Karen Read Retrial, Week 8: It's All in the Jury's Hands and the Wait Has Begun

MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images. Getty Images.

After two full months since the start of our second trip down Commonwealth vs. Karen Read Ave. And finally both sides wrapped up evidence, delivered their closing arguments, the judge read the jury their instructions, the alternates names were drawn out of a rotating drum like someone was pulling Bingo numbers at a Knights of Columbus, and the entire matter was placed in the hands of 12 persons good and true. It came late in the day on Friday. A good three or four days later than we were told to expect it at recently as last week. (And I for one am grateful because I was traveling and a verdict coming in while I was on a flight was the nightmare scenario given how many hours I've invested in this matter. But wasted time and general inefficiency helped me dodge that bullet.) But however we got to this point, we're here. Now it's entirely up to a dozen people from Norfolk County who couldn't get out of serving. And they will the only humans on Earth who know what's going on with their deliberations. 

So I'd be remiss if I didn't put a ribbon on the last days of the trial presentation. The last witness and the closings. Because to the surprise of no one who's been even marginally following both trials, this thing wrapped up dramatically, theatrically, and at times ridiculously. Why stop now, after all? 

Let's take this as chronologically as possible, while still sticking to the narrative. The last witness for either side was Dr. Andrew Rentschler called by the defense to refute the Commonwealth's experts' findings on the car crash:

Specifically, Rentschler asserted there was no evidence to suggest Read's SUV ever hit John O'Keefe. That any suggestion otherwise is "just supposition":

Which added his name to the list of witnesses saying there's no credible scientific evidence a collision actually took place:

Which you could argue included special prosecutor Hank Brennan in his closing:

Advertisement

… but we'll get to both closings shortly.

Just as a reminder, minds have been made up for months or years on this whole matter for the most part, and it's a little late in the game to expect opinions to change a whole hell of a lot, regardless of any defense witness' assertions:

… but they want to gaslight you.  

“Ah, yes — with a degree of scientific certainty, I must say —“ 

Oh, shut up. Stop insulting my intelligence.

What we did get from the cross examination of Rentschler was Brennan's suggestion he was accusing the investigation of planting O'Keefe's baseball hat at the scene as incriminating evidence, which was a wild thing for him to put on the record:

And also a fair amount of digging into his lunch. Specifically, the ham sandwich he admitted to eating. I am not joking:

OK, to be fair to Brennan, the implication he was going for was less about smoked pork deli meats and more about the defense witness being overly chummy with the defense, which might be a valid point. But until we know what kind of bread it was on, or if Rentschler is one of those maniacs who puts mayo instead of mustard on his ham, we can never really be certain. 

Advertisement

After that, Brennan told the court he was not calling any rebuttal witnesses, thus officially bringing an end to the evidentiary portion, and making it time for the two sides to tell the jury what they should take away from all this. Think of it as the courtroom equivalent of the guy who posts 2,500 word rants on Facebook telling everyone what their opinion on every issue should be, just way less grandiose. And for a lot more money. 

It should be pointed out that judges always remind the jury in very specific language that closing arguments are not evidence, nor should they be regarded as such. Just because some paid mouthpiece tells you a thing, you're not supposed to take it as true. The only evidence is what was said on the witness stand and the exhibits. Give those whatever weight you care to; just don't buy into what these hired guns are selling you. Or words to that effect. 

The defense went first, as always. And gave us a lot of mentions of Michael Proctor, the shadowy Dark Lord whose presence has been felt throughout these proceedings like an ancient menace, but always unseen. And we got treated to Alan Jackson reading the titles off the tracks off Proctor's Greatest Hits album. "Balloon Knot," "Leaks Poo," "Zero Chance She Skates," "She's Fucked," and his #1 Hit, "Cunt.":

But the most compelling part of Jackson's closing wasn't the lead investigator's sailor talk to his friends and co-workers. I say again, my buddies and I could never survive our private texts seeing the light of day. I know I'd have to go change my identity and go into exile on an island somewhere. What's most relevant is how Proctor handled the investigation. Not treating the house at 34 Fairview as a crime scene. He never knocked at the door, despite it being 30 feet from where O'Keefe was found:

Advertisement

Despite O'Keefe having black eyes and cuts above his eye consistent with being in a fight. Despite the fact he was dressed like someone who had been indoors, not out in a blizzard. With one shoe missing. He went into the house. Took no photos inside. Didn't look at the Ring camera of the Detective Lieutenant across the street. It's those failures by Proctor and his team that are at the heart of the Free Karen Read side's argument. That's not a lack of curiosity. It's a determined and aggressive incuriosity. Combined with his texts talking acknowledging a Boston cop owned 34 Fairview, plus the seeming rush to judgment, having Read's car towed after just 16 hours and only talking to three witnesses: 

… that is the heart of the matter for the people arguing this was a bag job from the beginning. More on Jackson's closing, in print form:

CBS News - "This case was corrupted from the start," Jackson told the jury. "It was corrupted by a legal investigator whose misconduct infected every single part of this case from the top to the bottom," he said, alluding to fired Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor, who led the initial investigation in the case. Proctor did not testify in this trial. 

"If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can you trust him? With this investigation, with your verdict and with Karen Read's life," Jackson said. "The lead investigator in a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that. That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want to hear from Michael Proctor? Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in the case?"

"Their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias and personal loyalties," Jackson said. "Not a single medical expert called by the defense or called by the Commonwealth has testified that John was hit by a car. Not one. Think about the irony. Not one. It's not just significant. It's literally the most important point in the entire trial."

"Remember, Mr. Brennan's opening statement. He made some promises to you. He said, 'This case is about the data.' He stressed it over and over again. They've had three-and-a-half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had this case for three-and-a-half years to get it right," Jackson told jurors, saying there was plenty of evidence that O'Keefe died in a fight.

In court, in baseball, the home team gets to close it out in the bottom of the 9th. Which meant Brennan got the final say. From the same article:

Hank Brennan addressed the jury, saying twice about Read, "she was drunk, she hit him, then she left him to die." 

"Now the government doesn't have to prove that she was drunk. It's either she's over the legal limit, .08, or she had enough alcohol to affect her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. You will know she was far beyond the legal limit. After the retrograde analysis, almost two to three times the legal limit," Brennan said.

He proceeded to play a clip from one of Read's TV interviews for the jury in which she said, "I shouldn't have been driving."

       

Brennan emphasized that O'Keefe and Read's relationship was not healthy and "nearing its end." Text messages from before the party on January 28, 2022, were read during the trial. O'Keefe texted Read that he was "sick of always arguing and fighting."

"The relationship is almost over. The tensions are simmering beneath the surface. They are not getting along. She believes Mr. O'Keefe is already halfway out of the relationship.  …

"What we are obligated to prove and what we have proven from the evidence in this case of second-degree murder is that she intended an act. And that is putting the car in reverse and heading back towards John O'Keefe. She intended that act," Brennan told jurors.

"When Ms. Read hits John O'Keefe, hits John O'Keefe, collides with John O'Keefe. We don't know if he went in the air a foot. We don't know how much of a clip it was; we don't know if he stumbled back. But we know there's a collision. There's no doubt there's a collision because her taillight is all over the yard."

"There was an eyewitness, there was a guide. And that eyewitness tells us that she knew. And that eyewitness is Karen Read herself. She tells you that she knew," Brennan said before playing another video clip from a Read TV interview.

"Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?," Read said in the video. "I didn't think I hit him, but could I have clipped him?"

It's that first part that seems to have resonated most with the pro-Commonwealth, anti-Karen Read side. The idea that O'Keefe was left to die in the snow while she drunkenly - and knowingly - failed to call for help. Made dozens of angry, shrieking calls to his voicemail instead of a single call to 911:

That argument by the ADA is what the advocates for a Guilty verdict are hanging their hopes on:

Advertisement

Brennan also hammered away at the defense's witness for deleting texts as evidence they've not been on the level and have something to hide:

And made an emotional appeal that we can all get behind. Which is empathy for a grieving family:

… the defendant and her unhinged mob. They made her the villain. The media forgot her. We’ve never seen anything like what’s been done to the O’Keefes—the victim’s family. It’s disgraceful. 

It’s clear Brennan took this case to fight for justice—for John O’Keefe and the family who’s been forgotten—and to bring this case back to what really matters: John 

That last sentiment, that what really matters in this case is justice for the deceased, is the one thing we all can and should agree on. The one piece of common ground in all of this insanity and chaos. 

How that justice is delivered remains to be seen. Only 12 people in the world can make it happen. The what and how are up to them, and them alone. As is the when. Though I have my thoughts:

Advertisement

… to a vote. (Except for the OJ jury.) They sat through 8 weeks of evidence. So I’ll wager it’ll be more than just two days. But it’s the most impossible thing in the world to predict. 

See you Monday, when this all begins again.