DISQUS

Janet Shan · 8 months ago

This is pretty shocking and I pray that they will catch the dirtbag who killed this child. This precious baby did not deserve the hand she was dealt. This is a real tragedy.

David · 8 months ago

Has anyone in authority linked the pastor to this crime? Or is that your assumption?

If the church and the parsonage are being searched, it does not necessarily mean the pastor was involved. It may be like the BTK case in Kansas -- in which BTK was responsible for the crimes and he was involved in the church but he was not the minister.

Perhaps you've heard something that I have not heard. But until someone is charged -- and, more importantly, until a suspect has his/her day in court -- what it says to me is that someone with access to the parsonage and/or the church may be behind the crime.

Being innocent until proven guilty does not apply only to the courtroom. It applies also to pretrial speculation.

Cheri · 8 months ago

Thanks for your comments David!

Luckily this is a free country where I may speculate on whatever I like. I clearly stated that people are innocent until proven guilty, so what's your beef?

This article is a commentary, that's what we do here...

David · 8 months ago

I understand about commentary. I've had a lot of experience as a working journalist in my career. Let me direct your attention to the last line of the post:

"Of course all suspects are innocent until found guilty, but to think that a pastor could have had something to do with this act is unfathomable!"

Yes, you said suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but in the next breath you connected the dots implying the possibility of the pastor's involvement. That, at least, is how I read this. If I am mistaken, I apologize. But I have seen many writers who were sued for libel and many speakers who were sued for slander.

And the ones who were sued successfully lost because the plaintiff's lawyer was able to persuade the jury of malicious intent. Writers have to be especially careful in the words they choose and how they use them. Juries can be very unpredictable.

Fair comment is a legal defense when the person being discussed is a public figure, like a pro athlete or a movie star. I'm not sure the pastor of a church qualifies -- some might, if their congregations are big enough or if the pastor is in the public eye a lot, perhaps as a host of a TV or radio program. It may depend on how a jury interprets the law.

But it just seems like an area where I would rather be safe than sorry.

Cheri · 8 months ago

a blog: a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer ; also : the contents of such a site. ~merriam webster (m-w.com)
_____________________________

Sir, this is a blog, and I am a blogger. I give my personal reflections based on the information presented. I would also argue that the pastor has been thrust in the spotlight as a public figure based on the attention this case is receiving.

I do however appreciate your concern. People can draw all sorts of conclusions from what someone writes that may or may not have been intended by the author. I cannot curb my reactions to these stories on the bases that someone might take it wrong. The best I can do is give an explanation when prompted.

As it relates to this case, I find it curious that the home and church of a pastor were searched in connection with this case. I am not saying that the pastor has done anything wrong. However this turn in the investigation has my eyebrow raised. In the end we shall see what becomes of the investigation...

David · 8 months ago

You needn't tell me what a blog is. I write three of them.

Also, there are many things about internet communications that are still emerging and will continue to emerge in the law, especially now that internet sites are replacing newspapers in some places. Will the law differentiate between websites and blogs? Will fair comment laws change because it appears on a computer screen and not a page of newsprint? I don't know. But I do know a few things about the history of communications law.

I am simply saying -- and I did not intend to ruffle any feathers -- that, based on my experience, it seems wiser to wait until someone else raises the issue and then respond to the accusation, if there is one. At this point, I have seen no posts or comments that link the pastor to the crime other than yours.

Libel suits are typically filed against whoever raised the issue initially. Until this point of communications law is clarified -- and the only way to do that is with test cases in the courts -- it seems prudent to me to let others connect the dots first.

But you're free to do as you please.

Cheri · 8 months ago

Well stated, and I don't think our views are all that different...

Jess · 8 months ago

We shouldnt think he has anything to do with this. Just because he knew the little girl, and his place of work is close to the home, doesnt mean he is guilty,

Janet Shan · 8 months ago

Jess -- You have missed the point of the writer. She never said that the
pastor is guilty. Why don't you read and digest the information correctly?
No one presumes to know that he killed the child or not. They searched the
church and haven't named any suspects.