By Ryan Michaels | Editor-in-Chief, The Maine Mirror | September 27, 2926

BERWICK, Maine — On September 12, 2025, I brought a written complaint to the Berwick Police Department. I requested the lobby surveillance recording two days later. More than a year after the encounter, I finally received a playable copy from the Town and compared it with the recording I had made at the time.

The two recordings differ. My contemporaneous recording contains roughly 14 seconds of dialogue from inside the lobby that does not appear in the Town-provided copy. Conversation before and after that exchange remains.

That observation raises a question the recordings alone cannot answer: Is the copy the Town provided a complete reproduction of the surveillance recording originally maintained by the Police Department?

The eight images below follow the documented events in order. The September 22 investigation contains the underlying correspondence, records and direct video comparison. themainemirror.com

1. September 12, 2025: The lobby complaint

I entered the Berwick Police Department carrying paperwork I intended to submit. Denise Dunn was the department’s administrative assistant at the time. I asked to speak with an officer. When I asked Dunn to sign for the paperwork, she declined, and our conversation became a disagreement about how I could submit a complaint.

After I walked away from the counter, Dunn threw the written complaint onto the floor. I returned to the window, addressed what had happened and said I would document it. My contemporaneous recording captured the encounter.

The image above includes a still from the Town-provided lobby video. The footage itself—and the difference between the recordings—becomes central later in this story. themainemirror.com

2. September 14–16: The request and the Town’s own minutes

On September 14, I put the incident in writing and requested lobby surveillance footage covering approximately 3:50 to 4:15 p.m. I asked for an investigation. Then-Town Manager Arthur Capello acknowledged my email that day.

Two days later, I brought the matter before the Berwick Select Board with exhibits and a flash drive. The Town’s official September 16 meeting minutes describe video evidence documenting Dunn “throwing his written complaint on the ground.”

That wording matters because it appears in the Town’s own minutes. It also establishes that the request for video came immediately after the incident, long before I discovered a difference between the two recordings. themainemirror.com

3. September 23: Chief Towne’s finding

Police Chief Timothy Towne responded to my complaints in a September 23 letter. He wrote that he had investigated the allegation concerning the written complaint and concluded: “I have found both of your complaints to be unfounded.” His letter also described an arrangement for an officer or staff member to speak with me if I returned to the station.

The letter states Towne’s conclusion. The records published so far do not establish which evidence he reviewed to reach it or whether he viewed the original lobby surveillance recording. That remains a question for his investigation file and other source records. themainemirror.com

4. October 7: A working copy is ordered

The Town sent me a disc in response to my video request, but when I tried to view it, I encountered a black screen. At the October 7 Select Board meeting, I brought the disc and explained the problem publicly.

Select Board Chair Mike Latterer directed Town Manager Arthur Capello to make sure I received a working copy. Capello agreed. The exchange was captured during the public meeting.

By August 31, 2026—nearly eleven months after that direction—I still had not received a working copy I could access. The delay is part of this chronology because I could not compare the Town’s footage with my recording until I could actually view what the Town had supplied. themainemirror.com

5. September 4, 2026: Towne responds from his candidate email

In late August, I raised the unresolved recording with Towne while asking questions of him as a candidate for Maine House District 149. On September 4, he responded from his candidate email account.

Towne said a new copy had been prepared in a format I should be able to view. He suggested the trouble with earlier copies resulted from a missing driver and said he had been able to view them. He also indicated that the Town’s attorney had notified me the video was available for pickup.

It was a meaningful response: another copy had been prepared. I asked to verify that it worked before leaving with it, given what had happened with the earlier disc. At that point, I still had not viewed the new copy or compared its contents with my recording. themainemirror.com

6. September 22: I receive and view the disc

On September 11, Town attorney Matt Tarasevich wrote that a tested, operational disc was available at the Police Department. Days later, the department’s current administrative assistant reported that she had played it at the Berwick Public Library. She was a different employee from Denise Dunn, who was involved in the 2025 encounter.

On September 21, I told counsel in writing that I expected to visit the Police Department the next day on an unrelated matter. I said I would not use that visit to ask the administrative assistant for the recording or resolve the outstanding inspection question with her.

During my September 22 visit, the current administrative assistant brought the disc into my interaction with a responding officer. He offered to accompany me to the library. There, I was finally able to access the disc and confirm that it contained playable video. His help resolved the practical problem of viewing the copy.

The officer also stated that he had been directed not to view the recording. The available evidence does not establish who gave that instruction or why. themainemirror.com

7. September 22: The recordings differ

After returning home, I compared the Town-provided surveillance copy with my contemporaneous recording of the September 12 encounter.

My recording contains an exchange that took place while I was still interacting with Dunn in the lobby. That dialogue does not appear in the Town-provided copy, although portions of the conversation before and after it do. The disputed portion is roughly 14 seconds.

This distinction is important: my recording also continued after I walked away from the lobby interaction. I am not presenting that later material as missing police surveillance footage. The question concerns dialogue within the lobby exchange that appears in one recording and not the other.

The comparison identifies a difference. It does not establish its cause. The material currently available does not show whether it arose in the original recording, an export or conversion, another technical process, a redaction, or some other circumstance. It does not establish intentional alteration. themainemirror.com

8. After September 22: The source records

That evening, I documented the comparison in an email to Town counsel and municipal officials and asked whether the Town represented that the supplied copy completely reproduced the original responsive surveillance recording. I also acknowledged the officer’s help in finally making the disc accessible.

I sent a preservation notice and submitted a new Freedom of Access Act request. Those requests seek the native surveillance file and any existing versions; available metadata and system or processing logs; records concerning the disc’s preparation and testing; the evidence considered in Towne’s 2025 investigation; and records concerning the officer’s instruction not to view the recording.

Those records could help establish whether the difference exists in the original surveillance file or arose while a copy was being prepared. They could also answer what evidence Towne reviewed before issuing his finding.

The central question remains narrow: Does the Town-provided copy contain the complete responsive lobby recording as originally maintained by the Berwick Police Department? The answer must come from the source records and a substantive response, rather than an assumption about anyone’s motives. themainemirror.com

Watch and listen: Deep Dive Episode 0022

The Maine Mirror’s Deep Dive Episode 0022 walks through this chronology and the questions it leaves open. At the end of the episode, the recordings play so viewers can hear the comparison for themselves.

Listen for the dialogue on either side of the disputed interval, then consider what the native file and production records could clarify.

Disclosure: I am both the person who brought the complaint and requested the recording, and the Editor-in-Chief of The Maine Mirror reporting this story.