![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be some inconsistency with what the individual at the center of this affair is named, both in this article and in the wider media. Some call him Mulrunji Doomadgee [1], others call him Cameron Doomadgee [2].
In order to make the article as readable as possible, I propose that we make a note in the first paragraph that he's known as Cameron Doomadgee and Mulrunji Doomadgee, and then refer to him simply as "Doomadgee" in the rest of the article. This also has the advantage of being consistent with the other usage of names in the article, we talk about "Hurley" most of the time, not "Chris".
If no objections, I'll make the change in the next couple of days.
Lankiveil 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to move the info recently added by User:Jb3, it is certainly relevant although the referencing is incorrect, but it does not belong where it has been placed. Any thoughts? Wiki Townsvillia n 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As it exists it seems to be inevitable at that location as it explains how the pathologist could find that multiple injuries include a fatal injury could happen from falling down a concrete step. Omission would seem misleading. It unfairly makes the pathologist appear dishonest as it sounds like a slip on a shallow step by one person alone something that would result in a skinned knee not something not this. If you want to move it my suggestion would be to the Investigations into the death in Custody section above the heading Coronial Inquiry could be placed a new heading Autopsy Report and the following text cut and pasted:
"Although the autopsy report was medical and did not state what caused his death, it did list possible causes which included that the multiple injuries sustained could have been consistent with him falling on a shallow concrete step at the Palm Island watchhouse.[1][4]. The deceased was 181cm tall and weighed 74 kilograms. Hurley was 200.66cm tall and weighed 115 kilograms.[8] The injury may have been caused by Hurley falling on the deceased..[9]" User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 09:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this quote:
"Although not a medical expert, Murrandoo Yanner claimed that when he and other relatives viewed the body of the deceased his head injuries were so severe that he was unrecognisable."
I don't know what people contributing here have or haven't read but other than this claim I assume anyone contributing would have taken enough interest to be aware that there was just one cut above an eye visible although there was evidence of a 'black eye' in the post mortem. I have noticed the above quote a few times. Something should be done with it as it conflicts with the medical evidence and is the only thing available in an encyclopaedia article. I have intended to include the medical findings but currently think that that might not be the best approach. Murrandoo Yanner lost a relative so to put the medical findings beside his comments doesn't seem like an ideal thing considering what he has said. My suggestion is that it might be best if his comment was just removed. What do others think? User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
User:Jb3 -(
User talk:Jb3) 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)My strategy to this point has been to go through chronologically from the day after the death through what has been reported on the event by The Australian, I've made it to the end of March 2005 so far. After that I was going to go through the ABC's coverage in the same way and then maybe the Courier Mail and/or the Townsville Bulletin. However I'm finding it more and more difficult to differentiate the sensationalism from the facts, for example the reports report facts but don't say who's version of events they are, in a situation where it has to be one person's opinion that is very frustrating.
For this reason I'm going to change tactic and use official documents first where they detail where they got their info from such as the coronial report and then that core info can be expanded upon from newspaper coverage which qualifies who they are getting their info from... This may take a little while though. Does anyone have any thoughts on this change of strategy, if you think the current system works better I can continue on. Wiki Townsvillia n 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to tell unless you try it the other way but obviously that would be a lot of work. (sorry) The current system is reasonably chronological but I can see the problem. On that topic I note that you had something about Mulrunji not being drunk and then shortly after something about a very elevated sounding BAC. User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 12:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was careful about that one, I made sure that it said he was not considered to be drunk and clearly attributed the comments to the relatives/residents. This is really tricky as to how to encyclopaedically structure all this info. Should we say, this is the relatives’ version and then this is the polices’ version and then this is what was determined by the Coroner to have happened... or continue as I have been doing trying to put all the different views in but in a chronological order (which makes it confusing as to what actually happened and what is correct and what isn't... although it seems we will never overcome that problem due to the inadequacies of the initial investigation). Wiki Townsvillia n 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is reasonably approached chronologically (in terms of events not necessarily newspaper reporting of them) providing that exceptions are made where necessary to ensure that it isn't misleading. I note that you started with the Australian. They seemed to take a very sensationalist approach. Perhaps that has shaken you.
Unless you have something in mind that I am unaware of I don't consider the deficiencies of the initial investigation insurmountable. As I recall it took from 2004 to 2006 before evidence gathering was finalised and the matter sent to the DPP (and the CMC regarding disciplinary cf. criminal proceedings) to consider whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge Hurley. There were two autopsys, a coroner and then an acting coroner all contributing to the investigation. Ultimately it seems to have been thoroughly investigated. User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I was originally baffled by your comment as it didn’t seem to mesh with the length or thoroughness of the investigation. For example it was notable how far the Acting Coroner took her inquiry and noteable that there was two post mortems. You earlier mentioned that you were relying heavily upon The Australian for writing the Wikipedia article. I have now encountered a story from that mass media outlet at the following URL.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20955075-2,00.html
The story started with the following: “TWO friends of Palm Island policeman Chris Hurley conducted the initial investigation into the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee, gathering key evidence that Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions relied on to clear him last week.”
I think that explains your comment if, in spite of noticing sensationalism, you were relying on The Australian for a full accurate understanding of the events as it was your first source of information. Please correct me if this assumption is incorrect. However if my guess about relying on that publication is correct then you probably wondered what I was smoking when I wrote my last response. Also, if my guess is correct, then I note that you are perfectly correct. That is exactly what I think that publication communicated.
However I question whether the article gives the correct understanding of the real life situation. I’ll explain. But first would it be fair to say that the article conveys that the biased looking early investigations starved the DPP of information thus casting doubt on the correctness of the DPP decision?
I believe that I can explain why I think that it is not the DPP but the consumers of mass media reporting who were starved of key information on the issue. The key to unlocking the factual situation regarding the significance of the questionable investigation by Hurley’s friends is buried further in the article.
You have to just about be looking for it and wade in before you notice that the apparently biased police (Hurley’s friends) led the investigation for just six days. The investigations lasted for years (I’ll get back to that). Burying the fact in there that it was only the first six days of the police investigation, which fact seems to totally contradict the impression created by the earlier comments, is probably what most journalists consider ‘balanced reporting’. This type of media sensationalism has been typical of the reporting of this matter.
You probably know that the DPP decision was not made six days after the commencement of the investigation and thus had an awful lot more to go on then just that shaky beginning. Now that I have put the initial investigation problem in context by flagging that the problem was just for six days hopefully my initial response will make sense to you and will flesh out this point.
From someone who has no faith in the mass media I have the cynical perception that mass media created the impression Hurley was guilty and that perception stirred people up. There were many newsworthy events including riots, arrests, two coroners, an apparently shonky investigation for the first couple of days, suicides, and a promise of a possible trial of Hurley that could prompt another media circus when the verdict came in. Then the DPP decision came in and spoiled the story by making a decision that would normally kill the issue. That would have to be disappointing for journalists.
Given that it was just 6 days, what sounds so important to the DPP decision in this article is thus almost completely irrelevant. The first couple of days of the investigation is important because it is disgraceful that friends of Hurley were initially going to do the whole police investigation but there is no reason to mention it in the context of the DPP decision. Unless of course you have some motive to be desperate to attack the DPP decision and want to rehash the problem of the early investigation to achieve that.
Being suspicious of media I suspect that delaying the vital information regarding the six days was deliberate. Unfortunately this approach whether deliberate or not deliberate finds other outlets in the article. For example:
“It is Sergeant Hurley's claim to have fallen with Doomadgee while struggling to get him into a cell that is pivotal to the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Leanne Clare, that Doomadgee's death was the result of a "tragic, tragic accident". “
Now wouldn’t you think that only Hurley said he fell downstairs with Mulrunji after reading that (rather than witnesses being unanimous that that happened)? Actually you wouldn’t even think he fell downstairs. I’ll get back to that. Anyhow, after the damage to Hurley’s reputation is already done, you don’t find out that the fall together is an undisputed fact until you get to this:
“Doomadgee was then arrested by Sergeant Hurley and taken to the back entrance to the police station and watchhouse. As Doomadgee was being taken from the van he punched Sergeant Hurley in the face. He was pushed into the police station and the two "scuffled" and fell to the concrete floor. “
Mind you it takes 10 paragraphs after the first mention of the fall before there is any mention of falling downstairs in spite of the fall being mentioned again within those interim paragraphs. By comparison only 2 paragraphs after omitting any mention of stairs (thus creating the impression of a simple trip onto a floor), and failing to provide certainty a fall occurred, the article discusses the fact that Mulrunji had broken ribs etc. Make up your own mind as to whether or not you think this is intended to create the impression that a fall (if any) couldn’t have caused the injury so the DPP decision must be wrong. Obviously if Mulrunji just tripped over he wouldn’t break his ribs etc. My suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the use of the word “stair”, when it finally turns up, is buried in a new subtopic ie. detailed discussion of initial investigators being apparently biased in their questioning.
Further, in spite of the graphic detail about the injuries, nothing is said about Hurley being 200.33cm and 115kg or the theory of him falling on top of Mulrunji. This wasn’t even raised in the sense of being disputed. It is completely omitted. Yet freakily huge Hurley falling dowstairs on top of Mulrunji was almost certainly the basis for the DPP decision as suggested by the superfluous DPP comments made after reaching a conclusion on the evidence. By contrast the fact that a witness (carefully described in the article as “independent”) said he saw Hurley punching Mulrunji was already mentioned.
I guess this all confirms what you have said about sensationalism. However none of this is unique to the article or its reporters. This type of thing was ubiquitous throughout the mass media when reporting on this issue. Yet when it suits them media say that the public has a right to know. User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You certainly have a very good point with regard to the general thing. It can be hard to draw the line between Wikipedia's recommendation that we express an opinion and explain it and going off on a tangent and expressing points of view. I am going to respond but given that the thing is way off tangent what are your thoughts on deleting everything up to the bottom of your comment on the 12th April plus slicing off your view about the initial investigation in that post. ie. "although it seems we will never overcome that problem due to the inadequacies of the initial investigation". That would remove all problematic points of view and inappropriate discussion. If you agree then feel free to just chop it all. Of course if you want to generally agree to do so to remove all point of view diversions but first want to respond to what I say below then in fairness you should be able to do so. Can I suggest that if you do then go ahead and put jb3 please delete after reading or something at the bottom.
But I definitely think that we are inciting each other to increasingly expressing points of view and my last post highlighted the problem in spite of citing many facts and explaining my opinion.
Whilst the general problem you raised is correct I need to take issue with the way you described my comments just in case these posts aren't deleted. I don’t feel at liberty to debate the merits of the case but (temporarily getting carried away and losing track of Wikipedia guidelines) I was happy, in response to your point of view about the initial investigation, to express a point of view on media bias as in my view the two were inseparable. You raised the preliminary investigation in the context of the article by your comment expressing your view on it and originally indicated that you also thought the reporting was sensational. It seemed to be thus related to the article but I certainly take your point.
Also, I don’t believe that I touched on the merits of Hurley’s case. I would be happy to express a view privately but not here. When I said “I have the cynical perception that mass media created the impression Hurley was guilty and that perception stirred people up” I hope you don’t infer any comment on whether or not he is innocent. Subject to the presumption, that is for the jury to decide. It doesn’t change the fact that I believe the mass media reporting created a particular perception and that perception was very convenient for their commercial benefit. The media may or may not have acted deliberately but pointing it out doesn’t express a view one way or another on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Any such suggestion would insult me by implying that I would only identify that appearance if I thought he is innocent and would conceal it if I thought he was guilty.
I agree that none of this was unique to The Australian and it’s reporters and the same focus was common among the mass media. However I am not in a position to agree or disagree with regard to every media outlet.
However I disagree with your view that all evidence is gathered in the first week and in the circumstances of a police station with people present I’d distinguish this strongly from an investigation where early evidence is everything eg. an abduction where witnesses need to be located quickly and descriptions of the potential suspect need to be obtained urgently. The situation was very well publicised and it would be difficult for any witness to fail to realize that they knew something. There was also no need to get fingerprints or physical evidence for identifying those present. Other physical evidence was safely in the morgue. Here there was the police investigation and a coronial inquiry and two post mortems. All of these contributed to evidence and only 6 days of police investigation are suspect.
If you suggest that the 6 days is important I'd counter that a death in custody could inherently attract attention hence the big investigation. And wasn’t the first public response after it was publicised that the pathologist (not Hurley) listed the fall as a possible cause of death not when the 6 day problem was publicised? Regardless of whether you think that downstairs should have been downstep (?) the effect of the reporting was clearly sensational. User:Jb3 -(User talk:Jb3) 1.04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Aboriginals in australia do not speak the name of people after they have passed away out of respect. i feel that this article needs a warning sign up the top, similar to the slashdotted traffic warning, so that aboriginal readers can choose if they wish to read the article further. The ABC in australia make these warnings before any news peice or show that states a passed persons name. i feel wikipedia should too. if there is already one, i do not know how to place it above the page, could someone please do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crabbo ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Someone put a weasel words tag at the top indicating there are weasel words and the article might be biased. However there is nothing in the discussion or anything specific. The primary contributors to this article had wildly opposing views so I am figuring it was close to balanced. Now the verdict is in so the controversy is gone. It just needs adjustment to reflect the jury's findings. I have removed the weasel tag and am terminating weasel words where I find them. The only exeption is the comment about the suspicion leading to a second autopsy. On the face it is weasel words but could easily be cured with a reference. WikiTownsvillian can you help? User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 09:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the references and EL need to be cleaned up and made consistent. A copy edit and it'd be ready for WP:GAC Gnan garra 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"Two legal questions arise from the death, firstly whether the taking into custody of Mulrunji was lawful and were the injuries that led to his death caused by the arresting officer. Politically this event raised questions relating to the 1990 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and whether its recommendations to prevent deaths in custody had been implemented by Government."
I'm about to edit the above paragraph as I believe it is wrong. There was never a question as to whether Queensland law permits a police officer to arrest a person for being drunk and disorderly in public. Hurley's decision wasn't illegal and if it had been the scrutiny by the DPP and very public nature of this incident should have resulted in that being picked up. Hurley's prudence in doing the arrest and his motivation have been questioned. Likewise the cause issue can probably be put better.
In fairness the person who edited it like this was constrained by the beginning "Two legal questions" which had been there for ages. I believe the editor jumped to conclusions and made a slight inaccuracy larger. Jb3 ( talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiTownvillian reverted this with the comment: "what nonsense, you talk about being factual when adding pure opinion". Please explain in the discussion. In effect you substituted:
Two questions arise from the death. Should Hurley have taken Mulrunji into custody Did Hurley kill Mulrunji while beating him up or was the death accidental due to the extreme force on Mulrunji’s midsection from Hurley’s weight and other forces? In other words was there a stiletto heel effect on Mulrunji’s midsection through Hurley’s knee as a point of contact when the pair fell off the step onto the concrete floor?
With:
Two legal questions arise from the death firstly whether the taking into custody of Mulrunji was lawful and were the injuries that led to his death caused by the arresting officer.
There is no indication that it is illegal to take a drunk and disorderly man into custody. Hurley was never charged with anything of that nature and neither the DPP, the CMC, or Street claimed that he should be. I therefore don’t understand how the opinion that there is a question that the arrest was unlawful can be sustained.
Stating simply that there was a question of whether the injuries were caused by the arresting officer sounds more like expressing an opinion than giving a clear picture of the two competing theories expressed neutrally. It is obtuse to the ‘fall’ theory which has always been a live issue and accepted as a possibility by all medical witnesses commencing at the Coronial enquiry. Not mentioning it or not explaining it in a way that it can be understood sounds like the point of view. Jb3 ( talk) 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Presumably it doesn't refer to the Black Death; can someone rewrite the sentence so it's clearer? -- NE2 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Debate between lawyers in the pre-hearing conference went on in hushed tones.
Before I knew it, my ageing diary was full. Andrew Boe stepped back from the bar table.
A gaggle of fifteen or more clerks, journos and lawyers filed out of the pre-hearing of Mulrunji’s third inquest.
Two hours had passed.
Boe had been there at the second inquest and most proceedings since. He knows all about ‘due process’.
Hurley’s lawyer Steve Zillman and police union boss, Dennis Fitzpatrick, were sitting beside each other at the bar table.
Coroner Brian Hine showed little expression. When he did, it seemed to say ‘what a thankless task this is’.
Two issues remain unresolved from the morning’s work. This is happening in real time.
Lawyers discussed whether similar conduct in the manner of arresting people could be admitted into a coronial inquest. There was much discussion of a long-awaited CMC investigation into Mulrunji’s death.
Can a third inquest lead to justice?
If not, will the parliament act?
If the parliament refuses, what will bring justice for Mulrunji?
When the courts and parliament have failed, are we are back on the streets singing that familiar refrain:
“No More Black Deaths in Custody”? [5]
The information is being supressed. Sorry about copywrite but lives are more importamnt and in Queensland we don't have other options. Please licence use of your work.
The inquest is not listed as a current coroner's sitting in Queensland. [6] Brian Hine [7]
Brian likes the quiet life. No publicity!! Who is he?
Inspector Chris Hurley (Promoted) after Mulrunji's death is no longer senior sergeant Hurley (unlesss he's demoted)who self admittedly stated under oath that he'd be a fool to deny killing his victim)
The State Coroner Michael Barnes went on a drinking binge with police at the initial hearing on Palm Island and got removed from the case on a motion by the police. He is still the sensitive State Coroner!
Please advise of broken Wiki rules (if you have the heart). However inevitably this must be added to the story of a "dead man". (A Wiki must be factual even in Queensland Australia)
Inquest will move to Townsville. [8]
Well obviously journalists won't relese content but why not? Wiki is pepetual ignomy until deleted.
Inevitably long after the event Wiki will be able to publish the truth. [9]
Previous Hine Queensland Government Business
\ [11]
The Dick wades in [12]
I would draw the reader's attention to the case of Di Fingleton the magistrate who served time in jail because she didn't know that her judicial immunity permitted her to commit crimes in ofice. She is now a Coroner! [13]
The Chief Justice admitted knowing: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1399918.htm
And suing???? [14]
Di's currently on [Paul Gerard Robinsonhttp://www.courts.qld.gov.au/3756.htm#Robinson]
Mulrunji's new inquest is still not listed on the Coroners website as of 9 March 2010. Its a curious fact that a Mr. Laffy died a violent death near Gympie and not even a coronial findng will be published. What does Inspector Hurley want???? p> The Court of Appeal decision is here [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy ( talk • contribs) 22:24, March 8, 2010
Mr. Brian P Hine has been Deputy Chief Magistrate (1999- )for over 10 years. [16] He saw Chief Magistrate Di Fingleton go to jail. Conflicting information: "Thus far, Hurley has escaped sanction, and has even received a promotion to the rank of Acting Inspector" [17]
There may be up to 26 prior complaints against Inspector Hurley. One a few months before he killed Mulrunji.
It emerged that Detective Darren Robinson "had repeatedly lied to superiors during an investigation into another assault (compound fracture) by Hurley, this time an Aboriginal woman (Barbara Pilot), six months before Mulrunji was killed." [18]
The third inquest into the 2004 death custody of Mulrunji started on Palm Island on 8th March 2010 after the Queensland Police Union had successfully challenged the finding of the 2006 inquest that Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley repeatedly punched Mulrunji cleaving his liver and fatally rupturing his portal vein.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Brian P Hine presided. Nnoddy ( talk) 04:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
On Friday 12 March 2010 Hurley told the court. "I've always wanted to say to Tracey and the family that I offer my sincere sympathy for Mulrunji's death", he also told the court, "And I am sorry for that angst that they have had to suffer over the last number of years" and he also said."It happened sir. You can't regret what you've done. I have arrested people for the same type of offence." [19]
On the 8 July 2010 124.177.31.98 added information with the comment "I merely added some more of the findings from the CA. Especially that Hurley had "changed" his evidence and given evidence that was patently untrue, given it's withdrawal". That is not true. I just checked the judgement and that is not a part of the judgement. The judgement did quote the original Coroner (the one who had their findings overturned for being wrong) and there is something to that effect in that quote but that is not the Court of Appeal's judgement. Perhaps that is where the confusion arose. 124.177.31.98 perhaps you should read the judgement more closely. Jb3 ( talk) 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 11:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 11:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I just made some fairly small changes but I made a huge change by swapping the political controversies section about ALP branch revolts and air ticket controversies with the investigation section. I believe that the incident is known for the death and Hurley's involvement and those more obscure albeit interesting issues should be after the Hurley section. However since it is such a major change I thought it a good idea to raise it anyway in talk in case anyone has a contrary view. Jb3 ( talk) 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Not reading the entire article top-to bottom, just skimming it, some of the wordings stand out. For example (emphasis mine)
The above emphasised are merely some of the more odious parts of sentences which are as a whole a bit strange to me, and the sentences are merely representative parts of the whole article. - 124.191.144.183 ( talk) 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.aWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Melbguy05: The article is unambiguously about a death in custody, so it should be in Category:Deaths in police custody in Australia. The fact that the redirect Mulrunji Doomadgee is in that category does not prevent the article itself from also being in that category. Related edits: [20] [21] [22] Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be some inconsistency with what the individual at the center of this affair is named, both in this article and in the wider media. Some call him Mulrunji Doomadgee [1], others call him Cameron Doomadgee [2].
In order to make the article as readable as possible, I propose that we make a note in the first paragraph that he's known as Cameron Doomadgee and Mulrunji Doomadgee, and then refer to him simply as "Doomadgee" in the rest of the article. This also has the advantage of being consistent with the other usage of names in the article, we talk about "Hurley" most of the time, not "Chris".
If no objections, I'll make the change in the next couple of days.
Lankiveil 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to move the info recently added by User:Jb3, it is certainly relevant although the referencing is incorrect, but it does not belong where it has been placed. Any thoughts? Wiki Townsvillia n 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As it exists it seems to be inevitable at that location as it explains how the pathologist could find that multiple injuries include a fatal injury could happen from falling down a concrete step. Omission would seem misleading. It unfairly makes the pathologist appear dishonest as it sounds like a slip on a shallow step by one person alone something that would result in a skinned knee not something not this. If you want to move it my suggestion would be to the Investigations into the death in Custody section above the heading Coronial Inquiry could be placed a new heading Autopsy Report and the following text cut and pasted:
"Although the autopsy report was medical and did not state what caused his death, it did list possible causes which included that the multiple injuries sustained could have been consistent with him falling on a shallow concrete step at the Palm Island watchhouse.[1][4]. The deceased was 181cm tall and weighed 74 kilograms. Hurley was 200.66cm tall and weighed 115 kilograms.[8] The injury may have been caused by Hurley falling on the deceased..[9]" User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 09:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this quote:
"Although not a medical expert, Murrandoo Yanner claimed that when he and other relatives viewed the body of the deceased his head injuries were so severe that he was unrecognisable."
I don't know what people contributing here have or haven't read but other than this claim I assume anyone contributing would have taken enough interest to be aware that there was just one cut above an eye visible although there was evidence of a 'black eye' in the post mortem. I have noticed the above quote a few times. Something should be done with it as it conflicts with the medical evidence and is the only thing available in an encyclopaedia article. I have intended to include the medical findings but currently think that that might not be the best approach. Murrandoo Yanner lost a relative so to put the medical findings beside his comments doesn't seem like an ideal thing considering what he has said. My suggestion is that it might be best if his comment was just removed. What do others think? User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
User:Jb3 -(
User talk:Jb3) 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)My strategy to this point has been to go through chronologically from the day after the death through what has been reported on the event by The Australian, I've made it to the end of March 2005 so far. After that I was going to go through the ABC's coverage in the same way and then maybe the Courier Mail and/or the Townsville Bulletin. However I'm finding it more and more difficult to differentiate the sensationalism from the facts, for example the reports report facts but don't say who's version of events they are, in a situation where it has to be one person's opinion that is very frustrating.
For this reason I'm going to change tactic and use official documents first where they detail where they got their info from such as the coronial report and then that core info can be expanded upon from newspaper coverage which qualifies who they are getting their info from... This may take a little while though. Does anyone have any thoughts on this change of strategy, if you think the current system works better I can continue on. Wiki Townsvillia n 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to tell unless you try it the other way but obviously that would be a lot of work. (sorry) The current system is reasonably chronological but I can see the problem. On that topic I note that you had something about Mulrunji not being drunk and then shortly after something about a very elevated sounding BAC. User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 12:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was careful about that one, I made sure that it said he was not considered to be drunk and clearly attributed the comments to the relatives/residents. This is really tricky as to how to encyclopaedically structure all this info. Should we say, this is the relatives’ version and then this is the polices’ version and then this is what was determined by the Coroner to have happened... or continue as I have been doing trying to put all the different views in but in a chronological order (which makes it confusing as to what actually happened and what is correct and what isn't... although it seems we will never overcome that problem due to the inadequacies of the initial investigation). Wiki Townsvillia n 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is reasonably approached chronologically (in terms of events not necessarily newspaper reporting of them) providing that exceptions are made where necessary to ensure that it isn't misleading. I note that you started with the Australian. They seemed to take a very sensationalist approach. Perhaps that has shaken you.
Unless you have something in mind that I am unaware of I don't consider the deficiencies of the initial investigation insurmountable. As I recall it took from 2004 to 2006 before evidence gathering was finalised and the matter sent to the DPP (and the CMC regarding disciplinary cf. criminal proceedings) to consider whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge Hurley. There were two autopsys, a coroner and then an acting coroner all contributing to the investigation. Ultimately it seems to have been thoroughly investigated. User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I was originally baffled by your comment as it didn’t seem to mesh with the length or thoroughness of the investigation. For example it was notable how far the Acting Coroner took her inquiry and noteable that there was two post mortems. You earlier mentioned that you were relying heavily upon The Australian for writing the Wikipedia article. I have now encountered a story from that mass media outlet at the following URL.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20955075-2,00.html
The story started with the following: “TWO friends of Palm Island policeman Chris Hurley conducted the initial investigation into the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee, gathering key evidence that Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions relied on to clear him last week.”
I think that explains your comment if, in spite of noticing sensationalism, you were relying on The Australian for a full accurate understanding of the events as it was your first source of information. Please correct me if this assumption is incorrect. However if my guess about relying on that publication is correct then you probably wondered what I was smoking when I wrote my last response. Also, if my guess is correct, then I note that you are perfectly correct. That is exactly what I think that publication communicated.
However I question whether the article gives the correct understanding of the real life situation. I’ll explain. But first would it be fair to say that the article conveys that the biased looking early investigations starved the DPP of information thus casting doubt on the correctness of the DPP decision?
I believe that I can explain why I think that it is not the DPP but the consumers of mass media reporting who were starved of key information on the issue. The key to unlocking the factual situation regarding the significance of the questionable investigation by Hurley’s friends is buried further in the article.
You have to just about be looking for it and wade in before you notice that the apparently biased police (Hurley’s friends) led the investigation for just six days. The investigations lasted for years (I’ll get back to that). Burying the fact in there that it was only the first six days of the police investigation, which fact seems to totally contradict the impression created by the earlier comments, is probably what most journalists consider ‘balanced reporting’. This type of media sensationalism has been typical of the reporting of this matter.
You probably know that the DPP decision was not made six days after the commencement of the investigation and thus had an awful lot more to go on then just that shaky beginning. Now that I have put the initial investigation problem in context by flagging that the problem was just for six days hopefully my initial response will make sense to you and will flesh out this point.
From someone who has no faith in the mass media I have the cynical perception that mass media created the impression Hurley was guilty and that perception stirred people up. There were many newsworthy events including riots, arrests, two coroners, an apparently shonky investigation for the first couple of days, suicides, and a promise of a possible trial of Hurley that could prompt another media circus when the verdict came in. Then the DPP decision came in and spoiled the story by making a decision that would normally kill the issue. That would have to be disappointing for journalists.
Given that it was just 6 days, what sounds so important to the DPP decision in this article is thus almost completely irrelevant. The first couple of days of the investigation is important because it is disgraceful that friends of Hurley were initially going to do the whole police investigation but there is no reason to mention it in the context of the DPP decision. Unless of course you have some motive to be desperate to attack the DPP decision and want to rehash the problem of the early investigation to achieve that.
Being suspicious of media I suspect that delaying the vital information regarding the six days was deliberate. Unfortunately this approach whether deliberate or not deliberate finds other outlets in the article. For example:
“It is Sergeant Hurley's claim to have fallen with Doomadgee while struggling to get him into a cell that is pivotal to the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Leanne Clare, that Doomadgee's death was the result of a "tragic, tragic accident". “
Now wouldn’t you think that only Hurley said he fell downstairs with Mulrunji after reading that (rather than witnesses being unanimous that that happened)? Actually you wouldn’t even think he fell downstairs. I’ll get back to that. Anyhow, after the damage to Hurley’s reputation is already done, you don’t find out that the fall together is an undisputed fact until you get to this:
“Doomadgee was then arrested by Sergeant Hurley and taken to the back entrance to the police station and watchhouse. As Doomadgee was being taken from the van he punched Sergeant Hurley in the face. He was pushed into the police station and the two "scuffled" and fell to the concrete floor. “
Mind you it takes 10 paragraphs after the first mention of the fall before there is any mention of falling downstairs in spite of the fall being mentioned again within those interim paragraphs. By comparison only 2 paragraphs after omitting any mention of stairs (thus creating the impression of a simple trip onto a floor), and failing to provide certainty a fall occurred, the article discusses the fact that Mulrunji had broken ribs etc. Make up your own mind as to whether or not you think this is intended to create the impression that a fall (if any) couldn’t have caused the injury so the DPP decision must be wrong. Obviously if Mulrunji just tripped over he wouldn’t break his ribs etc. My suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the use of the word “stair”, when it finally turns up, is buried in a new subtopic ie. detailed discussion of initial investigators being apparently biased in their questioning.
Further, in spite of the graphic detail about the injuries, nothing is said about Hurley being 200.33cm and 115kg or the theory of him falling on top of Mulrunji. This wasn’t even raised in the sense of being disputed. It is completely omitted. Yet freakily huge Hurley falling dowstairs on top of Mulrunji was almost certainly the basis for the DPP decision as suggested by the superfluous DPP comments made after reaching a conclusion on the evidence. By contrast the fact that a witness (carefully described in the article as “independent”) said he saw Hurley punching Mulrunji was already mentioned.
I guess this all confirms what you have said about sensationalism. However none of this is unique to the article or its reporters. This type of thing was ubiquitous throughout the mass media when reporting on this issue. Yet when it suits them media say that the public has a right to know. User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You certainly have a very good point with regard to the general thing. It can be hard to draw the line between Wikipedia's recommendation that we express an opinion and explain it and going off on a tangent and expressing points of view. I am going to respond but given that the thing is way off tangent what are your thoughts on deleting everything up to the bottom of your comment on the 12th April plus slicing off your view about the initial investigation in that post. ie. "although it seems we will never overcome that problem due to the inadequacies of the initial investigation". That would remove all problematic points of view and inappropriate discussion. If you agree then feel free to just chop it all. Of course if you want to generally agree to do so to remove all point of view diversions but first want to respond to what I say below then in fairness you should be able to do so. Can I suggest that if you do then go ahead and put jb3 please delete after reading or something at the bottom.
But I definitely think that we are inciting each other to increasingly expressing points of view and my last post highlighted the problem in spite of citing many facts and explaining my opinion.
Whilst the general problem you raised is correct I need to take issue with the way you described my comments just in case these posts aren't deleted. I don’t feel at liberty to debate the merits of the case but (temporarily getting carried away and losing track of Wikipedia guidelines) I was happy, in response to your point of view about the initial investigation, to express a point of view on media bias as in my view the two were inseparable. You raised the preliminary investigation in the context of the article by your comment expressing your view on it and originally indicated that you also thought the reporting was sensational. It seemed to be thus related to the article but I certainly take your point.
Also, I don’t believe that I touched on the merits of Hurley’s case. I would be happy to express a view privately but not here. When I said “I have the cynical perception that mass media created the impression Hurley was guilty and that perception stirred people up” I hope you don’t infer any comment on whether or not he is innocent. Subject to the presumption, that is for the jury to decide. It doesn’t change the fact that I believe the mass media reporting created a particular perception and that perception was very convenient for their commercial benefit. The media may or may not have acted deliberately but pointing it out doesn’t express a view one way or another on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Any such suggestion would insult me by implying that I would only identify that appearance if I thought he is innocent and would conceal it if I thought he was guilty.
I agree that none of this was unique to The Australian and it’s reporters and the same focus was common among the mass media. However I am not in a position to agree or disagree with regard to every media outlet.
However I disagree with your view that all evidence is gathered in the first week and in the circumstances of a police station with people present I’d distinguish this strongly from an investigation where early evidence is everything eg. an abduction where witnesses need to be located quickly and descriptions of the potential suspect need to be obtained urgently. The situation was very well publicised and it would be difficult for any witness to fail to realize that they knew something. There was also no need to get fingerprints or physical evidence for identifying those present. Other physical evidence was safely in the morgue. Here there was the police investigation and a coronial inquiry and two post mortems. All of these contributed to evidence and only 6 days of police investigation are suspect.
If you suggest that the 6 days is important I'd counter that a death in custody could inherently attract attention hence the big investigation. And wasn’t the first public response after it was publicised that the pathologist (not Hurley) listed the fall as a possible cause of death not when the 6 day problem was publicised? Regardless of whether you think that downstairs should have been downstep (?) the effect of the reporting was clearly sensational. User:Jb3 -(User talk:Jb3) 1.04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Aboriginals in australia do not speak the name of people after they have passed away out of respect. i feel that this article needs a warning sign up the top, similar to the slashdotted traffic warning, so that aboriginal readers can choose if they wish to read the article further. The ABC in australia make these warnings before any news peice or show that states a passed persons name. i feel wikipedia should too. if there is already one, i do not know how to place it above the page, could someone please do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crabbo ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Someone put a weasel words tag at the top indicating there are weasel words and the article might be biased. However there is nothing in the discussion or anything specific. The primary contributors to this article had wildly opposing views so I am figuring it was close to balanced. Now the verdict is in so the controversy is gone. It just needs adjustment to reflect the jury's findings. I have removed the weasel tag and am terminating weasel words where I find them. The only exeption is the comment about the suspicion leading to a second autopsy. On the face it is weasel words but could easily be cured with a reference. WikiTownsvillian can you help? User:Jb3 -( User talk:Jb3) 09:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the references and EL need to be cleaned up and made consistent. A copy edit and it'd be ready for WP:GAC Gnan garra 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"Two legal questions arise from the death, firstly whether the taking into custody of Mulrunji was lawful and were the injuries that led to his death caused by the arresting officer. Politically this event raised questions relating to the 1990 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and whether its recommendations to prevent deaths in custody had been implemented by Government."
I'm about to edit the above paragraph as I believe it is wrong. There was never a question as to whether Queensland law permits a police officer to arrest a person for being drunk and disorderly in public. Hurley's decision wasn't illegal and if it had been the scrutiny by the DPP and very public nature of this incident should have resulted in that being picked up. Hurley's prudence in doing the arrest and his motivation have been questioned. Likewise the cause issue can probably be put better.
In fairness the person who edited it like this was constrained by the beginning "Two legal questions" which had been there for ages. I believe the editor jumped to conclusions and made a slight inaccuracy larger. Jb3 ( talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiTownvillian reverted this with the comment: "what nonsense, you talk about being factual when adding pure opinion". Please explain in the discussion. In effect you substituted:
Two questions arise from the death. Should Hurley have taken Mulrunji into custody Did Hurley kill Mulrunji while beating him up or was the death accidental due to the extreme force on Mulrunji’s midsection from Hurley’s weight and other forces? In other words was there a stiletto heel effect on Mulrunji’s midsection through Hurley’s knee as a point of contact when the pair fell off the step onto the concrete floor?
With:
Two legal questions arise from the death firstly whether the taking into custody of Mulrunji was lawful and were the injuries that led to his death caused by the arresting officer.
There is no indication that it is illegal to take a drunk and disorderly man into custody. Hurley was never charged with anything of that nature and neither the DPP, the CMC, or Street claimed that he should be. I therefore don’t understand how the opinion that there is a question that the arrest was unlawful can be sustained.
Stating simply that there was a question of whether the injuries were caused by the arresting officer sounds more like expressing an opinion than giving a clear picture of the two competing theories expressed neutrally. It is obtuse to the ‘fall’ theory which has always been a live issue and accepted as a possibility by all medical witnesses commencing at the Coronial enquiry. Not mentioning it or not explaining it in a way that it can be understood sounds like the point of view. Jb3 ( talk) 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Presumably it doesn't refer to the Black Death; can someone rewrite the sentence so it's clearer? -- NE2 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Debate between lawyers in the pre-hearing conference went on in hushed tones.
Before I knew it, my ageing diary was full. Andrew Boe stepped back from the bar table.
A gaggle of fifteen or more clerks, journos and lawyers filed out of the pre-hearing of Mulrunji’s third inquest.
Two hours had passed.
Boe had been there at the second inquest and most proceedings since. He knows all about ‘due process’.
Hurley’s lawyer Steve Zillman and police union boss, Dennis Fitzpatrick, were sitting beside each other at the bar table.
Coroner Brian Hine showed little expression. When he did, it seemed to say ‘what a thankless task this is’.
Two issues remain unresolved from the morning’s work. This is happening in real time.
Lawyers discussed whether similar conduct in the manner of arresting people could be admitted into a coronial inquest. There was much discussion of a long-awaited CMC investigation into Mulrunji’s death.
Can a third inquest lead to justice?
If not, will the parliament act?
If the parliament refuses, what will bring justice for Mulrunji?
When the courts and parliament have failed, are we are back on the streets singing that familiar refrain:
“No More Black Deaths in Custody”? [5]
The information is being supressed. Sorry about copywrite but lives are more importamnt and in Queensland we don't have other options. Please licence use of your work.
The inquest is not listed as a current coroner's sitting in Queensland. [6] Brian Hine [7]
Brian likes the quiet life. No publicity!! Who is he?
Inspector Chris Hurley (Promoted) after Mulrunji's death is no longer senior sergeant Hurley (unlesss he's demoted)who self admittedly stated under oath that he'd be a fool to deny killing his victim)
The State Coroner Michael Barnes went on a drinking binge with police at the initial hearing on Palm Island and got removed from the case on a motion by the police. He is still the sensitive State Coroner!
Please advise of broken Wiki rules (if you have the heart). However inevitably this must be added to the story of a "dead man". (A Wiki must be factual even in Queensland Australia)
Inquest will move to Townsville. [8]
Well obviously journalists won't relese content but why not? Wiki is pepetual ignomy until deleted.
Inevitably long after the event Wiki will be able to publish the truth. [9]
Previous Hine Queensland Government Business
\ [11]
The Dick wades in [12]
I would draw the reader's attention to the case of Di Fingleton the magistrate who served time in jail because she didn't know that her judicial immunity permitted her to commit crimes in ofice. She is now a Coroner! [13]
The Chief Justice admitted knowing: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1399918.htm
And suing???? [14]
Di's currently on [Paul Gerard Robinsonhttp://www.courts.qld.gov.au/3756.htm#Robinson]
Mulrunji's new inquest is still not listed on the Coroners website as of 9 March 2010. Its a curious fact that a Mr. Laffy died a violent death near Gympie and not even a coronial findng will be published. What does Inspector Hurley want???? p> The Court of Appeal decision is here [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy ( talk • contribs) 22:24, March 8, 2010
Mr. Brian P Hine has been Deputy Chief Magistrate (1999- )for over 10 years. [16] He saw Chief Magistrate Di Fingleton go to jail. Conflicting information: "Thus far, Hurley has escaped sanction, and has even received a promotion to the rank of Acting Inspector" [17]
There may be up to 26 prior complaints against Inspector Hurley. One a few months before he killed Mulrunji.
It emerged that Detective Darren Robinson "had repeatedly lied to superiors during an investigation into another assault (compound fracture) by Hurley, this time an Aboriginal woman (Barbara Pilot), six months before Mulrunji was killed." [18]
The third inquest into the 2004 death custody of Mulrunji started on Palm Island on 8th March 2010 after the Queensland Police Union had successfully challenged the finding of the 2006 inquest that Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley repeatedly punched Mulrunji cleaving his liver and fatally rupturing his portal vein.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Brian P Hine presided. Nnoddy ( talk) 04:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
On Friday 12 March 2010 Hurley told the court. "I've always wanted to say to Tracey and the family that I offer my sincere sympathy for Mulrunji's death", he also told the court, "And I am sorry for that angst that they have had to suffer over the last number of years" and he also said."It happened sir. You can't regret what you've done. I have arrested people for the same type of offence." [19]
On the 8 July 2010 124.177.31.98 added information with the comment "I merely added some more of the findings from the CA. Especially that Hurley had "changed" his evidence and given evidence that was patently untrue, given it's withdrawal". That is not true. I just checked the judgement and that is not a part of the judgement. The judgement did quote the original Coroner (the one who had their findings overturned for being wrong) and there is something to that effect in that quote but that is not the Court of Appeal's judgement. Perhaps that is where the confusion arose. 124.177.31.98 perhaps you should read the judgement more closely. Jb3 ( talk) 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 11:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 11:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I just made some fairly small changes but I made a huge change by swapping the political controversies section about ALP branch revolts and air ticket controversies with the investigation section. I believe that the incident is known for the death and Hurley's involvement and those more obscure albeit interesting issues should be after the Hurley section. However since it is such a major change I thought it a good idea to raise it anyway in talk in case anyone has a contrary view. Jb3 ( talk) 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Not reading the entire article top-to bottom, just skimming it, some of the wordings stand out. For example (emphasis mine)
The above emphasised are merely some of the more odious parts of sentences which are as a whole a bit strange to me, and the sentences are merely representative parts of the whole article. - 124.191.144.183 ( talk) 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.aWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Melbguy05: The article is unambiguously about a death in custody, so it should be in Category:Deaths in police custody in Australia. The fact that the redirect Mulrunji Doomadgee is in that category does not prevent the article itself from also being in that category. Related edits: [20] [21] [22] Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)