JOHN “DAVE” HOLDCRAFT CONVICTED OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION AFTER DAYLONG JURY TRIAL
EAST BROOKFIELD — A jury found John D. Holdcraft guilty Monday, Sept. 21, 2026, of felony witness intimidation following a daylong trial involving months of voicemails, a harassment prevention proceeding and a Feb. 20, 2025 encounter between Holdcraft and former Brookfield Select Board member Bradford Kadelski at Town Hall.
By Christopher Kelleher
September 21, 2026 6:00 P.M.
Holdcraft entered East Brookfield District Court Monday facing two criminal charges: misdemeanor criminal harassment and felony intimidation of a witness.
Only one of those charges ultimately reached the jury.
After the prosecution rested its case, Holdcraft’s attorney moved for a required finding of not guilty on the criminal harassment charge, arguing that the Commonwealth had presented insufficient evidence to sustain it.
The judge allowed the motion.
The misdemeanor criminal harassment charge was therefore removed from the case before jury deliberations, leaving jurors to decide only whether the Commonwealth had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Holdcraft committed witness intimidation.
After hearing testimony and arguments during a trial that lasted most of the day, the jury returned its verdict:
Guilty.
Holdcraft, 71, was subsequently sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to stay away from Kadelski.
THE CHARGE THAT WENT TO THE JURY
Before deliberations, the judge instructed jurors on the law they were required to apply.
Under Massachusetts law, witness intimidation does not require physical violence.
The judge instructed jurors that the Commonwealth was required to prove the elements of witness intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt, including prohibited conduct directed toward a person protected under the witness-intimidation statute and the required intent — or reckless disregard — to interfere with a proceeding or punish or retaliate against someone for participating in one.
The charge centered on what happened after Kadelski went to East Brookfield District Court on Feb. 20, 2025, seeking a harassment prevention order against Holdcraft.
Prosecutors presented two pieces of video evidence showing Holdcraft at Brookfield Town Hall later that day.
The videos showed Holdcraft pacing, entering and leaving the building and, once Kadelski arrived, following him into the banquet room.
Kadelski testified that Holdcraft called him a “pussy” for going to court seeking the harassment order.
Holdcraft denied knowing at that time that Kadelski had sought the order.
MONTHS OF VOICEMAILS
The prosecution did not present the Feb. 20 encounter in isolation.
Jurors heard a series of voicemails Holdcraft left for Kadelski stretching from September 2024 through February 2025.
The calls occurred repeatedly, sometimes only days apart.
Among the dates presented during the trial were Sept. 9, Sept. 12, Sept. 17, Sept. 23 and Oct. 3, followed by additional calls in February 2025.
In one recording played for jurors, Holdcraft told Kadelski that he had “big surprises” in store for him.
The relationship between the two men had also become increasingly hostile in public.
Two days before Kadelski sought the harassment prevention order, Holdcraft appeared at the Feb. 18 Select Board meeting with a pair of women’s underwear bearing a brown stain, which he presented to Kadelski.
Holdcraft had repeatedly used references to soiled women’s underwear when criticizing Kadelski.
Testifying in his own defense Monday, Holdcraft explained that the references were intended to suggest Kadelski was acting like a girl who could not make decisions.
The prosecutor challenged that explanation on cross-examination, asking whether Holdcraft was suggesting that women could not make decisions.
Holdcraft said no, explaining instead that he meant Kadelski was acting like a “little girl” who could not make decisions.
HOLDCRAFT POINTS TO SEWER DISPUTE
Holdcraft offered jurors another explanation for why he had repeatedly attempted to reach Kadelski.
He testified that the dispute concerned a possible sewer connection between Brookfield and North Brookfield that Holdcraft believed could financially affect property he owned along the proposed route.
According to Holdcraft, he went to Town Hall on Feb. 20 because Kadelski would not return his calls and he wanted to discuss the sewer issue.
The prosecutor challenged that explanation on cross-examination, asking Holdcraft whether any of the voicemails played for the jury mentioned the sewer proposal.
Holdcraft acknowledged that they did not.
Town records reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner after the trial provide additional context to Holdcraft’s testimony.
The records show that Brookfield’s Select Board discussed an intermunicipal sewer agreement with North Brookfield on June 20, 2024. On July 11, 2024, the Brookfield and North Brookfield Select Boards then held a joint meeting at Brookfield Town Hall specifically “to discuss possible sewer tie-in,” according to the official meeting agenda.
That joint meeting occurred approximately two months before the September 2024 voicemails introduced at trial began and more than seven months before the Feb. 20, 2025 Town Hall encounter underlying the witness-intimidation charge.
Kadelski separately told the Brookfield Examiner that the proposal never progressed beyond that preliminary discussion between the Select Boards and was instead referred back to the Board of Health for further consideration.
The jury was not presented with the town records or this chronology. Its verdict was based on the evidence admitted at trial.
DID HOLDCRAFT KNOW ABOUT THE COURT PROCEEDING?
Another significant dispute involved what Holdcraft knew on Feb. 20.
Holdcraft testified that he did not know Kadelski had gone to court that morning seeking a harassment prevention order against him.
The prosecution questioned Holdcraft about a Brookfield police officer telling him that paperwork was waiting for him at the Police Department.
Holdcraft testified that he was merely told there was paperwork to pick up. He said receiving paperwork at the Police Department was not unusual for him and maintained that nobody told him it concerned Kadelski’s harassment prevention proceeding.
Holdcraft testified that he was ultimately served on March 2 — one day before the scheduled March 3 two-party hearing.
His position was therefore that when he encountered Kadelski at Town Hall on Feb. 20, he did not know that Kadelski had initiated the court proceeding.
The prosecution asked the jury to draw a different conclusion from the evidence and circumstances surrounding the encounter.
COMPETING ACCOUNTS
Credibility became a central theme of closing arguments.
Kadelski acknowledged during his testimony that approximately a year and a half had passed and that he could not remember every exact word used during the Feb. 20 encounter.
The defense seized on that uncertainty.
Holdcraft, defense counsel argued, had demonstrated a much clearer recollection of events and was able to answer questions about what occurred. The defense asked jurors to consider that difference when deciding whose account deserved greater weight.
The prosecutor reminded jurors that the decision belonged exclusively to them.
They were the fact finders.
It was their responsibility to evaluate the testimony, consider the videos and voicemails, weigh the competing explanations and determine the credibility of the witnesses.
The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict on the witness-intimidation charge.
CHAFFEE TESTIFIES FOR THE DEFENSE
Current Brookfield Select Board member Richard Chaffee testified for the defense after being summoned to appear as a witness.
Chaffee testified about the Feb. 20 Town Hall encounter and said Kadelski appeared nervous. He told jurors that he positioned himself between Holdcraft and Kadelski and ultimately escorted Kadelski from the building while Holdcraft directed derogatory remarks toward him.
Chaffee’s testimony provided jurors with an account of the encounter from someone other than Holdcraft and Kadelski.
SENTENCING
Following the guilty verdict, the prosecution asked the court to impose six months of incarceration followed by one year of probation.
Defense counsel urged the judge not to incarcerate Holdcraft.
The defense pointed to Holdcraft’s age — 71 — health concerns and animals that depend upon him for their care. Counsel asked for probation and suggested mental-health services.
The judge ultimately sentenced Holdcraft to one year of probation, including an order that he stay away from Kadelski and receive mental-health services if necessary .
The court did not impose the six months of incarceration sought by the prosecution.
The sentence followed a daylong trial in which jurors heard months of voicemails, watched video from Brookfield Town Hall and heard directly from Kadelski, Holdcraft and Chaffee about the events surrounding the Feb. 20 encounter.
Holdcraft left the courthouse Monday having avoided incarceration, but with a guilty verdict on the felony witness-intimidation charge and one year of probation ahead of him.