Talk:John Walsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Contents

[edit] John Walsh Show

No mention of the short lived talk show The John Walsh Show.Rubedeau 07:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Is "reality television shpw" the best description for Most Wanted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.62.233 (talk • contribs)

I'm not shure, but "post-Adam" sounds at least odd. 87.123.195.90 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce

I specifically remember the National Enquirer running an article, with photographs as proof, that John Walsh had affairs with blondes and liked to take pictures of them while he had his shirt off. Is it okay to add this to this page? jcm 10/02/06

I wouldn't add it, as the National Enquirer is also the same paper that claimed Elizabeth Smart was dead and that Richard Ricci had been charged with her murder. Although it is true that his wife filed for divorce back in 2002. She changed her mind about a year later. --PAK Man + 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creeps?

I think that John Walsh is great. He does a great job getting creeps off of the street. I am doing a report on great leaders and i am doing mine on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.27.14 (talk • contribs)

Those "creeps" are human beings, entitled to a presumption of innocence and all due constitutional protection. Such reckless use of language is out of place in an advanced society. RLC 6 Feb 2007.

Only in the American Justice system, this is the internet. RJ 18 Apr 08

Adolf Hitler was a human being too. Woop dee doo. 12.96.46.209 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You invoked godwins law, therefore you lose! So let's say you're accused of rape, a crime you did not commit. Shouldn't you get a trial? But then again, since you've been accused, you had to have done it, right? And I suppose the government shouldn't even waste time on you anymore since you're a terrible person. They shouldn't lock you up, I suppose they should just take you out back and shoot you! Hitler may have done what he did, but we still had trials for the Nazi's, because our court system is all that keeps us from going on mindless persecutions. 68.107.196.211 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're forgetting that nearly all 942 fugitives the show has caught have been found guilty. In fact, I can only think of a few that weren't found guilty or had their convictions overturned. America's Most Wanted usually only profiles cases if there's hard, irrefutable evidence against a suspect, such as DNA. I agree with you that every human being deserves a fair trial, but sometimes it's just too hard to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face. --PAK Man + 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, regrettably, this isn't what I'm debating. You can have all the supposed "hard evidence" you want, but as far as I'm concerned, a man is only guilty until proven innocent. Note you said "nearly all", therefore the probability still exists that the people profiled on that show are not always guilty. 99% is still not 100%. This guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude we all seem to have towards the accused is appalling to me. I also really don't like people bringing up Hitler in the context of a debate. It riles me up because it's so predictable and juvenile. 24.252.195.70 08:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
"entitled to a presumption of innocence and all due constitutional protection" Sure, they are...in court. Not in the mind of the public. The first poster also has a constitutional right--to his opinion. And since, as the poster below points out, most of the "creeps" turn out actually to be guilty, it's hardly an irresponsible opinion. 64.132.218.4 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John the suspect?

Someone told me that he was actually a suspect in his son's death. Does anyone have any information about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.217.35 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, but that would be really ironic considering how much he demonizes criminals and people who kill. Might actually make sense. But no, I can't say, though the police have to rule out all possibilities, so it is POSSIBLE that he was, at one time, a suspect in his son's death. 68.107.196.211 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I think John was in another state at the time of Adam's murder. I wouldn't add it to the article, as I'm pretty sure it's untrue. Plus, he and his wife took polygraphs immediately afterwards, and they were never considered suspects. I personally think it's terrible that somebody would even think that. --PAK Man + 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dividing time between Florida & New York

Anybody have a source on this? I personally don't think it's true, as AMW is filmed in Washington DC. Why would John and Revé divide their time between New York and Florida if that's the case? --PAK Man Talk 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)