How much do we want to know?

[vison]

There is a very sensational murder trial being conducted in New Westminster, B. C. just now: Robert "Willy" Pickton is on trial for the murders of 6 women, with a second trial planned immediately afterward for another 20 murders. Pickton is suspected of murdering as many as 60 women. He has been in custody for 5 years while the Crown has been preparing the case. (This is another thing: how can a man be kept in jail for 5 years without being convicted of anything? Monster though he appears to be, I don't understand this.)

His victims were almost all prostitutes, mostly drug addicts, from the Downtown East Side of Vancouver, the "worst" neighbourhood in BC. These disappearances were largely ignored for some time, mostly because the women WERE drug addicted prostitutes. When the matter was first taken seriously, a list was compiled, and right now there are 63 names on the list.

Pickton is usually referred to as a "pig farmer", since he did occasionally raise pigs on the property he and his brother lived on. The "pig farmer" bit is relevant, horribly enough.

The first day's testimony, in the prosecutor's opening statement, was dreadful. Everyone here who has any knowledge of the case could make some guesses about what we might hear, but in the event, it was beyond anything we could have imagined. Beyond anything I could imagine, althought I admit I tried NOT to think about it.

The local radio and TV stations and newspapers are trying to handle the matter, which is proving difficult. I listen to CBC radio in the morning, for the news, and I DO NOT WANT to hear this at breakfast, with the kids sitting there. Surely to god a simple statement to say, "The Pickton trial continues in New Westminster, if you want details, go to our website", is the best way?

There is a kind of frenzy of -- what? I don't know. The first day, Monday last, the Sun had this headline, taking up HALF the front page:
" DAY 1: IT BEGINS" which would, IMHO, be more suitable for the outbreak of war than a murder trial, no matter how ghastly.

How much do I want to know? No more, that's all. Tell me the verdict, when it's over. I don't see any reason for the radio and TV and newspaper to repeat, in ghoulish, relishing detail, all the awful, awful stuff. The families of the victims are having a hard time as it is.

I don't want censorship, but I want restraint, I guess. Am I wrong? I can't begin to describe the feeling of having to explain this to a 12 year old and a 9 year old, that women's heads were found in buckets on this property: and that's only ONE detail and not the most shocking.

The Sun has decided to publish a sanitized version for the squeamish and a detailed one for the rest: only the detailed one starts on the front page.

Anyway, what do you think? Is it necessary to publish it all?

[axordil]

Yes. But publishing is not reading. If you don't want to know...don't buy the paper until it's done. If you have a subscription, make yourself skip the front page.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, it should be published. As horrible is this is, it is definitely newsworthy. It would be much worse if the newspapers, etc. stopped reporting on things that are newsworthy.

I'm going to move this thread to Lasto Beth Lammen, but I'll leave a shadow here.

[Lurker]

Man, I've been looking forward to this trial since Day 1. Glad I don't have to turn to the US media to hear about this. My stupid cable company just dropped Court TV from their programming list!!!!

Anyways, like Ax said if you don't want to know don't read. As for the kids, murder and other gruesome crimes happens everyday we don't live in a perfect world. I'm glad my parents allowed me to watch the news when I was a kid, thus I don't get squemish when hear this stuff.

[MithLuin]

To answer vison's question in the thread title...

...all the gory details.

There are enough (fictional) crime shows on TV to establish that people are fascinated by such things. It sounds like your current trial is similar to the Green River Killer, except that he killed more people, over a very long time span. But yes, he chose prostitutes as his victims, because he didn't think it was right to have to pay for sex. At least...that was his internal logic/ justification. The detectives investigating that case were also accused of 'not caring' because the victims were prostitutes, but really, their problem was that they never found the bodies until it was much too late to learn anything from them. Also, with such a transient population, it was difficult to tie down when people actually went 'missing.' I am sure it was very frustrating to have no leads for such a horrible crime. They even consulted Ted Bundy to get insight into the killer's mindframe. (And yes, there are gory details there as well. Bundy assured the investigators that if they were to find a fresh crime scene, they should leave it undisturbed and stake it out, because the killer was bound to return to admire his handiwork. And, necrophilia.)

People are always saying that rape is about power, not sex. If that is true, rape + murder is doubly so, because you can't have much more power over someone than the power of life and death. I hope that someone, somewhere, learns something about this crime, and that it isn't 'how to commit it.'

Returning to the world of fiction, the movie Snatch includes a monologue about how to feed dead bodies to pigs...in all the gory details. It's supposed to be funny - entertainment. Just maybe not at breakfast.

[vison]

I have no problem NOT reading the stuff. But I think the "details" should be on page 2 or 3, not page 1. There ARE other news stories in the world.

There is a great deal of prurient interest in this terrible case. Breathless prurience. Gaspingly, feverishly, excitedly prurient readers/viewers, weaned on CSI, I suppose. Sure, there's an element of sex in this. But this guy didn't act alone, sure as hell the Hell's Angels (who regularly partied there) are involved. What a kewl way to get rid of troublesome women.

As for the TV or radio news, the worst of it should be broadcast after little kids' bedtime. This isn't a matter of "watching the news". The news has been full of this case for years. The kids know the man murdered and probably dismembered his victims, but they don't need to know much more. Why should they? What good is it going to do them? There are hundreds of movies and thousands of books dealing with violent sexual perversions, and I don't let the kids watch those movies or read those books. Why on earth should they have to hear it at breakfast?

Anyways, like Ax said if you don't want to know don't read. As for the kids, murder and other gruesome crimes happens everyday we don't live in a perfect world. I'm glad my parents allowed me to watch the news when I was a kid, thus I don't get squemish when hear this stuff.

Well, I guess it wouldn't bother you, then, if you had a five year old girl hearing this stuff on the morning news? "Why, Daddy? Why did that man put ladies' heads in buckets?" And worse. Much worse.

I am not one to protect children from reality. But I am going to protect them from the worst of this case, I can tell you that. I don't want to know more, anyway. Every time I go to visit my aunt I get to drive by the property where it all happened, and truthfully it makes me shudder to think of what was done to those women there. Killing them was by far, by far the least of what was done there.

[axordil]

I will grant that broadcasting is an entirely different question from print media, in that it's not entirely fair to expect parents to be hovering with the remote and an itchy finger during the evening news.

OTOH, if it wasn't for the stream of images coming back from Vietnam in the late 60s of bloody soldiers, would opposition to the war had been so strong? Images, one can't help but note, that have been sanitized from the current Asian Adventure...but I digress.

In this case, though, I do not see the compelling need for gory details on the TV news, which is not a medium for details anyway. Concentrating on them does thus seem like catering to prurient interests.

[Lurker]

Well, I guess it wouldn't bother you, then, if you had a five year old girl hearing this stuff on the morning news? "Why, Daddy? Why did that man put ladies' heads in buckets?" And worse. Much worse.

I am not one to protect children from reality. But I am going to protect them from the worst of this case, I can tell you that. I don't want to know more, anyway. Every time I go to visit my aunt I get to drive by the property where it all happened, and truthfully it makes me shudder to think of what was done to those women there. Killing them was by far, by far the least of what was done there.

Vison,
I'm sorry to hear that. I guess it's to close to home for you, eh?

It wouldn't. If she asks the question, I'll answer it truthfully, that he is a bad person and this is why she shouldn't talk/go with strangers because there a few people in this world who are crazy or evil enough to do this. If I'm lucky she wouldn't even have the patience to listen to the news. I remember watching the news as a kid for the pictures not much for the content.

This case is no different from CNN reporting suicide bombers or a shooting in the street corner. The kid can still ask the same question, why did he blew himself up? Why did they shoot that man?

In fact, I really like the way Greenspan, a famous criminal lawyer in Canada answered his 8 year old daughter back then when she asked "Dad why do you defend the criminals?" (Obviously, she heard it from somewhere.) He said (I apologize my quote is not exactly what he said word for word.) something along the lines of it is just a job and somebody has to prove their innocence, that they are not criminals until proven guilty. (I'll try to find the book again.)

A friend of mine is very particular of what his kid watches on TV and yet he is not alarmed that his kid is playing video games where the charaters (even if they look like Lego blocks) shoot each other and he gets points for gunning down an opponent. He even have him play WWF sometimes, which really upset me the most. The kid is just six!

[vison]

This is different from suicide bombers. This is not an ongoing crime. The murders happened years ago. The man was arrested and charged. I see no need to keep rebroadcasting, hour after hour on the radio, the same thing every hour. There are no "new developments". Actually, most of the radio stations seem to have realized they were alienating their listeners and the coverage has calmed down, now we get a couple of bulletins a day and that's enough.

I'm pretty familiar with "Fast Eddy" Greenspan. My objection is not that Pickton has lawyers, of course he has lawyers, he's entitled to a defense, and he must be proven guilty. None of that is what bothers me.

Pickton is getting his trial. There is no attempt to keep the information quiet, nor should there be. My objection is to the sensationalizing of it, the headlines, the slobbering excitement that Vancouver has this world-class crime! That's the tone it took in the beginning. Broadcasting the gory, ghastly details of these murders will NOT assist in the trial, will not serve Pickton's defense, will not keep girls off the streets and out of drugs and prostitution. If it did any of those things, then the more details the better. But it's sensationalism, plain and simple. Keep it to the tabloids and the American cable channels, as far as I'm concerned. A few bald news stories on CBC radio will suit me just fine. If I want to know more, I can find out on the internet.

As for warning your daughter not to talk to strangers, that's good as far as it goes, but general warnings of that nature do more harm than good. Most strangers will not hurt a child, and most children are hurt by people they know. The women in this murder case knew their killer, actually they knew him very well.

I'm not a big fan of video games, but video games don't make kids into murderers or sexual deviants.

[Lurker]

Vison,
I agree with most of what you said but this type of cases sells papers, which means that a lot of people still want to know. Hollywood horror movies tops always gets top billing, which means people like to be "scared and entertained", Stephen King's novels are best sellers, CSI and Criminal Minds are top TV shows and yet when in real life somebody does it, people go "I don't want to hear it!" Yes, because it is close to home, this isn't fiction anymore.

Kids nowadays see more gory stuff in video games, TV shows and MTV yet this is "the news" we try to protect our kids from hearing the truth that they are bad people out there who actually do such terrible things.

As for warning your daughter not to talk to strangers, that's good as far as it goes, but general warnings of that nature do more harm than good. Most strangers will not hurt a child, and most children are hurt by people they know. The women in this murder case knew their killer, actually they knew him very well.

I know that. That's why I will explain to them if somebody hurts you or make you uncomfortable, scream as loud as you can, bite the person if you have to, even if it's a relative, a teacher or a policeman. Don't be afraid somebody will help you.

I feel sorry for this women, but this is one of the dangers of their job. They know the risk. This wouldn't have happened if this women have a "support group" that looks after them, that if they go missing somebody will know who they were with. The problem is since they are prostitutes nobody bothers to look for them cause they are considered outcasts of society. IMHO, whatever we do "prostitution" will not go away, it's like the "porn industry" there would still be people looking for this types of pleasure. The more we try to get rid of it, the further it goes underground, more women/male prostitutes will be subjected to this brutal killings.

[vison]

Kids nowadays see more gory stuff in video games, TV shows and MTV yet this is "the news" we try to protect our kids from hearing the truth that they are bad people out there who actually do such terrible things.

Lurker, I doubt that any video game my boys have seen could ever approach the ghastliness of the real life events of this case. Truly. You have no idea. NO video game would ever use such events. No number of slaughtered alien soldiers, knights, damsels, orcs, nothing, nowhere in any video game, is going to use things like this. Not Grand Theft Auto Vice City taken to the Nth power. No way.

Prostitutes do understand, on one level, that they have a dangerous occupation. But this? No. In this case, there was such an incredible failure at every level of existence it's hard to take it in.

[Lurker]

I'm not saying that video games will make a kid a criminal someday but just saying that I don't like my kids playing those in my house, because I think it's not something I want them exposed to.

What I'm trying to say is the media is not showing graphic pictures here, they are just telling the story of how and what happened. I've seen worst graphic dramatizations in TV shows.

My friend's son who played WWF games was kicked out from two montessori schools already for kicking and hitting another kid because he didn't like the way the other kid looked at him. He's only six!!! Now, tell me why is he behaving this way then. Where did he pick up this behavior? In fact, I was at their house when after playing the WWF video game he picked up a carboard box from nowhere and hit his 8 month old brother because his younger brother took his gift (that I have given to him) from the table.

[vison]

I'm not saying that video games will make a kid a criminal someday but just saying that I don't like my kids playing those in my house, because I think it's not something I want them exposed to.

What I'm trying to say is the media is not showing graphic pictures here, they are just telling the story of how and what happened. I've seen worst graphic dramatizations in TV shows.

My friend's son who played WWF games was kicked out from two montessori schools already for kicking and hitting another kid because he didn't like the way the other kid looked at him. He's only six!!! Now, tell me why is he behaving this way then. Where did he pick up this behavior? In fact, I was at their house when after playing the WWF video game he picked up a carboard box from nowhere and hit his 8 month old brother because his younger brother took his gift (that I have given to him) from the table.

There is a thread here, on this forum, about Video games. I am not a fan of them, but I think you are mistaken in thinking they cause the kind of behavior you mention. Kids have always acted that way.

When my 2 brothers were little, The Three Stooges were on TV. And the commentators of the day blamed "youth violence" and playground bullying on The Three Stooges. It was comic books. It was Yellow Journalism. There were no video games around until recently, and kids always thumped each other. Think back to your own childhood.

I think what HAS changed is that so many children are not taught self-control. They seem to be allowed to do whatever they like, and who knows why?

I also think that video games contribute in other ways to some societal ills, but I don't think they cause violence.

[Lurker]

I also think that video games contribute in other ways to some societal ills, but I don't think they cause violence.

I know this is not the approriate thread for this video game argument but I still think a few video games can contribute to violence in society. That gunman in Montreal was obssesed with graphic video games from what I heard from the news.

I never liked The Three Stooges. I think their slapstick comedy is not funny at all. I'm sorry. Smacking somebody in the head with a newspaper hurts, not funny.

My point is I'm not one of those parents who will feel sorry for their kid because they haven't got the latest electronic media in the market. Back when I was a kid we played Atari I think, never been a video game user. I rather use my mind/creativity by playing Dungeons and Dragons and play sports. I never can sit still, that's why video games/computers never appealed to me even as an adult. My father encouraged me to go outdoors rather than stay at home and watch TV.

I think what HAS changed is that so many children are not taught self-control. They seem to be allowed to do whatever they like, and who knows why?

In addition to that, what really irks me is, kids are so pampered nowadays. I know of parents who will do anything, I mean, anything, just to please their kid and yet the kid doesn't appreciate any of it. My friend at work has been complaining to me about his son and I keep telling him to set up rules/punishments and keep him away from his "bad influence" friends by moving him to another school. He keeps telling me, I don't want my son to be upset with me or run away from home or he'll think I'm bad father. He feels guilty if he punishes the boy. One of these days I'm just going to blurt out, "God, stand up, and become his father for once in your life instead of his life long slave!"

[vison]

You played Dungeons and Dragons? But, Lurker, I remember very, very clearly that Dungeons and Dragons led to a massive crime wave!!!! Holy cats. It was the Plague of our Modern Age. Movies and TV shows were made about the Cult-like Effects on boys of playing Dungeons and Dragons!! You are lucky to have escaped unscathed! And Atari? Same thing. Rotting the minds of youths.

I'm no fan of video games and am quite strict about the amount of time the boys play: no video games on school days at all, and certain games are forbidden.

But you are right about your friend and his son. Children don't need pals, they need parents. A parent's job is to provide security and love for their kids. The security comes from setting limits and rules, and without that security kids are lost, they flounder around and will join any kind of "group" that provides what they instinctively long for. The "bad influence" friends are the alternative to parents, for that kid. If you want to do your friend a favour? I'm serious: tell him to read Dr. Gordon Neufeld's book, "Hold on to your Kids". Excellent book, down to earth, common sense, and explains WHY kids turn to their peer groups: it's because their parents aren't doing their jobs.

[JewelSong]

He keeps telling me, I don't want my son to be upset with me or run away from home or he'll think I'm bad father." He feels guilty if he punishes the boy

Reminds me of an episode of "That Seventies Show." Steve (the boy who lives in the downstairs of the Forman's house) has moved back in with his Dad, who is overly permissive. He allows the boys to have a keg of beer and Eric comes home falling down drunk and pukes all over his father's (Red's shoes.)

Red confronts Steve's Dad, who says, "I was trying to be his friend!" Red retorts, "Why would you want to be friends with a 17-year-old? 17 year old kids are idiots!"

Bottom line is, your friend IS being a bad father by being so permissive. The kid will not thank him for it. Kids need and want rules, structure and expectations set. Consistency is the key, I think.

You played Dungeons and Dragons? But, Lurker, I remember very, very clearly that Dungeons and Dragons led to a massive crime wave!!!!

Gee, I thought that was Rock-n-Roll music!

[vison]

"Gee, I thought that was Rock-n-Roll music! "

Goodness gracious, no.

Rock - n - Roll music led to *SEX*.

Much worse than crime.

Much, much worse.

[Lurker]

You played Dungeons and Dragons? But, Lurker, I remember very, very clearly that Dungeons and Dragons led to a massive crime wave!!!! Holy cats. It was the Plague of our Modern Age. Movies and TV shows were made about the Cult-like Effects on boys of playing Dungeons and Dragons!! You are lucky to have escaped unscathed! And Atari? Same thing. Rotting the minds of youths.

That was so funny Vison, reminds of Father Ed back in my school days who was so "concerned" with my "gang of rascals" not playing basketball outside (very out of character for us) instead we were huddled in the corner with a dice in one hand, pieces of paper and a book during lunch break. Fr. Ed learned/thought that it was evil (like Harry Potter books) he confiscated it and called our parents. My dad said to me "You told me it's educational! I'm not buying you those expensive books again!" My dad confiscated the rest (when I was in university I found his hiding place in the garage) but it never stopped us from playing. We used a square eraser as a dice and we came up with our own stories because we were able to keep the notes of our characters. It was more fun than when we had the book cause we go to say Toronto Island and do our own adventures there. I don't know about escaping unscathed though. I was a goth for several years in HS. In fact, at our 10th HS reunion, the organizers put up a picture of me and my friends looking like the guys from The Cure (and Princess can't believe it!), now we look like preppies, they just couldn't believe the transformation, but that's another story.

Thanks for the advice guys! My friend really needs it, so I'll look for the book and give it to him. He wants his kid to go on counselling or therapy. I go, "Oh, no you won't! It's you who needs to go to therapy and work out your problems. Your kid, two words, boot camp!" Even my dad doesn't treat me as a friend now that I'm an adult. He thinks I'm still six years old and needed his guidance. My mom treats me like her friend now, I can tease her and stuff, but dad, oh boy, not in this lifetime.

[nerdanel]

Wow - I finally read this thread through on a day when I'm grounded at home with stomach flu. Excellent timing I have.

So here are my thoughts:

Print media - should make available all the details each day, but clearly marked such that those who wish to skip over the most graphic/disturbing pieces are able to do so. From my perspective, it does not matter whether it is on page 1 or page 50, so long as it is marked.

Broadcast media - should exercise some restraint concerning what goes out over the airwaves, both for the sake of children and for the sake of adults who do not want to hear the details of how a serial killer dismembered his bodies as they are eating their morning cereal. They should still provide more details than "The X trial continues," though. Additionally, they should do either or both of the following: (1) refer interested viewers to their website for the full details available or (2) refer interested viewers to a broadcast (perhaps a late-night broadcast) concerning the details. This broadcast could have ample warnings at the outset (granted, wouldn't help the innocent channel surfer, but nothing is perfect) and could be late enough (11/11:30 PM) that most young children would not be listening.

Internet media - should have minimal restraint at most, except to warn readers at the outset. Perhaps could place graphic portions in a different color text.

vison, to me the more interesting detail is something in your post on which no one has commented - that this man was held for five years without trial. The "rah rah civil liberties" side of me says that this is grossly improper. But, I admit that my emotional side wins out on this one. Given a murder spree of this magnitude, it would be horrible to let the suspected killer go free while the government prepares his case; the risk that other women would be murdered is just too high. And, I would hate for the government to rush to trial with an improperly prepared case and risk acquittal. But then...what if he is innocent? What if he's not the one? And has sat in prison for five years while being convicted over and over in the court of public opinion? But then...my mind jumps to the "likelihood" that he is guilty, and would rather "err on the safe side." Hmm, I am thankful that I am not a judge, will not be selected for a jury based on my profession, and work exclusively on civil cases; it seems too hard to possess the cold, legal impartiality needed to be fair to a defendant who is the alleged perpetrator of so many innocents.

To me, a case like this is the clearest argument against full-scale abolition of the death penalty. It seems unconscionable to me that the murderer (whether it is this defendant or someone else) of between six and sixty women, women who had already been through so much in their lives, should be permitted to continue to exist. The circumstances under which these women were murdered are aggravating. For me, though, it is far more of an aggravating factor that these women were "drug-addicted prostitutes" (incidentally, minorities, right? First Nations, as they are called in Canada) particularly if they were this killer's exclusive target. Undoubtedly he imagined that he had selected the right women to get away with murdering; after all, they were "just" prostitutes - who would be concerned with their deaths? (Even worse is that from your description, vison, it seemed at first as though he might have been right.) To execute a monster such as whomever murdered these women would send a clear message about the equal value of prostitutes' lives.

And...oh my, against my better judgment, I just googled his name and learned the gory details of how the "pig farmer" bit might have become relevant. I had better stop before I come up north and levy the death penalty against Mr. Pickton myself. (I also feel better about my prejudging him, having learned that evidence of an explicit confession has been presented to the jury. I know the dangers of false confessions, but certainly a confession increases the likelihood of guilt.)

[vison]

nerdanel, thanks for posting in this thread.

I know little about the law. But I wonder why they couldn't have tried Pickton on one murder case right away? Why did they have to finish invetigating all of them before they tried him for one? See, what they've done now is to split the 26 charges into two parts, the first trial for 6 murders, the second trial for 20. More charges may arise. They have lots of evidence they can't put names to. And also names there is at present no evidence about. There is a second piece of property, I don't think they have finished searching there.

Of course it is likely that he is guilty, and as a "bystander" I'm glad he was in jail, but it's wrong, as far as I am concerned, to keep a man in jail for 5 years without a trial.

Yes, most of the women were First Nations women. And the sad truth is that the combination of First Nations, prostitution, and drugs, rendered their disappearances of little consequence to the Vancouver police. It wasn't the Vancouver police that broke the case, but the RCMP. This was, beyond doubt, badly managed. But to be fair, I think it was pretty hard to take in the fact (and it seems to be a fact) that a serial killer of this magnitude was at work. Some of the "missing women" turned up alive, which complicated matters. Women like this, and this is true, lead lives such that their whereabouts are not always known, they drift from city to city, from the straight life to the street life. Many of them don't WANT to be found.

And don't forget, he very probably did not act alone, at least not in every case. There was plenty of biker activity at the "farm", it was notorious with the police for years. Which is one of the reasons why people scratch their heads over how long it took for the police to get warrants to search the place. I seem to recall the warrants were for weapons, not bodies, when they did act.

His "confession" is questionable, I guess. Jailhouse confessions often are. I don't think he's playing with a full deck, I think he's simple-minded. People who knew/know the family say so, anyway.

I don't know that executing him would send any message to anyone about the value of prostitutes' lives, nerdanel. The US has the death penalty and crimes against prostitutes are as common there as anywhere. However, he certainly "deserves" death. This puts me in mind of a guy named Gandalf.

There are many more missing women in BC and Alberta, on "The Highway of Tears". These are, for the most part, also First Nations girls and women, missing from various locations along the highways that link BC to Alberta. The RCMP say they don't think it is a serial killer, or rather, not one serial killer.

The issues surrounding prostitution as it exists here, in Canada, are very difficult for me to deal with, to understand. It is not a simple matter.

I won't be googling this case any time soon, I can tell you that. I hear more than I want to hear as it is. The case has been around for more than 5 years since Pickton's arrest, and for a long time before that.