Talk:Eloise Worledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Portal	Eloise Worledge is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

When is someone declared legally dead? i think putting presumed dead would be appropriate - there seems to be little doubt that she has been dead for thirty years. PMA 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As a doctor and medicolegal specialist from Australia, I feel uniquely qualified to answer this. She's dead when a doctor examines her body and says that she's dead. So far as we're aware, her body is in a place unknown to the authorities. It's conceivable that she's been certified dead elsewhere or under a different name but of course there's no way to make the connection. Failing that, if the coroner or Supreme Court says that she's dead, then she's dead. Neither has done so to my knowledge. Ergo, she's still legally alive. It would be permissible to state that she's probably dead, based on past outcomes from missing children cases, and indeed I'd put money on it. If she's not dead, then she's been raised under a new name, not knowing the truth. - Richardcavell 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theories

There is talk in the article, or speculation really, on who may be responsible. Mr. Stinky and Mr. Cruel are mentioned. I think this talk is meaningless as there is no credible theory indiciating either of these two individuals being responsible, it just seems to be someone idly speculating, and I reckon it should be removed. Any comments before I do so? --Commking 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing myself when I saw it. I'd get rid of their names. Mr Cruel is an unknown person, while the only reason to suspect Mr Stinky is that he's a paedophile (one of thousands). - Richardcavell 02:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - It's gone. Any other views welcome. --Commking 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)