← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Former Cop Accuses Defense of Threats in Karen Read Trial Bombshell | Karen Read Trial Day 25
00:11:09
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Ashley Banfield
SA Officer Dever shot back, I have no idea why I'm here. She said, I have no connection to this case. But that didn't stop the defense from grilling her. Then came one of the more explosive moments of Officer Devers testimony. A direct challenge to something she once told investigators under oath. Erin's lawyer asked whether she told an outside law enforcement agency that she saw Brian Higgins with Karen Reed's SUV in the Sally Port of the Canton Police Department. Remember, Brian Higgins is one of the men that the defense says could have killed John o' Keefe. And alongside Higgins, former Canton Police Chief Ken Berkowitz, who passed away last December. The defense has long suggested that Berkowitz may have tampered with tail light evidence. On the stand today, Officer Dever did not deny that she said it. Quote, that was my recollection at the time she testified. But she quickly added something else. She now knows that memory was wrong because of the timeline showing when the SUV actually arrived at the garage. And then she dropped this. Quote, we've discussed this previously. I can't make this statement on the stand because I've been provided information released by the defense that it was not a memory, it was a distorted memory. Therefore, I can't state it because at this point it would be a lie. Karen's lawyer, unfazed, shot back, Ms. Dever, I've never asked you to make a statement one way or another on the stand. I'm asking you an open ended question. Did you observe something in, in the Sally port garage on January 29, 2022 that you found unusual that stuck out in your mind? Officer Dever responded firmly, saying that based on what she now knows about the timeline, she is certain that she did not see anything unusual in the Sally Port that day. And just when you thought Officer Dever's testimony couldn't get more tense, it did. Under cross examination from prosecutor Hank Brennan, Officer Dever claimed that before Karen Reid's first trial even began, a male member of the defense team reached out to her. And the interaction, she said, quickly escalated. She said, quote, they were looking for me to say I saw Higgins and Berkowitz in the garage with the car. Officer Dever testified, quote, they became very aggressive, raised their voices. The one word I can very definitely remember is they said they would charge me with perjury. Back on redirect, Karen's lawyer wasn't having it. He reminded the jury, attorneys don't file criminal charges. Quote, the fact of the matter is nobody ever threatened you with perjury. Did they? He asked. Oh, they did. Yes. Officer Dever insisted. I contacted the FBI regarding it, and that was that. After those fireworks, Dr. Marie Russell took the stand. She's a former emergency physician and forensic pathologist. And today she testified that the wounds on John o' Keefe's arm weren't caused by a car, but by a dog. That's right. Multiple strikes, she said, from canine teeth and possibly claws. If you're listening, you don't know, but my dog Atlas is dead asleep beside me. If you're watching, I'm not sure if you saw his eyes open or not at that moment, but this dog, he's been the most gentle dog I've ever encountered in my life. Doesn't scratch, doesn't bite, doesn't bark, doesn't threaten. It's hard to believe that a dog could actually do the things that this expert is saying. Anyway, this witness showed the jury images of John o' Keefe's wounds and the holes in his clothing. And one in particular, she said it matched the shape of a dog's tooth. Dr. Russell used what she called, quote, pattern recognition and differential diagnosis, the same process that doctors use to rule out other explanations. And in her view, there was no motor vehicle trauma, no typical signs of being struck by a car, just clusters of injuries before death consistent with a dog attack. Dr. Russell told the jury she's evaluated more than 500 dog bites in her career, including at least 60 severe ones, and has treated countless victims of pedestrian car crashes. And in her opinion, o' Keeffe's wounds do not match a car. They match a dog. I should also mention told you earlier about the dog bites. Well, the dog in this particular story is a dog named Chloe. She's a German shepherd, and she had a history of being aggressive. Dr. Russell also described how she got involved in Karen Reid's case. She said that she lives in California and she saw an article in the Boston Globe and barely paid attention. But once she learned a dog might have been involved, she reached out to someone that she knew at the LA District Attorney's office. Dr. Russell called her background unique, board certified in emergency medicine, trained in forensic pathology, and said that she felt an obligation to offer her insight. But on cross, prosecutor Hank Brennan zeroed in. The prosecutor asked about her lack of formal certification in dog bite analysis. Dr. Russell replied, I don't think any exist. He asked her about her decision to reach out to the defense. Dr. Russell said she was reluctant. And when the prosecutor suggested that she's changed her opinion over time, Dr. Russell said no, just that, quote, her degree of certainty increased after more research. Prosecutor Hank Brennan kept the pressure on. He challenged Dr. Russell directly, asking if she'd ever identified the origin of a wound as a dog bite without knowing where the INJ injury actually came from. And Dr. Russell said no, but added that she's been documenting and photographing dog bites since the 1990s. The prosecutor then pointed the jury to the medical examiner's own report, which said the wounds on John o' Keefe's arm were, quote, superficial, with no punctures and no depth. Dr. Russell didn't flinch. She said, that's not inconsistent with my conclusion. When the prosecutor pushed harder, suggesting her story had changed, Russell responded with something that left the courtroom quiet. Quote, in medicine, she said, we're taught that Nothing is ever 100%, but I am confident these injuries were caused by a dog attack, end quote. It was a tense exchange. And when the prosecutors started pressing harder on how Dr. Russell's views may have evolved, the defense objected. The judge called a sidebar, and then she sent the jury home. Dr. Russell is expected back on the stand on Tuesday, and you can bet the cross examination is not over. So what do we make of today? A witness who says she was pressured by the defense, a state investigator exposed for calling the defendant vulgar names, and a dog bite expert who says this wasn't a hit and run, it was a dog mauling. That's a lot for any jury to process. And remember, the defense is just getting started. And we will be right back here tomorrow. I'm Ashley Banfield. Thank you so much for listening. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious. Sat.