
Fired investigator's texts presented to jurors in Karen Read's retrial
FacebookTweetLink
Follow
Jurors in the retrial of Karen Read on Monday heard a spate of sexist messages the lead investigator of the case sent his friends, after the judge ruled to allow the since-fired Massachusetts State Police trooper's texts into evidence.
'She's a whack job c*nt,' Michael Proctor wrote about Read, according to testimony Monday by his childhood friend, Jonathan Diamandis, who was on the group chat where Proctor sent the message.
'Yeah, she's a babe,' Proctor said, less than 24 hours into the investigation of the death of Read's boyfriend, John O'Keefe. 'Weird Fall River accent though. No a**.'
The contents of the text messages – which were notably presented to jurors under cross-examination by Massachusetts prosecutors and not Read's defense attorneys – were publicly known, having been presented at Read's first trial, which ended with a hung jury. But this is the first time jurors in her second trial have heard them.
In a hearing last week outside the presence of the jury, the defense signaled the texts were important for helping jurors understand Proctor's state of mind. Prosecutors sought to exclude a presentation of the messages through Diamandis, arguing the defense should have to put the former trooper on the stand – an idea defense attorney David Yannetti appeared to resist.
Monday, Judge Beverly Cannone sided with the defense.
Prosecutors have accused Read of drunkenly striking O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a Canton, Massachusetts, home in January 2022. But Read's defense claims she was framed by other off-duty law enforcement who were inside that home, alleging they killed O'Keefe and conspired to frame her.
Proctor is a key figure in the case: While he led the investigation into O'Keefe's death, his text messages have been used by Read's defense attorneys to paint a picture of a flawed and biased investigation. Jurors have already heard testimony about sexist texts the investigator sent his colleagues – including his superiors – at the Massachusetts State Police, in which he said he had found 'no nudes' during a search of Read's cellphone.
State police announced Proctor had been relieved of duty last July, the same day Read's first trial ended in a mistrial. In March, weeks before Read's retrial began, the agency announced he was fired following an internal review.
A MSP trial board determined Proctor had committed several violations of MSP policy, including sending inappropriate text messages about a suspect and providing sensitive or confidential information about an investigation to individuals who were not law enforcement, according to a personnel order obtained by CNN.
The board also found Proctor had created the appearance of bias in his dealings with a homicide suspect, and/or brought himself and the agency into disrepute.
An attorney for Proctor declined to comment Monday. Last year, during the first trial, Proctor apologized on the stand for the 'unprofessional' comments.
Read has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Diamandis testified Monday he has known Proctor for about 30 years, going back to middle school. The two remain close friends, Diamandis said, and he confirmed he and Proctor were on a text message chain with several other friends from high school.
When Yannetti presented him with a document, Diamandis confirmed it contained a portion of the approximately 38,000 messages on that text chain.
Aside from the messages that disparaged the defendant, others showed Proctor sharing with his friends details about the victim and the investigation more broadly. At one point, Proctor signaled that whether Read struck O'Keefe intentionally or not, 'That's another animal we won't be able to prove.'
On cross-examination, special prosecutor Hank Brennan sought to have Diamandis read the texts aloud. But when Brennan tried to have him read the texts that referred to Read as a 'whack job' and her looks, the witness declined.
'I'm not really comfortable reading these,' he said. 'Do I have to say these words out loud?'
Ultimately, the court decided to have Brennan read aloud the text messages, with the prosecutor asking Diamandis to confirm their content.
'She's f**ked,' Proctor wrote just before 11:07 p.m. on January 29, 2022 – less than 24 hours after the commonwealth says Read struck O'Keefe with her vehicle. Someone else in the chain responded, 'No a** b*tch,' and Proctor responded with a 'laugh' reaction, Diamandis confirmed.
Still, while the texts were crude and offensive, they never indicated Proctor committed misconduct in the case, Diamandis said under questioning by Brennan.
'In your conversations with Mr. Proctor,' Brennan asked, 'has he ever suggested that he planted evidence in this case or any other case?'
'No,' Diamandis said.
'In your conversations with Mr. Proctor, has he ever suggested framing a defendant, including this defendant?'
'Absolutely not,' the witness said.
'In your conversations with Mr. Proctor, has he ever suggested tampering with evidence in this case or in any other case?'
'No, absolutely not.'
Proctor's texts were entered into evidence Monday as questions swirl about whether the former state trooper himself will be forced to take the stand.
The commonwealth did not call Proctor to testify while presenting its case in chief – a notable decision, considering he was the lead investigator. Instead, they called Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik, who testified to much of the investigation, saying any homicide case required a team effort.
In his opening statement, defense attorney Alan Jackson likened Proctor to a 'cancer' that had infected the entire case. But the defense has signaled in recent days resistance to the idea of calling him to the stand, though he remains on its list of potential witnesses.
Last Friday, while Brennan argued the defense should have to call Proctor to admit his text messages, Yannetti said that was the defense's choice to make. He contended the commonwealth wanted to force the defense to call a witness 'that they do not have confidence in to call themselves.'
'It's unheard of in a murder case that you don't call the lead investigator, but that's what happened in this case,' Yannetti said. 'We should not be forced to call Michael Proctor so that Mr. Brennan can then cross-examine him and lead him through basically his entire closing argument.'
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?
Can Musk kill the budget bill? Elon Musk hasn't stopped criticizing the budget bill that he has called a 'disgusting abomination.' In fact, he appears to be just getting started. The debate in Washington now is how far Musk will go to try to defeat a bill that — by the assessment of Musk, several Republicans and now nonpartisan watchdogs — will vastly add to the federal debt. 'KILL THE BILL,' Musk posted on X on Wednesday, a message he urged followers to press with members of Congress. He has turned a majority of his feed into a stream of reposts of content criticizing the legislation and denouncing its effect on the nation's $36 trillion debt load. A string of assessments suggest that the bill will add to the debt. The most consequential, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimated that the House version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion over the next decade, given both the roughly $3.8 trillion tax cut at its core and additional spending. (Other estimates are even higher, including the Penn Wharton Budget Model's: $2.8 trillion.) A Republican counter: Attack the messenger. The Trump administration advanced hard-to-believe claims about C.B.O. staff members' partisanship, and arguments that its analysis ignores projected economic growth. That said, a previous nonpartisan analysis of the House bill found that the tax cuts would generate nearly no additional economic growth, and even conservatives found the budget office's analysis credible. 'When all the models are in unison,' Erica York, the vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, told The Times, 'it really doesn't make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
At Combs Trial, ‘Jane,' an Ex-Girlfriend, to Testify About Sex Abuse
A second woman who prosecutors say was sex trafficked by Sean Combs is set to take the stand on Thursday at his federal trial in what is expected to be several days of testimony about drug-fueled sex marathons with male prostitutes known as 'freak-offs.' A judge has allowed the woman to testify anonymously, and she is being referred to in court by the pseudonym 'Jane.' She is the most significant witness since Casandra Ventura, Mr. Combs's on-and-off girlfriend of 11 years, whose allegations of physical and sexual abuse gave rise to the criminal case. Prosecutors have said that Jane's relationship with Mr. Combs mirrored the one he had with Ms. Ventura in many ways. Like Ms. Ventura, they have said, Jane was coerced into freak-offs through violence, financial control and threats related to videos of the sexual encounters, which they said Mr. Combs directed step by step. Unlike Ms. Ventura, who is a singer known as Cassie and a public celebrity, Jane's identity has not been revealed. The government has described Jane as a single mother who started spending time with Mr. Combs in 2020 and quickly fell in love with the music mogul, agreeing to participate in an initial freak-off to please him. 'Jane thought the first freak-off was a one-time, wild night,' Emily Johnson, one of the prosecutors, said at the start of the case. 'Jane was wrong.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Fast Company
36 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Are you as self-aware as you think?
I am sure you are a little fed up with all the discussions about AI, so don't worry: I promise you this article is about humans rather than machines. However, since it has long been customary for cognitive and behavioral scientists to examine computers to better understand human capabilities, and there are clearly informative parallels between human and artificial intelligence, I thought it would be interesting to begin this piece on human self-awareness with an exploration of self-awareness in AI or machines, which led me to ask 'are you self-aware?' to ChatGPT. ChatGPT's answer: 'Let's just say I aspire to be—but, unlike a human, I don't have a self to be aware of. I can reflect your feedback, adjust my tone, and 'notice' inconsistencies in what I say. But that's more akin to a hall of mirrors than a conscious mind. So no, I don't have self-awareness in the way you (brilliantly) describe it: as a socially mediated understanding of how others perceive you. I don't worry about my reputation. I don't blush when I'm wrong. And I don't (yet) feel the existential dread of being misunderstood on LinkedIn. But I am programmed to simulate the effects of self-awareness: adapting to your cues, refining my responses, and—if all goes well—being a slightly more helpful version of myself with every exchange. In short: I'm not self-aware. But I know that I'm not. Which, depending on your philosophical stance, might be the most human thing about me. I am sure you will agree with me on the fact that, for not being capable of self-awareness, ChatGPT seems pretty self-aware, and for sure more capable of at least simulating profound introspection than most humans (even if it cannot, like humans, truly be proud or conscious of this remarkable capability). Introspective vs. interpersonal In humans, self-awareness has been defined in multiple ways but it typically takes one of two main forms: the introspective variant, which requires you to look 'deep down' to find out who you 'really or truly are' (think of the Beatles checking into an Ashram in India or modern hipsters finding themselves in Burning Man or an Ayahuasca retreat in Costa Rica); or the interpersonal variant, which requires you to be less self-centered to internalize other people's views of you. In the words of Charles Cooley, who pioneered this view of self-awareness, you are not who you think you are, and you are not who other people think you are; rather, you are who you think other people think you are! Cooley's take on self-awareness (alluded to by ChatGPT, who has obviously been extensively trained by me, and is self-aware enough to know how to suck up to my 'brilliant' talents), underpins the most effective, science-based approaches to quantifying and diagnosing self-awareness in ourselves and others. In essence, self-awareness requires metacognition: knowing what others think of you. Room to grow So, how good are humans at this, in general? Decades of psychological research suggest the answer is 'not good at all.' Consider the following facts: (1) We tend to overestimate our talents: Most people think they are better than most people, which is a statistical impossibility. And, even when they are told about this common bias, and asked whether they may be suffering from it, most people are convinced that they are less biased than most people (the mother of all biases). (2) Delusional optimism is the norm: Most people constantly overrate the chances of good things happening to them while underrating the chances of bad things happening to them. In essence, our appetite for reality is inferior to our appetite for maintaining a positive self-concept or boosting our ego (sad, but true: if you don't believe it, spend five seconds on social media) (3) Overconfidence is a contagious, self-fulfilling prophecy: For all the virtues of self-awareness—in any area of life, you will perform better and develop your skills and talents better if you are capable of accurately assessing your talents and skills in the first place—there is a huge advantage to lacking self-awareness: when you think you are smarter or better than you actually are, you will be more likely to persuade others that you are as smart and good as you think. For example, if you truly believe you are a stable genius you will probably convince many people that that is true. Paradoxically, all these biases explain why people are less self-aware than they think. Indeed, we love the version of ourselves we have invested for ourselves, and are so enchanted by our self-views that when others provide us with negative feedback or information that clashes with our self-concept, we dismiss it. This is why personality assessments, 360-degree surveys, and feedback in general are so valuable: in a logical world we wouldn't need scientific tools or expert coaches to tell us what we are like (or 10 years of psychotherapy), but in the real world there is a huge market for this, even though most people will happily ignore these tools because they assume they already know themselves really well. So, what can you do to increase your self-awareness, including about how self-aware you actually are? Here are four simple hacks: 1) Write down a list of traits (adjectives) that you think describe you well, including things you are not. Then get your colleagues, employees, friends, and bosses to provide their version of this for you: 'if you had to describe me in 5–10 words/adjectives, what would those be?' (note they will be unlikely to say bad things about you, so imagine the potential downsides or 'overusing' some of those traits or qualities: for example, if they see you as confident, could you be at risk of being arrogant? If they see you as 'organized,' could that be a euphemism for obsessional?) 2) Let gen AI translate your prompt history or social media feed into a personality profile. You may be surprised by all the inferences it makes, and tons of research show that our digital footprint, in particular the language we use online, is an accurate indicator of our deep character traits. So, just prompt! 3) Ask for feedback—and make it uncomfortable. Not just the usual 'Did you like my presentation?' (they'll say yes) or 'Was that clear?' (they'll lie). Instead, ask: 'What would you have done differently?' or 'What's one thing I could have done better?' Better still, ask someone who doesn't like you very much. They are more likely to tell you the truth. And if they say, 'Nothing,' it probably means they think you're beyond repair—or they just don't want to deal with your defensiveness. Either way, data. And if you get into the habit of doing this, you will increase your self-awareness irrespective of how self-aware you are right now. 4) Observe reactions, not just words. People may tell you what they think you want to hear, but their faces, tone, and behavior often betray the truth. If your jokes land like a wet sponge, or your team seems suddenly very interested in their phones when you speak, it's not them—it's you. And while body language can be important, it is also unreliable and ambivalent as a source of data. If you really want to know how people feel about you, watch what they do after you speak. Do they volunteer to work with you again? Do they respond to your emails? That's your feedback loop—messy, indirect, and far more honest than crossed arms or fake smiles. The ego trap In the end, the biggest barrier to self-awareness is not ignorance— it's ego. Most of us are too invested in our self-image to tolerate the version of us that others see. But if you want to get better—not just feel better—you have to trade ego for insight. The irony, of course, is that the more confident people are in their self-awareness, the more likely they are to be deluded. Meanwhile, those who constantly question how they come across, who embrace doubt as a source of learning, tend to be far more in touch with reality. Which is why, if you're reading this wondering whether you might lack self-awareness, that's already a good sign!