A Life Lost, A Legacy Drowned in Noise: Officer John O'Keefe

I wish F.A.C.E.S. did not exist. To clarify, I wish F.A.C.E.S. did not need to exist. Yet, most days I am reminded of the unfortunate reality that crime victims and their families frequently face revictimization from unethical true crime content that overshadows their grief, pain and the impact of crime-ironic in a genre labeled "true." Today, I watched Julie Grant, Court TV anchor and former prosecutor, interview several friends of Officer John J. O'Keefe. Their words were a poignant reminder of the person at the heart of a devastating tragedy, yet the interview felt like a cruel affront to the memory of a life and legacy drowned out by the toxic spectacle of social media.

In the digital world of true crime, public opinion frequently outpaces verified facts. The real pursuit of truth and justice is typically replaced by monetized sensationalist content. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Karen Read, where the tragic death of John O'Keefe, a dedicated Boston police officer, has taken a backseat to online speculation, conspiracy theory and vicious character assassination. While much of the discourse fixates on the defendant, cover-up allegations, and viral commentary, John O'Keefe's story—a life cut short, and the loved ones left behind—fades into the background. In a polarized online environment, acknowledging this loss or straying from the pro-defendant narrative comes with a steep price.

Journalists, attorneys, content creators, advocates and anyone publicly challenging conspiracy-laden narratives, or speaking out in favor of the Commonwealth and the O'Keefe family often become targets. Expressing an opinion has left many doxxed, harassed, and flooded with vitriol. Reasoned arguments, whether legal or practical, are frequently drowned out by mob-like behavior that demands loyalty to a particular version of events- regardless of what evidence exists or what the legal process reveals.

This phenomenon is not just unhealthy- it's dangerous. The uncompromising mob creates an environment where people are afraid to speak up unless they conform to a specific narrative. Certain creators, alongside some legal commentators, have distorted details, ignored evidence suggesting alternative perspectives, leveled grave accusations without substantiation, and delivered starkly biased, one-sided accounts. In many online forums, daring to question the narrative invites insults from self-aggrandizing creators who would rather flex their ego than offer reasoned rebuttal. Most troublingly, this behavior dehumanizes victims by reducing them to plot points in a certain narrative that conspicuously provokes outrage among its audience.

There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing the prosecutor’s case or raising critical questions—such inquiry is a cornerstone of the democratic process. As an attorney, skepticism is part of the role; challenging narratives and demanding answers is what we do. Indeed, the legal profession is often criticized for its clinical detachment, which can appear at odds with trauma-informed approaches—an acknowledgment that rigorous legal analysis often leaves little room for emotion.

However, much of the pro-defense content circulating online bears little resemblance to objective commentary aimed at educating an interested, invested and concerned audience. Quite the opposite. In many instances, the commentary lacks respectful engagement one might expect - particularly from attorneys- in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, tolerant of differing perspectives within the justice system. If audiences were presented with the same information but with a respect for differing opinions, we would likely not find this much toxicity stemming from online discourse about the Karen Read case. Unfortunately, the current climate online has given rise to digital vigilantism: reckless, unfounded attacks on victims' families, friends, and witnesses, often met with silence or tacit approval from the very creators who sparked the reaction. When the victim becomes lost amid this chaos, we have profoundly lost our way.

John O'Keefe's life and legacy should compel us to re-center the conversation. Justice is not a popularity contest or a quest for clicks, views, profits and donations. Truth is neither determined by the loudest, snarkiest or most obnoxious voices on social media, nor does it bow to the trending opinion of an online crowd. Fair trials rely on facts, not feeds.

In true crime trial content, when we talk about what happened to a victim, we cannot forget the most painful "truth" at the heart of the story: someone’s life was stolen. A real human being is dead—often because of a brutal, violent, senseless act. While it may require a deliberate effort to acknowledge the life and legacy of the victim whose story is being told, doing so is arguably the most respectful choice a content creator can make—especially since they’re profiting from telling that story. The victim is more than a headline, more than a case file, more than a name used to drive clicks and profit. Their life mattered. Their story matters; it deserves more than being drowned out by the noise of monetized chaos.

We owe John O'Keefe, his family and all of his loved ones—something far greater than the twisted spectacle of the last few years. The online community owes them space for dignity, respect, and yes, even a little grace under unimaginable pain and suffering. John O'Keefe's family did not arrive at this place by their own actions- they were thrust into this position by circumstances beyond their control. With so much beyond their control, we can offer those grieving a sense of agency simply by acknowledging their pain, refraining from making cruel comments and just stepping back to let them process their trauma in private. Regardless of differing opinions, we can choose to make a choice to engage with empathy, and honor John O'Keefe's life and legacy. If we lose sight of that, we risk alienating our own humanity, dignity, and self-respect, turning tragedy into entertainment.