We’ve discussed the controversy surrounding a ten-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted in Ohio and moved to Indiana because Ohio’s abortion law allegedly did not allow her to be terminated. I wrote several columns on the legal and factual questions of the case following the Washington Post investigation and the Ohio Attorney General’s investigation, which failed to confirm any facts other than an Indiana doctor’s report. Expedition of Columbus reports that a
Fuentes is scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday
After the arrest, readers contacted me to point out that the New York Post column had originally hinted at a possible “lie” and felt that I was calling it a hoax. This was certainly not my intention and my clear words contradict this interpretation. What I’ve seen on the internet pretty much dismisses my statements to the contrary in my columns and on Twitter at the time of publication.
As I mentioned, I have two columns on this. Both stated that the case could be true, but there are obvious legal and factual questions raised by Dr. Bernard’s account. particle for direct object column viewed these questions in light of the Washington Post, noting that “the only source cited for this anecdote was Bernard. “He has a history, but there is no indication that the newspaper made any further attempts to verify his account.” I agreed with the post that such a story should be verified beyond such “anecdote”.
It also looked into those questions, given that the Ohio attorney general said a search found no such case in their system. We have seen the media run with a number of stories without verifying key facts in the main stories. These two columns separated the facts that I considered most important to verify, while recognizing that the story could be true even with these questions. Most of the columns addressed the ongoing risks to the child and the need to verify the child’s case and welfare.
“None of this is to say that it didn’t happen,” the column made clear. However, if true, there is a child abuser who is still on the run. “On the other hand, if it was a family member, a child may be living in the same house as the abuser.”
The focus of the column was the discussion of legal and factual questions, assuming the truth of the case. Dr. Bernard’s explanation for removing the child from Ohio was inconsistent with Ohio law. I also noted that The Washington Post sought additional details about the case but was unable to obtain any additional confirmation. The columns mainly addressed these unanswered legal questions about the meaning of the Ohio law and the need for a police report, especially after the Ohio attorney general said he could not find one. I said that both the Post and AG inquiries were curious because police reports are required in both states. While I said the police report may have formedmust confirm this fact in favor of the child.
In the New York Post column, there was originally a headline that referred to “lies.” Writers don’t write headlines. The column was a shorter, edited version of the original column I wrote. This mistake may be due to a wrong line inserted in the edit, which points to a possible lie. I did not write that line and asked for it to be removed before it was published. When I saw that headline, He immediately tweeted At the time of publication, these questions do not mean that the case is not real. me too pointed out on Twitter At the time of publication that we do not write headlines to express my disapproval:
Aside from the headline (which was not written by an author), everything Dr. Bernard said could be true. However, even if true, these missing details are crucial to understanding why the action was taken and whether the child is safe.
I also wrote to my editor to ask them to change the headline about “lies”, which they did. The editors immediately responded to these requests and my concern that we should not make such assumptions in the absence of corroborating facts.
Both columns talk about the lack of effort to verify the police report and the obvious danger to this child if he is not supported. This was conspicuously absent from the news coverage and I believed that these facts should have been confirmed, as the Post and the Attorney General unsuccessfully attempted.
Setting aside the ongoing question of the legal basis for removing the child, Seton repeatedly called for a police report and confirmation that the child was safe. I think this should be the priority for the previous week’s coverage
I remain interested in understanding why, as alleged, the child must be removed from Ohio. As I mentioned in the blog column, this may be due to confusion, but the law seems clear to me.
As a legal analyst, I am often asked to weigh in on such debates and, like the Washington Post, seek to confirm the underlying facts. The story was curious in that it was based entirely on one person’s account, which contained false statements about the Constitution. I can’t explain how to display or interpret these columns, but this is the background of the columns.