advertisement

Burton explains Columbia Police Department spokewoman's reassignment

Thursday, December 16, 2010 | 5:19 p.m. CST; updated 10:39 a.m. CST, Friday, December 17, 2010

*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified John Warner and his job title.

COLUMBIA — The Columbia Police Department is staying mum on the specifics of spokeswoman Jessie Haden's reassignment.

Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton said in a phone interview Thursday that the move was "indirectly" related to the resignation of Deputy Chief Tom Dresner, whose 26-year career with the Columbia Police Department ended last week after it was revealed that Dresner had an affair with an unidentified female subordinate.

When asked if Haden was the subordinate, Burton took a long pause.

"I'm not going to talk about it," Burton then said. "That's a personal matter. You can draw your own conclusions."

Haden's reassignment to the Patrol Division was announced in a terse 27-word e-mail sent to media Wednesday afternoon by the department's other spokeswoman, Officer Jill Wieneke. There was no reason given for Haden's "lateral" move, and reporters were instructed to direct further media inquiries to Wieneke.

Burton said he had lost confidence in Haden as spokeswoman, but he said she was not being punished or demoted and that the decision to reassign officers in the department was his prerogative.

"The PIO (public information officer) is a very high-profile position with the public, some might say even higher-profile than mine," Burton said, adding that the move was in the department's best interest.

Burton confirmed there was no internal investigation into the affair or into whether the unidentified subordinate received inappropriate benefits or pay.

"There's no evidence that any of that occurred," he said.

As for Haden, Burton said she did not receive any increase or decrease in pay for taking or leaving the spokesperson job.

Haden was selected in April 2009 after Dresner convened a three-member panel consisting of City of Columbia Communications Director Toni Messina, Columbia Fire Department Battalion Chief Steven Sapp and Missourian City Editor Scott Swafford. The three questioned the candidates for the public information officer position, which included Officer Scott Sergent, now retired Detective Jeff Westbrook, Officer John Warner* and Haden.

Both Sapp and Swafford recalled in interviews this week that they recommended Sergent or Westbrook for the job. Swafford said Haden did not appear to be the first choice of any panel member. Westbrook was a backup spokesperson for the department before his recent retirement.

On Thursday, Burton said he didn't remember everything about the selection process that was used when Haden became a public information officer, but he said that "there were a variety of factors" leading to Haden's selection, which he made based on "the totality of the circumstances." He said he sought the opinions of others but that the final decision was his own.

Burton said the search for a new spokesperson would also be conducted internally, likely after the first of the year.

There are currently no department rules regarding fraternization other than a department policy forbidding spouses to work for each other, Burton said. He said dating within the department is tough to forbid with more than 200 employees, but changes might be coming.

"We probably need something that might require the people involved to tell the chain of command before (a relationship) gets started," he said.

Patrick Sweet contributed to this report.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Yves Montclear December 16, 2010 | 7:30 p.m.

It isn't the first time something like this has happened in the workplace, and it won't be the last time.

Now what would be interesting, is if Jessie Haden, private citizen, came on here and commented about the situation.

(Report Comment)
Walter Lane December 16, 2010 | 10:47 p.m.

Wow. I have friends that work in retail stores and hooking up w/co-workers is highly frowned upon and there are even rules about it. You mean to tell me that CPD had no rules in place? SMH And once again this is why people don't like/trust CPD. Stop hemming and hawing and just be honest for once. Jeez, with all the other stuff going on CPD just continues to keep inserting foot into mouth. Just tell the truth. It would go a long way regarding community relations.

(Report Comment)
Melissa Tiffany December 17, 2010 | 9:25 a.m.

Ok, it is so obvious that Haden was the "other woman". What I don't understand is why she get's to keep her job? Why is it ok to force him into early retirement, but let the willing participant stay? And if this "romp" wasn't kept a big secret, then why are they just now being punished? The CPD drama is never ending. The never endeing stories are starting to remind me of a cheap Jerry Springer episode.

(Report Comment)
Mark Flakne December 17, 2010 | 9:47 a.m.

This story does raise some questions...

Kudos to the Missourian for pushing the issue.

http://www.keepcolumbiafree.com/blog/unh...

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 5:52 p.m.

I "predicted" in a post in the Missourian when this first came out that Jessica Haden was the female subordinate Officer that Mr. Dresner was having the affair with. I never mentioned any names, but I did indicate in a scenario that the female subordinate Officer that Mr. Dresner was having the affair with was married to or at least cohabitating with another Officer that was a Detective with Major Crimes at the CPD.

In the last paragraph of the post that I am referring to in the Missourian, I asked “has anyone noticed that Jessie Haden has not put out any press releases lately”?

MYSTERIOUSLY, that post stayed up for about 2 days, and was then deleted.. I wonder why someone at the Missourian deleted it after it being up for two days? Perhaps they may have thought that I had no “hard proof”? But the fact is, I have known about this little “tryst” and a few others at the CPD, long before it ever became public…. Still; someone should ask Scott Swafford why my post was deleted after it stayed up for two days…? Did someone at the Missourian get a call from someone at the CPD?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Scott Swafford December 17, 2010 | 6:31 p.m.

Mr. Gurley, your earlier post was deleted because at the time we had no evidence that your assertion was true. And, no, we received no call from the Police Department about it.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 6:53 p.m.

Well Mr. Swafford, I KNEW (understand that I wrote "KNEW", not "suspected")! And as time bore out; it turned out that I REALLY DID KNOW......

It would make a certain amount of sense that in my line of work I might actually know such things....

The interesting thing was, in the part of the post where I laid out my "assetion"; I never mentioned any names whatsoever....

In the last paragraph of my post I DID mention Jessie Haden's name; but not in a way that it could be related or connected to the scenario that I gave...

What is even more interesting is that you could have proved a large majority of my post just by researching public sites that anyone can search right on the Internet.....

And what is "suspicious" is that the post lasted two days, usually your people are right on top of any posts that might be considered "inappropriate". Which begs the question of whether you got a call or had some "outside influence" which led to the post being deleted. Or were you guys simply not watching the boards for two days?

Rick Gurley

(Report Comment)
Scott Swafford December 17, 2010 | 7:04 p.m.

I'll say again: There was no outside influence here. And, yeah, I'm guilty of not watching the comments closely enough at times.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 7:13 p.m.

Rick, you may have overestimated our collective gut response to your "prediction" and the manner in which it was presented.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 7:18 p.m.

Ya know Mr. Swafford, we have a saying in my line of work. "Sometimes it is just a duck", which basically means that some things are just obvious... You can say what you want, but the way this post was deleted (the timing of it) is suspicious to more than just myself; and I take a certain amount of comfort in that.

But I think that you are not addressing the larger point or issue here.. What was inappropriate about the post? No names were mentioned. Nothing specific was written. Why don't you let Tom Warhover look at the post and see if he believes it to be inappropriate?I retained a copy of the post, I think I have Tom's email address around here somewhere; you don't mind if I send him a copy of the post and ask if it was inappropriate, do you?

Just because you have no evidence that something did or did not happen, does not mean that nobody else has any evidence that it did or did not happen. You are not "The Evidence Warehouse" where evidence begins and ends, you know?

Rick Gurley

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 7:20 p.m.

Please explan Mike; I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to communicate here?

Thank you in advance.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Scott Swafford December 17, 2010 | 7:28 p.m.

Tom Warhover did review your earlier post, and he and I agreed to take it down. And we certainly strive to be the "evidence warehouse" when it comes to information appearing under the Missourian banner.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 7:40 p.m.

But you are not "The Evidence Warehouse", and you fell short on your stride in this case. Please, before you take offense, let me explain why...

You see, it occurs to me that if I was a reporter, and I saw a post like that, before I judged it as "baseless", I would want to know if it were actually baseless, or if it could be a potential lead. I mean, while the post seemed a bit "strong", that may also be an indication that there was more to it than just a "baseless allegation". Which would make me consider that the post might be worth a phone call or an email? Even if it turned out just to be a "baseless allegation", a phone call or an email would take a minimal amount of time to make that determination. But, if it would have yielded, let’s just say perhaps pictures, or video, or audio recordings that proved up the post, well that may have just been "golden"...

So, if you are striving to be "The Evidence Warehouse", you fell short here and missed a good opportunity to be just that.... And I might add; an opportunity that you don't get a second shot at, Mr. Swafford.....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 7:44 p.m.

Rick, with respect, your original missive on this topic came across as a self-serving, tabloid-like, journalistic "gotcha!" of the worst sort. I'm sorry, but that's what I interpreted.

Your statement above, "...but not in a way that it could be related or connected to the scenario that I gave." is simply not credible. The innuendo and link was obvious to all.

Finally, your first posting on this article (which you've posted elsewhere, I think) outlining your "expose'" of the situation doesn't help, either. It reads, "I was first, and I'm crowing about it."

Sorry, dude....but I don't think you got the hoped-for reaction, and that's what I meant by "overestimated".

My opinion only.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 7:51 p.m.

Ohh, I understand Mike.. You are giving your opinion on how you felt. I understand..

But... You really can't speak for anyone else about how they felt about the post other than yourself, right?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 7:54 p.m.

Rick, again with respect, if you had juicy info like that, you could also have made the phone call to the Missourian. Posting damaging information like that on a public forum was....I'm sorry....crass, unsympathetic, and unfeeling.

Especially the innuendo part, and even if it was true.

I think you made a mistake that hurt you more than the parties upon whom you "reported".

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 7:55 p.m.

Rick: You really can't speak for anyone else about how they felt about the post other than yourself, right?
_____________________

Exactly right. That's why I posted, "My opinion only".

Others will have to speak for themselves if they so choose.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 8:01 p.m.

Well Mike, you are certainly entitled to express YOUR opinion.. There is no doubt about that.....

But, with regard to me picking up the phone and calling the Missourian... If we had to put this in terms of "obligations".. It would be more of the "obligation" of the reporter to pursue the story, than it would be of the lead to "tip off" the reporter.........

Merry Xmas, Mike.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 8:06 p.m.

Rick: IMO, I think the problem is the "way" in which you chose to tip off the reporter.

You chose to do so in a manner that benefited you, too. Publicly...in a way that hurt and smacked of a "get even".

My guess is most folks react viscerally to that...in a negative way. Again, that's my opinion...for which I'm soooo glad I can express in the good ol' USA.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, also.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 8:35 p.m.

Mike, my post had no "benefit" to me whatsoever. Did not make me a dime. Did not mention any names. Did not get me any recognition that I am aware of. No really, it gained me no recognition at all. I think that you will have a hard time proving that my post could even me misconstrued as "self-serving".. No matter how many posts you make.

There was no "get even" to it. The fact of the matter is I was and still am saddened and hurt by this whole ordeal. I had a tremendous amount of respect for Tom Dresner. I believed he was absolutely beyond reproach. I ALWAYS addressed him as Chief when he was Interim Chief and as Officer Dresner after Ken Burton came in out of pure respect. I still believe him to be a good man. He always strived to communicate with the public and tried to let us see the CPD's side of things whenever there was an issue that the public was concerned about. I had no "truck" whatsoever with Tom Dresner and still really don't. I used to think of him as the epitome of a "Good Police Officer". I will say that I personally felt and still do feel "let down" by Tom Dresner's poor judgment in this whole ordeal. His conduct as well as Jessica Haden's was completely unprofessional, and it heaped on more bad publicity onto a Police Department that was already wrought with bad publicity. Not to mentioned the people that were hurt by their behavior and the people whose lives are now negatively impacted by it.

But I did not want to "get even". Tom Dresner has done a lot of good in his carrer. That should not be undone by this situation. But the situation must be called what it is. Now, I know that you would excuse every Police Officer for any and all wrongdoing that they have ever done, as long as they will immediately show up at you or your family's house and shoot and kill any would be intruders that might be lurking. But that is just not me. I hold my public servants accountable for bad actions. We all should, after all they are our servants and we pay them to take on that role. I don't excuse bad behavior from them, and I do acknowledge good behavior from them. Some of them are my friends, and I would be just as tough on them if they behaved inappropriately as I would the ones I don't personally know at all. I don't really care if they or you like it, I feel no fear or intimidation in speaking out and speaking my mind.

I think that most folks usually want to know more when a post like that is displayed. After all, it is a part of the news service, that is why this forum is attached to each article.

All and all, I hope you continue to feel and believe as you do now. I hope that you NEVER have an incident with the Police that might make you feel any differently. That is me saying that I wish you a pleasant, stress-free, life in which the Police will continue to be your heroes. As for me, I am just an average guy calling them as I see them.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 8:55 p.m.

My only purpose in raising this topic with you was to let you know how at least one reader interpreted it. My guess is I'm not alone.

And, if my guess is correct, I suspect that's something you need to know. Appearances count, and so do interpretations.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 9:00 p.m.

Rick:

By the way, regarding your comment: "Now, I know that you would excuse every Police Officer for any and all wrongdoing that they have ever done, as long as they will immediately show up at you or your family's house and shoot and kill any would be intruders that might be lurking."

That was completely uncalled for, and only lends support to the "intent" and "motives" attributed to you in my original post on this topic. You didn't help matters one darned bit.

Let's just play "Never mind" and go on.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 9:14 p.m.

You are probably right about not being alone in your view on my post, Mike. But then again, Richard Ramirez had a "groupie" that fell in love with him because he was a serial killer, turned out that she was not alone either.....

I do appreicate your viewpoint. Feedback is important. But one person's opinion should not be completely taken to heart; and that is what I am trying to say here.

I will tell you and Mr. Swafford this... Just a little "teaser", if you will allow me to get away with that term, Mike?

Approximately 4 to 5 months ago Mr. Dresner was under surveillance by someone in the private sector. At one point that person was in a store with Mr. Dresner who appeared to be by himself at the time and that person was watching him. That person became aware of the fact that Mr. Dresner may have spotted them, so they did the smart thing and walked up to Mr. Drenser and said hello and talked to him for a minute and told him a joke. That person carefully watched Mr. Dresner as they interacted with him, and noted that Mr. Dresner appeared to be somewhat "uncomfortable". Then that person exited the store and picked their surveillance back up later on.

If Mr. Dresner is reading this, he may remember it. The interesting thing is that the surveillance I am mentioning had been in place for a long time prior to this incident and was terminated approximately a month after the incident. The only time that Mr. Dresner may have felt something "odd" was that one time.

And that is all I will say on that particular subject, except that Mr. Swafford had an opportunity to find out some specific details concerning that....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle December 17, 2010 | 9:15 p.m.

I knew at once Rick was outing Haden as Dresner's mistress when I read his now-deleted post. Context and history make that conclusion blindingly obvious. I'm not at all surprised that Tom and Scott decided to take down that juicy tidbit of gossip. They have their reasons, however cheesy they may seem from the outside.

Despite significant misgivings about the fact that it was Dresner who built and ran the SWAT team that went on to do the Whitworth raid after his departure from the team, it seemed like he was reaching out to me. I had personally developed a great deal of respect for him. Finding out about the affair was certainly disappointing.

Statistically, sexual misconduct is twice as prevalent among police officers as the general population (although this incident does not qualify as official misconduct). This does not surprise me. If you like shooting guns... But love is really a crapshoot. I can't think of anything more irrational than who you find attractive. I just hope nobody ends up getting hurt in this mess. All these people have guns and emotions.

Burton is sure keeping his cards close to his chest. Understandable, but in the end, ineffective.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 9:18 p.m.

Geez, Rick. What the hell are you doing????????

Never mind. I already learned too much.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 9:28 p.m.

I am not sure that it was uncalled for, Mike. I do remember reading on a forum somewhere, that you expressed much dismay at an incident that occurred that was similar to this. I know my statement was "strong", but it was not really meant to offend. If I rightly recall from reading the post I am referring to, you expressed a great deal of dismay at this incident, and you rightly should have as it was a family member that was in danger.

My thought process is (and I don't mean this offensively, I mean it honestly), are you afraid to speak out about these wrongdoings by the Police because doing so may have an effect on the quality of service by the Police to you and/or your family? I do notice that you are probably as opinionated as I am (well that may be an over-exaggeration); but not so much when it comes to Police matters.

I tend to analyze things real carefully. I try to extrapolate as much information as I can from what people say, open source information, patterns and timelines, and such. Perhaps I "over-analyze" things? But this is where my questions and lines of thought come from.

Well, the more I look at that comment, the more I am displeased with it. I apologize if I offended you, perhaps I could have worded that a little better? I consider you an acquaintance, Mike. Someone that I would treat with respect. Although, I am a blunt and often abrasive person; it is just my nature. You and I have talked face to face many times. I would have said the same thing face to face, but you might have excused it had you heard the tone and not just seen it in writing. My intent was really not to antagonize.

Again, I apologize for the abrasiveness of that comment, it does look "mean"; but that is not really how I meant it. I meant it more as a questioning comment with "injected humor". Sorry about that, Mike.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 9:32 p.m.

Hey Mike! I never said that it was me. Don't jump to conclusions... Don't make assumptions... Just because I know something does not mean that I had anything to do with it....

Sometimes I am a part of things.. Sometimes I just find out things by having access to information and people.. That's all..

Don't put the "bad mouth" on me yet....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 9:40 p.m.

Rick asks, "...are you afraid to speak out about these wrongdoings by the Police because doing so may have an effect on the quality of service by the Police to you and/or your family?"
________________________

No, and you should know better than that.

Part of my response to this issue is that I was a reserve officer a long time ago, and I know what cops go through. Another part is that I have a highway patrolman in the family, and I know what he goes through. And third, virtually every person who speaks about police activities on this or any other forum is theoretically talking through their biased, collective rear-ends because THEY WEREN'T THERE!

And for you to say or even think such a thing shows where your mind is, even towards your "acquaintances".

You just skrooed the proverbial pooch, guy.

You still owe me 200 garlic bucks, but keep it. I'm done.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 9:52 p.m.

Mike, nobody has to be a Police Officer to know right from wrong... If that si what you are trying to say?

Nobody has to have been a member of the Police Department to know that having an affair with a married subordinate Officer while you are married, is not just unprofessional and unethical, but also just plain wrong (not to mention in some places even illegal). You can not defend Tom Dresner's or Jessica Haden's actions. Tom won't even defend his actions. You should not even try.

I have never once seen you speak out against any of the obvisou Police misconduct that has been reported. Not once. But I have seen you try to defend it. And I have seen you become very dismayed over the incident that you publicly spoke of with a family member. This is where my line of questioning comes from. It seems to be a logical line of questioning when one considers that you do have strong opinions and don't mind expressing them in almost all other areas than Police misconduct issues.

Now, I apologized for the wording of the comment. It could have been better worded, and far more diplomatic. But I do not apologize for verbalizing a line of thought and asking an honest question of you. And rather than be offended by an honest question, why not either just answer the question and I can take your word for it, or just simply tell me that it is none of my business? I am fine with either answer. But nobody has an absolute right not to be asked a simple and honest question....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 17, 2010 | 10:16 p.m.

Rick:

Your memory is faulty.

First, I have not mentioned Tom Dressner in this thread. Not once. I haven't defended or not defended him...not one time here or elsewhere. So, just where does your comment "You shouldn't even try" come from? Please show me via a time stamp where I did that.

Second, I did answer the question. I said, "No". But I have the right to be P.O.'ed by a question from a guy who should know better.

Third, I was not mad at the policeman who failed to drill the men threatening my daughter. I WAS mad at a legal system that kept the officer from making a dead body of the criminal SOB trying to bust into my daughter's house.

And finally, the topic is you and your actions in "reporting" this matter. I think you acted very unwisely, and then you turned around and did it again. I'm amazed at this. I cannot fathom what happens in the mind of an individual who would do such a thing in this way. Twice. You are a businessman in the investigative business; doing such a public thing with "information" simply describes a "loose cannon" in my book. I would think an investigator would be obligated to keep his/her mouth shut except to the hiring party.

Even worse, you just tried (again) to shop such information to the Missourian...to your own benefit! Such loose-lipped behavior just can't be good for business.

Time for me to call it quits. I've said my piece, I've communicated to you what I wanted to communicate, and you heard (read) what I said. The topic is drifting into you defending what I consider the indefensible...by changing the subject.

Gone.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 17, 2010 | 11:37 p.m.

Mike,

Again, I am not trying to "shop" anything.. As a matter of fact, if you read carefully you'd see that I have communicated that I would not give Mr. Swafford anything that I know about this situation a now.

Now Mike, here you go again. You are begging me to ask a question, by which you are going to get "upset" over. At the risk of "upsetting" you, I am going to ask the question because it is a glaringly obvious question.

You say:

"You are a businessman in the investigative business; doing such a public thing with "information" simply describes a "loose cannon" in my book. I would think an investigator would be obligated to keep his/her mouth shut except to the hiring party."

and...

"Even worse, you just tried (again) to shop such information to the Missourian...to your own benefit! Such loose-lipped behavior just can't be good for business."

And I just have to ask; why would you try to encourage anyone to "cover up" the unprofessional and unethical conduct of the members of our Police Department? Why would you try to intimidate anyone by trying to make them look like a "bad businessman", for showing unethical and unprofessional conduct of the members of our local Law Enforcement Community? I can't fathom why anyone would try to discourage another citizen from telling what they know about such conduct; when it calls into question the conduct of our public servants. It's almost like an intimidation tactic that I would expect from a Law Enforcement Agency instead of a private citizen? I NEVER stated that I worked an investigation concerning Mr. Dresner, as a matter of fact I even cautioned you not to jump to such conclusions, and apparently despite my cautioning you DID jump to such conclusions. And so you are making yourself look "reactive" and "kneejerk" instead of thoughtful by doing this.

You know, there is one thing that I CAN say that the CPD should be respected for. They have taken a lot of "flack" They have seen some terrible things printed about them. And not once have I ever heard of them trying to retaliate against a citizen for speaking his or her opinion. They have to be given credit for that.

But... You are the one baring the cross on this board.... Your comments are telling some of us (or at least me) where you are at on this issue..... I mean; I'd think as a citizen you would WANT to know how your tax dollars are being spent at the CPD? I'd think you'd want to know when the people that are charged with protecting and serving you are conducting their selves in an unethical and unprofessional manner? Instead it appears that you'd just rather not know at all..

Again though Mike, you are certainly entitled to YOUR views and opinions......

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 18, 2010 | 11:46 a.m.

Rick:

This isn't about me or my beliefs and hopes and aspirations for a great, viable, and properly-behaving CPD. Your interpretations about my views presented in your last post are highly inaccurate and an unwarranted defensive deflection of the real issue, which is:

This argument is about a man's honour and the way in which he conducts himself as a citizen.

Yours.

It is an honorable thing for a man (woman) to be a good citizen and participate in critiques of the actions and policies of his/her police department. It is the right thing to do, and there is a right way to do it.

It is my belief that your way dishonors you and your honorable goals.

It is my hope and desire that you put "honor" back into your strategies.

And THAT is, and was, my ONLY point. It's the ONLY reason I commented in the first place.

(PS: If you will re-read the thread, you will discover that I neither said nor insinuated that you worked an investigation of Mr. Dressner. All I said was, "Geez, Rick. What the hell are you doing?" in response to you publishing another snippet of titillating information that you subsequently admitted was 2nd hand information (INO, gossip). It was ONLY when you next posted, "Hey Mike! I never said that it was me" that I said to myself, "Who said it was?"

What am I to make of a denial when there has been no accusation?)

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 18, 2010 | 12:28 p.m.

Well Mike, you implied that I was investigating Mr. Dresner, or at least that is how I took it...

"I would think an investigator would be obligated to keep his/her mouth shut except to the hiring party."

Why even make that statement to me? I mean, unless you believed that I was hired by a client to investigate Mr. Dresner, what is the reason for making that statement?

Now, if you believe that I was not hired to investigate Mr. Dresner, then you'd also know that I have no contract with anyone, and because of that I am not contractually obligated to keep anything I hear confidential. Furthermore, if this is the actions of a public official, there is no ethical breach in complaining about, giving information about, and/or passing along whatever I have heard, as public officials don't have the same expectation of privacy as private citizens do, as ruled on many times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, gossip sounds like a strong word with what little bit I have allowed you to know about what I know, Mike.. I mean, you could say your bother told you this and that too, and I could call that "gossip", but you on the other hand may know what he says to be absolutely reliable based on past history with him. So, the word "gossip" is a little strong based on what little bit you have seen posted here. You have no intricate details whatsoever about what I know... If you are simply going to call what everyone hears "gossip", then you have to also call what the CPD based their search warrant on in the Whitworth raid (the two informants); GOSSIP! But now you have to "back peddle", right? You have to now come back and say that if they verified their informant's reliability, and the informant had a good history of being accurate with information then it was not gossip, right? And then you have to apply that same standard to how I gather, disseminate, and act on information, right? Or will you apply a more stringent standard to the citizenry than the Police?

I don't think you have enough relevant information to form any opinion whatsoever about what I do and do not know. I don't think that I have allowed you to have enough relevant information to form an opinion either way.

Can you even see the paradox you create with your own arguments, Mike?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 18, 2010 | 4:41 p.m.

This conversation reminds of one that happened about this time last year. Michael Williams should check it out:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

In light of that conversation, and the revelations therein, I'm surprised the Missourian has let this one carry on this long.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 18, 2010 | 4:56 p.m.

I'm not. Nobody here was falsely accusing anyone else of murder; for the purposes of grandstanding......

Perhaps Mark Froecking, Angie Sloop, Maria Orropolla, Vanessa Hall, and John Schultz should chime in here about "Detective Martin"? LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 18, 2010 | 5:18 p.m.

Let me fetch some popcorn, this could get good...

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 18, 2010 | 5:29 p.m.

Again, I would encourage Mr. Williams to read the conversation to which I previously linked. It does throw some serious doubt, both credibility-related and otherwise, on several assertions made in this thread.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 18, 2010 | 5:35 p.m.

I kinda doubt it, John...

Mike Martin is a kind of "hit and run kinda guy".. He really is not "equipped" to participate in these kinds of discussions. He knows that he is better off back over there with the "mudslinging blogs" where he can speculate without having to prove anything, and make accusations without having to back them up.. Mike Martin is really out of his depth in the big boy arena of actual investigative work, and he knows it.

But with Mike Williams, who I actually happen to like as a person and have met several times; at least he has the moxy and decency to stand behind what he says. Mike Williams and I may not see eye to eye on some things; but that does not mean that I don't respect him and like him as a person. Mike Williams has actually taught me a few things when I used to visit with him when my office was in the same building as his. Perhaps our conversations get terse, but I have no malice or ill will at all towards Mike Williams. He is a great guy, highly intelligent, a straight shooter, and a decent person. And I don't expect that he has any ill will or malice towards me either.

Mike Martin on the other hand.. Well, "Sometimes it is just a duck"..... LOL.

RIck Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Eapen Thampy December 18, 2010 | 6:36 p.m.

When will the AG or the feds start investigating CPD? We need a special prosecutor to go through CPD with a fine-toothed comb.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 18, 2010 | 6:48 p.m.

Eapen, you should consider giving a course on financial investigations, gathering evidence, and report writing. I know someone here that could benefit from your knowledge in these areas.. He'd do well to pay you to teach him how to conduct a REAL investigation.

You do GREAT work, Eapen. Keep it up.

Rick Gurley.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements