Libel can be tricky...

I was editing an AP story at the East Valley Tribune, a follow-up about the UA student who was arrested on suspicion of stabbing her roommate to death. Libel was easy to avoid in that sentence by simply saying "arrested on suspicion of" instead of "arrested for" but other forms make it harder to detect. I often look at AP stories as being infallible and already perfect before I even lay eyes on them. But it's not true. When I read the following paragraph (the nut graf of the story) I'm sorry to say it didn't jump out at me as something that should be corrected, or even questioned (which is hard to admit - but I figure we are all learning right?):

"But before 18-year-old Galareka Harrison killed Mia Henderson, she forged a note in which the victim purportedly admitted falsely accusing her roommate and 'mentioned ending her own life,' university police Officer Mario Leon wrote in a sworn statement."

The first several words basically say this girl is already guilty, and she had just been arrested. The reporter made an effort to say "purportedly" when referencing the victim, but the accused got no such luck. The problem that I think made me gloss over this is the fact that this is what the police officer's sworn statement says, and the reporter also attributed it to court papers (in the first paragraph of the story). But I realized, after the next person on the copy desk read this and had a problem with the sentence, that the libelous phrase was paraphrased. It wasn't a direct quote and so it could be rewritten in a way that protected the girl who was arrested. The person who spotted it changed it so the version in the newpaper read: "Before Mia Henderson was killed ..." though in the online version the original phrase is still used.

I'd like to think I was just having an bad day because I have caught big stuff like this before (I swear I'm not this bad)!!! Just something to think about, though!