Letters to Editor - bLetters

We welcome your opinion on public issues, in either of two ways. You can submit a letter to the editor for possible publication in the printed edition. The Virginian-Pilot welcomes letters to the editor on all topics, although concise letters (150 words or less) on public issues will receive priority. Letters may be edited for length, style and clarity and writers are limited to one published letter every month. Please add your name, city, street address and daytime telephone number for confirmation.

The other way is to comment on the published letters in this blog. In this online forum, you can comment as much as you want by using the comment box at the end of each entry.

By e-mail: letters@pilotonline.com

By mail: Letters to the editor - P.O. Box 449 - Norfolk, VA 23501-0449

By fax: (757) 446-2051

Category: Readers' Opinions

Tainting the jury

Sep 08

7:57 AM

Re 'Ebert knows the odds,' letter, Sept. 9:Why is the prosecutor of Ryan Frederick seeking a change of venue? Could it be to ensure that the case is judged on its merits and not the emotions of the jurors?

The Pilot's editorial page wrote last week that the case should be tried locally and that the citizens of Chesapeake should be the ones to determine the guilt or innocence of Frederick. It was implied that the coverage of this case was neither judgmental nor biased in its nature. But have the editorial writers read the letters written by the citizens of this community or the blogs and comments posted on the Internet? They are anything but impartial. If I read nothing else, I would no doubt think of Frederick as a hero and Detective Jarrod Shivers as a pawn undeserving of the fate that befell him.

In 'Ebert knows the odds,' the writer implies that the city would be subject to some sort of civil liability should it lose this case, and that the prosecutor is attempting to move the trial in an effort to get a more favorable jury. The writer implies that a jury outside of this area is more likely to return a finding of guilt. Is that because they have not been tainted by the falsehoods and speculation that have run rampant on the Internet? If the writer truly believes that there is some type of police cover-up in this case, why would he be so quick to absolve the courts of being complicit? He should want a change of venue.

The Pilot wrote an article highlighting that it's rare for the prosecution to seek a change of venue in this type of case. I would argue that it is extremely rare that, after a police officer is killed in the line of duty, one sees the type of vitriolic writing that has surrounded this case. For proof, refer to the letters and blogs concerning the death of yet another hero, Det. Michael Phillips of the Virginia Beach Police Department.

J.P. Crimmins, President

Chesapeake

View 8 comment(s) Link to post

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules. Comments do not reflect the views or approval of The Virginian-Pilot or this Web site. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment to alert an editor. Repeat offenders will be denied automatic posting privileges.

The truth is . . . .

Submitted by charlesm on Sat, 09/13/2008 at 10:37 pm.

Well, J. P. Crimmins, President, being so knowledgeable of the legal process, you should know that the jury acts on the information presented in court, to reach a verdict. Internet, newspaper and TV coverage does not generally become part of the evidence. You are implying that the people of Chesapeake, who would be selected for jury duty, are not capable of trying the case on the merits of the evidence presented in court. You sound just like the prosecutor and you both are insulting the people of Chesapeake and trying to rig the jury for your own purposes that are as twisted as the insinuation that the citizens of Chesapeake are not capable of giving each side a fair and just verdict based on the facts submitted in court. For shame!

report violation

I have read every single

Submitted by Ira Tateu on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 2:10 pm.

I have read every single article and blog post on this subject. The vast majority of those who write in defending Ryan Frederick do say by laying out the facts they have received from the media. Don actually attends hearings. W/ the facts thus far provided there are some very valid holes in this case. I believe these same people would posters would make excellent jurists. I do not for a moment believe from what I have read they would have a problem convicting him if the facts showed him to be guilty. This idea that the writers are anti-police or have feelings about legalization of drugs that would sway them from justice is absurd. It is an insult to some obviously intelligent people. The prosecutor is using their exercise of free speech to further his cause.

report violation

Fair!

Submitted by rayr78093 on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 12:27 pm.

A prosecutor should be able to convince 12 citizens that Ryan Frederick is guilty no matter where the case is located, if there is sufficient evidence. I would think the public and the newspaper has a right and obligation to express their opinions. Without that right our republic would be compromised. The prosecutor certainly has the right to withhold evidence and other information until discovery. However, this tactic has helped fuel the fire in the community. Try the case in Chesapeake and let the cards fall as they may.

report violation

Well,

Submitted by ed baskins on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 12:10 pm.

Why not let Mr. Frederick decide if he wants the trial held elsewhere since he is presumably innocent until convicted. Besides, both sides have had their opinions printed in the news, so it does not necessarily show commentaries only on the side of Mr. Frederick. You, the president of the Chesapeake Coalition of Police, should know this, especially since they just printed your opinion.

report violation

yeah

Submitted by Dead Head on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 11:45 am.

Imagine, the police shooting someone without a good reason…that’s just crazy talk.

report violation

Mr. Ebert & Mr. Conway - go home...

Submitted by John Wilburn on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 10:21 am.

Mr. Frederick lives in a very close-knit neighborhood – many of his neighbors have known him for most of his life. There are no secrets or possibility of secrets in that neighborhood – everyone knows everyone else’s business. A number of these people are my customers. We talk.

Everyone in that neighborhood is solidly behind Mr. Frederick – if he were growing / distributing marijuana, it would be known, and they would want the full wrath of the law to come down on him.

If I knew nothing else about this case, this alone would be enough to convince me that the city of Chesapeake is railroading an innocent man…

report violation

Citizen oversight requires citizen presence

Submitted by Wm D Tabor DDS on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 9:53 am.

If the Chesapeake Police had been forthcoming with the facts surrounding this case from early on, it is likely that the Police would still enjoy the widespread support of the citizens.

For example, it took 8 months for an explanation of that .223 case to be offered. The blue wall of silence that met questions about that brass resulted in a great deal of unnecessary speculation that a truthful answer 8 months ago would have prevented.

We still have no explanation for why the warrant was served in a manner that did not allow Frederick an opportunity to accept it peaceably. The authority of the police to use force in the name of the law arises from the people, and the people have the right and the duty to exercise oversight on that use of force. It is because of the stonewalling that the police leadership is now on trial as much as is Frederick, and that trial must be here, where citizens can attend.

report violation

Crimmins

Submitted by Ira Tateu on Fri, 09/12/2008 at 9:47 am.

Vitrolic? Thta's a bit over the top. People questioning facts in the case is a bad thing? Stinkin' citizens asking questions again, aye?If the case cannot be tried in Chesapeake by his peers then the jury system of trial is no longer valid. The prosecutor seeks nothing more than a win. Justice is out the window here. We all see it and you are defending it.

BTW, president of what?

report violation