Talk:2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 10, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Redirect[edit]

2010 University of Alabama shooting redirects here now. -Zeus-u|c 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this gross and simplistic redirect to an inflamatory topic, this is vengeful and vague (who is responsible Wikipedia? step forward I say!). There is an admirable Amy Bishop PhD who existed prior to these tragedies, I don't at all agree with the narrow and negative reference presented here regarding Dr. Bishop.

Please let me know how to correct this gross mis-direction, and let us please correct this mistake.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotobukiya sushi (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your comment. I will address your question on your talk page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The article on Dr. Bishop needs serious correcting. And someone at Wikipedian needs to stop this nonsense of abusing doctoral satus as a damned job. Doctor is an educational status -- not a job, trade or professional racket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.90.130 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce W. Stallsmith[edit]

Earlier today, an IP edited the page of Bruce W. Stallsmith, another biologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. I do not know if he was present at the meeting where the shooting took place. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit does not seem to have any relevance, as near as I can see. We should probably refrain from speculation here in any event. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

As the info regarding this incident is little, there is no doubt that these two articles—which were both stubs until a little while ago—should be merged. The Amy Bishop material would be added to a section entitled Suspect. Supertouch (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge of Amy Bishop to 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting. I looked around and it is fairly clear that Bishop is not independently notable apart from the shooting incident, so this is a straightforward WP:BLP1E case. The only independent notability she might have had is as an academic. However, as an assistant professor, with no significant academic awards, no journal editorships, no highly prestigious lectures, and only one well-cited paper per GoogleScholar[1] (with several co-authors where she is the third author), she does not seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC. So WP:BLP1E is applicable here. The proper thing to do is to have a section about her in 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting and merge the Amy Bishop article there. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ibid. -Zeus-u|c 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Bishop is to be merged here I think the list of publications can be summarized—she wrote x number of books or articles—and then omitted. Supertouch (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is she not notable now?  Dr. Loosmark  16:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not so much her notability but what is she notable for. Were she notable within academia a separate biographical article would then warranted. However, since she is notable primarily due to this singular event, her notability is inherently tied to the shooting itself and not independent of it. In the case of the Fort Hood shooting, the alleged perpetrator, Nidal Malik Hasan, was given a separate article due to the complex nature of his motivation which does not at seem comparable in this case. Supertouch (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger. Denied tenure means she fails WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger. We do not need a biographical article on every (alleged) criminal or murderer. She is only notable for this, and per WP:ONEVENT, this in no way supports a separate article for the person. N2e (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The merge has already occurred, if there is any discussion now, it would be about splitting article and restoring the Amy Bishop article which is currently a redirect. Supertouch (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. If she were only famous for the multiple shooting in Alabama, I would support merging. But more events (killing her brother and being top suspect in pipe bombing) have come to light. And while she did not meeting notability as an academic alone, it still contributes to her overall notability.Jhhays (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger per Nsk92. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone was getting the idea to restore the Amy Bishop page, I wanted to say this: The statue of limitations in the shooting of her brother have expired and she and her husband were cleared in the bombing incident. Therefore her notability, baring further developments, revolves around this incident alone. Supertouch (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no statute of limitations on murder. She was not cleared in the bombing incident -- the investigation simply stopped. Amy Bishop's husband's claims about being cleared are false. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all) And I think it's telling that the New York Times wrote an extensive article on her, where the focus is far beyond this single incident. Yes, Amy Bishop would not be known to us without this shooting rampage. But many famous people come to our attention because of a single event, which in turn makes them independently famous. If the Fort Hood shooter deserves his own page (and I think he does), so does Amy Bishop.

Merger of G. K. Podila[edit]

  • Oppose: This person is the chair of the university's department of biological sciences. So he is definitely notable and deserves a separate article. 71.90.100.176 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: G. K. Podila should definitely merge in to here. -Zeus-u|c 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this merge if the page for Podila is not going to be expanded substantially in the near-future. However, if it is going to remain at more or less the same length it should than it should remain a separate page—if the creator of that page could respond here as to their intentions with that page that would settle it for me. Supertouch (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it matters if it's going to be expanded as I'm fairly sure he already fails WP:BLP1E/WP:N. -Zeus-u|c 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is debatable as he meets number 5 at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria as he was chair of department as his page clearly states. The next issue would then be is he mentioned in reliable references—a quick search gave his name in several publications which may or may not be indicative of anything. Supertouch (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, his h-index is 21, he was chair, and he seemed to have contributed to our understanding of the ecology of aspens, their mycorrhizal symbionts, and their growth rates in elevated CO2. I even found two articles here on Wikipedia in which he was already cited; Arbuscular mycorrhiza and Laccaria. Abductive (reasoning) 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He certainly meets requirements for a separate page. The page should be referenced, of course, but there's no reason to merge the articles, even temporarily. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He does have independent academic notability and would pass WP:ACADEMIC based on that. As Abductive notes, an h-index of 21 is pretty good, and Padila was already mentioned in a couple of WP articles. He was on editorial boards of several academic journals and has co-edited several books. That makes for a good case for passing WP:ACADEMIC, crit. #1. Of course, the article does need attention of an expert to explain significance of Padila's scientific contributions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He meets requirements for a separate page. Boromir123 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He meets requirements for a separate page. He appears to clearly meet the WP:ACADEMIC standard criteria. Thomas810 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

The uploaded pics are interesting, but there's no need for a blatant attribution in the image itself. I cropped the images and reuploaded. If the original picture-taker wants to reupload the originals without the label, I would be welcome (so it isn't needlessly cropped, although not much is lost ATM. -Zeus-u|c 15:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

age/year of birth appears incorrect[edit]

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/professor_charged_in_shooting.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.30.216 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a blog is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). Whoops, my mistake, this blog is associated with a newspaper. Supertouch (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publications[edit]

Why do we need a pub list for Bishop? We're not a random collector of information. Objections to removing it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the publications section is largely redundant. I am in favor of removing it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, such a list would tell me at a glance whether she was hard done by or not.88.111.239.43 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Information[edit]

Amy Bishop is the mother of four children, and married to James Anderson.[1] Dr. Bishop and her husband, competed in a technology competition and developed a "portable cell incubator" which placed third in the competition. The couple won a $25,000 seed money prize in the competition.

working on citations...142.68.220.13 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/02/did-jilted-professor-amy-bishop-kill-before.html142.68.220.13 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should note that Amy Bishop was focus of investigation into 1993 mail bombing attempt of Harvard professor. No charges brought and case never solved. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/ala_slay_suspec.html --Mmwm (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stephens, Challen (February 13, 2010). "Professor charged in shooting is mother of four". Retrieved February 13, 2010.

Bishop/Bishop Anderson[edit]

Is there a source which is naming the alleged shooter Amy Bishop Anderson, rather than Amy Bishop? She is married to James Anderson, but all the sources I have seen use just Bishop. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., it has recently become common for women (especially professionals with advanced degrees) to keep their original last name when they get married, instead of adopting their husband's last name. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it has been changed; the info box used to read "Bishop Anderson." I was trying to determine if there was a reason for that name to be used. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She referred to herself as Amy Bishop-Anderson particularity in circumstances involving her children and the local schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.162.70 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SF-Gate and others cited below carried an article referring to her as Amy Bishop-Anderson. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978049129&grpId=3659174697244816 http://www.decaturdaily.com/detail/53564.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=&sub_type=stories&town_id= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.218.153 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her full name (Amy Bishop-Anderson) should be part of the article or, at least, in the lead. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

75.91.26.148 restored my deletion of three external links. One, to something called USNewslink, is pretty obviously a spam link. The others are to a news article (which should be cited within the body of the Wikipedia article), and to the university's faculty handbook (no idea why this would be relevant). YLee (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that the faculty handbook was linked to due to its discussion of the tenure process. Still, the right way to handle such info is to cite it within the article, not just stick it into External Links. YLee (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many counts of capital murder?[edit]

The lead says that she's been charged with only one count of capital murder. If three people are dead, shouldn't it be three counts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will be up to the public prosecutor. I'd imagine that additional charges are in the pipeline. --Dystopos (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be that the three deaths (in total) "accumulate" to create a single capital murder charge. In other words, a capital murder charge may be defined as "killing multiple people at the same time" (or some such). Thus — with three dead — Bishop might face three separate murder charges, yet only one capital murder charge. The capital offense is that which makes her eligible for the death penalty. Thus, it is a "higher grade" offense than a simple, regular, ordinary murder charge. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Alabama law, a conviction for capital murder requires a finding of intentional murder with one or more of eight "aggravating circumstances" (more). Of the circumstances prescribed by law, it would seem that Bishop might qualify for the third: "Defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons". But without making reference to the charges as filed, this discussion is speculative. My own expectation is that the single charge was filed as a means of holding her under arrest and reassuring the public, and that as the investigation continues, other charges will be filed. --Dystopos (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter Bomb?[edit]

People people people? Letter bomb suspect? wtf?

Is this for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.62.115 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently she was considered a suspect but she was never charged....I'm not happy with hyperbole. Is this just piling on? The police never charged her with anything... and to implicate her husband with such thin evidence does not seem right to me. I think the Boston Globe article is overreaching. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.62.115 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the mantra of the Wiki-borg to not be concerned with accuracy as long as something appears in a "reliable" source?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps what you mean is that the Wikipedians, as a group, lack the capacity to make reliable determinations about accuracy without referencing published sources. If criticism of the Globe's report is evident, then surely that will be reported in a reliable source. --Dystopos (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what I mean is this bizarre "verifiability not truth" adage I've seen tossed about. Doesn't matter if what's "verified" is total crap, it's given Wiki-blessing if it's in a "reliable" source, reliability apparently being largely determined by age and circulation. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the old Wiki standard "verifiability not truth" is outdated and needs to be expanded. Wikipedia is better than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.252.101 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well here you go:http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/husband_of_accused_uah_shootin.html142.68.218.153 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a strange case as The New York Times titled an article it in yesterday's paper: Twists Multiply in Alabama Shooting Case. Supertouch (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"far-left political extremist"[edit]

According to an article in the Boston Herald, "A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children [...] was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting."

Should this be mentioned? --87.79.48.186 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think its safe to leave these opinions aside. --Dystopos (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP here. Ok, let's scrap that idea. If more comes up and esp. if turns out to be relevant, it can be incorporated at a later time. --78.34.237.227 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

I consolidated the "killed" and "wounded" tables into one with a "status" header. I also removed the "specialization" column as it was unnecessary. In addition, I changed "killed" to "deceased". -Zeus-u|c 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Bishop said when arrested[edit]

Early reports noted that Bishop had said something to the police who arrested her, but i have not been able to find this quote. I recall thinking at the time that it was quite an odd comment by her, and it definitely did appear in early, reputable source accounts, so i would appreciate seeing it linked in, if possible. Thanks, folks. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source, seemingly reputable: UAHuntsville Shooting Suspect, Dr. Amy Bishop, in Custody: Professor Allegedly Opens Fire on Co-workers After Not Receiving Tenure. It states as follows: Huntsville Police officers questioned Dr. Bishop for more than 5 hours at the department's south precinct. WHNT NEWS 19 cameras were camped outside the south precinct and captured video of her as officers brought her out. She remarked, "It didn't happen. There's no way." WHNT NEWS 19'S Nick Banaszak asked her, "What about the people who died?" Bishop replied, "There's no way. They're still alive." (I have seen similar remarks in various other sources, as well.) Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I also added some of her post-arrest statements into the article, under the "Shooting" section. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for finding the quotes and adding them in. I feel they add greatly to the article, as they set the scene for what seems to be long string of strange actions and verbal expressions. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I agree with what you say, that these statements by Bishop help to set the scene. I had heard these bizarre quotes earlier from the news, but then I forgot all about them as the story quickly evolved. So, thanks for bringing the topic up. It was only your above post that prompted me to go find the quotes and to add them into the article. So, thanks again. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Pictures?[edit]

I added the pictures of Braintree and the Boston Children's Hospital after finding both at Wiki Commons. I did so in spite of the fact that neither are particularly relevant; I suppose it is more aesthetics than content. What do you think? Supertouch (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race issues?[edit]

It looks like Bishop is white, and her victims include two blacks and an Indian. Significant? U.S. newspapers avoid mentioning race, but what about other sources? Dawud (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there's no indication that she had any racial motive, and since a witness in the room says she started with the person sitting next to her and proceeded down the table, we'll have to assume that the ethnicities of the victims was a coincidence based on where they sat in the meeting. If someone digs up hard evidence of a racial motive (rather than just speculating about one) then that would be worth noting. --Dystopos (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She shot six people, not three. As far as I know, the only thing that all the victims had in common was that they they all worked in the biology department. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brother's shooting[edit]

"The statute of limitations has expired on each of these charges and the most serious charge possible would have been manslaughter." NO. Someone died. The most serious charge possible is murder, for which there is no statute of limitations. If someone makes a biased and suspect statement in the media, should this statement be reported as fact in a Wiki article? From the Daily News article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/02/16/2010-02-16_ala_profs_accident_foretold_horror.html : "A close reading of this 23-year-old document from the district attorney of Norfolk County in Massachusetts does little to dispel suspicions that Amy Bishop in fact deliberately killed her younger brother in a fit of anger." - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.104.144 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the material I added yesterday about the possible charges against Bishop for shooting her brother are biased as you claim is entirely irrelevant. Why? Because the Norfolk County District Attorney is the one who made the statement as quoted in its entirety [2] at The Boston Globe. If the DA says the statute of limitations has expired that is pretty close to the last word on the subject. The fact that the Daily News has speculated that the killing deliberate is not indicated by the charges that could have been brought against her in 1986. The purpose of Wikipedia is verifiable fact not truth.--Supertouch (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the source that says she could not eventually be charged with murder. It only says it's too late to file charges for those other things. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late to file charges for assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of ammunition, according to this article. She CAN be still charged with murder, since there is no statute of limitation on murder. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is no statute of limitation on murder. But when I read the prosecutor's remarks about the statute of limitation on manslaughter having already gone by, I understood him to mean, implicitly, that he did not believe there has ever yet been, and that there is very unlikely ever to be, sufficient evidence to take a murder case to trial. Perhaps some people will disagree with his analysis/conclusion, but that is what I understood him to mean. The state police report about the shooting can certainly be described accurately as doing nothing to dispel suspicions of murder; at the same time, to my untrained eye, it does not appear to mention any fact that could be used in court as evidence of murder. The only two living witnesses both said it was an accident...if Amy Bishop's mother were to change her story and call it a murder, that would be a different story but I don't think the prosecutor expects that to happen any more than he expects Amy to confess to murder. Publius3 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the two living witnesses gave statements that were not credible? Note the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office announced the case was closed even before the missing files were found! Fortunately it looks like there will be an independent investigation (it would be best if it was independent of Massachusetts law enforcement), but it will take a while to add the results the Wiki article. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.51.25 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Update: Now the NY Times is reporting the investigation of the Norfolk DA office is going to be conducted by...... the Norfolk DA office! Can this be correct? UPDATE: My mistake. Looks like the Norfolk DA is probably doing a bona-fide investigation: http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/old-newspaper-may-provide-new-evidence-in-killing-of-alabama-professor-amy-bishops-brother/19374882?ncid=webmaildl1 The parents might co-operate with the investigation. Time will tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.206.195 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis: Why she was let go[edit]

I've read about this case for the past few hours, trying to understand why she was released so easily after her brother's killing. This is what I've compiled:

1. Physical evidence points to pre-meditation. First and foremost, she fired (edit) one shot prior, and one shot after, the "accidental" killing. She had a newspaper clipping in her room of a recent incident where "Dallas" star Patrick Duffy's parents were killed, and the teenage killers fled to a car dealership and stole a pickup truck, which is exactly what Amy Bishop tried to do. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1235802

2. (edit) Current Braintree police chief Frazier claims the mother was on the town Personnel Board, meaning she may have held sway over cop jobs, or by virtue of being intimate with department politics, she may have had "dirt" to use as leverage in getting her daughter released. Comments on the WBUR story indicate that she may have had family relations on the force as well. http://www.wbur.org/2010/03/02/bishop-howe-reporters-notebook

3. Swift action on her mother's part was crucial to maintaining the "accident" classification. The shooting happened at 2:22pm. Amy's mother went to the station, interrupted questioning, and had her daughter released by ~5pm. Had the suspect stayed in custody, various other officers doing their jobs would have begun to converge on the station with evidence reports from the car dealership and/or the house. The longer this went on, the harder it would be to make it go away.

4. The mother had her released, but the father supported the decision. Amy's father was a professor at Northeastern University, where both Seth and Amy attended. Clearly the parents took the path of least resistance in sending their children to a local university where they had sway over admissions. Nevertheless, having one child murder another would cast a long shadow over the father's academic career. On the other hand, a tragic "accident" would engender sympathy and deflect probing questions. Since Amy was released the same day, and was questioned 11 days later, the father made a decision within those 11 days to protect his career.

5. A comment on the WBUR article speculates that the "argument" with her dad may have been over favoritism directed at the now-dead son. This is supported by various comments by high-school acquaintances that Amy was unpleasant in high school, but that the son was mild-mannered and perhaps far more likeable. I bring this up because after reading ~20 articles and literally hundreds of comments, this is the first person to speculate on the nature of the argument.

6. The level of corruption on the Braintree force is hard to measure, but would appear to be multi-fold. On one hand, Chief Polio acquiesced to the mother's request immediately. On the other hand, the WBUR article shows to what lengths Det. Howe went to suppress evidence collection. While certain officers may have been shocked by the release, it took more than one officer to make the cover-up happen.

7. Since the encounter at the auto shop was brief, and ended without injury, the public "victims" would have had little reason to pursue the matter. The rest of the evidence, and witnesses, were in the family home, making it easy for the police to contain the entire circumstances of the killing as a "family matter."

8. Amy was 21 at the time, so she was admitted to Harvard graduate school almost immediately after the shooting. Having a father who is a nearby professor, at a lesser school, hardly makes the admission process automatic. However, the applicant would have been a household name from newspaper coverage. One can only imagine that public "sympathy" for the "accident" eased her admissions process, and that with a rigorous police cover-up, relatively few people would have heard rumors to the contrary.

9. It's not clear why Harvard proceeded to grant her Ph.D. after she was federally probed for mail-bombing her advisor, including the fact that at least one professor was actively avoiding her, and that her work-study job was not renewed. The FBI couldn't come up with positive evidence for the mail-bombing. However, motive was so strong that no other suspect should have seemed viable (you don't need a federal conviction to be kicked out of school). So, perhaps her intimidation tactics indeed worked?

Feel free to include any or all of this analysis in the article. It should be fact-checked and properly detailed (for example, I forget what subject her father taught at Northeastern, or the name of her work-study job, but this is enough for one night's work).

OrangeCatholic (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'analysis' is plainly categorizable in Wikipedia terms as 'original research', and hence cannot be included in the article.

I looked carefully through your remarks, looking for anything that would constructively add to the article, if a verifiable source could be found. Didn't find any fresh facts from verifiable sources. Did find several putative facts which are contradicted by what has been published in verifiable sources so far -- beginning with the assertion that the gun was fired twice before the homicide and once after; for a total of 4 shots fired.

By contrast, all the sources I've read so far -- and I've read every story in any of the local papers, as well as transcripts of TV coverage, press releases, etc. -- , have carried one of two versions of the story: the two-shot version, or the three-short version. No four-shot version that I've seen. Version #1, as written in the BPD in incident reports on the day of the shooting: The gun was first fired once in Amy Bishop's upstairs bedroom, then the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen, then no further shots fired. Total of two shots. Version #2, as recounted in 2010 by current BPD chief Frazier, paraphrasing the recollection in 2010 of 1986 arresting officer Solimini: Gun was fired once in that bedroom, then once (fatally) in the (first floor) kitchen, then once into the ceiling of a first floor room while Bishop fled the scene with the gun. Total of three shots.

If you have seen a 4-shot sequence stated by some verifiable source, please provide it.

Also with respect to the rumors concerning the personnel board (sometimes rendered as 'police personnel board') which were widely circulated during the first few days of media coverage: if you continue to read more news articles you will find that the current Braintree town clerk subsequently examined town records from that era in and stated flatly there was no indication in them that Judy Bishop had ever served on a personnel board. This is why I have not added any reference to the personnel board, into the article.She was one of the town's roster of 240 (not a typo; two hundred forty) elected town meeting members for a number of years. If someone thinks that fact is worth noting in the article, they can dig up the necessary reference. To my eye, in a town of less than 30 thousand residents, being one of 240 town meeting members is not noteworthy. Have lived in another New England town with a much larger population and smaller number of town meeting members; even there, a town meeting member had no pull by virtue of that elected office. Judy Bishop may very well have had a personal 'in' with some particular person/people in the police department, but as far as I know the only direct assertions of that idea have been in blogs (which do not qualify as verifiable sources for Wikipedia articles), or in reader's comments appended to newspaper articles (I am unsure about the eligibility of comments of that kind, but strongly suspect they too do not qualify as verifiable sources for Wiki articles.)

I don't think it is possible to read all of the cited sources without concluding that his case was bungled (or worse) by every key player other than the arresting officers, who worked together skillfully to safely capture an armed, homicidal fugitive. And I am suspicious of the idea that anyone ever pulled the trigger of a shotgun accidentally. I hope I have not let my perspective on the case reduce the consistency of my adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. Publius3 (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got ahead of myself with the 4-shot sequence. I was counting the shot in the bedroom twice. My point is that firing both before and after belies the "accidental" nature of the crime. As for Judy being on the personnel board, this is from the current Chief Frazier. It is debated. I subsequently found the "town clerk" article supposedly disproving this, and I found the 240 figure in a couple of articles. She served the town for 13 years. Like Congress, it's quite possible that she was promoted to certain sub-committees.

In any case, the point was not to prove that being on the town board gets your daughter off for murder. It was rather the opposite - how did Judy get her daughter released with so little sway? I think I've managed to show, at least for myself, that charging Amy would only have caused more damage to the family. It's open to speculation why the police went along with this.

As for things you can add, you can add her age (21, also subject to controversy...many articles claim she was 19 or 20), also that she and her brother were attending Northeastern and that her father was a professor there. All facts. Not only do they explain the circumstances of the crime (such as why two adult children were home on the same day), but also places the "accident" in the timeline of being admitted to Harvard.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/82589-amy-bishop-and-harvard-a-lethal-mix

Thanks for the even-handed treatment. Keep in mind that by titling it "Analysis" I was admitting the original-research nature of my work. Wiki might not read like this, but newspaper articles sometimes do. OrangeCatholic (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the talk page is a good place for informed debate on the topic. As more evidence comes to light, some of this may become wikipediable. I can address point 9. There is a tendency in academia to award PhDs even when there is an issue with quality. The reason is that a lot of students pass through the system. Denying (even justifiably) a degree to a person after years of working hard on the breadline gives rise to endless appeals, festering resentment, academics playing office politics with the elements of the case, and so on. With even a handful each year, the department will be weighed down by hordes failed students. (I know of one case where a failed student literally haunted a department, i.e. kept hanging around in the common room for decades while everybody pretended he did not exist.) In short: today's troubled cases will be replaced by ditto ones in only three years time. Letting them turn over without a fuss is essential for institutional survival. So: give them the diploma and when anyone calls for a reference, tell them the thing about the ten-foot pole. Why then did Bishop get a position? Because, unfortunately, there is a hierarchy of universities and a Harvard diploma will get you a job in Huntsville, no questions asked. No offence to Huntsville, it is a good place. The same is true for OxBridge diplomas, which are a guaranteed ticket to a full professorship. Even if you are an idiot with an OxBridge PhD, it is just that you will be a prof at a not so great uni. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:29A3:EA2B:CDFE:2062 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian singer Amy Bishop[edit]

This Amy Bishop, is not the same as the acclaimed Canadian Singer Amy Bishop from Calgary, AB, Canada. www.amybishop.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.86.108 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I have adjusted Amy Bishop to reflect that. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a disambiguation page be used for a subject not having an article on Wikipedia? Per WP:D disambiguation pages are to distinguish between similar article titles not similar names, words and so on. The Amy Bishop page should remain a redirect page until consensus is reached to restore her article or Amy Bishop the singer—or anyone with the same name—gets her own page.--Supertouch (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Supertouch is exactly right here. There should not be a disambiguation page unless there's an ambiguity as to which of at least two articles is meant. (And for that matter, if there's only two, one generally uses a hatnote instead of a DAB page.) TJRC (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any mis use of this page. The only reason the difference between the two Ms. Bishops should be noted, is because both have very public profiles, and Amy Bishop the Singer has been receiving ample amounts of aggressive phone calls and online messages that are to be directed to Ms. Bishop of U of Alabama. Thought that making mention of it here might help clarify the difference between the two women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.86.108 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider starting a page for her...--Supertouch (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd guess since that the name of this article isn't exactly the easiest thing to search for, many are arriving here by the redirect. Perhaps it's evident that there are more Amy Bishops in the world, but if the singer merits an article (now or later), then I think the disambiguation page is helpful. --Dystopos (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps helpful, but beyond the scope of Wikipedia to distinguish between individuals not having a page here. Refer to: WP:D.--Supertouch (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth adding to the Wiki article?[edit]

Does anyone think that this is worth mentioning?

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - Students say they complained to administrators about an Alabama professor accused of killing three colleagues and wounding three others in a shooting rampage during a faculty meeting.
The students upset with biology professor Amy Bishop told The Associated Press they went to University of Alabama in Huntsville administrators at least three times, complaining she was ineffective in the classroom and had odd, unsettling ways.
A petition signed by dozens of students was sent to the department head. But students said the complaints made a year ago didn't result in any changes in the classroom.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an Associated Press article. I think a sentence mentioning it is appropriate. Boromir123 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added it in under section 3.2.4. Please let me know if this was done incorrectly. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was well worth mentioning. Students always complain about certain professors, but I've never heard of them literally petitioning the department head to get rid of one. It really changes the shading of the whole event - even good professors have a hard time getting tenure, so she must have known for at least a full year that she wouldn't. And in all that time the best plan she could come up with was to try to kill everyone around who could actually teach... Wnt (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could cite two such cases, at different unis. The outcomes were a function of the political clout of the concerned academics' mentors, i.e., the one who had no friends resigned, the one with powerful friends was promoted.88.111.239.43 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth adding to the Wiki article 2?[edit]

How about this? It seems significant to me.

Professor Had Raised Concerns About Accused Shooter's Mental Health

Here's a quote from the article:

It was then, the professor said, that the associate provost of the university, John Severn, came to him and asked whether he truly believed what he had said about Ms. Bishop. (Reached by phone, Mr. Severn declined to comment.) The professor was given the opportunity to back off the claim, or to say it was a flippant remark. But he didn't. "I said she was crazy multiple times and I stand by that," the professor said. "This woman has a pattern of erratic behavior. She did things that weren't normal."
No one incident stands out, the professor said, but a series of interactions caused him to think she was "out of touch with reality." Once, he said, she "went ballistic" when a grant application being filed on her behalf was turned in late. The professor said he avoided Ms. Bishop whenever he saw her, on or off the campus. When he spotted her not long ago at a Barnes & Noble bookstore, he made sure he was out of sight until she had left the store. He even skipped a faculty retreat because he knew she would be there.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill the Cat 7, be bold and add your edits, obviously paraphrase and summarize the above quotes before doing so, and other users will let you know what they think. As it seems that you are a relatively new user, editing a frequently visited page with several people watching it will be good "training."--Supertouch (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add it in in a little while. I am just a little sensitive to WP:BLP violations. Thanks for the encouragement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added section 3.2.5 to the article. Please let me know if it needs adjusting. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other considerations aside, any biology professor would hit the ceiling if the grant application was submitted late. Those things take months, and if they're late it's all for nothing. I once heard a story about a professor putting a student on an airplane to hand-deliver the application to the NIH just so he could have one more day before the deadline. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. I know of one case where the thing was late because the uni mail room lost the (humongous) envelope for a bit. Another case where the funding body mislaid the documentation when it came in. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:CD06:9353:85D:89BE (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IHOP Incident[edit]

I found another article that gives a little more detail in the IHOP incident here. I'll be adding this in later today. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also add Pettigrew's recollection of the holdup. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defender?[edit]

Debra Moriarity was one of the people present in the faculty meeting, and did try to stop Amy Bishop from shooting, but does she get the sole title of defender? http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-psychologist-on-bishop-021710,0,2151302.story

If you mean the defense attorney, that is Roy W. Miller. http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/judge_appoints_roy_miller_to_r.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.181.48 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed - Run in with Tom Pettigrew after shooting her brother[edit]

According to the Wiki article, under "Brother's shooting": "...later pointing the weapon at a moving vehicle on the adjacent road, trying to get into the vehicle...."

Does the above have anything to do with this? It doesn't seem so to me. Here's a snippet of the article:

Carrying a shotgun by her side, a 21-year-old Bishop walked intently across a car lot into the adjacent storefront, where she began searching for car keys. Coming down from the second floor, she was heading toward the garage when she ran into Tom Pettigrew and a friend, who had spotted her in the parking lot and came to investigate. "Her gun hit me in the chest," Pettigrew, 45, recalled from his Quincy apartment. "I yelled, 'What are you doing?' and she screamed at me to put my hands up. So I put my hands up."
But the Braintree police chief has cast doubt on that conclusion [that she accidentally killed her brother], and the armed confrontation at the garage provides new insight into her state of mind after her brother's death. The Boston Herald first reported Pettigrew's account of the events today. Only minutes after that shooting, according to Pettigrew, Bishop frantically told workers at the garage she had been in an argument with her husband and needed a car to escape, nervously scanning the premises as she kept the gun pointed at their backs.

So, my question is did this Pettigrew incident happen before or after she pointed the weapon at a moving vehicle? In other words, what's the time line? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BillTheCat, I think I've read everything published in the 3 Boston area newspapers that have covered this story, and probably everything visible on the internet that was carried/transcripted from area TV stations, copies of police reports etc. Plus a ton of comments reflecting Braintree oral history from locals in response to news coverage and/or to blogs. The picture I've formed is this: there is no mention in the Braintree police department's contemporary reports, to the effect that Bishop accosted a moving vehicle while fleeing on foot with the gun. But, oral history from some members of the police department includes this, apparently on a hearsay basis. If it occurred, it would have occurred while she was running from the shooting to the car dealership; because when she left the car dealership, she was walking slowly and went only a very short distance, possibly entirely while in view of the employees at the auto dealership, before arriving at the news distributorship and being captured there a few minutes later. I've never set foot in that part of Braintree and don't know precisely the distance between the car and newspaper dealership/distributor buildings. I suspect that between 1986 and now, the Pettigrew/Doyle incident at the car dealership may have been slurred in the retelling/memory of some locals, from "while fleeing, he pointed the shotgun at someone to try to get a car" (which was Pettigrew/Doyle) into "while fleeing, she pointed the shotgun at a moving car..." Interestingly, one fresh account has been uncovered in which an employee at the news dealership tells about Bishop having pointed the gun at him, too. This specific fact was not in any police report, although officer Murphy's report, about the capture that he and officer Solimini effected, does state that "Youths from the Village News were yelling "There's a girl with a gun" while the officers spotted Bishop hiding behind a parked car. (Perhaps the "moving car" story is an erroneous ffshoot of activity at the Village News?) find the newspaper employee's credible even though anonymous at this point. The TPM reporter states this witness told his story to TPM *before* Braintree had discovered the lost folder of 1986 incident reports, hence, before the Pettigrew report etc. had become publicized. Yet the story jibes with the Pettigrew and Solimini reports. see: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/witness_cops_didnt_follow_up_after_bishop_threatned.php and http://www.wickedlocal.com/braintree/news/x1135182135/Bishop-told-Braintree-police-she-argued-with-father-before-brother-s-shooting . I speculate that Braintree officer Richard Jordan, who was tasked after Bishop's capture to seek evidence near the capture site, and whose report says his conversation with Pettigrew and Doyle at the auto dealership shop occurred around 4:30 PM ( 2 hours after the shooting), must have ended he conversation sometime around 4:45. On any December 6 in the Boston area it is dark by around 5 PM give or take a very few minutes and the weather. I speculate that Jordan was not inclined to search in the dark for physical evidence on the ground, and having obtained one useful report from Pettigrew/Doyle, went back to the police station at that time. I can only begin to imagine the astonishment and dismay he may have felt upon learning that Bishop had already been released without being booked -- regardless of whether he learned this when he arrived at the station, versus maybe he learned it over the police radio even before he got back to the station. --It seems almost certain from reading the full set of Braintree reports, that the officers who drove Mrs. Bishop to the police station would have reached the station at least an hour before Jordan got there, probably closer to a spread of 2 hours. And based on recent remarks by arresting Officer Ronald Solimini's attorney, it appears that Amy Bishop was released *very* shortly after her mother arrived at the station. Google maps thinks it is only a 5 minute trip to drive from the Bishop home to the police department. Publius3 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>Perhaps the "moving car" story is an erroneous ffshoot of activity at the Village News?
Yes, Publius3, I believe it is. I just got through reading the released police report [3]. It clearly states that she went to the auto shop, confronted somebody, asked for keys, and then Village News. It's only later in Howe's report to the DA (March 30) that the timeline changes to her confronting an automobile, and then Village News. The auto shop is omitted. Clearly, auto shop = automobile, and I believe we should remove the automobile reference from the article.
Another interesting thing, her age was listed as 20 in two places in the incident police report, with no birthdate given. This conflicts with her published birthdate, which would make her 21. Since this report was taken with her mother, why would it be wrong except on purpose? And it's odd that the police would leave the birthday blank, because police documentation *loves* birthdays. They have Seth's.
Finally, in the Howe's report to the DA (March 30), her age is dialed back to 19. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Det. Howe willfully omitted the auto shop incident (Pettigrew's testimony), because that would mean an assault charge. With an automobile incident, the victim would be assumed to drive off, no harm no foul. Howe also invents the "too emotional to talk" theory, which conflicts with Sullivan's booking report, where Amy "wished to talk to me" and proceeded to recount all the details of the case. OrangeCatholic (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeCatholic, after reading your 13 March 2010 remarks, I went back and re-read Howe's 30 March 1987 report to the district attorney. I did not see any assertion therein, that Bishop had confronted any automobile, nor gone to the Village News. It is silent about details of her flight. To the best of my recollection, I have not seen any assertion by any police (local or state) officer that Bishop had gone to Village News, excepting only the line in officer Murphy's incident report where he wrote "Youths from the Village News were yelling There's a girl with a gun". Can you provide links to files that support your remarks? Publius3 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the summary. (Could not figure out a way to rewrite it that was accurate and smoothly readable, and feel a summary is not really necessary anway.)

Why I deleted the summary: (1) It stated/implied that subsequent to the UAH shootings, awareness of earlier incidents arose from examination of public records. Yet, there is no citation/reference to any source that indicates the current public awareness itself arose from someone having searched public records. To the contrary, it appears that owing to the lack of public records and/or charges being filed, initial post-UAH awareness of the earlier incidents was based on the recollection of the events by people who were familiar the events at the time of their occurrence, and chose to mention their recollections to reporters, who subsequently uncovered old newspaper articles and other surviving witnesses for the 1986 incidents; a quotable anonymous government source and then a former co-worker for the 1993 incident, in which Bishop's name had never been part of any public record; and local court records for the 2002 incident. (2) It states that the 2002 incident could not be found via a criminal background check; but no citation is offered in support of this. Might be true; might be false; but absent a citation, it deserves deletion on the basis of being either conjecture or personal research. Publius3 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, however, the remainder of that summary is referenced—I've actually read the fact that her earlier "issues" went unnoticed in a few sources (which I don't feel like searching for)—just change the lead sentence.--Supertouch (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all "public records" are of the type that would be included in a criminal background check. I don't have a citation to back it up, but I assume that the Massachusetts reporters who scrambled for background information searched their paper's files and archives for incidents in which Bishop made the "public record". Word it however you like, but I think that there should be some introduction to the section on previous incidents to place them in context with the main subject of the article. Otherwise there's really no reason to have them here other than that they have, as they say, sold papers. --Dystopos (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dystopos. I, too, think that there should be an introduction to the section. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'previous incidents' summary revised[edit]

My apologies for having deleted the 'previous incidents' summary earlier today, before -- rather than after -- I had posted a rationale for the deletion on the discussion page. I can understand why, in the temporary absence of a rationale on the discussion page, the deletion might have struck other editors as 'tampering'. I am now prepared to submit a reworded summary, and am submitting here a more specific rationale in support of the reworded summary.

First sentence:

I will revise the wording 'After the shooting, searches of public records uncovered Bishop's suspected involvement in earlier incidents of violence.' to 'After the shooting, Bishop's suspected involvement in earlier incidents of felony-level violence became publicized, along with her misdemeanor assault conviction in another case.'

Rationale for this change:

(1) Bishop's suspected involvement in the 1993 attempted bombing was not a matter of searchable public record -- not via the internet, nor via a manual search. As is typical in open investigations, The government had not previously publicly disclosed the names of any suspects in that bombing. Hence the need to eliminate the phrase 'searches of public records uncovered...' as an all-embracing description of the sources of information recently publicized about her previous activities.

Second sentence:

I will delete the wording 'Because charges were not filed, these episodes did not appear in a standard criminal background check when she was employed.[27]' In support of this deletion, I offer three rationales:

(1) Charges were indeed filed in the third incident (chonologically speaking; at the IHOP). This is plainly stated in the article itself. In some of the media coverage of this incident, it has been stated that she offered an Alford plea. Others say she pleaded guilty. Some say the record of the plea was 'cleared' after she served six months on probation. But all agree, she was charged and sentenced to probation.

Thus, one thing about the IHOP incident is for sure...if anyone has ever run a criminal background check on Bishop and it came up 'clean', it was *not* 'Because charges were not filed,...': Perhaps misdemeanors in general don't show up reliably; perhaps probation-only cases don't show up; maybe her record was under Anderson and the background check was on Bishop ( she used Anderson socially when she lived in Ipswich, neighbors said). Sadly, there are plenty of reasons that criminal background checks may sometimes return 'clean' for people who have been found guilty.

(2) There is no assertion in the cited reference associated with the IHOP wording, that a standard criminal background check was conducted when she was employed by UAH.

Nor, for that matter, have I seen it stated in any other reference...and I've read a very high proportion of the media's articles on Bishop...that UAH conducted a standard criminal background check. If anyone has found a citable reference stating that UAH conducted a criminal background check , then please add that citation to the article.

(3) I do not recall having even seen a statement that any reporter has attempted a criminal background check on Bishop, in order to determine whether UAH officials, if they had tried to conduct such a check, would have learned of the IHOP incident. This kind of independent attempt at learning the results of a criminal background check, would merit inclusion in the article, if reported by a credible reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius3 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appeared an article or more answering the question of how Bishop was hired in spite of her violent past. It quotes professional background checkers as saying that because she was not convicted those 3 events would not have shown up on an average background check. Unfortunately, I can't find this article, but if anyone else can it could serve as an intro to this section reading something like: Following the shooting, Bishop's apparently violent past received renewed scrutiny in light of three events involving her. Because she was never convicted these incidents did not appear on background checks.... or something like this...--Supertouch (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publius3, the new intro is also unacceptable as you seem to be assuming felony-level and misdemeanor without having anything to support this.--Supertouch (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording in the sentence about the background check. This is supported by the Feb. 20th NYT article, which I have cited. --Dystopos (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few words, and a reference, to the IHOP assault section, saying it was at the misdemeanor level. This seemed worthwhile, inasmuch as in many states, both felony and misdemeanor levels of assault charges can be brought. However, I have not bothered trying to find citable references in which the pipe bomb, shooting of her brother, or even the armed confrontation with the auto dealership workers were specifically called felonies, in contradistinction to being called misdemeanors. If you think that there is such a thing as misdemeanor manslaughter in Massachusetts or elsewhere in the USA, please supply a reference that so indicates! Publius3 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the lede: mistakes of commission and omission[edit]

If I get any more time to work on this article in the near future (unlikely!) it will be directed at its first few paragraphs, which presently contain some glaring mis-statements or omissions. I'd like to encourage any capable editor to go to work on them. Here are some points that need addressing:

(1) The statement that current Braintree police chief Frazier called the "accident" description inaccurate, is not supported by any of the references cited in this section of the article. Frazier plainly believes that the handling of the case, under former police chief Polio, was much worse than the gravity of the case deserved; but that's a different aspect of the situation. It is easy to suppose that Amy was lying to protect herself when she stated repeatedly that it was an accident; and even plausible to suppose that her mother's repeated statements that it was an accident, either reflect a mistaken apprehension of what she had witnessed, or perhaps a misguided attempt to protect her daughter. But it is also plausible that it was an accident, and I have not seen any references in which Chief Frazier is quoted as saying he believed the shooting was not an accident. Whatever he believes on this score, he has apparently not disclosed to the media.

(2) The lede contains no mention at all of Bishop's armed confrontation with a body shop worker at a nearby auto dealership. She leveled the shotgun at him and told him to put his hands up. (two guys, actually, of whom only one has been interviewed in the local press recently.) Then demanded a car so she could "get away from her husband who was chasing her." After a few hairy minutes at the dealership, she went to another nearby business, where she was soon captured in a gunpoint standoff by a pair of armed Braintree police officers. All of this is described in references already cited in the article; but (apart from immediately trying to carjack a vehicle in the nearby roadway), her flight is barely mentioned at in the article, and not mentioned in the lede! Yet this is one of the things that most disgusts people about the whole episode. It may well have been a sensible decision by the DA to record the shooting is an accident rather than prosecuting it as manslaughter. But if the state police report to the DA had included a description of Bishop's armed flight and capture, the DA could have considered the felonies committed during the armed flight separately, and could/should have brought several charges. This, at least, is the view expressed by the current DA. The Braintree officers involved in the capture wrote a detailed report. But Chief Polio says --remarkably -- that he did not bother himself with reading it until 2010, and it appears that the now deceased Captain Buker, who as head of the local investigation played host to State Trooper Howe when he finally showed up 11 days later to interview the Bishops, did not inform Howe of the existence and/or pertinence of the report. And that Howe inexplicably did not ask any pointed questions about the details of Bishop's capture. That's the most generous possible account of why Howe's report to the DA does not mention the details of Bishop's post-shooting activities.

Apart from Captain Buker, there was another investigator from Braintree who I believe is also deceased. State Trooper Howe retired a couple months ago, at least it will be possible to interview him and at least one of the body shop workers. But at the moment it seems possible that even with a thorough investigation, it may never become clear exactly why and how Bishop escaped being formally booked after being brought to the Braintree police department, or why the State Police report omitted as much important information as it did. Publius3 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to address issue #2 in the above section (Clarification needed - Run in with Tom Pettigrew after shooting her brother). I have a link to the Pettigrew incident, but I want to read the police report first and then I'd like to get a time line of what happened after AB fled her house. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just added the reference for issue #1, which says:
“The release of Ms. Bishop did not sit well with the police officers,” Chief Frazier said in a statement, “and I can assure you that this would not happen in this day and age.” He said at a news conference on Saturday that the original account describing the shooting as an accident had been inaccurate and, The Globe said, that while he was reluctant to use the word “cover-up,” it did not “look good” that the detailed records of the case have been missing since 1988.
Well, that's all for now. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for expansion[edit]

I'm in a time-crunch this afternoon but I believe these sources will be useful in expanding or clarifying this article. - Dravecky (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or three?[edit]

The article states that the professor "has been charged with one count of capital murder and three counts of attempted murder". This conflicts with the three deaths stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senortypant (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More details about Seth Bishop's death in an article by wbur.org[edit]

A detailed articles with links to Seth Bishop's death certificate and other documents, and a description of what is known so far about the investigation.


Antonella (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bishop fired from UAH[edit]

I'm not sure where to add this in. Any suggestions? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the end of the Suspect section.--Supertouch (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gun was owned by Husband?[edit]

Fox news reported tonight about Bishop's appearance in court. They mentioned that the handgun was her husband's and that he bought it 20 years ago because they had "trouble with a neighbor" I have no written citation of the TV news report of March 23rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.161.63 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575139650194231836.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.161.63 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pakhomov[edit]

Dr. Bishop is the second UAH professor in four years to be charged with murder. http://www.whnt.com/whnt-pakhomov-verdict,0,6398185.story I was wondering why this wasn't worth mentioning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case. Statistics will tell you that even rare events sometimes occur closely spaced in time at the same location. Huntsville, most likely through no structural fault of its own, was it. But then people will see this mentioned and think, hm, I wonder what's wrong with Huntsville? Particularly because we are talking about a state that is already associated (neither entirely unjustified nor entirely fairly) with gun-toting rednecks. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:CD06:9353:85D:89BE (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bishop Charged with Murder of Brother[edit]

Can someone please add this to the article? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-investigation: Not by the Braintree police[edit]

(1) I deleted the false assertion that Braintree police had reopened investigation into Seth Bishop's death. It was the Norfolk County District Attorney's office that reopened the investigation. Braintree had ceded responsibility to the State/County in 1986.

misleading 'count' of shotgun blasts[edit]

I didn't change this today, but there is a misleading remark to the effect that Bishop fired the shotgun at least 3 times in her home on the day she killed her brother. Only 2 blasts are described in any of the contemporary police reports. The sole source for the idea that there was a third shot fired into the ceiling while Bishop fled the home, is an oral-history, or perhaps direct personal recollection, by one officer , cited in a press conference held by the current Braintree chief of police. Yes, this was enough to provide a reference to Wiki editors, but is not really sufficient to accept the statement as true...it should be described as a minority opinion/recollection, --rather than being represented in the article as an undisputed fact. I think I fixed this once already a few months ago and somebody reverted it afterward. I'm not going to bother with it further at this point. Publius3 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs[edit]

The second paragraph of this article states: "She previously drew the attention of law-enforcement officials in 1986 when she shot her brother to death in Braintree, Massachusetts, in an incident officially ruled an accident." This is no longer true ... as they are now -- on June 16, 2010 -- officially ruling it a murder. Can someone change and/or reword this section of the lead paragraphs? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

On second thought, maybe the above wording means that it was considered an accident at the time (in 1986) ... either way, it should be clarified. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Suicide attempt[edit]

Amy Bishop attempted suicide in jail, after being charged with her brother's 1986 murder. See this article: Bishop attempted suicide after being charged in brother's death. Perhaps someone can add this information into the article? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wow! 68.94.178.49 (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ▲  23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review Comments[edit]

All the article looks good as to the Quick Fail Criteria. I am looking into the #5 though, this article may become unstable and can change rapidly after changing and sentencing takes place. Thank you for waiting. More through review to come.

Decline for 1 reason only...[edit]

I am declining at this moment, unofficially, because of the possible unstablitiy after sentencing. I will officially close this after confirming this violated QF #5. Thanks...  JoeGazz  ▲  02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Per Quick Fail #5[edit]

As I now have confirmed violation on QF #5 with this comment to follow,

topaz JoeGazz84: to your question, yes, I think that's exactly the kind of situation that QF#5 is supposed to cover.

I have officially declined this article's GA for this reason only. Otherwise under a fairly through look through I would say pass. Once the event is stable, please nominate again.  JoeGazz  ▲  20:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted sentence[edit]

I read this sentence multiple times and cannot parse it:

"After speaking with officers involved with the case in 1986, Frazier called the "accident" description inaccurate,[8] and he and others said that then-chief John Polio ordered Bishop released to her mother[42][22]—allegedly a political supporter of the chief[22] as a member of the Braintree town meeting,[7] and who, they said, demanded to meet with Polio personally after the arrest[43][22]—instead of being charged for the shooting.[8][36]"

It is too long and the final phrase: " —instead of being charged for the shooting.[8][36]", makes little sense in the light of the rest of the sentence. Can someone familiar with the story straighten it out?Zedshort (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading it straight through—omitting the dashed part—a few times and see if it's clearer. Then add the dashed part. The dashed part simply says something about Bishop's mother, with the implication of influence.JohndanR (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 11:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 06:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"racked its slide" ???[edit]

One sentence reads as follows:

"Police found a live round in the gun's chamber, meaning that Bishop must have racked its slide after shooting her brother."

I have never come across the term "racked [a gun's] slide" before, and I doubt many people have any idea what that means.

The word "racked" in the quoted sentence is linked to a completely useless page from which it is impossible to discern what the word means.

I hope someone who is knowledgeable about the subject and also capable of writing clearly will fix this.

What became of the 2010 murder charge in Braintree?[edit]

One sentence reads as follows:

"On June 16, 2010, Amy Bishop was charged with first degree murder in her brother's death, nearly 24 years after his shooting."

But aside from a brief statement many paragraphs later that Norfolk County declined to seek Bishop's extradition from Alabama, nothing is mentioned about the resolution (if any) of that charge.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fill in this missing information.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting&oldid=1212404892"