I'm obsessed with Max's Karen Read trial documentary — you should get on this wild ride
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
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?
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?
Watch "A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read" on Max
I just watched Netflix's 'Turning Point' documentary on the Vietnam War 50 years later — and it chilled me to the bone
New on HBO and Max in May 2025 — all the new shows and movies to watch
Why it's time to give 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' movie another chance — stream it on Prime Video
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Severity of damage to Karen Read's taillight comes into question during testimony of Dighton officer
Fireworks on the stand during the retrial of Karen Read after a Dighton Police officer testified Read's taillight wasn't damaged that bad before it was seized by Massachusetts State Police troopers. Dighton Police Sergeant Nicholas Barros said Read's taillight had damage, but not to the extent of what pictures presented in court showed. 'That was the black Lexus,' he said. 'That was not the taillight the day I was there.' Barros described seeing a hole about the size of a dollar bill before State Troopers seized the Lexus from Read's parents Dighton home. 'Did you see anybody from the State Police in any way tamper with that vehicle?' Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan asked on cross. 'I did not,' Barros replied. Barros appeared confident with his memory until Brennan began peppering him with questions. 'Would be fair to say, based on all the additional information you've read and seen, had some effect on your memory?' Brennan questioned. 'I guess,' Barros said. 'His testimony hasn't changed,' Karen Read said outside court. 'He was subpoenaed by the prosecution and said it was damaged and not completely broken a year ago and then he said that again today.' More fireworks during the testimony of the defense's dog bite expert Dr. Marie Russel, when Read's lawyer Robert Alessi demanded a mistrial over the prosecutor's questioning. Alessi argued that Brennan brought up the absence of dog DNA on O'Keefe's clothing when it wasn't in evidence. Brennan pushed back. 'It might be hurtful for the defendant's theories, for the creation they portrayed, for this jury yesterday,' he said. 'But it is not improper.' Judge Beverly Cannone sided with Brennan and rejected the mistrial request. Russell was asked about statements Read has made about a possible collision with O'Keefe. Russell said people suffer something called 'acute grief reaction,' where they blame themselves when bad things happen. Outside of court, Read was asked if she will take the stand. She said she has mixed feelings and did not give a 'yes' or 'no' response. A plow driver is expected to testify on Wednesday. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Netflix drama Adolescence set to become the streamer's second most-watched English-language show, beating out Stranger Things season 4
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Adolescence looks set to become Netflix's second most-watched English-language show of all time, beating out Stranger Things season 4. In the 76 days it's been available to stream so far, the West Yorkshire-based crime drama has pulled in 140.2 million views. 'Premiere windows' tend to be considered 91 days from release date, in which time Stranger Things' fourth chapter earned 140.7 million views. It's almost certain, then, that Adolescence will rack up the extra 500,000 views needed to surpass the hit sci-fi horror in two weeks. Despite its huge success, the show is unlikely to nab the top spot, which is currently occupied by Addams Family spin-off Wednesday, having pulled in a whopping 252 million views during its premiere window. In comparison, South Korean thriller Squid Game season 1 got 265 million views in the same time frame. Starring Ashley Waters, Erin Doherty, Owen Cooper, and Stephen Graham, Adolescence opens with 13-year-old Jamie being arrested for the murder of his classmate Katie Leonard. Over the course of four episodes, all of which play out in real time, viewers not only learn whether Jamie did what he's being accused of but what happened in the run-up to the violent attack and how his family are coping with the fallout. On March 31, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to make the series free to watch in secondary schools, in a bid to spark conversations and raise awareness about online safety, toxic masculinity, and bullying. "There isn't an obvious policy response which will answer all of these questions", he told BBC political editor Chris Mason. "It's much broader than that. It's a cultural issue, and therefore we're going to have to look more broadly, work as a society on this, and discuss it." Adolescence is streaming now. For more, check out our picks of the best shows on Netflix and fill out your watchlist.
3 hours ago
Judge denies Karen Read another mistrial in killing of boyfriend
Judge Beverly Cannone denied Karen Read a mistrial in her second murder trial in the killing of her cop boyfriend John O'Keefe on Tuesday. Attorneys for Karen Read asked the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice in her second murder trial after prosecutors questioned a defense witness over whether she was aware no dog DNA was found on O'Keefe's sweater from the night of the murder, in an attempt to discredit the defense's theory. Dog bite expert and forensic pathologist Dr. Marie Russell testified that markings on O'Keefe's arm were caused by dog bites and scratches, supporting the defense's claim that O'Keefe was attacked by a dog and beaten by other parties before being thrown out into the snow the night of the murder. Prosecutors -- for the first time in this trial -- admitted O'Keefe's sweater into evidence and cited a forensics report that said there was no evidence of dog DNA. Prosecutors have alleged Read hit O'Keefe with her car outside the home of fellow police officer Brian Albert -- causing the marks on his arm -- then left him there to die during a major blizzard. Read is accused of killing O'Keefe in 2022. Read is charged with second degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence and leaving a scene of personal injury and death. She has denied the allegations and maintained her innocence. Read's first murder trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. At least four jurors who served on her first trial last year confirmed she was found not guilty of murder and leaving the scene. The prosecution rested last week and the defense began presenting its case. On Tuesday, prosecutors introduced evidence -- O'Keefe's sweatshirt from the night of the murder -- to the defense's expert witness, asking her if she was aware that holes in the arm of the sweatshirt had been swabbed for traces of dog DNA. The evidence had not been previously presented to this jury. Before she could answer, the defense objected. After a short sidebar between attorneys and the judge, the jury was removed from the courtroom. After the jury and the witness on the stand -- Russell -- left the courtroom, Read's defense team requested the judge declare a mistrial with prejudice. "Attorney Brennan -- just with regard to Dr. Russell -- in open court, in front of the jury, used the concept of DNA in this case. He has introduced it and brought it in for the very first time in front of the jury. He has done so intentionally," defense Attorney Robert Alessi said Tuesday. "Based upon that intentional mention, the defense moves strongly, vigorously for a mistrial with prejudice," Alessi said. Lawyers for Read argued that during this trial, prosecutors did not call a witness who, in her first trial, testified about the testing of DNA evidence. "For whatever reason, the prosecution has chosen not to bring that witness in who would testify, perhaps to DNA. As a result of that strategic decision that the prosecution made, there's been no mention," Alessi said. The defense said that it has purposefully not mentioned DNA in the trial so far and it is not permissible for prosecutors to present it now. "The prosecution has put in the jury's mind that topic. That is irremediable. That cannot be reversed," Alessi said. "The prosecution has to suffer the consequences of its own intentional actions of bringing up that topic," Alessi said. "The only remedy is a mistrial with prejudice." Prosecutors claimed they had always planned on bringing an expert to discuss DNA on rebuttal and argued that asking the defense's witness about the presence of dog DNA is permissible and essential. "The defense is on notice that there is no dog DNA in the sweater of John O'Keefe," prosecutor Hank Brennan said in court Tuesday. Alessi argued that there was no swabbing of the wounds in O'Keefe's right arm for DNA. He also argued that there is a series of concerns about the chain of custody of O'Keefe's sweater. O'Keefe's sweater was "left on the floor of the ambulance, left on the floor of the hospital, carried around by Mr. Proctor for weeks maybe even months, not submitted for testing for months," Alessi said. "There are huge issues that prevent a fair determination about whether there was even proper determination of whether there was DNA or not," Alessi said. Prosecutors argued that the defense had brought up DNA evidence in previous hearings in the case, making it permissible for them to ask a witness about DNA. After a short recess, the judge allowed prosecutors to continue questioning the witness about the presence of DNA evidence in the sweater. Russell testified that there are many reasons why there was no evidence of dog DNA in testing, but said the report stating there is no evidence of dog DNA does not change her determination that a dog caused the marks on O'Keefe's arm.
