The defense in the Karen Read murder trial recently rested its case after almost two months of testimony, paving the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations. The trial, which began in late April, saw the prosecution call over 60 witnesses before concluding its case last Friday. In contrast, the defense presented only six witnesses. The closing arguments are now scheduled to take place on Tuesday, with each side allotted one hour for their arguments.
As the trial neared its conclusion, Monday’s proceedings included testimony from three witnesses. One of them was a retired medical examiner named Dr. Frank Sheridan, who stated that injuries to the victim’s right arm were more consistent with a dog attack than an interaction with the tail light of Karen Read’s Lexus, as claimed by the prosecution. Dr. Sheridan pointed out the absence of bruising on the victim’s torso as a notable observation. According to the prosecution, Read allegedly hit John O’Keefe with her SUV and left him to die in a snowbank. However, the defense argues that O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, was actually beaten to death at a different location before being found unresponsive in the snow. The defense also contends that O’Keefe was bitten and clawed by a dog.
During cross-examination, Dr. Sheridan admitted that he was unaware of DNA testing conducted on swabs taken from wounds on O’Keefe’s arm, which found no evidence of a canine attack. This revelation raises questions about the credibility of the defense’s claim. In addition to Dr. Sheridan’s testimony, an accident reconstruction expert named Daniel Wolfe, who was hired by the Department of Justice for a separate investigation, presented his own findings. Wolfe conducted various tests and concluded that O’Keefe’s injuries and the damage to Read’s tail light were not consistent with a pedestrian strike. Wolfe and his team even fired a piece of glass out of a cannon at 37 miles per hour to simulate the impact and assess the resulting damage. According to their theory, the fracture in the tail light could have been caused by an individual throwing a drinking glass at the back of the Lexus.
To further support this alternative explanation, Andrew Wentschler, a colleague of Wolfe’s who specializes in studying how the human body reacts to force, testified that O’Keefe would have suffered more than just a major head injury and skull fracture if he had been hit by a car as the prosecution alleges. Wentschler emphasized the importance of considering the science and physics behind what would have occurred if O’Keefe had indeed been struck by a vehicle.
It is worth noting that more than two years have passed since O’Keefe’s death before Read’s trial finally commenced in late April. As the trial reaches its conclusion, Read was asked about her confidence level, to which she responded positively. However, the jury will ultimately determine her fate.
In summary, the defense’s case in the Karen Read murder trial has raised doubts about the prosecution’s claims. Testimony from a retired medical examiner and an accident reconstruction expert, supported by scientific analysis, suggests that O’Keefe’s injuries and the damage to Read’s vehicle may not be consistent with a car striking a pedestrian. The jury will now weigh the evidence presented and deliver their verdict.
