Juror in Karen Read Trial Speaks Out on Verdict
In a recent high-profile case, a juror from the Karen Read trial has shared her thoughts on the events leading up to the verdict of not guilty for Read, who faced charges of murder and manslaughter in connection with the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Paula Prado, one of the twelve jurors, discussed the panel’s decision on Thursday, emphasizing her belief that there was an incident that took place inside the house after O’Keefe was dropped off by Read, his financial analyst girlfriend. Hours later, he was found dead. Prado stated, “Something happened inside the house,” as she reflected on the evidence presented during the trial.
The juror recalled details that contributed to her final assessment. “He either got out of her way or something, and maybe he lost his shoes in the process,” she noted, referencing the fact that O’Keefe was found wearing only one shoe when discovered on January 29, 2022.
While the prosecution aimed to establish that Read struck O’Keefe with her vehicle, the defense argued that she was the victim of a police cover-up, suggesting that O’Keefe had sustained injuries elsewhere—potentially from a party where he had been physically attacked, or even bitten by a dog. Prado mentioned that initially, she thought Read could be guilty of manslaughter. However, as the trial progressed, her perspective shifted due to the many unanswered questions.
“There were too many holes that we couldn’t fill, and there is nothing that put her on the scene, in our opinion, besides just dropping John O’Keefe off,” she explained. Prado highlighted her conviction that the injuries on O’Keefe’s arm were unlikely to have been caused by Read’s SUV, stating, “It didn’t make much sense.”
Prado expressed her certainty about the not-guilty verdict, saying, “We couldn’t prove there was a collision, and she was responsible for John’s death,” and added that she is “100% convinced” of this finding.
Adding to her concerns was the absence of testimony from key individuals involved in the case. She pointed out that Brian Higgins, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who had exchanged flirty messages with Read weeks before O’Keefe’s death, did not take the stand. Similarly, Brian Albert, the homeowner where O’Keefe was found, also did not testify. Prado questioned this absence, suggesting, “I think it was weird not to hear from them.”
This trial has drawn significant public interest and debate, illuminating issues around the investigation and the judicial process. Many observers have speculated about the implications of the verdict in relation to how justice is served in cases involving law enforcement.
In the end, the jury determined that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove its case. This is a noteworthy example of how the legal system is meant to function: it is built on the fundamental principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. The jurors took their responsibility seriously, weighing the evidence and reaching a conclusion based on the lack of direct involvement of Read in her boyfriend’s death.
Prado’s reflection on the trial serves as a reminder of the complexities at play in legal cases and the importance of a thorough examination of all evidence. As the community continues to process the verdict, discussions regarding accountability, justice, and transparency are likely to continue as well.
