Thus the use of the phrases, "no smoking gun" and "preponderance of the evidence". There may simply be a large amount of evidence from various locations, that when looked at in its entirety, would reasonably point to the conclusions LE arrived at. They may not be able to prove *where* one of the victims was murdered, thus the 2 on the crime map and lack of location data, but can likely prove that the individual is deceased, and somehow connected to the accused.
It's difficult to interpret the strength of the evidence. No plea, or plea deal yet... does that mean the evidence could be challenged, or is it negotiating strategy? Could charges be abruptly stayed, as in the Vader case? Is the evidence incomplete, and pointing at the wrong suspect?
This is part of the overall debate of publication bans. Does it help create a fair trial? Does it allow for technicalities in the system for the guilty to abuse? Does it keep the public unfairly ignorant to issues that affects it? Does it undermine a free and democratic society? If the public is paying, do they simply have a right to the information immediately?
The question is, does the public's right to know supersede the right's of the victim's and accused?
There are three main reasons for publication bans in Canadian trials. The first is to keep eventual jury members unbiased. In adult cases, this type of ban usually covers only pre-trials, not trials, and so doesnt especially affect the right of the public to know how justice is served.
The second reason is to protect sexual assault victims from having their histories and violations dissected in public. Its a provision that victims rights organizations fought long and hard for, since sexual crimes have often shamed the victim even more than the accused.
The last goal of legal anonymity, as set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is to give young people a chance to escape the shadow of early mistakes.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-...me-has-passed/article21808611/?service=mobile
The largest issue affecting Canadian media is the ban against electronic recording devices.
Supporters of greater camera access usually offer some variation on these arguments:
*Most Canadians can't attend courts in person.
*TV is the main source of news for most people.
*Witnesses will be more likely to tell the truth when cameras are there.
*Lawyers will be better prepared.
*Televised trials educate the public and show differences between the U.S. and Canadian legal systems.
*The whole trial process is more open to public scrutiny.
-----
Opponents of camera access have their own list of concerns:
*Witnesses could be reluctant to come forward if cameras are present.
*Lawyers could grandstand for the cameras.
*Jurors could feel pressure.
*The media would focus on sensational cases or testimony.
*Stress on trial participants would increase.
*Invasion of privacy in sensitive cases.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/cameras-in-the-courts-1.869497
-----
The argument comes down to rights, application of the judicial process, and the Charter:
Media appeals of camera access denials are based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2 (b) guarantees, among other things, "freedom of the press and other media of communication."
That right is not absolute. Section 1 of the charter says that all freedoms spelled out in Section 2 are guaranteed "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The case law has developed to the point that the right to a fair trial does not trump the media's freedom of expression. Now both rights are given equal status.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that a publication ban should only be ordered when it's "necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial."
Supporters of camera access point out there is already legal protection prohibiting the identification of young persons and victims of sexual assault. Access advocates say dealing with sensitive situations with blanket bans on camera access, rather than allowing judges to rule on them on a case by case basis, amounts to a blackout that should not be allowed to stand.
-----
In the end, it is up to the individual Judge as to what happens in his/her courtroom. Lawyers on both sides and the media have the right to argue for or against a publication ban for each case. Like all matters before the court, they can present evidence and use previous rulings as precident in their arguments, but ultimately the final decision rests in the Judges hands.
As a side note; I personally see the circus antics of American media, presenting evidence and publicly vetting victims, witnesses and suspects alike, deeply disturbing. Trials should take place in a court room... Not on TV.
, yeah I take issue with that. IF we find out down the road that there was incompetence on behalf of the homicide team or the chief, then I’ll have a problem with the investigation.
