I got an email back from her and here it is along with what I sent
Ms. Jackson, the victim is aware she can speak to us about this case, and she has yet to do so. I will do so again momentarily.
Perhaps you have a valid e-mail address for her, or could ask her to write a letter to the editor, since you seem to know her?
We, like every other newspaper, publish from the standpoint of "legal" documents and what happens in the court case. I am very sorry, but this is how it works; it is the legally correct way to do business. You might talk to a lawyer yourself about this if I am not convincing you. What is part of the court documents is what a newspaper must use, because we are legally protected under "qualified privilege." (In other words, we can legally "assume" what's in these documents is accurate, even if it turns out later not to be so.) This is not from the perpetrator's viewpoint, as you say; it is from the legal documents filed in the case.
Occasionally, a victim may choose to speak out, but that is the individual's choice, and that of their attorney. This is a rare occurrence, because attorneys typically do not want their clients talking to newspapers in such cases. We, as a newspaper, simply cannot call an accused individual a "crook," any more than we can call someone a "murderer," "rapist," etc. Such labels are libelous until proved through a court of law. This is why I've not posted a number of comments. Individual blogs, or as you say, the "new media,"
are not under such constraints. We could be sued; it would be more difficult to sue a blog.
I must also tell you (though it may not matter to you) that this is one of hundreds of cases going through our court system right now, and many local residents do not understand why we are being "flamed"
by comments on this and no other case, since we have many more involving violent crimes such as murder. Delays in the courts like you've seen with this one are quite typical here and elsewhere, and as someone who's been in the profession 30 years, I can attest to that personally.
I sympathize with Ms. Rodriguez personally (though I don't know her), but I should tell you I'm getting phone calls from local readers who are accusing her of making these comments herself. I will continue to post some (but not all) of the comments from out of state, but I'm not sure it is helping Ms. Rodriguez' case, and since you are not from "these parts," I just want you and your friends to be aware of that.
Thank you for your time.
Kim
On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:49 PM, rhondas msn wrote:
>
> Yes my email address is valid. I am very concerned with what is
> happening with this case and have been following it on Back Yard
> Chicken forum since it started. I wrote my comment because I feel your
> paper is being unfair by not telling the victims side of the story. To
> be fair she should also be heard about the hardship she has suffered
> through this ordeal. I do not want to offend anyone but this is not
> right what is happening to her and since your paper published the
> story from what seemed like the perpetrators view I wanted to help
> stand up for the lady who owns the horse and has all the paperwork to
> prove it. Sometimes the new media is the only way to get the word out
> and justice done.
> Thank you for your time and response
> Sincerely,
> Rhonda Jackson
