Talk:John Darwin disappearance case

How to phrase his situation?
The phrase "John Darwin is a British former prison officer..." doesn't sound right to me but, I am an American and I know the British phrase things differently than we do. Should this be as it is or would it be correct to phrase it "John Darwin is a former British prison officer..." or do we move his nationality to a different statement? Being a British article it should follow standard British spelling and phraseology. Padillah (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm British, and I would tend towards the latter phrase as being more usual - "former British prison officer". Madmick13 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "A British man, formerly a prison officer, who ..." seems to get the weight about right. Also, he is not known for being a prison officer, he is known for being missing presumed dead, so the name disambiguator should be something like "John Darwin (formerly missing person)". The point is to let someone looking at the article title by itself, for instance in a category, known who is meant. Most people reading about his situation probably couldn't tell you his profession even after reading three articles. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'former British...', though smoother reading, suggests he is no longer British. So I think the original wording is clearer. Ben Finn (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - there's nothing incorrect about "British former prison officer" at all, and "former British..." makes no sense because, well, he isn't formerly British. I'm ging to change this pending further consensus, because whatever it ends up as, "former British" won't do. Lordrosemount (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the intended parsing was former (British prison) officer, not British modifying prison. But that's neither here nor there. mkehrt (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Urgently need sources
Please source this immediately per WP:BLP. It is getting worldwide press attention so shouldn't be difficult. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to John Darwin (formerly missing person)
In light of Dhartung's comment above, I recommend this article be moved to "John Darwin (formerly missing person)". Has anyone else seen this name disambiguation used before? Is there a wiki-approved disambig we can use appropriately? What say yee? Padillah (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no need for the word "formerly" - (he's also 'formerly a prison officer) he was a missing person and the event surrounding him going missing as well as him turning up again are what make him notable. Certainly being a former prison officer isn't. Jooler (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. New name suggestion is currently "John Darwin (missing person)". Unless someone can come up with a better term. Padillah (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Other options include "John Darwin (canoeist)", as that is how most of the UK headlines term him, but again he is not "known" for his canoeing skill. The best option may be "John Darwin disappearance" or "disappearance case", covering the event and not the person as per WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

People will visit the page to see about the case, rather than the person. This story deals predominantly with his disappearance, and the name should reflect as much. There is the case of a rose smelling as sweet by any other name, but we at least need some sort of intuitive headline (By method of elimination at the moment it's not hard to figure out the appropiate case, but there may soon be a huge rise in the number of prominent John Darwins :D (?)) 88.109.188.175 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree but think we really need to cover the story as a whole, not just John Darwin - something maybe like a page for the '2007 Resurfacing of presumed dead John Darwin', something along those lines (Mrpotatohead121 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Personally I think that's too cumbersome. As the creator of this article (!) but no expert on the article naming conventions I would be equally happy with 'John Darwin disappearance' or 'John Darwin (missing person)'. Ben Finn (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the move to John Darwin disappearance case, and made redirects for some of the other suggestions.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen many references to "Mr & Mrs Canoe", so it could be useful to add "canoeist" or similar into the mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.72.33 (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this a crime, and why is this Wiki-worthy?
While I admit that this is not normal behavior, unless his wife claimed an insurance policy I can't see how this is fraud. I am not sure why he was arrested, gained the attention of UK tabloids, or has the notoriety worthy of a Wikipedia article. Is he otherwise noteworthy, or is he merely of interest because he is a modern day Lazarus? 72.196.196.61 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above was posted by me, I forgot to login. I am also not challenging the validity of the article, as its validity is established by the media attention, albeit it inexplicable to me.  Thanks.  Tolstoy143 - &quot;Quos vult perdere dementat&quot; (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are reports that his wife did in fact make a claim on his life insurance. Timb0h (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks, none of the five media reports I have read mentioned it, which you think would be a basic fact that they'd cover. Tolstoy143 - &quot;Quos vult perdere dementat&quot; (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin has now been charged with obtaining money by deception (presumably relating to life insurance) and lying on a passport application (presumably relating to his alleged use of the name John Jones). Darwin is not noteworthy other than this case. However its publicity is not just limited to UK tabloids - it's been headline news for a week in all the UK media. I agree though that though it's an unusual case the coverage is somewhat excessive. Ben Finn (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Any mention as to why?
I see no discussion as to why a person, allegedly one who has conspired to commit fraud, would initially waltz into a police station. Typically, such a thing is an effect of being pulled over for a traffic violation or some such. Has anyone uncovered any citable description as to why Mr. Darwin went to the police precinct in the first place? Mangler (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gossip maybe but.....have heard that his wife has another love interest (as the tabloids say) and he got mad and decided to walk into the police station and blow the whole thing wide open....only rumour though..--Egghead06 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard on BBC Radio 4 & 5 news that, according to his wife, it was because he missed his sons (who didn't know he was still alive) and so by implication had to make his existence public in order to see them. Ben Finn (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, her interview in yesterday's Daily Mail confirms this.Lordrosemount (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Stunning full confession
Here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
There's quite a bit of vandalism going on at the moment, mainly by someone adding the word "slaphead" into the body of the article in various places. Sure, it can be reverted easily enough and I guess this always happens with current affairs stories that are changing by the hour, but I was wondering if it is worthwhile protecting or semi-protecting the article for a few days at least until the media fuss dies down a bit. Madmick13 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A bulk of Wikipedia's contributions come from anon or new accounts, so we don't like to protect if we can avoid it.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT
It's questionable at the moment whether this has any long-term notability.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you are saying, and it might be worthwhile testing the community's views through a WP:AfD, though this does appear to me to meet WP:N through the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the main notability guideline.


 * Well, 7 years on, it's still notable.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
I've started to merge the timeline into the main body of the article. The parts that I haven't yet merged I place here so editors aren't tempted to add to it rather than build the main article.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

 * February 2003: John Darwin knocks at his old front door and moves back in with his wife.
 * April 2003: An inquest hearing was held at Hartlepool County Court. Hartlepool coronor Malcolm Donnelly records an open verdict.
 * April 2003: A death certificate was issued despite the lack of a body. It states that John Darwin "probably encountered difficulties, as a result of which he died".  This allows widow Anne to claim on his life insurance..
 * Sometime in 2003: Lee Wadrop a tenant of the block of bedsit flats the Darwins owned recognised Mr Darwin and asked him "aren't you supposed to be dead" to which Mr Darwin replied "don't tell anyone about this". Mr Wadrop had not told the police because he "did not want to get involved".
 * 16 May 2003: £25,000 Life Insurance is paid out from Unat Direct Insurance Management Limited (part of the AIG insurance group) as well as a much larger one which paid off the £130,000 mortgage.".
 * 2004: The couple decide to move abroad. Australia, Falklands, Canada, and Cyprus are considered.
 * 2004: John Darwin applies for, and obtains a passport using the false name "John Jones" but using his true home address..".
 * November 2004: The couple visit Cyprus to check out buying property there.
 * May 2005: Date that an angler called Matt Autie 31 claims to have met John Darwin at a lake near Penzance.


 * 2005: John is spending most time on the internet at home and meets a lady from Kansas whom he flies out to meet.
 * 12 November 2005: John flies from Newcastle to Gibralter end enters Spain to view a £45,000 60ft Catamaran he is thinking of buying.
 * 15 November 2005: John flies back to the UK.
 * 9 March 2006: John Darwin signs a planning objection to a neighbour's plans using a false name.
 * 2006: John takes a liking to Panama after research on the internet. The couple fly from Newcastle to Panama.
 * 14 July 2006: Date on a photo of the couple on a Panamanian property website.
 * February 2007: the couple fly to Panama for a week.
 * February 2007: Date on newspapers found in the boarded up gap between the Darwins' house and his hideaway, presumably just before the hole was closed.
 * March 2007: The couple return to Panama.
 * March 2007: They form a company called Jaguar Properties to buy a two bedroom apartment in El Dorado for £50,000.
 * March 2007: The bedsit house next to the family home is sold. Mrs Darwin had put it in son Mark's name in 2006.
 * March 2007: Month that Mark is reported to have transferred funds to Panama.


 * April 2007: Mrs Darwin returns to the UK to sell her house. Her husband stays in Panama.
 * May 2007: The couple bought a £200,000 tropical estate in the village of Escobal, Colón, Panama near the Panama Canal for canoeing holidays.
 * July 2007: Mrs Darwin returns to Panama, staying 6 weeks.
 * August 2007: Son Anthony leaves his insurance job.
 * September 2007: One of Mrs Darwin's work colleagues overhears a phone conversation between the couple. A police investigation is started following the conversation and suspicious money transfers.
 * October 2007: Their family home in the UK is sold for £295,000. Mrs Darwin flies back to Panama.
 * Third week of November 2007: The couple enjoy a holiday in Costa Rica before returning to Panama.
 * 30 November 2007: Mrs Darwin buys her husband an airline ticket to England because "he was missing his sons".
 * 30 November 2007: Son Mark Darwin leaves his property firm after working his notice period.

Please read this before further edits to John Darwin article. This story is has become a mess since yesterday
Yesterday evening I read the article and it was pretty well written, following a logical sequence. I came back today and the article has become a mess. It looks like important facts have been suppressed and the time line has been messed around. I tried to see who has done all this and sorry to say it looks like user:silktork. He looks like a responsible person, but I am sorry his attempt at cleaning up this story was half finished, and as result the story is a big mess. I would prefer to put the article back to the state it was in immediately before his first edit. In other words, I would wind it back to the version 09:20, 11 December 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs). Can anyone else comment please?


 * I think this article is something that can be worked with. Most articles go through this period  when they are being re-organized.  It starts out "clean" but not a WP article (lists, timelines, prose, no sections, etc.).  Then it gets parts cleaned up, but only one part at a time so it looks worse than before.  In a few weeks it will start to look more and more like a WP article and it will loose it's disorganized, cluttered look.  I've reviewed the edits and think they were made if good faith and did not detract from the information.  Let's see what happens.  Padillah (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with these edits being made in good faith, but the piecemeal approach has left it looking messy. This is a very live article with many editors every hour.  In such a case, wouldn't it be better to edit the section in a word - processor and then re - write the whole section.  I am not sure that a wait and see approach works.  Many editors are coming in and their positive efforts can't be wound back.Although (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and moves forward by the consensual editing of a number of people. At times there are disputes and disagreements about the way an article is progressing - that is the nature of a collaborative project. By consensus there are certain styles and approaches to articles which are frowned upon - one of these is using lists when prose is more appropriate. This article had a long timeline section which was a list that needed to be turned into prose. The bulk of what I have done has been to convert the list into prose, and putting in sources where they were missing. There is still some work to be done on this, and people are starting to help out (rather than simply tag the section, as had been the case). The list by itself was quite valuable, and is the way a number of articles have started. But it was time the article moved on. Winding the article back would be a destructive move as a number of people have been editing since 09:20, 11 December 2007, adding valuable information. A far more positive approach would be to get involved in editing the article and improving those sections you feel need attention. Regards  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say. I just feel the piece-meal approach to the editing has left it messy. I would have been better to do more in one go.  Anyway, I am pleased to see you have not given up on your editing and I look forward to reading a much cleaner article by tomorrow.

By the way the sequencing looks wrong at the bottom of the article, which reads: "On 9 December Anne Darwin was arrested at Manchester Airport, on her arrival back in the UK. She was detained in connection with allegations of fraud.[27] She appeared in court on 11 December in Hartlepool to face two charges of fraud - obtaining £25,000 and £137,000 by deception, and is remanded in custody until 14 December. Darwin appears at Hartlepool Magistrates' Court on 10 December where he is remanded in custody until Friday 14 December 2007. "Although (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I rarely stick around on an article for a long time. We are all volunteers and do this in our spare time as a personal interest. I use Wiki as an information source and will edit an article as I'm reading. I see it as putting my brick in the wall. I don't wish to build the entire wall, or even a huge section of it, but I feel it's inappropriate to pass by without putting in that brick, even if it means that for a while the article looks a bit messy. My experience with Wiki has been that if an article heads in direction North it will continue heading North even though it should actually be heading North-east. With this article I wanted to push it North-east, even though that has meant leaving a few skid-marks!  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 12:53, 12 December

2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks silkytalk. The article looks much improved now. When an article is getting mutiple edits from many sources it is very easy for it to become dis-organised, with repetitions of the same facts turning up in different paragraphs, lack of citations or references, and the sequence of events following in the wrong order.  Sometimes it is hard to edit the article to put things in the right order.  For example, the paragraph reading:

"On 9 December Anne Darwin was arrested at Manchester Airport, on her arrival back in the UK. She was detained in connection with allegations of fraud.[28] She appeared in court on 11 December in Hartlepool to face two charges of fraud - obtaining £25,000 and £137,000 by deception, and is remanded in custody until 14 December. Mr. Darwin appeared at Hartlepool Magistrates' Court on 10 December where he was remanded in custody until Friday 14 December 2007. [4]"

would be more logical if it read as follows:

"On 9 December Anne Darwin was arrested at Manchester Airport, on her arrival back in the UK. She was detained in connection with allegations of fraud. John Darwin appeared at Hartlepool Magistrates' Court on 10 December and his wife appeared in the same court the following day.  Both were remanded in custody until Friday 14 December 2007.  They were both charged with obtaining money by deception, specifically the insurance monies of £25'000 and £137'000.  Additional John Darwin has been charged with making an untrue statement to get a passport."


 * When the editing is difficult or complicated, as was the case with this article yesterday, and when there is alot of activity on an article, I prefer to take it off line to a word processor, re-write from scratch, but keeping as much of the valid original text as possible, then re-check the article for any subsequent edits made whilst I was re-writing, incorporate those edits into the re-written text, then cut and paste in one fell swoop. That way I avoid the risk of people editing the article when I am half way through changing it.  If I make partial edits I might be going left when others are trying to go right, and that can leave an article in a mess.  Your point about North and North-East is thus very valid. Although (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When you make major edits as I did a couple of days ago, you can add the tag to inform others you are making a major edit. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk)

Biography section. Is it neccessary to have so much detailed background to the Darwins. I would have thought that just the relevant details to the case would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.97.100 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Subjudicy
The authors of this page are committing a criminal offence of Subjudicy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolstoy999 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article page
"This page is in breach of UK Subjudicy laws. The page states items of fact which have yet to be proven in court.  There is an ongoing court case.  The press complaints commission are currently investigating the media coverage of these events. The page reports items as fact which are pure speculation.  This page could be read by someone who may end up as a jury member and they may take information from this page as verifiable fact which would prejudice the court case.  It seems only sensible to remove the page until after the hearing at which time the information can be posted without breaking any laws. Citing something from a newspaper does not mean that it is accurate, many sources contradict each other on facts such as locations and activites at particular dates.

As an example the following lines 'This allowed his wife to claim on his life insurance; £25,000 was paid out from Unat Direct Insurance Management Limited (part of the AIG insurance group) [4] as well as a much larger amount which paid off the £130,000 mortgage.".[15] she may have been charged with this offence but it has not been proven. the writing suggests it to be fact.

There are numerous other examples of this type of thing.

I am not in objection of the page being on wiki, I am just pointing out that this is in breach of the UK law at this time." (posted by User:Tolstoy999)

I am not judging the relevance of the above statement is. This will need a discussion either at the BLP noticeboard or via OTRS. For one thing, Wikipedia operates under Florida law, not UK law. For another, problems such as the specific one mentioned would seem to be able to be handled  by editing the article. I'm going to give it a quick try. DGG (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Relations?
...is John Darwin related to Charles Darwin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.172.97 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if he's related to Charles Darwin or the Darwin-Wedgwood family? Not many people around called Darwin in my experience. Also, he does ironically qualify for an honorary Darwin award for stupidy (although it didn't kill him), for appearing in that photograph in latin America with his wife when he was supposed to be dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.61.74 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?
To me, the timeline and description of events is clearly pasted together and is very unclear. Anyone agree that it needs a rewrite? Are the court transcripts available anywhere?  Tu rk ey ph an t 02:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Anne's later history?
Is it true that Anne Darwin has been released, and is now sharing a house with fake road-rage murderess Tracie Andrews? 86.143.234.55 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Darwin disappearance case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210010251/http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk:80/0912_darwin.shtml to http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0912_darwin.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Darwin disappearance case. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026091302/http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/lostin_panama.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/lostin_panama.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026071630/http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/darwin_admits.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2007/darwin_admits.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)