How Proctor’s texts in Karen Read lawsuit could free dangerous criminals

Michael Proctor's text messages explicitly demonstrate how his racist, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic views impacted his professional duties. Examples include texting another officer not to respond to a car accident because 'an N-word was involved,' joking about giving a Black person a custodial arrest over a summons, and casually discussing planting evidence against someone. This direct link between personal bias and professional conduct severely compromises his credibility as an investigator.

Proctor allegedly told another officer to 'take your time' getting to a car accident because 'an N-word was involved, so I wouldn't rush if you're working. Let them die.' He also joked about giving a Black person a custodial arrest instead of a summons and 'nonchalantly talks about his ability to plant evidence against someone.'

Proctor's employment by the Massachusetts State Police, despite his own admission that he shouldn't have been hired and his prior rejection by the Boston Police Department, points to a significant failure in the state's hiring and supervision processes. This negligence allowed an individual with extreme biases and a willingness to compromise investigations to hold a position of immense power for years.

Proctor made reference to the fact that 'if they ever did a real background search on him, he wouldn't have gotten the job at the state police.' He was 'not hired by the Boston Police Department' because he 'could not pass a background check.' His supervisors also gave him 'glowing reviews' despite his conduct.

The revelation of Proctor's texts is predicted to trigger a 'decade or more long scandal' in Massachusetts. Defense attorneys will use this information to challenge past and ongoing convictions, leading to post-conviction investigations, overturned cases, and multi-million dollar civil lawsuits against the state and local police. This will place a substantial financial burden on taxpayers and could result in factually guilty individuals being released due to due process violations.

Mark Bederow states, 'You're going to see the floodgates open and Massachusetts taxpayers paying for all kinds of state lawyers and potentially civil judgments based upon defendants who are going to say that if my attorneys had known that Michael Proctor was as bad as we now know he is, that it might have impacted the outcome of those trials.' He compares it to the Louis Scarcella scandal in Brooklyn.

The podcast suggests that the close-knit 'good old boys network' within Norfolk County law enforcement, where state troopers are embedded in DA offices and share personal relationships, contributes to corruption. This familiarity can blur professional lines, impact judgment, and create an environment where biased behavior goes unchecked, as evidenced by the comfort with which Proctor and others communicated their prejudices.

The guest criticizes the system where 'each DA's office basically has a unit of of state troopers embedded in the DA's office, and they basically handle every single case... they get all chummy, they're friendly, they eat together all the time, they drink all the time.' He notes that 'loyalties and relationships are tested, and judgment is impacted because you know people.'

Given the perceived inability of local and state agencies (Norfolk DA, Massachusetts State Police) to impartially investigate themselves or address the systemic issues, a federal investigation by the Justice Department is deemed crucial. This is seen as the only way to ensure a fair and comprehensive review of Michael Proctor's conduct and its broader impact on the justice system.

Mark Bederow asserts, 'You can't trust the Norfolk DA. Forget them. You can't trust the state police. Forget them. So, who does that leave? That leaves the Justice Department. So, unquestionably the Justice Department should be hard at work doing a complete review of everything about Michael Proctor.'