2-25-2004 Police report

[jamshundred]

2-25-2004 University of Missouri Police Department -Police Report Case No. 1-04-000316 

Reported by Groves, Christopher R. 2/25/04. On 2-25-2004, at 1530 hours, I, sergeant Christopher Groves, 17,
was contacted by telephone by Richard Gradwohl. Gradwohl stated the he is a professor in Seattle, Washington
and he had received a threatening e-mail which his university had traced back to a University of Missouri -
Columbia computer address. Gradwohl stated he received this e-mail "two days ago" on 2-23-2004. Gradwohl
explained that he felt like this should be investigated and he wished to talk to a person on the University of
Missouri - Columbia campus about this incident, prior to sending the e-mail to the e-mail abuse web address.
Gradwohl had already located the University's abuse e-mail address and was preparing to send the threatening e-
mail and his University's investigation to that address. I also asked Gradwohl to send this information to my e-mail
account, to attach to the report, however, as of 20:15 hours I have not received this information.
Gradwohl stated he only knew two people on the University of Missouri - Columbia campus, both of them were
involved in the same organization the he is, the American Dexter Cattle Association. Gradwohl explained that this
organization has been having some unrest and he believes one of the people from Columbia sent him this
threatening e-mail. Gradwohl refused to provide me with the names of the people at this time "because I do not
want to falsely accuse anyone." Gradwohl failed to provide any further information from the e-mail since he was
going to send it to me.
No further information is known at this time.
*******************************NARRATIVE #2***********************
Reported by Groves, Christopher H. 2/27/2004
On 02-27-2004, at 1530 hours, I Sergeant Christopher H. Groves, 17, received a fax from Richard Gradwohl. The
fax appeared to have been sent from a phone number 254-631-5774 on 02-26-2004 at 1956 hours.
The faxed information consisted of nine pages, as follows:
Page 1: A copy or an e-mail from Gradwohl to me asking for the police departments fax number, sent as a cover
sheet.
Page 2: A copy of an e-mail from Gradwohl to the UMC IATS Abuse e-mail division, asking for their fax number
and asking for an IP address trace. Gradwohl states the he has contacted the FBI in regards to this threatening e-
mail and that the FBI confirmed that this e-mail was a threat. When I talked to Gradwohl on 02-23-2004 he stated
he "believed it was a federal crime but I have not talked to the FBI yet."
Page 3: A copy of a letter from Gradwohl to Ron Neely, MO campus computing employee, asking for help in
tracing the IP address and message.
Page 4: A copy of an e-mail [e-mail]. dated 02-04-2004
at 1136 ours, sent to [e-mail]. Minicattle.com is a web site operated by Gradwohl, in an apparent
private business operation. This appears to be the threatening message Gradwohl is referring to, the message
states: "I think you need to read the most recent remarks on the Dexter Cattle Yahoo site. I would guess that you
are probably an honest person and if indeed what is said is true and you are not an active breeder of Dexter
Cattle, you need to make a determination which one is more important. Serving on a group that may not want you
and getting all kinds of negative comments which may hurt you organization, you sales, etc. or resigning and
letting the region choose someone who is an active breeder.
Getting an office because of an unclear technicality will in the end cause you more trouble than it is worth.
Sometimes it's better to save face than wait until someone finds a way to remove you and then publicizes it all
over the web. The web is ever reaching-your very reputation and your organization could be a great risk."
Page 5: A copy of an e-mail from Edward J Gracie, going by [e-mail] to Gradwohl. This e-mail
appears to be of Gracie tracing above referenced e-mail back to an IP address of mu-168099.dhop.Missouri.edu.
Page 6: A copy of a second page sent from Gracie to Gadwohl. Gracie states in his e-mail that he located a
posting on Dexter Cattle chat board the following which appears to be what the above message was about.
Region 3 is kind of a catch-all of States. I believe it includes
Washington, Hawaii, Alaska and part of Canada. In my opinion, it has
been hard for this spread-out group to organize, like it did when
Washington was with California and Oregon, when I joined ADCA. This
year the region was up for a new Regional Director election and
hardly anyone voted, I heard it was 8 people, but you could confirm
that with a board member. Anyway nobody was nominated to run except
two people. 1. One person who supposedly did not want the position,
2. Somebody other person who doesn't breed Dexters. This mix-up made
people less likely to vote and some went for the proverbial "Snoopy"
write-in. The person who doesn't breed Dextgers got something like
four votes and now is supposed to be the new regional director. The
problem is that this person, you can see his website at
www.minicattle.com has not registered a Dexter in 10 years, since he
registered one Dexter bull that he crossed with Of I remember right)
Herefords to create what black baldies. He subsequently took these
animals and bred them to a variety of other breeds including Jerseys
and Galloways to create crosses with patented names, like Kentshire
and Mini Panda. He also operates his own mini cattle registry as a
business venture. He does not breed Dexters. His only Dexter, which
may be dead now, was only used for crosses. He gets a lot of
criticism from his buyers, but I won't go there, except to say that
within the last few days he has answered such criticism by publicly
threatening a lawsuit against people who criticize him on a yahoo
group, and used the title, Director Region 3, American Dexter Cattle
Association as part of his signature.
Due to this being a cut and pasted copy, of a copy of an e-mail that was faxed to me, the header of this posting is
missing and it is unknown who posted it.
Page 7,8, and 9. A copy of an e-mail from Gracie to Gradwohl involving the tracing of the e-maillP address.
~ A copy of this fax is attached to the report and was given to Detective Spalding for his follow-up. After reading
over the e-mail that Gradwohl stared was threatening, page 4 as listed above, it does not appear to be
threatening violence, harm, or a crime. According to the Missouri statute for harassment, 565.090, there has to
be a threat to commit a felony, or offensive language, or anonymous phone calls, or repeated phone calls, to be
illegal under the statute. In reading both e-mails referred to in these documents, page 4, and 6, both appear to be
expressing facts and opinions of the authors, there are no threats made. These appear to be first amendment
covered statements.
Detective Spalding stated he would follow up on this report with Gradwohl.
*******************************NARRATIVE #3 *************************

Supplemental Reported By: Spalding, Shawn, W

3/10104

On 03-01-04, Sgt Groves provided me with a copy of the e-mail sent to Richard Gradwohl. The copy is included
with this progressive. I contacted Gradwohl via telephone about the e-mail. I asked him to tell me what part of the
e-mail he found threatening. He told me that bottom portion of the e-mail which read "Serving on a group that
many not want you and getting all kinds of negative comments which may also hurt your organization, your sales,
etc. or resigning and letting the region chose someone who is an active breeder. Getting an office because of an
unclear technicality will in the end cause you more trouble that it is worth. Sometimes it's better to save face than
wait until someone finds a way to remove you and then publicizes it all over the web. The web is ever reaching -
your very reputation and organization could be a great risk. " I informed Gradwohl that the investigation was
ongoing.
On 03-02-04, Ron Nealy of IATS carbon copied me an e-mail he sent to Gradwohl. In his e-mail Neely stated that
the investigation revealed no employee violated university rules and his department was finished with the
investigation.
On 03-09-04, I contacted Rose Wibbenmeyer of the City of Columbia Prosecutors' office. I informed Rose of the
investigation. She told me she did not see a criminal case and should be handled in civil court.
I contacted Richard Gradwohl via telephone. I informed Gradwohl that in order to get subpoenas to see who and
where the IP address originated from this case must be criminal. I told him that the prosecutor felt the e-mail was
not threatening. Gradwohl told me that he did not wish to prosecute the suspect but handle it internally. I
informed Gradwohl that our investigation was complete. Gradwohl told me that he may contact the local FBI
office and police department about the case.

[jamshundred]

commentary/opinion

Without exception, . . .  every single time I read this report it angers me.  

It is so full of contradictions.  I ask myself today if those who were involved in the internal struggles in 2004 read this today if perhaps their perspective has changed?  What if.  What if it was one of them who held a job with significant responsibility in a major university and your superiors were alerted to an investigation as is portrayed in this memo?  What could this individual have possibly done to any single one of them personally to merit having their job threatened and perhaps their liberty?  In 2004 I found this to be such an egregious situation it was the motivating factor for me to set up the website and make these documents public.   You need watch very little TV at all or read few newspapers to know that in the legal world today most people are judged guilty and then must prove themselves innocent.  It frightened me then and frightens me now to think what might have happened had that paragraph been worded even slightly differently to where it could have been perceived ( with pressure from a complainant) to be a threat of any type.   Then and now I am still disturbed that people I associate with could have been so cavalier about the rights of an associate. . . . . . and why?  Because of power struggles in a small cattle group, or because someone wanted to have a position someone else held, or for some other agenda?  This is just so over-the-top for me. . . . 

So darn wrong.