 ABC segment on Cdn. murder trial blockedLaw & Order | 206900 hits | Mar 20 8:47 am | Posted by: wildrosegirl  ABC's 20/20 broadcast a segment including courtroom details about the ongoing murder trial of Mark Twitchell, the amateur filmmaker who allegedly killed his victim the same way outlined in his movie plot.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
Makes sense.
Why? When I drive 10 kms south, I can watch it, but at home, I can't? Bullshit. Either broadcast it, or don't, but stop with the country-restrictions. Annoys the living shit out of me.
But I've read plenty of details in the paper (didn't even read most of it), so I wonder what exactly they're censoring here?
It was so the jury would not be swayed by the broadcast.
Then why broadcast it at all?
Why give permission to film it?
In addition, isn't a jury supposed to not watch/read anything that has to do with their case?
We have no jurisdiction in the states, so we can't block it there. Hence we have country by country restrictions. This ain't the EU, you know.
I am sure you ran out of compliments? This is the second day in a row you hint that way. Why?
But I've read plenty of details in the paper (didn't even read most of it), so I wonder what exactly they're censoring here?
My point exactly.
It was so the jury would not be swayed by the broadcast.
Then why broadcast it at all?
Why give permission to film it?
In addition, isn't a jury supposed to not watch/read anything that has to do with their case?
I think they are just trying to put out fires, I dont see a problem with it. Im not interested in any of it however so my GAF factor is pretty low.
It was so the jury would not be swayed by the broadcast.
Then why broadcast it at all?
Why give permission to film it?
Why allow the media to cover any criminal trial then?
The whole point of the media ban is to help the Crown maintain a conviction. When the case goes on appeal, the defence's claim that the jury was influenced by the media can be easily dismissed. It may be lip service, but if it keeps a guilty person from beating a conviction on appeal, I say "Well done".
And if the case goes to mistrial, who is to say they won't be called up for the next jury.
The whole point of the media ban is to help the Crown maintain a conviction. When the case goes on appeal, the defence's claim that the jury was influenced by the media can be easily dismissed. It may be lip service, but if it keeps a guilty person from beating a conviction on appeal, I say "Well done".
Which raises my question once again, since it is not a media ban, but a national media ban, WHY allow filming and/or broadcasting it at all?
The argument we cannot ban the ABC from broadcasting it is bs, we can just not allow them to tape it, so they don't have any footage to broadcast.
The whole point of the media ban is to help the Crown maintain a conviction. When the case goes on appeal, the defence's claim that the jury was influenced by the media can be easily dismissed. It may be lip service, but if it keeps a guilty person from beating a conviction on appeal, I say "Well done".
Which raises my question once again, since it is not a media ban, but a national media ban, WHY allow filming and/or broadcasting it at all?
The argument we cannot ban the ABC from broadcasting it is bs, we can just not allow them to tape it, so they don't have any footage to broadcast.
There is a media ban, it just doesn't apply to ABC in the US.
I doubt if they were filming the trial itself - that's unusual in Canada. My guess is the reporter attended the trial and then did a standup recounting the gory details outside the courthouse. But I admit I didn't follow the link, so I could be talking out of my ass.