Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMichael Proctor - Cross (Part 2)
1,941 linesCOURT OFFICER: All persons having any business before the Honorable Beverly Cannone, Justice of the Norfolk Superior Court and for the county of Norfolk, draw near, give your attendance, and shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This court is now open. You may be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: 22-117, the Commonwealth versus Karen Read. Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Miss Read. Good morning, jurors. First of all, let me ask you those three questions, please. Were all able to follow the instructions? Not discussing this case with anyone? Everyone — yes. Were you also able— did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left here the other day? Everyone said no. So by now you know one of your jurors is no longer able to participate in this. You may know why, but it's my job to tell you that it's personal to that juror. It has nothing to do with this case, and you're not to consider that. And there's one instruction I need to give you. You'll remember that when digital evidence or text messages were introduced earlier, I gave you an instruction.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm required to give you this instruction again. Before you consider any electronic communication in your deliberations, you must first find that it's more likely true than not that the person who authored or sent or transmitted the message was in fact the person identified as doing so. If you do not find that it's more likely true than not that the witness or the other people in the text message thread was the person who authored or created or transmitted the communication, then you may not consider that communication in deciding that case. So it's an instruction I'm required to give you. I should have given it to you on Monday. All right. With that, can we bring the witness in, please?
COURT OFFICER: Step up. Remain standing. Administers oath. Do you swear that the testimony you give during the case is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Trooper. All right, whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of housekeeping, I would move to admit the packet of text messages with Bates stamps inclusive of 02680 through 02685. It was referred to on Monday.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection to the written one coming in?
MR. LALLY: Same objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't I see you at sidebar on this?
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: Yes, one more matter of housekeeping. I have another set of iOS messages that are inclusive of pages 2527 through 2545. I'd like to have these marked for identification as next in order.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. If you have any others, let's have them all marked for identification at the same time. Do you want to stand at counsel table to deal with this? And let's try and do it quickly— it's just for identification. Mr. Jackson, let's try and do it quickly— it's just for identification.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, yes, these are all just for identification. I'll give the inclusive Bates stamp numbers. Next packet would be 2680 through 2685— sorry, that was the first one, marked ZZ. The second one is 2527 through 2545. The next set would be a single page, 2625. The next packet would be 2662 through 2679. The next is just two pages, 2623 and 2624. Next packet would be 2518 through 2526. Following that, 2618 through 2620. Then packet 2628 through 2634. And finally, a packet inclusive of 2583 to 2617.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Madam court reporter, if you'd be so kind. Please. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. For all. [Exhibits marked for identification] Thank you. All right, go right ahead, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, I'm going to ask you if you wouldn't mind to turn to tab two in the binder in front of you. Can you take a look at the face page of what's under tab two and tell me if you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir. It's a private text thread with high school friends, and this includes nine participants.
MR. JACKSON: Nine chat participants that you engaged with?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: Those participants include people by the name of Bird, Whitey, and Doc?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then there's some other folks in there that are identified by at least the last four digits of their phone number?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So this is a group text or a group chat with you and eight of your high school friends about this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you never thought when you were engaged with these other individuals that this particular set of chats would ever become public, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: I want to take a look at page 2527. If you could turn— that's on the bottom right of the document in tab two. Do you have that page in front of you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You recognize that this chat— this group chat— was taking place on January 29th at about 10:52 p.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the person that I'll identify as 5051— that's the last four digits of that phone number— indicates the name of that BPD cop?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: First of all, you indicated on Monday that you're "Chip," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You responded at 10:53 p.m., "John O'Keefe," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So you were willing to tell— just a few hours into an investigation of the death of a Boston police officer— you were willing to tell a bunch of high school buddies details about the investigation, including the name of the victim?
MR. PROCTOR: At this point it's 16 hours later, sir, not a few.
MR. JACKSON: 16 is a few hours, correct? Not talking about days later.
MR. PROCTOR: It was about 16 hours later, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And you identified John O'Keefe as the Boston police officer who had fallen in the yard at 34 Fairview?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also informed— if you will skip to page 2529— you also informed these same folks, these same high school buddies, that quote, "all the powers that be want answers ASAP," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You knew, Trooper Proctor, that there was brass that wanted this case wrapped up quickly and efficiently, isn't that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. PROCTOR: Oh, well— that— no, the people wanted answers, sir. They wanted—
MR. JACKSON: They didn't just want answers, they wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean?
MR. PROCTOR: That's as soon as possible, right?
MR. JACKSON: And you were texting this to your high school friends, again 16 hours into this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew at that time— you knew at that time, Trooper Proctor— that this was not going to implicate in any way, shape, form, or fashion another cop?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: In this text exchange, let's turn to 2532— actually, you have that in front of you?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: In this text exchange at 10:56 p.m., your buddy Bird writes, "I'm sure the owners of the house will receive some," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: How did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean that he could get in trouble?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what my friend was getting at.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you had some idea?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I— maybe the owner of the house isn't going to get any for this— right, that's how I interpreted it.
MR. JACKSON: You interpreted it like he's not going to get any trouble, he's not going to be a suspect?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And he's not going to be implicated in any way?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And your answer was one word?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was that word?
MR. PROCTOR: "Nope."
MR. JACKSON: And then you followed that up with an explanation as to why you said no, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: That wasn't the explanation why I said no. I simply said, "homeowner is a Boston cop too," meaning Mr. O'Keefe— the homeowner— was a Boston cop as well.
MR. JACKSON: The question that preceded your answer of "nope"— the homeowner was going to get some for this— correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's not what I meant with that text.
MR. JACKSON: That's what you wrote.
MR. PROCTOR: Not what I meant, sir.
MR. JACKSON: All right, let's take it in order. Question— oh, goodness— "the homeowner is going to get some for this." Answer: "Nope." Next text: "He's a Boston cop too." That doesn't sound like an explanation for your "nope," no?
MR. PROCTOR: That's just saying he's a Boston cop as well, Mr. O'Keefe— that's why he's not going to get any.
MR. JACKSON: Correct, Trooper Proctor. Well, he's not going to receive any, sir, because— Mr. Albert, the homeowner, had nothing to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death. And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation, less than a day?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, to your satisfaction— to my satisfaction, members of my unit—
JUDGE CANNONE: So let him— let him finish. We didn't get the
MR. PROCTOR: ...to my satisfaction and to all the members of my unit who investigated that day.
MR. LALLY: Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm going to let it stand. Trooper Proctor, you have to keep your voice up, okay? Jurors need to hear you way back there.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, ma'am.
MR. JACKSON: The fact of the matter is, you hadn't been to the crime scene by the time you wrote this text, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You hadn't been inside the home, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You had questioned a grand total of three percipient witnesses at this point, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And two of the three were named McCabe, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And one of the three was named Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And it's against that backdrop that you wrote "nope, the homeowner is not going to get any because he's a cop," right?
MR. PROCTOR: It's not what I meant by that.
MR. JACKSON: At 10:57, Bird goes on to write, "He" — the homeowner — "must have been a puddle to accomplish that," and then he writes, "Who's the homeowner?" Then he writes, "I hope not, but I can see it," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: "A puddle" means drunk, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's a term for — yes.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, Bird wrote that the homeowner must have been so drunk, so wasted, to have killed him, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, do you know what that means? Do you know what that text means? Just the puddle part. You understand the term, that term? All right, so he can answer that. And the
MR. JACKSON: ...puddle part means drunk or wasted, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what Bird actually wrote was "he must have been a puddle to accomplish that," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's what he wrote.
MR. JACKSON: And then you write back, quote, "She waffled him, I looked at his body at the hospital," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You used the phrase "waffled" about a Boston police officer who had fallen in the snow and died in someone's yard, and you decided to use the word "waffled," correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Did you answer "She waffled him, I looked at his body at the hospital"?
MR. PROCTOR: I did answer that, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then Bird questioned "She waffled him," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you responded "He ...was banged up," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Then a person with the phone number 0095 wrote, "I thought he was drunk, did he get beat up?" You see that?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: And you wrote "nope," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yet again, this is before 11:00 at night on January 29th, 2022, some 16 hours into your investigation, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So before you ever went to the crime scene, before you ever went into the house, only having interviewed three folks, you had this case nice and wrapped up, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, based on the evidence my office uncovered that day — the one shoe discovered at the scene, the one shoe at the hospital, Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, the broken tail light pieces underneath the
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, I didn't ask for an explanation. I asked — did you, in your mind, have this case wrapped up? Was it cut and dry in your mind?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Bird then writes, "So the owner of the house was a woman cop that beat him," question mark, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you wrote, "That's what I initially thought after talking to Canton paramedics," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you said, "Then I saw the guy," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So what you meant by that, Trooper Proctor, was — according to you, based on your conversations, your initial conversations with the paramedics, the first responders — you were under the impression that this was a beating death, he'd been beaten to death, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: The way it was given to me, sir, was — um, medical — that's —
JUDGE CANNONE: He's going to answer the question. If you want to withdraw the question, you can.
MR. JACKSON: No, go ahead.
MR. PROCTOR: We entered this investigation with an open mind. It was given to me as a medical situation, and we saw Mr. O'Keefe's body at the hospital with Sergeant Bukhenik, and we saw his injuries and we're kind of working through how these injuries occurred.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, both you and Sergeant Bukhenik believed that he had suffered the injuries as a result of a physical altercation, based on information you received from the paramedics initially, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Initially, we didn't know what we had. We knew there were some significant injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, and we were still figuring out how those injuries occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you just testified "initially we didn't know what we had," right? But 16 hours after the fact, you wrote the following sentence: "That's what I initially thought after talking to Canton paramedics," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So initially, you did think you knew what you had — a physical altercation leading to a death — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So when you just said "initially we didn't know what we had," that wasn't quite true. You did, at least, have an idea of what you thought you had, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: All right. You were aware, initially, that John O'Keefe had suffered a 2-inch laceration to the back of his head, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That resulted in a skull fracture, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He had a laceration over his right eye — small laceration just under the eyebrow — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Had a laceration on his nose, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He had patterned scratches on his right arm — abrasions, scratches — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And he had no injuries below the neck?
MR. PROCTOR: Not that I observed.
MR. JACKSON: So not a single broken bone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Not that I was aware of.
MR. JACKSON: Not a single fracture, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Not that I was aware of.
MR. JACKSON: Not a single bruise below the neck, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Not that I observed.
MR. JACKSON: Looks a lot like a physical altercation, doesn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Bird writes — "Bear." Let's focus, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who's "Bear"?
MR. PROCTOR: That's another nickname I have.
MR. JACKSON: 0095 writes, "What does 'she waffled them' mean?" And then Bird writes, "What's the story?" correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you wrote, "She hit him with her car," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever — in your experience, have you ever seen a pedestrian who's hit by a 6,000-pound car with no bruises, ever?
MR. PROCTOR: The pedestrian strikes I've seen have been at high speeds — 60-plus — [unintelligible] right. 60-plus miles per hour. So I can't recall right now, off the top of my head, as far as injuries in the past pedestrian strikes I've attended.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So someone — you indicated on Monday under examination by Mr. Lally — you've seen a shoe missing, correct? Pedestrian strikes, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Those are high-speed, extremely high-speed incidents, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: 60-plus miles an hour, right?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall all the past pedestrian strikes I've been to, as far as the miles per hour the vehicle is traveling.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you the question again. Have you — yes or no — have you ever, in your experience, seen a vehicle-pedestrian incident in which the pedestrian has no bruises?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Have you seen that?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't — I can't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Next question. After you wrote "she hit him with her car," 5051 writes "Oh, Jesus," and Bird writes "Okay, that's up," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then you wrote, "What? Intentional or not?" Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your words, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 0095 then chimes in, "Gotcha, he was frozen in the driveway and she didn't see him," question mark, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you wrote what?
MR. PROCTOR: "That's another animal, we won't be able to prove."
MR. JACKSON: "That's another animal, we won't be able to prove," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you knew that there were going to be things in this case, even 16 hours into this, that you just admitted you would have zero proof of, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Did you mean by that statement — "That's another animal, we won't be able to prove" — you didn't care, at that point when you wrote that, you didn't care what you could or could not prove, did you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Isn't that what you meant?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You had a narrative that you had developed, and you would pursue it no matter what the proof was — that's what you meant by that statement, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Did you mean by that —
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't mean to step on your words. Did you mean by that statement that you were going to pursue this case no matter what the proof might be?
MR. PROCTOR: What I meant by that statement was, if Miss Read backed into Mr. O'Keefe intentionally or not —
MR. JACKSON: Interestingly, though, that statement came on the heels of "he was frozen in the driveway and she didn't see him." You wrote in response to that question, "That's another animal, we won't be able to prove," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to the "intentional or not" part.
MR. JACKSON: So you were responding to your own statement, according to you, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. 0095 then writes, "What's the name of the Canton cop living in Canton, the other one involved?" correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, that person was asking, "Tell me the name of the homeowner," isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: The guy — that's the cop, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you ignored that question for a second time, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, not one time — not once in this entire group chat — did you disclose the name Brian Albert, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't believe so, no.
MR. JACKSON: You were actively trying to hide Brian Albert's name, at least from this conversation.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you were trying to do?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: But you had no problem sharing J. O'Keefe's name with your buddies from high school, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you had no problem sharing Karen Read's name with your buddies from high school, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't believe I named the defendant.
MR. JACKSON: Not yet you didn't — later in the chat, okay, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 5051 then writes, "The BPD have any jurisdiction here because it was their own?" question mark. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And a few texts later, if you look down a few texts at about 11 o'clock, you see a text that states — that starts — [unintelligible]
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You responded, quote, "naat" — "it's the total opposite, they have to recuse themselves, same with Canton." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That text ends with "they have to recuse themselves."
MR. JACKSON: You then text back — I'm sorry, one moment. Yes. I see where you're at, sir. How did you end that text?
MR. PROCTOR: "Same with Canton," meaning Canton has to recuse itself also. Correct. That was my understanding.
MR. JACKSON: So by 11:00 p.m. on January 29th, 2022, there was no question in your mind, Trooper Proctor, that the Canton Police Department was recused from this investigation in all particulars — correct? That they had taken a step back from participating?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. Right.
MR. JACKSON: Well, there's one way to put it — they've taken a step back from participating. Another way to put it is they recused themselves completely. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: They were not going to be — at least in your mind, they were not to be involved in any way, just like Boston PD was not to be involved in any way. Is that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you were thinking?
MR. PROCTOR: That's my understanding. They were not going to be involved.
MR. JACKSON: Now if we could turn to page 2537. 5051 writes, "but I assume you guys are out to make it cut and dry since it involves cops." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And bird writes, "something stinks." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then Trooper Proctor, you responded, "yeah but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl." Isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's right.
MR. JACKSON: So in that text exchange you were saying "yeah, we're out to make it cut and dry." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't write "yeah, we're going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us." You didn't, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not write that.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't write "yeah, we're going to make sure that we investigate this thing fully and thoroughly before making any decisions." You didn't say that, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You wrote "yeah but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl." Isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And the reason you wrote that is because you knew, as the text above it says, this has to be cut and dry because it involves cops — right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that. Is that the reason you wrote it?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: And then you indicated "we're going to put serious charges on the girl" — who did you mean by "the girl," by the way?
MR. PROCTOR: The defendant, Karen Read.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. So the way that you were going to make it cut and dry — pretty simple — just pin it on the girl. Right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not. Follow the facts and the evidence. From that day on the 29th, everything led to Miss Read hitting Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: But that wasn't the question that you were answering, was it? We're going to follow the evidence and make sure we do this thoroughly? The question you were answering was, "I assume you guys, you, Trooper Proctor, and your team are going to, quote, make it cut and dry since it involved cops" — meaning Brian Albert. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Incorrect. It doesn't matter to me if the homeowner is a cop, if the victim's a police officer. Myself and everyone in my office investigated this case. That Saturday we had an overwhelming amount of evidence that Miss Read struck Mr. O'Keefe. So it didn't matter to us what their occupation was.
MR. JACKSON: We'll see. Let's keep reading, shall we? 5051, a little further down, says, "gotta, I could only imagine what internal affairs at BPD are trying to get out there." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Meaning this person, 5051, was opining — at least in your mind, you interpreted that as being Boston police are going to have a lot to answer for, given the fact that another Boston police officer was found dead on that officer's lawn. Correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: What were you thinking?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't speak to the mindset of that comment. I wasn't sure how to interpret that one.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, next question, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Then 5051 changes gears and he writes, "she hot at least." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what was your response to that?
MR. PROCTOR: "From all accounts he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job."
MR. JACKSON: "From all accounts he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job." That's what you wrote. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 16 hours into this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Into your objective and unbiased thorough investigation. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: But, sir, you didn't have all accounts, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: What I meant by that was—
MR. JACKSON: Did you or did you not have all accounts in your investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: The accounts we had: Miss Read struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle, discovered taillight pieces at the scene. Those are the accounts we had.
MR. JACKSON: The accounts —
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, go ahead. The accounts you had, Trooper Proctor, were from two people named McCabe and one named Albert, who happened to be the homeowner and a Boston cop. Those are the accounts from percipient witnesses that you had. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: There was another additional witness that we had — investigators had interviewed Miss Roberts as well.
MR. JACKSON: And "from all accounts he didn't do a thing wrong" — that was your decision 16 hours into the investigation. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the other decision that you made, and the other determination you came to, was my client Karen Read was a whack job. Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What else did you say in response to "she's hot at least," or "she hot at least," question mark?
MR. PROCTOR: So following that text, I responded, "Yeah, she's a babe, weird Fall River accent though, no ass."
MR. JACKSON: "Yeah, she's a babe" — who's the "she"? Miss Read? "Weird Fall River accent though" — talking about her, the way she talks, the accent. And "no ass" — now you're talking about her body, her physique. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You think that's appropriate?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Then bird chimes in with a little comedy — "ah, not newsworthy then." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, well, she didn't have an ass, nothing to see here. Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Then 5051 says, "oh, she's skating." Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you write after that?
MR. PROCTOR: My response was, "zero chance she skates."
MR. JACKSON: And then what did you write? Right — "zero chance she skates, she's" — right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You decided on the 29th of January, 17 hours into this investigation, you decided — individually, Trooper Proctor — you're not only going to put it on the girl, you decided you're going to make sure this is cut and dried, and the way you're going to do it is to make sure that she's — that's what you were saying.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so that's sustained. You can — the content's fine, you have to ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: 17 hours into this investigation, Trooper Proctor, you made the decision that you were going to put it on Miss Read, didn't you? Put the case on Miss Read — she was going to catch the case. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No. Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: What did you mean then when you said "she's"—?
MR. PROCTOR: After the day's investigation with multiple Troopers conducting multiple tasks, and a debriefing at Canton PD amongst detectives in my office, who went through the overwhelming amount of evidence against Miss Read — that she struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle — that's what I meant by that comment.
MR. JACKSON: What you meant by that comment, Trooper Proctor, was you were going to make sure — because 5051 had said "she's going to skate, she's skating" — when you said "zero chance she skates, she's," what you meant was, "I'm going to make sure, I am going to make sure Miss Read doesn't skate, she's" — that's what you meant.
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, sustained.
MR. JACKSON: And then bird decides to chime in. "Good, no ass." Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's what he wrote. And how did you respond to bird saying "good, no ass"?
MR. PROCTOR: I laughed, thought that was funny.
MR. JACKSON: Did you, Trooper Proctor? Thought that was funny?
MR. PROCTOR: It was unprofessional of me, that's something I shouldn't have done.
MR. JACKSON: Well, I think we all know it was unprofessional, it was a lot of things. I'm asking you, did you think it was funny?
MR. PROCTOR: According to my response at the time, apparently.
MR. JACKSON: Then you sent a picture, just to add to it, to pile on, of Miss Read being arrested. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't — not sure if that came from me, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Let's skip to 2543. Are you there, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: The date is now February 2nd, 2022, and a person by the name of Doc writes, "is that chick a smoke?" Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who's "the chick"? Miss Read? And you write "E... Eh." Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you write, "nutbag, as Chief would say." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who's "Chief"?
MR. PROCTOR: A friend of mine.
MR. JACKSON: And then you write — what? "She's got a leaky balloon knot." So, Trooper Proctor, explain to the jurors what a "balloon knot" is.
MR. PROCTOR: You're essentially — I guess — your rectum area, your anus.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. That's what you were referring to about Miss Read?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were making fun of her because you believed at that time that it leaked — that's how you were treating Miss Read, yes or no?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you follow that up, just to make sure you cleared up any mistake about what you meant, with "leaks poo." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so I'm going to strike that. You could get this in, but do it the right way, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: You followed that up with the phrase "leaks poo," didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: Again, another reference to Miss Read's medical issues and medical conditions. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Specifically focused on her anus. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: In reference, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware at the time that you wrote this that Miss Read had suffered a colectomy surgery — very serious surgery?
MR. PROCTOR: I was not.
MR. JACKSON: So no. Were you aware that she had had 10 surgeries in 18 months, several years prior?
MR. PROCTOR: 10? I was not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware that she had serious medical issues — gastrointestinal medical issues — that she suffered with, she was a victim of, for years? Did you know that?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, sustained.
MR. JACKSON: But you decided that you were going to take another shot at her and talk about her anatomy—
JUDGE CANNONE: One second, sir.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. You decided that you were going to take another shot at her and talk about her anatomy as a "balloon knot." Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: At this point, Trooper Proctor, Miss Read was just reduced to a punchline to you, wasn't she?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you weren't done yet. This chat doesn't end yet, does it?
MR. PROCTOR: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Let's skip to 2543 on the same day, February 2nd, 2022. About 4:15 p.m., person by the name of Whitey wrote "What are you guzzling on," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you wrote "nothing," writing Warrant, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Why? You then share some sort of a video, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You remember that video being of the 1980s band Warrant?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall the video.
MR. JACKSON: He sent — 0095 laughed and then wrote "Wait, why does yours leak?" Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's what he wrote.
MR. JACKSON: And then what did Doc write in response to that?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: Objection sustained. I'll see it at sidebar. Take that down, please.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, without getting to the specifics of the words used in the following exchange that you're looking at, it's fair to say that your high school buddies then continue to discuss Miss Read's medical issues, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained. Come on, Mr. Jackson, that isn't what you said you'd ask. Go ahead and ask the question you said you'd ask.
MR. JACKSON: Was there a continued discussion that finished on this subject matter?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On Monday you indicated that your conduct in this case, and specifically your conduct as reflected in these messages — how did you put it?
MR. PROCTOR: It did not affect the integrity of the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: Of your investigation, correct? What did you tell the jurors?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You know what the definition of integrity is — doing the right thing when no one's looking — the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Do you believe that integrity means being honest and having strong moral principles?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe that's part of it as well.
MR. JACKSON: Do you stand by that testimony that you were showing strong moral principles in this investigation, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: In the investigation part, absolutely. Through these text messages, absolutely not. They were juvenile and regrettable.
MR. JACKSON: When you say they're juvenile and regrettable, sounds like you're almost... ...apologizing to the jury for your conduct. Is that what you're doing for those texts?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, have you ever apologized to Miss Read?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: As a lead investigator in this case, you were tasked with the responsibility of making sure that the investigation remained free of any conflicts of interest. It's part of your job, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Throughout the pendency of this investigation in this case, you've denied having any conflict of interest in this case, isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: In fact, a couple of months ago, in February of 2024, you testified in a different proceeding, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you testified under oath in that proceeding on February 1st that you did not know any members of the Albert family or McCabe family, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Certain members of the Albert family I did not know. I know Chris and Julie and Colin. I don't know — I don't know the McCabes. That was my question.
MR. JACKSON: Did you testify — let's take them one at a time — did you testify under oath, same oath you took here today, in a former proceeding in February of 2024, that you did not know and did not have any relationship with members of the Albert and McCabe families? Did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I haven't had a chance to review those minutes. I've only had one opportunity to. Now was a couple months ago. So I would want to review... ...those minutes in order to answer that accurately.
MR. JACKSON: You can't remember how you testified whether or not you knew or had relationships with the Alberts and the McCabes?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection]
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember what you said during that proceeding?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: As you sit here right now, you need to refresh your recollection? You can't remember what you said?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Would it refresh your recollection if you took a look at those grand jury minutes?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: What page, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: This is page 01563. Come — have just a moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You'd review that and look up when you finish.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: Did that refresh your recollection about a question and answer, or series of questions and answers, that you had while testifying under oath in that other proceeding?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked the question, quote, "Did you communicate with First Assistant DA Beland that you did not know and had no relationship with the Albert and McCabe families?" And you answered, quote, "To the best of my recollection, the same conversation took place with everyone I talked to about this, because it's the same answer. It's the facts that I shared with everyone." Meaning you told First Assistant DA Beland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Albert and McCabe families?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes, that's correct.
MR. JACKSON: So the question is whether he said this — correct — whether that's his testimony. Do you recall that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that's your testimony that you in fact told members of the DA's office that you did not know and did not have a relationship with the Alberts or McCabes, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not know the McCabes. I don't know most of them. The Alberts — I have little to no relationship with Chris and Julie. So that's what I meant by that answer.
MR. JACKSON: Well, the question wasn't "did you know most of the Alberts." The question was did you have a relationship with or did you know the Alberts, and your answer was no. "No, I don't have a relationship with the Alberts or know them. I don't know the McCabes. I don't have a relationship with the Alberts." So you do know the Alberts, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I know some of them. Julie and Chris and — and Colin.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew the Alberts when you gave this testimony in February of 2024, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. They asked if there was any relationships, and —
MR. JACKSON: Let's try this again. Meaning you told First Assistant DA Beland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the... ...Alberts — and sorry — members of the Albert and McCabe families?
MR. PROCTOR: Answer: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Was that ambiguous in your mind?
MR. PROCTOR: The way I interpreted "relationships" was basically being like friends, or, you know, communications, frequent communications. That's how I interpret it.
MR. JACKSON: That might have been a good time to pipe up and say, "Well, I know Chris, I know Julie, and I know Colin," correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: That might have been a good time to answer the question, "I know these three individuals from the Albert family," right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: But your answer was one word, "correct," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You further testified that you never have gone to any supervisor at Massachusetts State Police to disclose even a potential conflict of interest in this case that you might have, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated the need never came up, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, "did not have relationships with" — I'm sorry — "did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that's just not true, is it? You did know — you do know members of the Albert family, isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: It's different from having a relationship with people.
MR. JACKSON: But what about the part of the question "did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families?" How about that part of the question?
MR. PROCTOR: Well, that's lumped in with the McCabes. I don't know the McCabe family, sir.
MR. JACKSON: I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence. And where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts, because you don't have relationships. Where "know" is concerned, you linked that to the McCabes because you don't know them. That's what you did.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it — you can break it down, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Not sure I can. I'll ask it a different way. How about if I just ask it this way — that was a lie?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: You stand by that testimony?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. That you don't know the McCabes — at the time that you testified that you didn't know the Alberts, or any members of the Albert family, that you don't have relationships with them, okay —
MR. JACKSON: My question is — you keep going back to "relationships." I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll let him have it.
MR. JACKSON: Do you understand the question, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: It was Chris, Julie, and Colin.
MR. JACKSON: So if you were to say "I don't know any members of the Albert family," that would have been a lie, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, this is the point at which I intend to turn to tab three, and approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Feel free to.
PARENTHETICAL: [recess]
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you've indicated that your sister is one of your best friends, maybe your best friend?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Courtney Proctor, that's your sister's name — Courtney, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Elberg. I'm sorry, her last name — Elberg. Elberg with an L.
MR. JACKSON: And you're aware that she is also very, very good friends with Julie Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Are you aware of any circumstance in which any of the Alberts have been over to your parents' house? Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Have you ever been over to your parents' house when any of the Alberts have been at your parents' house?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Those Alberts include Chris Albert, Julie Albert, Colin Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, you were... JACKSON: The number ending in 5374 — you recognize it as being from Julie Albert, based off the content of the message?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. I recognize this text message from Julie. And she texts: "This is the weekend I've been waiting for. Michael, please send ski videos if CP doesn't share with me" — with the laughing face. Correct?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. That text was sent on February 24th, 2022, wasn't it?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That was less than a month after Mr. O'Keefe's death, isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And less than a month after you had been assigned to the investigation in which Julie Albert was a witness.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And her husband, Chris Albert, was a witness?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And her son — you knew Colin was involved as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Who is "CP" in that text message?
MR. PROCTOR: It's a nickname I have for my sister, Courtney Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Your Honor, if I may have just a moment.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, can we move to Tab Five, please? That's Triple-C, as in Charlie. Do you have that in front of you, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And this would be page 2664. If you'd return to that page, please.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, on January 19th, 2022 — ten days before Mr. O'Keefe's death — you were texting with your sister about whether Julie Albert might be available to babysit for your own son. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So in fact, your relationship with the Alberts was close enough that you would consider leaving your own child in the hands of Julie Albert as a babysitter — as a caregiver for your toddler. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I wouldn't say close enough. I've hired babysitters that I — [unintelligible] — but Julie Albert was among them. Yes, she was an option to watch my child.
MR. JACKSON: And then you personally interviewed Julie Albert and Chris Albert in this case on February 10th, 2022 — [unintelligible] — and you did?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't mention a thing about your relationship with Julie Albert, Chris Albert, or Colin Albert in any report that you ever drafted in this case. Did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Not one word?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You interviewed Julie and Chris Albert at about 5:30 p.m. on the 10th of February — isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did either of them — Julie or Chris Albert — mention that their son Colin Albert had been at 34 Fairview Road on the night in question, January 29th?
MR. PROCTOR: I'd have to reread the report to refresh my memory on their statements.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let me ask it a different way. I may have — yes. Proctor wrote a report on October 12th, 2022 — correct — concerning his interview with — why don't you show it to him. I may have the wrong report. Do you recall, Trooper Proctor, ever mentioning whether or not Julie and Chris mentioned to you that their son had been at 34 Fairview on January 29th? Do you recall that, as you sit here?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best of my recollection — no. It was a very short interview with Julie and Chris.
MR. JACKSON: Was it not?
MR. PROCTOR: Typical length for the information they had to offer.
MR. JACKSON: So you started the interview about 5:30 p.m. It must have been relatively short, because you received a phone call by 6:17 from Julie Albert herself. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't have the call detail right in front of me, but — okay, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's look at Tab Six, please. This may not be in your book.
MR. PROCTOR: It's not, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, fair enough. You indicated that you might need to look at a phone record or a phone log to determine whether or not that call was made and what time it was made. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: If you have that, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. There's a highlighted portion, Trooper Proctor. Focus your attention on that and let me know if that refreshes your recollection.
MR. PROCTOR: It does, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You received — after your interview — you received a phone call from Julie Albert about 6:17, about 45 minutes after you began the interview and then left. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: 6:21, you called her back, and you spoke for 3 minutes and 58 seconds. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you discuss the interview?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall the content of that conversation.
MR. JACKSON: And of course you never memorialized that in any report, did you — the fact that you had a subsequent phone call with Julie Albert on your personal cell phone?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Let's turn to Tab Five one more time, and if you could turn to page 2677. Trooper Proctor, after your interview with Julie Albert, your sister Courtney texted you: "How did it go at Julie's? She was so nervous." You recall that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In fact, you responded to that with "ha ha ha ha" — four "ha"s — right? And then "why?" — question mark. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Then you responded: "It was fine, just a quick convo." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're literally reporting back to your sister about the progress of your investigation in a homicide investigation, weren't you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it differently.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. JACKSON: Were you reporting your progress to your sister about your investigation?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Were you reporting the progress of your investigation back to your sister, Courtney Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: No. Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: But you did say that the formal interview went fine — it was just a quick convo. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: In response to my sister indicating Julie was nervous. That's why I told her it was fine.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, Julie and Chris Albert were not actually treated like witnesses in a murder investigation — they were treated more like friends. Wouldn't you agree?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: [ruling unclear]
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: We've established that you're very close with your sister Courtney. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You provided your sister with updates on important advancements during the course of your investigation into this case. Did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Periodically — I made her aware of newsworthy stuff.
MR. JACKSON: That started as early as January 29th, 2022, isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall the exact date or content.
MR. JACKSON: Well, the day of the incident, you began letting her know that you were involved, that you had been assigned, what the status was —
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: — the nature of the case. It was a homicide.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. As a matter of fact, you discussed who the players were — who the people involved were. Isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: I just mentioned that Julie and Chris were out earlier in the evening.
MR. JACKSON: So you mentioned the Alberts. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Julie and Chris. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You also mentioned the McCabes, too, didn't you — at some point?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. At 2668, Your Honor — that's the page I'm referring to. At this point, you write "homicide." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So I said 2668 — correct? I have my page number correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: You're on the right page, Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You wrote the word "homicide." Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were describing to your sister the nature of the case that you were now assigned. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: She wrote: "The Canton thing is a homicide." And you wrote: "Don't say a word to anyone." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then she wrote: "Of course not." Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you wrote — "In the very least, it's suspicious." "In the very least, it's suspicious." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So at that time — at the time that you wrote that text on the 29th, at 3:05 in the afternoon — you believed that the case was suspicious. Right?
MR. PROCTOR: It was before we found significant pieces of evidence.
MR. JACKSON: So you believed that it was suspicious — that it may involve the Alberts. Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: She then writes: "This is your livelihood." Didn't she?
MR. PROCTOR: She did.
MR. JACKSON: Meaning this kind of case could make — or it could break — your career. Right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: She then wrote: "I would never mess with that." Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your sister, Trooper Proctor, was warning you that you shouldn't be investigating a case in which close friends or family members were involved.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Did you take her text — "This is your livelihood. I would never mess with that" — as a warning from her that you shouldn't be investigating a case that involved close friends?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not. That was in response to "Don't say a word to anyone" — and that was how I interpreted "This is your livelihood. I would never mess with that."
MR. JACKSON: A couple of minutes later — 3:07 — on January 29th, you told your sister: "Julie and Chris were at the bar with the victim and girlfriend — got to interview them." Isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you were telling Courtney, your sister, updates on what your investigation advancements were. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: The interview — why I was going to interview them.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. She wrote: "You've got to be kidding me." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you take that as "You've got to be kidding me — the Alberts are involved"?
MR. PROCTOR: No. Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Then you wrote: "It's not a big deal." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then she wrote: "I bet I know the person" — sounds like it is, meaning it is a big deal. Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I'm not sure what she meant with those messages, but she did write "I bet I know the person," didn't she? She did.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you know she's very close with the Alberts — correct? And she's close with Julie and Chris. You then wrote — "No, I meant" — or you wrote "Not" — I think you meant: "No, I meant that they were at the bar with him." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: She writes: "Yeah, I got that part." And then she continues: "But I know a lot of their friends." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see a problem in this exchange?
MR. PROCTOR: Nothing jumped out at me.
MR. JACKSON: Your sister's literally explaining that your family friends are suspects — or possible suspects — in a murder investigation that you're in charge of. Correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: On January 30th, 2022, at 9:13 in — the morning, your sister texted you again. Quote: "Jesus Christ, the party was at one of the Alberts," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you two were discussing the fact that, to put it in her words, "Jesus Christ, these are our friends," right? How did you take her "Jesus Christ, the party was at one of the Alberts" with two exclamation points? How did you take that?
MR. PROCTOR: That's her — the way I'm interpreting my sister's text messages was that she was surprised and shocked that this is where Mr. O'Keefe was found, in the front lawn of that residence.
MR. JACKSON: Could it be "Jesus Christ, we know these people"?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, that's how I read that message.
MR. JACKSON: You don't deny, Trooper Proctor, that — — you were routinely disclosing to your sister pretty intimate details about the investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I wouldn't say intimate. I'd say newsworthy stuff — just generic, nothing too specific.
MR. JACKSON: Newsworthy? Would you have gone to the news at this point in the investigation? Would you have gone to the news and said "Julie and Chris were at the bar, I got to go interview them"?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you do, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I would not do that, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So it's not newsworthy. These were internal details about the investigation, weren't they?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were sharing them with your sister Courtney Proctor, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And Courtney Proctor's best friend is Jillian Daniels, and one of her closest friends is Julie Albert, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Then on February 1st, 2022, your sister texts you that she's actually meeting with Julie Albert, didn't she?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that was before you ever interviewed Julie, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So it appears that Courtney was providing information to Julie of some sort before you were able to actually interview her, is that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask it this way. You don't deny that Courtney was meeting with Julie before you interviewed her, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you don't deny that you had been providing — — information about the case with Courtney before you interviewed Julie, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I provided information that Julie and Chris were at the Waterfall and I needed to interview them. Yes, that's the information I shared.
MR. JACKSON: And who knows what you shared verbally, not in text messages, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you share other information on phone calls with Courtney?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: So the only information — we know you speak to her five to six times a day — the only information that you claim you shared with Courtney about the details of the investigation are contained in these texts, which we —
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'll let you answer that. Can you answer that?
MR. PROCTOR: The information that I shared with my sister is contained within these texts. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You never discussed this case verbally over the phone or in person with Courtney?
MR. PROCTOR: On the phone, I'm sure there's been conversations — things that have, you know, been newsworthy items that have gone to the news. There have definitely been conversations in that regard.
MR. JACKSON: Then before you ever interviewed Julie, your sister informed you that Julie actually wanted to get you a gift for your participation on this case, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In tab five, let's turn to page 2672. Trooper Proctor — with the Court's permission, may it be published?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: At 2672, you see the text from you — "what's up" — yes?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what's Courtney Proctor's response?
MR. PROCTOR: "Nothing, I just saw Julie and she said when this is all over she wants to get you a thank-you gift." And I respond with "get Elizabeth one."
MR. JACKSON: Hang on, just a second. Let me take them one at a time. You were asked about this on direct examination by Mr. Lally, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you looked at the jury, paused, and said "I never asked for a gift, I never received a gift, Elizabeth never asked for a gift, she never received a gift." You remember that, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You said you never asked for a gift, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What's your next text?
MR. PROCTOR: "Get Elizabeth one."
MR. JACKSON: "Get Elizabeth one." Referring to a gift, right? So you did in fact ask for a gift, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: For my wife, who had been home with my children for the last ten nights — from Julie Albert. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: For your participation on this case?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know if that's —
MR. JACKSON: Well, Courtney Proctor answers that question by saying "because I guess her and Chris were friends and John, and she's so proud of you for leading this investigation," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware — during the course of your investigation — well, let me ask it this way. Let me ask a foundational question. Do you pull phone records as a matter of course in investigations of this nature?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you pull phone records in this case? Variously, the phone records of anybody — witnesses, suspects, people, whatever?
MR. PROCTOR: We didn't — we didn't pull full phone records of witnesses, the victim, and Ms. Read during the course of your investigation.
MR. JACKSON: Did you become aware that there were 67 calls between Julie Albert and your sister Courtney in the months following John's death?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to sustain that objection.
MR. JACKSON: Did you become aware during the course of your investigation of the level of communication between Julie Albert, one of the witnesses on the case, and your sister?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'm sustaining that objection. You can come try and convince me otherwise if you want, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: I can ask it a different way.
JUDGE CANNONE: You're on.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Did you ever seek information about phone calls and communications that Julie Albert may or may not have been having with anybody else?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Didn't download her phone, didn't seek her phone records?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did Courtney ever tell you she had consistent communications with Julie Albert? Or did you know that otherwise? During the months following John O'Keefe's death, you did continue to have consistent communications with Courtney though, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I speak to my sister every day.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, were you using Courtney, your sister, as an intermediary between you and Julie Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: You're well aware from the very beginning of your investigation that Colin Albert was in fact at 34 Fairview on the night in question, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, you testified at the Grand Jury — the state court grand jury — on this case that you knew that Colin Albert was at the location, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you make any concerted efforts to keep Colin Albert's name out of this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Why is it, Trooper Proctor, that Colin Albert's name fails to appear in a single police report until July 18, 2023?
MR. PROCTOR: Colin Albert was not at the home. He left at approximately 12:10 a.m., before anyone from the Waterfall had arrived back there.
MR. JACKSON: Let's look at — obviously, part of the job of an investigator is to be as complete and thorough as possible, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You don't just take someone's word for something — you look for corroborating evidence, don't you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Matter of fact, you wouldn't take a witness's word for almost anything in a reasonable investigation, would you?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, would you— You can have that.
MR. PROCTOR: If I believe — I find the witness to be credible and have no reason to lie — then yes, I take their word.
MR. JACKSON: Would you try to support — — a witness's statement — or witnesses' statements — with corroborating evidence?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, potentially.
MR. JACKSON: That corroborating evidence might be talking to other witnesses, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It might be looking at cell phone data, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: It might be looking at geolocation data, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're trying to find out where someone is — you might pull information from their phone concerning geolocation data, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You might pull cell tower information, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, if there's a need for it.
MR. JACKSON: There's a myriad of ways that you can find out whether someone's telling the truth about where they were and when they were — — there, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Right.
MR. JACKSON: Let's take a look at your handwritten notes from your interview with Julie Nagel on October 5th, 2022. This should be tab seven. Okay. Oh — is it for identification? My mistake. I thought it was in the tab; it's not. This is a three-page document. I'll just refresh his recollection with this.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Show him and then go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Of course. Let me ask a foundational question. Trooper Proctor, do you remember exactly what's in your notes from a conversation that you had on October 5th, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Do you think it would refresh your recollection to take a look at your handwritten notes?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Take a look at that first. Let me just ask you if that refreshes your recollection.
MR. PROCTOR: It does, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Are those your handwritten notes from — at least partially from — this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does that reflect your handwritten notes based on a conversation that you had with Julie Nagel on or about October 5th, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does this appear to be an accurate representation — or an accurate copy — of your notes from your interview with Julie Nagel? With the Court's permission — I changed my mind, I would like to have this marked and introduced into evidence.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: And the objection is sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is it true that in your handwritten notes you list the following individuals, based on Julie Nagel's conversation with you, as being at 34 Fairview? Brian, Juliana, Mary — Kent, Emily Fabiano, Courtney Alba, Colin Albert, and Sarah Levinson, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You then drafted a report memorializing your conversation with Juliana Nagel, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that report is a formal memorialization of your interview based on your investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A summary of the conversation from the interview. And that report is the thing that's turned over to the Commonwealth, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the report is the thing that's entered into Discovery and provided to the defense, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And isn't it true that in that report you list the individuals that were at 34 Fairview as Brian, Mary Kent, Emily Fabiano, Sarah Levinson. Is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What's the one name that was left out of your report on that list? [unintelligible]
JUDGE CANNONE: Was there one name left out? Break that down, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Isn't it true that in your report you excluded the one name, Colin Albert, from the list of individuals that were in your notes?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, because he arrived later in the evening. The other females were there from the start.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you wrote your report, a formal report— you did not believe that your handwritten notes were also going to be disclosed, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: No. I knew that was a possibility.
MR. JACKSON: When you finally did get around to interviewing Colin Albert, you personally conducted that interview, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sorry, finish your answer, Trooper, please go.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, along with Trooper Zack Clark, in my office.
MR. JACKSON: Colin Albert told you that he was picked up by Allie McCabe from his uncle's house at 12:10 a.m., correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Allie McCabe also told you that she picked up Colin Albert at 34 Fairview at 12:10 a.m. and then dropped him off at his house, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then she indicated that she went straight home after that, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you conduct any further investigation to determine whether Colin Albert and Allie McCabe were actually telling the truth about that time?
MR. PROCTOR: We did not.
MR. JACKSON: Just took them at their word, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you realized you had a forensic image— at the time you had a forensic image of Jennifer McCabe's cell phone in your possession, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You're also aware that she has a Life 360 app on her phone that tracks the location of Allie McCabe, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I was not aware the app tracked her daughter. I knew of the Life 360 app, but I wasn't aware of the capability of tracking her daughter.
MR. JACKSON: Did you bother to look at Jennifer McCabe's Life 360 app to determine whether Colin Albert and Allie McCabe were telling the truth about the time they supposedly left 34 Fairview?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Did you do that?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Can we take a look at Tab 8? Do you recall looking at all at a Life 360 app, or its data, from a Cellebrite report?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: Did you or did you not look at any data from Life 360 from Jennifer McCabe's phone?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so this is a good time to take the morning recess. I'll see you in 15, 20 minutes. All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Trooper Proctor, did you include in your investigative file any Cellebrite report related to the Life 360 app that was on Miss McCabe's phone that you earlier testified to?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper Guarino was our cell phone expert, kind of handled that. So I'm not positive if that report— if he generated that report.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So— it goes without saying— I shouldn't say that because it goes without saying— I shouldn't say it. Did you review a Life 360 report in an effort to determine whether or not Colin and Allie were telling the truth?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You grew up in Canton, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I don't want to get into your address, but just generally, as the crow flies, how close would you say you live from the Albert residence, the former Albert residence, 34 Fairview in Canton?
MR. PROCTOR: Two, three miles.
MR. JACKSON: How about from the McCabe residence? Again, don't give me any addresses.
MR. PROCTOR: Maybe a mile.
MR. JACKSON: You know, given the fact that you grew up in Canton, that it's about a mile walk through some woods to get to Canton High School from 34 Fairview, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any Canton police officers canvass the area around the high school, or filling stations— gas stations around the high school— for video surveillance footage?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any conversations with anybody from Canton about video surveillance concerning the high school and/or surrounding gas stations?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who is that?
MR. PROCTOR: That was Officer Galanis.
MR. JACKSON: Can you turn to Tab 9, please? First, let me ask you if you recognize these texts with any individual.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: How do you recognize those texts?
MR. PROCTOR: That was a text communication between Officer Galanis and myself.
MR. JACKSON: Taking a look at those text communications, do you see the inclusive dates of those on the face sheet?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: What are those inclusive dates?
MR. PROCTOR: First message sent date and time: February 18th, 2022, 1:02 p.m. Last message sent date and time: February 18th, 2022, 2:05 p.m.
MR. JACKSON: These are texts on a single day, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: If you would look at page 2623— Your Honor, may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there any objection?
MR. LALLY: Same objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll let you publish it.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. In this text you're asking a member of the Canton Police Department to look around the surrounding area of 34 Fairview Road for camera equipment, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I was asking if they had any knowledge of cameras in the area.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And of course that was to an officer who was employed by which department?
MR. PROCTOR: Canton Police Department.
MR. JACKSON: Which you knew at the time that you asked for assistance in February of 2022, had been recused from the case, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And should have no investigative involvement in the case, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not request for them to pull video. I just simply asked what are some good cameras in the area.
MR. JACKSON: Which is an assistance for you in your investigation, correct? They have more knowledge in the area as far as useful cameras.
MR. PROCTOR: So yes, I reached out regarding cameras in the area for assistance from Canton PD officers.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, whom you knew to be recused.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You specifically asked Officer Galanis whether, quote, the high school had cameras facing the street, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And Officer Galanis writes back, "The Canton Mutual Gas Station has unreal cameras. That's how I picked up that kid." And it had him walking into the woods by the new street, Larin? Court, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You responded, "Good to know, I'll add that to the list," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did any of the reports you turned over in Discovery ever mention the Canton Mutual Gas Station cameras or the cameras from Canton High School?
MR. PROCTOR: No, because we did not retrieve any video from those locations.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't mention in your report that you even sought the footage from those locations, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't believe so.
MR. JACKSON: You did say that you would add it to the, quote, list, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're aware, obviously, as one of your responsibilities, to maintain and keep your handwritten notes from all communications, all investigative activities involved in the case, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you have no notes on this conversation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: As the lead investigator, Trooper Proctor, you are responsible ultimately for deciding which witnesses will be interviewed and which witnesses will not be interviewed, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Like I mentioned on Monday, it's a collaborative effort within the office. So we bounce ideas off each other as far as what witnesses need to be interviewed, et cetera. So it's more of a group effort, a group decision.
MR. JACKSON: But as the case officer, you make some of the final decisions on who's going to be investigated, who's going to be interviewed, things of that nature that facilitate certain areas?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I want to talk about some of the witnesses that you interviewed in the days and weeks immediately following Mr. O'Keefe's death. You interviewed Brian Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Nicole Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Chris Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Julie Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Jennifer McCabe?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Her husband Matt McCabe?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All those individuals are related in one way or another, either through marriage or otherwise, to each other, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's my understanding.
MR. JACKSON: And you also interviewed Brian Higgins, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I want to talk for a second about the individuals that you did not immediately choose to interview. Julie Nagel wasn't interviewed until October 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's seven months after the incident, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Sarah Levinson was not interviewed until October of 2022 also, seven months later, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Caitlin Albert was interviewed July 6, 2023, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's 16 months after the incident, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Brian Albert Jr., July 6, 2023, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Allie McCabe, August of 2023, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: That's 18 months after the incident.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Heather Maxon — she was not interviewed until September 21st, 2023, 17 months later, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Or — that's actually — my math is off — that's about 18 months later, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Ricky D'Antuono, September 2nd, 2023, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you waited more than 18 months to interview him as well, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then Brian Loughran, snowplow driver, August 2023, 17 months after the incident, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: I want to talk for a second about this last individual — Brian Loughran. He also goes by the name Lucky, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Lucky Loughran. You testified under oath on April 21st, 2022, in the State Court Grand Jury proceeding that no snowplow traveled down Fairview Road on January 29th, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you say that, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: That was based off interviews with Mr. Trotta — that the plows weren't out until they met up at 2:30 — and then with my understanding they were focusing on the main roadways.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that Michael Trotta testified in this case?
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware or not?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You did in fact interview Michael Trotta, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And isn't it true that Michael Trotta told you that in fact Brian Loughran was plowing 34 Fairview that morning? Objection. Is that what he told you?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall that statement from him.
MR. JACKSON: Michael Trotta testified that that's what he told you. Do you have any quarrel with that? Objection. In reality, Trooper Proctor, you did not want to speak to anybody in the weeks and months following this incident who didn't fit your narrative, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that true?
MR. PROCTOR: That's simply not true. Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Certainly didn't want to talk to anybody who could say that there was no body on the lawn at 2:30 in the morning, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: No, it's not true.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that Lucky Loughran in fact did report that there was nobody — Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. I'm going to strike that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you include anything in your investigative report throughout the entire time you've been in charge of this investigation about Lucky Loughran and his observations?
MR. PROCTOR: Not until Sgt. Bukhenik and I interviewed him — and that was — I can't recall the exact date.
MR. JACKSON: And that was after the defense brought him to your attention, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that true?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Are you still the case agent in charge of this case?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As lead investigator and case agent, you're aware it's also your responsibility and your obligation to investigate all potential individuals — all potential suspects, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're obligated to investigate anybody who would have a motive, a means, and an opportunity to commit the crime or the offense, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Motive includes anything from financial gain to — could just be revenge, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could be a lover's quarrel?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Or it could be someone who's interested in someone romantically?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Could be an argument inside of a vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: Sorry — I didn't hear that. Could you —
MR. JACKSON: Or could be an argument contained inside a vehicle as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Which is the conclusion you jumped to 17 hours into your investigation, right? Objection. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: It's something — evidence we have contained within cell phones reiterates that fact.
MR. JACKSON: When you decided that you were going to make sure that "the girl" — I think that's what you called her — "the girl" — was going to have serious charges brought against her 17 hours into your investigation, you didn't have any evidence whatsoever that there was an argument inside the vehicle, did you? Objection.
MR. PROCTOR: No, but as far as the physical evidence goes, we have compelling evidence indicating Ms. Read struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, I just have to keep your voice up. Trooper — okay — go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: You just did this piecemeal. So when you decided that "the girl" — Ms. Read — was going to get serious charges against her, you didn't have any indication of any intent. You just decided, "Okay, I'm just going to go with the physical evidence today — I'll figure out intent later, I'll figure out motive later," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Motive, means, and opportunity — we've talked a little bit about motive. What about means — the physical ability to commit the crime, right? That's obviously important?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And the opportunity — it's the physical proximity to the incident, correct? Or the physical ability to commit the crime?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you investigate all potential suspects who would have had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill John O'Keefe?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. And that motive, means factored in with the physical evidence pointed directly at Ms. Read. There's no one — no one else had any motive. Mr. O'Keefe never went inside Fairview Road.
MR. JACKSON: And you got all that, of course, from the Alberts and the McCabes, right? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about Brian Higgins for a second. You know that name?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You personally interviewed Mr. Higgins, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Sgt. Bukhenik and I did.
MR. JACKSON: You keep adding other people into the interviews. I'm asking what you did, not what you and somebody else did. Did you personally — Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: — interview Brian Higgins?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I did.
MR. JACKSON: He's a fellow law enforcement officer, and you knew that, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He was a colleague of yours, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: He worked in a different agency.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, you waited until February 10th to conduct a prescheduled interview with Mr. Higgins, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you interviewed him in the presence of his attorney, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He told you that he was engaged in a flirtatious relationship with Ms. Read?
MR. PROCTOR: He did.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, he told you that he was engaged in a flirtatious relationship with Ms. Read over text messages, but on at least one occasion that resulted in a kiss, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then he also told you that he had taken the liberty to extract certain conversations from his own cell phone, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He brought you a hard copy of those text messages, right?
MR. PROCTOR: He did.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew that those text messages were messages that he curated to give to you, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He's the one that made the determination of what was important, what was not important to give to you, his interviewer, right? Was that your understanding, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: It was my understanding that Mr. Higgins was being very forthcoming by providing those messages. It's not uncommon for witnesses to take screenshots or send us emails or send us text messages, so he just had a different means of producing text messages.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you were actually asked that question in a different proceeding under different questioning, and you were asked whether or not, in your career as a law enforcement officer, has any person or witness ever brought a self-extraction of text messages to an in-person interview, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And your answer was, Trooper Proctor — you had never experienced that in the history of your career, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you became aware pretty early on that Mr. Higgins at least had a motive to want to visit harm on John O'Keefe, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No, absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you knew he had this flirtatious relationship with Karen Read, is that right?
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You became aware — you saw the text messages — you became aware that Karen Read actually ignored text messages from Mr. Higgins while at the Waterfall Bar & Grille with John O'Keefe, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that at 12:20 a.m. Brian Higgins sent a text message to John O'Keefe, coaxing him to 34 Fairview, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see you at sidebar on this.
COURT OFFICER: You are unmuted.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can I inquire? Yes, thank you.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that at 2:20 a.m. Brian Higgins sent a text message to John O'Keefe, prompting him to go to 34 Fairview, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that one. Go ahead.
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall that text.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall a text from Brian Higgins to John O'Keefe after they left the Waterfall — "Where you at"?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall that one either.
MR. JACKSON: You also recognized that Brian Higgins certainly had the means to commit the crime, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I don't.
MR. JACKSON: He's a big guy — certainly had the physical ability to get into a physical altercation with John O'Keefe, correct? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: Just because he's a big guy doesn't mean he has the motive to hurt Mr. O'Keefe — they were friends.
MR. JACKSON: I wasn't asking about motive — I'm asking about means. Could he do it? Could he throw a punch, knock a guy down, knock a guy out?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't speak to his fighting ability, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you've met him, right? Just one interview?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, he's huge. Do you agree? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: He's a big dude, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, he's a big guy.
MR. JACKSON: Bigger than me, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, bigger than you.
MR. JACKSON: Yep. You knew that he was former military?
MR. PROCTOR: I did, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And he's a trained ATF agent — federal agent, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were in possession of video surveillance from the Waterfall Bar & Grille, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And literally in the minutes before John O'Keefe's death, you saw video surveillance of Brian Higgins and Brian Albert taking fighting stances with one another, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I interpreted that as horsing around.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't ask you how you interpreted it, Trooper Proctor — I asked you if you saw it. Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see it or not?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: And what you saw was these guys taking fighting stances, correct? Objection. Is that what you saw?
MR. PROCTOR: Playful fighting stances.
MR. JACKSON: But you waited until February 10th to interview him, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you decided not to image his phone, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't ask for consent to search his phone or to take his phone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't seek a search warrant to get his phone, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you know that on January 29th at 2:22 a.m. there was a call between him and Brian Albert that morning?
MR. PROCTOR: It was not —
MR. JACKSON: That might have been important to your investigation, don't you think? Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Depends — I don't know what the call was about.
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection / Overruled]
MR. JACKSON: I don't know what the call was about. I
MR. PROCTOR: — don't know if they actually connected and communicated, what the length of the call was. So, right.
MR. JACKSON: And you never asked, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I was unaware that that call took place.
MR. JACKSON: And you were unaware that that call took place because you didn't get his phone properly, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Typically we don't get witnesses' phones, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You were unaware of that call at that time because you didn't see his phone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Right.
MR. JACKSON: The medical examiner notified you — on February — I'm sorry, on April 28, 2022 — that the manner of death, in her words, could not be determined. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: She would not rule — at least in terms of the manner of death — would not rule this a homicide. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you agree that that's obviously a pretty significant finding?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Her finding doesn't alter how we conduct our investigation, whether it's undetermined or ruled a homicide. We're still going to continue to investigate one way, regardless of her determination.
MR. JACKSON: You obviously were not pleased with that — you were not pleased with that determination, right?
MR. PROCTOR: It didn't matter one way or the other, because like I said, we continue on with the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: On April 28th, that same day, you received a text message from Trooper DiCicco, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You turn to tab 11, please. What's the ID number?
MR. PROCTOR: 2618.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, tab 11 is GGG as in golf. May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have that in front of you, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You turn to page 2618. Do you see the text message received from Trooper DiCicco with a photograph of the autopsy report?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that autopsy report indicates undetermined — is that right — for manner of death?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In response, you wrote a text message to DiCicco, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: What was your response?
MR. PROCTOR: "Of course it's undetermined."
MR. JACKSON: And then what else did you write?
MR. PROCTOR: "She was a whack job."
MR. JACKSON: "Of course it's undetermined, she was a whack job" — right? Those are your two responses, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were talking about Dr. Scordi-Bello, the female medical examiner, who came to the determination that this was undetermined in terms of the manner of death, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not sure who I'm referencing as far as "she was a whack job," but the "of course it's undetermined" is a sarcastic response.
MR. JACKSON: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: The reason you referred to Dr. Scordi-Bello as a whack job is because the cut-and-dry case that you had hoped for wasn't really going your way, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: When you referred to "she's a whack job," were you referring to Dr. Scordi-Bello?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Were you displeased with the undetermined finding instead of a homicide finding, because that was an obstacle in your investigation?
JUDGE CANNONE: You can break that down.
MR. JACKSON: Were you displeased about the undetermined finding?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Would you have rather had a determined finding that it was a homicide?
MR. PROCTOR: At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to my office. We still investigate the same exact way if it's ruled determined, undetermined, or homicide.
MR. JACKSON: Well, then why would you say "of course it's undetermined, she was a whack job"?
MR. PROCTOR: Sarcastically — a sarcastic remark I made to Trooper DiCicco.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Which sort of suggests displeasure rather than the reverse, correct? You'd agree that it's extremely unusual for the manner of death to be — sorry — to be undetermined in a homicide investigation you've worked on, correct? How many murder cases in the history of your career have you worked on in which the medical examiner made the determination that the manner of death could not be determined?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a number on it. It's not a lot. I couldn't ballpark it for you, but I know it's not a lot.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you were asked this exact question in February of 2024 at another proceeding, and you indicated that you had never seen it in your entire career, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Trying to — yeah, I'm trying to recall.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you were asked the question. So first, what do you mean by "of course it's undetermined"? And your answer was: "I said it at the time, it was kind of like — not like figuratively 'of course it's' — and 'of course,' like I had never really seen that before in homicide." End quote. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your statement in February of 2024, under oath, was you had literally never seen that in any homicide you've ever worked, right?
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: After she reached that conclusion, you discussed this with one of your colleagues about how you tried to put pressure on her to change — or alter — her opinion, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that what you did — pressure?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Let's turn to tab 12. What's this for identification? Is this — I'm just checking — this is HHH as in hotel. Your Honor, for this one — may I publish? So I've got the — mismarked. What's the bottom — what's the base?
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you come to sidebar, please.
MR. JACKSON: The face page is 2628. Maybe that helps. End sidebar Within that packet, we'll turn to 2632. Okay. Yes. Go ahead. To begin with, Trooper Proctor, do you recognize the face page of that series of text messages in tab 12?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is that the text messages between you and Trooper DiCicco, one of your colleagues?
MR. PROCTOR: It is, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Turn to page 2632, if you wouldn't mind. Tell me when you're ready.
MR. PROCTOR: Go ahead, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper DiCicco texted you: "Rookie move, not going into a meeting with the ME and getting that homicide determination," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How did you interpret that — "rookie move, not getting that homicide determination"?
MR. PROCTOR: When DiCicco — it's him busting my chops and joking with me.
MR. JACKSON: Because you see it as your job — you and Trooper DiCicco — to go in and get the homicide determination. That's your job, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Not at all, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You're not looking so much for her opinion as looking to give her your opinion, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: You responded: "Yuri and I —" Who's Yuri?
MR. PROCTOR: Bukhenik.
MR. JACKSON: "Yuri and I had two conference calls with her, sent her numerous photos, etc. We laid out the entire case for her." That was your response, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were explaining how much effort you went to to try to get her to change her opinion to homicide, right?
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all.
MR. JACKSON: Did DiCicco then respond — "Not good enough, should have had me and Jeff do it"?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That was his response — busting chops — that you didn't meet the standard of getting her to change her mind to make it a homicide, right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's what he was doing — that's what he was busting your chops about. We would never try to change the mind of a medical examiner. The doctor who conducts the autopsy often has questions. They want to know some of the facts, kind of what had transpired leading up to a victim's death. It happens not only in homicides but other deaths we also attend to — you know, suicide and overdose. So it's common to have these conversations with doctors, right?
MR. JACKSON: But in response to getting the information that she made the determination and held on to it — that this was undetermined — your answer was "of course it's undetermined, she was just a whack job," right?
MR. PROCTOR: With sarcasm.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, did the doctor change her opinion?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: But the determination of the medical examiner — that didn't matter to you, right? Because you had already decided you were going to charge Miss Read with murder anyway.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, the determination did not matter as we continued on with the investigation.
MR. JACKSON: Notwithstanding the medical findings in the case, correct? That it was not determined to be a homicide, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Considering the manner — but—
MR. JACKSON: And that's because even though, in the words of the prior group chat, "this whole thing stinks" — you were going to make it cut-and-dry by putting it on the girl, putting serious charges on the girl, notwithstanding what the medical examiner said, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection]
MR. JACKSON: I want to change gears for a second and ask you about some electronic data, specifically as it pertains to Jennifer McCabe. You're aware that Jennifer McCabe deleted texts and calls from her phone before she turned it over to you?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You were actually asked this question — whether or not it would have an impact on your decision, notwithstanding the medical examiner's decision — correct — your decision to charge her. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On February 1st, 2024, you were asked: "So what you're telling this grand jury today, and you expect this grand jury to believe, that you didn't care whether the medical examiner came back with a homicide determination — it doesn't matter to you?" And your answer, quote: "No, because either way, Miss Read was going to be charged." Right? Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's how you make a case cut-and-dry, isn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's the same.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, Trooper Proctor — the hell with the medical evidence — Karen Read was going to be charged because that's what you had decided to do, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware of that?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that there were texts and calls missing from her phone before that phone was turned over to you?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Did you look at the extraction report — the Cellebrite extraction report — from her phone?
MR. PROCTOR: I have, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't see the columns marked "deleted, deleted, deleted, deleted"?
MR. PROCTOR: No — not that area. No. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Not that area. Not that area.
MR. JACKSON: Meaning no? What does that mean?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know what you mean by "not that area." I went through her Cellebrite report, but clearly I didn't review that tab.
MR. JACKSON: So as you sit here, you're unaware of whether or not multiple texts and multiple phone calls were deleted from her phone that you have in your possession?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I'm not aware right now, sir.
MR. JACKSON: As the case agent, as the case officer, do you believe it might be important to find out whether or not that phone appeared to have been manipulated or altered in some way before it was turned over? Wouldn't that be something that you would normally do?
MR. PROCTOR: That would be important, but—
MR. JACKSON: You didn't do it with Jen McCabe's phone.
MR. PROCTOR: I didn't personally handle that, no.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever seize Nicole Albert's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever seize Brian Albert's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Colin Albert's?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Chris Albert's?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Julie Albert's?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Were you concerned that if you seized any or all of their phones — especially Colin, Julie, and Chris — that there might be some indicators that you knew them on those phones?
MR. PROCTOR: No. That thought never crossed my mind. That's a fact.
MR. JACKSON: You never sought to seize any of those, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I don't.
MR. JACKSON: And you never asked — irrespective of what you saw in the Cellebrite report — you never asked Jennifer McCabe whether or not that was a complete and thorough — — complete and accurate, I should say. Let me ask it a different way. Did you ever ask Jennifer McCabe whether or not she ever altered anything on her phone before turning it in?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not. Again, I didn't handle Miss McCabe's phone. I didn't do the cell phone extraction on it.
MR. JACKSON: Let me ask you about another issue concerning a potential conflict of interest. You were well aware that Canton PD was supposed to be — we talked about this at some length — conflicted off the case as of January 29th, 2022, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You even put it in that text message: "Not at all, it's total opposite, they have to recuse themselves, BPD same with Canton," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Those are your words on January 29th, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew that one of the reasons for Canton PD to recuse itself is because of the relationship between the Alberts and one of the detectives on Canton PD, Kevin Albert, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You knew that Kevin Albert was the primary source of the conflict, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew that he, above everybody else, should be completely removed from any contact with the investigation or the investigators, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yet when you wanted to coordinate witnesses for interviews in this case, who'd you turn to?
MR. PROCTOR: I texted Kevin Albert to see if he could secure a conference room for us to conduct interviews at the station.
MR. JACKSON: The same Kevin Albert — to help coordinate these witness interviews — who's the brother of Brian, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you turn to tab 13, please? Your Honor, for the Court's edification, it should be I — India. Thank you. Do you have that in front of you, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: If you'll turn to page 259. With Court permission, I'd like to publish.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Can you see that? On January 30th, 2022, at about 11:55 a.m., Kevin Albert texts you on your personal cell phone: "Paul G is reviewing the reports now. Steve Saraf is here if you need to interview him, and we can call Mullaney in as well." End quote. You see that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who's Paul G?
MR. PROCTOR: Lieutenant Paul Gallagher.
MR. JACKSON: So Paul — Kevin Albert, a Canton PD officer and an Albert — is texting you about Paul Gallagher, another Canton officer, about interviewing Steve Saraf, another Canton officer, and Officer Mullaney, a second Canton officer. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: What investigation was Kevin Albert referring to in the text?
MR. PROCTOR: The death of John O'Keefe. This investigation.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Did you tell Kevin Albert it's completely inappropriate for him to be involved in this case at all?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Did you tell him he shouldn't be having any contact with any of the witnesses, and he shouldn't even be having contact with you? Did you tell him that?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: What you did write back was: "Okay. Yuri and I are coming in at one to interview a firefighter, Katie." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's right.
MR. JACKSON: So not only did you tell them that you were engaged in the process of obtaining interviews, you told him the name of the interviewee, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were going to do it at Canton PD, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So you're sharing information about the identity of witnesses that you intend to interview with Brian Albert's brother, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Then you asked Kevin Albert to actually contact the witnesses in order to schedule their interviews, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I believe it was Officer Mullaney and Saraf.
MR. JACKSON: Page 252. Kevin Albert texts: "Okay, so I'll get Mullaney in as well. You interviewing her here?" And you respond: "Yeah, if we can line them up for 1:30 and 2:00, that would be great." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you're leaving it up to Kevin Albert to contact and coordinate with the witnesses that you intended to interview at Canton PD, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You then answered: "Anytime in the ballpark." Then you went on and said "From 1:30 on," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Kevin Albert then says: "Okay, sounds good." And then he responds: "If you want to interview witnesses in the recorded room here, you're more than welcome." You see that?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't.
MR. JACKSON: He was referring to an interview room or an interrogation room where there's automatic recording devices, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's to help facilitate memorializing interviews that police officers want to take with any witness in a crime, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That would mean that if you used a recorded room, those recordings would be in the hands of which agency?
MR. PROCTOR: That's why we did not use that recorded room.
MR. JACKSON: But he offered, didn't he?
MR. PROCTOR: He offered. We did not use it.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see that as a problem, that he offered?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I don't, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You see that as a problem because he might — I don't know — take some of those interviews and forward them to his brother?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Were you concerned that Kevin Albert was offering to utilize Canton's recording program's facility in order to get access to what the witnesses were saying so that he could then forward that or tell his brother?
MR. PROCTOR: No. Never crossed my mind.
MR. JACKSON: Never. Well, if it never crossed your mind, why didn't you go ahead and use the recording?
MR. PROCTOR: Typically we don't record our interviews.
MR. JACKSON: That's not what you said a second ago. You said the reason we didn't use the recorded room is because of the obvious possibility that Kevin Albert and Canton PD could have access to the recordings.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Didn't you say that's why we didn't use it?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: That was your answer, right?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: What did you say? You said you didn't use it. When I said "if you made a recording it would be in the hands of which agency — obviously Canton PD" — and your answer was "that's why we didn't use the recorded room," right?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I don't recall saying that's why we didn't use the room.
MR. JACKSON: You just said it, Trooper Proctor — it's been ten minutes, not four.
MR. PROCTOR: Not specifically stated like that.
MR. JACKSON: All right, let me ask a different way. If you weren't concerned that the interviews could be compromised by Canton PD and Kevin Albert, why didn't you just use the room?
MR. PROCTOR: It was offered up. Again, typically we don't record our interviews with a cooperating witness. We just sit down with them, take notes. If it's someone we deemed necessary to actually have a recording of, then we'll pursue that option.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, after you knew that Canton Police Department was conflicted off the case, you continued to have a very close relationship with yet another Albert — Kevin Albert — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: We worked on a cold case together.
MR. JACKSON: So you did have a close personal and professional relationship with Kevin Albert, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: I'd say it was a professional relationship only.
MR. JACKSON: A professional relationship — him and you were members at a gym together, and you worked a cold case together for several months — drinking, socializing maybe once in a while, right? So beyond professional?
MR. PROCTOR: Right.
MR. JACKSON: Acquaintances — drinking acquaintances, right?
MR. PROCTOR: On several occasions, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Socializing acquaintances, right?
MR. PROCTOR: On several occasions.
MR. JACKSON: So when you told the jury a few minutes ago that you were aware of and knew of but didn't have relationships with three Alberts — Julie, Chris, and Colin — not quite true, is it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: There's a fourth Albert out there, isn't there?
MR. PROCTOR: Right.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't tell us about that one, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't consider that a relationship.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's look at that. Five months into this investigation, in July of 2022, you were actually continuing to socialize with Kevin Albert, weren't you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On July 19th, 2022, you and Kevin Albert went out drinking together, didn't you? Trooper Proctor, I'm not asking you to look for anything in the binder at this point. I'm asking for your memory.
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall that.
MR. JACKSON: You don't recall the date? Or — July 19th, 2022 — you don't recall the drinking?
MR. PROCTOR: The date itself, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Why don't we turn to tab 13.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Do I have a number or a letter? court staff: We're still in tab 13.
JUDGE CANNONE: So what page, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Page 262. May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Trooper Proctor, you're on page 262. Does that refresh your recollection that on July 19th, 2022, you and Kevin Albert had been out drinking together?
MR. PROCTOR: It does.
MR. JACKSON: In fact, the two of you got so drunk that Kevin Albert left his badge in your cruiser and couldn't find his gun the next morning, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled.
MR. PROCTOR: I can't speak to any level of intoxication, but I don't recall either of us being intoxicated.
MR. JACKSON: So isn't it true that on July 20th, 2022 — the day after — at 8:39 in the morning, you texted Kevin Albert: "Found your badge in my cruiser this morning." End quote. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Then you texted him: "I can leave it in my locker at the gym, drop it off at your station, or leave it in my mailbox." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: —[Exhibit] 2606, starting with "It's bad" — tell me when you see that.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay, I see it.
MR. JACKSON: May I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Kevin Albert responded — "It's bad!! I was hung over for sure today!! Couple tonight to make me feel good" — end quote — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You can take that down. Does that refresh your recollection that the two of you had been out drinking the night before, he got so drunk that he couldn't find his badge and couldn't even find his gun?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it does refresh my memory.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you're in your cruiser, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And this is with Brian Albert's brother — Trooper Proctor, correct? I'm going to change gears, Trooper— —Proctor. You personally collected John O'Keefe's clothes from the hospital at Good Samaritan in Brockton, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: At the time you were at Good Samaritan, you actually had the opportunity — you had the occasion — to see Mr. O'Keefe in the hospital, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You also had the occasion to see his clothing in the hospital, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's the clothing that you ultimately gathered, is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You can take a look at that — tell me if you recognize it.
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Is that a photograph of you? I'm sorry — it's not of you, but do you see your legs in that photograph?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, and you also see the legs of Mr. O'Keefe on the hospital— —gurney, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: And you see a pile of clothes there, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I do. [Exhibit 568 identified and marked]
MR. JACKSON: We're ready. May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Request the Court's permission to publish.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see this? You see the photograph in front of you — is that the same photograph that's been published up on the television screen?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Directing your attention to the leftmost portion of the photograph — you see the clothes? First, the clothes on the ground?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, okay. What items or articles of clothing do you see?
MR. PROCTOR: The T-shirt, possibly the jeans, gray shirt as— —well, yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Okay. And those are your legs to the uppermost part of the screen, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe so, in the blue pants.
MR. JACKSON: And you see to the leftmost portion of the screen a chair?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: You see what's on that chair?
MR. PROCTOR: My binder.
MR. JACKSON: That's your portfolio?
MR. PROCTOR: It is.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, that's something that you carry routinely — as you're investigating, during the course of your investigations?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You keep your notes and things of that nature?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Pens, paper, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right, we can take that down. You indicated that you took possession of those clothing items from Good Samaritan Hospital, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Affirmative.
MR. JACKSON: You bagged them — "bagged," B-A-G-G-E-D — bagged them?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then what did you do with them after that?
MR. PROCTOR: We secured them in Sergeant Meen's pickup truck.
MR. JACKSON: And then what happened to them after they were secured in his pickup truck?
MR. PROCTOR: We traveled to Dighton, to Mr. Read's house.
MR. JACKSON: Once you ultimately got back — I don't want to have to take you through the entire story. Everybody knows where you went. Sergeant Meen already testified. You get back to Canton at some point, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, were the clothes transported into your facility?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: At the DA's office, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, what did you do with them after that?
MR. PROCTOR: We brought them to the evidence processing—
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to ask you what you did, not what "we" did. What you did.
MR. PROCTOR: Bukhenik and I brought them to the evidence processing area, laid out a bunch of paper so the clothes could dry, put them on — in that area. And then I brought two cell phones to Trooper Guarino so we could try to extract the phones.
MR. JACKSON: What did you do with the clothing after it was dried out?
MR. PROCTOR: So the next day, Trooper DiCicco arrived and brought them into the permanent evidence area, where only him and another trooper in my office have access to. So they were secured from that point.
MR. JACKSON: So you didn't book them into evidence?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: You know, when items are booked into evidence, there's supposed to be a log of that—
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry — they're supposed to be a log of that when they're booked into evidence, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're the case officer on the case. One of your responsibilities is to make sure that chain of custody is maintained throughout the entirety of the investigation, all the way up to a courtroom, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where's the log of those items being booked into evidence?
MR. PROCTOR: There was a chain of custody from when they entered the — the DA's office, and then when Trooper DiCicco created a label for them, but also put them in the secure facility.
MR. JACKSON: Can you show me where that is?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not the evidence office, I don't have that.
MR. JACKSON: I see. So you didn't— —bring a log with you of any sort — of any sort — concerning the chain of custody of these items?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. No.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter of fact, the reason you didn't bring that chain of custody log is because none exists, isn't that right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Does a physical log exist, starting from January 29th, 2022, to today?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where is that physical log, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not — I'm not an evidence officer, so I don't know how that — yeah, so I don't know how that's generated.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So as the case officer, you have no idea where an evidence log is that has something as insignificant as — I don't know — the victim's clothing?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: The fact of the matter is, the evidence log attendant to this case regarding those clothing items starts on March 14, when they were taken to the crime lab, correct? That's when the clothing was transported to the lab, and that's the only log we have of what happened to those clothes between January 29th and today — do you know that?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't — not off the top of my head, ma'am.
MR. JACKSON: I want to talk for a second about the searches in Brian Albert's front lawn that took place on and after January 29th, 2022. As the case officer, Trooper Proctor, you also took control of the taillight pieces that were ultimately claimed to have been found at that— —location, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Not in all searches.
MR. JACKSON: Which of the pieces that were found were you responsible for taking control over?
MR. PROCTOR: The 8th, 11th, and 18th.
MR. JACKSON: So who had control over the items that were found before the 8th? You said the 8th, 11th, and 18th, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Those are items that I had found on those days, and that I had processed and essentially bagged and tagged them and handed them over to our evidence officer.
MR. JACKSON: There were multiple days that troopers were out there looking for more evidence, so there would be a log of that too, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, the — how the system works as far as the evidence comes in, I can't speak to that.
MR. JACKSON: So you have no idea what the chain— —of custody of any of these items are — the clothing or the taillight material — from January 29th until March 14th, when the evidence log starts? Is that what you're saying?
MR. PROCTOR: There is — there is a log. I mean, it's in our system where labels are created, and it generates the time and date that a label is created, and then it shows that it's at our office in a secure facility, and then was brought to the lab on the 14th.
MR. JACKSON: What happens if the label is created and says something like — I don't know — February 4th? What happened to the items before February 4th?
MR. PROCTOR: They were stored in a secured facility, a secured—
MR. JACKSON: —room? Says who? Where's the log?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is there a log of that?
MR. PROCTOR: Not to my— —knowledge.
MR. JACKSON: You were responsible for seizing Miss Read's car, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you originally claimed that that seizure took place at 5:30 p.m., is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You signed numerous affidavits under oath claiming that you did not seize Miss Read's vehicle until 5:30 p.m. on January 29th, 2022, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you seized Miss Read's vehicle, you were unaware that there was Alarm.com surveillance footage of the area from which the car was, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The fact of the matter is, that was false. The car was not seized at 5:30, was it? 4:16 p.m.? An hour and change — an hour and 18 minutes, hour and 20 minutes — earlier? Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever seek to change or amend the — the error, a false statement — about the time you received — seized — in any of those documents that you filed under oath?
MR. PROCTOR: When I incorrectly transcribed the times, it was on the first affidavit I had written, and then as I continued to write other search warrants, I used that as a template, so I never caught it — on the first one — and that's the reason those times are off on the other affidavit I wrote.
MR. JACKSON: So the first one was false, and then every single one after that was false too?
MR. PROCTOR: It was just an incorrect transcription of time, an incorrect transcription of the time.
MR. JACKSON: Call that — I don't know — a scrivener's error?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Was it a typo?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it was a typo.
MR. JACKSON: So you got the four wrong, you got the one wrong, and you got the six wrong, and those turned into five and three and zero, right?
MR. PROCTOR: They would — a typo, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The fact of the matter is, you delivered that car to Canton PD, to the sallyport garage, before a single piece of taillight material was ever found in this case. Trooper Proctor, is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: It arrives at 5:31. And you also towed it to the Canton Police Department because that was conveniently close to the location at 34 Fairview — the crime scene — right?
MR. PROCTOR: That was not my decision.
MR. JACKSON: Whose decision was it?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: I know that, but you're the —
MR. PROCTOR: — case officer. I wouldn't — who decides? It wasn't my decision. I did not make that call.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, so who — who are we pointing the finger at? Was it Sergeant Bukhenik?
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Was it Sergeant Bukhenik who made that decision to transport it to Canton?
MR. PROCTOR: It's a supervisor's decision. I don't know who it came from.
MR. JACKSON: Was it Lieutenant Tully?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, I don't know who it came from.
MR. JACKSON: So you were just following orders?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. You are aware that Massachusetts State Police — your agency — actually has not one but two barracks, one in Middleboro, one in Foxboro, that are both closer, as the crow flies, than the Canton PD sallyport from where the car was towed?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Both of those facilities were passed by, and the car was ultimately placed at Canton PD sallyport at 5:31 or so, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're aware that that sallyport is about three minutes from 34 Fairview?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Just me — yes. Trooper Proctor, you — the lead case officer on this case — that means that you were required to collect and maintain all the videos that were in connection with this investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you obviously are aware of your legal obligation to turn over any and all exculpatory information that you might come into possession of, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You did pull a lot of video in connection with this case, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: About 290 videos from the Ring camera located in the driveway at 1 Meadows — that sound about right? I don't expect you to have counted every single one, but just under 300, correct? A ton of them, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Another 140 videos or so from the front door Ring camera of that same location, 1 Meadows, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Nine videos from the Waterfall Bar & Grille?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Eight videos from the Temple Beth Abraham facility?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Five videos from C.F. McCarthy's?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Four dash cam videos?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Two videos from Canton town library?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Two videos from Cassie's corner store?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Two videos from the CARS test on Miss Read's vehicle — is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And two videos from the location at 34 Fairview where individuals were using leaf blowers, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All of those — I did some rough math — 360-odd videos — were handed over to the defense in or about June of 2022. Is that your understanding?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained.
MR. JACKSON: They were provided in discovery to the defense ultimately, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Okay. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sounds like — I don't expect you to have the date down pat, but spring of 2022 — sound about right?
MR. PROCTOR: Spring, early summer. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. But there was additional video surveillance footage that you chose to hold back from that discovery, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson —
MR. JACKSON: Did you hold back videos?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: There's surveillance video from Canton Police Department's sallyport garage that wasn't turned over, right?
MR. PROCTOR: That video was discovered later on and then handed over.
MR. JACKSON: The first time you revealed the existence of that footage was in that separate proceeding in February of 2024. Isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were questioned about it, and you knew you were under oath at the time, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that's when you disclosed: "Yes, there is sallyport footage and I've seen it."
MR. PROCTOR: The video I was referencing was the exterior sallyport camera where you can't make out anything.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's talk about that for a second. The exterior — you said exterior, outside —
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Meaning the one of the driveway, right?
MR. JACKSON: And you say you can't make anything out. There are two different ones — there's a main driveway camera and then there's this exterior sallyport camera. You were asked about this set of videos at that other hearing, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated at the time that there was one grainy video — looks sort of mainly black and grainy?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And another one that showed you and Sergeant Bukhenik arriving at Canton PD behind Miss Read's vehicle on the tow truck. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked very specifically: are you aware whether there are any cameras in the garage, in the sallyport, where Karen Read's SUV was parked, and your answer was yes, right?
MR. PROCTOR: In the garage — yeah, I — I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall being asked that question?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: I can repeat it if you wish.
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, please.
MR. JACKSON: Question: "Are you aware of whether there are any cameras in the garage or sallyport where Karen Read's SUV was parked?" Answer: "Yes." Okay. And then you answered: "Have you reviewed the video footage of that garage?" Answer: "I saw one very grainy video and then another of Sergeant Bukhenik and I arriving in the main entrance around 5:30 following the vehicle." Period. You remember that answer?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That clearly was an answer to the question — did you see video of the interior of the garage, right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Were you answering a question about video inside the garage?
MR. PROCTOR: No. I was answering the question about what video I observed, and it was exterior video that I observed.
MR. JACKSON: Although the answer to the question was cameras in the garage or sallyport — question: if I was aware of any — and your answer was "Yes." And then the next question is: "Have you reviewed the footage?" And your answer was: "I saw one very grainy video and then another of Sergeant Bukhenik and I arriving in the main entrance around 5:30 following the vehicle." Right? That was your testimony?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. Those two videos I'm referring to — in the exterior of the building.
MR. JACKSON: Question: "When did you watch the video from the sallyport?" Answer: "I haven't reviewed it, sir, in quite some time, so I can't recall what's on there." End quote. You remember that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So obviously at the time, in February of 2024, you had had that video surveillance — you had had that footage for so long that you couldn't remember exactly what was on it because it had been, quote, "quite some time," right?
MR. PROCTOR: The exterior sallyport camera.
MR. JACKSON: Except you weren't asked about the exterior. You were asked: question — "When did you watch the video from the sallyport?" Right? That — that was the question.
MR. PROCTOR: Well, that was the video we had, so that was how I referenced it.
MR. JACKSON: There was this exterior sallyport video. Why didn't you say to the person that was questioning you under oath: "I don't know anything about video inside the sallyport — I'm referring to outside the building"? Why didn't you say that and clarify it?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, should have clarified it, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Because you'll agree it sounds — an awful lot — like you're talking about what's inside the sallyport, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: The next question you were asked: "Why did you review the video of the sallyport?" Answer: "We review every video we pull, and we pull a lot of video." In quote. Do you remember that?
MR. PROCTOR: I do not.
MR. JACKSON: One word in that testimony — not one word says "exterior," does it?
MR. PROCTOR: No, it does not.
MR. JACKSON: You testified that you had obtained and reviewed the sallyport garage video so long ago that you literally couldn't even remember what was on it, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You did know, however, that if you had video at the sallyport, it would clearly show that Miss Read's vehicle arrived at 5:30 — 5:31 — right? You knew that, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. From the driveway camera.
MR. JACKSON: But you withheld that video — out of 360-odd videos that you turned over, you withheld that one and never mentioned it until February of 2024, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: [ruling unclear]
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Withholding that — on April 4th, 2024 — — 2024. It's getting late. On April 4th, 2024, you turned over one video from the interior of the sallyport garage, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: The interior, not the exterior, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that remarkably enough was a grainy video, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that video is missing the precise time that that vehicle was delivered to the sallyport, correct?
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: You are unmuted, ma'am. Yes. Thank you.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: It's missing 42 minutes at the beginning, and it jumps from 5:08 p.m. to 5:50 p.m., correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Have you reviewed the video?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you see that the timestamp jumps from 5:08 to 5:50?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Counsel, I'll see you at sidebar.
MR. JACKSON: You reviewed the video — the grainy video — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that's from a camera perspective that would show — or that does show — the right rear area of the SUV after it's pulled in, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you note that the time jumped from 5:08 to about 5:50 at the beginning of the video?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. I observed a jump in video that was about 42 minutes.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Approximately?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that there's another video from the interior of that sallyport as well, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you're also aware — by the way, did you secure that video, the second one? Let me ask you a predicate question, because it's a little confusing. The second video from the interior of the sallyport is inverted. Mm-hmm?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You're now aware of that?
MR. PROCTOR: I am.
MR. JACKSON: Did you recover that video?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Who did?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe Detective Lieutenant Tully received that from the Canton police chief — Rafferty, I believe. So —
MR. JACKSON: Who asked for it?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not sure, sir. I did not make the request.
MR. JACKSON: How did you become aware that a request had been made?
MR. PROCTOR: I was made aware that that video had essentially existed from the interior sallyport area.
MR. JACKSON: By whom?
MR. PROCTOR: I was probably informed by Detective Lieutenant Tully.
MR. JACKSON: So Lieutenant Tully tells you that a second video —
MR. PROCTOR: ...exists, correct? In interior sallyport cameras, yes.
MR. JACKSON: When did he tell you that?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: Was it weeks ago or years ago?
MR. PROCTOR: That was more recent than -- you know, maybe months ago. A month ago, matter of fact. It was after the trial had already started, mid-April.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall. I thought it was before.
MR. JACKSON: If it was before, was it weeks before? Days before?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall.
MR. JACKSON: I'm just trying to pin down -- are we talking about six months ago, or are we talking about six weeks ago?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, it wasn't six months ago.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So a few weeks ago you were told about the second video from Lieutenant Tully, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did he tell you he had already seen it?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sure he watched it.
MR. JACKSON: Did he tell you he needed you to go get it?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So when was the first time you saw it?
MR. PROCTOR: Few weeks ago. A month ago.
MR. JACKSON: What were the circumstances in which you saw that video?
MR. PROCTOR: Just reviewing the video at my desk.
MR. JACKSON: So you pulled it -- pardon me -- you had access to the video?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It was on your system somehow?
MR. PROCTOR: It was on thumb drives and a disc.
MR. JACKSON: You put that in your computer and just decided on your own to watch it, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what did you notice?
MR. PROCTOR: One of the SUV being brought into the garage. You're in the video, right? That's you toward the back of the truck? Yep. I'm in the video. Some Canton PD members there as well. Tow truck driver drops the vehicle off. He's in the front driver's seat, exits. Mechanic's there. I believe -- Chief Berkowitz, the retired police chief -- he was kind of like milling around the area. I feel like he was towards the back, open garage gate there, the back -- like the rear.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, where you were?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. Was he -- did you note that there were certain individuals that just seem to apparate out of nowhere? Just appear? Yes. There was one individual like the top left corner of the video pushing a broom that kind of just appeared, and also toward the back of the vehicle --
MR. JACKSON: Somebody just -- while you were at the back of the vehicle -- just sort of appeared and walked out of the sallyport, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And was that Chief Berkowitz?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, that's my -- it looks like him, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. So you and Chief Berkowitz are both toward the rear of the vehicle. He just apparates out of thin air because the video is missing some footage, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: It appears that way. Or it skips.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry -- I didn't interrupt you -- "or it skips"?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know that system at all.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And you're holding what appears to be that same black portfolio that we saw in the hospital?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So anything else you noticed was odd about the
MR. PROCTOR: ...video? Other than the time skips -- the time stamp on the bottom was inverted.
MR. JACKSON: Was it reversed?
MR. PROCTOR: I beg your pardon?
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, the time stamp on the bottom of it -- was it kind of backwards? Was it blue?
MR. PROCTOR: So instead of reading left to right, it was right to left.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Was it blue?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe it was yellow.
MR. JACKSON: Just a moment. Yes. So the video you saw had a time stamp that was inverted, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: About the video itself -- is that inverted?
MR. PROCTOR: No. From the video I saw, the way the vehicle's brought in in relation to the garage and the doors into the PD, it wasn't reversed or inverted.
MR. JACKSON: It was, or was not?
MR. PROCTOR: Was not.
MR. JACKSON: So as you saw the video, the portion of the vehicle that ...purported to be the passenger side was in fact the passenger side, and the side of the vehicle that purported to be the driver's side was in fact the driver's side?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. So I reviewed the video yesterday just to rewatch it, and the one that I watched had the correct angle. It wasn't reversed. The car was brought in -- tow truck driver gets out from the driver's side -- it wasn't reversed. The only thing reversed on it was the time stamp on the bottom.
MR. JACKSON: Well, were you watching the video that was produced in this trial?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So were you aware that the defense presented a piece of evidence -- Thank you. Were you aware that the ...defense presented a piece of evidence where we inverted the video back to the correct orientation?
MR. PROCTOR: No, it's not --
MR. JACKSON: And that time stamp was inverted?
MR. PROCTOR: I was not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: When did you watch that video?
MR. PROCTOR: Just the other day. I was reviewing it.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, we'll take our lunch break.
MR. JACKSON: Okay, it's fine. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, jury -- why don't we do 45 minutes? All right, you are muted.
MR. JACKSON: Kevin Albert responds: "My mailbox. Did I take my gun?" And then included a [unintelligible] emoji. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So the fact of the matter is you two got so drunk that he couldn't find his badge and had to ask you the next morning where his gun was, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, I can't speak to any level of intoxication. Whether you just forgot it, I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not asking you about his BAC, Trooper Proctor. I'm asking — have you seen drunk people before?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You've been drunk before?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I have, sir.
MR. JACKSON: We've all been drunk before, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Was he drunk? Were you drunk that night?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, those are the capabilities within that app.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, did you delete any of the Ring videos ever from John O'Keefe's phone?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Did you delete a video of Miss Read arriving to 1 Meadows at approximately 12:41 a.m. on January 29th, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: You will agree, Trooper Proctor, that the video of Miss Read returning home from 34 Fairview at approximately 12:41 a.m. is not there. Correct? As the case officer, uh, you're aware that Trooper — I'm sorry — Trooper DiCicco also reviewed some or all of those videos. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And he did that at your request. Correct? He took notes of his review of those videos. Correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Trooper Proctor, before we broke we were discussing the sallyport video that you watched several weeks ago. I want to make sure I'm clear about this — you indicated that the video that you watched was proper in terms of orientation, but the time stamp on the bottom had been inverted. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's the way it appeared.
MR. JACKSON: And you recall that being a yellow chyron underneath — in other words, the font color?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best of my memory, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Which of the Canton Police Department videos were you responsible for retrieving, if any?
MR. PROCTOR: Uh, I did not retrieve any of them.
MR. JACKSON: So what I'm trying to ask is — and maybe I'm doing it inartfully — how did those sallyport videos end up in the possession of the Commonwealth? What was the line of succession?
MR. PROCTOR: Uh, Detective Lieutenant Tully retrieved the sallyport videos, I believe.
MR. JACKSON: And do you know from whom he retrieved those sallyport videos?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe it was — I believe it was the chief of police. Okay, Chief Rafferty specifically gave him whatever videos were provided. Correct? That's my understanding.
MR. JACKSON: And then he provided those to you for your review?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I want to stay on the subject of videos for a second but shift gears to the Ring video footage. You've already testified that there were uh several hundred Ring videos from 1 Meadows Street from both the facing-the-driveway and the front door camera. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As the case officer, you obtained and controlled those Ring videos from 1 Meadows Street from the moment that they came into Massachusetts State Police custody until they were handed over to — correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. They were archived.
MR. JACKSON: You drafted the search warrant for the Ring video access records. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: You obtained the warrant returns once those search warrants were executed. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: You took possession of Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone physically. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you had access to Mr. O'Keefe's Ring account in that cell phone. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated that you reviewed several of the videos on his Ring app on his cell phone. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you obviously had not only possession of his cell phone, you had possession of his login account information to get into the app on his cell phone. Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't think we had the password. We had his email account associated with the Ring, which means —
MR. JACKSON: Some way or another you could get access to the Ring videos. Correct? And watch those Ring videos on his app on the phone?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Which means you had full access to the app. You could keep videos, you could save for later, you could delete videos,
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then he provided those notes to you so that you could then memorialize those notes and your notes in a broader report that you then drafted in November of 2022. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best of my memory, the report I wrote regarding the Ring camera was based off my observations of the videos that I had watched.
MR. JACKSON: But you certainly did have — as you just indicated — you did accumulate his notes and review his notes as well as your own. Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best of my recollection, I wrote that report off of my notes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you actually — at any point before writing your report — did you review his notes?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't — ...recall.
MR. JACKSON: You asked him -- he reviewed the videos at your direction, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And obviously he would have wanted to provide you whatever insights he had into his review of those videos, otherwise what's the point, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So when you reviewed his notes, did you see that they were on some sticky pads?
MR. PROCTOR: That sounds about right.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall exactly, as you sit here, exactly what was on one or more of those sticky pads that you reviewed from Trooper DiCicco?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: Would it refresh your recollection if you were to take a look at a copy of those notes?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach? If you would mind taking a look at the uppermost note that's highlighted with a sticky note next to it.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have these notes in mind, specifically the uppermost note -- the 0041?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You reviewed this previously before you wrote your report, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And you note that at 0041 -- which is a time relative to what DiCicco was looking at on the Ring video -- he indicated "tail lights from driveway (I think she arrived home)," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 0041 is -- what is that in reference to? Just after midnight?
MR. PROCTOR: The approximate time where Miss Read will be returning from Fairview Road. It's military time for 12:41 a.m.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Yes. You wrote a report -- on November -- I'm sorry, I earlier said November. It's actually June 1, 2022, memorializing the times that were of note to you in that Ring footage, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall every single entry that you made concerning the events that were of note to you that were reflected in your report?
MR. PROCTOR: The majority of them.
MR. JACKSON: Every single one? Would it refresh your recollection to look at a copy of your report to determine what all you did and did not note?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Approach? Sure. Do you have it with you, Trooper? Do you have your report with you? I'd ask you to review that report, especially as to pages two and three. Can I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Trooper, do you have those events in mind?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Your report is dated June 1st, 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And reflected in this report are the bullet points of the times that you found of some note in your review of all of the Ring footage from 1 Meadows, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In your report, there is no mention of the footage showing Karen Read arriving home at 12:41 a.m., correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And that's notwithstanding the fact that in Trooper DiCicco's -- sorry, in his handwritten notes -- he makes note of an event at 12:41 a.m., indicating "I think she arrived home," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So sometime between when Trooper DiCicco wrote his notes and when you wrote your report, that video footage vanished, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: There's also no date on DiCicco's notes. We have many dates from Ring video, so I don't know if he's referencing a different date.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you're aware that the video footage from 12:41 a.m. is gone, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. It's something I've tried to find through Ring for months, as well as the video when Miss Roberts, Miss McCabe, Miss Read arrived back at John's and they're looking at the broken tail light -- that video is gone as well.
MR. JACKSON: So at some point while this footage was in Massachusetts State Police custody and being reviewed by Trooper DiCicco, that video existed, didn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is sustained. Mr. Jackson, don't wave that again.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Yes. The fact is, notwithstanding Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, there's no video at 12:41 on January 29th, is there?
MR. PROCTOR: No, there isn't.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, would you agree that from the very beginning of your investigation you treated Karen Read very differently than you treated the Alberts and the McCabes in this case?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Was she treated differently?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not. Like I've said before, we followed the facts and the evidence with an open mind.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider her to be -- want of a better phrase -- an outsider?
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all.
MR. JACKSON: Not somebody from Canton?
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all.
PARENTHETICAL: [Sidebar.]
JUDGE CANNONE: Take that down.
MR. JACKSON: Not family, not friends with the Alberts?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: At some point your view of this case caused you to turn what could be described as a bias into an out-and-out hatred. Would you agree with that?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you develop some sort of hatred for Miss Read at any point in your investigation?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Again, we follow the facts and evidence, which showed Miss Read hit Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle, and yes, at times I got emotional because of that and I said some stuff, texted some things I shouldn't have, but it was based off the evidence. As a matter of fact, you did express your feelings about Miss Read and had another text message that we haven't gone over here today, is that right? On February 4th, 2022 -- might as well turn to Tab 10. Tab 10 -- it's either the Bates stamp -- this is [exhibit] -- the Bates stamp is 2526. Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see an entry from Courtney Proctor, a text starting "I didn't give my name"?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Request permission to publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On that date, February 4th, 2022, your sister texted in relation to some sort of donation that she had given: "I didn't give my name as I didn't want anyone to link me to Michael," meaning you, correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, you may approach.
COURT OFFICER: You are unmuted.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. You see the text from Courtney Proctor: "I did not give my name as I didn't want anyone to link me." So that's stricken. That's what was objected to. Just this one, or the whole page goes in?
MR. JACKSON: You responded to a text message from your sister, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And your response was "hopefully she kills herself," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who's "she"?
MR. PROCTOR: The defendant, Miss Read.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. You literally said that you hoped that Karen Read -- the subject of your investigation, the woman sitting to my left, about six feet from me -- that she would just die, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: The figure of speech -- you wanted her to -- the figure of speech is, you wanted her to kill herself? No. Right? No. It's not --
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, Karen Read in your investigation had quickly become a very serious problem for you, hadn't she?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you believe that Karen Read was a problem or an issue for your investigation?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No. Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: In your words, quote, "all the powers that be want answers ASAP." That's what you texted on January 29th, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That put a lot of pressure on you, didn't it, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: There's a lot of pressure in every case, sir.
MR. JACKSON: This case involves a Boston cop whose family you actually connected to, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Loosely.
MR. JACKSON: Chris?
MR. PROCTOR: Loosely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Julie Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Loosely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Colin Albert?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection.]
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Loosely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Kevin Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Loosely. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Loose enough to leave his badge and his gun in your cruiser after a night of drinking, right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You agreed in your group chat that you needed to, quote, "make this cut and dry" because another cop was involved. Those are your words, right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, where is this?
MR. JACKSON: This was referred to in earlier text messages. Group chat. Is that right? Did you say that, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: I did text that. I don't know if it's in the exact context, but yes, those were my words. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That was in the group chat. Your friends wrote, in their words, "this whole thing stinks," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes. I interpret that as a joke.
MR. JACKSON: You believed, Trooper Proctor, that your life would be much easier if Karen Read was just dead, didn't you?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No. Like I had said, it was a figure of speech. My emotions got the best of me based on the fact that Miss Read hit Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him to die on the side of the road. So my emotions got the best of me with that figure of speech.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about your figures of speech during the course of your investigation. Your figures of speech include the following: she's a --
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A whack job?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A --?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Her balloon knot leaks?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: No ass?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: She's, according to you --
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ass leaker. That was a word you used, a figure of speech, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: A girl who shits herself?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then --
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Would you agree, Trooper Proctor, that you have dehumanized Karen Read during the course of your investigation with comments and words like this?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, I'll give you this one, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Would you agree with that?
MR. PROCTOR: I would say, based off that language, um, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you admitted in your own words that the cop homeowner wasn't going to, quote, "catch any," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Because you were out to, quote, "make this cut and dry." Isn't that right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Jackson, sustained.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar — audio fragmentary]
JUDGE CANNONE: returning from sidebar court audio — microphone/technical instruction, partially intelligible court reconvening Please, jurors — I am striking that last answer. It was probably a partial answer cut off. I'm striking it completely. Disregard it. If you took notes, cross the notes out. You're not to consider it in any way. It is completely stricken from the record. And Trooper, I'd suggest you listen to the question being asked of you before you answer it.
MR. JACKSON: And Trooper Proctor, it would be far easier -- far easier -- for you to pin it on the girl who's just a "whack job cunt", in your words, who you hope just kills herself, right?
PARENTHETICAL: [Objection.]
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Shame on you, sir.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, so jurors, disregard that. I've told you before, lawyers can't make comments, they can ask questions. And Mr. Jackson, you know better than that.
MR. JACKSON: I understand. That's all I have.