Read Copy of Letter from Foote stating Investigation was Criminal. Why does the WPD, Deputy Kelvin Macie of the Sheriff’s Office and the BOS keep saying it was an Internal Investigation Reppucci failed to cooperate in and not a Criminal Investigation like it really was? Why do they continue to try to hide this fact even though the evidence proves otherwise?

We have received a copy of the following letter and we interviewed Dan Reppucci about some of the events and circumstances revolving around his termination from the WPD.

We have transcribed the letter, the letter itself can be read by double clicking on it. It will then open in a new window.

Office of the Sheriff
Cheshire County

May 17, 2010

Dear Mr. Reppucci,

I am in receipt of your request for documents relating to investigation report #09-03-OF. The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation. In 2009 the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office was not requested to nor did it conduct any internal investigation on you or any member of the Winchester Police Department. The request of the Winchester Police Chief was to investigate how confidential information got from his office into the hands of Stanley Plifka. Your email of May 17, 2010 makes it clear that you have access to Deputy Macie’s report so I will refer to specific paragraphs to clarify what Deputy Macie’s assignment were in the investigation.

Narrative Page 1: Paragraph 4 in its entirety.

“Sheriff Foote was very clear in his directive to me. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office was only interested in investigating the matter of the chain of custody of the so called grievance letter. We were not going to investigate any allegations made by Sergeant Reppucci or any other internal personnel matters. The Sheriff gave me the documents listed above with exception of the Request Letter (that was given to me on 6/29/09 by Captain Croteau and came to the Sheriff’s Office separate from the other documents). I retained the documents at my home in a safe until 7/1/09.”

The investigation was never about you but how your document(s) got from the Chief’s office into the hands of Stanley Plifka. The interview of Stanley Plifka indicated he had at least seen the document(s) before Chief Phillips. Please refer to:

Narrative Page 2 and 3: Paragraph 7 starting on Page 2.

“I asked Mr. Plifka to tell me about the letter in question, written by Sergeant Reppucci. He said about two weeks to ten days ago, he was unsure of the exact day or date, Sergeant Reppucci came to see him. Sergeant Reppucci had a letter he had written and was going to give the Chief. The content of the letter and the ensuing conversation between Plifka and Reppucci concerned the recent promotional process at the Winchester Police Department.”

Lacking any evidence to prove who, if anyone took the document(s) from the Chief’s office the investigation was suspended until more information is developed.

I will say that it is my opinion and the opinion of the investigator that if during your interview with Deputy Macie had you substantiated Mr. Plifka’s statement and you gave him a copy of your document(s), the criminal investigation the criminal investigation would be over as there was no crime. The document(s) were yours and for the purpose of our investigation you could share them as you saw fit.

Your claim to need the report to defend yourself in a criminal proceeding is premature. There has never been any indication you are or ever were considered a suspect in our investigation.

Whereas this criminal investigation is still open it is not subject to the release. Should the case be closed or criminal prosecution commence the report will be made available in response to proper requests or in the course of criminal prosecution to the defendant in response motions requesting same through court proceedings.

Other requests for access to governmental records will reviewed in the light of RSA 91-A:5 Exemptions and answered in a routine administrative process.

Sincerely,

Richard A Foote
Sheriff

The excerpts from this letter need some clarification or they could be taken out of context.

2nd sentence: “The investigation in question is a criminal investigation.” 

3rd sentence: “It is not an internal investigation.”

It would appear by reading this letter it was a criminal investigation and not internal as Phillips and the BOS continue to maintain through the courts and other administrative hearings.

All citizens have rights during CRIMINAL investigations even police officers. Reppucci had an absolute Constitutional right to ask to speak to counsel prior to answering any questions in this or any other criminal investigation. Regardless if he was a suspect or not (Foote in his letter claimed that Reppucci was not a suspect but named a “Participant” which one would logically assume is another way of saying suspect). Especially since Reppucci maintains he had been reporting criminal and unethical activities within the WPD to Phillips, a member of the BOS, The County Attorney’s Office and the AG’s Office and it was apparent to Reppucci that he was being targeted for termination because of his reports. Reppucci maintains he is not the one who has done something wrong. Looking at the facts it appears the Sheriff’s Office, the BOS and the WPD are covering up the facts.

In the last paragraph 1st page see the following:

“Sergeant Reppucci had a letter he had written and was going to give to the Chief. The content of the letter and the ensuing conversation between Plifka and Reppucci concerned the recent promotional process at the Winchester Police Department.”

1. Butch Plifka was interviewed by Macie on July 1st, 15 days after Roberts was promoted to Lt.

2. Reppucci has never denied speaking with Plifka as he had done so 1,000’s of times during his career in Winchester.

3. Reppucci stated he went to see Plifka because he was invited down there to discuss issues Plifka was having with the police department.

4. Reppucci has never denied speaking with Plifka about the promotional process and who got promoted or how that happened. It was common knowledge Phillips decided to have an Oral Board which involved Three Chiefs of police, all from out of town.

5. At best, Macie’s report says Reppucci had a letter he wrote and was going to give it to Phillips. How come it doesn’t say in the report that Reppucci read it to Plifka or Plifka read it or that they both read a part of it? How come it doesn’t say Reppucci had the letter with him, in his hand, on his clipboard, in his car? In fact, it doesn’t state in any way that the letter is ever involved with the conversation or how it even fits into the questioning. It appears it’s nothing more than a statement that Macie already had knowledge of, that he inserted into the paragraph because it looks good. In fact nowhere in Macie’s seven page report does he state that anyone has any information about the contents of the letter or that anybody even read the letter. Yes, the report does state that some think they may have seen it, but come on, ask a question in a certain way and just about anyone can illicit a response they can manipulate into an agenda. On the other hand ask specific questions that require specific answers and that might not be so easy to accomplish. Anybody could have a letter they wrote that they were going to give to their boss and mention that to a million people but that doesn’t mean they carry it around with them or that they discuss the details or even if they do that they disclose anything they shouldn’t.

Macie’s report goes into the finest of details in many paragraphs depicting visions of hallways and offices and doors and desks and trophies and pictures all around and in Plifka’s office. Yet Macie can not get one sentence of definitive, absolute proof in his entire seven page report that shows that Reppucci did anything wrong. Imagine. Does this sound like a competent investigation by a competent investigator?

6. Maybe the reason for that is simple. Maybe this was all a rouse to target Reppucci. Phillips has a habit of doing things like this, didn't Phillips do this similar thing in Jaffrey. 

7. At best, all that Kelvin Macie’s report has established is that he questioned Plifka and that at least part of a conversation between Plifka and Reppucci had involved the recent promotional process.

8. A reported crime is being committed and the investigator can’t be a little more specific when questioning someone about a possible break in and theft at the police dept? 

9. Like so many other people around town who were talking about Phillips poor choice for a Lt. and the unfairness in how people in Winchester get promoted, it can be imagined that Reppucci’s letter to Phillips and half the conversations in town were about the recent promotional process.

10. Reppucci maintains and states he can prove no confidential information was released, no personnel records were released, no discipline records were released. In addition, he maintains the truth of the matter is that all information in the letter revolved around public information and information that involved the public or that the public participated in, anyway. Once the facts surrounding the letter come to light and are pointed out, it is very easy and clear to see. Lots of people have known about and complained about the problems in the WPD. Does Phillips think that the public’s perception of him is something that it’s not? We don’t hold him in high esteem. We suspect he is crooked and information like this confirms those suspicions.

11. The WPD has very specific policies on criminal investigations that involve the WPD personnel. Reppucci maintains that Phillips grossly violated his own written department policies when he manipulated this investigation and Reppucci states and maintains it was he who adhered to the written policies of the WPD that Phillips was violating.

It appears there is no evidence Reppucci did anything wrong. There is proof without doubt that the Sheriff’s Office and the WPD failed to disclose that Reppucci was being questioned in a criminal investigation.  It is documented in Macie's report that all Reppucci asked, was that he be allowed to speak with counsel during a criminal investigation, as any citizen would be entitled to do. Reppucci felt this was most impportant simply because he was being targeted as a Whistleblower. Is this a cover up?

Dan Reppucci has stated that the other allegations about him stealing internal investigations through email are absolute nonsense. He was assigned internal investigations to work on and that information was not confidential to him, but the only emails he has, and he can prove it, are work product. Years ago Reppucci was assigned by the WPD to use an email program that was not web based. To access and work on investigations, reports and conduct any other work related duties outside of work, when needed, he used another email account as a work around. He as well as other officers did this with the permission of Phillips. He had been doing his work outside of the office that way for many years, has proof at this at this moment and he has emails to and from officers as he helped them do their own work, reports, affidavits etc. for the benefit of the town and not himself.

Had Reppucci really been in possession of confidential information that he was not entitled to and in possession of internal investigations as alleged by Phillips and Roberts, why was Reppucci not arrested for theft? Is it because the real reason is that the work he was doing was legitimate and Phiilips knew that? Since Phillips was so concerned about officers and their criminal conduct why didn’t he follow through on his knowingly defamatory allegations?

Is it that a proper and unbiased criminal investigation would have resulted in the truth?

It appears a conflict between the WPD and the Sheriff’s Office. Is Sheriff Foote not telling the truth that it is a criminal investigation or is Chief Phillips who is not telling the truth when he says the Sheriff's Office was conducting an internal investigation?

Was Reppucci caught up in the middle of this? Or was he set up?

Another consideration into whether Phillips has been truthful or not is that Reppucci was doing the job of the Lieutenants position as well the Sergeants position as well as the Detective work for almost a year and half, without any assistance. This had gone on from the time Thersea Sepe left, in March 2008, until the end of June 2009 when Roberts was promoted. Reppucci stated he had two fantastic reviews during this time, one in March of 2008 and the other in March of 2009 as well as fantastic reviews in all prior years of service. Phillips assigned Reppucci the duties of the Lieutenant and told him he was going to officially make him the Lieutenant in a few months. This few months ended up being substantially longer, he did not get protmoted and at no time did Reppucci get any compensation or recognition for assuming these additional responsibilities Phillips bestowed on him.

Interestingly, Reppucci maintaind he never asked Phillips, either in writing or verbally to reconsider his decision to promote Roberts to Lt. as Phillips has alleged. In fact, both verbally and in writing Reppucci has stated he told Phillips that since he now officially had the Lt's position filled he wanted to be relieved of any of the Lt’s responsibilities, at which Phillips told him he would devalue himself in the department if he were to do that and that Roberts didn’t know how to do what he did and therefore, Phillips, needed him to do those jobs.

Again, it appears to be a conflict between Phillips and Reppucci and someone must not be telling the truth.

There is a lot of corruption and cover up in the WPD, many of us are aware of that. The original players are still employed. Don't be fooled into thinking just because Jette is gone the problems are solved. His supervisors appear to be the ones who have covered for him. Make no mistake about the fact if you cover up a crime it is illegal. You can't ignore when a crime has occurred.

Reppucci has filed his appeal with the NH Supreme Court of Superior Court Judge Arnold's ruling and he is confident that the truth will be learned about the WPD.