Talk:Moors murders/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Killing spree?

Is it appropriate to describe the murders as "a killing spree"? Although the term is not currently linked, that article says: "A spree killer is someone who kills two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a spree killing as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders." There is no mention of the FBI. Is there a different definition, used in the UK, that would make the use of the term more appropriate? Isn't "killing spree" more of a US term in any case? I'm not sure what's wrong with "The full extent of Brady and Hindley's killings ..."? That seems perfectly clear and unchallengeable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also ambiguous, as it could mean the killing of Brady and Hindley. And as I've said before, who cares how the FBI define the term? The social and legal environment in the UK is and was very different from that in the US. Eric Corbett 19:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The time span of over two years is not within the usual definition of a spree killing. There was a cooling off period of many months between all of the killings. The FBI's definition is not directly relevant, but as mentioned previously, this is more accurately a serial killing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whose definition might that be? Eric Corbett 19:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

See Spree killer. Charles Starkweather is a classic spree killer, Ian Brady is not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Eric Corbett 20:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but Spree killer does make some useful and well-sourced points about why it has always been difficult to tell the terms mass murder, spree killer and serial killer apart.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no "but" about it. Eric Corbett 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Spree": "A spell or sustained period of unrestrained activity of a particular kind"[1] The gap of months between all of the Moors murders, and in particular the long gap between the killings of Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans (December 1964 to October 1965) is un-spreelike. Anyway, I'm not going to argue the toss over this, it is only one word used once in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Spree": "a short period of doing a particular, usually enjoyable, activity much more than is usual", according to Cambridge Dictionaries Online. I have reworded that sentence both to avoid misusing that word, and also to avoid the pitfall mentioned by Eric (though it seems hardly a serious one, given the explanatory Lead section). Alfietucker (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that, once the reader has read past the opening section, that ambiguity would evaporate. I'd quite agree that "social and legal environment in the UK is and was very different from that in the US" - one reason why I think "killing spree" is inappropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well think again. Eric Corbett 19:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? You don't think that "their confessions", a few words later in the same sentence, might not give it away at all? People might think they confessed to killing themselves, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

But why set up the ambiguity in the first place? Eric Corbett 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If one reads the whole sentence, there is no ambiguity. I'd assume that readers will read whole sentences. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hindley funeral

I suspect this topic may have been discussed before. I have no real desire to expand the detail about Hindley's funeral, but I could not help noticing that this account differs from that given in the article. It's quite detailed, and not a little sensationalist. Maybe the Daily Mail can't be trusted? But even this BBC source says there were 12 mourners, not six. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The source for the article claim is Staff, who writes: "None of Myra Hindley's family went to the funeral either ... Father Michael, who had held her hand as she lay dying, did his best to deliver a dignified service for the six anonymous people who did attend." But, as he himself says, he watched it only "on the TV news". (Note the citation given was "Staff (2007) p.33", but that page number is for the 2012 edition. I've corrected to the page number for the first edition, which is p.18.) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This source also gives 12 attendees. But The Daily Telegraph says "When she drew up her will she asked that 12 friends and family members should attend her service" [2] and this is confirmed in the 2010 book by Lee. Maybe that's where the 12 came from. Bridget Astor, who did attend, told Lee "There were only about eight or ten people in all". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Staff's account seems problematic, not least because he wasn't there. He mentions only "the six anonymous people who did attend." But they were not anonymous - Lee names them. Several sources have more than six. And Lee has the report of someone who was there, Bridget the widow of David Astor. Staff says "Cameras 'crowded the pavement' outside" Cambridge crematorium." But other sources, including Lee, make it clear that "camera crews stood rank and file behind the steel barriers". I suggest replacing the current text and Staff source, with the account of Lee which concurs more with other sources. There are many other details - like the refusal of the local undertakers to carry the body, the single protester with placard, the service by Father Michael Tedder, etc. - which could be mentioned, but don't seem essential. Perhaps a footnote might be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Moors murders", it should not stray into trivial details of Hindley's funeral or will or where the photographers were standing. Too much already. J3Mrs (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The title is "Moors murders" yes, but the article includes quite a lot of material about Brady and Hindley themselves, which a reader could reasonably be expected to find here. I wasn't suggesting adding the details of her will. I'm not even sure about adding any other details of the funeral, although certain aspects were quite unusual and seem to be notable. But even for the brief details currently included, do you think the facts are represented fairly by Staff? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd just remove "of six" and stop speculating. J3Mrs (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't stop you (speculating, that is). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Would suggest replacing the sentence "Cameras 'crowded the pavement' ..." with "Camera crews "stood rank and file behind steel barriers" outside, but none of Hindley's relatives were among the congregation of eight or ten who attended a short service at Cambridge crematorium." And replacing the source as Lee, 2010 (page 20). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Have now added this. The lone protester with her placard could be added as a footnote, it's obvious the police were expecting a much bigger reaction. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Moon made of green cheese

I can find no mention of this quite in Staff's 20o7 book, so I've removed that as the source. This 2000 BBC source gives partial support. The full quote does appear in R. Barri Flowers' 2013 book Dead at the Saddleworth Moor: The Crimes of Serial Killers Ian Brady & Myra, if this is considered a WP:RS: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the quote also appears in Carmichael - which can be seen via Amazon 'Look inside' on page 6 of whatever edition that is. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Any preference? Both? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than add a lazy tag, may I suggest we find a source and add it rather than slap an unsightly tag on the quote? Cassianto^Talk 13:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cassianto, so I have added the Carmichael source as it was already used in the article; I think it's the same 2003 edition but I'm sure it can easily be adjusted if it isn't. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, sorry for being so lazy. In future I must learn to check sources or even find things. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you. Cassianto^Talk 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"lol". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Theft of Reade's locket

The following text was added but removed:

"Brady's later statements differed from Hindley's, claiming that she had not only been present at the murder scene, but had also assisted him with the sexual assault. Brady also claimed that Hindley had stolen Reade's locket after the murder." These seem important details. When were these "later statements" made? I thought neither Brady nor Hindley had never confessed to the murder of Reade, even many years later in prison. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason was explained to you in the edit summary: "this jump forward to the future ruins the flow of the chronology." Eric Corbett 12:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So when were these "later statements" made? At the trial? I thought neither Brady nor Hindley had never confessed to the murder of Reade, even many years later in prison. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As the article says, "She [Hindley] made a formal confession to police on 10 February 1987, admitting her involvement in all five murders". It goes on to explain that ""Police visited Brady in prison again and told him of Hindley's confession, which at first he refused to believe. Once presented with some of the details that Hindley had provided of Pauline Reade's abduction, Brady decided that he too was prepared to confess ..." Does that not explain things clearly enough?

I don't see Brady can have made such comment if Hindley confessed first. Are you confirming they are wrong. Mention of the locket seem very specific - this not in any reliable source? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The details of the later confessions are explained in the article. As for the locket, that's not mentioned anywhere, so what's the relevance of that? So I don't think there's anything else to be said is there? Eric Corbett 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Would like to know if these details are missing from article or are incorrect. No one seem to know. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What details are you referring to? Eric Corbett 14:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Brady implicating Hindley in assault (and murder?) of Reade and accusing her of stealing locket. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable sources claiming that Brady did any such thing, are you? The facts are that Hindley made a voluntary confession to the police that she had been involved in all five murders, contrary to what she had claimed at the trial, and nothing to do with any supposed and unsupported implications made by Brady. Eric Corbett 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So reason for excluding this from article is not because "poorly written" or because "ruins the flow of the chronology" but because it's simply not true. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who added the material? What was your source? Eric Corbett 14:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

IP, it was a mixture of all three. The first draft was badly written, and both were badly placed. Hindley confessed to the murder so I don't feel mentioning the locket is all that necessary. We knew she did it, she later admitted to it, so the locket claim from Brady is neither here nor there. Cassianto^Talk 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Eric Corbett and {User:Cassianto|Cassianto]] comments. The IP has not included any reliable source and I suggest they drop this "thread". David J Johnson (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If Hindley confessed first, these claims just make no sense. Simple as that. I had assumed original ip editor had taken from source already given. First I had heard of any locket. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hindley did confess first, so can we close this discussion now? Eric Corbett 15:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Brady allegedly confessed first to Fred Harrison, in 1985. It's not clear in the article exactly what he is alleged to have said. Did Hindley confess at first only to the abdution of Reade, not her murder? The description of Reade's murder in the article reads like a set of facts, but it's not clear where this information originally came from. I guess the reader has to read the 1989 Topping book to find this out. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Reading like a set of facts" can hardly be considered a criticism of an encyclopedia article. In any event, everything is properly cited and sourced, so it's easy to check if you're so inclined. Exactly what Brady allegedly said to Fred Harrison is unreported, but the article very clearly explains that "In 1985 Brady allegedly confessed to Fred Harrison, a journalist working for The Sunday People, that he had also been responsible for the murders of Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett. What more do you want? I think it's time to close this discussion now, don't you? Eric Corbett 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia places more weight on verifiable sources than on establishing "the truth", of course. We have only the reported testimony of Brady and Hindley, not made in any court-room, to inform an understanding of how Reade was murdered, and by whom. Maybe Hindley was involved in the assault. Maybe Topping mentions the locket and its significance. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@IP – there really is little point in continued speculation here; the article correctly documents the known facts attributed to reliable sources, which has been clearly explained above. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the locket may not be sufficiently significant to mention in this article, as there is no way of telling if Brady or Hindley were telling the truth about it. Maybe neither were. On p.128 of his book Topping explains that when Reade’s body was found 24 years later, the locket her mother had lent her was missing. Hindley denied seeing the locket or having it in her possession, while Brady claimed to have buried it the following day on a country road hear Oldham. Brady claimed that Hindley had helped in the assault and murder of Reade and had stolen the locket, even claiming to have struck Hindley in contempt when he realised. The locket is also discussed by Lee in her 2010 book One of Your Own: the Life and Death of Myra Hindley. An on-line source is available here’ Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating on the story of the locket. The only thing we can say with any certainty is that Brady and Hindley both lied about the murders, and altered their lies over time. Is the story of the locket significant enough to include in this article? I don't think it is. The significant things for me are that Hindley eventually confessed to her involvement in Reade's murder, and Brady's reaction on learning of her confession. Eric Corbett 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It pains me say it, but I think I have to wholly agree with you on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)