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?

For me to be aware of that, I would have to know the perpetrator personally, and have the facts reported to me by an unbiased and un-sensationalist media. Neither of these are true, so it is impossible for me to say whether it has ever happened. I am sure I could conjure up something from Google, but that would be scoring points over tragic events.

If such articles are meant to engender sympathy with the perpetrator, why open it with A man suspected of killing his estranged wife and their two children was jailed in 2013 after being convicted of assault against her, it has emerged ? It is the exact opposite of painting him in a sympathetic light.

The stuff about him being a 'good guy' is placed at the end of the article, after the details of the offences. I can see that a lot of people in here are taking this as a 'good guy gone wrong' slant, but what if the opposite is true? What if it is trying to tell us Any man can carry out such heinous acts, you cannot tell by appearances - it could be your son, your partner, the guy at the school gate. Don't trust men!

I am not saying that this is the thrust of the article (I am not privvy to the journalist's intentions), but why can it not be read that way?

The stuff about him being a good guy shouldn't have been there at all.

And it's not just this one article. It's most articles you see where a man has killed his partner and/or children. It's a depressingly common crime committed by men, and the media routinely makes a hash of reporting it. If it was just one article, just one reporter, it wouldn't be a feminist issue.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3431292/I-m-scared-don-t-know-Terrified-mother-s-text-friend-days-husband-beat-death-killed-children-police-said-low-risk.html

Sorry, it's the DM but for once probably draws a better picture than the Guardian

I agree, anything at all about him being a nice guy is simply inappropriate, when he killed his family. Especially when the article gives no space to the woman, and her life. And also agree it's really poor to put a link to the Samaritans but nothing to signpost women who are dealing with violent and abusive men. You don't call the Samaritans then, you call Women's Aid.

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?

Sort of. There was a case a few weeks ago wherea man was considered to have acted totally out of character due to the external influence of his wife saying she was leaving him, causing him to kill her, hide the body and then report her missing.

He got off with just manslaughter instead of murder.

And also agree it's really poor to put a link to the Samaritans but nothing to signpost women who are dealing with violent and abusive men. You don't call the Samaritans then, you call Women's Aid.

Agreed, Although I actually think they should be told to contact the police, since it is on paper at least, a crime now. Or Women's Aid of they would just like someone to talk to.

That's depressing. Only his (now dead) wife could give an accurate picture of whether he was an abuser or not, so I'm guessing he got off murder on 'reasonable doubt'.

We really need to move on from the idea that victims provoke men to abuse them don't we? Leaving someone does not = driving them to kill you. The men who respond like that are the ones who view their wives as property in the first place.

Yes, there was a thread on that case here, if you're referring to the same one I'm thinking of.

17 weeks for an attack in which he left her for dead?

Can we clear one thing up here, re the posting of the Samaritans details. From their website;

Common reasons people contact us are:

• relationship and family problems
• loss, including loss of a friend or a family member through bereavement
• financial worries
• job-related stress
• college or study-related stress
• loneliness and isolation
• depression
• painful and/or disabling physical illness
• heavy use of or dependency on alcohol or other drugs
• thoughts of suicide

Read that first point, and then look how far down the list you have to go for suicides. It is right at the bottom. They are for everyone and anyone in trouble, not just depressed, homicidal husbands. Are people deliberately mis-interpreting this? Why are the Samaritans being presented as a service only for male murderers here? Can we please not bend facts just to suit our agenda?

There was a lot of discussion about the letter of the law in the thread. You are not supposed to be able to claim provocation because you're angry that your partner is leaving you for someone else, but in practice courts have got round this by saying it is a relevant factor when there is a secondary trigger, for instance if the husband says the wife "taunted him" in the course of the argument. Then it is apparently considered relevant. And of course the wife can't say whether that is true, because she is dead.

Ate you seriously suggesting that you'd recommend the Samaritans to a female domestic abuse victim? Because that's nonsense.

The organisations that might be recommended to someone currently experiencing dv include refuge, women's aid, the police etc... but not the samaritans!

In fact, the only time I've heard people recommend the Samaritans is to people who are depressed or suicidal. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise imo.

In this context, the contact details were definitely not provided for the benefit of dv victims.

They are for everyone in trouble.

Then why is it not guardian policy to put the Samaritans contact details after every murder/act of violence?

It wouldn't be the first organisation you'd think of to signpost women in an abusive relationship to. It's more appropriate to highlight specific, practical support for domestic abuse, not focus on the suicide element or just put the Samaritans as a catch all.

In fact, the only time I've heard people recommend the Samaritans is to people who are depressed or suicidal. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise imo.

Quite. Let's have a little look at this article, published today, about a fundraising campaign for victims of DV.

www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/justgiving-page-archers-helen-raises-thousands-domestic-violence-charity

Spot the Samaritans call to action? No?

That Daily Mail article is much better than Guardian one (though it pains to say it).

Again I'm going to say that I think the Samaritans number is only on the article because they have such strong guidelines for the media. Whenever articles refer to suicide and don't include this info the Samaritans usually get in touch afterwards and quite strongly remind them to do so. Other charities just don't do this or have this kind of weight.

Loraline I don't disagree and normally I would be 100% in favour of such a policy. I think, though, that in the context of this article it confers a victimhood on the murderer rather than on the family he killed.

From the Guardian style guide (a wonderful resource, btw):

Journalists should exercise particular care in reporting suicide or issues involving suicide, bearing in mind the risk of encouraging others. This applies to presentation, including the use of pictures, and to describing the method of suicide. Any substances should be referred to in general rather than specific terms. When appropriate, a helpline number (eg Samaritans) should be given. The feelings of relatives should also be carefully considered.

Emphasis my own. Here there are feelings of the victims' relatives to consider too.

It's a good point Loraline, but I think they should have been more careful to avoid doing what IShouldBeSoLurky refers to. All they had to do was give the WA number as well and not focus so much on the supposed good character of the man, or portray it as some kind of natural disaster which just happened to the family, given that he brutally murdered his wife and children and had been abusive before that.

This is an interesting discussion. Perhaps what we should be looking for in articles like this is a paragraph at the end along the lines of:

"Research has shown that the strongest predictor of family annihilation (the term for the killing of spouse and children) is that the perpetrator has previously engaged in domestic violence."

Good idea kestrel, then a link to WA and/or a police DV unit number.

Well I've lost faith with the Guardian after their appalling coverage of the New Years Eve assaults in Cologne which pretty much followed the same method of reporting: minimise the assault on the victim and concentrate instead on the hardship of the perpetrators.

The media always focus more on the perpetrator than the victim.

Think of well known murderers-they are household names. How many of us can name their victims?

Maybe a mn campaign is needed?