Topline: A forensic pathologist testified that O’Keefe’s arm injuries were likely caused by an animal, not a car crash, directly challenging the prosecution’s theory.
Published: June 11, 2025 8:00 am ET
Must Read
DEDHAM, MA — The second trial of Karen Read, accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe, is nearing its end after dramatic developments and a growing clash between forensic experts.
On Tuesday, Read confirmed she will not take the stand in her own defense, leaving jurors with hours of recorded interviews and testimony from a high-profile lineup of expert witnesses.
“I am not testifying,” Read told reporters outside Norfolk Superior Court, according to WCVB. “The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury has] heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice. They’ve heard a lot of me”.
Read, 45, a former adjunct professor at Bentley University, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Prosecutors allege that after a night of drinking on January 29, 2022, Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm outside a Canton house party, then drove off, leaving him to die in the snow. Her first trial ended in a hung jury.
But the defense continues to push a starkly different narrative — that Read is the target of a police cover-up, framed to protect those actually responsible for O’Keefe’s death inside the house at 34 Fairview Road. They claim he was beaten, bitten by an animal, and then left outside in the cold.
Tuesday’s proceedings featured the continued testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a forensic pathologist and former Rhode Island chief medical examiner, who directly contradicted the prosecution’s theory of how O’Keefe died, USA Today reported.
According to Laposata, O’Keefe likely fell backward and struck his head on a ridged object, rendering him unconscious. She testified that his arm injuries were consistent with animal bites, noting signs such as “paired gouges” and “arced patterns of little dots” that she said are characteristic of canine teeth, WCVB reported.
Laposata also disputed the official cause of death, saying she saw “no signs of hypothermia,” and found no bone fractures in O’Keefe’s X-rays, which she said are typically seen in car crash victims. “The bones were intact, no breakage, no fractures,” she told the jury.
Her testimony was followed by Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer with ARCCA and the defense’s final witness. Rentschler echoed Laposata’s conclusions, asserting that scratches on O’Keefe’s arm could not have been caused by plastic debris from Read’s shattered taillight, according to WBTS.
Meanwhile, tensions in court remained high. On Monday, the defense requested a mistrial after Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan implied that holes in O’Keefe’s sweatshirt were due to road rash. It was later revealed those holes were cut by a criminalist during evidence analysis — a fact documented in case paperwork. Judge Beverly Cannone denied the mistrial but issued corrective jury instructions, WBTS reported.
As the trial winds down, with rebuttal witnesses and closing arguments expected later this week, legal analysts say the case now hinges on which version of events the jury finds more credible.
“This is a true battle of the experts,” said legal analyst Misty Marris, speaking to USA Today. The jury must weigh sharply conflicting forensic interpretations against a backdrop of personal tragedy and allegations of institutional misconduct.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor Picks
Latest Articles
Karen Read Declines to Testify After Forensic Experts Challenge Key Evidence
A forensic pathologist testified that O’Keefe’s arm injuries were likely caused by an animal, not a car crash, directly challenging the prosecution’s theory.
By Jacob Charles
Published: June 11, 2025 8:00 am ET
DEDHAM, MA — The second trial of Karen Read, accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe, is nearing its end after dramatic developments and a growing clash between forensic experts.
On Tuesday, Read confirmed she will not take the stand in her own defense, leaving jurors with hours of recorded interviews and testimony from a high-profile lineup of expert witnesses.
“I am not testifying,” Read told reporters outside Norfolk Superior Court, according to WCVB. “The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury has] heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice. They’ve heard a lot of me”.
Read, 45, a former adjunct professor at Bentley University, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Prosecutors allege that after a night of drinking on January 29, 2022, Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm outside a Canton house party, then drove off, leaving him to die in the snow. Her first trial ended in a hung jury.
But the defense continues to push a starkly different narrative — that Read is the target of a police cover-up, framed to protect those actually responsible for O’Keefe’s death inside the house at 34 Fairview Road. They claim he was beaten, bitten by an animal, and then left outside in the cold.
Tuesday’s proceedings featured the continued testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a forensic pathologist and former Rhode Island chief medical examiner, who directly contradicted the prosecution’s theory of how O’Keefe died, USA Today reported.
According to Laposata, O’Keefe likely fell backward and struck his head on a ridged object, rendering him unconscious. She testified that his arm injuries were consistent with animal bites, noting signs such as “paired gouges” and “arced patterns of little dots” that she said are characteristic of canine teeth, WCVB reported.
Laposata also disputed the official cause of death, saying she saw “no signs of hypothermia,” and found no bone fractures in O’Keefe’s X-rays, which she said are typically seen in car crash victims. “The bones were intact, no breakage, no fractures,” she told the jury.
Her testimony was followed by Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer with ARCCA and the defense’s final witness. Rentschler echoed Laposata’s conclusions, asserting that scratches on O’Keefe’s arm could not have been caused by plastic debris from Read’s shattered taillight, according to WBTS.
Meanwhile, tensions in court remained high. On Monday, the defense requested a mistrial after Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan implied that holes in O’Keefe’s sweatshirt were due to road rash. It was later revealed those holes were cut by a criminalist during evidence analysis — a fact documented in case paperwork. Judge Beverly Cannone denied the mistrial but issued corrective jury instructions, WBTS reported.
As the trial winds down, with rebuttal witnesses and closing arguments expected later this week, legal analysts say the case now hinges on which version of events the jury finds more credible.
“This is a true battle of the experts,” said legal analyst Misty Marris, speaking to USA Today. The jury must weigh sharply conflicting forensic interpretations against a backdrop of personal tragedy and allegations of institutional misconduct.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor's Note: ThePo makes every effort to accurately transcribe the contents of affidavits of probable cause contained in criminal complaints. Often, the complaints themselves are copies of copies of faxed copies, and are difficult to read. To confirm the accuracy of our transcription, contact the Magisterial District Court listed above and request a copy of the criminal complaint. It's a public record to which you are entitled.
Must Read
Editor Picks
Latest Articles
Karen Read Declines to Testify After Forensic Experts Challenge Key Evidence
A forensic pathologist testified that O’Keefe’s arm injuries were likely caused by an animal, not a car crash, directly challenging the prosecution’s theory.
By Jacob Charles
Published: June 11, 2025 8:00 am ET
DEDHAM, MA — The second trial of Karen Read, accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe, is nearing its end after dramatic developments and a growing clash between forensic experts.
On Tuesday, Read confirmed she will not take the stand in her own defense, leaving jurors with hours of recorded interviews and testimony from a high-profile lineup of expert witnesses.
“I am not testifying,” Read told reporters outside Norfolk Superior Court, according to WCVB. “The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury has] heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice. They’ve heard a lot of me”.
Read, 45, a former adjunct professor at Bentley University, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Prosecutors allege that after a night of drinking on January 29, 2022, Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm outside a Canton house party, then drove off, leaving him to die in the snow. Her first trial ended in a hung jury.
But the defense continues to push a starkly different narrative — that Read is the target of a police cover-up, framed to protect those actually responsible for O’Keefe’s death inside the house at 34 Fairview Road. They claim he was beaten, bitten by an animal, and then left outside in the cold.
Tuesday’s proceedings featured the continued testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a forensic pathologist and former Rhode Island chief medical examiner, who directly contradicted the prosecution’s theory of how O’Keefe died, USA Today reported.
According to Laposata, O’Keefe likely fell backward and struck his head on a ridged object, rendering him unconscious. She testified that his arm injuries were consistent with animal bites, noting signs such as “paired gouges” and “arced patterns of little dots” that she said are characteristic of canine teeth, WCVB reported.
Laposata also disputed the official cause of death, saying she saw “no signs of hypothermia,” and found no bone fractures in O’Keefe’s X-rays, which she said are typically seen in car crash victims. “The bones were intact, no breakage, no fractures,” she told the jury.
Her testimony was followed by Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer with ARCCA and the defense’s final witness. Rentschler echoed Laposata’s conclusions, asserting that scratches on O’Keefe’s arm could not have been caused by plastic debris from Read’s shattered taillight, according to WBTS.
Meanwhile, tensions in court remained high. On Monday, the defense requested a mistrial after Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan implied that holes in O’Keefe’s sweatshirt were due to road rash. It was later revealed those holes were cut by a criminalist during evidence analysis — a fact documented in case paperwork. Judge Beverly Cannone denied the mistrial but issued corrective jury instructions, WBTS reported.
As the trial winds down, with rebuttal witnesses and closing arguments expected later this week, legal analysts say the case now hinges on which version of events the jury finds more credible.
“This is a true battle of the experts,” said legal analyst Misty Marris, speaking to USA Today. The jury must weigh sharply conflicting forensic interpretations against a backdrop of personal tragedy and allegations of institutional misconduct.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor's Note: ThePo makes every effort to accurately transcribe the contents of affidavits of probable cause contained in criminal complaints. Often, the complaints themselves are copies of copies of faxed copies, and are difficult to read. To confirm the accuracy of our transcription, contact the Magisterial District Court listed above and request a copy of the criminal complaint. It's a public record to which you are entitled.
Must Read
