Talk:Wearside Jack

Merger
I'm for the proposed merger. Oliver Keenan 21:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As the user who tagged this article for a merge, I have little time and WikiExperience to perform the merge. I hope that's not a Wikipedia Faux Pas. - Raj Fra 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like I found the time to do it. I hope its up to standard - it's my first major contribution to this site. --Raj Fra 04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Raj. Oliver Keenan 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Disgusted
I'm utterly disgusted, not in his hoax, in the sentence of 8 years gaol passed down when the mens rhea of his act obviously indicated an unsound mind. Perhaps someone with more insight could raise this issue in the article? I don't believe that 8 years gaol, under any excuse, should be handed down to some idiot who claimed he was a killer, thousands of people around the world do that yearly, if it wasn't for the fact that this was a sensitive case that illustrated the police's negligence in being able to aprehend the real killer, would such a sentence be passed?
 * Good point, but probably not something that will (or can) happen. Please see Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia articles, in my humble opinion, are simply stating known fact for future reference. Should something occur later on that can be connected to the light sentence (i.e. he was released and then reoffends), it'll be added. To be blunt, we don't (or shouldn't) really care about what happened. We're just compiling details and assembling them for the purpose of easy access for future research. --Raj Fra 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. It's merely a media circus and an attempt to save face, yay for political clown courts. 211.30.80.121 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raj Fra, my friend, you misunderstand. The point is not that this is a light sentence, the point is that it is an unduly harsh sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Starkey (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. This man is a disgrace to humanity. What kind of a person deliberately misleads police when they are hunting a deranged serial killer?? 8 years was too short. They should have sent him away for life. Animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Utterly pointless to use the article to show disgust for the way the hoax was handled. That is entire a POV issue.

I'm more concerned that the "revisiting the mystery" section sites no sources. Probably should be removed as it makes some interesting assertions without recource to source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.75.130 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Release?
The Mail online ran a story "Yorkshire Ripper hoaxer Wearside Jack to be freed from prison next month" on 5th September 2009

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211217/Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer-Wearside-Jack-released-prison-weeks.html#ixzz0xT5JaZXl

He was given an 8 year sentence in 2006 and from what I've read he fully admitted his guilt. By my reckoning he should have been released in line with the Mail's prediction.

Is there any up to date information? 92.20.26.220 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Marko

Discrepancy
You say: '...Humble did not contact the police voluntarily to acknowledge his guilt, even when it was obvious his tapes and letters were diverting police resources away from the real Ripper. A BBC documentary broadcast on 27 March 2006 reported that Humble had telephoned the incident room and informed them that the tape was a hoax.'

These two statements can't both be right. 109.154.26.148 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually they can both be right. I don't know what actually happened, but it's possible he called an admitted the tape was a hoax withoutrevealing his identity. 178.97.242.177 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling
I've attempted to change the mis-spelling of Hylton in the 'Earlier Life' section on more than one occasion now but unfortunately my edits are being reverted due to suspected vandalism, which is frustrating.

It should be noted there is no 'Hilton Road' in Sunderland, and it should in fact be corrected to 'Hylton Road'. Whilst no specific page on Hylton Road exists, it can be verified on Google Maps and there are numerous instances of the correct spelling in other Wikipedia pages:

Hylton Castle

South Hylton Metro Station South Hylton North Hylton

I appreciate fellow users are trying to keep on top of malicious edits, but in this case the spelling must be corrected. Alternatively, if any evidence of the non-existent 'Hilton Road' can be cited, I'd be delighted to see it.

(Martintype (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

Category:Jack the Ripper
I disagree with the reasoning of this revert of my adding of Category:Jack the Ripper. Wearside Jack very much has a connection to Jack the Ripper (not the least the names), and there are no rules on how closely an article has to be related to a topic to be placed in a broad topic category. However, I don't care enough about this article to edit war over it. Just something to think about for other editors. MClay1 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Whitechapel murders occurred 90 years before Humbler created his hoax tape. The 'Ripper' nickname is scarcely enough for a common category. Your addition of the Peter Sutcliffe category is perfectly reasonable. Philip Cross (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)