Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Recent revelations about inappropriate text messages from the lead homicide detective in the Karen Read case have stirred controversy, casting doubts on the integrity of the investigation and raising concerns among legal experts. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan managed to downplay the impact of these messages, which contain vulgar language and questionable opinions about the case. However, many argue that they could undermine the state’s position.
The phone messages significantly affected the initial trial, where they were read during testimony by Michael Proctor, leading to a deadlocked jury last year. In this ongoing trial, prosecutors opted to avoid calling Proctor as a witness, instead relying on his childhood friend, Jonathan Diamandis, who appeared visibly uneasy while explaining the conversations to the jury.
Experts indicate that although the offensive language used in the texts attracts attention, the more relevant context of Proctor’s initial thoughts about the investigation could prove damaging to the prosecution.
Jack Lu, a retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge and Boston College law professor, stated that Proctor’s text messages could compel the defense to act more assertively. Lu noted that they would likely refrain from calling Proctor unless they believed their case was faltering, referring to it as a potential ‘Hail Mary’ effort.
Read faces charges of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, by allegedly hitting him with her Lexus SUV during a drunken dispute and subsequently leaving him to succumb to the cold outside a friend’s home on January 29, 2022.
Diamandis confirmed he has been involved in a group chat with Proctor for over a decade, during which he witnessed the flood of messages exchanged during the investigation into O’Keefe’s death.
Notably, the Massachusetts State Police terminated Proctor in March after an internal inquiry concluded that he had shared confidential details about the case with individuals outside the law enforcement circle.
During her first trial, Read’s legal team highlighted the inappropriate text exchanges sent by Proctor as the case unfolded. A statement from Proctor’s sister characterized the messages as evidence of his humanity, defending his capability as a homicide detective.
During cross-examination, Brennan directed Diamandis to read Proctor’s observations from the day O’Keefe’s remains were found. Proctor initially expressed uncertainty about Read’s involvement but later indicated that he believed she played a part.
The messages from Proctor implied that even before the autopsy results were made available—two days after the incident—he had already formed an opinion regarding the circumstances surrounding O’Keefe’s death. Grace Edwards, a Massachusetts defense attorney, stressed the importance of not jumping to conclusions absent evidence, noting that Proctor’s analysis lacked the qualifications necessary to determine the cause of death.
Edwards pointed out that Proctor’s quick conclusions might have led him to neglect evidence that could suggest other explanations for O’Keefe’s tragic end. She emphasized that medical examiners are responsible for those determinations.
Further complicating matters, criminal defense attorney Mark Bederow echoed Edwards’ concerns, asserting that Proctor’s premature conclusions highlighted a significant level of bias and investigative tunnel vision. Bederow emphasized that such assumptions could seriously compromise the integrity of law enforcement’s handling of the case.
The courtroom was filled with tension as Diamandis expressed discomfort reading some of the more explicit messages aloud. Among these writings, Proctor made derogatory comments regarding Read’s appearance, further fueling scrutiny.
Proctor, facing witness sequestration, has not commented on the ongoing trial. Although he is included on the witness list for the defense, Read’s team decided to present Diamandis instead, a choice deemed risky by some legal analysts.
Edwards raised concerns that the decision to call Diamandis could dilute the potential impact of Proctor’s messages, which had previously resonated during the first trial when Proctor delivered them himself.
This strategic decision may have been intended to mitigate the risks associated with cross-examination from the prosecution. Nonetheless, it also provides the defense with an opportunity to highlight the prosecution’s absence of their lead investigator on the stand.
Bederow noted that the prosecution’s failure to call Proctor is highly unusual for such cases, especially considering that Proctor faced termination due to allegations of unprofessional conduct—that unusual circumstance created a unique challenge for the prosecution.
In the ongoing trial, the repercussions of these text messages will likely continue to reverberate, compelling both sides to navigate a complex landscape of evidence, biases, and the serious implications of the allegations against Read.
As the trial progresses, observers remain vigilant, keenly aware that every piece of testimony and evidence will shape the outcome—a reflection of the legal system’s commitment to justice amidst controversy.
