DEDHAM, Mass. A defense attorney told jurors in Karen Read murder trial on Tuesday that she is the innocent victim of a law enforcement framework, a “high blue wall” built to protect the real killers of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. But a prosecutor used Read’s own words to portray her as “seething with rage” moments after running him over with her SUV.
The two-month trial of Read, who is accused of striking O’Keefe with his Lexus SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside another officer’s house party in January 2022, has sparked a media storm, fueled by by true crime bloggers and pink-shirted supporters who gathered and waited in line for hours to witness the court proceedings.
His lawyers claim O’Keefe was dragged outside after being beaten in the basement and bitten by a dog at Boston Officer Brian Albert’s Canton home.
Defense lawyer Alan Jackson described a cancer of lies that “spreads into a conspiracy” and told jurors they are “the only thing standing between Karen Read and the tyranny of injustice.”
“You have been deceived in this court. Your job is to make sure you never look away from each other,” he said.
“Ladies and gentlemen, there was a cover-up in this case, plain and simple,” he added.
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, who told jurors “There is no conspiracy,” began his closing statement with the words four witnesses reported hearing Read say after O’Keefe was discovered on the snowy lawn.
“The defendant repeatedly said ‘I hit him. I hit him. Oh my God. I hit him,” Lally said. “Those were the words that came out of the defendant’s mouth.” He later played a voicemail Read left for Keefe moments after her car data showed she reversed at approximately 24 mph and then drove away.
“The defendant leaves that voicemail, seething with rage as she screams, ‘John, I (expletive) hate you!’”
Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, is charged with second-degree murder, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, as well as manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. The manslaughter charge carries a sentence of five to 20 years in prison, and the other charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
The defense claims investigators focused on Read because she was a “convenient outsider” who saved them from having to consider other suspects, including Albert and other officers who were at the party. In particular, they highlighted the connections between Albert and the state police officer leading the investigation.
“Michael Proctor didn’t draw a thin blue line, he erected a tall blue wall,” Jackson said. “A wall you can’t climb, a wall Karen Read certainly couldn’t overcome. A wall between us and them. A place where you are not invited. We protect our own.”
Jackson suggested that Brian Higgins, a federal agent who exchanged flirtatious messages with Read, lured O’Keefe to the house party, where the two fought, resulting in punches and a fall.
“Panic sets in,” he said. “I didn’t intend to go this far, but what’s done is done.”
Testimony began April 29, after several days of jury selection. Prosecutors spent most of the trial methodically presenting evidence from the crime scene. The defense called only a few witnesses, but used their time to cross-examine prosecution witnesses to raise questions about the investigation, including what she described as conflicts of interest and sloppy police work. The defense was echoed by complaints from a chorus of supporters who often camp outside the courthouse.
A day before closing arguments, the defense used the last three witnesses to cast doubt on the prosecutors’ version of events.
Dr. Frank Sheridan, a retired forensic pathologist and former chief medical examiner for San Bernardino County, California, testified that O’Keefe should have suffered more bruises if he had been struck by the SUV. He also suggested that scratch marks on O’Keefe’s arm could have come from a dog and that other injuries were consistent with a fight.
Two witnesses from an independent consulting firm that conducts forensic engineering also suggested that some of the evidence did not match the prosecution’s version of events. Describing their detailed reconstructions, the witnesses said they concluded that damage to Read’s SUV, including a broken taillight, did not match O’Keefe’s injuries.
“You can’t deny science and physics,” Andrew Rentschler of the company ARCCA said at one point, describing an analysis of the level of injuries associated with various speeds of a vehicle like Read’s. ARCCA was hired by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a federal investigation into state authorities’ handling of the Read case.
But they acknowledged they were unaware of some evidence that came later, such as O’Keefe’s DNA discovered on pieces of broken glass found nearby and on human hair found on Read’s bumper, and of Read allegedly shouting “I hit in him”.
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
