Karen Read trial, the Massachusetts woman accused of murdering her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe, will not testify in her second trial, which could head to jury deliberations by Friday.

As in her first Karen Read trial — which ended in a mistrial — Read has opted not to testify. Speaking outside the courtroom on Tuesday, she said, “They’ve heard my voice. They’ve heard a lot of me,” referring to recorded interviews already played for jurors.

Defense attorneys confirmed they’ve called their final witness, and closing arguments could begin this week.

Karen Read trial

Karen Read trial, 45, faces charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Prosecutors allege she struck O’Keefe with her SUV in a drunken rage and left him to die in the snow on Jan. 29, 2022, outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts.

Her defense, however, argues that Read is being framed in a police-led cover-up. They claim O’Keefe was assaulted during a house party, bitten by a dog, and dumped outside during a blizzard.

Crash experts challenge collision theory

Dr. Daniel Wolfe, a crash reconstruction expert from ARCCA who previously testified for the prosecution, said in court on Monday that damage to Read’s Lexus and O’Keefe’s clothing were “inconsistent with a vehicle strike.”

He described crash tests using dummy arms and full-body dummies dressed like O’Keefe, and said the evidence doesn’t support the prosecution’s claim of a car collision.

His colleague, biomechanist Dr. Andrew Rentschler, briefly testified on Tuesday and is expected to expand on his analysis of O’Keefe’s injuries Wednesday.

Pathologist rejects hypothermia finding

Forensic pathologist Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, testifying for the defense, disputed the official autopsy which listed hypothermia as a contributing factor in O’Keefe’s death. She told the jury: “The body did not have any hypothermia.”

Instead, she attributed the cause of death solely to blunt force trauma, claiming internal brain swelling and pressure on the brain stem were fatal. She further stated: “Some injuries are very much consistent with an animal bite.”

Though the judge barred her from directly testifying about dog bite wounds, she said the injuries could be consistent with claws or teeth, suggesting an attack prior to death.

Contradicting the prosecution’s medical expert

Laposata’s testimony directly challenges earlier statements by Dr. Aizik Wolf, a brain surgeon who told jurors that O’Keefe’s skull fracture showed “classic” signs of a backward fall. Wolf attributed the fatal injury to O’Keefe falling and hitting the back of his head on solid ground.

But Laposata disagreed, saying the wound patterns don’t match that scenario. She noted that the grass where O’Keefe was found didn’t appear to be disturbed in a way consistent with a fall, saying:

“You would tend to see grass in the wound, or an irregular crisscross pattern of the flattened grass. And that’s not what we have here.”

Case could go to jury this week

Karen Read trial Judge Beverly Cannone, who presided over the first trial as well, said the jury could begin deliberations as soon as Friday. With the defense expected to rest after Rentschler’s continued testimony on Wednesday, closing statements from both sides are likely imminent.

Background and fallout

The high-profile case has gripped Massachusetts and drawn national attention due to its blend of alleged police corruption, forensic controversy, and conflicting expert testimony.

Read maintains Karen Read trial is innocent, repeatedly stating her belief that she has been targeted unfairly. As deliberations approach, the jury will weigh not only whether she caused O’Keefe’s death, but also whether the broader narrative offered by her defense raises reasonable doubt.