Shame on BBC for victim blaming and stigmatising ASD

[Gloriarty]

Shame on you BBC - what a triumph of victim blaming and stigmatising

Wow

Man kills woman. She enjoyed spa days and lavish treats while they were dating - and then she was hard to live with while she was grieving close family suicides. And she was an escort. A very expensive one. BBC, what conclusions are you looking for me to draw here?

And then let's explore Aspergers Syndrome as a driver for murder. Because an interest in fixing motorbikes is the crucial factor here, rather than being a mysogynist arsehole who murders the woman he loved. Because you need to lean on a condition the perpetrator wasn't even diagnosed with - and not just call him yet another (yet another) hate-filled man who'd rather kill his loved one than let them free.

Georgina Symonds deserves a better tribute. Additionally, it is unsubstantiated and deeply harmful for a major news outlet to cover Asperger's syndrome framed in these terms.

I've lodged my complaint here

I'm a bit puzzled. Where does it say that autism is a mental illness?

In the box-out, it says "Asperger syndrome is a lifelong developmental disability".

I notice it extensively quotes Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, who acted as a witness for the defence.

The article seemed to me to be exploring a pretty unusual defence and explaining why it was used. It makes it clear that the jury wasn't swayed by it.

I don't think there's much wrong with the bbc's reporting. It SBC who has gone on and on about the role AS may have played in this case. I have plenty of issues with SBC's views of autism - but the BBC love him. Most of the stuff about this case & AS in that article are direct quotes from him.

And he is prof of autism at Cambridge. So although I disagree with a lot of what he says about autism - clearly if the courts or the BBC want an 'expert' - they'll look to him. Fair enough he has the medals.

I think he's the one you are disagreeing with, not the BBC.

I am not seeing any reasons to complain about the article

BBC aren't making the claim. They are only reporting "the unusual defence" attempt by the murderer's lawyers, based on suspected ASD.

What do you want them to say? That defence lawyers DIDN'T make that claim?

I completely agree with you OP. Why must we never just call it what it is? Male violence.

Nothing to do with ASD. Just more male violence.

I did say hackmum that on this occasion, they hadn't made the usual "mental illness" mistake.

It's still a great pity that autism never gets much media coverage outside of the context of crime.

I believe black youth felt the same way about their demographic and the media 15-30 years ago.

My grounds for complaint were

a) the emphasis placed on the dead woman being an escort who had got lots of 'treats' from her murderer. To me it reads very strangely - almost like that's supposed to justify the crime

b) this isn't a news article. They are using the news as a hook to write an information article about ASD / dawdle on salacious details. To the casual reader - this connects ASD and serious criminal behaviour. The actual substance of the conclusion of the jury and experts is that ASD does not incline one to murder, nor is it a reasonable defence for murder. I think it is irresponsible editorial judgement to publish the article at all (the news part was reported separately much more briefly).

So if the woman was an escort, BBC should not mention it?

And what do you mean by "This isn't a news article"? What is it, then?

"article about ASD / dawdle on salacious details. To the casual reader - this connects ASD and serious criminal behaviour."

That would have to be someone considerably below average intelligence and/or reading comprehension skills, if that is what they get from "Historically it has been recognised that people with Asperger syndrome are much more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime."

It's more feature than news piece.

Historically it has been recognised that people with Asperger syndrome are much more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime."

What I take from that is that they are now paying lip service to criticism of their usual mistakes while ramping up the salaciousness.

This is the original news report Generally factual and business like.

What I linked to was from their 'Magazine' section.

Title: The millionaire and the escort - murder through logic?

Subtitle: As a millionaire is found guilty of murdering his escort, how did he claim Asperger syndrome made him do it?

I just don't see the problem with this article (& I do have a son that does hurt people due to his autism, although not in a criminal way - not capable of intent).

I find it interesting that SBC sees autism everywhere & is often in support of it being used in mitigation in criminal activity. At times that might be appropriate. I didn't see enough of this case to have an opinion on whether it was an appropriate defence or not - of course one side effect of inappropriate attempts at mitigation may be that it reduces the credibility of other mitigation pleas.

Are you really comfortable with this case being described as 'murder through logic'?

When you introduce your DS and describe his autism for people to understand it as almost a psychopathy - making those affected by it liable to place 'logic' over human life?

Well ds1 isn't capable of logic (he doesn't have capacity, so we're nowhere near logic).

And that logic explanation comes from Simon Baron-Cohen - not the BBC. I disagree with a lot of what SBC says about autism and have to practically gaffer tape my mouth shut before I listen to him speak - but as I said earlier most of your disagreements are with him, not the BBC - they're reporting his take on the case. He is a UK authority on autism and is driving the way concepts around the condition have developed.

Do I think at times that AS/ASD is an appropriate mitigation in a criminal case - yes. In this case I don't know enough to have an opinion - but the jury decided not.

I am pleased that they did remember to mention that people on the spectrum are more usually victims.

And ds1's autism is nowhere near psychopathy - he's not capable of being a psychopath.

Autism is a massive spectrum. My son is at the very severe end. That is his experience of autism. It doesn't tell you anything about anyone else's and he is nothing like someone with HFA or AS. But his experience is as valid as anyone else's. Personally I think lumping everything together under one umbrella diagnosis is ludicrous & unhelpful - but while that is the case you have to accept that ASD may be an explanation for all sorts of behaviours - some of which are not that desirable.

" Morgan himself, who had built two successful businesses and was married with children, was said to initially find it inconceivable he could have Asperger syndrome. "

But was conveniently diagnosed on remand - when they decided to use it as mitigation.

Whether or not he had Aspergers - the dominant features of this case is violent jealous man.

Conflating an interest in tractors with strangling your girlfriend with garden twine is really not helpful or informative.

Again that's SBC - who did dx him (I presume he used a proper test rather than looked at his interest in tractors). I have a lot of issues with the way that the dx of autism is changing (largely driven by people like SBC) - but that's not the BBC - that's the shifting boundaries of an ASD dx.

Currently I have a bruised chin, a bruised back of neck, bruised arms and a scratched neck courtesy 100% of my son's autism (well maybe a bit epilepsy as well). I don't describe him as being a psychopath or violent - I say he shows distressed behaviours (because that is the most accurate way of describing it).

That doesn't mean everyone with autism will show physical distressed behaviours. I know many that do and many that don't. But is his behaviour due to autism? Yes. Could ASD be a contributory factor in some cases of criminal action? Yes.

It's a huge spectrum - and what is causes/contributes to will vary from individual to individual.

But the BBC chose to splash it as a feature article - complete with pop-out info boxes to make it feel like a health information piece.

Lots of nonsense gets spouted every day. Angry jealous men trying to weasel their way out of murder in particular will spout many 'justifications'. An authoritative news outlet like the BBC has to be responsible in what it gives air time too.

Are you happy with the other half of the article - which is almost a cautionary tale of how if you're an expensive prostitute then it's bad form to be short-tempered with your client. Because that was the other tack tried as 'mitigation' - and I think it is equally shabby and should not be given lingering public air time.

I didn't read it like that. There was clearly a complex relationship between them and others & it was a short piece trying to capture that complexity. I'm not a massive fan of the BBC but I don't see anything wrong with this piece.

That night Morgan made a precise murder "to do" list on his phone, strangling Miss Symonds the next day in her home with orange baling twine.

Devil I appreciate what you are saying about violent outbursts in your DS - but this is not it .

Autism is a spectrum; everyone is different; some autistic people will also be wife beating bastards. Some Audi drivers will also be wife beating bastards. Different facets feed into different personalities - sometimes to make unsavoury combinations.

I maintain that the BBC is wrong to report such unsupported speculation in this way - particularly given the very emotive subject matter on one hand and the very vulnerable targets on the other hand.

The article is factually incorrect. It says:

'Asperger syndrome is a form of autism, the difference being the person suffering from it does not have learning difficulties.'

That is not correct. The difference is that a person with Aspergers does not have delayed language development.

It's not unsupported speculation though is it. They have THE UK authority on autism commenting & it was used as a defence.

Do I think SBC should be the UK authority on autism, no, but he is and in his opinion AS may be an explanation for how this ended up a murder case - and he was happy to talk to the BBC about it. That's not unsupported speculation - there's probably an academic paper being written on it right now.

If there is a an over representation of people with ASD in prison (iirc dyspraxia is over represented) then that's interesting and a very strong argument for better support in childhood (which is prob something I would agree with SBC about).