On the coronary heart of Karen Learn’s high-profile homicide trial is newly analyzed information from her Lexus SUV, recorded the night time earlier than her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, was discovered lifeless outdoors a fellow officer’s dwelling.
Learn, 45, stands accused of hitting O’Keefe together with her SUV in a match of drunken rage and abandoning him to die in a snowstorm in January 2022. Prosecutors allege the deadly collision occurred outdoors the house of one other officer, Brian Albert, the place O’Keefe had reportedly attended a celebration. However the protection paints a starkly completely different image — one in all a girl being framed by regulation enforcement officers in a cover-up.
Prosecutors allege she struck O’Keefe together with her Lexus SUV and left him to die in a snowstorm outdoors the house of fellow officer Brian Albert in Canton.
Lexus SUV information beneath scrutiny
At Karen Learn’s second homicide trial, digital forensics analyst Shannon Burgess testified Tuesday that information from Learn’s Lexus SUV doesn’t definitively verify a collision the morning John O’Keefe died.
When protection lawyer Robert Alessi requested, “Not one of the data in that black field … signifies there was a collision on January 29?” Burgess replied, “Not by itself.”
Alessi pressed, “Are Lexus SUVs trigger-happy?” Burgess responded, “I have no idea, sir.”
Although Burgess used the time period “collision” in his report, he clarified that this language got here from State Police sources, main Alessi to accuse him of “affirmation bias.”
Missed information sheds gentle on timeline
Burgess revealed he uncovered a safe digital card on the automotive’s circuit board—ignored within the preliminary investigation—that information detailed time stamps of car exercise, together with powering on/off and particular maneuvers like backing up or three-point turns.
He defined, “When the Lexus is powered on, an inside clock begins operating like a stopwatch. When the automotive performs a maneuver, a time stamp is created.”
Burgess used GPS information from O’Keefe’s cellphone navigation app and Ring digital camera footage to confirm these time stamps, which the prosecution says are vital in establishing when Learn allegedly hit O’Keefe together with her car.
Protection challenges analyst’s credibility
Learn’s attorneys challenged Burgess’s credentials, highlighting inconsistencies in his educational {qualifications}. Alessi identified discrepancies between Burgess’s LinkedIn, CVs, and his employer’s web site, noting Burgess has “been pursuing a bachelor of science diploma for 17 years.”
Burgess admitted, “I don’t know why my resume on the corporate web site contained inaccuracies,” and mentioned he had not up to date his LinkedIn profile lately.
Alessi additionally questioned why Burgess submitted an up to date report with new time stamp information weeks into the trial. Burgess mentioned the brand new report was “clarifications, not modifications.”
Regardless of the protection’s makes an attempt to exclude the report and skilled testimony over discovery issues, Choose Beverly Cannone allowed the prosecution to proceed.
Timeline particulars emerge from SUV information
The newly revealed car information presents a extra exact timeline of Learn’s actions across the time of O’Keefe’s loss of life. The information tracks when the SUV was turned on or off and information maneuvers that correspond with the occasions of the night time, serving to prosecutors argue Learn’s car was concerned.
Forensic scientist particulars 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 proof recovered from Karen Learn’s SUV and the crime scene.
Porto mentioned he examined the damaged rear taillight on Learn’s SUV and recognized DNA from three contributors. Nonetheless, he emphasised, “Solely John O’Keefe was a possible match.”
He additionally examined DNA from fragments of a damaged cocktail glass discovered within the yard and confirmed, “Solely O’Keefe was seen as a possible match.”
When requested a couple of hair discovered on the taillight, Porto acknowledged no human DNA was detected on a hair recovered from the SUV’s proper rear panel.
Mitochondrial DNA might match a number of family
On Monday, Karl Miyasako, an analyst from Bode Know-how, testified relating to a hair pattern taken from the car. He defined that mitochondrial DNA testing “discovered a match to O’Keefe,” however added, “It might additionally match any one in all his maternal family.”
DNA on O’Keefe’s clothes reveals a number of contributors
Porto additional examined stains on O’Keefe’s denims, sweatshirt, and T-shirt. Whereas DNA from a number of sources was discovered, he confirmed, “The one probably match was John O’Keefe.”
Throughout cross-examination by protection lawyer David Yannetti, Porto acknowledged uncertainty in regards to the origin of different DNA discovered on O’Keefe’s clothes and different gadgets.
Key DNA exams not performed on different potential suspects
Porto admitted he was by no means requested to match DNA on the taillight with that of Canton Police Officer Kevin Albert or then-Chief Ken Berkowitz.
He additionally acknowledged no DNA testing was performed on the damaged cocktail glass to test for Brian Albert, the previous Boston police officer who owned the home the place O’Keefe was discovered, or Brian Higgins, an ATF agent who attended the social gathering at Albert’s dwelling.
Protection suggests alternate suspects
The protection argues that O’Keefe could have died following a battle on the social gathering, elevating suspicion on Albert and Higgins. This line of questioning underscores the protection’s declare that Karen Learn was framed and that others current that night time may very well be chargeable for O’Keefe’s loss of life.
This DNA proof and the gaps highlighted throughout testimony add complexity to the trial as jurors think about the doable involvement of others past Learn within the tragic occasions of that night time.
