By Ghost Writer
On July 8, 2026, Citizen Digital ran a story headlined: “Autopsy fails to establish cause of KFS legal manager Esther Keige’s death.”
What was wrong with the story? Almost everything! Let us start at the beginning:
“An autopsy conducted on the body of Kenya Forest Service (KFS) Legal Services Manager Esther Wairimu Keige has failed to establish the cause of her death, with Government Pathologist Johansen Oduor citing advanced decomposition of the body…”
So far, so good: The essential facts have been established. Ms Keige is dead, and the government pathologist says he does not yet know what killed her.
Then the story suddenly “takes a fresh twist”—a phrase journalists are notoriously fond of using.
“As detectives continue piecing together Keige’s final movements, investigators are pursuing fresh leads after students at a nearby primary school told police they had recently seen her seeking help to get food before her body was discovered.”
Suddenly, what began as a straightforward report about an inconclusive post-mortem turns into hearsay. It appears the writer was determined to keep it alive, disappointed that what seemed like a major story was “about to drink water,” as journalists say when a promising story fizzles out after meeting cold facts.
So, he introduces a rumour into the narrative and, astonishingly, attributes it to children. “…students at a nearby primary school told police they had recently seen her seeking help…”
At this point, media ethics alarm bells should begin ringing. The first concerns the use of anonymous sources, which is especially troubling when those sources are minors. The second relates to interviewing children without the consent of their parents or guardians.
Two media ethics safeguards are potentially breached in a single sentence, apparently in an attempt to pad out what ought to have remained a simple 5W-and-H news story.
But the reporter is not done. Determined to stretch the reader’s imagination even further, the story now ventures into speculation and, more worryingly, irresponsible reporting on mental health.
“The development follows earlier revelations by relatives that Keige had been battling a severe medical condition and major depression in the period leading up to her disappearance.”
As if introducing a fictitious angle of Ms Keige as a destitute wandering woman was not sensational enough, the story suddenly becomes one about mental illness, inviting readers to infer that Ms Keige’s tragic death was somehow connected to her mental state.
The reporter, having transformed from journalist into scriptwriter, not only continues relying on sources whose existence readers cannot verify, but effectively elevates them into mental health experts capable of diagnosing severe depression.
In the process, the unnamed “relatives” suddenly become expert psychiatrists, not minding the fact that even the most experienced psychiatrist would never diagnose major depression without a thorough clinical assessment.
Still, the story presses on with its mental health narrative, reinforced further with another statement: “Police have since begun recording statements from family members to establish her state of mind and reconstruct the events preceding her death.”
To an ordinary reader, this is likely to confirm what the preceding paragraphs have already implied: that Ms Keige’s mental health somehow explains her death. If the police are indeed trying to establish her “state of mind,” many readers may understandably conclude that her mind itself is the prime suspect.
And just like that, the story closes the gap between mental illness and criminal investigation, reinforcing one of society’s most harmful stereotypes.
Perhaps the most troubling sentence comes at the very end: “The family has confirmed the tragic discovery but says it is not yet ready to speak publicly as it comes to terms with the loss.”
This sentence inadvertently exposes the weakness of much of the preceding story. If the family was not prepared to speak publicly, on what basis were claims about severe depression, her final movements, and her search for food confidently presented?
In the end, this kind of reporting offers an invaluable lesson for students of journalism: That when facts are unavailable, ethical journalism requires patience, not imagination. When a government pathologist says, “We do not yet know what happened,” journalists should have the professional discipline to say exactly the same.
