Jump to content

Talk:Carlos DeLuna

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

Execution date

[edit]

The Chicago Tribune has published DeLuna's time of death as "a few minutes after midnight on December 7" and the Columbia Human Rights Law Review has published December 8. As of this writing this article treats the CHRLR as the definitive source and says December 8, but there is an obvious discrepancy here. Bigturtle (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! Also, the official State of Texas Department of Criminal Justice website states December 7, 1989, as the execution date. (See this link: [1].) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the death date should be changed; the TDCJ is the custodian of the correct date, as they were there. So it has been done. Bigturtle (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV controversy

[edit]

Since the release of the Columbia study, this article has taken on a pro-DeLuna bias. The goal of a WP article is neutrality and verifiability. The article needs to be purged of biased claims like, "the release of the study has strengthened his claims of innocence."Bellczar (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the contrary, this is an accurate description of the circumstances surrounding the case. The release of the study has shown that there is a stronger argument for DeLuna's innocence than was previously acknowledged. Notice that the text you are objecting to does not say that DeLuna is in fact innocent. It merely states that the Columbia study makes the argument for DeLuna's innocence stronger than it was before. To assert otherwise would be to claim that the Columbia study had absolutely zero impact or significance whatsoever—and that would be a biased claim. Terence7 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of June 5, 2012, there is no pro-DeLuna bias in the article. If anything, the article is biased against him, leaving out many of the valid arguments made by the Columbia team while referring mainly to the trial transcript. -- TexasDawg (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is missing in the article up till now, is any explicit mentioning of the question of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". (In dubio pro reo is what makes the difference here between due process or a miscarriage of justice.) - Yes, I see that the debate is circling all around that, but no one makes the point. So please add some kind of a summary from a legal angle. (Sorry that I can't do that as I lack the expertise and am no native speaker of english.) -- 109.250.229.184 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard after a conviction. -- GertBySea (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to the conclusion that there are some folks who just won't see what's obvious. Only question is, whether it was observed or not in the first place. - Besides, thanks for lecturing me anyway. - And now there is just another thing you seem not to be quite aware of: WP is not solely a US-project for home consumption (or to my mind at least). Believe me, there are quite a few people around the globe who follow this case. - As for me, I'm from the old continent. And around here we would rather prefer some sense of fairness, common sense and decency instead of splitting up and yelling ideological slogans or twisting arguments. - Thanks, that's all for now. (109.250.229.184)-- 2.211.92.48 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed some serious misinterpretations of the Columbia report in the pretrial investigations section. The article as written failed to distinguish between "inventory" and the amount of cash in the register. As per Shamrock policy, Lopez would not have had more than $60 in the register (not all of which was taken) while DeLuna was found with about $150 on him. Conflating the register amount with the inventory shortage suggests that DeLuna stole all the money, whereas if Lopez was following store procedure this would have been impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.53.61 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who can contribute anything regarding professional police work?

[edit]

Was there any kind of valid physical evidence whatsoever? - Just read the crime scene investigator went from police work to real estate. - There surely are a few questions to be asked about state-of-the-art crime scene investigation. -- 46.115.36.45 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

[edit]

(e.g. Eyewitnesses: Baker) - This passage is somewhat difficult to read. - According to Columbia Report: Baker was in a hurry, pumps not working, turned to station, when realising what was on, hesitated a moment, rushed to help, closely encountered assailant, was threatened by assailant, rendered help to victim. - Reason why important: What was Baker's main focus of attention at each step. - If this line of the story is undisputed (which I don't know), and someone can put it in a few words, that would make it a bit more comprehensible for the reader. - It's a difficult task, but it would help the reader to always seperate clearly the undisputed part from the discrepancies. -

(e.g. Persuit of suspects) - Differing descriptions of 1 person or descriptions of 2 persons (as the Columbia Report suggests). Maybe, name it a theory, but it should be in there somewhere, and clearly marked as opinion or theory of CHRLR. Important, because that's what's given to the readers of "Los Tocayos Carlos". (Difficulty here is NPOV, but on the other hand readers would best be served to have this information, to make sense of how the debate is going.)

All this not meant to criticise contributors. (I'm new to WP.) -- 46.115.42.151 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Carlos DeLuna. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Carlos DeLuna. 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) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlos_DeLuna&oldid=1206927295"