DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — A defense lawyer informed jurors during Karen Read’s murder trial that she is a victim of a law enforcement frame-up, a “tall blue wall” created to shield the real culprits responsible for the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. On the other hand, a prosecutor used Read’s own statements to depict her as “seething in rage” right after hitting him with her SUV.
The trial, spanning two months, of Read, who is accused of hitting O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV and abandoning him to perish in the snow outside another officer’s house party in January 2022, has garnered significant media attention, fueled by true crime bloggers and supporters clad in pink shirts who have gathered and waited patiently in line to observe the courtroom proceedings.
Her defense team argues that O’Keefe was dragged outside subsequent to being assaulted in the basement and bitten by a dog at Boston officer Brian Albert’s residence in Canton.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson illustrated a web of deceit that “spreads into a conspiracy,” and he urged jurors to be the “only barrier standing between Karen Read and the injustice prevailing.”
“You have been deceived in this courtroom. Your duty is to ensure you do not turn a blind eye,” he stated.
“Ladies and gentlemen, there was a cover-up in this case, plain and simple,” he added.
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, addressing the jurors, stated “There is no conspiracy,” as he commenced his closing argument with the words reported by four witnesses who overheard Read confessing after O’Keefe was discovered on the snow-covered lawn.
“The defendant continually said ’I hit him. I hit him. Oh my God. I hit him,” Lally recounted. “Those were the actual words spoken by the defendant.” He later played a voicemail that Read left for O’Keefe immediately after data from her car indicated she reversed at around 24 mph and then drove away.
“The defendant leaves that voicemail, seething in rage as she’s screaming, ‘John, I (expletive) hate you!’”
Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death, with varying penalties attached to each charge.
The defense disputed the claims of witnesses who alleged they heard her confess to hitting O’Keefe, suggesting that they had changed their narratives or could not have heard the remarks given the tumultuous environment. Jackson asserted that investigators targeted Read because she was a “convenient outsider” who absolved them from examining other suspects, including Albert and other law enforcement officers present at the party. Additionally, they emphasized the connections between Albert and the state trooper leading the inquiry.
“Michael Proctor didn’t draw a thin blue line, he constructed a tall blue wall,” Jackson declared. “A wall that you cannot breach, a wall that Karen Read certainly could not overcome. A divide between us and them. A place where you are not welcome. We protect our own.”
Jackson insinuated that Brian Higgins, a federal agent who had exchanged flirtatious messages with Read, enticed O’Keefe to the house party, resulting in a physical altercation culminating in punches and a fall.
“The situation spirals out of control,” he alleged. “It was not intended to escalate to that extent, but it is what it is.”
The trial commenced on April 29 after a few days of jury selection. Prosecutors meticulously presented evidence from the scene, while the defense called only a limited number of witnesses and utilized cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to raise concerns about the investigation, including alleged conflicts of interest and shoddy police work. These concerns were echoed by a group of supporters who often camped outside the courthouse.
The day prior to the closing arguments, the defense presented the final three witnesses to cast doubt on the prosecutors’ narrative.
Dr. Frank Sheridan, a retired forensic pathologist and former chief medical examiner for San Bernardino County in California, testified that O’Keefe should have exhibited more bruising if he had been struck by the SUV. He also postulated that scratch marks on O’Keefe’s arm could have originated from a dog, and that other injuries were consistent with a physical altercation.
Two witnesses from an independent consulting firm specializing in forensic engineering suggested that some of the evidence did not align with the prosecution’s version of events. Describing their comprehensive analyses, the witnesses concluded that the damage to Read’s SUV, including a broken taillight, did not correspond to O’Keefe’s injuries.
“The scientific and physical evidence cannot be denied,” Andrew Rentschler from the firm ARCCA remarked, referencing an evaluation of the extent of injuries associated with different speeds of a vehicle like Read’s. ARCCA was retained by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a federal investigation into the handling of the Read case by state law enforcement agencies.
Nevertheless, they acknowledged their lack of awareness of subsequent evidence, such as O’Keefe’s DNA discovered on broken glass near the scene and human hair found on Read’s bumper, as well as Read’s alleged admission of “I hit him.”
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
