Talk:Murder of Wendy Sewell

A fact from Murder of Wendy Sewell appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 0 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Bakewell Tart murder, has been described as the longest miscarriage of justice in British legal history?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.

Wikipedia

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Derbyshire Low‑importance

	Derbyshire portal The article on Murder of Wendy Sewell is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explanation of "Bakewell Tart" reference

Although obvious to UK denizens, non-UK readers may need to be told that in the UK the word tart, as well as referring to a round, open-topped pastry case with a (usually) sweet filling, is also a slang term for a prostitute or promiscuous person (usually female), and that a Bakewell tart is a particular type of the former originating from Bakewell. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on

Stephen Downing case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ

for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else notice the issues with this page?

Is it just me, or is the contents of this page slightly POV-heavy? The article seems to me to be overly-focussed on impugning Stephen Downing and trying to imply at every turn that he's guilty rather than giving an objective summary of the facts. For example, the section about Downing's trial says that he "willingly" signed a confession, which is a highly questionable statement given that the police assaulted him and questioned him for nine hours without a lawyer present, context that is not fully given until several paragraphs later. Relatedly, any mention of Downing's lack of a solicitor is always followed by a statement that his parents had told him he did not need a solicitor. As this has little bearing on whether he should have had a solicitor with him, it's probably something that should just be mentioned once rather than repeatedly stressed to legitimise the police's interrogation tactics. I also question whether Downing needs to be referred to as "the prime and only suspect" in the section on double jeopardy, as if readers of the article need to be constantly reminded that police consider him the only suspect. Some of the section headings, such as "Downing found to be the only suspect" and "Discounted 'Yorkshire Ripper' claim", are also quite concerning. In the former case, surely "Police reinvestigation" should be the heading for this subsection rather than the section as a whole, given that this is the only part of the article to deal with the police's reinvestigation. In the latter case, describing the Yorkshire Ripper theory as 'discounted' implies that it has been conclusively disproven, which is decidedly not the case. This seems to me to point to the article being riddled with bias in favour of the police's highly disputed version of events. TRCRF22 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]