Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMichael Proctor — Cross (Part 2)
2,534 lines(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
(Jury in.)
COURT CLERK: Twenty-two one-one-seven, the Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Good morning, Counsel. Good morning, Ms. Read. Good morning, jurors. So a few things this morning. First of all let me ask you those three questions, please. Were you all able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since you left? Everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes and nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left here the other day? Everyone said no or shook their heads. So by now you know, one of the jurors is no longer able to participate in this case, and you may know why, but it's my job to tell you that it's personal to juror. It has nothing to do with whatsoever with this case, and you're not to consider that, anyways. And there's an instruction I need to give you. You'll remember that when digital evidence or text messages were introduced earlier, I gave you an instruction. 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 to 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 to 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 the case. So it's an instruction I'm required to give you. I should have given it to you. All right. With that, we'll bring the witness in, please. Good morning, Trooper. MICHAEL PROCTOR, sworn
MR. PROCTOR: Good morning, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, Trooper.
MR. PROCTOR: Good morning, jurors.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson.
MR. BRENNAN: Your Honor, as a matter of housekeeping, I would move to admit the packet of text messages with Bates stamps inclusive of 02680 to 02685, which was referred to on Monday.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection to the written one coming in?
MR. LALLY: Same objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't I see you at sidebar on this.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: So I appreciate -- marked for identification, please. I appreciate you giving me copies. I copied them yesterday, too. THE COURT REPORT: ZZ for identification, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. What's the objection, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, it's the same objection I believe we dealt with the last week as far as (indiscernible), as far as completeness, as far as it's hearsay.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Well, hearsay, there's a little bit, but I don't --
MR. JACKSON: Because that's the text that's being referred to. The Court saw how the evidence was indiscriminate texts, and it was multiple --
JUDGE CANNONE: I don't think. (Indiscernible.).
MR. JACKSON: Understood. And it certainly was not any fault of Mr. Lally. Mr. Lally was doing the best he could to get the (indiscernible). The best evidence is actually the text messages. It's right here (indiscernible) state of mind will have an effect on the (indiscernible) the text messages. Mr. Lally took great pains to certain of the text messages. Not all of them. I will go through others, not all of them, but this is a true reflection of the text messages and which were reflected back and forth. So for instance, this is the first one that I want to have marked. I anticipate asking to mark about eight packets that are just various -- they're short, but they're all reflective of group chats, text messages with the sister, with his colleagues, with his high school buddies, things of that nature. The jurors are entitled to see the actual text messages look like, and he's (indiscernible) all of these.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So authentication I'm not concerned about. So you get the text message from the Worcester, you put it up as a chalk with each and every one of these?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I'm going to withhold whether they're going to get introduced into evidence. I need to think about this because I want you to
(indiscernible).
MR. YANNETTI: It's okay to publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Great. That's all -- at this point, that's all I need. As long as it's a chalk --
JUDGE CANNONE: And because I'm going to do that, I'm going to (indiscernible). Okay.
MR. JACKSON: But you're not moving they're out yet. Just --
JUDGE CANNONE: Right.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That's all I want.
JUDGE CANNONE: So here is ZZ that you gave us.
MR. JACKSON: May I take this back to the courtroom?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. All set.
MR. JACKSON: All set. Thank you.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: One more matter of housekeeping I have another set of iOS messages that are inclusive of pages 2527 seven through 2545. I'd like to have this marked as 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.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. Your Honor, may I stand at counsel table to deal with this?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Let's try to do it quickly. 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 Court the inclusive Bates stamp numbers. The next packet will be 2680 through 2685. Sorry. That was the first one. That's been marked ZZ.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right.
MR. BRENNAN: The second one is 25 -- 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. The next packet would be 2518 through 2526. Following that, 2618 through 2620, then packet 2628 through 2634, and finally, packet inclusive of 2583 to 2617.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Madam Court Reporter, if you'd be so kind to mark these.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
(Whereupon Exhibit ZZ, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit AAA, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit BBB, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit CCC, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit DDD, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit EEE, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit FFF, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit GGG, Text Message Packet, was marked for identification.)
(Whereupon Exhibit HHH, Text Message Packet, was marked as an exhibit.)
COURT REPORTER: Your Honor, that's ZZ through HHH for identification.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Go right ahead, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON, continued:
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.
MR. PROCTOR: (Witness complies.)
MR. JACKSON: 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 prior text thread with high school friends.
MR. JACKSON: And this includes nine participants, 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then there's some other folks in there. They're identified by their -- at least the last four digits of their phone number, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you never thought when you were engaged with these other eight individuals that this particular set of chats would ever become public, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I did not.
MR. JACKSON: I want you to take a look at page 25, 27. If you could turn -- that's on the bottom right of the document in tab two. Do you recognize -- I'm sorry. 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 29 at about 10:52 p.m., correct?
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, "Chip, name of that BPD cop," correct?
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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: At this point it was 16 hours later, sir, not a few.
MR. JACKSON: Sixteen is a few hours, correct? I'm not talking about days later.
MR. PROCTOR: It's -- there was about 16 hours later, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. And you identified John O'Keefe as the Boston police officer who is fallen in the yard at 34 Fairview, correct?
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.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. Is that what you were thinking?
MR. PROCTOR: No. The people wanted answers, sir.
MR. JACKSON: They wanted -- they didn't just want answers. They wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean?
MR. PROCTOR: That's as soon as possible.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you were texting this to your high school friends, again, 16 hours into this investigation, right?
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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And this text exchange -- let's turn to 2532, actually. Do I 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 shit," 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 --
MR. JACKSON: The owners of the house aren't going to get any shit for this, right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's how I interpreted it.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. You interpreted it like he's not going to get in trouble. He's not going to be a suspect, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And he's not going to be implicated in anyway; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And your answer was one word, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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 nope, didn't you?
MR. PROCTOR: That wasn't the explanation why I said nope. I simply said, "Homeowner is a Boston cop, too," meaning Mr. O'Keefe was a Boston cop. The homeowner is Boston cop as well.
MR. JACKSON: The question that preceded your answer, "Nope. The homeowner is a Boston cop, too," was the homeowner is going to get some shit for this, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's not what I meant with that text.
MR. JACKSON: It'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 Boston cop -- I'm sorry. "The homeowner is going to get some shit for this." Answer, "Nope." Next text, "He's a Boston cop, too." That doesn't sound like an explanation for your nope.
MR. PROCTOR: No, it's just saying he's a Boston cop as well. Mr. O'Keefe is a Boston cop.
MR. JACKSON: And that's why he's not going to get any shit, correct, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Well, he's not going to receive any shit, sir, because he had -- Mr. Albert, the homeowner, had nothing to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Less than a day?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: To your satisfaction?
MR. PROCTOR: To my satisfaction and to the members of my unit.
MR. JACKSON: And you hadn't been to the crime scene --
JUDGE CANNONE: So let him finish. We didn't get that. Finish your answer.
MR. PROCTOR: To my satisfaction and to all the members of my unit who investigated the -- that day.
MR. JACKSON: 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 investigated or, sorry, 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's not going to get any shit because he's a cop," right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's not what I meant by that.
MR. JACKSON: At 10:57, Bird goes on to write, "He," the homeowner, "must append a puddle to accomplish that." And then he writes, "Who's the homeowner?" And 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 it, 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: Do you know what that means? Do you know what that text means?
MR. PROCTOR: Just the puddle part, Your Honor. The term -- that term.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So he can answer that.
MR. JACKSON: And the puddle part means drunk or wasted, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what Bird actually wrote was, "He must've 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 it, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: So 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 a phone number 0095 wrote, "I thought he was drunk. Did he get beat up?" Do 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 o'clock at night on January 29, 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 taillight pieces underneath the snow --
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, I didn't ask for an explanation. I asked --
MR. PROCTOR: I --
MR. JACKSON: -- 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 -- sorry -- 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, is 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 had been beaten to death, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: The way it was given to me, sir, was that --
MR. JACKSON: That's yes or no.
MR. PROCTOR: -- for medical --
MR. JACKSON: That's yes or no.
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 when we saw Mr. O'Keefe's body at the hospital, Sergeant Bukhenik and I, we saw his injuries and we were 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 was some significant injuries to Mr. O'Keefe. We were still figuring out how those injuries occurred.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you just testified initially we didn't know we had.
MR. PROCTOR: Right.
MR. JACKSON: 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, a small laceration just under the eyebrow, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: He 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, sir.
MR. JACKSON: 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: It 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: Zero-zero-ninety-five writes, "What does she waffled him 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 seen, in your experience, have you ever seen a pedestrian who was 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.
MR. JACKSON: Enough to knock a person out of his shoe, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Sixty 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Pedestrian strikes, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Those are high-speed, extremely high speed incidents, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sixty plus mile an hour, right?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall all the pedestrian strikes I've been to as far as the miles per hour the vehicle was traveling.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, let me ask the question again. Have you ever, yes or no, have you ever in your experience seen a vehicle, a 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Next question.
MR. JACKSON: After you wrote she hit him with her car, 5051 writes, "Oh, Jesus." And Bird writes, "Okay. That's fucked up," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then you wrote what?
MR. PROCTOR: "Intentional or not."
MR. JACKSON: "Intentional or not," is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your words?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Zero-zero-ninety-five then chimes in, "Gotcha. He was frozen in the driveway and she didn't see him?" 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 this was one of several things that you knew we would not be able to prove?
MR. PROCTOR: That statement, "That's another animal we won't be able to prove," references the intentional or not part.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't don'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. I --
MR. JACKSON: What kind of 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.
MR. JACKSON: Did you mean by that --
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I didn't mean to step on your words.
MR. JACKSON: 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 Ms. 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," and 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Zero-zero-ninety-five 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. Is that what you were trying to do?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: But you had no problem sharing John 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.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay, correct.
MR. JACKSON: Fifty-fifty-one then writes, "The BPD have any jurisdiction here because it was their own?" 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, do you see a text that stars -- that starts, "Nah, Katt."
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You responded, quote, nah, N-A-H, "Nah, Katt," K-A-T-T, "it's the total opposite. They have to recuse themselves. Same with Canton." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That texts ends as at they have to recuse themselves.
MR. JACKSON: You then text back -- I'm sorry. May I have a moment? Flip to the next page.
MR. PROCTOR: I see where you're at, sir.
MR. JACKSON: How did you end that text?
MR. PROCTOR: "Same with Canton."
MR. JACKSON: You meaning Canton has to recuse itself also, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That was my understanding.
MR. JACKSON: So by 11:00 p.m. on January 29, 2022, there was no question in your mind, Trooper Proctor, that the Canton Police Department was recused from this investigation and all particulars, correct? A That they had taken a step back from participating, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Right. 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.
COURT CLERK: Is that what you were thinking?
MR. PROCTOR: It was 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 write it?
MR. PROCTOR: No, Your Honor.
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.
MR. JACKSON: Karen Read?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So the way you were going to make it cut and dry pretty simple. Just pin it on the girl, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not. Follow the facts and the evidence from that day on the 29th, and everything led to Ms. 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 involves cops, meaning Brian Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Incorrect. I don't -- it doesn't matter to me if the homeowner's a cop, if the victim's a police officer. Myself and everyone in my office investigated this case that Saturday, had an overwhelming amount of evidence that Ms. 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? Fifty-fifty-one a little further down says, "Got to be. I can 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 the Boston police are going to have a lot to answer for given the fact that another police officer was found dead on that officer's lawn, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: What were you thinking?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't speak to the mindset to 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, "Is 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 cunt."
MR. JACKSON: "From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job cunt." That's what you wrote, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Sixteen hours into this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Into your objective and unbiased thorough investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 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 was Ms. Read struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle, discovered taillight pieces at the scene. Those were the accounts we had --
MR. JACKSON: The account you had --
MR. PROCTOR: -- and then some.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. PROCTOR: No, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: 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 Ms. 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 that you came to was my client, Karen Read, was a whack job cunt, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What else did you say in response to, "She's hot at least," or, "Is she hot at least?"
MR. PROCTOR: So following that text I responded, "Yep, she's a babe. Weird Fall River accent though. No ass."
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, she's a babe. Who's the she?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. JACKSON: "Weird Fall River accent, though." You're talking about her -- the way she talks?
MR. PROCTOR: The accent.
MR. JACKSON: "And no ass." Now, you're talking about her body, her physique, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do 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, if she had had an ass, nothing to see here, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: And 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 skated."
MR. JACKSON: And then what did you write?
MR. PROCTOR: "She's fucked."
MR. JACKSON: "Zero chance she skates. She's fucked," 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 dry and the way you're going to do is to make sure that she's fucked. 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: Seventeen hours into this investigation, Trooper Proctor, you made the decision that you were going to put it on Ms. Read, didn't you? Put the case on Ms. 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 fucked?"
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 Ms. 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, is 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 fucked." What you meant was I'm going to make sure, I am going to make sure Ms. Read doesn't skate. She fucked. That's what you meant; isn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: And then Bird decides to chime in, "Good. No ass bitch," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's what he wrote.
MR. JACKSON: And what did -- how did you respond to Bird saying, "Good. No ass bitch?"
MR. PROCTOR: I laughed.
MR. JACKSON: You thought that was funny, did you? Trooper Proctor, you thought that was funny?
MR. PROCTOR: It was unprofessional of me. It's something I shouldn't have done.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, I think we all know it was unprofessional. It was a lot of things.
MR. PROCTOR: Yep.
MR. JACKSON: I'm asking 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 Ms. Read being arrested, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't -- I'm 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 2, 2022. A person by the name of Doc writes, "Is that chick a smoke," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Who's the chick?
MR. PROCTOR: Ms. Read.
MR. JACKSON: And you write, "Eh," E-H, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you write nut bag 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?
MR. PROCTOR: "She's got a leaky balloon knot."
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, explain to the jurors what a balloon knot is.
MR. PROCTOR: Your -- essentially, I guess your rectum area.
MR. JACKSON: Your anus?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That's what you were referring to about Ms. Read?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you were making fun of her because you believed at that time it leaked that's how you were treating Ms. Read? Yes or no?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you followed that up, just to make sure you cleared up any mistake about what you meant, with, "leaks poo," correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I'm go to strike that. You can 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 Ms. 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 Ms. Read had suffered a colectomy surgery, a very serious surgery?
MR. PROCTOR: I was not, sir, no.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware that she had had ten surgeries in eighteen months several years prior, ten?
MR. PROCTOR: 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: But you decided that you were going to take another shot at her and talk about her anatomy --
COURT REPORTER: One second, sir, sorry. All set.
MR. JACKSON: 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, Ms. Read was just reduced to a punch line to you, wasn't she?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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 date February 2, 2022, at about 4:15 p.m., a person by the name of Whitey wrote, "What are you guzzling on," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you wrote, "Nothing. Writing a warrant." Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Whitey then shares some sort of a video, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember that video being of the 1980's band Warrant?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall the video he sent.
MR. JACKSON: Zero-zero-ninety-five laughed and then wrote, "Wait. Why does her asshole 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, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is sustained. I'll see you at sidebar. Take that down, please.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Your objection, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, the remainder of this packet identification is nothing is from this witness. It's all from other people.
MR. JACKSON: They're not from other people; they're to him, and it goes to his state of mind. These are dehumanizing, absolutely offensive dehumanizing text messages that he was receiving, and he did nothing to correct it and every one of these was on the heels of him disclosing private, confidential medical issues about Ms. Read with his friends.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. These aren't coming in. There was one response from him. (Indiscernible.)
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: Without reference to --
JUDGE CANNONE: Take that down.
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor? I'm sorry. Go ahead and pull it off.
MR. JACKSON: Without reference to the specifics of what was --
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to see counsel at sidebar.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: Was that up the whole time? I told your IT guy to take it down. I excluded it and we come out, and it's up?
MR. JACKSON: He just put it up. He didn't know. He didn't know the instruction.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, but he shouldn't have put it up without you telling him to put it up, and that can't happen again, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you go tell him it so I don't bring him up here and tell him in front of the jury.
MR. JACKSON: Sure. I will. I have one follow-up question that is just -- was there a continue -- I need to close this loop. Was there a continued conversation that you received without telling me any of the conversation.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, that's fine, but he better not do that again.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. I'll let him know.
JUDGE CANNONE: And, honestly, if he does, I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I excluded it. I sit down, I look up, it's there, he won't be in the courtroom again, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, in his defense, he didn't hear you exclude it. That was a sidebar --
JUDGE CANNONE: But it doesn't matter when it's excluded, and we're at sidebar, he's not to put it up until you tell him you can go ahead and put it up.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go tell him right now, please.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, without getting into the specifics of the words used in the following -- in the next exchange that you're looking at, it's fair to say that your high school buddies then continue to discuss Ms. Read's medical issues, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
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, it did not affect the integrity of the investigation, of your investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's what you said to the jurors?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Do you know what the definition of integrity is?
MR. PROCTOR: Doing the right thing when no one is looking.
MR. JACKSON: It means 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 the 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, it sounds like you're almost apologizing to the jury for your conduct. Is that what you're doing?
MR. PROCTOR: For those text --
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, have you ever apologized to Ms. Read?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: As the lead investigator in this case, you were tasked with the responsibility of making sure that the investigation remained free of any conflicts of interest. That'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 1, 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 the McCabes.
MR. JACKSON: That wasn't my question. 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 and that 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 McCabes?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
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. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do you remember what you said?
MR. PROCTOR: During that proceeding, 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. If I may have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper, review that and look up when you're finished.
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Did that refresh your recollection about a question and answer that you have, or a series of questions and answers that you had, while you were testifying under oath in that other proceeding?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Objection. May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: What's the objection?
MR. LALLY: The objection is there's one page that he's shown the witness doesn't answer the question that he was asked that's talking about a discussion with other people within the district attorney's office about what he told them, not what he testified to as far as his knowledge goes. That comes later in which his testimony there is consistent with what his testimony just was.
JUDGE CANNONE: What page is the later testimony?
MR. LALLY: I haven't been able to locate that just yet, but it's also within a much longer discussion, so I think it's unfair to the witness to show him one page and ask him a question that doesn't reflect the testimony that he's asking about.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you want to say?
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Lally is fully capable of cleaning up whatever he thinks needs to be cleaned on cross-examination -- on redirect examination. This is direct testimony from him talking about whether or not he has a relationship with the McCabes, and he testified under oath that he told members of the DA's office that he did not, and he said in a question before that, his answer was the same --
JUDGE CANNONE: This is the --
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
JUDGE CANNONE: So what are you putting in on this page?
MR. JACKSON: Starting with, with respect to your conversation, you told the DA's office that you didn't know, didn't have a relationship with members of the Alberts, and he answered yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: And you're going through lines 8 through line 19?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So, Mr. Lally, I'm going to let him do this, and then we'll take it from there regarding. I received a packet this morning of photos. We'll deal with that separately.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And that's coming in soon. I'm going to establish the foundation for this.
JUDGE CANNONE: I don't see how you're getting that in, but we'll deal with it when it comes to that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: So do not let him put it up on that screen. MR. JACKSON: Understood. Understood.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
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, I -- 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." Question, "Meaning you told First Assistant Beland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with."
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: "Members of the Albert and McCabe families?" Answer, "Correct."
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's the --
JUDGE CANNONE: So your question is whether he said this?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. Whether that's his testimony.
MR. JACKSON: 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 the Alberts, and 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.
MR. PROCTOR: No, I don't have a relationship with the Alberts.
MR. JACKSON: Or know them.
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know the McCabes. I don't have a relationship with the Alberts.
MR. JACKSON: So you do know the Alberts, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I know some of them - Julie and Chris.
MR. JACKSON: And you -- and Colin, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct. 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.
MR. JACKSON: And let's try this again. Meaning you told First Assistant Beland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Alberts -- sorry -- members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, "Correct."
MR. PROCTOR: Mm-hmm.
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 relation --
MR. JACKSON: Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, well, I know Chris and I know Julie and I know Colin, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: That might've 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 needs never come back; 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 no members of the Alberts 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 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 link that to the McCabes because you don't know the McCabes. That's what you did?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: So it's sustained. You ask it. You can break it down, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: I'm not sure I can. I'll ask it a different way.
MR. JACKSON: How about if I just ask it this way. That was a lie, wasn't it?
MR. PROCTOR: No, absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: You stand by that testimony?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That you don't know the McCabe -- at the time that you testified that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family?
MR. PROCTOR: I didn't have relationships with them.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. 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. Do you understand the question, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: I knew Chris, Julie, and Colin.
MR. JACKSON: So if you were to say I don't know any members of the Albert family, that would've 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 I think we need to approach.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Jurors, feel free to stand up.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: So I don't know what tab 3 is, the photos?
MR. JACKSON: It's 13 --
JUDGE CANNONE: So I mismarked everything else. I thought we were just doing text messages marked for identification.
MR. JACKSON: I knew that this was going to be a different animal.
COURT CLERK: I can't be on the sound because Ms. Karen can't hear. You have to keep your voices down. The jurors can hear you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Lally, I'll hear you.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, as far as any of these are concerned, they're far too removed as far as the days go. They're completely irrelevant. It doesn't go to anything as far as impeachment or bias. He's already indicated that he has relationships or his sister has relationships with these parties. The part that's unclear as far as comments is this is complete and utter hearsay. So essentially what you have is a photograph of this witness when he graduates from the academy with his sister, him and his sister having photographs with other people that the witness has already indicated they know.
JUDGE CANNONE: What's this marked?
COURT CLERK: Which one?
JUDGE CANNONE: Tab 3.
MS. LITTLE: She hasn't marked it.
MR. JACKSON: We hadn't marked that one yet because we knew that there was going to be discussion.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to have it marked.
(Whereupon Exhibit III, Photograph, was marked for identification.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Are you done, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Jackson, go ahead and make your record.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, we've been extremely diligent to be refined in the photographs and information that we intend to use. There's 13 photographs there. Every single one of them establishes a period in time going back - literally going back decades or a decade - with various individuals that know and are associated with the Alberts and the Proctors. The --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Specifically, though, anybody beyond the Julie, Chris, and Colin Albert that he's already said that he had -- that he knew and his sister was friends with?
MR. JACKSON: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: The bulk of these are Julie, Chris, Colin being associated with his sister, himself, his father --
JUDGE CANNONE: Proctor.
MR. JACKSON: Proctor himself, Proctor sister's Courtney who he's testified is his best friend and he talks to five to six times a day, his father, his mother, those individuals being at his parents' home. There's photographs of that. There's a lot of indicators that Julie and Courtney are best friends, that they communicate consistently and the reason this becomes important --
JUDGE CANNONE: How does Julie's sister who was best friends with Courtney --
MR. JACKSON: Well, Joanne and Julie both. Joanne and Julie both -- I know it's like I need a chart. Joanne Daniels and Julie Albert are sisters.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right.
MR. JACKSON: And Courtney is friends with both of them, very, very close friends with both of them. The relationships span not just years but also specifics concerning this particular instant -- instance. Julie is texting -- what will come out next is that Julie was texting with Courtney who was texting with Michael on days and within minutes of each other having interactions with each other. So I need to establish that Courtney and Julie are extremely close, that Michael and Courtney are extremely close, and that that relationship has morphed into Michael being close to Julie's family, specifically culminating with in the zenith of all of this is the last couple of indicators are, they texted with each other - Julie and Michael texted with each other ten days before John O'Keefe was killed that he was considering having Julie babysit his child, as well as his mother saying the Proctor family and Albert family are second families with one another.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: We've been pretty refined about these, and I don't have to spend a lot of time on each one, but I think the jurors are entitled to see what he says as he just testified, "I don't know. I have a limited relationship with these folks." That's just not true. He had a deep-seated relationship with these folks even through his best friend and sister, Courtney, as well as himself.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. The objection's sustained. They're not coming in.
MR. JACKSON: May I refer to them?
JUDGE CANNONE: How so?
MR. JACKSON: Ask him, are there Facebook posts that you're aware of, are there photos that you're aware of where you and your family, your immediate family, is commenting on posts about you, et cetera.
JUDGE CANNONE: What's the Commonwealth's position?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, if he's aware of them, he's aware of them through intimidation and what he's received in regard to this case. The other thing I --
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So you're on notice, that if you do it, it does open that door.
MR. JACKSON: I'm fine with that. I mean, good luck. I mean, yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: But if there's an objection, I'll have to hear it.
MR. JACKSON: Especially as it refers to the first photograph. If you look at the fourth post down, that's not from -- is it fourth post or?
JUDGE CANNONE: Julie Daniels Albert.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, that's not from someone tangential. Julie Daniels was interviewed by that man several years later and he never disclosed --
JUDGE CANNONE: Ten.
MR. JACKSON: Right. That works in my favor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So these are not coming in. I'm not going to let you reference them. If you feel that there's an absolute need based on an answer given by this witness, I'll decide that first.
MR. JACKSON: May I just have a moment?
(Counsel confer.)
MR. JACKSON: Right. Counsel has just reminded me just to remind the Court or inform the Court that there are multiple photos in there that are from '21 -- 2021 and 2022, both preceding and post-dating the death of John O'Keefe and his involvement in this investigation. So I would ask that I at least be able to reference those. I think those are toward the rear (indicating). Right, so that's from 2022.
JUDGE CANNONE: And that's Proctor's mother?
MR. JACKSON: Proctor's mother.
JUDGE CANNONE: Are you objecting to that, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, I haven't seen these. What I was sent was three photos, so if I should take a look.
JUDGE CANNONE: You're making noise on the camera. Step back with that because the moving of pages is disruptive for Madam Court Reporter. I've done it, too, because there's no place to put anything over here. Is there an objection?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. The objection's sustained. If you develop something, come to sidebar before you think there's something in here that was developed that will change my ruling. Your rights are saved.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And so I can -- I don't want to step on the Court's ruling and get dressed down for it. If I can reference that he's aware. He was (indiscernible) I think every single one of these photographs at the other proceeding.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, that doesn't mean they're admissible here.
MR. JACKSON: That's not what I was suggesting. I was going to ask, am I allowed to ask are you aware of certain posts and text messages in friend groups and things of that nature that your sister and you and your family and your mother and father all have developed over the years with the Albert family - with Julie Albert, Chris Albert, and Colin Albert.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So if that question were asked, I would sustain an objection based on the question.
MR. JACKSON: Right. But I can figure it out, like, ten different ways to ask it correctly. That wasn't --
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm not so sure, frankly. No, move along from this. You've got a long time, and we can address it again later.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you have indicated that your sister is one of your best friends, maybe your best friend?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Courtney Proctor, that's her name?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Courtney --
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry?
MR. JACKSON: Her last name?
MR. PROCTOR: Elberg.
MR. JACKSON: Elberg with an L. And you're aware that she is also very, very good friends with Jillian Daniels and Julie Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware of any circumstance in which any of the Alberts have been over to your parents' house?
MR. PROCTOR: 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, and Colin Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact, you were on or around January 29, 2022, you were close enough friends with Julie Albert that she had your personal cell phone in her cell phone, correct, and vice versa?
MR. PROCTOR: I wouldn't classify us as close friends at all.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Let me get back to my question. Did you have her cell phone in your phone and did she have yours?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall if I -- yeah, I believe I had her stored in my phone.
MR. JACKSON: All right. If you would turn to tab four.
JUDGE CANNONE: And what was this marked for ID?
MR. JACKSON: This was --
JUDGE CANNONE: Or tell me the numbers at the bottom.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, I got the sheet right here. I got a cheat sheet. Tab four is triple B as in bravo. And, Your Honor, for the Court, I'm looking at page 2625.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yep.
MR. JACKSON: You have that in front of you, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recognize the participants in this chat?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: The number ending in 5374, do you recognize that as being from Julie Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Based off the content of the message, yeah, I recognize this text message from Julie.
MR. JACKSON: 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 a laughing face, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That text was sent on February 24, 2022, wasn't it?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That was less than a month after my 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And her husband Chris Albert was a witness, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And her son you knew Colin, was involved as well, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who is CP in that text message?
MR. PROCTOR: It's a nickname I have for my sister.
MR. JACKSON: Courtney Proctor, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, if I may have just a moment. THE COURT: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Gesundheit.
MR. JACKSON: Can we move to, Trooper Proctor, 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 could turn to that page, please.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, on January 19, 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 vet out, but I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: But Julie Albert was among them, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, she was an option to have watch my child.
MR. JACKSON: And then you personally interviewed Julie Albert and Chris Albert in this case on February 10, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I did, 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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 29?
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.
MR. LALLY: If I may just have a moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You wrote a report on October 12, 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: For which?
MR. JACKSON: Concerning your interview with --
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you show it to him.
MR. JACKSON: I may have the wrong report.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall, Trooper Proctor, ever mentioning that whether or not Julie and Chris mentioned to you that their son had been at 34 Fairview on January 29. Do you recall that as you sit here?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best of my recollection, no.
MR. JACKSON: It was a very short interview with Julie and Chris, 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 yourself, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't have the call detail in front of me, but, okay, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Let's look at tab six, please. It 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, please.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. A Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: There's a highlighted portion, Trooper Proctor. Just focus your attention on that and let me know if that refreshes your recollection.
MR. PROCTOR: It does, sir. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: May I 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: At 6:21, you called her back and you spoke for three minutes and fifty-eight 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." Do you recall that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In fact, you responded to that with a, "Ha, ha, ha, ha," four ha's, right, and then, "Why?" Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Then you responded, "It was fine. Just a quick convo," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You were 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.
MR. JACKSON: Were you were 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.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Go ahead and make a record, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: It's argumentative.
MR. JACKSON: Were you reporting your progress to your sister on your homicide investigation? That's argumentative? That's an actually open-ended question.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's still a bit argumentative. His answer's going to be no, right? Go ahead and ask him.
MR. JACKSON: I know, but the jurors need to hear it. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: And so just so you know, all these times that you do this for the jury needs to hear it, if the answer's no, there's no competent evidence of this, right?
MR. JACKSON: I've read the evidence code, Judge.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's not a code in Massachusetts, but, yeah, I just need to be sure on all of this for closing arguments. So just keep that in mind. Go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll give you this.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Were you reporting your progress of your investigation back to your sister Courtney Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: No, absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: But you did say that the conversation, 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: Is that true?
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, periodically?
MR. PROCTOR: I made her aware of newsworthy stuff.
MR. JACKSON: That started as early as January 29, 2022; isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: The fact that it was a homicide, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact, you discussed who the players were, who the people were that were involved; isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: I just mentioned 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: Yep.
MR. JACKSON: At 2668, Your Honor, that's the page that I'm referring to.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: You write, "Homicide," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. You said 2668?
MR. JACKSON: Correct. If I have my page number correct?
JUDGE CANNONE: You're on the right page, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. PROCTOR: 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," isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you wrote what?
MR. PROCTOR: "At the very, very least, it's suspicious."
MR. JACKSON: "At the very least, it's suspicious," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So at that time, at least 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not. The -- 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 at 3:07 on January 29, you told your sister, quote, Julie and Chris were at the bar with the victim and girlfriend. Got to interview them; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So you were telling Courtney your sister updates on what you're investigation advancements were, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Just that part.
MR. JACKSON: You're going to interview, why you're going to interview them?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: She wrote, "You 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 there.
MR. JACKSON: But she did write, "I bet I know the person," didn't she?
MR. PROCTOR: She did write that, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you know she's very close with the Alberts, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: She's close with Julie and Chris.
MR. JACKSON: You then wrote, "No, I meant," or your wrote "not" I think you meant no. I meant that they were at the bar with them, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: She writes, "Yeah, I got that part." And then she continues on, "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 is 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: On January 30, 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: 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 -- that's her -- the way I'm interpreting my sister's text messages was that surprised and shocked that this is where Mr. O'Keefe was found on 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 of the investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I wouldn't say intimate. I would say newsworthy stuff or just a generic, nothing too specific.
MR. JACKSON: Well, 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 and -- I got to go interview them?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. Is that what you do, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I would not do that, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So it's not newsworthy. These were details, 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: And Courtney Proctor's best friend is Jillian Daniels and one of her closest friends is Julie Albert, right? A Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Then on February 1, your sister texted 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: She was -- well, 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: 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. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: We have text messages, Trooper Proctor. Did you share other information on phone calls with Courtney?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: So the only information, we're to believe, you talked to 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 have.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll let you have that. Can you answer that?
MR. PROCTOR: The information that I shared with my sister 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 that things that have, you know, been newsworthy items that have gone to the news. There's definitely been conversations in that regard.
MR. JACKSON: And 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: And tab five, let's turn to page 2672, Trooper Proctor. MR. JACKSON: With the Court's permission may it be published?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: That page 2672.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see the text from you, "What's up?"
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's 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 jurors, 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." Do you remember that?
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 what?
MR. PROCTOR: Referring to a gift.
MR. JACKSON: 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.
MR. JACKSON: From Julie Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: For your participation on this case?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know if that's -- yes.
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?
MR. PROCTOR: The phone records of?
MR. JACKSON: Of anybody - witnesses, suspects.
MR. PROCTOR: Not witnesses.
MR. JACKSON: Tangential people, whatever?
MR. PROCTOR: We didn't pull phone records of witnesses.
MR. JACKSON: The victim?
MR. PROCTOR: The victim and Ms. Read.
MR. JACKSON: During the course of your investigation, did you become aware that there was 67 calls between Julie Albert and your sister Courtney in the months following John O'Keefe's death?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to sustain the 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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, Your Honor. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever seek information about phone calls that and communications that Julie Albert may or may not had been having with anybody else?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You didn't download her phone, didn't seek her phone records?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Did Courtney ever tell you that she had consistent communications with Julie Albert or did you know that otherwise?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: During the months -- let me ask it this way. During the months following John O'Keefe's death, you did continue to have with 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: As a matter 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: As a matter of fact, you wouldn't take a witness's word for almost anything in a reasonable investigation, would you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Would you? No, he can have that.
MR. PROCTOR: If I believe -- find that witness to be credible, and have no reason to lie, then, yes, I would take their word.
MR. JACKSON: Would you try to support a witness's statement or witnesses' with an apostrophe, S apostrophe, their statements with corroborating evidence?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, potentially.
MR. JACKSON: 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 is 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 Julianna Nagle on October 25, 2022. This should be tab seven, Trooper Proctor.
JUDGE CANNONE: What is it for identification?
MR. JACKSON: My mistake. I thought 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 Mr. Lally and then go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Of course.
MR. JACKSON: 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 5, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: 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 and first, let me just ask if that refreshes your recollection?
MR. PROCTOR: It does, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Are those your notes, your handwritten notes, 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 Julianna Nagle on or about October 5, 2022?
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Does this appear to be an accurate representation or an accurate copy of your notes from your interview with Julianna Nagle?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, with the Court's permission I changed my mind. I would like to have this marked as next.
JUDGE CANNONE: Introduced into evidence?
MR. JACKSON: Correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there an objection?
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. The objection is sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Is it true that in your handwritten notes you list the following individuals based on Julianna Nagle's conversation with you as being at 34 Fairview: Brian, Julianna, 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 Julianna Nagle, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that report is a formal memorialization of your interview based on your investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, a summary of the conversation of the interview.
MR. JACKSON: 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 defense?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it. Was there one name left out? Break that down, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: 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, your formal report, this one, you did not believe that your handwritten notes were also going to be disclosed, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: 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, along with Trooper Zach Clark.
MR. JACKSON: Colin Albert told you --
COURT REPORTER: One at a time.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry.
JUDGE CANNONE: Finish your answer, Trooper.
MR. JACKSON: Please, Your Honor.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, along with Trooper Zach Clark of my office.
MR. JACKSON: Colin Albert told you that he was picked up by Ellie McCabe from his uncle's house as 12:10 a.m., correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Ally 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 Ally McCabe were actually telling the truth about that time?
MR. PROCTOR: We did not.
MR. JACKSON: But you took them at their word, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you realize 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 Ally McCabe, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: It 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 Ally McCabe were telling the truth about the time that they supposedly left 34 Fairview?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did you do that?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: Let me take a look at tab eight. Do you recall looking at all at a Life360 app or its data from a Cellebrite report?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you or did you not look at any data from Life360 from Jennifer McCabe's phone?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So this is a good time to take the morning recess and I'll see counsel at sidebar. Fifteen, twenty minutes, jurors.
(Jury out.)
(Court in recess.)
(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, did you include in your investigative file any Cellebrite report related to the Life 360 app that was on Ms. McCabe's phone that you earlier testified to?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper Guarino who is 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 if 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 Ally were telling the truth?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You grew in Canton, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I don't want an address but just generally as the crow flies, how close would you say you live from the Albert residence -- the former Albert residence at 34 Canton -- 34 Fairview in Canton?
MR. PROCTOR: Maybe two or three miles.
MR. JACKSON: How about from the McCabe residence? And again, don't give me any addresses.
MR. PROCTOR: May be 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 around the high school, gas stations around the high school for video surveillance video -- I'm sorry -- 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 was that?
MR. PROCTOR: It was Officer Galanas.
MR. JACKSON: Can you turn to tab nine, 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 Galanas and I -- myself.
MR. JACKSON: Take a look at those text communications. Do you see the inclusive dates of those -- on the face sheet of the document?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: What are those inclusive dates?
MR. PROCTOR: First message sent, date and time, February 18, 2022, 1:02 p.m. Last message sent, date and time, February 18, 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.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there any objection?
MR. LALLY: Same one, but ...
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll let you publish it.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: 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 were there some cameras in the area.
MR. JACKSON: Which is an assistance for you in your investigation, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: They have more knowledge in the area as far as useful cameras, so, yes, I reached out regarding cameras in the area.
MR. JACKSON: For assistance from Canton PD officers, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Whom you knew to be recused, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You specifically asked Officer Galanas whether, quote, the high school had cameras facing the street, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And Officer Galanas 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 Larkin 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 locations.
MR. JACKSON: And you didn't answer 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 responsible -- 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 yesterday or Monday, it's a collaborative effort within the office. So it's we bounce ideas off each other as far as who's -- what witnesses need to be interviewed, et cetera, so it's more a group effort and 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I facilitate certain areas, yes.
MR. JACKSON: I want to talk about some of the witnesses 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, yes?
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 who you did not immediately choose to interview. Julie Nagle 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, Junior, July 6, 2023, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Holly McCabe, August of 2023, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: That's 18 months after the incident, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Heather Maxin, she was not interviewed until September 21, 2023, 17 months later, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's actually my math is off. That's about 18 months later; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Richard Dantano, September 2, 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, the 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 21, 2022, in a state court grand jury proceeding that no snowplow traveled down Fairview Road on January 29, correct? A Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Why did you say that, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: That was based off interviews with Mr. Trotter that the plows weren't out until they met up at 2:30, and then it was my understanding they were focusing on the main roadways.
MR. JACKSON: You're aware that Michael Trotter 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 Trotter, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And isn't it true that Michael Trotter told you that in fact Brian Loughran was plowing 34 Fairview that morning?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that what he told you?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall that statement from him.
MR. JACKSON: Michael Trotter testified that that's what he told you. Do you have any quarrel with that?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained.
MR. JACKSON: 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow. It is that true?
MR. PROCTOR: That's simply not true. Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Certainly, you 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: That's not true.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that Lucky Loughran in fact did report that there was no body on the lawn at 2:30?
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: So the objection is 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 Sergeant Bukhenik and I interviewed him.
MR. JACKSON: And that was when?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall the exact date.
MR. JACKSON: And that was after the defense brought him to your attention, correct?
MR. LALLY: 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 the lead investigator and the case agent, you're aware that it's also your responsibility and your obligation to investigate all potential individuals, right, all potential suspects?
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 it could just be revenge, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It could be a lover's quarrel, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Or it could be someone who's interested in someone romantically, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: It could be an argument inside of a vehicle.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm sorry I didn't -- I didn't hear that. Could you -- what was your answer?
MR. JACKSON: I didn't hear him either.
MR. PROCTOR: I said or it could be an argument contained inside a vehicle as well.
MR. JACKSON: Ah, yeah, which is the conclusion you jumped to 17 hours into your investigation, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled.
MR. JACKSON: 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?
MR. PROCTOR: To go towards intent, no, but as far as the physical evidence goes, we had compelling evidence indicating Ms. Read struck with O'Keefe with her vehicle.
MR. JACKSON: So you just didn't --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Mr. Jackson, I just have to -- keep your voice up, Trooper Proctor, okay?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
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, oh, okay, I'm just going to go with the physical evidence today. I'll figure intent later. I'll figure out motive later, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Motive, means, and opportunity. We 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 a physical proximity physical to the incident, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Or the physical ability to commit the crime, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Did you investigate all potential suspects who would have 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. 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 McCabes, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Let's talk about Brian Higgins for a second. Do you know that name?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You personally interviewed Mr. Higgins, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I did, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You keep adding other people into the interviews. I'm asking what you did, not what you and someone else did. Did you personally interview Brian Higgins?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
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, yes.
MR. JACKSON: You waited until February 10, 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 at least on 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: And 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Was that your understanding, Trooper?
MR. PROCTOR: It was my understanding 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 asked -- 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct, most --
MR. JACKSON: And your answer was --
MR. PROCTOR: -- civilian --
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 of pretty early on that Mr. Higgins at least had a motive to want to visit harm on John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. LALLY: 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You became aware that he ignored -- you saw the text messages. You became aware that Karen Read actually ignored text messages from Mr. Higgins while at the Waterfall Bar and Grill with John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see you at sidebar on this.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: What's your objection?
MR. LALLY: It's argumentative, Your Honor. As far as the questions that are being asked, I don't have any objection to him asking him the factual questions of what he was aware of, but the characterizations, that's his closing argument and that's fine for his closing argument, but that's not fine for cross- examination. There's no evidence in the content of the text communication he was coaxing John O'Keefe there, let alone for some nefarious purpose, or that the defendant was ignoring his texts. As far as were there texts sent and did she respond, that's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: So sometimes one word can mess up your whole sentence. I'll (indiscernible) the objection. Just --
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, it's a reasonable interpretation of that text message that he's coaxing Brian Higgins to the location. That is not argument. This is cross-examination. I should be given some liberties. If he says, no, I didn't see it as coaxing, then the jurors can weigh and balance that.
JUDGE CANNONE: But when there's an objection, if there's a part that's objectionable that I think should be sustained, I have to knock out the whole question, and you don't want that.
MR. JACKSON: No, I don't.
JUDGE CANNONE: And I don't know how many more times I have to say, "Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson." It's on those occasions. So just knock out the language that you know shouldn't be in there.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I inquire?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: 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?
MR. LALLY: 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 Waterfall, "Where you at?"
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall that one either.
MR. JACKSON: You also recognized -- recognize 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. He certainly had the physical ability to get into a physical altercation with John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: Just because he's a big guy doesn't mean doesn't have the means or the -- I'm sorry the motive to hurt Mr. O'Keefe --
MR. JACKSON: I wasn't asking --
MR. PROCTOR: They were friends.
MR. JACKSON: I wasn't asking about motive. I'm not 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?
MR. PROCTOR: In that one interview, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah, he's huge, would you agree?
MR. LALLY: 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.
MR. JACKSON: Bigger than you?
MR. PROCTOR: Yep.
MR. JACKSON: 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 and Grill, 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.
MR. LALLY: 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that what you saw?
MR. PROCTOR: Playful fighting stances.
MR. JACKSON: But you waited until February 10, to interview him, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you decided not to image his phone; is that right? A 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 29, at 2:22 a.m. there was a call between him and Brian Albert that morning?
MR. PROCTOR: I was not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: It might've been important to your investigation, don't you think?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: It depends what that -- I don't know what the call was about.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, finish that. Depends on what?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know what the call was about. I don't know if they actually connected and communicated or what the length of the call was, so.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you never asked, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: I was unaware that the call took place.
MR. JACKSON: And you were unaware that call took place because you didn't get his phone, Trooper Proctor, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Typically don't get witnesses phones, sir.
MR. JACKSON: You were unaware of that call at that time because you didn't seek his phone, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Right. 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 if it's undetermined or ruled a homicide, we're still going to continue to investigate regardless of her determination.
MR. JACKSON: You obviously were not pleased with that determination -- 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 28, that same day, you received a text message from Trooper DiCicco, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You can turn to tab 11, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: What's the ID number?
MR. JACKSON: This is 2618. I'm sorry tab 11 is G-G-G. Triple G 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: If you could turn to page 2618. Do you see a 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?
MR. PROCTOR: For manner, 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's a whack job, right? Those are your two responses, correct?
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 from me.
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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
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. It's 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's a whack job," sarcastically?
MR. PROCTOR: A sarcastic remark I made to Trooper DiCicco.
MR. JACKSON: Right. Which sort of suggests displeasure rather than the reverse, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You'd agree that it's extremely unusual for the manner of death to be determined -- sorry -- to be undetermined in a homicide investigation you worked on, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: 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 death could not be determined?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
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 the -- at another proceeding.
MR. PROCTOR: Mm-hmm.
MR. JACKSON: And you indicated that you had never seen it in your entire career, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm trying to -- yeah, I'm trying to learn.
MR. JACKSON: Well, you were asked a 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, not figuratively of course. It's an of course, like, I had never really seen that before in a homicide." Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your statement in February of 2024 under oath was you literally had never seen that in any homicide you've ever worked, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: After she reached that conclusion, you discuss this with one of your colleagues about how you tried to put pressure on her to change her or alter her opinion, correct? MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
JUDGE CANNONE: Is that what you did?
MR. PROCTOR: Pressure, absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: Let's turn to tab 12.
JUDGE CANNONE: What's this for identification?
MR. JACKSON: This one -- I'm just checking. This is H as in hotel. Your Honor, for this one, may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: So I've got them mismarked. What's the bottom -- what's the Bates stamp number?
MR. JACKSON: Sure. It's 2632.
JUDGE CANNONE: Why don't you come to sidebar for a minute, please.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. The face page is 2628. Maybe that helps.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Got it. Within that packet, and we'll turn to 2632.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Yes, go ahead.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: For -- 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 M.E. 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: Knowing Trooper 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, "Yuriy and I," whose Yuriy?
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik.
MR. JACKSON: "Yuriy and I have two conference calls with her. Sent her numerous photos, et cetera. 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 try to get her to change her opinion to a homicide, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled.
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all.
MR. JACKSON: DiCicco then responds, "Not good enough. Should have had me and Jeff do it," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that was his response.
MR. JACKSON: Busting your chops that you didn't meet the standard of getting her to change her mind to make it a homicide, right? That's what he was doing -- that's what he was busting your chops about.
MR. JACKSON: 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 the facts, kind of what had transpired leading up to a victim's death. It happens not only in homicides, but the unattended deaths we also attend to. You know, suicide and overdose. So it's common to have these kinds of conversations with doctors.
MR. JACKSON: Right. But in response to getting the information that she made the determination and held onto it, that this was undetermined, your answer was, "Of course it's undetermined. She was just a whack job," right?
MR. PROCTOR: It was 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 Ms. Read with murder anyway, weren't you?
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 that 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You were actually asked this question whether or not it would have an impact on your decision, notwithstanding what the medical examiner's decision was, correct, your decision to charge her; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On February 1, 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, Ms. Read was going to be charged, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's how you make a case cut and dry, isn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: In other words, Trooper Proctor, to 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: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that. Are you aware of that?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not aware of that.
MR. JACKSON: Are you aware that there were text and calls missing from her phone before having that phone 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: Not that area, no.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MR. PROCTOR: Not that area.
MR. JACKSON: Not that area. Meaning?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: What does that mean. I don't know what you mean by not that area.
MR. PROCTOR: I went through her -- the 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.
MR. JACKSON: But 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: Nope.
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.
MR. JACKSON: But the fact remains that you never sought to seize any of those, did you?
MR. PROCTOR: No, we didn't.
MR. JACKSON: And you never asked, irrespective of what you saw on the Cellebrite report, you never asked Jennifer McCabe whether or not that was a complete and thorough, a 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 Ms. McCabe's phone or did the cell phone extraction on it.
MR. JACKSON: I want to 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 29, 2022, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And you even put in that text message, "Nah, Katt. It's the total opposite. They have to recuse themselves BPD same with Canton," right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Those were your words on January 29, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you knew that the reason for -- one of the reasons for Canton P.D. to recuse itself is because of the relationship between the Alberts and one of the detectives on Canton P.D. 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 did you turn to?
MR. PROCTOR: By texting 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 Albert, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you could turn to tab 13, please.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, for the Court's edification it should be III as in India.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have that in front of you, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I do.
MR. JACKSON: If you'll turn to page 2591.
MR. JACKSON: And with the Court's permission, I would like to publish.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Can you see on January 30, 2022, at about 11:55 a.m., Kevin Albert texts you on your personal cell phone, "Paul G. is reviewing the reports right now. Steve Serif is here if you need to interview him, and we can call Steven Mullaney in as well," do you see that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who's Paul G.?
MR. PROCTOR: Lieutenant Paul Gallagher.
MR. JACKSON: So Kevin Albert, a Canton PD officer an Albert is texting you about Paul Gallagher, another Canton officer, about interviewing Steve Serif, another Canton officer, and Steve 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.
MR. JACKSON: This investigation, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 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 quote, "Okay. Yuriy and I are coming in at 1:00 to interview a firefighter, Katie," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's right.
MR. JACKSON: So not only did you tell him 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 ask Kevin Albert to actually contact the witnesses in order to schedule their interviews, didn't you? A Yeah, I believe it was Officer Mullaney and Sarif.
MR. JACKSON: You text -- I'm sorry 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 were 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 any time in the ballpark -- I'm sorry, yes. You answered, any time 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." Do you see that?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: He was referring to an interview room or an interrogation room where there is surreptitious 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: Do you see that as a problem?
MR. PROCTOR: That he offered?
MR. JACKSON: Yeah.
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 form them to his brother?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. You can ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Did you -- were you concerned that Kevin Albert was offering to utilize Canton's recording programs, facility, in order to get access to what the witnesses were saying so that he could then inform or tell his brother?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: Never crossed your mind?
MR. PROCTOR: Never.
MR. JACKSON: Well, if it never crossed your mind, why didn't you go ahead and use the recording in the room?
MR. PROCTOR: We typically don't record our interviews.
MR. JACKSON: That's not what you said a second ago. You said the reason we didn't use recording room was 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?
MR. PROCTOR: That we didn't use it. You --
MR. JACKSON: 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. I mean, it's been ten minutes. It's been four minutes.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: You don't remember that.
MR. PROCTOR: Not specifically stated like that.
MR. JACKSON: All right. Let me ask it 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, it was offered up?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, typically we don't record interviews. With a cooperating witness, we just sit down with them, take notes. If it's someone we deem 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 would say it was a professional relationship.
MR. JACKSON: Only a professional relationship?
MR. PROCTOR: Him and I were members at a gym together and we worked a cold case together for several months.
MR. JACKSON: Drinking, socializing maybe?
MR. PROCTOR: Once in a while.
MR. JACKSON: Right. So it went beyond professional, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Acquaintances.
MR. JACKSON: 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, Kevin, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: But you didn't tell us about that one?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't consider that a relationship. It's --
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 19, 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 you don't recall --
MR. PROCTOR: July 19, 2022.
MR. JACKSON: 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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Do I have a number or a letter?
MR. JACKSON: We're still in tab 13.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So what page, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Page 2602. May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, are you on 2602?
MR. PROCTOR: I am.
MR. JACKSON: The fact of the matter -- does that refresh your recollection that on July 19, 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 any of us -- either of us being intoxicated.
MR. JACKSON: Got it.
MR. JACKSON: So isn't it true that on 7/20, July 20, 2022, the day after at 8:39 in the morning, you texted Kevin Albert quote, 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: Kevin Albert responds, "My mailbox. Did I take my gun?" And it included a wind face 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 he 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. It was long time ago.
MR. JACKSON: But he left his badge in your cruiser after a night of drinking; isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Which means you were drinking and driving in your cruiser, right?
MR. PROCTOR: From what I remember, we were went down the Cape working on the cold case together and stopped for dinner, had a few beers, and then dropped him off.
MR. JACKSON: The next morning, Kevin Albert also texted you, page 2606. Starting with, "It's bad." Tell me when you see that.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay. I see it.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I publish?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Kevin Albert responded, "It's bad," exclamation point, exclamation point. "I was hung over for sure today," exclamation point, exclamation point. "A couple tonight to make me feel good," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You can take that down. Does that refresh your recollection the two of you had been out drinking the night before, you got so drunk that he couldn't find his badge and he couldn't even find his gun?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it does refresh my memory.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And you were in your cruiser, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And this is with Brian Albert's brother, Trooper Proctor?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to change gears, Trooper Proctor. You personally collected John O'Keefe's clothes from the hospital at Good Sam in Brockton, did you not?
MR. PROCTOR: I did.
MR. JACKSON: I'd like to -- at the time you were at Good Sam, 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, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you could take a look at that.
MR. PROCTOR: Mm-hmm.
MR. JACKSON: Tell me if you recognize it.
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Is that 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: 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, if I could have this marked and admitted.
JUDGE CANNONE: Any objection?
MR. LALLY: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
(Whereupon Exhibit No. 568, Photograph, was marked as an exhibit.)
COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 568.
MR. JACKSON: Five-six-eight. Are we 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 -- do 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 left most portion of the photograph. Do you see the clothes -- first, the clothes on the ground?
MR. PROCTOR: I do, yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And that appears to be what? What items or articles of clothing do you see?
MR. PROCTOR: The T-shirt, possibly the jeans.
MR. JACKSON: A gray shirt as well?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. And those are your legs to the uppermost part of the screen, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe --
MR. JACKSON: In the blue pants?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And do you see to the left most portion of the screen a chair?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see what's on that chair?
MR. PROCTOR: My binder.
MR. JACKSON: That's your portfolio?
MR. PROCTOR: It is.
MR. JACKSON: That's something that you carry routinely as you're investigating during the course of your investigations?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where you keep notes and things of that nature?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Pens, paper?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: All right. We can take that down. You indicated that you took possession of those clothing items from the Good Samaritan Hospital, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You bagged them, bagged, B-A-G-G-E-D, bagged them, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then what did you do with them after that?
MR. PROCTOR: We secured them in Sergeant Bukhenik's pickup truck.
MR. JACKSON: And then what happened 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 -- everybody knows where you went.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Sergeant Bukhenik has already testified. You get back to Canton at some point, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ultimately, were the clothes transported into the -- your facility?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: At the D.A.'s office?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. What did you with them after that?
MR. PROCTOR: We brought them to the --
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to ask you what you did, not what we did, what you did.
MR. PROCTOR: Sergeant Bukhenik and I brought them to the evidence processing area, laid out butcher paper so the clothes could dry, put them on there -- in that area, and then I brought two cell phones to Trooper Guarino so he could try to attempt to extract the phones.
MR. JACKSON: Did you -- 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, another trooper in my office have access to. So they were secured from -- at that point.
MR. JACKSON: So you didn't book them into evidence?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not, no.
MR. JACKSON: When they're booked into evidence there's supposed be a log of that, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry?
MR. JACKSON: There's 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 facility -- the D.A.'s office and then when Trooper DiCicco created a label for them and also put them in a secure facility.
MR. JACKSON: Can you show where that is?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not the evidence officer. 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter 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 29, 2022, to today?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Where is that physical log, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not an evidence officer so I don't how that --
MR. JACKSON: (Indiscernible.)
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, so I don't 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?
MR. PROCTOR: That's when the clothing was transported to the lab.
MR. JACKSON: And that's the only log we have of what happened to those clothes between January 29, and today, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Overruled. 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 an after January 29, 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, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Those were 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. There was multiple days that troopers were out there looking for more evidence.
MR. JACKSON: So there would be a lot of that, too, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, 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 29, until March 14, when the evidence log starts, is that what you're saying?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: 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 secured facility and then it was brought to the lab on the 14th.
MR. JACKSON: What happens if the label is created and it says something like, I don't know, February 4? What happened to the items before February 4?
MR. PROCTOR: They were stored in a secured facility --
MR. JACKSON: Says who?
MR. PROCTOR: -- a secured room.
MR. JACKSON: 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 Ms. 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 Ms. Read until 5:30 p.m. on January 29, 2022, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that you seized Ms. Read's vehicle, you were unaware that there was alarm.com surveillance footage of the area from which the car was seized, 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Four-sixteen p.m.
MR. JACKSON: Right. An hour and change. An hour and 18 minutes, an hour and 20 minutes earlier; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever seek to change or amend the error, that false statement, about the time --
MR. PROCTOR: So --
MR. JACKSON: -- the car was 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 on the first one and that's the reason those times are off on the other affidavits I had 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.
MR. JACKSON: An incorrect transcription of the time.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You would call that, I don't know, a scrivener's error?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
MR. JACKSON: Was it a typo?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: It was a typo. 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 were typos, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The fact of the matter is you delivered that car to Canton PD to the sally port garage before a single piece of taillight material was ever found in this case, Trooper Proctor; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct. It arrives at 5:31.
MR. JACKSON: And you also towed it to the Canton Police Department because that was conveniently close to the location at 34 Fairview to the crime scene, right?
MR. PROCTOR: That was not my decision.
MR. JACKSON: Whose decision was it?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't recall. I know that --
MR. JACKSON: Well, you're the case officer.
MR. PROCTOR: I wouldn't --
MR. JACKSON: Who decides?
MR. PROCTOR: It wasn't my decision. I did not make that call, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So who are we pointing the finger at? Was it Sergeant Bukhenik?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
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 Middleborough, one in Foxborough that both closer as the crow flies than the Canton PD sallyport from where the car was taken, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Both of those facilities were passed by and the car was ultimately placed at the 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: May I just have a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you were the lead case officer on this case. That means that you were required to collect and maintain all the videos that were pulled 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 were to come -- that you might come in 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 Ring camera located in the driveway at 1 Meadows; does that sound about right? I don't expect you to have counted every single one, but just under 300?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: 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 and Grill?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Eight videos from the Temple Beth --
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: -- facility? 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, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Two videos from the cars test on Ms. 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?
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: Does it sound like -- I don't expect you to have the date down pat, but spring of 2022, sound about right, spring, early summer?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. But there was additional video surveillance that you chose to hold back from that discovery, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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.
MR. JACKSON: Meaning the one of the driveway?
MR. PROCTOR: Right.
MR. JACKSON: And you say you can't make anything out in that?
MR. PROCTOR: There's two different ones. There's the main driveway camera, and then there's an exterior sallyport camera.
MR. JACKSON: 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, 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 Ms. Read's vehicle on the tow truck; is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You were asked very specifically, "Are you aware of whether there are any cameras in the garage in the sallyport where Karen Read's SUV was parked," and your answer was yes, right? In the garage?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, 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 any cameras in the garage or sallyport where Karen Read's SUV was parked?" Answer: "Yes."
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: 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." Do 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
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, that was the question.
MR. PROCTOR: If I was aware of any.
MR. JACKSON: 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, 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 are 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." Do 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 was the question.
MR. PROCTOR: Well, that was the video we had so that was how I referenced it. There was an exterior sallyport video.
MR. JACKSON: Why didn't you say to the person that was questioning you under oath, I don't know anything about the video inside the sallyport. I'm referring to outside the building. Why didn't say that and clarify it?
MR. PROCTOR: I should've clarified it, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Because you'll agree it sounds a hell of a lot like, an awful lot like, you're talking about what's inside the sallyport, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
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." Do you remember that?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Not 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 Ms. Read's vehicle arrived at 5:30, 5:31. 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: Is that true?
MR. PROCTOR: That's -- I'm not aware of that of withholding that.
MR. JACKSON: On April 4, 20 24th -- 20 24th, it's getting late. On April 4, 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 was missing the precise time that that vehicle was delivered to the sallyport, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Was it? 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.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, how's it --
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll see you at sidebar if you want.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Please.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So go ahead. Make your record, Mr. Lally, what's the objection?
MR. LALLY: Well, I believe it was Mr. Jackson's point last week that the video speaks for itself, and this jury has already seen the video multiple versions of it multiple times. Whether or not this specific witness recalls exactly when it happened, I mean, essentially Mr. Jackson he's testifying as to what the video shows.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: I'm asking a factual question: whether he's aware of the gap in the video. He's the one that pulled it. He said he's the one who retrieved it. He's reviewed it --
MR. LALLY: I don't even know if he said if he's the one who pulled it.
MR. JACKSON: I want to know whether he's aware of the gap in the video, and whether or not that gap was consistent with the time the car arrived at the location. He's in the best position to know.
JUDGE CANNONE: So those are two different questions. If you ask him all at once, it's problematic. Ask those two different questions.
MR. JACKSON: We'll do.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
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 jumps from 5:08 to about 5:50 at the beginning of the video?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I observed a jump in video.
MR. JACKSON: And that was about 42 minutes, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Approximately, 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 that that -- by the way, did you secure that video, the second one? Let me ask you a predicate question because it's getting confusing. The second video from the interior of the sallyport is inverted --
MR. PROCTOR: Mm-hmm.
MR. JACKSON: Correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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.
MR. JACKSON: Rafferty?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe so.
MR. JACKSON: Who asked for it?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm not sure, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you make the request?
MR. PROCTOR: I did not.
MR. JACKSON: How did you become aware a request had been made?
MR. PROCTOR: I was made aware 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 exists, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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: Oh, it was more recent than, you know, maybe months ago, a month ago.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact, it was after the trial had already started in mid-April, 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. Like, 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 that 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. JACKSON: So when was the first time you saw it?
MR. PROCTOR: A few weeks ago, a month ago.
MR. JACKSON: What were the circumstances in which you saw the video?
MR. PROCTOR: Just reviewing the video.
MR. JACKSON: Where?
MR. PROCTOR: At my desk.
MR. JACKSON: So you pulled -- 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 disk.
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: The SUV being brought into the garage.
MR. JACKSON: You're in the video, right? That's you toward the back of the truck?
MR. PROCTOR: Yep, I'm in the video. Some Canton members, Canton P.D. members there as well. Tow truck guy drops the vehicle off. He's in the front driver seat. Exits. Sergeant Bukhenik's there. I believe Chief Berkowitz, the retired police chief.
MR. JACKSON: Where was he?
MR. PROCTOR: He was kind of like mulling around the area. I feel like he was towards the back open garage gate there.
MR. JACKSON: The back door where --
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Where you were?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Was he the person -- did you note that there were certain individuals that just seemed to be apparate out of nowhere, just appear?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, there was one individual at the top left corner of the video pushing a broom that kind of just appeared.
MR. JACKSON: And also toward the back of the vehicle, 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 --
MR. JACKSON: And you --
MR. PROCTOR: -- or it skips.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
MR. PROCTOR: Or it skips. I don't know that system at all, so.
MR. JACKSON: 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 that was odd about the video other than the time skips?
MR. PROCTOR: So the timestamp at the bottom was inversed, it was reversed.
MR. JACKSON: I beg your pardon?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, the timestamp on the bottom of it was backwards.
MR. JACKSON: Was it blue?
MR. PROCTOR: So instead of reading left to right, it was right to left.
MR. JACKSON: I understand.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Was it blue?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe it was yellow.
MR. JACKSON: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So the video you saw had a timestamp that was inverted, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What about the video itself, was that inverted?
MR. PROCTOR: No. From the video I saw the way the vehicle was brought in in relation to the garage and the doors into the PD, it was -- wasn't reverse or inverted.
MR. JACKSON: It was or was not?
MR. PROCTOR: It 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 vehicle of 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 video yesterday just to rewatch it, and the one that I watched had the correct angle, it was in reverse. The car was brought in. The tow truck driver gets out from the driver's side. It was in reverse. The only thing reversed on it was like the timestamp on the bottom.
MR. JACKSON: Well, were you watching video that was produced in this trial?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: So were you aware that the defense presented a piece of evidence?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Were you aware that the defense presented a piece of evidence where we inverted the video back to the correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No, I was not.
MR. JACKSON: And that timestamp 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: Okay. Mr. Jackson, we'll take our luncheon break.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
(Court in recess.)
(Court in session.)
(Defendant is present with counsel.)
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Let's bring the witness in, please. All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: (By Mr. Jackson) Trooper Proctor, before we broke we were discussing 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 timestamp on the bottom had been inverted, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, that's the way it appeared.
MR. JACKSON: And recalled that being a yellow Chiron underneath?
MR. PROCTOR: To the best --
MR. JACKSON: 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: 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: Detective Lieutenant Tully retrieved the sallyport videos I believe.
MR. JACKSON: And do you know from he retrieved those sallyport videos, what individual?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe it was the chief of police.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Chief Rafferty specifically gave him whatever videos were provided?
MR. PROCTOR: 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 bear to the Ring video footage. You've already testified that there were several hundred Ring videos from 1 Meadows 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 from the moment that they came into Massachusetts State Police custody until they were handed over to the Commonwealth, 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 warrant 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 know if we had the password. We had his email account associated with the Ring app.
MR. JACKSON: Which means some way or another you could get access to the Ring videos?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And watch those Ring videos on his app on the phone?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Which means you have full access to the app, you could keep videos you could say for later, you could delete videos, you could do anything you wanted to within that app, correct?
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 Ms. Read arriving to 1 Meadows at approximately 12:41 a.m. on January 29, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: You will agree, Trooper Proctor, that the video of Ms. Read returning home from 34 Fairview at approximately 12:41 a.m. is not there.
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: As the case officer, you're aware that Trooper Proctor -- 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?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: He took notes of his review of those videos, correct?
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 which you then drafted in November of 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: If memory serves me, 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 accumulated his notes and review his notes as well as your own notes, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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 note or did you review his notes?
MR. PROCTOR: I can't recall.
MR. JACKSON: You asked him -- he reviewed the videos at your directions, correct -- 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? Do you remember that?
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.
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the top -- the upper most top note that's highlighted with a sticky note next to it.
MR. PROCTOR: Okay, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, do you have these notes in mind specifically the uppermost note?
MR. PROCTOR: The 0041?
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: All right. You reviewed this previously before you wrote your report, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you note that 0041 which is a time relative to what DiCicco was looking at on the Ring video, he indicated taillight from drive taillights from driveway, parentheses, I think she arrived home, end parentheses, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Zero-zero-forty-one is what? What is that in reference to?
MR. PROCTOR: Just after midnight the approximate time when Ms. Read would be returning from Fairview Road.
MR. JACKSON: It's military time for 12:41 a.m., correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You wrote a report on November -- I'm sorry. I earlier said November. It's actually June 1, 2022, memorializing the times -- 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. Not every single one.
MR. JACKSON: 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: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure. Do you have it with you, Trooper? Do you have your report with you?
MR. PROCTOR: Your Honor, no, I don't.
MR. JACKSON: I ask you to review that report especially as to page 2 and 3.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper, do you have those events in mind?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. JACKSON: Your report is dated June 1, 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 report -- 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 Trooper DiCicco's notes. We have many notes 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 Ms. Roberts, Ms. McCabe, Ms. Read arrive back at John's and they're looking at the broken taillight. 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, okay?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. JACKSON: The fact is notwithstanding Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, there is no video from 12:41 on January 29, 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it. Was she treated differently?
MR. JACKSON: Absolutely not. Like I said before, we followed the facts and the evidence with an open mind.
MR. JACKSON: Did you consider her to be, for 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.
MR. JACKSON: Not family, not friends with the Alberts?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: At some point, your review of this case caused you to turn what can be described as a bias into an out and out hatred, would you agree with that?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you develop some sort of hatred for Ms. Read --
MR. LALLY: Objection.
MR. JACKSON: -- at any point in your investigation?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Again, we followed the facts and evidence which showed Ms. 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.
MR. JACKSON: As a matter fact you did express your feelings about Ms. Read in yet another text message that we haven't gone over yet today, is that right, on February 4, 2022? You might as well turn to tab ten.
MR. PROCTOR: Tab ten.
JUDGE CANNONE: It's either the Bates stamp or the --
MR. JACKSON: This is triple F as in foxtrot and the Bates stamp is 2526. A Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Do you see an entry from Courtney Proctor, a text starting, "I didn't give my."
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Request permission to publish, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: On that date February 4, 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Take that down.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, I believe when I was going through the text messages with this witness, these are among the group that counsel specifically indicated that they were not going to go over as they would find relevant, and now they're up on the screen and we're going over them.
MR. JACKSON: That's not true. He didn't ask about the "hope she kills herself" but I absolutely intended to go over that and we’ll go over that. It's --
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow in the "hopefully she kills herself." Are you objecting to the context then?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So what do you need for context? MR. JACKSON: That's all I'm going to ask. It's the next text.
JUDGE CANNONE: So don't put it out.
MR. JACKSON: Which one? Don't put the --
JUDGE CANNONE: You can put that in, but just that alone.
MR. JACKSON: Fine. I don't need to put it on the screen. That's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
end of sidebar.)
MR. JACKSON: May I, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: You see the text from Courtney Proctor, "I did not give my name as I didn't want anyone to link me," --
JUDGE CANNONE: So that that's stricken. That what was just 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: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And your response was, "Hopefully she kills herself," correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Who's she?
MR. PROCTOR: The defendant.
MR. JACKSON: Ms. Read?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You literally said that you hope that Karen Read, the subject of your investigation, the woman sitting to my left about 7 feet from me, that she would just die, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: It's a figure of speech.
MR. JACKSON: You wanted her -- the figure of speech is you wanted her to kill herself, right?
MR. PROCTOR: No, 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 29, 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 were actually connected to, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Loosely.
MR. JACKSON: Chris Albert, loosely?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Julie Albert, loosely?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Colin Albert, loosely?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Kevin Albert, loosely?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Loose enough to leave his badge and his gun in your cruiser after a night of drinking, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Where is this?
MR. JACKSON: This was referred to in earlier text messages, group chats this morning.
JUDGE CANNONE: So 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.
MR. JACKSON: But it was in the group chat?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, it was in the group chat.
MR. JACKSON: Your friends wrote this whole thing, in their words, stinks, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, I interpreted 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all. As I said, it was a figure of speech. My emotions got the best of me based on, you know, the fact that Ms. Read hit Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him to me with that figure of speech.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's talk about your figures of speech. During the course of your investigation, your figures of speech include the following: She's a bitch.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: He can have it.
MR. JACKSON: Is that right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A whack job, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: A retard, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Her balloon knot leaks, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: No ass, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: She's fucked according to you, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Ass leaker. That was a word that you used, a figure of speech, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: A girl who shits herself, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: And then fuck her, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: 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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll give you this one, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Would you agree with that?
MR. PROCTOR: I would say based off that language, yes.
MR. JACKSON: And you admitted in your own words that the cop homeowner wasn't going to, quote, catch any shit, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Because you were out to, quote, make this cut and dry; isn't that right?
MR. PROCTOR: The homeowner wasn't going to catch any shit because Mr. Albert had nothing to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death.
MR. JACKSON: Because you were going to make sure that the case was cut and dry. Those were your words, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
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?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Shame on you, sir.
MR. LALLY: Objection.
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.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, Your Honor.