You know, I'm not a big fan of the Media, but I've not actually descended into active hate.
Various MainStream Media lawyers are demanding that the arrest warrant for John Mark Kerr, and any other records involving the Jon Benet Ramsey murder investigation be unsealed, so that the MainStream Media may look through the records for themselves.
I have a answer for that. It involves the lawyers and the MainStream Media comitting anatomically improbable sexual acts of moderate deviancy upon themselves.
Allow me to reveal a quote from the filing:
"There is great public interest to learn whether the arrest of John Mark Karr solved the case after a decade or is yet another `mistake,'"
So, if I read this correctly, the MainStream Media wishes to decide for themselves whether the murder of JonBenet Ramsey has been solved.
Silly me, here I was under the impression that that sort of thing would be settled IN COURT.
This is yet another example of the Media getting too big for its britches.
Tell me, truly, if -- and that's one big 'if' -- the judge unseals these records and lets the Media sniff around and "learn whether the arrest of John Mark Karr solved the case", what then?
What happens once the Media decides that the case has -- or has not -- been solved?
Yeah. They're going to start running their fat mouths. Headlines. Op-Ed pieces. Special music on CNN. Repeating the same damned soundbites every fifteen minutes for the next two weeks.
How the hell -- I ask you -- how the hell do you guarantee an impartial jury (Amendment VI, US Constitution) when 24 hour news channels and internet news sites are blasting their opinions everywhere you look?
"In a democracy, in an open society, there's scrutiny of public officials, and how can there be scrutiny without information?" said John Temple, editor and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News.
Who the hell decided that the "rights" of an "open society" trump the right of the accused to a fair trial?
Who the hell decided that the "rights" of an "open society" trump the rights of the family of the victim to the closure of a trial without wondering what effect media spin had? And where was I when this meeting was held?
Listen to me: you want to scrutinize public officials? Knock yourself out -- AFTER any trial is done. Everything is public record then, go forth and conquer.
Until then, do everyone a favour and limit yourself to doing your sodding job, and let the investigators, judge and jury do theirs.
There are details in those records which only the investigators and the killer know. There is no need for the General Public to know these details. And let us face the truth -- once the Media knows it -- EVERYONE is going to know it.
"But, LawDog," I hear you say, "Surely the Media will handle this case with the discretion it deserves."
Yeah. Sure they will. Just like the New York Times used its discretion on the story concerning the wonderfully successful tracking and apprehension of international terrorists by way of electronic fund transfers.
Jumped right to the top of the tallest tower they could find and brayed the details to the Universe (metaphorically speaking), didn't they?
This bunch of hacks with delusions of adequacy won't be any different. Five minutes after they find out a detail that only the killer would know -- the whole rotten planet will know.
Sod the lot of them.
You want to solve crimes? Go to a police academy, then join a department. Work your way up to investigator. Deciding guilt or innocence is not -- despite any grandiose self-delusions -- your purvue.
So. Take your filings and your demands, fold them until they're all points, and then shove them up your various fundments until the lot of you gag.
And while you're gagging, you can wait like everyone else and report the conclusion -- just like everyone else.