(I am replying here to post pictures) I agree that Rosenberg should not have been a credible source in this case. As I said... If I were covering this story, I would never use Hatfill's identification because there was no hard evidence to prove he could be convicted.
The handwriting on the envelopes of anthrax powder is very distinguishable. And I think if the FBI asked Hatfill for a writing sample that he would not have remained a "person of interest." Detectives can identify characteristics within an individuals handwriting quite easily...
Although the FBI claims only 30 people in the US have the knowledge to do this. And even though the FBI eventually announced
Envelope & Letter Containing Anthrax
What kind of American would write the note above a week after 9/11...
I think the anthrax came from Al-Qaeda... I think this is very distinguishable handwriting. And it would not take a rocket scientist to distinguish this from a sample of Hatfill's writing.
I think as prospect and working journalists, we must take into consideration:
What did we learn from this assignment? And how will it make us stronger as journalists?
I believe that by keeping a person's identification confidential unless there is sufficient evidence to charge them under the legislation, will not induce the general public to shun an innocent individual or inhibit a journalist from generating groundbreaking coverage.
Although Hatfill had legitimate reasons to charge the US Department of Justice and Donald Foster with defamation
9 comments:
I think if the FBI or any other law enforcement agency uses a person of interest's name specifically then the media has no obligation to keep it silent. Once the FBI releases his name to the media it becomes public, just as if a name is releases during trial in a transcript. Unless the judge puts restrictions on using the witness's name then the media is free to use it. Same thing here. The FBI did not attach restrictions to Hatfield's name, ie. they didn't say don't use his name in your reports until we say you can. Therefore, the media were well within their rights using his name.
The only thing I disagreed with was the media covering the search of his home. That was an alert to him to rid himself of potential evidence. That should have been kept secret.
Overall, this story reminds me of Dr. Murray and MJ.
I think it is malicious that reporters and the FBI release the identity of people who are potentially innocent, such as a "person of interest" or suspect, and influence the general public to shun a person who is never charged. Innocent people don't deserve to lose their jobs, friends, home, and etc. I live and work in Canada, and the media usually identifies suspects by their initials to avoid destroying their reputation in the event they are never charged.
In this article from the Chicago Tribune about a mother charging children with defamation for destroying her sons reputation on Facebook. The media calls the suspects by their initials to avoid destroying their reputation in the event the kids are never charged. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-facebook-suit-25-sep25,0,1465922.story
However I do believe, if the authorities have hard evidence against a perpetrator of a serious crime such as in Madoff's or Timothy McVeigh's case, then the media does have an obligation to release the persons real identification. Because criminal's destroy their own lives, not the media.
Actually, you can't comapare the Facebook case, bc the Facebook case is TOTALLY different. In the US the names of children won't be released because they are minors so if the same case were here names would likely not be used, same w/ rape victims. But where adults are concerned in everyday crimes, the same rule does not apply. If the FBI or police release a name the media is free to report it absent instructions otherwise. But please bear in mind, the FBI and the police know that if they release it to the media, it will be reported. They are NOT stupid. It might even be a tactic.
Additionally, "person of interest" and "suspect" should not be used interchangeably, I don't think. A person of interest, I believe, is one step below "suspect". Of course, there are media outlets that are ignorant to that.
But a good example of the difference between the two labels is within the Yale killing. The police made it clear that the lab tech was a "person of interest" NOT a suspect, at first. And it seems that they did not even release his name until (behind the scenes) they felt that had enough evidence to lable him a suspect. While he was still a person of interest (for all of a day or two) when his name was released, I am willing to bet off the record for the police he was very much a suspect. Again, a tactic was relesing his name in the hopes that the pressure of the media would get to him. (The police admitted that).
I understand your perspective. I also don't think that the police and FBI are stupid, so there is no need to emphasize that.
The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) (the RCMP are equivalent to the FBI) and police only release the name of a suspect to the media if they are a dangerous person or ran away from the RCMP and police during an investigation.
I guess... In Canada our laws surrounding crime and what journalists information can and can't report, are much different than American laws.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that... And I am finding this quite fascinating
Oh, no please don't be offended by my emphasis on the police not being stupid. I meant it more in the way that the police more often than not are very calculating in some respects.
As for Canada, remember the crime rates there are nothing compared to here. I heard somewhere that most Candadians don't even lock their doors. Not locking one's door in the U.S. is not very smart, overall. This is one of the most crime ridden countries unfortunately. ANd more importantly, one that thrives on sensationalism.
Which brings me to this point, when the media report names sometimes its bc they want a story, and they need a name behind the face to get one. I.e. doing background, interviewing relatives, etc. Drama makes for good ratings.
The bottom line is there are many different factors at work when it comes to releasing some names and not releasing others. We may never know all of the reasons. But it is interesting how what is acceptable differs in different countries. Even ones that border each other.
I think that the FBI and subsequently the newspapers, acted very irresponsibly in releasing the name of Dr. Hatfill.They relied on information from Dr. Rosenberg ,which apparently was just malicious, unsubstantiated gossip.I am not even sure why they considered her to be a cedible advisor, as she is a scientist not a criminologist.
Releasing Dr. Hatfill's name and nobody else who was a "person of interest" before confirming all the facts, ultimatly resulted in his lose of jobs, and depracation of his character.This unethicsl and irresponsible reporting should not be allowed.Government agencies and the news media, have a responsibility not to print stories that are based on gossip and innuendo.Certainly not when people's careers, livlihood and reputation are at stake.
Another intersesting hypothesis is that because this happened at such a incredibly fragile time in our history ,coming directly after 9/11,the FBI and the press , may have felt that people needed a specific suspect.The unknown is sometimes very unsettling.Whatever the motivation or impedence , these are inexusable practices from the FBI and the press.
alex,I didn't say that the person responsible could not be associated with a terrorist group.I said that the FBI and the press possibly needed to have a specific suspect, which could conceivably make the public feel somewhat safer.Knowing , one person may be responsible can be comforting.Not knowing who, what ,where and why are unsettling.
In addition Dr. Hatfill received a settlement of 4.6 million dollars from the government , although they never admitted their guilt.I think awarding this kind of settlement is some acknowledgement that they were responsible for his decline.
Hi Ladies,
You've both had a lot to say about this, and you've been respectful to each other. But I think it's time to move on. Thanks!
Post a Comment