This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've made a number of edits to the article to remove POV wording implying Bamber's innocence. This is now stated more neutrally. Ben Finn 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether you believe Bamber is innocent or not, the fact that the case is controversial is not in question. When Members of Parliament, journalists etc etc question whether someone convicted of mass murder did indeed carry out the crime it is surely a controversial subject. Try googling Jeremy Bamber and you will see that his conviction is most definitely a matter of controversy. The second point is that whether he carried out the killings or not, there was very little physical evidence to link him with the crime. His fingerprints were found on the gun but so were Sheila's, so it proves nothing. I know that but i've studied this project the world over, I had to do it for an assignment, can't you just leave it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor rex ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My only problem with the article is in the current wording in reference to Jeremy Bamber's representative, Giovanni di Stefano. There is ample evidence today (at Giovanni's talkpage) to suggest that Di Stefano is NOT a lawyer.
I suggest that the expression "the Italian lawyer" (paragraph 3) should be struck and rewritten to be "the Italian avvocato" until proved otherwise. Consequently I have made this minor edit. Hag2 ( talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I added an External Link to the 12 December 2002 Appeals Court decision Hag2 ( talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The article now clearly indicates a miscarriage of justice has taken place, reading as if Bamber's conviction has been over-turned. Quoting as such length from Woffinden - even including a photograph of him - effectively turns the article into his point of view. Bamber was found guilty and lost two appeals. Anyone wishing to insert more critical voices - such as those who suggest Bamber could have made the call from the farmhouse himself - would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. The article reads better, but its neutrality has been lost. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Alistair does the source you're using clearly say what you're adding? For example:
After telephoning the police, Bamber said he called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, then drove slowly to the farmhouse. He said he arrived at 3:40 am, [1] two minutes after the police. Following information Bamber gave them about Sheila's familiarity with weapons the police withdrew to wait for a tactical firearms group to arrive, which turned up at 5 am. [2]
Does it say he drove slowly? SlimVirgin talk| contribs
I'd like to suggest that the lead currently gives undue weight to recent events. Could we move the details given after the first sentence of the fourth paragraph into the body of the article itself? -- Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
I don't believe that Jeremy Bamber as a website is appropriate to list here, as it appears to contradict WP: COI. I will delete it within a week unless anyone gives good argument here as to why it ought be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please remove the picture of a .22 bolt action rifle from the article? The rifle depicted is nothing like that used in the killings. To have a picture of any old weapon on the article is misleading and entirely pointless. Thanks Dave Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.82.248 ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I move this away from Bamber's name to White House Farm murders, given that it's not a biography? We would retain the Jeremy Bamber redirect, so anyone looking for him that way will find him. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
We should probably wait a few days to see how this develops, but there is another appeal coming. [1] Fences& Windows 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Worth a mention do we think?
Also, is it worth talking about Di Stefano? I see that his page on wiki has been troublesome, so it may not be worth the aggro! Egg Centric ( talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just choosing one example, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned. To use Slim Virgin's method of assessing significance, even including unreliable sources, campaign sites and blogs, a Google search for "Jeremy Bamber" + "Bob Woffinden" returns just 694 hits. When I tried to remove the clearly WP:OR and WP:IRRELEVANT synthesis of attributing Bamber's media access to him, the edit was reverted without explanation. I raised WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM concerns last August and was told to hold off as it was a work in progress, but as the foregrounding of Woffinden's conspiracy theory indicates, the bias remains. Even the most minor edits appear to be subject to the acceptance of one (admittedly very significant and experienced) contributor. Especially now that a further appeal looks less likely, it is surely time for a range of editors to be allowed to collaborate in producing a more balanced article. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Slim, I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith and I apologise if that is how what I have said comes across. I have previously acknowledged and am glad to repeat my recognition of the huge improvements you have made to the article. The latest developments made me curious about the possible basis for the CCRC's preliminary findings so I spent a long time yesterday re-reading the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement and looking at more neutral sources that come to less confident conclusions than Woffinden such as 1 2 3 4. Coming back to the article it seemed much of it is based on the unquestioned acceptance of minority viewpoints or speculation. Neither the full contents of Bamber's submission to the CCRC nor their response to it are in the public domain yet. I don't think editors need to bring material "to the table" for negotiation before making changes but I think I recognise this situation and In accordance with WP:OWN I'll withdraw and take a fresh look in a week or two. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this reply because I'd unwatched the page. It's true I've consistently expressed my view that the article is presently biassed towards the miscarriage of justice argument; I think also that - as with the odd prominence of Bob Woffinden - there are peculiar editorial judgements that detract from the better parts of the piece. Expressing and debating such opinions isn't only permitted on an article talk page, they are its very purpose. To react by becoming "fed up" is a little unreasonable I think, especially as I've also repeatedly acknowledged the improvements that you've made. To answer your specific points
In a similar way, under the main heading "White House Farm, 7 August 1985" you introduce material from the 2009 CCRC submission, using the subheading "Telephone log 1 (caller self-identified as Mr Bamber)". In this section you state, "it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm" which appears to be WP:OR since it isn't mentioned in your source. I assume your inference is that the White House Farm number adds weight to the idea of the call coming from there, but then you make no mention of the fact the log also includes the words "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead." which according to a source you use elsewhere suggests the call came from Jeremy. Doesn't the addition of your own comment adding weight to the miscarriage argument combined with the elision of a well sourced fact that detracts from it indicate a bias, however unconscious? Interleaving the miscarriage argument throughout the article in this way is why I first said last August that anyone wishing to insert more critical voices would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. At that time I didn't know that a further obstacle would be the immediate reversion or over-writing of almost any amendments at all. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeremy Bamber says that he heard rabbits outside. They must have been very noisy rabbits. The ones I have come across are very quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We should probably wait a few days to see how this develops, but there is another appeal coming. [2] Fences& Windows 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Worth a mention do we think?
Also, is it worth talking about Di Stefano? I see that his page on wiki has been troublesome, so it may not be worth the aggro! Egg Centric ( talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just choosing one example, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned. To use Slim Virgin's method of assessing significance, even including unreliable sources, campaign sites and blogs, a Google search for "Jeremy Bamber" + "Bob Woffinden" returns just 694 hits. When I tried to remove the clearly WP:OR and WP:IRRELEVANT synthesis of attributing Bamber's media access to him, the edit was reverted without explanation. I raised WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM concerns last August and was told to hold off as it was a work in progress, but as the foregrounding of Woffinden's conspiracy theory indicates, the bias remains. Even the most minor edits appear to be subject to the acceptance of one (admittedly very significant and experienced) contributor. Especially now that a further appeal looks less likely, it is surely time for a range of editors to be allowed to collaborate in producing a more balanced article. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Slim, I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith and I apologise if that is how what I have said comes across. I have previously acknowledged and am glad to repeat my recognition of the huge improvements you have made to the article. The latest developments made me curious about the possible basis for the CCRC's preliminary findings so I spent a long time yesterday re-reading the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement and looking at more neutral sources that come to less confident conclusions than Woffinden such as 1 2 3 4. Coming back to the article it seemed much of it is based on the unquestioned acceptance of minority viewpoints or speculation. Neither the full contents of Bamber's submission to the CCRC nor their response to it are in the public domain yet. I don't think editors need to bring material "to the table" for negotiation before making changes but I think I recognise this situation and In accordance with WP:OWN I'll withdraw and take a fresh look in a week or two. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this reply because I'd unwatched the page. It's true I've consistently expressed my view that the article is presently biassed towards the miscarriage of justice argument; I think also that - as with the odd prominence of Bob Woffinden - there are peculiar editorial judgements that detract from the better parts of the piece. Expressing and debating such opinions isn't only permitted on an article talk page, they are its very purpose. To react by becoming "fed up" is a little unreasonable I think, especially as I've also repeatedly acknowledged the improvements that you've made. To answer your specific points
In a similar way, under the main heading "White House Farm, 7 August 1985" you introduce material from the 2009 CCRC submission, using the subheading "Telephone log 1 (caller self-identified as Mr Bamber)". In this section you state, "it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm" which appears to be WP:OR since it isn't mentioned in your source. I assume your inference is that the White House Farm number adds weight to the idea of the call coming from there, but then you make no mention of the fact the log also includes the words "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead." which according to a source you use elsewhere suggests the call came from Jeremy. Doesn't the addition of your own comment adding weight to the miscarriage argument combined with the elision of a well sourced fact that detracts from it indicate a bias, however unconscious? Interleaving the miscarriage argument throughout the article in this way is why I first said last August that anyone wishing to insert more critical voices would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. At that time I didn't know that a further obstacle would be the immediate reversion or over-writing of almost any amendments at all. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeremy Bamber says that he heard rabbits outside. They must have been very noisy rabbits. The ones I have come across are very quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Date of conviction at Chelsford Crown Court is given as 18 October 1986. This falls on a Saturday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.87.177 ( talk) 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Alistair, your changes seemed a little POV, and you removed some key issues. [3] [4] [5] Can you say what it is you want to achieve? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Current lead (highlighted material rmvd by Alistair) | Alistair's edits |
---|---|
Jeremy Nevill Bamber (born 13 January 1961) was convicted in England in 1986 of having murdered five members of his adoptive family—his father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons—at his parents' home at White House Farm,
Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in the early hours of 7 August 1985. He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years, and in 1994 the Home Secretary ruled he must spend the rest of his life in jail. Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, believed to be the only prisoner in the UK serving a whole-life tariff to do so.
[1]
The Times wrote that the case had all the ingredients of a classic whodunit: a massacre in the English countryside, overbearing parents, an unstable daughter, a scheming son, a jilted girlfriend, and bungling police. [2] The police at first believed Bamber's sister, Sheila Caffell—diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder—had shot her family then turned the gun on herself. Her sons had been living with their father, but had been visiting the Bambers with Sheila when the killings occurred. According to Bamber, she feared she would lose custody of them; she also told a psychiatrist two years earlier that she thought the devil had taken her over. [3] When an ex-girlfriend stepped forward weeks after the murders to say Bamber had implicated himself, the police view swiftly changed, though some of the forensic evidence had already been compromised or destroyed. The prosecution argued that, motivated by a large inheritance, Bamber had killed the family and placed the gun in his unstable sister's hands to make it look like a murder-suicide. A silencer the prosecution said was on the rifle when it was fired would have made it too long, they argued, for her fingers to reach the trigger to shoot herself. [4] Bamber has several times asked the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer his case to the Court of Appeal; a referral in 2001 saw the conviction upheld. In 2004 and 2009, his defence team submitted what they said was new evidence to the CCRC, including a report from a photographic expert, who said that scratch marks on a mantelpiece—said to have been caused during a struggle for the gun—were not in the crime-scene photographs, but were visible only in photographs taken 34 days later.
[5] Their submissions also included the log of a phone call made to police on the night of the murders, during which a Mr Bamber said his daughter had gone "berserk," and had stolen one of his guns. Bamber had told police he had received a similar call from his father, but was unable to prove it; it became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it was that he was the killer himself.
[6] In February 2011 the CCRC provisionally rejected the latest submissions. Bamber's extended family have said they remain convinced of his guilt.
[7]
|
Jeremy Nevill Bamber (born 13 January 1961) was convicted in England in 1986 of having murdered five members of his adoptive family—his father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons—at his parents' home at White House Farm,
Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in the early hours of 7 August 1985. He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years, and in 1994 the Home Secretary ruled he must spend the rest of his life in jail. Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, and has asserted that "shocking new evidence" will clear his name.
[1]
The police at first accepted Bamber's account that his sister, Sheila Caffell, had shot her family then turned the gun on herself. As a result, crucial forensic evidence was compromised or destroyed. [2] Responding to testimony subsequently offered by Bamber's relatives and girlfriend, police inquiries led to a successful prosecution which proved that Bamber - motivated by a large inheritance - had killed his family and placed the murder weapon in his unstable sister's hands to make the shootings look like a murder-suicide. A silencer that was on the rifle when it was fired would have made it too long, the Crown argued, for Sheila's fingers to reach the trigger in order to shoot herself. [3] Bamber has several times asked the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer his case to the Court of Appeal; a referral in 2001 saw the conviction upheld. In 2004 and 2009, his defence team submitted what they said was sufficient evidence to overturn Bamber's conviction. The most recent submission included a report from a photographic expert who suggested that scratch marks on a mantelpiece— previously understood to have been caused during a struggle for the gun—were not in the crime-scene photographs, but were visible in photographs that he said were taken 34 days later.
[4] Bamber's application to the CCRC also included the log of a phone call made to police on the night of the murders, which recorded "Mr Bamber" reporting that his daughter had gone "berserk," having stolen one of his guns. Bamber had told police that he had received a similar call from his father, but was unable to prove it; it became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it was that he was the killer himself.
[5] In February 2011 the CCRC provisionally rejected the latest submissions.
[6] Bamber's extended family have said they remain convinced of his guilt.
[6]
|
Current "Telephone log 1" section (highlighted material rmvd by Alistair) | Alistair's edit |
---|---|
The police log of a telephone call that the defence team suggest was made by Nevill to a local police station at 3:26 a.m. on 7 August does exist (see image, right), and appears to have been entered as evidence at the trial, but it was not shown to the jury, or indeed seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004.
[1] The log is headed "daughter gone berserk," and says: "Mr Bamber, White House Farm, Tolleshunt d’Arcy—daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 years, has got hold of one of my guns." It also appears to say, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after phone went dead." It goes on to say: "Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s," and it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm. The final text entry says "0356 GPO [the telephone operator] have checked phone line to farmhouse and confirm phone left off hook." If this telephone call was made by Nevill Bamber, it would confirm Bamber's story. The log shows that a patrol car, Charlie Alpha 7 (CA7), was sent to the scene at 3.35 am.
[2]
|
The police log of a telephone call purporting to be from Nevill to a local police station at 3:26 a.m. on 7 August does exist (see image, right), and appears to have been entered as evidence at the trial, but it was not shown to the jury, or indeed seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004.
[1] The log is headed "daughter gone berserk," and says: "Mr Bamber, White House Farm, Tolleshunt d’Arcy—daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 years, has got hold of one of my guns." It also says: "Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s," and it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm. If this telephone call was made by Nevill Bamber, it would confirm Bamber's story. The log shows that a patrol car, Charlie Alpha 7 (CA7), was sent to the scene at 3.35 am.
[2]
|
SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How interesting to learn that you have now resolved the uncertainty you expressed here 3 months ago regarding identification of the minority viewpoint and have decided the "very prevalent view" is that Sheila Caffell committed the murders. It certainly will be interesting to see how you reshape your article to reflect Bob Woffinden's latest decision that Bamber is, in fact, guilty. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've made a number of edits to the article to remove POV wording implying Bamber's innocence. This is now stated more neutrally. Ben Finn 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether you believe Bamber is innocent or not, the fact that the case is controversial is not in question. When Members of Parliament, journalists etc etc question whether someone convicted of mass murder did indeed carry out the crime it is surely a controversial subject. Try googling Jeremy Bamber and you will see that his conviction is most definitely a matter of controversy. The second point is that whether he carried out the killings or not, there was very little physical evidence to link him with the crime. His fingerprints were found on the gun but so were Sheila's, so it proves nothing. I know that but i've studied this project the world over, I had to do it for an assignment, can't you just leave it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor rex ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My only problem with the article is in the current wording in reference to Jeremy Bamber's representative, Giovanni di Stefano. There is ample evidence today (at Giovanni's talkpage) to suggest that Di Stefano is NOT a lawyer.
I suggest that the expression "the Italian lawyer" (paragraph 3) should be struck and rewritten to be "the Italian avvocato" until proved otherwise. Consequently I have made this minor edit. Hag2 ( talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I added an External Link to the 12 December 2002 Appeals Court decision Hag2 ( talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The article now clearly indicates a miscarriage of justice has taken place, reading as if Bamber's conviction has been over-turned. Quoting as such length from Woffinden - even including a photograph of him - effectively turns the article into his point of view. Bamber was found guilty and lost two appeals. Anyone wishing to insert more critical voices - such as those who suggest Bamber could have made the call from the farmhouse himself - would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. The article reads better, but its neutrality has been lost. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Alistair does the source you're using clearly say what you're adding? For example:
After telephoning the police, Bamber said he called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, then drove slowly to the farmhouse. He said he arrived at 3:40 am, [1] two minutes after the police. Following information Bamber gave them about Sheila's familiarity with weapons the police withdrew to wait for a tactical firearms group to arrive, which turned up at 5 am. [2]
Does it say he drove slowly? SlimVirgin talk| contribs
I'd like to suggest that the lead currently gives undue weight to recent events. Could we move the details given after the first sentence of the fourth paragraph into the body of the article itself? -- Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
I don't believe that Jeremy Bamber as a website is appropriate to list here, as it appears to contradict WP: COI. I will delete it within a week unless anyone gives good argument here as to why it ought be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please remove the picture of a .22 bolt action rifle from the article? The rifle depicted is nothing like that used in the killings. To have a picture of any old weapon on the article is misleading and entirely pointless. Thanks Dave Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.82.248 ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I move this away from Bamber's name to White House Farm murders, given that it's not a biography? We would retain the Jeremy Bamber redirect, so anyone looking for him that way will find him. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
We should probably wait a few days to see how this develops, but there is another appeal coming. [1] Fences& Windows 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Worth a mention do we think?
Also, is it worth talking about Di Stefano? I see that his page on wiki has been troublesome, so it may not be worth the aggro! Egg Centric ( talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just choosing one example, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned. To use Slim Virgin's method of assessing significance, even including unreliable sources, campaign sites and blogs, a Google search for "Jeremy Bamber" + "Bob Woffinden" returns just 694 hits. When I tried to remove the clearly WP:OR and WP:IRRELEVANT synthesis of attributing Bamber's media access to him, the edit was reverted without explanation. I raised WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM concerns last August and was told to hold off as it was a work in progress, but as the foregrounding of Woffinden's conspiracy theory indicates, the bias remains. Even the most minor edits appear to be subject to the acceptance of one (admittedly very significant and experienced) contributor. Especially now that a further appeal looks less likely, it is surely time for a range of editors to be allowed to collaborate in producing a more balanced article. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Slim, I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith and I apologise if that is how what I have said comes across. I have previously acknowledged and am glad to repeat my recognition of the huge improvements you have made to the article. The latest developments made me curious about the possible basis for the CCRC's preliminary findings so I spent a long time yesterday re-reading the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement and looking at more neutral sources that come to less confident conclusions than Woffinden such as 1 2 3 4. Coming back to the article it seemed much of it is based on the unquestioned acceptance of minority viewpoints or speculation. Neither the full contents of Bamber's submission to the CCRC nor their response to it are in the public domain yet. I don't think editors need to bring material "to the table" for negotiation before making changes but I think I recognise this situation and In accordance with WP:OWN I'll withdraw and take a fresh look in a week or two. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this reply because I'd unwatched the page. It's true I've consistently expressed my view that the article is presently biassed towards the miscarriage of justice argument; I think also that - as with the odd prominence of Bob Woffinden - there are peculiar editorial judgements that detract from the better parts of the piece. Expressing and debating such opinions isn't only permitted on an article talk page, they are its very purpose. To react by becoming "fed up" is a little unreasonable I think, especially as I've also repeatedly acknowledged the improvements that you've made. To answer your specific points
In a similar way, under the main heading "White House Farm, 7 August 1985" you introduce material from the 2009 CCRC submission, using the subheading "Telephone log 1 (caller self-identified as Mr Bamber)". In this section you state, "it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm" which appears to be WP:OR since it isn't mentioned in your source. I assume your inference is that the White House Farm number adds weight to the idea of the call coming from there, but then you make no mention of the fact the log also includes the words "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead." which according to a source you use elsewhere suggests the call came from Jeremy. Doesn't the addition of your own comment adding weight to the miscarriage argument combined with the elision of a well sourced fact that detracts from it indicate a bias, however unconscious? Interleaving the miscarriage argument throughout the article in this way is why I first said last August that anyone wishing to insert more critical voices would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. At that time I didn't know that a further obstacle would be the immediate reversion or over-writing of almost any amendments at all. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeremy Bamber says that he heard rabbits outside. They must have been very noisy rabbits. The ones I have come across are very quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We should probably wait a few days to see how this develops, but there is another appeal coming. [2] Fences& Windows 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Worth a mention do we think?
Also, is it worth talking about Di Stefano? I see that his page on wiki has been troublesome, so it may not be worth the aggro! Egg Centric ( talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just choosing one example, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned. To use Slim Virgin's method of assessing significance, even including unreliable sources, campaign sites and blogs, a Google search for "Jeremy Bamber" + "Bob Woffinden" returns just 694 hits. When I tried to remove the clearly WP:OR and WP:IRRELEVANT synthesis of attributing Bamber's media access to him, the edit was reverted without explanation. I raised WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM concerns last August and was told to hold off as it was a work in progress, but as the foregrounding of Woffinden's conspiracy theory indicates, the bias remains. Even the most minor edits appear to be subject to the acceptance of one (admittedly very significant and experienced) contributor. Especially now that a further appeal looks less likely, it is surely time for a range of editors to be allowed to collaborate in producing a more balanced article. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Slim, I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith and I apologise if that is how what I have said comes across. I have previously acknowledged and am glad to repeat my recognition of the huge improvements you have made to the article. The latest developments made me curious about the possible basis for the CCRC's preliminary findings so I spent a long time yesterday re-reading the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement and looking at more neutral sources that come to less confident conclusions than Woffinden such as 1 2 3 4. Coming back to the article it seemed much of it is based on the unquestioned acceptance of minority viewpoints or speculation. Neither the full contents of Bamber's submission to the CCRC nor their response to it are in the public domain yet. I don't think editors need to bring material "to the table" for negotiation before making changes but I think I recognise this situation and In accordance with WP:OWN I'll withdraw and take a fresh look in a week or two. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this reply because I'd unwatched the page. It's true I've consistently expressed my view that the article is presently biassed towards the miscarriage of justice argument; I think also that - as with the odd prominence of Bob Woffinden - there are peculiar editorial judgements that detract from the better parts of the piece. Expressing and debating such opinions isn't only permitted on an article talk page, they are its very purpose. To react by becoming "fed up" is a little unreasonable I think, especially as I've also repeatedly acknowledged the improvements that you've made. To answer your specific points
In a similar way, under the main heading "White House Farm, 7 August 1985" you introduce material from the 2009 CCRC submission, using the subheading "Telephone log 1 (caller self-identified as Mr Bamber)". In this section you state, "it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm" which appears to be WP:OR since it isn't mentioned in your source. I assume your inference is that the White House Farm number adds weight to the idea of the call coming from there, but then you make no mention of the fact the log also includes the words "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead." which according to a source you use elsewhere suggests the call came from Jeremy. Doesn't the addition of your own comment adding weight to the miscarriage argument combined with the elision of a well sourced fact that detracts from it indicate a bias, however unconscious? Interleaving the miscarriage argument throughout the article in this way is why I first said last August that anyone wishing to insert more critical voices would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. At that time I didn't know that a further obstacle would be the immediate reversion or over-writing of almost any amendments at all. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeremy Bamber says that he heard rabbits outside. They must have been very noisy rabbits. The ones I have come across are very quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Date of conviction at Chelsford Crown Court is given as 18 October 1986. This falls on a Saturday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.87.177 ( talk) 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Alistair, your changes seemed a little POV, and you removed some key issues. [3] [4] [5] Can you say what it is you want to achieve? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Current lead (highlighted material rmvd by Alistair) | Alistair's edits |
---|---|
Jeremy Nevill Bamber (born 13 January 1961) was convicted in England in 1986 of having murdered five members of his adoptive family—his father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons—at his parents' home at White House Farm,
Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in the early hours of 7 August 1985. He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years, and in 1994 the Home Secretary ruled he must spend the rest of his life in jail. Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, believed to be the only prisoner in the UK serving a whole-life tariff to do so.
[1]
The Times wrote that the case had all the ingredients of a classic whodunit: a massacre in the English countryside, overbearing parents, an unstable daughter, a scheming son, a jilted girlfriend, and bungling police. [2] The police at first believed Bamber's sister, Sheila Caffell—diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder—had shot her family then turned the gun on herself. Her sons had been living with their father, but had been visiting the Bambers with Sheila when the killings occurred. According to Bamber, she feared she would lose custody of them; she also told a psychiatrist two years earlier that she thought the devil had taken her over. [3] When an ex-girlfriend stepped forward weeks after the murders to say Bamber had implicated himself, the police view swiftly changed, though some of the forensic evidence had already been compromised or destroyed. The prosecution argued that, motivated by a large inheritance, Bamber had killed the family and placed the gun in his unstable sister's hands to make it look like a murder-suicide. A silencer the prosecution said was on the rifle when it was fired would have made it too long, they argued, for her fingers to reach the trigger to shoot herself. [4] Bamber has several times asked the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer his case to the Court of Appeal; a referral in 2001 saw the conviction upheld. In 2004 and 2009, his defence team submitted what they said was new evidence to the CCRC, including a report from a photographic expert, who said that scratch marks on a mantelpiece—said to have been caused during a struggle for the gun—were not in the crime-scene photographs, but were visible only in photographs taken 34 days later.
[5] Their submissions also included the log of a phone call made to police on the night of the murders, during which a Mr Bamber said his daughter had gone "berserk," and had stolen one of his guns. Bamber had told police he had received a similar call from his father, but was unable to prove it; it became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it was that he was the killer himself.
[6] In February 2011 the CCRC provisionally rejected the latest submissions. Bamber's extended family have said they remain convinced of his guilt.
[7]
|
Jeremy Nevill Bamber (born 13 January 1961) was convicted in England in 1986 of having murdered five members of his adoptive family—his father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons—at his parents' home at White House Farm,
Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in the early hours of 7 August 1985. He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years, and in 1994 the Home Secretary ruled he must spend the rest of his life in jail. Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, and has asserted that "shocking new evidence" will clear his name.
[1]
The police at first accepted Bamber's account that his sister, Sheila Caffell, had shot her family then turned the gun on herself. As a result, crucial forensic evidence was compromised or destroyed. [2] Responding to testimony subsequently offered by Bamber's relatives and girlfriend, police inquiries led to a successful prosecution which proved that Bamber - motivated by a large inheritance - had killed his family and placed the murder weapon in his unstable sister's hands to make the shootings look like a murder-suicide. A silencer that was on the rifle when it was fired would have made it too long, the Crown argued, for Sheila's fingers to reach the trigger in order to shoot herself. [3] Bamber has several times asked the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer his case to the Court of Appeal; a referral in 2001 saw the conviction upheld. In 2004 and 2009, his defence team submitted what they said was sufficient evidence to overturn Bamber's conviction. The most recent submission included a report from a photographic expert who suggested that scratch marks on a mantelpiece— previously understood to have been caused during a struggle for the gun—were not in the crime-scene photographs, but were visible in photographs that he said were taken 34 days later.
[4] Bamber's application to the CCRC also included the log of a phone call made to police on the night of the murders, which recorded "Mr Bamber" reporting that his daughter had gone "berserk," having stolen one of his guns. Bamber had told police that he had received a similar call from his father, but was unable to prove it; it became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it was that he was the killer himself.
[5] In February 2011 the CCRC provisionally rejected the latest submissions.
[6] Bamber's extended family have said they remain convinced of his guilt.
[6]
|
Current "Telephone log 1" section (highlighted material rmvd by Alistair) | Alistair's edit |
---|---|
The police log of a telephone call that the defence team suggest was made by Nevill to a local police station at 3:26 a.m. on 7 August does exist (see image, right), and appears to have been entered as evidence at the trial, but it was not shown to the jury, or indeed seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004.
[1] The log is headed "daughter gone berserk," and says: "Mr Bamber, White House Farm, Tolleshunt d’Arcy—daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 years, has got hold of one of my guns." It also appears to say, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after phone went dead." It goes on to say: "Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s," and it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm. The final text entry says "0356 GPO [the telephone operator] have checked phone line to farmhouse and confirm phone left off hook." If this telephone call was made by Nevill Bamber, it would confirm Bamber's story. The log shows that a patrol car, Charlie Alpha 7 (CA7), was sent to the scene at 3.35 am.
[2]
|
The police log of a telephone call purporting to be from Nevill to a local police station at 3:26 a.m. on 7 August does exist (see image, right), and appears to have been entered as evidence at the trial, but it was not shown to the jury, or indeed seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004.
[1] The log is headed "daughter gone berserk," and says: "Mr Bamber, White House Farm, Tolleshunt d’Arcy—daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 years, has got hold of one of my guns." It also says: "Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s," and it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm. If this telephone call was made by Nevill Bamber, it would confirm Bamber's story. The log shows that a patrol car, Charlie Alpha 7 (CA7), was sent to the scene at 3.35 am.
[2]
|
SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How interesting to learn that you have now resolved the uncertainty you expressed here 3 months ago regarding identification of the minority viewpoint and have decided the "very prevalent view" is that Sheila Caffell committed the murders. It certainly will be interesting to see how you reshape your article to reflect Bob Woffinden's latest decision that Bamber is, in fact, guilty. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)