Brady revisited

Whatever we might have thought of Ian Brady's loathsome performance yesterday, one thing we cannot criticise was his honesty.

In one of the most astounding statements I have ever heard, he not only showed zero remorse for his foul murders of innocent children, he actually justified them on the grounds that they were an "existential act". I've seen murderers try to wriggle out of their responsibilities; I've heard them express the profoundest remorse for their evil acts, but never, never have I heard them justified in this way. I've heard it said that Brady has an IQ of 150 or thereabouts, but clearly he has been reading too much Nietzsche and Sartre- and taking them a bit too literally.

And if he seriously does want to influence the mental health tribunal panel into thinking he's sane enough to be returned to an ordinary (if maximum security) prison, is he sure this was the right way to go about it? Mental health tribunals are made up of lay as well as professionally qualified members, and I can only imagine they were, every one of them, revolted to their collective core by what they heard yesterday, placing them in no mood to give in to any of Brady's demands.

They are certainly faced with a very tricky problem. They are there to decide whether it is still right to detain him under the mental health act, or whether he is sane and should therefore get his wish and go back to prison. But what if he decides to feign "madness" again once he is back in, say, Durham gaol? Would he then be transferred back to Ashworth until he's compos mentis again? I think they will conclude that, for a variety of reasons, but principally because the state does not appreciate having its chain yanked, that he should stay where he is. And even though I do not believe he is mad in the medical sense of the word, they're probably right. But they could take his naso-gastric tube out and see what happens...