Michaela McAreavy Murder Trial-Will Justice be Done?

[haranguerer]

haranguerer: what exactly do you work as at the BBC

Got me Sherlock 

[Ulick]

Dont be ridiculous, how is it??

It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!

As for 'biting my tongue and showing sensitivity' - how am I not? Just by disagreeing that the BBC report was salacious? Ffs indeed. Sensitivity, or indeed pretty much anything, without objectivity, is very much diluted - theres a real danger of coming across as insincere.

haranguerer, nobody knows what the defense case is yet, that is why 99 out of every 100 news agencies reporting this case choose not make any mention of a "sex guide". 

[haranguerer]

These are extracts from the PA report you asked to be 'compared and contrasted' with the 'salacious' BBC report, and which you say above is one of the ones which make no mention of a sex guide

[from earlier in the thread:]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A:

'A defence lawyer's bid to question a police officer about a sex guide ...'

'Principal state counsel Mehdi Manrakhan reacted angrily when Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, representing accused Avinash Treebhoowoon, asked the officer if the book - The Ultimate Sex Guide - contained material of a violent nature.'


The crime was horrendous, the stories of sniggering and jocularity in the courtroom heartrending, and the defence pathetic and hurtful, but reporting accurately on a courtcase isn't salacious, even if sex is mentioned.

[Orior]

It is not right that intimate aspects of a young couple's married life should be made public. It is especially wrong in these circumstances. 

Therefore I think the BBC were wrong to report it.

[Evil Genius]

It is not right that intimate aspects of a young couple's married life should be made public. It is especially wrong in these circumstances. 

Therefore I think the BBC were wrong to report it.

I agree wholeheartedly that this entire line of defence seems thoroughly disgusting and I can't even begin to comprehend what the poor, bereaved families must be going through.

But in the end, should this "defence" somehow prove successful in seeing the accused acquitted, how should the BBC explain that to the wider public who have a legitimate interest in the case, but are not present in Court?

Of course reporters should show sensitivity, but to decline even to mention something which a Judge has accepted should be presented in open court constitutes censorship, and censorship of the Press is no more acceptable than salaciousness by it (imo).

Therefore if there is criticism to be made, then essentially it must be of the Defence team, or possibly the Judge, not of people who are only reporting what is going on.

Anyhow, my heart goes out to the families involved and I just hope they have the strength to hold out to see justice done for their loved ones.

[Ulick]

These are extracts from the PA report you asked to be 'compared and contrasted' with the 'salacious' BBC report, and which you say above is one of the ones which make no mention of a sex guide

[from earlier in the thread:]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5io1kQt_PjEC95bCy-DZLoDQIWr6g?docId=N0320311337931659728A:

'A defence lawyer's bid to question a police officer about a sex guide ...'

'Principal state counsel Mehdi Manrakhan reacted angrily when Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, representing accused Avinash Treebhoowoon, asked the officer if the book - The Ultimate Sex Guide - contained material of a violent nature.'


The crime was horrendous, the stories of sniggering and jocularity in the courtroom heartrending, and the defence pathetic and hurtful, but reporting accurately on a courtcase isn't salacious, even if sex is mentioned.

That is not the report I posted this morning. The original PA report made no mention of a "sex guide" only a 'book' and at that stage the only mention of a "sex guide" was on the BBC site. PA have subsequently updated their wire story which has automatically updated on every site which is syndicating it. I had thought the sites carrying the original PA story may have had a modicum of integrity about them but obviously they pay for a feed and publish whatever comes out of it. Shame on them for doing so. This is what they had this morning before the update:


Lawyers clash at McAreavey trial

Posted: May 25, 2012

Lawyers clashed at the trial of two men accused of murdering Michaela McAreavey after defence counsel attempted to delve into the private lives of her and her husband.

A legal representative of one of the accused – Avinash Treebhoowoon – repeatedly questioned a police officer about items found in the room where the honeymooner was found in Mauritius.

Sanjeev Teeluckdharry pressed the officer about a laptop, book and personal items belonging to Mrs McAreavey and her husband John.

But prosecution counsel at Port Louis's criminal court Mehdi Manrakhan objected strongly to the line of questioning, prompting the judge to adjourn proceedings for a period.

Treebhoowoon, 30, and Sandip Moneea, 42, deny the premeditated murder of the 27-year-old teacher from Co Tyrone.

Mrs McAreavey was found dead in her hotel room shortly after lunching with her husband John by the pool.

The prosecution claim she returned to her room to fetch biscuits for her tea and caught the accused stealing in her room.

A jury of nine – six men and three women – is hearing the case and judge Mr Justice Prithviraj Fecknah is presiding.

Almost 50 witnesses are listed to give evidence.

Though most Mauritians speak French Creole as their first tongue, court proceedings are being heard in English.

The case against Treebhoowoon, from Plaine des Roches, and Moneea, from Petit Raffray, was scheduled to last two weeks but is set to go on for much longer with Judge Fecknah yesterday warning that a "lengthy trial" was ahead.

It is already one the most high-profile criminal cases held on the island.

Mrs McAreavey, from Ballygawley, Co Tyrone, was the only daughter of Mickey Harte, the GAA boss who steered his native county to three All Ireland championships.

The Legends Hotel, which has since been renamed the Lux Hotel, is in the fishing village of Grand Gaube, close to Mauritius's Grand Bay.

Mrs McAreavey taught religious education and the Irish language at St Patrick's Academy in Dungannon, Co Tyrone.

Her Requiem Mass was held close to her family home at St Malachy's chapel in Ballymacilroy – the same church in which she had married a fortnight before she was killed.

Then-Irish president Mary McAleese was among dignitaries at a funeral attended by more than 3,000 people, as the newlywed was buried in her wedding dress.


Edit: for verification of what I said click on the link below and then click on the actual stories to see the text has been changed since the last Google cache i.e. the text is no longer present in the stories.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sanjeev+Teeluckdharry+pressed+the+officer+about+a+laptop%2C+book+and+personal+items+belonging+to+Mrs+McAreavey+and+her+husband+John.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

[trileacman]

The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey b**tards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.

good post

Dont be ridiculous, how is it??

It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!

Where did I say they shouldn't mention it? My gripe is that it is insensitive and salacious to draw attention to one piece of the court proceedings in the headline. They could have had a headline featuring any number of today's events in Mauritius; the adjournment, the questioning of the photographer, the return of particular items, but they focused on one particular item. Why? Because sex sells and the Beeb thought they'd get more mileage out of a story that pointed out a sex guide was one of the personal belongings returned to Mr McAreavey. Would they have included the fact he was returned a laptop in the headline do you think?

Anyway I have nothing more to add to this thread and, to a point, Seafoid is right, it only acts to draw attention to the case and fuel the discussion on this affair. Before I go though Haranguerer I would like to ask you this. If you were placed in Mr McAreavey's position would you applaud the journalism of the BBC as you are doing now?

[Mike Sheehy]

Should the board be used to draw attention to salacious BBC headlines ? Isn't it all the same game?

should there be a show of solidarity at the tyrone armagh game?

absolutely

I thought you didn't want to bring attention to salacious BBC headlines ?

[haranguerer]

Before I go though Haranguerer I would like to ask you this. If you were placed in Mr McAreavey's position would you applaud the journalism of the BBC as you are doing now?

I shouldnt even reply to this point becuase its as irrelevant and stupid a point as I've seen in a while,(well, a few hours anyway) but:
Whos applauding anything?? I'm just saying the BBCs report wasnt salacious. How were they to report the adjournment properly without mentioning the book?? Why would they mention a laptop in the headline when the defence were focussing on the book, so much so that they described it as 'the crux of their defence'??

The defence are being pricks, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be reported. Imo the report which was in rte, which focuses and mentions on a few occasions, a book which isnt named, adds much moire ambiguity to the whole thing - the fact that its revealed to be nothing more than a sex guide in the BBC serves to reveal just how low the defence are going.

Ulick, well then that just shows the BBC was the most accurate and comprehensive of the reports. If the later PA reports are also naming the book etc, then every one of the news organisations reporting the case is being salacious. Do you think that, or do you accept that to give a clear picture of the kind of shite thats going on, its necessary to mention the book? Because if that opinion about the bbc was based on comparisons and contrasts which no longer hold, then it would obviously have to be revised.

[Sandino]

Sex Guide 'crux of Michaela case' is the headline. No attempt to elaborate just a crass reproduction of a remark in the case. The thing that annoys me about this headline is what it implies. This is not the first headline that has been misleading on the BBC in regard to this case. I have no issue to the sex manual being named in the report however I do object to the headline which to me implies that this may have been a sex crime. Unless there is an outstanding piece of evidence the manual is nowhere near the crux of the case as this headline suggests.

[Tony Baloney]

The Beeb can report what they wish but they seen a easy attempt to create a salacious headline that would draw the attention of nosey b**tards intent on"dishing the dirt". The possession of a supposed "sex guide" might turn out to be of no relevance to the case and exist only as an intrusion into the married couple's personal lifes. But sure f**k all that and the dignity of a innocent man when you can create a headline that will draw attention.

good post

Dont be ridiculous, how is it??

It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!

Where did I say they shouldn't mention it? My gripe is that it is insensitive and salacious to draw attention to one piece of the court proceedings in the headline. They could have had a headline featuring any number of today's events in Mauritius; the adjournment, the questioning of the photographer, the return of particular items, but they focused on one particular item. Why? Because sex sells and the Beeb thought they'd get more mileage out of a story that pointed out a sex guide was one of the personal belongings returned to Mr McAreavey. Would they have included the fact he was returned a laptop in the headline do you think?

Anyway I have nothing more to add to this thread and, to a point, Seafoid is right, it only acts to draw attention to the case and fuel the discussion on this affair. Before I go though Haranguerer I would like to ask you this. If you were placed in Mr McAreavey's position would you applaud the journalism of the BBC as you are doing now?

I'd say if it was a Rangers footballer or DUP politician in the same situation your intentions wouldnt be so noble.

[Minder]

Ach in fairness to Trileacman he has never come across as a bigot.

[Tony Baloney]

Ach in fairness to Trileacman he has never come across as a bigot.

You dont have to be a bigot to hate Rangers or the DUP 

[oakleafgael]

So it turns out that the Sex Guide Book was in fact a supplement inside one of the Glossy magazines bought by Michaela. Very distressing for the families to have to listen to it all.

[Main Street]

Dont be ridiculous, how is it??

It seems some are mixing the BBC and the defence team up - just to clarify, it was the defence team who introduced any of the talk about the sex book, as a matter of fact, they are giving it central stage in their entire defence. So how do you expect the BBC to report on the case without talking about it??!

As for 'biting my tongue and showing sensitivity' - how am I not? Just by disagreeing that the BBC report was salacious? Ffs indeed. Sensitivity, or indeed pretty much anything, without objectivity, is very much diluted - theres a real danger of coming across as insincere.

haranguerer, nobody knows what the defense case is yet, that is why 99 out of every 100 news agencies reporting this case choose not make any mention of a "sex guide".

I do read mention of a 'sex guide' in every report I've seen.
In any event, the so called 'sex guide' was not claimed to be the crux of the defence case by the defence, according to the line of questioning as recorded by the Indo.
I suspect the crux of the defence is to create a reasonable doubt and part of that is to manufacture an alternative possibility.