To Ms Anne Mooers,
Managing Editor of the Daily Gleaner,
Ms Mooers,
This is to confirm my complaints about Don MacPherson's inaccurate reporting that is damaging to the public interest.
Mr
MacPherson does no investigative journalism whatsoever and stated that
he just writes what he hears in court - well, he doesn't do that
either.
In
the article of 24 Jan 2013 Mr MacPherson stated that it was Jenn
Wambolt's lawyer who stated the option of sending Jenn to Campbellton
for thirty days and it was not - it was the Crown Prosecutor who
demanded that several times until the judge told him that was not going
to happen and if Ms Wambolt did not want to go to Campbellton then he
could not send her there for thirty days.
Mr MacPherson did not report that Claude Hache tried to violate Ms Wambolt's Charter Right and Freedom not to be involuntarily incarcerated without proof of its necessity. The Crown Prosecutor filed no motion for the defense to respond to and neither filed nor presented any evidence whatsoever for the judge to contemplate taking this mother and wife away from her husband and children for thirty days - and did not ask for an opportunity to do this.
The
Crown argued for Ms Wambolt's removal to Campbellton until the judge
told him that it just wasn't going to happen and, since Ms Wambolt
already has a psychiatrist they simply need to request his report on her
mental health at the time of the alleged incident.
What
is also disturbing about Mr MacPherson not fully reporting the facts of
this story is the fact that the Crown Prosecution Services are wasting
public money on a frivolous prosecution that was instigated by Barry
MacKnight when he was Chief of Police, and behaving in a professionally
questionable manner, which lead to Fredericton City Police Force
receiving more complaints that any other in New Brunswick. Not only is
the Crown wasting money on unnecessary court proceedings against an
unwell person, the Crown wanted to pay to transport her under guard to a
public psychiatric facility for thirty days. How much would that have
cost this province?
When
Mr MacPherson was reporting my own issues he incorrectly stated I had
fired two legal aid lawyers; I wrote and told him this was wrong and I
have evidence that they withdrew their service, which they had not
grounds to do, and I requested that Mr MacPherson print a correction,
since legal aid frequently dump clients without cause. Mr MacPherson
replied to me by email saying "It's just semantics." Since when did
inaccurate and incorrect reporting become semantics?
While
we
have Blaine Higgs touring this province and the Government of New
Brunswick scratching their heads to find ways to cut expenditure the
Gleaner should be reporting such blatant and negligent wasting of money
in the courts and the criminal justice system.
I look forward to your response.
Sarah Brooks
25 comments:
Nice article, is there a transcript available? Its interesting that in Nova Scotia each provincial court has a website with transcripts available of court proceedings. I can't find ANY for New Brunswick.
Excellent Article, Sally. Hope The Gleaner will take heed. We need "investigative" reporters down at the Courthouse not ineffectual notetakers.
Mikel, it appears Fredericton bucks the trend for anything approaching transparency - and the court will not even grant you access to public records in the provincial court unless you can give the date of birth or full address of the defendant. It is quite outrageous.
This article is indeed eye opening - so much potential for real news has been completely ignored by the so-called mainstream press. Shame on you macpherson and way to go Charles and Sally Wingnut.
McPherson is not hired as an nvestigative journalist. It is not part of his job duties.
He is hired to report court proceeds as he sees them. That's his job. He does that.
If Sally wants her case investigated she needs to get an investigative journalist to do that. That is not Don.
I'm not much of a fan of Don for various reasons. But I'll rake people over the coals for what they deserve, not what people think is deserved.
I think the editor of the Gleaner should file this where all useless shit goes, the trash bin.
Before you write crap Wingnut, you should do a background check on the subject. Don is NOT an investigative journalist, he is a court reporter. Meaning he reports what goes on, he is not paid to do the extra work.
Another bullshit post from a bullshitter
I also don't believe anything until proof is provided, but its clearly wrong to make a distinction between an 'investigative journalist' and a 'court reporter' when the complaint on this article is that IF its true, Mr. MacPherson did not do his job as court reporter.
You certainly don't need to be an investigative journalist to write down what a crown prosecutor said versus what defense attorney said, and miss out on what a judge said. Even as a stenographer the accusation is Mr. MacPherson did a lousy job.
But unfortunately these are only allegations. The defendant seems to be involved here, so there should be no trouble with her getting documentation (I'm assuming she knows her own birthdate), or can give it to others.
That certainly is a much bigger story because it affects far more people and maybe Charles can ask some questions. I haven't checked Newfoundland, Quebec, BC, or PEI but every other province has an easily searchable database for court proceedings.
But again, I stress the need for evidence. You can get cameras that fit inside eyeglasses or pens now for pretty cheap. Its unfortunate that some people don't consider this 'news'. On the critical side, I doubt very much that Mr. Macpherson's only job is 'court reporter', so I think the police ticketing is as much newsworthy as much of the content of the Daily Gleaner, particularly given that the Irving papers devote more content to sports than any other division.
This is FAR from 'crap' reporting, its pretty good reporting, but unfortunately when you are the defendant there is a fair bit of bias built in that needs to be addressed.
The cartoon of Don MacPherson and Ms Wambolt seems to say it all - this is about making sure the police and Crown are not proven wrong for such charges and convictions. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
There is a difference between factual reporting what happens in a courtroom and reporting fiction, and when a reporter reports fiction about court proceedings, then that reporter is either incompetent, or he or she has an agenda. The best description for a reporter, who lets factual reporting to be tainted by an agenda, can be considered a Media Whore for Hire, and this becomes more and more the rule than the exception. It is not as picturesce behind the picture of the "Picture Province" Ms. Brooks, feel free to give me a ring sometimes at
506 756 8687 Werner Bock
As an eye witness of the court hearing reported by Ms brooks I can assure the public what she said is true. However, I don't think the issue is about Mr MacPherson's pathetic attempts at reporting (which they are, since he missed all of the salient and fundamental issues). I believe this is about the more global issue of the press being gagged by its owners and government. At the time where we see the Fredericton City Police force CLOSING an investigation into the murder of Mr Wheeler, after only four months of alleged investigating, we have to ask ourselves questions, e.g. why a wife and mother diagnosed with mental disorders is being persecuted by the Crown, police and courts, when a suspect on video for the murder of Walter Wheeler, with sufficient evidence to lay initial charges to appear in court, is dropped with no explanation by the police. The Crown seems to be spending its financial resources on the poor and ill (as our Blogger always asserted) and is content to let pretty much every murder we have in Fredericton just be closed or simply not diligently investigated.
Just as the wife of a UNB professor of pharmacology was allowed to get away with apparently murdering his wife in 2008 with heavy metal poisoning, (allegedly purchased through Fredericton Shoppers Drug mart), the pregnant lady on the Killarney Road, the body behind Giant Tiger and the various other unsolved murders in Fredericton, we can now see a clear agenda in the criminal justice system - just like Jack the Ripper's identity and criminal activities have been sealed and hidden for his relationship with the British and Commonwealth Royal family, those with money and connections are protected in New Brunswick, regardless of the seriousness of their crimes,and those on welfare or in NB housing, or those who uncover corruption within the establishment, are criminalised and vilified by the very corrupt organisations in charge of the justice system in this city and province. They keep the courts and jails full of the innocent and non-crimes to deflect from the real criminals in this sick place: politicians, lawyers, businessmen and police officers.
11.33 - did you really say: "McPherson is not hired as an nvestigative journalist. It is not part of his job duties. He is hired to report court proceedingss as he sees them. That's his job. He does that." Unbelievable you said that - you obviously have very low expectations from so called professional journalists!!! As he sees them??? Well, he did not see or report the facts as they actually were and, therefore, he misrepresented the actual facts to the public. Is that what we expect of the press? Since Don is not a lawyer he should be fairly and impartially reporting both sides of the story - which he did not do. He gave a biased interpretation and that is NOT what a court reporter does. Your post actually sounds like Don MacPherson trying to cover his ass for protecting a very corrupt crown counsel and regime. Better luck next time Don - you should know we ALWAYS recognise when the police and others are trying to make themselves sound justified on this blog, and you just won't get away with it - too many of us recognise your claptrap garbage nonsense. Who else would stand up for Don MacPherson's crap reporting but Don himself???
Yes, a court reporter should report the full facts, which does not seem to be happening.
In response to the first comment, if the Fredericton provincial court made its transcripts available to the public they would have to start doing their jobs properly because we could all see how rotten the judges and lawyers are in the criminal courts here. What a good idea - long overdue here in New Brunswick.
Well, I know this isn't going to be popular, but here it is-there really needs to be a transcript provided.
First of all, I took the story at face value because it WAS 'good reporting'. Unfortunately, without the transcript it can't be verified.
Second, I say that because the article in question isn't even in January 24 paper, but the 25th edition. Maybe Sally meant the story was WRITTEN on the 24th, but people trying to verify her story obviously would go to the 24th edition and not find it. Strike one.
In the 25th its only a brief in the brief section, so criticisms of it not being 'court reporting' or 'investigative journalism' are unfair. It is what it said it is, in 'brief'. Sally says 'in the article', but it WASN"T an article-a brief is not an article. Strike Two.
That said, when the newspaper gives a front page account of a sexual assault trial from Richibucto, then we can ask why there isn't more than a brief on a case that is actually in Fredericton. This wasn't actually a 'trial', so that part is understandable. I'd ask what kind of media treatment the trial DID recieve in order to know whether there is 'censoring' of this story.
However, the offending statement isn't nearly as bad as its made out to be, the quote said that the defense attorney "said one option would be for her client to undergo a 30-day psychiatric assessment at a secure facility, but she doesn't want that." That's iffy. Not a strike, but definitely a foul ball.
The big problem here is context (unless Sally is saying that that quote is an out and out lie, which is pretty serious and again, needs to be verified). This story, like any mental illness story, requires much more than a 'brief'. Newspapers don't like to do that, they've NEVER liked doing that, so we can dispense with all the conspiratorial stories about governments, homicides, etc. Take a look at ANY media in our hemisphere and you find the same conduct.
So I'm once again back on the leery side, and the 'facts' of the case can really only be proven with a transcript. Hopefully we'll see it because I think IF its as bad as its painted out to be then it really MAY show something symptomatic about the way the courts operate - and the media.
And to try to quell the two sides here, when you look at the most vehement critics above, what you find is that they simply DON"T BELIEVE IT. None have said "yeah its unfair, too bad for you". They said the story is one sided and biased, and that's a fair criticism, that's why I say, at least for THIS case, get that transcript and post it up to get critics to believe or disbelieve it.
And sadly if you DON"T do that then people will simply assume you think you are wrong and don't want any actual debate about it.
I worked at the Gleaner...bunch of losers in sales. I hated it there. Good riddance!
Don is bloated, might want to skip a meal or two a day....oink, oink.
I, too, worked for the Gleaner in sales...bunch of idiots. They hired me for sales and didn't have a proper work description in place...very un-professional. not to mention that the head of sales has a drinking problem. Stay clear!
The gleaner, like any media except for maybe CBC, is a for profit business.
In other words, they will write and cover those stories they think will get customers to buy their papers.
It' isn't their job to coddle to those-with-causes because that, in honor of Mikel, DOES NOT SELL papers.
They tell the news that they think will sell their papers. For now, it seems that is working for them. Therefore they are a successful business. In the end, that's all that matters in this world. Make money, survive.
1217pm
Yes and your RUDENESS is so classy and HONOURABLE.
The Gleaner rips people off in terms of sales. I don't advertise with them because they can't deliver results. You end up throwing your money away advertising with those people.
Mikel - re: date of the article: apologies for the date error - the hearing was 24th January and the article officially published on 25th although sometimes the on-line edition is uploaded before the printed date.
1:53
Don can't see his feet from all the fat and bloat coming on. LOL
I really don't think covering the courts adequately is 'coddling those with causes'. I also don't think there is a cause and effect in regard to sales.
For example, years ago the newspaper HERE was getting extremely popular catering to issues about youth. So they bought it, but then 'moderated' it.
This story has all the elements of an interesting story, and if Sally's reporting is even remotely accurate then it would have the making of a VERY interesting story, certainly more interesting than what usually graces the front page of their paper.
As for 'sales', most of that is from subscriptions. What sells papers from the newsstand is simply the headline from page one. What was it that day...."girl with pink hair gets thrown out of school" or maybe that was the next day, but either way, what passes for 'headlines' certainly doesn't sell their papers.
As for the 'why', well, the point about sales is true to a point-people don't like hearing about poverty or the mentally ill. When its crime, they want to hear about violent crime that has a clear cut 'bad guy'.
That's mostly because of the Irvings demographics, which are aging faster than the New Brunswick population.
As for complaints, I think its a valid complaint to ask why this story only gets a 'brief' while a sexual assault from Richibucto gets front page coverage. Sure, that may sell papers, but there is more to it than that, given what usually graces the front page.
Sally, Jenn, and Andre Murray all have the same reaction - When things don't go their way they blame police, court reporters, Judges, etc. What they fail to realize is that all of them are mentally challenged. All three of them have mental issues and should be locked up permanently in an institution, instead they are roaming the judical system like they are normal, and they aren't.
840am
Right on!
While I won't go so far as they should be locked up in a padded cell, iris more than time that these characters start taking responsibility for their own actions, mental disability or not.
There are two types of disabled people.
Those that realize their limitations, do everything in their power to do the best they can, and don't blame others or expect others to fix them.
Then there are those that expect society to take care of them. And that society owes them. That is is society's fault they can't function "normally" and that is is always someone else fault and responsibility. I've zero tolerance for this group. Zero.
The reason? They fail to realize they are doing more harm than good for their cause and issues, and are dong a great disservice to those trying to take responsibility for their limitations. Using and wasting resources, sorely needed by those in real need.
People need to get back to taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, instead of expecting and demanding others are responsible for their illnesses and disabilities.
Inclusion comes with a price, that price is the responsibility to fit in to society and take responsibility for your limitations.
Post a Comment