Talk:John Couey

This article

This guy is only 47, but at first glance, you would think his age had switched digits.

Was Miss Lunsford murdered on March 18, 2005, or did Mr. Couey confess on March 18, 2005? The article (stub) is a bit unclear.

Jessica Lunsford was a victim. There needs to be more sensitivity within this article! She was tortured, and does not need to be tortured after death by being described in this manner. Human decency please.afsdfsdfdfasdfsdf

This is an encyclopedia, not a sensitivity article. Perhaps on the jewish world war 2 pages we should take out about concentration campst too, after all they were tortured also correct? These are the facts, l;ike it or not, they are the facts. That's what Wiki is about.65.184.18.231 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is an encyclopedia or not, it doesn't need to be deemed an "sesitivity article" just by showing some common decency. It is a terrible thing what this little girl and her family must have went through and I think that if people are starting to publish the ramblings of a crack smoking sex-offender as facts then you are just as bad as people who justify this man. What if that was your child up there and these so called facts are described in detail on the web for whoever to read? How would that make you feel? And, regarding the "facts" that wikipedia is about...how are knowing the gruesome details about what was supposedly said going to beneift anyone? Once again, it is another grotesque example of people using the media and other people's misery to gain popularity. You have officially been exposed to the underbelly of humankind. Whoever is writing these "insensitive" articles on wikipedia.

Officially? Hmm. Anyway, I was wondering if it was relevant whether or not the girl was a virgin prior to the crime, but sensitivity isn't really the issue. Also, I was puzzled that the article reads like she was abducted shortly after church, but then states it was about 3 AM. Does this sound hinky to anyone else? I think it'd be good for someone who knows what this is about to maybe clarify this. 24.131.12.228 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How is Speculation From Her Alledged Kidnapper About Her Virginity Relevant?

Firstly, I read the referenced links (footnotes 7 and 8), which lead to portals, not specific articles, so cannot be considered to be valid references. Please update these links to specific articles or remove them.

To the point, what do the statements about whether the girl was a virgin, or experienced, or enjoying sexual intercourse have to do with whether she was kidnapped, raped and buried alive? Whether she enjoyed it or not is completely irrelavant since a 9 yo girl cannot consent to sex with an adult. This whole paragrahp is a red herring, not germane, is salacious and could be considered to be slanderous to her father and family unless it is presented in full context, which it is not.

Just because the perp said it, does not make it relevant information. After all, this guy colors with crayons during his trial. If you think the sourced information indicates the girl was molested previously, refer it to the appropriate authorities. Veriss1 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Veriss1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

IMO specific comments like that would be relevant if they at some point were the focus of any sort of significant commentary, either in the courtroom or in the media; for example, if there were a controversy over admission of evidence, or there were a media firestorm over it being deemed outrageously offensive, or something else. I haven't been following this particular case enough to know whether that applies here. --Delirium 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Guilty on all counts

By the way, we need to add a baner at the top saying that it documents a current event and maybe a possible temporary protection. -Domovoi 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, because, to tell you the truth man, I wish this motherfucker, Couey or whatever, was tortured very slowly and painfully for all eternity. I wish he could be inflicted endless pain. Forever. What I am trying to say is that, yes, vandalizing this page would be a way for me to try to suppress my desire to grab this motherfucker and kill him very slowly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.184.123.62 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

We need to clean up the footnotes and references.

Timing Unclear

On March 7, 2007... The jury deliberated for four hours, tasked with recommending either life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty...

On March 14, 2007, a jury recommended Couey be put to death after about 1 hour and 15 minutes of deliberation.

So, what is "four hours", what is "1 hour and 15 minutes" and why is there a 7-day gap? The section should be revised for clarity.

24.16.33.146 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Death penalty cases in Florida are tried in 2 phases, the Guilty/Not Guilty Phase and the Punishment Phase.

March 7 and 4 Hours were the date and length of deliberations in the Guilty/Not Guilty Phase and March 14 1.25 Hours were the date and length of deliberations in the Punishment Phase.