Jump to content

Talk:John Couey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cameron Dewe (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 7 April 2021 (Rate as importance=NA for redirected Wiki Project Crime article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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.

This is an encyclopedia, not a sensitivity article. Perhaps on the Jewish World War II pages we should take out references to concentration camps. After all, they were tortured too, correct? These are the facts. Like it or not, they are the facts. That's what Wiki is about.65.184.18.231 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is an encyclopedia or not, it doesn't need to be deemed a "sensitivity article" just by showing some common decency. It is a terrible thing, what this little girl and her family must have gone through, and I think that if people are starting to publish the ramblings of a crack-smoking sex-offender as facts, then they 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 is knowing the gruesome details about what was supposedly said going to benefit 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 that 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)[reply]

How is speculation from her alleged kidnapper about her virginity relevant?

Firstly, I read the referenced links (footnotes 7 and 8), which lead to portals, not to specific articles, and 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 irrelevant, since a 9 y.o. girl cannot consent to sex with an adult. This whole paragraph 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 colored 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

One should ordinarily expect a nine-year-old, ordinarily in latency, to be a virgin because a person in that stage has practically no desire for sexual content of any kind. Children of that age have absolutely no interest in sex and are very clinical and detached if they should ever discuss sexuality or sexualized parts of their bodies. The only one who could have known was the (I recognize this as loaded language) pervert who raped and murdered her -- and he had no right to find out first-hand. Unless one has a very specific reason (such as instructions by a court of law to determine whether a crime has been committed or the consequences of such a finding of a court of law) for determining whether someone nine years old or so 'is a virgin' -- that is, has not been subjected to vaginal penetration -- nobody other than the person has a right to know first-hand.

It is utterly despicable to have sex with someone who cannot enjoy it -- which makes the rape of a nine-year-old a particularly loathsome act. Murdering her to silence her about so hideous a crime is an act of the lowest form of cowardice.

That he was mentally impaired, as shown by his behavior, is also apparent. He may have committed one murder no worse than the last one of Ted Bundy, who also raped and murdered a child (Kimberly Leach) -- but Ted Bundy was clearly of above-average intelligence.

John Couey's crime is so despicable that a discussion of him, his crime, his eventual conviction in a court of law, and his eventual punishment, are themselves encyclopedic. Despicable as his episode of crime is, it can be discussed clinically and objectively. We need not speak of him as a pervert, a brute, a sadist, and a coward. The grisly details of his crime as shown in a criminal case against him will be enough; we let those details speak for themselves without placing the labels of vileness upon him. Those labels need not be placed in the article itself -- and should they appear and I discover them, then I will delete them.

By giving objective facts about John Couey, we are in no way debasing the memory of the precious Jessica Lunsford, his victim. She surely was not at fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 21:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

It makes no difference to the evil, sadistic, horrific nature of Couey or his crimes whether or not she had previously been raped by someone else or that he was below average intelligence. The large majority of criminals are of below average intelligence. Jim Michael (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it ever confirmed whether Jessica being a virgin was true or not? The source cited for the "clefts and scars" and "prior healed notches" was poorly done, pointing to an article portal rather than a single article. Still, it's quite possible that the editor did see an article in the Ocala Star Banner mentioning Jessica's injuries. If they did, I can't find any such article anymore. Marionumber1 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty on all counts

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

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)[reply]

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

March 7 (4 Hours) was the date (and length) of deliberations in the Guilty/Not Guilty Phase and March 14 (1.25 Hours) was the date (and length) of deliberations in the Punishment Phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agardk (talk • contribs) 20:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

How did he plead?

Did Couey plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest in the trial? I'm looking for it, but if someone can help find that information and add it to the article, that would be greeeeeeat, thaaaaaanks. - Brian Kendig 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted reference

I have deleted the names of persons with whom John Couey was living and the address where he was staying because those persons are apparently innocent of the crime, even if such is well-known fact in some circles. Deletions of their names and their address is necessary for the protection of the privacy of the innocent.--Paul from Michigan 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timing still unclear

Let's see: On March 7th, "The jury deliberated for four hours, tasked with recommending either life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty...".

But wait!! "A week later, after about one hour and 15 minutes of deliberation, a jury recommended Couey be put to death."

Hang on -- "On August 11, 2007, a jury overseeing the Lunsford case voted 10-2 that Couey be eligible for the death sentence."

Not good! BibblyBobb (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

"On August 24, 2007, Couey was sentenced by Circuit Judge Richard Howard to death, as well as three consecutive life terms for his crimes. In accordance with Florida State Law, the death sentence will automatically be appealed."

Wait, wait, wait. This sentence says Couey was sentenced to death and yet in the next sentence says his death sentence would be automatically appealed... how? -PatPeter 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentenced to death doesn't mean put to death. It can take years before a death sentence is carried out. Katharineamy (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Couey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Couey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Couey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Couey&oldid=1016485568"