• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Moors Murderers: Ian Brady & Myra Hindley

Last edited by a moderator:
Weirdly, I read that an anthropologist had been sent locus piccies and identified a human jaw and teeth. It was on the interweb somewhere so must be true. :thought: But what would the guy gain from being made to look like a prat? Bizarre.
I think the author claimed this in the Daily Mail article. I don't think it will encourage many people to read his books, if this is representative of his research and investigation.

Does he have any sort of conscience that troubles him, given that he has added more media speculation/wasted police time and effort/and created more emotional trauma for the family?
 
Weirdly, I read that an anthropologist had been sent locus piccies and identified a human jaw and teeth. It was on the interweb somewhere so must be true. :thought: But what would the guy gain from being made to look like a prat? Bizarre.

I can maybe imagine a reputable forensic anthropologist stating that they cannot rule out the possibility that a photograph of a fragment of bone shows part of a human skeleton.

I can then totally imagine a confirmation hungry individual interpreting 'not saying no' as saying 'yes'.

I suspect that this happens an awful lot in all kinds of circumstances.

The world is full of totally unqualified 'experts'. Genuine experts are always worth listening to - but unless we know precisely what's been said in relation to precisely what piece of data, and the exact nature of that data and how its been presented and examined, any conclusions are worthless.
 
I can maybe imagine a reputable forensic anthropologist stating that they cannot rule out the possibility that a photograph of a fragment of bone shows part of a human skeleton.

I can then totally imagine a confirmation hungry individual interpreting 'not saying no' as saying 'yes'.

I suspect that this happens an awful lot in all kinds of circumstances.

The world is full of totally unqualified 'experts'. Genuine experts are always worth listening to - but unless we know precisely what's been said in relation to precisely what piece of data, and the exact nature of that data and how its been presented and examined, any conclusions are worthless.
Plus there's always the possibility that the photo the expert was sent was actually of a part of a human skull but either not what was found on the moor, or, by some fluke, the guy has turned up the remains of someone else buried on the moor (maybe only a partial body, which would account for why the police didn't find anything else).
 
Plus there's always the possibility that the photo the expert was sent was actually of a part of a human skull but either not what was found on the moor, or, by some fluke, the guy has turned up the remains of someone else buried on the moor (maybe only a partial body, which would account for why the police didn't find anything else).
I wondered if it might be a different human body - not Keith's. Just because it was another possibility.

I do find it strange that the police didn't find the bits that this man's digging found. Unless they were actually of animal origin.

It is unethical to misinterpret what "experts" said was possible (to prove your hypothesis) and to publicise this hypothesis/misrepresent the expert opinion publicly - especially when it concerns the body of a person with living relatives who was a victim of a nasty crime.

I don't remember if he named the experts who were said to have helped him - but I wondered if they were staying quiet because they wanted no association with his actions/theories. It would do nothing for their professional reputation.
 
Let's face it - most tabloid newspapers have no problem with 'mis-interpreting' an expert's tentative observation. They also tend to go for the 'expert' of their choice, such as ones who are more extreme in their views.
Big splashes on their front cover sell more papers. Accuracy tends to be disposable.
 
Here's a Private Eye article on the the fraudulent Moors 'discovery'.
It was posted on Facebook by Alan Bennett, brother of Brady and Hindley's victim Keith.
 

Attachments

  • Private Eye aticle on the the fraudulent Moors 'discovery'..jpeg
    Private Eye aticle on the the fraudulent Moors 'discovery'..jpeg
    480.3 KB · Views: 57
Last edited:
Daily Mail or not, this shows an ongoing trend in so-called news journalism.
Self-proclaimed expert and author approaches the tabloids - I'd guess online by email - offering a scoop. Online tabloid quickly scans the net, to see if there's anyone else running the story and publishes, facts or research be damned! Print tabloids get the story online and run it unchecked because ... "it wouldn't be published online if it wasn't checked." A skull becomes a jawbone becomes a skull fragment becomes the 'find' of said self-proclaimed expert and author.
"Where did he get it from?"
"He says from here."
So much for chain of evidence right from the get-go. But the tabloid feeding frenzy springs into action.
 
Daily Mail or not, this shows an ongoing trend in so-called news journalism.
Self-proclaimed expert and author approaches the tabloids - I'd guess online by email - offering a scoop. Online tabloid quickly scans the net, to see if there's anyone else running the story and publishes, facts or research be damned! Print tabloids get the story online and run it unchecked because ... "it wouldn't be published online if it wasn't checked." A skull becomes a jawbone becomes a skull fragment becomes the 'find' of said self-proclaimed expert and author.
"Where did he get it from?"
"He says from here."
So much for chain of evidence right from the get-go. But the tabloid feeding frenzy springs into action.
Yup. Also, even though the Mail journalists most likely had no faith whatsoever in the skull story, they'd run it anyway because to readers it might look like a scoop.

There's no risk of trouble as nearly everyone involved the case is now long dead. There's no chance of expensively impugning anyone's good name or being contradicted.

Alan Bennett shows his usual dignity and restraint.

Fraudulent, self-seeking, sensationalist: the Mail and Russell Edwards deserve each other.
 
Yup. Also, even though the Mail journalists most likely had no faith whatsoever in the skull story, they'd run it anyway because to readers it might look like a scoop.

There's no risk of trouble as nearly everyone involved the case is now long dead. There's no chance of expensively impugning anyone's good name or being contradicted.

Alan Bennett shows his usual dignity and restraint.

Fraudulent, self-seeking, sensationalist: the Mail and Russell Edwards deserve each other.
Also, if there had been anything, even the tiniest fragment of bone, they could have been in with the scoop. Everyone will forget the faulty reporting and outrageous fibbing. But if they'd passed on a true scoop, someone else would have had it.

I think this explains a lot about newspaper reporting.
 
We're at the Weird Weekend and have already heard spontaneous mention of the Moors Murders, in the context of the suspension of the death penalty in the 1960s before its eventual abolition.

Certainly not forgotten.
 
Last edited:
This is an important factor:
It's not about passage of time, or the life span of those immediately involved, but the impact on society.
Sure, you can have any amount of movies, plays, guided tours on Jack the Ripper - an industry in itself - but what is the impact of the brutal killings on Victorian society and, really, ours?
The mystery of the 'lost' victims of Brady/Hindley is solved ... these were the killers. But what was the impact? That a woman (cue the *gasp*) could've been involved in such brutality against children? When the Rose 'n' Fred West came out, the horror wasn't against the poor young women who'd died but the murder and death (and the strongly possible sexual abuse) of their own daughter.
Any amount of torture, abuse and disgusting horror is - and sadly will be - committed against children. The humane majority of us see them as a beautiful, future generation which should be protected and nurtured. Crimes against them are damaging not only to the person but also to society.
And we can mull over past criminal cases of the destruction of children but, we do so with the responsibilty to ask not only "Why did this happen?" but also "How can we prevent it?"
 
Back
Top