Pantagraph.com | News | Paper will seek access to video in Pelo case

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Newsie wrote on Sep 12, 2007 12:50 PM:

" I never understand why everyone always says "you're only doing this to sell newspapers." Well DUH! Last time I checked, a newspaper in business TO SELL papers. And just based off all the comments here, people are interested in this topic. One more point, just because the Pantagraph wants access to the information doesn't mean it is going to publish it. A lot of times reporters know much more about a case than they could or would ethicly print. The point of all this is that the government shouldn't get to cherry-pick what is available to the press. Give it to the reporters or whomever requests it, and let them decide. "

Access? wrote on Sep 12, 2007 12:04 PM:

" You people are missing the point. This will all become public when the trial gets here. So if this is testimony that will be played during the trial, it should NOT be available before the trial. Stop over reacting. Nobody is spitting on the constitution. "

Re: to the Pantagraph wrote on Sep 12, 2007 12:04 PM:

" Right. When there is a sympathetic victim then we should just forgo all the public knowledge stuff and go straight to sentencing. Why should this guy even waste 12 jurors time with a trial. We should just let the prosecutors decide. What is to stop us from saving the witnesses time too. This is going to be stressful so what should they have to get one a stand and testify. Oh wait, the Constitution. "

WOW... wrote on Sep 12, 2007 11:56 AM:

" When the government takes away your freedom of speech & right to know all you whiners will be sorry. For now, its the law for the media to have access and thats just the way it is. For all you who thinks this hurts the Pantagraph there sure are a WHOLE lot of people hitting these comment sections. All I can say is "Go Pantagraph!!" "

question wrote on Sep 12, 2007 10:15 AM:

" With Pantagraph charging 75 cents for the rag, is this quarter going to pay for suits? "

B/N complainers wrote on Sep 12, 2007 10:04 AM:

" This community or should I say you readers are the biggest hypocrites in the world. You all whine and cry about all the stupid stories or articles that the pantagraph prints. Then when they go after a story you cry cause you don't think it's right. Well, let me tell you, it truly is a publics right to that court system. Go to Mclean County courthouses' website. type in your favorite friend or husband or wife, look them up under public access, you'll see every criminal charge in McLean county they've ever got since 1991, why you ask?? It's PUBLIC ACCESS PEOPLE!!!! "

media needs to.. wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:57 AM:

" learn that they shouldn't have a pass to all things. Some things need to remain private. ALL media need to learn this. Why sue over a front page article when in a few months it will all come out anyway. "

to the Pantagraph wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:17 AM:

" Don't you think that these poor women have been through enough then to have a newpaper wanting their story? These women are brave to testify, and I hope that they have been able to get help living through this awful thing that happened to them. Now they are expected to relive this all and you want to go in there like vultures and treat them like a piece of meat just so you can have a story. Shame on you! "

To: Shame on the Pantagraph wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:13 AM:

" "...this is still America " also means freedom of the press, last time I checked... "

Shame on the Pantagraph wrote on Sep 12, 2007 8:31 AM:

" What right do you have to think you are better judging this case than the judicial system. Most of this testimony is discovery. Nothing has been proven and to report such is liable. Last I checked, this is still America where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately the media thinks it knows better and can convict every defendant before it even gets to trial. "

So it's your right to know wrote on Sep 12, 2007 7:58 AM:

" What are you going to do with it? Is it really going to matter in your life? Are you going to involve yourself in the trial? Are you someone directly involved? Perhaps the witness wanted to remain anonymous. Why is it up to the Pantagraph to air all the laundry? Personally, by doing this, I feel like my rights to privacy are violated and I would think twice before involving myself in a trial so that some media outlet and the public didn't disect my involvement. "

You are wrong wrote on Sep 12, 2007 7:55 AM:

" The Pantagraph is wrong in doing this. "

At Least Be Honest wrote on Sep 12, 2007 7:43 AM:

" Just say "We want to sell more papers." Don't act like you're defending the public's right to know or some crap like that. You are trying to sell papers, that's it. "

to otis wrote on Sep 12, 2007 7:11 AM:

" "Being framed" Are you serious?? Have you not read anything about this case? "

otis wrote on Sep 12, 2007 1:35 AM:

" god i hope this man is not being framed "

Warm wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:47 PM:

" Can the prosecutors not handle the heat on this one? "

Go Panagraph wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:01 PM:

" Good reporting and getting the news to all of us. "

seeing is believing wrote on Sep 11, 2007 8:47 PM:

" I have seen how the reporters act in the courtroom when it comes to "big" trials. They become ruthless and inappropriate to the witnesses and family members I do not blame the courts for blocking the reporters. When the jury sees the videos and testimonies so will the reportes so they just need to back off. "

Re: right on... wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:50 PM:

" Another example of people who don't know what they're talking about. It wasn't even a "she" that was testifying... "

Good Job Pantagraph wrote on Sep 11, 2007 6:46 PM:

" I am extremely proud of the Pantagraph for the courage they are showing in this matter. It is so often that when public officials are involved in criminal cases that exceptions and courtesies are extended to the defendants. In this case the people who are concerned want and deserve to know the truth. For those of you who think differently thats your opinion, but I for one want to know why this unusual procedure is going on. I also thank the Pantagraph for fighting for the readers rights to have this information. Thanks to the newspaper and for the naysayers keep complaining how Homeland Security is a violation of the same rights you don't give a hoot about in this case. "

right on.. wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:57 PM:

" They arent going to put her face on the front page of the paper - they want the transcript to see what she is testifying to. If they didnt ask for it you'd accuse the Pantagraph of protecting a criminal or corrupt police officer or something rediculous. "

OGS Ain't you got... wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:14 PM:

" ...better things to do? Like do some investigative reporting on illegals, 9/11, & government corruption? Do that and maybe your readership would go up instead of down, down, down. "

if and when wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:10 PM:

" Right within the story it indicates that the video may be used as testimony at the trial. So if and when it is used it becomes public record. Not until then!!! Pantagraph should not have access. It has nothing to do with trust it has to do with procedure. "

I wonder wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:09 PM:

" If they play the entire tape of the witness for the jury, how could the Pantagraph have a beef? The trial hasn't begun yet. How can they complain if they'll see the witness when the jury does. "

Mr. Burns wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:43 PM:

" Would you? The story isn't about the witness video, the transcript maybe. It's funny how the headline is about the Pantagraph going after the video. Isn't every other media source trying to get it as well? "

To Concerned wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:36 PM:

" But an intergral part of our judicial system is that it is an open one. Sorry, but I do not trust our prosecutors and courts with protecting our freedoms. Anything less than an open system is just begging for freedoms to be taken away. I would hope that our prosecutors would be considered about that as well, not just getting convictions. "

Witness wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:34 PM:

" This witness should have privacy and I hope that The Pantagraph doesn't get this video, how horrible, but of course they think of MONEY and what will sell but never about the victim of a serious and devistating crime. "

Why? wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:33 PM:

" Why do you need access to the video before the trial. As a newspaper, have some responsibility to do what's right. Do NOT compromise this trial by trying get access to the video and releasing information to the public. There is NO reason to do this, period. "

Concerned wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:23 PM:

" Maybe the witness is afraid of retaliation and doesn't want anyone to know who they are. "