How unfortunate it is that the Campus Times has sunk to an all-time low with the publication of the recent article concerning the so-called ‘cat incident.’ Not only were those individuals punished not identified by the university, but the university made no determination that anyone involved in the incident had anything to do with the death of the cat.
To imply, as you did in your article, that: “it is still possible the felony of aggravated assault to animals, punishable by up to two years in jail, occurred,” is irresponsible, sensationalistic, and morally reprehensible.
So far, there is not one shred of evidence ? either public or private ? that shows that the accused parties committed this heinous crime.
As stated in the article, regarding the death of the cat, the university concluded that there was no culpability attributable to those accused. Similarly, there were no arrests or convictions by the government authorities for the same.
Nobody was found liable by either the school or the government for killing the cat.
In light of all this, it is intensely irresponsible for the CT to imply that a felony “may” have occurred, based solely on the fact that nobody publicly has stated that the accused parties did not commit the crime.
For example, just because nobody officially ‘cleared’ the Israelis for having allegedly committed the World Trade Center atrocity doesn’t mean that it would be responsible journalism to imply that they did it.
Rumors and innuendo may be enough evidence to make bold and inaccurate accusations in the Enquirer or on Jerry Springer, but not in an established newspaper like the CT which is the only source of news to the university community.
The CT owes its readers more. Particularly because felony crimes are involved, in the future the CT should not make such serious allegations without actual evidence.
Shame on you.
?Daniel waldman
Alumnus ’98
