Karen Read returns to court for a motions hearing

Crime

“Whether Ms. Read knew she had struck John O’Keefe is a critical issue in this case,” special prosecutor Hank Brennan alleged Tuesday.

There is “strong evidence” Karen Lees “Knew she had done something terrible” when she called her parents shortly after allegedly leaving her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, to die in a snowstorm, special prosecutor Hank Brennan argued during a hearing Tuesday.

When Read returned to Norfolk Superior Court, several motions were on the agenda, including requests from prosecutors for phone records for her parents, Janet and William Read.

Prosecutors say Read called her parents and texted her father after allegedly driving her SUV behind O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, shortly after midnight on Jan. 29, 2022. Authorities allege that Read, 44 , was driving drunk at the time and struck. O’Keefe deliberately, leaving him to die on a snowy lawn in Canton. Her lawyers claim she was involved in a law enforcement cover-up.

“The inference that a 40-year-old woman called her parents at 1:30 in the morning after this tumultuous event is strong evidence that Mrs. Read knew she had done something terrible, she knew she had struck. John O’Keefe, and she knew she left him behind,” Brennan alleged. He said Read’s calls went unanswered.

Read is charged with manslaughter, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. Her first trial ended in July with a hung jury, and she is due to stand trial again in January, although attorneys for both sides have asked for an April postponement. Judge Beverly Cannone said Tuesday she is still considering the request.

Brennan said prosecutors will likely call William Read as a witness in his daughter’s upcoming retrial, citing his statements in court. interview with Boston 25 News last year.

“She felt like she had hit something,” Boston 25’s William Read said segment. “She said, ‘Dad, I think I hit something. … I remember … I was backing up and I hit something.’” Later in the clip, however, he clarified his belief that his daughter damaged her taillight while as he backs out of O’Keefe’s garage to look for him, just after 5 a.m. on the 29th.

Read’s parents did not testify at her first trial, although they sat behind her in the courtroom in a show of support.

“When Ms. Read knew she had hit John O’Keefe is a critical issue in this case,” Brennan said. He explained that he was looking for phone records for a month from the time leading up to O’Keefe’s death to determine whether it was unusual for Read to call her parents in the middle of the night.

“In the absence of any other calls, it’s terribly remarkable that she’s frantically calling her parents at 12:30 in the morning,” Brennan said. Prosecutors have also requested records of William Read’s calls, text messages and data usage for the period January 29 through January 30, 2022.

Brennan argued that Karen Read’s records are insufficient for prosecutors because call logs may vary by device and some of Read’s phone records may also have been redacted when investigators searched the data.

Still, attorney Elizabeth Little called the request a “gross invasion” of privacy and claimed Read’s call logs confirm that she did not call her father on the 29th until she found O’Keefe incapacitated in the snow around 6 a.m.

“The Commonwealth did a funny thing, right? During their argument, they suggested she call both parents in the middle of the night. That’s not true,” Little said. “There was only one phone call to her father on January 29, the morning of. It was at 6:32 am”

Brennan argued it was unclear whether Read’s father answered her mother’s phone or vice versa.

Little described the prosecutors’ requests as a “fishing expedition” and called on Cannone to reject the requests. The judge took the case into consideration and made no ruling.

In addition, prosecutors also requested records from several news sources that interviewed Read or her parents, including Boston magazine, Boston 25, NBC’s ‘Dateline’, And ABC’s “20/20.” Brennan accused Read of making contradictory statements during her various interviews.

While Boston magazine had previously turned over some accounts of his interviews with Read, Brennan alleged that the recordings were peppered with significant redactions and interruptions from Read’s lawyers.

“One thing you notice when you actually listen to the interviews and look at the transcripts is that often during the lawyers’ interruptions, there is some editing happening, and when the conversation resumes, there is a change – sometimes subtle, sometimes not subtly – there is a change in Ms Read’s statement,” Brennan said.

Defendants, he added, “enjoy a Fifth Amendment privilege, as they should; a suspect is presumed innocent. But if they brush it aside, it is at their own peril.”

Robert Bertsche, an attorney for the magazine, blamed the editors for the plaintiff’s original motion, which only sought statements from Read, not her attorneys. Cannone took the case.

Read’s attorneys have also asked Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey to appear personal telephone and email detailsand the lawyers briefly discussed a protective order that Brennan said would allow prosecutors to turn over some of the requested material, with more to come.

Cannone suggested that the prosecution and defense continue to consult with each other, leaving open the possibility of a hearing on the case at Read’s December 12 court hearing.

Live stream via NBC10 Boston.