Real Life Crime and Murder #3

[Be More Pacific]

Honestly even naming suspects in on going cases is a bit questionable to me personally.
The on going case with Sarah comes to mind, there's really no reason the suspect's wife should have been named or in a way the suspect himself. People have a lot to say these days and social media really makes it harder for everyone - both being attacked online even if you may be innocent, and ensuring a fair trial.
I very much see the need to name suspects, but also I don't think the tabloids really help in any way other than stirring speculation everywhere, plus you can't even guarantee that their information is correct.
Probably a bit of a controversial opinion, and definitely the name would get out one way or another but I doubt the whole country would suddenly know it

You should only be named when you are charged and there should be absolutely NO speculation, gossip, rumour, photographs, digging into social media and printing it allowed to be reported AT ALL in the run up to a trial. I believe that's how it's supposed to work anyway. In probably 90% of cases, we don't see a photograph of the offender until they are found guilty and their police mugshot is issued.

Naming someone after being charged can prove useful, as it sometimes brings forward nee witnesses, new victims and new information which can all help at trial, but the undignified spectacle we have witnessed in the Sarah Everard case proves the media have learnt absolutely nothing from what they did to Christopher Jefferies in the Joanna Yeates case.

As much as I would love Court TV here (life made in all honestly) I do not want to go down the road of the USA, where every little thing can be analysed and reported on before a trial even takes place. The full details of the case are usually out there as soon as someone is charged and the indictment is revealed. There are programmes made about cases yet to come to trial - the latest obsession seems to be Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell (there have already been at least two Datelines and one 48 Hours on them) - and they even allow nightly TV shows during some big trials, where gobshites like Nancy Grace are arguing it out. I mean, Jesus Christ. They treat people's lives like some sort of celebrity circus. Their justice system is fucked.

I admit I look at social media when someone is charged and usually form an opinion. You can usually tell what kind of case it's going to be (drugs normally) - the difference is that my opinions are pretty much kept to myself (I occasionally share on here and bore my OH with my theories) and, if I was ever called for jury service again on a case I was aware of or had researched in any way, I would absolutely recuse myself.

I know I sound like a broken record but it just makes me so, so angry. Everyone in this country is entitled to a fair trial. When your life has effectively been dissected by the national media beforehand, how can that ever happen?

Please tell me that is not a photo of the victim you've just posted and spoken about in that way? Bloody hell. I know you follow cases for fun but that is someone's child.

I don't follow cases for "fun" - I follow them because I am interested in crime and justice.

The photograph is from an open, public Facebook account and I didn't state the name of the victim, where it happened and he is unidentifiable in that image however, I have asked for the post to be removed as I realise it could be considered ill judged. In my defence, I was just trying to demonstrate the reality of young people getting involved in gangs/drugs and their families being unaware or in denial.

 

[Its_Me]

Honestly even naming suspects in on going cases is a bit questionable to me personally.
The on going case with Sarah comes to mind, there's really no reason the suspect's wife should have been named or in a way the suspect himself. People have a lot to say these days and social media really makes it harder for everyone - both being attacked online even if you may be innocent, and ensuring a fair trial.
I very much see the need to name suspects, but also I don't think the tabloids really help in any way other than stirring speculation everywhere, plus you can't even guarantee that their information is correct.
Probably a bit of a controversial opinion, and definitely the name would get out one way or another but I doubt the whole country would suddenly know it

The way they were so quick to name both suspects in this case was really bad and especially the wife-People would have found out her name once he was named no doubt but some media didn’t even say it was his wife that was arrested they just said a woman in her 30’s it could have been anyone. It’s appalling really especially the photos some of them released with the kids in even with their faces blurred is so unfair to them as a family no matter what their father may have done it’s not their fault.

 

[Merpedy]

As much as I would love Court TV here (life made in all honestly) I do not want to go down the road of the USA, where every little thing can be analysed and reported on before a trial even takes place. The full details of the case are usually out there as soon as someone is charged and the indictment is revealed. There are programmes made about cases yet to come to trial - the latest obsession seems to be Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell (there have already been at least two Datelines and one 48 Hours on them) - and they even allow nightly TV shows during some big trials, where gobshites like Nancy Grace are arguing it out. I mean, Jesus Christ. They treat people's lives like some sort of celebrity circus. Their justice system is fucked.

Honestly all of this just reminds of Cell 7 by Kerry Drewery, though I don't think I properly even read the book yet (or if I have I very much have forgotten it) but it's pretty much the blurb of the book just more extreme.
It's also not too far from some random journalist for one of the tabloids saying that the details to be revealed will be shocking. The implication seemed to be that something truly horrific happened so everyone should be on the lookout for any clues or for this trial. I mean, fair enough he has to make some cash, but realistically the public will be shocked even if it's a 'typical' case of kidnap and murder because... well, it's not just a normal local stabbing or the like.

some media didn’t even say it was his wife that was arrested they just said a woman in her 30’s it could have been anyone

I don't even think it was ever confirmed that it was the wife? Everyone just seemed to assumed and the media started posting her pictures and her name

 

[emm]

The way they were so quick to name both suspects in this case was really bad and especially the wife-People would have found out her name once he was named no doubt but some media didn’t even say it was his wife that was arrested they just said a woman in her 30’s it could have been anyone. It’s appalling really especially the photos some of them released with the kids in even with their faces blurred is so unfair to them as a family no matter what their father may have done it’s not their fault.

yeah I agree, I feel especially bad as in cases like these often the wife has been "complicit" as the husband is abusive/controlling (obviously this is jusy speculation, but stastistically it is very common)

 

[Its_Me]

Just yesterday I saw headlines about shes living in fear of trolls. So why are you drawing more attention to her!? Idiots. Apparently all the forensics and press have left their property so it will probably be released back to her but she’s going to need protection now.

 

[watchingyoutube99]

Just yesterday I saw headlines about shes living in fear of trolls. So why are you drawing more attention to her!? Idiots. Apparently all the forensics and press have left their property so it will probably be released back to her but she’s going to need protection now.

This is the downside to social media and instant news 24/7. Even if she wasn’t named I’m sure someone would have noticed increased police presence at their home and in the neighborhood. Someone would have connected the dots and possibly leaked it. Not saying it would be right at all but people thrive off of being the first to know/report something and have ‘inside information’ today.

 

[Be More Pacific]

This is the downside to social media and instant news 24/7. Even if she wasn’t named I’m sure someone would have noticed increased police presence at their home and in the neighborhood. Someone would have connected the dots and possibly leaked it. Not saying it would be right at all but people thrive off of being the first to know/report something and have ‘inside information’ today.

There were photographs of the police outside their house I believe on Twitter.

I keep going back to Lucy Letby, the Chester nurse. Two years it took for her to be charged and yet her name was out there, along with photographs of her, her house, her road name was printed, from the time she was first arrested thanks to the press. She had to move back in with her parents in Hereford.

Even if she hadn't been charged, her life as she knew it was effectively over. She would forever live under the cloud of suspicion. No doubt she's had to sell her house (I don't know) and she'd never be able to work as a nurse again. The same applies if she's found not guilty.

 

[emm]

This is the downside to social media and instant news 24/7. Even if she wasn’t named I’m sure someone would have noticed increased police presence at their home and in the neighborhood. Someone would have connected the dots and possibly leaked it. Not saying it would be right at all but people thrive off of being the first to know/report something and have ‘inside information’ today.

yeah I agree, there really need to be more regulations with socila media, I am shocked so many years into its use that there are (relatively) few controls/regulations

 

[Be More Pacific]

I've just finished watching the two part documentary on Suzy Lamplugh that was on last night on Sky Crime.

It was fairly interesting - some photographs of Suzy and a police interview with John Cannan I'd not seen before - but ultimately, nothing really new.

It's called The Suzy Lamplugh Mystery and is repeated on Friday and Saturday night this week.

Next Sunday, there is a programme about the murder of Shana Grice called Murder In Slow Motion: The Shana Grice Story. And on 18th April, The Murder of Lee Irving: A Mate Crime.

 

[BashmentLady]

Maybe referenced here already [sorry if repeating this] but Channel 5 have a new documentary out about James Bulger.

Lost Boy

Obviously really upsetting.

 

[Mascaragirl]

Is anyone familiar with Vanessa Guillen case? It’s huge in America. She reported sexual assault allegations against her military regiment boss and was found buried elsewhere in the days after. The guy was reported being really shady. Again Kendall Rae has a good video on it on YouTube

 

[Its_Me]

Maybe referenced here already [sorry if repeating this] but Channel 5 have a new documentary out about James Bulger.

Lost Boy

Obviously really upsetting.

I watched this when it was on last week so sad. What do you think about John Venables having his identity changed twice? Given that it was he that revealed it once and he has also gone on to commit other crimes I don’t think he should protected any more.

 

[emm]

I watched this when it was on last week so sad. What do you think about John Venables having his identity changed twice? Given that it was he that revealed it once and he has also gone on to commit other crimes I don’t think he should protected any more.

omg I thoguht the same, sorry but once you have committeed awful crimes twice (after being released, so basically 3 crimes..) surely he should just be locked up forever? I just feel so sorry for bulger's mum.... and the fact she seems to blame herself. heartbreaking is not even the word

 

[BashmentLady]

I watched this when it was on last week so sad. What do you think about John Venables having his identity changed twice? Given that it was he that revealed it once and he has also gone on to commit other crimes I don’t think he should protected any more.

Genuinely don't know what to think [and in a different country]. I feel he has surely lost the right to participate in society now - no more name changes, no more new iDs and jobs and pals. But understand for his safety he can't be named or shown as he would certainly be killed in prison, and by showing his picture, him, or any inmate that looks like him, would be a target. It'd be a state sanctioned execution if ye will. I think he is ultimately a danger to society and high security prison is where that danger belongs.

It was also lovely to see James' mum had found happiness and her sons all seemed lovely and very well spoken. Clearly affected by it too.

 

[Its_Me]

Genuinely don't know what to think [and in a different country]. I feel he has surely lost the right to participate in society now - no more name changes, no more new iDs and jobs and pals. But understand for his safety he can't be named or shown as he would certainly be killed in prison, and by showing his picture, him, or any inmate that looks like him, would be a target. It'd be a state sanctioned execution if ye will. I think he is ultimately a danger to society and high security prison is where that danger belongs.

It was also lovely to see James' mum had found happiness and her sons all seemed lovely and very well spoken. Clearly affected by it too.

Yes that’s true, I understand the dangers that would come with people knowing his face but definitely put him back inside under the new identity and don’t let him out, if he wants to reveal in prison who he is then let that be on his head. It’s interesting that it was Robert who was suspected as the ring leader but seems to have rehabilitated and keeping himself to himself. 8 years wasn’t long enough though in my opinion.

The ending really warmed my heart, she will never get over his death but she really is blessed with those lovely boys she went on to have. I think she needed that second chance within her to get it right (not that I think she did anything wrong)

 

[Merpedy]

I watched this when it was on last week so sad. What do you think about John Venables having his identity changed twice? Given that it was he that revealed it once and he has also gone on to commit other crimes I don’t think he should protected any more.

It seems like he's only been convicted since of having child pornography?
Unpopular opinion here but he simply needs a good therapist/psychologist who specialises in that area now, as he is likely to reoffend once again. Throwing people into prison over and over again only does so much, and won't be effective as long as it's easy(ish) to gain access to those images.
I'm honestly surprised by the lack of research done into that area of psychology since it seems to be a huge problem, and if you can identify it early (as they should have been in his case) it could probably be a lot more beneficial than identifying it later

 

[TripleC's]

i dont think anyone should be named in the press before they are found guilty either, the times i have seen people charged and names printed just for sales is ridiculous, especially when its circumstantial, being charged means nothing, its just to give the police extra time and the right to question, so for me at that stage no one needs to know names in the press , or you keep getting people like Christopher Jefferies , who because he looked "a bit odd" the press went for him, what a way to destroy someone, there should be a law about digging up info on someone and then print it just because a murder has happened, they cant do it any other time i'm sure, i know he went on to sue the papers and he won, but his life before and his life after is completely different thanks to the press, i'm sure it was quite traumatic as it was to have a tenant murdered in his flat, but he would have got over that, but now he has to live with what the press did to him.

By giving out names of people who havent had a fair trial puts families in harms way as well, the laws need to change the way papers speculate and name criminals, its just not the right thing imo

 

[Be More Pacific]

I didn't watch Lost Boy. I understand completely that she doesn't want James to be forgotten (he won't be) and, as James' mother, she can absolutely do as she wishes but I just don't feel it is healthy, consecutive or helpful for Denise Fergus to keep being interviewed, be approached by the media anytime something happens for a sound bite and then reliving everything all over again. I feel the same about Ralph Bulger.

As for Venables, he should never have been named in the first place but that's another story however, how many chances to you give someone who has continued to commit serious offences whilst out on life licence? The whole aftermath of the trial is a complete mess and I honestly don't know what the answer is. Unfortunately, the reason he needs ongoing protection and anonymity is because he was named in the first place.

 

[Its_Me]

It seems like he's only been convicted since of having child pornography?

Sorry I don’t agree with that. Did you watch the under cover police catching a peadophile documentary? Only possessing child pornography is a bit like saying it was only an indecent exposure, most of them go on to commit bigger crimes. Possessing images is adding fuel to the supply and demand. Psychiatric help should be in place yes but he broke his conditions of release so he should very much have been sent back to prison.

 

[emm]

Sorry I don’t agree with that. Did you watch the under cover police catching a peadophile documentary? Only possessing child pornography is a bit like saying it was only an indecent exposure, most of them go on to commit bigger crimes. Possessing images is adding fuel to the supply and demand. Psychiatric help should be in place yes but he broke his conditions of release so he should very much have been sent back to prison.

totally agree, watching images of children being abused ( I hate the term child pornography, it is child abuse, nothing else) and having done it more than once....