So, we’re at the edge of our seats in the Karen Read retrial. After a second round of legal theater that’s been more emotionally charged than a Thanksgiving dinner with your most conspiracy-prone relatives, the jury has the case.
They’ve been deliberating since Friday and will be back Monday morning.
No verdict yet in Karen Read’s trial, but oh boy—those closing arguments?
Absolute fireworks.
Let’s rewind.
Karen Read is accused of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision that killed her Boston cop boyfriend, John O’Keefe, back in January 2022.
The two narratives from the prosecution and the defense? Couldn’t be more different if they were in separate universes.
The Prosecution: “She Hit Him and Left Him to Die”
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan painted Read as a woman unraveling, drunk, angry, and emotionally volatile. He says she backed up her Lexus SUV, slammed into O’Keefe at around 24 mph, and left him to die in a snowstorm.
He told the jury she was three times the legal alcohol limit. He leaned hard on data: car black-box records, cell phone pings, location histories. “That data tells a story that can’t be changed,” he said. He even showed jurors a clip where Read says on camera, “I shouldn’t have been driving.”
And then came the gut punch: “John O’Keefe was a person, and he was murdered by Karen Read.”
Mic drop.
The Defense: “This Case Was Corrupted From the Start”
Alan Jackson, Read’s defense attorney (and someone who clearly enjoys a good Perry Mason moment), hit back with a theory of his own: Karen didn’t hit John. Someone else killed him inside that house—possibly in a drunken, jealous brawl—and dumped his body outside in the snow.
Jackson argued that there’s zero medical proof O’Keefe was hit by a car. He pointed to injuries like black eyes, a cut above the eye, and one shoe missing, telling the jury it sounds more like a fight than a hit-and-run. He even speculated the missing shoe was inside the house 30 feet away.
He also went after the investigators like a man on a mission. Lead cop Michael Proctor, who sent misogynistic texts about Read, like “hopefully she kills herself,” wasn’t even called to testify in the second trial. Proctor was later fired. Jackson said: “If the Massachusetts State Police can’t trust him, how can you?”
The defense’s refrain? “There was no collision.” And if there’s no collision, there’s no murder.
Public Reactions: Divide and Conquer
Online, it’s tribal warfare. You’ve got the “Free Karen Read” crowd who sees her as the fall girl in a cover-up involving corrupt cops and botched investigations. Then you’ve got others saying, “If it looks like a hit-and-run, smells like a hit-and-run…”
Social media is basically a courtroom of its own. People are analyzing black-box data like CSI interns, and Reddit threads are spinning with theories like it’s the Zapruder film. “The glass near the body was kitchenware!” one side shouts. “Her taillight pieces were in the yard!” the other fires back.
Everyone’s an expert, and nobody’s backing down.
Let’s Talk Weird for a Second…
Isn’t it wild that a woman might be going to prison for life, and we’re all parsing cell phone pings and drink glasses like we’re watching a Netflix true crime special? The strange part? There’s plenty of forensic data, and yet the heart of this case still feels like a vibe check: Who do you believe?
To prosecutors, Read is a tragic mess who made a deadly mistake. To the defense, she’s a scapegoat for a botched investigation protected by a blue wall of silence.
To regular folks? It’s a horror show. A man died in the snow, a woman may be wrongly accused, and the people meant to get justice are possibly part of the problem.
Well, I write daily (mostly the stuff I find interesting). If you like this whole no-nonsense approach, feel free to bookmark and come back tomorrow, or continue reading other stories to make up your mind.
See ya, internet friend.
Recent Comments