Two Jurors Share Insights on Acquittal of Karen Read in Murder of Police Officer Boyfriend
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/karen-read-verdict-061825-19f05e875c614a68bf517fc1eac80aef.jpg)
In a recent trial, two jurors have opened up about their decision to acquit Karen Read in the murder case of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. The case was centered around the accusation that Read, aged 45, had struck O’Keefe with her vehicle after a night of drinking and then left the scene. However, the defense argued otherwise, presenting expert witnesses who testified that O’Keefe’s injuries were not consistent with being hit by a vehicle but rather from blunt force trauma to the head.
After four days of deliberation, the jury ultimately acquitted Read of second-degree murder, manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of bodily injury in connection with O’Keefe’s death in Canton, Mass., in January 2022. Despite being found guilty of the lesser charge of operating under the influence of alcohol or liquor (OUI), Read was sentenced to just one year of probation, standing by her plea of not guilty throughout the trial.
One of the jurors, Paula Prado, a former lawyer from Brazil, explained her reasoning behind the acquittal in an interview with NBC10 Boston. Initially leaning towards the possibility of manslaughter, Prado noted that as the trial progressed, glaring gaps in the evidence emerged, leading to reasonable doubt regarding Read’s involvement in the incident. The absence of concrete proof placing Read at the scene, aside from dropping O’Keefe off, played a significant role in the jury’s decision.
The prosecution had argued that Read’s taillight was shattered during the alleged incident when she reportedly backed into O’Keefe with her SUV. Conversely, the defense countered by presenting footage showing only minor damage to Read’s taillight after she backed into O’Keefe’s vehicle in his driveway. Another juror who identified himself as Jason supported this observation, highlighting discrepancies in the taillight’s illumination that conflicted with the prosecution’s narrative.
Throughout the trial, expert witnesses provided vital testimony that contradicted the prosecution’s claims. Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a former Rhode Island chief medical examiner, asserted that O’Keefe’s fatal injuries did not align with those typically sustained in a vehicular collision, further strengthening the defense’s case. The biomechanist Andrew Rentschler also testified that the evidence did not support the notion that O’Keefe had been struck by a vehicle, corroborating the defence’s stance.
Prado expressed hope that with the acquittal, authorities would diligently pursue the truth behind O’Keefe’s tragic demise. She emphasized the need for a thorough reinvestigation to uncover the actual events leading to his death, urging for justice to prevail. The defence had previously speculated that O’Keefe might have encountered foul play during an altercation at the home of former Boston police officer Brian Albert, shedding light on alternative scenarios surrounding the incident.
As the dust settles on this controversial case, the acquittal of Karen Read has sparked discussions about the complexities of criminal investigations and the importance of compelling evidence in court proceedings. Prado’s sentiments reflect a broader call for transparency and diligence in uncovering the truth, underscoring the need for a comprehensive examination of the circumstances surrounding O’Keefe’s untimely passing.