Expert witness cross-examined — 3:52 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess said after the sidebar that he knew his colleague Judson Welcher created a PowerPoint about his work in January.
He said he never discussed that work with Welcher, though he has reviewed some of his slides that a defense expert included in a separate filing.
Burgess, reading from Welcher’s report, said Welcher found that one “trigger” event occurred around 12:31:38 a.m. and ended at 12:31:43 a.m., according to the Lexus clock.
Welcher’s report also says another analyst determined that John O’Keefe’s cell phone was locked for the final time at 12:32:09 a.m., based on the phone clock, records show.
“Do you know that the report of Mr. Whiffin says there was an end of health event of 36 steps covering a distance of 84 feet that ended at 12:32:16, which is after 12:31:43?” Alessi asked.
“Correct,” Burgess said.
“Are you aware of whether Mr. Whiffin has put in the report [that] you read a timestamp for detecting pocket states” of O’Keefe’s phone, Alessi asked.
“I am aware of that,” Burgess said.
Alessi showed Burgess a section of the other analyst’s report on the pocket state of O’Keefe’s phone.
The lawyers came back to a sidebar.
Judge Beverly Cannone sent jurors home for the day shortly before 4 p.m.
Digital forensics examiner cross-examination continues — 3:36 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess said he also reviewed Cellebrite analyst Ian Whiffin’s reports on data from John O’Keefe’s phone.
Read lawyer Robert Alessi said timelines in Whiffin’s report include “very specific events” in the data, and Burgess said that was accurate.
He said he received Whiffin’s report in January.
“Do you recall on your direct testimony saying that one of the reasons you did this supplemental report on May 8 was that you got new information or more information about Mr. O’Keefe’s cell phone?” Alessi asked.
“Yes, correct,” Burgess said.
“You had that in January, four months ago,” Alessi said.
“Correct,” Burgess said, adding that he had the report in January but not the data.
“Yet you still submitted a report on May 8 in the middle of this trial,” Alessi said.
“Correct,” Burgess said.
He said he did not watch the testimony of Whiffin or another digital analyst, Jessica Hyde, nor did he receive summaries of their testimony.
Alessi said Whiffin’s report includes “statements about movement and other activity” on O’Keefe’s phone after the time period noted in Burgess’s original report.
“No, not after the time period,” Burgess said.
Alessi asked Burgess if he knew that his colleague Judson Welcher issued findings in his Jan. 30, 2025, report on the SUV trigger events.
“Yes,” Burgess said.
The lawyers then came back to a sidebar.
Digital forensics examiner cross-examined — 3:25 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess said he was asked to create a timeline for his colleague Judson Welcher, another expert slated to testify for the prosecution.
Burgess said he and Welcher discussed his findings pertaining to the modules on Read’s SUV.
“You know that he used that data to select a specific range” for the “trigger” events, said Robert Alessi, a lawyer for Read.
“Based on the data, he’s identifying the time approximately when that event wouldhave occurred,” Burgess said.
“Did anybody from the Commonwealth ask you” in the January report “to not discuss your work in connection with the [trigger events]?” Alessi asked.
“No,” Burgess said.
He said he created a supplemental report on May 8, while the trial was in progress.
Burgess said his January report contains no information about the three-point turn and back-up trigger events.
“Right in the middle of this trial, you enlarge the number for the 21 to 29 [second] range” pushing back the trigger event range, Alessi said.
Burgess said he made “clarifications” to his updated report.
He said he submitted the May 8 report on his own initiative, and that an accompanying letter saying he did it “pursuant to” prosecutor Hank Brennan’s request was a “copy and paste from my original report.”
Burgess said he initially reviewed an affidavit from a defense expert in March and decided to file an updated report.
“You waited two months to do that?” Alessi asked.
“My initial thoughts were to address it on testimony,” Burgess said, adding that he later decided to submit a supplemental report.
He said he spoke to “no one” before preparing the supplemental report.
Asked if he spoke with State Police investigators Brian Tully or Yuri Bukhenik, Burgess said “I did reach to Tully to get a full set of location data, yes.”
Burgess said he has had five to 10 conversations with Tully about the case.
“At any time has anybody from the Commonwealth had a discussion with you” about “keeping flexible” the timelines for the key events in the case, Alessi asked.
“No sir,” Burgess said.
He said he “reached out to Mr. Brennan” on May 7, the day before submitting his updated report.
“That was just a discussion over the data and what the report said,” Burgess said.
He said he told Brennan he would be submitting an updated report but didn’t say when.
“He knew the nature of the report, he knew how far along you were with it,” Alessi said.
“Correct,” Burgess said.
He said Welcher, his colleague, also knew he was submitting an updated report.
Burgess said he can’t recall ever submitting a supplemental report in the middle of trial before.
Digital forensics examiner cross-examined — 3:04 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess told Read lawyer Robert Alessi that an exhibit he handed him contains location information.
“Did you consider this part of Trooper Guarino’s testimony” in any reviews for the case, Alessi asked.
“No I did not,” Burgess said.
He said that on Dec. 7, 2024, State Police Lieutenant Brian Tully hand-delivered Read’s infotainment and telematics module to his company, in part so it could be reinstalled for additional testing.
Burgess said he was unable to reinstall the system in Read’s SUV.
He said “correct” when Alessi said “the infotainment system did not respond as expected.”
Burgess said he then took the microSD card itself and tried to retrieve data from the card directly.
“There’s no literature at all stating that the methodology that you used for this Lexus is the appropriate methodology to use for this Lexus model,” Alessi said.
There’s no such literature “about this” Lexus model, Burgess said.
Alessi said Burgess’s Jan. 30, 2025, report does not use the word collision or ever reference one.
“The word that was used was incident,” Burgess said.
Alessi said the same report does not detail the timing of the trigger events.
“No it does not,” Burgess said. “I was not asked to at that time.”
Digital forensics examiner cross-examined — 2:48 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess told Read lawyer Robert Alessi that he retained no additional information from the SUV chips when he looked at them.
“No data value from those chips [off the SUV], yes,” Burgess said.
He said there was no “data of value from those chips to begin with.”
He told Alessi he didn’t know how much his company has been paid to date for its work on the Read case.
Burgess said his analysis was “strictly” limited to data and science.
He said he did not review a State Police report from Jan. 29, 2022, on the case.
“If there was a collision analysis and reconstruction report prepared by a trooper in that case, would you want to see a document such as that?” Alessi asked.
“No, not for my analysis,” Burgess said.
He said he wasn’t aware of a supplemental State Police report on the case from July 2024, and no one told him to avoid reviewing any collision analysis.
Burgess said he reviewed prior testimony from a trooper as well as part of his analysis.
“That is common,” he said.
Burgess said he would have “skimmed” Trooper Nicholas Guarino’s prior testimony.
The lawyers were called back to a sidebar.
Digital forensics examiner cross-examined — 2:36 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Following a sidebar, expert witness Shanon Burgess told Read lawyer Robert Alessi that he also sometimes does work for insurance companies, and the attorneys were called back to a sidebar.
After the sidebar, Burgess said he’s familiar with the term academic dishonesty. He said he provided a proposal to authorities in October 2024 for reviewing Read’s SUV data, based on his education and training.
He told Alessi he informed authorities that converting certain data is “a basic forensic” concept.
Alessi noted that Burgess indicated in 2024 that the December 2023 data acquisition was incomplete due to the “programmer’s inability to fully read the component.”
Burgess said that was accurate, and he also said his initial theory on the data was a “misinterpretation” when Alessi noted that he at one point confused megabits with megabytes of data.
Alessi said records suggest all available data was initially removed from certain chips in Read’s Lexus SUV, contrary to what Burgess originally thought.
“Correct, I did make an error,” Burgess said, which he said was a “misinterpretation.”
He also said “I’ve always known the difference between a bit and a byte.”
Alessi said Burgess learned that from an affidavit from a defense expert.
“Isn’t it the case that the expert for the defense submitted his affidavit before you submitted your supplemental report?” Alessi asked.
Burgess said he did not know, but that he has read the defense expert’s affidavit.
Digital forensics examiner cross-examined — 2:23 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Following the sidebar Shanon Burgess told Read lawyer Robert Alessi that he’s drafted the LinkedIn page “over time.”
He said he didn’t know when he updated it last. Alessi pointed to one notation on the LinkedIn page that says he has a bachelor’s degree and attended University of Alabama Birmingham from 2016 to 2018.
Burgess said he was listing an “expected” graduation date at the time. He said his LinkedIn page remains active.
“A key aspect of your credentials, whether or not you have obtained a bachelor of science, is incorrect in more than one document,” Alessi said.
“I would not agree with that,” Burgess said. He later confirmed that two of the documents “have errors.”
Burgess also identified a copy of his CV that his company had placed on its website.
Alessi noted the document says Burgess received a bachelor’s degree in 2022.
The CV says he has a bachelor’s of general science and mathematics and business administration.Burgess said “there are a number of errors” in the document.
“It has errors or outdated information,” Burgess said.
“Isn’t either you have a bachelor of science degree or you don’t,” Alessi said.
“I have represented [that] I do not have a bachelor’s degree,” Burgess said.
Alessi asked if Burgess knew there was no bachelor’s degree offered by the Alabama school in general science and mathematics.
Burgess said that the notation on his CV should read general studies with a minor in mathematics and business administration.
He told Alessi that he holds an associate’s degree that he obtained in 2015 but not a bachelor’s.
He told Alessi he began pursuing a bachelor’s degree around 2008.
“You’ve been pursuing a bachelor’s of science degree for 17 years,” Alessi said.
“That is correct,” Burgess said, adding that the notations indicating he holds a bachelor’s were the result of “errors and misinterpretation.”
Read lawyer presses expert witness on his credentials — 2:00 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Digital forensics examiner Shanon Burgess told Read lawyer Robert Alessi he’s notified when someone views his LinkedIn profile.
Alessi asked if he was notified that the defense had viewed his LinkedIn within the last 72 hours.
“No, I was not aware,” Burgess said.
He also said he wasn’t aware that his company had removed the hyperlink to his LinkedIn account within the last 72 hours.
A LinkedIn account is essentially an online resume listing someone’s work and education credentials.
Burgess also identified a “screen shot of my LinkedIn account.”
The lawyers then came to a sidebar.
Digital forensics examiner testifies on cross — 1:54 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess told Read attorney Robert Alessi he’s familiar with the concept of confirmation bias but not “anchor bias.”
He said confirmation bias is a phenomenon where an analyst gathers evidence to confirm a preconceived belief.
Alessi said anchor bias involves inappropriately prioritizing certain information. He said Burgess “called this case a homicide” before conducting his testing.
Alessi pointed out a footnote in Burgess’s report stating it’s “re O’Keefe MV homicide.”
He also noted that Burgess on his November 2024 CV says he’s “currently pursuing” a bachelor’s of general science and business administration.
Burgess’s updated, April 2025 CV also says he hasn’t yet earned a bachelor’s degree.
“That is correct,” Burgess said.
Alessi noted that Burgess’s bio page on his company’s website lists him as holding a bachelor’s degree.
“It does say that, yes,” Burgess said.
Asked again if he currently holds a bachelor’s, Burgess said “no, I do not.”
Burgess cross-examined — 1:34 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Following the lunch break, Read attorney Robert Alessi began cross-examining Shanon Burgess, a digital forensics examiner.
Burgess told Alessi that forensics are used to help lawyers, judges, and jurors understand evidence.
“Above all, it must be unbiased and truthful, correct?” Alessi said of forensic analysis.
“That is correct,” Burgess said.
Expert witness testifies about data from Read’s SUV — 12:33 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess said the variance means analysts had to “adjust” the Lexus data forward by 21 to 29 seconds to synchronize it with John O’Keefe’s iPhone.
He said the second triggering event was a “backing-up” maneuver logged on the Lexus clock at 12:31:43 a.m., when it ended.
Burgess said that occurred between 12:32:04 a.m. and 12:32:12 a.m., based on O’Keefe’s phone data.
“Does that necessarily include the entire event?” prosecutor Hank Brennan asked.
“No it does not,” Burgess said.
He said the final “lock event” on O’Keefe’s phone was recorded at 12:32:09 a.m.
Judge Beverly Cannone called a lunch recess shortly after 12:30 p.m.
Expert witness testifies about data from Read’s SUV — 12:27 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess said one “triggering” event was a three-point turn and the other was a “backing maneuver” around the time that Read dropped John O’Keefe off on Fairview Road, where his body was later found.
Burgess said “there was a claim of attempting to synchronize” clocks related to the Lexus SUV that “I believe was potentially misleading.”
He said he compared data on O’Keefe’s iPhone with the Lexus clock and the three-point turn event.
Burgess said he also received a report on O’Keefe’s phone from Cellebrite, a digital forensics company. He said data “was captured” during the three-point turn the SUV made.
Burgess’s PowerPoint presentation said the data showed the three-point turn occurred at 12:23:59 a.m., when the speed drops and the SUV’s direction changes. At 12:24:07 a.m. the speed picks back up again, he said. The data, culled from O’Keefe’s phone on his Waze app, shows the timing of the three-point turn, he said.
Data from the Lexus also shows the three-point turn ending at 12:23:38 a.m., the PowerPoint said.
Burgess said he believes the clock variance between Read’s SUV data and O’Keefe’s phone is between 21 and 29 seconds.
Expert witness testifies about data from Read’s SUV — 12:07 p.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Prosecutor Hank Brennan played video footage of Read’s SUV pulling into her parents’ driveway in Dighton on the afternoon of Jan. 29.
Expert witness Shanon Burgess said the vehicle powered on again at 4:11 p.m. and powered off a minute later, corresponding with footage of Read’s SUV being placed on a flatbed truck in Dighton on Jan. 29.
The SUV was taken from Dighton to the Canton police garage, according to previous testimony.
Burgess said the next power-on event occurred at 5:34:51 p.m. and powers off at 5:36:42 p.m., corresponding to when the Lexus arrived at the Canton garage.
He said he did not detect any additional power on or power off events on the SUV for Jan. 29.
Burgess said it’s possible to have “a clock variance of up to 60 seconds” on various devices connected to a vehicle.
Expert witness testifies about data from Read’s SUV — 11:59 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess told prosecutor Hank Brennan that “the data is simply the data,” which can be compared to outside sources to verify its consistency.
“But the data does not depend on any outside sources,” Burgess said.
He said the next power-on event on Read’s SUV occurred at 5:07:46 a.m. and a power-off occurred at 5:46:20 a.m.
The power-on event “is coming from the internal Lexus clock,” Burgess said.
“Compared to the Lexus clock, that time is accurate to the second.“
He said he also compared the data with the timestamps on footage from John O’Keefe’s home security system.
“The video starts at approximately 5:07:58″ on O’Keefe’s Ring footage for the power-on event, Burgess said.
The second video clip from O’Keefe’s Ring footage is “consistent” with the 5:46 a.m. timestamp for the next power-off event in the SUV, Burgess said.
The vehicle is next powered on at 12:35 p.m. on Jan. 29 and powered off at 2:12:01 p.m., based on the data, Burgess said.
Expert witness testifies about data from Read’s SUV — 11:50 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess told prosecutor Hank Brennan that he can identify a “power-on” event based on when the SUV logo comes on, and that a “power-off” event is shown by the infotainment system going blank.
“We’ve got four tests that represent a power-on event, and two tests that represent a power-off event” at the given times, Burgess said. “It was accurate to the second, compared to our reference clock.”
Burgess said the data shows Read’s Lexus SUV powered on at 12:12:36 a.m. for the first time on Jan. 29, 2022.
“That’s based on the internal clock in the Lexus,” Burgess said.
He said “clocks on different devices run differently,” and they’re not “synchronized perfectly” with “other devices.”
Burgess said the first power-off event occurred at 12:42:08 a.m. on Jan. 29 based on the data.“That time is reliable to the second as far as the Lexus clock is concerned,” he said.
Expert witness testifies on data from Read’s SUV — 11:39 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Following a morning break, Shanon Burgess identified photographs of a 2021 Lexus SUV similar to Read’s that he conducted tests on to compare the data from hers.
Burgess also identified a spreadsheet of the data from the test Lexus and from Read’s SUV.
“Those match, so we would expect to see the user data stored in the same way,” Burgess said.
He said he was looking for “time-stamped data” for “power-on or ignition-on events.”
Burgess said there’s a three-second delay from pressing the ignition-on button to when the infotainment system powers on.
He said the testing showed Read’s SUV was powered on at 12:12:36 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022, and “not powered off” until 12:42:08 a.m.
The lawyers later came to a sidebar.
Expert witness testifies on data from Read’s SUV — 11:00 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess said all the computer modules in a vehicle are connected and communicate with one another.
The so-called “black box” on Read’s SUV would be in the “airbag control module,” Burgess said.
He said events such as a car turning on or backing up are sometimes known as “triggering events” that a vehicle’s data logs “for a specific time frame.”
He said a “running clock” in a vehicle starts as soon as it’s turned on.
“That could be referred to as a stopwatch,” Burgess said.
Burgess identified photographs of the infotainment and kinematics modules of Read’s SUV.
He said his initial impressions were that “data was missed from the initial download,” including “all of the user data.”
”Reviewing the raw data, you can see that what we would expect to find … was not there in those initial downloads,” Burgess said.
He said he conducted additional research and discovered “that there was an SD card or a micro-SD card” with data on one SUV module “that was never looked at.”
Burgess said “there was damage caused by that initial chip-off” procedure conducted before he got involved.
Chip-off data recovery is a specialized technique used when standard methods are unsuccessful.
He identified additional photos of the infotainment module, including one showing it disassembled during the testing.
Burgess said he “documented an additional chip that was still on the board” that wasn’t identified before he started working the case.
There was also circuitboard damage caused by the initial chip-off process, Burgess said.
He said he found the additional “micro-SD card” bearing data that had initially been overlooked.
“At that point I concluded that the data we were missing was most likely” stored on that card, Burgess said.
He said “no it did not,” when Brennan asked if it appeared the card had previously been removed.
He said he performed tests on a similar Lexus SUV to compare the data. Judge Beverly Cannone called a morning recess shortly after 11 a.m.
Digital forensics examiner takes the stand — 10:38 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Shanon Burgess told prosecutor Hank Brennan he began working the Read case in October 2024, when he received “raw data” and photographs from her SUV.
“There was an attempt to download data from the modules in the vehicle” before he got involved, Burgess said. “There was an attempt to remove various chips off of the boards and read those chips individually.”
He said he believes that attempt was made in December 2023, before he became involved in the case.
Burgess said he also received a crash report from the State Police, as well as separate reports from Trooper Nick Guarino and a digital forensic analyst from the company Cellebrite.
Burgess said he and his team were looking for power-on events in the SUV’s ignition “as well as other data.” He said he was also focused on a “three-point turn maneuver” and a “backing maneuver” on Fairview Road.
He said he was seeking “timestamped data” to determine when those events occurred.
Burgess said vehicles could have “hundreds” of computer-type devices, including the infotainment module and telematics module that allows a car to communicate with the Internet.
Next witness is Shanon Burgess, a digital forensic examiner — 10:23 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Prosecutor Hank Brennan next called Shannon Burgess to the stand. Burgess said he specializes in vehicle and cell phone forensics.
He ran through his professional background and said he also teaches seminars and has testified as an expert in multiple states.
Burgess said he has testified for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Brennan asked if the data changes depending on who he’s testifying for and he said, “no, it does not.”
Second DNA analyst concludes testimony — 10:17 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Karl Miyasako told Read lawyer Alan Jackson “based on the genetic data,” he “could not exclude” O’Keefe or his maternal relatives as the source of the hair found on the bumper of Read’s SUV.
He told Jackson he couldn’t say specifically that the hair belonged to John O’Keefe, nor does his analysis say when or how the hair got on the SUV.
“For all you know that hair could have been placed where it was found by somebody else,” Jackson said.
Judge Beverly Cannone sustained a government objection.
Miyasako repeatedly said he couldn’t exclude O’Keefe or his maternal relatives as the hair source when Jackson pressed him on whether or not he was saying the hair belonged to O’Keefe.
On redirect, Misayako told prosecutor Adam Lally that he had “95 percent confidence” that at least 99.8 percent of the population can be excluded as the hair source.
He then stepped down.
Second DNA analyst takes the stand — 10:11 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Karl Miyasako told prosecutor Adam Lally that “John O’Keefe could not be excluded as being a source of the hair sample” found on Read’s SUV.
He said it was more than 99 percent likely that the “majority of the population can be excluded” as the source of the hair.
“However with John O’Keefe and his maternal relatives, they could not” be excluded, Miyasako said.
Read attorney Alan Jackson asked on cross-examination if O’Keefe’s sister and their children would share his mitochondrial DNA. Miyasako said that was accurate.
O’Keefe took in his niece and nephew after their parents both died from illnesses. “You’re not sitting here saying that that hair belonged to John O’Keefe,” Jackson said.
Miyasako said O’Keefe “could not be excluded” as the source of the hair, nor could his maternal relatives. The lawyers went back to a sidebar.
Second DNA analyst takes the stand — 9:59 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Prosecutor Adam Lally next called Karl Miyasako, another analyst at the Bode lab.
Miyasako also ran through his training and professional background, as well as the detailed testing protocols at his lab, before getting into the thrust of his testimony.
He said he tested the hair sample taken from the SUV.
DNA analyst testifies on cross — 9:32 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Nicholas Bradford of Bode Technology said the hair found on the SUV couldn’t provide a usable DNA profile for testing.
“It’s not unexpected that the shaft of the hair would not give us” needed results, Bradford said, so the hair was transferred to a separate unit in the lab.
Bradford told Read attorney Alan Jackson on cross-examination that the odds of investigator Michael Proctor’s DNA being on the taillight were 1 in 76,000.
The odds for Bukhenik were significantly wider, Bradford said.
Jackson asked if Bradford was suggesting Proctor was “completely excluded,” and Bradford said he was not; just that the data strongly supports excluding Proctor as a source of the DNA on the light.
Bradford told Jackson he wasn’t asked to test DNA samples of Brian Higgins, Kevin Albert, Brian Albert, or Ken Berkowitz.
Higgins is an ATF agent who swapped flirtatious texts with Read, Brian Albert owned the Fairview Road home where John O’Keefe’s body was found, his brother Kevin Albert is a Canton detective, and Berkowitz, who died in December, was the Canton police chief at the time of O’Keefe’s death.
Bradford stepped down and the lawyers came to a sidebar.
DNA analyst continues testimony — 9:32 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Nicholas Bradford of Bode Technology said he received the hair and an “extract from a taillight” to test, as well as control samples.
He said he also reviewed DNA swabs from two State Police investigators, Yuri Bukhenik and Michael Proctor.
Proctor was later fired after he was forced during the first trial to read crude, misogynistic texts he had sent about Read to friends and coworkers while the investigation was ongoing.
Bradford said the taillight showed DNA from three people including at least one male.
John O’Keefe “could not be excluded” as a possible DNA contributor, Bradford said.
It was exponentially more likely that the DNA on the taillight was a mixture of O’Keefe’s and two “unrelated individuals,” as opposed to the DNA belonging to “three unrelated individuals,” Bradford said.
He said neither Bukhenik’s nor Proctor’s DNA could not be “visually excluded” from the taillight, but after further testing it was exponentially more likely that their DNA wasn’t on the light.
“That would be strong support for exclusion,” Bradford said.
The defense has accused law enforcement of tampering with the taillight.
DNA analyst testifies — 9:19 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Nicholas Bradford told prosecutor Adam Lally that Bode Technology analysts take a number of steps to prevent cross-contamination of DNA samples, including donning protective gear.
He said evidence is also placed in cold storage so that the quality of the DNA isn’t degraded.
Bradford said he tested items in the Read case, which Bode received from the State Police crime lab.
He said he tested the hair found on Read’s SUV and a separate “extract” submitted to the lab.
Next witness is Nicholas Bradford — 9:08 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Prosecutor Adam Lally called Nicholas Bradford to the stand on Monday morning.
Bradford is an analyst with the Bode Technology lab in Virginia, where prosecutors sent some items for DNA testing.
Bradford began his testimony by running through his training and professional background.
Testimony resumes Monday — 8:31 a.m.
By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Testimony resumes Monday in Karen Read’s murder trial in Norfolk Superior Court.
Jurors heard Friday from Ash Vallier, an analyst at the State Police crime lab, who said the right taillight on Read’s SUV “fit mechanically” with a number of plastic pieces found at the crime scene on Fairview Road, where Read allegedly backed her SUV into Boston police officer John O’Keefe and left him to die.
Read attorney David Yannetti asked Vallier on cross-examination, “you cannot vouch for how the clothing or taillight pieces were handled before they got to your lab, correct?”
“I cannot,” Vallier said.
The defense alleges that law enforcement tampered with Read’s SUV at the Canton police garage where it was taken for processing.
