Topline: Crash simulations failed to replicate the vehicle damage prosecutors claim was caused when Read allegedly struck O’Keefe.
Published: June 7, 2025 7:00 am ET
Must Read
DEDHAM, MA — In the Karen Read retrial, defense testimony resumed with accident reconstruction expert Daniel Wolfe, who argued that crash tests show Read’s SUV could not have caused the injuries sustained by Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Read, 45, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder after prosecutors alleged she backed into O’Keefe during a snowstorm in January 2022 following a night of drinking. Her first trial ended in a hung jury.
Wolfe, from ARCCA, said none of the six crash tests involving dummies and a similar SUV replicated the severe damage found on Read’s taillight, according to WCVB.
He explained that even at 24 mph—the speed prosecutors claim Read was driving—the test vehicle’s taillight didn’t suffer comparable internal damage. He also noted that taillight fragments didn’t tear the test clothing, unlike O’Keefe’s sweatshirt, which had a localized hole. “It was inconsistent,” Wolfe said of the alleged impact.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan challenged the testing, noting the dummy’s arm was lighter than O’Keefe’s and suspended in a harness. Wolfe acknowledged the weight difference but said it wouldn’t significantly alter results given the SUV’s mass. He maintained the testing showed no match to O’Keefe’s injuries or Read’s vehicle damage, MassLive reported.
This week’s proceedings also featured damning texts from former lead investigator Michael Proctor, who called Read a “whack job c-word” and told friends, “She hit him with her car.”
Proctor, not called by prosecutors, sent the texts as the investigation began. The defense used these messages to suggest the investigation was biased and focused solely on Read from the start, according to MassLive.
Adding to that theory, former Canton officer Kelly Dever contradicted her own earlier statement to federal agents that she saw Police Chief Ken Berkowitz and Agent Brian Higgins in the garage when Read’s SUV was brought in. On the stand, she called that a “false memory,” saying she had left her shift by then and alleged a defense attorney pressured her to stick to the original story.
Medical expert Dr. Marie Russell, who did not examine O’Keefe’s body but reviewed photos, testified his injuries were more consistent with incomplete dog bites than a vehicle strike. “No fractures, no internal injuries, no bruises,” she said, undermining the theory of a high-speed impact.
Finally, Sgt. Nicholas Barros of the Dighton Police testified that Read’s taillight appeared only slightly damaged when he saw it hours after O’Keefe was found. When shown a photo taken later at the Canton police garage, he said, “That taillight is completely smashed out,” suggesting additional damage occurred after police took custody of the SUV.
The defense is expected to call its final witnesses next week as the high-profile retrial nears its conclusion.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor Picks
Latest Articles
Expert: Read’s SUV Didn’t Cause O’Keefe’s Injuries, Crash Test Results Show
Crash simulations failed to replicate the vehicle damage prosecutors claim was caused when Read allegedly struck O’Keefe.
By Jacob Charles
Published: June 7, 2025 7:00 am ET
DEDHAM, MA — In the Karen Read retrial, defense testimony resumed with accident reconstruction expert Daniel Wolfe, who argued that crash tests show Read’s SUV could not have caused the injuries sustained by Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Read, 45, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder after prosecutors alleged she backed into O’Keefe during a snowstorm in January 2022 following a night of drinking. Her first trial ended in a hung jury.
Wolfe, from ARCCA, said none of the six crash tests involving dummies and a similar SUV replicated the severe damage found on Read’s taillight, according to WCVB.
He explained that even at 24 mph—the speed prosecutors claim Read was driving—the test vehicle’s taillight didn’t suffer comparable internal damage. He also noted that taillight fragments didn’t tear the test clothing, unlike O’Keefe’s sweatshirt, which had a localized hole. “It was inconsistent,” Wolfe said of the alleged impact.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan challenged the testing, noting the dummy’s arm was lighter than O’Keefe’s and suspended in a harness. Wolfe acknowledged the weight difference but said it wouldn’t significantly alter results given the SUV’s mass. He maintained the testing showed no match to O’Keefe’s injuries or Read’s vehicle damage, MassLive reported.
This week’s proceedings also featured damning texts from former lead investigator Michael Proctor, who called Read a “whack job c-word” and told friends, “She hit him with her car.”
Proctor, not called by prosecutors, sent the texts as the investigation began. The defense used these messages to suggest the investigation was biased and focused solely on Read from the start, according to MassLive.
Adding to that theory, former Canton officer Kelly Dever contradicted her own earlier statement to federal agents that she saw Police Chief Ken Berkowitz and Agent Brian Higgins in the garage when Read’s SUV was brought in. On the stand, she called that a “false memory,” saying she had left her shift by then and alleged a defense attorney pressured her to stick to the original story.
Medical expert Dr. Marie Russell, who did not examine O’Keefe’s body but reviewed photos, testified his injuries were more consistent with incomplete dog bites than a vehicle strike. “No fractures, no internal injuries, no bruises,” she said, undermining the theory of a high-speed impact.
Finally, Sgt. Nicholas Barros of the Dighton Police testified that Read’s taillight appeared only slightly damaged when he saw it hours after O’Keefe was found. When shown a photo taken later at the Canton police garage, he said, “That taillight is completely smashed out,” suggesting additional damage occurred after police took custody of the SUV.
The defense is expected to call its final witnesses next week as the high-profile retrial nears its conclusion.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor's Note: ThePo makes every effort to accurately transcribe the contents of affidavits of probable cause contained in criminal complaints. Often, the complaints themselves are copies of copies of faxed copies, and are difficult to read. To confirm the accuracy of our transcription, contact the Magisterial District Court listed above and request a copy of the criminal complaint. It's a public record to which you are entitled.
Must Read
Editor Picks
Latest Articles
Expert: Read’s SUV Didn’t Cause O’Keefe’s Injuries, Crash Test Results Show
Crash simulations failed to replicate the vehicle damage prosecutors claim was caused when Read allegedly struck O’Keefe.
By Jacob Charles
Published: June 7, 2025 7:00 am ET
DEDHAM, MA — In the Karen Read retrial, defense testimony resumed with accident reconstruction expert Daniel Wolfe, who argued that crash tests show Read’s SUV could not have caused the injuries sustained by Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Read, 45, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder after prosecutors alleged she backed into O’Keefe during a snowstorm in January 2022 following a night of drinking. Her first trial ended in a hung jury.
Wolfe, from ARCCA, said none of the six crash tests involving dummies and a similar SUV replicated the severe damage found on Read’s taillight, according to WCVB.
He explained that even at 24 mph—the speed prosecutors claim Read was driving—the test vehicle’s taillight didn’t suffer comparable internal damage. He also noted that taillight fragments didn’t tear the test clothing, unlike O’Keefe’s sweatshirt, which had a localized hole. “It was inconsistent,” Wolfe said of the alleged impact.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan challenged the testing, noting the dummy’s arm was lighter than O’Keefe’s and suspended in a harness. Wolfe acknowledged the weight difference but said it wouldn’t significantly alter results given the SUV’s mass. He maintained the testing showed no match to O’Keefe’s injuries or Read’s vehicle damage, MassLive reported.
This week’s proceedings also featured damning texts from former lead investigator Michael Proctor, who called Read a “whack job c-word” and told friends, “She hit him with her car.”
Proctor, not called by prosecutors, sent the texts as the investigation began. The defense used these messages to suggest the investigation was biased and focused solely on Read from the start, according to MassLive.
Adding to that theory, former Canton officer Kelly Dever contradicted her own earlier statement to federal agents that she saw Police Chief Ken Berkowitz and Agent Brian Higgins in the garage when Read’s SUV was brought in. On the stand, she called that a “false memory,” saying she had left her shift by then and alleged a defense attorney pressured her to stick to the original story.
Medical expert Dr. Marie Russell, who did not examine O’Keefe’s body but reviewed photos, testified his injuries were more consistent with incomplete dog bites than a vehicle strike. “No fractures, no internal injuries, no bruises,” she said, undermining the theory of a high-speed impact.
Finally, Sgt. Nicholas Barros of the Dighton Police testified that Read’s taillight appeared only slightly damaged when he saw it hours after O’Keefe was found. When shown a photo taken later at the Canton police garage, he said, “That taillight is completely smashed out,” suggesting additional damage occurred after police took custody of the SUV.
The defense is expected to call its final witnesses next week as the high-profile retrial nears its conclusion.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor's Note: ThePo makes every effort to accurately transcribe the contents of affidavits of probable cause contained in criminal complaints. Often, the complaints themselves are copies of copies of faxed copies, and are difficult to read. To confirm the accuracy of our transcription, contact the Magisterial District Court listed above and request a copy of the criminal complaint. It's a public record to which you are entitled.
Must Read
