🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnqxBn.63p@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1994Apr2.033154.6475@bkj386.uucp>,
>Brian Jenkins <brian@bkj386.uucp> wrote:
>>In article <CnG0qo.527@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
>
>>>i think that a juror who has been exposed to the current media circus will have
>>>a pre-determined verdict, regardless of the facts presented at the trial.
>
>>>if the media hypes some supposedly hideous aspect of the case, and in court
>>>it is proven false, the juror is still going to remember the media's portrait.
>
>>This, of course, should have made the Nelles trial
>>impossible and Sinclair Stevens should have walked.  The
>>Canadian judicial system requires adults  that can
>>carefully weigh the evidence presented.  One can read a
>>newspaper and still be an adult.
>
>There never was a "Nelles trial".  If I remember rightly, the judge threw it
>out because of lack of evidence.  We'll never know if, during a real trial,
>how a judge would have ruled on the publicity issue, because it never got that
>far.  Besides, even at its worst, the Nelles publicity *never* got as bad
>as the Teale/Homolka crimes did before they even had suspects.
>
>More importantly, the Nelles trial was nothing at all like
>Homolka/Teale.  With Homolka/Teale, they're trying to prevent
>court-introduced detail from the Homolka trial interfering with
>Teale's.  In the Nelles case, there was no prior trial, and the
>"equivalent detail" was *never* in court in the first place.  To put it
>another way, in Nelles, there *was* a ban, implemented by the police
>not blabbering their mouths off about everything they knew before a
>trial - which would still not be equivalent to makeing the details of
>Homolka's trial public at this stage.

Actually Nelles was turfed in the preliminary hearing --
the one Teale did not get as you mention later.  The
hearing had no publicity ban.  Frankly, I think from what I
have seen, that Nelles trial got more publicity than Teale. 
People in Toronto were placing bets on which nurse did it,
and full and detailed biographies of _everyone_ was
published in the papers. [for those who don't remember,
no-one was found guilty, and current theories include
chemicals from the sterile gloves caused the deaths]

Teale's "publicity" is more the ban than the crime.

>Sinclair Stevens?  Who? ;-)  The publicity surrounding that was nothing compared
>to that surrounding the missing girls.

You must have slept through that one.  But is _was_ a
different type of publicity (crooked politician versus
child killers).  It was not as "sensational", you are quite
correct, nor did it get the world wide attention of Teale
(much of which was generated by the ban).

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the basement of
Brian K. Jenkins                                       brian@bkj386.UUCP
Mississagua, Ontario Canada