Karen Read Trial (Pt 56.2) — Trooper Michael Proctor – Cross Examination 💥

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, in the summer of 2022, August 17th specifically, you were sitting at your desk, presumably alone at your office, at about 10 p.m. at night, going through my client's personal cell phone, correct? [00:00:18] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:00:20] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, you were sitting there texting with your friends and colleagues at Massachusetts State Police about you going through her personal cell phone, is that right? Correct, sir. And that included Trooper DiCicco, is that right? [00:00:33] Speaker 2: DiCicco, yes, sir. [00:00:35] Speaker 1: Trooper Fanning, Trooper Buknik, Trooper Moore, and Trooper Kaczkowski? [00:00:40] Speaker 2: Kaczkowski. [00:00:41] Speaker 1: Tell me that again? [00:00:42] Speaker 2: Kaczkowski. [00:00:43] Speaker 1: Kaczkowski. [00:00:44] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:00:44] Speaker 1: All right, all the consonants are silent, fair enough. Trooper Fanning and Trooper Buknik are your supervisors? [00:00:53] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:00:57] Speaker 1: And you were bragging to all five of them. And you were going through Karen Reed's cell phone about 9.45 at night. [00:01:04] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:01:06] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [00:01:07] Speaker 1: Is that right? [00:01:08] Speaker 2: No, I wasn't bragging, sir. [00:01:12] Speaker 1: How did you refer to Ms. Reed in that text exchange where you informed them that you were going through her phone? [00:01:19] Speaker 2: I used regrettable language instead of going through his retarded client's phone right now. [00:01:26] Speaker 1: You were shown a photograph of my colleague, Mr. Unetti, correct? [00:01:31] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:01:32] Speaker 1: May I approach? Yes. Same document. I need a copy. Your Honor, I think the court has the copy that I was going to use. [00:01:43] Speaker 4: I thought I gave him back to you. [00:01:45] Speaker 1: You had received a photograph. Actually, Your Honor, if I could, I would ask that this document be marked as next in order. The, assuming the witness verifies its authenticity. [00:02:04] Speaker 4: So, so go ahead. [00:02:06] Speaker 1: Do you recognize this document? [00:02:09] Speaker 2: I do, sir. [00:02:09] Speaker 1: Same document that you were shown, a copy of the same document that you were shown by Mr. Unetti, correct? Mr. Lally. [00:02:15] Speaker 4: Mr. Lally. [00:02:16] Speaker 1: I've done that twice. Mr. Lally. [00:02:18] Speaker 4: Correct. [00:02:18] Speaker 1: All right. Is that a true and accurate reflection of the text messages that you were exchanging with Chris Moore, Jeff Krakowski, John Fanning, Vito DiCicco, and Yuri Buchanan? Yes. I'd ask that this be marked. [00:02:36] Speaker 4: May I any objection? [00:02:37] Speaker 5: Yes, Your Honor. [00:02:38] Speaker 4: All right. I'll see you. What's not down there? Have that, please? Yes, ma'am. [00:02:43] Speaker 1: May I inquire, Your Honor? Yes. Trooper Proctor, Trooper DiCicco had sent you a photograph of my colleague, Mr. Unetti, correct? [00:02:59] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:03:02] Speaker 1: Your Honor, because of the technical issue, I'm not going to display on the television. May I display this hard copy, briefly? Sure. Thank you. You see that, gentlemen? [00:03:14] Speaker 2: I do, sir. [00:03:15] Speaker 1: Is that the photograph that you received? [00:03:17] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:03:18] Speaker 1: Is that what you referred to on direct examination with Mr. Lally about receiving a photograph of Mr. Unetti? Correct. And then your response was what? [00:03:30] Speaker 2: I hate that man. I truly hate that man. [00:03:36] Speaker 1: Actually, your response was, I'm going through his retarded client's phone right now, correct? [00:03:43] Speaker 2: Yes, after the picture, sir. Yes. [00:03:46] Speaker 1: Who's the retarded client? [00:03:48] Speaker 2: I was referring to Ms. Reed, again, unprofessional language. [00:03:53] Speaker 1: I'm asking for who you were referring to. Ms. Reed. I know you've got an explanation. Who was it that you were referring to as retarded? [00:03:59] Speaker 2: Ms. Reed. [00:04:00] Speaker 1: Karen Reed, the woman sitting to my left. [00:04:02] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:04:03] Speaker 1: The subject of your investigation as a professional, correct? [00:04:06] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:04:06] Speaker 1: The person that you were referring to as an unbiased, objective investigator, the person that you were investigating, you referred to, to your bosses, as retarded. Correct? [00:04:15] Speaker 2: Again, poor language on my part. [00:04:17] Speaker 1: Poor language is one way to put it. Completely offensive is another way to put it. Right? [00:04:22] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:04:23] Speaker 4: I've got to sustain that, Mr. Jackson. [00:04:29] Speaker 1: After you referred to my client as retarded, then you decided to make a comment about Mr. Yannetti, her lawyer, correct? [00:04:43] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:04:43] Speaker 1: And what did you say about Mr. Yannetti again? [00:04:46] Speaker 2: I hate that man. I truly hate that man. [00:04:48] Speaker 1: I hate that man. I truly hate him. Correct? Correct. You didn't say I dislike him. I disagree with him. You said I hate him. Correct? [00:04:57] Speaker 3: Correct, sir. [00:04:58] Speaker 1: That's a visceral response to someone who's just doing a job. Correct? [00:05:02] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:05:04] Speaker 1: Sustained. You can ask it differently. Sure. Let me ask it this way. Were you upset or annoyed or pissed off that Karen Reed had gotten representation, legal representation, to represent her? [00:05:16] Speaker 2: No, not at all. That's her right. [00:05:20] Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you this. In August of 2022, you said you absolutely hate him. Correct? [00:05:28] Speaker 2: I don't know if I used absolutely. I didn't use absolutely, sir. [00:05:33] Speaker 1: You used truly, correct? [00:05:34] Speaker 2: Truly, yes. [00:05:36] Speaker 1: How do you feel about him now? He's sitting right there. [00:05:38] Speaker 2: I still don't care for him now. I'll let it stand. [00:05:45] Speaker 1: What did you tell your colleagues that you were looking for as you sat at almost 10 p.m. at night on a Wednesday night, August 17, 2022, looking through Karen Reed's phone? [00:05:57] Speaker 2: I didn't tell them I was looking through anything. They knew I was going through Ms. Reed's phone. I provided an inappropriate joke as an update. They knew I was going through location data, text messages, Google searches. But like I mentioned earlier, I had to stop. [00:06:11] Speaker 1: Except, Tripper Proctor, none of that really professional-sounding stuff ended up in your comments to your bosses, did it? [00:06:20] Speaker 2: Again, it was a poor joke. [00:06:22] Speaker 1: Is that yes or no? [00:06:23] Speaker 2: It did not, no. [00:06:24] Speaker 1: It did not. No, sir. As a matter of fact, what did you write after you talked about going through the, quote, retarded client's phone? [00:06:32] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:06:33] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [00:06:37] Speaker 2: No nudes so far. [00:06:39] Speaker 1: No nudes so far, correct? [00:06:42] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:06:43] Speaker 1: And you said that to your bosses. [00:06:45] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:06:46] Speaker 1: You were looking for naked photographs of Ms. Reed on a Wednesday night as you sat in your office at 9.44 p.m., correct? [00:06:58] Speaker 2: No, not correct. [00:07:00] Speaker 1: Let me ask you a question. Have you ever looked for naked photos of a male suspect that you were investigating? [00:07:07] Speaker 2: I don't look for naked photos in anyone's phones. [00:07:09] Speaker 1: But you said you were looking for nudes of Ms. Reed, correct? [00:07:12] Speaker 2: Like I said, Mr. Jackson, it was an inappropriate joke. [00:07:16] Speaker 1: Sir, this is a citizen. She's a woman. You were supposed to be objectively investigating. Does your text message to your colleagues at Massachusetts State Police reflect an objective investigation of a citizen? [00:07:32] Speaker ?: Objection. [00:07:33] Speaker 4: You can get part of that question and ask it again. [00:07:37] Speaker 1: Do you believe that your text messages were reflective of an objective investigator? [00:07:44] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:07:45] Speaker 4: I'll allow that. Do you believe that, Trooper Proctor? [00:07:48] Speaker 2: I believe poor jokes have, in unprofessional language, have no bearing on the integrity and the facts and physical evidence of this case. [00:07:55] Speaker 1: It's not that they don't have any bearing on the facts and integrity. It's that they have no place in a professional investigation because it shows bias, right? [00:08:04] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:08:05] Speaker 4: So I have to sustain that as asked. Go ahead and ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. [00:08:12] Speaker 1: You weren't so much as objectively investigating Karen Reid as objectifying her, correct? [00:08:18] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:08:19] Speaker 2: I'll allow that. [00:08:21] Speaker 1: Is that right? [00:08:22] Speaker 2: Rephrase the question, please. [00:08:23] Speaker 1: You weren't so much as objectively investigating her as objectifying her in those moments, correct? [00:08:34] Speaker 2: Again, Mr. Jackson, it was a poor choice of words and a joke that I should not have texted out. But from the start of the investigation, we didn't know what we had. [00:08:45] Speaker 1: And your Trooper Proctor, your point in saying no nudes so far to your colleagues in Massachusetts State Police was to suggest that you were looking for nudes and you'd update them when you found them, correct? [00:09:00] Speaker 2: Incorrect. [00:09:02] Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you a question. Did you find any nudes of Karen Reid? [00:09:07] Speaker 2: Again, I didn't go through the photos, sir. [00:09:09] Speaker 1: Did you find any nudes of Karen Reid? [00:09:11] Speaker 2: I didn't go through the photos, sir. [00:09:12] Speaker 1: You weren't successful in your quest. [00:09:14] Speaker 2: I came across text messages from Ms. Reid to another attorney on January 29th, so I had to stop looking through her phone. [00:09:21] Speaker 1: So you got sidetracked before you could get to the naked pictures of Ms. Reid. Is that what you're saying? [00:09:27] Speaker 4: Sustained. [00:09:28] Speaker 1: To be clear, when you sent those text messages on that group chat, those text messages included, as we said, or as you said, not one, but two of your supervisors, correct? [00:09:43] Speaker ?: Correct. [00:09:44] Speaker 1: Were you ever reprimanded for your conduct in sending that text message? [00:09:49] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:09:50] Speaker 4: So that's sustained. Do we need to go to sidebar based on what you told me earlier? [00:09:55] Speaker 1: We do not. [00:09:56] Speaker 4: Okay, so... [00:09:57] Speaker 1: I'll ask it a different way. Did either Trooper Fanning or Trooper Buchanik dress you down in a responsive text message, in that text thread, for doing something so abhorrent as looking for nudes or referring to nudes of a female suspect or subject of your investigation? Did that ever happen? [00:10:19] Speaker 2: Not that I can recall. [00:10:22] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, in reference to one of the text messages in this same string, your boss, Yuri Buchanik, actually responded to the photo of Mr. Yunetti, didn't he? [00:10:38] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:10:39] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [00:10:48] Speaker 2: He did, sir. [00:10:53] Speaker 1: After you received the photo, that's when you said, I'm, quote, funny, I'm going through his retarded client's phone. Is that right? [00:11:02] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:11:03] Speaker 4: I'll allow this, but not too many more. Sure. [00:11:06] Speaker 1: Is that correct? It's on the top of page 2685. [00:11:09] Speaker 2: That's correct. [00:11:10] Speaker 1: And Yuri Buchanik liked that comment. Funny, I'm going through his retarded client's phone. Did it? [00:11:19] Speaker 2: I see you laughed at an image here, sir. I can't tell if he liked that comment, sir. [00:11:28] Speaker 4: May I approach? Yes. [00:11:31] Speaker 2: I don't know if it's just because it's faded or... Yeah, my copy's faded. [00:11:36] Speaker 1: Top 2685. You can use my copy if that helps. [00:11:39] Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. [00:11:42] Speaker 1: What do you see on the top of that page? [00:11:44] Speaker 2: That it... Sergeant Buchanik liked it. [00:11:46] Speaker 1: Liked what? [00:11:47] Speaker 2: The... I'm going through his retarded client's phone, sir. [00:11:51] Speaker 1: May I approach? Yes. [00:11:52] Speaker 2: I'll take my copy. There you go. [00:11:59] Speaker 1: So your supervisors at Massachusetts State Police not only didn't ride you for making comments like this, encouraged it. [00:12:06] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [00:12:13] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, this is your direct chain of command. Is that right? You're a Buchanik? [00:12:17] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:12:21] Speaker 1: Did you believe that your conduct was a misuse of your authority and power as you were going through her phone in August of 2022? [00:12:30] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:12:31] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [00:12:34] Speaker 2: No. I had a warrant signed by a district clerk, Stoughton District Clerk, to go through Ms. Reed's phone. I don't think it was an abuse of power. I had every right to go through that phone. [00:12:46] Speaker 1: Did the warrant say anything about looking for nudes of my client? [00:12:51] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:12:52] Speaker 4: Did it say anything about that? No, Your Honor. Okay, next question. [00:12:56] Speaker 1: So that would be an abuse of the power that was given to you by the court, correct? [00:13:01] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [00:13:05] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, you'd agree that the hallmark of any good investigation, as you've been taught and others in Massachusetts State Police have been taught, is that the investigation and the investigator have to be fair. They have to be impartial. Would you agree with that? [00:13:23] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:13:24] Speaker 1: Meaning that the investigation has to be free of conflicts, right? [00:13:29] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:13:30] Speaker 1: The investigator has to be free of conflicts, right? [00:13:33] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:13:34] Speaker 1: The investigation has to be free of bias, is that right? [00:13:37] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:13:38] Speaker 1: You can't be biased against the person that you're investigating. That would compromise the entire thing, wouldn't it? [00:13:43] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:13:47] Speaker 1: Basically, you follow the evidence. You're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it takes you, right? [00:13:52] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:13:53] Speaker 1: Good or bad, top to bottom, just follow the evidence and report it back. That's how an investigation is supposed to be run, isn't it? [00:14:00] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:14:00] Speaker 1: And these are things that you learn early on at Massachusetts State Police Academy. And then in your detective training, isn't that right? [00:14:06] Speaker 2: It is. [00:14:06] Speaker 1: Literally, it's part of an oath that you took at the academy that you will, quote, faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent on you as a Massachusetts State Police trooper, right? Yes, sir. You swore that oath. [00:14:22] Speaker 2: I did. [00:14:24] Speaker 1: When you start an investigation, everybody in that investigation should be treated exactly the same. Don't you believe that's true? Correct. Everybody, have you ever heard the phrase, everybody's a suspect until they're not, right? I have. [00:14:37] Speaker 5: Jackson. [00:14:37] Speaker 1: Sustained. It's especially important early in an investigation, before all of the facts are known, that the investigator is not compromised by bias, prejudice, right? Correct. Most important early in the investigation, because that's when the most things are up in the air. There's the cloud, the fog of not knowing exactly what the truth is, right? [00:15:04] Speaker 4: Jackson. Sustained. [00:15:06] Speaker 1: In other words, trooper proctor, you don't get to pick a suspect and then try to find evidence to support your choice, right? [00:15:15] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:15:18] Speaker 1: But in this case, it's exactly what you did, isn't it? [00:15:21] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [00:15:23] Speaker 4: All right, Mr. Jackson, why don't we end for today? All right, go right ahead, Mr. Jackson. [00:15:30] Speaker 1: Trooper proctor, I'm going to ask you if you wouldn't mind to turn to tab two in the binder in front of you. Can you take a look at the face page of what's under tab two and tell me if you recognize that? [00:15:46] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. It's a private text thread with high school friends. [00:15:52] Speaker 1: And this includes nine participants, nine chat participants that you engaged with? [00:15:57] Speaker 2: That's correct. [00:15:58] Speaker 1: Those participants include people by the name of Bird, Whitey, and Doc, correct? [00:16:03] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:16:03] Speaker 1: 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? Yes. So this is a group text or a group chat with you and eight of your high school friends about this investigation, correct? Yes. Trooper proctor, you never thought when you were engaged with these other individuals that this particular set of chats would ever become public. [00:16:26] Speaker 2: Did you know, I do not. [00:16:29] Speaker 1: I want to take a look at page 2527. If you could turn, that's on the bottom right of the, of the document in tab two. Do you recognize, I'm sorry, do you have that page in front of you? [00:16:42] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:16:43] Speaker 1: You recognize that this chat, this group chat was taking place on January 29th at about 1052 PM, correct? [00:16:51] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:16:52] Speaker 1: 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? [00:17:04] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:17:04] Speaker 1: First of all, you indicated on Monday that you're CHIP, is that right? [00:17:09] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:17:09] Speaker 1: 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? [00:17:31] Speaker 2: At this point, it's 16 hours later, sir. Not a few. [00:17:36] Speaker 1: 16 is a few hours, correct? I'm not talking about days later. [00:17:41] Speaker 2: It's, it was about 16 hours later, sir. [00:17:43] Speaker 1: Correct. And you identified John O'Keefe as the Boston police officer who has fallen in the yard at 34 Fairview, correct? [00:17:52] Speaker ?: Correct. [00:17:53] Speaker 1: 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? Yes. You knew, Trooper Proctor, that there was brass that wanted this case wrapped up quickly and efficiently. Isn't that right? [00:18:18] Speaker ?: Jackson. [00:18:19] Speaker 4: Oh, wow, that, is that what you were thinking? [00:18:22] Speaker 2: No. The, uh, people wanted answers, sir. [00:18:25] Speaker 1: They wanted it, they didn't just want answers, they wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean? [00:18:30] Speaker 2: Uh, that's as soon as possible. [00:18:32] Speaker 1: Right. And you were at, uh, you were texting this to your high school friends, again, 16 hours into this investigation, right? Correct. 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? Correct. In this text exchange, let's turn to 2532, actually. Do you have that in front of you? I do. In this text exchange at 1056 PM, your buddy Berg writes, I'm sure the owners of the house will receive some shit, correct? Correct. How did you take that to mean? Did you, did you take that to mean that he could get in trouble? [00:19:23] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what my, my friend was getting at. Um. [00:19:27] Speaker 1: Well, you had some idea. [00:19:29] Speaker 2: Yeah. I, maybe. [00:19:30] Speaker 1: The owners of the house isn't going to get any shit for this, right? [00:19:32] Speaker 2: That's how I interpreted it. [00:19:33] Speaker 1: Yeah. You interpreted it like he's not going to get in any trouble. He's not going to be a suspect, correct? [00:19:38] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:19:39] Speaker 1: And he's not going to be implicated in any way. Is that right? [00:19:41] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:19:42] Speaker 1: And your answer was one word, correct? Yes. What was that word? Nope. And then you followed that up with an explanation as to why you said no, didn't you? [00:19:54] Speaker 2: That wasn't the explanation why I said no. I simply said, homeowner's a Boston cop too, meaning Mr. O'Keefe was a Boston cop. The homeowner was a Boston cop as well. [00:20:04] Speaker 1: The question that preceded your answer, nope. The homeowners of Boston cop too was the homeowners going to get some shit for this, correct? [00:20:15] Speaker 2: That's not what I meant with that text. [00:20:17] Speaker 1: That's what you wrote. [00:20:19] Speaker 2: Not what I, not what I meant, sir. [00:20:21] Speaker 1: All right. Let's take it in order. Question. Oh, goodness. The Boston cop, I'm sorry. The homeowners 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 note. [00:20:40] Speaker 2: No, that's just saying he's a Boston cop as well, Mr. O'Keefe. [00:20:43] Speaker 1: And that's why he's not going to get any shit, correct, Trooper Proctor? [00:20:49] Speaker 2: 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. [00:20:55] Speaker 1: And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation. Yes. Just in a day. [00:21:00] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:21:01] Speaker 1: To your satisfaction. [00:21:02] Speaker 2: To my satisfaction and to the members of my unit. And you haven't been to the crime scene. [00:21:04] Speaker 4: So let him finish. We didn't get the, finish your answer. [00:21:08] Speaker 2: To my satisfaction and to all the members of my unit who investigated the, that day. Caught some speculation. [00:21:16] Speaker 4: 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. Yes, ma'am. [00:21:24] Speaker 1: The fact of the matter is, you hadn't been to the crime scene by the time you wrote this text, correct? [00:21:29] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:21:30] Speaker 1: You hadn't been inside the home, correct? No. You had investigated or, sorry, you had questioned a grand total of three percipient witnesses at this point, correct? [00:21:42] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:21:43] Speaker 1: And two of the three were named McCabe, right? Correct. And one of the three was named Albert, correct? [00:21:50] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:21:51] Speaker 1: 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? [00:21:59] Speaker 2: That's not what I meant by that. [00:22:01] Speaker 1: At 10.57, Bird goes on to write, he, the homeowner, must have been a puddle to accomplish that. And then he writes, who's the homeowner? And then he writes, I hope not, but I can see it, correct? [00:22:16] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:22:17] Speaker 1: A puddle means drunk, correct? [00:22:19] Speaker 2: That's a term for it, yes. [00:22:21] Speaker 1: In other words, Bird wrote that the homeowner must have been so drunk, so wasted to have killed him, correct? [00:22:27] Speaker 2: Jackson. [00:22:28] Speaker 4: Do you know what that means? Do you know what that text means? [00:22:32] Speaker 2: Just the puddle part, Your Honor, that term. [00:22:35] Speaker 4: All right, so he can answer that. [00:22:38] Speaker 1: And the puddle part means drunk or wasted, right? Yes. And what Bird actually wrote was he must have been a puddle to accomplish that, correct? [00:22:52] Speaker 2: That's what he wrote. [00:22:53] Speaker 1: And then you write back, quote, she waffled him. I looked at his body at the hospital, right? Correct. 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 him, correct? Correct? [00:23:15] Speaker 4: Jackson. So sustained. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. [00:23:20] Speaker 1: Did you answer, she waffled him. I looked at his body at the hospital. [00:23:24] Speaker 2: I did answer that, yes. [00:23:25] Speaker 1: And then Bird questioned, she waffled him, correct? [00:23:32] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:23:32] Speaker 1: And then you responded, he was banged up. Is that right? Yes. Then a person with the phone number 0095 wrote, I thought he was drunk. Did he get beat up? You see that? [00:23:45] Speaker 2: I do. [00:23:46] Speaker 1: And you wrote, nope. Is that right? Correct. Yet again, this is before 11 o'clock at night on January 29th, 2022, some 16 hours into your investigation. Is that right? Yes. 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? [00:24:12] Speaker 2: Yes. Based on the evidence, my office uncovered that day, the one shoot discovered at the scene, the one shoot at the hospital, Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, the broken taillight pieces underneath the snow. [00:24:26] Speaker 1: Super Proctor, I didn't ask for information. I asked, did you, in your mind, have this case wrapped up? Was it cut and dry in your mind? [00:24:33] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:24:36] Speaker 1: Bird then writes, so the owner of the house was a woman, sorry, was a woman cop that beat him, question mark, right? [00:24:44] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:24:45] Speaker 1: And then you wrote, that's what I initially thought after talking to Canton paramedics. Is that right? Yes. And then you said, then I saw the guy, correct? Correct. So what you meant by that, Trooper Proctor, was according to you, based on your conversations, your initial conversations with the paramedics, the first responders, you were under the impression that this was a beating death. You'd been beaten to death, correct? [00:25:14] Speaker 2: The way it was given to me, sir, was a medical. [00:25:17] Speaker 4: That's yes or no. He's going to answer the question. If you want to draw the question, you can. Go ahead. [00:25:22] Speaker 2: 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 Buchananich and I, we saw his injuries and we were kind of working through how these injuries occurred. [00:25:38] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, both you and Sergeant Buchananich believed that he had suffered the injuries as a result of a physical altercation based on information you received from the paramedics initially, correct? [00:25:52] Speaker 2: Initially, we didn't know what we had. We knew there were some significant injuries to Mr. O'Keefe, and we were still figuring out how those injuries occurred. [00:26:03] Speaker 1: Well, you just testified, initially, we didn't know what we had. Right. But 16 hours after the fact, you wrote the following sentence. That's what I initially thought after talking to Canton paramedics, correct? [00:26:16] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:26:16] Speaker 1: So, initially, you did think you knew what you had, a physical altercation leading to a death, correct? Correct. 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? [00:26:34] Speaker 3: Exactly. [00:26:34] Speaker 1: Sustained. All right. You were aware, initially, that John O'Keefe had suffered a two-inch laceration to the back of his head, correct? Yes. That resulted in a skull fracture, correct? [00:26:51] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:26:53] Speaker 1: He had a laceration over his right eye, small laceration, just under the eyebrow, correct? [00:26:57] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:26:58] Speaker 1: He had a laceration on his nose, is that right? [00:27:01] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:27:01] Speaker 1: He had patterned scratches on his right arm, abrasion, scratches, correct? [00:27:06] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:27:06] Speaker 1: And he had no injuries below the neck. [00:27:10] Speaker 2: Not that I observed, sir. [00:27:11] Speaker 1: Not a single broken bone, correct? [00:27:14] Speaker 2: Not that I was aware of. [00:27:15] Speaker 1: Not a single fracture, correct? Not that I was aware of. Not a single bruise below the neck, right? [00:27:23] Speaker 2: Not that I observed. [00:27:25] Speaker 1: Looks a lot like a physical altercation, doesn't it? [00:27:28] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:27:29] Speaker 4: Sustained. [00:27:32] Speaker 1: Bird writes, Bear lets focus, correct? [00:27:38] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:27:39] Speaker 1: Who's Bear? [00:27:40] Speaker 2: That's another nickname I have. [00:27:45] Speaker 1: 0095 writes, what does she waffled him mean? And then Bird writes, what's the story, correct? Correct. And you wrote, she hit him with her car. Is that right? [00:27:58] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:27:58] Speaker 1: 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? [00:28:10] Speaker ?: Ever. [00:28:10] Speaker 2: The pedestrian strikes I've seen have been at high speeds, 60 plus miles per hour, so I can't recall right now, top of my head, as far as injuries in the past pedestrian strikes I've attended. [00:28:36] Speaker 1: Okay. So someone, you indicated on Monday, under examination by Mr. Lally, you've seen a shoe missing. Correct. Pedestrian strikes, correct? [00:28:46] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:28:47] Speaker 1: Those are high speed, extremely high speed incidents, correct? [00:28:52] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:28:53] Speaker 1: 60 plus miles an hour, right? [00:28:56] Speaker 2: I can't recall all the pedestrian strikes I've been to as far as the miles per hour the vehicle is traveling. [00:29:02] Speaker 1: Chief Proctor, let me ask you the question again. Have you ever, yes or no, have you ever, in your experience, seen a vehicle, pedestrian incident, in which the pedestrian has no bruises? [00:29:15] Speaker 2: Jackson. [00:29:17] Speaker 4: Have you seen that? [00:29:19] Speaker 2: I can't, I can't recall. [00:29:21] Speaker 4: Okay, next question. [00:29:22] Speaker 1: After you wrote, she hit him with her car, 5051, writes, oh Jesus, and Byrd writes, okay, that's fucked up, correct? [00:29:37] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:29:38] Speaker 1: And then you wrote what? [00:29:40] Speaker 2: Intentional or not. [00:29:42] Speaker 1: Intentional or not. Is that right? Yes. Your words. Correct. 0095 then chimes in, gotcha, he was frozen in the driveway and she didn't see him, question mark, correct? [00:29:56] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:29:57] Speaker 1: And you wrote what? [00:30:00] Speaker 2: That's another animal we won't be able to prove. [00:30:02] Speaker 1: That's another animal we won't be able to prove, correct? [00:30:07] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:30:08] Speaker 1: 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? Jackson. [00:30:23] Speaker 4: Sustained. You can ask it differently. [00:30:25] Speaker 1: Did you mean by that statement that this was one of several things that you knew we would not be able to prove? [00:30:34] Speaker 2: That statement, that's another animal we won't be able to prove, references the intentional or not plot. [00:30:40] Speaker 1: You didn't care, at that point, when you wrote that, you didn't care what you could or could not prove, did you? Jackson. [00:30:47] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [00:30:49] Speaker 1: Isn't that what you meant? No. I had a narrative that you had developed and you would pursue it no matter what the proof was. That's what you meant by that statement, correct? Jackson. [00:31:02] Speaker 4: Sustained. You can ask it differently, Mr. James. [00:31:04] Speaker 1: Did you mean by that, thank you, your honor, I didn't mean to step on your words. Did you mean by that statement that you were going to pursue this case no matter what the proof might be? [00:31:15] Speaker 2: What I meant by that statement was if Ms. Reed backed into Mr. O'Keefe intentionally or not. [00:31:23] Speaker 1: 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? [00:31:39] Speaker 2: That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to the intentional or not part. [00:31:43] Speaker 1: So you're responding to your to your own statement, correct? Correct. Okay. 0095 then writes, what's the name of the Canton cop living in Canton? The other one involved, correct? Yes. In other words, that person was asking, tell me the name of the homeowner. Isn't that right? Yes. The guy that's the cop, right? Correct. And you ignored that question for a second time. Is that right? [00:32:15] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:32:16] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, not one time, not once in this entire group chat, did you disclose the name Brian Albert? Did you? [00:32:24] Speaker 2: I don't believe so. No. [00:32:25] Speaker 1: You were actively trying to hide Brian Albert's name, at least from this conversation. [00:32:31] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:32:32] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. Is that what you were trying to do? [00:32:34] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [00:32:36] Speaker 1: But you had no problem sharing John O'Keefe's name with your buddies from high school, right? Correct. And you had no problem sharing Karen Reed's name with your buddies from high school, correct? [00:32:50] Speaker 2: I don't believe I named the defendant. [00:32:53] Speaker 1: Not yet, you didn't. Later in the chat. [00:32:57] Speaker 2: Okay, correct. [00:32:59] Speaker 1: 5051 then writes, the BPD have any jurisdiction here because it was their own? Is that right? Yes. And a few texts later, if you look down a few texts, at about 11 o'clock, you see a text that starts, that starts, nah, cat. [00:33:25] Speaker 2: I do, sir, yes. [00:33:28] Speaker 1: You responded, quote, nah, N-A-H, nah, cat, K-A-T-T. It's the total opposite. They have to recuse themselves. Same with Canton, correct? [00:33:43] Speaker 2: That text ends as, they have to recuse themselves. [00:33:48] Speaker 1: You then text back. I'm sorry. Can I have a moment? [00:33:53] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:33:54] Speaker 1: I see where you're at, sir. How did you end that text? [00:33:59] Speaker 2: Same with Canton. [00:34:00] Speaker 1: Meaning Canton has to recuse itself also, correct? [00:34:02] Speaker 2: That was my understanding. [00:34:03] Speaker 1: So by 11 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 in all particulars, correct? [00:34:14] Speaker 2: That they had taken a step back from participating, yes. [00:34:16] Speaker 1: 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? [00:34:24] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:34:24] Speaker 1: 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? Check. [00:34:32] Speaker 4: Is that what you were thinking? [00:34:34] Speaker 2: There's my understanding they were not going to be involved. [00:34:38] Speaker 1: 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? [00:34:54] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:34:55] Speaker 1: And Byrd writes, something stinks, correct? Correct. And then, Trooper Proctor, you responded, yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. Isn't that right? That's right. So, in that text exchange, you were saying, yeah, we're out to make it cut and dry, correct? [00:35:18] Speaker 2: No. [00:35:18] Speaker 1: You didn't write, yeah, we're going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us. You didn't, did you? [00:35:25] Speaker 2: I did not write that. [00:35:26] Speaker 1: 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? [00:35:34] Speaker 2: I did not. [00:35:35] Speaker 1: You wrote, yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. Isn't that right? [00:35:40] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:35:40] Speaker 1: 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? Objection. [00:35:50] Speaker 4: I'm going to allow that. Is that the reason you wrote it? [00:35:52] Speaker 1: No, Your Honor. And then you indicated, we're going to put serious charges on the girl. Who did you mean by the girl, by the way? [00:36:00] Speaker 2: The defendant. [00:36:02] Speaker 1: Karen Reed? [00:36:03] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:36:06] Speaker 1: So the way that you were going to make it cut and dry, pretty simple. Just pin it on the girl, right? [00:36:13] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:36:14] Speaker 4: Is that right? [00:36:15] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. Follow the facts and the evidence from that day on the 29th. Everything led to Ms. Reed hitting Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle. [00:36:26] Speaker 1: 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? [00:36:49] Speaker 2: 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 on Saturday, had an overwhelming amount of evidence that Ms. Reed struck Mr. O'Keefe. So it didn't matter to us what their occupation was. [00:37:06] Speaker 1: We'll see. Let's keep reading, shall we? 50-51, a little further down, says, gotta be, I could only imagine what internal affairs at BPD are trying to get out there. Correct? Correct. Meaning, this person, 50-51, was opining, at least in your mind, you interpreted that as being, Boston police are going to have a lot to answer for, given the fact that another Boston police officer was found dead on that officer's lawn. Correct? [00:37:39] Speaker 2: Jackson. [00:37:40] Speaker 4: What were you thinking? [00:37:42] Speaker 2: I don't, can't speak to the mindset to that comment. I'm not, I wasn't sure how to interpret that one. [00:37:47] Speaker 4: All right, next question, Mr. Jackson. [00:37:49] Speaker 1: Then 50-51 changes gears, and he writes, is she hot at least? Correct? Yes. And what was your response to that? [00:38:06] Speaker 2: From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job, cunt. [00:38:11] Speaker 1: From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job, cunt. That's what you wrote, correct? [00:38:20] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:38:21] Speaker 1: 16 hours into this investigation. [00:38:24] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:38:25] Speaker 1: Into your objective and unbiased, thorough investigation. Correct? [00:38:29] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:38:30] Speaker 1: But sir, you didn't have all accounts, did you? [00:38:38] Speaker 2: What I meant by that was... [00:38:40] Speaker 1: Did you or did you not have all accounts in your investigation? [00:38:44] Speaker 2: The accounts we had was, Ms. Reed struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle, discovered taillight pieces at the scene. Those are the accounts we had. [00:38:52] Speaker 1: The accounts you had... I'm sorry, go ahead. [00:38:54] Speaker 2: I'm sorry, go ahead. [00:38:55] Speaker 1: 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 recipient witnesses that you had, correct? [00:39:08] Speaker 2: There was another additional witness that we had investigated that interviewed, Ms. Roberts, as well. [00:39:16] Speaker 1: And from all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. That was your decision 16 hours into the investigation, correct? [00:39:23] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:39:24] Speaker 1: And the other decision that you made and the other determination you came to was my client, Karen Reed, was a whack-jaw cunt, right? [00:39:33] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:39:41] Speaker 1: What else did you say in response to, she's hot at least? Are she hot at least? Question mark. [00:39:49] Speaker 2: So following that text, I responded, yeah, she's a babe. Weird Fall River accent, though. No ass. Yeah, she's a babe. [00:40:01] Speaker 1: Who's the she? [00:40:03] Speaker 2: Ms. Reed. [00:40:04] Speaker 1: Weird Fall River accent, though. You talking about the way she talks? [00:40:09] Speaker 2: The accent. [00:40:13] Speaker 1: And no ass. Now you're talking about her body, what's a Z, correct? [00:40:19] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:40:19] Speaker 1: You think that's appropriate? [00:40:21] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [00:40:23] Speaker 1: Then Bird chimes in with a little comedy. Ah, not newsworthy then, correct? Correct. In other words, well, if she doesn't have an ass, nothing to see here, correct? Objection. [00:40:37] Speaker ?: Objection. [00:40:38] Speaker 1: Sustained. And then 5051 says, oh, she's skating, right? [00:40:47] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:40:50] Speaker 1: And what did you write after that? [00:40:53] Speaker 2: My response was, zero chance she skated. [00:40:57] Speaker 1: And then what did you write? [00:40:59] Speaker 2: She's fucked. [00:41:00] Speaker 1: Zero chance she skates. She's fucked. Right? Correct. 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 it is to make sure that she's fucked. That's what you were saying. [00:41:27] Speaker 4: Objection. All right. So that's sustained. You can, the content's fine. You have to ask it differently. [00:41:33] Speaker 1: 17 hours into this investigation, Trooper Proctor, you made the decision that you were going to put it on Ms. Reed, didn't you? Put the case on Ms. Reed. She was going to catch the case, correct? [00:41:46] Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. [00:41:51] Speaker 1: What did you mean then when you said she's fucked? [00:41:57] Speaker 2: After the day's investigation with multiple troopers conducting multiple tasks, at a debriefing at Canton PD amongst detectives in my office, we went through the overwhelming amount of evidence against Ms. Reed that she struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle. That's what I meant by that comment. [00:42:17] Speaker 1: What you meant by that comment, Trooper Proctor, was you were going to make sure because 5051 had said she's going to skate. She's skating. When you said zero chance, she skates. She's fucked. What you meant was, I'm going to make sure, I am going to make sure Ms. Reed doesn't skate. She's fucked. That's what you meant. Isn't it? Jackson. Sister. And then Bird decides to chime in, good, no-ass bitch, right? [00:42:53] Speaker 2: Yes, that's what he wrote. [00:42:55] Speaker 1: And what did you, how did you respond to Bird saying, good, no-ass bitch? [00:43:01] Speaker 2: I laughed. I laughed. [00:43:03] Speaker 1: Thought that was funny, did you? Trooper Proctor, thought that was funny? [00:43:11] Speaker 2: It was unprofessional of me. That's something I shouldn't have done. [00:43:14] Speaker 1: Well, I think we all know it was unprofessional. It was a lot of things. I'm asking you, did you think it was funny? [00:43:19] Speaker 2: According to my response at the time, apparently. [00:43:22] Speaker 1: Then you said a picture, just to add to it, the pylon of Ms. Reed being arrested, correct? [00:43:36] Speaker 2: I don't, I'm not sure if that came from me, sir. [00:43:43] Speaker 1: Let's skip to 2543. Are you there, Trooper Proctor? [00:43:50] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:43:52] Speaker 1: The date is now February 2nd, 2022. And a person by the name of Doc writes, is that chick a smoke, correct? Correct. Who's the chick? [00:44:05] Speaker 2: Ms. Reed. [00:44:07] Speaker 1: And you write, eh, E-H, right? Yes. And then you write, nutbag, as Chief would say, correct? Correct. Who's Chief? [00:44:17] Speaker 2: A friend of mine. [00:44:21] Speaker 1: And then you write, what? [00:44:27] Speaker 2: She's got a leaky balloon knot. [00:44:29] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, explain to the jurors what a balloon knot is. [00:44:40] Speaker 2: Your, uh, essentially, I guess your rectum area. [00:44:45] Speaker 1: Your anus? [00:44:46] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:44:47] Speaker 1: That's what you were referring to about Ms. Reed? [00:44:51] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:44:52] Speaker 1: And you were making fun of her because you believed at that time that it leaked? That's how you were treating Ms. Reed? Yes or no? [00:45:01] Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. [00:45:03] Speaker 1: And then you followed that up just to make sure you cleared up any mistake about what you meant with Leak's poo, correct? Action. [00:45:11] Speaker 4: All right. So I'm going to strike that. You could get this in, but do it the right way, Mr. Jackson. [00:45:15] Speaker 1: You followed that up with the phrase, Leak's poo, didn't you? I did. Again, another reference to Ms. Reed's medical issues and medical conditions, correct? [00:45:26] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:45:26] Speaker 1: Specifically focused on her anus, correct? [00:45:30] Speaker 2: In reference, yes. [00:45:40] Speaker 1: Were you aware at the time that you wrote this that Ms. Reed had suffered a colectomy surgery? Very serious surgery? [00:45:47] Speaker 2: I was not sure, no. [00:45:48] Speaker 1: Were you aware that she had had 10 surgeries in 18 months, several years prior? Ten. [00:45:56] Speaker 2: I was not aware of that. [00:45:58] Speaker 1: 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? [00:46:10] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:46:11] Speaker 4: Sustained. [00:46:14] Speaker 1: But you decided that you were going to take another shot at her and talk about her anatomy. [00:46:23] Speaker 2: One second, sir. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. [00:46:27] Speaker 1: I'm sorry. You decided that you were going to take another shot at her and talk about her anatomy as a balloon knot, correct? Objection. Sustained. At this point, Trooper Proctor, Ms. Reed was just reduced to a punchline to you, wasn't she? [00:46:48] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:46:48] Speaker 1: Sustained. Well, you weren't done yet. This chat doesn't end yet, does it? [00:46:58] Speaker 2: No, sir. [00:47:03] Speaker 1: Let's skip to 2543. On the same day, February 2nd, 2022, about 4.15 p.m., a person by the name of Whitey wrote, what are you guzzling on, correct? Yes. And you wrote, nothing, writing a warrant, is that right? Correct. Whitey then shares some sort of a video, correct? [00:47:32] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:47:32] Speaker 1: Do you remember that video being of the 1980s band, Warrant? [00:47:36] Speaker 2: I don't recall the video he sent. [00:47:38] Speaker 1: 0095 laughed and then wrote, wait, why does her asshole leak, correct? [00:47:48] Speaker 2: Yes, that's what he wrote. [00:47:50] Speaker 1: And then what did Doc write in response to that? [00:47:53] Speaker 4: Jackson, Your Honor. The objection's sustained. I'll see it's Ibar. Take that down, please. [00:47:59] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, without getting to 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. Reed's medical issues, correct? [00:48:14] Speaker 4: Jackson. 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. [00:48:21] Speaker 1: Was there a continued discussion that finished on this subject matter? [00:48:27] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:48:28] Speaker 1: 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? Correct. That's what you said to the jurors. [00:48:51] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:48:54] Speaker 1: Do you know what the definition of integrity is? [00:48:56] Speaker 2: Doing the right thing when no one's looking. [00:49:01] Speaker 1: It means the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, correct? [00:49:06] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [00:49:08] Speaker 1: Do you believe that integrity means being honest and having strong moral principles? [00:49:14] Speaker 2: I believe that's part of it as well. I believe that's part of it as well. [00:49:15] Speaker 1: Do you stand by that testimony that you were showing strong moral principles in this investigation, sir? [00:49:23] Speaker 2: In the investigation part, absolutely. Through these text messages, absolutely not. They were juvenile and regrettable. [00:49:35] Speaker 1: 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? [00:49:45] Speaker 2: For those texts? Jackson. [00:49:47] Speaker 4: Sustained. [00:49:49] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, have you ever apologized to Ms. Reed? [00:49:52] Speaker 5: Objection. [00:49:53] Speaker 1: Sustained. 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? [00:50:08] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:50:12] Speaker 1: Throughout the penancy of this investigation, in this case, you've denied having any conflict of interest in this case. Isn't that right? Correct. In fact, a couple of months ago, in February of 2024, you testified in a different proceeding. Is that right? Yes. And you testified under oath in that proceeding on February 1st that you did not know any members of the Albert family or McCabe family. Correct? [00:50:42] Speaker 2: Certain members of the Albert family I did not know. I know Chris and Julie and Colin. I don't know the McCabes. [00:50:49] Speaker 1: 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? [00:51:09] Speaker 2: I haven't had a chance to review those minutes. I've only had one opportunity to, and that was a couple of months ago. So I would want to review those minutes in order to answer that accurately. [00:51:18] Speaker 1: You can't remember how you testified, whether or not you knew or had relationships with the Alberts and McCabe's? [00:51:23] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:51:24] Speaker 1: Sustained. As you sit here right now, you need to refresh your recollection. You can't remember what you said. [00:51:28] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:51:30] Speaker 1: Do you remember what you said? [00:51:32] Speaker 2: During that proceeding, no. [00:51:35] Speaker 1: Would it refresh your recollection if you took a look at those grand jury minutes? [00:51:40] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:51:44] Speaker 4: What page, Mr. Jackson? [00:51:45] Speaker 1: This is page 01563. If you'd review that and look up when you're finished. Now, Your Honor. [00:51:57] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:52:03] Speaker 1: Would that refresh your recollection about a question and answer that you had, or a series of questions and answers that you had while you were testifying under oath in that other proceeding? [00:52:12] Speaker 5: Yes, sir. Jackson, may we approach? [00:52:14] Speaker 1: Yes. May I, Your Honor? Yes. Thank you. You were asked the question, quote, did you communicate with First Assistant DA Beeland 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. It's the facts that I shared with everyone. Question? Meaning you told First Assistant Beeland that you didn't know, didn't have a relationship with. [00:52:51] Speaker 5: Jackson, Your Honor. [00:52:51] Speaker 1: Members of the Albert and McCabe families answer, correct. [00:52:56] Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. So your question is whether he said this? [00:52:58] Speaker 1: Correct. Whether that's his testimony. Do you recall that? Yes. 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 McCabe's. Is that right? [00:53:13] Speaker 2: I did not know the McCabe's. 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. [00:53:22] Speaker 1: 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. [00:53:30] Speaker 2: No, I don't have a relationship with the Alberts. [00:53:32] Speaker 1: Or know them. [00:53:35] Speaker 2: I don't know the McCabe's. I don't have a relationship with the Alberts. [00:53:38] Speaker 1: So you do know the Alberts, correct? [00:53:42] Speaker 2: I know some of them, Julie and Chris. [00:53:45] Speaker 1: And Colin, correct? [00:53:46] Speaker 2: Correct, and Colin. [00:53:47] Speaker 1: And you knew the Alberts when you gave this testimony in February of 2024. Is that right? [00:53:53] Speaker 2: Yeah, they asked if there was any relationships. [00:53:58] Speaker 1: Let's try this again. Meaning you told first assistant Bieland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Alberts and, sorry, members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct. Was that ambiguous in your mind? [00:54:16] Speaker 2: The way I interpreted relationships was basically being like friends or, you know, communications, freaking communications. That's how I interpreted relationships. [00:54:27] Speaker 1: 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? [00:54:34] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [00:54:35] Speaker 1: That might have been a good time to answer the question. I know these three individuals from the Albert family, right? [00:54:42] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:54:42] Speaker 4: Sustained. [00:54:45] Speaker 1: But your answer was one word, correct, right? [00:54:48] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:54:50] Speaker 1: 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? Correct. And you indicated the needs never come up. Is that right? Correct. You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, did not have relationships with, I'm sorry, did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families, correct? Correct. And that's just not true, is it? You did know, you do know members of the Albert family. Isn't that right? [00:55:30] Speaker 2: It's different from having a relationship with people. [00:55:32] Speaker 1: 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? [00:55:44] Speaker 2: Well, that's lumped in with the McCabes. I don't know the McCabe family, sir. [00:55:47] Speaker 1: I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence. And where relationships are concerned, you ignore that in terms of the Alberts because you don't have relationships. Where no is concerned, you link that to the McCabes because you don't know the McCabes. [00:56:01] Speaker 4: That's what you did? [00:56:02] Speaker 2: No. [00:56:03] Speaker 4: So it's sustained. You can ask it. You can break it down, Mr. Jackson. [00:56:07] Speaker 1: I'm not sure I can. I'll ask it a different way. How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, wasn't it? [00:56:15] Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. [00:56:16] Speaker 1: You stand by that testimony? [00:56:17] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:56:18] Speaker 1: That you don't know the McCabes, at the time that you testified, that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family? [00:56:24] Speaker 2: They don't have relationships with them. [00:56:26] Speaker 1: Okay. My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them? [00:56:31] Speaker 2: Objection. [00:56:33] Speaker 4: I'll let them have it. Do you understand the question, Trooper? [00:56:37] Speaker 2: I knew it was Chris, Julie, and Colin. [00:56:40] Speaker 1: So if you were to say, I don't know any members of the Albert family, that would have been a lie, correct? [00:56:47] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:56:48] Speaker 1: Your Honor, this is the point at which I intend to turn to Tab 3, and I believe we need to approach. [00:56:58] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:56:58] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:56:59] Speaker 4: Jurors, feel free to stand. [00:57:00] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, you've indicated that your sister is one of your best friends, maybe your best friend. [00:57:20] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:57:21] Speaker 1: Courtney Proctor, that's your name? Correct. Elberg? [00:57:25] Speaker 2: I'm sorry? [00:57:26] Speaker 1: Her last name? [00:57:28] Speaker 2: Elberg. [00:57:28] Speaker 1: Elberg, with an L. And you're aware that she is also very, very good friends with Jillian Daniels, Julie Albert? [00:57:38] Speaker ?: Correct. [00:57:38] Speaker 1: Are you aware of any circumstance in which any of the Alberts have been over at your parents' house? [00:57:49] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:57:51] Speaker 1: Have you ever been over at your parents' house when any of the Alberts have been at your parents' house? [00:57:56] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:57:59] Speaker 1: Those Alberts include Chris Albert, Julie Albert, Colin Albert, correct? [00:58:03] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:58:07] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, you were on or around January 29th, 2022, you were close enough friends with Julie Albert that she had your personal cell phone in her cell phone, correct? And vice versa? [00:58:21] Speaker 2: I wouldn't classify us as close friends at all. [00:58:25] Speaker 1: Okay. Let me get back to my question. Did you have her cell phone in your phone, and did she have yours? [00:58:34] Speaker 2: I can't recall. Well, if I, yeah, I believe I had her stored in my phone. [00:58:40] Speaker 1: Let's go to tab four. All right. If you would turn to tab four. [00:58:47] Speaker 4: And what was this marked for ID? This was... Well, tell me the numbers at the bottom. [00:58:52] Speaker 1: Oh, I've got the sheet right here. I've got a cheat sheet. Tab four is triple B, as in Bravo. And your honor for the court, I'm looking at page 2625. Yeah. Do you have that in front of you, sir? [00:59:07] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [00:59:08] Speaker 1: Do you recognize the participants in this chat? [00:59:13] Speaker 2: I do. [00:59:16] Speaker 1: The number ending in 5374. You recognize it as being from Julie Albert? [00:59:24] Speaker 2: Based off the content of the message, yeah, I recognize this text message from Julie. [00:59:29] Speaker 1: 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? [00:59:40] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:59:44] Speaker 1: That text was sent on February 24th, 2022, wasn't it? [00:59:49] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:59:49] Speaker 1: That was less than a month after Mr. O'Keefe's death, isn't that right? [00:59:53] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:59:54] Speaker 1: And less than a month after you had been assigned to the investigation in which Julie Albert was a witness, correct? [01:00:00] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:00:01] Speaker 1: And her husband, Chris Albert, was a witness, correct? Correct. And her son, you knew Colin, was involved as well, correct? [01:00:11] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:00:13] Speaker 1: Who is CP in that text message? [01:00:16] Speaker 2: It's a nickname I have for my sister. [01:00:19] Speaker 1: Courtney Proctor, correct? Correct. Your Honor, if I may have just a moment. [01:00:24] Speaker 4: Okay. [01:00:28] Speaker 1: Can we move to Proctor to tab 5, please? That's triple C as in Charlie. Do you have that in front of me, sir? [01:00:39] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:00:43] Speaker 1: And this would be page 2664. Can you return to that page, please? Trooper Proctor, on January 19th, 2022, 10 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? Yes. 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? [01:01:24] Speaker 2: I wouldn't say close enough. I've hired babysitters that I've had out, but I don't know. [01:01:33] Speaker 1: But Julie Albert was among them, correct? Yes. She was an option to watch my child. And then you personally interviewed Julie Albert and Chris Albert in this case on February 10th, 2022. [01:01:44] Speaker 2: Sgt. Buchanan and I did, yes. [01:01:47] Speaker 1: 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? [01:02:00] Speaker 2: I did not. [01:02:00] Speaker 1: Not one word, correct? [01:02:02] Speaker 2: No, sir. [01:02:03] Speaker ?: No. [01:02:07] Speaker 1: You interviewed Julie and Chris Albert at about 5.30 p.m. on the 10th of February, isn't that right? [01:02:15] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:02:17] Speaker 1: Did either of them, Julie or Chris Albert, mention that their son, Colin Albert, had been at 34 Fairview Road on the night in question, January 29th? [01:02:30] Speaker 2: I'd have to reread the report to refresh my memory on their statements. [01:02:35] Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you in a different way, if I may have this one. Yes. You wrote a report on October 12th, 2022, correct? [01:02:47] Speaker 2: For which? [01:02:49] Speaker 1: Concerning your interview with? Why don't you show it to him? I may have the wrong report. 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 29th? Do you recall that as you sit here? [01:03:09] Speaker 2: To the best of my recollection, no. [01:03:12] Speaker 1: It was a very short interview with Julie and Chris, was it not? [01:03:15] Speaker 2: It was a typical length for the information they had to offer. [01:03:19] Speaker 1: So you started the interview about 5.30 p.m. It must have been relatively short because you received a phone call by 6.17 from Julie Albert herself, correct? [01:03:32] Speaker 2: I don't have the call detail record in front of me, but okay. Yes. [01:03:37] Speaker 1: Let's look at tab six, please. It may not be in your book. [01:03:45] Speaker 2: It's not, sir. [01:03:46] Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough. [01:03:48] Speaker 2: Thank you. [01:03:49] Speaker 1: There's a highlighted portion to the Proctor. Just focus your attention on that and let me know if that refreshes your reflection. [01:03:55] Speaker 2: It does, sir. Thank you. [01:03:56] Speaker 1: May I approach? Yes. 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? [01:04:08] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:04:09] Speaker 1: 6.21, you called her back and you spoke for three minutes and 58 seconds. Is that right? [01:04:14] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:04:14] Speaker 1: Did you discuss the interview? [01:04:17] Speaker 2: I don't recall the content of that conversation. [01:04:19] Speaker 1: 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. [01:04:26] Speaker 2: I did not. [01:04:27] Speaker 1: Let's turn to tab five one more time. And if you could turn to page 2677. Trooper Proctor, after your interview with Julie Albert, your sister, Courtney, texted you, how did it go at Julie's? She was so nervous. You recall that? [01:04:47] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:04:48] Speaker 1: In fact, you responded to that with a ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Four ha's, right? And then, why, question mark, correct? Correct. Then you responded, it was fine. Just a quick convo, correct? Yes. You were literally reporting back to your sister about the progress of your investigation in a homicide investigation, weren't you? [01:05:10] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:05:11] Speaker 4: Sustained. You were reporting your progress to your sister about your investigation? [01:05:17] Speaker 1: Objection. Sustained. Your Honor, may we approach? Your Honor, may we approach? [01:05:22] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:05:26] Speaker 1: May I? Yes. Thank you. Were you reporting your progress of your investigation back to your sister, Courtney Proctor? [01:05:33] Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. [01:05:35] Speaker 1: But you did say that the conversation, the formal interview went fine. It was just a quick convo, correct? [01:05:42] Speaker 2: In response to my sister indicating Julie was nervous. That's why I told her it was fine. [01:05:49] Speaker 1: 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? [01:05:57] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:05:57] Speaker 4: Is that true? [01:05:58] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [01:05:59] Speaker 1: We've established that you're very close with your sister, Courtney, correct? [01:06:05] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:06:05] Speaker 1: You provided your sister with updates on important advancements during the course of your investigation into this case. Did you not periodically? [01:06:13] Speaker 2: I made her aware of newsworthy stuff. [01:06:17] Speaker 1: That started as early as January 29th, 2022. Isn't that right? [01:06:22] Speaker 2: Don't have the exact date or content. [01:06:25] Speaker 1: Well, the day of the incident, you began letting her know that you were involved, that you had been assigned, what the status was. [01:06:33] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:06:33] Speaker 1: The nature of the case. Correct. It was a homicide, correct? Yes. As a matter of fact, you discussed who the players were, who the people were that were involved. Isn't that right? [01:06:44] Speaker 2: I just mentioned Julie and Chris were out earlier in the evening. [01:06:48] Speaker 1: So you mentioned the Alberts, correct? [01:06:53] Speaker 2: Julie and Chris, yes. [01:06:54] Speaker 1: You also mentioned the McCabe's, too, didn't you, at some point? [01:06:57] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:06:58] Speaker 1: Yeah. At 2668, Your Honor, that's the page that I'm referring to. [01:07:09] Speaker 2: Okay, go ahead, sir. [01:07:10] Speaker 1: You wrote the word homicide, is that right? Yes. You were describing to your sister the nature of the case that you were now assigned, is that right? Correct. She wrote, the Canton thing is a homicide, and you wrote, don't say a word to anyone, correct? Correct. And then she wrote, of course not. Isn't that right? Yes. And then you wrote what? [01:07:30] Speaker 2: In the very least, it's suspicious. [01:07:32] Speaker 1: In the very least, it's suspicious, correct? Correct. 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? [01:07:45] Speaker 2: It was before we found significant pieces of evidence. [01:07:47] Speaker 1: So you believed that it was suspicious that it may involve the Alberts, right? [01:07:53] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [01:07:59] Speaker 1: She then writes, this is your livelihood, didn't she? [01:08:02] Speaker 2: She did. [01:08:03] Speaker 1: Meaning, this kind of case could make or it could break your career, right? [01:08:10] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:08:11] Speaker 1: She then wrote, I would never mess with that. Is that right? Yes. Your sister, Trooper Proctor, was warning you that you shouldn't be investigating a case in which close friends or family members were involved. [01:08:29] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:08:29] Speaker 1: 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? [01:08:44] Speaker ?: Objection. [01:08:44] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [01:08:45] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. That was in response to don't say a word to anyone. And that was how I interpreted, this is your livelihood, I would never mess with that. [01:08:54] Speaker 1: A couple of minutes later, 3.07, on January 29th, you told your sister, quote, Julie and Chris were at the bar with the victim and girlfriend, got to interview them. Is that right? Yes. So you were telling Courtney, your sister, updates on what your investigation advancements were, correct? [01:09:15] Speaker 2: Just that part. [01:09:15] Speaker 1: Why are you going to interview them? [01:09:18] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:09:20] Speaker 1: She wrote, you got to be kidding me, correct? [01:09:25] Speaker ?: Correct. [01:09:25] Speaker 1: Did you take that as, you got to be kidding me, the Alberts are involved? [01:09:31] Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. [01:09:34] Speaker 1: And then you wrote, it's not a big deal, correct? Correct. And then she wrote, I bet I know the person. Sounds like it is, meaning it is a big deal, right? [01:09:46] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not sure what she meant with those messages there. [01:09:51] Speaker 1: But she did write, I bet I know the person, didn't she? She did write that, yes. And you know she's very close with the Alberts, correct? [01:09:59] Speaker 2: She's close with Julie and Chris. [01:10:01] Speaker 1: You then wrote, no, I meant, or you wrote not, I think you meant no, I meant that they were at the bar with him, correct? [01:10:08] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:10:09] Speaker 1: She writes, yeah, I got that part. And then she continues on, but I know a lot of their friends, correct? Yes. Did you see a problem in this exchange? [01:10:23] Speaker 2: Nothing jumped out at me. [01:10:24] Speaker 1: Your sister's literally explaining that your family friends are suspects, or possible suspects, in a murder investigation that you're in charge of. Correct? [01:10:34] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [01:10:36] Speaker 1: On January 30th, 2022, at 9.13 in the morning, your sister texted you again, quote, Jesus Christ. The party was at one of the Alberts, correct? Yes. And you two were discussing the fact that, to put it in her words, Jesus Christ, these are our friends. Right? [01:10:58] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:10:59] Speaker 1: Sustained. How did you take her, Jesus Christ, the party was at one of the Alberts, with two exclamation points? How did you take that? [01:11:10] Speaker 2: Her, the way I'm interpreting my sister's text messages, was that surprised, shocked, that this is where Mr. O'Keefe was found, on the front lawn of that residence. [01:11:31] Speaker 1: Could it be, Jesus Christ, we know these people? [01:11:38] Speaker 2: Again, that's how I read that message. [01:11:43] Speaker 1: You don't deny, Trooper Proctor, that you were routinely disclosing to your sister pretty intimate details about the investigation, correct? [01:11:51] Speaker 2: I wouldn't say intimate. I'd say newsworthy stuff, or just generic, nothing too specific. [01:11:58] Speaker 1: 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've got to go interview him? [01:12:09] Speaker ?: Objection. [01:12:10] Speaker 4: Allow that. Is that what you'd do, Trooper? [01:12:12] Speaker 2: No, I would not do that, sir. [01:12:13] Speaker 1: So it was not newsworthy. These were details, internal details, about the investigation, weren't they? [01:12:20] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:12:20] Speaker 1: And you were sharing them with your sister, Courtney Proctor, correct? [01:12:23] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:12:23] Speaker 1: And Courtney Proctor's best friend is Jillian Daniels, and one of her closest friends is Julie Albert, right? [01:12:29] Speaker ?: Correct. [01:12:33] Speaker 1: Then on February 1st, 2022, your sister texts you that she's actually meeting with Julie Albert, didn't she? [01:12:43] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:12:44] Speaker 1: And that was before you ever interviewed Julie, correct? [01:12:47] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:12:48] Speaker 1: So it appears that Courtney was providing information to Julie of some sort before you were able to actually interview her. Is that right? [01:12:56] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:12:56] Speaker 1: Sustained. She was, well, let me ask it this way. You don't deny that Courtney was meeting with Julie before you interviewed her, correct? [01:13:05] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:13:06] Speaker 1: And you don't deny that you had been providing information about the case with Courtney before you interviewed Julie, correct? [01:13:12] Speaker 2: Provided information that Julie and Chris were at the waterfall and I needed to interview them. Yes, that's the information I shared. [01:13:18] Speaker 1: And who knows what you shared verbally, not in text messages, correct? [01:13:22] Speaker 3: Objection. [01:13:24] Speaker 1: We have text messages, Trooper Proctor. Did you share other information on phone calls with Courtney? [01:13:32] Speaker ?: No. [01:13:32] Speaker 1: So the only information we're to believe, you talk to her five to six times a day, the only information that you claimed you shared with Courtney about the details of the investigation are contained in these texts, which we have. [01:13:45] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:13:46] Speaker 4: I'll let you answer that. Can you answer that? [01:13:51] Speaker 2: The information that I share with my sister contained within these texts, yes. [01:13:57] Speaker 1: You've never discussed this case verbally over the phone or in person with Courtney. [01:14:04] Speaker 2: 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. [01:14:17] Speaker 1: 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? Yes. In tab five, let's turn to page 2672, Trooper Proctor. Do you see the text from you, what's up? [01:14:39] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:14:42] Speaker 1: And what's Courtney Proctor's response? [01:14:46] Speaker 2: 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. [01:14:54] Speaker 1: 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? [01:15:00] Speaker ?: Correct. [01:15:01] Speaker 1: 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? Correct. You said you never asked for a gift, correct? [01:15:15] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:15:16] Speaker 1: What's your next text? [01:15:18] Speaker 2: Get Elizabeth one. [01:15:20] Speaker 1: Get Elizabeth one what? [01:15:23] Speaker 2: Referring to a gift. [01:15:25] Speaker ?: Right. [01:15:26] Speaker 1: So you did, in fact, ask for a gift, didn't you? [01:15:29] Speaker 2: For my wife, who had been home with my children for the last 10 nights. [01:15:32] Speaker 1: From Julie Albert. [01:15:34] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:15:34] Speaker 1: For your participation on this case. [01:15:36] Speaker 2: I don't know if that's, yes. [01:15:38] Speaker 1: 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? Correct. 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? [01:16:01] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:16:02] Speaker 1: Did you pull phone records in this case, variously? [01:16:06] Speaker 2: The phone records of? [01:16:07] Speaker 1: Of anybody. Witnesses, suspects. [01:16:10] Speaker 2: Not witnesses. Material people, whatever. We didn't pull phone records of witnesses. [01:16:16] Speaker 1: Victim? [01:16:17] Speaker 2: Victim and Miss Reed. [01:16:19] Speaker 1: During the course of your investigation, did you become aware that there were 67 calls between Julie Albert and your sister, Courtney, in the months following John O'Keefe's death? [01:16:28] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:16:30] Speaker 4: I'm going to sustain that objection. [01:16:32] Speaker 1: 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? [01:16:41] Speaker 3: Objection. [01:16:42] Speaker 4: I'm sustaining that objection. You can come try and convince me otherwise if you want this to chance. [01:16:47] Speaker 1: I can ask it a different way, Your Honor. Thank you. Did you ever seek information about phone calls and communications that Julie Albert may or may not have been having with anybody else? [01:17:00] Speaker 2: No. [01:17:00] Speaker 1: Didn't download her phone? Didn't seek her phone records? No. Did Courtney ever tell you that she had consistent communications with Julie Albert? Or did you know that otherwise? [01:17:11] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:17:12] Speaker 1: During the months, let me ask it this way, during the months following John O'Keefe's death, you did continue to have consistent communications with Courtney, though, didn't you? [01:17:25] Speaker 2: Yes. I speak to my sister every day. [01:17:29] Speaker 1: Tripper Proctor, were you using Courtney, your sister, as an intermediary between you and Julie Albert? [01:17:39] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [01:17:41] Speaker 1: You were well aware from the very beginning of your investigation that Colin Albert was, in fact, at 34 Fairview on the night in question, right? Yes. Matter of fact, you testified at the grand jury, the state court grand jury, on this case, that you knew that Colin Albert was at the location, right? [01:17:59] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:18:01] Speaker 1: Did you make any concerted efforts to keep Colin Albert's name out of this investigation? [01:18:06] Speaker 2: No. [01:18:07] Speaker 1: Why is it, Trooper Proctor, that Colin Albert's name fails to appear in a single police report until July 18, 2023? [01:18:19] Speaker 2: Colin Albert was not at the home. He left at approximately 12, 10 a.m. before anyone from the waterfall had arrived back there. [01:18:28] Speaker 1: Let's look at, obviously, part of the job of an investigator is to be as complete and thorough as possible, correct? [01:18:37] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:18:38] Speaker 1: You don't just take someone's word for something. You look for corroborating evidence, don't you? [01:18:42] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:18:43] Speaker 1: Matter of fact, you wouldn't take a witness's word for almost anything in a reasonable investigation, would you? [01:18:48] Speaker 2: If I believe, find that witness to be credible and have no reason to lie, then yes, I would take the award. [01:18:58] Speaker 1: Would you try to support a witness's statement or witnesses with an apostrophe, S apostrophe, their statements with corroborating evidence? [01:19:07] Speaker 2: Yeah, potentially. [01:19:08] Speaker 1: Corroborating evidence might be talking to other witnesses, right? [01:19:11] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:19:12] Speaker 1: It might be looking at cell phone data, correct? [01:19:14] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:19:14] Speaker 1: It might be looking at geolocation data, correct? Yes. If you're trying to find out where someone is, you might pull information from their phone concerning geolocation data, right? [01:19:24] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:19:24] Speaker 1: You might pull cell tower information, right? [01:19:27] Speaker 2: Yeah, if there's a need for it. [01:19:28] Speaker 1: There's myriad ways that you can find out whether someone's telling the truth about where they were and when they were there, right? Right. Let's take a look at your handwritten notes from your interview with Julianna Nagel on October 5th, 2022. This should be tab 7 for the proctor. [01:19:55] Speaker 4: What is it for identification? [01:19:57] Speaker 1: My mistake. I thought it was in the tab. It's not. This is a three-page document. I'll just refresh his recollection with this. [01:20:04] Speaker 4: Okay, show Mr. Lally and then go ahead. [01:20:06] Speaker 1: Of course. Let me ask a foundational question, Trooper Proctor. Do you remember exactly what's in your notes from a conversation that you had on October 5th, 2022? [01:20:18] Speaker 2: I don't know. [01:20:19] Speaker 1: Do you think it would refresh your recollection to take a look at your handwritten notes? [01:20:23] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Thank you. [01:20:27] Speaker 1: Take a look at that. First, let me just ask you if that refreshes your recollection. [01:20:32] Speaker 2: It does, sir. [01:20:33] Speaker 1: Are those your notes, your handwritten notes from this, at least from partially from this investigation? [01:20:38] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:20:38] Speaker 1: Does that reflect your handwritten notes based on the conversation that you had with Julianna Nagel on or about October 5th, 2022? Does this appear to be an accurate representation or an accurate copy of your notes from your interview with Julianna Nagel? Yes. Your Honor, with the course permission, I've changed my mind. I would like to have Ms. Marks as next. [01:21:01] Speaker 4: Introduced into evidence? Correct. Is there an objection? [01:21:04] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. [01:21:04] Speaker 4: Can the objection sustain? [01:21:06] Speaker 1: Is it true that in your handwritten notes, you list the following individuals based on Julianna Nagel's conversation with you as being at 34 Fairview? Brian, Julianna, Mary Kent, Emily Fabiano, Courtney Alba, Colin Albert, and Sarah Levinson. Correct? [01:21:33] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:21:36] Speaker 1: You then drafted a report memorializing your conversation with Julianna Nagel, correct? Yes. And that report is a formal memorialization of your interview based on your investigation, correct? [01:21:50] Speaker 2: Yes, a summary of the conversation with the interview. [01:21:54] Speaker 1: And that report is the thing that's turned over to the Commonwealth, correct? Yes. And the report is the thing that's entered into discovery and provided to the defense? Correct. 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? Yes. What's the one name that was left out of your report on that list? [01:22:30] Speaker ?: Jackson. [01:22:31] Speaker 4: Oh, well, um, was there one name left out? Break that down, Mr. Jackson. [01:22:36] Speaker 1: Sure. Isn't it true that in your report, you excluded the one name, Colin Albert, from the list of individuals that were in your notes? [01:22:48] Speaker 2: Yes, because he arrived later in the evening. The other females were there from the start. [01:22:54] Speaker 1: At the time that you wrote your report, the formal report, this one, you did not believe that your handwritten notes were also going to be disclosed, did you? [01:23:06] Speaker 2: No, I knew that was a possibility. [01:23:09] Speaker 1: When you finally did get around to interviewing Colin Albert, you personally conducted that interview, did you not? Yes. [01:23:16] Speaker 4: Colin Albert told you to do one at a time. [01:23:18] Speaker 2: I'm sorry. [01:23:20] Speaker 4: Finish your answer, Trooper. [01:23:21] Speaker 2: Please go ahead. Yes, along with Trooper Zach Clark in my office. [01:23:26] Speaker 1: Colin Albert told you that he was picked up by Allie McCabe from his uncle's house at 12.10 a.m., correct? Correct. Allie McCabe also told you that she picked up Colin Albert at 34 Fairview at 12.10 a.m. and then dropped him off at his house, correct? [01:23:42] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:23:42] Speaker 1: And then she indicated that she went straight home after that, right? [01:23:45] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:23:46] Speaker 1: Did you conduct any further investigation to determine whether Colin Albert and Allie McCabe were actually telling the truth about that time? [01:23:54] Speaker 2: We did not. [01:23:56] Speaker 1: You just took them at their word, correct? Yes. Trooper Proctor, you realized you had a forensic image at the time. You had a forensic image of Jennifer McCabe's cell phone in your possession, right? Correct. You're also aware that she has a Life 360 app on her phone that tracks the location of Allie McCabe, correct? [01:24:16] Speaker 2: 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. [01:24:24] Speaker 1: Did you bother to look at Jennifer McCabe's Life 360 app to determine whether Colin Albert and Allie McCabe were telling the truth about the time that they supposedly left 34 Fairview? [01:24:34] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:24:35] Speaker ?: Objection. [01:24:35] Speaker 4: Did you do that online? [01:24:37] Speaker 1: I did not. Can we take a look at tab 8? Do you recall looking at all at a Life 360 app or its data from Celebrate Report? [01:24:54] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:24:54] Speaker 1: Objection. Did you or did you not look at any data from Life 360 from Jennifer McCabe's phone? [01:25:03] Speaker ?: Jackson. [01:25:03] Speaker 4: All right. So this is a good time to take the morning recess and I'll see comments. All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready. [01:25:10] Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. Trooper Proctor, did you include in your investigative file any Celebrate Report related to the Life 360 app that was on Ms. McCabe's phone that you earlier testified to? [01:25:23] Speaker 2: Trooper Greeno was our cell phone expert, kind of handled that, so I'm not positive if that report, if he generated that report. [01:25:31] Speaker 1: 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 Allie were telling the truth? [01:25:45] Speaker 2: No. [01:25:47] Speaker 1: You grew up in Canton, did you not? Yes. I don't want an address, but just generally as a crow flies, how close would you say you live from the former Albert residence at 34 Fairview in Canton? [01:26:06] Speaker 2: Two or three miles? [01:26:08] Speaker 1: How about from the McCabe residence? Again, don't give me any addresses. [01:26:12] Speaker 2: Maybe a mile. [01:26:13] Speaker 1: 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 High School from 34 Fairview, correct? Yes. 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? [01:26:39] Speaker 2: No. [01:26:40] Speaker 1: Did you have any conversations with anybody from Canton about video surveillance concerning the high school and or surrounding gas stations? Yes. Who is that? It was Officer Galanis. Can you turn to tab nine, please? First, let me ask you if you recognize these texts with any individual? Yes, I do. How do you recognize those texts? [01:27:09] Speaker 2: That was a text communication between Officer Galanis and myself. [01:27:14] Speaker 1: Taking a look at those text communications, do you see the inclusive dates of those on the face sheet? Yes. Document? I do. What are those inclusive dates? [01:27:25] Speaker 2: First message sent, date and time, February 18th, 2022, 102 p.m. Last message sent, date and time, February 18th, 2022, 205 p.m. [01:27:36] Speaker 1: These are texts on a single day, correct? [01:27:38] Speaker 2: That's correct. [01:27:39] Speaker 1: If you would look at page 2623, 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? [01:27:54] Speaker 2: I was asking if they had any knowledge of cameras in the area. [01:27:57] Speaker 1: Okay. And of course, that was to an officer who was employed by which department? [01:28:04] Speaker 2: Canton Police Department. [01:28:04] Speaker 1: Which you knew at the time that you asked for assistance in February of 2022 had been recused from the case, correct? [01:28:14] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:28:15] Speaker 1: And should have no investigative involvement in the case, correct? [01:28:18] Speaker 2: I did not request for them to pull video. I just simply asked, what are some good cameras in the area? [01:28:23] Speaker 1: Which is an assistance for you in your investigation, correct? [01:28:27] Speaker 2: They have more knowledge in the area as far as useful cameras. So yes, I reached out regarding cameras in the area. [01:28:35] Speaker 1: For assistance from Canton PD officers, correct? [01:28:37] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:28:37] Speaker 1: Whom you knew to be recused. [01:28:39] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:28:40] Speaker 1: Yes. You specifically asked Officer Galanis whether, quote, the high school had cameras facing the street, correct? Correct. And Officer Galanis writes back, the Canton Mutual gas station has unreal cameras. That's how I picked up that kid and it had him walking into the woods by the new street Larkin Court, correct? Correct. You responded, good to know. I'll add that to the list, correct? Yes. 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? [01:29:18] Speaker 2: No, because we did not retrieve any video from those locations. [01:29:21] Speaker 1: And you didn't mention in your report that you even sought the footage from those locations, correct? [01:29:26] Speaker 2: I don't believe so. [01:29:29] Speaker 1: You did say that you would add it to the, quote, list. Is that right? Yes. And you're aware, obviously, as a responsible, as one of your responsibilities to maintain and keep your handwritten notes from all communications, all investigative activities involved in the case, correct? Yes. And you have no notes on this conversation, correct? Correct. 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? [01:30:04] Speaker 2: Like I mentioned yesterday or Monday, it's a collaborative effort within the office, so we bounce ideas off each other as far as what witnesses need to be interviewed, et cetera. So it's more of a group effort and a group decision. [01:30:23] Speaker 1: 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? [01:30:30] Speaker 2: It facilitates certain areas, yes. [01:30:34] Speaker 1: I want to talk about some of the witnesses that you interviewed in the days and weeks immediately following Mr. O'Keefe's death. You interviewed Brian Albert, correct? Correct. Nicole Albert, yes? Yes. Chris Albert? Yes. Julie Albert? Yes. Jennifer McCabe? Yes. Her husband, Matt McCabe? Correct. All those individuals are related in one way or another, either through marriage or otherwise, to each other, correct? [01:30:57] Speaker 2: Yes, that's my understanding. [01:30:58] Speaker 1: And you also interviewed Brian Higgins, is that right? Yes. I want to talk for a second about the individuals that you did not immediately choose to interview. Julie Nagel wasn't interviewed until October 2022, correct? Correct. That's seven months after the incident, right? Correct. Sarah Levinson was not interviewed until October of 2022, also seven months later, correct? Correct. Caitlin Albert was interviewed July 6, 2023, correct? Yes. That's 16 months after the incident. Is that right? Correct. Brian Albert Jr., July 6, 2023, right? Yes, sir. Allie McCabe, August of 2023, correct? Yes, sir. That's 18 months after the incident, correct? Correct. Heather Maxson, she was not interviewed until September 21, 2023, 17 months later, correct? [01:31:48] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:31:49] Speaker 1: All right, that's actually, my math is off. That's about 18 months later. Is that right? [01:31:53] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:31:54] Speaker 1: Richard D'Antonio, September 2, 2023, is that right? Yes. So you waited more than 18 months to interview him as well, is that right? Yes. And then Brian Loughran, snowplow driver, August 2023, 17 months after the incident, correct? Correct. I want to talk for a second about this last individual, Brian Loughran. He also goes by the name Lucky, is that right? Yes. Lucky Loughran. You testified under oath on April 21, 2022, in the state court grand jury proceeding, that no snowplow traveled down Fairview Road on January 29th, correct? Correct. Why did you say that, Cooper Proctor? [01:32:38] Speaker 2: 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. [01:32:54] Speaker 1: You're aware that Michael Trotter testified in this case? Okay. Were you aware or not? [01:33:00] Speaker 2: No. Okay. [01:33:02] Speaker 1: You did, in fact, interview Michael Trotter, did you not? Yes. And isn't it true that Michael Trotter told you that, in fact, Brian Loughran was plowing 34 Fairview that morning? [01:33:14] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:33:15] Speaker 1: Is that what he told you? [01:33:16] Speaker 2: I don't recall that statement from him. [01:33:20] Speaker 1: Michael Trotter testified that that's what he told you. Do you have any quarrel with that? [01:33:25] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:33:26] Speaker 1: That's his statement. In reality, Trotter Proctor, you did not want to speak to anybody in the weeks and months following this incident who didn't fit your narrative, correct? Objection. [01:33:44] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. Is that true? [01:33:46] Speaker 2: That's simply not true. Absolutely not. [01:33:49] Speaker 1: Certainly, you didn't want to talk to anybody who could say that there was nobody on the lawn at 2.30 in the morning. Is that right? [01:33:55] Speaker 2: No, it's not true. [01:33:56] Speaker 1: Are you aware that Lucky Loughran, in fact, did report that there was nobody on the lawn at 2.30? [01:34:02] Speaker 4: Objection, Your Honor. So the objection sustained. I'm going to strike down. [01:34:06] Speaker 1: 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? [01:34:18] Speaker 2: Not until Sergeant Mechanic and I interviewed him. [01:34:21] Speaker 1: And that was when? [01:34:24] Speaker 2: I can't recall the exact date. [01:34:26] Speaker 1: And that was after the defense brought him to your attention, correct? [01:34:31] Speaker ?: Objection. [01:34:32] Speaker 2: I'll allow it. [01:34:34] Speaker 1: Is that true? Correct. Are you still the case agent in charge of this case? Yes. As the lead investigator and the case agent, you're aware it's also your responsibility and your obligation to investigate all potential individuals, right? All potential suspects. Yes. You're obligated to investigate anybody who would have a motive, a means, and an opportunity to commit the crime or the offense, correct? Correct. Motive includes anything from financial gain to just be revenge, right? Yes. Could be a lover's quarrel, correct? Yes. Or it could be someone who's interested in someone romantically, correct? [01:35:23] Speaker 2: Could be an argument inside of a vehicle. [01:35:28] Speaker 4: Sorry, I didn't, I didn't hear that. Could you, what was your answer? [01:35:33] Speaker ?: I didn't hear me. [01:35:33] Speaker 2: Or it could be an argument contained inside of a vehicle as well. [01:35:37] Speaker 1: Ah, yeah. Which is the conclusion you jumped to 17 hours into your investigation, right? [01:35:43] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:35:45] Speaker 1: Is that right? [01:35:47] Speaker 2: It's something, evidence we have contained within cell phones reiterates that fact. [01:36:02] Speaker 1: You don't, you, on, when you decided that you were going to make sure that the girl, I think that's what you called her, the girl, is 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? [01:36:21] Speaker 2: To go towards intent? No. But as far as the physical evidence goes, we have compelling evidence indicating Ms. Reed struck Mr. O'Keefe with her vehicle. So you just did this. [01:36:31] Speaker 4: Okay, Mr. Jackson, I just have to, keep your voice up, Trooper Proctor, okay? [01:36:35] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [01:36:36] Speaker 4: Go ahead. [01:36:36] Speaker 1: You just did this piecemeal. So when you decided that the girl, Ms. Reed, was going to get serious charges against her, 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 out intent later. I'll figure out motive later, right? [01:36:55] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:36:58] Speaker 1: Motive means an opportunity. We've talked a little bit about motive. What about means? The physical ability to commit the crime, right? That's obviously important. [01:37:06] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:37:06] Speaker 1: And the opportunity. It's a physical proximity to the incident, correct? Correct. The physical ability to commit the crime, correct? [01:37:13] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:37:14] Speaker 1: Did you investigate all potential suspects who would have had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill John O'Keefe? [01:37:27] Speaker 2: Yes. And that motive means factored in with the physical evidence pointed directly at Ms. Reed. There's no one else had any motive. Mr. O'Keefe never went inside Fairview Road. [01:37:46] Speaker 1: And you got all that, of course, from the Albertson case, right? [01:37:50] Speaker 2: Yes. Jackson. [01:37:51] Speaker 1: I'll allow it. Let's talk about Brian Higgins for a second. You know that name? [01:37:58] Speaker 2: I do, sir. [01:37:58] Speaker 1: You personally interviewed Mr. Higgins, correct? [01:38:01] Speaker 2: Sergeant Buchanan and I did, yes. [01:38:03] Speaker 1: You keep adding other people into the interviews. I'm asking what you did, not what you and somebody else did. Did you personally interview Brian Higgins? [01:38:10] Speaker 2: Jackson. [01:38:11] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [01:38:12] Speaker 2: Yes, I did. [01:38:14] Speaker 1: He's a fellow law enforcement officer and you knew that, right? [01:38:17] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:38:18] Speaker 1: He was a colleague of yours, correct? [01:38:20] Speaker 2: He worked in a different agency, yes. [01:38:22] Speaker 1: You waited until February 10th to conduct a pre-scheduled interview with Mr. Higgins, didn't you? [01:38:27] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:38:28] Speaker 1: And you interviewed him in the presence of his attorney, correct? Correct. He told you that he was engaged in a flirtatious relationship with Ms. Reed? [01:38:39] Speaker 2: He did. [01:38:41] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, he told you that he was engaged in a flirtatious relationship with Ms. Reed over text messages, but on at least one occasion, that resulted in a kiss, correct? [01:38:50] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:38:52] Speaker 1: And then he also told you that he had taken the liberty to extract certain conversations from his own cell phone, right? [01:38:58] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:38:58] Speaker 1: And he brought you a hard copy of those text messages, right? [01:39:01] Speaker 2: He did. [01:39:02] Speaker 1: And you knew that those text messages were messages that he curated to give to you, right? [01:39:08] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:39:09] Speaker 1: He's the one that made the determination of what was important, what was not important to give to you, his interviewer, right? [01:39:14] Speaker 2: Jackson. [01:39:15] Speaker 4: Was that your understanding, Trooper? [01:39:17] Speaker 2: It was my understanding, Mr. Higgins, 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. [01:39:35] Speaker 1: Well, you were actually asked that question in a different proceeding, under different questioning, and you were asked whether or not in your career as a law enforcement officer has any person or witness ever brought a self-extraction of text messages to an in-person interview, correct? [01:39:52] Speaker 5: Jackson. [01:39:53] Speaker 1: I'll allow it. Correct. [01:39:56] Speaker 2: Most, uh, civil... [01:39:58] Speaker 1: Your answer was, Trooper Proctor, you had never experienced that in the history of your career, correct? Correct. So you became aware pretty early on that Mr. Higgins at least had a motive to want to visit harm on John O'Keefe, correct? [01:40:14] Speaker 2: Jackson. I'll allow it. No, absolutely not. [01:40:18] Speaker 1: Well, you knew he had this flirtatious relationship with Karen Reed, is that right? Yes. You became aware that he ignored, you saw the text messages, you became aware that Karen Reed actually ignored text messages from Mr. Higgins while at the Waterfall Bar and Grill with John O'Keefe, correct? [01:40:32] Speaker 5: Jackson. [01:40:32] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [01:40:33] Speaker 1: Yes. 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? [01:40:43] Speaker 5: Jackson. [01:40:43] Speaker 1: I'll allow that one. Go ahead. I don't recall that text. Do you recall a text from Brian Higgins to John O'Keefe after they left Waterfall? Where are you at? I don't recall that one either. You also recognized that Brian Higgins certainly had the means to commit the crime, correct? [01:41:24] Speaker 2: No, I don't. [01:41:28] Speaker 1: He's a big guy. Certainly had the physical ability to get into a physical altercation with John O'Keefe, correct? Jackson. [01:41:37] Speaker 4: I'll allow that. [01:41:39] Speaker 2: 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. I wouldn't ask him. They were friends. [01:41:47] Speaker 1: I wouldn't ask him about motive. I'm asking about means. Could he do it? Could he throw a punch? Knock a guy down, knock a guy out? [01:41:53] Speaker 2: I can't speak to his fighting ability, sir. Well, you've met him, right? No, one interview, yes. [01:41:59] Speaker 3: Yeah, he's huge. Do you agree? Jackson. Sustained. He's a big dude, right? Yeah, he's a big guy. Bigger than me, right? Yeah. Bigger than you. Yep. [01:42:15] Speaker 1: You knew that he was former military? I did, yes. And he's a trained ATF agent, federal agent, right? [01:42:21] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:42:22] Speaker 1: And you were in possession of video surveillance from the Waterfall Bar and Grill, correct? Yes. 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? [01:42:39] Speaker 2: I interpreted that as horsing around. [01:42:41] Speaker 1: I didn't ask you how you interpreted Trooper Proctor. I asked you if you saw it. Jackson. Sustained. Did you see it or not? [01:42:50] Speaker 2: I did. [01:42:52] Speaker 1: And what you saw was these guys taking fighting stances, correct? [01:42:55] Speaker 2: Jackson. [01:42:56] Speaker 1: Is that what you saw? [01:42:58] Speaker 2: Playful fight stances. [01:43:02] Speaker 1: But you waited until February 10th to interview him, correct? [01:43:06] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:43:06] Speaker 1: And you decided not to image his phone, is that right? Correct. You didn't ask for consent to search his phone or to take his phone, correct? [01:43:14] Speaker 2: No. [01:43:15] Speaker 1: You didn't seek a search warrant to get his phone, is that right? [01:43:18] Speaker 2: No, sir. [01:43:19] Speaker 1: Did you know that on January 29th at 2.22 a.m. there was a call between him and Brian Albert that morning? [01:43:31] Speaker 2: I was not aware of that. [01:43:33] Speaker 1: Might have been important to your investigation, don't you think? [01:43:35] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:43:36] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [01:43:38] Speaker 2: Depends what the... I don't know what the call was about. Sorry, finish that. Depends... I don't know what the call was about. I don't know if they actually connected and communicated what the length of the call was, so... [01:43:47] Speaker 1: Right. And you never asked, did you? [01:43:51] Speaker 2: I was unaware that that call took place. [01:43:53] Speaker 1: And you were unaware that that call took place because you didn't get his phone to the proctor, right? [01:44:00] Speaker 2: Typically, we don't get witnesses' phone, sir. [01:44:02] Speaker 1: You were unaware of that call at that time because you didn't seek his phone, correct? [01:44:09] Speaker 5: Okay, action. [01:44:09] Speaker 1: We're ruled. The medical examiner notified you on February... I'm sorry, on April 28th, 2022, that the manner of death, in her words, could not be determined. Is that right? Yes. She would not rule, at least in terms of the manner of death, would not rule this a homicide. Is that right? That's correct. And you agree that that's obviously a pretty significant finding. [01:44:34] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:44:35] Speaker 2: I'll allow it. Um... 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 one way, regardless of her determination. [01:44:55] Speaker 1: You obviously were not pleased with that... You were not pleased with that determination, right? [01:45:03] Speaker 2: It didn't matter one way or the other because, like I said, we continue on with the investigation. [01:45:09] Speaker 1: On April 28th, that same day, you received a text message from Trooper DiCicco, correct? Yes. If you turn to tab 11, please. [01:45:20] Speaker 4: What's the ID number? [01:45:21] Speaker 1: This is 2618. I'm sorry, tab 11 is GGG. Triple G is in golf. May I, Your Honor? [01:45:34] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:45:35] Speaker 1: Do you have that in front of you, Trooper Proctor? [01:45:37] Speaker 2: I do, sir. [01:45:37] Speaker 1: If you turn to page 2618, do you see a text message received from Trooper DiCicco with a photograph of the autopsy report? Yes. And that autopsy report indicates undetermined, is that right? [01:45:57] Speaker 2: For Manor, yes. [01:45:58] Speaker 1: In response, you wrote a text message to DiCicco, correct? [01:46:10] Speaker 2: I did. [01:46:12] Speaker 1: What was your response? [01:46:14] Speaker 2: Of course it's undetermined. [01:46:20] Speaker 1: And then what else did you write? [01:46:23] Speaker 2: She was a whack job. [01:46:26] Speaker 1: Of course it's undetermined. She was a whack job, right? Those are your two responses, correct? [01:46:34] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:46:35] Speaker 1: You were talking about Dr. Scordy Bello, the female medical examiner who came to the determination that this was undetermined in terms of the manner of death, correct? [01:46:47] Speaker 2: I'm not sure who I'm referencing as far as she was a whack job, but of course it's undetermined is a sarcastic response from me. [01:46:58] Speaker 1: The reason you referred to Dr. Scordy Bello as a whack job is because the cut and dry case that you had hoped for wasn't really going your way, right? [01:47:12] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:47:12] Speaker 1: When you referred to her, she's a whack job, were you referring to Dr. Scordy Bello? [01:47:21] Speaker 2: I don't recall. [01:47:25] Speaker 1: Were you displeased with the undetermined finding instead of a homicide finding because that was an obstacle in your investigation? [01:47:35] Speaker ?: Objection. [01:47:36] Speaker 4: You can break that down. [01:47:38] Speaker 1: Were you displeased about the undetermined finding? No. Would you have rather had a determined finding that it was a homicide? [01:47:51] Speaker 2: At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to my office. We still investigate the same exact way if it's ruled determined, undetermined, or homicide. [01:48:02] Speaker 1: Well, then why would you say, of course it's undetermined? She was a whack job, sarcastically. [01:48:10] Speaker 2: A sarcastic remark I made to Trooper Di Chico. [01:48:13] Speaker 1: Right, which sort of suggests displeasure, rather than the reverse, correct? [01:48:18] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:48:19] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:48:24] Speaker 1: You'd agree that it's extremely unusual for the manner of death to be undetermined in a homicide investigation you've worked on, correct? [01:48:34] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:48:34] Speaker 1: Just kidding. How many murder cases in the history of your career have you worked on in which the medical examiner made the determination that the manner of death could not be determined? [01:48:52] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:48:52] Speaker 1: I'm going to allow that. [01:49:02] Speaker 2: I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a number on it. It's not a lot. I couldn't put, I couldn't ballpark it for you, but I know it's not a lot. [01:49:11] Speaker 1: Well, Trooper Proctor, you were asked this exact question in February of 2024 at another proceeding. And you indicated that you had never seen it in your entire career, correct? [01:49:34] Speaker 2: Trying to, yeah, I'm trying to run. [01:49:36] Speaker 1: Well, you were asked the question, so first, what do you mean by, of course, it's undetermined? And your answer was, I said it at the time, it was kind of like, not like, figuratively, of course, it's an, of course, like, I had never really seen that before in a homicide, end quote. Correct? [01:49:55] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:49:56] Speaker 1: Your statement in February of 2024, under oath, was you'd literally never seen that in any homicide you've ever worked, right? [01:50:03] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:50:05] Speaker 1: After she reached that conclusion, you discussed this with one of your colleagues about how you tried to put pressure on her to change her or alter her opinion, correct? [01:50:16] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:50:18] Speaker 1: I'll allow it. [01:50:20] Speaker 4: Is that what you did? [01:50:22] Speaker 2: Pressure? Absolutely not. Let's turn to tab 12. [01:50:28] Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead. Thank you for, to begin with, Trooper Proctor, do you recognize the face page of that series of text messages in tab 12? [01:50:36] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:50:37] Speaker 1: Is that the text messages between you and Trooper DiCicco, one of your colleagues? [01:50:42] Speaker 2: It is, yes. [01:50:42] Speaker 1: Turn to page 2632, if you wouldn't mind. Tell me when you're ready. [01:50:50] Speaker 2: Go ahead, sir. [01:50:53] Speaker 1: Trooper DiCicco texted you, rookie move, not going into a meeting with the ME and getting that homicide determination, correct? [01:51:01] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:51:05] Speaker 1: How did you interpret that? Rookie move, not getting that homicide determination. [01:51:10] Speaker 2: Knowing Trooper DiCicco, it's him busting my chops and joking with me. [01:51:17] Speaker 1: Because you see it as your job, you and Trooper DiCicco, to go in and get the homicide determination. That's your job, right? [01:51:27] Speaker 2: Not at all, sir. [01:51:29] Speaker 1: You're not looking so much for her opinion as looking to give her your opinion, right? Absolutely not. You responded, Yuri and I, who's Yuri? [01:51:37] Speaker 2: Sergeant Mechanic. [01:51:39] Speaker 1: Yuri and I had two conference calls with her, sent her numerous photos, et cetera. We laid out the entire case for her. That was your response, correct? Yes. You were explaining how much effort you went to to try to get her to change your opinion to a homicide, right? Objection. No, not at all. DiCicco then responds, not good enough. Should have had me and Jeff do it, right? [01:52:05] Speaker 2: Yes, that was his response. [01:52:07] Speaker 1: 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. [01:52:20] Speaker 2: We wouldn't never try to change the mind of a medical examiner. The doctor who conducts the autopsy often has questions. They want to know some of the facts, kind of what had transpired leading up to a victim's death. It happens not only in homicides, but the unintended deaths we also attend to, you know, a suicide, an overdose. So it's common to have these conversations with doctors. [01:52:43] Speaker 1: Right. But in response to getting the information that she made the determination and held on to it, that this was undetermined, your answer was, of course it's undetermined. She was just a whack job, right? [01:53:00] Speaker 2: With sarcasm. [01:53:04] Speaker 1: Ultimately, did the doctor change her opinion? [01:53:08] Speaker ?: No. [01:53:09] Speaker 1: 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. Reed with murder anyway. [01:53:17] Speaker 2: Jackson. [01:53:19] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [01:53:22] Speaker 2: Yeah, the determination did not matter as we continued on with the investigation. [01:53:27] Speaker 1: Notwithstanding the medical findings in the case, correct? That it was not determined to be a homicide, right? [01:53:33] Speaker 2: Considering the manner, but... [01:53:36] Speaker 1: 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? [01:53:52] Speaker 5: Jackson. [01:53:52] Speaker 1: It's changed. 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? [01:54:05] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:54:07] Speaker 1: On February 1st, 2024, you were asked, so what you're telling this grand jury today, and you expect this grand jury to believe, that you didn't care whether the medical examiner came back with a homicide determination? It doesn't matter to you? And your answer, quote, no, because either way, Ms. Reed was going to be charged. Right? [01:54:30] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:54:33] Speaker 1: That's how you make a case cut and dry, isn't it? Objection. Sustained. In other words, Trooper Proctor, to hell with the medical evidence, Karen Reed was going to be charged because that's what you had decided to do, correct? [01:54:52] Speaker 5: Objection. [01:54:53] Speaker 1: Sustained. 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? [01:55:10] Speaker 3: Objection. [01:55:11] Speaker 4: I'll allow that. Are you aware of that? [01:55:12] Speaker 1: I'm not aware of that. Are you aware that there were texts and calls missing from her phone before having that phone turned over to you? [01:55:20] Speaker 2: I'm not aware of that. [01:55:23] Speaker 1: Did you look at the extraction report, the Celebrite extraction report from her phone? I have, yes. And you didn't see the columns marked deleted, deleted, deleted, deleted? [01:55:35] Speaker 2: No, not that area, no. [01:55:37] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. [01:55:39] Speaker 2: Not that area. [01:55:40] Speaker 1: Not that area, meaning? No. What does that mean? I don't know what you mean by not that area. [01:55:44] Speaker 2: I went through her, the Celebrite report, but clearly I didn't review that tab. [01:55:49] Speaker 1: 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? [01:56:00] Speaker 2: Objection. [01:56:01] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [01:56:03] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not aware right now, sir. [01:56:08] Speaker 1: 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? [01:56:26] Speaker 2: That'd be important. [01:56:28] Speaker 1: But you didn't do it with Jim McCabe's phone? [01:56:31] Speaker 2: I didn't personally handle that, no. [01:56:39] Speaker 1: Did you ever seize Nicole Albert's phone? [01:56:41] Speaker ?: No. [01:56:42] Speaker 1: Did you ever seize Brian Albert's phone? [01:56:43] Speaker 2: No. [01:56:44] Speaker 1: Colin Alberts? No. Chris Alberts? [01:56:47] Speaker 2: No. [01:56:47] Speaker 1: Julie Alberts? [01:56:48] Speaker 2: No. [01:56:49] Speaker 1: 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? [01:57:06] Speaker 2: No. That thought never crossed my mind. [01:57:12] Speaker 1: But the fact remains, you never sought to seize any of those, did you? [01:57:16] Speaker 2: No, I don't. [01:57:19] Speaker 1: And you never asked, irrespective of what you saw in the Celebrite 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? [01:57:41] Speaker 2: I did not. Again, I didn't handle Ms. McCabe's phone. I do the cell phone abstraction on it. [01:57:48] Speaker 1: 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 29th, 2022, right? Correct. And you can put it in that text message, NACAT, it's total opposite. They have to recuse themselves, BPD. Same with Canton, right? Yes. Those are your words on January 29th, right? [01:58:22] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:58:23] Speaker 1: And you knew that one of the reasons for Canton PD to accuse itself is because of the relationship between the Alberts and one of the detectives on Canton PD, Kevin Albert, right? [01:58:35] Speaker 2: Correct. [01:58:39] Speaker 1: You knew that Kevin Albert was the primary source of the conflict, correct? Yes. And you knew that he, above everybody else, should be completely removed from any contact with the investigation or the investigators, right? Correct. Yet when you wanted to coordinate witnesses for interviews in this case, who'd you turn to? [01:59:04] Speaker 2: I texted Kevin Albert to see if he could secure a conference room for us to conduct interviews at the station. [01:59:12] Speaker 1: The same Kevin Albert to help coordinate these witness interviews, who's the brother of Brian Albert, right? [01:59:20] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:59:25] Speaker 1: If you could turn to tab 13, please. Do you have that in front of you, Trooper Proctor? [01:59:33] Speaker 2: Yes, I do. [01:59:34] Speaker 1: If you'll turn to page 2591. Can you see that 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 now. Steve Serif is here if you need to interview him. And we can call Stephen Mullaney in as well. End quote. You see that? Yes. Who's Paul G.? [02:00:01] Speaker 2: Lieutenant Paul Gallagher. [02:00:04] Speaker 1: So, Kevin Albert, a Canton PD officer, and an Albert. He's texting you about Paul Gallagher, another Canton officer, about interviewing Steve Serif, another Canton officer, and Steve Mullaney, a second Canton officer, correct? Correct. What investigation was Kevin Albert referring to in the text? [02:00:29] Speaker 2: The death of John O'Keefe. [02:00:31] Speaker 1: This investigation. Correct. Did you tell Kevin Albert it's completely inappropriate for him to be involved in this case at all? I did not. 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? I did not. What you did write back was, quote, okay, you and I are coming in at one to interview a firefighter, Katie, correct? [02:00:55] Speaker 2: That's right. [02:00:56] Speaker 1: 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? [02:01:04] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:01:05] Speaker 1: And you were going to do it at Canton PD, correct? Correct. So, you're sharing information about the ID, identity of witnesses that you intend to interview with Brian Albert's brother, right? Yes. Then you asked Kevin Albert to actually contact the witnesses in order to schedule their interviews, didn't you? [02:01:26] Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe it was Officer Mullaney and Seraph. [02:01:31] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Kevin Albert texts, okay, so I'll get Mullaney in as well. You're interviewing her here, and you respond, yeah, if we can line them up for 1.30 and 2, that would be great, correct? Yes. 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? [02:01:58] Speaker 5: Jackson. [02:01:59] Speaker 1: I'll allow it. Correct. You then answered, anytime in the ballpark, I'm sorry, yes, you answered anytime in the ballpark, then you went on and said, from 1.30 on, correct? [02:02:09] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:02:10] Speaker 1: Kevin Albert then says, okay, sounds good, and then he responds, if you want to interview witnesses in the recorded room here, you're more than welcome. You see that? [02:02:20] Speaker 2: I do. [02:02:21] Speaker 1: He was referring to an interview room or an interrogation room where there's surreptitious recording devices, correct? [02:02:29] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:02:29] Speaker 1: That's to help facilitate memorializing interviews that police officers want to take with any witness in a crime, right? Correct. That would mean that if you used a recorded room, those recordings would be in the hands of which agency? [02:02:48] Speaker 2: That's why we did not use that recorded room. [02:02:51] Speaker 1: But he offered it, didn't he? [02:02:52] Speaker 2: He offered, but he did not use it. [02:02:54] Speaker 1: Did you see that as a problem? [02:02:56] Speaker 2: That he offered? [02:02:57] Speaker 1: Yeah. [02:02:57] Speaker 2: No, I don't, sir. [02:02:59] Speaker 1: You see that as a problem because he might, I don't know, take some of those interviews and forward them to his brother? [02:03:08] Speaker 5: Jackson. [02:03:09] Speaker 4: Sustained. You can ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. [02:03:12] Speaker 1: 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 forward that or tell his brother? [02:03:30] Speaker 2: No. [02:03:31] Speaker 1: Never crossed your mind? [02:03:32] Speaker 2: Never. [02:03:40] Speaker 1: Well, if it never crossed your mind, why didn't you go ahead and use the recording room? [02:03:47] Speaker 2: Typically, they don't record our interviews. [02:03:49] Speaker 1: That's not what you said a second ago. You said the reason we didn't use the recording room is because of the obvious possibility that Kevin Albert and Canton PD could have access to the recordings. [02:04:00] Speaker 5: Jackson. [02:04:01] Speaker 1: Sustained. Didn't you say that's why we didn't use it? No. What was your answer, right? [02:04:07] Speaker 2: No. [02:04:08] Speaker 1: What did you say? [02:04:09] Speaker 2: That we didn't use it. [02:04:11] Speaker 1: 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? [02:04:27] Speaker 2: No, I don't recall saying that's why we didn't use the room. [02:04:30] Speaker 1: You just said it to a proctor. I mean, it's been 10 minutes. It's been four minutes. [02:04:34] Speaker ?: No. [02:04:35] Speaker 1: You don't remember that? [02:04:36] Speaker 2: Not specifically stated like that. [02:04:39] Speaker 1: All right, let me ask you 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. [02:04:54] Speaker 2: Again, typically, we don't record interviews. With the 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. [02:05:12] Speaker 1: Tupa 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? [02:05:23] Speaker 2: We worked on a cold case together. [02:05:26] Speaker 1: So you did have a close personal and professional relationship with Kevin Albert, didn't you? [02:05:32] Speaker 2: I'd say it was a professional relationship. [02:05:35] Speaker 1: Only a professional relationship? [02:05:37] Speaker 2: Him and I were members at a gym together, and we worked a cold case together for several months. [02:05:43] Speaker 1: Drinking, socializing, maybe? [02:05:46] Speaker 2: Once in a while. [02:05:47] Speaker 1: Right. So beyond professional, right? [02:05:52] Speaker 2: Yeah, acquaintances. [02:05:54] Speaker 1: Drinking acquaintances, right? [02:05:58] Speaker 2: On several occasions, yes. [02:06:00] Speaker 1: Socializing acquaintances, right? [02:06:02] Speaker 2: On several occasions. [02:06:03] Speaker 1: 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? [02:06:19] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [02:06:21] Speaker 1: There's a fourth Albert out there, isn't there? Kevin. Right? Yes. But you didn't tell us about that one. [02:06:33] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:06:34] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [02:06:36] Speaker 1: Correct? [02:06:37] Speaker 2: I don't consider that a relationship. It's, uh... [02:06:40] Speaker 1: 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? [02:06:54] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:06:55] Speaker 1: On July 19, 2022, you and Kevin Albert went out drinking together, didn't you? [02:07:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:07:04] Speaker 1: Chief Proctor, I'm not asking you to look for anything in the binder at this point. I'm asking for your memory. [02:07:08] Speaker 2: I don't recall that. [02:07:10] Speaker 1: You don't recall the date, or you don't recall... [02:07:12] Speaker 2: July 19, 2022. [02:07:14] Speaker 1: You don't recall the drinking? [02:07:17] Speaker 2: The date itself, sir. [02:07:19] Speaker 1: Why don't we turn to tab 13? [02:07:26] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [02:07:27] Speaker 1: Do I have a number or a letter? We're still in tab 13. Are we still in tab 13? [02:07:33] Speaker 4: All right. To what page, Mr. Jackson? [02:07:35] Speaker 1: Page 2602. May I? Yes. Thank you. Trooper Proctor, are you on 2602? [02:07:47] Speaker 2: I am. [02:07:49] Speaker 1: Does that refresh your recollection that on July 19, 2022, you and Kevin Albert have been out drinking together? [02:07:57] Speaker 2: It does. [02:08:04] Speaker 1: 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? [02:08:14] Speaker 5: Jackson? [02:08:15] Speaker 4: Overruled. [02:08:19] Speaker 2: I can't speak to any level of intoxication, but I don't recall any of us, either of us, being intoxicated. [02:08:28] Speaker 1: Got it. 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? Yes. 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? Correct. Kevin Albert responds, my mailbox. Did I take my gun? And then included a wince face emoji, correct? Correct. 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? [02:09:19] Speaker 2: Again, I can't speak to any level of intoxication, whether he just forgot it, I don't know. [02:09:25] Speaker 1: I'm not asking you about his BAC Trooper Proctor, I'm asking, have you seen drunk people before? [02:09:29] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:09:29] Speaker 1: You've been drunk before. [02:09:31] Speaker 2: Yes, I have, sir. [02:09:31] Speaker 1: We've all been drunk before, right? [02:09:33] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:09:33] Speaker 1: Was he drunk? Were you drunk that night? [02:09:36] Speaker 2: I don't recall, it was a long time ago. [02:09:38] Speaker 1: But he left his badge in your cruiser after a night of drinking, isn't that right? [02:09:43] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:09:44] Speaker 1: Which means you were drinking and driving in your cruiser. Right? [02:09:54] Speaker 2: From what I remember, we were down the Cape working on the cold case together, and stopped for dinner, had a few beers, and then dropped him off. [02:10:05] Speaker 1: The next morning, Kevin Albert also texted you at page 2606. Starting with, it's bad. Tell me when you see that. Kevin Albert responded, it's bad, exclamation point, exclamation point, I was hungover for sure today, exclamation point, exclamation point. Couple tonight to make me feel good, end quote. Correct? [02:10:46] Speaker ?: Correct. [02:10:47] Speaker 1: You can take that down. Does that refresh your recollection that the two of you have 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. [02:11:07] Speaker 2: Um, yes, it does refresh my memory. [02:11:10] Speaker 1: Right. And you're in your cruiser. Right? [02:11:20] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [02:11:22] Speaker 1: And this is with Brian Albert's brother, Cooper Proctor. [02:11:27] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:11:29] Speaker 1: I'm going to change gears, Trooper Proctor. You personally collected John O'Keefe's clothes from the hospital at Good Sam and brought them. Did you not? [02:11:43] Speaker 2: I did. [02:11:44] Speaker 1: I'd like to. At the time you were at Good Sam, you actually had the opportunity, you had the occasion, uh, to see Mr. O'Keefe, uh, in the hospital, correct? Yes. Uh, you also had the occasion to see his clothing in the hospital, correct? [02:12:04] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:12:04] Speaker 1: That's the clothing that you ultimately gathered. Is that right? [02:12:07] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:12:08] Speaker 1: Um, may I approach you on? Yes. If you could take a look at that. [02:12:14] Speaker 2: Mm-hmm. [02:12:15] Speaker 1: Tell me if you recognize it. [02:12:17] Speaker 2: I do. [02:12:18] Speaker 1: That photograph of you, I'm sorry, it's not of you, but do you see your legs in that photograph? Yes. Okay, and you also see, uh, the legs of Mr. O'Keefe on the hospital gurney, correct? [02:12:29] Speaker 2: I do. [02:12:29] Speaker 1: And you see a pile of clothes there? [02:12:31] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:12:31] Speaker 1: Do you want to have this marked and admitted? Any objection? [02:12:35] Speaker 4: No, Your Honor. [02:12:36] Speaker ?: Okay. [02:12:37] Speaker 1: May I inquire? Yes. Thank you. Uh, request, um, the court's permission to publish? Okay. Do you see this, uh, do you see the photograph in front of you? Is that the same photograph that's been published up on the television screen? Yes, sir. Directing your attention to the leftmost portion of the photograph, do you see the clothes, uh, first the clothes on the, on the ground? [02:13:01] Speaker 2: I do, yes. [02:13:02] Speaker 1: Okay. That appears to be what? What, what items or articles of clothing do you see? [02:13:08] Speaker 2: Um, the t-shirt, possibly the jeans. [02:13:15] Speaker 1: Gray shirt as well? [02:13:19] Speaker 2: Uh, yes. [02:13:20] Speaker ?: Okay. [02:13:21] Speaker 1: Uh, and those are your legs to the uppermost part of the screen, correct? [02:13:26] Speaker 2: I believe. [02:13:26] Speaker 1: In the blue pants? [02:13:27] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:13:28] Speaker 1: And do you see to the leftmost portion of the screen, uh, a chair? [02:13:32] Speaker 2: I do. [02:13:33] Speaker 1: Do you see what's on that chair? [02:13:34] Speaker 2: Uh, my binder. [02:13:36] Speaker 1: That's your portfolio? [02:13:37] Speaker 2: It is. [02:13:37] Speaker 1: Okay. Uh, that's something that you carry routinely as you're investigating, um, during the course of your investigations? [02:13:44] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:13:44] Speaker 1: Do you keep your notes and things of that nature? [02:13:46] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:13:47] Speaker 1: Pins, paper? [02:13:48] Speaker ?: Correct. [02:13:49] Speaker 1: All right. Uh, let me take that down. You indicated that you took possession of those clothing items from Good Samaritan Hospital, correct? Correct. You bagged them, bagged, B-A-G-G-E-D, bagged them, correct? Yes. And then what did you do with them after that? [02:14:06] Speaker 2: Uh, we secured them in Sergeant Mechanics' pickup truck. [02:14:09] Speaker 1: And then what happened to them after they were secured in this pickup truck? [02:14:11] Speaker 2: Uh, we traveled to Dighton, to Mr. Reed's house. [02:14:17] Speaker 1: Once you ultimately got back, I don't want to have to take you through the entire, everybody knows where you went. Uh, Sergeant Mechanics already testified. You get back to Canton at some point, correct? [02:14:25] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:14:26] Speaker 1: Uh, ultimately, were the clothes transported into the, uh, your facility? Yes. At the DA's office? [02:14:34] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:14:34] Speaker 1: Okay. What did you do with them after that? [02:14:36] Speaker 2: We brought them to the evidence processing area. [02:14:39] Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you what you did, not what we did, what you did. [02:14:42] Speaker 2: Sergeant Mechanics and I brought them to the evidence processing area, laid out butcher paper so the clothes could dry, put them on there, um, in that area. And then I brought two cell phones to Trooper Garino so we could try to attempt to extract the phones. [02:14:57] Speaker 1: Did you, what did you do with the, uh, the clothing after it was dried out? [02:15:02] Speaker 2: So, the next day, Trooper DiCicco, uh, arrived and brought them into, uh, the permanent evidence area where, uh, only him and another trooper in my office have access to, um, so they were secured from that, at that point. [02:15:22] Speaker 1: So, you didn't book them into evidence? [02:15:24] Speaker 2: I did not, no. [02:15:27] Speaker 1: When they're booked into evidence, there's supposed to be a log of that, correct? [02:15:30] Speaker 2: I'm sorry? [02:15:31] Speaker 1: There's supposed to be a log of that when they're booked into evidence, correct? [02:15:34] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:15:35] Speaker 1: 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? Yes. Where's the log of those items being booked into evidence? [02:15:48] Speaker 2: There was a chain of custody from when they entered the, uh, the DA's office and then, uh, when Trooper DiCicco, um, created a label for them but also put them in a secure facility. [02:15:59] Speaker 1: Can you show me where that is? [02:16:00] Speaker 2: I'm not the evidence office. I don't have that. [02:16:02] Speaker 1: I see. So you didn't bring in a log with you of any sort, of any sort, concerning the chain of custody of these items, correct? [02:16:08] Speaker 2: No. [02:16:10] Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, the reason you didn't bring that chain of custody, uh, log is because none exists. Isn't that right? [02:16:15] Speaker ?: Objection. [02:16:16] Speaker 4: Sustained. Ask it differently. [02:16:18] Speaker 1: Does a physical log exist starting from January 29th, 2022 to today? Yes. Where is that physical log, sir? [02:16:39] Speaker ?: Who? [02:16:41] Speaker 2: I'm not the, I'm not an evidence officer, so I don't know how that, yeah, so I don't know how that's generated. [02:16:46] Speaker 1: Right. So as 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. [02:16:54] Speaker 3: Objection. [02:16:55] Speaker 1: Sustained. The fact of the matter is the evidence log attended to this case regarding those clothing items starts on March 14th when they were taken to the crime lab, correct? [02:17:10] Speaker 2: That's when the clothing was transported to the lab. [02:17:12] Speaker 1: And that's the only log we have of what happened to those clothes between January 29th and today. [02:17:19] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:17:21] Speaker 1: Do you know that? [02:17:23] Speaker 2: I don't. I'm not off the top of my head, ma'am. [02:17:27] Speaker 1: I want to talk for a second about the searches in Brian Albert's front lawn that took place on and after January 29th, 2022. As the case officer, Trooper Proctor, you also took control of the taillight pieces that were ultimately claimed to have been found at that location, correct? [02:17:45] Speaker 2: Not in all searches. [02:17:51] Speaker 1: Which of the pieces that were found were you responsible for taking control over? [02:17:58] Speaker 2: The 8th, 11th, and 18th. [02:18:03] Speaker 1: So who had control over the items that were found before the 8th? You said the 8th, 11th, and 18th, right? [02:18:11] Speaker 2: Those are items that I had found on those days and that I had processed and essentially bagged and tagged them and handed them over to our evidence officer. There was multiple days that troopers were out there looking for more evidence. [02:18:28] Speaker 1: So there would be a log of that too, right? [02:18:33] Speaker 2: Again, how the system works as far as the evidence comes in, I can't speak to that. [02:18:40] Speaker 1: So you have no idea what the chain of custody of any of these items are, the clothing or the taillight material, from January 29th until March 14th, when the evidence log starts. Is that what you're saying? [02:18:52] Speaker 5: Jackson. [02:18:53] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. [02:18:57] Speaker 2: 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. [02:19:16] Speaker 1: What happens if the label is created and it says something like, I don't know, February 4th? What happens to the items before February 4th? [02:19:23] Speaker 2: They were stored in a secured facility. A secured room. [02:19:27] Speaker 1: Says who? Where's the log? [02:19:30] Speaker 2: Jackson. [02:19:31] Speaker 1: Sistine. Is there a log of that? [02:19:38] Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge. [02:19:43] Speaker 1: You were responsible for seizing Ms. Reed's car, correct? [02:19:46] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:19:47] Speaker 1: And you originally claimed that that seizure took place at 5.30 p.m. Is that right? [02:19:53] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:19:53] Speaker 1: You signed numerous affidavits under oath, claiming that you did not seize Ms. Reed's vehicle until 5.30 p.m. on January 29, 2022, right? Correct. At the time that you seized Ms. Reed's vehicle, you were unaware that there was alarm.com surveillance footage of the area from which the car was seized, correct? [02:20:17] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:20:24] Speaker 1: The fact of the matter is, that was false. The car was not seized at 5.30, was it? [02:20:30] Speaker 2: 4.16 p.m. [02:20:32] Speaker 1: Right. An hour and change. An hour and 18 minutes, an hour and 20 minutes earlier. Is that right? [02:20:38] Speaker 3: Yes. [02:20:38] Speaker 1: Did you ever seek to change or amend the error, a false statement about the time or received and seized in any of those documents that you filed under oath? [02:20:56] Speaker 2: When I incorrectly transcribed the times, it was on the first affidavit I had written. And then as I continued to write other search warrants, I used that as a template. So I never caught it on the first one. And that's the reason those times are off on the other affidavits I had wrote. [02:21:15] Speaker 1: So the first one was false. And then every single one after that was false, too? [02:21:20] Speaker 2: It was just an incorrect transcription of time. [02:21:26] Speaker 1: An incorrect transcription of the time? Yes. Did you call that, I don't know, a Scrivener's error? [02:21:31] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:21:32] Speaker 1: Ask it differently. Sure. Was it a typo? [02:21:37] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:21:38] Speaker 1: 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? [02:21:48] Speaker 2: They were typos, sir. [02:21:51] Speaker 1: Okay. 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? [02:22:11] Speaker 2: Correct. It arrives at 531. [02:22:16] Speaker 1: And you also towed it to the Canton Police Department because that was conveniently close to the location at 34th Avenue, to the crime scene, right? [02:22:25] Speaker 2: That was not my decision. Whose decision was it? I don't recall. I know that... Well, you're the case officer. I wouldn't... Who decides? It wasn't my decision. I did not make that call, sir. [02:22:38] Speaker 1: So who are we pointing the finger at? Was it Sergeant Buchanek? [02:22:42] Speaker 2: Jackson. [02:22:43] Speaker 4: Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. [02:22:45] Speaker 1: Was it Sergeant Buchanek who made that decision to transport it to Canton? [02:22:49] Speaker 2: It's a supervisor's decision. I don't know who it came from. [02:22:53] Speaker 1: Was it Lieutenant Tully? [02:22:56] Speaker 2: Again, I don't know who it came from. [02:22:58] Speaker 1: So you were just following orders? [02:22:59] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:23:00] Speaker 1: 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 are both closer, as crow flies, than the Canton PD Sallyport, from where the car was towed, correct? Yes. Both of those facilities were passed by, and the car was ultimately placed at Canton PD Sallyport, at 531 or so, right? [02:23:30] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:23:33] Speaker 1: And you're aware that that Sallyport is about three minutes from 34 Fairview? [02:23:43] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:23:49] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, you're 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? Correct. And you obviously are aware of your legal obligation to turn over any and all exculpatory information that you might come in possession of, correct? [02:24:15] Speaker 5: Jackson. [02:24:16] Speaker 1: That's sustained. You did pull a lot of video in connection with this case, did you not? Yes. About 290 videos from the ring camera located in the driveway at One Meadows, does that sound about right? I don't expect you to have counted every single one, but just under 300? Correct. A ton of them, right? Yes. Another 140 videos or so from the front door ring camera of that same location, One Meadows, right? Yes. Nine videos from the Waterfall Bar and Grill? Yes. Eight videos from the Temple Beth? Yes. Five videos from C.F. McCarthy's? [02:24:53] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:24:54] Speaker 1: Four dash cam videos? [02:24:56] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:24:57] Speaker 1: Two videos from Canton Town Library? Correct. Two videos from Cassie's Corner Store, right? [02:25:03] Speaker ?: Yes. [02:25:04] Speaker 1: Two videos from the cars test on Ms. Reed's vehicle, is that right? [02:25:08] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:25:08] Speaker 1: And two videos from the location at 34 Fairview where individuals were using leaf blowers? [02:25:16] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:25:21] Speaker 1: 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? [02:25:33] Speaker 5: Yes. [02:25:34] Speaker 1: That's sustained. They were provided a discovery to the defense ultimately, right? [02:25:38] Speaker 3: Okay. [02:25:39] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:25:39] Speaker 1: 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? [02:25:45] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:25:46] Speaker 1: All right. But there was additional video surveillance footage that you chose to hold back from that discovery, correct? [02:25:52] Speaker 2: Jackson. [02:25:54] Speaker 4: Did you hold back videos? [02:25:56] Speaker 2: I did not, Your Honor. [02:25:57] Speaker 4: Okay, next question. [02:26:00] Speaker 1: There's surveillance video from Canton Police Department's Sally Port Garage that wasn't turned over, right? [02:26:10] Speaker 2: That video was discovered later on and then handed over. [02:26:13] Speaker 1: The first time you revealed the existence of that footage was in that separate proceeding in February of 2024. Isn't that right? [02:26:25] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:26:26] Speaker 1: You were questioned about it and you knew you were under oath at the time, correct? Correct. And that's when you disclosed, yes, there is Sally Port footage and I've seen it. [02:26:36] Speaker 2: The video I was referencing was the exterior Sally Port camera where you can't make out anything. [02:26:43] Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about that for a second. The exterior, you said. Exterior, outside. [02:26:48] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:26:49] Speaker 1: Meaning the one of the driveway. [02:26:51] Speaker ?: Right. [02:26:52] Speaker 1: And you say you can't make anything out in that. [02:26:55] Speaker 2: There's two different ones. There's the main driveway camera and then there's this exterior Sally Port camera. [02:27:01] Speaker 1: You were asked about this set of videos at that other hearing, right? [02:27:10] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:27:10] Speaker 1: And you indicated at the time that there was one grainy video, looks sort of mainly black and grainy. [02:27:17] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:27:18] Speaker 1: And another one that showed you and Sergeant Buchanan arriving at Canton PD behind Ms. Reed's vehicle on the tow truck. Is that right? [02:27:25] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:27:28] Speaker 1: You were asked very specifically, are you aware whether there are any cameras in the garage in the Sally Port where Karen Reed's SUV was parked? And your answer was yes. Right? In the garage. [02:27:46] Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't recall. [02:27:50] Speaker 1: Do you recall being asked that question? [02:27:52] Speaker 2: No. [02:27:52] Speaker 1: I can repeat it if you wish. [02:27:54] Speaker 2: Yeah, please. [02:27:55] Speaker 1: Question. Are you aware of whether there are any cameras in the garage or Sally Port where Karen Reed's SUV was parked? Answer. Yes. [02:28:04] Speaker 2: Okay. [02:28:05] Speaker 1: 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 Buchanan and I arriving in the main entrance around 5.30 following the vehicle. Period. Do you remember that answer? Yes. That clearly was an answer to the question, did you see video of the interior of the garage? [02:28:28] Speaker 5: Objection. [02:28:29] Speaker 4: Sustained. Asked it differently. [02:28:31] Speaker 1: Were you answering a question about video inside the garage? [02:28:36] Speaker 2: No. I was answering the question about what video I observed and it was exterior video that I observed. [02:28:42] Speaker 1: Although the answer to the question was cameras in the garage or Sally Port. That was the question. [02:28:50] Speaker 2: If I was aware of any. [02:28:52] Speaker 1: 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 Buchanan and I arriving in the main entrance around 5.30 following the vehicle. Right? That was your testimony. [02:29:06] Speaker 2: Yeah. Those two videos I'm referring to in the exterior of the building. [02:29:10] Speaker 1: Question. When did you watch the video from the Sally Port? Answer. I haven't reviewed it, sir, in quite some time. So I can't recall what's on there. End quote. Do you remember that? [02:29:24] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:29:24] Speaker 1: 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? [02:29:39] Speaker 2: The exterior Sally Port camera. [02:29:42] Speaker 1: Except you weren't asked about the exterior. You were asked, question, when did you watch the video from the Sally Port? Right? That was the question. [02:29:54] Speaker 2: Well, that was the video we had, so that was how I referenced it. That was the exterior Sally Port video. [02:30:00] Speaker 1: Why didn't you say to the person that was questioning you under oath, I don't know anything about video inside the Sally Port. I'm referring to outside the building. Why didn't you say that and clarify it? [02:30:13] Speaker 2: Yeah, I should have clarified it, sir. [02:30:14] Speaker 1: Because you'll agree, it sounds a hell of a lot like, an awful lot like, you're talking about what's inside the Sally Port, right? [02:30:20] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:30:23] Speaker 1: The next question you were asked, why did you review the video of the Sally Port? Answer, we review every video we pull and we pull a lot of video. End quote. Do you remember that? [02:30:36] Speaker 2: I do. [02:30:38] Speaker 1: Not one word in that testimony, not one word says exterior, does it? No, it does not. You testified that you had obtained and reviewed the Sally Port garage video so long ago that you literally couldn't even remember what was on it, right? [02:30:57] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:30:59] Speaker 1: You did know, however, that if you had video at the Sally Port, it would clearly show that Ms. Reed's vehicle arrived at 530, 531, right? You knew that, correct? [02:31:13] Speaker 2: Yes, from the driveway camera. [02:31:16] Speaker 1: 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? [02:31:29] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:31:31] Speaker 1: Is that true? [02:31:32] Speaker 2: That's, I'm not aware of that, withholding that. [02:31:39] Speaker 1: On April 4th, 2024, 2024, it's getting late. On April 4th, 2024, you turned over one video from the interior of the Sally Port garage, correct? [02:31:52] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [02:31:53] Speaker 1: The interior, not the exterior, right? Correct. And that, remarkably enough, was a grainy video, right? [02:32:01] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:32:01] Speaker 1: And that video is missing the precise time that that vehicle was delivered to the Sally Port, correct? [02:32:08] Speaker 2: Objection. [02:32:10] Speaker 1: Was it? I'll allow it. [02:32:13] Speaker 2: I don't recall. [02:32:14] Speaker 1: It's missing 42 minutes at the beginning, and it jumps from 5.08 p.m. to 5.50 p.m., correct? [02:32:21] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [02:32:23] Speaker 1: Have you reviewed the video? Yes. Did you see that the timestamp jumps from 5.08 to 5.50? [02:32:30] Speaker 4: Objection. Sustained. [02:32:33] Speaker 1: Do you want a house? [02:32:34] Speaker 4: I'll see you at the sidebar if you want. Go ahead. [02:32:36] Speaker 1: Please. [02:32:39] Speaker ?: Ma'am? [02:32:40] Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. You've reviewed the video, the grainy video, correct? [02:32:45] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:32:45] Speaker 1: 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? [02:32:52] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:32:56] Speaker 1: Did you note that the time jumps from 5.08 to about 5.50 at the beginning of the video? [02:33:05] Speaker 2: Yeah, I observed a jump in video. [02:33:07] Speaker 1: And that was about 42 minutes, correct? [02:33:09] Speaker 2: Approximately, yes. [02:33:12] Speaker 1: You're aware that there's another video from the interior of that sally port as well, correct? [02:33:16] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:33:18] Speaker 1: 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 a little confusing. The second video from the interior of the sally port is inverted, correct? [02:33:37] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:33:37] Speaker 1: You're now aware of that? [02:33:39] Speaker 2: I am. [02:33:40] Speaker 1: Did you recover that video? [02:33:42] Speaker 2: I did not. [02:33:43] Speaker 1: Who did? [02:33:44] Speaker 2: I believe Detective Lieutenant Tully received that from the Cannes Police Chief. [02:33:53] Speaker 1: Rafferty? [02:33:54] Speaker 2: I believe so. [02:33:55] Speaker 1: Who asked for it? [02:33:58] Speaker 2: I'm not sure, sir. [02:33:59] Speaker 1: You didn't make the request? I did not. How did you become aware that a request had been made? [02:34:05] Speaker 2: I was made aware that the video had essentially existed from the interior sally port area. By whom? I was probably informed by Detective Lieutenant Tully. [02:34:24] Speaker 1: So, Lieutenant Tully tells you that a second video exists, correct? [02:34:29] Speaker 2: In the interior sally port cameras, yes. [02:34:32] Speaker 1: When did he tell you that? [02:34:33] Speaker 2: I don't recall. [02:34:35] Speaker 1: Was it weeks ago or years ago? [02:34:37] Speaker 2: That was more recent than, you know, maybe months ago, a month ago. [02:34:41] Speaker 1: Matter of fact, it was after the trial had already started, mid-April, correct? [02:34:47] Speaker 2: I don't recall. I don't recall. I thought it was before. [02:34:50] Speaker 1: If it was before, was it weeks before, days before? [02:34:53] Speaker 2: I don't recall. [02:34:54] Speaker 1: I'm just trying to pin down, like, are we talking about six months ago or are we talking about six weeks ago? [02:34:59] Speaker 2: It wasn't, yeah, it wasn't six months ago. [02:35:01] Speaker 1: Okay. So, a few weeks ago, you were told about the second video from Lieutenant Tully, right? [02:35:06] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:35:07] Speaker 1: Did he tell you he had already seen it? [02:35:12] Speaker 2: I'm sure he watched it. [02:35:13] Speaker 1: Did he tell you he needed you to go get it? [02:35:16] Speaker 3: Jackson. [02:35:16] Speaker 1: I'll allow that. No. Okay. So, when was the first time you saw it? [02:35:26] Speaker 2: A few weeks ago, a month ago. [02:35:27] Speaker 1: What were the circumstances in which you saw that video? [02:35:30] Speaker 2: Just reviewing the video. [02:35:32] Speaker 1: Where? [02:35:33] Speaker 2: At my desk. [02:35:34] Speaker 1: So, you pulled it, pardon me, you had access to the video? [02:35:37] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:35:38] Speaker 1: It was on your system somehow? [02:35:40] Speaker 2: It was on thumb drives and a disc. [02:35:43] Speaker 1: You put that in your computer and just decided on your own to watch it, correct? [02:35:47] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:35:47] Speaker 1: And what did you notice? [02:35:51] Speaker 2: One of the SUV being brought into the garage. [02:35:57] Speaker 1: You're in the video, right? Yes. That's you toward the back of the truck. [02:36:01] Speaker 2: Yep. I'm in the video. Some Canton members, Canton PD members there as well. Tow truck guy drops the vehicle off. He's in the front driver's seat. Exit. Sergeant Mechanics there. I believe Chief Berkowitz, the retired police chief. Where was he? He was kind of like mulling around the area. I feel like he was towards like the back open garage gate there. [02:36:30] Speaker 1: The back? [02:36:31] Speaker 2: Towards like the rear, yeah. Where you were? Yes. [02:36:35] Speaker 1: Was he the person, did you note that there were certain individuals that just seemed to apparate out of nowhere, just appeared? [02:36:43] Speaker 2: Yes, there was one individual in like the top left corner of the video pushing a broom that kind of just appeared. [02:36:48] Speaker 1: 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 solid park, correct? [02:36:55] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:36:56] Speaker 1: And was that Chief Berkowitz? [02:36:59] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's my, it looks like him, yes. [02:37:01] Speaker 1: 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? [02:37:12] Speaker 2: It appears that way or it skips. [02:37:14] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. [02:37:16] Speaker 2: Or it skips. I don't know that system at all, so. [02:37:20] Speaker 1: Okay. And you're holding what appears to be that same black portfolio that we saw in the, in the hospital. [02:37:26] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:37:30] Speaker 1: So, anything else you noticed that was odd about the video, other than the time skips? [02:37:48] Speaker 2: So the timestamp in the bottom was inversed, was it reversed? [02:37:53] Speaker 1: I beg your pardon? [02:37:54] Speaker 2: Yeah, the timestamp in the, in the bottom of it was kind of backwards. [02:38:00] Speaker 1: Was it blue? [02:38:03] Speaker 2: So instead of reading left to right, it was right to left. Okay. [02:38:07] Speaker 1: Was it blue? [02:38:09] Speaker 2: I believe it was yellow. [02:38:19] Speaker 1: Just a moment. [02:38:20] Speaker 4: Yes. [02:38:25] Speaker 1: So the video you saw had a timestamp that was inverted, correct? [02:38:30] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:38:30] Speaker 1: How about the video itself? Is that inverted? [02:38:38] Speaker 2: No. From the video I saw, the way the vehicle's brought in, in relation to the garage and the doors into the PD, it was, uh, wasn't reversed or inverted. [02:38:53] Speaker 1: It was or was not? [02:38:54] Speaker 2: It was not. [02:38:56] Speaker 1: 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, uh, the side of the vehicle that purported to be the driver's side was in fact the driver's side. [02:39:12] Speaker 2: Yes. So I reviewed video yesterday to rewatch it. And the one that I watched had the correct angle. It wasn't reversed. The car was brought in, tow truck driver gets out from the driver's side. It wasn't reversed. The only thing reversed on it was like the timestamp on the bottom. [02:39:33] Speaker 1: Well, were you watching video that was produced in this trial? [02:39:40] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:39:42] Speaker 1: So were you aware that the defense presented a piece of evidence? [02:39:47] Speaker ?: Jackson. [02:39:49] Speaker 4: I love it. [02:39:51] Speaker 1: Thank you. Were you aware that the defense presented a piece of evidence where we inverted the video back to the correct? [02:39:59] Speaker 2: No, it was not. [02:40:01] Speaker 1: And that timestamp was inverted? [02:40:05] Speaker 2: I was not aware of that. [02:40:06] Speaker 1: When did you watch that video? [02:40:14] Speaker 2: Just the other day. I was reviewing it. [02:40:18] Speaker 4: Mr. Jackson, we'll take our lunch and break. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you're ready. [02:40:23] Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. Triple Crocker, before we broke, we were discussing Sally Ford 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? [02:40:41] Speaker 2: Yes, that's the way it appeared. [02:40:43] Speaker 1: And you recall that being a yellow chyron underneath? [02:40:46] Speaker 2: To the best of my memory. [02:40:47] Speaker 1: In other words, the font color? [02:40:48] Speaker 2: To the best of my memory, yes. [02:40:53] Speaker 1: Which of the Canton Police Department videos were you responsible for retrieving, if any? [02:41:01] Speaker 2: I did not retrieve any of them. [02:41:05] Speaker 1: So what I'm trying to ask is, and maybe I'm doing it in artfully. How did those Sally Ford videos end up in the possession of the Commonwealth? What was the line of succession? [02:41:18] Speaker 2: Detective Lieutenant Tully retrieved the Sally Ford videos, I believe. [02:41:23] Speaker 1: And do you know from whom he retrieved those Sally Ford videos? [02:41:26] Speaker 2: I believe it was, I believe it was the chief, please. [02:41:29] Speaker 1: Okay, Chief Rafferty specifically gave him those, whatever videos were provided. [02:41:35] Speaker 2: Correct, that's my understanding. [02:41:36] Speaker 1: And then he provided those to you for your review? [02:41:40] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:41:42] Speaker 1: I want to stay on the subject of videos for a second, but shift gears to the ring video footage. You've already testified that there were several hundred ring videos from One Meadows, from both the, facing the driveway and the front door camera, correct? [02:41:57] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:41:58] Speaker 1: As the case officer, you obtained and controlled those ring videos from the, from One Meadows, from the moment that they came into Massachusetts State Police custody, until they were handed over to the Commonwealth, correct? [02:42:10] Speaker 2: Yes, they were archived. [02:42:13] Speaker 1: You drafted the search warrant for the ring video access records, correct? [02:42:17] Speaker 2: I did. [02:42:18] Speaker 1: You obtained the, uh, the warrant returns once those, uh, search warrants were executed, correct? [02:42:23] Speaker 2: I did. [02:42:24] Speaker 1: You took possession of Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone, physically, correct? [02:42:28] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:42:28] Speaker 1: And you had access to Mr. O'Keefe's ring account in that cell phone, is that right? [02:42:33] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:42:34] Speaker 1: You indicated that you reviewed several of the videos on his ring app, on his cell phone, is that right? Yes. 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? [02:42:54] Speaker 2: I don't believe we had the password we had, his, uh, email account associated with the ring app. [02:42:59] Speaker 1: Which means, somewhere or another, you could get access to the ring videos. [02:43:03] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:43:03] Speaker 1: And watch those ring videos on his, uh, app, on the phone. [02:43:07] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:43:08] Speaker 1: Which means you had full access to the app. You could, uh, keep videos, you could save for later, you could delete videos, you could do anything you wanted to within that app, correct? [02:43:19] Speaker 2: Yes, those are the capabilities within that app. [02:43:22] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, did you delete any of the ring videos ever from John O'Keefe's phone? [02:43:27] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. [02:43:29] Speaker 1: Did you delete a video of Ms. Reed arriving to One Meadows at approximately 12:41 AM on January 29th, 2022? Absolutely not. You will agree, Trooper Proctor, that the video of Ms. Reed returning home from 34 Fairview at approximately 12:41 AM is not there? Correct. As the case officer, uh, you're aware that Trooper Proctor, I'm sorry, Trooper Di Chico also reviewed some or all of those videos, correct? Yes. And he did that at your request? Correct. Um, he took notes of his review of those videos, correct? Yes. And then he provided those notes to you so that you could then memorialize those notes and your notes in a broader report that you then drafted in November of 2022, correct? [02:44:19] Speaker 2: The memory serves me at the report I wrote regarding the ring camera was based off my observations, uh, of the videos that I had watched. [02:44:34] Speaker 1: But you certainly did have, as you just indicated, you did accumulate his notes and review his notes as well as your own notes, correct? [02:44:40] Speaker 2: I, best of my recollection, I wrote that report off of my notes. [02:44:44] Speaker 1: Did you actually, at any point before writing your, your report, did you note, or did you review his notes? [02:44:50] Speaker 2: I can't recall. [02:44:52] Speaker 1: You asked him, he, he reviewed the videos at your directions, correct? Yes. At your direction, correct? Yes. 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? [02:45:06] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:45:06] Speaker 1: So when you reviewed his notes, did you see that they were on some sticky pads? You remember that? [02:45:12] Speaker 2: That sounds about right. [02:45:18] Speaker 1: Do you recall exactly, as you sit here, exactly what was on one or more of those sticky pads that you reviewed from Trooper DiCico? [02:45:27] Speaker 2: I don't know. [02:45:28] Speaker 1: Would it refresh your recollection if you were to take a look at a copy of those notes? [02:45:32] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:45:33] Speaker 1: May I, your honor? Yes. If you would mind taking a look at the top, or the uppermost top note that's highlighted with a sticky note next to it. [02:45:51] Speaker ?: Okay, sir. Thank you. [02:45:52] Speaker 2: May I approach? [02:45:53] Speaker 1: Yes. [02:45:54] Speaker ?: Thank you, sir. Thank you. [02:45:54] Speaker 1: May I approach? [02:45:55] Speaker ?: Yes. Thank you, sir. [02:45:57] Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Mr Proctor, do you have these notes in mind, specifically the uppermost note? [02:46:09] Speaker 2: The 0041? Correct. [02:46:11] Speaker 1: Yes. [02:46:12] Speaker 2: All right. [02:46:13] Speaker 1: All right. You reviewed this previously before you wrote your report, correct? [02:46:18] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:46:19] Speaker 1: All right. And you note that at 0041, which is a time relative to what DiCico was looking at on the Ring video, he indicated taillights from driveway, parentheses, I think she arrived home, in parentheses. Correct? [02:46:36] Speaker 2: Correct. [02:46:37] Speaker 1: 0041 is what? Is that in reference to? [02:46:42] Speaker 2: Just after midnight, the approximate time where Ms. Reed will be returning from Fairview Road. [02:46:48] Speaker 1: It's military time for 12:41 a.m., correct? [02:46:52] Speaker 2: Yes. [02:46:53] Speaker 1: 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? Yes. Do you recall every single entry that you made concerning the events that were of note to you that were reflected in your report? [02:47:31] Speaker 2: The majority of them, every single one. [02:47:34] Speaker 1: Would it refresh your recollection to look at a copy of your report to determine what all you did and did not note? [02:47:41] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. [02:47:42] Speaker 1: May I approach? Sure. Do you have it with you, Trooper? [02:47:45] Speaker 2: Do you have your report with you? [02:47:46] Speaker ?: May I approach? Yes. Thank you. [02:47:49] Speaker 1: Trooper, do you have those events in mind? I do. [02:47:51] Speaker ?: Your report is dated June 1, 2022, correct? Correct. [02:47:53] Speaker 1: 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 One Meadows, correct? Yes. [02:48:04] Speaker ?: Yes. [02:48:04] Speaker 1: In your report, there is no mention of the footage showing Karen Reed arriving home at 12:41 a.m., correct? Correct. 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? [02:48:16] Speaker ?: Correct. Correct. [02:48:18] Speaker 1: Correct. Correct. [02:48:20] Speaker ?: So, sometime between when Trooper DiCicco wrote his notes and when you wrote your report, that video footage is coming up, right? [02:48:20] Speaker 1: There's no mention of the footage showing Karen Reed arriving at 12:41 a.m., correct? Correct. 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? Correct. [02:48:39] Speaker ?: Correct. [02:48:40] Speaker 1: So, sometime between when Trooper DiCicco wrote his notes and when you wrote your report, that video footage vanished, correct? [02:48:50] Speaker 2: There's also no date on Trooper DiCicco's notes. We have many dates from Ring Video, so I don't know if he's referencing a different date. [02:48:58] Speaker 1: Well, you're aware that the video footage from 12:41 a.m. is gone, correct? [02:49:07] Speaker 2: Yes, it's something I've tried to find through Ring for months, as well as the video when Ms. Roberts, Ms. McCabe, Ms. Reed arrived back at John's and they're looking at the broken tail light. That video is gone as well. [02:49:20] Speaker 1: 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? Objection. [02:49:34] Speaker 4: The objection is sustained. Mr. Jackson, don't wave that again, okay? [02:49:42] Speaker 1: Yes, sir. The fact is, notwithstanding Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, there's no video of 12:41 in January 20-month, is there? [02:49:59] Speaker 2: No, there isn't. [02:50:00] Speaker ?: No, there isn't. [02:50:04] Speaker 1: Trooper Proctor, would you agree that from the very beginning of your investigation, you treated Karen Reed very differently than you treated the Alberts and the McCaves in this case? [02:50:15] Speaker ?: Objection. [02:50:16] Speaker 4: I'll allow it. Was she treated differently? [02:50:18] Speaker 2: Absolutely not. We've, like I said before, we followed the facts and the evidence, the open mind. [02:50:24] Speaker 1: Did you consider her to be, for want of a better phrase, an outsider? No, not at all. [02:50:30] Speaker ?: Not somebody from Canton? [02:50:31] Speaker 2: No, not at all. [02:50:32] Speaker 1: Not family? Not friends with the Alberts? Absolutely not. At some point, your view of this case caused you to turn what could be described as a bias into an out and out hatred. Would you agree with that? Objection. [02:50:51] Speaker ?: Objection. [02:50:51] Speaker 1: Sustained. Did you develop some sort of hatred for Ms. Reed? Objection. At any point in your investigation? [02:50:55] Speaker ?: I'll allow it. [02:50:56] Speaker 1: Again, we follow the facts and evidence which showed Ms. Reed 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. [02:51:11] Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, you did express your feelings about Ms. Reed, and yet another text message that we haven't gone over here today. Is that right? On February 4th, 2022? [02:51:36] Speaker 1: Might as well turn to Tap 10. [02:51:37] Speaker ?: Tap 10? It's either the bait stamp or the... [02:51:39] Speaker 1: This is triple F as in Foxtrot, and the bait stamp is 2526. Yes, sir. Do you see an entry from Courtney Proctor, a text? Starting, I didn't give my... Yes. Request permission to publish, Your Honor? [02:52:08] Speaker ?: Yes. [02:52:09] Speaker 1: On that date, February 4th, 2022, your sister texted in relation to some sort of donation that she had given, I didn't give my name, as I didn't want anyone to link me to Michael, meaning you, correct? Jackson, Your Honor, may we approach? [02:52:27] Speaker ?: Okay, take that down. You see the text from Courtney Proctor, I did not give my name, as I didn't want anyone to link me... [02:52:27] Speaker 1: So that's stricken. [02:52:28] Speaker 5: That's what was objected to, just this one, or the whole page goes in. You responded to a text message from your sister, correct? [02:52:30] Speaker ?: And your response was, hopefully, she kills herself, correct? [02:52:30] Speaker 4: Yes. [02:52:31] Speaker ?: Who's she? The defendant. Ms. Reed? Correct. [02:52:35] Speaker 1: Correct. Correct. [02:52:37] Speaker ?: You literally said that you hope that Karen Reed, the subject of your investigation, is the subject of your investigation, is the subject of the investigation. [02:52:37] Speaker 1: Yes. [02:52:38] Speaker 4: i didn't want anyone to link me so that that's stricken that's what was objected to just this one [02:52:43] Speaker 1: or the whole page goes in you responded to a text message from your sister correct and your response was hopefully she kills herself correct yes who's she the defendant miss reed correct you literally said that you hope that karen reed the subject of your investigation the woman sitting to my left about seven feet from me that she would just die correct the figure of speech you wanted her the figure of speech is you wanted her to kill herself no right no it's not trooper proctor karen reed in your investigation had quickly become a very serious problem for you hadn't she objection sustained did you believe that karen reed was a problem or an issue for your investigation objection i'll allow it no absolutely not in your words quote all the powers that be one answers asap that's what you texted on january 29th right yes that put a lot of pressure on you didn't it cooper proctor there's a lot of pressure in every case sir this case involves a boston cop whose family you are actually connected to correct loosely chris albert loosely yes julio loosely yes colin albert loosely yes kevin albert loosely yes loose enough to leave his badge and his gun in your cruiser when after a night of drinking right objection sustained 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 objection where is this this was referred to in earlier text messages so is that so is that right did you say that sir [02:54:42] Speaker 2: i did text that i don't know if it's in the exact context but yes those were my words chat yes that was in the group chat [02:54:52] Speaker 1: your friends wrote this whole thing in their words stinks correct yes did i interpret that as a joke you believed trooper proctor that your life would be much easier if karen reed was just dead didn't you objection i'll allow it no no no like i had said it was a [02:55:12] Speaker 2: figure of speech um my emotions got the best of me based on you know the fact that miss reed hit mr o'keefe with her vehicle and left him to die on the side of the road so my emotions got the best of me [02:55:24] Speaker 1: with that figure of speech 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 objection is that right yes a whack job correct yes a retard right yes her balloon knot leaks right yes no ass correct yes she's fucked according to you right yes ass leaker that was the word you used a figure of speech right correct a girl who shits herself right correct and then her correct correct would you agree trooper proctor that you have dehumanized karen reed during the course of your investigation with comments and words like this jackson i'll give you this one mr jackson would you agree [02:56:19] Speaker 2: with that i'd say based off that language um [02:56:30] Speaker 1: yes and you admitted in your own words that the cop homeowner wasn't going to quote catch any shit right correct because you were out to quote make this cut and dry isn't that right the homeowner [02:56:47] Speaker 2: wasn't going to catch any because mr elba had nothing to do with mr o'keefe's death because you were [02:56:52] Speaker 1: going to make sure that the case was cut and dry those were your words right jackson sustained and trooper proctor it would be far easier far easier for you to pin it on the girl who's just a whack job in your words who you hope just kills herself right jackson sustained [02:57:21] Speaker 4: shame on you sir 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 that's all i have mr lally [02:57:36] Speaker 5: thank you good afternoon sir good afternoon sir now when you had started with cross examination the other day you were asking questions about whether or not in august of 2022 uh you disliked or did not like uh mr janetti correct that's correct why was that um [02:58:01] Speaker 2: well basically he stood up in open court and spouted lie after lie about me called me corrupt and conflicted um dragged my name through the mud after i spent 10 plus years without a you know single complaint filed against me and he had no basis or no facts but 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 uh mr janetti shows up at my uh sister's school yesterday um in the parking lot where he's not welcomed or where people are not supposed to be uh with one of their witnesses and their their private investigator uh and a teacher sees this uh it informs mr janetti that he can't be there and instead of saying okay and leaving he asks uh is corny proctor in the building is does she work here she calls me to see if she was being served objection can we approach yes [02:59:06] Speaker 4: jurors i am striking that last answer it was probably a partial answer cut off i'm striking it completely disregarded if you took notes cross the notes out you're not to consider it in any way it is completely stricken from the record and trooper i'd suggest you listen to the question being asked of you before you answer it my apologies toronto keep your voice up mr lally [02:59:36] Speaker 5: trooper proctor um as far as um you were asked about text messages that occurred in august of 2022 in which you um indicated that you did not like mr janet correct correct and so at the time of that text message it was sent in august of 2022 why why was that [03:00:01] Speaker 2: in august of 2022 why was that yes the reasons i laid out the false accusations of being conflicted and corrupt spouted in an open court which is zero evidence of like i said i stand by the integrity of this investigation as well as every trooper and [03:00:21] Speaker 5: supervisor in my office were there also motions filed uh by mr unetti or by council uh containing photographs of yourself and some children yes and what if anything were the allegations in regard to [03:00:36] Speaker 2: the children that were depicted in those photographs so the photograph was taken to my parents back at it my parents back at a pool party um there's some little kids in that in the photo defense counsel kept insinuating that those were the mccabe's children when in fact they were my family my cousins [03:01:01] Speaker 5: have you at any point in time ever met any children over the caves no sir in the course of this investigation as it was sort of alleged on cross-examination did you essentially pick a suspect and then try to have the evidence uh fit that objection the form meaning [03:01:19] Speaker 4: in that form it's strictly not allowed to ask that how did you conduct this investigation you and the other [03:01:25] Speaker 2: troopers in your office from the start of this investigation with an open mind um like i said earlier we don't know what we had possible medical so as the day went on and we collected more evidence and developed uh compelling evidence against miss reed [03:01:45] Speaker 5: now with reference to this investigation it continued after january 29 2022 when you had those text communications with your friends correct yes was there additional information uh that you compiled over the course of that investigation following january 29 2022 i'm sorry please following that date of those text messages on january 29th yes 22 was there additional information that was uh gathered uh over the course of of your investigation by yourself or other troopers involved in the investigation yes and from that additional information uh that was gathered uh what if any information um that was gathered throughout the course of the investigation uh indicated that anyone besides miss reed had anything to do with mr o'keefe's death [03:02:34] Speaker 2: all the information gathered after that date indicated um no one else was responsible for mr o'keefe's death i'm sorry you were asked some uh questions on [03:02:46] Speaker 5: cross-examination about uh testimony in a prior proceeding and shown specifically a page zero five zero one five six three correct yes okay you want to may approach yes sir i'm giving you zero one five six two six three and six four and ask you to read those and look up now trooper after reviewing those three pages uh is there now more context to what you were just asked about on one specific page of that testimony yes and those were questions related to uh what you had told what you had informed uh other people within the office or your supervisors in relation to relationships with both mccabe's in the office correct correct and in the course of that testimony did you relate to that body uh the same uh testimony you just relate to this jury in regard to uh photographs of children and defense counsel attributing those to being the mccabe children which they were not yes now we were asked some questions uh by mr jackson in regard to uh what you knew or uh why your focus was not on brian albert's uh later on in the evening of january 29 2022 correct correct and why was that why was your focus not on brian albert at that time there was just no evidence that mr [03:04:13] Speaker 2: el was involved anyway like i said before the um from witness interviews the statements ms reed um provided to witnesses the one shoe left at the scene the tail light pieces um found underneath the snow that were dug out by the sir team the injuries to mr o'keefe the one shoe at the hospital that was observed her statements to us uh sergeant mechanic and i while we interviewed her um clearly the broken tail light and the fact that leaving brockton instead of going to dyton she backtracked to go to canton to retrieve her vehicle and then go double back to go to dyton which i found odd [03:05:00] Speaker 5: now if at any point in time over the course of your investigation you had evidence which led to led you to believe that mr apple was involved in the death of mr o'keefe what would you have done objection ask it differently with regard to again you testified um beyond january 29th 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 objection objection i'll allow it no if you had found information leading to that conclusion or evidence leading to that uh what would you have done objection [03:05:41] Speaker 2: not only myself but members of my office would have pursued that [03:05:45] Speaker 5: regardless of his position correct regardless of what he does for a profession you want a man approach yes [03:06:09] Speaker 2: that is uh text communications between me and uh my high school buddies [03:06:15] Speaker 5: and sir if i could direct your attention within there to page 2535 yes sir you asked some questions about text on that page but also uh there's a text on that page that begins with they arrived at house together correct correct and uh what is the date and time [03:06:38] Speaker 2: associated with that text message that you sent that was sent on january 29 2022 at 11 pm and what is the [03:06:46] Speaker 5: content or what did you send to that group that text message the message reads they arrived at the house [03:06:54] Speaker 2: together got into an argument she was driving and left and so that's also information that you had uh [03:07:01] Speaker 5: late in the evening of january 29 2022 correct objection perform that system with respect uh to that information you conveyed in that text message uh when did you learn them on the court during the course of the day of the day on the 29th now you were asking questions about people that you spoke to on the 29th correct yes and that included uh brian albert jennifer mccabe matthew mccabe kerry roberts is that [03:07:45] Speaker 2: correct true but a chico and true but don interviewed uh miss roberts and my apologies when i was saying [03:07:51] Speaker 5: you i meant collectively yes but you specifically yourself and sergeant mechanic you also spoke with the defendant on january 29th correct correct and that would have been prior to any of the text communications that were contained within that chat uh with your friends correct correct he asked you something about charging decisions is that something that you make in this case or any case [03:08:12] Speaker 2: i don't make any charging decisions we're essentially fact finders so as far as what miss reed was charged [03:08:19] Speaker 5: with or when she was charged with it that's not something that's within your purview correct no not [03:08:24] Speaker 2: not at all [03:08:29] Speaker 5: now specifically you were asking questions about uh some text messages between yourself and tripper to chico in regard to the medical example correct correct i know it's occurred in april 2022 is that correct yes was the defendant miss reed charged with murder in april of 2022 rejection i'll allow it no that wasn't until june of 2022 correct that's correct and that was at the conclusion of the grand jury is that correct objection sustained and you're aware that there was a grand jury in this case right okay okay yes and are you aware of certain witnesses that testified at the grand jury objection i'll allow that yes are you aware that dr scordy bellow testified at the grand jury objection i'll allow that yes and so false reason then that the defendant wasn't charged with murder until after the grand jury concluded and dr scordy bellow had testified before that grand jury correct objection now the albert family that you were familiar with some members of that's not an entity correct no individual members of a family some you know some you may not correct objection sustained watch your forms to know certainly 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 um julie chris albert colin and kevin albert now you were asked some questions about interviewing julie albert and chris albert at their home on february 10th correct yes now with respect uh to that data you ever been to [03:10:13] Speaker 2: that home prior to february 10th i had not been to that uh that's kind of their new home i'd never been to [03:10:20] Speaker 5: their new home or their previous previous home either now as far as conversations with either julie or chris albert when was the last time you talked to him before you interviewed them on february 10th [03:10:40] Speaker 2: i believe i had reached out to julie to coordinate the interview but prior to prior to this case uh there was that one random text message she said 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 but uh [03:11:01] Speaker 5: february 2022 yeah so what my question is is prior to february 10th 2022 prior to any arrangements to schedule an interview for february 10th when was the last time that you spoke to either julie albert or [03:11:14] Speaker 2: chris albert if you know i don't know i can't remember now with regard to that text message in [03:11:21] Speaker 5: regard to skiing in late february 2022 you were shown that text message correct yes was there any response questions from you no did you have any further communication with julie albert after that interview on january 29 2022 [03:11:40] Speaker 2: related to this investigation the uh i recall the um serving her for grand jury um i know she wanted to kind of have an idea of what the process was like so um there's communications regarding that [03:11:56] Speaker 5: and was that something that was solely done with julie albert or other witnesses or what all the [03:12:01] Speaker 2: witnesses that were called in the grand jury you know it's unusual for you know the majority of civilians to be called in the grand jury um so they want obviously have questions about the process now as [03:12:13] Speaker 5: far as uh babysitting for your children is that something that julie albert ever did no and as far as those text communications between yourself and your sister regarding that is that something that you [03:12:22] Speaker 2: had asked for something that your sister had suggested yeah my sister had suggested that um we never [03:12:29] Speaker 5: followed up with having julie watch my kids now you were asked some questions about um text messages with your sister courtney correct correct correct and um i believe a couple times uh you would use the term uh well let me ask you this first with regard to from january 29th um throughout at least january february 2022 this was a this case uh became uh something that was on the news on a fairly regular basis correct news and social media yes and so when you were using the term uh in describing what you spoke to your sister about as far as the news [03:13:06] Speaker 2: what did you mean by that um you know my sister lives in kien so there's a lot of you know as well on the news and social media stuff that was being discussed on those platforms now as far as the [03:13:18] Speaker 5: discussions that you had uh with regard to your sister how would you describe or how would you characterize [03:13:24] Speaker 2: the type of information that you shared with her event just general information um nothing specific about the case [03:13:32] Speaker 5: you're also asked about a specific text from your sister um on january 30th it started out with i believe it was jesus christ is that correct yes and that was in reference uh to the body of mr o'keefe being found on brian albert's lawn correct correct and so she's asking you about that on january 30th correct yes so fair to reason that that wasn't something that you shared with her prior to january 30th right correct and something that you hadn't shared with her at all at that point that you received that text [03:14:05] Speaker 4: communication correct correct sustain is to inform watch watch how you ask these questions mr ellie as [03:14:11] Speaker 5: your witness yes with regard to that information as far as who the homeowner was uh what if anything had you shared with your sister courtney prior to you receiving that text from her indicating her knowledge [03:14:24] Speaker 2: yeah i didn't i'm gonna recall sharing anything with the in regards to the homeowner now in regard to [03:14:31] Speaker 5: any issues of a gift or a request for a gift um how would you characterize that was that serious was that ingest how would you characterize that i didn't take i didn't take that offer seriously um [03:14:48] Speaker 2: and as i had mentioned on monday that i didn't ask for a gift i never received one i kind of said you know get my wife a gift she had been home about 10 straight nights with the boys we had another homicide the week before so uh that was my response get elizabeth one and she never receives one [03:15:09] Speaker 5: now you were asked some questions about uh calling out correct correct and as far as what if any information did you have as far as colin albert and his uh being at 34 fairview at the same time as anyone from coming back from the waterfall uh it was my understanding colin arrived [03:15:31] Speaker 2: later on to just see his his cousin's birthday he didn't stay that long maybe an hour a little over an hour and as he's leaving i think he um ran into his aunt and uncle as his uh his ride had arrived out in the front and left at some time around 12 10 a.m was that information that you had prior to your interview with colin albert yeah we knew well we knew colin wasn't um at the house the timing uh was [03:16:03] Speaker 5: provided by colin and at any point in time in your investigation what if any evidence did you ever receive uh that colin albert was at 34 fairview at the same time as as mr o'keefe or the defendant [03:16:17] Speaker 2: based on mr o'keefe's um cell phone location data using his ways 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 [03:16:35] Speaker 5: so they did not cross paths now mr jackson was asking about some people uh as far as interviews or later in october or so of 2022 or beyond uh you were given five names as far as brian albert jr julie nagle miss kent miss fabiano miss alba and miss levinson and colin albert correct yes and then you were asked uh about three people that you had interviewed and then were asked if there was only one person left that being calling out correct correct that math match up as far as five people three given and only one person not interviewed no now with reference to um miss kent miss fabiano and miss albert your knowledge have they been interviewed at any point in time no why not they weren't present [03:17:24] Speaker 2: for um when the adults arrived back from the waterfall they left 34 fairview like colin albert prior to the [03:17:33] Speaker 5: waterfall people coming in what if any information did you have with regards uh to uh the whereabouts of miss kent miss fabiano miss alba and colin albert in relation to 34 fairview and the arrival of people from the water they had left the residence so with respect uh to call out why was it that he was interviewed and not miss kent miss fabiano and miss albert um [03:18:14] Speaker 2: colin was um falsely accused of um [03:18:24] Speaker 4: can you answer that same question just let me ask you differently [03:18:29] Speaker 2: yes ma'am okay go ahead colin was the subject of a third party culprit where that had no evidence to back that up a little while there 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 his facts of that evening so that's why we interviewed him at that date and time later on [03:19:01] Speaker 5: and when you say we of your call who was present with you uh when you interviewed uh colin albert the trip is zachary clock uh are you aware of uh sergeant mechanic uh getting uh screenshots from both colin albert and from miss alie mccabe in relation to uh text communications they had about picking up on albert from 34 fairview on january 29th yes you were asked some questions about uh miss mccabe's cell phone is that correct yes and as far as any material on that phone are are you an expert when it comes to cell phone extractions and what different material may mean within cell bright extraction no that's left to uh trooper garino in our office are you aware of reports um regarding those searches uh from trooper nicolas carino a miss jessica hyde and a mr ian with i am aware of those yes and uh those are people who are experts uh those are people who have special knowledge or specialized knowledge as it relates to uh cell bright technology that you do not correct objection one of the questions sustained what if any knowledge uh are you aware of uh trooper nicolas carino miss jessica hyde and mr ian withen having with respect to celebrate or cell phone technology that you do not objection allowing them to go don't make me approach for sure procedure yes let me rephrase that just a little as far as um you're aware that trooper nicolas carino miss jessica hyde and mr ian withen have all uh looked at miss mccabe's cell bright and extraction information correct yes and their knowledge uh their specialized knowledge in regard to those areas exceeds your own correct yes how would you characterize those in relation to this investigation [03:21:00] Speaker 2: they had nothing to do with this investigation like i said we were working a cold case together um we also work on other cases together that you know unintended deaths that i'll respond to a potential suicide or an overdose in the town of can that i'll respond to but the um topic of our conversations were in regards to the cold case or unsolved unresolved case that we're working together [03:21:25] Speaker 5: in regards to the other day yes i do what do you recognize that uh text communication with kevin albert and sir if i could direct your attention to uh debate stamp pages of 2600 and 2601 yes sir now in regards uh to uh activities on that particular date you had indicated that you had conversations with kevin albert about working a cold case uh from the town of camp correct yes and specifically on that date uh where did the two of you go uh remember i recall going down to [03:22:13] Speaker 2: the cape to at least interview at least uh one person of interest and that was down in the town of [03:22:19] Speaker 5: sandwiched to be specific is that correct yes now in reference to uh kevin albert leaving his badge in your car do you recall that i do like a director attention to page 2602 and what if any text communication is contained on that page as far as uh you asking kevin albert [03:22:39] Speaker 2: any questions about his address uh after i informed kevin albert i had located his badge i follow up what's your address uh i will drop it off after the gym you're asking his address because you don't [03:22:55] Speaker 5: know his address correct correct sustained why are you asking for his address i've never been to his house and i don't know where he lives you're so close with him that you don't know where his house is correct sustain you were asking questions about uh ring videos from one meadows avenue mr o'keefe's home is that correct yes let's 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 absolutely not now when you saw that there were ring videos missing from times that you expected uh videos to be specifically what i'm asking about is miss reed or the defendant's arrival at the home after leaving fairview road and miss mccabe miss roberts and the defendants departure from one meadows to fairview [03:23:48] Speaker 2: road later on that morning what did you do i reached out to ring several different times um they informed me if a video is deleted there's no digital footprint of that it's essentially kind [03:24:02] Speaker 5: of gone forever and with respect to that time frame what if any other additional steps did you take to try to retrieve that video was there a second search warrant sir yes you were looking for additional information from that same ring video correct injection sustained what if anything were you looking for in that second search yeah additional video now you were asked some questions about notes from trooper to chico correct correct correct as far as that zero zero four one note do you know what that means that just tells me it's a time and do you know specifically whether or not that is something that trooper to chico saw or something that trooper to chico was looking for that's something trooper to chico could answer for yes sir you were asked some questions about uh sallyport video at canton police station correct yes and you arrived at the sallyport garage of the canton police station uh sometime around or shortly after 5 30 p.m correct yes now that 5 30 p.m time is that before or after uh 507 am after and 507 am is when uh the exhibit six um video number i believe 153 with the defendant backing out of the garage where you testified on monday you observed some damage to the taillight correct correct and you're aware of some other ring video from mr okie's house uh showing the defendant uh ms roberts and mccabe arriving at his house in which you can see damage to the right passenger tail end right correct are you aware of a cruiser camera video from the canton police station uh police department specifically lieutenant ray uh going to one meadows avid 8 22 in the morning on the 29th in which you can also observe damage to the tailor objection sustain is to the floor as far as 8 22 in the morning uh what if any video from one meadows avenue are you aware of uh [03:26:10] Speaker 2: depicting the defendant's tail uh can police department went to conduct a well-being check in on the dash cruiser camera you can see mr the back of misreads vehicle and the right taillight [03:26:23] Speaker 5: to be uh broken and missing pieces and as far as your time at the uh home in dighton the vehicle the defendant's vehicle was towed from that location on that day correct correct and what if any video are you aware of from that uh driveway uh which depicts uh the right rear passenger side tail light [03:26:44] Speaker 2: of the defendant's view yeah as the vehicle's being put on the tow truck you can make out that there's some uh pieces missing now [03:26:58] Speaker 5: 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 that we talked to all of those videos precede your time in the sallyport garage at 5 30 p.m on january 29th correct correct now with reference to you mentioned in your testimony the other day um earlier um that at some point in time later in the day or early in that evening uh you had met for a debriefing uh with yourself and the other troopers involving investigation on january 29th is that correct yes fair to say the uh the information that had been collected uh by yourself and the other troopers on january 29th you had that in mind are you aware of that when you were involved in these uh text communications with your friends correct yes and so were you uh at that time that you're texting with your friends you had seen the defendant's vehicle correct yes and you had seen the damage to the tail light correct yes and you're aware that lieutenant tully and the cert team had uh conducted a search around 34 fairview and recovered uh mr o'keefe sneaker and a tail objection the state is to go what if anything were you aware of uh in regards to lieutenant tully doing with the cert team at 34 fairview earlier that day [03:28:24] Speaker 2: detective lieutenant tully and the search team conducted a search discovered several pieces of broken taillight pieces as well as mr o'keefe's missing shoe and the shoe that lieutenant tully and [03:28:38] Speaker 5: 13 had retrieved what if anything did you observe in relation to that in the shoe that you and sergeant [03:28:45] Speaker 2: mechanic had retrieved from the good samaritan hospital yeah they're both they were matched they're [03:28:49] Speaker 5: well black nike sneakers with the white logo now you would talk to first responders correct yes and that included firefighter for money correct and that included sergeant good yes you had done interviews with regard to brian albert correct yes jennifer mccabe correct correct batman mccabe correct yes the defendant yes and other troopers from your unit had also interviewed kerry roberts correct yes are you 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 yes and you're aware of statements that ms mccabe and ms roberts had made to the troopers in regard to what they had observed that yes now were you aware that both ms mccabe and ms roberts indicated in interviews on january 29th that when they had got to 34 fairview road they could not see mr o'keefe's body however the defendant sort of bolted out of the backseat the vehicle directly over to mr o'keefe's body objection you can ask that differently mr lally with respect to the statements from ms mccabe and ms roberts in regard to their arrival at 34 fairview around 6 a.m in the morning what if anything stood out to you or were you aware of in relation to those [03:30:00] Speaker 2: statements yeah from those statements uh as ms roberts was driving down to fear view ms mccabe was in the passenger seat ms reed was in the back um obviously whiteout conditions as they're coming down like that slight hill getting just before the left side of the property um ms mccabe ms roberts indicated that ms reed said there he is i see him i see him and ms reading sorry ms uh mccabe ms roberts didn't know what ms reed was talking about um they stopped the car ms reed ran directly over to uh john o'keefe's body and even when ms reed had exited the vehicle ms mccabe and ms roberts still didn't know what was going on and what she was running to [03:30:50] Speaker 5: now were you aware from uh your conversation with firefighter from modi that the defendant had stated uh i hit him uh to in the presence of firefighter from modi earlier that morning yes and were you also aware of statements the defendant made through other first responders about uh her being or getting into an argument with mr o'keefe as she was dropping him off at 34 fairview uh indicating the last time she [03:31:15] Speaker 2: so later on um subsequent interviews [03:31:21] Speaker 5: so at the time that you're sending these text communications within this group chat uh in the later part of the evening of january 29 2022 what is it that you did know in relation to your investigation uh with regard to ms reed the defendant and or anyone else [03:31:45] Speaker 2: you did know what's going on in relation to ms reed all right um so we knew the last person seen with mr o'keefe alive was miss reed uh we knew they were traveling to fairview road witnesses stated they saw a suv out front out front of the house we went from one side to the other ms mckee was texting john parked behind me things of that nature john never went into the house and then the following morning ms freed ms roberts and ms mccabe located mr o'keefe in the front lawn i observed those injuries at the hospital the one sneaker later on in the day the cert team along with detective lieutenant tully found broken tail light pieces that matched ms reed's tail light as well as the missing sneaker that matched mr o'keefe's vehicle some inconsistent statements that ms reed had provided to sergeant mechanic and i [03:32:54] Speaker 5: yeah so at the time that you made those comments disparaging comments in regard to ms reed in the context of those communications with your friends as inexcusable as unprofessional as those comments are the information you had was that ms reed had struck mr o'keefe with their vehicle yeah you've got to watch the form is to allow it sustained time that you made those inexcusable and unprofessional comments what did you believe the defendant had done to mr o'keefe [03:33:29] Speaker 2: i believe 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 reed pulled the head and then backed into him struck him with her with her vehicle and then left and then came back five and a half hours late [03:33:48] Speaker 5: correct correct nothing further jackson very briefly [03:33:57] Speaker 1: so you think that your assessment personal assessment that karen reed had struck this officer with a car gave you license to call her a cunt objection right [03:34:17] Speaker 2: based on the evidence sir that my emotions got the best of me so it was in poor taste yes it was important it was inappropriate juvenile but it was my emotions [03:34:27] Speaker 1: have gotten the best of me and you called her a whack job you gave your license to call her that too yes gave you license to say to your friends oh no no no no she's fucked right that's what i wrote gave you license to say that she's a retard again another disgusting comment sir you had an agenda from moment one did you not objection system did you have an agenda objection same question that was a good one question the first time so the fact that you believed personal that your your narrative was she hit him with a car you get to talk about her leaky balloon knot right jackson you indicated you indicated on cross-examination that you saw a video at 8 22 a.m with some damage to misread right rear tailoring correct yes date 22 before or after 507 a.m after you also said that you had no idea where kevin albert lived right correct but you did say about getting his badge to him after that drunken night with him that you just leave it in your mailbox right objection yes my mailbox yeah so he obviously knew where you lived yes and then you said there's 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 correct the trooper proctor you're the one responsible for gathering the evidence correct objection [03:36:31] Speaker 2: i'll allow it right i am one part of a greater group of detectives that gathers evidence i'm just [03:36:42] Speaker 1: one part of that unit you're the pointy end of the spear aren't you objection you're the case officer the lead detective correct yes sort of like the fox [03:36:56] Speaker 4: guarding the hen house isn't it jackson that's sustained mr jackson do you have anything else [03:37:06] Speaker 2: thank you all right two for you uh all of a sudden thank you urano thank you jurors [03:37:18] Speaker 5: you're on the call lieutenant brian tulley to the stand