Will silence make Candice safer?

Good Day Mr. Liburd,

I am a friend of Candice Worrell and was therefore very concerned when I came across your recent article captioned “Welcome Back, Candice!” this morning.

The news is fantastic but consideration should be given to the fact that the perpetrator of this crime has not been found.

He/she is still out there and is most likely monitoring Candice’s progress. The fact that she is now conversing is going to make him/her very nervous.

There is no telling what they might do to keep her from revealing their identity. The worker from the re-upholstery establishment downstairs Jenexcon has also been put at risk by these revelations and must also be scared for his life.

Jan Michael is a great guy etc. etc. and I am overjoyed to hear about Candice’s progress but if you guys really care about Candice please consider her safety before divulging this type of information in the future.

Regards,

Concerned Reader

Good Day Concerned Reader,

I thank you for taking the time to write Wired868 on this matter and I believe that in itself shows how seriously you take your role as Candice’s friend.

I assure that Candice’s wellbeing is a priority to me as well. Wired868 was the first to write on the tragic incident but has always given Candice’s loved ones the time and space needed to deal with this catastrophe.

Now, in no way am I suggesting that this gives me the right to endanger her life. I’m just trying to point out that we are very genuinely concerned about how Candice gets on.

There are always different sides to every story and I appreciate and respect yours.

But let me tell you why I wrote that story and why I mentioned the re-upholstering employee.

The employee was never an anonymous witness. The assailant spoke directly to him at the scene of the crime and, if he is monitoring the case, he would already know that the employee made a statement to the police.

In fact, my story said that the employee claimed he could not remember the assailant beyond his green jersey.

So the assailant, who already knows he was seen, might rest easy in the knowledge that no identification seems possible.

The assailant doesn’t need the media to tell him who Candice’s fiancé is and where he lives (although I never gave an address in any report).

And Candice’s comings and goings on weekends would have been impossible to conceal. Just as it would not have been difficult for anyone, suitably motivated, to track Candice down at a public hospital.

The Wired868 story might have again offered the assailant some comfort, if he is online and/or reads us, in that Candice is reported to have no memory of the incident.

So, if the assailant wanted to do more serious damage to Candice and had the means to do so; he wouldn’t need any info from the media.

And, if he was concerned about being found out, he might have been relieved by what he read about the “witness” and on Candice’s failing memory.

But Wired868 feels no pleasure in making this deranged individual feel “comfortable”.

Candice’s attack had nothing to do with Wired868 and no one can guarantee her safety. For the reasons I mentioned, I don’t believe we put Candice under any additional risk.

But we do want people thinking about her assailant. Our system is supposed to work to protect Candice and the rest of us.

Suppose the employee did see the assailant but was unwilling to give a description out of personal fear?

That doesn’t make him safer; it possibly makes life riskier for all of us.

Jenexcon employees should similarly consider ways to make their workplace safer. But Wired868‘s silence on Candice won’t help them.

Please understand that I’m not dismissing your very justifiable concerns.

I will respect you and the calm, measured tone of your letter even if you are not moved one iota by what I said.

I will just like to reiterate that Wired868 will never knowingly put Candice’s life or anyone else’s life at risk. And we continue to pray for her quick recovery and that the assailant pays for his crimes.

Yours respectfully,

Lasana

Editor’s Note: Do you have an opinion to share on our coverage of this tragic incident or on the way the media covers crime in general? Please leave your comments with us and join this discussion

Jan-Michael Williams stated in an earlier story that he brought this tragic story to the public domain, in early February, as a warning regarding violent crimes against women–particularly as Trinidad and Tobago prepared for Carnival 2012 at that time.

Wired868 believes he always strived to ensure the safety of his fiancée while also delivering a message of caution and vigilance to the public at large.

More from Wired868

Dear Editor: Newspaper editors needed… and start at the Trinidad Express!

Trinidad Express Newspapers are in the market for an assistant night editor. Through you, I wish to make an application Read more

Dear Editor: Bassant should simplify investigative reports on Foster Cummings—for man-on-the-street

“[…] I am firmly of the view that no minister who has been or is involved in any shady financial and Read more

Media Monitor: Making amends for mystery of not calling SC’s name

As a part-time monitor of the media and a full-time anglophile, I sometimes come across stuff in the newspaper that Read more

Early Bird: When CNC3 “rolled” over the late Professor Gordon Rohlehr

Apoplectic, my fo’daymorning walk pardnah Bobby would later describe my state. In hindsight, I had to agree. Unapologetically apoplectic. Don’t Read more

MATT offers condolences to families of Anthony Harris and Joel Nanton

“[…] Anthony Harris was a well-known and universally appreciated sports photographer who covered events with distinction across more than three Read more

Farewell Joel Nanton, I have never met a better person

Joel Nanton, the chair of the Department of Journalism and Media at COSTAATT, passed away yesterday at the age of Read more