‘Turtleboy' blogger pleads not guilty to latest witness intimidation charge in Karen Read case
'That was a close call,' Kearney said via X following the hearing. 'Still here. Still fighting.'
That was a close call. Still here. Still fighting. See you tonight at 9.
— Aidan Kearney (@DoctorTurtleboy)
Advertisement
Read's
Kearney has publicly accused multiple witnesses inside the Canton home on the night in question of being involved in O'Keefe's death, and prosecutors have filed more than a dozen witness intimidation charges against him.
He and his lawyers say all his actions were legitimate acts of reportage and advocacy protected by the First Amendment.
The newest charge he was arraigned on Tuesday concerns an incident that occurred on March 4 in Canton, when Kearney allegedly harassed Chris Albert, the brother of the man who owned the Canton home.
A police report filed in Stoughton District Court said Albert, a town selectman, provided video footage of Kearney outside his business, D & E Pizza, in which the blogger 'places his face next to the front glass window' of the pizza parlor and speaks into an interior camera.
'It was Colin, Chris,' the report quotes Kearney as saying in part, referring to Albert's son Colin Albert, who Kearney had accused of playing a role in O'Keefe's death.
Advertisement
Only
Material from prior Globe stories was used in this report.
Travis Andersen can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Closing arguments set to start in Karen Read retrial. Follow live updates.
pinned Read the latest: .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied Karen Read supporters expect verdict today — 8:31 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By Ava Berger, Globe Correspondent Among the crowd is Brenda Sweeney and her husband, Dennis, who live down the street from Fairview Road, where Karen Read allegedly hit John O'Keefe. The Canton natives have been following the trial in support of Read since the beginning. 'We need the murders out of town,' Brenda Sweeney said, not referring to Read. Brenda, 68, wore a pink shirt and held an American flag in support of the 'First Amendment.' Dennis, 69, held two flags and a white shirt that read 'criminals control Norfolk County.' Advertisement 'The corruption is just horrific,' Brenda said. 'And this is America.' The pair are retired, Brenda said. 'This isn't how I thought I'd spend my retirement, I'll tell you that,' Brenda said laughing. She's 'confident' the jury will have a verdict today. 'It just takes an hour,' she said. Crowds gather for closing arguments in Read trial — 8:20 a.m. .cls-1{clip-path:url(#clippath);}.cls-2,.cls-3{fill:none;}.cls-2,.cls-3,.cls-4{stroke-width:0px;}.cls-5{clip-path:url(#clippath-1);}.cls-3{clip-rule:evenodd;} Link copied By Ava Berger, Globe Correspondent At least 100 people gathered as early as 7:45 a.m. behind the metal barriers near Norfolk Superior Court for closing arguments in the Karen Read trial. The 'Free Karen Read' crowd is lively and careful to remind each other of the judge's rules for spectators. There are five large American flags and dozens of pink shirts. 'It's going to be the last day,' one supporter shouted. 'School may be out, but I'm still learning about corruption,' a sign next to her read. Advertisement State Police are monitoring the crowds closely and ensuring everyone stays on the sidewalk. I'm at the Karen Read trial for — Ava Berger (@Ava_Berger_)
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What makes for a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.
'It's equal parts art and science,' Christopher Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School said. 'It's about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it's a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.' Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere. Advertisement 'If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,' Dearborn said. 'On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.' Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as 'bad facts' — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case. Karen Read defense attorney Alan Jackson. Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff Some of those facts involve Advertisement 'In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,' Dearborn said. 'I think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't own that own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he's trying to hide something.' Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere. 'If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don't do that in the closing,' said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. 'Or if you are a person who's sometimes a little insecure, it's okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don't want to change that personality.' Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors. 'You have to be very mindful of the jury's intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don't have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning," said attorney Brad Bailey. At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant. Related : 'You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,' said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. 'Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.' Advertisement That's not to say there's no room for emotion, he added. 'If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,' Lu said. Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said. 'You can bet there's a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,' he said. 'You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.' Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James 'Whitey' Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly. 'Some lawyers act as if they're giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,' Carney said. 'Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he's doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.' Special prosecutor Hank Brennan questions an accident reconstruction expert on the witness stand during the Karen Read retrial in Norfolk Superior Court. Greg Derr/Associated Press The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read's guilt. 'They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],' he said. Carney pointed to one recent case — Advertisement 'When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, 'Here is the website on which you can watch [Reddington's] closing argument, it's brilliant,'' he said. Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read's first trial 'were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.' But there were a few— particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury. 'Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there's only so much attention span out there,' he said. 'So if you're not aware of that when you're talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.' Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What makes a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.
Write to us at . To subscribe, . TODAY'S STARTING POINT When prosecutors wrapped up the first trial of Karen Read last year, they declared that 'all of the testimony' indicated she had caused the death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, during a blizzard in Canton in 2022. That closing argument, for at least some jurors, wasn't convincing; after the jury deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict, the judge declared a mistrial. Now, as Read's second trial 'It's equal parts art and science,' said Chris Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School. 'It's about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it's a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.' Advertisement Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere. 'If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,' Dearborn said. 'On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.' Advertisement Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as 'bad facts' — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case. Some of those facts 'In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,' Dearborn said. 'I think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he's trying to hide something.' Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere. 'If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don't do that in the closing,' said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. 'Or if you are a person who's sometimes a little insecure, it's okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don't want to change that personality.' Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors. 'You have to be very mindful of the jury's intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don't have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning,' said attorney Brad Bailey. Advertisement At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant. 'You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,' said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. 'Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.' That's not to say there's no room for emotion, he added. 'If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,' Lu said. Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said. 'You can bet there's a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,' he said. 'You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.' Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James 'Whitey' Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly. 'Some lawyers act as if they're giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,' Carney said. 'Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he's doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.' The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read's guilt. 'They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],' he said. Advertisement Carney pointed to one recent case — 'When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, 'Here is the website on which you can watch [the attorney's] closing argument, it's brilliant,'' he said. Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read's first trial 'were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.' But there were a few key phrases — particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury. 'Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there's only so much attention span out there,' he said. 'So if you're not aware of that when you're talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.' Related story: Revisit 🧩 7 Across: 76° POINTS OF INTEREST A flight swerved onto a grassy area at Logan yesterday. WCVB Boston and Massachusetts Mishap: The FAA is investigating after a JetBlue flight landing at Logan Airport Judge me not: Testifying at her civil disciplinary hearing, Judge Shelley Joseph Baker-off: Two Republicans who worked for former Governor Charlie Baker Back home: BJ's will Trump administration Takebacks: House Republicans voted to rescind federal funding for public media, USAID, and a program that fights global HIV. The measure now heads to the Senate. ( Parades and protests: Soldiers and tanks will parade through Washington D.C. tomorrow to mark the Army's 250th birthday — on the same day as Trump's 79th. Activists are planning nationwide anti-Trump protests. ( Kseniia Petrova: Federal officials Poor conditions: Detainees at a Burlington ICE facility say they've been RFK Jr.: Experts say Climate change: Excise tax: Senate Republicans confirmed Billy Long, who as a congressman sought to abolish the IRS, to lead the agency. ( The Nation and the World SCOTUS: The justices ruled unanimously for a girl with epilepsy in a case that could make it easier to sue schools for better disability accommodations. ( Harvey Weinstein retrial: The judge declared a mistrial after the jury foreman refused to deliberate over a rape charge. ( Israel-Hamas war: A Gaza aid group said Hamas gunmen had killed eight of its personnel and might have taken others hostage. ( Air India crash: A British national was the only survivor after a plane VIEWPOINTS Living in fear: In Globe Opinion, an undocumented Milford High student and classmate of Marcelo Gomes da Silva asks Americans for empathy — and Advertisement Modest proposal: Boston's two NPR-affiliated radio stations, GBH and WBUR, are both facing financial and political pressure. Send us your viewpoint: Massachusetts lawmakers are debating BESIDE THE POINT 📚 Reader recommendations: Check out ❤️ Dinner with Cupid: For this pair, pearls of conversation 🔵 Egyptian blue: The color, found on ancient artwork, is the oldest known synthetic pigment. Scientist have now recreated it. ( 🎥 Da-dum: In honor of its 50th anniversary, 🍽️ Old school: A Madrid tavern that dates to 1725 says it's the world's oldest continuously operating restaurant. The owners of a nearby establishment are trying to prove theirs is. ( 🌅 Sunup to sundown: Have the 🐠 Fishy situation: Someone converted a car outside a Yalta hotel into a koi-filled aquarium. ( Thanks for reading Starting Point. This newsletter was edited by Advertisement ❓ Have a question for the team? Email us at ✍🏼 If someone sent you this newsletter, you can 📬 Delivered Monday through Friday. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
