In response to Mr. Scott Saul's letter of Oct. 17, I can appreciate your compassion for Harold Fish's family. They didn't kill an unarmed man.
I was interviewed by Dateline for four hours in my home and at the Dog Park. During that interview, I got the distinct feeling they were biased and leaned toward Harold Fish's innocence.
For almost two years, Dateline investigated the incident and for two months their cameras were in the courtroom. One must remember Dateline is for entertainment. They have to dramatize and make it look interesting.
Dateline was able to do something that the judge forbid, that was trying the victim and his past, which had absolutely nothing to do with Fish's right to shoot and kill Grant Kuenzli. However, Dateline failed to mention Fish's dark side, wherein he used his weapon to intimidate his neighbor and a 14-year-old boy.
Fish had about 40 years of target practice at the firing range, a brown belt in karate and a five-foot aluminum hiking stick and still chose to use lethal force.
One must take into consideration Fish's story is the only one we hear, but what about Grant's story?
I ask, "Is prison a lesser punishment than death?"
Fish had two hotshot expensive attorneys to spin his story and spin it they did.
One startling observation the medical examiner made was the possibility that Grant could have been standing still when Fish shot him three times with his 10mm gun loaded with hollow point bullets. (Designed to blow a hole through a man)
Dateline failed to mention that Fish went up to the highway three times before he flagged down a car. Is it possible Fish saw the car where the "ear" witnesses were parked and decided to stick around rather than leave the scene? Was this the reason he took more than an hour to build his alibi, before reporting the shooting. Did he wait until Grant bled out before reporting? By Fish's own statement, Grant was still alive after being shot. Rather than just placing a backpack under his head, why didn't Fish attempt to stop the bleeding?
There are many unexplained answers, perhaps if you had heard all the testimony as the jury had, you may have had a different opinion.
I could go on, but the word limit prohibits it.
John J. McCauley