Talk:Moors murders/Archive 9

Daily Mirror story about Brady "having dementia"

Ian Brady once again stares out of a tabloid front page. The accompanying text of the story is qualified by "it was claimed last night", which makes this thin stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll believe it when someone qualified to make that decision makes it. Parrot of Doom 11:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Also Independent, Telegraph and Express. "Jackie Powell, who has represented Brady since 1999 and also says she is a co-executor of his will, said medical experts now believe he is seriously ill." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All reporting on the same Daily Mirror story. This is how print media works, plagiarise everything and call it news. Parrot of Doom 11:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Jackie Powell qualified to make that decision? Are there any (unnamed) "medical experts"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Mirror story is classic slow news day stuff. Not one WP:MEDRS is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that all of the reports stem from a press release by Powell, rather than any one newspaper copying off any other. It may have been timed for a slow news day. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Jackie Powell is the unofficial press spokesperson for Ian Brady. Her previous credits include the Keith Bennett "letter" which did not produce any new information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

1st para

For the 1st para of the lede, I am suggesting this shortened version. The victims’ names are not familiar to most people, and will tend to obscure the main points of definition. In any case, all those names are featured in the 2nd para, where they belong:

The Moors murders were a series of five killings of children aged between 10 and 17, around what is now Greater Manchester, England, by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in 1963-65. They were so-called because three of the bodies were discovered buried on Saddleworth Moor, and a fourth is believed to be buried there too. At least four of the victims were sexually assaulted. Valetude (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not improved and poorly written. The names are important and obscure nothing. J3Mrs (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The victims' names are very, very familiar in the North West of England. Parrot of Doom 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the names of the victims are at least of equal importance to those of the murderers, even in an encyclopedia such as this. The article is, after all, Moors murders not Moors murderers. Personally, I have no problem with putting the victim's names in the second para, but the current article layout has the benefit of a long-standing consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Edward Evans

The source given for the description of this is: Staff, Duncan (2007), The lost boy (first ed.), Bantam Press, pp 184-186. What does that book actually say? Shouldn’t the article reflect exactly what it says, with quotation marks if necessary? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article does reflect what the book says. Why don't you read it yourself if you're so interested? Eric Corbett 12:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if that description was regarded as a set of facts, that did not need paraphrasing, or if it required quotation marks to avoid copyvio. But thanks for that helpful advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlike many commenting here I've actually taken the trouble to read the sources, and there is no copyvio. Eric Corbett 13:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My copy on order. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. the BBC says: ".. striking him fourteen times with a hatchet before finishing the job by strangling him."

That Brady hit Evans with an axe is not in doubt, but it was with the flat of the axe as the article says, not the sharp end. Smith's witness statement, which is already quoted says that Brady finished off the job by strangling Evans with a piece of electrical cord. Finally, nobody can know for sure how many times Brady hit Evans with the axe, as the only witness, Smith, wasn't in the room when the attack started, and I doubt neither he nor Brady would have been counting anyway. What's the source of the BBC's claim that Evans was hit 14 times? It's not mentioned in anything I can recall reading. Eric Corbett 14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As usual, the BBC doesn't give it's sources. I was assuming that Evans' body would have undergone a detailed forensic examination that might have revealed the number of blows and that this would have been presented as evidence at the trial. Is "flat of the axe" intended to mean the back of the hatchet, rather than one of its flat faces? Smith himself used the word hatchet. An "axe" can be something much larger, so I would have thought "hatchet" or "hand-axe" in the first instance might have been clearer. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what the Staff book says. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article says "Smith entered the living room to find Brady repeatedly striking Evans with the flat of an axe, and watched as he then throttled Evans with a length of electrical cord." The source for this is given as "Staff, 2007, p.31". This page number is wrong - the murder is covered on pages 183-7. But I cannot see any mention of an "electrical cord." Of the actual murder, the book just says "Myra stood and guarded the bottom of the stairs as the scuffling subsided. It was replaced by the rhythmic thunk of Ian's axe going home" (p.186). (The room was so covered in blood it took them until 3 a.m. to clean it). There is mention of a "ligature round the victim's neck", pointed out to Talbot and Benfield by the pathologist, eight hours after the discovery of Evans body. The book says: "It looked as though it had been put there after the fatal blows to the skull. The scene bore the hallmarks of ritual, not a spontaneous killing after a fight" (p.195). There is more discussion of the strangulation in the part describing the trial (pp.227-228); Brady denies strangling Evans and says "I hit Evans with the axe. If he died from axe blows, I killed him." I can't find any mention of "electrical cord" - perhaps this appears in Lee (2010)? I also can't find any mention of "fourteen blows", but I haven't read the book in detail yet. (My copy is the 2007 first edition. I don't think it's be re-published). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll hopefully be able to get hold of Lee's book next week and check. Eric Corbett 14:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that "Staff, 2007 p.31" should be replaced with a cn tag until then? The Staff book (a hardback) was a real bargain, by the way. I think I might just order a copy of Lee's book too. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the point? We know that needs to be checked, but the basic facts are hardly in doubt. Eric Corbett 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is, it's wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is, the facts are not wrong. Eric Corbett 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This book doesn't reflect what the article says about Smith watching Brady "throtting Evans with a length of electrical cord." It suggests that the Home Office pathologist thought Evans already dead. And it doesn't mention any electrical cord. If these really are facts, then I think a WP:RS source should be given. If no RS is available, then the statement should be tagged or removed. I'm not sure its appropriate to say "we'll fix it next week." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, do as you wish. It doesn't really matter one way or another. Eric Corbett 17:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Do any other editors have a view, or even access to reliable sources, particularly as this is a Featured Article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. That an electrical cord was used to strangle Evans is reported in Dead at the Saddleworth Moor: The Crimes of Serial Killers Ian Brady & Myra Hindley (2013) by R. Barri Flowers. That the autopsy concluded that Evans was hit 14 times is reported in Serial Murder and Media Circuses (2006) by Dirk Cameron Gibson, p.65. As I said, the facts are not in dispute. Eric Corbett 18:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

So it seems the BBC was right, after all. Those look like good reliable sources to me - why not use them to support the relevant parts of the article? I think the 14 blows is a significant fact that should be added. Does Gibson explain which part of the axe was used? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that they were. I'm going to be a little busy for the next few hours, but we can sort this out later I'm sure. Eric Corbett 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to p.31 of the Staff book, as it's incorrect. Yes, that's just a "molehill", but I see no reason to leave it uncorrected. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I will check Ritchie tomorrow to see what she says. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiona Steel here has this: "Ian then placed a cover over the youth's head and wrapped a piece of electric wire around his neck. As he repeatedly pulled on the wire, Ian kept saying "You fucking dirty bastard," over and over again. When the man finally stopped making any noise, Ian looked up and said to Myra, "That's it, it's the messiest yet." But I'm not sure how much of this is made up. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A reference has now been added to Williams (1992), p. 266. I wonder does Williams specify "flat" or "back" or simply "axe"? Surely this was the back of the axe (or possibly "poll" or "butt", as per the diagram at Axe), to distinguish it from the "cheek"? Does Williams mention 14 blows? I think this may be a significant fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Edwards Evans

If Hindley's claim, reported by Staff, is to be believed, the murder of Evans was unusual in that he was targetted because of his sexuality. Brady is alleged to have announced "Let's go and roll a queer." Evans was found at the railway station, where obviously Brady knew he would be easy to pick-up (Hindley, who was parked on double-yellow lines waiting for them was asked to move on by a policeman). So perhaps this murder needs to be added at Violence against LGBT people and described in that way here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to say what the motive was, as it may have been a mixture of gay bashing and the knowledge that a gay man hanging around at a railway station would be easy to lure into a trap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't even a man, of course, but still just a boy. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Evans was a homosexual. Most likely it was a claim invented by Brady in an attempt to discredit him. Eric Corbett 13:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's likely this was never mentioned by the prosecution during the trial, for the very same reason - it might have discredited their case. I doubt that it was mentioned at all. So I guess it all hinges on Hindley's claim, which was "remembered" in her exclusive letters and tape recordings to Staff many years later. I'm really not sure where such evidence would have come from, or why. Unless there is some recorded comment, possibly in the trial proceedings, from Brady himself, it might have been invented by Hindley, although I'm not sure why. Is there a transcript of the trial proceedings? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an abridged transcript in Goodman's The Moors Murders: The Trial of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (1994). Eric Corbett 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that info. I wonder if anything relevant appears there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Evans was 17 - almost an adult - and so should have been more aware the dangers of going somewhere with a stranger than a small child might have been. One thing that is unclear from the article is whether Brady or Hindley knew Evans, even in passing, or whether he was a complete stranger to both of them. As for the gay angle, anything which relies entirely on the word of Hindley or Brady needs to be treated with some suspicion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree about the suspicion. But even if a youth goes importuning at the age of 17, he doesn't expect to get battered to death with the butt of an axe, I guess. Such a messy murder was their downfall, of course. Staff's book makes it clear he was a complete stranger. When they got into the van Brady told him that Hindley was his sister. They had already bought the wine to get him drunk. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing problems with the psychiatric claims

In the lead: 'Author Duncan Staff wrote that the murders brought together a "young woman with a tough personality, taught to hand out and receive violence from an early age" and a "sexually sadistic psychopath"' - Does not appear to be a reliable source for the psychiatric diagnosis of either person.

In the lead: 'Brady was declared criminally insane in 1985' - The use of this phrase does not appear to be sourced in the article.

'He spent 19 years in mainstream prisons before being diagnosed as a psychopath in November 1985' - I don't believe that psychopathy was a medical diagnosis as such at that time. There was such a legal category under the mental health act, but I believe it subsumed any medical diagnosis which in that individual was associated with unusual violence. In fact it appears he was diagnosed as suffering from psychosis/schizophrenia.

"In 1999 his right wrist was broken in what he claimed was an "hour-long, unprovoked attack" by staff. Brady subsequently went on hunger strike, but while English law allows patients to refuse treatment, those being treated for mental disorders under the Mental Health Act 1983 have no such right" - The first sentence should be balanced by what others claim happened. The second sentence is not true - patients detained under the MH Act sometimes have that right. The article should also mention that Brady has a long history of hunger-striking which has been linked by some to his psychiatric condition which appears to include food issues.

(Above unsigned comment added by User: Sighola3 00:02, 16 March 2014‎) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC) (striking, as comment was signed)

Good point about the rights of those detained under the MH Act, now clarified. Eric Corbett 01:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid while it is clarified, it may still be somewhat misleading, since even if a treatment is said to be for mental disorder (or its alleged symptoms), in some cases people still retain rights to refuse (to go to review), depending on the treatment or its duration, and I believe that was the case back in 1999 (more so in 2007). I suggest the sentence only attempts to convey the ruling in Brady's forcefeeding case rather than a general declaration about all rights under the MH Act. Sighola3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We're only concerned about Brady's case, not the Mental Health Act in general. Eric Corbett 13:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Only just noticed this extra comment buried within my original comment: Again this tiresomely misses the point; the text is explaining Brady's case by reference to the MH Act but simply gets it wrong. Sighola5 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't get it wrong, it gets it right with respect to Brady. Eric Corbett 12:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

'At a subsequent mental health tribunal, held in June the following year, Brady claimed that he suffered not from paranoid schizophrenia, as his doctors at Ashworth maintained, but rather, a personality disorder.' - In fact the psychiatrists at Ashworth maintain he suffers from both schizohprenia and personality disorder.

I think these points have all been made before by me, now in Archive 8. Sighola3 (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(For the record this anonymous edit just after my comment above was nothing to do with me and is not quite my point: "01:02, 12 March 2014‎ 92.22.157.168 (talk)‎ . . (98,830 bytes) (-228)‎ . . (Brady has never been diagnosed psychopath so this statement that he is one is defamation of character) (undo)") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sighola3 (talk • contribs)

Quite agree that the sense in which Staff uses the work "psychopath" is non-medical but rather in a popular idiomatic sense. He does not provide any secondary evidence to support it, as a diagnosis or otherwise, in his book. It should certainly not be in the lede section , even inside quote marks, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Duncan Staff appears to be a journalist, documentary maker and author, previously the subject of official complaints by the police for sensationalist publicity. I suppose there's three senses that 'psychopath' will have been used: popular idiomatic, legal construct, and as an actual diagnosis akin to antisocial/dissocial personality disorder. Either way it is really strange that the lead has for so long said nothing about any diagnosis of psychosis/schizophrenia, which was the basis of the move to psychiatric hospital in 1985 and the recent tribunal concluded he should have been moved sooner. Sighola3 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves that neither the DSM nor the ICD has ever included a diagnostic category called psychopathy, so even the psychiatrists giving evidence at the recent review were using the term in a "popular idiomatic" sense. Eric Corbett 13:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

While that's true about the diagnostic title (and I wrote those words on Wikipedia), both the ICD and DSM note that they consider their diagnosis can also be referred to as psychopathy. Psychiatrists working in secure units do use the term in a supposedly specific medical sense - these days may refer to scores on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist which Hare himself considers a separate construct than DSM ASPD. Sighola3 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. In my first comment regarding the 1985 diagnosis I didn't mean Brady wasn't also then considered to be have a psychopathic personality in some psychiatric sense or other (confusingly at this point the 'schizophreniform' psychotic illness is considered a new and separate occurence (despite being classed under the same legal category), yet going right back to the 60s there were suggestions of not just schizophrenia but 'schizoid psychopath' or 'schizoid personality'). Sighola3 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems we all two of us agree that the word "psychopath" should not appear in the introduction, especially when attributed to Duncan Staff. Perhaps the quote could be moved into the main body somewhere (where it currently does not appear). But any suggestions for a summary style sentence to replace it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What leads you to think that I agree? Eric Corbett 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes my mistake. Sincere apologies. I guess it's just me and Sighola3 then. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree about not using Staff for a lead quote or source on Brady's condition, does anyone disagree? But I haven't been very clear as I think some psychiatric reference to psychopathy should probably be in the lead - but also reference to psychosis. The body could provide the further context regarding personality disorder/schizophrenia conclusions after trial, for hospital move, and at recent tribunal (keeping clear the distinction between old legal/medical categories) as far as possible within the confines of this article. Sighola3 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds like an improvement to me. I thought there was a general rule that material should not appear in the Introduction unless it was also contained in the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a common misconception. Eric Corbett 21:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I must be my reading of: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it; "should not" =/= "must not". Eric Corbett 22:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, I thought there was a general rule that material should not appear in the Introduction unless it was also contained in the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just still on the issue of what terms to use for Brady, the recent Tribunal: "...agreed that Mr Brady is suffering from personality disorders namely antisocial and narcissistic. He was correctly diagnosed in 1985 with paranoid schizophrenia" ... "The present diagnosis is made more difficult because of the lack of information from him"...however..."The Tribunal accepted that its nature is of a chronic psychotic illness namely schizophrenia." Sighola3 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a summary based on this, as opposed to the Staff quote, would be better in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just want to say apologies Martinevans123 but I just lost the will to try and make any actual changes myself and apparently no one else can be bothered to comment to explicitly agree or disagree to anything in advance of edits, despite what happened in the archive. A real shame for what is supposed to be one of Wikipedia's top articles which remains an embarrassment on the psychiatric front despite an extra almost perfect source being published. Sighola5 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatry doesn't need any help to make itself look embarrassing. The plain fact of the matter is that there's been no satisfactory diagnosis of Brady's condition, and there very likely never will be now. Eric Corbett 11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree about psychiatry in some aspects and even Brady, but this is too tiresome because I know that as a longstanding wikipedian you must know that's not the point regarding the need to reflect the balance of reliable sources and opinion. At least it's no longer misattributing the lead quote to a senior psychiatrist when it was in fact a sensationalist journalist eh, for which the response in the archive was tumbleweeds despite what descended elsewhere. Over and Out. Sighola5 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You're continuing to make things up, as the quotation you're objecting to has always been attributed to Staff, not to any trick cyclist. What's the relationship between you and Sighola3 BTW? Eric Corbett 12:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What would constitute a "satisfactory diagnosis of Brady's condition"? And how would we know it was satisfactory? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean his condition now or his condition back in 1966 when he was committed for trial? His condition now seems to me to be irrelevant, and his condition then is unknowable, simply speculation. Eric Corbett 14:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that his condition now is entirely irrelevant. But I agree with you that his condition at the time will never be known with any more certainty. I'm unsure, however, if that is entirely "the fault" of the psychiatry profession. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves that as both Brady and Hindley pleaded not guilty at their trial there was no contemporary psychiatric assessment. What trick cyclists have come up with in the intervening years to categorise his current condition is of little interest except to justify his continuing incarceration, if such justification is necessary. Eric Corbett 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

But their pleas were not based on psychiatric grounds. So no-one was particularly interested in assessing them psychologically? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite, that's my point. There was no contemporary psychiatric assessment as there was no reason to ask for one. So assessments carried out 20 or more years later are irrelevant to Brady's motivations in the mid-1960s, they're simply done to justify his continued incarceration. I note as well that the judge in his summing up referred to Brady as a sadist, but I doubt he has any more psychiatric qualifications that does Staff. Why are we concerned about one but not the other? By any plausible definition of the term it is not unreasonable to refer to Brady as a psychopath. Eric Corbett 16:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so. So we seem to agree that the lack of any assessments in 1966 was not the fault of the psychiatry profession. I suppose one should see later assessments as relevant to Brady as a person, not to the subject of this article named as Moors murders. This seems an usual situation - one might well expect separate articles on Brady and Hindley? So this one article is covering a lot of ground. Regardless, however, I didn't think that the quote from Duncan Staff is justified in the opening section. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Who has ever blamed the psychiatry profession for not carrying out an assessment in 1966, outside of your febrile imagination? Eric Corbett 16:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I must have thought your opinion that "Psychiatry doesn't need any help to make itself look embarrassing." was relevant to this discussion. My mistake. But thanks for the free personality assessment. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not try being honest for once in your life? You've given no thought at all to anything but trying to score points at my expense, and now that you've been forced to admit that we have no evidence whatsoever concerning Brady's psychiatric condition in 1966 you're forced to resort to this kind of nonsense. Pathetic. Eric Corbett 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not interested in trading personal insults or "scoring points". I found Duncan Staff’s book very readable, and certainly not “sensationalist”. If anything, he puts in too much historical background in his treatment of Hindley’s ancestry. But this doesn’t mean he’s any better qualified to offer what appears to be a diagnosis of Brady’s mental condition. It’s a neat sound-bite to have in the opening section, but it should not be there. If anywhere it should be in the later part of the article and even then might require some qualification. I rather think, where it is, it cheapens the entire article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree. Eric Corbett 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. What's your justification? What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've given my justification many times already, so I suggest that you read it. As to "other editors", I guess that depends on whether you consider Sighola3 and Sighola5 to be different editors; I certainly don't. Eric Corbett 18:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has started to become rather circular. Unlike a modern day trial, where psychiatrists would have appeared as expert witnesses, the 1966 trial offered no assessment of Brady's state of mind or possible motives. The psychiatric diagnoses offered while he has been incarcerated are from a much later period and have limited relevance to the murders themselves. They are also the subject of disagreement, as last year's tribunal showed. The article should probably avoid the psychiatric theorising in the lead section, because none of this was an issue in 1966 and is the work of subsequent authors and experts giving their two pennies' worth.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Although the specific appellation "psychopath" wasn't an issue in 1966 so far as I'm aware, there were indeed informal assessments made at the time, including by the trial judge, who referred to Brady and Hindley as "sadistic killers of the utmost depravity". That seems to fit quite neatly with psychopath as far as I'm concerned. Or would you disagree? Eric Corbett 18:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The judge's description may well have been spot on, but it was not the same thing as a formal medical diagnosis. There seems to be an attempt in the lead section to tack on medical diagnoses which are not contemporary with the trial itself, and this is why some caution is needed. A casual reader may get the impression that these things were an issue at the trial in 1966, when they were not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

But as I've said before (why do I have to keep repeating myself?), psychopathy has never been a recognised psychiatric condition, so it can hardly be a diagnosis. Eric Corbett 18:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: drop the entire MacCulloch/Staff theorising from the lead section. It is not of key importance per WP:LEAD, and it would be better to use the judge's own words, which were "sadistic killers of the utmost depravity".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am soooo bored with this issue that I've gone along with your suggestion even though I don't agree with it, based as it is on a misunderstanding of psychopathy as a psychiatric diagnosis. But whatever. Eric Corbett 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Even if Brady scored top marks on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, none of this was an issue in 1966, as it was a straightforward murder trial at which both defendants were found guilty. Many of today's theories about psychopathy were not developed until the 1970s at the earliest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I was a psychology student in the 1970s, and I tried out some of those psychopathy questionnaires. I wasn't very impressed. But maybe the point has to be made again that Brady has never agreed to take part in any of those (psychological, not psychiatric) tests, so what are the trick cyclists basing their modern diagnoses on? Anyway, hopefully this unproductive discussion can now die its natural death. Eric Corbett 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian and Eric, for help in improving the article. I wonder if Sighola5 wants to add anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully an explanation as to who Sighola3 is. Eric Corbett 20:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(deindent) I wasn't going to comment further but having gotten a bit of psychological distance again with another regeneration, just a couple of technical points for the record:

Firstly, Martinevans123, back in the middle of my first comment in this thread, you have with the best of intentions added that the preceeding comment was unsigned. But it was signed, however Eric_Corbett inserted a reply into the middle of it. I would be grateful if you could remove your addition and perhaps clarify by refactoring if possible; this is especially relevant since what Eric_Corbett is claiming there about the irrelevance of an apparent innaccuracy in this article seems quite remarkable.

Secondly, Eric_Corbett stated quite remarkably: "the quotation you're objecting to has always been attributed to Staff, not to any trick cyclist". For the record, it was wrongly attributed to the psychiatrist Prof MacCulloch for four years - from July 2009 (ADDED BY Eric_Corbett when Malleus Fatuorum I gather[1] until I looked into it in July 2013 (Talk:Moors_murders/Archive8#Psychiatric_context). Sighola6 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

p.s. The link to the book page in the archive seems to be broken so here are the relevant bits as far as I can tell in a 2012 edition: [2] (the 2007 edition doesn't seem to be on there so for all I know it had the quote marks in the wrong place or something, assuming there has indeed been a misattribution.) Sighola6 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like you to explain why you have so far used three different user names in this discussion. Eric Corbett 03:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment now struck, as requested. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)