In recent days, I’ve written a couple of posts about a 2013 incident in which a man was arrested, charged, and convicted after taking a shot at the younger brother of Honolulu businessman and alleged criminal gang leader, Mike Miske.
If you followed it closely, you might have noticed an apparent discrepancy.
A Hawaii News Now report on the arrest identified the suspect as “Jon Rapoza.” A year previously, in September 2012, a KHON news story identified “John Rapoza” as among Hawaii’s most wanted, displaying a Crimestoppers graphic.
Meanwhile, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser identified the person charged in the shooting as Jon Frederick Rapozo.
Then I came along seven years later and had to make sense of the conflicting information. Is this person Jon Rapoza, John Rapoza, John Rapozo, or Jon Rapozo? How is a reporter supposed to use the correct name?
I chose to stick to the name as reported by the Star-Advertiser. In my experience, newspaper reporters have a better track record in such situations. But I first went to the official court records and found the docket from this shooting case. In the docket, the defendant’s name is given as Jon F Rapozo. I was able to confirm it was the correct case because there is a reference to a hearing in which the witnesses, John Stancil and Mike Miske, are named. That provided what I needed to feel comfortable following the Star-Advertiser’s lead.
It’s a small thing, Rapozo or Rapoza. But it’s the kind of decision reporters routinely have to make, and being correct does make a difference.
