Ian Brady

I have never said I hate anyone, hate what some people do, like Brady. But some crimes are so horrific, I cannot feel any sympathy for those th carry them out. To be told I am not Christian for not loving everyone as equal, is judgemental in itself. To spend millions of pounds extending lives these people, which show no remorse and continue to hate is for want of a better word, pointless.

Oh believe me Anya I know that people with mental illness are not necessarily murderers and they are actually much more likely to harm themselves that wasn't what I was trying to portray at all I probably worded it badly I don't think Brady or other murderers necessarily suffer from a mental illness as we know them ...but a brain malfunction which surely would be very useful to investigate I suppose before they are dead it would need their permission to do so and they probably wouldn't give it
I think it was right to keep him locked up and I think it's excellent that he's now gone but with him gone all the information needed for any closure has gone too I can't imagine any punishment would be enough for those poor families but
I was very uncomfortable with that 'let him lose' comment too Anniebach Revenge is never sweet

i don't expect a brain 'malfunction' would show up on autopsy. A brain abnormality might however.

If, by a brain malfunction, you mean an abnormal response then I think that's entirely possible. Either, through some incidence in their past or some malfunction of their pleasure response centre of the brain, these individuals actually find pleasure in other people's pain and misery. There are quite a few people like that, though to a lesser degree than torture and murder.

When the pleasure centres of the brain are stimulated, usually by experiences such as food, sex, laughter, alcohol, smoking, drugs, etc. we seek to reproduce these pleasures. Part of the reason some people overeat it is, I'm sure, this pleasure response. People who overeat are in control of themselves and could override that response, in the same way a smoker could choose to give up.

Now for some reason in people like Brady, it is the torturing of children that stimulate that response so he sought to replicate that pleasure. Deliberately.

I ask you again Annie, if it had been your child that had been raped, photographed and then murdered; buried for years on a Lancashire moorland before you found where he was; and then discovered that there were 4 more such children; are you honestly able to say that you would not want revenge? That you would not want to get your hands on the b*****s that did that to your child and do it to them? Even when you'd heard the tape recordings of your child begging for help from Hindley? Or hearing your child calling Hindley, "Mummy" in the hope that it would appeal to her and save her from what they were doing to her, but knowing it did not.

Revenge may not be justice Annie but it's all that a lot of us in this area had to keep us going, especially during the many times that Hindley appealed for parole and insisting that she was "normal and well again" and ready to be freed.

Your piety and capacity for forgiveness is awe inspiring. I hope you never have to put it to the test.

I don't subscribe to the theory that if someone does commit murder they are necessarily suffering from a mental illness, yes, some will be but some, as I believe was the case with Brady, are just nasty pieces of work. It is very unlikely that anyone on GN has met or spoken with him, those who have say they believe he was sane when he carried out the murders. I believe the decision to keep him in a mental hospital was to protect him from other prisoners and latterly, when I think he did develop a mental illness, in order to prevent his suicide.

Chewbacca, I don't know how I would react if I had been the parent of one of those children, grief, anger, all those emotions I am quite sure, a desire to kill them quite possibly.

Your argument is supporting what that mob in Liverpool wanted to do to two little boys.

i have never mentioned forgiveness , it is not for me to forgive them, to want justice yes , they were both found guilty , we do not have the death penalty so they were sentenced to life in prison . Hindly was in law allowed to appeal, it wasn't granted.

I can understand families of victims having hatred, I can understand families of innocent people who have been hanged wanting justice .

I am not pious, I think a discussion on this should be done calmly and without emotion. I do not mean no emotion felt for the victims, but discussing justice and the law. I accept this is not an opinion shared by the majority
Either we have law or mob rule.

Re the solicitor annsixty, I only saw him briefly on the news but agree that there seemed something about him that could make the skin crawl.

How anyone can defend the indefensible is beyond me but
solicitors/barristers will look for the slightest technicality in the prosecution's case to get their client off or a reduced sentence - knowing full well the evil they have committed and could commit in future.

It's their job, if no one agreed to defend there couldn't be justice

I accept that Annie , but you keep comparing Hindley and Brady murders to the Jamie Burger murder. They cannot be compared. John Thompson and Robert Venables were themselves 2 young children. I don't believe for one moment that, at the time that they carried out their act, that they had premeditated it for 4 months or set up a back up plan in case they were spotted picking a child up to take away. They were, themselves 2 little boys. Hindley and Brady were not children Annie. They were 2 full grown cognitive adults who planned the murders for many months before they set out to take their first victim (Pauline Reade). They had note books with a plan of action, they bought records that they knew would appeal to a child's interest, they knew that children had been taught "don't talk to strange men and don't get into a car with a strange man", so they agreed that Hindley would approach the children first because that would put them off guard.

Thompson and Venables cannot be likened to Hindley and Brady and if you believe that they can, it just tells me that you have no knowledge of the depth of depravity what went on here in 1963.

It's their job, if no one agreed to defend there couldn't be justice
I know that but some of them will go to enormous lengths to find the slightest technicality on which to get their (obviously guilty) client off rather than accept the evidence and let justice take its due course.

Typo sorry, Jamie Bulger not Burger.

Chewbacca I agree with your last post - and, of course, there are others like them, sadly.

I can't imagine how I'd feel, it's too terrible to contemplate, but I do know that as a society we MUST abide by the law, however ghastly the situation we find ourselves in, be it all through gritted teeth. Not to do so would evoke mob rule, in other words anarchy. I remember, some years ago that a convicted terrorist was to be deported. Mrs May, to her credit, as I understand it, went through every last detail with regard to the legalities before deporting this person which although frustrating, was, in a civilised society, the correct thing to do. Let's hope that same commitment bears well for brexit negotiations.

Chewbacca, I am not comparing the moors murderers with the children who killed James Bulger, I am comparing the reaction and behaviour of the public .

I do know details of the murders, my husband attended lectures by a person who worked on the cases, I read my husbands notes on the lectures and have always regretted doing so , they included details which were never reported in the press.

Jalima , if the defence did as you say it wouldn't be justice

I agree Niggly,

You are right, anniebach 'Getting off on a technicality' or a reduced sentence for a heinous crime for whatever reason is not justice and does not serve the general public well.

Jalima,we have had so many miscarriages of justice , some by defence not doing their job, police who have lied, juries who have allowed emotions to overcome facts. Our courts are not perfect are they

I seem to remember Lord Longford visiting them both and getting involved in the case. Do Gooders, eh!

Lawyers getting their clients off on 'technicalities' is what makes (in the end) for good law - the legal system can't anticipate all possible defence manouevres.

That is true, but in the meantime a criminal could still be walking the streets and a danger to the public because of some minor technicality which matters not a jot and has nothing to do with the obvious guilt of the accused.

I wondered how long it would be before the term "do gooders" was used.

Our justice system, with all its imperfections, is better than a system in which "everybody knows he's/she's guilty so why bother about the technicalities".

I am talking about cases where the evidence of guilt is indisputable yet a barrister will try to get a client off on a minor technical error of procedure.

Jalima, I disagree. I had an ex-student (overseas) who became a defence lawyer, and he was able to get some clients off who had shoplifted but police gave prices from another store. His argument was that in those cases the defence lawyer serves an important role in tightening up police evidence, and I agree with him

But Jalima , it is what defence are paid to do and as unfair as it seems an error of procedure must exist for a reason

Mrsmopp, it was do Gooders who did and still do fight against miscarriages of justice