🧑‍⚖️ Karen Read Trial: Defense Opening Statement

What the Defense Says Really Happened the Night Officer John O’Keefe Died

🧩 The Big Picture: “There Was No Collision”

In a striking and emotionally charged opening, defense attorney Alan Jackson delivered a bold thesis to the jury:

“John O’Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle. Period.”

Jackson repeated this line like a mantra, arguing that science, data, and expert testimony will all prove that there was no car accident—specifically, that Karen Read’s SUV never struck O’Keefe.

Instead, the defense is painting a picture of a botched, biased, and possibly corrupt investigation, rooted in loyalty to a powerful local family and police ties rather than a pursuit of the truth.

👮‍♂️ Who Is Michael Proctor, and Why Does He Matter?

The defense put the spotlight on Michael Proctor, the now-fired lead investigator with the Massachusetts State Police. According to Jackson, Proctor:

Was a close family friend of the Alberts (the homeowners where O’Keefe’s body was found).
Failed basic investigative procedures, never entering the house or preserving evidence.
Sent a text early in the case stating:

“Is the homeowner going to catch any [__]?”
“Nope. He’s a Boston cop too.”

Proctor is described as the “cancer” at the core of the investigation, whose misconduct—according to the defense—tainted the entire case.

🧬 The Science: No Signs of a Collision

According to the defense’s expert, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a forensic pathologist and professor:

O’Keefe’s head injury was immediately incapacitating, meaning he couldn’t call or move.
His body had no signs of hypothermia, debunking the state’s theory he froze to death.
His abrasions were consistent with a dog attack, not a tail light injury.
He suffered no bruises, no fractures, no internal injuries—nothing consistent with being hit by a car.

“John O’Keefe did not suffer a single injury consistent with a car accident.”

🐾 A Dog, a Rehomed Pet, and a Missing Piece of the Puzzle

One of the defense’s more dramatic revelations:
Brian Albert owned a large dog—described as “not good with strangers.” O’Keefe, having never been to the house before, would have been a stranger.

Soon after the incident, the dog was “rehomed.”
Coincidence? The defense says absolutely not.

🚙 The Mysterious Ford Edge at 3:30 AM

A snowplow driver saw no body at 2:30 a.m. but reported a Ford Edge parked near the spot where O’Keefe’s body was found at 3:30 a.m.

No one saw the body earlier—not partygoers, not drivers, not even the plow driver.
Multiple Albert family members owned Ford Edges.

The defense argues this proves O’Keefe’s body was moved to the lawn, and that someone else was involved.

📱 The 2:27 AM Google Search That Changes Everything

Jennifer McCabe, a family member at the Albert house, searched:

“hos long to die in cold”
(misspelled “how,” but timestamped at 2:27 a.m.)

This was hours before O’Keefe was “discovered.” That search was later deleted, according to phone forensics.

Also:

Brian Higgins (another cop and Karen’s alleged admirer) made a late-night stop at the Canton PD.
Higgins and Brian Albert made a 2:22 a.m. phone call—then denied it.
Both destroyed their phones shortly after the incident.

🧊 The Tail Light Theory: Shattered or Shaky?

The prosecution’s theory hinges on a broken tail light from Karen’s SUV. But the defense says:

The SUV was lightly damaged at 5:07 a.m., when Karen backed into another car while panicking and looking for John.
Video surveillance shows this damage occurred hours after John entered the house.
The SUV had no signs of hitting a pedestrian, and neither did John’s injuries.

❌ “I Hit Him” – Or Did She?

The defense hammered home that Karen never confessed to hitting O’Keefe.

“She said, ‘Could I have hit him?’ Not, ‘I hit him.’”

None of the first responders on scene documented a confession. The first and only person to claim she said it was an EMT—a personal friend of the Albert family.

🕳️ A Case Full of Reasonable Doubt

The defense says this case is riddled with inconsistencies, cover-ups, and questionable police conduct:

The medical examiner wouldn’t call the death a homicide.
Investigators failed to document, preserve, or pursue key evidence.
And perhaps most damning: Nearly all evidence tying Karen Reed to the crime came only after Proctor had unsupervised access to her SUV.

🎤 Final Words: “Not Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Guilty”

Jackson ended with a clear ask to the jury:

“This is the literal definition of reasonable doubt.
Return the only verdict consistent with truth and justice:
Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty.”

📌 Takeaway:

The Defense is not just claiming Karen Reed didn’t do it.
They’re arguing she’s the scapegoat in a cover-up—one that protected cops, ignored evidence, and buried the truth.

Want the Prosecution’s version?
👉 Click here to read their opening statement summary (Link placeholder)