🚨An Alternative Theory: What Likely Happened to John O’Keefe?

While the prosecution in Karen Read’s first trial leaned heavily on the idea that John O’Keefe was struck and killed by Read’s SUV, several elements of the physical evidence and expert testimony leave room for a more nuanced — and plausible — scenario.

🍸The Cocktail Glass and the Broken Tail Light

One of the pivotal but underappreciated pieces of this case is the broken taillight on Karen Read’s Lexus SUV. The ARCCA team, brought in as defense experts, conducted tests that confirmed a cocktail glass — like the one believed to be involved in an earlier altercation between Read and O’Keefe — could indeed break a taillight without damaging the surrounding area. This supports the theory that the glass may have been thrown at Read’s vehicle, not that the taillight was broken during a collision.

If tensions were running high as Read drove away and O’Keefe threw the glass in frustration or anger, that could have triggered an emotional — but not necessarily malicious — response from Read, setting the stage for the next critical moment.

❤️‍🩹The Sideswipe Possibility

One of the key findings from biomechanical expert Dr. Andrew Rentschler was that O’Keefe’s injuries were inconsistent with being struck by a vehicle moving at any significant speed. However, he also acknowledged that a sideswipe — a glancing blow between a pedestrian and a slow-moving vehicle — would not produce extensive damage to either party.

“If there’s a sideswipe impact with a pedestrian and a vehicle, there’s going to be very little damage to the pedestrian, and similarly, there’s going to be very little movement.” — Dr. Rentschler

This is critical. A sideswipe would not throw a body 30 feet — a claim made by a prosecution witness in the first trial. Trooper Joseph Paul contradicted crime scene photos clearly showing (see images below) O’Keefe’s body just a few feet from the curb. A sideswipe would, however, explain minor abrasions and the possibility that O’Keefe lost his balance and fell. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to provide a solid witness for this testimony regarding the location where John was found. We’ll see how they handle it in Trial 2.

🩸The Arm Injury: Not Inconsistent

Much has been made of the 12-inch abrasion on O’Keefe’s right arm, contrasted with the 6-inch width of the taillight. But this assumes O’Keefe’s arm was straight and motionless — an unlikely position for someone in a stressful, confusing moment. If his arm was bent or if he turned instinctively to protect himself, the surface area of contact could easily exceed the width of the light. A jagged edge from a previously broken taillight could scrape along a bent arm during a sideswipe — especially if the vehicle was moving slowly and if the contact was brief.

Clarifying the Arm Injury Discrepancy

During the first trial, Dr. Wolfe noted that the abrasions on John O’Keefe’s right arm measured approximately 12 inches, while the width of Karen Read’s broken taillight was only about 6 inches. He used this to suggest that the injuries were inconsistent with being caused by the taillight. However, this conclusion overlooks a key biomechanical possibility: the position of O’Keefe’s arm at the moment of contact. Dr. Wolfe repeatedly claimed that the arm was outstretched. His source of information on this is questionable.

If O’Keefe’s arm was bent — which is a natural position when someone is turning, stumbling, or reacting defensively, or perhaps is holding a phone — the contact surface would not be limited to a straight line. A bent arm could have easily dragged or scraped across the jagged edges of the broken taillight, especially if the impact was a glancing blow rather than a full-force collision. This kind of contact could account for the extended abrasion without requiring more extensive vehicle damage or a direct perpendicular strike.

Consider the possibility of a sideswipe-type interaction, where O’Keefe was merely pushed or brushed by the vehicle and fell backward; the injury pattern becomes more understandable. This interpretation is consistent with both the limited damage to the SUV and the nature of O’Keefe’s injuries — particularly if he fell onto a hard surface like a curb or fire hydrant after the contact.

Is it possible that John’s injuries to his arm was caused by the jagged edges of an already broken tail light?

Credit Wolfgang Bodhi X:@wolfgangbodhi

🤢The Fatal Fall

Where the fatal injury likely occurred was not from the car, but from the ground. The combination of a sideswipe and a loss of balance could have caused O’Keefe to fall backward, striking his head on a hard surface — a curb, a fire hydrant, a tree root, or a patch of ice. The medical examiner even acknowledged that such a fall was possible, stating that a “collision” was unlikely, but did not rule out a shove or stumble as the cause of death.

🥃Why did ARCCA do the glass experiment?

First, let’s address the focus of the ARCCA experts. Dr. Rentschler is a Biomedical Engineer. He assessed whether or not there is a mechanism for John O’Keefe’s injuries. Dr. Wolfe is an engineer and the Director of Reconstruction at ARCCA. Dr. Wolfe assessed the damage to the vehicle. They were provided photos and videos of the incident location and Karen’s Lexus, incident reports, crime scene reports, photos of recovered evidence, crash data retrieval report from the Lexus, and autopsy photos and reports.

Dr. Wolfe: “From our review of the evidence, we knew that we had an isolated portion of damage to the Lexus confined to the tail light. So we knew we were dealing with potentially a small object that could have created that. Looking at the evidence in terms of the scene photographs, we know that we have a damaged drinking glass at the scene in the vicinity of the fragments to the tail light. So the theory that Dr. Rentschler and I put forward is potentially an individual threw this drinking glass at the back of the Lexus causing the tail light to fracture.” 

Alan Jackson made it clear that the defense nor the Commonwealth offered ARCCA this theory. The theory was the product of their review of the facts of the case that they were provided. In fact, they were asked not to do any outside research on the case.

Knowing all of this, it seems odd that the defense would allow testimony that indicates John threw the glass at Karen’s Lexus when they are trying to convince a jury that John went inside the Albert home at 34 Fairview. This scenario helps the prosecution more than the defense. 

If the ARCCA team took it upon themselves to test whether a thrown cocktail glass could break the taillight without being prompted by the defense, that suggests they were exploring alternative scenarios to the defense theory — not simply confirming a pre-determined defense narrative. That’s exactly what objective forensic analysis is supposed to do.

Their initiative implies a few important things:

• They did not assume vehicle impact as the default cause of the broken taillight.
  That’s crucial. A lot of Read critics seem to skip this and assume that the taillight damage must have happened during a collision. But the ARCCA team clearly found that explanation insufficient or unlikely on its own.

• They were actively testing plausibility, not just rebutting.
  By performing a glass-throwing test, they demonstrated intellectual curiosity and scientific reasoning — hallmarks of credible expert work. It wasn’t about crafting a defense; it was about answering the question: What could reasonably have caused this damage?

• Their conclusion undermines the “no way he was hit” narrative.
  Ironically, their testing actually reinforces the possibility that O’Keefe may have been lightly contacted or “sideswiped” after the taillight was broken — a scenario in which the vehicle didn’t cause major trauma but did play a role in his fall and ultimate injury.

It’s also worth noting that ARCCA did not provide any visual examples of their experimentations at trial 1, which could have been helpful to the jury.

🚘The Broken Taillight: A Missed Opportunity by the Prosecution

One of the most hotly debated pieces of evidence in the case is the broken right taillight on Karen Read’s Lexus SUV. The prosecution in the first trial argued that the light was broken during the alleged collision — that Karen struck John O’Keefe while backing up at 24 mph, and the impact shattered the lens.

But this version has problems — big ones.

First, as stated above, defense experts from ARCCA testified that hitting a human body at low speed is unlikely to break a taillight, especially if the contact is more of a glancing blow than a direct strike. They also testified that John’s injuries were inconsistent with a vehicle collision at 24 mph. Ironically, this piece of defense testimony actually should have helped the prosecution, had they followed the logic through.

Why? Because the ARCCA team didn’t just critique the collision theory — they conducted their own test on their own initiative to determine what could break the taillight. They discovered that a cocktail glass — like the one reportedly involved in a fight between Read and O’Keefe earlier that night — could shatter the lens without damaging the rest of the vehicle. That test adds serious credibility to the idea that the taillight may have been broken before any contact with John occurred.

This is significant. If the taillight was already broken — possibly by a thrown glass in a heated moment — then its jagged edges could have caused the abrasions seen on John’s right arm during a sideswipe-type contact. No need for high speed. No need for a full-on impact. Just a low-speed brush as he stood near or staggered into the vehicle’s path. This theory also rules out far-fetched ideas like animal attacks (no, he wasn’t mauled by a dog), while still acknowledging the role the SUV may have played in what happened.

Unfortunately, the prosecution in the first trial stuck to a far less plausible theory — that Karen pulled past the house, slammed the car into reverse, floored it at 24 mph in a snowstorm, and struck O’Keefe with enough force to throw him across the yard. Not only did that theory fail to match the injuries or the evidence — it wasn’t even realistic given the road conditions. The defense rightly pointed out that such a collision would have caused far more significant damage to both the vehicle and the victim.

Now, in the second trial, Special Prosecutor Adam Brennan has taken a slightly different tack. In his opening statement, he argued that Read did press the gas pedal hard while in reverse — up to 75% throttle — but that her tires spun in the snow, limiting the actual speed of the vehicle. This version might better explain why John was pushed — not launched — and could help the state make a case for some level of vehicular contact without the absurd speed or trajectory issues of the first trial.

Whether or not the prosecution can stitch together these elements more convincingly this time around remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the broken taillight, and the ARCCA testimony about it, deserved far more attention — and a far more accurate narrative — in the courtroom.

Related Articles