A lot has been written about the media coverage of Chris Jefferies' arrest - the landlord of murder victim Jo Yeates. There's a very good piece here from Enemies of Reason which covers off much of what needs to be pointed out.
Jefferies, currently not charged with any crime, is the latest victim of trial by media, where the admissible evidence presented to the angry mob appears to include everything from his hair style to his love of poetry, via some testimony from random character witnesses who thought him variously "a bit strange" and possibly even gay.
Character assassination
Even Yeates' boyfriend Greg Reardon - who surely has enough on his mind without reminding the press of their own responsibilities - issued a statement criticising the "character assassination" of "as yet innocent men". Tellingly that part of his statement appears not to have made the edit in many of the papers. If that wasn't enough, the Attorney General has also reminded the press that contempt of court is a criminal offence. Dominic Grieve said:
"We need to avoid a situation where trials cannot take place or are prejudiced as a result of irrelevant or improper material being published, whether in print form or on the internet, in such a way that a trial becomes impossible."
But even today the papers are publishing totally unrelated details intended presumably to convince readers of Jefferies' guilt through constant insinuation.
Meanwhile, even if responsibility is beyond the UK's tabloids, it appears irony is not.
Today an outraged Express tells us:
"...innocent people have their details stored on police databases... Senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation...
"Gus Hosein, of Privacy International, said: "There's a point where the police stop seeing members of the public as the people to be protected and rather see them all as potential criminals."
Outrageous isn't it. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
For the sake of a little accuracy (just for a change) the BBC, and many other media outlets, released Greg Reardon's statement as follows: "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful."
There is a small difference in the BBC's quote from what you have quoted above. Reardon, if the BBC and many others are to be believed, wrote "AS YET INNOCENT MEN".
There was no "AN" and Reardon referred to "MEN" - plural - not "MAN". Despite the apparent minor nature of these differences they are of major significance if you happen to be the only publicly identified suspect in a murder investigation!
Posted by: Alex Brodie | Jan 02, 2011 at 12:59
spot on article, what the media need to be asking rather than persecuting a 65 year old man who is only guilty of circumstantial evidence at best is to focus on why Avon & Somerset police have an abysmal record when solving murder cases. i believe this figure currently stands at approx. 27 which is nothing short of scandalous. maybe it's time to query their methods of investigating crimes of such a serious nature?
Posted by: paul from bs5 | Jan 02, 2011 at 20:16
we would like to think that the police
know what they are doing ,but do they ,lots of innocent people have been imprisoned for murder fitted up yes thats what i said fitted up, okay that was the old days {only 20 - 30 yrs ago)but now people are being wrongly arrested through incompetence, even now after the bail of mr jefferies will we believe the police ??
lets hope im very wrong
Posted by: david | Jan 02, 2011 at 23:26
Very good article, this needs to be highlighted and stopped otherwise I can see anyone who is a potential subject for any crime getting a super-injunction at the tax payers expense
Posted by: Claire - Landlord Forms | Apr 26, 2011 at 10:45