Talk:Ronald Ryan/Archive 2

Reboot
Let's start over. I've archived all old discussions, as they brought more heat than light to the debate. The conduct of the involved parties here has been completely unacceptable. Let's start the discussions again from a clean slate. I'm pondering doing the same for the article. henrik • talk  23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice job. Thank god that's over. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs cleaned up and shortened, it is ugly and unwieldy to read. Matt (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

huh?

 * All these arguments, however, fail to take into account the fact that Ryan was committing a felony escape and therefore legally liable for the killing that took place, irrespective of who fired the fatal shot.

I am no lawyer, but I am pretty sure to be a murderer you must actually kill someone and it is not enough to be committing a crime when someone is killed by someone else. If Ryan was guilty because the warder was killed in the escape why would Walker (who was also committing a felony in escaping) not also be guilty of murder "irrespective of who fired the fatal shot"?--58.172.107.182 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

R. v. Ryan and Walker - Full Court Supreme Court of Victoria 1966


 * Where persons agree together to use an unlawful degree of force to effect a criminal purpose and one of the parties to the agreement uses more force than contemplated it cannot be said that the use of the greater degree of force by that party is part of an independent criminal act. The other party is not to be absolved entirely from criminal liability but may be guilty of some lesser crime.
 * The jury must have found that Ryan fired with the intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, and must have found that the arrangement to which Walker was a party involved some lesser intent on his part.
 * The learned judge direct the jury that they had a constitutional or common law right to return a verdict of manslaughter even though satisfied that every element necessary to constitute the crime of murder had been established. Purrum (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have a copy of the above case, and can accurately state it says nothing of that matter at all. Monopolees (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's from the appeal not the trial...
 * Victorian Reports 1966 – Law Reports of the Supreme Court of Victoria
 * R. v. Ryan and Walker - Full Court Supreme Court of Victoria Pages 553 to 567


 * Where persons agree together to use an unlawful degree of force to effect a criminal purpose and one of the parties to the agreement uses more force than contemplated it cannot be said that the use of the greater degree of force by that party is part of an independent criminal act. The other party is not to be absolved entirely from criminal liability but may be guilty of some lesser crime. page 553
 * In our opinion, having regard to the direction and to the evidence and the jury’s verdict against Walker, the jury must be taken to have found Ryan intentionally shot Hodson, and that Walker was a party with Ryan to a plan to escape from the gaol and to use some degree of violence in effecting that purpose – even though the intent to use violence was limited to violence falling short of killing or doing grievous bodily harm. page 566
 * The jury must have found that Ryan fired with the intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, and must have found that the arrangement to which Walker was a party involved some lesser intent on his part. page 566
 * The learned judge directed the jury that they had a constitutional or common law right to return a verdict of manslaughter even though satisfied that every element necessary to constitute the crime of murder had been established. page 566 Purrum (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a student at Criminal Law. I have never heard of the above alleged laws posted by a Purrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.64.166 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree!
I agree! For too long now, there have been too many contributions made (by one contributor in particular) on this article containing unproven, unrecorded, untaped and unsigned allegations of hearsay, verbals, confessions and even personal opinions on Ryan. Less bias against Ryan and more contributions please on the referenced "facts" about Ryan's personal life including the "facts" surrounding the shooting death of the prison warder. For example; no scientific ballistic forensic tests were ever performed on Ryan's rifle, no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove Ryan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, mysterious missing pieces of vital evidence that would have cleared Ryan of murder, serious ambiguities in the case, dire inconsistencies of all eyewitnesses' evidence for the prosecution, and testimony from another prison warder that he fired the one single shot heard by all persons. Also, why has there not been any contributions of the fact that Ryan was executed seven days before a decision on his final appeal to The Privy Council had been made? Over a long time, there have been many referenced "facts" that have been deleted from this article or are simply missing by intent. Monopolees (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup urgently needed
Urgent request for Wikipedia admin to cleanup this article - either stick to the facts or delete article. The Ronald Ryan article is full of alleged unproven hearsay ... "Ryan said that, Ryan did that, Ryan admitted to that, Ryan confessed to that, Ryan told him/her this and that. All these unproven stories are most unprofessional and unethical, as are the personal opinions/views of certain named people. These are simply not the facts!  Why are the "referenced facts" on Ryan continually being vandalized, altered, manipulated, and often deleted by User:Purrum and replaced with unproven made-up allegations? Fact is that what Ryan is alleged to have said to whom has never been proven, confirmed nor recorded - there is no evidence anywhere! The facts are that there was a total lack of scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove Ryan guilty. the factual serious ambiguities in the case, the factual dire inconsistencies of all eyewitnesses' evidence, the missing pieces of vital evidence that also could not be scientifically tested, the fact that only Paterson's one single fired shot was heard by all persons. and the most unusual pleas by jury members not to execute Ryan (maybe they had second thoughts about Ryan's guilt). Finally, the fact that the public heard Brosnan's comments on ABC Australia National Radio in 2007 ...  I don't know who's shot killed who! ... which should have put an end to all the unproven allegations still being made about Ryan confessing guilt. Brosnan clearly stated that he did not know who's bullet killed who. Thgey were Brosnan's own words on national radio and he never said Ryan confessed guilt at all. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mega-Referenced FACTS Supporting Innocence
The following mega-referenced facts on the Ronald Ryan case have been contributed to the article many times over many months. Alas, without any reason, these mega-referenced facts are over time, consistently vandalized/deleted by User:Purrum. The question is WHY ??? What is one sane reason why User:Purrum vandalizes/deletes these mega-referenced facts on a regular basis ???

• For unknown reasons, ballistic forensic experts never scientifically examined Ryan's rifle. • There was no forensic proof and no conclusive evidence that Ryan's rifle had fired a shot at all. • It was never proven by forensics that the fatal bullet came from the rifle in Ryan's possession. • Despite extensive search by police, the fatal bullet mysteriously went missing and was never found. • The fatal bullet was never scientifically examined by ballistic forensic experts, to prove which rifle fired the fatal bullet. • Despite extensive search by police, the spent cartridge mysteriously went missing and was never found. • The spent cartridge was never scientifically examined by ballistic forensic experts, for evidence. • If Ryan had fired a shot, a spent cartridge would have spilled out of the rifle. No spent cartridge was ever found. • All fourteen eyewitnesses for the prosecution testified different accounts of what they saw - there were widespread inconsistencies. • Only four of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified of seeing Ryan fire a shot. • All fourteen eyewitnesses testified of hearing one single shot. No person heard two shots. • Prison officer Paterson, admitted and testified he fired the one single shot from an elevated distance (heard by all persons). • If Ryan had also fired a shot, at least one person among the dozens of people surrounding the scene of the crime, would have heard two shots. • Forensic experts never scientifically examined prison officer Paterson's rifle, to prove it had fired a shot. • Forensic experts never scientifically examined all other prison officers' rifles at the scene of the crime, to prove if their rifles had fired a shot. • Ballistic evidence indicated that the prison officer was shot from a distance, in a downward trajectory angle. • The measurement of the entry and exit wound on the deceased prison officer indicated that the fatal shot was fired from an elevated position. At the time of the shooting, there were many prison officers' armed with rifles surrounding the crime scene, on prison walls, on prison guard towers and on the streets. • Eyewitnesses testified seeing the prison officers aiming their rifles in the direction of Ryan, Walker and Hodson. • Ryan (a shorter man) could not have fired at the prison officer (a taller man) in such a downward trajectory angle, as both were on level ground. • Ryan could not have fired from a distance as evidence indicated, because Ryan was adjacent to the prison officer who was running after and adjacent to, the other prison escapee. • Ryan could not have fired from an elevated position as evidence indicated, because Ryan was on level ground. • Some eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle and smoke coming from the barrel of his rifle. In fact, ballistic experts testified at trial that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges. (Reference: Supreme Court Trial Transcript - ''Queen v. Ryan & Walker, March 15–30, 1966) Ryans roger (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

huh?
173.192.25.19 (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * what the?
 * the above debate or should I say extreme inarticulate excuses to coverup the possibility that an innocent man was executed is deplorable
 * an obvious involvement of some kind here if the facts don't add up to an intellectual person
 * why criticism of wikipedia articles

Okay, everybody involved in this argument needs to step back and read WP:OR carefully, because this is not how WP articles work. This debate has well and truly crossed over into the realm of 'original research'.

A trial transcript is a primary source. Primary sources can be good for verifying certain things - e.g. the exact words somebody used during the trial - but, like it says at WP:PRIMARY, it's not appropriate to get into analysis or synthesis on that source. The entire "facts supporting innocence" section is analysis, and that doesn't belong here. By the same token, it's not appropriate for us to analyse that evidence in order to debunk. It's not Wikipedia's job to determine whether Ryan was innocent or guilty, and that's not the sort of thing that WP does well.

What we do do is report on notable analysis from other sources. If a notable source argues that Ryan's innocent (or guilty) we can report that claim, and give a brief synopsis of the reasons. But we're not in the business of retrying the case. --GenericBob (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree with the comments above - this is meant to be an an encyclopedia article, *not* an opinion piece or research paper. Therefore please try to keep it to an encyclopedia standard - which it currently falls far short of. Afterwriting (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 '''VERY STRONGLY AGREE (LONG TIME) WITH GENERICBOB AND AFTERWRITING! ... STICK TO "THE FACTS" NOT FRIVOLOUS HYPOTHETICALS, OPINIONS, VIEWS, EXCUSES, UNPROVEN HEARSAY, UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS, UNPROVEN CONFESSIONS (FATHER BROSNAN'S CLEARLY PUT AN END TO THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS ON ABC PUBLIC NATIONAL RADIO). "THE FACTS" ARE --- THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BALLISTIC FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS/TESTING/EVIDENCE, ANYWHERE WHATSOEVER, TO PROVE RONALD RYAN FIRED A SHOT AT ALL. "THE FACTS" ARE --- MOST OF THE 12-MAN JURY THAT CONVICTED RYAN OF MURDER, LATER MADE THE MOST UNUSUAL AND PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD OF PLEAS VIA SEPARATE SEVERAL WRITTEN LETTERS TO STATE POLITICIANS AND THE MEDIA, NOT TO EXECUTE RONALD RYAN, AND CLAIMING THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE FOUND RYAN GUILTY IF THEY HAD KNOWN HE WOULD BE EXECUTED !!!''' Ryans roger (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Charm Street/Champ Street
There is not, and has never been a "Charm" street in Coburg. "Champ Street" runs right beside the gaol. Unless you have a clear reference to a "Charm" street, please do not reverse this edit. If you do have clear evidence that such exists, I would be happy to leave it. Reynardo (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was probably the one who first incorrectly used Charm instead of Champ, my apology Purrum (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - and please forgive my terseness above. Head over here and I'll take you there! (The prison is now a new housing complex) And thank you for keeping your cool while I was losing mine. Reynardo (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Father Brosnan speaks out on Ronald Ryan's innocence
''' For what possible reason have the following important factual contributions been removed from the article? '''

''' "On 26 March 2003, a few months before his death, Father John Brosnan was interviewed by The Australian Broadcasting Commission National Radio, and, as Brosnan was often asked in the past, about Ronald Ryan - who it was believed fired the fatal shot during the prison escape. Brosnan replied; I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine (Ryan) died. I don't want to make a hero out of Ryan but I'll tell you what, he had heroic qualities." ''' 26 March 2003, ABC Radio Father Brosnan talks on Ronald Ryan

'''In February 2003, The Catholic Southern Cross published an article by Catholic Bishop O’Kelly on Brosnan. For 30 years Brosnan was Pentridge Prison chaplain and one not easily fooled by the prisoners. He knew Ryan very well. Brosnan accompanied Ryan to the gallows and gave Ryan’s body the last rights. Brosnan was convinced and always believed that Ryan was innocent.''' Bishop Greg O"Kelly talks to Southern Cross Catholic Archdiocese on Father Brosnan and Ronald Ryan

66.55.138.70 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Brosnan's correct quote

'' No I won't make a hero out of him. He caused a situation, I don't know who's bullet killed who, but a friend of mine died. But I'll tell you what, he had heroic qualities. '' Purrum (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Question : is this guy brosnan a religious liar, why didnt he shout it out to the world that ryan confessed. why did he say he didn't know who killed that guard guy if he did know who killed him. this article is disappointing over what should or should not be true. them mega referenced facts leave serious doubts even to a lay guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.203.5 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Prehaps you should read the book about his life, he co-wrote it. Purrum (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Prior, Tom, ‘’A knockabout priest : the story of Father John Brosnan’’, Hargreen, North Melbourne, 1985, ISBN 0949905232

Purrum (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a matter of who believes who. Prior's 1985 book he co-wrote contradicts more recent comments made by Brosnan and O'Kelly. Perhaps you should view four documentary films made after 1985 about Ronald Ryan's case that all confirm Brosnan's comments on ABC radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.242.112.190 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Brosnan's correct quote - meaning that Ryan did not confess guilt.

''' "I don't know who's bullet killed who!" '''

Prior does not speak for Brosnan. 82.208.46.204 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

what?

 * Arresting officer Det Harding described Ryan as.. tough, plausible and particularly difficult to question, he gave nothing away until he realised the game was up.

I am no lawyer and no police but I am pretty sure if Ryan confessed to the crime then Det Harding's description of Ryan being tough, plausible and particularly difficult to question, don't make any sense. Ryan allegedly gave every thing away before the game even started. Ryan allegedly confessed to the crime without being questioned, without a lawyer present, no recordings and no signed confessions. Unless Ryan was mentally incompetent at the time, Det Harding's comments about Ryan just don't add up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.96.106 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

huh?

 * Unarmed warders, Wallis, Mitchinson and Paterson, came running out of the prison main gate, onto the street.

Who were the armed warders and how many were there? Newspaper article reads "Armed warders on the prison wall were forced to hold their fire for fear of hitting some of the hundreds of pedestrians and motorists outside the gaol. Warder killed; Pentridge escapees still at large


 * Paterson, realising Ryan was armed, returned inside the prison to get a rifle. Paterson, now with a rifle, ran back outside and onto Champ Street. He decided he could not get a clear shot, so he stood on a low wall in the prison's front garden. He aimed his rifle at Ryan, and claimed he fired a shot in the air when a woman came into his line of sight 

Which statement was that? Paterson made several conflicting statements to police that contradicted about what he saw, heard and did on that day. [Richards Mike, The Hanged Man]


 * Ryan's execution was reluctantly delayed by Premier Bolte awaiting the Privy Council's decision. However, Bolte took no chance of the possible that Her Majesty might give a decision contrary to the advice of the Judicial Committee.

Ryan was hanged one week before the Privy Council's decision. Opas on Ryan


 * Later, some of the jurors came forth and stated they would never have convicted Ryan of murder had they known that he would in fact be executed. [Richards Mike, The Hanged Man]

What the .... ?

183.90.182.14 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page?

 * The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
 * Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2009)
 * This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
 * Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (February 2009)
 * This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.
 * Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

''' That's what's on the article. Just what sort of 'talk' is permitted on this article without GenericBob removing what he percieves as being speculation, interpretations, not the place to play detective? What happened to freedom of speech, expression and freedom to ask questions relating to this 'disputed' article? What's a talk page for? It's true the article's contents is erratic. It's loaded with speculations, interpretations, playing detective with no forensic evidence, hidden rifle, warder fired, one shot heard, hundreds of pedestrians motorists, armed or unarmed warders, jurors not unanimous if two jurors thought Ryan was not guilty, Gildea's story and jurors later inappropriate actions over death sentence is a complex jigsaw puzzle. Either Ryan was guilty of murder or guilty of manslaughter? Which was it? Big apologies for asking questions on this 'ugly and unwieldy article' that has recently captured world attention. ''' --- 174.120.149.194 (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "What's a talk page for?" - it's for discussing potential improvements to the article. It is not for promoting one's personal views or interpretations of the facts, which is what you've been doing here for a long time now. You've made it clear that you believe Ryan was stitched up, and for all I know, you're right - I don't have a strong opinion on the case one way or the other. But WP:OR makes it clear that Wikipedia is not the place to solve 'jigsaw puzzles' or try to weave dozens of contradictory claims and fragments of evidence into a coherent thesis. That seems to be the only thing you're here for, which means you've come to the wrong place. "Freedom of speech" means you get to speak your mind... but it doesn't oblige WP, or anybody else, to give you a platform for that.


 * It's not normal practice to delete other users' comments on a talk page, and I certainly don't make a habit of doing it - but given that your account User:Escapeeyes, and various socks, have already been banned for disruptive editing on this page, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it on this occasion. If anything, I should probably have left the summary as "rv edit by banned user". --GenericBob (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

''' Excuse me? I don't give a damn what GenericBob percieves me to be, but before accusing me of being some person I'm not, you need to get your facts correct and provide evidence of proof, which I guarantee you don't have. How dare you and who do you think you are to accuse! I have never been a banned user or sockpuppet. That's only your personal opinion for whatever the reasons. Going by history, you have banned most users who have added information references by improving this unscrupulous article. This only damages WP reputation. There will always be other users ready to take over banned users. You really should concentrate on imroving the article by removing broken links, personal views, interpretations of facts, conflicting statements. Focus on factual accurate authentic credible precise exact and unbiased evidence. ''' 174.120.149.194 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When Escapeeyes and their socks were editing this article, they all had the same agenda (i.e. trying to push the case that Ryan was innocent), and some distinctive quirks in their writing style - which, for obvious reasons, I'm not going to list here. Sockpuppet investigation concluded that they were all the same person, and they got banned for sockpuppetry. Another one (Ryans roger) popped up in April and got banned for the same reason. Since then, the sock accounts have stopped... and instead we have a bunch of anonymous IPs editing with the same agenda and the same quirks. "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."


 * BTW - I have never banned anyone who's edited this article. --GenericBob (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@ GeriatricBob; How absolutely arrogant of you to convict then have all users banned, based on your speculation interpretation and perception of who they seem to be in your imagination. First excuse for the ban was the sockpuppet case knowing many IP addresses are shared by individuals. Now you need to find another excuse by claiming every IP address is from the same person. You must think users are stupid and it is obvious there is a hidden agenda. Strange how article and discussion history show 'one' certain user is excluded from disruptive editing and from being banned - trying to push the case that Ryan was guilty with 'unproven' quirks in writing style. "It looks like a fake, smells like a fake, and talks like a fake..."
 * BTW - Have you watched the news item below? It is one of hundreds with the same quirks. More proof that 'one' certain user is trying to deceive.

I say to everyone who supports the possibility that Ryan was hanged innocent to speak out about it on WP. 82.208.46.204 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above - I have never banned anybody who's edited this article. Most of those bans happened before I was even following this article. But looking back at their edits, it's blatantly clear that they are the same person, which is why several different admins considered it appropriate to ban them.
 * For what it's worth, I have no strong opinion either way on whether Ryan was guilty, and it's quite appropriate for the article to mention that the issue is the subject of debate. But it's not appropriate to use it as a place to "solve a jigsaw". Courts may be a flawed way to decide innocence and guilt, but wrangling about it in Wikipedia is a far worse way. --GenericBob (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on Ryan's guilt is irrelevant. As I said above - your speculation interpretation and perception of who is who, is only speculation and that is all it is. Having siad that (again) it is so blatantly clear that WP is being "discriminative" with users over the Ryan article. Proof is in the long history of edits, where 'one' particular user has been given a "special pass" to contribute a range of unproven hearsay allegations, which at the time were proven to be untrue. But that is not all - the 'one' user with the special pass has consistently removed and manipulated many ultra referenced factual contributions on Ryan (eg. Brosnan's ABC interview supporting Ryan's innocence) Many more factual information has been altered or deleted, such as the fact that Ryan was executed seven days before a decision on his final appeal had been made). I call that disruptive editing - what do you call it? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am unable to find any user in the long history of edits who has contributed inappropriate unreferenced material that requires WP to remove it or ban a user. It is obvious WP has one law for one and another law for all others. I see WP has lots of critics - now I understand why that is!
 * BTW - Ryan did not write "I am innocent of intent" at all. Ryan wrote "I am innocent of murder". Ryan's family members (all alive and well) have the letter to prove it. Just another example of the cunning deceitful actions of your 'one' user with the special pass. So very blatantly obvious there is a hidden agenda of some kind. In the meantime, the article must contain truth to the facts. Currently it is not.

82.208.46.204 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is Flawed
Have to strongly agree Ronald Ryan article is copiously contaminated and bears no evidence of facts. All information that is dubious with no actual evidence of proof should be removed. Strongly agree with most contributors, the article contains no scientific evidence of proof, unrecorded unsigned allegations of verbals, confessions and hearsay. Outrageous personal opinions and views on Ronald Ryan should also be removed. As for the jury's unbelievable comments and actions, Mickey Mouse and friends would have done a better job. Another reputable souce of equivalent souces is State Library of Victoria, where accurate educational research and resources for teachers and students can be found. I see this source has been removed from the article, along with many other reputable sources, a little at a time.
 * '' " During the trial it was revealed that another prison guard had fired at the escapees, and all parties agreed only one shot was heard. Ryan himself maintained that he had not fired the gun, but despite ambiguous evidence and the fact that Ryan's rifle was never examined to determine if it had been discharged, the jury found Ryan guilty of murder. " State Library of Victoria, Ronald Ryan

184.154.7.188 (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh, two anonymous editors with the same writing style who 'strongly agree' with one another, on a page with a history of sockpuppet abuse. And funnily enough, although this is an Australian topic and both of them are clearly familiar with Australian sources, both of them are posting from non-Australian IPs, tracing back to providers with names like "ip-anywhere.net". I suspect that if we were to go back through the other recent anon edits here we'd see more of the same.


 * If you want people to listen to your arguments, you should probably start by approaching the issue in good faith - which means abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines. --GenericBob (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

disappointing article arguments & contributors is the verdict here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.199.203.158 (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian News Video on Ryan
Interesting news video : The Hanging of Ronald Ryan : 40 Years Later News commentator says,  "There's still fiery debate of who really fired the fatal bullet"   plus live interviews and archived  news film of massive public protests against Ryan hanging. One placard also says,  "no evidence"     ( 74.62.154.104 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC) )

Good Arguments in Good Faith - Abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines
Ballistic forensic experts never scientifically examined Ryan's rifle. There was no forensic proof and no conclusive evidence that Ryan's rifle had fired a shot at all. It was never proven by forensics that the fatal bullet came from the rifle in Ryan's possession. There's really no argument about that and there's really nothing more to contribute! 69.73.185.198 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * These points are already in the article - although now I look, we don't seem to have a source cited for the claim that the lack of examination "was of concern". Without a bullet or cartridge for comparison, I'm not sure what light an examination would shed on the case. --GenericBob (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

source citation
"The fact that Ryan's rifle was never scientifically tested by forensic experts was of significant concern." source cite - Richards Mike, The Hanged Man (page 221)

"At the time of Ryan's recapture, police had inadequately stored Ryan's rifle in the boot of a police car. Instead of careful storage and testing of the rifle, it was subject to contamination by dirt and dust. With no scientific ballistic forensic evidence, missing bullet, missing cartridge, the prosecution relied heavily on witnesses evidence. The discrepencies of eyewitnesses evidence were substancial and wide-ranging. Warder Paterson testified (after changing his statements to police several times) that he fired one single shot, which was heard by all witnesses. No person heard two shots." source cite - Richards Mike, The Hanged Man (pages 220-224)

I suggest you study the article's history, where the above cited contributions and much more, have consistently been removed. Something to hide?

69.73.185.198 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unfortunately, per BAN, I am not permitted to add this to the article because I don't have a copy of the source to verify it for myself. If another non-banned editor can confirm this cite, they'd be most welcome to add it to the article (though the text should probably be a little closer to what Richards says there). --GenericBob (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - as you've already been indefinitely banned for disruptive editing, you are most definitely not editing "in good faith" or "abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines". --GenericBob (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

'''PS - banning users for contributing "cited facts" is most definately disruptive, dicriminative and abusive. Something to hide?''' 69.73.185.198 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not what you were banned for. The reasons are right there on User:Escapeeyes: "This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts" - i.e. sockpuppetry. Your recent attempts to continue doing the same thing through a rerouting service make it clear that you haven't learned your lesson. The more you push it, the more you guarantee that your contributions to WP will be rejected.


 * If you're serious about wanting to improve this article, the solution is not to keep digging the hole deeper. I'm tired of trying to teach you that violating a ban and attempting to deceive other users is unacceptable, and if you continue playing those games I'm just going to go back to reverting you without further discussion, per WP:BAN; I have better things to do with my time. The solution is to go read Appealing_a_block and then follow the advice given there. --GenericBob (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

question about Early life
It says he made money from kangaroo shooting and sleeper cutting. I think I understand "kangaroo shooting", but what is "sleeper cutting"? Just for my own info. Thanks. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Until about 15 years ago, most of Australia's trains ran on rails that sat on wooden sleepers. So "sleeper cutting" is making the sleepers - cutting wood that's fairly dense (at a sawmill) into the relevant size. They're about 150cm long by 8cm by 20cm. These days the sleepers are concrete. Reynardo (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Reynardo. In the US, our wooden "sleepers" are about 240cm long by 15cm by 20cm.  (Or 8 feet by 6 inches by 8 inches.)  And, we call them "railroad ties".  My edits to the article are 99% cosmetic, I would say.  There's a lot of link rot in the references  --  many of the vicbar refs are dead and they're not marked yet, or fixed.  --Kenatipo (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we still need the POV templates?
This article has had three POV warning templates on it for so long I don't notice them any more, but are they still necessary? If there are bona fide editors who have neutrality concerns, we might as well discuss those concerns and see what can be done about them. OTOH, if the only person with neutrality concerns is one disruptive editor who's been repeatedly banned for bad-faith editing, I think we could safely remove them. --GenericBob (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Corruption among police officers
An editor whose style looks awfully like our old friend Escapeeyes has been adding coatrack material about corruption among officers connected to Ronald Ryan. I've removed a couple of these:

- Harding: content stated that Harding's career had been destroyed by allegations of corruption. This is technically true, but it gives a very misleading impression of the source cited - which actually implies that Harding et al. were the innocent parties: "Peachface is investigating allegations that... two Wood royal commission investigators... fabricated and suppressed evidence that destroyed the careers of three senior officers [including Harding] ."

- Arresting officers on Ryan's recapture (Ray Kelly et al.) I don't have an issue with the accuracy of these particular claims (though the Kelly one seemed to have the wrong link) but the article doesn't indicate relevance. Certainly if their testimony was crucial to Ryan's conviction, their integrity would be relevant, but AFAICT that's not the case - they're just the guys who brought him in after the escape and shooting. We still link to Kelly's article, which is a more appropriate place for general info about his career.

Undoubtedly Ryan ran into a lot of corrupt coppers; the Victorian police force was crawling with them at the time. But this isn't an article about police corruption in general. It's an article specifically about Ryan, and information presented here needs to be relevant to that specific case. --01:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Corruption among police officers
http://aso.gov.au/titles/tv/case-of-ronald-ryan/clip2/

Integrity?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppsicle (talk • contribs) 00:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Request
This article needs cleanup, has many broken links and quotations from citations that cannot be confirmed or verified as being correct 124.190.106.226 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

'The Hanged Man'
I have reverted some edits citing 'The Hanged Man'. I'm doing this solely because the IP who added them is a long-running sockpuppeteer and general pest who has repeatedly demonstrated a bad-faith attitude to editing on this page. Given the number of times she's already attempted to deceive other editors here by popping up with badly-disguised sockpuppets etc, I don't feel inclined to check out 'The Hanged Man' on the off-chance that she might for once be accurately citing a reliable & notable source.

This rather bizarre edit (including yet another personal attack on Purrum, who hasn't even edited this page in ages) tends to confirm me in my view that some editors aren't worth the time for anything more than a swift undo (and semi-protection if they become too tiresome).

But if any good-faith editors have read 'The Hanged Man' and think it's worth citing, don't let me stop you. I'm reverting because of the vandal, not because of any specific issues with the source. --GenericBob (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Curioser and curioser... my industrious partner went a-Googling and found this review of the book, which is interesting in more ways than one. The reviewer's style matches that of Escapeeyes (most recently editing as 205.185.119.190) - no surprise, since the same person shows up just about anywhere Ronald Ryan's name is mentioned. In her review of THM, she says:

"'The author Mike Richards claims to draw on previously unpublished documents and personal accounts. That is a lie! Richards also claims this book reveals the truth about Ryan’s guilt. That is a lie! Fact is, and remains to this day, that Ronald Ryan was convicted of murder and later hanged based solely on unsigned and unrecorded allegations of “hearsay” said to have been made by Ryan to police. There is NO SCIENTIFIC BALLISTIC FORENSIC EVIDENCE anywhere, to prove Ryan was guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Richards book appears to his point of view that Ryan was guilty. Other material in Richards book contains an obvious bias towards his own personal opinion and belief. ... Richards is not a lawyer and was not involved in the Ryan case. Richards was simply one of many thousands of protesters against Ronald Ryan’s hanging. The facts surrounding Ryan's wrongful conviction remain to this day - they are the facts that cannot be disputed, distorted nor manipulated - the “facts” that cannot lie. '"

My partner then went off to the local library and picked up a copy of the book. I haven't read it from end to end, but here are some relevant quotes:


 * Page xviii: "What motivated me... and many others in the anti-hanging campaign, was revulsion for the death penalty. Most of us did not believe Ryan was innocent - only that the punishment was inappropriate in a civilised community."
 * Page 372: "Ryan looked Grindlay squarely in the face. 'Yes, that's true,' he said. 'I did shoot him. But I didn't mean to kill him...'"
 * Page 392-393: "Certainly, Ryan had turned bad... Worst of all, he had taken the life of a brave and innocent man, albeit unintentionally. But against the odds... he had shown promise of better, and there was plenty of good to balance the scales."

So, let's recap:
 * The book firmly asserts Ryan's guilt.
 * Escapeeyes recognises that it does so.
 * According to her review, Escapeeyes considers it to be untrustworthy, full of "lies", "slant", and "deliberate omission", and doesn't consider the author notable as a commentator.
 * Nevertheless, since it's balanced enough to include mention of weaknesses in the prosecution case, she cites it here - very selectively, only those parts - describing it as "A RELIABLE AND NOTABLE SOURCE".

From a brief look at the book, it seems like it might indeed be a good source for this article. But it's also clear that while "the facts cannot lie", Escapeeyes will do so whenever it helps push her agenda (no surprise given her long history of sockpuppet and anon IP abuse). Even when she does cite something that may be a reliable source, she does it so dishonestly and selectively as to completely misrepresent the book's overall conclusions. This would be why I have no compunction in reverting her edits on sight, no matter what their content. --GenericBob (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)