Talk:Ipswich serial murders/Archive 2

Working in prostitution vs. prostitute

Someone has again gotten rid of many (all perhaps) of the instances where "prostitute" was used. I do not see anything wrong with the word prostitute. It implies no value judgement. "Woman working in prostitution" even uses essentially the same term, but is far longer with no increase in information. I think this is bad form. Opinions of others? Aleta 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this, as the previous editor seems very clearly to be working to a personal agenda. Nick Cooper 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the revert. It is women who have been murdered although the fact that all of them were engaged in prostitution is certainly relevant. They were addicted to Class A drugs, which is relevant but not defining? Hence while both are relevant it does not negate the fact that these were women who were murdered: not prostitutes, not addicts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms medusa (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I've put it back again. The fact that all the victims have been women is well established from the first sentence. There is no need to be wordier than necessary to state their profession. It is, of course, relevant that they were all female. It also seems highhly probable that the fact they were prostitutes is relevant. To rephrase it accomplishes nothing. Aleta 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont doubt that it is relevant (as is their drug addiction), but many women engaged in prostitution consider the term "prostitute" offense. I concede if there is consensus around the term "prostitute" and looking around the rest of wikipedia it seems to be a term in common use, nevertheless I would regard it as offensive.Ms medusa 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Working in prostitution" can mean several things (pimp, madame, &c.) and therefore is ambiguous. All of the victims were prostitutes. If you can think of a different word which means "prostitute" and isn't offensive, then please let us know. Until then, I suggest that we follow the official Wikipeida policy on this one.Guinness 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "working in prostitution" is actually better than "prostitute", not great, but better. "Women working as prostitutes" would be better yet. People too easily jump to lump people together by some trait, why not say they were all English, for example? It is NPOV to just refer to them as women who were working as prostitutes. If the killer later says that he killed them because of their profession that should be then mentioned as his motive, but to just label them by the way they earn money is POV, and rather offensive. Sad mouse 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule I've tried to follow is that any time I'd use the word "plumber" in a comparable (but obviously hypothetical) case, I'd use the word "prostitute". I really don't buy the idea that "prostitute" carries any intrinsic value judgement (unlike the word "whore", for example), and "woman working in prostitution" is just suboptimal writing, just as "woman working in plumbing" is much worse than "plumber". — Matt Crypto 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a serious point of discussion here, and it is not about people working to "personal agendas". The non-tabloid media in the UK has generally avoided labelling the victims as prostitutes. Matthew Parris, writing in the Times has made similar points to Ms medusa. Even the Wikipedia manual of style says "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." I think that "working in prostitution" rather than "prostitute" is a good interpretation of this guideline. I have some sympathy with the "plumber test". However, if Gemma Adams had been a plumber, would the section have started "On 2 December 2006, the body of Gemma Adams, a 25-year-old plumber...", or would her occupation only have been mentioned later in the paragraph? Bluewave 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If some lunatic was murdering (only) plumbers then it would be notable and worth mentioning early on. --Dweller 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know the motive for the murders yet, so you shouldn't guess. You could lump them all together in multiple ways, maybe the killer picked them because they were vulnerable, rather than because of the way they earned money? We should be keeping only to the facts, that is just called them women, or the victims, rather than calling them prostitutes as if that act defined who they were.Sad mouse 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That was well said. Sad mouse 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it would, however women in prostitution are extremely common victims for serial killers, so the notability is lessened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms medusa (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Guinness 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this article [1] with a quote from a criminologist

Looks good for the first part, however I would argue that someone's life is not less valuable (and ergo their murder less notable) just because they are a prostitute. Guinness 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say their murder was less notable, I said that the fact that they were in prostitution was less notable. A serial killer who only murdered plumbers that fact would be highly notable as they are a group which are not commonly targetted by serial killers, in fact I cant think of a single serial killer who only murdered plumbers, but I can think of several who only murdered those in prostitution.Ms medusa 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In a UK context that would seem to be three or less out of 28. Hardly an overwhelming trend. Nick Cooper 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. If you look at the list of serial killers by country, for the 28 listed for the UK, only five killed prostitutes, but in two cases they accounted for a minority of their victims overall. That's not "extremely common" by any stretch. Nick Cooper 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

...and how many targetted plumbers? Besides those are only the ones that have been caught...if you look at the murders of women in the UK you will find a very high proportion of them are women in prostitution - most of those murders have never been solved..Ms medusa 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, bottom line is that they're all referenced as prostitutes in the global press and by the Suffolk Constabulary, and if we're writing an article that is likely to be discovered by those who are interested in its contents, and without evidence to the contrary, we should keep using the word. Let's get over it and move on. It's 100% clear they were all prostitutes. The use of the word prostitute in this article is purely objective This is not the land of PC, it's somewhere where we should write articles with a common understanding. Budgiekiller 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the point, the point is that by calling them prostitutes that means you are defining them based solely on the way they earned money. Mentioning that they were prostitutes seems reasonable to me (saying they worked as prostitutes is better), but after that just refer to them as women or victims, rather than constantly referring to them as prostitutes. Sad mouse 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sad mouse. Mentioning their occupation once in the lead section is sufficient; after that, simply refer them as women, unless there are specific reasons to mention their occupation again. --Vsion 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Guinness 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This all seems a bit silly, as their occupation is central to the circumstances of their abduction. If one was a bar worker or cleaner returning home after work, or if one was abducted while returning home after a night out with friends, it would be mentioned. Nick Cooper 11:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The significance of the women working in prostitution is not established. The nature of their occupation makes them easier targets amongst the wider female population. If it is determined that the killer(s) acted with a pathological hatred of prostitutes then their occupation would be significant, otherwise it only establishes that they were easily victimised and it should not be made the central focus of their identities. Fanx 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

innocent til proven guilty?

Should we be saying as a fact that all these women were prostitutes? Were they all convicted of prostitution? Maybe we should say "Police say ___was a prostitute" BobTrout5th 15:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We are as certain as it is possible to be that all five women were working the streets in the Red-Light area of Ipswich. To say "We cannot say they were prostitutes because none of them were convicted of prostitution" raises problems because prostitution is not a prosecutable crime in the UK. 81.174.149.183 15:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this uinilateral edit, as the evidence that they were prostitutes is overwhelming. Paula Clennell was even interveiwed by a TV reporter days before she went missing. Nick Cooper 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've by no means read all of the sources for this article, but the ones I have read, and other sources not cited here all say they were prostitutes. The fact that "Police say ..." is clearly a verifiable and notable source (albeit by way of reputable news and media sources). Therefore, for WP's purposes, we can be certain that it is a fact. And the above comment is correct too, prostitution is not a criminal offence in the UK. Guinness 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. Every report that I've seen says that they were prostitutes, and I've not heard anything actually denying or disputing that they were prostitutes. As above, I'm also pretty certain that you can't be convicted of prostitution in the UK, so its a job description more than anything else.

perfectblue 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

the myspace FOUND

Given that Tom Stevens has been released without charge, I have removed the link. Hope this is okay but I feel per BLP there is no justification for this now that he appears to be no longer a suspect. Nil Einne 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check it out its yer mans page mirrored. Owwmykneecap 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

please vote on whether it should be in the page or not, as it will just get reverted by 1 person otherwise.Owwmykneecap 04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• NO - the MySpace link doesn't tell us much more than we already know, the fact he's got a MySpace page is not relevant to the investigation, but crucially, open his link and there are images of other people associated with him - including an image of what appears to be a minor. Isn't it also Wiki policy not to add blogs or forums in any case? Escaper7 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• No as per Escaper7, we don't typically link to Myspace (see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided number 10. In any case the page provides us with no information beyond what's already in the article. Budgiekiller 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• No as per above, plus that link could lead to less than nice individuals harrasing his MySpace friends which I don't want Wikipedia to be responsible for aiding.... However if we are not supposed to add blogs what about Adrian Van-Klaveren (the BBC News deputy director) blog I've used as a source for the Criticism of the Media section. Is it still a valid source? It's definitely his as it is hosted on the BBC's website. --GracieLizzie 13:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, after looking at Links normally to be avoided number 11 seems to OK the BBC blog, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority"... that OKs the BBC blog for the media criticism sub-section right? --GracieLizzie 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Not yet If he were to be convicted of an offence in relation to the murders, then he would probably become notable enough to have his own article, at which point WP:EL number 10 is excepted by "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article " However, at this time, he does not have his own article, and, per Budgiekiller, WP:EL number 10 would apply. Guinness 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Depends. If he's charged keep, if not delete. For now, no strong opinion. Evercat 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If he's charged, or the other fella, who has no MySpace page (or does he????!), or both, will get a page to themselves, no doubt, which will be the ideal place for such an image. Budgiekiller 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic City 'link'

Two editors (one anon, one admin, perhaps the same?) have removed the Atlantic City link section. Two different editors have put it back. It meets WP:VERIFY, although there appears to be no conclusive link. Discuss...! Budgiekiller 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Easy. The section is entitled "possible links to other crimes" and Atlantic City is clearly and verifiably a link that the police themselves are making. If this section is to be here at all, then all links should be included. Guinness 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and we're the two who reverted it, so I guess it'd be interesting to hear from some independent editors! Budgiekiller 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Suffolk police (as opposed to just the media) have mentioned it, I think that is a strong supporter of its significance - in this particular case they have been quite frugal, and obviously very considered, about what information they release. Barnabypage 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The source for the information is media (FoxNews), however that article quotes a police spokeswoman, so unless FoxNews are lying or just plain wrong... Guinness 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - a police spokesperson is cited as the source - it should be left unless/until that possible link has been dismissed. -Aleta 65.140.99.246 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As the admin who removed it (and not the anon), I argue that the fact that someone mentioned a possible connection to crimes 3000 miles away several days ago is not germane to the present state of the investigation. It is perfectly clear that Suffolk Constabulary have their local suspects and no further interest in hypothetical links to crimes in the US. The fact that something is verifiable does not necessarily imply that it is relevant - a little common sense needs to be employed. Presumably the proponents of retaining this section will argue that it should stay until the police publicly dismiss the connection, but I would lay odds that it will simply never be mentioned again. -- Arwel (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arwel. Thanks for joining in on the discussion, I hope you don't mind me kicking it off. I only (kind of) associated the anon revert with yours because they were argued similarly. In my mind, if it's formed part of the investigation of the case, it's relevant. Perhaps not necessarily in such detail, maybe something about a suspected link without the list of Atlantic City deaths, but nothing else. Anyway, let's see how the consensus goes. Budgiekiller 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps the entire section should be removed, since the links to these other murders are no more or less hypothetical than the AC ones. I wouldn't argue against removing the section, but it may be noteworthy to preserve early courses of investigation for historical purposes. I do think though, that the AC murders should be treated equally with the local ones, regardless of whatever that treatment may be. Guinness 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the key question here is: have the police indicated whether or not they are still pursuing other avenues of enquiry? Are they confident they have their man/men? If so, at the very least the introduction to the "possible links to other crimes" section needs to be put in the past tense. I recall that after the first arrest, they overtly said that it was not the end - I haven't read any comments one way or the other since the second arrest. Anyone know? (Meanwhile, I've tidied the section slightly to reflect the fact that Atlantic City is not in East Anglia, even by the broadest definition of that sometimes disputably-defined region. ;) Barnabypage 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That'll be East Angular you're referring to?! Budgiekiller 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I nearly removed the stuff myself. I'm in complete agreement with Arwel. Jooler 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this report two of the women listed in the possible links section (Natalie Pearman, and Michelle Bettles) used to frequent a pub Steve Wright once owned... of course it says Pearman died in 1996 not 1992 like the Wikipedia article so maybe it isn't accurate. --GracieLizzie 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the bold?

I've noticed that all the names in this article are in boldface. Is there any reason for this? .V. 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, SqueakBox 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put *some* of it back. I agree there's no reason for them to be bold everywhere, but I think the first instance of the victims' and suspects' names should be bolded for ease of picking out. Aleta 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not according to wiki style guide, it makes the article look unwikipedia like and hence amateurish. please dont revert me on this one as we msut follow the guidelines for all articles, SqueakBox 22:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just looked, and it actually only says not to use them in the lead paragraph except for in restating the article title and its synonyms (which I admit to having previously violated by mistake with the suspects' names). There is no need to be unpleasant. I wasn't deliberately trying to "follow the guidelines" selectively. Pointing out what the guide says is sufficient. Aleta 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. No unpleasantness intended, SqueakBox 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Aleta 23:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference clean-up help request

I added a line about Karen McGregor in the "links to other possible victims" section, citing the same article as the one on Diane McInally. I just copied & pasted the citation. I know there's a better way to do it, but don't know exactly how. If someone would fix it for me, I'd appreciate it. Aleta 21:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Wright charged.

News just in, will edit as appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.233.40 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

We had a duplicate reference to Mr Wright being charged and Mr Stephens(?) being released on bail, so I've merged them both under the heading "police investigation" - 81.168.47.3 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Important if small note

The correct spelling of the accused's first name is "Steven" according to the CPS and Suffolk Police: [2] As they know his precise date of birth I presume they have checked the spelling as well. Sam Blacketer 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. The BBC have it with a ph... what now?! Budgiekiller 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we stick with the Suffolk police as being a more primary source, after all they should know, SqueakBox 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"I am not a lawyer" (TM) but from what I know of them, they are not above suggesting that charges should be dismissed if the suspect is charged under the wrong name. Sam Blacketer 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sky TV are currently quoting "Steve Wright" as well. Budgiekiller 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise, now Sky are quoting "Stephen Wright". Hmm. No hasty moves y'all. Budgiekiller 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And BBC News 24 are in agreement with the latest Sky opinion. Budgiekiller 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see we have his date of birth and when we get some details about him I would recommend he gets his own article, SqueakBox 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but such an article should not be a duplicate of the page about the murder investigations. It is possible that tomorrow's press will provide some more information. Sam Blacketer 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A red wikilink currently exists under Steve Wright (suspect) but the name is rubbish. Shouldn't we wait? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Budgiekiller 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That red link has just gone blue. I suggest discussions on its title ought to be made on its talk page. Sam Blacketer 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its notability that counts and suspect wouldnt be a good name, SqueakBox 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be argued (not necessarily by me, just making the point) that notability for an article comes merely through being charged, and that he is therefore notable already. Christer Pettersson has an article even though he was acquitted; Per-Olof Svensson has an article even though the case against him was dropped. But certainly the title should not include "suspect". Sam Blacketer 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Wright (Ipswich)? Sam Blacketer 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

With all this 'press responsibilty', does Wikipedia face a precedent by creating such an article? Budgiekiller 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it very much. Its based in Miami and so doesnt count. I personally am outseide tehe UK too, SqueakBox 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky old Mr Wright then. Away you go, vultures...!! Budgiekiller 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it is a matter of vultures. if he did it he gets zero sympathy for me. Wikipedia has to stick to tight guuidelines such as verifiability, NPOV and notability sio it would be far fetched to claim irresponsibnility is likely to come from us, SqueakBox 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The BBC just sent me a breaking news text alert saying 'Stephen Wright' and 'Tom Stephens'. Hmm. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if he did it. There's a real common theme in the UK to name male suspects of any crime. Tom Stephens will never be removed from this now. Oh well, we live in interesting times... Budgiekiller 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the BBC just said "spree" rather than "serial"... Budgiekiller 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've personally pointed out too many mistakes the |BBC has made to rely on them when Sky [3] and the police say Steven or Steve, SqueakBox 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The BBC also just updated their News page - renaming him to Stephen Wright, also correcting the quote from Suffolk Police [4] --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Stephens

He is now not nbotable enough for the opening and I have edited him out. he should remain in the article, of course, SqueakBox 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed his myspace page as well, as predicted. Budgiekiller 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about ask if it was okay to remove it... we should definitely delete it now. --GracieLizzie 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that Stephens was never named by the police (well, so far)... which seems (to me) to be a good thing. Budgiekiller 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So what happened? He named himself? AdorableRuffian 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive time?

Is it just me or this talk page getting a bit long? Anyone think it is time to archive it and start afresh? --GracieLizzie 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes. Budgiekiller 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Aleta 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing this recently, but there are still too many active topics. If you are going to archive, it needs to be done with care, to keep the active discussions on this page. Guinness 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd archive it myself but I don't seem to be allowed to. Wikipedia is weird sometimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.28.31.190 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Archive - we could write a section at the top about the fact the case is active, what we can't say etc, and put links to the other areas of discussion. Things will wind down over Xmas and so there perhaps won't be any major developments once the mags hearing is done. Escaper7 10:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A number of the sections discussing a rename are still relevant. — Matt Crypto 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've archived everything that's not got a comment from today; except the rename, for which new comments can be added to the section below. Guinness 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspect name

Okay, all major news outlets are saying "Stephen Wright", which is legitimately abbreviated to "Steve Wright". So what do we do. The article for him now already exists here - Steve Wright (suspect) which inevitably will change one way or the other. So two things. What's his name, and do we need to rename his article? Budgiekiller 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

His full name should be used until such a time as it's confirmed he's known as Steven. I support moving/renaming the article. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's his full name that's the problem. His usual name is Steve Wright, but his full name may either be "Stephen" according to news media or "Steven" according to the Suffolk Constabulary and CPS. Although we could play safe and stick to "Steve Wright". Sam Blacketer 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is ambiguous it is right to call him Steve. This debate needs to be in the Steve Wright article. We can and will move the name and the whole title when the time is right, SqueakBox 00:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

Now that Steven Wright will be charged with the five murders, it seems that the investigation has come to a close or is coming to a close. Because of this, I believe the time has come or is coming to rename this article, perhaps to 2006 Ipswich murders. Any views on this? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's one reasonable option, but various options have been discussed above at length, and none suggested so far are without problems. I believe the main objection to 2006 Ipswich murders is that it is more general than this particular case (other murders have occurred in Ipswich in 2006). The same problem applies to the current title, of course. I think the best option is either Ipswich prostitute murders or 2006 Ipswich prostitute murders, but there are some editors who object to using the word "prostitute" arguing (incorrectly, in my view) that it entails a value judgment, or otherwise dehumanises the women in some way. — Matt Crypto 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, although it's worth noting that the investigation is definitely still ongoing. For example, Tom Stephens has been released IIRC "pending further enquiries." However, your suggested title makes sense whether or not the investigatory phase is still ongoing. Guinness 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Ipswich Serial Murders 2006 - it puts the 2006 at the end and I think that sounds better. It also doesn't use the word "prostitute" if people think that's "controversial" and also says it's the serial murders as opposed to any other murders that have happened in Ipswich this year. ( Just The Q ) 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia there is an discussion in progress to rename it from "Mordserie in Ipswich 2006" (series of murder in Ipswich 2006) to "Suffolk Strangler". Perhaps this will be a possible name for the article. Greetings --Willicher 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Suffolk Strangler has gained wide enough currency to justify this. Barnabypage 14:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal process

Please DISCUSS major changes to this article before making substantial edits - particularly in resepect of the legal process. there are serious consequences for Wikipedia, and its credibility as an encyclopaedia if you don't.

• Steve Wright has been remanded in custody until 2 Jan 07
• There is very little that can be said about him due to the Contempt of Court Act, the case against him is now "active"
• His next hearing has to be before a Crown Court as murder charges can't be dealt with by a magistrate
• At some point there will be a plea and directions hearing - could be the next one and we have absoulutely no idea what will happen until that hearing takes place.

Escaper7 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

While we must abide by wikipedia standards the statement that "there are serious consequences for Wikipedia, and its credibility as an encyclopaedia" is simply not credible as a statement, especially given the way ther UK press are behaving; wikipedia's repuation will not stand or fall by this article, either within or outsdide the UK and to pretend it will strikes me as dishonest, SqueakBox 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid newspaper, so the highest standards should be adhered to, and reporting of what we know as fact. I'm entitled to my opinion, and I think there are consequences for Wikipedia and its credibility. I don't believe Wikipedia is immune from the legal process, contempt, libel etc - that's why there are warning boxes on biogs of living people. I've said on lots of talk pages that newspapers have in-house lawyers and deep pockets. Wikipedia doesn't. Regards Escaper7 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation help

Someone posted a URL citation for "The Suffolkator". It was showing as a broken template, being just a URL within braces. I changed it to brackets, making it a link. It is not in proper citation form though. When I tried to do that, I messed it all up, and just reverted myself to make it a link again. Could someone do this properly, please? Aleta 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Done :-) --GracieLizzie 15:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, GL! Aleta 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline Presentation

Some lines of the time line have a bullet point followed by the date followed by a dash (-) followed by the info. Others have no dash but the info on the next line and an indented bullet point. This isn't all done the same and therefore I'm changing it to all be on separate lines with bullet points. If someone thinks it should be done the other way they can change it so it's all dashed. ( Just The Q ) 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspect's address

I have removed Wright's street address from the article. I don't think we should be publishing that. See talk page for his article for more discussion. Aleta 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Headings

I've altered the headings and sub-headings slightly so that it all makes more sense chronologically. I've added the section "Court appearances" to take in the first magistrate's hearing and the crown court hearing. I've taken out the ref to Wright going on trial. He's not on trial yet as he could plead guilty. (see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) [5]. Escaper7 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have another go at organising the headings after my recent efforts were undone. Wright has had his first appearance before Crown Court, I added some comments, and name of judge, but these have mysteriously been removed. Escaper7 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sentence

"...After the recent report by Dectective Inspector David Netherton,..." This line was removed - not sure why it was added, if anyone knows why and can source it please re-insert it. Note Wikiusername of contributor who added it. Escaper7 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)