Letter from Texas
After reading the trial testimony of Dr. Robert Weitzel, I believe that, unfortunately, the general public was misled about the facts of the case. From the beginning of the investigation through the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution neglected their duty to disclose the truth. Unfolding events relevant to this case should continue to cause us to question the prosecution’s integrity. It is inconceivable that the critical evidence of Dr. Perry Fine was suppressed. Was withholding evidence the only way to make a case? There was a duty to pursue justice, not to serve some personal agenda. Their actions certainly give the public something to think about. Events subsequent to Dr. Weitzel’s conviction only further question the prosecution’s integrity. Against their wishes Judge Kay granted a new trial, then he refused the request to remove himself from the case and the other judges concurred, then the prosecution backed off of murder charges, now they’re being investigated. Kind of puts a different spin on the views originally presented by the prosecution and the newspapers.
Can I spin a yarn believable enough for you to accept? Yes. Does that mean that it’s true? No. If I continue to insist that my version is true even when you are presented with the facts, do I lose credibility? Absolutely. Like a child caught concocting a tall tale, the prosecution is not sure how to admit misrepresentation without losing face, so they proceed. From the time we are small children we are taught to do the right thing, that there is honor in telling the truth. Why should this be different? Do the right thing. Tell the truth.
Mary Langston
Fort Worth, TX