HOW THE MEDIA AFFECTS A

WRONGLY ACCUSED PERSON

With any high profile case, the media play a significant part in shaping public opinion often in a way that is beneficial for neither the accused nor the victim. Every sensational report has a significant effect on everyone involved including witnesses and the beliefs of a victim of an incident. I use the word incident deliberately since the manner in which cases are portrayed infer that a crime has been committed often before it has been established that there was one which in some cases is never truly established until court.

In fairness there are some which report more responsibly, most notably in my own experience by Joanna Skailes in the P&J and Hans J Marter of Shetland News Online both of whome recently have issued articles which were very supportive of this site and who were both more balanced during my trial. Sadly these are very much the exception rather than the rule so the overall result is that of extensive hurt and suffering to everyone involved.

We live in a country where we have freedom of speech and are in many ways lucky that it is the case, however with regard to how various areas of the media report items which they rightly have freedom to do, greater control is needed to ensure that an article's contents don’t unfairly prejudice a person's future. As things stand at the moment the press are entitle to take a quote of just a few words and print them with no regard as to how doing so will affect the lives of innocent people in the future. I strongly feel, and many agree, that not only should the quote be accurate as is the present limitations on any submissions, but there should be greater regulation as to how much content precedes and follows the quote to maintain an even and unbiased perspective.

By way of example I shall refer to a couple of notable instances in the case against me while my trial was ongoing. It was widely reported in the media at the time that a six year old had given evidence against me stating that I had told my children that they should ‘save themselves’. While it is true that the statement was heard in court amid a muddled testimony during the prosecution’s questioning, which would have kept the statement in context, particularly if they had also reported what followed. She later under examination by the defence transformed into a resolute and certain witness, confirming everything I had consistently told police and most importantly stated, that she had “told those things to the police lady” with great conviction. No answer could be given as to why those details were not noted in her statement which had been noted outwith the presense  of an an appropriate adult. Unlike my son's which was and corroborated my account equally as well as my daughter's testimony which was described as being the turning point in the trial, no wonder the prosecution were so keen not to have my son's statement read out! I would suggest that the media could have had an equally sensational story out of that if they had remained in the public gallery long enough to hear what followed rather than rushing out to call in their headline grabbing quote. I’m sure you’ll agree that it puts a completely different rational on the comment if aware of the manner in which the statement is made and the details which followed or preceded it.

It was also noted in the press some comments I made in the ambulance of which I still have no recollection of making due to my serious condition at the time. It was reported that I had said something along the lines that my wife had gone off and left us to die suggesting that I was accusing her of doing something, which I had no reason for saying and still don’t. She was a good wife and mum and would never do anything to harm us. However again in this instance the media did not present the surrounding details provided by the witnesses in court. Namely the paramedic providing me with life saving care who stated the seriousness of my condition at the time, who said my concerns primarily were about my children, wife and niece, where and how they were and that my comments were consistent with manic rambling. That along with the policeman who gave evidence in that regard who when asked if I had been placed under caution said there would have been no point as I “would not have understood what it meant at the time” due to my condition. Nor that shortly afterwards I had lost consciousness again. There are reasons that explain how such idiotic statements could be made as a result of  carbon monoxide poisoning and oxygen starvation which when oxygen is administered results in the casualty becoming erratic and aggressive though at this time I can’t remember the medical term that the doctor used to explain it. Should any medical professional wish to make contact with the site with the term in question I would be very grateful so that I can include links to relevant material on the matter by way of corroborating this paragraph. Yet again an accurate quotation without the necessary information regarding the context in which it was made.

Often even after acquittal media reports portray the accused as a guilty person who is actually a victim in his/her own right along with the victim of an incident/crime which preceded it. In my case I have found it wholly disrespectful to our baby, Annalise’s memory who deserved so much better by so many people not least the media as a whole.

In short my point is simply this, to exclude information pertaining to a quote which in fairness may be accurate has the effect of presenting the facts in a way which are as good as a lie given the impression it causes to the public, witnesses anIn short my point is simply this, to exclude information pertaining to a quote which in fairness may be accurate has the effect of presenting the facts in a way which are as good as a lie given the impression it causes to the public, witnesses and the jury alike. This in turn affects a person’s chances of a fair trial or chance at rebuilding both their own life and those of their family as well causing irreparable long term damage.

Should any media representatives suddenly feel an attack of conscience upon discovering this site and its contents I would suggest that for me some manner of support to my efforts to assist others affected by injustice would be seen by me and my family as a sign of apology though I would in some ways prefer a front page ‘Sorry’ by offending media groups.

My opinion is that there is a considerable market for a national paper along with local ones which present the whole story rather than some irrelevant padding around a sensational quote. Do you really think that the british puplic would not prefer to buy the truth instead of what they consistently find out to be exagerated non-sense and often don't read or buy as a result? Just an observation that anyone with the finances and interest may agree with and see as an opportunity. If anyone does I'll buy it and know many others that would stop buying their current regular in favour of it.