Trooper Yuri Bukenik

And Colin, correct?

And Colin, correct?

Meaning you told First Assistant Bieland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct. Was that ambiguous in your mind?

Meaning you told First Assistant Bieland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Albert and McCabe families. Answer, correct. Was that ambiguous in your mind?

Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, well, I know Chris and I know Julie and I know Colin. Correct. That might have been a good time to answer the question. I know these three individuals from the Albert family. Right. But your answer was one word. Correct. Right. Yes.

Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, well, I know Chris and I know Julie and I know Colin. Correct. That might have been a good time to answer the question. I know these three individuals from the Albert family. Right. But your answer was one word. Correct. Right. Yes.

You further testify that you never have gone to any supervisor at Massachusetts State Police to disclose even a potential conflict of interest in this case that you might have, correct? Correct. And you indicated the needs never come up. Is that right?

You further testify that you never have gone to any supervisor at Massachusetts State Police to disclose even a potential conflict of interest in this case that you might have, correct? Correct. And you indicated the needs never come up. Is that right?

You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families. Correct? Correct. And that's just not true, is it? You did know. You do know members of the Albert family. Isn't that right?

You also told ADA Lally that you, quote, did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families. Correct? Correct. And that's just not true, is it? You did know. You do know members of the Albert family. Isn't that right?

But what about part of the question, did not have relationships or no members of the Albert or McCabe families? How about that part of the question?

But what about part of the question, did not have relationships or no members of the Albert or McCabe families? How about that part of the question?

I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence. And where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts because you don't have relationships. Where no is concerned, you linked that to the McCabes because you don't know the McCabes. That's what you did?

I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence. And where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts because you don't have relationships. Where no is concerned, you linked that to the McCabes because you don't know the McCabes. That's what you did?

How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, wasn't it?

How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, wasn't it?

You stand by that testimony? Yes. At the time that you testified that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family?

You stand by that testimony? Yes. At the time that you testified that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family?

My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them?

My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them?