Talk:Moors murders

im new here so im not sure if you do this here but on this article it says that Brady attempted to strangle John Kilbride but ended up stabbing him and burying his body but in the Myra Hindley article it says Brady attempted to stab him but ended up strangling him so which one is it?? oh and the myra hindley article doesnt mention anything about sexual assualt with John Kilbride but this one does.

i noticed that - one says the string didnt work so the knife was used, and the other is the other way round. this needs clearing up in my opinion, especially because it is such a sensetive subject that some may not feel is given enough...how shall i put it, respect as it needs if there is a mistake.

The victims of the Moors Murders need to be remembered, and so an article is appropriate. The pieces of shit that committed the murders do not need their own articles. The Anome

A biographical article is not a reward, to be given only to good people. Anyone of historical significance should have a biographical entry in the Wikipedia, in my opinion, whether their significance comes from good deeds, bad deeds, or anything else. Do you think we should also remove the articles on Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, and Adolf Hitler? These people are almost universally agreed to have been bad, too. -- Oliver Pereira 12:04 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed. There is far too much selectivity in Wikipedia as it is. Everything which needs dealing with encyclopedically should be dealt with.user:sjc

However, there are serious doubts about the NPOV about the speculative paragraph. We are either going to strive for NPOV or we're not. user:sjc

Evil people such as Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler and Adolf Hitler are historical figures, and their deeds deserve articles becuase of their historical importance. The Moors Murders, the public outrage and the legal controversy resulting, deserve an article because of their impact as a British historical event. The Moors murderers are not interesting as people, only as cases of psychopathology: they did nothing of note in their sad and pathetic lives except kill people, and they only need to be mentioned in an article on the killings, in as much as their pathology is of forensic interest. The Anome

While I am sympathetic to what you are saying, Anome, I think the correct procedure in this circumstance is to have a separate article for the Moors Murders and discrete biographical articles relating to Hindley & Brady which fully show their culpability in this dreadful series of crimes. They undoubtedly form a part of British social history; this is incontrovertible since they have occupied a large part of the nation's consciousness for the last 40 years or so. A hundred years hence, without their being dealt with properly by contemporary social historians, and they will be merely shadow figures without context and relevance. You may wish to argue that this is no bad thing and in one way I can accept this. Nevertheless, I would argue strongly and cogently for them to be dealt with on a par with Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, Ted Bundy et al: a comprehensive and coherent biographical analysis which sets out clearly their crimes and places those crimes in a fully developed social setting. A failure on our part to do this properly is inexcusable, and is to the disadvantage to those readers who turn to Wikipedia for information. user:sjc

Yep, what he said... If an event or series of events is historically important enough to be included in the Wikipedia, and that event or series of events is inextricably tied up with the lives of a small number of people, then it seems sensible to include biographies of those people, if for no other reason than that the events of their lives would throw light on their actions. One should not let one's emotions get in the way of one's objectivity when writing for an encyclopaedia. I'm not directing that only at Anome - it's something that everyone needs to bear in mind when writing on topics they feel passionately about. -- Oliver Pereira 15:39 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

Hindley got a far from glowing obituary in The Guardian, so I guess a wikipedia article is also appropriate in that context. I'm not sure I like the bit about the campaign of revulsion against her being 'tabloid driven'. Read again the description of Leslie Ann Downey's murder and the tapes they made of her crying for her mummy to realise why ALL of the UK population, not just the Sun readers, revile this woman and her memory. quercus robur

Thanks whoever it was for making the change to 'massive'- I was having trouble refreshing the page so didn't see the alteration at first quercus robur

While I can see what you're saying, you should remember these are events which occurred 40 years ago; nearly half the population of Britain was not even alive at the time when the murders were committed and many more were too young to be aware. The point I am making by saying that much of the awareness was largely tabloid-driven (a hard fact) is that had it not been for a mainly gutter-press media campaign the significance of the Moors Murders would have been relegated to the footnote of social history which it should have been. You will also note that the manufacturers of thalidomide which killed and mutilated the lives of many, many more children than Hindley or Brady affected walked off with large pensions without a fraction of the calumnny heaped upon Hindley or Brady (and whilst the facts of the dangers of the drug were firmly in their purview). This is not relativism, merely placing them in some sort of sensible context. Yes, they were evil and unpleasant people; no, there are many worse people than them. user:sjc

Well thank you for your patronising remark sjc. I am well aware that the murders happened nearly 40 years ago, I live in England. This does not diminish the evil of what happened. Most of the population of the UK find the act of taping a little girl crying for her mummy while she is being raped and murdered utterly vile beyond belief, however long ago it happened, and whatever paper they read it in. We arnt all Sun Readers, and I find your condesension offensive. And drawing comparisons with the Thalidomide disaster is irelevant and dishonest. I find it very difficult to retain a NPOV over such a matter, and hope that I never become so cold and out of touch with my own humanity that I ever do. quercus robur

This is simply a pathetic argumentum ad hominem and is really beneath my dignity to reply to it. However, since it promulgates a considerably stupid myth, I will. The national media circus have made vast sums of money off the back of the Hindley/Brady story: fact. It sells/sold newspapers better than anything else. Now you may care to ask yourself why this might possibly be. An intelligent person would come to the conclusion that the caring British public are living vicariously on the back of it, and they would probably not be very far wrong. I hope I never end up on the same vacuous level as a Sun reader. user:sjc

The tabloids make money from the moors murderers, of course they do, they also use Hindley and Brady to divert attention from currently relevant issues... How often would Brady or Hindley appear on the front of one of the papers in order to generate some outrage whilst the government were sneaking through some bill or bad news Jo Moore/9:11 style on another page? they are slimey shit rags and I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Sun. That doesn't alter the fact that anybody who continues to find the acts of Hindley and Brady appalling even after 40 years is not automatically a brainwashed Sun Reader who is incapable of thinking for themselves. That is my point, sorry if you consider that a considerably stupid myth or mawkish behaviour. Just what, in your view, is an acceptable point at which the lives of their victims or the severity of their crime ceases to matter beyond being a 'historical footnote', or indeed that it becomes passe to continue to be moved by such events? quercus robur

PS. sjc- i take on board your comments that the tabloids have had a role in fueling public revulsion against H & B. my point however is that the revulsion is no less massive, real and justified for that. Hence I hope you will accept that my current revision is an acceptable compromise, acknowledging that the revulsion is indeed 'massive' and to some extent may be 'tabloid driven' as well. I think this is more NPOV than either of the original texts as they stood. quercus robur

It is an improvement, I can only concur. I would still like to question this allegedly massive repulsion which (speaking only from personal experience) is perhaps not as widespread as you suggest. It was of considerably less interest to Joe Public than the West Ham/Man Utd game or the putative gas attack on the Tube yesterday, judging by the conversations I heard as I was out for my lunchtime pint, I can assure you of that. The word "Hindley" didn't even make the event horizon in the office today. I can only conclude that the adjective apathetic would be more apposite. user:sjc

Maybe it's a generational thing. I certainly remember it from my childhood, and certainly amongst my mother's generation there is still massive genuine revulsion for H & B. However, can we agree to leave the page as it currently stands? quercus robur

It possibly is a generational thing as you suggest and your proposal is fine by me. I think the important thing that should not be side-stepped in this is the significant role played by the media. user:sjc

fair enough quercus robur

I think a redirect from Myra Hindley to Moors Murders is fine quercus robur

Not if the article is a biographical one on Myra Hindley, which it was originally intended to be, and which it still is. It starts, "Myra Hindley (July 23, 1942 - November 15, 2002) was an English woman". If this article is rewritten as a general one about the murders, then the biographical information specific to Myra Hindley would be better off on a separate page. A biographical page. Entitled "Myra Hindley". -- Oliver Pereira 16:09 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Don't forget to write biographies of Pauline Read, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey, and Edward Evans, then. Or are they less important than those noted historical figures, Hindley and Brady?

I have no problem with that; they certainly had a tragic role to play in this. But please none of this mawkish and inarticulate bullshit being promulgated by the likes of quercus robur. If you are going to do it, do it properly, they deserve no less. user:sjc

This article was originally about Myra Hindley and it has been modified to be an article about the Moors murders with a redirect for Myra Hindley. This means that the recent death entry now points to this page. I think this change is in appropriate and confusing.

You are quite correct. The people who are messing around with redirects etc should sort this out now. Clearly the Moors murders is not the same as an article on either Myra Hindley or Ian Brady as is World War II clearly not an article about Adolf Hitler, much as he was largely culpable in it. Exercise some common sense and sort it out people. user:sjc

Agreed. Move stuff on Myra to Myra Hindley. I would go so far as to say she is more important than the Moors Murders -- most people know her name but not the name of the atrocities she committed. The 60s photograph of her is iconic and will likely remain so for a long time. -- Tarquin 16:56 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Additions Re John Kilbride come from Hansard discussion in the House of Lords about Myra Hindley's application fro release.

Tariff?

This article repeatedly uses the word tariff in relation to prison sentences. This must be British usage, since it is not used in that context in the USA. Here it usually means a government-imposed fee. Is it the "minimum sentence?" If so, it would be good to say "the tariff (minumum sentence) was..." Thanks Edison 22:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. LeyteWolfer 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

I removed the repeat of the opening paragraph, and photo, from under the 'Victims' section. I don't know why it was duplicated in the first place. 83.67.23.194 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog hair?

It remains uncertain whether Evans was actually a homosexual or if Brady was merely trying to make a slur on the young man's character (homosexuality was still illegal in Britain at the time). However, the forensic examiner did find hair from Myra Hindley's dog on the inside of Evans' trousers, indicating that he had probably engaged in some kind of sexual activity before being killed.

Is there a source for this? The connection between the dog hair and "some kind of sexual activity" isn't exactly clear to me, unless the implication is that he actually had sex with the dog. 217.155.20.163 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I've read about that before. I thought that the hair of the dog was thought to be the proof that Evans was sexually abused. Dogs can be trained to do many things, even to rape people. It's not unheard of - it was apparently one of the methods of torture in Chile under Pinochet. Nightandday 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]