Talk:Roger Keith Coleman

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

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled[edit]

Content here is very similar to the following:

http://www.lairdcarlson.com/grip/Coleman/Case%20Summary.htm Fusion 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "not filed timely," while awkward, is proper legal grammar. I'm not going to be a stickler about it, though, so I'll leave merecat's edit of my admittedly small contribution. Jrkarp 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, "not filed in a timely fashion" is not correct. "Not filed timely" means it was not filed within the specified time limits. "Not filed in a timely fashion" simply means it took a while to file. There is a difference, though it is subtle. One simply says it was a little late, while the other says that the late filing violated a rule of procedure. Jrkarp 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this is a legal point, and there's a proper legal term. bd2412 T 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth it to make a brief explaination of the term in the article, as the casual reader will not necessarily be familiar with the legal concepts. I'm not a lawyer, so I am not in a position to sort out the wording. --Bletch 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - sort of. I added a sentence citing the time limit and the late filing. I think from the context people should understand it. If not, I'll add a further explanation. Jrkarp 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed the part about evidence not being considered because of the untimely appeal. First of all, the procedural history of the case is far more complex than the article originally stated. Second, generally, courts of appeal do not usually hear new evidence, especially not courts of last resort (meaning the highest court of appeals in the particular jurisdiction), and third, from what I found online, that evidence was presented at the trial. Jrkarp 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This evidence was never considered, since his notice of appeal was not filed timely." Which evidence? This is not clear.

Additions to Article[edit]

I've added the prosecution's case, info about the controversy over Coleman (in other words, why he is newsworthy and why he should be in an encyclopedia), details about retesting DNA, the section on "Significance for the Anti-Death Penalty Movement", plus references. Boy, are Wikipedia footnotes a PAIN. Chloe Wong 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speaking of footnotes, they don't seem to work right here. clicking on a bracket number footnote within the article wants to jump to #endnote but it in fact does nothing. [13] is a link not a superscript. None of the footnotes in the list at the end are links, not even ¹³. all the footnotes in this article are {{ref}} but the footnotes in other bios are <ref> </ref> DyNama 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "lie detector" to polygraph, which is the correct scientific name for the machine and procedure that was used. There are several technologies purporting to be "lie detectors" including polygraph, electrodermal activity, voice stress analysis and most recently NMR brain scans. All of these may have some merit, but none are infalible and to call them "lie detectors" is unscientific.

I have also rephrased the reference to the 1 in 19 million possibility. The fact that there is a one in 19 million chance of a random match does not mean that there is only a one in 19 million chance that it belongs to some one else. Consider this example: the perpetrator and the suspect both belong to blood group B (approximately 9% of the population and therefore one in eleven chance of a random match). Would one say that the chance of the blood coming from a person other than the suspect is one in eleven? Clearly not.

Diary[edit]

Does anyone know if Roger Coleman's Diary was ever published or if it would be available to the public?

Contemporary remark[edit]

A local paper called the anti-death penalty activists “The Committee of Sappy Women”, after a remark by Mark Twain about a similar group in his time. Twain spoke of them “...wailing around the Governor, imploring him to be a merciful ass and trample his duty under foot.” Can we find a source for this, and add it as one local reaction to the case? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:F52E:2E93:3607:8F75 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Testing[edit]

Part of the article claims that DNA testing was not available at the time (in regards to the blood splatter on the accused's pants), and yet another part of the article claims that his defense argued that semen found on the victim contained DNA from multiple men. This is vague and confusing. 2605:A601:A605:4C00:DC5:B8AC:675F:5A25 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]