Guardian report on Geraldine Newman murder

Yes, there was a thread on that case here, if you're referring to the same one I'm thinking of.

That's depressing. Only his (now dead) wife could give an accurate picture of whether he was an abuser or not, so I'm guessing he got off murder on 'reasonable doubt'.

We really need to move on from the idea that victims provoke men to abuse them don't we? Leaving someone does not = driving them to kill you. The men who respond like that are the ones who view their wives as property in the first place.

And also agree it's really poor to put a link to the Samaritans but nothing to signpost women who are dealing with violent and abusive men. You don't call the Samaritans then, you call Women's Aid.

Agreed, Although I actually think they should be told to contact the police, since it is on paper at least, a crime now. Or Women's Aid of they would just like someone to talk to.

I have yet to see a case where an act like this is perpetrated by a lovely man who genuinely acted totally out of character due to external influences or illness, where the crime was a one-off in an otherwise healthy relationship. Are you aware of any?

Sort of. There was a case a few weeks ago wherea man was considered to have acted totally out of character due to the external influence of his wife saying she was leaving him, causing him to kill her, hide the body and then report her missing.

He got off with just manslaughter instead of murder.

I agree, anything at all about him being a nice guy is simply inappropriate, when he killed his family. Especially when the article gives no space to the woman, and her life. And also agree it's really poor to put a link to the Samaritans but nothing to signpost women who are dealing with violent and abusive men. You don't call the Samaritans then, you call Women's Aid.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3431292/I-m-scared-don-t-know-Terrified-mother-s-text-friend-days-husband-beat-death-killed-children-police-said-low-risk.html

Sorry, it's the DM but for once probably draws a better picture than the Guardian

The stuff about him being a good guy shouldn't have been there at all.

And it's not just this one article. It's most articles you see where a man has killed his partner and/or children. It's a depressingly common crime committed by men, and the media routinely makes a hash of reporting it. If it was just one article, just one reporter, it wouldn't be a feminist issue.

For me to be aware of that, I would have to know the perpetrator personally, and have the facts reported to me by an unbiased and un-sensationalist media. Neither of these are true, so it is impossible for me to say whether it has ever happened. I am sure I could conjure up something from Google, but that would be scoring points over tragic events.

If such articles are meant to engender sympathy with the perpetrator, why open it with A man suspected of killing his estranged wife and their two children was jailed in 2013 after being convicted of assault against her, it has emerged ? It is the exact opposite of painting him in a sympathetic light.

The stuff about him being a 'good guy' is placed at the end of the article, after the details of the offences. I can see that a lot of people in here are taking this as a 'good guy gone wrong' slant, but what if the opposite is true? What if it is trying to tell us Any man can carry out such heinous acts, you cannot tell by appearances - it could be your son, your partner, the guy at the school gate. Don't trust men!

I am not saying that this is the thrust of the article (I am not privvy to the journalist's intentions), but why can it not be read that way?

Sorry when you said "would you expect" I thought you meant in an ideal world how would I expect the media to present it.

There are too few female cases to really comment accurately. There was a woman a year or so back who killed more than one man - I don't recall her being presented as a nice woman who just had a moment of madness, or as being mentally ill. The reporting was very sensationalist.

Men who kill their partners and children are routinely given madness as an excuse in the media though, regardless of the actual evidence.

In fact, most cases like this follow a similar pattern. The perpetrator is usually male, there is usually a history of abuse, sometimes extremely serious prior abuse, and the crime is often in response to perceived loss of control over the family (who the perpetrator views as their possessions).

I have yet to see a case where an act like this is perpetrated by a lovely man who genuinely acted totally out of character due to external influences or illness, where the crime was a one-off in an otherwise healthy relationship. Are you aware of any?

It depends - if she had documented relevant mental health problems, yes.

I wouldn't expect the media to just invent mental illness where there was no evidence for it. (Being abusive/violent is not in itself a mental illness)

The man the EVB article is about did not have documented mental health problems. It is incredibly common for the media to present crimes as being 'a moment of madness' or a desparate act by a normally lovely man when in fact they were nothing of the kind.

In that case, Woman, would you expect an article about a female family annihilator to cover aspects of her mental history or not? Are you saying that it would be included in reports about a male murderer, but not a female murderer?

When the article says they don't trust the media to report accurately - that's because the media regularly trot out the 'mental illness' line with no evidence, as a way of minimising and excusing the crimes of violent men.

Not because the media have a track record of condemning men as abusive monsters when they later turn out to be misunderstood souls, let down by the system.

That's what the article is saying.

Also, the EVB article is saying pretty much the opposite of you, PrettyBright.

The article is condemning the assumption that the perpetrator in that case was mentally ill, despite the fact that there was no diagnosed mental illness and the fact that he had a history of violence. The article is arguing that this assumption is used as a way of making excuses for perpetrators.

It certainly isn't arguing that we should avoid condemning violent men with a history of violence on the basis that they might have been mentally ill.

Spot on helmet. It is pretty clear to me that it isn't the perpetrator who the papers should be encouraging us to empathise with here. He had a history of violence.

The samaritans details weren't published because of a secret we don't know about - the fact that he committed suicide is in the public domain!

The neighbour IS relevant but five paragraphs Devoted to the neighbour suggesting that the killer is a super fella and this is 'ridiculous' is completely disproportionate. The children got two paras, the wife got virtually nothing. How is that balanced?

Because some people in the community may be privy to it.

I've seen it done in local media a lot - details of The Samaritans are published alongside a story about a body being found; the press are unable to report that it is a suicide, but family, friends and witnesses who have knowledge are aware and with the proliferation of social media, the 'unofficial' story gets round far quicker than the media are given permission to publish the full facts.

I think including the neighbour comment is relevant
EVERY time this happens we get 'he seemed so nice...' and that's because he probably did seem so nice, and that is what people need to understand.
To be honest I could easily not notice if someone I only saw occassionaly wasn't around for a few months, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion they'd been in prison

altitude the point I was clumsily trying to express was far more eloquently expressed in the EBV article linked to above:

I am waiting for the results from an official inquest into the murder....... because I do not trust the media to report accurately about the mental health of [the perpetrator]. The media is complicit in perpetuating male violence through inaccurate reporting and victim blaming. If it turns out that [the perpetrator] did suffer from mental illness that went untreated, then the agencies involved with him will need to be held accountable for their failures.

My own feeling is that by publishing the Samaritans contact details, the paper may have been reacting to information that is not yet in the public domain (but may be known to the community in which the victims lived) for risk of being unable to hold the relevant agencies to account in future.

In any event, whether it was accurate or inaccurate reporting, the need to contact details of Women's Aid should be self-evident.

It must be nice to be able to treat violence against women as an enjoyable theoretical concept for debate.

PrettyBright - given that he had previous convictions and jail time for violence against his partner I think we can safely assume this was the culmination of a lengthy campaign of violence, not a moment of madness.

If he was deemed fit to stand trial previously (which he was, as he was jailed), we have no reason to think anything had changed sInce then. His behaviour certainly hadn't changed had it?

I like discussing ideas. That is why I like FWR. But for you to keep pursuing the idea that I had a turnaround, even though I have explained my initial post, suggests that either you don't understand my ideas, or you simply refuse to engage with them. For you then to further question whether or not we should discuss the matter doesn't make sense.

Well it's not my mistake to address. I was backing you up by saying that I saw your comment. I thought it was jolly nice that you had such a turnaround.

Some of us feel the article got the balance wrong. It's ok to discuss that, no? Are you usually this defensive about journalism/guardian journalism or what?

And if it was dismissive, it was because the OP seemed to be blatantly provocative and/or stupid. Ignoring the fact that the Samaritans can help both parties, murderer and victims is crass. The OP deliberately sought to present the view that the article was designed only to sympathise with the murderer, and didn't give two figs about the victims. And that is bollocks.