Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveMichael Proctor — Redirect/Recross
519 linesREDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. PROCTOR: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you had started with cross-examination the other day you were asked questions about whether or not in August of 2022 you disliked or did not like Mr. Yannetti, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Why was that?
MR. PROCTOR: Well, basically he stood up in open court and spouted lie after lie about me, called me corrupt and conflicted, dragged my name through the mud after I spent ten plus years without a, you know, a single complaint filed against me, and he had no basis and no facts of these wild accusations because there are none. This investigation was done with the utmost integrity, not just by me but my supervisors and other troopers in my office. As well as Mr. Yannetti shows up at my sister's school yesterday in the parking lot, where he's not welcomed or where people are not supposed to be, with one of their witnesses and their private investigator, and a teacher sees this, informs Mr. Yannetti that he can't be there, and instead of saying, okay, and leaving, he asks, "Is Courtney Proctor in the building? Does she work here?" She calls me to see if she was being served --
MR. JACKSON: Objection. Objection. Can we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
(Sidebar commences:
MR. JACKSON: He better have a witness for this. This is absolutely outrageous. That never happened. What he's describing on the witness stand is completely --
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Yanetti, I want you to come back here. Come back here.
MR. JACKSON: It's an utter lie. Everything he's saying is an utter lie. Mr. Yanetti went out yesterday and interviewed Lucky Loughran. Mr. Yanetti has no idea where his kids go to school. He couldn't care less where his kids go to school. They met in the parking lot so that they could a drive on the route that ultimately is Mr. Loughran is expected to testify to, and this person gets up on the stand and suggests Mr. Yanetti was asking about his minor daughter. That is absolutely insane.
JUDGE CANNONE: I didn't hear that.
MR. JACKSON: He just said he started asking about does Courtney Proctor -- does my daughter go --
JUDGE CANNONE: Courtney's the sister.
MR. YANNETTI: It doesn't matter. It's all made up.
MR. JACKSON: He said daughter but then he used the word Courtney.
MR. YANNETTI: Fortunately, I have witnesses who are going to correct this man.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So no gesticulating for the cameras, Mr. Yanetti.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, we're going to take a break. We're going to send you out.
(Jury out.)
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Yanetti, come over here.
MR. JACKSON: Sorry.
MR. YANNETTI: He committed perjury.
JUDGE CANNONE: I expect some professionalism here while the jury's here. I understand the TV camera's looking right at you.
MR. YANNETTI: Your Honor, I object --
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Hold on.
MR. YANNETTI: I object to that characterization.
JUDGE CANNONE: I understand that the camera's there and people are going to see this, and we don't need to do any more than what's going on.
MR. YANNETTI: I didn't do that for the cameras, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I didn't say that, Mr. Yanetti.
MR. YANNETTI: Okay.
JUDGE CANNONE: And I don't want you being like this in front of the jury. So what are you asking me to do?
MR. JACKSON: Strike his entire answer. His entire answer needs to be stricken. By the way, it was nonresponsive to Mr. Lally's question which was --
JUDGE CANNONE: Why do you hate Yanetti?
MR. JACKSON: -- Yanetti, which, by the way, his answer preceded, preceded this --
MR. YANNETTI: Exactly.
MR. JACKSON: -- shenanigan.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So I will strike --
MR. JACKSON: And I am wondering, Judge. I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry. I am wondering, how can Mr. Yanetti be so confident about the answer he was about to give --
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. You're doing Yanetti and Lally. Are you interspersing them again?
MR. JACKSON: God. How could Mr. Lally be so confident, I apologize, in his question to this witness if they've had no communication. I'm very, very troubled by this.
JUDGE CANNONE: Did you expect any of this?
MR. LALLY: No. I mean, I'm aware of the incident, but I wasn't asking --
MR. JACKSON: How?
MR. LALLY: -- about the incident.
MR. JACKSON: How? I would ask Mr. Lally he's aware of the incident?
MR. LALLY: Because it was said to me by about half a dozen people yesterday as far as Mr. Yanetti being in the parking lot at the Kennedy Elementary School where Courtney Proctor works as a teacher and her two children go. He's also communicated to me that Mr. Yanetti - I was asking questions about whether or not Courtney Proctor was present in the building at the time. I wasn't asking anything about that. I specifically asked about August of 2022.
JUDGE CANNONE: Right. All right. So I'm going to strike all this. Mr. Lally can ask that question, the right question, and as soon as he veers, I'll cut him off. All right. So I will strike this --
MR. JACKSON: The only thing I would ask is to show deference to Mr. Yanetti, who was the subject of this ridiculousness, if there's anything else that he believes I need to ask for in terms of this witness being sanctioned or censured.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead, Mr. Yanetti. Why don't you come over to the microphone. Why don't you tell me.
MR. JACKSON: I'll trade places.
MR. YANNETTI: Well, I just want to put on record as an officer of this Court, if you want to swear me in, I will take an oath right now.
JUDGE CANNONE: No, go ahead. Just tell me what you said.
MR. YANNETTI: I appeared at the Kennedy School at the request of Brian Loughran. I told him I wanted to come down to Canton to take the route with him. I suggested that we meet at the DPW. He said, "I would rather meet at the Kennedy School." I had no idea that Courtney Proctor lived there. I had no idea that her children --
MR. JACKSON: Worked there.
MR. YANNETTI: -- worked there. I had no idea that her children went to school there, and had I known that, I would have rejected that as a meeting place. I had no idea whatsoever. And then we left. The cars were parked in that lot so after we took the route, we came back, and got in the cars and left. I cannot imagine the testimony that just came through this Court. That's all I want to put on record.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. YANNETTI: In terms of a remedy, striking that last answer I think is sufficient, and I will be questioning Brian Loughran about whether any of that happened. He was there the whole time.
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, not if it's stricken, right? He's your witness.
MR. YANNETTI: Well.
MR. LALLY: That I would have issue with.
MR. JACKSON: Puts us in a very tough position because you're right, Judge.
JUDGE CANNONE: You just said you don't mind --
MR. LALLY: No, that I would have issue with. If it's going to be stricken and then Mr. Yanetti intends to do it with the witness on the stand, I think that's improper.
JUDGE CANNONE: Improper. I mean, that's what I just said.
MR. YANNETTI: Well, I suppose I could call my investigator to say when we showed up there, did we converse with anyone other than Brian Loughran.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, I'm not going to weigh in on that now.
MR. YANNETTI: Yeah, all right. Okay. That's fine.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right.
MR. YANNETTI: To answer your -- I appreciate, Mr. Jackson, you giving me this opportunity. I don't have anything to add.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. That satisfies us.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. All right. And you get to ask the question. Maybe you highlight for him that he answers this particular question, listens to it, and answers it.
MR. LALLY: Understood.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
end of sidebar.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. We'll bring the jurors in.
(Jury in.)
JUDGE CANNONE: Jurors, I am striking that last answer. It was probably a partial answer cut off. I'm striking it completely. Disregard it. If you took notes, cross the notes out. You're not to consider it in any way. It is completely stricken from the record. And, Trooper, I would suggest you listen to the question being asked of you before your answer it.
MR. PROCTOR: My apologies, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Keep your voice up, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Trooper Proctor, as far as you were asked about text messages that occurred in August of 2022, in which you indicated that you did not like Mr. Yannetti, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And so at the time of that text message that was sent in August of 2022, why was that?
MR. PROCTOR: In August of 2022 why was that?
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. PROCTOR: The reasons I laid out - the false accusations of being conflicted and corrupt spouted in open court, which there is zero evidence of. As I said, I stand by the integrity of this investigation as well as every trooper and supervisor in my office.
MR. LALLY: Were there also motions filed by Mr. Yannetti or by counsel containing photographs of yourself and some children?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, were the allegations in regards to the children that were depicted in those photographs?
MR. PROCTOR: So the photograph was taken in my parents' backyard --
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: The objection is overruled. A My parents' backyard at a pool party. There's some little kids in the photo. Defense counsel kept insinuating that those were the McCabe's children when in fact they were my family, my cousins.
MR. LALLY: Have you at any point in time ever met any children of the McCabe's?
MR. PROCTOR: No, sir.
MR. LALLY: In the course of this investigation as it was sort of alleged in cross-examination, did you essentially pick a suspect and then try to have the evidence fit that?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: To form.
MR. JACKSON: Leading.
JUDGE CANNONE: In that form it's stricken. You're not allowed to ask it that way, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: How did you conduct this investigation, you and the other troopers in your office?
MR. PROCTOR: From the start of this investigation with an open mind. Like I said earlier, we didn't know what we had. It's a possible medical. So as the day went on and we collected more evidence and developed compelling evidence against Ms. Read.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to this investigation, it continued after January 29, 2022, when you had those text communications with your friends, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Was there additional information that you compiled over the course of that investigation following January 29, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: I'm sorry. Say that again, please.
MR. LALLY: Following that date of those text messages on January 29, 2022 --
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Was there additional information that was gathered over the course of your investigation by yourself or other troopers involved in the investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And from that additional information that was gathered, what, if any, information that was gathered throughout the course of the investigation indicated that anyone besides Ms. Read had anything to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death?
MR. PROCTOR: All the information gathered after that date indicated no one else was responsible for Mr. O'Keefe death.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, you were asked some questions on cross- examination about testimony in a prior proceeding and shown specifically page 01563, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, I'm giving you 01562, 63, and 64, and ask you to read those and look up at me.
JUDGE CANNONE: What were the numbers again, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: One-five-six-two, six-three and six- four, I believe.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Trooper, after reviewing those three pages, is there now more context to what you were just asked about on one specific pages of that testimony?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And those were questions related to what you had told and what you had informed other people within the office or your supervisors in relation to relationships with both the McCabes and the Alberts, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And in the course of that testimony, did you relay to that body the same testimony you just relayed to this jury in regard to photographs of children and defense counsel attributing those to being the McCabe's children which they were not?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, you were asked some questions by Mr. Jackson in regard to what you knew or why your focus was not on Brian Albert's later on in the evening of January 29, 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And why was that? Why was your focus not on Brian Albert at the time?
MR. PROCTOR: There was just no evidence that Mr. Albert was involved in any way. Like I said before the -- from witness interviews, the statements Ms. Read provided to witnesses, the one shoe left at the scene, the taillight pieces found underneath the snow that were dug out by the SERT team, the injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, the one shoe at the hospital that was observed, her statements to us, Sergeant Bukhenik and I while we interviewed her, clearly the broken taillight, and the fact that leaving Brockton instead of going to Dighton, she backtracked to go to Canton to retrieve her vehicle and then go double back to go to Dighton, which I found odd.
MR. LALLY: Now, if at any point in time over the course of your investigation you had evidence which led -- which led you to believe that Mr. Albert was involved in the death of Mr. O'Keefe, what would you have done?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Ask it differently.
MR. LALLY: With regard to -- again, you testified beyond January 29. At any point in your investigation, did you find any information or evidence leading you to believe that Brian Albert was involved in the death of John O'Keefe?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: If you had found information leading to that conclusion or evidence leading to that, what would you have done?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Myself or members of my office would have pursued that.
MR. LALLY: Regardless of his position, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Regardless of what he does for a living -- profession.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. My apologies, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: Sir, I'm showing you a document I showed you the other day. Do you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: That is text communications between me and my high school buddies.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, if I could direct your attention within there to page 2535.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: And you were asked some questions about text on the page, but also there's a text on that page that begins with they arrived at house together, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the date and time associated with that text message that you sent?
MR. PROCTOR: That was sent on January 29, 2022, at 11:00 p.m.
MR. LALLY: And what is the content and what did you send to that group that text message?
MR. PROCTOR: The message reads, "They arrived at the house together, got into an argument. She was driving and left."
MR. LALLY: Okay. So that's also information that you had late in the evening of January 29, 2022, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: To the form, that's sustained.
MR. LALLY: With respect to that information you conveyed in that text message, when did you learn it?
MR. PROCTOR: During the course of the day on the 29th.
MR. LALLY: May I approach, Your Honor, to retrieve?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, you were asked some questions about people that you spoke to on the 29th, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that included Brian Albert, Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, Kerrie Roberts; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper DiCicco and Trooper Dunn interviewed Ms. Roberts.
MR. LALLY: And my apologies. When I was saying you, I meant collectively?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: But you specifically yourself and Sergeant Bukhenik, you also spoke with the defendant on January 29, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And that would have been prior to any of the text communications that were contained within that chat with your friends, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you something about charging decisions. Is that something that you make in this case or in any case?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't make any charging decisions. We're essentially factfinders.
MR. LALLY: So as far as what Ms. Read was charged with or when she was charged with it, that's not something that's within your purview, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No, not at all.
MR. LALLY: Now, specifically you were asked some questions about some text messages between yourself and Trooper DiCicco in regard to the medical examiner, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And those occurred in April of 2022; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Was the defendant Ms. Read charged with murder on April of 2022?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: That wasn't until June of 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: And that was at the conclusion a grand jury; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: And you're aware that there was a grand jury in this case?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. I'll withdraw that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. You can answer that.
MR. LALLY: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And are you aware of certain witnesses who testified at the grand jury?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Are you aware that Dr. Spordi-Bello testified at the grand jury?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And so falls to reason then that the defendant wasn't charged with murder until after the grand jury was concluded and Dr. Spordi-Bello had testified before that grand jury, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: Now, the Albert family that you were familiar with some members of, that's not an entity, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Individual members of a family, some you know, some you may not know, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Watch your form, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Certainly, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: How many members of the Albert family did you know when you started this investigation in January -- or when you received this call on January 29, 2022?
MR. PROCTOR: Julie, Chris Albert, Colin, and Kevin Albert.
MR. LALLY: Now, you were asked some questions about interviewing Julia Albert and Chris Albert at their home on February 10, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with respect to that date, had you ever been to that home prior to February 10?
MR. PROCTOR: I've not been to that -- this kind of their new home. I had never been to their new home or their previous home either.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as conversations with either Julie or Chris Albert, when was the last time you talked to them before you interviewed them on February 10?
MR. PROCTOR: I believe I had reached out to Julie to coordinate the interview, but prior to this case there was that one random text message she sent me and my sister when I was going on a family ski trip. They weren't a part of it. She wanted me to take a video of my sister skiing.
MR. LALLY: That was in February of 2022, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah.
MR. LALLY: So my question is prior to February 10, 2022, prior to any arrangements to schedule an interview for February 10, when was the last time that you spoke to either Julie Albert or Chris Albert, if you know?
MR. PROCTOR: I don't know. I can't remember.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to text message in regard to skiing in late February of 2022, you were shown that text message, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Was there any other response from you?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Would you have any further communication with Julie Albert after that interview on January 29, 2022, related to this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: I recall the serving her for grand jury. I know she wanted to kind of have an idea of what the process was like. So there's communications regarding that.
MR. LALLY: And was that something that was solely done with Julie Albert or other witnesses or what?
MR. PROCTOR: All the witnesses that were called in the grand jury. You know, it's unusual for, you know, the majority of civilians to be called in a grand jury. So they want -- obviously, they have questions about the process.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as babysitting for your children, is that something that Julie Albert ever did?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And as far as those text communications between yourself and your sister regarding that, was that something that you had asked for or something your sister had suggested?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, my sister had suggested that. We never followed up with having Julie watch my kids.
MR. LALLY: Now, you were asked some questions about text messages with your sister Courtney, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And I believe a couple of times you had used the term -- well, let me ask you this first. With regard to from January 29 throughout at least January/February of 2022 this was a -- this case became something that was on the news on a fairly regular basis, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: News and social media, yes.
MR. LALLY: And so when you were using the term in describing what you spoke to your sister about as far as newsworthy, what did you mean by that?
MR. PROCTOR: You know, my sister lives in Canton, so there's a lot of, you know, as well as on the news and social media stuff that was being discussed in those platforms.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the discussions that you had with regard to your sister, how would you describe or how would you characterize the type of information that you shared with her, if any?
MR. PROCTOR: General information. Nothing specific about the case. Q Now, you were also asked about a specific text from your sister on January 30. It started out with I believe it was Jesus Christ; is that correct? A Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that was in reference to the body of Mr. O'Keefe being found on Brian Albert's lawn, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And so she's asking you about that on January 30, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So fair to reason that that wasn't something you shared with her prior to January 30, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: It was something that you hadn't share with her at all at that point that you received that text communication, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to you form. Watch how you ask these questions, Mr. Lally, he's your witness.
MR. LALLY: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LALLY: With regard to that information as far as who the homeowner was, what, if anything, had you shared with your sister Courtney prior to you receiving that text from her indicating her knowledge of it?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, I don't recall sharing anything with -- in regards to the homeowner.
MR. LALLY: Now, in regard to any issues of a gift or a request of a gift, how would you characterize that? Was that serious? Was that in jest? How would you characterize that?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
MR. PROCTOR: I didn't take --
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it. A I didn't take that offer seriously, and as I had mentioned I believe on Monday that I didn't ask for a gift. I never received one. I kind of said, you know, give my wife a gift. She had been home for about ten straight nights with the boys. We had another homicide a week before so that was my response, "Get Elizabeth one." And she never received one.
MR. LALLY: Now, you were asked some questions about Colin Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as -- what, if any, information did you have as far as Colin Albert and his being at 34 Fairview at the same time as anyone from -- coming back from Waterfall?
MR. PROCTOR: It was my understanding Colin arrived later on to just see his cousin who was his birthday. He didn't stay that long, maybe an hour, a little over an hour, and as he was leaving I think he ran into his aunt and uncle as his ride had arrived out front and left at some time around 12:10 a.m.
MR. LALLY: Was that information that you had prior to your interview with Colin Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Yeah, we knew Colin wasn't at the house. The time was provided by Colin.
MR. LALLY: At any point in time in your investigation, what, if any, evidence did you ever receive that Colin Albert was at 34 Fairview at the same time as Mr. O'Keefe or the defendant?
MR. PROCTOR: Based on Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone location data using his Waze app, Colin Albert is leaving around like 12:10 a.m. Mr. O'Keefe is about a half a mile away at 12:20 a.m. So they did not cross paths.
MR. LALLY: Now, Mr. Jackson was asking about some people as far as interviews later in October or so of 2022 or beyond. You were given five names as far as Brian Albert, Junior, Julie Nagle, Ms. Kent, Ms. Fabiano, Ms. Alba, and Ms. Levinson, and Colin Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And then you were asked about three people that you had interviewed and then you were asked if there was only one person left that being Colin Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Does that math match up as far as five people, three given, and only one person not interviewed?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to Ms. Kent, Ms. Fabiano, and Ms. Albert, to your knowledge have they been interviewed at any point in time?
MR. PROCTOR: No.
MR. LALLY: And why not?
MR. PROCTOR: They weren't present for when the adults had arrived back from the Waterfall.
MR. LALLY: So they had left 34 Fairview like Colin Albert prior to the Waterfall people coming in?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained in that form.
MR. LALLY: Sure.
MR. LALLY: What, if any, information did you have with regards to the whereabouts of Ms. Kent, Ms. Fabiano, Ms. Alba, and Colin Albert in relation to 34 Fairview and the arrival of people from the Waterfall?
MR. PROCTOR: They had left the residence.
MR. LALLY: So with respect to Colin Albert, why was it that he was interviewed and not Ms. Kent, Ms. Fabiano, and Ms. Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Colin was falsely accused of --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Can you answer that same question Mr. Lally asked you differently?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Go ahead. Answer it differently. A Colin was the subject of a third-party culprit where -- that had no evidence to back that up.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that. A That had no evidence to back that up that he was involved whatsoever. My office and myself felt the need to interview Colin, sit him down, and get his story or his facts of that evening. So that's why we interviewed him at that date and time later on.
MR. LALLY: And when you say we, do you recall who was present with you when you interviewed Colin Albert?
MR. PROCTOR: Trooper Zachary Clark.
MR. LALLY: Now, are you aware of Sergeant Bukhenik getting screenshots from both Colin Albert and from Ms. Ally McCabe in relation to text communications they had about picking up Colin Albert from 34 Fairview on January 29?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: You were asked some questions about Ms. McCabe's cell phone; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And as far as any material on that phone, are you an expert when it comes to cell phone extractions and what different material may mean within a Cellebrite extraction?
MR. PROCTOR: No, that's left to Trooper Guarino in our office.
MR. LALLY: And are you aware of reports regarding those searches from Trooper Nicholas Guarino, a Ms. Jessica Hyde, and a Mr. Ian Whiffin?
MR. PROCTOR: I am aware of those, yes.
MR. LALLY: And those are people who are experts -- those are people who have special knowledge or specialized knowledge as it relates to Cellebrite technology that you do not, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Form of the question. It's sustained.
MR. LALLY: What if any knowledge are you aware of Trooper Nicholas Guarino, Ms. Jessica Hyde, and Mr. Ian Whiffin having with respect to Cellebrite or cell phone technology that you do not?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm allowing it under Bowden.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
(Sidebar commences:
JUDGE CANNONE: What's your objection, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: It's pure hearsay. How he -- you're asking -- Mr. Lally is asking this witness to testify about the level of knowledge and expertise that three other people have that he would have no way of knowing unless they've told him or he's read it somewhere. It's hearsay. He has no information --
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, Guarino works with, right, or Gallerino.
MR. JACKSON: Even Gallerino, unless he's the person with the knowledge, he can't testify to what his -- Guarino's education, background, and training is in terms of Cellebrite, et cetera. Mr. Lally can get that through the actual witnesses, not this guy.
JUDGE CANNONE: What do you say, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: I would say, Your Honor, is that he can testify that, you know, the implication was made during cross-examination that essentially - and I think this does come in under Bowden, that the witness himself never reviewed Life360 or the Cellebrite extraction or have knowledge about that, and my question simply is there are people that have knowledge that far exceeds your own and they looked at it, and you're aware that they looked at it.
MR. JACKSON: The only way he would know that is through hearsay.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: Number one, that they looked at it. Number two, what their education, training, and background is.
JUDGE CANNONE: He's not going to go through all that, right?
MR. LALLY: No.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm letting it in. This is the double-edged sword part of Bowden.
MR. JACKSON: It's not. It's evidentiary.
JUDGE CANNONE: I disagree with you.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
end of sidebar.)
MR. LALLY: May I proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Let me rephrase that just a little. As far as you're aware that Trooper Nicholas Guarino, Ms. Jessica Hyde and Mr. Ian Whiffin have all looked at Ms. McCabe's Cellebrite and extraction information, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And their knowledge, their specialized knowledge, in regard to those areas exceeds your own, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as your conversations with Kevin Albert, how would you characterize those in relation to this investigation?
MR. PROCTOR: They had nothing to do with this investigation. Like I said, we were working a cold case together. We also work on other cases together that, you know, unattended deaths that I'll respond to or a potential suicide or an overdose in the town of Canton that I'll respond to, but the topic of our conversations were in regards to the cold case or unresolved case that we were working together.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, may I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: I'm handing you a document like we did the other day. Do you recognize that?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Picture?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: What do you recognize that to be?
MR. PROCTOR: Text communication with Kevin Albert.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, if I could direct your attention to Bates stamps pages of 2600 and 2601?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, sir.
MR. LALLY: Now, in regard to activities on that particular date you had indicated that you had conversations with Kevin Albert about working a cold case from the town of Canton, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And specifically on that date, where did the two of you go?
MR. PROCTOR: I recall going down to the Cape to interview at least one person of interest.
MR. LALLY: And that was down in the town of Sandwich to be specific; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, in reference to Kevin Albert leaving his badge in your card; do you recall that?
MR. PROCTOR: I do.
MR. LALLY: If I could direct your attention to page 2602. And what, if any, text communication is contained on that page as far as you asking Kevin Albert any questions about his address?
MR. PROCTOR: After I informed Kevin Albert I had located his badge, I follow up what's your address. I'll drop it off after the gym.
MR. LALLY: You're asking his address because you don't know his address, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: Why are you asking him for his address?
MR. PROCTOR: I've never been to his house, and I don't know where he lives.
MR. LALLY: So you're so close with him that you don't know where his house is, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: May I approach just to retrieve, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, Trooper, you were asked some questions about Ring videos from 1 Meadow Avenue, Mr. O'Keefe's home; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: To be clear, did you delete any Ring videos from Mr. O'Keefe's account either on his app, on his phone, or from the materials that you received pursuant to the search warrant?
MR. PROCTOR: Absolutely not.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you saw that there were Ring videos missing from times that you expected videos to be, specifically what I'm asking about is Ms. Read or the defendant's arrival at the home after leaving Fairview Road, and Ms. McCabe, Ms. Roberts, and the defendant's departure from 1 Meadows to Fairview Road later on that morning, what did you do?
MR. PROCTOR: I reached out to Ring several different times. They informed me if the video is deleted there is no digital footprint of that. It's essentially kind of gone forever.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to that timeframe, what, if any other additional steps, did you take to try to retrieve that video? Was there a second search warrant, sir?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: You were looking for additional information from that same Ring video, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. LALLY: What, if anything, were you looking for in that second search warrant?
MR. PROCTOR: Additional video.
MR. LALLY: You were asked some questions about notes from Trooper DiCicco, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: As far as that 0041 note, do you know what that means?
MR. PROCTOR: That just tells me it's a time.
MR. LALLY: And do you know specifically whether or not that is something Trooper DiCicco saw or something that Trooper DiCicco was looking for?
MR. PROCTOR: That's something Trooper DiCicco could answer for.
MR. LALLY: May I have just one moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Sir, you were asked some questions about sallyport video at the Canton police station, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: When you arrived at the sallyport garage of the Canton police station sometime around or shortly after 5:30 p.m., correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now that 5:30 p.m. time, is that before or after 5:07 a.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: It's after.
MR. LALLY: And 5:07 a.m. is when Exhibit 6 video number I believe 153 with the defendant backing out the garage when you testified on Monday you observed some damage to the taillight, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And you're aware or some other Ring video from Mr. O'Keefe's house showing the defendant, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. McCabe arriving at his house in which you can see damage to the right passenger taillight, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Are you aware of cruiser camera video from the Canton police station police department, specifically Lieutenant Ray, going to 1 Meadows Ave. at 8:22 in the morning on the 29th in which you can also observe damage to the taillight?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to the form.
MR. LALLY: As far as 8:22 in the morning, what if any video from 1 Meadows Avenue are you aware of depicting the defendant's taillight?
MR. PROCTOR: Canton Police Department went to conduct a well- being check. In on the dash cruiser camera you can see the back of Ms. Read's vehicle and the right taillight to be broken and missing pieces.
MR. LALLY: And as far as your time at the home in Dighton the vehicle -- the defendant's vehicle was towed from that location on that day, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what if any video are you aware from that driveway which depicts the right rear passenger side taillight of the defendant's vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: As the vehicle is being put on the tow truck, you can make out that there is some pieces missing.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn you back to those text messages with your friends, January 29, 2022. With that time in mind at that point in time -- well, let me ask before. As far as all those other videos we talked to, all of those videos precede your time in the sallyport garage at 5:30 p.m. on January 29, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to you mentioned in your testimony the other day earlier that at some point in time later in the day or early in that evening, you had met for a debriefing with yourself and the other troopers involved in the investigation on January 29; is that correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Fair to say the information that had been collected by yourself and the other troopers on January 29, you had that in mind or you were aware of that when you were involved in these text communications with your friends, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So were you -- at that time that you're texting with your friends, you had seen the defendant's vehicle?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct, yes.
MR. LALLY: And you had seen the damage to the taillight, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And you are aware that Lieutenant Tully and the SERT team had conducted a search around 34 Fairview and recovered Mr. O'Keefe's sneaker and a taillight?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained as to form.
MR. LALLY: What if anything were you aware of in regard to Lieutenant Tully during with the SERT team at 34 Fairview earlier that day?
MR. PROCTOR: Detective Lieutenant Tully conducted and the SERT team conduced a search, discovered several pieces of broken taillight pieces as well as Mr. O'Keefe's missing shoe.
MR. LALLY: And the shoe that Lieutenant Tully and the SERT team had retrieved, what if anything did you observe in relation to that and the shoe you and Sergeant Bukhenik had retrieved from the Good Samaritan Hospital?
MR. PROCTOR: There were both -- they were a match. They were both black Nike sneakers with the white logo.
MR. LALLY: Now you had talked to first responders, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that included Firefighter Flumatti?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And that included Sergeant Goode?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: You had done interviews with regard to Brian Albert, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Jennifer McCabe, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Matthew McCabe, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: The defendant?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And other troopers from your unit had also interviewed Kerrie Roberts, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So you're aware of statements that were attributed by Ms. Roberts and Ms. McCabe to the defendant as far as what she told them earlier that morning?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And you're aware that statements that Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts had made to troopers in regard to what they had observed that morning?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you aware that both Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts indicated in interviews on June 29 that when they got to 34 Fairview Road they could not see Mr. O'Keefe's body, however the defendant sort of bolted out of the back seat of the vehicle directly over to Mr. O'Keefe's body?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: You can answer differently, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: With respect to the statements from Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts with regard to their arrival at 34 Fairview at around 6:00 a.m. in the morning, what, if anything, stood out to you or were you aware of in relation to those statements?
MR. PROCTOR: From those statement as Ms. Roberts was driving down Fairview, Ms. McCabe was in the passenger seat, Ms. Read was in the back. Obviously, white out conditions. As they're coming down, like, that slight hill getting just before the left side of the property, Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts indicated that Ms. Read said, "There he is. I see him. I see him." And Ms. Read -- I'm sorry -- Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts didn't know what Ms. Read was talking about. They stopped the car. Ms. Read ran directly over to John O'Keefe's body, and even when Ms. Read had exited the vehicle, Ms. McCabe and Ms. Roberts still didn't know what was going on and what she was running to.
MR. LALLY: Now, were you aware from your conversation with Firefighter Flumatti that the defendant stated I hit him to -- in the presence of Firefighter Flumatti earlier that morning?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And were you also aware of statements the defendant made to other first responders about her being or getting into an argument with Mr. O'Keefe as she was dropping him off at 34 Fairview indicating the last time she saw him?
MR. PROCTOR: Later on, subsequent interviews.
MR. LALLY: So at the time that you’re sending these text communications within this group chat in the later part of the evening of January 29, 2022, what is it that you did know in relation to your investigation with regard to Ms. Read, the defendant, and/or anyone else?
MR. PROCTOR: All right. So we knew the last person seen with Mr. O'Keefe alive was Ms. Read. We knew they were traveling to Fairview Road. Witnesses stated they saw an SUV out front of the house that went from one side to the other. Ms. McCabe was texting John, "Park behind me," things of that nature. John never went into the house. And then the following morning, Ms. Read, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. McCabe located Mr. O'Keefe on the front lawn. I observed those injuries at the hospital, the one sneaker. Later on in the day, the SERT team along with Detective Lieutenant Tully found broken taillight pieces that matched Ms. Read's taillight as well as the missing sneaker that matched Mr. O'Keefe's vehicle, some inconsistent statements that Ms. Read had provided to Sergeant Bukhenik and I.
MR. LALLY: So at the time that you made those comments, disparaging comments in regard to Ms. Read in the context of those communication with your friends, as inexcusable, as unprofessional as those comments are, the information that you had was that Ms. Read had struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle --
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, you got to watch the form, Mr. Lally. That's sustained.
MR. LALLY: At the time that you made those inexcusable and unprofessional comments, what did you believe the defendant had done to Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PROCTOR: I believed based on all the physical evidence and facts, Mr. O'Keefe got out of that vehicle holding that cocktail glass he walked out of the Waterfall bar with, Ms. Read pulled ahead and then backed into him and struck him with her vehicle and then left.
MR. LALLY: And then came back five and half hours later, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Nothing further.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Very briefly, Your Honor.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
MR. JACKSON: So you think that your assessment, personal assessment, that Karen Read had struck this officer with a car gave you license to call her a cunt?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Right?
MR. PROCTOR: Based on the evidence, sir, my emotions got the best of me. So it was in poor taste. Yes. It was inappropriate, juvenile, but it was my emotions had gotten the best of me.
MR. JACKSON: And you called her a whack job?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Gave you license to call her that, too?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Gave you license to say to your friends, oh, no, no, no, she's fucked, right?
MR. PROCTOR: That's what I wrote.
MR. JACKSON: Gave you license to say that she's a retard?
MR. PROCTOR: Again, another disgusting comment.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, you had an agenda from moment one, did you not?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have an agenda?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained. Same question.
MR. JACKSON: I thought it was a good one the first time.
MR. JACKSON: So the fact that you believed personally that your narrative was that she hit him with a car, you get to talk about her leaky balloon knot, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You indicated on cross-examination that you saw a video at 8:22 a.m. with some damage to Ms. Read's right rear taillight, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Is 8:22 before or after 5:07 a.m.?
MR. PROCTOR: After.
MR. JACKSON: You also said that you had no idea where Kevin Albert lived, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: But you did say about getting his badge to him after that drunken night with him that you'd just leave it in your mailbox, right?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. PROCTOR: Yes, my mailbox.
MR. JACKSON: Yeah. So obviously knew where you lived?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And then you said, "There is no evidence whatsoever," your words, no evidence whatsoever. You talked about Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Colin Albert, no evidence whatsoever that they were involved in the death of John O'Keefe, right?
MR. PROCTOR: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Trooper Proctor, you're the one responsible for gathering the evidence, correct?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. JACKSON: Right?
MR. PROCTOR: I am one part of a greater group of detectives that gathers evidence. I'm just one part of that unit. You're the pointy end of the spear, aren't you?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Sustained.
MR. JACKSON: You're the case officer, the lead detective, correct?
MR. PROCTOR: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Sort of like the fox guarding the hen house, isn't it?
MR. LALLY: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's sustained, Mr. Jackson. Do you have anything else?
MR. JACKSON: Nothing. Thank you.
(End of requested testimony.)