Originally created 11/21/02

If guilt's clear, why say 'suspect'?

It is amazing that Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC and other news agencies, as well as Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and other news anchors, are calling Madelyne Gorman Toogood, the mother caught on department-store camera striking her 4-year-old child in their SUV, an "apparent child-beater."

Maybe we should call her a "suspect" until "proven guilty." I know she is guilty, as do several million other Americans and others around the world who watched her methodically look over both shoulders calmly then commence obvious child abuse and battery. She has also admitted to it with her lawyer on at least two publicly aired "spin" interviews...

I believe the innocent until proven guilty is exempt when it is obvious that the person is "caught in the act" and when they confess. That is why the police use deadly force when someone is spraying gunfire around a school. He is guilty.

When someone flies a plane into a building, he is guilty. We don't need a judge, a trial, a slew of lawyers to determine guilt, but the court is to ensure the full, just and swift conveyance of the law.

Why does a baby-beater get off with $5,000 bail and a baseball-coach beater get $200,000 bail? Could it be that baseball is more important to our court system to protect than a baby?

Keith Wilson, Martinez, Ga.

Related Searches



Trending this week:


The Augusta Chronicle © 2016. All Rights Reserved.  Contact Us  | Terms of Service  | Privacy Policy  | Advertise