Press Council reprimands Blick for naming quadruple murderer of Rupperswil

The Press Council has approved two complaints against the two media. They had mentioned the surname of the quadruple murderer in the aftermath of the appeal process in the Rupperswil case from mid-December 2018.

In articles published on December 14, the two media argued why they wanted to call the quadruple murderer by his full name from now on. For one thing, his defense had given the surname after the conclusion of the appeal trial the day before, which meant that the same right applied to the public. Secondly, the name had been abbreviated for far too long, and the perpetrator had forfeited his right to protection of personality. Furthermore, a pixelated picture of the quadruple murderer in the police car was also published.

The Press Council does not dispute that the quadruple murder in Rupperswil was an exceptionally serious crime. There was also a great public interest in the case and therefore also in the murderer.

However, this is not to be equated with an overriding public interest in identifying confessional reporting. In the assessment of the Press Council, there is no such interest. A murderer and his relatives who are affected by the court report have a right to protection of their privacy, regardless of the heinousness of the act, writes the Press Council. The person concerned must not be identified as a matter of principle.

The Press Council welcomed the decision of all the Swiss media, including the Blicksto consistently abbreviate the surname until the appeal process. This would have shown consideration for a possible, admittedly rather theoretical resocialization and especially for the family of the quadruple murderer.

Reporting through Dec. 13, 2018, shows that informing the public about the resolution of a felony or a related court ruling does not necessarily have to imply identifying reporting.

With the naming would have View and Blick.ch unnecessarily pilloried the murderer and thus his family. None of the exceptions listed in the Journalists' Code, which would allow naming or identifying reporting, had been met. The editorial team had thus violated the journalists' code.

With the picture of the perpetrator in the police car had Blick.ch on the other hand, his privacy was barely violated. The face had been only small and indistinctly recognizable, also because the rearview mirror of the car had covered a part of it. Thus the quadruple murderer was hardly identifiable. (SDA)