Talk:Irvin Rockman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irvin Rockman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Irvin Rockman's Alleged Criminality[edit]

For the pointless point of discussing whether the inconvenient truth of Irvin Rockman's consistently alleged criminality should be included in his article, or it should be a false representation, as a single editor desires – and has attempted to instil by edit warring, let's restate the facts. Here is what is disputed by editor @Zybax1!, despite it being authoratively and rigorously cited:

Irvin Rockman was married three times and had six children.

According to Derryn Hinch, former Melbourne Lord Mayor Ron Walker stated that due to his persistent opportuning, Rockman was nicknamed "Pervin’ Irvin". (REF: [1])

  • Alleged Corruption*

In 1980, reports by a private investigator alleging corruption amongst Melbourne city councillors and staff were leaked. Irvin Rockman's name was mentioned in the reports. Rockman stated that he would have been "an idiot to get a council department to fix my laws...I don't even know what the allegations are."(REF"Paul Robinson, 'Reports Were Leaked Says Gardens Chief', The Age, 31 December 1980, p3) The information led to the Council's sacking by the State Government, but the contents of the reports were not made public.

  • Allegations of Criminality (including Drug Trafficking and Witness Intimidation)*

In 1981, Irvin Rockman was called as a witness during an inquest into the death of Cassandra Ogdon, a 25-year-old Melbourne university graduate, after she had named him in her suicide note as being involved in the importation and trafficking of cocaine. (REF: Mark Russell, "Win for third wife, but Yoda the dog gets $50k in lord mayor's will", 15 April 2015, [2])

Ogdon had been found dead in bed in a National Crime Authority (NCA) safe house with a plastic bag over her head, a rope around her neck and a note beside the bed. It was a few hours before she was due to give testimony at a hearing by the NCA into a drug importation racket operated by her close friend and former high school maths teacher, Peter Cross, the son of a former NSW Supreme Court judge, and, according to a written statement also made by Cross, Irvin Rockman, as financier. The suicide note, which was read to the court, stated:

"I do not prefer to wait for the day the NCA squeeze me to the point of necessitating my murder at the hands of hoons of Melbourne's leading business tycoons."(REF: Witness Poorly Protected, The Canberra Times, 25 May 1988, p8)

The note further alleged Rockman had been the financier of the trafficking. (REF: Witness Poorly Protected, The Canberra Times, 25 May 1988, p8)

Ogdon had been an exchange student in Bolivia where Cross visited her, and asked to be introduced to those who could facilitate the importation of cocaine into Australia. (REF:The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report, 1989, pp21-22.) In his own statement, Cross said Rockman and others attended "a ceremonial opening" of the cocaine delivery at Rockman's farm at Gembrook. (REF: Witness Poorly Protected, The Canberra Times, 25 May 1988, p8)

The inquest ruled Ogdon’s death a suicide. Despite a statement she made to the police alleging Rockman had engaged in intimidation of her, and testimony of a witness at the inquest that he had seen Rockman at his Malvern home warn Ogdon to keep quiet about the Bolivia deal, (REF: Rockman 'knew dealer', The Canberra Times, 27 May 1988, p8) the inquest cleared Rockman of involvement in Ogdon's death. Rockman also denied all knowledge of Cross's trip to Bolivia and of financing him. (REF: Suicide Finding In Ogdon Case, 28 May 1988, p7.) Contradicting this, in a police statement, Cross said Rockman and others attended "a ceremonial opening" of the cocaine delivery at Rockman's farm at Gembrook.(REF: Witness Poorly Protected, The Canberra Times, 25 May 1988, p8) However, Cross subsequently refused to give evidence against Rockman.(REF: The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report, 1989, pp21-22)

The National Crime Authority raided Rockman's homes in South Melbourne and Toorak and his farm at Gembrook during the investigation. (REF: Mark Russell, "Win for third wife, but Yoda the dog gets $50k in lord mayor's will", 15 April 2015, [3]) He denied having ever met Cassandra Ogdon.<ref>Mark Russell, "Win for third wife, but Yoda the dog gets $50k in lord mayor's will", 15 April 2015, [4]) However, the Coroner found Rockman had lied.

As detailed by The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report:

"Despite denials by Irvin Rockman, the Coroner found that Ms Ogdon had been present at premises in Malvern in August 1981 with Cross, Rockman and others in circumstances where cocaine was present and used." (REF: The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report, 1989, pp21-22)

The Coroner also found that Ogdon believed:

"Rockman was involved in the importation; that she had information which required her silence; that her silence had been specifically demanded of her at the gathering."[3.4](REF: The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report, 1989, pp21-22)

The Report also detailed the intimidation Ogdon was subjected to after she made a written statement to NCA investigators :

"a number of incidents had fuelled Ms Ogdon's fears for her safety and that of her family. A live bullet had been found at her parents home in May 1987, Rockman had pulled up in his car while she waited at a bus stop and had glared at her in what she perceived to be a threatening manner, she was visited at work by two men of whom she was suspicious, and who asked her about the contents of her statement to the Authority, and three nights before she was due to give evidence before the Authority, Ms Ogdon had received a phone call warning her not to testify." [3.5](REF: The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report, 1989, pp21-22)

The Report stated that notorious 'hit man' Christopher Dale Flannery was a friend of Cross, and Ogdon seriously feared for her life. [3.6] (REF: The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Third Report, 1989, pp21-22)

Despite the evidence of the importation as detailed at the Ogdon inquest, including two statements by those involved alleging he was the financier of the criminal operation, Irvin Rockman was never charged.(REF: Mark Russell, "Win for third wife, but Yoda the dog gets $50k in lord mayor's will", 15 April 2015, [5])

Do let us know what particular point/s is/are disputable. The rationalisations will be worth a wry laugh. ClearBreeze (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ClearBreeze: @Zybax1!: Personally, I feel that the statements are made all too matter-of-factly, given the alleged nature of the activities. That Rockman was suspected of some things is clear, but the fact that no charges were ever brought speaks to the fact that the suspicions could not be sufficiently validated. I would lean toward mention the suspicions, but calling them such, and not stating as fact that which was only alleged. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61 "I feel the statements are made all too matter-of-factly". That's because the statements are directly quoted from the National Crime Authority Report, so they can't be consistently disputed here by Zybax1! Also: with regard to: "the fact that no charges were ever brought speaks to the fact that the suspicions could not be sufficiently validated." That is supposition. There is another supposition – one that prevailed, and continues to prevail – that charges were never brought either due to (a) police corruption (which was endemic in Victoria at the time) and/or (b) Cross refusing to testify against Rockman for reasons that can be readily assumed, and/or (c) due to influence being wielded by Rockman and/or others at a high level. As a former Lord Mayor and prominent businessman, he had the highest connections in Melbourne's Establishment, and Jewish community. Obviously none of these suppositions can be stated without sources, and the case has not been covered beyond the immediate press of the time. That is why, if the facts as they exist are to be discounted by Zybax1!, then chapter and verse needs to be laid out. ClearBreeze (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ClearBreeze: Since we don't deal in "reasons that can be readily assumed" at Wikipedia, I would limit any coverage of the matter to the allegations laid out in the National Crime Authority Report, with emphasis on the fact that they were allegations that were never proven conclusively. Specifically, I would replace Rockman was the financier of a cocaine importation ring with a sentence along the lines of Rockman was accused of financing a cocaine imporation ring. I would further move the entire section to a subheading "Controversy", rather than having it appear as part of the lead. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61 I have absolutely no problem with that at all, except I also think quoting Ogdon's suicide note, using the Canberra Times report of the inquest proceedings is critically important. Particularly as Cross's statement isn't available. And I think the heading of 'Controversy' is a fuzzy weasel word. 'Alleged Criminality' states the content to follow clearly. ClearBreeze (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ClearBreeze: A suicide note is hardly a reliable source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61 I am certain many would argue that, as the last testament of a Crown witness who had previously given a statement to the police that she was being intimidated to remain silent, and a further witness testifed at her inquest that he had seen Rockman warn her to remain silent, it's utterly critical evidence. ClearBreeze (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61 Zybax1! has refused to engage, so there's nothing more to be said. ClearBreeze (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ClearBreeze: I agree, and I would invite @Zybax1!: to do so, but the discussion was largely between you and me, and we had not resolved the issue. Admittedly, the discussion had grown stale, but that is not the same thing. As for your last argument (regarding Ogdon's suicide note), I would point out that such notes are generally not written in a clear state of mind, so could not possibly be considered a reliable source. Again I point to the fact that, while there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, no jurisdiction ever chose to charge Rockman criminally, and therefore we at Wikipedia should not either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61 @Zybax1! Two points. THE FIRST. You state: "no jurisdiction ever chose to charge Rockman criminally, and therefore we at Wikipedia should not either." CORRECT. And nothing otherwise has been claimed. To repeat: the coronial inquiry found, and EXPLICITLY stated, that in its opinion Rockman had LIED in the testimony he gave. FOLLOWING the coronial inquiry, the National Crime Authority therefore took action, and prepared a case against Rockman. HOWEVER, the case could not proceed because the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions, Ian Temby, refused to indemnify Peter Cross to give evidence. [Bob Bottom, Inside Victoria: A Chronicle Of Scandal, Pan Macmillan, Sydney 1991, p129] WHY did this happen? That's a VERY good question which a lot of people would still like answered. NONETHELESS, these are the facts, and they need to be stated. Contrary to the narrative Zybax1! wishes to spin, Rockman was NEVER EVER legally cleared of the allegations. Because the NCA was stymied [an indisputable fact: see the Bob Bottom book and newspaper reports], the evidence was never brought to a court and tested. SECOND POINT: You state: "(regarding Ogdon's suicide note), I would point out that such notes are generally not written in a clear state of mind, so could not possibly be considered a reliable source." Ogdon's suicide note was a distilled reiteration of claims she had explicitly made in her police statement. It therefore constitutes strong supportive evidence, and not to state it is to hide it. ClearBreeze (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ClearBreeze: It's clear that you and I are not going to come to an agreement here. I'm going to seek a third opinion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!

Third opinion[edit]

Howdy hello! I'm responding to a request for a third opinion made at WP:3O. Having read the contested material, and the above discussion, I'm of the conclusion that the material should not be included. If anything is to be included, I think only a short blurb is warranted, otherwise the material would be WP:COATRACKing. And if it were to be included, it would need to much more neutrally worded than the version I read, and based only on reliable, independent, secondary sources. The contested version was not reliably sourced, and jumped to a lot of conclusions. While the contested version may not have been written with the intent of smearing Rockman, it had that effect. I think a single sentence about the scandal might be warranted, such as Rockman was alleged to have been involved in a 1988 drug smuggling scandal, but no charges were ever filed and Rockman maintained his innocence., using [6] as a source. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings @WikiDan61: @ClearBreeze:. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: Many thanks for your opinion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek Even assuming good faith, this Third Opinion is either a cynical attempt to deliberately discredit, or an example of depressingly poor comprehension. The so-called "unreliable sources" are, respectively, a Parliamentary Report, The Canberra Times, The Age, and a book by the highly respected (Order of Australia) investigative journalist Bob Bottom, who simply states a further public outcome. Please don't waste my time. @WikiDan61 ClearBreeze (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ClearBreeze: If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you are free to seek other avenues of dispute resolution. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @CaptainEek:. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main concerns are with the report, and the use of the suicide note. Such parlimentary reports are often politicized, and are often just chock full of primary source material that requires WP:OR to decipher. The suicide note is a primary source, no conclusions should be drawn from it without being very well supported by secondary sources, and even then I'm hesitant to include it. As is, I would hardly call this amount of material WP:DUE (i.e. WP:COATRACK), nor do I think it is WP:NPOV. If there is enough information, perhaps it demands its own page, or maybe this page needs to be renamed something along the lines of "Irvin Rockman Scandal". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about Irvin Rockman[edit]

The consensus is that the current short summary about the allegations is sufficient.

Cunard (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should this article detail allegations against the late Irvin Rockman that were subject to a Parliamentary inquiry that he: (1) financed drug importation; (2) engaged in witness intimidation leading to the suicide of a woman, Cassandra Ogdon, who was due to give evidence against him; (3) that the State Coroner in his report of Ogdon's death, found that Rockman had lied at the inquest; and (4) that following this, the National Crime Authority began assembling a criminal case against him, but it never proceeded due to other circumstances. The disputed content is found in this earlier version of the article: [[7]] The sources are the Parliamentary Report, two leading newspapers, and an investigative book. ClearBreeze (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - Per my reasoning above, although I do believe a short, 1-3 sentence mention, might be appropriate. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Per my discussion above. (Perhaps obvious, but for the record.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current short summary is enough[8] I am here purely because of the request for more eyes posted to WP:AWNB. I have read the conversation above on this page, and both the current and a recent LONG version of the article. The long version failed to express adequately that the accusations and allegations appear to never have been tested or proven in court, nor admitted by Rockman himself. The long version was disproportionately long for the length of other content of Irvin Rockman (two of the seven sentences are about his father). It would be appropriate to add when the allegations were made, and what were the circumstances of his death. Beyond that, please expand the rest of his life (what was his business - the article mentions his father's, and the long version mentions his son's), and his legacy as Lord Mayor (which appears to be the reason the article exists). --Scott Davis Talk 14:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Feedback[edit]

Hi there! I found this page through the Auspol WP. It's an okay start, but much of it was copied directly from an article in The Age. I edited the wording to make it sound original. It is more conventional on Wikipedia to have a "Personal life" section instead of just a Marriages section. If the article was longer, this could be broken into "Early life" and "Personal life". Please add some information about his achievements as mayor and his business achievements. I don't know much about Irvin Rockman but I can try and hunt down a couple of sources. Apriljennifer (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apriljennifer, Some more sources would be great! Thanks. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irvin_Rockman&oldid=1199560033"