Family of State Police Trooper Michael Proctor blasts Karen Read for making ‘egregiously false statements'
Elizabeth Proctor referred to text messages her husband sent to friends and coworkers in the early stages of the Read investigation, in which he spoke crudely of seeking nude photos on her phone, mocked her medical condition, and maligned her as a 'whack job.'
Proctor was
Prosecutors allege she backed her Lexus SUV
Read's
Advertisement
In the statement, Elizabeth Proctor said Read's lawyers are 'unabashedly creating false narratives and distracting the public and potential jurors from clear-cut evidence.
"
Her words were echoed by Proctor's sister, Courtney Proctor.
'Michael — and so many others in his line of work — see horrible things every day and may at times need to vent personally," she said. 'He saw a fellow officer die a horrible, tragic death. Who among us has not said something regrettable in moments of stress, shock, or sadness? And how would you feel if the contents of your personal phone were questionably released to the public without full context?'
The text messages came to light as part of
No one has been charged with any federal crimes in connection with the case, and special prosecutor Hank Brennan said
'Unfortunately, we know that by speaking out, more harassment will be unleashed on our family,' Elizabeth Proctor said in her statement. 'But we can no longer stand by and silently watch Michael's character be attacked and disparaged so unfairly. After exhaustive investigations at both the state and federal level, and a grand jury, only one person has been charged with a crime, the defendant Karen Read.'
Meanwhile, Read's lawyers and prosecutors have filed dozens of motions this week related to expected witnesses, evidence, and legal arguments in the coming retrial.
Among them is a prosecution motion to bar Read's lawyers from making a third-party culprit argument, and a defense motion to allow them to inform the jury that two crash reconstruction analysts were initially hired by the federal government.
Advertisement
The two witnesses, from the Philadelphia-based company ARCCA, were initially hired as part of the Justice Department probe and
While that was technically true, Read's lawyers
As for Proctor, he has been suspended without pay for months, and he had another appearance scheduled Thursday before a State Police Trial Board, according to
The board will recommend sanctions to Col. Geoffrey Noble, who leads the agency.
Material from prior Globe stories was used in this report.
Travis Andersen can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Insurance firm ordered to pay $44M in lawsuit filed by man freed from prison
A man won $11 million in a lawsuit against police after his conviction for killing a Missouri newspaper's sports editor was overturned, but the city's former insurer resisted paying most of it for almost three years. A Missouri judge this week ordered the company to pay nearly $44 million. Most of the money would go to Ryan Ferguson, whose legal battle with Minnesota-based St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. in Missouri's courts started in 2017, about six weeks after he won a federal lawsuit against six Columbia police officers. Ferguson was convicted in 2004 of killing Columbia Daily Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt but was released from prison in 2013 after a state appeals court panel concluded that he hadn't received a fair trial. Ferguson maintained his innocence. The city insurer paid Ferguson $2.7 million almost immediately after he won his federal lawsuit, and his attorneys expected St. Paul to pay $8 million under its coverage for the officers from 2006 to 2011. But the company argued that it wasn't on the hook because the actions leading to Ferguson's arrest and imprisonment occurred before its coverage began. While Ferguson sought to collect, the officers argued that St. Paul was acting in bad faith, shifting the burden to them as individuals and forcing them to face bankruptcy. Ferguson's lawyers took up those claims, and Missouri courts concluded that St. Paul was obligated to pay $5.3 million for the time Ferguson was in prison while it covered the officers. It paid in 2020. But the payment didn't end the dispute, and in November, a jury concluded that St. Paul had acted in bad faith and engaged in a 'vexatious refusal' to pay. Cole County Circuit Judge S. Cotton Walker upheld that finding in his order Monday as he calculated how much money the company would pay — mostly as punishment — under a Missouri law capping such punitive damages. 'It's a way to send a message to insurance companies that if there's coverage, they need to pay,' said Kathleen Zellner, whose firm represents Ferguson. She added: 'You can't just pull the rug out from under people when they've paid the premiums.' The company can appeal the decision. An attorney representing St. Paul did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment. Under an agreement between Ferguson and the six officers, they stand to split about $5 million of the $44 million. The award of nearly $44 million includes $3.2 million to compensate Ferguson and the officers, another $24.2 million in punitive damages, $535,000 million for the 'vexatious refusal' allegation and interest on all of the damages totaling about $16 million.
CNN
7 hours ago
- CNN
Trump Justice Department not expected to appoint outsider as special counsel, source says
The Justice Department is not expected to appoint an outsider to serve as special counsel to handle politically sensitive criminal investigations, but will likely deputize a US Attorney to handle such matters if the need arises, according to a source familiar with the strategy. On Friday, President Donald Trump once again called for a special prosecutor to investigate former President Joe Biden and aired unfounded claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. 'A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' he wrote on Truth Social. The president has repeatedly called for a special counsel to investigate his predecessor over a number of issues. 'The whole purpose of the special counsel regime is to appoint a politically neutral outsider who can bring independence and credibility to a case,' said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and author of a forthcoming book on the history of special counsels and independent prosecutions. 'To choose a Trump-appointed US Attorney will, at a minimum, create the appearance that that person is biased in favor of Trump and his political agenda.' The Justice Department is already investigating some of Biden's actions while in office as part of its 'Weaponization Working Group.' On her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo establishing the group, which would focus on examining the state and federal investigations into Trump as well as the prosecutions related to the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, and other right-wing priorities. Ed Martin, who failed to secure confirmation as US Attorney for Washington, DC, now oversees that effort, which has expanded to include subjects such as pardons issued by former President Joe Biden and other aspects of his administration. CNN previously reported that Martin sent a letter to the National Archives requesting information about White House operations under the Biden administration. He is also seeking information related to Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name for the investigation into links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. It is expected that if the department deems that if any of these matters need to be escalated to a full-blown criminal investigation – that work will be outsourced to a US Attorney. The administration currently does not have any Senate-confirmed US Attorneys, but they do have nominees working in offices across the country. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. The special counsel role was created through federal regulation to be used when there are conflicts of interest for the Department handling an investigation and it 'would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel.' There have been several notable special counsels in the past few years, including Robert Mueller who was appointed by then-deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate the Russian government's interference with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller had previously served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013. Trump has repeated railed against special counsels. In Mueller's final report, Trump is quoted saying, 'Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.' Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump for allegedly interfering with the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, and for his allegedly mishandling of classified documents. Smith had also previously served as a federal prosecutor and was working at The Hague at the time he was tapped for this position. In July 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw Trump's classified documents case, ruled that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause, which determines how the federal government is funded. Smith appealed the controversial ruling, but after Trump was reelected, he withdrew both cases against the president-elect. The nature of special counsels has evolved over time – under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Congress allowed for appointment of 'special prosecutors,' which later became known as 'independent counsels.' These individuals were appointed by specially selected three-judge panel and were outside-government appointees. Ultimately, the law expired in 1999 after much debate about the cost and scope of special prosecutors, especially after the Kenneth Starr-led investigation of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. When the law expired, the Justice Department created a new regulation that allowed the Attorney General to appoint a 'special counsel' from outside the federal government. The Justice Department determined that special counsels would be appointed for investigations that would have too much conflict of interest to operate under normal agency guidelines.
USA Today
8 hours ago
- USA Today
Walmart to pay $10 million to settle FTC fraud lawsuit over money transfers
Walmart WMT.N has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a U.S. Federal Trade Commission civil lawsuit accusing the world's largest retailer of ignoring warning signs that fraudsters used its money transfer services to fleece consumers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The settlement was filed on Friday in Chicago federal court, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Manish Shah. Walmart also agreed not to process money transfers it suspects are fraudulent, or help sellers and telemarketers it believes are using its services to commit fraud. "Electronic money transfers are one of the most common ways that scammers tell consumers to send them money, because once it's sent, it's gone for good," said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC consumer protection bureau. "Companies that provide these services must train their employees to comply with the law and work to protect consumers." Average worker pay: Walmart reveals its highest paying job, excluding managers The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer did not admit or deny wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. Walmart did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In its June 2022 complaint, the FTC accused Walmart of turning a blind eye to fraudsters who used its money transfer services to cash out at its stores. Walmart acts as an agent for money transfers by companies such as MoneyGram, Ria EEFT.O and Western Union WU.N. Money can be hard to trace once delivered. The FTC said fraudsters used many schemes that included impersonating Internal Revenue Service agents, impersonating family members who needed money from grandparents to avoid jail, and telling victims they won lotteries or sweepstakes but owed fees to collect their winnings. Shah dismissed part of the FTC case last July but let the regulator pursue the remainder. Walmart appealed from that decision. Friday's settlement would end the appeal. The case is Federal Trade Commission v Walmart Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 22-03372. Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Marguerita Choy
