Karen Read trial live updates: Defense rests its case and jury deliberations will begin Tuesday

Testimony is underway in the Karen Read trial, a Mansfield woman charged in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe.

MassLive reporters will provide updates below throughout the day.

1 p.m. update: Defense rests its case with an expert who says not enough evidence to determine what happened to O’Keefe

Prosecutor Adam Lally began asking Dr. Daniel Wolfe about his reconstruction report made in January 2024.

Lally ran through the different pieces of evidence provided to Arcca, the company that Wolfe works for.

Lally pointed out that Wolfe’s report omitted O’Keefe’s shoe and hat which were recovered from the scene.

Wolfe said that in a sideswipe situation, he would not expect a shoe to fall off a pedestrian. He agreed that a shoe falling off can happen during car-pedestrian collisions.

Wolfe said he never asked to view Read’s vehicle, which Lally said remains in police custody.

Earlier in his testimony, Wolfe explained an experiment conducted where he and colleagues launched a cocktail glass at the taillight which produced damage consistent with Read’s vehicle.

Lally asked how Wolfe decided on where to aim. Wolfe explained that they determined to aim at a portion of the taillight where the clear and red met because that’s where the damage to the taillight seemed to emanate from.

Wolfe said he was not aware that first responders heard Read say “I hit him” three times when O’Keefe’s unconscious body was found.

Wolfe said he was not aware that O’Keefe’s DNA was recovered from Read’s taillight.

He was also not provided with a reconstruction report by Trooper Joe Paul.

He also did not review video surveillance of Read backing out of O’Keefe’s home and bumping into his car.

On redirect, Jackson asked Wolfe about the hair and DNA found on Read’s car.

“Does any of that change your opinions and conclusions in this case?” Jackson asked.

“Absolutely not,” Wolfe said.

He was excused from the stand at about 12:12 p.m.

Next, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist with Arcca, took the stand.

He said he analyzes the injuries caused to human bodies through engineering principles.

As with Wolfe, Jackson confirmed with Rentschler he had never heard about the Read case and that neither the defense nor prosecution hired Arcca to analyze the incident causing O’Keefe’s death.

Rentschler said he reached his conclusions based on the medical records and damage to the Lexus, on top of testing of the taillight cover and types of impacts, in addition to where O’Keefe was found.

Generally speaking, Rentschler said that impacts at 24 miles per hour, victims have fractures.

Rentschler said the injury to O’Keefe’s head was not consistent with being struck by a vehicle. In that scenario of a head being struck by a taillight, there would be damage to a person’s spine, he said.

Rentschler said the taillight damage was inconsistent with striking O’Keefe’s arm. He said a car driving at 24 miles per hour backward would’ve seen greater damage to the taillight.

Significant damage would’ve harmed O’Keefe’s arm, including fractures, would be expected if a vehicle struck O’Keefe, Rentschler said.

“More so than simply the abrasions diagnosed in this case,” Rentschler said. “I would expect to see significant trauma.”

Rentschler noted that in most crashes, there would be a main point of contact where a car struck a pedestrian.

Rentschler explained that a body would need to be struck in the center gravity, somewhere around the area of the belly button, for instance, to be propelled up to 30 feet.

For a body struck at its center of gravity, there will be damage on one side of the body where the vehicle makes contact and injuries to the other side of the body where it lands and scrapes along the ground.

Adam Lally, the Norfolk prosecutor, began asking about Rentschler‘s report of the accident reconstruction.

Rentschler said he did not read the state police’s reconstruction report. He said it was not necessary to view Read’s physical car as part of their analysis.

Rentschler agreed that he saw a small bruise to the outside of O’Keefe’s right hand and a small bruise to the right knee.

Rentschler said that he became aware that a small amount of O’Keefe’s DNA was found on the taillight housing but no blood.

Rentschler reiterated that the science does not support that O’Keefe was struck by a vehicle.

“There’s no evidence to indicate what may have allegedly occurred in this case,” Rentschler said.

When asked about whether there was evidence of O’Keefe being sideswiped, Rentschler described how it would not have produced enough force for him to be propelled backward.

Jackson did not have questions for redirect and Rentschler was dismissed.

The defense rested their case after he stepped down.

The judge said that either side would deliver their closing statements on Tuesday morning.

Jurors were dismissed.

11:15 a.m. update: Defense expert says damage to Read’s SUV not consistent with O’Keefe’s injuries

Dr. Daniel Wolfe, a director of accident reconstruction at a company called Arcca, took the stand.

Arcca does work in civil litigation and does projects with the federal government and professional sports, according to Wolfe.

Wolfe gave an analogy of accident reconstruction and compared it to dumping out puzzle pieces of evidence and trying to make the pieces fit into a clear picture using science.

He said he’s worked on well over 1,000 accident reconstructions and more than 100 involved pedestrians.

Alan Jackson, Read’s attorney, asked Wolfe to explain how Arcca uses testing dummies to understand the interactions between pedestrians and vehicles.

Wolfe confirmed with Jackson that he was not hired by the defense.

Arcca was hired by the Department of Justice and FBI, Wolfe said in court last week without jurors present, but the judge limited his testimony from sharing that with jurors today.

Wolfe simply confirmed with Jackson that Arcca was not hired by the defense or prosecutors.

Wolfe said his role in the reconstruction analysis of O’Keefe’s death was focused on the damage to Read’s vehicle.

Wolfe was provided photographs of the SUV, photos of the scene, a death report by the state police, and other aspects of the case.

Based on the scene photographs, Wolfe said he identified fragments of red clear plastic and pieces of chrome and black plastic. There were also fragments of glass and a black drinking straw.

“It was difficult to follow the evidence,” Wolfe said. In a lot of the photographs, they were zoomed in to small pieces of evidence and not wider shots in relation to each other.

Wolfe said he analyzed whether the damage to Read’s car was consistent with striking O’Keefe.

There was no damage to the Lexus that was consistent with a pedestrian crash, he said.

There was damage to an isolated position of the vehicle, namely the taillight, according to Wolfe.

Wolfe said he and his colleagues decided to form a theory about whether the cocktail glass was thrown at the taillight.

He and another lab technician developed an air cannon to fire a drinking glass at the taillight.

They performed two tests in terms of speed, at 30 and 40 miles per hour. It was a “reasonable speed” that an adult male could throw a drinking glass.

Wolfe said they were never told that there was any evidence that O’Keefe had thrown the glass at the taillight, but they wanted to have an understanding of how the taillight and glass interacted.

During a test of a drinking glass thrown at 37 miles per hour, there was damage consistent with the taillight that Read’s SUV had, Wolfe said.

Jackson asked whether any testing was done on whether a person who was holding the glass was struck by a vehicle.

Wolfe said they did not do that testing because there was only a small portion of the car that housed the taillight.

The damage to the back of the Lexus is confined to a 6 1/2-inch length, making the injuries to O’Keef’s arm inconsistent.

Wolfe said they analyzed the injury to the back of O’Keefe’s head to evaluate the forces between a taillight and a human head.

The damage to the SUV’s taillight was inconsistent with striking O’Keefe’s head, Wolfe said.

Jackson asked if Arcca calculated whether a vehicle could strike a person’s arm and project them.

Wolfe said in that scenario, there would be no projection. A force acted on an arm would be moved but the center of mass — a person’s body — would not be projected.

The damage to Read’s vehicle was inconsistent with striking an outstretched arm, Wolfe said.

Jackson asked what the damage to a car would be if it struck an arm at 15 miles per hour.

Wolfe said he would expect to see “deformation.”

The damage to the taillight was not consistent with striking a human head or arm, Wolfe said.

Judge Beverly Cannone called for a morning recess when Jackson finished his questioning.

10:30 a.m. update: Defense expert noticed lack of bruises, fractures on O’Keefe’s body

Elizabeth Little, Read’s attorney, resumed questioning Dr. Frank Sheridan, a defense expert who is a retired chief medical examiner.

She asked Sheridan to assume that O’Keefe was struck at 24 miles per hour by a vehicle and if the injuries were consistent. Sheridan said they were not consistent.

A lack of bruising, Sheridan said, made him think so. The pattern of abrasions didn’t fit with the idea of a vehicle collision, he said.

Next, Little asked about O’Keefe’s head injuries. There were a few minor ones on his face, but there was an impact to the back of the head which caused his death.

There was a laceration in the back of the skull and beneath there was extensive bruising in the scalp, a fracture that started at that point but traveled all the way forward to the frontal area of his skull.

The brain itself had significant injuries, he said. There was a surface level of bleeding in the brain and contusions of the brain substance itself, he said, including in the frontal and side areas.

There was also hemorrhage deep inside the brain, he said, based on the neuropathology report and photographs.

As a result of the injuries to the brain, it began to swell, and there was herniation and the brain pushed downward towards the spinal cord. This would lead to respiratory failure and death, Sheridan said.

“Once this impact occurred, Mr. O’Keefe would’ve been unconscious,” Sheridan said.

Little asked if the injury was consistent with falling onto the grass, and Sheridan said he did not think so. He said maybe on hard ground.

Sheridan commented that he read there was snow on the ground which would’ve softened a potential fall.

Asked about the absence of injuries, Sheridan said that things absent from an autopsy are relevant.

He would’ve expected bruising on the arm from a vehicle impact.

“One of the things that struck me was a distinct absence of bruising on the torso,” Sheridan said. Leg injuries, such as fractures, are also typical in pedestrian crashes.

The doctor said that he’s seen over 1,000 homicides and of those about 200 would’ve involved blunt force trauma.

In a general sense, O’Keefe’s injuries could’ve been consistent with a fight, Sheridan said.

He noted a laceration on O’Keefe’s eyelid and scrape marks on his face. There was also bruising on his hand.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Adam Lally asked about whether Sheridan looked at O’Keefe’s medical records from Good Samaritan Medical Center.

Sheridan agreed he did not see any injuries to O’Keefe’s left arm or leg.

Sheridan said he agreed with the medical examiner’s determination that the cause of death was blunt force trauma and hypothermia.

Lally asked whether it’s common for animal attacks to affect only one area of a person’s body.

Sheridan said he could not remember how injuries were distributed to the body in cases he’s seen involving animal attacks.

Sheridan agreed that he did not see injuries consistent with a dog attack on other parts of O’Keefe’s body.

He said that the injuries looked like they were minutes to hours before O’Keefe’s death.

Lally asked about swabs by state police of O’Keefe’s arm sent to a lab at UC Davis. The DNA testing did not find canine DNA on O’Keefe’s arm.

Sheridan said he did not write a report but signed an affidavit related to the case.

There appeared to be about four or five different swipes or scratches from an animal, Sheridan said.

Lally asked whether Sheridan thought it was possible that the cuts to O’Keefe’s arm could’ve possibly been caused by being sideswiped by a vehicle.

“In my opinion, no,” Sheridan said.

Sheridan agreed that if O’Keefe was struck and fell on asphalt, his head injury would be consistent in that scenario.

Sheridan said there were two possible explanations for O’Keefe’s black eye. He said there was a laceration on his eyelid and there was also the injury from the back of his head that traveled to his front skull.

“There’s no way you can separate them,” Sheridan said.

Lally asked whether the injuries could’ve been caused by a taillight that shattered.

On re-direct, Little showed Sheridan a photograph of O’Keefe’s knees.

She published the photograph for the court to see. A small bruise on the outside of O’Keefe’s knee.

She didn’t ask any questions and Sheridan was dismissed.

9:30 a.m. update: Defense expert testifies about O’Keefe’s arm injuries

The defense called up Dr. Frank Sheridan, a physician with a specialty in forensic pathology.

He’s a retired chief medical examiner and served from 1991 until 2017 in San Bernardino County, California.

Born and raised in Ireland, Sheridan said he received his medical school training there.

After medical school, he worked in Central Africa as a general medical officer for three years.

Sheridan spent two years in Dublin studying pharmacology after returning from Africa. He then spent three years in Oregon teaching genetics.

In 1982, he did a pathology residency in Southern California. From 1986 to 1988, he trained in neuropathology at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.

He said he conducted between 12,000 to 13,000 autopsies during his time at San Bernadino County coroner’s office.

He said he reviewed materials related to O’Keefe’s death, including the autopsy report, the neuropathology report, a toxicology report, and autopsy photographs.

Sheridan also reviewed the criminal complaint, photographs at the scene of his death, photos of Read’s SUV, and photographs of O’Keefe before the autopsy. He also reviewed videos at the scene of death, the death certificate, and Canton police reports.

Elizabeth Little, Read’s attorney, showed a photograph of O’Keefe’s arm taken while at the hospital with cuts that had previously been shown in court.

Sheridan described the cuts as abrasions and said they were caused by blunt force.

He said O’Keefe’s outer layer of skin was scrapped off and described them as “friction injuries, essentially.”

Injuries sustained before death, Sheridan said, based on their color. Post-mortem would’ve made the abrasions more yellowish in color, he said.

Sheridan said he’s seen close to 3,000 motor vehicle victims in his time in the coroner’s office.

Little asked if the injuries to O’Keefe’s arm looked consistent with being struck by a vehicle.

“No, it doesn’t look like that at all,” Sheridan said. “No bruising here. We have linear abrasions without any bruising. It does not look remotely like an impact from a motor vehicle.”

Depending on circumstances you might see bone fractures, Sheridan added.

He’s also seen “quite a few” number of victims of animal attacks, at least a dozen or so fatalities. In some instances, by a dog specifically, he said.

There were at least three or four cases of children being killed by feral dogs, he said. There were cases where a dog was involved, but the dog attack was not the specific cause of death but they left traces of bite and scratch marks.

Sheridan said O’Keefe’s injuries are consistent with a dog attack, and said it was his initial impression when he saw the photograph.

He said the cuts were consistent with a dog’s claws or teeth.

Sheridan used a laser pointer as he described the various clusters of abrasions on O’Keefe’s arm. He said most were consistent with claw marks but some near his elbow could’ve been caused by teeth.

Judge Cannone called for a brief break.

9 a.m. update: Testimony resumes in the Read trial

Read, 44, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of O’Keefe, who was found cold to the touch and unresponsive on Jan. 29, 2022, outside of a home in Canton.

Norfolk County prosecutors say Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV while driving intoxicated. Read’s attorney, David Yannetti, said during the trial’s opening statements that her car never struck O’Keefe and that others are to blame for his death.

The trial is taking place in Dedham’s Norfolk County Superior Court.

The prosecution rested its case last week and the defense began calling witnesses on Friday.

Jurors heard from a Canton snow plow driver, a retired emergency room physician and a digital investigator who testified about the “hos (sic) long to die in cold” Google search by a witness in the case.

Judge Beverly Cannone told jurors she expects the case to be ready for deliberations this week.