Fired lead investigator’s shadow looms large over Karen Read trial as supervisor testifies

Though he hasn’t set foot in the Dedham courtroom, former Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor was all but physically present for Karen Read‘s second trial at the end of its third week as her lawyers grilled his supervisor, Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenik.

Much of Bukhenik’s testimony was defined by Proctor, who reported directly to Bukhenik as they investigated the death of Read’s boyfriend John O’Keefe.

But Bukhenik appeared evasive about Proctor’s role on the stand, including a memorable exchange where he refused to call the former trooper the lead investigator on the case.

“Bukhenik just won’t admit the obvious,” Mark Bederow, a New York City-based attorney whom Read had tried to add to her defense team, told MassLive on Friday. Bederow also represents the blogger Aidan Kearney, also known as “Turtleboy.”

Proctor was relieved of duty from the Massachusetts State Police in July 2024, the same day Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial. He was suspended without pay a week later, and was recently fired in March.

Bukhenik lost five vacation days for failing to supervise Proctor and for an inaccurate performance review.

During the first trial, Proctor spent hours on the stand reading degrading text messages he sent about Read.

This go-around, Bukhenik was forced to read many on direct examination — including one where Proctor joked about going through Read’s phone looking for naked photos.

A state police trial board found Proctor guilty of unsatisfactory performance and violating policy on alcoholic beverages.

“His testimony so far has been nothing short of a disaster for the prosecution, who called him … to present someone they believe is professional, competent and can minimize whatever damage the defense will attempt to establish with Michael Proctor,” Bederow said.

On direct examination, special prosecutor Hank Brennan appeared to try and paint Bukhenik as the driving force of the investigation into O’Keefe’s death. He even interjected Bukhenik and told him to only detail the specific actions he took during the investigation, not what he and Proctor may have done together.

But on cross-examination from Jackson at the end of the week, Bukhenik confirmed that numerous search warrants, affidavits and reports in the case were authored or signed by Proctor.

The questions from Jackson are reflective of what appears to be a tweak in the defense’s strategy: instead of blaming others for O’Keefe’s death, they are instead attacking the investigators for not looking at anyone other than Read.

In his opening statement, Jackson called Proctor a “cancer.”

“This case carries a malignancy … a cancer that can not be cut out. That cancer has a name; it’s Michael Proctor,” he said at the time. “Michael Proctor is the very definition of the commonwealth’s case. And he’s also their Achilles heel.”

Bukhenik’s testimony, which thus far has taken two full trial days, has been defined not just by Proctor but by what legal experts described as a general lack of preparation.

The sneaker mixup

Even on direct examination from Brennan, there were curious moments from Bukhenik. When he was asked to show the jury one of O’Keefe’s sneakers, recovered from Good Samaritan Hospital, he testified twice that the shoe was actually the one found at 34 Fairview Road, where O’Keefe was found in the cold.

The previous day, another trooper, Connor Keefe, showed O’Keefe’s left shoe, which he testified was the one recovered at Fairview.

The jury was sent for a break and Judge Beverly Cannone told a member of the defense to speak to Bukhenik “about this issue.”

When the jury returned, Bukhenik showed what appeared to be the same sneaker, but said it was recovered from Good Samaritan Hospital. He then showed the jury O’Keefe’s T-shirt, which was encased in clear plastic, and his sweatshirt.

“Bukhenik also seems very ill-prepared, which is kind of surprising,” Bederow told MassLive.

“You would expect that if this was going to be the witness that was going to ‘carry the day’ for the prosecution … he would have been better prepared on the state of the evidence, in terms of the demeanor — frankly, be prepared to own the obvious fact that Michael Proctor was central to this case,” he said.

Jack Lu, a mediator and adjunct law professor at Boston College who served as a Massachusetts Superior Court judge for 16 years, feels the Bukehnik simply “wastes many hours of our time,” and that it’s “outrageous” an “experienced trooper” was “so poorly trained to testify.”

Questionable handwriting

On Friday, Bukhenik continued to deflect even the most basic questions on Proctor’s role. Read’s lawyer, Alan Jackson, pressed Bukhenik on the discovery of taillight fragments at 34 Fairview Road in the days after O’Keefe’s death, and particularly on Feb. 10, 2022.

That day, Bukhenik found several pieces of red and clear plastic, which were placed in an evidence bag with Bukhenik’s name on it. But Bukhenik seemed to have no idea who actually documented the bagged evidence.

“You didn’t fill this bag out, did you?” Jackson asked.

“No, I did not,” Bukhenik replied.

“Who did?” Jackson said.

“I do not know,” Bukhenik said.

With harsh emphasis on each word, Jackson repeated, “Who did?” and Bukhenik again said he didn’t know.

Jackson then asked if he recognized the handwriting, and Bukhenik said no.

“You don’t recognize the handwriting of your partner and subordinate, Michael Proctor?” Jackson asked, which was objected to by the prosecution and sustained by the judge.

“[Bukhenik] is evasive and unprofessional … He appears not to understand his role as a witness on cross-examination,” said Lu.

Lu feels it seems Bukhenik wasn’t properly prepared by state police for his testimony in the second trial.

“I do not personally believe he is super-evasive because he is perjuring himself. He just doesn’t know any better, and it is the fault of Massachusetts State Police,” Lu said.

To Bederow, Bukhenik is just being “extraordinarily difficult for the sake of being extraordinarily difficult.” But all it’s serving to do is make the jury suspicious, he said.

“To try to convince the jury that Michael Proctor is no big deal — he’s a very big deal … and all [Bukhenik] is doing is coming off as disingenuous and evasive,” Bederow said.

“Most prosecutors would own it, put it out there that there is an issue with Michael Proctor, then explain why it doesn’t matter. In this case, they’re leaving the defense to do it … you burn credibility with the jury in doing it this way,” he said.

Bukhenik’s cross-examination resumes at 10 a.m. Monday.

This post was originally published on this site