DEDHAM, Mass. — Jurors in the Karen Read trial were scheduled to meet for a fourth day Friday to decide whose story they believe: that of prosecutors who say she drunkenly and angrily slammed into her Boston police officer boyfriend with her Lexus SUV and left him to die, or defense attorneys who claim one or more colleagues killed John O’Keefe and framed Read to cover it up.
The Massachusetts jury of six men and six women is deliberating behind closed doors in Norfolk County Superior Court, while a “sidewalk jury” of true crime bloggers and pink-shirted Read supporters gathers outside. The unofficial adjudicators, many of them waving Stars and Stripes, have been present every day since the trial began nearly two months ago.
Read, 44, had worked as an equity analyst and was an adjunct lecturer in finance at her alma mater, Bentley University. O’Keefe, 46, was a 16-year veteran of the Boston Police Department. Jurors are deliberating events that unfolded at the Canton home of another Boston Police officer, Brian Albert, after a night of bar-hopping in January 2022. A federal agent, Brian Higgins, also was among those at the gathering inside.
Read has been charged with second-degree murder, which in Massachusetts is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. She also faces lesser charges of manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence, punishable by five to 20 years, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, punishable by up to 10 years.
Judge Beverly Cannone rebuked Read for apparently smirking during an exchange with her lawyers. “Excuse me, this is funny, Ms. Read? All right, we’re done,” the judge snapped Wednesday.
It happened as defense lawyer Alan Jackson complained that a verdict form, or slip, was unfair because the offenses included under manslaughter didn’t include not-guilty options.
Cannone said the verdict form is how Massachusetts always does it.
“I don’t really care how it always is in Massachusetts. I care about whether it’s appropriate,” Jackson replied, adding that he would bring it up in an appeal if Read is convicted.
In the end, the judge changed the form to read “not guilty of the offense charged ‘or any lesser included offense.’”
Pieces of Read’s broken taillight were found at the scene and a single hair from O’Keefe was found on the rear bumper of Read’s SUV. Prosecutors say that Read repeatedly said, “I hit him. I hit him. Oh my God, I hit him” to first responders and others. Prosecutors replayed angry voicemails Read left for O’Keefe, painting a picture of a failing relationship. They also questioned her behavior, saying she never cried after O’Keefe’s body was found.
Read contends that the prosecution’s case is based on lies from officers who are trying to protect themselves. Her lawyers say the pieces of taillight and the hair were planted at the crime scene, which was left unsecured. They also suggested O’Keefe might have been beaten up by Higgins, who had flirted with Read through texts, and that the men panicked before trying to cover up the crime.
Regardless of whether Read is found guilty, the case has revealed questionable techniques and actions on the part of law enforcement officers, including Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, who was a lead investigator despite having personal relationships with several of the people involved.
Proctor called Read a “wack job,” in texts, joked to supervisors about not finding nude photos of Read on her phone, and texted his sister that he wished Read would “kill herself.” He said that was a figure of speech and that his emotions had gotten the better of him.
The defense pointed to conflicts of interest and sloppy policing: The crime scene was left unsecured for hours; the house wasn’t searched; blood-stained snow was scooped up with red plastic drinking cups; and a leaf blower was used to clear snow.
The defense also claims that a prosecution witness conducted an incriminating internet search hours before O’Keefe’s body was discovered and then deleted it, and that others linked with the case have destroyed phones and manipulated videos.
The case might have seemed open-and-shut, but as more evidence emerged, interest picked up among true crime fans and others with suspicions about the motives and actions of law enforcement. For more than a year, dozens of Read supporters have gathered outside the courthouse, calling for the charges to be dropped.
As jurors deliberate, members of this self-proclaimed “sidewalk jury” — wearing pink and waving American flags to symbolize what they call a fight for truth and justice — intently watch their phones for word of a verdict. Some take it further, including a man who dresses as the trial judge and a woman who wears plastic cups as earrings in a dig at what the defense called sloppy evidence-gathering. Their mood has been jubilant, encouraged by passing motorists who honk their horns.
Many were drawn to the case by Aidan Timothy Kearney, aka Turtleboy, whose website has relentlessly questioned the prosecution. He and other supporters have also been accused of harassing witnesses: Kearney was charged with witness intimidation and conspiracy, which he denies.
The protesters have been ordered to remain 200 feet (60 meters) from the courthouse to prevent them from influencing jurors. Yet as many as 100 people continue to gather there. At one point on Wednesday, some said a verdict had come, prompting a mad dash toward the courthouse.
