At the heart of Karen Read’s high-profile murder trial is newly analyzed data from her Lexus SUV, recorded the night before her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, was found dead outside a fellow officer’s home.

Read, 45, stands accused of hitting O’Keefe with her SUV in a fit of drunken rage and abandoning him to die in a snowstorm in January 2022. Prosecutors allege the fatal collision occurred outside the home of another officer, Brian Albert, where O’Keefe had reportedly attended a party. But the defense paints a starkly different picture — one of a woman being framed by law enforcement officers in a cover-up.

Prosecutors allege she struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV and left him to die in a snowstorm outside the home of fellow officer Brian Albert in Canton.

Lexus SUV data under scrutiny

At Karen Read’s second murder trial, digital forensics analyst Shannon Burgess testified Tuesday that data from Read’s Lexus SUV does not definitively confirm a collision the morning John O’Keefe died.

When defense attorney Robert Alessi asked, “None of the information in that black box … indicates there was a collision on January 29?” Burgess replied, “Not by itself.”

Alessi pressed, “Are Lexus SUVs trigger-happy?” Burgess responded, “I do not know, sir.”

Though Burgess used the term “collision” in his report, he clarified that this language came from State Police sources, leading Alessi to accuse him of “confirmation bias.”

Missed data sheds light on timeline

Burgess revealed he uncovered a secure digital card on the car’s circuit board—overlooked in the initial investigation—that records detailed time stamps of vehicle activity, including powering on/off and specific maneuvers like backing up or three-point turns.

He explained, “When the Lexus is powered on, an internal clock begins running like a stopwatch. When the car performs a maneuver, a time stamp is created.”

Burgess used GPS data from O’Keefe’s cellphone navigation app and Ring camera footage to verify these time stamps, which the prosecution says are critical in establishing when Read allegedly hit O’Keefe with her vehicle.

Defense challenges analyst’s credibility 

Read’s lawyers challenged Burgess’s credentials, highlighting inconsistencies in his academic qualifications. Alessi pointed out discrepancies between Burgess’s LinkedIn, CVs, and his employer’s website, noting Burgess has “been pursuing a bachelor of science degree for 17 years.”

Burgess admitted, “I don’t know why my resume on the company website contained inaccuracies,” and said he had not updated his LinkedIn profile recently.

Alessi also questioned why Burgess submitted an updated report with new time stamp data weeks into the trial. Burgess said the new report was “clarifications, not changes.”

Despite the defense’s attempts to exclude the report and expert testimony over discovery concerns, Judge Beverly Cannone allowed the prosecution to proceed.

Timeline details emerge from SUV data

The newly revealed vehicle data offers a more precise timeline of Read’s actions around the time of O’Keefe’s death. The data tracks when the SUV was turned on or off and records maneuvers that correspond with the events of the night, helping prosecutors argue Read’s vehicle was involved.

Forensic scientist details DNA findings on SUV and scene

On Friday, Andre Porto, a forensic scientist with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab’s DNA unit, testified about DNA evidence recovered from Karen Read’s SUV and the crime scene.

Porto said he tested the broken rear taillight on Read’s SUV and identified DNA from three contributors. However, he emphasized, “Only John O’Keefe was a likely match.”

He also examined DNA from fragments of a broken cocktail glass found in the yard and confirmed, “Only O’Keefe was seen as a likely match.”

When asked about a hair found on the taillight, Porto stated no human DNA was detected on a hair recovered from the SUV’s right rear panel.

Mitochondrial DNA could match multiple relatives

On Monday, Karl Miyasako, an analyst from Bode Technology, testified regarding a hair sample taken from the vehicle. He explained that mitochondrial DNA testing “found a match to O’Keefe,” but added, “It could also match any one of his maternal relatives.”

DNA on O’Keefe’s clothing shows multiple contributors

Porto further tested stains on O’Keefe’s jeans, sweatshirt, and T-shirt. While DNA from multiple sources was found, he confirmed, “The only likely match was John O’Keefe.”

During cross-examination by defense attorney David Yannetti, Porto acknowledged uncertainty about the origin of other DNA found on O’Keefe’s clothing and other items.

Key DNA tests not conducted on other potential suspects

Porto admitted he was never asked to compare DNA on the taillight with that of Canton Police Officer Kevin Albert or then-Chief Ken Berkowitz.

He also stated no DNA testing was done on the broken cocktail glass to check for Brian Albert, the former Boston police officer who owned the house where O’Keefe was found, or Brian Higgins, an ATF agent who attended the party at Albert’s home.

Defense suggests alternate suspects

The defense argues that O’Keefe may have died following a fight at the party, raising suspicion on Albert and Higgins. This line of questioning underscores the defense’s claim that Karen Read was framed and that others present that night could be responsible for O’Keefe’s death.

This DNA evidence and the gaps highlighted during testimony add complexity to the trial as jurors consider the possible involvement of others beyond Read in the tragic events of that night.