User talk:Neil Hayman

James Annesley

Thanks for the edits. Unfortunately it's problematic for Wikipedia purposes. First it's full of typographical errors (spelling, grammar, spacing). Second, no sources are provided, see WP:RS for the rules. Third, it's not WP:NPOV, for example sentences like this:

"That was a very big mistake."

"probably because of the uncontested evidence that the evil defendant had wickedly kidnapped his nephew"

"Mary Heath was a quite different person."

etc..

These sentences make sense only if we know who the author is, but Wikipedia is "author-less", and so we have to write like a news feed, factual and without a point of view/opinion (unless that pov/opinion is referenced to someone notable, with appropriate sources). The narrative was also difficult to follow, perhaps written in haste it didn't seem "encyclopedic". I understand your a new editor, I encourage you to review Wikipedia conventions by reading the core rules as well as the better examples to see how articles are written in terms of tone and style. I've saved the facts you added and found and linked the court transcripts, thank you! Green Cardamom (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,Green Cardamon.I was on the way to correct the typos when I got your note,and thanks for the two additional de la Torre footnotes previously unknown to me.Otherwise,however,I must dissent from your editorial judgment as to which unstated facts constituted "good" facts. All the additional facts,whether considered "good" or "bad" can be found in the original trial transcripts(except James' intent to call one thousand witnesses which derives from his Appeal to the Country circa 1753) and are found in the opening statements and preliminary motions affixed to the Civil Trial and the HeathTrial.By the way the Civil Trial was tried by a local Wexford jury,not by Dubliners.

" "That was a very big mistake."

   "probably because of the uncontested evidence that the evil defendant had wickedly kidnapped his nephew"
   "Mary Heath was a quite different person."

etc..

These sentences make sense only if we know who the author is"

  I must disagree.Re:Your three citations(1)The James Annesley people had ,compared to the defendant,a relatively small amount of cash.They squandered it gathering up one hundred and eighty six witnesses for what was in effect a grudge fight prosecution.They saw it all lost inside twenty minutes.They needed that money to bring their witnesses to the House of Lords and it was not(as the above cited appeal bears witness )forthcoming the third time around.The second jury didn't believe James' witnesses;staking a third trial  was no longer the sure fire bet which  it seemed after the first trial. The Mary Heath prosecution was "a very big- and a very costly- mistake" for James Annesley.

(2)"probably because of the uncontested evidence that the evil defendant had wickedly kidnapped his nephew".Two of the three judges in the Trial at Bar devoted lengthy parts of their summations to the "wickedness" and "evil" intent of the defendant in kidnapping a twelve year old boy and further plainly instructed the jurors that if they were uncertain which way to go on the other evidence they could(not must) take the kidnapping as tipping the scales.

(3)"Mary Heath was quite a different person".She was.She was a devoted confidant who had cared for the semi-paralyzed and dying Lady Annesley during the last twelve years of the latter's wretchedly impoverished life.If she, or her mistress, had been in a position to produce a legitimate heir,it is very difficult to see why they didn't do so then.That's what Mary's attorneys,truly or falsely, successfully argued to the 1744 jury.

I chose my words carefully and trust the facts,good and bad, may be,minus the typos, reinserted in the article.If there ever was a case that had(and has) two sides to it,it is this one, and the article should reflect this.

The reference to the de la Torre Annesley manuscript was formerly on the de la Torre page at the Mystery Writers of America.I will try to track it down.I also met Irish people who assisted her in her research.She undoubtedly saw things which Ekrich could not.

Tichborne case

I moved most of your comments to their own section at the end of the talk page for the Tichborne case so people can more easily see and comment on them. --Erp (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)