Karen Read on Trial: Why You Cannot Look Away

Fifteen months after Alex Murdaugh was found guilty of murdering his wife and son, after a dramatic trial in which the disgraced lawyer took the stand in his own defense, another compelling murder defendant is making headlines: Karen Read. The case has captivated Massachusetts since early 2022, when Read was named the prime suspect in the mysterious death of her police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe. But national and even global interest—along with a Netflix unscripted project, which Vanity Fair can confirm—has snowballed as Read’s second-degree-murder trial continues.

What is undisputed is that in the early morning of January 29, 2022, Read found O’Keefe unresponsive in a snowbank. He was pronounced dead hours later. The cause was later determined to be hypothermia and blunt trauma to the head.

According to prosecutors, Read backed into him with her Lexus SUV after a fight on January 28, following an evening of drinking, and left the scene. Read, now 44, faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of a personal injury or death.

The defense proposes something completely different: that Read is being framed by law enforcement officers—O’Keefe’s colleagues and best friends, who were among the last people to see him alive—and that his death was caused by a violent fight inside a former cop’s home. Last week, bombshell testimony from the lead investigator on the case drew gasps from jury members. Outside the courthouse, the six-week trial has inspired discourse so passionate that it has led to derivative criminal charges, a protesting ban, and what a friend of O’Keefe’s claims is a “circus” overshadowing the real victim. So what is it exactly about the Karen Read case that is hitting such a nerve?

To begin, it has all the elements of a thriller: a woman accused of murder, an unlikely weapon (a car is less common than poison), an alleged conspiracy involving a powerful law-enforcement family, and the courtroom dynamics of a John Grisham plot. But it’s real.

Among the plot twists: the defense called for Judge Beverly Cannone to recuse herself, alleging that she had ties to people involved in the case. (She denied the request.) Brian Higgins, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, testified about becoming attracted to Read and flirting with her in the weeks before O’Keefe’s death. The defense suggested that a friend of O’Keefe’s googled “ho[w] long to die in cold” at 2:25 a.m., long before O’Keefe’s body was found; the prosecution said Read asked her friend to google the phrase in the morning after O’Keefe’s body was found.

A zealous local blogger named “Turtleboy” allegedly spent over 40 hours directly communicating with Read over the span of 189 phone calls and has been fanning conspiracy-theory flames online. As a result, Turtleboy, a.k.a. Aidan Kearney, has been indicted on over 16 charges including counts of witness intimidation. (Kearney has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.)

The conspiracy theories have also gained momentum, says Court TV attorney-journalist and host Julie Grant, because “the defense team was speaking out about a cover-up prior to trial, while the prosecution stayed nearly silent. Prosecutors are held to a higher ethical standard than private attorneys…and have a duty not to make extrajudicial comments that are likely to heighten public condemnation of a defendant. I think that was largely how the cover-up allegations really started picking up steam.”

Passions have become so heightened outside the courthouse that Cannone banned protesting within 200 feet of the building and clothing or accessories relating to the case, like “Free Karen” T-shirts, inside. (Some supporters have worn pink outside the courthouse, believing it to be Read’s favorite color.)

“The story is the draw,” says Grant, who hosts Court TV’s Opening Statements with Julie Grant. “Trial watchers want to know if there truly is a cover-up in Canton, as the defense claims.” (In a statement to ABC News, the prosecution said, “There was no conspiracy or cover-up. Such claims have been systematically refuted by evidence submitted to Norfolk Superior Court.”)

As if there wasn’t enough to make the trial a hot-button issue, the lead investigator on the case, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, admitted in testimony last week to sending misogynistic text messages about Read. In a group text chain with eight of his high school friends, Proctor crassly commented on Read’s physical appearance; joked about searching her phone for “nudes”; referred to her as a “babe,” “nutbag,” and “a whack job”; and made a crude remark about a medical condition from which Read suffers. In a text message to his sister, Proctor said that he hoped Read killed herself.

Proctor called the texts “unprofessional and regrettable” and admitted, “my emotions got the best of me,” but argued that his remarks “have zero impact on the facts and the evidence and the integrity of this investigation.” Still, the lead investigator on the case was asked by the defense whether he dehumanized Read.

“I would say based off that language, yes,” Proctor replied.

Afterward, Governor Maura Healey issued a statement saying she was “disgusted” by Proctor’s behavior and that it put “the dignity and integrity” of all state police at risk. Proctor’s statements made national headlines, but more intimately, they also seemed to horrify some on the jury, which is made of mostly female members.

“One woman had her mouth open,” said NBC10 Boston’s Sue O’Connell, who was in the courtroom during Proctor’s testimony. “One woman looked back and looked at every single female juror she could look at to make eye contact…at one point they were just shaking their heads. One woman laughed.”

It isn’t just the misogyny that seems remarkable, though. At a moment when America is less confident in police than ever before, the idea of unmasking a law-enforcement cover-up is delectable to some skeptics. And testimony from Massachusetts State Police officers about their choices in the investigation might convince cynics that their law-enforcement suspicions are justified.

Last week, Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Brian Tully testified that investigators did not search the home on the property where O’Keefe’s body was found, which belonged to retired police officer Brian Albert, because he did not believe O’Keefe had entered the home. (Proctor texted his friends that the homeowner would not get much blowback from O’Keefe’s death because he’s “a Boston cop.”) Blood evidence was gathered in red Solo cups inside a grocery-store bag. Just 17 hours into his investigation into O’Keefe’s death, Proctor texted his friends that Read had “zero chance” of getting off without punishment. “She’s f-cked,” he wrote.

Another officer, meanwhile, acknowledged that he failed to write down key information in his official report. Like the four words “This is my fault,” which were not in the report but which the officer claimed Read said. The defense has also alleged that, the night of his death, O’Keefe was injured by a dog the Albert family owned—a dog that the family rehomed the same month the defense says it began its investigation into O’Keefe’s injuries. Brian Albert testified that the dog “went to the bathroom and ran right back in,” the night of O’Keefe’s death.

Because Read, a woman, is going up against the Massachusetts State Police, and what some view as an unfair legal system, she’s taken on the PR patina of a social justice hero rather than that of a second-degree-murder defendant. It’s a role she has played well, appearing mostly stoic and unflappable—giving reporters a clean sound bite and audiences a compelling star in this extraordinary trial. (Her legal defense fund has raised over $370,000 so far.)

Outside the courtroom last week, Read was asked what she thought of Proctor’s damning testimony, in which he admitted to dehumanizing her. The defendant answered how a superhero might: “He’ll have to answer to someone someday.”

Speaking about the trial optics, Court TV attorney-journalist Julie Grant commends the defense team. “They demonstrate confidence at all times. Even when there is damaging testimony implicating Karen Read, they show everyone in the courtroom a winning attitude,” says Grant. “It’s a smart strategy that jurors notice. The way in which everything and everyone appears matters just as much. She dresses impeccably every day and appears calm when incriminating evidence is introduced against her.”