Talk:Lawrencia Bembenek

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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

I've done some editing on this article, partly to add detail and partly to fix some passages that were inappropriately POV. In particular:

• The references to Bembenek's "seductive wardrobe" strike me as completely inappropriate. I've seen photos of Bembenek at her trial, and nothing she wore was unusually tight-fitting or skimpy. She wore full-length dress and rather conservative blouses. One of her outfits has been described as a "Victorian blouse" and is the item of clothing that jurors seemed to regard as manipulative. It is a white top with rather noticeable frills, and jurors apparently thought that she was dressing to make herself look "pretty and innocent." If that qualifies as a a "seductive" outfit, then any dress worn by any attractive woman must also be seductive. In any case, the question of what she wore to trial has absolutely no probative value with regard to the question of whether she is guilty. Is it "manipulative" when male defendants wear suits and ties to court?
• The claim that Schultz had not been raped is also contrary to evidence that has emerged following the original trial. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, December 9, 2003, "Elaine A. Samuels, who performed the Schultz autopsy, now says she believes the Schultz slaying was a 'sexual assault homicide' committed by a male. Samuels' change of heart resulted from new DNA testing that is detailed officially for the first time in a report Conen ordered unsealed Tuesday. The Oct. 3 report from Orchid Cellmark, a Nashville, Tenn., DNA testing laboratory, says male DNA was found on a vaginal swab collected from Schultz. ... The report says DNA from a different male was found on a comforter."
• The claim that Bembenek pleaded no contest "due to massive public sympathy" is bizarre. The only reason that she had the opportunity to plead no contest is that a judicial review found errors in her original trial and gave her the right to a new trial. Public sympathy may have helped her win the right to retrial, but it certainly didn't determine how she decided to plead. Moreover, the previous wording left out all mention of the errors in her original trial, which implies a POV conclusion regarding her guilt.
• No meaningful facts are added by including the phrase, "Like so many other killers," at the beginning of the sentence that states, "Bembenek has continued to insist she is innocent." The fact that many killers maintain their innocence has no bearing on the question of whether Bembenek's specific claim of innocence is credible.
• It's very POV to state that Bembenek's supporters allege "a sinister Oliver Stone-like conspiracy within the Milwaukee Police Department." I doubt that Bembenek has ever met Oliver Stone, so what purpose is there in dragging his name into this article, other than to caricaturize and dismiss the opinions of her supporters?
• It's also very POV to state that "even her staunchest supporters have never come up with a suspect who could have been the real killer. The guilty verdict at the trial still stands." In fact, Bembenek and her supporters have pointed to a couple of possible suspects who might have been the real killer. And the guilty verdict at the trial does not still stand. The verdict at her original trial was overturned, and the conviction that currently stands is based on her no contest plea as part of a plea bargain under which she specifically opted not to undergo a second trial. It's true that she remains legally convicted and considered guilty of the crime, but since that fact has already been made clear in this article, repeating it again at the end seems like rhetorical emphasis intended to hammer home a POV.

--Sheldon Rampton 22:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)