Ogden Standard Examiner Opinion

Paper "oversimplified" info in Weitzel case

Sun, Oct 14, 2001

Regarding the Oct. 10 news story, "Weitzel judge may now respond":

In the interest of full and accurate reporting of the truth, rather

than report ". . . Kay threw out the first conviction on grounds

that the state had withheld an expert witness," it would be much

more true to have written, "Judge Kay overturned the conviction

after the state was told by its 'star witness' that a far better

expert would be Dr. Perry Fine. After thorough review of the charts,

Fine told the state it had no case; that no crime had been

committed. Rather than reconsider, the state brought its case, using

the now discredited 'star expert witness,' ignoring and suppressing

the testimony of Dr. Fine."

I know it takes a little longer to write, but it accurately conveys

the truth of the case. Oversimplification does no justice to me,

your readers' intelligence or the reputation of your paper.

Robert Weitzel, M.D.

Salt Lake City