To think he should NEVER be released - HORRIFIC STORY WARNING ***warning reiterated by MNHQ - disturbing content***

[ShockedandOutraged]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6457161/Hes-bad-Ian-Brady.html#article-6457161

After committing a crime like this, it can never be guaranteed that this man is not a risk to society. What parameters do the Parole Board use to determine this? He has not been around to lose his temper/in a position to kill children while inside.

The reports details a network of 'friends' that this fiend has as support when he's out. Who on earth could be friends with something like this?

How can he even want to be released? If he had any remorse he'd have killed himself before now.

The poor parents of these children. Is there anyway they can fight against this?

At the end of the day, three children were deliberately murdered. They don’t get another chance.

So neither should he.

Reflect I was reading this. members of a panel.

“I’m in favour of more transparency in terms of how decisions are made and how the board works. But I also wonder how much it would alter what people would be prepared to say at the hearings if they knew it was going to be released to the public. Caution on their side might lead to evidence being withheld that would affect our ultimate decision. That could lead to offenders getting released or staying in longer than they might need to. The bottom line is that we need good quality information and if there’s anything that affects that, anything that impairs that process, I’d be worried.

We discuss in detail a lot of very intimate information’
Edward, former police superintendent of 30 years’ standing, independent Parole Board member for eight years. Has chaired board hearings for three years

I do understand the public disquiet around the Worboys decision: people feel he hasn’t served a sufficient sentence to match the crimes. But a lot of the outcry is because people don’t understand why the decision was made and what facts it was based upon. That sort of public transparency is not allowed at the moment under the Parole Board rules.

To increase confidence in the system we need the public to understand how the Parole Board makes our decisions. Currently we discuss in detail a lot of very intimate information both about the prisoner and, in sex offender cases, the crime and the victim. But I do think that in the name of open justice, if [an open hearing] can be facilitated it should be.

I also think some form of decision letter from the board needs to be made public, explaining the reasons and the evidence on which it was based. We could also use social media more: tweet about how many oral hearings are taking place this month, for example, and be more open about the type of evidence we consider when we come to make a decision.“

There are certain crimes from which there should be no coming back.

I'm not sure I agree. However, I think that the decision is a decision we make as a society, and the decision making should be transparent. At the moment, the reasoning is opaque, and when it is exposed to scrutiny turns out to be unacceptably casual.

"It is a fair reading of the notes of the hearing that the credibility and reliability of Mr Radford’s account was not probed to any extent, if at all."

With the trigger warning that it contains details accounts of violent sexual assaults, the full judgement in the Warboys case shows that the Parole Board were completely incompetent.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dsd-nbv-v-parole-board-and-ors.pdf

For all of Nick Hardwick's excuses, this was a completely unacceptable process: shallow, unevidenced, poorly minuted, using incomplete information to reach a conclusion not supported by even the evidence it had. He refused to accept any problem with the process, and defended it to the hilt. His dismissal as the person in charge of the process was entirely justified, as witnessed by the fact that a second panel, in possession of and paying attention to the evidence, refused Warboys parole.

There should be a process by which indefinite sentences are stepped down from custody to the community, for the practical reason that otherwise you create prisoners with nothing to lose, if nothing else. However, that process should take more than fifty minutes (my apologies for saying forty: the extra ten make all the difference, obviously) and should actually consider evidence. In public, where possible. Justice should be seen to be done.

Currently we discuss in detail a lot of very intimate information both about the prisoner and, in sex offender cases, the crime and the victim.

I'm sorry, Claws, but that is self-serving. I have linked to the Warboys judgement. In that case, there was no discussion of either the prisoner, the crime or the victim. Look at the "notes". Look at the paucity of evidence considered.

If they are making good decisions, they would withstand scrutiny. The Warboys case is the first time we have seen detailed analysis of a parole hearing, and it makes a complete nonsense of the claim that they are engaged in detailed and forensic questioning. They just rubberstamped the decisions of the paid psychologists, without bothering to question the offender in any detail and without bothering to even tell the victims.

The mother should not have to fucking relive this.

Or the father?

The thing is, people say ‘Oh a vigilante will get them’, but they won’t. Baby P’s mother and the lodger in that case have already been out for extended periods and Karen Matthews and Maxine Carr are known in the areas they live but left alone. Apparently Jon Venables also told people his identity.

The thing is, the general public don’t really do things like that, ordinary people don’t do things like that. People who do things like that are generally fucked up bastards with so little empathy for others there is no way they’d do some sort of vigilante killing out of sympathy with other people.

Which shows just how fucked up and out of the ordinary people like McGreavey are, and why they should never be released. Yes, I know you will get people like pickles who will piously lecture us about how impaling children on railings is just normal teenage hijinks and the real villain here is the evil general public who just aren’t kind and sympathetic enough to be understanding to someone who has garotted infants (I’m surprised nobody has wheeled out the old ‘baying mob and a paediatrician’ chestnut yet, which never happened).

But it just doesn’t happen.

valhalla I think the father is deceased.

The parole board said:
"“The psychologist identified a number of factors which make it less likely that Mr McGreavy will reoffend in future."

"Less likely." Well, that's reassuring.

it has been 45 years well yes, 45 years in which he's had no access to children or alcohol

Yes quite. Thats also 45 years that three children have had no life, thats 45 years in a grave.

Well if they let him out then perhaps he ought be carefully supervised by the psycholigist and better still let him move in with him and his family we'll see how the less likley sceneario works out.!

Bollocks!

'These included his improved self-control and the fact that Mr McGreavy has learnt to remain calm in stressful situations'

How so ? If he's never lived in society and been put in a 'stressful' situation.... absolutely sickening

I can’t find anything to say the father is deceased. This is the only thing I can find “The children's father Clive, who split from their mother soon after the murders, is not thought to have ever spoken out about his grief.” I imagine if he was deceased it would have said so.

"less likely" to re offend isn't really good enough for me.

I wonder if the men and women on the parole board would allow him to sit in a room with their children ???

I also don't understand why Jeremy Bamber has been told he will never be released, is it because he refuses to admit he killed his family?

The statement by a member of a Parole Board posted by Claw001 is all well and good. If that is what they, the Parole Board, actually do, ie consider good evidence. But the panel member making that statement in defence of the secrecy of Parole Board hearings is completely at odds with the evidence of the total shambles that was the original Worboys panel decision.

Until, and unless, the Parole Board can be proven to make consistently good quality decisions, then there should be openess and transparency in their hearings and decisions.

(I'm not pointing at Claw here, they just posted what they'd been reading.)

I think as well its mentioned that in the 90s he was moved from CAT C to CAT D prison, and then back again. So why was that? because he couldn't be trusted in a more relaxed environment? or for his own protection?

I just don't believe they can say that he has changed, and remains calm etc. I can imagine its almost a given that you would "change" in prison, especially when you spend a lot of it in solitary confinement which I assume he will have done. What's to get stressed about when you spend all your time alone. Nobody to provoke you, talk to you, wind you up.

No crying babies or booze in prison.

There should be some sort of trial "real life" although it wouldn't realistically be feasible because it would endager others. But it would be good if they could put him in stressful situations, a busy shop, people pushing into him. Having to speak to benefits advisors, manage money, giving him free reign to get shitfaced.

That would show how "calm" he really was, without letting him out near other innocent babies.

I’m just imagining this man sitting in the GP waiting room and there’s a screaming baby. The last time he was in close proximity to a screaming baby the outcome was horrific. That sort of an event creates changes in your brain and creates associations. In his brain screaming baby = extreme violence. That’s his association with screaming baby. For 45 years that has been his only association with screaming baby. That association has had 45 years to take root and firmly establish itself. And if he’s in the GP he’s possibly in pain or stressed already. Not unlikely in a man of his age and will increase as he ages. Really frightening prospect tbh.

Reflect and Multi Sorry I’m not saying I disagree with more transparency. Just trying to weigh up the pros and cons and how this might be achieved.

However, I’m out of time for now! Got to run.

@flamingofridays

my understanding is that he was moved back to more secure places for his own safety.

I was asked to defend, with ‘relevant quotes’, my assertion that people on this thread seemed depressingly willing to mete out the same kind of punishment that the man under discussion was imprisoned for in the first place, but I haven’t had time until now. Here you go.

*Any one who ever did these crimes should rot

*The only thing he deserves is a bullet

*I can only hope that someone will 'deal' with this monster once he is released.

*I've changed my mind about vigilante justice, if this monster is released I hope he ends up on a spike somewhere.

*I hope someone finishes him off the day he leaves prison.

*I’m never an advocate of vigilante justice, but if this creature is ever released I would change my mind!

*But he won’t go anonymous (despite trying ) and will probably get done in a vigilante attack . And hopefully killed hence saving tax payers money

*He doesn't deserve to be treated like a civilised human being

*I wouldn’t bother with all that. There are easier ways. I couldn’t care less if he suffers.

*Who said it had to be by lethal injection? A shot through the heart would be more effective and painless.

*Then what's the betting he'll be killed by by a member or members of the general public? (Serves him right.)

*No, he shouldn't be released, and if he is, I hope that someone is waiting outside for him. Not with a gun though, that would be too quick.

*Someone will fuck him over when is released is my bet . The beauty of social media

*I truly hope he's released and a vigilante snuffs his life out

But not a baying mob, oh no.

@Nonomore2
MattFreisCheekyDimples what facts could the parole board possibly have that would make people feel differently about the prospect of his release?

Yes, OK, that’s a reasonable question. I’m happy to debate, I just can’t stand all the revenge talk.

So, I should stress I don’t know anything about this case, and the judicial system isn’t my area of expertise either, but I do know a certain amount about psychiatry, including forensic psychiatry.

Totally hypothetically then, and based only on what I’ve read in the BBC report (don’t do the DM, sorry), I think it’s possible what he did was the outcome of a psychotic break. He would fit a classic demographic for a first psychotic episode. A pp mentioned personality disorder, but nothing I’ve read particularly suggests that. Psychosis needn’t necessarily manifest violently, but if he was experiencing delusions that the children were controlled by the devil, let’s say, then the murder, and the particularly horrendous detail of it, might in that context ‘make sense’. Forensic psychiatry was not a well developed specialty in 1973 and if he pleaded guilty I think there would have been a lack of scrutiny as to even the facts, never mind the motivations. If it was a first psychotic episode it would explain the lack of psychiatric history, but the talk of ‘coping badly with stress’ fits. Over the course of 45 years in prison, a diagnosis of, say, schizophrenia would have become much clearer, and the range of treatments available wider and more effective. In addition, many schizophrenics, particularly men with late teens/early twenties onset burn out by their 60s and develop a dementia-like condition. If this applies to him, it would completely change the risk analysis.

I reiterate, this is only one purely hypothetical scenario. I know nothing about this man or his case, and I am just as shocked by the details of his crime as anyone else here. But my point is that almost no one knows the basis on which the parole board made their decision, and calling him a monster and demanding his head on a plate illuminates us not one bit.

Am I really the only person here who is curious to understand the parole decision rather than just wanting to denounce it from a position of complete ignorance?

The children also had a father too Who also would have suffered terribly

Of course. Though the father seems to have disappeared from public view, there don't appear to be any interviews, only with the mother.

Am I really the only person here who is curious to understand the parole decision rather than just wanting to denounce it from a position of complete ignorance

No, you clearly are not, which is why you've just come back into a discussion about Parole Board transparency and its status as a court.

The Warboys case shows the failings of the Parole Board, failings which were robustly criticised by senior courts. It shows that the process relied on a few experts retained by Warboys, and neither they nor Warboys were questioned in any serious way. The note-taking was almost non-existent, and the whole process was concluded in a little over an hour (fifty minutes of questioning of Warboys, plus some other stuff) and and most a day (I would guess that they met for lunch, discussed the case a bit, chatted for Warboys for a bit, made a decision and adjourned, so three or four hours tops).

Given the controversy and notoriety of the Warboys case, that he was proposed to be released direct from Category A, that there had been multiple subsidiary cases associated with his crimes, that it was suspected he had many more victims, that he had refused to accept responsibility until recently and that in the www.gov.uk/government/news/professor-nick-hardwick-responds-to-concerns-about-worboys-case words of the then chair of the Parole Board it was "chaired by one of our most experienced members" it's reasonable to assume the Warboys case was the best the Parole Board can do. It was a fucking shambles, as the subsequent events show. So why would one believe this case was any better scrutinised? Has the Parole Board done anything other than stonewall over Warboys?

matt

that's all well and good, and it may be that whatever condition he has is well controlled in prison (because they will ensure he takes his meds every day). How on earth do they know it will continue to be well controlled outside prison? he may not take his meds, he may not attend any kind of councilling, he may drink which will have an effect.

Even if he killed three children in some kind of psychotic episode, and now has some kind of dementia like condition, you cannot honestly say that the risks are low.

People with dementia (who were not previously dangerous!) get themselves into all kinds of situations which are not great. Someone suffering with that who previously had a violent episode whilst suffering from a different condition, surely is not safe to be out, free on the streets. If nothing else, he's a risk to himself, no?

also, whatever condition he was suffering doesn't excuse the fact that he brutally killed three children, imo. Calling him a monster is quite reserved, considering what he did.

Would you be saying all this about baying mobs if you had known those children? doubt it.

honestly, there are no circumstances in which I personally would find it acceptable to release this man.

I don't know the ins and outs of the case, I don't know what the parole board base their decision on, but to me, it matters not what he is like now, whether he is a "changed man" whether he has found god, or whether he has grown a brand new fully functioning brain.

He brutally murdered three children. He did it.

I don't care what he's like now or what front he is putting on about being changed , I care that he took three innocent lives, and that cannot and will not changed.