DEDHAM, MASS. -- The defence rested its case Monday in the murder trial of a woman accused of striking her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank.
The defendant, Karen Read, did not take the stand, and after the final three witnesses testified, the judge told jurors they鈥檇 heard all of the evidence. Closing arguments will be held Tuesday, with one hour for each side, before jurors begin their deliberations, the judge said.
The case has been surrounded by a media storm, underpinned by a distrust of police and fanned by crime bloggers.
Read pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the death of Officer John O鈥橩eefe. Prosecutors contend she struck O鈥橩eefe with her SUV and then left the scene in January 2022. He was found unresponsive hours later outside the Canton home of another Boston police officer who was hosting a party. An autopsy found he died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
One of the final witnesses was a retired forensic pathologist who testified Monday that some of O鈥橩eefe's injuries were inconsistent with being struck by the Lexus SUV.
Dr. Frank Sheridan, who worked previously as chief medical examiner for San Bernardino County in California, testified he would鈥檝e expected more bruising if O鈥橩eefe had been hit by such a heavy vehicle. He also suggested that scratch marks on his arm could've come from an animal, possibly a dog, and that other injuries were consistent with an altercation.
Two witnesses from an independent consulting firm that conducts forensic engineering also suggested some of the evidence doesn鈥檛 line up with the prosecution version. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 deny the science and the physics,鈥� Andrew Rentschler from ARCCA, testified at one point. ARCCA was hired by the FBI as part of a federal investigation into state law enforcement鈥檚 handling of the Read case.
Read鈥檚 lawyers, who argue that Read was framed, contend O鈥橩eefe was dragged outside after he was beaten up in Brian Albert鈥檚 home in Canton and bitten by Albert鈥檚 dog. They used Sheridan鈥檚 testimony to reinforce their theory about the dog, despite a lack of canine DNA evidence, and to suggest that the injuries don鈥檛 line up with being struck by Read鈥檚 SUV.
The defence argued that investigators focused on Read because she was a 鈥渃onvenient outsider鈥� who saved them from having to consider other suspects, including Albert and other law enforcement officers who were at the party.
Prosecutors spent most of the two-month trial methodically presenting evidence from the scene. The defence called only a handful of witnesses over two days, but used its time in cross-examining prosecution witnesses to raise questions about the investigation, including conflicts of interest and sloppy police work. The defence was echoed by complaints from a chorus of supporters that often camp outside the courthouse.
Rita Lombardi, a Canton resident who said she鈥檚 part of the 鈥渟idewalk jury鈥� and has never missed a day of the trial, said the experience at Norfolk County court has demonstrated 鈥渇ailures in the system鈥� that she believes needs to be addressed.
鈥淲e know Karen Read was framed. And framed by the people that we trust, that have sworn an oath to protect to serve,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat is a problem in America.鈥�
