Karen Read is facing tough questions from the defense

The Boston Globe

Bukhenik testified Wednesday that the clothes were soaking wet and placed on butcher paper at his office to dry before they were sealed and stored in the evidence locker.
“What was happening to these items between Jan. 29 … and Feb. 4, when that tag indicates they were first processed?” Jackson asked.
“For six days?” Jackson asked.
“They were soaking wet.” Jackson asked if the clothes during that period would have been accessible to Proctor, a focus on the defense’s case.
“Yes, if Trooper Proctor needed to review those items, he would have access to those items, absolutely,” Bukhenik said.
When investigators questioned her on Jan. 29 about the damage, she said, “‘I don’t know.
It happened last night,’ ” Bukhenik testified Wednesday.
Jackson asked if it appeared there was “an anomaly” in the clip due to missing footage.

NEGATIVE

Advocates for Read contend that she is being set up and that O’Keefe really went into the house on Fairview Road, which was occupied at the time by a fellow Boston police officer who had spent the evening with the couple and other people. O’Keefe was allegedly fatally beaten in the basement before his body was dumped on the lawn, according to the defense.

Bukhenik stated in court on Thursday that in early February 2022, after the January blizzard, investigators discovered a number of objects on the front lawn. 29 started to melt. Several bits of red, clear, and black plastic, O’Keefe’s baseball cap, a cocktail straw, and taillight molding were among them.

According to the authorities, tiny fragments of Read’s passenger-side taillight were discovered inside O’Keefe’s clothing, and her SUV’s damage occurred when it struck him.

During the Thursday cross-examination, Alan Jackson, the attorney for Read, questioned Bukhenik concerning the recovery of the plastic and other items. He stated that the items were not included in a report until November 2023.

“It’s a year and a half, a year and a few months later, right?” he questioned.

Bukhenik responded, “If you say so.”. “I am unsure of the precise date. I’d have to see that report in person. “.

Jackson gave him the report, and Bukhenik verified that November was the date on it. 4, 2023).

Jackson also questioned O’Keefe about the T-shirt and long-sleeve shirt that Bukhenik and the case’s lead investigator, Trooper Michael Proctor, had found in his hospital room on January. 29. According to Bukhenik’s testimony on Wednesday, the garments were sealed and kept in the evidence locker after being left to dry on butcher paper in his office while they were still drenched.

Jackson pointed out on Thursday that according to the records, the clothing wasn’t turned into evidence until February. In 4.

What transpired with these things in the interim between Jan. 29 dots. & February. At step 4, when the tag signifies their initial processing, Jackson enquired.

“Those things were drying on the butcher paper, as far as I knew,” Bukhenik stated.

“Six days?” inquired Jackson.

“Yes, for six days, if that’s what the label maker says,” Bukhenik responded. They were completely drenched in water. “.

Jackson emphasized the defense’s position by posing the question of whether Proctor would have had access to the clothing worn during that time. While State Police stated in March that Proctor was the focus of an internal affairs review but was still performing his duties, Read’s attorneys have claimed that Proctor has social connections to some of the case’s witnesses. On Thursday, it wasn’t immediately apparent how that review was going.

Trooper Proctor would have access to those items, Bukhenik stated, “yes, if he needed to review those items, absolutely.”.

A call that Bukhenik placed to the state medical examiner’s office at around 10:40 a.m. was another question Jackson posed. M. in January. 29, just hours into the investigation.

Have you ever gotten in touch with anyone, dot? and clarify that the victim looked to have been hit in the face by a cocktail glass, making the investigation “suspicious,” in quotation marks?” Jackson questioned.

Adam Lally, the prosecutor, stated, “Objection.”.

Judge Beverly Cannone stated from the bench, “I’ll allow that.”. “Have you said that before?”.

Bukhenik responded, “Yes, your honor.”. Yes, I did mention that to the operations desk of the medical examiner. “.

A video clip from the Ring security camera in O’Keefe’s driveway that Jackson played during the proceedings on Thursday showed Read backing out her SUV to go look for him just after five in the morning. me. in January. 29.

As O’Keefe carefully backs out of the scene, Read’s SUV seems to pass close to her parked car. The rear driver’s side wheel of O’Keefe’s vehicle caught Jackson’s attention because it seemed to be rattling a little bit as Read’s SUV drove alongside.

“I saw the car get close to Mr. O’Keefe’s car while I was watching the video,” Bukhenik stated.

He had already stated in court that there was no debris found around O’Keefe’s car, and that no damage to it had been noticed by the authorities.

Jackson also played back video from Thursday showing Read’s SUV being driven into a Canton police garage on January evening. 29, 2022, following its seizure in Dighton, the residence of Read’s parents.

According to Bukhenik’s testimony, neither Proctor nor he touched the SUV’s taillight or any other part of it before getting a search warrant. However, he also informed Jackson that the garage video was “inverted,” which means that the driver’s side is actually visible in the foreground of the clip, even though it looks like the passenger side. The footage doesn’t show the damaged taillight on the passenger side as a result.

But someone who “appears to be going towards the rear passenger side of the vehicle” is visible, according to Bukhenik.

According to Jackson, the individual—whom Bukhenik was unable to identify—is “standing there, hovering around.”. “.

“We’re not sure how close they are to the actual vehicle,” Bukhenik stated. All we know is that they’re following the car. “.

Prior to January 1, Read drew attention to her broken taillight, according to testimony from witnesses. 29, long before it got to the police garage in Canton. She was questioned by detectives on January. When asked about the damage, she replied, “I’m not sure. That was last night, Bukhenik stated in his testimony on Wednesday.

The video timestamp of the garage footage jumps ahead by less than a minute, and Jackson noticed on Thursday that at one point, when the officer is standing behind the right taillight, a second person appears behind the SUV.

Jackson enquired as to whether the apparent “an anomaly” in the video was the result of lost footage.

“I am unable to discern the nature of the video,” Bukhenik remarked.

Monday’s testimony will continue. “It is safe to say that you will get this case for your deliberations sometime in the last week of June,” Cannone informed the jurors on Thursday after conferring with the sidebar attorneys. “.

scroll to top