Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi B. D., You make a very good point. But, you have to remember that everything you said can also apply to the Anita Hill allegations against Clarence Thomas...and you know the reams of press her story received. And remember, Clarence Thomas emphatically and expressly denied the charge. Bill Clinton did not(re: Helen Thomas' question at the White House press conference last week). Regards, Bill 1. Because there are no corroborating witnesses whose testimony is not either in dispute or highly suspect; because there is no physical evidence; because there is no proof the accussor and accussee were ever in the hotel in question, much less in the same room on the same day and at the same time; because, while the accusor can remember the most incredibly minute details, but not the day, month, or time of the year; because the alleged crime occured 21 years ago; we will never know whether Broadrrick's allegations - and remeber, they are allegations and there used to be a presumption of innocence in this country - are true or not. 2. NBC was correct not to run the story and wrong to run it. If one applies any basic journalistic standards to the story thus far, it was not ready to run. A responsible media outlet does not run 21-year-old allegations of an alleged crime that was never reported, and could never be prosecuted because the statute of limitations ran out 14 years ago with having what at least looks like PROOF that the crime even took place. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com