Your June 6 treatment of the Craig Peyer dismissal placed readers in the understandingly difficult position of trying to sort reasoned fact from semi-hysterical commentary.
The Times so often presents a temperate recital of events and conclusions that your speculative article, punctuated by an illogical editorial that relies on fabrication for its conclusions, is totally out of context. One can only conclude that The Times rushed into print for dramatic, rather than journalistic, reasons--a shame given the already low public regard for the press in general.
Your reporter initially implies that there is something sinister in the fact that we did not conduct an independent criminal investigation of former Officer Peyer, but instead relied on the evidence gathered by San Diego police. The judge who bound Peyer over for trial relied on that evidence, and we felt no less comfortable making an identical judgment. In fact, to have conducted a parallel criminal investigation would have been unwarranted and totally inappropriate.
We of course carried out an independent investigation of those allegations which related exclusively to CHP procedures and policies, and when we told The Times (as well as other media) many weeks ago that we were conducting our own investigation, this is what we referred to. This information was merged with the facts of the criminal investigation into what became a completed package. Action based on this package was deferred for weeks, based upon the court's informal request to withhold any sanction of Peyer prior to the preliminary hearing--which The Times was well aware of.