A juror from the Karen Read trial has stepped forward to share insight into the verdict that has sparked widespread debate and speculation. Known only as “Jason,” Juror No. 4 spoke to TMZ Live, revealing why the jury found Read not guilty of murder, manslaughter, and fleeing the scene—but did convict her of drink-driving.
“Everything on that initial slip was the same as the slip that was presented,” Jason said, explaining the jury’s decision. “In our deliberations, we had decided there was enough evidence and proof that she was driving under the influence.”
The trial, which unfolded over more than a month with four days of deliberation, centred on the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe. Read was accused of hitting him with her SUV after a drunken argument and leaving him to die during a blizzard. But jurors ultimately rejected that version of events, convicting her only of operating under the influence, which carries a sentence of one year probation and outpatient treatment.
Jason said he still doesn’t know what truly happened that night. “I don’t know what happened to John,” he said. “I was only presented a limited scope of what happened at the night, and I can only base my opinion off of the evidence that was shown in the courtroom.”
The defence had suggested that O’Keefe may have been killed by someone inside the house he was dropped off at, even proposing he was attacked by a dog. Jason said that argument introduced enough reasonable doubt to sway the jury. “We were tasked with deciding this person’s fate based on the proof in the evidence that the commonwealth was able to present, and there was a lot of holes,” he added.
One of the biggest moments during deliberations came from surveillance footage showing the rear of Read’s vehicle. Jason pointed out what they saw: “We could see from the car, after the alleged incident happened, when we could see the taillight it was lit up red, where it shouldn’t just have been red. I don’t believe that the SUV collided with John O’Keefe.”
As for the swirling theories of police corruption, Jason said the jury couldn’t determine if there had been a cover-up. “I don’t know that there was any corruption going on,” he said. “But do I know that there wasn’t enough proof or evidence secured by the police to convict Karen Read? Absolutely.”
The Massachusetts State Police have come under fire throughout the case, with criticism aimed at their handling of evidence and investigative conduct. Col. Geoffrey Noble, the head of the department, addressed the fallout, saying they were taking steps to improve. “The events of the last three years have challenged our department to thoroughly review our actions and take concrete steps,” he said in a statement, promising better training, stronger oversight, and improved accountability.
One of the most controversial figures in the case, former Trooper Michael Proctor, was fired earlier this year. An internal investigation found he had shared confidential information and made inappropriate jokes in group messages, some mocking Read’s health. His dismissal came just before Read’s second trial, after a mistrial was declared the year before.
Meanwhile, a federal investigation concluded without any charges, and an external audit of the local Canton police recommended improved training but found no evidence of a conspiracy to frame Read.
While the courtroom drama is over for now, the case has left behind unresolved questions and deep public mistrust in the institutions involved.