Listen to the article
A lawyer representing several civilian witnesses who testified against Karen Read in her criminal trials has strongly criticized her attempt to join them to a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of her late boyfriend, John O’Keefe. The lawyer called it part of a “scheme to defame and wrongly malign” the witnesses.
Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, and Brian Higgins—all present at 34 Fairview Road in Canton on January 29, 2022, when O’Keefe died—are the witnesses in question. The Alberts owned the property at that time.
O’Keefe was discovered in a snow bank on the front lawn on the morning of January 29, several hours after Read dropped him off following a night of heavy drinking. Authorities accused Read of backing her SUV into O’Keefe and killing him, but her defense team alleged that the witnesses were involved in his death and conspired to frame her.
The defense specifically named Brian Albert, a Boston police officer, and Higgins, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as part of their third-party culprit defense. Of the five witnesses, only Jennifer McCabe testified at Read’s second trial, which resulted in her acquittal.
At a hearing on the wrongful death lawsuit in September, Read’s lawyers revealed plans to pursue civil rights violation claims against these five witnesses. In response, attorneys representing the witnesses filed a legal brief opposing this effort, calling Read’s allegations a “vile work of fiction lacking any basis in fact, evidence, or law.”
“The Commonwealth Witnesses vigorously dispute Defendant Read’s allegations and will defend against these false claims,” the filing states.
The defense strategy outlined in the brief includes motions to dismiss, efforts to move the case from state to federal court, and potential counterclaims against Read and Aidan Kearney, a blogger known as Turtleboy. Kearney, who vocally supported Read’s innocence before and during her trials, faces witness intimidation charges for his conduct.
These potential counterclaims would include defamation and “other torts that they have committed, individually and in concert,” according to the filing. “The Commonwealth Witnesses, however, should not be forced to litigate these false allegations and their own defamation claims in this pending lawsuit.”
Damon Seligson, who leads Read’s civil defense team, dismissed the threatened defamation claims as “baseless.” He stated, “We will defend her vigorously in the face of those kind of claims. Truth is an absolute defense for defamation.”
The brief was served on Read’s lawyers last week but has not yet been formally filed with Plymouth Superior Court. A hearing scheduled for Friday afternoon is expected to address many of the issues raised in the filing.
Beyond the five witnesses, Read has expressed intentions to sue the Massachusetts State Police and three investigators involved in her case: Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully, Sergeant Yuriy Bukheni, and former trooper Michael Proctor. Read’s legal team also plans to bring claims against the town of Canton.
Her attorneys argue that the wrongful death lawsuit provides the appropriate venue for these claims since they involve the same facts. They maintain it would be more efficient to consolidate everything into one case rather than managing several interrelated proceedings simultaneously.
The witnesses’ legal representatives strongly disagree with this approach. “Defendant Read’s proposal to join the Commonwealth Witnesses and other third-parties to this Wrongful Death Action would not advance judicial economy at this stage but, rather, would substantially increase the complexity of the pre-trial proceedings and result in delay and prejudice to the Commonwealth Witnesses and the Plaintiffs,” their filing states.
Instead, they suggest Read should file her claims as a separate action, with portions potentially being joined with the wrongful death lawsuit later.
This brief marks the first formal courtroom pushback by the witnesses against the narrative advanced by Read and her defense team.
Friday’s hearing will also be the first appearance before Judge Mark C. Gildea, who was specially assigned to the case on Monday, replacing the retiring Judge Daniel O’Shea. Gildea was appointed to the bench in 2017 by then-Governor Charlie Baker.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
It’s concerning to see the potential involvement of law enforcement and federal agents in this case. Transparency and accountability will be critical.
You raise a valid point. Any potential conflicts of interest or abuse of power must be thoroughly investigated.
This case seems complex with competing narratives. It will be interesting to see how the courts evaluate the evidence and witness testimonies to determine what really happened.
You raise a good point. It’s important to let the legal process play out before drawing firm conclusions.
The allegations of a conspiracy to frame the defendant are quite serious. I’m curious to see what evidence the defense presents to support those claims.
Absolutely, the burden of proof will be on the defense to substantiate those claims in court.
The allegations of a ‘false narrative’ and attempts to ‘defame and wrongly malign’ the witnesses are quite serious. I hope the truth comes to light through a fair and thorough investigation.
Agreed. Maintaining objectivity and letting the facts guide the outcome is crucial in a case like this.
This case highlights the complexities of determining culpability in tragic incidents. I hope the legal system can provide a fair and impartial resolution.
This seems like a tragic situation all around. My condolences to the family of John O’Keefe. I hope they can find some closure, regardless of the legal outcome.
That’s a compassionate perspective. The human cost of these events should not be overlooked.