In the high-stakes theater of the Karen Read murder trial, few moments felt as technically dense—yet legally explosive—as the testimony of Matthew DiSogra. He wasn’t a family member or a Canton insider. He was an engineer. Basically, a guy whose life revolves around the cold, hard data stored inside "black boxes."
When DiSogra took the stand as the first witness for the defense in the 2025 retrial, he wasn't there to talk about feelings or town gossip. He was there to pull apart the prosecution's timeline using the very same vehicle data they had used to build it.
Honestly, the case against Karen Read has always felt like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces were forced together with a hammer. Prosecutors argued Read backed her Lexus SUV into her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, at over 20 mph, leaving him to die in a snowbank. DiSogra’s job? To show the jury that the "hammer" used by the state’s experts might have ignored some pretty inconvenient physics.
Who is Matthew DiSogra?
You've probably heard of "accident reconstruction," but DiSogra is a specialist within that niche. He is the Director of Engineering at DeltaV, a firm that lives and breathes Event Data Recorder (EDR) analysis. We are talking about a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with a Master’s degree from UNC Charlotte.
He doesn't just "look" at crashes. He instructs other professionals on how to interpret heavy vehicle data for the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). In the courtroom, his vibe was steady. He wasn't there to be a cheerleader for the defense; he was there to explain why the "trigger events" in Read’s Lexus didn't mean what the prosecution said they meant.
The Problem With the Prosecution's "Trigger"
The whole case often hinged on a "trigger event" recorded by Read’s SUV. The state's experts, particularly those from Aperture LLC like Dr. Judson Welcher, claimed the vehicle data showed a high-speed reverse maneuver consistent with hitting a person.
✨ Don't miss: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
DiSogra basically threw a wrench in that engine. He testified that the events recorded that night were not triggered by a collision. That’s a massive distinction. In his view, the Lexus didn't record a crash; it recorded driving. Specifically, he focused on the "lock" event on John O’Keefe’s iPhone and how it synced—or didn't—with the car's movements.
The Three-Second Gap That Changed Everything
If you followed the trial, you know the defense was obsessed with timing. DiSogra highlighted something most people would miss: a three-second delay.
The prosecution's experts noted that in a similar "exemplar" Lexus, there was a three-second lag between the car turning on and the infotainment system actually recording data. But here is the kicker: they didn't apply that lag to their calculations for Karen Read's car.
DiSogra did the math.
When you account for those three seconds, the timeline shifts. DiSogra pointed out that out of nearly 30 different ways to calculate the data, only three of them supported the idea that Read hit O'Keefe before his phone "locked" for the final time. In most scenarios, the "impact" event occurred after O'Keefe’s phone had already stopped moving.
🔗 Read more: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property
It’s hard to hit someone who is already stationary or whose phone is already dead.
A Tense Cross-Examination
Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan didn't make it easy. During a heated cross-examination, Brennan tried to pin DiSogra down, asking if he was saying a collision couldn't have happened.
DiSogra’s response was nuanced. He admitted he wasn't offering an opinion that there was "no collision" at all—mostly because, as he explained, a car hitting a human body often doesn't trigger an EDR event anyway. Humans aren't as solid as brick walls.
But his main point stood: the specific "trigger events" the prosecution pointed to as "proof" of the murder were just normal driving.
- Prosecution View: The data shows a 24 mph reverse—that's the murder.
- DiSogra View: The data shows a car backing up, but the timing doesn't line up with O'Keefe's phone data, and the car didn't think it hit anything.
Why This Matters for the "Not Guilty" Verdict
In June 2025, the jury ultimately acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter. While the "Free Karen Read" movement focused on the alleged cover-up by the McAlberts and Trooper Michael Proctor, the technical "reasonable doubt" often came from guys like DiSogra.
💡 You might also like: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened
When you have a world-class engineer telling you that the prosecution's math is "implied" rather than "calculated," it's hard to send someone to prison for life. DiSogra didn't have to prove Karen Read was innocent. He just had to prove the state's "scientific" proof was flawed.
He basically showed that if you change just one variable—like a three-second boot-up time—the entire house of cards falls over.
Actionable Takeaways from the DiSogra Testimony
If you're following high-profile criminal cases or just interested in how digital forensics works, there are a few real-world lessons here.
1. Data is only as good as the person interpreting it. The same "black box" data was used by both sides. The difference was the assumptions made before the math started. Always look for the "offsets" or "corrections" an expert uses.
2. Physical evidence vs. Digital footprints.
The Read case was a battle between "broken tail light glass" and "GPS/iPhone data." In 2026, digital footprints (like the iPhone lock event) are becoming the "new DNA." They are often harder to fake and more precise than physical debris.
3. The power of "Reasonable Doubt" in technicalities.
You don't need a conspiracy theory to win a case. Sometimes, you just need a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering and a calculator to show that the "impossible" timeline is actually the most likely one.
To understand the full scope of the 2025 acquittal, you have to look past the drama and into the spreadsheets. Matthew DiSogra’s testimony wasn't flashy, but it was the quiet anchor that the defense needed to pull the jury toward a "not guilty" vote.