The Genius of Hank Brennan’s Closing Argument | Karen Read Trial

by | Jun 14, 2025 | Articles, Massachusetts vs. Karen Read, Trial Watch

Hank Brennan pointing at Defendant Karen Read
Shares
Hank Brennan During Closing Arguments Speaks to Jury

No, Trials Don’t Have to Solve Every Mystery

“We don’t know exactly how this happened, but we have a good idea.”

That line from Hank Brennan’s closing in the Karen Read trial raised some Twitter eyebrows — and not in a good way.

Several responded sarcastically:

“Yes, f**ing brilliant lawyering. 🥴”*

“Yes amazing. Duh we don’t know…..”

“Laughable”

“Stop it! Hank explained. We don’t know if his arm was that way but it’s possible.” 

But here’s the thing: it actually is brilliant lawyering.

Despite what true crime podcasts and online sleuth forums might lead you to believe, the legal system doesn’t require the prosecution (or the defense) to untangle every thread in a case.

There’s no bonus round where you get points for solving every mystery. What matters is whether the jury believes the evidence supports one reasonable conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

We Don’t Know Exactly…

Karen Read was with John O’Keefe. She got drunk — two to three times over the legal limit — and they went to an afterparty. They were fighting. It was a relationship in decline. He got out of the car, and he had a brief window of life left. When he got out and she drove away, she couldn’t let it go. She got drunk. She hit him. She left him to die. It’s that simple.

We don’t know exactly how the collision happened, but we have a good idea from the physical evidence — and we know that it happened.

We don’t know the exact body position. We don’t know the exact speed. But what it tells us is: this is viable. Look at the debris field. Look at the sneaker. Look at where his body was found. He fell back. He hit his head. She left him there.
There is no doubt what happened that night.

There is no doubt who did it.

Karen Read drove back toward John O’Keefe with a 6,000-pound Lexus in anger. Whether she meant to hit him or not, it was a plain and strong likelihood of death. That’s second-degree murder.

Or maybe it was manslaughter. She was drunk. She was reckless. She doesn’t even have to know she hit him. But she did.

And she left a man — kind, generous, thoughtful — alone to die.

John O’Keefe is not an ‘it.’ He is not a body. He is not a buffalo on a prairie.

John O’Keefe was a person. And he was murdered by Karen Read.

                                                  ~Hank Brennan

4
5

Trials Aren’t Detective Stories

The courtroom isn’t a place to satisfy your curiosity — it’s a place to determine guilt or innocence under the law. That means prosecutors (or defense attorneys) can absolutely succeed without knowing every detail of the “how,” as long as the who, what, and why are sufficiently clear.

Want to know exactly how John O’Keefe’s body came to rest in that snowbank? Sure — so does everyone. But the prosecution doesn’t need to reconstruct every minute of that night with a 3D simulation and 47 witnesses to get a conviction. They only need to prove that Karen Read hit him with her car and left him to die. And Brennan’s job was to show that this was the most plausible, reasonable explanation given the physical evidence, phone data, injuries, and behavior.

He did that — and he did it without pretending to solve every puzzle piece like he was auditioning for Criminal Minds.

The Law Demands a Verdict, Not a Grand Unifying Theory

Closing arguments aren’t science fair presentations. They’re arguments — persuasive, structured narratives meant to help jurors reach a conclusion based on the evidence presented. Brennan’s line was a smart acknowledgment of something seasoned jurors already know: real life is messy. Trials rarely tie up every loose end. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not omniscience.

In fact, pointing out that the defense theory requires a long chain of speculative leaps, cover-ups, and alternate explanations makes Brennan’s case stronger. He’s saying, “We don’t know every detail, but our explanation fits the facts. Theirs doesn’t.” That’s not a weakness — it’s courtroom judo.

Brennan’s Boldest Move: Using the Defense’s Own Expert Against Them

One of the most impactful — and frankly, most brilliant — moments of Brennan’s closing came when he turned to slide 19, which showed a crash test video provided not by the prosecution, but by the defense’s own expert, Dr. Daniel Wolfe.

Wolfe had run a 24 mph crash test to demonstrate the kinds of damage a Lexus would cause if it struck a human-shaped dummy. Brennan didn’t reject the video — he embraced it. He used it.

“We don’t know if this is the body position. We don’t know if this is the exact speed. But what it tells us is: viable.”

Then he walked the jury through the key details:

  • The debris field
  • The broken taillight
  • The curve where O’Keefe’s sneaker was found
  • The position of the body
  • And finally — the head injury.
  • All using the defense’s own visual aid.
24 mph crash test showing flying debris

 

This wasn’t just effective — it was devastating. Brennan didn’t need to run his own crash test. He didn’t need to bring in animation. He simply said: “Look at what their own expert gave you. Now look at the evidence. It matches.”

That’s trial judo. That’s knowing how to work a jury. And that’s what good prosecutors do when they don’t need to prove every detail — they just need to make the truth undeniably reasonable.

If You Want Certainty, Try Netflix

People want certainty. But jurors are asked to make a decision with what they’ve got — not with what they wish they had. That’s the burden of criminal law. Brennan didn’t shy away from that. He told them the truth: “We don’t know exactly how it happened — but we know enough.”

And sometimes, in the courtroom, knowing enough is everything.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Related Articles

Related

Pin It on Pinterest