Horrid murder of 4 year old

Surely it is enough for the “news” element to report that a crime of x nature has occurred and, in this case, someone has been charged? What purpose is served by putting the families through extra torment? The Canberra Times has also had a habit of sharing details of crimes that certainly aren’t helpful to anyone.

ACT Policing have also got a media release up on this issue.

Personally I think it’s fair to say the killing of a four year old girl is horrid.

As to who the killer is, that’s a matter for the courts.

Apologies – upon re-reading I see you were referring to “details of the incident”. As I said, I’m sure the details are well known to many journos, they’re just holding fire.

You’ll also find that any journo worth their salt following the story would know all details of the killing, but they are waiting for these facts to be presented in court before they present them.

The child’s death may not necessarily be a murder, and to state this is so in this readily accessible forum is in fact subjudicial.

The death may subsequently be proved in a court of law after consideration by a jury of the accused’s peers to be an accident or perhaps even manslaughter.

So here you are pontificating about “bias”, and the headline of your post is judgemental as all hell.

And, yes, I know you have not named the accused in your post, but you have linked to a news story which does identify him.

“Horrid murder”? Aren’t they all horrid?

“Tragedy”? Well, yes, that’s needlessly stating the obvious … I’m yet to encounter a non tragic murder, or road fatality for that matter.

“Violently killed”? Mmmmmm … aren’t most killings are violent by nature?

Meanwhile, I’m confused by your statement (however, I’m not too bright). How can “the media” not have the details of “the deceased child, her mother and her mother’s partner, being the alleged offender” when the Canberra Times has in published this information?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t the CT (as inconsequential as it is under Rural Press’s ownership), being a newspaper, be loosely categorised as “media”?

You’ll find that names are not released by police until relatives of the deceased have been informed of their passing.

And as far as reporting names, news organisations report news, and the name of the girl, her mother and the alleged offender is news, as unpalatable as it is.

These details would be readily avaiable to the public in the open forum of the judicial process or in any funeral notices anyway.

In the immortal words of the great jurist Justice Bentham in the 19th century: “Justice must not only be done, it must also been seen to be done.”

Hence the open reporting of court cases (except in Australia’s supression state – SA – which breeds serial killers and murderers like blowflies).

“Victim cant speak if they are dead” very insightful ssanta. My point is that victims, the ones that are still alive, and their families should have the choice of having their names withheld. I don’t see the matter is for anyone else to decide. Would you want your name mentioned in the media if your were a victim of crime? I would prefer the chioce.

Redneck ninja:
Five pars is going to town on the story? Or has it been picked up by the tabloids and I just ahven’t heard?

In NSW, the names of those charged with sexual assaults can’t be named if they are related to the victim, or if the victim can be easily identified. You reckon the same should be made for murders like this? The media probably shouldn’t be going to town on it like they have.

T-Bone, Victim cant speak if they are dead…
Leave public and the media out of any issue that has yet to be decided by the Judicial arm of our system I reckon. Thats the coppers and the courts job to make the judgements, not ours or the media.