I can't find the post anymore, but upthread it was suggested that it was acceptable that the Sollecito family released Nov 2, 2007 crime scene video of Meredith to a television studio (where it was immediately broadcast) because, during the on-going appeal, a lawyer presented a slide presentation of crime scene photos without requiring the removal of media.
First of all, it is imperative that crime scene photos are presented during the appeal of a murder conviction - it's not optional. When that lawyer (Meredith's lawyer?) presented that evidence in court, it was normal and expected. It should not be suggested that it was out of order to present the evidence.
Secondly, presenting crime scene photos in an appeal is not something that should be criticized as "abnormal". If someone from the media elected to remain in the courtroom during the presentation of that evidence, that was a choice. If any reporter had the poor taste to discuss those photos ... good luck with the shoddy career.
First of all, it is imperative that crime scene photos are presented during the appeal of a murder conviction - it's not optional. When that lawyer (Meredith's lawyer?) presented that evidence in court, it was normal and expected. It should not be suggested that it was out of order to present the evidence.
Secondly, presenting crime scene photos in an appeal is not something that should be criticized as "abnormal". If someone from the media elected to remain in the courtroom during the presentation of that evidence, that was a choice. If any reporter had the poor taste to discuss those photos ... good luck with the shoddy career.