This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The Fox News report is from Aug 9 2005,[1] but the Findlaw source, which summarizes the case in greater detail, reports it as October 27, 2005.[2] Any thoughts on this? MartinezMD (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I overlooked this in the Fox report - "A federal judge will formally impose the sentence later."
It saddens me to know a crooked cop, convicted of a heinous crime of First Degree premeditated murder, was seeking compassionate release. It was denied.
Moreover, it is extremely disgusting that a co-conspirator of such a crime has a stand alone article and the victim does not. Maybe that is why there are articles such as Murder of Kim Groves, and not just a section is this persons article. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of naming it similarly when I wrote the article, but unfortunately the topic has taken on a broader significance since then, not the least of which is the presidential commutation of the death sentence as well as the discovery of tainted evidence leading to the false conviction of innocent people. MartinezMD (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: MartinezMD Not sure about what the "discovery of tainted evidence leading to the false conviction of innocent people" refers to in this regard. I am aware that there are innocent people behind bars. I have been there. Save for one piece of "irrefutable" evidence, a loving wife that found it "buried", and a tenacious lawyer, I might be serving a 99-year sentence. The death penalty was a possibility and I was being offered less if I cooperated. The corruption was so deep that it included the DA's office, a crooked cop, an equally crooked state worker's testimony, the worker's boss, and a state-paid psychiatrist. I was innocent and rejected the 99-year "reprieve" offer. A grand jury returned a "No True Bill" and I was to be freed. No, the prosecutor stacked 3 more enhanced charges and I spent more time fighting that. The lawyer was convinced I was innocent, before that one piece of evidence and certainly after, fought and attained my freedom. I lost everything material and spent a total of two years behind bars. That was over 30 years ago and by now I would surely be bones in a grave. I had a cop put a gun to my mouth and tell me I could disappear. Karma: The worker was gone, one cop (a chief) was in jail (10 years) and another cop suffered a debilitating stroke and died. Oh! the judge died, and I am still here. It would be hard to argue that there are not severely crooked people in the position of authority. After all that I have a problem not considering that some atrocities are so egregious that, in some cases, air-conditioned housing (all new prisons), feeding, clothing and somewhat caring for a prisoner for their lifetime, seems to equate to them getting away with such despicable actions.
I CANNOT fathom equating my horrible journey to the egregiousness of a cop, acting "Under color of law" (and don't forget his partner), using his power to orchestrate the contract killing of a witness, Kim Groves. I live in Louisiana and the media has been all over the widespread corruption, especially since the hurricane. The fed just released the NOPD from oversight and the Mayor (and others") will likely face federal charges.
The subject is not an innocent person according to the published sources, more than one jury, the courts, more than once, witnesses testimony to the heinous crime, and the defendant's own words. It does not matter if an editor is a proponent or opponent of abortion or the death penalty, the law is the law, which can change unless Constitutionally protected, and then still can.
NCRIME (our editing guidelines) states, As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act..., which does not include the criminal. Yes, a criminal can end up with individual notability. An article, "Murder of Kim Groves" (Murder of Kim Marie Groves if needed) focuses on the notability of the event and not the involved parties, especially not on the perpetrators. Critics disagree with Biden's mass pardons and Davis rejected his commutation but the luxury is not his to reject. He is in no danger of being executed at this point so there is no argument for or against the death penalty here. There is also no logical argument for possibly protecting the innocent.
I don't care if there is an article on a convicted killer but under our guidelines, the victim, family[3], and friends can be considered a nobody. The victim(s) are not notable even though in almost every instance of the naming of a criminal, the victim's name (in this case Kim Groves) is right there. The "Murder of..." option is better than giving a nefarious person a personal immortalizing article so that person can become infamous -- and "maybe" an agenda can be pushed.
I wonder why it is hard to find witnesses in Louisiana. If a crime involving the law is reported the person may find themselves a nobody in a ditch, or alligator food. My brother supposedly committed an execution-style murder, with tons of sources, but I won't attempt to give him encyclopedia coverage. He died in prison under a plea bargain. As an editor, I to push to get others to look at both sides of an argument fairly. Anyway, I am not going to push for a title change. That can be someone else's battle. The Karma is the subject will fade away in a prison somewhere
See: .."using nitrogen gas to execute man"[4] and the ending statements. Immortalized after the brutalizing rape and murder of Molly Elliott,
Update on comments: I did see the connection to the "false conviction of innocent people" in the "Aftermath and later developments" section but that could be covered as well. It is no real justice but Kunta Gable, Leroy Nelson, and Bernell Juluke are victims of a rogue cop committing atrocities under color of law. Maybe they will get some small satisfaction from a settlement. Instead of being "a nobody" they should be mentioned by name. I can not see a valid argument as to why the victims of atrocities should remain nameless while perpetrators (sometimes alleged) are afforded their names in neon lights. There might even be an instance where someone could commit a "newsworthy" atrocity to get their name published in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia might save some lives by being neutral. Who knows right? -- Otr500 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know enough here. The murder of a young mother doing the right thing is beyond detestable, but as I mentioned there are more things in this instance. There is the entire issue of NOPD corruption (see Antoinette Frank as another example), the FBI sting, the presidential commutation (and why was Davis spared but not Frank?), and the victims of Davis's false testimony. Ultimately in my personal consideration I felt it tipped slightly in favor of naming the article being about the criminal and his criminal acts, otherwise should there be an article named "The wrongful conviction of Bernell Juluke" or the others? I don't feel so strongly I would fight to keep the name as it is, but I do believe from an academic standpoint it is more appropriate here. I'll add the names of the other victims since I see them published now. I don't recall coming across them before. MartinezMD (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
