Talk:Dennis Nilsen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc

I have some material for this page that I will be posting shortly. --/Mat 11:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think I added enough information to remove the stub-status. FoekeNoppert 17:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Necrophilia

Isn't he a necropliliac? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.113 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent arrest

This section reads somewhat like a story rather than an encyclopedia entry. Anybody with good understanding/knowledge of the article subject, if you could rewrite this in a more "encyclopedic" way that'd be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.139.22 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, just seen a TV program. I copy-edited it anyway. Hope that helps zzz (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edited a lot of the article, more remains to be done. zzz (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No free image?

Surely, surely we can make an exception for somebody who will never get out of jail alive? Vashti (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The image used is incorrect (reversed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.95.169 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dead?

Announced on the UK news today (19.12.2011) that he died today. Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.147.219 (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on BBC News website [[1]] or Google News. Do you have a reference? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably confusion with Donald Neilson who died on the 18th. [2] Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Human flesh

How did they recognise the flesh to be human? --82.113.106.166 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Nilsen was caught after the drainage engineer who was called to unblocked the drains recognised the smell of decaying human flesh from his time as a fire-fighter during the blitz. But I have not yet found a WP:RS for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

At least one source (Masters) describes the Dyno-Rod operator Michael Cattran as being thirty, which would negate any possibility of his having been in the Blitz. Masters says that Cattran recognised the blockage as a mass of meat (rather than the more usual backup of human excrement) and thought that it might have been dogmeat or chicken. A sample was sent for forensic analysis and then recognised as human. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. So this could be added with a ref to Masters? My own copy of Killing for Company is in the loft (and I'm not sure what it's doing up there, ooo err). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Question Time

Nilsen was once a member of the studio audience for BBC's Question Time. He had been primed to ask a question but wasn't called. [3]. This might be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Done! zzz (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't specify an actual date of appearance, and states he wasn't even called to ask his question in the end anyhow. Not only can it not be accurate chronologically placed in the article, but if done so it appears vague. I don't recall this being included in Masters' or Coffey's books--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's probably because they weren't aware of it. And there's nothing "vague" about it. If you can find out exactly when it occurred, that would be useful info. NB, this article is not just about two books you have read! All sourced info should be added if psychologically revealing, as this clearly is. zzz (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is and I believe broader consensus than what either you or I personally feel is needed as to the inclusion. Both authors have extensively studied Nilsen's life. I find little importance-psychologically or otherwise-in the fact he happened to sit mute in a BBC panel.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, broader consensus is required to remove sourced info. zzz (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone can find out just how he got the invite (trade union? colleagues' political interests?) maybe it could be morphed into a chronologically appropriate sentence?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It 'is' hard to make it fit seamlessly. I would include it anyway, but I'll leave it to others to decide. zzz (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts, any one? For or against? Personally, I'm against excluding verifiable, surprising info based on a subjective opinion of what's important. zzz (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it does need another reference though, TBH. zzz (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Severe copyedit needed

Example: "The trial began with Nilsen being asked by the chief administrator of the court whether he entered a plea of guilty or not guilty in relation to each charge. In response to each charge, Nilsen entered a plea of not guilty. Upon completion of his pleas, the jury was sworn into the courtroom."

This is what happens in all trials. This article is grotesquely overdetailed. EEng (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In UK defendants sometimes plead guilty. And some appear on video link, and so never enter court (whether they wish to or not). And, of course, some trials don't have any jury. But apart from that, you may be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"If it please m'Lord, I please not guilty." Yes, yes, but you get my point. Christ, we're even told that the "chief administrator of the court" did the asking. Who the fuck cares? Also, I'm not sure the jury is "sworn into the courtroom". EEng (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Get into that f***ing courtroom, you lazy bunch of b***ards." But great to see you pleading for a little help to improve the langauge here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Although

• His attendance record was mediocre, although he frequently volunteered to work overtime.
• He made no efforts to seek sexual contact with any of the peers to whom he was sexually attracted, although he later said he had been fondled by an older youth.
• Although means "despite the fact that".

Are we comfortable that "His attendance record was mediocre, despite the fact that he frequently volunteered to work overtime." and "He made no efforts to seek sexual contact with any of the peers to whom he was sexually attracted, despite the fact that he later said he had been fondled by an older youth." are how these sentences may be read? The second is particularly egregious, I think. --John (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Both look absolutely fine to me. These are both surface level behavioural comparisons, although we don't know really know what was going on in his mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The first one is fine, in my opinion, because it's contrasting a positive with a negative. The second one does need some rewording, but it depends on the sources. "Although" is okay if the sources indicate that Nilsen claimed to have been fondled in order to show that he did have voluntary sexual contact with his peers, because it contrasts his known behaviour with his later claims/excuses, but it wouldn't be okay if Nilsen was claiming sexual assault of some kind. I don't have the Coffey book used as a reference for that statement - can anyone check the context? Marianna251TALK 08:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I suspect both are simply reported neutrally. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I do have the book. It harks to his claims in History of a Drowning Boy regarding what he refers to as 'embryonic sex games' he witnessed as a child and early adolescent in which he occasionally saw local boys pin down girls and "feel under their clothes" with or without their consent. He claims that occasionally boys would do the same to younger boys, and that he found this exciting, with it once happening to him. He claims he didn't find the experience unpleasant, "although" (my insertion of the word) he was annoyed because the boy was older and stronger than he..--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That's really useful, thank you. It looks like Nilsen isn't claiming sexual assault (although I'd say it was, personally, but that's OR), so what are people's thoughts on amending the sentence to read: "He made no efforts to seek sexual contact with any of the peers to whom he was sexually attracted, although he later said he had been fondled by an older youth and did not find the experience unpleasant" for clarity? Marianna251TALK 11:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I think that's an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Great - change made. Marianna251TALK 19:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Good job. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)