Guardian report on Geraldine Newman murder

[IShouldBeSoLurky]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/03/man-suspected-killing-estranged-wife-two-children-jailed-assault

So this report confirms that Geraldine's estranged husband is believed to have killed her and their two children, and that a body has been found that's believed to be his. It also confirms that he was jailed in 2013 for assaulting her.

And then they've got the Samaritans' details at the end.

Now I'm sure it's editorial policy to include that in any article about suicide, and I'd normally support that 100%, but it's wrong in a story of this nature, surely?

"Murdered your wife and kids? About to jump off a cliff so you won't have to face justice? There are people who care about you and are here to listen."

Just me?

Very strange tone with that. Agreed that it seems to have missed that this was a horrific triple murder involving a woman and two children.

And good point Helmet. No, they didn't, because in Paris they were innocent victims. Here, well, the victims were his property, so it's different...

Poor form.

Article about this type of inappropriate coverage:

everydayvictimblaming.com/evb-analysis/family-annihilators/

I totally agree OP - they should have included the women's aid number. And funnily enough they don't link to the samaritans when reporting on terror attacks or mass shootings that also involve a suicide, do they? Reports of crimes like this are often inappropriate though.

I don't like the inclusion of comments about how nice and normal the abuser & murderer was, but on the other hand I do think it's important for people to be made aware that abusers don't look like monsters - they look like everyday men you see on the street. Which is why women should be believed when they report abuse, not ignored or disbelieved because 'he seems ok'. The man might seem like a nice guy, and you might think you know him, but that doesn't actually mean anything.

Absolutely, the Women's Aid details should have been included.

What the inclusion of the Samaritans number suggests to me is that there is information known by the press, but not reported (yet). Would the perpetrator have been deemed unfit for trial? Was he failed by the system in the same way as his victims?

This is exactly the sort of issue I'm challenging our local rag about - inadvertent though it may be.

I think putting the Women's Aid number at the bottom of any articles about family annihilation, DV etc would be good. It could lead to potential victims getting away before the perpetrator got to the stage of murdering them.

Surprised you disagree with that, Grimarse. What's your logic there?

Sadly, Women's Aid probably wouldn't have capacity to cope with additional calls if their number went into the national news. Might help them get more funding for their services from donations and grants, which would be good.

DrSeuss, I said this last night at 22:08 - maybe it doesn't show up on your screen, so I'll put it again;

If there is an error in the article, it is one of omission. They could and should have included one for anyone worried about a violent or unhinged partner.

By that I meant women's aid, or other such organisations . Please let me know if you can see it now.

I saw it. Nice change from your original dismissive response.

Ah. So rather than addressing DrSeuss's mistake, you want to have a pop at me? Brilliant.

And if it was dismissive, it was because the OP seemed to be blatantly provocative and/or stupid. Ignoring the fact that the Samaritans can help both parties, murderer and victims is crass. The OP deliberately sought to present the view that the article was designed only to sympathise with the murderer, and didn't give two figs about the victims. And that is bollocks.

Well it's not my mistake to address. I was backing you up by saying that I saw your comment. I thought it was jolly nice that you had such a turnaround.

Some of us feel the article got the balance wrong. It's ok to discuss that, no? Are you usually this defensive about journalism/guardian journalism or what?

I like discussing ideas. That is why I like FWR. But for you to keep pursuing the idea that I had a turnaround, even though I have explained my initial post, suggests that either you don't understand my ideas, or you simply refuse to engage with them. For you then to further question whether or not we should discuss the matter doesn't make sense.

PrettyBright - given that he had previous convictions and jail time for violence against his partner I think we can safely assume this was the culmination of a lengthy campaign of violence, not a moment of madness.

If he was deemed fit to stand trial previously (which he was, as he was jailed), we have no reason to think anything had changed sInce then. His behaviour certainly hadn't changed had it?

It must be nice to be able to treat violence against women as an enjoyable theoretical concept for debate.

altitude the point I was clumsily trying to express was far more eloquently expressed in the EBV article linked to above:

I am waiting for the results from an official inquest into the murder....... because I do not trust the media to report accurately about the mental health of [the perpetrator]. The media is complicit in perpetuating male violence through inaccurate reporting and victim blaming. If it turns out that [the perpetrator] did suffer from mental illness that went untreated, then the agencies involved with him will need to be held accountable for their failures.

My own feeling is that by publishing the Samaritans contact details, the paper may have been reacting to information that is not yet in the public domain (but may be known to the community in which the victims lived) for risk of being unable to hold the relevant agencies to account in future.

In any event, whether it was accurate or inaccurate reporting, the need to contact details of Women's Aid should be self-evident.

I think including the neighbour comment is relevant
EVERY time this happens we get 'he seemed so nice...' and that's because he probably did seem so nice, and that is what people need to understand.
To be honest I could easily not notice if someone I only saw occassionaly wasn't around for a few months, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion they'd been in prison

The point about reacting to information not yet in the public domain seems a bit contradictory to me - the Samaritans' information is there for the public, so why would they need it because of a reaction they could have to information they aren't privy to?

Because some people in the community may be privy to it.

I've seen it done in local media a lot - details of The Samaritans are published alongside a story about a body being found; the press are unable to report that it is a suicide, but family, friends and witnesses who have knowledge are aware and with the proliferation of social media, the 'unofficial' story gets round far quicker than the media are given permission to publish the full facts.

The neighbour IS relevant but five paragraphs Devoted to the neighbour suggesting that the killer is a super fella and this is 'ridiculous' is completely disproportionate. The children got two paras, the wife got virtually nothing. How is that balanced?

Spot on helmet. It is pretty clear to me that it isn't the perpetrator who the papers should be encouraging us to empathise with here. He had a history of violence.

The samaritans details weren't published because of a secret we don't know about - the fact that he committed suicide is in the public domain!

Also, the EVB article is saying pretty much the opposite of you, PrettyBright.

The article is condemning the assumption that the perpetrator in that case was mentally ill, despite the fact that there was no diagnosed mental illness and the fact that he had a history of violence. The article is arguing that this assumption is used as a way of making excuses for perpetrators.

It certainly isn't arguing that we should avoid condemning violent men with a history of violence on the basis that they might have been mentally ill.

When the article says they don't trust the media to report accurately - that's because the media regularly trot out the 'mental illness' line with no evidence, as a way of minimising and excusing the crimes of violent men.

Not because the media have a track record of condemning men as abusive monsters when they later turn out to be misunderstood souls, let down by the system.

That's what the article is saying.

In that case, Woman, would you expect an article about a female family annihilator to cover aspects of her mental history or not? Are you saying that it would be included in reports about a male murderer, but not a female murderer?

It depends - if she had documented relevant mental health problems, yes.

I wouldn't expect the media to just invent mental illness where there was no evidence for it. (Being abusive/violent is not in itself a mental illness)

The man the EVB article is about did not have documented mental health problems. It is incredibly common for the media to present crimes as being 'a moment of madness' or a desparate act by a normally lovely man when in fact they were nothing of the kind.

In fact, most cases like this follow a similar pattern. The perpetrator is usually male, there is usually a history of abuse, sometimes extremely serious prior abuse, and the crime is often in response to perceived loss of control over the family (who the perpetrator views as their possessions).

I have yet to see a case where an act like this is perpetrated by a lovely man who genuinely acted totally out of character due to external influences or illness, where the crime was a one-off in an otherwise healthy relationship. Are you aware of any?

Sorry when you said "would you expect" I thought you meant in an ideal world how would I expect the media to present it.

There are too few female cases to really comment accurately. There was a woman a year or so back who killed more than one man - I don't recall her being presented as a nice woman who just had a moment of madness, or as being mentally ill. The reporting was very sensationalist.

Men who kill their partners and children are routinely given madness as an excuse in the media though, regardless of the actual evidence.