Give Karen Read supporters this much —questions raised early on were worth asking.
Like, why would Jen McCabe be awake at 2 in the morning searching the internet for information about how long it takes for someone to die in the cold? (Turns out she searched at 6:24 am, after O’Keefe’s body was found, because Read asked her to).
How can a guy suffer a fatal head injury but no broken bones or injuries to his lower body after being hit by a car? (Not uncommon for sideswipe pedestrian collisions).
How can a human arm crack a taillight and suffer scratches? (Still a bit unsettled except we know the scratches were not from a dog because there was no dog DNA and the medical examiner said the injuries were topical abrasions with no depth).
Most importantly, why would the feds open an investigation of a pending state murder investigation? (Utterly perplexing even today though it did end with no finding of misconduct by anyone).
The first trial didn’t exactly answer all these questions, but it, along with the prosecution’s case thus far in the second trial, did provide a solid pile of forensic proof that Karen Read dropped John O’Keefe off in front of 34 Fairview Ave; he was found dead feet from where she dropped him off; taillight pieces from Read’s car were found on John’s clothing and strewn around the crime scene; and John’s DNA was found on Read’s car, near the taillight.
If that were the only evidence, it would be a lot. But there’s more, including computer data from Read’s car showing that right after she dropped O’Keefe off, she gunned her car backwards at 24 miles per hour, with the gas pedal at 75% force, before leaving the scene and driving back to O’Keefe’s house.
If this isn’t enough to for you, that’s fine. And if these facts don’t answer all the questions about whether evidence was planted, and whether cops behaved badly and acted overzealously because one of their own was killed, that’s fine, too. And if you think Read was overcharged, I can see the argument. It’s fair to assume that extra efforts would be used to prosecute an accused cop-killer.
What’s not fair is pointing the finger at innocent people in the name of due process. Nothing in the Constitution says that a criminal’s fair trial rights include the right to defame an innocent person by falsely claiming that they committed murder. That said, this isn’t the first time innocent people have been falsely accused because the law in this state is ridiculously generous to criminals – to a point where judges in other states roll their eyes when lawyers cite Massachusetts law as a guiding principle.
For example, defendants in this state are allowed to hire experts to lie and the defense can then whip the public into a frenzy by promoting the lies. It’s not that there’s a rule that says “the defense can lie” it’s that there are no meaningful sanctions when they do.
If the prosecution or one of their experts lies, a judge can suppress evidence and even dismiss charges as punishment (remember Annie Dookhan?). This threat of sanctions works very well as a deterrent, but it doesn’t apply to the defense.
No matter how unfair or even unethical the conduct of a defense attorney, a judge cannot suppress evidence or punish the defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court made this clear years ago in a case where a trial judge excluded evidence favorable to the defendant because the lawyers violated the rules of discovery.
The state’s highest court reversed that decision on the grounds that the rights of the accused are more important than the deterrence of defense misconduct. The judge in the Read case, Beverly Cannone, was obviously aware of this when she recently ruled that evidence helpful to Read would not be suppressed even though the defense violated the rules.
So Read will be able to use every piece of relevant evidence that could possibly help her case – but she has a big problem named Hank Brennan. He is a highly skilled defense attorney – serving as a prosecutor just for this case – and he knows all the tricks. Even worse for Read, she has made too many damning public statements that are devastating to her case and Brennan used all of them brilliantly.
The defense does have some helpful evidence, like disgusting texts sent by the state trooper in charge of her case to a group of his buddies. Read also has in her favor the fact that Brian Higgins, an ATF agent friend of O’Keefe’s, threw his phone away in a very suspicious manner after Read kissed him and they engaged in sexual banter with by phone.
But these sideshows do nothing to diminish the physical and forensic evidence.
The jury can’t help but see this case as a straightforward drunk driving hit-and-run homicide. So the real issue is whether jurors see a murderer in Karen Read.
Most people are uncomfortable thinking that an educated white woman from suburban Massachusetts could be a killer. But if the jurors in this case can get over that discomfort, Karen Read could soon be doing a mandatory 20 years for second degree murder. Even the lesser charge is mandatory five.
Either way Read will have a long time behind bars to contemplate whether the circus was worth it.
