetts State Police, for God's sake.

MR. JACKSON: And what was their response? Sgt. Bukhenik liked this conduct with a big old thumbs up. He encouraged it. Ladies and gentlemen, a lead investigator is supposed — every investigator is supposed — to be objective, an objective factfinder. No bias, no agenda. Michael Proctor went far beyond just insulting Karen Read. He dehumanized this woman. He betrayed her as a human being. He was fired for this blatant bias. If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can you trust him with this investigation and with your verdict and with Karen Read's life? The lead investigator in a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that. That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want to hear from Michael Proctor? Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in the case?

MR. JACKSON: Don't you have questions? The Commonwealth did not present their own lead investigator to the jury, the very jury who is charged with judging the investigation. Michael Proctor clearly is radioactive and the Commonwealth stayed away from it. Michael Proctor is no longer a Massachusetts State Police officer. He wasn't transferred. He didn't go on sabbatical. He didn't retire. He didn't resign. He was fired. He was terminated for cause. The Massachusetts State Police investigated him, found him guilty of dishonorable conduct. Not just for those text messages, folks. For sharing confidential information with witnesses, and for bias — not just any bias. Bias in this case. Fired. This is the man who touched every single piece of important evidence in this case.

MR. JACKSON: All the evidence that was brought before you in this trial went through his hands one way or another. The shirts, the shards. Remember that when ADA Brennan gets up and gives his closing argument — the shirts, the shards — all in Michael Proctor's possession. ADA Brennan and the Commonwealth, I think, have pinned their hopes on some microscopic — or close to microscopic — pieces of plastic that were claimed to have been scraped from the hoodie several months after the fact. What he failed to ask every single investigator — I'm sorry, every single witness — is who had access to that shirt and who had access to those tail light fragments. And the answer is it was Michael Proctor. Not for days, not for weeks, for months on end, for months unaccounted for.

MR. JACKSON: Before they were submitted to the crime lab, before they were ever scraped. Just go look at the chain of custody documents. You've got them. Why didn't Michael Proctor give those clothes to Maureen Hartnett with the crime lab when she was at Canton PD just days after the fact to receive those solo cups? Remember that? Just a few days later, she was there. She drove up. She did the driving to take the solo cups in the grocery bag, which has a ridiculous aspect to it in and of itself as well. Why not just give her the shirts as well? Give her the taillight fragments if any were found at that point. Why hold on to them? What could possibly be a reason? Why wait until March to book those into evidence? Now, let's talk about some of the other problems with the Commonwealth's evidence.

MR. JACKSON: As I indicated, there was no blood, no skin, no tissue, no DNA found on a single piece or shard of the taillight that the Commonwealth claims cut and sliced into John O'Keefe's arm. Where is that trace evidence? Where is that biological evidence? The DNA, where is it? They've got nothing. Not a single piece that the Commonwealth wants you to believe cut up John's arm. How is that possible? It's not possible. The only way it's possible is if those shards never touched his arm because it was a dog. Oh, and the one sample of DNA that they did find, by the way, was found on the outer smooth part of the housing, not any shard. It was the outer smooth part of the housing. Nothing that they claim actually came in contact with John O'Keefe.

MR. JACKSON: Number two, that sample had DNA of two other men, two other unidentified males. That tells you that that DNA had nothing to do with a car strike. That DNA — you would be expected to be all over that car, inside, outside. He had access to that car for months and months and months. He was in and out of it all the time. Show me some blood, then we'll talk. They can't and they won't because it doesn't exist. That SUV never hit John. The hair found on the bumper. The Commonwealth really stretched its own credibility on this one. That magic little hair on the SUV supposedly survived a 37-mile drive in 47 mph winds. But that little magic hair just clung there. Just hung on. That same hair that moved in between photos in the Sallyport.

MR. JACKSON: Remember that there were two photos taken and it was either the breath of the photographer or just the movement of walking by — the hair literally moved between the two photographs. But that hair is supposed to have hung on in a 37-mile drive in a blizzard. The only thing that hair proves is that the Commonwealth is embarrassingly grasping at straws. That hair has nothing to do with anything. But it doesn't stop there. There was another revelation at trial, a big one, a huge one, and it came from a very unlikely source. Christina Hanley, the quiet, reserved criminalist who told you something the Commonwealth likely did not want revealed because it's devastating to their case. Absolutely devastating. And it's this. The glass on the bumper didn't match the cocktail glass. None of it.

MR. JACKSON: Remember February 11th, Michael Proctor, without any other person with him — no witness, no supervisor, no other person with him — claims to have found a single piece of glass at the scene. February 11th, single piece of glass, Michael Proctor. Keep that in mind. Interestingly, the glass on the bumper that didn't match the cocktail glass, one piece did match one other thing: the Proctor glass. Those two go together. The only two things that go together from that bumper are the Proctor glass. We know that there's no glass in the tail light. We know that nothing else was shattered on the vehicle. Therefore, that glass had to be placed there. Didn't come from a crash. Didn't come from a cocktail glass. So, how did it get sprinkled on the back of the bumper?

MR. JACKSON: Whose proverbial fingerprints are on that glass on the bumper? The only thing it matched was Michael Proctor. What about the Ford Edge and that snowplow driver, Brian Loughran? He observed that Ford Edge parked outside Brian Albert's house at 3:30 a.m. That vehicle was moved directly in front of where John's body was found. Sometime between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning, the only person connected to a car of that make and model, Brian Albert. Michael Proctor did nothing to investigate that point, did nothing to investigate whose Ford Edge was parked in a spot specifically to block the line of sight in the exact position where John's body would be later found by Karen Read. No one, not Michael Proctor or anybody else, checked it for evidence. No one even asked any questions about it.

MR. JACKSON: That Ford Edge, Brian Albert's Ford Edge, completely ignored. Michael Proctor failed to interview obvious witnesses in this case. Why? Why didn't he want to speak to the snowplow driver, Brian Loughran? Why did he falsely claim that no one plowed the roadway that morning when police dash cam video — you saw the dash cam — it shows plows going back and forth all morning. Why did he wait so long, years even, to interview Heather Maxon and Ryan Nagel, individuals who were literally outside 34 Fairview at the exact same time John and Karen arrived at Brian Albert's house that night. Brian Loughran, had he been investigated or interviewed, would have told Michael Proctor that he drove past the lawn multiple times on January 29th and there was no body on the lawn.

MR. JACKSON: He would have had a perfect view. Remember the weatherman told you there was only enough snow at that time. I think he said in a very charming phrase, only enough snow to track a cat. I think that was it. There was nobody there. Heather Maxon and Ryan Nagel would have told him that they arrived at 34 Fairview shortly after Karen and John pulled up behind them and they would have told Michael Proctor — at least Heather would have told Michael Proctor — that when she left 10 minutes later, she drove past the SUV and observed Karen Read in the driver's side, dome light on, passenger seat empty. So, where was John? Wasn't outside. Wasn't sitting down. No one laying down. There's only one place he could be. We could all say it together if you could talk with me. He was in the house.

MR. JACKSON: Michael Proctor did not want to have those answers. He did not want to have to disclose those answers. He didn't want the truth. The Commonwealth has not presented a shred of evidence of when Karen Read consumed her last drink that night. Think about that. That's critical information that the Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. They have to prove when her last drink was that night. They have to prove it. We don't have to prove or disprove anything. Every single witness who was asked and who had an opportunity to observe Karen that night said the same thing. She wasn't drunk. She wasn't stumbling. She wasn't slurring her words. She was, in the words of Miss Kolokithas, completely normal. Even Jennifer McCabe grudgingly had to admit that fact.

MR. JACKSON: It's on video. Instead, they use Yuri Bukhenik to try to come into court and count sips of alcohol, which he admittedly got wrong. According to Ian Whiffin, the Commonwealth's own expert, the location data on John's phone showed Karen driving lawfully. She was driving safely. She was under the speed limit. She was slowing and stopping at stop signs, slowing around corners, and Ryan Nagel corroborated that when he saw her make that left-hand turn onto Fairview. The Commonwealth has an incredibly high burden to prove that Karen was driving under the influence. They have failed to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty because it depends on when she had her last drink. What happened after she got home and she was upset with John for not coming back out of the house?

MR. JACKSON: That would answer that question. As you well know, no one searched the house for signs of a struggle. Not that night. Not the next day. I'm talking about 34 Fairview. Not ever. Not once. Not with a warrant. Not with consent. They never went into the basement, the stairwells. They didn't look at the walls. They didn't look in the garage. Nothing was ever examined. Nothing was checked for blood. Nothing was checked for DNA. They didn't look for alleged or ridged? surface. Zero. You'll remember how surprised Jennifer McCabe was to recall that there was a garage door even on the house. Except this was her sister's house. She's been going to that house since she was five. She's seen that house. She's been in and out of that house hundreds of times, maybe thousands of times.

MR. JACKSON: She's been going to that house her entire life and yet she acted surprised when I asked her about it. Remember Jennifer McCabe's answer when I asked her whether there was a door at the garage. I was asking her about the front door, the side door, and the garage door. And her answer was, "Oh, actually there is a garage door right there." Investigators never opened that door. Let's change the scenario. What if it wasn't the house of a Boston cop? What if it wasn't the house of Brian Albert? We can be certain that investigators would have torn that house apart to get answers about why a fellow police officer was laying dead on the homeowner's lawn. You can bet. But because this was Brian Albert's house, a Boston cop — nope.

MR. JACKSON: And because he was a fellow cop, an insider, they didn't even open the door. That is not justice, folks. That's just pure favoritism. Each of these facts is more than a question mark. They're failures of duty. They're blank spots on a map where justice is supposed to live. And every single one is a reason why you cannot convict Karen Read. Reasonable doubt abounds. If the Commonwealth failed to investigate every reasonable alternative, how dare they? How dare they come in here and ask you for a verdict? They didn't investigate the case fully. And yet, they're asking you to take the easy road and do their job for them. These facts do not represent reasonable doubt? Nothing does. Every one of these facts that you're seeing that we're talking about represents reasonable doubt. Everyone.

MR. JACKSON: The police and the prosecution are in a position to take people's liberty. It's the most dire and consequential act a civilized government can take against one of its citizens. Their obligation is not just to try to get it right. They have to convince you to the highest degree of certainty known in human affairs. They have to do it all, every bit of it beyond any and all reasonable doubt. And they have not done that here. And how about the homeowner himself, the host, the first responder, the Boston cop. Brian Albert, who was sparring and practice fighting with Brian Higgins just minutes before John O'Keefe appeared at his house, 34 Fairview. Brian Albert, who was watching Chloe that night, the German Shepherd. Brian Albert, whose phone and his wife's phone were never secured.

MR. JACKSON: Brian Albert, who never came out of the house. But that doesn't mean he wasn't awake. It doesn't mean that he wasn't on his phone. Think about this. Jennifer McCabe claimed that her sister and Brian Albert both slept through this complete chaos right outside their bedroom window. But Jennifer McCabe's phone records tell a different story. And they tell the truth. She spoke with them for the better part of a minute, 38 seconds to be detailed about it, at 5:07 a.m. And then she lied about that call. Remember that? What was the reason for that call at 5:07? Was it panic? Was it a warning? We know that conversation took place at the precise time Karen left her house to go search for John. 5:07. We could answer those questions if we just had access to their phones. Brian Albert, Brian Higgins.

MR. JACKSON: But Michael Proctor wasn't interested in their phones. Not only did he not secure their phones, he never even asked. And what about Brian Albert's dog, Chloe? A dog with a history. A dog that is "not good with strangers." Dr. Russell confirmed that John's patterned injuries were from a dog just like the dog Brian Albert owned. And then Chloe just disappeared. Not there the next morning. None of the officers that you heard from said that there was a dog in the house. They didn't see her. She was just gone and then ultimately gotten rid of altogether. Who gets rid of their family pet unless they had something to hide? Michael Proctor wasn't interested in that either. And recall the group chat with the Alberts and the McCabes. They were getting their story straight.

MR. JACKSON: Matt McCabe, whom the Commonwealth did not call in this trial, instructed the group in that group chat, you'll recall, "Tell him to say the guy never came in the house." Think about that exact quote. Tell him to say the guy never came in the house. And Brian Albert, the patriarch of the family, exactly. He blessed it — with the truth. As we all know, you don't need to get your story straight. You don't need to tell someone what to say. It's just the truth. And what about the Google search? A Google search that Jennifer McCabe admitted having made. A Google search that was timestamped by Cellebrite at 2:27 a.m. A Google search that read "How long to die in cold." It is uncontested and undisputed that that search was deleted. If the 2:27 a.m.

MR. JACKSON: timestamp is not true, why does Jennifer McCabe have to lie about it? Why delete it? If the 2:27 a.m. timestamp is not true, why create a false story about Karen screaming "Google hypothermia"? That's just a fabrication. That's just a made-up fact. And by the way, if someone does tell you "Google hypothermia," why would you Google how long it takes to die in cold — wouldn't you just Google hypothermia? Jennifer McCabe enlisted Kerry Roberts to help shift the blame to Karen. Why go to that much effort unless you're trying to cover for something? Keep in mind the entire foundation — the entire foundation — of her claim that Karen said "Google hypothermia" is this fantasy about Karen screaming it at the location at the scene. That's her entire excuse.

MR. JACKSON: But that story went completely off the rails when Kerry Roberts admitted that she perjured herself to back up Jennifer McCabe's false story. That was a dramatic moment in court. It's an admission of perjury. And you don't see that very often in a courtroom. That tells you everything you need to know about the character and quality of the prosecution's case and their witnesses. Lying and perjury and admitting to it. A fundamental tenet of any investigation is to ensure that witnesses are independent and not influenced by other witnesses. You start by separating the witnesses. Michael Proctor did none of that in this case and we see the results. Think back to Jennifer McCabe's own text messages with Kerry Roberts. What Kerry Roberts — sorry about Kerry Roberts, not with Kerry Roberts.

MR. JACKSON: Notably, what Kerry Roberts didn't know was at the time she was being interviewed by the police, Jennifer McCabe was in real time bragging about having influenced Kerry's testimony — or her statements — to the Alberts and the McCabes. Quote, "She's telling them everything, all the stuff." Remember that timeline that we talked about with Jennifer McCabe? That's what she was referring to. She's telling him everything. Everything that Jennifer McCabe had put in Kerry Roberts' timeline. The Commonwealth wants you to believe that Karen Read made a statement at the location at the scene: "I hit him." I'm sure you'll hear that from the prosecution in their final arguments. But their own witnesses contradict that.

MR. JACKSON: Jennifer McCabe admitted on cross-examination that her very first statement to law enforcement confirmed that Karen didn't say anything. She asked, "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Is he dead?" The physics and the science answer that question. Could you have hit him? No, you couldn't have. Sgt. Bukhenik also testified that the only statements Karen Read made at the scene, according to his conversations with the first responders, was, "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?" It wasn't a confession. It was confusion. And Dr. Russell explained that confusion. She told you why Karen Read or anybody in that position might ask those questions. She was suffering from extreme grief reaction, which according to the evidence can last for years. Even her medical records confirm that diagnosis.

MR. JACKSON: It's common to ask those questions in grief. It's common to ask those types of questions in shock. You're trying to make sense out of the nonsensical in the moment. And the Commonwealth has tried to twist those words into a confession. There is no evidence that any officer at the scene ever heard Karen Read say, "I hit him." Not a single police officer at the scene came in to support the Commonwealth's claim. It's not on video. It's not on audio. It's not in a single police report. It's not in a single EMT or EMS report. Nowhere. The fact is Karen never said, "I hit him." You saw the video. Multiple officers were right there. She simply never said it. What did Jennifer McCabe do and not do when she got to 34 Fairview?

MR. JACKSON: She would have you believe — I want to set the scene for you — that she's confronted out of the blue with John O'Keefe's lifeless body. Her friend John O'Keefe, he's bruised and battered. He's bleeding. His eyelid is cut. His nose is bleeding. Karen is screaming at the top of her lungs. Kerry — Kerry is screaming back to Karen, "Shut up!" Both women begin crying. Both women are giving CPR. There's chaos everywhere. It's building in the yard just feet from Brian Albert's house, Brian Albert's window. Jennifer calls her sister at 6:07 with all this chaos going on. No answer. Jennifer calls her sister at 6:08 with all this chaos and bedlam going on. Still no answer. No lights come on in the house. In the midst of all this screaming and this chaos, Brian Albert doesn't come outside.

MR. JACKSON: Nicole Albert doesn't come outside during this maelstrom. And yet Jennifer McCabe never goes inside to check on her sister. There's literally no signs of life inside the house. And Jennifer McCabe doesn't take a step inside that house to check on her family. Why is that? Does that make any sense to anyone? Everyone would sprint inside the house to make sure that there's no one in there that was hurt or injured or, God forbid, dead. Everyone would do that. But not Jennifer McCabe. The only way that makes sense is if Jennifer McCabe already knew that Brian and Nicole were just fine. That's the only reasonable explanation, and the only way she would know that they were fine is if she knew what happened. But Michael Proctor never explored this incredibly suspicious behavior.

MR. JACKSON: Don't you have questions? This would give anyone reasonable doubt. And don't you have questions also about Brian Higgins? Michael Proctor certainly didn't. Higgins had been sending flirtatious and romantic texts to John's girlfriend, Karen Read. You'll remember I asked Sgt. Bukhenik a simple question. Were those texts flirtatious in nature? He refused to answer that simple question. Do you remember that? Quote, "I'm not comfortable putting a label on that." End quote. We read the texts. It's not a secret. Of course, they were flirtatious. Of course, they were romantic in nature. The reason he refused to answer that simple question is telling. It's because these flirtatious texts establish a motive for Brian Higgins. Sgt. Bukhenik could not bring himself to tell the truth.

MR. JACKSON: His bias was on full display. He was covering for another cop. Investigators also ignored Higgins' suspicious late night visit to the Canton Police Department. That was after a night of drinking, by the way. Why didn't they investigate this? What was so important that Higgins needed to go to the police station at that time, 1:30 in the morning, while drunk? By the way, why weren't they interested in those facts? Remember, he's an ATF agent. He's a cop, a member of the Blue Wall, and best friends with Brian Albert. He would know that the CPD would be the first to get the call when someone reported John missing or injured. He would know what to look for, what to listen for to determine if a report had been made and when and what the response was going to be.

MR. JACKSON: You saw the skulking through the hallways with his hood up, moving bags between cars, and of course that late night mysterious phone call on his cell phone, a phone that you don't have and that you'll never see. All of that and Michael Proctor never gave him a second look. All of that and the Commonwealth, who's supposed to be after the truth, didn't call him to the stand. If you have any unanswered questions about Brian Higgins, that's reasonable doubt. The police didn't interview Brian Higgins on January 29th, 2022. But he was at the police station, as we've just seen. You heard evidence that Higgins and Chief of Police Kenneth Berkowitz, also good friends, were in the Sallyport together with the SUV for a quote wildly long time. Kelly Dever, another Boston cop, told you that.

MR. JACKSON: She also told law enforcement agents that she found it quote weird that Higgins could have access to that very sensitive evidence, the SUV. Folks, there is never a situation in which a witness, a potential suspect even, should be given access to the evidence in a case. But that's exactly what happened here. Higgins was given unfettered access to that SUV and its tail light nearly immediately according to Kelly Dever's statement to law enforcement. And it was at that exact time, the exact moment that Higgins would be in that Sallyport, that the 42 minutes of the Sallyport video — it's just missing. It's just gone, vanished. Well, that's convenient. Now, put in context the condition of that tail light when it was actually seized in Dighton. It was cracked but not completely damaged.

MR. JACKSON: I ask you to compare and contrast Officer Kelly Dever, her attitude, her demeanor. That's all for you to judge. Her attitude, her demeanor, her truthfulness, her motives from the witness stand. Compare and contrast that to Officer Nicholas Barros. Who's more believable? Officer Barros is unattached to any of the players in this grand play directed by Michael Proctor. He's truly independent. And what did he tell you? He was asked, "Was the tail light in this condition when Michael Proctor picked up that SUV at 4:12?" His answer, "Absolutely not. Absolutely not. It was cracked, but not completely damaged, not smashed out like that." So, how did the tail light get cracked? How did it end up in the condition where it was cracked as Officer Barros saw it, but not completely damaged?

MR. JACKSON: Well, you don't have to guess. There's a video. Just watch. That's how it got cracked. And Judson Welcher's own recreation confirms it. Look at the contact. That's from the Commonwealth expert. And that further is confirmed by the fact that there were no tail light pieces found in any of the initial searches conducted at the scene. Two searches, 50 foot area searched. Not a single fragment was found until after Michael Proctor had access to and control of that SUV and its tail light. What does that say about the character and quality of this case? It's revealing what happened here at trial. One of the most dramatic moments probably of the trial. Kelly Dever, how can you trust this investigation when you saw how far a police officer will go?

MR. JACKSON: You had a front row seat to the power of police manipulation and police corruption. A front row seat. Kelly Dever was interviewed by a separate law enforcement agency. Not a friendly department, not Boston Police Department, not Michael Proctor's MSP, a different independent agency. She told those law enforcement agents in a formal interview that she saw Brian Higgins and Chief Kenneth Berkowitz alone in the Sallyport with the SUV. She was detailed. She was clear. She was unequivocal. She remembered the specifics. She recalled how it made her feel quote weird. She recalled how long Higgins spent, a quote wildly long time as she described. These are all incredible details to tell law enforcement. She couldn't have been clearer. She couldn't have been more specific.

MR. JACKSON: But then she's put on a witness list and she's subpoenaed by the defense. Oh boy. Then this rookie cop was called up to the police commissioner's office, the same commissioner that was the boss of Brian Albert. They have a meeting, a private meeting, and he says, "Wink wink, nod, nod. We support you, Officer Dever." What else was said in that meeting? What else is reasonable to believe was said in that meeting? She claimed she couldn't remember. She claimed not to remember if he instructed her to do the right thing. But the commissioner of the Boston Police Department certainly said something to this rookie cop. And all of a sudden, that detailed, unambiguous, unequivocal statement to law enforcement became what? What did she say? A false memory. Not I didn't say it.

MR. JACKSON: She admitted she said it. She admitted she detailed the entire story. She just said it's a false memory. What? So, she's called to the commissioner's office to make sure that she would do the right thing. That's why she was called. And now we know what that means. In her words, "My entire career depends on what I say here on the stand." I'll quote that again. Quote, "My entire career depends on what I say here on the stand." You bet it does. That's how it works. And that's how we got here. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, can you trust the Commonwealth's case? Can you trust their witnesses? Can you trust their evidence? And here are a few of the highlights.

MR. JACKSON: A video that was played in a courtroom and sold as accurate turns out was completely inverted, flipped backward, completely false — the test that formed the basis of their entire theory of the case. Watch closely as Dr. Welcher stands as a surrogate. Is that a righteous test or is that a manipulation? Dr. Welcher tried to deceive and fool you by leaning into the car, manipulating the results of his own test. When the truth was revealed by Dr. Rentschler, the Commonwealth spent the next hour cross-examining him about how that test was meaningless. It actually didn't mean anything. Well, that's convenient now that we realize that it was a manipulated test and it actually does mean nothing. It didn't represent the theory of the Commonwealth's case. That's what was suggested.

MR. JACKSON: That test does not represent the theory of the Commonwealth's case. Really? Then why was Dr. Welcher playing dress up in John O'Keefe's clothes, or identical clothes to John O'Keefe, when he was holding a glass. Why was he holding the glass right behind the vehicle? And why was he standing with his right arm oriented to the right rear tail light if he wasn't trying to recreate the circumstance that is the Commonwealth's entire theory? The Commonwealth stood up here with a straight face and told you they weren't trying to suggest that that's how John was hit by the car. Of course, they were trying to suggest that — that's their theory of the case. They only abandoned it two days ago when it was revealed by our experts that it's physically impossible.

MR. JACKSON: That silent witness, that science, that physics has become very pesky to the Commonwealth because there was no collision. Dr. Welcher also told you under oath that there were no X-rays taken of John's arm, tried to deceive you into believing that John's arm might have been broken. I don't know. I didn't see any X-rays, so I can't tell you what the damage was inside the arm. Really? The Commonwealth has had those X-rays in their possession for 3 years. And again, it took the defense to bring out the truth. The X-rays do not fit the Commonwealth's theory, so you weren't shown. And Dr. Welcher wasn't going to admit it. And my goodness, then we get to the sweatshirt. That was a moment. Mr.

MR. JACKSON: Brennan stood here in front of you and dramatically held up John's sweatshirt, not just to the witness, but to you, and asked Dr. Wolfe about it multiple times, specifically while it was in that plexiglass, asked Dr. Wolfe about the multiple holes in the back of the sweatshirt. He interrupted Dr. Wolfe. And Dr. Wolfe started to look at the sweatshirt and say, "Well, I" — and he said, "How about here? Here's a hole. Here's a hole. Here's a hole. Here's a hole." Dramatically tapping on that plexiglass. It was clear what the suggestion was. That the holes in the back of John's sweatshirt were from January 29th. That's the impression that was expected to be left with you. That's the impression that he wanted to leave with you. And that's false.

MR. JACKSON: The truth is the Commonwealth created those holes. They aren't holes from road rash. They weren't made on January 29th. Those are cuttings from the Commonwealth's own crime lab, folks. That's what those holes are. And even with three prosecutors, all three of them sitting right there in the room at the time, it had to be the defense to correct that record to bring out the truth. If we hadn't done that, what impression would you folks have been left with? That's more than negligence. That's dangerous. It's dangerous. I'm going to guess that Mr. Brennan's not going to say much about this, about the fraud that was attempted on you. And if he doesn't, that speaks louder than any concocted excuse that the Commonwealth might come up with. It's shameful. It's shameful.

MR. JACKSON: We are after the truth in this courtroom. You're entitled to it. Demand it. Why would the Commonwealth stoop to a stunt like that? It's desperation. They know what you now know, what their experts know. There was no collision. So, now we've reached the final moments of the trial and you've seen the facts and you've seen the evidence and we've just talked about dozens and dozens and dozens of facts that are reasonable doubt. Each one of them are reasonable doubts. These facts, these note cards that you're looking at piled high, one on top of another, literally stacks and stacks of them covering the table. As you mentally sift through those cards, realize that every one of them is a massive hole in the Commonwealth's case.

MR. JACKSON: Every single one of the note cards represents a hole in the Commonwealth's case. If you're holding mentally even one of those cards, you're holding reasonable doubt, folks. You're holding a not-guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is not a sliding scale. It's a wall. If the Commonwealth cannot get over every one of these dozens of walls, you have to acquit Karen Read. The truth is Karen Read is not guilty. Not because of technicalities, but because the facts, the law, the science, the physics, the data, they all say so. They demand it. The Commonwealth does not have a theory about how John was hit by the car. They haven't even shown you that it's possible that he was hit by a car. And the reason they haven't is because it's not possible that he was hit by a car. There was no collision.

MR. JACKSON: Your job is not to do their job, their burden entirely. It's theirs. They have to prove this case and their theory beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. And not only do they not have a theory, they can't prove one that doesn't exist. All you need to know is that the Commonwealth failed. They failed to provide you with a truthful representation. They failed to prove the essence of their case that John was even hit by a car to begin with. They failed to prove any intent on the part of Karen Read because she has none. They failed to investigate the actual suspects in this case. They failed to present the lead investigator to you. They failed to justify the perjured testimony that you heard discussed in this case.

MR. JACKSON: They failed to hold accountable an officer who came in here and lied to you and claimed false memories so she could do the right thing to cover for a fellow cop or cops. They failed to maintain a fair and unbiased and honest investigation. They failed to present you with the truth. And this is what you get. An investigation that's riddled with errors and omissions and a rush to judgment and conflicted and corrupted from the start. Every part of it, that is the literal definition of reasonable doubt. How can they ask you to be morally certain based on this evidence? It's a tragedy. When the government fails so completely, so catastrophically, when there are dozens and dozens of points of reasonable doubt on the table, your duty, your oath, your oath is clear.

MR. JACKSON: Your sworn obligation under the law is to acquit Karen Read. Not just because you can, because you must. Justice demands it. Do not let the Commonwealth get away with this. Don't let them get away with this. Do not endorse and sanction an investigation that is broken and corrupted top to bottom. But just as importantly, do not let Michael Proctor get away with it. And make no mistake about it, folks. If you convict Karen Read of anything, if you convict her of anything, science, the physics, the data, they lose. But tragically, Michael Proctor wins. Remember his texts? Something stinks. Yeah, but serious charges will be brought on the girl. She's — Could you ever, ever say to yourself, "This is justice." The fact is, there was no collision. A car did not kill John O'Keefe.

MR. JACKSON: So I ask you, let your voice be heard, not in whispers, but in truth. Let the community feel through your verdict that justice cannot be bent and that it will not be buried. Find Karen Read. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Thank you.