Talk:Killing of Rachel Nickell

Untitled

The dates don't quite match with newspaper reports which talk about her son, Alex, being 2 years 11 months at the date she was murdered.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.92.101 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I changed the name as the article is now about 3 people, Stagg, Napper and Rachel, the form,er 2 names have now been redirected here. Plus this is standard for UK cases. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Further moved to Rachel Nickell murder case to remain consistent with other WP murder articles.--12 Noon 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You should have had the discussion first here before you moved the article - the original article I wrote contained all three names, and I named it in convention with the victim NOT the murder: I hope no one else does the same again. There is much more to go on Robert Napper, and if he is proved to be the Green Chain Murderer then his story will run and run - and it will need a seperate article. The Sally Anne Bowman case goes to trial in January 2008, so this article will need adjusting again whatever happens to Napper re Rachel Nickell. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It did not contain Robert Napper's name as that was only released this morning at which point Colin Stagg was a red link in this article. I think it was a good bold call in reaction to a significant update of news around this case, and I felt that it was important to move quickly on this one. When and if Napper gets a separate article will be the time to discuss any issues that might bring though, and there is certainly no reason to have an article about him now. What has Sally Anne Bowman got to do with this case? Thanks, SqueakBox 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Contempt of court?

Does the background info on Robert Napper constitute contempt of court under UK law? The media here are banned from detailing previous convictions and of unproved suspicions. Given the size of Wikipedia's audience there is a risk that disclosing the info here could cause a mistrial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

there could be a link with dixie to stagg and napper because one of the biker satanist crew was called dixie,,,it is an unusual name i dont know what he looked like all i know is around the time he killed his ex girlfriend he had an old v.w. camper van...also it must be remembered that this crew are the old outcast crew...named because they were cast out from the hells angels for being too evil and being controled by satanists..they are international and just as well linked up as the hells angels... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.173.255 (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

At the end of the article, it says he suffers from Asperger Syndrome. But I don't think this is relevant since there is no connection between Asperger Syndrome and criminality. In fact, due to Asperger Syndrome suffers tendency to like rules and order, they tend to be more law abiding that the average person. Because of this, I think including this information risks misleading people into believing Asperger Syndrome is somehow a contributing factor towards him commiting muder. Even if this isn't misleading, it is still no more relevant to the article than if I put information about his shoe size, eye colour or blood type. So, I ask for it to be removed. -OOPSIE- (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The segment in question is clearly discussing Napper's mental state, specifically with regard to diminished capacity. If shoe size, eye colour, and blood type were more pertinent to one's capacity for sound judgment, then your comparisons would hold water. I do not feel that the article is implying any causative relationship between Asperger's and criminal tendency. 74.204.13.82 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the statement, I came to the discussion to discuss it. I am glad another saw it. I see criminal cases reporting that a person had AS as if it were relevant. If one is going to give trivia about a person, it should be noted as such, otherwise, it is just taken as relevant facts by association. I mean, you don't see other articles mentioning "murderer had an entirely normal social life" or "rapist cared for his two dogs" or even if he had ADD or some other mental conditions in no way related to the actions. Murdering someone is different from trying to empathise with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRoza (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates of events?

The dates that significant events occured need to be stated in the article. A reader at present does nt know when Stagg was charged, when he was aquitted, etec etc. SmithBlue (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lizzie James

According to my reading of "WHO REALLY KILLED RACHELL?" by Colin Stagg and David Kessler (1999) "lizzie james" falsely confessed to Stagg that she'd been present with a group who had cut the throat and murdered a young baby and that she with the rest of the group each drank a glass of its blood and that she'd found it a real turn on". The main article understates the absolutely disgraceful lengths which the police went to to manipulate the outocme of this police murder investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you be acquitted of a charge?

I thought a person was only "acquitted" after a trial? Aren't the charges simply withrawn if it fails a committal hearing? --218.215.28.100 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically there was a trial - though neither side actually presented any evidence to a jury. The disposition of the case by the judge counted as a finding of "not guilty" - hence an acquittal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.26.12 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Compensation to son Alex

The amount of compensation quoted by you "£22000" doesn't match this news report's figure of £90000 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044423/I-feel-sympathy-Barry-George-Colin-Stagg-hits-awarded-700-000.html (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRGShaggy (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the £22,000 was an initial payment paid from public funds. There was then a 10-year legal battle before £90,000 was paid out to Alex Hanscombe. He has now written a book, and the figure of £90,000 seems to be supported by The Daily Telegraph here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. link to book here

Role of the CPS

The article states that the CPS advised the police that there was sufficient evidence to charge Stagg. I'm not at all sure that is true. According to this presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn4H4hx23iM&t=1s the CPS advised that there was not sufficient evidence, but the Met went ahead and charged him anyway. (Nowadays they would not be allowed to do this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.26.12 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2021

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: Moved. There is a consensus that the word "murder" is not appropriate to use in the title of this article, as the individual responsible was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Murder of Rachel Nickell → Killing of Rachel Nickell – The killer of Rachel Nickell, Robert Napper, was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder, due to diminished responsibility.[1] This was raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Colin Stagg. I could present dozens of reliable sources referring to Nickell's killing as "murder", but I believe BLP policy, including WP:BLPCRIME, and article title policy, including WP:NDESC, require us to use the term "killing". Fences&Windows 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of this recent RfC and flowchart (thank you, Some1), which concluded that my logic was correct in the absence of a WP:COMMONNAME - but that if sources use a particular term then so should we. Therefore, an analysis of reliable sources is necessary. C&C, a summary of that RfC outcome and the flowchart should be added to Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles, if not Wikipedia:Article titles. Fences&Windows 14:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The accused was initially charged with murder, thus confirming that the killing is indeed considered to be murder, even if the killer's murder indictment was subsequently pleaded down to a lesser charge. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support as legally determined outcome. It would set a dangerous precedent to simply use whatever a person was initially charged with. But I note that Manslaughter of Flora Prior redirects to Death of Flora Prior - she was "raped and killed" and the three culprits were convicted of manslaughter. The only other example I can find of "Manslaughter of .." is Manslaughter of Vincent Chin which curiously redirects to History of Chinese Americans in Metro Detroit and not to Murder of Vincent Chin. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I updated the redirect. Murder of Vincent Chin should probably go to RM as well, as there was no murder conviction in this case. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Martinevans123. I would also support Death of Rachel Nickell. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support any article title without murder, but probably killing is best. It doesn't matter what a defendant was initially charged with. I mean someone who is acquitted e.g. George Zimmerman in the case of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin was charged with murder so clearly some people considered it then, as some still consider it now, a murder. However the decision of the legal processes is it was not a murder, just like this one was not. Whether it's a jury that decides that the legal standard to prove a murder wasn't met, a judge, or it comes about from a plea deal, ultimately that's the legal outcome. Even in the case where a prosecutor has claimed they believed they could have proven the case and the only reason for the plea deal was to spare witnesses or the victim/s or family having to go through the trial, which doesn't seem to be what happened here, it's still the legal outcome of the case although we could likely mention the prosecutor's claim somewhere else. (Any debates about what to do when the only viable suspect is found not guilty, but where the cause seems to be insufficient evidence they did it rather than that it was a murder, would be best held elsewhere as that isn't what happened here.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support, or Stabbing of Rachel Nickell or Death of Rachel Nickell. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not use the word "murder" lightly (and especially should not repeat it over and over in the absence of a conviction for murder, as done in this article). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Martinevans123. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Just because the killer was convicted a certain way does not make Nickell's death "not a murder." And the vast majority of reliable sources call it a murder, so per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be Murder of Rachel Nickell. See this previous RfC RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? which went over these sorts of murder/killing/shooting, etc. article naming. Some1 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the link. Is that flowchart accepted? If so, the title should be "Killing of". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the flowchart was not accepted. The RfC closer stated there was no consensus to use the flowchart and that the WP:COMMONNAME should be used instead. The person who created the flowchart went on to create WP:DEATHS, which, in the template at the top, says This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The first paragraph of that supplement also says it's for articles where a commonly recognisable name is not apparent. This explanatory supplement is not intended to overrule any policy or guideline. Some1 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • So, you are prepared to use WP:COMMONNAME, even though it is legally incorrect? You argue that the "vast majority of reliable sources call it a murder" - has someone counted these? I wonder what name do they majority of sources employed at this article use? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
      • It is not for us editors to decide what is "legally incorrect" or not. We go by what reliable sources state and reliable sources call it a murder. Even the person who started this RM said they could "present dozens of reliable sources referring to Nickell's killing as 'murder'". Some1 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, maybe "dozens of reliable sources" can be presented. I was asking if anyone has actually done the analysis to show that "the vast majority of reliable sources call it a murder." Would one just use headlines? But I quite agree, it's "not for us editors to decide". Nor for newspapers or TV channels. It's decided in a court of law. Robert Napper was convicted of manslaughter. That's the legal outcome. It's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's a fact; it's also a fact that Robert Clive Napper (born 25 February 1966) is a British convicted murderer and rapist (taken from his article). That has nothing to do with the article title though. Again, we should rely on reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME for the article title per the RfC, not our opinions on what we believe is legally correct/incorrect (WP:OR). Anyway, I don't wish to repeat myself, so I'm not going to engage further in this discussion. Some1 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
            • The argument there seems to be "if Napper murdered two other people, he must have also murdered Rachel Nickell." It's not my "opinion" that Nickell was killed not by murder, but by manslaughter. That was the legal outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Since this event occurred 3 decades ago, Google Ngrams should yield some good results to evaluate COMMONNAME. It is only after a good-faith effort to determine COMMONNAME that we should revert to WP:DEATHS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the Ngrams link, Coffeeandcrumbs. That pretty much confirms that 'Murder of Rachel Nickell' is the WP:COMMONNAME. Some1 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer I know the vote tally so far is 5 support and 2 opposes, but all of the supports came in before the RfC regarding murder/killing/death/etc. article titling was mentioned. I asked the admin who closed the RfC for further clarification at User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing?, and they stated that yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies in cases such as this one and explanatory supplement [such as the flowchart and WP:DEATHS] remains up to date but crucially in that RfC there was no consensus to make it a guideline. Please see the comment by Coffeeandcrumbs above for the WP:COMMONNAME evaluation, which shows that the COMMONNAME for this article is 'Murder of Rachel Nickell'. Some1 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2021 (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.

Post move

Just to note, the outcome of this RM has now been swiftly reversed here. Perhaps some further explanation/ discussion is required? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is linked in the edit summary of the reversal; permanent link here [2]. Some1 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Perhaps that discussion should have happened here. Are you assuming that "all of the supports" that came in "before the RfC regarding murder/killing/death/etc. article titling was mentioned" became automatically invalid once it was mentioned? Perhaps the RM should be re-run, with all editors fully familiar with the RfC? The suggestion by SarahSV, that "all our death of, killing of, murder of articles should be at "Death of X"", might be an acceptable compromise? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should let User:Fences and windows decide if they want to re-run a fresh move request since they initiated it before being aware of the murder/killing/death article naming RfC [3]. I also asked the RfC closer User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? and they said Yes, the RfC does apply to cases such as the Rachel Nickell one. Regarding SarahSV's suggestion, the policy here is to use WP:COMMONNAME per the RfC. If you both would like to change policy, the best thing to do would be to start a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles (same place where the murder/killing/death RfC took place). Some1 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the RM outcome, which was overturned with a WP:bold move by an involved party that was contrary to the declared consensus. If someone is unhappy with the result, the proper procedure is probably to open a WP:Move review or to convince the person who closed the RM to overturn their own closure declaration. Personally, I do not think that the RfC that was emphasized above establishes an overriding policy and requires a particular outcome. I also do not think that all comments made before someone brought up that RfC should be ignored (or that the people who made those comments were necessarily unaware of that discussion). I would also like to point out that the RfC in question ended with a declaration of no consensus. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As stated in the second comment of this section, I did start a discussion on the closer's talk page. But thank you for the link to WP:Move review, I will read through it. The RfC closed with no consensus on using the flowchart and that we should use WP:COMMONNAME instead. I asked the closer, Barkeep49, here: User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? for further clarification and they said That RfC was just from December and so yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies in cases such as the Rachel Nickell one. Some1 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are issues with the close the proper thing to do is follow the steps outlines at Wikipedia:Move review. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Barkeep49; I'm reading through it right now. I see that BarrellProof is currently going through the Move Review log for March after your suggestion. Hopefully with this move review, uninvolved parties who didn't participate in the RM above will be the ones doing the review. Some1 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that anyone can participate in move reviews. Editors should note whether or not they were involved in the particular move request that is being reviewed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox template

Shouldn't the info box use Template:Infobox event or Template:Infobox civilian attack? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ezdell? Edzell?

The 'Operation Ezdell' section here was added in July 2008, with this edit (which makes reference to Paul Britton's book, "The Jigsaw Man", though with no page number or quote). However, a google search for "Operation Ezdell" throws up only about a thousand hits, while a search for "Operation Edzell" has over 90,000, plus some reputable book references (I've added a couple to the text). So I am surmising the correct spelling for the police op (not to mention the common name) is "Edzell", and have re-named the section here accordingly. I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it appears in this article in The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)