Talk:Murder of Sophie Hook

Sources

IMHO some of the more contentious claims and comments here need specific sourcing, not just the blanket References given, so I've reinstated the sources tag. --Dweller 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A lot of the 'early life' and 'involvement in crime' paragraphs appear to be pure hearsay and may be the result of the rumours that always surround such a crime. I think a lot of the content should be deleted unless a verifiable source can be found.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

The sources and references for the details on Howard Hughes and the Sophie Hook murder are listed at the bottom of the page.

I tried to make this a little more neutral, such as removing words like 'shocking' and 'sickening' but I think it might still need some work. Phrases like 'It seems very unlikely that...' don't sound neutral or encyclopedic to me. Also, what is a 'tearaway'? thanks. 24.131.12.228 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Also, 'Fight for Freedom' sounds very POV to me. Does anyone have any alternative suggestions? Maybe 'Appeals'? 24.131.12.228 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually think without references this should be removed as it looks like original research at the moment. Will tag for now Kernel Saunters 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like 'It seems very unlikely that...', while not particularly neutral or encyclopedic, are still more so than just coming outright saying 'He could not have done because...'

I've removed the New evidence section as no sources have been added despite a request one year ago. Kernel Saunters 13:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Innocent.org.uk" quotes sources relating to the case. Can that section now be put back in place if these sources are quoted in this section? Also, the fact is that there is, and remains, doubts over Hughes' guilt. This is significant, so perhaps just a small section without the "new evidence" details stating that there is doubt over his guilt would be apppropriate? Part of the reason why this case still remains an item of interest is because of said doubts. Without the inclusion of that section, it makes the article seem a bit one-sided, as it is still uncertain even 11 years on of whether Hughes really was the murderer {82.15.23.246 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)}

Absoutely it can go back in with certain reservations. It was just not clear where the info was coming from. I would expect most convicted criminals to protest their innocence so it should be made clear who is making the claims of innocence and to what end. As you suggest I would exercise a certain amount of brevity when adding the material as before it overwhelmed the article so perhaps more of a summary of the innocence claims and who is saying them? Happy to help out as req'd Kernel Saunters 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've entered a short paragraph detailing the reason for doubts over Hughes' guilt, and the lack of forensic evidence. I feel that this is appropriate. I suggest leaving that as it is for now until a reliable sourse re: conflicting evidence can be found, as much of the info on "Innocent.org.uk" seems somewhat POV in the way it is presented - in both directions (i.e., re: both his guuilt and his possible innocence) on re-reading, and is therefore probably not reliable.

We only really need to know the two basic facts - which are 1.) Doubts remain over Hughes' guilt; and 2.) The main reason for these doubts is the lack of forensic evidence.

But I am still open to discussion on this point and will listen to what anyone has to say about it on the talk page {82.15.23.246 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)}