Ronald Moore interview history

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, I hereby request the following records:

I would like the date of the very first interview done with Ronald Moore in regards to Theresa Corley of Bellingham MA as well as the dates of all subsequent interviews or contacts made between the Bellingham Police Department that include Paul Farrell, Lionel Arcand, Edward Ayotte, Kevin Ranieri, Peter Lemon, Richard Perry

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as we believe this request is in the public interest, as suggested but not stipulated by the recommendations of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

I expect the request to be filled in an accessible format, including for screen readers, which provide text-to-speech for persons unable to read print. Files that are not accessible to screen readers include, for example, .pdf image files as well as physical documents.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

GERALDINE HOUDE

I am appealing the denial of my request. My request could be satisfied by releasing just one page from each interview transcript--specifically, the page with the date of the interview. It is acceptable to redact all other information except the date and the name of the interviewee

As you are aware, Ronald A Moore is deceased. This is also a 42 year old homicide in which Mr. Moore initially presented himself to the Bellingham Police Department inquiring about my sister's body on 495 on December 8th shortly after an anonymous call went into the Bellingham Police Department about a body and to the best of my knowledge, prior to patrolmen being dispatched to the area. The DATE of his first interview, with all other information redacted is pertinent to my family and I in seeking closure to this 42 year old murder of Theresa. I have sent a request for information as well to the NDAO and will follow up with the Supervisor of Records regarding their request of your records for an in camera review.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records
One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us
April 15, 2021 SPR21/0305

Gerard L. Daigle Chief of Police Town of Bellingham – Police Department 30 Blackstone Street Bellingham, MA 02019

Dear Chief Daigle:

I have received the petition of Geraldine Houde appealing the response of the Bellingham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 20, 2021, Ms. Houde requested “…the date of the very first interview done with [an identified person] in regards to [an identified person] of the Town as well as the dates of all subsequent interviews or contacts made between the [Department] that include [six identified persons].” In addition, Ms. Houde requested that “…if appropriate, fees be waived as we believe this request is in the public interest....”

Prior determination
This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR21/0305 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 22, 2021). In my February 22nd determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden in withholding the records, in their entirety, under Exemption (f). As a result, I ordered the Department to provide this office with the responsive records for an in camera inspection to make a determination regarding the Department’s claim that the 1978 murder investigation is still active and on-going.
The Department did not comply with my February 22nd determination; instead of providing this office with records to support its Exemption (f) claim, the Department provided a further response. In its February 25, 2021 response, the Department asserts, “…the Police Chief has confirmed that the investigation records underlying this request pertain to an open and active murder investigation. Additional information regarding said ongoing investigation, including an active tip line for various law enforcement entities and the District Attorney’s Office is available online. The Department provided the links to the tip line of the Department and the Town of Franklin Police Department’s tip line.”

Chief Gerard Daigle SPR21/0305 Page 2 April 15, 2021




Based on the Department’s February 25th response, Ms. Houde asked the Supervisor to reconsider this matter. It is my understanding that she has recently obtained information on the 1978 murder from the Franklin Police Department, and information from the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office.

Exemption (f)
Exemption (f) permits the withholding of:

investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.

G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f).

A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290.
I find that the Department’s February 25th response does not shed any further light as to how this case is still actively being investigated. Therefore, the Department has not met its burden to withhold the records, in their entirety, under Exemption (f). In camera review
In order to analyze the legal basis of the Department’s continued position that the Department is still actively investigating the 1978 murder case, an in camera review of an unredacted copy of a representative sample of the responsive records will facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s Exemption (f) claim to withhold responsive records.

The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations).
Chief Gerard Daigle SPR21/0305 Page 3 April 15, 2021




Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by the Supervisor that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. The Supervisor and the Public Records Division are not the custodians of records examined in camera; therefore, any request made to the Supervisor or the Public Records Division for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c).

The Supervisor has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to the Supervisor upon a promise of confidentiality. The Supervisor does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community.

Order

Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide the records for in camera inspection without delay. Failure to comply with this administrative order may result in a referral of this matter to the Office of the Attorney General for enforcement.

Sincerely,

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records