A second digital forensics expert testified Wednesday in the Karen Read murder trial, reinforcing the prosecution’s timeline regarding a Google search conducted by witness Jennifer McCabe. The search in question—”hos (sic) long to die in cold”—was made at 6:24 a.m., after the body of Boston police officer John O’Keefe was discovered, according to expert Jessica Hyde.
Hyde, a forensics specialist, took the stand to dispute the defense’s assertion that the search occurred at 2:27 a.m., hours before the victim’s body was located outside 34 Fairview Road in Canton, Massachusetts. According to her testimony, the earlier timestamp reflects the time McCabe opened a browser tab on her iPhone, not the time the search itself was performed.
This aligns with prior testimony from Ian Whiffin, an expert with Cellebrite, the digital forensics firm known for its widely-used mobile analysis tools. Both experts emphasized the difference between a browser tab being opened and an actual search query being executed, a nuance central to the prosecution’s rebuttal of the defense’s timeline.
Hyde’s testimony involved technical forensic terms such as “hex editors,” “hash values,” and data retrieval from mobile devices. She explained how timestamps and app data can be misinterpreted without proper context and emphasized that parsing these details often challenges even seasoned analysts. Her explanation, which came before the court’s midday recess, was described as dense and technical by outside observers, including Philadelphia-area attorney David Gelman, who noted the possible impact on the jury’s engagement.
After the lunch break, defense attorney Robert Alessi conducted a cross-examination, challenging Hyde’s earlier testimony and referencing her participation in Read’s first trial, which ended in a hung jury. Alessi attempted to bring up a recent Maryland case he claimed demonstrated Hyde’s unreliability as a witness. However, Judge Beverly Cannone ruled that the defense could not introduce a judge’s opinion from that case but permitted questioning on the methodology used in her forensic evaluation.
During cross-examination, Hyde also stated that John O’Keefe’s phone was not secured according to best practices following its recovery by law enforcement. She maintained her earlier points under detailed questioning, again referring to technical forensic terminology.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts State Trooper Connor Keefe also testified on Wednesday, detailing the collection of physical evidence from the scene. This included mobile devices from McCabe and another witness, Kerry Roberts, as well as physical items found near O’Keefe’s body, such as a sneaker and fragments of a vehicle taillight.
During his testimony, Keefe opened an evidence bag containing three pieces of plastic, despite previous documentation indicating only two. When questioned by prosecutor Hank Brennan about the third fragment, Keefe acknowledged he did not know how it ended up in the bag. Following an objection from the defense, the court ordered the third piece to be placed in a separate bag.
Keefe’s testimony aimed to reinforce the prosecution’s timeline by documenting the collection of taillight pieces from the snow-covered road outside the residence where O’Keefe was found, which prosecutors argue corresponds to damage on Read’s vehicle.
Karen Read has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an accident. Prosecutors allege she struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV after a night of drinking and left him outside during freezing weather conditions. The defense maintains that she did not hit O’Keefe and disputes key elements of the state’s case.
If convicted of second-degree murder, Read could face a life sentence. The retrial, now underway with heightened public interest, continues to explore both digital and physical evidence from the night of O’Keefe’s death.
