This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rupperswil murder case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Yngvadottir: I am not sure that we should leave it unqualified that the mobile phone thing led to Thomas N.'s arrest, especially if Blick is the principal source. The Solothurner Zeitung article seems clear that it didn't really add anything. Apparently the question wasn't a topic at all in the trial, so even the news media are kinda putting things together from leaks etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Asked at WP:3O for a start. Perhaps Sandy or someone else know another editor who can help, too. For the record, the question is about this source. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The prosecutors have never disclosed how they caught him but his mobile phone records and internet search history probably played a role in identifying him as a suspectThe "probably" may be unnecessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
; his mobile phone records and internet search history played a role in identifying him as a suspect.The revised version currently in place is:
. The prosecutors have never disclosed how they caught him but his mobile phone records and internet search history probably played a role in identifying him as a suspect.Yes, I think "probably" is too tentative. I also think this is incorrect in that we know how they caught him; they got a sample of his DNA to confirm the identification, then arrested him at a Starbucks and, presumably, fingerprinted him. The problem as I see it is: only Blick names internet search records as having been used (as the other thing that enabled them to zero in on his phone contacts with the antennae; which is of course to be distinguished from the video evidence they found on his phone when they were able to actually search it—and of course the internet search may also have been made on the phone). I'm presuming that's the other method the police refer to that they will not reveal. I've been worried that someone will call me out for synthesis; moreover, I'm trusting Blick, and as I've been pointedly reminded by someone on Wikipediocracy, Blick is a smelly source. I don't want to lean on Forster, both because his expertise was not called on and because I don't want the article to get into critiquing his wisdom in publishing. So I would rather either:
; analysis of mobile phone and internet search data played a role in identifying him as a suspect.or, removing Blick as unreliable:
the task force identified him as a suspect after analyzing mobile phone data among other techniques.In the latter case we should also remove the Blick reference that was already present; the point that it was one of the worst crimes in Swiss history, and the nickname, are both supported by a better source (Swissinfo), and the new (2017) Aargauer Zeitung ref could be substituted there for Blick: it has the sentence "Es ist eine der brutalsten Straftaten der jüngeren Kriminalgeschichte", linked to an earlier article. Yngvadottir ( talk) 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
they got a sample of his DNA to confirm the identification, then arrested him at a Starbucks and, presumably, fingerprinted him? That's a lot of details on the exact sequence of events.
Re: Blick, I concur with removal although I note that Swissinfo has somewhat dodgy translations of the legal terms that I'll have to clean up. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, all sources I've seen about the trial say that nothing about how they caught him came up there. I honestly don't know if district court rulings are something the public can access to, either. The Starbucks, DNA and fingerprint things are currently mentioned in the article, with non-Blick sources; is there something that needs to be fixed?
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)If anyone's interested on expanding this, École Polytechnique massacre, Toa Payoh ritual murders, Tottenham Outrage, Chandler's Ford shooting, Bath School disaster, Baker Street robbery, Death of Ms Dhu and Burke and Hare murders might be useful templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure that swissinfo is using the word "parole" correctly here. This article about the federal court ruling implies that Thomas N. is still eligible for parole. To be honest, I don't think there is such a thing as "not eligible for parole" under Swiss law - questions of parole and conditional release aren't settled at the criminal court from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
considered for release after 20 years, as is the norm with indefinite sentences under Swiss law; but I suppose it's possible to misunderstand "parole" as meaning earlier than that. So maybe we should change
to have him ruled ineligible for paroleto: "to have him ruled ineligible for release until he can be shown to no longer pose a danger to society"? The article Life imprisonment in Switzerland, to which I've linked, needs updating; most of it reflects the old law. (We should probably also add to the last sentence the federal court affirming the cantonal court decision in 2019.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 11:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable source that explicitly compares the meaning of "parole" under English or US law to that under Swiss or German law. That said, German Wikipedia's article about "parole" de:Parole (Strafrecht) stipulates it's essentially the same thing as a conditional release before the sentence is entirely served.
With respect to Thomas N., I figure he falls into this category "theoretically eligible for conditioned release, practically impossible until he's an invalid", and would concur with Yngvadottir's proposal of "to have him ruled ineligible for release until he can be shown to no longer pose a danger to society". This is a case where it might be helpful to have access to the actual ruling(s) of the canton court(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rupperswil murder case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Yngvadottir: I am not sure that we should leave it unqualified that the mobile phone thing led to Thomas N.'s arrest, especially if Blick is the principal source. The Solothurner Zeitung article seems clear that it didn't really add anything. Apparently the question wasn't a topic at all in the trial, so even the news media are kinda putting things together from leaks etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Asked at WP:3O for a start. Perhaps Sandy or someone else know another editor who can help, too. For the record, the question is about this source. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The prosecutors have never disclosed how they caught him but his mobile phone records and internet search history probably played a role in identifying him as a suspectThe "probably" may be unnecessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
; his mobile phone records and internet search history played a role in identifying him as a suspect.The revised version currently in place is:
. The prosecutors have never disclosed how they caught him but his mobile phone records and internet search history probably played a role in identifying him as a suspect.Yes, I think "probably" is too tentative. I also think this is incorrect in that we know how they caught him; they got a sample of his DNA to confirm the identification, then arrested him at a Starbucks and, presumably, fingerprinted him. The problem as I see it is: only Blick names internet search records as having been used (as the other thing that enabled them to zero in on his phone contacts with the antennae; which is of course to be distinguished from the video evidence they found on his phone when they were able to actually search it—and of course the internet search may also have been made on the phone). I'm presuming that's the other method the police refer to that they will not reveal. I've been worried that someone will call me out for synthesis; moreover, I'm trusting Blick, and as I've been pointedly reminded by someone on Wikipediocracy, Blick is a smelly source. I don't want to lean on Forster, both because his expertise was not called on and because I don't want the article to get into critiquing his wisdom in publishing. So I would rather either:
; analysis of mobile phone and internet search data played a role in identifying him as a suspect.or, removing Blick as unreliable:
the task force identified him as a suspect after analyzing mobile phone data among other techniques.In the latter case we should also remove the Blick reference that was already present; the point that it was one of the worst crimes in Swiss history, and the nickname, are both supported by a better source (Swissinfo), and the new (2017) Aargauer Zeitung ref could be substituted there for Blick: it has the sentence "Es ist eine der brutalsten Straftaten der jüngeren Kriminalgeschichte", linked to an earlier article. Yngvadottir ( talk) 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
they got a sample of his DNA to confirm the identification, then arrested him at a Starbucks and, presumably, fingerprinted him? That's a lot of details on the exact sequence of events.
Re: Blick, I concur with removal although I note that Swissinfo has somewhat dodgy translations of the legal terms that I'll have to clean up. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, all sources I've seen about the trial say that nothing about how they caught him came up there. I honestly don't know if district court rulings are something the public can access to, either. The Starbucks, DNA and fingerprint things are currently mentioned in the article, with non-Blick sources; is there something that needs to be fixed?
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)If anyone's interested on expanding this, École Polytechnique massacre, Toa Payoh ritual murders, Tottenham Outrage, Chandler's Ford shooting, Bath School disaster, Baker Street robbery, Death of Ms Dhu and Burke and Hare murders might be useful templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure that swissinfo is using the word "parole" correctly here. This article about the federal court ruling implies that Thomas N. is still eligible for parole. To be honest, I don't think there is such a thing as "not eligible for parole" under Swiss law - questions of parole and conditional release aren't settled at the criminal court from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
considered for release after 20 years, as is the norm with indefinite sentences under Swiss law; but I suppose it's possible to misunderstand "parole" as meaning earlier than that. So maybe we should change
to have him ruled ineligible for paroleto: "to have him ruled ineligible for release until he can be shown to no longer pose a danger to society"? The article Life imprisonment in Switzerland, to which I've linked, needs updating; most of it reflects the old law. (We should probably also add to the last sentence the federal court affirming the cantonal court decision in 2019.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 11:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable source that explicitly compares the meaning of "parole" under English or US law to that under Swiss or German law. That said, German Wikipedia's article about "parole" de:Parole (Strafrecht) stipulates it's essentially the same thing as a conditional release before the sentence is entirely served.
With respect to Thomas N., I figure he falls into this category "theoretically eligible for conditioned release, practically impossible until he's an invalid", and would concur with Yngvadottir's proposal of "to have him ruled ineligible for release until he can be shown to no longer pose a danger to society". This is a case where it might be helpful to have access to the actual ruling(s) of the canton court(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)