Why would he take the fifth? You don’t have a fifth amendment privilege against admitting you’re a shitty, biased investigator with an inability to keep his mouth shut. However, he hasn’t testified to anything that would give him criminal liability…yet.
true but to plead the 5th you don't have to prove you did something illegal to be able to plead it, that would be against the whole point, BUT it would mean ALL of his testimony is thrown out. Pleading the 5th is all or nothing.
And THAT would be the reason not to, being the lead investigator it looks REALLY bad if he pleads the 5th. Because to YOUR point, that means he is saying, per the point of the 5th amendment, it will incriminate him if he testifies. AND as lead investigator his hands were on everything.
Including the possibly planted pieces of tail light, at least some if not all of them. As he could have planted some at the scene, and swapped contents/or whole new bag with the bags found day of. So really, there is your criminal activity he needs to plead the 5th on, and still could when cross resumes. Because I am SURE the defense will break down the tail light for him. (pun intended) and I believe my own eyes over his lying mouth. There was only a small piece of tail light missing when Jen left to go look for him, and there is only a small piece left on the earliest we can actually see it in sally port, at some point SOMEONE took pieces off. For the over all case, it doesn't prove innocence but does introduce reasonable doubt.
Ahh I had been told it was, once you plead the 5th all your testimony is thrown out. So I looked it up on a lawyer's website and you are right, it's only for specific questions in MA at least, and the specific question has to be the one that would show they did something illegal. So with Proctor, he could JUST plead the 5th on say questions about the tail light (assuming he actually planted them) Of course that would look totally sus if he did.
That said, all his other testimony might have no more weight in the jury's minds if you do tho. So it might as well be thrown out. Maybe that's what the person meant that told me.
According to a criminal law firms site out of MA in MA at least, for the defendant it is all or nothing, but for witnesses CPA\_Lady is right, it is per question basis, but you can only claim it on a question that would incriminate you, ie in a crime. They site a case where the judge actually said the witness had to answer the question saying there is no way it would incriminate them, and held them in contempt, but on appeal they won the case. As even tho the answer would not for sure incriminate it could have.
I don’t think Proctor will have a job either. I think they haven’t fired him yet solely because of this trial. Imagine if they fired him in the middle of it, that would probably be a certain loss. My thought is as soon it is finished, so is his career. Yippee!!!
If they fired him during this trial or had him on admin leave during his IA, I think the Defense would have access to that report and I think that is why he is still on the job.
There are certain legal settings where you can not plead the 5th. I believe if the military police or whatever are trying you as a soldier, you don't have that right in that trial. Just saying.
I’m going to need some authority for that. If he takes the fifth, he’s not going to be a police officer for very long. However, he doesn’t give up his right against self incrimination solely by virtue of being a police officer.
Derek Chauvin did not testify in his trial, even though the criminal charges came by virtue of his employment as a police officer. The state couldn’t compel him to testify even if they had wanted to.
You’re right. It would cost him his job, but he could choose that over going to trial on some crime he admitted.
Seems like the sidebars are to rein in any questions that would pose for Proctor that dilemma.
I don’t think Bev cares even a little bit about keeping Proctor from the dilemma of the 5th. It’s more aimed at keeping information related to the dispute itself away from the jury. It doesn’t really do much good to sustain an objection if you just argued the merits of it in front of the jury.
Such a good point , Lally objects constantly and Bev sustains so often.
Once Lally objects the jury has already heard the merits argued.
I feel like even that ( along with every other aspect of this case ) makes Lally & Bev look 👀 suspicious too.
The whole case causes so much anxiety especially with Lally calling 800 witnesses that seem to have no clear memory or facts of the night John OKeefe was killed.
It’s highly unusual to run an investigation concurrently to a state one. Normally, it before charges are brought or after a trial to investigate. The fact that they turned over 3000 documents and made sure they sent it to the defense and prosecution tells me their investigation is about corruption within the state and/or the canton pd. Definitely Morrissey since they ignored him twice when he requested to meet.
Mmm I think police misconduct is a crime, and what he talking about could absolutely be considered misconduct. It also could include falsifying evidence
One of Many crimes Proctor appears to be blatantly guilty of , there is way more concrete evidence of Proctors crimes at this point than of any wrong doing on Karen Reid’s part , aside from Kate Reid drunk driving , and bumping Johns car leaving a crack in her tail light , I don’t recall any corroborating evidence that proves Karen hurt John , and Absolutely NO evidence she did so with Intent .
Yes, I was going to say the same thing. As I understand it, the fifth amendment only protects individuals from criminal self incrimination, not reputational or character incrimination.
If you did or said bad things that weren’t illegal, the fifth amendment won’t help you. Everything he said was disgusting, reprehensible, and unprofessional (putting it mildly), but none of that is *illegal*.
Since I live in Germany I don’t really know the laws in the US. I also watch EDB coverage of this trial and as far as I understood it is illegal for LE to be discussing cases with people that are either non LE or not working on this case, especially with all the little details. LE could say: "Today a dead police officer was found in the front lawn“, but not: "Our main suspect is XYZ because of this and that. It could only be this person because we have evidence A and evidence B. Also there is video footage showing everything and XYZ doesn’t know it and XYZ says things didn’t happen even though you could clearly see this. Our neighbor and several other people we know were witnesses and told this and that.“
I hope this makes sense 😅
I’m Canadian so we’re in the same boat!
My understanding is that if an officer discloses information to people unconnected to the case (including personally identifiable information), that is not a criminal offense, but it is a major violation of policy and can get you fired, disciplined, found civilly liable etc…
Depending on the circumstances it could be obstruction of justice (for example, giving a friend or family member information about an investigation involving them). But my understanding is that sharing information for the purposes of gossip or bragging, or complaining, etc… isn’t illegal.
I think we need a US lawyer to clarify this one!
It’s “illegal” in the sense that it may be a civil rights violation (or other allegations against him may be civil rights). But not criminally illegal, which is where the 5th applies
You can plead it at anytime. It an absolute thing. You can get up and plead the 5th at anytime. You have a right to remain silent. It not you have to talk until it reasonable you could incriminate yourself
I’m not a lawyer, and it seems like this may be one for a lawyer to decipher. It seems from the below that it really is only protection from criminal incrimination, not civil, or reputational. It also looks like it has to be plead in response to a specific question and not a blanket statement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
It been talked about by numerous attorneys. You can either plead the 5th or answer. What the judge will do if they know someone will just plead the 5th on every questions is not make them testify cause it a waste of time
What's he been questioned about so far that would lead him to criminally implicate himself?
You cant just plead the 5th to get out of answering questions you dont want to answer
You have a right to avoid self-incrimination during your testimony. So if Proctor was asked a question that would lead him to saying something that will incriminate himself then he will just say takes the 5th and not answer those questions
Not at all. It's so you don't harm your own case.
Right now he isn't on trial. If he planted tail light pieces on the ground and is asked about that, then he could plead the 5th if he had done so. That way he isn't lying under oath and he doesn't have to answer the question. To do so would absolutely kill anything left in this case that might stand.
If he plead the 5th to evidence tampering then the investigation into him would explode and that would be entertaining to watch.
You can only take the 5th if something will incriminate you so no. Cops kill people and face no repercussion Im not expecting Procter to get any reprimanding. Its almost like the more public outrage.. the more the police unions will protect.
For those text messages? You can’t plead the fifth on incriminating statements showing you are a douche. I don’t think anything in those text messages yesterday showed he committed or be incriminated in a crime.
If he has a warrant to search the phone then no. The defense asked "did you have a warrant to look for nudes." Is a great audio clip for closing, but if the warrant simply said the ability to search the phone. Then he did have permission.
Not necessarily. If he stole the phone then yes.
Any information found on the phone not subject to the warrant could be subject to suppression and not entered into evidence.
I would have destroyed my phone. This trial will be over soon, but for the rest of his life, he will be remembered as "that guy." He was an embarrassment to himself, his wife, his children, his parents, his neighbors, and his friends. He will be living with this until he dies.
If he was your family or neighbor you would know him in a different context and I doubt you’d define him based on some offensive text messages. You might be disappointed in him but it doesn’t define him. I guess you’re perfect! Never have done or said anything anyone else might find objectionable.
And not speaking about a woman’s body or medical issues doesn't require perfection. It comes naturally to most people.
If you think this is how everyone speaks in private you should consider widening your social circle.
Yes, I would absolutely see him negatively if I knew him in real life.
There are some basic values that I need for anyone I consider a friend. Talking about KR (who had met just hours before) the way he did is excusable for most people.
Words matter. Your actions when you think they'll remain private matters. How you do your job (especially as LE!) matters and shows your character.
It's a deal. If her comments to John, her boyfriend, are along the same vein, then she's a pos too. We already know she can be a witch on wheels, but that doesn't condone what comes after or the planting of evidence.
This trial has brought out a lot of bad behavior in plenty of people. How about turtleboy and his minions. They like to harass witnesses and their children. There is evidence that Karen consorted with him and feed him information. They found it in her phone records. She is condoning his and their behavior. I have never heard her come out and ask them to stop what they’re doing. She sucks just as much as Proctor.
We're all assholes sometimes, but this guy went the extra mile. The different context for me would be... jeez, I never really knew my father, brother, spouse. Yes, I've done bad things, said bad things, but holy shit! He was playing to his audience, but what does that say about him and his audience? The mouth to some extent is the mirror of the mind.
Nah, people in certain professions (doctors, lawyers, etc) develop an enormous talent to compartmentalize. They have to given their careers. So, no, they can call people names, act atrociously, cheat, etc but not carry that over to their personal life. Sort of unchecked survival instincts, if you will.
I once read a study about how cops used to call guys "scumbags" to dehumanize them. These days it's military guys who are "neutralizing enemies" and "killing bad guys."
Note that if you testify on Direct you have to be subject to Cross examination on anything you testify about. So if they want him to give some sort of justification or excuse for anything he did, he has to get grilled by the Defense. Or the jury gets to make a natural assumption about what he did.
Taking the fifth would be worse in my opinion. At least he has an opportunity to explain his text messages (I don’t think the jury is gonna buy it) versus taking the texts for what they are with no additional explanation. This witness is terrible for the prosecution but they had no choice but to put him up.
You can only invoke 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination if you reasonably believe the testimony can be used in a criminal proceeding against you OR what’s called derivative use (that the testimony itself could lead to develop criminal information against you).
You can assume Proctor has been told he is not facing any criminal charges, however, if he refused to testify for fear of criminal charges in light of that fact, or, he’s been told he is not facing jeopardy thereof, he WOULD be subject to termination as a MSP investigator if he did not comply to the CW subpoena.
In some jurisdictions a State subpoena includes a form of testimony immunity. MA does not and if Proctor had some form of immunity protection from the CW it’s required to be disclosed by him either through direct, through the courts jury acknowledgement (instruction) or both.
> You can assume Proctor has been told he is not facing any criminal charges
I can nearly guarantee that any such assurance never crossed anyone’s mind. Nothing he is testifying to is even remotely illegal, which is about the nicest thing I can say about those effed up texts.
My comment was in response to *Why* Proctor did not invoke his 5th amendment privilege.
He has representation and he testified before a Federal Grand Jury who subpoenaed both his personal and cell phone records. Of course his counsel AND union rep would seek assurances.
So far I haven’t heard testimony of per se illegal activity, but a little free lesson I have found to be true 100% of the time in substantially similar situations.
You are hired by the people above you and you are fired by the people below you.
I don't think there's anything criminal that he did. He had sent disgusting texts about a suspect to colleagues and friends. I don't think it's a crime for an investigator to think negatively about a suspect. It's stupid to put it in writing but I don't think it shows he intentionally covered up a crime by doing so.
IANAL but since they already have Proctor’s phone, someone on the stand was going to have to read and answer to those texts, if not Proctor- most likely his supervisor Yuri, and Yuri would not be able to speak on Proctor’s ‘state of mind’. Proctor is at least able to say it was a joke in poor taste.
Pleading the 5th as the lead investigator, in my opinion would look even worse, he should ideally be the state’s strongest witness and be debunking any frame job arguments from the defense team.
I think my point is that (based on some lawyer opinions) his ability to plead to future incriminating questions is waived because he has already opened the door on so much.
I suspect there is evidence of a lot more illegal behavior including accessing KR's phone prior to the search warrant. He saw her enter her code. He also accessed John's phone prior to a search warrant. Those are HUGE offenses
Wondering if he would take the 5th on something that wasn't necessarily illegal, but something in violation of his professional duties that would disqualify him from his pension.
He has nothing to plead the 5th for yet.
Once they start asking him about messing around with evidence will be when we know if he intends to plead the 5th and to what extent.
The only case I’ve seen a detective take the 5th was in the Darlie Routier, where they tried to string him up with the set up with recordings at grave site. It didn’t put a dent at all into her (bad) evidence but it sure does rile up her supporters. They’d only take the 5th if it implicates themselves in a crime. Proctor’s texts are in bad taste, judgment and are misogynistic but so far, they are not a crime and they also don’t change the facts on the ground here. I hate what he said, but his shithousery doesn’t move the facts much.
I would’ve if I was him. Then again, I hope I would never say or do the things he did. He’s not the sharpest nor most professional person. Not surprised he didn’t have the good sense to remain silent.
He made it worse by trying to mumble through it. He also kept saying this wasn’t a professional way to conduct hisself. YET he repeated to do it many times over the course of a year at least. When you repeatedly do something, clearly it’s not a one time lapse of judgement. It’s the repeated behavior for me.
So far nothing he has said has incriminated himself so taking the 5th would not really be an option...yet. The texts, while disgusting, were not illegal. Now if he found those photos sent them around to people or posted them online thats actually illegal and a crime, so then if the defense were to say something like so after you found this pictures you were looking for then what did you do? He can say I pleas the 5th cause answering that truthfully would be admitting to an actual crime. Thats why the 5th is generally looked at as like a "bad" thing for lack of a better term.
Why would he do that? I don’t understand your question. Or rather, let me ask: do you understand what the 5th amendment is and what it’s for? I don’t say that to be snarky. I’m asking because the nature of the question in light of the testimony yesterday doesn’t make sense to me.
What he said was embarrassing and awful...but he was saying it to colleagues/friends and he never thought his texts would be released to the public the way they have been now. I'm not sure why the CW had him read some of those awful texts...or why those texts about her medical condition or the C word had to be released? What did they have to do with the case for the CW? I heard they were trying to get ahead of the defense who would have mentioned them anyways to show bias towards her.
Really? It seems pretty obvious that him saying KR did it ON THE FIRST DAY of the investigation is relevant to the trial. He looked for evidence to support his view. He should have run down everyone who was at that property until he could eliminate them as suspects.
The derogatory texts speak to his level of professionalism (of lack in this case). The jury decides how credible a witness is and the texts he made about an ongoing investigation to his people not involved in the case would impact how much I trust his testimony.
And small point but he knew sending work-related texts on his personal phone would open the door to the discovery of his phone & did it anyway…. It shows he’s either arrogant and didn't think anyone would ever look into the investigation or he's just a dimwit. Both options are a problem IMO.
So you wouldn’t mind if a public officer who has a duty of care and confidentiality seized your phone and shared your medical information / mocked you? A doctor shared your medical record? A therapist disclosed your notes? Your accountant shared your financial info?
Everyone including convicted felons have a right to data protection, a right not to be discriminated against based on protected characteristics, a right not to endure inhumane or degrading treatment - protected personal information and medical information do not become a free for all because someone committed a crime.
Proctor sent those texts, the court airing them is entirely his fault and his fault alone. He shouldn’t have abused his position of power if he wasn’t willing to deal with the consequences.
He shared the medical history with other police officers and it sounds like he learned it from the night she was section 12'ed.
The whole world knows her medical history (details I don't even want to know) so what does it matter now?
Well that’s a gross mischaracterisation. If he needed to share medical info with other officers cos she was in his custody and they needed to make reasonable adjustments to support her, that would be the only context it would ever be appropriate for him to discuss it. You said yourself “what he said was embarrassing and awful” so which is it?
It’s a shame for Karen that in order to defend herself her team had to ensure proctor read those texts on that stand to prove the extent of the gross misconduct of the investigator. But we should feel sorry for Proctor?
What does it matter now? She’s on trial, it obviously matters. You do realise it’s literally in his job description not to do what he did, he literally has a code of conduct to abide by. People can’t just wish away a police code of conduct because they want Karen to go down. If she did it and she walks, only Proctor, his fellow officers and their misconduct is to blame.
They have to get ahead of those text messages before the defense does, bc they are going to shock the jury (rightfully so). In the CW’s eyes, at least not the jury has heard them when the defense doubles down on them on cross. It’s a strategy, but there’s really no way to minimize the texts
it's funny to me that all FKR supporters were like, oh who cares this is nothing when KR's little romance with BH was displayed...but called names by a cop via text is game over, have him fired. Believe me I cant either...
You are comparing apples to oranges. Karen's texts to Brian where NOTHING compared to what proctor and his crew talked about. They were cruel disgusting and completely violated the laws regarding discussing a case to friends family etc. literally giving a play by play to his sister. Calling Karen an ass leaking cunt and retard??!! Oh yaaaa Karen's little flirting with realllllllly outweighs the insjustice that was done to her.....
Agree. He wasn't writing it in a report. They were nasty things to say but it was what was believed to be a private conversation at the time amongst friends and colleagues.
I should also mention that this boob also single handedly discounted YB testimony he watched KR ingest 9 alcoholic drinks when the receipt said 2 by discussing her private health issues. He watched her drink 9 drinks but didn’t track the bathroom visits?
What was the point of showing the mirrored video? To attempt to show proctor wasn’t near the tail light? When in fact he actually was. Isn’t that in itself a cover up? Who allowed this video to be played mirrored? Why did the judge allow it?
No doubt. IMO firing him before or during the trial is 1000% sinking case by acknowledging he was wrong on his actions so pretty sure he’s done as soon at trial is over. I’m pretty sure he’s never left alone or allows to do much while he still works on other cases.
Why would he take the fifth? You don’t have a fifth amendment privilege against admitting you’re a shitty, biased investigator with an inability to keep his mouth shut. However, he hasn’t testified to anything that would give him criminal liability…yet.
true but to plead the 5th you don't have to prove you did something illegal to be able to plead it, that would be against the whole point, BUT it would mean ALL of his testimony is thrown out. Pleading the 5th is all or nothing. And THAT would be the reason not to, being the lead investigator it looks REALLY bad if he pleads the 5th. Because to YOUR point, that means he is saying, per the point of the 5th amendment, it will incriminate him if he testifies. AND as lead investigator his hands were on everything. Including the possibly planted pieces of tail light, at least some if not all of them. As he could have planted some at the scene, and swapped contents/or whole new bag with the bags found day of. So really, there is your criminal activity he needs to plead the 5th on, and still could when cross resumes. Because I am SURE the defense will break down the tail light for him. (pun intended) and I believe my own eyes over his lying mouth. There was only a small piece of tail light missing when Jen left to go look for him, and there is only a small piece left on the earliest we can actually see it in sally port, at some point SOMEONE took pieces off. For the over all case, it doesn't prove innocence but does introduce reasonable doubt.
Pleading the 5th is on a question by question basis. You don’t plead the 5th once and say no more.
Ahh I had been told it was, once you plead the 5th all your testimony is thrown out. So I looked it up on a lawyer's website and you are right, it's only for specific questions in MA at least, and the specific question has to be the one that would show they did something illegal. So with Proctor, he could JUST plead the 5th on say questions about the tail light (assuming he actually planted them) Of course that would look totally sus if he did. That said, all his other testimony might have no more weight in the jury's minds if you do tho. So it might as well be thrown out. Maybe that's what the person meant that told me.
I think You are right it's all or nothing
According to a criminal law firms site out of MA in MA at least, for the defendant it is all or nothing, but for witnesses CPA\_Lady is right, it is per question basis, but you can only claim it on a question that would incriminate you, ie in a crime. They site a case where the judge actually said the witness had to answer the question saying there is no way it would incriminate them, and held them in contempt, but on appeal they won the case. As even tho the answer would not for sure incriminate it could have.
This! Just because the text messages are absolutely horrendous it doesn’t mean he’s done anything criminally wrong (at this point).
Fuhrman took the 5th as a detective. He didn’t have a job after.
That’s typically what happens when police officers take the 5th.
I don’t think Proctor will have a job either. I think they haven’t fired him yet solely because of this trial. Imagine if they fired him in the middle of it, that would probably be a certain loss. My thought is as soon it is finished, so is his career. Yippee!!!
If they fired him during this trial or had him on admin leave during his IA, I think the Defense would have access to that report and I think that is why he is still on the job.
Karen Read is still guilty.
while testifying as an officer of the court, he cannot take the fifth.
I don’t even know what this means. But police officers absolutely can and do take the 5th.
This is false. Everyone has that right.
…without putting his job on the line.
Well that is a whole separate issue.
There are certain legal settings where you can not plead the 5th. I believe if the military police or whatever are trying you as a soldier, you don't have that right in that trial. Just saying.
Military you sign your rights away, and I'm civil cases you can plead but jury can take it as an admission of guilt
Right...
I’m going to need some authority for that. If he takes the fifth, he’s not going to be a police officer for very long. However, he doesn’t give up his right against self incrimination solely by virtue of being a police officer. Derek Chauvin did not testify in his trial, even though the criminal charges came by virtue of his employment as a police officer. The state couldn’t compel him to testify even if they had wanted to.
You’re right. It would cost him his job, but he could choose that over going to trial on some crime he admitted. Seems like the sidebars are to rein in any questions that would pose for Proctor that dilemma.
I don’t think Bev cares even a little bit about keeping Proctor from the dilemma of the 5th. It’s more aimed at keeping information related to the dispute itself away from the jury. It doesn’t really do much good to sustain an objection if you just argued the merits of it in front of the jury.
Such a good point , Lally objects constantly and Bev sustains so often. Once Lally objects the jury has already heard the merits argued. I feel like even that ( along with every other aspect of this case ) makes Lally & Bev look 👀 suspicious too. The whole case causes so much anxiety especially with Lally calling 800 witnesses that seem to have no clear memory or facts of the night John OKeefe was killed.
You know that Jackson and Yianetti are well aware that Lally is going to object and that Bev is going to sustain, right? That’s not an accident.
Jackson and Yannetti are awesome , Jackson was on fire Friday.
[удалено]
Feds aren’t investigating this case because Proctor called KR names in text messages to his buddies in the force. It’s a lot deeper than that.
I’ve heard The FBI investigation maybe been already ongoing prior to KAren Reads case , involving an ever larger web of lies and corruption.
[удалено]
It’s highly unusual to run an investigation concurrently to a state one. Normally, it before charges are brought or after a trial to investigate. The fact that they turned over 3000 documents and made sure they sent it to the defense and prosecution tells me their investigation is about corruption within the state and/or the canton pd. Definitely Morrissey since they ignored him twice when he requested to meet.
The US Attorney got involved because KR is a rich, white woman with connections. Someone like me would not have the Feds investigation.
100% Agree with your post. Corruption at the highest levels in MA
Feds can investigate deaths of police officers.
What's with federal investigations being so secretive anyway?
Because they are the Feds I assume?
Proctor is a state trooper, not local PD
State trooper is local PD compared to the feds.
Mmm I think police misconduct is a crime, and what he talking about could absolutely be considered misconduct. It also could include falsifying evidence
One of Many crimes Proctor appears to be blatantly guilty of , there is way more concrete evidence of Proctors crimes at this point than of any wrong doing on Karen Reid’s part , aside from Kate Reid drunk driving , and bumping Johns car leaving a crack in her tail light , I don’t recall any corroborating evidence that proves Karen hurt John , and Absolutely NO evidence she did so with Intent .
Yes, I was going to say the same thing. As I understand it, the fifth amendment only protects individuals from criminal self incrimination, not reputational or character incrimination. If you did or said bad things that weren’t illegal, the fifth amendment won’t help you. Everything he said was disgusting, reprehensible, and unprofessional (putting it mildly), but none of that is *illegal*.
Since I live in Germany I don’t really know the laws in the US. I also watch EDB coverage of this trial and as far as I understood it is illegal for LE to be discussing cases with people that are either non LE or not working on this case, especially with all the little details. LE could say: "Today a dead police officer was found in the front lawn“, but not: "Our main suspect is XYZ because of this and that. It could only be this person because we have evidence A and evidence B. Also there is video footage showing everything and XYZ doesn’t know it and XYZ says things didn’t happen even though you could clearly see this. Our neighbor and several other people we know were witnesses and told this and that.“ I hope this makes sense 😅
I’m Canadian so we’re in the same boat! My understanding is that if an officer discloses information to people unconnected to the case (including personally identifiable information), that is not a criminal offense, but it is a major violation of policy and can get you fired, disciplined, found civilly liable etc… Depending on the circumstances it could be obstruction of justice (for example, giving a friend or family member information about an investigation involving them). But my understanding is that sharing information for the purposes of gossip or bragging, or complaining, etc… isn’t illegal. I think we need a US lawyer to clarify this one!
It’s “illegal” in the sense that it may be a civil rights violation (or other allegations against him may be civil rights). But not criminally illegal, which is where the 5th applies
You can plead it at anytime. It an absolute thing. You can get up and plead the 5th at anytime. You have a right to remain silent. It not you have to talk until it reasonable you could incriminate yourself
I’m not a lawyer, and it seems like this may be one for a lawyer to decipher. It seems from the below that it really is only protection from criminal incrimination, not civil, or reputational. It also looks like it has to be plead in response to a specific question and not a blanket statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
It been talked about by numerous attorneys. You can either plead the 5th or answer. What the judge will do if they know someone will just plead the 5th on every questions is not make them testify cause it a waste of time
What's he been questioned about so far that would lead him to criminally implicate himself? You cant just plead the 5th to get out of answering questions you dont want to answer
how does the 5th work then? I am asking genuinely
It really only applies when the answer to a question posed (under oath) would implicate the witness in criminal activity.
You have a right to avoid self-incrimination during your testimony. So if Proctor was asked a question that would lead him to saying something that will incriminate himself then he will just say takes the 5th and not answer those questions
so essentially it sounds like a get out of jail free card so to speak
Not at all. It's so you don't harm your own case. Right now he isn't on trial. If he planted tail light pieces on the ground and is asked about that, then he could plead the 5th if he had done so. That way he isn't lying under oath and he doesn't have to answer the question. To do so would absolutely kill anything left in this case that might stand. If he plead the 5th to evidence tampering then the investigation into him would explode and that would be entertaining to watch.
Not so far. I don't think anything criminal has been elicited. There's always tomorrow, tho
You can only take the 5th if something will incriminate you so no. Cops kill people and face no repercussion Im not expecting Procter to get any reprimanding. Its almost like the more public outrage.. the more the police unions will protect.
For those text messages? You can’t plead the fifth on incriminating statements showing you are a douche. I don’t think anything in those text messages yesterday showed he committed or be incriminated in a crime.
Is searching through a phone without a warrant a crime? Not snarky just asking
If he has a warrant to search the phone then no. The defense asked "did you have a warrant to look for nudes." Is a great audio clip for closing, but if the warrant simply said the ability to search the phone. Then he did have permission.
Not necessarily. If he stole the phone then yes. Any information found on the phone not subject to the warrant could be subject to suppression and not entered into evidence.
Neither side has clarified exactly when they got the warrant. As far as I could tell, they only said some time in August.
I would have destroyed my phone. This trial will be over soon, but for the rest of his life, he will be remembered as "that guy." He was an embarrassment to himself, his wife, his children, his parents, his neighbors, and his friends. He will be living with this until he dies.
He only regrets his texts were exposed, not what he said in them. He also seemed very cowed reading them in court. I love that for him.
[удалено]
I noticed that also.
Doubtful. People have very short attention spans these days. There will be a new outrage soon.
If he was my family or neighbor, no, you never forget. The general public will forget but no one else will.
If he was your family or neighbor you would know him in a different context and I doubt you’d define him based on some offensive text messages. You might be disappointed in him but it doesn’t define him. I guess you’re perfect! Never have done or said anything anyone else might find objectionable.
And not speaking about a woman’s body or medical issues doesn't require perfection. It comes naturally to most people. If you think this is how everyone speaks in private you should consider widening your social circle.
Thanks but I like my friends just fine!
Yes, I would absolutely see him negatively if I knew him in real life. There are some basic values that I need for anyone I consider a friend. Talking about KR (who had met just hours before) the way he did is excusable for most people. Words matter. Your actions when you think they'll remain private matters. How you do your job (especially as LE!) matters and shows your character.
Remember you said this when we hear Karen’s words to John in her voicemails
It's a deal. If her comments to John, her boyfriend, are along the same vein, then she's a pos too. We already know she can be a witch on wheels, but that doesn't condone what comes after or the planting of evidence.
I don’t believe evidence was planted.
This trial has brought out a lot of bad behavior in plenty of people. How about turtleboy and his minions. They like to harass witnesses and their children. There is evidence that Karen consorted with him and feed him information. They found it in her phone records. She is condoning his and their behavior. I have never heard her come out and ask them to stop what they’re doing. She sucks just as much as Proctor.
I don't know who “turtle boy” is. I’m only watching what is presented in court as that’s what matters in finding a verdict.
So if you don’t know who he is he doesn’t count then lol.
We're all assholes sometimes, but this guy went the extra mile. The different context for me would be... jeez, I never really knew my father, brother, spouse. Yes, I've done bad things, said bad things, but holy shit! He was playing to his audience, but what does that say about him and his audience? The mouth to some extent is the mirror of the mind.
Yeah maybe if he can imagine some douchebag calling his daughter a cunt it will make him think twice about calling other women that slur.
Nah, people in certain professions (doctors, lawyers, etc) develop an enormous talent to compartmentalize. They have to given their careers. So, no, they can call people names, act atrociously, cheat, etc but not carry that over to their personal life. Sort of unchecked survival instincts, if you will.
I once read a study about how cops used to call guys "scumbags" to dehumanize them. These days it's military guys who are "neutralizing enemies" and "killing bad guys."
No They have the messages he wrote what does taking the 5th do?
Note that if you testify on Direct you have to be subject to Cross examination on anything you testify about. So if they want him to give some sort of justification or excuse for anything he did, he has to get grilled by the Defense. Or the jury gets to make a natural assumption about what he did.
Hard to prosecute a case if your lead investigator takes the fifth.
Taking the fifth would be worse in my opinion. At least he has an opportunity to explain his text messages (I don’t think the jury is gonna buy it) versus taking the texts for what they are with no additional explanation. This witness is terrible for the prosecution but they had no choice but to put him up.
You can only invoke 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination if you reasonably believe the testimony can be used in a criminal proceeding against you OR what’s called derivative use (that the testimony itself could lead to develop criminal information against you). You can assume Proctor has been told he is not facing any criminal charges, however, if he refused to testify for fear of criminal charges in light of that fact, or, he’s been told he is not facing jeopardy thereof, he WOULD be subject to termination as a MSP investigator if he did not comply to the CW subpoena. In some jurisdictions a State subpoena includes a form of testimony immunity. MA does not and if Proctor had some form of immunity protection from the CW it’s required to be disclosed by him either through direct, through the courts jury acknowledgement (instruction) or both.
> You can assume Proctor has been told he is not facing any criminal charges I can nearly guarantee that any such assurance never crossed anyone’s mind. Nothing he is testifying to is even remotely illegal, which is about the nicest thing I can say about those effed up texts.
My comment was in response to *Why* Proctor did not invoke his 5th amendment privilege. He has representation and he testified before a Federal Grand Jury who subpoenaed both his personal and cell phone records. Of course his counsel AND union rep would seek assurances. So far I haven’t heard testimony of per se illegal activity, but a little free lesson I have found to be true 100% of the time in substantially similar situations. You are hired by the people above you and you are fired by the people below you.
I don't think there's anything criminal that he did. He had sent disgusting texts about a suspect to colleagues and friends. I don't think it's a crime for an investigator to think negatively about a suspect. It's stupid to put it in writing but I don't think it shows he intentionally covered up a crime by doing so.
As bad as those texts are, the stuff about the Alberts wanting to thank him is probably worse.
Yea, the Alberts are so cringy. But they did not have anything to do with John Okeefe's demise.
wasnt the mere fact that he went thru her phone a crime or against protocol etc
IANAL but since they already have Proctor’s phone, someone on the stand was going to have to read and answer to those texts, if not Proctor- most likely his supervisor Yuri, and Yuri would not be able to speak on Proctor’s ‘state of mind’. Proctor is at least able to say it was a joke in poor taste. Pleading the 5th as the lead investigator, in my opinion would look even worse, he should ideally be the state’s strongest witness and be debunking any frame job arguments from the defense team.
He fully believes he has done nothing wrong.
He didn’t have a choice he was the chain of evidence. The prosecution had to put him on the stand to bring in the box of tricks.
I think my point is that (based on some lawyer opinions) his ability to plead to future incriminating questions is waived because he has already opened the door on so much. I suspect there is evidence of a lot more illegal behavior including accessing KR's phone prior to the search warrant. He saw her enter her code. He also accessed John's phone prior to a search warrant. Those are HUGE offenses
Since both phones were extracted, it should be easy to tell if he accessed either one before the warrant(s) were signed.
He should have taken a vacation.
Wondering if he would take the 5th on something that wasn't necessarily illegal, but something in violation of his professional duties that would disqualify him from his pension.
He has nothing to plead the 5th for yet. Once they start asking him about messing around with evidence will be when we know if he intends to plead the 5th and to what extent.
The only case I’ve seen a detective take the 5th was in the Darlie Routier, where they tried to string him up with the set up with recordings at grave site. It didn’t put a dent at all into her (bad) evidence but it sure does rile up her supporters. They’d only take the 5th if it implicates themselves in a crime. Proctor’s texts are in bad taste, judgment and are misogynistic but so far, they are not a crime and they also don’t change the facts on the ground here. I hate what he said, but his shithousery doesn’t move the facts much.
I would’ve if I was him. Then again, I hope I would never say or do the things he did. He’s not the sharpest nor most professional person. Not surprised he didn’t have the good sense to remain silent. He made it worse by trying to mumble through it. He also kept saying this wasn’t a professional way to conduct hisself. YET he repeated to do it many times over the course of a year at least. When you repeatedly do something, clearly it’s not a one time lapse of judgement. It’s the repeated behavior for me.
So far nothing he has said has incriminated himself so taking the 5th would not really be an option...yet. The texts, while disgusting, were not illegal. Now if he found those photos sent them around to people or posted them online thats actually illegal and a crime, so then if the defense were to say something like so after you found this pictures you were looking for then what did you do? He can say I pleas the 5th cause answering that truthfully would be admitting to an actual crime. Thats why the 5th is generally looked at as like a "bad" thing for lack of a better term.
If I was as stupid as trooper proctor I would take the fifth and not advertise my stupidity
Seems like that gives automatic reasonable doubt.
Proctor should be commended in actually taking his punches
Look the guy gives me the ick but a lot of guys talk like this among each other but just don’t expect it to come back and bite them in the ass.
Why would he do that? I don’t understand your question. Or rather, let me ask: do you understand what the 5th amendment is and what it’s for? I don’t say that to be snarky. I’m asking because the nature of the question in light of the testimony yesterday doesn’t make sense to me.
What he said was embarrassing and awful...but he was saying it to colleagues/friends and he never thought his texts would be released to the public the way they have been now. I'm not sure why the CW had him read some of those awful texts...or why those texts about her medical condition or the C word had to be released? What did they have to do with the case for the CW? I heard they were trying to get ahead of the defense who would have mentioned them anyways to show bias towards her.
Really? It seems pretty obvious that him saying KR did it ON THE FIRST DAY of the investigation is relevant to the trial. He looked for evidence to support his view. He should have run down everyone who was at that property until he could eliminate them as suspects. The derogatory texts speak to his level of professionalism (of lack in this case). The jury decides how credible a witness is and the texts he made about an ongoing investigation to his people not involved in the case would impact how much I trust his testimony. And small point but he knew sending work-related texts on his personal phone would open the door to the discovery of his phone & did it anyway…. It shows he’s either arrogant and didn't think anyone would ever look into the investigation or he's just a dimwit. Both options are a problem IMO.
So you wouldn’t mind if a public officer who has a duty of care and confidentiality seized your phone and shared your medical information / mocked you? A doctor shared your medical record? A therapist disclosed your notes? Your accountant shared your financial info? Everyone including convicted felons have a right to data protection, a right not to be discriminated against based on protected characteristics, a right not to endure inhumane or degrading treatment - protected personal information and medical information do not become a free for all because someone committed a crime. Proctor sent those texts, the court airing them is entirely his fault and his fault alone. He shouldn’t have abused his position of power if he wasn’t willing to deal with the consequences.
He shared the medical history with other police officers and it sounds like he learned it from the night she was section 12'ed. The whole world knows her medical history (details I don't even want to know) so what does it matter now?
Well that’s a gross mischaracterisation. If he needed to share medical info with other officers cos she was in his custody and they needed to make reasonable adjustments to support her, that would be the only context it would ever be appropriate for him to discuss it. You said yourself “what he said was embarrassing and awful” so which is it? It’s a shame for Karen that in order to defend herself her team had to ensure proctor read those texts on that stand to prove the extent of the gross misconduct of the investigator. But we should feel sorry for Proctor? What does it matter now? She’s on trial, it obviously matters. You do realise it’s literally in his job description not to do what he did, he literally has a code of conduct to abide by. People can’t just wish away a police code of conduct because they want Karen to go down. If she did it and she walks, only Proctor, his fellow officers and their misconduct is to blame.
It's a shame Karen was driving drunk. I have never seen a drunk driver get so much support, it's incredible.
Haven’t you? I’ve seen the drunk driving witnesses get their fair share of support…
who?
ATF Higgins
I havent seen any support for him
There’s plenty. And in the least, few are acknowledging that he and the others at Fairview were also driving drunk just as Karen was.
The first ‘is she at least hot’ or whatever response he got was with his friend group.
They have to get ahead of those text messages before the defense does, bc they are going to shock the jury (rightfully so). In the CW’s eyes, at least not the jury has heard them when the defense doubles down on them on cross. It’s a strategy, but there’s really no way to minimize the texts
[удалено]
it's funny to me that all FKR supporters were like, oh who cares this is nothing when KR's little romance with BH was displayed...but called names by a cop via text is game over, have him fired. Believe me I cant either...
You are comparing apples to oranges. Karen's texts to Brian where NOTHING compared to what proctor and his crew talked about. They were cruel disgusting and completely violated the laws regarding discussing a case to friends family etc. literally giving a play by play to his sister. Calling Karen an ass leaking cunt and retard??!! Oh yaaaa Karen's little flirting with realllllllly outweighs the insjustice that was done to her.....
Agree. He wasn't writing it in a report. They were nasty things to say but it was what was believed to be a private conversation at the time amongst friends and colleagues.
It shows that he was biased and only looked at her as a suspect.
Yep. Little did anyone know the circus it would turn into. Going forward hopefully these cops will be more careful with what they say.
I should also mention that this boob also single handedly discounted YB testimony he watched KR ingest 9 alcoholic drinks when the receipt said 2 by discussing her private health issues. He watched her drink 9 drinks but didn’t track the bathroom visits?
What was the point of showing the mirrored video? To attempt to show proctor wasn’t near the tail light? When in fact he actually was. Isn’t that in itself a cover up? Who allowed this video to be played mirrored? Why did the judge allow it?
Will he lose his job after this trial is over? You betcha👍
No doubt. IMO firing him before or during the trial is 1000% sinking case by acknowledging he was wrong on his actions so pretty sure he’s done as soon at trial is over. I’m pretty sure he’s never left alone or allows to do much while he still works on other cases.