As Karen Learn’s retrial zeroed in on a potential homicide weapon, an skilled’s credibility was challenged

On the coronary heart of the homicide cost in opposition to Karen Learn is the weapon prosecutors say she used to kill her boyfriend — her 2021 Lexus SUV.

Prosecutors spent a lot of the fifth week of the broadly publicized retrial laying out the bodily proof that they are saying exhibits that Learn drunkenly drove into Boston police officer John O’Keefe, 46, and left him for useless outdoors the house of a regulation enforcement colleague on Jan. 29, 2022.

Lead prosecutor Hank Brennan and Norfolk County Assistant District Lawyer Adam Lally known as a collection of forensic specialists to bolster that idea.

The protection, which has rejected these allegations, targeted a lot of its consideration on a single skilled who examined a key piece of proof — car knowledge — and subjected that skilled to hours of interrogation-like questioning as lawyer Robert Alessi sought to dismantle the analyst’s contributions to the prosecution’s case.

“I’m attempting to know your assertion,” an exasperated-sounding Alessi mentioned at one level throughout cross-examination. “Isn’t it both you could have a bachelor of science diploma otherwise you don’t?”

Learn, who’s charged with second-degree homicide, motorized vehicle manslaughter whereas driving beneath the affect and leaving the scene of a collision inflicting demise, has remained chatty with reporters all through the proceedings and mentioned after courtroom Wednesday that she feels “nice” in regards to the case to this point.

She has maintained her innocence all through her authorized battle.

Her first trial ended with a hung jury final summer time. Her protection crew has mentioned that she was framed by former and present regulation enforcement officers and others who have been on the dwelling the place O’Keefe was discovered unresponsive early Jan. 29.

The protection has additionally mentioned that the state trooper who led the investigation into O’Keefe’s demise was biased and manipulated proof. The trooper, who acknowledged sending unprofessional messages about Learn however testified that his conduct didn’t have an effect on the integrity of the investigation, was fired after an inner investigation discovered he violated company guidelines.

In courtroom earlier this week, specialists provided a flurry of technical, typically extremely complicated particulars in regards to the bodily proof linked to Learn’s SUV: a strand of O’Keefe’s hair discovered on the Lexus’ rear quarter panel; bits of pink plastic found on O’Keefe’s garments that would have been from the SUV’s damaged taillight.

The car knowledge examined by Shanon Burgess, a digital forensic analyst, is central to the prosecution’s case. Brennan has accused Learn of reversing her Lexus into O’Keefe in a success that left him useless, and Burgess’ evaluation discovered that the SUV recorded a “backing occasion” outdoors the house the place he was discovered unresponsive shortly after 6 a.m.

The protection spent hours grilling Burgess on every little thing from errors the skilled acknowledged making in his evaluation to the accuracy of his resume. At one level, the grueling back-and-forth prompted a startling admission from Burgess.

Although his curriculum vitae and LinkedIn profile state that he has a bachelor’s diploma in science from the College of Alabama, he has not more than an affiliate’s diploma, Burgess testified. He started pursuing a bachelor’s in 2008, he mentioned, however by no means accomplished the coursework.

When Alessi pressed Burgess to clarify the misstatements, he attributed them to “errors” and “misinterpretations.”

“However you’ll agree these errors or misinterpretations have been in existence for a while?” the protection lawyer responded.

“Sure,” Burgess mentioned. “I’m being made conscious of them now.”

At one other level, Alessi pressed Burgess on what the protection lawyer described as a collection of errors the skilled made whereas analyzing three chips from Learn’s SUV. In a doc Burgess supplied to the prosecution in October, Alessi mentioned, the skilled asserted {that a} earlier evaluation used within the case was incomplete as a result of it didn’t seize the entire knowledge from the chips.

Actually, Alessi mentioned, it was Burgess who erred by making errors in his knowledge conversion methodology. He confused megabits for megabytes, Alessi mentioned, and gigabits for gigabytes. (Eight of the previous equals one of many latter.)

“The complete basis of your proposal was primarily based on a elementary misinterpretation of the distinction between a pc bit and a pc byte, right?” the protection lawyer mentioned.

“No, not the complete factor,” Burgess responded.

“Nicely definitely part of it was, right?” Alessi mentioned.

“Right,” Burgess mentioned.

“Because you wrote that, have you ever realized the distinction between a bit and a byte?” the lawyer requested.

“I’ve at all times recognized the distinction between a bit and a byte,” Burgess mentioned.

Later, Alessi questioned Burgess about what he described as discrepancies between two experiences he wrote within the case. The primary, submitted in January of this 12 months, sought to reconstruct the occasions of Jan. 29, 2022, utilizing car knowledge. The second, submitted earlier this month — after Learn’s retrial had already begun — was a supplemental report that sought to “make clear” components of the preliminary doc, Burgess mentioned.

On the stand, Alessi requested him to clarify a kind of discrepancies within the supplemental report. On direct examination, Alessi mentioned, Burgess instructed the prosecutor that he’d submitted the doc on his personal initiative in an effort to reply to a “deceptive” declare that he later mentioned got here from a protection skilled.

However the report itself acknowledged the alternative, Alessi identified. Within the doc’s first line, which Alessi learn in courtroom, Burgess mentioned he was submitting the extra evaluation on the prosecutor’s request.

“Which is it?” Alessi requested.

“It is a holdover, so a duplicate and paste from my authentic report,” Burgess responded.

“Do you chop and paste essential info from one report back to the opposite with out checking it for accuracy?” Alessi requested.

“I copy and paste sure parts,” Burgess mentioned.

“You didn’t evaluation it this time, although, did you?” Alessi mentioned.

“No,” Burgess responded. “I didn’t suppose it was vital.”