Jill Meagher's disappearance has prompted much speculation on social media.
THE disappearance of ABC worker Jill Meagher has highlighted the growing trend of everyday Australians using social media to play armchair detective.
Within hours of Ms Meagher's disappearance on the way home from Friday night drinks with friends, amateur sleuths had flooded forums with possible leads and suspects.
But are they helping or hindering the process?
Prominent commentator Catherine Deveny told her Twitter following she was attacked by the same man pictured in CCTV footage following missing Melbourne woman Jill Meagher.
Deveny said last night she "thought he was a drunk dickhead but appeared a bit menacing".
This morning, however, she lashed out at media interest in her claims saying she would only step forward to help the official investigation, not "media maggots wanting to make content" from Ms Meagher's disappearance.
Deveny is just one of many who are openly discussing the case online, turning to Facebook, Twitter and web forums such as Websleuths.com to share their experiences and test theories about the possible abduction.
Already a number of other women claim the man "in the blue hoodie" seen in CCTV footage also attacked them.
Source:
One woman claimed on Facebook she'd encountered the man in the CCTV footage.
"I've had the same creepy guy harass me in Brunswick the last two times I've been there," she wrote.
Patricia Petersen, academic and founder of the Australian Independents political party, talked about a similar incident 10 years ago.
"I've seen the CCTV footage police have released of Jill walking along Sydney Rd Brunswick. The man seen talking to her might well be the same man who attempted to attack me in 2002 or 2003."
Others have taken to Facebook to share stories of similar attacks, encouraging people with stories to phone CrimeStoppers and report their close calls, and Twitter is in overdrive.
While major investigations like this have always been talking points, these conversations have now moved online, with unexpected results.
Sideline sleuths, or anyone with a Wi-Fi connection, can now suggest a suspect on Twitter and declare a person's guilt on Facebook.
Social media, which in a legal sense "knows no jurisdictional bounds", is an ever-present and pervasive force that further fuels the public's infatuation with high-profile criminal cases.
How many tweets went out about the Baden-Clay investigation in Brisbane? Who hasn't expressed an opinion about alleged Thomas Kelly killer Kieran Loveridge?
The Baden-Clay investigation is one of the most high-profile in the country. Source: The Courier-Mail
Is social media a help or a hindrance to high-profile cases? Have your say below
Legal experts say the mass media effect of social networks and armchair detectives could backfire and may help defence lawyers contrive a convenient escape hatch for clients.
Traditionally, only mainstream media organisations have been held in contempt of court for making prejudicial comments or disseminating sensitive information on court cases.
And while the law may not yet be able to prosecute individuals using Twitter or Facebook who comment on criminal cases, the cumulative effect of trial by social media could interfere with justice.
"It is contempt to talk about someone's innocence or guilt before it is presented in court," David Rolph, an associate professor of law at Sydney University, told news.com.au.
"The problem for social media is an individual may have a lot of followers or be retweeted, but what happens when there's a groundswell of prejudicial material?
"The harm is done by the cumulative effect of people talking on social media sites rather than one individual being responsible.
"Anyone with access to Twitter and Facebook can be a publisher and disseminate information. Not just to a few people, but to the whole world."
Professor Rolph says it might now be possible for criminal defence lawyers to argue their client, in cases of major public interest, is unable to get a fair trial.
CCTV of Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross before he was allegedly king hit. Source: Supplied
This "cumulative effect of adverse publicity" can sometimes be enough to compromise the potential for independence and impartiality of a jury, said criminal law expert Arlie Loughnan.
"The principle of a fair trial is a protection for the accused - it's a safeguard," she said.
"The issue with something like adverse comments on social media - it may reach a point where it's not possible for the jury to evaluate the defendant independently, or on the evidence presented to them in the court process."
"They can't hold a prior view of the likelihood of the defendant's innocence or guilt that could taint that independent evaluation."
Where to now?
Common law judgments, both in Australian and overseas, are divided on the issue of who is responsible when it comes to social media's role in copyright infringement and defamation.
But Professor Rolph says a recent case in Victoria, where the Supreme Court found Yahoo 7's search engine responsible for defamation, carries implications for the accountability of social networks in contempt of court.
"Can Google be liable for a search? English cases say no, but the Trkulja v Yahoo! case in Victoria went the other way," he added.
"It's not obviously something that's limited to copyright, or defamation and it could apply to contempt of court."
Which means Twitter and Facebook could, in theory, take the fall if a case of huge public obsession is thrown out of court.
0 comments:
Post a Comment