User talk:76.187.5.68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.187.5.68) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Stephanie Crowe[edit]

Hello! I want you know that I have once again removed the information about the second missing knife from the Houser home. I presume you are getting this information from some source, but it needs to be cited as a reference. I did a brief search of news archives and couldn't find it anywhere. If you don't know how to cite a source, just tell me here at your talk page where the information comes from. If it is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, we can put it into the article; without a reliable source we can't. In the meantime, please don't keep adding it; you could be getting into a edit war which is frowned on by Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Escondido police report. Evidence discovery first trial of Richard Tuite. As for the "reliable" references in the article attributed to Union Tribune reporter Mark Sauers, he was played like a violin by Mary Ellen Attridge. It was a brilliant classic defense strategy to generate reasonable doubt in the potential jury pool and Sauers was any easy young naieve reporter who took the bait and Attridge reeled him in. Now that Tuite's innocence has finally been determined by a jury, a boatload of evidence never before presented to the public will now come out of the banker's boxes in which it has lain for a decade and a half. Houser's dilemma now is how is he going to solve the "Josh problem", knowing that Josh could flip on him and Michael at anytime. Contrary to what Mr. Sauers has written about the Treadway confession, the courts never ruled that it was coerced, only that the Oceanside confession was redundant and the Escondido confession remains to this day to be admissible. The truth about the knives was also never revealed by Sauers so it is now coming to light. Attridge and Silverman knew that they had to win this thing in the court of public opinion because if the evidence that was collected ever came out in a trial of the boys, they knew that they would lose. So they played the classic SOG (some other guy) must have done it game. What they didn't anticipate is that Dumanis and the AG would use it to oust Pfingst in the election. Attridge didn't think that the innocent Tuite or anyone else would really be put on trial, never mind convicted. It's like children playing Russian roulette never thinking that the gun would ever actually discharge.

I repeat: Please say HOW YOU KNOW this information. We need to be able to see your sources so we can evaluate them. Are you getting the information from news reports? The internet? Personal knowledge? If we don't know where the information is coming from, we CANNOT use it in the article, no matter how convinced you are that it is true. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. One reason I have trouble believing this report: if Aaron Houser and his brother both had knife collections, why didn't their mother check both of them and report both knives missing to the police? Why only Aaron's? --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As for "easy young naive reporter", Mark Sauer had been at the Union Tribune for more than 20 years. [1]. And he was working with a co-reporter, John Wilkens, who had been at the paper for 10 years.[2] --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have read the original police reports. It doesn't matter if you continue to edit this article because the police report about the knife and thousands of pages from the investigation never before presented in public are about to see the light of day and the truth will be self-evident. The other knife was not reported missing by Houser's mother because she also probably believed that the knife in Treadway's possession was the murder weapon and she was attempting to separate her son from it, a rather amateurish move not unlike robbery suspects who report that their vehicles have been stolen after they used it in a robbery. The police believed then and believe now, that the murder weapon was disposed of and that Aaron gave his brother's knife to Josh as a diversion. The police learned of the other knife when they traced the purchase record to the grandfather in Minnesota and discovered that there were two identical knives purchased simultaneously. Other facts of the investigation such as the crack pipe and other drug paraphernalia found in the bed-stand of Stephanie's mother, found during the processing of the scene, was never revealed to the public. Contrary to the portrait painted by the Crowe/Howser/Treadway defense as spoon-fed to Sauers, that the Crowe household was a modern version of Leave it to Beaver, not all is as it seemed at chez Crowe. Have you ever watched Treadway's confession? He flipped on the other two once before and he'll eventually flip on them again. FYI, none of my information comes from news reports or the internet.

When the information "sees the light of day", it can be added to this article. Until it does, it can't. Wikipedia is very strict that everything in its pages must be supported by reliable sources. Right now you are trying to put information into an international encyclopedia based on just your own say-so, without any way for anyone else to confirm it. That is not allowed; it is considered original research. (Also, the fact that you have read the original police reports suggests that you are in some way a participant in the investigation or involved in the case; if that's true you may have a conflict of interest.) When the information becomes public, perhaps by the release of the police reports, THEN it can be added. Until it becomes public, it can't. I am going to delete the information, and I advise you not to re-add it until the information becomes publicly available. --MelanieN (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Final warning for adding unsourced information to articles[edit]

Melanie is correct; until the information sees "the light of day" you cannot add it to Wikipedia. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)