Aaron Campbell

[LordPickle]

I am glad that this monster has been named publicly. The idea that he would have been protected after murdering Alesha MacPhail made me sick. His picture is all over the news now.

www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=undefined&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwin88SFvM_gAhUMxoUKHQJvC0kQzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Falesha-macphails-killer-named-as-aaron-campbell-after-judge-lifts-banning-order-11644559&psig=AOvVaw1ipS3vbW3vpSOIkghyKYpV&ust=1550929309077202

He will be seen of course, because he will need an assessment, he will be monitored fuerza I would hope they will on this occasion share their findings if it is relevant to the public.

STV news have posted a video of him jumping on a trampoline , I don't understand why they thought this was ok

That's from his own You Tube channel.

Yes but I don't understand why they put it up on facebook he has been named a photograph would do not jumping about playing in the garden

I think we can assume he was completely fit to stand trial otherwise it would have been adjourned for psychiatric reports, I haven’t seen any evidence that this happened (we can’t be certain, but I am sure it would have been reported)

The only news site I can access in work is Daily Fail and I can not believe what I saw earlier. They have since removed it but they described him as being incredibly handsome, milky white complexion with luxurious thick hair.

What the actual fuck???? It made me so angry that I commented on it on the site.

found it:

*He is handsome, in a modern, metrosexual way, with luxuriant, swept-over hair and a milky complexion.

Dressed immaculately, in a tartan suit and collar and tie, Campbell gave evidence with great self-assurance*

Why are they describing a child killer in this way!?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6733191/Alesha-MacPhails-killer-named-pictured-time.html

@RoastOx

Nope - still up on Daily Fail.

'He is handsome, in a modern, metrosexual way, with luxuriant, swept-over hair and a milky complexion.

Dressed immaculately, in a tartan suit and collar and tie, Campbell gave evidence with great self-assurance.'

xcross post

Unbelievable isn't it? It's like they are trying to turn him into a fucking superstar

Aren't violent offenders given tvs and x boxes to placate them for the safety of the guards and other prison staff?

These are volatile people and apparently a few x boxes here and there cost less than keeping prisons adequately staffed.

I shook my head when I read it. The Metrosexual bit makes me want to be sick tbh.

Not a Daily Fail apologiser but, without clicking on the link and reading it in full, I suspect it's to show the incongruence of someone so 'nice' looking could be capable of such an ugly act.

In much the same way that I sometimes look at my angelic, sweet 2yo daughter and wonder how she is capable of the monstrous tantrums she throws.

There's a curiosity for people in seeing how someone looks and conducts themselves so well publicly, yet has a completely different private psyche.

I should add however that the language is nauseating. But then it's the Daily Fail so I wouldn't expect some Orwellian exploration of man meets society.

I don’t think the media are trying to portray him positively at all in how they have described him. If anything, the media has been very negative toward him.

It is a fact that juries are swayed by the appearance of an accused person. I had a trial a couple of weeks ago where I described my accused in a similar way, I think I also said “like butter wouldn’t met”.

Despite him being identified by all witnesses AND admitting the offences when he was giving evidence, he was found Not Proven. Unbelievable. And I am convinced if he looked like a stereotypical “Ned” he would have been found guilty.

Oh bloody hell, just when you think the mail can't get any worse, 'metrosexual' about a child rapist and murderer.

Reminds me of the constant need to make average looking and average iq Ted Bundy into some sort of suave, intelligent, movie star.

The stories about paedophiles getting a disproprortionately hard time in jail are urban legends, from what I've heard. Most criminals don't care about anyone but themselves. The prisoners who are likeliest to be targets of violence are:

• former police officers

• snitches

• men believed to be gay

• non-alpha males.

That Daily Mail comment is repulsive

Nikita, he was clearly deemed fit to plead and to stand trial so there was no need for psychological examination in the course of the trial. And I haven't seen it reported that his lawyers put forward a defence of say insanity. His sanity or otherwise simply was not at issue. But when it comes to sentence, should he be detained for life with out possibility of parole,, etc , what risk does he still present, psychological reports are relevent.

I don't agree that anyone who commits a crime like this must have been traumatised at some point. Some of them will have been, others won't. We don't know which category Campbell fell into. Robert Hare's writings on psychopathy are interesting in this respect. There's a wide spectrum of human behaviour - it seems like common sense that some people will simply be genetically predisposed to low empathy.

The stories about paedophiles getting a disproprortionately hard time in jail are urban legends, from what I've heard. Most criminals don't care about anyone but themselves.

I'm not sure about that. I worked for a while in a Probation Office in the 80s when one of the things they did was look after prisoner's wives. I was told that prisoners did target paedophiles because they were unable to protect their own family while inside and felt duty bound to take it out on any 'nonces' they came across.

Most prisoners are locked in their cells all day every day with very little time out.
At weekends they are locked in the cells from 6pm on Friday to 9am Monday. The TVs are deemed essential for that reason but can be taken away due to bad behaviour in most prisons.
An incentive is the Xbox.
Solitary confinement has different rules.
Normal cells have up to three prisoners sharing in a space just slightly larger than the average sized loo.

I absolutely believe that, for serious, violent offenders, privileges such as tv/gaming/etc should not be granted. These individuals committed vile atrocities against other humans, some of them children, so I absolutely do not see why prison should be a nice, safe place for them

The prison authorities need some sort of incentives for offenders to behave, otherwise their job becomes near-impossible. So they tend to use things like TV as rewards for good behaviour, and that seems perfectly sensible to me. What is to be achieved by making offenders stare at four walls every day, other than to leave them lots of free time to allow their hatred of society to fester and to think of ways to express that hatred?

As for saying they're not entitled to a safe environment, that's ridiculous. The punishment is deprivation of liberty, no more, no less.

he wont last long in prison - child rapists/murderers rarely do.

Not true. Venables is still alive and kicking in jail unfortunately.

I'm a bit confused about why psychological exams weren't done before his trial, to be considered as part of the evidence. At least, I haven't read that they were.

He will have been assessed as competent to stand trial (I assume) but not for anything specific.

I just heard this too. As has been said, I don't know why it benefits anyone knowing who he is. I am worried that his family will now be a target.

Then again, if he was 24 months older, he would be named. So meh...

He wanted to know what it was like to attack and kill someone. Why not pick on a 6 ft 5 inch 23 stone rugby player then?

Urgh. Words fail me. What an utter monster. I am also sick of the 'he must be damaged' kind of comment. Many people are damaged and abused and suffer tragedy in their life, but they manage to go their whole life without murdering a young child.

He is nothing more than a cold blooded vicious psychopathic murderer, who raped, and bludgeoned a little girl to death.

@PooleySpooley

Most people aren’t actual adults at 18.

You are, by law, an adult at 18.

If we create this belief that 'not everyone is grown up at 18,' we are 'enabling' people to behave in a childish and immature manner as long as it suits them. It's basically infantalising them.

I mean, where do we draw the line? Wait til they're 20, 21, 25? Keep treating some young people like infants because not everyone is an adult at 18.?