Rachel O'Reilly Murder Coverage

HelterSkelter

What's the craic with the media coverage on the Rachel O'Reilly murder. The Evening Hearald (rag) seem more than willing to use any opportunity to point the finger at <mod edit> yet RTÉ and the other papers will not name "the man" who was arrested yesterday?

flogen

Sorry HelterSkelter, I've edited your post slightly; I know that anyone wanting to know who the Herald has been naming can just pick up a copy, but I'd rather the individual wasn't identified here for libel reasons.

The Herald, however, has have a proven track record of naming this person, they seem to be on a mission to destroy him... their intentions may be good (or they may be looking for sales) but either way they could damage any possible future trial; should this man be charged with murder he will have a strong argument for the case to be thrown out as media reporting has ensured he would not get a fair trial.

Newstalk also named the person in question last night, the other newspapers and RTÉ etc. followed Irish law in not identifying the individual, and legally he should not be identified in connect to the investigation unless he is charged in court with a crime related to it.

PDelux

If there is no conviction directly because of the coverage i think alot of people would be pissed at the paper.

dbnavan

I have said all along that it was he who can not be named there is so many things that just dont add up, and it is also local opinion that it is him to, but like the veronica guerin case, the gardai, who also know, just need the evidence.

gilroyb

The person involved has identified himself as the main suspect in the case. If he is willing to put this label on himself then he can presumably be identified as such? This is how Newstalk have been approaching it.

dbnavan

gilroyb wrote:

The person involved has identified himself as the main suspect in the case.

When? source?

flogen

dbnavan wrote:

I have said all along that it was he who can not be named there is so many things that just dont add up, and it is also local opinion that it is him to, but like the veronica guerin case, the gardai, who also know, just need the evidence.

Most people I've spoken to have made their minds up on who the guilty party is, but you have to ask why. Naturally the conclusion is made by everyone on insufficient evidence so it's not something that would hold much water.. but have the media played a part in this?
People have to refrain from announcing their opinions based on little more than gut reactions and rag reportage

Eoin

dbnavan wrote:

When? source?

link here - Flogen, I hope that posting the link is OK?

<name removed> has previously admitted that the gardai regard him as the chief suspect for Rachel's murder

edit: link removed at Flogen's request.

flogen

gilroyb wrote:

The person involved has identified himself as the main suspect in the case. If he is willing to put this label on himself then he can presumably be identified as such? This is how Newstalk have been approaching it.

Not really; you're not supposed to identify someone who is held for questioning until a charge is read out in court, this is regardless of what the individual says about themselves... Frankly people who have been following the case will know who said that about themselves, and saying "the man being held has in the past identified himself as the main suspect" would have been enough of a hint while at the same time covering their own asses from a legal POV... Newstalk and the Herald were too careless for that though, or else wanted a sensational report.
Frankly events like this show the divide between the media in Ireland, the Irish Times for example used the term "a man who was known to Mrs. O'Reilly". That is careful and responsible journalism

flogen

If you don't mind eoin, I'd prefer it if you removed the link above as it names both people questioned, including the person still in custody.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0315/oreillyr.html
The above link is almost as good without naming anyone; the individual admitted that he was the Gardai's chief suspect, while RTÉ say that Gardai have said he was the chief suspect... much of a muchness really, there's only one chief suspect in this case.

gilroyb

flogen wrote:

Not really; you're not supposed to identify someone who is held for questioning until a charge is read out in court, this is regardless of what the individual says about themselves... Frankly people who have been following the case will know who said that about themselves, and saying "the man being held has in the past identified himself as the main suspect" would have been enough of a hint while at the same time covering their own asses from a legal POV... Newstalk and the Herald were too careless for that though, or else wanted a sensational report.

Thanks for the link etc. I don't think the suspect(s) should have been named, but saying that it was the chief suspect that was rearrested should be ok, or so I would have thought.

It seems the law in this area could be tightened up somewhat.

EDIT: RTE page I talked about has removed some info, so guess I should too

flogen

Irish Libel law is due for an overhaul, and likely to get one soon (once the issue of the Press Council is agreed), however it is unlikely to tighten things too much, just change rules regarding privacy and bring in the defence argument of "innocent publication".
I don't think there's much that can be done in law to stop "coincidental" news reports being put side by side, as any law would either be hard to pin people down with or too wideranging and limiting.

Eoin

flogen wrote:

If you don't mind eoin, I'd prefer it if you removed the link above as it names both people questioned, including the person still in custody.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0315/oreillyr.html
The above link is almost as good without naming anyone; the individual admitted that he was the Gardai's chief suspect, while RTÉ say that Gardai have said he was the chief suspect... much of a muchness really, there's only one chief suspect in this case.

The link was to a news article on eircom.net news, but removed it anyway.

flogen

I know eoin, and I know anyone who wants to find out who the individual is doesn't have to look very far at all, but I'd prefer it if they weren't handed the information here.

dbnavan

TBH I dont know why we cant name this suspect, everyone knows who it is both from papers and radio, and as stated he has admitted it himself. it isnt against the law nobody is saying he is guilty therefore it is not slander, it is fact that he was questioned. If not the hearld would have had to pull his name or apoligise.

If half the country is saying it is hard to see an internet discussion group being singled out,

flogen

Well, it isn't against the law to print the name but deciding to do it can lead to certain outcomes.
1) If no charges are brought the named individual has a case to sue the newspapers for defamation; basically under the argument that his good name has been blackened by their publication of his details in relation to a crime.

2) If a charge is brought against the individual his team have the opportunity to ask that the case is thrown out of court as it will not recieve a fair hearing due to media bias and influence.

Either way, it's bad news.
Even if every single person knows who was being questioned yesterday the newspapers and media shouldn't be printing it, for their own good and for the good of the justice system in Ireland.

dbnavan

flogen wrote:

Well, it isn't against the law to print the name but deciding to do it can lead to certain outcomes.
1) If no charges are brought the named individual has a case to sue the newspapers for defamation; basically under the argument that his good name has been blackened by their publication of his details in relation to a crime.

2) If a charge is brought against the individual his team have the opportunity to ask that the case is thrown out of court as it will not recieve a fair hearing due to media bias and influence.

Either way, it's bad news.
Even if every single person knows who was being questioned yesterday the newspapers and media shouldn't be printing it, for their own good and for the good of the justice system in Ireland.

Defamation of character would only occur if the paper said, "Mr. X killed his Mrs Y." Saying Mr X, is helping Gardai with their enquires or that Mr X is a suspect in the case is fact therefore IMO(and I am not a legal expert just well read and education, could be wrong) is not defamation of character, in the same way when extradition warrants are issued for people in order to question them, can they not get a fair trial because people knew who they were before they even entered the country?

As I said this is only my point of view and I could be mistaken and will be first to admit if I am wrong.

Also not attempting to be awkward just debating fairly and voice my take on it all

flogen

I see your point but naming the individual (and reporting it in certain ways) can damage a trial and/or defame a person.
In the Herald and the Mail they detailed the suspect and his "lover" and gave details of their personal life (how they met, holidays they took together), all, IMO, building up a profile of a sleezy relationship that brings question into the situation as a whole.
Once you identify a person your reporting becomes extremely suspect and every word you say could bias a reader for or against that person being questioned, even if that wasn't your intention at the time.

dbnavan

Well then the hearld or the mail has done all the damage needed to the case doesnt need us to do it, why hasnt the DPP pulled the hearld up on it by now, just saw tonights and he is named again

flogen

dbnavan wrote:

Well then the hearld or the mail has done all the damage needed to the case doesnt need us to do it, why hasnt the DPP pulled the hearld up on it by now, just saw tonights and he is named again

Because it's not the job of the DPP.
A Defamation case is civil and can only be taken, in this case, by those named.
Any call for dismissal based on unfair trial can only come about during a trial and at the behest of the defence team; if it was decided that the trial could not be fair the judge would be likely to criticise the media but I don't think much can be done about it after that.
The suggested press council, I believe, will take some kind of action in these instances.

Eru

Its not stricklty illegal to name a suspect however it is very unwise and any paper taht does so is pulling ratings rather than trying to report the news. Its cheap propaganda by the papers as they dont care what effect it will have on innocent people and the case itself.

From a civil point of view, no charges mean they had no justifiable reason to presume the person was a suspect. Clear cut liable case.

Bottom line, if you are named as a suspect (as he is) it will get around and convincing a judge that media bias has not effected jury selection would be extremely difficult. This is the main problem and its not the fist time it has happened but remember where you hear these things, the very same paper so they arent about to accept blame when the case falla apart are they?

And I dont think people should be named until found guilty.

flogen

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

And I dont think people should be named until found guilty.

Ah, a point made by David Norris on the Last Word recently, and one I have serious issue with, but it's a debate for another topic I suppose!!!

Dubhelp

Irelands newest outdoor media company couldnt have much worse PR since their launch in Ireland last year...How does one of your employees ask for time off to be questioned on a murder charge?

dbnavan

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Bottom line, if you are named as a suspect (as he is) it will get around and convincing a judge that media bias has not effected jury selection would be extremely difficult. This is the main problem and its not the fist time it has happened but remember where you hear these things, the very same paper so they arent about to accept blame when the case falla apart are they?

And I dont think people should be named until found guilty.

Ok so lets say a very complex case that takes months, after day 1 of the trial everyone knows who the suspect is, infact they know as soon as he is charged, i know this is extreame examples but how did they cope with say Saddam Hussein at war crimes tribunal or even Ray Burke or Charlie Haughey, every knew they were being investigated long before it came to trial, or didnt even start yet.

flogen

The suggestion that a person should remain unidentified until proven guilty is a discussion for another thread, not this one.

flogen

Dubhelp wrote:

Irelands newest outdoor media company couldnt have much worse PR since their launch in Ireland last year...How does one of your employees ask for time off to be questioned on a murder charge?

The fact that some newspapers (such as the Herald) decided to give details on the above company is disgusting too, I'm not sure what was worse.
The Herald detailed the suspects relationship, place of work, how long they've been working there, where it's based... besides it being a threat to the fairness of any future case, what the hell has it got to do with anything??

dbnavan

flogen wrote:

The suggestion that a person should remain unidentified until proven guilty is a discussion for another thread, not this one.

I think it has a direct connection with the question in the OP, IMO

Question on this thread was

HelterSkelter wrote:

What's the craic with the media coverage on the Rachel O'Reilly murder. The Evening Hearald (rag) seem more than willing to use any opportunity to point the finger at <mod edit>...

flogen

Are you asking the poster why he thinks someone shouldn't named until proven guilty? if so it's a discussion for another thread.

If you are asking how the law can be followed giving your examples, I'm not sure what your point is; the public have a right to know once a charge has been laid out in court and the papers can print without comeback... there are extreme examples, of course and if the details are released by the authorities (government, police, army, DPP) before a charge has been made or trial begun then the papers can again print without comeback.
Take as a less extreme and more up to date example;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4809276.stm

Police searching for a missing 15-year-old girl from Devon are looking for her former boyfriend in relation to her disappearance.

They have taken the unusual step of naming 20-year-old Carl Snell as the man they believe is with Lisa Crow, who has not been seen since Sunday.

The papers are risking law suits and bias when they name people on their own say-so, however.

dbnavan

flogen wrote:

If you are asking how the law can be followed giving your examples, I'm not sure what your point is; the public have a right to know once a charge has been laid out in court and the papers can print without comeback

Nobody has been charged in the case yet, naming someone before them being charged is wrong in my book, bottom line on this matter i think we agree therefore the media coverage on this case, of which this thread is about, has been wrong and somebody should be held responsible for it.

Eru

dbnavan wrote:

Ok so lets say a very complex case that takes months, after day 1 of the trial everyone knows who the suspect is, infact they know as soon as he is charged, i know this is extreame examples but how did they cope with say Saddam Hussein at war crimes tribunal or even Ray Burke or Charlie Haughey, every knew they were being investigated long before it came to trial, or didnt even start yet.

can you tell me how many women V men sat on these jurys? None, they were judge only the same as our special criminal court. Not the same at all.

Also, a jurer must know who the defendent is once the trail has started. Its not the same as he can only base his opinion on whats said in court. the point is not too have jurers taking biased articles or personal opinions into the court room, granted thats never 100% possible but its too eradicate it as much as possible.

flogen

dbnavan wrote:

Nobody has been charged in the case yet, naming someone before them being charged is wrong in my book, bottom line on this matter i think we agree therefore the media coverage on this case, of which this thread is about, has been wrong and somebody should be held responsible for it.

OK; so what's your point about Saddam, Ray Burke etc.?

Someone being held responsible is up to the man who has been named; even if a future case is thrown out on the back of the present reportage I dont think a judge can do anything other than criticise... the named people can take civil action, get an apology and some cash but if justice fails as a result, that's hardly fair at all.

The suggested press council would, in theory, agree on a code of conduct for newspapers, it would consider public complaints and decide if the code was breeched by a publication, and would then decide what would be done about it afterwards (probably an apology, some money too, or even a donation, that's all to be decided).

Perhaps Karlito could answer this; if in this case a charge is dropped because of the current newspaper reports can the newspaper editors be held in contempt? I know they could if they wrote a bias piece during the trial, but before a charge??