Disagrees with the content of ‘slanted’ story

This is in response to SVM reporter David Giuliani’s Jan. 16 article [“No charges in fatal motorcycle accident”] on the tragic accident leading to Sam Munz’s death. I found it interesting that now, after 7 months, an “investigative” article appears.

The article, written very carefully and technically, portrays Sam as being drug influenced, riding with bad or faulty equipment, and acting in a manner that caused his death (reflected by the “witness” reports and especially the officer who saw someone who “resembled” Sam acting erratically and not signaling his turn). If this was the case, why did the officer not issue a citation to the “resembled” Sam?

Ms. Ruf, on the other hand, was just minding her own business cruising down the road when this drug-fueled biker appeared from nowhere. So she had no recourse but to hit him from the rear.

The article’s timing coincides with the fruition of the criminal and civil cases. There’s an old political and legal trick where certain “facts” are leaked to willing members of the press in order to slant their case or opinions in their favor. I see the article included the obligatory disclaimer that Ms. Ruf’s lawyer was contacted but gave the required “no comment.” Perhaps this old trick wasn’t in play here.

Irregardless, the Gazette in printing this slanted article has attacked a dead man who cannot personally defend himself. I find this offensive and disgusting. The Gazette has reduced itself to all the other hack journalists and tabloids that are out there.

If you wanted to be investigative and fair, why didn’t you talk to Sam’s family, friends and people who worked with him? You would have found a large man with a large voice and a much, much larger heart. You’ve made this tragic event even more so.

Comments

More News

Comments

 

National video

Reader Poll

Should Illinois allocate $100 million in state funds to help attract the future Barack Obama presidential library and museum?
Yes
No