Talk:John Bodkin Adams

message: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Name Autodidact1 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's now Down Syndrome 

message: There's still far too much waffle in this page. The Why interfere section is unconvincing to say the least--Cunningham 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waffle 

message: I'm a little reluctant to accept this man's homosexuality, but could be convinced otherwise :)  According to the article, we have one memo from a journalist to go by - which isn't a reliable source.  Are there any other references to back this up?  I haven't read Cullen, and know nothing about Adams, so any help would be appreciated.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay? 

message: The lines cited from the poem "Adams and Eves" include "If they touch an Adam’s apple".  Surely this should be "Adams apple"; the whole poem is about how Adams poisoned people.  Does anybody have access to a source for the poem?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.231 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An Adams Apple" 

message: Just come across the following:
http://www.matchmag.com/recherche/lire_article.php?article_id=1280
Mikeo1938 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Match 

message: A couple of things. First, I'm not convinced the inclusion of his minor pilfering is really necessary, given he was charged with murder. Second, I'm less than sure the inclusion of claims/accusations of homosexuality are appropriate, even if it was an offense in Britain in 1956, because we then get a "Basic Instinct" "gay = murderer" implication, which is obviously indefensible. (It also gives rise to the appearance of trying to dirty him.) Finally, "He was told to give doses of 10 cc of Megimide every five minutes, and was given 100 cc to use. The recommended dose in the instructions was 100 cc to 200 cc." Can somebody who actually understands this clarify what it was supposed to mean?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Details, details

message: Adams was acquitted but general opinion, it seems to me, is coming round to the conclusion that he was in fact guilty. It may be helpful therefore to collect quotes of those writing recently for use in the article:
*Crime journalist Evan Whitton - "Dr John Bodkin Adams, who falsely denied he was a serial killer of Eastbourne widows" - in Serial Liars: How Lawyers Get the Money and Get the Criminals Off, Lulu.com, 2005 page 37.
See:"Reliability of sources – Views on Adams after 2003" below. Sscoulsdon (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical views

message: A quick count reveals 104 out of 143 citations to the one book: Cullen. 73% of all the references are to the one source. Seems a little unwieldy... I appreciate that this may be the main work on the subject, but then it effectively means that this article is nothing but a synopsis of the research contained within that one book.  91.106.172.248 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The section #Eastbourne states that he was unconventional, undesired by other doctors to work with, a "reputation as a bungler" and his mother died. The next sentence starts "Adams's career was very successful..."
There's significant omission here. What was his practice like? What did he do? How did this "success" come about? Extra paragraph needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content 

message: Up until the para starting 'Adams's career was very successful...', every reference to his professional performance indicates an average or below-average rating. I think we need at least a couple of sentences in between, to explain how and when his standards and reputation improved. 86.144.119.57 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional skills 

message: Like so many WP articles on crime and criminals, this one is grossly overdetailed and linguistically flabby. Beyond the lead it's almost impossible to get a sense of the material without slogging, slogging, slogging through interminable side detail.  EEng (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grossly overdetailed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Bodkin Adams. 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6NA5SosVg?url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article relies heavily on speculation and second- or third hand opinion, not least in the second paragraph of the section on views on Adams after 2003. This cites three sources (Emsley, Ramsland and Kinnell), each of which could be described as a brief mention of Adams in a compendium of cases, one of poisoners, two of medical killers. None of the authors claim to have undertaken any detailed examination of the case and none can be described as neutral in tone, because they all want to add to their tally of murderers. 
 
John Emsley is a popular science writer, whose 2008 book contains a chapter for each of ten poisons, with details of its toxicology and of a famous murder or murderer. In a chapter on diamorphine with a relatively detailed account of Harold Shipman, he briefly describes Adams as “the morphine murderer”, and suggests, without quoting a specific source that Adams killed 160 of his patients. However, his suggestion for further reading is Pauline Cullen’s “A Stranger in Blood”, the likely source.
 
The account of Katherine Ramsland, a forensic psychologist and prolific true-crime writer, includes the detail (completely incorrect) that Adams was charged with 21 murders. The statement that he "is nevertheless believed to have repeatedly committed what the law regards as murder" is referenced to John Surtees’ “The Strange Case of Dr Bodkin Adams” without any page reference. However, that source does not say anything like this and is generally neutral or sympathetic towards Adams.  
Kinnell is a retired consultant psychiatrist whose article aimed to dispute the argument that Shipman was unique, showing that medicine has had many serial killers by listing a large number of suspected cases. The lack of care that has gone into his account is made evident by quoting the whole piece below. Two newspaper articles of 1999 and 2000 are his main sources. Suggesting that at trial he admitted to easing the passing of any old ladies, never mind 400, when he never spoke beyond pleading not guilty is ludicrous. 
 
“Dr John Bodkin Adams, a general practitioner from Eastbourne and forger of prescriptions, who possibly provided the role model for Shipman (they had a colleague in common), also admitted at his trial in 1957 to “easing the passing” of some of the old ladies (possibly up to 400) who died under his care (he was mentioned in 132 of the wills)."
Emsley’s account is merely a rehash of Cullen, who is already extensively quoted, and Ramsland and Kinnell make gross errors of fact. At best, these are tertiary sources which add nothing original.  In March 2009, Malik78 also mentions Evan Whitton’s book, a critique of the adversarial system were Whitton’s throw-away line is quoted. Whitton gives no reference or reason for his comment, which is therefore worthless. 
This paragraph should be deleted.
Sscoulsdon (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources – Views on Adams after 2003 

message: The original version of the sub-section on nolle prosequi was part of the larger section on concerns of prejudice and political interference. As written, it implies that the Mrs Hullett case should have been prosecuted and the Attorney-General's failure to do so is evidence of this bias. It cited Lord Devlin's later comments of an abuse of process in support, but without making it clear that it was an abuse of process which left Adams under suspicion of mass murder. It also, incorrectly, said that it was a power only used on compassionate grounds when the accused is too ill to be tried: Devlin put this last on his list of uses.
Once the sub-section on nolle prosequi had been corrected, it was clear that it no longer had anything to do with concerns of prejudice, and the only political interference was Manningham-Buller's attempt to salvage his reputation. It therefore does not belong in this section, but in the trial section.
A significant amount of the section on concerns of prejudice and political interference looks much weaker once Lord Devlin's insight is added and I am also looking at case selection and the loss of the nurses' notebooks, where Devlin takes a different view to Cullen, who generally follows the police line. 
Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''nolle prosequi'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on John Bodkin Adams. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040810013749/http://www.shyscyberchamber.com/adams_bodkin.asp to http://www.shyscyberchamber.com/adams_bodkin.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113111651/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/bd/1996-97/97bd045.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1996-97/97bd045.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828212504/http://www.actrtla.org.au/euth/bookeu/smith.htm to http://www.actrtla.org.au/euth/bookeu/smith.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently lists eleven cases in addition to those of Mrs Morrell and Mrs Hullett as suspicious. However, Inspector Hannam only considered that five cases were worthy of prosecution on the basis of murder or manslaughter, which were (in addition to Mrs Morrell and Mrs Hullett) the cases of Mr Hullett and two where exhumation was carried out, those of Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller. It is worth pointing out that the Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller fell away when the autopsies proved inconclusive and that of Mr Hullett at the committal hearing, when the prosecution conceded that he probably died of a heart attack. The case against Mrs Morrell was comprehensively demolished at Adams' trial and the prosecution did not proceed with the the Mrs Hullett indictment.
In other words, in each if the four cases where Hannam's suppositions were tested, they could not be proved. The enthusiasm which supporters of Adam's guilt propose Mrs Hullet's case as the one that should have been tried may reflect that those suppositions were not tested. However, if the five cases mentioned were considered worthy of prosecution, then eight of the eleven listed (excluding Mr Hullett, Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller were not. The evidence presented is largely gossip and, in some cases, no more than Adams took certain items from the deceased or received a legacy. One contributor claims such pilfering is important as being typical of serial killers, but this seems to be a circular argument.
It can, of course, be argued that proof to a criminal standard is not required in an article, but reducing this section to Mr Hullett, Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller were the suppositions were tested would make it more neutral in tone, as the counter-evidence can also be presented.
Sscoulsdon (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:FORUM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT, but be prepared to be reverted if you go too far, such as into WP:SYNTH territory.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious cases