PS3 game-playing dad Mark Sandland killed baby

[Sir_Bee]

Well I'm skeptical on both angles. I'm not convinced the reporter WASN'T trying to make an assertion about video games and I'm not convinced the reporter WAS trying to make an assertion about video games. The problem being here is that the reporter is reporting on the the trial. So the writer is obligated to inform the public of the prosecution's case as well as the defendant's. The reporter can't simply say, "the prosecution is charging him with murder" and leave it at that. The reporter has an obligation to explain both sides of the case. I think it just looks worse than it is because in order to explain the prosecution's side, you needed these little details of why they think he was lying wheras the defendant's case can be easily summed in one sentence. The reporter can't just leave out certain details because it doesn't want the public to think certain things. That's also a form of bias.

 

While I agree 100% with the notion that the reporter has an obligation to explain the whole story, and I greatly appreciate you taking an objective look at this, I am not sure that is really what is happening.  Are we really meant to believe that the prosecutions only evidence was that he was in close proximity, and probably playing, assassins creed at the time?  That would not have been a very solid case, because I spent most of today reading in depth guides and character builds for Sacred 2, a game I have not played in over 2 years, and not going to play for another few weeks.  If that was really the only evidence that the prosecution had, they would have lost the case.  That means that the reporter is already holding back details, or the courts are holding back certain details, either way, the details that are released will cause a known reaction.

 

What about the guys history with anger problems?  What about his age, that would affect his maturity and responsibility with owning a kid?  What about his relationship with his parents?  All of these, or other things I have not thought of in my quick consideration of this story, would have to have been brought up, and yet nothing other than him playing assassins creed is reported on.  Even considering that for a second, playing a video game does not exclude his epileptic seizure excuse either, they have been known to induce them.

 

So I guess my point is that someone is holding back something here, because there is no possible way this is the whole story.  Someone (I am not jumping to the conclusion that is was the reporter, but that is possible) is not telling the whole story, and has manufactured this to get the expected result.

[StrickenBiged]

While I agree 100% with the notion that the reporter has an obligation to explain the whole story, and I greatly appreciate you taking an objective look at this, I am not sure that is really what is happening.  Are we really meant to believe that the prosecutions only evidence was that he was in close proximity, and probably playing, assassins creed at the time?  That would not have been a very solid case, because I spent most of today reading in depth guides and character builds for Sacred 2, a game I have not played in over 2 years, and not going to play for another few weeks.  If that was really the only evidence that the prosecution had, they would have lost the case.  That means that the reporter is already holding back details, or the courts are holding back certain details, either way, the details that are released will cause a known reaction.

 

What about the guys history with anger problems?  What about his age, that would affect his maturity and responsibility with owning a kid?  What about his relationship with his parents?  All of these, or other things I have not thought of in my quick consideration of this story, would have to have been brought up, and yet nothing other than him playing assassins creed is reported on.  Even considering that for a second, playing a video game does not exclude his epileptic seizure excuse either, they have been known to induce them.

 

So I guess my point is that someone is holding back something here, because there is no possible way this is the whole story.  Someone (I am not jumping to the conclusion that is was the reporter, but that is possible) is not telling the whole story, and has manufactured this to get the expected result.

I'm not 100% sure that those sorts of "bad character" evidence markers are admissible in a case like this here in the UK. They're largely irrelevant to the question of whether the person committed this particular crime and could colour the jury's opinions of the facts. My understanding, as a lawyer but admittedly not one who practices criminal law, is that bad character evidence is hard to get admitted and is usually only sought to be introduced by the prosecution if they're clutching at straws. And usually it has to be quite specific: this man is accused of raping this woman - and here are a number of women who have accused him of rape/assault over the years.

I think it's much more likely that the prosecution here wanted to establish a narrative which resolved around a guy with a short temper being repeatedly distracted from his video game by a screaming child, and he eventually snapped. That's a narrative which most people could understand and would be enough to allow a jury to convict. And when asked for the evidence that proves the prosecutions versions of events; well there come in the Playstation controller on the sofa, the game being in the console, the gaming website being visited in the moments leading up to the murder, the text expressing his frustration, etc, etc.

The prosecution would have no reason to be vague and say "a video game" or "a console". Their case is strengthened by being specific, especially as it links back to the website which was visited.

Again, it really doesn't read like the journalist has an axe to grind to me. If the prosecution has stated that evidence, the journalist may as well report it. There would be a public interest in the case, including it's details.

And at the end of the day, those are the facts. The journalist hasn't made any normative statements of his own, he has only said what happened. If readers leap to those conclusions then that's their fault, not his.