There's only a small snippet of the article presented her (and it requires a paid subscription to read online), but the LEO does not say that are or should be de-prioritizing finding Cassie. And the context for the comment presented by the small snippet of the article does not in any way suggest the LEO meant to imply that Cassie is less worthy of being found. LE is familiar with Cassie's history yet they still searched for her and continue to investigate.
Given the context, it appears that the LEO is just trying to make the point that the hiking story that they got from the two men who were with Cassie when she went missing is BS.
And that point is consistent with what Cassie's own family thinks and what many people on this thread think of the "hiking" claim. Cassie's mother says in that same article that Cassie was scared of the dark and "would never have gone there at night." Several posters on this thread have doubted the hiking story, including from the start. And the reporter says, the LEO was being more blunt in rejecting the story that they got from those two men.
Now, the blunt, short-hand "tweaker" comment clearly was not sensitive, nor appropriate for public consumption. I very much doubt that the LEO intended for that word to be recited in an article or repeated to Cassie's family, and I'm sure he regrets saying it. In fact, you can quickly find out that the LEO has already apologized to Cassie's family, and that Cassie's mom has acknolwedged that the LEO cares very much about Cassie's case, continues to invest a lot of time in Cassie's case, and is very frustrated with those who are not talking, and that the LEO's comment was the product of his frustration.
If the LEO was not familiar with this reporter, he should probably have been more careful about what he said, or he at least should have been clear with the reporter that the word should not have been printed. The reporter should also have had the decency to think twice about using it.
The LEO-media relationship is an important one for cases like this. It would be best if LE could speak openly and bluntly with a reporter to give the reporter the fullest picture possible so that the reporter can provide the most accurate and informative report possible, and for the reporter to take care not to quote "rough" language that could be construed by readers to mean something that the LEO didn't mean to convey and ultimately distract from the important information.
In the end, and apparently like Cassie's mom, I'd rather have working on my case the LEO who is invested, works hard and cares deeply but who may not be the most sensitive or smoothest talker rather than an antiseptic LEO who treats my case as just one more thing on his or her plate.
