Madam, - Vincent Browne (Opinion, July 25th) argues that perhaps we would be better off allowing "contentious" cases to be decided by the Special Criminal Court, therefore allowing greater transparency as to how a verdict was reached.
However, I fail to see how this approach would be superior to the jury system. Having judges explain their decisions may allow the public to understand how a verdict was reached but it does not mean that the verdict will be more in line with the evidence. Surely the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers outweighs the public's need for transparency in so called "contentious" cases. - Yours, etc,
ALAN O'KELLY,
Killybegs, Prosperous,
Co Kildare.
Madam, - My thanks to Fintan O'Toole who, in his brilliant analysis of the voyeuristic, American-style media coverage of the O'Reilly case, mentions women and mothers murdered in the same year as Rachel O'Reilly - women whose cases seemed to be forgotten after they had been treated by the same media "in a more or less routine fashion".
As somebody who lived next door to one of the victims Mr O'Toole named, I certainly haven't forgotten her brutal and gruesome murder. But I watched with disbelief how the O'Reilly case developed without understanding the scale of the publicity. Now I am getting it: to make the really big headlines for weeks, a psychopath has to deliver a "fantastic story" - just killing doesn't do any more.
If it wasn't for the likes of Fintan O'Toole, taking "'pride in the profession of journalism" could become difficult. - Yours, etc,
BEATE KARL,
Ballybulgan, Laghey,
Co Donegal.