by Steve Reinbrecht
Somebody killed a baby in Reading in December, but we don’t know
much about it.
Anthony Dinozzo Snyder, 3 months old, died Dec. 7 of
poisoning and starvation. The death was ruled a homicide.
The first mention of the crime that I could find in the
Reading Eagle is a 135-word story March 10, three months after the death, when the
district attorney released a statement calling the death a homicide.
How did our award-winning newsgathering organization miss
the suspicious death of an infant? Doesn’t an Eagle reporter call the Reading police every morning and ask
if they had anything interesting? Doesn’t someone look at the radio calls for
things like unresponsive babies? Wouldn’t a source mention something like this?
Compare that to coverage of a similar story by the Herald Standard newspaper in Uniontown. Lydia Wright, 23 months old, died in that city of
malnutrition and dehydration Feb. 24. Three days later, the Lafayette County coroner said he would
not release the preliminary autopsy reports. But at least he made the crime
public.
In Uniontown, a reporter discovered that police, a deputy
coroner and a children and youth services worker searched “the 26 Collins Ave.
home.”
Did anybody search the Reading house where the infant was
starved and poisoned? That’s public information. If so what does the search warrant say? If not, why not?
Reporters in Uniontown found out that children and youth
services had removed two other children from the toddler’s home.
The Reading Eagle is satisfied with a written statement three
months after a baby is murdered.
What is the world coming to?
Why haven’t our local media pressed this, and why haven’t
crimefighters provided more details?
Because the local media never press the crimefighters. From
municipal officers to the district attorney, their words are never checked or
challenged. Officials have nothing to lose by stonewalling. And the Reading
Eagle opens wide to be spoon-fed information on the officials' terms.
It’s not just me with questions. Along with many other media, Pennlive, in Philadelphia, had a story.
“I understand the investigation is ongoing, but not to say
anything? I wonder if they had suspicions all along, or if police were totally
blindsided by this finding?” T911 asked in a comment on that story.
“What address? Parents? Family? Information?” asked
commenter Wouldya.
"Great questions. And they were all being asked. Right
now, as the story says, the police and the DA are mum on any other details. The
poor baby died back in December. And it's taken this long to get a ruling of
homicide," Pennlive reporter John Luciew commented.
The Eagle bows to authority. If the police or district
attorney won’t tell us more, so be it, newsroom leaders say. Or they think this
story is too sordid to cover.
Which is exactly the opposite of why media are
protected in the Constitution – to get to the bottom of the cases when
police or prosecutors won’t give information.
And to make sure the authorities know someone will always be
asking questions, and making it public when the authorities refuse to answer.
9-1-1 provides a list of calls? I thought that stopped years ago. Just like we also blocked reporters' access to the office where search warrants are processed and from hearing cop traffic on the scanners, too. Heck, we even paid extra to make sure the public doesn't hear what's happening on Bearcats--Christian Leinbach
ReplyDeleteWhoa. You're running your mouth kinda reckless, aren't you, Christian? If someone finds out that some glorified clerk with a high school education down at Reading Central Court bowed to pressure from a detective to keep reporters from seeing search warrants, we're in tight spot because, technically, at least, they are public record. It's just you can't find what you don't know exists in the first place. It worked pretty good til you went running your mouth-- Steve Weber
ReplyDeleteFrom watching "Special Victims Unit," I just assumed police obtained a search warrant in this case. Am I wrong?
ReplyDelete