I read with interest Ms. Dillon's letter regarding Mr. Ways' tyranny editorial (Sunday, Oct. 25).
Ms. Dillon probably isn't aware that writing on a public town inspection document (at any time) isn't a crime. The crime of common law forgery is supposed to require altering a document AND showing a specific intent to defraud someone using the altered information on the document. For example, if you wrote your name on a check meant to go to another, and presented the check to a bank, then you have shown a specific intent to defraud. However, if you wrote your middle initial on a check meant to go to you, then you haven't.
Living in Pittsboro, Ms. Dillon probably isn't aware that the town of Carrboro never gave Ms. Kille the chance to commit an act in furtherance of showing that specific intent. Instead, they immediately detected the alteration (an intensely curious coincidence in and of itself) and prematurely raced to the media with a document having Ms. Kille's scribbling, immediately condemning Ms. Kille in the court of public opinion. Which begs the question, why didn't Carrboro authorities notify the Carrboro police quietly, record the alteration, put the document back in the archives where it sat, and wait to see if the altered document was ever used for defrauding anyone?
Not having attended the trial, as I did, Ms. Dillon probably also isn't aware that the county never made a showing of a specific intent to defraud. That's right. The assistant district attorney never proved that Ms. Kille ever tried to use any altered town document so as to defraud the town. For political purposes, the constructive disappearance of the specific intent criminal element from the crime of common law forgery in Orange County courts makes new law for North Carolina.
In my opinion, having spent thirty years in the legal arena, if the Kille case had been presented as a question on a law examination, then both the politically astute judge and the assistant district attorney would fail that part.
For the record, I never referred to Ms. Kille in my political forum speech (a copy of which I gave to Mr. Way) as the "widow Kille." I did refer to her as "a widow." I didn't choose that language. Ms. Kille did. I asked her how she wanted to be described. So much for victimizing Ms. Kille, unless of course.
As to tyranny, let's just say Ms. Dillon and I have different standards in recognizing it. I prefer to live in a society in which your mental health isn't called into question publicly by government officials without good and sufficient demonstrative cause.
Living in Pittsboro, Ms. Dillon probably also isn't aware of the political impact my outspokenness in the Kille matter had on my mayoral campaign. It lost, not gained, me potential votes. Speaking out about town injustice didn't engender support among those Carrburbans who rely on a narrow circle of endorsements in order to decide how to vote. So much for political exploitation.
Finally, I'm surprised that Ms. Dillon failed to reveal her underlying interest in the Kille case. She didn't disclose her shared Chatham County private school association with Alderman Dan Coleman. Is it possible that we're actually hearing Alderman Coleman speaking through Ms. Dillon? If so, then we must remember, Alderman Coleman has an interesting record with regards to telling complete and accurate public statements, particularly as they concern a "weak and defenseless" woman."
Brian Voyce of Carrboro was a candidate for mayor in the 2009 election and previously served as a Chapel Hill Herald contributing columnist.
