Talk:Wrongful conviction of David Camm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes

I noticed a few things were changed: It said there was a citation needed after the part about wrongful conviction groups. What type of citation is needed? I included the link to wrongful conviction groups who are advocating for him. Is there some other type of citation that is preferred?

The part about him announcing his intent to file a civil suit, he said it in an interview. Do I need to put in the date of the interview? I wasn't sure people would care a whole lot of the date he said it. Is that something that is standard to include?

There is also a part where a sentence was changed from "Eleven witnesses told police..." to "11 witnesses told police...". I had it in my head that numbers are never to be used at the beginning of a sentence. Is there some encyclopedia standard for this?

Also, is there anything I can do to improve the perception of neutrality of the article? Are there parts that sound biased that I can fix? Bali88 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The note after "wrongful conviction groups" said clarification needed, not citation needed. I've fixed it and removed it.

You should always put in dates, although it's the date the source was published, not the date any interview was recorded or statement made. Thus 'David Camm still faces two civil suits after murder". WTHR. Retrieved January 2, 2014.' should be dated as October 25, 2013, as well as also keeping the retrieval date that you already have.

Wikipedia:ORDINAL agrees with you about not starting a sentence with figures; "Eleven witnesses told police..." is therefore correct. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the hidden text by Rossmo, does his comment differ from any other quotes given by experts who commented on or testified in the case? I am not Rossmo if that's what was meant by original research. He was a witness for the defense and testified to that in court. The reason I thought to include that particular quote is that when talking about living people doing illegal things, I thought perhaps it's more fair and balanced to frame it in a context of giving them the benefit of the doubt (saying this is possibly accidental misconduct vs. intentional illegal actions). Should I delete that section? Thoughts?Bali88 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Edited that section, does that improve the neutrality?Bali88 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the text before coming across this. I won't be adding it back, but won't fight over it if someone does. I don't personally see any reason to mention this, or at least not without further clarification. As I mentioned in my edit summary [1], if the two earlier convictions were overturned and he was aquited, this would automatically seem to imply they were wrongful convictions. Of course, it does depend what you mean by wrongful conviction. We don't currently have an article on that specifically, instead it redirects to Miscarriage of justice which mentions the terms are often used to mean the same thing. (The exception would be a type II error may sometimes be called a miscariage of justice per our article, but it wouldn't be called as wrongful conviction.) If it was intended to say the earlier convictions are what our article calls a travesty of justice, i.e. a gross, delibrate miscarriage of justice, (which many wouldn't apply to all wrongful convictions) this needs to be clarified. Alternatively if it was intended to say he's innocent and so should never have been found guilty (which doesn't of course means there was a delibrate miscarriage of ustice) then this should also be clarified. (I do recognise that a not guilty verdict doesn't definitely mean someone is innocent, but when combined with the appeals, it does mean the person shouldn't have been found guilty.) Also, I added mention of the earlier convictions. I don't feel this is that important it is written about later in the lead, but I added it because it's perhaps slightly confusing to mention a third trial without explaining why there was a third trial. (The other two could have had hung juries or been abandoned for example.) I actually initially edited because I felt mentioning that people felt his earlier convictions were wrongful convictions without even mentioning these convictions was confusing, before I decided the whole sentence wasn't really necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I felt it was necessary to put that was because there are many cases where the person is assumed to be guilty where their convictions are overturned. This man is perceived to be innocent by many people, including wrongful conviction advocates. Bali88 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Molestation allegations

You can't just omit any reference to the molestation allegations. For one thing, people know they were alleged and people believe there is evidence based on rumors they've heard. Explaining the nature of the allegations, how it played out in court, and why the allegations were rejected by the supreme court is important to help those people understand the nature of these things. Without that section, people will continue to believe that there actually is credible evidence. Those allegations are an integral part of this case and its important for the audience to understand how this all played out and the prosecutorial misconduct that went into it. Bali88 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"You can't just omit any reference to the molestation allegations". I did no such thing in my edit. The allegation that Carr had molested his 5 year old daughter was mentioned thrice in my edit. As you can see here, it's in the lede (mentioned in the full proper context of the second conviction being overturned because the prosecution told the jury Carr molested his daughter Jill their opening statement but brought forward no evidence to support their accusation. Then the molestation is mentioned in the second trial section, and finally in the prosecutorial misconduct section.

Currently there is a Molestation allegations section that begins "The molestation allegations remain controversial and there is little consensus as to the cause of Jill's injuries" and ends "The nature and the cause of Jill's injuries remain a mystery, as well does the time frame in which they happened. Camm denies ever abusing his daughter and has never been charged with any molestation-related offense.[69]" Not our job to discuss evidence in that way. Even if he was not a living person, WP:ALIVE, that phasing is weight and not NPOV. You cannot discuss such an accusation in the way the current section is doing with a whole section, about a living person, and then end by saying 'it's a mystery, he denies it and hasn't been charged with it.' Overagainst (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So you feel like it's not neutral the way it's written? I feel like this is the current status of things. There was nothing linking it to Camm, but the supreme court didn't rule that it wasn't a sexual assault and Boney's DNA is on Jill's clothing above the area. What wording specifically feels biased to you? Bali88 (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, what evidence feels non-notable to you? I left out the vast majority of the evidence and I feel like the evidence included was pretty crucial to the case. Bali88 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please indent your comments. I have already given my reasons and supplied quotes in bold of the beginning and end of the section, which I think is showing an unacceptable tone and content throughout, especially for a allegation of this type about a living person. You saying "There was nothing linking it to Camm, but the supreme court didn't rule that it wasn't a sexual assault" is an odd way to look at it and not in line with my understanding of BLP policy. I think you need much better reasons, and support from some cited WP guidance on BLPs for the article remaining as it is.Overagainst (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

you're going to have to be clearer on how exactly this violates BLP. I see nothing contentious about the section whatsoever.Bali88 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please cite where WP:ALIVE in yor opinion says you can use the kind of language I bolded above. I see that John from Idegon, Arthur goes shopping and others have tried to explain the problems with the page, to little avail. I'll give you time to think over what I have been saying, and re read what others have been saying.Overagainst (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

none of those posters were discussing molestation allegations. The bias comment was related to the rossmo quote. I wrote it in a way that made him think I was rossmo for some reason. And the other guy was discussing the article as it was like three months ago when it was very different from how it is now. It was the first article I wrote and I was still ironing out the kinks when they wrote those comments. I fixed every issue they brought up and then went out and sought second opinions on whether I had done it correctly. Seriously, how does this violate BLP? I'm not seeing it. Bali88 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, as we disagree would you please cite WP:ALIVE. Please cite where, in your opinion, WP:ALIVE says you can use the kind of language I bolded above. I know you don't understand why I think it's a BLP violation. But surely it is but a simple matter to cite the WP:ALIVE guidance in support of the tone about allegations against a living person.Overagainst (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read BLP guidelines thoroughly on a number of occasions. I could be wrong on this, but I think I remember reading that it's not so much my responsibility to prove that I'm within guidelines as it is yours to demonstrate that I'm not. I'm going to go through dispute resolution to get a second opinion on this. If you are unwilling to tell me exactly what policies I'm violating, I cannot fix them or avoid them in the future. Bali88 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Overagainst (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I cannot remove contentious material if you won't tell me how the material is contentious. I'm not seeing it. Bali88 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, did you read how I revised the area containing the molestation allegations? As is, it is awkward. It needs more context.Bali88 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes

Overagainst, I'm concerned that the changes you made were somewhat biased. The page can't be too pro-david. As much as I think David is innocent, we need to maintain the neutrality of the article and let the evidence speak for itself. Let's discuss the changes first. Bali88 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The encyclopedic aspects are that he had three trials, and the court acquitted him at the last one. We don't imply he may have done it or is innocent, we just report what reliable sources say. The various verdict are given as what they are is. So is the fact, widely reported in reliable sources, that Boney had a certain MO with similarities to the murders. There is way to much evidence non notable evidence given in the article. The real evidence of note was that the interpretation of the blood stains was questioned. According to a world authority on forensics, the field of interpreting such stains was a hit or miss business that has rever been shown to be reliable, and wasn't done using the principles of scientific investigation. So he was given the benefit of the doubt, as is every person in a US court. Overagainst (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the discussion of the forensic evidence is too complex for the lead and reads better if discussed in its own section. I think it's easier for the reader if we discuss what the evidence was, how the evidence came about, then discuss the reliability of that evidence. Someone who is unfamiliar with the case might be confused if we discuss blood spatter analysis in the lead without first discussing why that's relevant in the case.

Boney's MO could definitely find a place in the article. Perhaps we could describe his MO though. :-) Bali88 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discovery of a second suspect section already does discuss his MO. You keep proposing additions that are already in there. The lede summarises the whole article, and not just the charges. The court acquitted Camm. Not for us to try and help readers decide if the evidence against him was unreliable. Anyway, we are not some fact finding body that exhaustively reviews the evidence. It's just an encyclopedic article on the subject.Overagainst (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not promoting changes that are already there, I'm trying to compromise. If you feel his mo belongs in the lead, we can work on putting it there is what I'm saying. I didn't feel like there was any review of the evidence. I simply summarized how the news sources are describing the evidence. Bali88 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I reached out for feedback from other users and one of them said this: The wording that jumps right out at me is "Blood stain patterns on Camm's clothing were interpreted as evidence of his guilt, and he was convicted of the murders." in the lead, and it is quite a few sentences later that it is finally mentioned that highly qualified experts disputed that evidence. Instead, we learn in the next sentence about marital infidelity. Why does that belong in the lead of an article about a man acquitted of murder? I don't have any idea myself who did the killing. But WP:BLP imposes a major burden on us to be scrupulously fair to people acquitted of criminal charges.

I tend to agree. The evidence doesn't belong in the lead. I think it belongs in the body of the article. Bali88 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting it, but I suspect their issue has less to do with the specific wording of the sentence. I would ask them if this helps things. Changing the wording doesn't just fix the problem. I don't think the evidence against him belongs in the lede. I think the fact that there was prosecutorial misconduct and that his trials were overturned because of that misconduct is a good enough summary. Bali88 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You've changed your tune, you said I was too favourable to Camm, now you're saying mention in the lede what is in the main body of the article about testimony concerning him and marital fidelity reflects too badly on him. Prosecutorial misconduct could mean all kinds of abstruse technicalities. Saying of Camm that he was convicted of the murders twice and won two appeals on some unspecified thing the prosecutor did wrong; then was acquitted at a third trial, and leaving it at that is not fair to him. Nor is it giving an overview of the case in the way a lede should. I would point out that you seem to want a lede that ignores a massively important aspect of the case: why he had two separate convictions at trial on the same murder charges overturned on appeal. Just giving the court decisions does not amount to an introductory summary of the article. You've added that information to the article, so why not summarize it in the lede? The 'First trial' section says a dozen women gave testimony about infidelity and that was the part of prosecution that the appeal ruled grounds for overturning the first trial verdict. So it's important and is there for a good reason. As for the stains, it is mentioned in the lede along with how the methodology of the evidence was discredited by a world authority on forensics. Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits have been a little of both. I want it to be neutral. Personally, I feel like this is a very complicated case and the information about why he was convicted and arrested and got the appeals is too complex for the lede. We should get some more opinions on it, though. Bali88 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A lede saying he was twice convicted of murder, then acquitted, and leaving it at that is not neutral.Overagainst (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to request comment on this issue? Bali88 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, upon rereading the lede...it's not that bad. I can live with it. Can I add a line at the end about the prosecutorial misconduct (it's basically why the case is notable) and a line about his job working for the wrongful conviction agency? Bali88 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that detail being all that worthy of a line in lede considering that is all it gets in main article. By the way Cramm publicly spoke about the case the other day.Overagainst (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering he's made wrongful convictions a big part of his life now and is doing speaking engagements and is taking on the Routier case, I think it's worthy. It also balances out the fact that you're mentioning molestation in the lede, which is pretty heavy. Bali88 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Having had two prior motives ruled inadmissible, the alleged motive given in this trial was the life insurance policies recently purchased by Kim Camm.[6][39] Charles Boney testified against David Camm for the first time, accusing him of luring him out to the home before shooting his own family and then turning the gun on him. While on the stand, Boney made hand gestures at Camm and engaged in a stare-down with him. The judge gave a stern warning that the actions made the jury very uncomfortable.[40][41]"

Re Bolded text, not sure 'ruled inadmissible' is correct, it wasn't like a judge at trial said that. I don't see anywhere that either of the prosecution's putative motives got ruled "inadmissible". It would be truer to say the prosecution using accusations, which they failed to bring forward any evidence for, to get a guilty verdict, was ruled impermissible. The appeal court overturned the verdicts twice on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence to support what it said about motives. Mere assertion being used by the prosecution to get a conviction (twice) was what got both those verdicts quashed. Those courtroom interactions in the next para are very detailed. I don't think the photo of reporters adds anything., and I think photos should be kept to one side.Overagainst (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "stare-down" isn't very encyclopedic wording. Overagainst (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was described as a "stare-down" by all the media at the time, I'm not sure what else you could call it. Do you have any suggestions? Bali88 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Do we not need sources for the first two paragraphs?Itsafactmac (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, it is preferred that anything that summarizes cited content that's in the main body of the article isn't cited in the lead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)