7 February 2008

Porritt family assaulted by 6 camera men @Supreme Court

| FG
Join the conversation
65

Blocking their path forward and lying on the ground to film up the two passing daughter’s dresses were tactics used to incite the Porritt family as they exited the Supreme Court.

The Porritt’s were shielding their faces with umbrellas. When Mr Porritt’s unmbrella touched a blocking camera a call went out “Right buddy, that’s assault”. Promptly Mr Porritt was knocked to the ground by the press to trigger a series of compromising photos.

Is this civilised?

[Ed. FG sent in a previous artcile here. Proving however that there are two sides to every set of events, ABC Online have this angle on Keith Porritt attacking a Cameramen with an umbrella.]

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

On this, I have to have the last word (or, rather, few words):
Apologise? To whom? For what?

el ......VNBerlinaV87:17 pm 09 Feb 08

I guess there won’t be an apology then.

Now here, have the last word:

Yet still no argument for the media position? I must have missed my last subtle cheap shot – but I apparently launched one. Perhaps the eye of the beholder ….

el ......VNBerlinaV86:26 pm 09 Feb 08

A subtle cheap shot is still a cheap shot VP. Thanks for not disappointing with yet another. Oh to be so witty and intellectual like yourself! You must be a blast at parties.

And here, VNBetc, was I thinking that you got words. Live and learn. Our media treats us as dumb, by showing us stock pictures (eg, a picture of a house for a story about interest rates, a dry farm on a cloudless day for a story about drought) or types of picture (grieving/angry relatives of a dead person) when we all know perfectly well what those things look like. Shaun Micallef subverted this in Newstopia by cutaways to a shot of a line of cocaine being prepared.

When we are continually exposed to this level of dumbing down, we start to expect it, and then to accept it as normal. Are you suggesting that we, or some of us, really need it? My point in saying that I could understand words as well as pictures was to elicit the response that so can everybody else – and if we all can, we don’t need the visual aids of limited value and relevance that TV news offers. Even if we did, that is no reason for the media to take an obtrusive interest in a family to whom a bad thing happened.

I can think of no earthly reason the general public of Canberra need to know either what the surviving members of the Porritt family look like or how they react when provoked. If you can see a reason for it, I would appreciate whatever insight you may have. Otherwise, I have no problem with your withdrawal from this exchange.

el ......VNBerlinaV85:23 pm 09 Feb 08

I write as one who can understand words as well as pictures.

There’s the arrogance. Your words VP, not mine.

And basically, you feel that you can speak for the public, and what constitutes ‘public interest’, but I can’t. Gotcha. There’s no point in me continuing to converse with you.

Enjoy the view from your high horse.

FC “As far as my previous post goes – I was told that that was the case that there wasn’t any evidence (at that stage) and believed that was the case.”

Who told you? The tooth fairy? Did you honestly think that charges would be laid without any evidence and Police were just speculating? Seems to me to be a clear case where the facts were not publicly known (and rightly so) however some people are ready to cast the actions of Police in doubt anyway.

Credit where it’s due. Yes this is a tragic case for the family who appear to have deep issues but the actions of Police who come under the expertise scrutiny of RA all the time have again been spotless.

I avoid mirrors – for reasons that would be obvious. Hagrid’s larger, older, more shambling and less attractive sibling.

Ask yourself, critically and coolly, which of these three current/pending court matters raises the issues of greatest public interest. First, the Porritt case – a middle-aged woman dies with a lot of stab wounds which her son admits inflicting for reasons which allegedly come from their individual relationship. Second, the Rao case – underlying issues, relevant to a number of areas of public discourse, about alcohol/public conduct and the “tribal” issues of race and sexuality. Third the Summernats security marshall case – assessing the proper use of force by private law enforcement personnel and the value of video recording. Either of the latter trumps the first. In fact, even the recent Eastman civil litigation about retaining his public housing lease probably raises more issues of general debate than the tragic events in the Porritt family.

They’re probably sad. An we’ve all seen what sad people look like and don’t need to see any more. They’re probably angry if people get in their faces uninvited, as any of us would be, and we’ve all seen what angry people do and what they look like. The mere fact that what you call the lowest common denominator wants pictures and sound is no reason why providing the pictures and sound of these sad, provoked people to the public at large is anywhere near being in the public interest.

I am pleased that you do not see the media attention as “right”, but suggest that (if you agree with the position that it isn’t right) that you express that position, rather than purporting to speak for the undefined masses.

ps – disagreeing with an asserted but unjustified, position does not constitute arrogance; nor does any suggestion that the processes that produce such an unreasoned proposition are shallow. In fact, disagreement of that kind challenges the arrogance of the unwarranted assertion.

el ......VNBerlinaV81:34 pm 09 Feb 08

Oh, I forgot – of course you can speak for the entire ‘public’ now.

Sad as it is, the lowest common denominator has spoken – People want picture and sound, and gory/miserable detail.

Not saying it’s right, just how it is.

Your arrogance proven again with yet another attack on me. Look in the mirror once in a while, matey.

VNBetc – what makes it high profile? It looks like a common or garden sad thing within a family to me. Public interest in miserable detail – minimal. Public interest in seeing some of the poor witnesses close up – less than zero. I think you have over-estimated the space involved by a considerable margin, by the way. Any condescension on my part is justified by your regrettable shallowness.

el ......VNBerlinaV812:27 pm 09 Feb 08

Intrusive? They were what, 15-20 yards away? Then he (Porritt snr) took a running jump at one, then tried to attack the other with an umbrella. Like I said, it’s a high profile murder case in Canberra. We (thankfully) don’t have many of those, of course there’s going to be media interest.

You can keep your condescending tone to yourself, too. The arrogance you display here is astonishing at times.

HawkEyeRadio/Thumper – agree.
VNBerlina etc – didn’t see your comment until just now. Cameramen just doing their job? Come off it – if their job requries them to be intrusive, offensive and provocative, whether they are mainstream news or scummy paparazzi, we should be asking whether the job needs doing at all. I write as one who can understand words as well as pictures.

HawkEyeRadio9:06 am 09 Feb 08

Apology from Porritt Snr received by media yesterday:

“I apologise to any cameraman adversely impacted by my actions when I left the Supreme Court on Wednesday after an extremely stressful day. I experienced unfamiliar blind panic. My memory of it remains incomplete. I recall finding my way blocked by an unyielding cameraman. I had a wall to the right, pillars and people to the left and my daughter was coming up behind me on the pathway. I felt a panic of being trapped. I apologise for kicking out. I apologise for hitting a man on the neck with the umbrella, although I don’t recall it. I recall falling on to my back on the concrete path and assumed I was pushed. I guess I flailed the umbrella about trying to break free. I recall running freely across the lawn to my car and everything from then on.

Please respect our privacy.

My wife loved her children deeply.

Keith Porritt”

These people are really just an ordinary family hit by bad karma. Perhaps we should all be glad it’s not us.

I’m referring to the original story by FG, not your comments FC. Probably should have made that clearer. Carry on.

hingo – if you are referring to me – I never reported any friggin story.
I only ever commented on stories. And I am entitled to my opinion.

As far as my previous post goes – I was told that that was the case that there wasn’t any evidence (at that stage) and believed that was the case. Obviously my opinion has changed now reading the reports.

But from the people I have spoken to that know Mr Porrit (snr) they have said that he is a quite and unassuming type and loves everyone in his family.
I think it would be a difficult position to be in and of course you would want to support your child no matter what they did and you would also want to protect your other children from having their faces all over the media and being further vilifed.

Maybe you should learn how to analyse a situation and report it correctly. The original story is absolute crap and should be edited to say so.

Hey – I didn’t post this story…Maybe you guys should learn to read.
“FG” posted the story… no relation there either.

How about a RA flash back:

Comment by FC — 20 July, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Police haven’t got any leads (or any evidence on Glen) and just need to point the finger at someone.

Father sounds as bad as the mother, feel sorry for the girls, but their story seems to have changed from “he would never do such a thing” to “she made me do it”. Be hard to see an excuse for stabbing her 57 times though, mental health reasons will be raised a lot by the looks of it.

It’s pretty obvious that the cameraman who was crouching down was only trying to get photos of the Porritt’s under their umbrellas, certainly not up skirts. That claim is entirely ludicrous. It would appear to me that MR Porritt charged the cameramen and fell on his arse.

An unpleasant situation for everyone involved.

el ......VNBerlinaV88:49 pm 07 Feb 08

Exactly. Should we expect an apology?

It’s pretty obvious that this entire post was designed to be self-serving for FC. Now that it’s back-fired they are on the defensive.

el ......VNBerlinaV88:30 pm 07 Feb 08

What a load a shit. It’s a high profile murder case in Canberra VicePope. The cameramen (who it’s quite clearly shown were attacked by Porritt senior) were just doing their jobs.

If there was no coverage people would be pissing and moaning about the ineffective media in Canberra.

Yah – I hope that is rivetting stuff with a large dose of sarcasm – You’d think the reporter would have worked out his questions about detail were not going to be answered.

OMG scumdorg. What a ridiculous thing to say.
please enlighten me as to how this family were harbouring a killer when the accused has been in police custody for about 12 months…

And also please enlighten us all as to why the family should “rot in hell” for something one member of the family did.

Holden Caulfield4:07 pm 07 Feb 08

I think we should all pass the hat around and buy Mr Porritt a new umbrella to replace the one he broke yesterday.

Come off it. The Porritt family has been harbouring a killer. The idea that they should be immune from media scrutiny is abhorrent but not as abhorrent as killing your own mother. May the Porritt family rot in hell.

apologies for that – can mods please fix it or update FAQ info to be clear on how to post a link on this site. Thank you.

A quick read of the trancript of the December 2005 interview between a journalist and Detective Superintendent Leanne Close of the AFP is rivetting stuff. Here is the URL (link button no where to be found on my screen??)

http://www.afp.gov.au/media/act_media/interview_transcripts/interview_transcripts/media_conference_-_detective_superintendent_leanne_close,_chapman_homicide,_22_december,_2005

I support the latest comments by Hingo and Sepi. The trial is of some limited public interest, but let the living victims of the alleged offence be so they can resume whatever quiet lives they have left and pick up what pieces they can find.

We don’t need the ABC or the Canbera Times or anyone else to show us what they look like, or refer to their demeanour outside court, whether or not the media did the stupid provocative things that have been alleged. We do need the current review of privacy law to get the Privacy Act amended so it inhibits gross and intrusive media behaviour.

The daughters don’t come across as being that sad to see their mother gone; in fact they’ve been more supportive of their brother.

Funny, but he allegedly told the Police he wanted to kill them all!

They have pretty much lost their brother too.

I’m just glad there are two sisters and I hope they can support each other through this.

I have to laugh at the original story while watching the video. Quite an imagination you have there FC. IN this case, the media were simply doing there job. Maybe its about time we got a full time RiotACT photographer on the street to cover these events so we can get proper witness accounts.

There are children here that have lost a mother, the man has lost his wife, yet it is claimed that the mother was a hard bitch who deserved it. I doubt murder is the ideal result. The outcome will be very interesting.

I’d call it a draw on the desirability scale. But, frankly, intrusive journos and photographers deserve everything they get.

Sammy – I hadn’t seen that footage when I posted that question. My question was answered when the links were put up.

What footage are you referring to Sammy

The footage linked above where Porritt Snr charges at the ABC cameraman and stabs him with the pointy end of his umbrella, then falls over (all on his own), and then runs at another cameraman waving his umbrella wildly as he does so.

It seems pretty unambiguous to me.

The father came across as a complete tool on the news last night, especially when he fell on his arse after taking a kick at the stills photographer.

I feel so sorry for the father and daughters having to go through all this in court.

Snahons_scv6_berlina12:32 pm 07 Feb 08

very sad indeed.

Keep in mind that when you refer to this family as “feral”, “seriously odd” etc. that the two daughters have to wear it as much as the father and mother. The daughters appear innocent victims.

That footage does paint a different picture than the edited footage I previously saw.

If that’s assault, then what do you call what they did to their kids?

Growling Ferret11:27 am 07 Feb 08

I bet the family were highly religious

The footage firmly establishes FG as being full of sh*t.

Can you imagine the Canberra media-scrum…WIN TV, ABC and a Canberra Times photographer. Our own little paparazzi!

Somehow, taking pictures up skirts etc, I think this story is a furphy.

And what a feral family anyway!

I didn’t see ‘6’ cameramen. I didnt see anyone ‘lying on the ground to film up the two passing daughter’s dresses’ either. Does anyone else have or know of any other footage to support FG’s claim?

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Mr Porritt (a short time after the murder). He is one strange unit.

“That’s assault mate” Jeez what a wuss. He should be playing for the cricket team with that crybaby attitude.

The Porrit father lost his wife and his only son is accused of murdering her – I can forgive him for going a bit nuts after a harrowing day in court.

What amused me about the footage on WIN was when the media chasing Mr Porrit across the lawn, to the right of the screen you seen one of the cameramen trip over and land in the ground – chase over! lolol

Camera operators have some seriously valuable equipment to protect. They’re generally not in the habit of knocking people over to get footage. Pathetic suggestion.

Hingo, you beat me to it. Oh well, your’s is set out better anyway.

Footage available here:

It looks like the photographer was trying to get a low shot of the family, but didn’t lying on the ground to film up the two passing daughter’s dresses as FG indicates.

But to say that the cameramen incided what happened is crap. Keith Porritt tried to kick the photographer, then kicked and hit the cameraman with his umbrella. It’s looks as though Keith fell over by him self.

@ Daman;
I prefer the term ‘The Duke of Ebola’.

The video can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/02/07/2156471.htm

To me it appears Mr Porritt runs towards a cameraman, tries to kick him, then charges at another with his umbrella but falls on his arse in the process. Probably emarassed of making a dick of himself, he runs away.

The upskirting claim is just plain ridiculous. You obviously think that all cameramen should be standing perfectly upright when taking photos.

I didn’t see the footage but is it possible that it was selectively cut to push the media’s side of the story?

I’ve seen some horrendous behaviour by camera crews in the past – although the upskirting claim seems a little hard to swallow.

You have to wonder about this family. She may well have been seriously misguided in the way she thought she could achieve “wanting to make the children strong and robust and to toughen them up”, but surely he could have had a say in whether she was overstepping the mark (ie rubbing compost in the daughter’s face until her nose bled)? They are his children too and it saddens me that the children thought that neither parent was providing a safe, caring or nurturing environment. If he couldn’t answer if she loved them or not, he should have had grave concerns for their wellbeing years ago. Tragic for all involved here.

“Mr Porritt said his wife wanted to make their children strong and robust, and to toughen them up.

He said the actions she took were out of love but said he could not answer when asked if she loved them or not.”

My question is just what is to be made of the information between the lines here?

It looked to me that Mr Porrit walked into something (wall/pillar) because of an umbrella obscuring his line of sight. Having said that I would be a bit pissed off myself if I was in his situation.

I saw the footage on the news last night too – and it looked like it was the camerman who knocked Porrit Snr to the ground. As I said on my post on the other thread – you even hear the camera man apologise to Porrit Snr for it..
What footage are you referring to Sammy?

camera men and up-skirt shots for the news. Gotta love creative license.

Wow, who is the source of this information? FG, you wouldn’t happen to be trying to defend the Porritt family by any chance?

And given the whole thing went down around the side/rear of the court, it seems obvious that Porritt Sr was pissed off that the media had caught wind of their intention to decamp from the court building via a side exit.

What a load of shite. Having viewed the footage on the news of last evening, I can safely say that Porritt Sr was the instigator and agitator in the chain of events involving the media outside the court.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.