It is terrible...

I think it's important for the media to cover, but it's just so terrible and heartbreaking. CBC opens their news reports with a warning that the report may be "disturbing to some." Honestly, is there anybody out there who would not find the details of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of an 8 year old disturbing? It actually hurts me.

My thoughts too. I decided today not to follow it further for now -- it felt like a blow to the stomach.

Our local radio station warns the listeners of the same before it covers it in the hourly news.

I do not think the gore is necessary, but that is me personally. It often makes us turn away because we cannot bear it.

For me, we need to peer deeper beyond the gore, but the gore sells. It is also the gore that gets convictions and tougher sentences.

For me, the peering deep involves looking at child sexual assault and predators- how they get access and how they manipulate others.  We can look at Rafferty and McClintic but the sad reality is that there are people in houses across this country who are sexual predators and those who turn a blind eye to sex assault or assist the abuser....

But you cannot do that in a trial...

I've actually made a decision not to read or listen to the news reports of the details of the event.  I just think I would be too disturbed by it.  My thoughts are with the jury, who don't have that option.   I wonder if there are psychological supports available to jurors after the fact - sitting on such a case as this could definitely be life changing.  

This morning on CBC radio, there was some interesting discussion with Tim Danson, who represented the French & Mahaffey families in the Bernardo murders.  They were discussing the challenges of presenting information so that the public is assured that justice has been served, but not overwhelming people beyond what might be manageable - hard to know the balance point.

On our news last night it made the disclaimer that "the following made be disturbing" . . . I watched for a few minutes, but on that particular part of the show they only gave a very brief report - no gory details at all.  But, it could have been a lead in - there could have been more later on the news.  I heard the words "plastic bags" and "hammer" - that was enough for me - my imagine took over from that point on.  I don't want to imagine the horror, the fear, the pain that this little girl experienced in her last moments on this earth.  It makes me want to SCREAM!!  My only hope, which comes in a way of personal faith, is that she was "not alone" - that the One who created her, loved her beyond imagination, the One I call God, was with her, and somehow, miraculously, saw her through.

Very selfishly I will dismiss what she went through from my mind for most hours of the day, because I don't want to think about it . . . thinking about it hurts, it angers, it instills fear within.  Yet, another news flash, and I will remember.  My heart goes out to her family and friends who cannot dismiss it - whose minds are consumed by it, whose hearts are broken.

Carolla, I would hate to be on that jury (or any jury for that matter).

While the details are horrible I don't think they are a big surprise to anyone.

i don't find them any more horrible than the other recent child murders.  The little girl taken, raped and cut up in Toronto, the girls killed by Bernardo.  In fact really any murder/rape of children.

i think it is important to hear.  Our justice system needs to be transparent and the public should know what is presented.  Once the verdict is announced I think we collectively need to assess whether justice has been served.

People don't necessarily want to hear it and I think the disclaimers will solve that issue.

I do find the TV fascination with her father unusual.  He gets interviewed all the time and that seems out of place.  Usually a family is pretty quiet during the case and then a brief statement, often through a lawyer is made.  This seems a bit odd.

One thing that seemed off to me.  The mother testified that she had been addicted to oxy and that McClintock was a person she knew to buy from or something like that.  one of them had been in the others house.

but then the girl said that they decided to grab a kid and that she was the first girl they saw.  That doesn't really add up.  The only girl they saw that day just happened to be someone she knew?

She didn't know Tori according to her account. The mother always came to Mclintic to buy so Mclinitic never came to her home and never met Tori until that fateful day. IOW, she's selling us that it was coincidence that she grabbed someone whose mother she'd met.

As someone living close to the events and in the city where the trial is happening, it's pretty much impossible to avoid but after the account in her opening testimony about committing the murder I've kind of unplugged. The thought of someone doing that to anyone, let alone a young kid, gives me serious willies. Not to mention her standing by while Rafferty did what he's alleged to have done.

Not sure what Rafferty's defense is actually going to be but his lawyer has an uphill battle to fight at this point.

Mendalla

For me, it is not just about the public having the details and making sure justice is served after the fact. If that is the criminal justice system is simply punishment and retribution this works.

For me, the if criminal justice is about deterring crime, prevention, limiting danger and rehabilitation... it is about us looking at all that went wrong not just that fateful day, but all the days leading up to it, and seeing if this society did the best they could- or all they wanted to- to keep Tori and others alive.

We profile people pretty good after the crime and we know what we are looking for in their personality, their life, their family...

What can we do before it happens?

Do we care?