You'd hope Sam would actually look into the Wyley Gates case to see if Keeler was at fault: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/13/nyregion/town-is-stunned-by-acquittal-of-teen-ager-in-killings-of-4.html
1) Why did Keeler not run for re-election after losing the case?2) Should a D.A. throw others under the bus when his case fails?
As described in the NY Times article:1) Outrage was deflected from the sheriff's office to the DA.2) Keeler had no comment; he did not blame others.
As my old friend Gene has already heard directly from me very recently, but he has chosen to forget, one of my parents covered the Gates trial for another very good newspaper. I was getting firsthand reports daily at home. Gene can try to deflect from the topic all he likes—the post was about the debates, which he and the CCDC decided to duck. But if he wanted to try to put a new spin an issue which has haunted his unsuccessful candidacies across multiple decades, a good place to do it might have been a debate.As reported, it’s hard to see how a candidacy which seeks to promise openness and community involvement can square that message with not debating.
Your dismissal of the New York Times coverage illustrates exactly why a debate would have been a terrible place to discuss a case more than thirty years old. Wyley Gates has haunted Gene Keeler’s candidacies for years because Republicans have consistently ignored published reports to give a one-sided portrayal of that event. Is your parent's coverage of the Gates trial available online so we can read his or her view of the confession and evidence?The debate was declined because Paul Czajka’s campaign has consisted only of such attacks, in contrast to Gene Keeler’s proposals for judicial reforms. A debate is a good forum to discuss ideas, not to rehash old charges while once again refusing to accept contradictory accounts.
New to Columbia County voting: Were there no other Dem candidates?