KYLE WILLIAMS CAN RUN A VERTICAL JUST DONT ASK FOR ANYTHING ELSE. TOUCHDOWN PATRIOTS.

Bill Polian and Tony Dungy are gigantic losers and I’m so happy they don’t have a Hall of Fame vote anymore

BREAKING: fired and decertified, former trooper Michael Proctor has invoked his 5th amendment privilege and will NOT be taking the stand. Funny how some can talk so much shit but then not say it face to face with the community members he targeted. Once a coward....

Erudite response, as usual, Brother. Can you imagine a “journalist” accusing a criminal defense attorney of participating in a campaign to acquit his client? What’s next? Accusing a truck driver of transporting goods? Accusing a baseball player of hitting a home run? Accusing a doctor of trying to save a patient?

Well, this was a nice surprise this morning. No hard feelings, guys.

I’ve been getting requests to do another video debunking this latest article. As entertaining as that might be, there are more important things demanding my attention right now. I’ll leave you with one question for all the Antis (and pretend lawyers) who can so easily discredit the ARCCA experts (and Russell and Laposata.) If it’s really that easy, why didn’t Hank Brennan find experts who could just as easily show the jury how ridiculous they all are? Oh wait, Mr. Blue Paint. Yeah, that went well.

Respectfully, @djunaperkins, this is a political cheap shot and beneath your dignity. You know nothing about the federal investigation, what evidence they had, how they investigated and why they got involved. I had never met @adamdeitch before the Read case, but I am supporting him in this race because he has displayed the ethics, judgment and experience that are necessary to be district attorney. In an office that featured festering incompetence and poor judgment, Adam is the breath of fresh air that is necessary to establish the office’s credibility and commitment to justice. You owe him an apology.

Thanks for wishing me luck, sweetheart. It worked!

A primer on unethical reporting and the priorities of certain media: Every publication prides itself on thorough, accurate and ethical reporting. A lot of work — and a system of checks and balances— is supposed to be put into place to hopefully ensure that a publisher will NEVER have to issue a correction. If someone takes issue with an article but the publisher has an out because there was some ambiguity, a publisher will take that “out” and do anything to avoid having to publish a correction. Issuing a correction is a black eye to the reporter, certainly. It signals to future editors that she cannot be trusted. But it is also embarrassing to the editors and the publisher, who are forced to admit that they failed at their jobs as well. So now we come to @GretchenVoss64’s agenda-driven hit piece in @BostonMagazine. People ask why someone would not grant an interview to a reporter like her. You don’t grant someone like that an interview because you would be giving an untrustworthy person control over your words. She’s not seeking the truth, she’s advancing her own narrative, irrespective of (and often contrary to) the truth. And given her lack of ethics, she will take a quote from you and publish it out of context to make it appear as though you said something that you didn’t. To try to make you look bad to advance her agenda. As an aside, those dangers are exactly why any criminal defense attorney will advise a client never to speak to the police. I chose not to speak with @GretchenVoss6 because I knew her to be untrustworthy. And sure enough, she was so blinded by her own bias that she took an old quote of mine out of context and made it appear as though I said something that I didn’t. In the process, of course, she unwittingly proved what her intentions would have been had I agreed to speak with her in the first place. And by doing so, she put her magazine in legal jeopardy. Shame on her. You can bet that when @BostonMagazine received my demand for a correction, they panicked. They consulted with their legal department, who advised them that there was no “out.” They recognized that it was one of the strongest defamation claims that could exist, because @GretchenVoss64 acted with actual malice and there was zero defense to what she did. They were loathe to do it but they had no choice. They issued the correction and hoped that would put the issue to bed. I’m told, however, that the print edition still exists. I haven’t decided yet whether to take any further action regarding that clear defamation. In addition, there are many other inaccuracies in her “article” (although I will likely leave it to others to demand those corrections). For now, it is just satisfying — once again — to have exposed corruption.

No cap.

UPDATE: CORRECTION MADE

Hey @Linda_Pizzuti, do you have any editors these days at @BostonMagazine or have they all taken the summer off? While I will anxiously await the correction you must publish to the shoddy reporting of @GretchenVoss64, please also tell @John_W_Henry that our beloved Red Sox could use a couple of bats at the trade deadline. Thanks! 🙏

Inside the Campaign That Acquitted Karen Read - Boston Magazine bostonmagazine.com/news/2026…

Julie and Chris Albert did not simply hand their phones to MSP and say, “Search everything.” There was no full Cellebrite extraction, no complete download, no apparent recovery of deleted messages, and no broad review of calls, apps, photos, emails, contacts, or communications with everyone connected to the case. This was an extremely narrow, consensual search focused almost entirely on phone numbers MSP already believed belonged to Michael Proctor. MARCH 18, 2024 During Julie’s first interview, investigators asked about communications with Proctor and requested permission to look through her phone. But MSP immediately reassured her “We’re not looking to dump your phone.” They explained that a dump would extract everything, and that was not what they wanted. They were seeking only direct Proctor communications, group threads involving Proctor, and specific messages referenced in court. Julie still did not consent. “I’m just not going to make this decision right now.” She wanted to speak with Chris first. A few hours later, after leaving MSP with the phone, Julie called back and said she had found Proctor saved as “Mike Proctor,” along with one incoming message and one response. To her credit, she reported it. But she had been alone with the phone before investigators documented those messages, and she still had not authorized them to conduct their own search. MARCH 19, 2024 Julie returned and allowed MSP to view and photograph the Proctor contact and two messages she had personally found. That is not the same as consenting to an independent search. When asked again, Julie said “I have, but I haven’t figured that out with my husband just yet.” So MSP could document what Julie placed in front of them, but could not independently search the device themselves. The delays continued. Julie wanted more time, investigators and Julie played phone tag, she became ill, and scheduling carried into the following week. Julie did not sign the consent form until April 3....16 days after her first interview. Even then, the search remained extremely limited. Julie stayed in the room while an investigator manually entered several known Proctor phone numbers into the iPhone’s ordinary search function. No forensic extraction. No deleted-message recovery. They found one incoming message from Proctor’s number ending in 2093, Julie’s response, and nothing associated with four other known numbers. That tells us only what appeared through those particular manual searches on April 3. It does not establish whether deleted messages once existed, whether calls occurred instead of texts, whether another number or app was used, whether communications existed on an earlier phone or cloud backup, or whether Apple IDs, emails, aliases, or unidentified numbers were involved. In fact, during Julie’s second interview, her own phone displayed a notice that additional results would appear after Messages finished indexing. This was not a forensic examination of Julie Albert’s phone. It was a carefully restricted search of selected numbers, conducted only after more than two weeks of hesitation.

Sooooo what @TheEmilySee is telling us here, is that this man is an OVER PAID waterboy??? HE’S THE REAL LIFE BOBBY BOUCHER 😆😆