Thread: 2 Men Arrested In Marketing Stunt

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10 ... etail.html

2 Men Arrested In Marketing Stunt

Menino Planning Lawsuit

February 1, 2007

BOSTON -- Two men were arrested Wednesday night in connection with the discovery of 38 hoax devices found throughout greater Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino and Attorney General Martha Coakley said Wednesday night.

The devices were eventually determined to be part of a marketing campaign that involved a character from the cartoon show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force."

Coakley said Peter Berdovsky, 27, of Arlington, and Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, will be arraigned Thursday in Charlestown District Court. They were charged under a new statute that makes it a crime to place, transfer or possess a hoax device that results in panic. Berdovsky was also charged with one count of disorderly conduct.

We're not going to let this go without looking at the further roots of how this happened to cause the panic in this city," Coakley said.

Coakley said the investigation into whether other individuals were involved in placing the devices throughout the city is ongoing. She also said her office, working in conjunction with the Suffolk District Attorney's office, is looking into the possibility of filing additional charges against individuals and companies involved in the stunt.

If convicted, Berdovsky faces up to five years in prison. He said he was hired by Interference Inc., a New York City marketing company. Interference Inc. had no immediate comment.

Turner Broadcasting said it would take responsibility for the devices that were found at several locations in and around Boston Wednesday that forced police bomb units to scramble throughout the area.

"The 'packages' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger. They are part of an outdoor marketing campaign in 10 cities in support of Adult Swim's animated television show 'Aqua Teen Hunger Force,'" Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of Cartoon Network, said in a statement.

The company said that they have been in place for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

Turner Broadcasting is in contact with local and federal law enforcement on the exact location of the billboards, according to the statement, and regrets that they were mistakenly thought to pose any danger.

The cartoon airs as part of the Adult Swim late-night block of programs on the Cartoon Network. It features characters called "mooninites," who were pictured on the found devices. A feature length film based on the cartoon is scheduled to be released late next month.

Gov. Deval Patrick praised the response of law enforcement and said that he was "dismayed to learn that many of the devices are a part of a marketing campaign by Turner Broadcasting."

"This stunt has caused considerable disruption and anxiety in our community. I understand that Turner Broadcasting has purported to apologize for this. I intend nonetheless to consult with the attorney general and other advisors about what recourse we may have," Patrick said.

"Emergency deployment teams were sent into the center of the city immediately upon these reports. There were significant shutdowns of not only highways, but rail traffic with the MBTA," Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said. "Several of the devices do have common characteristics, but it is too early to say how many are connected."

The first device was found under Interstate 93, and the state police bomb squad was called and detonated the package in Sullivan Square just before 10 a.m. Officials said it contained an electronic circuit board with some components that were "consistent with an improvised explosive device," but they said it had no explosives.

Several hours later, Boston police said the department received four calls, all at about 1 p.m., reporting the devices. Officials responded to at least nine locations, including the Boston University Bridge, the Longfellow Bridge, the McGrath O'Brien Highway in Somerville, a comic store on Harvard Avenue in Brighton, a location near the intersection of Stuart and Columbus streets, a location near Washington and Water streets and under the McCarthy Overpass in Somerville, according to Davis.

A device described by officials as a pipe bomb was found in the basement of the Tufts New England Medical Center at 185 Harrison Ave.

Davis said that residents should not be afraid to enter or leave the city and that additional police resources have been deployed to help ensure people that they are safe.

"It's a hoax, and it's not funny," Patrick said. "I think we fell at this point, that there is not a reason for anyone to panic, but there are reasons to be diligent."

Menino said that all of the packages found posed no danger and that several police departments are working together to investigate suspicious calls about the devices.

"Public safety officials are all working together. There is no time for anyone to panic. We believe we have the situation in hand. Go about your business," Menino said. "The individuals who placed these packages should be warned that there is a heavy penalty -- two to five years imprisonment for each one of them. We are not playing around."

Storrow Drive eastbound was shut down for a brief time, and the MBTA suspended service on the Red Line and planned to bus afternoon commuters between Kendall and Park Street stations.

"Anytime you get a report of a suspicious device, it is always a concern," U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Scott Carr said. "We went ahead and shut down the waterways so we could clear the area and keep everybody safe."

"Our device was not an active device. We are still treating the area as a crime scene. There were no injuries. Everyone was evacuated properly, and everyone now back to their locations," Tufts New England Medical Center's Brooke Hynes said.

MBTA Lt. Sal Venturelli said police were told about the first package by a transit passenger who spotted it on a column that supports I-93. The parcel was located on an elevated structure above the bus way and below I-93 in the Charlestown section of Boston at about 8 a.m.

"This is a perfect example of our passengers taking part in Homeland Security," Venturelli said.

Do these things look like a pipe bomb? That's not right!

Dixie

In other news stories it was indicated that other devices were found, not all looked like the hoax devices. Needless to say the hoax put the city in a state of panic, closed roads, tunnels, rail services, commuter services etc and somebody is going to pay for that, the Mayor and Governor are pissed. The reason I posted it was that supposedly these hoax devices were placed in other cities as well. Was curious if they have been discovered as yet.

Originally Posted by lsmith1338

In other news stories it was indicated that other devices were found, not all looked like the hoax devices. Needless to say the hoax put the city in a state of panic, closed roads, tunnels, rail services, commuter services etc and somebody is going to pay for that, the Mayor and Governor are pissed. The reason I posted it was that supposedly these hoax devices were placed in other cities as well. Was curious if they have been discovered as yet.

I heard same that they were placed in Atlanta, and Chicago also. Don't know where else.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Do these things look like a pipe bomb? That's not right!

Dixie

They look like a boxy cartoon figure giving you the finger.

Turner Broadcasting, a class act all the way (although TCM is still very good).

Turner Broadcasting got exactly what they wanted...free publicity. Dangling an electronic device under a bridge is hardly advertising when it causes panic. I hope that justice is served and they reimburse the city(s) for all of the wasted time and tax payers dollars as they paralyzed the city.

This is the height of absurdity. Any idiot, and especially anyone who grew up in the 1960s, would recognize a Lite Brite set. The morons who called in the bomb squad are the ones who should be prosecuted.

Our legal system is supposed to predicated on the notion of a "reasonable person." So the issue would be whether someone mistaking something that looked absolutely nothing like a bomb for a public hazard to the point of actually using a bomb to blow it up is reasonable. I submit that such a person is nothing short of hysterical, and if the new test is predicated upon what hysterical people may or may not do then we are in serious trouble.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

This is the height of absurdity. Any idiot, and especially anyone who grew up in the 1960s, would recognize a Lite Brite set. The morons who called in the bomb squad are the ones who should be prosecuted.

Our legal system is supposed to predicated on the notion of a "reasonable person." So the issue would be whether someone mistaking something that looked absolutely nothing like a bomb for a public hazard to the point of actually using a bomb to blow it up is reasonable. I submit that such a person is nothing short of hysterical, and if the new test is predicated upon what hysterical people may or may not do then we are in serious trouble.

Crocket, what are you talking about? Let's say that it was an explosive device to look like a lite brite set and it actually did go off. You would be the first one to say that they did not follow procedure. Why would their be a lite-brite set dangling off of a bridge? Don't you think that is unusual? That is no worse than someone freaking out at the airport about unattended baggage. How do you know what it really is?

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

This is the height of absurdity. Any idiot, and especially anyone who grew up in the 1960s, would recognize a Lite Brite set. The morons who called in the bomb squad are the ones who should be prosecuted.

Our legal system is supposed to predicated on the notion of a "reasonable person." So the issue would be whether someone mistaking something that looked absolutely nothing like a bomb for a public hazard to the point of actually using a bomb to blow it up is reasonable. I submit that such a person is nothing short of hysterical, and if the new test is predicated upon what hysterical people may or may not do then we are in serious trouble.

Crocket, what are you talking about? Let's say that it was an explosive device to look like a lite brite set and it actually did go off. You would be the first one to say that they did not follow procedure. Why would their be a lite-brite set dangling off of a bridge? Don't you think that is unusual? That is no worse than someone freaking out at the airport about unattended baggage. How do you know what it really is?

No, I wouldn't. Given a choice between and absurdist police state and a little more danger in my life, I'll take the danger.

Even the judge seemed skeptical about the claim that the object seriously resembled a bomb. See, a bomb has to have an actual explosive attached to it or else it's just and alarm clock. Professional law enforcement should know what an explosive looks like, but then who would expect donut chompers from Massachusetts to know anything like that. It's a miracle that anoyone up there even knows what a gun looks like, and if not for movies that would not be a hyperbolic statement.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

This is the height of absurdity. Any idiot, and especially anyone who grew up in the 1960s, would recognize a Lite Brite set. The morons who called in the bomb squad are the ones who should be prosecuted.

Our legal system is supposed to predicated on the notion of a "reasonable person." So the issue would be whether someone mistaking something that looked absolutely nothing like a bomb for a public hazard to the point of actually using a bomb to blow it up is reasonable. I submit that such a person is nothing short of hysterical, and if the new test is predicated upon what hysterical people may or may not do then we are in serious trouble.

Crocket, what are you talking about? Let's say that it was an explosive device to look like a lite brite set and it actually did go off. You would be the first one to say that they did not follow procedure. Why would their be a lite-brite set dangling off of a bridge? Don't you think that is unusual? That is no worse than someone freaking out at the airport about unattended baggage. How do you know what it really is?

No, I wouldn't. Given a choice between and absurdist police state and a little more danger in my life, I'll take the danger.

Even the judge seemed skeptical about the claim that the object seriously resembled a bomb. See, a bomb has to have an actual explosive attached to it or else it's just and alarm clock. Professional law enforcement should know what an explosive looks like, but then who would expect donut chompers from Massachusetts to know anything like that. It's a miracle that anoyone up there even knows what a gun looks like, and if not for movies that would not be a hyperbolic statement.

Aren't cops trained to look for anything that is out of the ordinary? Especially when there are multiple odd devices. People sue if you look at them sideways, I wouldn't be surprised if they tripped over the Lite Brite and sued the city.