Talk:Tony Martin (farmer)

POV?

This really needs an NPOVing. It's written as a defence of Martin - David Gerard 09:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be a defence, how can you defend a criminal, if someone breaks the law, time and time again, and then they expect to be covered by it when they get shot, LOGICAL?

In any country run by real men, I'm in support of private firearm ownership, like South Africa or the U.S. we wouldn't be having this argument, we'd be spitting on the stupid burglar and be suing his family for making a mess on Martin's carpet, I'm embarrased to say I'm British when I'm abroad, it's silly, if someone comes into your house, you should shoot them until there's no life left in them. 82.14.70.99 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What place do the above comments (I refer to the last two paragraphs) have in a discussion page? There are more important problems with this article - such as unqualified statements, which I have flagged - that need to be addressed rather than using the discussion page to voice personal political opinions. Clammage (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving it a go. Removing the more egregious POV stuff and correcting some points of fact and the numerous omissions. --Minority Report 21:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's rather gone the other way.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html says he shot the vehicle of a man scrumping apples, we say (said) that he shot at children. I think we need more sourced material on this one.

12:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That Guardian article is just one long character assassination! It's depressing to see a supposedly "serious" newspaper resort to these hackneyed tabloid cliches, though thankfully they stopped short of saying Martin's eyes were too close together.

It's so biased it's ridiculous - they make him sound like a cross between Dracula and Rambo. "Weird", "eccentric", and a "loner", eh? He lived in a scary house, hated thieves and gypsies? Ooh, better throw away the key!

It worked both ways, of course - many of the pro-Martin papers (Mail, et al) have carried similarly biased "profiles" of burglars Fearon and Barras. All's fair in love and newspaper sales, it seems.

It's also interesting to note that the Daily Mirror (which could hardly be described as a right-wing paper) paid Martin £125,000 for his story. This Wikipedia article seems to imply that support for Martin was limited to right-wingers - in fact, the British public (en masse) was hugely supportive of Martin and I don't think the article emphasises that enough. 217.155.20.163 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, the Mirror is relatively right-wing. 86.139.237.132 21:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Burglary trial

Darren Bark must have been released by now; do we know when? Barnabypage 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Released, then back in jail at least two more times. [1] Izaakb 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Title of page

Is Tony Martin (farmer) really the best title? After all, it's not his contributions to agriculture which are notable. I don't think there's a word manslaughterer, and Tony Martin (criminal), while accurate, might be seen as deliberately provocative. Any ideas, anyone? Barnabypage 21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I was just logging on here to say exactly the same thing.FrFintonStack 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about just Tony Martin with a referral from Anthony Martin. If there is more than one Tony Martin, then put in a disambig page. Some people might prefer Tony Martin (hero) or Tony Martin (vermin exterminator) or any number of silly options. Since the title is merely how to identify him, how about just the name? Izaakb 15:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There are already ten Tony Martins on Wiki, so this one has to be Tony Martin (something). Barnabypage 11:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point -- all of the other Tony Martins are categorized by profession, so if this particular Tony is a farmer, then so be it. Izaakb 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bounty?

The newspapers say there is supposed to be a 60,000 pound bounty on Martin's head. Anyone know anything about this? Like who exactly is after him? Or is it just irresponsible hearsay journalism?Tragic romance 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of such a thing, nor in any of the news links about him. I call BS. Izaakb 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I definately remember reading about this in a paper (probably the Daily Mirror or Mail). I think it said the bounty was put up by 'Travellers', friends of Fred Barras' family or some such. No proof of any of it, though.Xzamuel 15:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can check in their archives for such a claim? Izaakb 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Barras' extended family called together a 'Kris' or Romany Gypsy council/court. There, it was decided by some senior figures in the local Gypsy community that a bounty should be put on Martin's head. Apparently the money was to be paid upon Martin's death, but I don't know where they were supposed to have got the money from... You can read about this in the chapter "Trial by Jury and Gypsy" of the book "Tony Martin: A Right To Kill", published by Artnik.

Farmer designation

Is it fair to characterise Martin was a farmer given he has not returned to farm at Bleak House since his release 6 1/2 years ago?

I wouldn't challenge the title of the article because he is Tony Martin the farmer who killed a burglar but the opening paragraph says Tony Martin is a farmer who etc perhaps it should read a 'former farmer' who etc. Dudley25 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources and inline citations

Please be sure that all additions to the Tony Martin (farmer) article are verifiable and that any new assertions added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

I have temporarily removed a moderate amount of material, all added to the article between 2010-01-17 and 2010-01-29 that had no support from inline citations did not meet WP:BLP policy. Feel free to add back in if you have a verifiable sources you can cite inline. I left the two secondary sources in the References section, but removed the primary source link (potential WP:SYN) and the YouTube video link, which is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Brendon Fearon

Would anyone else support merging the Brendon Fearon article into this one? Strictly speaking, it's not a case of WP:BLP1E, as he has received some news coverage since the initial event; but I nonetheless think the spirit of that rule should apply, and I'm not convinced he really needs a separate article. Martin and Fearon could (and probably should) satisfactorily be covered as part of the same article, covering the burglary, the legal cases, and other subsequent events. Does anyone think that would be a good idea? Robofish (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Other than the Tony Martin incident, Fearon is a minor felon. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose He's a minor felon and not otherwise notable enough for an article. However the subsequent events are already covered and are, I would suggest at risk of some probably huge WP:BLP transgression, a testament to his character and so worth keeping. Yet they don't belong within the Tony Martin article. Per our aspiration "to make the best poissible encyclopedia", I'd suggest that this is worth keeping, and that it's best kept as it is, in a separate article. We don't actually benefit by merging, even if policy would support us if we did merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure about WP:BLP1E, since all of his later reported crimes seem to be notable only through his earlier connection with Tony Martin. But for the sake of clarity I would keep his separate article. It might also be argued that a separate article for one of the victims in Martin's crime shows balance - although, of course, there should only be one set of facts to share between the two, as appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Tough one, both sides have strong arguments here, but I'll say Agree. The events of notability in Fearon's life subsequent to the Bleak House incident are essentially direct consequences of that incident. His continuing career of minor crime unconnected with Bleak House is not material that the encyclopedia needs or ought to cover. The benefit to the reader of merging the articles is, I'll grant, fairly slim, but it is that they can get a more complete picture of the Bleak House incident and its ramifications all in one place. Barnabypage (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tony Martin Case Re-visited

An objective analysis of the appeal judgement raises serious issues as to the conduct of both trial and appeal hearing.

1. Firstly, and to dispose of a common perception ingenuously espoused in many quarters, that Mr Martin shot an intruder in the back as he was running away; this was never part of the prosecution case, as was evidenced by the notorious 'rats in a trap' rhetoric. Be that as it may, the following rationale is readily deducible from the Appeal Judgment <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2245.html >and other cited sources:

2. There is no reliable testimony as to the number or cadence of shots fired. It was agreed at trial that three shots were fired [para. 12]. According to author John McVicar who presumably researched the case sufficient enough to dramatise it in his book Tony Martin - A Right To Kill, Darren Bark, the intruders’ wheelman, averred that he heard two shots in quick succession.

3. Inconclusive as this is, we might conjecture that this tallies with the apparent narrative of events; that the shots he heard were the second and third which were fired in the breakfast room after the breakfast room window had been pulled out. We might conjecture that the first shot went unheard, it having been fired in the stairwell while the window was still in place.

4. As stated, it was agreed at trial that three shots were fired [para. 12]. Evidentially two of these shots were fired from some point on the ground floor because we know where they fetched up, i.e.; (a) in the breakfast room external door, (b) below the adjacent window and (c) in or about the lower limbs of both intruders – non-fatally [para. 27], destination c being common to both a and b.

5. Forensic evidence adduced at trial and augmented at appeal leaves no conclusion other than that the remaining shot was fired, and earlier, from the stairs. This concurs with Fearon’s three initial statements [para. 20]. These crucial statements went unchallenged at trial, the defense considering themselves burdened by the constraints of ss 3.1 and 3.2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Nevertheless Fearon’s utterances and the forensic evidence concur with Mr Martin’s constant assertion that he fired the first shot from some point high on the stairs and that he fired the shot at some point below a source of light which was dazzling him.

6. It follows that this must have been the first and fatal shot and that all the birdshot therefrom must have ended up in Barras’s back [para. 28] for there was none found in the stairwell boundaries. This is corroborated by the ballistic and medical evidence [para. 28]. The birdshot had punctured Barras’s left lung but he was still ambulant and, according to McVicar, autopsy confirmed that he probably survived for thirty minutes or more.

7. That Barass was aspected posteriorly to the shot is indisputable. As so much has been made of this, we must ask ourselves how he came to be so aspected. Mr Martin averred that he was doubly alerted by the sound of someone interfering with the folded ladder he had placed at the stairfoot as a barrier against surprise by intruders. This infers that one of that night’s intruders (Barras) was venturing to climb the stairs towards the bedroom where Mr Martin was taking refuge and it was this sound that persuaded Mr Martin that some form of urgent defensive action had become necessary. We might conjecture that Barras came to be so aspected as a result of him trying to take reflexive evasive action; ducking and turning to regain the safety of the breakfast room door after seeing the householder on the stairs with a shotgun at the present in the beam of Fearon’s Petzl light. Him so ducking would account for the acute angle of entry of the shot. Unless some countervailing scenario can be constructed to fit the available evidence, it must be admitted that the dazzled householder could not have been aware of Barras’s presence at the stairfoot.

8. Furthermore it must follow from the disposition of three ejected spent cartridges, which were found in a cluster just inside the breakfast room door [para. 26], that when Mr Martin did eventually advance down the stairs he must have done so without a live cartridge in the breech. Thus it cannot be sustained that Mr Martin purposefully went in pursuit of the intruders.

9. At his trial, Mr Martin was arraigned on a catch-all indictment containing a count of murder of Barras (count 1), a count of attempted murder of Fearon (count 2) and an alternative to that count of wounding with intent (count 3). There was also a count of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life (count 4). There were other makeweights which need not concern us here as they have no bearing upon the substantive verdicts.

10. According to the appeal judgment the jury acquitted Mr Martin in unanimity of attempted murder (count 2) and of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life (count 4); and that he was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of murder (count 1) and wounding with intent (count 3).

11. What the appeal judgment does not tell us (and contemporaneous reportage does) is that the unanimous acquittals preceded the qualified convictions by some nine and a half hours. The unresolvable anomalies arising therefrom are obvious. The trial should have ended on the first pronouncements with an acquittal or at least a retrial but Owen LJ elected to retire the jury a second time.

12. There is a provision in the criminal law for ‘inconsistent verdicts’ (Archbold, p. 829 ss 7-70 et seq.) but the inconsistencies here were terminally disproportionate. The pronouncements on the proffered alternatives (counts 2 and 3) firstly lacked a requisite simultaneity and secondly were iniquitous in that the earlier exonerating pronouncements were delivered in unanimity whereas the later adverse pronouncements were delivered with dissent.

13. There was clearly a mistrial and there arose a clear case for judicial review. Later cases (R. v. McEvilly [2008] EWCA Crim 1162 for instance) reinforce this argument that the Martin verdicts were procedurally flawed.

14. It may be deduced from the construction of the appeal judgment that the augmented forensic evidence (confirming that the fatal shot was fired from the stairs) was circumlocuitously discounted in favour of the rather risible longstop plea of ‘diminished responsibility’.

15. That Fearon felt constrained to revoke his three initial utterances after having been taken back to the scene of crime under the auspices of the police remains disturbingly unexplained. That the CPS decided to proceed when exonerating circumstances were so palpable that they survive into the pages of an appeal judgment similarly remains disturbingly unexplained. That the appeal panel were, absent ‘diminished responsibility’, content for the appellant to continue a life sentence seems to confirm that procedural niceties negate objectivity in the appeal process. On a detail [paras. 46 & 49]: objectivity demanded that the appellant should have been allowed to resile his case back to that point at which Fearon’s earlier utterances should have been brought under challenge at trial.

16. Three conclusions may be arrived at if the above rationale cannot objectively be deconstructed:

a) Mr Martin did not knowingly or purposefully shoot anyone in the back.

b) If this judgement is to prevail, a beleagured householder may not now make an exploratory advance, not even in the confines of his own dwelling [para.42] without fear of legalistic consequences.

c) The court of appeal must never arbitrarily be allowed to set itself up as a court of last resort. Had this case been allowed to go the the Lords it may have had a very different outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99ver1tas99 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

'Weird editorialising' ?

I do not see what is so 'weird' about my extension of the lede (deleted 8/2/13), as a summary of public reaction. There was indeed a great outpouring of support for Martin in principle, tempered by growing reservations about the man and his motives. 109.154.26.148 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

PS - the material I added-in was a direct summary of the same topic, as featured in the article. Valetude (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)