Talk:Leanne Clare

POV reversion
Rebecca reverted to the original 'stub' with the comment: "While the changes improved the prose, they were all vastly POV. Please try to keep things a bit more neutral."

In response I looked at the stub version which is extremely light on content, has weasel words, factual errors, and doesn't even spell names correctly then looked at the other version that seemed to be almost exclusively referenced facts, and extremely light on POV and reverted in the other direction. Any POV's in the normal sense of the term I could locate were in the source material and were referenced.

Nevertheless, since I have done a fair bit of work to it it would be worthwhile someone with fresh eyes commenting on specifics and discussion can then occur in here as to whether or not they need changing but I could not locate a justification for the original reversion.

Doing my best I can see that the final paragraph of the Hanson section contains a POV. This is referenced but not clearly. I will ensure that it is attributed clearly to the source and if it is unacceptable then I am open to it just being deleted.

The first 23 words of the last sentence in the section on Fingleton were the next thing that attracted my attention under a POV microscope. That type of approach seems to be relatively common in Wikipedia articles but is arguably a POV because the facts have been brought together very purposefully. Something is obviously communicated. If anyone feels strongly about it feel free to delete.

Likwise in the Hurley section the words "in spite of the number of witnesses present at most times and the videotaping of the prison cell" are similar to the Fingleton ones.

A further similar example in the Hurley section is "in spite of a formal recommendation by the Deputy Chief Coroner Christine Clements that Hurley be charged for the death in custody".

The final example is:

"Although the Criminal Misconduct Commission investigated and concurred with the DPP "

I am open to the removal and I may tinker with some of them out of paranoia but again that type of thing seems typical of a Wikipedia article so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they are prohibited as a POV.

Getting even more nitpicky factual summaries such as:

"Further, Bramwell's evidence of punching to the head did not explain the injury. The death was caused by liver damage."

Is something as inevitable a conclusion as the first sentence a Point of View? That seems a little extreme.

or

"Indeed the coroner's report revealed that there was no credible direct evidence that indicated that Hurley had criminally caused the death"

Ditto.

The coroner's report indicated that two witnesses gave evidence of serious assaults. The first testified to an assault just after the fall. The second testified to a later assault. The second testimony was dismissed by the coroner as it was contradicted by video evidence. Hence it was not credible direct evidence. (Although it is beyond the scope of the present article Street later pointed out in his report that the second alleged assault did not explain the death so arguably it is not even relevant.)

The first witness Roy Bramwell said that Hurley punched Mulrunji 3 times to the head and then kicked him mercilessly. The coroner's report indicated that medical evidence ruled out kicking. Thus according to the coroner's report only the punching witnessed by Roy Bramwell could be considered credible as far as the relevant direct evidence is concerned.

The coroner's report indicated that the death was caused by liver injury. Whilst Bramwell's evidence was accepted and conclusions drawn as explained in the present article, without those presumptions a punch in the head doesn't explain a liver injury. Thus obviously the direct evidence that was considered credible in the coroner's report namely the punching did not explain the injury as direct evidence. If the only relevant allegation that was credible did not indicate that Hurley had criminally caused the death then surely to argue that stating that fact is a POV is putting things a little too strongly isn't it?

By way of hypothetical analogy. Only one person, Jim, saw John fall over. Jim gave evidence that he saw John fall over when he walked past a particular church on a particular day and gave other evidence that he walked past that church once that day at 8pm. Is it a POV to just write "according to the direct evidence John fell over at night time"? Isn't that just a factual summary in a practical sense even if pedantically it arguably includes an obvious conclusion namely that 8pm is night time? Likewise if being criminally responsible means assaulting in a way that would damage the liver and the direct evidence is punching to the head then stating that there is no direct evidence that Hurley criminally caused the death may contain the conclusion that punching to the head wouldn't cause liver damage but isn't it overly pedantic to say it is POV?

Finally I will amend the following comment to ensure that it is clearly not POV even though it probably fits into the category just described:

"To address this discrepancy with the direct evidence the Coroner assumed that Bramwell was mistaken and the punching was to the body not the head thus causing the death."

User:Jb3 -(User talk:Jb3) 09:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

POV removal or censorship?
History seems to be repeating itself (see above comment). The Hurley case involved a lot of media publicity and was dogged with controversy at various stages. This may have led to polarized opinions. For people who adopted the view of mainstream Australian media both the trial outcome and the real facts may have been surprising.

Eg. Contrast the unretracted major Australian newspaper report that Mulrunji’s face was beaten beyond recognition with the medical finding that the “The only external sign of injury was a small oval abrasion in the centre of the right eyebrow measuring 0.4 centimetres by 0.2 centimetres which was bleeding slightly.”(p6 of the Coroner’s report)

As a result some editors who have not read the source documents may consider facts to be POV if they jump the gun. That would be understandable but POV is POV not fact.

In the Hurley section WikiTownsvillian with the comment “remove hopelessly POV commentary, how did all this get by without my noticing?” made some worthwhile changes like fixing html and getting Mulrunji’s name fixed up. However apparently believing that he/she was removing POV made various changes. In some ways it removes many of the verbose contributions I have made so the fact of an overhaul by itself I don’t have a problem with. Nevertheless the practical effect intended or otherwise has been more of a censorship then removing of “hopelessly POV commentary”. An obvious exception was removing the following (although you get that “in spite of” approach used in many Wikipedia articles):

“The DPP decision not to charge was made in spite of a formal finding by the Deputy Chief Coroner Christine Clements that an assault by Hurley caused the death and her referring the matter to the DPP to consider charging.”

More importantly, for the record examples of facts deleted supposedly for being POV’s are:

“Roy Bramwell who had the opportunity to witness the activity in the watchhouse while he was awaiting questioning for beating up women.” This sentence had everything after “while” deleted.

In the Coroner’s Report at pages 2 and 16 respectively it states:

“On the nineteenth of November 2004, the day that Mulrunji died, there had been some problems for three indigenous women who lived on Palm Island. Sisters Gladys, Andrea and Anna Nugent claimed Gladys’ de facto husband, Roy Bramwell, had assaulted them all. One was so badly injured she was airlifted to the Townsville Hospital for medical treatment.”

“Sergeant Leafe was there with a person he identified to Senior Sergeant Hurley as Roy Bramwell. He was under investigation for the assaults of the three Nugent women. There was also a lady identified by Lloyd Bengaroo to Senior Sergeant Hurley as Penny Sibley. Hurley told Leafe to put Roy Bramwell inside on the yellow chair.”

I do not believe that my summary can be labeled a point of view. Bramwell was the key witness for the alleged assault causing death. Thus I would hope that the fact wasn’t removed to prevent any inferences the Roy Bramwell might have had a motive to dislike police thus compromising his independence as a witness.

Example 2:

From “This backlash resulted in the Beattie government taking the controversial action of commissioning a review of Clare's decision“ the word “controversial” has been dropped. This is in spite of the referenced article headed “Palm Island review blasted” establishing controversy, and the separate issue of the Queensland Police Union holding meetings outraged by the action (not referenced or mentioned but a surrounding circumstance).

Hopefully editors reading this will increasingly understand why I used the word “censorship” above.

A further example is the deletion of the following. It will later be broken up to establish the elements are factual not POV(references removed):

“Indeed the coroner's report revealed that there was no credible direct evidence that indicated that Hurley had criminally caused the death in spite of the number of witnesses present at most times and the videotaping of the prison cell. Some witness evidence did implicate Hurley but this was not credible to the extent that it was contradicted by medical evidence or the prison cell videotape. However the Coroner accepted some evidence that did not of itself explain the death as credible but mistaken. More particularly, she accepted evidence that punching occurred but rejected the way it was said to occur. She accepted it based on an inference as to how she believed an assault involving punching could have contributed (see below).”

The above chunk of text was deleted together with the further explanation below it namely (references removed):

“This occurred near the entrance step not the jail cell and the Coroner's report only referred to a video camera in the jail cell. Bramwell gave evidence that, at the relevant time, Hurley punched Mulrunji 3 times in the head and then kicked him. Clements accepted this version of events. However kicking was ruled out by the medical evidence so she found that Hurley had only punched Mulrunji. Further, Bramwell's evidence of punching to the head did not explain the injury. The death was caused by liver damage. The Coroner concluded that Bramwell was mistaken and the punching was to the body not the head thus causing the death.”

Breaking it down we get the following:

The number of witnesses. The incident occurred at a police station on a Friday morning. Apart from the 6 or 7 seconds that Bramwell was alone with Hurley and Mulrunji 6 witnesses (other than Hurley and of course Mulrunji) were cited in the coroner’s report who were in the general area at the relevant times. Each witnessed some of the relevant time but none witnessed the above 6 or 7 seconds except Bramwell.

Witness evidence that implicated Hurley in a fatal assault.

1.	“Inspector Webster summarised Roy Bramwell’s allegations which were made on 20 November in the re-enactment video interview. It was alleged Senior Sergeant Hurley punched Doomadgee three times in the face and that he also kicked Mr Doomadgee.”(p20 of the Coroner’s report)

2.	“Patrick Bramwell had told police that he was in a separate cell to Mulrunji and that that he had seen and heard Mulrunji being taken from his cell and assaulted by Senior Sergeant Hurley. He said Hurley had punched Mulrunji in the ribs. The allegation is dismissed as there is a video record of the two men in cell number two together. Patrick is clearly asleep and laying down on Mulrunji’s right hand side throughout the recording.” (p21 of the Coroner’s report)

In relation to the first witness, Roy Bramwell’s, direct evidence of kicking: This is ruled out by medical evidence. “Dr Lampe noted that there was no abrasion or boot or shoe impression on the anterior (front) abdominal wall, or the lower chest.” (p7 of the Coroner’s report)

Subject to kicking, exclusion explained in the paragraph above, the Coroner generally accepted Bramwell’s account as credible. “I find that Roy Bramwell was quite excited in giving his account at the re-enactment and there is some embellishment, but the basis of what he saw is credible given the overall sequence of events” (p25 of the Coroner’s report)

Punching to head doesn’t explain death as direct evidence as the death was caused by liver injury (cf. head injury). “Both autopsies concluded that the cause of death was intra-abdominal haemorrhage, due to the ruptured liver and portal vein.” (p7 of the Coroner’s report)

The Coroner nevertheless considered Bramwell mistaken and inferred that punching was to the body not the head thus causing the death. “I do not necessarily conclude that this force was to Mulrunji’s head as stated by Mr Bramwell. He could not have been in a position to see Mulrunji’s head from where he was seated. Mulrunji’s feet and part of his legs was all he could see. It is open on Bramwell’s evidence that the force was applied to Mulrunji’s body rather then his head. This is also consistent with the medical evidence of the injuries that caused Mulrunji’s death.” (p27 of the Coroner’s report).

The second witness (other than Roy Bramwell) who gave direct evidence apparently relevant to the death did not give any credible evidence. “Patrick Bramwell had told police that he was in a separate cell to Mulrunji and that that he had seen and heard Mulrunji being taken from his cell and assaulted by Senior Sergeant Hurley. He said Hurley had punched Mulrunji in the ribs. The allegation is dismissed as there is a video record of the two men in cell number two together. Patrick is clearly asleep and laying down on Mulrunji’s right hand side throughout the recording.” (p21 of the Coroner’s report)( see also the following link for further credibility issues http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Victim-cried-for-help-as-policeman-beat-him-says-witness/2005/02/28/1109546799380.html )

I believe that the only significant inference made is that punching to the head doesn’t cause a fatal liver injury. Further, there is an “in spite of” in there which could arguably mean that the reference to the number of witnesses and videotaping could be removed and simply mentioned elsewhere. However dismissing that and all surrounding facts as POV on that basis is clearly over zealous.

At this stage my plan is to not just revert but to reinstate context without going into as much detail. I like the idea of a briefer article.

User:Jb3 -(User talk:Jb3) 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gary Clare
I think it's probably worth noting somewhere here that Clare is married to 4KQ radio announcer "Handy" Gary Clare, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that affirm that. An oddity is that Clare was never allowed to refer to his wife by name on the air, so 4KQ always just referred to Leanne as "a Queensland prosecutor" - but I haven't been able to find anything reliable to confirm that either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC).