by Ken King

Well, it looks like everybody survived the snowstorm without too much inconvenience.  I enjoyed finally getting a decent covering of snow (18 inches was a bit much, but what the heck we get it so infrequently).  The snow sure makes it look more like winter and the neighborhood kids really seem to be having some quality fun.  Another benefit of the storm was that it gave me a chance to work on this article.  Ever since last week I knew what I wanted to write about but getting the time to do it has been somewhat of a problem.  With a couple days extra at home I was able to collect my thoughts and put them into writing.  Here goes:

I’m sure most of you either saw or heard about the 20/20 special concerning Rick Fritz, Carla Bailey, and the St. Mary’s Today.  In case you didn’t you will find a small portion of the transcript below in the form of a question from Chris Wallace, Fritz’s response, and then a comment made by Chris Wallace.  The complete transcript can be found on the ABC and St. Mary’s Today web sites (the ABC site takes awhile to navigate through.  It is on the front page of Rossingnol’s site and easier to locate).

CHRIS WALLACE: What makes you think that a 15-year-old girl would willingly have sex with three young men one after another?

 FRITZ: Happens all the time.

CHRIS WALLACE (VO): Bailey’s parents finally heard and went to the authorities. But the case never got to trial. As we’ve said, Fritz and another of the young men pled guilty to a misdemeanor, having sex with an underage girl, and got off with probation. The third boy was a juvenile, and his record is sealed.

Fritz claims that it was consensual and Ms. Bailey was a willing participant.  I would like to know the following: If it was consensual as Rick Fritz claims then why did he, and his cohorts, plead guilty to the misdemeanor of having sex with an underage girl?  If it had been truly consensual wouldn’t this man have fought to have his “good name” cleared?  This contradiction of the facts is something that Mr. Fritz should explain.  This current version of this story were he says she was willing, she changed her mind afterwards and pressed charges, he pled guilty but was truly innocent is a little far fetched.   It seems to me that Fritz has acquired and displays the same abilities as our President with regard to being truthful.  This is an excellent qualification for the lead prosecutor in our judicial system, don’t you think?  It definitely gives us a little insight into Mr. Fritz’s character or should I say his lack of character.  It really makes one wonder if the other stories you hear about the man are also true.  Given his propensity to lie about matters of public record (this case) I wonder what other lies he is telling or using in his position as State’s Attorney.  More importantly, is this the type of person that we want overseeing the prosecution of the criminals and protection of the innocent in our county?  I, for one, don’t think so and I further feel that he should not hold any position of public trust.

I would also like to know if anyone, other than Fritz, believes that this type of incident (as described by Fritz) “happens all the time”?  Personally, I doubt it.  Maybe I just grew up around a different crowd than what Fritz did, as none of the girls I knew would be in for something like what he claims took place.  Remember that this is the mid-sixties that we are talking about.  Does anyone remember anything like this taking place?  If so, would it be something that you would say, “happens all the time”?  Maybe Mr. Fritz was lost in a fantasy world and doesn’t know what does or does not happen in our community.  Realistically, I think it’s just another instance of Fritz lying in an attempt to save his butt.  He took the papers to save the election, he pled guilty to the lesser offense to save his hide, and he continues to stick to the consensual sex story after pleading guilty.  Does anyone see a pattern here?   I sure do.  With any luck the FBI will be charging him for infringing on the First Amendment rights (both the papers and those of the people that buy the paper) and he will be removed from office.  If not, the task will fall to us.  If the later becomes the case then I feel it is up to us, the citizens, to see that a man that would commit this type of crime never has a chance at serving again and that we aggressively work to remove him from office or at least that we ensure that he does not win in the next election if he chooses to run.  As I see it the only way we will get people of high moral character into these offices is either by taking a proactive role in looking into the character of the candidates that we have or to have “pit bulls” like Ken Rossingnol digging into the past and bringing the facts to light.  While numerous people, myself included, might not agree with the tactics that Rossingnol uses in the generation of his tabloid you must admit that he sometimes uncovers needed information, such as this.