By Paul Daquilante • Staff Writer • 

Defense says dental practice charges bogus

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

leo

Who is "Long" mentioned in about the 10th paragraph? Someone who used to work there?

Reporter Starla Pointer

Leo, thanks for pointing out that typo so we could fix it.

lm robertson

It appears this story was written with the assumption that the reader knows the history to this case. What's clearly missing, is the history. What were these women specifically involved in? The criminal charges are listed, but what did they do? How did they allegedly misappropriate funds?

sbagwell

We ran a major story in our Tuesday edition detailing the prosecution's case. The aim of this story was to give the defense a chance to respond.

That story is still posted on our site and available free of charge in our archives if you'd like to take a look. So are previous stories on the case, which has garnered a lot of attention locally.

Steve Bagwell, Managing Editor

Paul Daquilante

The story that presented the prosecution's case appeared in the Friday, Jan. 22 edition.

Trafik

The irony, lm robertson.

Reader outcry on the earlier reporting of charges being dismissed may have dictated a softer, less-is-more approach on this follow-up piece. Some readers felt rehashing the charges after dismissal was unfair to the former defendants and made their views known in this forum, scolding the newspaper. One even suggested the News-Register owed Hixson and McMullen an apology.

Personally, I prefer news accounts to be self-supporting with backstory details. The dismissal story at http://newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=da-dismisses-dental-practice-charges--1453485874--20747-- covers this case pretty well.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS