Talk:Edith Thompson and Frederick Bywaters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories[edit]

Articles about two persons create havoc with categories like birth years. RodC 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Easily sorted, such categories moved to redirects.--Jackyd101 23:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy L. Sayers[edit]

What work was influenced by this case ? I can't think of any Lord Peter fitting this description. --89.49.190.174 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is "The Documents in the Case". The book does not feature he Lord Peter Wimsey character.--Kauko56 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glass or other poisons used on the victim[edit]

Referring to Edith Thompson’s letters to Bywaters the article states, ‘In these [letters] Edith Thompson passionately declared her love for Bywaters, and her desire to be free of Percy. She said on one occasion she had ground a glass light bulb to shards and had fed them to Percy mixed into mashed potato, and on another had fed him poison’.

1. This statement seems highly inaccurate to me. Edith Thompson denied all through the trial that she had ever attempted to murder her husband. However, in one of the letters (dated the 1st of May 1922, exhibit 19) there occurs a passage (the only one in the entire correspondence, in my view) which can be regarded as truly suspicious, even though in that passage there is no explicit statement that she had administered glass in any form to her husband.

But the whole problem with this correspondence is its lack of explicitness and partial lack of coherence, leading to the damaging construction that can be put on certain sentences or phrases or expressions in the context of their being given in evidence in a murder trial. If we consider the situation from a different perspective and imagine that the letters were being put in during, say, a divorce trial, the whole correspondence would be thought of as quite innocuous (except as evidence of an adulterous relationship).

2. The official pathologist, Dr Bernard Spilsbury, giving evidence at the trial with reference to his post mortem examination of Percy Thompson, said, ‘I found no indication of the presence of glass either in large pieces or in powdered particles’. He added that it was possible for glass as shards or as particles to pass through the digestive tract without leaving any trace; but being questioned farther on this point he answered to the effect that it was more likely than not that scarring would result; and that in this case he had made a careful examination of the relevant body parts and had found no scarring anywhere. Dr Spilsbury also said that he had found no indication that any kind of poison had been administered.Grobblakk (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits which should go some way (perhaps only a little way) to address your points here. I have to say I cannot agree that the letter of 1 May 1922 is the only one that is "truly suspicious". Her evidence at trial, although unclear, seemed to be to the effect that she wanted to give Bywaters the impression that she was willing to do anything for him, including killing her husband. I think the more plausible defence was that, whether or not the claims to have attempted to harm her husband were truly said in the letters or not, there was no evidence of complicity in the actual attack that lead to the death. Gilmorehill (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)—Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burial[edit]

In "Burial" it says "Avis Graydon died in 1973" AND further down it says "Avis died on 6 August 1977" Which was it?? 73 or 77? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.194.28 (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Burial is almost completely unreferenced (and it is not clear that the one reference is a reliable source). This much detail, including description of family members, seems WP:UNDUE. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with section on 'Critiques of the case and the trial'[edit]

1. My first problem with this section is that it reads like an opinion piece. This should be a clear and concise history of objections to the verdict. Lines such as '..concedes she was an adulteress and so saint' are anachronistic in the context of a 21st Century overview of the case. [User:rainydayinjune|rainydayinjune]

2. The chronology of it is confusing. It starts with Weis in 1988-2001, go back to Young in the 20's, shoot forward to Edgar Lustgarten and Broad in the 40's and 50's and so on. Greater clarity is needed to get an historical overview of objections to the treatment of the case and the verdict. [[User:rainydayinjune|rainydayinjune]

3. Mention should also be made of criticism of the case within the House of Commons itself. The debate for the repeal of Capital Punishment in 1948 (Hansard 14 April 1948) contains the following statement. "I think that she [i.e. Edith Thompson] was hanged for adultery, not murder". [[User:rainydayinjune|rainydayinjune] —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC radio 4 extra drama on[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kkmk8 - Darling Peidi first shown 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.127.10 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Critiques of the case and the trial" section tagged original research[edit]

I see someone raised this question above back in 2012; I've added the original research template to the "Critiques of the case and the trial" section of the article. While it does contain a number of citations of facts (good), it then expresses opinions about these facts (bad) rather than documenting the opinions found in the sources, which is what a tertiary source like Wikipedia is supposed to do. I've tagged some of the more glaring examples with the "opinion" template:

  • "It was obvious..."
  • "A criticism can be made of..."
  • "Weis's legal criticisms are better argued by..."

The section also incredibly long, making up half of the entire article's length. -Sketchmoose (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edith Thompson and Frederick Bywaters. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Weis[edit]

"In July 2018 an exhumation order was granted by the Ministry of Justice to René Weis, Edith Thompson's executor and heir."

Rene Weis was born in 1953. How did he become the executor and heir and why does her closest existing relative, her sister, seem to have known nothing about this. Can this be referenced, not asserted?

81.152.175.36 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo does not depict Edith Thompson[edit]

The photo captioned "Edith Thompson, circa 1920" has not been definitively proven to be a photo of Edith Thompson. It comes from a picture purportedly depicting Edith and her sister Avis at https://edithjessiethompson.co.uk/, part of a "set of published and unpublished photographs of Edith Thompson and Freddy Bywaters given to René Weis over a number of years by their families and friends and, in the case of Edith, by women who worked with her." It would have been quite easy for a photo to erroneously find its way into that album. The photo appears nowhere else, other than that website, and has not been verified.

The facial structure of the woman in the photograph is very different to Edith Thompson's. Edith Thompson has a shorter, fuller face, even at her slimmest. When she smiles, the tip of her nose visually meets her upper lip. She has a slight prognathism (protruding lower jaw/chin). She also has a relatively high forehead, and always - in every photo we have of her as an adult - wears a side-swept fringe that covers at least half her forehead. She and Avis both have high, prominent cheekbones. Edith never wears her hair swept back off her face like the woman in the "circa 1920" photograph, who has a longer, slimmer face, a lower hairline and a slightly 'gummy' smile.

The two women in the "circa 1920" photograph are also taller and slimmer than Edith and her sister Avis. The clothing in that photo - a loose, masculine blazer on "Avis" and a long cardigan on "Edith" - is also likely later than 1920, and very different to the clothing Avis and Edith were wearing in all the other photos we have of them around 1919/1920.

In short, the women in this photograph are obviously not Avis Graydon and Edith Thompson. Some friend, family member or coworker has made an error somewhere along the line and the photo ended up in an album with other pictures of Edith Thompson, who is consistently identifiable in all the other images we have of her. The photo should be removed. Sadiemonster (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If she was pregnant, she was illegally hanged[edit]

There is nothing in the article about the horrendous event which happened after the drugged body of Edith Thompson fell through the scaffold trap, she apparently had a massive vaginal haemorrhage. There is much speculation as to why this occurred but the obvious one was she was pregnant. The event so affected the hangman John Ellis, he ultimately cut his own throat with a razor to end his life about eight years later. Apparently there is a letter in existence that states the authorities knew she was putting on weight and was therefore likely pregnant, but the need to have her hanged because the public demanded it outweighed any consideration for a pardon.

“In her last month in Holloway, she put on a stone even though she was not eating very much,” said René Weis, a professor at the University College London. “A letter from the home secretary came to light a few years ago. It said he had a feeling she was pregnant, and he sincerely hoped she was, because it would mean he wouldn’t have to sign the death warrant. “If she was pregnant, she was hanged illegally.”

It should be noted that after the execution of Thompson, all females hanged in the UK had to wear special pants (it's not hard to imagine what they were designed to do, hold in any viscera that might be ejected during the process).146.198.134.68 (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If she was pregnant, her jailors would have noticed she wasn't menstruating. She would have known she was pregnant and would have said something about it. Menstruation involves muscle contractions and it's possible that Elizabeth normally had heavy flows, was on the verge of her menstrual cycle, and the trauma she underwent triggered heavy uterine contractions, causing the haemorrhage.
What a horrible thing I just typed out. I need to stop thinking about this.
As for public outrage about adultery, society was just coming out of millennia where a woman's only social safety net was her man's labor, so people got VICIOUS when a woman was playing fast and loose with the rules and we misinterpret it as prudishness. They couldn't apply the same standard to men because, other than catching them in the act, there was no proof other than the woman's word. And women DID lie. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed the exact locations of burials[edit]

It seems unwise to post the exact locations because it could be a draw for souvenir seekers or people with bad intent. Cemeteries are not uncommonly vandalized... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed a chunk of content[edit]

I don't think Edith Thompson conspired to kill her husband. I do know she lived in a much more misogynistic age. I am also a feminist. But neither Edith nor feminism are served by giving her a retrial in Wikipedia.

It's an encyclopedia. They're bloodless. They're nerdy. They're neutral. "Facts only, please."

And then there's copyright law.

So I removed sections that were cut and pasted from another website and also text that was opinion of the article writer. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation of why I removed the content I did[edit]

Life was unfair to Edith Thompson in the most horrific way. But life blessed her with an exemplary family. They are rightfully grateful to René Weiss and all he's done for Edith and this says a lot about them. They are good people. But this article shouldn't be about Mr. Weiss. It's about Edith. Mr. Weiss does, indeed, deserve recognition for the decades of expense and effort he's poured into righting the misogynistic evil perpetrated on her. He deserves more than to be crammed into an encyclopedia entry about Edith Thompson. He deserves his own memorial, in his own right. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I added biographical information about Bywaters[edit]

This article had previously been all about Edith. And she is a victim as much as Percy was. But Frederick Bywaters did all he could, up to his dying breath, to extricate her from what he dragged her into. His family suffered all the loss her family did, in addition to the feelings of guilt at producing a murderer and all the societal approbation that brought on their heads. I am not excusing what he did. But in my opinion his story, as a human being, should be here alongside hers. Please correct me if I am wrong and we can make the article even better. As things stand, I'll keep doing my bit to improve it. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start again[edit]

This article is being used by people trying to re-write the trial. It is quite common to find advocacy groups taking over a well-known case and trying to show it was a miscarriage of justice. I suggest this article be re-written and many of the current sources should not be used, including the book by Weiss, which is not a reliable, independent, secondary source. Once that is done the article will be less that half its current length and will not read like something from the Sunday Express (which is also being used now as a RSS). What usually happens with articles like this is that someone with the time and energy gives them a thorough clean out, removes all the weasel words, employing a more neutral encyclopedic style. If Mr Weiss or a proxy is reading this, please declare yourself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edith_Thompson_and_Frederick_Bywaters&oldid=1199080842"