Talk:Roger Keith Coleman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Content here is very similar to the following:
http://www.lairdcarlson.com/grip/Coleman/Case%20Summary.htm Fusion 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Agreed - this is a legal point, and there's a proper legal term. BD2412 T 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agreed - this is a legal point, and there's a proper legal term. BD2412 T 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
"This evidence was never considered, since his notice of appeal was not filed timely." Which evidence? This is not clear.
[edit] Additions to Article
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)
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)
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.
[edit] Diary
Does anyone know if Roger Coleman's Diary was ever published or if it would be available to the public?
