Talk:Adolf Beck case

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Adolf Beck case appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 October 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Adolph Beck case was the most notorious case of mistaken identity in British legal history, resulting in a conviction of an innocent man not once but twice?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/October.

Wikipedia

No fingerprints led to the error =[edit]

Re this bit - "The felony charges were based on presumed prior convictions in 1877, when a man named John Smith had been sentenced to five years for swindling unattached women by using the name Lord Willoughby, writing worthless cheques and taking their jewellery. He had disappeared after his release, and it was assumed that Beck and Smith were one and the same."

At that time that could only have occurred (and was then subsequently believed later in court etc) because the previous prisoner had not been fingerprinted and neither had Beck when in custody - presumably because it was before that practice was known about. That needs clarification even if rather obvious.

Comments[edit]

I'm doubtful about the reference to "Lord Salisbury", which is inconsistent with the later references to "Lord Willougby". In 1895 Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was the British Prime Minister. He also had a huge bushy beard. His estates were in Hertfordshire and Dorset, while there was a real Lord Willoughby (though not "Willoughby de Wilton") who had an estate in Lincolnshire. It would have been a bold swindler indeed who chose to impersonate the prime minister, especially if he lacked the prime minister's beard. Of course if it is certain that he did so, it should be reinstated, but Lord Salisbury's status should then be mentioned. CalJW 14:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about Lord Salisbury: I am familiar with him that is why I did not wikify him. I am also doubtful that the identity the imposter affected was indeed "Lord Salisbury" as I based it on an account of the case. I have to read another account of the case to really confirm, and sure enough, Wilhelm Meyer did identify whimself as "Lord Willoughby" to Ottilie Meissonier. I will make the necessary correction to the account. Thanks for the heads up :) RashBold 17:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the intro seems out of place, really the intro should cover all the basic details of the case from the start to finish (which the first paragraph starts to do decently enough), and then the later parts of the article should fill in the details. I don't really know anything about the case and it's history so I won't try to dabble though Sfnhltb 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charged language[edit]

Just a tiny edit -- "undoubtedly" is a bit strong when you're dealing with such circumstantial evidence.

Cleanup needed[edit]

The style of language in which this article is written doesn't seem suitable for Wikipedia - it's not written in an encyclopaedic manner, more as a piece of story-telling. It could do with a thorough copy-edit SP-KP 18:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions? RashBold 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to engage in an edit war, but after giving due consideration to the cleanup tag that was put in this article last Oct. 20, I have decided to remove it. I have checked similar articles involving legal cases like Edith Thompson and I see no justification in having the cleanup tag put in. What really makes a great article in Wikipedia is not only writing it in a dry academic manner, but also pulling in the reader to consider the facts and making their own opinions. I have tried my very best in presenting it in an interesting and (hopefully) NPOV manner, but I thank my fellow Wikipedians for making this artcile better. RashBold 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the cleanup tag was too strong; I have added a more appropriate one instead SP-KP 08:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair bit of work toward making it more encyclopedic, while hopefully maintaining a reasonable interest level. It seems very clean to me now, though it probably needs just a little more tweaking by others who know the subject better than I do to make it as good as it could be. --edi 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]