Talk:Moors murders/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Brady's diagnosis

The article says this:

”He spent 19 years in mainstream prisons before being diagnosed as a psychopath in November 1985 and sent to the high-security Park Lane Hospital, now Ashworth Psychiatric Hospital, in Sefton;”

It also says this:

”At a mental health tribunal in June the following year [2013], Brady claimed that he suffered not from paranoid schizophrenia, as his doctors at Ashworth maintained, but a personality disorder. His application was rejected and the judge stated that Brady "continues to suffer from a mental disorder which is of a nature and degree which makes it appropriate for him to continue to receive medical treatment".”

Should it not be clarified exactly when the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was made? Only the earlier diagnosis is currently mentioned in the lead section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

References

The full 2013 tribunal ruling is here. It's a long read, but page 5 says "The contrary view, expressed by those instructed by solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Brady, whilst accepting that the diagnosis made in 1985 of a mental illness which most agree was schizophrenia, argue that if it persists, it is neither of a nature nor degree which makes it appropriate to continue his detention in hospital for treatment. They accept that he suffers from paranoia but attribute that to his personality disorder and regard any mental illness as being of minor importance." My reading of this is that Brady was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1985, but I'm not sure if medical experts ever fully agreed on a diagnosis, and Brady did not accept their diagnoses anyway. He wanted to go back to a prison but the tribunal ruled that he should stay in a hospital environment, which he did until his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the article needs adjusting in any way? Currently there seems to be a slight contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs looking at, with more sourcing. Brady was undoubtedly moved to a hospital in 1985 because his mental condition had deteriorated by that stage, but the reason why is less clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Brady's two briefcases

Are back in the news.[1] Previously discussed here. Quote: "After Brady's death in 2017, Greater Manchester Police applied for a court order to examine the contents, which was denied on the grounds that there was no longer any prospect of an investigation leading to a prosecution."[2] The briefcases are believed to contain legal papers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

[3] EEng 09:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Brady's case of secrets"; real tabloid fodder. I guess this is only in The Mirror? I don't see how the legal argument can have changed. In fact, since 15 May 2017, the possibilities of a prosecution have rather taken a nose-dive. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

What the tabloids don't usually explain is that the briefcases are not expected to contain anything of value. If the police believed that they contained important new evidence, they would have been able to seize them during his lifetime. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:

"The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and

(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed."[4]

Brady must be pleased that he is able to torment the Bennett family from beyond the grave with these two briefcases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, with a little help from GMP. ——SN54129 10:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a pity that these briefcases cannot be opened to put this long running nonsense to rest. The tabloids are fascinated by them (Mail coverage here) but they are unlikely to contain stunning revelations, any more than Joanna Southcott's box did.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, The Daily Mail... another good reason for not updating the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The article should note that the police never worried about these two briefcases during Brady's lifetime. If they had, they would have had ample powers to seize them, so would the staff at Ashworth. There is a risk of giving the impression that these briefcases are some sort of Rosetta Stone or Voynich manuscript, but they probably contain unremarkable documents.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. I guess some people hear about cases and immediately think of those two suitcases and how useful they were. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The briefcases are back in the news

Today in this story in the WP:DAILYMAIL. As discussed previously, it would be a good idea to open the two briefcases as they are unlikely to contain anything important, despite what the tabloids say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a Foundation grant to hire Geraldo Rivera. EEng 10:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Duncan Staff also thinks it would be a good idea, but because there is a possibility they do contain something useful. Am surprised there is no mention yet of Brady's solicitor Robin Makin in the article, especially in regard to the "ashes disposed of at sea during the night" detail [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronological order?

Under “as murderers,” it goes from July 1963 then to June 1963 and back to July 1963. Can this section be put in chronological order? Jhurley85 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Have swapped some paragraphs. Is that better? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you! Jhurley85 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead seals

"Brady was caught with a sack full of lead seals...". What were these? Is some explanation needed? Seems to have not been provioulsy discussed at this Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I was imagining a bag full of these [6] , stolen for scrap value IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, like you might get on a old gas meter, to stop tampering. So not pinnipeds after all... Seems we have no article for them.^{{{cetacean needed}}} Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

.:-) Have linked to seals(emblmm) which at least mentions their use. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Am sure that will be adequate. Brady probably not a Bible scholar. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Cowley quotation

I may be alone in this, but the cosy image of "workaday neighbours who were more interested in how they were going to pay the gas bill or what might happen in the next episode of Coronation Street or Doctor Who" makes me cringe. Beyond any doubt, the Moors murders did shock the nation, and the media coverage was unprecedented, but the quotation seems so naïve. It basically infantilises an entire generation. Most of these people had lived through World War II, and could tell us a thing or two about the existence of evil in the world. If the neighbours were appalled by the details of the murders, it's because the crimes themselves were horrific, and because few of us (even today) expect our neighbours to be child murderers. It isn't because British society at the time was floating upon some uniquely blissful sea of innocence. Also, for the average adult in 1965, Doctor Who was a teatime children's programme and nothing more. It's anachronistic to suggest that people's lives revolved around it. We're in danger of presenting history through rose-tinted spectacles. 213.205.241.109 (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it does have undue prominence. I think what Cowley is trying to say is that most people in mid 1960s Britain struggled to understand how Brady and Hindley could have done something like this. The prose is a bit corny and overwrought.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree he has a valid underlying point. The story did have more impact back then than it maybe would now. I just feel the passage as written conveys an over-simplistic view of the times. But it is a direct quote, so I guess there's not much that can be done to improve it. Maybe he expresses the point better elsewhere. 213.205.241.254 (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If Dr Cowley is a notable forensic psychologist (and I'm unsure of his exact qualifications), as opposed to just a popular investigative true crime author, he should take care not to stray too far into the realm of speculative sociology. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if this quote could be removed without any great loss. It does seem to take up a lot of space on stating the obvious, which is that British people in the 1960s were stunned by the case. The style and tone aren't very good, as 213.205.241.254 pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Image of Pauline Reade

Emotionalad29 added this image of Pauline Reade here after uploading to Commons as "own work". The quality suggest it might be an original photograph, but there are no details given at Commons. A quick search of the internet shows similar images e.g. at BBC, at The Times and at The Sun, etc. Perhaps the image has been taken, in good faith, from a book. Perhaps Emotionalad29 could explain? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This image has multiple hits on search engines, and the detail on Commons about the source is non-existent apart from "own work". So it's hard to use the image unless the sourcing is clearer. It's also likely to be removed from Commons unless the sourcing is clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the sort of image one might expect to find in a book about the murders. But the onus is on the uploader to provide evidence of ownership. It is possible that Emotionalad29 does own this photograph. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I reuploaded the image to the page, and clarified. The source photo is not my own, but the restoration is. The aim was to put a high-quality photo of Pauline out there (I have also presented this to a surviving family member), though I understand if the change will have to be reverted again as I found it difficult to fully attribute copyright. The best I could find was this for the source image: Photo by Manchester Evening News Archive/Mirrorpix/Mirrorpix via Getty Images, though I used another uncopyrighted image as my main reference https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/d0/7d/17d07d2586076958a44b97125189fb96.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/319966748519467703/&tbnid=Uw6Xek9mYJPqgM&vet=1&docid=oUqR6ziikkmbSM&w=263&h=305&itg=1&hl=en-GB&source=sh/x/im Emotionalad29 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If the photo is "not your own", whose is it and what is the copyright status? When you say "uncopyrighted image" do you mean "an image which does not have any obvious copyright attribution"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is problematic because the rules of Wikimedia Commons are clear that you have to be able to vouch for the image as your own. If you didn't take the photograph and found it on a website, it is almost certainly copyrighted. The fact that this image appears numerous times in a web search adds to this theory. I'm afraid that the image will have to be removed again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)