Talk:Kenny Richey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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] See comments

An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

My last edits attempt to clarify that the circumstantial evidence pointing to Richey's guilt was introduced at his trial (and accepted by the triers of fact, as well as most appellate courts), and that the problems with the state's case surfaced during appeals.

I'm not trying to minimize Richey's claims, only that his claims were not brought up at trial. Perhaps someone may want to draft a bit about his ineffective trial counsel claims, which required him to bring up the disputes on appeal rather than during trial where they really belonged. Marklemagne 02:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marklemagne, you certainly have added a lot of salient information. I hope you approve of my division of the article into sections. You're right that the issue of ineffective trial counsel needs to be expanded; I will add this as best I can in the 'Innocence claims' section when I get the time. Padonsouth 8 September 2006

Thank you for your kind words. I have no objections to any improvements in this article. It's a very controversial case, and I think it's important to be as NPOV as possible because I'll bet this is a fairly popular page. Marklemagne 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen I've added information on Richey's innocence claims. I think that detail needs to be added on the legal issue of 'transferred intent' and how it applies to this case. I will do some clarification on this when I get the time, if noone else does.

I've revised the headings into 'Prosecution case' and 'Defence Case' as I think this is the best way of setting out the information. I know they're not perfectly fitting headings for the information that's in each, but I believe it forms the basis for fruitful further editing. I think more information could be added on (for legal buffs) the application of 'transferred intent', and (for conspiracy theorists), on the role of the prosecutor in the original trial, whose name escapes me now, but there is material out there on how his motivations for affected the result. Padonsouth 11 November 2006.

I have flagged the article as biased because it lacks information in the against section.

I don't think there's any bias here... if the 'against section' means the defence case, I think readers will find plenty of information (and references) in what's there, it just needs soring out and editing. What I will do (when I have the time and if noone suggests anything) is to set it out with 'The Case / Prosecution View / Defence View' sections. Padonsouth 20 November 2006.