A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read

I was afraid this was going to be a campaign piece but it's not. Lots of information is missing and her lying attorneys speak too much but I can say it reflects both sides generally. The thing is Karen Read is a narcissist and she made this documentary a disaster for herself. She is guilty and I'm saying this because I only follow the evidence and I'm aware of her disgusting innocence fraud campaign. The evidence againts her is so strong so her only chance is to taint the jury pool. Crazy FKR people are mostly working for her and the rest have been duped.. Of course there're some grifting youtube lawyers and content creators who like clicks&likes. People love conspiracy theories, right? Well, there's zero possibility of a conspiracy, a cover up. She killed John and when they upgraded her charges the plan started. She accused innocent people and watched them being harassed, attacked, she literally ruined their lives. The prosecution wasn't that good in the 1st trial, hopefully Hank Brennan will prove the obvious, jury selection is so important. Justice for John!

I did not have any opinion about the case before I watched the documentair but that changed alom the way

Ah yes, Karen Read: The Documentary - the docu absolutely no one needed, but somehow still happened. A bold, head-scratching PR move that screams, "Let's win the court of public opinion with a camera crew and a whole lot of me."

Let's be honest: the last time this kind of defense strategy actually worked was with O. J. Simpson. And we all definitely learned from that... or did we?

And oh, the data frenzy. This documentary doesn't just flirt with conspiracy - it slow dances with it in the middle of a fog machine and strobe lights. It plays right into the same crowd that hit peak distrust during COVID. Remember that?

What makes it worse - and honestly, kind of sad - is that there are people who genuinely believe in her innocence, not just because they're naive, but because they want to stand for something good. And I really think their sincerity is being used.

Making this docu is not a really smart move i believe. But also kind of fascinating, because it reveals more about her than maybe she ever intended. If they had tacked on one final episode - just a nice sit-down with a forensic psychologist - I'm pretty sure that alone would've sealed the case. Because at the heart of all this isn't just a crime, it's a character. And one that seems way too comfortable being the star of this sad situation. .

This docuseries is one of the most gripping true crime watches I've had in ages. Slick, thoughtful, and clearly well-researched, it goes beyond just retelling events-it almost plays like an exposé. Karen Read is given a lot of screen time, and while the documentary frames it as balance, it also inadvertently exposes just how bizarre, calculated, and emotionally vacant her behaviour is.

The filmmakers try to remain impartial, but by letting Karen speak so freely, it only highlights how far removed she seems from the reality of someone's life being lost. There's a disturbing coldness to her presence throughout. No real remorse. No humanity. Just spin.

I give the documentary a strong 9/10-it's compelling and infuriating in equal measure. Karen, on the other hand, is a hard 0. In my opinion, she knows exactly what she did, and this feels like a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate public perception. I truly hope the new jury sees through it, and that justice is finally served.

The most notable aspects of A Body in the Snow are its repetitiveness, the deep inside look at Karen Read and her defense and a fairly choppy view of the trial.

Whether it was just padding or an attempt to make each episode stand alone re. The case (assuming sporadic viewership?), some episodes repeated such large blocks of the previous episode I thought I'd accidentally mis-clicked. Simply eliminating all the repeat content could've easily shaved off two hours.

And made for a more compelling watch.

I was most interested in the trial itself, specifically the evidence about John O'Keefe's injuries and the police investigation.

It's a shame there wasn't greater focus on the actual legal proceedings-versus, say, 'turtle boy' and the 'free Karen Read' or 'lock her up' brigades.

Was the medical examiner even asked (after two expert witnesses were somewhat contradictory) if JO's arm injuries were consistent with dog bites? Was KR's blood alcohol tested that morning? It's unclear. Did anyone really need to see the defendant curling her hair and steaming her clothes?

One of the more surprising aspects of ABITS was, for a very PR-savvy defense, what an unflattering portrait of Karen Read emerged.

Someone should've advised KR before filming to try to lower her volume-and come across as sad about John and less self-centered. The scene where she's giddy over having 'zero empathy' about the harassment of a witness' teenage daughter was unnerving.

Given defense attorneys are known for their bullishness, when *everyone* on the defense team comes across as more likable than the defendant, that's really saying something.

In a case where many facts remain elusive, ABITS clarified at least two things.

First, Karen Read was clearly overcharged; *if* she hit JO, it wasn't deliberate and she had no idea. Those angry and hurt voicemails she left him were well beyond acting. No one could be convicted of second degree murder with this mound of mishandled evidence.

Second, the defense needs to take it down some notches around the conspiracy theory. Why even speculate JO was placed on the lawn? *If* something happened inside, it's far more likely he left on his own steam, after being ordered out or fleeing a dog attack. Particularly since he was still alive. When you look at where he was found, it makes no sense anyone would take that kind of risk.

It appears a number of people lied on the stand. ABITS is, as much as anything, a spotlight on crappy human impulses.

It's end March 2025 and I've just watched episode 5. I honestly can't say if I believe the prosecution's story or not. Luckily it's not up to me to decide that.

Karen doesn't come across as the most sympathetic person, but she's also fighting for her freedom. She's a person in a constant state of crisis. Being self-centered is not a crime.

The coverage of the trial does seem biased as it mainly shows behind the scenes stuff from the defense. Her story isn't very clear, but neither is the evidence presented by the prosecution. It looks like the state is more concerned with putting Karen in prison than getting to the bottom of what actually happened.