Talk:Disappearance of Don Banfield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verifying references

@Classic Middlesex: Can you lay your hands on a copy (or a web access) of the Times article referenced at Cite 16 in the article? I can't access it: Fiona Hamilton, "Justice catches up with murderous wife and daughter", 4 April 2012, page 15. I'd like to verify the statement used in the article cited to The Times. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Classic Middlesex: Never mind. We have access to the Dale Times Archive via Wikipedia Libary and so I was able to retrieve and review the article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes sorry, I am terrible at remembering notifications once I've already clicked off them. Classic Middlesex (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(no content)

h79.67.113.83 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

79.67.113.83, if you vandalise the article again you will get blocked. Legal threats such as this: [1] will also get you blocked. Stop now unless you want your access to Wikipedia revoked from your address (which, by the way, all editors can see). Classic Middlesex (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Shirley Banfield (criminal)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shirley Banfield (criminal) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Shirley Banfield (criminal) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shirley Banfield (cricketer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Murder of Don Banfield → Disappearance of Don Banfield – While there was a murder conviction, the conviction was quashed, and I'm not really sure that this is wise to keep framed as a murder from a WP:BLP perspective. There were certainly suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, including the two people initially convicted of murder admitting to fraud that's related to the disappearance and the lawyer admitting that it was likely that either Shirley or Lynette killed Don, but I don't like the phrase "murder" absent a valid conviction. WP:COMMONNAME might go against this (and is reasonable, given that this is how it was widely covered), but I think that the WP:CRITERIA (namely precision) would support this move. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disclaimer, I am very much on the "let common name win" side of the crime naming policy by default, and I presume the incident is still referred to as a "murder" even post-conviction quashing. More generally, "is there an active conviction y/n" is not the only question to me - we should look at why the conviction was quashed. It was not quashed because evidence surfaced that Banfield was actually alive, but rather question over whether the highly controversial "joint enterprise" style conviction was valid. Nobody thinks there's any chance Banfield is actually alive (I'm sure he's been declared legally dead) so my very very very distant second choice would be Death of Don Bansfield if there's truly a desire to avoid the term "Murder", but I think "murder" is fine on common name basis regardless. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  @SnowFire:, given that there is a difference between murder and killing, would you be OK moving this to "Killing of Don Banfield"? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion about "Death of" vs. "Killing of", they seem about the same in this particular case. SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - we don't generally call something a murder if there's no extant conviction, and I think this is probably a BLP issue too, given that the individual initially convicted of murder was later quashed. Probably best to call it a disappearance rather than a killing too, since in theory he might not even be dead.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Per above, I think it's important to consider the reason that the conviction was quashed. The prosecution essentially said "one of these two people did it, or maybe both of them, but we're not sure about the details, so let's throw them both in prison." The jury agreed that this was accurate and convicted. The appeals court (correctly) said this wasn't good enough, that the prosecution's case needed to make sure that an innocent person wasn't being imprisoned as well merely because they might have done it (and definitely collaborated on the fraud afterward). But that doesn't overturn the basic facts of the case, which are that Don Banfield was murdered, and a jury agreed with that, and doubt on that aspect wasn't the reason the conviction was quashed, but rather the whole "joint enterprise" theory of not having to work out the details. Also, if we're being very strict about hewing to the legal definition of "murder", that implies we might want to be strict about the legal definition of "death" too which can include being declared dead (and thus not "disappeared"). I don't think we should do either of those, but just throwing that out there as a thought. SnowFire (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The appeal court's accepted that he's dead and was murdered. I've looked for an inquest – sometimes re-opened after an acquittal – but found no sign that one was re-opened after the quashing. The appeal judgment seems to be quoted in full here; that does match the extracts in news reports. That doesn't reconsider whether or not he's dead and was murdered. Towards the end, it lists "five postulations as to what might have explained the death, lucidly set out by" the appellants' QC that one or both killed him; by that point "the death" is not in question and the appellants' QC has "accepted that the likelihood is that one or other appellant murdered DB". NebY (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr Clegg KC states a VERY different point of view in his best selling book "under the wig " published in 2018 EVIDENCE omitted! here!

This article is incomplete and not up to date!.... There was never any inquest . Mr banfield had debts over £50,000 and "tangled"financial problems,

drew down £30,000 just before he disappeared

he was seen by local police in person prior to his "disappearance" and

was subsequently allegedly seen driving his car by a local police officer AFTER his "murder" (Sources appeal court documentation) and

Mr William Clegg KC and judge published a legally and critically acclaimed best selling book in 2018

having played a central role in the trial he was able to make some things clear

• 1*The defence HAD to concede that Don had been murdered for pragmatic reasons on appeal because the jury had made a finding of "guilty"

• 2*EVEN if the jury believed that the accused were guilty, there were various different ways in which this could have been achieved.
• 3* That's NOT saying that ANY actually happened, just to explain that no logical conclusion of guilty could be achieved.

• 4* Even if The jury thought, on what was in his opinion an incredibly thin "open and shut case" of innocent, that the accused were guilty they STILL couldn't logically decide what had happened and whether both were involved.

• 5* The 3 judges findings were that the trial judge shouldn't have ever allowed trial to continue

because of insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution "no LOGICAL" jury could have made a finding of guilt

• 6* The 5 alternatives are designed by the defence to show the fallacy of the prosecution case. It is not an admission of guilt, rather a legal argument, as per Mr Clegg (leading counsel)

• 7*Mr Clegg KC states VERY convincingly and clearly, that having seen all the evidence presented, and most importantly no longer actually acting in the capacity of defence at the time of publication (2018)( 6 years on from the trial) that

in his legal opinion... Mr Banfield may not actually even have been killed at all.

It's terrible that it's been excluded the article is inaccurate incomplete information and not up to date information omitted

I have been bullied, trolled and had things implied about me and my comments, other people that challenged the article narrative were also attacked and disregarded but that just demonstrates the bias here, why hide it?or try SO hard to discredit a different position that it's omitted?These are documented facts.Sorry for my poor command of the English language,I've just tried to put some facts for a more balanced view. Say.. imply what you will..these are undesputed facts and this article doesn't stand up

I personally am unable to read any of the relevant text from Google Books (I don't have a preview for the chapter entitled "murder without a body", which I presume is the relevant one here) , so I can't confirm sourcing on what the IP is suggesting. I understand that Clegg sought a legal argument to get around the jury verdict in a way that didn't contest the presence of a murder, and that this is not logically inconsistent with not being certain of a murder, but if you could provide the exact quote from the book it would be nice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have answered this question!extracts ARE readily available online,and cover most of this.. but my reply was deleted strangely!..happened to someone who tried to change the article narrative as well!..So I won't take it personal..But if you look you'll find my answer below, and direct quote extracts from the ebook as requested (£4.99) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.9.94 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Under the wig extracts from the best selling book re this case EVIDENCE

Under the wig extracts from this book

written by William Clegg KC and judge

readily available online if you use "Google books" VERY easy to access and find bizarre that you can't?
Google William Clegg "under the wig"

If it doesn't pop up if you write "Don banfield" in the "go to" search, just keep scrolling after doing that it comes up

it does cover the relevant section as a preview for free!..But  it's  just £4.99 to purchase completely as an e book, unlike some of the subscriptions needed for articles!  it's  a  bestseller too!

Mr William Clegg KC and judge Under The Wig (October 2018)

Pg169/170 "one day he had gone to his local police station

oddly perhaps for someone apparently in fear of his life, Trinidadian-born Mr Banfield went home from the station to continue living with his wife and daughter in Wealdstone, London

"perhaps because he had previously vanished from the West Indies without warning or forwarding address, and telling friends of his desire to disappear, detectives were somewhat sceptical about his claims that Shirley wanted to do away with him. Nonetheless , shortly after he visited the police station Mr Banfield did disappear"

Page 171 I and Lynette Banfield's legal teams believed it was an open and shut case

page 171 the sale of the family home, which would have realised a £120,000 profit, which he intended to split with his wife. After he vanished his share remained untouched." The prosecution had no body and no actual time, place or mechanism of death. Not only was there no proof that Mr Banfield was dead, there were several tantalising hints that he was in fact alive, including a number of sightings, one of which came from a policewoman"

page172/173

despite the prosecution case being wholly circumstantial, the jury found both guilty.Although there was no concession that he had been killed by someone at trial. So pragmatically, at the appeal we accepted Mr Banfield was murdered. However accepting that didn't help the prosecution case

"The only motive they could have had was to take his share of the house sale, but his share had not been touched"

Page173/174 "The judges also took the view that the judge had been wrong not to stop the trial at the end of the prosecution case. I have no idea who killed Mr Banfield, if he was killed. He might still be alive"

More up to date information omitted from this article

Mr Clegg KC and judge under the wig published October 2018 (canburypress.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.9.94 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Beautiful Rosie

@Beautiful Rosie: I removed your edit because other editors have surmised that you possibly have a conflict of interest issue with this page and because your edit appeared very much like a personal commentary, such as comments like "somehow the jury in the original trial had found them guilty on the basis that it was joint venture" and the fact that all of the content you added was in favour of the defence. There was an apparent neutral point of view issue. Much of the content you added was also of poor presentation style. Please do not, therefore, attempt to unilaterally restore the content without discussion, as the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus to include disputed content. Furthermore, please do not pick out edits from my edit list on other unrelated pages and revert them for unexplained reasons, as you did here: [2] ErraticDrumlin (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello replied to you on your talk page immediately. I'm sorry if that was incorrect, or you didn't see?. I dont think there is any blp problem now. I think there is when you delete any other view, so only one remained. Genuinely think it is more balanced, and neutral point of view as a whole as all arguments are incorporated, both of which are obviously extremely opposed. The sockpuppet presented the prosecution arguments as facts, lying by omission. the defence differ in their opinion. Most people like all facts about something, the legality is explanatory, and then the judges findings. Everything is , as part of the case, and brought into it as a whole, incl judges findings.please stop reverting, maybe you could make it all read better and work with all info about this. Sorry about the whole ping thing, I didn't realise what that means.and the whole going to your article thing.very sorry. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it did stand for about a month before, parts were adjusted and deleted during this. Most people seem to like more verifiable info,not less in order to be npov and understand it esp when it comes to a complex legal case. Thanks for taking the time to look at this again. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Beautiful Rosie (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that my additions have merit, in particular the judges findings, in addition to the complete defence arguments. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

would it be ok to restore the article including the judges findings, and all sides relected, esp as there was no blp violation that you could find, and no-one had any issue for a month and even deleted, amended etc?I'm not trying to be disruptive, just facts, and fairness.I have attempted to engage erratic in the talk page, but now they've got their oppression of all the facts, and attacked me, and speculated as to who I am they're happy and have disengaged. They've deleted everything again. No discussion Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2023 Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Slow down, @User:Beautiful Rosie. The short answer to your question is no, it would not be OK to restore the contested content you want to include. Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, i.e., you. I have disputed the inclusion of your content, and opened a talk page discussion to discuss and explain why. You now need to discuss and try and achieve a consensus for inclusion, which currently you do not have. So, you cannot restore this content at this stage. Let me explain why I object to this content. Firstly, the fact that other users have surmised that you may have a conflict of interest on this topic: [3]. You yourself have confirmed (belatedly, and in an edit summary) that you have a personal connection to this case [4]. The content you are trying to add is exclusively in favour of the defence in this criminal case, and so together with the conflict of interest there is an apparent neutral point of view issue here. Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view. That leads on to my next point. Much of the content you wish to add is referenced to a book by one of the defence lawyers. You may well have referenced it correctly, but the defence lawyer is always going to be in favour of the defence. As the phrase goes, "he would say that wouldn't he". Therefore, I object to using this as an unquestionable source of facts, or for quoting his opinions as facts, as you did for example with the lede points: " there was absolutely no evidence supporting any of those scenarios " and " even assuming any were correct, there was no evidence as to which one It was". "Somehow the jury in the original trial had found them guilty on the basis that it was joint venture". Clegg's book can absolutely be mentioned, perhaps in an "aftermath" section or something similar, with a brief (neutral) overview of what the book said. But with the context and your conflict of interest issue, it should not be used to 'verify' things in the way you have done. Additionally, the presentation of the content you added was very poor, and not professional enough for an article. There are far too many inappropriate capital letters, spaces, or lack of spaces between words and quotation marks, some examples of which you can see in the quotes above. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you! Sorry, it was a general question to neutral people. Probably better that Someone disinterested looks at this again. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to the claim that I am not a "neutral" editor. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

While I don't see the relevance of a properly declared COI to this conversation, the rest is accurate. A WP:BIASED source is usable but without other reliable sources supporting, it should not be incorporated into Wiki-voice. And please limit comments to content, not editors. Slywriter (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

you're right and I've apologised to the editor involved.Look, I think there's a danger that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,Firstly, I apologise, I lost all sense of perspective. I really am very sorry, I genuinely thought you were someone else. It was wrongful, and as I said before I withdraw everything I said. I got it very wrong. I was upset following you suggesting who I was irl, and I was worried. I'm sorry for everything. Following that, you remarked that you wished to continue to engage,in order to improve the article, just to let you know that I've added to the talk page some ideas. I disagree that Mr Clegg is not a verifiable source, but I think that your idea to summarise his perspective as told in his best selling book of 2018 is a really good idea, I think you called it the aftermath?, not as independent facts, but as his perspective. His views are currently misrepresented, his concession of possible guilt was an appeal argument, at trial there was no such concession given. Also I think the the 3 judges thoughts and decision-making process as summarised (more succinctly then I did )by another editor has value. It was reported by court reporters in the Harrow Times and a local London paper. Finally, the background information, regarding debts of £50,000 and tangled financial problems were agreed upon by both the defence and the prosecution. It isn't contested. It is in the court papers. It has proven to be

evidence to be considered by the court.Also, The doctors evidence, and witness statements are misrepresented in the article as it currently stands.

I apologise for getting so heated.I really am sorry. I misunderstood your intentions, and I felt under attack when you suggested who you thought I may be. It was wrongful. Thank you for your fairness and for saying you are prepared to engage. If you would rather not, I will contact someone else regarding these issues of blp, because you've reverted my contributions I think it's fair that you are party to the negotiation. If you have since decided that you don't wish to engage with me directly or through a mediator (as the kind person suggested in the noticeboard, there is always a way forwards) but I understand if you've since decided to withdraw. I'm sorry I got it so wrong, but you're right and Wikipedia has to get it right. Also, some of the information in the current article don't reflect the sources cited accurately, and some are completely contradicted but other equally verifiable sources.What is the usual procedure there? because it isn't as simple as just removing all my contributions, the sockpuppet has had a large amount of input too. If I don't hear back, I take it you're withdrawing from all development of this article, even via the use of a mediator, which is completely understandable. Thanks for taking the trouble to look at it previously, I'm sure it'll be to it's benefit ultimately.As the editor said, there's always a way forwards. Maybe a fresh set of eyes on it all.I'll seek advice for this.I'm sorry that I lost all sense of perspective regarding this. Thank you for your input. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a negotiation. Wikipedia is driven by consensus of what is covered in reliable sources, with a preference towards verifiable secondary sources.

Given the COI and previous challenge to your edits, the best path is laying them out on this talk page with the sources that support the change/addition/removal. Section by section may be the best way if there are large changes, so that good material doesn't get lost in discussion about contenious material.

Conclusions drawn from the Court papers may be considered WP:OR, if they are not supported by other independent reliable sources. The same for the book by an involved attorney. Some of it may be valid text with attribution, but unless independent sources discuss a point, it is unlikely it will be usable in Wiki-voice as an unquestioned statement.

None of this is to say your concerns are invalid or being ignored(they may even be 100% correct), just that there is a process here and following it will improve the article with minimal stress for everyone. Slywriter (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that so concisely. Its much appreciated, Thank you. The court papers are already largely relied upon for this article as a primary source, so my contributions came from the exact same place, plus a couple of newspapers that relied on court reporters. Anyway, I'll start looking at this again, and I'll be guided by your comments. They make a lot of sense. Thanks so much. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)