The Megyn Kelly Show – Ep. 1218

Episode Title: Breaking Down Every Angle of the Karen Read Case and Trials: Crime Week Begins, with Peter Tragos
Date: December 29, 2025
Host: Megyn Kelly
Guest: Peter Tragos (Attorney, host of "The Lawyer You Know" on YouTube)

Episode Overview

This episode kicks off “Crime Week” on The Megyn Kelly Show with a deep dive into the highly controversial Karen Read case—a legal drama sparking intense national debate around a Massachusetts murder, police procedure, evidence tampering, and the limits of reasonable doubt. Megyn is joined by attorney and prominent legal commentator Peter Tragos for an exhaustive, point-by-point analysis of the criminal trial(s), key evidence, conspiracy theories, law enforcement misconduct, and the ongoing civil suits that stemmed from the case.

Main Themes & Purpose

• To clarify the facts, legal nuances, and public fallout of the Karen Read criminal trials.
• To explore how law enforcement conduct, forensics, and online activism have influenced the case—and how its legacy is still evolving with ongoing civil actions.
• To convey why the Karen Read case is viewed as a unique study in both flawed investigation and the limits of criminal prosecution.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Case Recap & Competing Theories

(02:31 – 05:10)

• Karen Read: Previously a finance professional, dating police officer John O’Keefe. Their relationship was described as tumultuous.
• Event Night: After drinking, they drove to a gathering at 34 Fairview. At issue: Did John O’Keefe (“the victim”) exit the vehicle and enter the house, or was he fatally struck by Read’s car outside?
• Prosecution’s Theory: Read, angry and drunk, backed up her Lexus at 24 mph, hitting and killing O’Keefe—blunt force trauma plus hypothermia led to his death.
• Defense’s Theory: O’Keefe entered the house, where he was allegedly assaulted by attendees (mostly law enforcement), and his body was staged in a snowbank to frame Read.

Peter Tragos: "If you believe the prosecution, he never made it in the house... If you believe Karen Reed, she said he walked in towards the house... She gets pissed off, drives back to his house... That's Karen Reed's story." (04:05)

2. Key Evidence: The “I Hit Him” Statement & Physical Forensics

(05:10 – 13:24)

• Prosecution’s strongest evidence:
  • “I hit him, I hit him” statement, allegedly heard by a paramedic. Read consistently denied it, claiming she said, “Could I have hit him?”
  • Tail light plastic from Read’s Lexus found in O’Keefe’s clothing, suggesting impact.
• Defense evidence:
  • The Google search “how long to die in cold” by someone inside the house—possibly before O’Keefe was found—raised suspicion of a cover-up.
  • Accident reconstruction and forensics experts (some FBI-trained) could not replicate the alleged impact scenario; Lexus data logged no collision event; tail light mechanisms intact post-incident.

Karen Read (Dateline clip, 08:24): "I said, could I have hit him? Did I hit him?"
Peter Tragos: "Karen Reed had accident reconstructionists... they can never create the same action where something hitting that taillight would explode... It just wouldn't happen." (11:13)

3. Evidence Tampering & Police Conduct

(12:16 – 18:13)

• Multiple tail light fragments were “discovered” at the scene over several days/weeks, suggesting planting of evidence.
• Surveillance video of the vehicle post-incident appeared edited; gaps in footage, suspicious activity.
• Text messages among law enforcement and partygoers stating intent to “pin it on the girl,” ensure “no cop catches any shit.”
• Alarming level of investigator bias, objectification, and derogatory comments about Karen Read (including the lead investigator, Proctor, who was fired).

Peter Tragos: "They just kept planning pieces of taillight... Text messages said, we're going to pin it on the girl... We're going to make sure he's a Boston cop, so we're not even going to look into him." (17:40)

4. Trial Outcomes & Community Reaction

(14:11 – 23:00)

• First trial: Hung jury.
• Second trial (June 18, 2025): Read found not guilty on all murder/manslaughter counts, guilty only of OUI (Operating Under the Influence).
• Public support for Read was strong—crowds erupted post-verdict.
• O’Keefe’s family devastated, still convinced of Read’s guilt.

Jury Foreman Charlie Deloach (30:46): "I didn't take one note... after the first witness, it was just like, oh, okay, I see where this is going... There was none to make her guilty at all."

Juror #4 (32:05): "Some people think she was definitely innocent and [for] other people... there was reasonable doubt... There was holes in the case that left for reasonable doubt."

5. Forensic Fiascos: The Google Search & Medical Evidence

(24:20 – 28:21)

• Timing of the incriminating Google search ("how long to die in cold")—experts disagreed if it was done at 2:27 am (before Read arrived) or at 6:04 am (during search for O’Keefe’s body).
• Forensic uncertainty extended to cause of death: No broken bones or internal injuries consistent with a car strike at 24 mph; medical examiner listed cause as “undetermined,” not homicide.

Peter Tragos: "John O’Keefe had none of that. No broken bones, no bruising anywhere on his body... The ME could not determine that he died as a result of a car accident or that it was a homicide." (29:08)

6. The Civil Litigation & Ongoing Fallout

(36:18 – 41:22)

• O’Keefe family: Wrongful death suit against Read and the bars.
• Read: Counter-suing Proctor (lead investigator), police supervisors, and party attendees, alleging conspiracy, civil rights violations, and ruination of her life.
• Possible forthcoming defamation claims by those named in her suit.
• Civil court = lower burden of proof; discovery may surface new facts.

Megyn Kelly: "That's crazy. You never see that. Never... She is not in that posture. She's like, let's go." (37:57)
Peter Tragos: "If this is true, what she's alleging, then she does deserve to be compensated for it... And sometimes it's a money grab either way." (38:51)

7. Media, Activism & The “TurtleBoy” Effect

(44:55 – 47:41)

• Notable mention of “TurtleBoy,” a polarizing online journalist whose aggressive coverage and discovery of new witnesses gave public momentum to the defense narrative—even if by bruising means.
• O’Keefe’s friends/family inside the house describe feeling dehumanized and demonized as a result.

Co-host: "God forbid I ever get accused of a crime. I want turtle boy on my side." (47:28)

8. Key Takeaways for Legal Practice

(48:13 – 53:42)

• The case serves as a cautionary tale on the dangers of bias, poor evidence handling, and investigator misconduct.
• Jury decisions often turn on witness credibility, not just hard evidence.
• Prosecution overreach (charging for intentional murder when arguably heat-of-passion or accident) likely backfired.
• Lack of clear video evidence is a major frustration.

Peter Tragos: "If you can't put the lead investigator on and you can't put half your evidence on because you don't trust it yourself, maybe you shouldn't be prosecuting this case." (48:21)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Peter Tragos: "If I had to choose – is she factually innocent or is she factually guilty – I would choose she's factually innocent. I'm just not overly confident of that. I don't think anybody's ever gonna be able to prove what happened that night." (20:54)
• Jury Foreman Charlie Deloach: "I didn't take one note...after the first witness, it was just like...oh, okay, I see where this is going...There was none to make her guilty at all." (30:46)
• Peter Tragos: "There are text messages that said, we're going to pin it on the girl...guaranteeing that Karen Reed is guilty the next morning before an investigation had even taken place." (23:00)
• Megyn Kelly: "Usually I hear these stories, and I'm like, I have a pretty good idea what happened. This one I remain uncertain." (52:31)
• Co-host: "Having a bad chief witness can make or break your case...and in this case, the prosecution had...a terrible chief witness." (49:33)

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Topic | Timestamp | |-----------|:--------------| | Intro/Crime Week Theme | 00:29 – 02:31 | | Recap: Who is Karen Read? | 02:31 – 04:05 | | Case Timeline & Theories | 04:05 – 05:10 | | Evidence for/against (Prosecution & Defense) | 05:10 – 13:24 | | Evidence Tampering, Police Texts | 12:16 – 19:19 | | First & Second Trials, Verdicts | 14:11 – 23:00 | | Jury Comments Post-Trial | 30:46 – 33:07 | | Forensic Issues: Google Search, Car Data | 24:20 – 29:08 | | Civil Suits Explained | 36:18 – 41:22 | | TurtleBoy & Online Spectacle | 44:55 – 47:41 | | Lessons for Law, Evidence, and PR | 48:13 – 53:42 | | Final Thoughts on Mystery | 52:31 – 53:42 |

Tone & Style

• Conversational, probing, and candid.
• Emphasis on legal complexity and the weird, one-of-a-kind nature of the Read case.
• Willingness to call out both the prosecution and defense for overreach and odd tactics.
• Peter Tragos’s commentary is detail-rich, cautious, and avoids absolutism regarding Read’s guilt or innocence.

For Listeners Wanting the “Cliff’s Notes”:

• The Read trial illustrates the perils of police corruption, bad investigations, and the difficulty of drawing clear truth in complex, high-profile cases.
• Ultimately, the state failed to meet its burden—possibly (but not certainly) letting a guilty person go free, possibly averting a grave miscarriage of justice.
• The real story may only emerge, if at all, in the continuing civil battles.

[END OF SUMMARY]