Suspected Serial Killer Arrested In The UK

zimovain

Sick stuff, also heard on the news there could be more victims:(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/bradford_and_west_yorkshire/10169376.stm.

A 40-year-old man, thought to be a PhD criminology student, is being questioned about the murders of three women in Bradford.
The man in custody - believed to be Stephen Griffiths - was arrested on suspicion of killing Suzanne Blamires, 36, who was last seen on Friday.
He is also suspected of killing Shelley Armitage, 31, and Susan Rushworth, 43. All three women were sex workers.
CCTV footage is understood to be playing a major part in the inquiry.
Detectives have been granted extra time, until Thursday evening, to question the suspect who was arrested at an address in Bradford on Monday.
Officers, accompanied by specially-trained sniffer dog teams, have been searching a number of buildings, some of them in the Chain Street area of Bradford's red light district

The Sun (I know, I know) have some info on the guy

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2989295.ece

Griffiths, an expert on serial killers, poses as his doppelganger as he writes: "Humanity is not merely a biological condition. It is also a state of mind.

"On that basis I am a pseudo human at best. A demon at worst."

LiNgWiStIkZ

zimovain wrote: »

Sick stuff, also heard on the news there could be more victims:(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/bradford_and_west_yorkshire/10169376.stm.

The Sun (I know, I know) have some info on the guy

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2989295.ece

Scrolled down a tiny bit and just saw the link for The Sun. I was about to flame but thank feck I scrolleed back up and saw the BBC :P


It's weird how qualified he is but ends up being a serial killer

kylith

LiNgWiStIkZ wrote: »

Scrolled down a tiny bit and just saw the link for The Sun. I was about to flame but thank feck I scrolleed back up and saw the BBC :P


It's weird how qualified he is but ends up being a serial killer

They're often very intelligent. That's how they become serial killers rather than one-time killers.

zimovain

This all reminds me of the Ipswich murders a few years ago.

Standard Toaster

Reminds me of Dexter

hardCopy

What do Yorkshiremen have against the brazzers?

zimovain

Some more info coming from Sky

On a social networking website, he calls himself "Ven Pariah" - a mythical, demonic figure - and featured a list of some of Britain's most notorious criminals.

Photos of Stephen Griffiths from his MySpace and Facebook pages
He also recently reviewed a book called Women And The Noose, a history of female crime, and was trying to buy three DVD box sets on mass murderers and serial killers.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Prostitute-Murders-New-Details-Emerge-About-40-Year-Old-Suspect-Following-Deaths-In-Bradford/Article/201005415639089?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15639089_Prostitute_Murders%3A_New_Details_Emerge_About_40-Year-Old_Suspect_Following_Deaths_In_Bradford

arybvtcw0eolkf

zimovain wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/May/Week4/15639150.jpg

NSFW - LINK CONTAINS IMAGES OF MAN BOOBS!...

zimovain

Simon Millions Scotch wrote: »

NSFW - LINK CONTAINS IMAGES OF MAN BOOBS!...

:D

latenia

Favourite films include gore fests such as Evil Dead I and II, Reservoir Dogs and Scarface

He likes reggae, hip-hop, house music and drum 'n bass.

I guess that makes me a serial killer too :eek:

kylith

[/quote]Favourite films include gore fests such as Evil Dead I and II, Reservoir Dogs and Scarface

He likes reggae, hip-hop, house music and drum 'n bass. [/quote]
Does he like ice-cream? If he likes ice-cream I'd better turn in myself and half the people I know!

rovert

Strange way to collect research, Im sure a survey would have done the trick.

Cheap Thrills!

Gamekeeper turned poacher

My name is URL

What's with this new (Not a Daily Mail Article) fad?

johnny_knoxvile

rovert wrote: »

Strange way to collect research, Im sure a survey would have done the trick.

does killing people count as a practical?

walshb

My name is URL wrote: »

What's with this new (Not a Daily Mail Article) fad?

It's fashionable and the in thing to ridicule any Daily Mail article....

I think the Jan Moir article on Gately really got to some sensitive folks.

Millicent

Or perhaps we just like our news from credible sources?

walshb

Millicent wrote: »

Or perhaps we just like our news from credible sources?

So they have zero credibility then?

Amazing they are still in business.....

Personally I think it's just a fashion trend with "most" people. Folks slating
the paper and don't even know why, as they have never even read it.
Following the flock, as per usual.

Abrasax

walshb wrote: »

It's fashionable and the in thing to ridicule any Daily Mail article....

I think the Jan Moir article on Gately really got to some sensitive folk...

I think it has a lot to do with Ah'ers being very sensitive about perceived attacks on travellers and immigrants, also.

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

So they have zero credibility then?

Amazing they are still in business.....

Personally I think it's just a fashion trend with "most" people. Folks slating
the paper and don't even know why, as they have never even read it.
Following the flock, as per usual.

No, they really don't. And I say that as a journalism student and a few times published journalist. They really scrape the barrel of journalistic standards and are rarely (I'd say never) impartial, unbiased or credible. They are the Fox News of British newspapers.

As an aside, they also spent a good deal of coverage in the past calling all Irish people terrorists. Now that they give away a free DVD now and then with the Irish edition, Irish people seem to forget their stance on the Irish in the past.

They are exactly the sort of publication that give journalists a bad name.

General Zod

The Daily Mail often sensationalise issues that aren't necessarily in need of sensationalisation. Coupled with the fact that they will only report what suits their agenda on alot of topics to appeal to a certain demographic (see their support for the cervical cancer jab in Ireland, along with their opposition to the same jab in the UK). Bandwagoners who don't deserve attention.

My name is URL

Millicent wrote: »

Or perhaps we just like our news from credible sources?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Daily Mail fan.. You say you like your news from credible sources.. like AH? It's not a news aggregator, it's a discussion forum

If the article turned out to be from The Guardian then fair enough, but it's the Sun for God's sake.. that bastion of informed opinion and analysis!

Millicent

My name is URL wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Daily Mail fan.. You say you like your news from credible sources.. like AH? It's not a news aggregator, it's a discussion forum

If the article turned out to be from The Guardian then fair enough, but it's the Sun for God's sake.. that bastion of informed opinion and analysis!

It's from the BBC! The second link is to the Sun. And even though it's AH, I'm not about to discuss something which I might have been misinformed about to begin with. Makes for a pointless discussion when you have to backpedal cos the original source was biased and sensationalist.

walshb

What happens when the Mail publishes articles that also appear in the "credible" papers?

Is it a a case of they got lucky? Holy sh!t, the Mail prints dozens of articles, not all will be "perfect" all the time.

Also, just because something appears biased, doesn't necessarily take away from the accuracy
or truth in a report. I will take accuracy and truth over bias any time.

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

What happens when the Mail publishes articles that also appear in the "credible" papers?

Is it a a case of they got lucky? Holy sh!t, the Mail prints dozens of articles, not all will be perfect all the time.

Also, just because something appears biased, doesn't necessarily take away from the accuracy
or truth in a report.

The aim of a newspaper is to make sure they are as perfect as they can be all the time. And I don't think I can ever recall seeing a Daily Mail reprint in a "credible" paper.

ETA: What? Accurate and truthful don't really correlate with biased. I'm not a fan of having to filter my news to get to the truth of it.

walshb

Millicent wrote: »

The aim of a newspaper is to make sure they are as perfect as they can be all the time. And I don't think I can ever recall seeing a Daily Mail reprint in a "credible" paper.

ETA: What? Accurate and truthful don't really correlate with biased. I'm not a fan of having to filter my news to get to the truth of it.

Listen, if the Mail were so poor, inaccurate, false etc, they would be gone, out of business, sued to the high heavens. You may not like or agree with some of their articles, but to imply that they may be inaccurate or false is a stretch.

They appear biased against immigrants, so what? They are still reporting facts. They still have to adhere to standards

So, are you saying that other papers do not print articles that the Mail have printed, not word for word, but similar and the same story theme? I have seen many Mail articles that also appeared
in other papers, written by their journalists. A lot, if not all the same facts, just different style writing or word choice.

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

Listen, if the Mail were so poor, inaccurate, false etc, they would be gone, out of business, sued to the high heavens. You may not like or agree with some of their articles, but to imply that they may be inaccurate or false is a stretch.

They appear biased against immigrants, so what? They are still reporting facts. They still have to adhere to standards

They really, really don't. For a newspaper to be sued or for a complaint to be upheld, the person affected by an article has to make the complaint. Since they don't specifically slander one person in their immigration articles but when it's a whole group, it's actually a lot more difficult to make a complaint.

And their "facts" have been disproven on any number of watchgroups you can find on the net. Just because their journalistic standards are crap and they are biased and inaccurate does not mean they'll go out of business because they speak to so many prejudices that people will still buy the paper for the reinforcement of those stereotypes.

Do you also not have a problem with how they viewed the Irish and what they published about us?

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

So, are you saying that other papers do not print articles that the Mail have printed, not word for word, but similar and the same story theme? I have seen many Mail articles that also appeared
in other papers, written by their journalists. A lot, if not all the same facts, just different style writing or word choice.

Word choice makes a giant difference and can affect the slant of a piece. And newspapers gather a lot of their news from much the same sources so it's not surprising that similar themes and stories would appear.

enda1

Millicent wrote: »

The aim of a newspaper is to make sure they are as perfect as they can be all the time. And I don't think I can ever recall seeing a Daily Mail reprint in a "credible" paper.

ETA: What? Accurate and truthful don't really correlate with biased. I'm not a fan of having to filter my news to get to the truth of it.

The aim of a newspaper is to sell as many copies as possible.

The Mail does this through sensationalisation and lying to create stories along with many other dodgy techniques.

A proper newspaper will do it through well researched, topical, factual journalism.

Neither is the objectively right way, its just up to the consumer which they want.

Millicent

enda1 wrote: »

The aim of a newspaper is to sell as many copies as possible.

The Mail does this through sensationalisation and lying to create stories along with many other dodgy techniques.

A proper newspaper will do it through well researched, topical, factual journalism.

Neither is the objectively right way, its just up to the consumer which they want.

I almost agree with you except for the "objectively right" part. Lack of bias is the objective right but unfortunately, it doesn't sell as many papers as it should.

walshb

Millicent wrote: »

Word choice makes a giant difference and can affect the slant of a piece. And newspapers gather a lot of their news from much the same sources so it's not surprising that similar themes and stories would appear.

Well, a lot of the time I find they say what most people think but are afraid to say.

My name is URL

Millicent wrote: »

Word choice makes a giant difference and can affect the slant of a piece. And newspapers gather a lot of their news from much the same sources so it's not surprising that similar themes and stories would appear.

Every newspaper has their own 'slant'.. the Daily Mail is a conservative middle-market tabloid.. The Mirror is more liberal in how it reports things

Nobody is forcing anybody to read any of them.. I don't see why it's such a big deal to some people where a story comes from. If it's obviously xenophobic or whatever then those that don't agree will point it out.

This thread is way off-topic now because of my first post, which was merely questioning whether or not it's necessary to point out that the article is not from a particular source in the title

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

Well, a lot of the time I find they say what most people think but are afraid to say.

There is nothing in that paper that has crossed the mind of anyone I know bar a few. And those are the few I'm obligated to love by birth. :P

kylith

walshb wrote: »

Well, a lot of the time I find they say what most people think but are afraid to say.

Ah, so bias in journalism is ok because they're only as bigoted as their readers?

Millicent

My name is URL wrote: »

Every newspaper has their own 'slant'.. the Daily Mail is a conservative middle-market tabloid.. The Mirror is more liberal in how it reports things

Nobody is forcing anybody to read any of them.. I don't see why it's such a big deal to some people where a story comes from. If it's obviously xenophobic or whatever then those that don't agree will point it out.

This thread is way off-topic now because of my first post, which was merely questioning whether or not it's necessary to point out that the article is not from a particular source in the title

Agreed on the OT. And my point is, if I'm going to have a discussion, you shouldn't have to get "is it accurate/ is it balanced" out of the way before you can get to the important points. /derail!

walshb

kylith wrote: »

Ah, so bias in journalism is ok because they're only as bigoted as their readers?

What has bigotry got to do with reporting facts?

Example: If the Mail say that many immigrants are defrauding the system and have evidence that many are, and they claim it's a disgrace, how is it bigoted?

General Zod

This thread is like Mr. Benn, but instead of the shopkeeper, as if by magic an immigration argument appears.

builttospill

Edit: wrong thread, doh!

bonerm

hardCopy wrote: »

What do Yorkshiremen have against the brazzers?

Pete Sutcliffe was even working out of Bradford. Must be something in the water of that city.

zimovain

I edited out the daily mail bit, itv was just meant in jest due to the recent discussions on the paper in question!

Back on topic this is a really sad case:mad:

It seems CCTV has played a big part in catching the suspect, along with "good, old fashioned police work" according to one report.

Minstrel27

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Reminds me of Dexter

Dexter doesn't go around killing prostitutes.

ejmaztec

walshb wrote: »

Well, a lot of the time I find they say what most an unknown number of people think but are afraid to say.

fyp

stovelid

hardCopy wrote: »

What do Yorkshiremen have against the brazzers?

Their groins?

zimovain

He's been charged.

A man is charged with the murders of three Bradford women who have all disappeared in the past year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/10176347.stm

Corkfeen

Found his amazon review page before it goes down....
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pdp/profile/AMZOKW1RBTGAQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pdp
His wishlist shows no indication that he's a serial killer or not...... :eek:

Kepti

Corkfeen wrote: »

Found his amazon review page before it goes down....
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pdp/profile/AMZOKW1RBTGAQ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pdp
His wishlist shows no indication that he's a serial killer or not...... :eek:

Haha, that's insane. You just know he was already on a government list somewhere with a wishlist like that.

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

So they have zero credibility then?

Amazing they are still in business.....

So are psychics, astrologers and joe coleman.

citizen_p

is that wishlist a joke or wtf....seriously thats fecking weird,

he mustve loved murder she wrote and diagonisis murder as a kid

nacho libre

this story brings me to the question of gut instinct? if you got a bad feeling about someone based on the nature of a particular conversation. would you dismiss it as just paranoia and a set of coincidences, and move on without giving it another thought?

nacho libre

as regards the Daily Mail:
you only have to see the amount of retractions and apologies the Mail is forced to print to know what kind of paper it is. print first deal with the inaccuracies later seems to be the motto!

having said that the mail recently had a court judgement go in their favour. i think anyone into the ethics of journalism should be glad they won this particular case.

Deep Easterly

nacho libre wrote: »

this story brings me to the question of gut instinct? if you got a bad feeling about someone based on the nature of a particular conversation. would you dismiss it as just paranoia and a set of coincidences, and move on without giving it another thought?

Good question. It's possible to get that bad feeling about someone by just looking at them I think. I have often wondered if this is just down to personal perception or just plain instinct, or indeed if there is even any differentiation between the two.

Personally, if I don't like the look of someone, (when I say look, I don't mean in the attractive/unattractive sense), I tend to aviod them or if I have to interact with them I will be stiff and dismissive. I have often questioned myself as to why I am like this. Is it down to social and cultural upbringing? or is blaming sociological influence on personal traits just that, blaming something outside yourself when the real guilty person is no-one but myself?

I just don't know.