⏱️ Important Timeline (From Lexus Clock Unless Noted)

Power On / Off Events (Infotainment System):

1/28/22

9:48:08 PM – 10:16:32 PM → Night out, bar

1/29/22

12:12:36 AM – 12:42:08 AM → To Albert’s, then back to John’s at 1 Meadow Lane.

Karen Read’s iphone connected to John’s Wi-Fi at 12:36 AM,  called and texted John repeatedly until 12:42am when she left a voice mail that indicated that she went inside John’s house.

5:07:46 AM – Departed for Jen’s

5:30:00 AM – Call to John from Karen, telematics shows John’s phone connected to Karen’s Lexus.

5:35:ish – Karen arrives at Jen’s house

5:46:20 AM →  return to John’s with Carrie & Jen

12:35:01 PM – 2:12:01 PM → Karen’s dad & brother retrieve car to take to Dighton

4:11:46 PM – 4:12:56 PM → Car is towed

5:34:51 PM – 5:36:42 PM → Car arrives back in garage, towed

Important to note: The defense claims that law enforcement investigators (Proctor) tampered with the car at 4:12pm upon taking possession of Karen’s Lexus, and planted tail light pieces at the scene of 34 Fairview before SERT (Special Emergency Response Team – State of MA) arrived to dig in the snow for evidence. SERT arrived at the scene at 4:56pm, the vehicle arrived at the sallyport at 5:34pm. There was no time for Proctor to get to the scene before SERT arrived to plant evidence. SERT found several pieces of the tail light during this search. Logic would tell us that those pieces were not planted. Subsequent pieces were found as the snow melted in the coming days.  

The Findings

🧾Infotainment System and Power-On Events:

A significant portion of his analysis focused on the infotainment system’s power-on and power-off events, which are tied to the vehicle’s ignition. The system takes roughly three seconds to activate after the ignition is turned on. He extracted precise timestamps for various ignition events using data from the Lexus’s internal clocks. One example was a power-on at 9:48:08 PM and a power-off at 10:16:32 PM (while Karen Read was at the bar). Another set occurred from 12:12:36 AM to 12:42:08 AM, when she left for Albert’s and returned to John’s. Of note is a possible discrepancy: the vehicle supposedly connected to Wi-Fi at 12:36 AM, but didn’t power off until 12:42 AM, raising questions about whether she lingered in the car or whether the Wi-Fi connection time is inaccurate.

🔢Technical Findings and Data Gaps:

In reviewing the data, Burgess found key user data missing from the initial downloads—information such as contacts, timestamps, and interaction logs weren’t present. He theorized that this was due to either a partial or faulty chip read or oversight in targeting the correct data-bearing chip.

Burgess misinterpreted his own notes on bits versus bytes, but he engaged in the scientific process to discover his error.

During the reexamination, he discovered an SD card had been overlooked and noted that a chip was damaged during the original chip-off process, likely due to overheating by Gaffney during soldering. He showed photographs of the infotainment module and confirmed evidence of component damage.

⏱️Clock Variance and Data Corroboration:

The expert explained that different systems have inherent clock variances. For example, the iPhone and Lexus may have up to a 60-second time difference which is “generally accepted”, Burgess states. Despite this, he affirmed that the Lexus timestamps were reliable to the second within their own system.

Burgess identified a power-on event at 5:07:46 AM when Karen left for Jen McCabe’s house and a power-off at 5:46:20 AM when they returned Karen’s Lexus to John’s house. Though Karen’s departure mysteriously wasn’t captured directly by John’s garage cameras,  it closely matched the surveillance video time, within a 12-second variance.

Burgess also noted a later power-on from 12:35:01 PM to 2:12:01 PM, which aligned exactly with the video from Karen’s father’s driveway.

Another event, from 4:11:46 PM to 4:12:56 PM, corresponded to when the car was towed.

⚠️Read Supporters Point to Flaws in the Key Cycle Data and Scene Analysis

Supporters of Karen Read argue that the “key cycle” identified by the Commonwealth as corresponding to the alleged reverse maneuver at 12:42 a.m. is, in fact, data associated with the vehicle being towed the following day at 4:12 p.m. During Trial Day 1, Trooper John Paul provided detailed testimony regarding key cycles; however, the data presented lacked specific time stamps, making it difficult to interpret and contributing to considerable confusion. It remains unclear whether the Commonwealth’s accident reconstruction expert, Dr. Welcher, will clarify this issue during his testimony or whether the prosecution will choose to avoid the matter altogether due to the potential for juror confusion and misinterpretation.

In addition, Trooper Paul’s credibility was significantly undermined during cross-examination, particularly in relation to the exhibit he presented depicting the positions of John O’Keefe and the tail light fragments. His apparent lack of understanding of basic trajectory analysis and scene reconstruction principles further weakened the impact of his testimony. Dr. Welcher is clearly a replacemnt in Trial 2 for Trooper Paul.

📃Conclusion

In the complex landscape of legal proceedings, the testimony of Shanon Burgess emphasizes the pivotal role of technical data in establishing a robust narrative for the jury. While the focus often shifts to the integrity of that data, it is crucial to recognize how such evidence can underpin arguments in a trial, especially when data interpretation becomes a battleground for credibility. Burgess highlights that, regardless of the controversies surrounding specific data points, the reliance on technical evidence is indispensable in piecing together the events of that fateful night. As the trial progresses, this type of evidence not only informs the jury but also shapes the trajectory of justice, making it imperative for all involved to engage with and understand its implications fully.

Related Articles

Related