Investigator and jurors speak out about Karen Read murder trial in aftermath of not guilty verdict

At least three jurors and the lead investigator in the murder trial of Karen Read have come forward to comment about the case since a jury returned a not guilty verdict earlier this week.

Read, 45, was charged with second-degree murder by authorities who said she intentionally hit Boston police officer John O’Keefe with her car after dropping him off outside a party following a night of drinking in the suburbs. The high-profile case culminated in a not guilty verdict on murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene charges Wednesday. The jury found Read guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence.

The trial has centered in part on lead investigator Michael Proctor, who defense attorneys described as biased against Read from the beginning. The Massachusetts State Police trial board found Proctor guilty of sending crude and defamatory text messages about Read while leading the investigation into her. He was fired and has drawn ire from Read supporters who believe he played a key role in a cover-up to frame her.

Proctor told NBC's “Dateline” that the idea he is corrupt and framed Read is a “ridiculous” accusation. He specifically said an accusation that he cracked Read's taillight to make it look like she backed into O'Keefe is “absolutely not" true.

“I laugh because it's such a ridiculous accusation,” Proctor told the program. “There's not one piece of evidence or fact to support that because it did not happen.”

The judge in the case announced via court papers Wednesday that the jurors' names would be sealed from public view due to safety concerns. But one of the jurors, who identified himself only as “Jason” in an interview with TMZ, said he did not believe Read collided with O'Keefe. He also said he did not think investigators planted taillight pieces at the scene to frame Read.

“I don't really know if there was a cover-up or not. I know that's the big conspiracy about it but I don't really know. All I know is there was a lot of holes in their investigation,” the juror said.

Another juror, Paula Prado, told local news stations her mind changed about the case over the course of the last three weeks. At first, she thought Read was guilty of manslaughter, but her opinion changed as the case progressed.

“As the weeks passed by, I just realized there was too many holes that we couldn't fill. And there's nothing that put her on the scene in our opinion, besides just dropping John O'Keefe off,” Prado told media.

A third juror, Janet Jimenez, told WCVB-TV that she changed her mind about Read's guilt during deliberations. Jimenez told WCVB she felt there were holes in the investigation, and ultimately she decided Read was not guilty.

“I was hoping that my fellow jurors could help me go through all of this, so I went in with a very open mind but definitely leaning toward that she was guilty,” she said.

Massachusetts State Police said in a statement that it extends its “sincerest condolences to the loved ones of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.” The statement said the events of the last three years have “challenged” the department to review its actions and improve accountability and oversight.

“Under my direction as colonel, the state police has, and will continue to, improve in these regards. Our focus remains on delivering excellent police services that reflect the value of professionalism and maintain public trust,” Colonel Geoffrey Noble said in the statement.

The jurors, state police and Proctor are not the first to speak out about the verdict. Upon leaving court, Read told a crowd of reporters and onlookers: “No one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than I have.”

Her father, Bill Read, said on Wednesday that he was “thankful that it's over.” He added: “We always knew Karen was innocent. I’m glad she is free of this mess. Just a weight off our shoulders. The power of the state is immense, and we were able to fight it."

Some of the key witnesses in the trial also released a joint statement Wednesday in which they called the not guilty ruling a “devastating miscarriage of justice.”

The joint statement was issued by several people including Brian Albert, who owned the home where the party took place, and Jennifer McCabe, Albert's sister-in-law, who was with Read and O'Keefe on the night of O'Keefe's death.

Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey said only: “The jury has spoken.”

Karen Read leaves the courthouse after she was found not guilty of second-degree murder on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

Karen Read suppporters react after she was found not guilty of second-degree murder on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

Peggy O'Keefe, mother of John O'Keefe, watches as the jury enters the courtroom to resume deliberations during Karen Read's murder trial in the Norfolk Superior Court, in Dedham, Mass., Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)

Karen Read embraces a supporter as she leaves the courthouse at the start of the third day of jury deliberations in her trial at Norfolk Superior Court, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

Read weeps as the final verdict of not guilty of second-degree murder is read in Norfolk Superior Court, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)

An investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery has determined that the mammoth Hollywood media merger is not likely to harm competition in the industry or be harmful for consumers.

The agency said Friday that it closed its probe into the deal, with regulators at its antitrust division concluding that the impact of the merger “will be to increase competition across the media and entertainment ecosystem, with benefits for American consumers and workers.”

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance reached a deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery in late February. Paramount’s victory came after months of negotiations and a rival bid by Netflix that ultimately fell short. Paramount was bought by Skydance last year.

The companies contend that merging will be good for growth in the industry and give consumers access to more content, particularly if the HBO Max and Paramount+ libraries are combined. But critics have decried what further consolidation could mean in an industry already controlled by just a few major players.

Among the potential market impacts from the merger, regulators weighed whether the deal would hurt competition in video streaming. They concluded that the merger would likely increase competition by giving customers a more “robust competitive alternative” to larger video streaming alternatives.

The agency also determined that YouTube, TikTok and other social media portals that also offer video streaming content “do not appear to be competitive substitutes here under well-established antitrust legal precedents, although they compete broadly for consumer attention.”

Regulators also concluded that the merger is not likely to harm competition for so-called linear television, citing a strong competition for live programming.

On the question of competition in Hollywood, regulators found that the combination of two major film studio operators is not likely to harm competition in studio development, production or distribution of films for theatrical release.

“Instead, evidence shows extensive competition within the industry, which has generated greater output and diversity of film offerings, and is likely to continue unabated,” regulators concluded.

Thousands of actors, directors, writers and other industry professionals have voiced “unequivocal opposition” to the Paramount deal, arguing that further consolidation will lead to job losses and fewer choices for filmmakers and moviegoers. Many lawmakers have similarly sounded the alarm.

Ellison, chief executive of Paramount Skydance, has pledged to keep Paramount and Warner Bros. as standalone movie studio operations, and vowed to release a combined 30 movies a year in theaters. Paramount has acknowledged the merger will also lead to significant cuts due to duplication.

While the Trump administration’s Justice Department has now confirmed it won’t be challenging Paramount’s $81 billion purchase of Warner, the mega merger is still being reviewed by other regulators both in the U.S. and abroad.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been particularly vocal about the transaction, and he said his state is investigating it.

Beyond the U.S., European regulators are also looking into the deal. The European Commission has listed July 7 as a tentative deadline for its review. And the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority is aiming to make an initial decision about its probe by early August.

Paramount and Warner previously said that they hoped to close their deal sometime in the third quarter of this year. And that clock is ticking. Paramount pledged to give shareholders some compensation if the acquisition doesn’t close by Sept. 30 — in the form of a 25-cent per share “ticking fee” for every quarter past that date. It has also agreed to a regulatory termination fee of $7 billion.

FILE - The Paramount Pictures water tower is seen in Los Angeles, Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025, with the Hollywood sign in the distance. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong,File)