User talk:Gingerbreadhouse97

Welcome LaraGingerbread!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,303,188 registered editors!

Hello, LaraGingerbread. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful: The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia A Primer for Newcomers Introduction to Wikipedia Wikipedia Training Modules Simplified Manual of Style Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies: 1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly 2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources 3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Reagan Tokes has been accepted

Murder of Reagan Tokes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reagan Tokes.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reagan Tokes.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Murder of Reagan Tokes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Columbus, Franklin County, Gunpoint, Mirror Lake and Burden of proof

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know how to link to the specific pages I wanted. Columbus, Ohio, Franklin County, Ohio, Gunpoint as in being held at gun point, OSU'S Mirror Lake, and legal burden of proof.

Orphaned non-free image File:Reagan Tokes.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reagan Tokes.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murders of Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli has been accepted

Murders of Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

Ham105 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Murder of Alianna DeFreeze has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Murder of Alianna DeFreeze. Thanks! Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Murder of Tessa Majors; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, please read WP:BLPCRIME --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Tessa Majors - please join the discussion

Hi LaraGingerbread, please join the discussion on the article's talk page so consensus can be gained. You have a voice too, but getting yourself into an edit war is not helpful to you or the article. S0091 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LaraGingerbread reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: ). Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh geez! I don't think this is necessary. LaraGingerbread, do you agree to hold off on editing the article until all these issues are resolved? S0091 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

S0091, I saw the reverts in the article and thought that editor isnt going to stop. Now that I saw there is an ANI report above, I feel bad, I want to withdraw that editwarring report but I dont know how.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you just delete with an edit summary stating you are withdrawing. S0091 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget to include your signature on talk pages

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Murder of Tessa Majors, (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Alianna DeFreeze has been accepted

Murder of Alianna DeFreeze, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Bkissin (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello! I read the lead at Draft:Murder of Rachael Anderson and Murder of Alianna DeFreeze. Consider MOS:OVERLINK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. LaraGingerbread (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Rachael Anderson has been accepted

Murder of Rachael Anderson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Rachael Anderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Samantha Josephson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kidnapped (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Cooper

As the previous mod said, take it to the talk section. Pretty much every point made was addressed and to put it bluntly the Supreme Court was dead wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.110.70 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Uh you keep saying "biased people keep reverting my contributions". Your contributions are themselves biased. You link the state documents uncritically and don't give any mention to the legal decisions that directly argue against them (I had to put a link to Judge Fletcher's analysis about why Judge Huff made the wrong call on EDTA. I also linked Fletcher's analysis. You seem to be wanting to make the article one in favor of guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:EC2F:B2AC:BD5B:2E48 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My contributions are no biased than anyone elses. Someone has a section on an alternative suspect giving arguments in favor of the theory. So I gave arguments against it. And my evidence section gives context to the next "possible manipulation of evidence section." It doesn't make sense to tell readers about manipulation of evidence without first telling them what that evidence is.

Sorry about how I acted. In hindsight it was inappropriate. I may have been a little worried you were trying to slant it against Cooper but you've proven my fears were unfounded. It's a complicated case in so many ways, and I can understand why someone might want to think he's guilty. The problem is that there is real doubt. Even Paul Ingels (who came to think Cooper guilty) seems to have reconsidered. One thing the last CBS special got that really surprised me was that Furrow (when he didn't know he was being recorded) said "I'm not going to give up blood and wind up on evidence like whatever they did to Cooper." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:58F3:B539:D201:E7B8 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I think its good to have people with different perspectives edit the page so that readers as much info as possible. My idea is to list evidence against him in the evidence section I created and then list concerns about that evidence in the possible manipulation of evidence section. In the possible manipulation section we will also list responses to concerns. Kind of like how a court case goes--the prosecution shares evidence against the defendant, the defense explains why that evidence is wrong and then the prosecution responds to the defenses claims.

What I am really concerned about is the affect this case is having on Josh Ryen. I think that crime victims are often forgotten about in these cases.

I watched the CBS special as well. While I like 48 hours, I found this episode biased towards the defendant. One big concern is the criminal history. They were fine sharing Furrow's criminal history of murder. But they did not share all of Cooper's. They only described him as a career burglar. But they did not mention the rapes, one of which was stipulated in court (lawyers on both sides agreed it happened). This aspect of his criminal history is significant because of the similarities to the Ryen murders. And they did not share a lot of what the DA had to say. I read the DAs response to clemency and he goes through a whole bunch of evidence. I am sure he went through the same evidence when being interviewed. But none of that was in the show.

Thanks. LaraGingerbread (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Lara Gingerbread

While I understand victim's rights all too often I've seen prosecutors use that to cover up flawed convictions; it's emotionally manipulative and frankly disgusting. While I get wanting to stick up for victims in practice it's basically a cudgel to shut up criticisms of flawed cases.

There were a few problems that stood out to me. Warning this is a mammoth post but it does help clarify why I feel the way I do.

1.) William Fletcher covered pretty much all the bases and the most Ramos could do was "oh Fletcher's just a stupid liberal." One thing that stood out is how the state itself claimed multiple times that the shoes were prison issued; when Don Luck testified differently alongside Carroll both Huff AND Rymer said "the state never made that claim."

2.) It wasn't just Fletcher. 10 other judges were on record supporting Fletcher; even among those guys it was pretty clear Cooper wasn't given a fair chance to prove his case. So to say that the courts overwhelmingly affirmed his conviction just flat out is not true (out of 27 judges 11 voted for a hearing on the matter; and if Judge Reinhart is to be believed the results were even closer. Margaret McKeown admitted that were it not for the AEDPA she would have voted to give him relief.) So again. To say that it was overwhelming is kinda dishonest.

3.) Judge Huff has a bad reputation for dishonesty and bias (there's a website called the robing room that you have to be a lawyer to post on. Huff's rank on there is pretty low and a common complaint is that she chooses whatever side she likes and gives that side every break in the book while not doing the same for the opposing side.) That....doesn't really get brought up and it gives the impression that regardless of Cooper's innocence or guilt he was basically screwed the moment he got in the courtroom. It's like the Anthony Porter case AT BEST, or if you want to get cynical Roger Coleman. Both of those men were probably (and in Coleman's case WAS) guilty, but there were also real problems. In Porter's case his lawyer fell asleep during the trial and one of the jury members was at the victim's funeral, yet the Judge felt that was a "harmless error." In Coleman's case the victim's next door neighbor was a serial rapist AND when the appeal was rejected it was because they accidentally filed it a day late due to bad advice. Again, both men were guilty but they were still shafted.

4.) Ramos.....is basically a zealot for law and order. He went after William Richards LONG after the state's evidence had been discredited (Fun fact, Daniel Gregonis, the guy who checked evidence out, was accused of forging evidence in THAT case as well) and even Michael Rizler (who I spoke to on Facebook and is an attorney in the office who thinks both Cooper and Richards are guilty) agreed when I said Ramos was an idiot. So while Ramos might be passionate he's also VERY set in his ways and wouldn't want to admit that his office might have done something as horrible as railroad an innocent man.

5.) Cooper's not exactly the only one to accuse Gregonis of forging evidence. William Richards also made a strong case (Gregonis made a dramatic show of removing fibers from the victim's fingers....yet those fibers were not in the original crime scene photos). Also Gregonis's name AND the date were on the seal of the envelope holding A-41. Thing is that's common lab practice if you're opening the evidence.....which Gregonis denied doing. Given the circumstances it looks fishy as hell.

6.) The sheriff's department in question also has a NOTORIOUSLY bad reputation. Tidwell's predecessor was using confiscated money to throw parties. Tidwell himself tried to cover up a Rodney King Style Beating AND was stealing firearms from lockup (literally the entire department knew but Tidwell only got caught when his idiot son was being investigated for a different crime.) William Baird (The guy who "found" the shoe prints in the lab) not only acquired a prison issue shoe before he found the prints but was also looting the evidence locker to shoot himself up on heroin. Dennis Kottmeir admitted to J Patrick O'Connor (who wrote a book about the case) that the department botched the investigation on purpose so they wouldn't have to try him. To put this in perspective, I grew up in Bergan County NJ, which was one of the most boring communities out there. If you'd accused the BCSD of what the SBCSD is accused of. But the SBCSD.....they're EXACTLY the kind of people who would frame a black man for a crime committed by white people. Another issue is that they were under MASSIVE pressure to solve the case. This was the grisliest murder in the county's history and one thing that the judge and everyone else agreed on was that the state's processing was abysmal. In short, they needed someone FAST and a black escaped con hiding out would help.

7.) I really don't see the similarities regarding the rape and the murders. The Ryen's were slaughtered in a way reminiscent of Charles Manson; it's a pretty big leap from opportunistically raping someone to reenacting the tate/labianca murders. Another problem is that Cooper unambiguously needed cash....and yet all that valuable stuff was on the table even though he had literally been begging for cash. Another issue is that he was an expert carjacker; you'd think he'd go out front first, try to break in and then just make off with the car. I personally DO think Cooper is guilty of both rapes but think it's a big leap from rape to mass murder on that scale.

8.) One point Judge James R Browning raised in his dissent was that none of the people in the house recognized the tan shirt. They recognized all the OTHER clothes Cooper stole but not the tan shirt. Which raises the question. If it wasn't prison issued and it didn't come from the house where did Cooper get it?

9.) I get that this might be somewhat harsh but I read that the witnesses in the house gave rather inconsistent testimony of WHERE the hatchet had been. They also only conclusively recognized it AFTER Mary Hughes spoke to them. Personally I think that out of a desire to help Mrs. Hughes that they may have unwittingly misremembered details. Not out of malice or even consciously, but out of a desire to help a grieving mother who wanted justice.

10.) The IACHR also covered the case, and there was testimony from Michael Adelson (a defense lawyer), Tom Parker (while he is Cooper's investigator he's ALSO a former FBI agent with decades of experience) and Gregg McCrary (a criminal profiler). McCrary concluded that at LEAST 2 people would have been needed to control the victims. Peggy Ryen's sister Lillian also thinks Cooper's innocent, saying that in the summer it would have been impossible to see the Ryen house from the hideout due to all the foliage. The jury saw the house in the dead of winter when there was no foliage. The state ALSO responded in that case.

11.) I brought up the blue shirt on the main page. Judge Huff felt it was probably just the tan shirt....thing is that doesn't hold up. The police records were only filled out if a CIVILLIAN found that shirt. Since the tan shirt was found by an officer they would have used a different set of records. That alone torpedo's the claim they were the same shirt and yet Judge Huff still accepted that explanation.

If you read all that and still think he's guilty that's fair. I'm just saying why I think he's innocent. In anywise you really SHOULD read Fletcher's analysis. Fascinating reading and well laid out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:E14C:377:1F58:577A (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

1) Remember thats all Ramos said about Fletcher that CBS showed. Ramos is the district attorney so I'm sure he knows how to argue a case. Look at his response to clemency that he and his tream wrote. There is A LOT of info in there. I am sure that Ramos gave the CBS reporter a detailed and convincing explanation of the evidence. They just didn't show all of it.

2) I disagree. I think that even if there is room for reasonable doubt evidence can still be overwhelming. For example, if evidence gives a 95% chance someone is guilty, then they should not be convicted because there is room for reasonable doubt. But the evidence is still overwhelming if there is a 95% chance of guilt. In Cooper's case I think the evidence gives a 100% chance. And the state doesn't have to prove he is guilty beyond all doubt, just beyond a reasonable doubt. He can still be found guilty if there is imaginary or unreasonable doubt.

Remember, Cooper admits to sleeping at the Lease house for several days. He says he left right before the murders were committed. I do not think its reasonable to believe that right after Cooper left the real killers went to the Lease house to get murder weapons. If they planned to kill the family and drove all the way there wouldn't they bring their own weapons? And why get them from the victims' neighbor's house? How would they know that the neighbors house would be empty? How would they know to come right as Cooper left? How would they know that the house would have weapons? It makes much more sense to conclude that the man who stayed at the Lease house for several days learned where stuff was and committed the murders. And after taking the weapons from the Lease house the killers just happened to put the hatchet sheath in the bedroom Cooper used? And instead of going home to shower they showered at the Lease house? And the real killers just happened to drive the Ryen car in the direction Cooper was going and use the same kind of tobacco, and have his blood type? When all the evidence is put together I believe that it shows that Cooper committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. When I first began looking into the case I considered the possibility that he was innocent. But after reading through the court documents and everything I really just can't see how he couldn't be guilty.

4) Ramos is not the only prosecutor who thinks he is guilty. And even if he is not a great guy CBS was still wrong to not show what he really said, which I believe they did.

5) From what I recall learning, William Richards made the claim that Gregonis planted evidence but never proved it in court.

6) I think Tidwell's theft is overblown. He wasn't panting the guns he was collecting them. I don't think that makes him corrupt.

7) I think the rapes were similar enough. And I believe they both happened. It was acknowledged in court by the defense and prosecution that he raped a woman in PA. And I doubt that the second victim who let him stay on her boat lied. What a coincidence for her to choose an actual rapist to falsely accuse of rape. And the PA rape and the Ryen murders are similar in that they both occurred in the victims homes during a burglary. In order to forcibly rape someone like he did you have to be a pretty depraved person. I don't think its too far fetched to say that one who is willing to rape a teen girl and threaten to kill her would also be willing to murder people. The Ryen's didn't have a lot of cash out. They only had $3 on the kitchen counter. So I don't think its that big a deal that he didn't take it.

10) Cooper was probably looking for a house to rob rather than just coming across it. And I think the murders could have been committed by one person. He immediately shot the man in the head and killed him, not giving him a chance to fight. Then there was a woman who he could physically overpower. And then kids who he could also overpower.

Thanks and I will try to read Fletcher's analysis. I suggest you read through the 1991 opinion sections 1b and 1c. and go through the Ninth Cirtuct opinion. There is also a shorter article from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

1.) I've read the CJLF. Frankly I wasn't impressed. One of the points they made was to poo poo the idea that the cigarettes could have been planted but they ignored one fatal problem. Multiple cigarettes were taken from Cooper's hideout (he wasn't exactly shy about smoking).....and yet only ONE was ever officially entered into evidence. The others mysteriously went missing....and the same guys who processed the hideout were the guys who processed the car. That alone raises the possibility that they simply took cigarettes from his hideout and dumped them in the victims car. It's not like cops don't do similar things when planting drugs on some unsuspecting schmuck. So for them to just dismiss that out of hand just smacked as being of someone who could not conceive that yes cops can and often DO frame innocent people.

Essentially they come across as apologists for law enforcement. They'd literally execute their own grandmothers if it meant bringing back capital punishment

2.) Same with the state supreme court and Judge Rymer's opinion. Personally I think that they were being a little TOO Credulous.

a.) First off, there's no proof the weapons actually came from the house. The inhabitants gave conflicting answers about WHERE the hatchet had been and only gave a definitive answer recognizing it AFTER Mary Ann Hughes spoke to them (which would have DEFINITELY influenced their memories of what happened.) The defense tried to press this at trial but the judge blocked it because apparently the victim's feelings are more important than finding out the truth. So honestly, I think the hatchet was just misplaced and that Mary Hughes unwittingly tainted the witnesses. Maybe it's not nice to suggest but honestly? It does happen.

b.) They assumed Cooper washed himself off in the shower. That ignores that the chemicals they used to find blood ALSO react to bleach, copper, animal excrement and even plants. Hell even the "footprints" could have been reacting to the foliage Cooper undoubtedly stepped in while on the run. Kathy Bilbia DID in fact use bleach to clean the shower so there's already a perfectly innocent explanation for that. Hell given that the bleach was in a ring on the walls (rather than pooled around the drain like blood would be) that only makes it MORE likely it was bleach.

c.) Cooper actually didn't leave "right before the murders." By his account he left at about 8:30 or so (right after his call ended). The murders are estimated to have occurred around midnight (the Ryens got home at 9:15 and Josh described staying up for a few hours with Chris.) Whether you believe his story or not he certainly didn't admit to leaving "right before the murders occurred".

d.) Cooper didn't actually "go in that direction." Long Beach is due WEST of Chino hills. San Diego is due south. For Cooper to be the killer you'd literally have to believe that he travelled west, ditched the car, gone through the trouble of stealing another car, and then headed south. By contrast Lee Furrow's mom lived about 5 minutes away. Basically Furrow had ties to Long Beach that Cooper didn't.

e.) It also doesn't explain where Cooper got the shirt. None of the people in the house recognized it and it wasn't prison issued. Did he summon it out of thin air?

f.) As for the hatchet sheathe....personally I think Steven Moran planted that. His prints were found in the closet on June 8th and going by the police records the only time he could have left those prints was June 6th.....since the evidence was admitted on June 7th it raises the question WHY Moran didn't report the sheathe and button at the time. They would have been in plain site, so why the heck didn't he say something? In addition the button was from a green jacket.....while Cooper's jacket was BROWN. I also mentioned on the main page that Patrick Whelchel (a deputy who also worked at the prison) has told Cooper that he WAS asked to acquire a jacket and shoes from the prison within a day of the murders.

g.) A-41's been so utterly mishandled it's basically worthless. As Fletcher pointed out it's changed size shape and form multiple times, and always seems to turn up JUST when the state needs it. More importantly by the time Blake was able to do joint testing in 83 the only things that were conclusive was that it was from a black guy AND that it had an enzyme that 10% of the black population has (this is because there was so little left). To put it bluntly, they could have grabbed blood from any random black guy, dumped it at the scene and STILL had a 10% chance of being able to pull one over on the defense. Adding on to this some of the bloodstains near A-41 were tested. Thing is Cooper was unambiguously excluded so they quietly ignored those ones.

h.) The crime scene was a madhouse. 90 different people were in there, even though only 6 were actively processing the scene. If a few officers had already locked on to Cooper they could have EASILY dropped a dirty if things were chaotic.

3.) Given what I've seen of Ramos I personally do not trust anything he says. He seemed to imply that Fletcher was the only judge who had a problem when in fact 11 other judges also felt that there were problems. It certainly wasn't "unanimous". John Kochis similarly made up rather ridiculous excuses about the second shirt (basically the way records were filed blows a massive hole in his story.) Dennis Kottmeir similarly.

4.) The other issue is that Gregonis's name AND the date were on the envelope seal. According to lab procedure you do that if you're opening the seal. So Gregonis's name and date being there implies that he DID open it, and thus that he committed perjury. He also lied at trial about his procedure (he waited until he had Cooper's profile AND his blood to actually do testing, he tested both of them side by side, went back and modified his own notes when it turned out Cooper didn't have the same enzyme and lied about all of that until he got confronted with his own lab notes.) In addition to Cooper and Richards there's also a third person, Orlando Whatley, who accused Gregonis. So three people, one of whom was in a distant county and 2 of whom were making the accusations a decade later ALL accuse this guy of forging evidence. I don't know about you but where there's smoke there's fire.

5.) The evidence locker tag was still on a lot of the guns, and he ended up pleading guilty to theft (he got a slap on the wrist.) He was literally taking the guns out of the evidence locker, which is technically stealing evidence. He also covered up a Rodney King Style beating in the 80s. His predecessor and successor also got embroiled in scandals, so with all due respect you seem to be a little charitable towards him.

6.) That's the thing. Doug Ryen unambiguously fought back and Jessica made it outside of the house for at least a few seconds before being dragged in. That was enough time for Peggy Ryen to get her gun.

7.) I noticed that you didn't answer Lilian Schafer's point either.

I get wanting to believe law enforcement. If things like the vial and blue shirt hadn't turned up I'D probably think he's guilty. But as someone who's studied wrongful conviction cases I've learned that law enforcement often ARE corrupt and that judges cheerfully turn a blind eye to this unless public pressure forces their hands because they value finality and the status quo over justice. I'll say that you're far more reasonable than most other people I've spoken to about this case though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:80E0:3F02:2105:4554 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond. I have been busy with online classes and have bee working on some pages.

1) CJLF is a pro-law enforcement pro-justice organization. Their main mission is getting appropriate punishments for criminals. They are very pro-death penalty. From their perspective, we have a guilty mass murderer who should be executed, but instead of doing that, courts are wasting time. Even if you don't agree with them on this case they do great work.

2b. Why did those spots light up so much? If it was animal excrement, plants or copper, it would have been visible to the naked eye. Washed off blood isn't.

2c. Even if he didn't leave immediately before the murders, its a hell of a coincidence for the real killers to come that same day.

2d. Long Beach is south west of Chino Hills. And San Diego is right south of that. If you look at a google map there are lots of routes that go from Chino Hills to Long Beach and then San Diego.

2f. The jacket could be brown with green buttons. I believe the buttons were khaki green not bright green. So they would have gone fine with a brown shirt. And the Lease house was an overwhelming crime scene so it makes sense that they didn't get everything on the first day.

2g. When they later did testing the blood they found would match only one in several billion people. More than the number of people on earth.

2h. That is exactly why it took several days to find things.

4. Have any of those people proven in court that he planted other faked evidence? Its one thing for someone to claim that, but that doesn't mean its true. Its not uncommon for convicts to falsely accuse police of misconduct.

5. He never was proven to be planting evidence. I don't think the gun collection fiasco is enough evidence to show he has the character.

6.He probably killed the adults before the kids got in. From what Josh remembers, Jessica was found dead, then Chris was killed, and then Josh went to investigate and was almost killed.

7. I don't remember that point.

Thanks. I understand that wrongful convictions and police misconduct happen. But that doesn't mean that every case that looks like a wrongful conviction is one. The CJLF did an analysis of so-called "innocent people on death row." They went through all 102 of the people who were sentenced to death and later exonerated in the modern death penalty era (the 70s-present). They found that 68 of the people exonerated form death row were guilty. They were not exonerated because evidence proved them to be innocent. There were technical and legal errors. And when you look at a lot of the cause celebre "wrongful conviction" cases today, a lot of those people are guilty. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

1.) Except their perception is wrong. They ridiculed the idea that the cigarettes could have been planted....when given that numerous cigarettes went missing and were processed by the same guys who searched his car it's not that farfetched. Basically they're cop apologists who don't want to admit that yes police often DO forge evidence. And all to often there have been cases where if finality had it's say an innocent person would have died (Henry McCollum). A lot of executions also saw judges ignore naked misconduct. And they are NOT pro justice, nor do they do great work. By contrast they do shit work.

2a.) I noticed you didn't actually answer this. NONE of the people in the house recognized the shirt even though they recognized all the OTHER items

2b.) It also reacts to bleach, which isn't visible. Kathy Bilbia also stated that she did use bleach to clean the shower. So again. The shower could have just been the bleach. They never did the follow up testing. YET another case of the police being utterly incompetent. Given how the luminol reacted (a band on the wall rather than around the drain) I personally think it WAS just bleach. Cooper claimed that he tried to take a shower on June 4th but got spooked when a guest came back to pick up a sweater. He could have left the footprint then. In addition plant ENZYMES aren't necessarily visible to the naked eye. When I trundle through fields I might still leave behind some residue on my shoes even if it isn't muddy. So to say that plants and copper aren't visible to the naked eye is...not really true

Here are a few articles on the subject https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx (Basically it also reacts to plant enzymes (or peroxidases if you want to get fancy). Basically no. It could have been plant enzymes on the footprints and bleach for the shower.

2c.) Much weirder things have happened and if the weapons didn't come from the house than it certainly is possible. Weirder shit has happened

2d.) The more practical thing to do would be to flee due south. Going to long beach means that he would have had to go to the trouble of stealing a whole NEW car which just adds a lot of extra work. To say nothing of needing sleep. I ran google maps. Going to long beach would have added an extra hour to Cooper's time, and he wasn't all that familiar with the area. So again, it seems rather impractical.

2f.) That's....kinda farfetched. When you add in Whelchel's testimony it gets more dubious. The shoe prints also surfaced under dubious circumstances (the one on the blanket was found a month later in the crime lab AFTER prison issue shoes were acquired....by a guy who was looting the evidence locker to shoot himself up. The problem with the hatchet sheathe and button is that not only where officer Moran's prints in there but according to the police's own records the only time he could have left those prints was June 6th....the day BEFORE the evidence was found. Given that it was in plain site that raises two possibilities. If his prints were left on the 6th he would have seen the evidence if it was there. The only options are he was blind as a bat or he planted the evidence.

2g.) Several problems. The stain has a history of being "consumed" and then reappearing in a different form; the first time this happened was in October 1983. Some months later Gregonis "found" some more. One of these occurred AFTER Gregonis checked evidence out off the books in 1999. I also read through the trial record. Gregonis failed to photograph most of his results except for one enzyme. By the time Dr Blake tested it there was so little he was only able to positively identify one possibly 2 enzymes. This means that aside from about two (three if you're being charitable) readings they would have been relying on Gregonis's notes (there was so little left that was all Blake was able to check. According to Dr Wraxall at trial the odds of a person having those three enzymes was 1 in 45,000. Maybe it was Cooper but because of Gregonis's poor record keeping and the lack of access to the original stain we can't know. Essentially Gregonis could have pulled a fast one on them and they would have never known.

Personally I think that at the time the police grabbed blood from a random black guy in the lab and dumped it at the crime scene (given how much of a madhouse it was this wouldn't have been as hard). Gregonis then waited until he had Cooper's results, intentionally wasted the stain so that there was very little left, and then once THAT was tested quietly took blood from Cooper's vial and started "replacing" it. Given that Cooper was an escaped convict and they probably had a few members who'd locked on to him from the word go.

2h.) Not the point. The point was that they could have easily planted a small drop of blood in all that chaos. Also the crime scene processing was by all accounts abysmal. The trial judge criticized it. Kottmeir tore down the scene before they were finished and by his own admission it was basically a "fuck you" to the defense. If some officers had already locked on to Cooper they could have EASILY grabbed blood from a random black man and dumped it at the scene.

4.) When three different people who never met are accusing the same guy chances are the accusations have a lot of weight. When John Burge was torturing people more than 100 people who never met claimed he was torturing them. 12 people on Death Row in particular made that accusation. More importantly Judges value finality over the truth. There have been many cases where prosecutors and state experts have cheerfully lied their balls off and the judge just nods and goes "that's cool." Personally I think that's what's happening with Gregonis. Investigating the claims would mean ignoring finality so they cheerfully ignore it.

5.) The guy was literally stealing, and he was utterly unrepentant. He was a crook plain and simple. He ALSO covered up a Rodney King Style beating and defended his officers when they were exposed. Also they were under pressure to solve the crime fast and they were WOEFULLY underprepared to investigate. He would have CHEERFULLY framed a black man for a crime committed by white people

6.) Preliminary investigation implied that Peggy was cradling Jessica in her arms as the hatchet fell down. At least two pathologists said that at LEAST two people would have been needed to control the victims

7.) Lilian Schafer (Peggy's sister) asked for clemency. Apparently she felt that in the summer the foliage would have made it impossible for someone in the hideout house to have seen the Ryen place. When the jury saw it in the dead of winter there was no foliage.

8.) That argument has as much credibility as David Duke's claims the Jews control the world. Frankly they remind me of Martin Preib, a rather nasty piece of work trying to defend a dirty cop and the CPD by claiming that there's an "innocence industry." He's gone after cases where DNA has proven the suspects innocent and he hounds one guy (Madison Hobley) because Hobley got Jon Burge (a dirty cop who used torture) jailed. In Hobley's case the state's star witness was himself an arsonist (The judge admitted that at the very least he was bribed for favorable testimony but than said "who gives a shit?"). This sounds like the same kind of rubbish. Basically the CJLF doesn't want to admit that a lot of the time the police really are a bunch of racist hillbillies who forge evidence to get what they want, and the judges and prosecutors cheerfully go along with it. If it was just technical errors the state could have easily tried harder. That they didn't speaks volumes.

Frankly I'm skeptical of anyone who claims that most cases are guilty. And again while I get wanting to believe law enforcement you seem a little credulous of their claims. There are a LOT of horror stories or police being downright filthy and prosecutors ignoring it, and a lot of the people disputing it are VERY invested in keeping the status quo. The CJLF are not interested in justice. They support law enforcement which is NOT the same as enforcing justice

I am sorry about the delay. I just published a long article on another case and have been busy with online classes.

1. The CJLF defend crime victims' rights. For example, in one case, a man who was convicted of molesting his stepdaughters demanded a new trial. At trial, the victims were very distressed and frightened to look at him. So, when they testified, a computer monitor was adjusted so that they would not have to look at him. The molester then claimed that this violated his right to confront the witness. The CJLF fought for the rights of the victims not to be re traumatized by looking at the perp, while at the same time not violating his right to confront witnesses (the girls were in the court room, the perp just cold not see them). <ref>https://www.cjlf.org/program/decided.htm#Arredondo<ref>

2b. Bleach was also in the hall.

2c. Given his criminal history it is highly unlikely. Had he began upstanding citizen you could have a point. But this is a career burglar and rapist.

2d. He has a low IQ and may not have thought about it. And maybe he was more familiar with that route.

2f. When police search a crime scene, they don't do one thorough search. They do an initial basic less detailed search and go back several times to go through all the nooks and crannies.

2g/2h. They got blood from a random back guy? How did they do that? And this blood donor hasn't said anything? I do love a good conspiracy but this is pretty out there.

4. I am a paralegal student and I disagree. Most judges and criminal lawyers want the truth, not finality. When this many judges say a defendant is guilty, that means they probably are.  

5. The guns he took were just sitting in storage. I don't think taking them for a collection meant he would be wiling to plant evidence.

6. Can you give the links? I don't think a 25-year-old man would be unable to control a scared female and kid at one time.

7. He didn't need to have been able to see the house from his hideout place in order to rob it. He might have walked around to find a house to break in to. He was a career burglar and had probably hunted for houses to rob before breaking in many times.

8. Read the CJLF's report. It was just pointing out that most death row exonerees were guilty but were let off for technical reasons. And they are right. Even if there are a couple people they wrongfully claim are guilty, the vast majority of people listed are actually guilty.   And there is an "innocence industry" with people falsely claiming to help innocent people. In one case, "innocence lawyers" got a guilty guy off and got an innocent man convicted. See A Murder in the Park.

I think you have an inaccurate view of police. Most police are good people who genuinely want to protect and who would never plant evidence. Most certainly are not racist. Just because there are a lot of cases of cops being unethical doesn't mean most are. You seem to think that the bad apple cops are more plentiful than they are. Same with prosecutors. Most are decent people who would never purposely convict the wrong person.

A lot of the time the state can't fight technical errors because witnesses have died etc. Its not that they aren't guilty, its that too much time has gone by.

9. You don't believe most cases are guilty? Most criminals (95%) plea guilty. Even though there are wrongful convictions the vast majority of people who are found guilty at trial or plea guilty are guilty.

Have a nice night. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020

1.) All too often I've seen "victim's rights" be used as an excuse to shut down investigations; hell even at the trial the judge refused to let the defense investigate whether Mary Ann Hughes unwittingly tainted the witnesses even though by their own admission they HAD spoken to her. Another thing that bothers me is HOW blasé they were. They said that it was "absurd" that the cigarettes could have been planted....and yet by the SBCSD's own admission most of the cigarettes recovered from the house never made it into evidence. It would be entirely possible for Cooper to be guilty AND for them to have simply taken cigarettes from Cooper's hideout and dumped them in the car (mechanically it's very easy to do that). Hell Steven Avery is a case where the guy's likely guilty but I wouldn't be terribly shocked if they planted evidence to "convict" him. James Duckett is a case where they used dubious evidence (known forensics fraud Michael Malone gave evidence) but the guy was ultimately guilty as hell.

All things said, I think the CJLF are scum.

2.) a.) Again. Plant MATTER is another thing that luminol reacts to. That means that if I were to say trundle around in a field it would leave particles on my shoes. Cooper was trundling through the fields for hours before finally holing up so even the luminol could have been reacting to particles. Also when luminol testing was done in the bathroom it not only failed to detect any bloody clothing that would have been left in the vicinity the luminol that WAS in the shower was in a band that clung to the wall. If it were blood it would have pooled around the drain.

   c.) Except that depends on the weapons coming from the house. All the witnesses gave conflicting information about WHERE the missing items were and by their own admission they HAD spoken to Mary Hughes. The judge SHOULD Have allowed them to question the matter (I notice you haven't answered this part).

   d.) There are no signs Cooper had ties to Long Beach though; by contrast Lee Furrow's mom lived there, so he had infinitely more reason to go there. All things said it seems more like rationalization. 

   f.) Except if you look at a layout of the room that becomes utterly impossible. When Nick Kristof covered the case in 2018 he included a diagram of the entire room and the closet layout. It demonstrated Moran's fingerprints were in the exact same closet where Cooper had his sleeping nest and the button and sheathe were visibly on the floor of the room. Even leaving aside that Moran claimed he never went in that room PERIOD the only time he could have left those prints was on June 6th....before the evidence was found. Basically he would have seen the evidence the first time if it was there. His failure to report the sleeping nest is egregious since again his prints were in the closet and could have been left BEFORE it was found and no other time.

In this case I'm sorry but the only logical conclusion is that Moran planted both the button and the sheathe. The only other option is that he's blind as a bat.

   g/h.) Not QUITE what I meant. Basically by Daniel Gregonis's own admissions he wasted large portions of A-41 AND failed to accurately document most of his test results to the point that by the time Blake was able to look at they were only able to get solid readings on two (maybe three if you're being charitable) enzymes. As a result, barring those three enzymes they would have essentially been relying on Daniel Gregonis's notes, which means that if he were to have lied and misidentified the other enzymes they'd have no way of knowing if he'd pulled a fast one on them. While forensics labs are more orderly NOW in the 80s they were a mess of record keeping. They could have taken blood from a vial elsewhere in the lab and then used THAT as a source. I'm not saying they took blood from a living black man so much as saying they grabbed blood from elsewhere in the lab and then planted THAT at the crime scene.

4.) With all due respect....this is kinda naive. It usually requires public pressure before courts admit a screw up on their part. And even in Cooper's case it's hardly as clear cut. Leaving aside Fletcher 10 other judges agreed that he was framed or at the very least deserved a new hearing. Even Margaret McKeown agreed that the evidence was dodgy, but felt constrained. The only judge who even TRIED to rebut Fletcher's arguments basically said "shut the fuck up and don't question things". And again you really SHOULD read it.

5.) He also tried to defend a Rodney King style beating and kept illegal lists of supporters for his sheriff's campaign on department computers (This violated both department rules AND state laws). More importantly even if the evidence was in storage removing them from storage is ILLEGAL. Tidwell BROKE THE LAW point blank for his own amusement, and was unrepentant when caught. So yeah. Assuming it's not in his character is rather naive. He was willing to break the law for his own pleasures.

6.) Note: while the following link is from cooper's website it's simply the testimony of a criminal profiler who looked over the case for the IACHR hearing. The man in question McCrary is well regarded. https://kevincooperorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/hearing-exhibit-6-gregg-mccrary-criminal-profiler-letter-dated-10-15-13-and-cv.pdf In March 2000 one pathologist said at least two people would have been needed but it was listed on an earlier version of the page

7.) Also as an expert burglar he would have checked to see if the doors were open AND there were actually a lot of valuables and visible cash not taken.

8.) I'm very familiar with the Porter case. I've also spoken to the directors, both of whom said that they considered it an aberration. The ugly truth is that 99 times out of 100 when the innocence project says someone was framed by law enforcement....they were framed by law enforcement. The people complaining about an "innocence" industry in Chicago are also deeply invested in downplaying the fact that Jon Burge was a monster who got his jollies torturing Black People into confessions and have ignored video footage that shows that many cops accused of murder are in fact guilty of murder. The CJLF also seems to take a stance of "guilty unless DNA evidence" which is cretinous (in many cases it was proven that there was misconduct or that the "evidence" was laughably weak.)

The claims that there's an "innocence industry" which goes around trying to slander cops names is as accurate as claims that the easter bunny exists.

9.) I'll be honest. Were it not for certain things I'D think Cooper was guilty. However the following gives me pause

a.) the blood vial: when Dr Terry Melton got a sample (by accident mind you) she found blood from at LEAST two people in there. The vial should have contained JUST Cooper's blood so that should set off alarm bells. A simple test of the vial or Dr Myer's reference stains from 2002 would have EASILY proven if Dr Melton made an honest mistake or just got bad readings. And yet the state's consistent response was to try and dodge the issue entirely. Also when the defense DID earn the right to test the vial it turned up empty. If there was blood from two people it means that either they poured someone else's blood in by accident (in which case they're utterly incompetent) or they removed Cooper's blood for whatever reason and then poured someone else's blood in to hide it.

And while the state DID claim that the vial was consumed this was AFTER the defense had raised the issue multiple times during hearings AND was delivered in closing arguments on the very last day of the hearing. So I'm rather skeptical of that claim, especially since Steven Myers admitted in 010 that he still had the swatches he took in 02.

b.) the blue shirt: While the state CLAIMED that the records referred to the tan shirt at trial that doesn't really hold up. The records the defense used to argue the shirt's existence was only filled out if a civilian found evidence. The tan shirt at trial was found by an officer and so could NOT have been the shirt in question. One of the state's own witnesses said that one of the three men in the bar had a blue shirt on, and the records describe a "dark substance" on them.

Kochis's claim that the defense knew also doesn't hold up. If it were handed over related to a subpoena there would be documents to that effect. The state never presented any. More importantly any records turned over to the defense would have marked page numbers. The page Kochis brought in had no page numbers and the state was never made to check. So again the claims the defense knew are dubious to say the least.

Also when the possibility emerged that the police tried to strong-arm one of Cooper's witnesses into backing out Judge Huff didn't allow them to investigate the matter.

c.) Fred Eckley made SIX tries over two months to hand the overalls over to Sargent Arthur. That doesn't wash with his claim that he never saw blood on them or that he never considered it important. Ken Shreckengost's admission that it was him who signed off on the disposal also undermines Eckley's claim that he acted alone.

d.) Cooper would not have had access to the tan t-shirt. None of the people in the house recognized it even though they recognized the other clothes Cooper stole and it was NOT issued at prison. Which begs the question where did he get it? NONE of the pro prosecution people I've seen have even TRIED to answer this one

e.) The hatchet sheathe was also found on the PASSENGER side of the road. If Cooper was driving on the road you'd think he'd throw the hatchet to the side he was driving on.

f.) The shoe prints in the house appeared under dubious circumstances. The one on the sheet only appeared AFTER William Baird (who was stealing heroin) acquired prison only shoes. More importantly when it turned out that it WAS possible to get the shoes through the company catalog the state suddenly said "we never made the claim they were only available in prisons" (which they had. Multiple times.)

g.) In A-41 there was DNA from an unidentified third party that didn't match Cooper, the victims, or any combination of their (that is the victim's combining with themselves or with Cooper) DNA. In light of the vial possibly having blood from 2 people in it that takes on a more sinister tone.

The Blue shirt and tampered with vial are to be honest probably the things that most persuaded me, alongside Judge Fletcher's analysis

All things said you're not a bad person and it's interesting to discuss things with someone of a different perspective. I just do think that you're overly credulous of law enforcement and don't want to admit that misconduct isn't that rare. I've spoken to three exonerated men, one of whom was cleared by DNA testing (incidentally they know who the perp is in THAT case AND have grounds to charge him for kidnapping but won't do it). ALL of them were not even remotely surprised at the idea the police would forge evidence or that prosecutors would lie

(UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

References

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Brinkman murders has been accepted

George Brinkman murders, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murders of Nicole and Kristina Duckson (April 7)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Clarityfiend was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Fails WP:EVENT: no lasting significance.

Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gingerbreadhouse97! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johnny Allen.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johnny Allen.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Death of Aniah Blanchard (April 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Death of Aniah Blanchard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Death of Aniah Blanchard, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I re-reviewed this. Though normally we would wait unti lat least the trial, the national level coveraage is so great, that I decided to accept it. I suggest you revise the wording to greatly summarize the evidence against the accused person & his background--it can be expanded again if he is convicted. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Death of Aniah Blanchard has been accepted

Death of Aniah Blanchard, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning

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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Candi Jones (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyntoia Brown

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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Candi Jones (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Murder of Antonio Santiago and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Murder of Antonio Santiago, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

1292simon (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Picture of Antonio Santiago taken prior to his murder.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Picture of Antonio Santiago taken prior to his murder.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If the image was taken from someone or somewhere else and the copyright holder did not publish the image under a free license, a fair-use rationale along with appropriate tag/s must be provided per WP:NONFREE and WP:FUR. In the case of this image, I did the conversion for you. Ntx61 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Antonio Santiago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 911 (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) 13:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Lauren Burk has been accepted

Murder of Lauren Burk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Smartyllama (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

I noticed you add your username at the end of your signature again. It looks as if you are typing ~~~~Gingerbreadhouse97 instead of just ~~~~ (which automatically adds your username and timestamp anyway) when signing your posts. If so, you should consider only using ~~~~ to sign your comments in the future since including your username again not only serves no purpose but might make it harder for automated tools to parse your edits. Regards SoWhy 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks! Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of license with File:Picture of Antonio Santiago taken prior to his murder.jpg

While a tag was applied that releases File:Picture of Antonio Santiago taken prior to his murder.jpg under a free license, there is currently no evidence of permission to do so and has been reverted to fair use.

Please provide an evidence so that the file can be released under CC BY-SA 4.0. You can do this by asking the copyright holder/s of the image to release it under an appropriate license and send the evidence of that permission to the Volunteer Response Team, where they will confirm that permission. See WP:PERMISSIONS for more details. Ntx61 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Emani Moss (August 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Murder of Emani Moss and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Murder of Emani Moss, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Murders of Nicole and Kristina Duckson

Hello, Gingerbreadhouse97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Murders of Nicole and Kristina Duckson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Emani Moss has been accepted

Murder of Emani Moss, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MapleSoy (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tiffany Moss, the offender in the ((Murder of Emani Moss)) article.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tiffany Moss, the offender in the ((Murder of Emani Moss)) article.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of court documents

No offense meant and I see you've been working hard, but I've just noticed your use of court documents. I'm not sure if that's entirely ok and have asked at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Ok! I will add some secondary sources.

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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murders of Claudia Maupin and Oliver Northup has been accepted

Murders of Claudia Maupin and Oliver Northup, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Inexpiable (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Samantha Josephson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kidnapped.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

a dumb request

i have seen on one talk page that you were willing to put in the time to make wikipedia articles covering murder present evidence clearly in cases where the media tries to put a spin on the story to protect murderers. Murder of Larry King is one of articles that could make use of such efforts. it was completely missing the fact that the victim was a racial minority, i added that fact a some months ago, but it's still missing the fact that the perpetrator had a notebook filled with swastikas and drawings of nazi soldiers or something. the sources referenced from the article do mention those facts. cheers, and thanks for your work. 37.225.44.53 (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Send me the sources with the info you want and I will add it.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

i was reading about this case over a span of a week back then, and at the beginning, i added this fact about racial identity, but later, the more i read, the whole article seemed to be just irreparable. in the talk page of that article someone has already suggested a rewrite, and there are sources mentioned in the talk page which directly refer to the white supremacist propaganda of the perpetrator. this article was written while the events were unfolding, and it hasn't really seen a thorough review after all the details have surfaced. it's just a problematic article for several reasons and i didn't see a point in touching it again, because it would require too many changes. and i definitely would have no clue what exactly to write or how, i don't know the rules of wikipedia enough to be able to write even a single paragraph. i do remember that the book "A Murder Over a Girl" by Ken Corbett had the images of the notebook, and enough details to make sense of this whole event. Larry didn't have any real family, so the court case mostly focused on trying to deflect blame away from everyone, from the teachers and therapists involved, and from the murderer as well. 37.225.44.53 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I can go through and change biased parts that seem to blame Larry. And I can add any necessary info you give me. Just link articles with info you want me to add.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

New articles?

Hey there. Just wondered if you were done creating articles? A lot of your murder case articles were interesting to read and well written. If you have anymore planned I would be happy to review them and pass them so you don't have to wait as long to get them approved on Wikipedia. Have you considered looking at the case of Lisa Rene? It's a murder case I think you'd be interested in based on your past articles, one of her killers was executed last year. Keep up the good work. Inexpiable (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually have Lisa Rene on my list of articles to write. Plus some others like the murders of Stacy and Todd Bagley and the murder of Hania Aguilar. And I am certainly not done creating articles. :)Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, although the Stacy and Todd Bagley case has more or less been covered with the Brandon Bernard article. But the Lisa Rene case would be a good addition to the site. Inexpiable (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Also have been adding to the Murder of Samantha Josephson article. And want to do one on the Lezmond Mitchell Johnny Orsinger murders.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Excessive Quotes

Hi there. I noticed your recent edit to Killing of Tessa Majors contained a lot of text taken verbatim from sources. Please be aware that text, like images, that is copyrighted (which usually applies to news sources) can only be used verbatim in Wikipedia articles if it is used according to our non-free content policy which (among other things) requires that the usage is as minimal as possible. As such, you should only use verbatim quotes when the article absolutely requires the direct quote for people to understand it. If the text can be paraphrased without losing any information, it should be done instead. See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:COPYQUOTE for more guidance on this issues. In this case, I have done the paraphrasing and pruning, so you don't have to anymore but it might be helpful ot keep this in mind for future contributions. Regards SoWhy 18:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Will keep that in mind as the article is updated.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Murder of Marie Belcastro has been accepted

Murder of Marie Belcastro, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Inexpiable (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with editing

Hi, I am just wondering if you can help me add entries to disappeared lists. I am swamped with editing and can only do so much at a time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I can help. What would this task involve? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2022 (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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)