Started August 2002, completed and edited May 2024
In the early part of this century, there were a couple of news stories that gripped the nation, fed by an insatiable mainstream media. This is a piece of writing I started at the time (summer 2002), but never got around to completing.
Whichever way you look at this, there is no way murder, especially of an innocent child or children, should be sensationalised. I am talking about the tragic taking of the lives of Sarah Payne, Jessica Chapman, and Holly Wells, in the summers of 2001 and 2002 respectively. The first of these murders took place near the village of Pulborough, West Sussex, in July 2001, the second two in Soham, Cambridgeshire, in August 2002. Understanding and sympathy must go to all those involved, the families, the friends, and the police officers working on the cases. For news broadcasters and publishers, there is a responsibility to report these stories in a sensitive manner, keeping to the facts and not over-sensationalising things.
To be fair, watching these events unfold on the television news, the tone of reporting was reflective of the serious and sensitive nature of these tragic events. Regardless of the broadcasting organisations, these major stories do warrant a high level of interest.
My issue is, when certain mainstream tabloids take it upon themselves to act as judge and jury on these cases. A certain Sunday newspaper, which has since ceased publication, is a prime example of what I am talking about. I get that parents need to know if there is a known paedophile residing in their neighbourhood, to protect their children. However, this is the responsibility of the relevant authorities, not the tabloid press, in my opinion. After the conviction of Roy Whiting, Sarah Payne’s killer, it was disclosed he was already an established risk to children. However, laws at the time did not permit police sharing this information, except on a need-to-know basis. This Sunday tabloid took it upon themselves, as ‘public servants’, to publish names and photographs of men they believed to be child sexual predators who were living in the communities. The outcome was lynch mobs, taking the law into their own hands, attacking the named suspects. Again understandable, however, innocent men were attacked by vigilantes, due to being incorrectly identified by this tabloid.
From Wikipedia:
The campaign for Sarah’s Law was spearheaded by the News of the World newspaper, and began in July 2000 in response to Sarah Payne’s murder. This became the campaign for what is known as Sarah’s Law, named after Megan’s Law in the United States following a similar case several years earlier. Her parents backed the campaign as they were sure that their daughter’s killer was a previously convicted child sex offender. Their belief was proved correct 17 months later when Roy Whiting was found guilty of the murder, and it was revealed that he already had a conviction for abducting and indecently assaulting an eight-year-old girl.
The aim of the campaign was for the government to allow controlled access to the sex offender registry, so parents with young children could know if a child sex offender lived in their area. Payne’s mother has always insisted that such a law would have saved her daughter’s life.
A modified scheme, whereby parents can enquire about a named individual who has regular access to their children, was introduced in four pilot areas of England and Wales in September 2008. In August 2010 the Home Office announced that, after proving successful, the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme would be extended to cover the whole of England and Wales by spring 2011. This law allows parents to ask the police if somebody with regular access to their children has a record of sexual offences.”
In the tragic case of the Soham double murders (Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells), I believe the convicted perpetrator, Ian Huntley, may not have had a fair trial due to the insatiable media intertest. I appreciate that I am in a very small minority with this one, but none the less I shall explain my reasonings. Huntley pleaded guilty to manslaughter, claiming the two girls died because of a tragic accident. However, in all trials, the jury is instructed, by the judge, to only convict if it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the person in the dock is guilty. Huntley was convicted with a majority, rather than a unanimous verdict. This indicates to me that, perhaps, at least one jury member had a ‘reasonable doubt’, as to whether this was murder. I have watched a few documentaries about this over the years, and there is very strong evidence to contradict Huntley’s version of events, but could the rest of the jury have had a similar doubt if they had not seen or heard anything in the media? I have thought about this a great deal over the years and wonder if jurors can ever make fair and unbiased decisions when there is such a high media and public interest? Other than keeping a jury completely isolated during a trial, maybe the media should not be allowed to publish anything until a trial is finished and a verdict has been reached.
From Wikipedia:
“The jury deliberated for four days before reaching their verdicts against both defendants. On 17 December 2003, they returned a majority verdict of guilty on two counts of murder against Huntley. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of imprisonment to be imposed by the Lord Chief Justice at a later date.”
Earlier this year (2024), I watched a programme on Channel 4 called ‘The Trial’ which was screened from 26th to 29th February. This was a social experiment aiming to give an insight into the workings of a jury. As in real life, this process was kept completely secret from everyone bar those involved. The case in question was historic, re-enacted for two would-be juries to deliberate over. Each jury was unaware of the other’s presence. All listened to the exact same evidence, but two different verdicts were reached.
In conclusion, regardless of the various debates, it is the victims we must always remember. For those who take lives, for whatever reason, the punishment must fit the crime. It is the judge and jury, alone, who must be allowed to preside in their duties, without any undue influence from outside sources.
RIP to those sadly taken, you are not forgotten.
In my next blog, I shall be discussing why some people become obsessed with those in the public eye.
Jarmin Apple
May 2024
"Drop-in and Chill Out" 