Talk:Murder of Anita Cobby/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

2006

The Trial We've got: "All accused pleaded not guilty at their trial, however shortly before trial proceedings began, Travers changed his plea to guilty."

Then: "John Travers having already pleaded guilty before the trial."

So did he change his plea before or after the trial? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shermozle (talk • contribs).

Immediately before the trial began. -- Longhair 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary for this article to have so many links to other articles? I don't see why it should link to each article for the particular body part on which bruising was found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.9.64 (talk • contribs).

I cleaned up the links a little. Should be better now. -- Longhair 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It says the were sentenced in the Supreme Court, which has a link to the page "Supreme Court," which is an article about the general usage of the term around the world, ie, the most powerful court of last resort in the country. Australia's highest court is the "High Court of Australia," while Supreme Courts are only the highest courts in each state. Is there a more appropriate link that could be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.103.206 (talk • contribs)

I've changed the link to Supreme Court of New South Wales. -- Longhair\^talk 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

inconsistency

How was Travers apprehended? The section detailing investigation jumps directly from the police investigation to Travers being in police custody without giving any explanation. --68.40.197.241 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too, whoever was adding info about travers probably had the strange notion that everybody knows how it happened (how he was apprehended). Also, very strangely (probably the same user) just put in travers at the beginning of the article before he is ever introduced that he had had something to do with her broken fingers, users reading the article will wonder WHO OR WHAT travers is (just like I did). Very poor editing indeed! Billtheking 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Someone elses daughter cover.jpg

Image:Someone elses daughter cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Murphy or Michael Murdoch?

I removed these two sentences from the article because they seem to contradict each other or need further clarification:

"On December 26, 1985, two months before the murder, Michael Murphy escaped from Silverwater Correctional Centre."

"A mistrial was called when information surfaced that Michael Murdoch was a prison escapee from Silverwater Prison at the time of the murder."

I had a look but couldn't find it in the references. Maybe someone with the book could clarify it for us? Sarah 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article needs cleaning up

Sections of this subject reads more like a novel than a statement of fact - I have neither the time nor inclination to do it myself, but someone may want to do a rewrite so it doesn't sound like a Year 10 English assignment. Especially that part about the face in the clouds being 'his daughter's killer'. Wtf?

EDIT: Oh hell, I'll do it myself. Started with one small change. More to come. Kyniska 911 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Murder of Anita Cobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this article too sanitised?

On another site, one can read:

"Anita Cobby had been dragged through a barbed-wire fence and punched, beaten and kicked. There was extensive bruising on her head, breasts, face, shoulders, groin, thighs and legs. Her throat had been cut and she was almost decapitated.

Medical officers believed that Anita Cobby was conscious when she had her throat cut. It would have taken two to three minutes for her to bleed to death. Anita Cobby had also been repeatedly raped."

which is gruesome, but helps to explain *why* the public was so outraged, something the current Wiki article doesn't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.64 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article misses much of the brutality, and shows just how deranged the five killers are. Cobby was tortured by Travers for perhaps 30mins before she was killed. Travers cut off her nipples and she was made to eat them. The nipples were found in her stomach during postmortem examination. These kinds of details are not published in the hope there will not be copycat killers. However, sanitizing events also denies the public the real picture. You can be sure the prison population are well informed about the details, though.27.33.81.127 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The medical examiner denied under oath during his court testimony that she was mutilated in the way you describe or in any other way other than what's currently described in the article. He said radio reports used incorrect information. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)