Published: June 01, 1997
Printer-friendly version
Innocent until reported guilty?
When do you print the suspect’s name?
With the Richard Jewell-Olympic bombing experience
fresh in editors’ minds, a lawyer, a police chief and a journalistic ethicist
explore a hypothetical case
By Brian Toolan
A peerless jury of two — L. Lin Wood, the attorney for Richard Jewell
of Atlanta Olympics bombing fame, and decorated law-enforcer Michael Chitwood
— listened as a ballroom full of editors played defense attorney for American
journalism.
The jury was unimpressed. Its verdict: Newspapers are being unfair in
the first degree.
Wood and Chitwood were the star attractions at a seminar that deliberated
the growing phenomenon of the press identifying and scrutinizing suspects
in high-profile criminal cases before charges have been made. Thus, the
title of the session: "Town Meeting: Innocent Until Reported Guilty?"
Jewell, a security guard who went from hero to prime suspect in the
murderous bombing at Centennial Park in Atlanta in the summer of 1996,
might be the most celebrated example of this trend.
Wood represents Jewell, who says he sued the Atlanta Journal and the
Atlanta Constitution for defamation in January for portraying him as a
person with a "bizarre employment history and aberrant personality who
was guilty of criminal involvement" in the park bombing.
The lawsuit is in the discovery phase and working its way through the
Fulton County Court in Atlanta.
The newspaper has said that it was accurate to report that Jewell had
been a focus of the FBI’s investigation. In October, the federal government
told Jewell he was no longer being investigated.
While Wood and Chitwood brought luster and expertise to the discussion,
the format didn’t burden them with having to carry the show. A lot of that
fell to the editors, jolted from post-luncheon somnolence by Robert M.
Steele and Keith Woods, of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies’ ethics
program.
Steele and Woods made the editors consider how they would handle a hypothetical
crime story:
A world-renowned pianist and his wife are in your town for a performance.
He is shot dead when two men approach the couple’s parked car in a tough,
drug-plagued part of town. The wife is unhurt. She manages to hold on to
her purse. She calls police on a cell phone. She is able to describe only
one of the attackers, and says he is a Hispanic-looking man. A detective
tells one of your reporters, "We should never forget Charles Stuart." Stuart,
of course, was involved in the infamous Boston hoax involving a cell phone
in a bad neighborhood. Eventually, he was accused of the crime.
Developments and facts get layered on the story, posing a series of
dilemmas for the editors.
An arrest is made, and the person charged fits the general description
given by the wife. ... The arrest comes as an online report says the wife
of the pianist had a history of addiction to painkillers. ... The suspect
is released and the charges are dropped amid reports that the wife has
been summoned by police for interviewing. She is not a suspect, however,
the cops say ... A source tells a reporter that the pianist’s life had
been insured for $1.5 million, and his wife is the beneficiary. ... And
it was purchased two weeks ago. ... Finally, six days after the murder,
two Hispanic-surnamed men are arrested, and it is learned one of the men
charged had been a reward-seeking police tipster who caused the first wrongful
arrest.
The wife was innocent — a victim, a woman made a widow by a brutal crime.
She was never charged. There were things about her, though, that roused
suspicion. So, how should she have been covered by the newspapers?
As a group, the editors evidenced control. Most of the suggested coverage
was cautious where the wife was concerned, and prudent overall. Some examples:
-
The described Hispanic appearance of the original suspect shouldn’t have
been used because it was stereotypical and wouldn’t have added to the prospects
of apprehension (Paul Tash, St. Petersburg [Fla.] Times).
-
Ask the cops directly if the wife is a suspect (Greg Moore, The Boston
Globe).
-
The detective should be made to elaborate on the Charles Stuart comment,
otherwise it shouldn’t be used (Reid MacCluggage, The Day, New London,
Conn.).
-
Proceed carefully and only write what you know (Gilbert Bailon, The Dallas
Morning News).
(A personal aside here: One staggeringly influential, stunningly dependable
tabloid newspaper in a large northeastern city that is not New York, front
page-headlined an early report on the Georgian Jewell with BUBBA THE BOMBER.
We didn’t get a chance to ask Lin Wood if he was amused.)
For Wood and Chitwood, the restraint the editors displayed in the exercise
doesn’t show up in their newspapers. Wood, who seems to have forsaken a
wonderful career in single-copy sales, even fashioned the first-day news
package he would expect to see: A main story on the wife’s past drug problems.
A column that compares the incident with the Charles Stuart saga. And a
sidebar on the wife with the headline "Victim or Murderer?"
"Just change the names and you have what happened to Richard Jewell,"
Wood said.
Chitwood, an honored Philadelphia cop who is now the police chief in
Portland, Maine, urged against naming suspects, and reminded editors what
guides prosecuting attorneys: "You need probable cause before you charge."
Wood dismissed a notion that the public’s peace of mind might argue
for identifying suspects. "How is the public safer?" Wood asked. "It’s
not. You’re just holding the person up to the public. Listening to the
hypothetical, I’ve already decided the wife is as guilty as hell. But there
is no link physically or forensically."
One editor offered that the wife was a newsworthy person, and deserving
of inquiry.
"Jewell was newsworthy," Wood answered.
Toolan is managing editor of the Philadelphia Daily News.
