Tech Evidence Disputed as Second Expert Testifies in Karen Read Trial

A second expert in smartphone forensics cast doubt on defense claims during the ongoing trial of Karen Read, notably challenging the timeline of a critical Google search by Jennifer McCabe. The testimony raised questions about the accuracy of the defense’s assertions regarding the timing of key events in the case.

Key Testimony on Google Search Timing

On Wednesday, Jessica Hyde presented her findings in court, confirming that McCabe’s Google search involving hypothermia occurred at 6:24 a.m., after the remains of John O’Keefe had already been discovered. This contradicts the defense’s argument that the search took place at 2:27 a.m., several hours before investigators reported that Read, McCabe, and Kerry Roberts found O’Keefe dead on 34 Fairview Road.

Hyde explained that the earlier timestamp does not correlate to the search itself, but rather refers to the time McCabe opened her browser. This assertion reinforces the testimony given by Ian Whiffin, a digital forensic expert from Cellebrite, a company that supplies technology for evidence collection.

Expert Testimony Under Scrutiny

Hyde delved into complex terminology related to the forensic analysis of smartphones during her testimony. She discussed concepts such as hex editors, hash values, and database files, illustrating the technical landscape of data extraction and preservation from mobile devices. However, some observers noted that such jargon might confuse jurors who are not familiar with the technology.

David Gelman, a defense attorney based in Philadelphia, criticized the prosecution’s strategy of presenting such intricate technical evidence before the midday court break, suggesting it may have lost the jury’s interest. Gelman remarked that expert witnesses should simplify their explanations, making the information accessible even to those without expertise.

Defense Strategy and Cross-Examination

After the lunch recess, defense attorney Robert Alessi initiated a rigorous cross-examination, probing into Hyde’s methodologies and previous testimony from Read’s first trial. The first trial ended in a hung jury, prompting a retrial with a special prosecutor appointed to lead the case.

During the proceedings, Alessi sought permission to reference a related Maryland case, which he argued could demonstrate that Hyde is an unreliable witness. However, Judge Beverly Cannone ruled against this line of questioning while permitting Alessi to pursue inquiries pertinent to Hyde’s analysis methods.

Chain of Evidence and Procedural Concerns

Under cross-examination, Hyde acknowledged that O’Keefe’s phone was not secured in accordance with established best practices after being retrieved from the scene. This admission raised concerns about potential evidence contamination.

As the examination unfolded, Gelman noted jurors’ potential fatigue with the complexity of the technical discussions. He expressed that jurors typically prefer straightforward testimony that gets to the core issues of the case.

The Charges Facing Karen Read

Read faces serious charges including murder and manslaughter, along with accusations of fleeing the scene of the incident. If convicted on the most severe charge, she could face life imprisonment. Massachusetts prosecutors contend that Read fatally struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV after a night of drinking in Canton, a suburb of Boston. Read has consistently denied these allegations, asserting that she did not hit him.

The Accusations Against Jennifer McCabe

Amid the ongoing proceedings, Jennifer McCabe has come under scrutiny regarding her alleged statements about the incident. Reports indicate that although she has reiterated claims of Read’s confession, the statements appear unsupported by physical evidence.

Evidence Collection and Procedure Discovery

Earlier in the day, Massachusetts State Trooper Connor Keefe testified about his role in collecting evidence pertinent to the case. He detailed how he gathered smartphones from McCabe and Roberts, along with remnants of a taillight and O’Keefe’s sneaker from the scene of the incident.

During his testimony, he opened an evidence bag containing three pieces of broken plastic, raising questions about the integrity of the collected items. Prosecutor Hank Brennan pressed Keefe on whether the extra piece belonged to the damaged taillight in question.

Keefe was unable to clarify how the additional piece was included in the evidence bag. After an objection from the defense regarding the evidence, Keefe was instructed to sort the extra item into a separate bag for clarity.

Establishing a Timeline

The prosecution seeks to establish a precise timeline of events surrounding O’Keefe’s death. Keefe’s testimony proved crucial in demonstrating the location and condition of evidence found outside 34 Fairview Road, where Read and O’Keefe had been seen previously.

As the trial continues, legal experts anticipate more complex evaluations of technical evidence. Testimony is expected to resume at 9 a.m. Thursday, and the courtroom remains focused on the unfolding developments of this high-profile case.