In Boston, a significant development emerged on Wednesday concerning the Karen Read case, resulting in the dismissal of the lead investigator, State Trooper Michael Proctor. A disciplinary board found that Proctor had sent inappropriate texts that were considered sexist and crude. These messages were directed at Karen Read, who was involved in a legal case for the alleged murder of her police officer boyfriend. The trial initially concluded with a hung jury in July, prompting an internal investigation by the Massachusetts State Police.
Following the investigation, Proctor faced suspension without pay. The decision to terminate his employment was made by Superintendent Col. Geoffrey Noble, who underscored the need for maintaining the integrity and reputation of the department. Noble articulated that this decision came after a “thorough, fair, and impartial process” that considered the seriousness of the violations and their impact.
The findings by the State Police Trial Board revealed that Proctor had engaged in sending derogatory and inappropriate text messages while in charge of the investigation regarding Read. Furthermore, he was accused of sharing sensitive case details with individuals outside the law enforcement sphere and being under the influence of alcohol during duty hours. The board thus recommended his termination from the state police.
Proctor’s family expressed their dismay at the decision, characterizing it as unprecedented and unjust. They defended Proctor’s actions as human errors, rather than indications of incompetence or corruption, suggesting the investigation’s findings were based solely on evidence from his personal phone.
The allegations against Karen Read involve charges of fatally injuring her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, by hitting him with her SUV during a snowstorm in January 2022. Her defense argues she was wrongfully targeted and claimed that O’Keefe had been killed elsewhere and then moved to the scene. They contend investigators were biased against Read, viewing her as a convenient target, thereby overlooking other potential suspects, including law enforcement officers.
Proctor’s testimony had been a pivotal aspect of the first trial, where the defense accused him of bias against Read, suggesting his prejudged attitude influenced the case’s direction. This introduced concerns over whether alternate suspects were adequately considered during the initial investigation.
As the case is set for a retrial next month, the defense has listed Proctor among potential witnesses, highlighting his continued significance to the courtroom proceedings.
