To the editor,
This is in response to the Dec. 22 article, “Protest a response to claims in lawsuit.” Normally, I am totally in sympathy with the claimants in cases of this type. This one, though, has so many unanswered questions and seemingly unsupportive claims that I find myself wondering about the motives of those involved.
Darlene Clouther, the woman leading the demonstration against the doctor, is reported as saying she doesn’t know the mystery woman claimant and that she heard about the case on social media. She, herself, doesn’t live in Naugatuck. So, why should she assume the man is guilty and gather her friends to go and protest outside his practice?
Clouther sits on the leadership council for Friends of Fisher House Connecticut, a nonprofit organization that was founded by attorney Kevin Creed, who is representing the claimant.
Creed is quoted as saying, “I know a lot of people, and a lot of people know about the case,” and, everyone has a right to protest
What was said on social media? Who suggested Clouther’s protest?
Dr. Robert Matusz may not, in fact, be the innocent man with a spotless record he is reported as, but, similarly, the claimant may have her own reasons for making these claims.
Whatever the truth is in this case, it is unfair to judge Dr. Matusz and attempt to blacken his character before a case has even been made. We shouldn’t rush to judgment until the case goes through the court and legal system.
Terry Peirce
Naugatuck
