A newly filed defense motion in the criminal case against independent journalist Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney is alleging sweeping misconduct by prosecutors and Massachusetts State Police investigators, including claims that evidence was edited before being shown to a grand jury, exculpatory material was withheld from the defense, and a private citizen with a documented history of fabricating evidence became deeply involved in the investigation.
The 88 page affidavit, filed by defense attorney Mark Bederow in Norfolk Superior Court, seeks dismissal of the indictments against Kearney or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing. The filing also seeks to disqualify special prosecutor Kenneth Mello, arguing he has become a necessary witness in the case.
Kearney, known online as “Turtleboy,” rose to prominence through extensive reporting on the Karen Read case, which centered on the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe. The motion argues Kearney’s reporting exposed alleged misconduct and corruption involving the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office, Massachusetts State Police, Jennifer McCabe, and members of the Albert family.
According to the filing, prosecutors and investigators became determined to “silence Turtleboy” after his reporting fueled the “Free Karen Read” movement and intensified scrutiny of the Read prosecution. The motion points to multiple failed attempts by Karen Read case witnesses to obtain harassment orders against Kearney, as well as efforts by Norfolk DA Michael Morrissey to push for criminal charges against him.
“The edited and renamed files and the ‘intent’ folders DL Tully created were the exact files that became the exhibits that Mr. Mello introduced and DL Tully described before the grand jury.”
One of the central allegations in the motion is that investigators altered Kearney’s YouTube content before presenting it to the grand jury. The defense claims investigators clipped, edited, and renamed portions of Kearney’s livestreams in a way that stripped away context and made the content appear more incriminating. The filing alleges those altered clips were then placed into folders labeled “intent” and introduced to the grand jury as evidence of witness intimidation.
The motion further alleges that prosecutor Kenneth Mello repeatedly elicited misleading testimony from State Police Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully during the grand jury proceedings and improperly inserted his own opinions about Kearney’s intent. The defense claims the grand jury was never shown the full, original livestreams despite investigators already having access to them.
A major portion of the filing focuses on Katherine Peter, a former associate of Kearney whom the defense describes as obsessed with harming him. The affidavit details prior incidents in which Peter allegedly forged documents, fabricated evidence, and admitted to sending false information to Kearney in an attempt to manipulate his reporting.
The motion claims prosecutors and investigators knowingly relied on Peter despite her history. According to the filing, Peter allegedly provided edited videos, timestamps, and investigative guidance directly to Detective Tully and prosecutor Mello. The defense also alleges Peter had advance knowledge of Kearney’s arrest date and later bragged about her role in helping prosecutors build the case against him.
Defense attorneys further accuse the Commonwealth of failing to turn over requested discovery for months, including communications between Peter, prosecutors, and investigators. The motion states some of the evidence may now be permanently unavailable because private video links sent to prosecutors were allegedly deleted.
The filing also argues special prosecutor Kenneth Mello should be removed from the case because his own conduct has made him a material witness. The defense cites alleged communications with Peter, his role in the grand jury presentation, and an incident where Mello allegedly contacted police on behalf of a witness regarding protesters outside a pizza shop connected to the Karen Read case.
The defense ultimately argues the prosecution’s conduct irreparably tainted the grand jury process and violated Kearney’s due process rights, warranting dismissal of the charges.
About the Author
