By MICHAEL CASEY and PATRICK WHITTLE

DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — Jurors in the murder trial of Karen Read began deliberating Friday after weeks of testimony in a highly divisive case in which the prosecution’s theory of jaded love turned deadly is countered by a defense claim that a cast of tight-knit Boston area law enforcement killed a fellow police officer.

Read, 45, is accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, 46, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a house party where other local police and a federal agent were closing out a night of drinking in 2022. She’s charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene in Canton, outside Boston.

Read’s defense said O’Keefe was beaten, bitten by a dog, then left outside a home in Canton in a conspiracy orchestrated by the police that included planting evidence against Read.

The first Read trial ended July 1 in a mistrial due to a hung jury.

Prosecution has focused on the scene of death

The state’s case was led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan, who called fewer witnesses than prosecutor Adam Lally, who ran the first trial against Read.

Describing O’Keefe as a “good man” who “helped people,” Brennan on Friday said O’Keefe needed help that night and the only person who could lend a hand – call 911 or knock on a door – was Read. Instead, she drove away in her SUV.

“She was drunk. She hit him and she left him to die,” he said, repeating the phrase twice.

Brennan once again referenced Read’s statement about the possibility that she backed into O’Keefe, which the defense has pointed out came not from police reports but from a voluntary interview she did for a documentary series. In the television interview, Read said, “I didn’t think I hit him,” but acknowledged she could have “clipped him.”

In the first trial, the state called Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the case. Proctor would later be fired after a disciplinary board found he sent sexist and crude text messages about Read. Proctor was asked to read the texts aloud in court during the first trial, but in the second, the prosecution relied on others to read the offensive comments.

Prosecutors this time focused on evidence from the scene, and tried to make the point that broken pieces of Read’s taillight show she struck O’Keefe with her vehicle. The defense has argued that the taillight was actually damaged when Read was backing out of O’Keefe’s house and hit his car. They have suggested Proctor and others could have colluded to plant the pieces of broken plastic near O’Keefe’s body after they took the vehicle back to the police department.

Andre Porto, a forensic scientist who works in the DNA unit of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, detailed various items he tested, including the broken rear taillight and pieces of a broken cocktail glass found in the yard. Only O’Keefe was a likely match for both. A hair found on Read’s vehicle was a match for O’Keefe.

The prosecution pointed out that Read and O’Keefe were fighting. Voicemails recovered from Read’s phone in which she said, “I (expletive) hate you,” to O’Keefe were played in court. That voicemail would have arrived while he was lying in the snow.

The defense’s strategy in the second trial

Read’s defense team has cast doubt on the state’s case by suggesting Read was framed.

The defense has painted a picture of a deceitful web of people in O’Keefe’s social network who saw Read as a scapegoat for his death. The network includes federal agent Brian Higgins, who exchanged flirtatious text messages with Read, leading the defense to question if that led to a fatal confrontation. Higgins was present at the party on the night of O’Keefe’s death.

“What happened inside that house, that basement or that garage? What evidence was there for investigators to look into? What did they ignore?” defense attorney Alan Jackson asked Friday, noting the “obvious dog bites” on O’Keefe’s arm and the head injury from his falling backward onto a hard surface.

Defense attorneys also presented a different view of how Read’s taillight was cracked. They have attempted to show, via witnesses, surveillance video and photographs, that Read may have damaged her taillight the morning after O’Keefe’s death when she backed out of his driveway and bumped his car with her own.

Nicholas Barros, a police officer at a department where Read’s car was impounded, testified that he saw only a small crack in Read’s taillight when the car first arrived. The defense has pointed out that the taillight later looked much more damaged, arguing it could have been tampered with.

A crash expert who testified for the defense said, based on every test he performed, the damage to Read’s taillight and O’Keefe’s clothing was inconsistent with her SUV striking an arm or body at the speed described by the prosecution.

The defense has also questioned why investigators never entered the home where the party took place, although witnesses from the scene and prosecutors have said O’Keefe never went inside.

The defense also questioned Jennifer McCabe, who was at the house party and is the sister-in-law of the host, retired Boston police officer Brian Albert. McCabe made a misspelled web search, “hos long to die in cold,” after O’Keefe’s death.

The timing of the search has been in question. The defense argued that McCabe made the search at about 2:30 a.m. and helped cover for the real killer. The prosecution claims she searched after O’Keefe’s body was found later in the morning.

The defense called into question the actions of others who were at the party the night O’Keefe died. The party happened at the home of Albert, and after O’Keefe’s death, the Alberts rehomed their dog Chloe — who the defense claims bit O’Keefe — and refurbished their basement before selling their home at a loss.

Read faces a maximum penalty of a life sentence if convicted.

Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.