Justice Concerns Could Unite Unlikely Allies
They emerge from different communities, with different backgrounds and political leanings.
Yet these two American movements share striking similarities in their core grievances.
Both distrust official narratives from law enforcement. Both point to evidence they believe has been tampered with or mishandled. Both suspect investigations have been designed to protect insiders rather than uncover truth. Both question whether institutions can legitimately investigate themselves. Both have built grassroots communities through social media, circumventing traditional information gatekeepers.
And both have faced dismissal from authorities who seem more interested in discrediting their concerns than addressing them.
One might reasonably assume these parallel movements would recognize their common ground. Yet supporters of Karen Read and Black Lives Matter activists often view each other as occupying opposite ends of America's divided landscape.
At first glance, these groups might seem worlds apart. But dig deeper, and you'll find their core concerns spring from the same well: distrust of law enforcement and fears about systemic justice failures.
The Karen Read case has captivated Massachusetts and beyond since Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found dead in 2022. His girlfriend, Karen Read, is charged with second-degree murder, leaving the scene of a deadly accident, and manslaughter after allegedly striking O'Keefe with her vehicle. She has pleaded not guilty, claiming she is the victim of a law enforcement conspiracy. Her previous trial ended with a hung jury and her re-trial is underway.
Read's supporters argue she's been railroaded by a corrupt system protecting its own. They allege that there is missing evidence, inconsistent testimonies, and investigation irregularities that suggest a cover-up.
Sound familiar? These are precisely the concerns that galvanized the Black Lives Matter movement: allegations of evidence tampering, officers protecting each other, and investigations that seem designed to reach predetermined conclusions rather than uncover truth.
Both movements fundamentally question whether our justice system can fairly investigate itself. When police investigate potential misconduct by fellow officers — whether in a suspicious death case like Read's or in police violence cases central to BLM — the same troubling question emerges: Who watches the watchers?
Critics may dismiss Read supporters as conspiracy theorists or BLM activists as anti-police, but this misses their shared, legitimate concern: justice systems work only when accountability applies equally to everyone, including those within the system.
The parallels don't stop at critiques. Both movements have leveraged social media to circumvent traditional information gatekeepers, building grassroots communities united by skepticism toward official narratives. Both have faced dismissal from authorities who seem more interested in discrediting their concerns than addressing them.
Of course, significant differences exist between these movements in scale, demographics, and historical context. But their common thread — demanding transparency when power investigates itself — transcends political divides.
Perhaps there's an opportunity here.
If Americans from different political backgrounds can recognize their shared interest in accountable institutions, we might find common ground in reforming systems to restore trust.
Because ultimately, a justice system that works fairly for everyone benefits us all — regardless of which specific case brought us to that realization.
Sue O'Connell is the editor of South End News and a commentator for NBC10 Boston. She appears regularly on "Canton Confidential: The Karen Read Murder Trial" nightly at 7 pm on NBC10 and Peacock. Follow O'Connell on social media: @suenbcboston