Talk:Mary Bell

Untitled

I wikified Brian Howe, but it refers to the wrong one. How do I correct? --Sgeo | Talk 02:18, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Should the " Child Killers say the darnedest things:Mary Bell, 2 comics about the killings" link be deleted? It seems to me to be gratuitous and pointless? Albatross2147 13:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing details?

It appears that there are significant facts missing from this article. The article mentions Mary and her daughter being protected upon release from jail, yet there is no prior mention of a daughter. I think this needs to be looked at - I have no idea how to 'flag' an article, but in general it seems quite jumpy and is missing pieces, so it could do with a good lookover. Ktbaby 13:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree ktbaby. i myself came to the talk page after reading about her previously unmentioned daughter. where did she find the time in jail to have sex and get pregnant? maybe she was raped by a guard.. this missing information needs to be addressed. i might do it myself later if i have the time Lue3378 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

If Mary Bell was ten at the time of the murders according to the article summary, how can the main picture also be of her at the time of the murders if the picture is described as her at eleven years of age?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.237.5 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture appears on CrimeLibrary [1], where it says she's 10 in that picture. I'll fix that. grendel|khan 13:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Now the picture says "age 10, at the time of the murders" and the article summary says she was age 11 at the time of the murders. Which is it? 68.255.60.58 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Use of Description "Serial Killer"

Based on the definition of serial killer on Wikipedia, Mary Bell does not merit inclusion in that category of murderer.

That article defines a serial killer as "someone who commits three or more murders over an extended period of time with cooling-off periods in between. In between their crimes, they appear to be quite normal, a state which Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare call the 'mask of sanity.' There is often — but not always — a sexual element to the murders." (My emphasis.)

Mary was convicted of two murders, which does not meet the definition. Therefore, I suggest she be removed from the serial killer category. Marklemagne 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From the latest revision of the above mentioned article: Other sources define the term as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of at least two murders. Mary Bell could (should) then again be classified as a serial killer? PsychoticInq (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is she now?

Where is Mary Bell now? The article notes that the press found her under her assumed name. What is her assumed name? Where is she?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.123.163 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually know Mary personally. But I am not going to give this information away. All I can tell you is that she has changed her ways completely and we also gave her our cat when we moved. She is a nice person. Foxless (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the assumed name is that no one knows where she is. 206.165.150.70 (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How did she have a daughter?

She was 10 and 11 at the time of the murders and imprionment and 23 or so at the time of her release. How did she have a daughter? Are prisoners in Britain allowed releases to have sex?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.123.163 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but they're traditionally allowed to have sex after they're released. She left prison in 1980, and her daughter was born in 1984. 82.39.211.80 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was she released?

Why was she released from prison after such a short time? She was diagnosed as a psychopath at trial; why would someone that dangerous be put back on the street?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.123.163 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

She was imprisoned at the age of 11 and released at the age of 23. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that she changed significantly in that period.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Misodoctakleidist (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And she hasn't done anything in the 40 years since then, so clearly it was the right choice. Besides, with the childhood she had, how can you not be screwed up a little? 67.106.115.42 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is also lacking that her imprisonment had a significant impact on her. Can we assume that TruTV (formerly Court TV) has sufficient enough editorial oversight to be a trustworthy link?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/bell/incar_9.html
--208.255.118.242 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Something most people aren't actively aware of is that there are several reasons for keeping someone in prison. People tend to gravitate towards a few (or one) of them. And tend to not be aware of, or not recognize the legitimacy of other reasons.

(Reasons for incarceration include: a) Rehabilitation, b) Public safety, c) Punishment, d) Deterrent to others, e) Restitution for loss to society, f) Eye-for-an-eye vengeance.)

But someone is kept in prison because the various groups agree -- compositely -- that is best. So it isn't completely meaningful to say "she's changed", because some groups and opinions do not recognize that as important. More than likely, she was judged to be less of a risk than other individuals. That factor would certainly have contributed to her release. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree; in short, the Parole Board evaluated her case and concluded that she was no longer at risk of further offending. It's a sad case, and Gitta Sereny's books make the argument for that. Rodhullandemu 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncorrected Vandalism

There appears to have been some vandalism on this page that was never corrected some time back. There used to be a paragraph on her Early Life that was removed and never replaced. See the edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Bell&diff=prev&oldid=113255185—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.173.199 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Murder/Manslaughter

The first section of the article implies that Bell was convicted of the 'murder' of the two victims; however, the article later states that she was found not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter.

It is therefore more correct to state that the boys were 'killed' not 'murdered'. Will edit to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.65.166 (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Had she started puberty at time of killing?

Had she started puberty at the time of the killing? Had her hormones got her angry about her life upto that point in time and to relieve the anger, she desired to mistreat someone weaker than herself? 217.42.58.201 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, she started puberty while incarcerated. (See Cries Unheard) --Auric (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Someone vandalized her birthdate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.107.159 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrible writing

Makes no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.199.172.236 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The major additions made by Tinaj5 on 17 May are very poorly constructed, bordering in places on the nonsensical. A lot of the information seems trvial or redundant, but someone who has the inclination may be able to savlage something. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Life After Prison, Line 45

The content referring to the Metalcore band "Mary Bell" is not sourced, displays poor spelling and punctuation, and seems to me to be inappropriately promotional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiterquote (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Scotswood

A major point in this killing is the neighbourhood that it happened in, Scotswood. All the houses on Mary Bell's street Whitehouse Road were demolished soon after. Her murders were committed in houses that were in the process of being demolished as a neighbourhood improvement. Every documentary movie and book on the subject emphasizes the poor living and social conditions that were common in Scotswood at the time. Why is this not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.73.97 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed to deceased for no reason?

I came upon this article while researching Bell's case, and thought it quite an odd coincidence that she had apparently died today. After searching for any news of her death or obituaries, and finding nothing, I restored her status as living for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.239.10 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous grandmother?

Wait a minute! She's been granted anonymity, for life even, and is living under an assumed name. So how the hell does John Q Public know that she became a mother in 1984 and is now a grandmother? --Svartalf (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is sourced to the Daily Mail.[2] The UK tabloids probably know full well what her new identity is and where she is living today, but are barred from reporting it. The Mail would presumably have taken legal advice before publishing the 2009 story. It contains some details but stops short of breaking the anonymity order.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Still feels strange that her real ID and whereabouts should be known to tabloids, yet not have gone completely public... even if the press is barred from publishing the facts, I doubt that private citizens knowing them are under the same restrictions... and even if they are, it's possible enough to do so about assumed identities to the point that the fact would be globally known before the whistle blower were recognized and forced to put the thing off the net... and once the cat's out of the bag... --Svartalf (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a mystery why no-one has ever outed Mary Bell on the Internet, as it would be extremely hard to stop on a foreign website. Nevertheless, her luck appears to have held in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has seen the point in doing so, other than sheer maliciousness.Codenamemary (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the anonymity order worked and very few people know who she is. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Former popular culture section

I removed the reference to the Heartbeat episode because the IMDb plot summary for the stated episode does not indicate that a child murderer is an element of the plot. "Sympathy for the Devil" was 11:17, not 11:16, according to IMDb, but neither episode has this feature.

The Screen Two film Will You Love Me Tomorrow (1987) may have been inspired by the Mary Bell case, but the BFI synopsis (and the non-RS IMDb entry do not indicate this to be the case. The sources which suggest there is an influence appear to be wholly speculative and are not RS.

It is a stretch to say the American Law and Order series episode from 1999, with plenty of horrific domestic crimes for the makers to be aware of, would have been influenced by the Mary Bell case. I didn't check for evidence because it seemed improbable.

While there is a warning against using IMDb as a source, there is no suggestion it should not be used as a means of identifying material which should be deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to add such a section to the biographies of monsters? I'm sure Sutcliffe popularized the claw hammer somewhat, it doesn't make it right to have some laudatory section about how he changed modern culture.Ordessa (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mary Bell was not a monster. She was an horrifically abused 11 year old who committed a horrific crime. In any case, article talk pages are not for the discussion of the article's subject. Paul Austin (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mary Bell was not a monster."

What other word is appropriate to describe a girl who strangulated two children in cold blood, then? Disturbed? No, these people are just heartless monsters with no regard for anybody but themselves.

"She was an horrifically abused 11 year old who committed a horrific crime."

My mother works with children who have suffered worse abuse than she did. None of them go on to strangle their peers. Abuse is no excuse for the heartless actions she inflicted on young children.

"In any case, article talk pages are not for the discussion of the article's subject."

Tell that to the people who are arguing for a pop culture section so we can have an e-Shrine to a multiple murderer. These people are the ones discussing about the articles content, thinking we should have a discussion of the cultural impact of a child killer on a frigging encyclopedia entry. Don't blame me for pushing back against people who want to debase wikipedia as a legitimate information source.Ordessa (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-satisfied remarks like that make me want to cry. I wouldn't wish her childhood on anyone, and none of us can know how we we would respond as a confused child to such experiences. Be glad you didn't have to find out, and so can be so complacent about your own virtue. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Oh, I see this shining light of moral certainty has just been banned from Wikipedia for repeated acts of dishonesty. I blame the parents. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Bell's husband

Just wondering, does Mary have a husband? --178.174.229.28 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't know. Her identity is protected. Paul B (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-free image

Fair use rationale does not extend to non-free images for BLPs. I removed the image. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on adding a quote

Thoughts on adding this quote in the section noting the book Cries Unheard by Gitta Sereny? The idea is to reflect how one of the victims sister feels about the book.

"I have read the book, and it's not educational. All it tells you is that if a girl can kill two young children she can go on to make money and live a secret life." -Sharon Richardson, whose brother was one of Bell's victims.

source: BBC NEWS Programmes - Breakfast | Mary Bell Case (2003) (last paragraph of article) --Vwanweb (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2018

• Mary Bell → Mary Bell (child killer)
• Mary Bell (disambiguation) → Mary Bell

– In the 15 years since the creation of this article, the Mary Bell (disambiguation) page has expanded to the current 8 entries. There has never been a discussion to ascertain as to whether Mary Bell is, in fact, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the dab page. The qualifier "(child killer)" is taken from the Daily Mail cite appended to the article, pending the possibility of another qualifier gaining consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Better to disambiguate. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - in terms of the historical view/the long game, the child killer who was but a child herself is most important. We also avoid WP:RECENTISM - that's why Samantha Smith, the child peace activist gets Samantha Smith and Samantha Smith (actress) doesn't, despite being more well-known to younger people. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support 08:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)
• Support For a modern British person, "Mary Bell" immediately means the 1968 child killer. However, there are other people called Mary Bell with a Wikipedia article, so a disambig would be standard practice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ianmacm: No, this is definitely not "standard practice". Please read WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. There are other called George Washington with a Wikipedia article, would you consider it "standard practice" to make that a disambiguation page? bd2412 T 18:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - child killer while literally correct is also sensationalist and to an extent mitigates and ignores the abuse that was a significant factor in this case. If there does need to be a change could we use The Case of Mary Bell instead? Mighty Antar (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. As the nominator, I considered that the main objective was a resolution of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC uncertainty. To that end, I would not oppose The Case of Mary Bell, any other reasonable title or any other reasonable qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)