(upbeat lively music) (upbeat lively music fades) - Good evening, and welcome to "Generation Rising."

I'm Anaridis Rodriguez.

A few weeks ago, a case just across the border in Massachusetts captivated the nation.

Karen Read's two-month trial ended in a mistrial after days of jury deliberations.

The case made headlines every day, revealing not just what happened on the night of the incident, but as multiple Massachusetts State Police Troopers testified, years of inappropriate behavior were exposed, including implicit bias that was highlighted by Karen Read's defense.

Tonight, we delve deeper into allegations of police corruption and its impact on our communities, and joining us is Todd McGhee, a security expert who served as a Massachusetts State Trooper for 24 years before retiring.

Through his security company, Mr. McGhee has now also taken his expertise globally, offering anti-terrorism training programs, and his mission is to prevent disasters before they start.

In a full disclosure, Todd McGhee is related to a member of our production staff.

Todd, welcome.

- Thanks for having me.

- Thank you for being here with us.

This is such an important conversation.

- Yes.

- You've looked into the Karen Read case.

Can you briefly tell our viewers about it?

- So Karen Read was allegedly the murderer of her Boston police boyfriend, John O'Keefe, a 16-year veteran of the Boston Police Department.

As a result of his death, the district attorney brought charges against her and tried her.

The defense had made a third-party conspiracy statement that there was a coverup that was going on, that there was police corruption happening as a result of the investigation, and that his client was being framed.

- Hmm, so this was a pretty big case.

National news covered it.

A multitude of podcasts covered it.

It was streamed live every day.

Why do you think it had such an impact?

- I think anytime you have a situation with a police officer, the death of a police officer, you have the situation of law enforcement misconduct, it's perfect for a high-profile case.

You had a female significant other that was a longtime girlfriend of the officer.

And so, it had all the elements to be a much broader, much polarizing investigation, as well as the aspect of how the court trial itself was being, was being conducted.

You had jurors that were being on the case that were accepted and then taken off.

You had the prosecution being accused of misconduct.

So there was just so many different things that I think captivated the nation's attention on this trial.

- And there are still so many unanswered questions, right, after this mistrial.

It's very interesting to see how everyone has kind of drawn their lines in the sand, and then you have folks who believe Karen Read did it, including the officer's family, and then you have folks on Karen Read's side, many of whom are traveling from across the country just to witness it in person, who believe this was a conspiracy theory.

Can you just walk us through, there are two sides to the story, right?

But then there are other facts.

Why were there so many holes in evidence and testimony and throughout the trial?

- We tend to focus on the trial as it's captivated our attention, but what many really need to recognize is that the beginning of this trial starts with the police investigation.

Canton Police Department responded when they got a call for service that there's a body on the front lawn in the middle of a snow storm.

They set up a crime scene.

The crime scene was questionable, and also the crime scene was lifted under three hours.

Now, protocol, within our statutory protocols, the state police would not come out to investigate until there was a fatality reported.

In this particular case, John O'Keefe had not passed away yet.

So he actually, during his transport to a medical facility, they were trying to revive him and resuscitate him with efforts of CPR.

Once John O'Keefe then passed away, then that was the opportunity, statutorily speaking, where the state police now will get a call, and then they would send out investigative resources.

With that being said, that in-between time the crime scene was lifted, so now you no longer have a sterile crime scene.

So that's the first, one of the first holes in the case.

There was a discussion about how appropriate Solo, red Solo Dixie cups for collecting blood evidence.

That is not protocol.

There was also a leaf blower used to try to clear the snow.

That's not protocol.

There was also a Stop & Shop bag that was utilized to store the Solo cups.

That's not protocol.

Now, paper bags are actually utilized in evidence collection, but they're sterile.

They're not, they've never been utilized from a grocery store, or anything else, because of the concerns of cross-contamination.

So these were the flaws that Attorney Jackson, on behalf of Karen Read, started to exploit very early on in cross-examination in the trial.

So with that being said, there were a number of holes already in the case before we even get to Trooper Proctor's conduct.

- The house was never searched.

- No.

- That's another question that's still lingering.

And also, the testimony from witnesses at different, the different times that it was gathered, right, a leading piece of evidence for the prosecution is the statement, "I hit him, I hit him."

That was brought into question.

Can you explain how that played out?

- So again, I point back to a lot of our attention was strictly on the trial, but what we need to realize is that this investigation is over two years old.

And so, you know, this was an incident in January of 2022.

There were depositions by the witnesses that were called by the prosecution where that utterance from Karen Read was in a question format.

"Did I hit him?

"Did I hit him?

"Could I have hit him?"

They changed their testimony on stand, and this is what Attorney Jackson and Attorney Yannetti had really pointed out, that you're changing your testimony to a declaratory statement that, "I hit him, I hit him."

The challenge now here is that the jury is hearing this from the prosecution and the witnesses, from the EMTs that responded, the firefighters.

They're testifying that they heard that utterance as a statement, rather than something that was more in a question-like context.

- What happens if this is tried again?

Is that evidence still admissible?

- Everything is still at play.

Now, you might see a different attorney from the prosecution.

You may see Judge Beverly Cannone again, or you may not.

So there may be some changes.

However, with all of the evidence that has been produced, you might see a different angle by prosecution.

You might see a different angle from defense.

There was evidence that had not been utilized by both sides.

So you could see a nuance somewhat changed.

But the biggest factor is the prosecution's going to have a problem with is Trooper Proctor's change in status.

So that remains to be seen.

- We'll get to Trooper Proctor in a moment, and I'm glad you bring him up.

As a former Massachusetts State Police Trooper, what was it like to see the force under scrutiny like this?

- Unfortunately, my former agency has been in the news from the Turnpike overtime scandal, the CDL licensing scandal, and of course, this scandal with Trooper Proctor.

So it was difficult to hear.

I like to equate it to nails on a chalkboard, because this didn't have to happen.

The lack of professionalism, the misogynistic statements, there's no room, there's no reason for that type of conduct and behavior, not to mention sharing that information with friends outside of your police, your police unit.

What happened in this particular case, that communication is a violation of MSP rules and regulations for communications.

All state police business is to be held confident.

So that's just one of the many things that Trooper Proctor is facing as far as violations.

- Yeah, he was a notable witness during the trial, Trooper Michael Proctor.

He came under fire for inappropriate texts between him and other cops, but also his superiors.

A lot of these texts went unchecked by those around him, ultimately leading to him being relieved of duty.

During your years on the force, did you see a lot of this happen?

- This was unique in and of itself, the type of communication, the vulgarity that was being utilized during a formal investigation where the lead investigator is making these very inappropriate and provocative statements.

The misconduct that I saw within my career was usually checked by other troopers, that you would step in, you would intervene, you'd pull someone aside, and say, "You're out of bounds.

"Correct your behavior," and that was the benefit where if you cared about your colleagues, you cared about your career, you would speak up, and not let things get out of hand.

That didn't happen in this case.

- Since the murder of George Floyd, many people have realized that there might be a systemic issue when it comes to the police system, specifically with targeting Black and brown men and women.

In Massachusetts just a few years ago, soon after the murder of George Floyd, An Act Relative to Justice, Equity, and Accountability in Law Enforcement was passed in the Commonwealth, officially ending qualified immunity.

Can you talk to us about the laws that are in place in Massachusetts and Rhode Island?

Is that the right response?

Do we need more?

I know you mentioned off-camera also the Brady Bill, which is in question with Trooper Proctor's duty hearing.

- So unfortunately, several vocations and several occupations have some type of misconduct.

I think about Larry Nassar, the medical doctor involved with the Olympic athletes and gymnastic athletes.

I think about the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State, a coach responsible for sexual misconduct, and unfortunately, within the police ranks, you have that same similar type of misconduct.

Regarding the aspect of qualified immunity, typically, qualified immunity is extended towards government officials that in the performance of their duties, the decision-making process, they have some level of protection.

Well, when you have misconduct over and over again, the question comes up, "Should they be protected with qualified immunity "for a wrongdoing, and misconduct, and corruption?"

So here in Massachusetts, our Police Officer Standards and Training is a state entity that monitors and is the reporting agency for any police misconduct, and the Brady Bill is the actual list.

The Brady List is actually where those names appear.

The Brady List is also responsible for tracking government officials that are elected officials, not just police officers, of any wrongdoing and misconduct.

So I believe that the legislature has made moves to try to bring a level of accountability, greater accountability, to government officials, whether they're elected, or whether they're sworn duty officers.

Another change within Massachusetts is police officers under their oath of office are also licensed, and what was happening was that if a police officer had a misconduct within their agency, they were allowed to retire early on, and then they would end up getting a job in another municipality, or another government agency in the form of a public safety officer.

The Brady List tracks that, and the POST also, Police Officers and Standards Training, also tracks that and holds that individual accountable, so that they will not be able to retire and then appear in another uniform within another department.

So the government, the legislature has made strides to improve that level of accountability.

But again, the behavior is the behavior, and you can only acknowledge it, and then hold that person accountable once it happens.

- What would you say to critics of efforts such as, you know, the accountability laws, and ending qualified immunity when they say that this is just singling police officers out and making them a target to get sued?

- The problem lies in when you have a repeat offender, and oftentimes, you'll see misconduct happening over and over.

And so, these measures, I believe, are the first measures when it comes to police use of force.

There's also been measures put in place regarding the need to intervene, for police officers to intervene if they see a brother, or sister officer being heavy-handed, so there's a level of accountability there.

So there's also things like choke holds that have been in writing before, and I can tell you in New England, we don't teach choke holds like we saw in the Derek Chauvin case when he had murdered, going back, you know, during the Minneapolis case with George Floyd.

So you have a situation where the legislature has addressed policies, procedures, training, the accountability level to hold individuals accountable for their police, individual police officers accountable for their department.

Also, you may see certain cases where there could be a consent decree, where there could be an oversight over a police department that has several reports of misconduct.

So there are things that are working, there are things that are in place that the average general public just really wouldn't know about.

- From your experience, these behaviors that lead to these destructive outcomes, what is the root cause of that?

Is it racial bias?

Did you see it when you were on the force?

What contributes to an officer acting out?

- I have had that experience of working with racist officers.

There's an experience to you as an individual police officer, and then there's a different experience when you're working out in the street with someone and how they conduct themselves.

Sometimes, it's just sheer arrogance, and that is a reality within the policing.

I don't wanna say that it is a blanket systemic problem.

I think it may rely, or it may live within that particular police department within the culture of the police department.

But I believe that there are better strides for unbiased policing that are made today.

There's training about it, there's policy about it, there's a policy of unbiased policing within the state police rules and regulations.

So to violate that, in this particular case, I think that Attorney Jackson was very smart to connect those text messages from Trooper Proctor to biasness.

And if that is something that holds, you might see violations of civil rights violations where Karen Read's rights were violated based on that conduct.

- What do you think is the way forward, and I know this is a very complicated question, right, when you think about restorative justice and restoring the bond between communities of color, vulnerable communities, and police officers?

What do you think it's going to take?

- On the part of the police officer, it's gotta be transparency.

It has to be working with your community leaders.

It has to be that show of we are going to do better.

We recognize our oath of office is to protect and serve, and to minimize that us against them mentality, to recognize who the good people are in the community, as well as identifying the bad actors within the community, just like we wanna identify the bad actors within the law enforcement community.

So it's a collective challenge.

There's an onus on the police department, whether it's a municipal agency, a county level of government, or state level of government, as well as the community to come forward, and embrace law enforcement, regardless of where they're at, but working together in unison to be able to say, "We want a better community and we want safer community."

- How do you bridge that gap?

Is it by the work that you do?

Does that inform the work that you do?

Do you work with police departments in trying to, you know, find these alternatives?

- There was a great program that I was involved in in Cook County, Illinois, and in the climate of police and community, strained relationship in police and community relations, there was a great effort to train the leadership of the Cook County management from the police department, senior lieutenants, captains, and then there was a patrol level, your frontline law enforcement officers that were working on the street, and then the third leg of this was working with the community leaders to let them know that, "Hey, first of all, we wanna hear what your concerns are.

"Secondly, we wanna share with you "what we're seeing from a police lens, "but how do we bridge the gap?

"How do we work together "and to be able to strengthen, one, a greater bond "between the community and law enforcement, "but how do we begin to know the community better "and how can you have the confidence to come forward "to report on a grassroots level "who your problems are and what your problems are?"

- Yeah.

- So it's a collective effort.

One side really can't do it by themselves.

You have to have a collective effort.

- If there are people watching right now who are interested in collaborating with you to create this change, tell us a little bit about the work that you do now since retiring from the force, and how can people stay in touch?

- Ideally, I have a consulting firm.

It's been since my retirement in 2011.

Within that work, I help organizations strengthen their security posture.

I help organizations understand how to recognize threats.

I do work globally over the sea, overseas with what we call nation partners, excuse me, partner nations, where the United States goes in, and helps our global partners strengthen their counter-terrorism efforts as well as their aviation security efforts.

So those are the things that I do abroad.

Here, more domestically, you could reach out through my website, phitraining.com, and reach out through the efforts of your organization.

If your organization is looking to be able to work and enhance either its security, or its relationship, then that's part of the work that I do.

- What is the biggest threat that security forces, or agencies are facing right now?

- I would say we're vastly looking at, again, with the political environment that is happening right now in the country, I believe that domestic terrorism is our biggest threat.

So that's a grassroots effort.

That's where law enforcement needs the help of its community.

The law enforcement agencies throughout our United States are not going to see the bad actors that are embedded in our community.

So that's where that communication, that robust dialogue has to happen early on before we start to see the problems arise.

So then there's a confidence.

Then the community has established that rapport with law enforcement, and now, there's a better conduit of communication.

- Hmm.

It has been fascinating to sit here and listen to your insight and expertise.

Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us, and inform our community of what's going on.

- Thank you for having me.

- We have run out of time.

I would like to thank tonight's guest, Todd McGhee.

You can watch this episode and all our past episodes anytime at watch.ripbs.org, and be sure to follow us on these social platforms for the latest updates.

(upbeat lively music) (upbeat lively music continues) (upbeat lively music continues) (upbeat lively music fades)