Canton Cover-Up Part 297: Unsealed Defense Motion Reveals Karen Read Never Called Turtleboy The “Intimidator”

Donate to the Turtleboy Legal Defense Fund

– 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

Earlier in the week, the Commonwealth attempted to divide Karen Read and Turtleboy, by claiming that Read referred to Turtleboy as an “intimidator” in the defense motion to disqualify the Norfolk DA’s office. However, after the defense motion was unsealed yesterday, we learned that this was yet another lie from the Commonwealth.

 

 

On page 15 of the motion, Read’s attorneys wrote in regard to Michael Morrissey’s August 25th video press release:

“The answer to any harassment or intimidation of witnesses is to investigate and prosecute the intimidators, not to disseminate an unprecedented video statement vouching for Commonwealth witnesses and denigrating defense theories.”

Their point was evident – if the Commonwealth felt witnesses were being intimidated, then they should investigate that, not use it as a reason to blab on about how Colin Albert and Jennifer McCabe are innocent. The statement contained a footnote about how I was charged with witness intimidation, in order to point out that this was already happening on August 25th. The defense wasn’t calling me an intimidator, they were saying that the Commonwealth alleged that I was an intimidator. Morrissey knew this was a lie and put it in his motion anyway, to make us seem divided. The defense had their motion unsealed yesterday to send a message loud and clear – we stand with Turtleboy.

The rest of the motion contains strong evidence that Morrissey should be disqualified for violating Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 and 3.8, as well as behavior that violates established case law.

Rule 3.8 states that prosecutors must refrain from extrajudicial comments that are likely to heighten public condemnation of the accused. In the August 25th press release, Morrissey did just that by personally vouching for Commonwealth witnesses Colin Albert, Brian Albert and Jennifer McCabe. The basis of Read’s defense is third party culpability – that the McAlberts killed John O’Keefe. By claiming unequivocally that they are innocent, Morrissey was undermining Read’s defense which is predicated on them not being innocent. In effect, Morrissey was saying that Karen Read was guilty.

Morrissey further violated Rule 3.8 by denigrating her entire defense theory as a “false narrative” and “desperate attempt to re-assign guilt.” If Read’s defense theory was completely false, something Morrissey has no proof of, then naturally it would heighten public condemnation of Read.

Rule 3.6 states that a “lawyer participating in an investigation shall not make extrajudicial statements that the lawyer knows will be disseminated by means of public communication and have a substantial likelihood of heightening condemnation of the accused.” Morrissey’s press release received national attention and was designed to undermine the defense theory, which naturally would lead to public condemnation of Karen Read.

Rule 3.8 also says that prosecutors must “make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused.” Yet Morrissey never mentioned the federal investigation into his office, or the fact that the witnesses he was vouching for had all received summons to testify in front of a federal grand jury.

“How differently would Morrissey’s statement have hit if he had disclosed that the Commonwealth’s witnesses were being investigated by the USAO?”

Morrissey knew on August 25th that the FBI visited Colin Albert’s dorm room in April, yet he rambled on about how you weren’t allowed to question his guilt or innocence and demanded that all peaceful protesters stop.

There is also established case law which states that the duty of a prosecutor is to secure justice, not obtain convictions. Morrissey’s only goal is a conviction of Karen Read because:

1. If she’s convicted, he would be vindicated in the federal investigation into his office.
2. An acquittal would be devastating to his investigation, in light of the federal investigation into his office.

Morrissey also lied in a December 4th discovery notice from the Commonwealth, saying they had received no information about the federal investigation and whether or not witnesses testified. Yet, in his now revealed May 18th letter to the manager of the DOJ, Morrissey admits he knew that witnesses had already been subpoenaed to testify in front of a federal grand jury.

Finally, there is a plethora of examples of the Commonwealth not handing over, or in some cases destroying, evidence:

1. An iPhone used to take crime scene photos no longer existed. The defense was notified of this on May 3, 2023, in violation of an October 5, 2022, court order for the Commonwealth to give the defense all crime scene photos with metadata.
2. Proctor failed to ask Google for geofence data for iPhones. Almost all of the McAlberts own an iPhone.
3. On October 5, 2022, the court allowed a defense motion compelling Ring video footage from One Meadows Ave on the morning of January 29, 2022.  On January 5, 2023, the Commonwealth emailed the defense, stating for the first time, that the State Police obtained a search warrant for the missing Ring videos. But the warrant they provided was dated January 26, 2023, meaning they lied in their January 5, 2023 email. In February 2023, the DA’s office produced an email, from what they alleged was emailed from Ring.com, stating that Ring videos had been deleted from Dropbox after 90 days. But the email was dated February 10, 2022, which was less than 90 days after John O’Keefe was killed. The defense still has not received any Ring videos, while the McAlberts baselessly claim on Twitter that Karen deleted those videos. If Karen deleted the videos, then why is she the only one asking for them?
4. John’s arm tissue samples were never preserved to test for canine DNA.
5. The defense still has not received Canton Library footage showing the condition of Karen Read’s taillight at 12:37 am.
6. The Commonwealth has not provided any notes from Canton Police or the MSP SERT Team, claiming that they “do not exist.”

All the Commonwealth does is lie, so it’s not surprising they’ve lied about what a previously sealed defense motion says about me. But I’m glad Karen Read’s defense team cleared the record on that and killed any narrative that she was turning on Turtleboy. I continue to stand by her and always will.