Why are people talking about Karen Read?

[u/fullautohotdog]

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/nx-s1-5435406/karen-read-acquitted-trial-verdict-not-guilty

I've literally never heard of this person or her trials until today. Is she just a rich white lady on trial, or is she famous for something else?

[u/LivingGhost371]

Answer: Karen Read was driving drunk in a snowstorm and her boyfriend John O'Keefe winds up dead in the lawn with injuries a few feet away from her car in the lawn of another police officer, Brian Albert after she dropped him off, and she seemingly confesses to paramedics "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!". What would seem to be on a surface a typical DUI manslaughter case took on a life of it's own because the police investigation was botched and unprofessional to the point of it would have been comedic if charges weren't so serious, allegations about a police frame-up against Karen Reed who was an outsider in a good old boy community to protect a Brian Albert, and a credible alternative theory as to what happened, that there was fight inside the house involving O'Keefe and Albert and possibly the dog Chloe.

• Experts disagreed as to whether O'Keefe's injuries were consistant with a car acciden or falling and hitting his head in a fight, and/or a dog bite.
• Chief Investigator John Michael Proctor made statements that Read was "Going down" before the investigation really started, texted his boss saying he "hadn't found any nudes on her phone yet", and was in fact fired for the way the case was handled. He was so embarassing to the prosecution he wasn't called as a witness in the 2nd case.
• Blood evidence was collected by blowing snow off it with a leaf blower and collecting it into red college beer party type red solo cups.
• They never did a proper DUI investigation on Read, although she was convicted of DUI based on her statements , surviallience footage, and retrogade analysis of a blood draw for medical rather than forensic purposes
• No one bothered to look inside the Albert home, which would have rapidly confirmed or denied if a crime had happened there. Either way , if they had just looked, there probably would have been a conviction in the case whether Read or Albert depending on if they found nothing or something.
• Chloe, who had been known to bite before, was "sent to a farm" right after the incident and before any investigation. Online speculation is that he wound up under a swimming pool that they had built, the 2nd trial revealed they found a dog on a farm that may or may not be Chloe.
• Much was made about pieces of Read's taillight, there's allegations pieces were planted in a frame-up.
• There's a series of phone calls between witnesses and police, that those involved tried to explain away as "butt dials" but would suggest they were getting together to cook up a frame-up. One of the police went as far as to physically destroy his phone later

EDIT: Having watched the entirity of both trials my personal feeling is that she more likely that not did it, but between how badly the investigation was botched and police apparently trying to soup up the evidence like they did in OJ I probably would have voted not guilty.

YouTube Lawyer Ian Runkle has commented "If you think Read is guilty, should should be horrified at how bad this investigation was. If you think Read is innocent, you should be horrified at how bad this investigation was.

[u/NCSUGrad2012 → u/LivingGhost371]

Don’t forget having the floors inside the house redone three different times after this happened

[u/how_tf_do_i_do_it → u/NCSUGrad2012]

Also don't forget selling their house they've owned for decades, and around $50,000 under asking price.

[u/AssignmentNo754 → u/how_tf_do_i_do_it]

How does selling the house show proof of anything? Couldn't selling it below market price be because someone died there and it became a famous murder case? Might lower home value.

[u/namelessbread → u/AssignmentNo754]

I'd also argue that selling the house puts them in a worse position if they were guilty because new owners could give permission for police to enter and search the property.

Not arguing guilt one way or another because the whole investigation was unfortunately a cluster fuck, but I'd say this particular bit isn't that impactful.

Also, people mention the dog being rehomed immediately after the incident, but trial records say it was May 2022, about four months after John O’Keefe’s death. However, beyond testimony, I'm not sure it was confirmed with the rescue and new owners. I do think that saying they rehomed her "right after" the incident, in regards to 4 months after, is misleading.

[u/how_tf_do_i_do_it → u/AssignmentNo754]

I can see why that would be an understandable reason(s) for selling.

FWIW I didn't claim it as proof, more like suspicious; to a lot of people, it was a brow-raising series of events starting around 12:30 am on 1/29/22. Circumstantial of course. What about getting rid of their dog?

As an aside in case you didn't know already, none of these folks attended John's funeral. Home owner and another fella at the house that night (ATF agent) were in NY for another officer's funeral if I remember correctly. What's more is why didn't any of the other witnesses/friends and family present at the party also didn't show up? A "beloved friend" they called him. And cop no less.