Talk:Murder of Catrine da Costa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 August 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Murder of Catrine da Costa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juror vs. lay judge[edit]

The article stated that the first mistrial was due to a "juror" being interviewed by Aftonbladet. There are no juries in Swedish general courts. It was actually the lay judges who were interviewed and made statements about the trial, which is grounds for a mistrial. PikeWake (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriage of Justice[edit]

Someone should really fix this article to reflect the real problem with what actually happened. For those that don't know, the two men were crucified in the media and the Judge at the trial, Anton Spak, essentially convicted them as guilty in a verdict in which they were acquitted of all charges. The way that this was done, was by saying that they were guilty of dismembering the body but that due to statue of limitations they couldn't be charged for it. The dismemberment charge was never taken up in the trial and so the two men had no way of defending themselves against that unofficial charge which convicted them.

The result was that everyone treated them as if they had been convicted as guilty of the crime, but that the court due to technicalities hadn't been able to pin it on them and convict them to prison sentences.

This was the further complicated by the fact that in swedish law, a defendant cannot appeal a verdict in which they are cleared of all charges. So the Judge, Anton Spak, managed to convict them as guilty of a crime in a verdict in which they were acquitted of all charges. A monumental injustice, but one that the media cheered for. The two mens lives were ruined since they were considered criminals. They lost their medical licenses and were branded by the media as guilty.

They didn't get their names cleared until well after the whole thing had dropped out of the media limelight. Their attempt to claim damages for defamation and loss of income was essentially crushed by the courts with the argument that the courts didn't convict them as guilty, and the text in the verdict that essentially convicted them of a crime, was just text that wasn't part of the actual verdict. Since the verdict acquitted them, they have no right to claim any damages due to anythign the court or the state had done to them. - Nehcrum (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to BOLD page move[edit]

User:Coffeeandcrumbs moved this page from Murder of Catrine da Costa to Death of Catrine da Costa with the edit summary of "Not found guilty, cause of death undetermined, Death of Catrine da Costa is precise enough". A totally unnecessary move, she was dismembered and various body parts put in plastic bags, are you suggesting this happened by suicide, natural causes or an accident? "Not found guilty" - the defendents were aquitted, that's not the same thing as she wasn't murdered. "Cause of death undetermined" - Cause of death is a medical finding, not necessarily an indication of criminality or not. For example if somebody falls to their death from a tall building, the cause of death (injuries from the fall) remains the same whether they fell accidentally, jumped (suicide) or were pushed (murder). "Death of Catrine da Costa is precise enough" - so was the original title, which, as the common name in Sweden is Styckmordsrättegången ('the dismemberment murder trial'), is probably more appropriate. There are also parallels with the Thames Torso Murders and other dismemberment murders, so there are precedents for using murder in the title. --John B123 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will Support a move back to Murder of.... to be fair, she was dismembered and it has been confirmed that she was murdered. You do not by accident get dismembered.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish name has the word trial in it. Our article's title did not. The cause of death was undetermined as is written several times in the article with RS. She could have been dismembered after she died. I have no objection to Dimemberment murder trial in Sweden or something like that. But "Murder of Catrine da Costa" is in accurate and not acceptable in my view. Another option is the Death and dismemberment of Catrine da Costa. These doctors are presumably still alive and this has WP:BLP implications. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of.. makes more sense than Death of.. or the weird Dismemberment murder.. suggestion. I will say move the article back.BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish name does indeed have the word trial in it, but not the word death. As pointed out previously, cause of death does not prove or not murder. Just today, the inquest into the 2017 Westminster attack found that Khalid Masood was lawfully killed by the police, not murdered. The cause of death was a bullet to the upper torso. The cause of death would have stayed the same no matter what the outcome of the tribunal was. Agree with BabbaQ that the article should be reverted to Murder of Catrine da Costa. I also think that should happen now as per the given procedures of WP:BRD.--John B123 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: Not sure there are any WP:BLP implications, the doctors were acquitted of the murder, which is stated in the article.--John B123 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The doctors are still alive and this article's title still accuses them of murder they were not convicted of that. AFAIK, no other suspects are named in the press. It still affects them when the incident is called a "Murder".--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the article needs to be moved now and not later per WP:BRD. BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. One second while I do that and start a move discussion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Strong arguments on both sides but the burden is on the Support side; no consensus on that. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Catrine da Costa → Death of Catrine da Costa – The trial resulted in a mistrial and then an acquittal; the cause of death was left undetermined. The word "Murder" has legal definitions and should not be used in this instance without a qualifier. Although dismemberment may imply murder, da Costa could have died under other causes and then been dismembered. Other options include some form of the title that has both "murder" and "trial" in it or Death and dismemeberment of Catrine da Costa --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Death of.. would be a wrong and inappropriate move. This has been established as murder. You do not get dismembered by accident. Death and dismemberment... is not appropriate either. BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Death of..." as insufficiently specific regarding the undoubted homicide in question, but would support the form Killing of Catrine da Costa. The very fact of dismemberment indicates at the very least an act of killing, although not murder, since conviction has not been obtained. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support the title Killing of Catrine da Costa as it is very clear that someone killed her. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is compliant with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, Death of.. is less compliant as the WP:COMMONNAME is Murder of Catrine da Costa, as witnessed by the titles of the refs used in the article and google results. Lengthening the title to add trial to the title would be leading to problems with WP:CONCISE. Looking at the points raised in the request, acquittal of the suspects doesn't mean she wasn't murdered. There are many cases of murder where cause of death cannot be determined because of decay of the body. That does not rule out they were murdered. Dismemberment of bodies post-mortem is almost exclusively carried out in an attempt to cover up a murder. --John B123 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    John B123, Murder is not the COMMONNAME. It is Dismemberment murder trial. Here again, the trial is a crucial part of the common name for the subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: From WP:COMMONNAME: "most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", not an English translation of a Swedish term. Try a Google search for the title you proposed, "Death of Catrine da Costa", and see what is the commonest used phrase is, or look at the titles of the references used in the article. --John B123 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The proposed title is accurate. I find the logic displayed here in the comments ("dismemberment implies killing") deeply troubling. People (always) die, but their bodies being dismembered is not proof that they have been killed (or that they have been killed by the people who dismembered them). JFTR: There are several sources that claim da Costa was (heavily) addicted to drugs which–well established–often leads to an untimely death. I find it deceptive that this article does not address that. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so she fell and got dismembered and her body parts placed inside plastic bags by mistake or accident. I hope you understand that deception can go both ways. BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If every dismembering of a body implied that the person was killed, there would be no need to make dismembering a body a crime. Yet in Sweden (and probably most other countries) it is. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per John B123. The "legally not a murder" argument seems overly prescriptive, since murder is not always used in a strict legal sense (see the Wiktionary entry). Retro (talk | contribs) 14:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. She probably was murdered, but dismemberment is no evidence of murder or in fact any unlawful killing. The dismemberment obviously was intentional but she could have died entirely accidentally (yes, people have been dismembered after dying accidentally). So neither "killing" nor "murder" can be accurate unless and until we know for sure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: WP:COMMONNAME says that [I]naccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. So to support an assertion that a name is inaccurate, you must provide a reliable source that identifies "murder" as inaccurate in this case. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Murder is not the COMMONNAME. It is Dismemberment murder trial. Here again, the trial is a crucial part of the common name for the subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Murder of Catrine da Costa" is the WP:COMMONNAME - see my explanation above of this. I fail to see why "trial" is so important to you, it doesn't appear in the new title you proposed. --John B123 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with John B123's assessment of the sources, as I also found "murder" to be the most prevalent among the English-language sources.
    By the way, Coffeeandcrumbs, you shouldn't paste identical comments under multiple comments; you can just make a single comment and ping the relevant participants. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, she was murdered as she was found dismembered, that's for sure. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The reason that it wasn't clearly established that she was murdered was, and still is, because there are pieces of the body that has never been found. Because of that, the cause of death couldn't be clearly established. But it's generally accepted as truth in Sweden that she was murdered. There is no specific crime in swedish law regarding dismemberment of dead bodies but the law that does exist is about disturbing the dead, and includes all form of disrespectful treatment of human remains. And it's usually used for graveplunderers, necrophiliacs etc. And the reason they were "convicted" of it, (see longer post above for more info on that) was because the statute of limitations had run out. - Nehcrum (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Catrine_da_Costa&oldid=1162071901"