• I'm afraid you went so far that coverage amounted to a trial.  I have no doubt, moreover,  that there are few people who read the Advocate that weren't convinced of Rathcliffe's guilt long before legal proceedings leading to trial began. As a retired private detective, I have no doubt, either, that Advocate coverage figured in the plea bargain offered Ratcliffe by the state.  Additional expense to the taxpayers necessitated by  prospective prejudice created by Advocate articles undoubtedly was an additional factor.
    Even more, there is much about the Ratcliffe's affair with his accuser we will never know on that account.  Prosecutors have a reason for making plea bargains, let us not forget.  It will, on that account, be most interesting to see if the judge accepts the plea bargain (could we interview him after his ruling, we'd know more about the effective of the Advocate's trial of the defendent before trial.
    Frankly, you blew it, and are probably at least partially responsible for Ratcliffe getting the deal he did. 

    July 17, 2008 at 6:39 p.m.

  • i would like to know who decided it would be best for victoria to have ratcliff plea out. THEY SHOULD hAVE ADDED ANOTHER CHARGE OF PURGURY. IF it would have been anyone other than an offical would they have been so easy on them????NO and as for him being in bad health and  losing his car I JUST CANT STOP THE TEARS. MR. TYLER iS THE FIRST ONE TO STAND UP AGAINST THESE CROOKED PEOPLE HE NEEDS TO JUST KEEP CLEANING HOUSE AND I HOPE HE WILL. NOW AS FAR AS THE COUNTY PAYING FOR ATTORNEY FEES ---IF I GET INTO TROUBLE WILL THEY PAY FOR MINE TO????????bet not

    July 7, 2008 at 8:02 p.m.

  • Why in the heck did you use the headline "For Victoria's Sake?" 
    Am I missing something? 

    July 5, 2008 at 2:52 a.m.