Talk:The Family Murders

The suspects
The Suspects of these tragic murders appears fact-less and based on gossip/tabloid news. Additionally, the case report you highlight has no relevance whatsoever to the so-called Family Murders. Lets look at it, remembering, this is a low-brow journalist:

"AN INTERSTATE doctor with alleged links to the "Family" murders..."

That's it. "alleged links". Alleged by whom? I allege that Tony Abbott is involved. Does that count? Once again, this particular case has nothing to do with the media-named "family murders". If you can find me a comment from police stating the Doctor is a key suspect in the Family Murders (which you won't find because they would have prosecuted him by now, agree?) then I'll stop editing.

Now lets read the Suspect 3 comments. ' "A close friend of von Einem and suspect 1 and a former male prostitute. Police have evidence implicating him in drugging and sexually abusing hitchhikers. Police believe he was with von Einem and suspect 1 when Kelvin was abducted. He fled Adelaide and works as a bus driver in Brisbane."'

Who is the police officer that said this? Where is the reference? And please don't list the Advertiser again? Also, don't you find it incredible that "Police have evidence implicating him in drugging and sexually abusing hitchhikers" (again, no evidence this is true). If it were true, dont you think it completely stupid that he is roaming free working "as a bus driver in Brisbane".

Can we please stick to facts on the Wikipedia website and especially something as upsetting to victims' families such as this Wayne? As your profile states "I am now a firm believer in telling people the truth regardless". The 'truth', not 'hearsay' or references to low brow Murdoch newspapers pedalling "another family murder suspect". Can't wait to read the Beaumont Children on Wiki.

Why not mention the under-resourced (some might say 'hopeless') South Australian Police Force and how they have managed to make just one arrest in 30 years attached to these hideous crimes that have never been proven to be related or unrelated. Rvoight (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Policy is verifiability not truth. No one needs to find a personal police statement as it is published by a reliable source so we can use it from that source. Police can have evidence implicating people but it is not always enough to take to trial. "low brow" is your own personal opinion and you are free to "allege" all you like but you are not a RS and your entire post above is WP:OR. It may be a Murdock paper but it's South Australia's only major newspaper and it's reporting on a crime committed in South Australia. As a WP:SPA you are free to edit but for major edits you should use talk to put your case and get some sort of consensus before making such a major deletion. Please do not delete the material again unless you can find a source refuting the newspaper report. Wayne (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You state "as it is published by a reliable source". Please refer here and here and note the Advertiser "tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, celebrity gossip and TV" and "Tabloids have often been criticised for being sensationalist and lacking journalistic integrity. Some critics go so far as to suggest a disenfranchisement of tabloid readers.[5]". Here is another confirmation that the Advertiser is a tabloid and here is something of interest that supports my argument that the Advertiser is not considered to be a quality paper, although it dates back to 1996. I will dig for more. BTW and a minor point, having read the full newspaper report, it is reporting not "a crime" but an "alleged crime".

Now, you also mention "He is known to have supplied drugs to von Einem and suspect 1 which were used by both to incapacitate hitchhikers". Please kindly provide a reference as I could not find one.

"He now lives in Sydney and refuses to co-operate with police investigations". Please read here. It states that "changes in DNA testing laws in the state have meant some suspects in the case have now had their DNA tested." Now there are several suspects, the media believe. The police say some have been tested, likely all that they wanted to test. There is no report on "refusal to provide DNA". Lets dig deeper here. Now it clearly says the Queensland guy had an interview and DNA taken. So do you agree he has co-operated? Now lets look at the Sydney Doctor, quote from same article "Another target, a former Adelaide doctor, is living in Sydney. Detectives have travelled to Sydney to both interview and obtain a DNA profile from him." Sounds to me he has consented to a DNA and an interview. It doesnot say "are hoping to" or "are seeking to". Here's more (and shock, horror, its a tabloid) "A dozen detectives assigned to the review have interviewed and re-interviewed dozens of people and taken DNA samples from an unknown number of them." Note that there is no mention of anyone refusing to have a DNA test, nor does it mention whether they actually needed to take DNA from any of them. This is the most recent newspaper report regarding the latest interviews, so supersedes any "refuses to co-operate" reports. Interestingly, can you find a report regarding the outcome of Von Einem's DNA test? Remember, he has always denied involvement!! (I am not suggesting anything here, just stating a curious 'fact').

In conclusion, the majority, possibly all, supposed suspects (which is half of Adelaide I guess) have supplied DNA to police. There is no recent (since Oct 2008) report of anyone refusing a DNA or interview as far as I can find (you may be able to find one, but I couldn't). No arrests made, and I quote from the Tabloids you appear to appreciate and respect (as 'reliable sources') more than myself ..."Detectives completed a cold-case review of the murders late last year but no new charges were laid then." Note the word "completed". It does not say, "still investigating" or "cold case still open and awaiting completion of interviews/DNA with suspects". It states clearly "cold case review.....completed....but no new charges were laid then".

Nearly there....

You write..."On 1 February 2011, a Doctor allegedly linked to the Family murders was arrested for the alleged kidnapping and torture of several teenagers around the time of the murders." Please provide a reference for "kidnapping and torture of several teenagers"

It then reads on "These charges are not related to the Family murders". Whilst I think this is certainly a move in the right direction, I disagree that it should be here at all. For example, I could write "Bob Brown was spotted at the Oxford St Mardi Gras, but we are in no way suggesting he is gay". You see my meaning? This articulates my point a little better here.

I won't edit until you respond. Please understand the victims' families are involved here and sensationalism via the media continues to be incredibly upsetting and "possibly" (I am guessing) detrimental to future arrests. Adding fuel to the media fire (remember their motto "never let the truth get in the easy of a good story") via Wikipedia is making matters worse. Whilst this following story is related to a direct attack on innocent people (as opposed to media creating a story and upsetting the families of victims) I recommend you read this story to understand what the media can create (under "Libel Actions") if you are still not convinced at what damage the media can do to peoples lives when they inaccurately report matters or simply lie, which is here. Rvoight (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Tabloid" in the case of the The Advertiser refers only to it's size, not content. The Advertiser was originally a "Broadsheet" (traditionally associated with higher-quality journalism) and was changed to Tabloid size so that the same printing presses could be used for all Murdock owned newspapers and to a lessor degree public demand as a Broadsheet is horrendous to read on public transport.
 * The source already provided for the section states: "Known to have supplied drugs to von Einem and suspect 1 which were used to incapacitate hitch-hikers."
 * The DNA testing was compulsory so there is no contradiction between "refuses to co-operate" and "had their DNA tested". There may have been no "refusal to provide DNA", but the DNA tests were irrelevant to the cooperation.
 * You misinterpret the word "completed". It was the review that was completed, the cold case itself is still open.
 * The arrested doctor is there because he is linked to the Family murders and the charges are for crimes of a similar nature. That the charges against the accused are not part of the murders is irrelevant.
 * I've fixed the charges.
 * How is mention of the suspects "a direct attack on innocent people"? They are not named. If you believe the reports are inaccurate then please supply sources for this.
 * Wikipedia is not censored. You have not provided any justification for deletion. Wayne (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked you several times not to delete the material without discussion. Provide justification that complies with Wikipedia guidelines or gain a consensus and we can modify or delete text. Wayne (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wayne Ross or WL Ross of Adelaide, From the tabloid paper Sunday Mail 5/12/10 "The review of the Family murders was the largest cold-case review conducted by Major Crime detectives with all witnesses reinterviewed, DNA swabs taken from the four suspects and their associates and dozens of exhibits re-examined at the Forensic Science Centre."

The DNA testing was not compulsory. They would have asked the suspects. Read my references. It is NOT compulsory. The so-called suspects could have refused. This is an extremely important point. Show me a reference where it states clearly that the Queensland guy undertook a compulsory test. He would have undertook a test requested by the police voluntarily.

I have provided very detailed responses to your questions. You have simply ignored my comments, then deleted my comments and then made up stories such as "drugging several teenages" which was simply fantasy. This is just a perception, but you do come across as someone that thinks they own the Wikipedia articles they contribute to.

The cold case was completed. Please provide a reference where it states it is still open. Maybe you could write "As reported in the press, the cold case has been completed by police, but it is still open". Rvoight (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You have provide zero responses for deleting sourced text and you have ignored my requests to provide reasons. The only "detailed responses" you give is for your additions which I have answered. What exactly have I made up? Everything is from the references provided. As I said before, you do not understand what a cold case is. A cold case remains open until the crime is solved. What was completed was the "cold case review", one of several to date and it will likely not be the last. I have been trying to accomodate your concerns but use Talk not deletion. Please do not delete sourced text without getting a consensus and if you delete reliable and relevant references again you may be blocked from editing. If you have a problem with the text, follow Wikipedia guidelines and take it to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and explain your case there. Administrators will then decide what needs to be deleted/added. Wayne (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions that all the subjects were DNA tested. It also mentions that no charges have been laid. These facts do not need to be repeated for each individual. The two sources you provided for the DNA are not related to this article so are irrelevant and are what is called WP:SYNTH and No original research applies. Wikipedia policies do not allow the use of Original Research. One talks about DNA only in regards to a training course while the other is six years old, doesn't mention the Family murders and only refers to voluntary testing not compulsory testing. Relevant references that you have provided I have added to the article.

Semiprotected
This article has been semiprotected one month per a request at WP:RFPP. Some material in this article has recently been disputed by a set of editors who are too new to be autoconfirmed. If you think that anything in this article violates Wikipedia's policy on WP:Biographies of living persons please make a complaint at WP:BLP/N and explain your issue. In general, any material that is reliably sourced qualifies for inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid - the stuff, including one source which names a person not charged with this crime, etc., which is National Enquirer level fails, including per WP:BLP. I suggest the lurid descriptions should also be reduced, but leave that to others. Collect (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspects section
I have removed a huge section of totally unsourced information about apparent suspects. These kinds of accusations must be supported by reliable sources, most especially for the many people thus accused who are still alive. See WP:BLP. Do not replace this material without very solid sourcing from reliable sources WP:RS. --Slp1 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has standards for writing about the perpetrators of crime that are stricter than WP:BLP alone. This states: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Also, Wikipedia should not be a gossip column, nor should it spread rumours about individuals. This is because in Australian law a person accused of a crime has the right to be "presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law." Speculating about who else might be involved serves no useful purpose, apart from providing more business for lawyers suing people.- Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead section has extra information
I added the clean-up tag: Lead extra info. This is because the article's lead section has extra information about a TV interview that is not included in the body of the article. The lead should introduce and summarize an article, not contain the details that are not covered in the article. The TV interview mentioned in the lead also needs to be explained further in the body of the article, so if it is omitted from the lead, the details are sill available in the body. I am not sure that having all this information in the lead is really necessary, although it is important to naming the article, simply saying it is the name given by the police might be enough in the lead. See MOS:LEAD. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)