Letters from the Editor in Chief

good comments, i am amazed.we have police who daily kick the daylights out of us, send us to syria, drive kids into the woods to walk twenty miles home, who hit us when they drink in cars we pay for, use stun guns on us for no reason and never answer to anyone except themselves. having stated that isnt it something to watch now a system that left out evidence on purpose to hang a 14 year old, argue about cameras in court. i have never at least in recent memory seen cbc do something as important as this. hey canada watch the video, if we dont watch its going to get worse maybe it will be you. for once tony just this once your the good guy.;-)

And yet on the CBC web site is record of a submission (regarding TV access to the courts) by your Mr. Henry to the BC courts - it was dismissed as not being founded in fact (a dismissal that went unchallenged by the CBC). This remains unreported.

The danger of unregulated Crown Corporations, like the CBC, is their absolute power breeds a corporate culture of the unassailable ivory tower - for unelected individuals to have unrivaled access to the media, funded by the public purse, cannot be right.

While the public indeed relies on the electronic media it must now make itself aware that the CBC is a corporation immune to external regulation.

Central to the highly respected BBC is the fact it has always had a separate and independent regulatory body - The BBC Trust - a body that ensures the BBC's credibilty.

Like the innovation of news access to the courts, the time has come for the innovation of regulation of the CBC - a realistic option achievable, in the first instance, through the review of the Broadcasting Act, which begins this month with the Heritage Select Committee.

Let's raise the bar on the CBC's standards of credibility and independence and break away from elitist practices of a bygone era. How did the CBC report the Truscott case back in the '60s?

At age 45, I don't recall the original trial, but have been fascinated by Truscott's story fo mnay years. I have always believed in his innocence, and am thrilled to see that Canadians across the country will be able to see him vindicated - regardless of the court's decision. Of course, we know that is what is needed, but I'm certain anyone who has read the story and heard ALL the facts believes, as he has always maintained, Steven Truscott is innocent.

That said, I find the day to day reporting on the case to be significantly lacking, and I get much better with print press. I'd be happy to see less Pickton and more Truscott updates. While the day to day is broadcast, not everyone can watch the live action, and text at least provides an abbreviated version.
Expand the coverage, I say.

I first became aware of the Steven Truscott case in the 60's and have followed it ever since. From the beginning I believed him to be innocence and that the police and prosecutor had done a very sloppy and dishonest job when working this case. They let the real killer go free, which is unconsciousnable.

I don't believe usually in camera's in the courtroom, but, I think this case is exceptional and requires airing in the public
domain. Good luck Steven.

I am surprised that M. Burman's article did not mention the strongest argument against court proceedings being broadcast, the effect it would have on the administration of justice. There is all the difference in the world between a report in a newspaper and the same event presented live on television. The emotional impact is far greater and emotion is the enemy of justice. Some of our leading lawyers are prima donnas and to give them a wider audience would encourage misbehaviour. I have no objection to selected cases being shown on TV, such as important constitutional cases being argued before the Supreme Court but for the rest let untelevised decorum and possibly bordom prevail.

In special cases like Truscott one, there is no problem with a direct broadcasting. It is a kind of informatics about the judicial system.
For other normal cases I do not agree. I trust what you said about the CBC’s policy. But what about the others? Can you guarantee they will not make it as a circus? The citizens have the right to know better about the misdoing of the RCMP or others, but there are different ways to do so. As CBC you can produce lot of programs, at the time of the trial, to criticize the wrong doing and discuss solutions for the problems, engaging the viewers with you. We do not want to let some body make some citizens loose faith in the system. It is not commercial entertainment program like it was in the trial of O. J. Simpson.

If Lynne Harper had not been so obsessed with going swimming she may have been alive today. If Steven Truscott had not seen her picked up by a car, I'm sure he would never have been charged, in fact when he described the car to Mr Harper the day following her disappearance, he started a chain of events that would eventually lead to his arrest. trial, and conviction.
I believe when Steven and some of his friends went swimming at the Holmesville Quarry, the day after her disappearance, they were closer to Lynne's body than the group of Officers who were searching for her, unsucessfully, in Lawson's bush.

i believe and have always believed steven truscott is innocent. i pray that the court finally sees the injustice that has occured to him and his family .he should be cleared and apoligized to and compensated for this wrong.

It is an interesting question... Matters of guilt are, in the first instance, for the jury alone to decide, on matters of fact, and on appeal for the advocates and judges to argue and decide points of law. There is no room for "public opinion" in any of this, and quite rightly so. That a full and complete account of the arguments in court be a matter of public record has never been in dispute, and to me whether that record be written, audio, or video is a matter of indifference. The question is whether by allowing cameras into the court we are making a public record or creating a public spectacle. If kept as a true history of events as part of the archives, released and preserved as part of the permanent record as appropriate, I can see such videos as a valuable public resource, useful in both the understanding of, and the correction of errors committed by, our system of justice. Trawled on a nightly basis by editors who, including - alas - yourself, cannot resist Anna Nichol Smith (?), in search not of understanding but rather of dramatic or inflammatory sound-bites and OJ style theatrics, these same videos could serve to reduce our justice system to a farce. A perplexing situation, to be sure.

Cheers,
dba

While it is true that public oppinion has no place in the justice system, the majority of the Canadian public has no idea how "justice" is carried out in this country. I think the process of the court system would be very surprising for most Canadians, and for this reason alone deserves to be shown.