Add new comment

It's too bad you view it that way. Truth is, I'm not going to tailor my reporting to win me more fans or avoid having fewer fans. We have enough of those types of writers already. I do find it concerning that you label me as immoral and my reporting as unbalanced.
It sounds like you want me to write a piece that describes Lueke as a humanitarian of some sort. That's tough to do when we're telling a story about a case in which he went in accused of rape and sodomy and came out of it a felon on a reduced charge. It's not my job to dream up fantasy scenarios in which he might be innocent of the original charges. We asked him why he lied repeatedly to police (at ages 23 and 24, not 19 like some blogs keep writing) over a nine-month period. He gave his answer and we provided it to you.
If by "fair and balanced" you want me to write a story that raises the question of his innocence, once again, why would I do that? Is that typically done for all criminals in the public eye who plead down to lesser charges? Lueke did not tell me he feels he was innocent. He kept saying he accepts responsibility for what happened. So now, it seems, you want me to go beyond that, hop on his bandwagon and look for things that he did not argue himself. Again, why? Because he's a ballplayer?
And frankly, throughout all of this, having actually looked at the case, I've yet to see the victim tripped up on anything in her story. Not one, single detail has ever been contradicted with any evidence. After all this time. Many things said by Lueke over a nine-month span were contradicted and proven false. So, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to show "the human side" of him, or why. Is there any actual evidence to justify doing this?
Because why would I show the human side of Lueke and not go into even greater depth on the human side of the victim? You know, the woman who was never charged with a crime, nor held responsible for a crime, nor ever contradicted in anything she was saying?
Maybe because she's not a ballplayer? That doesn't fly with me.
We can nitpick and dissect the meaning of a no-contest plea to death and if you pick at something long enough, everything will seem full of holes. I've covered over 150 criminal and civil trials in my previous career as a legal affairs bureau chief at another newspaper and can tell you there was room for doubt in every single one of them. That's nothing new. Even in cases where juries decide on something in five minutes.
But in this case, you want me to assume a person's "innocence" by slanting my story to make people feel sympathy for a player who took responsibility for a felony charge. A player who is the only one of the two parties proven to have lied repeatedly. And the only one who offered up no credible evidence in his defense other than changing his story. That's the foundation for which I'm supposed to go out of my way to raise doubt in a case already decided by the courts? i don't think so.
Again, I'm not going to slant the story either way. You have a criminal case where Lueke emerged a convicted felon. You have a female victim who nobody in authority is suggesting tried to lie or mislead anyone. And who no one on the defense team has ever proved to be non-credible.
You want to put the victim on trial? Or start a campaign for Lueke's innocence? Go ahead. I'm not going to be the one to do it when the facts -- the only ones in front of us -- don't point in that direction. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But now, Lueke is considered guilty by not contesting the charges of false imprisonment with violence. If he, or his supporters, want to start a campaign in the other direction, I'll certainly listen with an open mind and investigate that theory as I have all others connected to this case. Believe me, I have looked into all aspects of this case deeper than you or anyone else I've read online. But the burden of proof is now on Lueke. It's no longer on the state. And it's certainly not on me. I'll sleep very well tonight, thanks.