Latest news with #ABodyintheSnow:TheTrialof
Metro
19-06-2025
- Metro
How to watch true crime series A Body in the Snow after Karen Read verdict
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video After a verdict was finally delivered in Karen Read's ongoing murder trial, here's where you can watch the documentary surrounding the case that has gripped the world. On Wednesday, cheers erupted from outside the courtroom after a jury found the 45-year-old not guilty for the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, following a second trial. In January 2022, she was accused of hitting her partner, 46, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts – and was eventually charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene. The financial analyst protested her innocence and, after a jury failed to come to a verdict in the first hearings in 2024, a second trial began in April of this year. Although she was acquitted of second-degree murder and the two lesser charges, she was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and sentenced to one year probation. Between both cases, Investigation Discovery released a five-part documentary looking into O'Keefe's death and the allegations against Read in March, titled A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read. The synopsis simply reads: 'On a cold January morning in a sleepy suburb outside of the city, a local police officer named John O'Keefe was found dead on a fellow officer's front lawn.' It is currently available to stream in the UK on Discovery+, while all episodes are also on Hulu, ID and HBO Max in the US. The program received rave reviews online, with Collider praising: 'A Body in the Snow is one of the most meticulous and thought-provoking true-crime series to come out recently.' A viewer on IMDb agreed, branding the footage 'captivating'. 'This docuseries is one of the most gripping true crime watches I've had in ages,' another praised. 'Slick, thoughtful, and clearly well-researched, it goes beyond just retelling events-it almost plays like an exposé.' Netflix also announced an untitled upcoming three-part series, exploring 'what happened in the days leading up to O'Keefe's death'. 'The team feels immensely privileged to be bringing this important series to a Netflix global audience,' directors Danielle Johnson and Rob Miller said. 'It is a case that has garnered a huge amount of public attention and has far-reaching implications. 'We are also mindful that this is a hugely sensitive case and we are determined to treat all those involved with the respect and consideration they deserve.' Bosses are yet to share news of the release date. Canton locals were left shocked when O'Keefe was found unresponsive in the snow outside his former colleague's home in early 2022, following a late-night house party. Read was later accused of hitting him with her car – her lawyers alleged that he had been beaten and bitten by a dog, before being left outside to die. They argued that the professor had been framed for his death and was the victim of a police cover-up. Her first trial was declared a mistrial last July, after the jury remained deadlocked following five days of deliberations More Trending After a second trial and four days of deliberating, a new jury reached a verdict and acquitted her of second-degree murder. 'I just want to say two things,' she told the crowd gathered outside the courtroom. 'I could not be standing here without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team. View More » 'The second thing I want to say is that no one has fought harder for justice of John O'Keefe than I have.' Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Netflix drops all 8 episodes of dark TV series 'compared to Ozark' MORE: Disturbing documentary about 'most evil reality show ever' now streaming on BBC MORE: UK viewers can now watch 'masterpiece' Amazon Prime drama for free
Tom's Guide
08-05-2025
- Tom's Guide
I'm obsessed with Max's Karen Read trial documentary — you should get on this wild ride
I believe in the Sixth Amendment. I believe people deserve a fair trial — especially when they're accused of murder. But "A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read," now streaming on Max, made me question how that's even possible when the criminal justice system is this broken. The three-part docuseries follows the 2024 trial of Karen Read, who was accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, by backing into him with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow. From the beginning, nothing about this case sat right with me. The story the state was telling didn't make sense. The evidence was flimsy. And the people building the case against Read were disturbingly close to the victim — and to each other. The series doesn't spin a conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to. It just presents the facts — and those facts are damning. This is a story about confirmation bias, conflict of interest, and a culture of protecting your own. It's about how deeply wrong things can go when the people in power decide who's guilty before the trial even begins. The facts of the case are strange. In the early morning hours of January 29, 2022, Read dropped O'Keefe off at a house party in Canton, Massachusetts, attended by fellow police officers. Hours later, his body was found on the front lawn, bloodied and covered in snow. The state argued that Read, after a fight, reversed into him while intoxicated and left him for dead. But their timeline doesn't add up — not to me, and not to the many supporters who've rallied behind Read since her arrest. If she hit him, how did he end up on the lawn? Why was there so little blood at the scene? And why did so many witnesses at the party suddenly remember helpful details months later — after talking to investigators? Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. The series introduces these questions slowly, letting the cracks in the prosecution's case widen in real time. It also highlights how investigators zeroed in on Read almost immediately — even as evidence began to suggest that O'Keefe may have been injured inside the house, possibly by a dog, before being dragged outside. A t one point, the docuseries shows footage of a federal investigator noting that no one else at the party was treated as a suspect. Not even for a second. Watching this play out, I kept coming back to one question: how is this legal? How can it be legal for the same local police department to investigate the possible involvement of their own officers and their friends? How can it be legal for a detective who was dating one of the partygoers to oversee the case? How can you have a fair trial when the people in charge of the evidence have already made up their minds? Read's defense team eventually argued that she had been framed, that O'Keefe was injured in the house and placed outside, and that a group of insiders helped cover it up. That's a huge claim. But after watching "A Body in the Snow," I don't know what to believe anymore. The only thing I'm sure of is that this was not a fair investigation. There's one moment that sums it all up. In the final episode, we see footage of the prosecutors announcing the indictment — not in a press release, not in court, but at a press conference flanked by officers, with applause erupting in the room. It felt less like a legal proceeding and more like a pep rally. And that, more than anything, told me everything I needed to know. This documentary isn't just about one woman's trial — it's about what happens when personal relationships and institutional loyalty are allowed to contaminate a criminal investigation. Whether or not Karen Read is guilty is beside the point. The documentary shows how bias, access, and unchecked power can tilt the scales of justice beyond repair. If you're someone who cares about civil rights, due process or the credibility of the legal system, "A Body in the Snow" is a must-watch. It forces you to ask: What does a fair trial really look like? And how many people are convicted without ever getting one?
CNN
05-05-2025
- CNN
How Karen Read's second murder trial has differed from the first
The retrial of Karen Read is shaping up to be altogether similar to her first murder trial, but there are several differences that could influence whether the jury reaches a verdict this time around. After the first trial last year ended in a hung jury and mistrial, Read again pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Prosecutors say Read, 45, drunkenly drove a Lexus vehicle into John O'Keefe, her off-duty Boston Police officer boyfriend, and then left him to die in a blizzard outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts, on the night of January 29, 2022. Her defense has argued that fellow law enforcement officers in that home killed O'Keefe, dumped his body on the lawn and conspired to pin the blame on Read in a vast cover-up. Despite that familiar backdrop, several new attorneys, Read's media interviews and the firing of the lead investigator have combined to change the dynamics of the case. Here's a closer look at how her retrial has differed from the first trial and what those changes could mean. The lead prosecutor in the first trial was assistant district attorney Adam Lally, but the retrial has been led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan. Brennan is best known for defending mob boss James 'Whitey' Bulger during his federal racketeering trial over 10 years ago. He was appointed to retry the Read case by Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who described Brennan as a 'highly respected and skilled former prosecutor and long-time defense attorney' who 'has expertise handling complex law enforcement matters.' Lally remains on the prosecution team but did not deliver opening statements, as he did in the first trial, and has taken a backseat to Brennan. The defense, too, has changed its legal team since the last trial. Robert Alessi, a New York-based attorney who did not participate in the first trial, has handled the cross-examination of some expert witnesses and argued motions outside the presence of the jury. His website notes his 'scientific and technical background,' particularly in questioning experts. Further, attorney Victoria George, who served as an alternate juror in the first trial, was added to Read's defense team. As an alternate, George did not participate in deliberations, but her perspective could help the defense better understand the jury's perspective. One of the clearest differences from the first trial is Read's own words and commentary. Read did not testify in the first trial, but she has since spoken publicly about her case in interviews with TV reporters, in Vanity Fair and in an Investigation Discovery documentary series. (Investigation Discovery, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.) 'This is my version of testifying. Doing this film is my testimony,' she said in the documentary series, 'A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.' At her second trial, prosecutors have already presented some of that 'testimony' to the jury as evidence against her. 'You're gonna hear from her own lips, and many of her statements, her admissions to extraordinary intoxication, her admissions to driving the Lexus, her admissions to being angry at John that night, and I dare say, her admissions that she told (others) that she had hit him,' Brennan said in opening statements. Brennan then played a video of Read speaking to 'Dateline' in which she raised the possibility that she hit O'Keefe with her vehicle. 'I didn't think I hit him hit him, but could I have clipped him, could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him?' Read said in the clip from the October 2024 interview. 'He didn't look mortally wounded, as far as I could see – but could I have done something that knocked him out and in drunkenness and in the cold, he didn't come to again?' Read's statement seemingly reinforced witnesses who say they heard her similarly wonder aloud whether she hit O'Keefe the morning his body was found. Kerry Roberts and Jennifer McCabe, both of whom helped look for the victim, testified Read pointed out she had broken her SUV's taillight that night, and asked them, 'Could I have hit him?' and 'Do you think I hit him?' Prosecutors during the retrial have used other clips of Read to bolster witness testimony and refute defense arguments. For example, prosecutors played a clip from the documentary series in which Read said after O'Keefe's death, 'His mother leans over the kitchen island and says to me, 'I think it looks like he got hit by a car.'' However, Peggy O'Keefe testified she was never in the kitchen with Read that day. In another instance, prosecutors played a clip of Read telling journalist Gretchen Voss in June 2023 that she personally picked pieces of the vehicle's broken taillight and dropped them onto O'Keefe's driveway. That appeared to contradict the defense's argument that this evidence was tampered with by corrupt investigators. It's not clear if Read will testify in the second trial. Another major change from the first trial is the employment status of Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator of Read's case. In her first trial, Proctor admitted under oath that he sent a series of sexist and offensive texts about Read in a private group chat, calling her a 'whack job c*nt,' mocking her medical issues and commenting to coworkers that he had found 'no nudes' while searching her phone for evidence, according to CNN affiliate WCVB. Proctor apologized for the 'unprofessional' comments on the stand, but the vulgar texts undermined his testimony and the prosecution's case. Proctor was relieved of duty on the same day the mistrial was announced last July. He was then fired in March for violating four department policies, including for sending those messages. In opening statements of the retrial, the defense announced plans to focus on Proctor, saying he lied and fabricated evidence in the case. 'You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy … a cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured,' attorney Alan Jackson said. 'And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor.' It's unclear if he will testify in this trial – but his name is included on a list of potential witnesses. CNN's Elise Hammond, Dakin Andone and Jean Casarez contributed to this report.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Yahoo
How Karen Read's second murder trial has differed from the first
The retrial of Karen Read is shaping up to be altogether similar to her first murder trial, but there are several differences that could influence whether the jury reaches a verdict this time around. After the first trial last year ended in a hung jury and mistrial, Read again pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Prosecutors say Read, 45, drunkenly drove a Lexus vehicle into John O'Keefe, her off-duty Boston Police officer boyfriend, and then left him to die in a blizzard outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts, on the night of January 29, 2022. Her defense has argued that fellow law enforcement officers in that home killed O'Keefe, dumped his body on the lawn and conspired to pin the blame on Read in a vast cover-up. Despite that familiar backdrop, several new attorneys, Read's media interviews and the firing of the lead investigator have combined to change the dynamics of the case. Here's a closer look at how her retrial has differed from the first trial and what those changes could mean. The lead prosecutor in the first trial was assistant district attorney Adam Lally, but the retrial has been led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan. Brennan is best known for defending mob boss James 'Whitey' Bulger during his federal racketeering trial over 10 years ago. He was appointed to retry the Read case by Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who described Brennan as a 'highly respected and skilled former prosecutor and long-time defense attorney' who 'has expertise handling complex law enforcement matters.' Lally remains on the prosecution team but did not deliver opening statements, as he did in the first trial, and has taken a backseat to Brennan. The defense, too, has changed its legal team since the last trial. Robert Alessi, a New York-based attorney who did not participate in the first trial, has handled the cross-examination of some expert witnesses and argued motions outside the presence of the jury. His website notes his 'scientific and technical background,' particularly in questioning experts. Further, attorney Victoria George, who served as an alternate juror in the first trial, was added to Read's defense team. As an alternate, George did not participate in deliberations, but her perspective could help the defense better understand the jury's perspective. One of the clearest differences from the first trial is Read's own words and commentary. Read did not testify in the first trial, but she has since spoken publicly about her case in interviews with TV reporters, in Vanity Fair and in an Investigation Discovery documentary series. (Investigation Discovery, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.) 'This is my version of testifying. Doing this film is my testimony,' she said in the documentary series, 'A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.' At her second trial, prosecutors have already presented some of that 'testimony' to the jury as evidence against her. 'You're gonna hear from her own lips, and many of her statements, her admissions to extraordinary intoxication, her admissions to driving the Lexus, her admissions to being angry at John that night, and I dare say, her admissions that she told (others) that she had hit him,' Brennan said in opening statements. Brennan then played a video of Read speaking to 'Dateline' in which she raised the possibility that she hit O'Keefe with her vehicle. 'I didn't think I hit him hit him, but could I have clipped him, could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him?' Read said in the clip from the October 2024 interview. 'He didn't look mortally wounded, as far as I could see – but could I have done something that knocked him out and in drunkenness and in the cold, he didn't come to again?' Read's statement seemingly reinforced witnesses who say they heard her similarly wonder aloud whether she hit O'Keefe the morning his body was found. Kerry Roberts and Jennifer McCabe, both of whom helped look for the victim, testified Read pointed out she had broken her SUV's taillight that night, and asked them, 'Could I have hit him?' and 'Do you think I hit him?' Prosecutors during the retrial have used other clips of Read to bolster witness testimony and refute defense arguments. For example, prosecutors played a clip from the documentary series in which Read said after O'Keefe's death, 'His mother leans over the kitchen island and says to me, 'I think it looks like he got hit by a car.'' However, Peggy O'Keefe testified she was never in the kitchen with Read that day. In another instance, prosecutors played a clip of Read telling journalist Gretchen Voss in June 2023 that she personally picked pieces of the vehicle's broken taillight and dropped them onto O'Keefe's driveway. That appeared to contradict the defense's argument that this evidence was tampered with by corrupt investigators. It's not clear if Read will testify in the second trial. Another major change from the first trial is the employment status of Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator of Read's case. In her first trial, Proctor admitted under oath that he sent a series of sexist and offensive texts about Read in a private group chat, calling her a 'whack job c*nt,' mocking her medical issues and commenting to coworkers that he had found 'no nudes' while searching her phone for evidence, according to CNN affiliate WCVB. Proctor apologized for the 'unprofessional' comments on the stand, but the vulgar texts undermined his testimony and the prosecution's case. Proctor was relieved of duty on the same day the mistrial was announced last July. He was then fired in March for violating four department policies, including for sending those messages. In opening statements of the retrial, the defense announced plans to focus on Proctor, saying he lied and fabricated evidence in the case. 'You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy … a cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured,' attorney Alan Jackson said. 'And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor.' It's unclear if he will testify in this trial – but his name is included on a list of potential witnesses. CNN's Elise Hammond, Dakin Andone and Jean Casarez contributed to this report.
CNN
05-05-2025
- CNN
How Karen Read's second murder trial has differed from the first
The retrial of Karen Read is shaping up to be altogether similar to her first murder trial, but there are several differences that could influence whether the jury reaches a verdict this time around. After the first trial last year ended in a hung jury and mistrial, Read again pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Prosecutors say Read, 45, drunkenly drove a Lexus vehicle into John O'Keefe, her off-duty Boston Police officer boyfriend, and then left him to die in a blizzard outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts, on the night of January 29, 2022. Her defense has argued that fellow law enforcement officers in that home killed O'Keefe, dumped his body on the lawn and conspired to pin the blame on Read in a vast cover-up. Despite that familiar backdrop, several new attorneys, Read's media interviews and the firing of the lead investigator have combined to change the dynamics of the case. Here's a closer look at how her retrial has differed from the first trial and what those changes could mean. The lead prosecutor in the first trial was assistant district attorney Adam Lally, but the retrial has been led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan. Brennan is best known for defending mob boss James 'Whitey' Bulger during his federal racketeering trial over 10 years ago. He was appointed to retry the Read case by Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who described Brennan as a 'highly respected and skilled former prosecutor and long-time defense attorney' who 'has expertise handling complex law enforcement matters.' Lally remains on the prosecution team but did not deliver opening statements, as he did in the first trial, and has taken a backseat to Brennan. The defense, too, has changed its legal team since the last trial. Robert Alessi, a New York-based attorney who did not participate in the first trial, has handled the cross-examination of some expert witnesses and argued motions outside the presence of the jury. His website notes his 'scientific and technical background,' particularly in questioning experts. Further, attorney Victoria George, who served as an alternate juror in the first trial, was added to Read's defense team. As an alternate, George did not participate in deliberations, but her perspective could help the defense better understand the jury's perspective. One of the clearest differences from the first trial is Read's own words and commentary. Read did not testify in the first trial, but she has since spoken publicly about her case in interviews with TV reporters, in Vanity Fair and in an Investigation Discovery documentary series. (Investigation Discovery, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.) 'This is my version of testifying. Doing this film is my testimony,' she said in the documentary series, 'A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.' At her second trial, prosecutors have already presented some of that 'testimony' to the jury as evidence against her. 'You're gonna hear from her own lips, and many of her statements, her admissions to extraordinary intoxication, her admissions to driving the Lexus, her admissions to being angry at John that night, and I dare say, her admissions that she told (others) that she had hit him,' Brennan said in opening statements. Brennan then played a video of Read speaking to 'Dateline' in which she raised the possibility that she hit O'Keefe with her vehicle. 'I didn't think I hit him hit him, but could I have clipped him, could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him?' Read said in the clip from the October 2024 interview. 'He didn't look mortally wounded, as far as I could see – but could I have done something that knocked him out and in drunkenness and in the cold, he didn't come to again?' Read's statement seemingly reinforced witnesses who say they heard her similarly wonder aloud whether she hit O'Keefe the morning his body was found. Kerry Roberts and Jennifer McCabe, both of whom helped look for the victim, testified Read pointed out she had broken her SUV's taillight that night, and asked them, 'Could I have hit him?' and 'Do you think I hit him?' Prosecutors during the retrial have used other clips of Read to bolster witness testimony and refute defense arguments. For example, prosecutors played a clip from the documentary series in which Read said after O'Keefe's death, 'His mother leans over the kitchen island and says to me, 'I think it looks like he got hit by a car.'' However, Peggy O'Keefe testified she was never in the kitchen with Read that day. In another instance, prosecutors played a clip of Read telling journalist Gretchen Voss in June 2023 that she personally picked pieces of the vehicle's broken taillight and dropped them onto O'Keefe's driveway. That appeared to contradict the defense's argument that this evidence was tampered with by corrupt investigators. It's not clear if Read will testify in the second trial. Another major change from the first trial is the employment status of Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator of Read's case. In her first trial, Proctor admitted under oath that he sent a series of sexist and offensive texts about Read in a private group chat, calling her a 'whack job c*nt,' mocking her medical issues and commenting to coworkers that he had found 'no nudes' while searching her phone for evidence, according to CNN affiliate WCVB. Proctor apologized for the 'unprofessional' comments on the stand, but the vulgar texts undermined his testimony and the prosecution's case. Proctor was relieved of duty on the same day the mistrial was announced last July. He was then fired in March for violating four department policies, including for sending those messages. In opening statements of the retrial, the defense announced plans to focus on Proctor, saying he lied and fabricated evidence in the case. 'You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy … a cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured,' attorney Alan Jackson said. 'And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor.' It's unclear if he will testify in this trial – but his name is included on a list of potential witnesses. CNN's Elise Hammond, Dakin Andone and Jean Casarez contributed to this report.
