Defense Presents Case in Karen Read Murder Trial
The Karen Read murder trial entered a crucial phase on Monday as the defense continued to present its case. After nearly two months of testimony, the case is now set to go to the jury. Both sides delivered opening statements in late April, with the prosecution calling dozens of witnesses before resting its case last week.
Read’s defense team called several witnesses on Friday and returned to Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham on Monday morning. Karen Read, a 44-year-old woman from Mansfield, is facing charges including second-degree murder after prosecutors alleged that she hit her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her car and left him to die outside the Canton home of Brian and Nicole Albert in January 2022.
The defense has argued that Read is being framed, claiming that O’Keefe was actually beaten to death and attacked by a dog during a party inside the Albert home. They have also alleged that the police covered up details and planted evidence to implicate Read in the case. Despite the defense’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, Judge Beverly Cannone dismissed the motion, stating that the prosecution had presented a compelling case.
On Friday, the defense called three witnesses to testify. One of the witnesses was a Canton plow driver who stated that he made several passes on the road where O’Keefe was found but never saw his body. He also mentioned having to maneuver around a parked car near the area where O’Keefe was eventually discovered.
The defense also called a digital data expert and a retired doctor who expressed her belief that O’Keefe’s injuries were the result of an animal attack. The defense aimed to establish that O’Keefe’s arm injuries did not resemble those caused by being hit by a car, as suggested by State Police Trooper Joseph Paul.
On Monday, the defense’s first witness was retired medical examiner Dr. Frank Sheridan. Sheridan, who served as the medical examiner in San Bernardino County, California until 2017, reviewed autopsy photos with the jury. He testified that O’Keefe’s injuries were suffered before his death and that they were not consistent with being hit by a car. Sheridan also stated that O’Keefe’s skull fracture and brain swelling could not have resulted from falling and hitting his head on dirt and grass.
During cross-examination, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally questioned Sheridan about the cause of O’Keefe’s death. While Sheridan agreed that the cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma coupled with hypothermia, he maintained that O’Keefe’s arm injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car.
Following Sheridan’s testimony, accident reconstruction expert Daniel Wolfe took the stand. Wolfe, who works for a firm called ARCCA, testified that the damage to Read’s car was consistent with a man throwing a glass at a tail light at 37 miles-per-hour. However, he stated that the damage was inconsistent with a person being hit by the back of the car. This testimony supported the defense’s argument that O’Keefe’s injuries were not caused by being hit by Read’s car.
Biomechanical engineer Andrew Rentschler, also hired by federal authorities, testified next. However, his testimony was limited after the judge ruled that only doctors could offer an opinion on O’Keefe’s cause of death. Rentschler did state that O’Keefe’s injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a car going 24 miles-per-hour, as alleged by the prosecution. He also noted that there would have been additional damage to Read’s car if such an incident had occurred.
As the defense presents its case, it aims to challenge the prosecution’s narrative and provide alternative explanations for O’Keefe’s injuries. By calling expert witnesses and presenting evidence contradicting the prosecution’s claims, the defense seeks to establish reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. The outcome of the trial will ultimately depend on their assessment of the evidence presented by both sides.
