User talk:66.75.61.201

August 2016

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Kevin Cooper (inmate). Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It wasn't poorly researched any more than the original argument was. For example the previous tenant admitted to using bleach in the shower, and the "blood" was in a ring along the walls that stopped well above the floor. Blood pools on the floor. Fingerprints found on the closet proved that Officer Moran lied about being in the room, meaning he may well have planted the sheath. There's reason to believe all of it.

It has nothing to do with research. If you want to put all those allegations on the Talk page, then back them all up with sources. Also, skip the inflammatory rhetoric. It's not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

See wp:verifiability as to why references are required. help:referencing for beginners and help:footnotes Jim1138 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Johnny Frank Garrett, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Kevin Cooper (murderer), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed

Some of the changes I made were removed on the grounds that they were biased. The thing is, they aren't.

Change 1: The "near execution" section. A lot of the details (when the execution warrant was signed, that James Browning was unconvinced of Cooper's guilt, that he was the one who assembled the panel that blocked the execution, and that the supreme court upheld it 9-0) are all a matter of public record. Pretty much everyone, whether they believe Cooper's guilt or innocence, agrees that Browning's assembling the en banc panel is what ultimately saved Cooper's life. And the supreme court DID unanimously rule to uphold it. You may not agree with it but it happened.

Change 2: I made a point that Donald Gamundoy (the social worker who claims that Josh specifically denied seeing Mexican men) was backed up by a registered nurse. There IS trial testimony wherein Mister Fisher testifies in that regard, so it's not made up. Whether you believe him or not is another matter entirely.

Change 3: Again, Donald Luck testified that it WOULD have been possible to have acquired the shoes through the company catalog. This is in the testimony

Change 4: Lance Starke: Again, Starke is on record saying that the sheriff's department tried to threaten him. According to Lance the officer drove up to his workplace said "it would be in your best interest not to testify at the cooper hearing" and drove off.

Change 5: McKeown: Again she said IN HER DISSENT "the results are discomfiting but one the law demands." That pretty much means "I'm not comfortable with this but the law says so." It's worth mentioning.

Change 6: I mentioned that Gregonis had the evidence in his custody for 24 hours; again, this isn't disputed. The guy checked it out between August 12th and August 13th, and when pressed he couldn't give a legitimate answer.

Change 7: Judge Huff; Again, she did limit the testing to hairs that were already examined. It's worth mentioning since it shows she was biased against Cooper.

A lot of this stuff is established if you look at the documents. That they seem to imply that Cooper was railroaded may be uncomfortable but in this case they probably deserve a mention

---