Follow @RealTurtleboy on Twitter by clicking here.
Follow Turtleboy on Instagram by clicking here.
Want to advertise with Turtleboy? Email us at [email protected] for more information.
We are all Turtleboy. This is not a cliche statement we throw around lightly. It’s a statement of fact. Turtleboy Sports is all of us. Many of our stories have come directly from turtle riders who send us tips. You are our eyes and ears in the community and we are your voice. Without you none of this is possible.
For instance, a turtle rider interested in the Leigha Genduso story filed a public records request with the Massachusetts State Police last month, asking for all documents pertaining to her hiring, including letters of recommendation, her resume, and who vetted her background checks. They also asked for a list of all violations she committed while a state trooper, and a detailed list of every arrest and investigation she was involved with.
What they received back from the MSP was a bunch of bullshit and secrecy, which seems to indicate that this borderline criminal enterprise will continue to do all of the things that has caused the public to distrust them in the first place.
Here’s their response to the records request:
In relation to your request, seeking material specifically relating to Trooper Genduso’s hiring and employment file, please understand that material responsive to your request(s) is exempt from public dissemination pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. (26) (c) (the personnel records exemption). Analyzing the exemption for personnel records found in M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. (26)(c), the SJC has opined that “[w]hile the precise contours of the legislative term personnel file or information may require case-by-case articulation, it includes, at a minimum, employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teachers Assoc. v. School Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 800 (2000) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The SJC also concluded that such material “constitute[s] the core categories of personnel information that are “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee.” Id., citing Oregonian Publ. Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 393, 401, 987 P.2d 480 (1999). Additionally, completed application and background investigative forms maintained by the Department contain personal/private information and other data gleaned through a confidential investigative process and are, in whole or part, also exempt under an array of additional exemptions, including but not limited to the privacy and investigative exemptions found at M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. (26)(c) and (f).
In response to your request seeking “violations committed by Genduso and outcome and status reports,” attached please find a copy of Trooper Genduso’s history profile as well as IA2016-0009. The Department has redacted information contained in the responsive records pursuant to the Public Records Law. As you will see, the portions that are redacted include the exemption applied within the record. If you have any questions surrounding a specific redaction, please do not hesitate to let me know. Please note that identifying information relating to specifically named individuals has been redacted from the file pursuant to the personnel and privacy exemptions codified in M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c) and the investigative exemption provided by G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f). Additionally, a compact disk containing CJIS data from Trooper Genduso’s user account has been withheld (see pg. 17) pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(a) (CORI Statute and 18 U.S.C.§ 2721 et seq., the Federal Driver Privacy Protection Act). The compact disk is referenced in paragraph 7 of the facts of case report attached.
Please note that M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c) exempts from public disclosure personnel and medical information of specifically named and/or otherwise identifiable individuals, the disclosure of which does or may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The privacy clause of the exemption (c) protects “intimate details of a highly personal nature.” Attorney General v. Assistant Commissioner of the Real Property Dept. of Boston, 380 Mass. 623, 626 (1980). In this instance, your request falls within this exemption since some of the information in IA 2016-0009 contains private information that M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c) was intended to protect. M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c) also exempts from public disclosure personnel information. Portions of the records requested in IA 2016-0009 contain personnel information including personnel forms which have also been redacted.
Please be advised that G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f) exempts from public disclosure “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.” Moreover, G. L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f) recognizes that the disclosure of certain investigatory materials could detract from effective law enforcement to such a degree as to operate in derogation, and not in support, of the public interest. Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62-63 (1976). Thus, law enforcement has an interest in encouraging individuals to report matters and cooperate with investigations without apprehension that such information will be made a public record. The disclosure of the names of witnesses and individuals involved may deter individuals from providing information in future investigations. General Laws c. 4. §7, cl. 26 (f), therefore, allows the permanent withholding of the name(s) and identifying details of witnesses. Accordingly, the Department has redacted the names of individuals referenced. I have also redacted the transcript(s) of interview(s).
Lastly, in response to your request seeking “a detailed list of every arrest, search or investigation that Trooper Leigha Genduso and/or her k-9 were assigned to or assisted in,” the Department requires more time to process and respond to this portion of your request.
If you wish to challenge any aspect of this correspondence as a response to a public records request, you may appeal to the Supervisor of Public Records following the procedure set forth in 950 C.M.R. 32.08, a copy of which is available athttp://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/law-lib/laws-by-source/cmr/.
Jenniffer P. Migliaccio (O’Neil), Esq. Staff Counsel
Department of State Police
State Police Headquarters, 470 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01702
So basically they refuse to hand over any information about the most important aspect of this story – how an admitted drug dealer that the state police themselves investigated, ended up becoming a state cop. Until that is investigated thoroughly, and those parties who allowed this to happen are held accountable, the public cannot trust the MSP moving forward. We can only assume that the criminal elements who went out of their way to get her in the MSP are still on the payroll.
This is a long shot, but if you have ANY information regarding that and would like to be kept anonymous, please email us at [email protected]
They also did not give a detailed list of her arrests because of alleged time restraints, which is also bullshit. Because anyone who Leigha Genduso was involved in the arrest or investigation of should have their convictions overturned. If the investigating officers are compromised than the entire case is compromise.
They did however give some information on violations she committed as a trooper. Turns out on three separate occasions Leigha Genduso used the Criminal Justice Information Services system to access information on people she was not actively investigating. In other words, she was blatantly abusing her power. It’s the same thing that her boy toy former Lt. Colonel Dan Risteen did that got him kicked out of the Logan Airport gig. She learned from the best.
Here’s the “facts of the case” that the MSP attorney sent the turtle rider:
So here’s the summary of those documents:
- On three separate occasions in 2015 Leigha Genduso abused her power and broke the law by running checks on someone who was not part of a criminal investigation. That person’s name is redacted, but it’s clear that it is only one person because of the way it is worded – “only the three inquiries of (redacted) were found to have been conducted improperly.”
- The Internal Affairs investigation found that she had indeed abused her power and fully admitted it. She received no punishment for doing so, because essentially she was untouchable. Meanwhile, two troopers out of the Holden barracks were disciplined for NOT violating MSP rules when they refused to alter Alli Bibaud’s arrest report. Makes sense.
- Trooper Genduso was asked if she ran background checks on the person she did in 2015 for personal reasons. The redacted answer is much longer than her other answers, indicating that she did not say yes or no, but likely gave an excuse for doing so.
- Trooper Genduso readily admitted everything she did and “made no attempt to downplay her actions.” Which makes sense, because she knew she was untouchable. After all, these are the same people who knew she was a drug dealer but got her into the academy anyway.
Gee whiz, I wonder who she could’ve been running background checks on for “personal reasons” three separate times in 2015…..
Oh yea, Sean “Buttchin” Bucci. Her former boyfriend/drug dealing partner who she banged for free room and board and exotic vacations, and then snitched on when he was no longer of use to her. The same guy who founded the website she came up with the name for – whosarat.com. The same guy who was released from jail months after her inquiries in 2015. The same guy who she was probably worried about would come find her, or perhaps expose her drug dealing past.
Of course we can’t know for sure it was him, because the MSP insist on hiding behind a curtain of secrecy.