Superb analysis, ezinra. It is really appreciated, So often, it is easy to pull them up on curves, modesty, tits - whatever - but this kind of forensic demolition is exactly what adds grist to the mill and illuminates the naked Dace Drip for what it is.

_________________
Brigate di Transizione

Thanks enzira for this thread. The whole "foxy knoxy" thing really disturbed me, since her major crime seemed to be possession of a vibrator, and I have written a few times of the memes about female behavior that seem to permeate the tabloids.

The whole fairer sex thing is a meme that not only patronizes women but stops sensible discussion of causes and the roots of crime. I imagine this thread will be added to frequently

_________________
Blog...http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan

"Playing God" was put forward by the prosecution, it's referenced in the Kent Online article http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/ ... uilty.aspx

However, great analysis. There's a worry anti-female trend in the comments. How she got a lesser sentence because of her sex, despite her getting the typical sentence for Section 20 GBH. Comments that her attempted rape story is infact false since the victim is no longer alive to validate such claims and since she's 'evil' therefore it's one of her schemes to get a reduced sentence. If Mail readers actually read the case, it wasn't a planned murder, it was meant to be a vicious attack taken to far. Hence why one man was given manslaughter. Lets not excuse the crime but the readers very much lack perspective.

_________________
My blog: https://stevenplrose.wordpress.com/

Sorry, smod, I saw your analysis in Lady Bashing after I'd posted mine. I think they're quite complimentary: yours is excellent on how the story was designed to press the readers' buttons, and on the bits the Mail left out. From reading the Mail alone, the only way you could know that the murder wasn't planned was from the nature of the charges brought against Mahil. Everything in the Mail's report hints at calculated, cold-blooded behaviour — yet in fact the murder was an unplanned mess. To unlock this information requires very careful reading. In my first draft, I missed it. I edited it in later after reading your post.

storygirl, I agree about Knox. Not only did she own a vibrator, she also appeared to have a personality. Naturally, the tabs turned both of those things against her.

Covered in her boyfriend's blood: Woman pictured minutes after she 'stabbed lover with a kitchen knife in fight'

This story has no place in a British or even American national newspaper. A woman has been arrested and charged with attempted murder after a domestic incident in New York. This, sadly, happens quite regularly. So why the interest in this case? Step forward Seth Gottfried:


Gottfried seems to have an 'arrangement' with the New York police and emergency services. In any case, somebody tipped him off, and he was able to get to the crime scene just as the woman was being arrested.

The photos of the arrested woman are disturbing. She's in a huge amount of distress. There is blood on her clothes. Obviously (or the story would not have been published) she's young and pretty. The Mail has also delved into her facebook account and found personal pictures which show some of her boobs and her legs. It's not treating her like a human being, it's certainly not treating her as innocent until proven otherwise. But that's okay. The Mail is getting its page hits, Gottfried is maximising his earning potential.

The readers are invited to lust after the woman, who happens to be of east European origin, while simultaneously despising her for the deed she has allegedly committed (about which we know nothing of the context). This is quite similar to the Mail's coverage of Amanda Knox: beautiful but evil. It's hateful stuff.

See also Tracie Andrews, particularly obsessively covered by local media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracie_Andrews

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

Well at least she was arrested in New York therefore the cops probably won't even know what the daily mail is.

Thankfully they have fox news to provide them with correct information.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

And look who reported on her first day out:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Pregnant teaching assistant led gang attack with her stiletto heel on male night-clubber

Here's an example of a story that doesn't give readers the information they need to make an informed judgement. It's clear what the Mail's angle is going to be: the headline genders both the victim (male) and the attacker (pregnant, stiletto). The subhead adds that the woman "avoided jail" despite admitting her crime. Readers are encouraged to conclude that the punishment was too lenient for such a gory crime; and that it was lenient because committed by a woman.

The problem is that it's impossible to piece together what actually happened from the Mail's report. One minute we are told that the defendant, Joanne Armstrong, "led the assault"; the next that "she ‘wound up’ four or five unidentified thugs who followed the victim, knocked him to the ground and savagely kicked and stamped on him." A couple of paragraphs later, the assertion has acquired some caveats, and Armstrong now "appeared to be the ‘instigator’…, witnesses said."

The "unidentified thugs" disappear from the story instantly. Who are they? Did Armstrong know them? Why did they allow themselves to be 'wound up' on her behalf? The headline and intro both describe the incident as a "gang attack", and the word 'gang' has strong connotations of organisation and planning. But Armstrong did not know the victim and may not have known the members of the 'gang' she was leading. So what in fact provoked the attack? It's impossible to tell. The only clue in the Mail's report is this half-sentence:

which raises all kinds of questions. What were these 'violent incidents', and what caused them? How did Armstrong become 'embroiled'? Why did she end up 'leading' an attack on one particular man? We are not told.

We are told some of the arguments used by Armstrong's lawyer to keep her out of prison. These are gendered. She is "the ‘primary carer’ for her two young children" (note the so-called quote marks) and "at the time of the attack Armstrong was in a ‘heightened emotional state’ - ‘reeling’ from the recent death of a friend and an argument with her boyfriend." The commenters naturally interpret this as typical female sleight of hand, feigning hysteria and using the welfare of her child as emotional blackmail. They also call for her to be sacked from her job, and criticise her for getting very drunk while she was pregnant, even though the story makes clear she has already been sacked and didn't know she was pregnant at the time of the attack.


Armstrong was herself given an eight-month suspended sentence. Pompous user name.


A very Mailite list of grievances.