Ashley Banfield (0:02)

Hey, everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is Drop dead Serious. It was day 26 of Karen Reed's murder trial, and the word of the day was memory. Whose memory is reliable and whose might be falling apart? We saw more fireworks between expert witnesses and the defense today. Questions about dog bites, tail lights and DNA testing gone wrong. And a new witness walked in with a story that did not match the official photos, which in a case hinging on forensic details, could mean everything. So let's start at the beginning. Court kicked off today with Dr. Marie Russell, the ER physician turned dog bite expert. She was back on the stand for more cross examination. And special prosecutor Hank Brennan came out swinging. He questioned why her testimony seemed more confident now than it was last year. Last year, he said, she described the injuries to John o' Keefe as being possibly caused by a dog. But this year she used the word likely. He also challenged her methods. He asked if she had confirmation bias. And he even brought up her her ride to court that morning because she rode with Karen's lawyer, Bob Alessi. Dr. Russell said they just chatted about Boston and New York, but nothing about the case. But Brennan pressed more, asking who was it that helped her organize the report from which she was testifying. Dr. Russell said it was a woman who helped her structure it. Brennan then read from her prior testimony where she said it was a lessee who'd helped. He's not a woman. Dr. Russell clarified. Karen's lawyer, Bob Alessi, helped rearrange the report but didn't influence the content. And then the prosecutor asked, quote, do you have any memory issues? And Dr. Russell said no. And that's when the prosecutor pounced, raising concerns that Dr. Russell may have violated the court's witness sequestration rule. Turns out Dr. Russell and Karen's lawyer, Bob Alessi, did briefly discuss the case in the car ride that morning. Dr. Russell admitted that during the ride, Alessi suggested that she ask for a transcript of her earlier testimony. So next, the prosecutor turned back to the injuries on John O' Keefe's body, specifically his arm. Dr. Russell stood by her theory that the abrasions looked like bites from a large dog. But the prosecutor zeroed in on the missing pieces. Literally. He asked her if it was just a little too convenient that every alleged dog bite happened to miss the underside of OKeefe's arm. Dr. Russell said that dogs don't always clamp both jaws down, that sometimes it's just the top teeth. Dr. Russell explained that there's no official peer reviewed system for identifying dog bites and that her conclusions came from pattern recognition and differential diagnosis, which is the same kind of tool that doctors use to rule things in or out based on evidence. But the prosecutor wasn't buying it. He pointed out that the spacing between the marks on John o' Keefe's arm was not consistent, even though a dog's teeth or dog's nails do not change their spacing and size. So why would the wound patterns be different? And Dr. Russell explained that skin stretches and that elasticity can create slight variations. She also told the jury that she couldn't imagine a car causing those injuries. The positioning just did not line up. But when the prosecutor asked if she had done an actual examination of Karen Reed's SUV, Dr. Russell admitted that she had not. The next question Hank Brennan asked. Felt like a bomb went off in this courtroom. Quote, are you aware that there was no dog DNA on John o' Keefe's clothing? Karen's lawyer, Bob Alessi, was furious. He accused the prosecution of breaking a key trial agreement that because there were issues with DNA and testing, neither side would bring it up. Alessi pointed out that the defense had gone out of their way to avoid bringing up DNA, and that there's the Commonwealth now, just putting it right out there in front of the jury. Karen's lawyer immediately asked for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he wanted the whole case tossed out and permanently. Judge Canoni took a break. Everyone regrouped, and when court resumed, the motion was denied. The trial would go on, and so would the grilling of Dr. Russell. Back in front of the jury, the prosecutor picked up right where he Left off, asking Dr. Russell directly was she aware there was no dog DNA on John o' Keefe's clothes. She was. I'm surprised by this, honestly, because if they really did have that agreement and it caused such a stir, why did they come back to that exact same problematic question that had elicited a request for a mistrial, for heaven's sake? Anyway, this witness said she also knew that there was pig DNA on John Okeefe's clothes, but no one knew where it came from. And did that change her opinion? No. Dr. Russell said she reconsidered but didn't waiver. Because, remember, if you really want to try to figure out where pig DNA might come from, if it's on John o' Keeffe's clothes and if, in fact, those are dog bites, there are times when dogs have chew toys that are made of pig's ear or pig products. Maybe that's where it came from. But again, it was so messy. That's why prosecutors and defense attorneys had agreed that not to bring it up. Dr. Russell even questioned whether the testing process itself might have been flawed. But when the prosecutor asked her to point to a specific error in the DNA analysis, she admitted, I can't. DNA is not my specialty. Then came the redirect. And Karen Reed's attorney stepped in to clean up the damaged. But he decided to switch the focus to the red plastic fragments that were found in John Okeeffes clothing, the ones that matched the broken tail light on Reed's suv. Could those tiny shards possibly have caused the injuries to John O' Keeffe's arm? Not at all, Dr. Russell said firmly. Too small. Wrong shape. Facing the wrong direction. Dr. Russell was Crystal clear. These wounds did not come from a tail light, they didn't come from a crash, and they definitely didn't come from slivers of. Of plastic. And with that, her testimony was over. Next, the defense called Dighton police Sergeant Nicholas Barros, a local officer who'd responded the day Karen Reed's SUV was seized. Sgt. Barrows testified that he was there when state troopers showed up to tow the vehicle and that he saw the tail light damage firsthand before any photos were were taken. But here's where things get interesting. Sergeant Barrows told the jury that the damage he saw on Karen Reed's taillight that day does not match what's in the evidence photos. He said the missing section of tail light that he saw was about 6 inches by 2 to 3 inches, but that the photos showed a missing piece that is much, much bigger. The defense played surveillance footage of the SUV being towed. Sgt. Barrows watched closely and said, again, what he saw in that video did not match what he saw in person. And this is huge for Karen Reed's defense. On cross examination, special prosecutor Brennan pressed Sergeant Barrows about this. Did he see any state trooper tamper with the suv? No, he said. Did he see anyone touch the tail light? Also? No. And back in 2022, did Sergeant Barrows document what he saw? Barely. Just one line in his report about the damage. No measurements, no description, nothing about the size of the crack. So why bring it up now? Sergeant Barrows stood his ground. Quote, I know what I saw, and that wasn't it. End quote. Prosecutor kept at it, though. Could he be misremembering? Sergeant Barrows did not flinch. He said no. And that was how the day ended in the Karen Reed trial today. Two very different witnesses, a doctor and a sergeant. Both pushing back on questions about their memory and both with questions about what happened on the night John O' Keefe was killed. Dr. Russell says John wounds were not caused by a car and certainly not by Karen Reed's suv. Sergeant Barrow says the photos don't match what he saw in that driveway. Now the challenge for the jury will be to decide what's provable and what's believable. And we'll be back tomorrow for day 27. I'm Ashley Banfield. Thank you so much for listening. And remember, the truth is, isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.