4KQ News reported this morning:
"Ipswich Councillor Paul Tully is in trouble after blogging about the Allison Baden-Clay murder investigation, they offer that the suspect has been offered immunity for providing evidence. Both Police and the Attorney General have denied the allegations."
It would be good if 4KQ could get its facts right.
What was actually suggested was "approval from the Queensland Attorney-General Hon Jarrod Bleijie to offer immunity from prosecution to a person facing charges over the murder, as an accessory before or after the fact" was an option for the Queensland Police.
It was clearly stated that such an offer was rare early in an investigation.
Speculation is rife over this case.
Unlike other web and blog sites, this site has never speculated - and never will - on the identity of the killer or any possible accessories before or after the fact.
If someone is "in trouble" for simply reporting the various factual investigative tools and legal possibilities, it raises the question - Why?
The Attorney-General, in conjunction with his federal counterpart, should be using all available powers to close down other websites which identify the alleged killer in this case.
The enduring nature of websites means that such material will be available to jurors in the future which represents a growing internet menace.
We might have a free society but that cannot embrace a so-called "right" to say and report anything and everything which might prejudice a future fair trial.
Jurors in some other cases have been known to privately visit crime scenes and to undertake their own online investigations of the very cases they are sitting in judgment on. This is difficult to control and virtually impossible to detect.