In the days since a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Karen Read, a 44-year-old financial analyst, there’s been no shortage of her name in the headlines.
She’s been seen getting cozy with her married defense lawyer. The lead investigator has been relieved of duty for sending crude texts about her and searching her phone for nude photos. Police have said they are investigating a dead turtle left outside the family home of a blogger, aptly named Turtleboy.
How any of this fits together goes back to the night of 29 January 2022, when the Boston police officer John O’Keefe was found dead in the snow on a fellow officer’s lawn. He had been dropped off there by Read after midnight, following an evening of drinking. Prosecutors claimed Read had purposely backed over him in her Lexus SUV.
Her defense claimed a different narrative – they say he was beaten up by fellow officers after Read dropped him off at the party, bitten by the dog, and left to die of hypothermia. Her lawyers claim she is the victim of a police conspiracy.
The jury foreman, in his final note to the judge on Monday, said the panel was “starkly divided”.
“Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” the foreman said. “Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges.”
The people of Boston have said they are not surprised by the verdict, with many saying that prosecutors, despite calling 68 of 74 witnesses heard, failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But it also tees up the saga for a new trial that returns Read to a courtroom. In the realm of entertainment-criminal justice, as in the nexus of entertainment-politics, there’s always room for a sequel.
Or there could be a plea deal, in which Read negotiates an agreement in which she would admit to negligence in O’Keefe’s death. But that’s not how it’s looking.
Both sides have dug into their positions – at least until a status hearing at the end of the month. In the meantime, the public is lapping up every detail of a trial that, in keeping with others of the genre, becomes at least partially driven by social media commentary.
Throughout the two-month trial in the suburban town of Dedham, Massachusetts, crowds of “Free Karen Read” supporters had gathered, mostly dressed in pink. After the verdict, Rita Lombardi told CBS News: “Guilty was never an option. Guilty was never going to happen. You are never going to get 20 people who said she was guilty … because it’s a sham of a trial!”
Some members of the “Free Karen Read” movement had been inspired by Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney, who has blanketed social media with posts, blogs and livestream videos. Last October, Kearney was even arrested for allegedly intimidating witnesses, including state police trooper Michael Proctor – the investigator was later relieved of his duties pending an administrative hearing for sending texts about Read, including one that described her as “a wack-job cunt” and “retarded”.
Massachusetts governor Maura Healey said police had “made the right decision” by firing Proctor after the mistrial was declared. Proctor had admitted in court that his comments “dehumanized” Read but did not compromise the integrity of the investigation.
But the questions that hang over Read are as dense now as they were before the trial.
One of the friends at the party was said to have searched “How long to die in the cold” on Google at 2.23am. At 4.23am on 29 January, O’Keefe’s niece called the party house and said Read had called her worried because O’Keefe had not returned home and she could not remember much of the evening’s events.
Read and two friends went to the home, where they discovered O’Keefe’s body in the snow. According to testimony from police officers, Read told EMTs: “I hit him.” But her defense said it was framed as a question: “Did I hit him?”
According to court documents and trial testimony, the pair had been fighting the day before. “Sick of always arguing and fighting,” read one message from O’Keefe.
“If you tell me you’re interested in someone else, you will never hear from me again,” Read replied.
Testimony indicated the taillight of Read’s SUV was broken and that pieces of red and clear plastic were found in the snow. The defense suggested corrupt investigators planted the evidence, flipping the case towards questions over police evidence handling. The party house was not searched for evidence for any alternative explanation, including a flight. O’Keefe’s injuries could also have been inflicted by a dog at the house, the defense argued.
“This was latest example of a lurid love-triangle murder-type story, which is about as juicy as it gets in tabloid terms,” said Rosanna Cavallaro, professor of law at Suffolk University law school, who has been commenting on the trial for the Boston Globe and others.
“There are two really conflicting narratives, both with high stakes – either the cops are getting away with murdering their friend, or she’s going to get away with murdering her boyfriend.”
Not least among the underlying questions, Cavallaro told the Globe, “is why is this rich girl dating a cop, and is this really what happens – that cops get away with what they want? And what was going on with them that they killed their friend? And there are the atmospherics of leaving this guy out in the snow overnight.”
The oddest part of it may be why the jury was deadlocked and did not vote for acquittal.
“There were enough puzzle-pieces, including around the investigator and the forensics, or for whatever reason, to say, ‘I have a doubt,’” asid Cavallaro. “I was surprised that there were people in the room persuaded that she was guilty.”
