Talk:Kenny Richey

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.

Edits made by Pandamack

Your edits you made are inaccurate. Richey's bond is 10 million, his family must come up with that, cash or surety. In the latter, they still must come up with 10 million, but only 1 million needs to be cash, the rest needs to be collateral, such as houses, businesses or property. Please refrain from posting inaccurate information next time. --71.79.207.12 19:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC

This article is quite one sided and contains a lot of useless information, such as his bond... Who cares, not notable.--209.143.14.227 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Padonsouth Who's Pandamack? ..In response to the last two posts: yep I got confused between sterling and dollars there...to the second post, his bond is probably the most important immediate issue Richey faces... anyway, is there anyone out there who's prepared to tidy up the 'prosecution' side of the argument. It's been edited with a few loose comments here and there since Marklemagne put it up..

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below and WP:UCN. Dekimasuよ! 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Kenneth Richey is his proper name, so I am unsure why the article exists under his nickname of Kenny. I believe it should be moved to Kenneth Richey--K8TEK 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. The nickname can be used since it is the most commonly known name. That's why Bill Clinton and O.J. Simpson are not named William Jefferson Clinton and Orenthal James Simpson respectively. A Google test shows 28700 vs 746 in favor of "Kenny Richey". --supernorton 05:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. The Media call him 'Kenny', his supporters have organized a 'Kenny Richey Campaign'...Padonsouth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.147.79 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Use proper name!209.143.14.227 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This page has been moved by User:Flyguy649 WITHOUT consensus, and the action was taken only one day after the move was proposed. --supernorton 10:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I moved the page because Kenneth Richey had been tagged with {{db-move}}, suggesting an uncontroversial move, which this clearly is not. I will restore the page to Kenny Richey shortly. I will also move-protect the page to allow for consensus to form prior to another (potential) move. Sorry about that! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --supernorton 05:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• See Kenny Dalglish. Discussion ended:)) Malick78 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

This article has been flagged as biased for almost a year now. Does anybody really think it is, or can this tag be removed?Padonsouth —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Once again: has anybody got any objection to removing the 'biased' flag? As I see it the information included by Marklemagne, which is essentially a summary of the court records of the first trial, could be edited into a more coherent statement of the prosecution case. I don't have any information to add and I think it would be good if someone would work on that. In general I think it's balanced enough and so I'm proposing to delete the bias flag. Ok?

You proposed it be removed, then 5 minutes later removed the POV tag yourself? I still think the article is quite bias. Adding the POV tag again!--K8TEK 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Padonsouth Thank you for your contribution. A question: in whose favor is the article bias [sic]? Do you have a point to make on the matter or do you just slap on the tag? Have you anything to add or dispute? —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I propose to remove the POV tag. Does anybody object to this? (obviously K8TEK will, but I mean serious objections) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padonsouth (talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is written as if he is an innocent man when he is not. I think if you stick with facts and leave your opinions out of the article, it will be much better. How is my objection not serious? You wrote the article like he is a Scot being screwed over by the United States. Remember, it was HIS decision to be tried by a 3 judge panel and HIS decision to run his mouth. Quit passing off evidence against him as irrelevant. This article is still quite bias and I believe the bias tag should remain until it is fixed.--K8TEK (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

K8TEK, you have just excluded yourself from an impartial discussion of this article by openly flaunting your own bias. Your personal views on Richey's guilt or innocence are utterly irrelevant and contrary to the findings of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Moreover, if you cared to read through this discussion page you would see that over a year ago I welcomed the inclusion by Marklemagne of important information on the prosecution case taken from witness statements at the (officially discredited) original trial. More information on the prosecution case would be very welcome. Meanwhile, your personal conclusions and paranoid reading of the international dimension to the case are a nuisance. Padonsouth

Nomination for a check on neutrality

This article needs to be checked by someone with a good understanding of NPOV. Basically the 'Prosecution case' section consists of prosecution testimony taken from the court record of the original trial. Inferences from this testimony led to Richey's conviction. Perhaps it needs to be collated into a more coherent argument, but without the trial documents to hand, this writer is not in a position to do so.

While the prosecution case has remained static over the years, a large amount of information has emerged in refutation, eventually leading to the conviction being overturned. Does the newness of this information lead to a perception of bias?

The arguments will be revisited at the new trial scheduled for March 2008. This article is likely to become very widely consulted given the international media attention. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Padonsouth (talk • contribs) 18:34, November 20, 2007

It looks to me like the neutrality/POV complaints are that the article is NOT sufficiently biased against Richey. 66.218.190.100 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

If he was born in the Netherlands and actually lived there "long enough", he may still have Dutch citizenship in addition to his other citizenships. This may have to be investigated too. I'm not just saying this idly. I'm a Dutch citizen living abroad and have, for several personal reasons, looked into Dutch laws regarding citizenship several times. Whether or not someone actually "pursues" (as in "getting a passport") Dutch citizenship, one automatically IS a Dutch citizen in several cases, just like someone born in the United States automatically is a citizen, regardless of whether that person's parents are, say, illegal aliens. There are some laws in the Netherlands that will cause a person who was a Dutch citizen "automatically" to lose his/her citizenship, though. He may actually have triple citizenship. wjmt (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He may have Dutch citizenship based on law and/or legal rulings, but persons born in the US receive it based on the Constitution, which is unambiguous in that regard. So, it's not "just like" US citizenship. 66.218.190.100 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

completely agree with the Kenny name reference. he was bred Scottish. All Scots are known as Kenny. Only the English use the full name Kenneth so a Scotsman wouldn't have that name for love or money. Boils (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken richey.png

Image:Ken richey.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do the asterisks mean?

For example: "Shirley Baker also recalls Richey saying, "A Building was going to burn * * *."

If it indicates an unfinished quote, why not use dots as is the usual standard? ("A building was going to burn...") Asterisks look very strange unless they happen to be a direct quote from official usage. 86.149.131.137 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)