Karen Read Trial Twist: Will Prosecutors Dodge the Three Most Damaging Witnesses?

At Profiling Evil, we’ve been tracking the Karen Read murder trial since day one. And friends, this retrial is shaping up to be a chess match of courtroom strategy—and maybe a little bit of legal dodgeball.

---

A Legal Pivot That’s Raising Eyebrows

This week, something big started to bubble up in court that’s got legal analysts scratching their heads. After three solid days of testimony from Massachusetts State Police Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik—days packed with repetitive questions, redirect after redirect, and an awful lot of “I don’t recalls”—some are wondering whether the Commonwealth is about to pull a fast one on the jury.

Specifically, will they skip calling the three most controversial witnesses in this entire case? Let’s name them: Michael Proctor. Brian Higgins. Brian Albert. These three are central to the defense’s third-party culprit theory. They’re also tangled up in a mess of allegations involving botched investigations, missing phones, flirty text messages, possible house parties gone wrong, and what the defense calls a full-blown cover-up.

So why wouldn’t prosecutors want to put them on the stand? Because, quite frankly, they’re a liability.

---

Why Change the Strategy?

In the first trial, the prosecution was busy chasing down defense theories, practically trying to plug every leak in a rapidly sinking ship. It gave the defense too much oxygen, too much opportunity to stir doubt in the jury’s mind. And let’s be real—those jurors did have trouble reaching a verdict.

This time around, it looks like prosecutor Hank Brennan and the Commonwealth are taking a “less is more” approach. They’re using Sgt. Bukhenik to touch on all the points that would’ve otherwise come from Proctor, Higgins, or Albert. In other words, letting one officer carry the load for the team—and maybe keeping the others out of the line of fire.

But here’s the real question: Is this a smart legal move—or a sign the case is on shaky ground?

WBZ Legal Analyst Katherine Loftus weighed in:

“All of the points that they are hitting that would otherwise come in through other witnesses… It leads toward the idea that Brennan maybe might skip calling all three.”

---

Who Are These Key Witnesses, and Why Do They Matter?

Let’s not forget who we’re talking about:

• Michael Proctor – The now-fired lead investigator. Accused of mocking Karen Read in text messages, possibly mishandling evidence, and acting more like a jilted high schooler than a professional law enforcement officer.
• Brian Higgins – The ATF agent who was allegedly texting with Read in the days leading up to John O’Keefe’s death. The flirty tone? It’s given the defense fuel for a jealousy motive—one that doesn’t involve Read.
• Brian Albert – Owner of the house where O’Keefe’s body was found. The defense claims O’Keefe was killed inside that house, and his body was later staged in the snow. Albert’s testimony could make or break that theory.

So yeah, not calling them might make things easier for the prosecution… but it also leaves a huge gap in the story. And let’s be honest—true crime fans know that juries aren’t just swayed by clean timelines and legal definitions. They feel the vibe. And right now, the vibe around this investigation stinks of locker room culture, ego, and maybe something darker.

---

Can the Defense Step In?

Now, the defense can call these three to the stand—but it’s not as easy as it sounds. On direct examination, attorneys can’t ask leading questions. You’ve got to play nice. You ask open-ended questions like, “What happened that night?” instead of hammering home, “You threw away your phone to hide evidence, didn’t you?”

Unless the judge declares them hostile witnesses, the defense is stuck playing softball with the very people they want to grill. That’s a high-stakes gamble—and one that could affect how persuasive their entire case is.

Still, some legal analysts believe the defense must take the risk. Especially with Michael Proctor.

“I think you have to call Michael Proctor,” said Loftus. “I mean, how can you let him off the hook if you are the defense?”

---

Will This Trial Come Down to the Investigators?

Here’s where it gets real.

The outcome of this trial may hinge less on whether Karen Read backed into John O’Keefe with her Lexus… and more on whether the jury believes the people investigating that night are trustworthy.

So let me be blunt: If Read walks, will it be because she’s innocent… or because the jury couldn’t stomach the cops? Is this trial about what happened to John O’Keefe—or about who messed it up afterward? That’s what makes this case so maddening, so polarizing… and so important.

---

Let’s Talk About It

I want to hear from you:

• Should prosecutors avoid calling these three men?
• Is that smart lawyering… or just sweeping dirty laundry under the rug?
• If Karen Read is acquitted, will it be justice—or just disgust with law enforcement?

True crime isn’t just about the facts—it’s about the why. So I’m asking you: is the Commonwealth protecting their case—or protecting their own?

---

Final Thoughts

To sum it up:

• Prosecutors may dodge calling three key witnesses: Proctor, Higgins, and Albert.
• Legal experts suggest it’s a calculated move to limit jury exposure to bad behavior and conflicting stories.
• The defense can still call them—but it’s risky and restricted unless they’re declared hostile.
• This trial might not just be about Karen Read’s guilt or innocence—it could be about whether the jury trusts the system that investigated her.

Drop your thoughts in the comments and let’s dissect this one together.