Critical Witness's Testimony 'Puts Case Against Karen Read on Life Support,' Lawyer Claims
Sgt. Nicholas Barros's testimony during Karen Read's retrial raises new questions about the SUV taillight linked to John O'Keefe's 2022 death.
In a dramatic turn during the ongoing retrial of Karen Read, the defense team is capitalizing on the testimony of a police officer who cast doubt on a key piece of evidence: the condition of Read’s SUV taillight. This development has injected new momentum into what is now the 27th day of proceedings, as Read faces charges in the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Read stands accused of striking O’Keefe with her 2021 Lexus SUV, resulting in his fatal injuries and leaving him at the scene in subfreezing conditions. The prosecution maintains that forensic evidence—including plastic fragments matching her taillight found on O’Keefe—points to her guilt. However, the defense suggests an alternative narrative, arguing there was no collision and raising the possibility that the taillight evidence may have been manipulated after the fact.
The crux of the defense’s current argument centers around the testimony of Dighton Police Sgt. Nicholas Barros, who witnessed the condition of Read’s vehicle when it was seized. Barros testified that when he first saw the vehicle in Read’s parents’ driveway, the taillight appeared less damaged than in subsequent photos taken inside the Canton Police Department’s secure garage. “Absolutely not the same condition,” Barros insisted when confronted with the discrepancies in courtroom photographs. Notably, he had previously testified for the prosecution before the first trial ended in a deadlock—a fact that amplifies the impact of his current statements as a defense witness.
The defense seized on Barros’s testimony to bolster their claims that the evidence may have been tampered with. Additional questions were raised regarding the timing of the taillight fragment recovery, which reportedly did not occur until after police had already begun focusing their investigation on Read. By implying that fragments could have been planted, the defense is pressing its case that reasonable doubt remains over the central allegations.
Meanwhile, special prosecutor Hank Brennan attempted to mitigate the damage through rigorous cross-examination, presenting a chronology of images depicting the taillight’s state throughout the day of the incident. Defense attorney Alan Jackson, however, continued to emphasize Barros’s certainty regarding the initial condition of the taillight, underscoring what some legal observers are calling a “bombshell” moment for the defense.
The significance of this evidence dispute extends beyond physical damage; legal analysts suggest it raises important concerns about the integrity of investigative procedures. If the jury finds the taillight evidence unreliable, it could undermine the prosecution’s narrative connecting Read to O’Keefe’s injuries. This, coupled with allegations of withheld evidence, has further heightened tensions inside and outside the courtroom.
Amid these developments, the prosecution continues to present their forensic case. Dr. Judson Welcher explained how injury patterns indicate O’Keefe may have been struck by the rear corner of Read’s SUV, a finding supported by state crime lab analyst Christina Hanley, who matched plastic fragments from O’Keefe’s clothing to the broken taillight. Despite this, the defense’s challenge to the handling of physical evidence looms large over the proceedings.
As the retrial continues, the stakes remain high for Karen Read, who faces life imprisonment if convicted of second-degree murder. The coming days are expected to bring further testimony and scrutiny as both sides press for a decisive outcome in a case that has gripped the Massachusetts legal community—and the public at large.
