The defense rested its case on Monday in the murder trial of a woman accused of striking her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank. The defendant did not take the stand, and after the final three witnesses testified, the judge informed jurors that they had heard all the evidence. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, with one hour allotted for each side before jurors begin deliberations.
The case has garnered significant media attention, fueled by a general distrust of police and amplified by crime bloggers. The defendant pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the death of Officer John O’Keefe. Prosecutors allege that she struck O’Keefe with her SUV and then fled the scene in January 2022. O’Keefe was discovered unresponsive hours later outside the Canton home of another Boston police officer hosting a party. An autopsy revealed that he died from hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
One of the final witnesses, a retired forensic pathologist, testified that some of O’Keefe's injuries were inconsistent with being hit by the defendant's SUV. The pathologist suggested that certain injuries could have resulted from an altercation and that scratch marks on O’Keefe's arm might have been caused by an animal, potentially a dog.
Additionally, two witnesses from a forensic engineering consulting firm raised doubts about the prosecution's version of events. They emphasized the importance of scientific evidence and physics in analyzing the case. The firm had been engaged by the FBI as part of a federal investigation into the handling of the case by state law enforcement.
The defense team argued that the defendant was framed and pointed to inconsistencies in the evidence. They contended that O’Keefe may have been injured inside a residence before being moved outside and suggested that the injuries did not align with being struck by an SUV.
Throughout the two-month trial, prosecutors meticulously presented evidence from the crime scene, while the defense called only a few witnesses over two days. The defense focused on questioning the investigation, highlighting potential conflicts of interest and criticizing the quality of police work.
Supporters of the defendant, who have gathered outside the courthouse, have expressed concerns about perceived failures in the justice system. They believe that the defendant was wrongly accused and assert that the case reveals systemic issues that need to be addressed.
