Jury Finds Karen Read Not Guilty

Thursday, June 19, 2025

A Massachusetts jury on Wednesday acquitted Karen Read on all charges related to the death of her former boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, who died more than three years ago. The verdict occurred during Read's second trial, after the first ended in a mistrial last year. Read did not testify in either trial. Read had been accused of hitting O'Keefe with her car outside a Boston house party and then leaving O'Keefe to die in a snow storm. However, her defense claimed the ex-cop was beaten and bitten by a dog and left in the cold, per the New York Post.

Posted by lfthndthrds at 08:31 PM | 9 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This seems to be a big news item.

It even made it to coverage on NYC news.

So I have to ask, what is the significance here?

Aside from, yeah, someone apparently seemed to have run over her boyfriend and then left the scene.

OK, so far, ho-hum for me.

Is it because she may have been drunk at the time she allegedly did "it?"

Does this trial say that, if you are drunk, then it is OK to kill someone?

What's the brouhaha here?

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-19 08:52 PM | Reply

Her first trial ended in a mistrial a few years ago. Retrial was in some doubt. After the refiling, the star detective crashed as a witness among other strange evidentiary revelations.

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2025-06-19 09:11 PM | Reply

@#2 ... the star detective crashed as a witness among other strange evidentiary revelations. ...

OK, so the accusations seemed to have had evidentiary issues?

Is this the first time this has happened?

While I do admit, it may be significant, but wow, for days this has been a main news story.

Why this case?

Why has it bled from the Boston area into NYC media?

What is so significant?

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-19 09:30 PM | Reply

There's a docuseries out there that I watched a while back prior to the second trial... Lotsa weird ---- going on.the police chief and the FBI guy were shady AF..

I really don't know if she did it or not even now, but one thing is for sure, a lot of people are lying.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-06-19 09:41 PM | Reply

Her first trial ended in a mistrial a few years ago. Retrial was in some doubt. After the refiling, the star detective crashed as a witness among other strange evidentiary revelations.

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2025-06-19 10:01 PM | Reply

@#5

Thanks for the follow-up.

But, at this point, I still do not see the significance in this case.

Yeah, law enforcement may have over-reached.

And a re-trial fixed that error.

Great!

But, why the brouhaha?

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-19 10:40 PM | Reply

Just an interesting factual case. In order for her to be acquitted, the jurors had to believe that the testimony of numerous police officers who were at the party that night was not credible beyond a reasonable doubt. And, unlike the Rodney King case or the seven minute choking death by cop case in MN some years back, the jurors did not have a video of the incident to reassure themselves the police officers were not fully credible. This does not happen very often. Jurors pretty much always side with the cops, especially when there are a lot of them pointing the finger at the same person. As EtAl said, there were many demonstrable evidentiary inconsistencies coming from law enforcement during the trial that an intellectually honest juror could not simply ignore.

They say in Heaven (OJ Simpson not withstanding) that an angel gets it's wings every time an accused person is acquitted in a fair and public trial.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2025-06-20 12:10 AM | Reply

There's a docuseries out there that I watched ... Yeah, there seems to be. www.google.com

I generally don't watch those. I'm more interested in what is presented on appeal. Docuseries sensationalism ain't my thang.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2025-06-20 12:33 AM | Reply

@#7 ... Just an interesting factual case. In order for her to be acquitted, the jurors had to believe that the testimony of numerous police officers who were at the party that night was not credible beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

And, unlike the Rodney King case or the seven minute choking death by cop case in MN some years back, the jurors did not have a video of the incident to reassure themselves the police officers were not fully credible. This does not happen very often.

Jurors pretty much always side with the cops, especially when there are a lot of them pointing the finger at the same person. As EtAl said, there were many demonstrable evidentiary inconsistencies coming from law enforcement during the trial that an intellectually honest juror could not simply ignore. ...

Bodacious gratitude to you and Et_Al for the comments.

I learned things on this thread.

thx.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-20 12:47 AM | Reply