Part 2...I came across that clip on Youtube by accident, and it hasn't had many views.... But that is not the point... I still do not understand why a man who claims he is a private person is dragging his behind across any venue in the land that will care to listen to what he has to say... And the venue which is described in the Youtube video is The Redgrave Theatre in Bristol, around the corner from Canygne Road...
Now I do not know whether I should put any importance upon this venue, but I was surprised to realise that CJ was/is the manager of The Redgrave Theatre in Bristol... (was he a key holder)?? The reason for me that The Theatre is mentioned is important is because i had before pointed out that there' was a Police Officer outside canygne Road at the time of this event that had a remarkable resemblance to Tim Roth( the actor)... Now i am wondering if it in fact was Tim Roth...
The talk that CJ is giving has me in two minds... Do I view it as him attempting to let the real killer know he has information and is part of some collaboration of keeping this in the public eye.. Or look at it as a man who's own self interests he keeps promoting??
Who is the audience... Are they just made up of locals?? Whom is he telling his tale of tabloid journalism too??
He may have complained that he was described as weird and odd, but his appearance at this venue, is rather weird and odd... i mean in the sense of the content of what he states..
Now this video could have been edited or it could be the complete speech he made. But some of the language he uses I find most disturbing, to compare what happened in the media as a kind of RAPE, is wholly inappropriate, It under values victims of such atrocities..
He skims on what the tabloids in themselves state and how this impacted upon his life and jumps to a glowing report from another journalist whom talks of his accomplishments...
Is he really comparing himself to Joanna Yeates and how the media dealt with her story?? Is he really saying that they showed her in a favourable light and not me... Can he not comprehend, that Joanna Yeates is the victim of a murder and no matter what said victim did is not going to be portrayed in an unfavourable light, which would almost suggest that it was something a victim deserved...
8 months, he states this twice, that 8 months after his arrest this article was published... Now I thought it was in October 2011 that the Financial Times first reported this statement, but I have found an article dated 31st August 2011...
From a website called indexoncensorship.org
Courts and controversy31st August 2011
The UK press may show more restraint in reporting of high-profile cases if contempt laws are vigorously enforced, says Brian Cathcart
The next time there is a sensational murder — something on the scale of the Ipswich or Soham cases — you may notice something different about the media coverage. Reporters may show restraint of a kind that is not familiar. In fact, they might actually obey the law.
The Contempt of Court Act of 1981 prohibits all but the most straightforward reporting in a crime case from the moment “proceedings are active”, in other words once someone is arrested. The idea is to ensure that coverage does not interfere with the course of justice, for instance by prejudicing the eventual jury. But for years, when a big, competitive story came along, many editors and reporters in national media simply ignored the Act and continued to publish often grotesque allegations about a suspect after arrest and even sometimes after they were charged. Think Colin Stagg, Barry George, Karen Matthews and others — and Stagg and George were later shown to be innocent.
That may be about to change thanks to the actions of the attorney-general, Dominic Grieve. Not normally a man to cut the figure of a hero — a lean, bookish type, he was last seen filibustering awkwardly in the Commons when the government was under pressure over its links with the Murdochs — Grieve has done something genuinely brave. He has prosecuted the Daily Mirror and the Sun for contempt of court in the Chris Jefferies case, and he has won.
The consequences could be significant. Not only might future reporting of crime be more restrained, but we could even see fewer miscarriages of justice. I reported the first trial of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando in 2002 and I am convinced that his wrongful conviction was partly due to the influence on the jury of the grossly prejudicial press reporting about him after his arrest. George spent seven years in jail before the conviction was overturned.
Chris Jefferies, you may remember, is the retired teacher in Bristol who was monstered by the tabloids before and after his arrest in January in connection with the Joanna Yeates murder, and who turned out to be totally innocent. (Another man confessed to the killing.) On the morning of 28 July, in what is becoming a familiar ritual in our courts, eight newspapers serially confessed to libelling Jefferies and agreed to pay him substantial damages.
On the afternoon of the same day, however, something much less familiar happened: the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges found the Mirror and the Sun guilty of contempt of court. They upheld Grieve’s argument that, by publishing “exceptionally adverse and hostile” articles about Jefferies while he was in custody, the papers had breached section 2 (2) of the Act, which makes unlawful any publication about an individual who is under arrest “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.
In a way, what is surprising here is not that a contempt prosecution happened and succeeded, but that it was necessary at all. The law is reasonably clear, after all, and is very well known to journalists. The problem has been that Grieve’s predecessors, most recently Baroness Scotland and Lord Goldsmith, failed to show the press that they would uphold it. The rarity of prosecutions, despite apparently flagrant breaches in high-profile cases, led editors to behave as though the Act was a dead letter and they could do what they liked.
Grieve therefore deserves credit for taking on the tabloids where his predecessors would not, and it is worth noting that he did so before the revelation that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, and thus before these papers lost a lot of their bullying power. He didn’t kick them when they were down, in other words; he kicked them when they were still up.
Grieve has to share the credit, however, with the judges, who were placed in a tight corner by this case and who found an ingenious way out. For as long as the press has flouted the contempt law, judges have been finding excuses to try the victims anyway. When a trial begins and the defence claims it can’t be fair because their client has already been brutally convicted in the press, judges have developed a list of arguments to justifying carrying on regardless. Here is what they say. Jury members don’t remember the adverse reporting by the time the trial comes around (the “fade factor”), they know to concentrate on what is said in court (the “focus factor”) and they heed the instructions of judges to ignore extraneous matters. These arguments are entirely unsupported by evidence but they have had the merit, from the judges’ point of view, that important trials don’t have to be abandoned because of the excesses of the tabloids.
However, in the brief trial of the Sun and the Mirror, the judges found these arguments turned back on them. In effect the papers said: “If, when trials begin, you judges always insist that hostile reporting at the time of arrest doesn’t make a difference, then you can’t turn around now and say the opposite. It follows that whatever we wrote about Chris Jefferies at the time of his arrest, no matter how hostile, can’t now be described as prejudicial or even potentially prejudicial.”
It was a tricky problem for the judges and they simply side-stepped it, finding the Mirror and the Sun guilty on other, rather creative grounds. The Act speaks of publication “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”. The judges avoided saying that in the Jefferies case potential proceedings might have been prejudiced; instead they concluded that they could have been impeded.
What this means is that they decided Jefferies had been painted in such an appalling light by these papers that if he had been charged he would have found it more difficult to construct a defence. Witnesses in his support, for example, might have decided not to come forward, either because they feared association with this supposedly monstrous person or because they believed his conviction was a foregone conclusion.
Both papers were undoubtedly surprised by this ingenious judgement — and the attorney-general probably was too. The point about “impedence” had not been prominent in the case he put forward in court — it was fourth on a list of five arguments and was presented rather tersely. Indeed he felt the need to reassure the judges it was not just a “makeweight” in his case.
The Mirror was fined £50,000 for contempt and the Sun £18,000. They were refused permission to appeal, though according to Jefferies’s solicitor, Louis Charalambous, they are considering petitioning the Supreme Court. On the whole it seems unlikely that a considered finding by the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges will be overturned.
Where does this leave us? Contempt law is back on the editors’ radar at a time when, with Lord Leveson’s inquiry beginning its investigation of press standards, those editors must already be minding their Ps and Qs. It might be argued that the fines were small — papers pay much more in libel damages and generally go on to libel again — but Grieve has put down an important marker and is free to use the impedance argument again if he wishes. If papers don’t heed this warning, moreover, he has it in his power to crank things up, notably by citing not only the newspaper but also the editor in person in a future case. That might concentrate minds.
We will have to wait and see, but there is a strong chance that in future sensational criminal cases we will see a return to what used to happen, generally, 20 years ago and more. So long as no one is in custody, papers will remain free to report what they choose (consistent with the libel laws), but from the moment proceedings are active, in other words normally from the moment someone is arrested, they must show restraint. And the same law applies to online reporting, bloggers and tweeters.
It is, without doubt, a constraint on free expression, and an important one. But it is surely better than locking up innocent people because, in effect, journalists don’t like the look of them.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
I had no idea that such an article existed at this time, it certainly would not have reached most people, and it wasn't until October 2011 that the FT published said article.. But... I found this article via a blog which on the 4th September 2011 at:
https://inforrm.org/2011/09/04/opinion-courts-and-controversy-consequences-of-the-jeffries-contempt-case-brian-cathcart/Another publication stating how CJ was vilified before a trial is to take place.. And the FT publishing whilst a trial is taking place.... Brian Cathcart is the founder of hacked off, a group that CJ is now involved with.
But... How were 3 publications allowed to be published just before and during a trial by a man whom must have been aware how this could prejudice said trial?? And why would he do such a thing??
I had thought that CJ was getting mixed up with the months, but he obviously hadn't and must have been following everything to do with himself and this case right up until and during said trial...
The 2 anonymous women had come forward who very conveniently no longer lived in Bristol.. who'd apparently suffered form of sexual harrassment and were prepared to insist that CJ was guilty of that harrassment, where did they go to?? That is quite a statement to make (imo), I hadn't realised that 2 women had made such claims against CJ...
The insistence that this was a sexually motivated murder
"Erm and, then it seemed quite possible in the end this did indeed turn out to be absolutely true that there was a sexual motive for the a murder".
What??? How did he work that one out??? He is trying to get us to believe that he believes that the tabloids are full of untrue stories and he wants this to be banned, yet he has used information from tabloids to bolster his statement that this was a sexual motive for this murder, when none of the talk of watching porn etc, was introduced at trial...
Now you see why I think he is weird.... he can't have his cake an eat it.... No sexual motive was really ever established at trial and I am sure that CJ knows the difference between a kiss and a full on sexual assault...
He's an educated man apparently who surely can tell the difference between the two... An educated man whom should only take what has been stated at trial as true and not what tabloids tell us after said trial, which accusations were inadmissible at said trial, therefore accepting sensational journalism is ok, depending on whom it is levelled at!!!
When he says to be fair some papers said some rather nice things about me and then later says :
it was like er, a physical assault in fact it was probably worse than that because of the invasion of privacy, that was involved and the contempt and venom was more like a rape, it was being like.... er it was like being the the impersonal victim of a journalistic populist lust to humiliate and demonise anybody who didn't conform to a erm.. conventional sterotype. Is he talking about the contempt he believe the papers showed to him?? Why contempt, who is he??
I wonder if this is a case of someone whom appears to care more about his self image than the tragic Murder of Joanna Yeates... Cares more what people think about him and wants desperately to set this record straight.. And there is nothing wrong with setting a record straight, but what I find wrong is the constant self promotion of what happened in 2010/2011 by a man who says he is a private person, yet insists on letting us know 5 years after the initial events from his arrest, that he was vilified by the media..
He is the centre of this case, whether he likes it or not, he keeps putting himself there.... Yet he still doesn't tell us whom he saw at the gate... He still doesn't quell the questions some of us have.. He still hasn't mentioned Dr Vincent Tabak..
So yes I find this man odd... weird strange whatever you want to call it... making money and doing appearances off the back of a Murder of a young woman whom died in his property...
He appears to have forgotten all about Joanna Yeates and the loss of her life, and is more interested, to see who he can court for his own purpose...
Which without the media cat calling, he brings people to make up their own minds about his intentions..
Am I being unfair?? I don't think so, but you can all make your own minds up!!
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/08/courts-and-controversy/Edit... You may think I am picking on CJ, but I am not, he is the only person whom is speaking after the event...The only person whom has had a Netflix drama made.. So naturally I am drawn to what he has to state....
[attachment deleted by admin]