BROOKLINE — A court ruling denying the extension of a protective order marks the latest defeat for Nicole Goyette Shank to make her allegations stick against her former boyfriend, Jonathan Quigley, his father and Brookline Police Chief William Quigley and the town.

Shank and Jonathan Quigley were involved in a domestic dispute in 2011 at their shared home in Brookline. The dispute was never reported to the police, but a month after it occurred, Shank sought a restraining order against Quigley at the Milford District Court. During a hearing before Judge Martha Crocker, Shank said that Jonathan Quigley had called his father during the argument and had told the chief that if Shank called in a domestic violence report that she should be the one arrested. Both Jonathan and Chief Quigley denied that such a call ever happened, but Crocker issued a one-year restraining order against Jonathan Quigley based in part based on a Facebook message he reportedly sent to Shank apologizing for “laying hands on a woman.”

Since then, Shank has leveled numerous accusations against Chief Quigley including that he perjured himself during the hearing by saying he never spoke with his son during the domestic dispute. That accusation was raised to the Brookline Board of Selectmen who in turn asked the Attorney General's Office to investigate, which ruled was that no perjury had occurred.

Another complaint filed by Shank and investigated through the Merrimack County Attorney's Office, looked into whether Quigley should have been brought up on simple assault charges stemming from the domestic violence incident. Investigators determined that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Jonathan Quigley.

And recently, the Attorney General's Office concluded another investigation into allegations Shank made that the Brookline Police Department didn't follow proper protocol in handling the original domestic dispute between Shank and Quigley. However, the Attorney General's Office found that because Shank never reported the incident to local police or any other agency, there was no protocol to follow.

Last month, Shank was back before the court requesting an extension of the order, which had expired. According to her testimony, she is still in fear for her life from Quigley because she said his family holds a prominent position in the community, Quigley has strong ties to law enforcement and allowing the order would give him access to fire arms.

Shank said that because of her fear of Quigley, she installed security cameras around her property and said her home is “well-armed.” She also said that Quigley “flipped her off” on three different occasions during the course of the last year, but did not report those alleged obscene gestures to the police.

“I felt it would be my word against his,” she said.

Quigley's attorney, Robert Parodi, asked if Jonathan Quigley, who has since married and is expecting his first child, ever contacted her or if she ever had reported him to law enforcement for any reason since the order was issued. Shank said that she hadn't. Quigley denied ever making any gestures at Shank.

“I have not seen her since the last time we were in court,” Quigley said.

Judge Crocker, who issued the initial order last year, has ruled that Shank “failed to convince the court that there exists good cause to extend the existing protective orders,” wrote Crocker in her ruling.
nfoster@newstote.com