Greenwood[edit]

Something's gone wrong with this article - "Jason Greenwood" is arrested, charged and convicted, then "Stone" appeals unsuccessfully... WTF?

Conviction unsafe?[edit]

Well, I for one regard his conviction as unsafe, since no evidence of any kind was presented to the court or jury to indicate even his presence at or near the crime scene. The only evidence was that another convicted criminal, known to be a pathological liar, claimed that Stone had confessed by shouting the fact to him from the next door cell whilst awaiting trial. Er, that's it. That's the evidence. It is known that Stone had suffered for many years from mental instability. He knew it himself, and had asked to be taken into the care of an institution. He was refused, for the reasons given in the article, viz, his condition was regarded as untreatable, so under English law, they couldn't detain him, even at his own request. Fairlightseven 18/12/08

The article says some people still hold Stone's conviction as unsafe, however, the only evidence is this is from newspaper articles from 1999 - long before the more recent legal proceedings. I believe the statement should be removed unless more recent evidence can be produced. Dan100 (Talk) 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests that proposals to incarcerate people labelled as suffering from Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder have been dropped. This is incorrect. Indeed in the new legislation currently before the house it is the need for conditions to be treatable before mandatory incapacitation can take place that has been dropped. The article is currently substantially inacurate. Dr. D. J. Crewe 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-heavy section[edit]

However, the issue which really mattered, but which was not made clear to the jury, was the screamingly obvious fact that even if Stone had shouted his confession from the rooftops for the whole world to hear, it wouldn't have made the confession any more credible in proving that he was actually the murderer. This was because anybody following the news could have cobbled together the same confession.

Very One-Sided and Tabloidy; also the Last Link in External Links seems non-notable and non-useful. J.J.Sagnella (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly worded sentence[edit]

There is no longer a requirement that treatments actually work, nor is there a requirement that patients participate in the treatment (ex: with taking therapies and other therapies that require active participation by the patient), merely that the treatment is considered appropriate, and is readily available to the patient.

The bit in brackets in the above sentence does not make sense to me. I can't fix it because I don't understand what it's trying to say, and I can't access the referenced source. Please reword. Thanks, RandomLettersForName (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 'taking therapies' might be a typo for 'talking therapies', which would naturally require the cooperation of the person being treated. 94.194.104.41 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Damien Daley[edit]

The article does not make clear whether in fact Damian Daley was in fact found guilty of the offense for which he was on remand or, if so, what sentence he got - or indeed what sentence would have been normal for such an offense by a career criminal with his record. This information is important to assessing Daley's credibility. Also the fact that the witness who admitted lying had also fabricated a confession, should be made clearer. After all, the fact that the police accepted and made use of a fabricated confession indicates how determined they were to convict Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.84.56 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Daley is irrelevant to the case because even if Michael Stone had confessed to the prisoner Governor, there would still have been no value in the confession - it merely repeated what had been publioshed in the national press on 23rd September 1997.

If Kent police and the CPS weren't so determined to convict Stone using the testimony of prisoners, it is quite possible that Milly Dowler would still be alive today.

See also the case of Omar Benguit where the police and CPS relied exclusively on the testimony of crack heads to gain a murder conviction - and that conviction was gained only after a THIRD attempt on a 2nd re-trial - so the defendant had to face three trials in total. That is what you call determination to obtain a conviction. Londonlinks (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Can the editor who is deleting the external link to the MichaelStone site please stop vandalising this page? The link is a reliable link to more resources about the case whether or not you agree with the content. We're not here to act as a censor based on our small paltry subjective opinion of what is "reliable" or not. The link is reliable which is all that matters. Londonlinks (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Londonlinks:[reply]

Seeing as you have not done it I have opened a request at the External link noticeboard. Please read WP:VANDALISM - at wikipedia it means a specific thing which my editing here is not, so please stop that, I will take it as a WP:PA if you continue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to delete a reference or make an edit use the talk page to first discus your intentions beforehand with other editors. This is common courtesy. Don't assume that you know best and that you have a right to interfere with contributions from other editors - otherwise you will be banned as an editor.
If you have something useful to say then say it - but Wikipedia doesn't need editors who just sit there pressing the delete button.
Londonlinks (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)londonlinks[reply]
Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Michael_Stone_.28murderer.29 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I can jump into this at this point, this edit warring over the inclusion of the link isn't achieving anything. I'm sure you both know about WP:3RR at this stage, but it is worth pointing it out again. User:Off2riorob has started a discussion about this on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Michael_Stone_.28murderer.29 as pointed out above, it makes sense that this be discussed there. I have warned User:Londonlinks twice about assuming good faith re accusations of vandalism, neither editor is vandalizing Wikipedia in my opinion. Can we please discuss this rather than edit warring over it? Quasihuman | Talk 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited Off2riorob to use the appropriate forum such as the discussion page before unilaterally removing contributions from other editors without providing an acceptable reason, but he has not provided any such reasoning. Simply pressing the delete button is not what one calls editing. Where there is contention over a point, it should be discussed in the light of Wikpedia's guidelines and policies. Londonlinks (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other material that can be added to this article[edit]

The articles in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly (may be behind a pay wall but sometimes can be accessed for free if you search for them by google instead of using the link)

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-1 http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-2 http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-Part-3 http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-4

are written by two barristers to argue for Stone's innocence and could contain a lot of references to primary sources, explanations of details like the boot-lace that was lost by police.

Someone with time&patience might search through this to see if the existing article is lacking anything important that might be found there.

The last of the articles summarizes evidence of Stone's innocence: 

The significant height disparity between Josie Russell’s description of the murderer and Stone’s height (6ft 1in as against 5ft 7in);

Josie’s description of the murderer’s hair as yellow and spiky contrasted with Stone’s hair;

The absence of Stone’s DNA on the bootlace;

The total absence of any relevant microscopic evidence from Stone’s car;

The absence of any such evidence linking him to the murder scene;

The finding of hairs there which did not belong to him or the Russells;

The bloodstained fingerprint on one of the girl’s lunchbox which could not have been Stone’s and was very unlikely in the circumstances to have been made by Lin Russell;

The absurdity of Stone confessing to Daley when he had just been moved into segregation at his own request to avoid contact with co-inmates who might want to allege he had confessed to them;

The disappearance of the near complete length of boot lace from police custody at a time when in the light of continuing developments in DNA research tests on it could have led to Stone’s exoneration.

Createangelos (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add more to this, I looked into the early press reports, saying that a Psychiatric nurse had reported Stone having said that he feels like killing someone, a week or so before the Chillenden murders. In fact he had said that he felt like killing *particular people who had wronged him in the past*.

Also, the conjectured motive (that he saw a happy family and was consumed by jealously over the fact that he had been brought up in care) is unsupported by evidence, while the motive for Bellfield (that Josie had caught his eye and then looked away, as had incited Bellfield to kill other women) is supported by Josie's testimony.

The fact that Dr. P. Sugarman had alerted authorities to the similarity between the photofit and Stone's appearance was perhaps known to both the jury and the jury in the retrial. This perhaps may have made the jury wonder what is the underlying reason a figure of authority in the Psychiatric profession would put Stone's name forward. Sugarman said it was only the match of the photofit that he was going by. Surely he was aware of the fact that Stone was from roughly the same area of Britain and that he had confessed homicidal feelings to his Psychiatric nurse.

It was maybe worse that this evidence was suppressed, and not given to the jury, as the jury knowing that there is some mysterious reason why Dr. Sugarman put Stone's name forward could leave an unanswered question in their mind. Of course, an unanswered question shouldn't go towards establishing circumstantial evidence of guilt, but juries are comprised of human beings.

With all the information now publicly available, it really seems that no jury would have convicted only on an unbelievable jailhouse confession through a pipe...when all the evidence supports that Stone was not involved.

The circumstantial evidence against Stone, such as that he was known to steal lawnmowers and a lawnmower had been reported stolen in that area, is vacuous, also. I can find a report of a stolen lawnmower in any district of England you wish, obviously. For the police to have done that is fine, but if there is nothing linking that lawnmower to Stone the evidence should be discredited publicly too, not left hanging around newspaper reports to influence any potential jury.

Journalists had a very serious responsibility here. Createangelos (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC's The Chillenden Murders (2017)[edit]

On 30 May and 6 June 2017 BBC Two broadcast a two-part documentary programme in which a team of independent experts re-examined the evidence: The Chillenden Murders. I would suggest that this article might benefit from a radical re-write in the light of the content of that programme. Alternatively a new article, entitled e.g. Murder of Lin Russell, might be warranted, in place of this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added the reference (thanks) however is there any source for the script or a summary of the documentary? Createangelos (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK since the program is not available via the BBC website, I included another reference, and a single-line summary of the program from Daily Telegraph. I have now seen the program on youtube, but realize that youtube is not an appropriate source.
Regarding my earlier comment which said "journalists had a very serious responsibility here," just speaking as the Wikipedia editor who made that comment in the past, I would like to thank the BBC 2 crew for living up to that responsibility. Createangelos (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in light of the recent announcements re Levi Bellfield, I still tend to think this article might be better tiled Murder of Lin Russell. Or else, at least, the apparent disparity between the current title here and that of Michael Stone (loyalist) should be addressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article's current title leaves a lot to be desired. "Murder of Lin Russell" doesn't quite cover it, since she wasn't the only victim, and Stone's conviction hasn't been overturned (yet). If his conviction is overturned, then there would be clear grounds to change the article to "Chillenden Murders" or something similar and rewrite it to be more like the Backpacker murders or Bradford murders articles, but I think it's too soon for that now. Maybe "Michael Stone (criminal)" instead? Marianna251TALK 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to that change. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and WP:BOLDly make the move, then. Marianna251TALK 16:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: lead with the conviction, not the suspicion.[edit]

It seemed odd to lead the lede with a suspicion rather than the event for which he is convicted; in addition the use of the term serial killer is a little odd even if he is guilty of the second murder, though it does just about fit the definition. This edit therefore (a) re-orders the material to a more logical order, and (b) sticks to the bare facts of the suspicion of one other murder. My earlier edit to this effect was reverted by an IP address [[1]] with the edit summary: "Articles begin with a description of the person/event. He is a suspected serial killer, just like Stephen Akinmurele, John Bodkin Adams, Kieran Patrick Kelly". With respect to the IP editor his being a convicted murderer is of more weight than his being suspected of an additional murder, and should come first. The reversion of my first edit was in turn reverted by User:A09090091 [[2]]; the IP editor immediately re-reverted. [[3]]. My last edit, restoring the lede to the version I originally made, is here: [[4]].

Grateful for the views of other editors, and in particular for views on:

(a) should we start with the conviction or the suspicion?

(b) Is the use of the term serial killer appropriate?

Friendly regards and all respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I have doubts about the safety of Stone's convictions in the Russell case, it is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Bellfield's alleged confession is interesting and has picked up a lot of media coverage, but it carries no legal weight at the moment and should not be given undue prominence in the WP:LEAD. The tag of "suspected serial killer" also carries no legal weight.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Springnuts: IP raised concerns on his talkpage, I didn't oppose his statement. If the person is not serial killer, IP shall be informed and the article fixed (WP:BLP) A09090091 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the content to the WP:STATUSQUO while this issue is still being discussed.
Both of those points you have raised are completely misleading. To ask whether we should "start with the conviction or the suspicion" is bizarre, since the article stating in the opening line that he is a suspected serial killer covers the fact that he has been convicted of two murders and is suspected of one more. On Wikipedia crime articles, it is standard to begin with descriptions of suspected serial killers with the description of them as suspected serial killers. That is why the category suspected serial killers exists [5], to classify and record all the articles pertaining to suspected serial killers. It would make no sense whatsoever to have Stone in the category of suspected serial killers yet omit any description of him as a suspected serial killer.
For context, here is a non-exhaustive list of British murderers who are described as suspected serial killers in the opening line of their article:
If you wanted to link at the list of Americans described as suspected serial killers we would be here all day. But some examples are:
We could go on. Most are all listed here [6].
The only possible reason you could have for going against regular standards and not calling Stone a suspected serial killer is that you do not think he is guilty of the Russell murders. Fine, you may think that, but as User:ianmacm succinctly says, "Bellfield's alleged confession is interesting and has picked up a lot of media coverage, but it carries no legal weight at the moment and should not be given undue prominence in the WP:LEAD". To remove the statement that Stone is a suspected serial killer based on the words of Levi Bellfield is clearly wrong. Stone is still legally the man who is responsible for the Russell murders. If his conviction gets quashed then by all means, remove the suspected serial killer description, since he would not be one. But as it stands, Stone has murdered two people and police themselves (and Stone in a confession) have stated that he is responsible for another murder. As it stands, Stone is a suspected serial killer.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, point B is clearly misleading since a suspected serial killer and a serial killer are two very different terms. If this debate was about describing Stone as a serial killer in the opening line then I would obviously object. The way you have worded that point implies that this discussion is over whether he is a serial killer. No, it is in fact about whether the fact he has been suspected of being one should be recorded in the opening line. The Good Dante (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I should add that the IP was me when I was at work btw. The Good Dante (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging. Please do not assume my views - as it happens you are completely wrong,and I invite you to delete your assumptions in your comments above. In any case, personal views are irrelevant: the man is guilty of those murders in the eyes of the law, and we must reflect that verdict.

Not all multiple murderers are serial killers. This man is suspected of a second attack/third murder, and if this suspicion is true then he he might be also determined to be a Serial killer. But "if" and "might" do not outweigh convicted, so we should at least start with the conviction.

As to his being a serial killer: I did not find this suspicion in any of the sources (but you may know better). It is certainly sourced that he is suspected of committing another murder, and so my edit included that in the lede. But to go beyond that to declaring him a suspected serial killer is WP:OR.

The views of other editors are requested.

Springnuts (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: well I think its a fair conclusion to make when, having not edited the Michael Stone article for 9 years, you suddenly appear when there is news about Bellfield confessing and decide to remove any suggestion of him being a suspected serial killer. Indeed you are correct that personal views are irrelevant, therefore I would invite you to explain why you think we should go against Wikipedia standards and exempt Michael Stone from being called a suspected serial killer when all others in the category of suspected serial killers are described as such in the first line of their article.
I find it completely ironic that you state that "personal views are irrelevant", then set out your own personal stance on whether Michael Stone does not meet the definition of suspected serial killer. Let us be clear here, Michael Stone meets the definition of suspected serial killer, no ifs no buts. That's not original research, it's just the letter of the law. It is not appropriate to put your own personal spin on it, it is not down to personal opinion, it is down to the fact that he has been convicted of two murders committed in one incident and has confessed to, and is suspected of, another murder committed in 1976. So saying he "might" be also determined as a serial killer clearly lacks a full understanding of what meets the definition of serial killer. It is, of course, notable that you began this thread with the admission that "it does just about fit the definition"., indicating that you previously accepted the fact that it is proper to describe him as such. In order to clear up any confusion about whether someone 'really' is a serial killer if they have only killed on two occasions, the best example to look at would be John Cooper. He killed four but only actually killed on two separate occasions, once in 1985 and once in 1989. Yet meets the criteria to be described as a serial killer and is rightfully described as such.
The concerns you have appear to have are that as you think that as Stone is best known for being convicted of killing the Russells, you believe that should be the first thing stated in the article. Therefore, I suggest a compromise. The first lines should state:

Michael Stone (born Michael John Goodban in 1960) is a British man who was convicted of the 1996 murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell, and who is a suspected serial killer. He was sentenced to three life sentences with a tariff of 25 years for the Russell killings.

That is a fair compromise to make whereby we start with his convictions for the Russell killings as you wish. We also still follow Wikipedia standards.
I really don't want to clash over this issue with you, but I am just concerned about the way you have come about altering my edits. Your subsequent reversion of my edit on the Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins article is a borderline case of WP:HOUNDING, as you have clearly followed me there after disagreeing with my edits on this article. I would hope that in future I do not have to worry about the possibility of you reverting edits I make on other articles which you have almost never edited before because you are stalking my contributions list! In any case I hope we can both agree as editors to come to terms with each other. The Good Dante (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with your proposed compromise edit, if you wish to make it, or I can. To be honest I have no memory of editing this article 9 years ago - though if you say I did then I’m sure that’s right. It was the recent publicity which drew my attention to it. For what it’s worth I don’t find the confession of another person convincing and I think the conviction is sound. But what matters is that this is what the sources overwhelmingly support. I did look at your contributions list: making a clean start you should perhaps expect some scrutiny of your contributions. Always happy to engage, as you have done, in the issues and improving the ‘pedia. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is good we have come to an agreement. In fairness I should have suggested the compromise earlier. But yes I shall change it now. The Good Dante (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chillenden murders[edit]

The double murder is more notable than him & should have its own article rather than be a redirect to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

It's surprising that there is no source with a date of birth. His record at FreeBMD seems to be this one, which shows his birth was registered in the 2nd quarter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "see also" section[edit]

I'm a bit confused why there is a 'see also' section which lists apparent miscarriages of justice when the convict ended up proven guilty anyway. Is it a weird back-door type of NPOV or am I just being paranoid? Does the section suggest that non-circumstantial evidence will be found against Stone?


I mean, after an article about Biden will we have "see also: senile psychopath wreaks havoc" In short, how are these cases linked to the Stone case and what on earth is the reason for listing them when they have in common that there had been a misguided and totally incorrect notoin of a miscarriage of justice? I'm open minded to reading whatever reply there is about this, just sort-of mystified. Would anyone have an over-riding interest in skewing the article one way or the other?


I'm sure that society at large would welcome some definitive evidence one way or the other about this guy; a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence never sits reassurngly in history.

[edit 24 hours later: I sort-of like the section the way it is, though, too. Analyzing weird back-door NPOV is something Wikipedia is uniquely good at doing. ] Createangelos (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a relevant see also section it must not be indiscriminate or subject to POV. So if miscarriage of justice is the relevant related issue then a see also to a curated list of miscarriages of justice could be relevant. We have List of miscarriage of justice cases which has a UK section, but there remains a POV issue in linking that, in that those are listed cases recognised as miscarriages of justice, where as Stone's case is merely debated as one. Thus I don't think that would do. Linking that would be POV suggesting that this must be an unrecognised miscarriage of justice. But the reverse is also true if we link a bunch of cases where a potential miscarriage of justice was suggested and then someone admitted it or was proven guilty. We cannot have POV in the see also section (or anywhere). See also would have to be something that is unequivocally relevant and related without POV. I don't know what that could be, and I don't know why we need a see also section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit [7] you restored the see also section despite this discussion. Please see WP:ONUS which I believe you are aware of, but which says:

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

This section has been challenged by myself, by Truecrimefan22 and by Createangelos. You are the only one contesting for its retention at this point. That is a small but clear consensus against inclusion. I have reverted this now. Please do not edit war it back in without first establishing a consensus on what should be in that section here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you also removed a link to a case (Murders of Kate Bushell and Lyn Bryant) that is nothing to do with miscarriages of justice and was simply linked due to its similarities and very close time proximity to the case, which is why parallels were drawn between the cases in the media. In no way does this fit with any argument that it needs to be removed because of POV surrounding miscarriages of justice. And further, I do not agree that linking to cases where a person was apparently guilty can be equated to the POV of linking to linking to obvious miscarriages of justice to suggest he might be innocent. Stone is guilty under the eyes of the law and has had multiple attempts to challenge this dismissed, therefore 'suggesting' that Stone is guilty is evidently not POV, it is the official position which we must follow, and by no means is it the same as 'suggesting' he is innocent, as that would be to contradict the rulings of a court of law (and subsequently several other legal bodies). So you are right, that would constitute a non-official spin that suggests that this case must be an unrecognised miscarriage of justice, but suggesting that the case is not an unrecognised miscarriage of justice is not the same as, well um, that is officially the case, as has been maintained on multiple appeals. Snugglewasp (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the whole section with an edit summary that included "These are indiscriminate," a point I have made above. They are all indiscriminate, because they are selected by individual editor preference and knowledge. I did not remove them all because they are all about miscarriages of justice, I removed them because we have not established any objective criteria by which the see also section may be constructed. That is also why what you say about Stone's guilt is also immaterial. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, content should be left or restored to the WP:STATUSQUO while it is being discussed on talk:

To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion.

Therefore, you are just as complicit in edit warring here, and I return your request for me to not edit war with a polite request to you to self-revert and restore the content to the status quo while it is being discussed, if you are interested in avoiding further edit wars. In any case, you claim that users Truecrimefan22 and Createangelos have challenged the exact same content as you, but in fact this is misleading as Truecrimefan22 did not do the same as you as they removed only the Hall, Barrie and Weir entries (and one other) [8] and not the Bushell and Norris entries, while Createangelos's position is not unequivocal as you have portrayed it as, since they say above that they are "open minded" and that they actually see the positives of the section as well as the negatives. It is also then not true that I am "the only one contesting for its retention at this point" - Truecrimefan22 chose to retain the Bushell and Norris entries, and Createangelos also never challenged these, so if anything only you are contesting for those specific two entries to be removed. As a result, you re-establishing your favoured version with the unnuanced claim that others unequivocally support you and you have a clear consensus is clearly misleading and not appropriate, and so I once again ask that you self-revert as an act of goodwill. Snugglewasp (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But as I've just said above, you have no consensus for removing the Bushell/Norris entries. Only you have removed these or advocated their removal. Removing these specific entries under the auspices that there is a consensus for it is particularly incorrect and improper, and I request that you self-revert. Snugglewasp (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STATUSQUO comes from an essay, and I don't think I departed from it, as it was you who reverted material in, despite the discussion. In any case ONUS is a core policy. I challenged the content and we now must wait for the consensus to emerge. Let's see what other editors think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was made by Structuralists. -The Gnome (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one following editors around is you. You have never edited this page before, but you pop in here to revert contested material into an article against ONUS, apparently because I was the one to challenge it. And in case it is not clear, as three editors have objected to it, your reversion still does not have consensus. STATUSQUO was already metioned. You might like to review it. 13:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The above comment was made by Sirfurboy. -The Gnome (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is to leave the article as it has been for years, not to revert it back to your version which lasted five days. Your edit has been challenged, the page is restored to the status quo while it is discussed and if and when you can demonstrate a clear consensus. Even if three editors have objected to it - which as has been made clear is not an accurate summary of the situation - two others have objected. That is not a clear consensus and I think you know that Structuralists (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest if you want to debate what STATUSQUO (essay) and ONUS (policy) say, you do it on my talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add, it is actually 4 editors who have contested this. This edit [9] by Tulzscha also reverted by Snugglewasp. [10] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, as one of those has made it clear below that their position is to remove one entry from the list, another is that they have "an open mind" but "sort-of like the section the way it is, though, too" and a third that wants a partial deletion of some: [11]. Only you want a a deletion of the section in its entirety. Four others want at least some of the entries to remain. Snugglewasp (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military service?[edit]

I’ve heard a claim that Stone had served in, or tried to join, the military. Does anyone know if this is true, or has a source? Wally Tharg (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - See also section[edit]

Don't include the proposed 'see also's. The consensus is best summed up by Caeciliusinhorto-public - linking specific other crimes in the see also section is a pretty questionable business – there's always a question about why we have chosen those specific ones. The only real support was for possibly linking to immediately related general topics - usually achievable within the text - or related lists. Non-admin close, reponding to request below Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should the page contain the following see also section?

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, more than a year. Snugglewasp (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Wuerzele 148.252.159.66. There are many murder cases where a miscarriage of justice has been claimed, e.g. Murder of Leanne Holland, Murder of Leanne Holland, etc. Your notion of informing the reader about it would be better served by one simple link to the eponymous article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think you’ve confused me with someone else there mate. And literally the OP says above why linking to that would be a bad idea? 148.252.159.66 (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the wrong call. Edited your signature in. The point, however, still stands: There are many murder cases where a miscarriage of justice has been claimed. Citing them all, or even a token portion of them, does not provide any useful information or understanding. Each case is different. Hence my humble recommendation. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See I think you are mistaken, The Gnome. If it was just about linking to claimed miscarriage of justice cases in the UK then I would obviously oppose, since you would be right to say that that casts the net far too wide. But it isn't about that. Those entries are linked much more specifically to previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later. That is clearly not casting a wide net, since such public cases with such outcomes are indeed very rare (and even more rare in the UK, compared to somewhere else like the USA), but are comparable to the Michael Stone case as it has been characterised by a years-long and very public campaign to free him, but he is still being ruled guilty by legal bodies to this day decades later. To not recognise the similarities between these very specific and narrowly-defined cases is, in my view, symptomatic of outside editors being unaware of the background of the Stone case and what it is currently defined by - the decades-long and uniquely very public debate over whether it's a miscarriage followed by legal bodies repeatedly concluding that it is not. I agree with TrueCrimefan22's sentiments that the Michael Weir case can be jettisoned since it does lack that public campaign element, but that the others are more relevant since they involved similar public miscarriage campaigns with specifically comparable aspects MeltingDistrict (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MeltingDistrict. I'm afraid you did not notice that my remark was addressed specifically to the reason invoked by 148.252.159.66 for supporting inclusion of the other articles in "See also." 148.252.159.66 wrote: "The Michael Stone case is currently defined by the debate about whether it is a miscarriage of justice or not. So linking to notable UK cases in which there is a debate about whether they do or do not constitute miscarriages is absolutely tangentially related."
Coming now, to your argument for inclusion, i.e. that cases where a miscarriage of justice is claimed by many people to have occurred are "very rare and even more rare in the UK, compared to somewhere else like the USA." First of all, this is an English-language encyclopaedia but it's not one mostly about England, Britain, or the USA. Second, were we to look for cases of murder where a miscarriage has indeed or is suspected to have occurred, we will find in our net a lot of catch. Especially when we take into account my first point. Yet, even ignoring the "rest of the world" and focusing on the Anglosphere, we get, beyond the avalanche of American cases, some of which involve the death penalty (e.g. Randall Dale Adams), well, Stefan Kiszko, Stephen Downing, Barry George, Winston Silcott, Suzanne Holdsworth, and so on. We do have a list of miscarriage of justice cases. Not a small catch! And just wait till we board the political murder fisherboat! What about the Birmingham Six and Judith Ward? Or even politician Jeremy Thorpe? Endless.
P.S. My emphasis in citations. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I mean you've completely misrepresented my point there, and I would invite you to perhaps re-read what I said. I'll say again, I'm am absolutely not saying that it be right to just link to 'possible miscarriage of justice cases'. That was clearly not my point, but you've inaccurately concluded it was above by declaring that 'my argument' is that cases where a miscarriage of justice is claimed by many people to have occurred are "very rare and even more rare in the UK, compared to somewhere else like the USA." I'm not sure you've concluded from the full post I made that I am just arguing for entries just because they are claimed miscarriages of justice. No, and I'll repeat, I am saying that other than the first two the the entries are previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual, but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later. Now, I would be interested to hear you reel off a list of cases that come under that very specific and narrow definition. It's not about linking to cases that are claimed miscarriages, because you are correct, if that was the criteria we'd be here all day. It's about linking to very specific, similar cases and precedents where a very public, years-long miscarriage campaign has ensued but have ultimately still ended with a presumption of guilt. That is what the Michael Stone case is quite unique in these days, and linking to the very few other cases which have ended as such and have a separate article is not going to be endless. It's going to be links to a just a few relevant tangentially related previous cases, which is absolutely in fitting with what a see also section should include. MeltingDistrict (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, let's take this avenue instead. You are now claiming that the Michael Stone case is "quite unique", yet you insist we should have in the "See also" section links to other cases. Methinks you do not realize the meaning of the term "unique." But even more importantly, could you clarify which criterion do you seek to impose? Is it that the ostensible miscarriage of justice still prevails? In which case, who ascertains it does? Not the courts, of course, since their decision is a verifiable fact, and certainly not, one hopes, us. Or is it that the case has caused a "public campaign" (or a "very-public campaign") to free the convicted person? Or do we deploy both ? Which would, of course, render the case even ...more unique, were we to use you terminology. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Cameron Dewe's comment. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state your reasons for support other than editor conduct? It would help the admin who eventually closes this RfC to determine the weight of each argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't agree with this notion that it casts a net too wide to link specifically to a few fellow contemporary notable UK cases in which there has been very public miscarriage campaigns e.g. Colin Norris. There is actually very few of such contemporary cases over here - for the benefit of our American editors who may mistakenly assume that there are currently controversial miscarriage cases in the UK frequently like there is in a massive country like the USA. Likewise, I cannot agree that it is casting a net too wide to link even more specifically to previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a campaign to free an individual but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later. That is clearly not casting a wide net, since such public cases with such outcomes are indeed very rare (and even more rare in the UK), but are comparable to the Michael Stone case as it has been characterised by a years-long and very public campaign to free him, but he is still being ruled guilty by legal bodies to this day decades later. To not recognise the similarities between these very specific cases is, in my view, symptomatic of outside editors being unaware of the background of the Stone case and what it is currently defined by - the decades-long and uniquely very public debate over whether it's a miscarriage followed by legal bodies repeatedly concluding that it is not. I agree with the TrueCrimefan22's sentiments above that the Michael Weir case can be jettisoned since it does lack that public campaign element, but that the others are more relevant since they involved similar public miscarriage campaigns with specifically comparable aspects MeltingDistrict (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, comparisons between the Bryant/Russell cases were directly made on the national Crimewatch episode that month, the one around the same time as Micheal Stone was convicted. So they were both in the news and compared at the time. In general I also support leaving the see also ones as they are 81.133.230.204 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — 81.133.230.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Every link to another Wikipedia article is potentially "useful to the reader," Cameron Dewe. But the "See also" section" is not supposed to function like that ol' I Feel Lucky choice of yore. We have some rather loose but still helpful guidance from MOS:SEEALSO, e.g. Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. ... One purpose...is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics, etc. We get to assess usefulness by the relevancy criterion, which has already been discussed at length in this RfC. I completely agree with you about putting the reader first and believe that the best way to serve the readers' requirements is to have all information in the right place. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, your statement above comes off as an attempt by you to re-model Cameron Dewe's support for the content remaining into support for your own argument that it should be deleted. Well no, this is my interpretation of what was said by @Cameron Dewe: he supports the idea of the links remaining because the descriptions provided help explain how the other articles are related, and that they should therefore be kept with those accompanying apt descriptions. He then suggests that if there are citations that might further help identify the relationships between the articles that they should be added to aid verifiability. And Dewe makes a very relevant point, as there are sources which do conflate the Stone and the provided linked cases together - e.g. these two: [17], [18], which involved discussing both the Stone and Simon Hall cases and their relevant CCRC appeals at a time when the Simon Hall case was similarly thought to be a miscarriage case like with Stone. If there are reliable sources which mention the Stone and Hall cases in the same breath, why would it be wrong for us to provide a see also link between them? And I think that if we used these two sources to provide further citations for the link being made, then that that would be to do exactly what Cameron is asking for: adding any extra citations to aid verifiability. MeltingDistrict (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Sirfurboy, you have again misrepresented my argument after I have done my best to explain this to you and others here a number of times in the clearest possible terms - so I am given to wondering whether you are doing so purposely at this point in order to try and negate my point in the hope of a favourable close summary. You claim my argument is that "it is rare that someone would maintain innocence for years, and despite that, still remain incarcerated years later from unsuccessful appeals". No. Let me copy and paste what I said yet again, that other than the first two the entries are previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual, but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty (or there was a presumption of guilt) years later. I've said that Truecrimefan22 makes a valid point that the Weir case wasn't really a wide public campaign, so I agree with him that that one could be jettisoned. But the point is not that the cases are linked because of the 'unsuccessful appeals' aspects, it's the large public interest aspect. Because of the Barrie and Hall cases being well known due to their previous very visible campaigns, that is why there was such interest in them. Same with the Stone case. Stone's case = a very uniquely visible campaign for freedom that's ended (as of 2023) on an unsuccessful note years later. The Hall and Barrie cases? The same. Add that to the fact that the Hall and Stone cases were explicitly spoken about in reliable sources together during their campaigns: [19] [20], and you have cases between which similarities can be justifiably drawn. MeltingDistrict (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have again misrepresented my argument As that was my first reply to you, I fail to see where the again comes from. I agree with him that that one could be jettisoned so technically you oppose the retention of the see also asis, and you agree that a see also section should be based on something other than editor whim. Some objective basis. You then define what you wish to use: it's the large public interest aspect. Why? Wouldn't it be better that see also directed to lesser known but more comparable cases than well known but unconnected ones? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was The Gnome that did a similar misrepresentation before, I meant that you have repeated their mistake and done a very similar thing again, perhaps you did not read where I clarified to him before? I think in general you should avoid trying to represent other people's points in your own way like with me and Cameron Dewe, as I don't think it helps your argument as it just appears like you are twisting what we've said. MeltingDistrict (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Stone's case = a very uniquely visible campaign for freedom that's ended (as of 2023) on an unsuccessful note years later. The Hall and Barrie cases? The same." Although I have no real opinion on the non-Weir entries in the section, I have to point out that this justification doesn't really work. Stone's case is actually still ongoing, as the CCRC is conducting a fresh review of his conviction that may or may not result in a different conclusion. It's also inaccurate to say that attempts to overturn Barrie's conviction ended in failure. Rather, Barrie's conviction was successfully quashed only for him to be convicted of another unrelated offence. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The cases are pretty distinct: Stone's case is currently being reviewed and he continues to maintain his innocence, Hall's conviction was upheld and he later admitted his guilt, and Barrie's conviction was overturned when it was concluded that the CCTV evidence showed someone else committing the crime! Hall's appeal was based on alleged weaknesses of the forensic evidence; Barrie's was based on exculpatory CCTV evidence; Stone's is based on claims that key witnesses lied, and on Bellfield's subsequent confession. Barrie and Hall both had support from miscarriage of justice campaigners; Stone doesn't seem to have.
There are plenty of other murder cases in category:Overturned convictions in the United Kingdom and it's not clear to me why these particular ones have been chosen unless the intent is to encourage a particular viewpoint about people who appeal their convictions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories