Massachusetts prosecutors have concluded their case against Karen Read, revealing video of her speculating whether she hit her boyfriend with her car as expert testimony paints a picture of a violent reverse impact.
At a Glance
- Prosecutors rested in the retrial of Karen Read, accused of killing officer John O’Keefe
- Video shows Read asking if she may have “clipped” O’Keefe during a snowy night
- SUV data revealed 74% throttle in reverse, bolstering the state’s theory of intent
- Read claims O’Keefe was framed and left outside by his friends
- Her defense has begun its case and may last two weeks
Video Revelation Shakes Defense
In a major blow to the defense, prosecutors unveiled footage showing Karen Read voicing uncertainty over whether she fatally injured Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend. “I thought, could I have run him over?” she asked, referencing the early 2022 snowstorm when O’Keefe was found dead outside a friend’s house.
In the same clip, Read imagines alternative scenarios: “What if I ran his foot over or what if I clipped him in the knee… and he threw up or passed out?” The state claims these aren’t idle thoughts—they’re incriminating reflections.
Watch a report: Video Evidence Shakes Karen Read Case.
SUV Data Suggests Violent Impact
Biomechanical engineer Judson Welcher, testifying for the prosecution, told the jury that Read’s Lexus SUV reversed at 74% throttle. The forceful action supports allegations that Read, while drunk and enraged, intentionally backed over O’Keefe. His body was later found in the snow with injuries consistent with being struck by a car.
Welcher dismissed defense accusations of bias in his conclusions, emphasizing that the vehicle data aligned with the physical evidence. The defense is expected to call its own expert to counter his analysis, but the jury has already seen the state’s foundation laid in data and Read’s own words.
Holes in the Prosecution—Or in the Theory?
While the prosecution leaned heavily on Read’s statements and forensic reconstruction, they notably omitted some controversial figures from the first trial. Michael Proctor, the disgraced former lead investigator, wasn’t called to testify. Nor were Brian Albert—the homeowner where O’Keefe died—or Brian Higgins, both now expected to appear for the defense.
The defense maintains Read was set up. They argue O’Keefe was assaulted inside the home and left outside to die, with Read becoming a convenient scapegoat. The prior trial ended in a hung jury, and this retrial is now the focal point for resolving two years of public debate and legal drama.
Pressure Builds as Defense Begins
Whether Karen Read will testify remains uncertain. Though she declined the stand in her first trial, her numerous interviews and statements have become pivotal elements for prosecutors. Her team now faces the difficult task of reshaping a narrative weighed down by damning video, digital evidence, and a toxic relationship backdrop.
As the case enters its final phase, the jury must decide whether Read’s own words are guilty musings or the anxious ramblings of someone desperate to make sense of a tragedy. Either way, the stakes—for her and for the credibility of two competing theories of O’Keefe’s death—have never been higher.
