From Wondery, I'm Alice Levine. And I'm Matt Ford, and this is British Scandal. MUSIC
We have come to the end of a very dramatic series following the stories of the women that took it upon themselves to give democratic rights to over half the British population. I thought this was all going to be satchels and shouting, but I did not expect how widespread the support was for the movement. When you get half a million people at that monster march, the brutal realities of force feeding and what that actually meant, quite how militant they were. I had no idea that explosives had been so widely used.
And mittens, lest we forget. Also how the government just thought they could ignore them and shut them up. I mean, it's mad to think that you could ignore such strong characters like Emmeline Pankhurst, who
who was the matriarch of the movement. Yes, she truly dedicated her life to this movement. She had to make the incredibly difficult decision between her family and her politics. She is the one that took responsibility for the arson attacks that we heard about in the series. And after campaigning for years and years to get women the vote, she died just 18 days before the act was passed. We are very privileged that we are going to be speaking to the great-granddaughter of Emmeline Pankhurst. She's a women's rights activist, writer...
writer and a senior advisor for CARE, an international and humanitarian organization fighting global poverty and social injustice.
She is Professor Helen Pankhurst, CBE, and she'll be joining us after this. As summer winds down, let your imagination soar by listening on Audible. Whether you listen to stories, motivation, expert advice, any genre you love, you can be inspired to imagine new worlds, new possibilities, new ways of thinking. With Audible, there's more to imagine when you listen.
And speaking of listening, you can listen to the best-selling science fiction thriller Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir right now on the Audible app and traverse the galaxy in a desperate last-chance mission along with astronaut Ryland Grace, all from the comfort of your living room.
As an Audible member, you choose one title a month to keep from their entire catalog. New members can try Audible free for 30 days. Visit audible.com slash WonderyPod or text WonderyPod to 500-500. That's audible.com slash WonderyPod or text WonderyPod to 500-500.
Make this new school year an opportunity for your kids to learn important life skills with Greenlight. Greenlight is a debit card and money app for families where kids learn how to save, invest, and spend wisely while parents keep an eye on kids' money habits. Greenlight also helps families get into their fall routine with a chores feature that lets parents assign chores and pay kids allowance when they check them off. Get your first month free at greenlight.com slash wondery. greenlight.com slash wondery.
Helen, thanks so much for joining us. Hi. Helen, for most of us, family pride goes as far as maybe keeping some sports trophies or, you know, Nana's Victoria sponge recipe. But you must have known that the name Pankhurst was pretty special from a young age.
Absolutely. And I don't look at the house in terms of the references to Pankhurst memorabilia, the colours purple, white and green, absolutely all over the place. Sashes, jewellery, you name it. It's actually become more and more so. I grew up in Ethiopia where...
Sylvia was known, but for other reasons, not because of the suffragette connections, but more because of the work that she went on to do. So Sylvia, my grandmother, the work that she went on to do in terms of Ethiopia's liberation from Mussolini and fascism. So some people knew about her then. It used to be when I came to the UK in the summer that I would hear more people asking me questions about the suffragette background. So that came gradually.
People might think with your surname it was inevitable that you would become a women's rights activist, but when did you take that decision?
So again, the Ethiopian influence was greatest. Growing up there, I thought of a career around economics and international development and started looking at issues around poverty and marginalization and working on those issues. And you cannot do that with a global perspective without bringing in gender. So it almost happened that way through the need, the
reality of the feminization of poverty and vulnerability and then my own personal experiences around continuing inequality and my name meaning people asked me questions about that heritage and what I thought about gender equality so all of that came gradually I think and coalesced around this sense of a need to look at global and local feminism and the links between the two.
That's interesting. So when people learn of your surname, what is the first question they ask? It's, are you related, usually? And then I will throw it back to them to say, related to whom? Because I'm very interested to know whether it's Emmeline that they know about. And they'll often say Emily rather than Emmeline or Sylvia because it immediately...
puts people in slightly different camps as to what interests they have in the surname and the issues. Emmeline as the mother figure, also Christabel comes up a bit. And then Sylvia, who remained very much on the left side of politics, whereas Emmeline and Christabel moved to the right. And for me personally, as a campaigner, it's been incredibly useful to have those two people on either side of the spectrum, because I think cross-party politics is really important when it comes to feminism.
Is there any pressure that comes with having the surname Pankhurst? No. I am aware that I kind of question whether people respond to it. So it's not a neutral surname. You know, there's almost like a pause once I've used the surname to see if there's going to be a reaction because there often is.
But it's not pressure. It's not a sense that I have that surname, therefore I have to continue doing things, you know, linked to women's rights. I think it's I have that surname. People are interested. I start reflecting. I start realizing the power of the surname and the continued value and reality of it. And therefore I get more and more engaged. And the more engaged I am, the more interesting it is. And it's a virtuous circle.
And have you wondered over the years who of the Pankhursts from history you have the most in common with? I suppose inevitably Sylvia. I have her as my middle name. I grew up in her bedroom. I have that Ethiopia link as well as the suffragette interests. And there's so much about the way that she campaigned that I really admire in terms of
taking on a cause, doing so in a really conscious way around process. I think she's really attuned to making sure it's people speaking from their experience and not her speaking at them or for them. I've also grew up seeing her
I mean, I'm looking some of her art right now as I speak. So I think she permeated a lot of my interests and influenced me in that way. Having said that, it's still Emmeline as the mother figure that most people reference. And I think that, you know, I have a lot of appreciation for her and how hard it would have been as a widow with her children to bring them up.
you know, to manage economically, let alone to be this global leader of a movement, which is what she became. You're obviously still fighting for the same principles, but in the modern era. Had you been around at the same time as Emmeline, how far do you think you would have gone with civil disobedience?
Yeah, I think it's important to note that at different stages in their own lives, women went in and out of that civil disobedience and different levels of militancy within it, depending on what else was going on in their families and their own comfort or discomfort with different forms of activism.
My personal instinct is, I think, to shy away from the loudest, most violent forms of activism. And I am much keener on more democratic acts of resistance. And I appreciate that they are acts of resistance or were acts of resistance. In other words, you couldn't just campaign quietly and constitutionally. I think there was a need to defy resistance.
the system. But I worry, I would have worried, it's difficult to know which tense to use, I would have worried, I think, like Sylvia did about the destruction of art, for example, and the alienating of some people by acts that were very aggressive.
I also think that we underplay the lateral thinking that went on, the humour that they used and all of the other ways in which they made their cause known, which weren't necessarily violent. I think we focus too quickly on militancy. Why do you think that is?
Because it's so unusual, isn't it? A woman defying the system, but using the tactics that men had always used and that are associated with masculinity. You know, throwing stones, arson, being...
rebellious in that physical way is so much a counter to what society says femininity and women are all about. I think because it was so unusual, because it was so eye-catching, because it might have helped in the critique of them,
You know, these awful women that are so violent, it helps in the counter-narrative in some ways. Whereas to talk about some of the other ways that they affected social change, normative change in so many families was harder, more complicated.
Just thinking about their use of humour, what are some of your favourite examples? Well, it's, I suppose, the use of the colour. All they needed to do was put some purple, green and white in the most unexpected places and people would know their messages. So, you know, in highfalutin places and on golf courses and places of male-established visibility and power.
I guess the visual power, when they did their demonstrations, they had all of these costumes, incredible costumes and regalia. The power of the visual image they really understood at scale. Do you think, though, that they could have achieved...
the vote as quickly as they did without the use of violence? So I would answer that by saying it's the war that delayed the vote. Otherwise, you know, 1914, they were full throttle in their
campaigning and most of parliament by then would have given women the vote. It was just some of the leaders wouldn't have. So, you know, they could have continued the pressure. Would it have taken an extra four years without the vote? I would argue not. But then I think the reason you're asking that question is because of comments and thoughts by some people that the militancy
delayed the government giving women the vote. I'm not convinced. I think it's other factors that did so more. But I think that it resulted in some criticism of what they were doing, undoubtedly, and undoubtedly would have lost some public support.
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile, unlimited premium wireless. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.
This season, Instacart has your back-to-school. As in, they've got your back-to-school lunch favorites, like snack packs and fresh fruit. And they've got your back-to-school supplies, like backpacks, binders, and pencils. And they've got your back when your kid casually tells you they have a huge school project due. To be honest, I don't know.
tomorrow. Let's face it, we were all that kid. So first call your parents to say I'm sorry, and then download the Instacart app to get delivery in as fast as 30 minutes all school year long. Get a $0 delivery fee for your first three orders while supplies last. Minimum $10 per order. Additional terms apply.
In our series, we focused on the WSPU, and that's the group most people commonly associate with the suffrage movement. But there were other groups, weren't there? How were they different? How were they distinct from the WSPU? Yeah, absolutely. There were many groups, and they were...
there before the WSPU. So, you know, WSPU formed in 1903. Well before that, 50 years before that, you have national campaigns on women's right to vote. And then you have a lot of trade union organisations engaged as well. So people from different sectoral backgrounds, faith-based organisations as well engaging. What's different about the WSPU, I think, is that
that statement that deeds, not words, is what's required both of the activists. So, you know, we need you, we need you to engage, we need you to do everything from the leafleting to overtime or militant actions, depending on where you're comfortable with in that spectrum.
And we need the government to change. It's deeds, not words, the demands to government. So a more forceful response and tactic, I think, is what distinguishes them. And then very, very clever PR, etc. The really, really clever campaigning. I also wonder, quite frankly, whether it's the one mother and her daughters, you know, whether having that apex with people doing slightly different roles. And yes, it comes a cropper a bit because they end up
disagreeing violently, but the personal is political. You have a home in which you can get quite a lot done initially with a few friends and with her three daughters. Obviously, the suffrage movement had a clear, distinct aim, but there were wider, longer-term effects for women than just the vote, of course. This felt like this was the start of the kind of concept of equality as we know it.
Yes, it was the opening of the door to other changes. It was the idea that it would...
start that sense of civic engagement, political engagement, that then would mean policy changes in so many ways. So if women got the vote, then their views would be taken on board. There would be women MPs. There could be women in the cabinet and as prime ministers. The results of all of that engagement of women in the political sphere would be changed priorities, changed policies.
You see that. You see in the House of Commons how as soon as you start having women MPs, there are policies around the home that are given much more focus. The Ministry of Health comes in in 1909, but then also a lot of policies around maternal health, maternal mortality, orphans, etc. And then
Right from the beginning, there's this issue of pay and pay inequality and economic inequality and wealth inequality and rights to children, inequalities around fathers having so much more control over their children than mothers do. The reason why the vote is focused on was because it was a wedge or a starting point that could result in catalyzing changes in so many other areas of women's lives.
Why do you think the suffrage movement continues to inspire people today? So I think the way they campaigned is one reason. You know, well-behaved women seldom make history. Well, they were not well-behaved and they made history. So this challenge to the establishment, challenge to norms in how women behave, the fact that it was a national to global rollout of women's rights. So you have
lessons and links between different countries. So in the UK, influences from Australia and from the States and vice versa. So individuals moving in and out of different countries, those three in particular, but many others as well. The fact that it's universal, again, that links to that, that it was a campaign that we all had to fight for in different countries.
The courage, the agency, the leadership, the power of that demand for women to be taken seriously, the demand that women count. And of course it directly inspired, tangibly inspired contemporary movements. I wonder how you feel about protesters like Just Stop Oil that align their methods with the suffragettes. Yeah, it's been fascinating over time seeing so many movements that have been influenced by suffragettes
the way that the suffragettes campaigned. I mean, from actually Mahatma Gandhi, if we go back in time, to many others. And that was because of the resistance to the state, you know, the way that citizens could resist the way the state was marginalising their voices. In terms of Just Stop Oil and the climate change campaign,
campaigns at present. There are so many parallels around how militant to be, around the different factions of the movement, from those trying constitutional methods to those going to more extreme approaches. The fact that they are splitting with different views about whether it's helpful or not
And I think facing similar dilemmas about how far to go and is this right and isn't this the most existential crisis of our time? And if so, don't we need to do more? Don't we need to force the government to listen? And in a hundred years' time, who will be
the people that are in the history books? Will it be those who tried to do something, who warned, who took action, who took forceful action? Will they be the heroes or will it be those who put them in prison and said, tut-tut, not this way? Is there also a class issue as well, that both the suffragettes and Justopoil are perceived to be actually quite privileged in terms of their social status? If so, that's, I think...
false, meaning the suffragists came from a much narrower economic class than the suffragettes. The suffragettes were much wider in terms of social backgrounds, and they even tried to have working-class women in leadership positions, possibly slightly
as a statement rather than in large numbers. I'm thinking of Annie Kenny and her sisters, and that's exactly the one or two people rather than many of them in the leadership. But the fact was that people came from all backgrounds, socioeconomic age, religion, parts of the country, and there was a sense of it unifying people, that the leaders, the more vocal, the more visible people were
middle classes also reflects media interest. For example, there are stories of the media wanting to photograph the more aesthetically beautifully dressed suffragettes rather than the working class suffragettes with less interesting clothing.
I think the story is a bit more complex, is what I am arguing. People thought that... I mean, I think people probably still think that Emmeline and family were wealthy. They were far from it. She was a widow, an impoverished widow, and financing their own livelihoods as well as that of the movement was incredibly hard and took up most of their time. So this is not...
wealthy people that were involved. These were middle class, trying to make do, trying to survive type people by and large that also brought in wealthy people that could fund the movement and poorer people that did the best they could with their little bit of money that they could provide all through their own labour. To that point,
It feels like it's a useful tool to have in your arsenal if you want to diminish and demean, to say they're just trust fund kids in the case of Just Stop Oil or they're just affluent women hobbyists who are doing this as something to take up their time. That feels like a kind of classic tactic. Yes, it helps the critique to just portray...
these activists, both past and present, as wealthy elites, not in touch with the reality of people's lives. That wasn't the case and isn't the case. Had the suffragettes not existed, when do you think women would have got the vote? I tend to think of three aspects of that campaign. One is the actual legal right to vote. And I
And I would argue that they would have got it earlier had it not been for the war and without the suffragettes, they'd probably get it not that later in any case because there had been such a buildup of changes in norms and attitudes. And that's my second point is that change happens not because of laws, but it happens because of attitudes and norms and ideas in society about what's right and those ideas
had been massively influenced by the suffragette. They created the discussion in every single home and in all places and institutions. They created the need to discuss and have an idea and a view on this with a bit of that danger point about the demand. They changed the norms more than the laws. And fundamentally, they also changed the agency of those women who became politicised.
through the campaign and went on to do a lot of other things afterwards. So you come across suffragettes all over the country, you know, becoming politicians, both local councillors and in national politics, becoming nurses and doctors, becoming economically engaged, parenting differently. It changes the agency of individuals, it changes the norms in societies and it changed the law. But let's not focus just on the law.
They say opposites attract. That's why the Sleep Number smart bed is the best bed for couples. You can each choose what's right for you, whenever you like. You like a bed that feels firm, but they want soft? Sleep Number does that. You want to sleep cooler while they like to feel warm.
Sleep Number does that too. Sleep Number smart beds also learn how you sleep and provide you with personalized insights to help you sleep even better. You have to feel it to believe it. Find the bed that's for both of you only at a Sleep Number store. 9 out of 10 couples say they sleep better on a Sleep Number smart bed. Time to catch
some Zs. J.D. Power ranks Sleep Number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in-store. And now during Sleep Number's biggest sale of the year, save 50% on the Sleep Number Limited Edition Smart Bed, plus special financing for a limited time. For J.D. Power 2023 award information, visit jdpower.com slash awards. Only at a Sleep Number store or sleepnumber.com. See store for details.
At BlueNile.com, you can find endless ways to make your moments sparkle, from classic and timeless jewelry gifts to creating the custom engagement ring of her dreams, all at prices you won't find at a traditional jeweler. And right now, you can save up to 40% on fine jewelry and 25% on engagement ring settings during the Blue Nile Anniversary Sale. Going on now. Go to BlueNile.com to shop the Blue Nile Anniversary Sale and save up to 40%.
We have just had a general election in the UK. I'm wondering if it's even more potent, that feeling of putting the paper in the ballot box for you than perhaps it was for us. It definitely feels very close for me. And I think it's even more potent for me.
And the number of women who tell me that when they go out to vote, they always think about the suffragettes and they tell the next generation or the next generation below that about that courage and that history. So it's a collective history, I would argue. Many, many people reference suffragettes.
remembering that story when they vote. But yes, for me, it is very, very personal. And how do you feel when people say they're not going to bother to vote or indeed don't bother at all?
I think it's incredibly sad and frustrating. Sad for them and frustrating for me. We as citizens have limited power, but that is the one moment that we have power. And for us to abdicate that power and just blithely continue with our lives and not use it seems madness. And it seems madness in particular if we feel that society is not represented in ways that do us
us justice that represent our interests. So the more marginalised you are, the more important it is that you vote, not the less important that it is that you vote. You've been campaigning for change to how Westminster treats women. Despite the positive changes, would you still argue that the British political system is sexist?
I would. The British political system is definitely sexist in the structures, in the norms, in the way it plays out. There's so much that needs to be done. And by the way, you know, we've looked at how business has changed and how female-led businesses have been at the vanguard and
Parliament is still in the Middle Ages when it comes to a lot of HR processes, also in terms of safety and safeguarding and bullying, etc. All of those ways in which the workplace can be made safe or remains unsafe, business and particularly women-led businesses have transformed and their influence is now much needed in Parliament to transform Parliament.
And it's not just inside Parliament. In this election, female candidates like Rosie Duffield and Jess Phillips weren't able to take part in hustings for their own safety. What do you think is going on outside Parliament? Is this just about political movements failing to control their activists, or is it something else? I think it's society's return to backsliding around gender equality issues. And there are...
times when progress around equality seems to happen and then there are times when there's a backlash to it. Violence against women in society, violence against women and girls in society is so universal. It's this idea that there remains a curfew about where and when women can be out and where they can be around the world. And so
With that curfew, with that sense of danger to women's very sense of being a woman in any public space, let alone leading, let alone becoming visible, all of that hasn't been given enough attention in a male-dominated world. And my hope is that as you get policymakers that have two lenses, where you have diversity of views, where you have men and women equally represented, there'll be a much more serious debate
understanding of the dangers that women are being put in and those dangers will be reduced. To that point, it is tempting to say we're in a male world, but is it a bigger trend or is this a British problem? How do we fare compared to other places? I think it is a global trend that comes and goes in different countries and the shift to the far right, and the far right is really the epitome of...
patriarchy. So where the far right pops up, women's equality is majorly under threat. And we've seen that globally in so many countries. In terms of the UK and its position
In Parliament, we are now doing a lot better. So we were 46th in the world before these elections. The so-called mother of Parliament was 46th in the world, which is particularly impressive. We've jumped up. We haven't seen the figure yet with July, but my guess is we've jumped up to something like in the 20s. So not first or second by any means, but a much healthier place to be in.
In the UK, when you speak to people about gender equality and drill down, my experience is that
There are a lot more people who have heard and possibly endorse the counter view to an equal society because of some role models. I won't mention them, but because of some role models, there's this sense that it's okay to not agree with the idea of women's rights.
I also think that when you get to that 35, 40% of women, when they're becoming visible in the business world, when they're doing so well academically,
For men, it feels personal that their opportunities are being hampered in ways that it wasn't when women were only 10% or 20% of this, that and the other. And I think in society, we haven't done enough to encourage the conversations about changed roles and joint roles around parenting. And I think that's an area of work that needs a lot, a lot more work.
So that it's not about male allyship. At the moment, we still talk about male allies in addressing this unequal world, but it shouldn't be about that. It should be about an equal world in which men and women have a diverse set of things that they do and ways that they behave. I don't want to overly obsess about the league table, but if we're in the 40s and now in the 20s, what countries are near the top and what are they doing?
Almost all of the countries that are at the top of the list have used quotas of some kind or another. Electoral Reform Society have published a document not that long ago looking at some of these issues. But it's a lot of countries, some in Africa, some in South America, and not surprisingly, Scandinavia does really well. And I'm wondering in sort of tangible terms,
If we reach that 50-50 male-female representation in politics, what would you expect to see? What could we imagine? I think a gender-equal parliament...
By definition, almost, in the way that we're looking at issues of equality, would be a diverse parliament that has all sorts of backgrounds represented. So this is the idea of intersectionality, that you're not just a woman, but you're also a black woman or a disabled woman or a woman from this, that and the other social class, etc. So I think that as soon as you have a truly representative parliament, it's better because it represents people
the wider society and therefore that schism between citizen and politician doesn't exist, that sense that they are different from us doesn't exist. So you create a stronger bond between citizen and parliamentarian. It is more efficient and more effective because you understand how policies are felt on the ground.
It is more collaborative because different voices have been heard and therefore you don't have these swings in policies from one extreme to the other. And then the policies that come through, clearly the environment would take a lot more attention, would have a lot more policies if you had a gender equal parliament. And age matters as well, by the way, because younger people don't vote as much as older people. So it's the priorities of older people that tend to be counted more, etc.,
I have no doubt that it wouldn't be a perfect place, but it would be a much, much better place to live in. And it also feels like those, inverted commas, women's issues then become political issues. You know, they transform into being genderless. They're just issues which affect society.
affect society and we need to legislate for. Indeed, and that's back to one should be thinking about parenting involving men and women, not just women. The problem at the moment is when you think of the home, people think of women. When you think of work, people think of men. Therefore, what is discussed at work is of a certain kind and what gets discussed at home is of a certain perspective. If we don't do that, if it's open to individuals with different strengths,
and different priorities, the whole thing is so much healthier, so much more interrelated. Do you think if we get a gender-balanced parliament, or even one day a parliament that's a majority female to male, that the silly noises that we hear at prime ministers' questions may change? You know, they're sort of, here, here, here. That would sadly be a thing of the past.
Yeah, I just tweeted because we had three deputy speakers are women and I tweeted something about the order, order, sounding will sound a bit different. It'll be nice with their voices, although we have had deputy women speakers before as well. Yes.
The studies tell us that women are less confrontational. The studies globally tell us that women are better at collaborating. They also, from a parliamentary point of view, suggest that women are very good at their constituency work. So it would shape up to sound and look quite different, without a doubt. That isn't to say, you know, let's not be essentialist about this. Not all women, we know that, not all women operate in a...
stereotypically feminine way and vice versa for men. But it's just that with that broader sweep of how to do things, I think we would end up with a lot less aggro. Helen, this has been fantastic. Thank you so much for your time. Real pleasure. Alice, I know this series has been very emotional for you, obviously reconnecting with women having to campaign and fight for the vote.
But this next series isn't going to be easy either. Oh, God, what have you got for me? Well, I'm so sorry to rub salt into a very open wound, but I think due to the difficult events earlier this summer, we should revisit a football scandal. When you say difficult events...
Well, the fact that it didn't come home. Who didn't come home? Oh, man. We lost the Euros. I thought we left in 2016. This is the last time I'm letting you do two series in a row. Sorry. Let's bring back an absolute favourite series of mine, Gazza.
the man who was blessed with exceptional talent, but cursed with inner demons in the interest of the British tabloid press. Oh, yes, of course, Gazza. One of the world's most unusual gift givers. Do you remember the roast chicken? I do remember the roast chicken and the fishing rod. So look forward to that. From Wondery and Samizdat Audio, this is the fourth and final episode in our series, The Pankhursts.
British Scandal is hosted by me, Matt Ford. And me, Alice Levine. For Sam Asdat, our producer is Chika Ayres. Our senior producer is Joe Sykes. For Wondery, our series producer is Theodora Leloudis and our managing producer is Rachel Sibley. Executive producers for Wondery are Estelle Doyle, Jessica Radburn and Marshall Lilly.
Welcome to the offensive line. You guys on this podcast, we're going to make some picks, talk some and hopefully make you some money in the process. I'm your host, Annie Agar.
So here's how this show's going to work, okay? We're going to run through the weekly slate of NFL and college football matchups, breaking them down into very serious categories like No offense. No offense, Travis Kelsey, but you've got to step up your game if Pat Mahomes is saying the Chiefs need to have more fun this year. We're also handing out a series of awards and making picks for the top storylines surrounding the world of football. Awards like the He May Have a Point Award for the wide receiver that's most justifiably bitter.
Is it Brandon Iuke, Tee Higgins, or Devontae Adams? Plus, on Thursdays, we're doing an exclusive bonus episode on Wondery Plus, where I share my fantasy football picks ahead of Thursday night football and the weekend's matchups. Your fantasy league is as good as locked in. Follow the offensive line on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can access bonus episodes and listen ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus. She struck him with her motor vehicle. She had been under the influence, and then she left him there.
In January 2022, local woman Karen Reed was implicated in the mysterious death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. It was alleged that after an innocent night out for drinks with friends, Karen and John got into a lover's quarrel en route to the next location. What happens next depends on who you ask.
Was it a crime of passion? If you believe the prosecution, it's because the evidence was so compelling. This was clearly an intentional act. And his cause of death was blunt force trauma with hypothermia. Or a corrupt police cover-up. If you believe the defense theory, however, this was all a cover-up to prevent one of their own from going down. Everyone had an opinion.
And after the 10-week trial, the jury could not come to a unanimous decision. To end in a mistrial, it's just a confirmation of just how complicated this case is. Law and Crime presents the most in-depth analysis to date of the sensational case in Karen. You can listen to Karen exclusively with Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.