Jefferies: Twitter verdict in already
* Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has warned that any case brought must not be prejudiced by comment published in both newspapers and online via Twitter comments .
He 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.”
Now murder investigations are subject to the same instant, online commentaries and that could damage potential prosecutions and prompt defamation actions against Tweeters.
The “old” media is following strict rules over the Joanna Yeates murder investigation. The “arrest of a 65 year-old man” is reported on suspicion of murder, subsequently understood to be her landlord Chris Jefferies.
Because no charge has yet been brought, papers like the Daily Mail are free to tells us about Jefferies’ background, and report neighbours’ and associates descriptions of this “flamboyant” character’s personality.
But in the Twitterverse there are no rules and a quick relevant # search will bring up plenty of open speculation about Jefferies and his capacity for any possible involvement based on little more than his physical appearance – and even his political affiliation.
The Raoul Moat hunt was the first UK “rolling news” crime story that played out to a constant background of Tweets but that never came to Court.
It’s possible should charges be brought against Jefferies that defence lawyers could claim Twitter’s widespread popularity and influence might have an impact on a jury.
Jefferies Tweeters – whose number includes journalists as well as amateur sleuths - should be aware that tweets are subject to the same laws of defamation.
Courtney Love was sued by a clothes designer over a libellous tweet this year but it’s not just the famous who might get hit with a lawsuit over an instant comment.
It can work both ways. Although tweet speculation might irritate Police during ongoing inquiries, the trail left by potential suspects through social networking and other sites is also now an essential element to many investigations.
There’ll also be a “freedom of speech” defence for tweeters at this stage of an investigation, even if the content of some of those tweets looks questionable.
Google though might have to answer more questions about its wider responsibilities- should a search for “Joanna Yeates” bring up as its top responses, wholly unfiltered claims about a key suspect’s guilt or otherwise, which would be highly defamatory if printed in a newspaper?
I rest my case …
Maybe the cops found the pizza box in his apartment. And while it is not a crime he appears to be dispassionately unaffected by the murder of his neighbor. Ie could have gone like this. She got home and left her apartment for a minute, hence no coat etc… then she goes somewhere nearby and then she was murdered. The body was then taken to the place where it was found by car, hence forensic testing of vechicles. The body couldn’t have been there unnoticed for so long…
Interesting article. It’s always fascinating (and worrying) to read the comments published under online news articles and to see the outlandish – and frankly bonkers – conclusions reached by people from a miniscule amount of information.
The problem with the internet is that it is largely anonymous and there is no responsibility taken for any of comments made online. This “trial by twitter” makes me very uncomfortable. But what is the alternative? If the internet is “policed” will it still represent freedom of speech?
where can i place a large bet that this guy is not the murderer?