Unbalanced coverage

Dear sir:
I am writing about the Jamie Perlett case. I am a family member and am very upset at what I read in this newspaper.
The coverage of this trial by Times reporter Mark Elliott was always about Brodsky and his defence. So readers of the Fort Frances Times have only heard one side of the story. I want to tell you the other side.
Yes, the family stood by the Crown and the decision reached by the jury because we knew both sides of the story. We looked at all that was before us and, like the jury, came to a decision.
It was not the easy way out, believe me. This trial has been the hardest thing my family has ever been through. First we found out that members of our family had been murdered, then found out their son was the suspect. No family should ever have the heartache that this kind of trauma causes.
Had Mr. Elliott been able to be there when the Crown was at work during the closing arguments, you would have heard the facts about this case. The family based their opinion on those facts, and those facts were too overwhelming to ignore.
So tell me, how were we supposed to believe that someone else did this horrible thing when all the evidence led to Jamie?
As for Brodsky’s comment on “junk science,” what other defence was he supposed to take with all the evidence against his client. According to him, everyone who was involved in this case didn’t know what they were doing. Let me tell you, all the people involved in this case were professionals in their fields, some of them even training at Scotland Yard.
These people, with all their skills, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person guilty of this crime was Jamie.
Brodsky also stated the family had no contact with Jamie. Why would we? In the beginning, some of my family had gone to see him but you should know not once did Jamie say “I didn’t do it!” Now he has been convicted and is screaming innocence. Understandably so as he is facing many years in prison.
Another thing I will point out re the misconduct of the Crown. This misconduct was the reason the trial was moved to Thunder Bay and had nothing to do with Mr. Mitchell’s prosecution team. It did not affect the outcome of the trial and had no bearing on the proceedings of the trial.
I understand the Fort Frances Times is a small-town newspaper with limited resources. But why not cover the end of the trial? Back in March of ’96, the media coverage was extensive. So why cut the coverage short and only report one side of the story. There obviously will be more on the case with the sentencing still to come and I would appreciate if you are going to write about this, make sure you report both sides.
If you can’t afford to report from both sides, don’t report on it at all.
David Grinsell