Talk:Jessie McTavish

Glasgow's Ruchill Hospital

 * McTavish worked in Ward 5 at Glasgow's Ruchill Hospital

When? Is that the place where the criminal deeds have taken place? All of them? --2A02:908:890:EFC0:B62E:99FF:FE5B:4C9D (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy of the article
I came across this article when editing the article for another serial killer nurse, I know very little about this case and have been unable to find much at all on the internet. That said, the way the tone of the article implies that it is generally agreed McTavish is guilty, and was acquitted on a “technicality” (a phrase that was used in another article). Most of the references are sensationalist newspaper articles contemporaneous to the trial that present the prosecution’s narrative, precisely what it is alleged the appeal court found the judge at fault for.

Without further information on why the case was dropped, I can’t see how it is possible to adduce her guilt from the references provided. These would need to explain why the appeal lead to an acquittal and not a retrial, why the charges were dropped, and why she was allowed to reregister as a nurse.

I suppose my questions are:

1.     Are there any reliable secondary sources that describe the case in more detail and indicate her guilt? None of the few academic references currently in place give an opinion on her guilt, nor do they go into any great detail

2.     Does the article in its current form adhere to WIKI:BLP, given that McTavish is still alive? If not, what should we do to fix it? PerSeAnd (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at this and I agree that there is an issue with the tone, and I don't think it is limited to this article. A number of true crime BLPs are written (or have been written) in this way, and in some cases the POV is blatant. There is also an issue that the articles rely over heavily of primary sources, allowing for fuller information but making them read somewhat like newspaper accounts. For encyclopaedic articles it would be good to pare back the primary sourced reporting and focus on what secondary sources say. To that end, I was also happy to see your edits at Colin Norris. The problem, as you identify here, is the paucity of secondary sources. The solution may be to cut down the articles ti what the few secondary sources say - but I fear there may be a fight over removing information from multiple true crime BLPs.
 * Before attacking any of these BLPs, I have looked for secondary sources. To date I have not found much, and have nothing to offer on this one.
 * Does this adhere to WP:BLP? Not with the issue you have identified. The bit about the technicality can certainly go. The facts of the matter are that she was convicted, and the conviction was quashed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history, there were a number of problematic edits by a sockpuppet of BarehamOliver (ClassicMiddlesex is another of their socks, so they have been on this page a lot). I reverted them all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. I came across the article from the Colin Norris page, the language used there really surprised me – I don’t think it is common for suspected murderers to be released on a technicality. My assumption is that the evidence against her was weak, and I have found another article that says there was cheering in court at her acquittal, so it would seem she had some support from her community at the time of the trial.
 * I may try and make some further edits on this page, keeping the information that is there but changing the tone to a more neutral presentation. PerSeAnd (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)