Coverage a ‘crime’

Dear sir:
The Fort Frances Times claims it tried to spare the family a barrage of media inquiries in the Perlett trial. They sent their reporter on a limited budget to cover the trial and he came back with limited coverage of the trial, which was all in favour of Brodsky’s defence of the accused.
To report half a story is worse than reporting nothing at all. Your reporter may have spent two or three days or even a week covering the trial, but I and my family have been living with the total picture of what has taken place for almost three years. My wife has been in court almost every day of the trial, I was able to cover the last two weeks.
I heard Brodsky mimic and stumble his way through questioning, and heard him ridicule the police and the Crown. On the other hand, I heard the Crown present a step by step sequence of events which, beyond a shadow of a doubt, led the jury of 12 people to convict the defendant of the crime of murder.
For a reporter to paint a picture as Mark has is a crime in itself. Reporting only one side. Do you expect your community to accept one side of the trial? Have you no pride in your paper or the community you report to?
If you are interested in the Crown’s summary, which includes reports from exports, undisputed facts, and a series of events which led up to the final act in the Perlett home, then contact me at my home and I will be pleased to give you the honest accounting of the Crown’s summary.
Martin Grinsell