Jump to content

Talk:Robert Pickton/Archive 1

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

Vital Stats

CBC News last night (09/08/06) broadcast a birthdate for Pickton of 24 Oct 1949. Wiki is using "(born 1950)". Was this a guess based on his published age? Or is there contradictory data out there? do we know where he is from (birth) originally?

I have added references which I believe answer the date and place of birth questions. --71.35.135.106 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article referenced does state Pickton's birth date, but not place. While his parents were residents of Port Coquitlam at the time of his birth, he likely was not born in the City of Port Coquitlam as there is no hospital (assuming he was born in a hospital, which was the norm in 1949). The closest hospital would have been St. Mary's in New Westminster, (coincidently this was within blocks of the New Westminster Courthouse where the trial is taking place), and would be the city named on his birth certificate. Since the information is not verifiable, (birth records are sealed), I have changed the wording around slightly to show that Port Coquitlam is the city he lived in. I have removed the "as of January 28, 2004" information as it is no longer valid or accurate. I have also removed the "57 year old" as that is time sensitive information that will no longer be accurate after his next birthday.Lainyg 09:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Although St Mary's is a possibility, so is the Old wing of the Royal Columbian Hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.27.179 (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminal List

Wikipedia might consider altering its " Canadian Criminal" list at least until Robert Picton is convicted of charges against him.

Ot has Wikipedia also jumped onto the "let's not bother with formalities" crusade that appears to be sweeping western media?

--24.71.161.142 19:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

While I have sympathy with the general thrust of your comment, in this case the physical evidence is so overwhelming that the "Canadian Criminal" label is justified. While one could conceivably argue that someone surrepticiously buried dozens of bodies on his property over a period of years without his knowledge, it is virtually impossible to construct a scenario in which he was unaware of the above-ground rotting corpses. --Chris Thompson 10:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't take this wrong, Chris Thompson, but you're an idiot. In canada, you are presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. Not GUILTY until PROVEN innocent. I have not checked that Canadian Criminal list, but I will do so, and make damn sure he isn't on there. I don't care if he is a murderer... he isn't conviced of any murder thus far, so he technically isn't a murderer "until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" Sod Aries 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey cool off, Sod aries, remember to assume good faith. Rest assured, there are lots of us keeping on top of the original research v/v categories etc. Please don't make the discussion uglier with rash comments. We're all here to build a better encyclopedia, let's get busy.Anchoress 12:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would like to register my concern about possibly libelous categorization. While the content of the article consistently reinforces the fact that no charges against Picton have yet been proven in court, he is still categorized under "Canadian serial killers." As a journalist, I know that I would land my organization in considerable hot water if I ever applied such a term to Picton or any other crime suspect. The fact that one case has already been dismissed due to lack of evidence suggests to me that Wikipedia should proceed with caution in this case. Until guilty verdicts are handed down, would it not be wisest to remove Picton from a category in which he is listed alongside convicted murderers?

He shouldn't be in the category until he is convicted. We shall continue to be diligent about removing the category whenever it is added. Anchoress 08:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, one certainly can't state that the <<physical evidence is so overwhelming>> since the trial hasn't started yet, and thus far all court proceedings have been under a publication ban. However this could change quickly since the trial starts today and will no longer be under a publication ban. Blastfromthepast 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Jack The Ripper was never convicted, but he is still labeled as a serial killer....

Different situation; "Jack the Ripper" is a pseudonym. The person behind the pseudonym was never convicted, and to this day nobody knows who it was, but the pseudonym is indisputably associated with a series of killings. Also, whoever Jack the Ripper was is dead now. Robert Pickton, on the other hand, is not a pseudonym. And he's still alive, which means WP:BLP pertains here. Bearcat 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he is innocent until proven guilty. I for one suspect that his brother is complicit, but hat's just an opinion. Tsylos 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blackout of Court proceedings

Should Wikipedia publish any news related to the trial while it is underway to the possibility of a media blackout or should we refrain from publishing anything until the trial has concluded? Tawker 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing... the above comment from Chris Thompson already introduces information that I haven't heard in the Canadian media, namely, the presence of rotting corpses on the property. What are the ramifications for wikipedia if the publication ban is ignored? Is there any precedent for this in wikipedia? Fennel
Wikipedia's servers are in the US. The publication ban only applies to Canadian media. Details of the trial will be reported on an ongoing basis by mainstream non-Canadian media like the Associated Press. Thus, there is no reason that I can see for Wikipedia contributors outside Canada to respect the publication ban. --Chris Thompson 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Canadians exposed to US media that publishes banned information would be excluded from jury duty, and too many such exclusions could make a jury difficult to find, which could derail the trial... wikipedia could exacerbate the problem significantly. As a resident of Vancouver, I'm already excluded from possible jury duty because I read above comment about the rotting corpses. Fennel

Numbers in the intro?

It seems to me the numbers in the introduction are skewed. According to what's written, he's charged with 27 murders, a suspect in 31, and may be charged with 7 more counts? I am fairly certain he's not the suspect in a total of 58 murders, so the '31' number must be a total. However, that doesn't jibe with '27+7'. I read the single external link but it neither corroborates nor refutes the numbers in the intro.--Anchoress 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Last I read there are 31 separate women's dna found, but enough evidence to prosecute for 27 of those. btw there is actually suspicion regarding as many as 60 or more missing women. As for the seven, I'm not sure where that comes from.
I am already aware of all the points you made, but you didn't actually answer my question at all.--Anchoress 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
no need to snap at me, just trying to be as helpful as I could. keith 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
on another topic why did you revert my change to the background section? (if convicted vs. If the charges are true) I don't see why conviction in a court is necessary for a person to be a serial killer. He may not survive long enough for example. keith 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't revert it, I changed it. If it matches some previous version of the text it's purely coincidental. The thing is, 'charges are true' doesn't mean anything legally. Either he's convicted or he isn't. My changes haven't diminished the spirit of your original; if he dies before being convicted we'll never know if the 'charges are true'. I didn't change the text to thwart you or to make you frustrated; if you truly think your wording is better change it back and I won't challenge it. I just think my wording is more accurate without disregarding what you were trying to say.--Anchoress 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
My point was what determines if he is a serial killer is whether or not he committed the murders, not if he is convicted. History can still get to the truth. Hitler never lived to be convicted of it but we know he was a mass murderer. I've seen that kind of legal wording before and it bugs me. I take it in some countries its illegal to say someone is guilty without a court having convicted him. Seems to me if you murder someone you are a murderer, irregardless of what happens in the legal system. But here we are safe here using hypotheticals in any case. keith 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Meh. Didn't take long for Godwin's Law to be invoked. Also, if we do not use a legal criteria to determine whether or not someone fits a statistic (most prolific serial killer in this case) then what criteria do we use? Because there may be people in Canada who have killed more people than Pickton did, but may never be recognised as having done so. If we don't use the legal system to determine 'if the charges are true' (your words), then how do we do so? How will YOU decide 'if the charges are true'?
Sorry, forgot to sign, and I noticed your edit. It's fine with me.--Anchoress 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Godwin's law refers to hyperbole which is obviously not the case when talking about mass murderers. Referring to it is dismissive and specious. To answer your question, simply cite authority as is the wikipedia way. One authority may be a court but not the only one. To be completely precise legally, the text should actually say something like "if convicted pickford would be Canada's most prolific convicted serial killer". But that's a less interesting argument and I think we can rely on the reader to understand that we "don't know what we don't know" as they say. keith 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
keith, the point of an encyclopedia isn't to be interesting, it's to be accurate. I think we've outed the real problem with the sentence, which is that it really doesn't add anything to the encyclopedic data. If we have difficulty expressing - or if we are reluctant to express - the information in a strictly accurate manner, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. However, I'm certain we both have the same goals, accuracy and readability, and as you seem to have a stronger attachment to communicating in a particular way I am comfortable deferring to you in this instance.--Anchoress 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I hesitated momentarily, but here goes... Wikipedia articles shouldn't pass judgement on people accused of crimes, regardless of the severity of the crime or what people may have heard about the evidence through the media. What Pickton is charged with is unimaginably heinous, and if he's guilty I hope he burns in hell, but I don't know if he's guilty, and neither do the rest of the wikipedia editors. All kinds of things are possible. Maybe he was disposing of bodies for the real killer. We don't know.fennel
back to the original topic, I'd just like to point out that Pickton is on trial currently for 26 counts of murder, not 60 as indicated in the TRIAL section, see e.g. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/23062006/3/sask-presumed-dead-b-c-woman-found-saskatchewan.html

markleci

Movie

Information about this could be added: http://www.skcentral.com/news.php?readmore=1156 I'm sure there are better sources but I don't feel like looking at this time.

Dubious claim

Removed from article:

"A special courthouse, complete with bulletproof glass, was built for this trial, supposedly to shield Pickton from any would-be assassins."

Now, I find this hard to believe. Surely the Vancouver Courthouse already has such a room? I recall hearing things about one being built for the Air India trial. Anyone have a source for this? Exploding Boy 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

...Except the trial isn't taking place at the Vancouver Courthouse. As per the article, it's taking place at the BC Supreme Court Courthouse, in New Westminster.--Anchoress 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the trail is in new westminister, also home to clifford olsen.


Not sure about the bulletproof glass but I believe it is a new room. In fact I'm sure it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.199.13 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
The bulletproof glass has been discussed on local TV news. Obviously, this should have a print citation available for it, but it isn't a dubious claim. --Steven Fisher 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Letter purportedly from Willie Pickton

I don't have time to read up on this and do an entry, but here's a link to an article in a reputable Canadian publication stating that a California resident received a letter that has been pretty much authenticated as at least being from the penitentiary where Pickton is being held. If someone doesn't do a writeup on it I'll add something later. Anchoress 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm doing it now. Anchoress 03:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Source tags

I added a 'source' tag to the top and a 'fact' tag to a piece of info in the article. We have no sources identified for this article, none of the facts are tagged with citations. Anchoress 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to VederJuda

For your work on properly referencing the article; it looks a lot better. I'm removing the sources template I added in early September. Anchoress 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Charges don't add up

The article states: "On February 22, Pickton was charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Three months later, three more charges were added, and shortly after that a sixth and seventh. In October, four more charges were added, bringing the total to fifteen, and again in May 2005, twelve more charges were added, bringing the total to 27."

7 + 4 makes 11, not 15. Something must have got dropped out. Winston.PL 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it all adds up now...names and dates Lainyg 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

At least 3 charges were not allowed to go through because they do not know who the victims were. In other words they were unknown victims, which makes things a little more sad.

Peter ritchie

Is picktons defense lawyer a big enough figure to warrant his own article on the wikipedia...?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TotallyTempo (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Good question. I can't answer it definitively, but from THIS ARTICLE, he does seem to be quite high profile (for Canada anyway). He defended Gillian Guess, a notorious Canadian juror/media whoretemporary celebrity, and he defended the Doukhobor(s) who got naked as a protest; both famous cases in Canada. Anchoress 05:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say have a go at it. Seems notable enough. Worst-case, it gets deleted, although I doubt that would happen. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Ok I will, I'll have to do iT next week though casue I'm going away tomorrow TotallyTempo 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I started (Peter Ritchie) and stubbed it. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Self-made millionaire" claim

I removed the following from the article because the reference does not support it:

self-made multi-millionaire[1]

To explain further, the property, described in the article as having been assessed at $3.5 million, is owned by at least three people, is described in the article as not likely to be sold for as much as the assessment price, and may be encumbered (subject to mortgages or leins). Therefore, the reference cannot be used to describe Willy Pickton as a 'multi-millionaire'. Furthermore, the reference doesn't say anything about the term 'self-made' (which is POV anyway). Anchoress 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    • The 2003 tax assessment is evidence enough that the property would sell for millions of dollars. Of course family members are going to try and argue against it because they want to pay lower taxes. They weren't disputing that it wouldn't sell for $3 million, they were disputing the 500k increase. This was back in 2003, these days that property would be worth millions more. Maybe "self made" ought to be removed, but it you're trying to argue Pickton wasn't a multi-millionaire you're dead wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.89.53 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 March 2007.

- It's actually worth $7,100,000 now. "The most recent assessment of the property places its value at almost $7.1 million" see: http://www.missingpeople.net/picktons_in_vancouver_court.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.89.53 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 March 2007.- so even if split three ways the value is still over $2,000,000 each. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.89.53 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 March 2007.

  • I agree that it should have been removed... even if the "multi-millionaire" claim is correct, it places undue emphasis on this fact. The opening sentence of a biography should describe what the subject's main profession is, or what they are known for. Even if you look at Bill Gates, the richest person in the world, his opening sentence describes him as an entrepreneur and CEO of Microsoft. His billionaire status is only mentioned in the second sentence. Perhaps the value of the property (and the amount of the lien taken out against it to finance his defense) could be mentioned somewhere in the 'Background' section? Rawr 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's relevant because to simply describe him as a pig farmer gives the wrong impression of Pickton and his crimes.

Pickton preyed on women of the lowest socio-economic status. He exploited them and his wealth/property enabled him to do this. It's a perfect example of one class taking advantage of lower, more vulnerable classes. His wealth was significantly reported in the media for this reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.89.53 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 March 2007.

User 24x, I see that you restored the part about Pickton being a multi-millionaire. If he is a multi-millionaire, and a reputable, unambiguous reference exists to state so, then we should include it (although I agree with the poster above about it possibly being inappropriate in the opening paragraph). BUT. 1. The reference provided in the article does not state that he is a multi-millionaire, and it doesn't state that the property is worth $7.1 million. 2. A statement of the value of the property (no matter what it is) is not sufficient to establish that Pickton is a multi-millionaire. And 3. Your reasoning (about the exploitiveness and economic injustice elements of his crimes) are valid but not encyclopedic. We can't include information about a subject's economic status in order to help the reader draw those types of conclusions, it's POV. Please do not re-insert the information without a clear, unambiguous source stating that Pickton is a multi-millionaire. Anchoress 16:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anchoress. The value of the land just isn't relevant. Even if it was, that area of Port Coquitlam didn't really start to grow until the late 1990's. Before that, the property just wasn't worth enough to classify Pickton as a millionaire. The property is now liened by the province, fenced off, and all the buildings have been demolished.Lainyg 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is a millionaire, but in land only. He is using the land as collateral to pay his lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.27.179 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness of reader warning

I believe that the note warning readers of the objectionable content is not appropriate for this article. It is neither policy nor normal practice to include such warnings, and my personal opinion is that it should be manifest that a comprehensive article about an accused serial murderer may contain upsetting content. And finally, it's not encyclopedic. It may be appropriate or even preferable in news media, but this is an encyclopedia, and IMO Pickton's article should contain content that can be justified as encyclopedic. Thoughts? Anchoress 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I mean if your looking up robert pickton, what exactly would you expect.  ? TotallyTempo 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As the one who placed the original warning in the article, I thought I should chime in here. I do see your point and certainly agree this article should contain justifiably encyclopedic content. However, I think such warnings are appropriate in cases like this. This article can be found by anyone surfing through Wikipedia by clicking on random links, not just by searching Robert Pickton. I'm sure I don't have to give examples of how a person could unintentionally end up reading such a page...the case is morbidly intriguing. So for the sake of those who may come upon it by accident, a simple warning of gruesome details certainly isn't going to do any harm. It may save a more squeamish person from mental images they'd rather not have. BTW, the original warning was quite subdued to blend into the article. I didn't see any reason to call attention to it..others bolded it and added the word "VERY"...changes that I personally don't think are necessary.Lainyg 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Lainyg, I'm not sure why you've restored the warning? It seems that several editors want it removed, and as far as I know there is no policy or guideline that would support its inclusion. Could you not let your fellow editors help decide how this goes? I'm also not sure why you said when you restored it, 'see talk page'? That comment usually indicates either an active discussion or a completed discussion in favour of the revert, neither of which is the case here. Anchoress 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anchoress, Sorry if I gave the impression that I was just being stubborn. I actually added to this page intending to continue the discussion right after I made that change, but I can't for the life of me figure out where it got to. I addressed the "wikipedia is not censored" comment. IMHO, censorship is the removal of material some might find objectional, but warning of it is not. I'm more than open to input from fellow editors and my feeling is that several do want the warning. If you look through the history, you'll see that I was not the only one to contribute to it, it was embellished,(adjectives added, bolded type) then I toned it down and it remained that way for quite some time. Four editors have expressed a wish to have it removed (yourself and totallytempo, who commented here; 216.93.94.57, who removed it on April 29 with no comment; and Haemo, who removed it May 30, stating censorship as the reason). There are many more editors who left it in place as it was, which tells me that the majority either want it there, don't see it as inappropriate, or they just don't care. I'm sure you've been here longer than I have, so I'm certainly not going to pretend that I know better than you, but is it really doing any harm?Lainyg 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Lainyg. I don't have really strong feelings on this issue, but I am doing some investigating to figure out if there is a policy or guideline to shape our actions. From my POV, I question whether a) apathy = consensus, and b) whether 'it does no harm' is a high enough threshold for inclusion. I'm sure we'll work it out. Anchoress 23:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but Wikipedia is not censored. A warning of this type is not within policy, any of the Manual of Style, or any common practice. Edit wars have been started over this very same thing in the past. See the history of Gangrene for a recent one over a warning for some pictures. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but a warning is not censorship! Censorship is the removal of objectional material. No one here is saying that the material should be removed (as some did in the Gangrene discussion). There is absolutely nothing in the Manual of Style about this, either. It's merely a warning, much like the viewer warning that is aired before some television shows. Individuals can still make the choice whether or not they wish to continue reading.Lainyg 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See the No disclaimers guideline

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. 81.104.175.145 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good find! Fellow editors: the existence of this guideline indicates to me that there should be a disclaimer in the article only for the most compelling reasons, does anyone disagree? Do we have a compelling reason to go against this guideline? Anchoress 09:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

where did the picture go for this article? TotallyTempo 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

His victims

Why is it important to specify that they were prostitutes and drug users? 204.9.9.159 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, sometimes can be important to know that the victims were prostitutes, because that explains why they went alone with a man to an isolated place. Also in general, if they were drug users, that would also explain why they put themselves in risky situations: they badly need the money. In the particular case of this article, I don't know if that information is relevant.
One of the criticisms made about police response to the murders is that since the missing women were prostitutes, drug users, and in many cases native, they were given a lower priority and there was not enough effort put into the investigation. If they'd been white middle-class women, this story would have been on every front page in the western world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.108.165 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing arguments November 19, 2007

There's going to be more breaking news about this trial in the coming weeks. [1] Anchoress (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Time before parole

"The exact duration, which Pickton must serve in prison before being eligible to apply for parole, has yet be decided by the trial judge, but must be at least 10 and no more than 25 years."

Is this time for all counts combined or per each count? Is the judge obliged to sentence him in parralel or can he sentence consecutively? If the answer to both questions is the 2nd option, Pickton could be sentenced anywhere between 60-150 years. 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy is seriously messed up, whether he committed the murders(about 99% sure) or not. Either way locking him away for life sounds pretty good to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.130.194 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He will receive concurrent life sentences, which is the standard in Canada. What the judge will do is review all the circumstances, including the fact that he has been convicted of six counts of second-degree murder, and determine his parole ineligibility period. By law, it cannot be for more than 25 years - even though he was convicted of more than one count.
It is also important for everyone to keep in mind that just because he will be allowed to apply for parole after the ineligibiliy period, doesn't mean he will get parole. Singularity42 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
They might just seek Dangerous offender status too, and keep him in indefinitely. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, a dangerous offender status cannot be sought for the offences of high treason, treason, first degree murder, and second degree murder. Technically, sentences for those offences are worse than a dangerous offender sentence. If the dangerous offender article doesn't reflect that, I'll make the appropriate edits. Singularity42 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I misread the article and thought it said only applies as opposed to does not apply. Chances are he's not getting out anyways. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OT discussion redacted. Anchoress (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He was sentanced to life in prison, not allowed to apply for parole until 25 years have past. He will never be allowed out. Just because he's elgible for parole doesn't mean he'll be given it!

I do not understand why the first paragraph needs to blatantly point out this part of the Canadian justice system. In Canada, "life" means 25 years at a maximum, barring Dangerous Offender status. I believe it should be amended to merely indicate life, with no chance of parole for twenty-five years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.137.29 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news December 20

Remains of four more identified women found on farm, plus several unidentified. Anchoress (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This news confuses me, my highschool was beside this place, and my brother just graduated from it this past June, this is just based on observation but it seemed that the investigation on the farm wrapped up a very long time ago. Or? TotallyTempo (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you read the article thoroughly, you'll see that the discoveries took place during the trial, but they were withheld from publication in order not to affect the jury. Furthermore, forensic experts are still sifting through the evidence. Anchoress (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

time aggravated by more than one conviction even at second degree?

Does the sentence to 25 years has been aggravated by more than one conviction even at second degree? 216.86.113.233 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking whether the judge handed down a parole inegligibiliy period of 25 years because of the multiple convictions (as one of many factors), the answer is probably yes... However, the full text of the judge's reasons for sentence have not been re-printed yet, so a definite answer cannot be given until then. Singularity42 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PDFs of appeal documents anywhere?

News reports have been quoting from the official Notice of Appeal filed by Pickton's lawyers, as well as the Notice of Appeal filed by the crown, but are the documents online anywhere in pdf form? The Vancouver Sun has various pdfs relating to the case [2] but not the appeal documents as far as I can see. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, found them at CBC.ca: Crown’s Notice of Appeal Defence’s Notice of Appeal. --Mathew5000 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pic request

How about a picture of him, I am certain there are lots available up on the public doman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.223.10 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pickton's date of birth -- unexplained change

In this edit, someone from 75.27.146.195 changed the DOB in the article from 1949-10-26 to 1949-10-24. The Globe and Mail page cited [3] says October 26, so I am going to edit the article to reflect that, but this is the type of thing that newspapers sometimes get wrong. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Publication ban lifted

On 2010-08-04 stays were entered on the 20 remaining murder charges, lifting the publication ban. In the next few days, media are going to report many details of the case that have been censored for several years. In terms of this article, the question is where to put the newly published information: chronologically in the order it was published (i.e. 2010), or in the order it was originally disclosed in court (e.g. 2003). I would propose the latter. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at some of the articles online now that discuss some of the evidence from the prelim inquiry and the voir dires at the trial which used to be under publication ban. Frankly a lot of it is disgusting. Here are relevant links: [4] [5] [6] Some summary of it should go into the article I guess but it's debatable and in any event I'm not going to attempt it. Mathew5000 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The true reason behind the 2006 severance order is now being reported. Up to now it was kind of mysterious why those particular six victims were chosen to be tried in one grouping. The reason, according to The Globe and Mail [7], for those six victims there was physical evidence they were dead; for the other twenty victims, the defence would argue they were just "missing", and in order to secure a murder conviction the crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were dead. Someone should fit this into the article. —Mathew5000 (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Many court decisions from the B.C. Supreme Court, and two from the Court of Appeal, have been released in the last week; find them by searching "Pickton" at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx —Mathew5000 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

this article sucks

This article needs major work, the te first paragraph goes straight into the police investigation??? Without any mention of the murders or what took place whatsoever?? Who wrote this ???? It seems more focused on the trial and the "proceedings" and the "investigation" then the fact the over 40 women were murdered. There should be more info on what happened to the victims, who was killed, and how he killed them. . before going into the investigation. The reader should know what's actually being investigated.

--24.38.155.71 (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it! ;) -- œ™ 10:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no section on the police inquiry into the incompetance that handled the case.142.35.234.201 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I second that, I was just wondering how "few" people were killed in Vancouver each year and this came across this, a big blemish on the city. But anyways, reading it I couldn't even figure out when he started except looking through the disordered list of cases as opposed to victims -- but then by chance (or just by searching for years down the page -- to find the earliest year) in the references I see there are perhaps additional victims so the total might be 49... Looking at source material in references may prove more informative than this article.24.86.97.151 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Lack of biographical information

Although this is supposed to be a biographical article, as it stands it is entirely about the investigation, trial, and appeals. There is virtually no information about Pickton - his family, upbringing, career, lifestyle, etc.Bill (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC) b

I watched a docu last night about this case which I had not known, not being in Canada. There he says in an audio recording that his father died at the age of 77; it sounded like he had an 'old' father. The mother died from cancer. The family, parents had had a large piece of land just outside Vancouver which was sold for residential in the boom years. They seemed to have been very wealthy and Pickton gave lots of money away to down and outs, the drug user scene.
In Australia, police/health authority could have gone onto the property any time they wanted, because he was a food producer and the authorities are entitled to check them over. Sadly, dozens of women died in those years when police had no legal ground to check out the property. 144.136.192.55 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Story told twice

The story of the the attempted murder of Wendy Lynn Eistetter is tod twice and the two versions need to be reconciled. They are mildly inconsistent and the second one does not acknowledge the first. 178.38.158.165 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Highway of Tears

A recent cracked article claims that Pickton was identified as the murdered in some of the Highway of Tears murders. I've never heard this before and I suspect this is an error, confusing him with Bobby Jack Fowler who did commit some of them. I'm assuming that Cracked screwed up, right? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Pickton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation 23

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm using this guy for my serial killer project. I can't cite here for obvious reasons and when I clicked on the 23 citation the page doesn't exist anymore. I've found the page on the Wayback machine and someone might want to update it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigil47 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Robert Pickton. 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: 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) 16:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Robert Pickton. 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: 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) 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Robert Pickton. 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: 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) 04:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Pickton. 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: 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) 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Victims" in infobox

I updated the infobox again, as the number of 49 is not justified. Pickton was accused of 27 murders and convicted of 6. He is speculated to have perhaps been involved in more, but those are the only charges that were laid against him. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature re: Canadian judges/justices.

Question: why is Justice LeBel referred to later as “LeBel J”? Insafiresmemory (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue jays???

? i think someone is trolling by saying he played for the blue jays lol , played 12 game stink with the blue jays , i search baseball reference no sighting of his name in the majors or minor league says he played in 68 , blue jays entered the league in 1977 , at first i saw wow really but its all B.S. Whiskeywhiskers (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference 17

FYI Reference 17 goes to a dead page. Thanks 209.93.89.241 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment about Picton's background

This article says Robert Pickton was from Sarnia Ontario. Totally wrong..incorrect. He was from British Columbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:59de:7600:451f:7b23:a621:e372 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

Should there be some mention of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in this article? Pickton is mentioned as a notable case under its article -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_and_Murdered_Indigenous_Women . Seems that the article leaving this out is a miscarraige of justice in a way but I'm unsure if there would be a way to offically cite this. Glassofoj (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done...The article mentions the provincial inquiry but I added some info to the lead and one sentence about the national inquiry in the body. Moxy🍁 01:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Pickton Farm Property Assessment Increases". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |data= ignored (|date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |puplisher= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Pickton/Archive_1&oldid=1226835077"