While we receive a steady flow of responses to our low-tech and cost-free singles ads (see page 35 for current ads and how to respond to them), we seldom get letters to the editor from this section of the paper. This week, however, we have not one but two. The first to arrive was unsigned, but it asked two important questions that we will answer here:
1. “This is the second time I’ve responded to one of your singles ads. There was no response to my first letter early in June and I don’t even know if the note was forwarded. Can you guarantee that all letters are forwarded?” Yes, we absolutely positively send them out, often on the same day we receive them.
2. “Could you please encourage your people who have placed ads to respond regardless of interest within a reasonable amount of time?” Yes, we can encourage them, but no, we can’t guarantee it. One hint: Include your E-mail address with your written response. And if you want to use an E-mail address for your responses, let us know: There is a small fee.
To the Editor: Context From the Private Eye
I enjoyed speaking with Preview Editor Jamie Saxon for her excellent article titled “Internal Affairs: Look Who’s Watching” (U.S. 1, August 15).
There is, however, one small part of the article that I believe was taken out of context. The article read: “[What concerned me about the suspect] is that this guy is going into a bad part of Newark. It appeared to me there was some sort of exchange between him and another person. Then he takes off out of the neighborhood. In my experience with narcotics investigations that’s consistent with a drug transaction. During the weekday or weekday evening a white guy with a nice car pulls into a bad neighborhood, a black guy approaches the car. What other reason would he have to go there?”
Evidently there was a misunderstanding in what I was attempting to convey. I certainly do not want to imply, nor do I believe, that a white guy has no other reason to be in a black neighborhood other than to purchase drugs and vice versa.
What I was attempting to convey was that in the specific investigation, via my experience in dealing with narcotics investigations, I believed that the suspect engaged in drug activity because he drove approximately one hour to a bad neighborhood for no other reason other than to meet an individual who approached his vehicle and while looking around nervously and suspiciously then engaged in an exchange with the suspect; then the suspect quickly departed the area.
There were other observations that I did not discuss that led me to my opinion that this was a “drug deal.” When your editor and I spoke I was explaining the story as it specifically applied to that investigation; the suspect just so happened to be white and the unidentified male with whom he made a transaction just so happened to be black. I was merely providing detail in an effort to provide a visual for your readers.
Owner, Magnum Investigations