A consequence of the right to be forgotten (under GDPR law)?

Forgot to save the link but SEEN in Journalism is implying (I think) that it is because the media has been so dishonest in reporting that now the assumption of many is that they are lying in this case.

An unexpected consequence, or even obvious consequence, or people not trusting the new media because too often it later become clears if not actually lying they were economical with the truth.

One of the reasons why it feels odd I think is because it is so rare for women to kill other women.

My understanding is that women who kill women are usually related to the victim, so in this case it is not so rare because they are sisters.

I also wondered about the sex of the murderer and I wonder if maybe the murderer has Swyer Syndrome and has had IVF with a donated egg. This may account for the photos seeming ambiguous about natal sex.

I know the case you are talking about and I also had the same suspicions given the nature of the crime and the photo of the offender. But I don't think the suspicions are correct. I'm outside the UK/EU and can find nothing to suggest anything other than what the news articles report. I do think in 2026 if the offender were born male it would be made clear, they do for other cases. In 2016, no, but things have changed a lot.

It is definitely possible to keep things hidden and off the internet (see Claire Freemantle who killed two schoolgirls in Wimbledon with her car) but you need to have money and probably connections which it doesn't seem like this offender has.

There are trans identified men who claim to be the mother of their children. And news outlets/politicians/law enforcement who go along with it.
Not saying this is the case here, but it's not proof this person is a woman either.

Assuming there is an element of truth in OP's suspicion, wouldn't it be relevant in terms of where the sentence is to be served?

Has this been made public?

I’m surprised that the press isn’t all over this story, hyping it up to get clicks.

Jennifer Abbott’s professional profile suggests her father was a diplomat and she grew up in European cities. Her US citizenship suggests she moved to the states. She became a film director and was later killed by her homeless older sister (older by just one year). This is the stuff of movies and the type of story the reels people in.

Maybe there is enough global drama at the moment without needing to farm engagement from stories like this.

there is zero need to remove my post. It just doesn’t back up the op’s fixation that something is being covered up. It’s a link to a published tabloid newspaper article.

My post? Dont be daft it’s literally a published article with no ‘secret’ details. Just doesn’t back up your weird obsession that there’s more to this.

It's perfectly fine to link to a published news story.

This case is all over the media, and you get loads of results for it if you search the name of the offender. I'm surprised you could think of this as something that is being erased in some way.

Also, I think that speculating about this person's sex is unfounded. I've never seen any grounds for this.

Good idea not to include the names on this thread. Even though it’s a current news story I don’t think it’s appropriate to have speculation on this tied to the names of those involved.

There is a Facebook page discussing this case which includes comments along the lines that early reports included the information the killer is a trans identified male, but that this has since been removed. So clearly there are others who had the same thought. I have no idea if it’s true though.

It’s a published newspaper story.

@BonfireLady I’ve always felt there was something ‘off’ about the reporting on this case from the get-go. That’s a definite memory. The identical ages at the time of the crime (69 yrs), the tabloids’ use of ‘sisters’ and not ‘twins’ (the media love a set of lady twins), the MO (‘blunt force trauma’), the psychopathy of the attack, the blurry sparse photo(s) …

There is no user 'mnhq' so tagging them doesn't work. You need to report the post or email them.

That doesn't work. You need to use the report button or email them.

I've seen this wording at the bottom of hundreds of Google searches. I don't think it necessarily means anything has been removed, just that it's possible.

It came in years ago and I remember some discussion about it then (not on FWR, just generally).

I think you've misremembered this. Unfortunately, since the media, the police, the CPS, the judiciary and everyone else involved moved to using preferred pronouns I am routinely suspicious when we get reports of a violent crime committed by a woman. However, although it's rare for a woman or girl to commit violent crimes, especially alone rather than in association with a man or boy, and especially rare for her to attack another adult rather than a young child , it's not unknown. I'm not a criminologist but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's more common within families.

In this case, it seemed so odd I that I did google a bit at the time the sister's arrest was first reported. I've found nothing to suggest that she was actually a he.

Terribly sad for the children of the two sisters.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-jennifer-abbott-woman-charged-35424074?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target this is from 2025. I think you are incorrect in this.

Yes on the in & out of Europe

It also covers the data held by businesses etc, but is less relevant to the topic in hand

If the requester only goes to search engines to exclude links, rather than the source pages (or the source pages decline) * then the source information would still be out there, (non GDPR site sources remain)

That means an overseas search will find the contents, but a UK search won’t find the contents
Therefore a mix of alternate search engines and / or VPNs ought to find content, but without explicit effort the content wouldn’t be found

-* An original source could decline to remove relevant details based on public interest of the facts, but it could become semi invisible if search engines accept the removal of the link

The 2014 amendment isn’t Brexit related (the referendum was in 2019)

Just for accuracy: the referendum was in 2016 and Brexit was completed in 2020.