A new twist came Wednesday in the high-profile case against a woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend in Canton, Massachusetts, with authorities alleging she fed confidential information to a well-known blogger.
Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder in the January 2022 death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Her defense team has alleged she is being framed in a far-reaching coverup.
WATCH ANYTIME FOR FREE
 |
>Stream NBC10 Boston news for free, 24/7, wherever you are. |
Aidan Kearney, the blogger known as Turtleboy, has long advocated on Read's behalf. "Free Karen Read" products with the Turtleboy logo are available for sale on his website, and past stories have said proceeds go to a fund for Read's legal defense.
Kearney's coverage of the case, which has garnered extensive attention, has led prosecutors to charge him with witness intimidation.
Get updates on what's happening in Boston to your inbox. Sign up for our >News Headlines newsletter.
On Wednesday, a newly-released Massachusetts State Police affidavit alleged that Read sent Kearney personal details about witnesses in the case, autopsy photographs, crime scene photographs, images of her car, and the 911 call made when O'Keefe's body was found.
They allegedly communicated directly for more than 40 hours during 189 phone calls. Police also allege Read and Kearney interacted via intermediaries and the Signal messaging app.
More on the Karen Read/Turtleboy cases
"This is a unique case," said Ken Mello, a special prosecutor brought in to handle allegations of witness intimidation.
He says Read could now, like Kearney, face witness intimidation charges.
"This is all part of an investigation regarding the intimidation of witnesses, so if the evidence shows there was," he said, "that would be a criminal charge."
"This is a serious breach of court rules," NBC10 Boston legal analyst Michael Coyne said.
A murder defendant sending non-public information about the case to an influential blogger would be highly unusual, according to Coyne.
"That's an awfully significant turn of events, and may well mean Ms. Read is likely going to face additional criminal charges before this case is over," he said.
Kearney is currently being held without bail after also being charged with assault and battery stemming from allegations made by a woman who said she had been dating him for about three months.
Read is set to go on trial in March. NBC10 Boston reached out to her attorneys, but has not yet heard back.
Attorney Timothy J. Bradl, representing Kearney, issued the following statement:
I read the search warrant affidavit unsealed today in the Karen Read matter. It appears to be a single spaced 30 page story about how the state police went to unbelievable lengths (taxpayer funded trip to California!) to try to establish … drumroll …that Aidan Kearney and Karen read communicated with each other. It is an investigation without a crime. It appears to me that there is zero evidence that Karen Read intended or had anything to do with any witness intimidation or interference, and rather is a woman fighting for her life as a target of a murder charge.
She is entitled to wield inalienable rights under the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to defend herself. She also has a special right under our Massachusetts Constitution, which precedes and is the model for our US Constitution, in its Article 12, "to produce all proofs that may be favorable to [her]." This provision gives her broad rights and privileges to explore all avenues in her defense--a sacrosanct right to defend herself. She can share information with whomever she wants, speak out against her enemies, associate with anyone she pleases, and seek to keep it secret if she wants. It is chilling to read about law enforcement poring through defense phone records and texts intended to be private and confidential, and then laying out these protected and legal actions as if they are elements of a crime in an effort to destroy her.
The prosecution is doubling down on defective theories of witness intimidation that we are in the process of attacking at the SJC in Mr. Kearney's case. Every freedom-loving citizen in the Commonwealth needs to hope and pray that the SJC finally takes up the matter and takes down the witness intimidation statute, the most odious intrusion on our rights since the bill of attainder or the writs of assistance.
The only crime here is the robbery of privacy.
