For whose benefit was it revealed that Carmen Thomas had been dismembered?

A lot of worrying information leaked to the media during the Carmen Thomas murder inquiry. The information as to the fact that her previous partner was being treated as a suspect didn't seem of any consequence to raising help from the public but rather to implant the information in the public mind (and therefore that of prospective jurors) that Brad Callaghan was potentially the killer. All of this at a time when the police appeared to be struggling with the inquiry. There were several reports as to where the body was allegedly taken to be dumped, all of which now appear to have been incorrect. There was also the links with the searches of the offices of Manson Construction for whom Brad Callaghan worked and reports that the administrators of that company were 'co-operating' with police. Again, no indication that such press releases were to likely to gain help from the public but rather that they were designed to underline again who the main suspect was. Additional material of similar type from an ex-girlfriend who told of a harrowing (or some such word) police interview.

At some point the OIC released his view that the body of Carmen Thomas had been dismembered. That information in particular, like the other mentioned above, was not going to lead to some breakthrough leads from the public what it was likely to do was bring further pressure on Callaghan and any associates, perhaps get them talking or cause dissent among them - this of course is all speculation from me as I have no idea of the evidence against Callaghan or anyone else only disquiet as to how much unnecessary information was leaked by the police. Generally, it has been seen in the past when police are struggling with evidence they create 'evidence' of sorts through the medial and therefore the public mind, hopefully enough (for the police) in some cases to be able to sheet home a conviction based on weak evidence and public speculation. The fairness of that seems dubious at the least.

But another point seems undoubtedly unfair, the information about the dismemberment. The public have reacted with horror as to this revelation, nothing is gained in terms of the prospect of the revelation serving to bring forward other evidence. What has been achieved is that matters as to what might rightfully be released to the media at any subsequent trial or hearing have been taken from the Courts by the pre-emptive information released by the police. But that isn't all, that information has taken from Carmen Thomas's family the right to seek to have the information suppressed, as also did the earlier information that she was an escort. I have trouble associating the occupation of a person as being important in the matter of their death where it could be suggested that the revelation added to the indignity of what has happened to them. Overall, I imagine Carmen's family, not resident here as the papers report, might have wanted the circumstances of her death and employment left unsaid. There would be a number of reasons for this, not least the 5 year old boy.

So who has heard about the dismemberment? Probably the majority of the country and also the majority of any prospective jury. They will be told to put their feelings aside and so forth but I wonder at the entire probability to be able to do that when already Carmen is more recognised now by the nature of her death than by anything in her life. The police it could be said took control of her life, what was known of it and what was to be released to the media. I don't think the police are the appropriate authority to do that, I think it's for the Courts and I would much rather have seen Judicial approval sought for the release of information such as this because ultimately the Courts are responsible for the Law not the police and feelings, manipulation or emotions (as shown by the OIC being interviewed on TV) are not part of a Judicial process.

The 'breakthrough' regarding the whereabouts of the body. No doubt information led to that, was that information from an 'associate' offered a compromise of sorts, and in the fullness of time we may learn what that compromise was.