Expert Gets TORCHED by Defense | Karen Read Trial Day 18

Summary

Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield - Episode Summary

Episode: Expert Gets TORCHED by Defense | Karen Reed Trial Day 18
Release Date: May 20, 2025

Ashleigh Banfield delves into the intense developments of Day 18 in the Karen Reed trial, delivering a comprehensive analysis of courtroom drama that could significantly impact the case's outcome. This episode captures pivotal testimonies, strategic defense moves, and unexpected revelations that shape the narrative surrounding Karen Reed's trial.

---

1. Overview of Day 18

Ashleigh opens the episode by setting the stage for Day 18 of the Karen Reed trial, marking five weeks into the proceedings when including jury selection. She emphasizes the day's significance, highlighting new revelations from DNA experts and a digital forensics specialist. The defense's aggressive approach in dismantling prosecution witnesses is a focal point, leaving listeners anticipating the unfolding drama.

“Day 18 delivered some new revelations on every front... we heard from DNA scientists, a digital forensics expert, and the defense went after a prosecution witness hard.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [00:05]

2. Prosecution's DNA Evidence

a. Testimony of Nicholas Bradford

Nicholas Bradford, a DNA expert from BODE Technology, presented critical evidence linking DNA found on Karen Reed's SUV taillight to John O'Keefe and two unidentified individuals. Importantly, Bradford excluded Massachusetts State Police Officers Yuri Buchanak and Michael Proctor as DNA contributors.

“He found DNA that most likely came from John O'Keefe, along with two unidentified individuals... strong support for excluding both of those cops as possible contributors.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [02:15]

However, during cross-examination, Defense Attorney Alan Jackson highlighted a significant omission: the failure to test the DNA against other potential suspects suggested by Karen Reed's team, including Brian Higgins, Brian Albert, Kevin Albert, and former Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz.

“The DNA expert wasn't asked to test the DNA against any of the other men Karen Reed's team suggested could be involved...”
— Ashleigh Banfield [04:00]

b. Testimony of Carl Miyasako

Carl Miyasako, a senior DNA analyst from Bode Technology, examined a hair recovered from the SUV's back corner quarter panel. He testified that the mitochondrial DNA matched John O'Keefe.

“The hair was a mitochondrial DNA match for John O'Keefe.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [05:10]

Under cross-examination, Miyasako conceded his inability to exclude individuals maternally related to John O'Keefe, a limitation that could introduce reasonable doubt regarding the DNA evidence's conclusiveness.

“I can't exclude anyone maternally related to John o' Keefe.”
— Carl Miyasako [06:00]

3. Digital Forensics Testimony of Shannon Burgess

Shannon Burgess, a digital forensics expert from Aperture, analyzed data from Karen Reed's SUV infotainment system. Burgess identified a crucial oversight: the omission of user data, including contacts, device connections, and, notably, timestamps indicating when the vehicle was turned on and off.

“The user data... timestamps for when the car was turned on and off... this could be a mistake.”
— Shannon Burgess [07:05]

Burgess established that the SUV's engine was turned on at 12:12 am and turned off at 12:42 am on the night of January 29, 2022. By correlating this with John O'Keefe's iPhone activity tracked via the Waze app, he demonstrated that the SUV was backing up at the precise moment O'Keefe's phone ceased activity.

“The SUV backed up at exactly 12:31:43am... once adjusted, it would have happened between 12:32:04 and 12:32:12am.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [07:55]

This synchronization between the SUV's movements and the last known activity of O'Keefe's phone presented a compelling, time-sensitive link implicating Karen Reed.

4. Defense's Aggressive Cross-Examination of Shannon Burgess

a. Challenging Expert Bias

Defense Attorney Robert Alessi launched a vigorous attack on Burgess, questioning potential bias and the expert's impartiality. Alessi pointed out that Burgess referred to the case as a "motor vehicle homicide" prior to conducting any analysis, despite the medical examiner's classification of O'Keefe's death as "undetermined."

“Did you refer to this case as a motor vehicle homicide before doing any of the actual testing?”
— Defense Attorney [08:34]

Burgess admitted to this terminology, undermining the perceived neutrality of his analysis.

“Yeah.”
— Digital Forensics Expert, Shannon Burgess [08:45]

b. Exposing Credential Misrepresentations

Alessi meticulously deconstructed Burgess’s academic and professional credentials. Initially claiming a Bachelor's degree in General Science with Mathematics and Business Administration from the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Burgess was forced to reveal under oath that he only possessed an associate's degree.

“So you would agree that there's not even a degree called Bachelor of General Science and Mathematics and Business Administration offered at the University of Alabama, Correct?”
— Defense Attorney [10:24]

“Correct. That should be Bachelor of General Studies with Minor in Mathematics and Business Administration.”
— Shannon Burgess [10:55]

Further scrutiny showed discrepancies in his reported graduation dates and the absence of his supposed degree in official university records.

“Yeah, that's embarrassing.”
— Shannon Burgess [09:19]

c. Highlighting Report Inaccuracies

Alessi continued to undermine Burgess by addressing errors in his forensic reports, notably the confusion between megabits and megabytes—fundamental distinctions in data measurement.

“Do you ever review what you cut and paste to see if it's accurate?”
— Defense Attorney [14:06]

“No, I did not think it was significant.”
— Shannon Burgess [14:30]

These admissions painted Burgess as unreliable, casting doubt on the integrity of his forensic analysis.

5. Implications for the Case

The defense's thorough dismantling of Shannon Burgess’s credibility introduced significant doubt regarding the digital forensics evidence presented by the prosecution. While the DNA evidence initially appeared to strengthen the prosecution's case, the undermining of a key expert potentially destabilized these claims.

Ashleigh points out the jury's critical role in interpreting these developments, highlighting one juror’s lack of note-taking—an unusual reaction that suggests varied perceptions of the day's testimonies.

“If the jury believes the expert who lied about his own knowledge?... he'll be carrying some serious baggage.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [12:49]

6. Conclusion and Forward Look

Ashleigh concludes the episode by reflecting on the unprecedented level of expert discrediting witnessed in the trial. The defense’s success in exposing Burgess’s dishonesty and technical errors not only challenges the prosecution's evidence but also redefines the battle lines for the remaining trial days.

“It's hard to make it sound okay for the jury that's over there... he's listed this whole science and mathematics degree that he does not have.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [11:12]

As the trial progresses, Ashleigh leaves listeners contemplating whether the prosecution can recover from these setbacks or if the defense's revelations will tilt the scales of justice.

“Even I know the difference [between megabits and megabytes] and I really don't know science. But we'll see how the defense handles it from here.”
— Ashleigh Banfield [14:32]

---

Key Takeaways:

• Prosecution's DNA and Digital Evidence: Initially strong connections between Karen Reed’s SUV and John O'Keefe through DNA and digital timestamps.

• Defense's Strategic Undermining: Effective exposure of credibility issues with key prosecution witnesses, particularly digital forensics expert Shannon Burgess.

• Impact on Jury Perception: The defense's revelations may cast significant doubt on the prosecution's case, potentially influencing the jury's decision-making process.

Ashleigh Banfield masterfully navigates the complexities of the trial, providing listeners with an in-depth understanding of the strategies employed by both the prosecution and defense. This episode underscores the delicate balance of presenting and scrutinizing forensic evidence in high-stakes legal battles.

---

Subscribe for More Insights:
Stay updated with every twist and turn in the Karen Reed trial by subscribing to "Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield." New episodes air every Thursday, offering unparalleled commentary and analysis on true crime cases.

Transcript

[Ashley Banfield]

Hi, everybody. I'm Ashley Banfield and this is Drop dead Serious. It was day 18 of the Karen Reed trial, and if you're keeping count, that means we are five weeks into this thing. If you count jury selection, which I always do. But day 18 delivered some new revelations on every front. We heard from DNA scientists, a digital forensics expert, and we saw the defense go after a prosecution witness and hard. I mean, wait for this one, folks. I am going to describe this thing to you of what happened. I mean, you can apply every verb you want. Shredded, eviscerated, pummeled, destroyed. You get where I'm going, I'm going to take you there. But it is worth the wait. Then also, this person that was shredded, eviscerated, pummeled wasn't just, like, ripped up on his analysis. He was ripped up on his credentials, too. And it was, like, really, really embarrassing. Wait for it. It'll be great. And then by the end of the day, it wasn't clear whether the prosecution had just strengthened their case or if they'd introduced a brand new problem for their case. So let's start from the top, and I will let you know this. We have the Atlas Cam. We finally got the Atlas Cam up in the podcast studio. I don't know if you've heard him every so often snort or cough in the background, but he's at my feet, always at every single broadcast and every single podcast. And so finally, we got the Atlas Cam and he's. He's completely cashed out, having the time of his life. So let's start. The first witness was Nicholas Bradford, a DNA expert with BODE Technology. Prosecutor Adam Lally walked him through what he found on the taillight of Karen Reed's SUV. And Mr. Bradford told the jury that he found DNA that most likely came from John o' Keefe, along with two unidentified individuals. He also looked at whether the DNA could belong to Massachusetts State Police Officers Yuri Buchanak and Michael Proctor, and his answer was no. Bradford said the evidence showed strong support for excluding both of those cops as possible contributors. But on cross examination, defense attorney Alan Jackson pointed out a huge omission. The DNA expert wasn't asked to test the DNA against any of the other men Karen Reed's team suggested could be involved in John o' Keefe's death. Not Brian Higgins, not Brian Albert, not Kevin Albert, and not former Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz. Karen's lawyer also asked the DNA expert about how excluded Michael Proctor really was. And Bradford explained it was 76, 000 times more likely that the DNA came from three unknown individuals than from Michael Proctor himself and two unknowns. And then came the next witness, Carl Miyasako, also with Bode Technology. He's a senior DNA analyst, and his job was to examine a hair that investigators recovered from the back corner quarter panel of Karen Reed's suv. The DNA analyst testified that the hair was a mitochondrial DNA match for John o' Keefe. Under cross examination, the DNA analyst admitted, I can't exclude anyone maternally related to John o' Keefe. And then came the prosecution's next witness, Shannon Burgess, a digital forensics expert with a private crash reconstruction firm called Aperture. The expert told the jury that his job was to analyze the data that was pulled from Karen Reed's suv, specifically the infotainment system. Now, he wasn't the one who did the original download, but after reviewing the raw data, he said something big had been missed. The user data. And that means things like contacts, device connections, and most importantly, timestamps for when the car was turned on and off. The expert said this was a mistake, possibly because the chip that stores the data wasn't read properly, or maybe because it was missed altogether. He walked the jury through how his team tested a similar vehicle to make sure their method worked before analyzing the actual SD card from Karen's car. And according to his findings, the car's first power on event of the night on January 29, 2022 happened at 12:12am and then powered off at 12:42am he then used this data to compare timestamps from the SUV to data from John O' Keefe's iPhone, which had been tracking his location using the Waze app. And here's where things got technical. But I am going to try to keep it very simple. The expert said there's always a small difference in clocks between, you know, various devices. Like your watch could be different from your Alexa at home. Your clock on your bedside table could be different from your TV. In this case, he calculated a 21 to 29 second variance between the car's clock and the iPhone. John's iPhone. And that matters because according to his analysis, the SUV backed up, went into reverse and backed up at exactly 12:31:43am that's on its internal clock. And once you adjust for that variance, it would have happened sometime between 12:32:04 and 12:32:12 in the a.m. and that window, it includes the last moment that John O. Keefes phone was active at 1232 09. So that's pretty damning for Karen Reed, right? If it matches up, his last act of time with his phone matches up exactly with the time that Karen Reed's car is flying in reverse. I mean, that's going to look really bad for the defendant here. That's an uphill climb, you would think, for her lawyers. And we'd be wrong. This is where it pays to have good lawyers. And not just good lawyers, good investigators, like people who know what to look for, how deep, to peel the layers back. And Karen's attorneys and her team did that. So Karen's lawyer, Robert Alessi, started by challenging this expert on something critical bias. Right? We all have it, believe it or not. Science isn't just science. Sometimes science has bias, especially if you're coming at it with one perspective and then trying to prove that perspective. So the lawyer asked the digital forensic expert whether he had referred to this case as a, quote, motor vehicle homicide before doing any of the actual testing. And guess what? The expert said? Yeah, the expert admitted that he had. And that's a problem because the medical examiner has never ruled this case a homicide. Right. The official cause of death is still, quote, undetermined, end quote. And then Karen's lawyer turned to the expert's qualifications and what happened next was a bloodbath. It was brutal, it was uncomfortable, it was really, really good lawyering. But it just felt like David and Goliath. Right. So the lawyer asked the expert about his resume. Right. Karen's lawyer is now going after this guy and how smart he is, or not smart. And the lawyer pointed out that in multiple places, it said the expert had a Bachelor's of General Science in Mathematics and Business Administration. But that may not be entirely accurate, as in not accurate at all. And under oath, this expert had to admit to a packed courtroom and then, you know, to people like me who podcast it afterwards, that in fact, it was not true. Yeah, that's embarrassing. Yet my resume and the credentials I have, my, you know, bachelor's degree, it's not true. And that was a moment for the defense, right? A moment entering into evidence all the things that made this expert, a so called expert, his resume, his bio on the Aperture website, as well as his LinkedIn page.

[Defense Attorney]

Are you notified when someone electronically accesses your LinkedIn account?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Not accesses, no. Are you referring to viewing?

[Defense Attorney]

Yes, that's a better viewing. Yes.

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney]

So you're notified. Were you notified within the last 72 hours that someone from the defense accessed your publicly available. Reviewed your publicly available LinkedIn account no.

[Digital Forensics Expert]

I was not aware.

[Defense Attorney]

Are you aware that within the last 72 hours that hyperlink on Apertures official website was disabled?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

No, I was not aware.

[Defense Attorney]

Are you aware that now if you try to go on that link that you can't that it's disabled?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

No, I'm not aware of that.

[Defense Attorney]

Do you know whether anyone from Aperture directed someone within Aperture to disable your LinkedIn account within the last 72 hours?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

No, I'm not.

[Defense Attorney]

Have you ever. Have you spoken to anybody at aperture about your LinkedIn account?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

No, I have not.

[Ashley Banfield]

As it turned out, this expert currently only has an associate's degree. And as for that bachelor's degree, on his resume he listed his graduation date as 2018. But on the stand the expert said that degree is still in progress. The Expert said the 2018 graduation date on his CV was, it was a mistake and he hadn't updated it because he never graduated. And On a different CV it listed the expert's graduation date as 2022. And then it just got worse from there.

[Defense Attorney]

Are you aware that there's no degree at the University of Alabama, Birmingham called a Bachelor of General Science in Mathematics in Business Administration?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Yes, I am. And that is one of the errors I identified.

[Defense Attorney]

So you would agree that there's not even a degree called Bachelor of General Science and Mathematics and Business Administration offered at the University of Alabama, Correct?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Correct. That should be Bachelor of General Studies with Minor in Mathematics and Business Administration.

[Defense Attorney]

And what you just articulated you do not possess as you sit here today, correct?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

That is correct.

[Defense Attorney]

What you possess is an associate's degree, correct?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Correct.

[Defense Attorney]

And when did she, you obtain that associate's degree?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

So that would have been 2015.

[Ashley Banfield]

So I have seen experts on the stand have their credentials questioned. I have seen lawyers come after so called scientists or experts and say, oh, what do you really know about this? Or what is this science? Is it junk science? So people call it junk science. Like how good is your work anyway? And how long have you really worked? I just don't think I've had this happen in a case that I have followed where an expert is on the stand and is just completely shredded to bits. Like is made out to be a faker, a phony, a liar, right? An educational liar. You know, it's, he's like he's listed this whole science and mathematics degree that he does not have and it's on LinkedIn and it's on the company website. It's in three different places. It's not, it's really not easy to try to make that Sound okay? It's hard to make it sound okay to the grilling lawyer in front of you. It's hard to make it okay for the jury that's over there, and then that whole gallery behind you and those cameras. Like that is also not cool. Yeah, but it went from worse to.

[Defense Attorney]

Worser if I did the math correctly, sir, you've been pursuing a Bachelor of science degree for 17 years, correct?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

That is correct.

[Defense Attorney]

And you have not obtained it as you sit here today?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

That is correct.

[Defense Attorney]

And yet there are the various documents that we've seen that state that you have obtained a Bachelor of Science.

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Correct again, with errors or misinterpretation.

[Ashley Banfield]

Karen's lawyer even had to explain the word mendacity to him before asking if he was familiar with the term academic dishonesty. And the expert said he was. And then Karen's lawyer questioned the expert about a supplemental report that he had filed in the middle of this trial, a report that the defense did not even receive until May 11, pursuant to your request.

[Defense Attorney]

That's a request. You're referring to a Mr. Brennan, correct?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Correct.

[Defense Attorney]

I have completed an additional analysis concerning the above referenced matter to formulate opinions. The following additional items were reviewed. This wasn't done on your initiative. You put in writing. You did it at the request of Mr. Brennan. Which is it?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

So that was on my own initiative. This is a holdover. So a copy and paste from my original report.

[Defense Attorney]

You're explaining the May 8 report in your language, pursuant to your request, as a cut in pace from a previous report?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Yes, I am.

[Defense Attorney]

Do you cut and paste important information from one rock report to the other without checking it for accuracy?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

I copy and paste certain portions.

[Defense Attorney]

Do you ever review what you cut and paste to see if it's accurate?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

Yes.

[Defense Attorney]

You didn't review it this time, though, did you, sir?

[Digital Forensics Expert]

No, I did not think it was significant.

[Ashley Banfield]

And if that wasn't enough, Karen's lawyer pointed out a glaring error in the expert's original proposal to analyze the car. This expert had confused megabits and megabytes, which are two completely different data measurements. The expert admitted that, yes, his protocol was based, at least in part, on a misunderstanding of those terms. Oops. Meanwhile, the jury was furiously taking notes. All of them, except for one. One juror, according to reporters in the courtroom, said, still hasn't taken a single note the entire trial. Judge Beverly Canoni, decided to end the day there, dismissing the jury and calling it a night for the lawyers, too. So if the jury believes the timing data from this digital forensics expert it is bad for Karen Reed because the Commonwealth is now arguing that her SUV was backing up at the exact same moment that John o' Keefe's phone stopped being in use forever, within seconds. That is the kind of detail that can change minds on a jury. But here's the does the jury believe the expert who lied about his own knowledge? Because after today's testimony, that expert Shannon Burgess is carrying some serious baggage. Misrepresented credentials, a report filed mid trial, a copy paste excuse, and a basic misunderstanding of tech terms like megabits and megabytes. Even I know the difference and I really don't know science. But we'll see how the defense handles it from here. I'm Ashley Banfield. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you so much for watching. I always ask you please subscribe because I have been throwing down the bonus episodes like crazy and I don't want you to miss them. If you subscribe, you'll get everything. Thanks everyone again. So nice to have you in the community. And please remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious serious.