Talk:Moors murders/Archive 16

Identification of the body of Lesley Ann

The Wests did identify their daughter's body at the mortuary. As reported by the Daily Mail here, Alan West said: "‘When we identified her at the mortuary, Ann went mad with grief,’ ... ‘I had to hold her down. She wanted to kiss Lesley Ann’s face once more, but they wouldn’t even let her do that.’" I agree that the detail should be removed for now, if it's not in the The Times source currently given, and I'm not suggesting that the Daily Mail should be used as a source. But it is a fact, and it does sound, from West's description, like an episode of greater significance to the couple than the identification of the clothing, or indeed the viewing some of the pictures taken by Brady. It's not possible for me to tell if it is in the source given [1] as this managed by galegroup.com and requires a subscrption. As I have mentioned before, the membership number for my local library does not seem to work for Manchester Library and Information Service. I assume this may be true for many other UK libraries, as well as libraries elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• So, you are more than willing to accept an IPs edits without bothering to check if they are factual etc, yet question me stating something is not in the source and will only permit removal "for now"? Really? Here is the relevant paragraph from the Times article: ""On October 16 he [Talbot] identified to Detective Constable Harding the nine photographs of the little girl in the nude, which were found in the suitcase. He was present when Lesley's body was identified by Mrs Downey."" No mention of mortuary there. But I guess you will want to wait until someone else can check for you as you blatantly don't believe me. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  Once again, how exactly do I "bother to check" a source if I can't access it? Why shouldn't I believe you? Yes, that extract doesn't mention the mortuary, thanks for copying it. My "for now" is a comment on the notability of the fact, not your removal, which I agreed with. I've not reverted it. I'd welcome the views of other editors on its significance. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  "I agree that the detail should be removed for now, if it's not in the The Times source currently given" is not questioning the notability, it is querying whether it is [or is not] in the source. There is no requirement that everything must be available on line for you to check but whatever ... maybe someone you deem trustworthy will buddy up shortly to verify it to your satisfaction. Hopefully they will also confirm for your benefit that the paragraph I've typed is actually correct too. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  How do I check? I was suggesting the fact could be restored with another source, perhaps one that all editors could easily see. What's all this about someone "buddying up .. to verify it to my satisfaction"?? I've already said your edit was perfectly valid and I thanked you for copying the source? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  I repeat: "There is no requirement that everything must be available on line". But whatever ... I'm taking this off my watch list. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I was aware of that. I think freely-accessible sources, if available, are preferable to those that require a subscription or membership. Not all readers of this article will live in Manchester. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Most public libraries provide free access to online sources, mine certainly does and it is most certainly not in Manchester. The sources I can access are most certainly better than the tabloid newspapers used by IPs that the article is better without. @Sagaciousphil: ought to be thanked for spotting, checking and removing unnecessary detail without having to justify it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'd like to thank User:Sagaciousphil for spotting, checking and removing unsourced detail. But the current ref links lead me to [2] which is the log on page for Manchester Library and Information Service. My local library membership doesn't give me access to that. That's why I couldn't check it. Perhaps it's just my local library service. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  The sources in this article were good enough at FAC, but obviously not good enough for you to WP:AGF. I wonder why you continually question their authenticity and favour the edits of anonymous IPs. J3Mrs (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where your questions over WP:AGF come from, nor your accusations that I "continually question" the authenticity of sources. FAC status, even 6 years ago, is a worthy achievement and none of the reviewers at that time raised any concerns over the subscription sources. I'm just suggesting that readers may want to read supporting sources: if those are books they can buy them or get them from local libraries (the ones that aren't being closed down anyway); if they are online sources they can be accessed instantly; but if they require a membership number the reader, like me, is somewhat left in limbo. As for "favouring the edits of anonymous IPs", I don't see that FAC status is a finishing point. If that were so, all FAC articles would be protected and enshrined for posterity. So I don't see any edit by a new editor or an anon IP is necessarily a cause for "revert at sight". Sometimes their edits will be valid. I've done my share of reverting unsourced rubbish here. It's just that I don't see basic facts - like Brady reading Nietzsche, or Mrs West having to identify her daughter's body in the mortuary, or Evans being killed by 14 blows of an axe - as all being just "more crap". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  "I'm just suggesting that readers may want to read supporting sources: if those are books they can buy them or get them from local libraries...but if they require a membership number the reader, like me, is somewhat left in limbo." No, you're left in the position where you can pay for a subscription to gale.com or the Times digital archive - just the same as if you had to buy a book because it's not available from your library. The Times archive can be accessed for a trial period for £8 - hardly a king's ransom, and less than the cost of many books. Richerman (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, if you know that, or can guess from the publisher, you certainly can. But the current link doesn't take you to gale.com or to the Times Digital Archive, but to the Manchester Library gale.com page and simply says "Please enter your Library Barcode below". Maybe it could be easily tweaked, to avoid the Manchester Library gale.com page and go directly to The Times, like some of the others do? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  Well, the fact that the reference gives the title of the article and says it's in the Times digital archive makes it seems pretty obvious to me where to find it. If you don't agree I suggest you pay your £8 - which will give you eight weeks of access to a very useful resource - check what it says in the article and then change the link. You can't expect someone else to do the work for you when you seem to be the only one that thinks it's a problem. However, if you use a digital archive to find information you're expected to credit them in the citation, so the way the link works at the moment is quite correct. Richerman (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  That was just a suggestion. I wasn't expecting anyone else to do anything. I was thinking it was better to establish consensus here before making any change to what was reviewed at FAC. Sagaciousphil has already very kindly clarified what's in that article and has offered to provide more clarification if required. So maybe I'll invest by £8 elsewhere, thanks. As you can see, my original question was about the veracity and notability of the identification of the body, not the ease of accessing the current source. We only arrived here after I was accused of "not bothering to check". Lucky I wasn't accused of not bothering to shell out £8, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC) (p.s the link doesn't "work at the moment" for me or, I suspect, for many other readers).

Works for me. Perhaps you have some outstanding fines, or I have the wrong one? "Two women at 'bodies on moors' trial cover their ears", The Times, no. 56616, Times Digital Archive, p. 9, 27 April 1966, retrieved 11 August 2009 Mr Stephen (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on which library one belongs to? And of course, the country in which one lives? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe :-) Mr Stephen (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• If you two are quite done exchanging library cards, do you think you could enlighten me the end of #Grossly overdetailed? EEng 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  And your library membership number? Unlocks the door for you, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly I can't even tell what you're arguing about anymore, but if part of the problem is needing something that's behind a paywall, I can probably obtain that if someone will give the citation. EEng 19:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not really an argument. There are two simple points.

• The access question: just follow the link for the reference Two women at 'bodies on moors' trial cover their ears and enter your library membership number. Does it work? If not, is it obvious where you go to read the source?
• The substantive question: do you think that the fact Lesley Anne's mother identified her body in the mortuary is relevant and appropriate? The article currently suggests that identification was made from clothing recovered from the grave. Thanks.

Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, certainly my library number won't work, because I'm in the US, but I did retrieve the article via my own devices. I don't think the url given is appropriate as a reference in general, since it seems tied to a particular path through the paywall.
• Here's what the article says, within a long narrative of a policeman's testimony re his discovery of various evidence:

On October 16 he identified to Detective constable Harding the nine photographs of the little girl in the nude, which were found in the suitcase. He was present when Lesley's body was identified by Mrs. Downey.

'Voices identified'

Mrs. Downey identified clothing which he daughter was wearing when last seen by her. They included a blue coat edged with white [etc. etc.]

So it appears the mother identified both the body and the clothes. EEng 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, not an appropriate URL for you, nor for millions of others, I'd guess. Thanks for copying from that source - do you think Mrs. Downey's identification of the body belongs in this article? I think she was also obliged to identify Lesley as the subject of some of Brady's photographs. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The article (which covers only a single day of the trial) does mention the photographs, but AFAICS nothing about them being shown to the mother. EEng 22:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I must have seen that elsewhere; I think it was an early part of building the police case. I was more concerned with the identification in the mortuary, which I think had a profound psychological effect on Mrs. Downey. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, all these details are part of the overdetail I've complained about elsewhere. Relatives are routinely asked to identify remains and clothing -- what does this help the reader understand, other than that the police did what they would normally do? If the timeline was somehow important, or there was some slip-up that affected the course of the case, or (along the lines of what you're saying) there's something really worth noting about the effect on the mother (and I'd say that would need to be way more than profound, lasting grief) that would be different. But as it stands there's a huge amount of recitation of the pedestrian and expected. It's like an overlong police procedural. EEng 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your response comes as no surprise. What's your argument for keeping the identification of the clothing in preference to the identification of the body? If the article made it clear that Brady and Hindley were charged on the basis of the former, that might be perfectly valid. But it doesn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Shows what you know, buster! I'm arguing for keeping neither. A body was found -- where and when are worth saying, because it tells you how the main thread of this multi-victim case unfolds. But the identifications are routine, unless there's something special about them as mentioned before. But maybe I'm missing something. EEng 23:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian Brady is *still* dying

In various newspapers today, [3][4][5][6] along with criticism of the judges who blocked Brexit. This is based on a letter that he wrote to a Channel 5 journalist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Donald Trump can control US foreign policy, why shouldn't a serial killer comment on the UK's? EEng 07:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Brady has written letters to journalists expressing various political views and he knows that they will always be published in the national newspapers, along with the inevitable black and white mugshot photograph from October 1965. Brady's views on Brexit aren't notable enough for the article. As for him "revealing" that he is dying, this happens as regularly as one of Frank Sinatra's retirements.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that that's out of the way, could you take a moment to tell me if there's anything missing from my condensed "Smith agreed" paragraph above? EEng 07:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

He probably still feels a bit left out of all the fun. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Millwards

Was the compmay name Merchandise or Merchandising? Sources seen divided, although Google Search produces many more examples of "Merchandising", if that means anything. Or can we just call it "Millwards"? Lee (2010) gives "Millwards Merchandisng" but mostly contracts it to just "Millwards". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Millwards Merchandise Limited, company number 00128741. Formed in 1913, it was renamed Hays Colours Limited by the ltime it was liquidated about 10 years ago. Look it up at Companies House. We don't have to repeat sources that get this sort of detail demonstrably wrong, or repeat errors made by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.210 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

by the lime it was liquidated -- sounds almost biblical. EEng 13:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you post a link to that entry at Companies House? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Search-fu not working today? Don't rely on the (occasionally unsatisfactory) Beta service. Use the more comprehensive WebCheck service and type "Millwards Merchandise" into the search box, remembering to check the box for "previous names" and uncheck the box for "current names". Do the same for "Millwards Merchandising" and you won't get any entries. Sadly I can't see an easy way to provide a weblink to the results, but it is clear if you want to double check. Or you could look up the sale of the company by Tootal to Durham Chemicals Distributors, reported in The Times in 1976. And then there is the trade notice that someone has copied to Pinterest, the ODNB, the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc. So, apart from Lee, and a bunch of people on the internet (many no doubt copying this article) who says "Merchandising"? (No doubt someone will now complain that Companies House is a primary source, or that looking up the registered name of a company is original research, and we should prefer the faulty secondary sources in place of thet secondary sources that get this right, for some reason. Honestly, how difficult does this this have to be? What a farce.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.210 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not sign? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. you could just provide a link to a secondary WP:RS which says "Merchandise"?

Companies House is reliable. ODNB is reliable. The Times and the Guardian and the Telegraph are all reliable. Seriously, you are going to stick with the name of a company that never exists because I have not provided a URL to contradict it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.210 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Most people who want to make a change suggest a source. Pretty simply really. I guess it depends on how important you think it is. I suspect most people, then and now, would refer to the company as simply "Millwards". Not sure there were many companies with that name in Gorton. Martinevans123 (talk)

Suggest a source? I have already mentioned several sources, for example:

• Companies House - which provides information that is not just reliable but definitive about English companies. As I said, Millwards Merchandise Limited, company number 00128741, was formed in 1913, and dissolved in 2006. It was renamed in 1979, 1980, 1988 and then in 1989 to Hays Colours Limited, before commencing winding up in 2004. I am not making these details up, and you can check them for yourself, for free, as I have explained above. (If you insist that the name of the company was Millwards Merchandising Limited, please tell me when it was formed, and what its company number was.)
• The OBND entry for Hindley, which is already linked from this article. (Again, accessible easily, but you will need a subscription.)

And then various newspaper reports (which you can find as easily as I can).

I could add the various trade journals and other books about the chemical industry listed here. Notably, this Google search suggests the only books using the words "Millwards Merchandising" are ones about the Moors Murders - perhaps copying each other's error without checking the facts?

God, this is like pulling teeth. This is a small detail, and the name of this company is clear: why do you obstinately insist on getting it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.210 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

More of a minor cosmetic filling without anaesthetic, I think. Thanks for all the links. I'm sure that was indeed the correct company name. But this isn't an article about Millwards - to use here would be WP:OR. We just need a source that says e.g. "Brady got a job at Millwards Merchandise". The nearest source currently used seems to be Ritchie pp 23-25. I don't have a copy to hand - what does she actually say? The first instance in Lee (2010) is "Mary pointed out an advert for Millwards Merchandising" (p. 65) and she uses that name in the index. All subsequent instances are just "Milwards". I'd be happy to just use "Millwards" in both instances in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. I see there are some instances of Millward's, with a possessive s.

The ODNB source is already used in the article, so I don't think we need a reference to an entry at Companies House, which is somewhat irrelevant to Brady and Hindley. Unlike the Manchester Libraries links, any local library membership number should work with ODNB - you don't need a subscription. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I came across the change at WP:Pending changes, verified it and approved it.Companies House does not support deep linking so you're not going to get the kind of link you're after. Nonetheless it is 100% verifiable that Millwards Merchandise existed, and that Millwards Merchandising did not. To dismiss a verifiable source as WP:OR is a fairly fundamental mis-interpretation of policy.

Here's the listing from http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk ...

00128741 F MILLWARDS CAVENDISH CHEMICALS LIMITED C of N 31/12/1980

00864419 F MILLWARDS (CHELTENHAM) LIMITED C of N 11/11/1988

07508591 F MILLWARDS INSTALLATIONS LTD C of N 15/03/2012

00128741 F MILLWARDS MERCHANDISE LIMITED C of N 31/12/1979

NI045980 F MILLWATER LTD C of N 18/04/2003

06439375 F MILLWATER VOIP SERVICES LIMITED C of N 03/06/2011

02920466 F MILLWAVE LIMITED C of N 06/07/1994

01907692 F MILLWAY CONTRACTS LIMITED C of N 20/02/1986

I'm reinstating Merchandise as the only name that is verifiable. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

But I didn't change the name? I fully agree with Merchandise Limited? I just added the existing ODNB source. It's the name of the company in 1959 - 1961 that we need, so I think your list is a bit redundant. Reference to Companies House looks like classic OR to me . But if you insist on it, why not use both sources? I really don't see the point of a hidden note saying "name also given in Hindley's ODNB entry" when we can just visibly link to that exact source. Using the registered company number from Companies House to verify the company name doesn't actually support the claim that Brady or Hindley ever worked there - that's WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. if we really want to split hairs here, that ODNB source only supports the name when Hindley joined in 1961, not when Brady joined in 1959.

(edit conflict) Martinevans123, My apologies, I mis-interpreted the nature of your revert. Yes, both sources is best. Companies House will always be the gold-standard source for verifying company details, even if it doesn't support deep links. Hope the current version is OK with you. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I see your point about SYNTH, however, given the discussion above it's obviously not just Brady or Hindley's employment that needs sourcing but also the correct name of the company. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd go back to my point that this article is about Brady and Hindley not about the company. In fact, if I wanted to be a really stubborn and pedantic article owner, I might even argue that the spelling of the company name has nothing at all to do with the murders of five children, etc. But, yes, it now looks OK to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to throw a spanner into this lovefest, but Companies House is a primary source, period, and what you're doing is indeed classic OR. EEng 13:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No objections to deleting it. Can you find a secondary source for Brady? Or perhaps someone has a copy of Ritchie lying around? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Who, me? If you need a source available in the catalogs near the top of my user page, I'll be happy to get it, though it may be some time before I go that way. Also, Ritchie, any copies of you lying around? Thanks in advance. EEng 13:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The name of an English limited company is a fact. The best place to verify that fact is Companies House, a source that is reliable, independent and freely available, and indeed definitive on this kind of fact. No interpretation or analysis is required. It is not original research or synthesis to say that the name of the company where Brady met Hindley cannot have been "Millwards Merchandising Limited", as it is easily demonstrable that no such English company ever existed. It must have been "Millwards Merchandise Limited" and that is conistent with many seconary sources mentioned above, including the ODNB for Hindley herself.

My unverified (possibly unverifiable) suspicion is that one of the barristers used the incorrect name at the trial, and it was picked up and repeated since then. Perhaps it was an informal name used locally, or a trading name, although I have seen no indication anywhere that it was used on advertising or signs or paperwork. But some of the sources have check and get it right. So we have some sources saying one thing, and some sources saying another thing. And one of those sources is the definnitive source of English company names.

Happy Christmas everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.210 (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying Companies House is definitive and so on, but how to you/we know that? Definitive for what? What's its scope? I'm highly skeptical that searching this database gives you "the answer" any more than searching a database of court records proves the legal names of litigants or searching a deeds registry database tells you who owns something; there are just too many irregularities in such compilations. Maybe that's why http://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk//disclaimer.shtml says,

The information available on this site is not intended to be comprehensive, and many details which may be relevant to particular circumstances have been omitted. Accordingly it should not be regarded as being a complete source of company law and information... The information available here is an extract from the Register of Companies / Register of Disqualified Directors which are updated on a regular basis. This may mean that occasional inaccuracies occur...

As you say, there may be informal local names, trade names, DBAs, and your seeing "no indication" on advertising or so on is OR again. Where it seems clear that sources conflict (secondary sources), it's not an important point, and there's a way to ambiguate (as ME123 has suggested), then that's the thing to do. EEng 09:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Note about the trial: Thomas Craig, the director of Millwards Merchandise Ltd., was called on the fifth day of the trial, to confirm the dates on which Brady and Hindley were employed, and to verify the handwriting in a sick note Brady had written to him, dated 7 October 1965 (the day after Evans was murdered) (Goodman, 1973, p. 102). Goodman also refers to it as Millwards Merchandise Ltd. in his introduction (p. 12). Later in the trail, on day nine, Brady himself refers to it as just "Millwards", a number of times. If any of the prosecution or defence council referred to the company as "Millwards Merchandising", I can't see it recorded in Goodman's book. Perhaps it was mis-reported by the press. It wasn't a key fact in any of the murder cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think we're back to the suggestion in your OP i.e. just call it Millwards. EEng 06:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. EEng 00:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)