Talk:People v. Turner

Drinks

Shouldn't the article also mention what the victim drank prior to her assault? (News articles mention four shots of whiskey, a glass of champagne, between two and four shots of vodka, and some beer.) 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

What will that help the reader understand about this trial? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Evergreen - I really can not understand your post - are you saying the facts surrounding this event are not relevant? I can not see any reason facts are irrelevant, but to be very specific about it, there was, in the local media, for example the Stanford newspaper, a big debate over whether this was an assault or drunken hookup gone wrong. The extreme drinking of Miller makes her alleged consent to sex with a stranger seem plausible, at least to many people, and Turner's defense was she consented to him masturbating her. I would also point out here, Miller claimed to remember nothing of what had happened, to have blacked it out, as she said she had done many times before from drinking. To not explain that, and therefore, that she never directly accused him, is to leave out a huge part of why the case was controversial. In fact, looking at the article, that seems to be a huge hole in it, generally. I think her alleged lack of memory is actually more important than the imputed reason, but people want to know why. Yes, that should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:5077:8E1F:A350:1C4A (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Her extreme drinking makes her alleged consent impossible, instead of "more plausible", in my opinion. Someone that drunk is not capable of consent.193.190.253.144 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Politicization of Brock Turner case/Police and Prosecutor Misconduct during trial.

The point has been made that there was no rape - I think it's also worth pointing out that Turner, when arrested, was not charged with rape, he was charged with attempted rape, but two weeks later, Mike Kim, the lead investigator, swore a new charge of rape, though there was no new evidence to support that charge, and the DNA test results had not come back.

Then for some time after the DNA came back and proved there was no genital to genital contact, the DA kept the rape charge pending, which seems to be a violation of prosecutor's ethics - as the false information and belief statement by Mike Kim was a violation of his ethical duty to not present misleading information to the court.

I think an entire section on the politicization of the trial would be well worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:5077:8E1F:A350:1C4A (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Victim Impact Statement Paragraph is deceptive

The section saying Chanel Miller's victim impact statement was "picked up" by media is misleading. In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Stanford Professor Michele Dauber stated she had sent the statement out to media with the help of one of the producers of "The Hunting Ground" a largely discredited documentary on campus sexual assault. The point being, the narrative in the victim impact statement was very actively promoted by Professor Dauber. The statement did not "go viral" on it's own. In this regard, it should be pointed out, the statement is addressed to "girls everywhere" at the end. That removes any doubt about it being a message to the public. If it had been written solely for Judge Persky, as Dauber claimed in interviews, it would not have been addressed to "girls everywhere" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:5077:8E1F:A350:1C4A (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

'Lede too long' tag

Currently the word-count of the lede is less than 5% of the article length - in other words, about right. It is the article itself that seems far too long. I cannot see what is so notable about the topic. Suggest that someone edits-down the whole article. Valetude (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest an alternative that if you think the article to be too long, you suggest where cuts are made. Given the level of attention the case received, it seems about right. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a lot of detail that could be deleted without weakening the story. Valetude (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

...specifically, material that would have been of topical interest at the time of the trial, but not suitable for retrospective, encyclopedic coverage. Valetude (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we've reached the retrospective stage yet, give it another 5 years. Admittedly I think the lede could be tightened up. --Erp (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

which I've just done --Erp (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the article ought to be significantly longer. The fact it goes into the recall of the judge in the trial, without going into how the recall was run, deceptive memes propagated by the recall proponents, etc, etc, etc, is a major omission in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BD7F:DF3C:9FD9:F957 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Victim Impact Statement inaccuracies inflamed public anger

There were a lot of incorrect claims made in the famous Victim Impact Statement which did a great deal to inflame public anger at Turner and Persky.

1. Miller said Turner "jabbed" "pine needles" into her vagina, but she also claims to remember nothing and no pine needles were found inside her. So, this claim was baseless Turner admitted masturbating Miller, but there was no evidence he stuck things into her. This seems to me a very serious misconception.

2. It should be pointed out Miller's claim she had blood on her hands was very misleading. The EMTs said she had no injuries. Any blood was almost certainly due to medical treatment, but the public came to believe Turner and injured Miller.

Nothing on the page suggests #1. And to call it "masturbating" is wrong. It's sexual assault. Also, read WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this page does not go into the specific false claims made in the Victim Impact Statement, but when the statement is referenced, the fact it contained such big falsehoods is worth pointing out, in my view. Also, your "It's sexual assault" comment is not the point - I am not saying what it was, but Turner himself said it was consensual masturbation, I was quoting Turner. I bring up the "pine needles" and the "blood on my hands" because these were very highly inflammatory false statements which large numbers of people who followed the story believe - since the record is clear, and there is a popular misconception, I think we should add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BD7F:DF3C:9FD9:F957 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I should respond to your "No Original Research" link. I want to be absolutely clear, I am basing the statements there were no wounds to Miller on the police and EMT reports from the night of the incident. There were no pine needles, or anything else, in Miller's vagina, bawsed on the forensic exam, the "rape kit" and the responding EMTs reported no injuries. The blood on her hands is never explained by Miller as far as I know. So, we can attribute it to Miller, but the article should not imply, as Miller unfortunately already has done, that it was due to injuries caused by Turner.

Turner was convicted of felony sexual assault. This is not up for debate. These are "the facts" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Also, it's somewhat hard to follow what exactly you want changed with all these talk page posts here and at Talk:Chanel Miller. Please frame as "Change X to Y" with the exact wording you think should be used and link to the exact sources you think support your changes. Enwebb (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)