Metropol

i've been half following this story as it's been developing, the tv appeal from the tearful parents troubled me greatly and with the discovery of their daughter's body on christmas day it must have been nothing short of horrific. one cannot imagine what those people are going through.

however, what troubles me equally is the press treatment of the current prime suspect, chris jefferies.

it's mainly from the usual suspects, the sun, mirror and daily mail.

see:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22816665/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... spect.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... anted.html

i do not know whether he is guilty or not, but there is something deeply worrying about these unsubstantiated slurs from people who do not want to be named and others from his past.

the police themselves hardly have a impeccable record when it comes fitting up the local weirdo/eccentric/loaner and this case has echoes of colin stagg, robert murat and perhaps most famiously of all, barry george written all over it.

i guess it's only a matter of time before the police either have to charge or release him.

i'm all for press freedom, it is a fundamental pillar of democracy but for those mentioned above who turned out to be entirely innocent, their lives have been completely ruined by unfounded revelations printed just to get a scarier headline than the next paper on the shelf and i worry how those in high profile cases such as these can ever truly have a fair trial.

I don't understand how Sky was still showing their clip of the suspect after he was arrested. Surely it could prejudice the jury if there is a trial?

-

If/when he's formally charged this should all become sub justice; but in the meantime they'll print anything they can - which extends to speculation, invention, rumour and guesswork. There's a distinction between being arrested on suspicion of, and then charged for the act of a specific crime.

If charged and convicted, then an expensive defence lawyer is going to have no difficulty in calling a mis-trial due to the contamination of the public's perception of this individual.

Quite honestly - thank fuck the tabloid press is a dying media. Can't come fast enough for me - as their dwindling readership is part of the reason they're more guilty than ever of sensationalism and sheer fabrication in their headlines.

Just look at the "Al Queda Corrie Threat" story in the Sun. A tissue of lies start to finish, only retracted after a complaint with a "sorry for the misunderstanding" buried halfway up the paper weeks later.

I don't often call for firebombing, but really...

As I mentioned elsewhere, Nick Harvey is very pleased that the Bristol police have now arresed the (alleged) murderer. Can we now please move on to the really important issue, where's the bloody pizza?

Nick Harvey wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, Nick Harvey is very pleased that the Bristol police have now arresed the (alleged) murderer. Can we now please move on to the really important issue, where's the bloody pizza?

Dr Lobster* wrote:the police themselves hardly have a impeccable record when it comes fitting up the local weirdo/eccentric/loaner and this case has echoes of colin stagg, robert murat and perhaps most famiously of all, barry george written all over it.

This case reminds me particularly of the obsession of certain newspapers and Sky News with Robert Murat's glass eye; the insinuation being that any unusual physical attribute makes someone "weird" and therefore clearly capable of murder. In this case the all important factor is Mr Jefferies' hair, which has variously been described by the media as "wild", "all over the place", "straggly" and "odd looking". It matters not one shred that he may have been a man of great integrity and benevolence all of his 65 years; JUST LOOK AT HIS HAIR! He must be a murderer!

If any more proof were needed, the Mirror helpfully points out that he has a "fondness for polo-neck jumpers". An open and shut case, surely.

Nick Harvey wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, Nick Harvey is very pleased that the Bristol police have now arresed the (alleged) murderer. Can we now please move on to the really important issue, where's the bloody pizza?

I was hoping the post mortem might reveal the answer to that question.

m-in-m wrote:

Nick Harvey wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, Nick Harvey is very pleased that the Bristol police have now arresed the (alleged) murderer. Can we now please move on to the really important issue, where's the bloody pizza?

I was hoping the post mortem might reveal the answer to that question.

Inappropriate joke or dumb observation?

Regardless of whether he is charged or not, contempt of court could still be claimed. Whoever (if they do) stands for trial for the murder is at risk of not receiving a fair trial do the fact that information concerning the case has been freely available and would generally be known to the jurors.

How can a fair trial be carried out when half the jury could have already decided "it was the landlord, wot done it" due to his trial by media. Even if someone else is eventually charged with the murder, they don't receive a fair trial (admittedly in their favour!) for the exact same reason because certain jurors could already have made up their mind with a not guilty verdict as a result of the information in the media.

Highly irresponsible and although the attorney general is considering "reminding" the media as to their responsibilities in regards to contempt of court is welcome - it's too little too late.

P.S. I hate the term "quizzed" for when someone is being questioned by police. They're not on Blankety Blank for Nick's sake!

Nick Harvey wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, Nick Harvey is very pleased that the Bristol police have now arresed the (alleged) murderer. Can we now please move on to the really important issue, where's the bloody pizza?

On The Rocks wrote:I don't understand how Sky was still showing their clip of the suspect after he was arrested. Surely it could prejudice the jury if there is a trial?

Not really any different to when Sky kept running their interview clip of Jeremy Thompson interviewing Ian Huntley back at the time of the Soham Murders. It actually turned out in that case they'd gone off and interviewed the guy who actually did the murder. Maybe they think the same thing will play out again?