shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Anri van der Spuy · Joined: 06 Apr 2009 Posts: 2 Location: South Africa

Dear all

You focus a lot on the police, prosecuting authority and judiciary's role in the Fred van der Vyver-trial fiasco.

I am very interested to know what role you think the media played (or did not play)?

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 73 Location: USA

Dear Anri

What an interesting and excellent question!

It would not be inappropriate to suppose that a particular group of people like what the press reports when the press supports that group's position, but they condemn the press for reporting the other side of the story.

I think the best watchdog of any government is a free press. I do not deny that the press frequently engage in creating false conflict for the sake of selling their stories (be it newspapers, online reporting, magazines, television, etc.) But sometimes they expose corruption or good that would otherwise go unnoticed.

I think we would have universal agreement that the press should expose the police for fabricating evidence against an innocent person. But what about a guilty person? Should there be less condemnation of the police for fabricating evidence to secure the conviction of a guilty person? A few years ago, I was involved in exposing fabrication of fingerprint evidence in a drug smuggling case in which even the suspect's attorney openly admitted to me that his client was guilty. But because the police fabricated evidence to drive the final nail into the drug smuggler's coffin, not only did the man walk free, his lawsuit against the police resulted in a rather tidy settlement for the drug smuggler.

My point is that while the press sometimes go off the deep end in stirring controversy, they are also the best guardian of a free society. In the case of fabrication of evidence, it should not matter whether the defendant is innocent. Fabrication of evidence is fraud and perjury irrespective of the status of the suspect.

I think the press did an admirable job of exposing the corruption of the police involved in fabricating evidence against Fred van der Vyver. I am convinced of Fred's innocence, although I know some are not. But even those who still believe him guilty should join in condemning the police for the fabrication and misrepresentation of evidence. The biggest crime in this affair, of course, was the murder of Inge Lotz. But the fabrications and perjuries by some of the police investigators was a close second. The biggest shame in the case is that those officers have gone unpunished and, for all we know, are free to go on fabricating evidence against other people.

The South African press have done a good job of exposing the frauds and fabrications in this case. The government has done a poor job of correcting the problem.
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim
foridents@aol.com

Anri van der Spuy · Joined: 06 Apr 2009 Posts: 2 Location: South Africa

Dear Pat,

I completely agree that the media should act as guard dog in a society - the classic theory of the Fourth Estate - and that such conduct should always be measured accoding to the same standards - regardless of who the accused is. Whenever an authority wields a lot of power, ordinary citizens need to be protected from it. When a person may be guilty and is acquitted because of the press' exposure of fabrication by police (etc), at least this (hopefully) reminds police (etc) to be more vigilant and to act in accordance with pre-set principles.

With regard to the Van der Vyver case, my concern is that the media did not expose any of these clear fabrications or inadequacies of the police. In fact, most of the media had a clear anti-Fred slant. Think of the poll on Die Burger's website, for example, asking readers whether they think Van der Vyver is innocent or guilty. Only after he was acquitted did some media institutions start writing about fabrication etc (including Carte Blanche) - does this mean they bought into the story the SAPD/NPA were trying to sell?

And doesn't this effect ordinary (lay) citizens' perception of guilt/ innocence, including Van der Vyver's? Even if he was acquitted, don't a lot of people still doubt his innocence as result of the way the media operated?

Whether the judge may have decided Van der Vyver's case in the court, the media arguably rule the court of public opinion...

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 73 Location: USA

The filter to my knowledge of press reports in South Africa is the fact that I do not read or understand Afrikaans. I was told the Afrikaans newspapers put a different spin on the case than the English language newspapers. And English newspapers were mostly all I had ready access to, by virtue of the internet, of course.

Several reporters phoned me for interviews before the trial. Once my report had been filed in court, the information that I was coming to testify became public. I think your point that the news reports picked it up more readily after the trial is a good one. Prior to that, for all anyone knew, I was merely a "hired gun" coming over to confuse the court with my own series of lies. After hearing from me, Arie Zeelenberg, Paul Ryder, and Bill Bodziak, it was patently obvious the lies originated not with us but with the police. After that, and especially after the judge rendered his verdict, it became safe for the press to expound on the multitude of fabrications.

But that brings up another point. Would it have been prudent for the press to have run with the story prior to the testimony? Maybe, or maybe not. Your thoughts?
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim
foridents@aol.com

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Speaking from Experience in trying to get media attention for my case I have found over the years it is very difficult to get media to take the side of someone convicted of any crimes.

In other words they do not want to know about Miscarriages but on the other hand they are generally quick to label people Murderers, Rapists and Robbers etc before they are even found Guilty.

Once they are found guilty they are always referred to as Murderers etc etc.

In my opinion the press could do more to highlight cases where there is serious doubt, and in Fred's case there was in my view, plenty of Serious Doubt.

We have a few cases in Scotland where the convicted have alleged they never got a fair hearing because of pre trial publicity with photos being printed in press articles etc etc, One in particular sticks in my mind and I agree with and that is Luke Mitchell who was hounded for over a year with the press.

Another is Nat Fraser, but when the shoe is on the other foot and evidence of their Innocence surfaces the same zest for the stories is not there and the press are very reluctant to print these cases.

More could be done by the press from both sides and lets face it any prosecution now must be afforded equality of arms, Well at least on paper anyway so why not by the press.

Try and find a good investigative Journalist Nowadays to take up any case.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

I agree with Wullie here, but it's not just the problem of finding a good investigative journalist - there's another hurdle even if you do, and that's editors.
I know of several articles covering injustice, corruption, etc, well written and fully backed-up with facts which have either never made the light of day (or print) because the editors flat out refused to run them, or else they were altered beyond all recognition.
One in particular sticks in my mind - written initially as a supportive article, it was first refused, and then later run, under a different journalist's name, completely altered, and made to look as if the convicted person was "making up" information to "get off on a technicality."
The tabloids are definitely the worst for this, but the more serious papers still turn down perfectly legitimate stories.
It's all about "what sells" - they have this ridiculous belief that the public don't want "serious" reporting - all they want is sensationalism.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Angeline

I was thinking more along the lines of the Solicitors working for the press not allowing the articles because they bring his Profession into Disrepute.

I would be interested to hear from any Solicitors who have worked for any newspaper Editors.

In my own case I know for a fact there was someone investigated and spoke to Experts and MSPs etc and could not get the story into a Scottish Newspaper even with all the quotes she had.

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 73 Location: USA

In the aftermath of the various trials following the murder of Marion Ross, it seems that she herself has been completely forgotten. No ongoing search for her murderer or for justice in the case has been undertaken.

Likewise, in the aftermath of the murder of Inge Lotz in South Africa, there seems to be little interest in finding her murderer nor in seeking justice.

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=311024

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

Truthseeker · Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 16

Anri, I agree with Pat that the newspapers have done a good job of exposing the corruption in this case.

There was an article which appeared even before the trial started which left me certain that everything about the fingerprint pointed towards a fabrication. ("Lotz murder: Shock finding", Cape Times, 21 Dec 2006)

The lay person's perception of guilt or innocence is colored by his/her background, education, prior knowledge, interest, intellect etc. etc.

One person I know of had first contact with the case through reading an article about the very early testimony of a policeman who mentioned that Fred voluntarily handed over the ornamental hammer. He simply did not believe that any murderer would do something like that and from there on Fred was innocent in his mind.

As for reporters slanting their stories: Innuendo is the wicked way of the biased journo.