Sittin’ In a Tree

Geez.

When journalist Jessica McBride penned a glowing, 5,400-word profile of Police Chief Edward A. Flynn for Milwaukee Magazine earlier this year, many in the Milwaukee Police Department jokingly dismissed it as a love letter to the chief.

Little did they know.

Sometime earlier this year, Flynn and McBride struck up a romantic relationship.

Asked about the affair, the 61-year-old chief issued a statement Thursday acknowledging his indiscretion - without mentioning McBride, 39, by name.

“I have done my wife and family a great wrong, and I profoundly regret the hurt I have inflicted on them and others affected by my conduct,” Flynn wrote. “I accept the personal and public consequences of my private behavior. I have damaged my public reputation and violated the trust and love of my family.”

McBride - a journalism lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a former Journal Sentinel reporter - has refused to respond to numerous messages about the liaison. McBride has been a prominent figure in the community, serving as a talk-show host and political blogger.

1. Maybe she likes the “law & order” types - wouldn’t this be after Bucher left his job as a DA prosecutor to go into private practice as a defense lawyer?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0659 hrs




2. Guess you just can’t beat a man in uniform…

   Watch out David Clark.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0719 hrs




3. Guess you just can’t beat a man in uniform…

   Uhm… apparently she did.
   Sorry. Had to.

   Posted by Fuzz on June 19, 2009 at 0733 hrs




4. See?  This is why you can’t trust those Liberal reporters.  They’ll go out of their way to write stories favorable to their…

   What?  Oh.  Never mind then.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0758 hrs




5. This entire story is sad from every aspect.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0854 hrs




6. I feel bad for Paul, I was never a fan, but no one wishes this on anyone.  It also has a big ewwww factor.  Jessica is very pretty, so now I have to lump her in with Clinton, Hugh Grant, etc…, that not only step out, but do it with someone where you just do a WTF double take…she stepped out with that?  ewwwwwww Maybe you could understand once drunk, but waking up with someone twice your age and 1/1000 of your attractiveness is what makes people swear off drinking, not pen 4,390,392 word (I may be off a couple) articles about them (unless the article is about swearing off drinking).

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0926 hrs




7. I guess Ed Flynn should have worried a little more about where his “weapon” is pointed and a little less about mine.

   “Negligent Discharge” Chief Flynn??????

   At least I keep my gun in its holster.

   Maybe he’s just been totally misunderstood. You know… I was just thinking… Maybe we’ve had Chief Flynn’s previous comments out of context all this time. When he said he was going to “put law-abiding citizens on the ground for walking around with a gun and then decide what rights they had”... Maybe thats just sweet talk! Substitute furry cuffs for the cold metal ones and it could be a first date for Chief Flynn!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0954 hrs




8. I wasn’t going to comment on the story out of respect for the pain the family members are going through now.  But….

   Jessie sent an email to Sykes this morning that he read on the air.  The email said nothing of an apology, causing pain to my husband, child, etc.  Instead she starts screeching about how her romance with Flynn started after she wrote the story, thus implying that somehow her journalistic ethics were not compromised.  Unfortunately that tells you all you need to know about McBride.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1010 hrs




9. Umnnnh.

   Posted by dad29 on June 19, 2009 at 1018 hrs




10. Jessie sent an email to Sykes this morning that he read on the air.  The email said nothing of an apology, causing pain to my husband, child, etc.  Instead she starts screeching about how her romance with Flynn started after she wrote the story, thus implying that somehow her journalistic ethics were not compromised.

    methinks the lady doth protest too much

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1030 hrs




11. said nothing of an apology, causing pain to my husband, child, etc

    Must be the way she rolls.

    Going back to their lawsuit against the Clairmont Inn in West Bend (torn down to make way for new Pick & Save, which was the topic of a different post the other day):

    The suit seeks an unspecified sum of money to compensate the child for her injuries and her parents for their emotional distress.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/34829029.html

    Who gets sued for any emotional distress suffered by the child in this situation?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1035 hrs




12. Do you think more old guys will be hitting on younger women now?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1244 hrs




13. Dunno if I’m the first to open THIS can of worms, but here goes:

    WI Statute 944.16 makes adultery a class I felony.

    1)  the D.A. can’t ignore this; and
    2)  it’s likely that Flynn, if/when convicted, couldn’t keep his job.

    If anybody beats this drum loudly enough, Flynn’s done…

    
    -jjg

    Posted by J. Gravelle on June 19, 2009 at 1408 hrs




14. I suspect that if anyone tried to actually enforce that statute, the legislature would move quickly to overturn it.  A lot of adulterers out there…

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 1410 hrs




15. I’m not sure the legislature would have many leaders left if we started enforcing that adultery statute.  Let’s just say that if there was a club for political leaders who got involved with their staff, John Ensign would have some company.

    For me, the real joy of getting to listen to all those gay marriage lectures from the Republican caucus in the middle part of the decade was knowing how many of those folks were crapping or had crapped all over their own marriage vows.  We can all think what we want about gay marriage, but the sad reality is that adultery has done far more to cheapen the sanctity of heterosexual marriage than anything one’s gay neighbors could ever do.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 19, 2009 at 1428 hrs




16. One of those superfluous felonies, is it?  I’d be interested in seeing the legislature issue a formalized list of the other obsolete laws that our Police Chiefs are allowed to break or obey at their (in-)discretion.

    Were the chief directly involved in my arrest, you can rest assured MY defense attorney would raise the issue.

    I’m guessing every criminal defense suit in the state might.

    If he has no political enemies, he’ll be fine.

    But, I mean, who in that position DOESN’T?

    -jjg

    Posted by J. Gravelle on June 19, 2009 at 1434 hrs




17. It would seem to me that a statute sitting on the books a long time is not enforceable and probably not constitutional unless there is some notice or warning that it will be enforced again.

    The adultery statute probably had to do with divorce back then and is no longer needed for that.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1555 hrs




18. So, RS…are you saying that homosexual couples are less likely to stray than heterosexual couples?  I think that’s a reach…around.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1556 hrs




19. If I remember correclty, Jessica was a big fan of this blog. Birds of a Feather…....

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1613 hrs




20. You don’t.  I fact, Jessica and I are not on speaking terms.  Nor am I on speaking terms with her husband. 

    I don’t cheat on my wife and never will.  Take your shit and shove it back where it belongs.

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 1616 hrs




21. Henry, you also appear to be a fan of this blog ... fan enough to read it and comment at least ...using your logic is there something similar the rest of us are should conclude about you, and the colors of your feathers??

    What an asshat you are!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1657 hrs




22. Having had the day to absorb the initial Bice report, and hear additional information related to it addressed, including from the principals involved, I’m left wondering what exactly makes this a news story, and questioning the decision by the paper to run it.

    So Ed Flynn, a police chief, who apparently has not lived with his wife for several years, got involved romantically with someone not his wife.  She wasn’t an employee ... wasn’t under age ... she isn’t pregnant by him, and hasn’t, so far as we know to this point, been accused of harassment or rape.  Furthermore absolutely no evidence has been offered to even remotely suggest that it has impacted his decision making as Milwaukee Police Chief. 

    On what basis then, is this newsworthy?  I certainly don’t condone their behavior, but have no clue as to what it has to do with his ability to run a police department.  And before any of you Clinton apologists want crawl out from under your rock claiming that my argument is no different than those who defended Clinton in the Lewinski affair, let me point out that Clinton was diddling an employee.  Had McBride worked in the Milwaukee Police Department, I would not be so quick to dismiss this story as nothing more than garbage tabloid journalism.

    So that leaves only the angle of journalistic misconduct, or ethical lapse, as the basis for declaring this important enough to the public to print it page 1.  In reading the story this morning, Bice seems to imply that McBride’s profile of Flynn in Milwaukee Magazine was written while the affair was taking place, calling into question weather McBride could have possibly provided an objective report.  Everything I have heard today, since that story was printed, was that a clear paper trail has been produced demonstrating that the first romantic meeting and interlude didn’t occur until months after the story was written.  If that’s the case, then its impossible to conclude that her story was tainted by a relationship that had not even started yet.  The only way you get there is by taking the leap of faith that McBride had some deeply rooted desire for the guy while she was interviewing and writing.  A leap of faith I’m not prepared to make because there is no evidence to suggest it.  I would suggest to anyone who tries to make that case, that we ought to then be free to jump to the same conclusion about the objectivity for every journalist from Chris Matthews to Katie Couric who has ever expressed admiration (or a tingling up their leg) for Barrack Obama.  They just may not have had the opportunity to act on their desires as McBride did.

    So at the end of the day, we have nothing but a tabloid story, printed solely for its titillating subject matter, splashed on the front of the Journal Sentinel much like all the Kate Gosselin stories I see all over over the Enquirer and People while checking out at the grocery store.  Its crap journalism, from an increasingly irrelevant newspaper, who clearly is willing to climb down from the gutter into the sewer in attempt to sell a few more papers.  I like Dan Bice generally and this article ultimately disappointed me, and sullied him as a good investigative reporter in my eyes.  What’s really disturbing, is that this is the BEST possible reason I could see for him choosing to submit it for print.

    Finally, I feel compelled to address the fact that Owen chose to link this story up.  At the risk of crediting Owen with an editorial judgment that may not have anything to do with his decision to offer this up on his blog, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, that he trusted the insinuation in the story that McBride’s reporting may have been ethically compromised by her relationship with Flynn, and therefore made it worth commenting on.  However, I think comments made later related to not being on speaking terms with McBride and Bucher, can lend themselves to someone concluding otherwise ... that Owen could not resist the urge to ‘spread the gossip’ about someone he don’t seem to like much ... meaning his decision to link it up with out offering up any other opinion on the significance of the story, or addressing the editorial decision by the JS to run the story may have been just as tawdry.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1745 hrs




23. ‘See?  This is why you can’t trust those Liberal reporters.  They’ll go out of their way to write stories favorable to their…

    What?  Oh.  Never mind then. ‘

    Or perhaps Grumps ...

    See?  This is why you can’t trust those Liberal reporters.  They’ll go out of their way to write stories like these only when one or more of the involved parties publicly opposes political beliefs they themselves endorse.

    I’m not sayin’ ... I’m just sayin’

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1752 hrs




24. Haha.  I’m not saying either is more likely to cheat.  I think cheating is a human impulse that exists regardless of sexual orientation.  But I do that adultery in opposite marriage does far more to cheapen the institution than legally recognizing non-opposite marriage ever will.

    Thanks again to the ex-Miss California for those sophisticated terms.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 19, 2009 at 1836 hrs




25. Finally, I feel compelled to address the fact that Owen chose to link this story up.

    On the other hand, wouldn’t Owen get ripped a new one, if he didn’t cover this issue involving a Republican’s family?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1902 hrs




26. So, the standard is, any moral indiscretion committed by a member of a Republican family is newsworthy here, simply because Owen is a conservative blogger, without regard to weather or not any actual professional misconduct or breech of ethics has actually occurred?

    Sorry ... I’d like to think the standards for anyone who chooses to publish or link to stories such as this one ought to be higher than that.  I’m not claiming it hasn’t happened, but I am hard pressed to think of a similar type of a story about a family member of a Democratic family that Owen has sensationalized by covering it, when there wasn’t a legitimate concern about some sort of professional misconduct associated with the story.  As I said in my post ... given the facts out there today, I don’t believe any such misconduct is present in this case ... but I also gave Owen the benefit of the doubt that when he linked to it, he may have thought, given the way the story was reported, that a breech of journalistic ethics had occurred in Jessica’s story.  I would hope that would be the basis for Owen’s decision to link it up at the time/

    Now ... and I say this as a daily reader of this blog, and as someone who generally finds himself in agreement with Owen’s political points of view ... I have also noted that the facts which discredit the allegations of professional misconduct have been out there for several hours or more, and Owen has not seen fit to comment on the story ... other than to point out that he and McBride are not on speaking terms.  So I while giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his track record, I’m not crazy about how this particular piece was linked up here.

    The story here, in my opinion, is Bices and the JS’s desicion to run it in the first place.  Why doesn’t anyone (Owen included) want to talk about that?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1920 hrs




27. I can’t speak for Owen, but…

    From my perspective, there’s nothing wrong with covering this story.  At least one of the parties involved was a public figure in a position of trust.  If he has engaged in adultery, that is a negative reflection on his judgment and his integrity, and calls into question his fitness for said position of trust.

    If he doesn’t want to be held to a higher standard than average adulterer, he shouldn’t seek a position in which higher standards are expected.

    Posted by Jed on June 19, 2009 at 1935 hrs




28. So at the end of the day, we have nothing but a tabloid story, printed solely for its titillating subject matter, splashed on the front of the Journal Sentinel

    I agree…  Its tabloid journalism.  So what? 

    A couple of things.  Owen posted the story.  Nothing more nothing less.  He didn’t post it and say “see, Ed Flynn is not qualified to be chief (though I don’t think he is, for reasons other than this)

    He merely repeated it.  The moral equivalent of “wow, look at that”  Is that a high crime?

    I’m of the firm belief that behaviors have consequences.  Ed Flynn doesn’t deserve everyones secrecy because he decided to cheat on his wife.  I think there is an amount of justice in a public expose like this.  Cheat on your wife, deal with the consequences. (whatever those invovled decide that is.)  Would I call for Ed Flynn’s job over this on the surface no. (but I sure would for other reasons)  Then again, Jed raises a good point.  Police NEED to be men of character.  They NEED to be men of principle.  Given some of Ed Flynn’s anti-freedom and civil-rights ignoring comments lately, maybe there is a coorelation here.  The man is selfish.  Thinks about himself first and others later? 

    If you owned a company who would you rather hire to keep your books and handle the money?  A man who cheats on his wife or a man is faithful?

    Finally, last time I checked a blog is a place where people share thoughts ideas and opinions.  Whats wrong with Owen posting the story to hear what people’s opinions and reactiosn are?  Human behavior is a fascinating study and productive endeavor after all.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2000 hrs




29. The specific statute making adultery a felony in Wisconsin has been updated in 1977, 1983,  1987, and 2001.  [Source: ]http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0944.pdf]

    To dismiss this as anachronistic ordinance on par with “Thou shant hitch oxen upwind of the Towne Hall on any Thursday in May” is disingenuous at best.  It’s a friggin’ felony.

    Look, I think the law’s ridiculous too.  Were I allowed to pick and choose which laws I would or would not follow based upon my respect for them, I’d be living a much happier life myself.  But I’d be a piss poor Chief of Police, too.

    Frankly, I also saw little value in the public intoxication laws that Peg Loudnslobberin’ violated, but the fact is, she was the state’s top law enforcer, and back then I argued that she should have been bound by each and every one of the laws on our books.

    It would be hypocritical of me and anybody else who took Lautenschlager to task NOT to demand Flynn be criminally charged.

    If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then neither is the cavalier dismissal of it as quaint and antiquated.

    Either get it off the books, or throw those books at the Chief, who is bound by oath to uphold and enforce (and, ergo, to OBEY) each and every law in the state.

    Even the silly ones…

    
    -jjg

    Posted by J. Gravelle on June 19, 2009 at 2126 hrs




30. TD, I wonder if you’d have the same opinion were a well-known Democratic political figure involved. I’ve always found it amazing how such behavior on the part of the partisan’s side is an “indiscretion” that should be private; yet when a partisan’s enemy is involved, it’s always confirmation of some inherent evil or weakness on their part.

    I think it’s a story worth publishing only because it’s the police chief. That it happens to involve Ms. McBride is concidental. Were Ms. McBride to bang the gardener, I doubt we’d see it in the Journal Sentinel.

    For my part, like the story about Mr. Ensign, I love when such stories point out the inherent hypocrisy of an ideologue who lectures the rest of us on our morals. And I’m with RS, the McBride’s, the Ensigns and the Limbaughs are a far, far, far greater threat to the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage than any gay couple who wants the same benefits my wife and I get.

    That, and these two stories are notable because Republican sexual scandals, it seems, are at least trending towards involving A>two adults of consenting age who are of B>the opposite sex. For a while at least one of those factors was absent an awful lot. Either all the sexual freaks have been weeded out, or the best is still yet to come.

    Oh, and Democrats are just as bad.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2129 hrs




31. From a risk perspective, the Chief is now a blackmail hazard.  People lose their security clearance for doing this sort of thing, and what good is a Police Chief who can’t get into the Homeland Security briefing.  Also, you’d think his contract has a morals clause that his employer can now invoke.

    Posted by joeythelovesponge on June 19, 2009 at 2148 hrs




32. I think this whole story is rather sad, but for those of you questioning why it was run in the paper and posted here, look at how many comments it generated and you have your answer.  I’m betting it is one of the most clicked on stories for the Journal Sentinel too.

    Newspaper stories and postings about more serious matters don’t have this many comments.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0026 hrs




33. Newspaper stories and postings about more serious matters don’t have this many comments.

    Well I’ll debate “more serious matters”.  The reality is that Joe ‘stallis having an affair on his wife doesn’t make news.  Then again joe ‘stallis isn’t in the business of taking away people’s civil rights. 

    When a perosn is in the position of taking away people’s civil rights… they’d better be above reproach. 

    If I was king, would I fire Furher Flynn over this?  No.  But he’s been under the microscope since he ignored the constitution and common decency and declared his “troops” would “put on the ground” law abiding citizens and THEN “decide what rights they had”

    I wrote Ed and Tom a pointed letter last week.  I hope they took it to heart.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0047 hrs




34. the 61-year-old chief issued a statement Thursday acknowledging his indiscretion - without mentioning McBride, 39, by name.

    Daddy issues, anyone? Eww!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0705 hrs




35. Viva Viagra!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0737 hrs




36. On what basis then, is this newsworthy?

    As someone who teaches journalism occasionally, and practices it regularly, I can say, simply, “prominence” is one of the six or seven accepted criteria for judging newsworthiness.  Here you have two prominent figures caught cheating on their respective spouses (one of whom is a prominent figure in his own right).

    So that leaves only the angle of journalistic misconduct, or ethical lapse, as the basis for declaring this important enough to the public to print it page 1. [. . .] Everything I have heard today, since that story was printed, was that a clear paper trail has been produced demonstrating that the first romantic meeting and interlude didn’t occur until months after the story was written.  If that’s the case, then its impossible to conclude that her story was tainted by a relationship that had not even started yet.

    Two points, TD.  One is that McBride is on the crime beat for Milwaukee Magazine.  Her future work is now certainly in question.

    But more importantly, I think McBride’s own words belie your statement that her story was not tainted.  In one of the emails now public, she talks about her conflicting feelings writing the story:  “As a result,” she wrote to Flynn, “I began to struggle with the story—having to give time to vitriolic baseless attacks.”  That certainly sounds to me like someone confessing an ethical quandary.  Now, it may be that she held true to journalistic standards through the completion of her story.  But there seems little question that, by her own admission, it is entirely possible to conclude her profile was “tainted by a relationship that had not even started yet.”

    Posted by folkbum on June 20, 2009 at 0756 hrs




37. he shouldn’t seek a position in which higher standards are expected

    That caught my eye, Jed.

    Frankly, I’m not sure that the public expects moral paragons in the Chief-chair.  The public WOULD be calling for a hanging if it were some sort of physical abuse of a prisoner, or if he were on the take—IOW, some sort of office-related criminal (or even very shady) action.

    Speaking for myself, of course.  I don’t condone adultery.  Especially DOUBLE-adultery.  And I don’t think ‘the public’ does, either.

    But the ‘high standards’ apply to the execution of his office, not necessarily his personal (coughcough) affairs.

    Posted by dad29 on June 20, 2009 at 0802 hrs




38. TD, I wonder if you’d have the same opinion were a well-known Democratic political figure involved. I’ve always found it amazing how such behavior on the part of the partisan’s side is an “indiscretion” that should be private; yet when a partisan’s enemy is involved, it’s always confirmation of some inherent evil or weakness on their part.

    I hate this kind of post.  The implication of course is that I’m so how hypocritical ... yet I would challenge you to find any instance where I weighed in on condemning a prominent democrat for having an affair where no accusation of professional misconduct or crime is alledged.  The fact is, no matter how hard this is for you to accept, is that my opinion on this matter is rooted in a principle ... and its not one that is applied subjectively depending on political affiliation.

    But since you raise it, why don’t you give me some examples where prominent Democrats have such stories written about them before there is some sort of allegation of misconduct or crime leveled.  I can think of many just off the top of my head that were untouched by the JS until the story could not longer be ignored because charges or lawsuits were filed.  Norquist/Figuera the most prominent among them.  In that case, sexual harassment and rape were alleged.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0826 hrs




39. But the ‘high standards’ apply to the execution of his office, not necessarily his personal (coughcough) affairs.

    I can’t speak for the “public” as a whole, of course, but I certainly expect a police chief to demonstrate high standards of behavior, both in duty-related and non-duty-related areas.

    To me, a willingness to demonstrate moral flexibility in the non-duty arena is a huge warning sign when it comes to future willingness to demonstrate moral flexibility in the duty arena.

    And if nothing else, you can bet he’s compromised, in at least some small part, his ability to lead his department effectively.  That’s Leadership 101.

    Or perhaps it’s just my military background… 

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 0856 hrs




40. Well, yah.  I said in another forum that both their careers are pretty much dead-stopped at this point.  And you are correct:  one major failure is a red-flag.

    But as long as you bring up the military thing, name a couple of US military generals who were tossed from service for a horizontal mambo.  NOT for the cover-up (doesn’t apply here)—just for the act.

    Posted by dad29 on June 20, 2009 at 1353 hrs




41. I can think of one off the top of my head.  The former head of my current career field.

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 1411 hrs




42. I not sure what everyone here is talking about a prominent Republican, Chief Flynn is as much of a Democrat as Gov. Doyle.  He spent lots of face time at the BO victory party in Milwaukee this past Nov. 4th. 

    The reason it matters is he lectures the troops on morals and ethics and sits in judgement in what we do in our private and public lives.  It isn’t just breaking the law that matters.  An oath is taken that law enforcement officers will keep their lives unsullied.  And please don’t give me it’s his personal life, funny when a cop gets arrested for drunk driving it’s always mentioned that they are cops.  Never a teacher, janitor or other jobs, just cops. 

    He’s had these issues before at his previous jobs, take a look it’s all out there!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 2029 hrs




43. Well, Jed…that guy had ‘a dozen’ affairs—which MAY be the case with Flynn, but that hasn’t surfaced.

    I’ll skip over the part about him being a lawyer.

    Posted by dad29 on June 21, 2009 at 0936 hrs




44. Simply put, if this was involving a street cop where a citizen called in and made a complaint this would be a different story.
    The Cop would be under investigation by IAD or the PPD, and refered to thr DA’S office for a review on Felony charges.. I dont agree with it, but for the Officer he or she would be getting something out of this. If not charged by the DA, a Department disipline would be given..

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 0950 hrs




45. Haven’t these people ever heard of divorce?  How stupid could either of them have been to not realize that this would end up getting out.

    Flynn should go.  The whole position of trust thing-  you can’t even be trustworthy to your family, how can you then ask the police force and residents of MKE to trust you?

    As for McBride: I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.  She has long struck me as just the kind of stuck up bitch who clamors after men in positions of power & influence.  She didn’t cheat on her husband with just any old guy - or even a relatively anonymous rich guy.  She went after the Chief of Police.  Coincidence?  He just happened to be “the guy” worthy of an affair?  Hardly likely.  This broad gets off on guys in high profile positions.

    It’s blissful schadenfreude to observe people like that get their comeuppance.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 1516 hrs




46. All hell will break loose when the “baby daddies” lose respect for Chief Flynn and turn to crime.  Total anarchy!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 1549 hrs