By Lucie Robson
There are specific occasions, under media law, when journalists are barred from referring to the identity of anyone connected to a crime. One instance is when someone is the victim of a sexual crime. They have lifelong anonymity. Only under very complicated circumstances can the media identify such a person by name or inference.
Other instances include a ban on naming minors and juveniles and, in special circumstances, adult witnesses testifying at criminal court proceedings. Any anonymity is implemented to protect vulnerable or potentially vulnerable people. This sometimes means not naming suspects or convicted criminals.
I also don’t think the media should refer to anyone’s identity unless it is necessary to a report. This is on ethical, not legal grounds.
This is why, the regular media appearance of the name of a notorious criminal locked up in Nicosia since 1994 for two brutal rapes and murders fair incenses me.
From behind bars, he has been party to other crimes such as the grave robbing of former President, Tassos Papadopoulos and recently informed police about the location of the weapon used in connection with the killing of a mother and her daughter in Paphos last December.
It begs the question; didn’t he get enough limelight the first time round?
Allegedly, this notorious Nicosia murderer lent a fellow convict a mobile phone then eavesdropped on a conversation during which he allegedly heard him speak to someone about moving the gun used in the Paphos killing then allegedly proposed some tangled up plan to get the prime suspect for the crime off the hook.
Not only do I find this all very confusing, the appearance of the word allegedly 20 million times in this recent coverage makes me doubt the credibility of what I am reading.
But the worst thing is having to read the name of this well-known murderer being held in the capital’s prison in accounts when it really isn’t necessary.
What’s wrong with just saying ‘a fellow inmate of Nicosia prison has aided police in locating the murder weapon’?
Who cares who it is? Is the mention of the name of someone so notorious supposed to add some glamour?
Yes I am criticising the media and I am part of it but the media largely gives the public what it wants. Is there an unhealthy fascination with this toe rag?
I have even seen him referred to as a genius in some quarters. He is not a genius. He is a sociopath/ psychopath who put two people through lord knows what while raping and murdering them.
I don’t think anyone should forget that.
As both a reporter and someone who reads papers I’d rather see everything about him, including his name, kept behind bars.