Talk:Mary Bell

message: 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)
thread_title:  Life After Prison, Line 45 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is sourced to the Daily Mail. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps no one has seen the point in doing so, other than sheer maliciousness.Codenamemary (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps, just perhaps, the anonymity order worked and very few people know who she is. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous grandmother?  

message: 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.</br>
"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)
thread_title:  Feedback on adding a quote  

message: No picture of Mary, Norma, Betty?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Whi were the boys that she killed? 73.45.132.182 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Details are in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Bell 

message: No, the trial does not clarify the conviction. The conviction determines what the crime was. If, for instance, a defendant successfully pleads self-defence, then no crime would have been committed. That is the way the English legal system works. It may be different in the USA, where I read recently that someone had been convicted of murder and manslaughter for the same killing. This would not be possible in English law. The killings in this case were probably spoken of as murder at the time; I left the word ‘murder’ in the section about the trial because the charge was murder. But Wikipedia is writing many years after the event, and should not mirror what may have been said at the time. In addition, this is a BLP – Mary Bell should not be referred to as committing murder when her conviction was for manslaughter.  Sweet6970 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The crime was manslaughter