1. On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff made a public record request (hereinafter, “PRR”) to the Ayer Police Department. See Exhibit A.

2. The response from Ayer PD was due on or before June 28, 2024.

3. On June 21, 2024, Robert Mackie, Department Assistant, Ayer Police Department denied Plaintiff’s PRR, citing two statutes and explaining that Ayer Police found an exemption in the public record law, specifically, “any record containing an investigation or complaint of assault with intent to rape shall be withheld from public record.” See Exhibit B.

4. On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff read the two statutes cited by Mr. Mackie, specifically, G.L. ch. 4, sec 7(26)(a) and G.L. ch 265, sec 24C.

5. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff wrote this:

Hold up, Mr. Mackie,

I just check the two MGLs that you cited.

I’m not interested in the victim’s identity, and that’s the only portion of the public report that is not subject to a Public Records request. 

The rest of what Ayer Police Department has relative to my request most certainly is a public record.

You are still within the 10-day allotment to provide the record. Maybe you can speak to someone on your end and have that person read over the MGLs you cited so that I can get this request within the lawful time period.

Thanks, and have a nice weekend,

Jenna

6. On July 2, 2024, Ayer Police Department denied Plaintiff’s PRR. In the denial, Mr. Mackie informed Plaintiff of the right to appeal (his decision as the public record holder for Ayer Police) to the Supervisor of Records. See Exhibit C.

7. On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an appeal (SPR 24/1907) with the Supervisor of Records, located in Boston, by explaining the following in an email.

Dear Supervisor of Records,

I write to you to appeal the decision made by Ayer Police Department’s denying the release of a public record I requested.

As you can see from my request (below) and the subsequent exchange between myself and the record keeper in Ayer, there appears to be a record (held by the Ayer Police) which the Ayer Police assert is exempt from my public record request based on the nature of the alleged crime, i.e., rape.

On Day Five (in the ten-day PRR window), I explained to the Ayer Police’s record keeper that, according to the MGLs he cited, only the victim’s identity is exempt from disclosure but that the rest of the record is, in fact, public. Furthermore, I’d suggested that the Ayer Police’s record keeper use the remaining five days to confirm my fair reading of the statues that he himself cited.

On Day Ten, an hour before the close of regular business, I sent this:

Yesterday, which would be Day Twelve, I got the most recent email (below), informing me of my right to appeal and pointing me in your direction.

I believe that the information I seek is being kept from me to “protect” Matthew King, who, now deceased, had been the police chief in my hometown of Littleton and had lived in a duplex in neighboring Ayer for most of his adult life. Matthew King was never married, never a father, and known in the community, first and foremost, as a cop.

In 1997, when the alleged digital rape occurred, Matthew King was a full-time employee of the Littleton Police Department and was placed on administrative leave by then-chief Thomas O’Dea, who, via an inter-departmental memo, warned “all staff” away from speaking/speculating about why Matthew King had been placed on administrative leave and telling “all staff” (in writing) that they should “consider this (his inter-departmental memo) a gag order.” [Parenthetical clarification and emphasis both mine.]

The records kept about this 27-year-old (alleged) crime by the Ayer Police, minus all identifying information about the victim, are–and ought to be–provided in response to my public record request. While the identifying information about the victim is exempt, the remainder is not.

Please reply to this email and indicate that you have received (and are considering) my appeal or, if this is not the manner in which to make such an appeal, please provide me the guidance as to how to do that.

Thank you for your time,

Jenna Brownson

8. On July 3, 2024, I received this letter via email:

9. On July 18, 2024, the Supervisor of Records, in its decision, directed Ayer Police Department to comply with the law and “provide a response to Ms. Brownson.” See Exhibit D.

10. On August 1, 2024, Robert Mackie, for a second time, denied the PRR, citing the G.L. ch. 4, sec 7(26)(a) and this G.L. ch. 41, sec 97D. With this second denial, Mr. Mackie positively identified an existing record held by the Ayer Police concerning Matthew King, specifically: 97-202-OF.

11. On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second appeal with the Supervisor of Records (SPR24/2181) on the identical grounds upon which the first appeal was based:

Dear Supervisor of Public Records,

While I’m pleased that Ayer PD responded in time, on Day Ten, I’m disappointed, though not surprised, that once again, Ayer PD is denying my lawful public records request.

Therefore, and I hope of no surprise to Ayer PD, once again, I write to you to formally appeal today’s denial of my public records request on the same grounds that I set forth on July 3, 2024, over four weeks ago, (see below) when Ayer PD denied my initial public record request on July 2, 2024.

Nothing has changed. 

The law remains the same relative to public records of rape. 

The victim’s name is not public; the rest is.

I respectfully request that you immediately direct the Ayer Police Department to release the public record it has in its possession, i.e., 9701-202-OF, with the victim’s identifying information redacted, of course.

As before, I ask that you confirm receipt of this (second) appeal.

Thank you for your diligence in this matter,

Jenna Brownson

12. On August 8, 2024, the Supervisor of Record had a telephone conversation with the Ayer Police Department and was told that the Ayer Police would be providing Plaintiff with a “supplementary response” within the ten-day time period. See Exhibit E.

13. On August 27, 2024, Robert Mackie, record keeper at Ayer Police, denied the PRR for a third time, citing G.L. ch. 4, sec 7(26)(a) and G.L. ch. 41, sec 97D. See Exhibit F.

14. On August 27, 2024, Plaintiff wrote to the Supervisor of Records via email:

Dear Supervisor of Records,

Will you be exercising your statutorily granted powers, as found in G.L. c. 66 sec. 10A(b), in this matter?

I would appreciate knowing whether you intend to bring this matter to the attention of the Attorney General.

Thank you for your time,

Jenna

15. On September 5, 2024, having heard nothing back from the Supervisor of Records, Plaintiff wrote, via email:

Dear Supervisor of Records, 

The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated as to whether you intend to refer this matter to the Attorney General’s Office.

I thank you in anticipation of your reply, 

Jenna

16. On September 11, 2024, this memorial bench was installed at Littleton Police Department:

17. On September 27, 2024, Plaintiff reads G.L. ch. 41, sec. 97D for the first time. The gist of it is this:

All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality.

18. This comes off as a “get out of jail free” card for Mr. Mackie as it pertains to the original, i.e., the June 14, 2024, PPR regarding digital rape, but, to this Plaintiff, that doesn’t seem like a just result.

19. In fact, I would suggest that the Court is presented with an interesting question of law when faced with this sort of internal inconsistency within the law itself.

20. On one hand, the public records law, which Mr. Mackie first cited, makes it sound like a police report of rape is a public record that requires redacting to protect the victim; on the other hand, his later-cited law, found in Chapter 41, which governs “officers and employees of cities, towns, and districts,” says reports of rape shall not be a public record, and instead, will be entrusted to the care of the police.

21. The former serves to protect the victim; the latter serves to protect the victim, the alleged perpetrator, the police investigators, and/or other persons in positions of power who might become involved in an investigation of rape, sexual assault, or domestic abuse: all three, violent or sexual crimes, largely committed by men against women and their bodies and primarily investigated by men in law enforcement.

22. According to Laura Van Zandt, Executive Director of a domestic violence organization called REACH Beyond Domestic Violence, the law—first passed in the 1970s to cover sexual assaults and broadened in 2014 to include domestic abuse—was originally intended to shield the privacy of victims and encourage more people to report abuse to law enforcement, however, by keeping the entire record from the public—something Massachusetts is unique in its absolutism—there is no way to know what law enforcement is doing (or not doing) when it’s asked to investigate allegations of rape, sexual assault, and domestic abuse

23. In March, 1997, a woman went to the Ayer Police for help, alleging she was digitally raped by a police officer from neighboring Littleton, then-Sergeant Matthew King.

24. What the Ayer Police did to investigate this crime, as found in 97-202-OF, is a matter of public interest that requires, in this case, an exception be made to Chapter 41, section 97D while the legislature works to make our Commonwealth’s laws align to protect victims of crimes and not create a place to hide for alleged perpetrators or the police investigating them.