‘Turtleboy’ is barred from courtroom
Judge: Blogger’s presence could have ‘chilling’ effect
Aidan Kearney, the Holden blogger known as Turtleboy, was barred from physically attending the testimony of some witnesses in the Karen Read murder trial after a judge ruled his presence could have a “chilling” effect.
At an unexpected hearing that interrupted the trial Friday, Superior Court Judge Beverly J. Cannone agreed with prosecutors that Kearney should not be allowed to be in the courtroom while a number of witnesses he has been accused of intimidating take the stand.
A lawyer for Kearney decried the effort as an assault on the First Amendment, saying the charges against him will ultimately prove meritless and panning the government’s motion as the latest in a series of bogus actions aimed at stifling criticism of Norfolk District
Attorney Michael Morrissey’s handling of Read’s case.
Kearney is facing multiple counts of witness intimidation tied to allegations he harassed witnesses in Read’s case. While prosecutors allege Read, 44, of Mansfield, struck and killed her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV in January 2022 outside the home of a retired Boston officer, Kearney has alleged the boyfriend, John O’Keefe, was killed inside the home and that Read is being framed.
Kearney has accused some of the witnesses slated to testify, including Brian Albert, the Boston officer who owned the home, of being true culprits in the case. He has publicly posted his attempts to contact some of the witnesses, spoke of many of them using crude language and brought followers to “protests” outside their homes.
Prosecutors have argued Kearney’s
actions have amounted to witness intimidation, with a special prosecutor on his cases accusing the blogger of weaponizing a mass of “minions” in an attempt to poison the jury pool or even prevent Read’s trial.
Kearney and his lawyer, Timothy Bradl, have countered that Kearney is a journalist with a First Amendment right to cover the case. They have denied that his actions constitute witness intimidation.
Read’s trial has drawn widespread regional as well as national attention, and is being streamed live by multiple platforms, including Court TV.
Kearney will not be barred from covering the case, Cannone ruled, but instead from being physically present while a list of witnesses, including Brian Albert and many others he’s accused of intimidating, testify.
The prosecutor who made the motion, Adam Lally, argued that witnesses have expressed discomfort at Kearney being in the courtroom, saying the prosecution is concerned about his presence “affecting their testimony or their ability to recall.”
Bradl argued the witness’s concerns have “no legal materiality” under the law.
“The answer I have is, ‘So what?’” he said following Lally’s argument, later adding that there is “no discomfort exception” to the First Amendment.
Bradl also noted that two other judges in previous rulings have allowed Kearney to be in the courtroom, including one involving an ex-girlfriend who obtained a restraining order against him, in connection with a case in which Kearney faces criminal charges.
Bradl took issue with both the substance and process of Lally’s motion, saying Lally did not serve it upon him but instead to The Associated Press.
Asked about the criticism, Lally told Cannone he could not assume that Bradl would be representing Kearney for the purposes of the motion, and said he served the motion to the AP in accordance with court rules.
Bradl said Kearney has a First Amendment right to cover the case and has gone through the proper credentialing mechanisms with the Trial Court for media access.
“This is where the court needs to hold the line on the First Amendment,” Bradl said, asserting Kearney’s prosecutions are an “abomination” that will be “struck down.”
Cannone said she agreed that Kearney had done everything he needed to access the trial and has a “right to be here today,” but said she would approve the motion after considering Read’s right to a fair trial.
She said a media order she issued in the case that placed restrictions on reentry to the courtroom for journalists would not apply to Kearney, and that he could reclaim his seat for those witnesses whose testimony she did not bar him from viewing in person.
Cannone, before ending the hearing, remarked to Bradl that her findings on the record “should give you enough to take appellate action if you wish.”
The Telegram & Gazette left an email with Bradl on Friday offering comment.
In statements posted to X (formerly Twitter) after the ruling, Kearney panned the idea that his presence in the courtroom would intimidate witnesses, and alleged that a witness recently threatened to punch him in the face.
“No one is scared. No one is intimidated,” he said. “They are simply trying to violate my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.”
Kearney added that the prosecutors were creating a “circus,” and that their actions would elevate his profile.
Kearney, whose blog, “Turtleboy
Sports,” focused largely on Worcester a decade ago but has since expanded, has written a number of posts that have led to major shakeups, including scandals at the state police.
Many of his followers and commenters have used vulgar, offensive and racist language, and his aggressive and often crude coverage of both public figures and regular people on social media has spawned followers and detractors.
Kearney’s coverage of the Read case, which spans more than 350 blog posts, has polarized Canton, where O’Keefe died, and the broader community.
Supporters argue he has exposed a massive cover-up, while detractors alleged he’s unfairly attacked innocent people and caused harm to the O’Keefe family.
Interest in the case has been heightened by the unusual presence of federal prosecutors, who have been looking into the Read matter but have not publicly detailed their inquiry or announced any charges.
Morrissey’s office has protested federal prosecutors’ scrutiny, but a top lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice, in response to one such protest letter that was publicly released, wrote that the review was appropriate, and that federal prosecutors in Boston viewed the case differently than Morrissey.
The supervisor did not elaborate on what exactly that meant, and the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, after a lawyer for Read said the office had told him Morrissey was a “target” of the probe, issued a statement saying they have never named any target.