The defense team for Karen Read, who is on trial for a second time, has rested its case, maintaining that Read was wrongly accused and framed for the murder of her boyfriend, a Boston police officer. The 45-year-old is alleged to have struck John O’Keefe with her SUV, leaving him in the snow outside another officer’s home after dropping him off in January 2022, during a night out where both were drinking. The charges against her include second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of the incident in Canton, near Boston.
Prosecutors claim Read deliberately hit O’Keefe with her vehicle and abandoned him. In contrast, the defense has argued she was entangled in a conspiracy that involved tampering with evidence, using her as an easy target for O’Keefe’s tragic death. They suggest that some statements attributed to her by the prosecution were manipulated, accusing the state of crafting a forced confession from her words.
A television interview was cited where Read questioned whether she might have accidentally touched O’Keefe with her vehicle, but her defense lawyer, Alan Jackson, contended that statement merely reflected her worry amid an uncontrollable situation. He characterized her words as expressing the genuine concern of a grieving partner trying to comprehend an inexplicable tragedy.
In support of Read’s innocence, a crash expert testified for the defense, indicating that the damage to her vehicle’s taillight and O’Keefe’s apparel did not match the scenario of her SUV hitting him at the velocity voiced by the prosecution. Additionally, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a former medical examiner called by the defense, noted that while O’Keefe’s injuries aligned with blunt force trauma, the eye wounds he sustained did not correspond with being struck by Read’s SUV. In her expert opinion, she doubted that the SUV hit O’Keefe at all.
A previous attempt by the defense to declare a mistrial during the second trial was unsuccessful. This effort followed an earlier mistrial due to a hung jury. The defense proposes a theory that O’Keefe was actually assaulted inside the home where the party was hosted, bitten by a family pet, and then left outside as part of a police conspiracy designed to incriminate Read by fabricating evidence.
A subsequent motion for a second mistrial was fired after the prosecution noted the absence of dog DNA on O’Keefe. The defense argued that this aspect—DNA and the dog bite—had not been addressed during the trial, contending that the mention prejudiced the jury. Nevertheless, Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone ruled that the trial should move forward.
Furthermore, the defense has contended that law enforcement displayed bias against Read from the onset, seeking to attribute O’Keefe’s demise to her. Jonathan Diamandis, a friend of Michael Proctor, who led the investigation into Read’s case, was brought in to read text messages Proctor sent, which allegedly reflected bias. Despite being terminated in March following a disciplinary review citing sexist and offensive messages regarding Read, Proctor’s testimony was pivotal in the first trial. Defense attorneys have leveraged Proctor’s messages in an effort to demonstrate his bias and the neglect of alternative suspects.
Next in the legal proceedings are the closing arguments from both parties involved. Following this, the jury will deliberate to reach a verdict.