The usual crowd are out on 'CiF' taking out an onion for the victim.
No, not Baby Peter, or the other children spawned by this creature, of course:
Connelly's history speaks of a real, rather ordinary, even vulnerable woman whose own parents appeared unable to care for or protect her, not as a cipher of evil. Her story is not unique. Many of the mothers who are involved in care proceedings relating to their children have been in care themselves, and suffered abuse at the hands of their own parents.And yet, Anna, they mostly manage to refrain from inviting in unsuitable men to torture and kill their children, don't they?
So, in that sense, there's nothing 'ordinary' about Connolly.
The 'Independent' pre-emptively blames the internet for any future success at appeal:
Foremost among the grounds of appeal being sketched out by lawyers representing the killers of Baby Peter will be the claim that prejudicial coverage on the internet denied their clients a fair trial.They go on to make the point that British justice is still unsure about the Internet and how to handle it:
At the time of the prosecutions last year, websites were ablaze with abusive speculation concerning the identity and motives of those accused of such a monstrous crime.
There then appears to be a double standard at work, where the law is incapable of punishing flagrant breaches of court orders by internet transgressors while imposing draconian sentences on the mainstream media for committing much less serious breaches. The internet was born into a lawless cyberspace and has little respect for the fusty orders of the High Court.There's the real victim! The MSM...