Talk:Colin Norris

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

Notability[edit]

I don't understand why this person is considered notable, but Gary Newlove isn't. Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly due to the Harold Shipman nature of his crime? Possibly since he's a mass murderer? I don't know. If you feel like taking this to WP:AFD then you're entitled to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article Murder of Garry Newlove. Jim Michael (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions Unsafe?[edit]

I suggest some rework is needed in the light of claims by a leading doctor that the medical evidence used to convict him was unsafe. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15068743 I will start a new section. Almagpie (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Needs work but it's a start. I've also corrected the mistake in the "Crimes" section that stated that Ethel Halls died at "exactly 5:15 just as Norris had predicted". This was never claimed either in the trial or the linked source article. She fell gravely ill that morning and died weeks later as I have now corrected. Almagpie (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Norris. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Colin Norris is a *convicted serial killer*, not a *serial killer*. The distinction is I think subtle but very very important. Nobody except perhaps Colin and the good Lord himself actually know whether or not he is a serial killer. He certainly was convicted as a serial killer. ie a law court in a more or less democratic country in more or less normal circumstances found him guilty of a number of murders. The conviction is presently in force. It has not been legally overturned, yet. That might or might not ever happen. Colin certainly does know; I suppose the good Lord knows; but we don't. BTW: personally I believe he is innocent so you could say I have a "conflict of interest" editing the article. But I do believe it is quite OK for me to write about editorial questions (questions of terminology) on the talk page, so that's what I am doing. I may well later follow wikipedia advice ande "be bold". Someone will quickly correct me if it is important and if I'm wrong.

No doubt it is "legal" to call him a serial killer, but I think one does not break any law by calling him an "alleged serial killer". Since it is both true (reliable sources a-plenty) and legal we can say that he is an alleged serial killer, and I think we should say it (reliable sources a-plenty). Richard Gill (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the case to the Court of Appeal, I don't think that the use of that term, or the corresponding Category, is appropriate. In any case neither *convicted serial killer" nor *serial killer* have any legal status in the law of England and Wales. TheMartinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect User:Martinevans123, it's not for you, me, or any other editor to decide if he is a serial killer or not. We have the justice system to make these decisions for us, and unless (or until) the conviction is overturned he is a serial killer under the law. One way system (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "justice system" in England and Wales does not employ that term and makes no decisions about it. Of you think the terms "murderer" and "serial killer" are in separable, then we'll just have to live with it. I don't see that it improves anyone's understanding of the case and I was suggesting erring on the side of caution. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand what you are trying to say, I personally think he may be innocent, but he is a serial killer if found to have murdered multiple victims in a court of law. Unless and until this conviction is overturned, in the eyes of the law he is still guilty. We don't need to exclude 'serial killer' just because the justice system does not employ that term, we are not a court a law, this is an encyclopaedia. Do I think a serial killer is the same thing as a murderer of multiple people? Um, well yes? One way system (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there had to be a certain time-frame, and some appreciable gaps between the individual murders, for that term to be appropriate. Serial killer says "with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them." I must admit that I don't know what the supposed gaps were in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have this information, you need to add it, with the sources, as currently the article doesn't seem to support such a description. Views from other editors, including Kieronoldham, would be welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the article. The span of the crimes were between 2001-2002, see the infobox. The supposed murders were committed over several months. The Real Crime documentary confirms the attacks took place over a space of 6 months. One way system (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the phrase "committed over several months"? And what was the gap between them? If the Real Crime documentary confirms this, it needs to be spelled out. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deaths happened over a space of 6 months. The documentary is still on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqHdXPiXoWc&t=632s. One way system (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not any documentary can be viewed at YouTube, the article should accurately describe the sequence of events. What's your interpretation of "a significant period of time" between the murders? And how does that natch the sequence of events here? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't actually watched the documentary. It states: "Chris Gregg's team quickly established that Ethel Hall's death was part of a pattern. In the previous sixth months two other patients, Doris Ludlam and Bridget Burke, had also died unexpectedly". Norris was later convicted of being responsible for these three murders (and of another woman's), so the murders were committed over at least 6 months. One way system (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You (or any other editors) clearly haven't actually added that information to the article? But I really don't see that your description there explicitly includes the gaps between the deaths and whether they constitute "a significant period of time". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, your point here is that you do not think a gap of 3 months between murders is a 'significant period of time'? One way system (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't now what the gaps between the deaths were, because I don't know the dates of the deaths. Do you? I don't even know of there is an agreed definition of what constitutes "a significant period of time". My point is that use of the term "serial killer" in this article relies up those gaps being made explicit in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify this for you as it appears you are new to the case. Of the four murders Norris was convicted of, the timeline went as follows:
  • Doris Ludlam, supposedly lethally injected by Norris on 25 June 2002, dies 27 June 2002.
  • Bridget Bourke, supposedly lethally injected by Norris on 21 July 2002, dies 22 July 2002.
  • Irene Crooks, supposedly lethally injected by Norris on 19 October 2002, dies 20 October 2002.
  • Ethel Hall, supposedly lethally injected by Norris on 20 November 2002, dies 11 December 2002.
So there was three months between the Crooks' and Hall's murders and Ludlam and Bourke's murders. In addition to this, there was at least a month between all four murders.
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580552/Colin-Norris-Angel-of-Death-nurse-Timeline.html. One way system (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Then I think this info, or a summary of it, needs to appear in the article. I'm still not sure that the term "serial killer" adds to any reader's understanding. And, in any case, I would still advise caution in the tone of the article, in view of the recent action by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems understanding has already been reached here. He was convicted of four murders, with time intervals in between. He is a serial killer. A separate section regarding doubts regarding the validity of his conviction needs to remain in the lede.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Good that we have come to an agreement here. One way system (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to add the required details. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done so. One way system (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I think that is a big improvement, regardless of the use of the term "serial killer." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, it is very clear that four murders are definitely not proven. They could well have been natural deaths. That leaves one. So the case is going to be reopened, in other words, Colin is going to be tried for one murder. Unfortunately, the evidence that he is actually a sick person who killed many other people, no longer exists. The article on Colin Norris says (caption to photo of a well known police detective) "Colin Sutton, the highly-regarded detective who successfully brought Levi Bellfield and Delroy Grant to justice, has publicly spoken out in support of the conviction of Ben Geen, who was convicted in almost identical circumstances to Norris at around the same time. He has pointed out that statistical evidence on the likelihood of there being natural causes of sudden arrests cannot explain the statistical improbability of the attacks all happening when the same nurse is always present." A link is given to a reality TV show! I do not find this a reliable source. A famous police detective is apparently convinced that both Ben Geen and Colin Norris are guilty because it is so unlikely that so many attacks took place when the same nurse was present. Problem. In neither case is it proven that there were any *attacks* at all. "Attacks" are surmised because a notable nurse was present every time a sequence of events happened which at the time were thought unusual. Ben Geen was training to be an army nurse. He was not a typical nurse. Colin Norris was gay. Apparently that upset a whole lot of people. Richard Gill (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a new application to the CCRC has just been submitted on behalf of Ben Geen because new statistical evidence shows there were *not* unusually many events during his shifts at all, though the suggestion that this was true was a key part of the prosecution case against him. Richard Gill (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion vs. law[edit]

@Pandagoestomars: please do not edit war without consensus or attempt to discuss on the talk page. I have restored the content to the status quo. Officially, he is guilty unless the court of appeal overturns his conviction. One way system (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@One way system: There can be a difference between being officially guilty and actually guilty. If Norris is found innocent on appeal, he won't have changed from being a killer to a non-killer. The past is already done. He cannot be a killer this week and not a killer next week. If you have any seriousness in resolving this disagreement you could make some effort to find a solution. One possible solution that acknowledges the reality of doubt would be to say that Norris was convicted as a serial killer and found guilty of murdering... etc. This acknowledges the court decision and the very real possibility that Norris may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Pandagoestomars (talk) 02:53 23 April 2021 (BJT)

Well yeah, obviously there can be a difference between being officially guilty and actually guilty? I don't know whether he is guilty or not. Neither do you. That is why we have courts of law, to make the appropriate judgements whether people have committed crimes or not. And in this case, a court of law made the judgement that he is guilty of a number of murders over a series of months. This conviction, and judgement, stands unless/until it is overturned. I am not going to agree to a 'solution' that disregards a ruling made in a court of law, and so I am not going to agree to any 'solution' you may offer which removes any reference to him being a serial killer as this is what he has been determined to be in the eyes of the law. Some people sill think Harold Shipman or Jeremy Bamber are innocent, but just because some people dispute their convictions, it doesn't mean that they cannot be called serial killers, as indeed both of them are.
Having the lede as it is, where it acknowledges that he is officially a serial killer but that his case has gone to the court of appeal is perfectly adequate and matter of fact. We are not the media, it is not for us as editors to speculate or cast judgements. One way system (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Bamber is described as a "mass murderer". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well fine but he's still described in unambiguous terms as a murderer. One way system (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have no issue with Norris being described in the same way. That's the correct legal term. For now anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Place of imprisonment[edit]

Is Norris's place of imprisonment known and published? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HMP Frankland--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Have added. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Hall[edit]

The article says this: "Norris also admitted that he was the last person to see Hall before she fell into a coma, at 4.30 am, which was half an hour before she became visibly unwell." I'm struggling to understand the sequence of events. Did Norris see Hall at 4.00 or at 4.30? Did she fall into a coma at 4.30, of just become "visibly unwell", or both? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the wording is flawed there actually. She fell into the coma at 5am. I've adjusted the wording now. One way system (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gregg[edit]

There's way, way, way, WAY too much fawning over cop Chris Gregg. EEng 05:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odds of 1 in 100,000[edit]

The claim that the odds of "five events, with a 1 in 10 chance, happening are 1 in 100,000" seems wrongly assessed.

This is only correct if those five deaths are the only ones that had occurred. It seems the hypoglycaemia was the criterion for including death, which might amount to the sharpshooter fallacy or circular reasoning? Soundwave (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that line as it clearly isn't correct and doesn't seem to be sourced. I'm also suspicious about the claims about the C-peptide tests, which seem to have been added to the article at the same time. The article currently says "However, when an individual has a hypoglycaemic attack from insulin that is produced naturally in the body, C-peptides are produced which will be detected in any blood tests." Surely that's not the case: a C-peptide test would have to be specifically ordered, otherwise the levels would go unnoticed, right? The source for this is a documentary, so maybe the documentary justifies it and explains it better. 82.10.240.153 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced later on, there shouldn't be citations in the introduction section. Are you saying that you believe it clearly isn't correct on the grounds that someone else says so on this talk page above? MeltingDistrict (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no fault in the C-peptide point. It's quoted from what the source says, we don't decide on the science ourselves, otherwise that would be original research. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. That's what the source says, we cannot just include our own speculations on what kind of tests were or were not carried out. MeltingDistrict (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if the five events are independent of one another Richard Gill (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But all this talk about using your own certain mathematical theories to strike down content you disagree with is clearly original research. You are a statistician using your own stats research to come to your own personal conclusions on the matter, how is that not original research? MeltingDistrict (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t think we need to over-complicate things. Fundamentally, 1 in 10 five times is 1 in 1 in 100,000, and the source says no C-peptides were detected on the tests. So we should just say that, anyone’s personal opinions on these things are not really relevant. I agree that putting any mathematical spin on figures or disputing the source with own theories could constitute original research. 148.252.133.181 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Statistical dogmas and amateur science are not reliable sources. 109.144.29.40 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t see any valid justification for removal. The thing about the c-peptides being absent from blood tests when it is artificially administered was also corroborated on the Letby Panorama documentary the other night. 93.96.20.253 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion of the 1-in-100,000 figure is grotesque OR. The "source" is simply a mathematical table unrelated to the case.
    I should add that I previously removed an outstandingly ignorant, and completely false, "statistical" claim [1] introduced (I'm guessing) by the same editor. EEng 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colin_Norris&oldid=1209415070"