It’s not often that the American media will take interest in Canadian current events, but in the case of Russell Williams, they did. Williams was a high-ranking military officer in the Canadian Air Force, held in high regard by those around him. His job came with immense responsibility and with that, intense psychological screening, perhaps this is why his story caught the eye of public interest. In a police interrogation, Williams eventually confessed to two murders, multiple sexual assaults, and over eighty counts of break and enter.
After watching two true crime documentaries covering this story, one done by CBC, a Canadian company and one done by CBS, an American company, the differences were palpable. Although they used much of the same footage and even had the some of the same experts speak, the information was framed in a different way. I thought that the American 48 Hours Mystery seemed much more dramatized and less genuine. I went into far less detail, instead, jumping right into the drama of a police interrogation and the extent of his crimes. Both versions of Williams’ story had the police interrogation broken down by a veteran police interrogator who seemed a little over-zealous, but the footage in “Name, Rank, Serial Killer?” made him seem somehow more enthusiastic. This, along with the framing and leading questions asked to the audience made it slightly more sensational than its Canadian counterpart.
The Canadian version of this documentary, “Above Suspicion” had a different take on the story. Although shorter in length, it seemed to be more drawn out, building up to the conclusion of his conviction and providing much more detail along the way. The interviews of the victims were more thorough, containing more specific details. Although less outright dramatic, the “Above Suspicion” told a much better story than “Name, Rank, Serial Killer?”, the American documentary. These two documentaries were obviously both a bit sensational and dramatized— they are going to try and make it as entertaining as possible— I think that the impact wasn’t quite as damaging as it could have been.
It is strange, however, that the Canadian coverage contains more detail. Canadian laws about media coverage concerning criminal trials are generally much more strict than they are in America. This begs the question, how much do we really need to know about criminal trials and the accused’s actions? The answer… nothing. We don’t ever need the specific details that we often end up getting. The public wants to be kept informed, and when that’s done the right way, it builds trust in the system. However, if it’s done the wrong way, it creates bias and mistrust. I think Canada’s laws are sensible, not releasing information that the defendant wants to be kept private and being minimal in their details. In the case of Russell Williams, the rules were bent a little bit, and I don’t think that’s right. The law should remain consistent, even when a story is popular.
In this particular case, it was lucky that Williams decided to plead guilty. The information released to the public was definitely prejudicial and could have (maybe it still did, though not as much) biased his trial. There was certainly bits of information released in the documentary that didn’t necessarily add to the context and were likely mentioned just for the shock factor. Obviously, the content could be uncomfortable or triggering for some people, but many things are and it is our own responsibility to filter these things out if we don’t want to know about them. However, when there’s a huge picture in the newspaper, that’s hard to avoid and definitely unnecessary.
Danielle's Criminology Blog 