Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Was former WPD Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci Terminated as a Retaliatory Move by the Chief of Police, Gary A. Phillips, in Response to Reppucci’s reporting to him Criminal and Unethical Activities engaged in by some of the Police Officer’s Employed by the Town of Winchester?

We have received some information surrounding the sudden termination last summer of Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci after allegations flew about town. While nothing has ever been substantiated, a recent court ruling has left many who know him scratching their head.

In 2009, former Winchester Police Officer, Detective Sergeant Daniel Reppucci said he was being targeted by Winchester Chief of Police, Gary A. Phillips, for termination for reporting incidents of criminal and unethical behavior in the Winchester Police Department.

According to a Cheshire County Sheriff’s Report #09-63-OF, which we recently received a copy of and is available under the Right to Know laws to anyone requesting it; it names Daniel Reppucci as a participant and Chief Gary A. Phillips the reporting party. It also lists Stanley Plifka and Robert Gray as witnesses.

The Chief originally contacted Cheshire County Captain Croteau of the Sheriff’s Office to report the crime of an unauthorized entry into to his office. Captain Croteau later went to Sheriff Foote on Chief Phillips behalf to explain the circumstances.

This investigation is classed as a Misdemeanor, which would equate to charge of criminal trespass or some charge to that effect, if a person were to be found guilty.

According to the investigation, the Chief reported to the Sheriff’s office that he was concerned that not only was an unauthorized entry into his office a concern but also that a personnel related document was removed from his desk. This would add an additional charge of theft if a person were to be found guilty.

The Chief has testified and publicly maintained that Daniel Reppucci failed to obey an order while being questioned in this investigation while maintaining the investigation was an internal investigation and not expressly stating that in fact it was a criminal investigation.

As we analyze and compile all of the information given we will start disseminating the information on this blog, including the documents.

Following are 3 documents, the first 3 pages of the investigation by the Sheriff's Office that are called the "Incident Report" and that are a part of the criminal investigation conducted by the CC Sheriff’s Office for the crime reported by Chief Phillips.

Again, this investigation was obtained through the Right to Know Laws of NH and that fact alone makes it perfectly clear that the investigation being conducted by the Sheriff’s Office was indeed a criminal investigation and not an internal investigation as Phillips continues to try to maintain.

Had this been an “internal investigation” as Phillips has testified to it being, it would NOT have been released as it would be protected information under the Right to Know Laws of NH.

For the purpose of clarification, the fact that an ‘internal investigation’ is being or has been conducted is not confidential information that the public can not obtain, what is protected and confidential is the investigation itself. The investigation consisting of, allegations, charges, witness statements, reports, findings and punishment if applicable.

The incident report that is part of this investigation clearly discloses some of those elements, and are as follows,

1. The Offense is listed as a Misdemeanor
2. Victim is listed as the Town of Winchester
3. Person Type lists;
    a. Daniel Reppucci – Participant
    b. Stanley Plifka – Witness
    c. Robert Gray – Witness

and finally,

4. Confidential Person Report lists
    a. Gary Phillips – The Reporting Party

So that it’s very clear, Phillips is the one who reported a crime to the CC Sheriff’s Office therefore he new that the ensuing investigation would be a “criminal investigation” and not an “internal investigation” as he has made statements to and has thus far allowed the courts to believe based on a recent ruling in Superior Court.

Based on this information it would also seem logical and clear that there could be no confusion or misunderstanding on Phillips part about the reporting of the crime such as who, what, where, when or why because it was he who contacted the CC Sheriff’s Office and made the complaint and asked for the investigation, not someone on his behalf.

Questions remain that still need answers and others likely will come to light as we analyze this information:

1. What was Phillips motive to not be honest about the type of investigation being conducted?

2. Who else has knowledge of this dishonesty and misleading information?

3. Is this not an integrity problem for Phillips if he chooses to contine to be dishonest and misleading about something so significantly important?

4. One has to begin to wonder if Reppucci’s allegation of being targeted isn't true after all.