A second Karen Read juror has come forward after arriving at not guilty verdicts on most of the charges she faced in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe.

“It could just be bad police work, but if anyone had done their job correctly, we wouldn’t be in this position,” Paula Prado, who was Juror No. 11, told ABC News. “It would either be proved or disproved right away.”

Another of the 12 jurors explained the panel’s reasoning Thursday, a day after her second trial came to a close. He also explained brief confusion Wednesday afternoon that arose out of a verdict that jurors later retracted before it was read in court. Judge Beverly Cannone sealed that one. Within minutes, jurors had a verdict for real.

“Everything on that initial slip was the same as the slip that was presented,” Juror No. 4, identified only as “Jason,” told TMZ Live. He said they pulled the first slip back over the OUI charge – operating under the influence of liquor, of which jurors found her guilty.

KAREN READ MURDER CASE VERDICT REACHED AFTER DEADLOCKED FIRST TRIAL

WATCH: Juror No. 4’s interview

“In our deliberations, we had decided there was enough evidence and proof that she was driving under the influence,” he said.

Cannone ordered that the jurors’ names remain sealed for 10 days, but she said individual jurors could come forward on their own, if they wanted. 

Jurors found Read not guilty of murder, manslaughter and fleeing a deadly accident in a trial that stretched on for more than 30 days of testimony and four days of deliberations. The lesser included charge of OUI is the Massachusetts term for drunken driving.

“I don’t know what happened to John,” Jason said. “I was only presented a limited scope of what happened at the night, and I can only base my opinion off of the evidence that was shown in the courtroom. So, I don’t really know if there was a cover-up or not.

“I know that’s the big conspiracy around it, but I don’t really know. All I know is there was a lot of holes in the investigation. Whether they were deliberate holes or not deliberate holes, it’s kinda hard for me sitting back to know that — you know, what actually happened.”

He said the defense claim that O’Keefe could have been killed by someone in the house — in an attack that involved a dog — was an “example of reasonable doubt.”

“We were tasked with finding … with deciding this person’s fate based on the proof in the evidence that the commonwealth was able to present, and there was a lot of holes,” he said.

He said another important factor for the jury was video that showed Read’s taillight.

“We could see from the car, after the alleged incident happened, when we could see the taillight it was lit up red, where it shouldn’t just have been red,” he said. “I don’t believe that the SUV collided with John O’Keefe.”

Still, he added, there was no way for jurors to know whether claims of a “corrupt” police investigation were true.

“I don’t know that there was any corruption going on,” he said. “But do I know that there wasn’t enough proof or evidence secured by the police to convict Karen Read? Absolutely.”

Also Thursday, Massachusetts State Police brass broke their silence on the years-long case marred by investigative missteps and the firing of a state trooper who played a central role in the case.

Read was accused — and acquitted — of killing her boyfriend by slamming an SUV into him and leaving him to die on the ground during a blizzard after a drunken argument. Jurors found her guilty only of drunken driving, for which she received a sentence of one year probation and outpatient treatment.

Col. Geoffrey Noble, the state police commissioner, said the entire department sends its condolences to O’Keefe’s family.

“The events of the last three years have challenged our department to thoroughly review our actions and take concrete steps to deliver advanced investigative training, ensure appropriate oversight and enhance accountability,” Noble said in a statement. “Under my direction as colonel, the state police has, and will continue to, improve in these regards.”

He said the goal is to deliver “excellent” service and maintain public trust.

GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB

Jurors did not appear to trust the investigation after four days of deliberation, when they rejected the prosecution’s case almost entirely.

MASSACHUSETTS TROOPER MICHAEL PROCTOR ‘TERMINATED’ FROM STATE POLICE

The lead investigator on the case, former State Trooper Michael Proctor, lost his job in March after an internal investigation concluded he shared confidential and sensitive law enforcement information with civilians in a group text, the contents of which were also lewd in nature and mocked Read’s health issues.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

It was Noble who announced the firing, days before Read’s second trial began. Her first trial ended with a deadlocked jury last year after the texts were read in court and Read’s defense exposed other glaring flaws in the investigation. 

“It is incumbent upon me, as well as every member of this department, to hold one another accountable when any member compromises our mission by failing to uphold our values,” he said at the time.

SIGN UP TO GET THE TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER

Noble and the department were also sued by true crime reporters and some of Read’s supporters over the enforcement of a “buffer zone” around the Dedham courthouse that their lawyers called unconstitutional.

Separately, local police in Canton, Massachusetts, were subjected to an external audit that recommended increased training and oversight while dispelling claims of a conspiracy to frame Read for O’Keefe’s death.

A federal investigation into the case ended without charges against members of either law enforcement agency.