Ian Brady and his advocate

Interested in the story here. From what I understand Ian Brady has an 'advocate' (something I have been in the past, working with someone with mental health and learning difficulties, getting to know them and ensuring their views were heard in meetings with social workers etc) and he may have told her some details about the murders which he hadn't told anyone else. She had been his advocate since 1999 so there would have been considerable trust there.

Somehow, and apparently as a result of a conversation with a journalist, the police have come to believe that the advocate has information, possibly in the form of a letter, that details where one of Brady's victims - Keith Bennett - is buried.

If Brady has been provided with, and allowed visits from, an advocate, should those conversations have been privileged? The advocate has been arrested.

Personally, I think that some pieces of information are too important to be subject to any privilege, and Keith Bennett's mother's stated wish is to know where he is buried before she dies. But should even someone like Brady be allowed to talk in confidence to someone?

For me, if he does give the whereabouts of the body then all bets are off re confidentiality. Also, until the point that there is definitive information, nothing should be reported on this. I wouldn't be surprised if Brady was watching the news today getting a huge kick from the publicity and the power he holds purely by keeping this knowledge to himself.

His cruelty clearly knows no bounds, otherwise he would have put Mrs Bennett out of her torture a long time ago. He is holding onto the one piece of power that he has and it's a shame that the media in this country allow him to exploit it and boost his own opinion of himself and his infamy.

 

Rights? Privileges? For that piece of human excrement?

Whenever this story comes up, I cry. Not just a tear, but buckets. Keith's poor mother has lived a diginified life of bitter sorrow, yet we consider the rights of HIM?

Want my full opinions? Then move this thread to 18+.

There is real sadness today at the news of Mrs Johnson's passing. I hope and trust she has now been re-united with her long lost son and her soul is now at peace.

As for Brady... bury him alive on Saddleworth moor, or feed him Peat until he suffocates.

I've always been a big subscriber to the belief that you judge a society civilisation on how it treats it's prisoners (Dostoyevsky??), but the interests of the victims must always come immediately before it.

I reckon Phil is absolutely right what he says above, it's about power for Brady, even behind bars he can manipulat his victims. Its basic gcse criminology. For that reason they were right to lift the advocate.

Unknowingly at the time, but living very close (within a mile) to where he and Hindley lived at the time when their reign of terror was at it's height, I remember only too well the fear and concern of my parents whenever we 'wanted to go out to play' as was the norm in those days.

This is a hugely emotional case and I feel desperately sorry for Mrs Johnson and have no sympathy whatsoever with Brady.
I would say however, as someone who as to work within the bounds of confidentiality on a daily basis, we should not be so quick to criminalise the advocate who has to work within legal boundaries. This person is trying to do their job.....and remember that we do not get a choice of who our clients are......under very difficult circumstances. They have to remain professional and do the job no matter what their personal feelings. To be castigated for that must be soul destroying.