Talk:Bradley John Murdoch

earlier comments

The article implies residence in Southern Australia is somehow different from residence in other parts of Australia. Is this surprising information true? I always un derstood you either have residency in a whole country, or you don't, SqueakBox 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The crime occured in the Northern Territory. Perhaps the contributor wanted to emphasise the nationwide scope of the police search for a suspect? -- Longhair | Talk 23:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

South Australia is a State, if you didnt know. Its akin to mentioning that a murder committed in California was done by a man from Texas.

Perhaps in Early Life section it should read muccal swab, not buccal swab

Not sure when this comment was left, and the article seems to have changed but buccal swab is the correct term. There isn't such a thing as a muccal swab. There is I guess such a thing as a mucosal swab, although I don't think that term is used very often and it's not the best idea if you just want to do DNA testing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Prosecution/defence evidence

Surely all this stuff should be merged into the Peter_Falconio_disappearance article? It's about the trial, not the individual. Flapdragon 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article reads less as a biography of Bradley Murdoch than as a faintly veiled continuation of the conspiracy theories surrounding Peter Falconio's death. Unless this happens with each and every trial in which evidence is presented and disputed, I feel the evidence/counter-evidence section should be either removed entirely, or tempered to make it more even-sided. At present it reads as a defence rebuttal against Joanne Lees' character, who has not been charged, tried or convicted of any crime. Wikipedia should be very careful about seeming to retry a case based on hearsay and flimsy conjecture.

I have just removed a large amount of text from this biography. Claims were made about the case with no reference to any sources. Further statements were made about recent Northern Ireland (?) judicial developments, again with no citation. Please refer to the rules on Wiki biographies and provide citation for the remaining text. I think I have been generous to leave the rest of it in place. There is plenty out there about Ms Lees interviews, etc. Like the contributor above, I immediately thought "conspiracy theories" when I read this article and I am glad I am not alone in this perspective.

Parody

There seems to be way too much info on the Murdoch parody. A short mention, if at all, would do. Georgeslegloupier 14:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay no problems. I only mentioned it to give it balance. So that the article as a whole conforms to NPOV. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that's an ironic statement. Georgeslegloupier 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the parody section as it adds very little to the article. A radio parody on Triple J just isn't notable enough to spend so many words on. Lisiate 03:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

relevance

"He stands 196cm tall." As far as I'm concerned, his height is not relevant at all to anything.--Alhutch 10:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that he was described by Joanne Lees, and he ended up being a good 20 cm taller than what she said, I think that it is relevant. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it says that anywhere in the article. Perhaps that could be mentioned. I was just pointing it out because it seems like a non-sequitir where it's located now.--Alhutch 11:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess 196cm tall is a distinguishing feature you wouldn't forget and is impossible to conceal. ... Stumps 11:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the controversy regarding Joanne Lees' description of him, it is important for this article to detail precisely what he really looks like. Remember that Joanne Lees described him as a man in his mid-20s, with long straight black hair and a handlebar moustache that came down below his chin, and she did not mention anything about him not having any front teeth, and also described him as being between 170 and 175 cm tall. She described his dog as being a cattle dog like a blue heeler (it is actually a dalmation) and she described his truck totally wrong. Whilst he was convicted, these are things that people are always going to question. The fact that he looks nothing like what Joanne Lees' described of her attacker is relevant, and hence listing such things as his height is also relevant. Remember that he was a suspect because he might have been in Barrow Creek at the time - not because of his appearance. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited material

I have removed a large chunk of this article due to violations of WP:BLP. The subject of this article is a living person (being in prison does not lessen our obligations under that policy). The material I removed consisted of a long explanation of his arrest and trial and evidence used, with no citations provided which related that material to this article subject.

Also part of that content which I removed was a referenced bit talking about one of the DNA techniques used to identify the perpetrator, and how its reliability was questioned in the UK. This could conceivably be included in the article if the unreferenced material is re-added with citations, however in light of the material I have removed, its presence right now in the article would be redundant.

The final piece of content which I removed from the article was information about another crime which occurred near Carnarvon; the references which were provided about this did not even mention Murdoch. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation and the formation of conspiracy theories. If a reference can be found showing how that crime is relevant to Bradley John Murdoch, then perhaps this would be relevant to his article, but otherwise it should stay out, in my opinion.

Anyway, when adding back information about Murdoch's trial, citations should really be provided for everything. - Mark 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say Mark. Well done. —Moondyne click! 01:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too, and I added at least one of the deleted references. I had left the other crime stuff in as I wondered if there had been other news coverage I had missed that linked the new crime to Murdoch in some sense. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link to commercial site

Can we please consider removing the link "Did Bradley Murdoch murder Peter Falconio? December 2007"

This links to a commercial website owned by someone called S.C Lomax which promotes his books. The link takes visitors to the "Did Bradley Murdoch murder Peter Falconio?" page. This page contains serious inaccuracies that render the source incredible. Sintch (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)