To the editor:
The reason Starr Lloyd is not in jail is that a number of people have actually done their jobs competently and in compliance with the law.
According to the Gloucester Daily Times' own reporting, Lloyd's 2009 rape charge was dropped because the district attorney's office felt it could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As distasteful as Lloyd's episodes of indecent exposure are, it appears that they do not meet the criteria to warrant dangerousness hearings or prohibitively high bail.
When asked why a dangerousness hearing was not held, District Attorney Kimball Monahan was quoted as saying, "You're asking the court to hold someone without a trial" (the Times, April 6).
Yet that appears to be exactly what the Times is demanding in its editorials. It also appears that the paper is usurping the roles of police, district attorney, and judge by using a bully pulpit to question the competence and integrity of everyone who falls short of carrying out the actions the Times has decided are necessary.
The Lloyd story quite rightly should have been reported in the paper, but I have become increasingly uneasy about what seems to be a tenor of vigilantism in the coverage.
Washington Street, Gloucester