After nearly eight weeks of intense testimony and courtroom drama, the fate of Karen Read now rests in the hands of a 12-person jury in Norfolk Superior Court, Dedham, Massachusetts. On Friday, June 13, 2025, prosecutors and defense attorneys delivered their closing arguments in Read's highly publicized retrial for the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, who died in January 2022 under mysterious and contested circumstances.
Read, 45, faces serious charges including second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. The case has captivated the Boston suburbs and true-crime enthusiasts nationwide, especially after the first trial ended in a mistrial last July due to a hung jury. This retrial has been marked by sharply contrasting narratives, with the prosecution painting a picture of a drunken, deadly hit-and-run, while the defense alleges a police cover-up and conspiracy to frame Read.
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan opened the prosecution’s closing by laying out a stark, data-driven narrative. “She was drunk. She hit him. And she left him to die,” Brennan told the jury, emphasizing the digital evidence from Read’s SUV black box and O’Keefe’s cell phone that traced their movements on the night of January 28, 2022. According to Brennan, Read’s blood alcohol level was nearly two to three times the legal limit, and her vehicle reversed 87 feet at about the time O’Keefe’s phone locked for the last time. The data, he insisted, “doesn’t lie.”
Brennan described the couple’s relationship as “toxic,” referencing testimony about a family vacation in Aruba where Read banged on O’Keefe’s door in anger, mirroring the discord on that fateful night. He pointed to voicemails Read left for O’Keefe, including one where she said, “Nobody knows where you are,” and another played in court where she angrily told him, “I (expletive) hate you.” These messages, Brennan argued, underscored the deteriorating relationship and Read’s state of mind.
Central to the prosecution’s case was the claim that Read struck O’Keefe with her 6,000-pound Lexus while driving in reverse at about 24 mph, shattering her SUV’s taillight and causing blunt force trauma that incapacitated him. When Read returned to the scene the next morning with two women, they found O’Keefe lying in the snow near a flagpole outside a friend’s home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton, Massachusetts. A paramedic testified that Read admitted, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”
Despite the compelling digital and forensic evidence, the defense presented a radically different story, aiming to sow doubt about the integrity of the investigation and the prosecution’s narrative. Defense attorney Alan Jackson implored jurors to consider whether their confidence in the case was “unshakeable,” warning them they must acquit if any reasonable doubt remained. “You folks are the last line of defense … between an innocent woman,” Jackson said, “and a system that has tried to break her, that falsely accused her, that tried mightily, mightily to bury the truth.”
Read’s defense argued that no collision occurred. They highlighted expert testimony that suggested O’Keefe’s injuries, including cuts and scratches on his arm, were caused by a dog bite, not by an SUV. The defense pointed to inconsistencies with the damage to Read’s taillight, arguing it was more likely damaged the morning after O’Keefe’s death when Read backed out of his driveway and bumped his car. Police officer Nicholas Barros, who saw the impounded vehicle, testified that the taillight initially had only a small crack, which later appeared more damaged, suggesting possible tampering.
Jackson questioned the thoroughness of the investigation, spotlighting lead investigator Michael Proctor, a former Massachusetts State Police trooper who was fired in March 2025 after a disciplinary board found he sent sexist and crude text messages about Read. Jackson read aloud some of Proctor’s offensive texts, including one where Proctor referred to Read as “crazy” and another where he assured a friend that the homeowner, a fellow Boston cop, “won’t catch a lot of shit.”
The defense also highlighted investigative oversights, such as the failure to secure the crime scene properly around O’Keefe’s body, not treating the house where the party took place as a crime scene, and not securing a neighbor’s ring camera that might have captured crucial evidence. Surveillance footage showed Brian Albert, the party’s host and a retired Boston police officer, “skulking” through the Canton police department in the early hours after O’Keefe’s death, raising questions about his involvement.
Further fueling suspicion, the Alberts sent their dog, Chloe, to a farm in Vermont shortly after O’Keefe’s body was found. The defense suggested the dog caused the cuts on O’Keefe’s arm and questioned why the family would get rid of their pet unless they had something to hide. Jackson also pointed to a video of Albert and Brian Higgins — a federal agent who exchanged flirtatious texts with Read — sparring at a bar that night, alleging it was practice for an assault on O’Keefe, although none of these men have been charged or formally implicated by prosecutors.
Interestingly, neither Proctor nor these other alleged third-party suspects — Higgins, Brian Albert, or Colin Albert — testified at the retrial. Legal experts called Proctor’s absence “highly unusual” but likely strategic, as both sides declined to call him. Retired superior court judge Jack Lu explained that no competent defense counsel would call Proctor, given his potential to damage the defense, yet his testimony could also have secured a conviction. Prosecutors instead relied on Proctor’s supervisor, Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenik, to discuss the investigation, who defended the integrity of the police work despite Proctor’s misconduct.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution interspersed clips from Read’s media interviews, where she admitted to feeling “buzzed” after drinking vodka tonics and initially speculated she might have “clipped” O’Keefe with her vehicle. These clips were described as “innovative” courtroom tactics that allowed the prosecution to shape jurors’ perceptions of Read without her taking the stand.
The defense, meanwhile, focused on undermining the prosecution’s evidence, emphasizing that no medical expert testified that O’Keefe was hit by a car and that there was no impact site on his body. Jackson repeatedly stressed, “There was no collision. There was no collision,” urging jurors to demand the truth and not let the Commonwealth “get away with this.”
Judge Beverly Cannone began reading the jury instructions around 1:30 p.m. on Friday, clarifying the legal standard of reasonable doubt and explaining that it “does not mean beyond all possible doubt.” She indicated the jury would likely begin deliberations by the end of the day and requested they stay until 5 or 5:30 p.m. to start their work.
As the jurors prepare to deliberate, the community remains deeply divided. Supporters of Read have held demonstrations proclaiming her innocence and decrying alleged police corruption, while others believe the evidence points to a tragic act of recklessness. The jury now must sift through conflicting testimonies, forensic data, and allegations of misconduct to render a verdict that will finally close this chapter in a case that has gripped Massachusetts for over three years.
Whatever the outcome, the Karen Read trial underscores the complexities of modern criminal justice, where digital evidence, human error, personal biases, and media narratives intertwine in pursuit of truth and justice.
