Latest news with #Dedham
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
Investigator and jurors speak out about Karen Read murder trial in aftermath of not guilty verdict
Karen Read weeps as the final verdict of not guilty of second-degree murder is read in Norfolk Superior Court, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool) Two jurors and the lead investigator in murder trial of Karen Read have come forward to comment about the case since a jury returned a not guilty verdict earlier this week. Read, 45, was charged with second-degree murder by authorities who said she intentionally hit Boston police officer John O'Keefe with her car after a night of drinking in the suburbs. The high-profile case culminated in a not guilty verdict on murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene charges Wednesday. The jury found Read guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence. The trial has centred in part on lead investigator Michael Proctor, who defense attorneys described as biased against Read from the beginning. The State Police Trial Board found Proctor guilty of sending crude and defamatory text messages about Read while leading the investigation into her. He was fired and has drawn ire from Read supporters who believe he played a key role in a cover-up to frame her. Proctor told NBC's 'Dateline' that the idea he is corrupt and framed Read is a 'ridiculous' accusation. He specifically said an accusation that he cracked Read's taillight to make it look like she backed into O'Keefe is 'absolutely not' true. 'I laugh because it's such a ridiculous accusation,' Proctor told the program. 'There's not one piece of evidence or fact to support that because it did not happen.' The judge in the case announced via court papers Wednesday that the jurors' names would be sealed from public view due to safety concerns. But one of the jurors, who identified himself only as 'Jason' in an interview with TMZ, said he did not believe Read collided with O'Keefe. He also said he did not think investigators planted taillight pieces at the scene to frame Read. 'I don't really know if there was a cover-up or not. I know that's the big conspiracy about it but I don't really know. All I know is there was a lot of holes in their investigation,' the juror said. Another juror, Paula Prado, told local news stations her mind changed about the case over the course of the last three weeks. At first, she thought Read was guilty of manslaughter, but her opinion changed as the case progressed. 'As the weeks passed by, I just realized there was too many holes that we couldn't fill. And there's nothing that put her at the scene in our opinion, despite just dropping John O'Keefe off,' Prado told media. Massachusetts State Police said in a statement that it extends its 'sincerest condolences to the loved ones of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.' The statement said the the events of the last three years have 'challenged' the department to reviews it actions and improve accountability and oversight. 'Under my direction as colonel, the state police has, and will continue to, improve in these regards. Our focus remains on delivering excellent police services that reflect the value of professionalism and maintain public trust,' Colonel Geoffrey Noble said in the statement. The jurors, state police and Proctor are not the first to speak out about the verdict. Some of the key witnesses in the trial released a joint statement Wednesday in which they called the not guilty ruling a 'devastating miscarriage of justice.' The joint statement was issued by several people including Brian Albert, who owned the home where the party took place, and Jennifer McCabe, Albert's sister-in-law, who was with Read and O'Keefe on the night of O'Keefe's death. Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey said only: 'The jury has spoken.' Patrick Whittle, The Associated Press
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Key takeaways from the acquittal of Karen Read in John O'Keefe's death
DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — Karen Read walked out of court a free woman after more than three years and two trials over the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who was found on the lawn of a fellow officer's home after a night of heavy drinking. Prosecutors said Read hit O'Keefe with her SUV, leaving him to die in a blizzard, and charged her with second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a deadly collision. Her lawyers successfully defended her, painting a sinister picture of police misconduct and theorizing that O'Keefe was, in fact, killed by colleagues, followed by a vast cover-up. She was convicted of drunken driving, however, for which she will face a year's probation. Though her criminal case is over, Read still faces civil litigation. O'Keefe's family has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against her and two bars where the couple drank that night. The two trials were filled with moments that raised reasonable doubt, both in the public's mind and, as illustrated by Wednesday's verdict, the minds of jurors. Here are some key takeaways: Defense lawyers asserted from the beginning that there was no collision between O'Keefe and the 6,000-pound (2,700-kilogram) SUV driven by Read, arguing instead that a crew of tightly knit local and state cops were shielding one of their own and framing her. Lead investigator Michael Proctor, who was fired from the Massachusetts State Police after the first trial for misconduct, knew some people at the party at the house outside of which O'Keefe was found. Proctor sent text messages to friends, family, and co-workers, calling Read a 'whack job' while implying that she was the lone suspect and he wanted her to pay. 'There will be some serious charges brought on the girl ... Zero chance she skates. She's f'd,' he texted just hours into the investigation. A federal agent who was at the party, Brian Higgins, acknowledged at trial destroying his phone and SIM card afterward and disposing of them in two different locations on a military base. In another exchange, Jackson questioned a former officer who originally reported seeing Higgins and the Canton police chief near the SUV in a station garage, a statement she later recanted. 'Have you ever heard of something called the blue wall of silence?' Jackson asked the officer. In closing arguments, he suggested that she changed her story under pressure from the department. The prosecution's evidence included pieces of Read's broken taillight that were recovered at the scene; accounts of the couple's crumbling relationship, fueled by booze; and several witnesses testifying that they heard her repeatedly say, 'I hit him.' But defense lawyers portrayed the case as riddled with errors, missteps, and malfeasance. They emphasized that the taillight fragments were not found immediately and argued that police had time to take them from Read's impounded vehicle and plant them. They also presented video evidence that Read's taillight could have been damaged instead when she hit O'Keefe's car at home later that morning. The shards, which the state claimed cut into O'Keefe's arm, had no blood, tissue, or DNA on them. The only DNA found was on an intact piece of taillight on Read's SUV, and it contained three possible sources — O'Keefe and two unknown males. A hair traced to O'Keefe was found on the rear of the SUV, but the defense questioned how it could have stayed there through the blizzard. Prosecutors also struggled to demonstrate that O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with being struck by a vehicle. They acknowledged not knowing how he was hit, and an accident reconstruction video they produced was panned by the defense since no one knows where he would have been standing. Meanwhile, crash reconstruction experts testified for the defense that O'Keefe's injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a large vehicle. Instead, the defense argued, O'Keefe was beaten up at the party. Neither side produced witnesses who saw him enter into the house, but the defense was able to show a fight was possible. A medical expert testified that wounds on his arm were consistent with an animal bite, supporting the theory that a family dog at the home attacked O'Keefe. A cut over his right eye and injuries to the back of his head, they said, more likely came from being punched and falling backward on a hard surface. It was hard to know, defense attorneys argued, since police never searched the home or treated anyone there as a suspect. Even Read's comments about having 'hit him' were explained away by the defense, which said prosecutors were trying to twist into a confession the dazed words of someone who was grieving and in shock. 'It wasn't a confession. It was confusion,' Jackson said, noting that it is common to be in such a state after an emotional trauma. Any number of people at the home, defense lawyers suggested, while questioning why multiple key law enforcement witnesses were never considered potential suspects or investigated. The defense did not prove that someone else killed O'Keefe, but it was apparently able to create enough reasonable doubt for jurors. Higgins, the federal agent, had sent sexually charged and flirtatious text messages to Read despite knowing she was in a relationship with O'Keefe. On the night in question, Higgins texted her while they were at a bar — 'Umm, well?' he wrote. Moments later he was seen 'play fighting' with Brian Albert, a retired Boston police detective and the owner of the home where the party took place. They defense also pointed to a group text that morning in which one person suggested they all agree that O'Keefe never entered the home and Albert said, 'exactly.' Albert, the defense said, never bothered to exit the house after O'Keefe was found. He later sold it, got rid of the family dog and ditched his cellphone. They also portrayed the family as politically connected, noting that Albert's brother was a police officer and a second brother was on the town's governing body. The defense also questioned Jennifer McCabe, Albert's sister-in-law, who was with Read when they discovered the body, about a misspelled web search: 'hos long to die in cold.' The defense argued that McCabe made it just before 2:30 a.m., but prosecutors said it was after O'Keefe was found at Read's request. McCabe was also asked why she never went in the house after finding the body, suggesting that she already knew they were safe inside. No one from the home came outside as police and paramedics gathered. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
The Karen Read Retrial: The Verdict
After 31 days of testimony and four days of deliberation, Karen Read's retrial has come to an end. Today, jurors found Read not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of John O'Keefe, as well as not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. She was, however, found guilty of operating under the influence of liquor, a charge for which she was sentenced to one year probation. FOX News Correspondent Bryan Llenas joins from outside the courthouse in Dedham, Massachusetts with the latest reporting. Follow Emily on Instagram: @realemilycompagno If you have a story or topic we should feature on the FOX True Crime Podcast, send us an email at: truecrimepodcast@ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
What happened: Karen Read's retrial and being acquitted of murder
The case that captured the attention of people across the country has finally come to a conclusion: Karen Read was acquitted of the 2022 death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe. To a screaming crowd of hundreds outside the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, on Wednesday, Read thanked her legal team and supporters. Her second murder trial was a was a victory for Read after the first ended in a hung jury last year. This time, though, jurors found Read guilty of drunk driving — but not guilty of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. She was sentenced to one year of probation. CNN correspondent Jean Casarez has been closely following the trial. Here she breaks down some of the key pieces of the retrial and what could have changed for Read this time around. Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity. Q: What was the biggest difference between the first trial and this one? What witnesses and pieces of evidence stand out to you as being most consequential? A: There were many differences between the first trial and this trial. First of all, let's look at the side of the prosecution: They brought in Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan, who was a noted trial attorney, but normally he is a defense attorney. He was stellar in his presentation in that courtroom. He examined and cross-examined almost every single witness and he did it with precision and knowledge and finesse. So that was the number one difference; the prosecution went to a much higher level. The second thing was, between the first trial and the second trial, Karen Read had done numerous television interviews and even one that was just audio. Brennan was allowed to bring in these interview clips of Read herself saying things against her interest and there were many of them. On the defense side, their theory in the first trial was that Karen Read was framed. Now, that was still in this second trial, but what really became paramount was reasonable doubt and the defense hammered home every chance they got: reasonable doubt. One of their greatest strengths were the arm injuries on John O'Keefe – where did they come from? The prosecution couldn't really show that beyond a reasonable doubt because you don't know exactly how John O'Keefe was standing. There were taillight fragments in his clothing that were found by the forensics experts, but you couldn't show how those injuries got on that arm and I think that helped the defense. Every opportunity they had to show reasonable doubt of this circumstantial case, they did so. Q: There were notably some witnesses who did not take the stand this time around, including lead investigator Michael Proctor. Brian Albert, a Boston police officer who owned the home Read said she dropped O'Keefe off at, and Brian Higgins, an ATF agent who was there the night O'Keefe died also did not testify. However, the jury still heard about them and even saw text messages from them. Why did neither side put them on the stand? A: In the first trial, Proctor, Albert and Higgins, a romantic interest of Karen Read, all took the stand for the prosecution. But in this trial, a strategic decision was made by the Commonwealth to not put them on the stand at all. They didn't feel they needed them, so they didn't put them on. That left the defense to call them and the defense did not want to do direct examinations on these individuals. So the evidence came in other ways. Sexist texts from Proctor did come into this trial through a childhood friend who was on the group chat where Proctor sent the messages about Read right at the beginning of this case. That strategy of not calling them to testify may have worked in the eyes of some jurors, but it didn't help the prosecution in the end. Q: Legal experts were concerned Read's public comments and interviews would hurt her case. How do you think the jurors weighed that? A: We know that jurors had a question once they started their deliberation: 'Are these clips evidence?' So at that point, they may have not even considered them. The judge told them, 'Yes, they are evidence.' Then they deliberated all day Wednesday. Did they look at those clips? How much did they consider those clips? Or was their mind already made up even by the time they sent that question about whether they were evidence? We don't know at this point how much emphasis they placed on the defendant herself speaking, ultimately to that jury, through those interviews. Q: Like Proctor and other key players in this case, Read also didn't testify during the retrial, even though the jury was hearing her public comments. Can you explain the thinking behind that decision for the defense? A: I think the defense thought it was way too risky to put her on the stand. Not only would she be subject to intense cross examination by Hank Brennan that may not prove to be helpful to the defense's case, but they would also risk her saying things that aren't helpful, as she did in the interviews. She even said in one of the interviews that this was her testimony. She wanted to talk. They were probably concerned about what she might say and they decided their case was strong enough – they don't have to prove anything, they were showing reasonable doubt and they didn't have to put her on the stand to rebut those interview clips. Q: Read has famously and publicly claimed to be the target of a cover-up. But her defense attorneys did not argue a third-party culprit theory in court. Why wouldn't they go there? A: They wanted to. They desperately wanted to. They filed a motion saying they wanted that instruction of third-party culprit to go to the jury and before the trial began, but Judge Beverly Cannone said she needed to see if they could develop this theory during the trial to be able to get that instruction. Well, with Michael Proctor, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins not taking the stand, the defense could not develop that. They did not get that instruction. So conceivably, it could have really hurt the defense but they didn't need it in the end. Q: The commonwealth did have some strong evidence against Karen Read. What was it and why wasn't that enough? A: John O'Keefe's body was found in the snow, near the flagpole and close to the street. On the day that all of this happened, late in the afternoon, the Massachusetts CERT team — that was their emergency team — came out. The blizzard had ended but the mounds of snow were very high. They stood in a grid line with sifters and sifted through the snow close to where his body was found and they started finding broken pieces of taillight, O'Keefe's shoe and a broken cocktail glass O'Keefe took out of Read's car when he got out. At the time, law enforcement had just gotten custody of that car and the prosecution tried to make the point that, based on the timeline, there's no way they could have planted all that evidence where John O'Keefe's body was. The second piece of evidence was O'Keefe's cell phone. An expert testified about the Apple Health steps that O'Keefe took. That expert went behind the data that you and I see on our phone and determined after O'Keefe got out of Karen Read's car — because the steps began again at that point on his phone — and then they ended just a few minutes later. His phone never moved again until the next morning when O'Keefe's body was found. The defense's theory is that O'Keefe walked into the house, was killed inside that house, and his body was brought back outside. Well, that phone would have had to move again. It never moved after he got out of Karen Read's car. But the jury had to assess that, and even if they felt that was strong evidence, they had to believe that that reasonable doubt was greater than what appeared to be conclusive evidence of guilt. Q: Read's supporters have always brought a lot of public attention to this case. When she walked out of the courthouse on Wednesday after the verdict was read, hundreds of people taking over the street cheered and celebrated. Who are her supporters and why have they rallied around her all this time? A: Her supporters were very real people from this community, even some from outside this community. I got to know some of them. They're very nice people, they were very respectful to the court. This was a grassroots movement that began with very small numbers and it just started to grow. This grassroots movement was based on the belief that Karen Read was framed, but also focused on what they believed was corrupt law enforcement that did not follow the law, that manufactured evidence or tampered with evidence. They believed it was rampant in their community. And not only law enforcement, government on all local levels. Karen Read, I believe, became their symbol for that corruption that they felt was tainting their community. Q: Before coming to a final decision on Wednesday, the jury had a verdict false alarm. The jurors indicated they had a verdict — only to change their mind. But, the judge directed the court officer to place the verdict slip into a sealed envelope. Do you think the first sealed slip said the same thing as the final verdict? Will we ever know? A: We don't know why there was this false call at the beginning and then minutes later there was a verdict. We may find out in time, but if the judge had believed there was a concern, an issue of integrity — I believe there would have been more to the finality of this trial than there was. There was a verdict, the judge accepted it, the jury determined it was a true and honest verdict and that it was unanimous. Q: What happens now? A: There's a big question if the victim in this case, the person who lost his life, John O'Keefe, will he and his family ever get justice? Is there someone else that committed this crime? Will there be an investigation? Will there be a prosecution? I guess time will tell. I can tell you that it didn't come in the trial, but there was an investigation of law enforcement involved with this case — and Brennan said in court that the investigation ended without any criminal charges. So we have to only hope there will be answers because if there are not answers for the O'Keefe family, for this community and for everyone else in this country who cares, what happened to John O'Keefe will remain a mystery. And no one wants his death to go unanswered.
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Associated Press
Key takeaways from the acquittal of Karen Read in her Boston police officer boyfriend's death
DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — Karen Read walked out of court a free woman after more than three years and two trials over the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who was found on the lawn of a fellow officer's home after a night of heavy drinking. Prosecutors said Read hit O'Keefe with her SUV, leaving him to die in a blizzard, and charged her with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene of a deadly collision. Her lawyers successfully defended her, painting a sinister picture of police misconduct and theorizing that O'Keefe was in fact killed by colleagues, followed by a vast cover-up. She was convicted of drunken driving, however, for which she will face a year's probation. Though her criminal case is over, Read still faces civil litigation. O'Keefe's family has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against her and two bars where the couple drank that night. The two trials were filled with moments that raised reasonable doubt, both in the public's mind and, as illustrated by Wednesday's verdict, the minds of jurors. Here are some key takeaways: The defense theory: Crooked cops and 'the blue wall of silence' Defense lawyers asserted from the beginning that there was no collision between O'Keefe and the 6,000-pound (2,700-kilogram) SUV driven by Read, arguing instead that a crew of tightly knit local and state cops were shielding one of their own and framing her. Lead investigator Michael Proctor, who was fired from the Massachusetts State Police after the first trial for misconduct, knew some people at the party at the house outside of which O'Keefe was found. Proctor sent text messages to friends, family and co-workers calling Read a 'whack job' while implying that she was the lone suspect and he wanted her to pay. 'There will be some serious charges brought on the girl ... Zero chance she skates. She's f'd,' he texted just hours into the investigation. A federal agent who was at the party, Brian Higgins, acknowledged at trial destroying his phone and SIM card afterward and disposing of them in two different locations on a military base. In another exchange, Jackson questioned a former officer who originally reported seeing Higgins and the Canton police chief near the SUV in a station garage, a statement she later recanted. 'Have you ever heard of something called the blue wall of silence?' Jackson asked the officer. In closing arguments, he suggested that she changed her story under pressure from the department. What the evidence showed the jury The prosecution's evidence included pieces of Read's broken taillight that were recovered at the scene; accounts of the couple's crumbling relationship, fueled by booze; and several witnesses testifying that they heard her repeatedly say, 'I hit him.' But defense lawyers portrayed the case as riddled with errors, missteps and malfeasance. They emphasized that the taillight fragments were not found immediately and argued that police had time to take them from Read's impounded vehicle and plant them. They also presented video evidence that Read's taillight could have been damaged instead when she hit O'Keefe's car at home later that morning. The shards, which the state claimed cut into O'Keefe's arm, had no blood, tissue or DNA on them. The only DNA found was on an intact piece of taillight on Read's SUV, and it contained three possible sources — O'Keefe and two unknown males. A hair traced to O'Keefe was found on the rear of the SUV, but the defense questioned how it could have stayed there through the blizzard. Prosecutors also struggled to demonstrate that O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with being struck by a vehicle. They acknowledged not knowing how he was hit, and an accident reconstruction video they produced was panned by the defense since no one knows where he would have been standing. Meanwhile crash reconstruction experts testified for the defense that O'Keefe's injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a large vehicle. Instead, the defense argued, O'Keefe was beaten up at the party. Neither side produced witnesses who saw him enter into the house, but the defense was able to show a fight was possible. A medical expert testified that wounds on his arm were consistent with an animal bite, supporting the theory that a family dog at the home attacked O'Keefe. A cut over his right eye and injuries to the back of his head, they said, more likely came from being punched and falling backward on a hard surface. It was hard to know, defense attorneys argued, since police never searched the home or treated anyone there as a suspect. Even Read's comments about having 'hit him' were explained away by the defense, which said prosecutors were trying to twist into a confession the dazed words of someone who was grieving and in shock. 'It wasn't a confession. It was confusion,' Jackson said, noting that it is common to be in such a state after an emotional trauma. If Read didn't kill O'Keefe, who did? Any number of people at the home, defense lawyers suggested, while questioning why multiple key law enforcement witnesses were never considered potential suspects or investigated. The defense did not prove that someone else killed O'Keefe, but it was apparently able to create enough reasonable doubt for jurors. Higgins, the federal agent, had sent sexually charged and flirtatious text messages to Read despite knowing she was in a relationship with O'Keefe. On the night in question, Higgins texted her while they were at a bar — 'Umm, well?' he wrote. Moments later he was seen 'play fighting' with Brian Albert, a retired Boston police detective and the owner of the home where the party took place. They defense also pointed to a group text that morning in which one person suggested they all agree that O'Keefe never entered the home and Albert said, 'exactly.' Albert, the defense said, never bothered to exit the house after O'Keefe was found. He later sold it, got rid of the family dog and ditched his cellphone. They also portrayed the family as politically connected, noting that Albert's brother was a police officer and a second brother was on the town's governing body. The defense also questioned Jennifer McCabe, Albert's sister-in-law, who was with Read when they discovered the body, about a misspelled web search: 'hos long to die in cold.' The defense argued that McCabe made it just before 2:30 a.m., but prosecutors said it was after O'Keefe was found at Read's request. McCabe was also asked why she never went in the house after finding the body, suggesting that she already knew they were safe inside. No one from the home came outside as police and paramedics gathered. ___ See an AP Photo Gallery from Read's acquittal here.
