Talk:Robert Maudsley

Sources

Could do with some more references than one newspaper article, reporting on a TV documentary. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46 6 September 2006 (GMT).

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More sources ?

This whole article is based upon a single source. I'm not saying its' innacurate at all, just, well, it's a single source. If it says that Harris based Silence.... on this guy then it should definately have multiple sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.193.79 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the third article of reference is now no longer there 30/07/2013 could someone tell me if it's ok to remove a source or does it have to be done by reporting on the talk page? Amanda138a (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As it is a source then it should not be removed unless replaced by a suitable replacement source. You should tag the link as dead using template {{dead link}}. Keith D (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of cannibalism

The claim that Maudsley had eaten part of the brain of the man he killed in Broadmoor is false, as an adjudication by the Press Complaints Commission later made clear: the victim's skull was intact at autopsy: PCC report. I'll see if I can find a more direct citation for this, and add it later if I can. Sadly, this error seems to have made it into several quality newspapers, not just the Daily Mail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the PCC report is an adequate source. The first paragraph of the article doesn't make the falsehood clear, so I've revised it accordingly.Twistlethrop (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

claim of abuse causing psychological scars, no evidence

To quote part of the article, Maudsley claims he was abused at an early age "such early abuse would have left deep psychological scars" there is no evidence to support this in the article, nor am I aware of definite proof that this is the case, not all abused children, even those abused from a young age will become abusers or depraved murders. Amanda138a (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.true-crime/zFtr9tyFR5U as a source. When you get past the hyperbole it appears to be quoting verbatim an article in The Times - unfortunately I can't find the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.221.160 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Maudsley. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120313004617/http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTcxNw== to http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTcxNw==

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in article?

In the lede, it says he "was responsible for the murders of four people", yet in the main article it says he was convicted of manslaughter on at least one charge.--Phil of rel (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded this accordingly. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Robert John Maudsley.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate information?

This YouTube essay brought me here-- and before you dismiss me for citing a non-RS, read this first. There is an entire paragraph in this article devoting to mentions of pedophilia, with the essay particularly quoting the sentence "Farrell picked up Maudsley for sex and showed him pictures of children he had sexually abused." Upon reading the book source cited, the essayist found no such claims, and went on to dive into the false accusations of Maudley as a child molester, before citing a reliable source that debunks all this very well, written by an investigative journalist.

This is a very concerning allegation, in my opinion. I know several editors have tried bringing it up in the past, but to no community avail. Furthermore, I checked the BBC source cited for the "In 1974", which precedes "Maudsley garrotted John Farrell in Wood Green, London", when the source merely states "In 1974 Maudsley committed the first of what would eventually be four killings and was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility", which I would say is very ambiguous. Even furthermore, a lot of these claims in the article contain no citations, and 80% of the citations directs to one Guardian article. I know this is not a GA-class article, but since this is a BLP it's a very alarming problem. GeraldWL 05:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim from the book is mentioned in the Guardian article, so I have edited the citation to reflect this. Although to note, many of the sources about Maudsley seem to have disappeared in some manner or another, leaving only rumours from Maudsley himself or a smattering of journalists. There are mentioned a variety of sources from 22-24 March 2000, but I can find none of these sources except in third-party mentionings. Notably is that these are letters from Maudsley himself to a variety of papers, including Reuters and The Times. One of the most notable of these claims, which seems to have influenced the myth that Maudsley killed only sexual abusers is Maudsley himself saying this to be the case. This is seen in the quotation which was apparently once published in Reuters: "Maudsley has claimed his victims were rapists, paedophiles or sex offenders." [1]. This is particularly notable because it seems to be the orginator for the "heroic killer" myth which surrounds Maudsley. THEBLOODYSICKLE 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be universally accepted that Maudsley only killed abusers. There’s no shortage of articles that mention it, like this one I just found which claims to have brought in some of the world’s leading psychologists for it: https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/making-a-monster/abused-as-a-child-robert-maudsley-killed-abusers-as-an-adult VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know why you’re referring to this “Frank Report” as a reliable source—I’ve never heard of this man before, and the source that he cites for his article is not even a secure webpage. How can we believe that he’s telling the truth about what the police report said and accept his claims over what every reputable news agency has reported? VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don’t trust this “Frank Report” one bit. He makes a ton of claims without citing any sources for them, and all of the comments on the post are conspiracy nuts. This seems to be a QAnon-style conspiracy. Please don’t believe this nonsense. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the “Frank Report” that claims that Maudsley’s victims weren’t actually abusers is a guy named Frank Parlato, Jr., and he’s been federally indicted on 19 counts, including fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Surely this is the *opposite* of a “reliable source”.

It seems to me that the Frank Report article citation very much needs to be removed, and all of these claims about people being wrong about Maudsley killing abusers need to be ignored and monitored to make sure that they don’t alter the article (unless someone produces a source that *hasn’t* been federally indicted on fraud and conspiracy charges for these dramatic claims). VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I did find another source for at least the first victim being murdered for drug money in a book by therapist Michael Newton on page 377. Problematist (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Problematist, the things that pop up when Michael Newton’s name is Googled also paint him as entirely unreliable. Another fraud pushing crackpot theories. A “spiritual hypnotherapist” is, like Frank Parlato, not a reliable source. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s extremely disturbing that all of these claims by unstable conspiracy theorists are being given weight on an article that’s a biography of a living person. And I’m going to remove that horrible Frank Report citation from the article now, since for some reason no one has done that yet. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

But, Problematist, it looks like the author of the book you’ve just cited is in fact *not* the Michael Newton you referred to but a different Michael Newton who is mainly a writer of fiction. However, he has also published some “nonfiction”, including something called “Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology”—which, again, is making it look like this Michael Newton as well as the other one and Frank Parlato are untrustworthy sources. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Robert Maudsley.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Serial Killer

I query the application of this term without evidence in the text. "Multiple murderer" would not be objectionable. Maudsley has primarily killed in prison and, without evidence, does not fit the normal classification of a serial killer Billsmith60 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)