The family themselves are going to turn that funeral into a circus on Saturday
I am not going to discuss the details of what the parents of the dead said on Bondi+ this evening, because it would be completely out of order.
I will only say that I can’t understand why Mr Xuereb keeps talking, why he has publicised the fact that his daughter will ‘speak for the first time’ at the funeral mass, and why that funeral mass is being held on a Saturday, as though for maximum attendance and publicity.
It is coming across really very badly, and does not help discourage the gossip they are complaining about.
I can just picture the sort of distasteful media circus that’s going to be made out of the funeral, but it is almost as though they want it to be that way with all this talk of star turns by the survivor.
He should never have made a point of telling Bondi+ that his daughter was interrogated for three hours, and that she refused to have a lawyer with her.
Nobody has a lawyer with them during interrogation. It isn’t allowed. It’s not a matter of choice. You are merely allowed to consult a lawyer before being interrogated, that’s all.
These are the sort of things that feed speculation, and they should stop. The more you speak to the media in these situations, the less genuine you look, and people pick on the details.
Individuals in a situation like this should not court the limelight, because they have nothing to sell and nothing to gain. They should shun it.
The court of public opinion is not a substitute for the real process of justice. Public opinion comes into play only when there is a risk of the miscarriage of justice.
There is no risk here that anyone is going to be framed for a murder they didn’t commit.
I think Mrs Zammit Xuereb is very ill-advised to speak at her husband’s funeral, and her father was even more ill-advised to have pointedly promoted the fact on a television show. She is in no fit state to be making decisions of that nature.
She hasn’t been seen or heard since the deaths, and the salivating media are going to pounce. I hope that this is not what they want, that this is a genuinely poor decision on their part and not a calculated one.
Why would anyone think it is a good idea to speak before the nation’s massed cameras at one’s husband’s funeral, especially when the circumstances of his death are so macabre and still under investigation?
Is there nobody close to the family who can advise caution, silence and circumspection?
The programme itself, despite the apprehension of so many, was decent and drove home the point that we know nothing and that much of what has been said and published so far is wild speculation.
But Eddie Attard was wrong when he said that this is the first time a man was killed in his own home in Sliema. It certainly is not.
Peter Jones – who was Maltese, incidentally – was found savaged to death in his home in Amery Street, a corner away from where I grew up, in 1997. The circumstances of his death were quite horrendous. His throat was slit and he was stabbed repeatedly, and his body lay undiscovered at home for days. The killer wasn’t, as I recall, ever found.
I don’t remember there being such a big fuss about it – perhaps because there was no internet. I’ll bet that few of my readers even remember the murder. It’s telling that it slipped even Eddie Attard’s mind.
I mention this because it is a useful and timely illustration of how even ‘facts’ straight from the mouth of respected experts, said on the record to the camera, are sometimes incorrect.
What, then, are we to say of the reams of ‘facts’ from anonymous sources?
34 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
This time I have to disagree.
In the Court of the Media, you’re guilty until proven innocent.
And here and now I take the liberty to quote Mark Twain —
”There are two times in a man’s life when he should not speculate:… when he can’t afford it, and when he can.”
My thoughts exactly. Public opinion must be really Important for them.
Friday, 6 January, 08.00h
I have just watched yesterday’s Bondi+ programme, which featured the tragedy that occurred on New Year’s Day in Malta.
I agree with Daphne’s remarks up to following paragraph:
quote: [The programme itself, despite the apprehension of so many, was decent and drove home the point that we know nothing and that much of what has been said and published so far is wild speculation.]
Now, I am aware that Lou Bondi and Daphne often synergistically agree on many issues. I allow myself to be certain that Lou Bondi will most probably read this thread.
Hence, Lou might help me to understand, within the framework of the ongoing (forensic) discussion, what the exact difference, legal or otherwise, between “thesis”, “option/s” (words, which he personally used in his programme) and speculation might be.
Moreover, Daphne, the way Lou’s female assistant questioned Mr. Xuereb was no less than specific enticement to further (one-sided) speculation. Nonetheless, I agree with you that Mr. Xuereb’s behaviour is ill-advised and that it seems to make further criminal investigation superfluous.
On a concluding note, Lou Bondi also personally stated that Ms. Zammit Xuereb will be speaking publicly in church on Saturday.
What a country!
Confronted by the media, what is there to do? Keep silent, and the media will interpret this as having a lot to hide.
Talk openly, as Anglu Xuereb is doing, and his daughter will do, and the media will interpret this as “seeking publicity”. In the Facebook era that we live in, I think that the second option is the lesser of two evils.
[Daphne – You are quite wrong. Dignity and silence are always the better options, and people who maintain a dignified silence in their grief invariably come out the better for it. Besides, there is such a thing as protesting too much. It rings alarm bells.]
Remembering what the Mccain couple said regarding their relationship with the press a few months ago, I have to say that courting them in the hope that they treat you with respect is like throwing carrots at a fiery dragon hoping to appease it.
Mr Xuereb likes the limelight and thinks he is bigger than the amorphous mass he’s facing.
The media is a circus looking for consumers to profit on, where the editor and the mailman are on performance reviews. There’s no morality or restraint. After all it’s business and success comes first and foremost.
Very well said. Totally in agreement with your point of view as regards the media.
If anyone wants to watch a film that tackles the manipulation of the media I advise you to watch Mad City with Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta.
Surely one can notice a lot of common aspects regarding this film and this unfortunate incident an incident, that has turned into a media saga. A media saga that has been partly fueled (as rightly claimed in this article) by members of the family of the murdered duo.
[Daphne – By one family only, actually, and let’s not forget that there are three families involved here and not two. The Zammits and the Xuerebs are two separate families, not one homogenous mass.]
During yesterday’s bondi+, I was utterly disgusted by Lou Bondi himself, whilst attacking the rest of the media for improper behaviour, presenting himself as a cut above the rest, he himself took advantage of the present vulnerable state of mind of the victims’ relatives to create sensationalism himself. Fr Savio’s homily was directed to all media, Bondi included.
[Daphne – I don’t think the programme was at all sensational. I do have great trouble, though, with filming at funerals. Nothing can be done about filming in the street, but media filming in church should be banned by the church itself, consent of the relatives regardless. I don’t think the families involved are in a position, at a time like that, to work out that they shouldn’t be agreeing to anything of the sort, or that they don’t have to sit at a funeral grieving with a camera trained on their face, if they don’t want to. ]
The family has every right to ask the cameraman to leave the church and not film inside. Unfortunately during such a difficult moment they are not thinking or probably even aware of this and the media abuses of it.
Alternatively there are some families who would have no problem with being filmed.
The default position should be that people with cameras should not be allowed to wander about inside a church.
That is already the standard practised by the Church during other community events such as weddings, christenings, first holy communion and confirmation.
Why are funerals the exception?
Mr Xuereb’s immediate, frequent and continued comments to the press might have been what triggered this frenzy in the first place. What fuelled it further, of course, was the typical wealth-envy.
The unscrupulous and unprofessional then pushed the whole affair down to disgusting tabloid levels.
But it was Mr Xuereb’s handling of the tragedy from the start that caused people – even decent people who are not normally comfortable with sitting in judgement or poking their noses into others’ private business – to voice questions and doubts (not necessarily in public) that his comments themselves begged.
Of course, Mr Xuereb must have felt he was doing the right thing by his daughter, and I sympathise, but he can’t have realised that this was not the sort of media exercise that a normal entrepreneur is accustomed to handling, perhaps at the launch of a new project, to offset some environmentalist lobby.
This was uncharted territory.
The wisest and most dignified approach would have been not to comment at all, and to ask that the families’ grief and privacy be respected.
The police could then have carried on with their investigations unhindered, the media wouldn’t have had anything much to pick on after the first couple of days and only if it ever came to a court case would the facts (by then established) be disclosed.
He can’t do that now.
But he could be in time to halt further degeneration of this sad state of affairs, before the funeral on Saturday; if anything, to avoid further slips of the tongue that have not gone totally unnoticed.
I agree with you Maryanne and think, like Daphne already pointed out, that Mr. Xuereb ” doth protest too much “.
I’m not looking forward to Saturday and in fact, I refuse to watch any of it.
Daphne, brava! My thoughts exactly.
I agree with DCG on every point in her article but have reservations on the issue of Mr. Xuereb being “ill-advised”.
I do not know him personally but I get the impression that Mr. Xuereb is the kind of man takes advice from nobody.
I could be totally wrong of course.
For all the good intentions, Bondiplus backfired royally. The forensic expert, when giving his objective examination of the motive and autopsy results – mentioned the possibility of a homosexual liaison between the two men – twice.
Let’s call a spade a spade. Even if this liaison were true, it would not detract anything from the horror and pain unleashed by these two deaths. However, this liaison is what is fuelling this circus (a sadistic pleasure in speculating on the “depravity” of the two men).
Of course, Mr. Bondi cannot control what his guests say, nor can the guests be chastised for giving their professional opinion on the matter. However, the end result is that this “depravity theory” may be seen by many as having been “certified” by the forensic expert.
Mr. Bondi took a gamble at the victims’ expense. He should have steered away from the subject altogether.
Please re-check rights on having an lawyer with you or not…. you can have a look at Franco Debono’s website .. it is law that you have the option.
[Daphne – You are quite wrong. You NOT allowed a lawyer during interrogation. If you want to know the law, check the law, not Franco Debono’s website. You are only offered the option of consulting one an hour or so BEFORE interrogation. You go into the interrogation room alone and are left with two interrogating officers, one of whom must be a woman if you are a woman yourself.]
‘Interrogation’ is not used by police in the UK but ‘questioning’.
Interrogation has a negative connotation. They use interrogation in Malta because the police are brutal and uncouth.
My take on the issue of this whole media circus – http://melahart.com/2012/01/05/the-zammit-gera-media-circus/
Here in Italy, where sadly journlists have a field day everytime a homicide is committed, I have noticed that the amount of media exposure sought by surviving family members is usually directly proportionate to the “dirt” which the same are trying to sweep under the rug,
The Meredith Kercher / Amanda Knox case springs to mind. The family of the former kept a more-or-less dignified approach in the face of all they were faced with, despite their grief; meanwhile, the family of the latter created a whole rumpus. Unfortunately, they got their way in the end.
Speculations are for spectators. Attending a funeral mass is to show respect with dignity for the deceased.
This particular heading seems to be made for spectators rather then the other way round.
[Daphne – Maltese funerals are mainly attended by spectators, not mourners. Unfortunately, and this is the point of my post here, the Xuereb family (as distinct from the Zammits, who appear nowhere) are coming across as though they want to make as great a show of the funeral as possible, by holding it off until Saturday, announcing even the entrance gate to the cemetery for the actual burial, in the death notice, when this is generally considered the most private moment and strictly for immediate family and the closest friends, and putting out an announcement on Bondi+ last night that the widow will ‘speak for the first time’ at the funeral. I find this behaviour appalling and in direct conflict with the request for silence. They are more or less inviting the press to turn up to the show and even to film and photograph the burial, something which – as far as I can recall – has never been done before and let’s hope to goodness it doesn’t start now. I realise now that they do have media handlers because their statements are being released by an advertising agency rather than a lawyer or family spokesman (inappropriate, I believe). This is an appeal to those media handlers: the best advice you can give your client is to maintain a dignified silence and better still, to have a private funeral, which appears to be an alien concept on this benighted island where even funerals are occasions for show and spectacle.]
Dear Daphne
I am a member of the extended family, the extent of our family is vast. This month happen to meet other important dates for us, to which one’s comments should reflect such delicate moments for all concerned. kindly reflect these thoughts in this regard.
[Daphne – Yes, I know you. And I am glad you are reading this. My comments are well meant: you should advise Mr Xuereb to stop talking, that no cameras should be permitted at the funeral, and that his daughter should not speak. They appear to be courting publicity, even if they are not doing so intentionally, and when you court publicity, the publicity you get is not necessarily the publicity you want. Dignified silence is the best option in this case. There is a huge wave of sympathy for everyone involved in this tragedy, but there is a risk that the sympathy will be dispelled and turned into something much uglier if people feel they are being manipulated by announcements that the widow will be speaking at the funeral, that the babies will be there, that the entrance to the cemetery has been announced, and so on. People could, and do, interpret this kind of thing as a blatant play for their emotions. I feel I must add, however tactless it might sound here, that the anniversaries of the Xuereb family which might also be commemorated this month are irrelevant. The man who died was not a Xuereb but a Zammit, and it is his family who claims him, not his wife’s.]
Spot on, Daphne, especially with your comment about so-called “expert” Eddie Attard and his complete obliteration of the Peter Jones case, by stating so convincingly as fact that the New Year’s Day case was the first wherein a person was murdered in their own home in Sliema.
Mr Xuereb said on television that his daughter will be taking her babies to the funeral. He must know that this is a magnetic attraction for television cameras and photographers, because it is a powerful image.
I have great respect for Lou Bondi for he is truly a cut above the rest in his profession.
But I feel that yesterday’s programme, much as he tried to keep it from veering to sensationalism, jarred in places.
I would have preferred if he had steered away from interviewing family members.
As a journalist, Mr Bondi might have thought that since they are eager to talk, he is only offering them a platform to do so. He would have shown his calibre (as he has done so consistently) had he not done the same thing everyone is doing in feeding the beast.
Daphne, All your posts on this tragedy were spot on. Well done.
I do hope that the Xuereb family avoids having the funeral turned into a media circus out of respect to the other families and to themselves. In particular, Mrs. Zammit Xuereb should NOT talk at the funeral.
In my opinion, despite Lou Bondi’s best efforts to convince us to the contrary, yesterday’s show was his own installment of the sensationalisation (if that’s a word) of this tragedy.
As already noted in some other comments above, Dr Abela Medici’s expert opinion helped fuel some of the speculation that’s been doing the rounds.
Furthermore, your and Fr Savio’s advice for all concerned to be silent and to grant the families concerned the necessary silence to grieve in the face of this tragedy, was clearly ignored by Lou who no doubt encouraged the family members (Mr Anglu Xuereb and, to a lesser extent, Ms Tanya Gera) to speak on camera.
Eddie Attard also said that most homicides in Sliema involved foreigners and could not recall any Maltese being killed in Sliema.
I think that the recent case of the elderly lady who was robbed at her doorstep of her Sliema home and later succumbed to injuries (which must classify as a homicide) must have slipped his mind.
You are mentioning another case as well re Peter Jones, which makes it 2 cases involving Maltese.
A couple of years ago Parish Priests received instructions from the Archbishop’s Curia on the conduct of funeral mass.
One of the points dealt with was exactly the address to the congregation by members of the family of the deceased or other members of the congregation.
Parish priests were instructed not to allow any such addresses.
Instead, should the family so request, the celebrant can convey a message of thanks and appreciation to those present. This is how it should be done.
That is a sober idea; otherwise the church would turn into a circus.
Mc, who are you to say whether she should or should not speak at her husband’s funeral?
She is saying bye to her beloved Duncan. And she is bringing the babies as she will not leave them alone!
Do you not know what a trauma this girl is under, what she witnessed?
Daphne and all you miserable people who have nothing better to do than to misinterpret everything Mr Xuereb has tried to do, he is protecting his daughter and the deceased from all these horrible lies that has been spoken about.
[Daphne – He is actually making things worse, ED, and that is what is being discussed here, given that I have banned from this blog all speculation about the case itself. Church rules dictate that family members are not allowed to speak at funerals, but that is not the reason that Claire should not. It is most unwise, that’s all. And the babies should be kept out of it. A funeral is no place for three-month-old infants.]
Would you not do the same for your child? I know I would. The media has forced him into doing so as they have been malicious and cruel to say the least. Whatever the family do, if they don’t speak , you would all be, but why are they not talking?
[Daphne – Not at all. On the contrary. The Gera family are not doing the same, nor is Duncan Zammit’s family, and everybody accepts that because it is the normal thing. People in grief run away from the press, not court it.]
If they speak, why are they talking? You would find fault in whatever they do! The family know the truth of that horrific morning.
[Daphne – They no more know the truth than anyone else does, ED. This is very difficult to accept, but accept it you must. You know only what you are told.]
Just thank God that Gera did not choose your home to enter and savagely attack you!
[Daphne – That is an unacceptable statement. You do not know how he came to be there, and you do not know who attacked who. Nor do you know that his presence there was random. And this is why, besides other reasons, silence is best.]
As this was definitely a random attack, a case of being in the wrong house at the wrong time!
[Daphne – You have no grounds for reaching that conclusion. As a member of the extended family, it is the conclusion you prefer. This does not make it fact. Until the facts are laid out, it is best not to draw conclusions.]
Why is it so hard for the Maltese to believe that we had a psychopath living among us.
[Daphne – I think you forget, ED, that the fact that you didn’t know Nicholas Gera does not mean that nobody else knew him. And that is why they might have a different view. You have no grounds for claiming that he was a psychopath. You will not even know whether he attacked, rather than being attacked, unless the forensic investigations and the autotopsy yield conclusive results. This is not to suggest anything untoward, but merely to remind you of something I wrote about in my column yesterday: that we shouldn’t assume anything because we just don’t know.]
The aggressor was not Maltese, but a kid who was exposed to the horrors of war and brought here to find a better life, but who definitely needed psychological help and obviously never got it!
[Daphne – He was Maltese, ED. There is no such thing as ‘Maltese blood’. You do not know his background or whether he needed psychological help and got or didn’t get it. His family background is in fact excellent.]
The police have no links and there is no other explanation!
[Daphne – ED, the police do not tell anyone what they have and haven’t got, and certainly not the families of suspects. Please remember that Mrs Zammit Xuereb is officially still a suspect by default. This was carefully and tactfully explained by Dr Abela Medici on Bondi+. As for there being no other explanation, I have three sisters to whom I am very close and I can’t claim to know who their friends and contacts are. I know some of their friends, mainly those they’ve know for years, but certainly not all. There is no way you can know whether Mr Gera was known to Mr Zammit or not.]
Is it not enough that the family have to go through this terrible loss and also have to deal with all the lies the media are saying. I urge the police to come forward and put out a proper TRUE statement.
[Daphne – Yes, I agree with you that the lies and speculation are terrible, but you yourself are guilty of doing the same thing with all that you have said about Nicholas Gera. It works both ways. Nobody should say anything. You are wrong to urge the police to face the press if you imagine this will make things better for the families. It will make things worse. At a press conference, you cannot control the questions, or even the answers.]
I fully agree that Bondi+ was a programme which was well conducted in a very professional way with a strong message against speculation.
I am also confused by the way Mr Xuereb is reacting.
He is giving interviews to everyone who requests them. This is completely inappropriate because it’s a fact that very little is known about this murder.
It may well be that Mr Xuereb believes that he is duty bound to react to insinuations against his family.
Regretfully his reaction is only serving to fuel further allegations and speculation.
In a moment of grief and stress silence is the best approach.
Who in his right frame of mind would talk to the press after such a tragic event? This is beyond foolish. The Maltese wear their hearts on their sleeves. Mr Xuereb is misguided and naive.
You are right Daphne – the church should ban TV cameras inside the church during the funeral.