jo yeates

Marky wrote:'nice juicy story.' a tragic story but maybe that's just me.

Naughty Naughty.

Contextualise. It's what the papers would see as a nice juicy story.

T4two wrote:

Wallflower wrote:

T4two wrote:

Marky wrote:

fedrules wrote:The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

very true and i hope it's not the beginning of some sort attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. the whole problem seems to have stemmed from the way in which the police have conducted this investigation to date.

Agree. The way the police handled this encouraged the media response and that response provoked the speculation which ensued. Having said that though, there are already safeguards in place which appear not to have been enforced or adhered to. IMO it's extremely serious when the Attorney General finds it necessary to remind the media of their responsibilities, but I don't see this as an attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. Fact is that the UK legal system does not include trial by media and the media are not free to libel innocent people as they could be accused of doing in this case and no doubt will be by Mr. Jedfferies and his legal team. I've saved some of the headlines and articles which have appeared over the last few days and they make pretty horrendous reading, especially when one sees how things which people have said are distorted or misinterpreted. Bit difficult to understand the criticism that the Attorney General only issued his warning after things had got out of hand though, since before they got out of hand, there was no need to issue a warning.

The papers presumably run everything past their lawyers before they print, so either they were pretty confident that Jeffries would be charged or they've got away with this level of speculation in the past, so weren't that worried. I guess it's a commercial decision for them and they have to factor increased sales from a nice juicy story like this.

Oh, I'm sure the media run everything past their lawyers in a case like this but, the lawyers have been known to get it wrong. Perhaps it's time to think a bit more about protecting the rights of the individual and not allowing those to be violated in the name of freedom for the media. Why should the media be allowed to make a commercial decision about whether it will be profitable to ruin a man's life?

Oh I agree. A lot of their decisions seem to be made in a complete moral vacuum. It does just seem to be a matter of what they think they can get away with. And the point that I was trying to make was that they obviously thought that they could get away with it, from past experience.

Wallflower wrote:

T4two wrote:

Wallflower wrote:

T4two wrote:

Marky wrote:

very true and i hope it's not the beginning of some sort attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. the whole problem seems to have stemmed from the way in which the police have conducted this investigation to date.

Agree. The way the police handled this encouraged the media response and that response provoked the speculation which ensued. Having said that though, there are already safeguards in place which appear not to have been enforced or adhered to. IMO it's extremely serious when the Attorney General finds it necessary to remind the media of their responsibilities, but I don't see this as an attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. Fact is that the UK legal system does not include trial by media and the media are not free to libel innocent people as they could be accused of doing in this case and no doubt will be by Mr. Jedfferies and his legal team. I've saved some of the headlines and articles which have appeared over the last few days and they make pretty horrendous reading, especially when one sees how things which people have said are distorted or misinterpreted. Bit difficult to understand the criticism that the Attorney General only issued his warning after things had got out of hand though, since before they got out of hand, there was no need to issue a warning.

The papers presumably run everything past their lawyers before they print, so either they were pretty confident that Jeffries would be charged or they've got away with this level of speculation in the past, so weren't that worried. I guess it's a commercial decision for them and they have to factor increased sales from a nice juicy story like this.

Oh, I'm sure the media run everything past their lawyers in a case like this but, the lawyers have been known to get it wrong. Perhaps it's time to think a bit more about protecting the rights of the individual and not allowing those to be violated in the name of freedom for the media. Why should the media be allowed to make a commercial decision about whether it will be profitable to ruin a man's life?

Oh I agree. A lot of their decisions seem to be made in a complete moral vacuum. It does just seem to be a matter of what they think they can get away with. And the point that I was trying to make was that they obviously thought that they could get away with it, from past experience.

Agree Wallflower. Obviously they get their lawyers to do a risk assessment and then take a decision based on what they might have to pay out in compensation against how much they will profit from increased circulation and related advertizing revenue. I can't recall anyone being subjected quite to the treatment that Mr. Jefferies received though, with the exception of Robert Murat. In the latter's case, I thought at the time that they had gone overboard because the case was in a foreign country and felt therefore that they could ignore contempt-of- court considerations, but obviously I was wrong. I'm pretty certain in both cases that the media make a conscious decision as to whether the person in question 'done it' or not and then assess the possible penalties if it turns out that he/she didn't. Seems that Brunty and his drunken lady colleague from the Mirror aren't particularly clever at solving crimes and quite unsuitable as vigilantes. Perhaps the real police would do well to remember this in future before unleashing the kind of witch-hunt we have experienced here.

I wonder how much is the effect of rolling news. The public expect ro be kept abreast of the ins and outs of everything immediately don't they? After all, any joe bloggs could post that they'd seen - for example - Chris Jeffries being taken away in a police car. The public want and expect "fresh" info from BBC 24 or Sky any time they tune in. Love the tickertape running at the bottom of the page. I think the sad fact is that broadcasters now can't afford to send out lots of investigative journalists and they can't wait a few days to verify facts.

Wallflower wrote:I wonder how much is the effect of rolling news. The public expect ro be kept abreast of the ins and outs of everything immediately don't they? After all, any joe bloggs could post that they'd seen - for example - Chris Jeffries being taken away in a police car. The public want and expect "fresh" info from BBC 24 or Sky any time they tune in. Love the tickertape running at the bottom of the page. I think the sad fact is that broadcasters now can't afford to send out lots of investigative journalists and they can't wait a few days to verify facts.

No doubt everyone is under pressure, or puts themselves under lots of pressure to deliver. As far as Jefferies is concerned the police could simply have requested that he attend the police station to make his official statement and detain him then if they thought there were sufficient grounds, end of. But no, they had to blast up to the house at 7 am arrest him and subsequently make a big deal of towing his cars away and carting stuff out of the house for examination. That gave the media people (and there were enough of them hanging around) the impression that the police knew what they were doing and that it was only a matter of time before they announced that they had found sufficient eveidence to charge him. Unfortunately it appears to have been the wrong impression and the media were led to jump the gun. Could be quite an expensive mistake - not just for the media but the police as well since I don't think being fingered by Brunt counts as being sufficient evidence to make an arrest.

I hope this does prompt newspaper editors and people like Brunt (and all of us too) to learn a little caution when dealing with cases like this in the future. Whether he's ever re-arrested or not. And I agree with you, that in this case, the police DO seem to have handled everything in an overdramatic manner, as if they were clearly signposting Jeffries' guilt.

I should probably make it clear that I think it's absolutely hideous that someone's life can be destroyed in this way, on the basis of being a suspect for such a short duration. I think the 'tone' of my last post went a little awry. If there was an :irony: emoticon, I would've used it.

How were they making a big deal of removing forensic evidence from his house ? It's not exactly possible to sneak it out. I don't have Sky so I can't judge how their coverage has changed since the Attourney General's warning.

I do think that rolling news and the internet have changed the way such cases are covered and increased the amount of public speculation as we watch developments in cases such as this one.

I was relieved to learn from the BBC that the police say that Joanna was not sexually assaulted. The news presenter also described this as an 'unusual' crime. Was this some kind of hint ? They also again said that, despite the fact that Jo's killer is still 'at large', there was nothing to suggest that there was an increased risk to women in the area. Surely the unexplained murder of a young woman goes against this unless they know more than they are letting on ? Joanna's parents have said that they believe this to be the case..The police are also stressing that they are confident that Jo's murderer will be caught. I don't think they would be as certain if they felt she had died at the hands of a random killer / intruder...

Wallflower wrote:I hope this does prompt newspaper editors and people like Brunt (and all of us too) to learn a little caution when dealing with cases like this in the future. Whether he's ever re-arrested or not. And I agree with you, that in this case, the police DO seem to have handled everything in an overdramatic manner, as if they were clearly signposting Jeffries' guilt.

I should probably make it clear that I think it's absolutely hideous that someone's life can be destroyed in this way, on the basis of being a suspect for such a short duration. I think the 'tone' of my last post went a little awry. If there was an :irony: emoticon, I would've used it.

Don't worry - I think I understood perfectly well what you were saying. Just to clarify matters I would also add that IMO, and I am not alone here, there is also another dimension to consider, namely, a political one. In today's police force there are people in top positions who have advanced by an accelerated route i.e. not been promoted through the ranks based on performance. This has led to the establishment of a politcally correct elite and there are indications that this has not been entirely benificial for the way in which the police operate. My gut feeling is that this results in too much political pressure from above on those tasked with solving a crime and too little appreciation of the value of good old-fashioned detective work. This impression is only strengthened when I see the police rushing around almost like headless chickens collecting forensic evidence seemingly at random, rather than proceeding to develop an investigation in a structured fashion. All a bit hit and miss. When the chief investigating officer finds it necessary to defend the investigation by telling the public that "more than 1,300 pieces of information have been logged, generating more than 900 lines of enquiry, of which 239 are being treated as high priority", I find this frankly quite worrying and feel like telling him that there are no brownie points for numbers of pieces of evidence logged and to just get on with it for God's sake. Too much PR not enough detection. Just my opinion of course.

Marky wrote:'nice juicy story.' a tragic story but maybe that's just me.

Would you say the same thing if this young woman was your daughter ?

If the answer is yes, then you are really beyond words.

Did you see the total devastation on her mothers and fathers faces ?

I am simply staggered anyone could post that comment.

Just been reading a professor of criminology's view on this case: He says strangulation is a very 'intimate' may of killing someone and is almost always done by somebody who knows the victim well. He also stresses that in the vast majority of cases the victim knows the perpetrator.

The police say that Mr J remains a suspect..

POPPY1 wrote:

Marky wrote:'nice juicy story.' a tragic story but maybe that's just me.

Would you say the same thing if this young woman was your daughter ?

If the answer is yes, then you are really beyond words.

Did you see the total devastation on her mothers and fathers faces ?

I am simply staggered anyone could post that comment.

simply sums you up nicely.

Marky wrote:

POPPY1 wrote:

Marky wrote:'nice juicy story.' a tragic story but maybe that's just me.

Would you say the same thing if this young woman was your daughter ?

If the answer is yes, then you are really beyond words.

Did you see the total devastation on her mothers and fathers faces ?

I am simply staggered anyone could post that comment.

simply sums you up nicely.

This is not about me.

Have you no conscience or ethics ?

What is wrong with you.

But then, you don't answer questions anyway, do you Marky ?

All you seem to be capable of, is an inane smiley face.

Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

Someone in Sagazone Debate and Soapbox areas has really been blasted by a member for discussing this case...and The McCanns ! Talk of sub judice.

The Famous Grouse wrote:Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

OK Grouse, I'm not on about selling newspapers.

We know papers sell, good old tabloid tripe.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Marky.

What if this woman was your daughter ?

Would you say the same thing ?

fedrules wrote:No need to apologise, although I don't really see why you had to red stripe me. As I have said, it is the press's responsability to be more circumspect about what they publish and it is also the quality press which has published all sorts of information about Jefferies. I feel that I am free to speculate about this as the press has not seen fit to hold back with the stories they have dug up on Mr Jefferies..

The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

Any speculation on here seems to be linked to what's appeared in the newspapers. I'm not convinced that the Attorney General was talking about opinion sites. Contempory information publications, such as newspapers, have websites, and they sometimes put things on there that aren't published in their hard copies. I honestly think that there are a lot more outlets for defamatory material that may cause real concern about prejudicing court cases than forums like this (much as I'm a fan of this place ). IMO if we couldn't comment on this case to this small extent, then there really would be no freedom of expression left in this country. When you consider the millions (billions?) of webpages floating around a jury member would have to be very industrious to skim through them all. I have to say that I agree with Fedrules that while Mr Jefferies is on bail, after already being arrested for murder (but now, of course, no longer under arrest ) then the fact that we're talking about him on here is not unusual. It's also going to be the least of his worries.

POPPY1 wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

OK Grouse, I'm not on about selling newspapers.

We know papers sell, good old tabloid tripe.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Marky.

What if this woman was your daughter ?

Would you say the same thing ?

would i say what? it's a tragic story? yes i would. because that's what i said. someone else say nice juicy story. not me. prove me wrong.

POPPY1 wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

OK Grouse, I'm not on about selling newspapers.

We know papers sell, good old tabloid tripe.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Marky.

What if this woman was your daughter ?

Would you say the same thing ?

Personally i wouldn't say it about anybody's murdered daughter, but if you are going to take Marky to task over it, then you should do the same to any other posters who have also said it. Marky was just quoting somebody else.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

POPPY1 wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

OK Grouse, I'm not on about selling newspapers.

We know papers sell, good old tabloid tripe.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Marky.

What if this woman was your daughter ?

Would you say the same thing ?

Personally i wouldn't say it about anybody's murdered daughter, but if you are going to take Marky to task over it, then you should do the same to any other posters who have also said it. Marky was just quoting somebody else.

and taking them to task grouse, in a nice way i may add. read back a couple pages people you'll see. poppy don't do research. stupidity yes. research, no.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

POPPY1 wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

OK Grouse, I'm not on about selling newspapers.

We know papers sell, good old tabloid tripe.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Marky.

What if this woman was your daughter ?

Would you say the same thing ?

Personally i wouldn't say it about anybody's murdered daughter, but if you are going to take Marky to task over it, then you should do the same to any other posters who have also said it. Marky was just quoting somebody else.

I don't care who said it or quoted it, IT IS INEXCUSABLE.


A young woman is dead and we are getting SMILEY FACES.


THAT IS VILE.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

POPPY1 wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:Now c'mon folks, play nice. The term "nice juicy story" is a pressman's way of saying that that story sells papers. It's used in all sorts of contexts, and for newspapermen everywhere, any unsolved murder with a diverse collection of characters would be a nice juicy story.

In any case, Marky wasn't the first to use that term on here.

OK Grouse, I'm not on about selling newspapers.

We know papers sell, good old tabloid tripe.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Marky.

What if this woman was your daughter ?

Would you say the same thing ?

Personally i wouldn't say it about anybody's murdered daughter, but if you are going to take Marky to task over it, then you should do the same to any other posters who have also said it. Marky was just quoting somebody else.

I might use the term in the way that I think Marky used it - sarcastically. That's how the newspapers and their journos describe such a story. It's a 'nice juicy story,' that they might even say they can get their teeth into because they can chew over all the 'juicy,' details that they know their readers will eat up avidly.

I may have got it wrong, but I thought Marky was expressing displeasure at the term, so can't see what the problem with him is. Also if we can't acknowledge each other with an occasional smile then there's hardly any point in discussing anything. I have the greatest respect for Jo's parents and their grief and I'm sure the smiles weren't directed at them.

dazedandconfused wrote:I may have got it wrong, but I thought Marky was expressing displeasure at the term, so can't see what the problem with him is. Also if we can't acknowledge each other with an occasional smile then there's hardly any point in discussing anything. I have the greatest respect for Jo's parents and their grief and I'm sure the smiles weren't directed at them.

I think the smiley is Marky's way of saying...."I come in peace."

dazedandconfused wrote:I may have got it wrong, but I thought Marky was expressing displeasure at the term, so can't see what the problem with him is. Also if we can't acknowledge each other with an occasional smile then there's hardly any point in discussing anything. I have the greatest respect for Jo's parents and their grief and I'm sure the smiles weren't directed at them.

By this logic if a person has a bereavement , then a smiley face is in order.

I'm just staggered.

THIS IS A MURDERED YOUNG WOMAN, NOT A JOKING MATTER I THINK

POPPY1 wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I may have got it wrong, but I thought Marky was expressing displeasure at the term, so can't see what the problem with him is. Also if we can't acknowledge each other with an occasional smile then there's hardly any point in discussing anything. I have the greatest respect for Jo's parents and their grief and I'm sure the smiles weren't directed at them.

By this logic if a person has a bereavement , then a smiley face is in order.

I'm just staggered.

THIS IS A MURDERED YOUNG WOMAN, NOT A JOKING MATTER I THINK

POPPY1, it's just a smiley face which Marky tends to use almost like a signature. It's nothing to get worked up about.