nhFor those who can't or won't believe that "CORRUPTION" and "COVERUP" exists in Winchester, NH or Cheshire County we bring this information. The only side we are on is the side of Truth. It's All About Getting the Truth Out.
Hear their testimony below.
Why has Sheriff Foote, Cheshire County and the Town of Winchester allowed Macie's Testimony to Stand on it's Fraudulent Merits when They All Know Macie, acting on behalf of the Cheshire County Sheriff's Office was Conducting a Criminal Investigation AFTER Gary Phillips reported a crime to them?
Why didn't Gary Phillips report the Crime to the Sheriff's Department that he had just learned of that very day, that Nate Jette Falsified Evidence in a Case He was working ON and that was reported to Phillips by Reppucci , that very same day June 25, 2009 and done so in Writing?
See link:
Why didn't Phillips report the crime of Nate Jette Taking Property from the Bicycle Evidence?
What's the Real Cover Up? Phillips Incompetence and his protection of Officer's that commit crimes?
Listen to the YouTube Audio Recordings Down Below
It’s TIME FOR JUSTICE
and
It's time to Hear The TRUTH
Listen For Their Lies
Sometimes Truth Really is Stranger than Fiction
What they don't want YOU to Hear - Listen to Phillips Testify, Gary Phillips, Chief of Police Winchester
Listen TO Excerpts of testimony as MacieTestifies HE was Conducting an Internal Investigation then switches his testimony when the Questions get harder to answer.
Listen to Cheshire County Sheriff's Deputy Kelvin Macie
Hear EVEN MORE Testimony Below
Originally testifiying he was conducting an internal investigation, involving an internal matter at the Town of Winchester, he Quickly Changes that Story to Cover Up facts and then changes his testimony and Testifies his real purpose was to investigate a Criminal matter but that investigation didn't lead to him uncovering any crime.
Why did Kelvin Macie change his story from I was there to Conduct an Internal Investigation, to the new version it was a Criminal Investigation? Why did he go against the Sheriff's Orders? Or didn't he and only pretended he did?
What the Sheriff's do for their investigations for the Sheriff's Department are their business.
What Macie did when heTestified becomes ALL of our Business.
Why did Macie Testifiy that his investigation started out as a criminal investigation, with him investigating a criminal matter, but that it led into him doing an internal investigation.
There is a difference.
The Chairman even wrote in his decision - The Claimant was Insubordinate and therefor there was Misconduct on his part because he didn't answer the Deputies questions in his investigation that started out as the Deputy investigating a criminal matter but that it led into him investigating an internal matter?
It sounds confusing but it's not. Two different cups of tea.
Where Macie do you suppose that idea came from? It came From your testimony.
Since Macie wasn't conducting any Internal Investigation and he gave Misleading Testimony that caused People Unfamiliar with Proceedings of this kind to believe him, doesn't that cause a problem in that he can't be trusted to tell the truth? He has proved his testimony can't be taken as accurate and truthful.
What's worse is his inaccurrate testimony has helped Perpertrate a Lie about Dan Reppucci that is not True and NEVER was True.
When Cops Lie and Mislead in their Testimony and Reports it brings Discredit to them, undermines the system and does nothing to foster a respected relationship with the public.
Macie's Testimony Caused Dan Reppucci to Lose his Job and Unemployment Benefits.
Macie's Testimony caused people to Believe that Dan Reppuci did not cooperate in an Internal Investigation being conducted by the Sheriff's Department. That Reppucci was Disrepectful and Insubordinate to Gary Phillips when Phillips "Ordered" him to immediately answer Macie's questions. That there was some sort of refusal to cooperate in an internal investigation.
Macie testified that Reppucci was required to immediately answer his questions without Speaking with a Lawyer first. Even as Reppucci said he wasn't required to do so and that he wanted to speak with an attorney because he was being Targeted by his boss Gary Phillips, Macie continued to deny Reppucci his rights.
Macie testifed that because of Dan Reppucci's employment with the Town of Winchester he wasn't "Capable of Demanding That" right.
Really? Who taught Him that? Keene PD? Cheshire County? Police Standards & Training? Or did you learn it on the Streets? Miranda is Miranda is Miranda.
What does ones employment have to do with a Criminal Investigation or to the Criminal Investigator?
Had the Testimony been truthful, Dan Reppucci Would Not Have Been Found to Be Insubordinat, would he have? Because had the testimony been Truthful, Macie would have testified that Reppucci had EVERY RIGHT and PROTECTION under the Constitutions to consult with Counsel and that he legitimately chose to exercise that right. Macie then would have testified, I left at that time so I have no idea what did or didn't happen after that. Macie would have testified that the investigation being conducted by him was for the purpose of investigating a crime reported. People understand that and the meaning of it.
And HE wouldn't have produced an ADMINISTRATIVE WARNING on Sheriff's Letterhead and APPROVED for Use by the Sheriff's Department now would he have?
Of course not, the Sheriff's Deputies or any other Cops for that matter, don't run around with fistfulls of Admimistrative Warnings stuffed in their back pockets, so that when they knock on the doors of people they want to question, they can easily pull them out and then tell them - Answer or I'll get your Boss and your Boss will Order You to do so.
It's ridiculous that Macie actually used that line, it's sad that people fell for it.
And if His testimony was honest, stratigtforward and not misleading He would have told the Town Selectmen, that the Administrative Warning was just a BOGUS piece of paper that meant nothing and He would have testified to that same thing at the Unemployment Hearing.
Actually, more than likely it would never have come up, it only came up as another tool to use to make the deceit look real.
If Macie Weren't Trying to Help Gary Phillips put the Screws to Dan Reppucci why didn't he testify that Dan Reppucci was Entitled under the Laws and Constitution of the United States and NH to Speak to An Attorney, as requested, Because HE was in Fact Conducting a Criminal Investigation?
Why is he still helpling him put the Screws to Reppucci? Because he has something to lose if he doesn't.
It didn't matter the who's or why's it only mattered that it was.
As He testified, a person is entitled to exercise Miranda in a criminal investigation, a criminal matter as any citizen would be.
So what part did you not get? Or did you think no one would find out?
Your Testimony Flip Flopped - You Changed Your Story Kelvin Macie - Why?
Because it allows you to Keep and Protect your JOB? That is probably YOUR Motivating Factor for wanting to keep the Lie Going. Correct us if we're wrong?
Based on Macie’s Sworn testimony, Police Officer’s, such as he is, have the right to not Uphold the Law and have the right to VIOLATE the Rights of Individuals if they are being asked questions in their criminal investigations. And as long as they Testify it was an internal type of investigation they were conducting.
Let it Not Be Lost – Reppucci was never asked nor “Ordered” to answer questions in any investigations – EXCEPT – the Criminal Investigation being conducted by the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Deputy Kelvin Macie.
Let it NOT BE LOST, and you hear Macie Testify to this, if a Criminal Matter is being investigated, the Person has a right to Miranda as anyone would.
Just Because Someone is a Cop or a Sheriff’s Deputy doesn’t mean they won’t Stoop to LIE to Cover Their A$$ - Especially if they Think They Will Never Get Caught
Macie has misrepresented himself, his Duties, His Obligations, the Sheriff’s Department and the Law so badly nothing he says can be trusted to be Truth.
The matter at hand was a criminal investigation the Sheriff’s Dept was conducting and never was an internal investigation, that can't be denied.
Macie ultimately and finally admits to that, which means Phillips put Reppucci on suspension for a reason that wasn't representative of the truth as to why he gave as a reason.
Phillips couldn't afford or risk Reppucc talking to anyone and the real reason being is simple, Phillips didn’t want his dirty secret that he was running a corrupt police department out in the public. There is plenty of information to show that.
Macie’s testimony reveals:
1. 1st Macie testifies he told Reppucci it wasn’t a criminal matter he was looking into.
2. Then he testifies he told him it was an internal investigation.
3. Then he testifies to how Miranda works and that if an investigation is about a criminal matter then a person has the rights to Miranda as anyone would have.
4. Macie then testifies he wasn’t investigating an internal matter, he was investigating a possible breach of facilities which is the same as saying a break in, or unauthorized entry of one sort of another. Then testifying the internal matter had nothing to do with what he was doing there.
So if he wasn’t investigating an internal matter, why did he testify that it was an internal investigation?
Since Macie wasn’t conducting any internal investigation his administrative warning was bogus, used for deceit and as worthless as counterfeit money.
Since as Macie then testified he wasn’t investigating an internal matter and that he was investigating a possible crime why didn’t he let Reppucci exercise his rights under Miranda so he could go and speak with an attorney?
Why does his testimony flip flop?
We know he was conducting a criminal investigation, that’s evidenced by his police report and the fact that the crime being investigated is a Misdemeanor crime reported by Phillips.
The question is, Why did he lie about it?
See link:
Further proof and evidence, if that is not enough, that he was conducting a criminal investigation, is that Foote wrote a letter and it says he directed Maice to investigate a crime. That the Sheriff’s dept never conducted any internal investigations at the Town of Winchester and specifically never conducted one on Reppucci.
See link:
The final question asked of Macie by the Town's Attorney Moskowitz, is both deceptive and misleading, as a Garrity Warning has no place in the matter at hand, which was a criminal investigation. And these guys know that.
Macie, Phillips and the Attorneys, all banter about when it comes to a bogus Administrative Warning and Garrity Warnings or Rights, as if it has some legal value in a criminal investigation as they misleadingly testifiy.
– All Agree IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE WARNING –
NO ONE HAS YET TO TESTIFY THAT IT IS A Legitimate WARNING to be USED IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE IT IS NOT and it NEVER HAS BEEN and NEVER WILL
So what is really going on here? Macie, were you helping Phillips set Reppucci up? Pretending you were conducting an internal investigation when it was really a criminal investigation? Hoping Reppucci would cooperate and answer questions? Maybe twist his words around a little? Then Phillips could say leave or you’ll be arrested? Incompetence? What is it? What is really going on here, cause from here it looks like bad cops doing bad things.
And really Does it matter why or does it matter Reppucci got forced into the middle of it because of lies and deception by Macie and Phillips?
When Phillips and Company Run Around Saying they Won a Lawsuit against Reppucci, Fair and Square and in Court - They Best be Explaining and Disclosing the only reason why they won is because they Presented Lies and Misleading Information to the Court.
And NOW They Can't Point Fingers at People and Complain that they are Not Telling the Truth. We're Using Their Own Words to Explain the Story. No one elses.
What do you get when the most Powerful Police Agency in Cheshire County, the Sheriff's Department, combines forces with the most Corrupt Town and what can only be described as the most Corrupt Police Department in Cheshire County, the Winchester Police Department?
Now you can Hear what you get. Police that lie, misuse, and abuse their power and their position to try to cover up their criminal misdeeds and mistakes.
You can hear dishonest cops boldly lie, giving fraudulent testimony just to be DECEPTIVE. Believing they would get away with it.
You can hear these dishonest cops tell their fraudulent, deceptive story because the TRUTH is not what they ever wanted the people, their counter parts or their colleagues to hear or to know.
Selectmen, Ken Gardner, as well as Phillips and Roberts all listened and heard the testimony of Macie 1st hand, listened to Reppucci’s questions to Macie and did nothing, which points another finger to corruption, lies, deception of the truth and shows again the strength in numbers mentality to cover up the truth and lie was really going on.
The attorney, Moskowitz, asked the question of Macie, Did you tell him it was an internal investigation? Yes I did.
All heard Macie testify to that and also to Phillips testify that the investigation was for the purpose of having an unbiased internal investigation to investigate the break in at the police department and that Foote directed Macie to conduct that investigation.
Thick as thieves in deception, thick as thieves in lies, thick as thieves to cover it all up.
All with a motive to do so.
What Phillips, didn’t want people to know and what he was willing to protect at any cost, was that he was running a department with crooked cops on one side and good cops on the other.
Phillips mission? Destroy the Good Cops.
Phillips, himself a crooked cop, well established by his lies and deception, was promoting and looking the other way when his underlings, subordinate officers were engaged in criminal activity. We know this from numerous other documents and the numerous inconsistencies and lies coming from the Winchester Police Department.
Example, Phillips allowing his subordinate officers to cover up for each other, such as he and Roberts did for Nate Jette, when Jette falsified evidence. Phillips approving of that cover-up by participating in it himself. Proof beyond doubt he can’t use the sorry excuse that he didn’t know what was going on.
The tides have changed and the table has now turned. Phillips bogus investigation story is unraveling just as quick as a bogus alibi in a real investigation.
It’s their own GREED and continued denial of the truth that has made a story of this.
Denied the truth because they are protecting their own interests. Their jobs.
Phillips and the Town have bragged about winning a court decision. Bragged that Reppucci was just a disgruntled employee.
Bragged that they got rid of the bad guy. They forget to tell everyone, they did it by giving fraudulent testimony and by giving deceptive testimony.
That is why PHILLIPS didn't want Reppucci to have an attorney.
But they never expected to be exposed or that anyone would uncover the facts. The fact that they won their court decision by deceit and by fraud.
The judge’s decision based on a fraud and deceit.
Anyone can win if they have the ability and power to lie, cheat and manipulate.
A Chief of Police and his Cronies have just that ability.
Lawyers hired to help them twist their facts and spin their tale.
They do this at the expense of others because they are not men with integrity, but liars with something to hide.
If Reppucci had really been doing something wrong as Phillips says he did, it would have been easy to prove it.
It isn't likely that Reppucci would be persisting if he didn't have the proof that shows Phillips and company have in fact lied and have in fact covered up.
All Phillips has done is muddy the waters with his typical inability to answer a question in a truthful straightforward manner.
We, like others are gonna help Reppucci untangle the mess that Phillips calls an investigation.
The fact that Gary Phillips, Kelvin Macie, Chris Roberts and the rest have gone to such extremes, suggests Phillips
didn't have a real or valid reason to get rid of Reppucci.
Liars have a way of telling their lies and then changing their story every time someone figures them out. Telling new and different lies each time they are questioned or need to make an explanation.
For instance, had Reppucci or anyone else, made copies of some confidential document and passed it around, by now someone would have provided a copy or blabbed about what the confidential information was.
Instead, nothing. Rumor created by Phillips. Much like his rumors of retiring.
Always making excuses that it's someone Else's fault for what they do or don't do, always changing their stories and telling more lies when they get caught.
Real Cops Fight the Bad Guys. In this case, the bad guys are Cops.
Public Corruption and Police Covering up Police Crimes is NOT Acceptable.
This is a matter of Public Concern and the Public has a Right to Know who and what they are Employing and what they get for their tax dollars.
It’s time to Expose these Corrupt Cops and their Employers, the Town of Winchester, NH and Cheshire County, NH for what they are and use their own words to tell the story.
Dan Reppucci asked the employers to investigate. They chose not to. We did.
Quick Facts:
Dan Reppucci was a police officer by occupation, but just an ordinary citizen, like any of us, when he was being asked questions during the Sheriff's criminal investigation.
Phillips and Macie have lied and distorted the truth. Reppucci was not a police officer or even an employee being questioned as part of any internal or administrative investigation, being conducted by his employer or someone for his employer, when he was ordered to cooperate in Macie's criminal investigation.
Like any other ordinary citizen, in this instance, he had the right to seek the advice of an attorney before answering any questions. This was a criminal investigation after all and he was just a regular person, being questioned in that investigation and Macie testifies to that.
But what Macie also did, was embellish his story and testify that he was conducting an internal investigation, which he was not.
What would cause Macie to testify that he was conducting an internal investigation when clearly he knew he wasn't?
Reppucci was not obligated to follow any unlawful orders no matter who issued them.
That is why Macie and Phillips have tried so hard to make it appear that what they did was lawful.
Macie violated Reppucci's rights and was wrong when he did not immediately let Reppucci leave to do as he wished.
Macie continued to violate his rights and was wrong to continue to question him and then to bring in his boss, Phillips, who had nothing to do with the investigation that the Sheriff's Department was conducting.
Reppucci again ordered to obey an unlawful order and again stating his wish to exercise his lawful right to speak with a lawyer, did not then give his supervisor, Phillips, a right to interject himself into another Police Agency's Criminal Investigation and then discipline Reppucci for not following his unlawful order.
Phillips has a pattern of interjecting his nose where it doesn't belong. The Board of Selectmen have allowed it. They have tolerated it and they could have stopped it. They didn't.
Phillips, has tried to deflect the truth by openly lying.
He has made a grave error in judgement. Not everyone is OK with police that lie. Not everyone is OK with police that break the law and then get caught doing it. They are criminals, just like the ones they arrest.
We will let you hear and see how they have accomplished this thus far.
First Video - Those Present and their Swearing In to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, under penalty of Perjury.
Second Video - Deputy Macie testimony. Testifying that Sheriff Foote was clear to him, that he was not going to Winchester to investigate personnel issues.
For those unaware, investigating personnel issues falls under administrative investigations or internal investigations. ONLY.
Third Video -
Deputy Macie testimony continues. He weaves his tale, lying and misrepresenting the truth. Misleading and Testifying that the investigation he was conducting was not a criminal matter he was looking into. And because he wasn't looking into a criminal matter, Reppucci wasn't entitled to ask to speak with an attorney.
Macie, what is it called when you are "Directed" to investigate a reported break in, breach of security, or document stolen if not a criminal matter?
Do you mean to tell us if someone calls the Sheriff's Dept or Police and tells them someone broke into their home or place of business they are not reporting a crime?
Do you mean if they ask for your assistance to investigate that crime that you can alter the facts?
Are you going to tell us that because the ADT alarm did not go off, that instead you are conducting an internal investigation for ADT because they believe that one of their employees didn't set the alarm properly? Is that what you are trying to tell the world?
Is that what you and Phillips would like us to believe?
And what about the business of Reppucci not being "capbable of demanding those rights" to speak with an attorney and "that based on his employment with the Town of Winchester he was obligated to answer those questions". Reppucci sounded quite capable of demanding those rights.
You sounded like you had something to hide.
Two problems with your testimony - you can't deny the request of anyone's right to counsel when conducting a criminal investigation, Mr. Macie and;
You testified later in your testimony, that you were unaware of Reppucci's department policies and the Winchester policies and that is the reason why you were unable to follow them.
So which is the right version Mr. Macie? You did know the policies or you didn't know policies?
You lied or you told the truth?
When asked by the Town's Attorney, Erik Moskowitiz - you did tell him it was an internal investigation didn't you? His answer is astonishingly, yes I did.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGGm0ZAEZCkqSNfLuuxVMZbQ1xcClVhoDp2rax2WTbRiWogTIJZSJrAlDstDTEloZQlmZL1Y3WcOXO8cp9_cBopdFu4_9sZN9UR_XMhb8HPyMzHPwKnhCzNYMXR8IUJK9_wtZEgCZGzwLI/s1600/1.jpg
The link above points to a letter written by Sheriff Foote. It's clearly written and understandable. Macie was there to conduct a criminal investigation because of a report, the Winchester Chief, Phillips of a crime down in Winchester that he reported.
Foote points out parts of Macie's Report, written by Macie, indicating Macie knew the sole purpose for his being at the WPD was to conduct a criminal investigation into a a crime, not conduct an investigation about employees.
The letter is clear. Macie was not there to conduct any internal investigation at the WPD and neither was anyone else from the Sheriff's Dept.
So how is it that Macie has been allowed to lie and give fraudulent testimony and get away with? How has this fraudulent testimony been allowed to perpetrate the system as if it were truthful and honest when it was a lie and fraudulent and deceitful?
How is it a sworn police officers, caught in the act, have been getting away with it?
How can we believe anything a liar has to say, after they have been caught red handed in a lie?
Fourth Video - Macie threatening to get the supervisor, Phillips and then doing so. Macie testifying that THEY together decided to present Reppucci with an administrative warning Macie created.
Fifth Video - Macie describing how an administrative warning works. Stating most important is that the investigation being conducted is of an internal nature and not a criminal matter. Stating if the matter is of a criminal nature the person being questioned would have the right to Miranda as anyone would.
Which goes back to the question (?) - Isn't the report of a break in and theft and the ensuinge question (?) - Isn't the report of a break in and theft and the ensuing investigation for the purpose of investigating a criminal matter?
Macie testified he created the administrative warning he and Phillips used. He testifies that it was "CREATED" at the Sheriff's Department and that it was approved by the Sheriff's Department.
If this testimony is true, Foote and his department were willing participant's in helping Phillips to plot and carry out his scheme to set Reppucci up and in the process violated the law.
It goes back to the same question why didn’t Macie let Reppucci leave when Reppucci first said he wanted to talk to an attorney since he was really conducting a criminal investigation?
Why was he trying to cover up the fact that he was conducting a criminal investigation?
Why did he make the decision to hold him there, get Reppucci's boss and continue to violate his constitutional rights?
This was a criminal investigation. Crime reported to Foote by Phillips. The report says it was a Misdemeanor crime and the report was released under the Right-To-Know.
If Maice’s investigation were an internal investigation, as he and Phillips made up story implies, then the Sheriff's Dept wouldn't have the internal investigation, they would have given it to Phillips, they simply wouldn’t have had it to be able to release it.
And if they did still have it, it wouldn’t be in the computer program used by all the Sheriff’s personnel, to be viewed and printed by anyone in the department because it would have been considered confidential.
If in fact it were an internal investigation.
Why did Macie testify to the lie that the investigation was an internal investigation?
Macie testified that Foote and his department were aware of what Phillips was doing and Foote and his department had knowledge of, blessed and allowed Macie to set out and violate the law and then allow him to cover it up by letting him continue to lie.
That's the story that Macie has testified to and it is in his own words.
Next up you'll hear Macie's testimony and answers to questions asked by Reppucci.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reppucci now gets a chance to ask questions of Macie. Listen to how Macie responds.
Sixth Video - Reppucci Questions to Macie - First Set of Questions:
(Reppucci) My question is did you see the actual letter that you say Mr. Plifka saw?
(Reppucci) OK. Did you see a copy from Mr. Plifka?
(Reppucci) Did he provide a copy to you?
So according to Macie's testimony he establishes that he has seen a copy of the reported as stolen letter.
He establishes that he didn't see a copy from Mr.Plifka.
He also establishes that Mr. Plifka never provided Macie a copy.
Seventh Video - Reppucci Questions to Macie - Second Set of Questions:
(Reppucci) Did you show him a copy of the letter to ask him if that was specifically the letter that he saw?
Macie testifying I don’t recall if I had a copy to show him or if I showed him a copy at that point. I don’t know that I had a copy at that point, actually I don’t think I did have a copy because I hadn’t met with the chief yet. What does Phillips have to do with?
You testified at the Town's Hearing, when asked to look at a document, is this the doucument you were investigting the security of? and your answer was "Yes that appears to be the same one. I was given a copy of that by Sheriff Foote.
So WHY did He Change Testimony? He really had a copy.
Why didn't he show Mr. Plifka a copy? Is it because he would have said that he never saw that before?
Is it because Phillips would have been caught in another lie and you would have had to act on that? Or did you already know he story was a lie?
If that isn't enough to jog his brain there's more.
Let's help Macie recall. Lets refresh Macie’s memory and direct him to his police report.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC8DGEk1oYncgaB_zKtzTdPWynXI8S7RV1FSgLl9qAK9jNbdcmH-Lk-hUhSpOswwubDYoQS2jSG9s9mV6u8_Kqse7zmF6YTO6ML4pvqoCr6kCgv8YQPF9CyN3o4fF79e8hHTw4wv1b1Ehg/s1600/1.jpg
So to wrap it up, all he did was confirm that when Reppucci went to see Mr. Plifka, at Mr. Plifka’s request it was long before he gave Phillips any letter or any grievance, which is what Reppucci has maintained right along.
Macie, Do you even know when the grievance letter was written? We do know that it was given to Phillips at the end of the workday of June 22nd.
Reppucci has shown lots of letters and documents to Mr. Plifka over the years.
Page 1 of Macie police report narrative - DATED 6/26/2009
3rd paragraph, 4th sentence:
Macie, to help refresh your memory you detailed in writing, in your police report the names of the documents you were given. One was the grievance letter.
“Also provided to the Sheriff’s Office ……. a copy of the grievance letter in a manila envelope marked “Chief” ……”
How could you possible forget this Macie? You are so very specific about describing how that grievance letter came to you, right down to the envelope it came in, the kind of envelope it came in and the writing on that envelope.
Yet you claim you didn’t have a copy because you hadn’t yet met with the Chief?
Let's also revisit the 4th paragraph 3rd sentence:
“The Sheriff gave me the documents listed above with the 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 home in a safe until 7/1/09.”
So, you got the copy of the letter on June 26th, kept it at your house in a safe until July 1, 2009 for a total of 6 days before you went to Winchester to see anyone?
And you got it from Sheriff Foote, yet you testify as if it was to come from Phillips.
Why did you lie about the fact you had a copy of the letter long before you went to Winchester?
Why did you lie about the fact you really did have a copy of the letter to show Mr. Plifka when you went to see him but just never did?
Have there been so many lies told that you forget when, why and to whom?
How is it that the purpose of your investigation, to confirm whether a letter was stolen, is somehow made to seem so insignificant that you believe that it is OK that you lie that you didn’t have a copy when you questioned potential witnesses to a crime, when all the while you did?
Did it not matter? Did you not think it important to show Mr. Plifka a copy to confirm that he had indeed been given a copy of the letter reported as stolen?
You don't even mention in your report that you even asked Mr. Plifka to describe the letter to you or to repeat even one or all of the confidential disciplines and internal investigations supposedly detailed in the letter.
Can you tell me how many pages it was? Signed or unsigned? Paper color. Black ink or colored ink? If the guy just saw it the week before, don't you think he'd remember enough about for you to confirm whether it truly happened or not?
Why would you not find it important to make sure you had the facts about a letter supposedly stolen from a Chief's desk?
After all, Reppucci was accused of doing just that.
What exactly did your investigation confirm?
Nothing other than what you write on page 3 of your police report.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPBYjLQ5l0BcVrO5zh5Phr1vQtwNKYNe1RzKWqjR8aYHtmy3aZ9H-eXJesvKHq1seKv2mwt0cdpZ1PHwlM0GXrayl07GFr7xyvzPLqToe6u-5B42Uf9j3acjSG_S3V8G0bflnaXXXNmL-v/s1600/3.jpg
Read it for yourself.
Mr. Plifka states that 10 days to 2 weeks prior to Macie being there on July 1, 2009, that Reppucci came to him.
That would put a date of Sunday, June 21st being 10 days back, to Wednesday June 17, 2009 being 2 weeks back.
That doesn’t coincide at all with Phillips timeline.
Not only doesn’t the time frame coincide with Phillips ridiculous story, that is pretty much confirmed with Mr. Plifka’s statement as written by Macie.
Phillips alleges someone broke into his office and stole a letter and copied and disseminated that letter to members of the public sometime between June 23rd and June 24th.
According to Macie’s police report Mr. Plifka said Reppucci was there sometime between June 17, 2009 and June 21, 2009.
Not between June 23rd and June 24th.
That would have been 6 or 7 days. Not 10 to 14 days.
Wouldn’t Mr. Plifka have simply stated Reppucci was there a few days ago or last week instead of the cumbersome statement Macie said he made?
Reppucci has always maintained the only reason he was at Kulick's was because he was called there for police related business. He was called there because Plifka wanted to know what was going on with the complaint made about Roberts. The complaint made to Phillips, about Roberts making derogatory comments about Plifka's employees, several months before. This information is actually substantiated in a report that will make it's way to this site.
Too bad Macie couldn't put that fact in his report. People may not have been so easily taken in, or at least been willing to hear another side.
That's why it's important investigators are OBJECTIVE, get all the facts and document those facts.
Not just ask and document only those selective facts that cconveniently fit into the story they are trying to tell.
Macie, didn’t you think you needed to conduct a thorough and proper investigation so you could get to the facts and then get those facts straight?
Eighth Video - Reppucci Questions to Macie - Third Set of Questions:
(Reppucci) So you did not show Mr. Plifka a copy of the alleged letter that was leaked to him so he had no way to confirm that it was the same letter, is that correct?
(Reppucci) Did he give you any documentation to show that he had a letter? Did he give you a written statement saying that he had a letter that I gave him?
(Reppucci) So when you say that he said he saw the letter, you never showed him a copy of it so he doesn’t know if it’s the same letter, so you’re just speculating is that correct?
(Reppucci) OK, but you never showed him a copy of the letter, I could’ve been showing him, he could’ve seen a copy of laundry list.
Again, pretty sloppy testimony, after a sloppy investigation. In fact, the day in question, the day Reppucci went to see Plifka, at Plifka's request, Reppucci had dozens of letters with him, none that had anything to do with a letter, grievance or other document submitted to Phillips.
That is precisely why Macie is now trying to cover for his previous testimony. Before, Macie was pretty sure what he was doing and why, now he is unsure and testifies Plifka was aware of the issue.
What issue Macie? The theft of a letter from the police dept? That someone gave a copy of the letter to Plifka after stealing it from the Chief's office? A grievance? A grievance letter? That you were at Plifka's place of business and you told him that Phillips thought it best for some outside department to investigate?
When asked, you dodge answering those very legitimate questions being asked.
Some might be of the opinion that every case you ever testified in should be revistited.
You are skirting the issues, dodging the questions and have not given one iota of anything that Plifka and you are even talking about the same thing.
Ninth Video - Reppucci Questions to Macie - 4th Set of Questions:
(Reppucci) You stated that I refused to cooperate and answer any questions, is that correct?
(Reppucci) Do you recall me telling you that I had some concerns that I was being targeted for termination?
Targeted for termination, yet Macie was not there to investigate any internal goings on. Not there for the purpose of any internal investigation involving an employee and an employer. If he wasn't there for that purpose why then did he testify he told Reppucci he was there to conduct an internal investigation.?
Listen to Third Video where Macie Testifies he was there to conduct an Internal Investigation.
Tenth Video - Reppucci Questions to Macie - 5th Set of Questions:
(Reppucci) Did you state to me the reason why you were there is that you were investigating potentially someone breaking into the Chiefs office and taking a copy of this grievance letter?
So Macie testified he may have in fact told Reppucci he was investigating a crime. So what is Macie doing?
Setting up another police officer so that it looks like he did something he hasn't?
So the question is which is it Macie? A Crime or an Internal Matter? An Internal Matter or a Crime? And if you didn't know what the hell you were doing there why didn't you just testify to that? Why LIE? Why MISLEAD? Why testify FRAUDULENTLY if you don't need too?
Eleventh Video - Reppucci Questions to Macie - 6th Set of Questions:
(Reppucci) OK, there’s a document with the date on it, July 10, 2009 from Orr & Reno. It’s a letter from Chief Phillips and it states in this letter that I am quite prepared to answer any and all questions, and I would like to know from Mr. Macie if he has ever seen this letter? It shows I was willing to meet with him.
(Reppucci) I would like Mr. Macie to look that document over and I would like to ask him if he has seen this document or was told about this document?
(Reppucci) Were you ever told, Mr. Macie, by anyone verbally that I agreed to meet with you?
Again, Macie hasn't been truthful in his testimony.
Macie was actually shown this document at the Administrative Hearing, where he also testified that he had never seen or been told by anyone, that Phillips actually received a letter the day after Reppucci was put on leave. He testified he never knew that in that letter the attorney requested that an interview be set up so that Reppucci could answer those questions being asked of Macie. When a copy of the letter was given to Macie, Macie testified, again under oath, that he never saw that letter.
So here again he lies, pretends he has never seen the letter, when he has been recorded as already have been shown a copy.
It's not important for this particular case one way or another, other than it shows a pattern of lies and a pattern of cover up by cops. Again, Macie had an option to tell the truth and failed to.
Other Testimony from Phillips & Roberts will follow.
