← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
33 Seconds of Controversy: Karen Read's Defense Says Timeline Shift Changes Everything | Karen Read Trial Day 17
00:10:29
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Ashley Banfield
Foreign. Hey, everybody, I'm Ashley Banfield, and this is Drop Dead Serious. And we're back with yet another recap of the Karen Reed murder trial in Dedham, Massachusetts. This is day 17 for Karen and company, and it opened with a warning, not to the lawyers, but to the jury. And from there, the tension only climbed. Two forensic scientists were grilled on the stand. A key timeline came under fire, and the defense accused the prosecution of playing dirty with discovery. Here's how it all unfolded. The day started with a sharp tone from the very top. Before a single witness was even called, Judge Beverly Kanoni issued a rare formal warning directly to the jury. Here's what she said. Don't talk, don't make any facial expressions, no muttering under your breath, no audible noises. She told the jurors just to listen and respect both their fellow jurors and the lawyers who've worked so hard to get this case before you. Wow. Wow. I say wow because that is so incredibly rare. The judge taking the piss out of jurors. You do not see that unless it's something really big. And here's why. The jurors have no friends in that courtroom. They're not allowed to talk to each other. They're not allowed to talk to the players. They're literally like sitting ducks who have to just bear the day and essentially have no one to ask any questions of except for one person, and that's the judge. The judge in a case is their friend, is their guide, is their mentor, is their helper. The judge is their everything. And oftentimes, after jury duty, people will say, I just love that judge, you know? So to have Beverly Kanone treat the jurors this way, it had to be big, because they just don't typically do that. You know, one reporter did say that they thought they saw a juror making visible reactions in court. But again, jurors are allowed to be human, and there's no major reporting on any other sort of inappropriate behavior. So this is just very curious. I'm going to hold judgment till I hear more, but wow, that is just some bizarro behavior from the judge. The courtroom did take notice of it, too, of the warning. And then it was showtime. The prosecution's first witness of the day, Andre Porto, a forensic scientist with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab. He also testified in Reed's first trial. The forensic scientist explained his role, analyzing DNA found on several critical items, including broken taillight fragments, John o' Keefe's jeans, a sneaker, and a broken drinking glass recovered from the scene. He told jurors that John o' Keefe's DNA was highly likely to be on many of those items, including the tail light. But on cross examination, defense attorney David Iannetti zeroed in on a glaring omission. Were you ever asked to compare the DNA profiles to either Brian Higgins or Brian Albert? And the scientist responded, I was not. Same answer when it came to comparing the DNA profiles to Canton Police Detective Kevin Albert and Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz. Karen's lawyer then drilled down, so you don't know whose DNA it was. And the forensic scientist had to admit that the DNA could have been from anybody. He testified that several of the items, the jeans, the shirt, the sneaker, all contained multiple DNA contributors, some as many as five. But he wasn't asked to compare any of that to the individuals the defense believes could be involved in a cover up. And crucially, he said he couldn't determine when that DNA was deposited. That, you know, it was just there. After a brief redirect from prosecutor Adam Lally, this forensic scientist was allowed to step down. And next up, Ashley Valliere, another forensic scientist from the state crime lab. This forensic scientist walked jurors through her work, starting with how the evidence was packaged. She said she received a large paper bag, inside of which were several smaller brown bags, each containing a separate item. The forensic scientist also performed a physical match analysis on the red and black plastic fragments found near the scene, showing how they fit together like puzzle pieces. She also examined debris collected from John o' Keeffe's clothing, things like dirt and small plastic fragments. Photos that were shown in court revealed that the evidence, including tail light pieces that was collected by former trooper Michael Proctor, the disgraced trooper who was fired for drinking and driving on the job and unprofessional behavior during the investigation. And then came the cross examination from Karen Reed's lawyer, David Gannetti. He asked the forensic scientist about the timeline, specifically when, when John O. Keefes clothing was submitted for testing. And she confirmed that it was submitted by Michael Proctor and it was submitted a full six weeks after John's death. Karen's lawyer asked, do you know where Michael Proctor stored that clothing during that six week period? And the forensic scientist responded no. She also clarified that she never examined the clothing itself, only the debris that had been extracted from it. Karen's lawyer continued pressing, asking whether she knew about additional taillight pieces recovered from John o' Keefe's home address. And she said no. Karen's lawyer asked whether she was aware of a Potential collision that happened at John o' Keeffe's address well before Karen Reed discovered John in the snow at 34 Fairview Road. And the prosecution objected and Judge Kenoni sustained. By midday, the testimony wrapped and so did the court session. The jurors were dismissed around 12:30pm and Judge Kanone reminded everyone that court will be a half day again next Thursday and dark on Friday. But behind closed doors, things were just getting started. After the jurors left, Judge Kanoni turned her attention to two major discovery disputes. The first involved a report from Shannon Burgess, a witness the prosecution wants to call from a crash reconstruction firm called Aperture. Shannon's report, which was amended on May 11, changed the timeline of when Karen Reed allegedly hit John o' Keefe with her Lexus. And didn't change it by a little, changed it by a lot, like a whopping 33 seconds. Karen's lawyer called this an ambush, saying that just one second could flip this case upside down. Her lawyer also raised concern that that 33 second change came after testimony from Ian Wiffen during this trial. He's the cell phone expert from cellbrite who testified about John o' Keefe's phone data. And the concern here is that the report was changed mid trial right after someone testified about data and that the expert behind the report may have been watching testimony which as we all know, is against the rules. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan pushed back hard saying the government is not changing their timeline. They're just saying things without good faith basis. Judge Kanoni ultimately sided with the prosecution saying she would not hold a voir dire on this witness from Aperture, but gave the defense full leeway to cross examine the witness when they testify. If and if the defense needs to recall earlier witnesses because of all this, the judge said she'd consider that too. Now the second dispute after the doors were closed and the jury went home, that involved arca, the crash reconstruction firm. The forensic crash reconstruction analysis firm that was hired by the defense after the first trial. You may remember that originally ARCA was hired by the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation and write a report on this very case. And as it happened, their report lined up exactly with what the defense contends happened all along. The Karen Reeds Lexus SUV did not hit John o' Keefe. The prosecution claimed they received key information from ARCA well past the discovery deadline and that their own experts needed time to review it, including Aperture's Dr. Judson Welcher, who's expected to testify next week. Judge Kanoni ruled that limited rebuttal from the prosecution would be allowed after arca's testimony. Outside the courtroom, Karen Reed spoke to reporters, saying they're trying now to put on a defense against my defense. And by the way, there's some really big news about that big buffer zone that surrounded the courthouse. You know, the one that the judge imposed to keep protesters well out of earshot of the courtroom and yeah. Know, for the most part, out of ey shot of the courthouse. Well, Karen Reed supporters fought the judge's order, and this week they won. The buffer zone was deemed by a federal appeals court to be an infringement on free speech. So once again, the protesters were allowed to gather closer to the courthouse. But there are conditions. Supporters must stay quiet and not interfere with court operations. Meanwhile, the prosecution seems to be nearing the end of its case. Even though some of the most anticipated witnesses, including Brian Higgins and Michael Proctor and Brian Albert, they have yet to testify. The defense, they're expected to be presenting their case very soon. And I can't wait. But that's it for day 17 and our courtroom recap for the day. Still ahead, a battle of the experts, a final stretch of witnesses, and a defense team getting ready to make its move. And we will be right there for all of it. I'm Ashley Banfield. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you for watching. Thank you for subscribing. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead seriously.