On This Day: Mary Bell Convicted Of Double Killing (December 17th 1968)
Bill Schenley
Photo:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39094000/jpg/_39094357_marybell203.jpg
FROM: The BBC (December 18th 1968) ~
An 11-year-old girl has been sentenced to life in detention
after being found guilty at Newcastle Assizes of the
manslaughter of two small boys.
Mary Bell is said to have strangled the boys, aged four and
three, "solely for the pleasure and excitement of killing".
The jury heard Mary, also known as May, was suffering
from diminished responsibility at the time and therefore
found her not guilty of murder.
Her accomplice, known only as Norma, aged 13, who had
been jointly charged with Mary, was acquitted.
Very grave risk
As the verdict was read out, Mary broke down and wept.
Mr Justice Cusack described her as dangerous and said there
was a "very grave risk to other children if she is not closely
watched".
Mary's mother and grandmother, who were sitting behind her
on the benches, also wept when the verdict was announced.
Martin Brown, aged four, of Scotswood in Newcastle was
found dead in a derelict house on 25 May. The body of Brian
Howe, three, also of Scotswood, was found on waste ground
near his home two months later.
The two girls, who were playmates, also lived in the
Scotswood area of Newcastle. They denied the charges.
The court had earlier heard Norma give evidence in which she
described how Mary had tried to strangle Brian Howe. She
said Mary ignored her pleas to stop hurting the boy so she left
them and next time she saw Mary she was on her own with
Brian's dog.
Jurors were told despite the age difference, Mary was the more
dominant personality with a very worldly attitude.
Rudolph Lyons QC said: "For example, when she was being
questioned by a detective chief inspector about a charge of
murder she said to him, 'I'll phone for some solicitors, they will
get me out. This is being brainwashed."
He said she also tried to throw suspicion onto an innocent boy
in a "very cunning and insidious manner".
He continued: "Both girls well knew that what they did was
wrong and what the results would be."
Home Office psychiatrist Dr David Westbury told the court
Mary had a psychopathic disorder for which she needed
treatment.
The judge said: "It is a most unhappy thing that, in all the
resources of this country, it appears that there is no hospital
available that is suitable for the accommodation of this girl."
Mary is being held at a remand centre. It seems likely she will
be sent to an approved school where she will be held in a
secure unit.
---
<Note: Mary was sent to Red Bank approved school
in Newton-le-Willows in Lancashire.
The special security unit of the school, which
accommodates more than 200 boys, was adapted to
take her in February 1969.
Although there were concerns she was being starved
of female company, it was felt too disruptive to move
her to a new centre for "severely maladjusted children"
which opened at Brentwood in Essex in 1972.
Her MP at the time, Labour's Robert Brown, said he
was satisified she was receiving psychiatric
supervision and full-time education. He said: "She is
turning into a very presentable young woman and a
very bright young woman indeed."
Mary Bell was released on licence in 1980. She was
given a new identity and has since had a daughter.
Her case raised controversy again when her biography
was published in 1998 and it emerged she had been
paid for contributing to the book.
When her daughter reached 18 in May 2002 their right
to anonymity could have been lifted.
However, the High Court granted them both lifelong
anonymity under the Human Rights Act, in May 2003,
on the grounds they were entitled to a private and
family life.
---
Photo: http://www.ltokyo.com/yanasita/killer/bell.gif
(as a teenager)
---
Child Killer Granted Lifelong Anonymity
FROM: The BBC (May 21st 2003) ~
Child killer Mary Bell, who was convicted of murdering two young
boys when she was 11, has been granted lifelong anonymity.
A High Court judge decided on Wednesday that the identities of
Bell and her daughter should be kept secret to protect them from
vigilantes.
Bell has been given several assumed names since her release from
prison in 1980.
Her current identity and whereabouts cannot be disclosed under the
terms of a temporary court order, which also covers her teenage
daughter.
BBC correspondent Andy Tighe said the judge, Dame Elizabeth
Butler-Sloss, stressed the case was "exceptional" and it did not
mean that a blanket of anonymity would be granted in all cases of
this kind.
Bell, now 46, was convicted of the manslaughter of four-year-old
Martin Brown and three-year-old Brian Howe, in Newcastle in
December 1968.
The judge heard that disclosure of 46-year-old Bell's current
identity and whereabouts would lead to harassment.
But outside the court Martin Brown's sister Sharon said the
decision was "a mockery".
"The victims are not the heart of the subject - no one was
interested in our family," she said.
She said the family had hoped the government would have set
guidelines preventing Mary Bell from profiting from any books
or films associated with the case.
Newspapers had already withdrawn their opposition to the case
and the attorney general, representing the public interest,
effectively supported it.
Bulger case
The key issue before the court was whether Bell's right to
privacy and family life outweighed the competing claims of
open justice and press freedom.
The judge said the granting of the injunctions was for reasons
that were different from those behind her similar decision in
the case of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the killers of
James Bulger.
Dame Elizabeth's ruling two years ago which granted lifelong
anonymity to the schoolboy killers - on the grounds that their
lives were in serious danger - had been the only precedent to
Wednesday's case.
She said : "The granting of the relief sought by the claimants in
this case is not ... a broadening of the principles of the law of
confidence nor an increase in the pool of those who might in
the future be granted protection against potential breaches of
confidence."
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said that if the
High Court had decided not to grant Bell anonymity, it would be
"one of the legal shocks of the year".
Book deal
Speaking to the BBC in April, Martin Brown's mother
June Richardson said: "The best that could happen would be
for her to remain anonymous and just vanish and we can get
on with our lives."
Her daughter Sharon said the family bore no malice towards
Mary Bell's daughter, but had "no feelings" for the convicted
killer.
In April 1998, reporters lay siege to Bell's home after it
emerged she was paid for helping author Gitta Sereny write
about the crimes.
Ms Sereny said on Wednesday that she understood the anger
of the victims' families, but called the decision "justified".
"This is such an exceptional case, but I think any child who is
in this situation as an adult or child needs this protection.
Protected
"Mary Bell today is not the person she was when she was
11."
She said the killer had not asked for payment for her
contribution to the book.
"She would have talked to me without money," said
Ms Sereny.
Dame Elizabeth's ruling on Thompson and Venables had led
to accusations that the courts were protecting criminals.
Bell was given a new name and had her identity protected by
the Home Office when she had a daughter.
That protection would ordinarily have ended last May when
Bell's daughter turned 18, but a temporary injunction was
granted pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.
---
Mary Bell in art:
http://serialkillercalendar.com/AVATARS/marybell.gif
http://www.thesaveloyfactory.com/drawings/images/large/mary_bell.jpg
(from 1998)
Louis Epstein
: Mary Bell Found Guilty of Double Killing
Lady Butler-Sloss (as she has since become) also guaranteed anonymity
to the child murderers Thompson and Venables (killers of James Bulger),
see below.
I don't think it should be in the power of the state to order the
suppression of truth.
: Bell, now 46, was convicted of the manslaughter of four-year-old
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:59:26 -0600, Osama bin Cock-Squatter
: <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:
:>I don't think it should be in the power of the state to order the
:>suppression of truth.
:
: Of course, anyone who's had the misfortune of being subjected to your
: vomit over the years knows that this is simply another one of your
: lies.
Obviously a reference to your past blindness to uncomfortable truths.
Magnus
Bill's comment is reasonable within certain limits. There are, for
instance, secrets that the state cannot release without giving its
enemies invaluable information that could endanger the safety of its
citizens. In these cases the state is quite within its rights to
suppress the truth.
As for Terry the Fake Fuego's comment, you are far too much a
gentleman, Louis, to address that egregious person in the terms that
he deserves.
magnus
Magnus
> Mary Bell Found Guilty of Double Killing
>
> Mary Bell in art:http://serialkillercalendar.com/AVATARS/marybell.gif
>
> http://www.thesaveloyfactory.com/drawings/images/large/mary_bell.jpg
> (from 1998)
She was a cute little girl, if the painting is to be believed. What on
earth happened, if the drawing is to be believed?
I read about this case some years ago and thought immediately of
little Rhoda Penmark in William March's novel _The Bad Seed_ (also
made into a play and later a movie with a chilling performance by
Patty McCormick as the cold-blooded child killer).
Apparently, whatever treatment Mary Bell received must have worked
since she hasn't "done" anyone in her adulthood. Or perhaps murder was
just a stage she was going through. I wonder if she has ever done
anything like apologize to the families of the two little boys. Not
that it would do any good, but at least it would show some remorse,
which one hopes would be there. Otherwise, the little monster may well
be still roaming around inside her.
magnus
Louis Epstein
: Licking Ellsworth's Asshole <robertc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
:>As for Terry the Fake Fuego's comment, you are far too much a
:>gentleman, Louis, to address that egregious person in the terms that
:>he deserves.
: So I guess that means you agree with Louis that acceptance of
: homosexuality will lead to the extermination of the human race.
I've never said that.
Just that it should invariably be deplored.
What would exterminate humanity would be if everyone were homosexual.
:>magnus
:
: Your real name?
It could be.
Magnus
> Terry del Fuego <t_del_fu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just that it should invariably be deplored.
>
> What would exterminate humanity would be if everyone were homosexual.
>
> :>magnus
> :
> : Your real name?
>
> It could be.
Actually, magnus is just a fun pseudonym taken from a short story,
"Count Magnus," by M.R. James, the famous English ghost story writer
(sometimes called England's answer to Edgar Allan Poe).
However, anyone can easily find out who I am since my e-mail address
is available here. It's just Bob Champ, Louis, from days of old. I am
not hiding behind a name like the cowardly Fake, who in his paranoid
fantasy is afraid that some government agency may one day come across
his nonsensical posts and send him to Guantanamo or back to his mother
for punishment.
In my view, the practive of homosexuality is a sin, though I don't
believe that God is less forgiving of homosexual sins than He is of
any others. I also believe it is possible, with help, for many to
abandon the homosexual lifestyle for a heterosexual one. It has been
done.
magnus
La N
"Magnus" <robertc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a75a84f4-a8ef-406c...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> In my view, the practive of homosexuality is a sin, though I don't
> believe that God is less forgiving of homosexual sins than He is of
> any others.
I'm glad you at least said "in my view". I don't like it when people claim
they are speaking on behalf of God.
- nilita
Bob Feigel
magnanimously proffered:
Agreed. But I also don't like it when people or institutions insist
that their interpretation of the bible or koran, etc, is the only
right one and use that to justify their particular dogma. Especially
when the sole purpose of that dogma is to maintain the hierarchy they
just happen to be part of and have a vested interest in promoting.
--
"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Woody Allen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La N
"Bob Feigel" <b...@surfwriter.net.not> wrote in message
news:mmkom3dkqc99gra96...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:54:55 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> magnanimously proffered:
>
>>
>>"Magnus" <robertc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:a75a84f4-a8ef-406c...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> In my view, the practive of homosexuality is a sin, though I don't
>>> believe that God is less forgiving of homosexual sins than He is of
>>> any others.
>>
>>
>>I'm glad you at least said "in my view". I don't like it when people
>>claim
>>they are speaking on behalf of God.
>>
>>- nilita
>
> Agreed. But I also don't like it when people or institutions insist
> that their interpretation of the bible or koran, etc, is the only
> right one and use that to justify their particular dogma. Especially
> when the sole purpose of that dogma is to maintain the hierarchy they
> just happen to be part of and have a vested interest in promoting.
>
That's pretty much what I meant. IOW I agree wholeheartedly.
- nilita
Louis Epstein
: On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:54:55 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
: magnanimously proffered:
:
:>
:>"Magnus" <robertc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:>news:a75a84f4-a8ef-406c...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
:>> >
:>> In my view, the practive of homosexuality is a sin, though I don't
:>> believe that God is less forgiving of homosexual sins than He is of
:>> any others.
:>
:>
:>I'm glad you at least said "in my view". I don't like it when people claim
:>they are speaking on behalf of God.
:>
:>- nilita
:
: Agreed. But I also don't like it when people or institutions insist
: that their interpretation of the bible or koran, etc, is the only
: right one and use that to justify their particular dogma. Especially
: when the sole purpose of that dogma is to maintain the hierarchy they
: just happen to be part of and have a vested interest in promoting.
On the other hand,those who adhere fanatically to the dogma
that there is no such thing as a sole correct interpretation
cause more grief than they will ever admit.
Louis Epstein
:>paranoid fantasy
:
: Accusations of paranoia are pretty funny coming from a guy who at
: least once (maybe more) accused me of "stalking" him when my only
: contact with him consisted--as it still does--entirely of responses to
: his Usenet posts.
:
:>is afraid that some government agency may one day come across
:>his nonsensical posts and send him to Guantanamo
: I guess you were drunk when a previous thread turned to actual
: negative consequences people had to deal with after using their real
: names on Usenet. Or maybe you're just lying again. In fact, I'm
: beginning to wonder if telling the truth actually causes you severe
: physical pain.
:
:>or back to his mother for punishment.
:
: Were I hiding from my mother, I would not be using a gag name I've
: used pretty consistently in multiple places (including amongst family
: and friends and in contexts where one would normally want the ego
: boost of using one's real name) since at least 1974. My birth name
: actually does appear on my one and only film credit (a story that's
: *way* more interesting UNtold), but that's only because I was hoping
: that it would lead to a check or two. It didn't, and now I'm annoyed
: that I didn't use this one instead.
:
: The fact is, my completely up-front admission that I use a pseudonym
: is really all you've got. It's also an objection I've never heard you
: raise about anyone else, not that hypocrisy is anything new from you.
:
:>In my view, the practive of homosexuality is a sin, though I don't
:>believe that God is less forgiving of homosexual sins than He is of
:>any others. I also believe it is possible, with help, for many to
:>abandon the homosexual lifestyle for a heterosexual one. It has been
:>done.
: Whatever. If I ever care one way or the other about how strangers get
: it on, shoot me.
:
Far be it from you to offer correction to your fellow man who errs...
unless he's me?
Bob Feigel
magnanimously proffered:
Assuming that there is a "sole correct interpretation" of the bible,
for example, whose "sole correct interpretation" would that be?