Karen Read trial: BOMBSHELL expert claims ‘no collision’ killed police officer
The jury has the case. A highly anticipated verdict is now being weighed.
But pivotal moments from weeks of testimony could already decide everything.
Jury Begins Deliberations
After over a month of intense proceedings, the fate of Karen Read hangs in the balance. She faces serious charges, including second-degree murder.
The Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, was found dead in the snow in January 2022.
Prosecutors allege Read hit him with her SUV and left him there. The defense argues she was framed.
Deliberations began late Friday afternoon after hours of closing arguments and jury instructions. They will resume Monday morning.
Recapping The Closing Arguments
Both sides delivered powerful final arguments, presenting diametrically opposed views of the evidence.
The prosecution painted a picture of a drunken, angry girlfriend hitting her boyfriend.
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan reportedly played dramatic clips, including Read’s own words from interviews.
“She boxed herself in,” remarked retired judge Jack Lu about the use of Read’s interview clips without her taking the stand.
Another moment highlighted by the prosecution was police dashcam footage from the scene.
David Gelman, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, noted, “Seeing her reaction in the courtroom is a big moment. The jury I guarantee wanted to see her reaction.”
These were moments the prosecution clearly hoped would sway the jury towards a guilty verdict.
Defense Challenges The Narrative
However, the defense mounted a significant challenge to the state’s entire theory of the case.
Their argument centers on a alleged cover-up and a failure by investigators to look at other potential suspects or causes of death.
They hammered home the idea that the investigation was flawed from the start.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson repeatedly told the jury, “There was no collision.”
But what evidence supports such a bold claim?
Experts Cast Doubt On State’s Theory
The defense called their own expert witnesses to challenge the prosecution’s narrative head-on.
This included a crash reconstruction firm, ARCCA, hired by the defense.
According to trial attorney Grace Edwards, who followed the case closely, this was a potential turning point.
“The pivotal point for me was learning that ARCCA, having been hired by the defense, did their own testing – and that testing proved there was no collision,” she told Fox News Digital.
ARCCA scientists testified their analysis of damage to Read’s vehicle did not align with the injuries O’Keefe sustained.
They suggested the vehicle damage and human injuries were inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory of a collision.
Adding to this, the defense presented testimony from Dr. Laposata.
He testified that O’Keefe’s injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle.
Edwards concluded, “Add on the testimony of Dr. Laposata to say the injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle and I was sold.”
This expert testimony, directly contradicting the core of the prosecution’s case, could be the “bombshell” moment that creates reasonable doubt for the jury.
Whether the jury ultimately accepts this defense theory or the prosecution’s narrative remains to be seen. The fate of Karen Read now rests entirely with them.