|
from getting Justice. Let this be a lesson to us all!!
Blogs threatened Baby Peter cases
By Jeremy Britton
BBC News
Baby Peter
Jurors in the second trial were unaware of the defendants' links to Baby Peter
The people responsible for the death of Baby Peter have been jailed. However, as BBC News reports, these prison terms were put at risk by internet hate campaigns.
Vigilante-style websites which are determined to name and shame the mother of Baby Peter and her boyfriend almost wrecked their second trial for the rape and neglect of a two-year-old child.
Their efforts to "out" the identities of the couple - who still cannot be named for legal reasons - could even have led to some of those responsible for Baby Peter's death receiving far lesser sentences than the ones they did.
It raises further questions on how justice can continue to operate in high-profile cases when judge's orders can be so easily broken by bloggers.
Reporting restrictions on the media after the Baby Peter trial prevented any information about his mother and boyfriend facing a second trial being made public.
Despite efforts by the mainstream media to challenge the orders, the press was placed in a position that to even mention the second trial could have resulted in a substantial fine or even imprisonment for contempt of court.
Identities of the defendants and the false names they had been given in court had leaked out on websites that specialised in demonising the Baby Peter three
The public could only be told that the couple's sentencing - and that of their lodger Jason Owen who was also found guilty of causing or allowing Peter's death but did not feature in the second trial - was being delayed for legal reasons.
Before the second trial even started, defence lawyers for the couple argued forcefully that any jury trying the mother and boyfriend would be prejudiced if they knew who was in the dock in front of them.
They said the defendants were perceived by the public in the same way as the Soham murderer and his girlfriend and that more than half a million people had already signed internet petitions demanding justice for Peter.
These internet campaigns made it impossible to hold a fair trial, they argued.
The judge, Stephen Kramer, disagreed and ordered a trial could go ahead provided the jury was not told the defendants were linked with Peter in any way.
And as a a failsafe measure, it was agreed the defendants should be given false names.
But despite these efforts and within days of the trial starting, the identities of the defendants and the false names they had been given in court had leaked out on websites that specialised in demonising the Baby Peter three.
Harsher sentence
Bloggers not only directed readers to where the trial was happening but gave details of what evidence was being heard.
The trial came to an abrupt halt and police were ordered to investigate the source of the information.
It was feared that the trial itself might have been compromised after barely starting.
Finally, it was decided it could continue, but only once the jury were given firm instructions not to do any research on the internet.
The plan worked.
After delivering its verdicts, the jury was told how the two defendants had been convicted or pleaded guilty to causing or allowing Peter's death. Not one reacted as if they knew.
As a result, the boyfriend of Peter's mother received a far greater sentence not only for causing the boy's death, which carried a 14-year maximum prison stretch, but also for the rape conviction which carried a potential life sentence.
Peter's mother was cleared of cruelty to the second child.
If the websites that were so determined to give away the second trial had led to its collapse, they would have been responsible for the earlier release of one of the very people they sought to vilify.
And I have seen far too many posts similar to the Bloggers on these boards, too..... they think they have a God given right to comment, but often just inflame... and jeopardise the trials of these vile perpetrators.
|
|
We also saw it recently about Little Jamie Bulger's killer...... the demands by the stupid that they have a right to know what Venables had done, and where he was..... and the fear of the police and prosecuting team that Venables would then not have a fair trial AND GET AWAY WITH anything he had done on that technicality!!
Those who publish all the details, and jeopardise these trials as a result, should be prosecuted themselves..... but no... they would be the first to put up a new thread or blogg, bemoaning the fact that a killer had escaped.!!
Tsk...... shame on them.
Love
Daff on a soapbox! xxxx
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8062099.stm
I know it was from last year.... but I wasn't reading much news at the time... and found this when I was looking for something else.
Love
Daff xxx
|
|
Ginnie, I have decided today that I am going to turn into a reverse vigilante.... and every time I see it, I am going to put this back up... or similar, and if that doesn't work, report it as offensive... or breaking a law, or jeopordising the outcome of a trial, or something!
Hope you are feeling better today, by the way.
Love
Daff xxxx
|
|
lol.... even if it only makes one or two stop and think about the long term effects of their (understandable, but counter productive) knee jerk reaction, well, it would have a better effect, and may even snowball, lolol... that it may well be that all this global interest will stop a proper trial being conducted.... if the media was a bit more responsible in their reporting, as well... they could then be trusted to oversee, and make sure that everything possible was done appropriately......
Of course, I am not blind, and can see them there flying pigs as plain as plain can be!!
Love
Daff xxxx
|
|
I thought I'd read this before. I totally agree with you Daff, unfortunately I can't see it being stopped any time soon. Vigilantism is wrong and can, as you've said, lead to obstruction of justice and can often lead to innocent people being hurt as many vigilantes don't have the intelligence to recognise something as simple as the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
|
|
Cat, that was just around the corner from me, here.... a crowd from the estate next to us attacked a young female paediatrician, because they were too incensed/stupid to know the difference.
The best part about it, is one factor that many vigilantes do not understand... or refuse to.
It wasn't a stranger with a label or title who was hurting the youngsters.
It was a member of that child's own family...... so the general public and their children, are, generally and statistically safe from most of the abusers who hit the headlines. And they rarely grab from the street, which is the headline grabber, but actually groom from within.
Oh well, the world is always going to be made up with it's proportion of scandal and doom mongers who take things to the extreme.
Love
Daff xxx
|
