Talk:Murder of Mark Fisher

Page Moved

Due to issues on this page I have moved the page over to the Murder of Mark Fisher. The page can now be about the event and not about one of the 3 people involved in the event. Hopefully this will prevent further vandalism to the page. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Vandalism

This page is being vandalized by a person or people connected to this page. I am still of the opinion that this individual should not even have a page but the page should instead be renamed - The Murder of Mark Fisher. Does anyone agree with this? Should we move the page over? And is there a good way to stop the editing war? Any recommendations would be appreciated.Drsammyjohnson (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

• User:2603:7000:2143:8500:31B5:246A:5626:EDCA warned for recent page edits. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Unconfirmed editors are continuously updating the page. Adding in speculation, opinion, biased, information. Given the case history and ongoing attempt by the family to overturn this conviction, one can only assume the edits are being made by close connections to the convicted. If any admin has the ability to partially protect this page - I think it a worthwhile venture. I have done my best to present only facts about this case/ person. Any help would be appreciated. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Rewrite

I completely agree with the above. This article is biased, it is about the case and not Guica. Guica's partner in crime, Antonio Russo doesn't have a page - I don't believe Guica should have one either. This page is and should be be about the case - it should be renamed to The Murder of Mark Fisher. I will work on a redraft Drsammyjohnson (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Rewrite Update + New Namespace

I am in the process of editing this page to reflect Guica's involvement in this case and not the case as a whole. I have moved most of the trial content to User:Drsammyjohnson/The_Murder_of_Mark_Fisher with plans to create a new namespace once all the content is edited. Despite the immense changes so far - it is difficult to separate Giuca from the case. Because of this I believe his page should be redirected to the new page. The information on this page is about the murder and the case not about Giuca. It may take a while for me to work through this one. Any help would be appreciated. Also - the refs on this page need lots of work! Please respond with your thoughts on how to continue to make this page better and I will continue to work on it. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

• I have spent time making significant updates to this page. Despite this, the vast majority of information on this page is about the trial of Mark Fisher's murder, so I am reaffirming my recommendation that this content should be moved to a new namespace. If anyone has any thoughts or objections please let me know. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

This article lacks balance

On the plus side, the article is lengthy enough and has its due share of documentation. Maybe I'd quibble about Counterpunch, Gothamist, Epstein & Weil, and Youtube as reliable sources, but the main problem I have with this article is its lack of balance.

Problems appear immediately. Giuca is said by the article to have been arrested “in connection to” the crime. Actually, the prosecution explanation of why Giuca was on trial, which would seem to have been accepted by the jury, was that victim Fisher "fell asleep on a couch but - drunk and with an Ecstasy pill in his system - was awakened by Mr. Guica, who led him from the house, prosecutors said. Then Mr. Guica and Mr. Russo beat him and eventually fired five shots into his chest...” (New York Times, 9/28/2005).

The article then focuses on Giuca's mother's attempt to free him. Giuca's case garnered attention not because of his mother's efforts to free him, but from having been convicted of a shocking crime.

Then we read that his most recent re-hearing request was denied because of a “technicality”. Of course, everyone hates the so-called technicalities of the law, whether it's folks getting off because of them, or as portrayed here, victimized by them -- but the article doesnt explain what this "technicality" is. Citing Giuca's own reply brief, not the court's decision, is certainly not the reliable source explanation a reader should be able to access.

Evidently someone doesn't approve of the felony murder doctrine, and the entire paragraph devoted to express this disapproval is really there to suggest Giuca lacks culpability for a crime he might not have “directly” taken part in. A more balanced article would also explain the justification for the felony murder doctrine.

Most of the article is devoted not to the crime, victim, evidence presented at court, items such as “the girlfriend of the alleged triggerman in the 2003 murder of Mark Fisher ’06 testified in Brooklyn state Supreme Court that her boyfriend confessed his crime to her hours after it was committed, according to The New Jersey Herald.” (fairfieldmirror.com, Oct 31, 2005) Nothing about Giuca's demeanor in court, nor the really short two-hour time it took for the jury to reach a verdict. Rather, it focuses almost entirely on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, the mother's attempts to free her son, and the defense's theories on appeal (but not, notably, the prosecution's).

The article really needs a major re-write in the interest of balance.

There is no mention here that Giuca considered himself head of the "Ghetto Mafia" street gang or that he was arrested for firing a weapon similar to the murder weapon in the streets of Brooklyn shortly before Fisher's murder. If this is not true, Giuca should sue Investigation Discovery. None of what is published here is included in their program of the crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.136.107 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

~~ Strongly agree with SineBot. This article is so biased, it could have been written by Giuca's defense team, possibly even his mother. There's virtually nothing about his crime -- the senseless and brutal murder of Mark Fisher, a nineteen-year old football star and honors student whose only crime was making the highly insecure John Giuca and the other members of his "Ghetto Mafia" feel inadequate. I guess it's easier for Giuca's mother to blame the jury, the prosecutor, and the Felony-Murder Rule rather than contemplate the reality that her son not only commanded one of his soldiers to show Fisher "what was up," he callously looked on as someone else's son was shot five times in the back (with John Giuca's .22 Ruger pistol), then left him to bleed to death on the sidewalk. John Giuca called his brother immediately after the crime took place. Why would he do that if he was in the house? Why aren't any of these FACTS in the article? Now that the truth has been aired on television for the world to see, I fervently hope someone does a badly needed rewrite on this horribly biased article. Mark Fisher and his family deserve better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapunzel676 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What Rapunzel676 said. This looks like it was written by the convicted man's defense team. The crime is glossed over. Repeated rulings favorable to the state are treated in a perfunctory fashion, while the--unsucessful--arguments against those rulings are detailed aat considerable length. This article should be flagged for bias. Digthepast (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Article is not encyclopedic, it's got to be changed

The stuff about his mother's campaign is fine for the article about his mother, but there was way too much detail. Assertions or insinuations that he is innocent, someone else (a living person!) did it Giuca didn't and that he didn't get a fair trial due to corruption by named living people, can't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. That kind of thing has to be identified as the opinion of named individuals, such as his mother or his lawyer (btw That kind of thing carries more weight if an independent legal figure or jurist can be cited for the view that he did not get a fair trial and is innocent.). Only undisputed facts can be stated in Wikipedia's voice (still need refs of course). He was convicted on a charge of murdering Marc Fisher, information about Fisher is highly relevant. Of course there can be a section called 'Defense arguments' where the case for Giuca being innocent is made. But we can't say and imply that Giuca is innocent throughout the article using Wikipedias voice. Overagainst (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

Much of the article seems to be based on primary sources, notably police reports, court documents and youtube clips. Just take a peek at the section accusing the DA of inappropriate connections to Cleary's mother. I'm hesitant to remove it wholesale (though it would be acceptable by wiki policy) because I suspect there's reliable semi-secondary sources to support it, but it should be cleaned up ASAP. It's a borderline WP:BLP violation on the mother and the DA as is. Glaucus (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes the court transscript should not be cited for what are personal research, basically an editor's interpretations of the facts so much, news reports are the kind of source that should be cited Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By the book from now on

When the protected status ends the article should start to be edited collaboratively, that is, any proposed changes being given here first with well sourced references. There may be be alterations to proposed text in the light of criticism or suggestions about proposed text. One editor (Jritts) has edited the article 87 times without ever bothering to discuss things on this talk page, no more of that please. Also, edit summaries should be just that, they are not the place to argue for or against an edit. This talk page is the place for that.Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't think I am attempting to take over the editing of this article. I don't enjoy the time consuming (I'm slow and make a lot of mistakes) work involved in finding refs and composing text. Maybe some of my critics out there could do some work on a section of their own and then put it here for discussion. Publicity surrounding the case, especially pre trial, would be a good subject. Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The charge Guica pleaded guilty to

As I understand it at his trial Guica pleaded guilty to one charge which was firing a gun during a street confrontation when he was 17. The incident had been written up at the time as him letting off fireworks, but the team of DA's investigators and police that were on the Fisher case arrested him in Florida about this 3 year old incident and charged him with firing a gun. Guica said he was innocent of firing a gun when he was 17, but pleaded guilty to the charge relating to this old incident becuse fighting it could have cost him 15 years.

So he pleaded guilty to get a light sentence with credit for time served in jail. If he had not he could have been acquitted of the murder and robbery and gun charges, but still found guilty of and given 15 years on the unrelated charge relating to the incident that happened when he was 17. Is that a fair summary?Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

'Free John Guica' campaign section

I don't think the names of witnesses (or their mothers) should be used in this section. Even though the article is attributing the accusations against a witness to Guica supporters, it's still basically accusing an identified-by-name and not well known person of very serious wrongdoing. In the "'Free John Guica'" campaign section I think you-know-who should be called 'a crucial prosecution witness" or something like that. Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

Please correct spelling of "recieve" to "receive" Arjayay (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Giuca. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100611074128/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/news/ny_crime/2010/06/08/2010-06-08_jabbar_collins_wrongfully_convicted_of_murdering_rabbi_15_years_ago_wont_be_retr.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/06/08/2010-06-08_jabbar_collins_wrongfully_convicted_of_murdering_rabbi_15_years_ago_wont_be_retr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Giuca. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725022901/http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2005/primary/P2005KingsDem.pdf to http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2005/primary/P2005KingsDem.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120523191811/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-01/news/17920138_1_juror-john-giuca-doreen-giuliano to http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-01/news/17920138_1_juror-john-giuca-doreen-giuliano
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131021121149/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/05/convicts-mom-goes-underco_n_148669.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/05/convicts-mom-goes-underco_n_148669.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Giuca. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725022822/http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2005/general/Brooklyn/Kings%20District%20Attorney%20Recap.pdf to http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2005/general/Brooklyn/Kings%20District%20Attorney%20Recap.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725022925/http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2009/General/6.13KingsDistrictAttorneyRecap.pdf to http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2009/General/6.13KingsDistrictAttorneyRecap.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Giuca. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202055040/http://gothamist.com/2010/11/10/no_appeal_in_convicted_killers_mom.php to http://gothamist.com/2010/11/10/no_appeal_in_convicted_killers_mom.php

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) 08:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The article should be renamed The Murder of Mark Steven Fisher.

The article is actually about a murder investigation. Alternatively, the Trial of John Giuca might be a better alternative given the notoriety now comes form the conviction being overturned. Geo8rge (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adding an external links section?

• Mark Steven Fischer at Mem.com
• Mark Steven Fischer memorial
• Mark Fisher: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Geo8rge (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

I just deleted a paragraph that did not have an RS source because it had blp implications. If anyone objects, let's discuss it here. --2603:7000:2143:8500:5051:8E5:1B15:55B (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion/revert

User:Drsammyjohnson--This mass deletion/revert was not appropriate, and lacked any rationale for the many, many changes made - all of sourced information to RSs, and proper MOS editing.[1] The reverted edits were all proper, as can be plainly seen. The revert deletes RS-sourced information. There is zero reason for doing that, and it violates wikipedia rules. Kindly revert. And perhaps User:Materialscientist or User:LightandDark2000 who have edited here and seem seasoned can weigh in.--2603:7000:2143:8500:31B5:246A:5626:EDCA (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sammy - I've responded to your baseless accusations in great detail.User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:31B5:246A:5626:EDCA There is zero to them. Please revert. --2603:7000:2143:8500:FDBD:BCEC:20F:5F5 (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sammy - You are at it again. But I responded to your baseless accusations in great detail. Here - [2] There is zero to them. Please revert. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Other opinions on the above effort to make revisions

• User:Overagainst, User:Telcia, User:Materialscientist and User:Digthepast - It was suggested to me by an admin[3] that I seek input from others commenting on the substance of this article (before bringing the matter to ANI). I would like to input the RS-supported revisions. But an editor keeps on reverting my edits. I responded to your baseless accusations in great detail to no avail. Here - [4] It has been frustrating trapped one on one in a discussion with an editor who is not following the rules, and just deleting - without coherent fact-based reason - whatever he dislikes. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FD4C:B394:73B:BCEB (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article ought to have a tone that is neutral throughout, but not through jerkily switching back and forth between opposing POVs. Ideally I'd suggest consolidating the facts into a more readable account with less detail on legal rulings and dates of them. The relevant editors leaving the article for a while and creating integrated sections that can then be posted and discussed on Talk may be the best way. More compromise than editors usually seem to be willing to make is needed. Incidents ought to be in chronological order, and as I understand it Giuca was not charged with firing a gun in Miami until after he became a suspect in the murder of Fisher, it was after he was arrested I think. Mentioning more of the unusual features of the case such as Giuca and Russo being tried together as co-defendants (September 2005) but with two separate juries is not something anyone would object to I think. The defence and prosecution arguments in relation to Giuca could be the the subject of brief sections. Maybe a bit more about Giuca's mother (and the mystery of how she acquired details of the jurors addresses). Her campaign is a big part of why Giuca is notable and to mention the substance of it as her opinion is OK as long as it is not presented as objective fact I think. As I understand it jurors are asked if they may know any of the people in a case beforehand and excused if they do, so it could be mentioned the juror sitting on a case where he knew witnesses was improper. However, when all is said and done the current status of Giuca--protestations of innocence notwithstanding--is of a convicted criminal serving a sentence.Overagainst (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That impartial neutral tone, simply reflecting the RS coverage, is what my edits (reverted) are intended to apply. I have no POV on this at all. Nor do my edits. I think the detail is proper - it is what is in the RSs, and we let them decide, rather than us as individual editors. As to the chrono order - that's a point worthy of discussion (though not the problem here), as it would follow chrono, but break up content subject matter, which is another MOS approach we follow. We have to avoid OR - so, your assertion that the separate juries is notable as unusual if the RSs make that point, and I have no problem with it being mentioned as the RSs mention it. We can't call it unusual though, without an RS. The mother has her own article, so discussion of her here should be correspondingly minimized. Similarly, if we are to say that the jury set up is unusual, or your point about witnesses in this case, all that is fine if in RSs; otherwise, it is of course OR.

I've already posted above what I think should be acceptable appropriate RS-supported changes. They are these, which were reverted without cause.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:1544:2C08:6338:A34A (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)