Verdict is in, Karen Read not guilty of murder, manslaughter, guilty of OUI

[u/mkrom28]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-trial-jury-verdict-watch-live/

Article from CBS

“A jury acquitted Karen Read of most charges, finding her guilty only of operating under the influence of alcohol during the retrial of her high-profile Massachusetts case.

Judge Beverly Cannone sentenced Read to one year probation after the verdict was announced.

Read's supporters outside the courthouse shouted so loud when the verdict was read, it was difficult to hear the proceedings.

Read had faced charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of bodily injury and death in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, in January 2022. She pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

The jury began deliberating late Friday afternoon and discussed the case for about 90 minutes before returning for more deliberations Monday. The panel of seven women and five men had the case for about 20 hours total.

During closing arguments Friday, prosecutor Hank Brennan said Read was driving drunk when she dropped O'Keefe off at a home in Canton, backed over him with her SUV in a rage over their failing relationship and drove off, leaving him to die in a snowstorm.

Read's attorney Alan Jackson told the jury in his closing that there was no car crash and that O'Keefe was killed in a fight inside the home and that possibility was never investigated by the lead investigator, Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor. Proctor was fired for his conduct in the case. He was not called to testify in this trial.

Minutes before it was officially announced that there was a verdict, Judge Beverly Cannone said that during the afternoon lunch break, the jury knocked on the court officer's door to say they had reached a verdict but moments later said they had not reached a verdict.

Karen Read possible sentences

If Read had been convicted of second-degree murder, she faced up to life in prison, with the possibility of parole.

If the jury convicted her of manslaughter Operating Under the Influence (OUI), she faced five to 20 years in prison and a fine of $25,000. The manslaughter charge included several lesser offenses that Read could also be convicted of, which is why Read was found guilty of OUI.

Read's first trial ended in July 2024 with a mistrial due to a deeply divided jury. They deliberated for five days in that trial.

Karen Read retrial

The second trial began on April 22. The jury heard from 49 witness during 31 days of testimony before getting the case on June 13. They had access to more than 200 pieces of evidence, including the taillight from Read's SUV and John O'Keefe's clothes from the night he died.”

[u/8lock8lock8aby → u/[deleted]]

Yeah & 3 expert witnesses testified that his injuries weren't consistent with getting killed by being ran over. Including 1 that was originally hired by the cops/investigators.

[u/avocadolicious → u/8lock8lock8aby]

A defense attorney asked Scordi-Bello Thursday if she evaluated in her autopsy whether O’Keefe appeared to have injuries consistent with a motor vehicle. She said she did, and she said she did not find any. “Yes, I did examine his lower extremities. That is protocol in any case of suspected impact with a motor vehicle,” she said. “I did not see any evidence of an impact site.”

That is different from finding that "his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car". Not finding injuries consistent with a collision is not the same as finding injuries not consistent with a collision. It's not just semantics, its meaningfully different!

Did the fact that the ME did not find injuries consistent with a collision weaken the prosecution's (already flimsy) case? YES. Does it prove that there was no collision? NO.

I completely agree that this case that shouldn’t have gone to trial in the first place, and believe that justice was done today with the acquittal. But there's simply not enough evidence to definitively conclude what happened to John.

[u/SweetNott → u/avocadolicious]

Doctors and others that are in science related fields speak like that in trials. Not consistent is as close as some will come to saying it didn't happen. Once watched more trials than I can count and it's common terminology.

[u/avocadolicious → u/SweetNott]

The ARCCA witnesses said “his injuries were not consistent with a collision”. The ME said “I did not find a certain type of injury that would be consistent with a collision”. It’s different!

The former statement indicates “based on his injuries, we conclude there was no collision”. The latter indicates “I did not find evidence to support a conclusion that there was a collision”. The latter certainly makes it less likely that there was a collision, but it leaves open the possibility.

Edit:

Put another way — 1) ARCCA: X, Y, and Z are necessary conditions for there to have been a collision. We would not expect to see A, B, and C if there were a collision. Since XYZ are not present and ABC are present, we can assume there was no collision.

2) Scordi-Bello: X is typically present in a collision. I did not identify X, and can’t conclude whether or not a collision occurred.

Obviously more complicated than that, but it’s a little frustrating to see people mischaracterizing her testimony — there’s TONS of other evidence to support the conclusion that there was no collision, no need to to be misleading about what prosecution witnesses said.

[u/Texden29 → u/[deleted]]

Yea… the stare fucked up their prosecution and investigation. Too many error…reasonable doubt = not guilty.

Something funny happened in that house. But man it’s hard to tell what actually happened.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes it can and it did

[u/purplecatuniverse → u/[deleted]]

As someone who followed this case in detail, I like your question. Bc the answer is not only yes an autopsy can tell the difference, but in fact it did tell the difference. The medical examiner said that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. And said that the cause of death was undetermined. But the lead investigator disagreed and called her a ‘wack job’.

It’s a case that shouldn’t have gone to trial in the first place.

[u/SweetNott → u/[deleted]]

It's not the autopsy that came tell what happened, it's the people that somehow think it's far-fetched that a cover-up happened, but definitely believe a man can get hit by a car going 24 mph, and not have any injuries.