“How does a journalist do the job of letting the public know what is going on, in a case evoking widespread outrage and fear, whilst protecting vulnerable participants and the presumption of innocence?
“The defence made an early, unsuccessful attempt to have the BBC found in contempt for reporting on the planned reconstruction of the wall behind which the victim's body was found.
The Telegraph was also called into court to apologise for an article it published early in the trial
Defence counsel apparently even objected at one point to being sketched by BBC courtroom artist Julia Quenzler, who had flown up from London for the trial.
Broadcasters especially began to struggle to make meaningful packagesThen along comes grifter and ‘lawyer’ Sandra Lean and her innocence fraud narratives, along with ‘psychology student’ Colin Bowman
The tight Scottish approach to identification evidence means photographs of the accused are rarely shown.
In the Mitchell trial, however, it was made clear by the judge that shots of the crime-scene might themselves amount to contempt.
This unusual stricture began to make sense as the Crown's case developed, but would have been difficult to predict.
The trial judge, although in no way obstructive to the media's need to do their job, felt unable to give a pre-trial briefing, beyond saying that the media could report what went on in court.
For television reports, this resulted in a continual struggle to describe adequately to the audience images - of photographs, of weapons, of maps - which the people in this public court were seeing; hence the poignant over-use of the home video of Jodi Jones.
The challenge to make television coverage relevant and comprehensible, especially when the evidence was complicated and circumstantial, was at least partly mitigated by the courtroom sketches, but increased as the weeks wore on.
In the context of the trial of a young man for the brutal murder of a young girl, reporters' difficulties pall into insignificance.
A combination of factors in the Jodi Jones murder trial, however - the young age and the late arrest of the accused, the nature of the evidence, the aggressive approach of the defence to coverage and the absence of visual material - made this a uniquely hard case for 21st century court reporting.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stmGrifter and innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean exploited the
reporting on this case and has drip fed anyone who has been charmed and/or manipulated by her false, misleading and often times disingenuous nonsense.
She is now claiming - without saying so - joggers spit might find an imaginary killer
All this from a woman who appears to have put her own needs before her two daughters
Because she appears to have been too busy either at college/university, dating an alleged psychopath (Simon from her acknowledgment section in No Smoke), writing a book about guilty killers.
Then going on to date and into partnership with an un-convicted baby killer and sexual predator and travelling around the UK and Scotland with him in a former post office van - pretending to the Scottsh centre for crime and justice research she was ‘interviewing’ people for her fraudulent PhD.
Producing a podcast on a sexually deviant killer (Matthew Hamlen), writing another innocence fraud book on a sadistic psycho killer and his enabling mother ….
And some joggers spit or a dogs saliva might find an imaginary killer - who in reality has been in prison for the past 17/18 years
