Talk:William French Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia 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.
 

Recommend this article be pulled until it is fully sourced[edit]

The bulk of the article discusses Anderson's sexual abuse conviction, yet it cites no sources that corroborate specific details mentioned in the text. Chris 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I understand your concerns, and you are right. But Wikipedia doesn't "pull" unsourced articles, editors remove or edit unsourced information. In this case, from the time I entered sourced information from newspapers about his conviction, and when you wrote the above valid critique, an anonymous user added the long, unsourced information. I reverted back to the version of the article as I left it. Your issue was wholly valid, though. The added information was actually a pathetic attempt to cast doubt on a conviction. As a law student, I can tell you it is difficult to prove the crime French committed, and judges and juries don't convict lightly. If there was as large of a "grey area" as the addition hope to impute, judges/juries would not simply err on the side of the victim and destroy a man's life; especially one as well-known as French. It is also disconcerting to see that use of "anti-psychotic drugs" is used in courts to discredit victims, when Prozac, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, etc. are so commonly used today, and in this case were probably employed to treat emotional issues the victim suffered for the very behavior for which French was convicted. --DavidShankBone 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


I am the anonymous user that added the details. The source of the information is the transcripts of the trial. I apologize, I am new to Wiki. However, everything I wrote can be verified, but not by a hyperlink to a webpage. For example. the part about the discrepancy in the lengths of the audio recordings.The Length of the original is stated several times by police while Anderson was being questioned immediately after his arrest. The source is a recording of his interrogation, where the length of the recording is mentioned several times. Then when the recording is played in court, it is only 12 minutes long. another example is the psychological reports. Anyone in the court room during sentencing could verify that and the transcripts too. As for "...casting doubt..." YES. This conviction IS questionable. I can say with confidence, that any 1st year law student or a public defender or even a High School Debate team member could have defended Anderson better than his $2mil+ attorney. His first major mistake was thinking that an all male jury was a benefit. What do you think? It is not. Who can tell better whether or not a girl or woman is lying? Another woman of course!! Case in point: the court reporter was observed apparently wiping tears from her eyes while transcribing testimony. When asked about it later, off the record, outside the court, she said "She is lying" There were others too, but the court reporter listens to testimony in cases in which they are not personally involved and yet when asked, they can practically "read back" conflicts in testimony without actually looking at the record. in The other side of that mistake is that men usually are compelled to "come to the rescue" of a female in distress. If you don't feel the instinct to protect a scared (and attractive helps) female in distress, you must be gay....not that there is anything wrong with that...I am just saying.... One more thing....Read this short article. It is an excellent explanation of what has happened. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040825-000003.html I hope you will allow my addition to remain and/or tell me exactly how to properly source it. It is all verifiable, but I am not sure about how to do it here.

Sorry about the long "note"


  • Thanks for the replies DSB and anon. Sorry anon, but you're just citing opinions regarding the validity of the verdict, not facts. As for a woman's opinion being given weight simply because she's a woman, that's equivalent to barring women from being lawyers because they're too emotional. I looked on Google and found nothing comparable to what you claim came from the transcript. As for the link you gave, it's interesting and, as the Duke rape trial in NC shows, some women do cry "rape" falsely, but it has nothing to do with the Anderson trial, he's been convicted of abuse.

I recommend reverting the article to what DSB had originally.

Chris 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted. Although I understand the anonymous user's desire to tell a complete story, Wikipedia is not the place to re-try the case; by din of his conviction, French's side wasn't considered convincing or accurate. Where this would be more appropriate as an addition is if the anonymous user could find a credible source that mentions inconsistencies in the testimony, or how this conviction was unusual or out-of-line given facts that allegedly cast doubt on French's guilt. From what I've read, the facts are relatively cut-and-dry and there isn't much room for a credible appeal. --DavidShankBone 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon and on and on again. Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I'd like ro respond to a few. I was not saying that a woman's opinion should be given more weight...but IMHO the attorney for French failed miserably in many ways. I mentioned the all male jury because it was a major mistake made early. There are many things that are not PC (politicorrectus) but are pretty much "true". Women are NOT more emotional than men. However, women are less inhibited about expression of emotion. The jealous astronaut girl is a good example. I must admit, I think she shouldn't be in a job of high responsibility if she can't keep her cool under stress. Re: the Psych2day article. & Anderson trial- I have to disagree with you. 1. The article covered more than just "crying rape". It was about people faking to be a victim of anything from physical assault, attempted murder, rape, lewd conduct and sexual abuse to psychological abuse, death threats, etc. The point is that it happens a LOT more than is realized. The primary payoff is attention but money and payback are right behind it. In the Anderson case, all 3 have been satisfied. Attention: she has been getting a lot but got the highest level of it when NBC ch4 showed a clip of heer in court at sentencing. MONEY: She got $50,000 to $60,000 I think awarded at sentencing (there will be more later, a lot more) PAYBACK: This requires a bit of bkgrnd info: about 3-4 years ago, there was a major pullout of an investor in French's work at USC. It was in the 10's of millions, but if the project had gone thru, it would have been in the 100's of mils. The girl and her sister and their mother had been looking forward to being very VERY rich until the investor got scared, lost confidense in French and abruptly pulled the plug. USC repaid whatever he had invested, several million. He went away, but the girls both went postal! They blamed French for their "loss". Anyway, again , sorry about the length here. One last thing , I have never met French personally, I don't have any relation to him. However, I am in a position to learn many details about this case. I have never met the girl, but I do know her mother and she is ...well...a "product of the cultural revolution" in China. In short: she's a wackjob! What I want to say in closing is, French Anderson is NOT guilty. I am very sure of that. But I am not a lawyer or law student or friends with a judge, so I can't help him there. I know he isn't a molester. and he is not a "master Manipulator" There are many of each of those running around loose and that's a shame and so is a wrongful conviction. Keep you ears open, this will be straightened out. Then you can put my stuff back in the article!!

--- I know the abused girl. Please, I beg of you, stop trying to defend French Anderson. He deserves everything he got, and much more. She is not doing this "for the money," the last thing she wants is attention, and he ruined her life, her parents' lives, and the lives of many people around her.

I don't want to go into it, and I certainly wouldn't edit the article due to the conflict of interest it would entail, but please stop pretending that you know ANY of the details of the situation. I simply don't know what else to say; this article is fine as is.

Well, the article needed a few technical cleanups and references. Some of language used was slanted (or inflammatory) and simple typos, so cleaned it up adding static citations. It would be great if a copy of the court record could be included or referenced here. The Wired author had to sit in a small office to read it when she wrote her article, so a soft copy might be bit much for a California court. From picking the wrong lawyers, to the jury makeup, to the shock and panic one feels when accused, to colleague rivalry, to dealing with a youth you cared for and were asked to support, to judges who previously worked for defense attorneys, plaintiff attorneys sky-rocketing to network tv positions, and little girls leaving their families to seek solace in schools thousands of miles from home, this makes for a wonderful docu-drama by anyone's measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.28.189 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)