Talk:Moors murders/Archive 1

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)

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

I've wikilinked the first appearance of the word in the article to tariff (criminal law), which seems a better option. After all, there are a large number of US legal terms not used in the UK, and I doubt we're going to get bracketed explanations after every mention of those on Wikipedia. Besides, this way avoids unnecessary extra length in the article itself. 86.132.142.207 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Re Dog Hair

Just to suggest that the presence of dog hair actually inside someones trousers would be a sign that they had been removed, implying sexual activity. (Passer by 7/6/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.214.242 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they record all of their victims?

I heard somewhere that all the victims' screams were recorded on tape instead of just the one. Is this true?

I've only ever heard of it being Lesley Ann Downey that was recorded, but I could be wrong - I wasn't around at the time. I was thinking, though, what do people think to the current rumour that Myra hindley did not in fact die but has been released under a new identity? The reasoning seems to be that she is still so hated here that no-one dare openly sanction her release. Plus she would be in an awful lot of danger if her release was actually made known.Janeybee 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

These murders are the most disturbing and unsettling killings I've ever read about. -Yancyfry

@Janeybee: I have read a number of books and seen documentaries on the Moors Murders but never has been hinted that there were more recordings made beside the Lesley-Ann one. kattenmeisje6:49, August 1, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.139.62 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no recordings of Lesley Anne screaming. She is heard talking with Brady, Hindlys voice is in the background telling her to 'shut up'.Johnwrd (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Best way to link to my thesis on Moors Murders and Myra Hindley

I submitted a Thesis for the degree of Master of Letters in a UK University in 1995 which I have since made suitable for publication as a book (making formatting changes and such) at lulu.com.

I keep adding it as a link to the Moors Murders article and it keeps being removed. One person objected on the grounds that it was vanity publi--Ariane5 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)shed, and claims it cannot be an academic thesis since it not published by an academic publisher. It doesn't matter whether it was published by an academic press.

I spent many many years researching the Moors Murders case and 3 actually working full-time on the thesis, so it is a reliable source of factual information about the case. I believe that it will be of interest to people reading the Moors Murders wiki and would like them to know that it exists. I see no reason why it cannot be included as an external link, with text explaining that it's a thesis, or under the heading of "further Reading". I couldn't even link to it if it were free, so the fact that it can cost money to buy a copy is irrelevant. It would cost you a lot more to make a copy of the original in the University library.

How can I add a link to my thesis to the wiki without it being removed, within seconds if certain people are online!--Ariane5 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it would ever be acceptable, since it will always fall under self-promotion, especially since people would have to buy it if it's on lulu. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I did point people to a free version of the thesis, and this too was removed. If someone else added a link to my thesis, it would not be self-promotion, but I know that also would be removed. It seemed to be the linking to the thesis that was causing the problem with the people who were removing the links, but then the so-called "advertising-like text" wasn't in the form of a link. Some people just appoint themselves as gatekeepers for their pet wikis and nothing, but nothing that they don't want to get on the page, will get on it. Thanks for your input. Hopefully the lack of a link but the mention that the thesis exists will be allowed to remain. I'm in the business neither of advertising nor promoting my work. I am merely trying to find an acceptable way to inform people that it's out there. They don't have to buy it.--Ariane5 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I get it. I should not just provide a link to an external resource. Wiki articles themselves are not improved that way.--Ariane5 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I am interested in reading it Ariane5. Don't see why a link is not acceptable. kattenmeisjeAugust1, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.139.62 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Downey is not physically tortured or sexually abused during the recording itself"

I had to read that twice to make sure the "not" was actually there.

The 10-year-old girl was tied up naked, forced to pose, photographed, taunted and threatened. She is heard screaming and begging.

I'm not an expert, but I suggest that an expert would consider this treatment as both physical torture and sexual abuse. This sentence really, really bothers me and I'd like it modified or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelectSplat (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

I think there's a fair bit missing on exactly how Brady and Hindley's relationship moved from simple control and infatuation, to the murder of children. There almost certainly is a wide range of material on this subject, and the article certainly needs to reflect this. It isn't instantly obvious to most people how such a thing could happen; in fact the absence of this information might even be construed as POV (I know that isn't the case with you Malleus). Basically, I'd like to know just how Brady subverted (if that is what happened) Hindley into helping with such monstrous acts.

I'd probably consider re-ordering things so that rather than listing things in the order they happened, the article starts with the disappearance of each child, along with the investigation (apparently little notice was first paid to these missing children). We need to know who Supt Talbot was, his relevance, why he turned up at the scene of Evans' murder and not a PC or Sergeant. Then move to the discovery of Evans, the arrests, turning back to Brady and Hindley's meeting, infatuation etc. Then onto the remand, trial, conviction, and then possibly describe in detail how the children were lured and killed. This would also allow you to move the text about the condition of each body and its discovery away from the actual murders, something which I think at present doesn't quite sit straight especially considering Keith Bennett. I'd also remove the sections for each victim - it seems to me to objectify each child. I would rather read it as prose, I think it would read better.

I have a photograph of Winnie being interviewed somewhere, I've been trying to find it. I can't let it be used here but I do have the date I filmed her on an invoice somewhere, and that'll help with the 'further reading' section (tv documentaries).

The major documentary so far as I know is the BBC2's Myra Hindley, broadcast I think in 1998. Your idea about merging the children's sections is probably a good one; it might save some repetition with the Later investigation section as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor things:

• "Brady had often spoken to Hindley about a book published in 1956 called Compulsion, the story of two children from well-to-do families who attempted to carry out the perfect murder of a 12-year-old boy, and who escaped the death penalty because of their age,[9] a fictionalised account of the Leopold and Loeb case of 1924." - I had to read this twice. I don't think the sentence is too long, I think perhaps the 'fictionalised account...' might be better off in brackets immediately after 'Compulsion'.

• "She entered a van with Hindley while Brady secretly followed behind on his motorbike. When the van reached Saddleworth Moor.." We need to know why, I understand she offered Reade some vinyl records if she helped her look for a glove. Also it should be explained that the Moor is a considerable distance from Crumpsall.

• "The pair were busy "searching" the Moor when Brady pounced and fractured Reade's skull with a shovel" "Pounced" sounds a bit dramatic for an encyclopaedia - perhaps 'attacked Reade, fracturing her skull with a blow from a shovel"

I'll continue reading but I think these are fairly major structural changes so wanted your thoughts on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - Patricia Hodges deserves more mention - why was she not killed along with the others... Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess because even they couldn't kill everyone? I agree with you that the background section still needs some work to at least try to give a better explanation of why Brady and Hindley started off on their murder spree, but to be truthful I'm not sure it can really be explained why Hindley went along with it.

I notice that someone commented out the accounts of each victim's murder (now uncommented), which I'd incorporated into the appropriate investigation sections. Was that a way of suggesting that the details surrounding each murder ought to be gathered together into a victims section, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That was me - I was concerned that the reader might wonder how, given the police were investigating and finding corpses, they knew exactly what had happened. I think its better to explain what did happen once the police, or public, were told. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to find out exactly how the details of the abductions came to light - presumably by confession, but when? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've pooled them all into a new Timeline of killings Victims section, as I think you're right. Pretty much all of the details of the abductions come from the confession that Hindley made in 1985, as no witnesses ever came forward, except for David Smith of course, who witnessed Edward Evans' killing at first hand. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about your question again has made me wonder what evidence the police had for the murder of John Kilbride sufficient to persuade a jury. Brady never denied hitting Edward Evans with an axe, and the photographs and tape recording of Lesley Ann Downey were obviously pretty damning, but the only evidence in Kilbride's case seems to be his name written in an exercise book and a photograph possibly identifying his burial site. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look through the Times archive (search for "Myra Hindley"). You'll find transcripts of the court case, reported daily. The article doesn't yet mention the moment that the tape recordings were played, a key moment in the trial. It also details the testimony of Patricia Hodges and other parties. Its extremely interesting reading. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I think you're right that the effect hearing the tape made on the jury and the courtroom needs to be covered; everyone who mentions the tape says it left a very deep impression. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Keith Bennett

Keith Bennett is the one photograph that is almost as synonymous with this case as the mugshots. Do we think its worth including it on here, under a non-free use licence? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, a number of files have been released under the FOI - I wonder what copyright restrictions exist on these? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the article attributes that "Rape is not a crime ..." quote to Brady, and not to Smith as this article does. That's been bothering me for some while now. Clearly Smith's involvement needs a bit more explanation all the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Railway station image

It's from 1905. Did it still look like that in 1965? If not, I'd suggest removing it as it doesn't really add anything. Majorly talk 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It looked more like this Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It probably doesn't add too much, you're right, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ann West

Just a little thing that's bugging me, but this letter would suggest that Ann West was formerly Ann Downey - if she was still Downey at the time of her daughter's death it wouldn't be proper to continue to call her West. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody seems to call her Ann West, although it appears that she didn't marry Alan West until after the trial, so far as I can tell, which is why I called her Ann Downey in the Initial investigation section, with an explanation that she was later called Ann West. But when she was campaigning against Hindley's release, which is what most people would probably remember her best for, she was called Ann West, which is what the article calls her in the Hindley subsection. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I presumed the article called her West throughout. Serves me right! Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Confession

The Ritchie 1988 book contains the full confession of Hindley in 1987. Its quite long and fascinating. What is the copyright status of such things? Presumably it isn't with Ritchie, but do prisoners have copyright entitlement? Does it belong with the Crown, or is it such public knowledge that copyright is essentially non-existent? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just quote the book. There's no copyright issue unless you copy too much or fail to attribute. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a full page confession. Lots of wurdz. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe wikiquotes is the place if there's no copyright issue? For the murders article though I'm keen that we keep it focused on the murders. My feeling is that the text of Hindley's confession might be better in her own article. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Monastery of St Francis

The Mass for Pauline Reade was at the same Monastery in which Hindley converted to Catholicism. Is this worth mentioning? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My gut feeling is no, but I don't feel strongly either way. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit 'exclamation mark', so if the ceremony for Reade is to be mentioned (it should be given equal weighting to the funerals of the other victims) the location should be mentioned, but readers should make the link themselves. Alternatively it wouldn't be at all difficult for me to take photographs of more connected locations, and use the text field to make the point there. I'd like to know if the building where the two met is still standing, and I'm also keeping a watch on my diary in case I get to Chester Assizes anytime soon (I was there earlier this year). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is still there but it's no longer a monastery. No need to take a photo - there are some at Gorton Monastery - having said that POD could probably take some much better ones, and that article could do with expanding anyway - especially as "It is believed to be one of the finest examples of High Victorian Gothic architecture in the world". Richerman (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just came across this

Came across this if it's any use to you :( [1] --J3Mrs (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but the link doesn't work anymore--J3Mrs (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Worth keeping an eye on that to see if anything comes of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic article

Thank you to the authors for this great article on a difficult topic. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as you might have noticed, I have added a few links here and there, and made some minor stylistic changes, including:

• listing the 5 victims before saying that at least 3 of them were sexually abused
• removing the anachronistic reference to Crown Court
• Who is Edwin Hoosen? I have linked to Emlyn Hooson, which some sources suggest is correct[2][3]
• Fenton Atkinson LJ merits an article, and probably Godfrey Heilpern too
• we have Compulsion (film) based on the 1956 novel, but Compulsion (novel) is a more recent work

I hope that is all ok. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. The path this article is on I think leads to FA, so any help would be most welcome. I'm doing bits here and there, but Malleus is the main motivator behind this article's expansion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on Emlyn Hooson, for it was indeed he. I thought at first I may have copied the name incorrectly from Staff's book, but on checking again the book just has it wrong. Thanks for your help and encouraging words. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Murders

I'm just getting to the start of the murders. Malleus, where do you think they should go? Should I keep writing, and follow your lead as to where they should be? The book I'm reading from is sympathetic, and doesn't go into any real detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Smiths

Manchester band The Smiths wrote and recorded a popular song commemorating the murders called "Suffer Little Children", released on their eponymously named album in 1984. The song caused a brief media controversy until the mother of one of the victims voiced her support for the band.

What actually happened was that The Sun printed an article "alerting" readers that the band had recorded a track that allegedly had lyrics describing the Moors Murders, and contained "sounds of children crying". Predictably, many readers (who had never even heard of The Smiths or heard the song) made a big fuss, despite the fact that the lyrics of the song do not "describe" the murders at all, and the sound in question is actually children laughing, not children crying. For some reason The Sun had a big problem with The Smiths at the time, also making a big fuss over their well known song "Reel Around the Fountain", claiming that it was a song about child abuse. It actually has no connection with child abuse at all; in fact the lyrics are about a very insecure young guy losing his virginity....fairly typical Morrissey material, in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reliable source to verify this material so it can be added to the article? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Suffer Little Children assuming good faith that article would seem to disagree with the statement above. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which force?

Looking at the dates of events, I presume it was the Manchester and Salford Police that were the force behind investigations etc? It would be helpful if this could be clarified and linked appropriately. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was actually the Cheshire police who led the investigation, as Wardle Brook Avenue (where Evans's body was discovered) was then in Cheshire. Topping had to get the agreement of the Cheshire police to initiate his later investigation. I'll add that. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"only done what she had been told"

...is what Brady apparently said under questioning, according to Topping - but Ritchie gives a transcript of some of the statement, in which Brady says "nobody else helped". What to do? Parrot of Doom 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult, as some of the the details change slightly between accounts. For the basic facts of the case I've tended to stick with Topping's account. I don't think the two necessarily clash anyway, and Brady's claim "that nobody else helped" is at odds with his attempts to implicate Smith in Evans's murder any event. Hindley clearly helped, insofar as she helped to pick up the kids, and drove them to the Moors. Whether she played any part in the actual murders seems to be the grey area. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ritchie does say repeatedly that they both attempted to blame things on Evans, so that wouldn't appear to be in dispute. I wonder if the interviews are a matter for public record, as the court transcripts are? I've just read the transcript of the tape recording, in the Ritchie book. I'm not ashamed to say that tears welled in my eyes. Its awful. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I felt just the same when I read Winnie Johnson's letter to Hindley, asking for help to find her son's body. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

in camera

What does this mean, with regard to committal proceedings? The Times article in which it appears seems to suggest that in camera means 'out of the public view' - private. Parrot of Doom 10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Parrot of Doom 10:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of appeals

I found and added Hindley's first appeal against her conviction - this should mean that she made four appeals in total, but before changing it I just wanted to check that the 'three appeals' didn't already include this one. Parrot of Doom 11:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many appeals she made in total, something we ought to check. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

"until her death Hindley's repeated insistence on her innocence, and attempts to secure her release from prison, resulted in her becoming a figure of hate in the national media" Is this correct? - she said she regarded herself as worse than Brady. - I don't think she claimed to be innocent, but rather she claimed to have repented and said she was was no longer a threat to society. Richerman (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

She claimed she was innocent for about 20 years, as did Brady. The popular view is that she confessed to try and get out of prison, rather than confessing because she suffered guilt. Even in her confessions, she was always 'not there'. I suppose however it could benefit from a 'until her confession' but Malleus is probably the better writer to include such a thing. Parrot of Doom 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It says in the reference "Those who refused to believe that she had been changed by her years in prison pointed to her failure, for 21 years, to answer the pleas of the distraught parents of three of her victims, whose bodies had never been found. When, in 1987, she finally agreed to help locate the corpses, it appeared a cynical gesture aimed at ingratiating herself to the parole authorities." - so I think it should be changed to reflect that. Richerman (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added a bit about that, and also Topping's opinion on her co-operation to the Later investigations section. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Harvey

I think there should be some coverage of Harveys painting "Myra", it's exhibition Sensation_(exhibition) and subsequent vandalism in the Legacy section, if only to acknowledge the strength of feeling still expressed and the subsequent media coverage.Davémon (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately its dangerously close to 'trivia'. The painting is however mentioned in Harvey's article on Wikipedia. My opinion would be to leave it out, but that isn't of course the final word on the matter. Parrot of Doom 20:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with PoD. The "strength of feeling" point has already been made, by the reluctance of local undertakers to carry out the funeral, and the country park being afraid that it might be vandalised if it became public knowledge that Hindley's ashes had been scattered there. I'm not really all that happy about including the Smiths song to be honest, but it was already there. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to attempt to sway your opinions. Harveys painting continues to be make headlines today (well, 2008) [4] and [5]. I hope those articles also help to show how important this piece is to the art world. With the right sources and statements I'm sure it could be positioned without appearing as trivia. I wouldn't advocate placing the picture in the article or giving it any more than a couple of lines. If Harveys painting is 'trivia' then Morriseys song is also. The absence of Harvey would be less conspicuous if no artistic responses to these murders were mentioned at all. You've both managed to very finely balance this article so far, so will leave the final decision to you. Cheers. Davémon (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily have any objection to a link to the painting in a 'See also' section (well away from the prose). I agree about the Smiths record also, I wouldn't miss it if it went - although it did receive support from one of the families.

To me, its now a personal topic, and I feel quite attached to it. I'm not really sure I can properly express my feelings, but I feel that things like the painting detract from the awfulness of it all. Right now, Smiths excepted, the legacy section is concerned only with those directly affected by the crimes. That's how I'd prefer it to stay. Having read a good deal of information about exactly what happened, I'm probably at risk of being less than neutral when I say that I want people to read this article and really think, and perhaps even be upset, as I've been over the last few weeks. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point about the imbalance between including Morrissey's song but excluding Harvey's picture Davemon, and I'm kind of persuaded by it. My initial reaction was to remove the song, but I'm coming round to the notion that both may be worth mentioning because of the intense press and public reaction to them. Winnie Johnson herself was involved in the protest at the RA's display, so unlike PoD I don't think including a brief account would be to trivialise the article. I'm clear in my own mind though that we should either cover both or neither, and we need to keep a very tight lid on every passing mention in comics and pop songs. What do you think PoD? Would you object to a sentence or two on the picture and the protests it generated? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say lose both. Keep it focussed on those directly affected. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was never all that happy about including Morrissey's song anyway, as I said. My other concern is that if we start off down the "X in popular culture" track we'll end up fighting off all sorts of trivia. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. The trouble with encyclopedias is that one thing leads to another, and with this one what it leads too is all too often not very good. I found myself compelled to do some research on Marcus Harvey so that I could remove a disfiguring "this article needs citations" tag. Such is life. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David Smith criminal record clarification

"The Hindley family had not approved of Maureen's marriage to Smith, as he had three convictions for actual bodily harm and another for a stabbing when he was aged eleven." Was he convicted for three counts of ABH and a stabbing when he was aged eleven? Or was it only the stabbing that he was convicted for when he was aged eleven? It can be read both ways, but I don't have the source material to check. Sjc196 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Staff says that he three counts of ABH plus the stabbing. What does Ritchie sat PoD? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just the three - wounding with intent aged 11, assault causing ABH aged 14, housebreaking and larceny a month before Pauline Reade vanished. Parrot of Doom 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its better to say something akin to 'several minor convictions, including ABH and housebreaking'? Parrot of Doom 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again I'd be inclined to go with what Detective Chief Superintendent Topping says: "... at eleven years and nine months he [Smith] had his first conviction, for wounding with intent. More convictions followed: at fourteen he was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm, and at fifteen with housebreaking and larceny." (p. 22) So what about "several criminal convictions, including ABH and housebreaking, the first of which, wounding with intent, occurred when he was aged eleven"? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Parrot of Doom 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindley Puppet quote clarification

After the death of her dog Myra Hindley is quoted as saying "I feel as though my heart's been torn to pieces. I don't think anything could hurt me more than this has. The only consolation is that some moron might have got hold of Puppet and hurt him." The implication is that the only thing that would make her feel better about the death of her dog is that someone might have got hold of her dog and hurt it - but this doesn't make sense in light of her response on hearing of his death ("furious", accusing police of murder). It sounds as though there might be a word missing, i.e. "The only consolation is that some moron might have got hold of Puppet and [Puppet] hurt him." As above, I don't have the source material to refer to - can this be checked to make sure there is no typo here? Sjc196 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the source, and that's exactly what Hindley said. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Obviously she mean't that if the dog had lived somebody could have got hold of him and hurt him in order to punish Hindley, but his untimely death spared him from that. Richerman (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Brady's prisons

The Later Investigation section says that "On 3 July 1985 Topping visited Brady at Gartree Prison, but..." but prior to this we are told that he is in Durham - it's a bit of a surprise to read straight afterwards that he is suddenly in Gartree. This could be changed to "On 3 July 1985 Topping visited Brady at Gartree Prison, where he had been moved to in 19xx, but..." to clarify. In addition to this the section on Brady's incarceration mentions only Durham Prison and Ashworth Psychiatric Hospital, so it might be worth adding more details of the prisons where he has spent time (if this information is available). Sjc196 (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look around to see what's what. Parrot of Doom 12:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This should be a featured article on the main page of Wikipedia!

This is a superb article! It is well-researched, well-written and duly supported with copious sources, references, links and helpful visual aids. Given the complex and sensitive nature of the topic and the wealth of information that has been meticulously presented and verified, the recent improvements made to this article in the past year constitute an impressive achievement on the part of the contributors. In its current form, this piece is a perfect example of how articles on Wikipedia should be done! I take my hat off to the authors! Great work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.123.189 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial Investigate

I dont think this line makes any sense with regards to the Dog dying. "I feel as though my heart's been torn to pieces. I don't think anything could hurt me more than this has. The only consolation is that some moron might have got hold of Puppet and hurt him.[40]"

If she was so angry about the dog dying, why would she class it as a consolation that someone hurt him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.246.118 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The operative word there is "might" Parrot of Doom 09:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite. The other significant word in that sentence is "have", as in "might have hurt him". It's best to read all of the words if you want to understand what's being said, not just those you're familiar with. You may find a dictionary a worthwhile investment. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)