 Judge rules cameras can be in courtroom for Travis Vader murder verdictMisc CDN | 206754 hits | Sep 15 7:37 am | Posted by: shockedcanadian 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
Edmonton's Court of Queen's Bench Justice Denny Thomas ruled Tuesday he will allow cameras into the court, after he heard submissions last week from lawyers representing a consortium of media outlets ? including the CBC, Global, CTV, The Canadian Press and Postmedia ? who argued for the access.
It's called transparency, open courts, open democracy. It happens all the time in the United States, more secrective, watered down "wannabe" democracies avoid such openness in courts (among other issues),
If I lived in Edmonton, I would give Denny Thomas a handshake and a cigar for actually having the courage to enhance liberty rather than mock it.
One very weird case.
Took a long time, but it seems pretty straight forward.
His prints were on a beer can in the McAnne's 'missing' SUV that he was seen driving to a party a couple nights after they were murdered.
If the cop that found the burnt out motorhome had clued in sooner, key evidence might be presented showing he murdered the couple. Instead, there will always be the possibility he didn't.
One very weird case.
Took a long time, but it seems pretty straight forward.
His prints were on a beer can in the McAnne's 'missing' SUV that he was seen driving to a party a couple nights after they were murdered.
If the cop that found the burnt out motorhome had clued in sooner, key evidence might be presented showing he murdered the couple. Instead, there will always be the possibility he didn't.
Wonder if that's enough to get him off.
One very weird case.
Took a long time, but it seems pretty straight forward.
His prints were on a beer can in the McAnne's 'missing' SUV that he was seen driving to a party a couple nights after they were murdered.
If the cop that found the burnt out motorhome had clued in sooner, key evidence might be presented showing he murdered the couple. Instead, there will always be the possibility he didn't.
Wonder if that's enough to get him off.
Watch the live streaming and judge for yourself. Certainly everyone deserves a fair trial and deserves a punishment determined by society if guilty.
anyone got a stream ?
I didn't see any links, although I was looking.
But it's a conviction, two counts - Second Degree murder.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3762460
anyone got a stream ?
I didn't see any links, although I was looking.
No, I know. I can find live video, feeds and other stuff from all over the world, but Canada ?
Wasteland.
anyone got a stream ?
I didn't see any links, although I was looking.
No, I know. I can find live video, feeds and other stuff from all over the world, but Canada ?
Wasteland.
Most news places usually have them at the top of the page. "Watch Live" link or something.
For example. CBC always has live video here:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/news/Live
CTV is here, but you have to sign up
http://www.ctvnews.ca/go
Actually, most news places want you to sign up before you get live video. Yay Canada!
It may not be over, 2 U of A Criminal Profs say the judge used a section of the criminal code that had been struck down 25 years ago. Sounds like there could be a new trial if they are right.
I read an article a while back that our Criminal Code still has all sorts of clauses like this that have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but are still on the books because there is no money available for a committee to go through the statutes and write a bill to clean up the code.
Why a Judge doesn't know that the law use din his decision was struck down near the beginning of his career is rather disturbing though.
INTO THE COURTROOM
Against:
l. The trial participants' primary audience would shift from
the case at hand to the external public.
2. Courtroom distractions would increase, and witnesses,
already uncomfortable and stressed because of having to
appear in court, would be further stressed, thus hampering
the free flow of information.
3. Jurors, concerned with being on television, would not
concentrate on the trial proceeding to the extent that they
should.
4. Lawyers would be tempted to play to the television cameras
rather than focus on the basic elements of the case at hand.
5. Television cameras tend to portray defendants as being
guilty and produce a climate of hostility toward defendants.
The result being, all else held constant, a greater
likelihood of guilty verdicts being returned due to the
presence of the camera in the courtroom
6. Television cameras inherently focus on court participants
and as a result, targets them for possible community
pressure, threats and abuse.
7. A distorted picture of court proceedings would be portrayed
to a wide audience, thus further undercutting an already
much maligned social institution.
8. Television tends to sensationalize cases, with the result
being decisions based on passion and emotion rather than
reason and ration.
9. The judicial system would lose control of its own
proceedings
10. Television reporting is inherently biased - "Television in
its present state and by its very nature reaches into a
variety of areas in which it may cause prejudice to an
accused ... the televising of criminal trials is inherently
a denial of due process" (Estes v Texas 381 U.S. 532, 1965).
For:
l. There is no clear and convincing evidence that television
cameras in the courtroom negatively affect courtroom
personnel nor places undue hardship on trial participants.
2. Modern technology has made television camera equipment less
cumbersome, allowing deployment in a relatively discreet and
unobtrusive fashion.
3. The public has become so accustomed to television as a fact
of everyday life that the presence of television cameras in
the courtroom would not cause court participants to respond
in a discriminatory or fundamentally unfair fashion, and
would not hamper the free flow of information.
4. Court participants would perform in a more professional
fashion, knowing that the proceedings are being televised.
5. As the public witnesses the televised professional
proceedings of the courtroom, the courts' image would be
bolstered.
6. By expanding the trial audience and educating the public
with respect to the judicial process, public understanding
and confidence in the courts would increase, while myth and
mystique would dissipate.
7. The courtroom is a public forum, and the public 'has the
right to know'
It may not be over, 2 U of A Criminal Profs say the judge used a section of the criminal code that had been struck down 25 years ago. Sounds like there could be a new trial if they are right.
I read an article a while back that our Criminal Code still has all sorts of clauses like this that have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but are still on the books because there is no money available for a committee to go through the statutes and write a bill to clean up the code.
Why a Judge doesn't know that the law use din his decision was struck down near the beginning of his career is rather disturbing though.
Well if these guys know what their talking about, the most this judge can hand down for a sentence is manslaughter.