Talk:Killing of Rachel Nickell

message: The dates don't quite match with newspaper reports which talk about her son, Alex, being 2 years 11 months at the date she was murdered.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.92.101 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I changed the name as the article is now about 3 people, Stagg, Napper and Rachel, the form,er 2 names have now been redirected here. Plus this is standard for UK cases. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further moved to Rachel Nickell murder case to remain consistent with other WP murder articles.--12 Noon 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have had the discussion first here before you moved the article - the original article I wrote contained all three names, and I named it in convention with the victim NOT the murder: I hope no one else does the same again. There is much more to go on Robert Napper, and if he is proved to be the Green Chain Murderer then his story will run and run - and it will need a seperate article. The Sally Anne Bowman case goes to trial in January 2008, so this article will need adjusting again whatever happens to Napper re Rachel Nickell. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not contain Robert Napper's name as that was only released this morning at which point Colin Stagg was a red link in this article. I think it was a good bold call in reaction to a significant update of news around this case, and I felt that it was important to move quickly on this one. When and if Napper gets a separate article will be the time to discuss any issues that might bring though, and there is certainly no reason to have an article about him now. What has Sally Anne Bowman got to do with this case? Thanks, SqueakBox 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Does the background info on Robert Napper constitute contempt of court under UK law? The media here are banned from detailing previous convictions and of unproved suspicions. Given the size of Wikipedia's audience there is a risk that disclosing the info here could cause a mistrial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contempt of court? 

message: At the end of the article, it says he suffers from Asperger Syndrome. But I don't think this is relevant since there is no connection between Asperger Syndrome and criminality. In fact, due to Asperger Syndrome suffers tendency to like rules and order, they tend to be more law abiding that the average person. Because of this, I think including this information risks misleading people into believing Asperger Syndrome is somehow a contributing factor towards him commiting muder. Even if this isn't misleading, it is still no more relevant to the article than if I put information about his shoe size, eye colour or blood type. So, I ask for it to be removed. -OOPSIE- (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The segment in question is clearly discussing Napper's mental state, specifically with regard to diminished capacity.  If shoe size, eye colour, and blood type were more pertinent to one's capacity for sound judgment, then your comparisons would hold water.  I do not feel that the article is implying any causative relationship between Asperger's and criminal tendency.  74.204.13.82 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I saw the statement, I came to the discussion to discuss it. I am glad another saw it. I see criminal cases reporting that a person had AS as if it were relevant. If one is going to give trivia about a person, it should be noted as such, otherwise, it is just taken as relevant facts by association. I mean, you don't see other articles mentioning "murderer had an entirely normal social life" or "rapist cared for his two dogs" or even if he had ADD or some other mental conditions in no way related to the actions. Murdering someone is different from trying to empathise with them.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRoza (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Asperger syndrome]] 

message: The dates that significant events occured need to be stated in the article.
A reader at present does nt know when Stagg was charged, when he was aquitted, etec etc. SmithBlue (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of events? 

message: According to my reading of "WHO REALLY KILLED RACHELL?" by Colin Stagg and David Kessler (1999) "lizzie james" falsely confessed to Stagg that she'd been present with a group who had cut the throat and murdered a young baby and that she with the rest of the group each drank a glass of its blood and that she'd found it a real turn on". The main article understates the absolutely disgraceful lengths which the police went to to manipulate the outocme of this police murder investigation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lizzie James 

message: I thought a person was only "acquitted" after a trial? Aren't the charges simply withrawn if it fails a committal hearing? --218.215.28.100 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically there was a trial - though neither side actually presented any evidence to a jury. The disposition of the case by the judge counted as a finding of "not guilty" - hence an acquittal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.26.12 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you be acquitted of a charge? 

message: The amount of compensation quoted by you "£22000" doesn't match this news report's figure of £90000 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044423/I-feel-sympathy-Barry-George-Colin-Stagg-hits-awarded-700-000.html (----)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRGShaggy (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the £22,000 was an initial payment paid from public funds. There was then a 10-year legal battle before £90,000 was paid out to Alex Hanscombe. He has now written a book, and the figure of £90,000 seems to be supported by The Daily Telegraph here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compensation to son Alex 

message: The article states that the CPS advised the police that there was sufficient evidence to charge Stagg. I'm not at all sure that is true. According to this presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn4H4hx23iM&t=1s the CPS advised that there was not sufficient evidence, but the Met went ahead and charged him anyway. (Nowadays they would not be allowed to do this.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.26.12 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of the CPS

message: Just to note, the outcome of this RM has now been swiftly reversed here. Perhaps some further explanation/ discussion is required? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is linked in the edit summary of the reversal; permanent link here . Some1 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that link. Perhaps that discussion should have happened here. Are you assuming that "all of the supports" that came in "before the RfC regarding murder/killing/death/etc. article titling was mentioned" became automatically invalid once it was mentioned? Perhaps the RM should be re-run, with all editors fully familiar with the RfC? The suggestion by SarahSV, that "all our death of, killing of, murder of articles should be at "Death of X"", might be an acceptable compromise? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should let User:Fences and windows decide if they want to re-run a fresh move request since they initiated it before being aware of the murder/killing/death article naming RfC . I also asked the RfC closer User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? and they said Yes, the RfC does apply to cases such as the Rachel Nickell one. Regarding SarahSV's suggestion, the policy here is to use WP:COMMONNAME per the RfC. If you both would like to change policy, the best thing to do would be to start a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles (same place where the murder/killing/death RfC took place). Some1 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the RM outcome, which was overturned with a WP:bold move by an involved party that was contrary to the declared consensus. If someone is unhappy with the result, the proper procedure is probably to open a WP:Move review or to convince the person who closed the RM to overturn their own closure declaration. Personally, I do not think that the RfC that was emphasized above establishes an overriding policy and requires a particular outcome. I also do not think that all comments made before someone brought up that RfC should be ignored (or that the people who made those comments were necessarily unaware of that discussion). I would also like to point out that the RfC in question ended with a declaration of no consensus. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the second comment of this section, I did start a discussion on the closer's talk page. But thank you for the link to WP:Move review, I will read through it. The RfC closed with no consensus on using the flowchart and that we should use WP:COMMONNAME instead. I asked the closer, , here: User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? for further clarification and they said  in cases such as the Rachel Nickell one. Some1 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are issues with the close the proper thing to do is follow the steps outlines at Wikipedia:Move review. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion ; I'm reading through it right now. I see that BarrellProof is currently going through the Move Review log for March after your suggestion. Hopefully with this move review, uninvolved parties who didn't participate in the RM above will be the ones doing the review. Some1 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentle reminder that anyone can participate in move reviews. Editors should note whether or not they were involved in the particular move request that is being reviewed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Post move

message: Shouldn't the info box use Template:Infobox event or Template:Infobox civilian attack? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: The 'Operation Ezdell' section here was added in July 2008, with this edit (which makes reference to Paul Britton's book, "The Jigsaw Man", though with no page number or quote). However, a google search for "Operation Ezdell" throws up only  about a thousand hits, while a search for "Operation Edzell" has over 90,000, plus some reputable book references (I've added a couple to the text). So I am surmising the correct spelling for the police op (not to mention the common name) is "Edzell", and have re-named the section here accordingly. I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it appears in this article in The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ezdell? Edzell?