Stabbings in Westfield Stratford

[Dan Dare]

Wiki has the following coverage of Charlene Downes:

In 2007, the jury in the case of the alleged rape and murder of Blackpool schoolgirl Charlene Downes, 14, heard a police surveillance tape of Jordanian Iyad Albattikhi, 29, and Iranian Mohammed Reveshi, 50, allegedly detailing her stabbing, and her later alleged disposal in their "Funny Boyz" kebab shop's mincing machine by the prosecution. Albattikhi allegedly boasted that he had sold her remains in kebabs.^[70] both men were acquitted of the alleged offence. John Bromley-Davenport,for the defence, said: "We have uncovered within the Blackpool Police force an astonishing catalogue of incompetence, failure to disclose, manipulation and lies, some of which were uttered on oath during the trial last year. If the jury at that trial had swallowed the lies and been duped by the manipulation then a grave miscarriage of justice would have occurred." ^[71]

What is untrue and what relevant facts have been omitted?

Given that most of the other coverage I've seen is made up of paragraph on paragraph of hypothetical (at best) and rabid right wing racist fabricated allegations and lies (at worst), it does not belong in a work of reference – unless it is to demonstrate how easily nationalist street fodder can be manipulated...

The Wikipedia scribe who created this commentary (which is what it is) has run together two entirely separate sources - The Times and the Blackpool Gazette - to give the impression, unwittingly or otherwise, that Reveshi's defence lawyer is commenting on the police surveillance tape, when he is not.

[Dan Dare]

No this conversation is not about two murders, it is about general bias in the media. Road Hog accused Wiki of the same, yet they have articles that support the argument of that potential bias.

Again the only reason given to keep the Whelan page was to support that argument. If someone wants to have a page they will have to have supporting evidence like the other two do

Even the BBC appears to acknowledge its own complicity in failing to report on Richard Whelan's murder at the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/...00/4739389.stm

It rather feebly offers the defence that the 'police did not suggest' Whelan's murder did not seem had been racially motivated.

[Citizen67]

How about.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ross_Parker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald

How did you get to hear about these two boys, clockwork?
I bet it wasn't in the same way you got to know about Stephen 'The Saint' Lawrence.

[Dan Dare]

Please post the link to her page please. Here's her deletion page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...harlene_Downes

Even the 'talk about' page has been deleted.

The Wiki-gods just don't want to know.

[TheCally]

Even the 'talk about' page has been deleted.

The Wiki-gods just don't want to know.

Did the page mention the letters she received or anything about the paedophile that was living with the family and disappeared around about the same time the poor lass went missing?

[Road_Hog]

Even the BBC appears to acknowledge its own complicity in failing to report on Richard Whelan's murder at the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/...00/4739389.stm

It rather feebly offers the defence that the 'police did not suggest' Whelan's murder did not seem had been racially motivated.

Which once again, just goes to reinforce my original point, from mainstream TV reporting to Internet reporting (many people use Wiki as their default reference), there is a racial bias. If it were the other way around, there would be an outcry, however, because it is about white people, it is racist to mention it. What an upside down world we live in.

[Patman Post]

The Wikipedia scribe who created this commentary (which is what it is) has run together two entirely separate sources - The Times and the Blackpool Gazette - to give the impression, unwittingly or otherwise, that Reveshi's defence lawyer is commenting on the police surveillance tape, when he is not.

The surveillance tape was only one aspect of bad and dishonest Police work. Two sources (one local, one national) are given as references to to validate the commentary. The defence referred to "an astonishing catalogue of incompetence, failure to disclose, manipulation and lies, some of which were uttered on oath during the trial" by the Police. The phrase "catalogue of incompetence" shows the defence is referring to all the bad Police evidence, not just some.

What in the commentary was known to be untrue and what proven facts at the time of writing were omitted? Surely, anything you can point to should be referenced and supplied as an update...

[Dan Dare]

The surveillance tape was only one aspect of bad and dishonest Police work. Two sources (one local, one national) are given as references to to validate the commentary. The defence referred to "an astonishing catalogue of incompetence, failure to disclose, manipulation and lies, some of which were uttered on oath during the trial" by the Police. The phrase "catalogue of incompetence" shows the defence is referring to all the bad Police evidence, not just some.

What in the commentary was known to be untrue and what proven facts at the time of writing were omitted? Surely, anything you can point to should be referenced and supplied as an update...

I didn't say it was untrue, but rather that it gave a misleading impression.

The overall theme being pursued here wrt to Charlene Downes is why her story is not deemed to be 'notable' by Wikipedia's editors. Your remarks about police incompetence and bungling (which I have seen referred to as 'sabotage' elsewhere) merely serve to highlight how ludicrous Wikipedia's stance is in this case.

If a murder case including elements like the inter-racial grooming of underage females for sex, pregnancy (alleged), cannibalism, police incompetence (?), the refusal of of the CPS to prosecute, the subsequent arrest and jailing of one of the suspects for assaulting another white teenage girl and the ongoing general ferment (including prosecution of the girl's mother) isn't notable then I don't what is.

[flamingreen]

If a murder case including elements like the inter-racial grooming of underage females for sex, pregnancy (alleged), cannibalism, police incompetence (?), the refusal of of the CPS to prosecute, the subsequent arrest and jailing of one of the suspects for assaulting another white teenage girl and the ongoing general ferment (including prosecution of the girl's mother) isn't notable then I don't what is.

Indeed. Deeming it not notable seems to be extreme head burying in sand.

[Dan Dare]

I meant to note that the Wikipedia commentary cited above goes beyond misleading in one important respect. The two suspects were not acquitted; the jury in their trial failed to reach a verdict and their case was sent to retrial. However, before the second trial, the CPS withdrew the prosecution and the two were released with, according to press reports, around £250,000 each in compensation for the time they spent on remand.

But they were not acquitted and could still be re-tried, even without recourse to the partial repeal of double jeopardy. Providing the police are willing to invest a Stephen Lawrence sized amount (ie multi-millions) on a new new investigation, that is.

Pigs might fly.