Becky Watts - to think the media coverage of her murder trial is disgusting and disrespectful.

[HorribleMotherCo]

Every day for the last few days there have been sickening headlines about what was done to her body.

Do the public really need to know the sickening details?

It must be extremely traumatising, not only for family members who have chosen not to sit in court, but also for school friends who knew her.

I also find it extremely disrespectful to her memory to have the gory details of what happened to her body to be plastered all over the papers.

Have they no decency?

YABU. If you want sanitised news don't read the tabloids.

In this particular case I don't believe that the press have published any more detail than that given in previous high profile child murder cases and it's highly unlikely that this child's family was not made fully cognisant of the prosecution's case prior to the commencement of the trial.

There are very good and important reasons why trials happen in public.

That's why they can be reported on.

If you aren't interested, then don't read about it.

But unless you think we should restrict the reporting of trials, then moaning about the fact that the papers publish details of high profile trials is just pointless bellyaching.

echo squoosh. This did not directly affect me no, other than by virtue of me being an empathetic human being with a teenage DD of my own who has also been very disturbed by the details.

And by restrict, I mean further restrict.

The reporting on trials is heavily regulated.

The reason the reports are sensational is because of the nature of the evidence presented.

I'm in Ireland and haven't seen much of about this case, so it has been easy for me to avoid reading details. I do feel that headlines should be sensitive and, if gory details are being reported, the rest of the story should be inside the paper. I can be hard to avoid seeing headlines if you go into a newsagent, at least you have a choice about whether or not to open the paper and read the report.

The case in Ireland that squoosh referred to was really appalling reporting, I thought. There was a lot of detail being given on the radio news, at a time that children are being driven to and from school, not just on the evening radio news. I had to have quick reflexes to change station when the news was on.

It is disgusting but the girl's poor family are attending the trial every day and are hearing these details for themselves. I think they are very brave to do so. It is titillation for the masses when reported by these papers. But they are reporting facts. The family are going through hell and I highly doubt they could care less about anything else but justice.

It's morbid and what they did to that sweet girl is sickening and evil

I also think there is no need to repeat the graphic description every day of what the accused did to the victims body.

This is sub judice - "they" haven't been found guilty yet - the trial is on-going. The prosecution is outlining it's case of what it believes happens not what happened.

"What the accused did" - allegedly did.

You need to see all evidence before you can have a fair trial and repeating blanket statements and presuming guilt is not helping the family or anyone find the truth of what happened. It is a lynch mob attitude.

Being concerned that justice is served and is being accurately reported does not make me sub-human - I too have a teenage DD but having children does not give you the moral high ground.

I'm amazed that everyone complaining about the reporting is doing so on the back of having read the court reports which appears somewhat hypocritical.

Yes, it's upsetting for the family but they've not gone into that court unbriefed about what's coming.

There's being briefed, and then there's seeing a big tabloid headline 'Becky's head found in plastic Asda bag.' It's gross, and unnecessary.

I listen to radio 4 for the news - I don't know what they did to Beckie. I make a point of turning off if they say 'the following interview might be found offensive' or whatever.

I don't watch tv news as the most important stuff to them is always the stuff with pictures, so listen to radio instead.

YANBU but it has always been like this.
You should see some of the reports of Jack the Ripper in museums, they were very graphic.
Unfortunately grim, morbid and blood and guts is what sells newspapers.
It's society you should blame.

I do agree though poor family having to see and hear this all the time.

Yes, that kind of reporting does seem quite Victorian.

Whatnbathtime and pasta said.

Reporting of trials should absolutely include the detail of what happened to the victim. Is is a hugely important part of our justice system that trials take place in public and can be reported on. What happens in court is in the public domain. If you start to try to sanitise the reporting of these cases then where do you stop? Publicity like this is important in ensuring justice is done for both the victim and the defendants in this trial, and future trials. The details are a hugely important part of the case, however difficult they are to hear. The details will also be hugely important in deciding the ultimate term of imprisonment, should a guilty verdict be reached.

I am also concerned about the contempt of court on this thread. It is only a matter of time before a trial collapses because of undue speculation over the guilt of the defendants while their trial is taking place.

Is is a hugely important part of our justice system that trials take place in public and can be reported on.

Well obviously.

But no one is suggesting that the cases shouldn't be reported on. People are saying the manner in which it's reported is overly salacious.

Don't kid yourself that the graphic details splashed across the tabloid headlines are there to ensure justice is served.

The details could certainly be spared. We don't need to know every horrifying aspect of the murder.

As squoosh and abbie mentioned above (in reference to the horrendous case in Ireland) there are details which simply did not need to be divulged by the media, as is the same in this case and many, many others.

If it's so vital, how come the broadsheets don't do it?

They do.

You just aren't offended by the tone they take when they do it.

The details could certainly be spared. We don't need to know every horrifying aspect of the murder.

If you don't care to know the details of evidence given in a public trial, then don't read the reports.

Those details are public information and people are entitled to know them if they care to and papers are entitled to print them if they think people are interested.

It's real life. Not a TV show.

Precisely.

So getting your knickers in a twist because newspapers print true things about reality is a bit silly.

I don't need to know anything about this trial, so I'm not following it.

But I am entitled to know about the details of trials by virtue of living in a country that has (mostly) public trials and a (mostly) free press.

I value those things more highly than the chance to have my reading material about reality limited for me by outraged Mammies.

Egosumquisum the subjudice on this thread has already been pointed out.

The reporting of this case may make no difference to the outcome of this particular case. However, reporting the details of horrific crimes acts as a deterrent to others (ie if you do something awful, every detail of your awfulness will be reported on) and it helps society as a whole to learn lessons for the future about how to prevent crimes like this taking place, or how to help the police solve them once they have taken place.

squoosh I am not kidding myself about why these details are in the papers. I am a reporter myself. Obviously the threshold for reporting the details differs between the sectors of the media. While Radio 4 might omit many of the details, The Sun may not. It is a sliding scale and you clearly don't agree with me on where the reporting should stop. I can absolutely guarantee that there are details being heard by the jury that will not be reported even by the tabloids because they are deemed too sensitive. It's just that the tabloids obviously draw a different line to you.

I've been to many murder trials and it's about a 50/50 split between the families who don't want the trial to be reported in detail and those who actively want you to report the full horror of what happened to their loved-one because they are keen that those who committed the crimes are publicly shamed.