Part 2 of my Interview with Karen Read Juror #11

Juror Paula Prado gives more insight into Jennifer McCabe, her theory on what happened that night, and the huge red flag that made her think twice

1. Everyone is asking: What exactly is your theory about the dog?

Let’s really reinforce the word theory here. It’s the theory of a regular citizen—someone who was not paid to investigate, test, or write a report. Based on what I had access to—testimony, reports, and witness statements—I came to a possible suggestion of events.

From my understanding, one of John’s shoes was actually found outside, and that specific piece of evidence was properly bagged with date and time. I believe it was found on the 29th around 6 p.m.

Based on Dr. Laposata’s findings, Dr. Bello’s autopsy, and Dr. Wolfe’s testimony, the head injury was caused by John falling backward, and there was no evidence to prove a vehicular collision. These same professionals also disagreed about the arm injuries—could they have been caused by plastic debris? An animal? Or even road rash, as one juror suggested?

My thought process was: I need to account for the sneaker found outside, the glass on his face, and Karen wondering if she hit him.

As for the dog, no one saw it. It didn’t bark with all the movement outside, and it didn’t react when Jen McCabe entered the house that morning. So, where was the dog at 6 a.m. during a blizzard? And why was it missing without its owner?

Putting everything together, here’s the reasonable chain of events I imagined:

• 1. John gets out of the car, possibly under the influence, maybe after an argument.

• 2. Either he jumps out of the way when Karen backs up, dropping the glass, or she clips him slightly, leaving tiny debris in his clothes (some was found under his hoodie). Either way, he falls and loses one of his sneakers. It’s also possible he simply slipped on the icy lawn while walking.

• 3. Karen leaves. John enters the house using the garage door. Phone accuracy drops once you’re indoors or in bad weather. Phone activity ends. Since no one saw either him or the dog, I believe they were in the garage or basement.

• 4. It’s common for groups of men to hang out in garages—maybe to grab a drink, chat, or show something off. Brian Higgins had asked to talk to John earlier and had texted him that night. Perhaps this was his chance to talk. Maybe things got heated, Brian Albert stepped in, and the dog—protective by nature—jumped in to defend its owner. A natural reaction would be for John to shield his face, which could explain scratches or a bite on his arm. The head injury could have come from a physical altercation or even from the dog trying to intervene.

Again, this is just a theory. It doesn’t have to be proven or even make sense to anyone but me. But the theory presented by the prosecution? That needed to make sense—beyond a reasonable doubt. And it didn’t.

2. What was the first thing you Googled about the case after the verdict?

Sue O’Connell. She was the only journalist I knew by name at the time. Then I downloaded X and started following everyone I recognized from court—lawyers, journalists, and pages related to the “Free Karen Read” movement.

3. What did you think about the Commonwealth not calling Michael Proctor or Brian Higgins to testify?

I understood why they didn’t call Proctor. If you looked at my notebook (which they kept), I had a bunch of question marks around his name. During the trial, we heard he lost his job. Not knowing the full extent of his conduct, I felt calling him wasn’t necessary, and his texts had already damaged his credibility.

But not calling Higgins? That was a huge red flag. If the theory is that Karen had a motive because of an affair, then the alleged affair partner should’ve been questioned, especially since she appeared to be ignoring him that night.

4. Did one particular juror take the lead during deliberations? Was there a juror who sat back and didn’t say much?

Aside from the foreperson—who did an excellent job—Juror 18 was especially proactive. She kept us organized, created posters to help visualize our findings, and helped keep us on track. I didn’t expect her to be so involved. But no one sat back. Everyone had a voice and the chance to ask questions, share doubts, and disagree freely.

5. You gave your name and photo to be published with our first interview, almost with pride. Why?

I felt truly bad for the O’Keefe family. I chose three journalists to speak with: you, Sue (O’Connell), and Aidan. Actually, I messaged Aidan just to offer help on future cases or causes related to corruption. I didn’t know he did interviews on his YouTube channel.

I picked you and Sue because your reporting was the most accurate and fair of what happened during the trial. I hoped that by speaking through you, my words would reach the O’Keefe family more clearly. I know they probably hate me now, but I still pray they’ll someday understand what I saw. That this was a tragedy, but there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Karen caused it.

All the other media outlets just showed up at my door without warning. I have nothing to hide, Jess. That’s why I shared my name and photo. The only precaution I took was removing my last name from my X handle to protect my family, which didn’t work.

And no, I didn’t edit the photo I sent you. It was from earlier this year, before the trial, when I was 25 pounds lighter. Over the past two months, I’ve gained 12 pounds. I didn’t go public to show off or become a target for racist attacks. I definitely didn’t do it for fame or money. If anything, I’m more broke than before: I wasn’t paid for any interviews, and I lost the only three contracts I had in Brazil.

6. What is your opinion of Jennifer McCabe?

I don’t believe Jen was directly involved in John’s death. But if he died inside that house, she’s part of the small group of people who likely tried to cover it up.

To be clear, that’s just my personal assumption, based solely on her testimony, timeline, group chats, and interactions with the FBI. If she were on trial instead of Karen, I couldn’t give a Guilty verdict either, because I would still have reasonable doubt.

7. Is there anything you’ve learned since the verdict that you wish you knew before?

Nothing that would’ve changed my verdict. But if I had known Chloe was rehomed immediately after the incident, it might have helped me reach Not Guilty even faster.

8. Did you or any other juror find the verdict slip confusing? Did it matter when it was changed?

Yes, especially Charge 2. We weren’t sure whether finding her guilty of a lesser offense under the manslaughter umbrella meant we were also finding her guilty of the main charge.

9. Did you believe there was a Google search by Jennifer McCabe at 2:27 a.m. asking, “how long to die in cold?”

No. That part was well explained by Dr. Wiffen. The timestamp made sense and seemed reasonable.

10. What did you all get for lunch every day?

I’m about to start a movement for better juror lunches!

The court officers were incredibly kind and flexible. We had two vendor options—both offered sandwiches and salads. The salads were hit or miss. The sandwiches were okay. But it was so repetitive. We were all tired of eating the same thing over and over.

Still—we survived! And despite everything, it was a unique and fascinating experience.