Talk:False confession
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] John Mark Karr Speculations
John Mark Karr's confession has not been confirmed to be false. I do not think it is wise to have speculation. 09:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't written as a fact, and the speculation is well documented in the New York Times and Reuters as per the 4 references on his page. It doesn't have to be a certainty to have an entry in Wikipedia, it just has to be referenced in mainstream media. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough, but unless it is almost certain to take place, I think speculation on John Mark Karr should be limited to his article. (I am unsure who removed the John Mark Karr entry, but I wanted to discuss it before removal.) 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Innocence Project
One version of this page had a section devoted to the "Innocence Project," which is an organization dedicated to clearing the falsely convicted. The section seems irrelevant in a discussion about false confessions (rather than those who are wrongly incarcerated) and because it contained no actual information appeared to be an advertisement for the program. Jboyler 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JonBenet Ramsey
Does anyone know how many people have confessed to her murder? I know it's quite a few other then Jon Mark Karr. ShadowWriter 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jessie Misskelley and The West Memphis Three
Please consider editing for clarity regarding the supposed "exoneration". It is true that no DNA recovered from the crimescene matched the three convicted of these crimes. However, since this was not the average rape/murder case where identified semen was present in an amount to fully type, lack of a match to the convicted is not as convincing of an "exoneration" as it would be in the average rape/murder case. All hairs believed to be from the convicted at the time of the trials have been ruled out as belonging to the convicted, but the microscopic hair analysis was not admitted into evidence in the Echols/Baldwin trial. The defense has filed their Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 29, 2007. A letter order was issued indicating the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas's intention to hold the Second Amended Petition in abeyance until several issues were resolved in state court on November 21, 2007. Sourcing for this information comes from wm3.org and Dennis Riordan's press conferences, the video and text are available at wm3.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.137.69 (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of "false confessions" is biased and unsubstantiated
This article currently has a long list of short little supposed examples of false confessions. Some of them clearly state that the confession was determined false in court, but some just leave the story with the confession and imply that it's false (Jessie Misskelley, Stephen Downing, Jeffrey Mark Deskovic). Most lack cites although some link to separate wikipedia articles. The "Michael Crowe" section is pretty clearly heavily biased, including the telltale sentence, "These are the facts." Several of them are rather short on details.
In order for this article to be factual and unbiased, I think that only cases in which the confession was decided in court to be false should be listed in this article. Otherwise, it just looks like a place for armchair law opinions and old grudges to be aired. and cool shit like that!
--anonymous random Wikipedia reader, 12/20/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.217.245 (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
