Setting the record straight

To the Editor: In lieu of a demand for retraction, please print this letter as prominently as you displayed your recent news story about Jeff Patti, which I can charitably describe as counter-factual. Mr. Patti was arrrested along with roughly three dozen others early this year with much fanfare but little hard evidence. Briefly, his computer was seized because of a combination of circumstances leading police to believe he had downloaded illegal pornography. When Mr. Patti’s computer was finally analyzed, State Police found “two (2) possibly significant images” which were still photos. Nowhere in the State Police report was there any description of file distribution or active sharing. As a result, a state grand jury elected not to charge Mr. Patti with the second degree crime described in your articles. Rather, he has been indicted for receipt of these “possibly signficant images,” a crime of the fourth degree. As a first time offender, Mr. Patti is eligible for Pretrial Intervention. In an effort to resolve his case, he has agreed to apply. No more or less can be inferred from that application. Meanwhile, the now-debunked histrionics from certain public officials remain embedded in the public domain, as news reporters choose not to ask the participants what actually happened. While Mr. Patti cannot complain about his treatment in the press, his family can. As long as you’re not getting it right, you might want to leave them out of future stories. John S. Furlong, Attorney for Mr. Patti