Talk:Soham murders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to crime in the United Kingdom. For guidelines see WikiProject British crime and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

The contents of Ian Huntley were merged into Soham murders and they now redirect here. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history; for its talk page, see here

Talk Page Archives

[edit] Proposed Neutrality Check

I found quite a bit of emotive tone in this article, particularly in the introductory section. Is it possible for this article to be refined on the basis of the courts' findings of fact, with reference to a copy of that document or relevant news articles if available.

Probably most of my concerns can be addressed if more references can be given. Matt.hatton 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police Investigation

Why is there nothing on the police investigation in this article? I'll write something when I get a chance.

[edit] Article name

I wonder if the best article name for this topic would be Soham murders with Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr as well as Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman all redirecting to that article? Or are separate articles more appropiate? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:12, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) [This comment made whilst the bulk of the article was Ian Huntley. Page consequently moved to satisfaction of Pcb21, Morwen and Evercat]

There is nothing notable about any of them in isolation - I agree with your suggestion. Morwen 22:15, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Good page move, was thinking this myself. Would prefer Soham murders of 2002, there may have been others for all I know... Evercat 22:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

None that are well known, so I've moved the page to Soham murders. If there are others, we can always have Soham murders (disambiguation)... As for where to put the material, I think a number of separate articles wold be good. There are facts about each of the people involved that aren't directly relevant to the murders. -- Oliver P. 01:39, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also though that since articles are generally names of something, Soham murders of 2002 was just a better name. But it's all good, I guess. I would prefer all info to be consolidated here, though - the only reason any of these people are encyclopedia-worthy is the murders... Evercat 01:41, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, they're only in here because of the murders, but why someone is in here is a separate question from how the information on them is best organised. I agree that the information on the murders and investigations and so on should be consolidated in this article (until it gets too unwieldy, anyway), but a lot of background information on the people (mostly Huntley, of course) has been turning up which I think is easier understood if laid out in chronological order in biographical articles rather than in the order in which the information came to light. -- Oliver P. 03:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Criminal background checks

Could we make a link for the UK's background check system & write an article about it? -- Tarquin 17:48, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There probably ought to be an article on the UK Criminal Records Bureau and its associated problems (not all its own fault it must be emphasised :-). Phil 11:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

"There was also considerable concern about the police investigation into these murders. It took nearly two weeks before the police became aware of previous sexual allegations against Ian Huntley, and despite him being the last person to see either of the two children, his story was not effectively checked out early during the investigation." I'm going to investigate this further, but I'm pretty sure that it was not nearly two weeks at all, and Huntley was investigated early in the inquiry, and continued to be throughout. Chris

[edit] Name confusion

Phil asked me the following in my talk, and I thought my response was best posted here: Could you put the link to the news about the Huntley/Nixon name confusion somewhere clickable? Maybe that information should also be restored to somewhere on Wikipedia: it is after all part of the ongoing story. Phil 11:43, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Phil. I'm a firm believer in an encyclopedia detailing facts, and given the conflicting reports about whether there was a mix-up because of the two names, it seems that the facts have got rather lost in the media frenzy to apportion blame and tie up all loose ends in the few days before the story falls out of the news. I added the bit on the Data Protection Act interpretation because Humberside police have stated that publicly so that is a matter of recorded fact. The Blunkett inquiry should find whether there were any name mix-ups and whether they were significant so this article can evolve as the inquiry progresses. Spellbinder 16:32, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Understood. However the story about the alleged mixup is part of the ongoing story of the murders. At this stage it's difficult to decide what might be the final outcome: my feeling is that the article should report the process of investigation, and refer to the confusion over whether both names were investigated or not. Hence my request for the reference to your source of information. Phil 16:49, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Phil, the link is in the comment from where I removed the text. It's http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/12/week_3/17_huntley.html, the relevant part being "We now understand that Humberside were using a computer system which automatically deleted old records. When they searched the computer under the names Ian Huntley and Ian Nixon, which he had also been known as, nothing came up. Anything which had come up would not have revealed the sexual nature of the offences." I take your point about the issue being part of the process, and I've no objection to you adding it into the article. I did think of trying to modify the name mix-up text myself rather than remove it; the problem is it's hard to do without making a big thing about a minor point and we have to remember that the ultimate purpose of WP articles is to convey information to readers who might know nothing about the topic. I wanted to add the fact that Huntley also used the name of Nixon because his mother had reverted to her maiden name after the break-up of her marriage to Huntley's father (rather than as any attempt to disguide his identity) but couldn't think of a way to work it into the text without digressing into another minor point which didn't add much to a reader's understanding. So I sacrificed that. It's back to what I described in my talk to you as "my favourite activity of trying to make an article look as though it's not been designed by committee"; we should strive to give the reader a coherent article giving all the salient facts on the subject without overwhelming them with a rag-bag of facts that wikipedians have added just because they happened to know them. Hope that explains where I'm coming from. Spellbinder 17:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Bichard Inquiry

I've restructured the article a bit and added the news about the Inquiry. This might well deserve its own article at some point. I have been unable to locate the date for when the Inquiry was instituted so I've quoted when David Blunkett announced it. I've also located the official website. Phil 11:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

There should be a lot more about the part Westwood and Inglis played in this. Westwood ordered the destruction of the Humberside Police criminal records on child molesters. Inglis was chairman of the Police authority and defended Westwood. Inglis is an alleged child abuser who is due up in court again in the next few weeks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2255134,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/5145492.stm

[edit] Police Reform Act 2002

I've added the political response to Bichard's report. It was also claimed that Bichard was close to Blunkett after working with him at the Department of Education. Anecdota

[edit] Missing white woman syndrome

If you intend to revert my additions to this article, please read Missing white woman syndrome article and explain how my additions are revert-worthy. The Soham Murders are a classic example of such a phenomenon, and as such the link is encyclopaedic and important. Your thoughts welcome Jdcooper 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll resist reverting again, for now, but I think the addition is inappropriate, simply because I've yet to see any indication that the coverage of the Soham murders are in any way indicative, let alone a "classic example", of Missing white woman syndrome.

There is nothing on the Soham murders page to indicate inordinate media coverage of the case, and nothing on the Missing white woman syndrome relating specifically to Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman (other than a link which you added, and which appears incongruous with the topic).

• It seems to me that the way the "syndrome" is described is much more typical of the United States than the United Kingdom - see, for example, Missing_white_woman_syndrome#Stages_of_the_news_cycle.

• I think it remains to be shown that a case involving missing ten year olds of any race or either gender would attract any less attention in the British media.

• It also remains to be shown that reporting of the Soham case displaced "reporting on other current events that some people consider more newsworthy, such as economics and politics."

It wouldn't particularly surprise me if you were able to make a good case for any or all of the above - but I do think it's important to do so, in either article, if these pages are to remain mutually linked.

It is hardly surprising that the disappearance of two young girls should attract so much media attention in Britain, where crimes such as the Soham murders are relatively rare. If you think that the reporting of the case was disproportionate to the importance of the events, then I think it's important that you demonstrate that before you add what otherwise appears to be an irrelevant link.

I have little doubt that Missing white woman syndrome is a genuine phenomenon - I can easily believe that a case of a missing / murdered white girl would attract more media attention in particular areas of the American media than a similar case involving a missing / murdered black boy, and that such cases might be used to detract coverage from important political stories.... all of which seems quite deplorable. However, it does not help us to understand the phenomenon of Missing white woman syndrome if such criticism is applied indiscriminately to any and all incidents involving missing white females, with no attempt to show that a connection actually exists. TheMadBaron 21:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair play, at the moment I am unable to do the necessary research and external links due to being very busy in my actual life, at some point I will provide reference material for all that stuff, but at the moment I'm content to leave this article as describing the bullshit "noteworthy singularity" that the Daily Mail tried to make out it was. I agree with your insistence that such a classification requires some kind of clarification within the article. Jdcooper 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bearing in mind it was two murders and not one, I think the coverage was about proportional to the coverage of the murder of Damilola Taylor -- Dandelions nli

[edit] Merge

Ian Huntley should be merged with this pageas he is only notable for this crime.--Lucy-marie 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that if fictional television characters can have pages of their own then so should these girls have a page seperate from Huntley's.--Cosmic_quest 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some fictional characters are more famous than "these girls" as you put it. If you can justify thier importance outside the context of the murder and connection with Huntley then by all means then thay should have a seperate page. Take Bart Simpson he is world famous and yet is fictional so has his own page. These girls are known only in the UK and are generally not talked about frequently any more. This is why Bart Simpson who is fictional has his own page and these giurls are being considered for merging.--Lucy-marie 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you Lucy-marie, though it's worth noting that the crime and the victims are quite well-known outside the UK. I was in France at the time, and the story was the first or an early item on every TV news broadcast for several days, and it still crops up there now and again. However, you general point is correct: Bart is much more famous in France. Emeraude 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have to agree with lucy marie so i say that the article should be merged.--Jjamesj 11:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this two articles one on holly and jessica and the one on ian should be separate. they tell two different stories and are sufficient in facts.--90.225.121.21 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It should merge. We only need one article about the Soham murders. Chwyatt 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also in favour of the merge with Ian Huntley. LiPollis 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

General consensus seem to be for merging of the two articles.--Lucy-marie 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Blunkett/Police Reform Act

In the section "The Police Reform Act 2002" (in itself, probably a misnamed section) there are several references to David Blunkett that seem to me to have no justified place in this article, though they quite properly should be in the David Blunkett article. To itemise:

1. "The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police, Tom Lloyd, whose appointment in June 2002 had been approved by Blunkett...." Seeing as ALL chief constable appointments are approved by the incumbent Home Secretary, is this clause relevant?

2. Final sentence, on Blunkett's resignation. This had absolutely nothing to do with this case or the aftermath, and should not be in this article.

In addition the first paragraph could do with a rewrite for clarity.

I don't believe any of this is controversial so I will make the changes I've suggested; please let me know if you disagree. Emeraude 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

The Maxine Carr article and this article should be merged as Carr is only known in relation to this case and the only reason the tabloid press went bananas regarding her was in relation to this case. Without the full merging of the Maxine Carr article important information will be lost and the Maxine Carr article cannot establish notability without this case.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxin Carr is notable in her own right.Chump Manbear (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According to what sources?--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plenty, try looking. Object to any merger, her coverage has continued well after the murders. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please can you provide a few of the "plenty" sources to back up your claims.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For the debate regarding Ian Huntly please see here the page was merged correctly and was not just one users opinion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge I agree. Huntley and Carr should be merged with the Soham Murders article. There's a lot of duplication of content and things are already getting out of sync. rrcatto (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corpse found on the same day as the murder

I seem to recall that later on in the same day that the two girls went missing, the body of a man was found on a railway line near their homes in an apparent suicide. I think it was later discovered to be an unrelated incident, and was just a terrible coincidence. But surely this was considered in the police investigation, as the man was a prome suspect at the time. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but surely it is relevant to the section on the murders, as it shows that Huntley was not the only suspect in the investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split of Huntly

I do not believe that the article should be split as I do not believe that substantial new sources have arisen proving the notability of Ian Hutly outside of the context of this article is notable. This is epitomized in the section titled "Huntlys Trial" which is all about Huntly being on trial for these murders. He has not committed any other high profile murders such as this double murder and is inextricably linked to this article. The article was also correctly merged and the discussion can be found here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Nicholls

Aaron Nicholls should, if he merits a mention on Wikipedia at all, get a brief mention here and not have his own article. If Ian Huntley no longer has his own page I can't see that Nicholls is notable enough for one. It is difficult to find anything about him at all on the internet - there is one online report of his crime that I can find, and he only seems to have come to brief public attention for the Huntley connection.Unlikelyheroine (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree that he does not warrant his own page and should only be mentioned in this article in a very small way.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)