OPINION:
Karen Read was accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’;Keefe, with her car after an argument (“Jury finds Karen Read not guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of drunk driving in boyfriend death,” Web, June 18). O’Keefe had reportedly left her vehicle to attend a party with mutual friends, many of whom were also police officers. Tragically, after hours in the cold, O’Keefe later succumbed to his injuries.
In the early morning of Jan. 29, 2022, the incident seemed like a clear-cut case. Ms. Read’s SUV had a shattered taillight and debris was found near O’Keefe’s body and embedded in his clothing. However, a conspiracy theory emerged claiming that O’Keefe might have been killed inside the party house. Social media seized on this, creating a perfect scenario for bloggers seeking sensational stories about an innocent victim against corrupt police. Large crowds gathered daily at the courthouse to support Ms. Read.
Members of the jury, wanting a solid reason to vote “not guilty” on the more serious charges, received ample material supporting reasonable doubt. The credibility of this information was questionable. Emails between some “expert” witnesses and Ms. Read’s defense team were deleted. Their opinions were generously compensated by donations funding Ms. Read’s defense. Ultimately, the jury members likely acted in their self-interest.
If I were a juror in this case and faced backlash for a guilty verdict, I would seek any sign of reasonable doubt to justify granting Ms. Read her freedom. I don’t see this as jury nullification; it was self-preservation.
SCOTT THOMPSON
Bloomington, Indiana
Please read our comment policy before commenting.