– Framed – Video for Full Background on Canton Cover-Up Story
– Donate to the Karen Read Legal Defense Fund
– See all parts of the Canton Cover-Up Series
– Watch the Live Shows and Videos
– Join ”Justice for John O’Keefe and Karen Read” FB Group
At the end of yesterday’s hearing Judge Peter Krupp took under advisement our motion to get rid of the stay away orders that 8 “witnesses” in the Karen Read murder case have on me as a result of the fraudulent witness intimidation charges filed against me. The hearing, which can be seen in it’s entirety on Canton TV here, gave us a lot of insight into how we will need to defend this case. At the 7:30 mark on the Canton TV link Judge Krupp asked my attorney:
“You think a journalist can call up a witness and say ‘it’s Turtleboy from them advantage boys, bang, bang, bang, bang, we’ll fuck any of you dogs up.’ You think any journalist can call up a witness and say that, and not have it construed as witness intimidation or a threat?”
That quote is specifically listed in the charging documents:
I said it at the 2:24:00 mark of the July 8 Live Show when I left a voicemail with Colin Albert. It was clearly satirical.
I was doing an impression of 2 videos posted by Colin Albert to social media, in which he threatens his rivals “the advantage boys,” and ends the clip with “you be knocked out boy, KO, bang bang!!”
Maybe the advantage boys should file witness intimidation charges of their own.
I am a 41 year old father of two with a house in the suburbs. Any reasonable person would understand that I was doing a comedy bit because this is not how I normally talk. I’m also wearing a Colin Albert “Hardo” t-shirt. Halfway through the voicemail I made that even more obvious when I abruptly changed my tone and said, “no but seriously,” before asking him questions about his involvement in the murder of John O’Keefe.
If you were to just read the charging documents that voicemail may sound threatening. This was done intentionally by Lt. Brian Tully, with malice, because he knows full well that the first half of the voicemail was satirical. But Judge Krupp would have no way of knowing this because he can only read the paper that is in front of him. Krupp, like all jurists, trusts that police and the DA’s Office would not intentionally try to deceive him. He has clearly read the entire charging document fully, and he brought this one up because it stuck in his head as the most egregious allegation.
The challenge that we are facing is that the entire 70 page charging documents, which Krupp is going to continue to cite in hearings, are filled with out of context quotes like this. My attorney has not watched every Turtleboy Live episode, so he wasn’t able to explain the context of that quote on the spot like an avid turtle rider who watches every show. To catch him up to speed would take hundreds and hundreds of hours, but he is eager to do so. I would ask the critics who expect him to become Alan Jackson over night to understand that Alan was not nearly as knowledgeable about his client’s case a year ago as he is now. Tim is a good attorney, and I have faith in him.
Now that I know the charging documents will keep being brought up in court I’m going to have to publish a series of articles going over the charging documents page by page, and showing the context of every quote that they’re using against me. The entire case is based on deception, and we are forced to be the truth tellers.
At the 10:20 mark Ken Mello got his first chance to speak, and he clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. He claimed it wasn’t a First Amendment case when it clearly is. He made it obvious that he reads the stories I publish when he quoted a recent publication in which I said that I was a journalist, an activist, and a satirist, to clarify why I was leading a protest and making jokes on my show. Then he started talking nonsense.
“The general court in setting the language under 13B clearly was looking to prohibit things such as walking up to someone’s front door, or a storm door with a glass front, is closed but the interior door is open, from walking up to a witnesses’ door and videotaping the interior of the house.”
I filmed myself walking up to Jennifer McCabe’s house, which didn’t have any no trespassing signs on it, and rang her doorbell while her front door was wide open. There is nothing illegal about doing this. This is not why the witness intimidation statute was enacted, and it does not violate the statute.
“The court clearly intended to prohibit someone from attending the sports games of children’s of witnesses in cases.”
No, Ken. Witness intimidation statutes are not enacted to keep journalists out of high school lacrosse games. Just no.
“It clearly intended to prohibit someone from chasing a state trooper across the street with a bullhorn.”
It wasn’t intended to do that at all, Ken. The First Amendment gives me the right to follow a public servant like a state police detective around with a bullhorn protesting their involvement in the coverup of a murder. Additionally, I did this to Yurk Bukhenik, who is not one of the people I am charged with “witness intimidation” against.
Ken started off his statement by acknowledging that I am a journalist, an activist, and a satirist, but then complained that my actions he listed were not that of a journalist.
“This is not journalism, this is activism. The government is not looking to define how journalists should conduct themselves, but when you look at it you can see that this is not defending journalism.”
That’s the point Ken – I can do different things. When I come home and take care of my kids I’m acting as a father, not a journalist. When I went to Jen McCabe’s house and her kid’s lacrosse games I was acting as a journalist because I was asking her questions about why she Googled “how long to die in cold” and helped murder John O’Keefe. When I yelled at Bukhenik with a megaphone I was acting as an activist. When I mocked Colin Albert on the Live Show I was acting as a satirist. This isn’t hard to understand.
Judge Krupp then pointed out to Mello that this was a First Amendment case, because I was reporting on matters of public concern. Mello had also claimed in his motion that the stay away orders don’t limit what I can do, even though they prevent me from asking witnesses questions for stories I’m working on, and limit my First Amendment rights to participate in peaceful protests anywhere near the “witnesses.”
Krupp then pointed out that there was no stay away distance defined, which needed to be clarified. Mello wrongly responded by claiming that I was thrown out of a sporting event (I left on my own accord), which necessitated a 500 foot stay away order. That’s obviously an absurd distance, as I would be within 500 feet of at least one of them any time I went to Canton. Krupp told him that he had never seen that distance in an order before, but Mello said 500 was the magic number because you can’t hear from a bullhorn from 500 feet away.
“Being called a journalist doesn’t give you license to break the law. Those freedoms do not extend to harassing witnesses and their children.”
I never harassed the children of any witnesses. Their case is so weak they’re just making up lies as they go along.
Mello once again showed that he had been reading my stories when he said this:
“This individual approaches people in a way in which he says ‘I’m not a threat to you I’m not going to cause you any harm.’ But his actions are contrary to his words in many cases.”
Ken recognized that I have stated dozens, if not hundreds of times, that I am not a threat. He knows this undermines his entire case, so he tried to talk his way out of it.
“He’s advocated on his web pages for people to call the employer or to post on the employer’s website, clearly intending to cause economic harm to that witness and jeopardize her job. By extension you can assume that the employer would come down on that witness for bringing that notoriety to that company.”
Mello was referencing Lizzy Proctor, who he is now trying to turn into a victim.
What he failed to point out was that it was Lizzy Proctor who was the aggressor. In early May she began stalking turtle riders who commented negatively about her husband Michael Proctor on our Facebook page. In several cases she found out where these people worked and began contacting their employers. This is a conversation I had with one of the victims, who was shocked to see the name Michael Proctor come up on her caller ID at work.
I called the number back to confirm it belonged to the Proctors and it turned out to be Lizzy’s phone.
The woman, who did nothing wrong other than share her opinions about a corrupt cop on the Internet, was worried about losing her livelihood as a result of Lizzy Proctor’s malicious attempt make her destitute.
Ken Mello claims that I am intimidating Lizzy Proctor by trying to cause her economic harm and jeopardize her job. He failed to point out that Lizzy Proctor has done this to multiple people, but it’s only a felony when it happens to her. To turn her, or any of these people into victims is laughable.
Mello then made up a completely baseless lie, which he included in the charging documents, that I have been directing my followers to order food from D&E Pizza and then not pick it up.
This literally never happened. All of the other references in the charging documents include direct quotes from the show, along with the episode number and time stamp. This was a blatant lie that the Commonwealth made up out of thin air because they knew that “economic harm” was included in the witness intimidation statute. Ken Mello kept pushing that lie too:
“In one particular instance one witness who owns a pizza shop in Canton has noticed a marked increase in the numbers of orders that have not been picked up. And that’s because this defendant has advocated for that.”
Does he have any evidence that Chris Albert’s pizza shop has received a “marked increase” in orders not picked up? Of course not. Chris Albert didn’t even mention anything about that when he tried to get an order on me 4 weeks ago. They’re just making this up as they go along.
“Harassment is one provision of the witness statement, but willfully causing economic harm is also a provision of it. If you call someone who is the wife of an investigator’s job, and you urge people to call them or post on their websites, that is not reporting, that is advocacy. That is encouraging people to do something to another party’s economic disadvantage. When you urge people to call a restaurant and order food and not pick it up, that is economic injury.”
The Mello threw out this ridiculous analogy, which made sense to absolutely nobody.
“If this defendant was working on a story that a bank was passing counterfeit currency it wouldn’t allow him to break into the bank.”
What is this – Mello Cottage Tales?
The one victory we did have, and it was a big one, was that I am allowed to attend Karen Read hearings, which Mello didn’t object to. Judge Krupp took it under advisement. If we win, great. If we lose, we will appeal to the SJC. We’re not just fighting to exonerate me, we’re fighting to get the witness intimidation statute ruled unconstitutional. And if Judge Krupp won’t do that then we’ll appeal it to a higher court. The problem isn’t just corrupt cops, it’s the statute that violates the First Amendment which they’re allowed to weaponize against journalists.