Eve Carson v. Essex District Attorney's Office (SPR 20181267)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords September 5, 2018 SPRlS/1267 David O'Sullivan, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney - Essex County 10 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney O'Sullivan: I have received the petition of Eve Carson appealing the response of the Essex County District Attorney's Office (DAO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 18, 2018, Ms. Carson requested the following records pertaining to a 1981 homicide case. I. Saugus PD report A. Report from eyewitness Fenton Allen Moore signed by Neil Meehan B. Composite from witness description C. Any other reports related to witness Fenton Allen Moore II. Marie Iannuzzi grand jury A. Page 1 dated March 5, 1982 cause# 038655 B. Page 1 dated April 5, 1982 cause# 038655 III. Leonard Paradiso parole officer notes entry dated March 11, 1982 IV. FBI fingerprint report for Leonard Paradiso A. Submission for comparison in Joan Webster case dated November 5, 1982 B. FBI results dated November 24, 1982 V. State Witness Robert Bond A. MSP interview with Bond B. Bond written letter regarding Joan Webster murder C. Bond motion and affidavit dated November 15, 1985 VI. FBI report regarding boat theory dated August 5, 1983 VII. Case CR 85-010-S in the Federal District Court in RI, Judge Bruce Selya presiding A. Certification 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

David O'Sullivan, Esq. SPR18/1267 Page 2 September 5, 2018 B. Title pages Vol I C. Title Pages Vol II D. Pages 128 & 129 from Vol II E. Title pages sentencing VIII. FBI consensus report dated July 24, 1985 IX. Boston Herald article dated July 15, 1991 "Prosecutors Conflict over Slay Case Files" X. Audrey Webster letter to God XI. Boston Herald article dated November 28, 2006 "Tome Seeks to Close Book on Murder" XII. George Webster email response to Eve Carson dated December 25, 2012 XIII. Anonymous letter and envelope sent to Eve Carson received December 11, 2014 Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPRl 8/1083 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 6, 2018). In my August 6th determination, I ordered the DAO to provide Ms. Carson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. Following the August 6th determination, the DAO provided a response on August 13, 2018, which included portions of the responsive records. Unsatisfied with the DAO's response, Ms. Carson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR18/1267, was opened as a result. It appears Ms. Carson's appeal concerns items IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records.

David O'Sullivan, Esq. SPR18/1267 Page 3 September 5, 2018 The DAO's August Jih response In its August 13, 2018 response, the DAO assert that its investigation into this matter remains ongoing. Items IV; V(A) & (BJ; VJ,- and VII With respect to the above referenced items, the DAO indicates that Ms. Carson provided these documents to the DAO via email on certain specified dates. Item V(C) In its response, the DAO notes that Ms. Carson has a copy of the Bond affidavit posted on her website but informs her to "provide a further description of [the] document including the case in which it was filed." As such, Ms. Carson and the DAO are encouraged to communicate further to enable the DAO to provide the requested record. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). The DAO must use its superior knowledge of the records to facilitate the provision of the responsive record, or portions ofrecord. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii). Item VIII In its response, the DAO indicates that it cannot locate the document but informs Ms. Carson to direct her request to the FBI. Conclusion In light of the DAO's response, coupled with Ms. Carson's petition for appeal, it is unclear what the basis of Ms. Carson's appeal is. Ms. Carson is reminded that all petitions for appeal "shall specifically describe the nature of the requester's objections to the response or failure to timely respond." 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(±). Accordingly, Ms. Carson must describe her specific objections to the DAO's response. Further, in her petition for appeal, Ms. Carson indicates "[p]lease respond to this further request to affirm documents in your possession." Ms. Carson is reminded that a requestor may petition the Supervisor of Records only after a written request has been made to the records access officer (RAO) of the governmental entity that creates or receives the records. 950 C.M.R. 32.01(1). Whereas the request for the DAO to affirm documents in its possession was not made directly to the DAO's RAO, I decline to opine on that matter. If Ms. Carson would like to obtain a response from the DAO, Ms. Carson is advised that she should make a separate public records request to the DAO's RAO. Ms. Carson may then appeal the substantive nature of the DAO's response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(d).

David O'Sullivan, Esq. SPR18/1267 Page 4 September 5, 2018 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Eve Carson