Last night, ABC’s 20/20 re-aired its year-old piece on former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw. Amazingly, the show is still titled “What the Dash Cam Never Saw,” even though OKC patrol cars didn’t have cams when Daniel served. Talk about fake news.
The “update” to this show consisted of a hasty few lines tacked at the end in which Elizabeth Vargas briefly mentioned Daniel’s appeal. You can read actual substantive coverage of it at Brian Bates’ HoltzclawTrial.com.
This morning, Creators Syndicate founder and chairman Rick Newcombe–who has taken an active role in challenging shoddy media coverage of the case–followed up with questions for show producer Joseph Diaz.
I am reprinting Rick’s letter to show you that it’s not just Fake News that is a plague on journalism and freedom. It’s Missing News that is a grave threat to truth and justice.
Joseph,
Last night 20/20 ran a rerun of “What the Dash Cam Never Saw,” and I had a dozen questions off the top of my head:
1.) Why no mention of Holtzclaw’s compression underwear?
2.) Why no mention of the failure to test Holtzclaw’s underwear?
3.) Why no mention of Kim Davis’ ignoring procedure and failing to record her interview with Janie Liggons?
4.) Why no mention of the fact that Janie Liggons’ driver’s license had been suspended 30 years earlier and she was driving to that day without a license?
5.) Why no mention of Kim Davis saying that Liggons told her she smoked two marijuana joints that day and then denied it?
6.) Why show Ms. Raines claiming that Holtzclaw told her to expose her breasts before showing the Brian Bates proof that she was lying? Why not start the story by saying she lied and then show that rather than planting the impression on the viewer that Daniel was guilty and then saying, by the way, her initial testimony was different?
7.) Why not explain how Daniel’s message during his interrogation was, “Test me and test her and you will see that nothing happened,” and in fact the forensic tests showed he was telling the truth?
8.) Why not press Davis on that point, i.e., why do we have forensic evidence if you are allowed to discard it in favor of your feelings?
9.) Why call the skin cell DNA found on his pants a “smoking gun” when all DNA experts familiar with the case have said it was touch DNA?
10.) Why not call out the prosecutor for leaving the jury with the impression that the teenager’s DNA came from “vaginal fluid” when he admitted a few weeks later that he didn’t really know that?
11.) Why not call out the prosecutor, judge and defense attorney for allowing the prosecutor’s closing statement to be false and misleading after the jury said it was that statement that convinced them to convict?
12.) Why not give examples of court trials throughout history — and there are many — where higher courts sent the case back to lower court for a change of venue because of crowds of protestors shouting, “Hang him high!” or “Give him life!”?
This is off the top of my head. I wanted to scream when I watched this rerun now that I know more about the case because of Michelle Malkin’s reporting.
I started my journalism career as a reporter for UPI in 1974 and have devoted my life to quality reporting and commentary. Over the years I have defended Molly Ivins, Hunter Thompson and Ann Landers, among others. Creators Syndicate’s writers and cartoonists have won a total of 17 Pulitzer Prizes. I am proud to defend Michelle Malkin in this case because her reporting has been thorough and accurate, unlike Juju Chang’s.
The only good thing about this rerun of your report was that it ran on April Fool’s Day.
Rick Newcombe
www.creators.com
As viewers and readers know, I’ve been reporting over the past year on Daniel’s plight and revealed fundamental flaws, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods about his case. This weekend, CRTV and I released my full, two-part series for free across social media.
Watch here now:
Fundraising: Help Daniel win his freedom.
Get the facts:
