Bee Dogge

updates

Karen Read trial, second trial

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Karen Read, second degree murder of John O’Keefe

The broad outlines

The state has charged Read with three main counts:

1. Second Degree Murder

2. Manslaughter

3. Leaving the Scene of a Fatal Accident

 

The state contends that:

1. After a night of heavy drinking in two bars, at 2:30 in the morning, Karen Read backed her SUV into her boyfriend John O’Keefe in a fit of rage, propelling him over the front yard of a suburban Boston house.
2. O’Keefe hit the frozen ground with such force that he cracked the back of his head on the frozen ground and was rendered unconscious, just as snow was beginning to fall.
3. Ms. Read then drove off without rendering aid, and O’Keefe subsequently died of blunt force trauma to the head and/or hypothermia in the growing snowstorm.

The defense contends that:

1. Read drove O’Keefe to the house where he was to briefly make an appearance at an “after party” with the people Read and O’Keefe had been drinking with earlier in the evening, a group of several other Boston and Boston-area police officers.
2. After waiting twenty minutes for O’Keefe to return, Read, grew increasingly angry at the length of his absence and because he was not answering her phone calls, and believed O’Keefe had decided to stay at the after party rather than come home with her as they had agreed.
3. Read then drove to O’Keefe’s house and went to bed.
4. At the after party and unbeknownst to Read, O’Keefe was involved in a violent physical altercation with one or more of the party attendees, wherein he was beaten, attacked by the homeowners’ dog, rendered unconscious by a blow to the head or a fall.
5. O’Keefe’s assailants then carried his body to a corner of the front yard and left him to die in the worsening snowstorm.
6. The subsequent investigation and charging of Read was/is essentially a malicious prosecution to cover up the actual events and to protect the actual assailants.

First trial ended with a hung jury and was declared a mistrial

This is the second attempt by the state to convict Read. The first trial in Spring 2024 resulted in a hung jury, and the judge declared a mistrial.

In declaring a mistrial, the judge declined to seek a detailed determination from the jury on their conclusions on each of the three counts the state lodged.

Subsequently it has been learned that, according to some jurors, the jury had been unanimous in acquittal on two of the charges: Second Degree Murder, and Leaving the Scene of a Fatal Accident, but had not reached a verdict on the third charge, Manslaughter.

There are numerous potential procedural issues with the judges actions in declaring a mistrial without consulting the jury on the specifics of their conclusions and votes. However the judge resisted attempts by the defense to remedy and/or address these issue and instead ordered that a new trial be conducted.

The second week of the prosecution case, second trial

This week the prosecution presented evidence from law enforcement officers, state forensic technicians, and the state medical examiner to establish facts of the cause, manner, and time of death, as well as the collection of physical evidence.

The prosecution has elicited testimony that DNA found on the victim’s body belonged to the victim, and that law enforcement personnel gathered evidence in harsh inclement conditions.

The defense on cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, has elicited testimony that:

1. Law enforcement declined to conduct detailed interviews with the homeowner and party attendees the morning O’Keefe’s body was found, as is customary in similar events. (Note: the homeowner was a prominent Boston police officer, and other Boston-area law enforcement personnel were among the party attendees)
2. Law enforcement declined to conduct even a cursory survey of the house, as is customary in similar events.
3. Law enforcement did not follow standard procedures of evidence gathering and chain-of-custody protocols in collecting and securing evidence from the crime scene.
4. Multiple swabs of “biological smears” on the victim’s clothing revealed not just the victim’s DNA, but the DNA of at least two other persons.
5. No attempt was made by law enforcement and/or forensic technicians to identify the “other persons’” DNA that was found on the swabs. (Note: the judge previously refused defense requests to gather DNA samples from the homeowner and party attendees.)
6. The medical examiner did not find any injuries to the victim that are common indicators of a vehicle / pedestrian collision.
7. Injuries on the victim’s face are not consistent with a traumatic injury to the back of his head.

These are just the broad strokes of the last week.

Note that while I have tried to present the above in objective terms, my own opinion from following the first trial that the defense theory of a malicious prosecution and coverup.