According to his mother, "Kevin is not a nerd"--small reward for the four-hour interview granted Mr. Hammer on his promise of "fair coverage in The Times."
Why did Mr. Hammer use the groundless allegations of a nameless source "close to Kevin" rather than that of numerous sources with names who would and did refute those allegations? For example: Robert McCullough (fellow co-founder at Magnuson Computers), when questioned along with Kevin's mother, debunked many of the allegations of "Nameless," yet he rated no quotes. Could it be that Mr. Hammer has tunnel vision?
A balanced article should have mentioned that Gene Amdahl (a giant in the computer world) is holding a job for Kevin upon his release on bail. Mr. Amdahl says that he has known Kevin for years and doesn't believe what he reads in the paper. Wise!
Meanwhile, our gentle son has been in jail over six months--denied the bail his family and friends have offered, denied the use of a computer needed to prepare his defense, and denied the opportunity to present his side! Now the judge has requested the prosecutor and defender to reach a speedy settlement. What's become of constitutional rights?
VIRGINIA AND ANDREW ANDERSON