Roost the Bird?
I read Hobart Rowland's piece on noise [News, "Down by Law," November 30] and thought, "How apropos." I am one more complaint away from filing with the district attorney's office on the howling dog at my back fence. The offender Mr. Rowland forgot to mention is the HPD itself! Who do you call to get that silly helicopter from circling after midnight, sometimes two or three times per week? Many a night I have marveled at my tax dollars burning up in helicopter fuel over my head. Complaints to the dispatcher, after verifying that the pursued suspect was involved in a property crime, fall on deaf ears. Is a tank of helicopter fuel and keeping half the neighborhood awake worth chasing some minor, unarmed lowlife? I applaud the outstanding response times for calls in the Heights, but if you lost the guy, roost the bird and let us taxpayers go back to sleep.
U.S. Representative Tom DeLay ["The Exterminator," by Michael Berryhill, November 23] believes the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to ozone-depletion researchers because Sweden, home of the Nobel program, is an environmental-extremist country. He should rejoice that the 22nd is not an IQ-extremist congressional district. Its voters should act without delay.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
More Information, Please
I was captivated by your story "Victimology" [by Steve McVicker, November 16]. However, there are some areas that you could clarify for me. First, you mentioned that the police lifted fingerprints from various locations in Lillie Lockhart's home, but you did not report whether or not Kevin Rogers' prints were lifted from the knife embedded in Ms. Lockhart's chest. Second, you mentioned that the boy admitted to ejaculating on Ms. Lockhart's body. The Press reported that semen tests were "inconclusive," but you did not say how inconclusive, (one in three, or one in three million?). You also never mentioned whether the boy's supporters ever offered an alibi on the night of the murder, or how do they explain the fact that they have none? And about his confession: you never explained whether or not the boy had a legal representative present at the time of the confession. If he did not, why not?
If you could clear up these matters, it would greatly assist me (and no doubt many other readers) in determining if Kevin Rogers is truly guilty, or is a victim of "the system," as his supporters claim.
John S. McNeil
Editor's note: According to prosecutors, there were no fingerprints taken from the knife used to kill Lillie Lockhart, and investigators did not recover enough semen with which to obtain a conclusive test result. And Rogers had no legal counsel present when his confession was obtained, because, again according to the state, he did not ask for one.