Justice due

I was happy to see Mindy Cameron's letter in today's North Idaho Sunday. Her letter was placed below a guest opinion offered by Bryce Powell, defense attorney in a Boundary County case which ended in a plea bargain agreement. The case dealt with an incident that occurred at a keggar in Boundary County. A young woman received burns after allegedly being pushed into a campfire by a young man attending the party.

Potentially hurtful words were uttered during the party. Different witnesses offered different accounts as to how the fire incident happened and why certain things were said. Can ya tell I'm being vague? I'm being vague because I've read lots of comments about this incident, and the more I read, the more murky the picture becomes regarding the sequence of events and sequence of words uttered.

Based on some newspaper reporting, however, folks have launched off on blogs, in letters to the editor and in guest opinions about what should happen to this judge, who, according to observers, gave a light sentence for the defendant who pled guilty.

The rhetoric about this case has been flying for the past several days, and many folks who are incensed by hate crimes here in North Idaho have uttered or written some pretty nasty statements, including hateful epithets launched toward the judge. One writer even came up with a tutorial that ought to be imposed on the judge.

Early on, in the free-for-all discussion on one blog, I asked a few questions about obtaining some better information which might put to rest the conflicting reactions many readers have had to stories in both the local and regional papers. I was told transciptions of discussions in judges' chambers are rarely produced. The furor among readers was based on second and third-hand quotes. Those quotes were disputed by the defense attorney in a second story refuting the first story about the case in the local paper.

I watched on the blog as some people who had read transcripts of the Boundary County hearing provided more details to the case. For the most part, their comments were met with some resistance by those who seemed to prefer to keep up their attacks on the judge, the defense attorney and anyone else who might question the reliablility of information in the newspaper accounts. It got downright ugly at times, and I was disappointed that no voices of reason from newspaper staffs made any effort explain why second and third-hand quotes stood as Gospel.

A voice of reason has come forth. She's the former editorial page editor of the Seattle Times who has retired to the Sandpoint area. I'll post her letter which appeared in this morning's paper with no further comment except to say, "Thank you, Mindy."

from Bonner County Daily Bee, Sunday, Nov. 19, 2006

Headline: Judge's ruling of case handled better than story.

It is unfortunate that Paul Krames (guest opinion, Nov. 14) relied on questionable reporting in this newspaper to castigate Judge Debra Heise for her ruling in the recent Boundary County case.

Reaction to the case was inflamed by a story based on one person's account of what went on in a meeting that the person did not attend. That story violated basic rules of Journalism 101 and influenced subsequent stories as well as reader reaction.

It demonstrates two important principles: The power of the press and the need for readers to pay close attention. Stories based on the remarks of only one person should be taken with a grain of salt. When the sole-source story is about a disputed incident where parties on both sides have an ax to grind, it shouldn't be in the newspaper. When it is, readers should dismiss it altogether.

The judge in such circumstances is the only neutral party. Judge Heise is an experienced and fair judge. I trust her handling of the situation, especially in the face of this distorted news coverage.

Mindy Cameron
Sagle