The implication is that Archibald has a copy of the DHR report. If so, that might be good reporting on his part. But why doesn't he give readers at least some clue as to how he obtained it? Why doesn't he tell us what else is in the report? Why doesn't he seek comments from officials who apparently ignored the DHR report? Archibald seems more interested in titillating his readers than in educating them.
Here are perhaps the big questions: If the Acker case and the DHR report have been out there for about 20 years, why is The Birmningham News just now latching onto the story? What if a victim and a family member went to the newspaper years ago about Acker's activities? What if they shared their story about wrongdoing in Shelby County and were rebuffed, much as I was?
When I met with Archibald he said he wasn't interested in my story partly because he already was working on a much more serious scandal in Shelby County. I'm not sure what could be more serious than rampant corruption throughout the county courthouse and its law-enforcement mechanism, but Archibald assured me he was onto something that involved "high crimes." Was it something connected to the Acker story. Did he get wind of it and, like those he now trashes, decide to look the other way?
Whatever the big scandal was, John Archibald never wrote about it. He apparently took a look and decided to let it slide--much the way county officials let the Acker situation slide in the early 1990s.
You see what I mean about the need for irony transplants at The Birmingham News.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
