Time to remember the murdered victims over the murderers

[notedbiscuits]

With the good riddance death of the murderer of Holly and Jessica.

Without Googling, can you name the victims of other murderers? No you just hear the names of killers.

This is a fantastic book of Jack The Ripper's 5 victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five:_The_Untold_Lives_of_the_Women_Killed_by_Jack_the_Ripper

The Guardian handled this quite well I think: they had a factual article on the death of Huntley but a longer feature on the summer of 2002.

Without Googling, can you name the victims of other murderers? No you just hear the names of killers

I don't think this is entirely true. James Bulger, Sara Payne, April Jones, Sarah Everard, Daniel Pelka, Victoria Climbie all spring to mind without using Google.

The Five is an excellent book.

I have to say I don't like papers gloating about imprisoned killers, like years ago I remember one paper going on about 'Oh look Myra Hindley looks old and fat and ugly now, hahahaha!' It's just like a different kind of fetishisation of murderers. We should let them be forgotten.

eh? What like the victims of all murderers? This doesn’t make any sense

I don’t know why we need to remember the names of victims. That doesnt impact anything

Some weirdos see true crime as entertainment and could name 100s of victims.

They'd also love that book.

No doubt, they'll also have been on the tacky Jack The Ripper tours in London.

But do they give a shit about the victims?

Who knows.

I would say that I remember the victims names when the murders happened in my lifetime but before that I may know the name of a murderer and not the victims but that’s because I’m only aware of them through media mentions

the bbc focussed on the victims I thought - and catching him. They had an interesting piece on the world service about a journalist who interviewed him and went to the police after because he was suspicious

the book you linked is a really good read

Let's face it, unless you have a direct relationship of some form with a victim or a murderer, it doesn't really matter.

I don't think it would bring any comfort to the families for some randomer to be reciting their lost loved ones names to keep the memory alive.

In the Idaho murders the judge said continuing to focus on the killer gave him relevance, agency and power. I thought that was very well said. We should remember the victims.

They are single murders/victims of neglect. I'm talking names of victims of serial killers. Then you just hear the name of the murderer.

I read/watch/listen to true crime stuff.

I love the criminology and can smell a rat.

I knew Mick Philpott was behind the murders of his kids as could tell his tears were fake. Tracie Andrews who claimed her bf was beaten to death by a stranger when she did it.

Gentle reminder: Nicola Wells has explicitly asked people to stop sharing the picture of Holly and Jessica in Man United kits, as the family want to reclaim the image for themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/jul/27/news-photography-soham

Huntley wasn't a serial killer either though was he, yet you used his victims as an example in your OP.

I think it needed to be reported that he was dead but I also thought this morning when I read about it that it was completely unnecessary for all of the details of what he did to be dredged up again. I just don’t think that if someone I loved was murdered, I would want them to be brought into the story of the life of ther person who had done it.

Who would want their child’s picture to be continually shown next to the person who killed them? And their name ever linked to theirs.

Also, I find it jarring when people refer to children who have been murdered by their first names like they know them or that they are famous.

I would prefer news outlets to announce the death of these notorious murderers in one sentence eg.
"Ian Huntley has died in hospital following an attack by a fellow inmate at HMP Frankland on 26 February."

No mention of the victims, no photographs of the victims. No chapter and verse on his crimes. It must be awful for the families to have all of this dragged up again.

Oh please…
What started off as a reasonable suggestion has turned into you being able to sniff out a murderer as a result of you reading true crime weekly.

Behave, these are real people’s lives you’re getting your jollies from.

Journalism is about who, what, when, where, and why. If journalists can’t state the basic pertinent facts about a news story, there’s not much point in reporting it, and your idea fails on the “who” and the “why.” I’m American, but I’m pretty sure not every single adult in the UK immediately knows who Ian Huntley is. (I get that it’s a very famous case, but if someone is, say, a twenty-year-old immigrant from a country where English isn’t the national language, s/he could easily have no idea.) There’s probably another group of people who recognize the name as belonging to a famous criminal, but couldn’t tell you anything about the circumstances of his crime. (“This isn’t new, though - didn’t somebody kill him last year? No, that was Ian Watkins.”)

What Huntley did is essential to the “why” of his killer’s motive. He wasn’t killed because he started a fight in the prison, or ratted out another prisoner to the warden, or stole someone’s food at dinner. He was the frequent target of violent attacks because even convicts in prison don’t like people who murder little girls.

Yes, thank you, I'm aware of how journalism works. My point is that in cases such as these the victims' families should take precedence over the public's right to know. Any British adult alive in 2002 knows who Ian Huntley was, the case gripped the nation. Anyone who doesn't know what crimes he committed can always google him.

And the who, what, where and why is not something that journalists always choose to share with the public. For example, the infamous Moors Murders which took place in the North of England in the 1960s by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Journalists took the view then, and have held fast on it since, that the grotesque details of what happened to the poor children who were sexually tortured and murdered should not be made public. The press can and do self-regulate on occasion, in GB at least.

In the case of this pair, Hindley died in 2002, Brady in 2017 and in both cases the press regurgitated what they were prepared to disclose about their crimes almost 40 years and over 50 years later respectively. Imagine being an elderly parent of one of their victims or a brother, sister or cousin and seeing the case all over the news again. It just isn't right imo.

So Ian Huntley’s name is newsworthy, then, but Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman can just fade into anonymity unless you bother to Google? “Huntley was convicted of the 2002 murders of ten-year-old schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.” That’s hardly recalling every grisly detail.

”Any British adult alive in 2002 knows who Ian Huntley was, the case gripped the nation.” Okay. As of 2021, 29% of the population of England and Wales was under 25. Every single day, people old enough to remember this case die, and people who weren’t born at the time become adults.

As distasteful as it is .. people love this stuff. You can’t move but Podcasts about killers, Netflix is full of Documentaries about them, and there are a couple of TV Channels that are “true crime” all day. Murderers make money, the more notorious the better.

With Serial Killers in particular, people are fascinated by the killer, as what they are doing is so far away from normality. The victims are forgotten as they are “ordinary” (if that makes sense). If there is something a bit different about the Victim (often if they are a child) they are much more likely to be in the consciousness of people. If victims are people who have difficult lives Addicts, sex-workers, street homeless etc, the media never seem to know how to report it .. it’s like the “innocence” of the Victim is a factor in sympathy.

Do I think it’s right? Nope

Jess Phillips reads out the names of murdered women, once a year, in parliament.. nobody would hear their names otherwise.

"That’s hardly recalling every grisly detail."

It brings all the details back if you are a family member, I imagine. The families don't need reminders in the news of what took place. And my empathy lies with them.

"As of 2021, 29% of the population of England and Wales was under 25."'

And? I wasn't even born when the Moors Murders took place but I know who Brady and Hindley were and what their crimes were.

"Every single day, people old enough to remember this case die, and people who weren’t born at the time become adults."

Obviously. It happens with every generation. But the internet is a wonderful source of information.

I have my opinion, you have yours. Enjoy the rest of your day @YankSplaining

As awful as it is for the victims and their families, it's the knowledge of the murderers that can potentially inform/save future victims.

After Ian Huntley's crimes, the old CRB check was changed to DBS so the check was a national check, rather than the old local check. This was because he'd hidden his previous crimes by moving and this change may well have prevented other cases.

I get that the victims should be the most important, but actually we need to learn from the murderers to prevent future crimes.