St Louis Police Didn’t Want to Sign Off on McCloskey Probable Cause Statement


Deputy Prosecutor Chris Hinckley and St Louis Police Sgt Curtis Burgdorf appeared to have some conflicts on what was written in the probable cause statement for both Patricia McCloskey and Mark McCloskey. The statement had to be revised twice before the investigator would sign it, after the investigator gave 14 reasons why it was incorrect.

Hinckley called Burgdorf’s commander and asked her to move him along. He also left a voicemail message for Burgdorf:

“Curtis, you need to call me back. I wrote a long email to you trying to ask a bunch of questions about whatever it is you said some was (expletive). Now we need to straighten this out because I’m about done with this crap. Call me back.” Chris Hinckley

Aside from the alteration of evidence demanded by Mr. Hinckley when he told the crime lab to reassemble Patricia’s gun to make it work, the pressure on Sgt Burgdorf to “hurry up” and sign the probable cause affidavit was tremendous.

KSDK reported some of the questions raised by the Police Sgt:

  • Hinckley characterized the protest as “peaceful and organized” and that it was “calling attention to racial inequities in the criminal justice system.” Burgdorf wrote that the evidence he gathered showed the protest was to call for the resignation of Mayor Lyda Krewson. The final document called it “a protest march.”
  • Hinckley wrote that Patricia McCloskey’s was “armed with a semi-automatic handgun.” Burgdorf wrote the phrase should read, “What appears to be a semi-automatic handgun.” Hinckley responded, in part, “You cannot be serious with this one. Again, this is really problematic.” Ultimately, the document read: “What was later determined to be a semi-automatic handgun.”
  • Hinckley called Mark McCloskey’s gun an “assault” rifle. Burgdorf called the word “assault” a propaganda term. Hinckley disagreed, but it was left out of the final document.
  • Hinckley wrote that the protesters passed through an “open gate” onto private property. Burgdorf said he didn’t know whether the gate guarding the private street was open when protesters went through it, but that, at some point, it was damaged. Hinckley responded: “Your points here are really problematic. It seems to go beyond oversight and into purposeful ignorance. I suggest you very quickly re-assess this evidence.” Ultimately the document Burgdorf signed reads, “protesters walked through a gate.”
  • Hinckley wrote that Mark McCloskey’s gun was “visibly loaded with an ammunition clip.” Burgdorf wrote that he would have to verify that detail because it wasn’t mentioned in his report or interviews with them. Hinckley wrote back “Seriously??!!” Ultimately, the document did not include the phrase Hinckley wrote.
  • Hinckley wrote that both victims, identified only by their initials, “feared that the defendant might fire her weapon due to her finger being on the trigger and her highly agitated demeanor.” Burgdorf wrote that the term “angrily” was subjective and he didn’t like it. Hinckley wrote, “It’s a fact and an element of the offense.” The final document did not include the word “angrily”.

McCloskey charging document… by Sam Clancy on Scribd

The McCloskey’s were finally charged on July 20. Since then Sgt Burgdorf has discovered the following, also from KSDK:

“At least one of the protesters was armed with a handgun, and another was wearing a bullet-resistant vest with the words, “Human Shield” on it.

Some of the phrases he was able to decipher from the footage collected by prosecutors from protesters included:

“You own a business. Your business is gone.”

“We coming back baby.”

“You ain’t the only (expletive) with a gun.”

“They coming back to your house.”

In another livestream video, Burgdorf wrote a man was heard saying, “I was in front so I was the one who opened the gate. The gate was broken after they pulled a gun. What law did we break? We keep guns there but not for show though. Not to look a certain way, but for use. If they would’ve shot then they would’ve been put down.”

Yep, definitely peaceful. Threats, intimidation existed on the part of the ‘protesters,’ and the St Louis prosecutor’s office didn’t care.


Featured photo: File


Sign up for our Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children newsletter and check out our shop while you’re there!