Karen Read, 45, the Massachusetts woman acquitted in June in the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, is now accusing the lawyer for O'Keefe's family of making up a quote and presenting it to a court as fact. The accusation landed Wednesday in filings connected to a wrongful death suit brought by O'Keefe's family, and it centers on something simple: an audio recording that, according to Read's legal team, does not contain the words the opposing lawyer claimed it does.
Marc Diller, the attorney representing O'Keefe's family in the wrongful death lawsuit, filed court papers last month claiming that Read said the following during a leaked phone call with Massachusetts blogger Aidan "Turtleboy" Kearney: "I'm dead. I'm f–king dead. Do you have any clue what's on the phone that they took?"
Diller included a link to the audio recording of that phone call. But Read's legal team says the recording tells a different story. According to Read's lawyers, the audio does not include the first part of that alleged statement. The recording only includes one line: "Do you have any clue what's on that phone that they took?"
Read's lawyers argued Wednesday that Diller should face sanctions, meaning court-imposed penalties for misconduct, for what they called a "serious fabrication of evidence to the court."
That was a lie — Ms. Read never said that.
Read's legal team made that assertion while asking the judge to reject the O'Keefe family's bid to keep Read from getting her seized cellphone back.
The cellphone dispute sits at the intersection of two separate legal proceedings. Read's phone was seized by investigators in connection with a case accusing Kearney of intimidating witnesses. A judge last month ruled that Read's phone cannot be used in Kearney's case.
With that avenue closed, Diller pivoted. He wants to block Read from reclaiming her device so it can still be used as evidence in the O'Keefe family's wrongful death lawsuit. His stated concern: that Read might wipe the phone clean if she gets it back.
Read's lawyers pushed back on that claim as well, the New York Post reported. They maintained that if the phone were returned, Read would not violate an existing agreement with O'Keefe's side by destroying evidence on it. They also argued that Read's reaction during the phone call with Kearney was simply frustration at Kearney getting her "entangled with certain members of the Massachusetts State Police" again.
Read was acquitted in the criminal case that accused her of striking O'Keefe with her SUV and leaving him outside during a snowstorm. Read has maintained she was the patsy in what she has called an elaborate police cover-up. The acquittal did not end her legal exposure. The wrongful death suit filed by O'Keefe's family remains active, and the phone dispute is now a live battlefield within it.
Kearney, described as an ardent advocate for Read's innocence, faces his own separate legal proceedings accusing him of witness intimidation. The identity of the charging authority in Kearney's case has not been publicly specified in the provided proceedings.
The judge handling the wrongful death dispute faces a pointed question: did Diller attribute words to Read that the audio recording he submitted does not support? If the recording genuinely lacks the "I'm dead. I'm f–king dead" language, Read's team has a strong procedural argument for sanctions. If Diller can account for the discrepancy, the phone custody fight continues on its merits.
No upcoming hearing dates have been publicly announced.
Fabricating a quote in a court filing is not a gray area. If an officer of the court submitted words to a judge that a recording he himself linked does not contain, that is not a technicality or a misunderstanding. It is the kind of conduct that corrodes the adversarial system from the inside, and the court that received those papers has every reason to take Read's sanctions request seriously.
