A story today describes a man "named a suspect" by police in the Madeleine McCann receiving 600,000 pounds :(over a million dollars) from six British newspapers (in a British court) for libel. British law is better than American law on libel because the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts applying its decisions, have pretty much messed up the law of libel here--making it very difficult to sue media people for libel or slander.
I keep waiting for American cable TV, and other media, to be sued over this endless SPECULATION on guilt and innocence. It is EVIL stuff. It makes a mockery of "presumption of innocence", and I have said before that I regard it as UNETHICAL for both lawyers and mental health professionals to go on TV and SPECULATE about guilt and innocence of individuals not convicted of a crime. I have also said before that I do NOT regard it as a viable defense to libel to say that "we were only speculating" when we put on people professing EXPERTISE to say that some person was probably guilty of murder. In the right circumstances, I would want to be (if I were not retired) the plaintiff's lawyer suing Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and others for trashing the reputation of people based on NON-FACTUAL information. My clients and I would end up owning a FEW of these networks (albeit MSNBC and CNN are not worth owning).
Despite media hype to the contrary, there is NO SUCH THING in American jurisprudence as being "named a suspect". That has NO legal meaning or significance. It is totally a matter of internal police procedure. For that matter, there is NO such legal category as "person of interest". These terms are just a lazy way of SMEARING people, instead of reporting facts. It is a far cry from that old standard of detectives (not a bad one, at that): "I suspect no one; I suspect everyone." I seem to recall that Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot said something like that, but I may be confusing my detectives. I know the much less competent Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers) made fun of this phrase in "A Shot in the Dark", but it is still a much better approach to crime than the media character assassination BY OPINION approach.
Yes, Greta Van Susteren (who I NEVER watch for just this reason) said last night (for the zillionith time in some of the worst "news" coverage in the history of man--Greta, I guess should be pleased that she is going down in history) that Drew Peterson had been "named a suspect" in the disappearance (not even a CRIME proven at this point) of his fourth wife. Now Van Susteren has previously virtually accused Drew Peterson of killing his THIRD WIFE, but that "story" seems to have disappeared (like the fourth wife) as authorities have been unable to actually CHARGE Peterson with that crime--despite exhuming the body.
The particular NON-STORY that Van Susteren used to revisit the scene of HER ("journalistic") crimes last night was Peterson being allowed to go to Florida on vacation. Now the authorities could not PREVENT Peterson from going to Florida because of his fourth wife, since--despite Grea and old TV programs--authorities in this country have no AUTHORITY to keep a person from leaving town merely by "naming" the person a suspect. The only reason this even came up is that Peterson has been charged with (MY opinion here) a really WEAK weapons charge over a weapon he had used in his job as a police officer. I only was watching Greta because of Bret Favre. This STUPID stuff on Drew Peterson merely confirmed my previous conclusion to NEVER watch her program.
There is no subject on which this blog has been right, and proven right, more than the Drew Peterson and Jon Benet Ramssey cases. As I told you from the beginning, the media (INCLUDING Fox News--on the side of the forces of evil on this one) has given you NO facts on Drew Peterson which indicate he committed a crime beyond the obvious. They have just given you EVIL BACK FENCE GOSSIP of the most disgraceful kind--of NO "news" value at all. What is the obvious? You know that. Drew Peterson's fourth wife disappeared, and has stayed disappeared, under circumstances which indicate that Drew Peterson had reasons and opportunity to do her in. That is IT. Nothing else. Interviews with previous wives? WORTHLESS. Interviews with previous children or stepchildren? WORTHLESS. Hearsay about what the fourth wife said about the third wife's "murder? WORLTHLESS. In fact, all of those things were worse than worthless. As stated, they were EVIL stuff.
I told you from the beginning, correctly, that Drew Peterson was NOT going to becharged with the fourth wife's murder UNLESS THE BODY IS FOUND, or an eyewitness to the crime is discovered (who can explain what happened to the body). Oh, Drew Peterson could confess, if his conscience bothers him (no indication of that). Nope. The ONLY chance of charging Drew Peterson with a murder was the THIRD WIFE, where the media made a big point of her being found in a bathtub WITHOUT WATER. As I informed you, that was MEANINGLESS. She was drowned. Whether murder, accident, or suicide, the water disappeared the same way.
If I HAD (I don't) to guess, I would guess Drew Peterson killed his fourth wife. However, I have no businesss spreading around my GUESS, and the media has no business putting on "experts" to GUESS like me. The media has no business guessing on guilt and innocence of a serious crime AT ALL. That is not because I have any FACTS beyond the obvious, elementary fact of a suspicious disappearance of a wife where the husband was in a position to kill her. This is NOT "proof". It is merely a statistical, or at least common sense, likelihood that the husband did it in this kind of circumstance. We knew all of this the first week. ALL of the media coverage and speculation since has been WORTHLESS. I told you that from the beginning, and I have been proven right (as if there were any doubt).
Notice that I do not even have a GUESS as to Drew Peterson killing his THIRD WIFE, although Van Susteren virtually convicted him of that on her program. There was an essentially bogus "autopsy" performed by a "hired gun" representing the third wife's family supposedly showing "murder". However, there was an official autopsy done, and NO CHARGES FILED. You know what? If Drew Peterson killed wife no. 3, I would expect that you would have a good chance of proving it. You have that body (albeit exhumed). The fact that Drew Peterson has not been charged with the only murder charge that could possibly be brought (since wife 4 disappeared in an UNKNOWN manner), I don't see how a person could even guess that Peterson murdered wife 3. The lack of a charge, in these circumstances, would indicate othewise, if anything.
Jon Benet Ramsey is WORSE. Entire books have been written SPECULATING on guilt and innocence of various people. Wendy Murphy (I HEARD her) went on TV and ACCUSED the father of murder in those disgraceful "panel discussions". Yet, as I told you, there are NO FACTS beyond the obvious. Now, in a rather curious development, the authorities have supposedly "cleared" the Ramsey family because DNA from an outside person has been found.
You know what? It is NOT the job of the authorities to "clear" people (another meaningless term in American jurisprudence), just like it is NOT their job to "name" a "suspect". It is the MEDIA that wants these meaningless words to be used (including "person of interest") for MEDIA purposes. Oh, I think authorities may try to USE the "naming of a suspect" to put pressure on, but that is not very admirable. Is it? In any event, these terms all have no objective meaning, and NO legal significance. I will say that IF the Ramsey family is really "cleared" (don't see it, myself), they should SUE every one of these networks--although the statute of limitations may have run.
As usual, I was confirmed right on the Jon Benet Ramsey case that there were, and are, NO FACTS upon which to base a CHARGE. I ask you. If there are not enough FACTS to even CHARGE someone (we still presume them innocent until convicted), how can you SPECULATE on guilt and innocence? I don't even have a guess on the Ramsey case.
I have rehashed my triumphs in telling you how useless the media coverage was on both the Peterson (Drew) and Ramsey cases. However, I would like anyone reading this to understand the real point here. It is one of my present pet peeves with the media, including Greta Van Susteren and Fox News. "Suspect" has NO legal meaning. There is NO such thing as "naming a suspect". The police merely do that FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, or often because the media goads them into it. As I have said before, the media is composed of MULTIPLE Mike Nifongs (the prosecutor in the Duke rape case). What did Nifong do besides SPECULATE, at the media's invitation, just like cable TV (hyping certain "facts" and unsupported allegations, just like cable TV).
I ma willing to state it bluntly: I regard Greta Van Susteren and the rest as just as bad as Mike Nifong. Actually, I regard them as WORSE, because they do it over and over again knowing that they may be DESTROYING people (who may or may not deserve it, as in the case of Drew Peterson).
"Person of interest" is so disgraceful a meaningless phrase that I think the media AND the police should just stop using it. The British "person to help us with our inquiries" is actually much better. The media should also stop using "named as a suspect" as if that MEANS anything. It doesn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment