Editor: We are writing in response to your on-sided article on the early release of Eddie Myers ("In-house release of youth irks UA police," April 20). We are writing this because we feel that thie article was unfairly biased toward the UAPD.
Not all of the information about this case was presented adequately and fairly. There are many issues concerning this case that need to be stated so that every reader can make a fair judgement on his early release. We also feel that every side of this case should have been presented, not just that of the UAPD. There are many people who are not familiar with this incident, and therefore, by reading this article, they make a biased judgement. To make this article worth reading, we feel that statements should have been made from people that were with Myers and members of his family.
If you aregoing to use a (UAPD) "property custodian" as a source for a quote, why couldn't you use a student or friend of Myers that was present at the incident? How does the custodian know what happened? An article should state facts, not opinions taken from people not directly involved.
Obviously the Arizona Board of Clemency saw some improvement in Myers toward a better life. You claim that the board chairman, (Dwayne) Belcher, said Myers will have a great amount of community and family support upon his release. Why isn't this support shown in your article?
After we reviewed past articles from August 25, 1990, to March 24, 1992, we got reacquainted with the facts, and we feel that you should have as well. And they should have been stated in the article.
Family Studies Junior
Marketing Sophomore Read Next Article