Jamestown Post Journal Readers' Forum
Is Mike Watson a Scapegoat?
Submitted by Elaine of Jamestown.

Elaine discusses her displeasure with the media's coverage of Michael Watson. She states, "It was noted that his picture would not be shown due to 'extenuating circumstances'.  However his picture was shown several times on major television stations; even though he had not been charged with a crime."

What....not charged with a crime? Did I miss something? Did I not understand what it meant when on October 4th, 2004 Officer Michael Watson was released on $10,000 bail after being charged with one count of official misconduct, two counts of stalking, two counts of harassment and four counts of aggravated harassment. Hmmmm...I counted nine charges, and if I'm thinking correctly those nine charges are all CRIMES.

So yes, his picture should be shown. Since those nine charges are very serious crimes against several women that the FBI are aware of, maybe...just maybe other women should know his face. Maybe he has encountered other women. Maybe showing his face, other women will know to stay clear of him.

Elaine also states, "Due to the timing of these charges, this appeared to me to be an attempt to make him look guilty; even though it was stressed that the harassment charges had nothing to do with the missing person's case. I wonder, could Mike Watson have been a convenient scapegoat?"

Hay...she just said Charges....so what is it...charges or no charges. Elaine can't seem to make up her mind.

Mike Watson a scapegoat? Yeah right, since clearly it has been stated that the charges are unrelated. If Mike Watson is a scapegoat then why has he not been tried yet? Why does it appear that Mike Watson has been just swept under the rug?

Now here's the real topper that got me: Elaine decides to sneak in the statement, "As far as this case do we even know if a crime has been committed?"

So just what was Elaine saying with that statement? Does she find it more believable that a mother of four young children would just abandoned her kids and abandoned her whole entire family with all of whom she was very close too? I guess it's more conceivable that a person could not be responsible for stalking and harassing several women than it is for a person to disappear due to foul play.

I'm not saying that Mike Watson is responsible for Yolanda's Disappearance, but definitely questionable based on charges against him. Yes Mike Watson has Four Children. Mike Watson still has his Four children, and they also have their Mother. Yolanda's Four children have not been given that same right; they Do Not have their mother. It has been requested that pictures of Yolanda's children not be shown, but they have. It seems to me that more time is being spent pushing things under the rug....than time being spent on finding a Missing Mother of Four! So the question is; what's more important the fact that Mike Watson's Pictures of been publicized or the fact that we have a Missing Women on our hands due to foul play?

I know this came from a forum in the Post Journal, but how could they publish this garbage? It seems to me like the Post Journal cares more about Mike Watson, then they do about four innocent children who have lost their mother.

Have a complaint to the Post Journal send it here: Letter to the Editor
Demand that Yolanda and her childern get the same respect as Mike Watson. Demand more coverage. Demand Answers!


Find Yolanda Home