Ian Huntley - True Crime
Ian Huntley. A boyfriend. A caretaker. A killer. Huntley was guilty from the first instance, as much as he wanted to invent other "reasonable explanations" and hope that his tears could get him out of it, he was doomed to be found out. The amount of damning evidence piling up against him was too much for him to worm his way out of, his disgusting crime was sure to be discovered.
He assured the court that he had simply been washing his dog on that fateful day, only stopping to speak to Holly and Jessica when they stopped by to ask how his girlfriend (one of their teachers) was doing. It was as if he was painting a perfect image of himself, making up a fairytale of the perfect sunny Sunday afternoon, but the grisly truth was all too different.
The court explained the mounting evidence (the fingerprints, the car tracks etc) and he became increasingly aggravated when he realised that perhaps he was destined to being found out. He snapped "You've already made up your mind", giving the impression that maybe he felt victimised. Maybe he felt that he really was innocent. Maybe he felt that he was being picked on and he was being falsely accused, as if they had some kind of vendetta against him.
They say that only 40 per cent of murderers actually recall the moment of the killing. Perhaps Huntley wants to be in that minority, he wants to be someone to have an excuse and almost pass off the responsibility of the crime.
Nobody will ever really know if Huntley knows what he did or if he actually believes the story he created. Some things will always be a secret.
Commentary
The short opening sentences capture the audiences attention and let the reader know what the article is going to be about, I think it is effective because the short sentences are powerful and dramatic. The powerful words like "grisly", "vendetta" and "disgusting" are dramatic and emotive, they show the strength of his crime and how horrible it is. The use of facts and extracts taken from the original text (Holly and Jessica - We'll Never Know) makes the link between the two texts and therefore achieves the aim of the text.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
On the Murder of James Bulger Recast Task
Venables and Thompson: Monsters or Children?
In early 1993, a young boy was brutally murdered, his tiny body cruelly beaten and battered until he died. Who could do such a thing, you may ask yourself. Well, the answer may just shock you. The toddler, James Bulger, was murdered by two other children, two ten year old boys called Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Is this what makes the story all the more chilling?
Is the fact that the cold-hearted killers are young and supposedly innocent children that we want to empathise more with them? Usually we hear about thugs and brutes, brought up in bad environments who lash out for attention or simply have a negative view of life. It's shocking to hear that a child could cause such harm to another child, it almost brings the issue closer to home because we feel we can relate to the issue and empathise. As humans, when we hear about killers and the horrible crimes they've committed, we instantly express our hatred for them and what disgusting human beings they are. However, to hear that children could do such a thing, we almost feel that we have to make excuses for them and that there must be a reason behind it, maybe they didn't understand what they were doing or maybe they're just poor misunderstood little tykes.
This story shocked the whole country and was widely covered in the media, the pictures of smiling Bulger pulled on the heartstrings of Britain. The whole country was still in this dilemma of whether or not to feel hatred towards the two boys for what they did, or if they should just see it as childish mistake. There is a lot to consider, a lot to understand and a lot to think about.
In this programme we'll investigate the motive behind the killings and what actually happened on that cold, February day.
Commentary
The opening sentence "In early 1993..." is effective as it sets the scene and engages the audience immediately as it goes straight into the story. The pre-modifiers "brutally", "tiny" and "cruelly" are used as emotive words to try and make the audience feel emotion and make the story more interesting and dramatic. The use of rhetorical questions is effective as, again, they engage the audience and keep them interested. The collective term "we" makes it seem that the narrator is talking with the audience as opposed to talking at them or to them. The final sentence "In this programme we'll investigate..." is effective because it is relevant to the purpose of the text, the use of the noun "programme" shows that the text is a voiceover for a documentary and works effectively as it explains what the documentary will be about.
In early 1993, a young boy was brutally murdered, his tiny body cruelly beaten and battered until he died. Who could do such a thing, you may ask yourself. Well, the answer may just shock you. The toddler, James Bulger, was murdered by two other children, two ten year old boys called Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Is this what makes the story all the more chilling?
Is the fact that the cold-hearted killers are young and supposedly innocent children that we want to empathise more with them? Usually we hear about thugs and brutes, brought up in bad environments who lash out for attention or simply have a negative view of life. It's shocking to hear that a child could cause such harm to another child, it almost brings the issue closer to home because we feel we can relate to the issue and empathise. As humans, when we hear about killers and the horrible crimes they've committed, we instantly express our hatred for them and what disgusting human beings they are. However, to hear that children could do such a thing, we almost feel that we have to make excuses for them and that there must be a reason behind it, maybe they didn't understand what they were doing or maybe they're just poor misunderstood little tykes.
This story shocked the whole country and was widely covered in the media, the pictures of smiling Bulger pulled on the heartstrings of Britain. The whole country was still in this dilemma of whether or not to feel hatred towards the two boys for what they did, or if they should just see it as childish mistake. There is a lot to consider, a lot to understand and a lot to think about.
In this programme we'll investigate the motive behind the killings and what actually happened on that cold, February day.
Commentary
The opening sentence "In early 1993..." is effective as it sets the scene and engages the audience immediately as it goes straight into the story. The pre-modifiers "brutally", "tiny" and "cruelly" are used as emotive words to try and make the audience feel emotion and make the story more interesting and dramatic. The use of rhetorical questions is effective as, again, they engage the audience and keep them interested. The collective term "we" makes it seem that the narrator is talking with the audience as opposed to talking at them or to them. The final sentence "In this programme we'll investigate..." is effective because it is relevant to the purpose of the text, the use of the noun "programme" shows that the text is a voiceover for a documentary and works effectively as it explains what the documentary will be about.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
'Justice at Night'
Recasting Task
I feel awful this morning. I feel like a bad person. I watched an innocent man begging for survival, I watched him strung from a tree, I watched his body devoured by flames, and what did I do? Nothing.
I'm furious at myself now. Why didn't I do something? Why didn't I stand up for what I believe in? Maybe I thought they'd hang me along side him, or that they'd chase me out of town. I was scared.
Ha! Scared? I must be kidding! I wasn't half as scared as that poor innocent guy I watched them kill. I've never been as scared as he must have been. The fear in his eyes burnt brighter than any of the flames that embraced his limp body.
I watched them carry his struggling body and saw how small he became. He seemed like a child, completely powerless. This otherwise sleepy town was awoken with hatred, coming together for a violent meeting. It was as if they were possessed, that all they wanted was to harm and hurt. I've never seen anything like it. However, this was clearly normal to them. They all met up as if simply going out for lunch, like it was nothing more than a harmless day out. It did not seem to bother them that they were going to be taking a life. Not only that, but taking the life of an innocent man.
I wish we'd never gone. I would have preferred to spend the night being bothered by flies and bitten by mosquitos stranded on the side of the road in our leaf filled car. But still, even if we hadn't have gone, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened. It simply means we would have been unaware, living a sheltered life. It's true what they say, ignorance is bliss.
Commentary
The short sentence at the beginning of the piece captures the attention of the reader and engages them, making them want to read on. The use of the term "devoured" when talking about flames is interesting as it personifies the flames, making it seem like they have a life of their own. It also shows how powerful the flames are. The use of rhetorical questions throughout the piece engage the reader, again keeping them interested and making them feel involved as the piece progresses. The use of the simile "He seemed like a child" connotes helplessness, innocence and fear. This shows how helpless the victim was and that he was small and fragile compared to them. The image of the victim being small and childlike also gives the impression that the townspeople are large and boisterous, wanting to cause harm.
I feel awful this morning. I feel like a bad person. I watched an innocent man begging for survival, I watched him strung from a tree, I watched his body devoured by flames, and what did I do? Nothing.
I'm furious at myself now. Why didn't I do something? Why didn't I stand up for what I believe in? Maybe I thought they'd hang me along side him, or that they'd chase me out of town. I was scared.
Ha! Scared? I must be kidding! I wasn't half as scared as that poor innocent guy I watched them kill. I've never been as scared as he must have been. The fear in his eyes burnt brighter than any of the flames that embraced his limp body.
I watched them carry his struggling body and saw how small he became. He seemed like a child, completely powerless. This otherwise sleepy town was awoken with hatred, coming together for a violent meeting. It was as if they were possessed, that all they wanted was to harm and hurt. I've never seen anything like it. However, this was clearly normal to them. They all met up as if simply going out for lunch, like it was nothing more than a harmless day out. It did not seem to bother them that they were going to be taking a life. Not only that, but taking the life of an innocent man.
I wish we'd never gone. I would have preferred to spend the night being bothered by flies and bitten by mosquitos stranded on the side of the road in our leaf filled car. But still, even if we hadn't have gone, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened. It simply means we would have been unaware, living a sheltered life. It's true what they say, ignorance is bliss.
Commentary
The short sentence at the beginning of the piece captures the attention of the reader and engages them, making them want to read on. The use of the term "devoured" when talking about flames is interesting as it personifies the flames, making it seem like they have a life of their own. It also shows how powerful the flames are. The use of rhetorical questions throughout the piece engage the reader, again keeping them interested and making them feel involved as the piece progresses. The use of the simile "He seemed like a child" connotes helplessness, innocence and fear. This shows how helpless the victim was and that he was small and fragile compared to them. The image of the victim being small and childlike also gives the impression that the townspeople are large and boisterous, wanting to cause harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)