Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *NOT GUILTY* (Guilty of OUI) (15 Viewers)

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 

[Takeitfromme]

You know what, i am surprised it wasn't JO murdering KR - that whole day she never gave him a minutes peace.

i know it's not ok to laugh at murder....BUT........................................... THAT was funny!!!!

 

[Tresir]

This is just going to nail her. I cannot see how D will get around this.

Pieces of plastic found on John O’Keefe consistent with pieces from Karen Read’s broken taillight, analyst testifies. Here’s how the day unfolded. - The Boston Globe

Judge Cannone sent jurors home for the week shortly after 3 p.m. Testimony resumes next Tuesday.

www.bostonglobe.com

79
Updated May 21, 2025, 3 minutes agoPieces of plastic found on John O’Keefe consistent with pieces from Karen Read’s broken taillight, analyst testifies
ByGlobe Staff

Karen Read sits with her legal team during her trial Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. Matt Stone
After a delay, testimony has resumed in the murder trial of Karen Read, who is accused of backing her SUV into her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, and leaving him for dead.
On Wednesday morning, Judge Beverly J. Cannone told the jury that “an issue” came up that required her to speak to each juror individually at a sidebar. It wasn’t immediately clear what the issue was.
Court reconvened shortly before 11 a.m. with prosecutors calling Dr. Aizik Wolf, a brain surgeon, to the stand.
Read more about how Tuesday unfolded. And watch the trial live.

---

Pieces of plastic found on John O’Keefe consistent with pieces from Read’s broken taillight, analyst testifies — 1:03 p.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Christina Hanley said she also examined the taillight and “some other plastic pieces as well.”
She identified a photo of the taillight and a couple of pieces of plastic next to it.
She said she also looked at debris collected from O’Keefe’s clothing, including “one clear piece of plastic, as well as several pieces of red plastic, among some other trace material.”
The largest piece, she said, was about the size of a grain of rice.
She said analyst Maureen Hartnett transferred the clothing debris to the lab, while the taillight was submitted by State Police trooper Christopher Moore.
Hanley identified another photo of a clear piece of plastic taken from O’Keefe’s clothes and secured in a tin.
She also identified a microscopic photo of “red plastic pieces” within the debris taken from the clothes, as well as another photo of the pieces removed and separated.
The clear plastic from O’Keefe’s clothes “was found to be consistent in color and instrumental properties to the clear plastic from the taillight,” she said.
The clear debris plastic “could have originated from the taillight” or a source with “similar characteristics,” she said.
The red plastic from the clothing “was found to be consistent in color, microscopic appearance, and instrumental properties with the portions that I sampled from the red plastic from the taillight.
”That means the red plastic from the clothes “could have originated” from the taillight or a source with similar characteristics, Hanley said.
Judge Beverly Cannone called a lunch break just after 1 p.m.

---

Pieces of broken drinking glass found at Canton scene, analyst testifies — 12:46 p.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Christina Hanley said the six glass pieces that matched the drinking glass were labeled with letters.
Hanley identified additional photos of the drinking glass and the glass pieces that fit with it, as well as a picture of the pieces reattached to the glass.
Hanley also identified a photo of five pieces of clear glass recovered from Read’s bumper, as well as a picture of a clear glass piece found in the road.
“Upon examining and comparing” those items, “I had concluded that six of the nine pieces of glass ... physically fit with” the drinking glass, and “the remaining three of the nine” did “not have a physical fit,” Hanley said.
Hanley said that “upon examining and comparing” the five glass pieces recovered from the bumper, she used two pieces for comparison “and there was no physical match” to the pieces found at the scene.
Hanley said she selected the two pieces and did not test the other three “due to their size and condition.”
She said she did a microscopic examination of one of the smaller bumper pieces and it was found to be “consistent” with another piece of glass found at the scene.

Crime lab analyst returns to stand — 12:30 p.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Following the break, State Police crime lab analyst Christina Hanley returned to the stand.
She told prosecutor Adam Lally that she examined a broken drinking glass with debris on its interior and exterior, found at the Canton scene.
Lally put a photo of the broken cocktail glass on the monitor; Hanley in the photo is also holding another glass piece that she said fit with the drinking glass.
A number of pieces of glass and plastic were recovered at the crime scene, and additional pieces were taken from Read’s bumper.
Lally put additional photos of the glass pieces on the monitor.
“Upon comparing those items, I did note that six of the nine pieces of clear apparent glass had a physical match” to the drinking glass, Hanley said.

---

Brain surgeon testifies on cross-examination — 11:51 a.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Dr. Aizik Wolf told Read lawyer Robert Alessi he’s “not a forensic pathologist, I’m a brain surgeon.”
Wolf said “I see more brains than the forensic pathologist.”
Alessi asked if most of those brains are in living patients, and Wolf said that was accurate.
Wolf told Alessi the raccoon’s eyes would not have caused the laceration to O’Keefe’s eyelid.
Alessi asked if the injury to the eyelid would be caused by a “direct application of force” to the area, and Wolf said it was possible.
“This injury is unrelated to any of what you’ve been describing - the fall backwards,” Alessi said. “This injury has nothing to do with that, correct?”
”Correct," Wolf said.
“Thank you for answering my questions, Dr. Wolf,” Alessi said. “A pleasure again.”
Wolf stepped down, and the lawyers came back to a sidebar.
Following the sidebar, Judge Beverly Cannone called a brief 15-minute recess.

---

Doctor testifies that he’s seen similar injuries of patients who fall on hard ground — 11:45 a.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Dr. Aizik said John O’Keefe’s body temperature was 80 degrees when he was discovered; hypothermia begins setting in at 95 degrees.
“Your heart starts to have problems,” Wolf said. “You’re not breathing. ... Below 80 degrees you’re probably going to die. ... All I can tell you, it wasn’t helpful that he had a significant head injury and that he was then found hypothermic.”
He said he doubted O’Keefe died immediately.
Wolf told Read attorney Robert Alessi on cross-examination that he normally wakes up shortly after 4 a.m. and heads to work.
“I have patients that I’m operating on, and I have patients that I’m seeing throughout the day,” Wolf said.

---

Doctor testifies that he’s seen similar injuries of patients who fall on hard ground — 11:38 a.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Dr. Aizik Wolf said he’s seen similar injuries of patients who fall on hard ground.
Wolf said he worked previously in a “very cold” part of Minnesota and treated a number of people who fell on icy sidewalks.
“Can someone suffer this type of injury simply by falling backwards?’ Brennan asked.
“Absolutely,” Wolf said.
He said the “brain shifts forward” after a fall backwards and “it’s getting black and blue in the areas that are the sharpest.”
Asked if such an injury could come from an attack with a weapon, Wolf said John O’Keefe “did not have a depressed skull fracture,” something he would expect to see on someone who had been attacked.
Wolf said O’Keefe also had fractures of the “orbital roof” from “the trauma.”
”As he fell backwards and he struck his head, [it] was clearly at a very high speed," Wolf said.
He said O’Keefe’s brain could “absolutely not” have caused his orbital fractures.
Wolf said it’s “impossible” to know whether O’Keefe immediately lost consciousness, though his “injuries were very substantial,” so he likely quickly lost consciousness or the ability to perform “functional” activity.
Wolf said the body can continue moving after someone becomes unconscious.
“Those kinds of movements are not thought processes,” he said.
“It’s an automatic movement in response to pain.”
Brennan asked if O’Keefe would have died immediately after the fall.
“No,” Wolf said. “Traumatic head injuries, you would not die immediately. It’s a process” that includes brain swelling, decreased blood flow to the brain, and “ultimately death of the brain stem that controls your heart and your breathing.”
Such severe injuries, Wolf said, have a “high mortality rate,” though patients often do not die for weeks or months.
Wolf said the medical examiner diagnosed “raccoon’s eyes” on O’Keefe, which occur from “leakage” through orbital fractures.
Turning to a photo of O’Keefe’s injured face, Wolf said, “you can see the black and blue” around the eyes, which he said is “not caused by direct trauma to his eyelids,” but leakage of blood into that area.
That process “minimally” takes one to three hours, Wolf said.

---

‘The only way he could get this kind of an injury was to fall backwards, hit the back of his head,’ medical director testifies — 11:22 a.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Dr. Aizik Wolf, medical director of the Miami Neuroscience Center at the Larkin Community Hospital in South Miami, Fla., told prosecutor Hank Brennan that he has treated many brain and severe head injuries and has written widely on the subject.
“Blood flow ceases to exist as the brain swells up,” Wolf said.
He said he reviewed the medical examiner’s report as well as photos of John O’Keefe’s autopsy, in addition to a report “from the forensic pathologist.”
Wolf said he also viewed a photo of a cut on O’Keefe’s head.
“What we’re seeing is an approximate inch-and-a-half laceration with bridging tissue and contusions and abrasions,” Wolf said. “So that’s just a classic blunt trauma injury.”
He said O’Keefe had a “non-depressed skull fracture.”
”The base of your skull is what it encompasses," Wolf said of the fractured area.
Wolf said “you fall backwards” to get that injury and “the skull hits the ground ... and then the brain moves forward” in response.
He said the “temporal poles and the frontal poles are getting contusions” as well.
“Could this be caused by a fall landing on hard ground?” Brennan asked.
Wolf said yes, adding that “my opinion is that’s what caused this whole injury.”
He said “the only way he could get this kind of an injury was to fall backwards, hit the back of his head, and then the resulting energy forces [enter] into his brain and into the base of his skull.”
The lawyers later came to a sidebar.

---

The next witness is Dr. Aizik Wolf — 11:02 a.m.​

By Travis Andersen, Globe Staff
Court reconvened shortly before 11 a.m. with prosecutors calling Dr. Aizik Wolf, a brain surgeon, to the stand.
Judge Beverly Cannone did not indicate what the juror issue was but reminded the panel not to discuss the case with anyone ahead of deliberations.
Wolf said he receives “probably less than 1 percent” of his income from testifying as an expert witness, though he remains active as a doctor, with multiple surgeries scheduled for Thursday.
“I don’t do this for a living,” he said of his role as an expert witness.

 

[Regina]

LOL how can you leave someone a voicemail accidentally? By not hanging up when you thought you had?

All I know is it was her 13th unanswered call to John.

 

[Regina]

LOL, yes that was a GREAT point. Interesting defense didn't do more than a couple of questions and ended their questioning. I suspect they knew they were not going to get anywhere with this guy.

Well, he tried to get somewhere but the fact of the matter is that the type of skull fracture John had is caused by a very hard hit to a very hard ground.
Now the laceration to John's eyelid was obviously caused by something else and then you know, at some point, the jury was shown the interview clip in which Read describes having pulled out a small piece of glass from the outside of John's nose.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well, he tried to get somewhere but the fact of the matter is that the type of skull fracture John had is caused by a very hard hit to a very hard ground.
Now the laceration to John's eyelid was obviously caused by something else and then you know, at some point, the jury was shown the interview clip in which Read describes having pulled out a small piece of glass from the outside of John's nose.

This isn't on until Tuesday now, do I have that right? Thought I heard that yesterday but wasn't 100% clear on it...

Agree but he didn't try for very long. That guy explained it all. The raccoon eyes, all of it, how it could not be from a punch, etc., getting ahead of it all this time around. Some small laceration to the eyelid doesn't bolster the defense's theory in any way that I can see.

 

[Regina]

This isn't on until Tuesday now, do I have that right? Thought I heard that yesterday but wasn't 100% clear on it...

Agree but he didn't try for very long. That guy explained it all. The raccoon eyes, all of it, how it could not be from a punch, etc., getting ahead of it all this time around. Some small laceration to the eyelid doesn't bolster the defense's theory in any way that I can see.

That's right, Tuesday.

Indeed, his testimony wasn't long but it could have been shorter, I mean, just like every other cross so far, it was longer than necessary.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Thanks for confirming Thursday.

You are talking of the doctor right? Boy I thought shortest yet almost, like maybe five questions or some such, not much anyhow, not sure how you thought it long.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Thanks for confirming Thursday.

You are talking of the doctor right? Boy I thought shortest yet almost, like maybe five questions or some such, not much anyhow, not sure how you thought it long.

I mean the cross of course.

 

[Tresir]

This isn't on until Tuesday now, do I have that right? Thought I heard that yesterday but wasn't 100% clear on it...

Agree but he didn't try for very long. That guy explained it all. The raccoon eyes, all of it, how it could not be from a punch, etc., getting ahead of it all this time around. Some small laceration to the eyelid doesn't bolster the defense's theory in any way that I can see.

I figure that was probably caused by the cocktail glass too, as well as the piece of glass in his nose that she pulled out.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I figure that was probably caused by the cocktail glass too, as well as the piece of glass in his nose that she pulled out.

Yeah. It's the only point the defense made with this guy doing a short cross and I don't think it proves anything for them.

 

[Regina]

Thanks for confirming Thursday.

You are talking of the doctor right? Boy I thought shortest yet almost, like maybe five questions or some such, not much anyhow, not sure how you thought it long.

You're welcome.

The neurosurgeon, yes. On cross, he was asked to go through his daily routine and asked about his patients diseases but what was the point? To demonstrate what's obvious, that is, that he doesn't perform autopsies and that his patients are still alive?
(You know, it did put a smile on my face when he said he went back home at 6am to make his wife a cappucino but that's beside side the point, lol!)
Anyway, I suppose it wouldn't have looked good if the defense had no questions for the neurosurgeon (lol!) but those questions in particular were a waste of time.

 

[GrandmaBear]

You're welcome.

The neurosurgeon, yes. On cross, he was asked to go through his daily routine and asked about his patients diseases but what was the point? To demonstrate what's obvious, that is, that he doesn't perform autopsies and that his patients are still alive?
(You know, it did put a smile on my face when he said he went back home at 6am to make his wife a cappucino but that's beside side the point, lol!)
Anyway, I suppose it wouldn't have looked good if the defense had no questions for the neurosurgeon (lol!) but those questions in particular were a waste of time.

Yeah, the cappucino lol and he didn't run back for long to do it, maybe 1/2 hour or hour? Nice husband. And of course that he sees more brains than med examiners, etc. was a perfect response lol. I think the fact he was not a med examiner nor does he do expert testimony as any real part of his income significant. John was still alive and he was talking of what occurs then, etc. He also had covered in his direct that a fight could not have done this to him and interesting that the defense never even tried to attack that. At all. I think it a bad and obvious look for them but that they knew they weren't going to get anywhere and that the jury would just hear more of what does not fit the defense theory quite honestly, so they mostly just left his testimony with no trying to dismantle any of it. He was SOLID.

 

[Tresir]

I am surprised D didn't ask him if it could have been caused by a fall backwards down some hard steps. Isn't that their whole theory?

 

[GrandmaBear]

I am surprised D didn't ask him if it could have been caused by a fall backwards down some hard steps. Isn't that their whole theory?

Not sure which one they are on this time, either that or a fight and then a dog attack, then this, then that, etc.

I'm sure they didn't ask because their theory doesn't fit and isn't supported. To me, their lack of questioning with this guy would be significant to me as a juror. Makes it look like they accepted everything he said.

 

[Regina]

Yeah, the cappucino lol and he didn't run back for long to do it, maybe 1/2 hour or hour? Nice husband. And of course that he sees more brains than med examiners, etc. was a perfect response lol. I think the fact he was not a med examiner nor does he do expert testimony as any real part of his income significant. John was still alive and he was talking of what occurs then, etc. He also had covered in his direct that a fight could not have done this to him and interesting that the defense never even tried to attack that. At all. I think it a bad and obvious look for them but that they knew they weren't going to get anywhere and that the jury would just hear more of what does not fit the defense theory quite honestly, so they mostly just left his testimony with no trying to dismantle any of it. He was SOLID.

Right, the defense was going on in a round-about way and the doctor summed it up with "in other words, I see more brains..." LMAO!
SOLID, indeed!

 

[GrandmaBear]

This is less than 15 minutes. There is no host on it, EVERY bit of it is Read's own words. She references where she left him and found him a million times and more. Her own words dam* her totally. There are a few put togethers of things like these out there on various channels. NOW she had done one of her dumbest things ever trying to claim she saw him go into the home. BIG MISTAKE and makes her so clearly a liar. She'd be torn apart on the witness stand by her own words. The video speaks for itself.

And anyone who ignores the defendant's own words or outright lies I have no time for. That is intentional bias with a refusal to look at the things that count and ignoring the words of the very person they feel innocent.

What is going to blow her more than anything is her OWN words imo.

 

[Tresir]

This is less than 15 minutes. There is no host on it, EVERY bit of it is Read's own words. She references where she left him and found him a million times and more. Her own words dam* her totally. There are a few put togethers of things like these out there on various channels. NOW she had done one of her dumbest things ever trying to claim she saw him go into the home. BIG MISTAKE and makes her so clearly a liar. She'd be torn apart on the witness stand by her own words. The video speaks for itself.

And anyone who ignores the defendant's own words or outright lies I have no time for. That is intentional bias with a refusal to look at the things that count and ignoring the words of the very person they feel innocent.

What is going to blow her more than anything is her OWN words imo.

Yep, i agree. Did they play this at the first trial and are they going to play it at this trial? In one of them she talks about when she goes back with Jen and Kerry and seeing him like the size of a buffalo laying right where she last saw him. So if she is now saying she saw him go in the house, it's clearly a lie. I hope they play these at the summing up.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yep, i agree. Did they play this at the first trial and are they going to play it at this trial?

They have shown a lot of clips already. I do hope to tie things all together they do something like this and then show her changing words VERY clearly.

 

[Regina]

Yep, i agree. Did they play this at the first trial and are they going to play it at this trial? In one of them she talks about when she goes back with Jen and Kerry and seeing him like the size of a buffalo laying right where she last saw him. So if she is now saying she saw him go in the house, it's clearly a lie. I hope they play these at the summing up.

No, in the first trial, there was testimony from others about what she told them and from others about what they heard her say but no clips of her interviews with the media.
Anyway, I haven't watched this trial as intently as I did the first one and so I must have missed that part about her saying she picked out pieces of taillight at John's but if she did, that wasn't when she said it was and not when she was with Jennifer and Kerri. It'd have to have been before 5:07am (when Ring shows her leaving John's before she was with Jennifer and Kerri).

 

[GrandmaBear]

No, in the first trial, there was testimony from others about what she told them and from others about what they heard her say but no clips of her interviews with the media.
Anyway, I haven't watched this trial as intently as I did the first one and so I must have missed that part about her saying she picked out pieces of taillight at John's but if she did, that wasn't when she said it was and not when she was with Jennifer and Kerri. It'd have to have been before 5:07am (when Ring shows her leaving John's before she was with Jennifer and Kerri).

I've probably seen more of this one as it happens than the last. I went back on that one and watched what I felt mattered most. This one I've missed a couple of days but heard most and did not go back and watch those days but instead watched recaps that simply recapped all with no bias.

Putting those clips together with how even recently she has changed the story would be as damning as the evidence imo. This is a FAR different trial.

Brennan has called that trial a trial by ambush and I think that's very apt.

Now KR accuses them of such using their words, she thinks she's so "cute" but she's sickening as he77. Just video clips tied together juxtaposed with opposing/changing words of her own would convict this woman imo. Add in facts and yup.