(Scypre.com) – In a development that has intensified scrutiny over the Karen Read murder trial, newly disclosed text messages from lead investigator Michael Proctor have raised serious questions about potential bias and misconduct within the investigation. The revelations have become a focal point in the ongoing retrial of Read, who is accused of the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.
Karen Read, a former financial analyst, faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. Prosecutors allege that on January 29, 2022, after a night of drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV outside a friend’s home in Canton, Massachusetts, and left him to die in the snow. Read has pleaded not guilty, asserting that she is being framed and that O’Keefe was the victim of an assault inside the house, followed by a cover-up involving law enforcement.
The first trial concluded in July 2024 with a hung jury, leading to the current retrial that commenced in April 2025.
During the retrial, the defense introduced a series of text messages sent by Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the case. These messages, exchanged with colleagues during the initial investigation, contained derogatory remarks about Read, including referring to her as a “whack job.” Such language has prompted concerns about Proctor’s objectivity and professionalism.
On the witness stand, Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Jonathan Diamandis confirmed the authenticity of the messages and acknowledged that Proctor had been terminated from the state police due to his conduct in the case. Diamandis, however, expressed discomfort when asked to read the messages aloud in court.
Read’s defense team argues that the text messages are indicative of a broader pattern of bias and misconduct that compromised the integrity of the investigation. They contend that Proctor’s derogatory comments reflect a predetermined narrative of Read’s guilt, which influenced the collection and interpretation of evidence.
Furthermore, the defense suggests that the investigation overlooked alternative scenarios, including the possibility that O’Keefe was assaulted inside the house and that evidence was manipulated to implicate Read. They point to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the handling of forensic evidence as supporting their claims.
The prosecution maintains that the case against Read is supported by substantial physical evidence, including damage to her SUV consistent with striking a person, and a hair sample found in the vehicle that matches O’Keefe’s DNA. They argue that while Proctor’s comments were inappropriate, they do not undermine the factual basis of the charges against Read.
In closing arguments, prosecutors emphasized Read’s alleged statements expressing concern that she might have hit O’Keefe, as well as expert testimony indicating that her vehicle was accelerating in reverse at the time of the incident.
The disclosure of Proctor’s text messages has sparked public outcry and renewed debates about police accountability and the fairness of the criminal justice system. Legal experts suggest that the revelations could influence the jury’s perception of the investigation’s credibility and potentially impact the trial’s outcome.
The case continues to draw national attention, highlighting the complexities of high-profile criminal trials and the critical importance of impartiality in law enforcement investigations.
As the retrial progresses, the court will need to address the implications of the lead investigator’s conduct and determine its bearing on the pursuit of justice in this contentious case.