Paul Cézanne's "The Murder."
The wording of laws can be tricky. But that is deliberate. Laws are intended to protect the rights of the accused as well as the rights of those who are not accused. And circumstances differ so the law has to be somewhat vague to cover all possibilities.
For the most part, law enforcement officials are aware of this ambiguity in legal language. They may confirm that they have searched a particular location, for example, but they will not confirm if certain people who are connected to that location are under suspicion — until an arrest is made.
That's a fine point in the law of which many people are unaware — and such legal ignorance has made many libel lawyers rich and many aspiring journalists poor — and unemployed.
I was reminded of that this week when police in Tracy, Calif., were investigating the disappearance of an 8–year–old girl, whose body was found stuffed in a suitcase submerged in a pond at a dairy farm.
During the police investigation, a nearby church and the home of its pastor were searched. Based on this information, a blogger speculated that the pastor "could have had something to do" with the murder — even though no one in authority had linked the pastor to the crime. The blogger acknowledged that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but her words implied that she considered the pastor a possible suspect.
I made a comment about this, and the blogger replied that she was free to speculate. She seemed oblivious to the consequences of being sued for libel, contending that all she had to do was offer an explanation for her actions. I said that it would be up to the jury whether to accept the explanation and pointed out that fair comment is considered a defense when the plaintiff is a public figure. I expressed doubt that the pastor of a church is considered a public figure. I was especially doubtful since the church appears to be a small one.
The thing about libel law is that even public figures can file suits if they feel they have been defamed, but it is up to the jury to decide who is right. The ruling may not go against the writer, but the legal defense itself can be costly. Judgments, of course, can be even costlier. Judgments in libel suits can be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
Are you old enough to remember Carol Burnett's libel suit against the National Enquirer in 1981? The tabloid accused her of public drunkenness, a charge to which she was particularly sensitive because her parents were alcoholics. It was a landmark case involving celebrities, and the jury awarded Burnett a $1.6 million judgment.
That amount was cut in half on appeal and eventually the case was settled out of court. But Burnett gave part of the money to the University of Hawaii and University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism to fund law and ethics courses. She said the lawsuit was a matter of principle, that it was never about the money.
In my experience, which includes a period in my life when I was a police beat reporter, the police often cast a wide net in their investigations. They're looking for evidence. In some cases, the only evidence that is recovered is microscopic forensic evidence — hairs or fibers that cannot be seen with the naked eye. They may not find it in a particular location, but how can they know until they search it?
Red flags may appear during an investigation for several reasons — for example, reluctance to cooperate with investigators. I heard no reports that the pastor did not cooperate. Apparently, there were no red flags.
Early today, some of the lingering questions in the case were answered. Police arrested a 28–year–old woman, who is a Sunday school teacher and the granddaughter of the church's pastor, and charged her with kidnapping and murder.
The victim was a playmate of the woman's daughter. The suitcase in which the girl's body was found belonged to the suspect. The woman and her daughter live with the pastor. I guess that explains why the church and the pastor's home were of interest.
Few other details have been released. The suspect has admitted that the suitcase was hers, but she claims it went missing the day the girl was last seen. No motive for the crime has been alleged.
But the case is a reminder to everyone — not just journalists — not to jump to conclusions.
1 comment:
Thanks, Ann.
Post a Comment