Talk:Ryan W. Ferguson

Question

hi......I am so happy for you. My husband was accused back in 1973? He spent 10 years for a crime he never committed in the Arizona Prison. He spanked his 14 year old stepson with a paddle and was wrongfully accused of having a sexual act. He was railroaded by his wife and stepdaughter. We have been married 9 years and he is so kind, loving and caring. Because of his past we can not take cruises, live near schools, or apartment buildings. Our life has had a lot of frustrations but we survive. He is now almost 84 years old. He hates registering every year as an offender. All he did was spank his stepson and used foul language which was overheard by the stepdaughter. Can anything be resolved after all these years? Lulu71542

Use of the word "widely"

I noticed the word "widely" was removed from the sentence "Ryan Ferguson is an American man believed to have been wrongfully convicted of the 2001 murder of sports editor Kent Heitholt, in a parking lot in Columbia Missouri."

The reason I included the word widely in the first place is that I want it to have a certain nuance. To me, saying "he is believed to have been wrongfully convicted" sounds more universal than "widely believed". Maybe I'm wrong about how that comes across, but I want to make sure that the audience understands that this isn't not absolutely universal. The prosecution is still maintaining that he's guilty. I felt like saying "widely believed" conveyed that it was a widespread belief, but not absolutely certain. Just saying "believed" makes it sound like everyone believes it. If anyone has any opinions on how this is best conveyed, I'd love to hear em. :-) Bali88 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I saw it as a "weasel" word, and such imprecise terms are not appreciated in Wikipedia. I will try to fix my mistake.Wikfr (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Weasel word or not, I think it most accurately describes the situation. He has not be legally exonerated and they prosecutor is still talking about him like he's guilty. His friend is still in prison. Really about the best you can say about the situation is that a lot of people believe he was wrongfully convicted. Does that make sense? Bali88 (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wish we could word this, so that it agreed with a reliable source. The closest thing I could find was CBS News. Wikipedia has an article Miscarriage of justice discussing some of the terms.Wikfr (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely about the reliable sources. To explain why I removed the two sources saying he was wrongfully convicted...those sources are basically opinion pieces. Both sources have David Camm listed as wrongfully convicted, which I fully believe to have been wrongfully convicted, but legally, and in the eyes of the state of indiana, he was simply found not guilty. They're still asserting that he is guilty. There are still a decent amount of people in the community who believe he's guilty. The only difference, that I can see, between the two cases is that a bigger percentage of people believe Ryan to be actually innocent. I'll see what I can find in terms of sources. :-) Bali88 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article states that the subject was released “…after being wrongfully convicted….” This was discussed previously above (and below) and apparently the decision was made to drop the initial “…widely believed to have been….” I just wanted to note that on a purely semantic basis that this was the correct resolution of this issue. Having been wrongfully convicted and being innocent are not necessarily one and the same. The appeals court’s decision to vacate his conviction attests to the fact that he was wrongly convicted even if he is guilty. In other words, the evidence didn’t support the conviction. Avoiding the question of actual guilt or innocence is, I think, a wise presentation.

As to actual innocence, without the testimony of Erickson and Trump there remains absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the subject is guilty other than the fact that he cannot prove that it was logistically impossible for him to have committed the crime. The same could probably be said of thousands of people who lived in the area at that time or were visiting it.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Ferguson stands out from the general public through his palpable lies to the police and during the trial, and that in addition to Chuck Erikson`s and other witnesses' testimonies. A jury convicted him on way more than his inability to prove logistical impossibility to have committed the crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmermerci~enwiki (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Dmermerci~enwiki (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hair at crime scene

Also, this has nothing to do with the article, but has anyone ever seen a description of the foreign hair found at the crime scene? I did a search and came up empty. Does anyone know length? Straight or curly? Color? Bali88 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The hair was discussed extensively during the trial, so I would suggest reading the trial transcripts. It should also be mentioned that Kent's coworkers testified that they rolled his body over when they found him, the EMT's touched his body when they examined him, and there is also the possibility that Chuck and Ryan picked up the hair from someone at the club and then inadvertently transferred it on Kent when they were in the process of murdering him. Countacolor (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, except that Chuck and Ryan never "murdered him". 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Can never be tried again for the offense?

I was pretty shocked to read that part because I was under the impression that he *could* theoretically be tried again if they discovered new evidence. I know they had that 15 day window in which they could bring charges or release him, but I didn't think that by declining to immediately recharge him they were completely prevented from doing so in the future. I even asked a friend of mine who is a defense attorney and he backed up the statement. I worry that someone might question that like I did. Does anyone have any sources for that just in case? Bali88 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, he did not get an acquittal. Trying someone twice for the same crime is called double jeopardy, and is not allowed in the United States, except for a mistrial, which is what Ryan had. The Court vacated the conviction with prejudice, and the State also dropped charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. I will think more about this. Wikfr (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the "dropping of charges with prejudice" thing? I hadn't read that and didn't know they could drop their own charges with prejudice. Regarding the "has been wrongfully convicted" thing...I think we need to rethink the wording. The problem is, he has not been formally exonerated. Yes, everyone and their brother believes him to be wrongfully convicted, but we don't really have any legal judgment of that. When the conviction was overturned, that was simply a statement that the conviction was the result of an unfair trial. They had the option to recharge him and they opted not to. Really, I think the most accurate wording is one that reflects how the public views the situation as a wrongful conviction, because the justice system--to my knowledge--has not determined this to be the case. Bali88 (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

He can most definitely be tried again. The police are reopening the case, and if enough evidence is gathered against him, he will be tried again. Countacolor (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo comment

Is this him? If not does anyone know of photo with a cc license? Wikfr (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No. This may be the athlete with the same name. Not this Ryan Ferguson. Bali88 (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on getting a photo without luck. Anyone have connections? Bali88 (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Missouri has a history of granting reversals...

I noticed the factoid of Missouri granting reversals when evidence of actual innocence is presented is cited to State of Missouri ex rel Chris Koster v. The Honorable Warren McElwain. Do you have a page number for that? I'm wondering if this constitutes original research. Btw, thanks to everyone who has worked on this article. Good job! Bali88 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrongful conviction?

I understand there was a Brady violation, but I feel the article is proclaiming that he is innocent. It has never been proven that he is actually innocent. The recantations from Erickson and Trump are very questionable. If you actually read the trial transcripts, both Erickson and Trump gave very compelling testimony. I am considering making some edits to make it clear that Ferguson should still be considered a prime suspect in the murder of Kent Heitholt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countacolor (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, that is a minority viewpoint and not represented by the large bulk of the media coverage. It goes against wikipedia policy to go through trial transcripts and present one viewpoint that you believe is more compelling than how the media is covering it. I think basically they consider it to be along the lines of original research. Bali88 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be a minority viewpoint, but only because the majority hasn't done proper research. I believe the majority simply watched an episode of 48 Hours with Erin Moriarty, and that's the extent of their research. Minority viewpoint or not, I think it needs to be mentioned that Ryan Ferguson hasn't really been exonerated. I feel the article is a little too slanted towards his alleged innocence. Countacolor (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

When I initially wrote the article, I put "Ryan Ferguson is an American man widely believed to be wrongfully convicted" because he had not been formally exonerated. It was later changed to "he was wrongfully convicted" on the basis of the extent of that belief. We could change it back, but anything beyond that is original research and isn't going to fly. Bali88 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that would be much more appropriate. I just think that it's ridiculous that he's become a media darling when in all actuality he is probably guilty. Countacolor (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to discuss the merits of the case, but I'm curious as to what specifics seem so convincing to you. I haven't seen anything in the case that seems remotely reliable and to me, the only likely suspect is the coworker. Why don't you post the info you have on the case on my talk page and I'll take a look at it. Bali88 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Proclaiming popular beliefs as established facts tarnishes Wikipedia's credibility, like qualifying Amanda Knox, Ryan Ferguson as wrongfully convicted. Dmermerci~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Title

We can't come up with a better title than "Ryan Ferguson (wrongful conviction)"? Whenever I have seen an individual's name disambiguated by a parenthetical, the parenthetical is always a description of that person (for example, singer, football player, politician, etc.). At the disambiguation page for Ryan Ferguson, the other two Ryan Fergusons are disambiguated as "musician" and "footballer". I think we should come up with some noun that describes this Ryan Ferguson; "wrongful conviction" is not a description of the man. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, as in the discussion thread above, I don't think that "wrongful conviction" is an appropriate description of Ferguson. Yes, he was released from prison and, yes, his charges were dismissed. But, technically and legalistically speaking, that does not mean that he is an "innocent" man and that he was "wrongfully convicted". (Even though, personally, I feel he is indeed innocent.) Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, as regards this case his status is not any more convicted, so ex-convict would be wrong, then his status is not proven innocent either, but with conviction vacated, empty, like any other member of the public.Dmermerci~enwiki (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah...I just can't think of anything better. If anyone has any other suggestions, we can discuss them. Although, when it comes to a situation like this where it is a pretty widely accepted world view, we can probably err on that side of things. If we changed it to something like "overturned conviction", it would just be weird and a lot of people wouldn't know what that meant. I definitely see what you're saying, but honestly, I think it's probably about the best we're going to get in this situation. I wish he had a less common name so we could forgo that part altogether. If people are really bothered by it, we could figure out his middle name and use it. But since he doesn't use it commonly, that's not an ideal strategy either. Bali88 (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I am not sure I was clear in my post. I am suggesting that we find a noun that describes Ferguson. Most other disambiguation titles are somewhat a description of the person's job or role (e.g., politician, singer, actor, baseball player, etc.). A disambiguation of "wrongful conviction" does not adhere to that general format. (Not to mention my point above that I don't think this technically qualifies as a "wrongful conviction" to begin with.) How about something like "exonerated inmate" or "exonerated prisoner"? That isn't the most pleasant moniker to receive, but that is indeed what he is known for. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the following category article titles: [[Category:Overturned convictions in the United States]]. As food for thought, these are some of the pages listed there: Richard Alexander (exonerated convict); Charles Hudspeth (convict); Michael Morton (criminal justice); and Bill Wilson (convict). Maybe these are examples of some similar titles to consider? So, we have: exonerated convict; convict; criminal justice; convict; and (in Ryan Ferguson's case) wrongful conviction. Thoughts on renaming this article? Also, as I think about it, I think that all of these "wrongful conviction" titles should use some consistent terminology. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see what you're saying. Personally, I prefer wrongful conviction because it gives the reader the most information. He wasn't exonerated, so that's not a perfect title. He's not a convict, and even saying he's a former convict or an exonerated convict leaves us with the word "convict", which sort of a loaded term. And to me, criminal justice could lead the reader to believe he's a lawyer or something. Honestly, I'm not sure there is a perfect solution here. Even though it's an abnormal format, wrongful conviction is my preference, followed by "criminal justice". If we're valuing consistency over specificity, I think "criminal justice" is preferrable. There are any number of variables when it comes to this sort of thing. Some are widely believed to be innocent, some are widely believed to be guilty, sometimes it's just a lack of evidence, etc.

I'll see some digging and see if I can get any other ideas. Bali88 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that, legally and technically, this is not really a "wrongful conviction". That implies (very strongly) that this is a case of an innocent man who was imprisoned and then, later, he was freed when his innocence was determined. That is definitely not the case here. Also, I think we should use a word that describes the person, not a "generic word" that describes the holistic situation (e.g., "wrongful conviction" or "criminal justice"). Also, remember, the purpose of the title is not really to give the reader the most information about the individual. The purpose is simply to disambiguate him from all of the other "Ryan Fergusons" out there (at this page: Ryan Ferguson). At the end of the day, his "fame", notoriety, and notability derive from the fact that he was an inmate or a convict or a prisoner (all negative sounding words, to be sure, but nonetheless accurate). And he was released (or, possibly, "exonerated") due to, essentially, a legal technicality. I don't even think that "exonerated" is the correct term; again, that strongly implies innocence. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the technicality part. Verdicts are never overturned due to technicalities. But that's a conversation for another time and another place. Honestly though, that's why he's famous. People believe him to be innocent. Most of the evidence points away from him. So I don't think we need to shy away from those terms. Even if they aren't technically correct, it still describes the situation. He's notable because people believe him to be innocent. Also, if your goal is consistency, "criminal justice" is a better route. There are a wide variety of situations and levels of guilt. Perhaps we should get some input from others on the topic before we decide how all criminal biographies are titled. Bali88 (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Some comments in response. (1) Verdicts are nearly always overturned due to legal technicalities. It is extremely rare for a verdict to be overturned due to the factual innocence of the convicted person. In this case, I believe that the legal technicality was a Brady violation: the prosecutors did not hand over certain materials to the defense during the discovery process. That is a "legal technicality". This is a far cry from some official (like a judge) claiming that Ferguson is factually innocent and did not commit the crime. (2) Yes, he is famous for being let out of jail. The vast majority of consumers (news consumers) simply "think" that the judge let him out because he is innocent. That is an oversimplification of the situation. And it is 100% incorrect. Most consumers do not know – and do not want to be bogged down with – legal technicalities, such as a Brady violation. By the way, the media doesn't help the situation. Nonetheless, we cannot perpetuate that incorrect interpretation of the situation here. (3) People believe that he is innocent. Yes, of course. And other people also believe him to be guilty. There are two sides. Some think that he is an innocent man wrongly convicted. Some think that he is a murderer who got out on a technicality. That is, he "got away" with murder. In fact, if you read some of the comments on this very Talk Page (above), you will see that some people think him to be guilty. (4) Most of the evidence points away from him? I never heard that. In fact, if that were true, how did a jury find him guilty to begin with? (5) He's notable because people believe him to be innocent. This is not true. That is your interpretation of the situation. He is notable because he served many years in prison and a judge let him out after ten years (which is rare and atypical). Some think he is an innocent man rightfully let out of prison; some think he is a guilty man wrongfully freed from prison. He is "famous" for being freed from prison after many years of incarceration; he is not "famous" for being found innocent. (6) This is somewhat tangential, but I will mention it nonetheless. As someone above stated, he is a "media darling". The guy is handsome, well spoken, and charismatic. It makes for a great media story. People eat that stuff up. How many "plain" or "ugly" people get freed from prison and their name becomes a household name? None. Case in point: Amanda Knox. She pretty much got a lot of media attention because she was a young pretty girl who doesn't fit our "image" of what a murderer should look like. Same with Ryan Ferguson. If he were not so handsome and charismatic, his story would never hit the media at all. (7) As far as "criminal justice", that is not a descriptor of the individual, which is how disambiguation titles are handled. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I disagree with the use of the word technicality is because most people use the term to imply that the reason is insignificant. A loophole in the laws. Now, I have no idea how you yourself meant it, but it sounded to me like you were saying it was some sort of loophole or that it shouldn't have been overturned. I mean, why point out that someone's verdict was overturned on a technicality if you are just describing how *every* verdict is overturned? Why not just say it was overturned? A brady violation in and of itself is not enough to overturn a conviction. The brady violation has to be big enough that it IMPACTS THE VERDICT, and quite likely Zoellner's evidence of actual evidence influenced the judge in his decision even if it wasn't the reason he overturned it on. And I do disagree with you that he's popular just because he's a hunk. Sure, it's a part of it, but not nearly the full reason. People were quite persuaded by the 48 hours shows he was on and I see him commonly referred to as wrongfully convicted in the media. Either way. This talk page isn't the place to discuss that. I do oppose changing all of the titles without further discussion involving others. I suggest starting a discussion on the crime wikiproject or the biography wikiproject to get additional feedback. Bali88 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So, we will have to agree to disagree then. No problem. Now, putting Ryan Ferguson aside, we should still come up with a decent disambiguation title for all of these similar "wrongful conviction" individuals. I will see if others weigh in here, in our discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Ping me when you do and I'll join in the discussion. Bali88 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So, where is the best page to do that? Here on this page? Or somewhere else? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are many problems with this article; it should probably be thoroughly rewritten to reduce bias. I would suggest adding the parenthetical descriptor "(ex-convict)" to the title to maintain NPOV in accordance with Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.121.235 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. In general, what types of problems are you referring to within this article? Also, why do you say that "ex-convict" follows the Wikipedia policy? In my post above, none of the disambiguation pages used the phrase "ex-convict". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 'convict' is better than 'conviction'. In terms of the 'wrongful' part, the conviction was vacated, so under American law, he is presumed to be innocent. 'Exonerate' - literally, to take off ('ex-') the burden ('onus') of a conviction - is a good word for this situation, so I'd go with "(exonerated convict)", as is used for Richard Alexander. Λυδαcιτγ 03:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of "wrongful", he is not a conviction — a conviction is a decision, not the person to whom it applies. Something like (prisoner) would perhaps be better, since it avoids the error of (conviction) and allows us not to worry about deciding between terms such as of "wrongful", "ex", "overturned", etc. Although he's no longer a prisoner, we routinely use known-for qualities in disambiguation even if they're temporary, e.g. Ion Popa (politician) is no longer a politician, and Jeff Schmidt (baseball) may well not be involved in baseball anymore. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you feel is biased. There is a lot of coatracking done regarding his attorney Kathleen Zoellner. I'm not sure who is doing her PR, but they're working overtime on wikipedia. I reduced it some, but it's still apparent in the article. (For instance, on her own page, there was one of her clients who she had worked out a deal for him to confess to certain other homicides in exchange for a reduced sentence. They had it written up like her supreme powers of persuasion convinced this guy to plead guilty to all these crimes solely for the benefit of humanity. lol) It's interesting that you bring up the baseball one. Schmidt himself is not a baseball. He's a baseball player. It would appear that at least some of the identifiers are not describing the person, but the field they're in. I think wrongful conviction is fine. At some point, we need to consider if this is really going to help people understand the situation any better of if we're just being pedantic. I can't see a single reason why changing it from wrongful conviction to exonerated convict is going to help people understand the situation. Bali88 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently (baseball) is a standard disambiguator for baseball players (lots of biographies include it in the title, at any rate), so yes, the field of relevance comes up a lot. Ferguson isn't in a field called "wrongful conviction" either; if we follow that track, (criminal justice) is best. (wrongful conviction) makes it sound like the article discusses a concept named after a person, a la Bloody Mary (cocktail), not the person himself. Nyttend (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I only have a quick moment for a quick response. I tend to agree with Nyttend. Also, as I mentioned above, I think we need to come up with consistent disambiguation terminology for all of these similar cases, not just Ryan Ferguson. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a step in the wrong direction (it's less clear to readers what he's famous for), but of all the alternatives, I object to (criminal justice) the least. Bali88 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Terms like "prisoner", "convict", "ex-prisoner", "ex-convict", "inmate", etc., are exactly what he is "famous" (notable) for. A term such as "criminal justice" is so broad and generic as to be least helpful of all. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with (exonerated convict)? Λυδαcιτγ 08:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I personally oppose the use of the term convict in relation to this article is that it's a loaded term and it conveys the exact opposite of what we're trying to convey. If I introduced you as an ex-convict to a friend, they would assume you committed a crime, were in prison for it, had served your sentence, and were released. No one hears "ex-convict" and assumes that the case was overturned or that you were wrongfully convicted. I oppose inmate for the same reason. The term "exonerated" conveys what we want conveyed, but there is so much opposition to calling him exonerated when he hasn't legally been exonerated, I don't think we should go there. The prosecutor is still contending that he is guilty. At least a few wikipedians have chimed in to say they believe he is guilty. You can be guilty and still be wrongfully convicted if the prosecution framed you or people perjured themselves. He has not legally been exonerated, regardless of how much we believe he is innocent. And anyone can be a prisoner. That's even less descriptive. Was he a POW? Was he kidnapped?

If we went with those, it would feel like we're choosing them for technical reasons as opposed to practical ones. The entire purpose of coming up with these things is to communicate to the reader what the article is about. Choosing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Choosing ex-convict solely because it refers to the person as opposed to the situation gives the reader an inaccurate view of who this person is and why he is notable. I know Spadaro is saying he's notable because he was he's a hot felon...I disagree. It may have helped the press take notice of the case, in the same way hot missing white women get all the press, but he's notable because of the craziness involving his conviction and his sentence being overturned. If we aren't focusing on people believing his innocent, we're doing our readers a disservice. With the exception of some puff pieces in conjunction with his fitness book coming out, all of the media coverage surrounding the case has been focused on this guy who is incarcerated who is probably wrongfully convicted.

If the title of the article is bothersome to that many people, I wouldn't be opposed to doing Ryan W. Ferguson for this specific article. To me, that seems like the best solution for this particular article. If he's using that for his book, that's good enough for me. But if the discussion is supposed to decide what to do with other similar articles, that solution, of course, doesn't help us. If conformity is something we want to do, I would suggest going with (criminal justice) simply because there are so many individual circumstances and it would be impossible to come up with a title that conforms to all of them. For instance, there are a couple of wrongful convictions who went back to prison for other crimes. They aren't technically ex-convicts. Some of them are culturally viewed as wrongful convictions, like the West Memphis Three, but whose conviction still stands. So it makes sense that we would go with something broad if people are valuing conformity. Bali88 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You make many good points. I think we should come up with some "generic" phrase that works for all of these cases. You are correct in that the individual cases will all have various degrees of nuance, so something as generic as possible will assist in conformity. However, I never said that Ferguson was "notable because he's a hot felon". Where did you get that from? I said that his looks and attractiveness and charisma (along with the bizarre legal circumstances) have all helped to propel his case into being national news. Lots and lots and lots of prisoners are released from prison. Some after far more time incarcerated than Ferguson; some under more concrete absolutions (e.g., have been definitively proven to be innocent). None of those (more compelling) cases make national news for more than a day or two. They are largely forgotten. And, certainly, those individuals do not become household names (like Ryan Ferguson). Or Amanda Knox, etc. Someone above referred to him as a "media darling", with which I agree. It's a good "story", it's an "easy sell" to the public, and it makes for increased ratings, sales, and viewership. We cannot pretend that these issues do not exist (i.e., in how the media "makes" and "propels" what is or is not "news", for their own benefit and financial gain). Plus, I get the feeling that his lawyers and her legal team had a lot to do with securing as much media play as possible (for whatever various reasons they have). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if I misrepresented your POV. I have kids, it's been a long week. ;-) Bali88 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Side issue

Related to the discussion above, I'd like to raise a side issue. Can we simply name this article "Ryan W. Ferguson" and be done with the whole disambiguation problem altogether? Or is that not a good idea? I have very little familiarity with the Wikipedia rules and conventions for disambiguating and for correctly "naming" (identifying) an individual. Does changing this article to "Ryan W. Ferguson" make things better? Or worse? And is it even "acceptable" by Wikipedia rules? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I never knew his middle name or his middle initial. But, I was aware that he just wrote and published a book. So, I looked up his book on the Barnes & Noble website, where it is being sold. In the foreword or introduction to the book, he signs his name as "Ryan W. Ferguson". See here: [1]. Is this "good enough" proof? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution for this article. Let's do it. Bali88 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See Gordian knot. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys want me to do the name change? Have we reached consensus for Ryan W. Ferguson? Bali88 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that we had reached consensus, until I read Nyttend's "Gordian Knot" comment. I think that we need to come up with a good disambiguation term for all of these cases. not just for Ryan Ferguson's case. I guess that using the middle initial "W" is just a way to avoid the larger problem. Which I think needs to be resolved. So, my vote: hold off on the "W" for Ryan Ferguson for now. Let's try to reach consensus for a consistent term for all of these cases. Then, of course, that result will also resolve the Ryan Ferguson issue, as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, lol...I read the article and thought he was saying that he was saying that using Ryan W. Ferguson was "thinking outside the box" and that he agreed with it. Nyttend, we need you to clarify what you're talking about. Bali88 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We were trying different strategies for untying the knot, and Joseph just pulled out a sword and cut it with far less effort. Here we had a long discussion about what the best disambiguator was, and Joseph Spadaro produced solid evidence for an outside-the-box situation that's better than any of the things we'd been discussing; see my comment below. I thought my support for "W" would be unambiguous; I'm sorry that I confused you. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, do you guys believe it is better to disambiguate using an initial or through using a distinguisher in parentheses (in all circumstances, not just this one)? Should we avoid using parentheses when we can? Which should we approach first in future cases? Bali88 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Initials are pretty much always better. Parentheses are pretty much always our own creations, not particularly intuitive to someone unfamiliar with our naming conventions; once you've seen Jeff Schmidt (baseball), you might guess that other players are also disambiguated with (baseball), but you won't have any idea until you're familiar with our disambiguation system, and you might even think that it was some sort of classification system, i.e. we just put (baseball) after players' names rather randomly. The middle initial, however, is more intuitive: it's part of his name, and even if you've never heard his middle initial, you can immediately understand why it's there. It's like if we had two Joseph Spadaros and we knew their middle initials: "Joseph A. Spadaro" and "Joseph Z. Spadaro" are better than "Joseph Spadaro (Connecticut resident)" and "Joseph Spadaro (Mensa member)". PS, plus, it makes it easier for us as editors. In 99.9% of cases, there won't be disagreement over the middle initial (sources either give it or don't, and mistakes like Leonidas K. Polk are exceptionally rare), so if we're using initials, we often won't have to spend time on deciding what the best parenthetical disambiguation is. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I misinterpreted Nyttend's "Gordian Knot" comment. I thought that the Gordian Knot reference meant: "we are not really addressing the real issue here (i.e., how to disambiguate all of these people); we are merely avoiding it and procrastinating a resolution to the real issue". But, in fact, Nyttend's reference meant: "this is good outside-the-box thinking and we now have a good solution to the problem". So, if everyone else is good with the "W" for Ryan Ferguson, I am also good with that. Side note: I'd still like to see all those other cases somehow fixed, edited, or at least made consistent (perhaps simply with middle initials). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we often don't know the middle initial, so sometimes we'll still have to stick with a parenthetical. It's pretty much always the best solution when it's possible, but I'm not trying to suggest that this middle-initial approach will work for all or nearly-all users. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, in both of the other Ryan Fergusons, we don't know the middle initial. We only "lucked out" with finding the "W" initial for this Ryan Ferguson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Thanks guys. If we have consensus, I'll make the change. Bali88 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? I cannot find the relevant Discussion at that link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Really sloppy error at the outset of the article!

Look, I generally don’t like to be scolding, and I believe in keeping a civil tone even when I encounter those who do not hold to this philosophy. But the following is really sloppy:

“Ryan W. Ferguson (born October 19, 1984) is an American personal trainer and author who spent nearly 10 years in prison after being convicted of a 2001 murder in his hometown of Columbia, Missouri. At the time of the murder, Ferguson was a 19-year-old college student.[2]

“Kent Heitholt was found beaten and strangled shortly after 2 am on November 1, 2001.”

To have a mistake like this at the outset of an article is really negligent. In the first paragraph we have the subject’s (correct, as in the info box) birth date and in the second paragraph we have the (again, correct) date of Mr. Heitholt’s murder. Now, what’s wrong here? Let’s be more careful. Does someone want to change this or should I?

Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. In the very first paragraph, this article states: At the time of the murder, Ferguson was a 19-year-old college student. Under the "Murder" heading, the very first sentence states: On the same evening, 17-year-old high school junior Ryan Ferguson and another junior Charles Erickson were attending Halloween parties in the area. Reference #2 at the bottom of the article's page directs to a court decision ([2]). On Page 5 of that court decision, it reads: The night Mr. Heitholt was murdered, Erickson and Ferguson (who were then juniors in high school) had been drinking together at By George, a club located within a few blocks of the Tribune. So, I will correct the errors in the first paragraph of the article. Ferguson was a 17-year-old high school student, not a 19-year-old college student, on the night of the murder. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, per the article: In March, 2004, Erickson and Ferguson were arrested and charged with the murder. So, Ferguson was age 19 at the time of his arrest, not at the time of the murder. This is likely the source of the discrepancy. The article would have been correct, if it had stated: "At the time of his arrest for the murder, Ferguson was a 19-year-old college student." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias?

A tag was placed on the article that mentioned conflict of interest and bias issues...I don't see any major issues with the article and am unsure which author is supposedly causing problems. If the user who placed the tag could describe the issue on the talk page, we can discuss it and possible solutions. Thanks. Bali88 (talk)

Ryan was born in Australia not Missouri

Ryan was born in Australia, not Missouri! Carirock (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Been there with my son /vindicated but same bs

Nice to here back 2001:1970:4960:C400:0:0:0:ECD5 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles Erikson freedom

This one is for Ryan I watched your documentary today and it just broke my heart I've actually watch several different whether movies or documentaries on wrongly convicted people and it just it's so frustrating knowing that that is our judicial system and how do people keep getting away with doing that to people wrong in them that way so my heart goes out to you and in the movie or documentary I seen your your compassion you had for the two gentlemen that lied in the original court but came back to tell the truth I seen him at the compassion you had for them and understanding avoiding me have done what they did and said what they said I to get why they did it you know being under that kind of pressure from people that are your superiors and having the fear of God pretty much put in them that they would end up where you did unless they cooperated the way they were asked to or told to I get it it was absolutely wrong on their part 100% I can't say I wouldn't do the same if it were me and their situation but I know me and I know I wouldn't do that I am so hard-headed and if somebody tells me I have to do this I will absolutely not do it just in spite regardless of the consequences but enough about that my question is you have so much Family behind you on your side helping you through it all to prove your innocence and now that you're out I heard in the documentary from your lawyer that got you out that you both were innocent so are you helping Charles Erickson prove his innocence since you understood why he did what he did and have so much compassion for him he still in jail for something he apparently didn't do either so who's behind him who's helping him he may have wrong turn the beginning but he certainly righted you in the end 2001:56A:F156:D600:E401:95E2:C02D:E013 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Ryan Ferguson (wrongful conviction" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ryan Ferguson (wrongful conviction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10 § Ryan Ferguson (wrongful conviction until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)