Crime
Defense expert Dr. Marie Russell previously opined John O’Keefe’s arm wounds were from an animal attack.
Prosecutors in the Karen Read case are once again casting doubt on the defense team’s dog bite expert, who previously opined John O’Keefe’s arm wounds were the result of an animal attack.
“The Commonwealth asserts that Dr. [Marie] Russell is not qualified to render an opinion about the victim’s injuries, nor is her opinion reliable,” prosecutors wrote in a Tuesday court filing.
A retired emergency room physician and forensic pathologist from California, Russell will be the focus of a Dec. 12 hearing to determine whether she will be allowed to offer expert testimony when Read stands trial again in 2025. Prosecutors are asking Judge Beverly Cannone to exclude Russell’s testimony from the upcoming retrial.
Read, 44, is accused of drunkenly and intentionally backing her SUV into O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, while dropping him off at a house party in Canton on Jan. 29, 2022. Her first trial ended with a hung jury in July, and a retrial is currently slated for January.
The first time around, Russell’s testimony was integral to the defense team’s alternate theory of O’Keefe’s death: That he walked into the party and was severely beaten, attacked by the family’s dog, and dumped outside in the snow.
“I believe that these injuries were sustained by an animal, possibly a large dog, because of the pattern of the injuries,” Russell said of the wounds on O’Keefe’s left arm.
Russell has researched the subject of animal bites and scratches, with multiple peer-reviewed papers on law enforcement dog bites under her belt. During the trial, she highlighted “a number of patterns” in the injuries on O’Keefe’s arm, including parallel lines she said “were inflicted by either teeth or claw marks.” Russell also pointed to “punctate” marks she said could have come from a pointy tooth.
Earlier in the trial, jurors also heard testimony that the University of California, Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Forensic Unit found no signs of canine DNA on swabs taken from O’Keefe’s shirt.
In their Tuesday filing, prosecutors noted most of Russell’s canine experience dates back 28 years and focused on law enforcement canines, not pet dogs.
“During her trial testimony, Dr. Russell conceded there was no law enforcement canine involved and, in her experience, a bite and hold injury that law enforcement canines are trained to do would appear different than a domestic canine and arguably vastly different from the victim’s minor abrasions, which were isolated to one area of his forearm,” prosecutors wrote.
Further, they added, Russell “lacks sufficient expertise in identifying characteristics of a canine bite, predominantly from an autopsy photograph.”
Read will return to Norfolk Superior Court for a 9 a.m. hearing on Dec. 12.
Boston.com Today
Sign up to receive the latest headlines in your inbox each morning.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
