Wednesday, July 30, 2003

I was dismayed at the bias in favor of the prosecutor presented in John Munford's July 23, 2003, article entitled, "Doctor's 'inappropriate' exam of woman is on trial." I am a concerned citizen who has been present during the trial of the Fayetteville physician accused of improperly performing an exam. After reading how the facts were misrepresented in Mr. Munford's article I felt compelled to write to you in hope that this paper would print some of the critical aspects of the case which Mr. Munford omitted in what appears to be favoritism towards the prosecution.

Mr. Munford did not mention that Ms. Head came to the doctor's office "crying and upset" and seeking assistance with several emotional issues and "moodiness" which was affecting her relationship with her husband, from whom she has since divorced.

Also, it was not mentioned that Ms. Head produced a document which she appears to have forged since the defense was able to produce a legitimate copy which the prosecutor could not explain away.

No mention was made that the patient admitted that she could not see the hands of the doctor during the exam because she was shielded by the drape across her legs. No mention was made that the patient acknowledged that the speculum which the article claimed she did not see laid out for the exam are actually kept in a warmer in drawers at the end of the exam table. Ms. Head admitted she would not have been able to see these drawers during the exam because of her viewpoint.

Mr. Munford also failed to mention that the accuser, Ms. Cindy Head, claimed no pap smear was performed and yet the defense was able to produce the pap smear result issued by an independent laboratory who confirmed the collection date as the date that Ms. Head had her appointment.

Also, the time question of the specimen was later explained by the testimony of the nurse Mr. Munford alluded to when she explained that she always wrote the patient's name, date, and time when she set the room up for examination and not when the specimen was actually collected as the prosecutor tried to suggest.

As regards to not using gloves, the prosecution's own witnesses all confirmed that Dr. Cano always used one glove during the exam and only when the office was extremely busy or during an emergency did Dr. Cano ever see a patient alone. The prosecutor's own expert witness, Dr. Elizabeth Killebrew, admitted that it is an accepted standard for doctors to wear one glove during the pelvic exam, a practice she also follows. Furthermore, Dr. Killebrew also admitted to not always having a nurse in the room with her when she too was busy or in emergency situations.

I have come to respect the integrity of your newspaper over the years but this was the first time that I actually had an opportunity to see how one apparently biased or incompetent reporter could distort a story to his own liking. I felt angry at your paper because I was there in the court room and can confirm that Mr. Munford totally misrepresented the events that day by omitting everything which was damaging to the prosecutor.

I hope that you will publish some of my observations and will reserve my final opinion about the honesty and fairness of your paper until that time or else I fear I will never be able to trust one of your stories again.

Ms. Leslie Walton

Peachtree City