The high-stakes retrial of Karen Read—accused in the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe—entered a tense third day of testimony from a central figure in the case: Jennifer McCabe. As prosecutors paint a picture of a tragic night spiraling into fatal consequences, the defense counters with allegations of inconsistency, collusion, and a deeply flawed investigation.
Read, who has steadfastly maintained her innocence, stands accused of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while under the influence, and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. According to prosecutors, Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV outside a fellow officer’s home following a night of drinking, then drove away, leaving him to succumb to hypothermia and head trauma amid a January blizzard. The case, initially tried last year, ended in a hung jury and has now returned to court with renewed intensity.
A Key Witness Under the Microscope
Jennifer McCabe, a longtime friend of O’Keefe’s and a central witness, took the stand for the third day on Friday at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. Her testimony has been a focal point for both the prosecution and defense, with her credibility and recollection of events under relentless scrutiny.
McCabe testified that she was present at the bar gathering on the night before O’Keefe’s death, along with Read, O’Keefe, and others. Afterward, they went to another get-together at the home of McCabe’s sister and brother-in-law, the latter of whom is also a Boston police officer.
The following morning, McCabe and another mutual friend, Kerry Roberts, joined Read in driving through the storm to search for O’Keefe when it became apparent he hadn’t returned home. The group eventually found his unresponsive body in the snow outside McCabe’s sister’s house.
According to McCabe, she heard Read mutter a chilling confession at the scene: “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”
Defense Dismantles the Timeline
Defense attorney Alan Jackson launched an aggressive cross-examination, raising doubts about McCabe’s memory and motivations. He pointed out several discrepancies between her courtroom testimony, prior statements to police, and her grand jury testimony.
One focal point was a phone call McCabe made to her sister after hearing from O’Keefe’s niece that he was missing—a call she never disclosed during the grand jury proceedings. McCabe claimed the omission was unintentional, and that the call was forgettable since her sister didn’t answer.
“There’s nothing nefarious,” she said, when Jackson questioned the nature of the call.
The defense also seized on a Google search made on McCabe’s phone: “How long to die in the cold?” Jackson alleged that the search occurred around 2:27 a.m.—hours before O’Keefe’s body was found—implying foreknowledge of his condition. McCabe insisted the search was conducted later, around 6 a.m., and at Read’s request.
“I was shocked, confused, nervous, scared, anxious—my friend was lying there on the ground. I didn’t know what happened,” McCabe told the court during re-direct examination by special prosecutor Hank Brennan.
Hints of Collusion?
Another critical point of contention: the existence of a group chat between McCabe and family members in the aftermath of O’Keefe’s death. Jackson suggested it was used to coordinate stories—a claim McCabe flatly denied.
“You weren’t worried about them at all because you knew what really happened, didn’t you?” Jackson pressed, referring to her sister and brother-in-law’s house where O’Keefe was found.
“At that moment, I didn’t know that he was hit by a vehicle and there was taillight found next to him,” McCabe replied, maintaining that she did not associate the tragedy with anyone inside the house.
Emotional Fallout and Public Doubts
On re-direct, Brennan countered the defense’s allegations by revisiting a text exchange between McCabe and Roberts later that day. “I can’t stop seeing him in the snow, Jen, this is awful,” Roberts wrote. Brennan used the exchange to underscore the emotional state of McCabe and others involved.
“Is your state of mind collusion?” Brennan asked.
“No,” McCabe responded, firmly.
As she left the witness stand, the trial adjourned for the day. A forensic scientist from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab was called next, signaling a transition into the technical analysis of the evidence.
Outside the courtroom, however, Read continued to defend herself forcefully. Speaking after McCabe’s testimony on Wednesday, she accused the witness of outright fabrication, particularly concerning the Google search.
“Every statement’s different. Under oath. Not under oath,” Read said. “This is very similar to what we saw a year ago.”
A Trial Fueled by Unanswered Questions
As the retrial unfolds, the public continues to grapple with conflicting narratives. Is this a tragic accident spun into a criminal case? Or a cold-blooded crime masked as misfortune? The stakes are high not just for Karen Read, but for the community watching closely for justice—wherever the truth may lie.
With the prosecution’s witnesses facing fierce pushback and Read vocally asserting her innocence, this retrial promises to be just as explosive and emotionally charged as the first. Whether it ends in conviction or another deadlock may depend on which version of that fateful night jurors choose to believe.
