‘Sick of always arguing and fighting’: Trooper reads some of the final messages between Karen Read and John O’Keefe (2024)

Crime

John O’Keefe and Karen Read discussed the deterioration of their relationship and their frequent verbal clashes in messages exchanged the day before O’Keefe died.

By Abby Patkin

updated on June 18, 2024

On the stand Monday:

• Trooper Nicholas Guarino, Massachusetts State Police
• Ian Whiffin, Cellebrite
• Trooper Joseph Paul, Massachusetts State Police

4:30 p.m. update: John O’Keefe messaged Karen Read ‘things haven’t been great between us for awhile’ the day before he died, trooper says

In a series of heated messages exchanged on Jan. 28, 2022, John O’Keefe and Karen Read discussed the deterioration of their relationship and the increasing frequency of their arguments.

“Things haven’t been great between us for awhile,” O’Keefe wrote at one point. Read, meanwhile, accused her boyfriend of two years of “setting [her] up to fail” and questioned whether he’d fallen for someone else.

Less than a day later, O’Keefe was dead and Read was under investigation for allegedly mowing him down with her SUV.

Taking the stand in Read’s murder trial Monday, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Nicholas Guarino testified about removing the infotainment system from Read’s Lexus SUV in hopes of extracting some data from it.

He said investigators ultimately performed a “chip off” for the system’s motherboard, a “destructive process” that aims to recover information from the memory chips. According to Guarino, the “chip off” recovered no data from the infotainment system or telematics module.

The trooper also took aim at an affidavit from the defense team’s digital forensics expert, Richard Green, asserting that Green was “mostly incorrect” in his findings about the data recovered from witness Jennifer McCabe’s phone. While Green said McCabe made her infamous “hos long to die in cold” search at 2:27 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022, Guarino noted the file Green parsed “was not from the database that should’ve shown searches.”

“Most of the stuff that I was reading in his report was either incorrectly written down or he interpreted it incorrectly,” Guarino asserted. He noted that Green stated McCabe deleted 18 phone calls from the morning after O’Keefe’s body was found — a finding based on a temporary write-ahead log, he said.

“Again, as a user of an iPhone, you can’t go in and just delete these files,” Guarino said. “They’re handled by the operating system. It’s impossible.”

O’Keefe wrote that he was ‘sick of always arguing and fighting’

Guarino also testified about extracting data from Read’s and O’Keefe’s cellphones, and Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally handed him printouts of the couple’s Facebook Messenger conversations to read aloud.

Read allegedly told investigators she and O’Keefe fought the morning of Jan. 28, 2022, over what O’Keefe’s niece and nephew — who lived with their uncle — ate for breakfast. The couple rehashed that argument over text later that day. Below are some of their messages, as they were shown to jurors.

“You have really hurt me this time,” Read wrote at 9:49 a.m.

“I’m sorry,” O’Keefe replied. “This has been an issue [with] me for 8 years. It physically hurts me to see EVERYONE else in their life do things for them and I’m forced to ALWAYS be the bad guy.”

“I am not the same as everyone else,” Read wrote back. “Most of the time I try to do what is healthy/smart for them. More importantly I try to support you and what you need. You just lashed out at me and said terrible things. I don’t know how you’ve gotten to this point with me when I’m just trying my hardest. You made your point, and continue to beat me down. I have a lot going on too. Physically I am falling apart and trying to get answers and help.”

In another message, she added: “I am just your girlfriend. I am not a perfect parent. I am trying very hard and sometimes treat them – nothing like I used to.”

That afternoon, Read continued to press O’Keefe about the argument as the couple discussed their plans for the evening.

“I feel pretty sh[–]ty about how this morning went down,” she wrote. “I know you said sorry but it really stung. Esp when I’ve been trying pretty hard lately. I feel like a loser turning around just coming back over after everything you said.”

“Not sure what else you want me to do,” O’Keefe replied. “I said I’m sorry and I was outta line. If you prefer to stay home I totally get it.”

“Things in my own life have been difficult too you know,” Read wrote.

“I know,” O’Keefe said.

“Tell me if you are interested in someone else,” Read replied. “Can’t think of any other reason you’ve been like this.”

“Nope,” O’Keefe answered. “Things haven’t been great between us for awhile. Ever consider that?” He followed that up with, “Kids are here. Not in the mood to talk.”

“So you’re not into it anymore,” Read wrote back. “That’s fine. But I don’t want to keep trying and you keep treating me like this.”

“I’m trying to hug and kiss you this morning and you whack me in the face [with] a pillow,” she continued. “Last night you’re basically like ‘yeah what about??’ when we talk about the future. So why don’t you just admit you’re not into so much anymore?”

“Not how it went down but ok,” O’Keefe said.

“Can you pls admit your head is out of the game [with] us?” Read asked.

“Sick of always arguing and fighting. It’s been weekly for several months now,” O’Keefe replied. “So yeh I’m not as quick to jump back into being lovie dovie as you apparently.”

In another message, he wrote, “Omg!! Stop calling.”

Guarino testified that Read called O’Keefe 18 times between 9:19 a.m and 2:58 p.m. that day. O’Keefe answered three of those calls and missed or rejected the rest before calling Read back at about 3 p.m., he said.

‘The four of us together is toxic to this relationship’

In other messages from Jan. 28, Read accused O’Keefe of “setting me up to fail.”

“You start a number of fights from your end,” she wrote.

“I’ve explained it a few times already,” O’Keefe said. “Not doing it again.”

“So you’re not into this anymore?” Read asked.

“Not into fighting all the time correct,” O’Keefe wrote.

“If you tell me you’re interested in someone else, you will never hear from me again,” Read wrote. “You can have all the space in the world.”

Several messages later, she texted at 2:38 p.m., “I’m going to grab a drink in a bit.”

“Not sure why you need to announce that you’re grabbing a drink but have fun,” O’Keefe wrote back.

“Seeing if you want to meet me later,” Read replied as she continued to ask O’Keefe to call her.

“I’ve been trying to get over the hump w is [sic] arguing and now you tell me you’re not into things,” Read continued. “And you don’t want to fight weekly but fly off the handle at 8am [with] me. Like you’re setting me up to fail.”

They continued to coordinate their evening plans later in the day, and O’Keefe noted in an 8:30 p.m. message that the region was due for an “intense” storm overnight. In another message, he said he figured Read would stay over in Canton until the following Monday.

“I think the four of us together is toxic to this relationship. Would like to limit it,” Read replied, following it up with, “You’ve said so yourself. For [probably] a year now.”

“Blizzard tomorrow,” O’Keefe wrote. “Nobody is going anywhere.”

“Maybe I’ll come back late tonight,” Read said. “Bad snow is in the early am.”

Fast forward a few hours, and the couple’s conversation turned one-sided.

“I’m going home,” Read wrote at 12:55 a.m. on Jan. 29 — shortly after prosecutors say she dropped O’Keefe off at 34 Fairview Road. A State Police crash analyst, Trooper Joseph Paul, testified earlier Monday that he believes Read struck O’Keefe at about 12:45 a.m. on the 29th.

“See u later,” Read wrote in another message. “Your kids are kucking [sic] ALONE.”

“Im back in Mansfield,” Read texted at 1:04 a.m. “The kids are home alone.”

Before Judge Beverly Cannone dismissed jurors for the day, Lally also had Guarino identify records of Read’s calls and messages to McCabe, witnesses Laura Sullivan and Katie Camerano, and O’Keefe’s sister-in-law, Erin O’Keefe.

Jurors will not be present Tuesday as lawyers conduct voir dire questioning of expert witnesses. Court is not in session Wednesday for the Juneteenth holiday.

3 p.m. update: Jennifer McCabe wouldn’t have had the option to delete hypothermia-related searches, according to Cellebrite expert

Addressing Jennifer McCabe’s hypothermia-related Google searches from Jan. 29, 2022, Cellebrite expert Ian Whiffin testified Monday that he is “of no doubt that the only time those two searches were conducted” was after John O’Keefe’s body was found in the snow outside 34 Fairview Road.

Whiffin walked jurors through data pulled from McCabe’s phone, breaking down URL codes and timestamps for various searches McCabe made leading up to and following O’Keefe’s death on the 29th. Earlier on Monday, Whiffin said data indicates McCabe made searches that day for “how long ti die in cikd” and “hos long to die in cold” at 6:23 a.m. and 6:24 a.m., respectively.

He explained that McCabe made those searches in a tab she initially opened at 2:27 a.m. and used to pull up youth sports websites. McCabe previously testified that after returning home around 2 a.m. on the 29th, she researched a basketball team her daughter had been invited to join.

“The 6:23 timestamp is when the [“how long ti die in cikd”] search was first conducted,” Whiffin testified. “Never loaded the page, otherwise there’d be a record in the history database. And while that page was still loading, a second research was conducted for ‘hos long to die in the cold.’ Again, that page never loaded, either.”

He said McCabe closed Safari before the “hos long” search returned results, but the results finished loading when she opened the browser again hours later.

Whiffin also testified that the two hypothermia-related searches did not exist in the phone’s history database, meaning McCabe wouldn’t have had the option to selectively delete them. He theorized that the record deleted itself at some point during a “cleanup” function.

He ran a demonstration for jurors, displaying an iPhone screen opened to a Google search from the previous night. Using the same tab, he made another search Monday, then opened the records with a tool he developed called ArtEx. Monday’s search showed a timestamp from Sunday night, when Whiffin first opened the tab.

On cross-examination, defense attorney David Yannetti questioned whether someone could manipulate phone data and avoid detection.

“Would you agree with me that somebody who had access to the data before it was extracted and sent to you could’ve made selective deletions of the data?” he asked.

“No, I don’t,” Whiffin replied.

Yannetti pointed to an app called MySQL — a method for viewing SQLite databases, according to Whiffin.

“If someone had access to the raw data — again, before it was sent to you — and used that app, they could make selective deletions of the data, couldn’t they?” Yannetti asked.

“It would be possible with the extraction to take out particular databases, alter them, and put them back into the extraction,” Whiffin acknowledged. However, he noted there’s a “hash mechanism” in place that would show whether data had been modified.

He further testified that it would require a great deal of knowledge and skill to alter databases in a way that would avoid detection.

1 p.m. update: Cellebrite expert debunks 2:27 a.m. timestamp of Jennifer McCabe’s Google search

Jennifer McCabe did not make her now-infamous Google search for “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022, according to an expert from Cellebrite, a company specializing in digital forensics software.

Ian Whiffin, Cellebrite’s decoding product manager, said he was approached last year to offer an explanation for the timestamp found in data extracted from McCabe’s phone.

The timing of McCabe’s search has been a source of debate throughout Karen Read’s case, with the defense alleging that McCabe had hypothermia on her mind hours before John O’Keefe was found unresponsive in the snow. However, McCabe previously testified that she made the search at Read’s request after she, Read, and Kerry Roberts found O’Keefe’s body around 6 a.m. on the 29th.

“The 2:27:40 timestamp was correct insofar as that is the time that is shown within the database,” Whiffin testified. “It was, indeed, a deleted record, but the interesting thing was why the timestamp said 2:27:40. And I did some testing on this and discovered the reason why 2:27:40 was actually listed in the database, even though that’s not the time, in my opinion, that the search was conducted.”

He asserted McCabe’s phone data actually indicates searches for “how long ti die in cikd” and “hos long to die in cold” at 6:23 a.m. and 6:24 a.m., respectively. As for the “deleted” search, Whiffin explained that records can be deleted by either the user or the phone’s operating system.

“There are multiple times on an iOS device or an Android device where cleanup essentially happens and we start to lose data after a certain amount of time,” he noted.

Whiffin added: “Through my testing, I’ve only found two ways that that kind of record can be deleted by the user, and I don’t believe either of those ways was actually utilized on this device.”

He also said the data indicates the searches weren’t made in private browsing mode, and there’s reason to believe the searches never successfully loaded.

Whiffin explained that rather than listing the time a search was made, a “last viewed timestamp” indicates when the user took certain steps like opening a new browser tab, switching between tabs, or closing out of Safari.

Judge Beverly Cannone called for a lunch break with Whiffin still on the stand.

11:45 a.m. update: State Police crash analyst grilled on reconstruction, items found near John O’Keefe

After analyzing data from Karen Read’s SUV and examining the vehicle, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joseph Paul said he concluded the car was in a crash at about 12:45 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022.

“Throughout my investigation, this appeared to be a single-car collision involving a pedestrian,” Paul testified Monday.

He said Read’s Lexus accelerated in reverse “at a high rate of speed” over approximately 62 feet, reaching about 24 mph.

“The right rear of the Lexus struck the pedestrian, John O’Keefe,” Paul said, adding, “Mr. O’Keefe was projected forward and to the left along the front yard of 34 Fairview Road.”

He noted no mechanical defects with the SUV and no roadway or environmental factors that contributed to the collision.

Even if the car’s mirrors were blocked or its backup camera defective or covered in snow, “an attentive and reasonable operator” would not have reversed at a high rate of speed, he asserted, prompting an objection from the defense. Judge Beverly Cannone struck Paul’s answer from the record.

How far was O’Keefe allegedly thrown?

Responding to a later question from defense attorney Alan Jackson, Paul acknowledged that he could not say definitively that the data from Read’s SUV points to a pedestrian strike, though he said the scenario would be consistent.

Paul confirmed he doesn’t hold any degrees in mathematics, physics, biomechanics, engineering, or kinematics, though he testified that he trained in kinematics through his crash investigation classes.

Jackson also grilled Paul on the path of debris found at the scene and how it helps determine a possible point of impact. Pointing to Paul’s diagram from the scene, Jackson noted that the farthermost piece of debris documented on the report is about 30 feet away from where O’Keefe’s body was found.

Paul said the point of impact was probably along the roadway, and he used a laser pointer to draw a line indicating a possible area near a fire hydrant outside the home. He agreed the distance from the area highlighted to O’Keefe’s final resting place could be about 30 feet.

“So your expert testimony is that John O’keefe was hit with the SUV and flew 30 feet?” Jackson asked.

“Projected,” Paul replied. “I mean, I don’t want to say he flew all the way there. He was projected in that way. He got pushed forward in that direction.”

Paul further testified that pedestrians who have been struck by a vehicle usually land and then either tumble or roll. However, he said there was no evidence O’Keefe rolled.

“Based on your expert opinion, you believe that he was projected through the air to his final rest place?” Jackson asked.

“That’s not what I’m saying,” Paul replied.

“But you said there’s no evidence that he rolled there,” Jackson pushed.

“And there’s no evidence that he flew through the air, either,” Paul countered.

“Exactly, right? Exactly,” Jackson said.

Questions about broken drinking glass, scratches on SUV

Jackson also questioned Paul about his prior testimony that pedestrians tend to shed looser articles of clothing after being struck by a vehicle. Investigators have testified about finding a broken drinking glass near O’Keefe’s body, and Jackson asked how O’Keefe — who lost a hat and a sneaker at the scene — managed to hold onto a glass when he was allegedly thrown several feet.

Paul testified that he didn’t have a specific theory but said there were a number of possible explanations. Later in his testimony, he said the glass could have been thrown with O’Keefe or possibly gripped in the victim’s hand.

Jackson also pointed out that O’Keefe’s cellphone was found under his body.

“That’s the evidence at the scene,” Paul said. “I didn’t put the evidence there, so.”

“OK, well, you didn’t,” Jackson fired back, prompting an objection from prosecutors and a stern warning from Cannone.

Later, Paul confirmed that upon being tasked with the crash reconstruction, he learned of investigators’ belief that O’Keefe had been struck by a vehicle. Jackson suggested Paul’s subsequent analysis could have been swayed by confirmation bias.

Jackson turned his attention to the scratches Paul said he observed on the back of Read’s SUV, asking how Paul could say for certain that the scratches occurred on Jan. 29, 2022. Paul confirmed there’s no scientific way to date a scratch.

Do the key cycles add up?

Paul testified on Friday that he used Google Maps to estimate the distance Read’s SUV traveled between several locations the morning of the 29th, putting the range between 36.1 miles and 38.8 miles. On the stand Monday, he confirmed he received details about Read’s path of travel that morning from State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, a lead investigator on the case.

Pointing to the information pulled from Read’s SUV, Jackson noted there are several missing key cycles — data denoting when the car is turned on and off — between the alleged collision outside 34 Fairview Road and when Paul tested the vehicle at the Canton police station. The data shows a difference of only two key cycles, but Read allegedly made several stops from the time she left 34 Fairview Road to when State Police troopers seized the vehicle at her parents’ home in Dighton.

Paul said he couldn’t speak to why a key cycle would or wouldn’t be logged in the SUV’s system. Responding to a later question from Jackson, he testified that Read’s taillight shattered when it struck O’Keefe’s arm.

“Isn’t it true, Trooper Paul, you came to these opinions and conclusions because Trooper Proctor told you to come to these opinions and conclusions in furtherance of his investigation?” Jackson asked.

“That is not true,” Paul said.

“That’s why you have these opinions and conclusions that just don’t make sense, correct?” Jackson asked.

“That is not true,” Paul repeated.

“And you’re just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole,” Jackson alleged, prompting another objection from prosecutors.

Livestream via NBC10 Boston.

Jurors in the Karen Read murder trial are slated to hear additional testimony Monday from a Massachusetts State Police crash analyst who previously opined that data from Read’s Lexus SUV appears “consistent with a pedestrian strike.”

Read, 44, is accused of backing her car into Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, on Jan. 29, 2022. Prosecutors allege she was driving drunk following a night out and intentionally struck O’Keefe while dropping him off at an afterparty in Canton.

Lawyers for the Mansfield woman have another theory. They’ve suggested O’Keefe walked into the party at 34 Fairview Road and was severely beaten, with Read later framed in a conspiracy intended to protect relatives of the homeowner, a fellow Boston police officer.

Read’s trial left off Friday with testimony from State Police Trooper Joseph Paul, who works with the agency’s Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section. Pointing to data that he said could have been logged on Read’s SUV around the time she allegedly struck O’Keefe, Paul told jurors Read appeared to accelerate in reverse before her speed suddenly dropped and her steering wheel jostled slightly.

“There’s a point in there where it appears to be consistent with a pedestrian strike,” Paul said. He also asserted that O’Keefe’s blunt force injuries and abrasions were consistent with a pedestrian collision.

Paul further testified that Read’s car had a broken taillight, scratches, a dent, and pieces of glass on the bumper when he inspected the vehicle at the Canton Police Department on Feb. 1, 2022.

Judge Beverly Cannone has yet to say whether Paul will be allowed to testify about Ring surveillance camera footage from O’Keefe’s driveway. Read’s lawyers have suggested the video — which shows Read’s SUV backing out of the garage and reversing toward O’Keefe’s parked car shortly after 5 a.m. on the 29th — could offer another explanation for the damaged taillight.

Meanwhile, jurors on Friday also heard from digital forensics expert Jessica Hyde, who unpacked the cellphone data behind witness Jennifer McCabe’s contested Google search for “hos long to die in cold.” Hyde testified that the search was not made at 2:27 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022, as the defense has suggested. Rather, she said, that early morning timestamp could indicate when the browser tab was first opened.

Defense attorney David Yannetti asked whether Hyde’s analysis ruled out a search at or before 2:27 a.m.

“There is a very unlikely possibility based on the fact that there is no evidence that the search occurred before that time,” she replied, adding, “I can’t rule out something that doesn’t exist.”