Murder of Julia James - where are the vigils ?

There’s a special place in hell for women who carry on relationships with men who have abused other women. Like India.?

He didn't abuse other women as far as we know. He has several convictions for violence against men, one for drink driving and one for a sex offence against a one year old baby. And yes I do judge her for staying with him after he pleaded guilty to paedophilia.

I've just read the India Knight article. I would ask her why the conviction of some paedophiles makes the headlines, and why the convictions of others, such as her partner Eric Joyce, only makes the back pages? Manipulation of the media. She's got a bloody cheek.

I care very much about all women murdered, as do many.

The SE thing was due to the attention on social media and the fact that she had mysteriously vanished. Also a lot of youngish middle class, educated, white women could see themselves in her. I include myself in this. I lived in the area of london Sarah did. I am a couple of years older than her. Her life was what my life used to be. It hit me harder than other reports of murders have. And because it’s easier for middle class women to mobilise and get media attention, the vigil and the publicity happened. Had Sarah been found straightaway without the search for her and had she been murdered by a partner, I doubt the case would have attracted so much attention. I think it’s the disappearance and search that attracts a lot of media attention. Like Joanna Yeates for instance (although there was no vigil for Joanna either).

Her family asked that there be no vigils.

Who is that question to?

Good question.

What was the response when you tried to organize one?

We don't remember and mourn all women's deaths at the hands of men.

We don't even hear about most of them.

This one interested the media as she was young good looking middle class etc

Then it was a copper.

It just was a thing that touched a nerve and got momentum at the time for a mix of reasons.

'...so the last 2 points mean there is no political advantage for certain groups in protesting her death.'

What does this mean? Yes the vigil itself got some iffy interest but in general women have had enough. The met are awful. I would have gone if I didn't have kids to look after. Would I have been looking for political advantage?

As for doubt it was to do with work. Why? I know someone who works in law enforcement who has been bombarded with stuff by a person they came into contact with, for more than 10 years. You're guessing? That that's how things work. That's not how things work especially when a man has decided to focus on a woman for whatever reason.

Fwiw I also think that it was not random but someone who knew her.

of course the vigil for SE was an outlier and many reasons have been given
in a way the murder of JJ is a polar oppoisite
she wasn't 'obeying the rules' (which are bullshit anyway)
she wasn't young/conventionally pretty
her family haven't supported/asked for a vigil (- in fact the opposite, so let's respect that)
she wasn't known to be killed by a police officer
she was a PCSO
....so the last 2 points mean there is no political advantage for certain groups in protesting her death.

I think we can remember and mourn all women's deaths at the hands of violent men. Personally I doubt her death was to do with her work, abusers target the women they are in relationships with and their familes, not IME the people supporting them. As she was a specialist she would have been well aware of measures to protect herself.

Given the proximity to her home, I would suspect someone known to her. Police won't want to advertise that they can't protect their own, particularly women they employ to investigate DV. It's everything to do with her job why it hasn't been advertised by the police and family I think.

Maybe the press et al could focus on the male murderers of women for a fucking change.

And why is a woman who is killed in her home or by someone she knows out of the equation? They're still women who have been murdered. Why do you put them in a separate category and therefore say well no vigils are for these sort of victims not those ones...?

I don't remember anything like the vigil for SE before tbh.

And while it's rare in comparison to the population, I don't think it's that rare to read about women's or girls bodies being found? I can think of a fair few without too much trouble.

If the idea is that these sort of circs usually get a vigil but this one woman didn't then ok but I just don't recall anything like the reaction to SE tbh. I think it was an outlier, not the norm to have that vigil with so many people (I have seen it maybe small local things not sure).

If you think it's because of something to do with Julia James herself then what's your theory? I've said why I think SE got so much media attention etc earlier in the thread.

Its a valid question because although as we all know 2 or more women a week are murdered in their homes by a violent partner, murder of women out and about in the public are quite rare.

Not sure why you are conflating the two.

The vigil and wide spread reporting about Sarah Everard is in wide contrast to women who are murdered or kidnapped off the street or in a park.

Although not the same but the question was also asked about the deaths of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry. Again press coverage very different.

I genuinely dont understand why you dont understand.

Although there is nothing to stop local women having a vigil every week for the women whose deaths are hidden because they happen in their own home.

Well the answer is that there are generally not vigils for any of the 2-3 women who are murdered every week. Most of them we never ever hear about.

What happened with Sarah everard was an unusual reaction. Many have said the combination of circs as to why (including me).

Not having a vigil is the standard. The fact this is being reported quite a lot and on front pages is more coverage than most women get.

As for those saying why not a vigil, surely you must all have noticed that they are very much the exception and in no way the norm? I genuinely don't really understand why people are asking this.

I live in the area and Julia's daughter has asked people not to have a vigil. She said the family would prefer police efforts to be focused on the investigation rather than policing a vigil. She did ask that people light a candle in remembrance though.
I can't comment on the wider press reporting but this has been widely publicised in the local press and social media.

I didn't know anything about India Knight and her partner / husband.

If the arguement is she is compromised for standing by him after he admited to making an indecent image of a child, then it surely means she should not longer be employed to be a commentator by a newspaper.

But the point of the link was to say (at that time and may still be) the only that is asking the question. Which is what this thread is about.

Women aren't responsible for men's actions.

However they don't have to stand by a convicted child sex offender and then write an article saying where are the vigils (which are predominantly women for women who are killed) for this victim of male violence.

It's totally hypocritical.

The publicity was high because she was missing for a week and posters were everywhere

Well tomorrow is going to be one week, and posters are already everywhere.

So to go back to the OP, where is the vigil and outcry.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-56970694

No sign of Sisters Uncut. I wonder why?