User talk:Samsongebre

July 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from O. J. Simpson murder case into Draft:DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Samsongebre, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

OJ article

Hi- I spent a fair amount of time trying to help you out with your grammar and by indicating where sources would be required. This edit, in which you reintroduce mistakes that I have corrected, shows me that you're not interested in my help. You changed 'debunked by the defense's own witness' to 'debunked by the defenses own witness'. That is pretty bad. I also split a very fragmented sentence to make it readable and make sense, and you scratched that and replaced it with one that is even less decipherable than the original was. You also didn't even begin to thank me for my efforts. So I shan't help you any more, other than to say that the work you're doing does appear to be a clear example of original research. The standard of writing isn't good, either, and so, regrettably, I think you're doomed to fail in this endeavour. That said, I wish you luck. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but you are proposing a major addition to an encyclopedia. The first two paragraphs were OK but I'm afraid the rest isn't nearly good enough. There is no rush. Go back to discussion and wait for consensus. Bold, revert, discuss.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I can wait that's not a problem and appreciate any suggestions to improve my additions. Im going to add more citations for verifications in the meantime.

No worries- I'll review some more of the grammar soon.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added all of your changes to the section I wrote and I think it reads better now. I only made two small changes. I condensed the second to last paragraph in the "compromised, contaminated" section to just one sentence and added it to the end of the second paragraph in the same section. Also, the last paragraph in the conspiracy section, it was Prosecutor Clark who made all of those inductive arguments supporting Fuhrman, not Lt. Spangler. No new information was added, just citations for sources. Thank you for proof reading my addition for me.

One more small change I made was to the "alternate theory" section where I just move one sentence over about Judge Ito barring testimony about the drug use. Citations and hyperlinks were added to this section as well.

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dream Team and Robert Shapiro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've proofread and corrected your addition

Hi- so I have taken the trouble to proofread and correct the copy that I reverted from the article. It reads far better now and I have corrected a lot of things but not changed the content itself. There were several spelling mistakes and grammar issues, as well as some paragraphs that I have made more readable (I hope). There are still some more sources to add but if you'd like to add the section for the community to analyse, the fact that it's now fairly well-written (I hope) should mean that it's adapted and improved, rather than removed entirely. Please do not change the copy back to how it was before, you will just have to trust me that mine is a significant improvement grammatically. It is below. Good luck. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Simpson hired a team of high-profile defense lawyers, initially led by Robert Shapiro and then subsequently by Johnnie Cochran. The team included F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Uelmen, Carl E. Douglas and Shawn Holley. Two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, were hired as well. Simpson's defense was said to have cost between US$3 million and $6 million; the media dubbed the group of talented attorneys the Dream Team.

−

Alternate theory of who committed the murders

Simpson's defense sought to show that one or more hit men hired by drug dealers had murdered Brown and Goldman – giving Brown a "Colombian necktie" – because they were looking for Brown's friend, Faye Resnick, a known cocaine user who had failed to pay for her drugs. However, Judge Ito barred testimony about Resnick's drug use. She had stayed for several days at Brown's condo until entering rehab four days before the killings. Ito stated that the defense had failed to provide sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence that the scenario was possible, indicating: "I find that the offer of proof regarding motive to be highly speculative." Consequently, he prohibited Christian Reichardt from testifying about his former girlfriend Resnick's drug problems.

− −

"Compromised, Contaminated, Corrupted"

− The defense team's reasonable doubt theory was summarized as "compromised, contaminated, corrupted" in opening statements. They argued that the DNA evidence against Simpson was "compromised" by the mishandling of Fung and Mazzola during the collection phase of evidence gathering, and that 100% of the "real killer(s)" DNA was lost from the evidence samples. The evidence was then "contaminated" in the LAPD crime lab by Collin Yamamuchi, and Simpson's DNA from his reference vial was transferred to all but three exhibits. The remaining three exhibits were planted by the police and thus "corrupted" by police fraud.

− − The compromised claim was supported by the fact that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola had admitted to making several mistakes during the collection of evidence. These mistakes included not always changing gloves between handling evidence items, packaging and storing the evidence items using plastic bags, rather than paper bags as recommended, and storing evidence in the police van, which was not refrigerated, for up to seven hours after collection. This, Scheck and Neufeld argued, would allow bacteria to degrade all of the "real killer(s)" DNA and thus make the samples more susceptible to cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab. However, the prosecution countered that most of the DNA testing was done at the two consulting labs, not the LAPD crime lab. The prosecution maintained that, as all of the samples they received were testable, the claim that the evidence was "compromised" by all the DNA being lost to bacterial degradation was not credible. The argument given was that if the police contaminated the killer’s blood with Simpson’s blood as suggested, the result would be a mixture of both blood types. However, the results showed that only Simpson's DNA was present.

− − The contamination claim was made by microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes. He testified on August 2, 1995 that Forensic PCR DNA matching is not reliable and "The LAPD crime lab has a substantial contamination problem. It is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away." Gerdes testified that because of the LAPD's history of contamination, he would not consider any of the PCR DNA matches in this case reliable because the tests were carried out by the LAPD. He also claimed that the consulting labs’ PCR DNA matches are not reliable, as the evidence they tested went "through the LAPD" for packaging and shipping. Gerdes believed only three of the DNA matches to have been valid, which were the same three the defense alleged to have been planted by the police. The prosecution countered by having Gerdes admit during cross-examination that there was no evidence that cross-contamination had occurred and that he was only testifying to "what might have occurred and not what actually did occur". Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee testified on August 24, 1995 and admitted during cross-examination that Gerdes’s claim was "highly improbable".

− − The defense declined to challenge any of the results by testing the evidence themselves. As the prosecution had proven the DNA on the evidence items was not 100% degraded, the defense could feasibly have tested the evidence items themselves for the "real killer(s)" DNA, yet they declined to do so.

− − Defense forensic DNA expert Ed Blake revealed after the trial that he had not testified because his review of the case found no criticism of the testing conducted by Gary Sims, Renee Montgomery or Dr. Robin Cotton at the two consulting labs.

− −

Police Conspiracy Allegation

File:O.J.-Simpson-Crime-Scene-Photos-17a.jpg

Poster describing reasonable doubt theory proposed by the defense.

The defense initially only claimed that three exhibits were planted by the police but eventually argued that virtually all of the blood evidence against Simpson was planted in a massive police conspiracy. They accused prison nurse Thano Peratis, Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola, Detective Philip Vannatter, Detective Mark Fuhrman, and Collin Yamamuchi of participating in a plot to frame Simpson.

The defense alleged that the drop of blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene, which matched Simpson, and the blood found on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom, which matched Nicole Brown, were planted by the police. In order to support the claim, the defense pointed to the presence of EDTA, a preservative found in the purple-topped collection tubes used for police reference vials, in the samples. Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist, testified on July 24, 1995, using results provided by FBI special agent Roger Martz, that the level of EDTA in those evidence samples is higher than that which is normally found in blood, which appeared to support the claim they came from the reference vials. However, FBI special agent Roger Martz was called to testify by the defense on July 25, 1995 and said he did not identify EDTA in the blood, contradicting the testimony given by Dr. Rieders the day before. Martz stated that, although the presumptive test for EDTA was positive, the identification test for EDTA was inconclusive, so it was impossible to ascertain with certainty the presence of EDTA. He contended that the defense had jumped to conclusions from the presumptive test results, while his tests had in fact shown that "those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood".

The third exhibit allegedly planted was the bloody glove found at Simpson’s property by Detective Mark Fuhrman. Unlike the sock and the back gate, the defense provided no physical or eyewitness evidence to support their claim that the prosecution could then refute. The prosecution claimed that the glove contained blood from Simpson and the victims, hair from both victims and fibers from Ron Goldman's clothes; the Bronco and the socks found in Simpson’s bedroom also had Brown's blood on them. Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey suggested that Fuhrman found the glove at the crime scene, picked it up with a stick and placed it in a plastic bag, which he then concealed in his sock when he drove to Simpson’s home with Detectives Lange and Vannatter. Bailey suggested that Fuhrman had then planted the glove in order to frame Simpson, with the motive either being racism or a desire to become the hero in a high-profile case. Bailey also suggested that Fuhrman used the glove like a paint brush to plant blood onto and inside the Bronco. Dr. John Gerdes testified on August 8th 1995 that Simpson’s blood on the glove could have been the result of cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab. The prosecution responded by pointing out that the defense did not claim that the blood on the glove contained the preservative EDTA, as they had with the sample found on the back gate, which the defense also claimed to have been planted.

Prosecutor George Clarke, who specialized in DNA evidence, wrote that it was difficult to refute the defense's corruption claim about the glove deductively because the DNA results would be the same whether planted or not, so the prosection used inductive arguments instead.

− During redirect, Prosecutor Marcia Clark made numerous points to support the contention that Fuhrman did not plant the glove, including Lt. Frank Spangler's testimony. Spangler testified that only one glove was found at the crime scene, by him and the other two officers who were there first, and that he had been with Fuhrman for the duration of Fuhrman’s time at the scene. Spangler stated that he would have seen Fuhrman purloin the glove if he had in fact done so. Marcia Clark went on to add that Fuhrman did not know whether Simpson had an alibi, if there were any witnesses to the murders, whose blood was on the glove, and whether Brian "Kato" Kaelin had already searched the area where the glove was found and would therefore have been able to confirm that it had not been there prior to Fuhrman’s arrival. Johnnie Cochran responded by accusing the other officers of being involved in a "cover-up" to protect Fuhrman.

The prosecution responded by returning to the Bundy crime scene to show that those blood drops were photographed hours before Simpson's blood was taken and thus could not have been planted. The blood was sent to the consulting labs for testing, not the LAPD crime lab, so cross-contamination could not have happened. It was argued that the DNA linking Simpson to the crime had a 1-in-9.7 billion chance of error.

References

Nearly there!

Hi. You have I'm afraid not put in the proofread copy that I put on your talk page. I was flabbergasted to see that errors I had corrected were reinstated. Please go back and ensure that the changes are made properly. The changes are important. Nearly there!NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

OK great. Please go ahead and add what is above to the article. I know it seems like I'm being pedantic but major edits won't last if there are lots of errors. I think this is a good addition and the fact that it reads well now (please take great care ensuring that the version above is added, do not restore the last one) will mean that editors keep it. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oj

Hi. I have removed the latest edits you have made. I found the formatting of the DNA evidence section very odd and the conclusions you drew were inappropriate. You crossed the line and entered editorialisation territory. The next edits simply aren't needed and your passion and interest is spilling over and making the article too long. Can I suggest you step back from the article, give it a good read and allow other editors a chance to review? NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. My research is saved in the talk page for now so I'm going to take a break from making any more edits and let other people have a chance.Samsongebre (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice one. For what it's worth I think your work on the article has definitely been a net positive.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barry Scheck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Shapiro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case has been accepted

DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case. For such a new editor, this is a massive and quite complete undertaking, especially from scratch. Keep up the good work! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate it!Samsongebre (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

OJ article

Hi. Thanks for your continued efforts. May I ask that any further edits on the article make it shorter, not longer? It is unquestionably too long, still. Please focus on making it more concise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Reaction to the verdict in the O J Simpson criminal trial

There's a short reference to Cooley et al. 1996 in there, but no long reference to go with it. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong about Stephen Singular

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Singular, Stephen

Denver author who brought information to defense that police sources had told him Mark Fuhrman sprinkled Simpson's blood on crime scene and planted the glove on the morning of June 13th. See AP story on Friday, April 28th. Kayjewel (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edited comment about the jurors being mostly African American and uneducated is still rooted in racism, whether you realize it or not. Kayjewel (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 02:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case article again

Keep it up, and I will take you to WP:ANI. I've had enough of your WP:Single purpose account behavior. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets do that. I did exactly what you asked. Previous word count was 358, the new one is 325. The additional text the edit history is showing is the citations I used. Lets have an administrator decide who is wrong here.Samsongebre (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm already here. You need to review and observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I listen. I read the article on WP:ONUS, WP:EVERYTHING and WP:CONSENSUS. I’ll take my proposed edits to that section to the talk a page and list all the reasons why i believe it warrants inclusion. I will also explain the reasons why the content that I removed from that section was removed (I.e., it is already mentioned somewhere else, unsourced...etc) and I will try to gain consensus. Sometimes, however I feel like Flyer22’s opposition to my additions aren’t about WIKI policy but due to him being one of the original editors of this page and he doesn’t like anybody changing what he wrote. Samsongebre (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I meant WP:NOTEVERYTHING Samsongebre (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. My issue with your editing of that article is stated in this section on the talk page. And my arguments are clearly guideline and policy-based. It is also clear that you don't have a good grasp on our policies and guidelines, which is usually the case with single-purpose accounts. I have barely edited that article, which you would know if you would check the data -- the "Find edits by user" and "Page statistics" options in the edit history. When it comes to that article, my involvement has mainly been reverting vandalism, unconstructve edits, POV issues, and other problematic edits.

And I am a she. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Fixed page statistics link. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial, you may be blocked from editing. Your unexplained reverts in this awful article are severely disruptive. Get off your hobby horse. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Flyer22, I am getting more than a little tired of this, this single-purpose editor whose sole agenda point is to fluff up everything related to OJ. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll bring it up on the talk page like you said then on that article and you can justify why you removed that factually sourced information. Rantala quotes directly from the trial transcripts and the book Foreman. If you have a problem with the book, then I will just quote the primary sources instead so there is no issue. I did my research and only used reliable sources.Samsongebre (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't care what Rantala quotes, and you shouldn't quote primary sources. What you need to do is prove that Rantala is a reliable source. And after that, you need to start trimming down these ridiculously long articles. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial

I am going to revert your comments. You can put them back, but only if you format them properly and if you do NOT interweave your comments into mine. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case

Does the book actually says that it was to avoid a perjury charge? If so please provide a page number. If it only says "Fuhrman's refusal to answer was more a matter of legal strategy and did not shed any light on whether he had planted or manufactured evidence" you cannot make any claims that he did it to avoid a perjury charge. Meters (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The page number is 250 and it says specifically "to all the questions, Fuhrman - now facing prosecution for perjury - asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer." The same page also states that "beyond the evident perjury revealed by the tapes, the defense had presented no credible evidence that Fuhrman had planted any evidence in this case." I've changed the language on the article to reflect this and added a subject on the talk page there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 07:31, August 28, 2021 (UTC)

You have not done either of things since I raised this.

I still don't believe you can state why he took the fifth. The author of that book may be implying that is why, but that's not the same thing as us knowing. The author does not claim to know why he took the fifth, and neither do we. We don't guess or make assumptions. Meters (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with you adding a good reference, just with the "for perjury". Meters (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a reference to Murder in Brentwood, Fuhrman's book on the trial, where he states specifically on page 247 that he took the fifth because of the possibility of being charged with perjury. I'll also change the language to say "Fuhrman, facing the possibility of being charged with perjury, was instructed by his attorney to invoke the fifth amendment." Does that work because that is directly what he said?Samsongebre (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, if Furman himself stated his reason for taking the fifth as being to avoid a perjury charge that's an acceptable ref. With the addition of that ref you can go back to the original wording even. Thank you for clearing this up. Meters (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

O. J. Simpson murder case

added links pointing to Fifth Amendment, Robert Baker, Willie Williams, Robert Shapiro and Henry Lee

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dred Scott v. Sandford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)