Ya right! Don’t hold your breath. That’s never gonna happen!
Last week we put up a guest post where the post author was taking John Chiv to task for his “reporting” of courthouse news. The poster reasonably questioned the ethics of Chiv putting up what could be considered slanderous and libelous accusations from an anonymous source about a man on trial for child molestation charges.
Yesterday, according to Chiv’s own blog, the man on trial for child molestation was found NOT GUILTY. Chiv actually spoke to a few of the jurors, and they basically said that the “DA hadn’t proven the case”. Did Chiv immediately take down the other slanderous rants and posts accusing this man of past acts of molestation that were never reported/and or prosecuted???? Hell, no! He actually doubled down and posted a letter from someone claiming to be his granddaughter, which again accused him of past child molestation. It seems in Chiv world, if the courts don’t convict then it becomes the internet’s job.
How hypocritical can one person be? Seriously. We know all too well how much Chiv values his privacy in regards to his personal life, and how viciously he can attack anyone questioning his acts. But in the same token he has no problem posting unverified and unproven accusations and/or rumors against a person who was just found not guilty by a jury of his peers?
Well John, do you believe in the American system of justice, or not?
A comment under the article, by Attorney Allan Dollison pointed out an evidence code related to those types of accusations. That code is related to the fact that the District Attorney’s Office can present past allegations of sexual abuse, even if unproven in a court, to show the defendants proclivity to commit sexual crimes. That’s right, if at all credible, the DA’s office could have brought those accusations into court to bolster their case. But they didn’t. We don’t know why that is, but it is pretty telling.
The problem is Chiv’s slanted views and his blog reporting is not helping to shed light on the local justice system, it’s helping to slant the views of readers to what Chiv’s view of the courthouse is. When reporting on the closing arguments in this case, Chiv wrote “On Wednesday, the gist of Mr. Russo’s closing was that the investigation by the DA’s office and law enforcement was ” seriously incomplete.” He raised the question by asking why it took 6 months to arrest Kufner and that given Jane Doe’s “troubled past”, she was “acting out.” A lot of his closing was points raised in his opening. Three-fourths of Mr. Russo’s closing was about Jane Doe. She was a very credible witness and by his focus on Jane Doe, the defense showed their hand.”
So, Chiv’s opinion was that Jane Doe was “very credible”. Yet, when speaking to the jury afterwards he was reportedly told, “Jane Doe and the mother seemed to be on drugs.” This is a prime example of why people shouldn’t give Chiv’s very emotionaly opinionated reporting any weight.
John Chiv should do some real soul searching and think about whether or not he should keep up posts accusing people of past bad acts that have never been proven.
Just think about it readers; What if someone was claiming that you molested them or assaulted them a decade ago, and they were given a forum where they could anonymously slander your name? How would you feel?