Over sensationalised headlines, yet again.

Are the media in a scrum to see who can come out with most sensationalised headlines going? Or do they do it to satisfy a morbid curiosity of people?

Take CNN for example and this headline:

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl decline separate interviews

Reading that headlines on a google search immediately gets you into thinking the parents must be guilty because now they are refusing to separate interviews.  But the true heading should be:

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl can’t agree to conditions of interviews

Because that is the truth.

The parents have not declined separate interviews what they have declined, is to be interviewed separately without lawyers present, as the Police wanted an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present.

The parents also said they want an interview that is fair, and an interview where the detectives are open-minded and non accusatory.

And people wonder why these parents have got in lawyers; god I don’t know about you, but sometimes I am glad I am British where your rights are observed during interview and you are reminded frequently that you can have legal representation, if so wish.

I fully understand the Police have a job to do, but their job should be conducted to a code of practice that will ensure that those interviewed and possibly charged are done so in a manner that will secure a conviction. And it will be done in a manner that will not allow a possible offender to escape justice due to legal technicalities which result in cases having to be either dropped before court or defendants acquitted once in court.

That is why the British Police have to work to PACE, failure to do so will result in an offender being released and a possible trial being dismissed. Days gone by when suspects, allegedly fell down stairs are draconian and amount to torture. Beating a person into submission does not mean you have the culprit.

All you have is a person who will confess to anything in order for the beatings to stop or just to get some rest from a long and enduring interview. Look at the Amanda Knox case and see how long they interviewed her without proper breaks and rest.

Police have been known to have the wrong man in the first place. Those being questioned by police may not be those that are held responsible for the crime. The case of Christopher Jefferies proves that. Arrested on suspicion only to be released released from his bail conditions at a later date.

Christopher Jefferies was an innocent man, but that did not stop the press and people conducting their own public trials in the media, and on internet forums and blogs. Christopher Jefferies found his life and privacy being exposed on various sites with members of that site acting as judge, jury and executioner.

There must be nothing worse than being in an interview knowing you are telling the truth and you know you did not commit such a crime. Fighting for your survival and fighting to prove your innocence whilst realising you are failing miserably because the Police have an agenda of blaming it all onto you anyway.

Again over-sensationalised headlines by the media, leading the Public into thinking that Christopher Jefferies did in fact harm Joanna Yeates, how far from the truth that was.

As for misleading headlines, well I suppose headlines that speak the truth don’t get the readership.  I clicked on it because I thought the parents had declined all interviews.  My god to read further on, that is not the case, just proves to me that papers don’t care about Baby Lisa and finding her all they care about is readership, hits to their site and any headline will do to increase the revenue.

Yes we can all remember the headline that hit the Express with regards to the McCann case.

Find the Body and Prove we killed her

The McCanns NEVER said anything of the sort, what was quoted was this according to several newspapers including the Daily Express:

It is understood their lawyers have told them that without a body it will be extremely difficult for the authorities to press charges.

A close friend said: “The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: ‘Where is the body? Where’s the evidence that madeleine is dead? We have got no idea.’

As you can see a close friend was asking legitimate questions. The Police in Portugal were accusing the parents of harming their child and disposing of her body without showing them evidence that Madeleine was in fact dead.  Common sense really.

So the lawyers were saying without a body it will be extremely difficult to press charges, again legal advice that was given… nothing sinister.

And of course not forgetting this nice little comment from a source close to the investigation, now I wonder who that might be:

The change in the family’s tone – just days after the McCanns were still pleading for the search for Madeleine to continue – surprised sources close to the investigation.

“It seems remarkable that just days after the McCanns were saying they thought Madeleine was still alive and missing, now they’re talking about a body,” a source said. “I don’t know if this is really the McCanns speaking or just one of the people working on their publicity campaign but it is not the kind of comment to impress a team of detectives who think you’re guilty.”

Yep and it all stems from legal advice given by lawyers to their clients…. marvellous twist of words to make families and people look guilty in the eyes of the reader.  Along with making them look as if they have said something they never.

Talk about trial by media.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: