I received the following e-mail Tuesday afternoon — about six hours after The Chronicle published an Our Views called “Your Newspaper: Responsible, Vibrant and Needed” and the front page story “Coroner’s Office Defends Against Complaints.” It’s from KOMO news reporter Tracy Vedder.

Hello Michael,

    I can’t tell from your website who is responsible for the editorial page so I’m sending this to you.  A hard copy will follow in the mail.

    In response to your editorial entitled “Responsible, Vibrant and Needed”; well, one out of three isn’t too bad if we’re talking batting averages.  But if that was supposed to be a description of your reporting response to KOMO TV’s investigation of Coroner Terry Wilson and his office, fantasyland has a new home.  Certainly newspapers are, “needed”, but in this case The Chronicle falls woefully short in terms of, “responsible,” and, “vibrant”.

    You blithely state that our report was, “one-sided and not a fair shot,” and that, “KOMO threw out any effort to be fair”.  Let’s examine that.

    KOMO TV asked for all documents relative to complaints about the Coroner’s Office.  We talked to as many of the parties involved as possible.  That included all of the people complaining as well as three additional corroborative witnesses.  Your reporter spoke with only one of the original complainants and none of the corroborative witnesses – although we offered our help in getting contact information to him.  The biggest part of your story was in fact an interview with Chief Deputy Coroner Carmen Brunton.

    KOMO TV also made numerous requests to the Coroner’s Office to get the other side of the story.  Those requests were to both Coroner Terry Wilson and Chief Deputy Coroner Brunton.  Beginning October 9th, I left messages at both the Coroner’s Office and his Medical Clinic asking for Wilson to return my calls.  I called again on October 12th and was told by the Coroner’s receptionist Dawn Harris that Wilson’s attorney had told him not to talk to the media.  I asked her to inform Mr. Wilson that I was not seeking to ask him questions regarding the Ronda Reynolds case which was in litigation – but about other complaints to his office; complaints which had been the subject of our previous public records request and the subject of our story. 

    I again contacted the office on the 13th and visited the Coroner’s Office in person on the morning of the 14th.  At that time I spoke with Dep. Chief Coroner Brunton and asked if she could talk about the complaints.  She said she wasn’t familiar with them and didn’t feel as though she could talk about them.

    Finally, we went to Coroner Wilson’s medical clinic on that same date and waited for him to arrive.  At that time we asked him in person for his comments.  When he said his attorney had advised him not to talk I – once again – told him this was not about the Ronda Reynolds case but about other complaints to his office.  Again he declined; when I asked him if he would, “ever” talk to us about these issues he said, “no”.    While I didn’t give this level of detail to your reporter, I did tell him about my conversation with Brunton and he acknowledged from my report that I had tried to talk with Wilson.  We made a well-documented and thorough attempt to get both sides of this story.  If there was a valid explanation for these complaints why didn’t the Coroner’s office simply tell their side?  Isn’t it just a bit disingenuous to refuse to talk and then cry foul when you don’t like the results?  Yet none of this appeared in your newspaper’s report.

    We also turned to a respected former Medical Examiner, who’d worked statewide to establish standards of professional conduct, to provide context for what a professional Coroner’s Office should and must do.   He was outraged by these complaints.

    But aside from an expert opinion – a person can also use their own common sense to evaluate any news story, including the Chronicle’s.  One example in the Chronicle report: when Ms. Brunton talked about cleaning a boy’s tissue from the railroad tracks and says that, “some small pieces of tissue would remain on the tracks because it was dangerous and illegal for her deputies to remove them,” all I can say is “what?”  It is the Coroner’s legal responsibility to pick up that tissue.  They have the authority to close the tracks, which they did, until they decide to turn the scene back over to the railroad.  Of course, Ms. Brunton declined to talk to me or offer her explanations about any of these complaints.

    Finally, in an effort to be completely fair and transparent – we included copies of the original complaints on our website so viewers could see and judge them for themselves.  Interestingly – I do not see links to any of these complaints as part of The Chronicle’s story.

    Multiple sources, public documents, and expert unbiased opinion.  These are the hallmarks of solid journalism.  At least one of the stories on the Coroner’s Office fits this description.

    The Chronicle’s editorial goes on to say that you, “are not an apologist for Coroner Wilson.” Also that your paper is devoted to, “unbiased and fair reporting.”  I guess we’ll let your readers, and our viewers, decide.

Tracy Vedder

Investigative Reporter

KOMO TV

    I appreciate Vedder’s concern. I do want to share one part of the documents she refers to for those that want a bit more information. It has to deal with the body being left outside a home. It is a factual account by an attorney representing the county after the county was sued by a family member for alleged intentional emotional distress, something which was dismissed. The details were not mentioned in the KOMO video that aired across Western Washington last week. Vedder in her letter to The Chronicle details going to great lengths to allow the coroner to offer an explanation to his actions. It was right under her nose. She didn’t reference it once in her TV “report.” Why? Had she already decided on where the story was going?

    Read it, watch the video once again, and make your own determination. It is clear KOMO put out a one-sided hit piece against the coroner. News outlets are supposed to offer both sides of a story up front. KOMO fell far short.

    Here it is:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    On the evening of October 2, 2000, Charles Bardsley phoned 911 requesting immediate medical assistance. Mr. Bardsley lived in a remote and rural area of Lewis County, with his wife who suffered from advanced Alzheimer’s. The Bardsleys’ home is located within a remote area served by Pierce County Fire District 23 (PCFD 23), and a basic life support (BLS) unit from PCFD 23 was dispatched in response to Mr. Bardsley’s 911 call. 

    When the BLS unit arrived, they immediately placed Mr. Bardsley in the back of the unit so that he could be transported to rendezvous with an Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit from Central Pierce Fire and Rescue Department 5 (CPFRD 5). An ALS unit can provide a higher level of medical attention than a BLS unit, which is staffed only with EMT’s. 

    By arrangement, the BLS unit met the ALS unit at the Nisqually Lodge parking lot, located a short distance from the Bardsleys’ residence. The Nisqually Lodge is located in Pierce County. While Mr. Bardsley was being transferred from the BLS unit into the ALS unit, he went into cardiopulmonary arrest. Attempts to resuscitate him failed and he was pronounced dead in the back of the ALS unit at approximately 12:24 a.m.

    PCFD 23 Captain James Gregory and CPFRD 6 Captain Robert Hudspeth jointly decided at that point to return to the Bardsleys’ residence because of the fact that Mrs. Bardsley was believed to be home alone, and suffering from advanced Alzheimers. Dispatch was advised of this decision and a Lewis County Deputy Sheriff was sent to the Bardsleys’ residence to meet the returning medical personnel.

    Deputy Sheriff Eric Weinreich was dispatched to the scene and when he arrived at approximately 1 :30 a.m., the ALS and BLS units were already there.

    Bardsley’s remains were still in the back of the medic unit at that point. Deputy Weinreich had a question over the jurisdiction of Lewis County Sheriff’s Department investigating a death that occurred in Pierce County. After consulting with his sergeant, however, Deputy Weinreich was instructed to investigate the circumstances leading to Mr. Bardsley’s death.

    Approximately forty-five minutes after arriving, Deputy Weinreich was informed by the BlS and ALS personnel that they wished to return to service. At that time, Deputy Weinreich did not believe he had the authority to order medical personnel from another jurisdiction to remain at the scene.

    A discussion occurred regarding what to do with Mr. Bardsley’s remains.

    While there is a dispute about who participated in this discussion, the end result was that the medical personnel removed Mr. Bardsley’s remains from the back of the ALS unit and placed it on the ground, on a backboard, fully covered with a blanket and straps. Captain/Paramedic from Central Pierce Fire and Rescue District 6 (the ALS Unit) described it: Because of Mrs. Bardsley’s [Alzheimer’s] condition, we wanted to eliminate any chance that Mr. Bardsley would see her husband in that state. The Bardsley residence was approximately 650 square feet and had only one entrance that was visible that evening. There was no garage or other structure on the property that could be used. We then covered Mr. Bardsley, and with the help of at least four emergency personnel, removed Mr. Bardsley from the Medic Unit, on a backboard, and placed him on the property next to the large gazebo in the front yard of the home. At the time of his death, Mr. Bardsley weighed 215 pounds. The Deputy Sheriff then repositioned his vehicle in such a way as to block the view of that area from the rest of the cul-de-sac and roadway. We left the scene in the Medic Unit at ·2:08 a.m.

    Dispatch had earlier notified the Lewis County Coroner to have someone respond to the Bardsley residence at the request of the Deputy Sheriff. Deputy Weinreich watched over Mr. Bardsley’s remains while awaiting the arrival of the Deputy Coroner.

    A Lewis County Deputy Coroner arrived at the residence in his private passenger vehicle at approximately 3:30 a.m. The Deputy Coroner told Deputy Weinreich it was o.k. for him to leave and that he would watch over the body until the arrival of a transport vehicle from Brown’s Mortuary to remove Mr. Bardsley’s remains. Deputy Weinreich left the Bardsleys’ residence at approximately 4 a.m. As he was leaving the scene he encountered Dennis Bardsley, and his wife Cindy. Deputy Weinreich expressed his condolences for the death of Mr. Bardsley and told them that the deputy coroner was at the house.

    When Dennis Bardsley arrived at this parents’ residence he spoke with the Deputy Coroner, Ricki Gray, who told him that a Mortuary Service was en route to transport Mr. Bardsley’s remains.

    Mr. Bardsley’s remains were removed by Brown’s Mortuary Service at approximately 7:30 a.m.

    Lewis County does not have a vehicle for transporting bodies.

    Human remains can only be transported in vehicles licensed and approved for that purpose. Because it does not have such a vehicle, Lewis County has a verbal agreement with area mortuaries, which rotates on a monthly basis, to transport the remains of persons who die within the County. When a mortuary is called upon to do a transport, it charges Lewis County a fee for that service.

    On the night in question, the mortuary on call was Brown’s Mortuary Service in Chehalis. Tim Berg, the funeral director for Brown’s at the time, was contacted by phone at 4:10 a.m., to retrieve the remains of Charles Bardsley from his residence for the Lewis County Coroner’s Office. He left his residence at approximately 4:30 a.m. to retrieve the transport vehicle from Brown’s headquarters in Chehalis. He picked up the transport vehicle and then drove to pick up an assistant, Jim Wheeler, so that he could accompany him. It is customary to bring two people on a home transport because the body may need to be carried up stairs.

    Mr. Berg and Mr. Wheeler departed to the Bardsleys’ residence at approximately 5:30 to 5:45 a.m. They encountered foggy conditions, which delayed their travel. They eventually arrived at the Bardsleys at approximately 7:15 a.m. They loaded Mr. Bardsley’s remains into the Mortuary vehicle and departed at approximately 7:30 a.m.

    Finally, and we are no longer copying the court case word for word, the attorney for the county, in defense of a lawsuit that attempted to place Coroner Wilson as negligent, said, “I think the coroner was left with no options, so I don’t think there was any negligence on the part of the coroner given the circumstance that the deputy coroner was confronted with.”

    Tracy Vedder, can you give us any reason why none of the defense as detailed above was included in your TV report? Can you even defend using this particular case as a proof Coroner Wilson is inept?

    You call our questioning of your report as something out of “Fantasyland.” That’s a fun attack word to use.

    But journalism is not about sensationalism and riling up the public. It is about helping them understand the truth.

    Perhaps you should spend less time defending your work in question and more time in giving the public a balanced viewpoint on what is an important issue.