Houde, Geraldine v. Bellingham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260251)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0251 Ken Fitzgerald Chief of Police Bellingham Police Department 30 Blackstone Street Bellingham, MA 02019 Dear Chief Fitzgerald: I have received the petition of Geraldine Houde appealing the response of the Bellingham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 29, 2025, Ms. Houde requested the following: [1] I am requesting the full [named individual] interview conducted 4/06/1989 with regards to his movements December 5 through 8, 1978. The previous response to this request was heavily redacted. I am requesting the report to not be redacted. I am also requesting the dates of any interviews conducted with [the named individual] prior to 4/06/1989. [2] I am requesting all statements made by [a list of named individuals] pertaining to the night of December 5th into the morning of December 6th 1978 in which the individuals made statements to their roles in bringing [a named individual] to the Presidential Arms in Franklin MA. [3] I am requesting the documentation regarding [a named individual] bringing forth a letter from [a named individual] on or around the time of his death. The Department responded on January 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Houde petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0251, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response to this office on February 6, 2026 and to Ms. Houde on February 9, 2026. 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, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical 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

Chief Ken Fitzgerald SPR26/0251 Page 2 February 10, 2026 form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality 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, § 10(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, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Houde contends that [A] FOIA request in 2022 resulted in then Bellingham MA police Chief .... providing a redacted interview after the request and appeal were reviewed by the Supervisor of Records. M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) does not apply in this case. There has been a significant passage of time. [Two named individuals] are both deceased. The information related to the individuals in the interview is widely known. There is no unwarranted invasion of personal privacy given the context of the unsolved capitol crime and the age of the case. There could potentially be a public benefit in releasing the information to potentially solving the crime and revealing the truth. Release of the statement may prompt others with information to come forward. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand Ms. Houde objects only to redactions and withholdings made under Exemption (f). The Department’s January 6th and February 9th Responses In its January 6, 2026 and February 9, 2026 responses, the Department cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). 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

Chief Ken Fitzgerald SPR26/0251 Page 3 February 10, 2026 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 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private

Chief Ken Fitzgerald SPR26/0251 Page 4 February 10, 2026 citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its January 6th response, the Department argues the following: Ronald Moore Interview (April 6, 1989) and Prior Interviews With respect to the interview of Ronald Moore conducted on April 6, 1989, the Department notes that this report was generated by the Massachusetts State Police. Although a copy exists within this Department’s historical case file for reference purposes, the Bellingham Police Department is not the custodian of that record for purposes of the Public Records Law. The Department possesses no records of any interviews of Ronald Moore conducted prior to April 6, 1989. Additionally, the interview report relates to an open and unsolved homicide investigation. Disclosure of unredacted investigative materials would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement and is therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f). The Public Records Law does not require an agency to release records in an unredacted form where lawful exemptions apply. . . . Statements of David Neal Cohn, John Kelly, Michael Bruce, and Steve Frechette The requested statements were generated by the Massachusetts State Police as part of a multi-agency investigation involving both an open and unsolved homicide and allegations of sexual assault occurring in Franklin, Massachusetts. Although copies may exist within this Department’s historical files for reference purposes, the records were not created by, nor are they maintained by, the Bellingham Police Department as its own public records. Accordingly, this Department is not the custodian of those records for purposes of the Public Records Law. Further, the requested materials constitute witness statements and investigative records relating to an open homicide investigation and allegations of sexual assault. Disclosure would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement and is therefore exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f). . . . Documentation Regarding a Letter from Donald Moore Sr. We do not have a copy of the letter that Donald SR. wrote. We only have a letter/report/memo from State Police Trooper Brian Brooks documenting his conversation with Margaret Blaine about the letter. This document forms part of an active and unsolved homicide investigative file and was not authored by the Bellingham Police Department. Disclosure would reveal non-public investigative information and context and would prejudice the possibility of effective law

Chief Ken Fitzgerald SPR26/0251 Page 5 February 10, 2026 enforcement. Accordingly, the document is exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f). In its February 9th response, the Department provides the following additional information in support of its claims under Exemption (f) for withholding the responsive records: The requested records consist of investigative interviews, witness statements, and related documentation central to an active homicide investigation. Disclosure would reveal investigative focus, witness cooperation, and non-public factual development, thereby prejudicing the possibility of effective law enforcement. . . . As the requestor has been previously advised, this murder investigation involving Theresa Corley, remains open and under investigation by the District Attorney’s Office in coordination with Massachusetts State Police and the Police Department. . . . Further, after additional individualized review of this particular request and related prior requests regarding this murder investigation, please be advised that unlike “cold cases,” where a criminal investigation remains open simply because it is unsolved, the Department has been involved in ongoing coordination with other law enforcement officials. Such efforts include other police departments, including the Franklin Police Department, the Massachusetts State Police and the District Attorney’s Office on an ongoing basis in performing investigation-related activities, as reflected in our department records. Therefore, despite the age of this case, it clearly remains an active and ongoing investigation. The Police Department continues to work with assigned Massachusetts State Police on this matter, including in 2020, and provide evidence and other information provided to this department on the investigation. In the February 9th response, a representative for the Department further explains the following: Since I assumed command of the Bellingham Police Department in 2023, this matter has remained an active and ongoing investigation. During this period, the Department has continued investigative activity, including the collection of DNA from persons of interest or individuals potentially connected to persons of interest, receipt and follow-up on both telephone and in-person tips, preparation of investigative summaries, and interviews of potential witnesses. In addition, the requestor has previously been afforded unfettered, supervised access to review the materials maintained by the Bellingham Police Department in connection with this case. That accommodation was provided in good faith and exceeded the Department’s obligations under the Public Records Law. The Department remains mindful of the need to protect the integrity of the

Chief Ken Fitzgerald SPR26/0251 Page 6 February 10, 2026 investigation and the safety and privacy of third parties. Based on the Department’s experience in this matter, disclosure of investigative materials that identify or could reasonably lead to the identification of individuals associated with the investigation presents a heightened risk of undue harassment or interference, and would jeopardize ongoing investigative efforts. Based on the Department’s January 6th and February 9th responses, I find that to the extent that the Department claims that disclosure would reveal the course of its ongoing investigation and chill the cooperation of witnesses, the Department may properly claim Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). It should be noted that a change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Houde is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Geraldine Houde