Talk:Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens

New title required

The title of this page is 'Lanoch Road murders.' The Crown has agreed this cas has been a miscarriage of justice and that Gail Maney will not be retried. In other words, there was no murder at Lanoch Road. A new title is required for the page. I suggest: The wrongful conviction of Gail Maney. Kiwimanic (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest Murder of Leah Stephens per WP:CRIME, WP:KILLINGS, and WP:MURDEROF. Stephens was murdered, allegedly at Larnoch Road, but we don't need to specify the location in the title. Muzilon (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is the article is not about Leah Stevens. Its about a miscarriage of justice involving four different defendants. As per Wrongful conviction of Alan Hall... Kiwimanic (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a rather complex case involving four defendants, one definite murder, and one disappearance that may not have been a murder. It is possible that Stone will face a retrial, and may even be found guilty again. So, I'm not sure that a title emphasizing Maney's name only is appropriate. (Cf. Murder of Mallory Manning and Murder of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe, where the murder convictions were later overturned.) Muzilon (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree. We should probably wait till the Court of Appeal makes its decision and see what is left so to speak... Kiwimanic (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Court of Appeal has overturned Gail Maney's conviction. The article needs a new name.I suggest: The wrongful conviction of Gail Maney. How do we get this done? Kiwimanic (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've a created a "rename" discussion below; we'll see what the consensus is. Muzilon (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Larnoch Road murders → Killing of Leah Stephens – All convictions have been overturned, with one defendant possibly facing a retrial.[1] Per the WP:DEATHS flowchart, this would seem to be an appropriate title pending any retrial that may take place. Muzilon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 07:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

But this incident involves the deaths of two people, calling it the killing of Leah Stephens would put the title out of line with what the article is about. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Then how about Deaths of Leah Stephens and Deane Fuller-Sandys? Muzilon (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not just Larnoch Road killings? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It now seems unclear whether the alleged homicides actually took place at Larnoch Road. Muzilon (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do the police still state the homicides allegedly took place at Larnoch Rd? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We won't know what the new prosecution case is until Stone's retrial. In fact, the media reports seem to be suggesting there's some doubt as to whether a retrial will actually take place. Muzilon (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to wait in regards to the Larnoch Road part. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the wrongful conviction of Gail Maney. That's what it sould be called - as per

• Wrongful conviction of David Camm
• Wrongful conviction of Alan Hall
• Wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson

Once Stone is retried, he may get his own article.Kiwimanic (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this article is primarily about Gail Maney, there are several others who were also convicted with said conviction later being overturned. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a title emphasizing Maney's name is not really appropriate as there were four defendants in this case -- unlike the three wrongful conviction cases listed by Kiwimanic, where there was only one defendant. For that matter, the articles about David Bain and Arthur Allan Thomas are not called "Wrongful Conviction" either. Muzilon (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Only two defendants were convicted of murder - Maney and Stone. Maney's conviction has been overturned (which means she did not enlist Stone to kill anyone). Maney's story is notable and worthy of its own article on wikipedia. Stone faces a retrial - that's a separate story and possibly a separate article. Kiwimanic (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT, I'm not sure a separate article about Stone is warranted. I realise the WP:DEATHS flowchart is an "essay" rather than a policy, but the usual practice is for homicide cases to be called "Death/Killing/Murder of". The Andrew Malkinson case was a rape trial, not homicide. In fact the other two "Wrongful Conviction" examples you list seem to be rather anomalous. If we apply the flowchart then the appropriate titles would probably be "Camm family murders" and "Killing of Arthur Easton", respectively. Muzilon (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no homicide in relation to Maney. She's innocent of anything to do with this case. Fuller-Sandys just disappeared. Apparently fell off the rocks while fishing. But she was convicted of his murder. So its a wrongful conviction case. Kiwimanic (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Although Maney's conviction has been overturned and Fuller-Sandys' fate is unclear, I'd suggest the names of the two alleged victims and the four defendants are inextricably intertwined for Wikipedia purposes, and the case should be dealt with under the one article. Muzilon (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is with the "murders" title, Larnoch Road killings is better, since regardless of specific location that is what it seems to be referred to as. I vote it should be changed to that. I oppose the proposed title since the two deaths are discussed together. Deaths (or Killing) of Leah Stephens and Deane Fuller-Sandys is worse but better than the initial proposition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the NZ media don't seem to refer to the case as the "Larnoch Road murders". If anything, it's been dubbed the "Gone Fishing killings" or "Gone Fishing case" after the documentary podcast series. However, that's clearly not a suitable title for a Wikipedia article. Muzilon (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The article will have to be rewritten because so much of the information in it is now known to be factually incorrect. To start with, we now know there is only one victim - Leah Stephens. So there was only one 'killing'. Fuller-Sandys appears to have drowned, so that rules out a title about 'killings'.

Now that Maney's conviction has been overturned, the connection the police claimed between between the two deaths (of Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stevens) has completely disappeared. It is therefore entirely uncertain that Stevens was murdered by Stone and equally uncertain that she was murdered at Lanoch Road.

The question is what aspects of the whole saga are sufficiently worthy of a wiki article. As it is currently written, the story is actually about a colossal police botchup, rather than about someone's death. I'm not sure that police botchups are worth of entry into wiki except when they lead to a wrongful conviction for murder - as occured in this case. At this point, Gail Maney is the only one of the people involved in this botchup that this applies to. I think the article needs to be named about what happened to her. The other people involved will obviously be mentioned, but not as the focus of the article. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, even if they were incorrect, it was a large part of the story, no? So maybe Larnoch Road deaths, or deaths of the two people with their names in the title. From what it was said above there were four defendants. Undue weight to only focus on one. What do the sources call the story now? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that Fuller-Sandys was not murdered (according to the Court of Appeal) and therefore did not die at Lanoch Rd. It seems he drowned. It is by no means certain that Leah Stevens died at Lanoch Rd either. Lanoch Rd can no longer be part of the title.Kiwimanic (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree we should remove "Larnoch Road" from the title.
• Per WP:DEATHS, homicide cases should normally be titled Murder/Killing/Death of...'
• We cannot currently say "Murder" because all pertinent convictions have been overturned by the Court.
• Given the current uncertainty of Fuller-Sandys' fate (he is missing presumed dead) we cannot say "Killing" about his death.
• Leah Stephens was certainly the victim of homicide but there is currently no conviction.
• Therefore the most appropriate title at this point in time is Killing of Leah Stephens or perhaps Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens.
• If Stone is convicted of causing one or both deaths after his projected retrial (which may or may not take place), we will probably have to review the title yet again. Muzilon (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What makes it clear that "Leah Stephens was certainly the victim of homicide"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I suppose a skeptic could even question that too. Perhaps all the more reason to call the article Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens. Muzilon (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If so, perhaps the title should use a term like "alleged" or "accusations". It seems like the topic is not the deaths themselves, but rather the attempts to blame someone for causing them. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be standard practice for Wikipedia titles in these sorts of cases. A quick search for "Alleged murder of" turns up two redirects, and there are no hits for "Alleged killing of". Muzilon (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

But there are article titles that use "accusation" and "allegation" and "alleged" and "wrongful conviction" and "overturned conviction". Incidentally, I just opened a three-article RM at Talk:Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction)#Requested move 4 October 2024. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The RM at Talk:Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction) is now closed, and the three articles discussed there were moved to titles like Wrongful conviction of Juan Rivera. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The Court of Appeals ruled the trial was not fair. It did not rule as to whether or not Fuller-Sandys was murdered nor how he died. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Everybody dies. What is so notable about these two deaths (especially when one of them appears to have drowned) that they deserve an article on wiki? Kiwimanic (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the case has been the subject of WP:SIGCOV. See WP:DEATHOF. Muzilon (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The deaths recieved no attention for years. Fuller-Sandys had been dead for eight years before the media showed any interest. Leah Stevens body was not found for three years - with no media interest. The 'case' (as you describe it) is not about their deaths. The 'case' is the one against Gail Maney and Steven Stone and whether or not they killed anyone.Kiwimanic (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Leah Stephens' disappearance was reported on by the media at the time. In any case, the long gap between the disappearances and the murder trial is not really relevant. If the editors here can't agree on a title (and I don't see much agreement so far) then we should follow the flowchart at WP:DEATHS by default. Muzilon (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The long gap between the disappearances and the trial is entirely relevant. It adds to the perception that the police stuffed up their inquiries into both deaths. And I not accpet that we shold follow that flow chart about death. The article is not about death. Its about a police stuff up leading to a wrongful conviction - related to an apparent drowning over which there appears to be no media coverage at the time. Kiwimanic (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Without trawling through old microfilms, I think it likely that Fuller-Sandys would have been mentioned as a "missing person" in newspapers at the time. Unfortunately the online newspaper archives like PapersPast don't have much coverage of that era. Muzilon (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am not at all fond of WP:DEATHS and believe it is often oversold. It emerged from an RFC in which the declared outcome was 'no consensus'. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. It is an essay. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been many cases when trials have occurred long after the victim's disappearance - Yvonne Bennett is a local example. And yes, I've already acknowledged that WP:DEATHS is an essay rather than firm policy, but if we can't reach a consensus then we may have to resort to it here. Muzilon (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:Death flowchart clearly does not apply as it does not cover wrongful convictions. If we can't reach a consensus that WP:Deaths is relevant, then we can't use it. At the risk of repeating myself - this article is not about their deaths. Its about the wrongful convictions. Why can you not accept that? Kiwimanic (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add at this point and will wait to see what other editors think. Regards, Muzilon (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Muzilon. But also, the topic is about Fuller-Sandys as well as Stephens. And it's about Stone as well as Maney. I don't agree that the title should be based solely on Maney and her wrongful conviction. I support Muzilon's second suggestion of Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens. Nurg (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If it shouldn't be based just on Maney, how about Wrongful convictions of Gail Maney and Steven Stone Kiwimanic (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Stone may face a retrial (and may even be found guilty again), so I think that title would be inadvisable. And even if we were to use a "wrongful conviction" title, why are you excluding the other two defendants, Colin Maney and Mark Henriksen? Muzilon (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has been called Lanoch Rd Murders since it was created in 2018 - even though it now appears there no murders at Lanoch Rd. Titles can be changes when the 'facts' change. So if Stone is eventually found guilty (which now seems extremely unlikely), the title can be changed again.

I would excuse Colin Maney and Mark Henriksen because they were not convicted of murder. But if you want a more specific title, how about this: Wrongful murder convictions of Gail Maney and Steven Stone.Kiwimanic (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A more conservative title would be "Overturned convictions of Gail Maney and Steven Stone" (or the slightly longer "Overturned murder convictions of Gail Maney and Steven Stone"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems rather arbitrary to focus on only two of the four defendants. However, naming all four defendants would result in a long and cumbersome title. I'd suggest that's yet another reason to have a concise "Deaths of" title. Muzilon (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not the least bit arbitrary to focus on the two main defendants. There's a very good reason to do so. They were the only two convicted of murder and both spent years in prison. Stone is still in prison. The other two were convicted of being an accessory. One did 12 months in prison and the other got a suspended sentence.

I thought we had pretty much agreed that having the word 'Deaths' in the title removes attention away from what the story is actually about. Its not about two dead people, neither of whom are particulary notable. Its about the colossal stuff up by the police leading to four wrongful convictions, only two of which are particularly noteworthy. I sound like a broken record. Kiwimanic (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see much "agreement" or consensus here. Muzilon (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No one really knows what happened to Fuller-Sandys. It appears he drowned. No one knows who killed Leah Stevens. So explain why you want the word 'deaths' in the title when thats not what the article is about - and it is not possible to make a definitive, factual statement about either death. Its all speculation. What is NOT speculation is that there was a miscarriage of justice. What is your problem with that? Kiwimanic (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, that all seems valid. But let's not minimize the impact of a false conviction, even with a suspended sentence or "only" a year in prison. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying this but no one here besides you seems to agree with the sentiment that the wrongful conviction is more notable than the deaths. The deaths seem more notable, and to be the key event that the conviction would not have happened without. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows? The killer or killers know. I think it would be premature to call the article Wrongful conviction of Stephen Stone [and Gail Maney] before we know the outcome of Stone's retrial - if indeed a retrial takes place. Death of is a neutral title in the interim - cf. Death of Joanna Lee. Incidentally, Mark Henriksen was sentenced to three years in prison,[2] not one year. Muzilon (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How long was Henriksen actually held in prison? (I don't think anyone said he was sentenced to one year.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, it's possible Henriksen was paroled after one year, but admittedly I can't find a news source about that. Muzilon (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Making clear !votes would really help out. Best, Reading Beans 07:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: It appears most editors are now leaning towards Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens, if only as a compromise. As the original nominator, I would support that. Muzilon (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: In the public domain, almost nobody knows the names of Deane Fuller-Sandys or Leah Stephens. Many know the names of Gail Maney and a few know the name of Stephen Stone. Anyone googling this story will likely enter the name of Gail Maney. If you want this wikipedia page to come up in Gooogle search, the name Gail Maney will bring many more hits than Fuller-Sandys.

I repeat for the umpteenth time. The article is not about the victims. Its about how the flawed police investigation leading to the wrongul convictions - the title of the article should reflect that. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No one else agrees with your belief that this article is about the conviction rather than the deaths. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I do. The story woven around their deaths seems more notable than the deaths themselves. Their deaths don't seem to be clearly connected with each other, other than by that story which emerged eight years after their deaths (assuming Fuller-Sandys died when he disappeared). That doesn't mean I'm necessarily objecting to a title of Deaths of ..., because I don't seems to have a much better suggestion, but I do have a lot of sympathy for that perspective. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And at the risk of repeating myself - because of the "story which emerged", the names of the two deceased and the four defendants have become inextricably linked, whether we like it or not. As I understand it, the Court of Appeal has set aside the convictions on the grounds of irregularities with two items of police paperwork, and because one of the key witnesses has died after partially recanting. This does not mean that all questions of guilt/innocence have been resolved, particularly if there is a retrial pending. Incidentally, Tony Williams' book A Case of Murder has a chapter about the case which is headed "Leah Romany Stephens", but I'm suggesting a slightly broader title here. Muzilon (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I seriously suggest "Overturned convictions of Gail and Colin Maney, Stephen Stone, and Mark Henriksen", but I don't object to "Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DEATHOF (yes, I'm aware it's an essay rather than a policy) "it is impractical to place the names of too many individuals in a title". That is another reason I'd suggest Deaths of in preference to Overturned convictions of. Muzilon (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Alleged Larnoch Road murders? Alleged murders on Larnoch Road? As I noted before, there are other article titles that use "accusation" and "allegation" and "alleged". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Even Kiwimanic and I both agree that we should not use "Larnoch Road" in the title because of the doubts over whether the (alleged) killings actually took place at Larnoch Road. Muzilon (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of doubts here, but the alleged murders were both alleged to have taken place on Larnoch Road. However, I do see that Larnoch Road was not mentioned in the headlines of any cited sources, so perhaps it is not a label used for this case (much) outside of Wikipedia. Alleged murders of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, that seems to go against WP:TITLECON and WP:CONSISTENT. Muzilon (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Muzilon wants consistency in the title. BarrelProof suggests Overturned convictions of Gail and Colin Maney, Stephen Stone, and Mark Henriksen". I cannot find any examples in wiki where the title "Overturned conviction of..." is used. However, there are many examples of "Wrongful conviction of..." So that should satisfy Muzilon.

So Muzilon's remaining objection seems to be that four names makes the title too long. I agree. So cut out the two lesser known names (who were not convicted of murder anyway) and make the title "Wrongful convictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone." There is no need for all four names to be in the title. That's simply not necessary. The two other people, one of whom never even went to prison, but who had their convictions overturned, can be included in the details of the article. Kiwimanic (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Or if you want to be more specific: Wrongful murder convictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone." Kiwimanic (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've explained above why I don't favour a "Wrongful conviction" title, and I don't have anything new to add at this point. Regards, Muzilon (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this your explanation? You said: If Stone is convicted of causing one or both deaths after his projected retrial (which may or may not take place), we will probably have to review the title yet again.

WP:Article titles says "The title indicates what the article is about". In other words, the title has to reflect the current situation. What might happen in the future is irrelevant. If we delayed naming articles waiting for future events to happen, articles about current situations would never get named. Please bring a dose of reality into your thinking here.

In the unlikely event that the situation changes, we can review the title. What's the problem? Kiwimanic (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've given other reasons, and since your proposed title doesn't seem to have much editorial support here, I don't see much point carrying on this particular debate - unless it does start to get some support. Regards, Muzilon (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your other reason seems to be "the usual practice is for homicide cases to be called "Death/Killing/Murder of.." Lets come back to WP:Article titles which says "The title indicates what the article is about". That invalidates your approach to this issue because the reality is that we know very little about either death.

• In regard to Fullers-Sandys, all we know is he went fishing and never returned. That would be a very short article and not sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page.
• In regard to Leah Sephens, we know she was murdered (she had stab wounds) and we know her body wasn't found for three years. That's about all we know for certain. So that would also be a very short article and also not sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page.
• What 95% of the article describes is the police mishandling of the case, the trial of innocent people and the Court of Appeal decision to declare the convictions a miscarriage of justice. That's clearly what the article is about. So lets just follow wikipedia policy on the naming of articles. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems this discussion has migrated to the topic below - Where was Leah Stevens murdered? Kiwimanic (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll bring the discussion back here. By way of comparison, should Death of Joanna Lee (where the homicide conviction was also quashed and a retrial ordered) be renamed Wrongful conviction of Luke Lee? Muzilon (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that's just a rhetorical question and I shouldn't take the bait to reply, but the death of Joanna Lee is a single event that is notable regardless of whether someone was convicted of causing it or not. She clearly died under rather unusual and dramatic circumstances, and that is not a disputed question. This case is a bit different, in that if not for the possibly false allegation of a cause to explain their deaths, the deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens would not be notable and would not be associated with each other at all as a single topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens". Reading Beans, when relisting the move request, expressed a wish for clear !votes, so this is mine. The current Larnoch Road murders title really must change to something else. In addition to my only previous comment, made at 09:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC), the title I support rates well as being from a neutral point of view. The "wrongful convictions" type of headings proposed by Kiwimanic are better than the current title, but arguably promote a point of view that focuses on failings of the police and justice system. Stone may (or may not) be retried, so the whole business has further to run, and the title can be considered again once future events have unfolded. For now, better to select a very neutral title. Nurg (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to Kiwimanic just below, here is the relevant wiki policy - Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles. Nurg (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Nurg that doesn't help your case. Under that link, it says: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Reliable sources refer to this case as a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction. So the title: Wrongful (murder) convictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone is more accurate and follows wiki policy. Kiwimanic (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It says both generally and what the subject is called, which means what it is literally called. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So what??? I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this vague comment. Kiwimanic (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And your edit summaries lead me to doubt you can be objective about this [3] [4] If these witnesses didn't have their identities suppressed those edit summaries would be a BLP violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

According to you, this article is about two dead people, not a Biography of a Living Person. Kiwimanic (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

BLP applies to all material that relates to a living person regardless of what the article is about. Your recent edit summary is BLP violation, you're welcome to believe what you want but keep these statements off Wikipedia, we're not here for polemics or to right great wrongs. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That you lack the ability to be impartial in this. You seem to have already made up your mind by labelling people as liars. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't label anybody as a liar. Four so-called witnesses were coerced into lying by the police and granted immunity from prosecution to do so. That's what led to the miscarriage of justice. Two of those so-called witnesses later recanted. You don't seem to know what this story is even about, so your off the wall opionions are totally irrelevant. Read some of the reliable sources before you comment.Kiwimanic (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens as title. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have made my position, and wiki policy on the issue, abundently clear. I see neither of the editors who support the change have paid any attention to wiki policy. Your personal opinions shouldn't really count.

BarrelProof also appears to oppose by stating that if not for a false allegation, "the deaths would not be associated with each other at all as a single topic." Kiwimanic (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwimanic: Seems to me you're reading too much into that statement considering that User:BarrelProof also said 'At this point I seriously suggest "Overturned convictions of Gail and Colin Maney, Stephen Stone, and Mark Henriksen", but I don't object to "Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens".'. As I pointed out below, we're not living in this alternative world where this didn't happen. Since it did happen the cases are now linked and we're forever likely to have an article covering them both. In fact AFAICT, you aren't actually suggesting we stop covering these deaths together so you to seem to acknowledge they're forever linked. You're only suggesting we give it a different title. Renaming this article doesn't change the fact that it deals with the deaths of those two people which ended in several people being wrongly convicted. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes we are living in an alternative world where this didn't happen. The convictions have been overturned which means Fuller-Sandys was not murdered. This didn't happen - other than in the minds of the police - who have now been proved wrong. The only viable explanation left is that he drowned. Kiwimanic (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The convictions being overturned means there was a miscarriage of justice and that those convicted are not considered guilty of it. If it has been 'proven wrong' then provide an RS that supports the assertion not your own original research on what Fuller-Sandys cause of death was. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Kiwimaniac - You've seriously misunderstood what an overturned conviction means and in an extremely disgusting way. As I mentioned below, someone spent 16 years of their life in jail for this when they never should have and are surely still dealing with the consequences of this. Two other people also spent less time in jail. The conviction being overturned doesn't mean this doesn't happen as I'm sure they could well tell you. It's disgusting that you think this is the case and so I won't be engaging with you further when you're so indifferent to the effects of this miscarriage of justice. The conviction being overturned just means that for the basis legal reality, they were never actually convicted of any crime and that's all, it doesn't affect what the people have had to live through. It's why they might be entitled to compensation and if they're not it's for some other reason (most likely because NZ law controversially requires proving innocence before compensation) rather than because the law doubts that these people actual spent time in prison for these crimes which were overturned. This is something that did happen to real people in this world, not something that is simply imaginary as you so callously implied. We're not living in this hypothetical world where it didn't happen and these people weren't so seriously harmed. We're living in the real world were it did happen and so these killings are forever linked since amongst other things, someone spent 16 years in jail because of this linkage no matter how incorrect that linkage was. There is no way we will ever have an article which doesn't mention them both. The most we could have would be no article, but this case seems notable enough that there seems no chance of that either. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

His belief is that because the cases were overturned Fuller-Sandys cannot have been murdered and the police theory of the crime (that two deaths were intentional killings that are linked) cannot be true. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne wrote: "The conviction being overturned just means that for the basis legal reality, they were never actually convicted of any crime." It does not mean that. They absolutely were convicted - wrongly. In other words, the wrongful conviction for murder has been overturned. Thats why the article should be named The wrongful (murder) convictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone. Kiwimanic (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also you have completly misunderstood my observation that "we are living in an alternative world where this didn't happen." What I was referring to is that the alleged murders did not happen the way the police said they did - and that maybe Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens were not even murdered.

I suppose I could choose to be extremely disgusted at your misinterpretation. Hopefully I am more mature than that. The problem is you ignored all my previous posts expressing concern about these wrongful convictions and somehow concluded that I meant the wrongful conviction didn't happen and these people never spent years and years in jail. Since you joined this conversation rather late in the day, I guess you are not up with the context of everybody's remarks. I have consistently been arguing that this article should be called the Wrongful (murder) convictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone. It's the only title that is consistent with wiki policy under WP:Article. Kiwimanic (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens" from my read, we have no idea if anyone was killed. If they were killed, we have no idea if it happened at Larnoch Road. Therefore the current title is a problem and since it doesn't seem to be the common name, there's no justification for it. However the deaths are now and forever linked. They resulted in one person wrongly spending 16 years in jail, and dealing with the consequences with that likely for the rest of their lives. They resulted in another person spending 26 years in jail and while this person could still face a trial (and so perhaps some of that time served might be justified despite the earlier wrongful conviction), whatever happens with that it's clear that the linkage between the deaths is a key factor in what happened to them. So it's entirely reasonable we have an article that covers both of them. When we have a resolution of Stone's case, we can decide where to go from there, but deaths is the best title in the interim. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:Article titles says "The title indicates what the article is about". That invalidates your approach to this issue because the reality is that we know very little about either death.

  • In regard to Fullers-Sandys, all we know is he went fishing and never returned. That would be a very short article and not sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page.
  • In regard to Leah Sephens, it appears she was murdered and we know her body wasn't found for three years. That's about all we know for certain. So that would also be a very short article and also not sufficiently notable for a wikipedia page.
  • What 95% of the article describes is the police mishandling of the case, the trial of innocent people and the Court of Appeal decision to declare the convictions a miscarriage of justice. That's clearly what the article is about. So lets follow wikipedia policy on the naming of articles.

  Kiwimanic (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to our article "Five days later, on 26 August 1989, Leah Stephens, a 20-year old Auckland sex worker, also disappeared. Her skeletal remains were discovered in a forest near the Muriwai Golf Course three years later, in June 1992. There were no obvious injuries to the skeleton." It doesn't sound like the coroner found any clear cause of death either. It's therefore impossible to conclude the was killed let alone she was murdered. All we know is that someone seems to have tried to cover up her death by improperly disposing of her remains. In ordinary police and media parlance in NZ, her death would likely be seen as suspicious and possibly (or probably?) a homicide but in the absence of further evidence, it cannot be conclusively demonstrated to be one. Therefore we cannot call it a killing let alone a murder in wikivoice as as in the title of the article so death is the fairest title. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Whether Leah Stephens was murdered or not is almost irrelevant. The police claimed she was. And reliable sources have referred to it as a murder for the last 20 years or so. However, the convictions of the alleged murderers have just been overturned. Therefore we can call it The wrongful (murder) conviction of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone. Thats what the article is actually about. WP: Article says the title should indicate what the article is about.

  The reality is we don't know anything about their deaths - so that can't be the title unless you want to ignore wiki policy on the naming of articles. Kiwimanic (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're wrong, in the case of Leah Romany Stephens we know that she died. That is no doubt of that, and policy fully supports calling an article Death of Leah Romany Stephens when we do not know how she died. There is nothing in the article title Death of Leah Stephens which in any way suggests or implies anything about how she died other than that she died which again is not in any doubt. In the case of Deane Fuller-Sandys you might be right it's a little more complicated. I'm not sure if it's clear any more that he died. In that case, it might be better to call the article Disappearance of Deane Fuller-Sandys and death of Leah Stephens. Again calling the article disappearance of Deane Fuller-Sandys doesn't imply he is still alive any more than Disappearance of Iraena Asher implies she is still alive, it just means we don't know what for sure happened to either of them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: @Kiwimanic: in response to your unsolicited message on my personal Talk page: if you read that sentence from WP:CRIME in its full context, it refers to a separate article vs. an existing article -- i.e. I don't believe we need to split/fork the current existing article (as you seemed to be suggesting) unless it becomes too lengthy. I do not intend to enter into further debate with you about my preferred Deaths of title. The majority of editors here seem to support it, and have given several reasons why it's preferable to your proposed title - at this point in time at least. I'd be willing to reconsider the title after we find out (in December presumably) exactly what's happening with the projected retrial. Regards, Muzilon (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is the message I left on Muzilon's talk page.

Hi Muzilon, despite our disagreement over what to name this article, I have great respect for you as an editor. Your edits are always constructive - except perhaps for this one issue on which we disagree. My concern is that you are not following wiki policy. WP:Article says The title indicates what the article is about. Despite a lenghty discussion on the Talk page, You have not provided any evidence to show that the article is more about the deaths than about the miscarriage of justice. Just about every source cited in the article is focussed on or refers to the latter. I don't think you can disagree with that.

Also you quoted this from WP:Notability: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article". Leah Stephens and Fuller-Sandys are ONLY known because of their (alleged) connection to alleged crimes. They have no other claim to fame. Can you please explain why you think this article should be named after them when wiki policy specifically excludes this. ''

It seems Muzilon does not have the courage to admit the title he supports is a breach of wiki policy - and would prefer group think to win the argument. This is defined on wiki as a "psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for conformity results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome". How sad!. Kiwimanic (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I sympathise somewhat, but the quoted sentence (known as WP:ONEEVENT or WP:1E) isn't really arguing against a title like "Death of Anna Aimsworth". It is just saying the article title shouldn't be "Anna Aimsworth" (the name of a person) if it is primarily about a death that is notable rather than a person who is notable. So it says an otherwise non-notable person should not be the subject of an article, but it is OK (as far as that sentence is concerned) for such a person's death (an event) to be the subject of an article. However, I agree with you about trying to focus on exactly what is notable about the topic. That needs to be balanced with other considerations such as having a concise and non-POV title, and that is where I think there is a divergence of opinion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

BarrelProof. I appreciate the fact that you have read and acknowledged the relevant wiki policy - which none of the other editors discussing this issue seem to have done. However, even if we agreed that you have successfully split the hair between an individual and his death (no easy task), the article is still not about the half of the hair related to the deaths. Its about the extraordinary lengths the police went to trying to link the deaths of Fuller-Sandy and Leah Stephens together, the controversy this created over the next 20 years, eventually leading the Court to declare the whole thing a miscarriage of justice. I believe you have also expressed sympathy for this perspective. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens - it's clear that something needs to change as there is now question as to whether one of them was a murder victim in the first place. Out of all of the possible options, this is the best compromise. RachelTensions (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read: WP:Article titles which says: The title indicates what the article is about. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Which is, at its root, the deaths of the two individuals. RachelTensions (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in wiki policy that says articles should be named after roots. The two individuals had been dead for eight years before the police showed any interest, so their deaths never met the criteria for WP:Notability. The article is not about the deaths (which we know virtually nothing about); its about the lies the police made up about their deaths and the impact that had on innocent lives. That's the real root of the story - and the twisted tree that grew on top of it. That's what the article is about. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"...the lies the police made up about their deaths". How do you know it was the police who made up these lies rather than the secret witnesses? Muzilon (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the police coerced them all into making up the same story. For instance, the article says: During the investigation, the two men who were granted immunity gave police three different accounts of where Stephens was murdered: a car park in Queen Street, Buchanan Street in the suburb of Kingsland, and finally Maney's home on Larnoch Road. But by the time they testified, they all had the same story. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As the "Gone Fishing" podcast said, you could draw more than one conclusion from that... Muzilon (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't listen to it. What other conclusions might one draw? Kiwimanic (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Deaths of Deane Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens as the most neutral title. I'm not against Disappearances of either if that's what people want. If circumstances and RS change, they change, and we can re-RM. I've read the whole discussion here and I have no interest in getting in an extended debate. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The circumstances have already changed. In October 2024, the case was declared a miscarriage of justice. Neutrality is not the only requirement for the title of an article. See WP:Article Title Kiwimanic (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the death of Deane Fuller-Sandys remain undisputed?

As much as I disagree with Kiwimanic on nearly everything, their comment above has raised an important point. Given the collapse of the police case and the fact that AFAIK we still have no body or other indication of death, does it remain undisputed that Deane Fuller-Sandys died? I'm not sure it is. We might get clarification with any retrial of Stone or we might not. Was he at least declared dead before the police case? Because if he wasn't I'd imagine even the legal situation is a bit tricky. He might have been declared dead, but based on the now collapsed police case. Assuming there's no clarity with Stone's retrial are there any sources which mention whether this will be revisited? If it's now unclear that he died, it would likely be better to follow the lead of articles like Disappearance of Iraena Asher, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Disappearance of Don Lewis, Disappearance of Sneha Anne Philip, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, Disappearance of John Favara where there are varying levels of uncertainty over what happened to them but which in many cases do have legal presumptions or declarations of death. Interesting enough, there are also articles with the disappearance title even without such uncertainty in particular Disappearance of Etan Patz which per the talk pages wasn't moved after conviction because it was long known as a disappearance. (This doesn't work for cases like this since while disappearance remains true no matter what we later know including if they later turn up alive, murder does not if there was no murder. Same too with killing or even death.) I'll also give Disappearance of Harold Holt an honorary mention since the article has that title but treats the death as undisputed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether the Coroner ruled Fuller-Sandys dead in absentia before the murder trial. Actually, my original suggestion - Killing (or Death) of Leah Stephens - might get us out of the difficulty. Muzilon (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It makes no sense to call the article: Death of Leah Stephens when we know nothing about her death and she is not notable - except for possibly being the victim of a crime - but we don't even know that for sure. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to death of Leah Stephens I guess. It sort of seems incomplete but in this case perhaps there's nothing better which is short adequately conveys the content and what we know so in the interest of concision it might be the least worst option. As often in the case which these sort of things, we're also potentially spending a lot of time on something that might chance significantly in the nearish future. If Stone retrial does go ahead then the outcome of that may significantly affect what happens here. If there ends up being only a conviction for Stephens then there would be much more merit to only mention her in the title, while still mentioning Fuller-Sandys probably even in the lead given what happened before means they are forever intertwined. Of course in the short term we might also find out we're not going to get that much clarity since if the retrial doesn't go ahead we're in a fairly similar situation to where we are now i.e. we know one person died, another disappeared and is presumed dead and that both these together resulted in a case with then 4 people convicted and spending time in jail when they shouldn't have been. Yes this is all a bit crystal bally but I always find it a bit weird to spend so much time on these sort of things for this reason albeit still needing to comply with the spirit of BLP for all living persons, and other general considerations so needing to be careful about what we're saying with any title. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where was Leah Stevens murdered?

I have found a number of sources which claim that Leah Stevens was "abducted from central Auckland where she worked as a prostitute. Stone then raped her, along with two other men, and killed her by stabbing her in the stomach and slitting her throat. Her body was dumped in Muriwai by two men, and her skeletal remains were found in 1992."

There is no mention that she was murdered in Lanoch Rd. Does anyone have sources indicating anything different? Kiwimanic (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me Google that for you: [5][6]. See also Tony Williams' book A Case of Murder. Muzilon (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Another aspect of the story cooked up by the police.Kiwimanic (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps by the secret witnesses, depending on your point of view... Muzilon (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwimanic: You said "In regard to Leah Sephens, we know she was murdered (she had stab wounds)". I don't currently see that in the article. Is it there? If not, and a citation to a reliable source can be identified, it would be nice to add it to the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof I was wondering about this myself. I think Tony Williams' book says the Coroner couldn't determine the exact cause of death from her skeleton. Muzilon (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I may have got that wrong. The stabbing to death and her throat cut was just another fantasy made up by the police and their dodgy 'witnesses'. You see how little there is we know about the death of Leah Stephens - and yet that's what you want the title of the artilce to be about Kiwimanic (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many articles about mysterious deaths. In any case, Barrelproof asked earlier what makes it clear that Stephens was the victim of homicide. We know she disappeared from a city street and ended up dead in a forest. Unless you want to imagine a scenario along the lines of perhaps she OD'd and her panicking dealer dumped her body in the woods, it's difficult to envisage how it wasn't homicide. Muzilon (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

So go ahead and create an article about her disappearance. The death of Esther Dingley is a good example of how to proceed. It has sections headed Background; Disappearance; and Remains found. In Leah Stevens case, you could possibly add a paragraph under the heading Speculation.

That might contain a few sentences on how the police came up with a bizarre story linking her death to that of another man who disappeared while fishing, how four innocent people were prosecuted 10 years later, and their convictions overturned another 20 years after that. All the other details would go in a separate article titled: Wrongful murder convictions of Gail Maney and Stephen Stone. How's that for compromise. You get the article that you want and I get the one that I want. Then we can both move on. But somehow I suspect you'll have yet another objection. Kiwimanic (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already mentioned WP:CRIME, which says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." We already have that article (here), and I don't think it's lengthy enough (yet) to justify splitting as you suggest. (Having said that, I note there are separate articles for Arthur Allan Thomas and the Crewe murders, even though both articles are under the usual 6,000 word threshold.) Regards, Muzilon (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever happened before, I think with Thomas his later prosecution for rape and sexual assault makes it hard to cover without a separate article. While Thomas's prosecution likely would have been unworthy of covering were it not for his earlier conviction, the fact it received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources because of his earlier conviction means we are where we are. Nil Einne (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure we already have an existing article but we don't have a title for it. Since you want to call it Death of Leah Stephens you would be breaching WP:CRIME which, as you quoted, says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article".

If we name the article with your suggestion, it then becomes an article about a person who is only known in connection with a criminal event. She has no other claim to notability. The same applies to Fuller-Sandys. Both are only known in connection with an alleged criminal event. The quote you have provided specifically excludes the title you are advocating. Kiwimanic (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest we wait for the outcome of the current rename discussion before we enter into any further debate about WP:CONTENTFORK. Muzilon (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read my previous comment. There is no mention of ContentFork. It address the rename discussion and explains how the quote you cited rules out your suggested title for the article. Kiwimanic (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really follow your line of argument. What would you propose that Death of Joanna Lee should be called? Muzilon (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Its very simple. Your quote says: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article". Leah Stephens is ONLY known because of her connection with a criminal event. So there should not be a wikipedia article named after her. The only exception for victims under WP:Notability (people) is if "The victim, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event." I agree that the events under discussion are well-documented - but Leah Stephens did not have a large role in them. She was dead and we know next to nothing about her.

On the other hand, the lead detective, Mark Franklin had a large role for bullying witnesses into making false statements. The four 'witnesses' who were granted immunity had an enormous role. The two who recanted had an even bigger role. Stephen Stone was alleged by those witnesses to have had a large role. Gail Maney was also alleged to have had a very large role. Tim McKinnel, who helped get Maney's conviction overturned played a large role. Leah Stephens had no role whatsoever in the events that went on 30 years afterwards. She does not meet wiki's definition of victim notability.

Neither does Joanna Lee. However, the perpetrator in that article might meet wiki's exception for notability because perpetrators are considered notable by wikipedia when "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual." The execution of the crime in Joanna Lee's case was extremely unusual. Kiwimanic (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

BLP and irrelevant convictions

@Kiwimanic the conviction is irrelevant to the article and mentioning it is a BLP violation. Please do not reinsert it. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Explain why you think it is irrelevant that the lead detective on the case had a drug problem.

2) This article is not a BLP. According to you its about two dead people.

3) It is not a BLP violation since it is true. Kiwimanic (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it has no bearing on the incident itself. Your whole behaviour with this article has been to POV push your beliefs of the crime onto the article, discrediting all police accounts without the proper sourcing to support it. And that extends to trying to smear the detective with comments such as 'This pot smoking detective led the botched prosecution' Traumnovelle (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Which incident are you referring to? There were so many incidents in this case and we are not a mind readers. Kiwimanic (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you not paying attention to the content you are restoring?

It is the 2013 conviction for selling of drugs in the Cook Islands. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The bit I restored said he was sent to prison in the Cook Islands for nine months for selling cannabis. You said that has no bearing on the incident itself. What incident??? Kiwimanic (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The convictions/police investigation. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But it has a huge bearing on the outcome - four wrongful convictions - because the lead detective who conducted the police investigation was a drug addict, proved by the fact that he eventually went to prison for it. That's highly relevant. Kiwimanic (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, you need a reliable source that states that. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Its not an interpretation. Its a fact that went to prison for drug dealing - cited in reliable sources. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no source that states the conviction in the Cook Islands has anything to do with this case. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Since all four defendants have had their convictions overturned, that means none of them are guilty of murdering Fuller-Sandys. So there is no longer a reliable source that says the disappearance of Fuller-Sandys and Leah Stephens are linked. There is no longer a source that says Fuller-Sandys drowning has anything to do with murder. All of that was total speculation by a police detective with a drug problem. The fact that Franklin was convicted of drug dealing is evidence of the fact that he had a drug problem. That's one of the few actual 'facts' in this entire case. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We have a subsection about Franklin's cannabis use/conviction, which I think is appropriate. Franklin himself has openly acknowledged that people might wonder whether his cannabis use compromised his work on this investigation, but he disputes that idea.[7] However, I'm not sure that this needs to be repeated more than once throughout the article. (At one stage the article mentioned his cannabis conviction three separate times, which was overkill.) Muzilon (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO if several sources covering the case mention the conviction, and especially if they say it's a reason why people have called his work into question, it's potentially worth mentioning. If we only had sources from the time of the conviction, even if those sources did mention he was the detective who worked on this case, I'd suggest we should exclude it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Without actually counting, it appears the police version of events in this case is also mentioned more than three times. Are we going to cut that to one version as well? Kiwimanic (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The police theory of the case is relevant no matter what you believe about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure - but that doesn't mean we need to repeat it ad nauseum. Its got nothing to do with what I believe. The Court of Appeal said it led to a wrongful conviction - so now we all know the police got it wrong. Kiwimanic (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't being repeated ad nauseum. It is repeated once in the lead, it could be shorter but so should the rest of the lead. The lead being too long means content needs to be summarised better, not removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Traumnovelle that the police case is an essential part of the story and belongs in the lead. This means it also belongs in the body in more detail; and therefore should appear twice. It makes no sense to suggest it's not an essential part of the case. Kiwimanic's suggestion to remove it from the lead makes no sense especially given their desired title since you cannot have a wrongful conviction without a case. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that I see no reason to mention the cannabis conviction in the lead. While there might be merit to mentioning it in the body, it's way too insignificant as this time to belong in the lead. It's always possible this will change if for some reason it becomes highly significant but that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Also AFAICT, no editor other than Kiwimanic has suggested that something in the lead should not be in the body. But in any case even if an editor does suggest that they're wrong. Anything in the lead should be in the body, often in more detail. (To be clear, the opposite is not true. Some things might be fine in the body but do not belong in the lead.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, cannabis is legal in many jurisdictions... so does a blanket statement in the lead that Franklin had a "drug problem" reflect a WP:WORLDWIDE view? Muzilon (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM and misrepresenting sources

@Kiwimanic please read through MOS:CLAIM your edit here: [8] reverting my changes not only violates that but you've inserted an unsubstantiated claim that the 'the police persuaded [the witnesses] to say that Fuller-Sandys was enticed to come to Larnoch Road on 21 August 1989 on his way to go fishing'. The source in no way supports the claim that police enticed/persuaded the witnesses. [9] Traumnovelle (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Witnesses vs Alleged witnesses

Recently I made a number of edits in which I made it clear that the people depicted in this article as 'witnesses' were, in fact, only alleged to be witnesses by the police. After it became clear to the Court of Appeal that police had coerced these so-called 'witnesses' to collude with each other, and that this collusion was hidden from the jury; and that two of the so-called witnesses subsequently recanted, the convictions of all four defendants were overturned. This means those people described in this article as witnesses were not witnesses at all. They were only alleged to be witnesses by the police - which is what led to the miscarriage of justice. This was accepted by the Crown and by the Court of Appeal.

Traumnovelle has overturned these edits claiming that I am pushing some obscure POV with Original Research. What the police did with these so-called witnesses is now established as fact. There is no OR as claimed by Traumnovelle.

He has even deleted the sentence in the lede that "Fuller-Sandys' body has never been found." That is also a fact and its presence in the article has nothing to do with POV pushing. Kiwimanic (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not refer to them as 'alleged witnesses'. You need an actual source that makes the claims you are trying to push here. I won't bother reading your comments unless they contain a source because otherwise it is a complete waste of time. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You even included scare quotes, against what the MOS prescribes: MOS:SCAREQUOTE Traumnovelle (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the two female secret witnesses only recanted the specific portion of their testimony implicating Gail Maney. It's possible their testimony may still be used in any retrial that Stone may face. Muzilon (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle - Your comments are disrespectful. Stick to content and WP policy rather than making personal attacks. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edits are disrespectful to the subjects involved. I see you've got no sources so I'll revert your editorialisation. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Which subjects are you referring to? The dead "victims", the alleged perpetrators whose convictions have been overturned, or the alleged witnesses whose names are suppressed. Your statement is vague and emotional. You need to calm down and make your concerns a lot clearer, based on specific sentences in WP policy if you want to be taken seriously.

I'll show you how to do it... WP:RS says: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect."

So the media sources that have been referring to "victims" for the last 20 years are now out of date - because the convictions have been overturned. The police coerced these people to make statements and gave them immunity from prosecution to do so.

Since no one involved is currently convicted of murder, there cannot be any witnesses to a murder. This is the "new information that has been brought to light."

Its not rocket science. Its common sense. Please have a look at the suggestions in this essay: Wikipedia:Common sense is not original research. Kiwimanic (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much every person besides the accused and acquitted. You can't even manage to have a modicum of respect for the dead.

Older sources being inaccurate means relying on more recent sources, not making edits that go against what any reliable source states. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that the sources referring to the alleged witnesses as actual witness are inaccurate. That's a start. In which case - since you now agree with me, how I am being disrespectful to them? Please explain. Kiwimanic (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"The police coerced these people to make statements and gave them immunity from prosecution to do so." Whatever the doubts over the credibility of the two secret female witnesses, it seems the two male witnesses voluntarily approached the police to confess that they'd been accessories to Stone's murder of Stephens -- although they appear to have changed their stories about the precise location and reason for her murder. Muzilon (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What source that says they voluntarily approached the police? Kiwimanic (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Gone Fishing, Ep. 4 ("The Forest")

And if we want to be really pedantic, the NZ Oxford Dictionary defines "witness" as:
1. a person present at some event and able to give information about it.
2. a person giving sworn testimony.
Clearly all four secret witnesses meet the second definition at the very least.

Muzilon (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a listen.

However Mirriam Webster give five potential definitions of witness:

1) as attestation of a fact or event

2) one that gives evidence. Specifically one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal

3) one asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place

4) one who has personal knowledge of something

5) something serving as evidence or proof.

The common element is that someone has actual knowledge of something - including 'evidence' at a judicial tribunal. Kiwimanic (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Definition #2 is nearly the same in both dictionaries -- see also Wiktionary definition #3: "Someone called to give evidence in a court." So someone who gives untrue testimony in court may still be called a "witness" in that broad sense. Muzilon (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevant definition is 2 given the legal nature of the case and as per our article on witness it does not mean what they state is necessarily truthful, that is the whole point of cross-examination and jury trials. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Too broad I'm afraid - especially if they claim to have been at an event that didn't happen. Its totally misleading for these people to be called witnesses dozens of times in the article. It breaches WP:NPOV which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias." Constant references to these people as witnesses introduces significant bias. It implies they were actually there (where?) and actually saw something (what?). Kiwimanic (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV means representing what is reported in sources. Sources refer to them as witnesses and to refer to them as anything else would be the NPOV breach. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You need to actually read the policy. NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias." You have already agreed that the sources referring to them as witnesses are out of date. So to continue referring to them as witness introduces out-dated bias and is no longer fair. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You've purposely ignored the full quote: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. And what are the significant views?

One is that Gail Maney and Stephen Stone are guitly of murder and that 'witnesses' testified to that.

The other is that this was a miscarriage of justice and they are not guilty. The defence lawyers claim (and the Court seems to agree) that the so-called 'witnesses' made everything up.

So if the article continues to refer to them as 'witnesses', that provides support for version one. It is a disproportionate representation of the two competing narratives and is clearly not fair to Gail Maney and Stephen Stone - which potentially makes it a breach of WP:BLP. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports those statements or no?

The only breach of BLP would be to imply anyone is guilty of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Which statement are you referring to? Are you not aware of the two competing narratives about the case - or do you still think Gail Maney and Stephen Stone are guilty? If so, then clearly you are unable to provide neutral editing on this article.

As I have said before - your vague statements are not helpful to constructive discussion. You need to think carefully about what you have written and figure out whether other people are likely to understand what you mean before pressing Reply. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So no, you don't have sources that support your claims/edits and thus they shouldn't be included in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources like the Herald, RNZ, and 1News continue to speak of "witnesses" and/or "key witnesses" rather than "alleged witnesses" – even after the quashing of the convictions. Muzilon (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So what - that doesn't alter the need for wikipedia articles to be neutral. Kiwimanic (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You're suggesting these news sources are not neutral? You also seem to be overlooking a third possible "narrative" - that Stone may be guilty of at least one murder, even if Maney is not. Muzilon (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Muzilon. A number of times when editing this article you have made references to something that may happen in the future - and used that to justify content in the present tense. Anything that may happen in the future is speculation - which is akin to Original Research - not allowed on wiki.

Also WP:NOT states that "Wikipedia does not predict the future". What might happen in the future is totally irrelevant to any considerations of the current state of an article. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support the use of witness over alleged witness or 'witness' in WP:SCAREQUOTES. Muzilon (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The word alleged in modern usage is associated with wrongdoing by someone (ironic use excepted). It is not an appropriate word for someone who was merely a witness (real or otherwise) to wrongdoing. So the article should not be talking about alleged witnesses. Nurg (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Cambridge dictionary describes a witness as "a person who sees an event happening, especially a crime or an accident". No one is convicted of the murder of Fuller-Sandys or Leah Stevens. No one saw anything. So there are no witnesses to anything in this case. Everything the four key people said at the trial was manufactured by the police - which caused a massive miscarriage of justice. The most accurate word to describe these people is liars or possibly police fabricators Kiwimanic (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You have to be purposefully ignoring things to suit your agenda. The Cambridge Dictionary also provides this definition: a person in a law court who says what they know about a legal case or a particular person Traumnovelle (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"No one saw anything." Did you listen to the Gone Fishing podcast as I suggested? Despite several inconsistencies in their stories, the two secret male witnesses approached the police to confess that they were eyewitnesses to Stone's murder of Leah Stephens (whose surname you have repeatedly misspelled, by the way). The female witness who died in 2023 also adhered to her story that she saw a corpse in the boot (trunk) of Stone's car - even though she recanted the specific portion of her testimony implicating Maney. Muzilon (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

One source, which you describe as inconsistent, is not sufficient. You need multiple sources to support this dubious contention - which is effectively ruled out when the convictions were overturned. Since there is no documented murder anymore, it is not possible for there to be any witnesses. This is basic common sense. Continuing to argue that witnesses exist shows you do not accept the Court's verdict and demonstrates your bias in this matter. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't have a bias here? Then may I suggest you take the matter to WP:DR. Muzilon (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle - Once again you have made a vague statement alleging I am "purposefully ignoring things" - but you don't say what it is I'm ignoring. You need to be a great deal more specific if you want you comments to be taken seriously. Kiwimanic (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You ignored the definition of witness from the Cambridge Dictionary that is most relevant here. I literally quoted it for you. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. The definition you quoted says: "a person in a law court who says what they know about a legal case or a particular person." These individuals were pressured into making up lies by the police - they don't actually know anything about what happened - so they are not witnesses. In fact it now appears that nothing happened....Kiwimanic (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There are no sources that support any one of your claims so you need to resort to casuistry. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again you are being vague. Which claim are you referring to. There are plenty of sources which document the miscarriage of justice. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And plenty of sources saying the so-called witnesses recanted. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And yet those same sources still refer to them at witnesses [10] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So what do you personally think? Are those sources correct or not? Kiwimanic (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources use the term witness and we should use the same terminology as the sources use. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I repeat what do you personally think? Are those sources correct or not? Kiwimanic (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter what I think, we report what the sources state and not our own interpretation of the event WP:OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting wiki policy. WR:RS does not require word for word verbatim copying - you would be in breach of WP:Copyrights.

WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". It does NOT say wiki should quote word for word. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I said report what they state and whilst you cannot copy verbatim you also cannot alter the meaning of what the source states substantially like you have done Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are altering the meaning of the entire article by continuing to refer to these people as witnesses when they were not. Kiwimanic (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Every source refers to them as witnesses. They testified in court on behalf of the prosecution, that meets the legal definition of witness, which is the relevant one given the legal contexts of the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The media incorrectly refered to these people as witnesss for more than 20 years. Wiki followed suit which was fair enough at the time because the defendants were found guilty. The media still incorrectly refers to them as witnesses. But now we know they were not. Wiki is not obliged to quote inaccurate information. See Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

See also WP:Accuracy. "Accuracy is an objective of Wikipedia." Kiwimanic (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That is an essay not a policy. WP:RS and WP:V are policies. If RS continue to report them at witnesses (as they should, because witness in this context has nothing to do with reliability/truthfulness) then we should continue to use that. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

1) The fact that you want to ignore the need for accuracy does not reflect well on your integrity or your neutrality.

2) WP:V does not help you. It says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.

3) It also says: "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV)." Referring to people who were coerced in making shit up and describing them as witnesses implies that what they said is true. This is is a breach of WP:NPOV. However, if we point out that they were only alleged to be witnesses, then we have reintroduced neutrality.

"The media still incorrectly refers to them as witnesses. But now we know they were not." No, we don't "know" that. The two secret male witnesses have never recanted anything, and the two female witnesses only recanted the portion of their testimony implicating Maney. That is one of the reasons Stone may yet face a retrial. Muzilon (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You keep wandering into the future which is not relevent to articles on wiki. You are using speculation - ie original research to try and justify your stance. But to humour you for a minute, it is highly unlikely that Stone will be charged again. He has already spent 26 years in prison over something for which he has now been found not guilty. The Crown will likely conclude it is not in the interest of justice to try him again.

Since no one is convicted of a murder here and now (in the present), there cannot be any witnesses to a murder that didn't happen. Kiwimanic (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiwimanic, the word 'witness' has more than one meaning/usage, and you know this, having quoted Merriam Webster yourself. If someone claims to have seen an event when they did not, whether because they were not present or because the event never even occurred, then they were not a witness to the event. We all understand that. But, when someone is called to court to give evidence, they are termed a 'witness', even if they perjure themselves, lie through their teeth and claim to have seen events that never happened. Muzilon and Traumnovelle have already said this, on 9 Nov at 07:12 and 07:14 respectively. Do you understand the distinction between the two meanings/usages, i.e. (1) someone who sees an event, (2) someone who is called to give evidence in court? Nurg (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The following all agree. A witness has to actually see something - making it up does not meet the definition.

Oxford Dictionary: "a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place."

Mirriam Webster: "one who has personal knowledge of something"

Britannica: "a person who makes a statement in a court about what he or she knows or has seen."

Collins: "A witness to an event such as an accident or crime is a person who saw it."

Dictionary.com: "an individual who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator.

Cambridge: "a person in a law court who says what they know about a legal case or a particular person" Kiwimanic (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Real convenient how you've managed to overlook the definition in the OED that is pertinent to the matter: 'One who gives evidence in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; spec. one who gives or is legally qualified to give evidence upon oath or affirmation in a court of justice or judicial inquiry.' Traumnovelle (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Real convenient how you manage to rely on one ambiguous definition in one dictionary and ignore all other more reliable sources that require a witness to have actually seen something. But then you have made it very clear that accuracy and neutrality are not important to you. Kiwimanic (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the relevant legal definition in the most highly regarded dictionary. Non-legal definitions are irrelevant because all the sources and this article have a legal context. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The OED is not a dictionary of legal definitions. Here is a legal definition from a Legal Dictionary

Witness

1) n. a person who testifies under oath in a trial (or a deposition which may be used in a trial if the witness is not available) with first-hand or expert evidence useful in a lawsuit. A party to the lawsuit (plaintiff or defendant) may be a witness.

2) n. a person who sees an event.

3) n. a person who observes the signing of a document like a will or a contract and signs as a witness on the document attesting that the document was signed in the presence of the witness. Kiwimanic (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The many words for witnesses

This is a ridiculous discussion. We do not need to get hung up on the dichotomy between witnesses and alleged witnesses. We can simply refer to the them as men, women, people, a person etc. Kiwimanic (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how you will choose to ignore every single RS on the basis of your own opinion. Witness is an appropriate term regardless if a witness is lying or has been convicted of perjury. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiwimanic, as with the recent Move discussion, your opinion is very much in the minority here. The consensus is to use plain old witness without "alleged", "so-called" or scare quotes. May I suggest you refer the matter to Dispute resolution if you wish to pursue the debate further? Muzilon (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)