Talk:2004 Palm Island death in custody

Australia: Queensland / Crime / Politics / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2004 Palm Island death in custody is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Doomadgee/Mulrunji/Cameron

There seems to be some inconsistency with what the individual at the center of this affair is named, both in this article and in the wider media. Some call him Mulrunji Doomadgee [1], others call him Cameron Doomadgee [2].

In order to make the article as readable as possible, I propose that we make a note in the first paragraph that he's known as Cameron Doomadgee and Mulrunji Doomadgee, and then refer to him simply as "Doomadgee" in the rest of the article. This also has the advantage of being consistent with the other usage of names in the article, we talk about "Hurley" most of the time, not "Chris".

If no objections, I'll make the change in the next couple of days.

Lankiveil 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lankiveil, it is a tricky point however the media in this case is incorrect, Mulrunji is an honorific (see [3] for NT example). Mulrunji Doomadgee is completely inappropriate (as you point out many of the media have used this due, obviously, to a lack of understanding, not deliberately trying to be disrespectful to the dead and the family). The person's name was Cameron Doomadgee, he is referred to as Mulrunji now that he has passed away. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more background on this issue, Mulrunji is a name that was specifically chosen by the family for this particular individual according to their cultural beliefs, it is intended to disguise him from evil spirits while he is in transition. I will create a separate page for him as I have just come across an article in the Australian which provides a lot of info about his life, we can further clarify the name situation in that article. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for clearing that up. I've gone ahead and just referred to him as "Doomadgee", which based on the links you have provided, I think is a nice neutral term that not only identifies the person clearly, but is also unlikely to cause offense to any Aboriginal persons. Lankiveil 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Doomadgee is not a neutral term and does cause offense in indigenous culture, if referring to a person by their last name only was culturally appropriate then there would be no honourific title. I will be reverting your edit. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you (respectfully), and have started a discussion here: [[4]]. Lankiveil 12:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand. Surely the only name that won't be offensive is "Mulrunji" and he should be called that? Since that seems to be the name throughout the article now I suspect Lankiveil lost interest.User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move info

I'm not sure where to move the info recently added by User:Jb3, it is certainly relevant although the referencing is incorrect, but it does not belong where it has been placed. Any thoughts? Wiki Townsvillia n 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it exists it seems to be inevitable at that location as it explains how the pathologist could find that multiple injuries include a fatal injury could happen from falling down a concrete step. Omission would seem misleading. It unfairly makes the pathologist appear dishonest as it sounds like a slip on a shallow step by one person alone something that would result in a skinned knee not something not this. If you want to move it my suggestion would be to the Investigations into the death in Custody section above the heading Coronial Inquiry could be placed a new heading Autopsy Report and the following text cut and pasted:

"Although the autopsy report was medical and did not state what caused his death, it did list possible causes which included that the multiple injuries sustained could have been consistent with him falling on a shallow concrete step at the Palm Island watchhouse.[1][4]. The deceased was 181cm tall and weighed 74 kilograms. Hurley was 200.66cm tall and weighed 115 kilograms.[8] The injury may have been caused by Hurley falling on the deceased..[9]" User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 09:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remove quote?

Regarding this quote:

"Although not a medical expert, Murrandoo Yanner claimed that when he and other relatives viewed the body of the deceased his head injuries were so severe that he was unrecognisable."

I don't know what people contributing here have or haven't read but other than this claim I assume anyone contributing would have taken enough interest to be aware that there was just one cut above an eye visible although there was evidence of a 'black eye' in the post mortem. I have noticed the above quote a few times. Something should be done with it as it conflicts with the medical evidence and is the only thing available in an encyclopaedia article. I have intended to include the medical findings but currently think that that might not be the best approach. Murrandoo Yanner lost a relative so to put the medical findings beside his comments doesn't seem like an ideal thing considering what he has said. My suggestion is that it might be best if his comment was just removed. What do others think? User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead as above. I am pasting the reference below so the original contributor doesn't lose the references in case they want to keep it.

Koch, Tony (13 December 2004). "Injuries left Palm body `unrecognisable', activist says". The Australian. p. 5. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not responding to your original flagging of this issue. I disagree with the removal as the section is more a narrative of the events surrounding the death, which includes the inflammatory statements made by Yanner. Additionally the lead to this sentence clearly states that he is not a medical expert, so the obvious thing to do would be to add the medical evidence as a counterbalance, I haven't gotten that far in my additions to this article but I certainly intend to add that kind of info when I come across it, but feel free to do so yourself if you can find a good reference. I in no way hold this article up as complete and accurate, as it is a very big job and even after months of (on and off) work I still haven’t even completed all the references from one source (the Oz) let alone the three or four I hope to have by the end. :) Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By itself it was a problem. Counterbalanced I can see your argument for putting it in. What are your thoughts on reintroducing it in the future counterbalanced and with the name removed so it doesn't make him look dishonest? He could be described simply as an activist or something. It has been something of a tragic saga that has lasted years so don't feel any obligation to explain that it is a big project.

I just read that article and then another article by Tony Koch where Mulrunji's son Eric says he thinks that his father was beaten to death and then an article that said Eric committed suicide. It seemed like such a logical progression. I felt sick. I could just imagine Eric reading things in the paper such as his father's face was unrecognisable. Horrible thought. User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jb3, I have no issue with waiting for the counterbalancing info before the text is reinserted into the article.

As you say the whole thing is pretty tragic, which is why I tend to work on this article in spurts when I feel motivated as it is pretty sad stuff, particularly when we will get to the stuff about the suicides that followed all this in 2005 and 2006, it's also important to keep in mind that suicide and grief can be a normal part of life over there it's not just health issues which make the life expectancy so low. Wiki Townsvillia n 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change of tactic

My strategy to this point has been to go through chronologically from the day after the death through what has been reported on the event by The Australian, I've made it to the end of March 2005 so far. After that I was going to go through the ABC's coverage in the same way and then maybe the Courier Mail and/or the Townsville Bulletin. However I'm finding it more and more difficult to differentiate the sensationalism from the facts, for example the reports report facts but don't say who's version of events they are, in a situation where it has to be one person's opinion that is very frustrating.

For this reason I'm going to change tactic and use official documents first where they detail where they got their info from such as the coronial report and then that core info can be expanded upon from newspaper coverage which qualifies who they are getting their info from... This may take a little while though. Does anyone have any thoughts on this change of strategy, if you think the current system works better I can continue on. Wiki Townsvillia n 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to tell unless you try it the other way but obviously that would be a lot of work. (sorry) The current system is reasonably chronological but I can see the problem. On that topic I note that you had something about Mulrunji not being drunk and then shortly after something about a very elevated sounding BAC. User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 12:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was careful about that one, I made sure that it said he was not considered to be drunk and clearly attributed the comments to the relatives/residents. This is really tricky as to how to encyclopaedically structure all this info. Should we say, this is the relatives’ version and then this is the polices’ version and then this is what was determined by the Coroner to have happened... or continue as I have been doing trying to put all the different views in but in a chronological order (which makes it confusing as to what actually happened and what is correct and what isn't... although it seems we will never overcome that problem due to the inadequacies of the initial investigation). Wiki Townsvillia n 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonably approached chronologically (in terms of events not necessarily newspaper reporting of them) providing that exceptions are made where necessary to ensure that it isn't misleading. I note that you started with the Australian. They seemed to take a very sensationalist approach. Perhaps that has shaken you.

Unless you have something in mind that I am unaware of I don't consider the deficiencies of the initial investigation insurmountable. As I recall it took from 2004 to 2006 before evidence gathering was finalised and the matter sent to the DPP (and the CMC regarding disciplinary cf. criminal proceedings) to consider whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge Hurley. There were two autopsys, a coroner and then an acting coroner all contributing to the investigation. Ultimately it seems to have been thoroughly investigated. User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally baffled by your comment as it didn’t seem to mesh with the length or thoroughness of the investigation. For example it was notable how far the Acting Coroner took her inquiry and noteable that there was two post mortems. You earlier mentioned that you were relying heavily upon The Australian for writing the Wikipedia article. I have now encountered a story from that mass media outlet at the following URL.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20955075-2,00.html

The story started with the following: “TWO friends of Palm Island policeman Chris Hurley conducted the initial investigation into the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee, gathering key evidence that Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions relied on to clear him last week.”

I think that explains your comment if, in spite of noticing sensationalism, you were relying on The Australian for a full accurate understanding of the events as it was your first source of information. Please correct me if this assumption is incorrect. However if my guess about relying on that publication is correct then you probably wondered what I was smoking when I wrote my last response. Also, if my guess is correct, then I note that you are perfectly correct. That is exactly what I think that publication communicated.

However I question whether the article gives the correct understanding of the real life situation. I’ll explain. But first would it be fair to say that the article conveys that the biased looking early investigations starved the DPP of information thus casting doubt on the correctness of the DPP decision?

I believe that I can explain why I think that it is not the DPP but the consumers of mass media reporting who were starved of key information on the issue. The key to unlocking the factual situation regarding the significance of the questionable investigation by Hurley’s friends is buried further in the article.

You have to just about be looking for it and wade in before you notice that the apparently biased police (Hurley’s friends) led the investigation for just six days. The investigations lasted for years (I’ll get back to that). Burying the fact in there that it was only the first six days of the police investigation, which fact seems to totally contradict the impression created by the earlier comments, is probably what most journalists consider ‘balanced reporting’. This type of media sensationalism has been typical of the reporting of this matter.

You probably know that the DPP decision was not made six days after the commencement of the investigation and thus had an awful lot more to go on then just that shaky beginning. Now that I have put the initial investigation problem in context by flagging that the problem was just for six days hopefully my initial response will make sense to you and will flesh out this point.

From someone who has no faith in the mass media I have the cynical perception that mass media created the impression Hurley was guilty and that perception stirred people up. There were many newsworthy events including riots, arrests, two coroners, an apparently shonky investigation for the first couple of days, suicides, and a promise of a possible trial of Hurley that could prompt another media circus when the verdict came in. Then the DPP decision came in and spoiled the story by making a decision that would normally kill the issue. That would have to be disappointing for journalists.

Given that it was just 6 days, what sounds so important to the DPP decision in this article is thus almost completely irrelevant. The first couple of days of the investigation is important because it is disgraceful that friends of Hurley were initially going to do the whole police investigation but there is no reason to mention it in the context of the DPP decision. Unless of course you have some motive to be desperate to attack the DPP decision and want to rehash the problem of the early investigation to achieve that.

Being suspicious of media I suspect that delaying the vital information regarding the six days was deliberate. Unfortunately this approach whether deliberate or not deliberate finds other outlets in the article. For example:

“It is Sergeant Hurley's claim to have fallen with Doomadgee while struggling to get him into a cell that is pivotal to the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Leanne Clare, that Doomadgee's death was the result of a "tragic, tragic accident". “

Now wouldn’t you think that only Hurley said he fell downstairs with Mulrunji after reading that (rather than witnesses being unanimous that that happened)? Actually you wouldn’t even think he fell downstairs. I’ll get back to that. Anyhow, after the damage to Hurley’s reputation is already done, you don’t find out that the fall together is an undisputed fact until you get to this:

“Doomadgee was then arrested by Sergeant Hurley and taken to the back entrance to the police station and watchhouse. As Doomadgee was being taken from the van he punched Sergeant Hurley in the face. He was pushed into the police station and the two "scuffled" and fell to the concrete floor. “

Mind you it takes 10 paragraphs after the first mention of the fall before there is any mention of falling downstairs in spite of the fall being mentioned again within those interim paragraphs. By comparison only 2 paragraphs after omitting any mention of stairs (thus creating the impression of a simple trip onto a floor), and failing to provide certainty a fall occurred, the article discusses the fact that Mulrunji had broken ribs etc. Make up your own mind as to whether or not you think this is intended to create the impression that a fall (if any) couldn’t have caused the injury so the DPP decision must be wrong. Obviously if Mulrunji just tripped over he wouldn’t break his ribs etc. My suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the use of the word “stair”, when it finally turns up, is buried in a new subtopic ie. detailed discussion of initial investigators being apparently biased in their questioning.

Further, in spite of the graphic detail about the injuries, nothing is said about Hurley being 200.33cm and 115kg or the theory of him falling on top of Mulrunji. This wasn’t even raised in the sense of being disputed. It is completely omitted. Yet freakily huge Hurley falling dowstairs on top of Mulrunji was almost certainly the basis for the DPP decision as suggested by the superfluous DPP comments made after reaching a conclusion on the evidence. By contrast the fact that a witness (carefully described in the article as “independent”) said he saw Hurley punching Mulrunji was already mentioned.

I guess this all confirms what you have said about sensationalism. However none of this is unique to the article or its reporters. This type of thing was ubiquitous throughout the mass media when reporting on this issue. Yet when it suits them media say that the public has a right to know. User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond either tonight or tomorrow to all the issues you have raised. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 05:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your assumptions are incorrect, I was definitely not referring to that, the kind of issues you are raising here are not been focussed on just by the Australian, they are being focussed on by every mass media publication and investigation of this issue... and for good reason; there wouldn't have been all these investigations, appeals and political controversies and it wouldn't have been drawn out for so long if the original investigation hadn't have been compromised so badly. You say 6 days is not significant in the context of a (now) three year issue, but the first week of any investigation is obviously going to be by far the most significant/important period of time! that is when all the evidence is gathered! Additionally, they didn't fall down a flight of stairs or anything like that, they tripped over a small entrance step onto the flat concrete surface of the police station, this theory that the fall caused the fatal injuries was not even raised by Hurley until he was told that there was no other explanation other than him punching the guy repeatedly.

I'm really not interested in debating the merits of the case with you, this is only a discussion forum for the article itself not the merits of the subject matter. Please do not express your views on this page as to what you consider to be of merit of Hurley's case etc. your point of view and my point of view on these things is irrelevant, we always have to cite sources and reflect accurately the focus of those sources and what they have said. I'm sorry we disagree on this and that you disagree with the fundamentals of why this case is such a big controversy in Australian history and Indigenous relations but please avoid at all costs personal point of views in Wikipedia. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a very good point with regard to the general thing. It can be hard to draw the line between Wikipedia's recommendation that we express an opinion and explain it and going off on a tangent and expressing points of view. I am going to respond but given that the thing is way off tangent what are your thoughts on deleting everything up to the bottom of your comment on the 12th April plus slicing off your view about the initial investigation in that post. ie. "although it seems we will never overcome that problem due to the inadequacies of the initial investigation". That would remove all problematic points of view and inappropriate discussion. If you agree then feel free to just chop it all. Of course if you want to generally agree to do so to remove all point of view diversions but first want to respond to what I say below then in fairness you should be able to do so. Can I suggest that if you do then go ahead and put jb3 please delete after reading or something at the bottom.

But I definitely think that we are inciting each other to increasingly expressing points of view and my last post highlighted the problem in spite of citing many facts and explaining my opinion.

Whilst the general problem you raised is correct I need to take issue with the way you described my comments just in case these posts aren't deleted. I don’t feel at liberty to debate the merits of the case but (temporarily getting carried away and losing track of Wikipedia guidelines) I was happy, in response to your point of view about the initial investigation, to express a point of view on media bias as in my view the two were inseparable. You raised the preliminary investigation in the context of the article by your comment expressing your view on it and originally indicated that you also thought the reporting was sensational. It seemed to be thus related to the article but I certainly take your point.

Also, I don’t believe that I touched on the merits of Hurley’s case. I would be happy to express a view privately but not here. When I said “I have the cynical perception that mass media created the impression Hurley was guilty and that perception stirred people up” I hope you don’t infer any comment on whether or not he is innocent. Subject to the presumption, that is for the jury to decide. It doesn’t change the fact that I believe the mass media reporting created a particular perception and that perception was very convenient for their commercial benefit. The media may or may not have acted deliberately but pointing it out doesn’t express a view one way or another on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Any such suggestion would insult me by implying that I would only identify that appearance if I thought he is innocent and would conceal it if I thought he was guilty.

I agree that none of this was unique to The Australian and it’s reporters and the same focus was common among the mass media. However I am not in a position to agree or disagree with regard to every media outlet.

However I disagree with your view that all evidence is gathered in the first week and in the circumstances of a police station with people present I’d distinguish this strongly from an investigation where early evidence is everything eg. an abduction where witnesses need to be located quickly and descriptions of the potential suspect need to be obtained urgently. The situation was very well publicised and it would be difficult for any witness to fail to realize that they knew something. There was also no need to get fingerprints or physical evidence for identifying those present. Other physical evidence was safely in the morgue. Here there was the police investigation and a coronial inquiry and two post mortems. All of these contributed to evidence and only 6 days of police investigation are suspect.

If you suggest that the 6 days is important I'd counter that a death in custody could inherently attract attention hence the big investigation. And wasn’t the first public response after it was publicised that the pathologist (not Hurley) listed the fall as a possible cause of death not when the 6 day problem was publicised? Regardless of whether you think that downstairs should have been downstep (?) the effect of the reporting was clearly sensational. User:Jb3 -(User talk:Jb3) 1.04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning of deceased persons naming

Aboriginals in australia do not speak the name of people after they have passed away out of respect. i feel that this article needs a warning sign up the top, similar to the slashdotted traffic warning, so that aboriginal readers can choose if they wish to read the article further. The ABC in australia make these warnings before any news peice or show that states a passed persons name. i feel wikipedia should too. if there is already one, i do not know how to place it above the page, could someone please do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crabbo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

weasel words

Someone put a weasel words tag at the top indicating there are weasel words and the article might be biased. However there is nothing in the discussion or anything specific. The primary contributors to this article had wildly opposing views so I am figuring it was close to balanced. Now the verdict is in so the controversy is gone. It just needs adjustment to reflect the jury's findings. I have removed the weasel tag and am terminating weasel words where I find them. The only exeption is the comment about the suspicion leading to a second autopsy. On the face it is weasel words but could easily be cured with a reference. WikiTownsvillian can you help? User:Jb3 ^{-(User talk:Jb3)} 09:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jb3, firstly my sincere apologies, this all happened at a very awkward time for me so I have not been able to assist in keeping this article up to date, and might have lead to some hostility from people who are new to the article. I am pleased to let you know that I have just finished my last exam and will be able to put a bit of time in this evening (while catching up on all the events of this week myself). I appreciate any efforts you and others have and will make and I will certainly be assisting to bring this article up to scratch. I agree with you that since your contributions started both views have been very adequately expressed (although honestly I was trying to keep the language neutral before that). The main deficiency in the article to my mind is not bias but lack of information, it is still a work in progress, this topic has had a HUGE amount written about it, and the article has only been created and written to this point over the last few months. Most of the supporting material for this article has been from the earlier reportage also so this may have lead to what some might have perceived as weasel words, as you said without an explanation from the person who left the tag we will not know. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B class review

Looking through the references and EL need to be cleaned up and made consistent. A copy edit and it'd be ready for WP:GAC Gnan garra 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnagarra, I haven't worked on this article for a long time and there was quite a bit I thought was important to be added after the Hurley verdict which I haven't done yet. I think "Criminal trial of Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley" is a very important section to this article and needs significant expansion before it goes to GAR. Your thoughts? Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further I see a section commented out, also what further information is relevant, considering BLP/undue as Sergeant Chris Hurley was found not guilt in the Supreme court. There is already a lot of coverage in various sections over his actions related to the event, which is understandable. Gnan garra 12:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "a section commented out" mean? there was heaps of info about the trial and how it was conducted, it was on the front page of the paper almost every day and we didn't really put any of it up here because I was too busy at the time and never got back to it. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see this diff for section I referred to Gnan garra 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:trial my concern is undue weight to the actions of Hurley, if there is other information on the trial then add it. Gnan garra 13:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I have a decent amount of time to do so I will and always did intend to come back to it, I'm not complaining that the article isn't up to scratch, I'm just flagging what I think will be an issue if we brought it to a GAR in its current form. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Questions

"Two legal questions arise from the death, firstly whether the taking into custody of Mulrunji was lawful and were the injuries that led to his death caused by the arresting officer. Politically this event raised questions relating to the 1990 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and whether its recommendations to prevent deaths in custody had been implemented by Government."

I'm about to edit the above paragraph as I believe it is wrong. There was never a question as to whether Queensland law permits a police officer to arrest a person for being drunk and disorderly in public. Hurley's decision wasn't illegal and if it had been the scrutiny by the DPP and very public nature of this incident should have resulted in that being picked up. Hurley's prudence in doing the arrest and his motivation have been questioned. Likewise the cause issue can probably be put better.

In fairness the person who edited it like this was constrained by the beginning "Two legal questions" which had been there for ages. I believe the editor jumped to conclusions and made a slight inaccuracy larger.Jb3 (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTownvillian reverted this with the comment: "what nonsense, you talk about being factual when adding pure opinion". Please explain in the discussion. In effect you substituted:

Two questions arise from the death. Should Hurley have taken Mulrunji into custody Did Hurley kill Mulrunji while beating him up or was the death accidental due to the extreme force on Mulrunji’s midsection from Hurley’s weight and other forces? In other words was there a stiletto heel effect on Mulrunji’s midsection through Hurley’s knee as a point of contact when the pair fell off the step onto the concrete floor?

With:

Two legal questions arise from the death firstly whether the taking into custody of Mulrunji was lawful and were the injuries that led to his death caused by the arresting officer.

There is no indication that it is illegal to take a drunk and disorderly man into custody. Hurley was never charged with anything of that nature and neither the DPP, the CMC, or Street claimed that he should be. I therefore don’t understand how the opinion that there is a question that the arrest was unlawful can be sustained.

Stating simply that there was a question of whether the injuries were caused by the arresting officer sounds more like expressing an opinion than giving a clear picture of the two competing theories expressed neutrally. It is obtuse to the ‘fall’ theory which has always been a live issue and accepted as a possibility by all medical witnesses commencing at the Coronial enquiry. Not mentioning it or not explaining it in a way that it can be understood sounds like the point of view.Jb3 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomadgee wasn't arrested for being drunk, he was arrested for public nuisance. A drunk Doomadgee had already walked past Hurley, and was not arrested - he was arrested after turning back around and swearing at Hurley. None but Hurley heard this swearing, and I think there is a genuine issue as to whether swearing in public is illegal, and particularly in this case where the only public to be subjected to any kind of nuisance is the arresting officer himself (whether or not there should even be such a vague law as public nuisance, and the fact that the law is applied disproportional to certain groups, are not even questions that need to come into it) - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"147th Black Death"?

Presumably it doesn't refer to the Black Death; can someone rewrite the sentence so it's clearer? --NE2 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Re-Opened Inquest into Mulrunji

Debate between lawyers in the pre-hearing conference went on in hushed tones.

Before I knew it, my ageing diary was full. Andrew Boe stepped back from the bar table.

A gaggle of fifteen or more clerks, journos and lawyers filed out of the pre-hearing of Mulrunji’s third inquest.

Two hours had passed.

Boe had been there at the second inquest and most proceedings since. He knows all about ‘due process’.

Hurley’s lawyer Steve Zillman and police union boss, Dennis Fitzpatrick, were sitting beside each other at the bar table.

Coroner Brian Hine showed little expression. When he did, it seemed to say ‘what a thankless task this is’.

Two issues remain unresolved from the morning’s work. This is happening in real time.

Lawyers discussed whether similar conduct in the manner of arresting people could be admitted into a coronial inquest. There was much discussion of a long-awaited CMC investigation into Mulrunji’s death.

Can a third inquest lead to justice?

If not, will the parliament act?

If the parliament refuses, what will bring justice for Mulrunji?

When the courts and parliament have failed, are we are back on the streets singing that familiar refrain:

“No More Black Deaths in Custody”?[5]

The information is being supressed. Sorry about copywrite but lives are more importamnt and in Queensland we don't have other options. Please licence use of your work.

The inquest is not listed as a current coroner's sitting in Queensland. [6] Brian Hine[7]

Brian likes the quiet life. No publicity!! Who is he?

Inspector Chris Hurley (Promoted) after Mulrunji's death is no longer senior sergeant Hurley (unlesss he's demoted)who self admittedly stated under oath that he'd be a fool to deny killing his victim)

The State Coroner Michael Barnes went on a drinking binge with police at the initial hearing on Palm Island and got removed from the case on a motion by the police. He is still the sensitive State Coroner!

Please advise of broken Wiki rules (if you have the heart). However inevitably this must be added to the story of a "dead man". (A Wiki must be factual even in Queensland Australia)

Inquest will move to Townsville. [8]

Well obviously journalists won't relese content but why not? Wiki is pepetual ignomy until deleted.

Inevitably long after the event Wiki will be able to publish the truth. [9]

Previous Hine Queensland Government Business

[10]

\[11]

The Dick wades in [12]

I would draw the reader's attention to the case of Di Fingleton the magistrate who served time in jail because she didn't know that her judicial immunity permitted her to commit crimes in ofice. She is now a Coroner! [13]

The Chief Justice admitted knowing:http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1399918.htm

And suing???? [14]

Di's currently on [Paul Gerard Robinsonhttp://www.courts.qld.gov.au/3756.htm#Robinson]

Mulrunji's new inquest is still not listed on the Coroners website as of 9 March 2010. Its a curious fact that a Mr. Laffy died a violent death near Gympie and not even a coronial findng will be published. What does Inspector Hurley want???? p> The Court of Appeal decision is here[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 22:24, March 8, 2010

Mr. Brian P Hine has been Deputy Chief Magistrate (1999- )for over 10 years. [16] He saw Chief Magistrate Di Fingleton go to jail. Conflicting information: "Thus far, Hurley has escaped sanction, and has even received a promotion to the rank of Acting Inspector"[17]

There may be up to 26 prior complaints against Inspector Hurley. One a few months before he killed Mulrunji.

It emerged that Detective Darren Robinson "had repeatedly lied to superiors during an investigation into another assault (compound fracture) by Hurley, this time an Aboriginal woman (Barbara Pilot), six months before Mulrunji was killed."[18]

The Re-opened (Third) Inquest

The third inquest into the 2004 death custody of Mulrunji started on Palm Island on 8th March 2010 after the Queensland Police Union had successfully challenged the finding of the 2006 inquest that Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley repeatedly punched Mulrunji cleaving his liver and fatally rupturing his portal vein.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Brian P Hine presided.Nnoddy (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Friday 12 March 2010 Hurley told the court. "I've always wanted to say to Tracey and the family that I offer my sincere sympathy for Mulrunji's death", he also told the court, "And I am sorry for that angst that they have had to suffer over the last number of years" and he also said."It happened sir. You can't regret what you've done. I have arrested people for the same type of offence." [19]

Incorrect addition regarding Court of Appeal Judgement

On the 8 July 2010 124.177.31.98 added information with the comment "I merely added some more of the findings from the CA. Especially that Hurley had "changed" his evidence and given evidence that was patently untrue, given it's withdrawal". That is not true. I just checked the judgement and that is not a part of the judgement. The judgement did quote the original Coroner (the one who had their findings overturned for being wrong) and there is something to that effect in that quote but that is not the Court of Appeal's judgement. Perhaps that is where the confusion arose. 124.177.31.98 perhaps you should read the judgement more closely. Jb3 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]