THUNDER BAY – EXPLAINER – Whenever a serious incident occurs in Thunder Bay, people immediately want to know what happened, who was involved, whether there’s any danger to the community, and how the police are responding. In that time-between public anxiety and scarce official information-frustration often falls on the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) and particularly on the Communications Team.
During the recent shooting on Memorial Avenue, police kept their information closely guarded, to put it simply. Only after an arrest took place did the Thunder Bay Police share an information release.
While this drew some criticism from observers, it highlighted a crucial point that is often overlooked: TBPS communications staff can only provide information authorized by the lead investigator. This isn’t just bureaucratic delays; it’s a common precaution taken by police forces throughout Canada.
Police sometimes withhold certain information for practical, legal, or safety reasons. It’s not typically about secrecy-it’s about safeguarding investigations, preserving evidence integrity, and protecting those involved.
Usually, the lead investigator (and sometimes supervisors or legal advisors) has input on what can safely be disclosed. The communications team translates these approved details into simple language while maintaining consistency and offering tips for public safety.
If a release seems sparse, it might indicate that investigators are still:
sifting through credible information versus rumors,
confirming timelines,
protecting witnesses’ identities,
seeking warrants for arrests,
working with prosecutors on next steps , or
managing safety concerns for victims and their families.
Reasons Behind Withheld Information
Reasons Behind Withheld Information
1 ) Protecting Ongoing Investigations
One of the biggest risks of sharing too much is alerting suspects. Even small bits of info can give away what police know or don’t know. That could lead to :
destruction of evidence (like wiping phones , throwing out clothes , moving vehicles ),
suspects coordinating stories ( “ we all say we were here at this time ”), or
flight risk (people escaping town or hiding ).
Investigations depend on strategies that lose effectiveness once they’re made public – like surveillance methods , digital forensic techniques , how police verify alibis , and when they take investigative actions. In a city where resources may already be stretched thin , maintaining an advantage in investigations is vital.
2 ) Preventing Witness Evidence Contamination
Public knowledge can alter human memory. When key facts become widely known , witnesses might accidentally mix up what they personally saw with what they read online.
That’s why law enforcement often keeps specific details under wraps – because those specifics help test credibility later. If only genuine witnesses (or those directly involved) would know certain facts , it becomes an effective way to distinguish trustworthy info from misinformation.
This is crucial in high-profile cases where social media speculation spreads quickly and well-meaning community members might inadvertently repeat false details as if they’re confirmed.
3 ) Ensuring Fair Trials While Avoiding Prejudice
Law enforcement must balance informing people while ensuring statements don’t compromise defendants’ rights to fair trials.If too much info comes out early – especially allegations , untested evidence , or sensational details – it can contribute to :
- juries being influenced unfairly ,
- claims regarding prejudicial pre-trial publicity ,
- arguments that police have “tried cases publicly.”
This risk isn’t just theoretical. Defense teams actively challenge cases based on fairness issues. Police services understand how unnecessary disclosures weaken strong cases. h33 __________________________________________________________ *Here we will insert additional sections similarly structured* After going through all points:
Source link
2 ) Preventing Witness Evidence Contamination
Public knowledge can alter human memory. When key facts become widely known , witnesses might accidentally mix up what they personally saw with what they read online.
That’s why law enforcement often keeps specific details under wraps – because those specifics help test credibility later. If only genuine witnesses (or those directly involved) would know certain facts , it becomes an effective way to distinguish trustworthy info from misinformation.
This is crucial in high-profile cases where social media speculation spreads quickly and well-meaning community members might inadvertently repeat false details as if they’re confirmed.
3 ) Ensuring Fair Trials While Avoiding Prejudice
Law enforcement must balance informing people while ensuring statements don’t compromise defendants’ rights to fair trials.If too much info comes out early – especially allegations , untested evidence , or sensational details – it can contribute to :
- juries being influenced unfairly ,
- claims regarding prejudicial pre-trial publicity ,
- arguments that police have “tried cases publicly.”
This risk isn’t just theoretical. Defense teams actively challenge cases based on fairness issues. Police services understand how unnecessary disclosures weaken strong cases. h33 __________________________________________________________ *Here we will insert additional sections similarly structured* After going through all points:
Source link
- juries being influenced unfairly ,
- claims regarding prejudicial pre-trial publicity ,
- arguments that police have “tried cases publicly.”
Source link
