Letters to the editor

Guest Columnist | 30 January 2007

Font size: + - | print | email to a friend

Karen no killer

I keep re-reading the front page pointer and the two stories about Frank and Elaine Rasmussen (SC, Dec) and wondering why Karen Brown is referred to a number of times as ‘a killer’. Ms Brown was acquitted of the charges of murder and manslaughter.

I also keep wondering why the brutality of Bill’s attack on Ms Brown is played down. In the page 3 story, the only description of the bashing of Karen Brown by Bill is a quote from Bill’s grandfather saying it was ‘fairly serious’. But it was serious enough to fracture Brown’s skull. The photos of her at the time clearly showed the extent of the brutality of that bashing. They were in open space, she was badly injured, and for all she knew Bill intended to run her over once he got the car started.

On page 22, the story doesn’t even mention that Bill bashed Karen Brown.

From the two stories and the front page pointer, I came away thinking I was supposed to believe that Bill was a poor unfortunate young man who just happened to be ‘out of sorts’ one day when – for next to no reason – a vicious middle-aged security guard shot him dead.

What actually happened was that Bill savagely bashed a middle-aged woman who had done him no harm, injuring her seriously, solely for the purpose of stealing money, and was shot by her as she staggered about in a blinding haze of searing pain and fear, barely able to see from the blood streaming down her face, terrified that he might attack her again as has happened in so many robberies. How does that make her ‘a killer’?

I’m stunned that Southern Cross could so sideline the real story of what happened to Karen Brown in order to accent the forgiving Rasmussens. Isn’t Karen Brown entitled to compassion and sympathy?

Terry Craig
Campsie, NSW

Nooma with substance

In response to the rise of the Nooma DVDs (SC, Dec), I reckon the right response can be summed up in two words: inoculate and improve.

They can be easily obtained, so not showing them at church will hardly protect a congregation. Instead inoculate; show them and critique them.

However, I reckon Sydney Anglicans could also improve on the Nooma DVDs. I have only seen one but I couldn’t help but think, ‘with groups like Christians in the Media and ENTER, Sydney Anglicans can do better than that, with just as much style, and the substance of Jesus instead of stylish fluff’.

Sure it would cost a lot to make such a slick production but so what? Being entrepreneurial for the gospel always costs but more importantly, our God owns all the cattle on all the hills.

Glenn Hohnberg
St Lucia, QLD

Click here to comment on this article for the next edition of Southern Cross