Jurors in the retrial of Karen Read on Monday heard a spate of sexist messages the lead investigator of the case sent his friends, after the judge ruled to allow the since-fired Massachusetts State Police trooper’s texts into evidence. “She’s a whack job cnt,” Michael Proctor wrote about Read, according to testimony Monday by his childhood friend, Jonathan Diamandis, who was on the group chat where Proctor sent the message. “Yeah, she’s a babe,” Proctor said, less than 24 hours into the investigation of the death of Read’s boyfriend, John O’Keefe. “Weird Fall River accent though. No a.” The contents of the text messages – which were notably presented to jurors under cross-examination by Massachusetts prosecutors and not Read’s defense attorneys – were publicly known, having been presented at Read’s first trial, which ended with a hung jury. But this is the first time jurors in her second trial have heard them. In a hearing last week outside the presence of the jury, the defense signaled the texts were important for helping jurors understand Proctor’s state of mind. Prosecutors sought to exclude a presentation of the messages through Diamandis, arguing the defense should have to put the former trooper on the stand – an idea defense attorney David Yannetti appeared to resist. Monday, Judge Beverly Cannone sided with the defense. Prosecutors have accused Read of drunkenly striking O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a Canton, Massachusetts, home in January 2022. But Read’s defense claims she was framed by other off-duty law enforcement who were inside that home, alleging they killed O’Keefe and conspired to frame her. Proctor is a key figure in the case: While he led the investigation into O’Keefe’s death, his text messages have been used by Read’s defense attorneys to paint a picture of a flawed and biased investigation. Jurors have already heard testimony about sexist texts the investigator sent his colleagues – including his superiors – at the Massachusetts State Police, in which he said he had found “no nudes” during a search of Read’s cellphone. State police announced Proctor had been relieved of duty last July, the same day Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial. In March, weeks before Read’s retrial began, the agency announced he was fired following an internal review. A MSP trial board determined Proctor had committed several violations of MSP policy, including sending inappropriate text messages about a suspect and providing sensitive or confidential information about an investigation to individuals who were not law enforcement, according to a personnel order obtained by CNN. The board also found Proctor had created the appearance of bias in his dealings with a homicide suspect, and/or brought himself and the agency into disrepute. An attorney for Proctor declined to comment Monday. Last year, during the first trial, Proctor apologized on the stand for the “unprofessional” comments. Read has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. ‘Do I have to say these words out loud?’ Diamandis testified Monday he has known Proctor for about 30 years, going back to middle school. The two remain close friends, Diamandis said, and he confirmed he and Proctor were on a text message chain with several other friends from high school. When Yannetti presented him with a document, Diamandis confirmed it contained a portion of the approximately 38,000 messages on that text chain. Aside from the messages that disparaged the defendant, others showed Proctor sharing with his friends details about the victim and the investigation more broadly. At one point, Proctor signaled that whether Read struck O’Keefe intentionally or not, “That’s another animal we won’t be able to prove.” On cross-examination, special prosecutor Hank Brennan sought to have Diamandis read the texts aloud. But when Brennan tried to have him read the texts that referred to Read as a “whack job” and her looks, the witness declined. “I’m not really comfortable reading these,” he said. “Do I have to say these words out loud?” Ultimately, the court decided to have Brennan read aloud the text messages, with the prosecutor asking Diamandis to confirm their content. “She’s fked,” Proctor wrote just before 11:07 p.m. on January 29, 2022 – less than 24 hours after the commonwealth says Read struck O’Keefe with her vehicle. Someone else in the chain responded, “No a btch,” and Proctor responded with a “laugh” reaction, Diamandis confirmed. Still, while the texts were crude and offensive, they never indicated Proctor committed misconduct in the case, Diamandis said under questioning by Brennan. “In your conversations with Mr. Proctor,” Brennan asked, “has he ever suggested that he planted evidence in this case or any other case?” “No,” Diamandis said. “In your conversations with Mr. Proctor, has he ever suggested framing a defendant, including this defendant?” “Absolutely not,” the witness said. “In your conversations with Mr. Proctor, has he ever suggested tampering with evidence in this case or in any other case?” “No, absolutely not.” Proctor has not been called to testify Proctor’s texts were entered into evidence Monday as questions swirl about whether the former state trooper himself will be forced to take the stand. The commonwealth did not call Proctor to testify while presenting its case in chief – a notable decision, considering he was the lead investigator. Instead, they called Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik, who testified to much of the investigation, saying any homicide case required a team effort. In his opening statement, defense attorney Alan Jackson likened Proctor to a “cancer” that had infected the entire case. But the defense has signaled in recent days resistance to the idea of calling him to the stand, though he remains on its list of potential witnesses. Last Friday, while Brennan argued the defense should have to call Proctor to admit his text messages, Yannetti said that was the defense’s choice to make. He contended the commonwealth wanted to force the defense to call a witness “that they do not have confidence in to call themselves.” “It’s unheard of in a murder case that you don’t call the lead investigator, but that’s what happened in this case,” Yannetti said. “We should not be forced to call Michael Proctor so that Mr. Brennan can then cross-examine him and lead him through basically his entire closing argument.” This is a developing story and will be updated.
Prosecutors present fired investigator’s sexist texts in Karen Read’s retrial as defense chooses not to read them
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Sexist Texts from Lead Investigator Presented in Karen Read Retrial"
CNN
7.0
TruthLens AI Summary
In the retrial of Karen Read, jurors were exposed to a series of sexist messages sent by Michael Proctor, the lead investigator of the case, which were allowed into evidence by the presiding judge. Proctor's texts, shared with friends shortly after the death of Read's boyfriend, John O’Keefe, included derogatory comments about Read, such as referring to her as a "whack job c*nt" and discussing her physical appearance. These texts had been previously introduced during Read's first trial, which ended in a hung jury, but this was the first time they were presented in the current trial. The defense argued that these messages illustrate Proctor's biased mindset, which they believe undermines the integrity of the investigation. Despite the prosecutor's objections to the method of introducing the texts, the judge ruled in favor of the defense's approach. The prosecution has accused Read of causing O’Keefe's death while driving under the influence, whereas the defense claims that she is being framed by fellow law enforcement officers present at the scene of the incident.
The introduction of Proctor's texts has raised questions about the integrity of the investigation, as they depict a troubling perspective from a key figure in the case. Proctor was relieved of his duties last year and subsequently fired due to several policy violations, including inappropriate messaging regarding suspects and sharing confidential information. While the defense has painted Proctor as a significant flaw within the investigation, they have hesitated to call him as a witness, suggesting the prosecution's confidence in his testimony is lacking. During the proceedings, a friend of Proctor, Jonathan Diamandis, testified about the messages, confirming their crude nature but asserting that they did not indicate any misconduct by Proctor in terms of tampering with evidence or framing Read. The defense has indicated that it may not call Proctor to testify, creating a unique situation in this murder case where the lead investigator has not been presented by either side. This development adds complexity to the ongoing trial and raises concerns about the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation into O’Keefe’s death.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a significant aspect of the ongoing retrial of Karen Read, particularly focusing on the introduction of sexist text messages from the lead investigator, Michael Proctor. By highlighting these messages, the narrative aims to cast doubt on the integrity of the investigation and the motivations behind it. This situation raises important questions regarding bias within law enforcement and the potential impact of personal attitudes on official proceedings.
Purpose of the Article
This news piece serves to inform the public about the controversial elements of the retrial, particularly the use of Proctor's text messages. By bringing these messages to light, the article seeks to emphasize potential bias in the investigation and raise awareness about the treatment of women in legal contexts. This could be an effort to underscore the need for accountability and reform in law enforcement practices.
Public Perception
The article likely aims to evoke strong reactions from the community regarding the sexism displayed in Proctor's texts. By framing the narrative around these messages, the piece may encourage public discourse on gender bias, especially in law enforcement and judicial settings. The implication that an investigator's personal biases could influence a criminal case could lead to mistrust in the legal system.
Hidden Agendas
While the article does not explicitly suggest any hidden agendas, the focus on the sexist texts could be seen as a strategic move to divert attention from the intricacies of the case itself. By emphasizing Proctor's misconduct, there might be an attempt to shift the narrative away from the specifics of the legal arguments surrounding Read's actions.
Manipulative Elements
The article’s reliance on emotional language and evocative examples of Proctor’s texts serves to enhance its impact. This strategy can be seen as manipulative, as it aims to provoke outrage and sympathy rather than merely report facts. The choice to include such language suggests an effort to sway public opinion in favor of Read.
Truthfulness of the Content
The article is based on testimonies and evidence presented in court, making it fundamentally factual. However, the interpretation of these facts, particularly the portrayal of Proctor's texts, could be seen as subjective. The emphasis on the sexist nature of the messages may lead some readers to view the investigation as inherently flawed.
Cultural Context
This article taps into broader societal issues regarding gender dynamics, particularly within male-dominated fields such as law enforcement. It may resonate more with communities advocating for women's rights and reform in the justice system, aiming to highlight the challenges faced by women in similar situations.
Potential Societal Impact
The revelations in this article could influence public opinion and policy regarding gender bias in law enforcement. This may lead to increased calls for training on sexism and bias within police departments, as well as greater scrutiny of investigations involving female suspects.
Economic and Political Ramifications
While the direct economic impact may be minimal, the public discourse generated by such findings could affect local politics, particularly regarding law enforcement oversight. Politicians may face pressure to address issues of accountability within the police force.
AI Involvement
The writing style of the article suggests a human author rather than AI involvement, focusing on emotional engagement rather than purely objective reporting. However, if AI tools were used, they may have influenced the choice of language to evoke a stronger emotional response.
Conclusion on Reliability
Overall, the article appears to be reliable in terms of reporting on court proceedings, but the framing and emphasis on Proctor's texts may skew public perception. The narrative serves a particular purpose, which is to highlight gender bias in the investigation and potentially influence societal attitudes toward the case and similar situations.