BLIZZARD OF LIES

Blizzard of Lies is Dave Wedge's nonfiction account of the January 2022 death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, found in the snow in Canton, Massachusetts, and the two trials of his girlfriend Karen Read, who was ultimately acquitted of murder and manslaughter. Wedge, a former Boston Herald investigative reporter and South Shore native, reconstructs the case through court records, media coverage, and interviews with people on both sides. What he finds is a mix of lies, sloppy police work, institutional corruption, and a social-media-driven 'Free Karen Read' movement that reshaped the courtroom. The book deliberately refuses to name a culprit, instead centering O'Keefe as the victim and his family's unresolved search for answers.

Weigh the evidence

1. Follow the proceedings and primary records yourself instead of trusting the surrounding narrative. Wedge urges readers to track what actually happened in court, dig through court records, and read the full media coverage rather than lean on rumor or one side's framing. (source, source)
2. When a dispute has two competing versions, lay them out side by side rather than declaring which is true. Wedge builds the book as a 'choose your own adventure,' giving the prosecution's and the defense's theories parallel chapters so readers weigh both instead of being handed a verdict. (source, source)
3. Refuse false certainty when the evidence is unresolved. Wedge won't say he knows what happened, noting only one person truly knows and he is dead; he leaves the verdict open rather than force a conclusion the record can't support. (source)
4. Watch how social media and polarized online movements distort institutions, and hold everyone accountable regardless of tribe. Wedge argues this case passed a point where the 'Free Karen Read' campaign began shaping what happened in court, and he calls for accountability at every level, from defendant to judge to DA. (source, source)
5. Sloppy execution undermines a conclusion even when that conclusion is right. Wedge calls the police work 'sloppy at best' and says mistakes, not a grand conspiracy, created the reasonable doubt behind the acquittal; he believes the officers would dot i's and cross t's to erase that doubt if they could do it over. (source)
6. Keep the actual victim centered when a compelling narrative threatens to overshadow them. Wedge insists the case became 'the Karen Read case' when it should have been the John O'Keefe case, and that whatever happened, O'Keefe, not Read, is the victim whose story deserves telling. (source, source)
7. Verify against the people involved and sources you trust on both sides, not just the loudest voices. Wedge talks to law enforcement, judges, defense lawyers, the family, and Read's legal team, and studies every court filing and interview rather than accept one camp's account. (source, source)
8. Recognize that escalation changes the other side's incentives and can change the outcome. Wedge argues the DA's decision to overcharge second-degree murder forced Read to fight for her life, where a manslaughter charge would likely have been pleaded down, reshaping how the case unfolded. (source)
9. Leave no question unanswered if you want your conclusion to survive scrutiny. Wedge credits the acquittal to 'loose ends that were never tied up,' and his account shows each explained point met a counterpoint; unanswered questions become the doubt that collapses a case. (source, source)
10. Separate a tightly held belief from the evidence when that belief also serves emotional self-preservation. Wedge observes the O'Keefe family's absolute certainty is partly a survival mechanism for a mother who couldn't entertain corruption, a reminder that grief can shape conclusions as much as proof. (source)