Talk:White House Farm murders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GENERAL DISCUSSION

I've made a number of edits to the article to remove POV wording implying Bamber's innocence. This is now stated more neutrally. Ben Finn 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you believe Bamber is innocent or not, the fact that the case is controversial is not in question. When Members of Parliament, journalists etc etc question whether someone convicted of mass murder did indeed carry out the crime it is surely a controversial subject. Try googling Jeremy Bamber and you will see that his conviction is most definitely a matter of controversy. The second point is that whether he carried out the killings or not, there was very little physical evidence to link him with the crime. His fingerprints were found on the gun but so were Sheila's, so it proves nothing. I know that but i've studied this project the world over, I had to do it for an assignment, can't you just leave it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor rex (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I see little problem with the POV. Bamber's guilt or innocence is currently under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Research has involved volumes of material and researchers have been thwarted by the destruction of evidence. The stubborn refusal of the Essex police to act to provide the defense team, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Appeals Court in a lawful and timely manner with a full disclosure of all material evidence has been a thorn in everyone's side. Hag2 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WORDING

My only problem with the article is in the current wording in reference to Jeremy Bamber's representative, Giovanni di Stefano. There is ample evidence today (at Giovanni's talkpage) to suggest that Di Stefano is NOT a lawyer.

I suggest that the expression "the Italian lawyer" (paragraph 3) should be struck and rewritten to be "the Italian avvocato" until proved otherwise. Consequently I have made this minor edit. Hag2 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS

I added an External Link to the 12 December 2002 Appeals Court decision Hag2 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The article now clearly indicates a miscarriage of justice has taken place, reading as if Bamber's conviction has been over-turned. Quoting as such length from Woffinden - even including a photograph of him - effectively turns the article into his point of view. Bamber was found guilty and lost two appeals. Anyone wishing to insert more critical voices - such as those who suggest Bamber could have made the call from the farmhouse himself - would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. The article reads better, but its neutrality has been lost. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Alistair I have only just started editing this (apart from a brief few edits some months ago), so it's a work-in-progress, and can't be perfectly balanced overnight. Secondly, NPOV says we reflect what the sources say, so while we have to try to be balanced, we also can't make things up. The current stories about him do strongly and uniformly (so far as I can tell) suggest there has been a miscarriage of justice, and we have to reflect that.

I'm going to take time over the next few days to check with current and previous newspaper coverage to make sure we include all relevant material. I'm also going to build up the trial section, which will hopefully make clear what the prosecution's case was.

If you have a source that suggests he made the call from the farmhouse himself (the one the recent log was found for and which purports to be from the father), please add it to the article or here on talk.

I can assure you that my aim is to produce a comprehensive article, so please don't have worries on that score. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made it clear that the identity of the caller remains unconfirmed, and I'll continue to keep clarifying these kinds of details. Have a look at the current version and let me know if it's better in that regard. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've now included important material that makes the article more balanced. I know you're not pushing your own POV but I think Woffinden's views are over represented, especially when you consider that even when he is not quoted directly other supposedly reliable sources lead back to himAlistair Stevenson (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be careful about that. Now that you've found a working link to the 2002 appeal that will help, as we can source things directly, though I'm finding a lot of inconsistent reporting in this case, with people reporting details slightly differently. Makes it hard to know who to rely on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true. For instance, the police log that might be a record of Nevill Bamber's vital phone call was according to everyone "not disclosed by Essex police to Bamber's defence team until at least 2004". But looking closely at the image in the article it clearly has a Chelmsford Crown Court exhibit tag on it, so presumably must have been presented at the original trial. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I'm having difficulty working out what the sequence of events was regarding disclosure of the logs, and why the Mirror was suddenly told about this was on August 5 this year, or whenever it was. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't clear up that particular point but I wondered if you saw this article in yesterday's Independent? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it, thank you. Excellent article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Query

Alistair does the source you're using clearly say what you're adding? For example:

After telephoning the police, Bamber said he called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, then drove slowly to the farmhouse. He said he arrived at 3:40 am, two minutes after the police. Following information Bamber gave them about Sheila's familiarity with weapons the police withdrew to wait for a tactical firearms group to arrive, which turned up at 5 am.

Does it say he drove slowly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

Hey Slim. Paragraph 150 of the 2002 appeal judgement says "Shortly after 3 a.m. he telephoned Julie Mugford, before calling the police at 3.26 a.m. He chose not to make a 999 call, drove slowly to the farmhouse, gave misleading information about his sister and her knowledge of guns to create as long a delay as possible before the bodies were discovered." According to that judgement, Bamber did not contest evidence that normally he drove fast, giving an explanation that he was frightened. The slowness is not mentioned in Hunter but that could be fixed by deleting the Hunter reference in that paragraph altogether. The article is now so dominated by what seems significant to the miscarriage of justice POV that it is hard to insert material that is common ground but muddies the argument for his innocence. Things likely to have been of great significance to the original jury aren't mentioned, like the debate about whether he phoned his girlfriend before or after phoning the police and the fact he used a geographic number rather than 999. And it is quite hard to insert them without destroying the flow you've established. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We can change the flow as more detail is added; or we can insert (but see below/above) to point out inconsistencies, so don't worry about that aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I'd like to suggest that the lead currently gives undue weight to recent events. Could we move the details given after the first sentence of the fourth paragraph into the body of the article itself? --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the telephone log, I think that would be a mistake, because it's one of the key issues the CCRC will be looking at, which is why newspapers and the BBC have focused on it. That the father made no such phone call was was one of three key points in the trial, according to the judge in his summing up. The argument was not "there is a log, but we don't know who actually made the call." The argument was: "there is no evidence to suggest the father made any calls". So this log is a major issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That could be right, but I think it might be placing more emphasis on the log than Bamber's actual submission to the CCRC, which includes other evidence such as the photographs of the missing red paint scratches. I can't find a reliable source for a description of the submission; for us to place such emphasis on the log by going into so much detail about it, seems like original research.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly original research that the phone log is a major issue. There were 192 news articles about it on or around August 5. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet both sources used for the final paragraph in the lead are from 2002. I think I remember reading Bamber made additions to his original submission to the CCRC to include the log, but the most reliable source I can find for what was in the original submission, doesn't mention the log at all. Shouldn't it be this that we're reporting? --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead refs were just an error, and have now been fixed; the article's in the process of being written. I didn't understand your last point about what we should be reporting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant shouldn't we be reporting reliable sources, which you've now added; thanks. I still think the lead is not presently a concise overview of the article because - in terms of length - it gives equal weight to developments in the last 6 months as to those in the last 25 years. But I accept you don't agree and unless anyone else has strong feelings about it, I'll leave it there. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this is a work-in-progress; I don't even have a first draft ready. And it would be impossible to write a concise lead that represented in strict percentages what was in the body of the article. The evidence is very complex, and it's hard to see what's new; what's already been judged by the courts in some form; and which are the side issues and which the key ones. There is no question, however, that the phone log is a key issue, because the judge stressed the lack of evidence of a phone call in his summing up (from the Dec 2002 appeal, my bold):

When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

This is why the phone log attracted the recent media attention to the degree that it did. It does not show that Nevill made the call. It does not show that Nevill called his son. But it does show that someone who said he was Nevill called the police, and the jury was not told that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Bamber.com

I don't believe that Jeremy Bamber as a website is appropriate to list here, as it appears to contradict WP: COI. I will delete it within a week unless anyone gives good argument here as to why it ought be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It contains some of the primary source material that the secondary sources refer to. It hasn't been used as a source of anything that's not in the secondary sources, so its use here is policy compliant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Pointless picture

Would someone please remove the picture of a .22 bolt action rifle from the article? The rifle depicted is nothing like that used in the killings. To have a picture of any old weapon on the article is misleading and entirely pointless. Thanks Dave Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.82.248 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A .22 rifle with sights and silencer attached.

Agreed, a simple Google reveals numerous photographs of the Anschutz 525, which is clearly very different from the CZ 452 in the picture here, so SlimVirgin was quite wrong in using it. The previous image was an Anschutz, but again not the right model. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone mind if I move this away from Bamber's name to White House Farm murders, given that it's not a biography? We would retain the Jeremy Bamber redirect, so anyone looking for him that way will find him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion and very democratic of you to open a debate rather than making the move, but is it likely a reader searching for Jeremy Bamber would feel misled that this article is not strictly a biography? I'd argue "Jeremy Bamber" is the term most associated with the events described, not the name of the house. Titling the crime "White House Farm Murders" might be interpreted as an attempt at distancing Bamber from the murders even while his conviction for them still stands, and thus part of a campaign. I'd support retitling if he's cleared by the CCRC but at the moment I think - even if it might be a more precise title - a move to "White House Farm Murders" would be counter to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I was thinking more along the lines of normal practice for biographies. If an article is about the death of someone, we call it Death of Ian Tomlinson, Death of David Kelly, Death of Jeremiah Duggan, or in a case where some people are questioning the death, Muhammad al-Durrah incident. The point with all of them is that the article isn't about the person, who isn't notable outside the events the article focuses on, and that we have very little purely biographical detail about them in the article.

As for the more common title, Jeremy Bamber gets 7,130 Google hits, and White House Farm murders get 18,900. Not that that has to determine anything, but worth bearing in mind. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd choice of parallels; Ian Tomlinson, David Kelly and Jeremiah Duggan were victims rather than perpetrators of violence. Grouping Bamber with them at present might add to the impression of an agenda. As things stand the more obvious precedent would be other notorious murderers such as John Wayne Gacy, Peter Sutcliffe or Barry Prudom. The number of hits on Google only indicates the understandably less frequent usage of two proper nouns over a phrase twice as long containing much more common words. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand your last point about the Google hits. These are not hits for these four words separately. They are hits for "White House Farm murders", i.e. White+House+Farm+murders. Also, I wonder whether your examples are good analogies. None of these cases had a name that I know of, so it's natural to default to the convicted. But this one did have a name. The media called it (and still do) the White House Farm murders. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. When I try the same thing on Google.co.uk I get 8,390 (rather than 18,900) for "White House Farm Murders" and 6,690 (7,130) for "Jeremy Bamber", but even that suggests White House Farm Murders is a more common term for the events than I'd assumed. However, the way in which you say the media refer to the murders shouldn't determine the most appropriate title for this article since it not only about the murders: well over a third of it is about Bamber's time in jail, his appeals and his supporters.

As I said above, I support a move if Bamber gets a positive judgement from the CCRC but I'd still oppose it at this stage because (i) it seems to indicate Wikipedia editors anticipating a decision on a judgement that is supposedly imminent and (ii) there are plenty of precedents for naming an article about murders after the person convicted of committing them. However, I acknowledge your painstaking research in improving the article and your much greater expertise in making judgements of this kind so if the idea of a move gains wider support I wouldn't flip my lid. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in no rush to move it, and the thought that it might look like anticipating the judgment didn't even occur to me. It was just that I was reading it recently with a view to tightening it a little (still to do), and I always approach articles I've contributed to a lot with half an eye on what would be needed to submit it for FA status, even if I have little or no intention of doing it. And the thing that jumped out at me, having not looked at it for a while, is that the title, lead and infobox implied it was a biography, and might therefore be objected to. So that's where I'm coming from. But it's a mild preference. I don't have strong feelings about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that many of the occurances of "White House Farm murders" are simply multiple mentions of the same documentary, book, and magazine (specifically Murder Casebook #7) titles, including torrent sites, sale listings, etc. The very fact that there are 4,480 hits for "White House Farm murders" where "Bamber" does not appear corroborates this, as clearly any actual detail of the crime would mention him one way or another. On a personal level I would observe that in the UK, if people are aware of the crime at all, they will more readily recognise Bamber's name than the actual location. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

New developments

We should probably wait a few days to see how this develops, but there is another appeal coming.[1] Fences&Windows 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow is the next time the Criminal Cases Review Commission will meet to discuss the case. They haven't, contrary to media reports, said they would reach a decision tomorrow—though clearly they're now under pressure to do so. Everything that has recently been published—as though it's new—has been published before by other news organizations, who also claimed it was new, even though it had been published before that too. :) And most of it's already in the article.

There has been a certain push, I think, to have the media constantly cover issues as though they're new discoveries. Perfectly understandable, of course. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It has always been thus, I think. Although 24 hour news doesn't really help. Egg Centric (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This "Mike Tesko" chap?

Worth a mention do we think?

Also, is it worth talking about Di Stefano? I see that his page on wiki has been troublesome, so it may not be worth the aggro! Egg Centric (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best not to. I didn't realize until recently that his article is back, and I've not even linked to it because it looks so problematic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias (II)

Just choosing one example, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned. To use Slim Virgin's method of assessing significance, even including unreliable sources, campaign sites and blogs, a Google search for "Jeremy Bamber" + "Bob Woffinden" returns just 694 hits. When I tried to remove the clearly WP:OR and WP:IRRELEVANT synthesis of attributing Bamber's media access to him, the edit was reverted without explanation. I raised WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM concerns last August and was told to hold off as it was a work in progress, but as the foregrounding of Woffinden's conspiracy theory indicates, the bias remains. Even the most minor edits appear to be subject to the acceptance of one (admittedly very significant and experienced) contributor. Especially now that a further appeal looks less likely, it is surely time for a range of editors to be allowed to collaborate in producing a more balanced article.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Woffinden is a well-known campaigner on behalf of possible victims of miscarriages of justice. It's clearly relevant that Bamber and others now have media access thanks to him, and it's an odd thing to remove. Without the Woffinden section, it's hard for readers to understand what the thrust of the campaign is, because the defence team doesn't explain it. So whether we attribute that explanation to Woffinden, or to someone else like Scott Lomax, I feel it does need to be there. Having said that, it could easily be tightened.

Also, I wish you would stop alleging bias and hinting at bad faith. I've written this entire article, giving all sides that I can find. There is more information available about the campaign aspect, because that's what people are writing about, and several of the major sources believe there is a problem with the conviction. All we can do here is reflect what those sources are saying. If you have other sources you want to bring to the table to provide whatever you mean by "balance," please do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith and I apologise if that is how what I have said comes across. I have previously acknowledged and am glad to repeat my recognition of the huge improvements you have made to the article. The latest developments made me curious about the possible basis for the CCRC's preliminary findings so I spent a long time yesterday re-reading the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement and looking at more neutral sources that come to less confident conclusions than Woffinden such as 1 2 3 4. Coming back to the article it seemed much of it is based on the unquestioned acceptance of minority viewpoints or speculation. Neither the full contents of Bamber's submission to the CCRC nor their response to it are in the public domain yet. I don't think editors need to bring material "to the table" for negotiation before making changes but I think I recognise this situation and In accordance with WP:OWN I'll withdraw and take a fresh look in a week or two. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Two questions:

• How you are able to identify which is the minority viewpoint, and at what point in time, given that opinions have changed so much over the last 10 years or so?

• Exactly parts of it are based on unquestioned acceptance of those minority viewpoints? You say "much" of it. But almost all of it, before Section 9: Campaign to overturn the conviction, is based on material from the police and courts.

As for the bad-faith issue, your first comment to this page when I started writing it in August last year was that it was biased, and that was the header you used. Your next comment was that the lead was biased. In December you wrote that moving the title to White House Farm Murders—which was my suggestion, because this is not a bio—"might be interpreted as an attempt at distancing Bamber from the murders even while his conviction for them still stands, and thus part of a campaign." And now today we have the header Bias (II). So you'll forgive me for being a bit fed up. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this reply because I'd unwatched the page. It's true I've consistently expressed my view that the article is presently biassed towards the miscarriage of justice argument; I think also that - as with the odd prominence of Bob Woffinden - there are peculiar editorial judgements that detract from the better parts of the piece. Expressing and debating such opinions isn't only permitted on an article talk page, they are its very purpose. To react by becoming "fed up" is a little unreasonable I think, especially as I've also repeatedly acknowledged the improvements that you've made. To answer your specific points

• In this case, I take the minority viewpoint to be theories untested by proper scrutiny or advanced in opinion pieces and as parts of a campaign, especially where even if the basis of the viewpoint - Bamber's innocence - is the same, the justifications advanced for supporting it are markedly different.
• As I've already said, I think the most significant parts where bias exists are the most prominent when reading it - the article's lead and its conclusion; but throughout there are regular and confusing jumps from a chronological unfolding of events to a strange insistence on rival views, such as, "Police say they found Sheila on the floor of the master bedroom with her mother, though this was disputed in 2005 by Bamber's lawyers; see below." or "There was no blood on the feet (this was disputed in 2005 by the defence)" It's notable that even the sources that support the miscarriage of justice view don't usually do this; they provide a single narrative of how things initially unfolded before counterbalancing this with what they say has later emerged. Weaving two competing views throughout the article creates the impression that all the facts are contestable by the other side, no matter how unlikely this seems. It also makes for a confusing read. For instance, you justify including Woffinden's speculation about Sheila by suggesting it helps readers to understand the thrust of the campaign. I don't think that's true since the campaign does not (and does not have to) assert a single alternative scenario in order to establish a miscarriage. Meanwhile Woffinden's construction directly contradicts ballistic evidence reported unquestioned earlier in the article; rather than clarifying the argument it's a distracting volte-face.

In a similar way, under the main heading "White House Farm, 7 August 1985" you introduce material from the 2009 CCRC submission, using the subheading "Telephone log 1 (caller self-identified as Mr Bamber)". In this section you state, "it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm" which appears to be WP:OR since it isn't mentioned in your source. I assume your inference is that the White House Farm number adds weight to the idea of the call coming from there, but then you make no mention of the fact the log also includes the words "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead." which according to a source you use elsewhere suggests the call came from Jeremy. Doesn't the addition of your own comment adding weight to the miscarriage argument combined with the elision of a well sourced fact that detracts from it indicate a bias, however unconscious? Interleaving the miscarriage argument throughout the article in this way is why I first said last August that anyone wishing to insert more critical voices would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. At that time I didn't know that a further obstacle would be the immediate reversion or over-writing of almost any amendments at all. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Noise from rabbits

Jeremy Bamber says that he heard rabbits outside. They must have been very noisy rabbits. The ones I have come across are very quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New developments

We should probably wait a few days to see how this develops, but there is another appeal coming.[2] Fences&Windows 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow is the next time the Criminal Cases Review Commission will meet to discuss the case. They haven't, contrary to media reports, said they would reach a decision tomorrow—though clearly they're now under pressure to do so. Everything that has recently been published—as though it's new—has been published before by other news organizations, who also claimed it was new, even though it had been published before that too. :) And most of it's already in the article.

There has been a certain push, I think, to have the media constantly cover issues as though they're new discoveries. Perfectly understandable, of course. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It has always been thus, I think. Although 24 hour news doesn't really help. Egg Centric (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This "Mike Tesko" chap?

Worth a mention do we think?

Also, is it worth talking about Di Stefano? I see that his page on wiki has been troublesome, so it may not be worth the aggro! Egg Centric (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best not to. I didn't realize until recently that his article is back, and I've not even linked to it because it looks so problematic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias (II)

Just choosing one example, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned. To use Slim Virgin's method of assessing significance, even including unreliable sources, campaign sites and blogs, a Google search for "Jeremy Bamber" + "Bob Woffinden" returns just 694 hits. When I tried to remove the clearly WP:OR and WP:IRRELEVANT synthesis of attributing Bamber's media access to him, the edit was reverted without explanation. I raised WP:SOAPBOX, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM concerns last August and was told to hold off as it was a work in progress, but as the foregrounding of Woffinden's conspiracy theory indicates, the bias remains. Even the most minor edits appear to be subject to the acceptance of one (admittedly very significant and experienced) contributor. Especially now that a further appeal looks less likely, it is surely time for a range of editors to be allowed to collaborate in producing a more balanced article.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Woffinden is a well-known campaigner on behalf of possible victims of miscarriages of justice. It's clearly relevant that Bamber and others now have media access thanks to him, and it's an odd thing to remove. Without the Woffinden section, it's hard for readers to understand what the thrust of the campaign is, because the defence team doesn't explain it. So whether we attribute that explanation to Woffinden, or to someone else like Scott Lomax, I feel it does need to be there. Having said that, it could easily be tightened.

Also, I wish you would stop alleging bias and hinting at bad faith. I've written this entire article, giving all sides that I can find. There is more information available about the campaign aspect, because that's what people are writing about, and several of the major sources believe there is a problem with the conviction. All we can do here is reflect what those sources are saying. If you have other sources you want to bring to the table to provide whatever you mean by "balance," please do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith and I apologise if that is how what I have said comes across. I have previously acknowledged and am glad to repeat my recognition of the huge improvements you have made to the article. The latest developments made me curious about the possible basis for the CCRC's preliminary findings so I spent a long time yesterday re-reading the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement and looking at more neutral sources that come to less confident conclusions than Woffinden such as 1 2 3 4. Coming back to the article it seemed much of it is based on the unquestioned acceptance of minority viewpoints or speculation. Neither the full contents of Bamber's submission to the CCRC nor their response to it are in the public domain yet. I don't think editors need to bring material "to the table" for negotiation before making changes but I think I recognise this situation and In accordance with WP:OWN I'll withdraw and take a fresh look in a week or two. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Two questions:

• How you are able to identify which is the minority viewpoint, and at what point in time, given that opinions have changed so much over the last 10 years or so?

• Exactly parts of it are based on unquestioned acceptance of those minority viewpoints? You say "much" of it. But almost all of it, before Section 9: Campaign to overturn the conviction, is based on material from the police and courts.

As for the bad-faith issue, your first comment to this page when I started writing it in August last year was that it was biased, and that was the header you used. Your next comment was that the lead was biased. In December you wrote that moving the title to White House Farm Murders—which was my suggestion, because this is not a bio—"might be interpreted as an attempt at distancing Bamber from the murders even while his conviction for them still stands, and thus part of a campaign." And now today we have the header Bias (II). So you'll forgive me for being a bit fed up. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this reply because I'd unwatched the page. It's true I've consistently expressed my view that the article is presently biassed towards the miscarriage of justice argument; I think also that - as with the odd prominence of Bob Woffinden - there are peculiar editorial judgements that detract from the better parts of the piece. Expressing and debating such opinions isn't only permitted on an article talk page, they are its very purpose. To react by becoming "fed up" is a little unreasonable I think, especially as I've also repeatedly acknowledged the improvements that you've made. To answer your specific points

• In this case, I take the minority viewpoint to be theories untested by proper scrutiny or advanced in opinion pieces and as parts of a campaign, especially where even if the basis of the viewpoint - Bamber's innocence - is the same, the justifications advanced for supporting it are markedly different.
• As I've already said, I think the most significant parts where bias exists are the most prominent when reading it - the article's lead and its conclusion; but throughout there are regular and confusing jumps from a chronological unfolding of events to a strange insistence on rival views, such as, "Police say they found Sheila on the floor of the master bedroom with her mother, though this was disputed in 2005 by Bamber's lawyers; see below." or "There was no blood on the feet (this was disputed in 2005 by the defence)" It's notable that even the sources that support the miscarriage of justice view don't usually do this; they provide a single narrative of how things initially unfolded before counterbalancing this with what they say has later emerged. Weaving two competing views throughout the article creates the impression that all the facts are contestable by the other side, no matter how unlikely this seems. It also makes for a confusing read. For instance, you justify including Woffinden's speculation about Sheila by suggesting it helps readers to understand the thrust of the campaign. I don't think that's true since the campaign does not (and does not have to) assert a single alternative scenario in order to establish a miscarriage. Meanwhile Woffinden's construction directly contradicts ballistic evidence reported unquestioned earlier in the article; rather than clarifying the argument it's a distracting volte-face.

In a similar way, under the main heading "White House Farm, 7 August 1985" you introduce material from the 2009 CCRC submission, using the subheading "Telephone log 1 (caller self-identified as Mr Bamber)". In this section you state, "it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm" which appears to be WP:OR since it isn't mentioned in your source. I assume your inference is that the White House Farm number adds weight to the idea of the call coming from there, but then you make no mention of the fact the log also includes the words "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead." which according to a source you use elsewhere suggests the call came from Jeremy. Doesn't the addition of your own comment adding weight to the miscarriage argument combined with the elision of a well sourced fact that detracts from it indicate a bias, however unconscious? Interleaving the miscarriage argument throughout the article in this way is why I first said last August that anyone wishing to insert more critical voices would now find it difficult to add them without completely disrupting the coherence of the piece. At that time I didn't know that a further obstacle would be the immediate reversion or over-writing of almost any amendments at all. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Noise from rabbits

Jeremy Bamber says that he heard rabbits outside. They must have been very noisy rabbits. The ones I have come across are very quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Conviction date

Date of conviction at Chelsford Crown Court is given as 18 October 1986. This falls on a Saturday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.87.177 (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Alistair, your changes seemed a little POV, and you removed some key issues. [3] [4] [5] Can you say what it is you want to achieve? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you missed my previous attempt to negotiate a more collaborative approach to this article, Slim. Hopefully the history of this page will clarify why I continue to resist your ownership of it. One thing I'm sure you will concede - because with prompting you have graciously agreed to rewrite your own contributions in the past - is the use of correct English. Is it permissible for me to suggest that the oversight of other editors might help to avoid sentences such as "Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, believed to be the only prisoner in the UK serving a whole-life tariff to do so." which you have just restored to the lead with the edit summary "was better before"? If you were kind enough to consider this kind of alteration (one reflecting the normal use of verbs and phrasing) perhaps then we could look at other things? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'd appreciate it if the incivility could stop, [6] [7] and if you could just explain your edits:

• you removed from the lead that he was the only whole-life prisoner to protest his innocence, which is surely interesting;
• added something instead about "shocking new evidence," which is out of date;
• removed the summary from The Times editorial—this sums up the case better than anything else I've seen, and it's a description no one disputes, not even the police; also, the very fact that The Times would devote an editorial to it is interesting in itself;
• removed the key issue of his sister's illness, but retained that she was unstable without explaining in what sense, or how crucial this was;
• added that crucial evidence was destroyed "as a result" of the police accepting Bamber's account—most of the sources say this was done because of incompetence, and the defence says for more sinister reasons; also, when you wrote that it was crucial, what did you have in mind?
• removed from the body parts of what the phone log said;
• moved references so they're not attached to the material they're supporting;
• added hyphens to mark a parenthesis, rather than the commas that were there, or dashes—a minor point but an odd thing to do.

Current lead (highlighted material rmvd by Alistair)

Alistair's edits

Jeremy Nevill Bamber (born 13 January 1961) was convicted in England in 1986 of having murdered five members of his adoptive family—his father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons—at his parents' home at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in the early hours of 7 August 1985. He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years, and in 1994 the Home Secretary ruled he must spend the rest of his life in jail. Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, believed to be the only prisoner in the UK serving a whole-life tariff to do so. The Times wrote that the case had all the ingredients of a classic whodunit: a massacre in the English countryside, overbearing parents, an unstable daughter, a scheming son, a jilted girlfriend, and bungling police. The police at first believed Bamber's sister, Sheila Caffell—diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder—had shot her family then turned the gun on herself. Her sons had been living with their father, but had been visiting the Bambers with Sheila when the killings occurred. According to Bamber, she feared she would lose custody of them; she also told a psychiatrist two years earlier that she thought the devil had taken her over. When an ex-girlfriend stepped forward weeks after the murders to say Bamber had implicated himself, the police view swiftly changed, though some of the forensic evidence had already been compromised or destroyed. The prosecution argued that, motivated by a large inheritance, Bamber had killed the family and placed the gun in his unstable sister's hands to make it look like a murder-suicide. A silencer the prosecution said was on the rifle when it was fired would have made it too long, they argued, for her fingers to reach the trigger to shoot herself. Bamber has several times asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer his case to the Court of Appeal; a referral in 2001 saw the conviction upheld. In 2004 and 2009, his defence team submitted what they said was new evidence to the CCRC, including a report from a photographic expert, who said that scratch marks on a mantelpiece—said to have been caused during a struggle for the gun—were not in the crime-scene photographs, but were visible only in photographs taken 34 days later. Their submissions also included the log of a phone call made to police on the night of the murders, during which a Mr Bamber said his daughter had gone "berserk," and had stolen one of his guns. Bamber had told police he had received a similar call from his father, but was unable to prove it; it became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it was that he was the killer himself. In February 2011 the CCRC provisionally rejected the latest submissions. Bamber's extended family have said they remain convinced of his guilt. Notes

Jeremy Nevill Bamber (born 13 January 1961) was convicted in England in 1986 of having murdered five members of his adoptive family—his father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons—at his parents' home at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in the early hours of 7 August 1985. He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years, and in 1994 the Home Secretary ruled he must spend the rest of his life in jail. Bamber has protested his innocence over the years, and has asserted that "shocking new evidence" will clear his name. The police at first accepted Bamber's account that his sister, Sheila Caffell, had shot her family then turned the gun on herself. As a result, crucial forensic evidence was compromised or destroyed. Responding to testimony subsequently offered by Bamber's relatives and girlfriend, police inquiries led to a successful prosecution which proved that Bamber - motivated by a large inheritance - had killed his family and placed the murder weapon in his unstable sister's hands to make the shootings look like a murder-suicide. A silencer that was on the rifle when it was fired would have made it too long, the Crown argued, for Sheila's fingers to reach the trigger in order to shoot herself. Bamber has several times asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to refer his case to the Court of Appeal; a referral in 2001 saw the conviction upheld. In 2004 and 2009, his defence team submitted what they said was sufficient evidence to overturn Bamber's conviction. The most recent submission included a report from a photographic expert who suggested that scratch marks on a mantelpiece— previously understood to have been caused during a struggle for the gun—were not in the crime-scene photographs, but were visible in photographs that he said were taken 34 days later. Bamber's application to the CCRC also included the log of a phone call made to police on the night of the murders, which recorded "Mr Bamber" reporting that his daughter had gone "berserk," having stolen one of his guns. Bamber had told police that he had received a similar call from his father, but was unable to prove it; it became a central plank of the prosecution's case that the father had made no such call, and that the only reason Bamber would have lied about it was that he was the killer himself. In February 2011 the CCRC provisionally rejected the latest submissions. Bamber's extended family have said they remain convinced of his guilt. Notes

Current "Telephone log 1" section (highlighted material rmvd by Alistair)

Alistair's edit

The police log of a telephone call that the defence team suggest was made by Nevill to a local police station at 3:26 a.m. on 7 August does exist (see image, right), and appears to have been entered as evidence at the trial, but it was not shown to the jury, or indeed seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004. The log is headed "daughter gone berserk," and says: "Mr Bamber, White House Farm, Tolleshunt d’Arcy—daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 years, has got hold of one of my guns." It also appears to say, "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after phone went dead." It goes on to say: "Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s," and it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm. The final text entry says "0356 GPO [the telephone operator] have checked phone line to farmhouse and confirm phone left off hook." If this telephone call was made by Nevill Bamber, it would confirm Bamber's story. The log shows that a patrol car, Charlie Alpha 7 (CA7), was sent to the scene at 3.35 am. Notes

The police log of a telephone call purporting to be from Nevill to a local police station at 3:26 a.m. on 7 August does exist (see image, right), and appears to have been entered as evidence at the trial, but it was not shown to the jury, or indeed seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004. The log is headed "daughter gone berserk," and says: "Mr Bamber, White House Farm, Tolleshunt d’Arcy—daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 years, has got hold of one of my guns." It also says: "Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410s," and it includes the telephone number 860209, which was the number at the time for White House Farm. If this telephone call was made by Nevill Bamber, it would confirm Bamber's story. The log shows that a patrol car, Charlie Alpha 7 (CA7), was sent to the scene at 3.35 am. Notes

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not "incivility" to query you, Slim. If you're offended by anything I've said I'd ask you to look through the archive of this talk page and examine for how long and how patiently I have attempted to rebalance the stance you've adopted. Your response here seems geared towards intimidation and conflict rather than resolving quite legitimate concerns with the issue of bias in this article. How would you react if I reverted every one of your most recent edits with the expectation that you justified them, wasting huge sections of the talk page to document changes already contained in the article's history?

• Even the source you rely on for the protest of innocence is not categoric about its veracity. It is a contention, not a fact, and does not belong in the lead, since nothing in the article expands on it. All it introduces is the idea that assertions made favouring the idea of a miscarriage are of equal weight to mainstream views examined, for instance, in court or contained within more reliable sources.
• "shocking new evidence," is a direct quotation from the sub-heading summarising the source upon which you rely and is a more accurate summary of what it contains. To say this formulation is out of date while continuing to use the source is a very strange position to hold. Far from being out of date, as detailed in the 2002 judgement Bamber's "defence team" has a history of claiming the existence of new evidence which subsequently proves to be of no value whatsoever. Your foregrounding of last year's phone log "discovery" illustrates the success of this approach in dramatically capturing short-term attention. The CCRC rejection of it indicates its actual value.
• You assert no one disputes the summary I removed from The Times. What evidence do you have that the police regard the case as a "classic whodunnit"? This sensationalistic form of words is a newspaper's recasting of events in an opinion piece, it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia; I would suggest your enthusiasm for it as something which "sums up the case better than anything else I've seen" indicates an emotional over-investment that is wholly out of place.
• Sheila Caffell's illness was crucial in affecting the readiness of the police to believe Bamber's account of what had happened, but her psychiatrist indicated at trial that it was not credible as a motivation for the murders. By giving such dominance to this factor in the lead you are being highly selective in what you cite and stigmatising issues of mental health in a tabloid style.
• The police account for the destruction of evidence is sensitivity to Bamber's feelings at a time when they perceived him as a victim. I agree sources do suggest this was incompetence but a less partial summary would make it clear that it was done as a result of belief in the account offered by Bamber himself. Your assertion that, "the defence says for more sinister reasons" speaks volumes about the suggestive, overly-dramatic and partial approach to the case which the article now reflects.

Except in the sense of attempting to wp:own this article, I am not accusing you of bad faith, Slim. I believe you are sincere in holding the position you have attempted to expound, but you must recognise it is not the middle ground. In a spirit of compromise and although it is not reliable as a source, I would ask you to read (or re-read) this account of the White House Farm Murders, simply to refresh your view from an alternative perspective. Coming back to the Wikipedia article from this account demonstrates how far the article you have written has strayed into supporting the contested view a miscarriage of justice has taken place.

Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Alistair, you believe he's guilty, so anything that doesn't support that appears POV to you. But I don't have a POV. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened.

Wikipedia has to reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources say, and all the high-quality news sources (Times, Guardian, Observer, Telegraph, etc) appear to support the miscarriage-of-justice hypothesis. Whether they'll do so after the CCRC confirms that it's rejecting the case remains to be seen. I expect there will be backtracking, and if there is, the tone of this article will change accordingly. The point is: we say what the sources say, and we highlight what they highlight. I've tried to steer a very careful course through the articles alleging a miscarriage, and the verdict of the court. Please note that the source I've used most is the 2002 appeal court summary.

The link in your post was to a personal weblog with just one post in it—and though clearly not in support of Bamber, even it suggests that the photographs may mean the conviction isn't safe. Why do you single out a blog post for special attention?

Also, can you explain why you removed the material I highlighted—for example, what the police log said, and that he's the only whole-life prisoner in the UK who protests his innocence? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're not disputing the ownership thing, something which I think has been an issue for you in the past. Polarising our positions by presuming to know not only my viewpoint but my response to all other viewpoints appears to be seeking conflict rather than resolution. The only opinion you can legitimately attribute to me is the one I have held and expressed since you began contributing to the article, which is that you have introduced bias. In the most categoric sense, Bamber is guilty, having been found to be such by a court, a conviction which has been examined and upheld twice. Coverage of developments in his campaign by newspapers and opinion pieces by supporters reflect a minority viewpoint and should be given due weight, not become the focus of the article, particularly not by the clumsy method you have adopted which is to counter every argument for guilt with a supposed argument against. To assert that the newspapers you mention "support a miscarriage-of-justice hypothesis" might be significant if it was true, but it isn't. Even The Times editorial is equivocal in its view of Bamber and was written in 2001. However it is not these "high quality news sources" to which the article gives most prominence, but two articles by Bob Woffinden in The Daily Mail. Whether the 2002 appeal was a source for you or not, as I have previously pointed out, in terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 hearing When I attempted to address this prominence in the most minor way three months ago you immediately reverted, as you have rejected almost all edits since August last year. Bland assurances about future changes do nothing to rectify current problems.

I gave my rationale for linking to a blog post when I suggested it to you, I explained the protest of innocence point above and detailed my issue with your account of the phone log here Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind replying to the questions, Alistair?

(a) Why are you highlighting this anonymous blog post over any other source?

(b) Why did you remove the details of the phone log? There is no point linking to a comment of yours from March; the question is why you removed the new details that were added recently.

(c) Why did you remove that he's the only whole-life prisoner who protests his innocence?

(d) Why did you remove that Bamber's sister, the first suspect, had been diagnosed with a schizo-affective disorder? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering whether you've read the article. Woffinden's view takes up very little space. His newspaper articles are used as references only four times that I can see. Most of the article reflects the view of the courts, and the most widely used source is the 2002 appeal transcript. See the Notes section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) I suggested you might wish to refresh your view from an alternative perspective, a perspective I fully acknowledged is not usable in the article so to suggest that I highlight it "over any other source" is disingenuous, especially as I offered it in a spirit of compromise. Coming back to the Jeremy Bamber article from this account demonstrates how far what you have written has strayed into supporting the contested view a miscarriage of justice has taken place

• But why a blog post, written on a blog with only one anonymous post? That's an odd source to be trusting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(b) The details added were not supported by a source, they are further instances of OR. It is not for an editor here to decide which are the significant aspects of a primary source. I note you have not answered the objection to OR that I made in March.

• Which details are not supported by a source? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(c) Even the source you rely on for the protest of innocence claim is not categoric about its veracity. It is a contention, not a fact, and does not belong in the lead, since nothing in the article expands on it. All it introduces is the idea that assertions made favouring the idea of a miscarriage are of equal weight to mainstream views examined, for instance, in court or contained within more reliable sources.

• Several sources say he's the only whole-life prisoner in the UK protesting his innocence. The sources highlight it because it's of obvious interest, and so we do the same. It's even been a DYK. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(d) Sheila Caffell's illness was crucial in affecting the readiness of the police to believe Bamber's account of what had happened, but her psychiatrist indicated at trial that it was not credible as a motivation for the murders. By giving such dominance to this factor in the lead you are being highly selective in what you cite and stigmatising issues of mental health in a tabloid style.

• Caffell's illness has been crucial throughout—to the police initially suspecting her, to the later police view that she was a convenient scapegoat, and to the current very prevalent view that she was indeed the killer. To remove it from the lead makes no sense whatsoever, because nothing makes sense without it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of word count Bob Woffinden's view almost equals that of the 2002 Court of Appeal hearing. The section devoted to his personal interpretation of the evidence is based on one feature in The Daily Mail and - to a large extent - his personal supposition not advanced at any formal hearing or as part of any appeal by Bamber. He features in 5 different sections of the article which also includes a photograph of him. This does not reflect his contribution to debate about Bamber in reliable sources, where he is not often mentioned.

Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's demonstrably false, not even close to true, that Woffinden's view equals that of the 2002 hearing. He doesn't have a section devoted to him anymore, and the 2002 appeal transcript has been the article's most widely used source for a long time. See the references section; please don't respond until you've read that. This is very time-consuming, and it's pointless if you haven't read the article and aren't familiar with the sources, so I'm sorry, but I can't keep replying to objections that are so clearly false. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How interesting to learn that you have now resolved the uncertainty you expressed here 3 months ago regarding identification of the minority viewpoint and have decided the "very prevalent view" is that Sheila Caffell committed the murders. It certainly will be interesting to see how you reshape your article to reflect Bob Woffinden's latest decision that Bamber is, in fact, guilty. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)