Talk:Snowtown murders

---

500+ suppression orders - cannibalism

I was surprised to find out there was this many surpression orders around the case and they are still active. This includes canabalism which I have never seen mentioned any where, the only reason I know was a firend who was at the trial told about this. If theres anyway this information can be found and included it should.--60.242.71.160 (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how that map is Fair Use

I really can't see how that map if Fair Use. BBC material is most certainly copyrighted. Remove? Shermozle 16:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure on what we can say is fair use - so new hand drawn map added by way of replacement Brookie:The grass on the hill 19:4 of june 1996]

If it will be more useful, we can use this completely homemade one (now used in Snowtown article). --Lisa 08:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice map for the Snowtown article. Does this article need a Snowtown location map at all? If the article needs a map, should it be a new one showing Snowtown, Salisbury North, Kersbrook and Lower Light, at least. Does the map really tell the reader anything relevant not included in the words? I think the distances are more important to this story than a state overview. Readers who want to place the towns on a global context can click through to the place articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, Scott - I agree. Lisa 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is useful...

... but I wrote an article on Kuro5hin a while ago. If you want you can use whatever material you want. Article is at [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll have a look! :) A curate's egg 09:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added link to the article A curate's egg 09:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further explanation?

Quote: "On May 21, 1999, a day after the discovery of the first eight bodies, three men - John Justin Bunting, Mark Ray Haydon and Robert Joe Wagner - were arrested and charged with murder in Adelaide Magistrates Court. On June 2, James Spyridon Vlassakis was also charged with murder."

How did the police come to arrest these people? Were they suspected and interviewed (if so, why were they suspects?), or did they confess voluntarily? More explanation needs to be given about this area of the case, so if anyone knows (I don't) please add it to the article! plattopus^talk 09:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

COTF?

So ... what actually needs doing, here?--fuddlemark 15:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add this to peer review to get the general community's views on what this article needs to be a FAC. If anyone's got any objections, feel free to berate me ... nnnnow. --fuddlemark 20:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that, as is, this article is a long way off from becoming a FA. A substantial expansion, with extensive referencing, would be the first place to start. This should be relatively easy to do, as there should be voluminous sources. (That said, this doesn't necessarily mean I will be able to help ;-)). I think a peer-review could be a way of developing ideas on how to go about improving the article, and specific points may be suggested, but there may need to another peer-review down the track once finished, and before proceeding to FAC.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've created a brief to-do list. Please add/alter.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggest a format for cleanup (Lisa 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC))

Background

criminal investigation before May 1999

summary of: a. disappearances, b. tortures, etc, c. murders/discovery, location info, barrels reportage, d. post-events, community reactions, etc, e. trials/sentencing

criminal investigation following May 1999 (the whole investigation by SAPOL was apparently 5 years, not sure of when til when. The trials also took til 5.5 years after the snowtown discovery to finish up)

Detail of criminal activity

tortures

murders

fraudulent welfare claims

Victims

Clinton Trezise (d. Aug 1992)

Ray Davies (d.Dec 1995)

Michael Gardener (d. Aug 1997)

Barry Lane (d. Oct 1997)

Thomas Trevilyan (d. 1997)

Gavin Porter (d. Apr 1998)

Troy Youde (d. Sep 1998)

Fred Brooks (d. Sep 1998)

Gary O'Dwyer (d. Nov 1998)

Elizabeth Haydon (d. Nov 1998)

David Johnson (d. May 1999)

Perpetrators + others invovled

John Justin Bunting

Robert Joe Wagner

James Spyridon Vlassakis

Mark Ray Haydon

Trials

according to police, apparently the murders were primarily motivated by general hatred of gays, paedophiles, fat people, etc, rather than any specific motive.

juror had to abstain due to horror at evidence

Community impact??

bunting & wagner quoted as being Australia's worst serial killers

horrified/fascinated public due to the manner of bodies being stored in barrels

impact on Snowtown

impact on Salisbury nth??

Looks good. Pity it took nearly the two weeks for us to get going. Go ahead and start editing :-) I'll try to copyedit as you go. As far as I know, there's not much effect on Salisbury North beyond bulldozing the house in question. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming / relevance of Snowtown section at top

Really sorry to ask this so late in the piece, (working on this article makes me want to vomit or something!) but does it truly make sense to have "Snowtown murders" as the title to this article. Perhaps this title could redirect to "Bodies in Barrels murders" with other necessary redirects.

Being a resident of Snowtown at the time of this discovery it was remarked that the press was a bit unfair on us considering none of the murders occurred in Snowtown. But then it seems it came to be known by this name... So I tried not to let this affect my NPOV :) and the decision on naming the article.

But then I noticed that none of the links down the bottom mention "Snowtown murders" in their title. Perhaps "Bodies in Barrels" is actually the lasting name by which we know this event?

Either way I am unsure that the first sub section should be dedicated to Snowtown. Information about Snowtown is most relevant when we are trying to convey the impact the discovery of barrels had, but not useful for most other details of this case.

Thoughts? -- before I go ahead --Lisa 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming to 1999 Bodies in barrels case or similar seems like a good idea. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, although I might just say that "Bodies in (the) Barrels" is always going to sound staggeringly gruesome. As the more emotive term for the crimes, it's always going to be better remembered, but is it the more common? But again, I'm not opposed, and I understand Lisa's reasoning.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

And you don't think the term "murder" is gruesome too? Is there any other name? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "murder" isn't exactly "gruesome" these days: turn on your telly for half an hour and, like as not, you'll have heard somebody say "murder" (and it probably won't have any effect on you), but how often do you hear about "bodies in barrels"? BiB does strike me as somewhat macabre, although that may be a point in its favour (cf. Exploding whale and Crushing by elephant). Personally I'd never heard of BiB until this discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkGallagher (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 August 2005

Perhaps I've become immune to the term, but "murder" is generic in any case. "Bodies in barrels" is certainly evocative - I shudder to type it. But that's an aside. The real issue is which is better. To me, the best title is that which had/has more currency. I struggle to recall which was used more often, which is odd, given I sat in on one of the hearings (not the whole thing, heaven forbid). Lisa has made the point that the links currently in the article refer to "bodies in (the) barrels", which has validity. Are there any other suggestions?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Suppression orders

Did the suppression orders apply everywhere, or only in South Australia? I thought maybe editors from interstate would have access to information we dont't. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that they can apply only to South Australia. However, I think the effect is much detail has not been released at all. So the knowledge of interstaters on this is probably as limited as ours. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I just realised how silly my comment was: if it had been aired in court, then it had been released. It's just media wasn't allowed to report on it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no suppression order interstate. I remember when I was still living in Adelaide and was in Sydney when Snowtown was in committal. The media were all over it in Sydney, reporting live from Adelaide. There are also books on Snowtown and the trial that are sold here (in Melbourne) and I have also seen them in Queensland, with a sticker on the front saying "Not to be sold in SA". (I thought the supression orders were removed a few weeks ago). Frances76 11:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I know some were lifted, but I'm not sure if all were.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer in SA and I can tell you that many remain in place, and that some applied at large rather than being limited to SA. In addition, you do realise that internet material is taken to be published wherever it is downloaded and read, I hope? So this site is taken to be published in South Australia too. Therefore any of the existing suppression orders would apply to its contents. 203.39.12.130 (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Patrick Bateman

Cannibalism?

Does anyone have a reference for the recent addition that David Johnson was cooked and partially eaten? I don't have either book, but none of the online references support it that I can see. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It's breaking news. The suppression orders are slowly falling one by one. Gosh, I don't know if I want them too. It's gonna get a whole lot more depraved from here on out. However, it is only alleged that Johnson was eaten. Somebody, I forget whom, claimed that he found one of the killers cooking his flesh. I'll see if I can find a reference - perhaps on Factiva. Apparently this cannibalism thing was reported overseas and interstate.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Found it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1463414.htm --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Good. Factiva was turning up dry.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually this was already in one of our references because I remember reading it. Maybe it was not a proper news item where I read it (so much for the suppression orders). Who wants the task of adding this into the article... Lisa 23:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Woops I see it's already there. Lisa 23:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Australia's worst serial killer? + Wolf Creek? + ACA

The assertion that these were Australia's "worst" serial killer is not an absolute truth. It has similarly been asserted that Ivan Milat is Australia's worst serial killer, in relation to the backpacker murders (although that case is far more controversial, as there are doubts that he did it alone, and hence doubts as to whether he is actually a serial killer). Regardless, I wonder if this statement could be researched, and perhaps cleaned up.

I have recently been made aware that wolf creek (movie) may have been at least partially based on this set of murders - with the closing credits stating explicitly that it was based on a set of murders committed in 1999. The movie itself has similarities to the Snowtown murders with regards to the torture and such, and has more similarities to this set of murders than to the backpacker murders. This came to prominence in 1999, and hence it could be what they were referring to? Similarly, when people refer to the backpacker murders they often say "1992 backpacker murders" when in reality they were 1988-1992. I think it is the same kind of thing, but would like to see it researched better. I had an edit war with cyberjunkie, because he didn't look at my references when I was writing about that. Thankfully that seems to be resolved now.

Just another thing. I have a vague recollection of a report on A Current Affair about a group of people who were ripping off Centrelink by collecting money for dead relatives, and that these people ended up committing murders. Was this the Snowtown murders? Or was that something else entirely? I didn't see it mentioned here, so presume it was either something else, or else nobody has thought to write from that angle. I did see that there was a line that said "for no other reason than to collect their pension cheques" which suggests that it was the same story. If it is, then I would suggest that a lot more could be added to this with regards to their motive for committing the murders. Zordrac 19:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That was this case and yes it should be mentioned here. As far as I remember, ripping off Centrelink was initially considered as a motive for the murder, but when more information came out they just realised that these guys were psychos who started to enjoy torture and killing for its own sake. I think they tortured Lane or the others for their personal details and numbers so they could keep claiming their centrelink payments. If you have time to research it and add it in that would be great, Zordrac. Donama 03:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The URL for Wolf Creek should be removed. It's totally irrelevant to the article, and has no bearing on the incidents in question. Wolf Creek is based on the Ivan Milat murders, not the Snowtown murders. Teutonic Knight 08:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's inconclusive, not that I mind if the Wolf Creek link is removed. Donama 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) From Wolf Creek article:

Wolf Creek was marketed as being "based on true events". Although the producers have not disclosed which incidents inspired the film, some media sources have speculated that it may have been based on the backpacker murders of 1989-92, the Peter Falconio disappearance of 2001, and/or the 1992-99 Snowtown murders. The similarities of the film with the Falconio case led the defence team of the man charged (later convicted) with his murder, Bradley John Murdoch, to obtain a court order preventing Wolf Creek's release in the Northern Territory during the trial. The film's director and writer has stated that Wolf Creek is not based on any single event.

I also recall the mention of Centrelink benefits as part of the motive for this crime, and here's a handy link to confirm it: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/08/1062901996929.html

From the article: "Behind her back Bunting called her "the village idiot" but strung her along so she would help him steal money from the bank account of another victim by impersonating her to claim Centrelink benefits."

Teutonic Knight

Comment/question

It seems that the various victims may have been killed for little more than their pension money. Police profilers later concluded that the murders were essentially motiveless and were inspired by hatred towards certain groups in society, such as homosexuals, paedophiles and the obese, rather than any specific motive. This isn't really explained in the article, and it also isn't cited. Were the victims homosexuals, paedophiles, or obese? -Elizabennet 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for the last victim, David Johnson, but the info I have been given is that he was 'removed' in order that the youngest perpetrator, Vlassakis, could have clear access to a young lady that he convinced himself was enamoured with him. My family and I had met David in the context of his relationship with the young lady, I know the young lady very well. I personally brought the Detectives and the young lady into contact so they could get her story. I am not aware of whether her story made it into the Court records nor whether she was ever a witness. I can confirm that we (my family and I) knew all about the computer offered to David and we advised him through her that it was rubbish and wasn't worth going all the way to Snowtown for. He didn't take our advice. The young lady did. She is alive and well. There are witnesses to the conversations that took place but nothing from us was ever communicated to the Police except for my phone calls to the Detectives To my knowledge nothing was written down nor sworn as evidence so our involvement probably cannot show in the main article. Ilox (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Further information from the Court transcript: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2003/251.html verifying in part the relationship and her (and thus our) knowledge of the computer; (Note that her name was changed for protection.)
"252 Ms Linda Kovarskis was Johnson's girlfriend. She last spoke to him on 9 May 1999 and was told by Johnson that he was obtaining a computer from Bunting that day. Johnson told Kovarskis that the contact had been provided by Vlassakis. On Wednesday 12 May 1999, Kovarskis made enquiries as to the whereabouts of Johnson. At about 10.30 am on 13 May 1999, Kovarskis and her mother attended at Johnson's home. Their knock on the front door was answered by Vlassakis. He told Kovarskis that Johnson had made a thirteen year old girl pregnant and was seeing someone else. Kovarskis observed that Johnson's clothing and belongings were still in his room.
253 Kovarskis told Vlassakis to tell Johnson to call her. She said that if she did not get a call she would contact the police and report Johnson as missing. That same morning, a telephone intercept recorded a conversation between Vlassakis and Bunting in which they discussed the intention of Kovarskis to go to the police if Johnson did not call her that night. It is the Crown case that a plan was put in place to satisfy Kovarskis. Bunting purchased a telephone pack. He gave Johnson's birth certificate to Vlassakis to enable Vlassakis to register a SIM card in Johnson's former name, David Cheeseman. The number was given to Kovarskis. Bunting arranged for Elliott to impersonate Johnson's girlfriend. Bunting told Elliott that Johnson had left the State because he made a 13 year old girl pregnant. Elliott answered when Kovarskis telephoned and pretended to call out to Johnson. She told Kovarskis that Johnson must have been on the toilet and that she had to go. Elliott hung up. The SIM card was later found in Bunting's mobile telephone in a vehicle at Bundarra Court. "

Iloxton (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Acid sentence

Examiners attempting to identify the remains found them mummified rather than dissolved, the latter being the apparent intention of storing the bodies in barrels of acid. The killers had chosen hydrochloric acid which mummified the remains. Sulfuric acid would have been more effective in dissolving the bodies. The last sentence seems to be totally unneccessary and designed to sound dramatic. Unless this specific issue came up in the investigation or trial directly (i.e. someone raised this fact) then it should be removed. -203.39.12.130 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

Well I added it because the precise statement was made in the TV documentary I saw about it. I admit I could not find a reference at the time. I can tell you with authority it was not intended to sound dramatic. It is an attempt to explain the aforementioned mummification comment: it speculates about the killer's intentions (though as written is not speculation but just a statement of fact). The killer probably did not intend to mummify the bodies. The person interviewed speculated they thought hydrochloric acid would dissovle the evidence, but they used the wrong type of acid in error. Take it out if you really dislike it. Format (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SnowtownMurders book cover.jpg

Image:SnowtownMurders book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aliases

Is there some reason this article uses the aliases Elizabeth Harvey and Jodie Elliott rather than their actual names? Mapjc (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Haydon's sentence

What was Haydon's sentence? Please add it to the article with a source. Mr G (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article may help. Haydon has faced a lot of hearings over this matter. I'll do my best to update the article with the final outcome when I have more time. -- Longhair\^talk 09:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits 1/18/13

I made some grammatical, punctuation, etc. corrections today. I did leave the pedophile spelling as I believe that it is an Australian spelling and the murders took place in Australia.Mylittlezach (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of your edits were the removal of wikilinks. Why? Wayne (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor before you changed much of the spelling to American English. This should be corrected. Wayne (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edit

My intention is to do minor editing to this article. I have began by focusing on fixing some punctuation errors and adding transition words to connect ideas together. I have also restructured and re-ordered some of the already existing sections in order to make the article's information more coherent. Finally, I have began to add to the article's media section on books and movies based on the murders, but will continue to add to it as I do more research.

The work I have done so far is in my sandbox, the link is provided below. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margonzalezd/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margonzalezd (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

editing of the article

I made a little change to the article in order to improve the writing style and some of the grammar mistakes. here is the link to my sandbox of the article: : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katrina99 I corrected the grammar mistakes and change the writing style of some of the sentences. And, I also checked the spelling. Please give me some advises and suggestion. And I will make my work better. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrina99 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Perpetrators restored

This edit—purportedly on "unsourced" grounds—effectively removed much important (and unquestionably factual) content. I have therefore restored the content which can surely be sourced to the trial record (which I have also added, in a Sources section). It is not good enough for any editor to mindlessly expunge this sort of significant content without (a) carefully checking whether any references are available, and (b) seeking other opinions and consensus on the Talk page. Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looking more closely at sources, I note that the important missing name of Mark Ray Haydon (now added) may still be subject to Court suppression orders and thus needs to be treated with caution. (But NOT, I submit be again completely disappeared without justification.) Bjenks (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

no matter how "factual" you claim the statements are, without inline citations to reliably published third party sources the content will be removed. Repeated unsourced reinsertions of this nature will lead to you being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK TRPoDA (yawn), I'll get around to it before long. Have a nice day. Bjenks (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Victims?

This article doesn't mention any of the victims or how the events link together. An extensive victims list should be added.For some insane reason, this edit was revoked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snowtown_murders&diff=601731135&oldid=601730963 Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

no, not a victims list. that is non encyclopedic and mere trivia. However someone who is more familiar with the events and can piece together from the sources a more thorough representation of the crimes as validated in the trial would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete the Snowtown footer?

The Snowtown footer contains four links, all of which redirect back to the Snowtown page. That is quite hilariously useless. Either the four pages for the murderers need to be restored or delete the footer.

Slowclap (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Centrelink?

The organisation didn't exist at the time and the word hadn't been coined. A bit of research would show what such payments were called at the time. That shouldn't be difficult, because re-organisations of government departments didn't happen so often then.

Jswd (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Centrelink says that brand came into effect in November 1997, which is before most of the murders. That article doesn't say what was before it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says that the preceding agency was called Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency. I would just call the payments "welfare payments" if no specific name can be found. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I've just removed the word "Centrelink". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong building pictured

The article pictures the wrong bank building. The barrels were found in the vault of the building at https://goo.gl/maps/pi3oDkCjGPt

Format (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, mea culpa. I made the wrong assumption on reading somewhere that the town had only one bank. Pic now removed. Bjenks (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it really necessary that the victims deadnames be included?

It's my understanding that deadnames are only included in Wikipedia articles if the person was widely known when they were going by that name. These are murder victims, killed in part for being transgender, and as such I don't think it's very relevant or thoughtful that their deadnames are included. Taylowrk (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and I removed their deadnames (again for the same reason as last time). It is honestly kind of insulting. Spacemarine10 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): As1n8h (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HarvardGrandpa.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Trans identity sources

Is there a proper source linked that confirms Michelle's and Vanessa's assumed name and identity? Reference number 6 under Michelle's victim article that states she was a "transsexual" links to the court case document, which doesnt mention anything about them being trans, Vanessa's "pre-op transwoman" claim also doesn't have a proper source 2A02:C7C:405F:3800:9C0C:C070:FB9D:52A3 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)