‘Turtleboy’ attorney accuses prosecutors of ‘doctoring evidence’ against Karen Read blogger

An attorney for Aidan Turtleboy Kearney says that prosecutors are guilty of doctoring evidence against the Karen Read-focused blogger when securing indictments against him for witness intimidation Mr Kearney has been prejudiced by the nondisclosure and or destruction of exculpatory and discoverable evidence attorney Mark Bederow writes in a new filing He adds that the evidence is in sponsorship of the claim that the DA s biased and shoddy study relied upon unvetted and possibly tampered evidence from a source with a patently obvious motive to falsely accuse Mr Kearney and with a track record of doctoring evidence against him on at least two occasions Kearney faces six felony charges of witness intimidation and four misdemeanor counts of picketing jurors or court officers related to his activism in the Read circumstance Two counts of witness intimidation three counts of conspiracy and a count of picketing have been dismissed since he was indicted in December Read was acquitted in June of three charges related to the killing of her boyfriend Boston Police Officer John O Keefe on Jan The jury convicted her of only drunken driving Kearney latched on early to a theory presented in an April court filing by Read s defense company that suggested others had killed O Keefe and moved on from there publishing more than articles in his Canton Cover Up series on Turtleboy Daily News and releasing hundreds of hours-long videos also covering the episode In a new filing Kearney attorney Mark Bederow says that Kearney reportage featured relentless blistering criticism of the Norfolk district attorney the Massachusetts State Police and the civilians whom Mr Kearney and multiple others believe concealed the truth about Mr O Keefe s death and that his prosecution is a reprisal for the coverage Across an -page affidavit Bederow makes numerous statements regarding the prosecution of his client in help of motions to have the indictments dismissed and to disqualify special Assistant District Attorney Kenneth Mello from the occurrence One call for dismissal hinges on his allegation that the state has repeatedly rebuffed defense efforts to obtain evidentiary materials necessary for a proper defense The other arguments have to do with Mello s behavior Bederow argues that Mello s actions make him a attainable witness in the situation which cited development law says should bar him from prosecuting it He also alleges that Mello and law enforcement were meddling with the evidence presented to the grand jury that indicted Kearney on the witness intimidation charges Mr Mello s direction of the grand jury proceeding made a mockery of Mr Kearney s right to due process the cumulative impact of which impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding and prejudiced Mr Kearney Bederow wrote Bederow accuses Mello of giving the grand jury improper legal instructions that he failed to give appropriate limiting instructions and made other legal errors including charges of a crime for which he did not seek an indictment The Norfolk DA s office did not forthwith return a Herald request for comment sent Thursday afternoon This is a growing story