Talk:Murder of Raymond Codling

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Raymond Codling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Result of inquest[edit]

If I remember the details well from the inquest, Inspector Raymond Codling was NOT shot in the face as he lay dead on the floor, he was shot in the back of the head, and the bullet exited by his face. I am Katherine Codling, his daughter. (This anon ip comment moved here from article mainspace). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Do you know if the inquest details are available from a public domain source which could be used as a reference? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GMP report, which must be considered very reliable, says that the second was the fatal shot. I have now added that ref at that point in the narrative. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a copy of the Consultant Pathologist report in my hands. The conclusion states, "In my opinion, death is due to: Gunshot wound to the chest. .......... (finishing with) .... Death would have occurred quickly from the wound to the chest.

If you would like me to scan and send you a copy, I will gladly do so. I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Katherine CODLING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.49.174 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you need to provide an actual scanned copy or not. As with a birth certificate, if this report is in the public domain, some kind of reference number should suffice. Sincere thanks for your efforts here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not available to the public. As his daughter, I was able to obtain a copy. Please send me your contact details and I will send you a copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.49.174 (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. But I think it needs to go not to me but to a central team, possibly OTRS. I will investigate and let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 82.225.49.174 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Katherine Codling[reply]

Martin asked me to comment. I'm sorry, but I don't think we can use the pathologist's report. The WP:Verifiability policy, in the section WP:SOURCES, is clear that: "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." The idea is that an interested enquirer should, in principle, be able to check the information from public sources. The WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be the place to get more advice. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, John. This seems an unfortunate state of affairs, but apparently unavoidable. The main source in the article is the GMP's own description from their website, which must be treated as WP:RS. I am not sure why it should differ from the pathologist's report. If no further advice is forthcoming at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the only other options would seem to be a private author willing to use the report in a published work or, (perhaps more feasible), pursuading the GMP to correct their description. But that would be a private matter for you, Katherine. For the time being we are stuck with having to use the published sources, even if it seems they are wrong. It seems to be agreed that the fatal wound was the one to the chest. What still seems open to question is whether the second shot was to the back of the head or to the face. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a private person posting a document on a website would still not be a reliable source as there is no guarantee of authenticity. I would highly recommend against that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Such an action might even be illegal. The type of "published work " I had in mind was a non-self published book or article along the lines of "British Police Officers Killed in the Line of Duty", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please write to you in private as I really dont want to go into any more detail about my dad's post mortem on here. Thanks, 82.225.49.174 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Katherine CODLING[reply]

Hi Katherine. If you wish to create an account here (which is very easy), you will then be able to send me an email. I quite understand your position. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have just created an account and looked around for links to emailing but can't seem to find any. Please let me know how I go about this. Thanks KatherineCodling (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) FYI I am currently in contact with the GMP website in the hope that they will indeed be able to amend their details, based on the facts from the Pathologist's report. 82.225.49.174 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Katherine CODLING[reply]

Hi Katherine. If you wish to email me - just go to my User page and under the Toolbox section select "Email this user". Note I may not be able to reply for a few days. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea. I hope they will be able to help. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wrong events[edit]

Unfortunately like so many other news articles ive recently been reading these events are incorrect. I was there 20m away when this sad event took place and helped saved the life of the injured officer shot in the leg. 2A00:23C5:E231:C01:C86E:CD0:5B1D:DD44 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is incorrect in the article? Thank you. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]