In the Monday, Aug. 20, 2012 edition of The Evening Sun there was a Letter to the Editor supporting Mr. McBride for County Judge. In this letter, the writer made several statements and declared each of them to be facts. Some were and some were not.
It is a fact that a number of years as a practicing attorney in our court system gives a person experience. It is not a fact that the writer’s candidate is “the only candidate that has the depth of knowledge needed in all three courts”; neither is it a fact that his candidate’s “qualifications cannot be equaled by any other candidate.” The writer’s opinions that his candidate is the only candidate with the experience and integrity needed to do the job or that he is the only clear choice for Chenango County Judge are definitely not facts. The gentleman is entitled to draw conclusions and to form his own personal opinions, but it is not appropriate to cite his personal opinion as fact.
The following additional facts about Mr. McBride’s courtroom experience are relevant and indisputable:
Fact: Mr. McBride was cited for prosecutorial misconduct in the first Wlasiuk trial.
Fact: The successful appeal of the first Wlasiuk verdict resulted in a subsequent cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer.
I conclude from these facts that Mr. McBride holds a share of the responsibility for both the successful appeal of Wlasiuk’s initial guilty verdict and the additional (astronomical) costs to the taxpayer. There would have been no need for a second or third trial had the first conviction not been overturned.
As the writer stated in his letter, “Facts can be checked and they don’t lie.” I agree.
Patricia M. Nelson