Do you avoid the details of difficult murder trials?

Judge Thomas Heeney speaks to jurors hearing the murder case against Michael Rafferty. (Alex Tavshunsky/CBC)

The judge in the Victoria Stafford murder case, which got underway March 5, has acknowledged that the trial will be long and difficult.

Judge Thomas Heeney warned the jury that much of the evidence against Michael Rafferty, 31, who is charged with sexually assaulting and killing the third grader, could be considered "graphic and disturbing."

Victoria (Tori), 8, was abducted outside her school in Woodstock, Ont., in April 2009.

The trial, which is expected to last several months, and has attracted much media coverage and public attention.

But many people, including journalists like Matt Galloway, the host of CBC Toronto's Metro Morning, avoid coverage of difficult murder cases altogether.

"I can't read these stories. I just can't put myself through that," Galloway said during an interview with Toronto-based lawyer Tim Danson.

Danson, who represented the victims' families during the gruesome 1995 trial of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, acknowledged that these types of trials are "excruciating" and of "unspeakable and unimaginable horror."

Still, he spoke of the need to air out the truth, as difficult as it is, and the importance of adhering to the open court principle, which he said ensures that justice is carried out.

"If you start setting up a rule of sanitizing the facts so that the public doesn't really know exactly what happened then you're not in a position to evaluate the administration of justice," he said.



Listeners took to Metro Morning's Facebook page to weigh in on the subject. Many said they would rather look away.

• "I often turn the volume on my radio right down when CBC reports on details of child abuse or murder. If I don't turn it down I end up being sad and depressed all day and I become paranoid about the safety of my own children." - Suzanne Simon
• "I truly see no value in publishing the details, gives these people more attention and makes this tragedy a sideshow for people to gawk at." - Rosanne Natale
• "The only people who need to hear the details are the jury, the judge and if they so choose, Tori's family. Give the poor child some dignity and allow the last hours of her life to be private." - Trish Krause

But there were others who weighed the public court principle more heavily.

• "I listen, I read, and I throw all my sympathies and support towards that beautiful little girl's immediate family as I can't imagine the pain and suffering they are going through, but at least I can try by not denying or turning my back on the reality of the situation. After all, this could happen to any of us!" - Dorothy Dot
• "I may agree that media goes over the top, but this is part of the justice system. The fifth estate keeps government and the judiciary honest. So we may not always like what we hear but it's part of having a free and open society." - Jack Brooks
• "It isn't about glorifying what happened or disrespecting the families, just about being aware. I too sometimes stay away from the news or certain aspects of it but wouldn't want to lose the access to that information and the option to know." - Saira Hyder

How interested are you in knowing the gruesome details of some trials? What value do you see in publishing those details? What, if anything, does the open court principle mean to you?
 

(This survey is not scientific. Results are based on readers' responses.)