Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Horrid murder of 4 year old

By Ntp 30 November 2005 16

Over the weekend a tragedy occurred in which a 4 year old girl was violently killed. As yet I don’t believe the media has the details of the incident but the CT has up the details of the deceased child, her mother and her mother’s partner, being the alleged offender.

Occasionally the police place suppression orders on the names of those involved in incidents such as this. When this doesn’t happen the family and friends often find out about the events via the media and subsequently get hounded by the same. What does the readership think? Is there a public interest in exposing the names of the victims and those otherwise involved in such traumatic incidents or does it only cause more suffering and possibly bias?

[ED: The AFP’s lastest media release requesting information is here. Police would like ANY info that relates, please have a look and pass on to any friends you have south side.]

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to
Horrid murder of 4 year old
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Lex 9:25 pm 30 Nov 05

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.

johnboy 7:25 pm 30 Nov 05

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.

Mr Annon 5:29 pm 30 Nov 05

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.

Mr Annon 5:11 pm 30 Nov 05

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.

Mr Annon 4:56 pm 30 Nov 05

“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.

Ari 4:52 pm 30 Nov 05

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).

T_Bone 3:44 pm 30 Nov 05

“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.

Kerces 3:30 pm 30 Nov 05

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?

redneck_ninja 2:53 pm 30 Nov 05

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.

ssanta 2:21 pm 30 Nov 05

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.

Nik_the_Pig 2:20 pm 30 Nov 05

To my knowledge the media can report what ever they hear in open court, unless the details get suppressed by an order. So who should the responsibility lay with this?

The victim/ they family – requesting that their details get withheld?

The police – to make the recommendation to the court?

The court – with view that the details may cause public bias about an upcoming case?

Or the media – to have restraint?

T_Bone 2:10 pm 30 Nov 05

I don’t think there is any need to name victims. Name convicted criminals all you want. Anyway shouldn’t the victim decide whether their name is released?

Nik_the_Pig 2:07 pm 30 Nov 05

Well I’m sorta naive but I tend to think the public interest is best served by a rigourous and just legal system being able to do a job without the influence of media or public bias. Likewise I can’t see any public interest in compounding the pain of victims or their families or placing the role of justice in the hands of the media, taken away the the courts.

I also don’t believe that news sales = public interest or that the media has the right to turn a profit of the pain of others.

Absent Diane 2:02 pm 30 Nov 05

Well in a case like this one… I think the whole world should know…so someone can kick the shit out of this scum over and over and over again…

simto 1:54 pm 30 Nov 05

I do find some people get a perverse kinda thrill out of crime reporting that seems just a little bit tasteless. The criminal justice system isn’t there for your entertainment, and, if the case is being dealt with properly, the public interest in reporting it seems remarkably slim.

Still, it sells papers like the clappers, so no doubt stuff like this’ll continue to be reported, but I’m not convinced that it’s doing a whole heap of good.

Evictor 1:41 pm 30 Nov 05

I reckon young Darren already has a waiting list of new ‘friends’ waiting to greet him at the gates of Goulburn.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site