Chris Jefferies and trial by media
At the time of writing, Chris Jefferies has not been charged with any crime.
His photograph has appeared on the front page of national newspapers 11 times. He was described as "weird", "lewd", "strange", "creepy", "angry", "odd", "disturbing", "eccentric", "a loner" and "unusual" in the course of just one article. That the former English teacher should have liked the classic Oscar Wilde poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol was described by one article as "Chris Jefferies' favourite poem was about killing wife". That the teacher should have taught pupils about the horror of the Holocaust and a classic novel by Wilkie Collins was described as him being "obsessed with death". He was accused of being a 'peeping tom' by people who never made a complaint to police about his activities. One front-page headline asked of the landlord "Could this man hold the key to Joanna's death?" and the next day asked "Was Jo's body hidden next to her flat?" next to a picture of him.
Jefferies' sexuality has been discussed in couched terms - the Telegraph, among others, used the rather antiquated euphemism 'confirmed bachelor' - while the Sun simply quoted a former pupil saying "He was very flamboyant. We were convinced he was gay" and then followed it up with the sentence "You didn't want him to come near you." His blue-rinse hair has been discussed as 'an affectation'.
There are arguments about the public interest when it comes to a murder case; there are counter arguments about speculation and lurid intrusion into anyone's private life, especially when they haven't been charged with any crime. It's clear that Jefferies' character and lifestyle has come under huge scrutiny and it benefits the public very little to know any of this. Now is a time full of speculation and implication, of innuendo and finger-pointing; you might hope that the established media could demonstrate more restraint and subtlety than the blogosphere, proving their journalistic credentials and why they should be trusted news sources, but what we are left with from many sources is a trail of smearing and sneering.
There's something else: if you were a former pupil of Jefferies and you wanted to make a few quid, what kind of stories would you tell? The benign ones about his tutorship or professionalism, or the most sinister-sounding things you could think of? If you approached a tabloid wanting to tell them that this person was a really good egg, an excellent teacher and not weird at all, would they be interested? Would they run it? If they wouldn't, what would that say about the balance and equivalence in the stories about him? Are they all leaning to one direction because of the need to sex up the story, to make the figure under suspicion appear as strange as possible?
There may be parallels in the coverage with the trials by media undergone by Colin Stagg, Robert Murat, Barry George, the parents of Madeleine McCann and the first man to be accused of the Ipswich murders of 2006 (who was later released without charge). Some people do not fit in to orthodox ways of life, or may appear different, eccentric, whatever; some people don't act in the same way you or I might think we would act under similar circumstances. Some people are easy targets. You have to wonder whether some elements of the press have short memories or whether they don't care about the swirl of innuendo surrounding Chris Jefferies; whether flogging a few papers now on the back of a popular news story is more important than treating someone fairly; whether, even, they take a punt on some people, writing off possible legal costs against the benefit of extra sales.
I don't think prejudicing a possible fair trial in the future is the issue in these cases as juries do decide matters of fact based on the available information provided in the courtroom. But I think character assassination and targeting aspects of people's private lives, producing only stories that portray someone in a negative light, all at a time when they are unable to respond to accusations that are made against them, is unfair and inaccurate. I don't think anyone, a murder suspect or a murder victim, should be fair game to have their life turned upside down in public. But what do I know? Someone will turn up in the comments, as someone always does, saying "It sells papers". Maybe it does. But maybe that still doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Further reading: Timothy Moore - the lost honour of Chris Jefferies
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- It doesn’t matter that much
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- MightyBlackout on It doesn’t matter that much
- Jo Carroll on It doesn’t matter that much
- Mooney, the Mail, and Me « LeftCentral on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Maeva on Tarts and hookers
- Merrick on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 2nd, 2011 - 11:20
What evidence do we have that it was Christopher Jefferies who was arrested? Sky News broke the story. Their reporter said they were caught on the hop at 7am. Do I trust them? Er, no.
The Mirror have been awful: I saw a front page from the other day that tried to link Mr Jefferies to a paedophile who had lived at the premises previously. They may once have been colleagues but it seems there is no stronger connection than that. Rather than leave out Greg Reardon’s condemnation of press behaviour, as did the Daily Mail, they’ve actually changed his words to pin the blame for speculation on Twitter and Facebook members.
January 2nd, 2011 - 12:03
Splendid!
January 2nd, 2011 - 12:07
Great piece and I totally agree with you. Last week’s amiable eccentric is this week’s crazed killer. I hope that the truth will emerge in due course, but I hate the automatic assumptions in the press that anyone who’s a bit different is bound to be a possible suspect.
January 2nd, 2011 - 12:32
Yet another brilliant piece.
Whole thing has put me in mind of the awful treatment of Robert Murat – life completely destroyed by the mainstream press, absolutely no evidence that he was involved, etc, but still more or less branded a murdering paedophile by an army of out of control headline-writers.
I think it’s time people started to think about how THEY would come across if pursued by the media in this way. Nobody stands up to this sort of scrutiny. I wouldn’t do too well – I’d be written up as a largely broke former prostitute and drinker with shonky connections on the left, a string of shady boyfirends, a history of bisexualism and a predilication for hanging out with alcoholics. I’m also a boring, lazy, long-time-married, run-of-the-mill office worker, but I can imagine which narrative would be more interesting.
Every now and then, I think I should pull the old finger out and make more of an effort to publish in the mainstream, but then I see this sort of thing and recoil. It’s depressing and inhuman beyond belief. At least in blogland, we can maintain our own standards. I sometimes laugh to myself when I see mainstream worthies going off on one about lack of standards in blogging – how bloggers say what they want, and are out of control, and libel others left, right and centre. All a bit ironic, really.
January 2nd, 2011 - 23:59
Can I be the first to ask for your phone number as you sound like my kind of gal
To be serious, the mainstream media could probably do a nice hatchet job on most of us, safe in the knowledge 95% of the population have neither the time or resources to seek any sort of redress, should they print anything that turns out to be bull. That, and a supine and ineffectual complaints body, means any lurid but false allegation could appear on the front page.
Only thing that will really stop it is if the circulation numbers start to tank but given the seemingly rapacious appetite of the average newspaper reader for poorly written, innuendo laden rubbish then we’re all stuck with it. Hopefully the blogosphere will kill of the newspaper soon.
January 2nd, 2011 - 12:42
Another excellent article. If he his proved to be innocent there is no one to hold the press to account other than the courts. I would hope that if it proves to be the case that he is innocent then he sues the fuck out of them.
January 2nd, 2011 - 12:54
He’s their new Michael Jackson.
January 2nd, 2011 - 13:43
The press coverage of this man is simply the modern version of accusing the local eccentric of being a witch and should be of concern to all. The local idiots will have a field day tormenting Mr Jefferies should he be released without charge and the stigma will stay with him for a very long time.
When there is no “news” to report, the media resort to speculation to fill their airtime / column inches and it is very lazy, sensationalist journalism that is of use to nobody and extremely damaging to others.
January 2nd, 2011 - 14:20
It’s sickening. Who needs balance eh?
We all forget these media institutions, or the vast majority, exist first and foremost to make a profit. The fact the Attorney General had to release a statement referring to the Contempt of Court Law illustrates the seriousness of the media reaction. If he did it, and as you say he hasn’t been charged, the coverage has been so one-sided it would be so difficult to get a fair judgement.
I was looking forward to a piece about the media reaction from you Mr Vowl, and you’ve got it spot on.
Anyway… Happy New Year.
January 2nd, 2011 - 15:25
Good article. I’ve felt distinctly uncomfortable with the trail by media of Jeffries. I wonder what caused the police to arrest him in the first place? I suspect it was his appearance and manner rather than any hard and fast evidence. You can imagine some hairy-arsed plod making his mind up about the slightly “different” character within seconds. Ooops, there I go doing the same. I was going to write a piece for my blog, but you’ve done a great job, so I’ll link to it from everywhere I can. Cheers.
January 4th, 2011 - 10:42
he was arrested because he contradicted his story.
January 2nd, 2011 - 16:30
To be perfectly honest, I can’t even get worked up about trial-by-media anymore. It’s as predictable as the seasons and no matter how many times the media get sued and condemned and sued again, they will not learn. If this guy is innocent, my heart goes out to him. Hell, look at all the people who still prattle on about Colin Stagg and how he was a weirdo, as though that made it okay to falsely accuse him of *murder*.
January 2nd, 2011 - 16:57
A very thoughtful and necessary piece. A glance at the tabloid headlines was shocking and disturbing, in particular the truly unpleasant Mirror article making links to a “pedophile acquaintance”. Whilst the killing is obviously a terrible tragedy, the behaviour of the media should not be allowed to go by unquestioned. He has been released on bail and part of me now hopes that he is not charged, is removed as a suspect and goes on to sue the living daylights out of these papers.
If he is cleared of any wrongdoing it will be interesting to see what apologies are written (or buried) and the ghastly sense of smug self-justification from the PCC when the lines of apology are printed. A truly disgusting spectacle on the part of the media.
January 2nd, 2011 - 19:26
“I don’t think prejudicing a possible fair trial in the future is the issue in these cases as juries do decide matters of fact based on the available information provided in the courtroom. ”
I don’t think you can always hang on to this wish. I’ve been on a jury where one guy went off in the evening and poked around the site in question to add to what we were told in court (he would have had a several talking to had we told the judge). On another jury several members preferred to rush a decision on the Friday afternoon so they didn’t need to come back on the following Monday. Although you are told to only pay attention to the evidence presented some of jury members will always do what they want regardless. And if in the case like this there has been a lot of press speculation beforehand then I am sure there will be a couple of jury members who will go home and google the accused or will believe what the papers had told them. I’m all for juries but it is rather worrying to see them in action and see these renegade members and it makes you worry about what could happen if you ever ended up on trial. And if I were Jefferies I’d be very worried about my right to be presumed innocent.
January 2nd, 2011 - 19:54
This is my personal opinion, I agree with some of the points made here, and I would like to comment on the general issue rather than this specific case. Having said that, this sort of thing happens because of the way the Contempt of Court Act is written, and in the way it is enforced, or rather the way it has not been enforced over last 30 years. The papers know they are in Contempt by the letter of the law, but also know that they’re unlikely to face prosecution unless a judge decides that they’ve created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a future trial, and the papers take that to be the spirit of the law. The papers rely on the fact that the risk they create will be ‘less than substantial’ It’s why they use words such as weird, lewd, strange, creepy, angry, odd, disturbing, eccentric, loner, and unusual, rather than words which directly imply guilt. The papers also know that judges will consider how the effect of such words on potential jurors will have been further reduced by the time which inevitably passes between publication and the start of a possible future trial, which, in most cases will be 8 to 12 months. It’s not a coincidence, in my view, that the worst examples of this kind of reporting are always when there’s been an arrest, but there is a long period before the individual is either charged or released. The papers are under pressure to report something, even when the little that they do know is prohibited under the Act, and I feel it’s reasonable to assume that this pressure will be much greater over Christmas and New Year, when the number of possible stories is greatly reduced. However, Editors may be cynical, but are not daft. Enforcement action in the past has demonstrated that the risk of contempt greatly-increases once a person has been charged, and at that point the tabloids reign themselves in. Editors like selling papers, but they don’t like doing time, and their employers don’t like paying fines. They break the law in the first place because there are benefits, and the chances of being prosecuted are remote, and they only stop when the threat of punishment is both severe, and likely, just like anyone else who choses to break the law.
January 2nd, 2011 - 20:02
I’m not usually one for conspiracies, but I wonder how much Avon & Somerset Police have been encouraging this press?
After all, this hot air nicely covers up their inept investigation doesn’t it? Are there any mainstream journalists out there, I wonder, who can tell us how many unsolved murders the force has on their books at present? 23 I heard … That’s much more relevant to this case than Christina Rossetti’s poetry isn’t it?
As for Jefferies, the more I read in the press about him, the more obvious it became he was innocent. Why was he ever arrested? He had no motive; the police had no evidence and he did not confess.
Most major murder investigations these days seem to be based on principles out of the public relations industry. Perhaps detectives should stop watching the telly and reading the papers and get on with their job?
January 2nd, 2011 - 20:21
spot on article, what the media need to be asking rather than persecuting a 65 year old man who is only guilty of circumstantial evidence at best is to focus on why Avon & Somerset police have an abysmal record when solving murder cases. i believe this figure currently stands at approx. 27 which is nothing short of scandalous. maybe it’s time to query their methods of investigating crimes of such a serious nature?
January 2nd, 2011 - 20:27
I was also waiting for you to comment on something that is so close to home and you make a sound, compassionate case as usual. But, like the previous poster, I don’t entirely agree with your feeling that this kind of ‘news’ won’t prejudice a jury. It might, and as long as that possiblity exists, the press has a responsiblity to aid the judiciary in ensuring any trial is fair. Uncannily, I was also on a jury where someone went and poked around the crime scene; his conclusion was that the police were manufacturing evidence but he still insisted the accused was guilty – for no other reason, I think, than that he didn’t much like the look of her. I was also once a local paper reporter and the contempt of court act was drilled into me again and again and again: once an arrest is made, it’s name, rank and serial number – and that’s it. No backgrounders, no innuendo, no speculation, just the barest of details. It’s an important principle and the law is clear. Every time a tabloid ignores this law, it licenses hysteria, gut reactions, finger-pointing and prejudice. And it makes it much more difficult for responsible journalists (like you and me) to practice their profession honestly. Ironically, Jeffres was released on bail today and the police gave a warning that the killer was “still at large”. This may mean nothing, but it sure looks as thought they’ve got nothing to pin on him, except the fact that’s he’s a bit eccentric – and now his life is ruined. It’s a grotesque carnival.
January 3rd, 2011 - 07:06
I so agree! Also, if one is accused of a terrible wrong doing, falsely, Might it prompt some sort of withdrawal (from society). He is already said to be eccentric. What does this mean? The dictionary says ‘freakish’, amongst other things, and ‘unconventional’ to say the least.
I just hope that we are NOT driving people to the extreme. If one gets to a state where they think they have nothing (else) to loose, will they resort to doing what they have been accused (falsely) of doing, just to justify the label?
We have and perhaps owe a responsibility to our society, and for our own indirect safety, Not to drive people, and individual too far that they fall off the (proverbial) edge.
January 2nd, 2011 - 20:36
There is of course the supposition that since the chap is ‘kind of funny looking’ he must be guilty, but I also wonder to what degree the cop show stereotype that someone at the press conference ‘did it’ is playing a part.
January 2nd, 2011 - 22:07
This is another one of those days where I feel like jacking it all in and handing out printed copies of your blog articles on the street in between the SWP and Christian Evangelist nutters.
January 3rd, 2011 - 16:33
I’d help you with that.
January 2nd, 2011 - 22:15
I’m pretty sure that all of the teachers at my school would qualify as strange in the same sort of manner if I was asked by a member of the press. I am almost entirely certain that none of them are murderers, paedophiles, rapists or anything else. In fact, I’m pretty certain that I could do a tabloid assassination on most of my friends to make them look complicit in a murder if I took the time to look at some facts, twist them and present them completely out of context and then quote people who knew them briefly and had no particular stake in the outcome.
Tabloid journalism really distresses me especially as it seems that it’s the style of journalism that is most resilient to economic downturns.
Chris
January 3rd, 2011 - 00:52
The media are as “out of control” as the MP’s expenses system was/is. ie totally corrupt and unfit for purpose.
They are trying to “drive” the system, instead of reporting on it. Agenda’s ?
Thatchers Children ?
January 3rd, 2011 - 11:45
Oh surprise surprise, Mr Jefferies has been released without charge today, and The Sun offer no retraction: http://bit.ly/dWjjyw … utterly shameful.
January 3rd, 2011 - 14:00
“the Sun simply quoted a former pupil saying “He was very flamboyant. We were convinced he was gay”"
For Christ’s sake, you couldn’t throw a half-brick in this country without hitting someone who could gleefully provide you with a comprehensive list of which of their former teachers were probably gay/a bit weird/always drunk/done for hitting some kid once/definitely a pervert, you just knew. This used to be the sort of tiresome speculative crap that people resorted to after a few beers on a Friday night. Now it’s become front-page fodder for the national press. The sooner this shit disappears behind a paywall and dies, the better.
January 3rd, 2011 - 14:38
The treatment of Chris jefferies has been nothing short of disgraceful, i hope he sues for character assassination, if the sun newspaper was running the country he would have been hung drawn and quatered by now. I would like to hear the media’s definition of an oddball as opposed to a eccentric.
January 4th, 2011 - 15:22
If?
Murdoch essentially rules the western world these days.
January 3rd, 2011 - 15:54
“Keep away from the guy with the funny eye… Keep away from the funny-eyed *guuuuuyyyy*”…
Not much has changed in 10 years then.
January 4th, 2011 - 11:01
sorry, shouldn’t laugh at such a serious issue, but brass eye was amazing wasn;t it? your quote made me laugh.
January 4th, 2011 - 18:49
It was pretty damn good.
And I didn’t mean to joke at the misfortune of the families who have had loved ones go missing. What made DJ Bob Hoskins Going Mental In A Dustbin pop into my head was the article above, which quite rightly lambasts the press and police for focusing on hearsay about people who are considered “a bit strange” when actual *evidence* is scant or taking a long time to process, thus leaving the maw of the 24-hour news cycle unfed.
Brass Eye used comedy to hammer the point into our heads, but a lot of the issues it dealt with were deadly serious.
January 3rd, 2011 - 18:15
Now that he’s been released without charge and has said that he’s going to fight to clear his name the sudden media silence is, by contrast, deafening.
January 3rd, 2011 - 21:29
Belive it or not this is an actual quote in the daily mirror 31/12/10 from a former neighbour
Pat added: “After his mum died he came back to clear out his parents’ home and called in to offer me some classical music records. He also had an organ which I think he played, but he showed no interest in cars or sport.”
No intrest in cars or sport must be a murderer then????
January 4th, 2011 - 10:52
Whenever this kind of of coverage rolls around I often worry about a close family member of mine who is somewhere around the middle of the autistic spectrum. He lacks social skills, is incapable of making eye contact with people, obsesses about little details and facts and figures while missing the bigger picture. He’s never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) and has velcro shoes because he can’t tie shoelaces. He’s also quite overweight and has personal hygene “issues”.
I genuinely worry that if a Joanna Yeates-esque crime were ever committed near his flat he would be just the kind of person whose “odd” behaviour would be picked up on by the neighbours, the police and, subsequently, Britain’s so-called journalists.
If it turns out that Mr Jefferies is entirely innocent (and the police seem to be increasingly leaning in that direction) I hope he sues the arse off each and every newspaper that printed lies and smears about him. And it wouldn’t hurt for the Attorney General to grow a pair of bollocks and throw the book at the Sun, Mail and Mirror in particular. But then he’s a politician, and there’s no way a politician is going to risk upsetting the tabloids…
January 4th, 2011 - 14:25
Case like this one and Michael Jackson always become topics of pained discussion on Asperger Syndrome forums. Aspies have plenty of bitter experience of being targetted by “normal” people because of their social difference, so it’s no surprise to see the tabloid press engaging in similar behaviour. It’s different, of course, when someone who is “eccentric” has a redeeming social status symbol, such as a former career teaching posh kids. But it doesn’t take much to tip the balance, as we’ve recently seen.
This issue has wider connotations. Cultural critics such as Majia Holmer Nadesan (Constructing Autism, Routledge, 2005) see connections between the growth of neoliberalism and popular attitudes towards social difference.
January 4th, 2011 - 16:11
My father’s response when I told him about the shameful way the media has smeared Christopher Jefferies: “But he might still be guilty…”
January 4th, 2011 - 17:16
The police have a lot to answer for, as they effectively fed the media by extending his detention to the maximum (just hanging on hoping for forensics or CCTV analysis to turn up something I would guess).
Also, if the police wanted to stop the media from this kind of speculation, then they could. The press relies a lot on police “cooperation” for stories. I would suspect that they were hoping that the speculation would lead to somebody id’ing him.
January 4th, 2011 - 18:36
Excellent article. I agree, except that I don’t share your confidence that a jury would not be influenced by this coverage.
January 5th, 2011 - 11:30
I was a pupil and very good friend of CJEJ through most of the 80s – he taught me English all through A-Level and when I was 13 too. Lots of us are appalled by this shameful smearing. CJEJ (as he was known) was undoubtedly a bit eccentric. But do we want our teachers to act and look like soulless civil servants? He was a very moral man, schooled in the tradition of the famous critic F.R. Leavis.
CJEJ was extremely refined in terms of art, music (Classical) and literature, he had no television and had little time for or contact with “popular culture”. He was an enthusiast for film as a medium of art, and we would go to see for example the Alain Resnais season at the Bristol Watershed which he would then elucidate for us which exceptional insight. He has taught me personally Shakespeare, Milton, and Joseph Conrad among many others. He achieved consistently high grades among his pupils – and I myself subsequently went to Cambridge to read English.
He was never obsessed with death nor with Christina Rossetti nor was his favourite poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol! He would NEVER ask the pupils to hold hands while he read sick poems to them, “staring into space” – all of which I have read in the gutter press with appalled disbelief.
As I knew him (and I have had many dinners with him, been to concerts and plays with him and been in his flat hundreds of times) Christopher Jefferies was a man of the highest integrity and erudition. He was undoubtedly different from the norm… but with that difference he supported our individuality and we all had tremendous respect for him. He was regarded with affection and respect by the vast majority of the pupils at Clifton.
What is happening to him now – this “monstering” as it has been called before he is even charged with anything – is disgraceful and this sort of thing must surely not be tolerated any longer in this country.
January 7th, 2011 - 12:43
Well said Leigh, press reporting was malicious while the actual story is the incompetence of Avon & Somerset Police and their tabloid prejudice. The ‘meddler’ headline in the Telegraph is an epic smear worthy of the school of journalism hall of shame. The Headmaster was slow to stand by their career long employee, and then shot himself/Clifton College plus CJEJ in the foot with his mealy mouthed comments, so former pupils need to set the record straight….
January 5th, 2011 - 13:39
No, you don’t have to wonder at all. Of course they care more about flogging a few papers than treating someone fairly. Given the basic psychology of power, treating someone fairly is probably a negative on the balance sheet. Selling more papers and bullying some over-educated wierdo who probably thinks he’s better than you? Throw in some free coke and you’ve hit the trifecta.
January 7th, 2011 - 10:32
In addition to Leigh Glanville’s post, there’s another account by a former Clifton College student here: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=46950361&postcount=2891
January 20th, 2011 - 14:46
I was at the school Mr Jeffries taught at – he never taught me, but he taught some of my peers. Believe me, his supposedly ‘weirdness’ is just about standard among the staff there. I never met the man, but whether he was ‘weird’ or not, this trial by media nonsense, character assassination, and general, erm, LIBEL, has gotten out of control….
January 23rd, 2011 - 12:39
I have cut and paste this from a copy (PDF print) of news feed from my site. “Christopher Jeferries may you die a slow painful death you evil man!!!” Now please feel free to judge the person who wrote this and please give me your comments on the following. Should I provide Christopher’s lawyers with this evidence of reckless slander?
March 7th, 2011 - 10:40
I have no doubt that the papers will be making a handsome apology and offering compensation for the immense distress they have undoubtedly caused this private individual. They will surely also be offering a substantial donation to a charity of his choice by way of reparation and to demonstrate their contrition.
Oink, flap, oink, flap.
April 22nd, 2011 - 18:05
Mike Hock, If you are still around reading these excellent messages please get in touch with me via my email address desert7fox@yahoo.com—I think a malicious person on FACEBOOK had your profile removed and as a result our FB link disappeared.