A curious chapter has unfolded in the high-profile murder case of Karen Read, alluringly dubbed the "rubber duck intimidation" incident. Richard Schiffer Jr., a 65-year-old business owner from Stoughton, Massachusetts, has found himself embroiled in controversy after being charged with witness intimidation and harassment. This peculiar twist centers around the use of yellow rubber ducks and fake $100 bills bearing provocative messages linked to the case.
The background of this case is grim. Karen Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, by running him over with her Lexus SUV during a snowstorm in January 2022. His body, discovered cold and battered, was found outside the Canton home of another police officer. So far, Read has pleaded not guilty, claiming she was framed to shield others connected to the incident, including the officers on site.
Schiffer, president of Canton Fence Company, stands accused of slapping rubber ducks and counterfeit cash around town—I mean, who would think such whimsical items could spark allegations of witness intimidation? According to Canton police, Schiffer's actions were part of what residents have whimsically dubbed "Duckgate," signaling his supposed support for Read's claims of innocence. His trial appearance coincided with tensions coursing through the Boston suburb, as well as intense public interest.
Law enforcement became alerted to Schiffer's antics, which reportedly began back in March with rubber ducks and counterfeit bills popping up near local businesses. Witnesses living near D&E Pizza and Subs, owned by the brother of the police officer implicated, reported seeing fake bills stamped with the phrase "Justice for BPO John O’Keefe"—and curiously enough, "COLIN DID IT!" Some has even inconspicuously hinted at involvement from the nephew of the owner of the Fairview Road house, claiming he was present the night of O’Keefe’s death but having no physical conflict with the officer.
The rubber ducks appear to be a sly nod to comments made by defense attorney Alan Jackson during pre-trial proceedings. He stated, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck,” giving Schiffer seemingly just inspiration for his unique method of protest. What might initially sound funny turned serious as leaks of police reports suggested Schiffer might have been attempting to intimidate key witnesses related to the case.
The case’s oddity deepens as area residents react to Schiffer’s actions. While some find the rubber-duck motif humorous, others see it as affronting to the judicial process. Schiffer, who has garnered support from multiple corners, was quick to defend his actions, asserting his First Amendment rights as justification for what he describes as mere advocacy and free speech. His legal counsel, attorney Tim Bradl, emphasized, “This is what our country is all about, assembling on the courthouse steps, speaking out against ridiculous government overreach.”
Despite the uproar, Schiffer’s antics may be defining the atmosphere surrounding the Read case. It’s not just about any murder accusation; it’s also fueled by the narratives spun by supporters who believe there’s been some sort of governmental conspiracy at play. Events have erupted outside the courthouse, with demonstrators rallying behind Justice for Karen Read. These signs made of cardboard and fervor display messages reflecting their adamant belief of her innocence.
The dynamics among supporters have also created vocal confrontations between Read’s advocates and those who adamantly believe she is guilty—compelling onlookers to debate not only the case at hand but broader questions surrounding justice and truth. Schiffer himself echoed sentiments of perceived victimization, asserting he was part of the greater narrative of injustice, saying, “Charging innocent citizens with manufactured crimes is weaponizing our justice system to silence law-abiding citizens.”
But, what happens when creativity meets the courtroom? The intersection of civil liberties and judicial integrity stands at the forefront as prosecutors deliberate the objective of Schiffer’s messages and whether they constituted intimidation or mere free speech. According to legal analysts, the crux of the matter lies with intent. Was the goal to harass witnesses involved, or was it purely expressive, albeit unusual?
Prosecution officials assert there’s more than meets the eye. Stoughton District Court has categorized this case as witness intimidation, searching for any evidence proving Schiffer’s actions aligned with intended threats to witnesses, like the scattered ducks bearing accusations against Colin Albert, the police officer’s brother, being investigated and implicate. The kettle has begun to settle as upcoming court hearings open windows for discussions—and possible motions to dismiss charges—what happens next is entirely still on the table.
With tensions at the surface, the Read trial is set to resume early next year—a courtroom drama now compounded by quirky symbols of dissent and deliberation. The town of Canton has become ground zero for discussions on free speech, witness intimidation, and the search for truth. Whatever the outcome, what’s abundantly clear is the case is anything but ordinary, as it wades through both the legal and social waters.
The next hearing for Schiffer is scheduled for November 22, where his attorney plans to challenge the charges on First Amendment grounds. What this trial potentially reveals about the confluence of societal norms, courtroom decorum, and civil liberties promises even more twists and turns as the singular story continues to evolve.
