Tuesday, June 14, 2011

What was Cheshire County Deputy Sheriff Kelvin Macie Thinking???????? I Swear, I Swear, I Swear under Oath I told the Truth…….I just had to keep changing the story when the questions got harder? Was he thinking – after all I don't have to worry about being Caught lying – I’m a Cop – EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE ME?

12 Bogus, trumped up and untrue Administrative Charges - most a duplication to make it look more complicated and make it appear Reppucci was a serious threat to the Town and Police Department.

The only people Reppucci was a threat to was Phillips, Roberts and Jette and exposing their crimes and unethical activity to the public.

Now that we have more information, like reports for the Cheshire County Sheriff's Office and the AG's Office, it's easy to see why Phillips had to scramble to make up a story about Reppucci, based on nothing more than his fear of getting caught, punished and ridiculed.

Too bad the CC Sheriff's department and NH AG's helped to cover up Phillips acts.

If Macie knew his testimony was not supported by documents, including his own document - his police report, why did he Alter the Truth when he testified?

What was Cheshire County Deputy Sheriff Kelvin Macie Thinking? That he was better than the rest of us? Immune from breaking laws? Protected because of his badge? Protected by Phillips? Why and How? Macie was a seasoned cop - he knows the law - or should.

Was it Kelvin Macie's job to get involved in a criminal investigation as he was directed to do or was it to get involved in a scheme Phillips was putting together to oust some of the cops in his department?

After all, The good cops who were exposing the corruption Phillips and Roberts were wallowing in and covering up.

Just for your clarification - Macie - your testimony isn't supported by documents and facts.

A glaring discrepancy:

Macie, in case you missed it - because we haven't - Your boss – the Sheriff of Cheshire County, Dick Foote – states in a letter that YOU NEVER conducted any Internal Investigations at the Town of Winchester. He also makes it clear that you were well aware of that fact.


Just to make things easier and to clarify for Macie -His boss - Dick Foote was very clear when he wrote – no one from the Sheriff’s Department conducted ANY investigations at the Town of Winchester – EXCEPT the criminal investigation you conducted.

Interestingly Macie, His letter (Your boss Foote's) - And your report (presumably in your words) both state and inform the reader you were there (in the Town of Winchester) for the sole purpose of conducting a Criminal Investigation.....

This AFTER – Gary Phillips reported to your boss - Foote - a Break-In AND Theft at the Winchester Police Department – specifically occurring in his (Phillips) office.


Which interestingly, you state in your report you found no evidence of having occurred.

So why were you deceptive in your testimony? Why evasive?

Why didn’t you just testify to the simple truth as it was written? Why not testify in simple accurate, clear concise sentences instead of sounding like you are covering something up just as you were?

Why did you testify first that you were conducting an internal investigation, when asked by Erik Moskowitz, Atty for the town and then later testify that you weren't?

Why did you testify that you were there to investigate an internal matter and then testify that you weren't there for that purpose?

Why did you confuse your story and testify that you were there to conduct a criminal matter that led into an internal matter?

Why were you so deceptive and misleading? What were you hiding? What are you still hiding?

You could have testified to the truth such as:

1. I was sent to Winchester to investigate a crime reported by the chief – Gary Phillips.

2. I was there to conduct that criminal investigation and I was in fact conducting that criminal investigation.

3. No! I was not there to conduct an internal investigation. It started as a criminal investigation and it ended as a criminal investigation. You can't mix investigations anyway - besides I was not the employer. I was called in after a crime was reported to our department.

4. It was my job to investigate whether a crime occrred or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

5. If during the course of my investigation I had evidence to support a crime occurred that would have been in my report and an arrest would have been made based on that evidence.

6. Phillips reported that his office was broken into and that some documents were stolen and I was there to investigate if that did or did not happen.

7. No. There was no evidence a crime had occrred.

8. I interviewed a few people but there was no evidence a crime was committed and my job was done.

9. Under NH State and the US law – since this was a criminal investigation - no one was obligated to answer ANY of my questions AND yest it is correct, if someone or anyone or everyone chose to first speak to an attorney they were well within their legal right to do so and I was obligated to not interfere with that constitutional right as I was a criminal investigator conducting a criminal investigation.

10. So yes it is true since Reppucci wanted to speak with an attorney first he was absolutely protected under the constitution and entitled to and I was obligated to not stand in his way.

11. As Reppucci stated to me he was being targeted for temination by Phillips. He didn't trust Phillips. He told me he felt Phillips and Roberts were going to try to pin something on him and since this was a criminal investigation – when Phillips ordered Reppucci to cooperate and ordered him to answer my questions - I informed Phillips that it would violate Reppucci's Constitutional Rights if I kept questioning him, so I choose to stop the questioning at that point to allow him the opportunity to speak with an attorney as he requested.

12. Had I not done that I would have violated his Constitutional Rights under Miranda because I was investiating a crime and I was conducting a criminal investigation and I was a criminal investigator.

13. It is correct that continuing to question him would have been the same as violating any other persons right to Miranda.

14. If His boss, Phillips, wanted to question him independantly as his employer he had every legal right to do so.

15. No, Phillips never questioned him himself. He only "ordered' that Reppucci answer my questions in my criminal investigation, which I already testified Reppucci had a right to not answer at that time.

16. The only investigation that I am aware Reppucci did not cooperate in was the criminal investigation that I was conducting.

17. To my knowledge Phillips was not conducting his own Internal Investigation on the matter.

18. Garrity has no bearing, nor does it protect any individual as far as criminal investigations go.

19. Garrity only applies when your boss or the company you work for is doing their own investigation.

20. For instance, your employer sells TV's and 2 are missing. They suspect two employees. They start an investigation, let everyone involved know it is an internal investigation, give a Garrity Warning which simply states that they will not use that information in any criminal proceeding.

21. At the conclusion of the investigation the company finds that the 2 employees stole the TV's. It is now their option how they wish to handle it.

22. Yes they can fire them, forgive them or call in the authoriteis to report the theft. But in any case the internal investigation would have nothing to do with us.

23. No you can not lump a criminal investigation and internal investigation together. That is why they are called by different names. They have different consequences and diferent outcomes.

How come your testimony sounds nothing like this? Testimony which would have been and is supported by your police report, in your own words?

Your testimony changes frequently, you only think, as opposed to know what you are investigating and why. You only think as opposed to know many things which can be construed as interfering with facts.

How simple, clean and straightforward your testimony could have been, but more important – it would have stuck to the facts of the documents in the case – police reports and a letter from the Sheriff, information that can be verified and validated.

Hmmmmm………so it comes down to covering up the fact that you not only botched an investigation you violated the rights of a citizen in the process and apparently did so willingly and intentionally as you changed your story and testimony.

A good reason to try to cover your tracks or in police business what they like to say – A MOTIVE to commit a crime?

Perjury is a crime. Macie, did you know perjury is a crime?


Anonymous said...

If I had to deal with any of these cops for any reson the 1st thing I woud do is tell my lawyer not to believe anything they say. The 2nd thing I’d do is make sure my lawyer had this stuff to bring to court to prove what they say can’t be trusted. Even when they testify. Pathetic system.

Anonymous said...

I saw a very similar set of circumstances occur in another small, mismanaged & corrupt police department. Here again there was a small town Police Chief who participated in corrupt practices by covering up criminal acts some of his officers were committing. Instead of getting rid of these offending cops & fixing the problem he kept them on. Once the Chief’s cover-ups started to unravel & the whispering began, the Chief simply told the officers comply with the lies & cover them up or a smear campaign against the “offending” officer will ensue. Or to put it bluntly, if you don’t keep quiet about what you see, hear & know you will be punished. Play the game our way & you’ll be fine. Play the game any other way & you will be destroyed in any way we wish to. It’s too bad that the decent cops far too often end up leaving the profession way to early because of things like this. Police committing crimes should not be tolerated. By anyone. Especially by their comrades & their bosses. Police being protected by their comrades for committing crimes are all participating in a crime and are all participating in corruption of the police in general. When a cop commits a crime the public has a right to know. When a cop commits a crime the public is the victim. When the boss covers it up he or she is an accessory to that crime. Who's the victim? It's always the public. This isn't a victimless crime. GL