On life and death matters, we must resist dealing in speculation

Speculation is about the only stock in trade for some mysteries. But that doesn't excuse openly dealing in the commodity

An Austin, Texas-based PR agent offered us an interview this week with the author of a coming book about a convicted serial killer. The author, "one of America's foremost authorities on aggressive males, especially those who target female lovers," could help us ask whether Stacy Peterson's husband is telling the truth about her disappearance or whether he shares traits with the serial killer.

The husband, mind you, has not been named a suspect in his wife's disappearance. Yet, such is the publicity surrounding the case that already a book promoter halfway across the country feels comfortable encouraging us to speculate along with an "expert" who has never met him about his psychological similarities to a serial killer.

Unfortunately, speculation is about the only stock in trade in such a mystery. But that doesn't excuse openly dealing in the commodity. Indeed, it emphasizes an extra level of care we need to take in order to cover a potentially horrifying story responsibly. That level of care is too easily ignored. This week alone, a local television interviewer provided an extensive discussion with a Peterson acquaintance who lamented not telling police sooner of fears she expressed about her husband. A local radio interview allowed a relative to describe the husband as at least intellectually abusive.

This story out of Bolingbrook, like a similar case involving the disappearance of Lisa Stebic in Plainfield, is slightly outside the Daily Herald's circulation area, so we have relied mostly on Associated Press for coverage. Of course, we realize that we have an important role in serving the legitimate interest in both cases, and thankfully, AP has generally approached them with the kind of restraint we seek. Even so, our copy editors have at times had to edit out comments or phrases that go too far in suggesting the men had a role in their wives' disappearances. That assessment, is for the legal authorities to make. It is entirely natural for family members and even curious onlookers to conceive theories about missing loved ones and to discuss those theories with each other. But when we start making those discussions part of the public record, we come dangerously close to misconstruing them as actual investigation.

Editor John Lampinen reflects that the Daily Herald must avoid "pseudo-detective reporting that is blatantly unfair to the people involved" and adds, "For those who would question the need for restraint in cases like this, all they need to explore is the case of JonBenet Ramsey, who was slain in the basement of her home in Boulder, Colo., in 1996. The news media and police spent almost 10 years vilifying and disparaging the parents, only to finally exonerate them -- after the mother had died."

It's far too early to suggest that the husbands of Lisa Stebic or Stacy Peterson ultimately will be exonerated. But it's also too early to condemn them on the basis of highly circumstantial remarks and observations. Hopefully, as you read their stories and engage in the natural speculation such mysteries incite, you are keeping in mind how many questions remain to be answered and not taking news stories -- ours or anyone else's -- for anything more than what they are.

And, no, we won't be interviewing any authors just yet about how the minds of a notorious serial killer and two husbands whose wives are missing are alike. Ultimately, it will be for legal authorities to determine who is responsible in these cases. We will follow their investigations and, when it comes to that, their prosecutions of suspects very closely. But in the meantime, we will attempt to provide coverage that candidly reports the anguish and determination of loved ones but also avoids unfair accusations that, if untrue, would only add another awful element to stories with more than enough potential sadness already.