In Read case, state law shields autopsy
With report on homicide victim under wraps, speculation is filling the void
They are the photographs that launched a thousand theories: the body of John O’Keefe, the former Boston police officer found dead in a snowstorm in January 2022, lying on an autopsy table, scrapes and scratches covering his arms, swelling around his eyes.
These photos, according to the supporters of Karen Read, the woman accused of murdering O’Keefe, are evidence that the prosecution’s claims she backed her car into him and left him for dead are wrong. The autopsy photos, made public only because Read’s defense lawyers included them in a court filing, suggest that Read is the victim of a massive police coverup, her supporters say, and that O’Keefe actually was beaten by others and possibly attacked by the dog who lived on the property where his body was found.
It was these photos that led Lisa Pyrcz to protest on Read’s behalf outside Norfolk Superior Court during a recent hearing. Next to her, another woman held a sign that read “Where’s Chloe?” — the dog in question. One social media profile invoked the O.J. Simpson case in summing up the importance of what Read supporters believe the autopsy photos reveal: “If the arm was bit, you must acquit!!!”
While the photos were made public by the defense, the full autopsy report providing context, including the medical examiner’s official conclusions and analysis of O’Keefe’s injuries, remains shielded from release by state law. Some experts say Read’s case is a perfect example of why these documents should be public, as they are in several other states: In their absence, speculation fills the void.
“Massachusetts has a reputation for being one of the most secretive states in the country for open records law,” said Jeffrey Pyle, a Boston attorney who focuses on First Amendment issues. “Courts are making decisions based on documents that the public can’t see.”
He said transparency is key to ensuring oversight of judges and the court process in general, including during the many decisions around evidence and other motions that lead up to a trial.
“If the public cannot see the documents that judges rely on in the course of making decisions, the public cannot make decisions on whether the judge’s decisions are correct,” Pyle said.
Amid the flurry of filings in court and rampant speculation outside of it, all that has been available to the public about O’Keefe’s death are a sparselyfilled-out death certificate and snippets and prosecution summaries of the full autopsy report.
In court filings, the prosecution has summarized what it says is grand jury testimony from Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Scordi-Bello said O’Keefe suffered significant blunt-force trauma before he became hypothermic. Head injuries, likely to the back of his skull, probably incapacitated him, Scordi-Bello said, and caused swelling around his eyes, the district attorney’s office wrote.
The doctor saw no signs of him being involved in a fight, the DA’s office wrote.
The defense has used different parts of the report to further their theories that Read is being framed and that O’Keefe was beaten on the property of fellow Boston officer Brian Albert, outside of which his body was found, and left to die. Defense attorney Alan Jackson at one point held up enlarged autopsy photos in court as he suggested that the wounds on O’Keefe’s arms are dog bites and that the swelling on O’Keefe’s face is from a beating. The defense submitted a report from its own expert forensic pathologist, Dr. Frank Sheridan of California, but that document is under seal, and Sheridan, who’s listed as a possible witness in Read’s trial, could not be reached for comment. An attorney for Read declined to comment.
The Globe’s requests to obtain O’Keefe’s autopsy report under the Massachusetts open records law were denied; a spokesperson for the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security cited state law that autopsy reports are not public record.
The Norfolk DA’s office is forbidden from releasing the report, spokesperson David Traub said in response to the Globe’s request for the documents. He said the office provided the report to the defense through the discovery process, and that more information will come out during Read’s trial, in which opening arguments will begin on Monday after five days of jury selection. The trial, the judge told prospective jurors, could last as long as eight weeks.
“The examination and cross examination of the medical examiner will be where you get your answers,” Traub said.
In Massachusetts, the state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner conducts autopsies on people who die in “violent, suspicious, or unexplained circumstances.”
Death certificates are public record in Massachusetts, but contain much less information than the full report. O’Keefe’s, filed with the clerk’s office in Canton, says he died from “blunt impact injuries of head and hypothermia,” but includes no elaboration by Scordi-Bello, who certified it.
The manner of death is listed as “could not be determined.”
Other states offer more transparency. Autopsy reports are typically considered public records in several states, including Alabama, Colorado, California, and Florida, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which charts the documents’ availability. The organization says other states — including the rest of New England — typically do not allow autopsy reports to be released to the public.
Dr. Samantha Halaseh, an anatomic pathologist who practices in Alabama, said she was surprised to hear autopsy reports were not public in all states the way they are in hers. She said such a document wouldn’t be very useful to a layman — the dense, jargon-heavy report isn’t something a nonmedical professional could read over lunch and draw firm conclusions about, she said.
“If someone has the actual report, they have what came out of the horse’s mouth — not secondary, not tertiary, not hearsay,” said Halaseh, who conducts private autopsies. “But on the other hand who’s examining it?”
Testimony also might not bring much clarity, she said, because, “You can have one doctor paid to say this and one doctor paid to say that.”
Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, noted the “high public interest” in this case amid the allegations of police wrongdoing. If there is merit to such claims, it is important for the public to find out — and it is just as important if nothing went wrong, he said, that trust is restored.
“Any time you have questions about how those in government are acting and whether they might be involved in an individual’s death, the public interest in getting more information about their death increases significantly,” Silverman said. “These autopsy reports might provide answers to these types of questions.”