Talk:Joanne Lees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Portal	Joanne Lees is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Update needed 3 Recent update 4 Her credibility 5 Unverified material

[edit] NPOV

This was one of the most POVised articles I have ever seen, entirely anti Lees. This is not the perception in the UK, and nor is it for wikipedia to blacken someone in the way this article did. I have altered a lot, including removing the very POV section titles, of whicvh there were too many as well, SqueakBox 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Having just read three of the four books currently available on the matter (all of which are terribly POV one way or the other), I don't believe that Ms Lees was ever formally investigated as such. Therefore that information is wrong. Some police apparently were suspicious of aspects of her story, but this did not extend to her being considered a suspect. My feeling is that the article needs a serious reworking, with references. 210.11.146.89 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to iron out the POV sections, simply prefix them with "The Australian public believe.." because I don't know a single Aussie who doesn't think she had complicity in the matter.  :) 211.30.71.59 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a fix at all. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Avoid weasel words for why that would not be an appropriate way to handle this. --Calair 11:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie, I don't believe she was at all complicit. Don't get sucked in by the media hype. There has been enough of that, don't you think? Trishm 11:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will correct the bit about the suspect: "It should be stressed that Lees, unlike Chamberlain, was never officially considered to be a suspect, although she was treated as one, both by the police on one occasion and by certain sections of the press. <http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20504913-5006301,00.html>Trishm 12:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

211.30.71.59 must have a very small circle of Australian friends, if, indeed, he or she has any friends at all. Certainly it would true to say there are members of the Australian public who believe she had some complicity in the matter, just as it would be true to say there are members of the Australian public who believe in the literal truth of the tooth fairy.

[edit] Update needed

This article has no information about the conviction and while maybe be more NPOV than before still has much unsourced speculation and weasel-word interpretation of evidence, e.g. contradiction with use of DNA in the trial.--Dhartung | Talk 14:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent update

I have added some brief info on where she is currently living and about the book she is writing. I supplied a reference. Gavin.

Cool. I changed "is currently" to "as of mid-2006" because what is 'current' changes with time; it's better to use phrasings that won't need updating to remain accurate if things change. --Calair 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Her credibility

The article claims the defence attacks on her credibility vis a vis drug use and having sex with another man was perceived as irrelevant. By who? I would assume the judge didn't perceive these as irrelevant otherwise he wouldn't have allowed them to be presented. The drug issue I would assume was relevant because it tied in with the defence's alternative story for what happened. The sex with another man thing was related to several issues especially as she was the chief crown witness. Firstly it suggests she may not have really cared that much about Falconio and whether shey may have had motive to want to get rid of him. Secondly, it casts doubt on whether she can be relied upon to tell the truth (assuming she didn't have an open relationship and/or tell Falconio about the event). In the end in any case, if the judge allowed this evidence to be presented I don't think we can say it was irrelevant. If there were some sources who suggested it was irrelevant then we may be able to present their views but it is wrong IMHO to present it as fact that the evidence is irrelevant. Nil Einne 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In the "Enough Rope" interview with Andrew Denton, there is mention that the judge chastised the Defence for bringing up the irrelevant material referred to above.Trishm 11:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified material

Removed a claim that seemed to have no Googleable source other than this posting on an Adelaide indymedia site. As per WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, potentially damaging claims about living persons should not be posted in article or talk space without solid verification, which that isn't. --Calair 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)