Letters from the Issue of January 3, 2008
Standing Up for Stacey
She's won some too: I am writing to you five days after reading Bob Norman's December 20 story "Stacey and Friends," about my wife, Stacey Honowitz, because I didn't want to have a knee-jerk reaction to it.
I am absolutely incredulous that your publication could allow an article so filled with inaccuracies without having the facts checked. I would think the legal department would have a protocol in place that would catch such venomous lies before they went to print.
Let's address Mr. Norman's issues. "Does it matter that she lost her most highly publicized cases?" he asks. I think if it were true, then sure it would matter. However, the fact is that her most highly publicized cases, those against Dan Donahue, a serial molester; and Dr. Reginald Philips, a urologist from the Cleveland Clinic, produced guilty verdicts. What "high-profile" cases has she lost? Mr. Norman fails to inform us.
He also suggests that Stacey spends "an inordinate amount of time researching and talking about cases half a world away." Does he care that Stacey comes home regularly in tears about the horrible things she sees on a daily basis? He certainly didn't bother to ask her. Is it any of his business that she does her research at night so that she is prepared for her nonpaying TV appearances?
Then Mr. Norman contrives this fabulous luncheon that Stacey attended. Do you have any idea how many people have inquired about this lunch with Mark Geragos, James Carville, and Greg Mathis? They actually believed it was fact! And they wanted to know why a civil servant is out drinking wine at lunch. For the record, she virtually never goes "out to lunch."
I just have to wonder why Mr. Norman didn't mention any of the good Stacey does. Does acting as an advocate for abused children and women count for anything? How about the fact that for the past seven years, she has been trying to find a publisher for a book she wrote for kids ages 7 to 12 to know what to do if someone touches them inappropriately? Or what about Glamour magazine honoring Stacey for her "best body part" — her mouth — in using it to act as an advocate for the abused. Why would Mr. Norman want to bully someone like her, a woman who has dedicated her life to making the world a better place?
I am incredibly proud of both the person she is and the job she does. Why wouldn't Mr. Norman be too? In the private sector she certainly could command many times the civil servant's salary she earns. She does her job because it is her calling.
It is my hope that a retraction and a sincere apology be forthcoming. If not, it will be confirmed that Mr. Norman is the piece of garbage that everyone who knows Stacey thinks he is.
People, it was made up!: Who is this Bob Norman? Is he a pedophile with a grudge against Stacey Honowitz? Or just another incompetent journalist aspiring to a Pulitzer Prize by fabricating stories? The story line is amusing at best, yet not true. The luncheon is fictional, a fact Mr. Norman neglected to reveal. The quotes, although true, are taken out of context. The "table manners" are Mr. Norman's malevolent twist to the story, whose sole purpose can only be for character decimation.
Back to the initial question: Who is this Bob Norman, who feels driven to attack, without cause, one of our finest prosecutors? Is he a pedophile, a necrophile, or just another journalist stricken with hemorrhoids and a serious need for some ass wipes?
Swept Under No More
Write a letter: Isaiah Thompson's "The People Under the Bridge" (December 13) is a courageous article.
The reality is that this is a very serious social issue, and our politicians have passed an immature and useless law that does not help victims of child sexual abuse. Politicians David Dermer, Manny Diaz, Bruno Barreiro, Rebeca Sosa, and Pepe Diaz obviously did not do their research on this issue. We pay these politicians with our tax dollars, and they pass laws that do nothing for the problem. If fact it just creates more problems.
The statistics are true. Child abuse is a trauma and crime that is most likely perpetrated by family members or people the child knows. What money and resources are being put to prevent these crimes? The ordinances — whether 1,000 or 2,500 feet — are not going to keep sex crimes from occurring. This society needs healing, not laws that are simply going to bundle up all of these predators into a group and ostracize them. Sex offenders need to be counseled and to serve sentences for their crimes. Banishing them from society will not solve the issue.
It's unacceptable that Commissioner Sosa refuses to take responsibility for what she's done. I am going to write a letter to these commissioners and the mayor, and I invite everyone who reads this article to do so as well. I want my tax dollars to go toward healing and prevention, not silly laws that ignore and even perpetuate the problem.
More problems: Thank you for the continuing coverage in "The People Under the Bridge." A formerly convicted sex offender living in Ohio, I am only too familiar with this nonsense. Ohio is now one of only four states to adopt the Adam Walsh Act, and the consequences are beyond belief: One county with 22 predators now suddenly has 202, yet no new ones moved into the county. Under AWA, there is no consideration given to a court's decision, a judge's ruling, or psychological evaluations.
Now no one in Ohio knows which offenders are really dangerous and which aren't. God help Florida if it adopts the AWA; it will bankrupt the state.
Get the Weekly Newsletter
Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.