In Sunday’s edition of the Southern Standard, it was inaccurately reported that Jennifer Mayfield was not charged with escape. Mayfield was charged with escape. The indictment charging Mayfield with escape was filed on May 5. The Southern Standard requested all charges Mayfield was indicted for on May 1. The indictment received from the deputy clerk on May 1, included an indictment filed on April 14 stating Mayfield and Bryan Lee Ferrell were indicted for aggravated burglary and theft $1,000 or more but less than $2,500. The charge of escape was not on that indictment.
After noticing the charge of escape was not on the April 14 indictment, the Southern Standard emailed the deputy clerk on May 1 with questions and was told the district attorney might be able to answer those questions. The Southern Standard then emailed director of Adult Recovery Court Brad Price on May 2 and said “At first I was told by the police she was being charged with escape, but it looks like the only charge from that incident was the vandalism charge.”
Price emailed back and said, “You will need to probably speak with the district attorney's office about what charges are pending. The vandalism charge she plead to in General Sessions Court was for her cutting the strap on her GPS bracelet. She received 30 days in jail, pay court costs and restitution of $200 to us.”
On June 5, District Attorney General Chris Stanford posted on Facebook claiming the Southern Standard published false material facts in the story regarding the Betschart residence burglary.
In his post, he says, “First, in the story Mr. Fairbanks wrote entitled, ‘Betschart questions investigation’ he asserts that I failed to respond to his requests for comments. His assertion is untrue. In fact, I responded to his inquiry, in writing, on April 1, 2023, more than two months before he ran this story. See the redacted email below.”
In the post, Stanford shared an email from April 1 where he was responding to an email the Southern Standard sent on March 29. In the referenced article published on June 4, it says, “Attempts to contact District Attorney Chris Stanford to ask why the charge was dropped were unsuccessful. Emails were sent on May 2 and 3 to Stanford, but there has been no reply by time of print,” referring to the email where Stanford was directly asked about the escape charge.
In the email sent on May 3 to Stanford, it says, “Also confused why Katelyn Cannon said Mayfield was charged with escape. Court clerk had a few things related to Bryan Ferrell and Jennifer Mayfield, but the only charge that I could find from when she broke her ankle monitor to cross state lines and flee.”
Stanford did not respond to this email inquiring about the escape charge. In Stanford’s Facebook post he also says, “Second, in that same article, Mr. Fairbanks repeatedly and incorrectly states that Jennifer Mayfield was never charged with escape. Actually, Ms. Mayfield was indicted a month ago for the criminal charge of Escape. That May 5, 2023 indictment is public record and available to everyone, including journalists such as Mr. Fairbanks.”
On May 5, the indictment charging Mayfield with escape was filed. The Southern Standard was not aware of an additional indictment and did not request the document. On May 12, the Southern Standard attempted to contact Stanford again in an effort to clear up the confusion around the escape charge.
The email sent to Stanford and Victim Witness Coordinator Kelah Guthrie on May 12 said, “As I mentioned in the last letter, Bryan Ferrell was arrested for burglary, but his wife who was also there in the vehicle was not. Jennifer Mayfield fled the vehicle before they were pulled over due to failure to appear. Also wondering since she’s been charged with vandalism multiple times and that’s the charge she received in place of ‘escape’ is this something she’s done before (apart from the run to Michigan while on house arrest for FTA and burglary). Will be Wednesday at the very earliest that we would be able to get this out, but just in case my last emails got lost in the spam folder or lost in the shuffle wanted to give you a chance to respond so as to avoid the issue we had with (a former reporter) when he reported on a charge being dropped without asking for the details explaining the reasoning behind that.”
Neither Stanford nor Guthrie responded to this email. Stanford previously informed the Southern Standard that he would not be working with the newspaper after alleging he was previously taken out of context.
He did not provide an example of how he was taken out of context. On April 21, he sent the following in an email.
“I regret to inform you that our prior agreement that I would respond to questions in writing and be quoted accurately and completely in any stories written and published by the paper upon which they rely on my statements and information, is no longer agreed to by me. Recent inaccuracies pertaining to material facts, partial quotes taken out of context and other significant issues relating to stories published by the paper led to my decision in this regard. I regret that we were not able to work together as I had hoped. However, after several continuing issues, I realize that it is best if we operate independently for a while. Should conditions change to a more appropriate and cooperative relationship in the future, I am not opposed to revisit my current decision. In the meantime, please be advised that if the paper continues to make inferences and choose which parts of my official public notices to take out of context, I will respond directly to the public with my own rebuttals. It is my hope that this will not be necessary and we can work to find a way to work appropriately together in the future.”
Despite receiving this email in April, the Southern Standard still attempted to get in contact with Stanford to clear up confusion around the escape charge.
The Southern Standard was unaware of an additional indictment after April 14 where Mayfield was indicted for escape and regrets the inaccuracy; however, Stanford did not respond to repeated inquiries about the escape charge.
