Baseless attack

I am surprised you printed Keith O'Dell's diatribe against John Nash. Even with your follow-up correcting Mr. O'Dell's assertion that Mr. Nash's column violated "journalism," something he certainly should have known, you simply provided a forum for Mr. O'Dell to spew venom at Mr. Nash, with virtually nothing to justify it.

Mr. Nash and Mr. O'Dell are entitled to their opinions - as are we all. Mr. O'Dell is not however entitled to his own "facts" - nor is anyone else. Mr. O'Dell claims "great trial lawyers" brought about seat belts and airbags. In fact, they were mandated by Federal law, based on scientific studies, both here and in Europe, showing they were effective at reducing death and serious injuries.

Mr. O'Dell excoriates Mr. Nash for "not having your facts right." But Mr. O'Dell does not challenge any of Mr. Nash's statements of fact that the driver causing a girl's death was convicted of DUI manslaughter and sent to jail for 13 years; that a civil suit was won for $330 million against this same killer; and that the trial lawyer is now suing the car manufacturer, saying "Kia has a lot more than $330 million. We'll see if they want to tussle."

Instead Mr. O'Dell attacks Mr. Nash's motives for his opinion that the lawyer is seeking money from the car manufacturer and dealer even though they're innocent of the girl's death, hoping they'll want to avoid the costs of a trial and possible outlandish settlement.

And why would Mr. O'Dell attack Mr. Nash for "supporting this Korean car manufacturer?" What possible difference could it make that the manufacturer is Korean, instead of U.S.-based? Is he trying to stoke latent "Us vs. Them Foreigners" or racial prejudices?

On second thought, maybe you printed Mr. O'Dell's letter to point up how solid Mr. Nash's opinion must be, if this commentary is the best that can be said against him.

Walt Repak

Spring Hill