legal coverage censorship again, more absurd than before

"Dinah McNicol murder accused already jailed for killing".

"Peter Tobin, 63, from Johnstone, Renfrewshire, denies the abduction and murder of Dinah McNicol.
Miss McNicol, 18, of Tillingham, Essex, vanished on her way back from a Hampshire music festival. Her remains were found in Margate, Kent, in 2007.
Mr Tobin was convicted last year of the murder of Vicky Hamilton, who was 15."

And just like last time, even though they are telling you about one person he was convicted of murdering, what they seemingly can't tell you is the other person he murdered, although you can easily do a Google search and find out. Or you can read all about it on Wikipedia and see the Talk page where various people across the world debate why they should remove information from the Internet to ensure this person gets a 'fair' trial. Although in truth, it's not so much about fairness and more about avoiding the chance of having his trial collapse. Yet this is absurd, because it supposes there are juries who will treat him fairly if they're told he's killed one person, but couldn't possibly treat him fairly if they knew he'd killed two. Huh?

There's a lot of talk about the media being to blame for hyping up crime problems and making them out to be worse than they really are. This problem is made worse when the media is apparently forced to pretend that 2 separate crimes are committed by different people when in fact it's the same person. Perhaps people would feel a bit safer if they knew there were actually fewer murderers and paedophiles on the streets than it appears.