As deliberations continue, demonstrators supporting the prosecutor’s office take a stand

Karen Read’s opponents gathered outside the Karen Read murder trial on Friday. (Photo by Stuart Cahill/Boston Herald)

During the fourth day of jury deliberations in the murder trial of Karen Read, something unusual happened outside the courthouse—critics of the defendant showed up and made a racket.

“Karen Read cannot be released,” read one banner held by anti-Read protesters Friday. “This is about Officer John O’Keefe, not you!” read another.

They can be recognized at a glance because neither of them is wearing pink – the color chosen as a symbol of support for Read because all picketing and speech related to the case is prohibited within 200 feet of the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, where the trial took place. from April 29.

In the early days of widespread, if not yet fanatical, interest in the case of the Mansfield woman accused of murdering her boyfriend, a Boston policeman, it was just as likely to see people in court supporting the prosecution. They had their own insignia: a yellow pin with the words “Justice for JJ”, with “JJ” being the favorite nickname of victim John O’Keefe.

But as the trial has gained national visibility, such voices have long since been washed away by the thundering pink tide.

A jury of six men and six women had been considering since Tuesday the guilt or innocence of Read, 44, on the following counts: second-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of a fatal accident and manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The latter charge carries two subordinate charges that the jury may also consider if it finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the principal charge: manslaughter and murder resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

Prosecutors say Read, drunk and angry and in a failing relationship, hit O’Keefe with his SUV outside 34 Fairview Road in Canton in the early morning hours of Jan. 29, 2022, leaving him to die from the cold during a heavy snowstorm. She and two other women found his body there around 6 a.m.

The jury indicated that they were deadlocked around noon on Friday. Judge Beverly Cannone, who must take precise steps with the jury in such situations, told them to go back and keep trying to reach a verdict. The jury will continue deliberating on Monday.

Clashing views

For both camps — the rabid Read supporters who hid outside the buffer zone for much of the trial and the staunch critics who dared to wade through enemy territory on Friday to speak their own truth — the case is not complicated but simple, with the other side needlessly convoluted.

Read’s supporters say she is a financial analyst and professor at Bentley University who was involved in a conspiracy to frame her and that someone else committed the murder.

Their boards often feature evidence they believe points to such a conspiracy, such as “who wants to die from the cold,” a phrase typed into a Google search by prosecution witness Jennifer McCabe at an unclear time.

The defense expert says the search was undisputedly conducted hours before O’Keefe’s body was discovered, indicating a conspiracy, while the prosecution’s experts say it was just as undisputedly conducted at 6:34 a.m., which is when McCabe herself claims she conducted the search at 6 a.m. Read the plea after his body was found.

Those who believe she is guilty say the whole case was made up to hide a simple truth: that Read hit O’Keefe with her car and refuses to take responsibility for it.

One critic’s opinion

Rhode Island talk radio host John DePetro told the Herald Friday that he was “100 percent” certain Read was guilty.

“I couldn’t believe the idea of ​​a conspiracy,” DePetro told the Herald. “There’s a lot of hype around it, and I wasn’t interested in the pink…” he said as two Read supporters walked by. “You know, that kind of stuff.”

He said he thinks the COVID pandemic may have fueled a sense of tribalism surrounding the case, with people forced to stay home turning to social media and YouTube for digital community, creating what he called an “echo chamber.”

Instead, he said, there was compelling evidence that Read was guilty of something — though not necessarily murder — and the defense’s version of events had holes in it.

What matters most to him is what Read said at the police station when she was arrested after being charged in June 2022.

“Okay, you know he was beaten up by Brian and Colin Albert? We’re all in on the same joke, right?” Read told officers at the time. But to DePetro, her omission of ATF agent Brian Higgins from that statement is a red flag against the defense’s theory.

The defense identified Higgins, Brian Albert and Colin Albert as possible alternative killers. During the trial, they suggested a stoked affair as a motive for Higgins to kill O’Keefe – the most specific motive established for any of the three.

DePetro also said, “The defense never made it to (O’Keefe’s) house,” which is central to their basement beating theory.

He is also suspicious of Read’s actions that morning. If she was so worried about her boyfriend and whether something bad had happened to him, why didn’t she call anyone else on her vast number of phones but 911?

DePetro said the courtroom dynamics also played a part in the drama, especially with defense attorney Alan Jackson — comparing him to the dominating presence of Johnnie Cochran at the O.J. Simpson trial in the 1990s.

“(Prosecutor) Adam Lally has never worked with someone like this,” he said, stating that Lally was like a “reliable car.” …There’s nothing flashy about it. He’s just looking at the evidence.