By George P. Hassett
A Middlesex County jury today found former Somerville police officer Keith Winfield guilty of raping a 23-month-old child with a hot object. While the verdict was still being read Winfield's brother John Winfield, 23, of Somerville, stood and shouted threats to the jury. He was escorted out by security and later sentenced to 60 days in the Billerica House of Corrections. At the same time as John Winfield was being escorted out of the courtroom his mother Margaret A. Winfield, 56, of Somerville, ran to where the family of the victim was sitting, pointed at the victim's mother and screamed "She did it! She did it!" As she screamed and pointed there was no security in the courtroom.
Margaret A. Winfield was later sentenced to 60 hours of community service. The judge called the Winfield's behavior 'outrageous' as he sentenced John and Margaret. As his brother and mother exploded in the courtroom Keith Winfield remained calm.
The courtroom outbursts followed a trial in which two doctors had to repeatedly pause and regain their composure while testifying about the burns and injuries a 23-month-old child received in October 2005. Today a jury decided Keith Winfield was the man responsible for the child's injuries and found him guilty of rape of a child and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily harm.
Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr. released a statement on the verdict and called the victim's injuries "horrific."
“There is no greater responsibility we have than to care for and protect our children,” he said. “The injuries to this defenseless victim were absolutely horrific. I want to commend this jury for their thoughtful consideration of the facts before them and for rendering this verdict on behalf of the victim in this case.”

Great–what community wants Mommy Sociopath’s service time?
Posted by: Citizen | November 15, 2007 at 10:28 PM
He deserves to get killed for that act. Hope he rots in prison. Thats the worst crime possible.
Posted by: Billy Bobb | November 15, 2007 at 10:34 PM
He deserves to get killed for that act. Hope he rots in prison. Thats the worst crime possible.
Posted by: Billy Bobb | November 15, 2007 at 10:34 PM
He deserves to get killed for that act. Hope he rots in prison. Thats the worst crime possible.
Posted by: Billy Bobb | November 15, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Here is an original thought: He deserves to get killed for that act. Hope he rots in prison. Thats the worst crime possible.
Posted by: Election | November 15, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Based on the facts of the case I cannot beleive he was found guilty! The kid was with him only one hour so to find him guilty you'd have to beleive that he set upon her the instant they were alone. What was his motive? The child had severe previous injuries (cracked ribs, broken wrist) and mom can only answer that she DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM! YEAH RIGHT, I've had broken ribs and anyone within shouting distance knew about them if I just happened to move the wrong way. Same goes for a broken wrist. HELLO! this should have been a clue jury! Why isn't she being charged with child neglect based on these injuries and the fact she, by her own admission, doesn't observe her own child enough to know she has broken ribs and a broken wrist. His own children have never been harmed, why not, if he is such a pervert that he would do this to a child he was only around for an hour how could he have resisted the urge to do this to his own kids for so long. We all want someone to pay for this crime but to send an innocent man to jail to make us feel that justice has been served is pathetic.
Posted by: reasonable doubt | November 16, 2007 at 06:07 AM
to election and billy bobb, i can only hope that one day you are charged and convicted with a hainous crime that you did not commit, this poor man is going to prison for a crime that he did not commit. the jury system is flawed by human emotions and not facts, look at oj simpson, he was 100% guilty with evidence and he has been roaming free for years. i feel horrible for keith winfield's family and i would have had the same reactions as his mother and brother, i have children of my own and would of done the same for them. and as for citizen, you have no idea of who this woman is so shut your mouth, she was a distraught mother.
Posted by: you make me sick | November 16, 2007 at 06:29 AM
ya, its funny how everyone in prison says they're "innocent".
Posted by: Barney Fife | November 16, 2007 at 07:29 AM
This piece of human garbage was found guilty by a jury of his peers after all the testimony was presented, heard, studied and considered. Case closed. Story over. He is obviously guilty as charged. People who know him know what he is like. Except for his family who defends him at all cost even though they know the truth of what he is.
Posted by: Guilty by jury of peers | November 16, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Hey Billy Bob, what we have here is failure to commu-cate. Some people you just can't reach. I'm sure the trailer park trash mother had nothing to do with it!
Posted by: cool hand luke | November 16, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Hey Angry Girl -
The Caps lock key is the one all the way over on the left. Maybe you want to turn it off. Your ranting is bad enough - put it in all caps and it's unreadable.
Oh, and your logic as to why Winfield is innocent is flawed to the point of retarded. Because he's a good dad he can't be guilty. Because he was only with the child for an hour he can't be guilty. Because this poor child's mom has priors he can't be guilty. Because the jury has emotions he can't be guilty. Burns are something a Mom would do not a child molester...so he can't be guilty.
I'm not saying he is guilty. I wasn't in court. I wasn't on the jury. I haven't poured over all the evidence.
BUT
If he really is innocent maybe you should start organizing an appeal instead of ranting and raving on the interweb.
Posted by: cabbie | November 16, 2007 at 10:35 AM
If he was innocent he would have been found not guilty. This is not Mexico or some foreign country. They (the jury) would not send a COP to jail if they weren't 100% sure it was him that committed the crime. There would have at least been a hung jury but each and everyone of the jury members saying he was guilty with the evidence presented means he did the crime.
You said there was evidence that would have favored him that wasn't allowed to be heard? What was the reason for that?
Posted by: Billy Bobb | November 16, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Juries do make mistakes, and sometimes their verdicts are overturned on appeal.
My questions for the folks who think this jury made the wrong decision: did the defense fail to present important evidence? Did the judge suppress (rule out of order) any evidence that would have benefited the defendant?
Posted by: Ron Newman | November 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM
The defense didn't actually present any case at all. None. Zero.
Posted by: nope | November 16, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Geez, must have been a cheapo lawyer. Sigh.
Posted by: Election | November 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM
You all are crying on here and u wonder why he was found guilty when his lawyer didn't present any case. Yall should have pitched all your money to get him a lawyer instead of crying online after he's found guilty.
Posted by: Billy Bobb | November 16, 2007 at 01:17 PM
i met him a few times - once at a private club - (not a strip club!!!) he seemed like a nice decent kid - this was closse to 10 yrs. ago.he even drove me home once.
i was shocked and stunned when i first heard.
he was a mailman first i saw him deliver
across the street...
few months later i see 2 cops on bikes
in davis and i look - i said - wow - your a cop now - cool!
anyone who knows this guy must feel he isin't the type to do this - mom admits this and that - and there are cops they do not want on the force - and that board who did a
investigation of the whole deparment - what came of it? nothing.
the mom had it in for him and framed him or it was a plot between her and the city.
i only saw him 4 or 5 times but he doesnt seem to be someone who'd do this.
first thing is said and thought when i read
it the first time - WHO?!?!? OMG NOT HIM - IT CANT BE! NOT SOMETHING LIKE THIS - later as i read and followed the story - A FRAME JOB MAN!!! thats what i think.
Posted by: steve | November 16, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Yeah, most cities are happy to join forces with someone with a long list of prior convictions to frame a Cop...and for child molestation at that. Knowing full well of course that if he could ever prove a wrongful conviction that the city will be libel for MILLIONS in damages.
That's some tight logic you've got going there.
Posted by: cabbie | November 16, 2007 at 01:57 PM
Private Club ? ahh Steve, would that be a gay club you were in? Stop "gushing" over the convicted rapist.
Posted by: Carl Williams | November 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM
cabbie -- I appreciate your posts here on this thread. This kind of case is ugly and obviously riles up a lot of emotion but I think you're right ... if there really was a miscarriage of justice (I don't know, wasn't there) the family should start rallying around an appeal rather than posting here.
Posted by: it *is* funny | November 16, 2007 at 02:22 PM
Why is it that everyone who supports this fraud and beleives he is so innocent cannot even spell? Do you suppose they are all druggies and alcohol driven like he is? I guess we are dealing with very uneducated people. That is why they beleive he is not guilty even though a jury found he was.
Posted by: Supporters can't spell | November 16, 2007 at 02:35 PM
Ding ding ding...
>> Why is it that everyone who supports this fraud and beleives he is so innocent cannot even spell? [..] That is why they beleive <<
Posted by: Election | November 16, 2007 at 02:54 PM
no one here knows anyone involved in the situation. you're all a bunch of drama loving wonderful people. stop trying to be involved in something you have no part of and keep your mouths shut. go to bed and have lovely dreams.... any problems with my vulgar post here being edited? i didnt think so...
Posted by: morons | November 16, 2007 at 03:58 PM
The supporters of Winfield aren't very convincing. The mother of this baby sure doesn't sound like the mother of the year, but why don't the people who claim Winfield was framed actually post some unbiased, credible stuff on here instead of insulting people?
No, I don't love drama, but this baby was raped. WHO is the real culprit and WHY is the mother protecting them if it's not Winfield?
Posted by: So What's the real deal here?? | November 16, 2007 at 04:05 PM
A police officer has no chance vs. a jury regardless the case! Lets face it, the public hates cops.
Posted by: A cop has no shot vs. a jury regardless ! | November 16, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Anybody know the child in questions mother doesn't know who the father of her child is and supports her drug habit via her parents? Would those same parents think their faultless baby capable of any of this? Can anybody explain why this child had a broken wrist, and broken ribs a month old? would anyone care to say these things in an environment that isn't anonymous?
Posted by: Anonymous Bravery | November 19, 2007 at 01:59 AM
You have to remember that this baby's mother is a whore and doesn't know who the baby's father is and not only that she take drugs and still opens up her legs for every guy she could get f...ed by.
There is no justice, the mother should serve time.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 19, 2007 at 06:11 PM
Does anyone know when the sentencing is going to be????
Posted by: MMS | November 21, 2007 at 05:38 PM
maybe the mother convinced the child that "you would never see Mommy again" if the child admitted to the heinous beatings she was suffering at the hands of her drug addict mother.
From the sounds of it , the mother saw dollar signs if she blamed it on a police officer.
Knowing both parties, the childs mother is indeed a whore, a drug addict, and very abusive to her friends and her child. and ultimately herself. Winfield himself is also a weirdo. Could he be capable of this, its possible. He was a dork in high school , a drunk if I remember right. Never saw him with too many girls .. but he never seemed normal.
It sounds like a money scheme- drugs will do this to people. If he didnt do this, how did a jury convict him? The evidence is only the mother saying this or the child as well?
The mother couldve done it, and decided the best thing to do was blame someone else.. a police officer even.. "then I can sue the state AND be cleared of any wrong doing.. what I did was so horrible , I cant face this.. I promise God if this works I will be a good mother from here on out , I swear.. wait, just one more hit .. "
Somerville has a HEROIN problem people- WAKE THE F UP!!
Posted by: DOES-IT-MATTER | November 26, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I think the jury made the perfect decision,went to school with winfield, not the same grade,but know he was a jerk.i think the whole family is screwed up ! esp. winfield and his wife. keep doing drugs!It's helping sooo! far huh?
Posted by: desperetly seeking susan. | December 12, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Wow I can't beleive some of the things on here. Just because the mother of the victim may be a whore or a drug addict doesn't make it right for someone to do this to an innocent child. Just because he is a cop doesn't mean he's an angel also. I mean really we all know that cops can do illeagal things as well. I actually vaugly remember this kid from school and I think it is pretty sick that he would do this to another human being and a child to boot??? I feel he deserves everything he gets and I also hope his cell mate's name is "BUBBA"
Posted by: furiated | December 12, 2007 at 10:13 PM
He isn't so innocent. He worked at Minuteman Security while unemployed as a police officer and was dealing while he was there. He is a piece of crap and deserves all he gets. When I seen him get on the job I was like "I have been trying for years and they let this loser on"
Whatever man.....don't drop the soap keith!!!!
Posted by: Karmasabitch | December 13, 2007 at 09:15 AM
Why didn't he take the stand? The news reports fail to give any information regarding evidence, etc. All we're told is that the jury convicted him and he's guilty. He very well may be, but I can see how people close to him are confused when given only a small amount of information to work with. It polarizes more than informs.
Posted by: Roger | December 13, 2007 at 01:02 PM