A German Shepard named Chloe took the spotlight again at the second murder trial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts’ woman accused of killing her Boston cop boyfriend.
Though never mentioned by name, the dog, who lived at the home where John O’Keefe’s body was discovered in the snow, was the subject of hours of testimony by a critical defense expert.
Marie Russell, an emergency physician and former forensic pathologist, doubled down on claims Tuesday that large, surface-level gashes found on O’Keefe’s arm came from canine claws and teeth. Questions from prosecutors about the existence of dog DNA on O’Keefe’s clothes spurred calls from Read’s defense for a mistrial.
But Judge Beverly Cannone quickly squashed the motion.
Russell’s testimony comes days after prosecutors rested their case against Read, who they say backed into O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV at roughly 25 mph, causing him to hit his head on the hard ground, and then left him to die in the snow during a historic blizzard on Jan. 29, 2022.
Read’s defense team alleges she was framed for O’Keefe’s murder. They say local cops beat O’Keefe, let the ravenous dog attack him and then dropped his bloodied and bruised body outside in the freezing cold. Their theory leans on the idea that the lead investigator in the case, Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, attempted to cover up for the cops.
Russell was among the first witnesses to testify about Chloe’s involvement in O’Keefe’s death. During Read’s first trial in 2024, Chloe’s owner, Nicole Albert, said the dog was sent to a farm in Vermont sometime during the investigation into O’Keefe’s death. Albert is the sister of key prosecution witness Jennifer McCabe.
Read is back in court in Dedham, Massachusetts after her 2024 trial ended in a hung jury. The yearslong whodunnit case has sparked massive intrigue from true crime fans across the country, many of whom have feverishly taken sides.
Her second trial is now in its seventh week.
Here’s what you missed on Day 26.
Sgt. Nicholas Barros from the Dighton, Massachusetts police department testified about the condition of Read’s vehicle when it was towed away on the afternoon of Jan. 29, 2022. His testimony appeared aimed at corroborating the defense theory that investigators mishandled, and potentially planted, evidence.
Barros said a crack roughly the length of a dollar bill was missing from the right side of Read’s taillight when he saw the vehicle around 4:20 p.m. He said the taillight wasn’t “smashed out” like it was in a photo Read’s defense attorney showed him.
Alan Jackson, one of Read’s lawyers, played a clip of the SUV being towed away. Read’s taillight appeared to mostly be intact in the video.
But on cross-examination, the prosecution showed Barros a clip of Read’s SUV backing out of a driveway in the early morning hours of Jan. 29, 2022 along with a photo of her car covered in snow. The taillight appeared more broken in these photos. Barros said the damage in both seemed consistent with what he saw at Read’s parent’s house in Dighton.
Investigators uncovered the first pieces of broken taillight near where O’Keefe was found at roughly 5:45 p.m. that day. Canton Police Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik previously testified that he and Proctor viewed the vehicle between when it was dropped off at the station and when the taillight pieces were discovered. At the time, he said neither he nor Proctor were at the crime scene.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan asked Russell whether she considered the small pieces of red plastic found in O’Keefe’s sweatshirt when she found that a dog caused his wounds.
Russell said she did not believe the plastic debris caused the parallel abrasions to O’Keefe’s arm. She later told the defense the pieces were too tiny to cause O’Keefe’s wounds and were not oriented in the right direction.
As an emergency physician and former forensic pathologist, Russell said she believed O’Keefe would have had significant bruising, fractures and a dislocated arm if he had been hit by a car. He did not have those injuries.
The red fragments are among the key pieces of evidence prosecutors have used to connect Read to the crime. They say the pieces came from Read’s taillight.
Judge Beverly Cannone denied a motion for mistrial brought by Read’s defense team following questioning by the prosecution about dog DNA on O’Keefe’s sweatshirt.
While questioning Russell, Brennan asked about holes found in O’Keefe’s clothing, which she previously suggested were consistent with a canine tooth sinking into the shirt. Brennan continued to press Russell on whether she knew the sweatshirt had been tested for traces of dog DNA.
Read’s defense attorney, Robert Alessi, forcefully objected to the question, causing the judge to dismiss the jury to hear from the defense and prosecution about whether the question warranted a mistrial.
The defense argued Brennan’s question introduced the idea of DNA evidence into the trial for the first time, and said the defense had been meticulous about not mentioning DNA. Brennan pushed back, stating the defense team brought up the concept of dog DNA during a December 2024 hearing.
Cannone ruled to allow the prosecution to continue its line of DNA-related questions.
Brennan proceeded to questioned Russell about the lack of dog DNA found on O’Keefe’s sweatshirt and suggested dogs typically froth at the mouth, leave “excessive saliva” and can sometimes shed hair when they bite.
Brennan said O’Keefe’s sweatshirt tested positive for pig DNA but not dog DNA and there was “no identification” of where the pig DNA came from. Russell said the sweatshirt “ideally” should have been swabbed for DNA immediately after the body was found. O’Keefe’s sweatshirt wasn’t tested for months, and she questioned whether the delay had an impact.
Brennan suggested the sweatshirt was not immediately tested because there was no evidence when O’Keefe’s body was discovered that a dog caused the wounds. Russell said it should have been considered as part of a “complete investigation.”
Brennan attempted to poke holes in the methodology Russell used to determine whether O’Keefe’s wounds came from a dog attack. He questioned whether she could differentiate wounds from the dog’s teeth and nails, and she said it was difficult to tell because they cause similar abrasions. Russell also said there is no accepted methodology for identifying dog bites and clarified that she used a mixture of pattern recognition and differential diagnosis in her analysis.
Brennan pointed out that the diameter between the marks on O’Keefe differed. He questioned how that could happen, since the diameter between teeth and nails is stagnant. Russell responded that the skin’s elasticity leads to slight differences.
She said she couldn’t “imagine” a vehicle lining up to fit O’Keefe’s injuries. When questioned about whether she had examined Read’s vehicle specifically, Russell said she hadn’t.
The prosecution attempted to sow doubt about Russell’s credibility as a witness asking whether Russell received help on her report from Read’s defense team. In December 2024, Russell testified defense attorney Robert Alessi helped with the report, according to a transcript presented by the prosecutor. Russell clarified that Alessi helped reorganize the report but did not change any content.
When asked about her communications with Alessi, Russell said she commuted to court with the attorney the morning of June 3. During their ride, she said he recommended that she ask for a transcript of her testimony. Russell said they did not have any other conversations about the case.
The prosecutor suggested that the communication constituted a breach of the witness sequestration rule in the trial, which prohibits the witness from discussing their testimony with anyone until the trial is over.
Russell returned to the stand Tuesday for a second day. She previously testified that wounds found on O’Keefe’s arm appeared to have been inflicted by a dog, noting patterns she said were consistent with the hundreds of other canine attacks she’s seen in her career. Pointing to a picture of O’Keefe’s battered arm, Russell described what she said were multiple groupings of incomplete dog bites, which are among the most common. The bites, she said, didn’t penetrate the “full thickness of the skin.”
She also contested previous testimony from Judson Welcher, the prosecution’s crash reconstruction expert who presented a case study from a car crash where a victim sustained several injuries, including skin loss. Russell suggested O’Keefe did not have the same types of injuries.
The prosecution began pressing Russell about her experience and alleged inconsistencies in her statements upon cross-examination. They asked if she had ever identified the origin of a wound as a dog bite without knowing where it came from prior to Read’s case. She said she hadn’t.
CourtTV has been covering the case against Read and the criminal investigation since early 2022, when O’Keefe’s body was found outside a Massachusetts home.
You can watch CourtTV’s live feed of the Read trial proceedings from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. Proceedings began at 9 a.m. ET.
Contributing: Michael Loria, USA TODAY
