The police file is full of reports of interviews with literally dozens of individuals whose names came up in one context or another with possible connections, no matter how vague, to the case. A number of people who were known, or even rumored, to own a gun or to have sold one — and the latter number was fairly extensive — were contacted and interviewed; the gun, if still available, was turned over for testing. Numerous individuals known to the police for having past records, or suspected of unrelated ongoing criminal activity, were contacted: “Where were you over the New Year’s holiday? Who else was there?” Some were willing to cooperate; others, not so much, but the end result was not helpful in terms of information.

Some of the information directed authorities to several individuals serving in the military at Pease. Over a period of time, there had been arrests for drug sales, passing bad checks, physical threats, and several assaults within the Portsmouth community. A number of people had been reported AWOL by military police, several of whom were sought for possible criminal activity. One person whose name came up in several interviews was the aforementioned Andrew Arthur. State police investigators followed up, but again it was time-consuming with little or no gain: information that a possible suspect was being held at the stockade at Pease. Upon inquiry, they were advised that the individual was now in the custody of the Portsmouth PD. Going there, they learned he was now serving a sentence at the County Jail in Brentwood. Finally, with a visit and personal interview at that facility, the officers confirmed there was no possible connection. (You may recall the mention earlier of the Berwick bank robbery on Jan. 19. As noted, a number of the state police investigators on the Dodge case were shifted to working on that incident. This proved to be beneficial because several of the people involved in the bank heist had been under consideration as possible suspects in our case. Someone put that background information to good use, leading to a relatively quick arrest of those involved.)

An interview on Feb. 3 with one of the Kidder Press employees who had known Dodge pretty much summed up the status of the investigation at the time: “…at the moment there are many rumors.”

On or about Feb. 8, another “confidential informer” came forward. The story this time was that one Paul Bickford was thought to be the killer, with allegations that he had also been involved in breaking into cash boxes at local laundromats. Word was that this person had been trying to purchase a gun some time prior to the incident at Kidder Press, and what followed is another excellent example of how frustrating one of these investigations could be. The story provided to investigators was that the gun in question had been owned at one time by A, who had sold it to B, who later sold it to C, then purchased by D, who sold it to E, who lived in Portsmouth. It was then either stolen from E or perhaps sold to F, who was associated with the Hells Angels, and then either sold or traded to G in exchange for drugs. There were names attached to all of these individuals, and to the extent possible, the stories had to be checked out, assuming the person in question was still in the area.

The latest version of this informant’s tale was that the now-suspect Bickford had stolen the gun from “G,” who was identified as Jack Moreau, a Portsmouth resident, and someone involved in the sale of a variety of drugs. This led to an application for a warrant from the Portsmouth District Court, and a subsequent search of Moreau’s apartment, which turned up a quantity of illegal substances and also a stolen TV, which had been previously identified by the informant as coming from Bickford and one other. So up to this point, his story had been accurate. But had Bickford stolen a gun from Moreau? The latter denied ever having a gun in his possession because, as he told the arresting officers, he was a convicted felon and would not run the risk of being found with a weapon. (It was also noted in the police file that, at the time of this initial interrogation, Moreau appeared to be very much under the influence of drugs.)

Bickford was arrested and charged with the theft of the TV. He initially denied any involvement and agreed to submit to a polygraph. After having been shown a statement from his companion, however, he changed his story and signed a written confession. He denied any and all contact with the Dodge murder but claimed he could not account for his whereabouts over the New Year’s weekend. So, several people ended up in custody and charged with crimes as a result of this last informant’s story: Bickford for theft, Moreau for the sale of drugs, but no closer to who was responsible for Dodge’s death.

(to be continued)