Two Jurors Reveal Why They Cleared Karen Read of Murdering Her Police Officer Boyfriend

In a rare post-verdict disclosure, two jurors from Karen Read’s retrial say holes in the case and conflicting evidence led them to acquit her of murdering her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. While Read was found guilty only of DUI and sentenced to one year of probation, doubts over the alleged hit-and-run sealed her fate.

Juror Paula Prado, a former lawyer from Brazil, explained she initially thought manslaughter might fit. But as the trial progressed, she realized the prosecution lacked proof Read’s SUV hit O’Keefe—it rested only on his being dropped off near the scene.

Prado also raised questions about why key party guests and witnesses—such as homeowner Brian Albert and agent Brian Higgins—weren’t called to testify. She believes O’Keefe may have died inside the house following another altercation.

A second juror, “Jason,” shared with TMZ that investigators couldn’t show clear taillight damage or vehicle-injury consistency, and that they concluded “there were too many holes in the investigation”.

An unnamed third juror (Juror No. 12) told ABC News she was convinced no collision took place. She pointed to a “sloppy police investigation” and mentioned injuries more consistent with a dog bite than a vehicle strike. She also noted she didn’t need to prove an alternate theory—only that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

Key Takeaways

• No collision evidence: Jurors found the taillight intact and injuries inconsistent with being struck by an SUV.

• Missing testimonies: The absence of key witnesses raised doubts about whether the incident occurred exactly as described.

• Investigation quality questioned: Jurors criticized police handling and forensic interpretation as “sloppy,” undermining the prosecution’s case.

• Alternate scenarios remain: Jurors suggest O’Keefe’s death may have happened inside the house, not from a vehicular collision.

Bottom Line

Jurors in Karen Read’s trial have spoken out, describing a case riddled with inconsistencies—from lack of collision evidence to questionable investigative practices. Their statements highlight why reasonable doubt prevailed in the high-profile murder retrial.