The Maverick Conservative

"I suspect no one; I suspect everyone;"  or, sometimes just:  "I suspect everyone;  EVERYONE is a suspect." 

The above is that classic mystery detective cliche--now really a parody (it may always have been a little tongue in cheek).   It MAY have origninated with a character of Dame Agatha Christie--or maybe I just think of her as the master of the classic mystery, with the classic mystery detective (not to mention the mystery PLOT--there are few truly ingenious plot devices in the mystery field that cannot be traced to Agatha Christie).

The above is not nearly good enough, of course, for today's media.   Desperate to MANUFACTURE "news", They have created categories that legally do not exist, as speculaton and lying replaces facts in media coverage, in this continuing search for a way to HYPE ratings (a total failure, of course, in most cases).

The newest media trick (as with most yellow journalism, perhaps not really new, but simply becoming pervasive) is to get investigators/authorities to identify a person as a "suspect", and then to say that the person is now "officially a suspect".

Did you know that there is NO SUCH THING as "officially a suspect" in the United States (the media hyped that there is such an "official" category in Portugal, when the McCann's were labled "suspects", but the media is so unreliable, and so reluctant to be confined to actual facts, that it was always difficult to get a real picture of what the law is in Portugal)?

That is right. There is NO legal significance to a person being NAMED as a "supect".  When the media implies otherwise, it is a LIE--an outright false statement.

"Hey", you say, "has not the media sometimes gotten authorities--on or off the record--to label a person as a "suspect."  Sure.  It is an easy way for authorities to put pressure on police/investigative targets, and to take the pressure OFF the investigators. Again, it has NO legal significance (whether it has any internal significance within the investigative authority is a question the media NEVER explores--it may or may not have some minor, internal significance).

There is ONLY one significance that being a "suspect" has, and it has nothing to do with that term or, really, that concept.  Remember Miranda Warnings?  Do police have to give everyone a "Miranda warning" when they are just trying to get information from witneses as to how a crime occurred?  No.  They are really only required to give Miranda warnings when they are focusing on someone as a POSSIBLE perpetrator of the crime, as distinguished from a person merely being interviewed as a possible witness to relevant facts. But it does not matter whether the person is LABELED as a "suspect".  It is a question of whether the police are, IN FACT, asking questions of a person as a possible perp.  Obviously, when in doubt the police should give the Miranda warnings.

For example, if a man reports his wife missing, asking the man about the facts necessary to start the search for the missing wife does NOT require Miranda warnings.  However, if you interview the man after that, with the idea that he may have killed his wife, you had BETTER give Miranda warnings. This can sometimes be a fine line, but has nothing to do with a peson being LABELED a "suspect".  Otherwise, police would simply never label a person a "suspect" until the very end (as they should not, before an arrest, anyway).

In the ordinary meaning of the word "suspect", is a husband ALWAYS a suspect in the unexplained disappearance/death of his wife?  Of course.  See the beginning paragraphy.  Besides, we KNOW that the spouse is always the first person you look at, in the absence of convincing evidence that the spouse did NOT do it.  So what difference does it make if the spouse is "labeled" as a "suspect"?  It makes no difference at all.  It is just a way for the media to manufacture "news" in their refusal to wait for real "news".

"Person of interest" (a term usuallly used in connection with seeking a person suspected of being involved in a crime, or of knowing material things); "target of an/the investigation", and "suspect" are all terms that mean NOTHING legally.   They have legitimate uses (such as a manhunt for a person suspected of a crime, to obtain arrest/custody of that person).  Their use as CHARACTER ASSASSINATION is NOT a legitimate use, either by law enforcement people or the media--especially for the media (you can argue, which the media never seems to do--as it would expose the EVIL of what the media is doing--as to whether it is a legitimate TACTIC for law enforcement to put PRESSURE on a "suspect" to get him or her to crack).

Do you remember "presumption of innocence"?  It is true that it is more of a procedural term than a requirement for everyone (for example, police investigators do not have to, and ofthen should not, presume innocence when they are convinced someone is guilty).  The term means that the state is required to PROVE someone guity beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused does NOT have to prove his or her innocence.

Look at how BADLY the media is violvating the concept of "presumption of innocence"--especially where the media is asserting the right to conduct TRIAL BY MEDIA.  An actual ARREST is not suppoed to make someone guilty.  Yet, in today's media, you can be suggested to be guilty merely by being a "person of interest", "target", or "suspect"--not even enough evidence to ARREST you.  That is EVIL stuff.

This brings us back to the incredible admission of this evil by Gretan Van Susteren on O"Reilly the other night (talking about Drew Peterson, as to whom I will return today with a continuation of my Socratic dialogue).  O'Reilly asked why Peterson had not been arrested, when Greta had all of lthsese "new developments" about Stacy virtually accusing Peterson of murcering wife no. 3.  Greta's response:  Well, much of this is HEARSAY, and NOT admissible as evidence.  The authrorities have to have evidence.  WE (the implication being that this is a GOOD thing instead of the EVIL thing the media has made it) are not limited that way."

Think of how damning the above is.  Greta Van Susteren is saying that the media has a RIGHT to speculate, with unreliable inofrmation (the law has so deemed it for hundreds of years), because they are the MEDIA (thereby not having to worry about things like reliability and fairness--or being able to confront the witnesses against you). 

Nope.  I tell you again:  this is EVIL stuff, and theis idea that it is the function of the media to INVESTIGATE guilt and innnocence, in ways not allowable in any court, is a truly evil way to DESTROY people.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this