Connect: Whether or not Steve Wright, the 48-year-old man charged with the Suffolk murders, is guilty, he's destroyed anyway because of media coverage of the case.
Within hours of his arrest on Tuesday, December 19th, his name was broadcast and printed. Never before have I seen a case in which the names of police suspects were so routinely published and discussed by the media.
First, there was 37-year-old Tom Stephens and there's no point concealing his name now. Within minutes of his arrest the day before Wright, his name, photograph and house were broadcast. Even pictures of his mother's house were screened. The former special constable has a MySpace page on the internet that yielded daft pictures of him in silly hats and with a foolish face.
He gave an interview to the Sunday Mirror on December 17th. He acknowledged that he was "a friend of all the girls . . . but I don't have any alibis". He also said he could be arrested in connection with their murders as he fits the profile of the absurdly-named "Ipswich Ripper" (in this case the victims were strangled) but strenuously denies any involvement in the women's deaths.
When Wright was arrested and taken into custody, the Sun carried a page one poster-sized photograph of him. Again, it invoked the "Ripper" tag, asking whether the face of Wright was that "of the Ripper".
What if he had not subsequently been charged? Even as it is, can he possibly be given a fair trial? Has coverage of the case not hugely diminished that possibility?
There are always problems when stories are driven by journalistic irresponsibility. In the Suffolk case, however, it's arguable that the vastly increased availability of information through the internet was the prime driver. Thus the liberties taken in reporting on suspects were, it can be argued, always likely to enter the public domain through identities posted on a website or blog.
So, the internet can be cited as a principal reason for the routine identification of suspects. Competition for scoops - names, dates, places - further guarantees suspects will be identified as quickly as possible.
In that sense, technology and competition are driving the new openness. However, in assuming that suspects have no rights, this openness may yet have dire consequences.
It's fraught territory, of course. Trial by media is certainly not ideal. Then again, trial by law hasn't always covered itself in glory either. Just a few names - Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, OJ Simpson - remind us of such questionable cases. Arguing that increased publicity attaching to mere suspects doesn't really matter because of the slowness of Britain's legal system misses the point.
That point is not simply whether a suspected person can have a fair trial.
Mud sticks - and even if it doesn't prejudice a trial, it devastates future life. Already we know that Stephens is quoted as saying he believes women don't like him, that in visiting prostitutes he's been a less than ideal partner and that in many ways he's a misfit. However, these characteristics, though unappealing, are not criminal.
Anyway, would you give Stephens a job now? He seems like a sad case but, no doubt, there are sad cases in jobs throughout Britain and Ireland, indeed throughout the world. Nonetheless, would you give him a job? Very few would, because of his notoriety and stated involvement with the murdered Suffolk women - whether central, tangential or innocent in their demise.
Throughout the case, it became clearer we live in a world in which the average British or Irish person leaves a huge data "footprint". Stephens, for instance, had a personal website. His credit-card transactions could establish patterns of spending. Then there are hours upon hours of CCTV footage from multiple cameras. In that sense, technology is both a liberator and an oppressor.
It's fair enough that technology, including cameras, should be used in criminal cases. In a Big Brother world, however, behaviour can be monitored. Even acknowledgment of this can be sufficient to increase societal paranoia. In a case such as the Ipswich murders, any paranoia generated by increased surveillance can be justified on the grounds of catching a killer.
But that is not always the case. The change in reporting rules generated by the Suffolk murders may be seen as vindicating media coverage. Sooner or later, however, there will be another Birmingham Six. The public, the police and the media will scream for vengeance and the wrong person or people will be arrested. What then? Doesn't matter? What if it's you? Might it matter then? But you don't kill prostitutes, use drugs or even go kerb-crawling. There's no reason to arrest you. Fair enough. But there was no reason to arrest and charge many people in what subsequently proved to be miscarriages of justice. Assuming that suspects have no rights whatsoever is a Guantánamo Bay attitude and is fascist in its nature.
That is the problem. Persons whom a politician or the police might like to see trashed can always be arrested in connection with some crime or other. We know there are bent politicians and bent coppers among us. In Ipswich the police may well have got their man, but in future . . . ?