Karen Read Mistrial

July 31, 2024

Now that the dust has begun to settle over the mistrial of Karen Read, Code and Clues wanted to dig into some of the digital evidence that was presented. Of particular interest here in the Cafe was the evidence presented relative to internet searches done by Jennifer McCabe.

On Day 25 of the trial, digital forensic expert Jessica Hyde testified (LIVE: MA v. Karen Read Day 25 – Killer Or Cover-Up Murder Trial | COURT TV), focusing on the timeline of a crucial Google search made by Jennifer McCabe. The defense argued that McCabe searched “hos [sic] long to die in cold” at 2:27 a.m., implying foreknowledge of the incident. However, Hyde clarified that this timestamp indicated when the browser tab was first opened, not when the search occurred. According to her analysis using multiple forensic tools, the actual search was conducted at 6:23 a.m., hours after the initial tab opening. Hyde explained that at 2:27 a.m., McCabe was accessing a sports website, and the search related to hypothermia was performed later, countering the defense’s claims of a cover-up

This testimony aimed to establish a more accurate timeline and context for the digital evidence, aligning with the prosecution’s narrative and challenging the defense’s interpretation of the data.

On Day 26 of the trial, Ian Whiffin, a forensics software expert from Cellebrite, provided significant testimony (LIVE: MA v. Karen Read Day 26 – Killer Or Cover-Up Murder Trial | COURT TV) regarding a controversial internet search by Jennifer McCabe. Whiffin was the second expert witness to discuss this search, which queried “hos [sic] long to die in cold.” The defense has argued that McCabe made this search at 2:27 a.m., suggesting prior knowledge of the situation. However, Whiffin clarified that this timestamp reflects when the search tab was opened, not when the search itself occurred. He demonstrated that the actual search happened at 6:23 a.m., hours after the tab was first opened.

Whiffin’s analysis aimed to debunk the defense’s claim that the search timing indicated a cover-up. He explained that if Safari is minimized and then later used, the search could be timestamped with the older time when the tab was initially opened. He also mentioned that McCabe was on WiFi looking up youth sports schedules at 2:27 a.m., further supporting his assertion that the hypothermia search occurred later.

This testimony was pivotal as it directly challenged the defense’s narrative and supported the prosecution’s timeline of events. Whiffin’s detailed forensic analysis aimed to provide clarity on the sequence and timing of digital activities related to the case.

The meticulous examination of digital evidence by experts like Hyde and Whiffin highlights the complexities involved in interpreting digital timelines. Their testimony not only countered the defense’s claims but also reinforced the importance of precise forensic analysis in uncovering the truth. We’ll continue to follow this case to see where it goes in the future.

Sip and Sleuth!