#1 Karen Read is, undeniably, a limited-purpose public figure. She voluntarily (and repeatedly) interjected herself into a public controversy and assumed a prominent role in influencing the outcome of that controversy.
It's not that she was criminally charged. It's that she actively sold a narrative to the public surrounding that charge. News stations, magazine articles, a documentary film, podcasts, puppeteering Aidan Kearney and the entire "Free Karen Read" movement.
So she'd have to prove "actual malice". First and foremost.
Which then leads to the question- is there a good faith basis to call her a killer? Even murderer?
There is an extensive court record that establishes that good faith basis. She was charged, arrested, indicted and had several motions to dismiss denied. She was tried - twice. Those trials broadcast a mountain of inculpatory evidence.
Compare this to the witnesses, who never sought media coverage, did not do dozens of highly publicized interviews, were never charged with any crimes by any law enforcement agent whatsoever relating, even after a federal grand jury was convened to look for evidence of conspiracy or corruption.
Calling Karen read a murderer is defamatory