PixelsAre
ForeverVille
We've been told that one of the BC Rail prosecutors read out a list of 40-44 names that they plan to call as witnesses in the trial that is set to resume on May 17th.
This, apparently, occurred in open court, with the just-selected jury present (we presume given that it has been reported on in the public prints) yesterday.
So why are we getting these wee-little dribble-drabbles of a few of the names on that list from the assembled proMedia that was, also presumably (actually) present (this time)?
I mean.....
Is it really that hard to just give us the entire list - even if it is just in the online editions?
Otherwise, now that the trial has begun and the pre-trial gag-order is done we, the people who have been paying attention, are going to have to start speculating.
And the LedgieBoys and the Watercarriers, especially the Watercarrier who makes his living taking calls from people who do nothing but speculate, wouldn't like that very much.
Right?
.
In Case You Missed It…
2 hours ago
2 comments:
This kinda reminds me of the early days a couple of years ago when the defence filed their Notice of Application for Discovery which was, if memory serves, more than a hundred paragraphs long and full of information.
It was NEVER published in the MSM in its entirety - as the New York Times or the WaPo would have done. IN fact, I think the most complete analysis of the thing appeared on BC Mary's blog.
The fact the media seems to think it appropriate to pick a few choice tidbits and hold the rest has nothing, in my view, to do with the publication ban. What is does illustrate is the extremely low regard our papers and their publishers have for the intelligence of the reading public.
Put it all out there in black and white and let the citizens draw their own conclusions.
Agreed GWest (re: this NOT being subject to the previous pre-trial publication ban)--
In fact, I'm starting to wonder if, perhaps, the proMedia Stenos in the Gallery just may have been slow with their shorthand....
.
Post a Comment