Trooper Yuri Bukenik

So this is a group text or a group chat with you and eight of your high school friends about this investigation, correct?

So this is a group text or a group chat with you and eight of your high school friends about this investigation, correct?

Proctor, you never thought when you were engaged with these other individuals that this particular set of chats would ever become public, did you?

Proctor, you never thought when you were engaged with these other individuals that this particular set of chats would ever become public, did you?

You recognize that this chat, this group chat, was taking place on January 29th at about 10.52 p.m., correct? Correct. And the person that I'll identify as 5051 indicates Chip, name of that BPD cop, correct?

You recognize that this chat, this group chat, was taking place on January 29th at about 10.52 p.m., correct? Correct. And the person that I'll identify as 5051 indicates Chip, name of that BPD cop, correct?

First of all, you indicated on Monday that you're Chip. Is that right? Yes, sir. You responded at 10.53 p.m., John O'Keefe. Is that right? Yes, sir. So you were willing to tell just a few hours into an investigation of the death of an Austin police officer, you were willing to tell a bunch of high school buddies details about the investigation, including the name of the victim, correct?

First of all, you indicated on Monday that you're Chip. Is that right? Yes, sir. You responded at 10.53 p.m., John O'Keefe. Is that right? Yes, sir. So you were willing to tell just a few hours into an investigation of the death of an Austin police officer, you were willing to tell a bunch of high school buddies details about the investigation, including the name of the victim, correct?

16 is a few hours, correct? I'm not talking about days later.

16 is a few hours, correct? I'm not talking about days later.

Correct. 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 efficient. Isn't that right?

Correct. 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 efficient. Isn't that right?

They didn't just want answers. They wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean?

They didn't just want answers. They wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean?

Right. You were texting this to your high school friends, again, 16 hours into this investigation, right? Correct. 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. Correct. In this text exchange at 10.56 p.m., your buddy Bird writes, I'm sure the owners of the house will receive some shit. Correct?

Right. You were texting this to your high school friends, again, 16 hours into this investigation, right? Correct. 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. Correct. In this text exchange at 10.56 p.m., your buddy Bird writes, I'm sure the owners of the house will receive some shit. Correct?

Correct. How did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean that he could get in trouble?

Correct. How did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean that he could get in trouble?

Well, you had some idea.

Well, you had some idea.

The owners of the house isn't going to get any shit for this, right?

The owners of the house isn't going to get any shit for this, right?

Yeah, you interpreted it like he's not going to get in any trouble. He's not going to be a suspect, correct? Correct. And he's not going to be implicated in any way. Is that right? Correct. 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?

Yeah, you interpreted it like he's not going to get in any trouble. He's not going to be a suspect, correct? Correct. And he's not going to be implicated in any way. Is that right? Correct. 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?

The question that preceded your answer of nope, the homeowners of Boston Cop 2 was the homeowner's going to get some shit for this, correct?

The question that preceded your answer of nope, the homeowners of Boston Cop 2 was the homeowner's going to get some shit for this, correct?

That's what you wrote.

That's what you wrote.

All right, let's take it in order. Question. The homeowner is going to get some shit for this. Answer. Nope. Next text. He's a Boston cop, too. That doesn't sound like an explanation for your nope.

All right, let's take it in order. Question. The homeowner is going to get some shit for this. Answer. Nope. Next text. He's a Boston cop, too. That doesn't sound like an explanation for your nope.

And that's why he's not going to get any shit. Correct, Trooper Proctor?

And that's why he's not going to get any shit. Correct, Trooper Proctor?

And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation?

And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation?

To your satisfaction?

To your satisfaction?

The fact of the matter is you hadn't been to the crime scene by the time you wrote this text, correct?

The fact of the matter is you hadn't been to the crime scene by the time you wrote this text, correct?

You hadn't been inside the home, correct?

You hadn't been inside the home, correct?

You had questioned a grand total of three percipient witnesses at this point, correct?

You had questioned a grand total of three percipient witnesses at this point, correct?

And two of the three were named McCabe, right?

And two of the three were named McCabe, right?

And one of the three was named Albert, correct?

And one of the three was named Albert, correct?

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?

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?

At 1057, Bird goes on to write, he, the homeowner, must have been a puddle to accomplish that. And then he writes, who's the homeowner? Then he writes, I hope not, but I can see it. Correct?

At 1057, Bird goes on to write, he, the homeowner, must have been a puddle to accomplish that. And then he writes, who's the homeowner? Then he writes, I hope not, but I can see it. Correct?

A puddle means drunk, correct?

A puddle means drunk, correct?

In other words, Bird wrote that the homeowner must have been so drunk, so wasted to have killed him, correct?

In other words, Bird wrote that the homeowner must have been so drunk, so wasted to have killed him, correct?

And the puddle part means drunk or wasted, right?

And the puddle part means drunk or wasted, right?

And what Bird actually wrote was he must have been a puddle to accomplish that. Correct? That's what he wrote. 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?

And what Bird actually wrote was he must have been a puddle to accomplish that. Correct? That's what he wrote. 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?

And then Berg questioned, she waffled him. Correct?

And then Berg questioned, she waffled him. Correct?

And then you responded, he was banged up. Is that right? Yes.

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?

Then a person with the phone number 0095 wrote, I thought he was drunk. Did he get beat up? You see that?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Bird then writes, so the owner of the house was a woman cop that beat him, question mark, right? Yes. 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.

Bird then writes, so the owner of the house was a woman cop that beat him, question mark, right? Yes. 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 initial conversations with the paramedics, the first responders, you were under the impression that this was a beating death. He'd been beaten to death, correct?

So what you meant by that, Trooper Proctor, was according to you, based on your initial conversations with the paramedics, the first responders, you were under the impression that this was a beating death. He'd been beaten to death, correct?

Bird 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?

Bird 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?

You didn't write, yeah, we're going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us. You didn't, did you? No.

You didn't write, yeah, we're going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us. You didn't, did you? No.

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? I did not. You wrote, yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. Isn't that right?

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? I did not. You wrote, yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. Isn't that right?

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? Who did you mean by the girl, by the way?

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? Who did you mean by the girl, by the way?

Karen Reed? Yes, sir. So the way that you were going to make it cut and dry, pretty simple. Just pin it on the girl, right?

Karen Reed? Yes, sir. So the way that you were going to make it cut and dry, pretty simple. Just pin it on the girl, right?

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?

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?

We'll see. Let's keep reading, shall we? A little further down says, gotta be, I could only imagine what internal affairs at BPD are trying to get out there. Correct? Correct.

We'll see. Let's keep reading, shall we? 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, 5051, 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?

Meaning this person, 5051, 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?

Then 5051 changes gears and he writes, she hot at least. Correct? Yes. And what was your response to that?

Then 5051 changes gears and he writes, she hot at least. Correct? Yes. And what was your response to that?

From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job cunt. That's what you wrote, correct? Correct. 16 hours into this investigation.

From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack job cunt. That's what you wrote, correct? Correct. 16 hours into this investigation.

Into your objective and unbiased, thorough investigation. Correct?

Into your objective and unbiased, thorough investigation. Correct?

Did you or did you not have all accounts in your investigation?

Did you or did you not have all accounts in your investigation?

The accounts you had, Trooper Proctor, were from two people named McCabe and one named Albert, who happened to be the homeowner and a Boston cop. Those are the accounts from Percipient Witnesses that you had, correct?

The accounts you had, Trooper Proctor, were from two people named McCabe and one named Albert, who happened to be the homeowner and a Boston cop. Those are the accounts from Percipient Witnesses that you had, correct?

And from all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. That was your decision 16 hours into the investigation, correct?

And from all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. That was your decision 16 hours into the investigation, correct?

What else did you say in response to she hot at least question mark?

What else did you say in response to she hot at least question mark?

Yeah, she's a babe. Who's the she?

Yeah, she's a babe. Who's the she?

Weird Fall River accent, though. You're talking about the way she talks?

Weird Fall River accent, though. You're talking about the way she talks?

And no ass. Now you're talking about her body, correct? Yes.

And no ass. Now you're talking about her body, correct? Yes.

You think that's appropriate?

You think that's appropriate?

Then Bird chimes in with a little comedy. Ah, not newsworthy then, correct?

Then Bird chimes in with a little comedy. Ah, not newsworthy then, correct?

In other words, well, she doesn't have an ass. Nothing to see here, correct? And then 5051 says, oh, she's skating, right? Correct. And what did you write after that?

In other words, well, she doesn't have an ass. Nothing to see here, correct? And then 5051 says, oh, she's skating, right? Correct. And what did you write after that?

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 dried. And the way you're going to do it is to make sure that she's fucked. That's what you were saying.

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 dried. And the way you're going to do it is to make sure that she's fucked. That's what you were saying.

What did you mean then when you said she's fucked?

What did you mean then when you said she's fucked?

What you meant by that comment, Trooper Proctor, was you were going to make sure because 50-51 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 am going to make sure Ms. Reed doesn't skate. She's fucked. That's what you meant. And then Bird decides to chime in. Good. No ass bitch. Right?

What you meant by that comment, Trooper Proctor, was you were going to make sure because 50-51 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 am going to make sure Ms. Reed doesn't skate. She's fucked. That's what you meant. And then Bird decides to chime in. Good. No ass bitch. Right?

How did you respond to Bird saying, good, no-ass bitch?

How did you respond to Bird saying, good, no-ass bitch?

Thought that was funny, did you, Trooper Proctor? Thought that was funny?

Thought that was funny, did you, Trooper Proctor? Thought that was funny?

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?

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?

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. Do you know what the definition of integrity is?

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. Do you know what the definition of integrity is?

It means the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, correct? Do you believe that integrity means being honest and having strong moral principles?

It means the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, correct? Do you believe that integrity means being honest and having strong moral principles?

Do you stand by that testimony that you were showing strong moral principles in this investigation, sir?

Do you stand by that testimony that you were showing strong moral principles in this investigation, sir?

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? Super Proctor, have you ever apologized to Ms. Reed?

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? Super Proctor, have you ever apologized to Ms. Reed?

As a lead investigator in this case, you were tasked with the responsibility of making sure that the investigation remained free of any conflicts of interest. It's part of your job, correct? Correct. Throughout the pendency of this investigation in this case, you've denied having any conflict of interest in this case. Isn't that right? Correct.

As a lead investigator in this case, you were tasked with the responsibility of making sure that the investigation remained free of any conflicts of interest. It's part of your job, correct? Correct. Throughout the pendency 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. 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?

In fact, a couple of months ago in February of 2024, you testified in a different proceeding. Is that right? Yes. 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?

That wasn't my question. Let's take them one at a time. Did you testify under oath, same oath you took here today, in a formal proceeding in February of 2024, that you did not know and did not have any relationship with members of the Albert and McCabe families?

That wasn't my question. Let's take them one at a time. Did you testify under oath, same oath you took here today, in a formal proceeding in February of 2024, that you did not know and did not have any relationship with members of the Albert and McCabe families?

You can't remember how you testified, whether or not you knew or had relationships with the Alberts in the case? As you sit here right now, you need to refresh your recollection. You can't remember what you said.

You can't remember how you testified, whether or not you knew or had relationships with the Alberts in the case? As you sit here right now, you need to refresh your recollection. You can't remember what you said.

Would you refresh your recollection if you took a look at those grand jury minutes? Yes.

Would you refresh your recollection if you took a look at those grand jury minutes? Yes.

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.

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.

Question, meaning you told First Assistant Phelan that you didn't know, didn't have a relationship with members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct.

Question, meaning you told First Assistant Phelan that you didn't know, didn't have a relationship with members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct.

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 McCabes. Is that right?

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 McCabes. Is that right?

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.

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.

Or know them.

Or know them.

So you do know the Alberts, correct?

So you do know the Alberts, correct?

And Colin, correct?

And Colin, correct?

Meaning you told First Assistant Bieland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct. Was that ambiguous in your mind?

Meaning you told First Assistant Bieland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct. Was that ambiguous in your mind?

Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, well, I know Chris and I know Julie and I know Colin. Correct. That might have been a good time to answer the question. I know these three individuals from the Albert family. Right. But your answer was one word. Correct. Right. Yes.

Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, well, I know Chris and I know Julie and I know Colin. Correct. That might have been a good time to answer the question. I know these three individuals from the Albert family. Right. But your answer was one word. Correct. Right. Yes.

You further testify 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?

You further testify 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?

You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, 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?

You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, 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?

But what about part of the question, did not have relationships or no members of the Albert or McCabe families? How about that part of the question?

But what about part of the question, did not have relationships or no members of the Albert or McCabe families? How about that part of the question?

I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence. And where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts because you don't have relationships. Where no is concerned, you linked that to the McCabes because you don't know the McCabes. That's what you did?

I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence. And where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts because you don't have relationships. Where no is concerned, you linked that to the McCabes because you don't know the McCabes. That's what you did?

How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, wasn't it?

How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, wasn't it?

You stand by that testimony? Yes. At the time that you testified that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family?

You stand by that testimony? Yes. At the time that you testified that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family?

My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them?

My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them?

So if you were to say, I don't know any members of the Albert family, that would have been a lie, correct? Correct.

So if you were to say, I don't know any members of the Albert family, that would have been a lie, correct? Correct.

You've already testified that there were several hundred Ring videos from One Meadows facing the driveway and the front door camera, correct?

You've already testified that there were several hundred Ring videos from One Meadows facing the driveway and the front door camera, correct?

As the case officer, you obtained and controlled those Ring videos from One Meadows from the moment that they came into Massachusetts State Police custody until they were handed over to the Commonwealth, correct?

As the case officer, you obtained and controlled those Ring videos from One Meadows from the moment that they came into Massachusetts State Police custody until they were handed over to the Commonwealth, correct?

You drafted the search warrant for the Ring video access records, correct?

You drafted the search warrant for the Ring video access records, correct?

You obtained the warrant returns once those search warrants were executed, correct?

You obtained the warrant returns once those search warrants were executed, correct?

You took possession of Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone physically, correct?

You took possession of Mr. O'Keefe's cell phone physically, correct?

And you had access to Mr. O'Keefe's ring account in that cell phone. Is that right?

And you had access to Mr. O'Keefe's ring account in that cell phone. Is that right?

you indicated that you reviewed several of the videos on his Ring app on his cell phone. Is that right?

you indicated that you reviewed several of the videos on his Ring app on his cell phone. Is that right?

So you obviously had not only possession of the cell phone, you had possession of his login account information to get into the app on his cell phone. Is that right?

So you obviously had not only possession of the cell phone, you had possession of his login account information to get into the app on his cell phone. Is that right?

Which means somewhere or another, you could get access to the Ring videos.

Which means somewhere or another, you could get access to the Ring videos.

And watch those Ring videos on his app on the phone. Yes. Which means you had full access to the app, keep videos, you could save for later, you could delete videos, you could do anything you wanted to within that app, correct?

And watch those Ring videos on his app on the phone. Yes. Which means you had full access to the app, keep videos, you could save for later, you could delete videos, you could do anything you wanted to within that app, correct?

Super Proctor, did you delete any of the Ring videos ever from John O'Keefe's phone?

Super Proctor, did you delete any of the Ring videos ever from John O'Keefe's phone?

Did you delete a video of Miss Reed arriving to One Meadows at approximately 1241 a.m. on January 29th, 2022? Yes.

Did you delete a video of Miss Reed arriving to One Meadows at approximately 1241 a.m. on January 29th, 2022? Yes.

You will agree, Trooper Proctor, that the video of Ms. Reed returning home from 34 Fairview at approximately 12.41 a.m. is not there?

You will agree, Trooper Proctor, that the video of Ms. Reed returning home from 34 Fairview at approximately 12.41 a.m. is not there?

As the case officer, you're aware that Trooper DeChico also reviewed some or all of those videos, correct?

As the case officer, you're aware that Trooper DeChico also reviewed some or all of those videos, correct?

And he did that at your request? Yes.

And he did that at your request? Yes.

He took notes of his review of those videos, correct?

He took notes of his review of those videos, correct?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Did you actually, at any point before writing your report, did you review his notes?

Did you actually, at any point before writing your report, did you review his notes?

Your report is dated June 1st, 2022, correct? Correct. 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?

Your report is dated June 1st, 2022, correct? Correct. 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?

In your report, there is no mention of the footage showing Karen Reeve arriving home at 1241 a.m., correct? Correct. And that's notwithstanding the fact that in Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, he makes note of an event at 1241 a.m., Indicating, I think she arrived home, correct? Correct.

In your report, there is no mention of the footage showing Karen Reeve arriving home at 1241 a.m., correct? Correct. And that's notwithstanding the fact that in Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, he makes note of an event at 1241 a.m., Indicating, I think she arrived home, correct? Correct.

So sometime between when Trooper DeChico wrote his notes and when you wrote your report, that video footage vanished.

So sometime between when Trooper DeChico wrote his notes and when you wrote your report, that video footage vanished.

Well, you're aware that the video footage from 1241 AM is gone, correct?

Well, you're aware that the video footage from 1241 AM is gone, correct?

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?

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?

The fact is, notwithstanding Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, there's no video of 1241 in January 29th, is there?

The fact is, notwithstanding Trooper DiCicco's handwritten notes, there's no video of 1241 in January 29th, is there?

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 McCabe's in this case?

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 McCabe's in this case?

Did you consider her to be, for want of a better phrase, an outsider?

Did you consider her to be, for want of a better phrase, an outsider?

Not somebody from Canton?

Not somebody from Canton?

Not family, not friends with the Alberts?

Not family, not friends with the Alberts?

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? Did you develop some sort of hatred for Ms. Reed?

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? Did you develop some sort of hatred for Ms. Reed?

Matter of fact, you did express your feelings about Ms. Reed in yet another text message that we haven't done over here today. Is that right? On February 4th, 2022? You responded to a text message from your sister, correct? And your response was, hopefully, she kills herself, correct?

Matter of fact, you did express your feelings about Ms. Reed in yet another text message that we haven't done over here today. Is that right? On February 4th, 2022? You responded to a text message from your sister, correct? And your response was, hopefully, she kills herself, correct?

Who's she?

Who's she?

Ms. Reed?

Ms. Reed?

You literally said that you hoped that Karen Reid, the subject of your investigation, the woman sitting to my left, about seven feet from me, that she would just die. Correct?

You literally said that you hoped that Karen Reid, 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 is you wanted her to kill herself.

The figure of speech is you wanted her to kill herself.

Right?

Right?

Trooper Proctor, Karen Reid, in your investigation, had quickly become a very serious problem for you, hadn't she? Did you believe that Karen Reid was a problem or an issue for your investigation?

Trooper Proctor, Karen Reid, in your investigation, had quickly become a very serious problem for you, hadn't she? Did you believe that Karen Reid was a problem or an issue for your investigation?

In your words, quote, all the powers that be want answers ASAP. That's what you texted on January 29th, right?

In your words, quote, all the powers that be want answers ASAP. That's what you texted on January 29th, right?

That put a lot of pressure on you, didn't it, Trooper Proctor?

That put a lot of pressure on you, didn't it, Trooper Proctor?

This case involves a Boston cop whose family you were actually connected to, correct?

This case involves a Boston cop whose family you were actually connected to, correct?

Chris Albert, loosely?

Chris Albert, loosely?

Julie Albert, loosely?

Julie Albert, loosely?

Colin Albert, loosely?

Colin Albert, loosely?

Kevin Albert, loosely?

Kevin Albert, loosely?

Loose enough to leave his badge and his gun in your cruiser after a night of drinking, right?

Loose enough to leave his badge and his gun in your cruiser after a night of drinking, right?

You agreed in your group chat you needed to, quote, make this cut and dry because another cop was involved. Those are your words, right?

You agreed in your group chat you needed to, quote, make this cut and dry because another cop was involved. Those are your words, right?

Your friends wrote this whole thing in their words, stinks, correct?

Your friends wrote this whole thing in their words, stinks, correct?

You believed, Trooper Proctor, that your life would be much easier if Karen Reed was just dead, didn't you?

You believed, Trooper Proctor, that your life would be much easier if Karen Reed was just dead, didn't you?

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. Is that right?

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. Is that right?

A whack job, correct?

A whack job, correct?

A retard, right?

A retard, right?

Her balloon knot leaks, right? Yes.

Her balloon knot leaks, right? Yes.

No ass, correct?

No ass, correct?

She's fucked, according to you, right?

She's fucked, according to you, right?

Ass leaker. That was the word you used, a figure of speech, right?

Ass leaker. That was the word you used, a figure of speech, right?

A girl who shits herself, right?

A girl who shits herself, right?

And then fuck her, correct?

And then fuck her, correct?

Would you agree, Trooper Proctor, that you have dehumanized Karen Reed during the course of your investigation with comments and words like this? Would you agree with that?

Would you agree, Trooper Proctor, that you have dehumanized Karen Reed during the course of your investigation with comments and words like this? Would you agree with that?

And you admitted in your own words that the cop homeowner wasn't going to, quote, catch any shit, right?

And you admitted in your own words that the cop homeowner wasn't going to, quote, catch any shit, right?

Because you were out to, quote, make this cut and dry. Isn't that right?

Because you were out to, quote, make this cut and dry. Isn't that right?

Because you were going to make sure that the case was cut and dry. Those were your words, right? Yes. And Trooper Proctor, it would be far easier, far easier for you to pin it on the girl who's just a whack job cunt, in your words, who you hope just kills herself. Right?

Because you were going to make sure that the case was cut and dry. Those were your words, right? Yes. And Trooper Proctor, it would be far easier, far easier for you to pin it on the girl who's just a whack job cunt, in your words, who you hope just kills herself. Right?

Sustained. Shame on you, sir.

Sustained. Shame on you, sir.

Quote, she waffled him. I looked at his body at the hospital. 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?

Quote, she waffled him. I looked at his body at the hospital. 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?

Are you saying that the principles of physics are incapable of determining with the proper calculations how far John O'Keefe's body would have moved given the collision at issue?

Are you saying that the principles of physics are incapable of determining with the proper calculations how far John O'Keefe's body would have moved given the collision at issue?

Is it your opinion, based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that those injuries are consistent with an animal attack as opposed to a motor vehicular pedestrian incident?

Is it your opinion, based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that those injuries are consistent with an animal attack as opposed to a motor vehicular pedestrian incident?

What evidence do they actually have to prove that that SUV ever hit John? The answer is none. They don't have any. There's no evidence whatsoever that Karen Reid's vehicle ever struck John O'Keefe. In fact, every single piece of material evidence in this case unequivocally proves the opposite.

What evidence do they actually have to prove that that SUV ever hit John? The answer is none. They don't have any. There's no evidence whatsoever that Karen Reid's vehicle ever struck John O'Keefe. In fact, every single piece of material evidence in this case unequivocally proves the opposite.

And to Proctor, it would be far easier to pin it on the girl who's just a whack-job cunt who you hope just kills herself. Shame on you, sir.

And to Proctor, it would be far easier to pin it on the girl who's just a whack-job cunt who you hope just kills herself. Shame on you, sir.