Three years after the death of her then-boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, Karen Read was found not guilty of second-degree murder Wednesday afternoon. The Boston woman faced second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of personal injury and death charges. Jurors in the Norfolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts announced that after eight weeks of trial, 49 witnesses, and four days of deliberation, they had come to a decision.
Read was acquitted of the second-degree murder charge, the motor vehicle manslaughter under the influence charge, and leaving the scene of the crime. Jurors did find her guilty of operating a car under the influence of alcohol.
This news marks the beginning of the end of Read’s years-long legal battle with the state, one that not only divided juries but alleged major mishandling of evidence by Boston police. Read was first arrested on Feb. 2, 2022, after the body of O’Keefe was discovered in the snow outside the home of Boston police officer Brian Albert. Police believed that Read drunkenly backed into her boyfriend that night with her SUV, and fled the scene. She pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death, but the first trial ended in mistrial after a hung jury.
Read, 45, had reportedly gone to a bar with O’Keefe on Jan. 29, 2022 before dropping him off at Albert’s for a party. Text messages shared in court revealed the couple were fighting the day before O’Keefe’s death, according to NBC Boston. But around 4:23 a.m on Jan. 29, O’Keefe’s niece placed a call to Albert’s home, telling his sister-in-law, Jennifer McCabe, that Read had called her worried because O’Keefe hadn’t returned home and she couldn’t remember much because she had been so inebriated when she dropped him off. When the three met up to search for him, they discovered O’Keefe’s body in the snow and called first responders.
Much of the debate around Read’s innocence or guilt comes from statements she allegedly made while paramedics and police tended to O’Keefe’s body. According to testimony from officers, Read said, “I hit him” repeatedly while crying to EMT, but her defense has argued that it was a question, not a statement, and she had been saying, “Did I hit him?” During her first trial, Read’s legal team accused lead investigator, Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, of misconduct — reading out loud in court text messages he had sent calling Read misogynist names, wishing that she would die by suicide, and sharing investigative details with family members. Proctor was fired after the first trial, but Read’s legal team brought up the messages and conduct in court as an example of prejudice against Read from the police department.
In Read’s second trial, the defense focused on other ways O’Keefe could have been injured, including the theory that he entered the house and was harmed by the police officers inside. Read herself did not take the stand. Attorneys for Read called specific attention to wounds found on O’Keefe’s arms, claiming they were caused by a dog. (A German Shepherd lived on the property where O’Keefe was found.) Retired physician Dr. Marie Russell testified that the wounds were the result of a dog bite. But on cross examination, the prosecution noted that the sweatshirt O’Keefe was wearing that night tested negative for dog DNA. Snowplow driver Brian Loughran also testified, saying that he passed the house multiple times in the early hours and never once noticed a body on the ground.
The other piece of evidence the prosecution and defense fought over was the condition of Read’s taillight. The prosecution claimed that Read’s taillight, which was photographed after the SUV was taken into police custody, was smashed out when Read allegedly hit O’Keefe. But when police officer Nicholas Barros took the stand, he said that police photos of the taillight looked completely different from when he responded to the scene. “There was a (piece) missing, but it was not completely damaged,” he said, which the defense said supported their theory that the large pieces of taillight found at the scene were planted by officers.
The jury returned with the three acquittals after four days of deliberation, but the decision wasn’t without confusion. Early Wednesday morning, jurors told Judge Cannone they had reached a verdict and then immediately retracted it. They returned a short time after to once again say they had reached a verdict, which was then announced in court.
Source link