COVERAGE OF MURDER CASE UPSETS READER

Re: ‘Cape Breton man admits to 2017 killing of Sydney Businessman James David Matthews,’ Cape Breton Post online, April 8.

We, the family of James Matthews, endured deep sadness and frustration caused by the publication of your article about our brother on April 8.

There are two areas of prime concern.

The first was the sensationalization of the reporting of the facts read into court, highlighting the state of dress and way our brother’s body was found, as well as his alcohol level. These details were only a very small part of the much larger report and yet Cape Breton Post reporter Steve Macinnis

chose to focus on these details that don’t do anything to inform the public about the actual nature of the crime.

There is absolutely no good that comes from having this information publicized and yet it does considerable harm to our brother’s dignity and that of our family, which has already been victimized enough by this tragedy.

Secondly, the reference to an unsubstantiated report of use of a gay app was unnecessary and offensive to the whole community. Your reporter even stated that these were unconfirmed claims which have not been proven in court, yet chose to include what is nothing more than rumour and speculation which is simply irresponsible journalism, not to mention unnecessarily cruel.

Our family reached out directly to your reporter before the court date, offering to provide a meaningful story about Jim’s life yet your paper chose instead to focus on very private, personal and gruesome details of the final minutes of our brother’s life. There is no reason for this except blatant disregard for the dignity of the deceased and for the sensitivity of those who loved him.

We fail to see how your reporting served the best interests of the public or anyone involved, and are deeply hurt by your actions. We would request that you remove the article from your website or revise it to remove the aforementioned offensive details.

Donna Matthews Dartmouth

EDITOR’S NOTE:

Regarding the first area of concern mentioned in the letter on this page, the details reported were contained in a statement of facts agreed to by both the Crown and defence. If such facts were important enough to be included for the court, the Post deemed them important enough to report to the public. While such information may indeed be distasteful to the family and friends, it is information that can help the public better understand what occurred.

Regarding the second area of concern, the reference to a possible meeting on a social media app was fair comment given the wide-spread speculation of such in the community. The reference served to both quell such speculation, as the Crown said there was no evidence of such, along with indicating the pair met by happenstance.

As a point of clarification, the family did not reach out directly to Steve Macinnis but spoke to another reporter who passed the information onto Macinnis. Macinnis then contacted the family and arrangements were made for an interview at the time of sentencing.

Indeed, the details of any crime can be viewed by family and friends as offensive but such information can help better inform the public as to what occurred.

The Post completed a number of stories on this case, including a lengthy piece in August 2017 which focused exclusively on the life of James David Matthews.

To say this newspaper was sensational, cruel or irresponsible in its reporting of this case is not accurate.