Why the lack of detail

[Thewinterofdiscontent]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9783505/Jemma-Mitchell-accused-decapitating-Mee-Kuen-Chong-dumping-body-Devon-court-told.html

Horrible murder of a woman by a woman ( so fairly uncommon and therefore newsworthy ). In the paper but with no details as to suspect or motive. Why would they do this?

@VikingVolva

From spotting this thread, I went at looked at the Websleuths thread, and people there have unearthed JM's entire FB history and those of associated people and say there is no sign that she is anything other than lifelong female.

There are also mentions of other crimes where women decapitated or dismembered their victims - rare but not unprecedented. There was assumption that women do not commit horrible crimes

While it's not the case that women don't commit horrible crimes, the fact is that probably around 99% of the perpetrators of crimes like this are male, as illustrated by relative prison populations. So simple statistics indicate that the murderer is more likely to be a man.

So when you do read about a situation where it is known/alleged that a woman has committed such a crime, it is natural to wonder if it was a man who identifies as a woman, because in a lot of cases, this is exactly what is going on.

As others have said this is standard court reporting. It’s illegal to report anything but the events of the day in court when there is an active trial.

The fact people are assuming there is anything sinister about the lack of detail has naff all to do with transgender people and everything to do with people’s own ignorance of the law. Granted, the average person doesn’t need to know media law but court reporting has never been any different.

And yes, as a PP said, immediately assuming any crime committed by a woman was actually done by a trans person in the absence of any evidence to back up that assertion is transphobic and makes you look absolutely bonkers.

@VikingVolva

From spotting this thread, I went at looked at the Websleuths thread, and people there have unearthed JM's entire FB history and those of associated people and say there is no sign that she is anything other than lifelong female.

There are also mentions of other crimes where women decapitated or dismembered their victims - rare but not unprecedented. There was assumption that women do not commit horrible crimes

The websleuths thread is in contempt of court then. If anyone posting on it was identified they would be prosecuted.

Interesting. Thanks Ted.

@TedMullins
The websleuths thread is in contempt of court then. If anyone posting on it was identified they would be prosecuted

How so? I thought identification of people involved in criminal trials was a foundation of the Open Justice Principle and could only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances?

And yes, as a PP said, immediately assuming any crime committed by a woman was actually done by a trans person in the absence of any evidence to back up that assertion

Not any crime - TV license evasion, shop lifting etc. very happy to automatically believe the reporting.

It's just the crimes where the stats are so skewed in the direction of males committing the them, combined with inaccurate past reporting that makes people look a bit harder at these cases.

It is just the way things have been reported - this is why whenever we see anything noted as 'women' - whether a crime, prize or shortlist - we look for photos.

The websleuths thread is in contempt of court then. If anyone posting on it was identified they would be prosecuted.

They could be, but the last serious attempt to rein in a marauding media in a murder case (many outlets were flagrantly and serially in contempt) concerned aspects of the Joanna Yeates case. So it’s not as commonly enforced as we are all taught.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates

How so? I thought identification of people involved in criminal trials was a foundation of the Open Justice Principle and could only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances?

Contempt of Court Act 1981 means you have to be careful about publishing anything once legal proceedings become “active” (meaning after an arrest is made, a warrant issued or charges made). What you have to avoid is prejudicing any suspect’s right to a fair trial.

The fear of god is put into journalism students on this point, but editors are often far bolder than you would think, and contempt of court proceedings against editors or journalists aren’t that common.

(In this case, the accused has been named so the name is definitely okay to report.)

[quote NumberTheory]@TedMullins
The websleuths thread is in contempt of court then. If anyone posting on it was identified they would be prosecuted

How so? I thought identification of people involved in criminal trials was a foundation of the Open Justice Principle and could only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances?[/quote]
I haven’t looked at the thread myself but if they’re posting about the suspect’s history or any other details about her character that could prejudice a fair trial it’s contempt of court which is a criminal offence. Obviously she can be identified as she’s having an open trial.

@Bekindorbesilent

I think this thread is a bit transphobic to be honest.

You're looking for bogeymen where they don't exist.

Of course it’s not. Explain why you think it is.

I just had a peek. If the thread I glanced at is the only one on the case, they’re being reasonably oblique and circumspect, at least for the most recent three or four pages.

The websleuths thread is in contempt of court then. If anyone posting on it was identified they would be prosecuted

Which Websleuths posts do you think break the law?

@Thewinterofdiscontent

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9783505/Jemma-Mitchell-accused-decapitating-Mee-Kuen-Chong-dumping-body-Devon-court-told.html

Horrible murder of a woman by a woman ( so fairly uncommon and therefore newsworthy ). In the paper but with no details as to suspect or motive. Why would they do this?

Perhaps a motive has not been established, having read the article it would appear a cause of death has not been established either.

How very peculiar.

Very sad for the victim's family however for their poor relative to be decapated and dumped and of course killed.

@Feelingoktoday

The lack of detail (the question in the title of the thread) is due to court reporting restrictions.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I am a journalist so perhaps I'm more aware than most but once this was explained there was no reason to look for ulterior motives and yet people continued to come up with conspiracy theories.

As a TV journalist I have to be very, very careful about restrictions. The consequences are pretty dire if I get it wrong. If a newspaper decides to flout the rules they will have weighed up any potential fine or punishment against the benefit of getting salacious detail out first. In most cases it's just not worth it.

@TedMullins

I think what you meant to post was:

“Oh, good point. So the websleuths’ thread isn’t necessarily contempt of court at all. Let’s hope they haven’t gone further and posted stuff that could prejudice the trial.”

@TedMullins for clarity, the types of comments on Websleuths seem to be more of the “I was able to find X type of information by doing Y” variety than the “I found out that A is friends with B, belongs to C & D groups and works at E” kind.

I didn’t read all the way back, but i suspect the mods over there are well versed in toeing the line and the contributors follow their lead.

I didn’t read all the way back, but i suspect the mods over there are well versed in toeing the line and the contributors follow their lead

They are, they lock threads that take up too much time for the mods, and ban posters for going off topic, or using flaky sources/gossip, or sleuthing anyone who has not been officially named, or in straying into anything which could be sub judice

That why I asked which posts were thought here to be contempt - because from my reading of it, there weren't any. IANAL. JMO

It's usual for names/ pics of people charged with crimes to be in the media, if the media is interested in reporting on the case.

The idea that women (and men) are out of order to wonder, when women are reported as having been charged with crimes that are vastly massively usually committed by male people. When we know the police record by self ID. And have seen plenty of cases where male type crimes have been committed by women but oh look the person is male. And it's recorded as a crime committed by a woman and female estate is likely...

Yes women can commit these types of crimes.

But it's very rare.

And now the word woman is no indication of sex...

Of course there are ???

The alternative is to accept that suddenly women are going all out on brutal sex offences/ excessively violent attacks on women for no reason. And not think.. eh? What's changed?

This situation is reinforcing ideas about crime and which sex does what.

It's eroded confidence in the police, the courts, the whole criminal justice system.

That's a win?

@NiceGerbil

It's usual for names/ pics of people charged with crimes to be in the media, if the media is interested in reporting on the case.

The idea that women (and men) are out of order to wonder, when women are reported as having been charged with crimes that are vastly massively usually committed by male people. When we know the police record by self ID. And have seen plenty of cases where male type crimes have been committed by women but oh look the person is male. And it's recorded as a crime committed by a woman and female estate is likely...

Yes women can commit these types of crimes.

But it's very rare.

And now the word woman is no indication of sex...

Of course there are ???

The alternative is to accept that suddenly women are going all out on brutal sex offences/ excessively violent attacks on women for no reason. And not think.. eh? What's changed?

Yes but trying to ferret out something that isn't there just makes you look like you are on a witch hunt and detracts from your valid and logical arguments.

Yes but trying to ferret out something that isn't there just makes you look like you are on a witch hunt and detracts from your valid and logical arguments.

Hardly! IPSO has manufactured this situation by insisting that crimes are reported using the sex of the individual as they claim it to be.

They don't do that for any other information about a suspect: age, name, address etc etc. Just the sex. Wonder why that is?

Many people have pointed out many, many times that this erodes public confidence, statistical accuracy, future planning for the rest of the system.

It is a lie that has many long term ramifications. THAT is what is being pointed out.

Not, as you and others have said, that anyone is trying to make out that transwomen are nasty, dangerous etc - we only make that accusation about individuals, when a specific individual has been arrested for doing something, well, erm, nasty, dangerous!

#notourcrimes

@Megasausagehead

#notourcrimes

??