Herrera Takes Review To Task

To the Editors:

I am very disappointed in the Review. Although Zach Pretzer’s article (“Staff Writer Challenges Critics to Think Further” Nov. 23) refutes the allegations that he was not qualified to cover the preliminary hearing mentioned, reading his comments have caused me to conclude precisely that. Doing some very light research, I have come up with some information that Pretzer failed to mention in his article.
A “preliminary hearing” does not determine innocence or guilt (in a legal sense), a trial does. A preliminary hearing determines whether a case goes to trial or not. The defendants could still be found guilty of the offense in a subsequent trial — the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, part of Ohio’s Court Rules (available online at www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm) clearly states that in the case of a preliminary hearing, “the discharge of defendant shall not be a bar to further prosecution.” Therefore, in the case mentioned, innocence or guilt has NOT been proven. If new evidence was found, the defendants could potentially go through a trial and be found guilty.
Which is why I find many of Pretzer’s comments so disturbing. He states that “falsely accusing a person or persons of acts of rape is a fourth degree felony...,” of “...how much impact the dishonesty and deceit of one person can dramatically affect the lives of two innocent people...” and, most disturbingly, (referring to circumstances that constitute rape) “...they are only true if a rape occurred — which in this case, it did not.” I went back and read both responses to Pretzer’s original article, and neither of them state that the defendants in question were guilty (“falsely accusing” them). Therefore, I can only conclude based on this that these statements are referring to the alleged victim in the case mentioned. I know that this is an editorial, and in the beginning of the article, Pretzer states that the article is composed of “my own interjections.” However, the statement of the “dishonesty and deceit” of the alleged victim is not worded as an opinion, and is presented as a fact, as is the statement of the rape not occurring. This presented with the statement about “falsely accusing...” creates, in my opinion, a strong implication that the alleged victim was lying.
For Pretzer to declare the alleged victim guilty of a “fourth degree felony” when there is no proof of such is extremely insulting. In my admittedly, “not a law expert” opinion, this sounds awfully like libel (to “publish... an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation,” a “statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion”).
If he had bothered to explore the Ohio Revised Code (available online athttp 1/www.state.oh.us/ohio/ohiolaws.htm), which I’m not even sure he consulted, he would have seen that Section §2739.0 1 tells us that, to dispel a charge of libel, “...the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense...” Indeed, the very Ohio Constitution itself, in Part I Section 11, states that for something to be considered not libel, the defendant must show “...that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable end...”
Can Pretzer prove the “dishonesty and deceit” of the alleged victim or the “innocen(ce)” of the defendants? Does he have proof that a rape did not occur? If not, I strongly feel that he should either retract those statements or make it clear that his speculation about the guilt or innocence of said persons is purely opinion and the innocence of said persons is purely opinion and has absolutely no basis in fact.
But my disappointment is more with the Review. By publishing such statements as facts, it seems to me that the Review has printed a “false statement, allegation, or rumor.” (Section § 27339.13, which refers to newspapers role in publishing libel). Now, I have no idea if the alleged victim will complain, and in truth, I have no connection with any of the people involved in the mentioned case. However, I do wish the Review had been more thoughtful about the rights of potentially innocent people.
If a little more thought had gone into the research of the article, perhaps readers would not have been confused. Perhaps this kind of writing is acceptable for reviewing sporting events, but it is definitely not acceptable to slander a person’s reputation when you have no proof. I really did expect more from the Review.

–Desiree Herrera
College sophomore