Things to know about the retrial of Karen Read in the killing of her police officer boyfriend

Jurors in Karen Read's second murder trial heard more testimony from Jennifer McCabe, who was with Read the morning she found John O'Keefe in the snow.

Much of the focus Wednesday was the cross-examination of McCabe by Read's attorney Alan Jackson, who challenged her recollection of events and suggested she coordinated with other witnesses to make sure all their statements matched up — something she denied.

Prosecutors say Read, 45, backed her SUV into Boston police Officer John O’Keefe, 46, after dropping him off at a party hosted by a fellow officer in January 2022 and left him to die in the snow. Defense attorneys say she was a victim of a conspiracy involving the police and have suggested he was killed by someone inside the home.

A mistrial was declared last year after jurors said they were at an impasse. Read's second trial on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene, began April 22 and has thus far looked similar to the first.

What did McCabe hear at the scene?

McCabe took the stand for a second day Wednesday, recalling a chaotic scene when they reached house where O'Keefe was later found lying in the snow. She called 911 to report a body while Read and another friend, Kerry Roberts, tried to warm O'Keefe up and do CPR on him.

Read, she said, was running around and screaming so much that police suggested she sit in a police cruiser. The three sat together praying, and McCabe remember Read wondering aloud who would take care of O'Keefe's two adopted children. As O'Keefe's body was moved to an ambulance, Read screamed for Roberts to go check on him and wondered if he “was dead.”

Then, McCabe testified that she was standing next to a police officer and a paramedic as Read told them “I hit him” three times — corroborating earlier testimony from paramedics.

But Jackson challenged McCabe, questioning why those comments couldn't be found in earlier police reports or in the 227 pages of her grand jury testimony. Instead, Jackson said she told the grand jury that she recalled saying to a paramedic “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him? Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead?”

“In point of fact, in your entire grand jury testimony, you never said my client said the words I hit him.” he said.

McCabe insisted she had told police what Read said — even if it wasn't in the reports — and that it wasn't in the grand jury testimony because she wasn't asked specifically about it. As for the comments in her grand jury testimony, she said there were many conversations with paramedics and police at the scene.

“I hit him. I hit him. I hit him is just as fresh today as it was three years ago,” she said.

On Tuesday, McCabe described having fun with Read, O’Keefe and others at a local bar that night. Afterward, she went to the house party hosted by her sister and brother-in-law. She said she saw Read’s SUV outside but that Read and O’Keefe never came into the house.

McCabe said she was awakened the next morning by a call from O’Keefe’s niece. Read then got on the phone screaming, she said.

“She was hysterical. It was very hard to follow what she was saying,” she said. “It was loud enough and long enough that my husband shot up in bed thinking one of my kids had come in the room screaming.”

Read initially said she had left O’Keefe at the bar, but when McCabe said she had seen the SUV at her sister’s house, Read said she didn’t remember being there and repeatedly asked, “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?”

The two women and another friend searched O’Keefe’s home and then went to McCabe’s sister’s house. As they approached the house, Read screamed, “There he is! Let me out!”

Did O’Keefe enter the house?

Digital forensics specialist Ian Whiffin testified Monday that location data on O’Keefe’s phone was consistent with the device being near a flagpole on the lawn of the home from 12:32 a.m. onward, there was no activity after that and the temperature of the phone's battery dropped from 72 degrees (22 degrees Celsius) at 12:37 a.m. to 37 degrees (2.8 degrees Celsius) at 6:14 a.m.

Such data could suggest O'Keefe remained outside. But under cross-examination Tuesday, Whiffin testified that he observed a much more dramatic drop in temperature when he performed an experiment by placing a phone in a freezer.

He also acknowledged that the phone could have been anywhere within a larger radius than he previously described but said that data was not as accurate.

“According to your report, the phone of John O'Keefe could be in the house, correct?” defense attorney Robert Alessi asked.

“Based on the low-accuracy information, yes," he said.

Timing of Google search in dispute

Whiffin, a former law enforcement officer who went on to work in mobile forensics in the private sector, also testified further about an internet search made by Jennifer McCabe, who was with Read the morning she found O'Keefe in the snow.

McCabe made a much-discussed web search about how long it takes to die in the cold. Read's lawyers have said the search happened hours before O'Keefe was discovered, which could implicate her rather than Read. McCabe has said she made the search later at Read's insistence after they found O'Keefe.

Whiffin said Monday that the web search was not made at 2:27 a.m., before O'Keefe's body was found, like the defense has alleged. On Tuesday, he acknowledged that another company's analysis showed the search happened at the earlier time.

The Supreme Court declines to get involved

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Read's double-jeopardy appeal Monday, effectively clearing the way for her trial to continue.

Read’s defense had argued that putting her on trial again for two of the charges is an unlawful case of double jeopardy. They told the Supreme Court that the jury at her first trial reached a unanimous but unannounced verdict acquitting her, so a second trial on those charges should be barred as double jeopardy.

The court didn’t ask the prosecution to respond to the appeal, a sign the justices did not think there was a difficult legal issue at stake.