Juror Leaks Shocking Verdict in Karen Read Murder Trial

by

As the trial of Karen Read in “With ID’s A Body In The Snow” is about to begin, TopMob had a chat with Ronald “Ronnie” Estanislao, one of the jurors from the initial trial. He shared that there’s more to the verdict than what appears at first glance.

Was it determined that Karen Read is innocent before 2022? Prior to this year, nobody anticipated that this question would spark a growing movement, a social media frenzy, and one of the most disputed trials of the past decade. The events unfolded in January, when Boston police officer John O’Keefe was discovered deceased in the snow, initiating a case that will be delved into in an upcoming documentary series.

It’s stated that his partner, Karen Read, was taken into custody under allegations that she hit O’Keefe with her car and then left the area without reporting it. However, evidence pointing towards another theory has sparked debate, leading to the emergence of the “#JusticeForKarenRead” movement. They believe she is not guilty and instead, a victim of a conspiracy.

In the initial court case, Read was indicted for second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter under influence of alcohol (OUI), and abandoning the scene of an injury and death incident. The trial concluded inconclusively, resulting in a deadlock jury, and a fresh trial has been scheduled to begin in April 2025.

Is Karen Read guilty?

Due to the court declaring a mistrial, the question of Karen Read’s guilt is still under discussion. However, Estanislao informed TopMob that the jury did in fact come to a consensus regarding the second-degree murder charge: they concluded that she was innocent.

In addition, he clarified that they determined she was innocent regarding the third accusation, namely abandoning the site of a personal injury and fatality. However, due to what he called an “unfortunate miscarriage of the present judicial system,” the jury was not adequately informed about the option to consider each charge individually.

Because they couldn’t reach an agreement about the manslaughter charge for driving under the influence, the final verdict was considered a “hung jury”. Consequently, the judge announced a mistrial.

Estanislao stated, “I think there is sufficient uncertainty to conclude she’s not responsible for second-degree murder in my opinion, and I believe this sentiment is shared by all jurors.

It remains uncertain if the second jury will convict Read, or not, but Estanislao anticipates a similar verdict given the evidence presented.

In my opinion, I believe the outcome will be that counts one and three are found not guilty, while count two ends up with a deadlock jury once more.

Jury couldn’t agree on manslaughter charge

Estanislao held that there was sufficient uncertainty for the second accusation, but the jury failed to reach a consensus about this point.

The charge for manslaughter while driving under the influence primarily hinges on determining if running the vehicle and hitting O’Keefe resulted in his demise.

He said, “That’s probably why we were unable to reach a verdict as a jury. Some members had doubts about whether the evidence presented was sufficient to decide between ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’ in the case of manslaughter.

“So the manslaughter charge is really the one that everybody was not clear about.”

Medical evidence raises questions

In response to being questioned about the basis for his belief in a reasonable doubt, Estanislao explained, “The main factors were the autopsy report detailing the cause of death and the apparent inconsistencies between it and the injuries.

In simple terms, the doctor who performed the autopsy on O’Keefe attributed his death to severe head injuries (blunt force trauma) and exposure to extreme cold (hypothermia). However, they were unable to definitively classify how he died (the manner of death).

Among several disputed forms of proof, there were the claw and tooth marks on O’Keefe’s arm, which seemed like they came from a beast.

On the tragic evening of his demise, the Albert household, having extended an invitation to Read and O’Keefe, was home to a substantial German Shepherd dog. Several months following the unfortunate event, they found this canine a new home.

The swab samples taken from the wounds were examined later, but there was no sign of canine DNA. Interestingly, they did discover porcine DNA instead.

The defense contends that the evidence presented doesn’t necessarily establish Read’s guilt, but instead creates uncertainty as to whether her vehicle was responsible for O’Keefe’s demise.

The medical examiner’s failure to identify the cause of death and inconsistent injuries not typical of a car accident create ambiguity, which led to disagreement among the jury members.

As a paramedic himself, Estanislao found the medical evidence was particularly compelling. 

As part of our team, I found myself engaged in an intense discussion about the situation at hand, considering there were esteemed medical professionals present. We pondered over whether the injuries sustained were in line with what we were observing.

As a gamer, it was tough for me to accept that the reported injuries could have led to their demise.

In Estanislao’s viewpoint, “The manner of death, the medical examiner’s report, and the specific injuries all seemed distinctive and sparked the notion, in my thinking, of a genuine cause for uncertainty.

You can delve deeper into the case titled “A Body In The Snow: The Trial Of Karen Read” as it makes its debut over a span of three consecutive nights, starting from Monday, March 17 at 9/8c on ID. Additionally, you’ll have the chance to stream the episodes on Max afterwards.

To stay updated on the latest in true crime stories, explore articles such as “What if Alec Baldwin was imprisoned?”, “The Postponement of American Manhunt: The Capture of Osama Bin Laden”, and “Current Whereabouts of Ruby Franke”.

Read More

2025-03-13 17:49