I stand to be corrected. The gender of the victim may well have been irrelevant, and just a coincidence.
Not that it matters.
The victim was not random though, and if they had a list then it would have had to be of people known to them.
I made my comment primarily to rebut a suggestion made...
This post has been edited due to increasing annoyance:
Well, the judge has said 'name them'.
And so be it.
He is hoping that because the dead girl's mother has sympathy with the parents of the killers, this will reduce the risk of the parents being persecuted.
I suppose that if it transpires...
I don't usually reply to my own posts. On radio 5 now a journalist is making the case for naming the killers
"In this country we have open justice"
"Normally such (young) killers should not be named but this is such an exceptional case"
He was asked what value will be provided (to society) by...
"musically" you say? ??? :wink:
Music aside.....I remember hearing that in the early 80s and thinking about preconceptions, prejudices, and freedom. A powerful piece.
Well said. The minute we forget that we have a right to not live in fear is the minute we start to lose our hard won freedoms and laws that protect them (and us). And there is no such thing as contributory negligence.
As @WATFORD zero said....no.
The only purpose this would serve would be to satisfy the public's morbid curiosity, and allow the creation of narratives that somehow blame the parents (who would now also be named by proxy) and provide a bit more granularity to the making of whatever has succeeded...
The two who did it appear to be somewhat exceptionally unpleasant, a toxic combo, like Hindley and Brady, egging each other on with their addiction to torture porn, among other things. Fortunately, not a reflection of 'the state of the youth of today'. Thoughts with all three families (as noted...