Talk:John Bodkin Adams

It's now Down Syndrome

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Name Autodidact1 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• That covers US usage. This is a GB article. At the topic of the DS article, however, in the info box, you'll see the Down's version given as a synonym. Malick78 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Waffle

There's still far too much waffle in this page. The Why interfere section is unconvincing to say the least--Cunningham 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on possible political interference is highly speculative, with little or no evidence presented. If it is to be retained, it should be balanced by the clear evidence that the police provided biased briefings to the press before the trial

However, the current section 7.2 on possible reasons for such interference is worse, because it rests on the unsubstantiated belief that there was political interference. This section should be removed.Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Gay?

I'm a little reluctant to accept this man's homosexuality, but could be convinced otherwise :) According to the article, we have one memo from a journalist to go by - which isn't a reliable source. Are there any other references to back this up? I haven't read Cullen, and know nothing about Adams, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article probably needs a dedicated section for sexuality. Basically though, according to Cullen, Adams was almost certainly a closet homosexual. He was popular with his older female patients because he knew how to 'pass' - he would flirt with them and he was unmarried, allowing them to feel that his attention could even lead to a marriage proposal. However, he was incredibly close to Roland Gwynne, a renowned homosexual who had many affairs with men. Adams and Gwynne went on frequent holidays together and Gwynne would visit Adams daily in the morning at 9 am (according to Adams). While this certainly isn't cast iron proof, it gives the journalist's memo much more credence than one would usually give such a thing. It should also be mentioned that Adams was at one point engaged to be married in 1935 (a fact that should also be added to the article) but broke off the engagement at the last moment after the bride's father had already bought them a house. He therefore flirted with the idea of trying (to pretend) to lead a 'hetero' life, but couldn't bring himself to do it.Malick78 11:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Please see this section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) talk page. Northern Ireland did not exist when Adams was born, therefore it's Ireland. As for the cats - Category:British serial killers - no. It's a violation of NPOV to label him as a serial killer. Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients - convicted of murdering who? Absolutely nobody! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. He was acquitted, and not even struck off in the end! --Counter-revolutionary 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• The info box tells us where he was born and where that place is now - quite clearly it is in Northern Ireland. Just because he was born before it's existence does not mean that the town has to be described as being where it was 'then'. Was Boudicca from Brittania or Britain? Your policy would lead to absurd descriptions. For the record, wikipedia reads:

"Boudica (also spelt Boudicca, formerly better known as Boadicea) (d. AD 60 or 61 ) was a queen of the Iceni people of Norfolk in Eastern Britain who led an uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire."

• Surely, since Ireland did not exist as a political entity either, it should say "United Kingdom"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.92.123 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As for NPOV issue of calling him a serial killer, there is a 650 page book cited (Cullen, 2006) which says he was one. It also details how his trial was scuppered for political reasons. Scholarly consensus must therefore take priority over biased justice.

Finally, re: Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients, the cat name originally didn't mention 'convicted', but if you look at it the intro has a caveat mentioning the difficulty of proving guilt in medical murder, and therefore those considered by scholars to have killed are allowed. You therefore should take the issue up on that page, and leave Adams in it via the link here until the issue is cleared up there, since Adams fits the criteria as discussed there. Malick78 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:IMOS states how the naming of Ireland is dealt with, if you wish to change that guideline please start a discussion on that page. Until you do so, the consensus is "Ireland".

Scholarly consensus must therefore take priority over biased justice - I'm sorry, but you don't understand the NPOV policy at all.

Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients - caveat removed per the CfD. If it's added back, I'll be glad to take the category back to CfD to make sure that's enforced. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please copy the relevant para from WP:IMOS here so I can see what you mean. The problem I have is that the info box says where he was born - and the country is where this town is now. Why refer to where it was then? That's not actually the info being referred to. Does WP:IMOS say info boxes should say where a place was or where it is? I think the latter is meant and I can't see where this admittedly subtle issue is discussed on that page. Thanks. Malick78 09:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Prior to 1920, use only Ireland. C6 and C26 did not exist.
2. After 1920, use island of Ireland for C32 where there is possible confusion with C26.
   1. Where needed to emphasise C32, use all-island rather than all-Ireland as some Unionists dislike the latter.
      1. Use all-Ireland where official, as in All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, Primate of All Ireland.
3. Post-1920, use Northern Ireland for C6.
   1. Use Ulster where official in names, as in Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulster Unionist Party. Do not describe Ulster as "incorrect" when referring to C6; avoid using it and alert readers to its contentiousness if it is necessary to use it, but it is POV to describe it as incorrect. (If "Ireland" can be 26 or 32 counties, "Ulster" can be 6 or 9 counties).
4. 1922-1937, use Irish Free State for C26
5. 1949-present, use Republic of Ireland for C26
   1. Use Ireland in official titles as President of Ireland.
   2. In alphabetically-ordered lists of countries, list under I for Ireland, not R for Republic.
   3. Use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] when Ireland is needed for C26.
6. Do not use Irish Republic for C26. The article describes a historic term applicable to C32.
7. Do not use Éire for C26. It is not used within C26 except in Irish language.
8. Do not use Southern Ireland for C26 except in the specific historical sense described in the article.

"the info box says where he was born" - yes, and he was born in Ireland not Northern Ireland. "Why refer to where it was then?" - because it's talking about where he was born? "That's not actually the info being referred to" - yes it is, it's talking about where he was born, which was Ireland not Northern Ireland.

See for example Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, who was born in Gujranwala, British India. That's now in Pakistan, and in fact he was President of Pakistan, but he was still born in British India. When talking about people's birthplaces we talk about them in the correct historical context, which for this article is Ireland. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yet this only mentions what to call the country at a particular date. It doesn't state unambiguously that an info box stating a town must have the country's name as it was then rather than as it is now. And that is my point. See Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq for this interpretation. You're version has the added problem of being unnecessarily confusing by implying to those unaware of Northern Irish history's subtleties that the present Randalstown is in Ireland, which is highly problematic and indeed false. 'British India' though, is obviously dated and unlikely to cause problems.Malick78 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the date being referred to is 1899. Considering 6 counties of Ireland became Northern Ireland before part of British India became Pakistan, you've just contradicted yourself. IMOS is quite clear. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"An Adams Apple"

The lines cited from the poem "Adams and Eves" include "If they touch an Adam’s apple". Surely this should be "Adams apple"; the whole poem is about how Adams poisoned people. Does anybody have access to a source for the poem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.231 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The source is here and it says "Adam's". May not be logical but it was a scurrilous poem for underground circulation... Malick78 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the section is sourced, it adds little or nothing to the article.Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Paris Match

Just come across the following: http://www.matchmag.com/recherche/lire_article.php?article_id=1280 Mikeo1938 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Bodkin Adams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article for GA. On my readthrough I discovered numerous uncited statements. I have put in about a dozen citation tags, up to the poem, at which point I gave up - there are no doubt more needed. Also, making 35 different citations to an entire book is unacceptable; these need to be broken down, and page numbers indicated. You need also to remove POV words, such as "amazingly" in the "Obstruction" section. You should not use bold characters within the general text.

In general the prose looks OK, but the above issues must be attended to before the article can be considered for GA. I have put the review on hold for seven days to give you the opportunity to respond. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any queries. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Detailed review comments

I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this article, much of it since I posted my first GA review comments. I understand that this is the main editors’ first GA nomination, and it is by no means a bad effort, but I have to say, however, that the article is not yet ready to be promoted GA. The main reasons for this are listed below.

• The article is over-detailed. I thought this when I first read it through, and I see it has since been increased by about 1,000 words, which aggravates the problem. Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, that is, the main facts presented without too much small detail. Also, reinforcement by repetitious examples should be avoided. The following sections are those which I think are most in need of trimming:-
  • Observation
  • The meeting
  • Search
  • Morrell
  • Hullett
  • Suspicious cases – this section especially so – it’s more than a quarter of the article.

• General prose problems: the prose on the whole isn’t at all bad, but needs a fair amount of polishing, something that can really only be done through a full copyedit. Here are a few examples of awkward prose – please note they are examples of style faults that tend to occur throughout the text:-
  • "These were received by Adams at the rate of 3 or 4" – what does this mean? Also, single numerals should be written "three or four"
  • How can a phone call be described as "anonymous" when followed immediately by the name of the caller?
  • "Professional Secrecy" does not need to be capitalised
  • "...the charge had been reduced to just Morrell, with Gertrude Hullett held back..."
  • "Dr Macrae took the report to the President of the BMA and returned it the next day" – returned it to whom?
  • "Adams’" should be written as "Adams’s" (and "Downs’" as "Downs’s")

• There is a vague POV tone evident throughout the article, almost as though it were subtitled: "We think Adams got away with it". Sometimes, distinct POV statements are evident, despite the citations. The worst cases of this are:-
  • (Suspicious cases) "It is worth quoting some of the evidence..." etc. Who says this evidence is worth quoting?
  • (Concerns of prejudice) "There is considerable evidence..." Who says there is?
  • (Historical views) "Surtees prefers to sit on the fence..." Whose judgement is this?

• Conjecture, even by sources, should not be presented as though it were fact. I am referring here to the "Reasons for interference" section. None of the "reasons" given seem remotely plausible, especially the "Suez Crisis". I would get rid of this section lock, stock and barrel.

• There are numerous MOS violations.
  • The blockquote format should not be used for quotes less than 4 lines (approx 100w) in length
  • There should not be boldface in the general text except in section and subsection headings. Emphasis, where necessary (and I don’t think this applies here) should be by italics.
  • Bullet point formats should generally be avoided except for simple lists. There are four bullet-point sections in the article, three almost in succession. These need to be shortened and converted to prose.
  • Dates should be consistently wikilinked, or consistently unlinked. There are linked and unlinked dates in the article
  • Single sentence paragraphs should be avoided
  • There are numerous minor violations of non-break spaces and of references given before rather than after punctuation, also of single-digit numbers given as numerals.

• References: a great many have been added in the past week or so, almost to the point of overkill, but at least that’s erring on the right side. However:-
  • The very long list of references could be reduced by further combinations in close page ranges
  • There are still references to whole books ([6], [15], [17], [124], [125])
  • The on-line citations are not properly formatted. See {{Cite web}} for how to do this.
  • Why the lengthy footnotes, which are cited anyway? Just the citation will do.
  • Ref [128] reads as pure editorial opinion, and shouldn’t be there.

• Other points
  • I don’t think the "Adams and Eves" section adds anything to the article – I’d call that non-encyclopedic material
  • The "Subsequent cases" have nothing to do with this article, and should be omitted.
  • The information about a 20-year-old TV docudrama doesn’t warrant a section to itself. If you think it should be mentioned, stick it in the "After the acquittal"

My general advice to the editors is not to be disheartened, but to continue to work on the article, using the above comments as guidance rather than a set of rules. When you feel you have done what you can, before bringing it back to GA I would strongly recommend a peer review, where other editors will give their comments in a non-judgemental environment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall GA result: Fail

GA criteria

• Prose, MoS etc: Fail
• Verifiability: Pass
• Breadth: Pass
• Neutral: Fail
• Stable: Fail
• Images: Not considered at this point

'He lived with his mother and cousin', followed by only 1 name. Was his mother also his cousin? Is that even possible?71.63.15.156 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Details, details

A couple of things. First, I'm not convinced the inclusion of his minor pilfering is really necessary, given he was charged with murder. Second, I'm less than sure the inclusion of claims/accusations of homosexuality are appropriate, even if it was an offense in Britain in 1956, because we then get a "Basic Instinct" "gay = murderer" implication, which is obviously indefensible. (It also gives rise to the appearance of trying to dirty him.) Finally, "He was told to give doses of 10 cc of Megimide every five minutes, and was given 100 cc to use. The recommended dose in the instructions was 100 cc to 200 cc." Can somebody who actually understands this clarify what it was supposed to mean? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, 1) Pilfering is important since if he was a serial killer, then they often take mementos of their kills. Cullen points that out, so I can add a ref if you think it requires one.

2) His being gay is important since he was in a relationship with the once Mayor of Eastbourne, Roland Gwynne, and he was rumoured to be linked to an officer in the police force - so these two may have protected him to some extent (again pointed out by Cullen).

3)He was given 100cc of Megimide and told to give 10cc every 5 mins. He only gave 10cc thinking it was 'enough' - even though 100cc is the minimum to give - 100 to 200cc was the usual dose.

Hope that's somewhat clearer now:) Malick78 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical views

Adams was acquitted but general opinion, it seems to me, is coming round to the conclusion that he was in fact guilty. It may be helpful therefore to collect quotes of those writing recently for use in the article:

• Crime journalist Evan Whitton - "Dr John Bodkin Adams, who falsely denied he was a serial killer of Eastbourne widows" - in Serial Liars: How Lawyers Get the Money and Get the Criminals Off, Lulu.com, 2005 page 37.

See:"Reliability of sources – Views on Adams after 2003" below. Sscoulsdon (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

A quick count reveals 104 out of 143 citations to the one book: Cullen. 73% of all the references are to the one source. Seems a little unwieldy... I appreciate that this may be the main work on the subject, but then it effectively means that this article is nothing but a synopsis of the research contained within that one book. 91.106.172.248 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• When I added many of the citations, I used the Cullen book which was to hand - though another book such as Devlin's or Hallworth's could have confirmed some of the same general uncontroversial material (ie 'Adams was born in Ireland...'). So those citations could be swapped. Cullen is necessary only for stuff which was found in the police archives. I, however, wouldn't say it's a big cause for concern and it doesn't render the article unreliable. Furthermore, I don't have the time to change them myself at the moment - but feel free to if you know the subject. Malick78 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the uncontroversial points that require other sources to verify what Cullen says but the areas in which her almost total reliance, not just on the police archives, but only those elements that support Hannam's theories, need an alternative view. Robins in "The Curious Habits of Dr Adams", which used the same archive files, and which is by no means pro-Adams, points out Hannam's police superiors considered his initial case was speculative, based on rumour and could not be proved. This ties in with Devlin's summing-up that indicated the main defence argument was that the whole case against Adams was mere suspicion. Cullen ramps up the suspicion by adding irrelevant details of his dishonesty, possible homosexuality and unproven claims of political interference, but no amount of suspicion, whether with any basis or without, amounts to evidence.Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing content

The section #Eastbourne states that he was unconventional, undesired by other doctors to work with, a "reputation as a bungler" and his mother died. The next sentence starts "Adams's career was very successful..."

There's significant omission here. What was his practice like? What did he do? How did this "success" come about? Extra paragraph needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Professional skills

Up until the para starting 'Adams's career was very successful...', every reference to his professional performance indicates an average or below-average rating. I think we need at least a couple of sentences in between, to explain how and when his standards and reputation improved. 86.144.119.57 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

His standards never really 'improved'. He was successful because old, friendless patients who had outlived their relatives and circle of friends fell for his 'charms'. He paid attention to them and they were happy to repay that - in fees and bequests. Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Adams' successful and lucrative medical practice, despite his limited competence, not to say incompetence, may plausibly be explained by the care, especially end-of-life care, he gave his patients. This end-of-life care included a lavish use of heroin and morphia that may have crossed the line from palliative care to mercy killing, but he probably cared for his patients in the way he thought best and which satisfied a demand not met by the National Health Service.(Devlin, "Easing the Passing", pp. 10, 199.) Sscoulsdon (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative view

Ignore the police slander of this man; see

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/dr-bodkin-adams.html

which also covers the claim of fraudster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.81.78 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to have been written before the police's archives were opened. Besides, any author who writes "When Dr Leonard Arthur was tried for murdering a Mongol baby a quarter of a century later..." has got to be viewed as having a weird take on events, surely? "Mongol" went out decades ago... Malick78 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And in case that doesn't convince you, consider [1]:

I am an independent researcher who has been involved in small publishing since the late eighties and exposing Zionist and other mendacity and disinformation since the early 90s. I have published a number of books and a large number of pamphlets on a variety of subjects. Some of them are now out of print, permanently or otherwise, but many are still available. I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism - what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial. I have published a book length exposé of Zionist agent and sexual deviant David Irving.

David Irving as a Zionist agent is a neat trick. But then, some thought Joseph McCarthy was a communist provocateur. EEng 04:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Grossly overdetailed

Like so many WP articles on crime and criminals, this one is grossly overdetailed and linguistically flabby. Beyond the lead it's almost impossible to get a sense of the material without slogging, slogging, slogging through interminable side detail. EEng (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• EEng, has it gotten any better? Haha, see User_talk:Drmies#Mrs_Edith_Morrell, and Death of Edith Alice Morrell, and the editor's talk page contributions. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  My machete's out for sharpening, but I'll get on it in due course. EEng 04:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, I'm sorry to say, now that I've looked the task is impossible. The material is so incredibly overdetailed that it's impossible for me to get my arms around it, especially without the sources. It's obvious 1/2 to 3/4 it should be cut but I can't see the forest for the trees. EEng 05:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. There's no question, though, that Death of Edith Alice Morrell should be deleted, and some portion merged here, but again it's impossible to even know where to start.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Bodkin Adams. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6NA5SosVg?url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of sources – Views on Adams after 2003

This article relies heavily on speculation and second- or third hand opinion, not least in the second paragraph of the section on views on Adams after 2003. This cites three sources (Emsley, Ramsland and Kinnell), each of which could be described as a brief mention of Adams in a compendium of cases, one of poisoners, two of medical killers. None of the authors claim to have undertaken any detailed examination of the case and none can be described as neutral in tone, because they all want to add to their tally of murderers.

John Emsley is a popular science writer, whose 2008 book contains a chapter for each of ten poisons, with details of its toxicology and of a famous murder or murderer. In a chapter on diamorphine with a relatively detailed account of Harold Shipman, he briefly describes Adams as “the morphine murderer”, and suggests, without quoting a specific source that Adams killed 160 of his patients. However, his suggestion for further reading is Pauline Cullen’s “A Stranger in Blood”, the likely source.

The account of Katherine Ramsland, a forensic psychologist and prolific true-crime writer, includes the detail (completely incorrect) that Adams was charged with 21 murders. The statement that he "is nevertheless believed to have repeatedly committed what the law regards as murder" is referenced to John Surtees’ “The Strange Case of Dr Bodkin Adams” without any page reference. However, that source does not say anything like this and is generally neutral or sympathetic towards Adams.

Kinnell is a retired consultant psychiatrist whose article aimed to dispute the argument that Shipman was unique, showing that medicine has had many serial killers by listing a large number of suspected cases. The lack of care that has gone into his account is made evident by quoting the whole piece below. Two newspaper articles of 1999 and 2000 are his main sources. Suggesting that at trial he admitted to easing the passing of any old ladies, never mind 400, when he never spoke beyond pleading not guilty is ludicrous.

“Dr John Bodkin Adams, a general practitioner from Eastbourne and forger of prescriptions, who possibly provided the role model for Shipman (they had a colleague in common), also admitted at his trial in 1957 to “easing the passing” of some of the old ladies (possibly up to 400) who died under his care (he was mentioned in 132 of the wills)."

Emsley’s account is merely a rehash of Cullen, who is already extensively quoted, and Ramsland and Kinnell make gross errors of fact. At best, these are tertiary sources which add nothing original. In March 2009, Malik78 also mentions Evan Whitton’s book, a critique of the adversarial system were Whitton’s throw-away line is quoted. Whitton gives no reference or reason for his comment, which is therefore worthless.

This paragraph should be deleted.

Sscoulsdon (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for your input. It's a while since I edited this and my recollection of Emsley, Ramsland and Kinnell is vague, but I can see why you see them as problematic. I just wanted at the time to get a wider post-2003 view. Do you know of other, more reliable recent commmentaries on the case?

Malick78 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that many of the accounts of Adams and his mentality or motivation simply repeat details from earlier works. I've left the first paragraph which is Cullen's original work as it is but for balance included an appraisal by Caitlin Maher, which argues that, from the 1930s to the 1960s there was no consensus or debate on end of life care in Britain and, although some doctors did use heroin and morphine to deal with pain and give dying patients euphoria or simply keep them unconscious, this was not talked about as its legality was in doubt. This can be accessed at https://academic.oup.com/shm/article/28/1/155/2279253/Roy-Porter-Student-Prize-Essay-2012-Easing-the. Devlin also says quite a lot about Adams' possible motivation, and thinks "easing the passing" was what he did, sailing very close to the wind and giving well-off patients an easeful, pain-free death not availableon the NHS.

Sscoulsdon (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To add to what I said above (and answer your question) Bedford, Cullen, Devlin, Hoskins, Hallworth and Surtees are the only book-length accounts that are either from contemporaries involved in the trial or (in the case of Cullen) undertook research later. There is also a chapter in Professor Keith Simpson's "Forty years of Murder" who advised the defence entitled "The Innocence of Dr Bodkin Adams". Everything else seems secondary. Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

nolle prosequi

The original version of the sub-section on nolle prosequi was part of the larger section on concerns of prejudice and political interference. As written, it implies that the Mrs Hullett case should have been prosecuted and the Attorney-General's failure to do so is evidence of this bias. It cited Lord Devlin's later comments of an abuse of process in support, but without making it clear that it was an abuse of process which left Adams under suspicion of mass murder. It also, incorrectly, said that it was a power only used on compassionate grounds when the accused is too ill to be tried: Devlin put this last on his list of uses.

Once the sub-section on nolle prosequi had been corrected, it was clear that it no longer had anything to do with concerns of prejudice, and the only political interference was Manningham-Buller's attempt to salvage his reputation. It therefore does not belong in this section, but in the trial section.

A significant amount of the section on concerns of prejudice and political interference looks much weaker once Lord Devlin's insight is added and I am also looking at case selection and the loss of the nurses' notebooks, where Devlin takes a different view to Cullen, who generally follows the police line.

Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Cullen describes the nolle prosequi as a 'sword of damocles', used by the prosecution as a threat should Adams ever do anything dodgy again. That's an interesting perspective, in my view. As to Devlin's use of 'abuse of process', thanks for clearing that up. Be careful though with going to far with Devlin - he's a fantastic writer and thinker, but he didn't see the police files which show quite clearly that major cock-ups were made by the prosecution and dodgy things happened with the nurses' notebooks. Devlin would never have suggested that British justice itself could have been corrupt/negligent. Hence, Cullen, with her extra evidence from the police files, clearly takes precedence when it comes to overall interpretation, in my view. Malick78 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

My interest in the Adams case arose from an interest in Devlin, and that in turn because of the Nyasaland Commission of Enquiry that he chaired. To me, he had a brilliant legal mind and, although he was only looking at one case and in the context of what information was brought before the court, he must be respected when he refers to matters of legal practice. As far as I am aware, there are no English cases on record, at least in the last century, where a nolle prosequi has been revoked and Devlin certainly regarded it as final.

On another topic, I've been looking at case selection, where Devlin certainly disagrees with Cullen, for what I think are good legal reasons: that in three of the cases mentioned, it was not clear there was an unnatural death and, although Mrs Hullett's death was clearly unnatural, there was no evidence Adam caused it. If you have no objection, I'd like to send this to you when I've finished and before I post it. Sscoulsdon (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The nurses’ notebooks and conspiracy theories

There are two conflicting accounts about the nurses’ notebooks in the Morrell case. The first, found in two contemporary accounts of the trial by Bedford and Furneaux and in Devlin’s 1985 account of the trial, says that the police overlooked them in their search of Adams’ surgery, where they were later found by Adams’ solicitors. Robins who was given access both to the archives of Herbert James, Adams’ solicitor and friend, and to Lord Devlin’s private papers on the trial, records James found the notebooks in Adams’ surgery on 24th November 1956, the day that the Eastbourne police had carried out a search there, then taken Adams to Eastbourne police station form questioning. James carried out his own search later on the sane day for anything that might help or incriminate Adams and which had been missed by the police, and he found the notebooks. Devlin’s trial papers, recording that James had found the notebooks after the police officers conducting the search had failed to notice them, shows that Devlin was aware if their origin at the time of the trial. The second, reported by Cullen from a 2003 review of the Metropolitan Police files states that the police included the notebooks in a list which was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions of evidence in the case, but says they somehow came into the hands of the defence.

The only two certain facts are that the defence counsel produced the notebooks in court on the second day of the trial and that, at some time after Mrs Morrell’s death, they had come into Adams’ possession. The defence claim fits these two facts without any need to invoke any conspiracy theories. In addition, a large part of the Metropolitan Police case was based on the large quantity of drugs that Adams had prescribed and the signed statements obtained from Mrs Morrell’s former nurses in August and November 1956 that Adams had injected his patients with unknown drugs, often when they were not present. These statements, and particularly those taken in November 1956 after Hannam's police superiors had criticised the case he presented in October as speculative and based on rumour, and the Director of Public Prosecutions asked him to obtain more evidence, were highly damaging. Had Hannam and his team had possession of the notebooks and read them and realised the importance of their contents, these would have shown the fallibility of the nurses’ memories and the lesser quantities of drugs injected.

It would have been grossly incompetent of Hallam’s team, if they had the notebooks, not to have reviewed them, in which case they would have realised there was major flaw in the police case. As the prosecuting barristers apparently had any knowledge of the notebooks until the defence produced them at trial, any such realisation as may have emerged from a putative was not shared with them. No-one in the prosecution team at the trial in 1957 challenged how or from where the defence had obtained the notebooks and, although Charles Hewett, assistant to Superintendent Hannam, was quoted in Hallworth’s 1983 book as accusing the Attorney General of bungling the case against Adams from the start, nothing was said about any responsibility for the loss of the notebooks. The most credible conclusion from this is that the police failed to discover the notebooks on 24th November 1956, as the alternatives involve at best incompetence and at worst suppersion of evidence by the police.

Nevertheless, Cullen, who had access to the Metropolitan Police files in 2003, states that the notebooks are mentioned in the list of exhibits which was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for the committal hearing, which took place in January 1957. She used this to build a conspiracy theory that Manningham-Buller, the Attorney-General had deliberately sabotaged the trial and that the notebooks had been passed to the defence. The Metropolitan Police should have forwarded Hannam’s report on the Morrell case, a file of statements and a list of exhibits to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Devlin, p. 80), but the exhibits would normally have been retained by the police until required in court. Before sections 21 and 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gave this a statutory basis, the police had the power and obligation of the pre-trial retention of physical evidence under common law. The existence of a list of exhibits does not mean that these exhibits were necessarily sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney-General’s apparent surprise when the notebooks were produced may well be genuine. Although Cullen claims that the Attorney-General “must” have known the notebooks existed (Cullen, 598-9) and, assuming the list of exhibits mentioned was a contemporary one, the prosecution solicitors and junior counsel responsible for preparing the case (rather than the Attorney-General himself) would have done a better job if they had called for and reviewed the notebooks if they knew of their existence. However, there is nothing to say that the police had alerted the prosecution to any discrepancies between them and the nurses' statements.

Adams’ surgery was searched only on 24th November 1956, when the Eastbourne (not Metropolitan) Police had a warrant under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951 which would allow seizure of any dangerous drugs, utensils related to them or documents related to offences under the Act. There is apparently no record that the notebooks were seized at that time but, if they were lawfully obtained and material, they should have been retained by the Eastbourne Police for use in the drug, cremation and forgery offences for which Adams was tried and convicted in November 1957 (Devlin, pp. 192-4). Devlin also pointed out that any evidence obtained on 24th November 1956 in relation to those offences would not be admissible in relation to the murder charge, and that this evidence should not have been referred to in the Morrell committal hearing.

This opens up the possibility that, even if the Eastbourne Police had seized the nurses’ notebooks without due cause and either retained them or passed them to the Metropolitan Police at some stage before the trial, the Director of Public Prosecutions or his office may have realised that the Crown was not entitled to have them, possibly after the defence’s objections at the committal hearing. If they were returned to Adams’ team, it was in no-one’s interest to make an issue of this, but an appalling own-goal if neither the police nor prosecution looked at their contents before this. This is, however, a much nore complicated scenario than that the police never had the notebooks.

In fact, we do not know and, without access to the defence barristers' case papers (which are confidential) we will never know the whole truth about the notebooks. However, it may be significant that the first mention of possible political interference comes from Hewett of the Metropolitan Police in Hallworth’s 1983 book, after the deaths of both Manningham-Buller and Hannam, either of whom could have contradicted him. Both Devlin and Cullen criticise Hallam’s fixation on Adams having a financial motive for murder, and Devlin criticises the later stages of the investigation for undue haste. Had the police overlooked the notebooks in their search, failed to seize them by due process, failed to scrutinise their contents or failed in their duty to retain them, this would add to their more obvious shortcomings. Far better for them to lay the blame on Manningham-Buller than admit their own errors.

Not only is the factual basis for suspecting a conspiracy relating to the nurses’ notebooks very weak; the three reasons given for possible political interference lack substance. The weakest is the reference to the Suez Crisis: although Macmillan’s government was weak in 1957, Cullen produces no evidence for saying that Adams's fate was connected with this weakness. Next, the death of the 10th Duke of Devonshire was not investigated by the police as part of the Adams case (another probable police failing) but there is no reason to suppose it would have been, whether Adams was hung or acquitted. As Devlin notes, the general principle in 1957 was that a murder trial was normally determined on one case only. Cullen’s reason for supposing Adams may have killed him by withholding treatment because the Duke was a freemason that “some” of the Plymouth Brethren would have regarded him as Satan incarnate (Cullen, 100) seems as unfounded as it is bizarre.

There is apparently greater weight in the argument that the medical profession didn’t want to see a doctor hung. However, by filing a second indictment for Mrs Hullett, against normal practice, Manningham-Buller seemed intent on getting Adams hung, and Devlin considers that, even after the fiasco of the nurses’ notebooks and the equivocating expert witnesses, the Attorney-General might still have secured a conviction on the basis that Mrs Morrell’s death was euthanasia, which would probably have led to Adams' reprieve, even had there been a second conviction. When Manningham-Buller could easily have avoided the possibility of a capital conviction by bringing a single indictment for Mrs Morrell and arguing mercy-killing as a motive, it beggars belief to suggest that, having opted to do all he could to see Adams hung at the outset, he deliberately bungled the case to secure an acquittal.

Manningham-Buller’s ambition was to become Lord Chief Justice in 1958: the widespread criticism he received in the aftermath of the trial probably contributed to the failure of this ambition. From what emerges about his personality, it seems unlikely that Manningham-Buller would allow the life of someone he thought was guilty to stand in the way of his ambition without the strongest reasons. No such reasons emerge from what is said in the article.

I don’t intend to add anything to the article, which was already highly speculative and as the GA review says, ad a POV tone, largely (I think) because of its reliance on Cullen, who in turn relies heavily on the police files, which were only as good as the police investigation. A police claim that Manningham-Buller botched the prosecution is justified, but doesn’t necessitate deliberate sabotage, and the case the police presented him with to prosecute was not perfect. Devlin reports (p. 185) it was rumoured the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had been in post for 13 years, disapproved of the prosecution. In other sections, I’ve tried to counter the reliance on Cullen by adding alternative views but, in the two sections “Concerns of prejudice and political interference in the trial” and “Suspicious cases” appear impossible to make neutral as they start from a non-neutral perspective. Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the term "wall of text" mean anything to you? Don't post long diatribes like that - bullet your points to a few sentences. No one's going to read that.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Bodkin Adams. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040810013749/http://www.shyscyberchamber.com/adams_bodkin.asp to http://www.shyscyberchamber.com/adams_bodkin.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113111651/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/bd/1996-97/97bd045.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1996-97/97bd045.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828212504/http://www.actrtla.org.au/euth/bookeu/smith.htm to http://www.actrtla.org.au/euth/bookeu/smith.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious cases

The article currently lists eleven cases in addition to those of Mrs Morrell and Mrs Hullett as suspicious. However, Inspector Hannam only considered that five cases were worthy of prosecution on the basis of murder or manslaughter, which were (in addition to Mrs Morrell and Mrs Hullett) the cases of Mr Hullett and two where exhumation was carried out, those of Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller. It is worth pointing out that the Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller fell away when the autopsies proved inconclusive and that of Mr Hullett at the committal hearing, when the prosecution conceded that he probably died of a heart attack. The case against Mrs Morrell was comprehensively demolished at Adams' trial and the prosecution did not proceed with the the Mrs Hullett indictment.

In other words, in each if the four cases where Hannam's suppositions were tested, they could not be proved. The enthusiasm which supporters of Adam's guilt propose Mrs Hullet's case as the one that should have been tried may reflect that those suppositions were not tested. However, if the five cases mentioned were considered worthy of prosecution, then eight of the eleven listed (excluding Mr Hullett, Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller were not. The evidence presented is largely gossip and, in some cases, no more than Adams took certain items from the deceased or received a legacy. One contributor claims such pilfering is important as being typical of serial killers, but this seems to be a circular argument.

It can, of course, be argued that proof to a criminal standard is not required in an article, but reducing this section to Mr Hullett, Julia Bradnum and Clara Neil Miller were the suppositions were tested would make it more neutral in tone, as the counter-evidence can also be presented.

Sscoulsdon (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, but be prepared to be reverted if you go too far, such as into WP:SYNTH territory.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)