Jump to content

Talk:Moors murders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levivich (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 27 August 2019 (Who has which sources: +thesis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleMoors murders is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2010.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 3, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 16, 2017.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 12, 2013.
Current status: Featured article


Glasgow Herald

I looked through one source's {{failed verification}} tags, Glasgow Herald, and there are changes to the text that should be made to match the source, which are:

  • "deliberately"
    • What the article currently says: "...the collar of Reade's coat had been deliberately pushed into this wound."
    • What the source says: "...a throat chain and the collar of the girl's coat had been forced into the wound...[The coroner] added: 'The pushing of the coat collar into the neck appears to be deliberate. It may have been carried out in an attempt to reduce the amount of bleeding.'"
    • What our article should say: "...a throat chain and the collar of Reade's coat had been deliberately pushed into this wound. According to the coroner, the coat collar appeared to have been pushed into the wound deliberately, in a possible attempt to reduce the bleeding."
  • "blow to the head"
    • What our article says: "Her throat had been cut twice with a large knife."
    • What source says: "He found two throat wounds...There was also a blow to the head done either with a fist or blunt instrument...There was a cut across the throat at the level of the voice box...the only other significant injury was the swelling on the front of the forehead...the throat wounds were consistent with 'being caused by a large knife'."
    • What our article should say: "Her throat had been cut twice with a large knife and she had been struck in the forehead with a fist or blunt instrument."
  • Uncited
    • What our article currently says: "Reade got into the van with Hindley, who then asked if she would mind helping to search for an expensive glove she had lost on Saddleworth Moor. Reade said she was in no great hurry, and agreed. At 16, Pauline Reade was older than Marie Ruck, and Hindley believed that there would be less of an outcry over the disappearance of a teenager than there would over a child of seven or eight. When the van reached the moor, Hindley stopped and Brady arrived shortly afterwards on his motorcycle. She introduced him to Reade as her boyfriend, and said that he had also come to help find the missing glove. Hindley claimed Brady took Reade onto the moor while Hindley waited in the van. Brady returned alone after about 30 minutes, and took Hindley to the spot where Reade lay dying. Her throat had been cut twice with a large knife. The larger of these wounds was a four-inch incision across her voice box, and the collar of Reade's coat had been deliberately pushed into this wound."
    • What the source says: The entire above passage ends with a single cite to the Glasgow Herald article, but that source only supports the last two sentences (starting with "Her throat..."). Everything up to "...lay dying." is not in the Glasgow Herald article. I'm sure it's in another source, maybe Staff, but it's {{cn}} until a cite can be provided (I don't have Staff).

If there are no objections, I will make these changes when the article is unprotected, along with changing "had to be identified by clothing" to "was identified by clothing" per discussions above and below. Levivich 19:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • On further reflection, I'm not going to touch the mainspace article with a 10 foot pole, I don't need the stress. If I happen to find more errors, I'll post them here, and if they want to, someone else can go ask somebody else's permission to make that change. Levivich 22:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson

Gibson is used to cite one sentence in the article: "But after he returned home and related to Maureen what he had seen, she insisted that he call the police, which they did from a nearby phone box (bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them)." Every single clause of this sentence fails verification:

  • Our article: "But after he returned home and related to Maureen what he had seen, she insisted that he call the police..."
    • The source: "The single most important break in the investigation was David Smith's telephone call to the police...'Smith was tough but what he witnessed horrified him and in the early hours of the next morning he made an emergency call to police...', according to one analysis.[cite]...According to Wilson and Seaman, Smith convinced Brady that he would return the next day to help him dispose of the body. Instead, when he got home he became violently sick, and told his wife the whole story. The next morning they called the police. Newton concurred with these accounts...At 6:07 in the morning on October 7, 1965, Smith called the Hyde Park Police Station from a roadside phone booth."
    • No mention in the source that the wife "insisted that he call the police"
    • No mention in our article about him getting violently ill
    • Our article implies that he made the call shortly after arriving home, whereas the source says it happened the next morning
  • Our article: "...which they did from a nearby phone box..."
    • Source: "...from a roadside phone booth." (not "nearby")
  • Our article: "(bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them)"
    • Source: The source says nothing about them bringing a screwdriver, knife, or any other weapons with them, or that they fearing that Brady would confront them during the phone call. The word "screwdriver" is not in the source (according to Google). "Knife" is, of course, five times, but each time it's describing a murder, unrelated to Smith's phone call.

I want to emphasize that not only have we got the details wrong about the single most important break in the investigation, but also we only spend one sentence on it in our article. There's a whole book by Smith, who was the "whistleblower" and chief prosecution witness; it's listed in Further reading but not used at all as a source. I think that's a red flag. Levivich 22:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For comparison, here's the GA version:
  • Once back at home, however, he woke his wife and told her what he had just seen. Maureen told him that the only thing to do was to call the police. Three hours later the couple cautiously made their way to a public phone box in the street below their flat, Smith taking the precaution of arming himself with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife to defend themselves in the event that Brady suddenly appeared and confronted them. At 6:07 am Smith made an emergency services call to the police station in nearby Hyde and told his story to the officer on duty.[16]
  • And the FA version:
  • "but after returning home he woke his wife and told her what he had seen. Maureen told him that he must call the police. Three hours later the couple cautiously made their way to a public phone box in the street below their flat, Smith taking the precaution of arming himself with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife to defend them in the event that Brady suddenly appeared and confronted them. At 6:07 am Smith made an emergency services call to the police station in nearby Hyde and told his story to the officer on duty."[17]
  • The original version of this text was as follows in two paragraphs:
  • "After agreeing to meet Brady the following afternoon to help dispose of Evans' body, Smith promptly left the house. He frantically ran home and vomited in the toilet, sick with fear and disgust. He then woke his sleeping wife Maureen (Myra's sister) and told her of the brutal murder he had just witnessed. Maureen burst into tears and eventually told him that the only thing to do was to call the police.
  • Three hours later at six o'clock on the morning of October 7, David and Maureen Smith carefully made their way to a public phone box on the street below. Before leaving their flat, Dave armed himself with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife in order to defend the two of them in the event that Brady might suddenly appear and confront them. Smith made a 999 call to the police station in nearby Hyde and related his story to the officer on duty."
  • The Gibson citation was added to the paragraph by User:Malleus Fatuorum on July 6, 2009, in what I would describe as a beneficial edit. A detail is added to the last sentence of the paragraph and the citation does indeed back up that sentence.[19] This revision, however, had the unfortunate side effect of leaving some ambiguity in the text, since—when not looking at that exact diff—one could take the citation as covering the whole paragraph. This ambiguity probably contributed to the rest of the paragraph never having been properly referenced. This underscores two things to me: a) It is very tricky to start out with an unreferenced text and bring that up to standard by adding citations. A rewrite from the ground up is safer. b) Our FAC process could gain from more emphasis on reviewers checking the sources and comparing the article against them. This should perhaps be some sort of formalized sub-process at FAC. Haukur (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for what it's worth the screwdriver story checks out and is mentioned in multiple easily found sources. I don't think I'll dig deeply enough into this that I'll be able to recommend a particular source or a particular rewrite of this paragraph. But I also don't think this example of an accurate (more or less, at least) but inadequately referenced paragraph is so concerning that prominent warning tags need to be inserted at this point. This article has a lot of eyeballs now and I imagine these issues will be addressed. But if no-one does that within a reasonable amount of time then, sure, tags could be added or some text removed. Cries of "fraud" are, however, inappropriate. It is obvious that no-one was intentionally trying to mislead anyone here. Haukur (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is obvious that no-one was intentionally trying to mislead anyone here – Sure they were. They misled the community into believing that they'd checked the sourcing during one of those sacred FA reviews, and they obviously didn't. EEng 01:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you never quit while you're ahead? Maybe show a little charity to your perceived opponents? Or are you going to be, to the end, a Spiderman pointing accusingly at another Spiderman? Haukur (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I ahead? Do tell. EEng 02:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you went to the library and got the sources, which was an excellent move. Now you're in a much better position to edit the article. And you've found some genuine problems which do need to be addressed. Maybe this is all some campaign of spite against Eric but if this is a game to you then you have at least made some reasonably skillful moves lately. A great follow-up move would be to show some grace and charity now. Haukur (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Haukur, for running that down, that was interesting history to read. Yes, the screwdriver story checks out. David Affleck Marchbanks's 1966 The Moor Murders says "a sharp, long-bladed kitchen knife and a screwdriver" [20] (not a source used in the article). But Martin Fido's 2002 A History of British Serial Killing says "hammer and screwdriver" [21] (not a source used in the article). Luckily, the owner of the screwdriver in question, David Smith, wrote a memoir (mentioned in the article and listed in "Further reading" but not apparently used as a source), in which he says it was a knife and not a hammer that accompanied the screwdriver, but he also says that he brought for protection his large dog, and relays how all three of them (him, his wife, and their dog) squeezed inside the phone booth to make that fateful call [22]. Does it matter whether Smith brought a knife or a hammer or a screwdriver or a dog? Not really, no, but of course it does matter that if we provide that detail, we make sure it's verifiable. Plus the large-dog-in-the-phonebooth detail is kind of too good to omit. Levivich 02:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David Affleck – Hey, is it really true that he and Matt Damon are secretly lovers? EEng 03:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you like dem apples? Levivich 03:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Better than republican sour grapes, that's for sure. Believe it or not, there's actually been a WP edit war related to that very scene -- see Talk:Farmers_and_Fishermen:_Two_Centuries_of_Work_in_Essex_County,_Massachusetts,_1630–1850#Good_Will_Hunting_reference. EEng 04:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone planning to work on this could sign up to the Wikipedia Library (list of "partners") for access to news sources. A subscription to Gale will get you access to The Times, where you can read the court reporting from the trial. It states that Smith was holding "a carving knife in one hand and a long screw-driver in the other" ("Boy tricked into seeing murder, moors trial Q.C. says", The Times, 20 April 1966, issue 56610, p. 16). SarahSV (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC

Passage in our article, ending in a cite to BBC 4 Aug 08:

Brady was taken to the moor for a second time on 1 December, but he was once again unable to locate the burial site. Earlier that month, the BBC had received a letter from Ian Brady, in which he claimed that he had committed a further five murders - including a man in the Piccadilly area of Manchester, another victim on Saddleworth Moor, two more victims in Scotland, and a woman whose body he allegedly dumped in a canal at a location which he declined to identify. The police decided that there was insufficient evidence from this letter to launch an official investigation.

Relevant parts of the source:

... In a letter to BBC news reporter Peter Gould, Brady speaks for the first time of five deaths in addition to those he has already admitted. Brady, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1966 along with his accomplice Myra Hindley for the murder of three children, talks about "happenings". But the revelations in his letter are not clear. He mentions "a man on a piece of waste ground near Piccadilly in Manchester", "a woman in a canal", "a man in Glasgow" and "another one on the slopes of Loch Long". Finally, he talks about "another on the other side of the moor road". His only clarification in his letter is to say that the latter two victims were shot at close range. ... But MP Ivor Stanbrook, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, has urged caution. He believes the allegations should be treated with scepticism ... Myra Hindley has denied all knowledge of any further killings ... [In a sidebar:] Following preliminary inquiries by the police into Ian Brady's claims that he had information on five other killings, it was decided there was insufficient evidence to pursue an official investigation. In the 1980s Brady and Hindley admitted killing two more children, Pauline Reade, 16, and Keith Bennett, 12. Pauline Reade's body was later found on Saddleworth Moor but despite assistance from Hindley and Brady, Keith Bennett's body has never been traced ...

Issues:

  • "Brady was taken to the moor for a second time on 1 December, but he was once again unable to locate the burial site." is not in the source (probably in another source)
  • "...in which he claimed that he had committed..." – the source does not say "committed", but rather "involved in" and "had information on", and the source notes "the revelations in his letter are not clear" and "His only clarification in his letter is to say that the latter two victims were shot at close range", but this isn't reflected in our article
  • "...a further five murders..." – the source goes out of its way not to use the word "murder", instead calling them "deaths" or "killings"
  • the word "including" should be struck, as it's preceding an exhaustive list, not a partial one
  • "...at a location which he declined to identify." – "declined to identify" is not stated by the source, which is significant in light of the source specifying that the police did receive "assistance from Hindley and Brady" in locating at least one body
  • "The police decided that there was insufficient evidence from this letter to launch an official investigation." – The source doesn't say "insufficient evidence from this letter", but rather insufficient evidence from "preliminary inquiries" following the letter. The difference is that the source notes there was at least some "preliminary inquiries" but not an "official investigation", whereas our article makes it sound like the police did nothing at all after reading the letter
  • Hindley's denial is in the source but not in our article, which is significant given that the source itself notes that Hindley herself did admit to two more murders in the 1980s
  • Govt officials' skepticism of the claims in the letter is in the source but not in our article Levivich 02:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence cited to BBC 7 Dec 97: "In 1997, the Parole Board ruled that Hindley was low risk and should be moved to an open prison."

  • Source doesn't say that; the source says Hindley was informed of it in 1997, but the decision happened earlier (the source describes her lawyers' arguments that she should have been informed earlier)
  • Other sources state the decision was made in February 1996 [23] [24] Levivich 16:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to leave an error like this unfixed in the live version. Would anyone object to me editing through the protection to change this? As a minimal fix, we could change the wording to this: "In March 1997, Hyndley was informed of a Parole Board recommendation that she should be moved to an open prison." Later, other sources could be added to deepen this part. Haukur (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead with this since the issue seemed clear and uncontroversial. Will revert myself if any challenge is raised. Haukur (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Resolved Levivich 04:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Featured-article review

I'm posting this to make sure everyone is aware of it. SchroCat has opened an FA review, and opinions about how to proceed are welcome there. This is the process we follow when there are problems with an FA that can't be fixed quickly. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

"police were initially aware of only three killings"

2nd para of the lead: The police were initially aware of only three killings, those of Edward Evans, Lesley Ann Downey and John Kilbride. The investigation was reopened in 1985, after Brady was reported in the press as having confessed to the murders of Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett. This suggests that the police were unaware of the killings of Reade and Bennett until 1985. That is not correct. An editor in the 2009 FAC noted it was contradicted by at least one source. It's also contradicted in the body of the article: In 1985, Brady allegedly confessed to Fred Harrison, a journalist working for The Sunday People, that he had also been responsible for the murders of Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett,[62] something that the police already suspected, as both children lived in the same area as Brady and Hindley and had disappeared at about the same time as their other victims. Instead of, "The police were initially aware of only three killings, ...", it should probably read, "The pair were charged in connection with only three killings, ...". Levivich 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of victims' names

  • 1st para, 2nd sentence of the lead: The victims were five children aged between 10 and 17—Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans—at least four of whom were sexually assaulted. The victims are listed in the order in which the crimes were committed. However, the preceding aged between 10 and 17 suggests (at least to me) that the victims are listed in ascending order of age; i.e. that Reade is 10 and Evans is 17. Perhaps it should read, "The victims were five children—Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans— aged between 10 and 17, at least four of whom were sexually assaulted."? Levivich 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para, 1st sentence of the lead: ... those of Edward Evans, Lesley Ann Downey and John Kilbride. This is not the same order of victims names as before–not the order in which crimes were convicted. I'm not sure what order these are in, but I think it should be the same order as before. Levivich 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"criminally insane" / "psychopath"

The lead says Brady was declared criminally insane in 1985 ...; the body says diagnosed as a psychopath in November 1985, sourced to BBC News 3 Oct 00, which also says in November 1985, he was diagnosed as a psychopath. This was discussed in 2012 at Talk:Moors murders/Archive5#Diagnosed psychopath and then the body was changed from "criminally insane" to "psychopath" by Malleus, and then it was discussed again in 2013 at Talk:Moors murders/Archive8#Accuracy of psychiatric history and in 2014 at Talk:Moors murders/Archive9#Continuing problems with the psychiatric claims. Perhaps for now, the lead should be changed to match the body and the given source (change "declared criminally insane" to "diagnosed as a psychopath"). However, in those previous discussions, there was some mention of other sources saying different things, and I'm guessing there is a better source for this fact than a newspaper article anyway. Levivich 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved Levivich 04:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failures

Note: You may need to consult the context to understand the issue with the quoted text. Points 1-55 are by EEng, and all page refs are to the editions cited in the article's bibliography.
  • 1. concern: Not in Topping 82-85 unverified text: The full extent of Brady and Hindley's crimes did not come to light until their confessions in 1985, as both had until then maintained their innocence.
  • 2. concern: Staff 137 says nothing about the encounter with Ruck unverified text: Driving down Gorton Lane, Brady saw a young girl walking towards them, and signalled Hindley to stop, which she did not do until she had passed the girl. Brady drew up alongside on his motorbike, demanding to know why she had not offered the girl a lift, to which Hindley replied that she recognised her as Marie Ruck, a near neighbour of her mother.
  • 3. concern: Not in Staff 137 unverified text: Shortly after 8:00 pm,
  • 4. concern: Staff 137 says Reade was spotted /before/ they turned into Foxmer St. unverified text: continuing down Froxmer Street,
  • 5. concern: Staff 146 doesn't say H recognized Reade as a friend of Marueen; rather that H agreed when prompted that Reade was Maureen's friend. Editors should consider the possibility that this an important subtlety of meaning in the source which the text should properly reflect. unverified text: a friend of her younger sister, Maureen.
  • 6. concern: None of this is in the Glasgow Herald piece unverified text: Reade got into the van with Hindley, who then asked if she would mind helping to search for an expensive glove she had lost on Saddleworth Moor. Reade said she was in no great hurry, and agreed. At 16, Pauline Reade was older than Marie Ruck, and Hindley believed that there would be less of an outcry over the disappearance of a teenager than there would over a child of seven or eight. When the van reached the moor, Hindley stopped and Brady arrived shortly afterwards on his motorcycle. She introduced him to Reade as her boyfriend, and said that he had also come to help find the missing glove. Hindley claimed Brady took Reade onto the moor while Hindley waited in the van. Brady returned alone after about 30 minutes, and took Hindley to the spot where Reade lay dying.
  • 7. concern: Glasgow Herald seems to say nothing about size of knife, only that cut was made "with considerable force" unverified text: with a large knife.
  • 8. concern: Glasgow Herald says "appears to be deliberate". Editors should consider the possibility that this an important subtlety of meaning in the source which the text should properly reflect. unverified text: deliberately
  • concern: This is not a quotation from H, merely Topping's text just like everything else unverified text: "Pauline's coat was undone and her clothes were in disarray ... She had guessed from the time he had taken that Brady had sexually assaulted her."
  • 9. concern: Lee 134 says that Kilbride had already agreed to go with them by the time the sherry was mentioned unverified text: With the added inducement of a bottle of sherry,
  • 10. concern: Topping 92 says H did not "wait in the car" but rather drove to another location to wait 1/2 hour, then return and signal with her headlights unverified text: while Hindley waited in the car
  • 11. concern: Topping 95-96 doesn't say anything about birthday unverified text: four days after his birthday
  • 12. concern: Per Topping 101, what they carried wasn't actually shopping, just some boxes "as though they had been shopping" unverified text: the shopping
  • 13. concern: No perhaps about it, Topping 105 simply says strangled with string (though there's the larger question, applicable to everything from Topping, that he's not telling us established facts, even in his own voice, but rather passing on Hindley's version of events) unverified text: perhaps
  • 14. concern: Nothing in Topping 105 indicates that H "maintained" this assertion, as if against some contradiction. Editors should consider the possibility that this an important subtlety of meaning in the source which the text should properly reflect. unverified text: maintained
  • 15. concern: Topping 34 says nothing about shallow unverified text: in a shallow grave.
  • 16. concern: Staff 184-6 says nothing about strangling unverified text: and strangled him to death
  • 17. concern: Topping 22 doesn't say this unverified text: The attack on Edward Evans was witnessed by
  • 18. concern: Toppin 22 doesn't say this; what it says is "He married MH after getting her pregnant... Her family were horrified." unverified text: The Hindley family had not approved of Maureen's marriage to Smith,
  • 19. concern: Staff 183-4 doesn't say this unverified text: Throughout the previous year Brady had been cultivating a friendship with Smith,
  • 20. concern: Topping 183-4 doesn't say Smith's awe worried H, rather "She was deeply worried at Ian's recklessness. It had been safe when there was just the two of them. Myra understood that while she was in love with Ian, David Smith was in awe of him, and she did not feel that their bond was strong enough... now that Smith was involved she felt things were getting out of control. Ian was making mistakes..." unverified text: something that increasingly worried Hindley, as she felt it compromised their safety
  • 21. concern: Gibson 67 doesn't say "nearby", merely "roadside" unverified text: nearby
  • 22. concern: Gibson 67 says nothing about this unverified text: (bringing a screwdriver and knife in case Brady should confront them)
  • 23. concern: Not in Topping 121 unverified text: of the Cheshire Police
  • 24. concern: Topping 121 doesn't say this unverified text: borrowed
  • 25. concern: Topping 121 says nothing about a uniform unverified text: to cover his uniform
  • 25. concern: Topping 121 says sofa bed unverified text: divan
  • 26. concern: Topping 122-4 simply says "Then she was allowed to go, and was told to return the following day for further questioning" unverified text: As the police had no evidence that Hindley was involved in Evans's murder,
  • 27. concern: What Topping 122 says is "She [Hindley] said [to Topping around 1986] Brady had made a statement admitting he had had a fight with Edward Evans [etc etc]." This supports neither that Brady was under questioning, nor that he made such a statement, nor even that Hindley was in fact told that Brady had made such a statement -- only that she later /told Topping/ that she had been told this. unverified text: admitted under police questioning that
  • 28. concern: Topping 122 says nothing about insistence unverified text: insisted
  • 29. concern: Topping 107 says nothing about "several days later". unverified text: several days later
  • 30. concern: Topping 35 says nothing about the # of photos or that ther were pornographic, merely that the girl was naked unverified text: nine pornographic photographs taken of a young girl, naked and with a scarf tied across her mouth
  • 31. concern: None of this is in Ritchie 91 unverified text: A large collection of photographs was discovered in the house, many of which seemed to have been taken on Saddleworth Moor. One hundred and fifty officers were drafted to search the moor, looking for locations that matched the photographs.
  • 32. concern: Not in Ritchie 91 unverified text: close
  • 33. concern: Ritchie 91ff describes only a single site unverified text: sites
  • 34. concern: This is not in the source cited unverified text: She was shown clothing recovered from the grave, and identified it as belonging to her missing daughter.
  • 35. concern: Not in Topping 37 unverified text: five days later
  • 36. concern: Times source says nothing about the date relationship (nor does Topping give the date of the discovery of Kilbridge's body) unverified text: That same day
  • 37. concern: Not in Topping 37 unverified text: The investigating officers suspected Brady and Hindley of murdering other missing children and teenagers who had disappeared from areas in and around Manchester over the previous few years,
  • 38. concern: Topping 37 doesn't say this unverified text: Presented with the evidence of the tape recording,
  • 39. concern: Staff 222 says nothing about public interest, rather (and predictably) "security screens to protect her and Ian from assassination" unverified text: Such was the public interest that
  • 40. concern: Staff 225-6 says nothing about syndication rights unverified text: the syndication rights to
  • 41. concern: Topping 143 doesn't give this unverified text: and was paying him a regular income of £20 per week,
  • 42. concern: Not in Topping 38 unverified text: Brady and Hindley pleaded not guilty to the charges against them;
  • 43. concern: This makes it sound as if the questioning just before this was not "cross-examination by the prosecuting counsel" -- but all of it is that. unverified text: Under cross-examination by the prosecuting counsel,
  • 44. concern: Topping 39 gives no indication this was any kind of "admission", merely said H "described her own attitude as 'brusque and cruel'" this unverified text: admitted
  • 45. concern: Toppiong 39 says none of this unverified text: Hindley claimed that when Downey was being undressed she herself was "downstairs"; when the pornographic photographs were taken she was "looking out the window"; and that when Downey was being strangled she "was running a bath".
  • 46. concern: quotes make it sound like there are the judge's words; they're not unverified text: "stuck rigidly to their strategy of lying"
  • 47. concern: Staff 10 says nothing about earlier suspicions unverified text: something that the police already suspected, as both children lived in the same area as Brady and Hindley and had disappeared at about the same time as their other victims
  • 48. concern: Staff 10 gives no rank for topping, merely calls him "sr investigating officer" unverified text: Detective Chief Superintendent
  • 49. concern: Staff 10 doesn't say this unverified text: who had been appointed head of GMP's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) the previous year
  • 50. concern: Not in Ritchie 260-1 unverified text: Police nevertheless decided to resume their search of Saddleworth Moor, once more using the photographs taken by Brady and Hindley to help them identify possible burial sites.
  • 51. concern: Ritchie 266 doesn't say who Timms is unverified text: who had been a prison governor before becoming a Methodist minister
  • 52. concern: This can't be right, Topping 72 says Topping got the call from H inviting him to see her on 19 February unverified text: on 10 February 1987
  • 52. concern: Ritchie 274 says nothing about a clue or focus unverified text: but Hindley's clue had directed the police to focus their efforts on a specific area
  • 53. concern: Topping 276 doesn't say this unverified text: Topping refused to allow Brady a second visit to the moors,
  • 54. concern: Ritchie 276 has nothing to do with this unverified text: Hindley told Topping that she knew nothing of these killings.
  • 55. concern: Not in BBC source unverified text: Brady was taken to the moor for a second time on 1 December, but he was once again unable to locate the burial site.

Items 1-55 above are relative to the June 26, 2019 version here and, in that version, cover only these sections: Victims; Murder of Edward Evans; Arrest; Initial investigation; Trial; Later investigation. Even in those sections, the following sources weren't checked: ONDB, Keightley, Cowley, Carmichael.

Some discussion of source use

  • DCS Benfield's 1968 account of the case (Benfield, A. (April 1968). "The Moors Murders". Police Journal. 41 (4): 147–160. Retrieved 17 August 2019.) seems like it might be of some use in verifying some of the text currently attributed to Topping. Non-exhaustive examples: point 25 (the uniform comment) at 151; seems to clarify point 35 ("five days later") to mean the site was found and dug on 21 October, at 156; on point 37 (the officers' reasoning for continuing the search after Kilbride was found) it makes clear they were specifically concerned with Brady's boast of killing and burying "three or four", at 154. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work. After reading Benfield myself, however, I'm reminded that one of the problems we face is evaluating the reliability and appropriate use of the many tellings and retellings of this story -- official, legal, journalistic, novelistic, scholarly, popular, it just goes on and on. EEng 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be better to use a secondary source that uses Benfield 1968 as a source, rather than use Benfield directly. For example, Cummins, et al. 2019 [25] uses Benfield in a couple chapters [26] [27], as does this paper. FWIW Harrison uses Benfield, the man, as a source. Levivich 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that too, but in the limited time I had, finding direct verification of that problematic passages – which, to be blunt, are often about fairly trivial aspects of the case – was not easy. Sources like Topping and Benfield are by their nature going to be heavy on details which might be overlooked in a more theoretical text. I actually looked for Benfield after seeing him in Cummins' bibliography, which I was browsing through for any more recent minor works.
Worth noting that a fairly recent PhD thesis bemoans the lack of scholarly analysis and historiography on the case (although has any doctoral candidate not thus complained?) which underlines the difficulty of the task at hand here. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fairly trivial aspects – I'll agree with that if we modify it to "relatively minor details". But this is supposed to be an FA, and we're supposed to sweat the details. As for dissertations, yes it's true: it's a rare dissertation that says, "My topic has been treated in comprehensive detail already". The dissertation's conclusions we'd have to use with great caution if at all, but we can certainly raid its bibliography. EEng 01:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, on both counts. By "trivial" I mean it would be, in most cases, quite acceptable to not mention them at all if we can't be sure of their veracity. As for the thesis, it may be a moot point anyway unless you happen to know a friendly Manchester librarian. I know far too many English postgrads to be able to agree that kind of thesis is "rare", though. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Who has which sources

work notes EEng Editor X Kieronoldham TTTC Editor Y
(bibl) Birch has
(bibl) Carmichael has
(bibl) Cowley has
(bibl) Gibson has
(bibl) Keightley has
(bibl) Lee has
(bibl) Ritchie has
(bibl) Staff has
(bibl) Topping has
(bibl) Williams Review get via NEU 1967 ed. [28] has (1968 edition reprinted 1992)
(further) Boar Open access icon open access link
(further) Goodman can consult [29]
(further) Hansford Johnson could consult (ILL)
(further) Harrison getting? [30]
(further) Hawkins Open access icon full text link
(further) Potter has
(further) Robins can consult
(further) Smith & Lee note possible alt title
(further) West has
(further) Wilson (Colin, Damon, Rowan) has
(other) Wilson, Robert [31] has
(talkpage refideas) Benfield, The Moors Murders, Police J 1968 [32] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Cuthbert, A Portfolio of Murders, 1970 [33] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Wilson & Seaman, The Serial Killers:... 1992, 2011 [34] has
(talkpage refideas) Heron, et al., Studies in Crime:... 1996, 2013 [35] can consult (1996 ed)
(talkpage refideas) Kocsis, The psychological profile of serial... 1998 [36] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Schone, The Hardest Case of All... 2000 [37] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Peelo, Framing homicide narratives... 2006 [38] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Wardle, Monsters and angels: Visual press... 2007 PDF Open access icon has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Schmid, A Philosophy of Serial Killing 2010 [39]
(talkpage refideas) Pleasance, Lost Children ... photographic story... 2011 PDF Open access icon has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Pettigrew, Myra Hindley ... whole life prison terms 2016 [40] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Bingham, ‘Gross Interference ...News of the World ... 2016 [41] has idx & bibl pdf has full pdf
(talkpage refideas) King, et al., The strange Case of Ian Stuart Brady..., [42] Open access icon
(talkpage refideas) Stanley, Documents of Life Revisited.... (Ch. 3) [43] has pdf
(talkpage refideas) Makepeace, Child Killers 2017 [44]
(talkpage refideas) Terry West, If Only: Living in the shadows... 2018 [45]
(talkpage refideas) Ian Cummins, et al., Serial Killers and the Media... 2019 [46] has pdf
(other) R. Barri Flowers, Dead at the Saddleworth Moor:... 2013
(other) Erica Gregory, The Secret Key to the Moors Murders 2013
(other) Ian Thomas Field, The Moors Murders : the media, cultural representations... 2016 (thesis, check bibliography) [47]

August 2019 to-do list

Discussion transferred from FAR [48]

Looks like we're ready to go ahead then, with the July 26 version. So...

  • 1.  Done David Eppstein, if you agree the time has come then how about you do the reversion to July 26 (linked by Levivich at the start of this subthread)? You're a respected admin with a clean block record, and not a party to any open Arbcom case request, so you're the perfect person to do this. It's an honor, really!
  • 2.  Done I'll reintegrate the post–July 26 changes I diffed earlier in this subthread
  • 3. Probably should review the article history (July, August) in case there are any good edits lost in shuffle
  • 4. We should comb the discussions so far (FAR and article Talk) for issues noted therein so they don't get lost. For starters those are the following subsections above:
  • 5. Then we need to see who has what sources, and divvy up the failed-v list so we're not duplicating effort, and attend to those
  • 6. Then, since the failed-v list only covered part of the article, that effort needs to be extended to all sections and all sources
  • 7. There are some <! -- --> notes in the source that we should probably review and resolve, or at least surface to this page
  • 8. Then (deep breath) we take stock of what to do next, including expansion. Also, we need to review the use of some of the existing sources to determine their appropriate use; for example, the question's been raised as to whether assertions in Topping should taken uncritically at face value in all cases e.g. if one of the killers told Topping that X happened, should we simply report X as fact (as the article often does now) or say, "Brady later said X"?

Probably this list should be transferred to the talk page, and we continue there, but I wanted to get it down while it was on my mind. EEng 18:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially with the first bullet. Levivich 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, July 26 version restored. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So bullets 1 and 2 above are done. Before we go on, I'd like to propose something: to ease editing I'd like to insert an extra space at the end of each sentence (so two spaces between sentences, like you were taught to do in the old days on a typewriter). Of course this doesn't affect the rendered page the reader sees. I know it sounds minor but it makes it just a scrunch easier to scan through and find a passage you're looking for within the jumble of markup with in a paragraph. Here's a demonstration edit in one section [49]. Actually, I prefer to put a linebreak wherever a sentence end also has a ref, because I find this really makes finding things easy, but some people find this too radical. Anyway, please let me know what you think. EEng 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Get crackin', Levivich (front row, left)
Incipient infestation of gnomes
I don't care about whitespace in source that doesn't affect how it renders, but my guess is that if you put in linebreaks we'll get an infestation of gnomes taking them out again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bring on the gnomes. I'll soon get crackin' on bullet 4. Levivich 20:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose concerns

From recently archived threads. Levivich 01:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hindley's gender and repeated insistence on her innocence, followed by her bids for release after confessing, made her a figure of hate in the national media" Concern: "it was Longford's campaign that was responsible for the continued media obsession with her, not anything Hindley herself said" (discussion)
  • "Shortly after her 17th birthday, she changed her hair colour with a pink rinse." Concern: "Hindley's dyed hair is arguably the most iconic British image since the war." (discussion)
  • "Brady returned alone, carrying a spade that he had hidden there earlier, and told Hindley he had sexually assaulted Bennett and strangled him with a piece of string" Concern: should be "When Hindley asked how he had killed Bennett, Brady said that he had sexually assaulted the boy..." to "clearly say[] that he did not offer the information on Bennett's murder until after Hindley had asked him." (discussion)