MOORS MURDERS
Liberty's Muddy Fountain
By LUDOVIC KENNEDY
IKE some hidden but slowly festering sore, of Liwhose existence we have all been aware for some time, the evidence in the Moors case finally broke last Tuesday. 'David Smith will say that he stood in the kitchen and was reading the label on one of the bottles when he heard a scream—a very loud, long and shrill scream. He then heard Hindley shout from the living-room, "Dave—help him." Smith ran into the living- room and stopped just inside the door. He saw Evans lying half-on and half-off the couch. Brady was standing-astride Evans, hitting him with this axe round the head and shoulders.' Later, in an alleged statement by Brady : 'After that the only noise from Eddie was a gurgling. David and I cleared up the spot and the gurgling stopped and we cleaned up the body.' Back to the Attorney- General. 'Then Brady said to Hindley, "That's it. It's the messiest yet." He asked Hindley if she thought anyone had heard the screams of the youth, and she replied: "Yes, my grandmother. I told her I dropped a tape-recorder on my toe."' And finally : 'The body was tied up, Brady said, and Smith helped Brady carry the bundle upstairs. Later Brady said, "Eddie is a dead weight," and the two accused started laughing.'
Some or all of these allegations, and others, have been published fully in all the national newspapers. Descriptions of the first day's pro- ceedings were given a double-page spread in the Sketch, Mirror and Express, a whole-page spread in the Sun ('Woman lured brother-in-law to watch axe murder'), Telegraph ('Children's Secret Fate'), and Mail (Left Luggage led to Graves'), and a half-page spread in The Times. We know, as a matter of fact and not opinion, that more, much more, is to come; and we know, too, that during the five weeks that the trial is expected to last, the national press will give it the same ample coverage.
This means that there will not be a literate man, woman or child (and what child, after the age of ten, is not literate these days?) who will not be given full access to all the details of what is undoubtedly the most macabre murder story in modern times. Now it is important to state here that all one is discussing is allegations and evidence. In law the two accused are innocent People. Nothing has been proved against them, and it may be that nothing will. We do not know this, and we will not know it until the jury reach their verdict. But that is not the point. The point is whether it is desirable that such allegations and such evidence, much of it beyond what any of us could imagine in fantasy or nightmare, should be made freely available to the public at large. What will be the effect of reading such evidence on young (and old) innocent minds? Will the know- ledge that such things are possible tend to deaden even further our sensibilities in regard to per- mitted violence? Will it, contrariwise, disturb some people so profoundly as to have a per- manent or even temporary effect on their health? Worse, will already unbalanced minds entertain the possibilities of emulation?
At first consideration there would seem to be ao
excellent case for affording the public some sort of protection. A benevolent censorship is, after all, exercised in most other forms of communication. A film which showed what is alleged to have occurred in the Moors case would be lucky to get an 'X' certificate, if it got one at all; a play dealing with the same matters would certainly not be granted a licence by the Lord Chamberlain. No reputable publisher would print a novel contain- ing what is alleged, and even the disreputable ones rarely go as far as this. But censorship of any such hypothetical film, book, or play, is more likely to be exercised at source. Because the Moors case is concerned—above all else—with what is alleged to have been done to children, it is improbable that any such book, film or play would ever come to be written. Are there then not good grounds for a judge to rule in his discretion that the press may only report such evidence in any case as he allows, or even to forbid them to publish any evidence at all?
In theory yes. In practice no. The real difficulty is in laying down a general rule. Judges, like the rest of us, differ in their own sensibilities and in how they feel the sensibilities of others. While some might feel that the public ' ould be pro- tected from the details of the Moors case, others might find, say. Christie's necrophiliac activities far more shocking. Where is anybody to draw the line? With such a rule some judge, sooner or later, and with the best intentions in the world, would be hearing all his cases behind closed doors. Press and public would become deeply and rightly suspicious of what was going on. Justice would no longer be seen to be done.
But what is even more important is the right of all of us to know what is going on around us, whatever it may be. Say, for the sake of argu- ment, that what is alleged to have happened in the Moors case is in fact the beginning of a new and terrible anti-social trend to be followed by other, similar cases. If we were to be protected from any knowledge of this, we would be in a most dangerous and impotent position. One needs to know the full details of the situation, and this may include the full horrors of it, in order to take action on it. Parents need the knowledge of it to keep a closer watch on their children. Social workers need the knowledge of it to investigate its causes. The police need knowledge of it to pre- vent it recurring. This knowledge may distress us deeply, some more than others, but it is the price that any society must ultimately pay for its own good. K,nowledge, as Daniel Webster once said, is the fountain of all liberty; and he drew no distinction between knowledge good and bad.
Previous page
