Dear John,
I’m challenging you to an open forum, whether it be a recorded phone call or meeting, to discuss why you print lies and omissions and not both sides of the story — in other words, I want to know why you simply print what you want, and not let the other guy defend himself. What you’re doing in your LVRJ columns is clearly defamation.
You wrote a story a while back. You referred to Ricardo Bonvicin, that North Las Vegas cop we have widely divergent opinions on, as a “true survivor.” Well, I call him a “true sociopath.”
It’ll really be a bad day for anyone the day Bonvicin, a North Las Vegas cop, gets involved in their life.
There’s a lot missing in your story, in my opinion. There are some things that you should have gone over with Bonvicin that you neglected to discuss with him. For example, why didn’t you ask him to explain his bankruptcy? And why didn’t you think to ask him how he payed for private detective Tom Dillard?
And why didn’t you ask him to explain his own words, which I have recorded, when he states the legal strategy he will pursue:
“Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.”
Those are the words of a cop — a North Las Vegas law enforcement officer. Ricardo Bonvicin.
It’s all in the court records, if you’d care to look. Maybe you should stop offering opinions on things like this that you obviously don’t do enough homework on.
I’ve been working on a complete website about Bonvicin, his life and lies. You’ll find it interesting reading. That is, of course, assuming you actually do some research about the subjects you’re writing on and gain some factual information.
But I won’t hold my breath on that.