[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22623176

A man who killed three children he was babysitting and impaled them on garden railings has had his anonymity removed.

David McGreavy, 62, was jailed for life in 1973 for the murders of four-year-old Paul Ralph and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha.

He killed them at their Worcester home.

The High Court rejected McGreavy's application for anonymity submitted over fears his life would be in danger if his name was reported when he applied to be moved to an open prison.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and media organisations argued the application was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case.

McGreavy was lodging with the family at the house on Gillam Street in April 1973 when he carried out the killings.

Paul had been strangled, Dawn was found with her throat cut, and Samantha died from a compound fracture to the skull.

The killings earned McGreavy the nickname the "Monster of Worcester".

They were the children of Dorothy Urry, who now lives in Andover, Hampshire.

Guy Vassall-Adams, representing the justice secretary and the media organisations, told the court: "The full facts are exceptionally horrific by even the standard of murders.

"The order restricted the media to saying they were 'three sadistic murders' but that doesn't even give you the half of it."

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in London with Mr Justice Simon, ruled the anonymity order must be discharged.

McGreavy's counsel Quincy Whitaker told the court that naming him would put him in danger from other prison inmates.

She said he had already been the victim of a serious assault.

Ms Whitaker told the court McGreavy had previously spent two years in an open prison until "hostile media coverage" led to him being returned to closed conditions "for his own safety".

She said the triple killings were "notorious", but no concerns had been subsequently raised about his behaviour.

There were "more than reasonable grounds" for a fair parole hearing that could mean him being returned to open conditions, which was a pre-requisite for release from custody, added Ms Whitaker.

McGreavy made an application for parole in 2007 which was rejected.

The city's MP at the time, Mike Foster, called for McGreavy to never be allowed back to Worcester and described the murders as an "absolutely vile crime".

The Monster should have been impaled himself .....

[Marc]

omg those murders

[Niamh.]

omg I never even heard about that case, how gruesome

[Ryan57]

Piss take how their true identity isn't revealed. Who gives a toss what happens to the scumbags.

Originally Posted by Ryan57

Piss take how their true identity isn't revealed. Who gives a toss what happens to the scumbags.

Because an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind.

[Ryan57]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Because an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind.

That is one way of looking at it, and I did think about that. However, the scumbag thing overruled it. The issue is the risk to the public when they've no idea of who this person really is.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ryan57

That is one way of looking at it, and I did think about that. However, the scumbag thing overruled it. The issue is the risk to the public when they've no idea of who this person really is.

Exactly.

[Nedusa]

I wonder of he got a whole life tariff or will he be up for parole soon ??

Perhaps a model prisoner and a good example of rehabilitation at work..!!!

Originally Posted by Ryan57

That is one way of looking at it, and I did think about that. However, the scumbag thing overruled it. The issue is the risk to the public when they've no idea of who this person really is.

He's not being released (unless I've read it completely wrong), he's being moved to an open prison, and his previous parole hearing resulted in rejection.

[Nedusa]

if he did not receive a whole Life tariff sentence then he would have had a finite sentence for which at some point in the future parole would have to be considered.

If he has been a model prisoner and presents no threat upon his release then he should be released.

If no real argument is made to keep him in prison other than the nature of his crime then that in itself is not enough and he probably would have a case to take to the European court of Justice...

Perhaps he should of been impaled on a sharp spike 40 years ago.....!!!!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

if he did not receive a whole Life tariff sentence then he would have had a finite sentence for which at some point in the future parole would have to be considered.

If he has been a model prisoner and presents no threat upon his release then he should be released.

If no real argument is made to keep him in prison other than the nature of his crime then that in itself is not enough and he probably would have a case to take to the European court of Justice...

Perhaps he should of been impaled on a sharp spike 40 years ago.....!!!!

He murdered 3 children, he should never be released

[Vanessa]

[Kazanne]

I may be a bitch and people will think I'm heartless but trash like that who can do such things to anyone let alone little kids should be wiped off the face of the earth,but failing that locked up for life ,no effing parole,no privilages and a sharp spike up the anus now and again.

[Ryan57]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

He's not being released (unless I've read it completely wrong), he's being moved to an open prison, and his previous parole hearing resulted in rejection.

Oh crap, I meant in general sorry. Not just strictly this case.

[Z]

Christ, that's horrific. I think it's ridiculous that people who commit such awful crimes get anonymity. Take the consequences of your actions! He's scared of what people will do to him in open prison if they find out what he did? So he should be! He killed three children and impaled them. I don't understand why prisoners are protected legally in cases like that. The full facts should be out there and the only protection they should get is protection from being killed by other inmates because they should serve the entirety of their sentence for what they did; but they shouldn't be legally protected so they can pretend they're in there for a non-violent crime or something. I've always found that ludicrous.

[Apple202]

sounds like something out of a horror movie