Jump to content

Talk:Kenny Richey

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

Trial

[edit]

Hello Zzzzz78759, I'm afraid I don't understand your argument - remember that the murder and arson charges charges were dropped. The prosecution alleged murder and arson and then withdrew those allegations. The final outcome of his cas was that he was not "convicted" of any charges. Certainly there should be more detail of his life after release, I'm afraid I haven't time to do it. (donso (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have flagged this article as biased because all information that pertains to the prosecution case is either prefaced by "alleged" or "allegedly" while all defense information has the appearance of being fact.

When someone is convicted of a crime, whether or not they confess and whether or not the charges are a part of plea bargains, the information is no longer "alleged", it is legally fact. The only time this would not be the case is if the person were proven legally innocent.

The prosecution case needs to have more citations to the information available at the time, trial transcripts (with page reference since the pdf of the trial transcript is not searchable), and have all the "alleged" references removed.

This actually appears to have been written by Karen Torley or one of her followers.

What he was convicted of and what he pled "not contest" to are two different things.

I think that his violent actions and arrests since his release should be noted, since this is a biographical article.

I also think that the term "cause celebre" should be removed. The term, itself, shows bias. Zzzzz78759 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Criminal record after release

[edit]

Given the accusations of statchetory rape, assault and a recent suicide attempt brought on by being accused of assaulting an elderly man who owed him money I feel it's important to add a section dealing his life after release from death row. smb2a 06:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Also I know it's not really related, but it is interesting to read at the bottom of this article that his brother is in prison for murder.. I've got to admit, having read this article and many others, I don't really see why people were so utterly convinced he was innocent and why he was such a 'cause celebre' for miscarriages of justice. It looked like a murky case from this article- a lot to go on either side...86.2.38.112 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been charged with the assault on the elderly friend.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2421586.0.Death_Row_Scot_Kenny_Richey_back_behind_bars.php
smb2a 02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The section on the robbery and assault trial has been removed. Whoever removed it needs to put it back or I will.
smb2a 02:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits made by Pandamack

[edit]

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)[reply]
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

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

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)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Bias?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Why are those comments "a nuisance"?? I had no idea by reading the page that it was his own decision to sit in front of 3 judges as opposed to the jury panel? There's also no further information on the verbal attacks and how/why - even IF - these have been discredited! I also disagree with the opening showing that the writer believes that he is innocent! There is a lot in the Prosecution, I agree, and that's good, but you taint it by spending a lot of time at the beginning discussing how England sees it as a massive miscarriage of justice. Maybe that would be better suited at the bottom where his supporters are listed? Just because someone is bringing up issues that you yourself have not addressed does not make them a nuisance, it makes them a person who wants to be able to read a FACTUAL, UNBIASED webpage... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.123.217 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for a check on neutrality

[edit]

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)[reply]

Citizenship

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First name

[edit]

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)[reply]

What about Kenneth McKellar? Manormadman (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Manormadman[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken richey.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

What do the asterisks mean?

[edit]

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)[reply]

So pleased I'm not the only person who doesn't get this!!! Was thinking they were in place of profanities, but when asterisking a word you usually still have at least one of the letters! I'm sure that I saw some evidence of "..." being used at the end of a quote to show the original continued, so I don't think it's that? No idea what it actually IS though!  :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.123.217 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bail bond non-refundable?

[edit]

I have to admit to not understanding fully the bail bond process, but is it really the case, as cited in the article, that bail bonds are non-refundable? Or did the article mean to say that bail-bond fees are not refundable? Kirbett (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kenny Richey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kenny Richey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Take a look at structure outline we have-- needs to be broken up into meaningful subheadings with a lead per WP:LEAD. Also, you'll need to add inline citations per WP:CITE

Last edited at 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kenny Richey. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenny Richey. 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) 20:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenny_Richey&oldid=1209951416"