QUESTION: There has been an online article about this case in the Daily Mail since 2016, reporting that Joseph’s partner was gagged and bound when she was 15 years old. Having read your memoir, Opinion Over Truth, it seems clear that the Daily Mail reporter’s account of the case was inaccurate.
I believe the newspaper should be sued for defamation. It is particularly concerning to report that she was gagged with a Fifty Shades costume in 2014, after watching the Fifty Shades film that was not released until 2015.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this Daily Mail article to our attention. This is precisely the kind of reporting that needs to be identified and examined against the actual court record rather than simply accepted because it has been repeated online for years.
Having reviewed the article against the case chronology documented in Opinion Over Truth, we have identified serious concerns about the way the allegations, evidence, convictions and acquittals were presented, particularly the apparent association of the “bound and gagged” narrative with the period when Joseph’s partner was 15.
There are also chronological issues surrounding the references to Fifty Shades of Grey and the film, together with other statements attributed to Joseph and to the prosecution which we consider to be materially inaccurate or misleading when compared with the underlying case record.
The publication’s representation of Joseph’s exchanges with the criminal prosecutor during his testimony does not accurately reflect the factual context in which those words were spoken. The wording attributed to him, and the corresponding statements attributed to the prosecution, cannot properly be understood in isolation from the questions being asked, the evidence under discussion, and the sequence in which the exchanges occurred. The newspaper narrative therefore presents an interpretation of those exchanges that does not accurately reproduce their factual meaning or context. This part will be explored extensively in upcoming Volume 3 or Volume 4 of ‘Opinion Over Truth’.
We are now taking formal action to bring clarity to this reporting.
A Letter of Claim has been issued with immediate effect to the Daily Mail / Associated Newspapers Limited, requiring the publisher to address the disputed reporting, identify the sources relied upon, correct any materially inaccurate or misleading statements, and provide an appropriate remedy for the reputational harm caused.
The purpose is not to prevent legitimate reporting of a criminal case. It is to ensure that what was alleged, what was put in evidence, what was acquitted, and what was actually proved by conviction are not presented as though they were all the same thing.
The false or misleading narratives surrounding this case have been repeated in numerous places over the years. That is why we encourage people who encounter material that appears inconsistent with the actual case record to alert us rather than simply accepting a narrative because somebody else has already published it.
Every such report helps us identify where clarification is required and allows the underlying documents and chronology to be examined.
Thank you again for bringing this particular article to our attention.
Back to 👇