Post by Stacey on Aug 22, 2007 16:26:56 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]
Mary Bell: Child Killer
[/glow]-In December 1968, when Mary Bell, 11, and her friend Norma Bell, 13, were tried for strangling two little boys, the atmosphere at the Newcastle courthouse was subdued. "The room was always quiet, all the police officers considerate, the Court gentle, and--a secondary effect--the British press invariably discreet," wrote Gitta Sereny, a journalist covering the case. By the standards of any era, the crime could hardly have been more horrific or sensational--the murder of children by children--and yet, she writes, the media treated the case with "unprecedented restraint" from start to finish.
Twelve years later, after Mary Bell had served her time in prison for two counts of manslaughter, the Daily Star handled the young woman's pending release with equal sensitivity: "Now Mary Bell faces up to another life sentence--freedom," the tabloid editorialized. "A prospect as daunting, frightening for her as the thought of going to prison would be for anyone else."
How unrecognizable that restraint seems now, and how prescient the Star's words. Less than a year after everyone promised to be good in the wake of Princess Diana's death, the briefest glimpse at the front pages of every newspaper in Britain last week, tabloids and "quality" broadsheets both, reveals a press at its baying-for-blood, self-justifying fiercest.
The first noise began when it came out that Sereny, who in 1972 wrote The Case of Mary Bell, had recently paid Bell--now 39 and living with her family in court-protected anonymity--an undisclosed sum to cooperate with Sereny's follow-up book, Cries Unheard. Next up was the London Times, which drew criticism for serializing the book, due out this week. And before the full ethical implications of those first bits of news could be properly digested--should Bell profit in any way from her crime?--the tabloid Sun tracked down Bell and reporters descended on her home. According to some reports, Bell's 14-year-old daughter had no idea that her mother had once killed two children until the frenzy began.
Last week's losers are easily identifiable, starting with the outraged parents of Bell's victims who knew nothing of a new book, much less a payment to Bell, until the papers told them. What was Sereny waiting for? And the episode has sparked numerous investigations: by the Home Secretary into whether Bell should be permitted to profit from her crime; by the Official Solicitor into whether the press broke the law in unmasking Bell, who has gone back into hiding; and by the Press Complaints Commission, which will rule this month on whether the Times' serialization of Cries Unheard breaches the code of practice.
But it is less clear who wins. The Attorney General ruled late last week that under existing law, Bell must be allowed to keep the money from Sereny. Times editor Peter Stothard, who says his paper paid around $61,000 for the excerpts, acknowledges a small boost in circulation last week, but contends, "It's amazing how skin-deep the notion of free expression really runs. If you recognize something in the public interest, you should do it." And Stothard's motives aside, the public may indeed gain something: Sereny is known for her serious works about the Holocaust and the roots of evil, including a 1995 book about Hitler associate Albert Speer. According to Sereny, Bell thinks every day about what she did and wants, at long last, to unburden her troubled soul. "After all," she told Sereny, "once you get through with me, there won't be much left for anybody to ask, will there?" Except, maybe, this: Was it worth it?
Mary Bell Photo Gallery:
Mary at the age of ten Mary after her recapture at the age of 16 At the age of 17 In her house at the age of 23 Mary as an adult |