Thursday marks the 23rd day of witness testimony in the murder retrial of Karen Read, who stands accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, with her Lexus SUV and leaving him to die in the cold outside a house party in Canton on January 29, 2022. The prosecution’s crash reconstruction expert, Dr. Judson Welcher, is set to continue his testimony for a third consecutive day at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham.
On Wednesday, the defense rigorously questioned Welcher regarding his methods. He previously stated during his testimony that the damage to Read’s SUV was consistent with a collision involving O’Keefe if Read’s vehicle was moving faster than 8 mph. Defense attorney Robert Alessi scrutinized this claim, particularly concerning a notable fee of $325,000 that the state is paying Welcher’s firm for its analysis. Alessi also challenged Welcher’s reliance on a 1979 study regarding head injuries in pedestrian crashes, suggesting that more current studies indicate a prevalence of lower-extremity injuries instead.
Welcher defended his conclusions by stating that he had indeed considered alternative hypotheses when conducting his assessments. He detailed the SUV’s movements, indicating it made a three-point turn and reversed at a significant speed before the incident. However, under questioning, he acknowledged that he had not definitively established the exact location where Read’s SUV reversed, which was a critical point in understanding the accident.
In a separate motion, prosecutors sought the removal of a key piece of evidence: a resume presented by Shanon Burgess, a digital forensics examiner from Aperture LLC. The prosecution argued that this document should not have been introduced without prior review, calling it a procedural irregularity. Burgess testified that he had analyzed data from Read’s SUV, discovering a timeline of events that are significant to the prosecution’s argument that Read intentionally struck O’Keefe after leaving him at the party.
Read, who has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, including second-degree murder, maintains that she is a victim of a broader police conspiracy, asserting that an officer at the party may have been responsible for O’Keefe’s death. The retrial follows a previous mistrial declaration due to jurors’ inability to reach a consensus.
This ongoing case shines a light on complex issues surrounding the reliability of forensic evidence in legal proceedings. The meticulous examination of such testimonies underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in the justice system, giving hope that the truth will emerge through thorough inquiry.